Unreal Engine Linux Ports Not Dead?

CookieMnstr|PuF writes: "Brandon Reinhart, programmer at Epic, has updated his .plan file in response to the fear that no more Unreal Engine-based games will be ported to Linux. He faults the Linux community for jumping to the conclusion that Unreal Engine games will not be a reality for the Mac and Linux. Maybe he should read beyond the headlines. "

Comments

This is just another opportunity for Loki

[SurfsUp]

Fresh from their great success with Heavy Gear, the first port of a D3D game to Linux/OpenGL, I seriously doubt that Loki would consider this project a major challenge. It means there will be a lag of a few months before the Loki version comes out (I think it has to be a no-brainer that Loki will bid on this) and personally I'm happy to wait for it. Knowing Loki, the Linux/OpenGL port will be totally solid.

As far as I'm considered, if a game doesn't exist on Linux, it doesn't exist.
--

Re:I prefer D3D now

[Bert Peers]

Well, this is only partially true. The thing is that progress in D3D often means nothing more than defining a number of new features in the docs. That's only an illusion of progress : sure, in theory you could say that D3D is more advanced than OpenGL because for instance D3D exposes 8 stage texture combiners since D3D6, while OpenGL still struggled to get multitexturing past the ARB, but on the other hand, as long as the hardware out there doesn't set the capability bits that actually make all the theoretical D3D feature *real*, all that M$ progress is just APIware. And it's just as easy for, say, NVidia, to expose a GL_EXT_thisandthat as to set a capability bit. Basically, I disagree with you saying that D3D > OpenGL, because OpenGL is open to start : any vendor can define extensions for his hardware; with D3D, everything has to come from M$.

I do agree though that D3D is currently the better environment for development when you want to build 3D engines for vast continuous levels; Windows' tendency to trash the videomemory upon a task switch forces OpenGL to waste huge amounts of memory on keeping copies of every texture. Sweeney complained about that quite a while ago, so it was evident back then that he'd either have to find a solution for it (hoping for a GL_EXT_nosystemcopy perhaps ?), or drop OpenGL for being too memory intensive.

About OpenGL being geared towards id. That's true, but it's probably a good thing. The 3D APIs of today are so complex that it's probably daydreaming to think a driver writer can optimise *everything*. The combined internal state is so huge that you cannot build an optimal path for each and every combination. One influential game that uses a limited set of the API gives driver writers an opportunity to max out performance on that path, which in turn allows other developers to write their code with that path in mind -- instead of just reading the docs and picking one of the 35 possibilities to specify their geometry, hoping it'll come out right and speedy. You're right that this situation is not without danger of getting stuck, though...

Market forces

[slim]

Stop gnashing and wailing, and just vote with your pockets. Don't buy the Windows version of UT2, wait until a version for the platform you want comes out.

If you just can't wait, and buying the Windows version is acceptable to you -- well it looks like Epic made a sound commercial decision, doesn't it.

We have no right to "demand" that Epic do (or do not do) anything: we can only appeal to their pockets.
--

Unreal port no matter. Engine port matter.

[The Cunctator]

That was my attempt to get subject into concise form. Yeah, Epic games will probably continue to be ported, since they're pretty much guaranteed A-level titles, with enough guaranteed sales on the "lesser" OS's to be worth the effort of finding a porting house. Note also that Epic is big enough to have built the necessary relationships with porting shops. But will their engine be ported?

The HUGE and CRUSHING disaster of Epic's decision is in the effective death of many, many other ports. Take a look at the list of games being made on the UT and Q3A engines for the PC. A majority of those games are being ported to Mac (and Linux? I don't follow Linux ports, just Mac ports). Why? Because the engines are cross-platform.

This is GREAT for pretty much all users, but Mac & Linux users especially.

The games based on the earlier iD and Epic engines that weren't cross-platform weren't ported nearly as often.

That's the real reason for despair and gnashing of teeth. Epic is both a game maker AND an engine producer. They feel responsible enough to ensure that their games get ported, but do they care to ensure that the engine will be?

If Epic makes a Direct3D based engine, but hires a company like Westlake to make a Mac version of the engine, and not simply the Epic game based on the engine, (and likewise for Linux), then we'll have reason to calm down. Otherwise, it's time to be revolting!

Blame BluesNews for the paranoia

[Electric Eye]

These guys were the one that pretty much started this "panic" by stating the "no more port" part, but completely failing to actually ASK developers who do the ports whether or not this is a problem. Mark Adams, head of Westlake Interactive, who ported UT for Mac, among others, said this really isn't an issue with them. They've ported a bunch of D3D games like TR3 and the Sims.
It would be nice if the guys who break the news do their homework. It would have saved a lot of the doom and gloom talk.

I prefer D3D now

[JamesSharman]

I must say I find it difficult do disagree with him on this. In the early days of D3D there was heavy contention between OpenGL and D3D, I myself was very vocal on the side of OpenGL. OpenGL has barely moved forward in the intervening years whereas D3D has developed at an alarming rate. OpenGL support for the full range of features available on different graphics cards is limited at best whereas D3D has done a pretty good job of keeping up (although there are some nasty sides to the yearly release of the API).

Now I know I'm going to get flamed for saying anything pro a Microsoft api, and the first comment is going to be 'But Id software don't have a problem'. The largest benefit with openGL is that the specification defines exactly how every thing gets done, if the hardware can't do something it gets done in software, this unfortunately is also it's down falling. ID software don't have a problem, whenever they are about to release a big-name title all the card vendors run around making sure there drivers are optimally configured for the feature set ID is using. If you're a smaller developer, things work differently, the vendors are not as concerned with you and basically you have to limit yourself to using the features that the big-boys have already used. With D3D the situation is different, you are no longer shielded from the differences between cards but this can be used to your advantage, using once set of optimal features to achieve an affect on one card and another set on another (or a simpler effect).

The ironic situation here is that (Microsoft proprietary) D3D API is providing the smaller developer with a far more free development platform than the open OpenGL.

pick this up in a positive way

[jilles]

Epic's main reason to focus on direct 3D is, as they put it, that opengl and direct 3D are diverting too much. Basically direct 3D is still gaining features while opengl is a low level 3d standard that does not change much anymore. Therefore keeping direct 3D apps and opengl apps on a par becomes increasingly difficult.

Given this epic can do the following:
- Write their own highlevel library on top of opengl
- Adopt a good existing highlevel library on top of opengl
- Don't reinvent the wheel and use direct 3D.

Onviously Epic is not in the business of reinventing the wheel (that kills option 1), there are no good highlevel libraries ontop of opengl (bye bye option 2). That leaves us with option 3.

How to pick this up in a positive way? Develop a highlevel, crossplatform gaming API that does not force game developers to reinvent the wheel. Apparently such a library is lacking on both the mac and linux. You can't expect epic to do that work for you since it is going to take a while before it becomes profitable (in terms of revenue) to do so. In any case, true unreal fans will probably buy the windows version anyway.

So quit whining and start coding if you want games on linux (I think there are some projects). It's the same as with GUI applications: you need highlevel libraries, being able to put things on a screen is not enough.

I like unreal, and from the techpages and tim .plan files I gather that there's some good software engineering practiced at Epic. This is visible from how the app is structure (nice usefull GUI, clever mod installation procedure, etc). This nice architecture is increasingly endangered by the apparent differences between opengl and direct 3D. So drop opengl (and in due time replace it with something higher level).

If you are secretly thinking quake 3 is better consider that UT is nothing more than incremental improvement of Unreal which used to compete with quake II. In the time ID spent on developing quake III, epic just kept improving the unreal engine. The fact that it can compete with the quake III engine proves that it must have been well designed since it is scalable and maintainable. Apart from that, quake III's UI sucks (you basically need to get a third party wrapper for it) and the way quake III deals with user mods is very primitive.

Developing 3d games is increasingly less about building a good 3d engine (I think I can quote John Carmack on that). It's about creating good content (nice levels and such). Unreal heavily depends on directX for implementing loads of features. Porting these features to other platforms is expensive and not very productive.

An honest question for Epic...

[Millennium]

You claim that by using D3D, you can develop features on Windows that would not be possible on Linux or Mac.

I don't believe that. No matter the API, 3D is 3D. So let's hear it. Exactly what features can you do in D3D that you can't do in OpenGL or even QuickDraw3D?

Honest question, folks. I don't see any advantage to D3D, other than that a bunch of paying but technically-clueless Windows gamers might see this as some great "feature." Or perhaps grants from Microsoft for making your engine platform-dependent (not a prudent move when that company's future is, at the moment, quite uncertain).

Maybe he should read beyond the headlines.

[|deity|]

He faults the Linux community for jumping to the conclusion that Unreal Engine games will not be a reality for the Mac and Linux. Maybe he should read beyond the headlines. "

But maybe the headlines should be a little more specific. Many slashdot readers never make it past the headline and more never bother to read links in posts. I'm quite sure that many slashdot readers just glanced at the summery and started emailing about how outraged they were.

"A major side effect of this is that any future ports of Unreal-engine titles that use the new technology will need to have a completely rewritten rendering system, making Mac and Linux ports significantly more difficult."

Looks pretty inflamatory to me. Many of the readers here have strong feelings about linux and companies that say they are going to support software development for the OS. It doesn't take much to get them up in arms.

Oh well it was an honest mistake on everyones part, at least I hope it was, and we have good news to show for it.