Linux/MAC versions?

Considering the acknowledged amount of work that needs to be done, I don't see any ports forthcoming for some time. Once the codebase is mostly settled down, then I'd imagine they'd start considering porting it to other platforms.

That said, I personally haven't seen anything affirmative or negative so I may have just missed a passing mention somewhere.

From what Stardock has said in the past about their relationship with Windows software, I highly doubt it.

I truly liked MOM so when I heard that EWOM was supposed to be a MOM follow-up, I ended up using bootcamp with win7 pro on my imac to play EWOM. 

Sadly, the OOM error is too much for me to handle. So I am waiting until they fix it. In the meantime, I discovered the king's bounty game that folks were talking about. It's actually HOMM without the city building. Quite entertaining. 

No.

Elemental is only for Windows. Not supported now for Mac/Linux or Emulations of any kind. And the probabilities of Elemental ending in Mac/Linux is even lower than seeing Elemental in Steam (different reasons though).

Maybe one day Stardock will grow to the point of considering multiplatform but right now... nope.

sad to hear that 

I'll attempt to run it in Wine in a few days and post the results here. I was able to run Demigod on Linux and that was buggy as hell, so... 

I'd love a Linux version of Elemental, but since the game is dependent on DirectX then I think it unlikely since the rendering engine (among other things) would need to be completely rewritten.

Someone reported it working on Wine in wine app db, so it does not seem to be a lot of work to polish some compat issues.

I think what Stardock needs is some competition.  Once the S-word releases a version for Linux, they may change their tune.

I don't see how that would impact the reasons they have for using Windows only.

It's just a matter of numbers. The number of people who would buy a Linux version who WON'T buy and just play it on Windows if there is no Linux version is so small that it's insignificant. That's why pretty well nobody makes Linux ports at this point.

S-word?

The biggest problem there is getting updates since Impulse doesn't work in Wine.

I suspect they feel if steam did it the stardock would.. frankly i doubt it.. While steam my be able to better allocate funds to make a Linux/mac version of what ever game, they are likely not to for the same reasons Stardock probably wont and that boils down to will it make more money then it costs..

As long as windows dominates the PC market as it does this is not likely to change any time soon..

Yes, I meant Steam, which seemed to be a touchy subject for Stardock a while ago when I hanged around the offtopic subforum. I counted several threads which looked like press releases (corporate word for propaganda) mentioning both Steam and Impulse.

Linux gamers are actually a bit more numerous than Mac gamers, if Quake Live is any indication. And they seem a lot more starved for good games (see average money paid for Humble Indie Bundle). And contrary to what some people say, you don't have to spend a lot of effort supporting multiple varieties of Linux. Linux users are exceptional at helping themselves and if you target only one distribution (like Ubuntu) the pack leaders will translate the process, write instructions or even install patches.

I have been paying for my own PC games approximately since the late 70's.. Back then I would have to search phone books and drive over 60 miles to find a store carrying PC games.. In these stores there would be some games for commodore, a few (very few) mac games and a far larger varitey for windows and dos (while dos lasted LOL)..  This is simply the best representation I have to illustrate why I suspect there is less support for the mac/linux os systems..It is not just that a company might not sell enough games to cover the costs (let alone make a little profit) it is also that the shelf space (both virtual and brick and mortar) would be less which then leads to less sales, less profit and so on..

add to the fact that Joe public computer user, has (as a rule) a limited skill at using his operating system let alone one less user friendly (IE requiring more knowledge of whats going on the put the disk in and wait for auto install).. God help me my mother's email program just added a spam filter function and its driving me nuts teaching her to use it.. but i digress, it is largely this reason that keeps Linux/MAC in the realm of the competent PC user and there for in the lesser used market.. this in turn leads to fewer companies spending money on more the one OS when one will clearly net then profits and the other most likely wont..

In my opinion this stance is short-sighted. Linux users tend to be younger, vocal, and first of all techies. They are not afraid to dirty their hands with modding or setting up servers.

I agree, but the thing is, games could be developed cross platform with little additional resource overhead.  If a software project is designed from the beginning with cross platform support in mind (in other words, no DirectX) then 99% of the work is done because all the versions could use a common code base and only the "hooks" would need to be platform specific which would require a trivial amount of additional work (a single programmer could get it done in a day or two).  If they did it right, they could even include the different versions on the same disc  (this is what Unreal Tournament 2004 did) so they wouldn't even need additional retail space for multiple versions.

This stance is based on simple economics. If a Linux port is going to cost $100,000 to build and support, there has to be enough sales to make that back to make it worthwhile. There isn't.

If it costs that much to develop and maintain a Linux build then the developers did something seriously wrong.  If it's designed right, a cross platform game shouldn't require much more work than a single platform game.

When is the last time you installed a version of linux?  mid 1990's?

Since the middle part of this decade the Linux Installs rival Windows in how easy they are to perform.  Granted the UI is a shell and there are many to choose from and the average user does not know this...but for a free or nearly free OS, Linux's day is coming especially as MSFT continues to increase their ASP. 

Linux fans have been saying this for almost two-decades.  "Any day now Linux will reach critical mass, and then everybody will have to start taking it seriously!"  Without a big marketing budget behind it, I think Linux will always be a niche operating system (at least for the home consumer), and I say that as someone who has used it as his primary OS for almost 10-years.

Using technology like .Net and DirectX saves time and money.  Coding cross-platform costs money (especially if your existing staff knows those technologies already).  

Windows sales exist, Linux sales might (They love their "free as in beer").

[Last week I had a laptop with no CD-rom or floppy fail on me.  I got Antix-Mepis to install via a flashdrive and have had no significant issues getting it set up.  Has it been as easy as putting in a Windows distro?  Nope.  My wife's still not happy that things just don't work "right".  Me?  I'm thrilled with it (mostly).  It starts and shuts down almost instantly. A SD card slot that I thought was dead years ago is finally working.  Most of my PC needs have migrated to clouds and the net.  Yay me!]

The last data I seen was that Windows has about a 90% market share, 6% for OS X, and about 1% for Linux.