Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Games Linux

Unreal Tournament 3 For Linux Is Officially Dead 190

Posted by Soulskill
from the snuffing-out-long-fading-hopes dept.
ndogg writes "There is no longer any uncertainty surrounding the release of Unreal Tournament 3 for Linux. It's official: the port is now dead. No reasons were given, but no one should be waiting for it anymore, if anyone still was."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unreal Tournament 3 For Linux Is Officially Dead

Comments Filter:
  • Netcraft (Score:2, Funny)

    What have they to say about this?
  • Outrage! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 17, 2010 @07:49AM (#34585644)

    I hear all 3 of their potential customers are outraged...

  • by topher1kenobe (2041) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:02AM (#34585702) Homepage

    I bought the first two, and was waiting with dollars clenched in my sweaty fist to throw them at 3 as well. Makes me sad. I've still never played 3.

    • by Tukz (664339)

      You haven't missed anything, except the decay of the UT community.

    • by uncledrax (112438)

      UT3 wasn't very good, and you would be disappointed by it compared to the first 3 UT titles ('99', 2003, 2004).
      The bad part is you missed out on some OK mods, but many of those have either gone UDK or to their own released title anyway.. unfortunately it looks like there is no intention on porting UDK to *nix either.. which considering they have/will/should port it to BSD^H^H^HMacOSX, it's only a hop-skip-and-jump away... and that makes me sad.

    • I agree with the previous two posters. Been playing UT for more than a decade now. UT3 sucks. It's pretty, but not a fun game. The linux port was confirmed early on, and there was talk of even supporting UnrealED under linux too. When release-day came, they didn't even have a linux SERVER ready, which meant that the 80% or so of the servers normally used for UT games couldn't even host the new version.

      That right there was pretty much the stamp of authority that there would be no UT3 client linux port. When
  • by anomnomnomymous (1321267) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:12AM (#34585752)
    Well, that's a coincidence: It's officially dead for Windows too. And has been since almost three months after launch.

    I really liked the Unreal Tournament games (even though I'm an id Software fanboy), and definitely the first part was a lot better than its counterpart at the time; Quake 3. Whereas Quake 3 had obvious masterlike AI-bots, the AI in Unreal Tournament always seemed to resemble a bit more humanlike play-style.
    UT2004 was great too, and had some awesome new gametypes, which really worked well. They were planning on releasing a new update for it every year (hence the 2004 addition to the title), but failed at doing that (probably because they discovered their new cash cow; Gears of War).
    Unreal Tournament 3's figures were very bad: Already after a month of release, the servers got less and less. As of today there's only a handfull of servers left (for the UK at least), with even less players.
    I must admit myself that I also didn't play UT3 as much as I played the previous titles.

    So to be honest, I can't really see too much of a loss in this (except that it would have been easier for other Unreal engined games to be ported over to Linux).
    • Pretty much yeah

      i played UT 99 a LOT (even on the dreamcast when i didnt have a PC in my room yet), when 2k3 came out i had my own PC with a GF4 and i enjoyed the hell out of it, 2k4 made it even better, it is still one of the games that i bother installing if i want to play a pc-game, also ran it on linux several times.

      Then ut 3 came out, and it was rather unimpressive, i did buy it from steam at one point, but i hardly played it

    • by citizenr (871508)

      Exactly, Unreal is now officially a console engine, nothing more.

    • +1. I played the hell out of UT2004, but for some reason never really got into UT3. Despite decent initial sales figures on launch day, the game bombed with everyone I know. After a few months the community was very small, and it stayed that way despite attempts to grow it by majorly dropping the price so soon after launch. I can't see a Linux port bringing in any significant amount of players.

      • There are thousands of 2k4 players on every day right now to a couple hundred UT3 players.

        It bombed on launch day because they didn't have the linux server port ready. That's a good indication of how serious they took linux. It bombed in general because they never got a community of players. If a large percentage of your players can't play on launch day, and you overhaul your editor to the point that it can't be casually used, you kill a large percentage of your community. Forcing everyone to use a GameSp
    • by petsounds (593538)

      I played the hell out of the first Unreal Tournament. The combination of interesting weapons, good level design, the teleport disk ("translocator"), and a great modding engine just made it an awesome package, and the community was quite vibrant. I was involved in one of the better clans at the time. Unfortunately they listened too much to whiney fans and nerfed the teleport disk, whom users were using...ahem... to its full potential (telefrags ahoy!). Nerfing the disk changed CTF game pace from basketball t

      • by Yunzil (181064)

        The third iteration (UT 2004) jumped the shark, adding vehicles to the gameplay with huge outdoor levels. I guess they were feeling Halo-envy. It was a piece of shit.

        To each his own. To me, 2k4 was the best because it had vehicles and huge outdoor levels.

        • by petsounds (593538)

          I wouldn't deny that some people enjoyed it. I was speaking from the perspective of someone who feels the first UT defined the blueprint for the series. Adding vehicles and open levels was a pretty severe departure from that gameplay formula. I like donuts, but that doesn't mean I want donuts in my cereal. YMMV.

  • Vicious circle (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:17AM (#34585772) Journal
    It's not really worth developing games for Linux. The hardcore gamers - the bulk of the market all use Windows. As a result, anyone with any significant interest in PC games will install Windows. This will naturally perpetute the extreme bias towards windows from developers.

    The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software. These people aren't willing to buy non-free games either.

    I don't think there's any way out of this.
    • Re:Vicious circle (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:33AM (#34585824)

      I won't install Windows, but I can buy a non-free game every now and then. I'm not much of a gamer, I just don't have the time for it anymore, but I did buy StarCraft 2, and I would have bought Civ5 if it wasn't such a huge pain in the ass to get the demo to work with the pile of crap called Steam.
      I have no objections to non-free end-user software, but I do object to the underlying system and libraries being non-free...

      • You have to accept that when you're using workarounds to get software running on an OS it wasn't designed for you will often run into some issues. Steam runs great on Windows or Mac (there are those who hate the DRM but that has nothing to do with how the client actually performs). If Valve made a Steam client for Linux I'm sure it would run quite well, the problem is which distro do they make it for? So far as I know (and I am admittedly a novice when it comes to Linux) it is not easy to release an appl
        • by Ash-Fox (726320)

          If Valve made a Steam client for Linux I'm sure it would run quite well, the problem is which distro do they make it for?

          Just make it for the Linux Standard Base which pretty much every major distro but Gentoo (it can, just not by default) supports out of the box by default?

          Or, you could just include the libraries and libc you compiled against in the same package (the dependencies). I fail to understand the problem?

          • If Valve made a Steam client for Linux I'm sure it would run quite well, the problem is which distro do they make it for?

            Just make it for the Linux Standard Base which pretty much every major distro but Gentoo (it can, just not by default) supports out of the box by default?

            Ah, well there's my Linux novice status showing, I wasn't aware of that. Out of curiosity are there any major limitations to do that?

            • by Ash-Fox (726320)

              Ah, well there's my Linux novice status showing, I wasn't aware of that. Out of curiosity are there any major limitations to do that?

              Well, the advantage of using LSB is that your software doesn't need to provide it's own libraries and deal with security updates for those libraries, as the distribution will do that with their LSB distribution as opposed to going solo and providing all the libraries, libc etc. in your own package.

              That aside, the only issue I have had when working with LSB is the developer kit

          • I fail to understand the problem?

            that's what folks in the industry call "hand waving". i tried to install some games from the ubunto "app store" or whatever it's called. one out of the 5 i tried worked. obviously there's some complexity involved in making a linux app cross-dist.

            • by Ash-Fox (726320)

              that's what folks in the industry call "hand waving". i tried to install some games from the ubunto "app store" or whatever it's called. one out of the 5 i tried worked.

              I have no idea what you're talking about honestly. This distribution platform you have fabricated is not even relevant to the Linux standard base, please keep on topic, kthnx.

              • let me break it down for you ...

                OP: hard to make a cross-dist steam client
                you: just bundle libc

                do you really think that simply bundling libc is the answer to making cross-dist multi-OS-version high-end games for linux? do you think it's that simple?

                • by Ash-Fox (726320)

                  do you really think that simply bundling libc is the answer to making cross-dist multi-OS-version high-end games for linux? do you think it's that simple?

                  It's how I did it for my published Linux game. So, yes.

    • by GooberToo (74388)

      Not completely accurate. According to somewhat vague statements made by various game companies over the years, the raw numbers for Linux are absolutely there. The real problem is, far too many people would rather pirate than pay. As a result, pirates essentially prevent Linux from becoming a viable commercial gaming platform. The only solutions left to game companies are to dramatically increase the per unit costs (to cover the massive per unit burden imposed by pirates) or simply not support the platform.

      • What if some group of companies decided it was good lateral strategy to shake up the status quo and cranked out some 7 high powered games for Linux only, no DRM, fitted for about 7 of the best distros? Forget "ROI" etc, do it just to create total envy to make make both the Windows camps and Apple fans drool with envy. (Same vein, pay for 30 devs for 2 years to spruce up the "boring" connecting stuff all over the Linux landscape.)

        It would be like turning the Bazaar into the Linux Mall. The problem with Dolla

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          What if some group of companies decided it was good lateral strategy to shake up the status quo

          What possible incentive do they have to do that?

          Ignoring the slow growth grind of a potential emerging platform (Linux), even getting pirates to stop destroying the economy and ecosystem, there are still other problems which must be addressed which are particular to Linux. [slashdot.org]

          Of course, this is the same reason pirates damage the economy in other sectors too. For whatever reason, pirates just assume that only multi-billion dollar mega-corporations are affected by piracy and they are fighting the good fight; whic

          • by Omestes (471991)

            ... even getting pirates to stop destroying the economy and ecosystem... Of course, this is the same reason pirates damage the economy in other sectors too.

            I'm not advocating piracy, but I haven't actually seen any hard data backing up this assertion. In the music sector I've even seen evidence to the contrary (pirates buy more music). All of the sectors plagued with piracy are ticking along just fine, last I checked, and even showing some decent amount of growth. The premise that piracy is harming anyo

            • by GooberToo (74388)

              How is Linux correlated with piracy?

              I've read three studies over the last several years which more or less (slight variance in each study) which support the numbers given. Roughly, up to 50% piracy on Windows. Up to 80% piracy on Linux. And up to 20% piracy on OSX.

              So its easy to see why Linux has a reputation of being associated with socialistic, anti-capitalistic, freeloading, people. For what its worth, Android (which is Linux based and attracts the same people largely because it is Linux), has once again vindicated these studies. Piracy is

              • by Omestes (471991)

                I've read three studies over the last several years which more or less (slight variance in each study) which support the numbers given. Roughly, up to 50% piracy on Windows. Up to 80% piracy on Linux. And up to 20% piracy on OSX.

                Not denying that you have, or that such studies exist, but you still really need to reference them. I'm not what these studies consider piracy, for example. It is completely possible to run a full-featured Linux box without ever touching pay software, so it probably isn't software

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        And how high is the additional cost of porting to linux?
        The game is already written, all the graphics and sound already exist, you just need to port the code and the difficulty of that varies on the apis used (directx vs opengl), ofcourse it also becomes a lot easier if you already have ports for similar platforms such as osx.

        The cost of a port is pretty marginal compared to the cost of initially writing the game (especially if the game was originally developed with portability in mind), so even a relativel

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          And how high is the additional cost of porting to linux?

          There is no single dollar amount. The price can be all over the board too. And even beyond a port, support and testing is frequently a large portion of any porting effort. Pirates frequently add to the support burden but not the pay off, so its a another area where pirates hurt both the ecosystem and the economy.

          You also need to keep in mind, games are so large and complex these days, more often than not, third party packages are used for various tidbits. In some cases these packages are simply not availabl

        • The port is largely done. Ryan Gordon historically did many/all the ports for the UT franchise. (Among many other games - he's the god of porting games to linux.) In late 2009 or so he had screenshots of UT3 working, and said it was largely done.

          If there's no port for UT3 to linux by now, you can be guaranteed that it was a decision by Epic not to release it. Either due to some DRM/proprietary code they wedged in there, (There was a lot of talk about PhysX being an issue, if I recall.) or because they jus
    • by Excelsior (164338)

      Now that's a load of crap. I won't run Windows at any cost because it's not worth any cost to me. I am more productive in Linux, I enjoy customizing my experience, and I don't like having to run 3 heavyweight scanner software to keep my system free of virus, spyware, and malware. It's a better experience for me, so why should I waste time keeping a Windows install patched and safe?

      And for the record, I do happily pay for games that run on Linux, and don't pirate software/music/video like my Windows using

    • The only people who will not install Windows at any cost are those with a moral objection to non-free software.

      I wouldn't say I won't install Windows "at any cost"... but I'm not exactly looking forward to that ever being the case. I'd have to have a really burning reason to do so. It's just become so... alien.

      No Compiz, not even workspaces; no centralized update and install; having to install firewall, antivirus, antispyware, wasting resources and still never be sure what's crawling inside your PC; apps in

    • by grumbel (592662)

      It's not really worth developing games for Linux. The hardcore gamers - the bulk of the market all use Windows.

      It is more troublesome than that: The bulk of the market uses game consoles. These days it isn't exactly uncommon for Windows to get games late, badly broken or not at all, as the PC port is an afterthought, not the main target. Getting games to Linux in a time where the PC gaming market isn't exactly in the best conditions is rather hard.

      The only hope I have left for games on Linux is random indie titles like in the Humble bundle and for big commercial titles streaming services like OnLive, as it should be

  • by bomanbot (980297) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:27AM (#34585802)
    That is kind of a bummer, although after such a long time of silence, it was certainly quite expected (also, I guess that the Mac version of that game, which was also announced a long time ago, got axed quietly as well).

    What I would find more interesting however, would be whether the Unreal Engine 3 itself was ported into a workable state, so it could be used for other porting projects in the future. Because although I do not care too much about the Unreal Tournament 3 game itself, having the Unreal Engine 3 on Linux could at least open some interesting possibilities either for other games being ported or for a developer studio using the Engine in a future game and then doing simultaneous cross-platform development.

    Because if you look at the list [wikipedia.org] of games using the Unreal Engine 3, that list of projects is rather impressive (for example, the entire Mass Effect series uses the Engine) and having such a widely used Engine available on Linux would be a boon, I think, maybe even for smaller Indie developers willing to do Linux development (depending on how expensive those licensing terms are).

    Technically, porting should be possible, as the Unreal Engine 3 already runs on Windows, PS3, Xbox 360 and even MacOS X and iOS now, so it has shown that it is portable. And before you ask, I am not concluding that because Epic did an iOS port that it automatically runs on Mac OS X as well, although those two share a decent amount of similarities making the jump between those two platforms a good deal easier. No, actually, with Borderlands now having a Mac port [feralinteractive.com], there are already two titles on Mac OS X using the Unreal Engine 3 that I know of (the other one being Star Trek DAC), so there is proof it runs on the Mac. I know that those are only two titles and only one you could possibly call an AAA title, but sadly, as far as I know, that is still more titles available than on Linux :(

    So I hope Ryan Gordon at least got the Engine ported, so future projects can use it on Linux. Because although losing the game sucks a little, having the Engine could at least give some hope for some better future developments in Linux gaming. It sure could use some.
  • Let's face it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GF678 (1453005) on Friday December 17, 2010 @08:48AM (#34585902)

    Commercial games are, for the most part, dead on the Linux desktop. There are some occasional exceptions but for the most part, if you want a big-name game to appear on Linux you're gonna have to go use WINE as native builds probably won't exist. That said, there are still quite a lot of decent older games which have Linux ports and Ryan does continue development on ports for commercial when he can.

    I think if you really want to avoid disappointment with regards to Linux gaming and want to continue enjoying gaming on Linux... get used to indy games, and forget the big-budget commercial stuff. Indy developers need all the audience they can get and as the Humble Bundles have shown, Linux users are often the most generous per purchase due to a desperate need for games. :)

    Big-name commercial studios like EPIC and iD have abandoned Linux (unlike his previous games John Carmack has expressed a certain doubt about supporting Linux with Rage). It would certainly be NICE if we could get more commercial support, but until that happens, it's less depressing to just aim for indy games.

    • Or emulators. Quite frankly, all those old console games are still quite good and work well on Linux (NES, SNES, Genesis, etc.). Sure the graphics aren't as flashy, but they're still fun nonetheless. BTW, I got the ROMs from the carts I own.

      • ... PSX, PS2, GameCube, Wii. Yep, there are working emulators for all of them. Some Wii games look freaking brilliant in 1080p. Needs a pretty fast CPU though.

    • Re:Let's face it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex.project-retrograde@com> on Friday December 17, 2010 @02:24PM (#34590216)

      Commercial games are, for the most part, dead on the Linux desktop. There are some occasional exceptions but for the most part, if you want a big-name game to appear on Linux you're gonna have to go use WINE as native builds probably won't exist.

      Dilogus - The Winds of War [unigine.com]

      It's a third person High Fantasy RPG action game that immerses players deep into the awe inspiring fantasy world of Dilogus, allowing them to experience it from multiple perspectives of six unique characters in both single player and co-operative multiplayer mode on Linux and Windows platforms.

      Yeah, Linux game development has to start somewhere.... You can't expect, EA, Epic, ID, etc. to just say, "We're now developing for $NEW_PLATFORM" without watching others first test the waters.

      I think if you really want to avoid disappointment with regards to Linux gaming and want to continue enjoying gaming on Linux... get used to indy games, and forget the big-budget commercial stuff. Indy developers need all the audience they can get [...]

      Big-name commercial studios like EPIC and iD have abandoned Linux (unlike his previous games John Carmack has expressed a certain doubt about supporting Linux with Rage).

      To avoid disappointment with regards to Any Gaming I choose Indy games. As a developer myself, I'm excited about the state of Linux gaming; To me Linux gaming looks like a large, ripe, and untapped market.

      Demand for Linux games does exist. John Carmack is purposefully misleading... He sells a Game engine that doesn't run on Linux & isn't going to advocate making games on any platform that his engine doesn't run on...

      Cross Platform is the future. Mac is a Unix. Linux is a Unix. Macs & "PCs" have the same guts these days. Rage runs on Unix... Not supporting Linux is stupid. Start with cross platform code (or engine), and you don't ever have to "port". Thus, you get additional market presence for $0.00.

      Carmack has invested tons of time into developing for Apple and Microsoft platforms instead of investing time in truly cross platform engine code. As a game developer, (NOT an Engine Designer) it just doesn't make sense to use an Engine that's not cross platform. Why purposefully exclude a section of the market when it's not necessary? [ogre3d.org]

      The big guys will let the little guys innovate first... Add small carp to a big empty pond, watch them grow... Where the big fish are absent, the little fish reign supreme (proof: iPhone/iPad & Android gaming markets). The big guys arn't stupid, just misleading. Steve Jobs said, "No one wants a tablet PC", and then develops an iPad... In the past Carmack has expressed "doubts" about games in the browser and on mobile platforms, yet now has both mobile and browser games.

      Don't be fooled, he'll makes games for Linux after others have already blazed the trails and "built out" the market.

      • Re:Let's face it... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Crayon Kid (700279) on Friday December 17, 2010 @06:37PM (#34593828)

        Why purposefully exclude a section of the market when it's not necessary? [ogre3d.org]

        Dunno, but I'd sure like to ask the devs of Torchlight that question. Why intentionaly exclude a Linux port considering they used a cross-platform engine? It blows the mind.

        Granted, it later turned out to run ok under Wine... but in the meantime I was undecided and waited until the game was up on offer for $5. If there was a native Linux port I'd have payed the full $20 from the start. That's $15 they cheated themselves out of. All this while most indy devs out there would be aghast at the thought of throwing $15 out the window like that.

  • Does it matter? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lyinhart (1352173)
    Linux users already have Alien Arena, Sauerbraten, Tremulous and Nexuiz, among other FPS games. And the ID Software titles. I doubt they'll miss one more FPS game.
  • by Draaglom (1556491) on Friday December 17, 2010 @09:55AM (#34586386)
    It may have sucked hard at first, but after the various patches, UT3 has evolved to become a fairly decent game!
  • Not knowing anything about this game, as I am not a FPS gamer, I wonder if a port is really necessary? WINE seems to work quite well for a large number of Windows games.

    • ...I wonder if a port is really necessary? WINE seems to work quite well for a large number of Windows games.

      The Unreal Tournament 3 (Black Edition) on Steam works just fine on Wine/Crossover/Cedega. I remember reading a while back that Ryan "Icculus" Gordon was working on the port, however the proprietary PhysX engine was really holding the whole process up. Ageia, at the time in 2007, did not want PhysX on Linux. I honestly don't know if that stance has changed since NVidia acquired the company. It wouldn't matter if that stance had changed, nobody in their right mind would seriously expect Epic to spend ti

  • UT3 is bargin bin material because it sucked. You can't expect to sell it full price on a smaller platform and make money when it's just easier to buy the bargin bin Windows version if you really want to play the awful game.
  • It makes more sense to use winelib and to otherwise attempt to make your game run well under Wine. Then you don't have to provide support for Linux. I mean, from a commercial, big box standpoint, that is. For small games it makes total sense to have a Linux version. On the other hand, for small games it makes total sense to develop the game to be cross-platform to begin with because you won't be running into the limitations of the common cross-platform toolkits, or at least not too often.

  • I have bought collector's edition when it came out only because they promised a Linux port.
    So fuck you Sweeney.
    BTW, it sucked big time, UT3 is a lagfest.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...