[cod] CoD:WAW... still nothing on linux front...

Mon Dec 8 11:20:11 EST 2008

Hi guys,

Certainly this is a very interesting discussion.

We had a similar discussion at our weekly meeting last Monday.

We too looked at the fact there are only a fraction of COD5 servers online compared to COD4 (and COD4 has died off the last few months).

Compare it to a game like Left4Dead (Windows and Linux from the start) which we saw from a GSP point of view, the best selling server since CSS. 

The lack of availability of Linux servers, in my view, has dampened COD5's success. It's not the first time this has happened to a game. If they were there, more copies of the games would have been sold. 

It is more interesting when you consider in quite a raw interpretation:

Linux binaries = x servers
Players = y servers
Games sold = z servers

Like a guy said earlier, all those clans that run a number of servers, that didn't go for COD5 because they couldn't run it on their Linux dedi, or their GSP weren't able to provide from day 1. Imagine in those clans, the other X members, who if the clan were running COD5 servers, would no doubt have gone out to buy the game so they could play with their clan mates.

Is the cost of providing Linux server files from release date < the potential number of games that could be sold?

That is the real question..

Oliver Warburton
Managing Director
INX-Network LTD

INX-Gaming
www.inx-gaming.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Kennington 
  To: cod at icculus.org 
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [cod] CoD:WAW... still nothing on linux front...

  Has anyone thought about looking at this from a business perspective?  What would happen if Treyarch actually did better than IW?

  On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Caleb Stephens <csteph9 at gmail.com> wrote:

    Wow! Botched!  I was listening to I think last weeks Bashandslash round table, and one of the fellas said that he thought WaW would be dead if they just didn't get in the server redirect in by Christmas.  I'd tend to agree with that.

    The linux port is just as valuable IMO.  In that same roundtable, someone made the comment that the number of servers online was far lower than COD4s at the same time in the release schedule.  But nobody mentioned the Linux port not being out for WaW lol.  Had the linux bins been out, we probably would have had at least 5 servers up.  that's just one clan ... extrapolate that out ...

    What can we do as a community to influence IW to develop their servers on Linux as they test and develop COD6, and then have native Linux support right out of the gate? (and then they can perhaps work on the Windows port to be released a month or two after game launch?)

    Am I the only one that thinks this is a no-brainier?

    On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:51 AM, James Landi <jim at landi.net> wrote:

      We (Jock, PSTjoker, Garetjax and myself) had Josh (the community manager for Treyarch) last night (Bashandslash.com round table).  When asked about a patch he said, not sure but I would guess after the holidays as everyone is on vacation now or soon.

      We also brought up the linux bits and was told they are between Ryan and Activision QA (ryan fixing things as Act finds bugs).  if you put 1 and 1 together you can see that it may take the 1.2 patch for the linux bits to be released.  Thus after the new years.

      Again take this with a grain of salt, as it's not a so called official word but a speculative response from someone at Treyarch NOT WORKING on the game (code wise) so to speak.

      -Jim Landi
      Rudedog
      FPSadmin.com

      John Kennington wrote:

        You see, that is the question.  If he patched to 1.2, then it will be delayed until after Jan 1.  If he didn't then ATVI is on vacation and the patch will not be released until they get back.

        On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:31 AM, evolutioncrazy at gmail.com <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com> <evolutioncrazy at gmail.com <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com>> wrote:

           they can delay the 1.2 path to the 2015 ... I do not care...

           I'm just waiting a linux dedicated binary :|

           Did ryan ported directly the 1.2 so we will have to wait till the
           1.2 will be officially released? :|

           John Kennington ha scritto:

               There is a rumor floating around, I saw it at pbbans, that
               patch 1.2 has been delayed until after Jan 1, 09.  It seems
               that everyone is taking vacation.  I wonder if they know what
               they have done.

               John

               On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:24 AM, evolutioncrazy at gmail.com
               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com>

               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com

               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com>> <evolutioncrazy at gmail.com
               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com>

               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com

               <mailto:evolutioncrazy at gmail.com>>> wrote:

                  What's the problem with the QA team?

                  wasn't the quality good enough? :(

               --        "Some people are like a Slinky .. Not really good for
               anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove
               them down the stairs."

           ---
           To unsubscribe, send a blank email to cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org

           <mailto:cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org>

           Mailing list archives: http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?38

        -- 
        "Some people are like a Slinky .. Not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs."

      ---
      To unsubscribe, send a blank email to cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org
      Mailing list archives: http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?38

  -- 
  "Some people are like a Slinky .. Not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/cod/attachments/20081208/472c4cfc/attachment.htm>