Can't people run more than one OS on their PCs? If it were me I'd install windows just to play games and do the rest on Linux.
Apparently. They published some sales numbers for TW3, and stock market regulator went after them for it. Some really weird story.
Some do, but most Linux gamers don't for many reasons. One of them - they use Linux to begin with to avoid using Windows.
See, this is the problem - this whole argument is a variety of the Downgrade thread. "We are planning for Linux" does not disallow, "we changed our minds."
It's game development. They are supposed to do that. Same as graphics changes.
As for what drove new investors, ha! Linux, either way, is a blip. And again, CDPR stock does great - superbly. The Poles love them.
I have -never- seen any indications that CDPR got "burned" by anything resembling stock market manipulation. What Gilrond is spreading FUD about is the time, purportedly, CDPR announced Witcher 3 sales numbers without first sending it to the publick stock news service first. That's a no-no timing-wise. There were no negative consequences I'm aware of.
That's it. And it came from NeoGAF via a Polish magazine so the accuracy is highly questionable in the FIRST place.
Linux does not affect CDPR stock, there is no anti-Linux conspiracy, it's a margin OS not worth porting to. That's it, that's all of it and that's all it ever was.
And again, this is really part of an OS-related thread, as worthy of it's own thread as a PS4 or XOne thread. Which is to say, not very much. Oh no, wait, PS4 and XOne are announced platforms.
Relax, just because you don't know about it doesn't make it false. Don't assume that what you don't know always doesn't exist. It's an arrogant attitude that will get you in trouble. I'll find sources for you.
Here you go: http://biztok.money.pl/biznes/artykul/tworca-wiedzmina-zlamal-prawo-cd-projekt,202,0,1828810.html
Basically, it can be risky for CDPR to say anything, without the overhead of dealing with government bureaucrats first. So it can lead to them saying nothing altogether. It can be a quirk in the Polish law, but it results in way worse communication than we could have otherwise.
Basically, it can be risky for CDPR to say anything, without the overhead of dealing with government bureaucrats first. So it can lead to them saying nothing altogether. It can be a quirk in the Polish law, but it results in way worse communication than we could have otherwise.
Last edited:
Gilrond, this is that SAME article I referred to earlier. It's speculation and based on the fact that CDPR released W3 sales numbers before sending them to the public stock service. So everyone got the news at the same time, not just the stock hawks. The stock market powers don't like that.
It's a) a silly law and b) the article says right there they have no idea what if any negative consequences would arise. It finishes that the terrifying trouble is that...CDPR was asked for clarifications. Yep. And the punishment, that there is no reference of them ever having? A fine..a fine that W3 sales numbers would absorb like nothing.
It's click bait. It's a pfaddle.
There is no anti-Linux conspiracy amongst some hidden CDPR stock holders. It's a simple business decision - not worth the time. It happens.
Well, they don't need to actually get in trouble to change their communication behavior. The risk of it alone can change it. Which could easily happen. That's what's called a "chilling effect".
First of all, how do you know that exactly? Secondly, it's enough for some to have a negative attitude or simply be unfamiliar to avoid it. Which would have nothing to do with "not worth the effort". No conspiracy or anything the like, but the usual "we know this so it's safe, we don't know that - so who cares, there aren't that many users that we'll be ignoring here". That's exactly the mentality of legacy publishers. Linux can be profitable for them, but they still ignore it.
Can CDPR fall into the same bad mindset? I don't see why not, which can be driven by some change in management (previous management clearly didn't have it).
Last edited:
Well, it's not my job to decide that, I wast just voicing my opinion. Lots of interesting discussions in this thread, enough that I felt it warranted its own place.
But if you feel differently, well, that's kinda the point of being a mod.
like, idk, the heads of the company? that would be the LOGICAL first step.
I dunno how you think boards work but they dont vote on EVERY decision. Like, the greenbay packers dont seen out a ballot to their fans (who legally can legally own public shares of the team) to pick who they want to draft.
well it does say something about financials. realizing something is a much more complicated task then before doesnt get a project killed because it's hard, per se, but because it would take too much effort....which means more spent money versus an expected return.
TW2 was a much smaller game than TW3, on a different engine. yeah, it really could have just changed in an instant.
and "they don't think it's worth it" could encompass a LOT of specific reasonings. the bottom line is, if they arent doing it, they dont think it's worth it. maybe they dont want to spend the time, maybe they dont think it'll make money, maybe they just REALLY HATE LINUX. either way, all of those make the project not worth taking one.
One of the heads of the company said before they'd like to release their games for Linux. That was at the time when the market was much smaller than it is today, I already pointed it out, see the quote above. So what changed exactly?
Which again doesn't apply to CP2077, since today they have better tools. I already said it several times - technical difficulties with TW3 are not a measure of how hard it would be for CP2077.
1) as before, probably a technical thing. Saying something 5 years ago doesnt mean it holds true today.
2) they don't owe you an explanation. at this point you sound like a dumped ex constantly pestering the other ex for closure.
better tools doesnt mean its automatically easier or worth it or that it will make things fast enough to recoup costs. The fact is is that the Linux platform is a drop in the bucket for them.
PC is already their worst performing platform, you'd have to be delusional to suggest that they care about tapping into an extra 1.2% of that.
Therefore we can hold their previous words as valid, until they correct them. We can only use their public statements, not assumptions. They didn't correct that statement, so it still applies.
Not automatically, but it means less work, which means lower costs. The hardest part of TW3 work was translating DX11 into OpenGL, you can check how this effort was progressing in Wine with wined3d to see the hardest points they encountered. Not only translating DX11 into Vulkan is much easier (see the rapid progress of dxvk), but translating DX12 into Vulkan is even more so (and Vulkan to Vulkan even more and etc.). All it basically means that porting today is substantially easier effort, depending on the starting technology of course.
Not according to them. Again, I'm going according to their public statements, not according to assumptions.
Anyway, let's stop this constant argument "they avoid Linux because it's a drop in the bucket and market size is too small". Clearly it's not an issue according to CDPR. But we have no info what the issue is.
Last edited:
they did correct the statement. Ceasing development, and telling you, straight up, in this thread, from a developer, that they have no intent to do linux development, explicitly corrects that statement.
and again, they do not owe you an explanation. you didnt pay them to develop for linux, so your need for an explanation means nothing to them.
if you're only going to make 50k in sales, and the cost of development drops from 500000 to 250000, that still doesnt make it worth it.
lower costs doesnt mean its lower enough.
explicitly choosing to not work on a platform is also a public statement, and it just so happens to be the more recent one.
its not an assumption, its an inference.
your definition of "clearly" is a bit....interesting, to say the least.
Does it matter? Effort is effort. In this context effort doesn't exclusively mean effort, either. Effort could just as easily be replaced with cost. Whether it's a substantial cost is besides the point. Consider the volatility of the game development industry. Staying in familiar territory and refusing to go beyond it, sadly, makes perfect sense.
If you cannot overcome development costs with game sales (or DLC, expansions, whatever game developers use to in recent times to make money roll in), you made an unprofitable game. Do this one too many times and, yep, you tank. Now, consider the added effort, or cost, associated with porting a game to Linux. If it's decided the potential gain in game sales doesn't outweigh the additional cost, it's not going to happen. Perhaps the gain does outweigh the cost. Even if it does, it's not unreasonable for the developer to be... apprehensive. If you're in the water, could drown at any time and you know the yellow life preserver works, you're probably not reaching for the red one beside it.
If it makes you feel better, you have a point. Personally, if every game I wanted to play was available on Linux, in a respectable form and at release, I wouldn't be using the point and click OS. Unfortunately....
Any source? They never said that market is too small and they can't afford such development. All your inference is pure assumption. So let's stop that in order to have some productive discussion. Your claims about "owe an explanation" are irrelevant to the above. They never corrected their statements, so their previous words stand. That's how it works, for those who are responsible for their words of course. And let's assume CDPR are responsible for them. No need for demagoguery about how they mean what they didn't say and etc.
50K sales is more than enough to cover that, or you didn't do the math. Besides, not only they'll get way more sales than that, they can cover costs up front (it's called crowdfunding) if they aren't sure they can cover them post release. This dismisses your claim that there is some economical reason for not doing it.
Last edited:
Let's say they made an estimate and aren't sure they can cover the cost. They can evaluate demand by simply crowdfunding that work. It's very straightforward. If there is such demand - they'll get enough backers. If there isn't - they won't, without actually doing anything. Many developers did just that to evaluate demand they weren't sure about. This was proposed to CDPR several times in regards to Linux release. So what stops them from doing it? All these arguments of "not feasible" simply don't hold any ground. Lack of will can be the reason (and I agree with you about some avoiding unfamiliar), lack of resources - not really.
Last edited:
They're making more profit since they stopped doing it than when they did when they did do it? They're a more-renowned company now than they were back then? Linus Torvalds showed up in their studio one day and urinated in their Cheerios, and they've held a grudge ever since?
There's any number of things, really. They would need to answer this one.
You can make up any reason of course, but what's the point? As I said above, we can only work with their expressed statements about this topic. There is no point to guess things.
And we can work with facts. Once we'll know what CP2077 is using for graphics, we can estimate the effort needed for porting.