T:V - Linux port?

Status
Not open for further replies.
in the Q/A's the answer thus far has been, server: maybe, client: not likely. They did say that if a reputable company approached them about doing a linux port who was willing to take the risk and probably fork over some dough, they'd likely let them do it after the customary legal wrangling.
 
Client is a complete negative at this point. It's a waste of time, resources, and money. Just not enough (by far) to make it worth while.
 
as i said. they aren't going to do it, but they might let another company do it if they'll assume the risk etc etc etc. just like what they did with Loki for T2.
 
Ya we need a linux client for us linux users.

The way I look at it as a game developer: Linux is a very powerful tool and the more OS you can reach the better. Linux server is a must.
 
Pendragon said:
Ya we need a linux client for us linux users.

The way I look at it as a game developer: Linux is a very powerful tool and the more OS you can reach the better. Linux server is a must.
Click to expand...

It's not the more OSes you can reach, it's how many people. When 90% of the people run Windows, you are reaching a lot of them. The cost to reach the few that are Linux is more than you will make in return. There's a reason Loki went out of business.
 
there has been a big discussion about this. In my opinion i think that there will be one for the fact that to port a game that runs on the unreal engine to linux is very easy and does not require alot of code like other games. There is also one company that even said they would do it and made a reasonable offer as to what they would make on sales. But its all in the hands of sierra.
 
zigma said:
there has been a big discussion about this. In my opinion i think that there will be one for the fact that to port a game that runs on the unreal engine to linux is very easy and does not require alot of code like other games. There is also one company that even said they would do it and made a reasonable offer as to what they would make on sales. But its all in the hands of sierra.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. The unreal engine is written in DirectX which is very windows centric. In order to port to Linux you'd have to switch over to OpenGL, put in a new sound library, put in a new IO scheme, changing network libraries, etc.

Tribes 2 was ported easily because a Linux port was planned from early on in development.

A server application on the other hand would be easier to port and you may see that.
 
Yogi said:
I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. The unreal engine is written in DirectX which is very windows centric. In order to port to Linux you'd have to switch over to OpenGL, put in a new sound library, put in a new IO scheme, changing network libraries, etc.

Tribes 2 was ported easily because a Linux port was planned from early on in development.

A server application on the other hand would be easier to port and you may see that.
Click to expand...

is direct x a api or a programming language (cheap humor :p )
But doesn't the unreal engine already support OpenGL, thus they would not have to start from scratch. The sound,graphics are already there etc. 90% of what they need is already there.
 
zigma said:
is direct x a api or a programming language (cheap humor :p )
But doesn't the unreal engine already support OpenGL, thus they would not have to start from scratch. The sound,graphics are already there etc. 90% of what they need is already there.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it does support opengl. Only DX is listed on the specs.

The thing is there's a big diffrence between developing for the linux and windows platform. If something is simple to port it's because it was designed that way from the beginning.
 
unreal 2k3 supports opengl, so does unreal tournament and i belive regular unreal. For unreal tournament (i never ran it under linux so i might be wrong) all you needed was a 5-6mb patch to get it running under that OS.
 
Yogi said:
When 90% of the people run Windows, you are reaching a lot of them. The cost to reach the few that are Linux is more than you will make in return. There's a reason Loki went out of business.
Click to expand...

It's more like 97%, or perhaps even higher for gaming applications.

I'd also venture a guess that 90% of "Linux Gamers" also own a PC that they use to play games - they're just very hard core about Linux and want to see as many games on that platform as possible, so they're vocal. Nothing wrong with that, but as we've said before - Linux client: unlikely. Linux server: possible.

That's as much info as you're going to get from us on this topic for a very long while.
 
Menzo said:
Linux client: unlikely. Linux server: possible.

That's as much info as you're going to get from us on this topic for a very long while.
Click to expand...

There, gotta save that for the 500 threads that are going to pop up on this subject over the next year.
 
The whole point boils down to Linux (as a desktop environment) is not a gaming platform. Yeah, there are some games out for it, but it's not economically viable for any company at this point to name Linux as a platform.

Releasing a server package however could make a lot of sense, but it's something to worry about when the game is further along.
 
Menzo said:
It's more like 97%, or perhaps even higher for gaming applications.

I'd also venture a guess that 90% of "Linux Gamers" also own a PC that they use to play games - they're just very hard core about Linux and want to see as many games on that platform as possible, so they're vocal. Nothing wrong with that, but as we've said before - Linux client: unlikely. Linux server: possible.

That's as much info as you're going to get from us on this topic for a very long while.
Click to expand...


Just remember that alot of servers sitting on large pipes are Linux alot more then window servers
 
Yogi said:
The cost to reach the few that are Linux is more than you will make in return. There's a reason Loki went out of business.
Click to expand...

True the market is smaller, but many point the demise of Loki at mismanagement. One obvious example is the licensing of the Quake 3 engine simply to create a boxed version. id was (And still is) totally in support of the Linux port for Quake 3. There was simply no reason to shell out cash for the boxed version if you already owned the game when id was distributing Linux point releases for free.

Here is a nice article about the financial difficulties Loki had faced.

Yogi said:
In order to port to Linux you'd have to switch over to OpenGL, put in a new sound library, put in a new IO scheme, changing network libraries, etc.
Click to expand...

It's already been done. Look on the third CD and you'll find the Linux installer script. And if you check the downloads page at the official UT2003 site, you'll find that Epic has maintained the Linux version to stay concurrent with the Windows version.

BTW--They used OpenAL as the sound library for both the Windows and Linux versions. Not only that, but they chose to use Ogg Vorbis for music. Just a finer point on how open / free options are being used in the industry.

Yogi said:
If something is simple to port it's because it was designed that way from the beginning.
Click to expand...

You mean... correctly?

Yogi said:
The whole point boils down to Linux (as a desktop environment) is not a gaming platform.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? Benchmark UT2003 or Quake 3 at minimal resolution (Or no video output at all, if you're talking about UT) and you'll find that Linux is every bit as fast, if not faster than Windows when it comes to CPU utilization and memory management. About all that's holding Linux back in gaming and multimedia now is video drivers, and even that's changing. nVidia has proven that multimedia in Linux is very real, and can be very fast.

But back to T:V, Zigma seems to have the right idea. Most of the work required for a port has already been done. IMO, it would be a shame if the potential was squandered because Sierra management didn't want to go the extra mile to support more gamers. Perhaps it does make business sense to ignore the minority right now, but given Vivendi's financial situation I can't help but to think that they want to get their games in as many systems as possible so they can later sell expansion packs, multiplayer services, etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top