even at 35% theyd need to have pretty much every public shareholder in the same boat because evein if 20% of them swung, it wouldnt matter. i find that hard to believe. Someone at CD Projekt didnt want it to continue either.
Exactly the point to show them some. They aren't really looking for demand (Steam survey isn't the source for it, as many quite explicitly explain).
According to former VP employee who worked on TW2 for Linux, this has nothing to do with demand, but with their plans to tie TW3 for Linux to Steam Machines. I.e. I suppose they thought Valve as the vendor to associate with Linux as a platform. Like I said above, this platform mentality dominates gaming business, and anything outside of this bracket looks completely foreign to people in it. So when Valve basically stopped actively pushing Steam Machines, CDPR cancelled TW3 for Linux. That's according to that former VP source.
In practice of course Valve's actions didn't make Linux gaming any smaller - it only has grown since then, but since it's not vendor framed, legacy publishers have a headache with wrapping their mind around it. And CDPR said in the past, they aspired to emulate gaming bigwigs, which unfortunately looks like applying to Linux gaming as well.
Many things have changed, and I already explained above how. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that nothing has changed in Linux gaming comparing to the past. It doesn't help the conversation to ignore the facts.
CDPR are quite weak in communication (we already discussed that many times), but until today they at least claimed they want to hear from the community. You make it sound that they are now like EA and Co, want to stay in their distant castle without hearing anything their users want to say. Not sure if if it's your own idea, or that's how CDPR are actually now?
Last edited:
Shareholders don't vote against the top 4. Because they make the big money bigger. You'd have to be nuts to do that. Iwinski and crew have free reign.
You can watch this to get a good idea how much sway shareholders and investors have over CDPR decisions:
That's Kicinski and Nielubowicz there, telling investors they aren't going to tell them a thing and that business comes second to creativity. Within reason.
i think assuming that a subcontractor has full knowledge of a prime's reasoning for certain executive decisions is pretty naive.
I have no way to validate his claims, but that's his word against yours. However he isn't the first to express this idea of publishers liking to put everything into "vendor + platform" box and it being a problem for them when it comes to Linux gaming. I've heard it from several people already, and they know what they are talking about.
Last edited:
one, i have no "word" here. I'm simply expressing skepticism regarding the source's claims.
two, He's a biased source who would most certianly benefit if more games were deved on linux. Of course he's gonna complain that lots of publisher's don't buy it, he NEEDS them to buy it to keep making money.
i could find sources who "know what they're talking about" and contradict you.
none of it matters. the fact of the matter is, businesses arent stupid, if there's real money to be made, they'll do it. Companies this big dont just throw money away just for the lulz.
Not really, he has no stake in VP - he left the company a while ago and he isn't working on Linux gaming today. I have no reason to assume he is making things up.
Not according to CDPR themselves (I gave you links above). What can be reasonable from business standpoint, can be easily ignored by those who make decisions. So who said CDPR can't make the same mistake? No one is infallible.
If CDPR will say that they researched this and concluded that they can't cover Linux development expenses with their potential profits including using crowdfunding - so be it. But they never said so.
i have no reason to assume he actually knows the real reasons either.
there's nothing in the last page and a half of posts
what makes you, with zero professional market research, assume that you know better than a company who's entire existence is based on selling to the public? I'm not saying CD Projekt can't make the same "mistake", i'm saying that there's nothing to suggest that it is one.
They did actually. Not developing a linux version says exactly that.
Here is an example of former GOG managing director Guillaume Rambourg saying how those who make business decisions can be simply irrational (I posted this link above already):
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree_movies/post499
I've seen it multiple times when it comes to DRM and Linux gaming especially.
They never explained what happened and what caused that decision. If anything, it says that they are falling into legacy publisher mentality. Which is a bad sign.
Last edited:
Honestly, I think if CDPR at one point was excited about Linux and making a version of TW3 for it, they saw potential. Because, as Sard himself points out, CDPR does whatever the hell they want, really.
I know Sard references the user numbers (which I personally attach a bit more weight to than you, but no matter), but still I have no reason to think it was a financial decision. 1.2% of god-knows-how-many Steam users is still a tremendous amount of Steam users. The costs could certainly be recouped on launch, and residual sales would be pure profit. Not to mention sales from GoG, or any other platform 2077 appears on.
The fact that they STARTED and continued work on a Linux port is proof enough that they felt it was a good decision. Unless, of course, we're assuming CDPR makes stupid decisions, which I don't personally believe. I think they can make good decisions and then hit unforeseen roadblocks that can be fixed for futur egames.
I think it's far more likely that some technical difficulties, such as the ones you've outlined throughout this thread, were a drawback. If CDPR truly wants the whole Linux thing to work out, I think they've got a MUCH better shot of doing it from the start with 2077, with that as the intention from the get-go.
Exactly. So all these claims of insufficient user base simply can't fit with what CDPR were themselves doing already. They also had access to sales of TW2 for Linux at that time, and it clearly didn't prevent them from starting TW3 for Linux which was continued for almost two years before it was cancelled.
That's likely indeed. At the time VP (supposedly) started to work on TW3 for Linux or were looking into it at least, there was no Vulkan yet and no ready translation tech for DX11. So anything new would have been a substantial technical effort to implement. Which is of course a costly thing that CDPR would have to fund. I suppose CDPR first went along with it, but as things progressed they realized that it's more complicated than anticipated, and further expenses wouldn't be reasonable.
That's why I disagree with Sard who claimed that nothing has changed. Today there are way better tools and options for porting that were simply not available back then. That makes it cheaper and more feasible economically. Therefore any such effort for CP2077 can not be compared to the issues with TW3.
Last edited:
not all of those 1.2% are gonna buy the game though.
What percentage of steam users will buy the game? Take THAT out of the 1.2%. Chances are its a pretty tiny portion. Kind of a lot of effort to make whats essentially a port to go after a small slice of a market thats alsready the smallest of their three platforms and then only sell to a fraction of those people.
The fact tgat they ended is proof enough that they changed their minds. Nothing is set in stone.
What may have once beem a good decision clearly isnt one anymore according to them.
You still can't explain the reason, and why it is relevant today especially. There is no indication it's related to amount of potential buyers of the game. And there is factual evidence that it can't be (number of Linux gamers only grew since release of TW2).
So this claim can be dismissed and we are back to the original question. What stops CDPR from making CP2077 for Linux today?
Literally none of that accou ts for the cost of the additi9nal development.
And number of linux gamers isnt rhe same as number of new Cyberpunk buyers. Theres more linux gamers but you can only tap into a fraction of the market. If the new pool is larger but rhey dont rhink enligh of those peoole are going to buy the game it doesnt matter.
There doesnt need to be an explanation from cd projekt. That they arent doing it says as much as they owe you as an explanation.
You, a layperson, doesnt know the market as well as you want to. You only know one small segment of the picture and you hold your own bias. To assume you know better than a corporation who has actual market research is pure naievte.
And number of linux gamers isnt rhe same as number of new Cyberpunk buyers. Theres more linux gamers but you can only tap into a fraction of the market. If the new pool is larger but rhey dont rhink enligh of those peoole are going to buy the game it doesnt matter.
There doesnt need to be an explanation from cd projekt. That they arent doing it says as much as they owe you as an explanation.
You, a layperson, doesnt know the market as well as you want to. You only know one small segment of the picture and you hold your own bias. To assume you know better than a corporation who has actual market research is pure naievte.
This was discussed above. Such cost today would be less than it was in at the time of TW3 porting efforts.
Then you can't claim any of the reasons why it's supposedly not doable are applicable, since you don't know the reason for it, which can as well be completely unrelated to those. The supposed reasons you brought above aren't applicable anyway, so CDPR should have have another reason if you claim they are doing their research of this topic.
Either way, a lot has changed since TW3 porting time, so it's logical to ask CDPR, how is that reason still relevant today.
Let me also repeat what Marcin Iwiński said in the past:
That was in 2013, when Linux gaming market was quite smaller than it is today. Already back then, CDPR weren't concerned with the size.
Last edited:
Gilrond, you disagree with me for the same reason you disagree with -everyone- that tells you this obvious truth: Linux isn't worth it. The effort of making and supporting a Linux port is not worth the reward.
It's not. The effort for reward is not worth it. It could not be clearer. You can't be convinced because you don't want to see the truth, it's not a happy truth.
When the tools weren't "better" as you say now, you had different reasons. But it has nothing to do with fact or evidence and everything to do with individual preference.
yeah, but the POTENTIAL linux gaming market would have been huge IF steam had delivered. but it didnt.
The fact is, is that of all platforms available, linux is BY FAR the smallest one. here, lets break it down here.
So we say Linux is 1.2% of steam users. we'll assume that say, the same amount DONT use Steam, but game on linux.
that's a fair userbase, no?
Well, have you ever wondered where the OS X version of The Witcher 3 was? Surely, by the same logic, CD Projekt should have made one, because, even back in 2015, OS X had an 3.23% share of steam users. that's 150% what Linux has, even adding the non steam users and ignoring that that data is 3 years older than the 1.2% figure.
https://www.mcvuk.com/development/windows-10-nearly-overtaking-osx-among-steam-users-
This market has a way larger the player base. and yet, no OS X version.
Why is that?
maybe its because the market is too small to be worth tapping into. and if THAT's too small, Linux is most definitely too small to port to.
Sure, I disagree with that claim because it's wrong. Those who actually research this disagree with it too. Those who make this claim simply don't research it and don't know about any developments in that field. That what makes you say that "noting has changed", while in fact there were tons of changes in the recent times.
Potential for vendor + platform box, sure. But real market growth doesn't depend on it. Legacy publishers' mentality however is not comfortable with something that doesn't fit in such box, I already said so above. So CDPR easily could follow the same approach, which led them to cancelling the effort of TW3. Those who don't care about such boxing of estimations, look at the actual market and address it.
Besides, Valve delivered the most important thing. Not the vendor box, but superb development tools which make porting cheaper. Valve were one of the main driving forces behind Vulkan and surrounding tools. Sard can dismiss it all he likes, but that's what's enabling many high quality ports today.
I'm not sure how MacOS is relevant here. It's not meant for demanding games to begin with, because of the weak hardware it's limited to. So it's out of scope.
Last edited: