PFO for Linux


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Yep, old topic.

Seeing we now have the chance to upgrade our pledges in the fulfilment system that was made available in May and be available in June to make changes.

Now there is a few add-on pledges I would like to have, but don't want to end up wasting a very large money (or in your strong currency about 200 USD) for absolutely nothing if PFO does not work on Linux.

If you ever decide to support the Linux community, would you consider reopening the pledge upgrades for the Linux players can also benefit from taking part in the original KickStarter pledge of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

If the middleware supports it, we'll support it if we can.

Unity - Multiplatform shows support for the following platforms:

  • iOS
  • Windows
  • Linux
  • PS3
  • WiiU
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Web (IE, Navigator, Chrome, Firefox)
  • Xbox

[Edit] I realize this doesn't really answer your question. I thought it might be of interest, though, while you wait for official word on Linux support.

Goblin Squad Member

But Ryan said, if memory serves, that Windows and Apple OS will be first and did not identify as 'in the plan' a Linux client. I have the impression that Linux was acknowledged desirable. I think the question was or would have been whether the potential user-base was large enough to merit the investment.


Eve used to have a linux client but they found the user base was too low to justify continuing with it. While it would be nice if they could have a linux client I suspect that PfO will run into the same issue as CCP did with Eve

http://massively.joystiq.com/2009/02/09/ccp-games-drops-linux-client-suppor t-for-eve-online/

Goblin Squad Member

With the way Microsoft are going with Windows (8) atm, Linux may well be a big part of the future (See Valve's interesting in promoting Linux on Steam). I'm attempting to get into understanding Linux using a Raspberry Pi by tinkering with it. Long way to go but I think it might be a positive direction, one day. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Some other relevant posts I found while researching the issue:

jemstone wrote:
I really want to encourage all of you (tongue-mostly-planted-in-cheek, mind you) to bone up on your OS distribution numbers.

netmarketshare.com currently estimates the following market share for desktop computer OSs:

Worldwide
Windows: 92.05%
Mac OS: 6.39%
Linux: 1.56%

USA
Windows: 83.09%
Mac OS: 13.89%
Linux: 3.02%

What the world wants is a fantasy sandbox where everything "works" like it does in great stories, where people act like role players, where creative folk can add to the world, where everything is balanced so no "build of the week" is dominant, where the game never runs out of interesting things to explore, develop and/or dominate, where players can live in cool kingdoms or build their own, where there's an endless supply of really fun dungeons, that has photorealistic cloth, clothing, hair, and physics, runs on PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android, plus XBox and PS3, has an amazing community filled with harmony, is free to play, millions of people share one server, but everyone's character is unique and special, and the AI could pass the Turing Test.

As an industry, we get that, but realistically we have to evolve to that game and it will likely take at least another 20 years. In the interim, we do what we can with subsets of that vision based on what we can get funded, what we think we can build, and what we think customers will pay for.

It's worth noting that both of those posts were made well before the Unity engine was announced.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:
With the way Microsoft are going with Windows (8) atm, Linux may well be a big part of the future (See Valve's interesting in promoting Linux on Steam).

I totally agree.

Windows 8 was a major attempt to move Windows Users into a "walled garden" and the users resisted it - adamantly. Windows 8.1 is a significant retreat, but I think it's a pragmatic retreat, and that the underlying desire to create a regulated App market is still very much there.

Windows was successful because of the freedom people had to use it for their own purposes much more so than because it had the best applications. If they abandon that, I find it difficult to believe that Americans will simply sit back and accept the loss of freedom. I know I wouldn't.


@Avena

While windows 8 is indeed not very good I do not believe the answer will ever be Linux for mainstream use. While I have no problem maintaining a Linux install on one of my machines there is no way in hell I would consider recommending for any of my non techie relatives.

I know a lot of linux advocates will disagree with me but I am firmly of the opinion that Linux on the desktop is still too far from user friendly to be compatible with non techies.

Linux on steam while an interesting initiative will largely dependent on games developers deciding to support Linux and unfortunately there it tends to be a chicken and egg scenario

It would be nice to be proved wrong, but I don't see it happening in the next 5 years

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Haven't used Linux in many years, but iirc, ZenPagan has it correct. Even with attempting a number of GUI's I never felt all that comfortable working on a Linux computer when I was a Tech. I am not saying Linux itself is bad - it isn't, especially for what the science lab and school I worked for used it for - designing a groundbreaking Bioinformatics program. Linux, like Unix is very good for scientific endeavors, but I didn't find it much good for other work or recreational uses. However, as I said I haven't used it in about thirteen years now, so maybe for some that has changed.

Nihimon, have to agree, Windows 8 was a disaster. I haven't looked at Windows 8.1 yet, and the latest iOS doesn't look much better than Windows 8, so I will be sticking with Windows 7 for now :)


@Gloreindl

I take a very pragmatic view of these things when advising relatives, anything I don't try and steer them away from I am going to have a long distance call for support at sometime. I therefore steer them towards things which will 1) cause them least frustration 2) minimise the number of calls I get from them 3) Will allow them to do what they are buying the pc to do

For me Linux fails on 1 and 2 and depending on what they want to do sometimes number 3 as well

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloreindl wrote:
I will be sticking with Windows 7 for now :)

Diito :)

With respect to the "user-friendliness" of Linux, I believe that would change - rapidly - if a critical mass of independent developers abandoned Windows as a development platform because of Microsoft's hostility to independently developed applications.

Right now, and for the entire history of Linux, Windows has been a viable and easily accessible alternative. If that changes... watch out.

Goblin Squad Member

That is exactly how the PC became dominant over Apple back in the early days of DOS. Apple's graphics using the Motorola 68000 series chips was vastly superior to the intel 3086 when it came to graphics, but Apple wanted to control everything about software development for their product. The Intel chip with Microsoft's OS was wide open, wild wild west stuff. The most creative talent flocked to DOS and Windows. Apple nearly tanked, and would have except for the lucrative deals they worked out with the Universities.

Microsoft has forgotten that lesson. Apple learned.

Goblin Squad Member

Nice discussion here.

I do agree the GUIs are not there yet, for the simple folk to use, even though all the basic user tools exists, and of decent quality. Those who have some tech know, Linux with the 2 main GUIs: Gnome and KDE, are already there for general use.

At this stage, Linux definitely fails as a gaming platform as most developers deciding to not support Linux, thus Linux development to be a gaming platform has been rather slow. At least a big name company has decided to support Linux and creating a platform for Valve games and for indie developers to show case their games. This support in turns helps bring gaming developers together to help develop an overall better gaming platform for all games. When the gaming quality improves, it in terms helps develop better support libraries and features the gaming developers require.

Though I love to hear what the devs thoughts on the issue of Linux as the project currently stands in development.

Goblin Squad Member

One often overlooked thing that stands in the favor of Linux growing into a gaming platform is that the costs of the tools to create anything any more has grown so great that if trends continue really small, really creative, really cash-strapped indies may be forced to turn to it for economic reasons alone.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gloreindl wrote:


Nihimon, have to agree, Windows 8 was a disaster. I haven't looked at Windows 8.1 yet, and the latest iOS doesn't look much better than Windows 8, so I will be sticking with Windows 7 for now :)

IOS is a tablet interface, comparing it with desktop operating systems is major kind of apples and oranges thing.

Nihmon wrote:


netmarketshare.com currently estimates the following market share for desktop computer OSs:

Worldwide
Windows: 92.05%
Mac OS: 6.39%
Linux: 1.56%

USA
Windows: 83.09%
Mac OS: 13.89%
Linux: 3.02%

What's left out in those figures is what those units are used for. Those numbers count buisness, technical, and home entertainment use, which is where the game players are (or should be :) If you take a look each OS population and check the percentage used for home entertainment, you're going to find that Linux boxes are by far the lowest per OS population. Not even Blizzard with audiences in the millions thought it was worth the trouble. And this is an important point, because putting out a client means you have to support it, which means they've got to look at an extremely fragmented operating system when you take a look at all of hte possible distributions that might be involved.

The other thing that's a real kickier is WINE. If you force the Linux users to run the Windows client under WINE, then any problems with running your software can be kicked to WINE.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

To support two platforms roughly doubles the cost of creating, testing, and maintaining the client. If supporting another platform expands the current market by n%, the cost associated with writing the client must be less than n% of the total budget.

For n=6, double the largest number quoted so far for Linux, that would roughly require that the client was written, tested, and maintained by a single part-time intern.

Goblin Squad Member

The real point here is that the engine, unity, is supposed to do all of the porting work for you. I imagine this issue will be more properly revisited later. As it stands, there isn't a good reason linux isn't supported except "they haven't had much time to think about it" which is 100% acceptable.


As a Linux user, I do hope that PFO eventually supports us, but I'm not too confident.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
To support two platforms roughly doubles the cost of creating, testing, and maintaining the client.

I would quibble with it doubling the cost of "creating" and "maintaining" the client if the multi-platform support is built into the engine. There will almost certainly be an increase, but I don't think it will approach anywhere near 100%, and it might well be under 3%.

I could easily see it double (or more) the cost of "testing".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
To support two platforms roughly doubles the cost of creating, testing, and maintaining the client.

I would quibble with it doubling the cost of "creating" and "maintaining" the client if the multi-platform support is built into the engine. There will almost certainly be an increase, but I don't think it will approach anywhere near 100%, and it might well be under 3%.

I could easily see it double (or more) the cost of "testing".

I seem to remember one gaming company had supported Windows and Mac clients and an "unsupported" Linux client that were all on the same patch cycle.

The Linux client was built out of whatever the current build of the game was, but there was little to no testing on it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
To support two platforms roughly doubles the cost of creating, testing, and maintaining the client.

I would quibble with it doubling the cost of "creating" and "maintaining" the client if the multi-platform support is built into the engine. There will almost certainly be an increase, but I don't think it will approach anywhere near 100%, and it might well be under 3%.

I could easily see it double (or more) the cost of "testing".

Maybe I'm making a distinction that doesn't make sense for a programmer. I meant the less abstract layers that need to interface with the input devices, handle server communications, and write to the filesystem; not the display output.

Are those standardized across platforms now?

Goblin Squad Member

Input devices interfacing is pretty much standardized, server communication is always independent of the platform as if it's not compliant with the regular Internet standards it won't work on the internet infrastructure period and the Unity-PFO specific stuff is in the client and not really platform dependent. File system compatibility is build into the Unity engine otherwise they would have no right at all to claim that they are in general Lunix compatible.

The only stuff that is different is the graphics library ( what you call display output) And I'm sure that's in the Unity Engine.


The testing of multiple platforms is the true killer from a software perspective. This is why phone developers complain about the fragmentation of android so much. They need to test over multiple versions of the OS and on multiple phone configurations.

Something that looks fine on a nexus one may not look fine on a galaxy S3 or an android tablet

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

LazarX wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:


Nihimon, have to agree, Windows 8 was a disaster. I haven't looked at Windows 8.1 yet, and the latest iOS doesn't look much better than Windows 8, so I will be sticking with Windows 7 for now :)

IOS is a tablet interface, comparing it with desktop operating systems is major kind of apples and oranges thing.

Sorry LazarX for calling MacOS iOS - as noted in my post it has been thirteen years since I was a tech. Thirteen years ago I had back surgery that found I had severe degenerative disc disease and was told by more than a few doctors I had to stop working or risk becoming paralyzed. As a result I had a brain fart, since the only Apple product I have used in years is an iPod, so am used to saying iOS rather than OS10 (or whatever the current one is) or MacOS as I did back then. Since I cannot and haven't worked as a Tech, I simply don't follow the latest OS news for any of them. I went back to my first love, and what I received my degree in - History; Medieval Military History to be precise, and the political ramifications of the Crusades and Mongol Expansion. (BA in History & Political Science, Adelphi University, 1989).

Regardless of my tale of woe however, the fact is that Linux and even MacOS isn't a large part of the gaming community, though Apple has made some halfhearted attempts to change that over the years, but to my knowledge, limited as it is, it never really became a gaming platform for computers. Windows is, for now, the de facto OS worldwide. Maby Android has a shot of doing what Apple and Unix/Linux open source OS' have not been able to do, but I am not holding my breath on that, not while the PC still is king and PC makers favor the deals they have with Microsoft.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Maybe I'm making a distinction that doesn't make sense for a programmer. I meant the less abstract layers that need to interface with the input devices, handle server communications, and write to the filesystem; not the display output.

Are those standardized across platforms now?

If we break up all the code that Goblinworks is writing for the Client, there would be two major categories: Game Logic and Hardware/OS Interface. My contention is that the Game Logic will be exactly the same, regardless of Client Platform, and that Hardware/OS Interface will largely be abstracted through Library calls. My expectation is that Unity has something like a simple drop-down list that contains all their supported platforms, and that compiling the Client for Linux might be as simple as selecting Linux from this list and then recompiling.

The main reason Goblinworks might want to access the Hardware/OS directly is if there are special features on one platform that aren't available on the others, or in the Library. I don't expect they'd want to do that, though.

Goblin Squad Member

With the bad economic climate we in, I can't afford to waste my money on something I can't use, until I know that PFO will work on Linux.

I just hope when PFO works on Linux, that Goblinworks will allow the Linux crowd to have the opportunity to add the Kickstarter addons to our original pledges like Secret Salute, Twice-Marked of Pharasma, Three Months of Game Time, 1 Year of Game Time, Class Pack for both main and twin, and any additional add-ons that twin does not have compared to main.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If you want things at the current price, get them now. There's a cost of money factor which makes the current fair price much lower now than at the beginning of EE.

CEO, Goblinworks

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We will not make Add-Ons or Rewards that we will limit to the Kickstarter Backers available in the future. If you want them, get them before the end of June.

Remember, Kickstarter is not a store. Part of the value of your pledges is helping make something cool happen - it is not just a way to pre-buy the game.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
If you want things at the current price, get them now. There's a cost of money factor which makes the current fair price much lower now than at the beginning of EE.

Well for Mac and Windows, it is a guarantee they be able to use the items they buy from the Kickstarter process by end of June. For the Linux crowd there is absolutely no guarantee they be able to use it as currently there is no word that Linux users will be able to play PFO. This is a big difference here, Windows and Mac players at no risk at wasting money what so ever, yet the Linux players have to risk wastage large amount of money for nothing. Clearly favouritism is only to Windows and Mac players.

Goblin Squad Member

A business responding to economic realities isn't a case of favoritism at all, but realism.

Goblin Squad Member

I wish the Windows and Mac players they get an awesome game to play. I going to bail out of this one as there is no intention to support Linux players.

Goblin Squad Member

Not trying to be a dick here but, DarkOne, could you point to any piece of information that they released before the end of the KS that would make the it reasonable to assume that a Linux version would be available, besides the fact that Unity has some level of Linux support?

Goblin Squad Member

@Papaver, I don't think Darkone is trying to allege he's been tricked, just that he's put as much into the project as he's willing to without a commitment of support.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't know. The wording "to bail out" suggests otherwise. Unless he's referring to bailing out of the conversation.

Goblin Squad Member

@Papaver, nowhere did I ever state that Goblinworks stated somewhere the would support Linux community. It is rather the lack of any proper confirmation to support Linux. Even Ryan post in this topic thread, in a very indirect way, has stated they have no intention to support Linux players, by clearly stating that the Kickstarter addons will only be available to end of June 2013, yet to date with only 22 days to go, there is no statement confirm support for Linux players.

So it means I will be bailing out of PFO entirely, as I will not waste about 200 USD on absolutely nothing, and if Goblinworks ever decide to support Linux after June 2013, the Linux players won't get the same opportunity as the Windows and Mac players of the Kickstarter to get the Kickstarter addons.

At least even though the PFO part of the 100 USD pledge is completely useless, luckily for the 100 USB, I still get the PDF bundle, the PDFs of PF Core Rulebook (already have the printed version for years, and have many PF printed books), the River Kingdoms setting PDF, the Emerald Spire Super Dungeon PDF. The rest of the goodies to me are bonus extras as I don't play table top games any more as it has become rather difficult for me to find players in the city. At my RPG shop, I the only one who buys PF products, even have PF products especially ordered for me. These days I do play-by-post games.

I will continue to keep an eye on the forum for any announcement on the pledge items that will be shipping or available for downloading.

I thought I would again have a true persistent RPG MMO to play after NWN and UO (well a group managed to get a client written for Linux).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suspect the game would run fine under Wine Darkone, I seem to recall other unity games do

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I estimate a 70%-90% chance that it will run under at least one Linux flavor out of the box, possibly requiring WINE. My prior is based on how well games in general perform under WINE.


Hi, I'm a 100% Linux gamer. I've been idly watching PFO for a while now, but will not make any kind of financial investment unless and until Linux support is explicit (and preferably demonstrated). I've seen too many game developers "nope out" of Linux support after providing numerous "maybes", "we'll try"s, "we're working on it"s, and "stretch goals".

By all accounts, providing Linux support with Unity is pretty much a one-click "export to Linux" operation, if you've been doing things properly. All that's usually needed is just to test that the thing runs at all.
Even that aside, IME the sooner one starts with a Linux build, the less work it will be overall - before any platform-specific shenanigans get too deeply embedded in the codebase.

To clarify the EVE Online situation; for a time they had an "official" client for Linux, yes, but it was NOT a Linux client - it was just their normal Windows client with a (pretty crappy) Wine wrapper. I used it for a while. AFAICT, the reason it was cancelled was that, in short order, stock Wine could run the Windows client far better than the "official" client did - even with the new (at the time) improved graphics, which weren't even available in the "official" Linux client.

IMO, Wine is no longer a reasonable solution for any new project - especially not one using a game engine with such good Linux support already built in.

Also; what are they planning on running the servers on? Windows?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ease of compiling to linux is neither here nor there Romlok

The problem is one of support and testing. Each operating system takes x hours of QA testing. That costs money. If the value of x is greater than the expected return from the operating system users who would subscribe then the support for that operating system will not get implemented. Bear in mind also that Linux is an operating system with many different builds from Debian through Ubuntu to Suse. All of the variants will need a certain amount of testing work. Yes so do all the windows variants however there you are talking about supporting 90% odd of the player base.

Unfortunately the installed user base for Linux runs at a pretty low percentage where between 1% and 3%. In addition a lot of linux (and even mac users) have dual booted there machines for gaming so you won't even be increasing your user base by as much as that percentage even.

No idea's what they are running the servers on but that doesn't really matter. The servers could be anything as long as they can accept the data packets and decode them.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

ZP is correct - GW is a small company with limited staff, only some of whom are programmers/Devs. Man hours needed to get a working game ready for EE are, frankly, finite, so cross-platform work isn't likely a priority. However, Unity does work cross-platform, and both Linux and Mac OS both have Windows emulation programs. Both of you, Romløk and DarkOne could be playing from day one using the Unity Client and the emulation programs. However, given Unity's cross-platform abilities, it might well be that no emulation will be needed. Regardless, you both have options that don't require either of you to leave or swear off PfO. Thus I hope you will both reconsider.


I should hasten to point out I like linux and do in fact have a linux machine. As a software developer myself though a lot of projects I have worked on have looked at supporting Linux.

Generally if it is a server side project it can be certainly worth it. A client side app much harder to justify the cost unfortunately :(

Goblin Squad Member

WINE is a bad emulator, and can be seen that different versions behave different, even newer versions of WINE can be worse than previous versions. Thus talking of WINE is a complete waste of time.

Server side has nothing to do with players client, only for such a huge player based expected, it would be best to write the server backend on the fastest OS available, which slow resource bloated Windows is definitely not the best choice for server.

As for dual booting, not all that dual boot, make use of legal Windows installation. Thus this idea is another dead end. I will not entertain having illegal Windows to play games, thus don't have Windows at all.

What baffles me, is that the middleware chosen is multi platform supported, meaning that the developers of Unity do plenty QA testing on the various platforms to make sure the core and various addons libraries work on the platforms before the platforms get the supported stamp. All modern game engines that run on multiple platforms, all come with file system, network communication, and graphic subsystem libraries to abstract the platform features and hide the differences. For example, on the file system: the unity file system library would hand the / and \ issue automatically without the game developer having to give a second thought. Same goes for network with architecture differences. For graphics, the library handles any translation to the correct graphics API: OpenGL or Direct3D or none, as the proprietary graphics drivers can handle the conversion between Direct3D to OpenGL, or visa versa, either at software level or at hardware level (such as nVidia).

As long as one uses the Unity API for all network, graphics and file system instead of creating new versions of the low level API functions, then the project should build on any supported platform.

I worked with many cross platform libraries, some having far greater platform supported list than Unity. As long as I stick to the libraries cross platform API features, I can compile for any platform. Send the product to other platforms and they run out of the box without any issues, provided the end user has ensure all the libraries dependencies are in place. Again not the responsibility of the libraries developers or the product developers that use these libraries.

If you have not figured it out by now. Yes! I am a programmer. I love using cross platform libraries to ease the porting of products to other platforms without the end user having to compile the product or unable to do so due to closed source. There are a number of commercial game engines that is supported on many platforms, and even more libraries are available that are cross platform support that focus on specific features, from just graphic renderers all the way to entire environment supporting using platform specific back components to ensure the look and feel of the application looks the same as other applications on the end user's platform.

Oh, seeing there is such nice talk about dual booting, and Linux distros are free to get and use. The GW can have in the QA section one, two or a few dual booting machines with the most popular Linux distros such as openSUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian.

I will reconsider if there is a confirm commitment for Linux support before the end of the month June 2013, or if it comes after June 2013, the Linux crowd still can get to select the Kickstar addons, of which the Windows and Mac players are guaranteed to have. As the other Linux posted stated, he got burnt way to often to put money up front for no commitment for Linux support. I will not waste large amount of money for absolutely nothing.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Just as a pendandtic note, WINE Is Not an Emulator.


Nihimon wrote:
Gloreindl wrote:
I will be sticking with Windows 7 for now :)

Diito :)

With respect to the "user-friendliness" of Linux, I believe that would change - rapidly - if a critical mass of independent developers abandoned Windows as a development platform because of Microsoft's hostility to independently developed applications.

Right now, and for the entire history of Linux, Windows has been a viable and easily accessible alternative. If that changes... watch out.

My dad was a complete computer novice and used Linux on his desktop just fine. Trust me, it is very user friendly.

Goblin Squad Member

"as the proprietary graphics drivers can handle the conversion between Direct3D to OpenGL, or visa versa, either at software level or at hardware level (such as nVidia)."

Sure technically this is true the cost in form of a performance drop is huuuuuuuuge.

Also you are a silly person for calling WINE useless and an Emulator. Very very silly.


FWIW, I neither demand nor expect Linux support in PFO, I just feel it could be fairly low-hanging fruit for GW. So I just wanted to throw my voice behind the idea.

ZenPagan wrote:
The problem is one of support and testing.

And no gaming community is better at self-support and voluntary testing than the Linux gaming community. ;)

My point about Unity wasn't that is was just easy to compile, but that it's already shown to be well used and well tested on Linux. Of course, any GW-specific (or third-party) extensions would need to be tested on each platform though, hence my advice about starting early being cheaper in the long run.
That said, nobody will know how much extra work it would be but GW, and likely not even them at this point.

ZenPagan wrote:
Bear in mind also that Linux is an operating system with many different builds from Debian through Ubuntu to Suse. All of the variants will need a certain amount of testing work.

Not necessarily so. Case in point: Steam.

Steam, and all the Linux-compatible games therein, are designed to work on a single version of Ubuntu Linux. Yet to every distro you turn, Steam and Steam-games are found to be up and running. It seems to me that the difference between distros is greatly exaggerated by those with at most historic experience. If games are statically compiled, or include all libraries (as Steam games do IIRC), any modern Linux distro is much like any other AFAICT.
Distribution format is another question, but as long as you cater to Ubuntu users, everyone else is usually able to work it out for themselves. ;)

I can't argue about the size of the Linux gaming userbase though (yet! ;), but I can still pout. :P

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Just as a pendandtic note, WINE Is Not an Emulator.

On a similar note, "Wine" is no longer an acronym, either!

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

I would love to see full on Linux support for PFO, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

Personally I'm planning on using Windows at first and making attempts at getting PFO going with WINE on different Linux distributions.

Hopefully if enough of us voice support for Linux support, then in the long run we might get it!

Goblin Squad Member

@Nightdrifter, don't hold your breath for a Linux version, else you will surely die.

It is already on the verge of sunset on the 27th June, and still no word for Linux version.

I definitely not going to waste money on nothing (as it stands).

If they do create a Linux version years from now, they NOT WILLING to give the Kickstarter Linux supporters the option to get the Kickstarter only addons.

Goblin Squad Member

What I find unfortunate is that between June 5 and June 30, the answer to the OP's question has still not been provided.

Either GW/PFO will support Linux users or it won't, there is no grey area. Because there is no consideration in the KS for "We hope to; We'll try to; or Maybe" this question should have been answered by now.

Possible Solution: for purposes of the KS, Linux users could be identified and their KS could be reserved until GW has a final answer to this question. If days, weeks or even months down the road GW decides one way or the other, that is when the KS if Linux users are processed. Neither party loses in this, the KS implementation is just delayed.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...their KS could be reserved...

Do we have any idea of the logistical difficulty involved? I can imagine that Kickstarter probably has compliance rules to follow, for example.

Add in the data-gathering time and costs to identify Linux users, and any accounting issues with sequestering their funds, and things could get ugly. GW has only, what, 12 people or so to handle what might be a very small number of impacted players?

MVP is a harsh task-master. It would've been nice to have an affirmative answer, but silence is also an answer.

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / PFO for Linux All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.