Something went wrong in CDPR, which can only be driven by some shareholders, because who else? As was said above, for several years CDPR were OK with the market size and potential, and then something went sour while market only continued growing. Usually such change is caused by someone else taking over making decisions, and replacing those who were supportive of Linux development.
It could be the project leads for development, the graphics experts themselves, the programmers, people in marketing, a simple lack of talent and bad experiences with the last time they outsourced (this comes up surprisingly often in companies), simply not enough profit from the effort last time, a curse placed upon them by a fairy queen, most of their Linux customer base indicating they prefer Windows for gaming (yes, this has happened before elsewhere), the Linux build from last time unleashed a poltergeist upon them, etc.
In general sure, but in this case most of the above isn't applicable, because TW2 for Linux came out way earlier, and at the time when they decided to work on TW3 for Linux they already knew their profits, amount of interest from Linux gamers, any reactions to their ports and so on. I.e. it was all sufficient for them to start TW3 work. And then, after a couple years of work something went wrong that made them cancel it. So it's safe to assume it's not in any way related to TW2 Linux release, which they themselves called successful.
It could be caused by things far beyond the partners. There could have been a very sudden, very sharp drop in interest from the Linux fanbase, polling showed a sudden shift in interest from the Linux fanbase (fanbases do sometimes undergo sudden shifts), they did a profit analysis and determined the cost for TW3 and future games would exceed profit, relationship with their third party contractors soured, the aforementioned fairy queen, they could not get a stable build no matter how hard they tried (this sometimes crops up; computer "science" is more an art verging on witchcraft than a true science), they fired the people who knew how to convert it and were left with no notes for how to continue (this also crops up), and so on. There really are hundreds of reasons beyond the shareholders making a decision.
This is where we disagree. I'm still convinced they ran into some technical hurdle that they were unprepared for.
How exactly do they poll it? I've never seen any polls from CDPR about their games for Linux where you could express an interest. Actual requests from gamers like on the GOG wilshlist only show constant growth.
So why don't they then? Technical difficulties could be the reason to cancel TW3, but not to avoid making CP2077 for Linux. That's why I see it as something going wrong in CDPR in regards to Linux releases attitude. I.e. I agree with you it has nothing to do with financials and market size.
The polls could have been private, to be fair. Market research is not always done in public. Email polls, or paying a market research company (that you would never know was working for CDPR), etc.
Right. That's the same thing I'm saying. I'm disagreeing with you that it was a shareholder decision, not that they can't/aren't/shouldn't develop for 2077 too, learning from their mistakes.
It is quite possible later market research performed partway through development contradicted earlier market research. This happens sometimes, either due to flawed methodology or a shift in customer interest.
One of the developers replied earlier on this thread to say they are not.
Most market research is conducted through outside companies. You contract someone else to do the research, they do private polling and trend analysis, and then give you the research. You simply were not selected to be part of the sample group.
Possible, but seems like more of a leap than "this game was bigger in scope than we anticipated, thus a Linux port is more difficult, if not impossible." Just my opinion. I admit I don't know their reasoning either way, but that's my point, none of us (including Sard, Xer, and Gilrond himself) do, so I don't think definitive statements are the way to go.
They said they aren't making it in this very thread. Interviews are a poor source of info, since they are only interested in Windows and incumbent consoles, and CDPR don't like talking to Linux gaming reporters giving the same kind of one sentence answer as in this thread.
Linux gaming market is quite active and any such poll would have been picked up by Linux gaming news. It has never happened.
Well, that's my argument out the window, then. Sorry to have missed that. That's confirmation, as far as I'm concerned.
To be more precise, they aren't making one "currently". See here. Does it mean they can make one later? No idea.
To be fair, the market research angle was one I cited as only one of a list of possibilities.
Standard NDA would cover that. If people are not allowed to talk about it, the Linux gaming news people would not be able to say anything even if they heard about it. This happens quite often. Public research, like EA does, tends to be quite rare.
Ah, I see. Why didn't you say so?
EDIT: I see you were referring to my last statement in that post, not the one in the second paragraph. My mistake.
Well, they used the same non answer for TW3, and we know well it was cancelled. So this answer isn't really encouraging and doesn't indicate that what went wrong in CDPR with Linux releases attitude back then has changed for the better. At the same time it gives an option to ask CDPR about it and show increasing demand.Ah, I see. Why didn't you say so?
Yeah, that's basically the sort of "non-answer" I was previously referring to. If they weren't developing for Linux, why not just say "We aren't developing for Linux?" and save everybody the trouble?
Only reason I can see is they're considering it.
Hmm, fair enough. I really don't see the benefit for CDPR in not just coming out and saying it. I'm trying to figure out some PR benefit, and I'm drawing a blank.
Really? So, they get punished for transparency?
