World of Warcraft on Linux petition

[PhoenixOfWater]

Anyone seen this?
Link

Blizzard has classically been a Windows/Mac developer only with their past games, and with good reason. Linux in past years has not been a viable gaming platform. But now that Linux has taken off, with many new games, such as doom3 and ut2004 supporting linux, Blizzard still has no openly published plans to make a Linux version of World of Warcraft.

This petition is being made in the attempt to convince Blizzard enough people are willing to use a native Linux port of World of Warcraft, to make it a viable consideration.

Sounds really cool to me...

 

[Quixfire]

I haven't seen this before, but I though I saw something about this on the World of Warcraft Beta Test Forums.

 

[magomago]

well...if D3D is used....we can essentially kiss a port goodbye, right?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

I'm sure they could collaborate with the WineX people and get it worked out.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'd rather see starcraft ported over.

I'd consider buying it though. Probably end up like q3 linux version.... Never installed

 

[Quixfire]

Linux users can go to irc.wc3campaigns.com
channel #blizzplanet

Idle there, you will find other Linux users to talk to about this topic. We are trying to organize and search and advertise World of Warcraft around. We have 2,226 Linux users registered. The goal is 20,000 Linux users. Of course, if we follow the plan it may grow exponentially. Each brings 5-10 new linux users, we get over 20,000 Linux users.

Those 20,000 brings 5 more new Linux users, we get over 100,000 and so on. Let's demonstrate there are plenty of Linux users out there and that each is willing to pay $$$ to have this game on their Linux box.

I hope this helps.

 

[bunker]

Originally posted by: magomago
well...if D3D is used....we can essentially kiss a port goodbye, right?

You can use D3D or OpenGL

 

[DaveSimmons]

> ut2004 supporting linux

Client or just server?

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Dual boot?

I really don't want to see the release date for this game pushed back any further due to porting to a 3rd OS.

A few thousand users on a petition is really nothing when you look at how many millions of copies past Blizzard games have sold. 90% of the petition signers can merely dual-boot if they really want to play this game. I'm sure it will take quite a few Linux copies sold to cover the costs of porting.

I've heard of 3rd party efforts to port the beta to Linux too. Perhaps those will be successfull.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
Dual boot?

I really don't want to see the release date for this game pushed back any further due to porting to a 3rd OS.

There is no need for that. Linux users can wait.

IIRC, the Linux version of Quake 3 came out on a different date than the Windows version. Maybe a week earlier?

A few thousand users on a petition is really nothing when you look at how many millions of copies past Blizzard games have sold. 90% of the petition signers can merely dual-boot if they really want to play this game. I'm sure it will take quite a few Linux copies sold to cover the costs of porting.

~$350 to play a game? That's outrageous.

 

[PhoenixOfWater]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
> ut2004 supporting linux



Client or just server?

Both are supported

 

[Gibson12345]

Originally posted by: Quixfire
Let's demonstrate there are plenty of Linux users out there and that each is willing to pay $$$ to have this game on their Linux box.

I don't want to piss on you guy's parade, but people who use Linux at home are an even greater minority than Mac users. Blizzard is not going to go through the hassle of porting an MMORPG (a genre in which both client and server have traditionally required CONSTANT patching) to a platform that simply won't bring in any revenue. Why waste resources trying to reach less than 1% of the market when you can invest those resources into improving the game so that the other 99% of the market won't leave after the free month?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Gibson12345

Originally posted by: Quixfire
Let's demonstrate there are plenty of Linux users out there and that each is willing to pay $$$ to have this game on their Linux box.

I don't want to piss on you guy's parade, but people who use Linux at home are an even greater minority than Mac users. Blizzard is not going to go through the hassle of porting an MMORPG (a genre in which both client and server have traditionally required CONSTANT patching) to a platform that simply won't bring in any revenue. Why waste resources trying to reach less than 1% of the market when you can invest those resources into improving the game so that the other 99% of the market won't leave after the free month?

I think we all know they won't port it. Sitting on our hands keeping our mouths shut isn't in anyone's best interests. Obviously someone wants to see it happen, so they are letting Blizzard know. Don't worry, your patches won't be delayed because of the little people.

 

[drag]

Also linux isn't 1% of the market no more.

If you look at computer enthusiests you will see a much higher percentage of people using linux then you would see in the general public.

If you go to something that requires highly technical people using computers you sometimes get as high as 30% of the people using linux.

I am guessing that out of gamers that keep their computers high-tech enough to play the latest games probably 10% of them have Linux for at least dual-booting. Probably 20-40% have used linux somewhat and use it in a file server or a router or something along those lines, or are at least somewhat familar with it.

Maybe 5%-10% use linux primarly and dual boot win98 or w2k for school and games.

Don't forget the increased popularity of linux for gamers for running gaming servers, too! (Should I get a copy of w2k to run my server and pay 100 dollars for it, or should I get Linux + 512megs of ram for 100 dollars.... hmmm, tough choice.)

So potentially for porting game you can probably increase your sales by about 3%-5%, and that's not just for a short period of time, but that's sustained sales.

In the general population you still see 3% Linux desktop usage, and that's Linux vs all the windows PC's sold in the last 5-6 years that people still use.

The main issue that happens in porting is that most games use DirectX nowadays. DirectX is Windows-only. That can make it expensive enough to make it not worth a 3% or so increase in sales.

Linux has stuff you can use that will perform the similar functions (direct OpenGL programming for 3-D graphics and SDL for normal menus and for sound, that sort of thing), but it's not easy to port from DirectX to other stuff.

 

[lowpost]

This is similar to the fact that Adobe won't support linux

There have been petitions upon petitions, and countless people asking for it in the feature requests.

Until the corporate mob finds some theoretical profit in linux, they will ignore it.

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: drag
Also linux isn't 1% of the market no more.



If you look at computer enthusiests you will see a much higher percentage of people using linux then you would see in the general public.



If you go to something that requires highly technical people using computers you sometimes get as high as 30% of the people using linux.



I am guessing that out of gamers that keep their computers high-tech enough to play the latest games probably 10% of them have Linux for at least dual-booting. Probably 20-40% have used linux somewhat and use it in a file server or a router or something along those lines, or are at least somewhat familar with it.



Maybe 5%-10% use linux primarly and dual boot win98 or w2k for school and games.



Don't forget the increased popularity of linux for gamers for running gaming servers, too! (Should I get a copy of w2k to run my server and pay 100 dollars for it, or should I get Linux + 512megs of ram for 100 dollars.... hmmm, tough choice.)



So potentially for porting game you can probably increase your sales by about 3%-5%, and that's not just for a short period of time, but that's sustained sales.



In the general population you still see 3% Linux desktop usage, and that's Linux vs all the windows PC's sold in the last 5-6 years that people still use.



The main issue that happens in porting is that most games use DirectX nowadays. DirectX is Windows-only. That can make it expensive enough to make it not worth a 3% or so increase in sales.



Linux has stuff you can use that will perform the similar functions (direct OpenGL programming for 3-D graphics and SDL for normal menus and for sound, that sort of thing), but it's not easy to port from DirectX to other stuff.

I do not know about that...
Last summer (almost a year ago) I was building a web page. I wanted to see what percentage of users use what browser. Anyways I dug the statics up at the time. And linux was < 1% of web users.

Link

Although not the same site. They show that Linux users are less then 1%.

I've used Linux in the past many times, I give many different distros a try & will continue to do so. But Linux is not ready for mainstream desktop use. Games do work on it. It took me 4 hours to get UT working in Linux. 4 freakin hours! You know how long it took to get working in Windows? About 2 minutes.

Anyways Blizzard would be retarded to port WoW to Linux. What a waste of time & money. Most Linux users dual boot with Windows already for games...

 

[n0cmonkey]

A year ago is a long time. The stats you linked showed a good deal of Linux and other.

Just because you don't know enough to install things on Linux quickly does not mean it isn't ready.

And what is your basis for guessing that most linux users dual boot? I know I don't, and won't. I think it's overly complex, idiotic, and wasteful. $300+ for gaming is ridiculous.

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
A year ago is a long time. The stats you linked showed a good deal of Linux and other.

Just because you don't know enough to install things on Linux quickly does not mean it isn't ready.

And what is your basis for guessing that most linux users dual boot? I know I don't, and won't. I think it's overly complex, idiotic, and wasteful. $300+ for gaming is ridiculous.

Those are the stats for Linux (from the link)... That does not look like a widely used OS used for web surfing. Averages well under 1%
0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 0.6%

And you are exactly right, I don't know enough to install a game in Linux quickly. I have spent a ton of time using Linux as development environment and for normal (non gaming) uses ie Web Browsing, Music, Office, etc. I don't claim to be a Linux admin or anything, but do I need to be to install a game? I mean think about it? Could my girl friend have installed it? Not a chance, yet she has no problems installing Call of Duty in Windows (insert disc, click install, come back in 5 minutes). I mean recompiling the kernal to get a game working? Give me a freakin break.

Linux = sucks for gaming (you know it, everyone knows it...)

Maybe one day things will change and Linux will become good for gaming, I don't see that day coming for several years and it may never come at all.

Also what costs $300? Windows sure doesnt...
And dual booting is very simple
If you can install games in Linux as easy as you say... configuring Lilo or Grub will be a snap, it takes about 1 minute to do.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JavaMomma

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

A year ago is a long time. The stats you linked showed a good deal of Linux and other.

Just because you don't know enough to install things on Linux quickly does not mean it isn't ready.

And what is your basis for guessing that most linux users dual boot? I know I don't, and won't. I think it's overly complex, idiotic, and wasteful. $300+ for gaming is ridiculous.

Those are the stats for Linux (from the link)... That does not look like a widely used OS used for web surfing. Averages well under 1%

0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 0.6%

What if it is 0.63% of 14million? The sites are obviously biased, it's something you can't help. We could take the stats from microsoft.com and use those, or we could take the stats from debian.org and use those. Either way, we don't get a very accurate representation of the current state of affairs.

And you are exactly right, I don't know enough to install a game in Linux quickly. I have spent a ton of time using Linux as development environment and for normal (non gaming) uses ie Web Browsing, Music, Office, etc. I don't claim to be a Linux admin or anything, but do I need to be to install a game? I mean think about it? Could my girl friend have installed it? Not a chance, yet she has no problems installing Call of Duty in Windows (insert disc, click install, come back in 5 minutes). I mean recompiling the kernal to get a game working? Give me a freakin break.

With increased support from game vendors, this becomes less of an issue. "Oh install.rpm? I'll try double clicking this thing..."

Linux = sucks for gaming (you know it, everyone knows it...)

I don't know it, I've never tried. Although the install directions for the q3 Linux package I bought looked simple enough.

Maybe one day things will change and Linux will become good for gaming, I don't see that day coming for several years and it may never come at all.

Because vendors aren't willing to support it. Maybe it has something to do with a bunch of know it all kids saying that Linux sucks.

Also what costs $300? Windows sure doesnt...

You're right it's $299.99USD.

And dual booting is very simple

If you say so. I remember various operating systems not playing nice with the bootloaders I had installed.

If you can install games in Linux as easy as you say... configuring Lilo or Grub will be a snap, it takes about 1 minute to do.

I'd say closer to 5-10. First I'd have to find a recovery cd of some sort, boot off of it, mount the Linux partition, fiddle with lilo.conf, install lilo.conf, reboot and test. And that's assuming Windows works after all of that.

If you don't want Linux to be supported, let Blizzard know. Start another silly online petition so that no game vendors support stuff that you aren't using. You can run your mouth all you want, but I doubt the linux users that would like to play the game are going to stop trying to convince Blizzard that they're worth it because of you.

 

[drag2]

Linux is great for games, just not for games that don't run on linux.

The best market estimates that people see point to about 2-3% Linux desktop usage.

Website statistics are very deceiving and no way a accurate assements of what people use. Like what sort of behavior does the average Linux user do online vs the average Windows user? Does it take into account the number of Linux browsers that purposely lie about not being IE in order to get past stupid webpages that only "work" on IE?

Anyways looking at google's statisticsyou would see that Linux = 1%, Macs = 4%, and 4% = unknown. Out of that unkown I am whilling to bet that at least 1.5% of "unknown" is going to be linux varients. Anyways what if Linux users are just generally better at finding stuff then the average user?

By now I think that Linux is the #2 OS out there, or at least pretty soon. lots of articles like this one out there nowadays.

Anyways if you design a game to be portable, it won't just make it portable to Linux, but to otherunix-like OSes as well, including OS X. Buy that time you already have most of the hardwork done. It's trivial to go from one Unix to another Unix OS compared to going from Windows to anything else. OS X and Linux combined have to be at least 6-7% of the market.

Of course games designed for DirectX are going to be a pain on anything else, since DirectX is so completely propriatory.

The likelyhood of a port happening is very small, but not because it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I forgot to mention, I've seen a lot of posts about people only booting into Windows to play games. If those games were suddenly available on Linux, they wouldn't have to boot into Windows. Maybe those Linux stats would go up with the influx of gamers.

 

[cjr22]

Absolutely. Both my machines at home are dual boot Windows/Linux, and I hardly ever use the Linux partions. This is because about 80% of what I do on my PCs at home is play games, the rest being email and surfing. Don't get me wrong, I love the linux desktop and I use it all the time at work. The only thing keeping me from using linux at home is the support for the games. I've tried, but the experience of running games on windows is just much better. I'd say that was worth the £200 or whatever for the OS.

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: cjr22
Absolutely. Both my machines at home are dual boot Windows/Linux, and I hardly ever use the Linux partions. This is because about 80% of what I do on my PCs at home is play games, the rest being email and surfing. Don't get me wrong, I love the linux desktop and I use it all the time at work. The only thing keeping me from using linux at home is the support for the games. I've tried, but the experience of running games on windows is just much better. I'd say that was worth the £200 or whatever for the OS.

That is exactly my point. Thank you. Linux is good for normal desktop usage stuff, but for games...


I guess Americans get ripped off on Windows
WinXP Home Edition
$141.63 and it includes a mouse & case fan
Link
And that?s in Canadian $$ which is worth less then US $$
I believe they ship to the US, so you can order a copy for about $100US.

Also I agree with you on the actual number of *nix boxes out there. It is going to be higher then 1% because like you say many people spoof their browser & what not (I know i did).

Also why would I petition to have Blizzard not do a port to Linux? If they want to do it, it is their waste of money, not mine.

Anyways I am not bashing Linux, I think it is a great OS. It is just nowhere near being there for "commercial" games yet (Loki?). And like someone said it can be great for games, that Tux Racer game is fun

 

[Davegod]

XP Home on same site is USD$199. Looked at pricewatch and OEM full version is like USD$87 - including the requisite hardware so you can buy OEM legit: "free IDE cable". Newegg had XP Home OEM for USD$89. W2K Pro OEM for USD$127... Not from US and dont know anything about those sites though.

Anyway the cost is more or less moot point. A miniscule proportion of people who would buy WoW dont have a version of windows, wether as the only OS or dual-booting with Linux.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JavaMomma

Originally posted by: cjr22

Absolutely. Both my machines at home are dual boot Windows/Linux, and I hardly ever use the Linux partions. This is because about 80% of what I do on my PCs at home is play games, the rest being email and surfing. Don't get me wrong, I love the linux desktop and I use it all the time at work. The only thing keeping me from using linux at home is the support for the games. I've tried, but the experience of running games on windows is just much better. I'd say that was worth the £200 or whatever for the OS.

That is exactly my point. Thank you. Linux is good for normal desktop usage stuff, but for games...

That's because the vast majority of games played on linux are windows versions hacked to work on linux. Go install the linux version of q3, it's as easy as I could possibly imagine it being - gui installer and the works.

edit: point being - WHY are you arguing with the intent of this thread? We all want the same thing - easy gaming on linux. You should be supporting the intent of this thread, not fighting against it just because it hasn't happened yet.