Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: Sgt.Romeo9I mean come on it doesn't take two months to determine the feasability of a port, it takes two months to make the port.

You are really underestimating the amount of time it can take to port a game to another platform.

No, it's not that I underestimate the amount of time it CAN take to port a game from Windows, especially if you porting the game and the complete engine in one go. I'm also well aware of the setbacks one can experience in the porting process whether you having issues with assembly language (not that you should be, because you should be using 64bit), or issues doing graphics debugging getting the OpenGL right coming from Direct3D, or heck even having issues in your code making sure you use unicode as oppose to ansi, I get all that.

That being said this isn't being ported from Windows its already been ported, and this is why my sentence read at the end: it takes two months to make THE port. referring specifically to the port of Civ6 which already exists on MacOS. What a lot of people don't understand is that you don't port a game to Mac or to Linux you port a game away from Windows, and your port especially the code should reflect that.

The thing with porting is you're not remaking the game. You're simply adapting the game to run natively on a different platform. That's why you start with the APIs that are native to that platform, getting those plugged in. Once that is done you are literally going to fix errors and problems until you run out of errors and problems to fix. And with MacOS and Linux using the same APIs pretty much and with your code hopefully being portable and extendable when initially porting, adding Linux should not be that big of an issue. All these issues should have already been solved when doing the MacOS port.

Other than that, that whole sentence was meant to be read in a way of: If someone told you this company they know ported a game in two months as oppose to this company they know where contemplating porting a single game to a platform over a two-month period. Me personally I'd be more inclined to believe the first one. I wouldn't believe that a company would spend that much time thinking about anything, after all time is money. The sentence was meant to sound ridiculous because I believe that sentence is simply to buy time. As voyager2102 and gurv pointed out aswell.

I don't think this is about the feasibility of the Civ6 port I think this is about the feasibility of Linux ports in general because Aspyr realise that soon they will no longer have OpenGL for both MacOS and Linux, they know that they are going to have to use Metal on MacOS and Vulkan on Linux in the future and when it comes to porting, most of your time is spent in the renderer this results in a port for both MacOS and Linux taking much longer in the future. This is what I personally believe Aspyr is contemplating. Oh well I've rambled on enough, here's hoping they discover MoltenVK. MoltenVK should result in a happy ending for both MacOS and Linux users.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Am I the only one who thinks that none of this makes any sense and the more they make that statement on checking the feasability of Linux support the more I get confused by it? As if porting Civ6 to Linux is somehow going to sink them as a company. I mean come on it doesn't take two months to determine the feasability of a port, it takes two months to make the port.
Unless I'm seriously missing something here: Replace APIs -> Link middleware and dependencies -> Compile -> Build -> Debug -> Optimize. Issues with middlemare on Linux would have been an issue with middleware on Mac which it wasn't so then no issues there. Any issues on a code level especially with the engine itself would have been detected and sorted out when porting to Mac. So once again no issues there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Here's hoping they don't ban you for using hacks "cough" I mean Linux.

I would be more interested to get a MOBA/Hero shooter natively on Linux. If I had to put my money on any of them it would be Battleborn. A for being a 2K game and Feral and Aspyr are both chummy with 2K although my money is on Feral and B that game kinda tanked on PC not because it was a bad game, because honestly it's actually a really good looking game in its own right but because of overwatch stealing its thunder. And in all honestly a release on Linux and Mac could very well be what this game needs to find its niche since both platforms are pretty much void of this genre.

And since I've provided reasoning why this can happen from a 2K - Feral PR perspective and given a very decent argument Feral can use when trying to convince 2K. All that is left now is for Liam to pass this request on to Feral :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well it looks like everyone asking for a rally game on Linux most asking for Dirt Rally might actually have their minds blown soon as the one item still left on Ferals Radar (Spacious Skies with a drum for a picture) might actually point to Dirt Rally as being the game teased here according to a lot of online sources.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Comandante oardo

Quoting: Al3s

Quoting: PangachatMass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age trilogy, Dark Souls trilogy, Destiny. If this happens, my next ten year is done ;)

I'm surprised I had to look at 8 pages before someone whising for the Dark Souls saga. I haven't played 3 yet and I'm like 85% in 2 and they are one of the few games for wich I still reboot on Windows sometimes. Also japanese developers, I would be very surprised if they cared one bit about Linux, maybe I'm wrong.

On topic, I would love to have most of the AAA games other people mentioned on Linux, but what would totally blown my mind would be EA games on Linux. I simply don't see them making the effort at all.

I don't know... Game Devs have something in common with hackers and crackers: Their gigantic ego.

If we insist that EA games are not available for linux just because their Devs don't have the brain for that, maybe the Devs will accept the challenge and they will port their games ad-honorem just for to prove that they can do it...

EA will not complain if their Devs do the porting work for free.

I don't know man EA is very stubborn and hard headed. Besides most of the development studios under EA either have a history with Linux or want to get into Linux development. http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/12/4826190/linux-only-needs-one-killer-game-to-explode-says-battlefield-director [External Link]

Not surprising since this is always the case, I mean whether you're a developer, designer, network admin, or just a techie in general we all have a soft spot for Linux and would ditch our dual boots yesterday if our criterias are met whatever they may be. For DICE it's EA giving the go ahead. For most other devs its Visual Studio, designers it's Adobe creative suite or 3ds Max, for network admins it's mostly their companies being legacey AF, and for the rest of us it's either a combination of these and a combination of games.

I have to say I do find myself wondering more and more if Linux was on the same level as Windows; software, games, exposure and support wise. Where would Windows market share really be?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It would blow my mind if out of nowhere EA and Bethesda announced support for Linux.
That would mean: From EA - Need for Speed, Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2
From Bethesda: Fallout 4, Skyrim SE and DOOM

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lordheavy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: grenadecx"It is not cross-platform with Windows." And here we go again.

I already know why, same reason as with the others. But seriously this is really frustrating. I'm sad that this will be another port I will not support.

What are the technical reason for no cross-platform multiplayer? It doesn't bother me in the slightest since I very rarely play multiplayer, but I'm curious.

Probably because of this http://steamcommunity.com/groups/maclinux/discussions/0/528398719787800607/ [External Link]

I would suggest Feral look into Enet. As far as networking libraries go especially for multi-platform support it's one of the best ones I know of. ENet provides a thin, simple and robust network communication layer on top of UDP. The primary feature it provides is optional reliable, in-order delivery of packets.

ENet also omits higher level networking features such as authentication, lobbying, server discovery, encryption, & other similar tasks that are particularly application specific so that the library remains flexible, portable, and easily embeddable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well done Feral on another solid port. You guys are really doing amazing work. Please keep it up! :) Really hope you guys can keep this momentum going. Feral really starting to remind me of Loki back in the day just releasing port after port after port. Especially when DeusEx Mankind Divided came out, given Loki went under while porting the original DeusEx. Was quite a good feeling, kind of Feral continuing where Loki left off and now carrying the baton further. Well done guys! Can't wait to see what's next. Here's hoping you guys take another look at Bioshock, the remastered 1&2 for Linux would be pretty awesome :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PixelPiBethesda supports with Vulkan Windows 7 and Windows 8 users. I think this is the main reason why we will see a lot of Vulkan developments in the near future. But unfortunately this does not mean automatically Linux ports.

As @TheRiddick has mentioned Bathesda just really couldn't be bothered with Linux and anything cross-platform supportive. The only reason they pro Vulkan is because Nintendo ask them to port Skyrim SE to nintendo switch which uses Vulkan. The decision to use Vulkan on Doom I believe was an Id decision not a bathesda decision.
This however is a big issue for me in itself. Nintendo crash and burned with the WiiU and the Switch was a gamble to say the least and yet Bathesda would port Skyrim to a console with a current userbase of... 0. But not to Linux which has a userbase of over 100000 gamers atleast.
And this isn't just a Bathesda with Nintendo issue. There have been so many fly by night consoles that have popped up over the years with big name studios making games for them including EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc... yet these same studios would not port a single game to an operating system that has been around for over 20 years and has never stopped growing even from a gamer userbase.
And the reason I truly believe not more development studios have looked at Linux is because they still on auto-pilot from 20 years ago.
Hey guys why not port to Linux? Because not enough users, not enough money, no interest etc... Take your pick same old crap. If they really innovative they'll blame the software stack or distro fragmentation like that has anything to do with it or lack of middleware which is nonsense since most middleware companies support Linux and if not will either give you an internal Linux version or let you build it from source code if you actually asked.
Either way I really don't get why game devs/publishers are still so against Linux despite being 2016.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: FredOI didn't think we'd see the day that a Total War game comes to Linux before the MAC. This blog post from Aspyr seems to sum up the situation well though: https://blog.aspyr.com/2016/11/01/state-mac-gaming/ [External Link]

Anyway I'm getting this for sure - I've been drooling over it long enough.

Haha what are the odds I was reading the exact same post just now and even thought of adding it to my comment :)

I have to say recently I've been more upset with Apple and Mac than what I am with Microsoft and Windows. Vulkan had a real shot of being the hands down graphics API of choice for all games fullstop. With DX12 being Win10 only and Vulkan being cross-platform across all systems including Windows up to XP, Vulkan could have been the one reason we saw a lot more PC game releases (Linux, Win, Mac).

However with Apple choosing to block Vulkan and have this Metal crap on their systems, they have effectively created this wonderful divide, again leaving us all back at square one. So devs are going to do the following: Vulkan or DX12 for Windows? Lets go with DX12 besides we don't really wanna support Android and Linux isn't really a deciding factor. Besides if we decide to go with a Mac version aswell we have to use Metal so there really isn't any need for Vulkan. And thanks to Apple that is where it ends. No Linux version once again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments