Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
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
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...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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.
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.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
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.
Kevin Smith on Prince
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.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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."
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.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
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.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
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.
...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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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?
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.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.