Linux Port for BI Titles

[echo1 0]

At the top toolbar of the forum, select "Community" then "Social groups". Should be easy enough to make one.

EDIT: Nevermind, created one here. Join on up folks :p

Edited June 27, 2009 by echo1

[xnsine 10]

At the top toolbar of the forum, select "Community" then "Social groups". Should be easy enough to make one.

EDIT: Nevermind, created one here. Join on up folks :p

Thanks, I joined. :)

[uiii 10]

Is there someone, if I dont count the german one, who tried to play ArmA 2 under wine? What results they got?

[bensu 2]

Hm, I still don't have the game but maybe I will try the demo with wine tomorrow.

[xnsine 10]

So, the petition site is over 100 signatures, awesome. :) Hey, if anyone of you guys use digg or stumble upon, can you please digg the linux group or the petition site? thanks!

[echo1 0]

Petition signed.

[hoak 0]

While I would definitely pledge my purchase of any/all BI games ported to Linux, and 3% if the global Linux User base were to do the same; I don't think that would be enough incentive to motivate BI or any Developer/Publisher similarly situated.

I don't think the correct case is being made here, both technically and tactically: technically all that's being asked for is a 'port' which can include any manner of emulation and thunking layers being applied to the task of getting a DirectX game to run on Linux. Tactically, there just isn't much of an incentive that can be offered this way that is financially compelling.

The case that does make sense both from a technical and financial perspective that does have a lot to offer all parties involved, is getting an OpenGL renderer under BI games.

DirectX as well supported as it is with free and cheap tools, documentation, and industry acceptance is still a closed source Microsoft exclusive, that only runs on Microsoft platforms. Moreover, as inexpensive and easy as Microsoft makes it appear, it isn't any easier then OpenGL and is far from less expensive, and the way Microsoft chooses to milk the DirectX Cow can change at any time.

OpenGL on the other hand is entirely free, open source, and runs on everything, this last point is decisive, as it offers any Developer complete platform independence and autonomy. The Sony PS platforms, Nintendo, Handhelds, Cell Phones, any flavor of *nix and hundreds of independent OS platforms support the OpenGL renderer, even Microsoft Windows and the Xbox(s) run OpenGL games.

The incentive, is that OpenGL is the smart hedge for the long term, keeps more doors and access to more platforms open and is not licensed or controlled in a way that can effect the companies bottom line without notice or warning.

'What if' examples of how this can play in the real market doesn't take a lot of imagination as many real examples have already happened; What if:

· the Microsoft Platform become less popular?

· business were actually better outside the DirectX compound?

· Developer talent were better outside the DirectX compound?

· a new title is released and is more popular then yours on the only platforms you support?

· Microsoft buys and publishes a product that competes directly with yours?

If they only venu and market you move around in is the one licensed and controlled by Microsoft, the outcome may not be pretty... It's shocking that so many Developers are walking blind through the cattle chutes of the Microsoft Hegemony, especially when the products they're offering are luxury entertainment products nobody 'needs', in an economic environment that shows no foreseeable promise of improvement.

:butbut:

Edited July 1, 2009 by Hoak

[Mikobiko 10]

While I would definitely pledge my purchase of any/all BI games ported to Linux, and 3% if the global Linux User base were to do the same; I don't think that would be enough incentive to motivate BI or any Developer/Publisher similarly situated.

I don't think the correct case is being made here, both technically and tactically: technically all that's being asked for is a 'port' which can include any manner of emulation and thunking layers being applied to the task of getting a DirectX game to run on Linux. Tactically, there just isn't much of an incentive that can be offered this way that is financially compelling.

The case that does make sense both from a technical and financial perspective that does have a lot to offer all parties involved, is getting an OpenGL renderer under BI games.

DirectX as well supported as it is with free and cheap tools, documentation, and industry acceptance is still a closed source Microsoft exclusive, that only runs on Microsoft platforms. Moreover, as inexpensive and easy as Microsoft makes it appear, it isn't any easier then OpenGL and is far from less expensive, and the way Microsoft chooses to milk the DirectX Cow can change at any time.

OpenGL on the other hand is entirely free, open source, and runs on everything, this last point is decisive, as it offers any Developer complete platform independence and autonomy. The Sony PS platforms, Nintendo, Handhelds, Cell Phones, any flavor of *nix and hundreds of independent OS platforms support the OpenGL renderer, even Microsoft Windows and the Xbox(s) run OpenGL games.

The incentive, is that OpenGL is the smart hedge for the long term, keeps more doors and access to more platforms open and is not licensed or controlled in a way that can effect the companies bottom line without notice or warning.

'What if' examples of how this can play in the real market doesn't take a lot of imagination as many real examples have already happened; What if:

· the Microsoft Platform become less popular?

· business were actually better outside the DirectX compound?

· Developer talent were better outside the DirectX compound?

· a new title is released and is more popular then yours on the only platforms you support?

· Microsoft buys and publishes a product that competes directly with yours?

If they only venu and market you move around in is the one licensed and controlled by Microsoft, the outcome may not be pretty... It's shocking that so many Developers are walking blind through the cattle chutes of the Microsoft Hegemony, especially when the products they're offering are luxury entertainment products nobody 'needs', in an economic environment that shows no foreseeable promise of improvement.

:butbut:

Xbox is D3D?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Nice and learned post Hoak!

Remains to add that Microsoft does not hesitate to use largely illegal commercial practises over many years to illegally and agressively hinder competitors and smaller software enterprises.

Everyone - like our beloved BI - who **bases** his company or wealth on these companies or their products should be aware of the fact that they cry out loud for law enforcement **only** when it's comfortable for them, their profits and power - like MS tries to get the EU to enforce patents on software - whilst the young entrepreneur Bill Gates described patents as something absolutely horrible to the world.

Can you sleep well being bound to one big software manufacturer who with an eyeglimp may make you running into debts?

Edited July 1, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[echo1 0]

EDIT: Wait a second, accidental repost.

Xbox is D3D?

Of course it is, saves them writing a new hardware interface and allow games to be easily ported to the PC from Xbox and vice-versa. Also allows that XNA dev tool to be used for both PC and Xobx. It's a good idea tbh.

[xnsine 10]

While I would definitely pledge my purchase of any/all BI games ported to Linux, and 3% if the global Linux User base were to do the same; I don't think that would be enough incentive to motivate BI or any Developer/Publisher similarly situated.

I don't think the correct case is being made here, both technically and tactically: technically all that's being asked for is a 'port' which can include any manner of emulation and thunking layers being applied to the task of getting a DirectX game to run on Linux. Tactically, there just isn't much of an incentive that can be offered this way that is financially compelling.

The case that does make sense both from a technical and financial perspective that does have a lot to offer all parties involved, is getting an OpenGL renderer under BI games.

DirectX as well supported as it is with free and cheap tools, documentation, and industry acceptance is still a closed source Microsoft exclusive, that only runs on Microsoft platforms. Moreover, as inexpensive and easy as Microsoft makes it appear, it isn't any easier then OpenGL and is far from less expensive, and the way Microsoft chooses to milk the DirectX Cow can change at any time.

OpenGL on the other hand is entirely free, open source, and runs on everything, this last point is decisive, as it offers any Developer complete platform independence and autonomy. The Sony PS platforms, Nintendo, Handhelds, Cell Phones, any flavor of *nix and hundreds of independent OS platforms support the OpenGL renderer, even Microsoft Windows and the Xbox(s) run OpenGL games.

The incentive, is that OpenGL is the smart hedge for the long term, keeps more doors and access to more platforms open and is not licensed or controlled in a way that can effect the companies bottom line without notice or warning.

'What if' examples of how this can play in the real market doesn't take a lot of imagination as many real examples have already happened; What if:

· the Microsoft Platform become less popular?

· business were actually better outside the DirectX compound?

· Developer talent were better outside the DirectX compound?

· a new title is released and is more popular then yours on the only platforms you support?

· Microsoft buys and publishes a product that competes directly with yours?

If they only venu and market you move around in is the one licensed and controlled by Microsoft, the outcome may not be pretty... It's shocking that so many Developers are walking blind through the cattle chutes of the Microsoft Hegemony, especially when the products they're offering are luxury entertainment products nobody 'needs', in an economic environment that shows no foreseeable promise of improvement.

:butbut:

Yeah, i agree with what youre saying, but a linux port of the BiA games would have to use openGL for rendering images anyways. So what you are calling for is just a video renderer, which would still have to run under windows, right? DirectX dependence really, like all microsoft technologies-related dependence, comes down to one thing: Windows dependence. Direct3D, which is a part of the entire DirectX technologies, is in direct competition with OpenGL. Other technologies like audio, user input, interface, etc would have to be provided, if BiA indeed allows linux clients for their games to be made, by technologies like SDL, for example. If OpenGL is going to release the BIA games from Direct3D dependence, why not try to release them from windows dependence as well?

[bensu 2]

Hoak is absolutely right. Even though an opengl renderer does not automatically mean that you have a multiple platform game, it is much easier to port the game to any other platform.

And there is another advantage for the game itself if you support multiple platforms: A much cleaner code! which results in much less bugs.

For example:

*Code A works in 99% of the cases on platform A but it contains a bug.

*Code A works in 0% of the cases on platform B.

If you just use platform A it will be hard to detect the bug but with both platforms you may detect it directly.

[echo1 0]

OFP had about three different renderers (although OpenGL wasnt one of them). So it's not as if the game engine can't be ported to other architechtures.

[Milyardo 10]

I don't think switching 3D renderers is at all the problem with porting BI Titles to Linux. No matter how D3D dependent ArmA, ArmA2, or OFP is, converting it over OpenGL isn't BI's problem. The developers over at LGP are the ones going to be doing all that work.

The problem is much more likely with middleware software solutions BI may have licensed in these game. Software like SpeedTree, Kynapse, or whoever else they have contracted may require additional licensing to create Linux ports, or may even be unwilling to lisense a port, or hand over sources so that LGP may port the software.

[hoak 0]

Yeah, i agree with what youre saying, but a linux port of the BiA games would have to use openGL for rendering images anyways.?

That's not quite right, in that there are companies and middleware that allow a DirectX game to be ported to OpenGL platforms like Linux, without implementing a full OpenGL backplane. This is often what's meant when some Developers use the term 'port' -- i.e. the most economical rout.

A full implementation of the OpenGL renderer, is much more then a port and would use OpenGL for all the 3D render calls currently done by DirectX, this will run much faster then a port that uses any translation libraries, and if done properly will typically give you a game that runs faster for the same render capability under DirectX.

So what you are calling for is just a video renderer, which would still have to run under windows, right? DirectX dependence really, like all microsoft technologies-related dependence, comes down to one thing: Windows dependence. Direct3D, which is a part of the entire DirectX technologies, is in direct competition with OpenGL. Other technologies like audio, user input, interface, etc would have to be provided, if BiA indeed allows linux clients for their games to be made, by technologies like SDL, for example. If OpenGL is going to release the BIA games from Direct3D dependence, why not try to release them from windows dependence as well?

Essentially correct, BIA is also using XAudio2, another Microsoft library for Audo which is exclusive, and while it has state-of-the-art (aka SOTA) features, it does not have SOTA performance or function, and is easily surpassed by much friendlier Sound Managers like FMOD that are completely platform agnostic.

I don't think switching 3D renderers is at all the problem with porting BI Titles to Linux. No matter how D3D dependent ArmA, ArmA2, or OFP is, converting it over OpenGL isn't BI's problem. The developers over at LGP are the ones going to be doing all that work.

I think the context of your assumption may not be complete; and I say this with some business experience in the industry. First of all in complexity of rolling an OpenGL renderer under a DirectX game is no easy chore, the more high end the DirectX features used the more complected it gets and many a Developer attempt has failed; but that's not the biggest bump in the road.

LGP may have Brilliant Open GL Programers that find the challenge of offering a solution that surpasses DirectX exhilarating, the problem is, BI is a small company with all it's intellectual capital invested in one engine and essentially one franchise (the VBS products are an arbitrary diversification)...

The risk of handing over complete source code to another small company for a port to one platform, with a small audience inculcates enormous risk. LGP is not an industry Titan, with enormous capital that BI can sue and anticipate recovery of damages if somehow their source is lost, leaked, or IP is damaged via LGP action...

To satisfy these objections and offer a truly compelling solution to BI, or any Developer/Publisher that holds valuable IP in a DX engine, or some successor, LGP must satisfy these criterion:

1. That LGP can effect a full roll-put of the OpenGL render and any other middleware that's using DirectX/Microsoft API's; ergo Audio, input etc...
   
2. That LGP offer an air-tight product source security guarantee, documenting methods and practices, and means of recovering loss in unforeseen circumstances or 'acts of god'.
   
3. That while LGP will retain rights for Publishing a Linux product they will return full OpenGL platform agnostic source code to the Developer.
   

Satisfying these criterion would be difficult even for an established company but for a small indy company like LGP would be especially challenging -- point 2 especially... There are means to satisfy a Customer like BI; though I get the impression, as may BI, that LGP may be composed of talented Programers more then experienced Business Professionals or even experienced Salesmen, with knowledge of ways and means to satisfying these sorts of objections.

The problem is much more likely with middleware software solutions BI may have licensed in these game. Software like SpeedTree, Kynapse, or whoever else they have contracted may require additional licensing to create Linux ports, or may even be unwilling to license a port, or hand over sources so that LGP may port the software.

True in fact, but BI products display no license or logo stingers for any of these exclusive middlware products, and with the exception of using Microsoft API products, they seem quite inclined to avoid middlware.

:butbut:

Edited July 2, 2009 by Hoak

[Milyardo 10]

That's not quite right, in that there are companies and middleware that allow a DirectX game to be ported to OpenGL platforms like Linux, without implementing a full OpenGL backplane. This is often what's meant when some Developers use the term 'port' -- i.e. the most economical rout.

A full implementation of the OpenGL renderer, is much more then a port and would use OpenGL for all the 3D render calls currently done by DirectX, this will run much faster then a port that uses any translation libraries, and if done properly will typically give you a game that runs faster for the same render capability under DirectX.

I'm not sure what you're trying to explain here, if you're refering to using middleware applications that wrap 3D renderer classes(like SDL or any commercial equivalent) instead of using OpenGL directly, using them shouldn't shouldn't pose any performance issues (though they are typically limiting in functionality since they only wrap of subset of all the 3D renders they support).

Essentially correct, BIA is also using XAudio2, another Microsoft library for Audo which is exclusive, and while it has state-of-the-art (aka SOTA) features, it does not have SOTA performance or function, and is easily surpassed by much friendlier Sound Managers like FMOD that are completely platform agnostic.

FMOD is far from platform agnostic, nor would I call XAudio2 SOTA. XAudio2 isn't much better than any other sound API without some 3rd party commercial support like EAX. There's nothing that would keep Dolby or anyone else supporting OpenAL if they any interest in doing so.

I think the context of your assumption may not be complete; and I say this with some business experience in the industry. First of all in complexity of rolling an OpenGL renderer under a DirectX game is no easy chore, the more high end the DirectX features used the more complected it gets and many a Developer attempt has failed; but that's not the biggest bump in the road.

Actually, Svartalf in a interview with Phoronix today said the exact oppsite here:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_gaming_frank&num=1

What generally is the biggest technical challenge you encounter in porting these games and engines to Linux?

he Middleware that a studio chooses to use in their game. It can either make it easier or harder to make the game happen.

It's almost never the 3D or input device support that's a problem. Most of D3D is decently handled by OpenGL and SDL's input layer does a well enough job of things that it's rare that you can't at least approximate the original games' look and input interaction on Linux fairly quickly. That's not to say there's not gotchas with the 3D support, but I'm thinking with things like MojoShader and HLSL2GLSL in hand, that you can gain purchase on most of the eye candy from the 3D side of things at this time with only some effort.

LGP may have Brilliant Open GL Programers that find the challenge of offering a solution that surpasses DirectX exhilarating, the problem is, BI is a small company with all it's intellectual capital invested in one engine and essentially one franchise (the VBS products are an arbitrary diversification)...

You are completely wrong on this point and it and the truth is quite the opposite. ArmA is the arbitrary diversification of the VBS, and ArmA will never amount to generating anywhere near the capital VBS does.

The risk of handing over complete source code to another small company for a port to one platform, with a small audience inculcates enormous risk. LGP is not an industry Titan, with enormous capital that BI can sue and anticipate recovery of damages if somehow their source is lost, leaked, or IP is damaged via LGP action...

To satisfy these objections and offer a truly compelling solution to BI, or any Developer/Publisher that holds valuable IP in a DX engine, or some successor, LGP must satisfy these criterion:

1. That LGP can effect a full roll-put of the OpenGL render and any other middleware that's using DirectX/Microsoft API's; ergo Audio, input etc...
   
2. That LGP offer an air-tight product source security guarantee, documenting methods and practices, and means of recovering loss in unforeseen circumstances or 'acts of god'.
   
3. That while LGP will retain rights for Publishing a Linux product they will return full OpenGL platform agnostic source code to the Developer.
   

Satisfying these criterion would be difficult even for an established company but for a small indy company like LGP would be especially challenging -- point 2 especially... There are means to satisfy a Customer like BI; though I get the impression, as may BI, that LGP may be composed of talented Programers more then experienced Business Professionals or even experienced Salesmen, with knowledge of ways and means to satisfying these sorts of objections.

None of this is true at all and only uses stereotypes of Linux users to prop up this straw-man argument.

Ryan Gordon is the perfect counter example to this, Ryan (a single man not an entire company who's worth is much greater than Ryan's) is routinely trusted with the task of porting many games to Linux using the Unreal and Quake engine's.

The programmer's at LGP are all experienced individuals in Business and Management. While what happened at Loki software all those years ago was indeed shameful, and unfortunately killed the Linux gaming industry right when it had the chance for the most growth, LGP is not Loki and should not be treated as such.

[hoak 0]

FMOD is far from platform agnostic, nor would I call XAudio2 SOTA. XAudio2 isn't much better than any other sound API without some 3rd party commercial support like EAX. There's nothing that would keep Dolby or anyone else supporting OpenAL if they any interest in doing so.

I did not claim XAudio2 was a SOTA Sound Manager, only that it claims SOTA features; I clearly state it's not a SOTA Sound Manager.

As far as what the industry can or might be able to do for OpenAL, that's rather moot with regard to the speed, ease and low cost of any porting consideration currently.

Actually, Svartalf in a interview with Phoronix today said the exact oppsite here:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_gaming_frank&num=1.

Indeed. Anyone can claim anything...

You are completely wrong on this point and it and the truth is quite the opposite. ArmA is the arbitrary diversification of the VBS, and ArmA will never amount to generating anywhere near the capital VBS does.

I can't be 'completely wrong' about a point I was not making, and one you apparently don't understand.

None of this is true at all and only uses stereotypes of Linux users to prop up this straw-man argument.

Milyardo, I don't know where you get off claiming truth, correctness, and absolutes about market perception. These are all valid concerns of any company that holds substantial value in thier IP.

Ryan Gordon is the perfect counter example to this, Ryan (a single man not an entire company who's worth is much greater than Ryan's) is routinely trusted with the task of porting many games to Linux using the Unreal and Quake engine's.

Both the Unreal and id Tech engine games ergo Quake feature OpenGL renderers ready to go.

The programmer's at LGP are all experienced individuals in Business and Management.

That's a fairly comitted unsupported claim they may not appreciate you're making on their behest.

While what happened at Loki software all those years ago was indeed shameful, and unfortunately killed the Linux gaming industry right when it had the chance for the most growth, LGP is not Loki and should not be treated as such.

I can't think of anything 'shameful' about Loki or how they conducted business; an honest effort and mistakes were made. Neither do I don't see anyone regarding or treating or comparing LGP to Loki but you...

All the assumptions here, are yours... And the negative, rightous Linux FanBoy attitude doesn't do you, Linux, LGP, or games on Linux any good; especially when you're trying to take down a discussion and Proponent of what appears to be your cause...

:(

Edited July 6, 2009 by Hoak

[Milyardo 10]

Milyardo, I don't know where you get off claiming truth, correctness, and absolutes about market perception. These are all valid concerns of any company that holds substantial value in thier IP.

While I quoted that entire paragraph, meant to only respond to the last sentence. And I stand by what I said before, the perceptions you have of LGP are stereotyped from what happened with Loki.

Both the Unreal and id Tech engine games ergo Quake feature OpenGL renderers ready to go.

Thanks to the work done by Loki/Ryan Gordon.

I can't think of anything 'shameful' about Loki or how they conducted business; an honest effort and mistakes were made. Neither do I don't see anyone regarding or treating or comparing LGP to Loki but you...

You refered to a company that was run by programmers instead of buisness professionals, and because of it, put the risk to the IP of many of it clients, such a thing happened exactly with Loki. Even if you did not mean to imply what happened with Loki during the companies bankruptcy, you still implied that LGP could not satisfy the requirements you listed because they were a small company without the necessary skills or resources to protect a client IP without substantial risk because the company is made of more Programmers than Businessmen. Lastly, the Programmers at LGP are just as experienced as I said they were. LGP has been in business for well nearly decade, which by itself is an achievement for any business. That experience easily constitutes what you implied they lack.

All the assumptions here, are yours... And the negative, rightous Linux FanBoy attitude doesn't do you, Linux, LGP, or games on Linux any good; especially when you're trying to take down a discussion and Proponent of what appears to be your cause...

:(

I'm not exactly sure where I had any sort of negative connotation in my previous post, nor am I sure to why you are resorting to name calling.

None the less, no matter how skilled and/or professional LGP is, they aren't what's keeping a Linux port from happening. The only ones who can convince LGP is the community. However, what I believe the community needs is an ultimatum from BI(ie pre-order 10k Linux versions and we'll make it) to motivate the Linux community, and BI, and make these Linux ports a reality.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Milyardo

[hoak 0]

While I quoted that entire paragraph, meant to only respond to the last sentence. And I stand by what I said before, the perceptions you have of LGP are stereotyped from what happened with Loki.

My statements were clearly qualfiied, and not about my perceptions, opinions, or preferences, but those of Developer/Publishers and their perception of the value of their IP, and the risks they are and/or are not willing to take without a qualified presentation.

You refered to a company that was run by programmers instead of buisness professionals, and because of it, put the risk to the IP of many of it clients, such a thing happened exactly with Loki.

I said that LGP gave that appearance, no where did I say or imply that puts anyone's IP at risk; you clearly have issues understand or accepting a literal qualified statements, and have to interpret your own meanings into what I've said... It does appear that LGP is not offering an adequate sales presentation of what they have to offer and how it can satisfy all the criterion most Developer/Publishers need satisfed.

Even if you did not mean to imply what happened with Loki during the companies bankruptcy, you still implied that LGP could not satisfy the requirements you listed because they were a small company without the necessary skills or resources to protect a client IP without substantial risk because the company is made of more Programmers than Businessmen.

No, I did not, that assumption is all yours, or your English literacy skills are in question. I made no implications what so ever, what I suggested was that LGP due to what may be a lack of business tact may not be adequately selling, presenting, covering Developer/Publisher concerns; especially if they are getting rejections without explination (which they are).

Lastly, the Programmers at LGP are just as experienced as I said they were. LGP has been in business for well nearly decade, which by itself is an achievement for any business. That experience easily constitutes what you implied they lack.

Another assumption that's all yours, and certainly not more reasonable then what I've offered. The bottom line is they are getting a lot of refusals, are by their own admission not self-sustaining enterprise, and may lack Business tact and adroitness (which has little to do with professionalism and more to do real experience) to sell what they have to offer convincingly, and address Developer/Publisher objections that really aren't going to be offered as anything other then a rejection without explination.

The only ones who can convince LGP is the community.

Convince LGP of what?

However, what I believe the community needs is an ultimatum from BI (ie pre-order 10k Linux versions and we'll make it) to motivate the Linux community, and BI, and make these Linux ports a reality.

Your sentence makes no sense, I think there is a language barrier prevailing here...

:rolleyes:

Edited July 7, 2009 by Hoak

[Herbal Influence 10]

Hoak - I could not follow your boths dispute in all detail, but the idea of a massive preordering of AA2 (or AA3?) on a Linux basis up to a deadline, lez say 31.12.10, could work, couldn't it?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[hoak 0]

Hoak - I could not follow your boths dispute in all detail, but the idea of a massive preordering of AA2 (or AA3?) on a Linux basis up to a deadline, lez say 31.12.10, could work, couldn't it?

Truly, I honestly do not know. It could work, but if BI aren't offering any objections or reasons to LGP for their lack of interest, the reasons may have nothing to do with how popular a Linux version of the game(s) would be.

Why BI appears uninterested at this time could be anything from the list of things I and others have suggested in this thread -- it may even have to do with periods of exclusivity and non-discloser with their current Publishers; so perhaps BI doesn't have a choice in the matter for now, but until BI says something we're only guessing...

I'm personally all for it, and would purchase Linux versions of any and all BI games. OpenGL/Linux versions of BI's engines/games would also be a very wise strategic investment for their company's long term security. And I certainly hope it happens one way or another as it's win/win for everyone involved.

The best way to getting there IMHO is polite, persistent and constructive expression of interest -- especially trying to learn why BI is not currently willing or able to make an accommodation with LGP.

:)

Edited July 19, 2009 by Hoak

[echo1 0]

Now that I have Arch up and running with my new desktop, I'm trying ArmA 2 out. The installer seems to be working fine. Will report back on whether the thing actually runs or not...

EDIT: Securom gives out that there's "No disc in the drive" (ie. Wine doesn't load the Securom checker properly). Unless someone knows a way around this issue , it looks like we're going to have to wait till BIS releases it's usual no-CD patch, which usually takes a year or more.

Edited July 22, 2009 by echo1

[bensu 2]

Someone tried the demo with wine and posted the result on the winehq:

http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=10054

But the graphics look pretty messed up...

[frostwyrm333 1]

While I'm linux fan, I wouldn't buy the game for the second time just because it is a linux port.

(but it would be perfect if there was something like - you get the exe and needed libraries after serial number verification)

I just hope the wine will get eeer... better. Most developers won't duplicate their work for such a small market. Wine would be perfect if it would be complete. There is a sad example, unreal tournament 3. That port is now made for 2 years and still no release.

[hoak 0]

While I'm linux fan, I wouldn't buy the game for the second time just because it is a linux port.

I sure would in a heart beat! ArmA II on Linux would give me enough entertainment ammunition to dump Windows entirely. Linux makes for a much nicer Gamer's platform then Windows, albeit not as nice a Developer's platform -- though it would give an indy Developer/Publisher some potent leverage and opportunity.

:)