Guild Wars 2

I kept using windows just because of GW1 then GW2 …
Does Arenanet have a contract with Microsoft ?
Now that you came with Mac OS X client i guess linux is not so far … I hope …

It would be great !

I know how our software behaves in a functional windows environment. If that environment has been altered too much, I will indeed tell them to try with a fresh install. Microsoft is kind enough to give a free VM XP with every legal copy of windows 7 pro so testing this is very easy (eg over Teamviewer). In Linux there is no common baseline.

I tried Windows 7 in the emulator that comes with Windows 7 Professional edition. The graphics were slow. When I use the Windows version of VirtualBox to run Linux Mint or OpenIndiana, most things run smoothly. By the way VirtualBox also has a Linux version but the ipv6 much faster in the Windows version.

Considering I’m setting up a specially-compiled WINE “prefix” for Guild Wars 2, I have to throw my hat into the ring on this one as well.

I’ve never understood why game developers abandoned OpenGL for DirectX.

Cross-platform = more customers = bigger profits.

The only reason I use Windows is because of the gated community of DirectX games… and /I wouldn’t have it at all/ if it weren’t for “DreamSpark” offering Windows 7 for free through colleges and universities.

Aneirin Cadwall.9126:

Considering I’m setting up a specially-compiled WINE “prefix” for Guild Wars 2, I have to throw my hat into the ring on this one as well.

I’ve never understood why game developers abandoned OpenGL for DirectX.

Cross-platform = more customers = bigger profits.

The only reason I use Windows is because of the gated community of DirectX games… and /I wouldn’t have it at all/ if it weren’t for “DreamSpark” offering Windows 7 for free through colleges and universities.

^ this pretty much. And DirectX became the de-facto API not because it was better, but because of a vicious cycle of a popularty bandwagon.

Lead us oh Valve, pioneers of the beloved OpenGL revolution.

marnick.4305:

There are two major layouts for Linux systems: Debian and RedHat. Most distros use one of those two. Also, you can build your stuff so that it doesn’t care. It normally involves rolling your own libraries in, which makes your software easier to support, as you then don’t have to figure out which version of libraries they’re using or where they are.

And yet for Windows there’s only 1. Should I tell my customers I only support RedHat? That would be even more of a joke.

It’s no more of a joke than only supporting windows.

If the Linux world can step up and provide one monolithic distribution that everyone is expected to use, it will become competitive for industrial use.

I think you’re missing one of the key strengths of Linux there, and one of the reasons that it is so secure.

I don’t mean joke in a bad way. Linux is a very good way to learn the innards of computers. But on a company scale, it indeed is a joke because Linux development requires far more resources for far less results.

Apache would disagree with you. So would Skype (which is now Microsoft-owned), Google and a whole bunch of others.

Which is why most of my customers are running the extremely solid and proven operating system called XP service pack 3. Some still use NT4.0 and there is no reason to “upgrade”.

How many security holes have been open in those since release and still aren’t fixed?

I know Chrome and Android is based on Linux, but the reason for that is because Chrome isn’t an OS developing company but rather an advertisement company. Google is known to allow their employees free time to program joke projects. Some of those become good, most fail. Gmail and Android happened to be joke projects that had potential, but all those other projects, you never heard of.

Actually, Google bought the company developing Android. You know, for a lot of money.

The only thing I mean with “joke” is that it’s not intended to earn you money. Please understand that. Developing for Linux can be good because it deepens knowledge of your software and the machines it runs on, but only the largest companies have the ability to earn money on Linux.

You’re calling CentOS big? I thought they were pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things.

The choice being made is in the following: a 15 years old newbie installs Linux because it’s cool to hate Windows. His GW2 doesn’t work and he buggers support. The time it takes to solve his problem, could be used to check 20 hacked account tickets. Which path should a.net take? Even if I personally wanted to support the rare Linux question I get, I simply wouldn’t have time for that.

Got any data to back up that assertation? Linux client support isn’t Linux support.

Illiander.8049:

marnick.4305:

I don’t mean joke in a bad way. Linux is a very good way to learn the innards of computers. But on a company scale, it indeed is a joke because Linux development requires far more resources for far less results.

Apache would disagree with you. So would Skype (which is now Microsoft-owned), Google and a whole bunch of others.

There’s a common thread with those – they’re all infrastructure. In that situation, you can put something together, get it working, then nobody touches it if they don’t know what they’re doing – no end users who could do something silly. It neatly sidesteps all the problems with Linux, and that’s why it’s so popular.

There don’t seem to be a lot of companies (outside of software developers and academia) that deploy Linux desktops to their users though. I’m sure they exist, but I haven’t personally run into them.

Google has stated that they do. Anyone running Chrome does. And Valve seems to think there’s enough of a market (or that they can encourage enough of a market) for it to be worthwhile.

Yes, Linux wins on infastructure. Thats where a larger fraction of people make an active choice about what OS they use, rather than just using whatever came on the box without thinking about it. Mostly because Windows isn’t secure or stable enough for serious use.

Here’s a question:
Other than applications availible and hardware support, why would you, as a user, not want to run something that is as stable and secure as the most reliable and secure internet servers and supercomputers?

I’ve found Windows 7 to be quite stable.

John Yanez.5486:

I’ve found Windows 7 to be quite stable.

Imagine running a very important government server on a Windows machine and getting a random BSOD. What havoc would follow…

Windows was not designed for that. It was designed for personal use, where you would expect much lighter loads. Take things up a notch, and the instability shines.

Illiander said that Windows is not stable or secure enough for “serious use”. That is probably what he meant. Nevertheless, Windows is still well-known for being a bit unstable even at the casual level, and much more prone to exploits.

Bushido.2184:

much more prone to exploits.

Much more prone doesn’t quite make the point clearly enough. Back in ~’02, I read about a study done to compate currently active exploits in Linux, Mac and Windows: The numbers were 2 for Mac, 7 for Linux, and they stopped counting for Windows at ~6000. I doubt the relative stability has improved all that much (is 7 really that much more secure than XP?).

If you want a laugh, look up “Windows for Warships”. The article “Sunk by Windows NT” gives a decent overview without all the laughing.

+1 for the future possibility of expanding the GW2 OS support.
-9999 for the offtopic debate and bashing of Windows XD lol.

Bushido.2184:

John Yanez.5486:

I’ve found Windows 7 to be quite stable.

Imagine running a very important government server on a Windows machine and getting a random BSOD. What havoc would follow…

Windows was not designed for that. It was designed for personal use, where you would expect much lighter loads. Take things up a notch, and the instability shines.

Illiander said that Windows is not stable or secure enough for “serious use”. That is probably what he meant. Nevertheless, Windows is still well-known for being a bit unstable even at the casual level, and much more prone to exploits.

And yet the company I work for uses Windows for very expensive and critical industrial appliances. You seem to forget Windows Embedded and Windows Server exist. The very important government server can not and will not have a BSOD under a non-consumer version of Windows. In all my time working with industrial grade Windows, I have yet to see my first BSOD.

What you don’t get is the following: Windows matured heavily on the serious market. Nowadays it is possible to make the most critical servers and machines based on a Windows environment. So Linux is quickly losing it’s advantage there. On the other hand, Linux never caught up in the consumer branch and is still as user-unfriendly as it ever was. Even Ubuntu is a nightmare for newbies as soon as you want custom software.

Don’t be a fanboy. Windows also has serious versions. Apart from that you get a free bump because Linux also deserves the best MMO out there, even though I’ll never play on Linux.

Illiander.8049:

Which is why most of my customers are running the extremely solid and proven operating system called XP service pack 3. Some still use NT4.0 and there is no reason to “upgrade”.

How many security holes have been open in those since release and still aren’t fixed?

Troll question but actually, not relevant. The same goes for any old Linux based system. Also most industrial pcs aren’t connected to the internet so your entire argument falls.

The choice being made is in the following: a 15 years old newbie installs Linux because it’s cool to hate Windows. His GW2 doesn’t work and he buggers support. The time it takes to solve his problem, could be used to check 20 hacked account tickets. Which path should a.net take? Even if I personally wanted to support the rare Linux question I get, I simply wouldn’t have time for that.

Got any data to back up that assertation? Linux client support isn’t Linux support.

Absolutely. Personal experience. I don’t help customers with Linux problems, neither does anyone at my support team. I would love to, on the base level it sure interests me, but I simply don’t have time for that. My boss would have to hire a dedicated Linux person for the 3 questions we get each month, and even then he wouldn’t be able to solve them all. That’s simply not worth it regardless of whether or not Linux is a cool system to use.

We’re not talking hobbyists here, programming a Linux box in their basement. In a world revolving around money, Linux simply isn’t up to par. Exceptions prove the rule. Seriously, I wish this was different but I can’t change it. From a business perspective, Linux is a joke. No forum thread is going to change that.

+1 for a Linux client! Valve is proving that Linux can be a GREAT OS to run games, having better performances than Windows ( there are a lot of benchmarks out there ), and things don’t look too bright on Windows’ side, with 8 coming out… But we’ll see I guess! I most surely hope to be able to play GW2 without having to worry about keeping a lonely self-hacked version of wine on my system, but porting GW2 to OpenGL ( it’s the only way to make it run on both Linx and Mac with good performances, unless ANet wants to rewrite DX for unix-like systems ) would surely take a lot of time. It’d bring some benefits ( as in being able to run on every OS, possibly on consoles too ), but it’d surely take a lot of time and effort. As much as I want a Linux client, I’d really rather see GW2’s world getting a little bigger first. Please don’t hate me

I’d also like to say something to the Windows fanboys who “know better” that’ve been talking in the last few pages.
First thing: why are you even here? If you want to make us “see the light” ( through a broken window ) or if you think of as an annoyance that could slow down GW2’s developement, this is the wrong topic, isn’t it?
Second, ever heard of distro-independend packages? Yes, some ( most ) programs are compiled and packaged for a specific distro, often are even patched by them, so that it runs better for a specific task. That’s one of Linux’s many benefits, isn’t it? But you know, many games ( see: the ones in the Humble Bundles, for instance ) out there for Linux are distro-independent. What does that mean? You download an archive. You extract it. You open the README file to see which packages you need. You run the binary file. Profit! And, pretty often, people will actually ask the developers to package and maintain them for their favourite distro. For free, I mean. Meaning a random person can, with the permission of the developers, rearrange the files and create a package for certain distro, it’s pretty easy. Then it doesn’t take much to update it for that distro’s new release ( as in: edit a text file, or not even that, often ).
Another thing that I should mention, is the misconcept that a program that runs on Linux can’t support Windows too. You can develop on Linux and still have a WIN32-compatible program. Ever heard of G.I.M.P.? Just saying, I mean. I understand it can be harder than hard-coding paths into a program… No, not even, no.

I think we should just put our OS preference aside. It all started from unnecessary and untruthful comments about Windows from earlier posts from Linux fans, and those brought the Windows fans :S.

I’m pro-Windows and Linux, but I prefer Windows for personal reasons. (And I don’t bother defending Windows from people’s words because it doesn’t affect me. Never had Windows issues like some of those horror stories. Maybe I just that good.)

This thread should just be “+1 for Linux support in the future” not a “Linux vs Windows vs other OS” thread. I’d hate for such a positive expansion of the GW2 universe to be riddled with useless and senseless flame wars.

They’ll probably work on and finish the Mac version first then decide if they’ll port GW2 on Linux. Personally, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. A friend of mine had Linux and I thought it was OK, but liked Windows a bit better. That was a while ago though.

The best reason for a person to prefer Linux to Windows is based on principle.

All other reasons, including (and especially) technical reasons are simply good reasons.

A native Linux Guild Wars client would give me peace of mind when I’m using Windows because I’d know that no matter how much Windows rot I got on my hard drive I could always boot into Ubuntu and play Guild Wars 2. I think the biggest problems with Windows are its EULA and its inability to work with Ext4 partitions. If those two issues were resolved then I’d have far less motivation to use Linux since could place multiple copies of Windows on VirtualBox and rumor has it that Ext4 is highly resistant disk fragmentation.

mitcho.7926:

They’ll probably work on and finish the Mac version first then decide if they’ll port GW2 on Linux. Personally, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. A friend of mine had Linux and I thought it was OK, but liked Windows a bit better. That was a while ago though.

The thing that bothers me most about the Mac client, other than their PR statements that ignore the existance of any OS other than MSWindows and OSX, is that they could have supported everything, simply by using the free MSWindows translation layer (WINE), rather than the Mac-specific one that they probably paid quite a lot of money for.

I will bump every linux support thread I can see. Once this game and Steam officially support linux there will be very little reason NOT to run Ubuntu on my box full time.

Illiander.8049:

mitcho.7926:

They’ll probably work on and finish the Mac version first then decide if they’ll port GW2 on Linux. Personally, I don’t see why they shouldn’t. A friend of mine had Linux and I thought it was OK, but liked Windows a bit better. That was a while ago though.

The thing that bothers me most about the Mac client, other than their PR statements that ignore the existance of any OS other than MSWindows and OSX, is that they could have supported everything, simply by using the free MSWindows translation layer (WINE), rather than the Mac-specific one that they probably paid quite a lot of money for.

The problem is that, even if they’ll finish it, the Mac version will be flawed. How? Because they’e using a layer that “translates” Windows’ syscalls so that OSX can understand them.
By the way, ANet is using a layer that, between other things, probably asked for quite a sum to “support” GW2, and that is takes many of its features from the Wine project. So, by the time the Mac version of GW2 will work well, Wine will probably support it in the same way on other OSs ( Mac too by the way ). Cooperating directly with Wine or Codeweavers would’ve been a better choice, it’d have probably costed less and would have made GW2 playable on nearly any OS ( we should note that there aren’t just Windows, Mac and Linux, but even Solaris, Haiku, *BSD, etc. Ok, not much of a player base there, but again being a “mmo that can run on any OS because ANet worked on it!” would probably get GW2 a lot of good advertisement, both from the users of those OSs or because of many sites that’d probably report such a news, which are more than most people believe ). But still, it’d be just a WIN32 game running on a layer, there’d be still some performances drops on non-win32 OSs.
A better solution would’ve been to actually use OpenGL instead of Direct3D. Now, before anyone starts flaming about this… GW2 currently uses DirectX 9, doesn’t it? So there wouldn’t be any loss in switching to OpenGL at the moment. Of course it’d take some time to port the whole engine, but… Seriously, even WoW does it. It has a -opengl switch that makes it run using OpenGL. They even have ( had? ) a Linux client ready, but renounced to publish it because it was “hard to target a distro” ( I’ll avoid to comment on that ), meaning that building the client isn’t that hard itself. Anyways, this way there could’ve been a working and native GW2 on both Windows, Mac and Linux, with no performances loss in the process. Again, these are just my 2 cents.

soulsuke.7913:

By the way, ANet is using a layer that, between other things, probably asked for quite a sum to “support” GW2, and that is takes many of its features from the Wine project. So, by the time the Mac version of GW2 will work well, Wine will probably support it in the same way on other OSs ( Mac too by the way ). Cooperating directly with Wine or Codeweavers would’ve been a better choice, it’d have probably costed less and would have made GW2 playable on nearly any OS ( we should note that there aren’t just Windows, Mac and Linux, but even Solaris, Haiku, *BSD, etc. Ok, not much of a player base there, but again being a “mmo that can run on any OS because ANet worked on it!” would probably get GW2 a lot of good advertisement, both from the users of those OSs or because of many sites that’d probably report such a news, which are more than most people believe ). But still, it’d be just a WIN32 game running on a layer, there’d be still some performances drops on non-win32 OSs.
A better solution would’ve been to actually use OpenGL instead of Direct3D. Now, before anyone starts flaming about this… GW2 currently uses DirectX 9, doesn’t it? So there wouldn’t be any loss in switching to OpenGL at the moment. Of course it’d take some time to port the whole engine, but… Seriously, even WoW does it. It has a -opengl switch that makes it run using OpenGL. They even have ( had? ) a Linux client ready, but renounced to publish it because it was “hard to target a distro” ( I’ll avoid to comment on that ), meaning that building the client isn’t that hard itself. Anyways, this way there could’ve been a working and native GW2 on both Windows, Mac and Linux, with no performances loss in the process. Again, these are just my 2 cents.

I’ve been saying this ever since I found out how they’ve done the Mac client:

If they’re using a win32→UNIX translation layer, why aren’t they using the best one?

(I still laugh when I look at the Mac client bugs list. Why anyone would use that rather than WINE on Mac confuses me.)

Bushido.2184:

^ this pretty much. And DirectX became the de-facto API not because it was better, but because of a vicious cycle of a popularty bandwagon.

No, it was because it WAS better. OpenGL at the time DirectX became dominant was horribly mismanaged and borderline stagnant.

@ArenaNet: Go for it. It might not be commercially feasible now, but in a few years quality Linux gaming will become reality, considering how much effort Valve and the others are putting into it, and you’ll get your userbase. And please, drop Cider or whatever wrappers you’re using, if not now, then think about it in the long term. It’s a bad hack, and it works (when it does actually work) much worse than a native implementation.

@Everyone else: re: Linux vs. Windows, etc. It’s a matter of personal preference. Just enjoy whatever OS you like and let’s stop this flame war, please.

kenshinakh.3672:

I think we should just put our OS preference aside.

kenshinakh.3672:

I’m pro-Windows and Linux, but I prefer Windows for personal reasons.

kenshinakh.3672:

This thread should just be “+1 for Linux support in the future” not a “Linux vs Windows vs other OS” thread. I’d hate for such a positive expansion of the GW2 universe to be riddled with useless and senseless flame wars.

I can’t +1 this guy enough.

Bushido.2184:

stof.9341:

Bushido.2184:

^ this pretty much. And DirectX became the de-facto API not because it was better, but because of a vicious cycle of a popularty bandwagon.

No, it was because it WAS better. OpenGL at the time DirectX became dominant was horribly mismanaged and borderline stagnant.

It “was” better, for a while. OpenGL sucked first half of the 2000’s and probably a few years more, but now? It’s simply the network effect. Valve even managed to get the Source engine to run faster under OpenGL in a few months than DirectX which they’ve been working with for years.

Porting to Linux (or Mac) would have been much easier and less costly if OpenGL was used =/ I guess best bet now would be cooperating with Wine devs as Soulsuke said, which still sucks but beggars can’t be choosers.

Working around Wine’s design issues (that basically make graphics threading nearly impossible, and are only resolved in proprietary forks like Cider) while a proper solution is designed will also be a lot of unnecessary work. It’s true that beggars can’t be choosers, but I don’t think *nix users are beggars now. There’s enough market to justify a native client, if it’s done right. It’s a question of priorities, as ArenaNet people are working on content updates more than anything else, and writing abstractions for rendering, sound, input, network and maybe some other stuff from scratch takes a lot of time.

Cider is not a fork of WINE. Cider may use many of the same ideas that WINE uses, but if it uses any of the same codebase, they’re in a lot of trouble.

It is a question of priorities, but not the way you make it sound. ANet could take all the money they’re throwing at Cider, and throw it to CodeWeavers instead. Bam! Support for Mac, Linux, BSD, Haiku, Solaris, SCO OpenServer, [50 other UNIXes that I can’t remember the names of anymore]…

WINE’s “design issues” don’t seem that major at my end. Everything is looking just rosy here, and it’s not even getting any ANet dev support.

Illiander.8049:

Cider is not a fork of WINE. Cider may use many of the same ideas that WINE uses, but if it uses any of the same codebase, they’re in a lot of trouble.

It is a question of priorities, but not the way you make it sound. ANet could take all the money they’re throwing at Cider, and throw it to CodeWeavers instead. Bam! Support for Mac, Linux, BSD, Haiku, Solaris, SCO OpenServer, [50 other UNIXes that I can’t remember the names of anymore]…

WINE’s “design issues” don’t seem that major at my end. Everything is looking just rosy here, and it’s not even getting any ANet dev support.

Cider is derived from Cedega, which is a continuation of WineX, which is a fork of Wine. This is perfectly legal, as Wine’s license allows it. CodeWeavers might be a better option considering they upstream at least some of their code, but a native client is still the best option.

The Pointless.3869:

BabelFish.7234:

Lurch.4793:

With Windows 8 shaping up to be a bit of a shocker, Metro interface chiefly to blame, this may become a necessity!

Windows 8 is fine, I’m running GW2 on it right now and no issues what so ever.

The problem isn’t Win8’s ability to run GW2, it’s the fact that not only has Microsoft been so obsessed with creating a tablet OS that some users might think Desktop Mode was an afterthought but they’ve also put Windows on the potential path to eventually becoming a closed system, a fear expressed by a number of software developers of late.

Exactly, Microsoft is just copying Apple at this point by trying to have one OS to rule them all (desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones)

The main problem with Linux is the countless number of distributions. Companies can only afford to support a limited number of them because of their differences, and with the rest they are on their own, it may work, it may not, they can’t waste their time trying out your heavily customized distro.

People mentions Valve, adding linux support, but what they don’t mention is that its currently only a beta, and currently supporting ubuntu.
And you still have to use Wine for most things anyways.

Linux needs a stronger unified community and a “Distro to rule all distros”.
That’ll take time. Valve has time and resources to do that slowly, since it’s a service, but with a game you can’t have things evolving slowly like that.

+1 for a Guild Wars 2 client native to linux.

Heck, I would very likely buy copies of the game for any of my friends who wanted to play on linux, partly to support the cause, but mainly because of how many friend points I would get once they discover the sweet, sweet experience in store for them.

I’ll refrain from addressing the poorly-informed OS retoric I see in this thread, but I will share this:

I have been a gamer and coder for longer than many GW2 players have been alive, and I have observed a strong correlation between people who prefer linux (once exposed to it) and people who buy games. I suspect the notion that the market doesn’t exist comes in part from polling methodologies that aren’t particularly accurate when free/Free software comes into play, and in part from old assumptions about usability that are no longer true. I will be very interested to watch the landscape change in the next couple of years, especially with the likes of Ubuntu and Steam leading the way.

As for my own choices, I’m happy to have finally left the “dual booting just for games” camp. I ditched Windows several years ago, and now buy games only if I can get them running on linux. I wonder how many others are quietly doing the same.

Another Linux user right here that would LOVE a native client.

MithranArkanere.8957:

The main problem with Linux is the countless number of distributions. Companies can only afford to support a limited number of them because of their differences, and with the rest they are on their own, it may work, it may not, they can’t waste their time trying out your heavily customized distro.

People mentions Valve, adding linux support, but what they don’t mention is that its currently only a beta, and currently supporting ubuntu.
And you still have to use Wine for most things anyways.

Linux needs a stronger unified community and a “Distro to rule all distros”.
That’ll take time. Valve has time and resources to do that slowly, since it’s a service, but with a game you can’t have things evolving slowly like that.

My apologies for the double post. While the concern about multiple distros is certainly valid, it won’t require much effort on the developer’s part to take care of that issue. Just throw in one or two distribution packages. For example, focus on Ubuntu for the time being, but throw in a tarball for good measure. Linux users can certainly find their way around a tarball while the developer community unofficially repackages it for other distributions using said file.

Yes, Linux needs STANARDS. And don’t mention posix. There are so many non-standard additions and subtle differences… freedom does not equal zero order – the linux crowd doesn’t seem to get that. And I am a long-time linux user, just can’t get myself to ever use it at home again for all the problems. Maybe in a few years if adoption rate gets up and this would be a really nice boost.

bump for support again, make sure this always stays in the first few pages!

+1 for a native client in Linux. I am a linux user first and foremost and I would love the ability to play GW2 on Linux and get rid of my Windows partition once and for all.

Almost 500 signatures and no response from ArenaNet, even to say “No”. Seems like they don’t give a rat’s a**.

http://www.change.org/petitions/arenanet-inc-consider-development-alongside-the-wine-project-3

I’m pretty sure they read these and consider it. But that’s not going to make them suddenly popup and say they have a set date to get this done. There’s probably a lot more things they’re focusing their developing on than making GW2 for Linux.

Neikius.9345:

Yes, Linux needs STANARDS. And don’t mention posix. There are so many non-standard additions and subtle differences… freedom does not equal zero order – the linux crowd doesn’t seem to get that. And I am a long-time linux user, just can’t get myself to ever use it at home again for all the problems. Maybe in a few years if adoption rate gets up and this would be a really nice boost.

Linux has standards. I believe there’s also something out there (that I can’t remember the name of right now) that is using environment variables for the less standardised locations, so you can find out where they are on the system you’re running on.

Also, the lack of homogenity is one of Linux’s strengths: an exploit or bug in one system will only be present in a fraction of the linux machines out there, yet people can write programs that work across all the different versions without any real issue. (I have never seen build scripts mention distros at all, if you have, I would love to see some examples).

And if you really want to only support one distribution, support LFS. Everyone else will be able to work from that one.

Re: standards.

Steam is only (theoretically) supported on Ubuntu, but they’ve let Arch, Gentoo, Fedora, Debian and many other distributions’ users in for the beta. Now, Steam is in the AUR, there are Gentoo ebuilds, Fedora RPMs and Debian compatible debs. None of that was done by Valve. All they really did was packaging a single Ubuntu deb right. The rest was done by the community.

So, here’s how Steam is packaged (source: I’ve built the original PKGBUILDs for Steam, proof: https://gist.github.com/4027247, see last comment). The package itself contains the latest (by the time of packaging) version of some basic Steam binaries and two bootstrap scripts. It also has manual pages and desktop entries, but that’s irrelevant. The system-wide bootstrap script in /usr/bin copies the system-wide Steam binary to Steam’s directory in the user’s home directory (~/Steam or ~/.local/share/Steam or wherever you want to put it, it can be edited easily), runs it and lets it auto update. The binary updates itself with a newer binary (if present), then updates the CDR and restarts. From that point, when you call the bootstrap script (/usr/bin/steam), it will check the local Steam version in ~ and compare it to the system-wide one. If the system-wide one is newer, it will automatically update your ~ installation, but if it’s older, Steam will be called directly from ~.

Here’s how it could work for GW2. First of all, GW2 makes things way easier by having two main files instead of a bazillion, like Steam. For a Linux version, we’ll have to go with six.
1) System-wide files: /usr/bin/gw2 – a bootstrap script, /usr/share/gw2/gw2.bin – a preseed updater binary, /usr/share/applications/gw2.desktop – a desktop file, /usr/share/man/man1/gw2 – a manual page.
2) User files: ~/.local/share/gw2/gw2.bin – a current updater binary, ~/.local/share/gw2/gw2.dat – the data file. Other game files (settings, logs, etc) can also be placed in ~/.local/share/gw2/ or ~/.local/share/gw2/user/.

Installation process:
1) Install the system-wide files.
2) Wait for user to run the boostrap script.

Bootstrap process:
1) Check if local files are not present for this user.
2) Check if local files are present, but the local version is older than preseed files.
3) Check if local files are present, but the version can’t be read.
4) If any of (1), (2), (3) is true, update the local game files with the preseed ones.
5) Start the local updater.

From there, the local updater can work exactly like the Windows version, i.e. just downloading to the same directory it’s in. This also allows any user to download the updater and run it locally from wherever they desire (e.g. a shared NTFS partition, so data files don’t need to be duplicated/redownloaded).

TL;DR: Sane packaging for one distro == community support on most of them.

Morslath.3296:

Almost 500 signatures and no response from ArenaNet, even to say “No”. Seems like they don’t give a rat’s a**.

http://www.change.org/petitions/arenanet-inc-consider-development-alongside-the-wine-project-3

This petition is horribly wrong for multiple reasons.
1) 500 people is not enough to (commerically) justify a Linux version.
2) The petition clearly states Wine as the target. There are multiple approaches to building a Linux client, so not everyone who wants a Linux client will sign the petition for working with Wine.
3) I seriously don’t like the way it’s worded. It might be a personal preference, but it sounds kind of offensive, accusing ANet guys of being ‘partisan’ and asking them to ‘comply’.

I’d love to hear some official word on this though, even if it’s no good news.

That’s a great idea, then I’d be able to use my better gaming systems which I don’t like tampering with to get Windows onto. Hope ANet consider this!!

MehWhatever.1248:

Morslath.3296:

Almost 500 signatures and no response from ArenaNet, even to say “No”. Seems like they don’t give a rat’s a**.

http://www.change.org/petitions/arenanet-inc-consider-development-alongside-the-wine-project-3

This petition is horribly wrong for multiple reasons.
1) 500 people is not enough to (commerically) justify a Linux version.
2) The petition clearly states Wine as the target. There are multiple approaches to building a Linux client, so not everyone who wants a Linux client will sign the petition for working with Wine.
3) I seriously don’t like the way it’s worded. It might be a personal preference, but it sounds kind of offensive, accusing ANet guys of being ‘partisan’ and asking them to ‘comply’.

I’d love to hear some official word on this though, even if it’s no good news.

I totally agree. The petition needs a rewrite or rewording. Instead of posing a specific implementation, it should leave that up to Anet to decide. When wording a request for anything, it should be written properly with a high respect for the party in mind. (I didn’t sign it either yet because I didn’t really like how it’s worded and it doesn’t represent how I would want to present it to the company of a game I love and play.)

kenshinakh.3672:

MehWhatever.1248:

Morslath.3296:

Almost 500 signatures and no response from ArenaNet, even to say “No”. Seems like they don’t give a rat’s a**.

http://www.change.org/petitions/arenanet-inc-consider-development-alongside-the-wine-project-3

This petition is horribly wrong for multiple reasons.
1) 500 people is not enough to (commerically) justify a Linux version.
2) The petition clearly states Wine as the target. There are multiple approaches to building a Linux client, so not everyone who wants a Linux client will sign the petition for working with Wine.
3) I seriously don’t like the way it’s worded. It might be a personal preference, but it sounds kind of offensive, accusing ANet guys of being ‘partisan’ and asking them to ‘comply’.

I’d love to hear some official word on this though, even if it’s no good news.

I totally agree. The petition needs a rewrite or rewording. Instead of posing a specific implementation, it should leave that up to Anet to decide. When wording a request for anything, it should be written properly with a high respect for the party in mind. (I didn’t sign it either yet because I didn’t really like how it’s worded and it doesn’t represent how I would want to present it to the company of a game I love and play.)

This is in my opinion one of the best things about (most of) the Linux community. Developers are always respected and welcomed here. During all the time I’ve spent using and developing (for) Linux, I have only maybe seen a couple times when a developer got bad mouthed (don’t give a rat’s a**, seriously people?) by a user, and those conflicts were resolved pretty quickly, even without employing banhammers.

This petition is a great example of the other part of the community. You see? We won’t even sign anything that asks the people who do stuff to ‘comply’ with the terms presented by people who haven’t done jack to make it happen.

Edit: Also, the profanity filter replaced the a-word with ‘kitten’. I see what you did there :P

OK, I’m doing this.

Dear ArenaNet,
We, the players of Guild Wars 2 and users of Linux, would like you to consider developing a Linux version of the Guild Wars 2 client.

We understand that we are a vocal minority here, and that a Linux client likely won’t be profitable in the short term. But in a longer term, Linux is becoming a viable option for gaming.

• Valve is bringing Source, Steam to Linux, and later on, their own Steam running, Linux based hardware to the users.
• Hardware developers like NVIDIA and AMD/ATI gave us updated, faster drivers.
• Unity, one of the most popular 3D engines, introduced Linux support for version 4.
• CryEngine, one of the most graphically advanced engines in existence, has a native Linux port.
• Project Eternity, Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, Double Fine Adventure, Homestuck, Planetary Annihilation, Shadowrun Returns, Maia – pretty much every big upcoming ‘indie’ game will have Linux support.

This was said many times earlier, but now it’s finally backed by some really good evidence. 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop and Linux gaming. And we’d love to see another great developer embrace it with a great game.

There are many ways you can achieve this. You’re already using Cider for the OS X version, and you can use a similar product like CodeWeavers for Linux, or collaborate with the open source Wine project, which is where both Cider and CodeWeavers originated back in the day. But the best way forward is most likely a native Linux version. A native client will reduce the performance overhead caused by the translation layer (and that is very important for an MMO), improve the overall user experience and allow for most of the code to be reused for a native OS X version, too. You also get to avoid Cider, so you’ll have more freedom with doing whatever you want in the Windows version, and get rid of the bugs in Cider itself which are plaguing OS X users. Writing a new platform backend from scratch is not an easy task, but if it works, it will pay off greatly. So please, at least consider that.

We love your game. And we love Linux. And we’d love having our favourite game on our favourite platform.

Love,
K900, a.k.a. MehWhatever.1248.

P.S. You’re awesome, keep it up.

Edit: grammar.
Edit: accidentally a dot.
Edit: proofreading.

MehWhatever.1248:

OK, I’m doing this.

Dear ArenaNet,
We, the players of Guild Wars 2 and users of Linux, would like you to consider developing a Linux version of the Guild Wars 2 client.

We understand that we are a vocal minority here, and that a Linux client likely won’t be profitable in the short term. But in a longer term, Linux is becoming a viable option for gaming.

• Valve is bringing Source, Steam to Linux, and later on, their own Steam running, likely Linux based hardware to the users.
• Hardware developers like NVIDIA and AMD/ATI gave us updated, faster drivers.
• Unity, one of the most popular 3D engines, introduced Linux support for version 4.
• CryEngine, one of the most graphically advanced engines in existence, has a native Linux port.
• Project Eternity, Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, Double Fine Adventure, Homestuck, Planetary Annihilation, Shadowrun Returns, Maia – pretty much every big upcoming ‘indie’ game will have Linux support.

This was said many times earlier, but now it’s finally backed by some really good evidence. 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop and linux gaming. And we’d love to see another great developer embrace it with a great game.

There are many ways you can achieve this. You’re already using Cider for the OS X version, and you can use a similar product like CodeWeavers for Linux, or collaborate with the open source Wine project, which is where both Cider and CodeWeavers originated back in the day. But the best way forward is most likely a native Linux version. A native client will reduce the performance overhead caused by the translation layer (and that is very important for an MMO), improve the overall user experience and allow for most of the code to be reused for a native OS X version, too. You also get to avoid Cider, so you’ll have more freedom with doing whatever you want in the Windows version, and get rid of the bugs in Cider itself which are plaguing OS X users. Writing a new platform backend from scratch is not an easy task, but if it works, it will pay off greatly. So please, at least consider that.

We love your game. And we love Linux. And we’d love having our favourite game on our favourite platform.

Love,
K900, a.k.a. MehWhatever.1248.

P.S. You’re awesome, keep it up.

Edit: grammar.
Edit: accidentally a dot.

Quoted, signed.

That’s how you write one of these things. (I’m not very good at expressing myself in text, as reading back through this thread will amply demonstrate, so I’ll leave it at that now)

Illiander.8049:

MehWhatever.1248:

OK, I’m doing this.

Dear ArenaNet,
We, the players of Guild Wars 2 and users of Linux, would like you to consider developing a Linux version of the Guild Wars 2 client.

We understand that we are a vocal minority here, and that a Linux client likely won’t be profitable in the short term. But in a longer term, Linux is becoming a viable option for gaming.

• Valve is bringing Source, Steam to Linux, and later on, their own Steam running, likely Linux based hardware to the users.
• Hardware developers like NVIDIA and AMD/ATI gave us updated, faster drivers.
• Unity, one of the most popular 3D engines, introduced Linux support for version 4.
• CryEngine, one of the most graphically advanced engines in existence, has a native Linux port.
• Project Eternity, Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, Double Fine Adventure, Homestuck, Planetary Annihilation, Shadowrun Returns, Maia – pretty much every big upcoming ‘indie’ game will have Linux support.

This was said many times earlier, but now it’s finally backed by some really good evidence. 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop and linux gaming. And we’d love to see another great developer embrace it with a great game.

There are many ways you can achieve this. You’re already using Cider for the OS X version, and you can use a similar product like CodeWeavers for Linux, or collaborate with the open source Wine project, which is where both Cider and CodeWeavers originated back in the day. But the best way forward is most likely a native Linux version. A native client will reduce the performance overhead caused by the translation layer (and that is very important for an MMO), improve the overall user experience and allow for most of the code to be reused for a native OS X version, too. You also get to avoid Cider, so you’ll have more freedom with doing whatever you want in the Windows version, and get rid of the bugs in Cider itself which are plaguing OS X users. Writing a new platform backend from scratch is not an easy task, but if it works, it will pay off greatly. So please, at least consider that.

We love your game. And we love Linux. And we’d love having our favourite game on our favourite platform.

Love,
K900, a.k.a. MehWhatever.1248.

P.S. You’re awesome, keep it up.

Edit: grammar.
Edit: accidentally a dot.

Quoted, signed.

That’s how you write one of these things. (I’m not very good at expressing myself in text, as reading back through this thread will amply demonstrate, so I’ll leave it at that now)

I think I’m starting to get better at writing stuff that’s not code, thanks
I wonder if all the technical details are really needed there for a petition (if that happens, because I’m not doing that, because I don’t like petitions in general) though…
Also updated the original text, we now know the SteamBox will be indeed running Linux.

Everyone who is still thinking about DirectX vs. OpenGL, etc: here’s a great reddit comment that explains portability in games.

I’m sorry for the terms I used, I was a little annoyed with the lack of response (even if it was to refuse what we were asking) from the devs of my favorite mmorpg.

@MehWhatever.1248 Did they confirm it will be linux-based? I think they only confirmed that they’re making the SteamBox.

Morslath.3296:

I’m sorry for the terms I used, I’m was a little annoyed with the lack of response (even if it was to refuse what we were asking) from the devs of my favorite mmorpg.

@MehWhatever.1248 Did they confirm it will be linux-based? I think they only confirmed that they’re making the SteamBox.

I don’t think it was ever stated explicitly, and the reason is kind of understandable, but Michael Larabel of Phoronix, who is the only journalist who knows more about Valve’s plans than is publicly announced, wrote this post, which is titled “Gabe Talks More About Valve’s Next-Gen Linux Console”. I don’t think he would have used this wording if he didn’t know for sure.