WTF is up with UT3 for Linux?

[BadMofo666]

I keep reading that "we're working on it," but WTF? It's been how long since UT3 has been released, and still there is no Linux client. Unless they're re-writing the entire game, there is no excuse for it to take this long. I'm unfamiliar with UT3, but I guess if it only uses DirectX then the engine would have to add OpenGL support, but still. If it's written in OOP style like any other modern and large application, there shouldn't be many problems. Even if there is only one person working on this full-time, it'd only take a few months at the most. WTF is going on?

Is there ever going to be a Linux client?

 

[Fuzz]

Just run Win XP as a virtual machine on your Linux and install UT3 in there.

 

[brold9999]

QUOTE=BadMofo666;2334741]If it's written in OOP style like any other modern and large application[/QUOTE]

You may be overestimating the pervasiveness of OOP here. Most modern and large applications are available only in spaghetti flavor. Proper and effective use of OOP is an ideal that's rarely reached in real organizations.

You are correct that if UT3 was written in such a manner it should be pretty easy to make available to linux; the fact that it isn't available implies that UE may not be coded that way. Remember UE3 is on an over 10 year old codebase which has had massive chunks ripped out and overhauled several times. You can also see alot of places in UT3's scripts where elegance or extensibility was sacrificed wholesale for "speed" - the UE source could be the same.

 

[JaFO]

... If it's written in OOP style like any other modern and large application, there shouldn't be many problems. Even if there is only one person working on this full-time, it'd only take a few months at the most. WTF is going on?
...

the last official news was that there were 'issues' with certain 3rd party components.
I think the exact wording of that statement implied that it was more like a legal/licensing issue and not a technical problem ...

 

[Beelzebud (Satanas)]

Yeah it sounds like one of their technical partners won't allow a Linux port. They've never said who it was, but I suspect either Havok or Sony.

In any rate, I'd say the safe bet is that there won't be a UT3 Linux port. They would have done it by now, and at this point, I'm not sure there would be any financial incentive for them to do it.e

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Yeah it sounds like one of their technical partners won't allow a Linux port. They've never said who it was, but I suspect either Havok or Sony.

In any rate, I'd say the safe bet is that there won't be a UT3 Linux port. They would have done it by now, and at this point, I'm not sure there would be any financial incentive for them to do it.e

Seems like to me that it's pretty much done, they just can't release it.

I'd say the likelihood of it being released "ever" is high. But the likelihood of it being released "soon" is very low.

 

[StalwartUK]

It probably won't happen. They've missed their window of oppourtunity. Their attitude right now seems to be "brush it under the carpet and hope everyone forgets about it".

 

[brold9999]

It probably won't happen. They've missed their window of oppourtunity. Their attitude right now seems to be "brush it under the carpet and hope everyone forgets about it".

Yeah, I'd kind of have to agree. Epic's corporate strategy seems to be moving away from PC and toward consoles; most of the customers they're targetting don't care about a Linux port for an old game. (not that I'm saying UT3 is "old" but that for the market they seem to be targetting, a game is "old" after the next AAA title their friends want to play comes out which is usually only a few weeks after the game launches.)

 

[oldkawman]

I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but, the success of the UT2K4 Linux port likely created some very bitter taste in some mouths for whatever reasons. This may be the result of those with the bitter taste looking for a way to kill a Linux UT3 port in an under the table sort of fashion.

 

[IronMonkey]

I am not usually a conspiracy theorist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Yeah, I'd kind of have to agree. Epic's corporate strategy seems to be moving away from PC and toward consoles; most of the customers they're targetting don't care about a Linux port for an old game. (not that I'm saying UT3 is "old" but that for the market they seem to be targetting, a game is "old" after the next AAA title their friends want to play comes out which is usually only a few weeks after the game launches.)

Their broader corporate strategy MAY BE "more" focused on consoles. But that doesn't mean they are not interested in the PC at all anymore. For recently released projects, they are, to some degree, at the whim of their publisher (Microsoft).

I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but, the success of the UT2K4 Linux port likely created some very bitter taste in some mouths for whatever reasons. This may be the result of those with the bitter taste looking for a way to kill a Linux UT3 port in an under the table sort of fashion.

Success? You mean like 1-3% penetration? I really don't think that is a market ANYONE is terribly concerned with right now.

 

[GreatEmerald]

Seems like to me that it's pretty much done, they just can't release it.

I'd say the likelihood of it being released "ever" is high. But the likelihood of it being released "soon" is very low.

Have to agree with this. We obviously saw the screenshots of UT3 running on Linux, and a long time ago. They said they were just fixing bugs. Then they released the Titan pack, that should have taken some more time, but it took longer than usual now...

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Their broader corporate strategy MAY BE "more" focused on consoles. But that doesn't mean they are not interested in the PC at all anymore. For recently released projects, they are, to some degree, at the whim of their publisher (Microsoft).

I doubt they were forced to release their games on X360 exclusively because MS strong armed them. Epic seems to genuinely like X360 gaming more than PC gaming. Their newer titles on PC will appear on the X360, but the reverse is not true. So for a company that has bad mouth PC gaming one or twice (Note1, Note2), and seems to be making less PC titles than before (compare to X360), they certainly don't seem all that interested in PC gaming at the present.

They will probably support the PC platform for the Unreal Engine, and that will probably not change. However, it will not be a surprise if they announce an other X360 exclusive title.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I doubt they were forced to release their games on X360 exclusively because MS strong armed them. Epic seems to genuinely like X360 gaming more than PC gaming. Their newer titles on PC will appear on the X360, but the reverse is not true. So for a company that has bad mouth PC gaming one or twice (Note1, Note2), and seems to be making less PC titles than before (compare to X360), they certainly don't seem all that interested in PC gaming at the present.

Both of those links you posted were to Cliff Bleszinski bad mouthing the PC. It's quite a leap to say that his opinion translates to Epic's corporate policy.

Additionally, I wasn't saying that Microsoft strong-armed them, but they certainly have a specific level of influence. I'm sure it affects Epic's decision to port Gears 2 to PC, for example, if Microsoft tells them they won't fund one cent of it and won't spend any marketing dollars on it either. As far as Shadow Complex goes, Chair has only ever made 360 exclusive XBLA games, so it's not terribly surprising that it isn't ported. Plus, again, MS is the publisher

So, you're talking about one or two games (if you count Gears 1) that are 360 exclusives. I hardly consider that a strict corporate policy.

They will probably support the PC platform for the Unreal Engine, and that will probably not change. However, it will not be a surprise if they announce an other X360 exclusive title.

It really just depends on what the game is and who the publisher is. They already announced that People Can Fly was working on a multiplatform game. I think it's safer to say that Epic's corporate policy is to release on as many platforms as makes sense.

 

[oldkawman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

LOL, I agree, that is a viable alternative theory. But, not nearly as interesting to discuss.

 

[q_mi_4_3]

Both of those links you posted were to Cliff Bleszinski bad mouthing the PC. It's quite a leap to say that his opinion translates to Epic's corporate policy.

Well, Dude Huge certainly isn't as high on the company as I thought he might be. Still, he is probably at least a lead designer. There is possibly some truth in his statements that can be apply to Epic overall.

So, you're talking about one or two games (if you count Gears 1) that are 360 exclusives. I hardly consider that a strict corporate policy.

Well Epic hasn't release that may number of titles by themselves. In recent times it was Gears1, UT3, and Gears2, so thats 67% based on a 2:1 ratio. Admittedly, Gears1 was ported to PC so its really a 50% based on a 1:1 ratio. That is hardly evident of a company policy, but it does seem to be the foundation of a trend (especially if we factor in the success of X360 Gears2 verse multiplaform UT3). We also know that Gears3 is coming, and probably X360 only. As for the other new IPs, I suppose we will have to wait and see, but again I won't be surprise if it swings X360 only.

I think it's safer to say that Epic's corporate policy is to release on as many platforms as makes sense.

Then Epic, like many other companys, will support the PC less because of the perceived piracy. This comes right back as support for Epic to start its trend of pro-console development. Epic may not stopped PC game development altogether, but it is possible that they might support it only in a small degree. It is speculation, but I haven't seen Epic show major interest in PC gaming themselves, and it is mostly others that defends Epic's interest in PC gaming.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well, Dude Huge certainly isn't as high on the company as I thought he might be. Still, he is probably at least a lead designer. There is possibly some truth in his statements that can be apply to Epic overall.

I think it's rather just an industry ideology right now, more than anything. His comments don't fall out of line of anything that John Carmack, for example, has said on that subject.

Well Epic hasn't release that may number of titles by themselves. In recent times it was Gears1, UT3, and Gears2, so thats 67% based on a 2:1 ratio. Admittedly, Gears1 was ported to PC so its really a 50% based on a 1:1 ratio. That is hardly evident of a company policy, but it does seem to be the foundation of a trend (especially if we factor in the success of X360 Gears2 verse multiplaform UT3). We also know that Gears3 is coming, and probably X360 only. As for the other new IPs, I suppose we will have to wait and see, but again I won't be surprise if it swings X360 only.

Well, yes, 2/3 of their recent games have been released on the PC and 3/3 on the 360. But the point is that only one of their recent games is a 360 exclusive right now, so they can still be considered a multi-platform company.

Then Epic, like many other companys, will support the PC less because of the perceived piracy. This comes right back as support for Epic to start its trend of pro-console development. Epic may not stopped PC game development altogether, but it is possible that they might support it only in a small degree. It is speculation, but I haven't seen Epic show major interest in PC gaming themselves, and it is mostly others that defends Epic's interest in PC gaming.

And they may do, I don't have any idea what they are doing right now or if they are just sticking to 360 for now. But I don't think we have enough data to make an assumption about their policies since the majority of their games have still been on PC.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

This older story posted at ProUnreal may be of interest and might hint at exactly which party is behind the problem:

http://www.prounreal.net/?t=73341&f=180

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well, that can't really be the problem. Ryan Gordon mentioned that whatever the problem is held up the retail Linux dedicated server package and was removed. The same functionality was not removed from the demo dedicated server package. GameSpy makes up the core multiplayer backbone for the game, they can't just remove it.

 

[oldkawman]

This older story posted at ProUnreal may be of interest and might hint at exactly which party is behind the problem:

http://www.prounreal.net/?t=73341&f=180

That may have held up the Linux dedicated server, but that was obviously resolved because the server has been out for a while.

Something else is holding up the client. Obviously, something that's client side only or the server would be in the same status as the client.