Slashdot Mirror
Transgaming Bringing Windows Games to Linux (?)
An anonymous reader wrote in to point us to transgaming which is
trying to get the DirectX APIs on Linux, and make it possible to run
DirectX games on our OS. What is perhaps more interest is their perspective on how to get paid for their work. Not sure how I feel about this whole thing.
One aspect of TransGaming's model is based on the Street Performer Protocol. We are licensing some of our 3D code under the Aladdin Free Public License, which restricts certain forms of commercial redistribution. Users may freely download and use the software, but will be encouraged to subscribe to our subscription service. We will not release that code under a less restrictive license (such as the Wine license) unless and until we have a paying subscriber base of at least 20,000 users. This means that our work will not be fully incorporated into the main Wine source base before that point. Further development of our work will also be predicated on that subscriber base being sustained. This gives our customers a direct incentive to stick with us - if our subscription revenue dries out, so will our release of new code.
.. it is not. This is more like Public Broadcasting's subscription model... the content is freely available to all, but some people NEED to support it or there will not be any new content... period. I hope this works. I'm a big fan of the PBS model.
That's an interesting approach, "We've got you by the balls, so keep paying". While some people will be quick to point out "This is just a friendlier version of MicroSoft's subscription model"
I hate to say it, but there aren't too many examples of companies who focuss on open source software who are making very much money. It is difficult for startups especially. I suggest people put the 100$ or so they would save by not having to purchase windows to good use by supporting the developers. If this thing works out, you won't need to dual-boot anymore anyway.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
why not actually write some linux games that don't owe anything to windows?
why is it that the linux community invests so much time and effort in trying to be windows, in trying to emulate windows, in trying to "steal" attention from windows when they should just be concentrating on making the bext possible linux?
are they really that jealous for attention?
do they feel that's the only way they can attract users?
lookit, you've got an audience of easily ten million people with linux! don't tell me the only thing these people are interested in is backwards compatibility in some form or another with windows! and before you flame me, yes, porting windows games on a code level is a kind of backwards compatibility.
i'm convinced that there is a very deep and very real hypocrisy that underscores a lot of what the linux community does. they've emulated the look-and-feel for windows, they've written emulators for apps, they've basically busted their butts to make linux more "windows-like" in every respect.
linux is not windows and should not TRY to be windows in any way, shape or form. it is wrong, it is sterile, it is counterproductive, and it makes the linux community into its own worst enemy.
now you my flame my lame unworthy ass.
In the end, I'm not sure how much difference there is between totally Free software and this company's idea from the consumer side. What game theory and economist types call the freeloader problem is when a few people get stuck shouldering the burden for what is really a common good. This company seems to just up the ante, since only a small portion of the user base will have to take on the job of supporting the programmers. It does at least give the option of allowing users to 'rotate' -- people can pay for only one year's subscription, then let someone else take their spot when it runs out. But it's anyone's guess whether this will actually happen. I forsee the company having to regularly reissue a big threat to withdraw their software unless a few thousand people send them some money, which may or may not work. Because the company's finances and subscription rolls won't be open to the public, any statistics the company offers about the number of subscribers will be treated as suspect, allowing worries about extortion and broken promises.
To be honest, I think the underlying philosophy of their idea is pretty damn cool. It's sort of like the board of a small church or a neighborhood association, in that members of the community take turns assuming responsibility for the entire group. But without the same level of information on both sides of the relationship -- in a church, everyone knows who has taken their turn, because it's done publicly -- I think it may be doomed to fail.
I would be happy to participate in an open source project, but they seldom are easy to jump into. You have to have task lists, simple routines to write, and a bunch of systems integrators to put those routines together into the code's baseline.
Plus, Mythical Man Month makes a strong case that systems complexity increases with the cube of the number of developers. This makes open source more susceptible to systems complexity issues due to the large number of people interacting with it. Just some ideas... Anyone disagree with my presumptions?
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
I have some mixed feelings about this, it is good that I can run diablo 2 on linux (I really want that because now I can't play it at all) . On the other hand this might be the well knows "OS/2" effect
Because the win16 support of OS/2 was so good no company made native OS/2 programs... and we all know what happened to OS/2... don't we?
Why can't we all just stick with our OS and wait a little while for Loki to port it?? If and IF we BUY games instead of pirating them like most windows players do. Gaming industries will make more games faster.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
I hate to be the voice of reason, but these are the same type of numbers that lots of the dot bomb's used to validate their (now failed) business models.
..."
Dot bombs were often quoted as saying stuff like "if we just get 25% of the market, *only* 15,000 subscribers we will
They expect to get 20,000 linux users to subscribe to a monthly service instead of dual booting. Personally I would rather pay for win98 once rather than pay a monthly fee for what is probably going to be a worse product.
It will probably be worse because they have to keep the API up to date against a fast moving target (direct X), and all this is entirely pointless if X and GNU/Linux doesn't keep up with the latest and greatest hardware that gamers crave.
I personally think Loki had the right idea, but they learned that people would rather just dual boot, it is simple, clean and flexable. Dual booting allows you to play WHATEVER windows games you want!
I for one hope this effort is successful. Linux is great, but a lot of what I do with my computers is entertainment, and Windows is presently beating Linux in that department. Take that away, and I'll never boot Windows again, and I know there are others out there with the same view. Get more games on Linux and you'll see a great many of them make the switch.
Oh, come now. People deserve to be paid. If you don't want to pay $5 a month, you don't have to....If $5 a month is worth it to you to play DirectX games with WINE, then great, go for it!
People don't have some kind of obligation to give away their code open source. Many do, out of the goodness of their heart. These people are willing to do so, but they want some kind of compensation. I think this is a good thing....one big problem with OSS is that it is too reliant on volunteers and others who don't have a real stake in getting the job done. Thats why so many projects never get off the ground, never work, or never get finished.
Hopefully, with some kind of monetary compensation, it will provide more of an assurance that this project would be taken to completion (if such a thing truly exists in software). And it sounds like very useful software, so lets cross our fingers.
I know thinking that someone deserves money for their work is evil, so feel free to mod this down...
The real problem for these guys is that their planned revenue is by far to little. 20.000 * 5 only makes them $100.000 a month.
:(. Lets be optimistic again and say we will do with only 10 people for all this. Now we have a monthly cost of 4.000x2x30=240.000 USD.
This may sound much to a private person but there is just no way in hell that they are going to be able to developing something as huge and fastmoving as DX for only 100.000 a month. It's doomed to fail. They need a larger userbase than 20.000 or charge more than 5 dollars a month.
The problem for many dot-coms and open source companies is that the people starting and running them just don't understand what kind of money it takes to run even a small company.
In a typical small company without heavy marketing costs and such things the cost for a employee is abour twice his or her salary. Sickness, vacations, training, taxes etc etc makes this the typical number.
Lets be as optimistic as possible to try to give them a chance at all. Lets say they will be able to do this with only 20 developers (say 10 people developing new versions and 10 supporting the current one). Lets say each developer has a salary of only 4.000 dollars a month (very low developer salary in the US). This makes the monthly costs for the developers 4.000(salary)x2(typical employee cost)x20(number of developers). This makes a monthly cost of 160.000 USD. Our budget is already blown away.
Now, you will need some more people, some administrative people, a webadim, a secretary, some project leaders, some people writing documentation and yes, you will need law people
However, you have to be a magician to get good software developers anywhere in the US/Europe/Canada for only 4.000 a month. And pulling a project like this with only 20 developers would be a amazing archivement.
To be realistic I think they need atleast 400.000 USD a month to have a chance at all of succeding in the long run.
I really wish them the best but they will have a tough time pulling this off.
Because they work the same way with Windows 95 applications as WINE does. Through a Windows API.
Yes just as both (DOS based) W9X/ME & WinNT/2K/XP (which sort of evolved from Digital VMS & IBM's OS/2) use a Windows API so windows applications work nativelly with both OSes (even though they are completely different), WINE is a Windows API so the same applications can work natively in Linux (& potentially other X86 nixes) in exactly the same way, without re-compiling or anything.
IF WINE was a emulator, it could be re-compiled to work with PPC Linux or Alpha (thats a CPU platform, now 64bit, that was developed by Digital cum Compaq & made by Samsung & Intel) Linux. But no, as a API layer it only works with the same X86 hardware that Windows works on. So its only compatible with X86 Linux boxes.
However in theory if WINE was developed for Alpha Linux then Windows applications written/re-compiled for Digital Alpha WinNT4 (MS put out a re-compile of NT4 for the Alpha CPU platform), would then work natively in a Digital Alpha Linux box.
"We've got you by the balls, so keep paying"
I think this is a great model, and I've been thinking a lot about it. The only flaw I can come up with is this: What happens if they change their mind when they have 19999 users? In other words, there ought to be some sort of service for people who want to use a model like this to guarantee that once 20000 people actually subscribe, the source comes out. Perhaps if a trusted third party would hold a copy of the source for them and be given the legal right to release it when, in their judgement, the terms of the protocol have been fulfilled.
I wanted to check out transgaming's web page to see if they do something like this but it seems to have been slashdotted. Any karma-working-girls out there have a mirror or a link to the google cache?
bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
People who complain about paying for software and yet demand perfect bug free constantly updated programs ALWAYS seem to forget a critical detail:
Most people still have to work to support themselves.
Any 'pro-bono' effort by an individual or team will always have to take a back seat to earning a living.
Most free software advocates forget this. These idealistic profit-bashers are also rampant in the OSS community, and it may well lead to its downfall. Several fine companies have died because not enough people have ponied up cash to support them. How many of you are using store-bought distros?
Anyone who thinks that updated DirectX compatibility can be provided that keeps up with the frenzied pace of the game industry and STILL be free is smoking crack.
A subscription model like the one Transgaming is suggesting strikes me as a perfect solution. If enough people are willing to pay a certain amount per month to play DirectX games under Linux, the people involved don't have to seek other ways of sustaining themselves.
I for one am going to support these guys, because I believe that the main reason most people stick with Windows because of the games.
I think this is the best for GNU and open source software to be profitable.
If people need something bad enough, require they pay for the service, and its done.
NOT THE CODE, once the codes released, its open source, which means you can improve it.
You just want the service, not the code itself, the code once released, is owned by us, but we need programmers to make the code.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
So if MS changes XP to subscription and it's $5/month, is it quite cheap for that product?
Why or why not?
because it adds nothing to the conversation to hear
someone bitching that "this was posted before, so I don't care"
yeah, I've seen the story before, but that doesn't
mean it's not worth bringing up again (espescially
if there have been new developments in the story)
These idealistic profit-bashers are also rampant in the OSS community
Where, exactly, are you getting this? I haven't seen a single post in this thread that suggests that they shouldn't get paid for their work. I've seen a lot suggesting that maybe it's not worth it to us to pay for their work, or that their model won't succede in the long run... But no "profit-bashers". In fact, I've NEVER seen such a thing. Though I have seen a lot of people react as though someone was saying profit was evil... But they never really were saying that.
But oh well.
The enemies of Democracy are
Better yet buy Loki releases, they do not rely upon the ever changing MS "Standards". This efforts waste the talents of too many hard working programmers where native Linux issues will have a longer market life expectancy. The market may be smaller, but trying to keep up with MS Innovations will prove to be impossible. IBM had this experience with the simpler "Window's" environment trying to keep OS/2 current.
All that Linux really needs is a perceptible market share in games, the publisher list will grow with the number of those being screwed over by Microsoft business tactics. For some this will not suffice, but Linux need not the dominant OS to have a chastening effect upon the MS <i>modus operandi</i> where they will have to learn to really compete by other means than simple theft, bullying and marketing.
Really, what's to stop Linux from using Microsoft's own philosophy against it? Absorb DirectX into Linux, then make it perform even better under Linux than it ever did under Windows. That's sure to get the attention of at least the game developers and hardcore gamers.
"Fight fire with fire," as they say. I frankly don't have much interest in establishing Linux as a gaming and desktop OS, but I'm surprised at how the people that do care often end up handicapping their efforts under some deluded notion of maintaining OS "purity". Look, there is no such thing as "purity" when it comes to Linux, because its open source nature means that it is always changing. This "impurity" is in fact one of Linux's greatest strengths; it gives it an unparalled capacity to easily absorb new ideas and methods into itself. This advantage should be utilized to the fullest.
I think it is a bad idea to try to make Linux run Windows executables. IBM made this mistake with OS/2. OS/2 ran Windows applications almost as good (some say even better than) on native Windows. The result was that programmers wrote applications for Windows only, they ran after all on OS/2 also. Little native OS/2 software was written.
Microsoft made Windows a moving target (and it still is ...), making it impossible for IBM to
have the Windows emulation work in OS/2 for every respin of Windows. The
rest is history, please don't let this happen once again with Linux.
RFC1925
Fixed prices, subscription quotas, and the threat of withholding (effectively destroying) finished work?
It's complex, inflexible, and requires too much administration and too large a commitment. Can you see yourself signing up for donation subscriptions to support a hundred software projects? Surely you benefit from the efforts of at least that many.
I believe that the best solution is the simplest: just give money to people who have made the stuff you like, don't make them screw around with their own weird variant to make it sound like something other than donation. Don't withhold money from one that is already profitable by the donations of others; huge profits mean that others will be attracted to compete in the area, that's how capitalism allocates resources efficiently over the long term.
If you do that, then people can just get down to the work of figuring out what you want, and making it, knowing from past experience that you can be trusted to make such efforts profitable without coersion.