Slashdot Mirror
John Carmack: Kudos To Valve, But Linux Is Still Not a Viable Gaming Market
dartttt writes "John Carmack recently presented a keynote at QuakeCon. He said Linux is still not a commercially viable gaming platform, and the two forays they have made into the Linux commercial market have not been successful. Valve's announcement about Steam for Linux changes things a bit, but it remains a tough sell."
Let the man say whatever the hell he wants.
People still listen to what he has to say regarding gaming and gameplay? Rage was an unmitigated disaster. Go back to designing game and rocket engines John, you arent that relevant anymore.
Good-bye
I remember a time when people used to say DOS is the gaming platform of choice. Windows? Good enough for shitty-looking Reversi and Solitaire, but not much else.
Then Windows became the gaming platform of choice. Sounds familiar?
What I mean is, if Linux is to becomes a good gaming platform, someone has to get the ball rolling.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Without a good selection of available games, many people won't switch from Windows to Linux. And if many people don't switch to Linux, game publishers will be loathe to port any major games to Linux. -------- Steam may change this. It may change it a LOT. Even if just a dozen or so AAA games get ported to Linux, it would be a positive start. ----- I would love to run Linux instead of Windows 7. I really would. But the lack of games and some other applications on Linux keeps me on Win 7. ----- Good luck to any Linux gaming pioneers. Carmageddon: Reincarnation will be ported to Linux, so that is one potentially major game title being ported to the tux.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
I can't believe this guy thinks that their "forays into Linux commercial market" are even close to the scale of Valve porting Source.
Speaking for myself - I've definitely been using Ubuntu practically exclusively now for a few months (12.04 is a joy). I WOULD get rid of my Windows PC if it weren't for gaming. This is definitely good news for the discriminating user. I'd like to see all of my Steam games moved to Linux (never going to happen), but a Steam version of a game will make a difference to me. Eagerly awaiting LfD2 on Linux. Using a closed source OS definitely makes me nervous, there've been too many cases in the past few years of manufacturers pulling info from users when they shouldn't - would like an OS that's open to community scrutiny.
Neither do I.
It is a shame since the platform has the potential to be far better than any other. However at the end of the day it will be a huge money looser due to the small desktop install base.
Got Code?
Is the problem there are no gamers on Linux or the problem there are no games on Linux?
I am Linux only.
I play MassEffect, Skyrim, MindCraft, LoTRO, GuildWars, played WoW for far to long.
I will play GuildWars2.
I paid for but have still not activated SW:ToR. It worked on Linux in Beta and then they did a zig/zag and it did not. I know there is a wine patch. Just have not done it and interest in doing so is decling.
I am a paying Linux gamer. I would have given more money to SW:ToR, but they broke their game on Linux.
When Steam does it's "Check System" thing it reports my machine as windows *sigh*, so I am not even sure I am counted.
There is a Linux market, just not sure anyone knows it.
His company's foray into Linux gaming hasn't panned out. That doesn't mean that a different strategy might not work. That's like saying that because MS tried to find consumer success with tablets for over a decade that there is no chance anyone else could do it...er...
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Who's left to sell to?
If the FPS is better, the Windows-gamers will come...
The Android userbase is pretty large.
I love when nerds praise JC but then he speaks the truth about linux and they start dissing him and calling him irrelevant. carmack: OPENGL FASTER THAN DIRECTX!!! TELL EVERYONE!! carmack: LINUX IS STILL NOT VIABLE GAMING PLATFORM!!! DOWN WITH CARMACK HES IRRELEVANT AND DOESNT KNOW WHAT HES TALKING ABOUT!!!!
sfasdfs
Especially if the OS is free.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Thankfully, Microsoft is making Linux a viable gaming platform by so utterly screwing up the Windows gaming platform with Windows 8. Valve is just covering its bases.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Yeah but that took the better part of a decade and a half.
id's software never sold on linux, because non of id's games work on linux machines with more than one monitor, which is most linux machines I'd guess. let's hope valve don't make the same mistake.
It's sad to hear this from one of the guys who made PC gaming viable, when no one thought it could be made viable.
I never thought I'd hear Carmack, of all people, fold and let someone else do the heavy lifting on "making things work," though I certainly don't blame him for not trying as hard as Valve is.
I would. Step 1 is make a large size of games available for Linux (and make them easy to install; no CLI shit!). Sure, there's a risk, but if you're not taking chances, then why bother do anything?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The company would have to take a fairly substantial risk in not releasing it on Windows, though, for that to happen. Otherwise people will just get the game on Windows. To bootstrap a platform in the face of entrenched competition, quality exclusives are necessary.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Do you have any actual evidence that the Linux userbase is composed primarily of these two groups? Because anecdotally I hear lots of Linux users that are chomping at the bit for Steam to come and looking forward to paying for games. Furthermore, the Humble Indie Bundle has shown that there are gamers on Linux that will pay. Will that translate to profit for Valve et al? Who knows. But it does show that you, dear AC, have no idea what you are talking about.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Now that Steam insists I must sign some of my rights away, it doesn't really matter what platform it runs on anymore.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Considering that I have paid for Linux applications (for my home PCs), and subsequently paid for version upgrades for those applications, I think you need a third category:
3. The people who pay for decent software that fits a particular purpose better than the free options.
In case, you're wondering: Mathematica and Bibble Pro[*]. Both have native Linux versions with excellent support.
[*] Apparently, Bibble Pro was renamed to Corel Aftershot Pro after Corel bought Bibble.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Perhaps Valve could release their own distro with gaming in mind, as it might help unify the community. I could get behind that in a heartbeat.
If Linux is easier to use then Windows 8, then they will get some converts. Windows 8 is a disaster for desktops and that's where desktop gaming is done. Linux needs to do everything it can to put themselves in positino to pick up these people looking at alternatives. Be proactive.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical. 2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
[citation needed]
Also if that's true, then how come the highest average payment per player are linux users, for the humble bundle as of now?
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
PS3 is running on linux...???
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical. 2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
Well. Apparently I don't exist! Good to know.
I recall buying the retail linux version of quake in the late 90s but by the time of Doom 3 (when the linux user base had grown) I bought the windows version for the assets and grabbed the linux binaries from my distros package repository.
Until someone decided to try and make them into one. Now there are tons of sales.
Will Linux become a common gaming platform if no one tries? No.
Especially if the OS is free.
Why? The OS cost is minor when buying a gaming rig.
To the pirates of the Windows userbase? Well, I dunno....
It fun enough as it is and wine takes care of the rest. Steam will to and others will follow. This takes time. Still prefer my Linux desktop and software over any windoze any day. Thank you.
The big difference is that Windows actually was just capable of shitty-looking Reversi or Solitaire back in the day when DOS was still the primary PC gaming platform. DirectX changed that and it was only after the release of DirectX that gaming on Windows became viable.
Linux however has had gaming capabilities for a long time, but still there's a huge lack of compelling titles. The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics, not a technical reason like with DOS/Windows.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
It's also full of cheapskates.
Yes. And since it has been years since any attempt and Linux use has grown. Perhaps time to try again, or at least take pre-orders with a promise of "if X orders come in, we'll do it for sure".
FWIW - last time they (id) tried, about 11-12 years ago, I bought 3 copies of Q3 for linux - one "l33t tin edition", and 2 "regular" versions (one to use and play, the other for a friend). And, I bought them on pre-order/release day at full retail price.
Shortly after, Loki started selling their stuff, and I bought several (SoF, Mechwarrior, Descent 3d) - wish I had gotten more of 'em.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I know this will turn into a "chicken or the egg" conversation...
"We shouldn't build games for Linux unless there's a proven market!"
"There can't be a market if there are no games to buy!"
But, there's an obvious "egg" here. There must first be a venturing company with a solid history of great games (*cough* half-life, portal, TF2, etc.) that's willing to take the risk. Forging new markets it ALL ABOUT RISK. If you're stunted by your fear of risk, then you're probably not a good entrepreneur.
Work it Valve. I hope it works out for the best. And if it doesn't, then EVERYONE will still thank you for giving it the ol' Orange Box try!
Sorry John but successful people create a market, they don't wait for it to be ready for you. Valve working with GPU manufacturers is a signal that they want to create a market. It is sad to say this but Id was a market defining company, now a follower
I for one will happily ditch windows gaming in favour of Linux as soon as Steam has decent coverage for the games I play. I've been wanting this for years, and it really is the primary reason I even have a windows partition--everything else is done on Linux. If Steam can set up wine nicely to play the non-native ports of games I own, I really won't have any reason for keeping it around.
Because they get better performance on Linux? Because just like cars if they are spending money tuning the'll want every piece of their equipment to be as tunable as possible, including the OS? Because it's perceieved as "eliete" and "cool"?
Hell if I know, I just want it to happen.
On one hand..
He's right. Go where the money is. And it's not nix users. Too small of a market. And too many who are all about the 'free'.
On the other hand...
He produces nothing but shit console ports anymore. Or just outright shit.
He's irrevelant and i really don't give a fuck what he has to say anymore.
So there you have it. lol
It's nice to have Steam on Linux but it's a small market and it doesn't make huge sense for Valve to support it except in the context of either a) Getting leverage to compell Microsoft to open up Windows 8 more, or b) Cloud gaming, e.g. porting games to Linux may lighten their costs if they offered hosted titles in the cloud.
Android's a red herring here. We're talking about Linux users.
Sure, Android runs on Linux, but Linux software doesn't run on Android.
Care to explain the results from the latest Humble Bundle and how they fit into your nonsense view? You do know that Linux users actually contributed a significant chunk. Linux users accounted for roughly the same amount as Mac users. In fact, Linux users had the highest average contribution, by far.
But please, continue to talk out of your ass. I mean, it's not like facts mean anything.
The ones who say "I'm only on Windows for the games".
What?
Also if that's true, then how come the highest average payment per player are linux users, for the humble bundle [humblebundle.com] as of now?
Because the people who bought the bundle on Linux are overpaying to send a message?
Specious reasoning that not paying for an OS translates directly to using that money to buy multiple games.
I'm sure that there are a ton of dedicated Linuxgamers, however your argument doesn't follow.
"Windows 8 is a disaster for desktops"
So you've used the RTM?
Yes, there is a huge number of people waiting to pirate top-tier games on Android. id's games would move to the top of the charts of 'games people play without purchasing them'.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I remember a time when people used to say DOS is the gaming platform of choice. Windows? Good enough for shitty-looking Reversi and Solitaire, but not much else.
Then Windows became the gaming platform of choice. Sounds familiar?
Yes, it does sound familiar. Unfortunately, Windows was the upgrade path from DOS, and further, it would run virtually all DOS games if you booted it into DOS mode, so the comparison doesn't really hold as Windows was essentially guaranteed a strong user base.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Price: 4.99 Installs: 100,000-500,000
Price: 6.99 Installs: 100,000--500,000
I really don't have the patience to do this all day for you, AC, but at least do some research before you have your arguments blow up in your face.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
He's right for one reason... If you have a problem on a Mac... well you're not likely to have a problem on a mac... then again, you're stuck with what they allow you and your computer cost twice what an equivalent PC would. If you have a problem on a windows machine, it may take you a few minutes to a few hours to figure out. If you have problems in Linux? Oh fuck... And getting help from the community? Good luck there. I like linux, but someone needs to come up with a standardized distro for gaming, and have good support for the community. What I'm really hoping Valve is really doing is coming out with their own distro for gaming. With all the drivers, codecs, whatever else you need.
Battlegear, Mechwarrior was never released for Linux. I remember playing the BG demo under linux however.
I would. Step 1 is make a large size of games available for Linux (and make them easy to install; no CLI shit!).
There is no "Linux" in the sense that there is a Windows - how badly does that affect game distribution? I know Linux users are generally self-sufficient - they have to be - but which game maker wants to field the complaints when a buyer finds a game that refuses to work on Spanko or Plop or <insert obscure favourite distro here>?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
does his sales figures include the decade of games where you would download the linux binary off of their website and copy the data files off the windows retail copy? cause a whole generation of ID games allowed you to do just that.
With all due respect to John Carmack - your 'forays' into the Linux gaming market with your mediocre games were just that - mediocre. You haven't made a game worth purchasing for a very long time.
People who have some ethics when it comes to software. If I wanted to pirate software I would be running Windows.
My main platforms I use can be divided into Linux and Android and while I have not found software I would want to buy to run on Linux, there is a good deal available for Android which I can and do buy.
I would like to see at some point Android software running natively on my Linux desktop.
Android is after all a VM similar to java so why not? Linux users do not necessarily see a need to buy software because often that need is met by a free alternative. However where there isn't a free alternative and or a paid version that works well, then it will have a market.
Jellybean has one feature which i think is a mistake and that is locking down to a single device. I don't have a problem with buying software I do have a problem when I get told where and when I can use it.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Checking Wikipedia stats I've found out that:
1) Linux Mint isn't so popular as many people believe
2) Yes, Linux on PC Desktops is totally irrelevant.
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2012-06/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm
Linux Other 0.79%
Linux Ubuntu 0.66%
Linux Fedora 0.02%
Linux SUSE 0.02%
Linux Debian 0.01%
Linux Mint 0.01%
Linux Mandriva 0.01%
Linux CentOS 0.00%
Linux Kubuntu 0.00%
Linux Red Hat 0.00%
Linux Epiphany 0.00%
Linux Gentoo 0.00%
Linux Mips 1.3 M 0.00%
Linux PCLinuxOS 0.00%
Linux Arch 300 k 0.00%
Linux Motor 0.00%
Linux Oracle 0.00%
Linux Slackware 0.00%
Linux openSUSE 0.00%
Linux Xubuntu 0.00%
Rage I think had beta linux support and lost it and became a mac or windows title on publication.
First guess will it work ? people said it did but ...
Second guess is my linux client hardware good enough to run it no idea
I look at a product listing only see microsoft windows and mac support. I decide not to buy.
I bought doom2, played in dos and with a wad engine on linux thanks to the linuxcommunity, doom3 had darkness issues if remember. not sure if that worked in linux i passed on the games darkness issue.
I am Linux only. I play [...] Skyrim...
I tried to run it on Linux...
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
[false strawman deleted]
> Who's left to sell to?
The people that keep on making the Indie Humble bundles as successful for Linux as they are MacOS.
If you want to paint Linux users as cheap or as theives then you are barking up the wrong tree. Clearly it's Windows users that are the biggest pirates and trying to claim any different is insane or retarded.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
3. Those who write their own software.
The big difference is that Windows actually was just capable of shitty-looking Reversi or Solitaire back in the day when DOS was still the primary PC gaming platform. DirectX changed that and it was only after the release of DirectX that gaming on Windows became viable.
Linux however has had gaming capabilities for a long time, but still there's a huge lack of compelling titles. The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics, not a technical reason like with DOS/Windows.
But, with Windows, Microsoft had full control over what went into DirectX since it's a proprietary API and is capable of adding features whenever it feels the need. On the flipside, Linux has Open{x}L, which is usually a year behind in feature set (geometry shaders anyone?). Combine that with a relatively small user base and a prevailing belief that Windows is more user-friendly, and you have a recipe for failure in Linux adoption for gaming.
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
Peruse steam and look at the games for Mac and that will give you at least an idea of what can be expected for Linux.
Was that supposed to be an argument that Carmack is right or wrong?
The number of AAA games available on Steam on Mac is tiny in comparison to either Steam on Windows or any of the major consoles.
If this is going to work, then when Steam on Linux launches, there needs to be a wave of gamers who have been itching to move away from Windows waiting to jump on all the new and improved Linux gaming goodness. If it's just a trickle of Linux fans and a couple of curious not-quite-geeks, this will go nowhere and probably kill gaming on Linux forever, because no other company is ever going to invest in a serious Linux port if there proves to be no profitable market there.
Getting the kind of orders-of-magnitude shift required is going to need either a sensible range of big name titles in each major gaming genre or at least a couple of killer titles that aren't available on any other platform that will get the ball rolling and sustain it long enough for momentum to build, or preferably both. If Valve aren't actively working with several other major studios to promote this idea and get serious games other than their own ready to launch on day one, they've totally lost the plot. Hopefully they're working on a huge joint marketing effort with at least one major Linux distro, too.
On the other hand, if Valve are not only working the back channels to get serious games in the pipeline but also planning to throw everything they've got behind launching a dedicated Linux-based gaming console to cut out all the middle men, then a few execs at places like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft ought to be worried. It might be a spectacular failure, but Valve are big and powerful enough that they might just pull it off, and introducing a fourth credible console whose games can also be played on geeks' Linux boxes would be a substantial threat, effectively making them the Apple of the gaming world.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Also if that's true, then how come the highest average payment per player are linux users, for the humble bundle [humblebundle.com] as of now?
Because the people who bought the bundle on Linux are overpaying to send a message?
In other words there are a significant number of highly motivated Linux users ready to spend money.
Thanks for clearing that up.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical. 2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
You know, every time there is a new Humble Bundle, sold on a pay-what-you-want scheme, it is always the Windows users that are the cheapest. Mac users fall in the middle, and Linux users shell out the most money on average.
Since those games are not Free, group 1 is out. That leaves group 2, which is demonstrably willing to pay more for software than their Windows- and Mac-using counterparts. But do go on calling them cheapskates.
Ignore this signature. By order.
He typed "GOD" in the console.
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
Repeat after me. "We only support the specified distributions of Linux. I apologize that your distro isn't on the list. Please let us know if you manage to get it working as we will gladly distribute the information for you."
Linux seems to be missing the ecosystem, at least on a mature level. DirectX did for windows amazing things, making it easy to build games.
We need a company to forge that ecosystem that others can use. Until that similar type ecosystem is available, Linux will falter.
Frankly, Sony seems best posed to help this situation out. If they built an ecosystem that worked on both Linux and Playstation, making it easy to move games between platforms, the world would change very quickly. Microsoft would find itself in a RIM/Blackberry world, suddenly wondering why nobody wants their coolaid anymore.
Me. I am a professional that uses Linux on my desktop exclusively.
As an employed person, I spend money on games, and have bought games for linux in the past.
If Valve can make more games work on my desktop, and make the process of getting said games to my desktop, they deserve my money.
Evert Vorster.
That explains why all the high end engineering design software from Cadence, Mentor Graphics, etc cost over $200k for a 1 year license and only support Red hat, SuSE, and IBMs AIX.
No, wait, it doesn't. Unix/Linux workstations are used by a lot more than cheap skates and idealogues. And when the engineers go home, they are less likely to install Windows on their families PCs.
I'm pretty sure Stallman himself doesn't give a damn about proprietary games. And cheapskates is a strawman. What's left of your post?
I know the feeling. I use Linux at work and have advised my company to spend thousands of dollars on Linux-based products because they work better than Microsoft's products and it's frequently easier than rolling your own solution.
GP is a moron.
I don't do gaming beyond solitaire, but I'm assuming that the biggest obstacle to getting serious games happening on Linux is video drivers and related stuff. This based on seemingly endless forum posts grumbling about how badly video makers support Linux.
Seems to me that if Valve is serious about this we could see a big push to build good, solid, fully featured Linux drivers for most common (gaming-capable) video cards. That presumable would mean drivers aimed specifically at Ubuntu, but still should be overall a very good thing.
Ubuntu was the first distro (after regular attempts over many years) that actually just installed and ran on my PC with no mucking about. I've since moved on to Mint, but the point is that I haven't looked back. With Libre Office and a few other essentials reaching maturity there is now literally one program that still forces me to boot back to Windows.
I think that Valve could bring along a big chunk of the gaming community - how about a downloadable Valve specific Ubuntu variant that would just install and work, and give new users a base to install and run games?
Three Squirrels
>looking forward to paying for games.
Loki Software, 'nuff said.
Rather than take things semi-out of context and try to make Carmack sound like a tool, the article writer should have picked apart the entire keynote and listed everything. The 90 minutes or so that Carmack spent explaining VR was really insightful.
Slashdot needs a +1 God Tier trolling.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Furthermore when given a choice of game/bundle price the Linux customers were willing to pay more per game/bundle than Windows and Mac customers. Businesses make the profit margin/volume tradeoff all the time. Sure there are more people in India and China but there is often less profit margin in selling to those individuals simply because most of them can't afford the medium-to-high margin goods. You just need to make sure you have enough high-margin customers that they cover the development and long-term day-to-day costs for their market. Since this is software we're talking about the day-to-day costs are relatively low. The development costs can be factored into engine development (i.e. Source), delivery platform development (i.e. Steam), and marginal cost per new game made with that engine/ those engines that are portable.
Finally, people develop apps and games for Android because there are tons of Android devices out there. So there is a market for *Linux* apps and games. It's just not running on RedHat, Ubuntu, SUSE, etc.
Maybe they should just bundle the shared libraries like they do it on Windows.
'nuff said
Not even close. Please regale us on how Loki's efforts in the 90's of porting AAA title months after everyone has played them on Windows and just throwing it out there for the typical Linux user to do their best installing them on their distro of choice in any way compares to the encompasing effort Valve is doing with Steam including working with proprietary vendors to get better drivers and actually tweaking the Source engine to run better on Linux rather than just porting other stuff after the fact. Please do as I would love to drive a truck through all the holes in your argment.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
A market that likes to overpay is a good market to be in :) There's a question about how long that tendency will last, but it's been going strong for over 3 years so far and doesn't appear to be slowing yet. It possibly won't until games are so commonplace on that platform that users no longer feel the need to encourage growth, but at that stage you will probably no longer have your problem of a limited userbase.
What message? "We've got money and are willing to give it to you in exchange for things we want."? I think that's a message game companies should listen to!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I'm a long time Linux user and don't see myself in either group.. I'm also a bit puzzled about point 1. and how it applies as a negative in this case.. Are you saying that there is a group of users who find it unethical that there is software that only runs on a proprietary OS ? .. It would seem that those people would applaud software coming to multiple platforms.. As to point 2. There are cheapskates in the Windows platform that don't want to pay for software either.. virus makers love those people..
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Yeah but that took the better part of a decade and a half.
No, the transition of DOS to Windows went surprisingly quick. You just have to know when to start counting.
Before Windows 95, Windows was not really considered a full operating system by Microsoft or its users, but merely a GUI to run applications on top of DOS. This was nice for productivity apps or file management, but no gamer was interested in any of that. Most users were very aware of the fact Windows was running on top of DOS as most of them didn't even start Windows by default, but only launched it when needed. Windows didn't facilitate gaming in any way, but there was also no need as everyone was completely fine with running games straight from DOS with which they were already familiar with.
When Windows 95 came out, things changed as it was no longer possible to boot up to DOS and launch Windows later, as it was common with prior versions of Windows. So only when the GUI became the default environment, the need started to arise for games to run on the Windows platform instead of relying on DOS. The problem with this was however that Windows 95 didn't allow programs direct access to the hardware, which caused problems with achieving the required performance to run games properly. Microsoft actually saw this problem coming (oh how the times have changed) and started working on DirectX to solve this in 1994. By the end of 1995 (the year Windows 95 was released) the first version of DirectX became available to the public.
Just a year later in 1996 the first batch of "real" games became available which made use of this new technology (C&C: Red Alert and Diablo to name a few come to mind). In 1997 a huge amount of PC games were making use of DirectX to run directly in Windows (Age of Empires, Tomb Raider 2, Quake II, Dungeon Keeper etc. etc.). In 1998 the amount of games released for MS-DOS was close to zero.
All in all the transition from DOS to DirectX was one of the biggest leaps in PC gaming technology. And the entire operation was basically completed in under three years. It's one of the bigger success stories of the industry and certainly not something to talk down.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
>>>I remember a time when people used to say DOS is the gaming platform of choice.
Not anyone I ever met except those who were unfortunate enough to be stuck with 16-color PCs that went "beep". The true gaming platforms of the 80s and early 90s were:
Atari 800
Commodore 64
Commodore Amiga -or- Atari ST
- These machines blew-away anything the PCs of the day could do. Of course nowadays there's very little difference in graphics or sound, so people just pick the defacto standard (the OS that has 88% desktop penetration).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
And how long as Linux been around? It's turning 21 this year, if you consider the very first release. Consider that Windows has been around 6 years longer than Linux. Then, consider that Linux was essentially Linus Torvalds' personal toy until they late 90's, say 1997, and count from there. A decade and a half later, here we are; what might happen?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
Humble bundle says
$359,168.37Total payments:
43,415Purchases #:
$8.27Average purchase:
$7.44 Average Windows:
$9.80 Average Mac:
$11.92 Average Linux:
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
3. The people who will buy the Steam console.
I doubt Linux gaming will make it suddenly take over the desktop (people are more likely to migrate from Windows 8 to a Mac) but it gives him the opportunity to create a dedicated console with steam on it. People might buy that, especially if its a computing platform as well (like the old computers of my youth).
Linux is a perfectly viable gaming market, if the major studios would take Microsoft's dick out their mouths long enough to develop for it...
No, the reason is that it is horrible and expensive to code for. Vastly too expensive for the returns unless it's turned into a closed platform, a la the App Store.
All they need to do is test the product against the 5 distros or so that comprise 90% of Linux Desktop usage. Much like for Windows. My gut feeling is that not many post-2010 Windows games work under Windows 98, for example.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Enough with the personal attacks on Carmack. He's not the issue, the marketplace is. 15 years after it first appeared, desktop Linux has shown no sign of grabbing more than a tiny fraction of the market. Catering to that tiny fraction is not a sound business model, for game companies or anybody else.
Gimme a large selection of games that will play with out Wine
Why do they have to run without Wine, as opposed to running correctly with Wine? A game developer could test a product thoroughly on Wine, treating it as a first-class citizen among supported Windows versions like XP, Vista, and 7. That would make Wine just another toolkit for making a GNU/Linux app, not unlike GTK+ or Qt, except using a different executable format (PE instead of ELF). It's not like Wine is an emulator or anything.
and I`ll buy the kids some Linux compatible computer games.
I'll keep that in mind. You mentioned "kids" plural; if a game that works on GNU/Linux is best played with two gamepads and a TV or other large (20"+) monitor as opposed to two separate PCs in separate rooms, are you still willing to buy?
Yeah, this from the guy who thinks streaming a 1,073,741,824^2 pixel texture of the entire game world into RAM is a good idea. Put down the pipe, turn around and walk backwards toward the sound of my voice.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
not DirectX, DOS was a 'to the metal' platform similar to the way games were coded for the old all-in-one computers you hooked up to your TV.
It was the general improvements in hardware - both CPU and 3d graphics cards that were powerful enough to run games even with Windows inefficiencies (compared to DOS).
As for Linux, the reason it isn't taking off on the desktop is that it really isn't a viable consumer OS. I cannot walk into PCWorld and buy a Linux OS DVD (assuming they were sold) and then buy a webcam or a new graphics card and guarantee them to work. Now the state of driver support on Linux is very good, the community does an excellent job with them, but they still cannot let the manufacturer release a driver with the CD they bundle with the device because Linux doesn't do that - you have to build it from source, so a company like Nvidia who wants to keep their driver source secret (which may not be ideal, but it practical in the real world of selling stuff)) cannot put that driver on the CD for me - because they do not know which kernel version I'm running, so they have to do a less-than-perfect job of it. Windows got this right - drivers belong to the manufacturer that goes with the hardware, thus producing a marketplace where stuff gets sold in shrinkwrapped boxes.
I know the argument about old drivers not being supported if the kernel interface changes, like it did with Vista, but you just cannot expect the likes of nvidia to release their source code. Now maybe we should have a driver model that works like Windows, or one that is stable and unchanging, but we need this problem fixed before Linux becomes a consumer OS.
It works for the datacentre as no-one gives much care to external drivers, and they don't require fancy graphics capabilities.
Because anecdotally I hear lots of Linux users that are chomping at the bit for Steam to to come and looking forward to paying for games
"Anecdotally?"
What makes what you hear any better evidence than his?
Furthermore, the Humble Indie Bundle has shown that there are gamers on Linux that will pay
80% to 90% off retail list for the bundle.
The return on the HB is about $8 from the Windows gamer. 3/4 of the total.
For games which have seen have broad exposure and frequent discounts on the Windows platform.
$12 from the Linux gamer. 1/8 of the total.
The return from the HB is split among charities, developers, and Humble Bundle itself.
Linux users always have the highest average and a leaderboard of top contributors. The leaderboard has regulars, too, like Minecraft developer notch, and the "HumbleBrony Bundle" (a group that does a collective fundraising effort within the Brony community), both of whom contribute to the tune of thousands.
Latest Humble Bundle Of Pay-What-You-Want Indie Games Raises $1-Million In Five Hours
The problem with big ticket donations is that they projects Linux sales through a rose tinted lens. Things look better than they rare.
I can't imagine (2) being significant at all, as most Linux users will have a Windows license that they got with the computer (or a previous, retired computer). There is another option for being a "cheapskate", because Linux and other open OSes allow you to do more with the HW than in Windows. I would argue that I'm not a cheapskate for running "ZFS on Linux" instead of buying a proprietary storage solution from Oracle for my home, but I suppose there are proprietary alternatives for most of the things that Linux gives you for free.
Huh? Why was it not a viable market? Millions of people buying smart phones so they could browse the web, share pictures of their cats, check their email, tweet, geocache, listen to music, and even make the odd phone call, and you think that it's all driven by a desire to play angry birds?
People would be buying smart phones even if there were no games at all. But nobody's been buying Linux-based PCs.
I'm right there with you and as far as being a "cheapskate" is concerned I'm a Linux user and would gladly pay double the price for Linux over Windows as really, price isn't the issue. The functionality I get is. If I want to run a Windows program, I have a vm for that and the only thing that doesn't work on is games. When Steam comes to Linux, that won't be a problem anymore as I'll just play what is in there. If a publisher's game isn't in Steam or available for Linux then, oh well, I guess I won't be buying your game.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
uhh....it was most certainly not his "personal toy" until 1997. RedHat came out in 1993, I was using it for an ISP I owned 93-95, and many many other people were doing lots and lots of things with it. It stopped being his "personal toy" early 1993.
Absolutely.
For me, AfterShot Pro (ex Bibble 5), Vuescan (yeah, I paid for a freaking scanner driver, and I love it. Incidentally, Vuescan + Linux is the *only* way to get my old Nikon LS2000 film scanner working. No recent windows version will make it work, even XP was complicated to get support for the U320 SCSI card).
And a truckload (around 200 I guess) of games bought on Steam, Gog, Gamersgate, Amazon and various bundles, that I play mainly on Crossover (that I paid too, with regular updates since 2008 I think).
As a matter of fact, I'm somewhat unsatisfied with Thunderbird as a mail client and I'd pay good money to get a real good commercial PIM suite that runs on Linux. If anyone has ideas...
No paying customers on Linux ? Really ?
If the FPS is better, the Windows-gamers will come...
Especially if the OS is free.
Marginal improvements in frame rate visible only on very high end systems is no big deal.
But comparing DX 9 level graphics with mainstream DX 11 gamer-graphics card performance just might be considered a tad misleading.
No one but the geek gives a damn about "free."
By the time product reaches retail shelves the OEM price of the OS is irrelevant.
Forging new markets it ALL ABOUT RISK.
Then the only company that can save us is Hasbro.
You do realize I was posting in support of Linux, right? Yes, I'm aware of RedHat; are you aware that RedHat was a server distro for several years before it became what most would consider an enterprise distro? an enterprise distro is a sort of hybrid between a server and desktop distro. It was Linus' personal toy until desktop distros became well known and useable; yes, it was used as a server OS by many during that timeframe, but for anyone not running a server, it wasn't very useful.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A better supply of games in Linux would lead more gamers to run Linux. More gamers running Linux will make the platform more attractive to developers. This would lead to more games in Linux, which would lead to more gamers running Linux, etc. This will also lead to improvements in Linux distributions for gaming, in terms of built-in features and hardware support, making the platform more attractive to developers and gamers, and so forth.
It's just a question of where the tipping point is. This move by Valve is a big push in the right direction.
Carmack might be right that for most games, producing a Linux version would cost more than it brings in, but in the long term an investment in making Linux a viable platform could increase future profits and promote brand loyalty toward the companies that had the foresight to pioneer. I think Apple has shown us that you just can't overinvest in "coolness". And the cost-benefit problem probably doesn't hold true for less technically ambitious games, which can achieve Linux compatibility for minimal cost if their code is reasonably well structured and segregates the platform-specific bits.
Learn Japanese RPG -- lrnj.com
He spoke about Quake Live as well. Which is essentially Q3A in the browser, except it only works in old browsers and it isn't popular on ANY system.
In essence, he always provided worse support to Linux than any other company - separate installers you have to download and mess around with? Calling that forays into the market is...
And, no, RedHat did not come out in 1993.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So, you think somebody should spend a huge amount of money to port games to Linux because they might create a new gaming marketplace? What's their incentive for risking their dough?
The incentive is that once the rumored Linux-based set-top gaming computer comes out, Valve won't have to pay royalties to Microsoft and Sony anymore. Instead, it'll be collecting those royalties from indie game developers that got shafted by the big three console makers.
Windows market share is about 80%. Linux market share is about 1.5%. Politics is not the reason behind the lack of games for Linux - market analysis is.
If we want games for Linux, then we gotta systematically buy all good games that are ported to Linux. Otherwise, there will be no business case to port games to Linux.
Stop the brainwash
for me to see my childhood hero throw FUD about market viability for my platform. John Carmack was once an open minded individual who cared about technical feats and versatility in the engine (read some of his former .plan files about comments to the portability of the OpenGL API and his efforts to port to other ISAs). This is the same man who once witnessed the leak of the quake source code, saw that a user had submitted fixes and made it compile for Linux, and then later went on to publish that user's same work as the official Id copy.
John Carmack used to be a man of principle and not cater to tempestuous marketing. With all of his influence now he says this garbage that has the potential to destroy the momentum that Valve has been generating toward a formerly unsuccessful effort? Developing games for Linux, even if it isn't a marketable success it will be a technical success and a step forward for games. When software development firms can work this closely with hardware developers and inspect EVERY piece of the stack games have the potential for more efficient hardware utilization and smoother effects.
Yeah, there are no games for Linux because nobody uses Linux and nobody uses Linux because there are no games.
The sad thing is that Wine is somewhat of a solution for the "my games don't run on Linux" problem, but it's also the reason the number of games created for Linux is actually lowered, because a lot of the developers are simply writing for Windows and relying on Wine for Linux support.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
But why are "Those who write their own software" specifically using GNU/Linux? How is writing one's own software any harder or more expensive on Windows or Mac OS X than on GNU/Linux? Windows has Visual Studio Express, Code::Blocks, and Eclipse, and Mac OS X has Xcode and Eclipse.
I can't believe the level of idiocy around this issue.
Is there already a large commerical Linux gaming world? No... is there fuck!! Anyone disagree?
Valve porting Steam and the Source engine to Linux will kick start that by providing a very important standardised component that it is already massively popular (engine, delivery). That will make it straightforward for a lot of previously Windows-only games to include Linux. Anyone disagree?
It's not going to change the world overnight... there's not going to be a magic world-changing shift to Linux because of it. Anyone disagree?
Therefore Steam will be a useful escape route from Microsoft's approaching iron control (TPM, UEFI) lockdown of the Windows platform. Anyone disagree?
Valve has put its money where it's mouth is. Anyone disagree?
We'll only know the full effects of this in a couple of years. Anyone disagree?
Frankly... all those statements would seem to be truisms. So what the fuck is anyone arguing about.
Not anyone I ever met except those who were unfortunate enough to be stuck with 16-color PCs that went "beep".
The modular design of the PC meant that improvements in graphics and sound would eventually out-pace even the best of the systems whose tech was frozen in amber.
Games like King's Quest demonstrated the raw horsepower of the 16 bit IBM PC.
No hardware supported sprite animation?
No problem.
So there is a market for *Linux* apps and games.
But is there a market for Linux apps and games that use input devices other than a flat touch screen and an accelerometer? For example, is there a market for Android apps and games that need a Bluetooth keyboard or a $62 Bluetooth iControlPad for best results? I don't see how a platformer, for example, would work well on a touch-only device because the player wouldn't be able to tell where his thumbs are relative to the on-screen gamepad.
That's one of the things he talks about is that a lot of the Linux on the desktop types are "Only OSS!" and "I shouldn't ever have to pay for software!" Well, that doesn't work for commercial game developers. They need people who are willing and interested in paying for their product.
The combination of the smaller market and the part of the market disinterested in paying for software makes it not as likely you make a profit.
Also when it comes to high end 3D games, the cost of porting and supporting can be significant particularly since the 3D situation on Linux is a bit of a mess. Talk to Mozilla about the problems they encountered with getting Firefox's hardware acceleration for Linux. With the binary nVidia drivers, it was no problems. With others, there were serious issues, like "X crashes," issues.
None of that is stuff that can't be dealt with, of course, but the more work you have to do on the port, the most money it costs, and the more sales you need to make it worth while. If a Linux port were as simple as "click a button and spend 10 man hours testing," sure it would be worth it. Sell even 100 more copies and you've done well. However if it takes a few thousand man hours in work, and probably hiring a person or two that specialize in it, then you can need a substantial number of sales to make it worth while and the market just doesn't seem to be there.
I'm pretty sure Stallman himself doesn't give a damn about proprietary games. And cheapskates is a strawman. What's left of your post?
Tinman and Cowardly Lion?
most Linux users will have a Windows license that they got with the computer (or a previous, retired computer).
A Windows license that comes with a retired name-brand computer is an OEM license, and unlike a retail license, an OEM license can't be transferred from "a previous, retired computer" to a new computer.
Because anecdotally I hear lots of Linux users that are chomping at the bit for Steam to to come and looking forward to paying for games
"Anecdotally?"
What makes what you hear any better evidence than his?
If we just took it on face value as anecdote vs. anecdote then the validity might be equal. Fortunately, we can examine the statements themselves critically. When someone tries to bisect 20,000,000 (at least) people into 2 different groups both groups being characterized as having extreme viewpoints (cheapskates vs. zealots) with no room for a moderate third group, that flies in the face of common sense and is almost certainly false. I didn't explore that fact in my response as I didn't think it was necessary. What I did say was that there are a lot of Linux users chomping at the bit for Steam and will buy games. This is a reasonable assertion as we know there are millions and millions of Linux users and a certain percentage of any portion of the population enjoys games. So it is reasonable to assume that there are Linux users that will buy games as a certain percentage of people that run Linux will download Steam and will actually follow through and buy. Valve is certainly aware of how many people use Steam on Linux via Wine and it is possible they have already crunched the numbers and see profit in if nothing else giving those users a better experience. In a baseline psychological profile a better experience generally translates into better sales so that is a reasonable expectation.
80% to 90% off retail list for the bundle.
More than that if you factor in how little someone could pay should they choose to. What you are missing is that even the HIB suffers from a few faults. Lack of AAA titles, not a part of a distribution platform like Steam therefore necessitating more friction for the user between clicking "buy" and actually playing. You also fail to take into account that Valve isn't just bringing Steam over, they are also working with hardware vendors and presumably software houses like Canonical to ensure that Steam is a stellar experience on Linux. All of that is a level of service that the HIB cannot bring to the table and is a level that no Linux game vendor has brought to the table ever. So the HIB is just a minimal guideline not the entire picture. The point of bringing it up was to counter the troll that Linux users won't buy games. HIB wasn't intended to be a model for how the Steam efforts are expected to play out and it is disingenuous for you to pretend I meant it that way.
The return on the HB is about $8 from the Windows gamer. 3/4 of the total.
This in no way conflicts with my point that Linux users will pay for games. Furthermore, I am puzzled why you bother to bring it up as I didn't even mention that Linux users paid more for the HIB though thank you for doing that as it is at least prima facie an important point. There has been a lot of electronic ink spilled and hand wringing over the simple data point that Linux gamers voluntarily pay more than Windows people for the HIB and I am inclined to believe that it is at least in part because they are just happy to be able to pay anything at all for decent games and get caught up in the moment. That's neither here nor there as far as my main point which is that Linux users indeed will pay for games and anyone who disputes that is ignoring reality.
The problem with big ticket donations is that they projects Linux sales through a rose tinted lens. Things look better than they rare.
Yes, it is a fallacy to extrapolate overall interest in games and chances of success on Linux based on something like the HIB as that is barely above arguing by analogy and devolves into trench warfare between Linux and Windows people. I notice you are really gnawing on that bone yourself though as it seems to give you a safe place to argue from. Your problem is there aren't a
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
I would like to see at some point Android software running natively on my Linux desktop.
Android is after all a VM similar to java so why not?
Because a lot of Android games are made for the NDK, which allows reuse of an existing C++ game engine from the Windows, Mac, or iOS version of a game. Porting using the NDK is a lot faster than porting through an error-prone line-by-line rewrite into Java. The trouble with NDK is that applications have to be recompiled for each instruction set, and most are compiled for ARM and not x86 because the vast majority of Android certified devices have an ARM CPU.
Maybe Valve isn't targeting the linux market...maybe they have another reason for doing this. Like building a SteamBox distro for your PC. Or a Steam console. Given the outrageous fees they have to pay for XBox, PlayStation, etc, this may well be a move to compete as a platform. This has some issues (who wants to reboot to play games*? Steam is designed to let you be signed in while doing other stuff. Etc), yes, but strikes me as a perfectly reasonable *hedge* against the abject failure that is windows 8.
* I actually use windows for gaming and linux for all else, and really have no particular interest in linux games.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
Funny! You know very little about Open Source and Linux.
This is delusional. How many people have played Snake on a Nokia?
-]Phreak Out[-
Until someone decided to try and make them into one. Now there are tons of sales.
Will Linux become a common gaming platform if no one tries? No.
Mobile phones are not a viable gaming market, the iPhone is, and debatably, Android could be.
Most of the Linux developers consist of those people, for good reason. The "ideologues" are the only reason Linux exists in the first place; people willing to work for free for the greater good built every major component of it, from the kernel to the lowly little desktop applications. Yeah, demonize them when they're suspicious of corporate powergrabs of their work. Not sure why people think that looks intelligent.
The "cheapskates" are mostly part of the first group. I am not about to give money to corporations which are actively attempting to strip me of what little rights I have left; that goes for Microsoft and major game companies pretty heavily. Unfortunately, that leaves little to spend money on these days.
It doesn't really matter what the developers think, though. They are only a large part of the user base because Linux is not very mainstream. Compare the ratio of programmers and inept users on Windows to those on Linux.
Great Intellect...
I believe the word you're looking for is economics, not politics.
Unless you think John Carmack is ideologically against making money.
Carmack is right. I bought a Radeon 6850 when it came out, and then came the joy of discovering the Linux drivers at the time sucked. Solutions online? Write you own drivers. Yeah....I'll get right on that..... It's not quite as easy as simply porting the games over to Linux. There's quite a few things in total holding back true gaming excellence from Linux.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
I'm an MBA (hold off on the throwing of the rotten vegetables! I'm a IT person too!) So I'd like to put my 2 cents worth on the whole thing from a business perspective.
Everyone's talking about it being a chicken and egg situation where devs aren't making games for Linux because there's no market, and there's no market because there aren't any games. This isn't really the situation. The execs at big companies often deal with situations where they have to take a leap of faith. Every time there's a new console, for example, the execs at companies like EA decide whether or not to make games for it well before the console is released, so they're making games for a market with 0 users! They make the decisions based on a few key factors, including looking at the risks, the chances of success, and the possible rewards given the market. Here are just some aspects that are probably discouraging to an exec at a big gaming company:
1. History. Linux is old. Really old. And it hasn't taken off in the consumer market yet. So it's a pretty big leap for an EA exec to think it's going to get popular now. There hasn't really been any change in the market that would point to a massive upswing in Linux gaming.
2. High potential risks. Xbox isn't that big a risk to support, since it uses similar tech to Windows. Linux? It's a bit different. Sure, it uses OpenGL, like a mac, but it's a whole different platform. This wouldn't be a deal killer by itself, but it's another nail in the coffin since it increases the risks.
3. Lack of proof of a market. As people have pointed out, the Humble Bundles sold well, but they had people giving to them because a. They wanted to support small indie developers and b. they wanted to support the charities that the Humble Bundles give to. When companies look to predict what's going to happen they look for comparability, that is, they try to find similar situations where there was a success, and there is very little evidence for this. Should they take a chance anyway, and do something new? That leads us to the last and perhaps biggest point:
4. Low first mover advantage. One of the things a business looks for is first mover advantage, that is, what kind of benefits do they get by taking the risk of being the first to do something. What they're looking for is some reason to think that going first will let them get and HOLD ON TO a chunk of the market. This isn't the case with Linux. Let's say that Carmack decides to make his latest game (Quake 7, this time it's even Quakier!) in Linux. Let's be generous and say that Q7 is released, the Linux gaming market explodes, and everyone buys Q7 for Linux. Carmack took a big risk. What did he get in return? Well, he got big profits, obviously. But he didn't do as well from this deal as you'd think: Let's say that Blizzard, after seeing Q7's success, produces a first-person Linux game called Starcraft 3D: Raynor on a Plane. Assuming it's of a similar quality to Q7, their profits are about the same. Maybe even better, since the market has now grown even more. But they didn't have to take the risks that Carmack did: they lost nothing by waiting until Linux was already a success. And unlike with a console Linux doesn't have a short life cycle, so they had all the time in the world to wait. It's true that Q7 had the advantage of being the only game in town, but that advantage won't last long. Therefore, there's nothing to be gained by being the company that takes a chance on Linux. Sad but true.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that most of the discussion on Linux's chances of success revolve around its worthiness as a platform, but a good platform isn't enough. There has to be a strategy to attract gaming business, and Linux doesn't really have one that works. Steam's support is nice, but in the long run it just isn't enough given the risks that an EA or iD would have to take as things are.
... that Enemy Territory was played more on linux than Quake 3 was. There's nothing wrong with gaming on linux, except the games, so long as you have a decent video card and driver.
Wide-spread gaming support is the ONLY thing keeping me on Windows.
But better performance has never really been proper demonstrated. In the sense that while one result may show advantages, another will show disadvantages. Theres also the question of stability (in games).
Not to mention Linux lacks compatibility with a lot of peripherals. Joysticks have become a more popular recently again, and its not exactly uncommon for people to use an Xbox360 controller on the PC. DirectX provides a pathetically easy way to implement support for it in games (which is why basically every port, and many non-ports, have menus for it), and other controllers work through that support as well.
The few Windows game developers I knew back then used WinG even after DirectX came out (FYI, I was mostly a mac developer at the time, but I got pissed at Apple for not continuing mid-priced towers and moved to Windows circa 2003). Even after Microsoft killed it, they feared Microsoft would do the same with the Direct APIs and were hesitant to move to them. I don't think any of them even used DirectX until it hit 8 because prior to 8 it was viewed as a buggier/inferior API, but that also may be due to game cycle time (the indie company I'm referring to had a 3+ year cycle). Anyhow, I'm rambling - my point is only a few studios took the initial plunge, and when they did it was sometimes half-baked. For instance, Carmack himself thought Direct3D was a disaster until 7 or 8.
As for games, I see it different - there is a total lack of Linux exclusive or OpenGL exclusive games in the market (except a few tied to a platform like Apple or PS3). If you get a few of those, even if they eventually get ported to Windows later, you can build momentum for a platform. Until that happens, gamers will not feel a need to move. This is exactly how Windows became dominant in the first place, and why iPad/iPhone was getting games first and then they are ported to Android and Apple was ahead in the market (it has since sorta reversed, but Apple did this once before with the Apple ][ so we should expect that by now).
DirectX was essentially a DOS takeover of a Windows session. For all we know, it still is.
Beyond that...
Look at things like the "Humble Bundles"
From the stats, it seems that Linux users consistently pay a higher price (by choice).
For myself, I'd be willing to pay an extra 10% or so (more or less depending on the actual software) to support having Linux versions of the software I like/use/want.
Linux has a huge lack of compelling titles. Valve has compelling titles (Team Fortress 2, L4D, etc.). Valve wants to bring these titles to Linux. How hard is that to understand?!
If I had to guess the Linux Steam client will be pretty well self contained, potentially even to the point of having its own home directory. I seriously doubt that it will be using any of the standard install patterns, but will much more likely keep everything in its own file tree, thereby (mostly anyway) avoiding the worst of the differences between distros, different package systems and the tendency of Linux to splatter bits of a program all over the file system (not necessarily a bad thing in practice, but it is most definitely NOT always easy to know what belongs to what, or where everything ended up).
This would also give them a head start on integrating WINE into the client, something that would make a lot of sense if they are serious about getting a significant part of the back catalog functional, would be a great boost to marketability of Steam on Linux and would very much help if there is any real intention of boosting Linux in general or putting pressure on Microsoft.
What if I just like tiling window managers and the speed of Gentoo?
I disagree that you're defending Linux. You're pretending that the date of release matters in a discussion about gaming platforms - it doesn't, not at this point. Linux wasn't intended for mainstream desktop use for many years, so it's largely irrelevant what year it originally came out. That it is used as a primary desktop platform by millions now is the important bit. What year did that start? Meh, dunno. Haven't tended to worry about what others are using for their desktop OS. But it has at least been long enough for it to not be an excuse anymore - XP isn't the same as Win7, after all - and widespread linux desktop use was already starting prior to XP release.
Modern gamers aren't anything like that. Sure, they will buy the latest GPU and run the vendor-supplied overclocking tool, but that's about the extent of it.
The vast majority of gamers, the "butter zone" as far as marketing and profits are concerned, are not tweakers. They know how to double-click an icon, type in their password and right-click things until they die, but ask too much of them and they will flee to the nearest PS3 or X360. If Linux gaming catches on, these people will run Ubuntu. Even better: they will run a spinoff of Ubuntu that asks even less questions.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Please regale us on how Valve's efforts in the 10's of porting Source titles years after everyone has played them on Windows and just throwing it out there for the typical Linux user is going to fare any better than Loki. The parallel is exact. The end user doesn't give a crap about how many vendors Valve works with or improvements in the speed. The fact remains that it's a few ancient AAA games and whatever indie support Valve can scrabble together. Good luck with that.
Not viable, says the man who got stinking rich off of the Microsoft platform for gaming...
First of off, 15 year Linux user here who was 100% Windows for my desktop until about 4 years ago, when I switched to Ubuntu for my primary desktop. It "just works", and for the first time since forever, I can feel confident knowing that no matter what distribution I pick, I can be reasonably assured that NVidia drivers will SMOKE on it. At least enough that I don't have to worry about speed differences between the same app on windows and Linux, after any kinks are worked out.
Second, I would love to see games on Linux, and I have been waiting for Linux on the desktop to gain some momentum so that it would actually have a chance of being "viable".
Lets face it, if everyone keeps supporting Linux, there won't be as much of a reason for many of us to boot back to windows so often! Now, I do feel bad for Id programmers who have to program for 3 different platforms (more if you include consoles), but nobody is forcing you to support all of them. Sure, I bet is it nice to only drink the Microsoft cool-aid and use DirectX and MS technologies exclusively, but then I am sure some people out there only want to support Apple products for their apps too, or Linux for web server type stuff etc.
Anyways, I hope that you will at least put a decent effort into giving Linux a shot and help give back to the community of volunteers that are almost entirely responsible for the internet that we have today, which allows companies like yours to be able to do the stuff you do!
20-something grad student in the scientific or mathematical fields here. We use linux on the server and remote X on occasion but a lot of the software is windows-only. Pretty much everybody has a windows laptop or macbook (running windows with remote desktop, bootcamp, etc). Nobody has time to moderate to heavy gamer.
The post to which I was replying stated that Windows was in widespread use as a gaming platform within a decade and a half (15 years) of it's release (1986), so by 2001. It actually happened before this, but what I was trying to do was illustrate that Linux is set to acheive this in the same timeframe. You can think my intentions are different than they actually are, but it is literally impossible to disagree with my regarding my own intentions, only I know those and I am telling you, as a 12 year Linux user, that I am certainly supportive of the platform and was posting in its defense. If you think that requires your agreement, your ego is too inflated for me to continue this line of conversation.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The phrase is "champing at the bit", but otherwise, salient points.
Wait, I'm confused, did you own an ISP from 1993 to 1995, or from 1994 to 1996? It seems to change from one thread to the next. Are you sure you're not bullshitting?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
at least for me, my son, my wife and many coworkers :D
I still remember Loki Software which went belly-up in 2001. They had some great titles and I supported them by buying 4-5 games from them. Most of the ports they made have been taken over by LPG. :(
I was also pleased with the Linux version of Never Winter Nights but very disappointed when NWN2 was only available for Windows platforms. Other good Linux Games: Savage, Savage2, UT2004 and more.
First, the premise that there are no gamers on linux, therefore, don't create games on linux is a chicken and egg problem. Game *developers* have to make an unprofiitable leap of fait to get the ball rolling. Given a large potential base of users that grudgingly tolerate MS platform (potentially exacerbated by Win8), giving them an out may be sufficient.
As Steam has taken on a life of it's own, Valve seems to be less and less about developing games and more and more about being a marketplace for digitally purchased gaming content. This presumably means that revenue from that endeavor is dwarfing what they historically have gotten from developing games, *despite* having some of the most acclaimed titles of all time. Both Apple and MS threaten that by wanting to push their own app distribution facility as first-party, reducing the value of the Steam offering. It is in Valve's *long* term interests to try to push users away from platforms like Windows and OSX onto a platform that is the least likely to have a single coherent strategy lock out things like Steam. To this end, Valve could even do something insane, like release HL2: Ep3 as a Linux exclusive. Would that be catastrophic for the sales of that title? Absolutely. Would it simultaneously bring in a critical mass of gamers to Linux, a platform where Valve may continue to thrive in an 'app store' world? Very possible.
Finally, sometimes it's not *purely* a straightforward business call. For reference, see Blizzard. Blizzard titles have consistently supported MacOS since 1994, even in the most pessimitistic times for the platform. It's quite possible the Mac versions of many of their titles 15 years ago lost money compared to effort required to do it, but they presumably maintained that effort out of love of the platform or continued need to prove they can be a multi-platform company. Keep in mind that while Linux isn't that directly popular (ignoring ubiquitous embedded application and android), it is immensely popular amongst developers and computing enthusiasts. That's the same market that companies like Valve hire from, and developers likely would support Linux as a labor of love.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Good point. Part of this is just the business decision of selling as many units as possible.
Considering that the current desktop OS market share breaks down like this:
Windows 92.1%
Mac 7.0%
Linux 1.0%
Of course nowadays there's very little difference in graphics or sound, so people just pick the defacto standard (the OS that has 88% desktop penetration).
Or phones:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/243542/android_ios_games_rake_in_more_cash_than_sony_and_nintendo.html
Actually, checking the loki games page (still up after all these years... ) it was HeavyGear - very MW like :)
http://www.lokigames.com/products/heavy-gear2/
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Perhaps Valve's efforts will help to make Linux a viable market for commercial game development?
/* No Comment */
Please regale us on how Valve's efforts in the 10's of porting Source titles years after everyone has played them on Windows and just throwing it out there for the typical Linux user is going to fare any better than Loki. The parallel is exact.
The parallel is not even close, actually. First of all, Loki had a distribution problem. They had to get stores to stock their merchandise and few would. And the ones that did stock them generally made a half-hearted effort and put the Linux games in one little corner off the main display. Contrast this with Steam which is not just a game here and there but a delivery platform. The Linux versions of games will be there right next to the Windows and Mac version and download/installation is just a click away. In addition to this fact is the point that in absolute numbers there are more Linux users today than there were in the 90's. Also, unlike Loki, Valve is working with hardware makers to get better graphics drivers on Linux so no longer will the same game run with a higher framerate on Windows which was a major issue for Loki as many of their ports were FPS twitch games where every last frame dropped (at least subjectively). Another point is that while Loki ported games, they did not create their own so they had very little ability to polish up the engine like what Valve is doing with Source to make sure that it runs spectacularly on Linux. Another issue that Loki contended with is that Linux users were slightly more idealistic back then and actually held out hope that Free AAA titles would just appear for Linux. That hasn't happened and I think the community at large realizes this and has accepted it so they are more receptive to paying for proprietary binaries. Another point is that money talks and Valve have orders of magnitude more of it than Icculous ever thought about. When you have enough money to get Intel, AMD, and nVidia's attention then you stand a much better chance of making heretofore untenable things happen.
Your point of the games on Linux being late possibly sabotaging the effort is valid though. That will have to be addressed and I hope Valve realizes this.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
The problem with gaming on Linux is really very simple and comes down to a single word: reliability
I have tried many different games on Linux, including buying X-Plane. However I found that the games are even more flaky than driver support (which is now fairly good). IMHO (as a developer) there are several causes of this:
As a developer who constantly thinks about the reliability of my software I have found several things that are critical for reliability:
"Not only has Valve Software successfully ported the first-person shooter game Left 4 Dead 2 to Linux, but it actually runs faster on the open source OS than on Windows .. when Valve developers built a new Windows version of the game based on OpenGL code borrowed from the Linux version, that version also ran faster than the Direct3D version, at 305fps. link
AccountKiller
id software never had the resources that Valve currently has to throw at the problem, and they aren't trying to market just a handful of games on Linux, they're trying move an entire eco-system over. id software went under Bethseda exactly so they could get more resources, where as Valve has the highest profit per employee of any company. Carmack is really smart, but he never had a billion dollars to throw at the problem.
The difference is that Windows 98 has been deprecated and obsolete for over a decade. The Linux distros in question are current and relevant.
Personally I do not "waste" my time on games, I prefer real life
I've played that before, it sucks. There's a ton of cheaters who never get taken down because the mods are actually chosen from them. The graphics are pretty awesome at times but most of the game is tedious and annoying. The other players usually suck and if you get stuck in the Customer Support mini-games only the trolls come by (I refuse to believe that people are actually that dumb). It's also really glitchy and the random event tables seem to be made by sadists.
All in all I give it a pass, too bad you're required to play it to unlock the decent games.
I respect the hell out of Carmack, based on his chops as a coder and all-around geek. However, his crystal ball regarding industry trends is a little fuzzy at times. A few years ago, he predicted that dicrete graphics cards were on their way out - when did that ever happen? Anyhow, it's like the say: You have to spend money to make money. Who has a dozen people working full time to port their game engine and distribution platform to Linux? Who did not port their latest title, even though it's OpenGL-based and runs on the Mac? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Yes, when the humble bundle comes out, usually the Linux users pay more than the win/max crowd. Given that Linux is a more high-performance system, the games are more challenging on Linux. Then there is the perpetuated idea (usually perpetuated by the microsoft crowd), that Linux is a very small desktop and so blah no games. They keep that idea floating around so that gamers won't want to go to Linux and play games. They miss that Android is also Linux, and steam is looking at that market too, and that market *isn't* small, in fact, its bigger than the legacy desktop market. It further advances the notion that if microsoft hasn't so agressively kept Linux out of the desktop market (and between 50 and 75% of every employee at microsoft is involved in propaganda and marketing, and their desperate attempts to stifle competition, including the current bootloader wars (and its anyones guess how the US Department of Justice will let that go), they would lose at least 50% of their 'desktop market' in one year.
Can you prove that Linux will make him money? Yes I'm aware of the Humble Bundle, are you aware that $12 is far less than the retail price of most AAA games even a year after release? Are you aware that there will probably be more money spent on supporting Linux than Windows due to fragmentation and driver issues? Are you aware of the miniscule userbase?
Can you provide any actual proof that making games for Linux will be a net gain in money?
In the universe where EA pulled games from Steam to sell on their own service, Origin, which is now their exclusive PC platform for many titles, such as BF3. Paying attention much?
In case you didn't know, EA is one of two giants in the gaming market, the other being Activision-Blizzard, which use THEIR own platform for many of their most popular titles such as WoW, Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2.
I'm sure they'll love to throw their clients up for free in the MS Store though.
This is why the whole steam on linux must get all the "tripple-A" titles or it's a failure is such a set up. For most of us it's enough to get the humble bundle games and some of all the titles that are available for OSX.
Is Battlefield 4 coming to Linux on Steam? No, but that doesn't make steam on linux worthless.
The only real issue with Linux gaming is the wide range of libraries that the client machine may have installed. That can easily be resolved by one of a few frameworks that are feature complete, one of which most game developers should be more than familiar with: boost.
It would be much better however if we had something like OpenGL (and it's kin) for the framework layer. All of the frameworks I've worked with (QT, .Net, Mono, boost, and a couple others I forget) all have basically the same naming scheme, function arguments, and even most of the same functionality. But their all just different enough that you need a weekend or so to learn a new one despite the largely similar functionality. A standardized framework could resolve this issue while allowing for platform specific optimizations internally.
I cannot walk into PCWorld and buy a Linux OS DVD
Even if you could, it wouldn't make a difference one way or another. Almost no one does anything but take what was preloaded on their system.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
In other news, Silicon graphics Workstations and Sun Microsystems workstation games dont sell very much.
I am also guessing that MS Server platforms also suck for game sales.
Linux is NOT a toy home Operating system. It's a Unix for Servers and Workstations. Yes you CAN use it for many home uses, my wife ran linux on her laptop exclusively for the past 4 years when she was finishing her masters degree. (Ubuntu Unity is what chased her away to Apple and OSX)
I really wish that people realized that Linux and BSD are not toy operating systems designed for consumer use. No Duh the Linux game market doesnt make much money.
Now where's my RAGE port for Solaris?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Games are an area in which this idea really shines. On servers with a ton of crap running at once, it can be very wasteful of memory to have 12 different versions of foolib kicking around in memory, but you can only really play one game at a time.
Sit down, John. Let us take it from here. And please try to make your next engine a little more relevant.
Oh, and thanks for all the code.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Android is Linux with a different face. iOS is BSD with a different face. What is non-functional in Linux is the traditional dektop (Gnome, KDE, Xfce). This is why Ubuntu is experimenting with something different, like Unity.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
Meh, this is catchy but dishonest. Number 1 does not strictly eliminate the possiblilty of people willing to pay. I am very happy to give money for software that is open. I equate closed binary only software to macdonalds, and open software to mincemeat I buy and add my own ingredients and spices to to make burgers that shit all over macdonalds :)
I also read slashdot because I have this image in my head that it is enlightened.... but I am starting to wonder...
Id was previously one of the companies trying to get that ball rolling with no success. As a business, at some point you just have to cut your losses and move on.
Never liked ID games, they all have the same boring gameplay. Wine(improve and add windows and non-windows api's) runs fine on multiple distros so why not make it a portable gaming platform to run native linux games and not just windows apps and games. Gaming on wine is not bad but for linux gaming i mostly use emulators and now xp for netflix.
He makes the assumption that gamers running Linux wanted his company's games. Not our problem.
To be honest, nothing Carmack and id Software produced in the last decade or so was marketable either.
The far more relevant point was that he shipped a game for Linux when there was no economic incentive to do so, id's take on things at the time not mine. He shipped his game on Linux merely because he thought it would be cool to do so. He certainly did his part to jumpstart Linux gaming.
He also championed OpenGL for many years because of its portability and its technical merits and Direct3D's inferiority. Again, doing his part to assist Linux game development.
What has changed in the more recent decade? Direct3D has gotten good and passed OpenGL with respect to technical merits. Linux remains a server OS, has found an new niche in embedded systems, however on the consumer desktop the "year of the Linux desktop" has been a running joke line for over a decade.
There is no reason to believe that Carmack would deny Linux viability if it existed.
So you failed 10 years ago? Big deal. It's been a long time since then. Things change.
Yeah. Direct3D has gotten better than OpenGL. Popular Windows games run very well under Wine, sometimes faster than under Windows. What change there has been seems counterproductive in terms of native Linux gaming. The Windows versions seems to serve Linux gamers quite well.
They used to say the same thing about MacOS gaming too.
When MacOS ran on a different CPU and emulation was impractical because the CPU instruction set had to be emulated not just an operating system API. So the situation was quite different.
How cute; you thought Valve was talking about selling games under a free license!
I remember a time when people used to say DOS is the gaming platform of choice. Windows? Good enough for shitty-looking Reversi and Solitaire, but not much else.
Yes, they said that when Windows was just an optional thing sitting on top of DOS.
Then Windows became the gaming platform of choice. Sounds familiar?
Yes, immediately after it went 32-bit and became its own operating system, in 1995. One year later in 1996 we had best selling games like Diablo coming out, Windows only, and setting record sales.
What I mean is, if Linux is to becomes a good gaming platform, someone has to get the ball rolling.
Problem is they started trying to get that ball rolling back in the 1990s.
The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics, not a technical reason like with DOS/Windows.
Its economics not politics. Linux gamers dual boot or run under Wine. If they are already buying the Windows version there is no motivation for a developer to create a Linux version. Basically the Wine developers make a Windows to Linux port unnecessary, at least for the higher profile games.
Either I can't math, or your numbers add up to 100.1%....
mathematica sucks
sage >>>>>>>>> matlab > an abacus > mathematica
There is a big difference between releasing games for an existing Linux installations and the rumors about Valve creating a Linux-based console. If they create an entirely new Steam-powered Linux-based console, they short-circuit the Year-of-Linux concept. There is an established history of people buying new consoles. For the most part, they honestly don't care what the underlying OS technology is. If Valve released a new easy to use console that could play a few major league titles and attract enough developers for future games, they could easily succeed no matter what the underlying tech is. If it happens to be Linux, that's fantastic if it leads to contributions back into the mainline FOSS ecosystem.
(speaking as a major fan of John Carmack whose commitment to releasing source code literally changed my life as a youngin'.)
Use static libraries and stick in /opt, just like people with a clue have been doing since the mid 1990s if they want it to work on every variation.
There's other less extreme methods using shared libraries that just depend on packaging the stuff properly.
I don't want Dell or HP or any of those clueless, evil assholes anywhere near Linux. They'd have to charge for support so Linux would effectively not be free anymore. Their support is HORRIBLE and they'd have 10x the call-ins because people are used to Windows so they'd effectively turn the entire world against Linux solely by their clueless support staff. They'd load all that free trial garbage-ware on the system too and all their crappy, barely working utilities. Leave it up to small shops like the one I own to distribute Linux, which is not "commercial" really. Then we're working with free and the big guys are working with a $50/copy Windows license. That evens up the odds A LOT considering right now people like me pay $100 each Windows license. Hey look, it's exactly the opposite $50 unfair advantage.
Ding! Give the man a seeegar!
It's not hard. And this notion of "there's no Linux in the sense of a Windows" is a line of bullshit that's been warmed over, stomped on, and then warmed over again.
What it does it lower the barrier to entry for your typical teenage gamer geek, who will be your well-earning-geek in a few years time. If they can just fire up a torrent, stick it on a thumb drive and boot straight into Linux where they install Steam and download their already-paid-for games, it gives Linux a big boost in credibility. Not only that, the teenage geek typically acts as tech support for the rest of the family, so suddenly every family that has a teenage gamer geek will have a much higher chance of switching to Linux.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Good catch!
Got my numbers from here: http://www.netmarketshare.com/
Probably some kind of round-up error...
DirectX helped, but it was the gaming platform of choice for years before that. I think the main problem with desktop gaming on Linux is the vast majority of people who use Linux don't use it on a desktop. Maybe if someone like Gabe takes the first plunge and makes a viable mass market platform that could change, but even then it will take years. Microsoft has a lot of inertia built up and that isn't going to change drastically no matter what in the next year or two under even the absolute best conditions. Five years maybe, but only if some heavy hitters do everything to make it happen (abandon Windows completely, come out with some A-list titles at loss leader prices, and are willing to lose money hand over fist for a few years without complaining) and I doubt that will happen. They will either give up too soon, or still make the games for Windows which will prevent people from even trying to make the move, etc.
Politics? The problem is that most gamers can't easily run Linux games. Most people don't want to switch completely from Windows just to play one or two new games, which will probably be available for Windows anyway. Installing Linux along side Windows is still not trivial I'm afraid.
Gamers, like most users, don't care about the OS. They just want to play, and until some major title decides to go Linux only and force them to switch they will stick with what their PC game installed with and what all their other games run on. It's a damn shame but there it is.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
DirectX helped, but it was the gaming platform of choice for years before that.
No, it wasn't. The number of games for Windows before the release of DirectX was next to nothing. Almost all PC games at the time were developed for DOS, not Windows.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Absolutely. For me, AfterShot Pro (ex Bibble 5), Vuescan (yeah, I paid for a freaking scanner driver, and I love it. Incidentally, Vuescan + Linux is the *only* way to get my old Nikon LS2000 film scanner working. No recent windows version will make it work, even XP was complicated to get support for the U320 SCSI card). And a truckload (around 200 I guess) of games bought on Steam, Gog, Gamersgate, Amazon and various bundles, that I play mainly on Crossover (that I paid too, with regular updates since 2008 I think).
As a matter of fact, I'm somewhat unsatisfied with Thunderbird as a mail client and I'd pay good money to get a real good commercial PIM suite that runs on Linux. If anyone has ideas...
No paying customers on Linux ? Really ?
Oops, I'd forgotten that I've bought a couple of Humble Bundles as well as the Linux versions of FotoPlayer and Noise Ninja (in addition to Mathematica and Bibble Pro). Probably one or two others as well as some platform-independent stuff (Java-based)...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
This guy has open-sourced all of his game engines (baring id Tech 5, but only because it's still in use commercially at id), even going so far as to rewrite critical portions of an engine (id Tech 4, specifically the implementation of stencil buffered shadow volume algorithms) so that it could be open sourced in the first place (work he would get no money from and didn't have any obligation to do... and yet did it anyway), and what happens? The Linux community, the primary beneficiary for all this open-sourced goodness which has been used in countless free games, bash Carmack because he has the balls to say that iD Software have not had any commercial success with the Linux platform.
Now whether you agree with his criteria for measuring this success or not, the number of hateful comments I'm reading people make towards this guy is truly disgusting. If I were in his position, why the FUCK would I want to even look at the Linux community anymore after giving them so much?
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Actually, anything compared to Android/iOS will appear to be dropping -- because the growth of both platforms is explosive.
That is also the problem of Windows.
I, for one, thank Carmack for all we Linux users got (I'm specially fond of the DOOM/Quake games, Wolfenstein not so much as I despise the direct depicting of humans being killed). I also praise him for his hacker attitude about development. And I think he might be right about his Linux forays -- until now.
The problem is divining the future.
Does he really trust Windows will be here next year? Before you dismiss my idea as delusional, think where the Windows platform is going... IMHO, the enterprise. That's the primary niche on which Windows will linger. Home users will perhaps try Macs or Linux, use a cloud platform like ChromeOS or -- what I see as more probable -- directly run Android or iOS from a docked super smartphone (docked or maybe just coupled).
I advise Carmack not to be dumbfounded by the "Innovator's dilemma" (he's one of the last guys to which I'd think of saying that) and imagine what will the future platform for entertainment -- because his games depend on that. Maybe Android and iOS doesn't work because of control/contract clauses... maybe he has to seek independent channels (along the lines of FDroid, I believe). Anyway, it's time to do like Valve and be more proactive about it.
My 2 (cents).
Yes, I'm sure Gentoo users would rant about not being able to play whatever games would be available for Linux. Point is, some distros are aimed for desktop use and some are not. Aim for the top-5 Desktop distros an you have covered enough of an userbase.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
well I have ten year old Loki games, and only some of the binaries run. ELF/glibc changes, sound & graphic libraries requiring old versions, because the current ones didn't maintain compatibility. I don't have the option of re-compiling closed source games. The Freetards are going to say "don't use evil closed source!" ... OK, but people seem to like closed source games, and this Valve thing is about bringing more of them onto the platform. I think this will be great if part of making games available is to give closed source games a sort of build environment, where they could easily re-compile games with new OS levels, and if we bought it once on Steam, then we can get the updated binaries forever... ie. maintained binaries, that get refreshed when a new stable distro release happens, rather than binary compatibility.
Same thing would likely be beneficial for people on android.
zenzen% file /usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser /usr/lib/chromium-browser/chromium-browser: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.24, BuildID[sha1]=0xd411a190a5169a1e304b61bdf356cb8a62dc4e89, stripped
Unless there is a super important reason, using the distro supplied version (not pulling things directly from a developer) is the best way to go.
20-something grad student in the scientific or mathematical fields here. We use linux on the server and remote X on occasion but a lot of the software is windows-only. Pretty much everybody has a windows laptop or macbook (running windows with remote desktop, bootcamp, etc). Nobody has time to moderate to heavy gamer.
My guess is that you are an experimentalist. In which case maybe a lot of the software that deals with hardware control is windows-centric. My experience in theoretical programs is that most of the software is very cutting (sometimes bleeding) edge and all written in and for a *nix-based OS. This includes not just number-crunching software to be run on supercomputers but also data analysis and visualization software to be run on a desktop/laptop. I can't say much for the gamer part, though, but it's unusual to become a scientist or engineer that deals directly with software without needing to pick up at least some degree of Linux proficiency. I certainly wouldn't consider hiring a post-doc that had managed to earn a Ph.D. without learning a little Linux along the way.
I don't see Linux becoming a popular game platform quickly. There will always be many game companies that refuse to port their games to Linux.
But maybe just maybe if Valve creates a Linux console many games will be ported to it. If that happens I could see all theses games companies adding Linux Desktop support. It would change everything.
If I write a two sentence post nobody ever reads the second sentence before replying :(
That doesn't preclude compiling for x86
Unless the application developer deliberately doesn't want to support Android on x86, or wants to charge x86 users more, because the x86 market is accustomed to paying higher prices for games.
MS has very little control over the XBox Live Indie Games.
Microsoft doesn't offer Indie Games at all in a lot of countries. Furthermore, Indie Games doesn't really work with programming languages other than C#, making it hard for indies to port their games from other platforms (without a line-by-line rewrite of the whole thing) and strongly encouraging developers of games that run on Xbox 360 to create them from the ground up as exclusive to Xbox 360 and Windows.
Um, I think you mean openGL not directX.
The Windows environment is not set up for easy tools writing; the command line environment there sucks.
In my experience, the MSYS CLI for Windows is close enough to the CLI of GNU/Linux for it not to matter much. (MSYS is a lightweight counterpart to Cygwin designed to complement the MinGW port of GCC.) Plus I can run all the applications and drivers that work with Windows.
This way to thinking is shared by a lot of people that write their own software, leading to the Unix environment at least attracting those of us that think that way.
Is there more money in selling home PCs to the edge case of "people that write their own software" or to the majority who do not?
if I need any little tool, I can just open up the package manager and install it assuming its there
And on Windows, I can just open up the maintainer's web site, download an EXE or MSI installer, and install it.
and so far I haven't been disappointed
I have. I saw binaries of cc65 (6502 assembler and linker) for Windows, but the package wasn't in Ubuntu universe, so I compiled it from source. True, the C compiler is non-free, but the assembler and linker are free (zlib license) and quite usable without the C compiler. So I filed a needs-packaging bug in Launchpad for the assembler and linker.
Normal people will never use Linux no matter what anyone does. Nobody wants to compile their own drivers and go back to using command line interfaces and have to decide whether they are a Gnome or KDE man. I'm a programmer and even I don't want to do that. Gotta love slashdot comments, you guys are in your own world here.
OS X is Unix based.
What? CLI is fucking easy!!
Google John Carmack OpenGL DirectX for more interesting comments on that. Originally, DirectX *was* fairly crappy, I'd hesitate to be suggesting that the first versions of it made games on Windows acceptable. Merely installing it was a nightmare.
If Carmack got his head out of the clouds he'd realize that Android is essentially Linux and is a viable gaming market. iOS is THE biggest gaming market and it's just a micro Darwin (basically BSD) frankenOS. The only reason Linux isn't viewed as a viable game market is because dudes like Carmack say so and people are dumb enough to believe them.
"The reason why gaming on Linux isn't taking of is because of politics"
I'd say the problem is more about economics than politics.
I bought my first copy of linux? It came with a dead tree that told me how to add users and who root was.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
I think my wife's mother bought her Nokia because of Snake. I was to poor and had a Mitsubishi phone :(
How I longed for a Nokia
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Your statement is the reason why Linux is yet to be successful to mainstream customers. As long as distro producers hold on to that sort of statements, they will never penetrate Windows market share.
Lose the elitism and assuming "you know better" and open your mind to what Joe Sixpack wants: you'll be successful then.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I played it hours a day for about three years. Thanks for the kick ass game Carmack.
IMHO even games from a few years ago are looking quite good.
One game I'm particularly looking forward to is X:Rebirth, and it will use "only" DirectX 9. Which is almost 10 years old according to Wikipedia. Doesn't matter. The (announced) improvements in gameplay over previous games in the X series are more important.
C - the footgun of programming languages
but I agree with him on that sentiment. I'm actually more interesting on the R&D and less on the actual game that valve will create for Linux than anything else.
First of all, the Linux userbase is really small to begin with. Within that small userbase, you have two relatively large groups:
1. The ideologues, who really believe in RMS's idea that proprietary software is unethical.
2. The cheapskates, who aren't going to pay for software.
Who's left to sell to?
Well. Apparently I don't exist! Good to know.
Who said that? Hello? Anyone there?
Linux is vastly higher than 1%. Mostly because you have to work damn hard to get a sale of Linux that appears on the headlines of the marketing channels that tell you those numbers.
A few years ago the number of Linux installs (i.e. the number of hits from Linux OS to general sites) passed Mac OS X. They're probably still close, but something like both at 5-7%.
And they don't run in Windows XP or 7.
I guess by your lights, this means Windows isn't ready for games yet.
Pulishers are NOT interested in any marketplace that can sell things. Deep Silver KNOWS that they'll lose 30% of their numbers by going to Steam Only on X:Rebirth.
Yet they are completely uninterested in the market for people with EXACTLY THE SAME HARDWARE AND OS but without Steam. It doesn't even need porting!
Worse the fluffers for steam(tm) insist that this 30% is completely irrelevant and unworthy of consideration because it's so small and anyway, they HAVE TO use Steam and if they don't then they're wrong.
This sounds like a huge extrapolation, Carmack is speaking about his bitter past experiences. Just because he didn't make enough ca$h from Linux userland doesn't mean Linux gaming has no future.
How so? The UI formerly-known-as-Metro isn't required, with the 'standard' Windows interface very much intact.
Based on the preview testing and playing around I've done, Win8 certainly doesn't seem any worse/less intuitive than Win7 and before.
LegendMUD
His name sounds like a fat guy's name
I don't see where Linux automatically makes for better gaming performance. There are a number of issues, particularly Direct3D vs OpenGL. There is no Linux without making the sell to developers that they should be using OpenGL instead of Direct3D, and the traditional arguments made in the FOSS community don't work here because OpenGL is not a one-shot launchpad for every platform out there which runs a version of OpenGL. It's a proprietary system itself with proprietary extensions favoring NVIDIA. That will be helpful, yet, many developers actually like using DirectX rather than some combo of OpenGL plus other stuff. I would think that game engines like Unity which can target DirectX or OpenGL on Windows then target OpenGL on Mac OS X, would solve all the issues, but there are still issues. Game developers making AAA titles want a singular target for each platform for which they can expect specific versions of software. They don't want a game for Linux being done in by an OpenAL installation.
> When Windows 95 came out, things changed as it was no longer possible to boot up to DOS and launch Windows later, as it was common with prior versions of Windows
Have to disagree with you on that. While you may have needed to fux about with CD-Rom drivers it was a trivial matter to modify config.sys/autoexec.bat and get a plain old command prompt on Windows 95. There were also modifiers to F5/F8 to affect how many device drivers got loaded at startup.
Only thing I remember really being an issue was the CD-Rom, at least in the early days. You needed to load a 16-bit driver via Config.sys in order for it to be available via DOS, but if Windows detected that 16-bit driver it would use that instead of a 32-bit driver once you started Windows. Later on you got full .exes that could be entirely run from autoexec.bat (or some other batch utility) which eased the pain somewhat.
Indeed, ID was one of the big producers that made native linux executables available for their games. Hence, i did not say 'version', but 'executables'. Because afaik you had to buy the windows version, then download the linux installer and run it on your purchased windows media.
Ofcourse their linux version never made any money, they were freely available on their ftp site, retail only had windows and how could they ever calculate how much of that sale was coming from linux users?
There only ever was Quake 3, from Loki, and i bought it. However it was a limited run, so how many windows versions were still sold for use on linux? nobody knows, even carmack doesn't.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
If the FPS is better, the Windows-gamers will come...
Especially if the OS is free.
Marginal improvements in frame rate visible only on very high end systems is no big deal.
But comparing DX 9 level graphics with mainstream DX 11 gamer-graphics card performance just might be considered a tad misleading.
No one but the geek gives a damn about "free."
By the time product reaches retail shelves the OEM price of the OS is irrelevant.
Haaaa!!! I can tell you are not a gamer if you think buying an OEM PC is acceptable. You also claim that marginal improvements in frame rate don't matter. Perhaps you are just trolling, and I fell for it. All the gamers I know build their systems from parts. You get the video cards you want rather than what the OEM has options for. You pick and choose each part to individually pack in as much power as your budget allows. In the end you save money over buying something like an Alienware system where you get jacked in the wallet. Saving that extra money on the OS is that much more to spend on games. Of course, Windows never came into my budget even what I was playing games on it as a pirated copy is just as free, without the annoying call home activation hassles.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Actually it was perfectly possible to boot to DOS in win95/98 - it ran DOS 7 if I remember correctly. It's just that it wasn't obvious that it could be done, the splash screen hid all the dos booting stuff and DirectX actually was an improvement over dealing directly with the hardware, especially for higher resolution graphics, the whole VESA system was a bit hit-or-miss as resolutions climbed to 800x600 and beyond.
It was Windows NT that did away with the DOS underpinnings, and that product line wasn't really relevant to the gaming market until XP
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not anyone I ever met except those who were unfortunate enough to be stuck with 16-color PCs that went "beep". The true gaming platforms of the 80s and early 90s were:
Atari 800
Commodore 64
Commodore Amiga -or- Atari ST
- These machines blew-away anything the PCs of the day could do.
So in your world, after the reign of Atari and Commodore ended in the very early 1990s and PC hardware shot past and left those machines in the dust, what happened?
(hint: it may have involved the GP being right about DOS being the gaming platform of choice at one time)
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are the one with the ego problem. If you think your arguments are untouchable even if the facts contained within are incorrect, then...
What you were disagreeing with was the intent of my post. That's not something that's up for debate and it takes a huge ego to think you can debate it. Further, my point wasn't "Linux has been around for 15 years now, it's time for it to become a gaming platform" as you seem to insist or imply, but you're not going to admit that you may have misinterpreted, so I'm not going to bother expecting that outcome. Pity, reading through your comment history, you and I seem to be on the same page with regard to pretty much everything but this (this being whether or not my intentions when posting a comment are up for debate).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It is indeed a harsh reality you speak of. I know many more people who do play games on linux because WINE solves the problem of a linux port faster than the company making the game will. WINE keeps getting better, and with each new release, and each new user-generated page explaining how to get games working, gaming companies have less incentive to port to it.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
1 word...OpenMoko. FOSS "advocates" talk a good game but when it comes to opening their wallets? Not so good.
Another three worts: N900 Community SSU.
And other words:
GP32, GP2X. handheld consoles with nice support for opensource and homebrew projects.
In the global handheld consoles, it wasn't more that a tiny "blip" next to behemoths like Nintendo's consoles.
But the home brew communities went completely bat-shit crazy over them. On their own scale, said console managed to be quite successful in their niche market. Yup, a small niche market but the hardware was nonetheless a wonder success there.
To the point that the same community went on and tried to produce the Pandora following the same ideas. This project in turn *was* plagged with supply/production problems, but the company behind didn't tank, is trying to release a successor with newer and better available chips, and there is some community activity around them.
Then there's also the Dingoo, also encountering a significant success in the homebrew and opensource scene.
These aren't consoles which were retro-fitted with opensource-/homebrew- friendly dev tools against the wish of the parent company by reverse engineering. (Like running Linux or homebrew on Nintendo hardware), these are console where the opensource/homebrew communities were always part of the plan (like the N900) or even in charge.
Again:
for every Always Innovating's TouchBook project (very nice and at the time innovative idea of modularity, etc. which didn't ship much actual hardware but did inspire stuff like the Transformer), there's the success of OPLC project which *has* produced hardware, and has sold enough of them in the developed world too.
and then there are thing like the BeagleBoard in which the homebrew/maker/hacker/tinkerer community are deeply in love.
The raspberry pi, now that the supply problems have been solved, might become the next opensource-friendly success story.
So yeah, if one picks examples, there are example of failure or lack of success in the opensource world, but there are also nice success. In niche markets, but still.
Establishing a new MOBILE PHONE MANUFACTURING COMPANY can be only done with Apple-size financial backing. Not even your beloved Microsoft dared to do so (what is, of course, the reason why Sendo is destroyed and Nokia is turning into an empty shell of former self).
Indeed.
The problems are : ...)
- Building a hardware company from the ground up is hard. It requires a lot of money and experience. not easy for the avarage community members as you say yourself.
- Designing a brand new hardware is hard too. It requires a lot of specific know-how, but at least one can incrementally build on past experience (GoldenDelicious' GTAv4 didn't go through that many problems as OpenMoko's GTAv2 / NeoFreeRunner) but the first release are going to run into a lot of real world problems requiring several iteration before final.
- Getting supplies at a good price is hard specially when you work with thousands of units and not millions like the big players.
- Even more if you decide completely Free-Software hardcore, that restricts some choices (chips with specs under NDA, or blob-only drivers,
- Being a small community project make it much more sensitive to the whims of the market: the slightest problem with supply, jump of price, incident at a manufacturer's plant, etc. may cause massive delays or put the whole project in jeopardy.
- Being an outsider means its hard to get the hardware subsidized. (The iPhone DOES NOT cost a few hundreds $$$ it costs more, but the carriers are paying the different)
Now going back to the Valve example :
- they have an ample warchest and can absorb a lot of cost.
- they already have a big crowd of fans and followers, they won't need to gain that much market acceptance.
- th
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
...because morons like him continually poo-poo the linux gaming community. Pundits that think they know the slightest thing about gaming or linux, refuse to buy into the ecosystem (or they're just leery and don't want to take a stand and be wrong)...so rather than be supportive, they feel the need to speak ill of things. (It'd be just as easy for them to say something like "With Windows 8 failure looming, and MacOS's inability to capitalize, now would be an opportune time for linux to caputre the lion's share of the gaming market" which is entirely more accurate.
I would throw away Windows RIGHT NOW, and never use it again...if they could just get Linux gaming working and working properly. I would even pay for it.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Companies should just do kickstarter drives for linux ports of their games!
Got a source for that? My sources say that Linux has at least a 5% market share. It may, in fact, have more market share than Mac OS.
Got my numbers from here: http://www.netmarketshare.com/
What's your source?
Seems like it's a different ballgame this time around because GNU/Linux/OpenGL have the added value of being FASTER than the "other" os:
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
Wouldn't, "Run your game on GNU/Linux and it will run nearly %20 faster!" seem to be an effective sell to gamers everywhere to you?
Plus, Valve is popular enough that it has the ear (and hands) of the GPU makers to truly make things better for GNU/Linux gaming.
I think they're on to something there... Get your revolution on!
FREE YOURSELF, Use GNU+LINUX+FOSS! gnu.org | fsf.org | linux.com | getgnulinux.org | ubuntuguide.org | whylinuxisbetter.
Microsoft, along with a few others. They are collected in this article: http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/debunking-the-1-myth.html
Thanks for the info.
First let me say I have nothing against Linux, and I wish I was smart enough to run it (I've tried...)
Its market share may be 1% or 10% for all I know.
This particular article however, seems to vacillate between cherry picking stats, and jumping to huge conclusions. I've looked at different OS stat sites and they all come up with somewhat different numbers, so we may never know what the 'real' number is.
I like the idea of the browser-based stat because it shows who's actually using Linux, instead of just how many units were sold, how many were pre-installed, etc.
Let us always remember these wise words of Mark Twain,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and OS market share statistics."
Id also offered a small amount of games years after anyone cared abut them. I'd hasn't been relevant since doom 3, and Linux desktop has evolved a ton in 8 years.
It was a bitch to get doom and quake running, but it also wasn't worth it given they were on every other platform
Had they provided new IP or something more interesting, it may have been different.
In general, I would agree with this comment UNTIL Doom released. The first time I saw Doom, I was completely blown away. It was a game changer. Totally amazing at the time. I would say that Doom was the first game that proved the PC was an awesome gaming platform.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
That's not true, a company like Nvidia has many options available to do just the equivalent of that (nobody has CD drives these days anymore).
What Nvidia needs to do is set up a server with precompiled drivers for all the current major Linux distros. For Debian based distros, when you buy the card, there should be a printed slip of paper with a URL for Nvidia's APT source repo. For RPM distros, there should be a URL for yum or whatever the packager of choice is. It's very easy to do, and if done right, the correct driver will be automatically downloaded and installed. And when you upgrade your kernel, your package manager will simply download and install the driver compiled for the new version, and so on.
It's not rocket science, Nvidia: make a list of all the major distros, for each major distro make a list of all the distributed kernels. Say there's 100 variations all in all. Now download the source for each of the variations, compile your drivers for each, and copy the .debs and .rpms onto the packaging server. That's it. Now most Linux users will get the correct drivers automagically, you can stay closed source, and everybody is happy.
What you forget is that there is a lot of testing involved to make sure these still work - distro x gets an update to kernel y, you'd have to recompile and then see if nothing nasty got added.
With 1 driver per distro, this is pactical, maybe 1 driver per kernel version. What isn't practical is testing all 100.
Still, it would make life easier if the kernel boys did adopt a "we promise we won't break existing drivers" attitude, surely that's not so hard between major kernel versions?
If Nvidia wanted to do this, they'd have to set it up as a properly engineered automated regression suite though. It wouldn't work as quick and dirty system.