Support us on Patreon
PayPalOne of the developers from Bohemia Interactive who's active in our community is asking to see how much interest there is in the Linux port of Arma 3 [Steam Page]. Currently, the Linux (and Mac) ports of Arma 3 from Virtual Programming are hidden from the Steam store page, because Bohemia Interactive class them as experimental. You can install it from Steam like any other game, it's just not advertised.
The developer, who goes by the nickname Dwarden, has asked me to make it clear that this is not an official poll. They're simple trying to find out just how much community interest there is.
On their Discord, they've pinned a message in the "linux_mac_branch" channel that reads:
How many users @here use Linux / Mac ports or may get interested to use ?
(especially if the delay time of port shortens after the Windows release ? )
{you can use reaction to add to the counter(s)}
{just to be clear this unofficial poll is for insight}
You can join their Discord using this link, to let them know your thoughts and add to the "reaction counter" if it's important to you. Once you're in their discord, if you have trouble finding the message here's a direct link (only works if you've joined).
Naturally, commenting here as well will also help so they can see outside interest and for those of you who don't like Discord you can also make yourselves known.
Personally, I quite enjoyed the last time I jumped in with a bunch of members from the community, it performed reasonably well and we all had a really great time. It's a pretty fascinating game, one I wouldn't experience without a Linux port so I really do hope they keep pushing forwards to eventually have it properly advertised on Steam.
Of course, not having it actually advertised won't really help since people won't know unless they're told about it. There's also nothing else like it on Linux, so I feel it's quite important.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: GuestI really feel them going with eON was a poor choice simply because ARMA III is a moving target and continually gets updates. Due to the fact, VP has to wait for a released product to start porting makes the entire process less than ideal. I'm all for eON for ports of games that are out fully and only get bug fixes but I don't think it's a good model for a title like this that is continually updated month after month.
Tanks DLC was supposed to be the last major official DLC though and we are pretty much at the end of Arma 3's active development life cycle which means updates are going to be less frequent. Knowing Bohemia though, I suspect they will still surprise us with one or two spontaneus DLC releases coming out of nowhere, just like they did with Arma 2 many years after development of that slowed down. I know they have been reaching out to third party studios to make further DLC for Arma 3 and I guess we will see where that goes.
My thoughts exactly.
Quoting: Guest.....
Sadly, I feel much of the lack of interest is due to the fact that the ports are so delayed. I really feel them going with eON was a poor choice simply because ARMA III is a moving target and continually gets updates. Due to the fact, VP has to wait for a released product to start porting makes the entire process less than ideal. I'm all for eON for ports of games that are out fully and only get bug fixes but I don't think it's a good model for a title like this that is continually updated month after month.
The only way to easily have simultaneous releases for all platform on same is to have a the core of the game designed to be multiplatform and continuously develop with that in mind. Otherwise there sadly will always be delays. As that is a design question which you have to make early in the process (think mainly of the graphics API), it can't be easily changed later on. So chances are very low that with the current development-model we will see any change, or only if BSI is willing to do a major rewrite of its code (very unlikely given the current user numbers). So best chances will be that they are really willing to commit to multi-platform availability and design the next version to make this directly possible without the need of porting stuff. From my personal professional experience in the field of CAE software this is possible and actually not that hard. But user numbers there are different (like the ca. 50% linux users the company i work for has, is something we will still be long dreaming of in the gaming sector) and many migrated from the old unix workstations some time ago, so the situation was very different from the beginning.
Quoting: GuestQuoting: GuestQuoting: GuestThis is speculation but from the way I'm reading this they are considering dropping the ports due to the lack of interest. Sadly, I feel much of the lack of interest is due to the fact that the ports are so delayed. I really feel them going with eON was a poor choice simply because ARMA III is a moving target and continually gets updates. Due to the fact, VP has to wait for a released product to start porting makes the entire process less than ideal. I'm all for eON for ports of games that are out fully and only get bug fixes but I don't think it's a good model for a title like this that is continually updated month after month.
I'm not sure why you think this is a problem with eON. Regarding "VP has to wait.." that is because BI only release the source to us when they are done with testing a particular release. Nothing to do with eON itself at all.
I never said it's eON's issue or VP's. I said you guys can't start until it's released for windows. Read what I said and quit making stuff up in your own head as to how I'm downing eON or VP. I have no problem with either eON or VP but in this situation it isn't ideal. Every time I mention anything about eON or VP that isn't you're absolutely amazing in every way possible you get offended and make stuff up that I didn't say. Stop that, it's terribly annoying.
Jason, Jaycee was just pointing out the bit in bold. He's quite rightly highlighting that eON/VP is irrelevant here. If they'd gone with Aspyr, or Feral, or anyone else, or any other technology, the situation would be the same - BI have to change here and it sounds like they kind of want to, but... want to gauge interest first.
What annoys me is that surely the sales they've already made to Linux users would tell them if this is a worthwhile venture. I bought it, can't really play it because it's always out of sync. Personally, I don't really understand what's so hard to grasp here. Pretty frustrating.
I guess I got a single-player game, which is... okay? Probably wouldn't have bought it if I'd thought it might be dropped as a viable port in future. I suppose, I knew the risks, but wanted to say "I'm here, support me" anyway.
Quoting: GuestQuoting: scaineWhat annoys me is that surely the sales they've already made to Linux users would tell them if this is a worthwhile venture. I bought it, can't really play it because it's always out of sync. Personally, I don't really understand what's so hard to grasp here. Pretty frustrating.
From what I've seen so far, it's been mostly Linux gamers saying "I'm not buying until its official and you're 110% committed". Which I can see the point of, but sadly from a business point of view is an unjustifiable risk.
I think BI were hoping that Linux gamers would take a "leap of faith" and buy with the hope of improved support and commitment, but they wont. Understandable given how many devs have fucked Linux people over on e.g. Kickstarter campaigns.
I have no info on what BI plan to do, but honestly if they pull it... I will not be surprised. Disappointed... but not surprised.
As Jason notes, some of us did make that leap of faith. Perhaps just not as many as it would take BI to convince themselves that it was worthwhile. But then, perhaps we're wrong and threads like this (and the Discord) will tip them into taking that leap of faith! Fingers crossed and all that.
Ive been waiting years for BI to finaly care for the linux version.
See more from me