Linux support? official or unofficial. POLL!

[Ait'al]

How many people would like to see linux support for this game. This could include full remake for a native client, stated support for wine or x flavor of linux(or any alternative), or even just unofficial attempts to help get it and help keep it in working in wine with no guarantees and whatever help to the community.

What are your votes!

I purposely made the yes the broader answer to poll for it that way to try to get total potential support for some type of linux support! if you want to state which yes put it in a post! 8)

BTW I only use linux now. I can't stand supporting Microsoft. I have a VM with xp, but it can't really play games(or I can't get it too). It's only because sometimes you need to install and port the folder over to wine.

[CToxin]

I support having a linux port, however, it would either be impossible or take way to much time.
The biggest problem the engine is done in directx, which won't work on linux (people ported dx to linux and got sued, justifiably, by microsoft). And wine doesn't do dx9+ games very well at all. It would take way too long to try and port Forgelight to openGL, and may not even be possible.
So, I support a port/wine support, but at the same time I know that it won't happen.

[Ait'al]

BTW to clarify my personal reasoning. I support anything that gives you the ability to choose whatever operating system you want independently over specific software. I'm technically a part of the power software movement which is part of the free internet movement which is an argument about what the fullest potential of software and the natural world and is tied to natural work ethic. And hence a continuous reminder and pushing never give up the full potential to do these things. It is the origin of Linux's foss and other beliefs. It is also natural philosophy and the origin of all of the linux philosophies and came before computers in the natural world and being part of the culture of science and all other things that spawned this country and eventually led to the computer industry and it's inception!8) It should never be forgotten! It was never the work of corporations. They always take from the other when you look at it fully. It was the product of work and culture and the things we once held dear!

I say I'm of the power software movement over Linux’s beliefs since they have reduces what they mean and one fully encompasses the other and emphasizes all of the potentials and the required work to achieve and gain the other!

And there isn't a point to an OS and hence the money to buy one if it can't run any software It's a compatibility layer! 8) Limited OSes only helps companies and small numbers of individuals and hence greed. That over culture and it's natural development!

[AThreatToYou]

Personally, I support an OpenGL (Linux-compatible) port of PlanetSide 2 even if the 3D support is essentially basic in comparison to the DirectX 9 support. Since this is client-side only, it shouldn't effect all other players who are currently using DirectX on the Windows version of the game.

[Ghoest9]

I do not see doing an OpenGL port as being economically viable.

[CToxin]

To those who think that an openGL port is possible. It isn't. The reason why Dx is preferred by most developers is that almost every function is already implemented. Example: Want to tessellate? run the tessellation function. Want to do that in openGL? Do it yourself. If they wanted to make a port it would take probably twice as long to make as it did to make the original engine, and then they would have to optimize it taking another few months of testing. The engine itself does more than just make the pretty pictures, it has to keep track of every object within a large radius of the player and predict where it will be when it is waiting on data from the servers (as stated by the devs, this is why the lib and harasser turrets stutter so much, they haven't perfected this part yet). They would also have to redo all of their anti-cheat to work with linux, which would also take a long time. By the time they get a working, stable port live, the game would probably be dead or close to. So all this work would be done, for what? A fractional increase in players, many of whom probably won't spend that much in the store? I would rather they spend their time and money making the game better rather than porting.

I would go into why wine wouldn't work, but I don't understand wine enough to go into the specifics. I just know it won't (at least not until Codeweavers or the dev team can get some sort of deal with Microsoft that is).

[AThreatToYou]

I didn't think it was possible, I just think it's a good idea if it is possible.

[Ait'al]

I'd support the unofficial no guarantee wine help personally. I'm not picky in that area. I would just hope it could be running 95% of the time. Glitches or not. As long as I can play.

[Emperor Newt]

As using Linux myself and Windows mostly for gaming (and some other tools that won't run under WINE or in a VM) I would highly appreciate an official Linux port.
But I am also aware that, most likely, SOE does neither have the capacity nore the knowledge to create a stable Linux port within the near future. And I doubt they would outsource this or get new people for the team.
Also I doubt that the game was written with OpenGL in mind. A transition/port is not that hard to do IF you planned for that before development started. But afterwards it can be a royal pain in the ass.

Also, using CrossOver PS2 runs, but doesn't run all too well. Maybe that can be fixed, but surely would need some work. But I doubt that it will come far without some dev giving insight into what might be causing the problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfwaJXOPVGw

[Galron]

This probably won't happen, but it would add a nice feather to Steam on Linux's hat. Wonder if Valve would throw SoE incentives for the port.

[Rahabib]

already switched to playing valve games in ubuntu. I wish more games would come over as well. I just love the Ubuntu environment compared to Windows. Everything other than games and Adobe products I use in Ubuntu.

[Rbstr]

"Every year is the year the Linux desktop finally takes off"


Sure, it'd be cool to have. But also not likely worth spending any developer hours on.

[Phantomdestiny]

except when valve tries to get a linux steam box

[Hamma]

Linux is not a gaming platform, I'd rather dev time not be spent on this.

[Falcon_br]

I would like to see it running in Linux.
The best part will be that the game will be able to use all memory you have and won't be limited to 4 gb like it is now (2 of ram + 2 of VRAM).
But the biggest problem is, the engine is not complete, is lacking lots of features and effects, also it used lots of third parties engines on it, like the nvidia physics to fuck with AMD users and I also think the sound is 3rd party.
Physics should have a good Linux support, since nvidia is on the Linux foundation, but since the last 3 years, the Linux drivers from nvidia are really lacking on support! During doom 3 time, the Linux drivers were better them the windows driver! But now they are just a bad joke. The AMD was never party of the Linux foundation, and never had good driver for Linux.
I don't think the audio library of the game have a convert code for Linux, I need to research more about the issue.
There were a time when you could install Linux on the play station 3, and it runned great, but I really don't think that SOE will ever allow us to do that on the play station 4, were the game will be released for sure!
I also think SOE should focus on doing a 64 bits client of the game, before doing a Linux version of it.

[CToxin]

@Falcon_BR

The reason why the game can't be ported is more to do with the fact it is written in DX than that they use Physx.

Also the whole memory and 64bit client thing is a bit false as the game is Large Address Aware and therefore gets all the memory it needs. Also, memory allocation is not a bottleneck, but the transfer of that memory may be, but blah blah pointless technobobble that no one but a CS/CPE/SE would understand. Suffice to say, that any memory bottleneck is mostly based on hardware and current technological limitations. Not saying the game can't be optimized better, but allowing it to use more memory won't solve it. Unless of course you are rich enough to afford 12GB+ of SRAM and load the entire game onto memory (note: you can't get SRAM chips).

[Pella]

Hipster's use Linux.

Gamers use Windows.

[Rahabib]

Hipster's use Linux.

Gamers use Windows.

I hope its cozy under that bridge

[Rahabib]

Linux is not a gaming platform, I'd rather dev time not be spent on this.
Linux is whatever people want it to be. It can run games perfectly fine when they are developed for it. Same as a Mac. Same as an Xbox 360.

I would rather they add features to the game to make it more enjoyable first, but writing linux off like this is like saying you can only run Photoshop on a Mac.

[AThreatToYou]

The reason why I advocate getting PS2 functioning under Linux is due to the Microsoft's recent silliness. Sooner or later Windows is going to fall out of favor, and if it happens within PS2's lifetime, it could mean a lot for SOE's sales if they make the gates to be one of the first AAA, F2P MMO-shooter games available on Linux (or Mac) natively after Windows craps out. I think Smed intended to run PS2 for 10 years didn't he? Then he really should have thought about (and ordered) some in-engine planning for Linux/Mac h4x.

(Mac support pretty much means Linux support)

[CToxin]

Linux is whatever people want it to be. It can run games perfectly fine when they are developed for it. Same as a Mac. Same as an Xbox 360.

I would rather they add features to the game to make it more enjoyable first, but writing linux off like this is like saying you can only run Photoshop on a Mac.

Actually, he is pretty accurate. Unix is not very game friendly because only openGL works on it and most games (the ones with the pretty pictures at least) use DirectX. Wine gets around this by translating the DirectX instructions to OpenGL instructions (if I remember correctly), but many instructions can't be translated, because there is no OpenGL equivalent. This is why most modern AAA titles don't work very well with wine (at least one of the reasons).

The reason why it takes a few years for a Mac port to appear for a PC game is that the engine has to be reworked for OpenGL. For example, COD:MW2 has been out for quite a long time now, but there is still no native Mac client (that I can find).

Also, I'm not sure what your Photoshop remark is about considering that Photoshop tends to run better on Windows.

[Gimpylung]

I also think SOE should focus on doing a 64 bits client of the game, before doing a Linux version of it.

Agreed.

[CToxin]

I apologize for getting "Superior Engineer Master Race" in this thread, but can those that don't even have a basic understanding of how programming works stop saying the same things? I can only repeat myself so many times.

Also, Windows isn't going to go out of favor with gaming until someone can get them to open DirectX to other platforms.

[Rahabib]

Actually, he is pretty accurate. Unix is not very game friendly because only openGL works on it and most games (the ones with the pretty pictures at least) use DirectX. Wine gets around this by translating the DirectX instructions to OpenGL instructions (if I remember correctly), but many instructions can't be translated, because there is no OpenGL equivalent. This is why most modern AAA titles don't work very well with wine (at least one of the reasons).

The reason why it takes a few years for a Mac port to appear for a PC game is that the engine has to be reworked for OpenGL. For example, COD:MW2 has been out for quite a long time now, but there is still no native Mac client (that I can find).

Also, I'm not sure what your Photoshop remark is about considering that Photoshop tends to run better on Windows.

but thats the decision of the developers to use DX in the first place. OpenGL is a capable renderer and works just fine if developers choose to do so in the first place. DX simply got a foothold before OGL could really gain traction. Development kits started off using DX because it MS bought up all the good middle ware to perform better and OGL wasn't the greatest performer historically. As a result, DX became the standard, especially since it had far more resources than OGL had. Over the years however, OGL is actually must better and very capable. Shaders etc. are different because DX isnt open. OGL is actually cheaper to use licensing wise since its open source. Have you gamed on Linux lately - or even used it for any length of time? It works wonderful, and Valve seems to think its not a waste of time.

The Photoshop arguement comes from all the graphic designers, especially in the 90s, insisting that Photoshop is better suited on a Mac than Windows. Adobe gained popularity on the Mac so thats what graphic designers were used to. Its a stupid argument since the performance is pretty much equal anyway - and always has been. So just like you can run Photoshop on Windows, you *can* game just fine on a Mac or Linux as long as the game supports OpenGL. OpenGL isnt the sluggish performer it was 7-8 years ago.

And as far as wine - I hate wine with a passion. IMO, if SOE was going to do this, I would prefer they just port it properly.

Is it worth it? I could argue it is, but the fact is the population of linux users is small in comparison. However, that will not change if people like me are forced to dual boot windows to game. Given the choice, I would game in Linux. Its faster (the general OS environment is), and the experience is far more customizable. As soon as driver developers, and game developers get going, it is just as capable to game as Windows. Ever since Steam made the port, I have seen more driver updates than I have seen in years. Its only going to get better.

[Emperor Newt]

Actually, he is pretty accurate. Unix is not very game friendly because only openGL works on it and most games (the ones with the pretty pictures at least) use DirectX.
Maybe it's just bad phrasing but I think you know that the majority of games being made for DirectX doesn't make Linux "unfriendly" towards games. If you want to put it that way, then games are not Linux friendly. Not the other way round.

but many instructions can't be translated, because there is no OpenGL equivalent
Often there is (as I can't think of anything right now that directx can do that opengl, at least in theory, isn't able to do), but often the problem simply is that you cannot do a simple "translation" to get the same outcome. That would require to write extra code within an extra bottles just to get a specific game working. And even then it's not guaranteed to work and also something else can (and most likely will) break. Understandably almost nobody is willing to do that. Sometimes such patches make it into Wine, but they are very rare.

*edit*
Edited something out. In the end I would have to agree that this would be even more nitpicking ;)

[Ait'al]

Could they keep some low lv stuff in the game that is more likely to work in wine for when it translates to opengl in wine andhence support it? Linux people will not be picky about high end graphics support. But if it supports up to dx9 we could always play it on that lv(through wine translations) and windows at higher. Then you are working within current parameters of development. Like I said I would, even, take unofficial support and just some help. Maybe that or just helping figure out how to get it to work in wine. Minimal support. Just help the community a tiny bit here and there. Aren't either of those feasible?

Basically low lv graphics considerations for what is supported easily in wine and or help getting it working in wine. With or without any guarantees. They could do it to see how hard it is to do... It's not unrealistic for wine or linux to support slightly lower graphics more commenly. So try to allow it to work in one form or another where it is most likely too without deverting much from the current work. Deversity of considerations for programming makes good practice too. Might give some of their guys some good xp and make them more efficient more quickly. Could work out in the end for everyone. That sort of thing usually does.

[Hamma]

Linux is whatever people want it to be. It can run games perfectly fine when they are developed for it. Same as a Mac. Same as an Xbox 360.

I would rather they add features to the game to make it more enjoyable first, but writing linux off like this is like saying you can only run Photoshop on a Mac.

I'm a Linux guy - I have various certifications and run several servers that do Linux. But I don't run Linux on my desktop, to me it's a server OS and that's what it's best at. OSX to me is more of a gaming platform than Linux because it's meant to be a desktop OS whereas there massive variation of Linux distributions mostly built for servers make it even harder to develop Linux clients.

Then of course you have the DirectX issue.

[Rahabib]

I'm a Linux guy - I have various certifications and run several servers that do Linux. But I don't run Linux on my desktop, to me it's a server OS and that's what it's best at. OSX to me is more of a gaming platform than Linux because it's meant to be a desktop OS whereas there massive variation of Linux distributions mostly built for servers make it even harder to develop Linux clients.

Then of course you have the DirectX issue.

I am not sure why people pigeonhole linux as just for "servers." I run it as a desktop, server, gaming platform, etc. I run L4D2 natively just fine - in fact it actually runs slightly better than it does in windows 7 (same computer). The only major thing holding games back is the DX issue. The games that run OGL run just as well as the DX counterpart, its just that its easier to snag packaged development kits that are optimized for DX.

Also, a lot depends on the distro you use. If you choose a spartan distro you will have a spartan experience (and some people like that). But if you want a whole desktop experience, you can try Ubuntu with Unity or KDE or a "spin off" like Mint. I cant think of any functional experience in windows that hasn't been done in a distro. Hell you can even make Ubuntu into Windows (http://lifehacker.com/5619064/w7-theme-for-ubuntu-brings-windows-7s-familiar-gui-to-linux).

But you are right, its a great server OS as well :)

[AThreatToYou]

Also, Windows isn't going to go out of favor with gaming until someone can get them to open DirectX to other platforms.

You make an excellent point that I have considered very thoroughly. It all boils down to: Anyone would be correct in saying that Windows essentially has the market cornered with DirectX for PC Gaming. However, it is entirely possible Microsoft will have to sell DirectX in order to stay afloat.

And fold this: I'm no programmer or hardware/software engineer, but as I understand it, a Mac/OSX port essentially means a Linux port with little to no work from a community source.

[Rbstr]

However, it is entirely possible Microsoft will have to sell DirectX in order to stay afloat.

When..like 2035?
They're profitable and still sitting on several billions of cash.

[AThreatToYou]

When..like 2035?
They're profitable and still sitting on several billions of cash.

It all depends on the price.

[Rahabib]

It all depends on the price.

From what I understand its not even an option. Just like porting IE over, its so intertwined that it would be difficult to (not impossible). IE9+ cant even run on XP.

[Rbstr]

It all depends on the price.

That's changing the argument (Although, it's equally far fetched. Who is going to pay enough to pry away a cornerstone of the Windows foundation? all those linux companies awash in money? Apple or Google - MS's chief competition).

You said "in order to stay afloat." Which implies that they are or would be sinking and needed the money. There is no reason at all to believe that to be a near-term possibility.

[AThreatToYou]

I know, but PS2 intends to run for a long time. its just an idea and I'm not going to argue over the plausibility because it's incredibly far-fetched but remotely possible given, say, 3 bad releases of Windows in a row to the point where the last good release is no longer supported.

>>is it worth paying out for a linux/OSX port alone? probably as in definitely not, but probably as in definitely is the only way i'd word it.
because this scenario has DirectX being available on OSX.

[Ait'al]

It's 50% yes 50% no/other! Not bad even though it's only a small number! 8)