Is id Abandoning Linux?

edv writes "In a news posting dated 10th of September, Beyond3D is reporting of an article in a German publication in which id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead discusses the upcoming id title Rage and the engine it runs on, codenamed 'id Tech 5'. Amongst other things Todd mentions that no Linux version of the game is planned at the moment, and that it will run on Direct3D on Windows platform. OpenGL version is planned for the Mac however. If true, this would be a serious blow for Linux gaming (insert jokes here) as id and Carmack have been strong proponents of OpenGL and openness in the past."

Comments

Hmm...

[jafoc]

A few months ago (in April) they certainly intended to prepare a GNU/Linux version.

Re:Hmm...

[EriktheGreen]

Another good point to remember is that ID is not of one mind.... back when they were deciding on their next product (Wolfenstein or Q4 or whatever) Hollenshead fired a few people loyal to Carmack as retribution for losing that argument. It's entirely possible that this guy thinks things are going one way and Carmack is going the other without telling him.

When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck :)

Erik

Re:Hmm...

[Azarael]

Also, everyone should keep in mind that porting of Doom 3 to Linux didn't happen until fairly late in the development process. Just because they haven't planned to port it yet, doesn't mean that they aren't going to.

Re:Hmm...

[somersault]

"When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck"

I doubt anyone on slashdot can truly understand that feeling though ;)

Re:Hmm...

[bluephone]

Actually, I remember that .plan update well. John, Paul Steed, and a bunch of others confronted Kevin Cloud and Adrian about their plan to remake Doom, saying that they felt so strongly to either agree to remake it or fire them. Adrian and Kevin were the other two co-owners beside John. Todd is just the business guy, and couldn't fire John if he wanted to. :) Paul Steed, their modeler, got fired in retaliation though for going along with John's mutiny.

Re:Hmm...

[ACS Solver]

Doom 3, though, has been OpenGL from the start. So when they decided to do a Linux port, it wasn't that complicated. If they truly decide to develop Rage in DirectX, a port would be much harder, requiring lots of rewrites... not something you just spontaneously decide to do around shipping time.

Re:Hmm...

[Azarael]

Doom 3 was also developed in both (eventually), which would be part of why the xbox version came out much later than the PC version. That shows that they are willing to do that work, however I don't know if Rage is being developed solely in DX at this point.

Re:Hmm...

[Schnapple]

Paul Steed, their modeler, got fired in retaliation though for going along with John's mutiny.

It's worth noting that a few years earlier Steed had shot his mouth off several times and embarrassed the company, something he never recovered from. Pulling a maneuver like this while working there on borrowed time wasn't the smartest move. Sure, it was retaliation, but it was also the straw that broke the camel's back.

Incidentally some years later the bought out Adrian to get him out of the company - no one knew this until he sued them for it.

Re:Hmm...

[ImTheDarkcyde]

Id didn't port Doom3 to the xbox, Vicarious Visions did all of the xbox work

Re:Hmm...

[Chandon Seldon]

If they truly decide to develop Rage in DirectX, a port would be much harder, requiring lots of rewrites... not something you just spontaneously decide to do around shipping time.

The minute the PS3 supports DirectX, that'll become a possibility. Until then, any serious game engine will need both an OpenGL and a DirectX render path.

Re:Hmm...

[Seven001]

That reminds me of how whenever Rockstar releases a new GTA game, they ALWAYS say "no PC version planned," and lo' and behold what shows up a few months later. I never understood why they didn't just say "later."

Re:Hmm...

[Spokehedz]

because they don't want anybody to wait for the PC version. They want them to buy the console version, and then the PC version a few months later.

Double dipping. Mmm... tasty.

Re:Hmm...

[Deuxsonic]

Hollenshead didn't fire anyone. He lacked that power at the time. Only the 2 Carmacks and Kevin Cloud had the ability to do that.

Re:Hmm...

[psychiccyberfreak]

but isn't ET:QW primarily developed by Splash Damage?

Re:Hmm...

[mrmeval]

I never bought an iD product after that. No I've not played Doom III at all.

The level of contempt I'd heard for the Doom series from the creators was enough to break me of the iD habit.

Re:Hmm...

[bombshelter13]

Yeah, they're making a Mac version too. It's OpenGL. If there's a Linux version, they'll port it from the Mac version - you know, the one that uses OpenGL on a Unix-like (well, officially Unix now) operating system. Porting it from the Windows version would just be dumb.

Re:Hmm...

[tabby]

"When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck :)"

If that statement is true then you shouldn't be in management. Especially not in a technical field.

Re:Hmm...

[EriktheGreen]

Yet, I'd say a large fraction of all the managers at all the companies I've worked at have this issue. I think it's one of the things wrong with, at least, US businesses... the prevailing mindset that the most important and irreplaceable people in the company are the managers.

It even extends to the point where if a technical person becomes very good at project management, organization, and has people skills, they are sort of expected to become a manager or group lead. This makes about as much sense as expecting a very talented CPA to suddenly become a lawyer.

Erik

Re:Hmm...

[aichpvee]

So you're saying that either no one on slashdot works for a company that owes its greatness to one man (or at least not everyone in the world knows it) or that they are that one man?

Re:Hmm...

[Chris Burke]

Until then, any serious game engine will need both an OpenGL and a DirectX render path.

Let's see if that's true... From Wikipedia:

"The "Serious Engine" can render through both Direct3D or OpenGL"

Well there you have it.

Re:Hmm...

[richlv]

hmm. actually, i don't see anything that critical in the linked page. actually, it even says :

"Editor's note: We had originally credited Paul Steed with starting this particular .plan war, but it seems we made a mistake. The original post was Myscha's. Sorry guys!"

Re:Hmm...

[somersault]

Latter presumption. It was a joke. Don't spoil it by over analysing it.

Re:Hmm...

[ultranova]

When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck :)

Yeah. If I was profiting from Carmack's work I would be crying all the way to the bank ;).

Not Happening

[MBCook]

I seriously doubt this. That would mean writing 2 full graphical back-ends for the engine. That would be almost double the work. There is no way they would do that. There would be no point since OpenGL is available on Windows. I have no doubt that they are using DirectInput and such (as basically every game on Windows does) but I would be amazed is they wrote a Direct3D renderer in addition to the OpenGL one.

Re:Not Happening

[Hanners1979]

They'd still need to write a DirectX-based renderer for the Xbox 360...

Re:Not Happening

[Chris Burke]

Lots of games have both a direct3d and opengl renderer. wow, ut2k4 spring immediately to mind. Ultimately the two aren't that different, and it isn't that hard to code your engine using a generic wrapper so that there isn't that much work to be done to create the two render paths. Usually one of them is less optimized, and it's usually OpenGL since a lot of companies target Windows/Direct3D primarily and create the OpenGL path for the Mac port.

However coming from id I'm taking this with a huge grain of salt. Carmack isn't the kind of guy who likes to have two separate yet redundant render paths where one is probably more optimized than the other. Software vs hardware rendering ala quake2? Sure. But since they're already committed to an opengl path for the Mac, I just can't imagine them going through with creating the Direct3D one.

Though maybe it's a side effect of iD's business of selling engines? If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it.

Re:Not Happening

[AmaDaden]

Yeah but I think that in Vista OpenGL is emulated with DirectX. Any code that uses it needs to do extra leg work of being translated from a OpenGL command to a DirectX equivalent. Carmack seems like the kind of guy who would not stand for that. He also seems to enjoy writing the engines. So the extra work would be fun for him. In any case I think the guy meant that no one is working on it this second. That does not mean no one will work on it ever.

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a common misunderstanding and incorrect.

Microsoft's OpenGL implementation does use DirectX to complete OpenGL commands. However, no one really uses Microsoft's OpenGL implementation (and definitely not for games).

Every graphic card manufacturer distributes an OpenGL implementation specifically for their hardware. They do the same for Vista. When you run a game that uses OpenGL, it uses this pure implementation of OpenGL.

Re:Not Happening

[dumb_jedi]

This seems credible to me. Id has been one of the *very* few companies that support Linux gaming, and they do it by principle. But you can't swim against the current forever. Linux gaming might never happen. Games don't get Linux versions because there aren't many gamers and there aren't many gamers because there aren't many games. And no, as long as i heard, there's no OpenGL in Vista, it used DirectX to emulate it ( with a 99999999% performance penalty obviously ), so they can't build their graphic engine on OpenGL ( as they did since Quake 1 I guess ) to has cross-platform compatibility. One can argue that most effort for making a game goes to building its models and textures, but the game engine is no small feat either and after all, they're a commercial company that have bills to pay. What they COULD do is to license the content, so someone else could build a Linux engine based on OpenGL/SDL. That could be a better business model than Loki's. And I expect people respect Id's decision and not rant about it. After all at least they did it for some time, developers like Valve and Blizzard didn't even try.

Re:Not Happening

[El Lobo]

The problem is that these days, it is so much convenient and easier to write for DirectX than to use openGl that is just no funny. Writting 2 versions of the engine takes a lot of times (and money), so if you need to choose, I'd be surprised if you choose openGl (political and ideological reasons aside).

Not only DirectX includes DirectSound, Directinput, Direct, but the grafical part is so much better these days that there is no comparation: it is often faster (better supported by all graphic card makers), the API is a lot more elegant and organized (IMO anyway, which have used both), and as a plus, using DirectX give you an almost automatic ticked to the XBox platform!.

I don't use Linuzz and all (and I'm not planing to) but i would like to see some project to bring DirectX to linuzzz (a'la Mono). Miguel, are you there?

Re:Not Happening

[Aurin Wildfire]

They're targeting the Xbox 360, which doesn't have OpenGL. They most definitely have a Direct3D backend.

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly a lot of work compared to the rest of a game's development. (I presume you're being either witty or ignorant when you claim it would be "double the work")

D3D and OGL do fundamentally the same things, and are driven in fundamentally the same ways. It's a commercial engine, so it'll eventually need to backend onto various APIs you haven't even heard of (e.g. libGCM for PS3). So let's see ... they've probably written an abstraction layer ... just like everyone else in the industry. It's really not that amazing.

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it. I cannot see how anyone would really be asking for direct3d. I can only assume that most gamers have no idea, or care if they do, what kind of renderer is used as long as it looks good - to which both, OpenGL and Direct3D can provide. The only people who would actually ask for a specific method have an ulterior motive - like rooting for the 'underdog', like OpenGL; or, more than likely, support/availability for their particular needs, e.g. cross-platform support which is again, OpenGL.

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

wow

Re:Not Happening

[Dr. Manhattan]

Not only DirectX includes DirectSound, Directinput, ...

That's why there's the Simple DirectMedia Layer.

plus, using DirectX give you an almost automatic ticked to the XBox platform

And you need OpenGL to work on the PS3. So the big commercial games are doing the multiple render paths anyway.

Re:Not Happening

[Trespass]

If they're big projected moneymaker is licensing the engine rather than selling copies of a game, it doesn't seem completely implausible. Also, if this or the next generation of console are platforms they're aiming at then portability may have been a feature planned from the start.

Of course, this is all just idle speculation at this point.

Re:Not Happening

[Trespass]

they're != their

god I feel retarded

Re:Not Happening

[IPFreely]

Though maybe it's a side effect of iD's business of selling engines? If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it.

Microsoft has been known to bend a few ears in the direction of their proprietary API over open API.

Re:Not Happening

[Wylfing]

Why is this comment rated +5 Insightful? Do you not realize that to make a Mac port they have to do it in OpenGL?

Re:Not Happening

[Chris Burke]

I cannot see how anyone would really be asking for direct3d. I can only assume that most gamers have no idea, or care if they do,

"Customers" here was referring to game development studios who want to use iD engines in their games. That's a major source of income for iD. They license their engines for $Big.

And another poster gave a plausible reason for why customers would be demanding Direct3D support: The Xbox 360.

Re:Not Happening

[HAKdragon]

Also remember that Rage is coming out for the PS3, which uses OpenGL as a graphics API.

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

>> And no, as long as i heard, there's no OpenGL in Vista, it used DirectX to emulate it ( with a 99999999% performance penalty obviously )

Read all above comments.

This is FUD.

Re:Not Happening

[Daedone]

don't feel too bad, the second instance is correct

Re:Not Happening

[TheRaven64]

I'm not a Windows fan by any means - I haven't run it for several years - but SDL is a long way behind DirectX. It's still behind the last version of DirectX I played with (8.1), which was released in 2001. OpenGL is a good replacement for Direct3D, but SDL doesn't really come close for a lot of the other features of DirectX.

Re:Not Happening

[Dr. Manhattan]

...SDL is a long way behind DirectX.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like some specifics. I've been working on a gamelike program for a while now and I haven't run into any serious SDL limitations, and maybe two minor ones. Can you give some examples of things SDL lacks relative to DirectX? (This is an honest question, not a belligerent one.)

Re:Not Happening

[Anonymous Coward]

AAA engines that aren't made by Microsoft don't make use of anything exotic provided in DirectX. They do their own networking, load their own models, load and play their on videos, load and mix their own audio, and so forth. The first thing that happens with every release of an id engine under the GPL is to consolidate the multiple platform back-ends into SDL back-ends. It's a trivial job. Epic ports already use SDL also.

SDL is kind of nasty but it's quite workable. Microsoft is already tossing bits of DirectX to the wolves with its "Windows as a bastard target for Xbox360 plus let's move toward C# everywhere" strategy.

Re:Not Happening

[SmackedFly]

That is simply not true, it is not anything near double the work. While there is clearly a lot of work in a writing a renderer, most of it is testing work. All you have to do is map your drawing functions to the appropriate OpenGL/DirectX functions, which is fairly trivial work. Yes sure, you need people with a through understanding of OpenGL/DirectX, but I don't think that's a big problem for id.

Re:Not Happening

[TheRaven64]

No media framework at all is a big one I remember. Can SDL decode MP3 or AAC samples and use them as sound effects in a game? What about decoding video and making it available as a texture? Voice chat for players with almost no code?

There are open source libraries for doing most of these things, but DirectX gives you the whole lot in one single API designed to work as a whole.

Re:Not Happening

[Dr. Manhattan]

Can SDL decode MP3 or AAC samples and use them as sound effects in a game? What about decoding video and making it available as a texture?

Sure, with extensions (not unlike OpenGL's mechanism, really): SDL_ffmpeg/ handles practically any audio and/or video format, or there's SDL_sound for just multiple sound formats. These are distributable if necessary, though most distros include the major ones, e.g. SDL_sound.

Voice chat for players with almost no code?

Ya got me there. I haven't looked into it, and a quick Google doesn't turn up much.

DirectX gives you the whole lot in one single API designed to work as a whole.

The libraries I mentioned are specifically designed to work within the SDL framework, too.

Re:Not Happening

[ravyne]

Adding another renderer certainly does not nearly double the work. These days, a game is 75% assets or more. Code is typically less than 25% of the development effort and the renderer alone is a small portion of that. While graphics are a focal point, you can safely say that the renderer is less than 10% of the overall effort, even in titles known for pushing the graphics envelope.

Also, no one uses DirectInput either. Even Microsoft officially recommends that developers use the standard messaging system to process keyboard and mouse input. Its only use is with gamepads, joysticks and such -- but no one uses those to play games, particularly FPS games, on the PC, so DirectInput's role is limited at best. It's present, occasionally, if the devs were nice enough to support those kinds of devices, but traditionally its been little more than an afterthought handed off to some intern or entry level developer.

Another point, if I'm not mistaken, is that Carmack has said that the Xbox 360 is the Primary Target Platform going forward -- not the PC. It makes sense, consoles are where the sales volume is at. A hit console game can sell 10-20 times the volume of a hit PC game. The PS3 and gamer-level PCs are close enough, technically speaking, to make porting a straight forward effort.

Carmack has also explicitly praised the incarnation of Direct3D found on the Xbox 360 as his current favorite graphics API. While I don't think the days of Carmack's stalwart support of OpenGL are over, the days of his disdain for Direct3D certainly are.

I really fail to see how you were modded informative, since your post was nothing more than an uninformed rant. I, personally, am an OpenGL supporter, especially given the changes coming with OpenGL 3.0 and the following iteration but I'm still going to call you out on your utterly uninformed post. Sorry.

Re:Not Happening

[MidnightBrewer]

According to the article from golem.de, the engine does indeed support several 3D rendering methods: OpenGL for OSX, DirectX 9 for Vista and XP, the DirectX equivalent on the 360, and a proprietary rendering engine for the PS3. id claims that 90% of the code is used across all platforms, meaning that portability becomes relatively trivial (according to id.) They even had four displays connected to four different game platforms, each running a demo of the game simultaneously so that viewers could see that there were no noticeable differences in the rendering quality or framerate (each one was running smoothly at 60fps.)

shame...

[i.r.id10t]

Shame... id is one of the companies I've always financially supported buy buying at least one copy (if not 2 or 3) of their games, *especially* with explicit Linux support (or from a Linux friendly retailer).

Wonder if I should go ahead and open that unopened l33t tin edition of Q3 for Linux...

Re:shame...

[jellomizer]

I think it is an issue you are one of the few people who do. Linux users have a strong trend of Wanting things free no matter at the cost of the developer. This trend is self destructive because it make the ability for comerical closed source software writters the make Linux non-profitable and combined with Linux still rather Low Market rate and the fact a lot of people with Linux still has Windows available. Linux has a lot of plusses wich can make it a great gamming platform but Game and Open Source models don't work to well.

Re:shame...

[i.r.id10t]

Yeah, I'm a weird one when it comes to that. I like Freedom, and I like free, but I really like a stable OS where standards aren't broken/bastardized.

I don't mind binary blob drivers for my nVidia card - its the best hardware at the moment. I'll be happy to pay full retail for Acrobat Professional, the product formerlly known as the Macromedia Dreamweaver Suite (DW, Flash, Fireworks), etc. for Linux, and I won't get bitchy about source access. Heck, I'd pay for the windows version *if* it were packaged with a custom Wine that would let it Just Work. I really don't care - I just want the best tool for the job. Unfortunately for me, Windows isn't one of 'em...

Re:shame...

[trolltalk.com]

I'd be willing to pay double the Windows version for a native version of SimCity 4 (or even SimCity3 or SimCity2k). No, Wine emulation doesn't count.

Just because we use linux doesn't mean we're not willing to put our money where our mouths are. My library holds almost 200 programming books, and the last I checked, books aren't cheap. Yes, its nice that linux is free (in both senses), but do you really believe that we use linux only because its free? Maybe we also like the lack of vendor lockin, the lack of viruses, etc.

Re:shame...

[fm6]

Next time you feel the need to "support" a software publisher, just send them a check. Because buying extra copies mostly supports the retailer and wholesaler.

But forget all that. This isn't NPR, where they can run the whole thing on the generosity of the 10% of listeners who feel compelled to pay. This is a commercial operation, that can't survive without selling enough copies of the software to make back their development and support costs. This relies on there being lots of gamers with Linux boxes, not the sporadic generosity of individual gamers.

Re:shame...

[Intron]

Good point. Windows users never make copies of programs.

Re:shame...

[argiedot]

Dude, we buy hardware, don't we? Lots of us have really high end hardware, no? How the hell can Linux users be considered cheap?

Re:shame...

[brkello]

And apparently, the lack of games too ;)

Re:shame...

[ratboy666]

Thank you...

I too would consider games -- if they were packaged with WINE, or a compatibility sticker, or ports for the systems I actually use. Commercial software as well.

The systems I use? Linux x86 and Solaris x86.

Linux is used because it *is* compatible with standards (POSIX, C99, NIS, NFS, etc.). It is also the "first support" platform for TeX, LyX, OpenOffice, Apache, Postgresql, Oracle, Gnumeric, etc. (Cygwin under Windows is actually PAINFUL - forking is so damn slow).

I find it incredible that so many are willing to accept second rate solutions, in order to be able to use a platform that does well at "gaming" in a commercial environment. I can understand Windows XP for home use, but for office use? (Has the math in Excel(tm) been fixed? The last time I used Word(tm) for an intensive table based document, it crashed after a certain number of edits -- leaving the document unrecoverable. Has *that* been fixed? Is formatting in Word rational yet? Is Internet Explorer still a component of the desktop and help system, rendering the entire infrastructure insecure? Does Windows still demand a "virus checker" on every boot, even if it isn't public network connected? And so on.)

I do have an Xbox for FPS gaming, and that works great.

Re:shame...

[dotspeaks]

HOW hard do you think it is? http://linuxtruthiness.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-install-windows-software-in.html

Re:shame...

[rAiNsT0rm]

No offense, and I'm not a fanboy or even a customer, but if you truly want "Just Works" then I'd guess you'd be using OS X right now. Increasingly I can't deny Apple's products.

Re:shame...

[trolltalk.com]

Games are a problem under linux, except that I don't have the time ...

Then again, I *do* want a Wii ... some time in the whenever ... I already spend too much of my life sitting in front of a computer, so if I'm going to "play", I want it to be something active.

Re:shame...

[turgid]

Wonder if I should go ahead and open that unopened l33t tin edition of Q3 for Linux...

Yes, and in it you'll find a free copy of SuSE provided just in case you didn't have an OS to run it on :-)

Re:shame...

[jesterzog]

I'd be willing to pay double the Windows version for a native version of SimCity 4 (or even SimCity3 or SimCity2k). No, Wine emulation doesn't count.

I'd also consider something like that once I was confident that the vendor's packaging of the game would work nicely on my system. eg. If it was hard-coded to look for certain libraries in a place that didn't match my distribution, it could cause a lot of problems.

I think this is part of the difficulty for any vendor who doesn't want to open source their code and leave things up to the distro vendors to package. Even with things like the Linux Standard Base, there are so many different configurations out there and ways that things could go wrong, and which could be a nightmare to support. Some kind of free trial to guarantee that a full version would work would be useful.

Re:shame...

[trolltalk.com]

They can always statically link their programs :-)

I know what you mean ... every once in a while, I encounter a problem like that and tell the person to make a symlink from directory A to directory B. It works, but its an ugly solution.

Re:shame...

[Almahtar]

I think it is an issue you are one of the few people who do. Linux users have a strong trend of Wanting things free no matter at the cost of the developer. Naw. I buy lots of software, and I've worked on plenty of closed source stuff. I tend to choose the open source stuff because I like how it works or I like the freedom (not free cost - freedom) it promotes.

If I just didn't like paying for shit I'd pirate the commercial stuff - that's plenty easy and free.

In the few situations where I find myself absolutely needing some Windows-only software I boot into my (legal and paid for) copy of Windows and run it. For the most part I don't even use all the Windows software that I've already paid for in favor of open source stuff, and I know I'm not alone nor even in the minority (in regards to Linux users) from my observations.

Re:shame...

[Almahtar]

I enjoyed some aspects of OSX, but some weren't so hot. Being an "advanced user" I enjoy doing such advanced things as trying to view hidden files in my file manager. OSX is not your friend for such uses (open a command line, edit a preference file with a command line editor, save it, kill Finder so it restarts... now there's an elegant user interface. Do the same to hide the files again).

Now I don't blame Apple - 90% of users will never need to even know such a thing as a hidden file exists (and would probably screw something up if they did), but for the rest of us... well there's Gnome and KDE :-)

Now this is just an example - there were other things that frustrated me and I admit they won't frustrate a lot of people. I really like OSX - I'd recommend it to most people, but definitely not for everyone. I ran screaming back to Ubuntu. I'm just not Apple's target user.

Re:shame...

[ultramkancool]

Heh, I'd warez SimCity 4 for linux too.

Re:shame...

[rAiNsT0rm]

I fully understand your point... but they are counter to the "It Just Works" principle. hidden files, command lines, etc. aren't needed or even thought about when something "Just Works" and as you've said it does in OS X which is why they are buried. It takes a whole new mindset and outlook on computer use to get into OS X, one in which I'm still trying to get to, but it really is a system that is highly polished and works as it should with little to no user intervention.

Re:shame...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Linux users have a strong trend of Wanting things free no matter at the cost of the developer.

No, they don't. Please stop making up uninformed shit about Linux users. Of all the people I frequently communicate with (friends/colleagues/family/etc), the only ones who are opposed to software piracy are Linux users. All others are pirating almost every software they use, and a lot of them are even proud of it.

Interest in open software usually goes hand-to-hand with having a sense of ethics towards software itself. Open or not.

Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[infonography]

I use windows and mostly only use if for trivial things. Surfing in coffeeshops, gaming, watching vids. If I do plan to do something serious then it's going to be on Solaris or Linux.

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[Sciros]

Yeah... because Windows is impossible to use for anything serious T_T oh no wait it just requires taking the time to learn how to utilize another OS for software development, though I understand how most people can't be bothered to expand their skillset beyond what they pick up in the first couple of years after University. You end up with the case where 90% of developers think that if a square peg isn't fitting into the round hole, the answer is to just shove in a lot of really small square pegs because that's all they know how to use.

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

With GNU/Linux market share around 1 or 2% is it worth supporting directly ?
Even the Mac has a 100x as many games as Linux and people actually purchase them.
Windows Gaming market is huge and the number 1 target for support (before the consoles got better).

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[smorken]

You end up with the case where 90% of developers think that if a square peg isn't fitting into the round hole, the answer is to just shove in a lot of really small square pegs because that's all they know how to use.

Yes. Its called integration.

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[johnkzin]

That's why I have a Mac.

The light/fluffy stuff is easy, straight forward, and friendly on a Mac, and it's Unix underneathe, so I can get real work done as well (I do tons of develpment on my Macs (home and work workstation) that then is easily moved over to my Solaris servers for testing and then production).

True, games aren't as plentiful. That's what my playstation2 (and soon 3) is for.

(and, after many years, I have once again delved into the linux pond ... and I now own the first and only linux box that I've ever liked ... my nokia n800 ... so far, it's the only decent linux UI I've ever come across)

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[WeblionX]

That sounds an awful lot like integration. You just need enough infinitely small square pegs and it'll be round!

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming.

[Sciros]

Hahah well I was trying to make my point but in a realistic manner. People *do create solutions to problems* using the skills they possess; they just sometimes have to adapt these skills in ways that are less efficient than if they had a broader skillset to begin with. A very large number of square pegs is more of a burden than one round one in the real world -- my point was that this is analogous to the solutions you run into in the IT world.

Indeed, how many times have you (if you are a programmer) looked at someone else's code and thought, "well it's clear that this was written by someone who only knew one way to do it, and far from the best way..." ^_^

Wow

[badenglishihave]

This is really incredible. Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.

It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time. Of course most games today use Direct3D exclusively anyways so the impact could be small. However, up until now id has always kept the OpenGL/Linux community alive by designing games for OpenGL. Even if id and id alone makes this move, it could still be a big hit to the Linux gaming community.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D. Uh, by who exactly? And still?

Just because it's not specifically mentioned...

[Night Goat]

I read the article with my high-school level German comprehension, and I don't see anywhere where Hollenshead specifically says they won't be supporting Linux. Just because it wasn't mentioned as a target platform doesn't mean it won't be on that platform. It could very well be that Hollenshead didn't mention it because their Linux versions haven't sold very well in comparison with the platforms that he did mention.
Also, I would think that if id went through the effort of making an OpenGL version of the engine, they might as well port it to Linux, particularly if they're also going to port it to Playstation 3 and XBox 360. I don't think there's anything to be worried about here.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned...

[Anonymous Coward]

The relevant paragraph is this one: "Auch OpenGL hat mittlerweile nicht mehr die Top-Priorität bei id Software, Hollenshead zufolge habe Microsoft viel aus seinen Fehlern bei früheren DirectX-Versionen gelernt. Carmack sei von DirectX mittlerweile recht angetan. OpenGL werde zwar weiter unterstützt, was auch an der direkten Mac-Unterstützung zu sehen ist, da aber ein ganzes Konsortium hinter OpenGL stehe, brauche OpenGL länger bei der Entwicklung."

OpenGL no longer has the top priority at id Software. According to Hollenshead, Microsoft has learned a lot from its mistakes with earlier DirectX versions. Carmarck has come to like DirectX in the meantime. OpenGL will continue to be supported, which can also be derived from the Mac support, but since a whole consortium is behind OpenGL, OpenGL itself takes longer to evolve.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have taken a look at the second page, where it's said that John Carmack isn't as interested in linux as he used to be. However, it is also stated that there are others at his software company who are linux fans. Furthermore, it is said that linux users will have to await further information, it's just that a linux port isn't/hasn't been planned yet. Elsewhere in the article the engine's largely platform-independent code (about 90%) is heralded, so not all hope is lost for linux users who seriously want to play yet another FPS (actually, I'm just assuming it's an FPS).

There's also relatively interesting talk about the game not going to be able to fit on a DVD, and thus XBOX-360 owners without harddrives will probably be forced to change discs. This also appears to be the case with GTA4, according to the article.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm surprised they support Linux at all. I think some of the previous ports were done as a labor of love by a few employees on their time off.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned...

[havenskate]

I agree. However, my understand with the new engine was that no traditional "porting" is being done because the engine is cross-platform. It just takes a compile to make it go on another platform from what I understand... I suppose that means a different compiler or something on each platform -- but using all of the same data... It's about time too.

lol

[thatskinnyguy]

Games cannot be played without Linux! I AM ROOT!

Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Visaris]

I was under the impression that Vista did not support OpenGL in the true sense of "support". I had heard that Vista emulates all OpenGL calls and turns them into DirectX equivalents. I hear the performance penalty is significant. If I am correct about this, ID may be forced to create a DirectX version if they want any chance of a well performing windows version. Similarly, if they target Mac/*nix, they will be forced into creating an OpenGL version. I think Microsoft intended this, as most companies will not create an OpenGL version, and the effect will be to lock all gaming onto an MS platform.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[NoodleSlayer]

Or they could write off the 1% of gamers out there that went to Vista and didn't switch back to XP already.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[morgan_greywolf]

I was under the impression that Vista did not support OpenGL in the true sense of "support". I had heard that Vista emulates all OpenGL calls and turns them into DirectX equivalents. Stop spreading FUD. What you just said is so completely wrong it's not even funny. Vista brings better OpenGL integration than XP. You're right that Vista does not include an OpenGL ICD in the box, but then again, neither did XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression ...
I had heard ...
I hear ...
If I am correct ...
I think ...

The most authoritative post of the year.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct thing to do when one is not 100% sure of something is to attach the appropriate qualifiers. It seems you are flaming Visaris for doing the only acceptable thing in such a situation, yes? You're just another troll I suppose...

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Richard_at_work]

This is a common misconception regarding OpenGL on Vista - there are three options open to OpenGL developers on Vista:

1. Default Implementation - this does as you say, translates OpenGL calls into Direct3D calls.
2. Legacy Installable Client Driver - this runs OpenGL natively but is incompatible with some parts of Vista.
3. Vista Compatible Installable Client Driver - this runs OpenGL natively.

As you can see, all is not as lost as some are making it out to be.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[somersault]

Or, they could write it for XP? Why would they want to have it run on Vista, what is the point? I thought Vista sounded okay in theory, but the implementation has been astoundingly poor.

And to be honest, I think it takes a lot more work to create all the maps, characters, animations, artwork, etc than it does to write an engine (especially when they have so much experience with creating engines, though obviously they will have a lot of experience in modelling and stuff too). They've ported their engine between platforms before, so porting to a different graphics/input/whatever library won't be too much for them. And if they're supporting Mac then they may as well make a Linux version anyway. Yes, I have coded mods/bots for FPS shooters before, done a bit of OpenGL coding, and also done a small amount of mapping/modelling (though I wouldn't call myself an expert with any of them, my CS bots were pretty awesome ;) )

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[YankeeDeuce]

Stop spreading FUD. What you just said is so completely wrong it's not even funny. Vista brings better OpenGL integration than XP.

From your article:

Performance-wise, developers can expect a decrease of around 10-15% on Windows as compared to Windows XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Visaris]

What you just said is so completely wrong [opengl.org] it's not even funny.

I'm wrong that "I was under impression X"? Sounds pretty hard to be wrong when all I said was "I think" ...

Semantics aside, it seems my impression was incorrect: Windows Vista and OpenGL

1. Windows Vista fully supports hardware accelerated OpenGL;
2. OpenGL applications can benefit from Window Vistas improved graphics resource management;
3. OpenGL performance on Windows Vista is extremely competitive with the performance on Windows XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Tinyn]

Thats only if you do not have proper Video card drivers installed. If you have the proper drivers installed they basically override MS's OpenGL with their own, and then the OpenGL calls run as fast as ATI/Nvidia can make them run.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[morgan_greywolf]

Read the entire paragraph:

Performance-wise, developers can expect a decrease of around 10-15% on Windows as compared to Windows XP. Applications that use problematic cases (for example, excessive flushing, or rendering to the frontbuffer, as explained later) can see a larger performance degradation. However, expect this gap to become smaller over time while the graphics hardware vendors work on further optimizing their Windows Vista WDDM drivers.

first post ever, maybe I should cut you some slack, but my guess is that based on the age of your account and that this is the first post ever, you are probably an astroturfing, shilling troll. (For comparison, my account is probably somewhere around 2 years old, and yours is older)

So, you either didn't bother reading the entire paragraph, or you are a troll. I'm betting based on the evidence that you fall in the later category.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

In his defense, I would say that "it will be fixed in the future" counts for nothing in a discussion about games being developed *now*. I'd rather believe it when I see it.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[morgan_greywolf]

In his defense, I would say that "it will be fixed in the future" counts for nothing in a discussion about games being developed *now*. I'd rather believe it when I see it. As others have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, what matters for developing games now is what the technology will be like 2-3 years, not what the technology is currently like.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[heelrod]

ouch. I could say the same about you troll boy.

be nice!

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

doing the only acceptable thing in such a situation, yes?

The only acceptable thing to do with that much uncertainty is not to post.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Creepy]

and the answer is... sorta.

    The original plan was to support up to OpenGL 1.3 by converting calls in Vista to DirectX calls, but I believe they decided to drop OpenGL completely in the released version, which means only hardware is supported by callbacks. I haven't tried anything but hardware, so I can't tell you for sure. I do know they deprecated the API for this release, which means all support will soon be dropped, if it isn't already.

From my testing, a windowed OpenGL context in Vista has about a 2-4x performance hit with Aero enabled (and even without on my laptop - not sure if that's a bug or not). A fullscreen context gets roughly the same framerate as XP or Linux. Using OpenGL with a specific geometry shader in window mode on Vista gives me worse performance than running the same code in a software emulator on the same machine (nvemulate gets 10FPS, Vista gets 9). Note that I have not yet tested that code in fullscreen to see what the "real" framerate should be, which will tell me if it's Vista's fault, or a driver issue. Vista is supposedly just compositing (in layman's terms, cutting the OpenGL window and pasting it into a DirectX window) which in NO WAY be more than a 10-15% performance hit, and I get a hit in the 40-80% range (with very erratic frame rates). This indicates to me that either MS is intentionally crippling OpenGL or the drivers are really bad at the moment (and to be honest, it could be either).

Most games are played in fullscreen, and OpenGL works fine in fullscreen on Vista. The biggest problem with OpenGL right now is that it's 10-15% slower than DirectX. Updates to OpenGL - 3.0 (Long's Peak) due this month, and Mt Evans due in first quarter next year - should help close this gap (however, both are months later than originally expected).

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[C0rinthian]

Or, they could write it for XP? Why would they want to have it run on Vista, what is the point? Last I checked, DX10 is Vista-only. So if you want the latest shiny, you're writing for Vista.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Svartalf]

This is more due to Vista's insistence on pushing the driver layer one part up the chain.

ATI's and NVidia's drivers are talking to a Vista abstraction layer to accomplish what they're doing.
They're only sort of talking directly to the hardware. Everything's about 10-15% slower, even DirectX.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[AngryLlama]

First, this is not true. Second, that == should be a =. I thought you were declaring Support(Vista, OpenGL), not testing it.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some facts, Ogl is just as supported on vista as is directX:

      1. Windows Vista fully supports hardware accelerated OpenGL;
      2. OpenGL applications can benefit from Window Vistas improved graphics resource management;
      3. OpenGL performance on Windows Vista is extremely competitive with the performance on Windows XP.

Read this full explanation:

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Svartalf]

Not really... There's already ARB extensions for the tech enhancements for DX10 that're now being implemented by ATI and NVidia right now for OpenGL under Windows AND Linux. For now, it might be the case, but you might want to pause for that latest shiny- the prognosis for DX10 titles hasn't been all that good. It's my understanding that many of the people are having fits trying to get framerates up.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Svartalf]

The performance hit you're seeing is a design misfeature from Vista.

All OpenGL implementations will see this hit.
All DirectX implementations not running fullscreen will see it too- just not as badly.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[somersault]

What can DX10 do that DX9 can't though? Isn't most of the ooh shiny done in shaders these days? Which DX9 already does.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[somersault]

That is utterly insane. I thought that without all the requirements of backwards compatibility to think about with Vista and DX10, that they'd be able to write something good. I really didn't think that even Microsoft could mess it up, I thought they'd learned something over the years -.- It's kind of nice to see them shoot themselves in the foot, but I really hope that they either smarten up QUICK or just get knocked out of the picture, otherwise we're going to be held back by them again for another decade.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[jlechem]

From wikipedia

"According to a Microsoft blog, there are three choices for OpenGL implementation on Vista. An application can use the default implementation, which translates OpenGL calls into the Direct3D API and is frozen at OpenGL version 1.4, or an application can use an Installable Client Driver (ICD), which comes in two flavors: legacy and Vista-compatible. A legacy ICD, the kind already provided by independent hardware vendors targeting Windows XP, will disable the Desktop Window Manager, noticeably degrading user experience under Windows Aero. A Vista-compatible ICD takes advantage of a new API, and will be fully compatible with the Desktop Window Manager.[23] At least two primary vendors, ATI and NVIDIA, are expected to provide full Vista-compatible ICDs in the near future.[24] However, hardware overlay is not supported, because it is considered as an obsolete feature in Vista. ATI and NVIDIA strongly recommend using compositing desktop/FBOs for same functionality.[25]"

I don't know much about this vista-compatible ICD. So it would appear there is no good solution for openGL on windows vista.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[cortana]

The correct thing to do in that situation is to shut the hell up and avoid spreading misinformation. :)

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Eponymous Bastard]

The performance hit you're seeing is a design misfeature from Vista.

All OpenGL implementations will see this hit.
All DirectX implementations not running fullscreen will see it too- just not as badly. [Citation needed]

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Which can be rather slow, esp. texture uploads have an extremely high overhead.
Case in point: on XP playing video with MPlayer and -vo gl is a bit faster with -slices than with -noslices. On Vista it's about 10% slower with -slices (-slices decodes 16 lines of the video, then uploads them, decodes next lines etc., much nicer esp. to small caches, -noslices uploads the full image at once to the graphics card). At least with nVidia drivers.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[DrSkwid]

That's funny, it's a IndirectX then. The Direct bit was to skip the last Windows HAL.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Stormwatch]

I really hope that they [...] just get knocked out of the picture

Fixed.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[edwdig]

DX10 provides extra flexibility to shaders. And adds virtual memory to graphics cards, which is nice when your GUI runs everything through the 3D hardware, but irrelevant for games.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Svartalf]

I wish I could GIVE you one... But, unfortunately, my former client (one of the GPU players...) would have my ass over breaching an NDA... >:-)

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Tim C]

Speaking of semantics, of course you can be wrong when you say "I think that...". It may or may not be correct that that is what you think, but a response of "you're wrong" is clearly in reply to the bit after the "that", not the fact that you think it.

As for this specific example, yeah I'd heard that Vista wouldn't support OGL too. Difference is I knew that it was a meaningless statement. Every 3D graphics card manufacturer has shipped their own OGL implementation as part of their drivers almost since the beginning. The support that used to be in some versions of Windows was *software* support, which even with today's processors is almost entirely pointless.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Most new features in DX10 help shaders reach their full potential: floating-point textures (for lighting look-ups and such, not mere surface detail), multiple target buffers for rendering (and then post-processing), and other similar "support structure" stuff.

The one big novelty is the Geometry Shader stage: the GPU can now create and delete vertices. For example, this puts "destructible game environments" within the rendering pipeline of the uber-fast (uber-parallel) GPU. Which is pretty exciting.

That alone says that DX10 is not just a pimped-up DX9, it's as significant a jump as DX6-to-DX9 was. (DX7 didn't feature-wise offer that much over DX6/DX5, and DX8 was clearly an interim solution between DX7 register combiners and proper DX9 shaders.)

However, personally I still prefer the OpenGL programming model, and the cross-platform idea, and can hardly wait for OGL3 to finalise and gather support around it.

(An interesting sideline which *may* collide with OGL/D3D-style rasteriser rendering: raytracers are being run real-time, with quite game-like scenes, on Cells today. I'm convinced that PS3 games will in a year include hybrids with ray-tracer preprocessing on SPEs and then final rasterisation on the RSX -- and realistic lighting & shadows will be as big a thing as the introduction of texturing back when. See Beyond3D.com's CellPerformance and Console Technology sub-forums for interesting posts -- many game devs are regulars.)

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS

[Creepy]

I'd have to agree with you - I'd like to see proof/info on that. The design hit appears to be driver related, not Vista related. The poster possibly is referring to the MS's original compositing plan of using hardware overlays before deciding they're obsolete. OpenGL on nVidia cards do not use this, so that is not the cause of my problems. Still, the compositing desktop framebuffer should run at near native levels (as I said, 10-15% due to overhead) and it's not. According to Siggraph slides, nVidia and Khronos had worked together to get near-native speeds.

Most of my code changes I did for Vista are based on this article. I haven't had any luck with the PFD_SUPPORT_COMPOSITING or PFD_SUPPORT_GDI flags (same framerate).

after further research, there is a hardware implementation of 1.4 that converts calls to DirectX. It is frozen, but not deprecated. The OpenGL that was dropped was a software implementation of 1.3 (the one deprecated way back in Longhorn). This driver is not being used, so is not the cause of my slowdown.

meh, let me know when the engine is licensed

[jollyreaper]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ffoj6oY3ug

The rendering quality looks great but seriously, when was the last time id released a game and not a tech demo? I'm looking forward to seeing the games the licensees make, those I bet will rawk.

Re:meh, let me know when the engine is licensed

[MMaestro]

What about Doom 1 or Doom 2? By modern standards, the Doom 1/Doom 2 game engine has become a tech demo, but at the time both were practically the holy grail of PC gaming sales. I once saw shareware copies of Doom 1 being sold at a supermarket and Doom 2 added damned near nothing in terms of technical changes.

Re:meh, let me know when the engine is licensed

[jollyreaper]

What about Doom 1 or Doom 2? By modern standards, the Doom 1/Doom 2 game engine has become a tech demo, but at the time both were practically the holy grail of PC gaming sales. I once saw shareware copies of Doom 1 being sold at a supermarket and Doom 2 added damned near nothing in terms of technical changes. That's the funny thing with games, some are timeless and awesome while others are only awesome in their own era. The two Dooms were hellaciously awesome and innovative. Nothing like them had ever been seen before save for Wolfenstein, and that was from the same company. The gameplay was tight and people could lose themselves in the game. But the thing is, the genre could be pushed further. After the Dooms, I don't think I found a single shooter I enjoyed until Half-Life. Many people tried to do the same thing and failed miserably.

So, why did the Quakes suck? I think it was because there was little new. I think the jump to 3D environments was made a little early. I know that Wing Commander 3 looked and played like crap compared to Wing Commander 2. Quake 1 looked and played like crap compared to Doom 2. Yes, the engines were more technically innovative but they just weren't advanced enough yet to allow for environments that didn't look like crap. But given a few years for machines to catch up, and given a studio that wants to put together a story, Half-Life became the next huge leap over the Quakes.

Think of it like movies. People would pay money to go to a new cinema and freak out over the image of a train coming at the camera. Wild for the time, crazy. But they quickly came to terms with that and wanted to see more. Directors had to put stories and actors in the movie to keep them fresh and give them appeal. The same process is happening with games. Storytelling has been with us since forever and we can safely say that it will never get old. You can have your casual games like Pac-Man and Tetris but for the blockbuster games, you need more story.

Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on list

[porkThreeWays]

I hate to say it, but I don't think gaming on Linux is going to be a huge deal breaker for most people anyway. Most gamers I know are "Windows experts". They've got their Windows desktop super customized with skins and slick themes etc etc. They are probably the worst candidate for adopters of Linux. I've found Windows power users to be the most stubborn in switching. They think they understand something about computers and operating systems, but it comes down to they kinda understand how Windows works on the front end, and it's a HUGE blow to them when they have to start over. A lot of it is an ego thing. Instead of admitting they know less about computers than they thought, they pass it off as inferior. They do the same thing to Macs.

The best candidates to convert are people who actually really do understand how computers and operating systems work, or people that want a computer that "just works". Not people that get pissed off because there's no control panel. I come across this all the time. Windows users that I feel are scared they will look stupid and put Linux and OSX down as inferior. I'll ask them, "have you ever tried it?". Most have never tried it or made an attempt to figure out how it works. The thing that will bring about the most adoption of Linux and OSX is an entire generation being raised off Windows.

the relevant part

[leehwtsohg]

This is the relevent part: "Auf die Frage danach, ob denn Rage bzw. die zu Grunde liegende id-Tech-5-Engine neben Mac, Windows-PC, PlayStation 3 und Xbox 360 auch Linux-PCs unterstützen werden, antwortete Hollenshead, dass dazu noch nichts geplant oder angekündigt worden sei. Technisch möglich wäre es, zumal auch mit MacOS X ein Unix-System unterstützt würde. Hollenshead zufolge ist John Carmack mittlerweile nicht mehr so an Linux interessiert wie zuvor, auch wenn es noch einige Linux-Fans bei id Software gebe. Hier müssen Linux-Fans also noch abwarten."

Hollenshead answers that no linux version is planned or announced. From a technical point of view it would be possible, since OS X will be supported.
According to Hollenshead, John Carmack isn't as interested in linux as he was earlier, though there are still some linux fans at id.

Long-term

[Tony]

Can't do that. Any new game engine must look to the next two or three years, and Microsoft is not going to let Vista fail. This time next year, Vista will have 25% of the market. In another year, it'll have 75%. Just like XP did, and MS-Win2k before that.

For PC gamers, the future is Vista.

Re:Long-term

[nschubach]

For PC gamers, the future is Vista.

You made me cry in agonizing pain... and reasserted my hatred in MS all in one shot.

Re:Long-term

[VagaStorm]

It should be noted that if vista fails, it is not the first time a windows has more or less failed due to low user adoption and general a "this version blows, lets stik to the last one" attitude. Windows ME anyone?

Re:Long-term

[GeckoX]

That is not a given.

With XP, it was adopted because given the alternative...Windows users were clamoring for the upgrade. People not only wanted XP, they needed XP. Home users, businesses, everywhere.

This time around things are not the same. It is very much like Windows ME. It's not necessary, it has drawbacks, and XP Just Works.

The market MAY end up Vista dominated...but the jury is still very much out on that. Of all the people I know with PC's...dozens anyways, there are TWO using Vista. One that installed it themselves and bitches to no end about it, and the other having gotten it preinstalled on a new machine...used for emailing and surfing, that's it.

Re:Long-term

[Penguinisto]

It should be noted that if vista fails, it is not the first time a windows has more or less failed due to low user adoption and general a "this version blows, lets stik to the last one" attitude. Windows ME anyone?

Only diff is, Windows ME was followed very rapidly by Windows 2000 (something like 12-18 months, IIRC), and world+dog knew it.

In this case, Vista is a dog, but there ain't no new version coming just around the bend.

If anything, it'd be like the huge group die-hards who waited until Windows 2003 Server to even bother migrating from Windows NT 4.0. Hell, I still remember the big grandiose launch they had for Win2k3 in Salt Lake City... they spent nearly the whole time talking up all the tools they built to migrate from NT 4.0 (Not Windows 2000 Server... NT 4.0).

/P

Re:Long-term

[ShieldW0lf]

Win2K didn't achieve its market penetration by replacing either WinME or Win98SE. It achieved its market penetration by replacing WinNT4. It wasn't until WinXP hit the scene that Win98 installs really started to drop. Until that time, people in the home user space were still using Win98SE.

Which is to say, I agree with you, and I think your post underestimates the willingness of the general user to ignore what Microsoft does. Most people didn't wait on ME because of 2K. They ignored both ME and 2K and only started leaving it when XP came along, and they had no idea it was coming along when they said no to ME and 2K.

Re:Long-term

[PitaBred]

Win2K certainly did replace a lot of Win98 installs. It was the first NT-based OS that was passable on the desktop. I know I used it rather than deal with all the DOS based crap of the Win9X editions, as did many of my friends and family.

Re:Long-term

[ShieldW0lf]

Win2K certainly did replace a lot of Win98 installs. It was the first NT-based OS that was passable on the desktop. I know I used it rather than deal with all the DOS based crap of the Win9X editions, as did many of my friends and family.

So did I, eventually. That doesn't change the fact that there were a hell of a lot more people who still used Win98SE until they bought a machine with WinXP, because there were a lot of applications that ran better without all the overhead the WinNT codebase brought.

You know what never happened last time? The public didn't apply enough pressure to force tier one distributors to drop their preinstalls back to a previous version of windows. But they did this time.

In a market that is characterized by the chasing of the latest and greatest thing, which is at any rate how I would describe it, that's a pretty big deal.

Re:Long-term

[DrSkwid]

Sorry but the first usable NT based Windows was NT 4 Service Pack 3

Re:Long-term

[DrSkwid]

Our business must have different needs because our Win2k pro desktops will stay there until they die.

Re:Long-term

[edwdig]

Win2K was only used at home by the Slashdot crowd. If you bought a computer from Dell Home or Best Buy, you got Win98 SE or Win ME.

Re:Long-term

[GeckoX]

Only businesses bought into 2K, wasn't marketed at all to home users.
And it was the precursor to what XP would become...once it hit SP2.

I should have clarified the SP2 bit, kinda important I admit.

Re:Long-term

[petermgreen]

One big difference is in the days of 9x you could just borrow a CD from a friend or your own older machine with no problems. Now unless you have access to a source of pirate copies of XP corp that are cracked to work with the latest wga you are pretty stuck.

MS has thrown the bone of downgrade rights but you have to have an OEM version (not retail not upgrade) version of vista buisness or ultimate to get them and even when you do excercising them involves telephone activation.

Re:Long-term

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT, YHL, HAND.

Re:Long-term

[bhtooefr]

Windows 2000 was originally just going to be called NT 5, and was going to include 98's enhancements over 95, plus get NT up to 9x's ease of configuration.

It got delayed, so they did some more stuff to it, and called it Windows 2000. It was released in December 1999, IIRC.

Then, they realized that Windows 98 was getting long in the tooth, and neither Neptune (a Windows 2000-based 98 replacement) or Whistler (a Windows 2000-based Windows 2000-replacement) were getting anywhere any time soon, so they released Windows ME in... late 2000. It used the Windows 2000 shell, PART of the Windows 2000 driver model, and turned out to be total crap. It came AFTER 2000, though.

As for Neptune and Whistler... the help system in ME was borrowed from Neptune. Soon afterwards, Neptune and Whistler were merged, Neptune's help system and welcome screens made it into Whistler, and the rest of the project was killed. Whistler became XP.

Re:Long-term

[bhtooefr]

They ignored 2K because it cost $300, and was meant for businesses (meaning it wasn't marketed towards consumers.) ;)

They ignored ME because it offered no tangible benefits. :P

Re:Long-term

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your own advice, shithead!

Is Emulation Really that Slow?

[tjstork]

I guess the question is, really, how long does a function call take to execute? It takes -some- time, but I would imagine that an OpenGL wrap around Direct could actually be pretty quick, and should be, if it all it did was wrap equivalent function calls.

Re:Is Emulation Really that Slow?

[GeckoX]

It is fairly slow, and it's all done in software. It's not meant at all for high performance OpenGL. The wrapper layer itself might not be that slow...but MS's OpenGL implementations are notoriously sub par. But it doesn't matter, because they are rarely, if ever, used at all for anything requiring real time performance.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Anonymous Coward]

I got into an argument with a user such as you describe. At a certain point in the discussion, he fell back onto the old rhetoric: "Well, the ubiquity of Windows is one measure of its quality."

To which, I replied: "By that metric, McDonald's is the finest restaurant on Earth."

How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[MikeRT]

The question is not how many Linux users can play games on Linux, but how many Linux users will actually insist that it must be on Linux. I bet that most would-be Linux gamers are dual-booting, and until there reaches a critical mass of people who insist on not having to dual-boot, companies will have a business case for not supporting Linux.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[porkThreeWays]

This is the epitome of FUD keeping people from switching to Linux. You COMPLETELY don't understand how software works apparently. First of all, there is a standard library for writing 3d games. It's called OpenGL. Second, what Desktop Environment you run is completely irrelevant to anything. I'm currently running Gnome on this computer. At home I have Fluxbox. At my parents they have KDE. Guess what? We can all run the exact same programs. People write programs for a certain toolkit, but in no way, shape, or form does this mean you can't run it in a different desktop environment. What desktop environment you are running has nothing, 0, none, zilch, to do with what programs you can run. The Windows world is no different in this respect. There are at least 10 different GUI toolkits floating around in the Windows world. For programs to work, all you need to do is include the proper libraries. The reason there is a low rate of Linux adoption in part is because of idiotic propaganda like this being spread around. It has zero basis of truth and I think anyone propagating this garbage should be called out for what they are.

Maybe later

[bgspence]

After the pay version, game developers often make the source available for the free version.

Just wait and see....

Linux needs Windows emulation

[athloi]

Problem: 1.34% market share, and the remaining 98.66% of software is represented on Windows or Macintosh.

Current solution: make clones of existing software (Open Office, GIMPshop).

Future solution: either using virtualization or crafty API emulation, make Linux be able to transparently run Windows games and software.

It's a different approach, but you'd have more people using Linux, because since Windows is the de facto standard, it's the standard the software they need requires.

Re:Linux needs Windows emulation

[Dr. Manhattan]

Future solution: either using virtualization or crafty API emulation, make Linux be able to transparently run Windows games and software.

Nope, that's a trap. OS/2 was essentially 100% Windows 3.1 compatible, and what happened? Developers thought, "Why bother writing an OS/2 native app when I can just write a Windows app and be compatible?" So OS/2 never got any apps to speak of.

Linux needs a better, cross-platform gaming API. Fortunately, it has one.

However, if you really have your heart set on compatibility, check out WINE. I'm running a few older Windows games (Alice, Freedom Force, Tomb Raider III) flawlessly with that. Many of 'em don't work, but I'm surprised how many are playable.

Re:Linux needs Windows emulation

[houstonbofh]

The question is not how much market share per platform, but how much of that market would purchase a given game? For example I doubt the cat scan machines at the hospital are likely to run Bioshock. Furthermore the Windows market is saturated, and the Linux market is starving. A good game in Linux has less competition.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[Dr. Manhattan]

Until there's a more standardized desktop environment such that developers can target one one platform and know that they'll have broad Linux market reach, why would any company bother?

Um... there already is. OpenGL + SDL covers basically everything DirectX does (yes, DirectInput and all that). If you need environmental audio, you can use OpenAL, or roll your own as I gather Id did for Doom3 (and not just on Linux, on Windows as well - you need a patch for hardware audio). As a bonus, SDL apps run on Windows and OSX (along with several other platforms) as well.

Games don't care about the desktop, except for installing a menu item and/or an icon to run the game. And, well, there's a standard for that, too. Once they're running, they take over the screen anyway.

The issues with Linux gaming is entirely a chicken-egg market-share problem. There is just not any kind of technical barrier. Anyone doing a PS3 version is already doing an OpenGL version anyway, so a Linux port is actually quite easy at that point.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[vil3nr0b]

I fully believe there will be a release on the Linux platform from Id. I understand about us only having a few percent of the market, but in the current market that few percent can make or brake the profitablity for a company already investing millions into a game. Besides, why bite the hand that has loyally supported you?

At what price?

[Lonewolf666]

...and Microsoft is not going to let Vista fail. This time next year, Vista will have 25% of the market. In another year, it'll have 75%. Just like XP did, and MS-Win2k before that.

Only that Vista vs. XP seems to be more like Windows Me vs. 98. I guess Microsoft can still push Vista to high market share if they actually stop selling XP as announced.

But I strongly suspect that the remaining 25% would finally run off to Apple and Linux. Which would help those out of "niche" status and make them much more viable alternatives (OK, OK, they ARE viable now ;-). Thus, Microsoft might win the battle but lose the war.

Re:At what price?

[daeg]

I'll start pirating XP in the workplace before I unleash the monstrosity that Vista is upon my users.

I don't have enough time, energy, staff, or money to deal with Vista and my users as well as upgrade nearly every PC to handle it (along with the outrageous license costs).

Re:At what price?

[mollymoo]

Macs won't be a viable market for games till Apple decide to make 'consumer' machines with decent graphics cards in them. As it is, if you want decent graphics you need to pay $3000 for a Mac Pro.

Re:At what price?

[Lightlord]

>>As it is, if you want decent graphics you need to pay $3000 for a Mac Pro. Or pay $1999 or even $1799 (with educational discount) and get a Macbook Pro.

Re:At what price?

[Kalriath]

To me in my country, that's like 3 or 4 grand. Apple is NOT an option for realistic gaming, because Apple overcharges too much.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Cerberus911]

Yeah man, those stupid windows users wanting an easy interface to control most of their system's settings through a GUI. They should inform themselves of Linux and not dismiss it completely.

Oh, did you hear about Vista and how it doesn't support OpenGL at all? Also, did you hear about Vista backdoors Microsoft uses to empty your bank account? I don't see how anyone could use Windows anymore. I switched after 95.

Wine?

[vinn]

Wine's Direct3D has taken amazing leaps over the past year. Maybe id should contribute a little love to that project to come up with a native version similar to how Google did Picasa?

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez. "Dual-booting" is such a stupid word. It doesn't mean what it should mean, which would be booting two OS's at once. Please stop using it. Thank you very much.

JC's D3D criticisms are dated, likes modern D3D

[AHumbleOpinion]

Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.

For many years Direct3D has had a substantial lead with respect to features and driver support.

Long ago and with respect to a very old Direct3D version Carmack really did rip into Direct3D. OpenGL advocates like to refer to this but the truth is that in recent years Carmack has pointed out that these criticisms are obsolete, that Direct3D has improved greatly and is now good.

"Carmack: No, because the DX9 stuff--actually, DX9 is really quite a good API [application programming interface] level. Even with the D3D [Direct3D] side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step--they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility--and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm

Re:JC's D3D criticisms are dated, likes modern D3D

[Hal_Porter]

That interview reminds me of the bit in "System Shock 2" where some character says something like

"He doesn't understand what we're doing down here or the [voice changes from human to distorted alien]GLORY OF OUR PURPOSE. GLORY TO THE MANY!"

And then you know he's been assimilated

Re:JC's D3D criticisms are dated, likes modern D3D

[AHumbleOpinion]

Going from something along the lines of "this is the one true path" to something like "there is more than one way to do this" sounds like the opposite of assimilation. :-)

Misinformative Article...

[CrusadeR]

Regarding id Tech 5 and Rage, id titles are usually ported to Linux relatively late in the development process when the programmer has the time, but they've always been ported. There were also these statements from Carmack at QuakeCon last month:

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0803.1731.12214.htm?Page=1

GI: Will this engine support any DX10 features?

Carmack: No, not currently. We're not expecting to. We're not sure if we're going to be a Vista title or not. There will be some support benefits by being Vista only. It depends when we get the game done what the adoption has been. But it's a OpenGL title on the PC and Mac right now, obviously D3D on the 360, and the PS3 it's kind of an in between where it's Open GLES but we do a lot of direct command buffer writing there. If necessary we can move the PC version over to DX10, but there's not much strong pull for us to do that. All of the toolset is in OpenGL, I wouldn't want to convert everything over.

http://www.linuxgames.com/news/feedback.php?identiferID=9374&action=flatview

Q: I wanted to say thank you for open-sourcing the Quake 3 engine, it's made a huge difference to the community. I wanted to ask your opinion about the future of Linux and open source gaming.

A: I do take a great deal of personal pride and satisfaction with what I've been able to do with getting so much of the stuff out. Sometimes I think about it, and while I know it's not something I'm generally considered for, I may be one of the most prolific open source authors considering all the code that I've written over the last 15 years that I've made open source, or have made open source there. I do think it's very valuable. I'm very happy when I see both user gaming community stuff, or research universities, or people doing simulation tests, or bringing up things. Every new piece of hardware ends up having Doom or Quake titles used as an early form of test application. So I'm very happy to have done that. It's certainly going to continue. I mean I won't commit to a date, but the Doom 3 stuff will be open source. We still make those decisions even today when we're doing the Rage code when we have decisions about "do we want to integrate some other vendor's solution, some proprietary code into this". And the answer's usually no, because eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we're not going to integrate stuff that's going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release. We can argue the exact pros and cons from a pure business standpoint on it, and I can at least make some, perhaps somewhat, contrived cases that I think it's good for the business, but as a personal conviction it's still pretty important to me and I'm standing by that.

The id-produced title coming out at the end of the month, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, will have a Linux dedicated server and client as well:

http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/linux/etqw/

Linux client?

When it's done. We have beta testers, they are doing a great job, you don't need to apply. There is still some work to be done before it matches id quality standards, and we won't commit to any dates.

In summary: Don't panic.

Re:Misinformative Article...

[Hal_Porter]

We still make those decisions even today when we're doing the Rage code when we have decisions about "do we want to integrate some other vendor's solution, some proprietary code into this". And the answer's usually no, because eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we're not going to integrate stuff that's going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release. We can argue the exact pros and cons from a pure business standpoint on it, and I can at least make some, perhaps somewhat, contrived cases that I think it's good for the business, but as a personal conviction it's still pretty important to me and I'm standing by that.

You realise that comment explains why a lot of software will never be open source, right? Most things are cobbled together out of closed source third party stuff. It's only because of personal conviction that iD don't do this too.

Re:Misinformative Article...

[sniggly]

Thanks crusader, well researched.

Also, as far as I can judge his character, Carmack doesn't launch rockets into space because he thinks it's big business but because he loves space and the idea of exploring it. Equally he doesn't code open source because it makes good business sense for iD but because ethically it is the right thing to do. I think he rejects the monopolization of code (such as in closed source operating systems) for the same reasons that other coders who remember the pre-microsoft era do; critical social functions should be open to society to control and tweak.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[visualight]

I don't recall Epic creating several binaries for UT. In the end, Linux is Linux and if the developer doesn't want the distro to matter then it won't.

Plain and simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not mentioning Linux is not equivalent to abandoning Linux. Clearly, id is a commercial business and will invest time and effort first in what gives the biggest return-on-investment first. Windows is the dominant platform for computer-gaming, but more and more people are getting Macs as well.

It still doesn't leave Linux out. For all you know, they are simply waiting for the Dell w/Ubuntu experiment to mature so that they can make a deal with Dell to offer Rage as an option.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[westlake]

Most gamers I know are "Windows experts". They've got their Windows desktop super customized with skins and slick themes etc etc. They are probably the worst candidate for adopters of Linux. They think they understand something about computers and operating systems, but it comes down to they kinda understand how Windows works on the front end, and it's a HUGE blow to them when they have to start over.

Gamers game.

They are not technical hobbyists as the Geek understands it. The Windows OS is simply another platform like the PS3 - The basics of Windows is all they need to know and all they want to know.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[SatanicPuppy]

I wouldn't consider myself to be a "windows power user"...I mean, I can fix it if it's broken, and I know how to pummel the registry into submission, and how to prune the goddamn services to something sane and secure. I'm certainly very familiar with windows. But there is that little spark of, I don't know, "Taking it seriously" that I lack.

All that being said, Windows is my gaming platform of choice. I always have a good gaming rig running the latest stable version of Windows. I run games on Linux occasionally. I run games on Macs occasionally. But in both of those cases it's more to prove that I can, not because I want to actually play games in those environments.

Windows is a toy, even when I'm running it at work (like right now). Looking at the programs I have running currently, I have two programs connecting to MySQL databases running on linux machines, I have Eclipse running, and 4 terminal emulators hitting 2 linux servers, 1 solaris server, and 1 MPE/iX mainframe. Oh, and Outlook, which is the only thing that actually requires Windows.

So, what I'm saying is, I think it's cool that companies support Linux. Always gives me a fuzzy feeling to buy a game from Blizzard or Id that runs on Linux, but in the long run, I'd never actually PLAY it there unless my solitary Windows machine was dead.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...
Right in the next terminal on the other virtual desktop sits a vim-Session, editing FORTRAN intended to run on an old Alpha - so, thanks, I think I know _some_ things about how computers work, and yes, I might even happen to know a thing or two about Linux (surely enough for everyday use), having spent all my "scientific time" (now ~5 years) on it.

Still, I'm pretty much a hardcore Gamer. And therefore, (no) Gaming on Linux is a deal breaker for me.
Sure, I would like to get rid of the hassles of Windows (TeX-implementation, no proper shell, etc.), but give up gaming? Nope.

And why should I bother with a dual-boot system at home? Everything serious gets done at work, and for the casual stuff Windows is (barely) good enough.

Todd Hollenshead Is an Amateur

[Anonymous Coward]

Todd Hollenshead is an asshole. His game and business vision is amateur at best. Without the tech and money of Id behind him he couldn't handle a burger flipping job. He should've been kicked out years ago and replaced with someone who has some sense of games design and staff issues. Just reading and watching some of his interviews and he strikes me as a guy that shovels bullet points to cover the fact he's winging it. I've been saying this for years and he somehow manages to get away with it, as he sniffs his way down one line of coke and bounces onto the next without so much as a sneeze. Another thing, Id gets really pissy if you hold him up to the light. What gives? Whose cock does he warm to get this grace and favour job when better people than him have been nuked? I'm beginning to think they keep him around so they feel smart.

"No business justification" for Linux

[AHumbleOpinion]

It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time.

Support for OpenGL is not being removed, the Mac version will use it. This is not about OpenGL, this is about Linux gaming. Years ago id made an infamous comment in a Game Developer magazine interview, sorry no link - read the hard copy at the time. They said that there is no business justifcation for their Linux clients, that they merely do them because they think it is cool to do so. Perhaps they don't have enough time for this "hobby" anymore.

Keep in mind that the Linux game market is far smaller than most people think. It is not the number of people who buy the Linux version of the game. Given that most Linux gamers are willing to buy the Win32 version of a game and dual boot or emulate, a Linux sale is cannibalism. It replaces a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, it does not generate new income. The only new income is a sale to those who refuse to dual boot or emulate, who will only play native Linux versions. This native group is considered by many developers to be too small to justify the expenses related to porting, testing, and support.

That said, Linux based servers are an entirely different story. These make financial sense.

-1 clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Every major engine has a renderer independant API, and you can switch between direct3d and opengl any time you want. The amount of direct3d and opengl code in an engine is pretty small, and its easily abstracted. Even if you didn't want to be portable, it would still be the only sane way to write your engine, you don't want to be pushing the low level details of directx or opengl calls up into your engine.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[12357bd]

Yes, that's the question, but the fact is that the trend is to increase share, and with AMD/ATI going open (that is good 3d linux drivers in months), and an scheduler properly tuned (hear this kernel poeple), linux can become a major playing platform, with superb rendiment and customization. IMO that's one of the most strategicaly needed targets for the linux world.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[westlake]

f you need environmental audio, you can use OpenAL, or roll your own as I gather Id did for Doom3 and not just on Linux, on Windows as well - you need a patch for hardware audio. Anyone doing a PS3 version is already doing an OpenGL version anyway, so a Linux port is actually quite easy at that point.

Anyone doing a project for the XBox 360 gets the Windows market as a bonus.

Why do you need EAX when the lowliest entry-level motherboard has multichannel digital audio output as standard?

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Anonymous Coward]

'To which, I replied: "By that metric, McDonald's is the finest restaurant on Earth."'

You broke the golden /. rule: You must to use a car analogy! Something like, by that metric, VW Golf/Rabbit is a better car than a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren because more people use the former.

Direct3D - monopoly abuse in practice

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft pushed direct3d via their desktop monopoly, only recently has it even been able to compete with OpenGL. Now we face the situation where most 3D content is being produced using a proprietary API that wasn't needed to begin with.

Why have games developers let Microsoft get away with this?

Re:Direct3D - monopoly abuse in practice

[octopus72]

They also push it via Xbox 360. I mean, it's not hard to support either OGL or DX on Xbox, as ATI produces also OpenGL driver, but they obviously chose to do that to promote their API (why don't MS f*ckers submit it to ISO as well?).

Fortunately Wii and PS3 are OpenGL/OpenGL-ES so noone can actually base on ONE graphical API, except MS-owned developers.

Re:Direct3D - monopoly abuse in practice

[ardor]

Because OpenGL just sucked for a long time and nowadays there is no reason for porting existing D3D9 over to GL (~same functionality -> no gain)?

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need EAX when the lowliest entry-level motherboard has multichannel digital audio output as standard

That's WHEN you really need EAX/OpenAL, doofus - it's a 3D spatial sound API. You just say "I want a sound 200m away moving at 200 m/s" and it does it, dopplering and all.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[domatic]

The set of Windows gamers and Windows ricers has considerable intersection though.

I think it may go back to what Carmack has said...

[HerculesMO]

And I could be wrong, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Carmack has always been a fan of Microsoft's development tools and platform. He finds it easy to build and develop his engines for Xbox 360 and the PC using these tools. I'm unsurprised that now he's on the Direct X platform, for similar reasons.

Maybe it just costs too much money to develop platforms on OpenGL? I could be wrong, but I am inferring that from Carmack's own statements earlier. Perhaps somebody could verify my thoughts, or negate them?

I would buy Macromedia Suite for linux as well

[Anonymous Coward]

.... please include freehand!!!!

Who in their right mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in their right mind would choose DirectX over OpenGL when doing ANYTHING? I've tried both APIs and find OpenGL much easier to use and to tweak for my needs. Sure, there's a bit more "pencil-work" involved, but nothing that someone with an education in this field can't handle.

And why do game developers not understand that portability = ability to bring a game to more platforms = wider market base = more money for them than if it were JUST for Windows?

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you've been developing games for years. Oh no, wait, you sound like some douchebag that saw an opengl book and a directx book at borders and your neckbeard flared up since opengl is "open". You should've just grabbed the home and garden magazine and drank a coffee and stayed out of the computer section where you don't belong. Thanks.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Brix Braxton]

Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that. You're over-estimating the Mac and Linux market share. The Mac gaming market is basically a "PC's Greatest Hits" market and the Linux market (market in the sense of making money selling games) virtually doesn't exist, and I believe one of the few companies making money sells a package that allows you to play PCWIN games in Linux. Just Windows is just fine - just like Just PS3 or just Xbox360 is just fine - stick with the platform that gives you what you want - or get them all. -Mike

Re:Who in their right mind...

[ardor]

"Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that."

Wrong. They are just frontends for the same thing.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that.

  AAaaaaaaaargh! The Stupid! It burns us, precious! IT BURRRRRNS USSSS!

Re:Who in their right mind...

[ardor]

Technical reasons:

Direct3D is more consistent, no matter what the feature is, because it was completely redesigned with release 8 and 10. The 8 redesign was necessary, the 10 understandable (but debatable).
OpenGL is very elegant with primitive stuff, the kind of things the first NeHe tutorials show. But once you start entering the world of complex, modern effects, huge datasets, and today's game art, OpenGL becomes messy.

The API is inconsistent, because there are several extensions for the same goal, which tends to confuse people. Also, newer extensions follow different design paradigms than older ones. The driver gets not enough information, which is vital for optimal performance. Good example are textures; you can actually change them completely, at any time; their entire structure is mutable. This is not good for the driver, which does not know whether or not you will ever do this (and in 99% of all cases you don't). Using PBOs you can give the driver a hint (because the PBO becomes the storage space for texture, and the PBO cannot change its size), but its messy.

The solution is called OpenGL 3, and specs are available in a couple of weeks.

Management reasons:

Years ago, OpenGL was a much better choice than D3D. This got reversed in D3D8 era, because of the ARB being extremely slow and not implementing features everybody wanted (shaders, render-to-texture...). The ARB pace was also one of the main reasons Microsoft created Direct3D in the first place (remember, they were on the OpenGL bandwagon).

Now, there is just no gain in porting all those codebases using D3D9. Oh yes, OSX uses OpenGL. But OSX is an isolated platform, they have custom OpenGL extensions, and an absolutely excellent OpenGL toolchain. Nothing Windows or Linux GL developers have comes even close to this. OSX as a gaming platform is actually more interesting than Linux, because for example Blizzard supports it already, it is a platform for common users, support is far easier, and Apple is growing fast right now. Thus, osx may become a gaming market. A Linux gaming market is far less likely, and much more expensive. id and Epic ports are an unsupported bonus. And we all remember the Loki fiasco. Valve seems to be toying with the idea about supporting Linux, but thats just speculation right now (though they have the money to try it).

So the usual setup for games is this:
Windows: D3D9
OSX: OpenGL
Consoles: Custom

Linux is an afterthought, and maybe gets the OSX OpenGL code.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Brix Braxton]

Don't know why the average gamer like me would ever delve into an OpenGL book or a DirectX book - sounds like something a programmer would be interested in. I don't program at all. Last I checked, graphic cards were classified by which DX level they could handle - so a DX9 card can't do things that a native DX10 card could do - either implying something unique in hardware or something unique in software. Last I checked, OpenGL was simply a compliance check. OpenGL only benefits the developers, it doesn't benefit me in the long run if Id can get a title simultaneously on Mac, PC and Linux - all I care about is where the majority of games are going, and that's PC (and lately, consoles). If I go with PC as my preferred gaming platform, of course I'm going to want developers to put more effort into the primary API for that platform.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[brainnolo]

PS3 and Wii both use OpenGL so it makes sense to have an OpenGL version of a rendering engine even from pure business standpoint. This was a counter argument to your "Console: Custom" statement (even XBOX uses D3D)

Re:Who in their right mind...

[ZachPruckowski]

The consoles use custom (more limited) version of OpenGL or D3D. Sony's subset is called Open GL ES I think. And the 360 runs some hybrid of DX9 and DX10.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[brainnolo]

Ok, thank you for pointing out, I wasn't aware of those differences.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Almahtar]

Actually, I can't wait for the end of OpenGL. I want to use my card to the fullest and forcing it to support two different API's won't allow that. I call bullshit. That's like saying because your OS runs on both AMD and Intel chips it's not running your hardware to the fullest. Supporting multiple APIs has no effect on your card's performance. The only performance detriment comes from when software chooses to provide shoddy support for one type of driver.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Makarakalax]

PS3 is OpenGL, so I can't see OpenGL vanishing from gaming any time soon.

Re:Who in their right mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like some polack fresh from Marketing 101 who gets hired by a company on false credentials and tells the developers to use DirectX because LOL ITS ALL TEH RAGE and then bitches at programmers because they can't port it to any other system.

LOL YEAH THE KIDS ARE HIP WITH DIRECTX LIKE TOTALLY MTV-STYLE

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Wylfing]

I do not agree with this. I think Tycho of Penny Arcade said it best:

I think that for most PC users, particularly gamers with no genuine recourse, their "choice" of platform isn't really what you'd call an act of volition. It's the default. I mean, right? It's what emerges from the tap. All we ask is that it be wet.

Gamers don't care about Windows. They just care about getting the maximum experience from their games. If this happens to be on Windows, so be it. But there is no allegiance.

Not that hard

[achurch]

At its heart, 3D rendering is 3D rendering, whether the actual function names are IDirect3DDevice9::ExtremelyLongName() or glShortSweet(). As long as you plan from the start for multiplatform support -- in other words, don't hard-code Direct3D vertex type constants or GL mode values into your data files -- it's not that much extra work. It's even easier (more so in the long run, admittedly) if you wrap both Direct3D and OpenGL code in a platform-agnostic layer, like I'm doing; then you can just code to that middle layer and not even have to think about which renderer is doing what.

Re:Not that hard

[EastCoastSurfer]

Bingo! Now I haven't looked at what iD is doing lately, but I remember them doing something in their older games like what you describe. Write the game to their own abstraction layer and then they just have to write a 'driver' to interface whatever lower level API they want to. Now you may lose the ability to use some of the DX utility functions that make writing graphics quicker/easier, but I doubt Carmack has ever needed to use those anyway. I would think at this point he has his own library of fast, efficient graphic functions that he can pull from and use.

You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

...anyone makes a remark like that... I'd be filthy stinking rich.

1) Id abstracts the hell out of everything. OpenGL isn't ON X-Box, now is it? But there's Id titles on that platform. There's a hint there- it's easier to abstract things and produces portable code. It's also very MUCH worth mentioning that DirectX is only available on ONE of the dominant consoles, and on only ONE of the dominant OS platforms. This is about making as much or more money on ENGINE SALES as the game itself. Making a DirectX only engine is limiting as hell for that prospect (No PS3. No Wii. No MacOS.).

2) It's NOT all that difficult to make a port from DirectX to OpenGL. It's been done. I had a hand in one of them. The damn game that I had a hand in porting would have shipped about 12-14 months earlier if the other two team members hadn't boggled on us and we ended up having a few 11th hour bugs that had NOTHING to do with the porting effort from DirectX to OpenGL.

3) Id has NEVER, to the best of my recollection, announced anything other than Windows versions of ANY of their titles or engines that are currently in development. Suppositions about whether they're ditching Linux or not is just rattling to hear one's own voice at this point.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[bigstrat2003]

While it's true that an Xbox-only game wouldn't be a good move, it wouldn't be a very big deal if id made any of their games Windows-only. Unlike the console market, where there are three actual contenders, in the OS market, there's one contender, and two very distant competitors.

I like id's decisions in the past to port their games, and think it's a great way to show some love to the fans, but you seriously overplay the damage they'd do to themselves by excluding Mac OS and Linux.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

Considering that it's not just MacOS or Linux, but...

MacOS
Linux
Playstation 3
Anything else under the sun with enough muscle that follows on.

Just because Windows is the dominant platform, leaving 15-25% of the rest of the market on the floor
is a bad business decision, especially if you're in the market to sell game engines. Besides, John's
already indicated that there will be a MacOS and a PS3 version of the title anyhow- this is all a moot
discussion because they've already MADE the design choices to allow all of this and aren't shifting
from them.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[TheRaven64]

It's NOT all that difficult to make a port from DirectX to OpenGL I'd like to clarify this point by saying that it's highly dependent on your other point:

Id abstracts the hell out of everything Porting from Direct3D to OpenGL is very hard if you have DirectX code scattered all through your program, but much easier if you have all of the drawing handled through a middleware layer. This is true of all code, not just games. Cross-platform APIs are great, until you find you want to use a platform-specific feature they don't support, or port to a platform where they don't run. Then your abstraction is the thing that becomes important.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Taagehornet]

Actually, unless the reported sales numbers for august are way off it wouldn't surprise me if id games one day chose to abandon the PC platform alltogether:

PC games:
[77,374] Bioshock - 2K Games
[49,126] World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade Expansion Pack - Vivendi

Consoles:
[896,592] Madden NFL 08 - Xbox 360 - Electronic Arts
[643,617] Madden NFL 08 - Playstation 2 - Electronic Arts
[490,910] BioShock - Xbox 360 - 2K Games
[336,189] Madden NFL 08 - Playstation 3 - Electronic Arts
[256,781] Play With Remote - Wii - Nintendo of America

With even the 10th console game outselling the two top PC games combined, I can't help but wonder how (if) the smaller PC game studios turn a profit.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Shaddup]

It is true that there have been many games written that allow for multiple back-end renderers (one of the other posters gave a good example with UT; IIRC, Half Life 1 also allowed both D3D and OpenGL back-ends).

One point I haven't seen raised yet is shaders. Real-time shaders are a "new" technology (relatively speaking), and now represent a large portion of the effort that goes into game development. Shaders are also largely incompatible across platforms; nvidia's Cg works on several platforms, but (if I'm not mistaken) is tied to nvidia hardware. GLSL is tied to OpenGL.

Before shaders, it was possible to abstract the details of the underlying rendering architecture. Do shaders upset the equation? Is it no longer practical to maintain cross-platform capabilities?

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Skillet5151]

PC games may sell more slowly than console games, but it's ridiculous to think that they're suddenly not profitable anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Doom 3 is cited for 3.5 million PC sales. Would you want to throw those out the window so you could kick the game out the door six months earlier in console only form?

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[yem]

That's very interesting indeed. I knew console sales were higher, but not 10x.

You can forgive producers for concentrating on the console market with numbers like that in their future.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[kikensei]

Those numbers do not include online retail purchases, Steam purchases (where Bioshock was a big seller) or things like MMO subscriptions. Online purchases, whether from a retailer such as EB Games or Gamestop, orvia digital download, ala Steam or Direct2Drive represent a huge percent of the PC gaming market and are not included in those sales stats. Those stats, while powerful in the industry, don't represent any sort of true depiction of PC sales.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Dahamma]

Doom 3 is cited for 3.5 million PC sales. Would you want to throw those out the window so you could kick the game out the door six months earlier in console only form?

Maybe... and especially if it was in time for the holiday season, which can be a huge boost to a console game's sales. If they gain more console sales than they lose on PC sales, they win... (especially if they can just put out the PC version 6 months later and pick up any of the less hard-core gamers who don't just buy it on the first platform it's released on).

What if the good sales figures were just because Doom 3 came out on the PC only? (it was released a year later on the XBox, at that time already a WAY inferior platform than current PC hardware).

Look at the discrepancy for recent games released simultaneously on modern consoles and PCs (ie what the OP mentions plus many others).

I bet if Doom 3 (or Doom 4?) was released today on the PC and 360, the 360 would outsell the PC just like all of the other ones. You are using a game from 2004 as your example, which is mostly irrelevant in 2007. I think Bioshock is a perfect example of how the industry is going... in fact, it's one of the first times I had a choice between both platforms, and decided on the 360 version over the PC - and am glad I did...

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Greg.Rodden]

Making a DirectX only engine is limiting as hell for that prospect (No PS3. No Wii. No MacOS.). * Cringes at the idea of the Nintendo Wii attempting to render the upcoming id title*

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

In reality, it depends on how salted the code is with DirectX. The rendering engine is the rendering engine, etc. I worked on the very type of game you mention- it's not as hard as everyone KEEPS making it sound like. To be sure, I'm probably making it sound easy- it's NOT. It's just not an impossibility that it seems to be in most people's minds; which is why I keep stating this EVERY time someone brings up the subject.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

Considering that they're largely only syntactically different, and that AMD happened to release a converter from HLSL to GLSL...

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

Heh... It's still something that they have to contemplate, even if it's a, "Think about it, shudder, and then go looking for the brain bleach" type of contemplation. >:-)

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[yoprst]

how (if) the smaller PC game studios turn a profit.
Isn't development for pc significantly cheaper for a number of reasons?

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't development for pc significantly cheaper for a number of reasons? Sure, but then again it takes a lot of time to make sure that the game works with all different hardware combinations. With consoles there's only one hardware to worry about. So is it really cheaper to develop for PC in the end? Though it all depends on the complexity of the game of course.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[maxume]

It's entirely unlikely that Blizzard will abandon WoW while it is on top of the market.

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well since your post kinda contradicts itself, (ie) its not that hard but it is hard, without much more to clarify what the hell you're trying to say, it doesn't surprise me at all that no-one gives a flying f**k about you're opinion! Sorry but you're gonna have to try harder than that to convince anyone especially here!

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[LarsWestergren]

I don't know how many time these sales numbers have to be refuted, but since even the journalists get it wrong, I guess I won't have to stop anytime soon:

A) These numbers do not include online sales. The Steam servers were overloaded when Bioshock was released, and Direct2Drive also had good sales.
B) These numbers are for US only. In many European countries for instance PC sales have a much larger market share.

With even the 10th console game outselling the two top PC games combined, I can't help but wonder how (if) the smaller PC game studios turn a profit.

So if another market B is bigger, that automatically means market A can't make a profit? I hear more Coca Cola bottles are sold than games. Oh noes! The gaming industry is ruined!

Re:You know if I had a dollar for every time...

[Svartalf]

For the average programmer, it's somewhat hard. For the developer that has done...

One of the first commercially fielded Embedded Linux systems...
One of the developers that made accelerated OpenGL initially possible on Linux...
Many massively distributed client/server systems...
Developed software for over 18 years and still going...

It's relatively simple.

But then, I should have known, I'm posting on /. where nobody can be bothered to do
a little bit of background on a person before making comments like yours...

Slashdot...the online, electronic equivalent to the monkey house in any zoo- right
down to the poo flingers...

Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Alzheimers]

Everyone knows that you skip ever other Microsoft OS.

Windows 3.0 - Meh, a new gui.
Windows 3.1 - Woot, welcome to the 16 bit world.
Windows 95 - Meh, a new gui. And, oh look, winsock.
Windows NT - Finally, a business class desktop OS.
Windows 98 - sloppy, but stuff's starting to work like it should.
Windows 98SE - Hey, it's what they *should* have released 98 as.
Windows ME - ugh, this bites harder than a doberman on a diet.
Windows 2000 - The greatest operating system MS has made to date.
Windows XP - A new gui. Lots of security holes.
Windows MCE - Features the media center features that people were turning to Apple for, with improved (not great) security.
Windows Visa - Meh, a new gui. They really should have made this 64-bit all around.

If the version you're running now sucks, just wait for the next version. Right?

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[luder]

Windows 2000 - The greatest operating system MS has made to date.

I have to agree. I don't remember the last time I got bsod or serious errors. It is very stable and fast, even with all the abuse it has received since I did a clean install a couple of years ago.

Vista, though, has given me problems since first time and I got at least 3 bsod after four months of light use...

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[geekinaseat]

You missed out: Windows XP SP2 - It's what XP should have been at release.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[TheRaven64]

I agree in principle, but 2K was never marketed to the home user. Those of us running 2K said 'meh' when XP was released; remote desktop wasn't worth all the other crap. For people running 9x, XP Home was a huge improvement; it had the stability of 2K and the price of 9x.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Superfarstucker]

That's all nice and well, but you forgot Windows Server 2003. Which means...

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[RonnyJ]

Windows XP - A new gui. Lots of security holes.

Windows MCE - Features the media center features that people were turning to Apple for, with improved (not great) security.

Windows Visa - Meh, a new gui. They really should have made this 64-bit all around.

So Windows MCE isn't Windows XP? And Windows NT 3.5 and NT4 should be considered the same OS? Where's Windows Server 2003?

Nice arbitary list you've made there to support your 'skip every other Microsoft OS' theory though.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Dan East]

Saying that Windows 95 is just a new GUI compared to Windows 3.1 is totally insane. The jump between 3.1 and 95 is probably the single biggest leap the OS has ever made.

Dan East

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[edwdig]

Win2K came out before Windows ME. You're also missing Win NT 3.1 and 3.5, and Windows 2003.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Some_Llama]

"I have to agree. I don't remember the last time I got bsod or serious errors. It is very stable and fast, even with all the abuse it has received since I did a clean install a couple of years ago."

I'd say the same thing about XP, the only time i have gotten BSOD was with hardware problems. and i'm not a casual user.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Mr. CoolICE]

What about windows for workgroups, 3.11?

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[edwdig]

Forgot about that. Although rare, there was also plain Windows 3.11. I don't remember offhand if there was a Windows for Workgroups 3.1.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[bombshelter13]

I think you made a typo. You typed 'SP2' when what you meant was 'SP1a'.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[acvh]

With all due respect, this comment:

"Windows NT - Finally, a business class desktop OS."

completely invalidates your argument. NT was NEVER a business class desktop OS, especially when it was first released. I would have accepted, "Netware replacement for very small offices,: or perhaps, "an OS to run MS SQL Server on."

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Gizzmonic]

I'd say the same thing about XP, the only time i have gotten BSOD was with hardware problems. and i'm not a casual user.

I wish I could say the same thing, but I have struggled with Service Pack 2 pissing all over itself more than once. Not to say that MS isn't way ahead of where they were 10 years ago, but they're still behind.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Some_Llama]

Well i'd say maybe you are installing it wrong? I usually do it like this.. windows>SP2>drivers>programs.. if you install drivers before the SP2 then i have seen problems, but never in the way i specified (unless of course the driver is bad itself).

The mian problem i see is that people install drivers right away for things like network cards so they can do the auto update.. this typically hoses something down the way.. just get the sp2 as an executable and burn it to a CD for this purpose.. i have a CD burned with SP2 and other updates that i use after a clean xp install.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[petermgreen]

no 3.x to NT 3.x was the biggest jump, 9x was a comprimise because they jumped too far for many people.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[mobets]

There is an even better way. I don't remember its name (slipstream maybe), but Microsoft offers a tool that will let you combine your XP CD with a service pack and/or other stuff. It creates a new ISO with all of the updates preinstalled. You end up with an XP SP2 install disk that works the same as what is included in the new retail boxes.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[bhtooefr]

Single biggest leap the DOS-based Windows has ever made.

I would argue that the leap between ME and XP Home was bigger - you're taking your mainstream OS from a DOS-based shell to a completely different OS - granted, one designed to be 100% compatible, but this is a leap on the scale of... oh... OS 9 to OS X in the Mac world.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[bhtooefr]

There was, although it's very rare.

Also, I know someone who claims to have floppies of Workgroups for Windows - basically, installing that on a Windows 3.0 system effectively makes it Windows for Workgroups 3.0.

As for plain Windows 3.11, that was what I usually saw distributed as an OEM version.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Alzheimers]

Actually, I skipped NT 3.5 so I could also skip Windows 3.11. And I did include NT 4.0 in there, I just didn't properly designate the version number (3.5 wasn't much used, afaik)

I also didn't include DOS - but there were too many to name. The only noteworthy ones I remember were 5 and 6.22.

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Anonymous Coward]

As I remember it you are totally correct, but those times I lacked clue to be able to fully understand why. Care to briefly expand on the 3.1-to-95 jump somewhat? :-) (I'm sure it would be illustrative or even new info to many here.)

Re:Everyone knows to skip an MS generation

[Some_Llama]

yes it is slipstreaming, not for the faint of heart but too difficult either. you can even include drivers that you know you might need in the future.

Now this?

[AndyKron]

Man, I've been waiting for Duke Nukem Forever, and now this? WTF?

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[GodfatherofSoul]

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology with "desktop environment", but I'm speaking of the entire deployable, not just the binaries. Initialization, installers, notification, file locations. If everything isn't standardized or at least wrapped with standard OS API calls, that means custom work on each platform. That means an additional maintenance responsibility and potential breaking point.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to detract from your main point... but OpenGL is only one way of programming the PS3. There are lower-level graphics libraries supplied by Sony, and it's also possible to build graphics command buffers by hand.

Anyone concerned about getting the highest performance from the PS3 will not be using OpenGL.

Really small square pegs?

[infonography]

well if you mean the endless stream of virus and spyware mayhap your solution is correct. If you think I am wrong I have one word for you.

VISTA

Re:Really small square pegs?

[Sciros]

Vista's just not as mature as XP is yet. For a good long while after XP's release many people, including IT folks, were saying "stick with Win 2000." They are now very comfortable with XP even as a dev platform. In time I expect the same will happen with Vista.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[naris]

You Insensitive Clod!

I am a gamer and prefer unix/solaris/linux/(anything else) to windows. I spend all day working in a Solaris Environment and use my Windows based corporate laptop mostly as an X-Terminal (using Exceed), browsing, eclipse (WebSphere, MQ Broker), corporate Exchange (outlook) e-mail and requisite MS word, excel and powerpoint attachments. I am a Power computer user, regardless of OS (*nix AND Windows)!!!

Oh -- I also have s PS3 at home. I use it to watch Blu-Ray movies and run Yellow Dog linux (& perhaps an occasional game of MotorStorm)...

I also have many friends that fall into the same category!!

We know windows is most definitely the inferior O/S for everything else other than games. Unfortunately, for gaming, windows is "better" since a **lot** of games just are not available for other platforms (such as linux), so we are forced to keep a Windows partition around for gaming purposes.

Damn, will have to go back to older games

[Wiseman1024]

Okay, so how do I install Quake 3?

Re:Damn, will have to go back to older games

[xororand]

If you're on Gentoo Linux, insert the CD and type:
emerge quake3-bin -av
and you're done.

Linux

[mandr4ke]

Well if anyone else plays the linux games as i do, you know that they sell one CD where the game files work accross all platforms, then later release a binary file that you can download for free to play on your platform.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[gabrygenoa]

As linux commercial game developer I have to say there are a few tech problems for developing linux games but these are obviously not connected with the desktop enviroment :) The biggest problems are: - 3d drivers not always available, and not as bug free as their windows counterparts, also when they are available different distro may offer them in different ways and be incompatibile with your game (eg Fedora puts 3d drivers not in /usr/lib and use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to expose them). - Different library ABIs, the bigger problem is in libstdc++, actually there are a few distro based on libstdc++5 and a few on libstdc++6, every C++ library used by a game must use the same c++ library, often this means override the system one, static link is often not an option because of LGPL licence and incompatibilities with external software (eg xfree/xorg).

Carmack at QuakeCon

[Jordan (jman)]

Well I was personally at Carmack's QuakeCon keynote where he said that they will eventually release the source for id tech 5 the same way they have with previous games. So even if there is not a Linux release right away, there will be one somewhere down the line.

Windows is good with gaming

[Programmer_In_Traini]

You know, i would be pretty happy if all the gaming would be windows territory, because we know its the only thing its real good at.

Whenever it comes to doing work and business, there's no question who that territory belongs to.

Re:Windows is good with gaming

[Vexorian]

The only reason windows is good at gaming is of inept companies that target only that platform.

And a dozen or so people are dismayed.

[groberts65]

LOL.

Prepare to be Amazed

[nobodyman]

I would be amazed is they wrote a Direct3D renderer in addition to the OpenGL one.

Well, friend... prepare to be amazed!!!

As CrusadeR wisely pointed out, Carmack has stated that they already have an OpenGL and DX9 renderer in development.

I imagine that it wasn't their first choice to do this, however with their jump to next-gen console development I suppose it was a necessity (it's not like you can have DX9 on the PS3, or OpenGL on the 360).

Potentially interesting data

[Timbo]

For Tremulous (incidentally, based on Quake^H^H^H^H^Hid tech 3), the OS breakdown is as follows:

Windows: 78%
x86 Linux: 16%
ppc OS X: 4%
x86 OS X: 1%
x86_64 Linux: less than 1%
Freebsd: much less than 1%

This is based on approximately 370000 clients. Admittedly the figures are a bit skewed in favour of Windows and Linux as the OS X build is only available from apple.com. The same is true of x86_64 and Freebsd -- those are built manually by whoever is running them (I assume). There are other issues as well as it could be argued that the Linux version is potentially easier to get than the other versions since it has made its way into various packaging systems.

Even if you take this data with a pinch of salt, I think it does reinforce that there is a demand for gaming on Linux. What it doesn't indicate (and I'm not convinced exists) is a demand to pay for gaming on Linux.

Re:Potentially interesting data

[LingNoi]

Why not? People will pay whatever platform they use.

Just because Linux is a free operating system doesn't mean we are all cheapskates. I can't remember ever paying for Windows or any of the expensive programs anyway, my friends always had a copy. The only difference now is that I am not breaking the law.

Re:Potentially interesting data

[kramulous]

16% - Wow! That is a lot higher than I would have guessed. Considering that in a post higher up in this thread, ign reported 77K purchases of Bioshock for PC. The figures you've quoted are on par with this.
Interesting.

Flame me if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

I am happy they are creating a Mac version. I gave up on Linux desktop a while ago, its not ready for normal users and never will be. Although, I am not a normal user .. I don't enjoy the headaches of drivers, recompiling source, kernels, etc. Linux is the best server, and the worst desktop.

Windows is the worst, period.

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of ironic that you supposedly "reward" id by buying "at least 2 or 3 copies" of every game they make... but think Windows should be free.

I'm guessing you probably have pirated every id game you've played. TEH SOFTWAREZ SHUUD BE TEH FREE!!!

Windows doesn't cost very much. It's certainly cheaper than the $150+ you claim to pay every time id releases a game.

Re:Irony

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Kind of ironic that you supposedly "reward" id by buying "at least 2 or 3 copies" of every game they make... but think Windows should be free.

He never said that.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[TheRaven64]

This is much less important for games than other kinds of software. Most GUI programs try hard to fit in to a platform's native look and feel. Games are the opposite; they try to provide a completely immersive environment. They don't use the native platform interface components, because they will remind the user of the desktop and detract from their immersion in the game. They can use OpenGL for graphics, OpenAL for sound, etc.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[TheRaven64]

OpenGL + SDL covers basically everything DirectX does (yes, DirectInput and all that) SDL must have come a long way since I last used it then. Which bit of the API do I use to decode an MPEG-4 video clip and render it as a texture in my OpenGL scene? Which part do I use to provide lobby facilities for people wanting to set up games, and which part is for voice chat between players?

Please note, these are features that were present in DirectX in 2001, when I last used it. I don't know what features have been added in the last six years. Anyone looking at moving from DirectPlay, by the way, should take a look at OpenPlay, released by Apple under the APSL. It runs on Windows, Mac and Linux, and does a lot (although by no means all) of what DirectPlay does.

More money in engines than games?

[TravisO]

id sells well, and none of us know the figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority (60%?) of id's profits come from selling engines, and not game sales. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if id inks up deals where they get a cut of the profits vs simply a flat rate. Which could be said that Doom 3 was a (very expensive to make) tech demo for their engine (although I enjoyed it, I know a lot of people didn't like the game).

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[Creepy]

My biggest problem with SDL is its relative slowness compared to custom drivers. This may have improved from 1.2.4 to 1.2.12, I haven't checked, but a framerate hit of 5-10% (depending on platform) is too much for my tastes. I agree that the desktop env is a non-issue since OpenGL runs on top of X (which is part of every window manager).

    The real problem with Linux games is they don't sell very well, which killed Loki, but its possible the market needs a second chance as I think marketshare is improving. OTOH, with no SecuROM or other security measure, you probably won't get many non massive A-list games due to the piracy fear - it's much safer to just sell to the dominant Windows market. I'd like to see a few more MMORPGs supporting alternate OS's and sales numbers for those because they don't have to fear piracy and it might give an indication of the true market.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[msormune]

He WAS right although not in the same sense. The "quality" here with in McDonalds is not in the food or service, but in the way the business and franchising works. WHich makes it indeed one of the best restaurant in the world, business wise. The same way Windows is by far not the best operating system, but the whole Windows family as a business model and the way Microsoft has forced nearly to play along, makes it the best operating system. Business wise.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[ndogg]

That's not really the point here, now is it? John Carmack has always supported developing a Linux version, and while it may have never been a priority, we could always expect iD titles to have a Linux version eventually. He never did it because it made money, and he's said as much in the past. He did it because he supports the concept of open source.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[ImTheDarkcyde]

I care about windows. I enjoy not having to compile everything before installing it. I enjoy my eyecandy running fine without some hacked together drivers. I enjoy how everything is familiar and intuitive.

Not to troll, but just because gamers don't use linux doesn't mean it's because MS has shanghaied us. Tycho is pretty close, and at least makes the "most" distinguishment, but you'll never find me dual booting linux again

Carmack

[Supergibbs]

Carmack has always been open and honest about what he thinks about current technology, but he is a professional game developer and I have no doubt that he'll support many platforms. Like all software (inc viruses) developers target the biggest platform first. In this case, Windows. Since it's DirectX, I would guess XBox is around the corner. Past games have supported OpenGL and DirectX so I am sure Carmack has designed the engine with future support in mind.

Remember Carmack was part of the original (and probably 360) XBox advisory group. Here he says the XBox 360 is the best development platform even though the PS3 may be more powerful. http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/10/18/1556

I remember a few generations ago of video cards. Carmack said that ATI's new 9800 gpu is amazing but their drivers sucked so he preferred NVidia's. It doesn't mean his games weren't supported by ATI hardware.

PS- XBox was NVidia based while the XBox 360 is ATI

Re:I think it may go back to what Carmack has said

[Brix Braxton]

I don't have any references - but I think it's the other way around isn't? I think Carmack has always preferred OpenGL. Back when it was a really big deal he was even into an initiative that would auto-update OpenGL (similar to how CD's come with Direct3d.exe installers there was an OpenGL.exe installer). I think the decision is based on the fact that OpenGL support in Vista and above is rudimentary.

I am sorry, WHAT?

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are talking about ricers, people who put neon-lighting in their PC and call it overclocking. Sorry, no.

These are the kinda people who cut the suspension on their car and think it turns it into a racing machine and if they ever had access to a real race car would put a radio in it, to drown out the engine noise. (If you see a ferrari with a radio, it is legal to shoot the owner in Italy).

A real gamer/overclocker cares about performance, they want their games to run as fast and smooth as possible. The simplest and easiest way to do this is to switch every unneeded bit of Windows OFF and the most unneeded thing is themes. Unless you play your game windowed (The horror) what use is a theme? Samething with wallpapers. Hell most gamers I know don't even want anything on the desktop, every icon shown costs resources.

Same thing with a large unorganized HD. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that the simpler the filetree, the less time spend by the OS looking for a file. SMALL is BETTER!

Now think of this, how would a person obsessed with getting every last FPS out of their latest hardware configure their machine. Oh might they want to keep their windows/gaming box as clean as possible? Not install anything unneeded, not run any programs except the game?

But where to browse and download and look at porn eh trailers? Why, we are talking about gamers, owners of lots of obsolete hardware. Hardware that could easily be put together to run a second PC?

But what oh what to run on that second machine? Not linux you say because gamers don't know nothing about that? Where and how do you think all those linux counterstrike and other FPS servers come from?

In fact, as you spend time overclocking and tuning your windows machine you are FAR more likely then an average windows to get totally dissatisfied with windows, and to anyone who has managed to tame the beast from redmond and actually make it run stable and fast, linux holds very few secrets. If you think compiling a kernel is hard you never had to clean out a copyprotection driver from XP.

No, their are people like you describe, who know just enough of windows to press the right button, as long as it in request for the dialog (press any key) and fear having to learn anything new.

But their are also plenty of gamers to whom linux holds no fear, they long since embraced it as their salvation from having to mess up their gaming machines and use it to run their game servers, host their guild sites and use it as their main desktop while gaming.

I almost find it insulting that you say that people who mod closed source, no documentation games, can't make their way around an opensource open-documented OS. Not all gamers as the same.

Re:I am sorry, WHAT?

[TheoMurpse]

Wouldn't an unorganized hard drive be simplest, because you have all files in one folder? That would, after all, be the least complex filetree.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[happyemoticon]

That depends. If you're making an exclusive game for the PS3, and you are confident that every single PS3 owner in the world will want to buy your game, sure. However, I think for your middle-of-the-bell-curve studio, writing in OpenGL and DirectX makes better business sense. If I were the bean counter in charge and someone said, "Hey, let's write super-special optimized code for the PS3, which is already a pain because of those eight cores, thereby increasing our development costs, so that we can increase sales in our smallest demographic, who have to take out a second mortgage just to buy the console in the first place!" I'd answer with a flat, resounding "No" unless there were incentives, or, to put it more bluntly, bribery from Sony.

The smart ones know to skip MS altogether

[lwriemen]

> If the version you're running now sucks, just wait for the next version. Right?

Wrong! It's going to suck too!

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Anonymous Coward]

He WAS right although not in the same sense. The "quality" here with in McDonalds is not in the food or service, but in the way the business and franchising works. WHich makes it indeed one of the best restaurant in the world, business wise. The same way Windows is by far not the best operating system, but the whole Windows family as a business model and the way Microsoft has forced nearly to play along, makes it the best operating system. Business wise."

Put a little differently, McDonald's and Microsoft are both tremendous companies and brands, but their products aren't all that great (and sometimes outright suck).

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[RedHat Rocky]

I'm the linux user that expects games on Linux.

I used to play lots of games back in the days of MS-Win 3.x. Having found Linux, I would still occasionally reboot to play the odd game. For the last 6 years or so, I won't even go that far.

I still get my game fix by (wait for it) the Xbox. Curse you Halo, for making my simple MS life a thing of the past! Recently, I've stopped doing that as well, but mainly because my son dominates the Xbox.

Now I've started playing FPS again, under Linux, running Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Tastes great, no reboot and fun.

ID, I'd be ready, willing and able to pay for games I can run on Linux.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[shimage]

No, you are trolling. The only source-based distro that even approaches the distinction of being "popular" is Gentoo, and ... well, it isn't that popular, certainly not when compared to Fedora, Mandrake and Ubuntu. You use those distros, and you don't even have to compile your own kernel.

As for drivers, I don't see why you'd have issues using the closed-source nvidia drivers, which work perfectly. And now, since ATI's drivers will also soon work, I don't see anything keeping you from using something polished.

There are some things that just don't work under linux (e.g., the shitty webcam on my laptop, which I never use anyway, but ... I can't even turn the stupid thing off in linux), but familiarity is something that depends on the user. I enjoy middle-click paste (no, you can't fake this in Windows, because highlighting doesn't automatically copy). I enjoy a command shell that doesn't suck. I enjoy a GUI that isn't in-kernel (Vista fixes this gripe, but creates entirely new ones at the same time). I enjoy being able to tweak keybindings in every one of the programs I use. I enjoy having a one-stop-shop for updating my software (emerge --sync; emerge -u world [gentoo], or apt-get update; apt-get upgrade [debian]).

I understand that linux isn't for everyone, and it probably isn't for you, but the only real reason you've given is "linux isn't as familiar to me", and that seems kind of weak, especially since you make a point of saying that you aren't trolling. You did read the post above where the guy says that the biggest reason Windows power-users don't switch is because they aren't familiar with it?

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[im_thatoneguy]

>>>>They think they understand something about computers and operating systems, but it comes down to they kinda understand how Windows works on the front end, and it's a HUGE blow to them when they have to start over. A lot of it is an ego thing. Instead of admitting they know less about computers than they thought, they pass it off as inferior. They do the same thing to Macs.

Yeah because to use computers you should know how to recompile your applications, write your own drivers and fuck around with the OS for 3 hours every day instead of--you know ... use it!

ET

[resignator]

The demo is out and I must say it is too much fun. The game plays like a crazy mix between tribes 2, quake 3, and BF2. Cant wait to see what the full version brings in and what the mod community turns out.

Not suporting Linux is the right thing to do

[thesandbender]

I was a game developer almost 8 years ago (no where near my full C.V. but just to prove I'm not blowing smoke).

Further... until recently I ran two Gentoo boxes and on Debian box at my house, set up more than one IT shop on Linux and Samba and was the black sheep at my last job in a Windows/.NET shop. I've been running at least one critical system on Linux since about 1998. I know and love Linux.

With that said... there is not a chance in hell that I, as a game developer, would ever release a game for Linux (in it's current state).

What platform are you running on?
What distribution are you running?
What build?
Is 32 or 64-bit?
What video card are you using?
Are you using the vendors drivers or open source drivers?
What sound driver are you using?
What front end are you using (KDE or Gnome)?
Have you updated to this version of libc?
Have you enabled/disabled this option in your kernel (you can see where it goes downhill from here).

The problem is that Linux is a victim of it's own success. You can do anything with it... and, as a consequence... expose developers and support technicians to a version of hell worse than they ever imagined.

The support costs for Linux systems are substantial. And just not worth it. Besides the requirements are now substantially different. By a 360/PS3/Wii to fulfill your gaming needs and buy a lower powered PC rigged for power saving for your 24/7 needs.

Re:Not suporting Linux is the right thing to do

[diego.viola]

you can always do a static a.out binary build for any architecture you want and that will run on any distribution.

Re:Not suporting Linux is the right thing to do

[LingNoi]

Games are about the content then the actual code.

It would be interesting to see a game company release its binary as open source and let the community port it and fix bugs (ala secondlife) and just focus on producing mostly game content.

If you look at a game like Bioshock, it's about the story, the characters, etc. It's not really about openGL, directX, etc. I think game companies put too much value in controlling their customers with binaries you have to trust not to be doing things to you computer.

Granted you couldn't do this with every game, especially if they're trying to sell a game engine but then I think game engines being open sourced would be great for the industry as a whole anyway. Look at what open source ajax engines has done for web developers why can't the games industry pull together and see it's about artistic merit not technical superiority.

Re:Not suporting Linux is the right thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Platform? mostly x86(_64)
Distribution? doesn't care (lfs)
Build? how would that care even more!
32/64bit? alright, you can compile for both with little changes if all
Video card? Since you're going to use SDL/OpenGL/... you would not care about that
vendor/oss drivers? see video card
Front end? the x.org people made xdg for cross front-end compatibility
libc? Just a matter of recompile. glibc is backwards compatible (2.5 linked code would run on 2.6 glibc)
kernel? Either you use a) a stock kernel from your distribution, b) do your own kernel... in both cases you either have one who knows how to make a "good" kernel or should be able by yourself. Also only few options are critical to game development.

You know... that's what STANDARDS are for. Yes, you can do anything, but that doesn't go far if you don't work along with published standards.
And how are support costs high? you're not going to support a whole OS, do you? you don't do support for all versions of windows, do you? you usually have some kind of minimum requirements and that's it. If there's a bug in your game, fine, solve it. But for OS problems I'd have a list of forums and wikis ready. Or ... *gasp* ... have a community driven support forum.

I'm not meaning to troll... just thinking you miss the point.

Re:Not suporting Linux is the right thing to do

[Makarakalax]

As a result, we (Last.fm) only support ubuntu and, for people who compile the tarball, we only support compile errors and bugs that are obviously our own fault.

It's two hard to support everything really.

Re:Not wasting time anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmack, despite Slashdot attempts to twist his statements, has ALWAYS been a big proponent of DirectX.

So why has he NEVER used it in one of his engines before?

Not twisting any statements here, just pointing out a simple harsh truth that totally wrecks your entire argument.

A direct response

[John Carmack]

There is certainly no plans for a commercially supported linux version of Rage, but there will very likely be a linux executable made available. It isn't running at the moment, but we have had it compiled in the past. Running on additional platforms usually provides some code quality advantages, and it really only takes one interested programmer to make it happen.

The PC version is still OpenGL, but it is possible that could change before release. The actual API code is not very large, and the vertex / fragment code can be easily translated between cg/hlsl/glsl as necessary. I am going to at least consider OpenGL 3.0 as a target, if Nvidia, ATI, and Intel all have decent support. There really won't be any performance difference between GL 2.0 / GL 3.0 / D3D, so the api decision will be based on secondary factors, of which inertia is one.

John Carmack

Re:A direct response

[Evangelion]

Awww. Unfounded speculation was so much more fun.

Thanks for ruining it, spoilsport.

Re:A direct response

[King InuYasha]

That is great to know... Because I was worried that id Software would start abandoning its Linux versions.... And that would make me a very sad camper :'(

I don't buy games very often, but when I do, usually I buy PC games that are cross-platform, or games for my console (currently Nintendo Wii)

Re:A direct response

[Sweetshark]

Good to hear. This is why i bought Quake4 even though as a casual gamer, I dont own the hardware that really gets the most out of it (Notebooks and Mac mini). What I would be interested in would be a versions of id software games that allow me to flag my interest in an continued effort on alternative platforms. Something like a "Quake Linux support limited edition". No additional garanties or limux support, maybe just something like a t-shirt or a poster. Call it donorware and let me vote with my money ;-).

Re:A direct response

[TavoX]

Thanks, John, for the response and your support (even if it's not official)! Redundant Post BTW, but I had to say thanks...

Re:A direct response

[UnNamedLINUX]

Thank You John for commenting

Re:A direct response

[mstewart207]

Well, its good news. I hold John Carmack in the same regards as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. And if it wasn't for his support of Linux back in the quake2 days and such, I probably wouldn't be using Linux, or be as interested in computers as I am today. So what I'm saying out of complete respect is, you gotta support it man! (by support i mean a native linux binary, we don't need anything else. People who use linux don't generally call tech support hot lines anyway) I'm not some zealot that hates MS either. I think things couldn't have come as far as they have without MS being a standard. On the other hand, its not good for anyone if MS controls everything. I'm a big supporter of openGL as well, because its open!

Re:A direct response

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why i still feel good every time i buy an original boxed "pretty" version of an Id game ;) I love to show off my Slackware box running a new game!!!! Thanks a lot Mr. Carmack.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Outland Traveller]

Gaming on Linux might become a very big deal, if manufacturers can distribute their game as a linux-based liveCD or USB stick, optionally using part of the internal drive for save games/cache/storage.

This has many advantages from a customer support perspective.. Less software environments to test. No antivirus/personal firewalls to kill CPU performance.

Re:Not wasting time anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a psychotic and delusional fool! Yes, I say FOOL you are!!! It is a well known fact that all the best games are created on Linux boxen. This is because the inherent air of superiority that the OS imbues upon the developer using the box. The Linux platform is far more advanced than any other OS in the history of mankind. It provide flexibility and functionality far beyond what any other OS platform (ESPECIALLY Micro$oft!) can. And as far as development tools go, with the GNU toolchain the apps and games nearly code themselves!

Every time a see an ignorant post by a person such as yourself, I have to hold back the bile and anger that rises within. If I were to meet thee in person I would be compelled to slay thee!!! It's a good thing that there are probably a few hundred thousand miles of phone line, fiber, network cable and physical plant between us otherwise you would be bested by me. You are incredibly fortunate to be protected from my wrath by the internet, for if it was not so, you would meet your maker forthwith. As it stands the most I can do to inflict injury upon your person is to shake my fist like so. (shakes fist) You see there? You felt that. Yes? And I do it twice! (Shakes fist again) And thrice! (Shakes fist yet again) There is nothing that will stop my rage from being direc....

[Bullet comes through window and penetrates the back of poster's head]

The problem with Id...

[westlake]

This time next year, Vista will have 25% of the market.

In the W3Schools stats, Vista at about 4% is in a statistical dead heat with OSX and Linux. But Vista got there in about six months.

It is discouraging that talk about Id inevitably centers on talk about the latest tech demo from Carmack, Direct X vs OGL, Linux support and so on. It has been a long time since an Id game generated any such excitement.

Re:The problem with Id...

[chromatic]

But Vista got there in about six months.

Ah, the advantage of bundled software on multi-vendor hardware!

Re:The problem with Id...

[petermgreen]

In the W3Schools [w3schools.com] stats, Vista at about 4% is in a statistical dead heat with OSX and Linux.
and that number is probablly biased down because web developers are likely to be computer savy enough to be able to avoid vista (whether by carefull buying, corp licenses, piracy or excercising the downgrade rights that come with vista buisness and ultimate OEM versions) until they really want it. Non savvy home users (the kind who buy from PC world and similar stores) basically don't get a choice about getting vista when they buy a new PC.

Re:The problem with Id...

[LKM]

Yeah. I would bet that as of now, over 90% of all Vista users are using Vista because that's what their computer came with.

The people visiting w3schools.com are less likely than average to just go what their computer came with, and are more likely than average to buy computers specifically to avoid Vista. However, probably not much more, so there's still some validity to the stats.

you're talking in circles

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows isn't a tool. Linux isn't a tool. OSX isn't a tool. They are toolboxes. The windows toolbox holds your Solid, well developed Craftsman Brand tools. OSX has awkward left-handed versions of 5% of them, and Linux has a bunch of rocks and twigs with crudely drawn labels like xfreeScrewdriver and zRock_32 that you are left to figure out what they do. The Linux toolbox also comes with an endless supply of adolescent dillholes that alternate between "p00ning n00bs" and making condescending remarks against those poor souls that can't figure out how to open the damn toolbox.

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the direct response. It's always nice to see you chime in and let us know what's going on.

Engine Sales ++

[Anonymous Coward]

You are spot on with Id's business model. They want all the coverage they can achieve with their engine.

Indeed, recently when Carmack demoed Id Tech 5, one of his bullet points (beside "MegaTexturing" -- unique texture detail over the entire landscape, seamlessly streamed from hard drive when necessary... kewl) was that a game house can simultaneously develop for the three major platforms (PC, PS3, X360) as the engine has expressly been designed and built for such convenience. (YouTube has that presentation.)

So the summary has this somewhat upside down:

the upcoming id title Rage and the engine it runs on, codenamed 'id Tech 5'.

Id's main business is licensing their engine du jour. Rage will essentially be just a demo for Id Tech 5. (And the latter isn't a codename, it's the proper product name, the brand they are building for this gen of 3D tech to compete with UE3 and friends.)

Double the work...

[Joce640k]

"That would be almost double the work"

Yes, but since that "work" is only 1% of the overall game development process then it's no big deal.

Re:OpenGL is not 'for games'

[toriver]

No wonder you're anonymous - you wouldn't want your name associated with a posting where you claim an industry standard like OpenGL isn't.

http://www.vendetta-online.com/ - MMO Elite using OpenGL.

At least linux hasn't been abandoned by everyone..

[Mr. Vage]

...unless ego leaves too.

FAGGOTNIGGERKIKESPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

The jump between 3.1 and 95 is probably the single biggest leap the OS has ever made.

And it was buggy liek Windows Blista, too.

Not totally wrong...

[Joce640k]

Microsoft's initial plan was to make OpenGL work badly on Windows Vista (wouldn't work with Aero graphics).

After a massive protest by users and graphics card makers they changed their minds.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle

[Tim C]

He's not talking about desktop look and feel, he's talking about where stuff actually gets installed to I think. As a trivial example, where should the installer create a symlink/shortcut so that it appears on the user's desktop?

I've not used Linux on the desktop in a couple of years now, but back then the answer would be "For what desktop environment?", which illustrates the OP's point perfectly.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Didn't the demise of Loki demonstrate the weakness of the Linux gaming market?
Loki was dedicated to porting games to Linux. But Linux gamers didn't buy Loki's games for various reasons, such as:
1. Many Linux users refuse to pay for software, period.
2. Many of the Linux users that are willing to pay for software are unwilling to pay for closed-source software.

Loki, despite making decent ports of many games, had to close down because Linux users refused to pay for the games that Loki provided.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Samizdata]

Then that explains why we run Windows, Linux, and OS X at my house... [grin]

OpenGL sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectX simply makes more sense from a developers perspective. OpenGL is underfunded and with a new age of interfaces on the horizon, DX makes that much more sense. A suite of API's, while perhaps slower does make it easy on the developers, especially when you get into code re-use.

I'm sure ID will eventually port to Linux, but don't expect it be any kind of priority. It's not as if they even get the money back out they invest to port to Linux. Considering that the latest surge of Desktop linux systems don't even come with working 3d drivers. I can see why ID is not impressed with their Linux user base. It's gotta make money folks. ID is doing no one a favor supporting Linux gaming that won't/can't support itself. Linux, at this rate, will not be a legit gaming platform until major hardware and software hurdles such as cross platform API's and perhaps .Net allow Linux gaming to be practical without millions of dollars of time invested.

Since most native Linux games are not showing significant, if any, performance advantage, you can see why the platform is being ignored. It lacks users, development tools and any real advantage over the Win32/Xbox platform.

If you are going to write a game, and you want to make money, then DX is the platform to go with since it easily ports to XBox and that's a major cash platform to think about. MS should move to get Nintendo on DX and then their games could play on the PC. Since Nintendo can no longer realistically compete technologically their best bet is to get higher distribution numbers on their games. Games make a lot, LOT more money than platforms.

I think most Linux users that want to play games do so on console and windows, not on Linux. Cedega performance is usually horrible and the selection of native games is pathetic. Even the built in games such as solitaire just look bad compared to win32. Developers are not committed to Linux, especially in the world of highly competitive programming jobs.

Linux doesn't need games, it needs competitive development tools and suites to draw developers in via superior tools, not low cost or no cost or we just aren't MS. Those are not realistic selling points for users or developers. Perhaps that would have worked back before every piece of software was a corporate group effort, but since good programming usually requires financial backing to be a successful platform you really need a damn good reason to get developers to switch over. OpenGL is and Linux game development tools are not good enough reason to get developers to the platform.
Linux is better off waiting for more cross platform support for game developers instead of wasting developers time with inferior ideas like Wine or a chaotic web of half asses reverse engineered API's. How can you ever hope to keep up-to-date like that ? If Linux had a suite of gaming API's that were at least as advanced as DX and superior in performance you guys might stop losing game programmers. In general Linux main focus should be development tools and not just making them as good as Visual Studio, because MS has more or less made that free and serious companies or individuals are more than happy to pay for the software since it's a very minor cost compared to the entire project. The advantage of low cost becomes less and less as more and more people become reliant on the PC. I'd happily pay more money for a better Windows OS. I'm not interested however in saving money and losing features for the idealogical sake of not support a powerful American monopoly. That's tax money for American's every time a copy of Windows sells, so as much as I think MS could do better, I'm still glad the give America needed exports. Since there are more people in the world than there are people in the US Windows is pretty important as far as profitable exports go. I'd support MS just on those grounds alone so long as the competition is only marginally better or worse and it is. Linux performance is not much better in most cases. I run side by side Linux distro with Vista

Games Second

[MrKaos]

Games are not the most important thing in the world to me but I would buy more games if they ran under linux because linux does all the other stuff I need it to do, I'm not going back to windows anymore just for games. I'm satisfied to get the games going under Wine, but I won't buy it unless they work there first.

Would it be much of a stretch for game developers to work with the wine community and make sure their games work?

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[10101001 10101001]

Gamers game.

They are not technical hobbyists as the Geek understands it. The Windows OS is simply another platform like the PS3 - The basics of Windows is all they need to know and all they want to know.

Linux OS is simply another platform like the PS3. Gamers buy Windows machines because PC games are different enough from console games that it is necessary for a gamer to buy some type of PC to play games in that realm. Because Windows is the most ubiquitous OS for PCs, more games are made for that platform. Further, this has held true long enough that more games of the past exist for Windows than any other PC OS (with the exception of DOS, perhaps). And Windows' OS dominance doesn't seem to be waning significantly, so games should continue to be made for that platform.

Further, the reason PC games are so different from console games is because the PC platform is different. Specifically, it involves more flexibility, which results in a need for more technical hobbying to keep the platform working. Even more so, gamers are so interested in playing games in the PC arena that they're willing to learn any "basic" information necessary to keep their PC platform operational. If Windows were to lose market dominance and Solaris became the norm, gamers would eventually learn whatever arachic steps necessary to make games work, just as they did when DOS "died".

So, you're right. Gamers game. But gamers find water in the desert; they don't make their own oasis.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[houstonbofh]

I too game on Linux. I have a lot of ancient games I emulate, but spend most of my time in purchased id software games. (And RRTWC:ET) The funny thing is that I never see pirated linux native games. I am sure they are out there, but not like in Windows. And the funny thing is that you need the game crack to play it in wine half the time...

Gaming and... profit

[Almahtar]

The only people I personally know that are excited about Vista (and were before it was even released) are gamers. Oh, and one REALLY dumb classmate of mine in college. He was pro-Microsoft everything and never tried anything else. He also constantly tried to get everyone else to do his homework for him because he couldn't figure it out and consistently failed to grasp the entire point of many assignments or chapters of lecture.

So yeah, I agree with you - gamers and (one very stupid programmer) are the only real Windows zealots I've found out there.

That and people that have families, whose income depends on working with Microsoft stuff. I can't blame them - their families depend on them so they do what they can - but I'd love to see a world where they don't have to support the bully just to get sleep at night without worrying about the future of their families.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[Almahtar]

I also very very rarely play games that aren't natively supported in Linux anymore. I mess with some old favorites (Starcraft for example) in Wine, but I don't purchase anything new unless I can run it in Linux. I just don't like rebooting into Windows and missing out on all the other cool stuff I have in Lin.

Virtual desktop behavior, multiple monitor behavior when one app is fullscreen and grabs DirectInput, etc are just annoying to me in Windows.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[Almahtar]

No. You're just plain wrong.

They messed up because of serious corporate leadership issues.

I think you should know...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that I am currently jizzing down your throat.

Your heterosexuality is rapidly draining away, much like my testicles are draining themselves into your stomach. You have no hope.

Ah, that was nice. I think now I will chop your fucking head off and shit down your throat, you stupid, stupid fuckshit. You cock. You fuck cock bitch ass fuck fuck penis. FUCK. YOU. I WILL HATEFUCK YOUR SKULL AND MAKE YOU BEG FOR MORE, YOU FAGFUCK.

Have a nice day.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[wdnsdy]

I'm waiting for a few things to go away, namely when video drivers just don't seem to work, (which seems to suggest I buy ATI next time), and that thing when something breaks and I find forum posts saying to correct a file to look a particular way, and then find that my file is already correct by the forum post but the problem still remains.

But I get the feeling that for that to happen linux would have to become more fault tolerant and that's when strange annoying things start to happen.

Re:Not wasting time anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Carmack, despite Slashdot attempts to twist his statements, has ALWAYS been a big proponent of DirectX. ahem... http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html#carmack:

Direct-3D IM is a horribly broken API. It inflicts great pain and
suffering on the programmers using it, without returning any
significant advantages. I don't think there is ANY market segment
that D3D is appropriate for, OpenGL seems to work just fine for
everything from quake to softimage. There is no good technical reason
for the existence of D3D.

I'm sure D3D will suck less with each forthcoming version, but this is
an opportunity to just bypass dragging the entire development community
through the messy evolution of an ill-birthed API.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[Verte]

You're not buying a business, you're buying an operating system.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l

[msormune]

Well, not buying as in "buying from a store". But as "buying into the business". By making the choice, you express your support for the business.

It's Taco time

[John Jamieson]

Taco, it never tires us to have another piece either pushing Apple or questioning Linux. lol

You could be more subtle about it though, even a seven year old would catch on to this trend.

THANK YOU.

[Svartalf]

As I've been telling people...

It was just a rumor- Id's never really announced Linux support for any of the titles
you've done over the years until at least near the beta test time. I didn't expect
anything less than that now.

It's greatly appreciated that you've spoken up to quell the rumors.

Now...do you have the interested programmer in hand yet (TTimo??) or are you looking for a new one? >:-)

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games?

[IntergalacticWalrus]

They also failed because porting games and selling them at a higher price 6 months later is a completely broken business model.

The only way to turn up a profit porting games is to strike a contractual deal with the original developer/publisher to take care of the port and either bundle it with the game, or as a download that uses the resources from the original (Windows) version of the game.

Translation

[Zeatrix]

For a non-native English speaker, what is meant by inertia as a factor? Thx