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.
While I understand the reasoning behind emulating another (more popular) platform, it causes more problems than it solves.
If we didn't emulate quicktime using WINE, then Apple would either have to make a native app, or loose that part of the market to RealNetworks.
Of course, sometimes the company will do just that (refuse to port an application). But that's how the economy works. Those companies that suit your needs should be the ones you use. The ones that ignore you should go out of business.
With emulation, programmers need to work their collective asses off to get an application working every release, and that work could be better spent elsewhere. So, demand native apps, and let the ones that refuse, loose market-share.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Their subscription policy sounds like it has been developed with some thought, but I see some potential problems.
First, I would be bothered investing in TransGaming's product knowing that my return could possibly dry up due to other people pulling out.
Steven King tried this method a while back with a mixed result. Sure, he made a bit of money selling it directly to his readers, but the forced honor system he set up didn't end up working. Luckily for his fans, King continued to release the other chapters.
What we have seen thusfar in street performer protocols is that they really don't help the little guy. King could afford to conduct his experiment -- he has some money to burn, and a rather loyal following.
Second, with a 'nobody' like TransGaming, their product has to carry all the weight. It would have to work incredibly well - be fast, stable, and versitile - before I could see them getting any subscription. This is going to be incredibly hard when a 100% perfect product already exists to do this: Windows.
Most linux users I know still dual boot to play games. This doesn't really bother them, and it shouldn't; you use the right tool for the job.
I agree it would be nifty to be able to play DirectX games in Linux, but from their website it sounds like this is another rolling emulation system and it will probably have to go through some serious updating before a new game works under it. It sounds like to get a new game working, the subscribers first need to vote on it, then help test it by sending in bug reports.
This is a lot of work for a game that out of the box will run fine in windows. I miss the appeal.
I don't like being cynical about these types of things. Someday someone will break the system and find a good way to make money off of open source. For this reason I don't blame these guys for trying. I just think that in their case, it is going to be rather hard to achieve the quality of software that subscribers would feel entitled to when they could just boot Windows instead.
The friends that I have using Linux would rather dick around compiling kernels than play games. Sure there are 10 million users, but how many would actually play games? Probably 1-2%, and of that 1-2%, 75% would want the games for free. Do the math, there ain't much money to be had there.
You have something above your lip.
These people are so bloody backwards as to think that near perfect direct x api emulation will gain us native applications. Why this is, I do not know. After having spoken with their coders at LWCE, I doubt they understand what a native binary is, let alone how they can compare api emulation to native binaries. The worst part is when they tell me that SDL is so similar, when it's not. SDL isn't emulating any behaviour, it is an API. It may be similar in some respects to DirectX, but it is not letting you use non-native binaries in Linux. People who want to support microsoft emulation have tried before, succeded in emulation, and then promptly failed as nobody wrote native applications for their operating system (OS/2 anybody?). If you want Linux gaming through companies like Loki (who produce native games) to fail, buy whatever these jokers are going to sell you.
If you want Linux to succede as a desktop so we can be finally free of the shackles we support when we buy into propietary API's like DirectX, and become the gaming platform of choice, buy native games from online stores like tuxgames. Do not spend one dime on what isn't native and you won't be funding the market speak of sales figures against a Linux desktop.
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
It's actually just a formalised version of the same philosophy that most open-source projects go by.
It could be also rewritten as
It is really human nature, and is entirely fair enough. I hope it works too: the community does need a half way point between doing open source for the fun of it, and writing closed source for money.
X-Box --Let me explain how this relates--
By creating a home video game console *and*, at the same time, facilitating the process of porting from said console to the PC (or vice-versa), Microsoft has created a mechanism by which video game companies may increase profit.
It is no surprise that successful home video games are ported to PC's, or PC games ported to video game consoles. It is done because there is money to be made.
The only reason why companies do not port EVERY game to EVERY platform is due to the cost of the port itself.
What does this have to do with this linux porting group? Well, pretty soon nearly all video games will be X-Box/PC based. This means that the development environment will become increasingly similar, and pretty much all PC games will be on the X-Box. If these guys work on an X-Box emulator early on, porting will be simplified (cheaper!).
If transgaming is profitable, then everyone in open source can follow a similar model, and Open source will once and for all be proven profitable.
If transgaming fails, it will go the other way around.
I think slashdot could take a tip from transgaming, I'd pay $1 a year to access one of my favorite websites. I'd pay $5 a month to have games on linux.
Selling services instead of information may be the key to profitability for the new economy, the GNU economy.
I plan to support transgaming, I have my $5 ready.
I expect everyone here using linux to support them because the success or failure of open source in the minds of the public rests on transgamings shoulders.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I also kind of like some of the things that M$ did with the Windows look (& feel)...
for example, the minimize/maximize/close button in one place (and easily identifiable) -> I don't use the themes on my Linux box that don't show me where these are.
#2 -> single click selects/double click opens: I used GNOME over KDE on first use because that's what GNOME's default was. (I found out later that KDE has a double-click fxn, but it doesn't quite work how I want, and by that time I already was settled into my GNOME desktop to switch)
#3 -> it (mostly) looks nice. KDE is the equivalent for nice looks on Linux (see above for why I don't use it now).
Now what I don't really like -> Bluescreens, XP out-of-the-box theme (RC2... had it at work), all GUI all the time, no real CLI (not even ls!), etc. etc. etc.
... too bad I haven't yet found a compile of WINE that works! (maybe I just don't know how to configure it...)
(well, that was an off-topic rant, well, here goes for the on-topic:)
The real point of WINE is so that I (as a former windows user) can use my shelf full of Windows games/apps/whatever under my new O/S
One last comment... I prefer Linux to Windows. Very much. I find myself using the CLI quite a bit (tho I still have my desktop...). GUI all the time is just too clunky.
MIKE aka Lazarius
-----------------
Beware the JabberOrk!
Okay, listen to this, naysayer, and see if you can figure it out.
I use Linux.
I have used Linux since 1993.
I have to work.
Work uses Windows.
I have to bring work home.
Linux can't open many Windows files.
I have to keep buying Windows.
I like games.
There aren't many Linux games.
There are many Windows games.
I have to keep buying Windows.
Windows is expensive.
I don't want to keep buying Windows.
Software is software.
I have nothing against games companies.
If Linux will run games, I will be happy.
Data is data.
I have nothing against data made with Windows.
If Linux will open all data, I will be happy.
Okay? I want to work and play like a human being. I also want to use Linux. So shoot me. Why don't you go and hide in a bunker in Montana?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Sure, they have a right to _want_ to be paid, but they don't have the right _to_ get paid. That's up to us, and whether we decide to give them money. If we don't like the way it looks, we don't give them money. That's the way it is supposed to work.
The feeling is not about them getting paid, but about the method they are going about it and whether it is something we think is worth what they are asking.
There are lots of issues with their plan, as have been elucidated in other posts. Note that one of the concerns is _not_ someone wanting to get paid for their work. But hey, thanks for assuming it was!
The enemies of Democracy are
It's a great! thing that interest in Linux/UNIX for gaming continues to build. That's what Joe Six-Pack needs in place before switching to Linux or resorting to a PS2.
What does concern me is the involvement of an emulator to run those games. Those APIs will continue to change, anyway, and if the porting of these apps would prioritize direct interfaces to the OS's graphics software, rather than through emulating windows it would achieve broader goals.
I'm sure there are some technically sound reasons for developing DirectX under Wine, and support any development in *n*x gaming, regardless. I'd just think an OpenGL that kicks the snot out of DirectX would send a much more productive and telling message....
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
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.
e wSonicA70)
Well.. that's you personally. There's plenty of us who would rather stick to our OS of choice for playing games. I sincerely hate having to boot windows for every single MMORPG or FPS I like playing, as do most other linux gamers.
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've never had trouble finding any drivers for my machine (Radeon 64MBDDR, SoundBlaster Live!MP3+5.1,TDK12x10x32x,CreativePC-DVD12x32x,Vi
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!
Dual booting isn't exactly fun -- How many times have you said to yourself, "I wish this game was ported to linux.." Well, Companies like Transgaming are trying to make that a reality. If you want games in Linux, or if you want Linux to be the "popular" OS, there's no other way.
arcane for life
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.
Okay, it's true that little native software for OS/2 was written. But it's not because of Windows compatibility!
Yes, OS/2 had a great Win16 layer. But it was never compatible with Win32, and Win32 was where the real action was. All the best PC software was released for Win32, and OS/2 couldn't run it, so most companies viewed OS/2 as a non-starter. Thus the installed base of OS/2 was small, so no one wanted to write for it.
It didn't help that IBM wanted to charge lots of money for development kits for OS/2. I think they eventually figured out that it is a bad idea to discourage people from wanting to develop for your OS, and stopped charging so much for the SDK, but by then it was too late.
If a business adopted Win95 or WinNT, they could run DOS applications, Win16 applications, or Win32 applications -- and if they were running NT, they could even run old OS/2 applications. If a business adopted OS/2, they could run native OS/2 applications, and Win16 applications, but no Win32. The choice was clear, especially since applications like Lotus 123/G (the version for OS/2 Presentation Manager) were bloated and slow, while the versions for Win32 were better.
Heck, the first adopters of Windows 3.0 often used it as a super-DesqView, to multitask lots of DOS applications, and sometimes run a Windows app or two. Then they could gradually transition over to more and more Windows apps.
It's always a good thing to run more software on your system. It lowers the barriers for customers to use your system.
The other major problem with OS/2 was that the API for native OS/2 Presentation Manager apps was so different from the API for Windows. I heard that Microsoft wanted to make the two APIs more similar, but IBM felt that the OS/2 PM API was better, and thus it was worth it being different. Well, you couldn't just make a few changes to your app and recompile; you had to substantially re-write your app if you wanted to make it a native OS/2 app. For a small market, it wasn't worth the effort. Microsoft never did make a native version of Word for OS/2; the OS/2 PM version of Word was the Windows version compiled and linked with a compatibility layer something like WINE, called WLO (Windows Libraries for OS/2). WLO apps were slower and consumed more memory than native OS/2 apps, but again it just wasn't worth the effort for Microsoft to make a true native version for the small OS/2 market.
If the DirectX thing works out on Linux, developers of DirectX games could potentially recompile their games to make them native to Linux. This would be a huge win for us. Anything that lowers the barriers for development is a good thing. Then, in a perfect world, the developer might re-write parts of the game to use native Linux system calls instead of the Transgaming DirectX layer; it's easier to port your app one little piece at a time, and eventually you have a completely native app.
It's always good to have more compatibility.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely