Support us on Patreon
PayPal
In a recent interview with PC Gamer, lead producer Brandon Adler of Obsidian said, "I don't think it was worthwhile developing for Linux. They are a very, very small portion of our active user base - I think around one and a half percent of our users were Linux."
While he did add that is was easy to get the game running on Linux, he cites additional logistical problems like QA and a development team with no previous experience developing for the platform.
These comments stand in slight contrast with statements made in June to Mac Gamer HQ where the interviewer asked "Do Mac and Linux sales justify the extra work involved?" and got back "Yes. Any time you can get the game out on multiple platforms is a huge win for sales because obviously your audience is expanded to include many more people." Although one could argue since the site is a Mac site, the response was equally Mac-slanted, despite the mention of Linux.
As with any such statements, I wonder if the aforementioned added burden can be quantified in time/money spent, and how that compares with the income gained form the 1.5% Linux sales. Surely, it was just a matter of it feeling like a larger burden than it really was due to it being new for the studio?
Smaller studios with reservations about Linux development should really consider outsourcing these efforts, or at least be open to licensed ports. I'm fairly sure the likes of Aspyr/Feral would be more than happy to reap the rewards of managing such ports, especially when the effort is purely QA and support, rather than actually needing to port engines.
Editor Note: If any developer creates a Linux version before Steam Machines are released and expects more than 2% of sales from it, they're doing it wrong. You're doing it for the future and for the long run, not for a quick gain which you won't get right now. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
While he did add that is was easy to get the game running on Linux, he cites additional logistical problems like QA and a development team with no previous experience developing for the platform.
These comments stand in slight contrast with statements made in June to Mac Gamer HQ where the interviewer asked "Do Mac and Linux sales justify the extra work involved?" and got back "Yes. Any time you can get the game out on multiple platforms is a huge win for sales because obviously your audience is expanded to include many more people." Although one could argue since the site is a Mac site, the response was equally Mac-slanted, despite the mention of Linux.
As with any such statements, I wonder if the aforementioned added burden can be quantified in time/money spent, and how that compares with the income gained form the 1.5% Linux sales. Surely, it was just a matter of it feeling like a larger burden than it really was due to it being new for the studio?
Smaller studios with reservations about Linux development should really consider outsourcing these efforts, or at least be open to licensed ports. I'm fairly sure the likes of Aspyr/Feral would be more than happy to reap the rewards of managing such ports, especially when the effort is purely QA and support, rather than actually needing to port engines.
Editor Note: If any developer creates a Linux version before Steam Machines are released and expects more than 2% of sales from it, they're doing it wrong. You're doing it for the future and for the long run, not for a quick gain which you won't get right now. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Last edited by Menelao on 31 August 2015 at 8:49 pm UTC
Second i would like to give you all access to the documentation of the game (sadly i can't) but 2 Facts which are never mentioned in the whole discussion:
1.) Obsidian was on the edge of closing the studio. So maybe they did compare what could have meant a 200k invest in case of more features to sell more copies on windows and what did a 200k invest in case linux as a platform meant. The conclusion might had been, that it would be more wise for the studio to survive when they invest this money into windows features. Thats just plain where is the chance higher to survive. I'm honest here i would rather see Obsidian drop support for linux and make sure the company survives than makeing a linux version and die. Hopefully they come back and besides complaining that it wasn't as much return as they hoped that the experience and the linux crowd was still a pleasure. That also includes the fact that 1.5% are realy good sales for a "popular" game.
2.) Pillars of Eternity is one of the best unity games on linux up to date and it already was when they first released it. It's one of the few unity games which maintain 60+ fps even on highest settings on my rig (very uncommon). They must had done a lot to secure this. It even runs better than the current build of Wasteland 2. In the documentation you see that they even tweak their game using a gpu debuggers just to make it running smooth. I for myself wouldn't wonder if they crushed their selfset limit (so the investment was higher than the return in their eyes) for a port. At this point i only hope that they trust their new knowledge and for future tittles on linux make sure to avoid most of the issues they had with Pillars of Eternity.
The following points also floating in my mind:
a.) when Pillars of Eternity's development was started noone knew about how good or how bad unity on linux realy was / is. So they did a damm good job. Also i remember that at this point most of the tools which are available now wheren't available back then and they basically did the port blind (Unity not on linux / gpu debugger not realy existent / for most stuff a gamedev does only workaround exists at this time)
b.) The RoI (return on invest) for a lifelong used platform will most like always be better than for a new platform.
Last edited by Glog78 on 31 August 2015 at 9:28 pm UTC
Can you tell me your build? I can barely get above 40 fps in my game despite being over the recommended settings.
I think experience is something you gain and if you keep pushing it you get very good at it. I don't see reason why having Linux development experience is bad for Obsidian.
v2.00.0706 - steam
on nvidia the trick is -> __GL_THREADED_OPTIMIZATIONS=1 LC_ALL=C %command%
Use a Phenom II X6 1090T + GTX 970
Perhaps they could have gotten the 200k for some other feature, sure. But again, this is totally and utterly IRRELEVANT. They asked for 200k to fund the ports and got it. Your statement is akin to saying "Yes, I asked my dad for $500 for college textbooks but I spent them all on booze, so my college books weren't funded!"
No, OUR budget. Remember we gave them 200k to make the port?
You don't seem to understand the difference between revenue and profit. The $350k after Steam's cut went into their pockets (at least the largest part of it) and can be used to fund any Linux related costs OTHER than the port itself, which was already paid for. As long as only ONE DOLLAR is left after subtracting all direct costs caused by them supporting Linux (and it would be utterly incorrect to to count any but Linux-related direct costs) it was worth doing it.
You don't seem to realize that 1.5% of sales caused by 1% of the customer base means a whopping 50% over-representation of Linux users. Math is really amazing, huh?
Seriously, I have no idea what their expectations were, if they are so disappointed. Did they REALLY think that 1% of the customer base could be responsible for 10% of the sales or so? In which mass market did that EVER happen?
Yes, I guess what happened is that they looked at the numbers and saw a tiny Linux figure next to a huge, huge sum representing their Windows sales. Big surprise there! I don't think they looked at it correctly, though. And the correct business perspective is checking if the Linux support in brought ONE DOLLAR more than it cost to make and maintain. If that's the case it's worth doing. That's really very basic business logic.
I can afford a BMW and don't have one. Because I don't want one. Your point?
But whichever, I'm glad to see so many worthwhile games being ported to Linux. these are some interesting times indeed.
Selling games for a long time doesn't make them experts in crowdfunding. They were successful with Pillars, sure. But such attitude as shown above towards Linux users doesn't translate into good relationship with the community which can be critical for their future crowdfunding success. I.e. they still seem to think in publisher funded terms (at least in context of Linux). Such studios should also think about backers, not just about sales alone. inXile get that better I think.
They might revert back to publisher funded games, and that would be unfortunate. But if they want to continue crowdfunding campaigns, they better think twice before saying such stuff.
Last edited by Shmerl on 1 September 2015 at 1:23 am UTC