The Witcher 3 for Linux

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Volsung: Also it's good to remember that CDPR is working on licensing the REDengine to 3rd party developers in the future. Many are interested in really cross platform engines with support for Linux and Mac OSX. The argument about fans doesn't apply here at all. It can be as well economically viable as successful engines like Unity show.

 

[gregski]

gregski: Good, but the answer was not really a mixture of "we aren't sure this will be profitable", and "it's too difficult". It was a mixture of "we don't want to differentiate fans" and "it's too difficult". I.e. it doesn't seem to be addressed to investors, who as you say should be primarily interested in returns from their investments. It sounded more like an answer to fans and those interested in technology.

It was an answer about a specific technical feature that should be neutral, as the audience might be both - fans and investors. So they had to find balance.

 

[GuyNwah]

They aren't, but they did answer. And their answer doesn't make sense. CDPR users are under no obligation not to question such answers as not making sense.


Budget can be wasted and result can go bust. Weren't there big budget failures in the past? As I said, professionalism is not measured by the amount of money, it's measured by well, professionalism, nothing else. Since we can't evaluate CDPR efforts towards cross platform support, we can only evaluate their answers about it. And the answer did not sound serious to me. See the reasoning why, all was explained above. As I said, in this case it's hard to say whether it's the problem with the answer itself, or with the lack of CDPR's expertise in making Linux ports for example.

Yes, professionalism IS measured by completing your projects. On time, on target, and on budget. Budgets are wasted and results go bust, not because of bad luck, but because of unprofessional engineering and management. The surest way to waste a budget is to add unnecessary requirements during development. It's called "requirements creep". The presence of requirements creep is a strong indicator that the project has been mismanaged and will overrun or fail.

So, what is an unnecessary requirement? In the simplest definition, it's one that doesn't make its cost back. In the case of CDPR's games, it includes a port for which there is no profitable market.

Demonstrate that there is a market for hundreds of thousands of Linux desktops running TW3, and CDPR will of a certainty take you seriously. Fail to demonstrate that there may be more than a hundred or so, and there is nothing that makes them take you seriously.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Yes, professionalism IS measured by completing your projects. On time, on target, and on budget.

Exactly. In this case the project doesn't even exist and at most was just researched as a possibility, so you can't evaluate it by completion or budget. Supposedly, after the research CDPR conlcuded not to do it. What's questioned is the basis for the outcome provided in the answer. It doesn't sound serious. You keep saying - budget, market, failure. I'm not arguing with you, because all those are potential things to evaluate. CDPR didn't say anything like that though. I'm fine with them saying they aren't doing that now because of their budget concerns or risks. Like Volsung said above, it's a good answer. Their current answer leaves one to question them again, since it doesn't make sense.

 

[GuyNwah]

No. They have a game to develop. That is their project. Anything else, including porting the game to an additional platform, is an additional requirement.

Investors understand budgets and the need for markets and the things that make projects fail. They're not unaware of these things, and they're not inclined to be contentious about demanding what they see as sufficient reason for their pet requirement not being addressed.

The explanation given was a good and sufficient one for the audience; I don't know whether any explanation would suffice for your demands.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

No. They have a game to develop. That is their project. Anything else, including porting the game to an additional platform, is an additional requirement.

Investors understand budgets and the need for markets and the things that make projects fail. They're not unaware of these things, and they're not inclined to be contentious about demanding what they see as sufficient reason for their pet requirement not being addressed.

The explanation given was a good and sufficient one for the audience; I don't know whether any explanation would suffice for your demands.

This isn't exact. Their REDengine is a project in itself, officially scheduled for development and planned for future usage even outside CDPR. You yourself linked their business plans somewhere which mention that. Their games are also projects, based on the engine as a dependency. If engine supports N number of platforms games can follow. So if you think asking about games doesn't fit with the project which is focused on narrow amount of platforms, asking that about the engine doesn't. The answer given applies to the technical aspects of their engine all the same.

To put it in your own words - they have an engine to develop. To sell it successfully to developers, platforms coverage is important.

 

[GuyNwah]

The mistake is in attempting to consider the engine to be an independent project. It isn't, and it can't be. The current generation of games has to be delivered on that engine, which has to meet the full requirements of the games.

The distinction between imposing a requirements creep on your revenue project (the games) and imposing it on a co-requisite project (the engine) is one without a difference. Not only that, it is important to understand that it is without a difference; this is a point that I am sure CDPR understands well but that you are attempting to obfuscate.

Being able to sell the engine means nothing unless they deliver their games on it, on time and profitably, because nobody will buy an engine that didn't meet that requirement at a price justifying its development.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

So if they don't have the engine as a focused subproject, how can they possibly provide it for others to use? Sure, their first game will be the proof of concept for that engine. But being tied to it (i.e. not being able to separate the engine as a standalone project) won't help them make it attractive for third party developers who will have to interact with it outside of CDPR own games scope.

 

[GuyNwah]

It's not a proof of concept. It's their core business. It's two AAA titles that have to make tens of millions for them.

The engine can be a project for separate sale once it has met its requirement to be the vehicle on which they deliver those titles. When it becomes such a project, the demands CDPR is going to listen to are not yours or mine, but the requirements of the companies that can license it to make games profitably. If those companies believe they can make games for Linux at a sufficient profit to license Red Engine at a price where CDPR can make a profit, then a Linux port is probably going to happen. Otherwise, it will not, and no amount of demands on the part of people who aren't customers for the Red Engine will make it so.

And until then, pretending that it is or should be or or could even be a standalone project is a dangerous kind of wishful thinking. It's the kind of wishful thinking that turns going concerns into nine-figure bankruptcies.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It's not a proof of concept. It's their core business. It's two AAA titles that have to make tens of millions for them.

For their potential engine users (i.e. other developers) it is a proof of concept essentially. They can see the engine in action used in these games.

the demands CDPR is going to listen to are not yours or mine, but the requirements of the companies that can license it to make games profitably.

We already see that CDPR is not interested in requests from users of their games about more platforms support, while claiming at the same time they don't want to differentiate their fans (but they do). Let's wait to see how they'll address requests from developers. Time will tell.

 

[gregski]

For their potential engine users (i.e. other developers) it is a proof of concept essentially. They can see the engine in action used in these games.

Umm, I don't think that the main criterion for other developers to choose RED Engine is to see the engine in action. Proof of Concept requires certain technical criteria to be met but they should be strictly tied to business outcomes/KPIs. If those business outcomes/KPIs are not including/justifying Linux as a potential market that can provide return on investment, the simple fact of RED Engine being compatible with Linux will not be considered as an argument in favour of choosing the RED Engine.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

gregski: It's simpler than that most of the time. The number of high quality cross platform engines is pretty small. If REDengine will be innovative and well designed, it will become a strong contender right away, since the choice is limited. It can easily become the best engine out there altogether. Competition on the Windows scene is tougher, since there are more participants who don't care about cross platform support.

 

[gregski]

gregski: It's simpler than that most of the time. The number of good cross platform engines is pretty small. If REDengine will be high quality, it will become a strong contender right away, since the choice is limited. Competition on the Windows scene is tougher, since there are more contenders.

Right, but there is a reason for the competition in the Windows space - if there's any potential for solid ROI, it's there. Not in the practically non-existent(at least not proved by any solid statistics) Linux market.

And it's not like RED Engine is going to compete with CryEngine or Unreal. CDPR are poisitioning RED Engine as an engine designed strictly to develop non-linear, story driven RPG games - and in this space the number of contenders is definitely smaller.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Right, but there is a reason for the competition in the Windows space - if there's any potential for solid ROI

The reason for higher competition is simply because it's easier to make an engine for one OS, and they obviously make it for the most used in this case. Cross platform engines on the other hand are more rare, so it's easier to find demand which is higher than the supply (of these engines). I.e. Windows market is saturated. Cross platform engines market has more opportunities.

 

[GuyNwah]

The reason for higher competition is simply because it's easier to make an engine for one OS, and they obviously make it for the most used in this case. Cross platform engines on the other hand are more rare, so it's easier to find demand which is higher than the supply (of these engines). I.e. Windows market is saturated. Cross platform engines market has more opportunities.

At the risk of entering into an Argument Clinic style of argument, no, the reason for higher competition is not because it's easier to make a single-OS engine. The reason for higher competition is exactly as gregski stated: return on investment. The return on investment needed to sell a single-OS engine on Windows is well demonstrated and clearly obtains. The opportunities that you suppose to exist in the cross-platform market remain unexploited, not because they pose any difficulty to experienced developers, but because they cannot be made profitable in the foreseeable time frame needed to justify the effort.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The return on investment needed to sell a single-OS engine on Windows is well demonstrated and clearly obtains, while the existence of any possibility of positive return on investment at all for a cross-platform engine of the caliber of Red Engine is nothing more than speculation.

You aren't arguing with anything. Why is return of investments there well demonstrated? Because it's easier. I.e. less resources are needed to produce the product which has certain level of return in a stable market. Growing new market is not easier, it's harder. It doesn't mean that it's not profitable for anyone. It has more risks and more potential for growth. Same ages old options as always. Stable saturated market with guaranteed rules or new frontier with risks and opportunities.

 

[gregski]

The reason for higher competition is simply because it's easier to make an engine for one OS, and they obviously make it for the most used in this case. Cross platform engines on the other hand are more rare, so it's easier to find demand which is higher than the supply (of these engines). I.e. Windows market is saturated. Cross platform engines market has more opportunities.

No, the reason for higher competition is not because it's easy - if Linux market was already delivering or at least promising decent ROI, companies would simply follow the numbers and take the effort to develop engines for Linux too. THAT would be the demand that would pull supply to Linux market and that how demand-supply mechanism works. Simple fact that the demand is higher than supply doesn't justify additional investment in development - if there are not enough products that try to meet the demand, it means 2 things:

1. The demand is not quantified well enough to justify investment and the risk involved in it
2. The demand is quantified but is still too low to justify investment

CDPR as a business acts on solid numbers not on unproven statements like "the demand is higher than supply".

 

[GuyNwah]

Return on investment consists of customers buying your product at a price and in numbers where you turn a profit. There is nothing about the Linux market for games or game engines that allows a company that develops AAA titles and develops an engine tailored for AAA titles to believe without experience that it will be able to turn a profit in that market.

That market, to the extent it exists, consists of game developers with whom CDPR will already have had extensive contacts. You don't get to play in engine development space unless you already have prospects. They know who their prospects are, and if those prospects aren't playing in Linux space, they have no reason to cater to a demand that does not even exist.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

No, the reason for higher competition is not because it's easy - if Linux market was already delivering or at least promising decent ROI, companies would simply follow the numbers and take the effort to develop engines for Linux too

Some do exactly that with success. See http://unity3d.com
There is nothing new in the fact that there is a smaller amount of those who take higher risks for more opportunities in the new markets, and bigger amount of those who prefer the certainty of the big and stable ones. It was always like that. Both can work and both can fail regardless of the level of the risk.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

There is nothing about the Linux market for games or game engines that allows a company that develops AAA titles and develops an engine tailored for AAA titles to believe without experience that it will be able to turn a profit in that market.

Those are empty words, since cross platform engine developers demonstrate the opposite. If they wouldn't have profit from their efforts, they wouldn't bother or simply wouldn't be able to.

Also, don't forget that it's a two way street. Less engines allow less opportunities for developers. More engines give more options and more interest in those platforms (for developers) in result.