Of those, only Matrix is actually a publisher - the other two are just developers. Also, most of the games you've listed in this thread were released in 2001 or earlier - with some of them having had expansion packs released since, admittedly. Hardly the signs of an industry doing very well - more the signs of an industry just hanging on by the skin of its teeth.
But you know, we obviously see "very, very, well" in different terms. Battlefront does well enough to keep six guys working, and keeps on putting out products. That's good enough for them, and evidently good enough to you.
I'm happy to leave it at that.
And, luckily for us, there's quite a large number of small publishers that focus on strategy-games, and there re few bigger publishers who also focus on strategy.
Which small publishers? I'm genuinely curious, btw, not just being sarky - and are you sure you mean publishers and not developers? Are they succesfully getting games on shelves in stores, or are online sales holding them together? Small publishers are going out of business almost as much as small developers these days, but if there are guys out there thriving, I'm interested.
I think this is definately partially true. But, you've also got to note that Half-Life 2 is very difficult to pirate, and even so it's failed to come close to the sales of any big console titles. World of Warcraft IS impossible to pirate, and it's also not come close.
My apologies, but when I talk about strategy-games, I talk about games like Steel Panthers, Combat Mission and the like. Warcraft (or any other "real-time strategy") doesn't really apply to that category IMO. And neither does some game meant for a handheld-console.
I allowed Warcraft 3 simply to give the absolute broadest definition possible, while still showing you were off the mark. And could you explain why a turn-based, strategic wargame doesn't count, beyond the fact that it's on a console? I think you'll find that it's very much along the lines of hard-core strategy.
I just don't see that happening. They like to make strategy-games. That's where they are good at. What makes you think they would want to make other types of games? I just don't see Gary Grisby making Pokemon XVII for Gameboy DS.
It's irrelevant how much they "like" it, if publishers won't fund it. Although Combat Mission is an exception, being self-funded, these exceptions are becoming rarer and rarer by the day.
Seriously: strategy-gaming on the PC is doing very, very well indeed.
Please provide some numbers to back up these claims of "very well indeed".
Ultimately, this isn't really relevant to my point - you like playing strategy games. Yay for you! You can't imagine playing them on anything but a PC - well, good for you! If you think niche gaming is what the original article is discussing when it refers to the "Linux gaming market will really take off" then you've got a very good point. Those niche sales will really make linux a more appealing platform.
I, on the other hand, have said that linux is NOT going to develop a much stronger gaming market out of the blue, and mainly because even the PC market is dying at the moment.
I define dying, by the way, as making much less sales, and much less money, than it was 5 years ago. Total sales of PC games have dropped every year for the last five years. That's a fact. It's a fact that's relevant to the article, even. Whether or not you like strategy games (or think they're doing "very, very, well" even though companies are going out of business and total sales[2] are down) or like playing them on consoles is pretty irrelevant.
[2] Yes, sales are down in the specific field of strategy games and simulations. Try asking anyone who works for a strategy game company if they think the industry is doing "very, very, well" and I think you'd be in for a surprise.
Well, strategy-games and simulators SELL alot better on PC than they do on consoles. Hell, they propably outsell their console-brothers 200:1! So I fail to see your point.
I know you fail to see my point. My point was related to the article, which speaks of what is needed to get games onto linux. I was trying to make clear this is a losing battle, because developers will follow the money, and the sales are all happening on consoles.
Regarding sales of 200:1, you're completely wrong. Advance Wars for the Gameboy sold more copies than any PC strategy game (excluding Warcraft 3) released in the last couple of years.
And yes, a developer (even one of strategy games) will move to console development if that means they can make greater sales - even if that means not making strategy games anymore. And that's the problem.
Or do you think that since soccer-games on consoles sell better than soccer-games on PC, developers of strategy-games will port their games to consoles?
Actually, I simply think publisher won't fund hard-core strategy games and simulations AT ALL, since their sales are so poor compared to sinking that money into another FPS.
Seriously: I don't understand this "oh, if you play games, you should get a console"-mentality.
Me either. But then, I never said that, so I don't plan to defend it.
However, if you make games for a living, then you're much better off developing for consoles than PC's - and that is what's killing PC gaming.
Absolutely. But if the biggest release of the most anticipated title for PC can't sell more copies than a middle of the line console game, then it makes it a really hard sell to expect anyone to develop games for the PC, don't you think?
You're in the minority. I'm not talking about who has some sort of mythical "advantage" - I'm talking about SALES, which is the only important thing in convincing developers to actually develop games for a platform.
Consoles sell more games, by an order of magnitude. PC games sales have been dropping HARD over the last few years - so merely creating a "better platform" on linux will not get you sales.
And yes, there are strategy games for consoles. And despite your supposed "advantage : PC" for FPS's, Halo 2 sold many, many, more copies than Doom 3. Advantage : Console.
The console has always been poised to "take over the home" but hasn't yet.
I didn't say "take over the home" I said that consoles lead the market in games sales. Which they do. Absolutely and in a MAJOR way, these days.
Consoles have won the gaming battle. Sales figures *clearly* back this up.
To contrast your HL2 and Halo2 numbers, go look up how many copies WoW, EQ, and EQ2 have sold. Also, instead of looking at the blockbusters, look at some of the lesser games. Crappy console games sell about the same as crappy PC games.
You're simply wrong. I'm in the industry, and I have sales figures sitting right in front of me. Consoles are selling an order of magnitude more games per month than PC's overall - and that's the only important thing in developing games, and deciding budgets.
Sure, you get the occasional Sims, but that's a freak occurence, not the rule.
The entire premise here is misguided. It's not like Windows gaming is going strong - it's a dying market, and with good reason. People are turning to the consoles for their gaming, and console games sell many, many more copies.
Half Life 2 sold 1.7[1] million copies at retail, whereas Halo 2 has topped 7.5 - companies will go where the money is, and the money is not in developing for Windows.
If you think there's anything that can be done to make a linux game sell 7.5 million copies, you've got rocks in your head - and *that* is why developers won't be developing for linux based machines - it has nothing to do with the development environment, tools, etc.
To put it in context, the PS2 is universally considered a bit of a bitch to develop for - nasty pipeline and memory constraints. Compared to it, linux is a breeeeze. But for some reason, there's a million games avaliable for the PS2.
[1] Yes, plus Steam sales, which may account for another 500 K, max. That's why I said retai.
Prior to that, Freedom Force did the same thing. All game logic is handled through Python scripts, and Homeworld 2 used LUA in the same fashion. Trust me, I should know.
Slashdot Mirror
Of those, only Matrix is actually a publisher - the other two are just developers. Also, most of the games you've listed in this thread were released in 2001 or earlier - with some of them having had expansion packs released since, admittedly. Hardly the signs of an industry doing very well - more the signs of an industry just hanging on by the skin of its teeth. But you know, we obviously see "very, very, well" in different terms. Battlefront does well enough to keep six guys working, and keeps on putting out products. That's good enough for them, and evidently good enough to you. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Which small publishers? I'm genuinely curious, btw, not just being sarky - and are you sure you mean publishers and not developers? Are they succesfully getting games on shelves in stores, or are online sales holding them together? Small publishers are going out of business almost as much as small developers these days, but if there are guys out there thriving, I'm interested.
So, partially true - but not the whole story.
I allowed Warcraft 3 simply to give the absolute broadest definition possible, while still showing you were off the mark. And could you explain why a turn-based, strategic wargame doesn't count, beyond the fact that it's on a console? I think you'll find that it's very much along the lines of hard-core strategy.
I just don't see that happening. They like to make strategy-games. That's where they are good at. What makes you think they would want to make other types of games? I just don't see Gary Grisby making Pokemon XVII for Gameboy DS.
It's irrelevant how much they "like" it, if publishers won't fund it. Although Combat Mission is an exception, being self-funded, these exceptions are becoming rarer and rarer by the day.
Seriously: strategy-gaming on the PC is doing very, very well indeed.
Please provide some numbers to back up these claims of "very well indeed".
Ultimately, this isn't really relevant to my point - you like playing strategy games. Yay for you! You can't imagine playing them on anything but a PC - well, good for you! If you think niche gaming is what the original article is discussing when it refers to the "Linux gaming market will really take off" then you've got a very good point. Those niche sales will really make linux a more appealing platform.
I, on the other hand, have said that linux is NOT going to develop a much stronger gaming market out of the blue, and mainly because even the PC market is dying at the moment.
I define dying, by the way, as making much less sales, and much less money, than it was 5 years ago. Total sales of PC games have dropped every year for the last five years. That's a fact. It's a fact that's relevant to the article, even. Whether or not you like strategy games (or think they're doing "very, very, well" even though companies are going out of business and total sales[2] are down) or like playing them on consoles is pretty irrelevant.
[2] Yes, sales are down in the specific field of strategy games and simulations. Try asking anyone who works for a strategy game company if they think the industry is doing "very, very, well" and I think you'd be in for a surprise.
I know you fail to see my point. My point was related to the article, which speaks of what is needed to get games onto linux. I was trying to make clear this is a losing battle, because developers will follow the money, and the sales are all happening on consoles.
Regarding sales of 200:1, you're completely wrong. Advance Wars for the Gameboy sold more copies than any PC strategy game (excluding Warcraft 3) released in the last couple of years.
And yes, a developer (even one of strategy games) will move to console development if that means they can make greater sales - even if that means not making strategy games anymore. And that's the problem.
Or do you think that since soccer-games on consoles sell better than soccer-games on PC, developers of strategy-games will port their games to consoles?
Actually, I simply think publisher won't fund hard-core strategy games and simulations AT ALL, since their sales are so poor compared to sinking that money into another FPS.
Seriously: I don't understand this "oh, if you play games, you should get a console"-mentality.
Me either. But then, I never said that, so I don't plan to defend it.
However, if you make games for a living, then you're much better off developing for consoles than PC's - and that is what's killing PC gaming.
Absolutely. But if the biggest release of the most anticipated title for PC can't sell more copies than a middle of the line console game, then it makes it a really hard sell to expect anyone to develop games for the PC, don't you think?
Consoles sell more games, by an order of magnitude. PC games sales have been dropping HARD over the last few years - so merely creating a "better platform" on linux will not get you sales.
And yes, there are strategy games for consoles. And despite your supposed "advantage : PC" for FPS's, Halo 2 sold many, many, more copies than Doom 3. Advantage : Console.
The console has always been poised to "take over the home" but hasn't yet. I didn't say "take over the home" I said that consoles lead the market in games sales. Which they do. Absolutely and in a MAJOR way, these days. Consoles have won the gaming battle. Sales figures *clearly* back this up. To contrast your HL2 and Halo2 numbers, go look up how many copies WoW, EQ, and EQ2 have sold. Also, instead of looking at the blockbusters, look at some of the lesser games. Crappy console games sell about the same as crappy PC games. You're simply wrong. I'm in the industry, and I have sales figures sitting right in front of me. Consoles are selling an order of magnitude more games per month than PC's overall - and that's the only important thing in developing games, and deciding budgets. Sure, you get the occasional Sims, but that's a freak occurence, not the rule.
The entire premise here is misguided. It's not like Windows gaming is going strong - it's a dying market, and with good reason. People are turning to the consoles for their gaming, and console games sell many, many more copies. Half Life 2 sold 1.7[1] million copies at retail, whereas Halo 2 has topped 7.5 - companies will go where the money is, and the money is not in developing for Windows. If you think there's anything that can be done to make a linux game sell 7.5 million copies, you've got rocks in your head - and *that* is why developers won't be developing for linux based machines - it has nothing to do with the development environment, tools, etc. To put it in context, the PS2 is universally considered a bit of a bitch to develop for - nasty pipeline and memory constraints. Compared to it, linux is a breeeeze. But for some reason, there's a million games avaliable for the PS2. [1] Yes, plus Steam sales, which may account for another 500 K, max. That's why I said retai.
Prior to that, Freedom Force did the same thing. All game logic is handled through Python scripts, and Homeworld 2 used LUA in the same fashion. Trust me, I should know.