The Witcher 3 for Linux

+
From The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt on Linux thread:
Barlogs said:
I'm personally will be glad to play in Linux version of this game and really sure I'm not only one. Perhaps after release on the claimed platforms?

I'm sure many users would appreciate it. But CDPR didn't comment on this yet (see the whole thread above). I would guess it's not because they don't care to elaborate, but because they are dealing with some weird 3rd party NDAs. For example, imagine they got an early preview of PS4 SDK which isn't even available to the public. PS4 is supposedly using OpenGL 4.x. But Sony doesn't want people to talk about it (typical prerelease paranoia). So they forbid these developers even to mention any technical details related to it. Now, for CDPR to start talking about OpenGL would make Sony angry. And you can't start talking about Linux without talking about OpenGL and etc. It's just a guess, but I see no other obvious reasons for CDPR to ignore this question.
 
Someone found an answer from CDPR employee about their approach to Linux support (or rather lack of it thereof). It's from the Polish site. Here is a rough translation (with automatic translator, so if anyone can translate better, please do):

Karolina_Gnaś_IR: At this time, we don't plan to release any of our games on Unix-like operating systems based on Linux kernel. This is due to our philosophy of game design and approach to the fans. We always strive to provide players with the same quality no matter the platform on which they play and support our game after the release of patches and accessories for all systems in which they operate. Unfortunately, due to the number of versions of Linux, we are not able to support any of them as far as we wanted to and in accordance with the adopted standards. At the same time we do not want to to differentiate fans on more important and less important, and decide on which Linux specifically our games will be available. Therefore, at present we do not expect adaptations for this system. However, we will inform you on a regular basis, if in the future this decision will change.

In addition, please note that we are currently working on two major multiplatform AAA productions, the first of which - Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt is to appear in stores as early as next year. Our products are in accordance with our philosophy and must be of the highest quality and therefore, entirely focused on the process of development.

I see several serious issues with this answer. First of all, it reminds me the answer from GOG about the fear of fragmentation, which I find to be not substantial enough even though GOG's argument was more valid, since GOG has no access to the source code for most games and can't easilty offer long term support when developers stop updating their games. For CDPR it's not the case at all - they own the code and can provide support as long as they want to. Secondly, the argument about not differentiating fans by offering limited support (for a subset of distributions) flies in the face of the fact that by offering no Linux versions at all CDPR differentiates fans even more (i.e. giving preferential treatment to Windows users). These arguments don't sound convincing at all.
 
That's kind of sad, mostly because it shows their lack of interest.

I don't think they really understand how it works. As a Debian user, I would be delighted if they released native "Linux" binaries of their games, designed for ANY specific OS they chose. Go ahead, choose Ubuntu or any other system that is statistically popular. That's better than no Linux client at all. I'll find a way to make it work in Debian. Other users with less experience can simply run Ubuntu and happily play their games.

As you said, Gilrond, this is not a good enough reason. They *are* differentiating fans by not doing it if they can, which is what we gather from this person's answer.

Edit: and why the hell was your previous post downvoted?
 
Volsung said:
I don't think they really understand how it works. As a Debian user, I would be delighted if they released native "Linux" binaries of their games, designed for ANY specific OS they chose. Go ahead, choose Ubuntu or any other system that is statistically popular. That's better than no Linux client at all. I'll find a way to make it work in Debian. Other users with less experience can simply run Ubuntu and happily play their games.
Exactly. In the worst case, I'll simply get another hard drive, install the supported distro there and bingo! I don't mind another free/libre OS dedicated to CDPR games specifically even though it's not what I usually use. But I won't do such thing with Windows.

In general that answer either indicates that CDPR didn't do expert evaluation of this matter, or that the person who replied didn't clearly convey their position, and instead gave some PR-type of the answer.

If this situation is going to stay as is, the only option to play Witcher 3 for non Windows users would be to wait until Wine will add DirectX 11 support. And that if we'll be lucky that TW3 would work there.

Volsung said:
Edit: and why the hell was your previous post downvoted?
No idea. Some people don't like when Sony is mentioned may be?
 
On related note - just found these slides about Sony's PSSL (PlayStation Shader Language). It's Sony's own API altogether different from OpenGL and DirectX. So it means that PS4 version of REDengine can potentially be written in a completely unportable fashion. On the other hand Sony before stated something about supporting OpenGL 4.
 
Seems some people can just grasp when someone tells them no.

CDPR has said time and again no to Linux, first with regards to GOG now with the Witcher, so how about simply accepting a fact: They are not going to port to Linux, nor do they want to.
 
Costin Moroianu: They said no in the Polish forum. What's not to grasp? When was it time and again? I saw one answer only so far. The questions though are on the reasoning behind it. "Don't want" would do it better, but it's you saying it, not CDPR.

GOG's issue is completely unrelated. See another thread about it. GOG has to deal with supporting works of other developers. CDPR support their own code. Also, if you didn't pay attention, GOG are actually working on adding Linux support, but they take their time. CDPR don't seem to be working on that at all.
 
Bogus reasoning is your justification for your continued crusade that you have been waging for what well over a year now? As for not wanting it, well if they wanted it then they would make it happen. The Distro argument is just PR talk.

Nor is GOG unrelated since it's owned by the same company, who distribute Witcher games through it. IF there is no Linux version for GOG games how can you expect one for TW3?

I am an exclusive PC gamer and as such there are plenty of games that I cannot play that I would love to due to console exclusivity, however waging a crusade to try and make it when the developer has made it clear they are not going to do it is just a wast of time.

So cut the crap, and move on.
 
CostinMoroianu said:
Bogus reasoning is your justification for your continued crusade that you have been waging for what well over a year now?
Do you think Linux users should stop bugging CDPR about it? No dice ;) Especially when their officially expressed reasoning doesn't make any sense.

CostinMoroianu said:
As for not wanting it, well if they wanted it then they would make it happen. The Distro argument is just PR talk.
Yes, that's exactly the point. If that's a PR talk it can mean that they didn't even perform any technical evaluation of this matter for their games. So it's simply not correct to express that as not differentiating their fans. Even PR talk needs to be accountable for. In contrast, GOG folks said explicitly they are doing R&D work on this and it takes them time.

CostinMoroianu said:
Nor is GOG unrelated since it's owned by the same company, who distribute Witcher games through it. IF there is no Linux version for GOG games how can you expect one for TW3?
Nothing stops them from simultaneously doing that. So GOG is not tied to it really (even though it is probably a prerequisite for distribution). Enabling Linux support on GOG is probably a comparable scope project to making a Linux version of REDengine.
 
CostinMoroianu said:
I am an exclusive PC gamer and as such there are plenty of games that I cannot play that I would love to due to console exclusivity, however waging a crusade to try and make it when the developer has made it clear they are not going to do it is just a wast of time.

That's actually not a very good example. Consoles are closed platforms, you either get one of you don't. Personal computers are, as you well know, open. You can install any operating system you like and run any programs you like. You can do more than just play games. Console games are designed to be played with a gamepad on certain types of screens and so on, and this format doesn't always adapt well to computers and their devices. It also goes the other way around: imagine playing a traditional RTS on a console. So it makes sense that some games come out for consoles and not for desktop computers. We all get that. There's also the money that console manufacturers pay to game companies, and so on and so forth.

But imagine if from a group of people, all of them with gaming-level PC's, only *some* get to play PC games because companies make games for one of many optional systems. And on top of that, it's one that is of inferior technical quality and imposes lots of licensing restrictions on its users. But it's not that simple as just releasing binaries for each and every platform, right? Well, do remember most of the game's assets *could* be platform independent. Very much like consoles, all PC's share certain elements, such as their memory hierarchy and basic instruction set, and on the external level, the same peripherals. Even if they run different operating systems. So in order to release games that work on the most important OS's around, and therefore reach the majority of people, game companies could choose to use industry standards instead of closed, licensed third party technologies that dictate where your games can run (and where they can't).

I'm sure if CDPR announced they would do something drastic with TW3... such as ignoring all decisions from TW2 and starting from scratch, there would be a non stop uproar until they gave a good enough reason for that, or until they changed it back. Official statements like "we can't guarantee decision imports will satisfy everybody so we won't do it" or fans telling you "if they wanted they would make it happen, so stop trying" would not be taken seriously.

What we're talking about here is not just a game feature, it's a feature that determines how you or anyone else can play the game, and whether some people will even get to play it or not. Even if they already have a capable PC. So it's not really a waste of time. CDPR makes PC games, so why not request that they make their games available to all PC users, and not just some? Also, if we go deeper into their philosophy, isn't it ironic that the flag bearers of DRM-free gaming are tied to DRM'ed technologies, and force their fans to use or circumvent DRM'ed operating systems to play?
 
Nobody who is serious about producing games with AAA production values is going to take that kind of public shaming seriously.

When the subject is CD Projekt and TW3, we are not discussing game development as a hobby or a one-off or an amateur business like a crowdfunded development. Maybe if it was, arguments that development that can't be shown to be economic because it's fun for a few people to demand would be taken seriously. But it isn't. It's an AAA development being produced by a publicly held company.

Games cost a lot of money to produce. The more platforms they have to be produced for, the more money they cost. Every platform that a game is to be produced for has to be justified by return on investment. Platforms that cannot be demonstrated to produce sufficient sales to justify that investment are not going to get ports. That's the way development as a business works.

The consumer market is an unjust place where not everybody gets his way, and the popular usually carries the day over the superior technology.

Come back with hard figures for sales of a AAA title in the Linux market and maybe demands to port TW3 to Linux will receive serious consideration.
 
GuyN said:
Nobody who is serious about producing games with AAA production values is going to take that kind of public shaming seriously.
Nobody is going to take the words of someone claiming to be busy with whatever serious production seriously if their reasoning is not professional. AAA or BBB don't matter, it's a label, nothing more. Professionalism is not measured by the budget size or PR talk. Normally CDPR are making professional statements about what they do. And why do you assume that "AAA" companies don't take feedback seriously? Is CDPR the kind of company like EA and co. who care not about their own users? I don't think the mere AAA label requires one to be like that.

GuyN said:
Games cost a lot of money to produce. The more platforms they have to be produced for, the more money they cost. Every platform that a game is to be produced for has to be justified by return on investment. Platforms that cannot be demonstrated to produce sufficient sales to justify that investment are not going to get ports. That's the way development as a business works.
Why are you making this argument, instead of CDPR saying this when answering a clear question? I can come with my own potential answers as well. Is that the point? No, the point is that those questions were directed to CDPR. They could easily talk about economic viability, restrictions placed on them by shareholders or what not. They didn't. So I see no point in making answers for them in such case, especially when economic viability is not something easy to estimate for those outside the company.
 
CDPR is under no obligation to answer, and demanding answers will not change that. Feedback is not about demanding answers or criticizing the company for not answering just because you think you are owed an answer to a question that is often repeated and never answered to your satisfaction.

Professional engineering is not about using somebody else's preferred technology; it's about getting profitable results from your effort. You say it is not about the production values or the size of the budget, but that is simply not so. It is entirely about producing a product with the desired production values and demonstrated marketability, within the available budget and at an economic return on investment. Anything less is not professional at all; it's amateur.
 
GuyN said:
CDPR is under no obligation to answer, and demanding answers will not change that.
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.

GuyN said:
Professional engineering is not about using somebody else's preferred technology; it's about getting profitable results from your effort. You say it is not about the production values or the size of the budget, but that is simply not so.
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.
 
GeraltTheRiv said:
http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/07/gog-doesnt-plan-on-introducing-linux-support-in-the-foreseeable-future/

I would say this is very pertinent and most likely reflects CDPR view on Linux...........
This was already discussed above. It's not directly related (see above why). In short if you didn't follow, GOG's main problem is to figure out how to enable long term support when they don't control the code. It is a challenge indeed on any system, not just on Linux. They are just used to handle this on Windows already. This problem does not apply to CDPR - they control their own code. And, unlike CDPR's answer, GOG said that they are working on it, as a long term effort.
 
Gilrond said:
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. 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 was not professional. See the reasoning why, all was explained above. As I said, in this case it's hard to say whether it the problem with the answer itself, or with CDPR expertise in making Linux ports for example.

The quote you posted that started (or re-started) this discussion is from CD Projekt forum, where they were answering questions FROM INVESTORS. Not only from fans, not only from tech geeks, but also business people that invest or are interested in investing MONEY in the company and are seeking results counted in MONEY, not professionalism or CDPR's stance towards open source technologies.

Therefore the answer was and should have been balanced and involved PR talk for good reason. So, take this context into consideration before you go further with blaming them for not addressing your concern in a right way(for you).

EDIT: Also, the topic title says "Lista pytan do zarzadu" which means "List of questions to the board of members". What type of answers do you expect from a board of members, people that are concentrated on running the company as a business?
 
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.

gregski said:
Also, the topic title says "Lista pytan do zarzadu" which means "List of questions to the board of members". What type of answers do you expect from a board of members, people that are concentrated on running the company as a business?
I guess normal economic reasoning. Something like: "we aren't sure that Linux market is big / active enough to enter it now, etc. etc.", "spent effort will be more than potential gain etc. etc.". That what I'd expect from business people who don't want to do Linux ports at present.

I.e. then discussions with them could be about the economical aspect. But they answered from the technical perspective. A very different basis for the reasoning there.
 
I think a key aspect here is that CDPR has been very timid approaching Linux, for better or for worse. If they came up with a clear business statement declaring Linux as an impossibility due to their profit goals and expectations, I could respect that and wait a while before asking again. But instead they have offered vague answers that seem to be directed to fans and not investors, talking about technical limitations that do not necessarily exist. These answers seem more evasive than anything else, and instead prompt fans to keep asking for clarification.

I know games for Linux are a small market. I can understand a company's legal and financial obligations. Industry is not built upon fairness or ethics. But CDPR has already gone beyond its obligations: they provide free DLC, free enhanced edition and even a free digital backup. This is unthinkable for so called AAA developers.

So I don't think they mind if we ask them to further their no DRM agenda. At least until they offer an answer to either fans or investors. Again, the fragmentation argument is not really an answer, it's just them saying they don't want to do it because they would leave somebody out. But they already are, so why should that stop them? This is different from "we don't want to" and "we can't".
 
Top Bottom