Doom (2016) could have been on Linux, id Software made a Linux version sound easy to do

Quoting: TheRiddickBethesda won't even allow other companies to port and manage a linux version like Feral, which takes all the trouble out of producing and supporting a port that people have argued is NOT WORTH IT for the profit.. whatever.

Come on, they already have a Linux version. I don't know why they don't publish it. Maybe they're afraid of support.

[quote=Guest][quote=1xok]

Quoting: TheRiddickThe thing to take away is that as a platform, GNU/Linux is ready and viable right now for gaming. Drivers are there and mature enough right now. And that's a good thing.

Except that we don't have the games we want.

Quoting: bubexelFor the same reason that games like quake 3, doom 3, quake 2 and others that already have their own linux client aren't on steam for linux. They do games multiplatform in mind but they dont want release it on linux just for unknown reason.

I have to add also the move on quakelive that was fully compatible on linux and they removed it after a update.

Its not an unkown reason they say they just dont see the market for it because linux guys will just play it thru wine.

This have exactly nothing to do with anything technical, it's all management decisions. That they releases Skyrim on the Switch is probably not only due to the Switch being a success but also that they have some back room deal with Nintendo for supporting the platform.

They will not sell the rights to Feral because what if Linux gaming suddenly takes off, then they would loose a lot of sales to Feral. So they would have to make the deal so expensive that Feral could not ever accept it. Also for some companies control is a big issue and they will never outsource any parts to an outside company like Feral and thus loose control over the Linux port.

Look at how Warner handled No One Lives Forever, they decided in the end to not earn any money on a re-release now since they perhaps one day in the future might decide to do it in house (which will never happen). Big corporations can afford to be this stupid.

That is not to say that things like SDL and Vulkan are stupid like some of the posters here have written. Yes that will not automagically make a Linux port happen, but it increases the likelihood of it happening. Once the management side decides to do it there have to also be a technical decision on the amount of work needed. Here we have the technical side ok but the management side denying the port, it could as easily have been the other way around as well. We need them both on our side.


Last edited by F.Ultra on 25 March 2018 at 1:34 am UTC

Of course they could easily do the ports. But someone at the head of Zenimax had the last point. The head director of zenimax has been condemned in some hazy banking corruption and swindle. He is no more allowed by the law to do any kind of banking money. I would not be surprised if a friend of him who works at microsoft and just told him in a dinner, "don't support linux anymmore"...

Anyway at the moment when ID software got bought by bethesda(zenimax), soon after, the game quake live went from free to play, moddable, playable in plugin, compatible with linux to= suppresion of mods, suppression of plugin browser, suppression of linux and mac, suppression of premium membership, then became steam only removing cool feature of the game with the console and adding useless stuff, and finaly 10€ instead of free.

So I guess at the head of zenimax there are some weird people. The bethesda launcher itself use rootkit methods which are clearly stated in the CLUF.

This guys needs to go to jail, and let the gamers decide.


Last edited by Jahimself on 25 March 2018 at 1:40 am UTC

I'd definitely buy it.

id Software stopped releasing Linux games since Rage (where Bethesda served as the publisher), at that time Carmack was preparing the shift to Oculus, then Zenimax happened and it pretty much fell apart. It's a real shame, id Software wasn't big on DRM and their source code releases have spawned new projects and brought improvements to their games.

The best thing that's still left over at id Software is the great engines they make, they're one of the very few big name companies that didn't go with DirectX 11/12. Such a company really deserves better, they have the means to put out a Linux version of amazing games with little efforts and yet their hands are tied by a publisher that doesn't see the potential of Linux, where in terms of gaming it's an even better gaming platform than macOS.


Last edited by Avehicle7887 on 25 March 2018 at 1:47 am UTC

Quoting: strycoreI see this as a good thing. First, if you want to play Doom on Linux. it runs great on Wine, for the exact same reasons the ID team got it running easily on Linux.

Second, this give a slap in the face of a small but vocal subset of the Linux community, made up of people who believe Linux ports are only a matter of engines, middleware, DirectX vs OpenGL, etc. There's nothing wrong with those Linux users, except they have to stop being so naive, hence this is why the ID move is badly needed for those users to wake up.

Steam on Linux has been around for a while now, people should start to understand that Linux ports don't get done because they are easy to make, because the game is using SDL or Vulkan or whatever other library native to Linux. Linux ports happen because business managers sign contracts to get the port done. That's it. Software developers do not make business decisions, releasing a Linux version of a game is a business decision, not a technical one.

You say that like the two are separate. Business decisions revolve around whether a course of action will make a profit. What something in the computer gaming industry will cost is a technical question. If it technically will cost 120 (mythical) man-months from developers clocking in at $100,000 a year each to port something to Linux, that is a different business proposition from if it will cost 12 or 3 such man-months. Profit = revenue - costs. If costs are lower, it takes less revenue to make a profit. So, the correct answer in a business decision depends on technical factors. Like whether a port is easy to make.

Having a port in house working meant developers spent working hours getting it to run in 90% of cases.

This was paid time.

To not release it for extra revenue makes no sense from a commercial perspective especially since it was stated that it took little effort to get it running. Money is still money regardless of where it comes from.

It should be released into a beta channel or at least as a best efforts support release clearly stated.

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: Guestlet me just start cooking this conspiracy bacon
it's because big publishers want to help microsoft create a pc gaming monopoly

No , they don't want that. But they don't want to move on to more secure solutions either because of this MS threat.

Because it didn't happen yet.

A wise man once said this:

"Installing Linux is sort of the equivalent of moving to Canada when one doesn’t like US political trends.

Nope, we’ve got to fight for the freedoms we have today, where we have them today."

Tim Sweeney-2018

Well, except that in theory the United States is a democracy that has freedoms one could fight for, and with. So like in theory you could agitate politically and elect better politicians and create positive political change. And even if one considers that theory largely fake in the current situation, an American is still a citizen of the United States, in some sense an equal stakeholder in the country with every other citizen, and as a citizen a bearer not just of rights but responsibilities to the country. Although there are limits, and I for one welcome American refugees coming to Canada.
Windows is not a country, and Windows users are not citizens, they are not stakeholders, they have no freedoms to fight for, no rights and no responsibilities. Windows is entirely owned by Microsoft, not by its users. To the extent Microsoft has any responsibilities they are to its shareholders; customers are just the suckers it has a responsibility not to give an even break. Leaving Windows because it has problems is not remotely comparable to abandoning the United States when it has problems, and the comparison is not at all wise. So a wise man might have said it, but he must have been having an off day.