The Witcher 3 for Linux

+
I still do strongly disagree with the approach. In your case, say, you disagree with Windows dominion over PC gaming, for philosophy perspective. Because Microsoft Dominion is bad, because Direct X dominion is bad. But you do not fight against it. You work it around. You don't buy a Windows, you emulate a Windows.

Not really. I do buy classic games like VtM Bloodlines which have no chance of being released for Linux because they are already historic, but I'm not buying recent games which developers don't release for Linux while they can. This way I support those developers which release Linux games, there are plenty of them. When the game is historic - it doesn't matter if you buy it or not in this aspect, because the game won't be worked on anymore.

You don't buy a Windows, you emulate a Windows

MS gets money from you buying Windows. So emulating Windows strips them of their income, which is perfectly fair - you don't use Windows, so you don't pay them.

To me, it's no different than the guy pirating a game

That's an invalid idea (don't take it personally either). In your understanding, if MS created a lock-in (unethical practice), breaking that lock-in is no different than piracy? Not sure where you took such idea from, but I personally find breaking lock-in (by finding an interoperable solution) not just a legitimate, but even a worthy thing. The whole purpose of lock-in is to enforce monopolistic conditions of market control. Breaking lock-in therefore restores fair competition, so your comparison with piracy is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Not really. I do buy classic games like VtM Bloodlines which have no chance of being released for Linux because they are already historic, but I'm not buying recent games which developers don't release for Linux while they can. This way I support those developers which release Linux games, there are plenty of them. When the game is historic - it doesn't matter if you buy it or not in this aspect, because the game won't be worked on anymore.

Agree on the "old game" stuff. But not buying a game and using it is piracy by all manner and form, whereas you do pirate it for good reasons (Linux) or bad reasons(saving money). I'm gonna assume you don't play the Witcher 3 ;)

MS gets money from you buying Windows. So emulating Windows strips them of their income, which is perfectly fair - you don't use Windows, so you don't pay them.

MS gets money from me using Windows, which contain, a lot of things, including a Graphic API which became so popular it made its only existing historic concurrent (Open GL) irrelevant. AMD, losing the graphic war against Nvidia, especially on the driver scenario, decided to rebalance the cards by creating a lower level API, aka mantle. The decision was obvious : move the expertise from the driver to the developers, stripping their concurrent (Nvidia) of their obvious advantage. The decision was rather good, and arguably, could lead to games better optimized and running better. I've yet to see an obvious and unarguable fact of that.
Anyway, this decision led to Vulkan being created. Suddenly, the dead Open GL initiative was replaced by a more recent initiative, giving new hopes for Linux, who was forced to "emulate" Direct X in order to play games. Will Vulkan work ? will vulkan succeed where Open GL didn't ? My opinion : money still governs this world, and the bad Microsoft still invest more money in their Graphical API than free initiatives do. Hence, when come DirectX 13, 14 and 15, I'd have hard time knowing where Vulkan would be. Arguably, it's a different world, and companies like Google, Apple, Steam and Nintendo probably have incentives to make Vulkan succeed. However, will that serve PC gaming ? Only Steam really is interested in PC gaming so I'd have hard time deciding if Vulkan will eventually beat Direct X in pure graphical power.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Emulating something is always a form of piracy. There are criminality done with good reasons, it doesn't change the criminal form. Eventually, in front of a court, this wouldn't hold. A given WoW legacy server, as well as a Vive VR compatibility tool can both agree to that. Direct X emulation is only possible because there are no real money incentive to kill it.

That's an invalid idea (don't take it personally either). In your understanding, if MS created a lock-in (unethical practice), breaking that lock-in is no different than piracy? Not sure where you took such idea from, but I personally find breaking lock-in (by finding an interoperable solution) not just a legitimate, but even a worthy thing. The whole purpose of lock-in is to enforce monopolistic conditions of market control. Breaking lock-in therefore restores fair competition, so your comparison with piracy is incorrect.

Again, you are, quite validly to be honest, justifying "criminal" (I always considered "criminal" was a rather strong word for software piracy) acts by philosophic/ethic explanations. Monopolistic conditions can be fought, and are fought, via the law. Most countries have anti monopolistic laws, which arguably may not be efficient enough. However, justifying unlawful use of content as "ethical" and denying them as "piracy" is wrong in my opinion. When using a platform, a system, you agree that you pay for the platform, as much as you pay for the content.

When someone buys a PS4 games, he pays both the company producing the game, than he does pay Sony. Same goes for Xbox One, same goes for PC game. Same goes for Steam, etc. A game is compatible with many different platforms : if your platform is not in the list, emulating this platform with any other platform is a form of piracy. In case of PS4, playing a PS4 game on a Linux system, even if you buy the PS4 game in the first, is still piracy in regard of Sony. Same goes for Direct X imo.

This doesn't mean I do not understand your reasons, or even that I do not agree with them. I just call a cat a cat :)
 
Agree on the "old game" stuff. But not buying a game and using it is piracy by all manner and form

Who said anything about piracy?

Only Steam really is interested in PC gaming

You seem to mix up distributors with developers. It should be driven by developers, not by distributors. So as long as developers are interested in PC gaming, it will progress.

---------- Updated at 11:19 AM ----------

In any case, it's irrelevant. Emulating something is always a form of piracy.

No, that's wrong. Please study this subject first. You can start here:
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

---------- Updated at 11:25 AM ----------

Again, you are, quite validly to be honest, justifying "criminal" (I always considered "criminal" was a rather strong word for software piracy) acts by philosophic/ethic explanations.

Again, you are making uninformed statements. See links above which bring legal cases about reverse engineering and breaking lock-in for interoperability purposes.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

---------- Updated at 11:29 AM ----------

A game is compatible with many different platforms : if your platform is not in the list, emulating this platform with any other platform is a form of piracy.

No, it isn't. Cite sources which can substantiate your point if you think it's valid.
 
Last edited:
You seem to mix up distributors with developers. It should be driven by developers, not by distributors. So as long as developers are interested in PC gaming, it will progress.
One cannot exist without the other. So I do not confuse them,

The point is where the money is. You need strong distributor to publish great games. As much I like games such as Divinity Original Sin, or Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland, etc, all those kickstarted little initiatives, I know the big AAA games I like to play such as TW3, are games who require 70Million $ to be produced, and only a few kickstarted project (1 ??) have reached that much money. And those big companies, may be interested in PC gaming, but only if they are guaranteed to get back their money, and more. Steam is more likely to guarantee that than Nintendo, for instance.

No, it isn't. Cite sources which can substantiate your point if you think it's valid.

I dunno, most of your sources point to Reverse Engineering being mostly unlawful, unless authorized by the company owning the software. In brief that is. A court case dating back 25 years, well, I don't know what to tell you but we surely both know that Reverse Engineering is nowadays a real threat to some companies, especially the little ones actually. Surely, I won't drop any tear over Microsoft's being reverse engineered, but that doesn't make it lawful. In the end, I think we both know that Direct X comes with an EULA that wouldn't play very nice with emulation or stealing information from its code to run it on a Linux based system.

Source : https://github.com/apitrace/dxsdk/blob/master/Documentation/License Agreements/DirectX SDK EULA.txt
iii. Distribution Restrictions. You may not
• distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than the Windows, Xbox and Windows Mobile platforms;

It's mostly my point. But if you truly believe I'm misinformed, I don't believe I can force you to my opinion, so I'll not hold my breath too much. Working in a dev company, I know all too well a Linux mentality when I see one ;).

And to be fair, I'm mostly on your side, and I'm all for Multi Platform through lawful methods. Vulkan looks like a good one to me, but I also fully understand CDPR choice to go Windows first and foremost. Because the market they would get with Linux would be only a tiny portion. And they didn't have Vulkan 5 years ago when they started TW3.

CP2077, well, that's another subject. Wait & see.
 
I don't think TW3 required 70 million $ to be produced. Some can correct me, but most of that money was marketing. Actual production costs were lower. Crowdfunded games invest in production more, and less in marketing, which doesn't make them smaller games. Regardless, there are crowdfunded games with huge budgets too (Star Citizen for instance).


So please learn the subject. Reverse engineering for interoperaibilty is legal. It's for sure incorrect to call it piracy.

Reverse Engineering is nowadays a real threat to some companies

It's a threat to those who practice lock-in, i.e. those who attempt unfair competition and monopolistic control. As such, let them be threatened. Market only benefits from fair competition. Monopoly on the other hand is bad.

think we both know that Direct X comes with an EULA that wouldn't play very nice with emulation or stealing information from its code to run it on a Linux based system.

Reverse engineering is using "clean room" approach to avoid copyright violations. I.e. if you take someone's code and copy it - it's not reverse engineering anymore.

---------- Updated at 01:26 PM ----------

Working in a dev company, I know all too well a Linux mentality when I see one
I gave you a FAQ page from EFF, who are legal experts and specialize exactly in such cases which involve rights in digital realm. If you don't agree with what I said, read what they wrote. Feel free to contact them, and ask for clarification on reverse engineering subjects. They'll gladly help.

---------- Updated at 01:29 PM ----------

CP2077, well, that's another subject. Wait & see.

Yes, I hope they'll use Vulkan for it. Time will tell. If they won't, I doubt I'll care about any new CDPR games anymore.

---------- Updated at 01:40 PM ----------

Closer to the topic though:



Does it mean CDPR are done with TW3 and no enhanced edition / Linux version will ever come? Yeah, TW1 & TW2 have a special place in my heart, but not TW3 since it's not even playable on Linux yet.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to join Gilrond-i-Virdan's question.

Personally I still have hope of seeing The Witcher 3 on Linux. It's been promised two times at least and... I don't want to attempt shaming or anything of the sort, shame is a terrible motivator, but rather I want to say that, by judging them by their creations I did come to believe the CDPR is the kind of company that is better than just letting such a serious promise go. I know there is no end to rational arguments for why it might be the actual choice made in this situation and it would be enough for almost any other company, but again, I've come to see CDPR as the kind of company that goes above and beyond what is "enough" to reach the point of what is right. I'd be very sad to let at least some part of that belief go. Not to mention not actually being able to play the last game in the beloved series on my system in the nearest future.

So if you see any possibility for it to happen still, please make it happen. Besides, there is a lot of merit in supporting Linux, and no, obviously not all of it is monetary. And again, CDPR, I expect you to care about this sort of thing. Because I know you love your craft. You're not mercenaries, you're not afraid of trying to do more than everyone else. You're better than that. I still believe that.
 
I don't think TW3 required 70 million $ to be produced. Some can correct me, but most of that money was marketing. Actual production costs were lower. Crowdfunded games invest in production more, and less in marketing, which doesn't make them smaller games. Regardless, there are crowdfunded games with huge budgets too (Star Citizen for instance).

Not most, actually, a bit more than half. It still accounts somewhere to around 35 million. And I did mention Star Citizen as the exception proving the rule than crowdfunding can deliver huge AAA production (yet, remain to be seen, let's not enter the Star Citizen subject, please :), the legend around this game is already bigger than the game itself, it will disappoint for sure). Biggest crowdfunded production accounts for 1 or 2 million. It doesn't make them any worse. Divinity / Pillars are two insanely good games I love. Yet I love TW3 more ;).

I've enjoyed this conversation, so thanks plenty for that. Difference of opinions make conversation more interesting. I believe we said everything we had to on the subject, so even though we will not stop in perfect agreement, it was still great to discuss.

And yes, let's see what CP 2077 brings. I'd be curious to see where is Vulkan in a couple of years (as I doubt CP2077 will release before 2018 )
 
Divinity / Pillars are two insanely good games I love. Yet I love TW3 more

Despite lower budgets, both Divinity: Original Sin and Pillars delivered Linux versions. Yet CDPR with all those millions didn't. So I can't say I love TW3 more, simply because no matter the budget - I can't play it. So from my perspective, crowdfunded games are actually almost always better - they address Linux gaming more willingly.
 

Guest 2364765

Guest
I guess that just like with W2, OGL/Linux version will get outsourced few years from now.
 
I guess that just like with W2, OGL/Linux version will get outsourced few years from now.

Possible, but it will most likely result in inferior performing wrapper. On the other hand if they'll make enhanced edition of TW3 using their updated engine which will support Linux with Vulkan, that would perform well. My guess is the major obstacle for them is converting all their HLSL shaders into SPIR-V. Since you are knowledgeable in REDengine internals, what else do you think poses the barrier for proper port?
 
Despite lower budgets, both Divinity: Original Sin and Pillars delivered Linux versions. Yet CDPR with all those millions didn't.

There are generally, in term of development, 3 things governing a company :
- Priority (how important a development is)
- Velocity (how fast a development can be done)
- Penetration (how much of the customer base will be affected by a development)

POA/DOS, despite being two very good games, are both Niche games. Basically, Old School isometric CRPG, targetting a rather "old" audience, the one who played Baldur's Gate and all the like. As Niche games. both those games have a rather low audience. However, this makes their "penetration" all the more important. If, you sell 500 000 copies, and you expect a possible 100 000 copies on a platform, then this is worth 20% of your playerbase.
The audience on Linux/Apple is small. At least, the extremist audience is (extremist being, the user who would rather not play a game if it means running Windows on a dual boot). For a niche game, this audience may matter. For a game where the expected audience is big, then the sudden market penetration that those extra developments require is not necessarily deemed worthy.
Some companies for instance don't even release their game on "XBOX/PC/PS4". They stick to one or 2 platform. And we're talking a much bigger audience there. Take Uncharted 4 for instance. It would sell very well on PC and Xbox One too, but they'd rather stick with their PS4 exclusivity.

Then comes velocity, and priority. A company cannot do it all.

The thing is really, none of The Witcher games have ever been Linux compatible (and I mean by that, native compatibility, meaning, not using eOn wrapper or Wine, meaning a pure Graphical API port). If anything, I'd say CDPR, despite having many qualities, doesn't have that one. They are not Linux / Apple Enthusiasts.
 
@Nolenthar: Sorry for the delay, I wanted to address your points.

There are generally, in term of development, 3 things governing a company :
- Priority (how important a development is)
- Velocity (how fast a development can be done)
- Penetration (how much of the customer base will be affected by a development)

There are generally these things which drive artists:
- Creativity (desire to create).
- Artistic expression (expressing ideas and thoughts through the artistic medium).
- Reach (connecting to people who can perceive the art).

Note right away, that artistic aspirations are usually at odds with "$$$" aspirations of a company. It's a challenge for any creator. When art becomes commercialized (i.e. money is the goal), it loses its artistic value, because it becomes dull, mass market oriented, soulless, etc. When there is no money on the other hand, it becomes hard to create art because it's costly. So good artist balances the artistic process with sustaining the creativity with some income (such as selling that art for instance).

Computer games are art in my view, at least many of them. And there are clearly two groups of artists. I'd call them "commercial artists" (money is the goal, art is the tool for money), and "creative artists" (art is the goal, money is the tool for art). That distinction is what driving what we were discussing above.

Crowdfunded projects can develop for Linux not only because they increase their user base (yeah, penetration is bigger), but because they want to increase reach. As a rule, crowdfunded games turn to crowdfunding because those who sponsor commercial art (publishers) aren't interested in their work. It's already a huge indicator that they lean into the camp of creative artists, rather than commercial ones. For them it's actually harder to produce more versions at times. Their budgets are more limited their risks are higher (they have no huge publisher backing).

Now, where do CDPR fall in these categories? On one hand they claim they are independent, not driven by agendas of legacy media (publishers and etc.), and they are for artistic freedom. On the other hand they start leaning towards commercialization as well (they have shareholders).

For me, what's important is the above balance. I would prefer a game with lower budget but which pursues artistic vision and tries to reach more people, to a game with bigger budget which is driven by profit only, and doing that excludes people it deems not worthy the effort of huge profits (while it easily could include them).

---------- Updated at 12:43 AM ----------

They are not Linux / Apple Enthusiasts.
That may be one of the major reasons, yes. But it ties into the above. Those who want to reach more people look for ways to do it.
 
Last edited:
I really hope Witcher 3 comes out some time for Linux I am a little late to the party... As I am currently playing through Witcher 2 for the first time at the moment and picked up the first game today. Just based on how good 2 has been If the third was some way playable on Linux I would be picking it up in a instant and it's expansions.
 
Now, where do CDPR fall in these categories? On one hand they claim they are independent, not driven by agendas of legacy media (publishers and etc.), and they are for artistic freedom. On the other hand they start leaning towards commercialization as well (they have shareholders).

For me, what's important is the above balance. I would prefer a game with lower budget but which pursues artistic vision and tries to reach more people, to a game with bigger budget which is driven by profit only, and doing that excludes people it deems not worthy the effort of huge profits (while it easily could include them).

I do really agree with that, and even though I don't think "art" in the sense you describe it is necessarily all that drives CDPR, I believe they are still way above Ubisoft / Activision like producers, who simply produce games because of their money impact. CDPR could have easily adopted a more aggressive pricing approach with The Witcher 3, ala Bethesda/EA/Ubisoft, selling cosmetic DLC, free DLC as paid DLC, etc. Yet they haven't, which speaks good for themselves.

However, I still strongly believe than CDPR aim to build the biggest RPG they can build. They are no longer thinking only as an independant, small studio who can produce good niche games. They chose, back with The Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition (and its PS3/Xbox release), to increase their playerbase drastically, to build a big and popular franchise. This gave birth to The Witcher 3, a game which redefined the genre of CRPG. They did build, in my opinion, and that of many RPG and Gaming specialist, one of the best CPRG ever. A game I will definitely still talk about to my child when he gets of age. A game ala Fallout 1, Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate 2, Dragon Age. A game defining a genre better than any other.
This, I believe, took some compromise, forced them to compromise. Not all their staff were absolutely 100% happy about their choice, about their decision, as the range of new independant / kickstarted games from former CDPR dev can clearly demonstrate. And I believe one of those compromise was to lean toward less independance, and more commercialization. It's not necessarily hard to port a game to Vulkan. It takes times though. Every day at the development company I work with, we have to make similar choice. Yes, this feature may take only a week, or 2 weeks, or a month to deliver. It might be very little work in the grand scheme, and may even look extremely good for a given range of our customers. Yet, our dev team are not infinite, neither are our resources. So we need to make a call, and that means scraping some ideas to code others.

Same goes with CDPR I'd reckon. Maybe building a Linux compatible version wouldn't take so much time, but maybe it would take too much of their time, or not be good enough, or require new recruits they don't have, don't have time to train. It would simply delay other projects. And to be honest, I think The Witcher 3 really burned them out. You can feel it in their interview, in their hurry to "get rid of it". They are borderline of a The Witcher burnout. They need fresh air, they need new thing. And this unfortunately, leads us to understand an Enhanced Edition is surely out of the question. Unless things change, than CP2077 is delayed for some reasons, than shareholders decide otherwise (after all, The Witcher 3 was in the top 10 of the Steam sales recently), TW3 is as good as it's gonna get. And Linux users will probably have to wait for an external DX11 emulator before they can play it.
 
@Nolenthar: Yes, I agree with most of what you said. CDPR are still definitely way better than legacy media like Ubisfot, Activision and EA. On the other hand their goal of "to build the biggest RPG they can build" can push them more towards the above. It's clear in their communication practices and this very issue we are discussing.

And that's exactly what I was trying to say. I think the balance in CDPR is shifting, and not in the good direction. As you said yourself:
Not all their staff were absolutely 100% happy about their choice, about their decision, as the range of new independant / kickstarted games from former CDPR dev can clearly demonstrate. And I believe one of those compromise was to lean toward less independance, and more commercialization.

I think it summarizes what's going on very precisely.

It's not necessarily hard to port a game to Vulkan. It takes times though.

This is what was compromised apparently. They decided to cut costs of porting and making the engine cross platform. However as you said yourself - it's doable. If they don't have people for that, they can hire some. Star Citizen with its big budget and grandiose goals, plans to use Vulkan, so I don't buy the argument that CDPR can't afford it.

However even if you put aside artistic goals, there are rather straightforward technical ones as well. Investing in the engine moves it forward. Enabling Vulkan for it is part of the innovation process. It brings the engine up to speed with the times, making it competitive with other major engines like Unreal, Cry and etc. So I think in this particular case Linux version of TW3 was the victim of their internal decision not to release the REDengine. They initially planned it, and it only makes sense to expect that the engine would be competing with other big names, that are already thoroughly cross platform. Since CDPR scrapped the idea, they probably scrapped Linux effort along the way.

I still hope for the enhanced edition though. While they didn't do it for TW3, it is more likely that they are going to use Vulkan for CP2077. So it's only a matter of their interest to backport it to TW3. Since both previous games received enhanced editions, it might happen as CDPR themselves said in the past.
 
Last edited:
However even if you put aside artistic goals, there are rather straightforward technical ones as well. Investing in the engine moves it forward. Enabling Vulkan for it is part of the innovation process. It brings the engine up to speed with the times, making it competitive with other major engines like Unreal, Cry and etc. So I think in this particular case Linux version of TW3 was the victim of their internal decision not to release the REDengine. They initially planned it, and it only makes sense to expect that the engine would be competing with other big names, that are already thoroughly cross platform. Since CDPR scrapped the idea, they probably scrapped Linux effort along the way.

That is correct. I don't know why they scrapped the plan to make the REDEngine an engine competing with Unreal or Cry Engine. It might have to do with the fact that both those became extremely competitive price wise, making it probably harder for other competing 3d engine to enter the market (it's doable for Unreal / Cry Engine due to the sheer amount of base investment which already went to the product, it may be harder for a competing engine to release to 3rd party because of this) or it might have to do with the complexity of the REDEngine. In any case, none of this helped to make the engine API agnostic.

And I also agree with your opinion on CP2077. I do believe most games released in 2017/2018 will be Vulkan compatible. And as more games become Vulkan compatible, the more "unavoidable" it will become to be Vulkan compatible. Vulkan being compatible with more OS, the business may slowly lean toward Vulkan as a whole. This may however be influenced by some companies SDK (For instead, the VR Works SDK from Nvidia which seems to be DX12 exclusive at this point)
 
Something initially usable (DX11 support in Wine) can be ready by the end of the year. At this rate, my bet is that TW3 will be playable in Wine before CDPR will (if ever) release any Linux version.
 
Top Bottom