Slashdot Mirror


UT2003 Gone Gold, Ships with Linux Support

SiW writes "This announcement should be music to a Linux gamer's ears: Unreal Tournament 2003 has just gone gold, and supports Linux (client and server) out of the box!" It's not often that I get to play a new game without rebooting. I'm really looking forward to this.

127 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. let's hope... by sheean.nl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    let's hope that this will hapen more often, one of the most frequently heard arguments for not running Linux is: "but, I can't play my games on it"...

    --

    If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    1. Re:let's hope... by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      That statement is that of an elitist asshole.

      From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

      toy, n

      1. an artifact designed to be played with [syn: {plaything}]
      2. a nonfunctional replica of something else (frequently used as a modifier); "a toy stove"
      3. copy that reproduces something in greatly reduced size [syn: {miniature}]
      4. any of several breeds of very small dogs kept purely as pets [syn: {toy dog}]

      I think this describes Windows quite well.

    2. Re:let's hope... by mythr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why can't they just program it to use open standards? They don't support other video cards than nVidia GeForce and Ati Radeon.

      They can't program it to use open standards because, in order to run any faster than a legless sloth, it needs to use things for which there are no open standards. OpenGL 1.x is a getting long in the tooth, and the extensions used are used because they are needed. I'm tired of people not seeing that.
      With a few exceptions, UT 2003 is basically a graphical upgrade to the original UT, which will run on almost any card. If you want a game that will run on any old hardware, play the original UT and get a mod to tweak the weapons to match UT 2003. UT 2003 is a next generation game, which requires next generation hardware. Unfortunately, no matter how good your hardware is, it still needs drivers to run. NVIDIA and ATI are the only companies that have released drivers for their next-gen products so far. Matrox is coming, but they haven't come yet. There aren't that many other companies making graphics hardware that will run UT 2003 anyway.
      If other hardware manufacturers don't want to release Linux drivers, then they shouldn't be surprised when people stop buying their hardware to use in Linux boxes...

  2. Unreal... by Traser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kudos for the unreal team - it's about time more software was released first run with linux/bsd support.

    --
    Insanity is contagious. - Yossarian
    1. Re:Unreal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Now lets all do our part and buy it.

    2. Re:Unreal... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Stolen from Slashdot:
      Try here: http://nvidia.netexplorer.org/

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    3. Re:Unreal... by Traser · · Score: 2, Informative

      FreeBSD supports full linux binary emulation - and any X driver for any video card (just ask my RIVA TNT2) works under FreeBSD ( I can't speak for the other BSD's, but I suspect something similar occurs.).

      --
      Insanity is contagious. - Yossarian
    4. Re:Unreal... by modecx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're not a gamer, then why even bother? Do you want to see more games ported to Linux, so that you will buy, but not play those, as well?

      It's a great thing if you're some kind of Linux evangelist that has wads of money to throw around, but don't be wasteful. Want to help the cause? Donate the $60 to the EFF that would have bought your game that you would have never played anyway. Or, perhaps find a project that you like and use, and support them monetarily. I on the other hand, will buy this game, play it to death, tell my friends and cow-orkers how much better it runs on my minimal Linux PC, and rave about it (if the game itself warrants it.)

      I swear, if everyone in the world put as much energy into stuff they didn't want, this place might be pretty screwed up. As if.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    5. Re:Unreal... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      You can order from tuxgames. I just placed my order!

      -Paul Komarek

  3. Maybe you should try the demo first? by Phosphor3k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instead of just buying it because it supports linux? The linux and windows demos can be found here.

  4. Linux support.. by Manes · · Score: 4, Informative

    is great and all, especially since they bundle it with the game. (unlike q3, which required getting a different box, which was impossible to get here in norway)

    Too bad the game feels like a UT expansion pack though - after 10 minutes you forget the fancy new graphichs and physics models, and you realize that not only are almost all the weapons exactly the same, you still got the same voice taunts, the same feel, the same sounds and the same game.

    1. Re:Linux support.. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eh? If you read the UT2003 forums, the biggest complaint is that it doesn't feel like UT anymore. Just because there are skin deep similarities doesn't mean it's not a very different beast.

    2. Re:Linux support.. by rhakka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. Every hit I've seen has some kind of effect, ranging from covering your target in electricty to blood sprays, sparks, or the "green glow" when you cover them with link gun secondary

      2. Laggy? 90% of the demo servers are some yahoo hosting a 20 person non dedicated game on his home cable connection. Find a good server (search by ping, lower is better for those who dont' know) and look for player max counts of 14 or less if you want to be pretty sure the game is going to be smooth. Also, avoid anything called "Another UT2003 server", as whoever is running it is so clueless they couldn't even change the default name of the server, and it will most likely suck.

      3. Very different then UT, but still also the same.. just like a good sequel should be. The new movement tricks and faster weapon speed alone drastically change combat, the weapons are weaker on the whole (until you get good with them, instead of just being able to kill kill kill with no ability), game moves faster, and adrenaline replaces most of the powerups. Just like UT?

      Also, just a personal note, Bombing Run is a wildly good, fast paced, sports like game. You owe it to yourself to give it a shot. Even if every other game mode were utter crap, it would be worth checking out simply for that one gametype. Picture rugby with guns and you've got the basic idea.

    3. Re:Linux support.. by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      is great and all, especially since they bundle it with the game. (unlike q3, which required getting a different box, which was impossible to get here in norway)

      Actually, that's wrong. You could download the other OS executables from id Software's website. You could have bought the Windows box, and then downloaded the linux executables from them.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    4. Re:Linux support.. by (startx) · · Score: 2

      actually, both of you are correct. Most people did did just just buy the windows version and download the linux client. However there was a short run limited release with the linux client on the cd.

  5. I wonder who will actually use it. by Vinum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know what would be funny? If UT actually put some code in there to send statistics back to its HQ to see how many people actually ran a copy of it on Linux. And no... 50 people replying to this post saying they will does not count as part of statistics :P

    Even more importantly, if those stats could be found from certain slashdot admin. :) I always thought it would be funny if slashdot put peoples USER-AGENT header next to their posts too...

    1. Re:I wonder who will actually use it. by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The registration tool will probably tell them which version you installed. (If you register the game that is)

      To me, it doesn't matter if I actually use it or not.

      I've never played UT before, but I am impressed enough that they shipped a native linux client and server that I will buy the game. If for no other reason than to support future gaming on linux.

      I'll also be emailing them and letting them know that their support of linux was a factor in my purchasing decision.

  6. UnrealEd support too ? by SILIZIUMM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone have some informationss regarding a Linux version of UnrealEd 3.0 on the final release ? It would be cool if we can both play and map !

  7. Just what we need... by roalt · · Score: 5, Funny
    UT2003 is a 3 CD set. Of course you know it's a huge game with a ton of content (over 35 levels), great characters, awesome gametypes, incredible AI, cool mutators, etc. But there's also some great tools including the following:

    (...)

    2. The Karma Authoring Tool (KAT) that allows you to set up character joint constraints for use with MathEngine's Karma real-time physics system which is incorporated into UT2003. (...)

    It already costs me a day-job just to keep my slashdot-Karma positive, I think I'll give up op Unreal tournament for now....
    1. Re:Just what we need... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      It already costs me a day-job just to keep my slashdot-Karma positive,

      (...)

      Moderation Totals: Funny=3, Total=3.


      Every little bit helps!

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  8. great for linux gaming by jonsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that this is great for linux gaming. I'm sure that other gaming companies is going to follow, and maybe this is going to be a common trend in gaming. If it is, I think linux's popularity is going to rise even more. Maybe we can finally microwave our win cd's now...

  9. I wonder if user bitching caused this? by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was a little pissed off when I heard that they were not going to do Linux support right off the bat. I couldn't understand why they wouldn't at least put up the binaries on FTP/WWW and let the geeks download it after they bought the Windows version...

    I like this idea a lot better though :) We don't have to have a poor showing on the shelves (yes, we will) and we still get the binaries out of the box.

    I don't play games on my computer, but I think that this is the best way to go. Just bundle both in the same box and forget about it.

    Thanks for letting me rant my hangover off.

    1. Re:I wonder if user bitching caused this? by jvmatthe · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's my impression that user bitching didn't have much to do with it. Epic has one person, Daniel Vogel, that is interested in seeing some Linux support and he contacted a notable Linux game coder, Ryan Gordon, about getting the client work done on Linux. My experience has been that Epic isn't nearly so pro-free-software as say Carmack but they do have a view of the world that isn't completely Windows-centric. Mostly Windows-centric? Of course...that's where a good portion of their profit sits, along with console ports, like the Xbox Unreal game slated for this winter and Unreal Tournament for PS2 at the launch of that console. But the recent comment by Mark Rein of Epic saying, in effect, "if we have a server port, we should also do a client port" is probably indicative of the positive attitude that Epic currently has about ports for other systems. And they haven't forgotten the Mac, and a port will be coming along for that platform as well. Epic wants everyone to buy the game and they've taken steps to make sure that every major platform has a port for people to buy.

      The community helping out and being supportive is probably more likely to get things to happen, rather than bitching.

      You can read a little more about how the UT2003 client came to be at LinuxGames.

    2. Re:I wonder if user bitching caused this? by whovian · · Score: 5, Informative
      ...when I heard that they were not going to do Linux support right off the bat.

      I thought I had read that they weren't even planning Linux support at all, but seeing as how they needed OpenGL support en route to a Mac version, they decided it was convenient to produce a Linux version. After searching for the "official" statement, I found this post from the man himself Mark Rein:
      Here are the answers to some questions I've been asked:

      "Why did Epic waste time supporting Linux?" - it is NOT a waste of time. It is absolutely crucial to have Linux support for the server and seeing as we found a very competent programmer (Ryan C. Gordon) to take on the client side job we decided to go full steam ahead with the client as well. We were already going to have to do OpenGL support for the Mac version so it made sense. Linux support has not impacted the development of the core game in any way. There was never any specific plan to release a Linux client at the same time as the Windows client ships but the timing just worked out that way. I wish we had known earlier because I would have liked to indicate the game is Linux-compatible on the box like we did with the original UT. But at least we'll have the support in the game and that's what really counts.

      "I'm a Windows XP user - why should I care about whether there are Linux versions or not?" You should care because we estimate that about half the servers for UT are currently run under Linux. This is why I said it was "crucial" to have Linux support for UT2003 on the server side and personally I think that if we're taking advantage of an OS for the server then we should have a client implementation as well. I played UT2003 on a Linux system the other day and it rocked. It feels the same as the Windows version in terms of performance and robustness. Linux users will enjoy the game and all users (Windows/Mac/Linux) will enjoy having more servers to play on. Linux support in UT2003 is a win-win for everyone.

      Source: Infogrames Forums

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  10. support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    just noted that UT2003 doesn't support Mac (as far as I could tell).
    Does this mean that Linux is now considered to be a more lucrative market than Mac, or is this just a show of support for Linux?

    UT original did run under mac, but it used an engine that was native to DirectX. Now that UT2 is more openGLish, cross platform would be much easier. Perhaps the portion of linux users that play UT is greater than that of mac?

    1. Re:support by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      No, this means that Epic has an ex-Loki employee now who did the porting to Linux in his spare time. There has been talk of an OSX port, but once again, processor architecture requirements are going to be a hangup (unlike the Intel-only port to Linux).

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:support by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah, i havn't seen a switch ad with some LAN d00d saying "I switched to mac because of the hundreds of thousands of neeto games out there for it"

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    3. Re:support by fault0 · · Score: 2

      > Does this mean that Linux is now considered to be a more lucrative market than Mac, or is this just a show of support for Linux?

      No, the Linux game is no way more lucrative than Mac. It's just that network games such as ut2k3 most always need at least a Linux server version because roughly all recent FPS game servers (q3/UT/rtcw/jk2/sof2,etc..), run on Linux. A significant portion of halflife/CS servers also run on Linux. So, they basically needed a Linux server at launch of the Windows version of the game to have ut2k3 become any popular online. Unlike Valve with halflife, they didn't want to have a platform with a server and not a client, so they made both for Linux.

      > Now that UT2 is more openGLish

      Actually, it's more direct3dish, but it has good openGL support.

      > Perhaps the portion of linux users that play UT is greater than that of mac?

      I doubt it, but there are many more UT servers running on Linux than MacOS.

    4. Re:support by Have+Blue · · Score: 2

      None of the above. Epic had already planned to convert the engine to OpenGL for the Mac version, and they had enough spare time to port it to Linux too.

    5. Re:support by cobar · · Score: 2

      Then you should check out this parody to appreciate what a badass gaming platform the Mac is (may need to right click and save as).

    6. Re:support by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2

      Unreal 2k3 has, more or less, always been Mac bound. Originally Epic had planned to let Westlake Interactive port Unreal to MacOS, however they changed their minds a few months ago.

      Porting a Direct X engine to OpenGL is not a big deal. The two API sets are actually quite similar now. Folks such as John Carmack and the developers over at Westlake have already written about this numerous times.

      Moreover, developing OS X is, from what I hear, somewhat of a fairly rapid and simple process. Epic recent started development for an OS X version of U2k3, and they plan to have the game on the shelfs by December. That's -very- quick.

      I would imagine that Epic realized that it really didn't make sense for a company like Westlake to port u2k3 to OS X. It could be done quickly at Epic, they'd make more money on game sales, and they'd have more options when it came to licensing the U2k3 engine.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  11. Goatse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want a skin in UT 2003 of the goatse guy with a Bill Gates head?

    Can somebody please make it for me?

  12. No gaming on Linux here by ekephart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know how most people set up their computers but I have one Windows (1.4ghz) machine and 3 Linux machines (600mhz, 350mhz, 166mhz). The Windows machine is the fastest of the 4 basically because most games are played in Windows and they need the speed.

    The limited number of people that just have a bunch of uber ninja boxen spells slow growth for the Linux gaming world.

    You can argue that people dedicated to Linux gaming are already using it. Well, yes, but where does it go from there? To attract new customers you have to provide something they desire at a reasonable cost. For me giving up Civ3, EQ or Warcraft3 isn't worth making the switch (yet).

    --
    sig
    1. Re:No gaming on Linux here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      For me giving up Civ3, EQ or Warcraft3 isn't worth making the switch (yet).


      You don't have to give up Civ3 or Warcraft 3 under Linux. (I've never played EQ, so I don't know about that.) I've got a dual athlon workstation with lots of ram, but no Windows. Both Civ3 and War3 run under Wine.

      Quake 3 is native, UT2k3 is native, NWN will be native :), and I just can't think of another game I'd like to run.

      Without me noticing as it was happening, Linux got game. :)
    2. Re:No gaming on Linux here by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2

      For me giving up Civ3, EQ or Warcraft3 isn't worth making the switch (yet).

      Please check what you can do with WineX first.

    3. Re:No gaming on Linux here by 13Echo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use a 1400 MHz machine at home with 1024 MB of RAM, 3 hard drives, and a reasonably good videocard. I made the transition from Windows to Linux this year, and I was surprised to find that if you have the right hardware- there are games to be played. There are even plenty of good 3D games. My computer is by no means top-of-the-line anymore, but it will still run all current Linux games at good speeds. I'll be upgrading the machine by sometime early next year. I take Linux gaming pretty seriously as a hobby. The platform works great for that stuff, it just needs a bit more of a boost from the game companies.

      That said, I understand what you mean about giving up on your favorite games. Giving up on MOH:AA was one of the biggest decisions that almost made me not want to switch completely, but the benefits have outweighed that single game for me.

    4. Re:No gaming on Linux here by ruiner13 · · Score: 2
      I use a 1400 MHz machine at home with 1024 MB of RAM, 3 hard drives, and a reasonably good videocard. I made the transition from Windows to Linux this year, and I was surprised to find that if you have the right hardware- there are games to be played. There are even plenty of good 3D games. My computer is by no means top-of-the-line anymore, but it will still run all current Linux games at good speeds.

      I don't mean to sound like a troll here, but I am still using a 450MHz G4 with a flashed Asus GeForce2 MX 64MB vid card, and I haven't found a game yet that my computer can't run very well (until Doom 3 that is!). It's a 3+ year old machine and it still works like a charm. Seriously, you have a 1.4GHz machine, I'd hope it could still play games, even in Linux.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

  13. hah by the_Speed_Bump · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Doubt it. Both have a pretty small niche, but Mac still has something on the order of 4 times Linux's desktop userbase.

    More likely, they did it just because it was easy, (same hardware) or because one of the staffers ported it on his/her own time. Or both.

    A Mac port would be more lucrative. But not as easy. :)

    oh, and one final nitpick. The original UT favoured software rendering and glide, not D3D. UT2k3 is geared towards Direct3D first and foremost. The GL renderer was extremely hard to code, as I understand it.

    --
    "Break out the gin, and the small violin, I'm a raging success as a failure." --Firewater
  14. got counter-strike? by wuchang · · Score: 2

    played the demo for a bit, graphics are nice, went back to the old favorite. i may eat my words by next month, but this ain't no counter-strike killer.

    1. Re:got counter-strike? by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 4, Funny

      played the demo for a bit, graphics are nice, went back to the old favorite. i may eat my words by next month, but this ain't no counter-strike killer.

      Of course it isn't, you can not kill that which is already dead.

  15. Register IT! by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember, if you buy UT2003, and you are going to run it under Linux:

    SEND IN THOSE REGISTRATION CARDS!

    Make sure that when the vendor tallies the results that Linux is well-represented.

    Allow me to compare and contrast UT2003 with QuakeIII in this regard:


    • QIII: Windows shipped first. Linux shipped later. Justification: "We need to be able to track the Linux shipments."
      Result: hard-core games bought Windows version, waited to download Linux version.

    • UT2003: Both versions are in the box.
      Result: Hard-core gamers can get whatever version they choose to run now.

    1. Re:Register IT! by fault0 · · Score: 2

      Well, with Quake3, id/activision wanted to make money of the linux version.

      With Quake2, on the other hand, the linux port was a unsupported version.

      Ut2k3 seems to be handled similiar to how id handled the linux port of Quake2. Infogames won't give any support to the Linux version, and it won't even say on the box that it includes the Linux version (evidently it was too late to put it on the box.)

      After all, they made the Linux version for two main reasons. First of all, a linux server version is _extremely_ important. Slightly more than half of all Quake3 and UT servers run on Linux. Many halflife/cs servers do too. Unlike Valve, Epic didn't want to leave a platform with a server without a client. The second reason was that they'd done an OpenGL port anyways for the Mac version, and several programmers used Linux for development, so they wanted to make a port to the platform.

      Mark Rein (vice-President of Epic) said something to this effect recently in the Infogames AG forum.

    2. Re:Register IT! by Ramses0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, buy it from TuxGames ... they report all sales to the manufacturers as "Linux Sales" so that's one less thing to worry about. Actually, I've been having pretty good luck with a few titles under WineX (found some cheap games and they work really well under WineX). It might be nice if TuxGames stocked some of the older game titles which are 4 or 5 supported by WineX (ie: Baldurs Gate 1, Black & White, etc) and then reported those sales as Linux sales. (are you listening Michael?)

      Heresy, heresy! I hear the cry. But these older games are never going to be native ported to Linux. I'd be willing to pay $30 instead of $20 to buy them from a Linux store (this means $$ for TuxGames) where I knew that the game had a good chance of working (this means no stress for me) and that the manufacturer would know that people are using Linux to play their games (meaning that they'll consider it in the future).

      Only after the games have dropped in price to ~$20 in regular retail channels, though. Transgaming is making a big deal about how WineX supports WarCraft III really well out of the box. That *is* exciting, but I still have hope (actually, I don't) that Blizzard will port it to Linux. When WarCraft III is on the $19.99 shelf, I have no hope that it'll ever be ported to Linux, so at that point, I'd be willing to buy it from TuxGames.

      I don't remember who said it, but this is a case where we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      --Robert

    3. Re:Register IT! by philovivero · · Score: 2

      Send in my registration card? Naw. I'll make it simple for the marketdroids: release a good game with Linux support, and I'll buy it. Otherwise, I won't.

    4. Re:Register IT! by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ... release a good game with Linux support, and I'll buy it.


      And how will the marketroids know that you bought the game because it had Linux support? ESP?

      Or are you asking them to sell the Linux version of the game seperately from the Windows version? As I pointed out in my previous post, that won't work. Even if the games are released at the same time, a store only has so much stock they can afford to have. Given the choice of stocking a Linux version that will sell 2 copies, or stocking 2 more copies of the Windows version that are guaranteed to move, what do you think the shopkeep will do?

      And if the game has the Linux version in the same box as the Windows version, then the marketroids will have no idea you aren't another Windows user.

      Thank you for being a strawman I could knock down. It really helps me make my point.
    5. Re:Register IT! by sydb · · Score: 2

      With Quake2, on the other hand, the linux port was a unsupported version.

      I have a boxed Quake 2 for Linux. I could never find any mention of this on the Quake 2 for Linux sites, all they ever talked about was downloading the Linux binaries to use with the data files shipped in the Windows package.

      I am pretty sure my boxed copy was 'supported'. It came with the extra maps too (Ground Zero / The Reckoning IIRC)

      Am I alone?

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    6. Re:Register IT! by jfedor · · Score: 2

      When you play Quake 3, it sends the so called renderer string to the master. Mine looks like this:

      Mesa DRI Voodoo3 20010501 x86/MMX

      So they know I'm running Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if UT2003 did something similar.

      BTW, there are no keygens for Q3A.

      -jfedor

  16. Linux support??? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2, Troll

    What a terrible joke. Linux is Open Source kernel. GNU/Linux is Open Source operating system. UT2003 works only with closed source nVidia drivers. Compare it with Return To Castle Wolfenstein which works perfect with my old Voodoo3.
    Please do not talk about "Linux support" until S3TC will be deleted from UT2003.

    1. Re:Linux support??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why no gaming company wants to support linux

    2. Re:Linux support??? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 3

      This is why no gaming company wants to support linux

      This is very interesting. I remember everyone was bitching to RedHat, becouse there was software released "only for RedHat". It was easy to run it in Debian in Slackware. But people wrote "RedHat is bad". Now there is a game which work only with nVidia cards. It's impossible to run it on other cards. But noone is angry. Everyone is happy, becouse there is new game available for Linux. Even, if it's impossible to play.

      PS. I know DRI is talking to S3, and maybe UT team is going to create version with uncompressed textures, but it's impossible to play now

    3. Re:Linux support??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look carefully on the Linux driver. The DRM kernel module is only responsible for the proper communication with the kernel, not the OpenGL support.

      The OpenGL library, on the other hand, which contains the S3TC code is delivered as object file. You cannot call THAT open source, can you?

    4. Re:Linux support??? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2

      Having recently installed the latest nVidia driver for Linux I can assure you that it is open source. A source tarball is available for those who wish to compile their own.

      I am afraid you don't know what are you talking about. "Source" is needed to compile module with any kernel version. But main part of module is just binary - and you can't have source.
      And if nVidia driver works unstable on your system you can only hear "you have crappy motherboard".

    5. Re:Linux support??? by SweenyTod · · Score: 2

      Texture compression. Apparently, the technique is patented, which is why ATI's drivers don't include this. The GeForce drivers do, which is why they're supported, ATI cards are not.

      I need to upgrade my whole machine just to play this one game. :)

      --
      Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
    6. Re:Linux support??? by jvmatthe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comparing UT2003 to RtCW is really poor. UT2003 really is pushing the system much harder than RtCW, simply in terms of the textures, polygons, and physics. To get the performance they needed for the textures they're using, Epic needed to use some texture compression and they chose the standard that's available by every major Windows drivers, S3TC/DXTC. This is available in NVIDIA's drivers, XiG's drivers, and PowerVR's drivers (although there are other issues with the PowerVR drivers). All of these already have a license for S3TC/DXTC in their Windows drivers and therefore can implement that in their closed Linux drivers.

      The DRI drivers, on the other hand, are by their nature open and getting a license is a much trickier proposition. Steps have been taken to work with the patent holders to get a license for an open implementation in DRI, and some of those steps are being taken by Daniel Vogel of Epic (see DRI mailing list in past two days for an email from Brian Paul about this). So even though the DRI drivers are currently crippled and unable to use the required technology, Epic hasn't given up and has been working to help the DRI team get what they need to support UT2003.

      Yes, only closed drivers currently work. The open solution is trying to move forward in a legal manner. Yet S3TC/DXTC is required because there isn't another solution. Epic is trying to help.

      Getting bent out of shape and spewing ill-informed vitriol as if they were all conspiring to screw you isn't going to help the situation.

    7. Re:Linux support??? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2

      However, what's S3TC?

      Patented OpenGL extension this game is using.

    8. Re:Linux support??? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2

      Getting bent out of shape and spewing ill-informed vitriol as if they were all conspiring to screw you isn't going to help the situation.

      I haven't wrote about conspiracy. What I mean is that it's impossible to play UT2003 on Open Source system yet. Imagine person who bought full UT2003, tried to run it in Linux, didn't work, so he play only in Windows forever, becouse "Linux is to hard to configure becouse UT2003 is bitching about some S3TC".

    9. Re:Linux support??? by fault0 · · Score: 2

      Return To Castle Wolfenstein is based on the Quake3 engine.

      ut2k3 is basically a rewrite of the unreal engine, which means new technology.

      Anyways, stop complaining. It's great they ported it to Linux in the first place. I can't help but understand why most gaming companies prefer using Direct3d over OpenGL these days; it's the difference in quality/capabilities of various drivers.

    10. Re:Linux support??? by dinivin · · Score: 3, Insightful


      WTF? Epic spent a good deal of time getting this game up and running under Linux and all you can do is bitch!

      You should be thankful that they've done what they have. It is not up to Epic to make the game playable on every Linux system. It is up the video card manufacturers to make sure their cards can support the latest games.

      Dinivin

    11. Re:Linux support??? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      The game is *supposed* to work with PowerVR Kyro series cards on Linux (They DO support S3TC despite popular rumors), but there is an alleged "driver bug" that prevents it from running. I personally blame it on a hoaky GL engine that was written in a week.

      Regardless, PowerVR and even ATi may very well have the game running on their cards by the time it comes out. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

    12. Re:Linux support??? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      nVidia would be handing out their technology if they did that! "Here... Steal our designs!". Only part of the codes that glue the cloused-source GL drivers to the kernel and X are open. This is the same as the PowerVR drivers, and the new Parhelia drivers with 3-head support.

    13. Re:Linux support??? by jvmatthe · · Score: 2
      Gotta disagree. Doom 3 will push your system exponentially harder than UT2k3, and guess what? It'll run natively on linux with any video card you care to use.

      Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

      Whew. That was a good one. For a minute there I thought you were serious. Like you meant that it would run on a Voodoo3 or something, using DRI drivers, or something equally absurd.

      I have to admit, you have a way with contradictions, though. "It will push your system exponentially harder than UT2k3" and "it'll run natively on linux with any video card you care to use"...brilliant. It's like you're holding "tea" and "no tea" in your inventory at the same time.
    14. Re:Linux support??? by StillAnonymous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You obviously don't know anything about reverse engineering. The only people who would be interested in "stealing" their designs would be rival video chipset makers. You honestly think these people need nicely formatted source code in order to determine what's going on?

      Just run the binaries through a nice disassembler like IDA, ponder over it for a few weeks and you'll learn all you need to know.

      If you know your assembly, you ALWAYS have the source code!

  17. But what about dependencies ? by vluther · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I downloaded the demo in Linux, only to find out that the game will only work with Binary Nvidia drivers. I own a laptop, I can't just go around buying new video cards and putting them into this machine.. I really hope they will have removed the dependency on nvidia by then.

    1. Re:But what about dependencies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There isn't any direct dependency on nvidia in UT2003. UT2003 requires texture compression and currently only nvidia's binary drivers provide that in Linux. Blame manufacturer of your laptop video card for not providing decent Linux drivers.

    2. Re:But what about dependencies ? by vluther · · Score: 2

      heh, my laptop is a IBM A31P, p4 1.7ghz, the video card on it is a 64MB video card, and I can run UT 2K3 in WinXP without a problem. Not all laptops are weak.

  18. Just what I want... by Telex4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Another Unreal game! I've mucked aroud with the demo, and it's not really markedly different from UT2 (except it runs natively on my machine). Same weapons, same taunts, same levels, and its all really boring.

    I mean, CTF... the classic CTF maps were back in Quake1/2 CTF and Team Fortress Classic (2fort being the best). The idea of them is to divide the level up into areas which you can defend in different ways, giving the game some tactical depth. The level with the demo is just one big open space full of spikes, with two little rooms at each end Boo. Dull. And the lightning gun is horrid... I suppose the idea is that the old sniper gun was untracreable, and therefore too good on open maps, but why not just give it tracer bullets? The lightening gun just feels, well, rubbish.

    On the plus side, it's nice to see they've used Loki's installer program (and update program) which work like a treat. Hopefully in the next releases they'll also know they'll be able to ship the UNIX versions in time, and so will write that it runs on various UNIX based OSs on the box. Oh and maybe they'll support more drivers than Nvidia :(

    1. Re:Just what I want... by fault0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the best thing about ut2k3 is the better physics than UT. Quaker's, like myself, have always felt restricted by UT's lack of strafe jumping. ut2k3 doesn't include strafe jumping, but it's dodge jumping is a bit more pronounced than the dodge jumping in UT. Also, it has a Quake2-like double jumping system. Also, wall jumps and lift jumps (which were found in UT), also seem more pronounced, especially with a faster than default game speed (110%), and a higher fov than normal (around 100 is best, imho).

    2. Re:Just what I want... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.

      I played the demo for a little while, and that's exactly what I thought. All the effort in redesigning UT2003 seems to be in the enhanced physics and new character movement characteristics.

      (Well, that plus improved graphics - but that's the norm for all game sequels, even the yearly refresh of the sports games.)

      Basically, if you were bored sick of UT, you probably won't find much fun in UT2003 - but I think I'll be playing a lot of it. (I never really got tired of the old one. It's still my most commonly loaded/played game on my PC. There are so many custom levels and mods out there, it never really gets stale for me. That hack that changed the redeemer into a jet fighter was pure genius, for example!)

    3. Re:Just what I want... by Time+Doctor · · Score: 2

      ...and it's not really markedly different from UT2

      Perhaps you didn't notice that UT2k3 is really Unreal Tournament 2?


      Oh and maybe they'll support more drivers than Nvidia :(

      It is not Unreal Tournament 2003's job to support drivers. It's the vendor's job to add the Savage texture compression support to their drivers. ATI, for one, is doing this for some of their cards.

      --
      Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
    4. Re:Just what I want... by Telex4 · · Score: 2

      Sorry, that was a typo, I meant UT ;-)

      And at the time of posting that, I didn't realise the problem was not Epic's (or arethye just the publisher? I don't know, I'll shut up :-)

  19. GREAT!!! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 3, Funny
    So glad I just Switched(TM) so now I can play Unr... oh wait...

  20. OS X version: DECEMBER by blakespot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
    iPod Hacks.com
  21. There is no try by Gruturo · · Score: 2, Funny

    WARNING do not try this at home without supervision by an professional geek, in fact: don't try!

    Do, or do not.
    There is no try.

    yoda

    --

    Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
  22. Under linux only if you have a Nvidia card.. by mcdade · · Score: 2

    This should be stipulated, it seems that nvidia is the only manufacture that has drivers to work with linux and be able to run UT2003. This is evident that nvidia wants to push all platforms, and they have their logo start first thing when running the demo.

    It's not that UT2003 is closed that it will only run under linux on an nvidia card, it's just that no one else has drivers... and nvidia was smart enough to pair up with UT2003 to get the market share (seems looks of people are talking about doing a UT2003 upgrade as they can't wait for Doom3). It's really up to the manufacturers to get their shit together and give us good Linux drivers for 3d, not just 2d drivers.

    pretty much makes my ATI Radeon 7500 AiW useless..:(

    1. Re:Under linux only if you have a Nvidia card.. by Time+Doctor · · Score: 4, Informative

      ATi is patching their newer radeon drivers, and will support S3TC some time in the future!

      --
      Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
    2. Re:Under linux only if you have a Nvidia card.. by tempest303 · · Score: 2

      Where did you get this info? You have any links where they say they're putting S3TC into their X drivers? (I hope so... /me needs to get his UT on. :-)

    3. Re:Under linux only if you have a Nvidia card.. by jvmatthe · · Score: 2

      Here. ATI and PowerVR will all have S3TC enabled, UT2003-playing drivers soonish, I believe. NVIDIA and XiG already do. No word on Matrox, using any drivers. And no final word on DRI.

    4. Re:Under linux only if you have a Nvidia card.. by Time+Doctor · · Score: 2

      Yes.:
      "I have been told by Epic that they are "working closely" with ATI to resolve issues with their Linux drivers. Presumably, an updated version of their drivers will eventually be available which will enable the playing of UT2k3 using a Radeon 8500. With the release of drivers from ATI and Xi Graphics, Radeon 8500 Linux users will have two ways of getting the 3D support required to play UT2k3. "

      --
      Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
  23. Re:Counter-Strike 2003? by fault0 · · Score: 2

    I think many people are hoping that this game kills the aging counterstrike (and the less-old Quake3 and UT).

    But yeah, there will likely be counterstrike-like mods for ut2k3. It would not be counterstrike itself, since it's owned by valve now. Many old-time counterstrike players, hated cs after it was bought by valve. They just kept on making the game slower and slower. cs beta 5.2 was the best cs version :)

  24. Linux going mainstream by InodoroPereyra · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is a quiet and steady trend for GNU/Linux to go mainstream. It is not happening at the exponentical rate some of us thought it would. But every little step helps. This is an egg and chicken problem and we all know it. If more people used Linux there would be more apps available, and the other way around. Whenever we achieve "critical mass" we are in :-)

    Things are happening. Governments considering/adopting open source solutions here and there. Mass media covering Linux/Open Source every now and then. The world's biggest computer chain selling computers with Linux preinstalled online for now. Not to mention the impressive inroads in the server market.

    Now imagine all these win* gamers opening their UT boxes to find a "linux version" in there. They won't give a damn, but deep in their minds they will start to get to the idea that Linux is there, that it exists, that it is as "normal" as "win*".

    One more step. Many Thanks to the UT team !

    1. Re:Linux going mainstream by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course you're not wrong in these beliefs... But just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the fact that UT2003 has a Linux version in the box doesn't seem *that* significant to me.

      Honestly, about the only mainstream games that have had Linux support have been 1st. person shooters with Quake or UT type engines. (I guess "The Sims" was a notable exception to the rule.) If they didn't release a Linux client for UT2003, I'd say that would be more of a "big step backwards" than anything else. I mean, you'd have to ask if Linux support has really backslid so far that there's not even interest in porting the latest 1st. person shooter to it anymore?

      I mean, let's see here: Kingpin, Descent, Quake 1,2 and 3, Soldier of Fortune, the last version of UT, Tribes .... if all those ran as Linux clients, why is it a huge leap to think the new UT wouldn't also do so?

    2. Re:Linux going mainstream by krmt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I mean, let's see here: Kingpin, Descent, Quake 1,2 and 3, Soldier of Fortune, the last version of UT, Tribes .... if all those ran as Linux clients, why is it a huge leap to think the new UT wouldn't also do so?
      Because, like he said, UT2003 comes with it in the exact same box. None of these games did. The only example that you could even use the same files for was Q3, and even that didn't come in the same box. You had to know about it and go download it.

      Having right there alongside it means that suddenly Linux is much more valid. It's not something you have to go out of your way to download and know about, it's right there for you. It's not in some separate section of the store either, right next to the keyboard extension cables, it's in the box at the front of the store underneath the giant poster. It's not a huge leap that UT2003 has a linux client, it is a huge leap that it's right there alongside the windows client out of the box. NWN was supposed to have this too, but backed out. It's a very important step.
      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    3. Re:Linux going mainstream by Chester+K · · Score: 2

      the fact that UT2003 has a Linux version in the box doesn't seem *that* significant to me.

      Well, at least it'll let Slashbots look at the overall sales figures for UT2003, incorrently assume that a much larger percentage of it than actually is was due to Linux support, and use that as their reasoning that the Linux Gaming market is healthy and that any game company would be out of their mind not to support it.

      For example, suppose UT2003 sells 200,000 units. Dumbass_Slashposter (User #713910 Info | http://billg-borg.mssucks.net) assumes that at least 50% of that was due to Linux support out of the box and all of a sudden, a Linux gaming market of 100,000 becomes a popular fallacy. You might disagree that people won't latch on to misinterpreted figures, but hey, 640K oughta be enough for anybody!

      --

      NO CARRIER
  25. Re:UnrealEd...fixed? Better? by ab0b · · Score: 5, Informative

    UnrealEd has not been ported to linux, and as of now there is no plan to do so. There was some discussion on the mailing list of a community developed port of the Editor, however this was more or less ruled out. Basically they are concerned about releasing documentation on the engine libraries, which change often and would "open up a ton of cheats we couldn't detect" (Ryan C Gordon).

    --
    ____
    to asdf and beyond!!
  26. Re:Ogg Vorbis in UT by ArsonPerBuilding · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is new. UT2k3 has had support for ogg vorbis sound; and only ogg vorbis sound for a while.

    --
    1 tequila 2 tequila 3 tequila floor
  27. Re:Video support by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    I have a geforce4 ti 4200 on a pentium III 700. Performance sucked in a few levels where the fps were only in the teens. In most other levels it hovered around 25-35 fps. Basically UT2k3 is very cpu dependant unlike quakeIII. A faster video card will help but you need a decent processor and fast memory to play. The textures can not load faster enough with 100 mhz sdram.

  28. Re:UT2003 gone boring by 13Echo · · Score: 2

    "Try America's Army."

    Well, I would, but the US Government hates Linux- hence, no port.

  29. 'Forgot' to mention Linux on the box? by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    They didn't know the Linux version would be finished in time of shippment? And what the Demo coming in sync with the Win version???
    This sounds *really* fishy to me. I wounldn't be suprised if someone payed them not to mention that it's Linux compatible....

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:'Forgot' to mention Linux on the box? by Time+Doctor · · Score: 2

      This sounds *really* fishy to me. I wounldn't be suprised if someone payed them not to mention that it's Linux compatible....

      This is just totally false.

      --
      Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
  30. No one is going to get this, methinks by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, all of us with hardware capable of running this.

    I can't figure out why people are so obsessed with *new* games. Do games suddenly suck because they're a year old? I like my Linux box because I *don't* have to constantly upgrade it to keep it nice and usable. I have an old PII and a Matrox G450 that work nicely in Linux, but would never be able to play this at a reasonable clip.

    Let's work this out:

    a) People that dual-boot. They can already play this in Windows. Little reason to use Linux to play UT2003.
    b) People that don't dual-boot -- are they going to upgrade their graphics card and processor to play a single game? Plus, most of them already can live without games pretty well, or else they wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, so there's a significant cost to doing lots of hardware changes for one game.

    Now, don't get me wrong. I bought Quake 3, Alpha Centauri, and Jagged Alliance II for Linux. But those *run* reasonably on computers not built for gaming. UT2003? Riiight...

    Ah, well. I'm sure others won't agree. However, IIRC, SimCity 3k and Alpha Centauri were Loki's biggest sellers...

    Now, I don't mean "retro" games like Asteroids. I mean, what about Close Combat? Command & Conquer? Fallout (okay, this *does* work in WINE, so less draw)? What's wrong with porting these? Does the port cost so blinking much to do that it's not worth it?

    (Exile III did get ported, which was great, but the widget set used was absolutely unbearable. Try it and see what I mean.)

    1. Re:No one is going to get this, methinks by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Informative


      Now, don't get me wrong. I bought Quake 3, Alpha Centauri, and Jagged Alliance II for Linux. But those *run* reasonably on computers not built for gaming. UT2003? Riiight...


      I have a Duron 700 with 128 MB of RAM and a Geforce 2MX. By all accounts, I'm actually below the required stats for the game. But the demo runs just as well as the original Unreal...

      If you're running Q3 at an average rate, you can probably run UT2003.

    2. Re:No one is going to get this, methinks by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Just out of curiosity, why do you care which OS you're using while playing games? Except for a few rare ones, most games fill up your whole screen and wrap you in their own environment. You can't see or interact with the OS, so you basically can't tell the difference between the two (unless you're going on purely ideological grounds -- "I won't use Windows because doing so contradicts my system of ethics" would make sense).

    3. Re:No one is going to get this, methinks by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      One nice thing about gaming under GNU/Linux is that preferences and saved games are stored in the user's home directory. That means several people can play on the same computer (at different times, of course!), each with their own settings automagically. However, I play under GNU/Linux because Microsoft lost my support around 1995, and hasn't done anything to win me back.

      -Paul Komarek

    4. Re:No one is going to get this, methinks by krmt · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I'm in the exact same boat. I've got my old PII 400 with an ATI Rage Fury. It serves me just fine for everything else, and I can't justify buying a whole new computer just to play games (a Gamecube on the other hand...)

      And as for the old games, there's plenty of great ones out there. I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with new ones when there's so many great old ones out there. I just picked up a copy of Loki's Myth II port this last weekend, so I can finally get some linux gaming in outside of Quake 3. Ports of older games sold cheap are the way to go for Linux, if the company can afford to do it. Loki's dying idea to do Postal was a good idea in that vein I think, although the game choice was crappy. I'd love to see some more older stuff ported and sold cheap. Maybe one day.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    5. Re:No one is going to get this, methinks by sydb · · Score: 2

      Ports of older games sold cheap are the way to go for Linux, if the company can afford to do it.

      I really don't understand why you say this.

      Firstly, the target market is tiny. It consists of people who want to play old games, who only run Linux. There is no sense in targeting a tiny market with a low price good. There would be no profit.

      Secondly, this would just give Linux a reputation of getting 'budget' games after the sell-by date.

      The only beneficiary in this equation is you, who wants cheap, old games. Good luck persuading everyone else.

      That Myth II port was out years ago, by the way. But you buy it in the liquidation sale. Thanks for supporting Loki.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  31. User-Agent by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    I, for one, would be interested in showing User-Agent with Slashdot posts. Perhaps registered users could have the option of disabling it, as I'm sure some people will object.

    1. Re:User-Agent by TobyWong · · Score: 2

      And what conclusions would you hope to draw from this?

      A poster is 5up3r 3r33t if they use the latest bleeding edge mozilla?

      Their opinion means less if they happen to be on a machine running windows?

      That makes about as much sense as forcing people to reveal their CPU speed and amount of RAM so that we can moderate comments from people with fast machines up and slow machines down.

      --
      - Toby
    2. Re:User-Agent by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      On the same note, why do you oppose it?

      I said I think it would be *interesting*. Not that it would be "useful for evaluating the worth of a poster's comments". Slashdot is a tech forum -- it's interesting to see what techies use to browse the Web. It's be interesting to see how quickly techies upgrade to the latest browsers.

    3. Re:User-Agent by TobyWong · · Score: 2

      I think my analogy makes it very clear why I oppose it: it's completely irrelevent. Would you like to initiate slashdot sponsored techie pissing contests so we all know who is /-r4d and who is not?

      --
      - Toby
    4. Re:User-Agent by TobyWong · · Score: 2

      "k-rad" in the above post was munged by slashcode.

      --
      - Toby
  32. Re:nVidia-only-Linux-support by Time+Doctor · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's up to the vendors to support the Savage Texture Compression. ATi will probably be fixing their radeon drivers themselves.

    --
    Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
  33. Re: America's Army? No thanks.... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    The "nonsensical cartoon shit that makes games blow" is much of what I like about escaping reality for a bit, into a good game.

    I suppose you never played any of the arcade classics either? "Pac-Man is crap! I'm supposed to believe this little yellow guy can eat that much stuff and not gain any weight? And these ghosts are chasing after him? I don't even believe in ghosts!"

    Bah... The tradition of video games is alternate or suspended reality. If I want to simulate being in a real war, I'm better off playing paintball with some buddies and getting the full experience. (How realistic is it fighting a war from your computer chair, with only a mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun with?)

    I find it boring and lacking in action/enjoyment, playing these Counterstrike type games where you're shot once, and then you're stuck sitting out until the whole game is over. I'd rather spend the time running and shooting make-believe stuff, instead of sitting out whenever someone hits me with an e-bullet.

  34. Transgaming is not a panacea by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Transgaming's stuff (well, WINE in general) works with some stuff, not with others. It frequently takes a fair bit of poking around, often has worse performance or glitches even on things marked as "fully working", and is probably not what the Average Joe wants.

    It's a hell of a cool technical feat, and it's saved my butt a few times, but presenting it as a general alternative to Windows for users who want to use Windows products...no. That's not fair representation at all. Think of it as icing on the Linux cake ("AND you can run some Windows programs") rather than another bullet point ("Runs Windows programs").

  35. Oh yeah? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    So why did Matrox do fully (well, sans a *small* amount of microcode for two specific features -- WARP and Macrovision, which weren't x86 code anyway) open source drivers for their earlier cards? I'm using a fully open source G450 driver. Why can't anyone demand the same from other graphics card vendors?

    1. Re:Oh yeah? by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      I'll refer you again to Parhelia, Matrox's technology that actually matters. The G450 is a good card, but they had nothing to lose by releasing OS drivers. Perhelia is quite different. It has 3D capabilites that are actually useful today (albeit not the fastest, but that doesn't matter) and their tri-head capabilties are quite advanced.

      If you demanded that kind of thing from other manufacturers, they'd just laugh at you and ignore you. If you demanded that again from Matrox, on their Parhelia boards, they'd laugh at you and ignore you.

  36. on the other hand ... by timothy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he's just saying that many / most of his games live on a Windows partition, and to reach them he must reboot the machine into Windows.

    Tim

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  37. Working DRI by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    I'm running XFree86-4.2.0-64 as packaged by RH. I'm using the DRI Matrox G450 drivers happily and with no trouble. I frequently use fancy features (play Quake, I code OpenGL stuff, use mga_vid to write movies directly to video memory, use xv). No memory leakage.

    Nvidia is certainly entitled to make closed-source Linux drivers, just as they are to make no Linux drivers at all. However, my money will always go to companies that are putting out open source drivers for their cards.

  38. The UT developers love Linux by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    I'm in a video games class being co-taught by a UT engine developer. It's taught entirely on Linux.

    Believe me, most developers love Linux. The bloody thing was made to appeal to programmers and techies. If the consumers will shift to Linux, you can be damn sure that the developers will be there in a heartbeat.

    Of course, the poor schmuck that has to support the things will be miserable, but...

  39. Re:Video support by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

    I wanted to ask the same question (with an extra caveat) -- I've never been much for gaming, and so my current video card is just an old 8MB ATI card; works fine for what I do, but obviously will never play any newer games. I'm thinking of buying a newer card so I can play this, but I'm far too broke to spend $200+ on a video card ... $100 is about my limit. It looks like the GeForce2's are in that range -- will I be able to play acceptably with one of them? (My system is a 900Mhz Athlon, 256MB of RAM). I'm not really interested in playing newer games; I figure that I can just play older ones until it's time to upgrade.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  40. Re:Let's see.... by TobyWong · · Score: 2

    Amen brother, zealots who lock themselves into "the one true OS" are fooling themselves.

    The right tool for the right job.

    --
    - Toby
  41. They didn't know in time. by therealmoose · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you would read the announcement, or any of the posts, you would know that they didn't know whether it would support linux when they sent the box design off. You can't reprint thousands upon thousands of boxes, delaying game release, to announce linux support.

    Stop being so paranoid!

  42. Re:Counter-Strike 2003? by fault0 · · Score: 2

    > Beta 5.2? Hmm... never heard of that version...

    Try visiting a page like this for a brief history of CS.

    > I'm still enjoying 1.5 myself, and it's not running slow at all.

    I was talking about slow gameplay (compared to before cs 1.0), not slow fps ;)

    > CS was bought by valve? Well, from what I understand cs was produced using valve's engine and SDK, so didn't they 'own' it already?

    The guy who made CS was gooseman (his real name is Minh Le)... he helped other mods before starting CS, like the famous aq2 for quake2. CS started out as a project completely independant from Valve. It was just a halflife mod. It's status is similiar to how most q3 and UT mods are. id and epic don't support most mods to their games, and their distributors don't put these mods in stores.

    However, counterstrike is different. Gooseman was hired by Valve. It was packaged and put in shelves. The post-Valve cs plays quite differently from the Gooseman-only beta CS versions.

    > As for killing off the aging counterstrike, wouldn't counterstrike condition zero be the real killer? Updated engine, better graphics, etc... (I haven't followed all the details...)

    Who knows.. There have been many CS clones and CS-like mods for q3 (urbanterror, truecombat), UT (tac-ops), but none of them have had the success of CS. Many of these clones actually have arguably better graphics and gameplay than CS (mainly because they aren't based on the quake1-derived engine that halflife is.)

    But all games have a limit until they go stale. I don't think CS:CZ will be as a hit as CS was, but who knows..

  43. Bombing Run is great by crisco · · Score: 2
    Forget deathmatch, I'm completely addicted to Bombing Run, can't wait for more maps to play it on.

    For an even faster paced game, try BR + Insta-Gib. I just learned that Insta-Gib means one shot = one kill. It completely changes the nature of the game and speeds it up dramatically. Of course, that isn't always a good thing...

    --

    Bleh!

  44. Glad for dual support by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    but did you play the beta ? it is nothing really special beyond snazzy grafix. I was hoping for some new twist but alas it won't come from UT2003. I don't see how it can compete with 1942. I kept flashing back to Quake3 while playing it...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  45. Re:That's a kiddie argument; by Salsaman · · Score: 2

    The source for Blender will be out soon...

  46. Re:Video support by Explo · · Score: 2

    Works nicely with 1200 MHz Thunderbird and Geforce 2MX (yeah, I know, a mismatched pair ;) up to 1024x768. After that it suddenly gets far too jerky to be comfortable. But 1024x768 is sufficient for me anyway as far as a 3D-shooter is concerned.

    --
    Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
  47. If you want to support Linux Games by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 2
    Buy the Game from TuxGames. Every game they sell will (probably) automatically be counted as a linux sale by the Id folks - and you'll be supporting a very cool company too (I buy most of my games from them but have no other connection).

    --
    Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
  48. Re:Time Difference by blakespot · · Score: 2

    ...and without a Mac-head at Epic to do the Mac work like they have done with Linux, it's not possible to do in-house.

    Epic has stated that the Mac version is being done in house.

    blakespot

    --
    -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
    iPod Hacks.com
  49. Or the American Football mode! by wackybrit · · Score: 3, Funny

    Picture rugby with guns and you've got the basic idea.

    Rugby is a good comparison. If it was to be like American Football, whenever a player dropped the ball, you'd have to stop the game and cut for an ad break for 5 minutes.

  50. Re: Old Game Market by krmt · · Score: 2
    Firstly, the target market is tiny. It consists of people who want to play old games, who only run Linux. There is no sense in targeting a tiny market with a low price good. There would be no profit.

    Secondly, this would just give Linux a reputation of getting 'budget' games after the sell-by date.

    The only beneficiary in this equation is you, who wants cheap, old games. Good luck persuading everyone else.
    The market isn't tiny. Half-life is still selling like mad. Myst sold for years. Starcraft Battlechest is still on the shelves, as is the individual game and expansion. Rainbow Six gold is still there. UT and Quake3 are still on the shelves. Good older games don't die, they just get repackaged. Hell, there's a huge section (1/4 the size of the total PC games section at my Best Buy) devoted to bargain CD games like Redneck Rampage and Fallout 1 and 2. Even the PS1 and gameboy color have substantial sections devoted to them in most game stores.

    You're also forgetting the used game section of stores like EB, which are nearly all older games sold at a discount. If I were the only one buying these older games, this would not be the case at all.

    And who cares if the reputation for Linux is budget games? If that's what the market actually consists of, then that's what is going to sell. I can guarantee you that there's at least as many Linux installs on older machines than newer ones. The people who most often "need" the fastest and newest machines are the gamers, and thus aren't going to be running Linux except on a server (which is most likely their old machine that they don't need for gaming any more). If people run Linux on older hardware and can only run older games or newer ones with low requirements then that's what can potentially sell.
    That Myth II port was out years ago, by the way. But you buy it in the liquidation sale. Thanks for supporting Loki.
    I know the port was out years ago. I couldn't afford it at the full price, and even if I could have I wouldn't have sprung for it. There's only two games I've ever paid full price for: Quake III and Civ III. I bought the Windows version of Quake because I couldn't get 3d acceleration running on my machine at the time in Linux (it took more than a year to get it working in fact). I didn't want to wait for a month or more to buy the Linux version, and obviously I wasn't alone in that. I only pay full price for what I consider the best, and none of Loki's titles (other than Q3, which was late and didn't work for me) were what I considered the best. I had absolutely no responsibility to support Loki or anyone else. I didn't pirate their software but I also didn't buy it because I thought the price was too high. Obviously, so did others or they might still be here today. Like I said, older games at a bargain price. I would have easily paid $20 for Myth II and others, but not $50. They got half the equation right but priced themselves out of my range. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for the likes of you, but that's your problem.
    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  51. Re:Video support by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    Great with the Nvidia...be sure to configure X to use the NvAGP though..native linux AGPART is slow. I'm on a Athlon 900 TBird. Game is playable, but a little slow, even with all lighting effects off and detail low. Quake3 runs fast as hell though, so I'm a bit annoyed at the hardware requirements of UT2003.

  52. Re:Video support by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    You can get a GeForce 2Ti for $100. I did that at a computer show with a 64MB card. Very nice card at a low price!

  53. Re:Video support by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    ugh. That should be < $100. Stupid HTML rendering.

  54. Re: Old Game Market by sydb · · Score: 2

    Myst for Linux? No, you have to run it under Wine

    Half-life? or is that Wine too.

    You were talking about ports. The market for ports of old games to Linux is tiny.

    I care about Linux's reputation. If it's seen as a platform for old, budget games, then it's going to look like second best. I think it should look like the best.

    Myth II was priced at $50 because that's the price that enables profit. The half of the equation that you are missing is the part where companies have a motivation to release for linux.

    I have nothing against people wanting cheap games. But you can't expect Linux to get decent games if people wait for the companies to go under before buying their games at knockdown prices.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  55. It hasn't gone gold... by Aexia · · Score: 2

    until a warez group releases it.

    ^_^

  56. Ob:Me too by horza · · Score: 2

    I would be happy to pay for HL a second time if it gave me a native Linux HL engine that works with CS.

    Phillip.

  57. Re: Old Game Market by krmt · · Score: 2

    I care about Linux's reputation as well, but only to the extent that it deserves it. If there isn't a market for ports of new Linux games, then there isn't a market for ports of new Linux games. If there were, Tribes 2 would have likely sold a lot better for Loki, and quite possibly Q3 (although I think 3d acceleration was severely lacking at the time of Q3's release). Let's face it, Loki's plan sucked and that's why they didn't do well. They sold ports of year old games at year old prices. No one except die hard Linux fans will buy that, and quite frankly given Linux's actual cost that number is few and far between.

    Once again, I'll point out the likelyhood of having Linux lying around on the old computer is far greater than having it as the sole OS on a brand new home desktop system. Linux has a wonderful reputation for being a fun and practical way to resurrect old boxes, and this wasn't gained for nothing. The old cheap game port idea could leverage this quite well. And yes, the market isn't huge, but it's no smaller than the market for new games that are only made for Linux out of the box. People will buy the cheaper windows version to avoid the porting costs and the possible hassle of distro incompatibilities simply because most new desktops will have some form of windows on them, and rebooting for a gaming session isn't a big deal.

    Plunking down $50 dollars for yesteryear's game isn't going to help the Linux gaming market at all if you're looking to have it taken seriously as a platform for new games. It's not going to be much of a platform for new games until it really starts showing large numbers of desktop installs.

    I understand perfectly well why Myth II was priced at $50, but that's the problem with the business plan. A very small number of people are going to pay the relatively high price for an old game that won't even run on their toy Linux system (but will run great on their Windows side). Companies can be motivated to allow ports of older games though because it's old news. They'd be wringing a few extra bucks out of an old product that they thought they were all done with. The cost that the porting house would have to pay would be much lower because it is an older game, and the original developers wouldn't feel the need to charge the massive price to port their latest hit (i.e. Tribes 2). What you obviously don't understand is that porting houses pay the developers to be allowed to port their games, not vice versa. In turn, the porting house expects to make some income on the game to pay off the costs for porting it. If the fee that the company charges is high, then the retail price would be high. If Loki had decided to port Bungie's Marathon series (before the release of the engine source) it probably would have cost them very little, and thus the product itself would have been cheaper and would have run on far more Linux installs.

    Of course, I could be wrong about the idea that people are interested in old games on Linux, but there's a lot of projects that back me up. ScummVM, X-MAME, SNES9x, various NES emulators, FreeSCI, and of course, Freeciv. I can already hear you complaining that these are all free, which is true, but they do show that there is obvious interest in old gaming on Linux. And free is cheap, is it not? It's a little bit sad that the various companies like Lucasarts and Sierra didn't see that people might want to play their older titles under Linux, or they might have gone ahead with the projects themselves. But the community just implemented what they really wanted.

    The community also wanted new games, and that's why we have WineX. Gamers wanted it all, so that's why Transgaming is still around but Loki is not. Porting just isn't good enough (I know this, having been a Mac person for years). I'm just as willing to support Transgaming as Loki. If they provide a service that's useful to me, then I'll purchase their product. Anything more or less is doing the Linux community, as well as the company in question, a disservice. If the reputation of Linux is really your concern, then you shouldn't be advocating artificially buoying poor business plans. If Transgaming survives, it will be because they provided what the Linux gaming community really wanted. And what the community wants is what should actually give Linux its reputation, not some feeling of needing to support some people just becuase they made something on Linux.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."