Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Announces StarCraft 2
We'll be returning once again to the world of StarCraft, it appears, and not in the form of a Massively Multiplayer game. Blizzard has announced StarCraft 2 at their packed event in Seoul, South Korea. IGN is liveblogging the event, describing gameplay footage being played as well as full cinematics. From the description of ongoing events there are massive changes to the way the game plays, new units, a physics system within the game engine, and the capability to show over 100 units onscreen at a time. "Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game - nothing in the game is final." Additional coverage from Milky at 1up.
The Protoss mother ship (from IGN's Charles Onyett):
3:18 - warprey also very effective against structures - very vulnerable to small unit fire - shws warpreys getting wiped out by terran marines. Physics system lets debris from warpreys roll down a ramp. Showing one more unit - warped in in a serious of cubes - giant floating base - called a protoss mothership - can only have 1 at a time - cost big resources - special abilities include timebomb that slows all enemy missiles inside - shows terran missle launcher shooting in projectiles that stop in the field before they reach the ship - when field ends missiles drop the ground - planet cracker attack - giant lasers stream from ship to ground - ship can be moved around while planet cracker laser is active - the ship looks like a metallic, triangular sand dollar - mothership can create a black hole anywhere it wannts to - creates distortion that actually sucks ships in and destroys them - in the demo the black hole destroyed four terran battle cruisers in about ten seconds.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I have to think the game marketshare of Linux is running neck and neck with Apple systems. Blizzard is showing that it is worth it to port to MacOS, so why don't they also feel the same about Linux?
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
The Linux gaming market is not really viable yet, at least for large developers. I wish this were not true, but it is. Recent events like the Apple Intel migration have not really changed the situation. I'll address some good questions that came from a troll thread.
Supporting Mac OSX on X86 and not supporting Linux is nothing short of Laziness now.
You are mistaken. The migration from PowerPC to Intel has not made a Linux port one bit easier. It has made the Mac market more important as a greater percentage of Macs are now viable gaming systems, especially on the laptop side.
Mac games are not *nix based, they still use proprietary APIs like Carbon and Cocoa to some degree. Also a company like Blizzard that has been supporting Macs for over a decade surely has some internal libraries that are pretty Windows and Mac specific as well. The source code to Mac based games is not really any more compatible with Linux than it was before Apple's Intel migration. All that has happened is that assembly language / SSE from the Windows side does not have to be rewritten in PowerPC / Altivec.
I have to think the game marketshare of Linux is running neck and neck with Apple systems. Blizzard is showing that it is worth it to port to MacOS, so why don't they also feel the same about Linux?
The Linux game market is *not* all those willing to buy a native Linux port of a game, it is *only* those who refuse to buy a Win32 version and dual boot or emulate. If a company does a native Linux port it needs *new* sales to justify it. Cannibalizing existing sales, having a person buy a Linux version instead of a Win32 version, does not bring in any new money. It loses money, they got the same sale but they spent more money getting it. The majority of Linux gamers dual boot or emulate, until that changes the Linux gaming market will not be viable - Linux gamers are already paying customers via the Win32 version.
Historically the Mac side was a very different story. Dual boot was not an option until recent times, and emulation was not practical for games - the CPU, not just the APIs, needed to be emulated. So Mac gamers had to have a native port. This made the Mac gaming market viable. If anything has changed, it is not Linux becoming more viable, it is Mac becoming less viable. If Mac gamers begin to dual boot or emulate, so that they more gaming options, then they will create an environment where developers will find it more profitable to reach Mac gamers via the Win32 version as well. One version (Win32) to rule them all (Win32, Linux, and Mac).
A secondary but non-trivial problem with targeting Linux, support. Targeting Linux is not like Mac where you have one platform, or two if you still want to target PowerPC. There are many Linux distribution, your code and/or installer may need to be aware of some of their subtleties, your support personnel surely will need to be aware. These support people may even need to be more technically inclined than Mac support people, on second thought that's a given isn't it? Your quality assurance testing matrix just ballooned from Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, MacOS X Intel, MacOS X PowerPC to the former plus Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE. Doesn't seem to bad at first glance, but keep in mind the much smaller return that the latter four provide. All this support and qa effort *must* be paid for by the Linux gamer subsegment that refuses to buy the Win32 version and dual boot or emulate.
It irks me when people see a successful game and say, "Wouldn't it be better if it were totally different?"
Look at Master of Orion...Master of Orion II was a great game and Master of Orion III was a complete dog. An upgrade of AI, graphics, buildings and ship gear on MOO2 would have left them with a solid, potentially excellent game. Instead they tossed everything from MOO2 except the name, and proceeded to create one of the great flops of all time.
Judging by the Diablo->DiabloII sequel, I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.