I am not quite sure what a "legacy publisher" is. If you are referring to the companies currently releasing pretty much 100% of all AAA titles, then...yeah. That's the ones we want to release Linux games right now, no? Except you're happy getting more 8bit retro games looking like the stuff they released back in the mid 80s. Nothing wrong with (some of) them, mind you, but we have 2,500 of these already. What we need to grow as a gaming platform are games appealing to the mass market. "Oh look, Linux can do outdated graphics like we had 30 years ago!!!" isn't going to cut it.

As for these "legacy publishers", they will not change their internal processes for us 1% any time soon. They are used to making Windows games and that's what they will do for the foreseeable future. For the time being we need porting houses to get access to these games, like it or not. It's actually these porting houses that might be able to press middleware developers into providing a Linux port of the stuff that currently doesn't run in it. They ARE what's currently driving Linux game development. We got the major engines already. The battle these days is for the middleware. If you want "legacy publishers" to switch to cross-platform development, we need to become a serious gaming platform FIRST. We're not quite there yet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl"Porting houses" can become a thing of the past. Serious studios will accumulate knowledge in house and do cross platform development themselves. Some already realize it (inXile for example). Others are only getting the idea. With wider adoption of cross platform engines, all this will be less of an issue.

One should think so, but look at who brought us pretty much ANY major title in 2016 not from Paradox Studios...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ok, we all knew that Valve was pushing Linux to protect their business against Microsoft's obvious attempts to create an Apple-like monopoly on software distribution. There is nothing wrong with that. It did us good, despite they don't actually "love" Linux (Hint: Businesses love money more than anything).

I think Valve gave us the initial push to get us visible and viable as a gaming platform. And make no mistake - Microsoft is still dreaming of Windows Store being a monopoly one day. Valve cannot let us die, even if they are currently happy with the status quo of Linux being "just" a threat and nothing else. They will do what's necessary to keep us alive. Maybe not more. But certainly no less.

Right now, I am not worried about Valve. SteamOS is dead in the water, granted, but 2016 has also shown that SteamOS isn't really THAT necessary for Linux to thrive as a gaming platform. As a game developer, Valve has been a non-factor for a long, long time, so all I want from them at this point is supporting and expanding the Steam platform. And they seem to be committed to at least that part.

I am generally positive for 2017 to become a good, maybe even great year for Linux gaming. The ONE thing I am really worried about is basically every single AAA title on Linux relying on exactly ONE company to port them - Feral. And as awesome as Feral is, but monopolies are never a good thing (right, Microsoft?). No, in case you wonder, but I no longer consider Aspyr to be a serious Linux porting house. The one sore spot on an otherwise great Linux year 2016 was indeed the quiet demise of Aspyr as a Linux porting house. Sorry, but if a company needs an entire quarter year to asses the "feasibility" of porting a game (I am talking about Civ VI) to Linux, I can't take them for serious anymore. This is a laughable excuse for "Eh, we have no real interest in it". All source code is portable by definition, and a porting house worth their salt would know if any middleware components used for Civ VI would be available for Linux without even having to ask anyone.

If Valve really wanted to give us a push where it matters, then it would be encourage a few more larger publishers to start in-house porting their major releases. I realize that EA and Ubisoft would laugh them off, but how about bribing Rockstar or Bethesda a little?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I was also pleasantly surprised by how many games of the Top 100 came with a Linux version. Personally, the ratio was even better for me, since I barely could find a game in the Top 100 that I -wanted- and does not come with a Linux version. It was basically Rise of the Tomb Raider (which has a strong chance of getting ported one day), Fallout 4 and The Elder Scrolls Online. The other Windows-only topsellers I don't want enough to miss them...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, in their defence, update 11 is in beta. In contrast to some other companies, I always had the impression that Introversion actually cares about their Linux version.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It funny that new high-end games like Doom work, and old stuff like Star Trek Online doesn't. oO

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wish they'd get enough DX11 up and running to make Elder Scrolls Online run again in WINE.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: LukeNukemNow if only those lazy devs who only ever released 32bit versions of their games would actually realise how stupid that is...

That’s not stupid since 32 bit games work on both 32 and 64 bit systems, while 64 bit games only work on 64 bit systems.

There shouldn't be any 32bit systems left in the world anywhere outsides of a museum. 64bit operating systems aren't exactly a new thing. How old does a computer need to be not to be able to run one? oO

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Canada was poorly represented in the game so far. Glad to see this DLC. Bought! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To be honest, it makes very little difference if you dual boot to run your Windows games or use WINE for it. In both cases, your game purchase will register as a Windows sale.
What people need to do to get developers making games for Linux is limiting purchasing Windows games to the minimum they are comfortable with, and buy Linux games whenever possible. Buying Windows games and run them in WINE will do exactly nothing to encourage developers to make native ports. It doesn't mean we need to be zealots about it, it just means trying to funnel our money to those developers willing to support us. It means treating buying Windows games as an exception we reserve for truly special games.

Personally, I like it when my older games run in WINE, and I am in no shape or fashion opposed to it. I don't see it as a long term solution for Linux gaming either - in the end we want native ports. My gripe with WINE is not ethical, it's more an issue of practicability and convenience. As awesome as WINE is in making software run on a foreign OS, I can barely name you ANY game that "just runs" in WINE without a more or less massive amount of tinkering and trial and error - if it runs without massive issues at all, which is the rule and not the exception. I am using it for SWTOR (which actually is one of the few games I tried that run amazingly well in WINE), but others I couldn't get to run for the life of me (e.g. the Steam version of The Sims 3), others had their support suddenly broken by patches (e.g. Elder Scrolls Online), and yet others run so badly in WINE that keeping a Windows partition around is a much smarter choice (e.g. Star Trek Online, Guild Wars 2).

In the end, I am torn about WINE. I have nothing but respect for the developers and what they achieved, but for gaming, it's just not (yet) good enough to be a true alternative to dual booting. Better DX11 support will be a step in the right direction, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments