Slashdot Mirror
Ports vs. WineX, What's Best For Linux Gamers?
James Hills writes: "Recently there has been much discussion about what is better for the future of Linux, to continue the process of native ports or embrace WineX so you can run all the Windows games you want on your favorite OS. Unfortunately, this debate also has tremendous repercussions for the future of companies such as Loki, Tribsoft and Hyperion. Read more for how the heads of Transgaming, TuxGames, Loki, Tribsoft, and Hyperion see the issue."
If the game is being sold, then it was made for money. Any game that has such a huge wow factor would definately be exploited for money if it wasn't intended to be at first.
Basically, what you're asking for wont ever happen over a single app.
Personally, I will continue to support Loki and any other quality Linux game publishers by buying one of every damn game they make (that's worth owning).
I feel exactly the same way. That's why I've never bought any Linux games at all.
If you can get DirectX ported well to Linux (and Mac OS X), then there is a decent percentage of the gaming public that becomes dependant on an available version of DirectX. When MS releases a new version of DirectX (or a secret hidden version, whatever), most companies will be compatible with older ones rather than losing a chunk of sales.
That would be an ideal solution if it weren't for the fact that gamers are now used to needing to upgrade to the latest version of DirectX every time they buy a new game. Game companies have no problem requiring this upgrade because they know that much of the gaming market is driven by whomever can release the first game with some bleeding-edge feature. Besides, if the project meetings for games in the design/coding stage are anything like the project meetings that I have at my work, these games probably suffer from near-terminal feature-creep. I would be surprised if any manager would accept old technology.
Add on top of that the rate at which Microsoft releases new versions of DirectX (which they've actually slowed down recently!) and you have about one year to produce a fully functional DirectX API for *nix.
something clever
Hey, been away a while and glad to be back.
I have to agree with the original poster on this thread and the one I'm replying to also.
You have to get into the mind of the consumer and the supplier of software.
The consumer wants great stuff for low prices with little difficulty. If he can buy one copy of software and run it on any computer that is a good thing, if it's stable then he/she can spend more time having fun and less time rebooting, if it's easy to install and trivial to configure more the better.
The supplier wants customers to buy goods that can be produced for the least expense. Writing games for many operating systems is expensive. Support becomes an issue.
Now let us examine the average LINUX user. Competant with computers, not liking flacky and unstable software, adventurous. Most are do-it-yourselfers. And, while we all want the great games, we must make it worth the effort of the game developers to provide product.
Critical mass will be reached when it becomes attractive to consumers and suppliers alike. Consumers spend money; suppliers want that money. Consumers will not buy something if they can't get it, find it, afford it, or percieve that it is worth something; suppliers wont provide something unless the percieve that it will be bought. We must work on the suppliers by providing attractive incentives for them to provide products; when the products are there, the consumers will begin to buy.
This brings me to my point. We must make it EASY for suppliers of software to supply it and show that the market is there. We are a growing market of savvy folks aren't we?
Wine is just an attempt at embracing Microsoft's world... ever here of "If you can't beat em... embrace and extend em?" Hehe
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Why am I suggesting taking away freedom?
I'm saying if you want to sell Linux as being better, then you need developers who write software for Linux which is really cool and different then what you can get elsewhere.
That's no coercion, that's incentive.
What's best for the platform is original games that are cool and don't exist elsewhere. Only this will attract new users.
Ports are next best because they make the platform look respectible. But usually ports suck compared to the original game.
Emulation will absolutely kill the platform.
Any time someone decides that to succeed they need to emulate another platform, they admit defeat.
As I understand it, the recently released Tribes 2 was released pretty much simultaneously for Linux and Windows. But in general, this doesn't happen, and in the highest profile case, Q3A, it really hurt sales of the Linux version.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
It's not us that is the problem; well, not per se. Say there's a spiffy new game that you wantt o play that is due to release on June 10th for Windows. Loki has the rights, and has been working in semi-parallel, but won't have the Linux version out until August 20th due to new uses fo the T&L engine that need ported, for example. Are you going to wait 7 weeks to but the Linux native version while all of your friends (beat the first 30 boards|progress through 50 levels|beat the game completely), or are you going to fire up your Winelib-enabled version and play it emulated?
Loki, Tribsoft, and Hyperion will never be able to release at the same time as the Windows version. Well, maybe not never, but not until there is a history of games selling for Linux and the publishers support a multi-platform development staff. If people buy the Windows version to play on Linux, then there's no reason to buy the Linux version, and no push to let Loki/Tribsoft/Hyperion do ports in the first place.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
Then you don't know enough Mac gamers - they hate that they don't get all the cool games. Buying the Windows versions is the only way they get to play many games, and the reason is, there's not enough people buying Mac versions to justify a Mac version
Which is exactly what will happen to the Linux versions if people can play the Windows version on both their Linux compter and their friend's Windows computer.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
I would to but I don't feel like holding out for 3 years...Especially for an online game. The servers have come and gone by the time the game hit the Light of the Linux Day.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Not to flame anyone or anything but I agree with the AC here...I run Solaris and RH all day at work but find very little reason to go to them at home...no EQ, no UT, no Tribes, and even Heretic2 runs better under windows :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The ONLY reason I keep a M$ OS around is to play games. I have a RH LINUX system but use it less and less as time goes by. Rebooting is time consuming and not aesthetically(sp?) appealing.
If I could play my games under RH or another distro I'd do away with M$ anytime. I think folks under-estimate the number of people who have KICK-ASS rigs just to play games. Try going to a LAN party, they are getting huge. I can see the point about developing for an emulator hurting native apps though, but LINUX needs greater home acceptence more than anything.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
1) Companies whose bottom line is positively affected by wine are pro-wine
2) Companies whose bottom line is negatively affected by wine are not pro-wine
3) Slow day at /.
The only nugget I saw was from the dude at tribesoft:
In our experience of porting games to Linux, we found that much of the time is spent on having C++ or assembly to compile with the gnu tools. Implementing X API calls instead doesn't represent a lot of time in a port for us.
The assembly doesn't suprise me (intel vs at&t syntax.. tho you'd think the company would have written a translator by now) but I didn't know that vc++ and g++ had diverged so wildly in their interpretation of a supposedly-standard language. I'm genuinely curious as to how they differ (no experience with vc++) .. Anyone have any guesses/examples?
If I hear that Loki is going to port a game to Linux I'd rather hold out and buy it from them. Why would I want a hack? I would hope that game companies would choose to write their games in a semi-portable fashion so it makes it easier to sell more copies to Mac OSX and Linux users. They would probably have to worry less about copyright infringement on Linux. It seems to me that many Linux people I talk to are very much against piracy (it usually helps the Linux/GPL/BSD position).
That's exactly it. If TransGaming can attract 20,000 monthly subscribers, it'll be a big sign to game publishers. "There are enough people out there who want to play your game on their own platform that they've paid extra money to make it possible."
I can't see how this is bad for Linux gaming in general. Maybe Loki and Tribsoft have publishers beating down their doors, saying "Please port my game so we can sell a few thousand more copies in three months!" That's probably not happening.
TransGaming's subscriber base could really legitimise Linux gaming in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised if that helps the porters in the long term.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
I doubt that the owners of the Harry Potter license would agree to anybody doing a Linux-only game... There's just no evidence of anybody being able make any money from it.
a) Low user base - they don't see any evidence that they can make money from selling Linux games.
... there's several versions of Windows, but to the programmer they're much more similar than Linux. Installing 3d video drivers is much easier, and the amount of hardware that is supported under Windows is much greater. 3D support under Linux is still in its infancy and not well supported by video card manufacturers.
b) Tech support - A biggy
c) Lack of decent development APIs. DirectX has become very good now (especially DX8) and it's pretty well documented. The only API that is well documented and mature for games on Linux is OpenGL - OpenAL, SDL etc. are a step in the right direction but are only about as mature as DirectX 1.0 or 2.0, and the documentation isn't up to scratch.
Basically it boils down to this. Microsoft has spent a very large amount of resources getting Windows to be good at gaming. Although there is work being done on Linux in the same direction, it is more fragmented and less well orgranised. A bunch of developers 'scratching an itch' rather than producing a commercial product. Until you can be reasonably sure that you can use one set of APIs to do all the sound, graphics and input on Linux, and that it will work on the majority of computers with a recent version of Linux on them, the developers won't come.
cheers,
Tim
SDL is LGPL'ed.
That's all very well and good when you're doing an Open Source project, but there's all kinds of nasty stuff in there if you're a commercial developer.
Like you can't statically link with the library.
You have to give 'prominent notice' that the software includes the library and include the LGPL with it. This is particularly galling as the LGPL includes a load of crap at the beginning about how evil closed source and proprietary software is and how it should all be free. Obviously if I'm writing commercial software I don't agree with that. I don't want to disseminate propaganda for an opinion that I'm fundamentally opposed to.
You don't have to do any of that crap with the Microsoft libraries. You can just use them.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's admirable that people are doing these open source libraries, but If they really want people to use them, they'd better think about using a slightly less restrictive license, and really, it doesn't have to be much less restrictive.
But, if it was bug-free, it wouldn't be compatible with windows anymore, would it? :-)
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yes, in it's own sort of way, it is "cool". We all know that emulation has it's "problems" (which, in this case, aren't really problems IMHO -- they're insulation between the host and guest OS's. I mean, if you're running Win98 inside of VMware, you don't want W98 to crash and take down Linux with it, do you?)
VMware has limited support for DirectX. Meaning that your games, if they run, won't run well. (See here and here.)
It also won't handle OpenGL, SDL, etc. because all of those require direct access to the video card (unless you're running them in software. But anyone who has tried playing a game that uses OpenGL with software rendering knows that it's not worth it).
Sure, VMware is worth it. But if you simply want it for gaming (and you *have* to do it under Win32...), save the $100 you'd spend on it and go get yourself another machine.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
The 3D games on linux (Tribes 2, quake3) won't run on that card. They also, however, wouldn't run on that card under windows or any other OS. The new 3d games require monster video cards to run. Other games (Railroad Tycoon 2, Myth 2, Simcity 3000) should all run fine tho on any card.
Just a note, myth2 does not require 3d acceleration. You can use it if you have it, but it has a software renderer (think quake1/quake2).
Emphasis mine. I thought that Transgaming was adding DirectX APIs to Wine. This makes it sound like Wine itself is their doing. Not to discredit Transgaming, of course (although I do wish they would open it up sooner rather than later). But rather to mentioned where credit is due.
Linux has more than enough users to create a critical mass of demand for applications, including games.
:-)
When I first started using Linux a few years ago, the number of installations was estimated at around 5-10 million and doubling every year. If we take that number at face value, then the Linux installed base may be comparable in size to MacOS (20 to 30 million).
Conventional wisdom holds that most Linux boxen are servers, and that most Linux desktops dual-boot some other OS. If one generously assumes that all dual-boot desktop installations would run Linux whenever the situation allows it, there could still be easily 5 million or so users (especially when counting multi-user workstations).
The percentage is probably higher among gamers (WAG).
5 million users is more than enough to keep a small number of full-time software houses in business indefinitely. It's way more than there were when PCs were getting started in the late 1970s and early 80s.
If you can sell one program for $10 to 1% of those users each year, that's $500,000. That's enough to keep 5-10 people employed.
That's why people still write software for the Mac.
On top of that, because Linux is Free and free, it has tremendous potential for growth, especially in emerging markets. The biggest factors holding it back now are the somewhat lacking quality of user experience, and the economic network effect.
So there's no question that there are enough potential customers to keep a few Linux game companies in business. The question is, will Linux users pay for software? That's a mighty big question. It'll be interesting to see what the answer turns out to be.
"since it emulates windows"
Wine Is Not an Emulator
Wine Is Not Elm
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
MS can afford to hire lots of people whose sole job in life is to come up with ways to break WINE, so that counting on WINE is agreeing to be perpetually in catch-up, "me too" mode. (You need only look at the history of runnning Windows software under OS/2 to see this.)
The difference between now and when OS/2 was competing with Windows3.x is that MS' installed base won't upgrade as quickly as they once did. This additional lag time between when a MS OS with "enhancements" is released and when software developers can count on the functionality being available is increasing.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
.NET could also end up like MSN -- an expensive investment in a also-ran package. I expect many corporate sites to firewall .NET. I expect that it will only penetrate slowly into the home market because people don't buy OS upgrades like they once did. .NET will probably be an also ran for years to come.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The two have nothing to do with one another, but I can tell you that replacing a machine which had been running Windows for over two years certainly tested my new non-need for nicotine.
Tribes2 came from tuxgames, and I no longer work at Eudora. I don't really need Windows anymore. So I wiped my big, fast SCSI drive and threw Linux on it. No more using the tinier and slower drive in dual boot when I want Linux. I'm going to have an actual uptime on my main, daily-use machine. And now the only Win32 machines in the house are my wife's.
I've been using Linux since 1994 (Slack, even) and I'm pretty familiar with it. I have a couple machines at home that run Linux (including a gateway built from the Linux Router Project's stuff that has no hard disk). I'm confident when working with Linux, and I use it at work. I don't really like Windows all that much and I've been wanting to dump it for years. Yet it was a hard decision to leave Windows completely.
What games will I be giving up? Will there be some new killer app I cannot run? Can I live with Samba for all my non-Linux connectivity? Will all my USB stuff work? Will the latest CVS snapshot Voodoo5 drivers be better than the six month old Win32 ones? Will they work at all? How will I update my BIOS now that they pack them in Win32 self-extracting EXEs? How's WINE doing these days? Can I get drivers for my old Canon laser printer?
I think things are fine. I've got stunnel doing cool things, and ssh port forwards for my mail. Opera runs like a champ, and I can get pix out of my digital camera. I'm thinking of installing GNUCash. I feel comfortable for the first time in years. It's like being home again. I wrote a shell script that did absolutely nothing, just because I could.
But if the decision to completely switch was hard for me, it must be really, really hard for the casual user. I can't imagine what a new Linux user would do. ("I have to link a GLU DRI to what .so thingy where? Huh?") I think it would be nearly impossible for the average/new Linux users to make the switch.
So we need WINE. We also need native ports. It's a very tough question. I can tell you that the people like me won't support Lokigames -- there aren't enough of us. But if we rely on WINE to run all our non-ported apps, MS (or someone) will work on breaking the implementation, just like what happened to AIM and Samba. I'll deal with either WINE or a native port (ports preferred), but if the goal is new Linux users then games aren't where the answer is. Ask anyone with Mac OSX to burn a disc and see what they think of Unix. The interface to the OS needs significant ease-of-use changes.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Companies like Transgaming must exist so that a large installed user base can exist for companies such as Loki to be able to flourish. The problem lies that not every gaming company will want to spend the money on porting every game to Linux, however if say Sierra, ID, or EA can bundle a piece of software with a Windows game and say that it "works in emulation in Linux" this creates an installed gaming user base in Linux. This also forces companies such as Mandrake, RedHat, and SuSE to listen to what the end users really want and bring them an experience. For those who don't think that there is much potential in this sort of market I would have you check the average computer user (E.g. Mom & Dad) and compare this to the average gamer. Who spends more on computing equipment and software? Other companies will follow where the revenue goes, if it's Microsoft or Linux won't matter as long as they can continue to make the investors happy. WineX is not a long term solution. However I think that it is a needed booster solution for the Linux community. Generally speaking those who are running Linux at the moment will continue running it until it goes away. However those that are gaming and running Windows have no reason to leave that environment.
Any other ideas?
Linux gaming has always been a niche market, not in the last place due to the cumbersome way 3d, sound and other gaming hardware is handled under linux. A few small companies have managed to draw some revenue from porting games to it. However, if games can be run using wine (and contrary to what people have been stating, wine is not an emulator by definition), that would likely kill that market since only an idiot would spent time and money porting games that already run on linux (on top of wine) IMHO.
That's bad news for those few companies making a living out of porting games to linux but on the other hand why halt progress for a lousy businessplan? Linux might ultimately benefit by attracting new users if new game releases can be run on it. One of the reasons I'm still running windows is games.
Jilles
Why not just include the OS on the game CD? I'm not talking about installation of the OS on the actual machine, but I'm talking about booting linux from the CD, and run the games that way. So you're big-ass box acts just like a game console. Of course, when you booted it would have to figure out your hardware and adjust accordingly, but that shouldn't be that hard as long as you assume most people will have a 3dfx or Nvidia card, or Matrox.
That way, if the game needed special libs, or a certain custom kernel, it would boot the correct one everytime, and the libs would be there for it. No messing around downloading and compiling a bunch of stuff, which could potentially break other things. And the games could hopefully be playable without booting from the CD for those who already run linux.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I think short term WineX will help Linux by not making people's current game collections useless.
... I'm talking a hybrid CD that will work on my linux box as well as it does on my win box. When this starts to happen, we'll be better off. Emulation or intercepting of APIs or whatever can only hurt Linux. Remember what happened to OS/2, it ran win3.1 apps better than win3.1/95 ... so people had no incentive to write native apps ...
Long term, we need to support native apps. I'm not talking 'binaries will be available soon' or 'get the patch' or 'wait for loki' stuff
From what I've read, Neverwinter Nights will be crossplatform on one disc, I'll be buying it. Hopefully we can convince game companies that cross platform games CAN be successful.
:looks up:
Re: Native is MUCH Faster
You might want to change the subject. Or at the very least, read it. ;^)
The real point isn't semantic quibblings over a single dictionary definition of emulation that clearly hasn't been thought through (since it defines as emulators many things that would generally be agreed not to be emulators, including drivers, Linux and Bruce Willis). The real point is whether native code is necessarily faster than Wine, and because Wine does not emulate every aspect of the target system, this is not the case.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
API - Application Programming Interface, (as you all know) point being, you don't emulate an interface, you implement it.
;-)
Naturally this is all shemantics and quite useless. The point is, WINE doesn't have to be slower than running it natively on windows. (I'm not saying it has to be faster either.
Why do we have to "choose" one or the other? It doesn't make sense. We can easily have BOTH. Games written for Linux don't preclude Windows compatability, and Wine's existance doesn't stop any company from writing for a fast-growing user base.
Choice is a good thing in the computer industry, and the more ways my OS allows me to do What I Want To(tm) the better. This just seems like a flamebait article to me.
http://kered.org
Matters for Deluxe Mahjongg CVVII if there are robots on the tiles shooting back at you... har har
-S
So I say have all the games ported instead. I'll keep around a PC that can dual boot or just run native Win(x) for those games that don't port.
Go Native, expose yourself to culture! Run nakid through the performing arts theatre.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Port is usually too sweet for me. I prefer a nice dry red wine any time.
load "linux",8,1
So what is the problem with reimplementating Windows?
Maybe in a few years the standard Windows System will be based on wine. Just like today Linux is the most popular of all Posix implementations.
Luis
Technology doesn't always equal progress. Douglas Coupland
I know I will be flamed to death, but I think the Unix/Linux community has to take off a couple of blindfolds: I like Unix and I want it to stay competitive.
/var, Administrative Tools over /etc and Services Control panel over rc.d. And *anything* over linuxconf. Yes, the Windows *implementation* may leave a few things to be desired (fewer and fewer with every iteration of NT) but the design is sound. Unix may be powerful but it's far from logical.
/etc. But the new generations of coders (never mind users) deserve something better than /etc, something cleaner than /var. Microsoft's answer may not be perfect, but at least MS (and Apple, thank god for Apple...) are trying. The Linux crowd is grabbing its security blanket and claims superiority even on areas that our favorite OS is clearly losing ground.
With the exception of free programming tools, I think Windows has the edge on Unix on the rest as well:
* Scripting and text tools? windows scripting host exposes to any WSH-capable language (including Python and Perl) the entire system including components. Unix doesn't (technically OSX does and KDE is trying). Python, Perl, awk, sed, sort, head/tail, uniq, cut are all available on windows and work just as well there as they do on unix.
* Powerful and logical system management functions? It's true that Unix let's you customize a server to your heart's content, but I for one prefer Event Log over
Before the inevitable flames and downmods start, let me just say that I started using Unix before I touched DOS, never mind Windows. My hands type vi commands in Word to this day. I am at home in
I wonder if this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway. My understanding is this (using a windows emulator on Linux and a native port on Linux and bearing in mind I'm not a professional programmer):
Windows Emuation
Windows programming call -> Windows emulator (translates call to Linux specific language) -> Linux API -> Hardware
Native Implementation
Windows programming call -> Linux implementation of Windows API - Hardware
The native implementation is one step less than emulation, hence (if both are optimised) it will always be faster. Wine is a native implementation, VMWare is an emulator. There's the difference.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
emulate
v. tr. emulated, emulating, emulates.
To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with. See Synonyms at rival.
Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
The key phrase here is imitate the function. Native code is not imitating the function of another system, it is the same function implemented on a different platform. The system does not imitate or copy, it is on the same level. Think equivalent, not imitation.
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
I thought Port was a type of Wine, not an alternative to it.
--
It's a semi-inside joke that you seem to take seriously. Lighten up! :-) ... What's a stack?
------
I'm an assembly guru
Some _might_, most will be running Windows 98 though, which is still behind the times in Microsofts eyes. The point still holds that not everyone upgrades overnight, and some people will even downgrade if the replacement isnt as good. I know many gamers who tried 2000 or me and dropped back to 98 for better performance. Same thing when 98 first came out. Some people still do run 95 to play current games because not all of them need high powered machines running the latest wizbang os. The Sims ( a fairly current and popular game) even runs on NT 4.0. The most gamer unfriendly OS I can think of besides DOS.
You can get Myth II for Linux for $9.99 now from ebworld.
The cake is a pie
No, it's an alternative implementation of the win32 API.
if you think that's an emulator then so is windows.
---
The game releases, and as predicted it's a great success. Linux users are envious, but dislike having to dual boot their boxes. Emulation is not quite there for this new game, as it uses a bunch of Windows-centric, bleeding-edge DirectX calls, and was never ported to OpenGL. In addition, the game uses DirectSound, and other Direct(insert extension) calls. IOW, it's a purely Windows game.
Now the company begins to receive requests like, "Can't you make this OpenGL?" "Have you heard of OpenAL?" "I want to run this awesome game on Linux, and I refuse to buy Windows. I know a dozen friends who'd love to play, but they have the same requirements!"
Our software company is now in a dilemma. What to do? Let's call Loki and see if they can help us. Loki agrees, seeing the potential for an infusion in sales, and begins to port the game to OpenGL, OpenAL, and the SDL libraries. As they work on the code, they find a lot of logic problems, some really nasty bugs, and basic structural problems with the program. They fix these and send it back to the originating software company.
The company is floored. How could we have missed so much? It worked well on Windows, but when we use these standards-based API, it breaks! Let's incorporate these changes and see if we can't make a better Windows product as well.
And thus, the cycle of software improvement continues. The original software company learns some valuable lessons about standards-compliant programming, Loki (or other porters) make some money for the consulting and marketing, and the players, both Linux AND Windows win by getting better software.
No. I don't see porters being in any type of immediate danger. Marketing and business decisions aren't solely based on the Windows phenomenon, they're based on demand. People will continue to demand Linux ports for software because they KNOW that the WineX libs will always be playing catchup with Direct(insert extension). They KNOW that OpenGL, OpenAL, and SDL afford game developers the flexibility of cross-platform compatibility and standards-compliant design. They KNOW that a better product will be the result.
WineX is a good short-term solution, contrary to the author of the article we're replying to. It is not a long-term solution in the eyes of game designers or the consumers in general.
--
assert(expired(knowledge));
Personally, I would prefer ports, since Wine, though not an emulator, does keep the Win32 API 'alive', at least in a development sense. I think most here would agree that Microsoft already has enough trouble cleaning its slate and ridding itself of old messy APIs .. imagine what would happen if the Win32 API became the standard cross platform gaming API? More market clout, more reasons to keep legacy outdated APIs around, and new innovative gaming APIs may never come around; at least until Microsoft gives it to us, and then Wine catches up to it. Yuck. At least if its ports, that keeps the possibility of the dominant gaming platform shifting to some other platform than Windows. :)
"Old man yells at systemd"
The question of emulation or porting is the wrong one to ask. Game
developers shouldn't be developing for Windows at all. Instead, they
should be developing for Linux and then including a copy of Linux with
the game.
And no, I don't mean a full-blown copy of RedHat 7.1. I mean a kernel
and the libs, servers and drivers needed to run the game, installed on
either a live filesystem on the CD, a UMSDOS-based installation on the
Windows filesystem or a filesystem image on the hard disk mounted via
the loopback device. The typical Windows gamer simply runs the
Windows-based installer, which copies some files to his/her hard
disk and that's it. When he/she clicks on an icon to start the game,
it just starts up loadlin or some glossier equivalent, which boots
Linux, which starts up the game in its rc.local.
(Linux gamers would, of course, run the games natively.)
The only inconvenience this would have for the Windows user is that
they'd have to reboot the machine after quitting the game. Oh darn.
For the game developers, though, this has enormous benefits. No longer do
they have to test their games under all of the different flavours of
Windows. No longer do they have to worry about Microsoft deciding to
deprecate an API they depend on. With open-source software, you
control your infrastructure.
And, as an added bonus, game publishers will get access to another
(admittedly small) platform for free. Oh yes, and Linux is a much
better development environment than Windows too.
So why isn't anyone doing this?
I like to game, really. I'm too fucking lazy to install wine, and I refuse to have M$ anything on my home box.
Why does noone come up with linux games?
I don't see anyone screaming that games must be GPLed. Shit, release it executable only.
More linux games for linux users. Let the rest of the gaming world catch up for a change.
Are we going to need a sommelier for Slashdot?
Ports, Wine, Brandies, Whiskeys, ... oh.
Nevermind.
[
All I ever play is Rocket Arena to turn my brain off in the evening (though I might diversify to Tribes 2). My little celeron 300A with the hand-me-down GeForce 2 gets 80fps and looks ab-so-lut-ely sweet.
:wq
With the advent of extremely high quality video cards, sound cards, and control devices for PCs over the past decade, it would be reasonable to assume that customers might choose to purchase a PC (which can now be priced competitively wihth some game consoles - as amazing as that is, in and of itself)
The PS2 is ~$300. Let's pop that up to $500 considering the still-high demand. $500 will not buy a very high-end gaming rig. I just spec'ed (at mwave.com) a box which cost about $450 (w/o keyboard, mouse, monitor, modem, NIC, etc). The best I could do was a GeForce MX, a 750 Mhz Duron, 128 Mb RAM, SB Live Value, and a 15 Gb disk. That's a decent box (better than I have right now, actually), but not that great, IMHO.
Also, PCs have problems with multiplayer games - and I'm not talking about brining half a dozen PCs somewhere for a LAN party, I mean you have a few friends over and you can just say "Hey, how about a round of Smash Brothers?" and not worry about it.
I maintain that this is because the gaming customer seeks simplicity and ease of use that (as much as it pains me to say) linux doesn't yet provide at this point
Neither does Windows. I'm not trying to be flamebait here, but the simple fact is that a system - hardware, firmware, and software - designed exclusively for playing games, is going to be easier to use - for games, than a general purpose OS, end of story. Try to do anything else, and you're SOL, of course, but that's not the point here.
You will have my N64 (and my Gamecube, soon enough) when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.
We should focus on inter-operation, compatibility, and when reviewing the qualities of other systems, to do so in an open-minded fashion -- to learn from others' triumphs as well as mistakes.
"good" competition is important, but bickering about who's better isn't competition.
If you want to attract users to a particular platform, let it be on merit alone, not through cohersion.
1) Running a native/ported app is faster/more stable/better than one that is emulated
2) If no native app is available, running one over an emulator is preferable to not having one at all
3) Killer games and compatable software is what will eventually (if ever) allow Linux to take over the desktop market, and
4) Linux will need the help of both companies like Loki and projects like WINE in order to gain dominance over Microsoft, not just one or the other.
If Linux will ever take over the desktop market, both of these players will have a key role.
--- Rectum?! Damn near killed em'! - Confucius
The issue really is, why at this point are game programmers not using a standard framework that can cross compile to either platform?
Through De Facto use the framework is Win32/DirectX. Since that's what we've got to work with, we should provide a mechimism to utilize it. So the question is, does porting or emulation get us closer to a universal API? The answer is, neither, though emulation takes a step in the right direction.
It's 2001. If not for the effort of companies like M$ forcing incompatibilty, this would be a non issue by now. Of course it's 2001 and I still can not even buy a quality web browser...
Why do we have to settle with one alternative rather than the other. Companies like Loki have invested a great deal of time porting games to linux and are confortable with that poroces. On the other hand a new comer can have products very easily on the market while the take head on on flattening the learning curve on a new OS. This is realy a matter of what works for your company and not something to make a war about. Besides the more games out there for linux the better.
"In God we trust, all others must bring data" - W. Edwards Deming
So, you might say "let's encourage native ports." I really want to do this. But let's take a look at the game market.
- Game comes out for Windows for $39.95
- Loki gets rights to port game.
- After several months, game available for $29.95, Loki still working on port. That's OK, I'm very patient, I'll even wait a year. Most gamers won't, but that's not the point - I will.
- Loki releases Linux port of game (for $39.95), which now can be bought in bargain bins for Windows for $19.95.
- I have to decide: buy Myth II Soulblighter from Loki for Linux for $34.95 + S/H, or from local store for $19.95 - or even Myth: The Total Codex (includes Myth, Myth II, and more) for $19.95 + S/H direct from Bungie.
Now, I want to support Loki, I really do. And the truth is, I haven't purchased it from either. I love games, but don't have a lot of time to play. I will make this my next purchase, though. The last game I bought for PC was Total Annihilation - after it was voted game of the year. I got TA and the expansion for half the cost of the new game. I will support commercial software, but I am cheap. So I know I want Myth (and Myth II), but what makes more sense?I mean, I can't get rid of windows, because there's no childrens software (my two year old has lots of good games). So, while I could say it'll be cheaper to dump windows and support only native apps, I can't do that right now - and it seems most people are in the same boat.
I'm a decent programmer. I suppose I could write some childrens games. But if I want to be a good parent, do I write the games, or spend more time with my child (soon to be childREN)?
So, yeah, give us native apps - but we're not going to get the kind of selection Windows has for quite some time. What to do, what to do...
Sorry, seems I'm jumping back and forth, but the truth is, as many have pointed out, it only makes sense to have both ports and emulators. However, allowing emulation only encourages developers not to port. It's a difficult situation. I'd prefer native, and not emulation. I'd like a time when I could get what I wanted for Linux. I'd prefer there be no emulation in exchange for, say in four or five years, to have a good native selection for Linux.
But...there has to be parity. I'm not going to buy Myth II from Loki when I get a complete package with Myth II and several other things for half the price from Bungie.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Wine is an emulator. It just provides winelib, which is an API wrapper. To use winelib rather than wine, you have to recompile, which is something some companies still won't do.
And winelib still isn't as fast as "really" native code - since it's an API wrapper, a lot of structures etc. winelib has to handle are all but optimal for typical Linux usage.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
so you can run all the Windows games you want on your favorite OS
But I already do! 8-)
(sorry, couldn't help it)
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Okay, we all know that WINELIB lets Win32 become a native Linux API. Okay, Win32 is ugly and disgusting. However, if game programmers want to code for Win32 and they can compile on both systems, more power to you. I don't have a problem with Using Winelib IF the authors would release a Win32 AND Linux binary on the same CD. I'd rather not have emulation mode used (although for older, less resource-intensive games, its fine... old games are still fun).
However, the belief that MS can change the APIs isn't QUITE true. Keep in mind, many installations are still running Win95, a 6 year old OS, and will be doing so for a number of years. Until companies eliminate the last vestiges of their DOS past, Win95 isn't dying.
While MS can release new APIs, why would a company limit their market. By using the older APIs (and if necessary, DirectX), then they can support a wider market within the Wintel world. If Linux can support DirectX, then you can release a Linux binary on the CD.
Are their better APIs than DirectX? For somethings, sure. Why not encourage OpenGL instead of Direct3D, which makes porting to the Macintosh easier.
However, DirectX has created a world where we have more games than we did in the DOS world, and it's apparently not as bad as DirectX 2.0 or 3.0 that Carmack hated. Let's me real, if people LIKE the DirectX calls (or tools to develop them) why can't we implement DirectX on every OS? I mean, how you implement the calls is entirely up to you. DirectX abstracts you from the hardware and Win32 on the PC, why not use DirectX on other platforms.
If you can get DirectX ported well to Linux (and Mac OS X), then there is a decent percentage of the gaming public that becomes dependant on an available version of DirectX. When MS releases a new version of DirectX (or a secret hidden version, whatever), most companies will be compatible with older ones rather than losing a chunk of sales.
Contrary to popular belief, MS is not a supernatural company. They are a monopolist that abuses their power, but they are as mortal as the rest of us. Remember, for the first few YEARS of Win32 (NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, beginning on Win95) they had Win32s out, which was a subset that ran on Win3.1. Well guess what, MOST Win32 programs in that era were Win32s programs, that took advantage of the new capability, but were predominately run on Win3.1. The entire reason for Windows 4.0 AKA Chicago AKA Win95 was to try to 1) kill DR-DOs and 2) establish Win32 to replace the Windows API (now known as Win16). It was a LONG transistion to kill off the Win3.1 machines and migrate people to NT, so Win32s remained the limitations of the API for a while. Remember Windows 4.1, 4.2 (98, ME) were marketing decisions because they couldn't get Cairo (NT4, wait NT5, wait Win2K, wait, it's a set of technologies) out the door.
Embrace and Extend MS's APIs. Offer your own extensions. If developers can release a DirectX game on multiple platforms, they will either stick to the GCD of them (if MS has DirectX 10, but 10% of the marketshare is at DirectX 9 b/c of Linux/MacOS X), then companies will release for DirectX 9.
By requiring your own APIs, you require a large effort to reach a SMALL market. Remember, a GOOD chunk of the "Linux" crowd are Free Software advocates that won't use non-Free Software, and ANOTHER large portion are the spend-no-money crowd. That doesn't make Linux a terrific platform to try to make money from.
There already is a popular API with a published spec for writing games. Embrace and Extend. Or at a minimum, Embrace.
You seem much more bent on denial than anyone else here, unwilling to accept terms and definitions of a concept that you clearly do not understand.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Exactly my point, thank you. for you all you others out there, I know what "w.i.n.e." stands for and, quite frankly, they're wrong. they reimplement functionality provided by DLLs with their own libs and can even use Windows DLLs if you want.
Not only should we support and embrace companies like Loki for doing such a great job and helping to make SDL a great gaming layer (hopefully more game programmers will then use it instead of DirectX for cross-platform games from the get-go), but we should embrace native linux games.
We all know that Wine is a bit of a resource hog, since it emulates windows on top of another OS, and Windows is a resource hog on its own, so now you've got two hogs and that can only lead to trouble (anyone seen Hannibal?). Running natively makes the games much faster and gives linux the boost that it needs for people and organizations (like PC Mag that claims there's not enough apps for linux when the reverse is actually true).
We all want linux to succeed, so lets support native linux games (and other programs, as well, like StarOffice and KOffice, etc) and the companies that work hard to get good software for linux that attracts attention!
The gaming industry on Linux is still young - we have now, mainly thanks to Loki with kudos to Hyperion and Tribsoft, a fair group of 3D FPS games along with a handful of strategy and sim type games. These are all native ports.
We also have games which currently run well under Wine - Halflife is the obvious choice here, along with Starcraft and several others.
Transgamings Direct3D port promises to allow us to run more Windows games under Linux, and for the ardent gamer who does not wish to switch-boot to Windows or even maybe just have a Windows machine, this port is of the utmost importance.
But looking into the long term view, the most important thing for Linux gaming is the Linux is viewed as a viable gaming platform by the game manufacturers. They have to see dollars in order to think about a port. What most game producers watch are the sales figures. Here we are cursed by the difficulties of separating the figures apart - the highest profile port up until very recently was Quake 3 Arena. Because Linux gamers could buy the Windows release and use the data files with Linux binaries, it is impossible to tell how many people are actually running Quake 3 Arena on Linux from the sales figures. And yet the sales of pure Linux Q3A boxes will be affecting the decision of game producers now considering Linux releases.
Loki has, for the most part, made sure that you can't use one of it's Linux release with the Windows data files to ensure that a small market is not further eroded. It's not a popular decision but I feel that it was a necessary one.
Loki should also come in for some serious praise for their commitment to the quality of the ports it does, both at initial release and in continuing to bug fix and improve the original release (for example, adding an OpenGL renderer to Myth II at least 12 months after the original went on sale). And I hope it is quality that will get gamers to use the Linux releases - in the marketplace, people want the best possible game. If the Linux release is smoother, faster, easier to set up a game server, then people will switch.
While I think that the WineX stuff will help increase the number of games on Linux, I don't view it as making Linux a more important gaming platform in the eyes of the game producers. It may make Direct X ports easier but in an ideal world, we'd all be using crossplatform toolkits from day one.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Games should be written close to the metal. A mini-linux for games makes sense, anything more is bloat.
This is not a signature.
No matter how fast the emulators get at emulating, native ports will win in a speed contest. This doesn't matter for Deluxe Mahjongg CVVII, but it does for q3, tribes, etc.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Because the Mac users go buy the native port. I know well that the sales of Mac games are much much much bigger that Linux games! They can't reboot to Windows 95/95/ME to play games and their emulator isn't perfect for games. Linux port of Baldurs Gate, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, The Sims, Monkey Island and Sacrifice would all exist if the sales of Linux games would be higher.
Also, one big difference is that Mac already exist as a viable desktop platform for some time now. People are more aware of Apple and Mac as a home computer. Linux have started to get more publicity about a year ago while Apple has been known for home computer since late '70 or early '80 if my memory is good.
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
Oops... near the 'and and' part it should say , , and .
Why does it interpret those as html, when I posted as plain text? Damn it! I didn't preview very well...
Why bother porting or emulating when you can write for both platforms natively at the same time? This is what the SDL library is for. It allows you to write a program once and be able to compile it natively for each platform (Linux/Windows/Mac/etc). If developers started writing games to be cross platform they could release the game on all platforms simultaniously. Here is a research project on designing cross platform software: http://www.wpi.edu/~mongoose/mqp/latex_doc/mqp.pdf
Designing and writing a cross platform application is not difficult. Actually the main problem that the research found was the companies didn't want to write applications for Linux because they didn't want to have to support Linux. Linux was too hard for companies to support do to all the various distros, writing the code though was the easy part.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Serious, Ill pay (and do pay) good money for native games. As other people have pointed out, native == faster and fps (and the like) need to be fast.
I love being able to play (re: kick their asses) Tribes 2 with my windows "friends". Hope loki can keep going.
-jason m
BTW: Shamless plug for tux games. They where good about getting me Tribes 2 and SMAC and keeping me updated though the delays.
If a developer does a full port, then the game can also be ported to other *NIX OSes with a decent installed base (i.e. Mac OS X) and even other CPU architectures that don't support x86 instructions. That's why you can play MAME on anything, including that wacky digital camera. I say port 'em, folks.
The reason why I would go with a game console over a computer for playing games is that console games are much easier to learn and enjoy. Sure, I still play games on the comp, but they are ones that aren't out for any console. I don't need any added complexity when I want to relax when playing a game.
In my mind any effort to get games to Linux is good. What I would like to see is a Linux distro that has its focus on supporting games. Gnome, KDE, Gimp, etc., can still be included while making a Linux game distro. I am willing to bet that you could even charge for the distro (something like $20). Look at how much the new games out cost. This could give gamers a cheap, robust OS on which to play games.
I didn't learn Macintosh and Linux by reading books. I learned them by playing games.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
Should we stop making a Direct X compatability layer because it will hurt Loki, Tribesoft, et all.. because we like those guys? Also, if we cut the legs out from under port houses we prove to comercial vendors it's unwise to sell to the Linux market.
Get real.
The true question being asked it this: "Should we abandon the pursuit of a new technology that would benefit all Linux (and ulimately *nix) users for the benefit of a few software houses?"
I can't believe I'm even seeing this issue debated by Linux users. I left Windows behind so I wouldn't be at the mercy of MS. Some of you are suggesting I should place those binders back on. After all, we like Loki.
Yeah, I like Loki too. And I buy Linux games. But I will always support the option that empowers ME, the end user. It's why I use DeCSS to enjoy my DVDs in Linux. If I see a useful app that is native to another OS but there's an emulator - hell yeah, I'll use it, as long as it's not dog ass slow. I have loads of cool old games I want to play under Linux. I doubt if anyone is working to port X-wing vs. Tie Fighter to Linux. If Wine eventually can play my favorites, F*#$in' A!
"But, it's bad for Linux because nobody will make Linux native stuff anymore... we'll all become lazy couch potatos and stop developing!" (The people suggesting this already are lazy couch potatoes. I can't save them.)
Let me suggest an alternative:
I don't bid any ill will to those who are threatened by the growth of Windows compatabilty. But this is a business challenge for them. It shouldn't be a burden that we place on ourselves.
Unlike with traditional applications where the GUI must really fit into a desktop environment, games do not have this problem. In fact, in games you should get the feeling that you're working with a console. If a good game interface is made it shouldn't be noticable on what platform you run the game.
This brings us to the game developers, they have a real choice: they can port the game to OpenGL or they can make it compatible with WINE, why should we decide for them? If a game company decides to use Wine then why not? If it runs fast on Linux then why complain about the underlying toolkit? Free software is supposed to be about openess and choice, not about locking vendors in to your platform, leave that to MS, Sony and Nintendo.
If we support more toolkits than Windows then perhaps most games will be written for Windows but every now and then there's going to be a game that's written for Linux specifically (if only something like Tux Racer, taqfh, etc.), this can be enough to make people consider Linux!
Monkey sense
If I am reading the article right they are saying that porting companies may not survive until the linux gaming market becomes mature enought to support them. I really don't think that emulation efforts such as wine are hurting them much since I personally would take a well written port over emulating a game any day. I think the real key for the porting companies is to release the games in a decent time frame. Most people are not going to wait a year for the game they want to play, they will just buy it for windows instead, and then not have any use for the linux version when it does finally come out
Just to supplement all the comments from people who say they dual boot -- I have a monitor/kb/mouse switchbox that is connected to my Windows box (used for gaming and graphics apps) and my Solaris x86 box (firewall, nat, mail, code, etc). It's really nice because I don't have to reboot to use apps in the different OSes and I can fileshare between boxes with samba if both OSes need access to the same files. Also, you can switch between OSes with your keyboard with a lot of switchboxes. This makes it friendly to do little tasks like switching out to write an email on the Solaris box without causing Tribes 2 to barf on Windows. It is also not much more expensive than a single dual boot machine because the *NIX box can just be cobbled together out of old parts.
It would be nice if the licensees, such as 3D Realms, went that extra mile, too. We're not doing too bad, though. Four Quake 2s: SoF, Heretic II, Kingpin, Sin; one Quake 3: Heavy Metal: F.A.K.K. 2; one Unreal: Deus Ex; one Lithtech: Shogo. However, no Half-Life, no NOLF, no Voyager or DS9.
All that work porting Unreal to Linux so that Loki can port Deus Ex almost a year after the Windows release? Hopefully, Epic, id, and Monolith will force each other to be cross platform (including Linux), if only as a checklist item.
You're feeding the hand that bites you. Why should we pay full price just for the privilege of running on another platform?
id, EDO, Loki, et al. are not charities. They will not survive by marketing to "supporters." The "tightwads" are their bread and butter. They have to put quality, affordable titles on the shelf in a timely manner. I, for one, would love to see them put it all in one box.
id and Epic got it (mostly) right by letting you download Windows and Linux executables, regardless of which you bought. That, of course, explains why the $10 Quake 3 Linux tin is finally flying off the shelves. What id got wrong was expecting their sales numbers to mean anything. The Windows version came out first and, until recently, cost less. Who knows how many copies of the Windows version are running on Linux (and vice versa)?
Bullshit
Can I quote you on that? How does this sound: "A high-level source at Epic Games promised the Slashdot community that Unreal 2 and Duke Nukem Forever will be released for Linux"? Or, I can just go with "Bullshit."
The closest that I can think of is Worldforge. Everything starts small. Someday it will rock just like all of the other "impossable" programming projects.
~~ What's stopping you?
This is another rant. About Ximian. I don't run RedHat, Mandrake, or Suse, (probably Debian one day), I run Slackware. Plain and simple. MAKE IT FOR LINUX, NOT for RedHat. ./congifure && make && make install. If you really want binary packages ./configure --prefix=/tmp/pkg-bin/opt/gnome && make && make install && cd /tmp/pkg-bin && installpkg -m packagename and you have yourself a slack package. Isn't that special. If you want a real packaging system switch to ((Free||Net||Open)+BSD) or Debian.
Why do you want to run Ximian? You can install Gnome yourself, Grab the tarballs and do
Slack is a great distro, you can slap it on god damn near any piece of x86 hardware and apparently now even Sparc and Alpha. However, its not meant to be a commercial distro in the same was as RedHat. Its designed to work, and be pretty if you want it to be. The install is easy, but its not as pretty as Redhat. In my opinion its easier than RedHat, and without a doubt more customizable than the new graphical installer, although the textmode RedHat installer is decent.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
Consider FreeBSD. You have the ports collection so you can compile whatever you want from its 3K+ apps. Plus precompiled packages are available for it. Linux binary emulation is solid and Loki is designing there games to work on BSD with linux emulation. All slack packages are tarballs with a few text files added that the package tools use to update the package database in /var/ so all your salck packages will work if you lack the time to recompile.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
but also linux itself. The main reason I have a Windows machine at home is for gaming. However, while games running via WINE vs ported source code may not make a difference - however, for the good of the linux community and wider use of it, I think it would be better if games were actually ported.
What about getting developers to code for SDL as a way of supporting both Linux and Windows at the
same time?
As I understand it, SDL games can be ported to Windows without much trouble, and without using
any emulation.
I suspect many game developers whould support a portable gamming API where they could support the
windows market, and Linux without being beholden to MS APIs.
port starcraft, or make some kind of kick ass RTS (for linux)... That is all I care about...
Sadly though IMHO WineX might potentially kill a lot of the lesser "porters," of these games, like Hyperion or Tribsoft (no offense to either). But then again, from what I hear Loki is doing alright for themselves.
The problem boils down to, is when I'm in Best Buy or some other kind of store, they don't usually stock linux games, because they think they won't sell. It might help if people would waste a couple of minutes go buy their local software and ask, 'hey you got Tribes 2 for linux,' and after the clerk says we have Tribes 2, repeat 'no I mean for linux.' Little things like that will help. Revolutions don't start overnight, but I wish they did.
Then again, just allow me to play Starcraft without booting to winblows and I'll shut up...
Rehab is for quitters...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
> Anyone know if it is even possible to write a language which can do this???
Actually, such a beast already exists. For example ANSI/ISO standard C compiles nicely on Windows, Linux, BeOS, MacOS and whatever, and the only real problem is finding a graphics and sound API that works on all the operating systems you want to use. SDL together with OpenGL provides practically all of the features needed for modern games (it doesn't appear to support 3D sound and suchlike).
If you write a game using standard C (or C++ for that matter) using only the SDL and OpenGL APIs, it should recompile without changes on tons of operating systems, including Win9x, NT, BeOS and most Unix-like systems.
As most games are written in C or C++, making the transition should be hard, especially if the programmer is familiar with OpenGL.
if you are using vim, and there is gvim built
in, do you thing gvim is a threat to vim?
thats stupid. Both will prevail, because there
such a mass of games out there that will never
be ported to linux, such as Alice by EA, that I
would singlehandedly call my favorite, just runs
on Wine with transgaming patch. Wine is no threat
to Loki, simply because traslation process eats some three fold computing time, and adds a lag to
a game as well. Wine is nice thing to get some
of your games to be played @ 640x480 with effects
turned down, unless you have GeForce 2 Ultra with,
1.4 ghz Athlon/P4, and even then, it adds some
sort of uncertainty to play. Emulation, will
always be a second choice to native code.
Have you played quake @ nightmare with 5
characters in same room firing rocket lauchers all
over the place? Things get pretty darn slow and
laggy. Quake under wine is not acceptable, to
sporting players. I would assume GLenabled walkthrus, and other items would be fine under
wine...
Wine might be a threat, if someone decides to take
and do lots of promotion about it, like marketing
that would ram this down our throats...
> the Linux community will need to adopt direct3D Bullshit. - Daniel Vogel, Programmer, Epic Games Inc.
Okay, this was meant to read:
> the Linux community will need to adopt direct3D
Bullshit
- Daniel Vogel, Programmer, Epic Games Inc.
It's not D3D support that will bring games to Linux - it are people buying Linux games that will bring games to Linux. It's a catch 22 and having D3D support for Linux wouldn't change that.
I'm not saying that D3D is bad (it actually got quite usable with the current version) but rather that it doesn't belong to Linux. Porting from D3D to OpenGL is straightforward and usually one of the minor problems when porting so there is no need for D3D on Linux.
Also publishers don't care whether you had to use a different 3D API or whatever to port a game. A publisher rather cares about one thing: MONEY. No market, no ports. It's that simple.
- Daniel Vogel, Programmer, Epic Games Inc.
I'm not very sophisticated at direct(...) programming etc. but when i read all this i wonder if it is not possible to approach the problem from another direction.
I mean it is obvious that WinX is not the best sollution becourse there will always be new games which will not work. Also porting is a lot of work to do for every new game.
I wonder if it is possible to write something like a new programming language which can then compile the games easely for Wintendo and Linux. I think that the game producers will be happy if there is such a programming language, so there games will work on any OS. Sure thing they will have a lot of work at the beginning but for the future this should be nice to have.
Anyone know if it is even possible to write a language which can do this???
--
There is no such thing as gravity. The Earth just sucks.
I think it's a realistic attitude to have.
As a minority user base, YES we are precluded from some professional applications, because those companies are in business to make money. They're not in business to support the best OS, whichever one judges that to be. They make apps for Windows because that's where the money is. Linux, right now, is where the money is not. There's no compelling financial reason for Bungie to start writing Linux games.
If Linux is to ever become a gaming platform, it will have to do it the same way every other OS and console has - killer games available only on Linux. Until a crack development house churns out several top-tier titles and releases them either Linux-only or at least Linux-first, almost nobody is going to seriously think of Linux and gaming as two great tastes that taste great together.
The other issue is that while winex may be able to get the game going, there are still a number of minor barriers. Many games are (still, pointlessly) using various forms of copy protection that require the OS to jump through hoops to read bad sectors or other such nonsense from the CD-ROM.
I don't think a large amount of this functionality is supported under wine -- thud you'd have to convince the game company to either redo their copy protection or get rid of it altogether... both not very likely things.
There are obviously problems with both approaches; on one hand, wine can be extended and patched to allow various forms of copy protection and other such nasty hacks to work, and on the other, perhaps Linux will become such a large market that game companies will plan to support it from the start. Perhaps Linux on the Desktop will become a viable target for application developers -- something that can't happen until the various low-level packages stabilize. And we're a long way from that yet.
Yeah, but are you running PSX games ported to dreamcast or dreamcast games emulated on your PSX???
Agent out.
Running Windows based games on Linux is always going to be an uphill battle and frankly is always going to suck. Except for the geek elite nobody is going to have the game of the century of the week running on Linux and very few developers are going to write for it. Just pray for ports. I wouldn't dual boot windows if I didn't believe it. Before you flame, riddle me this...where do you do your gaming at?
Agent out.
Hello? You are overlooking a HUGE part of the WINE project - winelib. Porting a win32 app directly to linux would of course be the fastest and best way, but who is going to rewrite the thousands/millions of lines of code that directly communicates with the OS? A big portion of the WINE project is WINELIB, which eases the porting process. Wine will never fully run Windows applications because by the time it supports Windows 95, they will have created a new format (read: 64 bit). The only way is to take the best of both worlds, which is what winelib will help us out on.
Get winelib running well, and developers will look much closer at adding an operating system to their supported list much quicker. Hell, if it gets me a couple hundred sales and takes 3 days work to get working, you made a decent profit. Seems Linux fanatics will buy games ported for Linux if they are good or not. (I have a friend who picked up every Loki game just because it was cheap, and he rarely buys games.)
OK, I'll be the idiot who asks what's wrong with a dual boot. I used to switch from my NES to my SNES all the time. I got one of the first SNESes off the line -- a Windows license is much cheaper.
I can't blame Linux users alone, because I see the same thing in Windows 2000 forums. "Why doesn't *foo* work with Windows 2000?". Quit whining -- dual boot and get it over with.
If you need to run some Win32 productivity app in Linux alongside your other work, that's fine. If you're playing a game, I don't think you're multitasking. It's not a big loss, and the reboot is nothing compared to the amount of time you'll spend playing the game.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
Port's teh only wine I like. Especially Tawny Port. That's nice and mellow.
By the way
Speaking of our freinds at loki it apears that there is a tremendous sale going on over at the site run by the good folks at EB world. As seen here Type "linux" in the search box and viola
Support loki. $10.00 for Quake. Life is good.
I have a whole pile of Loki and Hyperion games for Linux and they do not suck. At worst, they are identical to the Windows version (Heretic II, Quake I/II/III, Heavy Gear II, Descent 3).
At best, they better than the Windows versions because they're much faster and they don't BSOD or crash on me and I can run them in a window if I choose to do so (Civ:CTP, Heroes III, RT2).
Have you tried any of the ports?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I'm seeing a lot of messages about how we may as well run Windows games under Wine because ports suck cucumber anyway. I've decided to post a message to the root thread of this discussion just to say:
Try the Loki and Hyperion ports! They're as nice, if not nicer, than the Windows versions. I own 13 of them, and for a number of these, I own the Windows version as well, so I can compare side-by-side.
Please don't assume that just because it's a port, and just because it's a small company, the Windows version will be better. Loki especially has done a nice job -- they're still releasing updated 3D support and patches for games more than a year or two old! How many Windows gaming companies will do this? None! I can't tell you how many Windows native games I have with that bug that just drives-you-nuts but the game is too old already to be supported any longer by its manufacturer. Meanwhile, Loki is still supporting its first Linux port.
I'd venture to say that overall, quality and support have been much better for the Linux ports, and they all run beautifully. I'd say for the 3D games that you'll want to be running XFree86 4.0 or better for the [basically first real] 3D support for Linux, but other than that, there's nothing special needed.
The ports are NICE and they're NATIVE. Try them! You'll like them!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I paid less for my GF2 card ($140) new than I did for my Voodoo3 card years ago ($199). GF2-MX cards are now under $100 and use the same drivers.
How much cheaper do you want a 3D accelerator to be?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
And thus, the Linux porting company (Loki, Hyperion, Tribsoft) goes belly-up because the windows version has outsold the Linux version, even among Linux users.
I personally don't believe that Linux will ever run a Windows game as well as it would have run the same Linux game, no matter how good emulation gets. People play games for the experience, not out of the kind of necessity that causes them to run Office under Wine. If you can have a better gaming experience in Windows [i.e. framerate, stability, speed...] then you probably find yourself rebooting and running it under Windows, even if it works under Linux emulation.
Not to mention that I also firmly believe that there will always be a few [dare I say many?] Windows games that don't run under Linux, period, including some major titles. Why? Because Windows is Windows and Linux is Linux and the former is closed, complex and obscure and the latter depends on smaller teams of programmers with fewer corporate resources and fewer lawyers.
I personally have both versions (Windows and Linux) of all of the following games:
In each case, I bought the Linux version after the Windows version (after because the Linux versions came later). Why buy two copies of the same game? It's called putting your money where your mouth is. I want games under Linux. The best way to ensure that this will happen is to help existing Linux games to turn a tidy profit for the people working on them.
Hey, you chose Linux knowing that it didn't run Windows software well. Why hang around waiting for it to run Windows software now that your comfortable enough with Linux to be playing games? Support Linux gaming, not Windows gaming on Linux.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
You're the second person to swear that Linux game ports are total crap... Have you tried them?
I have both versions of a number of games and I own a total of 13 "ported" games for Linux that I've purchased, not pirated because I felt that they were worth my hard-earned money. And I don't buy crap.
These ports are smooth. They are identical to their windows versions and they play nice and fast on my GF2. These games have my LAN party droogs saying "damn, I didn't know Linux could do that!"
Have you tried any of the Loki or Hyperion ports? Or are you just FUDing Linux gaming?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Wine is NOT and emulator. That's what Wine stands for! From what I hear, Wine is not supposed to run any slower than Windows does ( I don't know the technical details of it all )
I am reading your post with a sense of Deja Vu! Haven't I already replied to your post today? Haven't you got anything original to say?
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
You're kidding right? VMWare still requires that you have a full copy of Windoze. It also requires huge system resources and is dog slow for games. It may be fine for playing older games or games that are not graphics-intensive, but is NOT for games.
At least with wine, you don't need a copy of windoze. Better yet, if a game is native linux, it will be faster and better still.
VMWare was never intended for games in any case.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Two things to add. DirectX took off because of the ubiquity of Windoze on PCs AND M$ kept improving it and adding nifty-spiffy features and capabilities as well. OpenGL lacks many of the newer wizzibangs that DirectX includes and as a result, it is actually getting better (from a game design point of view) than OpenGL.
It would be nice if OpenGL would keep up and even add gizmo capabilities of its own but the truth is, the people who work the design spec of OpenGL are too damn slow.
This pains me to say because I frickin' hate M$ and Gates and all things windoze but I cannot deny facts.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Though I like and use wine for some games, because I have no choice, emulation as a means of using apps is not beneficial. OS/2 had this problem (among others). It had Win-OS2, giving it the ability to run many then extant windoze apps. Then came Windoze 95 and Win-OS2 couldn't deal with those apps.
IBM then had a choice, update Win-OS2 to support the latest win95 stuff or encourage native apps. By this time, BECAUSE of Win-OS2, there was an extreme lack of native OS/2 apps and support. Why would a software company make OS/2 apps when their Win3.1 apps ran under OS/2 just fine?
Chaotic "support" from IBM and the existence of Win-OS2 prevented the production of OS/2 apps early on. There was no foothold established for OS/2 apps. When Win95 came along, it was all but over. Apps came out for doze but not for OS/2 and Win-OS2 couldn't handle Win95 apps either - the end.
The linux community must be careful and learn the OS/2 lesson. Do NOT count exclusively on wine to bring games to linux. It is a tightrope. One false calculation and all linux will be left with are legacy windoze games as M$ changes something so that it is unusable on linux. It is also NOT a good position to be in vis a vis games to ALWAYS play catchup.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Right, and don't forget that DirectX has many more components than the renderer. I believe you mean to compare OpenGL with Direct3D.
For sake of argument, relate this to Visual Basic. It only runs on Windows, so if you develop an application in it, its doubtful you will port it (or else you'd write it in C to begin with, like a man). VB apps are arguably easier to write than C apps, so its appealing to developers to shorten development time.
DirectX is to game development what VB is to software development. A proprietary closed development platform that puts a choke hold on cross-platform development.
To those thinking "I wish DirectX would go away", don't, because the industry needs an API like DirectX. Games need to be produced rather quickly or they are outdated before they are released, and the reason DirectX caught on is that it accomplishes this.
So if the world were correct, what open project would replace DirectX for game development? Can anyone possibly have the resources to compete?
But if you don't have 3D drivers installed properly it's going to affect both native and emulated games, so your efforts, though understandably frustrating, don't apply to this argument really.
Heh, I guess that was a bit of a rant. I just wanted to respond to the fact that, from the point of view of an average game developer, the conditions are not entirely in place for true native development.
Having said that, have you got 3D up and running on your system?
Nope. I've tried everything except for a fresh base-bones install and adding things one-by-one, which is what's coming next. I was holding off on this because I have a LOT of things to add one-by-one.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Currently, the SDL is working great. No arguments there. But you really have to get your geek on to get DRI to work, and that's unacceptable if you want Linux to be accepted as a gaming platform. I've been spending over three weeks trying to get a game I'm working on to start working faster (limiting factor is currently blitting), and each time it's the same. Yes, I RTFMed (several different ones, actually), and when you RTFM a manual like DRIs FM and you still can't get hardware acceleration, it's heartbreaking.
Maybe the LSB will help improve things, but it's hard to say.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The result ? Developers saw that they didn't need to write OS/2 native apps, even though there was (and there was) some demand for them then. So either OS/2 users got to run Win 3.1 apps in Win/OS2 sessions (I ran Excel and Word there), or we got brain-dead ports like that of Lotus WordPro (was that what it was called) that used the compatibility API and therefore ran like a dog - the compatibility layer ensured that "OS/2" apps that used it were limited to Win16 features, so at least the first version of WordPro, for instance, did not support long filenames. Developers did half-ass jobs of providing "OS/2" versions of their programs, because they knew that was all it took to deliver it to the platform. Users were happy (for a while, anyways) because they could just buy the WIndows versions and run them on OS/2, even if they didn't run as well as they would if they were OS/2 native, and hence developers had no incentive to provide 'real' ports for OS/2 that would take advantage of things like Workplace Shell integration, etc.
If people can run Windows games on their Linux boxes, all this means is that fewer developers will have reason to develop games that can capitalize on Linux's advantages and we will be left with inferior games.
The only way for Linux to flourish as a gaming platform is if the tools needed to develop games on Linux are developed. Linux can't survive as a platform if it just runs "Windows better than Windows" (recapitulating to the best of my recall an old OS/2 mantra) - Linux has to survive on its own merits, or it won't survive at all.
I agree, any specialized system is going to be cheaper to manufacture, and easier to operate. Between, on one end, Game consoles - with their ease of use, cost & performance benefits - and Linux, sits Windows. This is why you don't see game designers writing games for consoles, then Linux, then windows. Because their customer base follows the usage pattern Consoles, Windows, Linux - in that order.
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Daniel, Man, if your management thinks the way you do on this issue, more power to ya, I just doubt the gaming industry as a whole has as progressive a view on this issue as you seem to.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Support of comonly used APIs will contribute to linux native ports of popular games, WineX and other emulation solutions are a step in the right direction.
Support through an emulation layer isn't the conclusion of any development effort. This is a basic tenet of Open Source. The work of TransGaminga is a great contribution twards this goal. Eventually there will be native Linux support for direct3D. This I am certain of.
As for following Microsoft, implementing their API rather than promoting the potentially vary competitive OpenGL; well, open source operates with an entirely different market model than treditional corporate development. Some market segments such as enterprise IT equally receptive to open source as to treditional software. This allows open source solutions to thrive in that market space. Other market segments such as computer gaming, target a customer base which is generally less technically inclined, and in pursuit of entertainment rather than productivity solutions - I maintain that development of efficient solutions to productivity issues is one of the driving forces behind open source development -, anyway, the gaming customer base is seeking entertainment rather than technical solutions to technical problems. As such, the gaming market will always be dominated by the easiest to use OS, with the simplest setup, and the most readily (as percieved by novice customers) available commerecial support.
This is why game consoles are still as popular as they are. There was a time when game consoles were themost advanced and highly customized platforms for video game entertainment. With the advent of extremely high quality video cards, sound cards, and control devices for PCs over the past decade, it would be reasonable to assume that customers might choose to purchase a PC (which can now be priced competitively wihth some game consoles - as amazing as that is, in and of itself), which is more flexible, and by every reasonable measure, more useful, but, alas! - game consoles are still extremely popular. I maintain that this is because the gaming customer seeks simplicity and ease of use that (as much as it pains me to say) linux doesn't yet provide at this point, even with the great efforts of Ximian, and the Gnome Project, among others
The point of this rambling diatribe is that computer game designer will always favor the simplest to use platform, which is inherently, where the majority of gaming customers will be. This means, that regardless of the elogance or superiority OpenGL, the Linux community will need to adopt direct3D because, as others have pointed out, no programmer wants to port code from one platform to another especially when that requires a significant API change.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Also, continue to improve wineX and other MS layers for linux. This allows the other games to be 'ported' without having to change the binaries or code to the OS. Plus, this allows less people to require a dual boot machine so they can play their games.
The right tool for the right situation! Ported for those that will/can, and emulation (sorry) for those who can't/won't *cough*M$*cough*
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Personally, I will continue to support Loki and any other quality Linux game publishers by buying one of every damn game they make (that's worth owning). I will also use Wine to get my non-ported games to run.
A ways down the road, evolution will dictate which is more effective (porting would be my guess), and we'll be free of crappy sluggish OS's (well - I will be, dammit)
MS isn't selling games? Well they are buying game companies pretty quickly.
I just can't believe you are a developer. For one since you don't know what MS is selling game-wise. They are selling a lot of games. AOE for one, and all those games that are being built by other companies they swallowed. (who is building the X-box? What game is the flagship game? Tribes 2 isn't it? Did they write that?)
Second I just can't see that you're a developer at all since you are bashing people who code like you supposedly do. And don't you ever wonder why you are writing games that need more RAM and CPU power since they run on windows? Don't you get mad that your game won't work because of faulty OS programming - which you'll never get to change.
I can't write a Hello World program, but I know many people who write programs for windows, and they say it sucks. Hardly are the problems end users have are the writers fault - it's improper memory management or disk read write errors.
Why code for linux, it can't be a real OS! It doesn't cost an arm and a leg and isn't built on a business model.
Sure no one is buying linux games, but a lot are free, and there is only a few for pay games. I'm not going to run windows just to play some games - really that's fucking gay.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I think companies that are into making the games "linux native" are doing good work.
Although all games and game developers don't mix well with Linux. So some games and other apps must run on top of Wine or other such emulation tricks. But is that really an answer? I wish I could run Red Alert, but it just doesn't work.
So my 2 cents is this: We need companies, game companies, to not ignore linux. If gaming houses kept linux in mind when making the games maybe we would have better games. But if they can't do it then hire someone else to provide the codeing for the port. The independent developer would sign what not to make sure they didn't rip off the code and promise not to bug them about open sourcing it all. [this could be a nice market for a company]
I don't want the source code, nor would I like to run the games through an emulator, but can we get games built for linux like people used to make them for macs?
Does MS give money to the game developers? Then why is it so hard to get them in our pocket? If they started making games for linux, since it has a nice desktop share, they would only snowball into a huge customer base.
Maybe we just need 1000 more programing layers like windows has. IDE's for this and that. Maybe bloatware is the answer?
Get your Unix fortune now!
Obviously, the ideal overall solution is to get native ports of games. But as we all know from past experiments, this is a hard nut to crack. Most game companies won't bother with Linux (not even a Loki or other 3rd party port) until it can show good game sales numbers...and it won't show good game sales numbers until there are more games available.
I hate to be the one to rain on everyone's parade, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Linux to become a widely supported gaming OS any time in the forseeable future.. A lot of game companies these days are debating moving over to console games exclusively. The hardcore 'techie' companies, like id and Epic, are unlikely to abandon the PC as a platform, but lots of other companies are really considering it. Console games generally sell many more units than PC games and are far easier to QA due to the standarized platform. Consider that these companies are wanting to drop their Windows support because the potential base of gamers with hardware to support their newer games is smaller than consoles, and the potential for tech support problems is much higher. Those two factors are magnified thousands of times over on Linux...
... You can't even sell them a text editor for $140!
IOW, game developers should be working in languages that are already universally accepted and available for multiple platforms. This isn't to knock the fine work of the WineX folks, but to build hacks into the system ain't a good way to spread the love.
RW
RW
Well, it's hard to choose between "ports or WineX," so I think I'll just choose port wine.
Making the world a safer place to learn...
Teechur007"* Powerful and logical system management functions? It's true that Unix let's you customize a server to your heart's content, but I for one prefer Event Log over /var, Administrative Tools over /etc and Services Control panel over rc.d. And *anything* over linuxconf. Yes, the Windows *implementation* may leave a few things to be desired (fewer and fewer with every iteration of NT) but the design is sound. Unix may be powerful but it's far from logical."
.conf file is infinitely greater than screwing with NT's (or any other Windows OS) registry.
.ini files. Right. And de-regulation lowered energy costs in California.
I'm sorry, but as one who has hacked around in more registries than I care to think about, the ease of dealing with ANY
M$ claimed that the registry simplified life by doing away with
---Any philosophy that can be put "in a nutshell" belongs there.---
+ Powerful scripting and text manipulation functions (Unix)
Exist on Windows, usually easier to use.
+ Free programming tools (Unix)
See above, altought ease of use is less evident here.
+ Powerful and logical system management functions (Unix)
Care to give some details about this?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
And they don't want to do that.
I say go on, get 'em to both projects. We need compatability, and we need a genuine native powerful platform that lets Linux beat the crap out of the competition.
--
KMSMA (WWBD?)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Loki, or any other Linux game company, wants the KILLER game for Linux - get the rights to the game Quidditch from those Harry Potter books. Sell the bloody thing with a streamlined distribution - set up nice and sweet - Mandrake style - but with a low resource window manager.
Think about it - a 3d action sports game involving magic and broomsticks, based on some of the biggest selling kids books around today. They are even making (have made) the movie. The word "Quiddich" (presuming I have spelt it correctly) is instantly recognisable to any Harry Potter fan - instant 'product recognition' without the hassle of creating one.
Buy the rights to making a Quiddich game and you will have thousands of 8-14 year old kids screaming for their parents to buy it - that kind of pressure will make people install Linux just to play that game.
And it need not be a bad game either. There is lots of scope for introducing voice over IP type stuff so that teams talk during play (Over here John pass) - all sorts of things. Sport for those people that just have to look at a computer screen.
I come from a LAN down under
Where the packets flow and routers chunder
In the short run the wine soluthion must be the best, because you emediatly will be able to run games on a linux box. But if a set of libraries could be developed that would bring the same functionallity (OpenGL?) and with same level of efficiency to ALL platforms porting would deffinetly be the best.
There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
But in many cases, I think the Linux APIs are preferable, and a full Linux port seems altogether better. Ports to native Linux will drive the Linux APIs to improve further and get hardened, and that's important: without that kind of real-world usage, Linux multimedia and 3D APIs will just get stale. And native ports will likely have better performance: Windows APIs make all sorts of assumptions about the underlying OS and kernel that just aren't true in Linux.
But why buy commercial games at all? Have twice the fun: write your own. Yes, getting commercial game quality graphics and sound is hard, but we can make up for that with smarter, more fun games. To me, games like nethack still have better game play than any of the Windows equivalents, which have nice graphics but are much more simplistic.
We need a game of our own... on linux... that is a
killer app' of games. I want everyone to go 'WOW!' And want to run it. I want THEM to have to debate 'should we rewrite, or should we emulate?'. Many people will be enthralled enough to switch platforms.
The whole point of emulation is to help people ease their transition from one platform to another... As long as the end result is more people using Linux, I would be behind either, or both solutions.
The game companies were benefiting as well as the console manufacturers. When it comes to Linux, who is going to benefit? If a game comes out and only supports Linux do you think everyone is going to switch to Linux just to play it? Maybe the diehard geeks but nobody else will.
WineX is probably the best solution for the time being. It saves companies valuable time/money and throws Linux gamers a bone at the same time.
I'm not so sure that even if Linux ran their games the gamers would come along. I think there are a lot more issues that need to be addressed. In fact, can Linux ever really be 100% mainstream while still maintaining it's ideals?
Even though I'm as big a Linux geek as the next guy on Slashdot, I can't help but wonder why people are still pushing the issue of porting games to Linux. As Linux users we must face the fact that we are STILL in the minority. Computers are so cheap these days that it's probably a lot easier to go buy a cheap PC, slap Windows on it, and run your games. Porting software is just too costly and time consuming... and more often than not the ports turn out to be total crap in comparison to the original item. I honestly don't see the need to run games on Linux. I'd love to kick Bill Gates in the arse and send him cyring to his mommy, but right now if I were developing games again (fat chance) I'd probably just stick to Windows. I can understand that there are probably many purists out there who will flame the hell out of me for saying it, but just play your games in Windows already! Or maybe go get yourself a Playstation or something.
We're asking the wrong question here. The correct question would be "When game publishers will start writing native versions?". Game publishers won't start writing and shipping native Linux versions until the Linux community will be recognised as a market. People out there think that free operating system is free like in "free beer". Some idiots download Mandrake because it's "easy to install" and then come to IRC and whine why doesn't Linux have a printer folder, or why can't they seem to be able to change resolution, et cetera. Linux community needs to educate both newcomers and people on the second side of the river. It should be made clear that we are willing to pay *reasonable* price for *quality* products (and we do - previous posters do, I do). It's a question of Linux being publically recognized as a desktop platform (God forgive me) and a gaming platform. When Linux is recognized as one that will be the time to ask a question "What happens with game porting companies when game vendors start shipping native Linux games?". If Loki and friends have bad feelings about it, might I suggest that they themselves start writing original native Linux games before the Big Dudes wake up and eat their market.
"We invented guns, drugs, nuclear bombs, but stupidity beats it all badly"
I wouldn't be worried about Loki etc., native ports will always be prefered, for stability/speed - unless Wine magically becomes stable+fast overnight. Considering how long it has taken to get basic apps to run in Wine, DirectX support is going to be a long way off IMHO.
(no offense intended to any wine developers/avid users)
Why does mac get so many ports? Theres not that many Mac users, Mac has an emulator called Virtual Windows which can allow them to run windows games from their OS and I dont see any of them buying windows games, so why do people think it would happen on Linux? Will games be made for OSX? If so why bother porting directly to OSX when you can do a full unix port and port to all unix OS's? I say support the emulator and loki, Linux wont get ports because Microsoft will do everything in their power to prevent it, and so will apple.
Games are made for MAC OS natively, why? why do developers bother when you can use virtual windows? Why do people make software for MAC Os when you can use windows software on Mac? One reason, USERBASE, Mac has millions of users and Mac users actually have better buy ratios than windows users, meaning the MAC market is more valueable but the wnidows market is bigger. Linux users are loyal like Mac users meaning they will buy more software than windows users, When XP comes out, this will be the time for users to jump ship from windows to Linux, the window of oppurtunity, and if people find out their games dont work, it will close the window. What you have to understand is, people have to be able to play the games they already have and use the software they already have. New games should not be emulated, and really, its not a big deal because the people who support transgaming already HAVE the windows versions of these games, Transgaming is trying to keep us frmo having to buy 2 versions of the same game. Porting will not happen until the userbase is big enough to be profitable for developers. Having emulation does not make a diffrence. When developers can truely port games when linux is popular enough, games for linux will be released at the same time as windows versions. Not to mention if companies port to mac, porting to linux will take alot less time than emulation.