Quoting: Dunc

Quoting: Guestthe Linux users who want to play Witcher 3 have already bought it

Have we?

well, I didn't... but as soon as it's available, I'll buy it; no matter if it's on sale or not...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Whitewolfe80

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Whitewolfe80

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Avehicle7887Despite this game's 2 years old now, I bet many Linux users would buy it if it was ported.

No. That's the problem - the Linux users who want to play Witcher 3 have already bought it, and would want the Linux port "for free".

But that brings up another question, why should the end user be punished for paying for a game on a different platform if CD projeckt had kept their word. No linux user would of had to buy it on another platform

Why should the porting house be "punished" by not getting paid for their work?

Well perhaps they should take that up with steam ie its not the end users responsibility who gets what. I do indeed have every sympathy for feral or whoever ports a game however I work damn hard for my money and if i own a game already am not going to buy it again just so i can go rah rah linux.

exactly, as much as you want to get paid for you work, so do others for theirs... and what you have paid for is the ms windows binaries and the data... so i'd agree with you if you'd say you don't want to pay the full price again, as the data should be platform independent... but the binaries & libraries can't be platform independent and from my point of view it would be totally OK if you pay for the binaries for each platform independently... then we'd also get rid of the discussion 'do porters get their share' that comes up every now and then...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: peta77and after Witcher 2 was ported I thought they give it a chance, though the quality of the port wasn't very well (and what makes it actually bad: the promised optimization/fixes never arrived! so for me the bad response by some users is understandable, though the form may sometimes be questionable);

Um, exactly what optimizations did VP promise and not deliver ?

mainly performance improvements as even on decent hardware it was always very slow and had terrible framerates... that anouncement was that they would first finish the 2 or 3 other ports they had in the queue at that time and then start optimizing their wrapper framework and do update first the new ports and later the others including witcher 2... but that actually never happened (at least for witcher 2)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

sounds more than reasonable... no one of us will work for free.. and preventing misuse will help side-projects like steamOS to grow/be funded before valve is starting to get the big money out of it...
actually I'm very much surprised they come up with such a thing right now/that late, but it seems that key resellers took quite a while to grow into a significant problem...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=ShoNuff!!!]

Quoting: peta77

Quoting: g000hbest SF still was Street Fighter II turbo on SNES!!!
..... yes, I'm old.....

I'm probably just as or older... most people would rather play SFV overall right now... I know Capcom claims SF2 sold well but I don't really see it played that much in the small pool of people I know online. Additionally, I remember USSFIV having way to many issues when it was released.

of course no one wants to play the old stuff (SF2t is mor than 20 years old) when the "same thing" is available in a higher quality (at least graphically)... but at the time it was released it was top notch and a lot of fun to play... can't say the same for street fighter 4... comparing the improvement of hardware and the games' appearance; doesn't match! (for me)... also the interface (controls) got way to complicated for non-hardcore-players when considering "special"-move/attacks... but actually that's the problem with every sequel of something successful... you want to satisfy the nerds only, you end up with something like X3 and everyone left complaining about X rebirth (for me was the most playable as I actually got an explanation what it's about and how to do it... please don't get me wrong, I really like what they do and don't think at all any of them is a bad game/simulation).. or you redo it with better appearance only: everyone complains it's too boring/useless because there's nothing new... the path in between is even harder (consider you'd have to have done the sequel of Star Wars after the whole story has already been told...).

but anyway I'd like to have SF5 to have it on linux, so I'd still be able to play that kind of stuff... also for the new characters which may make some fights more interesting...

final note: as the developers themselves stated pretty early there'd be a linux version of the game (also reported here on GOL), I think it shouldn't be necessary to request a port of it but rather complain at capcom that they still aren't able to deliver! about 18 months after the official release! (though I wouldn't mind sending money to feral, as their ports and the support have been fantastic for all the games I bought from them)...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: g000h

Quoting: ShoNuff!!!8. Street Fighter 7

A couple of things on this... The latest Street Fighter is V (5) not 7.
My mates who are big Street Fighter fans do not like the latest version...

What is wrong with Street Fighter V [External Link]

best SF still was Street Fighter II turbo on SNES!!!
..... yes, I'm old.....

View this comment - View article - View full comments

a very nice number.. but actually most of them are easily outmatched by open source games regarding quality, performance and content... that's nothing you get anyone to about trying Linux as an alternative... so really countable are only those AAA-type games (those you'd use to promote a platform i.e. in a TV-commercial).. and then the number very quickly diminishes.. to .. 100? I don't think there's more (if it even is that high.. no I didn't do a thorough investigation, it's estimation based on following release anouncements), especially when you consider they have to run equally good on the same hardware... compared to ten or twenty(?) times as much on MS Windows (OK, we should compare with Mac first, that would end up in a much more positive result what has happened lately!!)... so, in the last few years our favourite OS made a giant step, but to make it last and not to be just a hype which vanishes as quickly as it appeared, it's necessary that game developers consider multi-platform as the standard and include that in the basic design of their engines, like i.e. UnrealEngine, Unity, CryEngine, Unigine did.. but we need that for major publishers like EA and Ubisoft (which are like Microsoft/Google/Facebook and try to control the market as much as possible).. otherwise the amount of people switching to linux as their major OS would be to low for a porting industry in the long term I'm afraid.. because you won't buy things you don't like forever just because they are available for linux forever (as some do, at least they mention it here from time to time)... and you shouldn't, because - if that is successful - you'll end with tons of games you don't want to play but porters made a good revenue on them and don't care to look at other genres... it might be noble at first but it's devastating in the long run regarding your own satisfaction with the situation...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Avehicle7887

Quoting: ShoNuff!!!Final Fantasy XV (maybe...maybe not... kinda feel like most linux users have weak systems that favor Indie games to begin with -->could be wrong)

If it can be played on WINE there is no value to justify porting to linux... and with that logical reasoning --> Witcher 3 and Overwatch did not make the list. Hellblade: Senua (this game seems too short and not enough lasting $/percentage of market interest)

Just because a game "runs" in Wine doesn't mean there's no need to port it. Hell if we make it that way, devs might as well just develop for Windows and sit back while the Wine project advances enough for a game to be playable.

So according to what you say, there's no need for a Witcher 3 Linux port? Sorry but I beg to differ, first let me say about the FFXV and Linux users' systems, have a look at the "View PC info" of the GoL users, you'll find that many of them have medium-high end systems.

Now going back to Witcher 3, getting the game to run in Wine took many patches and my almost 1,200 Euro system cannot run it more than 30fps with low settings. Meanwhile my other old 5 year old system can run it at almost 65+ fps at a much higher detail on Windows. Despite this game's 2 years old now, I bet many Linux users would buy it if it was ported.

totally agree... even: just because someone managed to get a specific game to run on wine, doesn't mean everyone will be able to do it (had that experience too often).. and I'm talking about easily doing it, not fiddling for hours with settings and reading dozens of forum posts to finally get something that isn't capable to (nearly) fully utilize the hardware available as that won't motivate anyone to go on with Linux for gaming... I didn't buy Witcher 3 (though I'd really be interested) because there's no port for it available and I stopped buying MS-Windows-only games or DLCs for them.. but if there'd be a port available it'd in my list of owned games very quickly.. and after Witcher 2 was ported I thought they give it a chance, though the quality of the port wasn't very well (and what makes it actually bad: the promised optimization/fixes never arrived! so for me the bad response by some users is understandable, though the form may sometimes be questionable); but I think most users would give it a try anyway if it was released for Linux... just for the simple reason that everyone needs to start at some point into a new area and then learns (also with unkind remarks from users of missing expertise, but that isn't different on ANY other platform!) and the results of the further attempts usually improve, so I'd buy it also if it was done by VirtualProgramming again..

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BdMdesigN

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: peta77- Arma3 (the VP port doesn't really/fully work)

In what way ? Or is this another "it's not native/wrapper" BS argument?

Hmmmm Let me see:

1. No Launcher (so not realy easy Modsupport)
2. No Advanced Flight Model - helicopter simulation via RotorLib is not available.
3: Limited User-Generated Content compatibility - custom scenarios and mods technically can work in the ports, but it is likely their authors will pursue compatibility with the primary Windows version instead.
4. Restricted update cycle - the beta ports have been updated to version 1.64, but we are not yet sure when they will be updated in the future.

Point 4 is the master point. On which Version is the Windows Version?

Thats the point what he did mean with the VP port doesn't really/fully work.

All of the above and there's one important additional point to add here:
The game isn't able to utilize the graphics hardware at its full abilities. On my windows pc with a gtx 970 i'm able to play with max. texture size on a 4k display, on my linux box with a gtx980ti (CPU faster and more RAM too) there's still (after more than a year!) only the possibility to select the lowest resolution textures which make the game look at least ten years older than it actually is... that makes me think the port is broken / unfinished.

So... ...... ..

Quoting: GuestAnd how do you think Feral will fix any of that ?

it's just an assumption based on the experience with the last feral ports which were on par with the windows versions and also were improved in the course of time. VP didn't manage to get that done for a couple of games dispite their anouncements.

Quoting: GuestIn what way ? Or is this another "it's not native/wrapper" BS argument?

In the end I don't care if it's a wrapper or native port, as long as it performs the same across all supported platforms with equal hardware. Everything else will only give a bad reputation for the platform it doesn't work 100% on which will keep people away from it (and that's a thing that users keep in memory for a very long time). So there's no reason to applaud an incomplete port just for the game being available.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickPerhaps if Feral went to Bethesda and said, 'hey we will make the Skyrim/Fallout ports happen with no cost to you, and you'd still make %% profit from sales you would otherwise not have got', THEN maybe Bethesda would listen, but if Feral go asking for money to make a port then they will get a literal sword in the gut from certain developers.

I think it's very difficult to port "old" games and still make money when users get the game for free if they already own it on another platform (which is very likely for most of the potential customers).. that's why porters need to ask for money as long as there's no way to get money by number of (new) installations instead of new sales which hopefully are correctly assigned to the later used platform...
so for that to work, they'd need to i.e. drop steamplay support and charge for the platform specific executables while the general parts of a game (3d models, audio, etc.) would be cross-platform.... which would be absolutely fine with me, as long as the quality of the port is OK....

View this comment - View article - View full comments