Slashdot Mirror
Why Aren't More Linux Users Gamers?
tops writes "MadPenguin.org wonders why more Linux users aren't gamers and attempts to answer that question. The article suggests, 'As far as I'm concerned, it all comes down to a choice. Expect the gaming industry to follow the Linux doctrine or instead, build up a viable, cross platform gaming market that includes us, the Linux users.' The article urges publishers to consider Linux users as a viable market, and requests that game developers target Linux as a platform during the pre-production phase." What do you think are the most important obstacles barring the big game publishers from reaching out to the Linux market more than they already do?
I have some experience trying to round up Linux gamers over the past couple years and what I've found is that there are some out there, but a lot of the people in my local LUG just weren't interested in playing games. I've hosted many events to try sparking interest, I even supplied the computers, but only a few people came each time. Perhaps the most common type of people that use Linux are now the ones that don't play games much anymore. Or at least not FPS, etc. Plus I found a lot of people made the excuse that they didn't have decent hardware for 3d games. Ironically, we might have better luck with Linux games if we had what we have now back in the 90s.
alike.
N
You are in a twisty maze of little passages, all alike.
E
it is pitch dark, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.
[DAMN!]
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
A Linux user AND a gamer?
You CANNOT be a virgin twice.
And your mom only has ONE basement.
Because we waste all our time on /. fragging Microsoft.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
The biggest obstacle: DirectX. It's API is only available on Windows, no other platforms, and (especially with DirectX 10 and Vista) Windows seems to go out of it's way to make OpenGL unattractive or non-feasible. That makes it difficult for game companies to target both Windows and non-Windows systems from the same codebase.
Trying to run non free software on Linux eliminates a lot of the advantages of running free software. Who wants to go back to the world of driver hunting? Sure, it can be done, there are distributions that make it easier and there's a lot of cool gaming that can be had but it still takes effort, almost as much as it does to keep up a Windows box.
The market is growing and now is a better time than ever. The death of XP has a lot of gamers looking at Linux. They are going to be trying. Distributions like PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu are going to make them very happy for a while. If the card makers come out with free drivers that work well in the next year or so, those new users will never look back.
Submitter:What do you think are the most important obstacles barring the big game publishers from reaching out to the Linux market more than they already do?
The "Games for Windows" campaign. I'm unsure on what the sticker requirements are for that MS programme, but I know this: I've not seen a single Games for Windows game that didn't require XP or Vista.
In my opinion, it's Microsoft exercising a monopoly position in the Gaming Industry, but try proving it.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Since Linux use free software, they expect it. The gaming industry doesn't see much profit in spending money developing a game that people will scoff at paying money for.
Making a game is expensive, so logically you want to release it to the biggest audience you can so that you can reap the most profit (or at the very least make enough to hit the break-even point). Windows, with 85% of the OS market, has the most promise of giving you the highest audience in PC gaming.
One word, directx. I hate to say it but it rules the market and microsoft isn't going to be opening the source to that any time soon. Why on earth would developers waste the manpower to develop for such a niche market. I hate to play the devils advocate (I run gentoo as a desktop OS) but it's just not going to happen.
I am full of goo... black evil goo
Linux comprises about 1% of the desktop / notebook OS installed base. Even if ALL of that 1% were people that buy and play games regularly, it probably would only account for 10% that of the Windows game user base.
Given the ideology of a lot of Linux users, a lot of that 1% might never pay for a game or want to use commercial / closed source software.
I am not intending to stereotype, although it will probably come across that way anyway. From my personal experience in working with *nix, hacking away to do various things, is the game. I spend the majority of my time trying new things and configurations instead of playing games. Although now my BSD-based laptop (OS X) allows me a wider selection of games to play compared to my FreeBSD workstation. Even when I ran Linux though it was the same; for me at least.
Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
I could go home at night and play video games. Or I could go home and play with the alpha release of Ubuntu (insert your favorite distrib). Both things are fun. Both require creativity. Both satisfy my need to be playing with digital technology. Both teach me new things.
However... The world isn't all that much better if I've beaten a level at some game millions of people have already beaten. But if I've squashed a bug in Ubuntu? The world benefits quite a bit.
What "death" of XP are you referring to? XP is still the preferred OS for gaming and will probably remain in that position for at least another year or two.
What kind of question is this? Linux users aren't gamers because of the hassle of gaming on linux. Wine is great and all, and I"m constantly impressed that such an ambitious project works as well as it does, but even the games that it runs perfectly still require some futzing with. Directx 9 features are being implemented currently but come on - dx9 is 5+ years old now. Combining that with wine regressions, game patches that break wine compatibility and its just not worth the effort. I'll either boot into windows or go play a game console.
If you're planning on doing a lot of gaming, you're not going to run linux. You're not going to run OS X, either. You're going to run Windows, because like it or not, most of the big games are Windows-only.
hot foreign sheep.
While I agree that one codebase is a big part of it, I would also say that testing has quite a lot to do with it. Unless you have a decent rate of return on it, why test for more platforms than you really need to? And in Linux, the situation is SEVERELY exacerbated by the number of distributions, as enough of them (even the "big" ones) do it "enough differently" to completely screw you over on the small things. LSB is a great idea, but how much is it REALLY implemented?
So basically, even if you were doing cross-platform already with a library that supported it (let's say you were already doing Win and Mac, and the Mac was using OpenGL) with minimal code changes necessary, you'd STILL have a huge testing burden on any Linux port, with a questionable amount of return in purchases, along with needing to test the changes with every new sub-version of the distros you choose.
For non open-source games (virtually all of any size), they just don't have the people to find the 500 different "hacks" necessary to get it to run near-perfect on all of the iterations out there. But with Win and Mac, it's MUCH easier to be much more certain, easing both the Testing and Support burdens.
There are plenty of Linux gamers out there. You can find the greatest concentrations of them on multiplayer servers such as Wesnoth, Nexuiz, Urban Terror and Tremulous. I even heard that there were more UT2k4 Linux players than Mac OS, which makes the current state of the Linux UT3 client all the more frustrating.
I used to dual-boot Windows/Linux, especially when I had Mechwarrior 3 and Quake 3. After a while, I realised I just didn't reboot to Windows to play games anymore - Quake 3 worked on Linux and Mechwarrior eventually gathered dust. The inevitable next step was to reclaim that disk space and wipe Windows off the system.
So - it's a "build it and they will come" scenario. There aren't that many AAA titles released for Linux, hence there aren't that many AAA titles being purchased. Meanwhile, the user-created games are seeing a significant number of players. I don't thinks a question of "Linux gamers are cheapskates" either - the UT2k4 player figures show that commercial games can reach a significant gaming audience on Linux.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Linux was/is known as being an OS for nerds. As it becomes more mainstream, that is changing, and as certain other OS's are having issues, more people are looking at Linux and seeing a much more user friendly OS than it was even 5 years ago. I have moved 3 friends who are NOT nerds over to a dual boot in the past 4 months, and most of them prefer linux, but I gave them the dual boot so they could return to their comfort zone if necessary.
As more non-geeks move into Linux, the market for paid games will grow. A lot of people point to games on linux "failing" a few years ago. Well, a lot has changed since then, and will continue to change. So what failed a few years ago may be more viable now or a year or so in the future.
Also, I think that the stereotypical "nerd" Linux user wants high quality games. I know I was thrilled when I found out UT 2003 ran on linux. And since it was high quality enough, I bought it. Most of the games released today are lowest common denominator games that are basically all the same, and just trying to make a quick buck. The innovative or even good games will get bought. Just don't expect people who are quality oriented to just pick up some game based on a couple of screenshots on the box.
On the other hand, we are more forgiving of OS games because we respect the philosophy (typically), and we can forgive shortcoming as they are typically in almost permanent beta.
In summary, as more people are moved to linux, games will be more viable, but only the real quality ones.
I use Linux exclusively (seriously, the only Windoze computer I use is my WM5 phone). I also play games.
But I play console games almost exclusively. I love tinkering with my system, but I don't want to fuck around with things just to play a game. Even Windows PC gaming is a PITA. It's like "Oh no, you have to buy a $500 video card just to enjoy this game". Fuck that, I just put a disc into my Wii or PS2 and just have fun. There's less hardware turnover for consoles: a new console generation comes out once every 6 years or so; PC hardware is obsolete annually.
It also helps that the Wii is a far more fun platform than anything else, and there's no PC equivalent.
I'd imagine that many other Linux users feel the same way: I'd guess that the percentage of heavy Linux users who are diehard console gamers is greater than the percentage of heavy Windows users who are diehard console gamers.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
More Linux users aren't gamers because the gamers aren't (as an overreaching generalization) switching to Linux. People don't switch platforms if the things they do aren't easier on the target platform. Gamers are no different than AutoCAD geeks or Photoshop mavens.
The old cliche "build it and they will come" applies. But in today's "gotta make the next quarter's number" world, nobody's going to build it if the customers aren't already there.
Wall St. is the bane of capitalism's existence.
I agree that XP will last a year or two, but the gamers are going to sniff out the problems: such as Halo II being able to be run only on Vista...and as reports have told, Vista plays the same games slower. Vista plays the same games but more slowly. Thus, I am sure that the gamers thinking ahead are already wondering where to move to from here. http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2006/10/07/vista-gaming-will-be-10-to-15-per-cent-slower-than-xp
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
The simple truth is that gaming on PC's, regardless of the operating system is dying a slow death. I'm a long time fan of PC gaming, but when given that:
1) a gaming PC is substantially more expensive than a console
2) you frequently have driver and other compatibility problems
3) a number of PC games are launched in a rather buggy state
4) the overall performance level of consoles has improved a lot in the latest generation
There's just not a lot left that PC games can claim superiority on. Linux gaming is even more dead because it's a very small subset of PC gaming with a lot of complexities that make support very difficult. It costs more dollars per gamer to develop and support the platform, and on top of that, you've got an industry full of people that have a ton of DirectX experience which does no good on Linux (Wine aside).
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Your link has an internal server error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, support@freehostia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Apache/1.3.33 Server at united-underground.com Port 80
It depends on a few factors. First off, how is the game distributed, if it's distributed as staticly linked binaries, then installing it could be quite simple. Same if it is distributed as source code. If, like most complex non-open-source software, it is distributed as a dynamically linked binaries it would be more dificult to ensure proper installation, unless you knew what distrobution you would be installing it on. The typical Unix response to this has been to include all needed libraries with the program, and install everything to "/opt".
While this procedure can work, it does leave a bit to be desired. First, this defeats the purpose of dynamic linking, since you are copying the entire library to many places on the host. Second, if there are bug fixes, or other patches to the underlying libary, the program will not automatically receive those patches. So, you are stuck with either Dependancy Hell, or this mish-mash of combining the dynamic linking with static libaries, or full static linking of the binaries. Static linking of binaries works though, just look at how much software was developed for DOS. It's got disadvantages, but it does work.
The typical response to this mess by most Linux distros has been a package system. Think of it like MSI, but on some serious steriods. The package manager keeps track of what versions of what libaries have been installed, and can let a package know what is available on the system. The biggest problem with this is that there are a few incompatable package management systems, most notably Debian and RPM (Redhat Package Manager).
So, after all this confusion, the answer to your question is "It depends on how the distributer wants to distribute the software, and how many distros they wish to hit"
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Between this article and the Tim Sweeney interview there's been a disturbing amount of gaming evangelism today. Sweeney makes these comical statements that all computers need to have fast graphics cards and be gaming-ready, when really that just takes away the choice of ordering more affordable hardware away from consumers and businesses that have no interest in gaming. And then there's this article which implores the Linux community to care about gaming. If a gamer goes to a LUG and finds that the people there just aren't interested in gaming... who cares? They'd probably rather be hacking.
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Of the deployed base of hundreds of millions of PC's (including all OS's and platforms) in the world, how many of those are used by "gamers"? 1%? 5? Now take 5-10% of that number. The result is going to be small no matter what.
I have a suggestion though; certainly one reason there aren't more Linux Gamers is that there aren't more Linux games. This may be a Catch 22, but no one said those don't really happen. Game companies have pretty much universally shunned the smaller platforms, both Mac and Linux, and that's only to be expected, it's hard enough to make a buck on the PC.
But one of the major reasons for this, IMHO, is the lack of a single platform. No, I'm not talking about the underlying disto, I'm talking about the lack of something similar to DirectX. On Windows there is a "gaming platform" and I can design to it, on the other OS's there is a plethora of packages that solve one of the many problems, but nothing that wraps them all up.
May I humbly suggest that there needs to be a single "OpenGP" (as in Gaming Platform) that _really_ works on the (new) Mac OS and Linux?
Maury
MY POST WAS NOT OFFTOPIC! He listed a link that can't be seen and he got an extra point for that! Furthermore, here is proof that Halo II is VISTA ONLY! http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/halo2pc-vistaonly-bungieqna.shtml http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/reviews/738/Halo-2-Vista-Review But if you want to crack, that is up to you. http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6146&Itemid=2 Seriously, get it together you moderators.
I don't follow the progress of the gaming industry, but I'm guessing that most developers will be either releasing DirectX 9/Windows XP ports of their games for quite some time or eventually abandoning the PC market and focusing exclusively on consoles to combat this problem. If Microsoft isn't willing to step up to the plate and fix these issues with Vista than the market will move on to something else.
As for Halo 2, I believe that a hack was released that allows for it to run in Windows XP.
Chill Kev - it'll be alright. I get upset with bad mods too but you just gotta roll with it. Karma isn't real. Not slashdot karma anyway. It will all be o.k.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Microsoft has stated they will cease selling Windows XP as of June 30, 2008. When you can't buy new copies anymore, it's essentially dead, even if those of us who have it still use it for a while yet. Kind of like a chicken after you cut its head off.
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
The biggest reason that I've heard that holds any water as to why there isn't any commercial game development on Linux (or the *BSD's) is the problems with cross-platform development. Which was true once upon a time. As in, the cost to do it was quite high.
/say/ it's fine.
BUT, today what do we have? We got games being developed not only for the PC/XBox, but also the PS3, Wii and toned town version(s) for the PSP and/or the GBA/DS. Clearly there isn't much of a fear/cost with regards to cross-platform development any more.
My opinion as to what the next reason will be is licensing. The bulk of the useful tools on the Linux Distro's are (L)GPL'd. Now, I know that the dynamically linking to a lib that is LGPL'd is ok, but not to one that is GPL'd. Also, has anyone taken a look at (at least Ubuntu's) libc? It's LGPL'd. Anyone here want to dl LIBC? Because that'll be necessary to alleviate any legal ambiguity regarding libc's usage even if the Linux people
Quite frankly, I see this free (as in RMS's definition) software thing as having shot itself in the foot. RMS wanted an "us" v.s. "them" thing:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
And guess what. He got it. Congratulations.
it's down to hassle point blank! Linux is moving on too fast even for games developed for that platform, take a look for example at Alpha Centauri try installing it today on Linux you'll be sure to be in for hours of tinkering and frustration to get it working. Same goes for almost all games made for Linux, they may work well for a few years but then bang things change with X11 for example and the game was designed using older API's and things don't just work! This is why I've argued in the past we need a solid gaming SDK for Linux that doe's not break older software.. I'd even go to the extent and recommend a new solution for packaging libs for games! so they can just be included with the game without having to worry about installing old libs etc on a system.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Linux#Gaming
It's not going to die at all. Computers are always going to be more ubiquitous than consoles and a great target for games because there are just so many of them already. The install base of computers is huge, and casual games are just beginning to tap a large portion of the potential. Whether these casual gamers will ever move beyond casual games is up for debate, but that doesn't mean that they're not games.
Consoles are gaining popularity, and that's good. But they'll never come equipped with a keyboard and mouse because people already have one of those (a pc). RTS games are better and many people prefer the PC FPS experience. Valve develops for PCs almost exclusively, with their console offerings being really bad. Coincidentally, they're also one of the most popular publishers in the industry right now. Civilization has yet to make a console release, and it'll probably be sub-par.
Finally, it's cheaper to develop a small game for a PC than a console, so independent companies release on the PC a lot. XBLA is changing that, but it's not going to change overnight and it's not going to completely dominate.
So, the importance and dominance of the PC as the gaming platform is being diminished and will continue down that road for a while, but it'll never die. The install base and the setup will keep it going for a long, long time.
Cease selling != cease supporting. I remember games supporting Windows 98SE long after it ceased being sold because the market share was still so much larger during Windows XP's early years. I can envision a similar scenario with Windows Vista and Windows XP, especially since it seems that we've "peaked" in terms of general-use hardware performance this time around.
I've got 5 ascended nethack characters who beg to differ!
10 PRINT Gamers don't switch to Linux because there aren't enough games.
20 PRINT Games companies don't switch for Linux because they aren't enough gamers.
GOTO 10
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Disclaimer/Plug: I don't work in the video games industry, but I have close ties to a few people who do. Also, I've written my own cross-platform game engine or game development framework that allows OpenGL and Direct3D to be used interchangeably as the rendering engine.
So, with ever improving cross-platform middleware, why are game developers still ignoring Linux, by and large? If they can target Windows XP, Windows Vista, XBox 360, PS2, PS3, and Wii with one title, surely Linux couldn't be hard to add it the list. I'll tell you, it isn't because game developers know how to use Direct3D only or that OpenGL is no good.
When I questioned a friend in the industry about it, he said in the end that the only real reason for ignoring Linux is the time and cost of testing another platform. If they aren't going to profit enough from the release to pay the additional testers required, they won't even break even on the venture. The fact is, testing procedures require much work duplication across different platforms, even when the code doesn't need to be rewritten or significantly modified. So, from what I understand, it all comes down to testing cost.
Insert self-referential sig here.
While your post may not have been off-topic, the link he posted *can* be seen. I just clicked on it and here's the first few lines from the text:
"Million of Halo 2 fans/Windows XP users are rejoicing due to the fact that yesterday, a team of hackers known as "Razor1911 released a patch that allowed Windows XP users to install Halo 2 on their PC. A while back Falling Leaf Systems announced that they were to release compatibility drivers legally so that XP users can play Halo 2, but Razor1911 claimed that they beat them too it, and there's no doubt that they're right. Although there are still compatibility issues with the new patch, Halo 2 does run on most Windows XP machines, mostly in single player mode - there have been many complaints regarding the online multiplayer. Razor1911 has also released a re-pack pirated version of Halo 2 that should run better than the original Vista DVD, which included the patch with it. Along with Halo 2, Razor1911 has also released an XP patch for Shadowrun."
Oh yah, it also seems like you were wrong about Halo II being Vista only....
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
What you're saying is 100% true, but this is the problem: what PC is sufficient for gaming?
I don't know anybody who doesn't own a PC. But I also know very few people with PC's that are capable of gaming. Don't get me wrong, there will still be some market out there and the independent home brew developers will definitely continue. There will be plenty of room for people who want to play more casual games, but the market for PC games akin to what we see on consoles today will continue to dwindle.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
(Score: 5, Empathetic)
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +3
70% Empathetic
30% Sarcastic
Extra 'Commiserate' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)
Total Score: 5
Not sure what it says, but basically to play Halo II on XP you need a certain version of DirectX 9 and a loader for Halo II that tricks the game into thinking the platform is Vista.
:)
I'm half way through the game now
Your head a splode
It's that simple really.
If I were into gaming full-scale I'd be using Windows. Unbelievable (I *hate* Microsoft & Windows), but then again I'm not a Gamer or Game Developer, I'm a developer. A guy I know is an avid gamer and the team lead of a Half-Life 2 Total Conversion Mod for StarWars. He - of course - uses Windows as his Desktop.
Another thing I'm seeing is that OSS gaming has just about lured in all the Linux gamers anyway. It's not *that* different in the Windows world. Counterstrike is still the most popular multiplayer out there - and that's a mod, not a commercial game.
I suspect once Linux gains critical mass due to HW prices plummeting and the ever gaining crowd of Ubuntu followers (a distro that finally did enough things right to foster critical mass) we'll at the same time see OSS gaming finally catch on. Linux is getting more and more interesting for the non-hardcore-lowlevel developers and thus we're seeing an ever growing set of OSS games, some of which could kill off entire gaming genres (check out the OSS RTS Spring to see what I mean).
It was 8 years ago when jBuilder, the prime Java IDE, would cost thousands and thousands of dollars. I can still clearly remember. Today we have huge companies competing with each other over who can give away the best software for free. Eclipse vs. Netbeans, Glassfish vs. jBoss, etc. We are seeing that with a lot of other stuff in the software area too. Webkits, Office packages, etc. Once that has crept out all over the place we'll see the same happening in gaming.
The games of the future will be plattforms payed for by a fee or premium accounts. Games will be free and mostly - so I suspect - open source. Because no one will even care.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Microsoft has stated they will cease selling Windows XP as of June 30, 2008. When you can't buy new copies anymore, it's essentially dead, even if those of us who have it still use it for a while yet.
Oohhh...so you BOUGHT your copy.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
The answer is one I see here on Slashdot all the time: "I only boot into Windows to play games"
As long as this is true game companies have zero incentive to make Linux native games.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
<voice type="John Cleese as the Jewish Official in Life of Brian">Blasphemer! Blasphemer!</voice>
The opposite of progress is congress
Huh? Most products either work out of the box on Windows or come with a driver for it in the box. Even if it doesn't (I've never see it) how hard is it to find the manufacturer's web sight and download one?
I've never had to do this "hunting" thing you're talking about when I used Windows. I have on Linux, didn't find shit, but I did hunt for quite a while. I've seen the end user have to do everything from compile the driver to recompiling the kernel, to get some hardware working on Linux.
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to wave the bullshit flag on this "hunting" thing that I would have to do if I went Windows again. There are good reasons to leave Windows, but this just isn't one of them.
I want this account deleted.
I agree that XP isn't dead - it's actually the choice of OS for gaming for myself and most of my friends. Why? Vista simply is too bloated and expensive (XP is free at my college). I love Linux, but I haven't found many commercial games at all I can run on it (without Wine).
I'm mainly a Linux user for my everyday work, and I'd say I buy and play more games than the average user generally would. The only reason every one of my machines is dual booting Linux and Windows XP is due to the fact that I simply need XP for my games.
I've switched a couple people from Windows to Linux, however they've all been dual-boots. The main issues are games, a few utilities like Catia, and Photoshop. I imagine that I'll also be dual booting until these issues are addressed by the software companies. I believe the "games aren't free, so Linux users won't buy them" idea is a minority opinion. This statement kind of seems true, simply because those in that category tend to voice their disapproval more adamantly.
Ok, lets repeat this one last time: Halo is for Vista Only. Just because you can crack it does not mean that it was meant for XP or anything else. Do people go around saying that Mac OS X is only for Mac computers: YES! Yes they do. And yet, we know of hacks that allow Mac OS X to run on Intel chips (and I don't mean "FlyAKite," I am talking about the actual Mac OS X. So, with that, just because you can crack something doesn't make it not only Vista. Taking that software (game) as it is, it was released for Vista only. Case closed.
And stoolpigeon, thanks, I appreciate it. I get carried away sometimes. I will keep your words in my mind when writing posts from now on. Thanks.
And yes, the link is working now, but it was down moments after the post, to all those that were concerned about this. Actually, their whole website was down. : (
Now, look! No one is to stone
anyone until I blow this whistle!
http://www.sydney-webcam.com
It's wishful thinking. The idea that "a lot of gamers" would be "looking to Linux" as an alternative to Vista is silly. Gamers are not going to flock to Linux and camp out there, without games, until the gaming industry comes to them. Gamers will go to a platform where they expect the next generation of games to be available. In other words, they'll end up on Vista. The only way gamers will switch to Linux on the desktop is if they switch to console gaming.
At the moment the only significant consumer movement towards Linux is by people who want to save money and/or use low-end hardware. It's a small phenomenon, and the gaming industry has no interest in those people anyway, regardless of what platform they use.
Not everyone out here has pirated Windows XP.
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
It happens on both systems.
I've been left hunting for drivers several times on Windows, most recently for a USB-to-serial converter from a major manufacturer. I bought it new, plugged it in, and started using it. Windows seemed to detect it and handle it fine. After a few days I found out that when I unplugged the USB connection, half the time the driver would freeze Windows. I couldn't find the CD that came with the device, so I went to the manufacturer's web site. Even though I had the model name and product number of the device, I couldn't find the driver. I gave up looking several times, but the crashes kept sending me back. Eventually I sent an email to the manufacturer, and I got back a download link for a single file. What was I supposed to do with the file? I had no clue. I tried modifying the URL to the file to find another page, but no luck. I had to use Google to find install instructions. Then, after I installed the driver and rebooted, the behavior wasn't completely fixed. The crashes became less frequent, but they still happened often enough that I gave up on the device and bought another USB-to-serial converter, which turned out to have a similar problem.
I also have an old Dell that I couldn't install Windows XP Pro on because partway through the install process, the screen became garbled. It seemed like XP tried to load a better driver for the video card and ended up using one that was a little bit off. That was especially frustrating because the box came with Windows 2000 on it, and I had reinstalled Windows 2000 on it from scratch (using a retail copy of Windows 2000 Pro) in the past. I thought Windows XP's driver support was a superset of Windows 2000's, but maybe Microsoft stopped including a suitable driver for that model on its Windows install disks. I didn't bother hunting for a Windows driver; I just installed Linux.
I believe you have the gaming companies' priorities confused. They really don't give a **** what platform Microsoft is pushing. They only care where the money-paying market is, and as far as PCs go that is — overwhelmingly — Windows XP.
The only major gamer advantage in Vista is DirectX 10. However, DX10 is dubious in terms of exclusivity: see the Halo II comments about the reality of "Vista only" games. DX10 is dubious in terms of technical advantages: I run Crysis just fine on my new super-rig, which deliberately has XP rather than Vista installed and is therefore limited to DX9, and frankly I'm not sure I prefer the DX 10 "improved" version anyway judging from the numerous screenshots in reviews. And finally, DX10 is dubious in terms of hardware, because even many serious gamers don't have fully DX10-capable cards and decent drivers to match yet, and the occasional gaming masses won't have for some years.
I predict, quite confidently, that Vista will never be the major games platform that XP has become, simply because it is in direct competition with its predecessor and will be for years, and worse, it is in competition with consoles for a lot of the custom, and consoles already have by far the largest share of the gaming market. Given that, I expect consoles to overcome their limitations with input devices for some gaming genres a lot faster than Vista will overcome everything from bad PR via relatively tiny market share among gamers to the numerous technical problems it seems to have, and in the meantime XP is dominant outside of console world anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I really don't know what this article means.. I play "knetwalk" and "xbill" for like 5 hours a day.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
"There for it was released for VISTA ONLY."
That's funny! Here I thought I had played it on my Xbox all those years ago.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
- Linux games suck. Yes, we know there is a port of [fill in years old game title here] on Linux. Yes we know we can play Tuxracer or whatever the hell it is. No, we don't want to play them. Linux needs new titles if you want gamers. That is, when a new title is released on Windows/PS3/XBox 360, we need it on Linux as well. Till then, ---->
- OpenGL != DirectX. DirectX > OpenGL. DirectX brings a lot to the table besides just graphics -- and what it does there is much better than OpenGL. I know, a lot of you want to argue this, but "sorry". Linux needs it's DirectX. With that said, OpenGL and other similar projects are a good start, but it's not there yet. For it to work, there needs to be a full package like DX provides: Easy to use and understand _up to date_ libraries, SDK(s), graphics/sound/networking/etc. APIs. The whole thing.
- Partially #2, we all know "Linux is about choice". Hell that's great, but there needs to be a choice we can make that works in Home Gaming Desktop arena. Standard windowing system APIs, standard "DirectX" type package,
.... the list goes on. Right now there are standardS (see the "S" there) for each of them. That doesn't work.
Someday Linux will get there. It'll be a great day.Loki had a lot of problems. There model was that they would pay in advance to get games to Linux and make up for it on the back side in sales. One problem, Linux people are cheap... REAL cheap. Instead of selling millions, they barely sold into the 10's of thousands. That and a plethora of other mismangement reasons forced them to shutdown.
The problem with Linux gamers is that they DEMAND a free ride. Same goes for any other piece of software on Linux that actually has a >$50 price tag.
I play games under Linux, I have OWNED some Loki titles (yes... some of us actually decided to support the effort rather than rip them off). I do own a REAL copy of Tux Racer (which puts the free version to shame btw). UT2004 is STILL one of the best commercial produced games for Linux oddly enough... but the game is NO LONGER available for Linux (beware if you buy a new one).
I own a copy (yes... OWN.. that is... I paid for it) of CrossOver (actually I own 5 licenses) and I have a purchased STEAM account through which I can play (for example) Half Life 2... with few problems on Linux. I also own Linux Doom3, Quake IV, Descent 3, etc, etc,... ALL for Linux.
Are there a gazillion games that play under Linux like there are for Windows? No.... but IMHO, you're either for Linux gaming because it's Linux, or you might as well be playing using a console (which removes Windows from the equation anyhow).
Probably the best thing to bring games to Linux IS the plethora of free games that are coming out. Some of them are pretty good and that might make Linux a more viable market for commercial games. I will say that UT2004 was a game done right for Linux. Loved to see more of that. It's worth the money.
Driver Hunting? If you are referring to driver hunting for windows, I am sorry to inform you that this hasn't been an issue for YEARS. As for the effort for keeping up a Windows box - it takes almost zero effort.
Getting proper drivers USED to be a problem back in the days of DOS games when Windows 2.11, 3.0 and 3.1 were still started from the command prompt. By the time Windows 95 rolled around, *almost all* hardware vendors shipped Windows drivers with their hardware, and game programmers were moving aware from writing to the hardware interface and instead writing to low level Windows primitives. After Windows 95, the only games that had driver issues were the OEM versions of games that were packaged with hardware since they were written specifically for a certain video card. An example of this was the nVidia Edge 3D card that shipped with Panzer Dragoon and Descent. How do I know this? I worked on the port of Descent to nVidia's 1st generation chipset, the nV1. This version of Descent was a Windows 95 native application that would only run with an nVidia card.
Since about 2000, game developers have been writing to Direct X, and letting windows handle the details of the video card. Back in the Windows 95 days, Windows was pretty stupid regarding hardware recognition, and Linux was pretty smart about recognizing hardware. However, once it became established that the OS should detect the hardware and be able to find the drivers for it, Microsoft didn't take much time to figure out how to do this and provide a TON of drivers on the Windows installation diskettes/CDs. Any special hardware that you purchased came with Windows drivers. Drivers have not been an issue for years.
The market for linux games is non-existent. To produce a top notch game these days costs several million dollars (the average cost was around $2M when I left the gaming industry 7 years ago) and the common perception, whether correct or not, is that linux users won't pay for a game. There might be some inroads on the MMORPG side of gaming since they make their money by charging you a monthly fee, but the standard boxed software market will not make a game for linux until it is established that linux users will pay for software. Given the emotional/religious arguments over OSS/Free Software/commercial(closed source), companies aren't going to deal the the hassle.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Of course not. This is Slashdot. There's at least what, 5 or 6 Linux users here.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
The way I see it there are two big problems: First there are large portions of the Linux community that have theological issue with the existence of commercial software. That's right I said THEO-logical. I like GPL software as much as the next guy, and I think it's a great way to public-domain something you've worked on in an unexploitable fashion, but I don't think it should be required of everybody as some sort of moral right of the user. Second is the simple fact that Windows is built on decades of trying to keep at least partial binary compatibility. That and Windows has a slooooow product cycle which allows for support and testing of a few discreet versions. The bewildering array of distros and versions is enough to drive a tech support manager to suicide by itself and almost ensures that binary distribution is impossible except for a few key distributions. At least that's my impression, things may have improved these days with LSB but I've honestly never tried moving complex programs in binary from one Linux box to another and I've never seen it suggested.
Video drivers quality was always the problem under Linux for me. For example, the proprietary drivers from ATI is unstable and, sometimes, slow in following up with xorg. The radeon opensource driver is more stable, but missing quite few opengl methods so even GoogleEarch won't work. The situation should change very soon because ATI/Intel have started to release the specifications. Nvidia is under the public pressure as well.
I suppose you might call me a serious gamer, and I'm certainly someone who would love to give up windows for linux, I've been running ubuntu for a while now and its great... i just find i never use it because i play games more than anything else. iv tried in the past to play games on linux but its a disaster. trying to set it up, set up wine, things crash, wine crashes, working with the console.... i mean i don't mind tinkering around but it all gets a bit much when sometimes i just want to play a game.
Also as far as I'm aware theres no SLI support, and if there is you still take a performance hit on linux, and I didn't spend $1000+ on GPUs to take a performance hit. Its the same reason I went from vista back to xp. (well, one of many, many, many, many reasons.) It was the difference between playing Crysis on medium to playing it on almost very high, which is a big deal, on medium it just looks like every other FPS. And please no arguments about how graphics aren't important. after 3 years of selling video games in one way or another i can tell you almost every adult customer cared about the graphics, and they're the ones that need to be converted.
I think these issues are becoming more common with your average consumer too that isn't a serious gamer. from working in retail and experiences with my friends more and more people are buying specific gpus, quoting model numbers, and looking up performance. A lot more people nowadays will know which graphics card they have, or at least the series, and know roughly what they can expect from it. Then if they try linux, and their shiny expensive $200 gpu loses half its value, and on top of that they have to try and get games working with wine, it all becomes unreasonable to them.
As far as games made for linux, it would be fanatstic if there were more, but its a chicken and egg problem. And im really not interested in playing UT2K4 anymore, iv been playing that for 4 years. While some of the linux games i hear about sound interesting, lets be honest, they aren't Crysis or COD4, and its games like that i bought my system to play, as well as many people i know.
People buy gaming machines to run whats on the shelves, and so the first step is to get those working smoothly and hassle free, as well as at similar or preferably better speed. Then once you have a better product you can win over a linux user base and can start making linux only games.
I know all of this is filled with problems and may well be impossible to implement, but these are the reasons i see why people arent gaming on linux.
So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
I wouldn't say that's the ONLY consumer movement. Perhaps the only one that's trackable by sales.
When my relatives come to me to fix their deranged computers, I fix their Windows install then dual boot it with Ubuntu and enable ssh on it so I can remote desktop/shell/file share to it just in case they need something complex done. I make sure they know which icon is their browser, their word processor, their e-mail, and they're golden. I have about 10 of these out there now, and every one of them has said "they like their new program". They don't use Windows anymore. I have a few friends that have done the same when people come to them. It's just the least hassle for me. Keeps them out of my hair.
But there's no way to track that like you can new purchases. These are indeed consumers. They are switching over. It's a movement, and it's real.
Indirectly Linux has hurt PC gaming sales because people who prefer Linux over windows have severely cut back on the number of games per year they are willing to buy and in some instances have switch to PS2/PS3(they would never xbox) gaming. At the moment when it comes to impulse buying, the I want now generation, they really are not any Linux games available at the local retail level.
So in swapping over from windows to linux, which is inevitable because of the budget end of the market, it will be light a light switch either on or off, light or dark, Linux or windows, there is now slow steady transition, it will simply appear to happen at a rush, and computers like the ASUS eeePC are what will herald the high volume low requirement gaming market, especially when playing wirelessly together, hmm, free local mesh network gaming.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I bought (as in paid full price for) most of the games that Loki (remember them) ever ported to Linux. I still play Alpha Centauri sometimes - it still runs on modern Linux (though sadly their port of Civ3 no longer runs - doesn't get on with modern libraries in some way I haven't bothered to diagnose). I bought Neverwinter Nights when it first came out, because it was available in a Linux port (and it still runs very nicely, and yes, I still sometimes play it - mostly user-generated content, too). And I'm one of the only 597 people world-wide who have so far pre-ordered Apricot.
And that's kind of the point.
It costs money to develop commercial games; quite a lot of money. The people who develop them want to sell them. If there were enough Linux users prepared to spend real money on games, we'd have more commercial games. Over the last few weeks I've been playing (and really enjoying) The Witcher. It runs on an updated version of Bioware's Aurora engine, so presumably it wouldn't be hard to port it to Linux. But I don't expect we'll see a Linux port, because Atari, who sell it, clearly don't think enough of us would pay for it. And sadly I think they're probably right.
I've haven't found many open source game projects which are compelling to me. There are plenty of good ideas out there, and half-finished projects. Globulation is quite polished and seems to me quite innovative, and plays well; but it's also quite shallow - you'll enjoy it for a week but you won't still be playing it in a year. Oolite is genuinely good and you might still be playing it in a year - but that's largely because it is a faithful reconstruction of Elite, which is one of the great classics of computer games. Flightgear may be good but it isn't my thing.
To create a new game takes a lot of vision and a lot of work. Until you've done a lot of work it's hard to communicate the vision, so it's hard to recruit people. And even then, too many of the talented people prefer to tinker with some project of their own which they'll never get finished, than co-operate to deliver someone else's vision. I'd like to be wrong on this. But what I see on Freshmeat is lots of 'alpha' and 'beta' projects, and very little that's genuinely playable.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
1/ Lots talk here but no one point out a solid business model/plan/reason that will pay for programmers to do the game and earn a living. Will they be providing service and support on these open-source games and game platforms? Since non-work-critical Linux usually get slapped on the cheapest boxes, I don't see them giving you the best gaming experience either. But where is the major open source Linux game project like we have for a distro or other FOSS? What is the Linux equivalent of Halo? I read 5-6 major Linux magazines a month and haven't seen it. So where is the demand? What studies or stats can back up the investment unless one starts coding for one's own enjoyment?
2/ This is Linux - dudes interested in the command line, hacking a config file, tweaking kernels, using free stuff, and coding P** in vi or emacs for Penguin's sakes. Figuring out how to get the NDISWrapper to wrok for the el cheapo WIFI card on my 8-year-old P-II is "game" enough usually for me afterwork. If somebody wrote a 'command console' game it'll probably explode (just a small joke :). But seriously, the super smart graphics guys spent all their brainpower just to get Beryl or Compiz working and pay the bills. No time left to build games.
3/ Don't get me wrong. I love Linux. Although Linux is big in under the hood in most major Internet hosts and portals, it's puzzling to see no major consumer take-home success yet (other than the Everex gPC). I think the fundamental problem is that the FOSS community is still trying to follow the success of exiting markets instead of leapfrogging ahead into the next decade. At the current trend, by the time Linux creep up to respectable desktop and game console consumer numbers, Windows would've already moved on to more Web based SaaS and online gaming. Windows won't dominate the Web/Cloud/mobile futures. That will probably be Google, but I consider Google closed source. Just how many different distros will really compete with Android? In other words, Linux has to build the unexpected next big thing instead of keep thinking how we're going to lure the PS/XBox/Wii gamers away to back to the desktop. Forget the desktop - build a gaming console and game server with new types of games and ways to play! Talking about Linux games is like hoping Linux will someday overtake other mobile device OS - Not Gonna Happen unless you give a really compelling reason. PC gamers will not abandon Windows until you show them a super high quality game that has no equivalent on a platform that they can count on for ever more better titles. That's a tall order. To do that you need to solve Question #1, and so the chicken-egg argument continues...