Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unreal Tournament 3 For Linux Is Officially Dead

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the snuffing-out-long-fading-hopes dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 190

ndogg writes "There is no longer any uncertainty surrounding the release of Unreal Tournament 3 for Linux. It's official: the port is now dead. No reasons were given, but no one should be waiting for it anymore, if anyone still was."

cancel ×

190 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Netcraft (2, Funny)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585628)

What have they to say about this?

Re:Netcraft (0)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585710)

Who can confirm Netcraft is dead?

Re:Netcraft (0)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585764)

Who can confirm Netcraft is dead?

It left a suicide note.

Re:Netcraft (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585888)

Netcraft confirms it: Unreal Tournament 3 for Linux is Alive!

Outrage! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585644)

I hear all 3 of their potential customers are outraged...

Re:Outrage! (4, Funny)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587322)

Not to mention the 3 current customers playing the Windows version.

No money (-1, Troll)

sproketboy (608031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585646)

Reason. Linux users refuse to pay for their software so it's not worth targeting it as a platform.

Re:No money (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585672)

true, that's also the reason why windows users pay that much more on average, if they can choose to.

http://www.humblebundle.com/
(average prices, linux users pay twice as much as windows users)

Re:No money (0)

paziek (1329929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585688)

Yeah, maybe because they didn't spend their money on overpriced OS to being with.
Mac is a bit of a surprise tho. I guess they are just as broke as Windows users after getting sucked by Apple. I was sure that those people were the first in line to throw large sums of money at anything.

Re: Mac users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586482)

Dude, that enormous chip on your shoulder is showing.

Re:No money (4, Insightful)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585748)

The value of the Humble Bunde is less to Windows users, hence they pay less. Of course, this is a hypothesis.

Re:No money (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586260)

Alternate hypothesis: Linux users tend to be idealists, who agree with the Bundle's cause, and thus will be more willing to donate.

Re:No money (4, Insightful)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585676)

It was actually some stuff-up about IP, I think (some prebuilt technology they licensed for the game that they couldn't release as they wished). Ryan Gordon did most of the port, and was basically ready to release, then it was shuttered.

Re:No money (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585680)

Not true, look at http://www.humblebundle.com/

Average Windows: $6.28
Average Mac: $8.39
Average Linux: $13.62

Re:No money (2)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586010)

Averages don't say much here, we need more statistics. There could be more Linux users among the outliers, while the medians among users may be the same for all OSes.

Re:No money (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586858)

What statistics do you need to refute the GGPs claim that linux users refuse to pay for software then?

Re:No money (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587910)

Yet the share for windows is about twice that of the other platforms you would expect a wider spread.

Re:No money (3, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585692)

Reason. Linux users refuse to pay for their software so it's not worth targeting it as a platform.

So what does the high piracy rate on the Windows platform say?

Re:No money (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586716)

They all say "Arrrrr!", why do you ask?

Re:No money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585694)

Percentage wise, Windows users are the pirates.

Re:No money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586014)

Aaaarrr, that we be matey!

Re:No money (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585716)

Horsecrap. I paid for and played UT2004 on Linux only with a GF4 card. I had a great time. I tried the UT3 demo on Windows and alas, it was not as fun as Unreal Tournament or UT2004. So I didn't buy it.

Re:No money (1)

kyouteki (835576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586246)

You know, I concur that UT3 was not nearly as fun as UT or UT2004, but I've never been able to put my finger on WHY it is inferior.

Re:No money (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586272)

Tried UT3 for lanpartying, but the game was too demanding for any of our computers except one to run well. We'll stick with ut2k4.

Re:No money (1)

Dan9999 (679463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586914)

I'm still a huge UT2004 player but did give UT3 a couple of months when it came out and again this summer. I could probably narrow it down to a few reasons why a lot of people didn't enjoy ut3.

It's mostly dark pastel colours and looks more like a movie (which is what you don't want when you interact with an environment, but is what you want when being told a story... I don't need blur in a game, when I turn quickly, my eyes already blur natually because things are moving quickly [who even thought of putting blur in an fps... duh!]).

With all this blur and dark shading of every colour, you don't get a larger view in your environment and feel a little more alone even when on a team... or standing right next to someone.

When you're in a vehicle the camera view is too close to the vehicle. What the hell!

And my biggest peeve is that the game just feels slower. No double jumping.

Anyways, I'm one of those who has given pretty much every fps that's come out in the last 3 years a real try (at least 20-30 hours) and have not found one that's got something to entice me, in fact they're all going in the wrong direction... slow and blind.

I'm still open to try new ones anytime they come out and always keep my hopes up. But UT3 was the last time that I buy a game before I try it.

Re:No money (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585732)

Humble Indie Bundle 2 is up now. Linux users consistently pay more than Windows users for the games -- more than twice as much, in fact.

Re:No money (0)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586466)

The number you're referencing is worthless without statistics. Maybe they only sold ten linux copies but one buyer paid $100 while everyone else only paid pennies.

Re:No money (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586534)

According to the chart on the website, Linux sales currently make up just under a quarter of total revenue for the Humble Bundle 2. (For the original Humble Bundle it was a full quarter, but that had Linux versions of the games that actually worked.)

Re:No money (0)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586668)

Nevertheless, without weighted statistics it's still a meaningless number. One buyer can throw off the chart completely. It's great that people are giving so much, but to use those numbers to suggest that all linux users pay twice as much for games based, possibly, on the generosity of one or two individuals doesn't make any sense.

Re:No money (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586744)

I'm not sure why you've made it your crusade to post the same "meaningless statistics" reply to every post on this story. My only conclusion is that you simply don't care about real facts unless they prove your view of "linux users being cheap" to be the correct one.

Re:No money (2)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586956)

I'm not sure why you've made it your crusade to post the same "meaningless statistics" reply to every post on this story. My only conclusion is that you simply don't care about real facts unless they prove your view of "linux users being cheap" to be the correct one.

What are you talking about? I've only mentioned it once. Well, twice if you count me replying to the person who commented on my post, and this post is only my third in this entire story. How is that a "crusade to post the same...reply to every post..."?

Re:No money (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587148)

The number you're referencing is worthless without statistics. Maybe they only sold ten linux copies but one buyer paid $100 while everyone else only paid pennies.

It's not worthless at all in this context. It was posted to refute the statement that "Linux users refuse to pay for their software". Say what you want about the statistics but one thing that is clear is Linux users did pay for the bundle.

Re:No money (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587652)

Let me remind you that with a sample of over 110k purchases, the large outliers become statistically insignificant.

For example, if there are 10 * $500 and 5000 * $0.10, the average value is 5500 / 5010 = $1.01.

Re:No money (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585738)

Reason. Linux users refuse to pay for their software so it's not worth targeting it as a platform.

Reason: Ports are years late and often cost more than the original launch price while the Windows version is already in the bargain bin. A rational being will realize that the 30£ = ~$47 [linuxgamepublishing.com] vs 5$ [amazon.com] will very soon pay for a Windows license, hell even a dedicated Windows PC if you game a little. I'd love to buy more Linux versions, but not at such a craptastic value.

Re:No money (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 3 years ago | (#34588472)

I've bought several Linux games now, NWN (Diamond ed.), Quake 3 & 4, and Doom 3. For each, I actually bought the Windows version, then downloaded the Linux client for free from the developer's website. In NWN case, I actually only bought the Windows version for the license key, even the data was available for download.

Re:No money (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585820)

http://www.redhat.com/ [redhat.com]

I mean, they only have hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year...

Re:No money (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585966)

Reason. Linux users refuse to pay for their software so it's not worth targeting it as a platform.

Actually, my personal experience has been different.

In general, the *nix guys I've met have an appreciation for well-crafted software and don't have a problem paying for it.

The Windows guys, on the other hand have absolutely no problem pirating anything and everything.

Obviously your mileage may vary... But I suspect there was more to this than simply "those tree-hugging open-source hippies won't pay!" Probably some bit of licensed technology that couldn't be released in an open source format.

Re:No money (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586240)

This is because Linux guys are more likely to understand what it takes to get software working

Re:No money (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586620)

My thoughts (as a long term linux user)...
I have a certain amount of goodwill (ie money im willing to spend) but it only goes so far.. If a piece of software is significantly better than any free counterparts enough to justify its price tag then i'm quite happy to pay for it, if not then i would very much prefer to do without it.
Now games i can always do without, but if they're good i'm quite happy to spend a reasonable sum.

Windows users on the other hand have already paid for a mediocre os, and have probably paid again to get basic/essential functionality, so many of them will already be at the end of their patience.

A linux user will typically have got everything they *need* for their day to day use for free, so games are just optional extras.

Re:No money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34588162)

Actually, my personal experience has been different.

Fascinating, because mine hasn't.

In general, the *nix guys I've met have an appreciation for well-crafted software and don't have a problem paying for it.

In general, the ones I've met believe that software, of all types, should be open and free (both free as in speech and beer). To do otherwise is contrary to the ideals that we support by being *nix users. As a *nix user myself I agree with those ideals otherwise I'd switch to Windows.

The Windows guys, on the other hand have absolutely no problem pirating anything and everything.

See, now they're getting smarter - they obviously want to share in those *nix ideals but feel locked into using Windows (well after all they did pay an assload amount to use it).

Obviously your mileage may vary...

Indeed it has.

But I suspect there was more to this than simply "those tree-hugging open-source hippies won't pay!"

Well, the "only-hippies-use-open-source" is a myth anyway. Sure many people in open source may share that philosophy but many don't.

Probably some bit of licensed technology that couldn't be released in an open source format.

Agreed.

Re:No money (0)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587730)

Reason. Linux users refuse to pay for their software so it's not worth targeting it as a platform.

I thought it was because no-one cares about Linux besides a small handful of nerds who seem to enjoy feeling like a persecuted minority.

Re:No money (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587904)

Are you sure it didn't have more to do with UT3 being an extremely unpopular game? I mean, justified or not, no one really played UT3 all that much. It just couldn't compare to either UT99 nor UT2K4 in any way aside from it's grungy atmosphere and shiny graphics.

Just install WIndows 7 already. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585662)

Get it off the pirate bay and disable the activation with removewat. Linux market share is so low that even iPhone usage is more and that gets realistic games like Infinity Blade.. Stop apt-getting crappy Linux and apt-get a life.

Re:Just install WIndows 7 already. (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586358)

Stop apt-getting crappy Linux and apt-get a life.

I tried, man, I tried. But there's so many dependencies...

Here's the reason... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585668)

Linux is a sack of shit.

Re:Here's the reason... (0)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585698)

Darn, this troll comment is so fat, it didn't even fit on a 22" screen.

Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585684)

Some things go on Linux and some don't. As mentioned above these people need money to make something worthwhile. They alse need numbers of customers. Anyone who sees either of these happening in the short term needs to start blogging their reason why so we can all be educated. I loved UT3 and I use Linux for all my desktops and servers. I guess I am also realistic?

My money was waiting (3, Funny)

topher1kenobe (2041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585702)

I bought the first two, and was waiting with dollars clenched in my sweaty fist to throw them at 3 as well. Makes me sad. I've still never played 3.

Re:My money was waiting (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585830)

You haven't missed anything, except the decay of the UT community.

Re:My money was waiting (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585994)

UT3 wasn't very good, and you would be disappointed by it compared to the first 3 UT titles ('99', 2003, 2004).
The bad part is you missed out on some OK mods, but many of those have either gone UDK or to their own released title anyway.. unfortunately it looks like there is no intention on porting UDK to *nix either.. which considering they have/will/should port it to BSD^H^H^HMacOSX, it's only a hop-skip-and-jump away... and that makes me sad.

Re:My money was waiting (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587318)

I agree with the previous two posters. Been playing UT for more than a decade now. UT3 sucks. It's pretty, but not a fun game. The linux port was confirmed early on, and there was talk of even supporting UnrealED under linux too. When release-day came, they didn't even have a linux SERVER ready, which meant that the 80% or so of the servers normally used for UT games couldn't even host the new version.

That right there was pretty much the stamp of authority that there would be no UT3 client linux port. When you don't think the most popular server architecture is worth porting UT3 to for release day, there's no way a client is going to follow. So the end result was that they completely shot themselves in the foot. Not enough servers on release day meant a lot of pissed off gamers. The game wasn't great, and tons of functionality had been removed from previous versions. (Hell, the menus were optimized for a console, with no back button because they figured you'd have a red "X" to hit.) You need a GameSpy ID to log in, and at first, the only way to ban people was by GameSpy ID, which you could generate in-game. So essentially there was no banning function until the first patch.

If you're a long-time fan of the UT franchise, be glad you skipped this one. It took everything good about the game, and trashed it. (Hell, I tried to pick up my mapping, which was passable under UT2k4. I had to read a huge web page, and spend an hour tinkering about to make fog in a test level. UT2k4 had a fog volume. You made a volume, and checked off "fog". UT3 has dynamically scripted effects. Like fog. They even took the editor and made it so that it was so ridiculously complicated that nobody could casually make maps. Either you need to spend a few months learning it, or you can't do much of anything with it. Sure, it's more powerful than all the previous versions. But it's another barrier for the community. Because of this, there are orders of magnitude less maps for UT3 than there were this far into the life of any of the other versions.)

Officially dead for Windows too (5, Informative)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585752)

Well, that's a coincidence: It's officially dead for Windows too. And has been since almost three months after launch.

I really liked the Unreal Tournament games (even though I'm an id Software fanboy), and definitely the first part was a lot better than its counterpart at the time; Quake 3. Whereas Quake 3 had obvious masterlike AI-bots, the AI in Unreal Tournament always seemed to resemble a bit more humanlike play-style.
UT2004 was great too, and had some awesome new gametypes, which really worked well. They were planning on releasing a new update for it every year (hence the 2004 addition to the title), but failed at doing that (probably because they discovered their new cash cow; Gears of War).
Unreal Tournament 3's figures were very bad: Already after a month of release, the servers got less and less. As of today there's only a handfull of servers left (for the UK at least), with even less players.
I must admit myself that I also didn't play UT3 as much as I played the previous titles.

So to be honest, I can't really see too much of a loss in this (except that it would have been easier for other Unreal engined games to be ported over to Linux).

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585778)

Pretty much yeah

i played UT 99 a LOT (even on the dreamcast when i didnt have a PC in my room yet), when 2k3 came out i had my own PC with a GF4 and i enjoyed the hell out of it, 2k4 made it even better, it is still one of the games that i bother installing if i want to play a pc-game, also ran it on linux several times.

Then ut 3 came out, and it was rather unimpressive, i did buy it from steam at one point, but i hardly played it

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585780)

Exactly, Unreal is now officially a console engine, nothing more.

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585870)

+1. I played the hell out of UT2004, but for some reason never really got into UT3. Despite decent initial sales figures on launch day, the game bombed with everyone I know. After a few months the community was very small, and it stayed that way despite attempts to grow it by majorly dropping the price so soon after launch. I can't see a Linux port bringing in any significant amount of players.

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587418)

There are thousands of 2k4 players on every day right now to a couple hundred UT3 players.

It bombed on launch day because they didn't have the linux server port ready. That's a good indication of how serious they took linux. It bombed in general because they never got a community of players. If a large percentage of your players can't play on launch day, and you overhaul your editor to the point that it can't be casually used, you kill a large percentage of your community. Forcing everyone to use a GameSpy ID to log in doesn't help.

The comment above by citizenr is spot on - UT is now a console engine. The unpatched version of the game shows it clearly in the menus. No PC game has ever had menus that terrible before, I don't think. It took me a bit before I realized that with an arrow pad and a 'X' and 'O' that the menus made total sense. No ability to put multiple menus on screen at the same time, no "hit a letter and jump to that menu item", lack of back button in many menus, forcing you to escape back to the main menu and work your way through the tree again...

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586072)

UT was never about the game, but about the engine. They make a crapload of money licensing out the engine to developers. UT was never more than a demo for the engine. I would say the biggest problem with UT3 was that on launch the minimum specs were outrageous. Also, UT to UT2k3 was such a soured experience that many people gave up on UT. Lastly, they console-ifide UT3 too much. It is a nice game, I end up playing UT99 more because my PC is crap.

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586788)

Purchasing UT3 immediately upon release was one of my biggest gaming mistakes. To make matters worse I bought two copies of the game, since UT2004 was one of the few PC shooters that I ever got my wife to play.

It didn't take long after we started playing to realize that something just wasn't right. It didn't feel like Unreal Tournament.

I took it as a matter of faith that the Unreal Tournament series would not disappoint, and that was a big mistake.

Re:Officially dead for Windows too (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34588226)

UT just a game slapped on top of the engine, its not really meant to be a best seller. Its designed for modding and being used in other games. UT2k4 selling like it did was just a nice bonus.

Vicious circle (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585772)

It's not really worth developing games for Linux. The hardcore gamers - the bulk of the market all use Windows. As a result, anyone with any significant interest in PC games will install Windows. This will naturally perpetute the extreme bias towards windows from developers.

The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software. These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.

I don't think there's any way out of this.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585796)

Perhaps if DirectX could somehow be cracked and made available on Linux distros.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586578)

Perhaps if DirectX could somehow be cracked and made available on Linux distros.

I thank the Wine developers for having done this. But every time that happens, it's a step behind as Microsoft releases a new DirectX version. The one thing keeping Wine relevant is that PC games without Windows XP support fail to sell: see Halo 2 and Shadowrun. Games have to remain compatible with versions of Windows that make up the majority of installations despite that they have left mainstream support, which means Wine can support this Windows version's last DirectX version.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585816)

Thank you, captain obvious, for this incredible insight.

Re:Vicious circle (4, Interesting)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585824)

I won't install Windows, but I can buy a non-free game every now and then. I'm not much of a gamer, I just don't have the time for it anymore, but I did buy StarCraft 2, and I would have bought Civ5 if it wasn't such a huge pain in the ass to get the demo to work with the pile of crap called Steam.
I have no objections to non-free end-user software, but I do object to the underlying system and libraries being non-free...

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586230)

Hate to tell you but Steam runs fine for 99.9% of the users. It's whatever half assed method you're trying to use to run Steam that is the pile of crap. You know it's true and I know it's true. You're trying to blame Steam for something they have no control over on *your* system for its failure. That just doesn't play out in the real world.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586356)

It's not a pile of crap on windows. Works quite handily, in fact. Very convenient and functional. If you weren't purposefully obstinate, using an operating system no one else uses, just for that fact, then you wouldn't have these problems. You choose to have these issues.

Re:Vicious circle (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586628)

If you weren't purposefully obstinate, using an operating system no one else uses

Is there an operating system that runs on PCs and doesn't cost this much [google.com] ?

Re:Vicious circle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34587718)

Do you even know what OS [google.com] is needed to run Steam? Obviously not.

And the OEM is even less. as well as the fact that it runs just fine using a 10 year old OS. Stop being a little troll.

Once again the Linux lemmings have to use hyperbole and outright lies to make their "point." Now wonder reasonable people are turning their backs on this culture.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586862)

Nope. I'm pretty sure Steam is a steaming pile of crap no matter what OS it's used on. DRM FTL. (FYI, there's no such thing as "DRM done right". It's just they successfully brainwashed you to buy into it.)

Re:Vicious circle (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587316)

You have to accept that when you're using workarounds to get software running on an OS it wasn't designed for you will often run into some issues. Steam runs great on Windows or Mac (there are those who hate the DRM but that has nothing to do with how the client actually performs). If Valve made a Steam client for Linux I'm sure it would run quite well, the problem is which distro do they make it for? So far as I know (and I am admittedly a novice when it comes to Linux) it is not easy to release an application that will run on any distro without releasing it in source form. Like it or not most game companies would not want to release their source.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585930)

The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software. These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.

not true, there is also a factor of inconvenience when you have to shutdown linux and boot to windows. You lose continuity of all these background services like IMs and stuff. I got windows with some games on it, but the hassle is usually greater than my desire to play so i end up not playing.
Granted, hardcore buyers of AAA titles would never use linux, but linux is a nice untapped niche to claim. Money to be made is not as great, but i think it's safer investment than $50M for marketing needed to sell high budget windows title.
Windows gaming market is overcrowded already, there are thousands of games released every year - what are your chances to score big time? There is no such problem in linux, I think that modest 10-20 bucks games with decent artistic value tailored to linux (not half-assed ports) can in fact print money. What they also need is exposure, distros should provide a way to advertise them in a single convenient tool for 3rd party apps, so developers can register their product to drive traffic to their site or even sell the product directly. People usually don't have time to spend hours to google for stuff and such solution would boost linux app sales.

Re:Vicious circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586170)

I really dont agree with the following sentiment (These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.) referring to linux people.

Look at the humble indy bundles, Linux users are more than willing to pay - and at higher cost than Windows and Mac users.

I am an avid linux junkie Windows repulses me - i find it painful to use. That doesnt stop me having a large collection of console , commercial games.
Or paying for games I run under linux.

Whether games are free as in open is pretty irrelevant to me. Triple A titles cost a fortune to develop , and that's not just the source code. Good games are much more than just code.
You need script / storyboard writers, game designers artists and musicians. To expect all that for nothing is insane. If the software is good , games or otherwise - i will pay for it . Here is an awesome DAW software for linux i am happy to have paid for and use (http://www.renoise.com/)

I appreciate and favor the Open Source way wherever possible but that doesnt mean im so stuck in my moral code im going to forgo all pleasures in order to perpetuate it.

Im sure I speak for others here...

N.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586180)

Not completely accurate. According to somewhat vague statements made by various game companies over the years, the raw numbers for Linux are absolutely there. The real problem is, far too many people would rather pirate than pay. As a result, pirates essentially prevent Linux from becoming a viable commercial gaming platform. The only solutions left to game companies are to dramatically increase the per unit costs (to cover the massive per unit burden imposed by pirates) or simply not support the platform. As the first option means pricing themselves out of the market while creating additional development and support costs, they're left with one choice.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586564)

What if some group of companies decided it was good lateral strategy to shake up the status quo and cranked out some 7 high powered games for Linux only, no DRM, fitted for about 7 of the best distros? Forget "ROI" etc, do it just to create total envy to make make both the Windows camps and Apple fans drool with envy. (Same vein, pay for 30 devs for 2 years to spruce up the "boring" connecting stuff all over the Linux landscape.)

It would be like turning the Bazaar into the Linux Mall. The problem with Dollar Counting on Linux at the moment is you're starting from the defensive. "Invest in the platform" - the problem is not unlike the problems facing Education. You can't count each dollar with a factoid earned by X students. All you know is that suddenly after an influx into a school system all the holistic measurements "just sorta magically" begin to rise.

Since both MS and Apple will hate this, the consortium needs to be a rather left field group. Just for giggles let's try Google-Opera-EFF-AMD-Nvidia and three big studios.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587222)

What if some group of companies decided it was good lateral strategy to shake up the status quo

What possible incentive do they have to do that?

Ignoring the slow growth grind of a potential emerging platform (Linux), even getting pirates to stop destroying the economy and ecosystem, there are still other problems which must be addressed which are particular to Linux. [slashdot.org]

Of course, this is the same reason pirates damage the economy in other sectors too. For whatever reason, pirates just assume that only multi-billion dollar mega-corporations are affected by piracy and they are fighting the good fight; which in of itself doesn't even make sense. In reality, they are destroying small and medium sized businesses and contrary to their completely illogical logic, pirating isn't helping the company.

Linux's primary obstacle to becoming a viable commercial gaming platform are pirates. Period.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586704)

And how high is the additional cost of porting to linux?
The game is already written, all the graphics and sound already exist, you just need to port the code and the difficulty of that varies on the apis used (directx vs opengl), ofcourse it also becomes a lot easier if you already have ports for similar platforms such as osx.

The cost of a port is pretty marginal compared to the cost of initially writing the game (especially if the game was originally developed with portability in mind), so even a relatively small number of additional sales can cover the cost.

Also, piracy doesn't just happen on linux, there are many more pirates using windows than there are on linux. Also, someone who is willing to pirate and wants to play games could just install a pirate copy of windows to play the games on anyway.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587050)

And how high is the additional cost of porting to linux?

There is no single dollar amount. The price can be all over the board too. And even beyond a port, support and testing is frequently a large portion of any porting effort. Pirates frequently add to the support burden but not the pay off, so its a another area where pirates hurt both the ecosystem and the economy.

You also need to keep in mind, games are so large and complex these days, more often than not, third party packages are used for various tidbits. In some cases these packages are simply not available for Linux. Or, when they are available, it requires yet another contract, purchase, and royalty structure. When its not available, you're now looking at writing code from scratch. In either case, many times this is simply a deal killer. You need to keep in mind, on a per third party basis, this might mean an extra $20,000-$100,000 out of pocket, plus royalties.

ofcourse it also becomes a lot easier if you already have ports for similar platforms such as osx.

This is very true. If designers plan on creating a cross platform title up front, it can dramatically decrease their costs and time to market. In most cases, planning to support OSX means 90%-95% of the world is already in place to support Linux. Of course the inverse is also true. Just the same, that doesn't necessarily address testing, support, and third party libraries issues (costs+royalties).

Also, piracy doesn't just happen on linux, there are many more pirates using windows than there are on linux.

You're right, but that's not the whole picture. While Windows has a large number of pirates, they also have massive users willing to purchase. So even at 50% piracy rates, you're still looking at a potential of tens of millions of users. Whereas on Linux, you have massive piracy rates which pales the other platforms. So with something like 80+% piracy and and pool of only a couple million potential users, the numbers don't typically work out so well. This basically means the support costs are higher on a per unit basis and the ROI on a per unit basis are very low. OSX users, on the other hand, tend to be very loyal and the platform as a whole experiences some of the industry's lowest piracy rates. This combined with higher desktop numbers means OSX is a much more attractive commercial platform for developers. So for OSX, despite having a fairly small user base, it can still easily make nice with the bottom line.

Lastly, let's look at support a little more. Linux has many different distributions. Some don't even support LSB [wikipedia.org] , despite being fairly popular. This in turn means support burden is likely to be very disproportionate for its user base. This in turn further complicates the ROI picture while further increasing costs. The fact that AMD[ATI] typically has buggy OpenGL drivers only makes the experience even more frustrating.

And all the above completely ignores the testing matrix which is further complicated by the Linux distribution numbers.

As you can see, when developers do provide a set of Linux binaries, its not hard to understand why its frequently on an unsupported basis and completely at this whim.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

apoc.famine (621563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587512)

The port is largely done. Ryan Gordon historically did many/all the ports for the UT franchise. (Among many other games - he's the god of porting games to linux.) In late 2009 or so he had screenshots of UT3 working, and said it was largely done.

If there's no port for UT3 to linux by now, you can be guaranteed that it was a decision by Epic not to release it. Either due to some DRM/proprietary code they wedged in there, (There was a lot of talk about PhysX being an issue, if I recall.) or because they just don't care to release it.

Re:Vicious circle (1)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586458)

Now that's a load of crap. I won't run Windows at any cost because it's not worth any cost to me. I am more productive in Linux, I enjoy customizing my experience, and I don't like having to run 3 heavyweight scanner software to keep my system free of virus, spyware, and malware. It's a better experience for me, so why should I waste time keeping a Windows install patched and safe?

And for the record, I do happily pay for games that run on Linux, and don't pirate software/music/video like my Windows using friends.

I think UT3 is dead because its not very popular on Windows, so why waste the effort?

Is the Engine ported at least? (5, Interesting)

bomanbot (980297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585802)

That is kind of a bummer, although after such a long time of silence, it was certainly quite expected (also, I guess that the Mac version of that game, which was also announced a long time ago, got axed quietly as well).

What I would find more interesting however, would be whether the Unreal Engine 3 itself was ported into a workable state, so it could be used for other porting projects in the future. Because although I do not care too much about the Unreal Tournament 3 game itself, having the Unreal Engine 3 on Linux could at least open some interesting possibilities either for other games being ported or for a developer studio using the Engine in a future game and then doing simultaneous cross-platform development.

Because if you look at the list [wikipedia.org] of games using the Unreal Engine 3, that list of projects is rather impressive (for example, the entire Mass Effect series uses the Engine) and having such a widely used Engine available on Linux would be a boon, I think, maybe even for smaller Indie developers willing to do Linux development (depending on how expensive those licensing terms are).

Technically, porting should be possible, as the Unreal Engine 3 already runs on Windows, PS3, Xbox 360 and even MacOS X and iOS now, so it has shown that it is portable. And before you ask, I am not concluding that because Epic did an iOS port that it automatically runs on Mac OS X as well, although those two share a decent amount of similarities making the jump between those two platforms a good deal easier. No, actually, with Borderlands now having a Mac port [feralinteractive.com] , there are already two titles on Mac OS X using the Unreal Engine 3 that I know of (the other one being Star Trek DAC), so there is proof it runs on the Mac. I know that those are only two titles and only one you could possibly call an AAA title, but sadly, as far as I know, that is still more titles available than on Linux :(

So I hope Ryan Gordon at least got the Engine ported, so future projects can use it on Linux. Because although losing the game sucks a little, having the Engine could at least give some hope for some better future developments in Linux gaming. It sure could use some.

no more Phoronix rumors dressed up as news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585844)

Phoronix is not a news site. They are a rumor site. Please stop siting them as a source for news!

Re:no more Phoronix rumors dressed up as news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34585924)

umad?

Is now dead? (1)

Sodki (621717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585866)

It wasn't dead before?

Re:Is now dead? (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585922)

No, just restin'

Let's face it... (5, Interesting)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585902)

Commercial games are, for the most part, dead on the Linux desktop. There are some occasional exceptions but for the most part, if you want a big-name game to appear on Linux you're gonna have to go use WINE as native builds probably won't exist. That said, there are still quite a lot of decent older games which have Linux ports and Ryan does continue development on ports for commercial when he can.

I think if you really want to avoid disappointment with regards to Linux gaming and want to continue enjoying gaming on Linux... get used to indy games, and forget the big-budget commercial stuff. Indy developers need all the audience they can get and as the Humble Bundles have shown, Linux users are often the most generous per purchase due to a desperate need for games. :)

Big-name commercial studios like EPIC and iD have abandoned Linux (unlike his previous games John Carmack has expressed a certain doubt about supporting Linux with Rage). It would certainly be NICE if we could get more commercial support, but until that happens, it's less depressing to just aim for indy games.

Re:Let's face it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586720)

Linux was never going to get mainstream games. All companies that dipped their toes into this market found the pond was only a puddle. People have moved on, consoles are dirt cheap and there's a massive library for them all, and the titles are very cheap if you don't want the latest hyped CoD9 or whatever.

Re:Let's face it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34587484)

Linux was never going to get mainstream games.

Completely untrue.

All companies that dipped their toes into this market found the pond was only a puddle.

Only because pirates erode all hope of making a reasonable ROI. Linux is, unfortunately, a pirate's platform of choice. That combined with its much smaller user base means no company wants to target the platform.

If you replace the pirates with ethical users, suddenly Linux becomes a fairly attractive commercial platform, much like OSX.

Re:Let's face it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34587646)

This is a ridiculous troll post. Linux is not a pirate gamer's platform of choice... pirated Windows is, because it plays games.

Linux users have given up on playing games by now, and those that haven't just aren't used to paying for software at all, and that's why the games market for Linux sucks, among other technical things (driver issues, lack of standardization).

Mac people are used to shelling out copious amounts of money.

Dead on all desktops (0)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587082)

Commercial games are, for the most part, dead on the PC.

Fixed!

Re:Dead on all desktops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34588300)

>Commercial games are, for the most part, Are for sure not dead on the PC.

>Fixed!

FTFY

Does it matter? (1, Interesting)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34585952)

Linux users already have Alien Arena, Sauerbraten, Tremulous and Nexuiz, among other FPS games. And the ID Software titles. I doubt they'll miss one more FPS game.

Is this offtopic? (-1, Offtopic)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586192)

I just discovered a puzzle game I wrote in Flash last year, and I'm letting people know it's there in case they want to play. I originally wrote this in C/C++, but then ported to Flash in order to learn the Flash language. Turns out Flash is almost identical to C/C++ except Flash is actually easier to code in. If you were wondering if you ever wanted to pick up Flash to do webgames and you know C/C++, do it!

Play Diamond Drop [goodnewsjim.com]

Good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34586290)

Now I can replace my "but it can run crysis?" template.

It's a shame, UT3 wasn't that bad (4, Informative)

Draaglom (1556491) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586386)

It may have sucked hard at first, but after the various patches, UT3 has evolved to become a fairly decent game!

I was expecting this but still... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586764)

This comes as somewhat of a disappointment: I've been toying with the idea of trying to get my 13-year-old stepson (a relatively intelligent, moderately creative and incredibly mature 13 year old with zilch for prospects) interested in 3D modeling and content creation. Therefore I've begun assembling a dedicated workstation for running UDK (Unreal Development Kit), an integrated package from Epic that allows you to create redistributable games and standalone 3D apps that utilize the latest Unreal Engine.

I also considered Blender (in fact, I far prefer he learn it instead) but I think UDK will be a lot more likely to sustain his interest through that initial critical phase.

What I always liked about Epic was their platform-neutral stance. Their Glide and unofficial/after-the-fact OpenGL renderers really made UT99 scream: I could jack up resolutions to unheard of levels on the junkiest of hardware and the game would still FLY (for years after UT99 was obsolete, I was able to amuse myself and my friends running custom UT maps I'd found, thanks to this)

Anyhow, my point is that Epic seems to be compromising on the flexibility that set them apart. Hell, they still rely on PhysX for physics acceleration, and as most of you are no doubt aware, PhysX is a proprietary dead-end: according to nVidia, it's up in the air as to whether or not there'll be any more driver updates for dedicated PhysX hardware and the API won't even run on your nVidia GPU if it detects a Radeon present (apparently there's a hack for this but I don't consider that viable). I'm not sure if there are plans for Unreal to utilize Microsoft's presumably hardware-neutral DirectCompute API for future GPU-based physics calculations or not; perhaps someone could shed some light on the subject.

 

WINE (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34586774)

Not knowing anything about this game, as I am not a FPS gamer, I wonder if a port is really necessary? WINE seems to work quite well for a large number of Windows games.

It sucked one Windows so it's no surprise (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34587514)

UT3 is bargin bin material because it sucked. You can't expect to sell it full price on a smaller platform and make money when it's just easier to buy the bargin bin Windows version if you really want to play the awful game.

I had high hopes (1)

gsmalleus (886346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34588076)

Not that I have played any of the Unreal Tournament series lately, I used to be a heavy UT gamer 8 years ago... I enjoyed the fact that Unreal Tournament 2003 came with Linux installer on the retail discs. I had hoped that this was the future of Linux gaming.

linux ports of windows titles not the answer (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34588426)

It makes more sense to use winelib and to otherwise attempt to make your game run well under Wine. Then you don't have to provide support for Linux. I mean, from a commercial, big box standpoint, that is. For small games it makes total sense to have a Linux version. On the other hand, for small games it makes total sense to develop the game to be cross-platform to begin with because you won't be running into the limitations of the common cross-platform toolkits, or at least not too often.

Not surprising (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34588436)

If this had been announced a few years ago, I might have been disappointed. I honestly like UT2004 better, which works nicely on Linux. Honestly though, major commercial games on Linux will never be unless two things happen: MAJOR improvements to its multimedia support (both sound and video architecture are a total mess), and a single distro must step forward as the supported face of desktop Linux. Probably Ubuntu. I'll likely be castigated for saying that, but that is the only way it can ever happen IMO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>