The best laid plans of mice and men…
It happens.
WINE all you want?
The best laid plans of mice and men…
It happens.
WINE all you want?
Joined 5 hours ago and making rediculous posts like this? I see you haven’t contributed to the game either so why should your opinion matter? You sound like a troll.
I’m happy someone shares my opinion ;). Between this and the locked post, I’d say we have our answer.
That’s not really correct. The measured marketshare of Linux on desktop computers in this month is about 2.11% and the Mac marketshare is 7.37%. It has been just 1.65% in April and now it’s over 2% the third time in a row after 2.33% last month. The Linux desktop might be small but within the last months it became a fast-growing market.
Of course the Steam survey might look as a more accurate statistic when it comes to gaming at the first moment. But it’s not really as accurate as you might think:
If my informations are correct Steam Machines(SteamOS/Linux) do not appear in the survey. Also many people are starting Steam through Wine to make Windows games playable. So Steam won’t recognize these computers as Linux machines. Lots of them are running dualboot systems which can also distort the numbers. As an example I dualboot Windows 7 because I have many older games that only work on this system because projects like OpenMW, OpenRW etc. are sadly pretty uncommon. But I also don’t buy new games without Linux support anymore.
Of course the gamers do mostly still stay with Windows while many of the Netmarketshare- counts for Linux are non- gaming machines. So the lower numbers in the Steam survey are reasonable to some extend. But reading things like “I quit gaming 10 years ago to use Linux and it was the best decision I ever made” show that it’s just the chicken-and-egg problem.
According to the Linux sales of the game SOMA, which were about 1.1%(which was just a rough estimate by Frictional Games and, according to gamingonlinux.com includes PS4 sales) I would see the Linux- sales’ potential definitely at about 2% of the buyers for the PC platform for an average game. Adding that “nerds” love Linux and “nerds” love medieval RPGs there is no doubt for me that in this case these sales could be significantly higher for Kingdom Come: Deliverance than for SOMA.
Another point is the lack of sophisticated medieval RPGs on Linux. I guess the only significant one we have is Morrowind through OpenMW and Witcher II, which are quite outdated so many people already finished them. The other games are more action titles like Tomb Raider, Shadow of Middle Earth, Bioshock. So there is an immense lack of this genre.
So when you write:
[quote=“Nolenthar, post:17, topic:29753”]5% of 30% is 1.5% potential revenue… So there are no arguments it’s not viable economically.
[/quote]
I’m quite sure that you are seriously underestimating the overall sales for Linux and Mac computers.
I’m absolutely unbiased in that discussion. I do not underestimate, nor overestimate anything. I do apply simple maths, using numbers available to me (Steam survey, sales of a game such as TW3) to make a calculation. I do not claim this calculation to be absolutely accurate, nor absolutely valid. I simply position myself in the skin of a potential developer (I’m a member of a software company, so those are things I do understand to an extent) having to spend money for a platform. Unfortunately, even by growing up the number to even 10% of PC users (which is twice my previous figure). 10% of 30% is still a very small market share.
As you do say yourself, many Linux users are ready to dual boot. There are “extremists” (and I double quote that because this is a strong word and I do not want this to be interpreted the wrong way) who have a mind of their own and who are ready to sacrifice their gaming compulsion for their philosophy (aka, Linux users who would rather not play a game than dual boot to Windows). For a company though, the only users lost are them. The others, those ready to dual boot to Windows, are not lost. Sure, you’re not supporting their favourite platform, and sure, they are not likely to become blind loyal customers, but they will buy your game if it’s good, even if it means dual booting to Windows.
Windows 10 may provide, to many, a real border they won’t cross. Direct X 11 (still poorly/not supported by Wine) is available on Windows 7. “Unofficial Activation” patch exists for it. Windows 10, Direct X 12. That’s another matter. Steam survey reports Windows 10 users are slightly below 50%. Windows 8.1 users around 8%, 48% of Windows able to run DX12 games use a legit version. The 28% still running Windows 7. They simply don’t, or don’t have the hardware capable of running it.
That’s where it becomes important. DX12 will open the door to a wider support of Vulkan. Surely, developers can go the DX12 route, which opens both the XBox and the PC, so many will do it. However, with DX11 losing steam, and Vulkan gaining it, Linux support will become more important. Windows 7 users (legit or not) will also enjoy Vulkan.
Linux users will have to roughly wait a couple of years before this becomes the norm. I’d be surprised if by 2018, 2019, 90% of games don’t release with Vulkan support, along with Linux / Mac Os support.
Unfortunately, for KCD, the latest comms point to the fact that it’s unlikely to happen. Unless the game works very well, and that the money is nowhere spent better : if you want to play this game, it’s still time to get a copy of Windows. In the end, anyone owning a gaming computer shall go the extra mile and get a 100£ software. It’s the equivalent of 2 games and will open up 95% of the gaming catalogue. Any PC player shall simply go this route for the time being.
I just wanted to explain why these numbers are pretty inaccurate from my perspective.
I would estimate the Linux sales at about 0,7% of all platform sales, it’s a big title with a great popularity, there is a niche in the Linux market and the suitable audience - so the setting for a Linux release is optimal. The project has gained 2.7 Million $, and they didn’t want more. I had opened a thread for Mantle support as a new stretch goal, today it would be Vulkan.
So when you don’t want more money to realize your whole agenda including Linux support, there should be at least 2.700.000 * 0,007 = 18.900 Dollars of the whole budget to realize an acceptable Linux implementation - which just means making the existing project run on Linux natively. Not rewriting the whole engine.
So I still hope that KCD will be ported to a newer CryEngine- version as soon as the Vulkan support is implemented, just like many other games that have initially been released with only DX11 or OGL- support, adding Vulkan or DX12 support later.
As far as I know Vulkan can also run pretty well on Metal with MoltenVK.
Ok first of this is an ad hominem attack. That said.
This retard here. (why italics you ask? well because emphasis)
He gives a shit about the community for a single player game.
Weak skills man. Find a new career path you suck as a troll.
While your antics are retarded, they are amusing so im gonna sit back and watch this shit unravel.
I’m not under the impression that this is a pure money issue, but rather a problem of technical nature that would be far more resource-intensive to overcome.
Even if this weren’t the case, this $19k figure of yours does not take into account Kickstarter fees, taxes and backer rewards. So without even making a single Dime on Linux backers, the funds available would be less. I’d hope that Warhorse pays their developers a decent salary, but even if not, what remains of those $19k will not buy that many man hours for porting, testing, testing, testing and the inevitable bugfixing and then more testing, not to forget the after-sales support, patching and yet more testing.
But with all that being said, I do not hope that the Linux version hinges on some beancounters’ decision, but is something that Warhorse is compelled to do, because they are fine, honest gentlemen that stick to their word :-).
Why is there still no proper statement from Warhorse?
The kickstarter funds may not be all of it, but our funding is a part of the salary to the developers. In my book that means that they should be accountable to us. Removing a feature that you can’t deliver - it happens.
BUT
They need to tell us whether they definitely will not deliver it and they need to tell us what the problem is.
I agree , even if it is a delayed release, I would be happy just knowing a yes or no answer.
I feel Linux has potential for gamers and people are getting fed up with windows, so I really think it could help to promote the availability of high quality titles for a future market.
It was minor market before as it is now. They knew it, so it is no excuse.
If they would use the proper multi-platform tools and write multi-platform code … who knows? But they are probably not
?
Which part of my post was flagged?
?
Its a mystery… which eggshells did I stand on?
I don’t know, but I guess:
Rudeness:
Incompetency:
Boastfulness:
Who cares? Maybe You are rich, but who cares.
If you did believe that, you could file a criminal complaint with the Czech police for fraud, name yourself as an injured party and let the detectives figure it out.
That’s actually not a bad idea. I live in Czech so I have no problem doing that just to piss the devs off as they pissed me.
They have given refunds to anyone who has asked for one - including those who backed for Linux and have no tangible version available for a day one release. There are technical issues which made shelving of the Linux build a necessary action, in order to even have a hope of meeting the project deadline. This doesn’t by itself preclude a future Linux build, but you know what might? Every Linux customer refunding and some threatening a ‘legal recourse’. It could well make you too much hassle to deal with.
Kickstarter doesn’t guarantee that you will ever see your product. It is a risk and speculative investment, not a ‘purchase’ - You are able to refund the Linux version (and for other reasons) because Warhorse think it is the right thing to do to offer this refund - but it is not as far as I know a requirement. Claiming injury when the situation is as it is, makes you look like a fool.
There are technical issues which made shelving of the Linux build a necessary action
Not really, they chose to develop on a version of CryEngine that did not support Linux and then didn’t want to update to a version that did support Linux because of the cost. That’s not a technical reason, it’s a business reason.
This doesn’t by itself preclude a future Linux build, but you know what might? Every Linux customer refunding and some threatening a ‘legal recourse’. It could well make you too much hassle to deal with.
It works both ways though. You know what makes Kickstarter projects too much hassle to deal with? The sheer number of developers who are happy to promise a Linux version in the heat of a campaign without any clear plan or enough expertise to deliver such a thing. Certainly this and other projects have led to me being a lot more picky about what projects I back.
You are able to refund the Linux version (and for other reasons) because Warhorse think it is the right thing to do to offer this refund
Yes, they did eventually do the right thing and, despite what I said above, I agree that legal action would be both unnecessary and unlikely to succeed (of course, IANAL). However we went through months of updates where the Linux version was not mentioned despite, on nearly every update, people asking about it. It’s clear now that they knew all along there would be no Linux version and they just didn’t want to tell us, this is not the sort of behaviour that is going to create positive feelings among Linux (or Mac) backers.
I understand they currently use the most recent iteration of 3.8.x, a paid version, but have not moved to 5.x (a free version) because it lacks features streamlined from the lower version numbered platform. If features required (or support for features in other middleware) are not available in the free and most recent version, then remaining with a licensed ‘full’ version is entirely sensible, and is not a reluctance to ‘invest’ in the game.
Even if the newer version had all or nearly all of the feature set, switching to a new platform is far from trivial in mid development, and even ‘simple’ tasks can cost months of work once their impact is tested and newly introduced bugs are ironed out. For something like switching to an engine which lacks features used… maybe even years or the complete failure of a project or the significant ‘streamlining’ of planned feature sets.
All stuff they knew at the time of the Kickstarter. They could have just not promised it, we would not have backed it, there would have been no drama.
And again, nothing you mentioned is not technically possible, the reasons for not doing it are business ones not technical ones. You said “There are technical issues” and I am disagreeing, something being too expensive to do is not a “technical issue”.
It is the same. That is what a technical issue does. It requires the application of time money to resolve, and then there are knock-on effects on budget and scheduling that being over cost and late causes.
The difference between a decision made for purely business reasons and one made because of technical ones and their impact on the business side are not at all clear cut and even ‘pure’ business decisions are often grounded in technical realities.