Hi all, i know that I'm in minority , but why This Unity 3D engine ? It will be all nice and great if it run on Linux.

I read a few forum posts on Unity website and they are actually saying massive NO to Linux support.

I know that many Linux users will try Interstellar Marines if it just run on Linux. This make my life quite hard , as i need to think how I'm going to play this game (windows is not an option).

Little disappointed at ZPS as they whole web is based on cross-platform engine (Python/Django).

Looks like ID software and Epic is only to properly support Linux, and Quake Live is the perfect example (if ID of course).

I believe it would cost more money for them, if Interstellar Marines had to support Linux too.

And moneyz don't grow on treez.

No official word yet; but I feel the same.

It's not a question of money, and as Braqoon implied it might not even be a question we should ask to ZPS, but to the Unity guys. Maybe ZPS could have a little talk about that with them, if we show enough enthusiasm?

For the record, here's the old thread about the issue - we didn't know about Unity back then.

No official word yet; but I feel the same.

It's not a question of money, and as Braqoon implied it might not even be a question we should ask to ZPS, but to the Unity guys. Maybe ZPS could have a little talk about that with them, if we show enough enthusiasm?

For the record, here's the old thread about the issue - we didn't know about Unity back then.

Thanks thib. True i'm guessing that ZPS had an issues with Unity in regards to licence. They have to pay them to use it, so if enough Marines will show need for Linux support then ZPS can have some serious talking with Unity.

Again for me is quite silly (Unity dev team) to point out differences in platforms as good developer can come around any obstacles. For years ID soft an Epic did a great job with Linux ports. Now ID soft did Quake live with Linux support via Firefox. This is something that must be a sore in the eye of other Web based engines as ID did that so easily. I know that Interstellar Marines are more advanced in graphics than Quake 3 Arena but again , that's not an excuse.

On top of that we have Linux Game Publishing which is porting games from Windows to Linux. They recently release ShadowGrounds with Ageia PhysX support.

OK i will stop here :P Maybe not all on subject but i hope you get my point. Somehow i was expecting IM to be on Unreal Engine which is cross platform (UE3 still work in progress but is alive)

For those interested in the matter, I've reviewed the Unity threads as well.

Here they face some good arguments but also very poor ones from both sides. They don't technically close any door but the only thing we hear is "it's not a priority, so we'll see later" - there's no real technical discussion with the actual developers, which is bad. Just money talk.

Here the discussion just ends in the void; the arguments are badly ignored IMO. Most people don't know what they're talking about.

Here some guy attempts to hack it through wine. At first doesn't get the support he expected, then people started to brainstorm a bit, but he was obviously the only one interested. Fell into the void.

Here is the most recent discussion (a few days back); nothing has changed, but there's less tension. Much like a bump.

In the meantime, the vote for the Linux support is still the top idea at the time of this writing. If you have five seconds to give away, your vote could count, by the way.

The last thread points to this article which is a good reading with several good arguments.

I'm not angry at the Unity developers, what they claim is very fair and they seem open to hear some numbers and such. However, they explicitely stated "Remember, we're a business that's here for profit" so we can say they want a ready-to-go and already interested large enough userbase so they can go riskfree in this path if it's ever considered - they're not willing to generate interest for Linux users. Which is sad, as many have stated in many other words.

If you read the threads, there's an argument I can't stand which says "There's just too many flavors of Linux, it's too much work to support them all". That is utter crap. What does mean distribution to those claiming such things? The point is you don't have to worry about packaging the way users like it, there's already thousands of people willing to do it for you, and for free; you just have to give them the license to do it, and I'm sure they'll be kind enough to let you review their work for you to see if it fits in your quality standards.

And even if no developer wants to cooperate with distros, they can distribute their own package in a self-extracting installer, exactly like those we find on Windows; what's so mysterious about it? There's only one Linux one should care about.

Another poor argument is the support costs involved. Apparently, Linux users are known to whine more than others because their platform is poorly supported. Well, if somebody's willing to do a bad port to Linux he would have at least tried and the infamous Linux gurus will be there to help, I doubt users will complain more about a buggy game than about the absence of the said game.

Again, there's no anger towards the Unity dudes, those (imo) flawed arguments were coming from users; I just find it sad they're not willing to help. It's their choice.

Also, I only stated arguments I wanted to refute for those who wanted to read the threads; there are many others for and against the idea that are perfectly valid in these discussions. I just won't sum it all up, see for yourself, make your opinion, and eventually.. show your interest.

What's wrong with multi-boot?

Where is the love for the Mac users?

Where is the love for the Mac users?

Please don't combine those two words in one sentence.

What's wrong with multi-boot?

You can't be serious.

Where is the love for the Mac users?

Well Unity already supports Mac.

What's wrong with multi-boot?

You can't be serious.

Where is the love for the Mac users?

Well Unity already supports Mac.

Seriously, I am serious. I've never ran Linux, so I wouldn't know.

Well, you basically have to reboot everytime you want to play and don't have all your favorite apps running while you're playing (I have a dualhead setup and always leave a messenger, music player, some monitoring stuff, etc, visible on the other screen).

Fortunately for me, every game I really liked and played in MP where running under Wine or had a Linux native port, and I don't mind much to disconnect from everything and immerse myself into all the other one-time SP experiences. But I might want to play IM often.

That said, there are also pure advantages (and disadvantages, as always) of running your games (and your apps in general) under Linux - it's a choice. Some gamers will prefer to play on Mac, people don't ask them much questions about it. For the Linux users, the answer is always "well, just dualboot".

It's cool though, don't worry ;-).

Well, you basically have to reboot everytime you want to play and don't have all your favorite apps running while you're playing (I have a dualhead setup and always leave a messenger, music player, some monitoring stuff, etc, visible on the other screen).

Fortunately for me, every game I really liked and played in MP where running under Wine or had a Linux native port, and I don't mind much to disconnect from everything and immerse myself into all the other one-time SP experiences. But I might want to play IM often.

That said, there are also pure advantages (and disadvantages, as always) of running your games (and your apps in general) under Linux - it's a choice. Some gamers will prefer to play on Mac, people don't ask them much questions about it. For the Linux users, the answer is always "well, just dualboot".

It's cool though, don't worry ;-).

Oh alright. It just sounds like alot of work for the developers to do, just because some people can't be bothered to restart their PC.

Assuming everybody owns a MS or Apple license.

If you're interested, read about it, I haven't cited a single statement for Linux (I'm not here to convince). But if not, well believe me, it cannot be reduced to this.

Oh alright. It just sounds like alot of work for the developers to do, just because some people can't be bothered to restart their PC.

Umm, what if i don't want/ don't have a Windows OS ? Some peoples intentionally choose to not have Windows and they are quite happy with that. I can call myself an addict gamer. I play on Linux (native/wine) and most of what i want to play i got running on Linux. No reason to have Windows. You can't ask peoples to dual-boot. I will not spend money on MS software just to get one game running, especially when Linux support can be done. Problem is that Unity devs chosen to think that Linux is not important OS (actually i think they are highly puzzled by it) and intentionally ignoring it.

I would like to see some official statement from ZPS on this subject as they paid for a licence to use Unity. Linux users are a group which looks with great interest and more appreciation if they are "included".

And just to be clear i do not criticize ZPS for their choice i just want some answers.

ps. I hope that in meantime we get it running under Wine finally.

I think (notice the "think" as this is just a guess) that the reason Unity has choosen not to include linux support yet is a simple buisness choice. There simply arent that many linux gamers out there that they can justify the invesment required to make support for it...yet. At least that seems like the obiovius reason.

If ZPS go in and modify unity to run under linux it would be suicide and a simply (imo) stupid chooice... so I wouldnt expect linux support unless unity change their mind.

I think (notice the "think" as this is just a guess) that the reason Unity has choosen not to include linux support yet is a simple buisness choice.

Yes you are correct here, money is the only reason as it seems. If they developed it for OSX that is should be not much a big problem to get it for Linux as this is running on similar architecture (OSX is a flavour Unix with nice GUI, you can even get Darwin without GUI for free). They even support Mono (free .NET) which is cross-platform and open-source which make it probably even easier.

Maintaining it will be purely business decision. Still it makes IS not playable for me ATM and i see it ridiculous to get Windows just to run it. Seems like ID Software seen a reason to get Quake Live running on Linux and developed truly cross-platform web gaming. So it's interesting to see why ID Soft found a Linux user group important enough to develop their engine for Us.

One more thing, I didn't heard about Unity engine till ZPS launched IS on it. It shows how not significant they still are in gaming world as there is no major title running on it. Make it as much available just create more business opportunities.

yeah for sure unity is still a small engine - which is why they have to focus on the market where they know they can earn some money (windows and mac). But they are growing very fast and recently got a large (5,5 million usd I think) amount of money...so maybe that will help on the linux issue.

I am totally with you..if you dont have windows it is ridiculous to go out and invest in it for one game.

Frank Earl, porter, talks about what he does, and knows what he's doing

Thanks thib for this link. This only support my case. I played few games from LGP and job what they did is outstanding.

Allow me to bump this thread.

Discussion still stagnates everywhere at Unity and the Linux support request is still on the top of their feedback list. Instead of silently complaining about it, yesterday I've decided to try and close a few points in their main thread about the issue in their wishlist forum; mainly about packaging misunderstandings. I don't expect much response, but at least it might keep them from fighting over the same arguments over and over again (it's been years.) Anyway, here's the direct link (same thread), support is welcome. I'm not proud this had to be my first post out there but hey, 'felt like it had to be discussed now.

There might be a breach at the Linux embedded camp, as they've shown some interest, but it's a long shot.

Meanwhile, people could make Wine run some more of Unity, but they're still very far from there.

Unrelated; I've been checking out the statistics of their webplayer (kind of interesting by the way) and it's now absolutely clear that their current users are not AAA titles developers/players (assuming we can correlate the webplayer userbase with the rest of their userbase.) On the other hand and from our outsiders' perspective, it seems pretty obvious that IM is definitely pushing them one step further; Bullseye just left no doubt about it. Since they have such a good deal here, maybe.. ZPS could have a little word about it with them, if the communication is still good.

So, @ZPS:
I know this issue is probably at the bottom of your priorities list, especially at this moment, and that we might not really well be in the position to ask you this, but if you could maybe think and talk about that for a few minutes, give us your opinion; then if it matches ours, maybe forward it to the Unity guys - you know, just mention your interest (since you have a potentially louder voice now, it might make them think about it too) - that would be absolutely awesome. A lot can happen in these three planned years.