Slashdot Mirror
Does Linux Have Game?
kwpulliam writes "Tom's Hardware has an interesting writeup, discussing the difficulties in bringing games to Linux, and the dilemmas faced by the graphics card developers."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Why can't someone port the Direct3D API to Linux? This would save a lot of hassle of porting the games to OpenGL.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Linux has gaim.
Id seems to do a good job of getting their games working in Linux and THEY seem to push the envelope of what gaming IS. If they can do it, I'm sure others can as well. Just as soon as the other game manufacturers get their priorities in order that is. :)
Well, I hate to say it but one of the biggest titles coming to Linux was pre-empted from Linux, OS X, and even Windows in favor of the X-box. Yes, eventually it shipped for Windows and OS X, but Linux was left out in the cold when Microsoft purchased Bungie. Bungie had plans for simultaneous release of Halo on Windows and OS X to be followed soon by a Linux release. That all changed when Bungie was bought out. Honestly given the consolidation within the game industry, I don't see much hope for games on Linux for a few years yet which is sort of odd given Linux's marketshare as being so much greater than OS X. Perhaps Toms Hardware is correct when it comes to Linux being a true desktop replacement?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The problem I have is ATI video drivers for Linux. So far they have been a huge dissapointment. My brother has an Dell notebook with an old nVidia graphics card that works much better than my Radeon 9800.
For productivity, I'm using OpenOffice, FireFox and Thunderbird amongst other open source applications. For games, I play Savage (http://www.s2games.com) which has a native Linux binary. I also play some other games like BattleField 1942 and Vietnam that run under Linux through an emulator.
The rate limiting step here is the ATI video drivers. It's the only thing keeping me running Windows XP instead of Linux.
...it's called Tetris. And XTris. And Hextris. And CubeTris. And TrisTris. And GLTris. And...
Clearly, the most dominant platform on consumer computers is going to have the vast majority of games available.
If Linux was the dominant OS, you'd see plenty of games available.
Simple as that.
From LokiGames website: Loki is closed. Thanks for your patronage. Tried & failed already.
Why pay when Linux users use a free OS. Everybody expects their games to be free.
What game companies should do is like linux companies make money: release the game for free but charge for tech support. Of course, when someone figures how to do the MUST-HAVE exclusively on Linux then things will change... not likely.
This is the final goal for open source. They need to become a gaming platform, both commercially and not, if they want to win the war with Microsoft.
Game developers should only use OpenGL for newly written rendering code. It is a high performance, advancing standard. Microsoft often "borrows" from it for Direct X (n+1).
OpenGL makes Linux, BSD, MacOS X and other ports practical as well as not having to deal with Microsoft's arbitrary API's.
In these days, game = 3d video card.
And the support of 3d Video cards in linux is pathetic, only nvidia gives some interest on that, but the main reason is because of the MESS that is the interface to make drivers work in LINUX.
Every year comes a new bunch of video cards, windows get the drivers, LINUX? don't.
If LINUX wants fo compete with windows on ANYTHING, FIX THE DAMN DRIVERS, make it easy to developers, and support commercial drivers well too, manufactures have the right to keep their source in a very competitive market.
Just check any benchmark of DOOM3 in windows x linux. The result is always, linux is slower, and more difficult to install and conigure the drivers.
Not being able to play games on Linux is exactly why I still am running Windows on my systems. I am a heavy (as in activity, not weight) Ghost Recon, UT2004, and Diablo II gamer. I also have Half Life 2 that my wife purchased for me for Christmas waiting for my system to be upgraded, and I'm looking forward to the PC version of Ghost Recon II.
Of course, what do these require? DirectX.
And what's the only operating system that truly supports it? Well, it ain't Linux.
All of the other major apps that I use are open source - Firefox, OpenOffice, CDex, etc. I have my trusty Sun Blade 100 up and running right next to me as well. So, I don't need Windows for all of my normal day to day stuff. I can just as easily run Linux or Solaris x86 for everything but gaming. Now that Linux has greatly evolved towards the desktop, the ability to play DirectX games is the last hurdle to getting Windows off of my main systems.
At its core DirectX is just a set of common libraries. Is there no efficient way to convert Windows/DirectX calls to the equivalent Linux calls? We're no longer in the days of having separate VESA drivers for each video card. Surely, there must be some way out there to develop a functional DirectLinuX. Then again, that's why I'm a system admin, not a programmer.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Seriously, why aren't more Open Source games developed? I'm not talking Pong I'm talking Halo 2, Doom 3 level. I know the obvious answer is they are really expensive and time consuming to produce. If many of the people working on current games are into Open Source why not show there support by starting serious Open Source games in their spare time. Aim them first at Linux then port them to Windows and OSX later. Seems easier to port the other direction anyway, more video card support etc.
Just a question. If everyone is so serious about supporting it donate the time and start building games that can compete one to one with the big boys. Technically they should be better since it's a labor of love and all the technical issues that everyone complains about, game play and such, should have been adressed in development. Without marketing and corporate suits to consider the games should be able to hit a whole new level and actually lead the pack.
Just a thought.
Look at Oracle. Did they have a Linux port when nobody used Linux? No, but when Linux started to grow at 30% percent rate in the server market they started to think about it.
Games are a problem of how many people uses it on a desktop, nothing else. And games should be easier to support than a database since in games they spent most of the time in the "data" which depends on the game engine not in the OS, and the game engine can't be that hard with companies like Id. The core problem here is Direct3D but if people starts using linux I don't doubt lots of game companies will consider to create new games in opengl if they can get enought revenue from linux people.
With the current market share linux has is quite difficult to get anything. But if it grows we'll have lots of games, be sure. Heck, just look at doom, halflike, quake. Those games have been ported to linux (or they're in their way), and how much money can they have got those companies from the linux port? Nothing? Or almost nothing, compared with the revenue from the windows clients. That demonstrates that supporting games in linux is not hard, if it were too dificult and with the current lack of interest in the linux port they wouldn't have done it.
From the article:
ATi cards' initial problems with Linux were due to a lack of driver support for Doom III. (...) Regardless of whether a game is based on an OpenGL or Direct3D API, the graphics card vendor's driver must support the game.
Bullshit. What's the fucking point of utilizing any API for any development if you have to have the vendor modify it to work with your product? I suppose that absolutely no OpenGL game ever works under linux without ATI modifying thier drivers to specifically support that game? There's a lot of games out there. Good luck implementing support at the driver level for each and every one of them, ATI.
It just pisses me off to see ATI try to pass this off as id's problem, when in reality there wouldn't be any fucking problem if ATI were make a proper implementation of OpenGL on linux, instead of focusing entirely on D3D/Win32.
End rant. Flame on, and all that good shit.
Wait a minute... did I miss anything (probably), but what's this thing that "Regardless of whether a game is based on an OpenGL or Direct3D API, the graphics card vendor's driver must support the game."?!?
... or not?
The graphics card vendor's API implementation should be complete regardless of the games that use that API. Of course a card could have certain hardware limitations not allowing it to actually support the whole set, but this doesn't look to be the case with Doom3 and ATI.
True, today developers usually choose just one reference vendor for the development process (maybe sometimes because of the money they get rather than the actual lack of time to test on both, cmon there are just two!), therefore there could be some (possibly minor) incompatibilities with the other, but if both vendors' drivers were as complete as possible, that would definitely be a step in the right direction...!
stupid.
Very hard. Since most games rely heavily on libraries of code the compiler would have to be able to recognise the functions and either translate Windows DLL calls to Linux .so calls or synthesise new code for routines which are not supported on Linux.
This is in the realm of possible but not the realm of even moderately difficult. Otherwise, as you say, it would already have been done.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yes, ALL we need is a really well programmed display driver and gfx API for Linux. Many people haven't realised it yet, but NOW we do have the sound driver problem solved as ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) was incorporated into Kernel 2.6 series. Now we have a common sound architecture and that's a really good start.
Winelib aims to do something like this, and for simple apps, it works. It still has a long way to go, and everytime MS adds or changes an API, it just adds to the to-do list.
In general, though, it isn't translating the source code itself, but compiling it on the target platform, where the APIs you use have to be available in some form. Winelib provides many of the Win32 APIs to Linux, but Direct3D is not among them.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Ok, maybe Direct3D is the main GUI on windows but it is of no relevance anywhere else. Not on Linux. Not on BSD. Not on MacOS. Not on the PS2. Not even Windows-CE and therefore not on PDAs and Mobile Phones. Nowhere except Wintel.
Therefore any sane producer should use OpenGL which makes it very easy to bring a product to any console, any computer and after some years to PDAs and Mobile Phones.
Today a productive sellcycle for a game should be:
1. sell on consoles - they have less problems with piracy and people are more willing to pay (overpriced) prices.
2. after the first hot sellcycle - three to twelve months - port the game to Desktop-Computers. There are million people which do not want a console but still want to play a game. Also those games are a bit cheaper which gets you more customers. Your game gets pirated though but as sales for (1.) already are over you simply live with it.
3. Meanwhile port it to Unix-Desktops or in other words, MacOS and Linux. It is a piece of cake, given you planes porting through all cycles means you gave some thoughts right at the start about portability and this pay off now. 10-20% additional sales for maybe 10 working days.
4. After several years portable gameconsoles, PDAs and Cell-Phones are becoming a target - your game outsold on the desktop and consoles, people knew your game and have good memory. People actually are willing to pay for Mario/PDA after having played Mario/Console. So now you recompile your game to those portable plattforms, sell it for a real low-budget-price and most likely you are outselling all earlier sales.
All portings only take some days of work, yes this can be done with some planing.
This cycle and no other will give maximum earnings. And it simply forbids use of Direct3D.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
To get better gaming support on Linux we need more Linux gamers, but to get more Linux gamers we need better Linux gaming support.
It looks like it's been /.'ed so here's the full article text (sans images).
---------------
Does Linux Have Game
Introduction
[IMAGE]
Live out your Unreal 2004 midnight adventures on Linux.
Earlier this year, our Linux Comes to the Desktop article caused a stir, when we stated that gaming on a Linux platform remained a limited proposition. Now it is time to detail why this is the case. We will explore what is the best you can hope for when you opt for the penguin to play Unreal and Doom III. We will also look at why Linux lovers must be contented with the state of things -- for the time being, that is, because things are looking up for the Linux gaming crowd.
So why is wide-scale gaming support for Linux not 100% there? A better question may be: why would game developers spend the money to add Linux functionality to games for a limited number of users? The answer is not that simple, especially since Linux desktop use continues to grow.
There are many reasons why you might want to shift from Windows to a Linux OS. We won't cover what those reasons might be in detail here, but will note that users routinely complain of Windows instability, high prices and many layers of software that impede performance. For others, there are ethical considerations for avoiding Windows, such as decisions by courts of law in the U.S. and Europe holding that Microsoft has illegally wielded its monopolistic influence in the marketplace. On the other hand, there are magazines out there, backed by now-a-word-from-our-sponsor Microsoft ads, that claim Windows XP deserves your money.
According to a report issued this month by analyst firm IDC, Linux "is no longer a niche phenomenon." The overall Linux marketplace revenues for server and PC hardware and packaged software are expected to reach $35.7 billion by 2008, IDC says. Packaged software revenue is the fastest growing market segment within the Linux marketplace, growing 44% annually to over $14 billion in 2008.
On the desktop, IDC says Linux PC shipments are expected to almost triple from six million units this year to 17 million units in 2008. Percentages of PCs shipped with Linux increase from about 3.8% in 2004 to about 7% in 2008. However, these numbers do not take into account the PC units shipped with Windows, to which Linux is subsequently added.
As you can see, the evidence suggests that Linux on the desktop is growing, and that means more PC gamers who will want to be able to frag at will in Linux. In the game console sector, hackers already know that Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's Playstation II also support Linux.
Until Linux does become as pervasive as IDC and other analysts claim it will, what is a gamer who wants to play Halo on a Linux platform do? And why is it such an issue to begin with? Without detailing differences based on benchmarks, we offer a look at the connection between graphics card drivers and the APIs that developers use for their games, and how the interface between the two works and doesn't work with Linux.
Direct3D Vs. OpenGL
[IMAGE]
Doom III shows OpenGL can rock
Whether game developers use Direct3D or OpenGL as their API is the main determinant of whether a game will run on Linux or not. Both APIs are used to create games' 3D imagery, including lines and other shapes, smoke, shadows and all the other good imagery games offer. It has been said that Direct3D is superior to OpenGL, but this is not really the case. While Direct3D is indeed the predominant game API, superior graphics have more to do with the creative skills of the game developers than the choice of API.
Direct3D falls under the brought-to-you-by-Microsoft umbrella, and is geared for the Windows-only world. Because Windows is the main OS in the PC world, graphics card makers have only one OS with which to contend when configuring their drivers for Direct3D games.
OpenGL, meanwhile, is everywhere - it is compatible with Linux, Windows, Unix and Mac OS. But
What if this signature were clever?
A better question: does Tom's webserver have game?
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I've been thinking about why there's a lack of high-quality open source games. The easy answer would be the huge artistic & etc. effort required, but I'm not entirely sure that's true: just look at the huge number of free (unsure whether Free) mods for Windows games. So the problem actually seems to lie with the engine. We need a high quality (as in, up there with the latest commercial ones) open source game engine first; having it be cross platform wouldn't hurt, either.
Unfortunately, though, games are dissimilar to most other apps in that, for most other apps, you only need one: Windows has MS Office, Linux has OpenOffice.org, for example. For games, however, you need lots of them: Linux has Unreal and Doom, but Windows also has Far Cry, Half Life, and all the rest. So just having good open source games won't be enough unless all the Windows ones suddenly turn open source as well, which is unlikely.
So in the end it's back to the chicken-and-egg situation of the most popular OS getting the most games, and the OS with the most games getting more popular -- Linux will have to gain a larger installed base in other, non-gaming circles first, for game creators to have an incentive to port to it. (Which is already happening, to a degree. It just needs to continue.)
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
I think this article, while right in its own context, is too graphics-centric and doesn't provide a full perspective on the problem, it's far worse that one can expect from just RTFA.
Sure, graphics are important, but sound, network and input APIs are actually in a much worse situation.
We can argue all we want about how OpenGL is better in many ways and I'd agree wholeheartedly, but Linux's sound, input and network support is just too behind the times in terms "out of the box" functionality or ease of use.
I have been a developer for many years and worked on many platforms, and a common pattern on any serious platform (even going back to the 8-bit days) is that there's complete (granted it's almost never perfect) support for all areas, and DirectX here is no exception, it has by far the best integrated gaming support of any API in existence. Whether it's buggy or low-performance or not cross-platform portable doesn't matter that much. Time-to-market is the name of the game, you want a sellable product and DirectX is the fastest way.
Too often for this kind of argument I receive answers that are ignorant, or uninformed at best, some of them sound like: "But there's OpenAL and it's cross-platform", "udev and hotplug are TEH R0x0RZ", "Linux networking is robust and good enough for servers, therefore desktop performance is guaranteed", "ALSA is better than the Windows crap", "Linux is more stable". Some of them may be right, and Hey! I want Linux to be successful too! But they're completely missing the point and that doesn't help the situation.
We need better API integration, better driver support from chipset vendors (not just graphics, you pixel whores!), BETTER END-USER UTILITIES and some company like Transgaming that can provide a sensible porting/cross-platform middleware solution for developers, not just wrappers for end-users. Criterion's Renderware is a very successful solution for home consoles, one would think there's a market for something like this on the PC.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
From page 2:
Doesn't support of OpenGL imply support for that game? Or are game makers adding proprietary OpenGL extensions?
I'm not trying to start anything, but if you look at the community that plays console games versus those of us who game on a PC, you have to see that PC gamers are more "geeky" than console folks. As consoles get better (and less expensive), I predict that PC gaming will die. Give it a decade. Thus, gaming on Linux will, IMHO, become a moot point.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
This is *the* source for great Linux games (both free and non-free, mostly free though). Most games on the first page of this list is really good actually. :)
> What would drive the development of games on Linux is convincing the game manufacturers (e.g. Sony and its PS) to use Linux as the operating system and Apple to use Linux instead of BSD as the basis of MacOS.
Wether Apple uses Linux or BSD as basis for their OS really does not matter at all. For developer they are virtually identical, and there is extremely little effort involved in porting between the 2 (I have done it myself for quite a few programs)
The real issue is Apple using its own gui with its own api, and Linux, BSD and other Unix variations running X + some window manager as gui.
That said, in both cases the api used for 3D is OpenGL, so again this should not be much of a problem for the 3D graphics part of games. 2D graphics (when not done with OpenGL) and input devices are much more of a problem.
Apple wants control over their source and contributions to that source in a way that the GPL does not allow, which makes it at least somewhat difficult for them to use Linux.
So, it introduces extra problems for Apple and is not going to do shit for developers. You do have a point with the desire for an api that is available on both and would satisfy game devekopers, but your suggested solution is not going to solve anything.
It would help a lot more if Apple made the Quartz sources available as GPL, that would allow for a common api for graphics between Linux and Apple's OS X. Seeing how that is also one of their main selling arguments, which they would give away when GPLing it, this is not very likely to happen anytime soon.
A fast api that would be available with X and Quartz would be the second best option.
Om both cases a common api for controllers and other input devices is also required.
Two worries were preventing me from doing it. One was a worry about the inability to send a Microsoft Word format document like a resume in an e-mail, but of course, you have the ability to do that in Linux currently, and I guess for now, legacy Word programs force Microsoft to maintain backwards compatibility. The second worry, a more real one, was games. I knew the latest versions of Doom, Warcraft, Everquest and so forth were on Microsoft and not Linux. This turns out to be more substantial than my vague uneasiness over the ability to send Word format documents (which of course, for now, you can send in Linux).
What I did is install Debian 3.0 ("woody"). I played some games with lightweight graphics capability like Freeciv or Xboard, but then wanted something more hardcore so I downloaded Tux Racer. It was slooooow when I played. Averaging 0.7 frames per second actually. So then I read I needed drivers for my specifics graphics card to get it to a higher fps rate. I began installing the non-free kernel modules for it, but it was unhappy with the versions of some Debian 3.0 packages, especially XFree86 (xserver-common). I was also having some problems with my H-P PSC (Printer-Scanner-Copier) and its Linux drivers because Debian 3.0 had an ancient version of Python and so forth. So I decided to upgrade from stable version Debian 3.0 ("Woody") to testing version Debian 3.1 ("Sarge").
This fixed my HP PSC problems with Python versions. I am still struggling with Mesa, OpenGL and so forth, and right now can not run tux-racer. I have newer version of Mesa then I did with Debian 3.0, but I'm told my newer one is out-of-date by Tux Racer (whereas my older one was not). I haven't even tried to put the special drivers for my graphics card driver in (which needed the newer version of XFree86).
Anyhow, I've been using UNIX since 1989, and have been a UNIX sysadmin since 1996, and getting Mesa/OpenGL packages working on Debian is giving me trouble, I can imagine what it would be like for someone less experienced. Plus, even if I do get Mesa working for Tux Racer, I will have to be fortunate enough to have graphics acceleration support for my card in Linux. And then, even if those two birds get knocked down, how many games are there out there for Linux with those capabilities - Tux Racer? One or two more? What else? I already know that ease-of-setup for graphics is easier in Windows than Linux (system upgrade, then Mesa problem, followed by looking for graphics acceleration support for my card which may or may not be a problem), how does it stack up against DirectX for the same equipment?
Of course, for free systems, one good thing is I can be part of the solution. I have over a decade of UNIX experience, but only recently has my C programming gotten semi-decent (if that - I can write an OK program in a month, but then it takes me a year to debug all the thread race conditions, buffer overflows and so forth I seem to leave about). Even so, it is very daunting for me to feel I can contribute to these sorts of projects. I know a lot about how the Gnutella protocol so I have a leg up on other people looking to contribute to them - but looking over the code and seeing all of the linked lists, pointers to pointers, calls to GLib and so forth, I wonder if I can ever make a contribution to them since unlike full-time developers, I only have the faintest ideas how things like linked lists work. The learning curve to be able to contribute to these projects is somewhat steep in my opinion, although I always hear stories about kids who stumble over some code, begin sending contributions, and begin running some major project while a teenager, like the guy who maintains the Linux 2.4 kernel I run on my machine.
Change 'the' to 'an' and you may have a point. The PS2 doesn't use linux as the operating system in the same respect as microsoft uses a windows based kernel as the operating system on the xbox. Linux on the PS2 is confined to the linux kit, its not like when you are playing a game on the PS2 it's running on top of linux. It's not.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Check out the mailing list.
Gee whiz folks, we've got UT2004 with a NATIVE PORT, we've got Doom 3 with a NATIVE PORT (excellent port thank you ID), HL2 plays under Cedega (you need a brute of a CPU tho.) Lots of games with nice installers: Check out http://liflg.org/ for installers for the best games.
People cry that it's too hard to get your video to work; I'm really sorry you were too cheap to get the GeForce Go 5200 and got the Intel "Extreme" integrated graphics and now your pixel shader games look crappy. Nevertheless, UT2004 and the UT2004 DEMO play under linux with the DRI drivers.
Stop complaining, Loki is gone, but http://icculus.org/ is still around, and several of those guys WORKED for loki. If you want it EASY, you want GAMES then either USE WINDOWS or buy an X-Box. If you prefer Linux and are willing to expend the time and energy (and reap the rewards of what you learn) then USE LINUX and play the games that work well, there are a bloody AWFUL lot of games that work, work well and aren't that difficult to set up.
Take a little time, subscribe to http://www.transgaming.com/, make a little donation to http://liflg.org/, buy products from http://www.nvidia.com/ and shut up & enjoy the games!
the article basically says: - OpenGL games can look as good as Direct3D games - Linux games use OpenGL - NVidia is the better choice for Linux gamers - Transgaming's Cedega is useful Since these are mostly well-known facts, the article is not worth bothering with (sorry TomsHardware), it contains nothing new.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
NVIDIA does have alot of third party extensions and other third party IP in their code...so if they open sourced that it would piss off alot of other companies.
Needless to say, I hope one day they can provide a nice driver that doesn't taint the kernel, however I am grateful that they are actually giving us something that is fully functional in Linux (x86, AMD-64) and FreeBSD.
quite frankly, until I can render Slashdot properly on Firefox on Windows, a task which should be basic, especially compared to writing a video game, i suspect that free software operating platforms are going to languish in the background, particularly with games. This is not a troll or flamebait. I'm just saying, we need to get our own shit together before we start trying to make a windows competitor that's going to get anywhere in the market.
That's bound to change, though: Linux makes a lot of sense for home users.
Some years ago I abandoned Windows on the desktop and switched entirely to Linux. I bought every game from Lokigames with the exception of Eric's ultimate solitare. (I hate solitaire). I purchased Unreal Tournament and other linux compatable games and wrote on the cards "PURCHASED FOR USE WITH LINUX" on the cards that I mailed back.
Problem was, as an advocate (zealot?) I could not play Half-Life with my friends, and they were all into Half-Life. Now, don't tell me that you can run Half-Life on Linux by doing this or by doing that... I know all the things needed to make it work (it works now much better than it did then). However, it really never worked on Linux, or at least I should say it BARELY worked. I certanly could not use it for deathmatching.
When Q3A came out, I bought a Matrox card specifically because of the Linux compatible drivers, and their support of Linux. But Q3A did not run all that great on my machine, even if Linux did have a higher FPS at some of the more esoteric resolutions (Like 640X480 or LESS).
Now, as I type this, I am typing from an XP machine. It is not nearly as stable as I would like - nothing like the non-gui server I have next to me running RH 6.2 (Never bothered to upgrade it, it is still running just fine thanks.) I work on Linux all day, and I now do all my work with Putty to connect to the servers I work on. I am considering going back to Linux on the desktop for browsing, email and chat as I have been having stablity issues with XP and my DVD burner. However, I like my games, and I like playing them well. Furthermore, I like having the highest FPS and quality settings avaliable.
I use my computers as a tool, and when I get home and I want to play Counter Strike Source, Desert Combat or America's Army with my friends I use Windows XP. Don't tell me that these can work on Linux - I already know - and I don't care. I wasted too much of my time in zealotry trying to get some of my older games to run as well under Linux as they do on windows. I don't love XP - but it runs my games. You see, I like Windows for the ability to play games with my friends. I like Linux to run as a server and have the stability and power that a server should have. I don't use Windows servers myself, and I dont use Linux gaming machines. I would like it to change, but when I get home after work, I just want to game with my friends. I have no desire to poke a Linux box more. I get paid to do that at work, I dont want to do it at home.
Would I like to see it change? Sure, but it won't happen for some time if it does, and I have better things to do with my time than be a zealot.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
You mean keep doing what the mass majority of gamers have been doing for years? Its that kind of attitude why Linux is so heavily shunned by casual gamers. Most people are not willing to expend the time and energy and reap the rewards of what you learn just to get UT2004 running in Linux when they can use the auto-installing and play it on Windows. People want EASY. People don't like having to change their video settings everytime they want to play a certain game.
The masses don't like to get told, 'you should learn our complex and difficult methods to achieve the same results using your simplicitic and traditional ways.' Its like telling the American people that the electorial college is inferior (and in a way it is) but even if its true, people aren't going to go along with it for the sake of ease. (Do you REALLY want to spend the time and effort necessary to constantly remain updated and educated on what goes on in the government while having a job/family/school/social life/playing video games/reading Slashdot/etc.?)
But at least they're still supporting both versions.
1.65 was just recently released for both Linux and Windows. I still haven't got it working correctly in linux (no fault of Bioware, I have a poorly supported onboard video) This brings up the issue: not everyone has access to bleeding edge hardware. (I have to get relatives to ship from overseas or pay up to 3x the going rate - a crappy mx440 is over the equivalent of 200 dollars here, and a 6800 goes for the equivalent of 1200 dollars) So I'm forced to go with less than optimal hardware for the time being.
Lack of open drivers is not always the manufacturer's direct fault - often they have NDA's on licenced technologies that limit what they can reveal to 3rd parties (the poor folks trying to get Linux drivers working) hence, unless the company is committed to linux support like NVidia, and makes their own drivers in-house with binary releases, even rudimentary gaming support for the rest of us is an uphill battle.
Not is all gloom and doom however, for instance I find the linux sound drivers for my motherboard far superior to the Windows ones!
The last two game purchases I made were deliberately because of Linux support... I'm not one of the mythical freeloaders the Microsoft astroturfers seem to go on about. I am also working on getting an NVidia card (6600GT) sent here, but for the time being I still need to dual-boot.
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
Direct3D (otherwise known as D3D) is simply Microsoft's answer to OpenGL- period, end of story.
What you're referring to is DirectX which is the framework comprising:
DirectPlay (networking), DirectInput (keyboard/mouse/joysticks), DirectSound (sound (duh...)), and DirectGraphics (2D rendering).
In each of these there's an analogous or similar platform under Linux and MacOS (which, amazingly enough, are the same things...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
...aren't all they're cracked up to be. If you code to DX8 you're largely coding to features of a Radeon R200 or better. Sure, your cards "support" it, but the features of DX8 was that of the ones initially offered only by ATI products. DX9's NVidia's playground and so forth.
It's not really a standard save by Microsoft- everyone else uses OpenGL, even MS offers it. That, my friend is the definition of a standard.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The problem isn't that they are full of themselves that they don't think anyone else could write better drivers than they could. The problem they have is that if they publish the specs, then some upstart company could potentially reverse engineer all their hard work (and in the process find ways around patents) without all the money that ATI and NVidia put into R&D for creating the techologies in the first place. There are precedents for this sort of thing, so it's not just paranoia on their part.
If that danger could somehow be eliminated, I'm sure ATI and NVidia would absolutely _LOVE_ to publish their specs, since it would cut down on their own development costs dramatically to let the OSS community write drivers for them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
upstart company could potentially reverse engineer all their hard work
The only thing is that some upstart company willing to work this way to make what is essentially an nVidia clone would have the resources and the guts to reverse engineer it from the existing nvidia driver.
As it is, either way you're not going to figure out the "magic" within the card whether or not they publish specs, the worst that would happen is that CopycatCorp would sell a video card that would be run by nVidia's drivers, cutting the cost of writing a driver for their card.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It is worth noting, that for a desktop OS to survive in the long term, it needs games!
The reason for this is simple. Just as a country's most important asset is its children, so too an OSes most important asset is its new users. Without new users, any OS would quickly crumble. And what's the best way of getting newbies to flock to your OS? Good question, but games would be my first answer.
Everyone begins life as a clueless newbie. Yes everyone! From Anonymous Cowards to Stallmanesque gurus. We all learn our skills bit by bit, and computer games play their part. Through playing and using computer games and other "lesiure" applications, like instant messengers, P2P apps and browsing "kewl" internet sites, the clueless newbie slowly learns new skills and gradually evolves to a script kiddie and onto the 311t h4ck0r!!11 and then onto regular tech head status. Those that don't, simply become more proficient and comfortable with their OS, and hence the OSes future is secured.
I think that games play a vital role in the lifecycle of a mainstream OS. I can safely say that because of games, I learned the basics of computing years before I would otherwise have. As a simple example, consider solitare and minesweeper. Sure they cost the economy millions in lost time, but without them millions more would be wasted training people how to use the mouse. Give anyone solitare to play and they will be a wizard with the mouse in half an hour. Aunt Tillies included!
A trivial example perhaps, but give a teenager Doom III or Command and Conquer, and they'll soon grasp extremely basic concepts like, "You need to save your progress", "Your files go here", "Computers (AI) are not smart. Computer needs to be told what to do" and "You need to install a program to get it to work". Seem absurd? Ask any Helldesk frontliners if they'd like their users to know this. Simple basics, but many may go on to download patches and updates (users familiar with updates!!), expierience crashes (computer isn't "broken") , fiddle with ini files, or even mess with the ingame console commands, if they exist. The social aspect of computer gaming is also helpful, as young people will learn quickly if some 311t is scoffing at them because they cannot zip a file (many teenagers can't you know). And so they learn. The regular PC gamer considers him/herself a regular whiz at the computer, is much more comfortable with their OS, and will need far less training in later life. Neat eh?
But there's a downside to eight year olds being able to email and browse the net. They learn on one OS, and guess what OS they'll gravitate towards in later life? Windows will be dominant for the next 30 years! At least! Why? Because an entire generation has grown up on windows games, windows messangers, windows emails and windows apps! A whole generation! These users view Linux as a scary, dark place filled will danger and elite hackers, just as new windows users view ALL computers as scary, dark places filled will danger and elite hackers. I fear that the generation that grew up on winamp, kazaa and half-life is lost to Linux. They have grown up on Windows! Grown up on the windows paradigms and concepts. They understand C:\ not / , 'Program Files' not 'usr', installshield not rpm. I doubt if these people will ever leave the Microsoft fold en masse. Some might, but the majority will stick to what they know.
Linux needs to be newbie friendly! It must have games! Killer app games, big hulking 3D extravaganzas, with all the driver support FOSS can offer. Plug and play needs to be standard. We need distros like gaming Knoppix now! If Linux doesn't get game, then it will lose another generation of potential penguins to the bitter chill of a OS devoid of gaming richness. Standardise Linux Gaming Now! Get P2P on the penguin!
People have to be able to have fun in Linux!!
May the Maths Be with you!
"Sony are soon to release linux for the PS2."
That happened 4 years ago
"PS games == Linux games"
This is only PS games that YOU write== linux games.
Copied directly from http://www.winehq.com/site/docs/wine-faq/index#IS
Wine can call itself anything it wants, but the fact remains that Wine does the following:
If you intend on using the ROM for a console game (such example consoles are the NES, SNES, Genesis, Playstation, Gamboy, and so on), you use a program loader which loads and executes a ROM, and a set of libraries that implements the console API calls using their UNIX or X11 or Windows or Linux or DOS or Nokia equivalents.
In that situation, you are using an emulator. How does this differ when you're trying to run a Windows application?
Just because the people maintaining Wine say it's not an emulator, does not mean this is true. In fact, if you go back a few years, to say, 1998, you will clearly see that WINE stood for WINdows Emulator. Why? Because that's what it is.
Also, before you go and try and say that WINE used to stand for WINdows Emulator, and they later changed it because the program changed, let me quote the section from the WINdows Emulator FAQ which describes what WINE is:
Yes, with the exception of the addition of 5 words ("... operating systems such as Linux"), it's verbatim.