You won't find developers more devoted to their projects than you will on Linux/BSD.
These guys live and breathe their projects, not just do it for a profession 
Would you abandon Windows in favor of Linux for gaming?
- Thread starter SteveOBHave
- Start date
These guys live and breathe their projects, not just do it for a profession 
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
You won't find developers more devoted to their projects than you will on Linux/BSD.
And what they have produced is remarkable - where Linux is now is so far removed from where it used to be even a couple of years ago - It's the getting of commercial interest that is the difficult thing.
You won't find developers more devoted to their projects than you will on Linux/BSD.
Ah totally, but for a transition to work you'd need the established Windows developers like Bethesda, Ubisoft etc.. to switch to developing on *x. It's an "all eggs in one basket" approach, so if they were to switch then I'd expect them to switch to something that would allow a total coverage on all OSs.
That's why I think a cross OS VM is the way forward as a central development platform.
Good idea, would have thought it would make developers lives easier too, may even bridge the gap between console and PC gaming market.
exactly
they could release games as..
minimum requirements : windows gamer edition v 1.6 (etc), and make the updates for it in whole OS version numbers
so instead of users have this patch, maybe that patch, they work on version numbers to keep it more 'the same' across all users.
Only thing holding them to Windows is DirectX, which even had the mission statement of "corner the gaming market onto Windows" (not a direct quote, but it was just as brash as that.)
Up until about 2000 everyone was using OpenGL and life was great. Games like UT etc. installed and ran natively on Linux/Mac/PC.. but because of MS and its evil DX that's no longer the case. Cue much hate from many linux geeks.
Up until about 2000 everyone was using OpenGL and life was great. Games like UT etc. installed and ran natively on Linux/Mac/PC.. but because of MS and its evil DX that's no longer the case. Cue much hate from many linux geeks.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Only thing holding them to Windows is DirectX, which even had the mission statement of "corner the gaming market onto Windows" (not a direct quote, but it was just as brash as that.)
Up until about 2000 everyone was using OpenGL and life was great. Games like UT etc. installed and ran natively on Linux/Mac/PC.. but because of MS and its evil DX that's no longer the case. Cue much hate from many linux geeks.
Frankly, you'll see MS pump a lot of money into the gaming industry directly with cash investments or their own games or games hardware, or indirectly a lot of support to game dev's in support for getting the games working and bug free on the OS.
Nvidia do this and hence have an advantage in several key games, buy putting millions into big titles and giving companies hardware, and programmers to track down and fix problems and to help out.
IF someone can explain where the same level of support would be available from a free, open source OS, where no ones making the money to pump any back in then I'd consider it.
As is, no Linux distro can give the support MS can, because its free, because it doesn't generate profit in the same way and so it simply wouldn't work. Linux can't hire people to go and work with games companies to fix things, MS can. Thats why they cornered the gaming market.
Frankly another varient of OS becoming a big player in the PC sector will only give the likes of EA more excuses,
" we don't like supporting the PC market as is, how that market is splitting in two, meaning more bug's, more bug testing, more time to market and more cost, we're done with PC's"
that would be an EA exec's statement about 9 minutes after Linux became a viable alternative to gaming in the market.
Other than Linux being free, I'm not seeing the advantage, and OS prices being a rip off is completely incorrect, that money yes, a lot is profit that goes into peoples pockets, but they work there, thats their job, thats life, they also invest that money all over the world, its not a bad thing.
WIth Windows 7, the price of a console game if you bought it pre-order, not really sure how it can be a rip off.
And for the people without Gamer Edition?
Microsoft only publish games, they do not develop them. All they have done is provide a common driver interface and model library to allow developers to create the games easier, in the form of DirectX. They will then invest in some titles, but this is not of their own doing - this is of the developers seeking the publishing backing from Microsoft.
The problem is not "Linux cannot support gaming" the problem is "Too much stuff is proprietary to Microsoft" for Windows to be anything but the defacto choice for games developers.
Oh, and they cornered the games market purely because of the exclusivity of DirectX.. they even admit that themselves.
The problem is not "Linux cannot support gaming" the problem is "Too much stuff is proprietary to Microsoft" for Windows to be anything but the defacto choice for games developers.
Oh, and they cornered the games market purely because of the exclusivity of DirectX.. they even admit that themselves.
A possible start in the rise of Linux gaming?
http://www.linuxgames.com/archives/14005
Pretty big name to have leading the charge.
http://www.linuxgames.com/archives/14005
Pretty big name to have leading the charge.
I hardly call that a start.
Thats closer to "We're thinking about thinking about it"
IMHO, Linux becomming a vaild gaming platform would do the PC gaming scene more harm than good. Its disheartening to hear the "PC = Piracy" crap spouted by publishers every time their crap game isnt bought, without them saying "2 OS, twice the price to develop" or something similar.
Not sure I follow you with how Linux gaming would damage PC gaming? Surely opening it up to other OSs would give a wider target audience, and ultimately more money which is what the greedy "piracy is killing us" coffers are moaning about in the first place?
Back to iD though...
From here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=302231&cid=20671657
So, the effort to make it physically happen appears to be "down to just one interested developer" and the bulk of it is going to be down to the case for opening up the market (or inertia as Carmack calls it). Given that piracy is financially strangling the industry I'd be inclined to think it's a case of when rather than if.
Back to iD though...
From here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=302231&cid=20671657
So, the effort to make it physically happen appears to be "down to just one interested developer" and the bulk of it is going to be down to the case for opening up the market (or inertia as Carmack calls it). Given that piracy is financially strangling the industry I'd be inclined to think it's a case of when rather than if.
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,606
- Location
- Sydney Australia
Whilst I agree that it would be a 'wider' audience I think the main problem would be that the financial return would not justify the outlay of resources and money. It's down to a share numbers game IMO and Linux just doesn't have the market penetration when compared to PS3, Xbox, PC and Wii.
The real issue is finding someone with a worthwhile product that is willing to take the financial risk. In these current times there will not be any of the big games houses ready to do that IMO.
Frankly Linux (or anything else) would have to bring something to the table for gaming over and above that which Windows offers to make a move worth while.
In terms of price, free OS vs £50 every three years or so doesn't make me want to scrap everything and start again. Even if every game out worked on Windows and Linux there's still no reason for me to change as I don't have an ideological reason for wanting to "support" Linux.
For me to change, Linux would have to offer me a tangible "+" over windows, 20% improved performance, better visuals and sound, that sort of thing.
The OS doesn't matter, the end application (game) does. If I'm playing a game (lets say ARMAII) I really don't care what the underlying OS is unless it effects the app itself. An OS as far as I'm concerned is a tool and means to an end, I'll leave the "Linux and OpenGL wil cure cancer and bring world peace" stuff to others
In terms of price, free OS vs £50 every three years or so doesn't make me want to scrap everything and start again. Even if every game out worked on Windows and Linux there's still no reason for me to change as I don't have an ideological reason for wanting to "support" Linux.
For me to change, Linux would have to offer me a tangible "+" over windows, 20% improved performance, better visuals and sound, that sort of thing.
The OS doesn't matter, the end application (game) does. If I'm playing a game (lets say ARMAII) I really don't care what the underlying OS is unless it effects the app itself. An OS as far as I'm concerned is a tool and means to an end, I'll leave the "Linux and OpenGL wil cure cancer and bring world peace" stuff to others
Wikipedia disagrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Game_Studios
Can you imagine the problems with an open-sourced system when it comes to something like DirectX. Too many fingers in a pie comes to mind. Probable needing version 1 to run game a and version 2 to run game b and... well you get where I'm going with this.
The Linux GUI's are horrid on every variant I've tried (Redhat / Suse / etc) and I wouldn't touch them with a big stick for day to day use. Windows is friendlier, easier, quicker, secure and does everything I want to do on a PC.
M.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
Im going to go ahead and guess you havn't used Linux for quite some years. Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Blackbox etc. have come leaps and bounds. Many people, myself included, also much prefer the Blackbox style ultra lightweight approach to GUI's, rather than a full blown desktop enviroment.
It's primarily all down to APIs imo.
In the days of old, Carmack et al. would start by making their own rendering engine, then build a game on top of it. Then Glide came along and they saw their workload could be reduced, as well as having access to rendering hardware. Then OpenGL came along as an open source movement to provide a heterogenious API to the various rendering hardware platforms that existed at the time (SGI, 3DFX, PowerVR etc). Finally MS started to catch on with this and introduced the Direct3D portion of its DirectX library.
Of course, once they did this, game producers asked the question, "what do the majority of our users currently use as a platform" the answer was Windows. So we then saw a period where Glide, OpenGL and Direct3D co-existed. Then Glide died along with 3DFX and OpenGL and Direct3D co-existed.
Finally MS pumped Direct3D up in both its marketing terms (incentives to game producers etc) and the actual quality of the library itself.
OpenGL Vs Direct3D is actually very synonymous with Linux Vs Windows imo. One is a corporate affair with the sole intention of making money. The other is an open source, cross platform attempt. The very nature of the beast means that OpenGL is unlikely to blaze trails while MS is still trying with Direct3D.
Having said that, within science, OpenGL remains the rendering library of choice and OpenGL 3.0 is very close to DirectX 11 in terms of what it can offer, though it is still not as advanced.
For a company to make a game that works well in Linux and Windows would mean starting with OpenGL and not Direct3D. In theory, a well programmed OpenGl game could look as stunning as a Direct3D one, but it would require more detailed knowledge of how to program the postprocessing effects etc that are simply available in Direct3D, and it is likely that pound for pound, general performance will be slightly lower.
On the upside, said manufacturer could release the game on all platforms, mac, linux, and windows, assuming their programming language was cross compatible.
I guess the reason they dont will be two fold, 1) there is now a culture of Direct3D use in the industry, 2) In a boardroom somewhere, the figures for mac and linux sales dont warrant the extra effort that would be required to implement in OpenGL over Direct3D.
I reckon it might statrt to change now that Macs are actually coming with reasonable 3D hardware, which in turn will bleed across to Linux.
In the days of old, Carmack et al. would start by making their own rendering engine, then build a game on top of it. Then Glide came along and they saw their workload could be reduced, as well as having access to rendering hardware. Then OpenGL came along as an open source movement to provide a heterogenious API to the various rendering hardware platforms that existed at the time (SGI, 3DFX, PowerVR etc). Finally MS started to catch on with this and introduced the Direct3D portion of its DirectX library.
Of course, once they did this, game producers asked the question, "what do the majority of our users currently use as a platform" the answer was Windows. So we then saw a period where Glide, OpenGL and Direct3D co-existed. Then Glide died along with 3DFX and OpenGL and Direct3D co-existed.
Finally MS pumped Direct3D up in both its marketing terms (incentives to game producers etc) and the actual quality of the library itself.
OpenGL Vs Direct3D is actually very synonymous with Linux Vs Windows imo. One is a corporate affair with the sole intention of making money. The other is an open source, cross platform attempt. The very nature of the beast means that OpenGL is unlikely to blaze trails while MS is still trying with Direct3D.
Having said that, within science, OpenGL remains the rendering library of choice and OpenGL 3.0 is very close to DirectX 11 in terms of what it can offer, though it is still not as advanced.
For a company to make a game that works well in Linux and Windows would mean starting with OpenGL and not Direct3D. In theory, a well programmed OpenGl game could look as stunning as a Direct3D one, but it would require more detailed knowledge of how to program the postprocessing effects etc that are simply available in Direct3D, and it is likely that pound for pound, general performance will be slightly lower.
On the upside, said manufacturer could release the game on all platforms, mac, linux, and windows, assuming their programming language was cross compatible.
I guess the reason they dont will be two fold, 1) there is now a culture of Direct3D use in the industry, 2) In a boardroom somewhere, the figures for mac and linux sales dont warrant the extra effort that would be required to implement in OpenGL over Direct3D.
I reckon it might statrt to change now that Macs are actually coming with reasonable 3D hardware, which in turn will bleed across to Linux.
About a year. I use linux CLI daily at the moment. If you go to ultra-lightweight though it's not really comparing Windows with Linux. As you'd never really, in this day and age, play a game off the command line.
Linux has its uses - but I would still use Windows even if there were no games for it.
M.
Linux has its uses - but I would still use Windows even if there were no games for it.
M.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
What a load of crap. Ubuntu is miles easier to use than Windows, all the advanced settings are available from the GUI exactly the same as Windows. It also 'just works' from a default install - you really can't make it any more retard friendly than that
You don't have to use the Terminal at all if you don't want to.