Slashdot Mirror


Linux Gaming: Looking Back And Looking Forward

James Hills writes: "Gamespy.com has released their end of the year Linux retrospective , "Operating system historians will record the year 2000 as the year that Linux gaming began to become a serious prospect for both gamers and developers. While many things still need to be resolved for Linux gaming to seriously compete with Windows gaming, companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSe, nVidia, 3Dfx, Loki, Vicarious Visions, Tribsoft, Hyperion Entertainment, and thousands of programmers working on projects such as KDE, Gnome, and Xfree86 have begun to make gaming in Linux gaming a more mainstream concept. Through the efforts of corporate investors and individual netizens, the Linux gaming market experienced tremendous improvements in all areas last year and the year 2001 looks even brighter. ""

5 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I've re-installed my Windows partition by John+Carmack · · Score: 4

    We are still supporting linux.

    The only downside of the next product is that initially it will probably only work at full feature level with the Nvidia OpenGL driver, but after the first test gets out (still a very long time in the future), I will jump back in to the driver development to try and bring the other open source drivers up to par.

    John Carmack

  2. Closed vs Open Source by 1010011010 · · Score: 4
    For Linux Gaming to succeed, a number of things will be needed:
    1. Linux users will have to overcome their desire for Open-Source. Gamers probably don't have this problem, but it bears mentioning. See also #3.
    2. Distributiuons will have to adhere to standards. For instance, a game that uses C++ will probably require a special version for RedHat 7, because it's broken. Libc will have to be the same, or compaitble enough. XFree3 vs Xfree4. KDE Vs Gnome Vs whatever for menu icons or base libraries, etc; Etc.
    3. Linux users will have to get used to the idea of paying for software. If the games are ripped off left and right, then there will be no money for the people producing the games. And then there will be no games.


    - - - - -
    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    1. Re:Closed vs Open Source by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4

      > 1.Linux users will have to overcome their desire for Open-Source. Gamers probably don't have this problem, but it bears mentioning. See also #3.
      > 3.Linux users will have to get used to the idea of paying for software. If the games are ripped off left and right, then there will be no money for the people producing the games. And then there will be no games.

      You are assuming that "success" is defined by how many units can be sold. What if we defined it by "being able to play lots of nifty games under Linux"? In that case, "Open Source" and "free" might be advantages rather than disadvantages.

      Take Freeciv as an example. It's open source, and it's successful in the senses that it has lots of dedicated players and it is still getting attention from programmers even after 5 years "on the market". It has also started moving away from being just a clone toward being an innovator.

      How many commercial games still get bug fixes and enhancements after 5 years? In the commercial world, bugs get fixed exactly when businessmen think the fixes will contribute to the bottom line, which is rare indeed. Indeed, a steady stream of bug fixes might be seen as a conflict of interest with getting people to buy the next shoddy product.

      Also, your favorite genre is at the mercy of a handful of businessmen. What if you love FPSs, and they decide this year that FPSs are declassé, and move on to the next big thing? You're screwed. No new titles, no bugfixes for the old ones. It has happened before, and it will happen again. With OS games, it's not a risk at all, because it only takes a handful of volunteers to keep a game evolving.

      OK, so I named Freeciv. Granted, that's not much. But remember, Linux still has a very small share of the desktop market, and even a smaller share of the gaming market. As those shares grow, mindshare will grow too, and you'll see more games of Freeciv quality popping up.

      Remember too that the PC world had a thriving shareware market long before Linux was born. The itch and the will to scratch has always been there. What happens as more and more of the shareware author type become aware of Linux and the joys of OS programming?

      My brother used to tinker with shareware games, but he was stuck with QBASIC because he didn't have money for development suites, and of course it takes years for one person to develop a nice game if he can only work on it a few hours a week. But suppose he installs Linux on his system? He suddenly has more development tools than he knows what to do with. And between OS licensing and the internet, he can suddenly round up a handful of like-minded comrades to help make his game become a reality.

      I think we are headed for an OS revolution in gaming just as we are in desktops, and just as we have already experienced in servers and supercomputing clusters.

      We may even experience a catastropic collapse of the game production sector. Game programmers already work deathmarches for low pay, with a low probability of producing a hit. Any substantial spread of OS gaming is going to put pressure on a system that is already ill. (Did I say already ill? Look at the release-day pricetag of games that are coming out now, and compare that to what they sold for five years ago.)

      As for scratching the itch... I quit buying games altogether. I bought a few for Linux, but every time I play one I find myself asking "Why should I play this, and deal with the bugs and screwball features, when I could write my own game, or take Freeciv and tweak it to suit my own tastes?"

      If only 1000 people develop the same attitude, OS games will start popping up everywhere. And the more that pop up, the more mindshare they attract.

      No, I don't think the desire for open source and the unwillingness to pay for certain kinds of software is going to hurt the "success" of Linux gaming at all. No more than they hurt the success of OS operating systems. The same factors still apply.

      --

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. The ladder to success for linux gaming by jhol · · Score: 4

    What we have here is a classic case of Domino ladies and gentlemen...

    For linux gaming to become successful linux itself has to go mainstream, and it's falling short on ease of usability. The average gamer/user is not experienced enough (or do not have the time) to install and learn linux properly and install the games that are available for linux RIGHT NOW.

    So once the game companies starts to see that even ordinary gamers/users installs linux with ease and has no problems in learning it then they will finally develop games for the platform and sell them through retail. IMHO linux still has a very long way to go before that happens.

  4. Games can be open-source by xant · · Score: 5
    I know, because I'm writing one. There's money to be made on games these days, and you don't have to sell the box the game comes in to do it. It's all about multiplayer environments these days. People want human interaction.

    You know what that means don't you? Subscription sales. You give away the source to the game client (hey maybe even the server), set up your world (this should take the most time - this is where you add value, besides the actual server hardware itself) and invite people to play your free client in your world for a trial month. If they like it, pay .. $8 a month for the service. Make sure the world isn't always static (I'm not talking Evercrack here, they've made an obscene amount of money on a pretty crappy service) so players have a reason to come back month after month, year after year, and voila, you have an open-source game that makes business sense.

    You don't lose anything by giving away the source; any potential competitors have to flesh out their own world and put up their own server hardware and offer the support that you will provide (because you're not Blizzard, you don't just leave your customers in the lurch when the game breaks down). And some other company did this, and their game looked great, hey I'd play it. Variety is always good, and their code will get back into your codebase. If someone uses your engine to create a fantasy game service, and someone else uses it to create a space game service, they've nailed 2 different, minimally-competing niches.
    --

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.