FutureSuture Feb 16 @ 7:35am
CD Projekt RED Considering The Witcher 3 For Linux If SteamOS Takes Off
Source. I am kind of torn on whether this is good news or bad news. I mean, yes, Linux support for The Witcher 3 will come if SteamOS takes off, but what's holding back Linux support right now is a myth.
Last edited by FutureSuture; Feb 16 @ 8:09am
Showing 1-15 of 64 comments
< >
Wes Feb 16 @ 7:41am 
What's holding back Linux support is a the small market share on desktop. Most publishers see this as a waste of development resources because of that.
If SteamOS and the Steambox take off, they will change their minds and we will start seeing more 'AAA' games come to Linux.
FutureSuture Feb 16 @ 7:48am 
Originally posted by Stanley Spadowski:
What's holding back Linux support is a the small market share on desktop. Most publishers see this as a waste of development resources because of that.
If SteamOS and the Steambox take off, they will change their minds and we will start seeing more 'AAA' games come to Linux.
Going by what developers who have games on Linux have said, the small makret share does not matter as the money made back still far exceeds the cost of porting.
LOLCAT Feb 16 @ 9:21am 
Originally posted by FutureSuture:
but what's holding back Linux support right now is a myth.
Developers usually say making games even for windows is a huge risk and often in the red. Now consider how many people use linux and buy games compared to windows.

SteamOS takes off = it would be as successful as (other) consoles, so it brings money.
FutureSuture Feb 16 @ 9:30am 
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
Originally posted by FutureSuture:
but what's holding back Linux support right now is a myth.
Developers usually say making games even for windows is a huge risk and often in the red. Now consider how many people use linux and buy games compared to windows.

SteamOS takes off = it would be as successful as (other) consoles, so it brings money.
Developing for platforms with no royalties and an abundance of digital distribution options is risky? I am puzzled.
R3450N Feb 16 @ 5:35pm 
The argument about market share is so so; the market share of Windows hinders the percentage of those who actually use Windows solely for gaming: we may never know since it's an in-out relationship therein. Developing towards Windows might just be more expensive because you:

1. Need a Windows license to develop on it
2. Are usually pressured into buying the oh-so-expensive Visual Studio; albeit not compulsory

With Linux, being FOSS you can develop without the need to buy the stuff similar to above. The only issue is that you'd need to know how to use OpenGL instead of DirectX; have some knowledge of bash; and know what software to use. Since Linux has a more concentrated market share/community than Windows, distributing a game can become popular because every new game that arrives on Linux should be cherished and developers praised. The support for Linux comes with Linux users buying/playing those games and that shows Linux is not an investment in vain. After all, libraries like glu, glut, core gl, sdl, sfml, gtk and qt are all available on Linux. If this is no problem, what is?
LOLCAT Feb 17 @ 2:35am 
Originally posted by FutureSuture:
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
Developers usually say making games even for windows is a huge risk and often in the red. Now consider how many people use linux and buy games compared to windows.

SteamOS takes off = it would be as successful as (other) consoles, so it brings money.
Developing for platforms with no royalties and an abundance of digital distribution options is risky? I am puzzled.
Me too but that's what EA, Ubisoft etc. say when people ask why there is no PC port for XY game.

RAVEN:
Steam makes it mandatory that games run on windows. Buying windows and visual studio is unavoidable if you want a game on Steam and want to be 100% legal. Making a linux port is extra cost on top of this.
Last edited by LOLCAT; Feb 17 @ 2:36am
R3450N Feb 17 @ 5:23am 
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
Originally posted by FutureSuture:
Developing for platforms with no royalties and an abundance of digital distribution options is risky? I am puzzled.
Me too but that's what EA, Ubisoft etc. say when people ask why there is no PC port for XY game.

RAVEN:
Steam makes it mandatory that games run on windows. Buying windows and visual studio is unavoidable if you want a game on Steam and want to be 100% legal. Making a linux port is extra cost on top of this.

Unfortunately true. One can only hope for more Linux games in the future.
Letalis Sonus Feb 17 @ 1:09pm 
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
and visual studio
Why? There's already lots of stuff on Steam whose Windows version was compiled with MinGW or even via Cygwin, for example Starbound. There's absolutely no need to do anything with VisualStudio.
LOLCAT Feb 17 @ 2:32pm 
Originally posted by Letalis Sonus:
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
and visual studio
Why? There's already lots of stuff on Steam whose Windows version was compiled with MinGW or even via Cygwin, for example Starbound. There's absolutely no need to do anything with VisualStudio.
Doesn't change a thing. EA won't use mingw, ubisoft won't use mingw, activision won't use mingw and steam for linux will die if there will be no games from these companies, only indies. Also mingw is crap compared to visual studio, even eclipse is crap compared to visual studio. Sad but true.
R3450N Feb 17 @ 2:33pm 
Originally posted by LOLCAT:
Originally posted by Letalis Sonus:
Why? There's already lots of stuff on Steam whose Windows version was compiled with MinGW or even via Cygwin, for example Starbound. There's absolutely no need to do anything with VisualStudio.
Doesn't change a thing. EA won't use mingw, ubisoft won't use mingw, activision won't use mingw and steam for linux will die if there will be no games from these companies, only indies. Also mingw is crap compared to visual studio, even eclipse is crap compared to visual studio. Sad but true.

What do you suggest then? Shall we start digging a grave?
Zyro Feb 17 @ 2:34pm 
Originally posted by RAVEN MCCCXXXVII:
What do you suggest then? Shall we start digging a grave?

You don't need to. Games can still be written with VS or other Windows tools and ported with other programs.
R3450N Feb 17 @ 2:36pm 
Originally posted by Zyro:
Originally posted by RAVEN MCCCXXXVII:
What do you suggest then? Shall we start digging a grave?

You don't need to. Games can still be written with VS or other Windows tools and ported with other programs.

I think Visual Studio creates a walled-in garden for programmers therein; on Linux I'm not limited to just one IDE or a pretext in how I should programme. I'm just saying; Visual Studio isn't the ultimate answer.
Zyro Feb 17 @ 2:42pm 
Originally posted by RAVEN MCCCXXXVII:
I think Visual Studio creates a walled-in garden for programmers therein; on Linux I'm not limited to just one IDE or a pretext in how I should programme. I'm just saying; Visual Studio isn't the ultimate answer.

There's no ultimate answer to anything, but VS is better than any IDE I've tried on Linux.
And of course, you're not limited to just one IDE on Windows either.
LOLCAT Feb 17 @ 2:47pm 
Originally posted by RAVEN MCCCXXXVII:
What do you suggest then? Shall we start digging a grave?
No, what we can do is keeping buying linux games to make it more profitable to produce games for linux. The rest is up to the developers, and of course Valve, who will/does advertise the steamboxes to them.

I think Visual Studio creates a walled-in garden for programmers therein
You're already caught in it if you're on a windows platform. Visual studio, Adobe products etc. don't really matter as people already accepted this at the OS level. Part of why it's hard switching between the two.
Sensei Aizen Feb 17 @ 6:01pm 
The shoot-out arguement against VS is no modularity:
It starts slow. You can not disable unused modules.
Showing 1-15 of 64 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Feb 16 @ 7:35am
Posts: 64