Quoting: Quote from Renzatic

Quoting: Quote from KristianRenzatic, what makes you think the UDK is likely to receive Linux support?

Simple competition. With SteamOS up and coming, and all its competitors slowly and surely adding Linux support, it'd be strange if it were the only high end engine lacking it. 

They won't be. Frostbite, Gamebryo, etc will not receive Linux support. Don't take recent DICE statements regarding Linux seriously even if they mean it, EA will never let them support Linux in any way, shape or form. I consider Epic bought and paid for by MS(See Bulletstorm using GFWL even though it was published by EA, their main studio not releasing anything for PC since UT3 and the cancelled UT3 Linux port).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Renzatic, what makes you think the UDK is likely to receive Linux support?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Always good seeing more companies supporting Linux. Did he mention it was coming soon in a separate email or something?

By the way, GOL keeps logging me out even though I told it not to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So what engine is this using?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"(I read some rumors it could be compatible with PS4)"

Lord Avallon, where did you read that?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: berillionsAAA games will be available on Steam Linux too or only on Steam OS ?
I don't want to buy SteamBox to play at AAA games in 2014...

The update to the original GOL article answers your question:

Got a response from Valve about games and the normal Linux distros:
My question:
I was wondering about the SteamOS and if games that work on it will also work on normal Linux distros (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc)?
And the response:
Yes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Steam does bundling just fine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: berarma

Quoting: Quote from helsinki_harbour

Quoting: Quote from Quote from KristianSeveral highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation.

Indeed, there are approaches (not solutions [[1]](http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/2009/02/08/our-new-way-to-meet-the-lgpl/) [[2]](http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/) [[3]](http://web.archive.org/web/20071013034536/http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/linuxprogramming2/page2.asp) [[4]](http://listaller.tenstral.net/)), which are sadly not as comprehensive, simple and robust as developers/publishers would need them. Not on quality level which can be expected from a platform in the 21th century.

Looking back in history, it would have been helpful if Autopackage [External Link] would have been welcomed by community. Or FatELF. Or if the Loki packages would have not been broken without reason. Or if the LSB under Ian Murdock would have not been ignored when he was arguing for backward compatibility [External Link] and a ISV infrastructure [External Link]... missed opportunities.

There's a solution and it's given in link #3, solution #3. Any developer that doesn't want to open source their project must ship their game with all libraries needed. Not doing so is a call for problems. Open sourced games have the benefit that they may get into the distribution packaging system and thus have the problem solved.

This is exactly what modern games do on Windows anyway as far as shipping with DirectX, the Visual C++ Runtime, .Net, etc goes. Every single GOG game that uses Dosbox ships with it separately as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: helsiniki_harbour

Quoting: Quote from AnonymousIndeed. I liked GOG.com, but they are talking bullshit. It is dishonest and dumb excuses. I would respect them if they would say "Linux has too small market share and we are not interested". Instead they just make it like there are 9000 distros and it is impossible to handle. They say it to generally well-versed technically users, really?

It's a combination of both.
The small market share that the combined linux distros hold together should be at least easily addressable.
But infact, the smallest audience is the most fragmented and therefore hardest (and most expensive) to support.
If the support would as simple as for the other two platforms, even the current 1 digit market shares could be enough for GOG making a business case. I would guess because of the philosophical nearness of the free community to GOG's community focus and DRM-freeness ideals, they would start even earlier. ;)  But as it is so unreasonable hard... they have to step back to not threating the complete GOG business by taking a bite which is to big for a small company.

From linux side, this missing addessability needs to be fixed in the linux distro landscape, fast. But not by steam, hopefully. :(

Several highly technically informed people(Here, on the GOG forums and elsewhere) have provided bunches and bunches of solutions to supposed issues surrounding fragmentation. People are calling in to question GOG's supposed reasons for lacking Linux support due to them not standing up to scrutiny by those informed about Linux development and porting and the best practices surrounding those areas. That is why people are using words like "bullshit" not because they are being "rude" but because they see them as accurately describing what the GOG representatives are saying.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"but in contrast to other online stores, they are responsible for maintaining them themselves."

No they are not. They CHOOSE to maintain things themselves. Nothing is stopping them from abandoning that stance either entirely or just for Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments