Divinity original sin для linux
Hey all. Big fan of divinity etc. Bought both classic edition and then later enhanced. Because I knew they were porting it towards Linux? Unsure though if this is coming to Linux? Anyone know as I only have my steam machine now which is steamos.
So don’t want to purchase to find out after a long time that they are not doing a Linux version.
Any thoughts? Shoot!
Arch Linux x8664 and Wine-staging
Arch Linux x8664 and Wine-staging
Are you saying the game runs under staging Wine?
well, since *some* directx11 support is already there, I wont be surprised. But it doesnt mean, that its glitchless.
Also if you REALLY want to play this game in wine, I’d suggest gog version instead of steam (coz, you know, drm-free games are way easier to use with it)
businesses have recognised for decades that Linux porting is a worse investment than putting those people and time to work on new projects. most of the companies that make porting a priority today are the largest ones trying to milk their IPs as hard as possible. every other port is charity work by Linux sympathisers.
If you build your engine using third party libraries that already support cross-platform then it’s not really that much of an investment. The real issue is big devs and publishers in bed with Microsoft, Intel and Nvidia. They give you free stuff, like workstations, software licenses and you promote their DX 12 and other stuff like that.
Divinity 2 engine should be cross-platform capable already since it was used for EE. It’s probably just a matter of updating or switching third party libraries that aren’t linux capatible and testing.
Arch Linux x8664 and Wine-staging
Arch Linux x8664 and Wine-staging
Linux only gamer here. Arch. No wine. Have approx. 200.
Linux only gamer here. Arch. No wine. Have approx. 200.
its not bad to use wine for some old stuff, that cant work natively for technical reasons, tbh
If anything, often old Windows-only games will work better under Wine than on modern Windows! I remember when The Nameless Mod came out for the original Deus Ex, about a decade after the game itself had come out. I played it and loved how, with that long time that the mod team had had to work on it, they’d pushed the old engine to its absolute limit and made a mod that was larger than the original game! I thought it was fantastic, and starting excitedly talking to other friends who were also giant fans of Deus Ex like I was.
“Yeah, it seems good”, they each said, “but it keeps crashing!” This took me by complete surprise, because running under Wine on Kubuntu, set to pretend to be Windows XP, everything was perfectly fine and stable. By virtue of having to tune itself to the idiosyncracies of Windows, and having it all run in very much its own sandbox, the Wine developers have ended up with a superior compatibility layer for old Windows software than Microsoft’s own intermediary layers atop newer versions of Windows.
If you build your engine using third party libraries that already support cross-platform then it’s not really that much of an investment. The real issue is big devs and publishers in bed with Microsoft, Intel and Nvidia. They give you free stuff, like workstations, software licenses and you promote their DX 12 and other stuff like that.
Divinity 2 engine should be cross-platform capable already since it was used for EE. It’s probably just a matter of updating or switching third party libraries that aren’t linux capatible and testing.
Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head, although I think there’s some other related factors at work too, which altogether explain why
most of the companies that make porting a priority today are the largest ones trying to milk their IPs as hard as possible
is very much not borne out, and it’s really only the largest publishers that completely refuse to release for Linux, with some of the very, very small ones also being so stubborn.
At the highest level, where we’re talking these enormous companies like EA and Ubisoft, it comes down to a few things.
For one, there’s the long and very cozy relationship they have with other giant companies, in particular with Microsoft. And it’s not just the specific buttering up that you describe, Alundaio, it’s also a lot of mutual back-scratching and cutthroat deals made back and forth.
For two, you have the fact that some of the big players, particularly EA with “Origin”, have outright distribution platforms they run. So it’s also a general business decision of, does our store endeavour to support Linux? And then that’s not only a technical decision, but also very much a business strategy one, and the entire mindset of the business world is very much one that find Linux and the Free Software world in general fundamentally baffling and often even quite hostile. At smaller or more technical company there’s a debate that could be had about the compatibility between open source and for-profit business, but the people running places like EA are graduates of MBA programs and the like and they have a very firm ideology that they don’t even generally realize is an ideology.
For three, you just have the tragedy of a codebase made by companies so large. Past a certain size of company the probability of the code they create not being a giant unmanageable mess seems to drop to zero. It’s kludges atop kludges, in a codebase they’ve developed in house that gets wrangled anew each game release, written by almost countless different people working under impossibly short deadlines and terrible conditions—the Endless Crunch. That is not a codebase that ports easily. That is a codebase whose foundation is jenga atop sand, and moving it to another platform means probably breaking everything and rewriting a ton of things from scratch . . . and probably, because of the impossible deadlines, one that’s also (in fact perhaps increasingly) brittle.
But for the smaller studio (particularly the medium sized ones), which have the ability to potentially write good code and/or just license a third-party engine (rather than management using the disposable dozens of fast-burning programmers to brute-force an engine into continued development), being cross-platform is almost just a natural side-effect. Particularly if it’s an engine designed to be re-used by other development studios, like Unity or Game Maker or Unreal (or even different studios under the same publisher-owner, as happened with IO Interactive’s engine that they used for Hitman and was also used for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, hence the latter also came out for Linux despite how rare that is for a Japanese publisher).
Even just from a long-term maintainability standpoint, it’s best if the different layers and parallel structures of your software are as abstracted as possible so that you can develop or swap out one aspect without breaking everything else that relies on it. And if you’re selling your engine to other developers, who may try things you’ve never tried with it, having a solid and easily-extensible codebase is super important.
And then you get into how many platforms there are, which is important also for any developers trying to maximise their return on the extensive time investment of developing a game. Sure, maybe you could convince yourself that Windows is the only PC OS that makes business sense to develop for, but you may also want to develop for one of: Android, iOS, PS4, Nintendo Switch. Once you’ve chosen one or two of those, hell, you’ve either put in an ungodly effort to wrangle a dystopian hellscape of a codebase (as I suspect EA often does) or you’ve made the codebase portable enough and supported things like OpenGL enough that you’ve done 95%+ of the work to port it to Linux. Now, suddenly, even the most pessimistic estimates of the Linux gamer userbase is looking a lot more profitable . . .
And of course, that’s why the big engines that are widely available for developer use (Unreal, Unity, Game Maker, Source, etc etc, not to mention open source ones like Carmack’s id-tech engines) have basically push-button support for Linux already. Using one of those is less about overtly working to support Linux, and more about good development practices that, mostly just as a matter of course, ensure you never break the pre-existing Linux compatibility those engines ship to you with.
If you build your engine using third party libraries that already support cross-platform then it’s not really that much of an investment. The real issue is big devs and publishers in bed with Microsoft, Intel and Nvidia. They give you free stuff, like workstations, software licenses and you promote their DX 12 and other stuff like that.
Divinity 2 engine should be cross-platform capable already since it was used for EE. It’s probably just a matter of updating or switching third party libraries that aren’t linux capatible and testing.
Yeah, you’ve hit the nail on the head, although I think there’s some other related factors at work too, which altogether explain why
most of the companies that make porting a priority today are the largest ones trying to milk their IPs as hard as possible
is very much not borne out, and it’s really only the largest publishers that completely refuse to release for Linux, with some of the very, very small ones also being so stubborn.
At the highest level, where we’re talking these enormous companies like EA and Ubisoft, it comes down to a few things.
For one, there’s the long and very cozy relationship they have with other giant companies, in particular with Microsoft. And it’s not just the specific buttering up that you describe, Alundaio, it’s also a lot of mutual back-scratching and cutthroat deals made back and forth.
For two, you have the fact that some of the big players, particularly EA with “Origin”, have outright distribution platforms they run. So it’s also a general business decision of, does our store endeavour to support Linux? And then that’s not only a technical decision, but also very much a business strategy one, and the entire mindset of the business world is very much one that find Linux and the Free Software world in general fundamentally baffling and often even quite hostile. At smaller or more technical company there’s a debate that could be had about the compatibility between open source and for-profit business, but the people running places like EA are graduates of MBA programs and the like and they have a very firm ideology that they don’t even generally realize is an ideology.
For three, you just have the tragedy of a codebase made by companies so large. Past a certain size of company the probability of the code they create not being a giant unmanageable mess seems to drop to zero. It’s kludges atop kludges, in a codebase they’ve developed in house that gets wrangled anew each game release, written by almost countless different people working under impossibly short deadlines and terrible conditions—the Endless Crunch. That is not a codebase that ports easily. That is a codebase whose foundation is jenga atop sand, and moving it to another platform means probably breaking everything and rewriting a ton of things from scratch . . . and probably, because of the impossible deadlines, one that’s also (in fact perhaps increasingly) brittle.
But for the smaller studio (particularly the medium sized ones), which have the ability to potentially write good code and/or just license a third-party engine (rather than management using the disposable dozens of fast-burning programmers to brute-force an engine into continued development), being cross-platform is almost just a natural side-effect. Particularly if it’s an engine designed to be re-used by other development studios, like Unity or Game Maker or Unreal (or even different studios under the same publisher-owner, as happened with IO Interactive’s engine that they used for Hitman and was also used for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, hence the latter also came out for Linux despite how rare that is for a Japanese publisher).
Even just from a long-term maintainability standpoint, it’s best if the different layers and parallel structures of your software are as abstracted as possible so that you can develop or swap out one aspect without breaking everything else that relies on it. And if you’re selling your engine to other developers, who may try things you’ve never tried with it, having a solid and easily-extensible codebase is super important.
And then you get into how many platforms there are, which is important also for any developers trying to maximise their return on the extensive time investment of developing a game. Sure, maybe you could convince yourself that Windows is the only PC OS that makes business sense to develop for, but you may also want to develop for one of: Android, iOS, PS4, Nintendo Switch. Once you’ve chosen one or two of those, hell, you’ve either put in an ungodly effort to wrangle a dystopian hellscape of a codebase (as I suspect EA often does) or you’ve made the codebase portable enough and supported things like OpenGL enough that you’ve done 95%+ of the work to port it to Linux. Now, suddenly, even the most pessimistic estimates of the Linux gamer userbase is looking a lot more profitable . . .
And of course, that’s why the big engines that are widely available for developer use (Unreal, Unity, Game Maker, Source, etc etc, not to mention open source ones like Carmack’s id-tech engines) have basically push-button support for Linux already. Using one of those is less about overtly working to support Linux, and more about good development practices that, mostly just as a matter of course, ensure you never break the pre-existing Linux compatibility those engines ship to you with.
Источник
