Doom (2016) could have been on Linux, id Software made a Linux version sound easy to do

Quoting: TheReaperUKGive it 2 or 3 years and ID will hopefully open source the code.

ID don't get a say in it any more as Bethesda owns it all otherwise I think we would have got a native build.

Quoting: ison111

Quoting: berarmaPreviously, they would just release the binaries without any marketing/business fuss and it worked great that way.

This is why I don't understand all the people trying to defend them for marketing reasons. They've done it before, and it absolutely would increase sales.
I still have my retail DOOM3 CD's which are windows only, and I happily purchased it because the Linux binaries were downloadable online.

Plenty of games have released for Linux with the mutual understanding between the developers and the community that it isn't going to really be supported and anyone who buys it for Linux is basically "on their own". It's not a new concept.

Lets be completely honest, Linux's market share is tiny and a publisher of Zenimax's size will see no point in porting games to a platform that small. Until Linux's market share is bigger we won't see AAA games released day and date with Windows, Xbox or the PS4.

well, considering they won't even allow tes 1,2,battle-spire,or redguard on gog for Linux (seriously, dosbox is dosbox) and every one of ID's Linux binaries have conveniently disappeared from the Internet, my guess is that Zennimax subscribes to the Steve Ballmer school of thought when it comes to linux

Quoting: DiableLets be completely honest, Linux's market share is tiny and a publisher of Zenimax's size will see no point in porting games to a platform that small. Until Linux's market share is bigger we won't see AAA games released day and date with Windows, Xbox or the PS4.

I wasn't talking about a port. I was talking about the developers quietly dumping the Linux binaries which are already working on a download link somewhere. Which, as I said, absolutely would increase their sales, as has been done in the past.

I completely understand why that wouldn't happen in a lot of big companies though, so I don't need a lecture on that.
But I also don't care. You are wrong about 1 thing, it's not ultimately up to the companies. It's up to gamers, because we're their source of income and we have a right to say what is and is not ok.
Granted as a Linux gamer my voice is tiny, but that still doesn't change the principle of it. I don't have to just sit here and say that I'm OK with it just because my voice is tiny. I still have a right to voice my opinion that it's not ok.
Video games are an art, and any artist that has the opportunity to have a wider audience appreciate what they've created with no extra effort on their part (and probably at least a little bit of extra cash in their pocket) would jump at the opportunity to do it. Rolling over because of "business moves" is most certainly something we don't have to accept, and I for one think gamers in general are worse off for it the more business moves get in the way of them connecting with their audience and doing what they love.


Last edited by ison111 on 2 April 2018 at 1:09 am UTC

Quoting: ison111Rolling over because of "business moves" is most certainly something we don't have to accept, and I for one think gamers in general are worse off for it the more business moves get in the way of them connecting with their audience and doing what they love.

Sadly, as long as these "business moves" aren't in violation of consumer protection laws in our markets, we do have to accept them. We don't have much choice. In this particular case Zenimax seems perfectly within their legal rights to pick their platforms, and the only way we can hope to influence them is with our wallets.

Whether or not a game would be easy to port doesn't change anything. If they see a business opportunity (and they might not, even if it exists), they might release on Linux. Until then they will be totally indifferent. No place for ideology in most investor-owned companies, although prejudices and plain ignorance do play a part.

Also, just try telling their executives they're in the art business and they'll thank you for the joke, or tell you to bugger off.

@tuubi
You completely missed the point of my entire post.

It sounds like you're assuming that big businesses running the gaming industry is just the way it's supposed to be. I don't.
I'm not upset at a company doing what companies do. I understand how business works. It's very impersonal, and I completely understand their decisions. My point is that just because I can understand it doesn't mean I have to say it's ok. Not everything is ok just because it's a businessman trying to make a buck. You yourself said they would laugh at any argument about the artistic side of gaming. That's true.
But it's also sad, and not something you have to put up with. The world is not going to stop turning if every major gaming company is knocked down a peg or two. Their investors need them to grow. We don't, and I don't give a single shit about their investors or their growth.

Personally I think all gamers should start being a little more selfish and demanding what they know they deserve instead of accepting bullshit gimmicks and excuses because of the same logic you're using and this delusion that the gaming world has to be turned into a machine of unlimited economic growth like everything else just to accommodate big businesses.
If gamers were to actually wise up and as a result all the major game companies decided there is no potential for growth here anymore so they all pick up camp and leave, then I say good riddance. We'd be better off without them. There are plenty of smaller companies who could make do just fine in a stable income environment built out of trust between them and their communities, and a love of seeing others enjoy their work.


Last edited by ison111 on 3 April 2018 at 7:20 am UTC

Quoting: ison111@tuubi
You completely missed the point of my entire post.

I don't think I did, but I realise my own didn't quite come through.

I didn't say any of this was "ok". I completely agree that this isn't how things are supposed to be. What I disagreed with was your attitude mostly. You seem to imply we should be offended when games aren't released on Linux, and that getting up in arms about it would somehow help. That's just not true.

As you say, the only effective way we can influence big business is by choosing how we spend our cash. I do my own part daily by boycotting several companies whose policies or actions I disagree with. That said, the best thing to do for Linux gaming as a consumer is to spend that cash on Linux games.

There does seem to be, for the really big companies, this odd piece of territory where in terms of sheer dollars, what we all assume business decisions are supposed to be based on, it would technically be a plus to release on Linux, and yet they don't. Some people think this means the (Microsoft) fix is in.
I'm starting to suspect it's just that companies aren't as economically rational as our dominant theories make it seem like they ought to be. Big corporations are there to make money, yes--but they are also these big steep hierarchies with decision-making done by a small number of people who are a long way from where anything real happens. That small number of people can only pay attention to so much, and while money is very important to them staying firmly in control can be even more important. So if you have something like, "Should we release on an additional platform?" (or do anything else new) the question is not so much, "Will it make money?" as "Will it make so much money that it will be worth having some of us top executives use the time and attention it will take to keep the process under our control?"
Which is to say, really big companies are built to leave a certain amount of money on the table if it's in amounts too small for their big bosses to spend attention on. One of the reasons new companies come up to challenge old ones is that these neglected table scraps sometimes turn out to be stuff that will grow big once nurtured. It is unfortunate for Linux that it may be falling into this "Yes, profitable, but not enough to spend the time thinking about" gap.

Big companies like Bethesda earn A LOT of money thanks to Windows; a proprietary system that doesn't belong to them...

Someday, Microsoft will start to demand a big cut of the profit of each software company that earn much money thanks to Windows...

Quoting: Greedy MicrosoftPay me the 30% of the net profit that you have thanks my product, Windows...
Or pay me just 1% if your Windows product is available exclusively at the Windows store...Or just stop using MY OS

Big Companies like Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Bethesda, THQNordic and Square Enix won't have a problem with this... They will just join the Windows Store exclusivity, because they don't care about freedom, they care about profit...

But GaveN....
It will be really funny to see the face of Lord GabeN when this happen...
Because Valve takes an important cut of each game for windows that is sold via Steam... So, Valve is earning A LOT of money thanks to Microsoft...
Microsoft will feel the right to demand a cut of that gigantic profit that Valve is having thanks to the Microsoft OS.

Quoting: Greedy MicrosoftHey, Fatso!
Pay me the 40% of the net profit that you have thanks my operative system, Windows...
Or pay me just 1% of the profit that you earn thanks to the software for Windows that is sold at Steam store, only if the Windows version of Your steam client is available exclusively at the Windows store...
Or just stop using MY property...
Good luck if You try to convince big players like Ubisoft, Bethesda and Activision to join your failed tech fantasy called SteamOS
MUAHAHAHA!!

GOG will have this same problem, by the way..

Quoting: tuubiWhat I disagreed with was your attitude mostly. You seem to imply we should be offended when games aren't released on Linux, and that getting up in arms about it would somehow help. That's just not true.

Then I think we just have a misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting anything about what anyone should do.
I was merely defending those who are upset at moves like this. If you read earlier in the thread there's a lot of comments suggesting that anyone who complains about things like this, or wants them to release the Linux version just doesn't understand business or is being unreasonable. I'm simply saying that they have a right to feel that way, and even a right to demand/expect better.
Understanding a business move and accepting it are two totally different things. Especially if you're of the mindset that we don't actually even need big businesses here anyway (which I suspect a lot of people in the linux community are), so there's no need to tip toe around these issues. If it sucks, it sucks. Voicing that opinion is perfectly justified and not a sign of ignorance in any way.