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.

Comments

Emulation is a BAAADDDD thing

[evilviper]

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.

Subscription Policy

[toral]

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.

Re:Their "open source philosophy"

[BenHmm]

It's actually just a formalised version of the same philosophy that most open-source projects go by.

It could be also rewritten as

"Although we like coding for the sake of it as much as the next guy, we do have better things to do than do something that has no support at all. If, after all our hard work, no one gives us anything back we're going to do something else more appreciated. Now, some people like appreciation in the form of praise, we prefer cash."

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.

Transgaming MUST be profitable.

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:why bother?

[aussersterne]

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?

Hello Mr. Kneejerk

[Chris Burke]

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!

Re:Look to OS/2 ...

[steveha]

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