Slashdot Mirror
Promises And Pitfalls In Linux Game Development
As a follow up to an article that appeared on GameDev.Net GameDev.Net last year, I've decided to update it and note some of the changes in the industry that have occured, from the news of several developers forming in-house porting teams to Microsoft's stance on opening parts of DirectX. In the original article, I explained the lack of developers interested in developing Linux titles -- their disinterest left the task to a few companies that were established for the sole reason of porting Windows titles to Linux (namely Loki). Since then however, several larger developers have formed in-house teams to port their titles to Linux. That means companies such as Creature Labs, (currently porting Creatures 3 to Linux, should be out very soon), which probably once considered Linux to be so niche that only a group of complete idiots would try and make money out of developing games for it.
Of course, there is always a group of idiots, and those idiots were Loki. By convincing larger developers to outsource the porting, they demonstrated that there is a market on Linux, albeit not a very large one. But how large is the market? According to John Carmack (For cave dwellers: John Carmack is the "big guy" at id software), sales of the Linux version of Quake III Arena were worse than bad, but is that a suitable example?
Like many examples of the poor sellers blamed for the lack of new Linux games, the Linux version of the product was released after the Windows release, but the datafiles were compatible with various other operating systems. With patches and downloads for the other platforms freely available on the Internet, why would should people wait a few months to get the latest gore-fest when they can buy the Windows version, reboot, and play on another platform until the binaries for Linux become available?
The sales figures that the skeptics quote should never be considered of any merit until a few games are released for Linux and Windows simultaneously.
Many people seem to be under the delusion that publishers wouldn't be interested in Linux games, but this isn't the case. Granted, many of the publishers who are prepared to venture into the world of Linux are usually associated with budget titles and/or long dead platforms, they seem to have faith, and with shops such as TuxGames offering a wide range of Linux title, it seems there is a market after all.
But what about the developers? Well, it seems that many of the larger developers aren't prepared to take a chance on Linux, with companies stating that there are too many complications when developing with Linux, such as the lack of DirectX-like APIs.
Sure, we have OpenGL, but with the release of DirectX 8, the cross-platform API just doesn't cut it anymore. Lacking universal support for vertex and pixel shaders, developers are forced into the situation where they can either reduce the quality of their titles by ignoring the improved features that the newer releases of DirectX offer, or by ignoring Linux.
Unfortunately, many developers choose the latter option, instead of thinking about writing clean code which allows the operating system to be accessed only through an abstraction layer, reducing development times for ports as well as allowing the programmers to change the lower-level code without breaking anything.
In a recent discussions with Tony Cox, head engineer of Microsoft Gaming Relations, he informed me that Microsoft is currently looking at ways of opening up parts of DirectX, with the aim of getting the technology onto non-Windows platforms.
When we originally discussed the issue, he was refering to getting DirectPlay support for the PlayStation 2, but in later discussions he mentioned that they may allow 3rd party developers to do the work for them, including Linux support.
With the ever increasing commercial interest in Linux, from both publishers and the developer studios themselves, it is only a matter of time till shelf space in your local EB is dedicated to Linux.
The DOM is well documented at W3C. At least if all you need is a reference. The whole point of Mozilla is that you should be able to use open standards to write your web pages, not vendor specific standards.
are you insane? Indrema?
I said "like Indrema", although actually doing it almost exactly *unlike* Indrema is probably the key.
Indrema's plan required establishing their game SDK, signing on developers, etc. A much better method, I think, is simply to make the commodity hardware machine with Linux on it. DVD, P-III 700 equivalent processor, decent 3-D graphics (GeForce 2MX or similar), optional video capture, all USB input devices. Then come up with a decent distro and software combos, be prepared to distribute CD/DVD updates, and you've got a simple, decent business.
Indrema is going way too long without revenue, and they require too much external support (game developers). Combine this with the tech collapse, and you've got trouble.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Making a DirectX equivalent for Linux is a good idea too. Duh.
Hmm. Has no one here heard of SDL? http://www.libsdl.org/ - go check it out. It's the library set that Loki uses as a base for porting its titles (developed by Sam Lantinga, an employee of Loki). It even works on top of Solaris, BeOS, MacOS, MacOS X, Win32, etc.
Or no, maybe we should just develop yet another completely incompatible API, that's specific to one platform. What a great idea. (Not.)
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Why not release a product that supports Windows, AND Linux, AND MacOS all in one freaking package?
Developers that can't write portable code are developers that suck. It's really simple.
If you don't happen to support Linux and MacOS in the initial release, why not just offer the ports via the web? You're not going to ship all new boxes just because you write a bugfix release, why ship more boxes just because you ported it? I'd go out and buy the "Windows" version if the box said "Check http://www.gamepublisher.com/ for ports to other platforms!"
Loki is going to be releasing Tribes 2 in the nearish future. They're trying their darndest to get VoIP in the package as well. I am certainly going to wait for the Linux version (as I did with Quake 3) even though I'm only mildly excited about the game.
OpenGL extensions ARE a viable way to access the pixel shaders. For game programming, a lot of the OpenGL API is obsolete. Using glLight* calls to light a scene is just not done. People commonly prefer to use GL_ARB_MULTITEXTURE and blend another texture pass with lighting.
Likewise, the GL calls for the new pixel shaders are reputedly supported by the Nvidia drivers under Linux already. John Carmack stated that when Doom 3 comes out, it's going to only work with all it's features under Nvidia's drivers. However, he's going to lend some code to get the other drivers for the operating system up to speed.
OpenGL is not a lost cause. Dx8 is getting a lot of hype right now. Lots of developers are preferring it because, imo, Microsoft has very timely, large and helpful responses to game develpers, whereas OpenGL has to also cater to those CAD guys.
For a list and description of all the OpenGL extensions, see this URL.
Actually, I would say that Linux is ready for games now.
Most things you mention about having to upgrade to Linux 2.4, install XFree 4.0x, install drivers etc will be a mooth point for anyone who installs any of the distros that will be comming now.
You say: "apps first and then games", I say: "some apps first, then some games, then some more apps, then some more games...".
We are not in the dark ages of DOS gaming. With SDL we have standardized Graphics, sound, 3d and a few other things taken care of. As far as I'm concerned, SDL *is* Linux's Direct X, plus that it runs on many other platforms as well. Granted, we haven't covered all kinds of funky controlers yet, but we are getting there.
Things are looking better and better. We're not yet where we want to be, but we have allready covered quite some distance and the first part was the hardest...
Unfortunatelly I find Mark's article quite substance-less and quite a number of erros. Since I've investigated the situation of gaming on Linux quite extensively for the last few months I think I should correct/add some things:
;)
1. I don't know any game developer who have formed inhouse Linux teams. The Creatures port is done by one or more of the original coders, mostly or completely on their sparetime since some of them are Linux fans. The company just decided to take a shot to test the waters and make their developers happy when they practically gets the port for free anyway. This was quite obvious from an interview that I *think* was headlined here on Slashdot.
2. If I remember correctly Carmack said that Linux sales "were a disappointment, but covered the costs". Of course, it's up to anyone to interprete that but I wouldn't translate it to worse than bad.
3. There are already games that have been released for Windows and Linux simultaneously, but most of them have been distributed on the same CD so it's hard to separate sales according to platform. No bestseller has done that so far though.
4. He forget what I see as the main reason for low Linux sales of Q3A: The terrible state of 3D support back then, making it almost impossible for people to run even the demo. Would you buy a game that you can't run? With XFree 4.0x the situation has improved drastically. Note that Loki didn't port any 3D games until later, when 3D acceleration was a little bit more in order, a wise decision I would say...
5. See some earlier posts regarding the state of Vertex Shaders in OpenGL.
6. Microsoft has Direct X, we have OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL which works great in combination and provides us with a very nice, cross-platform API that I (professional game developer for more than 5 years) and many with me clearly prefer instead of Direct X since the API is so much easier and straight forward. Granted, Direct X has a lead, but OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL keeps up quite nicely in the development.
7. He forgot to mention that we now have at least 3 porting houses. Loki, Tribsoft (www.tribsoft.com) and Hyperion Software (www.hyperion-software.com). Which I think is very promising.
However, I do agree with his analysis that things keep getting better. The technology (especially 3D acceleration) has taken a big step forward, more games are coming from more developers/porting houses and total game sales are increasing.
I also know some more good news, but unfortunatelly I can't tell you about it...
I carelessly do a dist-upgrade, and my system migrates to Xfree 4.0.3. I like it for the most part, but it breaks Quake etc. on 3dfx cards (which I had purchased specifically for Linux/Quake compatibility.) I haven't been able to downgrade Xfree back to 3.x for some reason. So, no Quake, nor any other games. I could rebuild the system, but that's a day I just don't have for a while.
I don't really mean to kvetch. It's not like I'm going to give it that much time - it's not what my system is really for - but I don't trust Linux games at this point to be able to handle the relative anarchy of X video. What would make me feel comfortable buying games for Linux is a. some sort of assurance that my distro will be able to handle it, b. fairly painless installation of required libs, and c. *clear* and *definitive* hardware requirements. Otherwise, it's just gambling.
Err, that one's already being done, you know. LokiGames ... right there on the front page, it says (under news 11.05.00), 'Tribes2 Beta Testers Needed'
Parity None
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Yeah, games like Starcraft, Diablo 2, Everquest, Ultima Online, Age of Empires 2, and Myth were complete failures until Linux and BSD ports of the servers became available.
Let me restate that. Not successful, just suck. Online playing where a Client is also the Server are horrible. Starcraft, AOE2, and Myth 1 and 2 suck online (I own Starcraft and Myth 1 and 2, and I have played AOE2 online).
Diable 2, Everquest, and Ultime Online are different, as I understand, you connect to the game makers servers. There are no independent servers.
--
Linux O Muerte!
The Linux game market is never going to be big nor profitable, no matter how many Linux machines are out there.
;)
People who run Linux on the desktop are not hardcore gamers. They are people who want a Unix Workstation on their desktop, either at work or at home. On the other end of the scale, people who buy gaming machines don't put Linux on it. They want something that is simple to install and maintain and you can run lots of games on; Win32 is that. Linux is great for games, don't get me wrong, but there is no market for games on it.
The best that us rare Linux gamers can hope for are the token Linux ports that people like John Carmack insist on putting out.
Linux server ports are another story. I don't think a online game would make it if it did not have a Linux and/or BSD port. Win32 just sucks to much to host big online games. I speak from experience as a former game server admin and current online game player.
Now if I could just my copy of Tribes2 shipped, I would be a happy camper.
--
Linux O Muerte!
I don't think it's even as complicated as you make it out to be. I think the simple answer is that there aren't "people who play games on Linux". There are simply "people who play games". And the existence of one or two Linux games isn't going to obviate the need to have a Windows partition hanging around to play things under. And, really, when I play games, the underlying OS is merely a commodity...I don't care what it is so long as it gets the job done. I'd wager that the majority of people who play games feel the same way. After all, I don't buy a Playstation just because Sony makes it...I buy it because of the games I can play on it. Why should Linux be any different?
Game development in the current business model is problematic even for Windows platforms. The problem is not the games or the technology, it is that there is no viable business model for any game other than the top ten. Its that simple.
:)
By the time the boxes get to the retail shelf, the developers and publishers have dug a hole so deep that they have to sell hundreds of thousands of units just to break even. Those numbers aren't there for any games except the top ten and perhaps one unlikely left-field surprise. Everyone else loses their shirts. This is the fundamental problem in computer games.
Until this problem: the business model, is fixed, nothing is going to improve. Fixing the business model will mean that some difficult decisions will have to be made, but at some point, the game industry is going to have to face reality:
1. Re-invention of a "state of the art" engine for every single title will have to stop.
2. Standard platforms and APIs will have to be developed and *adhered to* for five years at a time or more. Accomplishing #1 will help here.
3. Games will have to become simpler, in order to encourage casual players to buy more games.
4. More companies will have to get involved and be able to succeed.
Otherwise, its just going to be one expensive project after another with "worse than bad" sales, while the game press whines about the lack of originality and how the game industry isn't enough like Hollywood and that the engine and graphics look "dated," and the players complain that every game is a clone of some other game, and everyone else wonders why someone would spend $3500 upgrading their computer so they can get some game to run faster.
When a good game can be developed for a couple hundred thousand dollars, then it will become possible to make money developing primarily for Linux, because selling 20,000 units at $30 means there is some profit to be had. If it costs $5 million, its not going to happen, unless it is a cross-platform effort, and even then, it won't get funded, because the break-even number is just too high.
It might also be nice if some new "genres" of games could be developed and/or some games from the semi-forgotten genres like puzzle, adventure and interactive fiction could be developed. A good sign would be a wildly successful game that doesn't neatly fit into a particular section of PC Gamer.
FWIW, our company fully intends to continue developing for Linux.
Just our $0.02
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
- DX8 has nothing to do with anything. Several developers have been busting their ass for years to use OpenGL which has always been a uphill fight for PC games. There were no drivers, there were no cards, there was no to little support from Microsoft.
Compare apples to apples: D3D and OpenGL are what should be compared. And there's been a battle royal for developer mindshare between the two for a number of years now. Far from "busting their asses" for years, developers using OpenGL have had the same clean, portable and open API since day one.
I mean just think about the drivers issue, Carmack had to pay a guy to build a big diver bundle because if he didnt, the game would not have worked for anyone. Anyone does not mean us or any of the upper 10% who can go get our own stuff, but the masses. I mean he was commited, and knew he wasnt going to make any money as far as Linux was concerned, but wanted to do the right thing.
Don't know what your point is here, but id have done more to promote OpenGL as a viable platform on the PC than anyone else - period. Go and read John Carmack's famous Christmas Letter (~1997) about how long it took to port Quake 1 to GL and his not-so-fun experiences with Direct3D.
I think Linux and the community that surrounds it are a great idea. But if you dont do a reality check every once in a while, linux will never climb out of the hole. Isnt that what you want?
I think Paul Ferris of Linux Today said it best. This is a paraphrase because I can't remember the link: "When Linus Torvalds first released Linux, it was viewed as a toy and few people in the commercial world took it seriously. The naysayers said it will never rival a commercial operating system. Now it runs a third of the Web and on a couple of million desktops. When the FSF started work on gcc, commercial C compiler vendors for Unix laughed. Now there is hardly a market for compilers on the Unix platform."
At every stage of Linux's growth and development, critics have said "well, yeah so what, Linux can now do X but it will never do Y." The problem with this view is that history has shown otherwise in each and every case. Right now games are at that stage. Yes, Linux isn't the best games platform at the moment for a number of reasons.
But it won't take long to get there.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Sure. It just shows what a killer app can do. I think it also shows how much pain you'll endure in order not to be forced to use Direct3D :)
So again, if you think DX8 is an issue you havent appreciated how hard it was.
I remember the early days of GL only too well, and yes it was very hard to get working (Mesa 2.4 on Windows anyone?). But the signs at the time were that it was The Right Thing: not controlled by one vendor, clean API, open specs, easily extended, portable and easy to write for. Direct 3D was none of these. It may have improved but I can't afford the price of Microsoft's compiler or OS to see for myself.
And what makes you think this is an issue now? OpenGL has a wonderful extention mechanism. And my point is that the article, at least on this front, is FUD. So, hopefully you see my point now.
I do. DX 8 just worries me from a competitive point of view because by all accounts, it's damn good for Windows developers. And if it presents enough of a compelling developement platform, then there will be little reason to port to Linux - or worse, it will be harder because of feature set lockin. I suppose it's whether you want best of breed in each case, or a complete solution. There's a good presentation on Game Development in Linux linked from Linux Games which outlines these issues.
Oh well, back to work on my killer no-it-won't-be-ported-to-Windows-so-stop-asking simulator :)
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
It costs more to make a Windows version, the Linux market isn't as competitive, and the market is smaller. And your above comment just illustrated one of the biggest problems - if you're willing to purchase the Windows version, there's no reason for a company to create a Linux version at all.
---
My opinions are mine.
This is not a troll or a stab at any Linux OS or the Linux community, but some of these excuses for why Linux is where it is for gaming are sad.
:)
"If they would have come out at the same time..."
"If the price wasnt different..."
"DirectX 8 is better now, noone will use OpenGL..."
"People who run linux arent hardcore gamers..."
"Why dont they just release a free or near free Linux version, when the PC version stops selling..."
etc...
and my favorite "going to say something bad, forgive me" line:
"Linux is great for games, don't get me wrong..."
I love the last one because it is so far from reality. I think this is the reality:
- The non-comercial Linux users do not like to buy software, ever. No one will make money becuase you dont buy. Hint, they know this. If the brunt of Linux development is people doing it in there spare time, i.e. people who have to make money and eat, then programs that are hard to make like games, will always come slow.
- This is true wether the price was higher, the same, or lower. Without commercial incentive, you are screwed. Having a Linux dev house make a game just to please the hardcore set that never really makes money, will never get you there. Carmack said, go buy it and show us there is a market. Did you do that? Why? Even just to prove that you care, you could have. You didnt. It was a test case, and you helped people see it as more of a money loser.
- DX8 has nothing to do with anything. Several developers have been busting their ass for years to use OpenGL which has always been a uphill fight for PC games. There were no drivers, there were no cards, there was no to little support from Microsoft. I mean just think about the drivers issue, Carmack had to pay a guy to build a big diver bundle because if he didnt, the game would not have worked for anyone. Anyone does not mean us or any of the upper 10% who can go get our own stuff, but the masses. I mean he was commited, and knew he wasnt going to make any money as far as Linux was concerned, but wanted to do the right thing.
- I think lots of the same people who are hard core gamers are Linux friendly. But that still has nothing to do with comercial viability, which is the mass of people who would like to buy a game who do use Linux.
- This one kills me. The one about giving away a game when its done selling to the PC or other platform. Most companies cant afford to go back and rework what is basically an end of life product for a platform that they precieve as never making money. Especially if they are going to have to support it. No that doesnt always mean tech suport, but worse programming sources at maintainance.
- The plumming in Linux is cool, but not the best for making and selling a game. Examples: - xFree86 - dll hell in latest distros which compounds the problem of releasing binaries for all the distros - better, but not great, essential API and hardware support - etc... Dont think so? Ask someone who has to try to make games.
- Im sure if you go back and read all of these posts and think about what Linux has to offer from a business and technical stanpoint, and really think about it, then you might see where im comming from.
So flame me if you must.
I think Linux and the community that surrounds it are a great idea. But if you dont do a reality check every once in a while, linux will never climb out of the hole. Isnt that what you want?
Just dont say late product, microsofts fault, wrong price, greedy corporate whores, etc... And if your really desparate, you could try buying a game for linux. That way the people at the game companies who bothered to make the software for you winey asses can feel like they might be able to make a living from Linux software one day.
Then maybe they can drop windows.
And, really, when I play games, the underlying OS is merely a commodity...I don't care what it is so long as it gets the job done.
The problem with this logic is it makes so much sense that the fanatical Linux user won't accept it.
They can't understand that some people actually DO like playing games. In fact, some people are more fanatical about games than then Linux dorks are about Operating Systems.
I once explained to a friend that it didn't matter that my main game machine ran Windows ME and there was no way in hell I was putting BSD on it. He continued to bash the fact that my machine is "wasted" becaues it's not running Linux.
I explained to him that my tower is running BSD, and my game machine runs Windows, as does my Laptop and my image scanning/e-mail/internet/blahblah machine.
He said he didn't understand how I could accept the fact that I was playing my game on a machine that as he put it "Crashed all the time."
Then, he called me a liar when I told him that not only does my Windows machine almost never crash, I literally don't get ANY problems out of it. Not a single blue screen, no lock ups, not even illegal operations unless I run some crappy little program, and even then they don't take down the whole machine. Those proggies exit quitly and life goes on.
He said there was no way I was getting that functionality out of this machine. I insisted that he did.
I guess he doesn't believe that I've literally played Homeworld Cataclysm for 4 days straight without shutting down or resetting, only pausing it seldom to take a shit, get grub, and to drink Tea.
I've been doing the same thing with Black & White since it came out.
The fact is -- The Zealots who hate Windows the most have less and less TECHNICAL reasons to hate it every day, but their MORAL reasons conflict so they're very quick to spout technically inaccurate reasons to justify the fact that they just don't like Microsoft. They have the right not to like Microsoft or use their products.
But in the end, what it comes down to is that any die-hard gamer is going to run Windows. At this point, that doesn't have a chancy ball of snow's hell of changing anytime soon.
And don't bother trying to convince gamers of idiotic political, moral, or inaccurate technical reasons as to why they should "Switch", because at the end of the day if it doesn't play the coolest, newest game, a gamer isn't going to care.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
In a recent discussions with Tony Cox, head engineer of Microsoft Gaming Relations, he informed me that Microsoft is currently looking at ways of opening up parts of DirectX, with the aim of getting the technology onto non-Windows platforms.
When I read this paragraph, two things immediately spring to mind. One, that this journalist is experiencing a temporary mental sickness. Two, that this Tony Cox guy is a Secret Tux Operative.
When, I ask, *when* has Microsoft ever been known to do something solely for the benefit of a community or industry? Unless I haven't been keeping up to date with the Microsoft Corporation Ethics Department, it has been my experience that whatever Microsoft does, it does it for money.
In other words, if MS is going to open up DirectX, then it's probably part of some larger strategy involving a transistion to the X-Box, or Windows, or maybe even an inverted version of their Embrace and Extend tactic. Say, maybe DirectX becomes the undisputed standard in the future, but only Microsoft products will have the really cool features. Every kid and his dog (not to mention developers) wants a system with the most features, right?
I do think, however, that this article was pretty good overall. It just seems a little too optimistic.
It's sad to say... but today's gaming market seems to be in bed with the blinding speed of the latest CPU. Gone are the days when people could be satisfied with simple games like Tetris.
If the newest game doesn't require the lastest 32mb graphics card and 900Mhtz CPU... it's just not worth it. So how does Linux fit in? What corporate ties does Linux have with hardware developers? MMX and Active X compatible CPU's act as a kickbacks for game developers... And it works both ways: We make a new software technology which will give you a reason to make a new hardware one.
Considering that Linux is always playing catch up in terms of hardware compatibility, MHO is that it will be quite some time before Linux is a major game player.
I hope I'm wrong.
Until then I'll just stick to tetrinet.
--
Need ecommerce that doesn't suck? FoxyCart is for you.
The Linux versions of games are often priced much higher than the corresponding Windows version. It's tough for me to justify buying the Linux version when I can get the Windows version for a much lower price.
For example, Quake 3 Arena for Windows is available for $29.99 from Amazon and the Linux version is $44.99 from Amazon. (or $44 at Tuxgames).
Alpha Centauri is $9.99 at Amazon, and the coming soon Linux release is priced at $49.99 on amazon and $46 on tuxgames (yeah, the Linux version comes with an add-on pack - the corresponding Windows version is $39.99 on amazon).
Simcity 3000 Unlimited is $46 on tuxgames, and $49.99 on amazon for the Linux version. The Windows version is $39.99 on Amazon, while regular Simcity 3000 is $19.99 on Amazon.
There are at least 41 versions of Tetris for Linux.
Not accurate. TETRIS® is a registered trademark of The Tetris Company LLC, which has not yet licensed any official conversions for the LINUX® system. But that didn't stop cloners from converting the game and calling it something other than TETRIS.
CXHextrisThese are hextris clones, with a hexagonal grid instead of a square grid.
Columns XJewel
These are Columns clones.
Gno3dtet IFRAc VRtris
These are apparently 3D Block clones. Xpuyopuyo Vitamins 2
These are Puyo clones.
ksame same-gnome Xinsane FPA Insane
These are SameGame clones.
XTrojka
A bad Klax knockoff.
CrystalSpace
What? That's not a puzzle game; that's a 3D engine.
Here are some tetris clones that don't have the annoying "floating blocks after clearing a line" bug: Quadra | TOD | FPA Tetanus
Oh, by the way, next time use an HTML list (<ul> <li>foo</li> <li>bar</li> </ul>) to separate games in a long list.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Besides, most games take up at least one full CD.
99% of that is datafiles. The executable code for each platform generally takes up less than 4 MB. Stuffing FreeBSD, Linux PPC, Linux x86, Windows, and Carbon Mac binaries (which will run on Mac OS 8.5 and up) should cover most bases and not take too much space away from the game. So you'll have to bump each image's JPEG level down a notch. So you'll have to bump your game music .ogg files from 192 kbps VBR to 188 kbps VBR and decrease the height of your cut-scene clips by 5%. Big fucking deal.
as long as games are fairly easy to develop on it. Windows is the easiest right now.
Sega Genesis is also quite easy to develop for. So why not just distribute your game as a ROM with DGen?
Will I retire or break 10K?
So when is Pitfall going to be available on Linux?
PE2000 has ROM dumps of many classic games such as the original Pitfall. To run such binaries, you will need an emulator; pick one up at Zophar's Domain.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Developers who claim they don't want to develop under anything under GL cuz it doesn't have shading, etc. "like DX8". What a crock of FUD.
Don't you realize what you are giving up? At least with GL, you can influence the creation of extensions. You! Not Microsoft.
Or do you just want to spend your life swallowing what MS decides to plop into your open mouth? Before long you'll be paying for it, too.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
No offense, but if that's the case, you have problems
None taken, I came on to the project quite some time after the engine was well underway, too late to go back and have things done the right way. Their original goal was to target Windows with this engine, which they've done, to the exclusion of any other platform.
NO CARRIER
The DOM is well documented at W3C. At least if all you need is a reference.
To be blunt: the W3C documentation of the DOM is far too verbose to be a useful reference and it reads like a phone book. I'm sure its useful if you have a lot of spare time to sit down and read it all, but in the real world, projects need to get done. It sucked having to bite the bullet and not support Mozilla, but it was a done-in-my-spare-time project, and if I had held up the page until I'd figured out the crummy W3C documentation, it probably still wouldn't be up.
Microsoft's documentation for IE, on the other hand, is all nicely arranged, grouped by object, with cross-references to every other property, method, and object related, with code examples for pretty much everything. Not only that, but they also tell you when what you're using is a Microsoft-proprietary extension, or if it's part of the W3C standards. Think whatever you want about Microsoft, but nobody can argue that MSDN isn't very, very slick, and what should be expected in documentation for any OS.
NO CARRIER
As a designer at a company with a title about to be released on the Windows platform (see our ads in the May issue of PCGamer and CGW), I've brought up a couple times in our meetings that we should at least try to see if we can easily compile our code under Linux with Winelib.
Unfortunately, it's far from trivial to do. On top of that, our market studies show a very, very minimal market for Linux games. Most Linux installations are running on servers, not "desktop" systems, and there's such variation between different Linux distributions that shipping binaries for Linux-as-a-whole makes shipping a binary that runs on Win95, 98, ME, and 2000 look easy.
In short, we haven't been able to justify spending a disproportional amount of time on Linux users compared to Windows users.
It reminds me a little bit of a webpage I put up (this one, if you're curious), which relies on some Javascript for the user interface. Unfortunately I had to make the page IE only because I couldn't find any decent documentation for Mozilla's object model, nothing nearly as nice as Microsoft's documentation for IE, so I had to end up dropping support for Mozilla. IE makes up 80% of my readership, and I had already spent well over half the time I spent developing the page just trying to get it to run with Mozilla. I had passed the point of diminishing returns.
So I can understand my company's stance on not being interested in putting the effort in to get the code to work with Linux, but I'm still rather interested in doing it myself. Which brings me to a question: If I'm able to get the game running stable under Wine, can we ship a copy of Wine and a Linux installer on the CD and advertise we're a game that runs on Linux, or is that cheaping out?
NO CARRIER
Have you ever programmed anything in DirectX. It's one of the most hideously complex api's i've ever seen :)
Oh, Q3 did good in the 'pushing the envelope' area. Where it was lacking was in the 'sustainable gameplay' area.
Vanilla Q3 just gets boring after a while.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I'm really happy with the quality of graphics in Windows games. Can Linux developers beat it, reinventing the rendering technologies themselves? Possibly, but what a waste of time when they could be improving gameplay.
What I'm not (always) happy with on Windows is the quality of gameplay. It commonly takes a backseat to graphics technology, and I predict with this Linux API and rendering race, Linux developers will be focussing a lot on better looking, faster, smoother games. Which is great, all else equal. But...
But wouldn't it be a bigger feather in the cap of the Linux camp if, in a couple of years, people generally agreed, "Yeah, these Linux games don't have very good vertex shading compared to Windows games, but holy crap are they more fun!!! I spend all my time playing Linux games." That's the ultimate complement, in my opinion. You don't have to look farther than the 12-year-old Game Boy platform to realize that fun games sell damn well and create a loyal base of consumers. And you don't have to look farther than PC graphic$ hardware and CPU $peeds to realize that when you chase after (making or buying) technically-impressive games, you are going to spend a lot of time and money.
I say Fun First, tech later. That requires a lot of inspiration and design and playtesting and playbalancing (things it would seem Linux has the community for!)
Funny, I know more exclusive Windows users that hate Windows than Linux users who share their feelings. I might not care much for the company but the software is tolerable, though I do miss features which I make great use of (virtual consoles, workspaces, etc.)
Gamers won't switch to Linux because of new games, but Linxu users might be enticed to eventually get rid of Windows altogether if they can play their favorite games. For example a friend of mine decided to run Linux on his system but wanted to make sure he could still play Doom on it.
I think that the market does exist and is getting stronger every year, but it has not yet reached a potential size which makes it profitable to port games to Linux.
After all the developers have to be paid, as do the royalties. And the market is smaller that the only way that this happens is when the Linux versions are substantially marked up above the WIndows versions....
Best Wishes.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The reason that Quake 3 Arena for linu didn't sell well is not just because it was release well after the windows version. There are numerous other factors that aren't even mentioned here.
The first thing is that the are selling a game for linux, that can already be played with wine quite easily. Anyone who wants to play games and uses linux, probably is already doing this. They should release a game like counterstrike which is difficult to get to run under wine. Or a game that is impossible to run under wine like Tribes 2 (I tried, maybe someone else succeeded).
Why should they pay money? Let's take it for granted that you aren't a software pirate. When new software comes out for windows you run out and pay 50$ for it. When new software comes out for linux you go to freshmeat and download it for free. Linux people don't like to pay for software. Linux is a high quality operating system for free, and windows is a low quality operating system for lots of money. That's what keeps linux alive is that it costs 0$. People don't want to pay money for linux software.
I propose that game companies release FREE linux versions of their games. Not their newest games, but games that are just old enough so that they aren't selling any more copies. Basically everything from abandonware up to the tomb raider series, final fantasy 7 + 8, Mechwarrior 1 - 3, etc. Every games from that time back should be made available free for linux. All the gamers would RUSH out to download mandrake and red hat so they could take advantage of the situation. Then Start releasing the new games for Linux and charge money. Claim that the game runs faster in linux and is more stable (it's true). Charge only 40$ instead of 50$. Watch the money fly in.
Making a DirectX equivalent for Linux is a good idea too. Duh.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
This is a reply in two parts, first, to some specific comments, and then to stuff I should have said in the first place.
"And of course the DX3, DX5, DX7, DX8 interfaces never changed eh? :)
DirectX is inclusive. If it was supported by DX3, it'll still work. Code written to support OpenGL extensions, however, often breaks. That's the point of an extension; otherwise, it'd be in the standard. Some extensions are likely to remain in place, others, however, are vendor-specific and might just end up vapor.
Eh? NVidia loves OpenGL Alias|Wavefront loves OpeNGL
NVidia loves DirectX more --- well, most of my friends there were pretty pissed at Microsoft for delaying DirectX repeatedly, but that's another issue. NVidia likes whatever the public buys. Right now, games are using more DirectX, meaning that those APIs are more important, at least outside of the Quadro market.
As for Alias, of course they love OpenGL, Alias is an SGI product (SGI owns OpenGL's trademark, remember?). But then again, Alias isn't a game modelling program; OpenGL is pretty good for architectural and CAD applications, probably better than Direct3D.
The ultimate problem is that SGI is no longer the stable foundation that they once were. They were integral IMO to the advancement on OpenGL. No one has a similar commitment. NVidia certainly won't advocate OpenGL for the sake of OpenGL. They'll support it and support it well as long as there is demand, but I don't see them pushing the standard. DirectX, on the other hand, advances because of the heavy-handed advocacy of Microsft and because there is a research division full of top graphics people there (Glassner, Hoppe, Cohen, etc).
Without one hardcore research/industry advocate pushing the technology, OpenGL will continue decrepifying. Different companies will create different non-compatible extensions for new effects, while the standard itself becomes bogged down in standards committee arguments, leaving it lagging many years behind the state of the art.
Note, I'm not saying that there's anything critically wrong with the OpenGL API itself; until DX 7 rolled around, I wouldn't approach DX without a gas mask and a really long pointy stick. But Microsoft has responded well to the community, vastly improving the interface, something that we can expect to continue in future versions.
As a side note, though, this entire article is sort of a red herring, although few people have mentioned it. 3D is not necessary for good games, at least not certain types of games, many of which are popular with Linux users. 3D can ,in fact, be bad for RTS games, where it can be difficult to get a grasp on the tactics of a battle when the viewpoint can spin around, zoom, and where mountains can obscur some of your forces (consider Warcraft III's locking of the viewpoint, for instance, even though meshes are used for mobiles). Plus no card can render mobiles with sufficient tentacles, hair, gnats, floating eyes, or whatever --- and we might really want these things, consider the difficulties of rendering lots of beholders from Baldurs Gate II or many of the Zerg in Starcraft in 3D. In isometric games, sprites can do this trivially, since it's just a picture. After all, graphics is just a tool used to better a game;it is only a tool, however, not the game itself, and it can get in the way of the quality of the game.
More importantly, these "old-style" games can be coded in the true Linux tradition for free. Leave commercial games for commercial OS's. The only reason people don't code games like this for free for Linux is the worry that the code will break --- but that's changing as driver support becomes more standardized.
Of course, there are several companies make DirectX compliant implementations for Linux, so perhaps it's irrelevant anyway.
Take a look here for all the extensions available to you (including shaders) right now.
Take a look here for NVidia's OpenGL SDK which includes, yup, vertex shaders.
In the DX8 world developer's will also need to cripple their software if the card doesn't support the shaders in hardware. So I really fail to see what the argument is here.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
IMHO, Q3A is not the best example to site for sales of Linux games... Why? Well... in many ways the game was not as "fun" as its major competitor Unreal Tournament..
;-)
Now before everyone flames me because of my use of an obviously subjective term, let me just state that Unreal Tournament was voted by a great many gaming magazines and groups as the "game of the year" (take a look at UT's press page). It outperformed Q3A as far as retail sales last year are concerned.
Furthermore, it has been reported that Q3A's sales were low across the board. Granted the Windows versions sold enough to keep id in business.. but it wasn't a real big smash hit.
So maybe, just maybe, the low Q3A Linux sales might have reflected more the general dissatisfaction of the game rather than a lack of Linux game players. And maybe Carmacks comments in the past (rather lashing ones I might add) should not have been directed at the Linux gamers, but at his developers for not "pushing the envelope" more with Q3A.
I know that I personally did not purchase Q3A for Linux until I could for cheap because I did not like the game as much as UT (which I did purchase full-price when it came out). UT had so many more options and so much more depth, it wasn't really a contest in my book.
Granted, the latest UT patches (436 is the most recent) have sucked the performance out of this game on my system... and it is now next to unplayable (what's up with that?!)... but that's a whole 'nother issue!