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."
A few months ago (in April) they certainly intended to prepare a GNU/Linux version.
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.
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
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.
Or they could write off the 1% of gamers out there that went to Vista and didn't switch back to XP already.
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
My blog
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."
As you can see, all is not as lost as some are making it out to be.
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!
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.
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
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
http://www.linuxgames.com/news/feedback.php?identiferID=9374&action=flatview
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/
In summary: Don't panic.:wq
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.
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.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
...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?
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.
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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