PDA

View Full Version : EA and Ubuntu, for & against discussion



Sslaxx
May 9th, 2012, 08:30 PM
You don't show you're a market that matters by meekly accepting everything. Browser links are an absolute insult! It says that they don't take us seriously.

I don't expect anything major, but I'd have preferred announcements with screenshots of one of their smallest minor Windows titles coming soon to this crap. It's almost as bad as if they'd just said they were working on improving WINE compatibility.

ahso4271
May 9th, 2012, 10:49 PM
They're making fun of Ubuntu. Why else did they attend the conference?

As I've heard that they included a Wine fork on OSX for, was it Rage? Shows again simple disrespect to OpenSource. Even to their
customers, as many probably were already running it on Wine and bought it again thinking it to be a native port.

R33D3M33R
May 10th, 2012, 05:42 AM
What else could you expect of EA Games? They are greedy, have no respect for their customers and have destroyed tons of great franchises. The games are free to play and this is a bad thing if EA is behind it. Soon they will add payable items that give rich player massive advantages and you will be owned if you don't pay.

Carpentr
May 10th, 2012, 07:28 AM
I always hear people voice their opposition toward Electronic Arts. Why?

I've played a ton of EA games throughout the years, and I've enjoyed a lot of them. The Sims, Battlefield series, Dragon Age, all of their sports games, James Bond games, Harry Potter games, Burnout, Mass Effect, Crysis, Mirror's Edge, and Dark Age of Camelot. Oh, and the Medal of Honor series, too. All of those are great games. I have never had one bad experience with EA.

They are simply seeing if Ubuntu is a viable platform to make money off of. What else would you expect? Do you want them to drop a few million dollars (minimum), porting a game to Linux? That will not happen until Ubuntu is proven as a financially viable option.

sffvba[e0rt
May 10th, 2012, 07:46 AM
Good or bad... first time that major developers and publishers have shown this level of interest. This is AWESOME!

The enemy of perfect is good... so let us forgo perfection (as it isn't going to happen) and focus on the good news?!


404

jerome1232
May 10th, 2012, 07:54 AM
Hey if we can get a big company like EA games to start porting games, more will follow their lead. If Ubuntu became a viable alternative for gamers, it would push Ubuntu that much more into main stream use and urge hardware vendors to support it.

I know, I know, lofty dreams.

earthpigg
May 10th, 2012, 09:20 AM
Is anyone able to actually play Tiberium Alliances? Clicking 'play now' takes me into a loop wherein it asks for login information and eventually delivers me right back to the page with the big 'play now' button.

(Tried on up to date versions of a few different browsers)

Shameless repost.

mastablasta
May 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM
they should ask for money on kickstarter (or something) for ports (battlefield 3 would be cool :-D ). would then see how many people would pay and how much ;-)

R33D3M33R
May 11th, 2012, 06:20 AM
I always hear people voice their opposition toward Electronic Arts. Why?

I've played a ton of EA games throughout the years, and I've enjoyed a lot of them. The Sims, Battlefield series, Dragon Age, all of their sports games, James Bond games, Harry Potter games, Burnout, Mass Effect, Crysis, Mirror's Edge, and Dark Age of Camelot. Oh, and the Medal of Honor series, too. All of those are great games. I have never had one bad experience with EA.

They are simply seeing if Ubuntu is a viable platform to make money off of. What else would you expect? Do you want them to drop a few million dollars (minimum), porting a game to Linux? That will not happen until Ubuntu is proven as a financially viable option.

I have played one of their free2play games NFS:World and had horrible lag problems people were complaining about on forums for months. No one answered and no one fixed the problem so i quit playing.

They shamellesly destroyed the C&C franchise and most of their sport games carry no inovation -> same thing with slightly better graphics every year. They only care about making as much profit as they can, and not about the gamers wishes.


Hey if we can get a big company like EA games to start porting games, more will follow their lead. If Ubuntu became a viable alternative for gamers, it would push Ubuntu that much more into main stream use and urge hardware vendors to support it.

I know, I know, lofty dreams.

These are no ports, just links to browser games. They get links to the games and advertising on forums for free -> great marketing.

Don't play this crap and waste your time, there are tons of better games in the repositories. There are also tons of indie games that you buy once and own them forever without needing to pay2play.

jerome1232
May 11th, 2012, 08:31 AM
These are no ports, just links to browser games. They get links to the games and advertising on forums for free -> great marketing.


Ewwwww.

Artificial Intelligence
May 20th, 2012, 05:04 PM
posts split and moved to the cafe.

Original: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1976388

BigSilly
May 20th, 2012, 06:09 PM
I suppose it just feels a bit like when Dell started selling Ubuntu on their laptops. They have a limited run, with limited support and limited advertising, and then when the self fulfilling prophecy comes true and no-one gets involved (though we did our bit here and bought one!), they just cite lack of interest and disappear into the night.

I could have gotten behind EA on Ubuntu and Linux, even though I'm not a great fan of their games (other than perhaps Burnout once), but with these very limited browser games I'm not sure what they are trying to prove. I'm pretty sure what they are going to prove is that there is no interest, and off they'll go as predicted.

Sslaxx
May 20th, 2012, 06:14 PM
I suppose it just feels a bit like when Dell started selling Ubuntu on their laptops. They have a limited run, with limited support and limited advertising, and then when the self fulfilling prophecy comes true and no-one gets involved (though we did our bit here and bought one!), they just cite lack of interest and disappear into the night.

I could have gotten behind EA on Ubuntu and Linux, even though I'm not a great fan of their games (other than perhaps Burnout once), but with these very limited browser games I'm not sure what they are trying to prove. I'm pretty sure what they are going to prove is that there is no interest, and off they'll go as predicted.
Sometimes it feels like the self-fulfilling prophecy is what these companies want. They don't really want the hassle of supporting something else, so they do (often considerably) less than the bare minimum so that they can then justify discontinuing even that at some point in the near future due to "lack of interest". Certainly how it feels in this case.

BigSilly
May 20th, 2012, 06:16 PM
Sometimes it feels like the self-fulfilling prophecy is what these companies want. They don't really want the hassle of supporting something else, so they do (often considerably) less than the bare minimum so that they can then justify discontinuing even that at some point in the near future due to "lack of interest".

Yes I agree. It's as though it's done to prove a point, then they can all go back to Windows.

temp2012
May 20th, 2012, 06:27 PM
I don't see why people here need to get so horrible and nasty here. Some of you guys seem very quick to jump down peoples throats for no valid reason. You're giving Ubuntu a bad reputation and you're discouraging people from wanting to engage with the Ubuntu community. In my opinion you're shooting yourselves in the foot once again.

If you don't like EA that's fine, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you guys are flamming them just for showing interest in Ubuntu. Get a life!

Artificial Intelligence
May 20th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Please don't argumentum ad hominem. Thanks.

BigSilly
May 20th, 2012, 07:16 PM
I don't see why people here need to get so horrible and nasty here. Some of you guys seem very quick to jump down peoples throats for no valid reason. You're giving Ubuntu a bad reputation and you're discouraging people from wanting to engage with the Ubuntu community. In my opinion you're shooting yourselves in the foot once again.

If you don't like EA that's fine, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you guys are flamming them just for showing interest in Ubuntu. Get a life!

I'm sorry you find my opinion so offensive, but unfortunately it's how I feel and I can't change that. I'm glad they are showing an interest, but as for expecting it to go any further, I don't realistically see that. It'll be great if it does, but I honestly don't know what kind of market/user reaction they are expecting for two fairly dated browser games, I really don't. But good luck to them and I hope it gets better. I'm glad they have at least provoked a debate.

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Look at the bright side. They know what Ubuntu is. ;)

I don't think I've played an EA game since Legacy of the Ancients on the C64.

Skara Brae
May 20th, 2012, 10:07 PM
They are simply seeing if Ubuntu is a viable platform to make money off of. What else would you expect? Do you want them to drop a few million dollars (minimum), porting a game to Linux? That will not happen until Ubuntu is proven as a financially viable option.
Loki tried that, long ago (porting games to Linux). That didn't turn out so well.

I remember having played "Civilisation: Call to Power" on Mandrake (was it Mandrake?), long long ago. It went well.
It doesn't run on Ubuntu (pity).

Lynceus
May 21st, 2012, 12:08 AM
Allot of +1's for you guys, and a -1 for one guy (guess who) but i can't make up my mind about it.

I read a pro comment, and i go like " yeah that's true"
And then i read a contra comment, and i go like "give it to them, you're absolutely right"

It would be nice if more gaming companies made games that support Linux, so driver support would improve...
But one of the things i like about Linux is the philosophy, and ea games doesn't think like many of us do.

Carpentr
May 21st, 2012, 12:39 AM
Allot of +1's for you guys, and a -1 for one guy (guess who) but i can't make up my mind about it.

I read a pro comment, and i go like " yeah that's true"
And then i read a contra comment, and i go like "give it to them, you're absolutely right"

It would be nice if more gaming companies made games that support Linux, so driver support would improve...
But one of the things i like about Linux is the philosophy, and ea games doesn't think like many of us do.

I see your point. I think that is the problem with any large company or corporation that produces games. They will still want to put DRM in their games, etc. They have investors they need to please and I don't think that ever will change. That is if they ever decide to support Linux games in the first place. If they ever do come to Linux the reality is that they will do what they want. There are always possibilites, though (SOE reversing the decision to shutdown the Mac version of EQ).

Bandit
May 21st, 2012, 12:49 AM
You don't show you're a market that matters by meekly accepting everything. Browser links are an absolute insult! It says that they don't take us seriously.

I don't expect anything major, but I'd have preferred announcements with screenshots of one of their smallest minor Windows titles coming soon to this crap. It's almost as bad as if they'd just said they were working on improving WINE compatibility.

Seriously.. Your rant smells like another OMGPPP EA didnt give us Madden and NFS for free.

These rant threads should just be closed..

rai4shu2
May 21st, 2012, 01:34 AM
It's the proverbial foot in the door. Now we can say things like:

Ubuntu: A serious OS that is supported by gaming companies like EA.

If people then suddenly decide they want to play Mass Effect 3 in Ubuntu (and what a satisfying ending, huh?), then they'll nag EA with bug reports when they can't do that. The more pressure on them to produce for us, the better.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 01:57 AM
EA just wants to catch themselves a couple of whales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller) for free. That's all it is.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 02:00 AM
EA just wants to catch themselves a couple of whales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_roller) for free. That's all it is.

Or maybe they want to bring better quality gaming to Linux, following the negative nelly posts on these Forums I don't know why they would now even bother.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 02:44 AM
Or maybe they want to bring better quality gaming to Linux, following the negative nelly posts on these Forums I don't know why they would now even bother.

Desktop games and web games of this type have completely different business models with different target customers.

I'll recap for those people who don't, or refuse to, understand this. Web games operate like casinos. Most customers spend very little money and don't make the establishment any money, and can even make them a net loss. However there are a group of high rolling customers that casinos specifically target. These people spend a mindblowing amount of money. In casinos, they have people in sunglasses who scan for rich looking people and invite them to private high stakes rooms. Web games do the same thing. For Zynga games for example, most people spend around $2 in their lifetimes, but the "whales" can spend over 10k USD a month.

That's why the "EA is gauging Linux demand for games" argument is flawed. Maybe for Web games, yes. But even if turned out that Linux users were high rollers who spend lots of money on farmville clones when they see them promoted on the software center, that tells them nothing about how successful porting Call of Duty to Linux would be. It's a completely different target audience. So I'll say it again. EA just wants to use some free advertising via Ubuntu to try and draw in the Linux users with the money.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 02:57 AM
Desktop games and web games of this type have completely different business models with different target customers.

I'll recap for those people who don't, or refuse to, understand this. Web games operate like casinos. Most customers spend very little money and don't make the establishment any money, and can even make them a net loss. However there are a group of high rolling customers that casinos specifically target. These people spend a mindblowing amount of money. In casinos, they have people in sunglasses who scan for rich looking people and invite them to private high stakes rooms. Web games do the same thing. For Zynga games for example, most people spend around $2 in their lifetimes, but the "whales" can spend over 10k USD a month.

That's why the "EA is gauging Linux demand for games" argument is flawed. Maybe for Web games, yes. But even if turned out that Linux users were high rollers who spend lots of money on farmville clones when they see them promoted on the software center, that tells them nothing about how successful porting Call of Duty to Linux would be. It's a completely different target audience. So I'll say it again. EA just wants to use some free advertising via Ubuntu to try and draw in the Linux users with the money.

In your opinion, not fact

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 03:03 AM
In your opinion, not fact

If you respond, could you please respond to the points I raised? There's no way I can reply properly when after I try to be as informative and reasonable as I can, all I get is: "well... yeah, that's like... your opinion".

alexfish
May 21st, 2012, 03:11 AM
Desktop games and web games of this type have completely different business models with different target customers.

I'll recap for those people who don't, or refuse to, understand this. Web games operate like casinos. Most customers spend very little money and don't make the establishment any money, and can even make them a net loss. However there are a group of high rolling customers that casinos specifically target. These people spend a mindblowing amount of money. In casinos, they have people in sunglasses who scan for rich looking people and invite them to private high stakes rooms. Web games do the same thing. For Zynga games for example, most people spend around $2 in their lifetimes, but the "whales" can spend over 10k USD a month.

That's why the "EA is gauging Linux demand for games" argument is flawed. Maybe for Web games, yes. But even if turned out that Linux users were high rollers who spend lots of money on farmville clones when they see them promoted on the software center, that tells them nothing about how successful porting Call of Duty to Linux would be. It's a completely different target audience. So I'll say it again. EA just wants to use some free advertising via Ubuntu to try and draw in the Linux users with the money.
To click or not to click, that is the question

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 03:16 AM
If you respond, could you please respond to the points I raised? There's no way I can reply properly when after I try to be as informative and reasonable as I can, all I get is: "well... yeah, that's like... your opinion".

By your hmmm logic no company should test to see if there is a viable market with Linux. you way would help move beyond the +/- 1% how?

It costs considerable amount of capital to bring products to a new market, it makes sound financial sense to test. If the offer is not picked up then further deployment of products from EA will not happen, and you can be sure other game producers will be viewing this trial with interest.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 03:24 AM
By your hmmm logic no company should test to see if there is a viable market with Linux. you way would help move beyond the +/- 1% how?

It costs considerable amount of capital to bring products to a new market, it makes sound financial sense to test. If the offer is not picked up then further deployment of products from EA will not happen, and you can be sure other game producers will be viewing this trial with interest.

I don't think I suggested any particular "way" to increase Linux desktop market share. My point is simply that the target audience for web games that earn money by getting people to buy virtual items, and the target audience for AAA games are very different. The person who spends 5k on buying resources in Tiberium Alliance is rarely the same person who buys Call of Duty. Therefore, there are no possible results from this particular test that would go anywhere towards a decision to port CoD.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 03:28 AM
I don't think I suggested any particular "way" to increase Linux desktop market share. My point is simply that the target audience for web games that earn money by getting people to buy virtual items, and the target audience for AAA games are very different. The person who spends 5k on buying resources in Tiberium Alliance is rarely the same person who buys Call of Duty. Therefore, there are no possible results from this particular test that would go anywhere towards a decision to port CoD.

Don't agree.

Carpentr
May 21st, 2012, 03:42 AM
Desktop games and web games of this type have completely different business models with different target customers.

I'll recap for those people who don't, or refuse to, understand this. Web games operate like casinos. Most customers spend very little money and don't make the establishment any money, and can even make them a net loss. However there are a group of high rolling customers that casinos specifically target. These people spend a mindblowing amount of money. In casinos, they have people in sunglasses who scan for rich looking people and invite them to private high stakes rooms. Web games do the same thing. For Zynga games for example, most people spend around $2 in their lifetimes, but the "whales" can spend over 10k USD a month.

That's why the "EA is gauging Linux demand for games" argument is flawed. Maybe for Web games, yes. But even if turned out that Linux users were high rollers who spend lots of money on farmville clones when they see them promoted on the software center, that tells them nothing about how successful porting Call of Duty to Linux would be. It's a completely different target audience. So I'll say it again. EA just wants to use some free advertising via Ubuntu to try and draw in the Linux users with the money.

I have spent over $2 on web games before, but certainly not ten thousand. I have had friends who have spent ten or twenty dollars, but not thousands. Web games are meant for meant for casual users and enthusiasts. You could spend six hours a day playing your typical browser-based strategy game (joining an alliance, chatting on forums, or planning attacks with members of your alliance). You could also, on the flip side, log in once or twice a day to build things within your city.

I play a lot of games that are from many different genres. I used to play a web game for years and had a blast with the political system and role-playing. I invested money because I enjoyed it. I probably spent around forty dollars over the course of three years. Many end-users are appealed to web games and many of those users like other genres as well. There are almost certainly others who just log onto Facebook and play a web game or two because that is all they know.

At the end of the day it is very hard to generalize what users do and do not like. What counts is that EA released games on the marketplace, regardless of how it was programmed or deployed. EA will certainly judge the potential of Ubuntu by the statistics of these two games.

I would also like to add that as far as web games go, both of these games are of considerable quality. Free to play is a direction that many companies are taking. The first step could be browser games, then who knows. Maybe they could port a game like Battlefield Heroes to Linux.

Regardless, we really have no right to complain about EA releasing these games. They are free, no one is required to play them, and anyone who is inclined to play them may do so. If they programmed the game to run in its own custom browser and called it a 'client' would it make a difference? As long as the game is fun and enjoyable to some users. Listing the game in the Software Center makes it easily accessible to new users of Ubuntu and provides yet another option for gaming on Linux.

Just my thoughts.

Edit: If they had ten thousand dollars, why wouldn'they buy a new Call of Duty? If a user is into Lords of Ultima wouldn't they be interested in The Sims Medieval, Ultima Online, or perhaps the new Alamur game? If they are interested in Tiberium Alliance, wouldn't they be interested in all of EA's RTS games or first-person shooters? If they like web-based strategy games, then one could also assume that they would like 3D strategy games as well.

rai4shu2
May 21st, 2012, 03:44 AM
You ever see the movie Casino? The ordinary schmucks were who they made their money on. They banked on "grandma and grandpa betting the college fund" on sucker games like Blackjack or Slots. The "whales" who were smart would come in with millions and clean out the casinos in an hour if they weren't careful.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 03:56 AM
Do people really not believe me when I say that social gaming depends on whales? I am genuinely curious.

Bandit
May 21st, 2012, 04:11 AM
Do people really not believe me when I say that social gaming depends on whales? I am genuinely curious.

Whales? Lets save the whales! Anyone know the phone number to the team on the Sea Shepherd? This could be the next episode of Whale Wars. :popcorn:

Carpentr
May 21st, 2012, 04:23 AM
Do people really not believe me when I say that social gaming depends on whales? I am genuinely curious.

I would say that it is a combination of casual users and people who spend large sums of money. I think that claiming many people spend ten thousand dollars a month on a video game is a little dramatic. Profitiblity can depend on a number of things.

Go into a local software store sometime. You will notice many pre-paid cards for ten, twenty, and twenty-five dollar denominations. I've seen people pick up a copy of The Sims 3 Pets and a FarmVille pre-paid card at the same time. Claiming that a end-user who plays a web-based game will only play a web-based game is too much of a generalization. Humans are unique individuals with many different tastes and hobbies. Sure, a game can be supported by 'whales' as you call them. They could also be supported by many users who simply enjoy the game and spent ten or twenty dollars every few months; they don't care it is a web-game, they just think it is fun.

thatguruguy
May 21st, 2012, 04:27 AM
You ever see the movie Casino? The ordinary schmucks were who they made their money on. They banked on "grandma and grandpa betting the college fund" on sucker games like Blackjack or Slots. The "whales" who were smart would come in with millions and clean out the casinos in an hour if they weren't careful.

Actually, you're only partially right. Slots is a sucker game. Blackjack, played correctly, has the lowest house take in the casino.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 04:31 AM
Do people really not believe me when I say that social gaming depends on whales? I am genuinely curious.

I don't care if it depends on Budgerigars or Cockatoos, if someone wants to bring games or test the waters they have my support.

aysiu
May 21st, 2012, 04:33 AM
Seems as if we're back to false dichotomies again. Why can't casinos make money off of small spenders and big fish alike? Why can't gaming companies make money off of $2-spenders and $10,000-spenders alike?

Rovio didn't get rich off one person spending $10,000 on Angry Birds.

If EA has web-based games and also other games, they're able to make money on both of those types with various kinds of customers.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 05:33 AM
I would say that it is a combination of casual users and people who spend large sums of money. I think that claiming many people spend ten thousand dollars a month on a video game is a little dramatic. Profitiblity can depend on a number of things.


I decided to look it up, and yes admittedly the people who spend over $25 are very important too. 10k is not a dramatic number though:
http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2010/06/10/super-whales-spend-money-virtual-goods/ in fact it underestimates slightly.

To give an idea about how importan the people with money are, I first learned about this from the CEO of a company that makes it's money from helping social game companies analyze social media data and scout out the big hitters. The same CEO also said that the company they're working for told him that they operate exactly like a casino.



Go into a local software store sometime. You will notice many pre-paid cards for ten, twenty, and twenty-five dollar denominations. I've seen people pick up a copy of The Sims 3 Pets and a FarmVille pre-paid card at the same time. Claiming that a end-user who plays a web-based game will only play a web-based game is too much of a generalization. Humans are unique individuals with many different tastes and hobbies. Sure, a game can be supported by 'whales' as you call them. They could also be supported by many users who simply enjoy the game and spent ten or twenty dollars every few months; they don't care it is a web-game, they just think it is fun.

The important thing here is that high demand for Farmville on via USC does not translate to high demand for Call of Duty on Linux. Imagine you were an analyst for EA... if you learned that hey! there are these Ubuntu using hedge fund managers who are willing to drop thousands of dollars buying virtual goods, would you claim to your boss that this is indicative of an untapped customer base that could be captured by porting Call of Duty to Linux?

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 05:43 AM
@ JDShu I see you not not want any of the game producers looking at or considering Linux and you really want to stay with a +/- 1% OS.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 05:46 AM
Seems as if we're back to false dichotomies again. Why can't casinos make money off of small spenders and big fish alike? Why can't gaming companies make money off of $2-spenders and $10,000-spenders alike?


They can, but where the revenue comes from will greatly affect company policy.



Rovio didn't get rich of one person spending $10,000 on Angry Birds.


Rovio is not the same genre. They make money selling paid-for apps and selling merchandise.



If EA has web-based games and also other games, they're able to make money on both of those types with various kinds of customers.

Yes, but my original point is that the success of web-based games doesn't influence EA's decision to port desktop games.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 05:51 AM
@ JDShu I see you not not want any of the game producers looking at or considering Linux and you really want to stay with a +/- 1% OS.

Well if you asked me personally, I don't really care what % share Linux on desktop has anymore. But on the more general point, I'm just not convinced that any outcome from this "experiment" will convince EA to start putting in effort porting desktop games to Linux. I just see it as a cheap low risk way to get some more people to play their game and hopefully catch a few spenders.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 05:57 AM
Well if you asked me personally, I don't really care what % share Linux on desktop has anymore. But on the more general point, I'm just not convinced that any outcome from this "experiment" will convince EA to start putting in effort porting desktop games to Linux. I just see it as a cheap low risk way to get some more people to play their game and hopefully catch a few spenders.

Of course they want to make money from it

Mr. Picklesworth
May 21st, 2012, 07:12 AM
I hope everyone here has actually watched Richard Hillman's talk at UDS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9k43hKaxvU&feature=channel&list=UL). It covers a lot of the concerns raised here. The gist of it is that EA can and will support a platform if it makes sense. Making sense involves some calculations. For example, they need to know how news spreads, what kind of audience they have, costs for ongoing support and maintenance, and, generally, how things work on each platform. It isn't just about building code for Linux and releasing it.

To me, this looks like they're testing the waters in an obviously cautious way. I, for one, am glad they're doing that instead of some ill-informed, expensive and quickly abandoned AAA port that barely runs on five percent of Ubuntu systems. With this approach, there's hope that it might actually be done right. Step one is communicating. We shouldn't delude ourselves here: our platform is not an obvious choice for a major publisher like EA. If we want to see that fixed, we need to build the bridge.

Face-Ache
May 21st, 2012, 07:23 AM
These rant threads should just be closed..

Agree. Or at least moved to Recurring.

I can't see a big gaming company like EA expressing interest in Linux as being a bad thing, no matter how insignificant that interest appears to be. I don't find these games being browser-based as insulting, whatsoever. To me, EA are simply a big company who are dipping a toe in the water.

I wonder whether part of this rhetoric is because people actually want Linux to stay as a "1%" - is it a sense of geeky entitlement to keep it non-mainstream?

I also don't buy the 'self fulfilling prophecy' stuff; if EA didn't want to get involved in possibly producing games for Linux, we wouldn't even have these browser-based offerings.

JDShu
May 21st, 2012, 07:55 AM
I hope everyone here has actually watched Richard Hillman's talk at UDS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9k43hKaxvU&feature=channel&list=UL). It covers a lot of the concerns raised here. The gist of it is that EA can and will support a platform if it makes sense. Making sense involves some calculations. For example, they need to know how news spreads, what kind of audience they have, costs for ongoing support and maintenance, and, generally, how things work on each platform. It isn't just about building code for Linux and releasing it.

To me, this looks like they're testing the waters in an obviously cautious way. I, for one, am glad they're doing that instead of some ill-informed, expensive and quickly abandoned AAA port that barely runs on five percent of Ubuntu systems. With this approach, there's hope that it might actually be done right. Step one is communicating. We shouldn't delude ourselves here: our platform is not an obvious choice for a major publisher like EA. If we want to see that fixed, we need to build the bridge.

Thanks for the link. The key point I feel is being implied from Hillman's talk, is that in his opinion (and there are probably people in EA who disagree with him), the gaming space is moving away from native apps, and moving to Social and Mobile. That is, he's seeing a trend where the money is no longer in selling boxed titles, but financial models like that of Zynga and Playfish which we were discussing earlier. EA's strategy then should be to make the best quality farmville style games that they can, which works on as many platforms (combinations of hardware, operating system, and browser) as possible.

Technically, that means stretching HTML5 to its limits and working with browser organizations and operating systems to make sure they work. In other words, it sounds like we can expect webgl accelerated MMO games where perks are purchased with real money.

rasmus91
May 23rd, 2012, 05:16 PM
I have never had one bad experience with EA.

Battlelog BF3 most buggy, annoying, useless piece of bullcrap i have ever seen.

But I do agree that it would be nice if they actually made some games for Linux. I, however, already have my favourite game from my favourite developer natively running in ubuntu, namely NwN from BioWare.