Will GalCiv III be supporting any platforms other than Windows? Specifically, you really need to release a Mac & Linux version. You'll find there are a lot of eager Mac/Linux gamers out there who are ready to throw their money at you for native versions. How about some love for us non-Windows users?
No it's not. Feature for feature, they're pretty much equivalent, although in certain cases, OpenGL is actually faster than DirectX.
"Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux. That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive, given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL. Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration. [...] We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows."
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
Oh, snap.
You know what else I don't understand? Why some Windows gamers get all bent out of shape whenever a non-Windows gamer suggests the possibility of a Mac or Linux version of their favorite game. Do you guys really believe that porting to other platforms will somehow take something away from the game, make it not as good as it could have been? We all want to play the game, and we're simply pointing out that a relatively minor investment on the front end can have long term benefits on the back end.
The general theory is that the resources used to support other platforms could be devoted to making the game even better, but this, of course, misunderstands exactly what is required to make a cross-platform game. If a game is designed from the ground up to be cross-platform then only minimal resources are required to port from one platform to another. It's why indie developers working with micro-budgets are able to release multi-platform games without going bankrupt.
Sweet! An Xbox version!
The 'year to code it' was static between the two. And you're making the assumption that the dev is already familiar with with OpenGL, I'm making the -- I thought clearly stated -- assumption that he was not.
To rephrase my statement for greater clarity:
In addition to a year's 'base' time to produce the game, learning OpenGL would require learning the new API -- depending on the dev, this could take 6-8 weeks to become fully conversant with the technology, and may also impose additional development time when they run into 'easy' problems to solve using directX which now require them to come up with new solutions.
It's also not an apples-to-apples comparison, because DirectX does more than just graphics; it also helps with audio, input, and more.
Is that a valid assumption for someone working in the gaming industry? I guess Brad would be the one to answer that question.
Congratulations on listing old technology that was just barely beat out on one game that was tested. This test was done with Direct3D 9 not Direct3D 11.
Here is a link providing more current benchmarks.
http://www.g-truc.net/post-0547.html
However I do agree with some statements that if they can build the game from the ground up and it doesn't add time to the game being delayed for a completed project then of course I want them to do it. I would rather see them spend the time and man hours on making the game more polished and have a successful launch.
I said that it's faster "in certain cases", which your link bears out. The point is that neither API is clearly superior across the board.
Regarding your second point, everything I've read suggests that supporting multiple platforms adds very little time to development provided the software is designed from the ground up for cross-platform support. Basically, stay away from proprietary middleware like DirectX, and you're golden. Again, indie developers with tiny budgets are able to release Windows, Mac, and Linux versions without breaking the bank, so it doesn't take tremendous resources.
Same here, an OSX version would be awesome!
I don't plan on switching back to Linux in the foreseeable future (some work-related software is Windows-only, but we're working on that), but when the opportunity presents itself, I'd like to switch my laptop back to ArchLinux. Since GalCiv3 will be one of those "play for years" kind of games, I'd be happy to see a multi-platform version (I'd include Android here, but that's a wet dream).
But since DirectX 10/11 were already mentioned as requirements, I'm not sure how realistic that is. I also don't know how far the game's development is. Since "winter" was mentioned as the start of the founder's alpha test, I speculate that they are past the stage where they can easily drop DirectX and embrace OpenGL.
Just because some devs can do it for cheap, doesn't mean GalCiv3 can. It realy depends on yoru game and how you've coded it. It can be 'simple' or 'mind numbingly complicated'
Exactly. If you've coded it from the very beginning with the explicit goal of supporting multiple platforms then things will be relatively simple. Unfortunately, Stardock developed the Kumquat engine exclusively for DirectX, so they've got their work cut out for them if they want to move their games to other platforms.
There's also the possibility of hiring an outside company to do the porting. Many companies do this.
Since DirectX10 and 11 are still unsupported in Wine, it looks like the only way Mac/Linux gamers will get to play this is if Stardock creates or commissions an official port.
Yea, that would do it. But it requires big success, because the job could take some time and money. My understanding is that GalCiv has never been exactly a GTA success like seriers. So who is going to pay it? Those 100 or so potential Linux fans also liking 4x games maybe?
+1
Also, when you consider the relatively limited appeal of 4X games like GalCiv (as compared to franchises like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto), you'd think that an indie company like Stardock would want to spread their game over as many platforms as possible to maximize their sales. Obviously I cannot claim to know what drives their business decisions, but this seems logical to me.
That's logical for me, too. +1
Investemt in OpenGL is a win, imho.
I'm fairly sure I don't get bent out of shape because a game is being released on another platform. Potentially it means more sales in the long term, which means I get to see more games I like being released, which also go on to be released on other platforms, and so on.
I'm not saying the platform ports are easy but they have become more popular over the years. And frankly, Windows is pretty damn expensive here in Europe.
GalCiv III for next gen consoles? XCOM:EU did relatively well in this one from what I read. *dodges the "NOOO! They will dumb it down!!!" and similar reactions*
To be fair, I didn't say ALL windows users do that. But whenever someone starts a thread like this, sure enough someone jumps in and complains, belittles, or downright insults anyone who dares to suggest that Mac/Linux users should get a native port. But I like the way you think, sir.
Hey, I'd love a Mac OSX port.
I just doubt it's going to happen.
Well, at least they didn't give us an outright no. "Thinking about it" is a long way from their position in 2006.
I really would like to see a linux version!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
