Slashdot Mirror
Battlefield Director: Linux Only Needs One 'Killer' Game To Explode
dryriver writes with an except from Polygon's interview with DICE creative directory Lars Gustavsson, who says it would only take one "killer" game for Linux to break into mainstream gaming (something some would argue it already has): "We strongly want to get into Linux for a reason," Gustavsson said. "It took Halo for the first Xbox to kick off and go crazy — usually, it takes one killer app or game and then people are more than willing [to adopt it] — it is not hard to get your hands on Linux, for example, it only takes one game that motivates you to go there." "I think, even then, customers are getting more and more convenient, so you really need to convince them how can they marry it into their daily lives and make an integral part of their lives," he explained, sharing that the studio has used Linux servers because it was a "superior operating system to do so." Valve's recently announced Steam OS and Steam Machines are healthy for the console market, Gustavsson said when asked for his opinion on Valve's recent announcements."
Overall, he is right. I bought gaming systems for a single game. For instance, I bought the Wii just to play FireEmblem. I was already interested but it is only on FE's release that I bought it. Once I had it, I played other things as well. But a single exclusive game I was interested in convinced me to buy.
I think that the same thing could happen for Linux. But I am no sure it will ever happen. Will there ever be a Linux exclusive game? If you were a game developper, would you commit to realse your fancy need AAA game ONLY on Linux and not on Windows? That seems like a stupid move unless the company receives a ridiculous amount of money cash for the exclusivity.
I don't think that compatibility with Linux will be sufficient to see an "explosion", it is an exclusivity one need. And being linux exclusive look a lot like betting on a three legged horse.
It needs one killer game that you can't get elsewhere. Do you think Halo would have done what it did for the XBox if it was also available for the PS2?
And since I don't see many game companies jumping the Windows ship to start making AAA Linux exclusives, this guy's "insight" is irrelevant.
Eh? Is there a precedent for that statement?
With each new game console that comes out, there needs to be a whole ecosystem to go along with it. Name me any game platform that took off because of one good game?
In a parallel example, what would you say to "Windows Phone would have taken off if it had one really good at in the app store." ?
Put another way, how good would a game have to be for an average user to want to reformat their hard drive?
ignoring your FUD about Google and Valve, there are good reasons why it's important for Linux to be viable as a desktop environment. The main reason is that the other two main contenders seem to be moving towards a more 'controlled' sort of environment where they get a cut of all software sold and can allow or disallow whatever they want. Apple seems to be moving OSX towards the iOS model, with some iCloud features only available to software sold through their OSX app store. Microsoft, now that they are no longer being monitored closely for anti-competitive behaviour has had the way paved by iOS, and is implementing the same model with 'Metro'. You'll start to see the 'classic' interface an installation model lose support in future versions. That 30% cut looks pretty good to them.
Valve can see what's happening and wants to get ahead of the pack. They want to deploy on an open platform.
I want to be able to install any software I want without having to have it 'approved' by someone, and I'd like to have the option having my software and applications be open source so I can be more sure that various governments are not privy to my personal business. Of course, maybe that's just me. If you don't mind only having computing platforms that are basically walled-garden consoles, you need not worry. I'm sure they will also be available.
"They want to deploy on an open platform" should be "They want to deploy their own platform." Whether it will be "open" or not is very much in question.
Minor point: Valve doesn't want to deploy on an open platform, they just vehemently do *not* want to compete with Microsoft's "marketplace", or cede 30% to them. They want to control the store, just like Apple, Google and Microsoft.
I'm typing this from a Ubuntu computer delivered to me just 2 days ago from http://system76.com.
Is it fair to blame Ubuntu for all the issues that come with building a computer from scratch?
But with that said, I agree the current Linux distros aren't ready for the average computer user. It's not Linux that's the problem. It's the fact that distros just don't put in ( or have for that matter ) the resources necessary to "polish" the OS.
We know Linux can do this because we use Android phones, and they work just fine for most users.
And personally I believe until distros put philosophy aside and concentrate on bringing in enough resources to fund continued development, Linux will remain inadequate for the average home computer user.
But it's already started. There's no "classic" interface in Windows RT. Windows RT only supports apps from the Windows Store. If Metro actually was doing well (or hell they may try it anyway) then the desktop version will slowly follow suit.
It's not FUD if it's true, it's simply FACT. Do you dispute that this is what's happening? It's not like Microsoft is trying to hide what they're doing.
Android is not linux. Android is a platform that runs ON TOP OF linux.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The main reason is that the other two main contenders seem to be moving towards a more 'controlled' sort of environment where they get a cut of all software sold and can allow or disallow whatever they want.
How is that any different from Valve's business model?
That 30% cut looks pretty good to them.
You mean that Valve let games in the store just because they're a bunch of nice guys?
Valve can see what's happening and wants to get ahead of the pack.
Call me jaded but, as I see it, this is just Valve's pushing for more control and a bigger slice of the pie -- just like any other company. The fact that they say Linux (but mostly SteamOS, really) might make us feel all warm inside, but it doesn't change that.
Oh, and let's not forget for a moment that STEAM is, in fact, a subscription service. Try to not to accept the next change to their ToS and see how many of those games you'll be to play.
RT.
Linux is all over the place. I know plenty of people who use it daily. I lived on Linux for years. Hell, I even ported the Opera Web Browser to the platform.
What it boils down to is simple, OS wars are dead. There's more than just Microsoft now. I personally prefer Windows 8 because it's faster than anything I've ever used before and it has less obvious bugs than the other platforms. Other people like Mac, others Linux, others Chrome (which is more of a Java platform than a Linux platform).
I think it's about time to consider that 99% of game development has moved into a new era of platform independent game engines. Using Unreal Engine, Unigine Game Engine, Unity3D and others you write the game once and tweak the controls for a dozen different platforms from phones to XBox/PS to Linux. Companies who code their own game engines and want to reinvent the wheel can do so if they want, but honestly, it's not so interesting. These days, if a game system developer really wants their platform to take off, they can make agreements with the platform system company and pay for the port or do it themselves.
Take a look at Microsoft. No one wanted to port to the Metro platform and Microsoft basically made it happen by working with the game engine companies. Now all the game vendors need to do is simply generate a new executable and tweak the controls.
If Valve wants support for SteamOS, the answer is simple, port the game engines. But I have no interest in games locked into a platform. I stopped buying consoles because I don't need a special machine for games anymore. Windows, Mac, Linux, iPhone, etc... are all powerful enough to play the best of them. Game consoles were only interesting when porting to a platform meant an endless amount of problems with hardware incompatibility. We don't do it anymore. These days, the game engines do the work for us. Content developers can produce awesome games without worrying about AMD vs. Pentium or nVidia vs. Intel vs. AMD. Hell, they don't even have to think much about Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux. They can develop games and simply deploy them.
SteamOS seems interesting, but I want one device for everything. I use a Surface Pro at the moment. Surface Pro 2 later this month. It's a laptop, a tablet, a video player, an ebook reader and a game system. Would I like better graphics? Yep... but Pro 2 has better graphics. And the graphics on the Surface Pro 2 are good enough that it's now more about game content than graphics quality. I carry an XBox controller in my backpack so I can play Sonic Racing or Lara Croft on airplanes.
It'll be pretty cool though if Valve makes it so I can buy a game and play it on SteamBox or my Surface without buying a second copy.