Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Half-Life 2 - A Linux User's Lament

Posted by simoniker on from the why-oh-why-oh-why? dept.

jvm writes "If you're a gamer with a pulse, you've probably heard about the impending release of Valve's Half-Life 2. As a gamer and a Linux user, I always get a little stirred up about the whole Half-Life situation, where we have a dedicated server but no client. So here's my reflection on the sad situation, past and present. How will the rest of the Linux gaming community react to the release of Half-Life 2? Boot into Windows? Wait for WINE or WineX support? Get the Xbox version? With so many Half-Life servers running on Linux, will the same be true for Half-Life 2?"

7 of 792 comments (clear)

  1. why not support the companies that support us? by consumer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just played a good game of Unreal Tournament 2003 on my Linux box. It plays great, the installer came on the CD, and all updates have been available for Linux. If Valve doesn't care about you, spend your money somewhere else.

    1. Re:why not support the companies that support us? by saden1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You won't have this luxury come next release! Microsoft has Epic in its pockets.

      Money talks, bullshit walks. With Microsoft you get both.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    2. Re:why not support the companies that support us? by sn0wman3030 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree whole-heartedly. This is 2003, and the biggest game of the year locks you down to a propriotary platform. This is an inexcusable insult on Valve's behalf.

      ID and Activition are both releasing competitors to Half-Life 2 (Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004) that will run on linux, and I would strongly recomend either of them over HL2 soley based on principal. If you just buy the damn game like they want you to, and never demand alternative OS support, they're never going to care.

      It's too bad, really, because hl2 looks like a spectacular game.

      --
      Life is offtopic.
  2. Re:MS does good by thryllkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know much from a game coder angle, but my position in recent years has been that Linux is a OS for getting work done, and Windows is an excellent platform for games. With Microsoft in the console market with the X-Box, maybe they are preparing themselves to be a game company when Linux takes over the desktop market (if it does). Another piece of support for microsoft and gaming is this: the last few nights I've been playing Asheron's Call 2, and I gotta say it pwns everquest as far as getting a new player started and interested.

    --

    Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

  3. Re:Linux uses don't get it. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When linux comes out with a directx equivelent then they might write for it ( this is ONE set of API's ) . Not opengl doesn't count, that is only graphics.
    You need sound,graphics,networking,AND graphics card writers writing to those drivers. That is what makes windows such a good gaming platform. Linux needs to consolidate and throw away the 4 graphics libraries and the 3 different sound package blah blah blah blah blah...

    Oh darn... wait, you mean something like this? Well, if you don't like that, how about this one? Oh, I see... you forgot to do any research before you made you groundless claim.

    Then maybe folks will port apps. If I write a game on linux 7.2 blah blah blah...

    "Linux 7.2", huh? Thanks for proving my point that you don't know wtf you're talking about. "Interesting" my ass.

    --
    Join Tor today!
  4. Re:Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets assume we write a portable version of code instead of a Windows tied version. Mac OS X (and by extension Linux which is *nix like) is then a very obvious targets. So, original development costs possibly go up a bit. Then, work is done to tune the port it onto multiple platforms. You use OpenGL, have to write a different core sound driver for each platform you target, different installers, maybe a few other tweaks, and that's it. Now, this only brings in a possible 5% of the market place, like you stated. But 5% of 300 million is 1.5 million. If 1% of that market buys the game, you've got 150,000 more customers. You've also got a very portable game which minus the graphics engine should work on an xbox (yet another market). You've also got very little rewrite. Now, it might make sense for a one time shot company who doesn't have the resources to write for multiple platforms, but for even remotely large projects now days there's no reason to use anything but mostly portable C or C++. It's not like you need to write anything in assembly which was the old excuse. Or is 150,000*$30 (aka $4.5 million) not worth the upfront extra work to write portable code in the first place?

  5. Re:MS does good by thryllkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prolly true, but then try playing Half-Life2 in Linux. How much better are your frame rates now? Until Linux has enough games to compete with MS, Windows will be a better platform for games regardless of Linux's technological supiriority. Even though the X-Box has better graphics, most people will say that the PS2 is better. Why? Because it has more games that is why.

    --

    Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.