RANT: servers ported but not clients

MacFlecknoe

Just taking a personal poll. How many other people find it very annoying that companies that produce games like Raven Shield only port over the server side of the game and not also the client?

How much foresight would it take to code thing to work on both Windows and Linux.. afterall the engine runs under both operating systems natively.

What REALLY bugs me is that they act they they are doing us a great favor by porting over anything at all... when in fact WE end up helping them sell games by giving them a greater server install base (running on typically fatter pipes/more robust systems).

To that I say "no thanks, Ill keep all my bandwidth to myself"; afterall I cant play the bloody thing.

Thoughts?

dma · Posted: Tue May 13, 2003 11:48 pm Post subject:

FIGHT THE MACHINE!

Seriously. At least Epic and id seem to care.

sgaap · Posted: Wed May 14, 2003 1:07 am Post subject:

Hmm, I agree on ID, but epic only ported ut2k3 to linux because the hoped more people would run the server on their linux boxes, thats why they dont care for linux and opengl when it comes to unreal2

For me its simple: I only run (linux)servers of games that I can play myself..
So no game-servers without a linux client..
_________________
In "old" Europe we already have a word for "pre-emptive strikes" mr Bush: its called "war"

Trumpcard · n00b Joined: 27 May 2002 Posts: 36

The simple fact is that the user base of linux most of the time is not big enough to support an additional platform for alot of development companies, as well as the vast number of linux configurations as opposed to a fairly limited number of windows configurations, that would make support of the client side product a monster.

From a logistics standpoint, I probably wouldnt do it either, even being a linux advocate. Making a serverside product is alot simplier than one that has to handle the hardware layer to a higher degree (as in graphics), so it would be hard to justify the labor costs to port the game, and then support on a platform with MUCH lower usage numbers. The same reason that every game made for the PC doesnt end up on the MAC.

For example:
I work for a company that provides comprehensive web access to our services and products. Looking over the # of linux login's (we analyze the access/browser query strings to get these #'s) I see much less than 1% of our clients come in daily from a linux based OS/browser. Therefore, from a cost-analysis standpoint, it doesnt even make sense to me to justify TESTING compatiblity from a linux platform, much less assigning resources to design specificlly with the idea of coding to work with linux browsers... Just the hard reality of the numbers game....

Sesquipedalian · n00b Joined: 22 May 2002 Posts: 62 Location: Loveland, CO

dermot · Posted: Fri May 16, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject:

For the record, Epic had a huge input into Unreal 2 and were heavily involved in the final stages, getting it from a Beta (maybe even Alpha) stage to Gold.
_________________
Dermot

I bought some rock star ashes from the back of Rolling Stone
I don't think he would've minded - he couldn't sell his soul

Sesquipedalian · n00b Joined: 22 May 2002 Posts: 62 Location: Loveland, CO

Very true...... Epic assisted Legend to get Unreal2 "out the door". But, as far as I know, they had little to do with decisions such as whether or not to have a Linux client. That's all I meant by it.

_________________
What tha........