Higby/Devs: PS2 Linux + Steam Q's

[Chefkoch]

Originally Posted by Inverness

I agree with this. PlanetSide suffered from a great lack of advertisement, PlanetSide 2 should not. Steam will help it reach a large audience.

This..Steam is gods end for F2P Games ! Cant hurt the game can it ?

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Rexdezi

I thought it was 2 cents personally but if you want to be stingy and have only .02 of a cent then sure if you like....

Smartass!

[Nemises]

Originally Posted by Chefkoch

This..Steam is gods end for F2P Games ! Cant hurt the game can it ?

It will definately reach a larger audience, but at what expence?

SOE would have to hand over much of the control (when to patch for eg), and much of the transactional profit of micro-transactions to a 3rd party.

Alse, I understand steam have a restrictive policy on after market / in game "shops" , which is pretty core to PS2 / F2P in general.

..so the ONLY real benefit is one of marketing to a larger audience..

..based on the E3 success though, it seems like it might just be OK from a marketing perspective

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Nemises

SOE would have to hand over much of the control (when to patch for eg), and much of the transactional profit of micro-transactions to a 3rd party.

I'm not sure what are Steam's policies on those issues, but they'd be fools to make all sort of restrictions that discouraged people from hosting their games in there.

Think about it, what would be better for Steam: to gain a little less money for hosting and advertising a game without getting a share of every transaction, or gaining nothing because their restrictions made it a bad deal for the game's developers?

Personally i'd go with the first option. Not only the developer's "hosting subscription" money is better than nothing, but it's also more people getting their pop-up advertisements (when the game's client closes).
Before the people who haven't seen it start to complain: i'm usually against pop-ups, but those don't bother me at all because you only get them once in a while (maybe 1/week i think), and only when you're done playing anyway.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Trevellian

I would love to see a Linux Planetside 2 Client to go along with the Steam Linux Client. Please, help to bring about the end of Microsofts monopoly on the PC community.

I LOL'd.

SOE is a business, and selling operating systems isn't what they do. They have no interest in changing the PC ecosystem. They have a difficult enough time dealing with compatibility of all the different types of PC hardware, so doubling their test matrix and dealing with the same hardware on two different operating systems doesn't seem like a smart move. If there were fewer PCs running Windows that would hurt their business because they would have to maintain multiple operating systems on top of all the different hardware configurations they have today. For them, the more people running Windows the larger their customer base and the easier it is for them to deliver a high quality product.

Next is the gain they'd get from supporting Linux - more potential customers. In order for this to work out they would have to have enough new customers and revenue from them to significantly offset the above testing and support costs they incur with the new operating system. The only people running Linux are some datacenters and rebellious CS students. The population is very low so there isn't much money there. I went through the Anti-Microsoft phase too. You'll get over it when you realize that app compatibility and simplicity is a good thing, and when you start making real software products you'll really appreciate the large target ecosystem.

If they were going to support a new operating system, it wouldn't be Linux, it would be Mac OS. Mac is your best hope hurting the Evil Empire, though you may find the cure is worse than the disease on that when you pay twice as much for the same hardware. With Microsoft the OEMs compete with each other to drive PC prices down. That's a good thing for us. Apple doesn't do that, which his why they have such huge profit margins - they shaft their customers.

In time I think you'll find that the Evil Empire isn't so evil. At least not compared to a few other empires...

[Dagron]

Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending linux specifically, i just wish i wasn't forced to use windows to play games today instead of two years from their release (i'm looking at you Mac).

Originally Posted by Malorn

I went through the Anti-Microsoft phase too. You'll get over it when you realize that app compatibility and simplicity is a good thing, and when you start making real software products you'll really appreciate the large target ecosystem.

In time I think you'll find that the Evil Empire isn't so evil. At least not compared to a few other empires...

It's a good thing for software developers, but not for the consumers. It's like you said:

Originally Posted by Malorn

With Microsoft the OEMs compete with each other to drive PC prices down. That's a good thing for us.

It would be a better thing for us if they also had some real competition of their own, so their OS and it's basic stuff wouldn't be so damn overpriced.
Of course that would require this competition not to mess up the app compatibility and simplicity issue, and i know that's not going to happen... but we can dream, can't we?

In the end i agree with you: a company doesn't have any incentive to meddle in that affair, specially if it's going to be extra work for no benefit. But if we (the consumers) don't whine about it, who will? Hey, maybe some day in a million years it might get us somewhere.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Dagron

It's a good thing for software developers, but not for the consumers.

It is good for consumers because the quality of the product can be higher, and it will take less time to develop.

It would be a better thing for us if they also had some real competition of their own, so their OS and it's basic stuff wouldn't be so damn overpriced.

The OS really isn't over-priced, but if you go to a software store and try to buy it off the shelf you aren't getting the volume discounts that OEMs get. If you buy a PC from a manufacturer Windows costs quite a bit less. If you try to make your own PC and buy Windows separately then you're going to pay more. It has to be that way to add value to volume purchasing. Very few of the sales come from individuals buying Windows all by itself. The bulk comes from manufacturers and businesses buying it in large volumes, but at a much lower price per copy.

Also keep in mind that we PC gamers are not typical consumers and the PC industry isn't catering to us. We're a drop in the bucket to them not worth a high investment. We're niche consumers who want high end hardware for an expensive entertainment hobby. There are cheaper alternatives for us, but we dont' like them because that means lower gaming performance. We could get decent performance for a reasonable price - but we don't want decent. We want awesome. At some point we simply have to accept that our hobby isn't cheap.

[Oryon22]

Having this game on Steam would pay dividends for SOE.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Malorn

If you buy a PC from a manufacturer Windows costs quite a bit less. If you try to make your own PC and buy Windows separately then you're going to pay more.

True, i always try to make my own PC, because frankly the premades suck. I guess that proves your point:

Originally Posted by Malorn

We could get decent performance for a reasonable price - but we don't want decent. We want awesome. At some point we simply have to accept that our hobby isn't cheap.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Also keep in mind that we PC gamers are not typical consumers and the PC industry isn't catering to us. We're a drop in the bucket to them not worth a high investment.

I suppose the bucket is mostly composed by companies that need workstations and the like... it's just hard to admit that the final destination of the majority of PCs are the desks of people who mostly just check their e-mails for lolcats and stare at facebook all day pretending to work.

[Malorn]

Heh yep, you get what you pay for.

I'm at the point where I don't much care to build my own and would rather contract someone to do it or buy a gaming PC. Quite a bit more expensive but not having to deal with broken parts dealing with shipping and hardware compatibility. Paying for convenience but I've reached the point in life where paying for convenience isn't a bad thing to me as long as it's reasonable and I'm not getting completely shafted.

[wasdie]

If Planetside 2 is an OpenGL game then we may see a Linux or Mac version, but if it's a DirectX game (which it most likely is), we'll never see a Linux or Mac version.

Some people here want to see an end to Microsoft's domination of the PC market for gamers, but you all ignore that Microsoft is one of the biggest contributes to PC gaming. Without DirectX there wouldn't be PC gaming to the levels we have it today. OpenGL is a poor alternative as it's not nearly as supported as DirectX. DirectX is constantly updated and highly supported by Microsoft. On the OpenGL front, Nvidia and AMD don't have the greatest support and engines rarely adapt OpenGL because there is no real source to go for direct support for the code, which is a huge deal for software development, especially if you're dropping 10 million into developing a new graphics engine.

ID pushes the OpenGL front but they are about it, and their engines aren't even open to the public. As graphics become more and more complex, the reliance by full 3rd party game engines is going to keep increasing as development costs go up. This means less in-house developed engines. Since most game engines use DirectX as their primary renderer, don't expect OpenGL to take any more of the environment.

[Hyperz]

Originally Posted by wasdie

If Planetside 2 is an OpenGL game then we may see a Linux or Mac version, but if it's a DirectX game (which it most likely is), we'll never see a Linux or Mac version.

Some people here want to see an end to Microsoft's domination of the PC market for gamers, but you all ignore that Microsoft is one of the biggest contributes to PC gaming. Without DirectX there wouldn't be PC gaming to the levels we have it today. OpenGL is a poor alternative as it's not nearly as supported as DirectX. DirectX is constantly updated and highly supported by Microsoft. On the OpenGL front, Nvidia and AMD don't have the greatest support and engines rarely adapt OpenGL because there is no real source to go for direct support for the code, which is a huge deal for software development, especially if you're dropping 10 million into developing a new graphics engine.

ID pushes the OpenGL front but they are about it, and their engines aren't even open to the public. As graphics become more and more complex, the reliance by full 3rd party game engines is going to keep increasing as development costs go up. This means less in-house developed engines. Since most game engines use DirectX as their primary renderer, don't expect OpenGL to take any more of the environment.

Whether or not the game uses OpenGL or not is irrelevant for a potential *nix port. What's far more important is whether or not the engine was build with graphics API abstraction in mind. If it was then adding OpenGL/Direct3D support is a just a matter of adding a "bit" of code. If not then it would mean half of the engine would have to be modified. How else do you think multi-platform titles go about using all the different API's of consoles, mobile devices and OS's? If the engine was build with multi-platform in mind then it's not such a big deal. And porting from Windows to *nix is a way smaller step than going from PC -> console (or the other way around).

As for OpenGL vs DirectX (although you should really compare OGL vs D3D), that's pretty much a non-issue today, especially after OGL 3.x. DirectX being responsible for how PC gaming turned out is also not true. If anything, OGL holds that title because the first 3D games were all using OGL or GLide (based on OGL). Also MS has done nothing but DAMAGE PC gaming since they brought along XBox. AMD/NV's OGL drivers not being on to par is just a side effect of MS's monopolie.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Sensator

Competition is good for consumers like us, so be glad Origin succeeded--it means that Valve will have to keep up their game.

As for PS2 on Steam? I'd say it's very likely.

The problem with citing Origin as "competition" for Steam is that the competition only works when you're not talking exclusives for one or the other.

EA is a huge distributor, in control of a vast catalog of games and developers. Since releasing Origin, none of those games have shown up on competing digital distribution services, or, if they have, they require the installation of Origin anyways for the microtransaction/matchmaking integration.

Thus, Origin doesn't compete on price/services, since those games are only available at one outlet, or completely disconnect themselves from the services of competitors in order to just fire up the Origin services instead.

Now, that's not to say that Valve is innocent of the same charges. But their stable of games is vastly smaller -- when you complain about Valve exclusives, you're talking maybe a dozen titles, most of which start with "Half-Life" or "Portal." And, despite not having to compete on price, those still see regular sales and price cuts. Not so with EA's catalog of Origin exclusives.

As for Steam and F2P microtransactions/DLC and their cut... It's my understanding that Valve's cut is pretty reasonable; enough so that many independent developers have stated the magnitude of their preference for Steam distribution over traditional distributors/publishers. That includes some Free to Play games. It is also my understanding that Valve has a requirement that any DLC/microtransactions offered for a game must be offered as well through their own payment system. This is likely why EA pulled their content from Steam -- they've been moving towards DLC in the first place to cut out the retail/Valve middleman and their cut of the profits, so allowing Valve to have a piece of the DLC pie goes against their business strategy that drove them to DLC in the first place. Fair enough, even though I think it's a shitty result for the customer.

SOE, however, appears to be satisfied with its arrangements with Valve in such respects, as the presence of other F2P SOE games suggests. If I'm able to buy Station Cash through Steam, I'm more likely to do so, since it will be more convenient. Why will it be more convenient? Because Steam is one of the web sites I've entrusted in the past with payment information, and feel comfortable doing so again. I haven't given my current credit card info to SOE, and would be disinclined to do so (in the near future, at least), so if I can't get Station Cash through Steam, I have to remember to do so when I visit a retail establishment that sells Station Cash Cards or whatever they're called. Either way, I'm opting to go a route that I consider more private, but which involves a third party in the transaction. It's unfortunate (from SOE's perspective) that this incurs a margin for that third party, but considering that it results in my increased comfort and security in purchasing Station Cash... it probably ends up a net win for them anyways.



Finally, one thing I forgot to point out with #2 in my earlier post -- the point about security and giving out identifying information to make accounts and whatnot. MMOs are an edge-case in this discussion, since they require account information *anyways.* It's worth mentioning, and I forgot to include it.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Also keep in mind that we PC gamers are not typical consumers and the PC industry isn't catering to us. We're a drop in the bucket to them not worth a high investment. We're niche consumers who want high end hardware for an expensive entertainment hobby. There are cheaper alternatives for us, but we dont' like them because that means lower gaming performance. We could get decent performance for a reasonable price - but we don't want decent. We want awesome. At some point we simply have to accept that our hobby isn't cheap.

This is a common problem with Car people too. Everybody seems to think that car companies are doing it wrong because they don't make cars enthusiasts want.

That actuality is that normal people don't want what enthusiasts want. That's why the iPod and Corolla are so popular.

[SpLiTNuTz]

Would some one please ask higby if you can buy removable of class helmets in the cash shop?

Obviously not for infiltrators or maxes but for LA MA HA classes.