Grimrock

I will second this request. I'll actually buy another copy if the Linux version comes out. An incredible game.

By the way. From the technical point of view, cross-platform development on PC (Win/Mac/Linux) is extremely easy if you use the right combination of tools and libraries. Although, this requres a lot of research and adaptation from the programmer. These days if you're creating a small indie game with an in-house game engine there is no reason to be tied to a certain platform unless you have _very_ specific requirements. PC is infact very easy compared to the stuff presented in phones and consoles...

I don't know the tools the developers have used to create this game and it is totally possible we will never see a Linux port. Hopefully this is not the case.

Here is a way to cover your bacon.

Have the developers start up a Linux Kickstarter. In there put the $$$ they feel they need to make a Linux port worthwhile to them. Then see if the Linux community steps up. Perhaps many games should use this method. Perhaps this is the PC's future for some console games that don't make it over. EA Sports. Red Dead...

Yes, I finally got it working. I had to install d3dx9 d3dx9_43 xact_jun2010 d3dcompiler_43 via winetricks. Then I just had to install LoG and I runs now .

Congrats!

Daniel.

Horrorscope wrote:Here is a way to cover your bacon.

Have the developers start up a Linux Kickstarter. In there put the $$$ they feel they need to make a Linux port worthwhile to them. Then see if the Linux community steps up. Perhaps many games should use this method. Perhaps this is the PC's future for some console games that don't make it over. EA Sports. Red Dead...

While this may work for the indie world, I think this would be a terrible idea for corporate projects. PC gets god awful ports of console games already, can you imagine if you paid EA almost all of the money they were going to get from the PC market UP FRONT? You'd get the most half-assed port ever seen. Then they'd start a Kickstarter for "patch #1" if you ever want to see anything fixed.

petri wrote:Do you mean the compatibility test? There are reports from people who have successfully run the tech test under Wine.

I agree, I will try it tomorrow.....er.... if I can peel myself away from the game....

Read the article from the World of Goo people. They say it's totally worth it to do the port.

In any event, I'm the next of those three people who would pay for the Linux version. (Oh dear, we're already over three.. I guess the troll was wrong.)

Hi all,

first and mainly, this post is just to show my support, so i will buy a copie if there is a native linux client.
The Devs say they are thinking about a linux copie in the FAQ, i think theres a light at the end of the tunnel.

@Devs: If you are unsure if Linux is a Platfortarget for you have a look at http://blog.humblebundle.com ! (like the last poster's hint)
Not only that Linux User payed more at every Bundle they created, in most bundles they equaled the Macusers in numbers !
I think we definetly have a market share

Maybe you consider distributing it later via Desura. They also support the Linux Plattform.

Today i stubled over LoG as Golem.de promoted it. It's loking great and as i'am one of those 80's DungeonCrawler Gamers i would Love this Game!

Thanks in advance for just thinking about a Linux Port!

cupid stunt wrote:Linux is a deployment hell, and thats real reason why nobody bothers making linux ports, and I wont even mention technical support problems. Dont know why l-users always insist on native version when they have windows on a partition exactly cause of this. And yeah go ahead and call me a troll :3

*Looks at name* lol

You're not a troll. Linux deployment is harder than on Windows. The problem is keeping up with library changes, because unlike Windows, no distribution keeps older versions of libraries around exactly for the purpose of binary compatibility, only source compatibility (guess why?). It's really a massive shame because it does make things very difficult.

Statically linking is the most reliable way, but it can cause licensing issues (LoG source release under GPL? lolno).

UT2k4 seems to ship with compiled libraries and dynamically link specifically to them (though it uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH which is eviiillll). It seems to work, as it still runs, avoids licensing issues and, while suffers from bloated install sizes, avoids the increased memory usage from static linking.

RabidZombie wrote:though it uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH which is eviiillll

This is a shining example of the linux community mentality.

Apparently everything is eviiilllll in someone's opinion. You just throw a line like that without anything backing it up. Heaven forbid if you make the mistake of going to ask for help using thing X, because nobody will be interested in helping you with it, instead they bash you for using X, wonder why you picked X, say X is eviiillll, if you were sane you'd have picked Q, T or P instead, you're stupid and gtfo. =)