Slashdot Mirror
Valve Looking to Port Games to Linux?
Martin Bozic writes "Valve is apparently looking for senior engineers to port games to Linux. They have an ad up on the official site looking for a Senior Software Engineer with experience in 'systems engineering designing and developing communications software and hardware solutions including resolving problems surrounding real-time and non real time PC- based systems using C++ and network programming algorithms and their interaction with physical devices.' One of the lines under the job description is the simple statement: 'Port Windows-based games to the Linux platform.'" No reason to get excited about this before they make an official announcement; while this may eventually mean Half-Life 2 running under Linux, they may just want penguin-based folks to play Peggle.
The man's a porting machine, from the old Loki days up to a lot of the current Linux compatible titles. http://www.icculus.org/~icculus/
I'll be all over it in a hearbeat. That game and CS:S are the only reasons I give windows any hard drive space at all.
Linux is already known to have a few rootkits available, so they will save on recoding.
Why would they be required to do that? Just because they might release software on Linux does not mean that they are in any way obligated to release the source. There is nothing that says that if you write software for Linux you must release the source code. Microsoft could write Office for Linux but they would be under absolutely no obligation to release the source code, and of course we know that they never would. I know that many here think that Linux is synonymous with open source, but in reality open source is not a requirement for Linux.
A few years ago, I spoke with someone from one company that makes astronomy-based software who said that they decided not to release their software in the early days of Linux because of the demand at the time from Linux extremists to release the source code. Please don't scare Steam into the same kind of retraction by suggesting or insisting that they release their code as well. You can be almost guaranteed that Steam would be a binary release, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
God I hope so. I'm sick of dual booting and Cedega is a pain. I for one welcome our new Linux gaming overloards.
Server software may run under Linux and the games under Windows.
I hate signatures
We ran into exactly this as well. We had binaries for both Windows and Linux and a significant portion (read: 75%+) of the queries about the Linux software included questions about getting the source code for it as well. More than a few indicated that our not willing to give them source code was why they didn't use/buy our product.
There are already real games on Linux. Just not so many. All the Quake games and most of the major Quake / Doom3 engine games are on Linux (ET: Quake Wars is coming soon for example). Same for the UT series.
Yeah, because it's totally impossible that visionaries that left a company to pursue something greater would be able to see beyond the box they used to work in.
Seriously, how could you even type this without your fingers breaking themselves in disgust before you could finish?
Valve will follow the road that leads to them making more money. That means watching the market and adapting as it shifts. With so much new support for Linux lately (Ubuntu, Dell, HP, ATI/AMD) it would be hard to ignore Linux as a gaming platform. That doesn't mean they WILL decide to write cross-platform games, just that they would be fools to ignore it without reason.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
In my experience developing games on the playstation 3, Linux is fine for gaming. ;) Eventually, companies will invest in better opengl implementations for linux- such as the one used by ... you know... Linux Gaming Machines. Sony has some sweet libraries for it.
While the description talks about algorithms and real-time, not a word is mentioned of OpenGL or similar graphics background. All the more reason to think Linux is being used backend somehow.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
More than a few indicated that our not willing to give them source code was why they didn't use/buy our product.
That seem fair enough to me, you can even get the source code for Windows now adays.
If they want the source, charge them for it and slap on a big NDA etc...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Now all I need is for Microsoft to release Office for linux, and I can ditch Windows for good! Oh, right.
Adobe CS3 wouldn't go amiss either, but I doubt we'll see that happening any time soon.
And just who are you to demand that anyone grant "freedom" to the software that they - not you - spent countless hours coding? Jesus! Is it not enough that people are finally considering releasing their software for Linux? This "all-or-nothing" attitude is exactly why companies like the one that I mentioned refuse to release Linux software -- because of this irrational, self-proclaimed "requirement" of the extreme Linux fringe that companies "free" their software.
You are coaxing a timid animal out of its hole only to start screaming at it when it pokes its head out, forcing it to run back into its hole out of fright. Knock it off, damn it!
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
No kidding. Valve even went so far as to port the engine used for the original Half-Life from OpenGL to Direct3D. And then, when they made the Source engine, they dropped the OpenGL part entirely. Now they've apparently not only had a 180-degree change in heart, but such a big one that they're (maybe) willing to face the cost of porting Source* back to OpenGL? I don't believe it. I mean, it'd be great -- don't get me wrong -- but I don't believe it.
(*Yes, the job description could just be talking about Peggle, but then who the heck cares anyway?)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, they don't have to release the source. Reminds me of back in the day when I had a large farm of apache servers and a M$ salesman told me if I was running Linux I had to release to source code to my website.
Um... he didn't "demand" that. He just pointed out that some people value 'software freedom' highly, and that value may (for such people) outweigh the utility of closed software, no matter how many hours were spent coding it. The fact that someone doesn't share your tastes or priorities is not prima facie evidence that they are wrong. De gustibus and all that.
Sure, Linux has 'free-software purists' among its users. How could it possibly be otherwise? If they were using Windows or Macs, they would not, ipso facto, be free-software purists.
You seem to be implying that any free-software purism among any Linux users will scare off companies. Perhaps that's even true (though I doubt it, and I'll need more than a couple of anecdotes to convince me of that) but I have to ask why companies are that timid? Don't they know that there are also plenty of pragmatic, 'impure' Linux users, too?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
"...a M$ salesman told me if I was running Linux I had to release to source code to my website."
Did you show him the view source button on your browser?
The pragmatic, 'impure' Linux users don't seem to be as vocal. They don't seem to flood message boards with statements of "thats ok, I don't need the source, thanks for supporting my platform anyways.
The very vocal purists seem to paint the picture of the entire community. You also have companies like MS ensuring them that it is worthless to bother with them. After walking into a site on several occasions to find an unpatched windows 2000 server that was also a file server and router that was owned by a lot of different people, I decided to recommend pulling it out, replacing it with a linux box as a firewall/router and then after rebuilding it once again, keep it behind the firewall.
A notes on this, the owners had a rocket scientist for a son in his mid 20's who set this up and maintained the server, I was only called to get them up and going again on several occasions. I know that windows servers, can run on the Internet without getting infected with something or completely pawned. That isn't the point, the point is that no one qualified to make it happen was around the server until after the fact.
Anyways, the normal admin/maintainer started calling me a linux zealot because I mentioned using the *nix boxen as a firewall to protect the windows devices. As if that was a bad thing?. They had an old computer that could have been easily used. He convinced the owners (mom and dad) to put a Dlink wrt54 in as a firewall instead and about cried when I told him it ran linux as the device's base OS. Now, he had to get the idea that linux was bad somehow. He was also studying for his MCSA at the time. He was dead set against linux for some reason and ended up pointing to some comments from the vocal purists to support his beliefs.
I think the MCS* training warned him about linux and he became convinced enough to end up being an MS fanboy. But it wasn't hard for him to show outrageous comments on message boards that appeared with no context in a vein attempt to prove his point. I still laugh when I get a call asking if X behavior is normal. I guess some people take the term using the right tool for the job to a whole new meaning.
I can only imagine that companies looking to support linux have came across the exact same stuff. They have MS on one hand saying this is bad, your computer will blow up and date your wife in front of you, and at the same time, purist will be letting them know that want everything or nothing at all. The pragmatic, 'impure' Linux users don't even get recognized.
With so much new support for Linux lately (Ubuntu, Dell, HP, ATI/AMD) it would be hard to ignore Linux as a gaming platform.
Game developers are not ignoring Linux as a potential retail platform, they are merely doing the math and seeing that it is not justified. The major problem is that Linux gamers generally dual boot or emulate, therefore they are already customers buying the Win32 version of the game. A Linux version of the game would merely replace a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, there is no new money in such a swap, the development and support costs are not paid for. These costs are only supported by *new* sales, this means sales to people who refuse to dual boot or emulate. This makes the Linux gaming market far smaller than most people think.
Mac used to be in a better situation because dual boot was impossible and emulation impractical. However with modern Intel based Macs this is no longer the case. Note what is happening there, developers are starting to use emulation. To oversimplify things, wine (Cider) is being linked into the Win32 game, as opposed to Linux where wine (Cedega) is a standalone tool. If developers start support Linux it will be through something like Cider where there is very little work compared to doing a native Linux port.
Most official dedicated servers already have a linux port, and a way to interface them with the steam servers to update them.
They are hiring someone to port new game code to create servers for future games and/or maintain the existing servers for old games. They are merely continuing what they have already been doing, they just need another person.
"There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks." - Larry Niven
You're kind of reinforcing my point there. Quoting irrational message board comments is not an argument. I defy you to name a platform that doesn't have its irrational fanboys. The guy you're talking about had a negative attitude about Linux for other reasons. At most, extremists users were an excuse or rationalization.
If we address the real reasons that people form negative preconceptions about Linux, the whackjobs (and note: I'm not saying the 'free software purists' are 'whackjobs') won't matter.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
You sure you're not confusing Valve with Bungie?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
As citizens of free countries, we are all very much allowed to make loud demands for freedom from whomever we wish. It doesn't mean that the entities in question have to care about our demands, nor does it mean that the government should be stepping in to guarantee those freedoms that some citizens want. But we are damn well free to voice our desires to those companies.
To put it in a less adversarial way: Software authors undoubtedly have the legal right to release their software as binary-only. However for many people, open-source software is "better" (for pragmatic and even ethical reasons), and so they will encourage those software authors to release their software as open source ("encourage," not "force"). This is no different that any other interaction between customers and a company: we encourage companies to do all kinds of things that we want. It's up to them to decide which ones they think are worth doing. Your analogy presupposes that the objective is to get "more software on Linux" in which case demands for source, as you point out, simply scare off potential developers. However not everyone shares that goal. For many, the goal is "make all software free" and those people are urging software developers (for Windows and Linux) to release source code. In that regard, getting more binary software on Linux isn't really a step forward. The fact is that most people with such goals are Linux users, so the requests for source code are statistically going to be higher for a binaries released for Linux than for Windows.
This is simply a manifestation of the diverse goals of the FOSS community (that diversity, incidentally, is not necessarily a bad thing).
Is it really the third platform, or the fifth? I hear that the PS3 and XBox360 are pretty big gaming platforms. When you look at it that way, you quickly realize that the Mac, Linux, and PS3 ports are largely the same code (OpenGL renderer) - as are the Windows and XBox360 ports (DirectX). At that point, the question of a release on Mac or Linux is basically installer testing rather than any sort of significant extra programming effort.
That seems to be why both ID and Epic make both Mac and Linux releases of their games. They're already writing a cross-platform game with an OpenGL renderer - releasing for a couple of extra similar platforms has trivial costs compared to a non-zero number of extra sales and some good PR. It also future-proofs their engines in case Linux happens to hit an inflection point in uptake during that engine's useful lifespan.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.