Slashdot Mirror
Expert Opinions On Linux Gaming's Future
jg21 writes "Following
on from yesterday's Slashdot coverage of the idea to launch a games-based Linux
distro, LinuxWorld Magazine has held a Gaming Round Table involving Chris DiBona, Ryan
Gordon, Timothee Besset, Gavriel
State, and Joe Valenzuela about where Linux
currently stands and how it will one day become a premier gaming platform. 'It
became perfectly clear to me that most of the technological issues are already
solved, and that the others won't take too long to fix once the game publishers
really get into the mix,' reports Dee-Ann LeBlanc, Gaming Industry Editor for
LinuxWorld, who coordinated the round table. Well worth reading."
The FA makes some valid points about the cost of porting games to linux. However, there are commercial-quality game engines out there that do run under linux. One of them, Nebula if even open source (even though Nebula2 is still lacking graphics support for linux, but that's in the works). Nebula1 is perfectly useable and has all kinds of goodies, including input handling, sound, and a slick architecture.
I believe the major problem at the moment is definitely the difference in availability/quality of hardware accelerated graphics drivers. One ATI get their shit together, the story might be different...
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
That may be true for games but as for professional 3d apps, OpenGL is king. Likely because of crossplatformability. Since those professional OpenGL cards cost so much (they make the money) and they can just apply the same technology to the game cards is another reason OpenGL is still strong for games.
A 7-syllable word that makes sense! A new personal record!
The biggest problem is convincing developers that there's money in it for them.
Most are under the impression that they shouldn't bother with anything other than Windows because there's no money in it. "95% of the market is Windows, so why bother with a poultry 5%" type attitude.
Also, added to the cost is desktop support. If you write a game for just Windows you only have to worry about Windows problems. If you write a game for Linux and Mac OS X, you have to hire, train, and then troubleshoot Linux and Mac problems.
The other problem is to convince developers to NOT design their game around proprietary technologies such as DirectX.
By the way, this information comes from the developers themselves. Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap excuses for lazyass companies trying to squeeze out every profit they can by minimizing responsibility. I'm an avid Mac user but I just recently had to buy a PC just to play games. Counter-Strike, Infantry, and Subspace are Windows only and impossible to play under emulation. However, I'd LOVE to see all my favorite games running under Linux and Mac OS X so I can chuck Windows.
If game developers can't be convinced to even write games for the Macintosh using the above excuses (especially the marketshare one), why would they be at all interested in a desktop that has an even smaller marketshare than the Macintosh?