Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

why hasn't Linux gaming taken off?

This topic is 5691 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Not really sure if this is more appropriate in the GDnet lounge or here, but here goes. Here are my theories: 1) Linux is harder to program on than windows, and/or there are fewer Linux developers 2) Gaming libraries/API''s aren''t as robust or complete as DirectX (OpenGL is graphics only, OpenAL is audio only, SDL still has some compatibility issues, etc.) 3) DirectX is more versatile than OpenGL 4) Linux users don''t want to pay for software 5) No one uses Linux on the desktop, therefore there is no market Too bad the Linux console idea never got off the ground...it would have been interesting. But I think the really pertinent points are #4 and #5. Something like 90% of the desktop marketplace is M$. M$ is for the masses because Joe-six pack doesn''t want to have to figure out how to run Linux....and perhaps more importantly, he wants tech support to be there when his machine runs afoul. I work in tech support and I know how this goes. I think that the very large part of the consumer populace is still incredibly ignorant about computers...Windows included. You would be amazed at how many calls I get from people that don''t know how to turn off their computer much less even know how to copy and paste things into folders. The ignorance of quite a large group of people is pretty staggering. What amazes me is that if people don''t even know how to use Windows, and you essentially have to hold their hands to get them to work with it, why not go ahead and train them in Linux? I''ve been pushing our business to do this with no effect...and I''ll tell you why. There is no one to go to to point a finger at or escalate business failures to. And this is a huge issue for the company and I would imagine for Joe Six pack too. When Joe six pack runs into trouble, who does he call? Most distributions only have limited support, and what vendors sell Linux installed PC''s? Basically there is no one anywhere to hold anyone''s hand...and that really scares people away. The other major issue is that Linux gamers probably wouldn''t pay for software. I think in some ways they are spoiled by free software to the point that they expect things to be free. While you can make amateur games for free pretty easily, if you want professional caliber games with models and cut scenes created on Maya, and professional quality music and effects, then it''s not going to happen on Linux. I don''t really know how to counter any of my above points. Perhaps in time 1-3 will be abolished, but something needs to change for 4 and 5. Hopefully with IBM throwing it''s support for Linux on the mainframe, maybe it will eventually start supporting Linux on the desktop too. Hey, if IBM could make M$ what it is today by bundling MS-DOS with their PC''s, why not for Linux? Without IBM, M$ would be nothing (and probably Intel too for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dauntless
1) Linux is harder to program on than windows, and/or there are fewer Linux developers


Its not harder, its just that people and companies actually want to paid for the software they make, not told by a bunch of freesource hippies (parden the term, I don''t mean to offend) that they shouldn''t charge for software.

quote:

2) Gaming libraries/API''s aren''t as robust or complete as DirectX (OpenGL is graphics only, OpenAL is audio only, SDL still has some compatibility issues, etc.)


Not really, but it is true that innovation tends to come to the billion dollar companies with huge r&d budgets and trickle down to the ''freesource hippies'' later on.

quote:

3) DirectX is more versatile than OpenGL


Again, not really, but how many venders are making drivers for Linux first or at all? I can remember when it was going to be months before even a win2000 driver became available for some new hardware (when 2000 first came out and didn''t have a large market share).

quote:

4) Linux users don''t want to pay for software


You hit it on the head.

quote:

5) No one uses Linux on the desktop, therefore there is no market


They do, but only small number of experienced techies who can actually understand what partitioning their harddrive is, which doesn''t represent the real consumer market of people who can''t set the clock on their vcr.


Linux will always have a following due to it being an open-source, stable operating system, it might even get a good share of the server market. However big business (which ultimately drives forward new products and services), is not very interested in a product that can only be used by someone with three pocket protectors (unless they''re desperate to rack up another marketing bungle like IBM)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) There may be fewer Linux game developers (that's less debatable than "fewer Linux developers" in general), but I don't see how it is harder to program.

2) Any issues with compatibility would be caused by variation of the environment. This isn't such a big deal, really, as the commercial games that have been published for Linux have done fine on most systems where X is setup correctly.

3) This doesn't really need a reply. Even if there was such an issue, no one here would sanely debate it due to their own 'API prejudices.'

4) To take a completely different perspective on this: I think a greater percentage of us want to pay for software than Windows users. If you look at the Windows market, the users treat software piracy as a natural occurance. However, in the 'free software' and 'open source' world the users have learned to respect licensing. Many people turn to these solutions out of their own honesty. After all, they could have just warezed Windows if they just wanted an OS and had no morals.

5) This one is the only one that I find more that marginally valid. People don't consider changing operating systems for a couple reasons:
a) They don't know there's anything better than what they had. People that fall into this group are the ones thinking that their 'computer' (as in OS) crashing is a normal part of the computing
experience.
b) They don't understand that Linux has made incredable advances in the realm of user friendliness. Many of the conceptions about it's user hostility are false given the correct distribution. Support is normally most of what you're paying for when you buy a box. Installation is now easy (you've seen those reviews about how Mandrake, or whatever, takes less thinking than Windows to install). One possible issue is that installing new software could be difficult. However, the computer half-literate barely understand how to install normal software anyway. Give them a couple sentences of instructions and this issue is only as bad as it is in the Windows world.
c) Somewhat like reason A: Linux doesn't come with their computer. Another ignorance derived issue: "I bought a Windows computer, how could it even use something else?" For these people, sticking with Windows probably is a good idea. The straight forware solution is to get Linux coming installed as the default OS on computers (it'd save the consumer money too ). Part of the Microsoft antitrust case is that Microsoft may have been making edgy demands about what its OEM customers are allowed to do when setting up a system's default OS.



[edited by - Null and Void on May 4, 2002 4:07:07 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.. you are right in some points but not in all. Here are my ideas:

1) Linux is absolutely not harder to program than Windows. You also have to make a difference between the different areas. In Windows there is only one: the Desktop. But with Linux you can do everthing you want from network servers to games to scientific applications. And because of the tons of excellent libraries out there for Linux, programming is often easier! There are many class wrappers or libraries that simplify certain aspects of programming.

2) Linux Gaming libraries are very robust. First OpenGL is THE standard graphics library for professional applications so it simply must be stable and robust. Secondly OGL is much easier to program and the code isn''t as ''spaghetti'' as with DirectX. SDL is a portable library that is easy to program and has everything that a programmer needs to code his games. Together with OGL and SDL you can program absolutely powerful games that are perfectly portable and can be used for many platforms (Win, Linux, MacOS ..)

3) You can''t compare DX and OGL. You could say that DX is a set of APIs, one for sound things (DirectSound), one for Input (DirectInput) etc. OGL is graphics only and for sound etc. you have to use other libs.

4) That might be true.. But I think you shouldn''t develop games only for Linux. That''s too risky. But if you program with say OpenGL and SDL, you will have portable code that runs on both Windows and Linux. ID Software does a similar thing with their software. For example Quake III and RTCW are avalaible for both Win and Linux. A Linux user will certainly buy a great game if it is available for his platform.

5) There are users out there that use Linux on the desktop ( as me ), but there are only few.. However I think this will change in the future and if you program protable code, you will have some buyers of the Linux edition as they are happy to see that there is a great game out for Linux. Of course there will be more buyers for the Win edition, but why don''t prepare for the future ?


Yes there are really many people that don''t know much about computer. That''s why Win is so popular.It would be really good if some PC vendors would also build Linux boxes and I hope that will be done in the future.

The most important market is the desktop. The servers are often run with Linux or Unix-derivates. Hopefully there will be some big game developers that finally try to program games for Linux too. That would be a great thing. I am happy that ID software does so. Perhaps they will help other companies to do the same.

Bye,
-Stone.

www.steinsoft.net
cout << "Happy Coding!" << endl;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could everyone refrain from commenting on the first three proposed reasons? They are mere perception-based speculation and can not be substantiated in any form. Discussing them will be akin to a mini-flame war, so please concentrate on questions 4 and 5.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allow me to phrase this question in a slightly different way: Why should Linux gaming take off? What does Linux offer as a gaming platform that Windows doesn''t? What advantages do I gain by switching to it? (And before I get flamed, please note that I am putting these forward as rhetorical questions.)

IMHO, people in general, and gamers in particular, won''t switch to Linux unless they have some concrete reason to. Saying "Switch to Linux because Micro$oft is evil" accomplishes nothing. Saying "Switch to Linux because Winblows is an unstable piece of crap" accomplishes nothing. But saying something like "If you switch to Linux, you might notice that your games run faster" is music to a gamer''s ears.

I believe that if this issue were addressed, more people would start to give Linux a try. This ties in directly with your item #5. More people gaming in Linux = more people using Linux on the desktop = more marketshare = more games being developed for Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i recall reading a comment from j.carmack on q3a for
linux.. he said that they really didnt make any
money off of it, but they expected that.
he also said that loki owes them so much money it
wasnt even funny. odd that they would continue
to even release games for linux

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]


::evolve::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, well I respect your opinion Dauntless but I do have a few reasons for disagreement:

1) Linux is a heck of a lot simpler to program for than Windows. It has free, easy access and no-nonsense programming documentation and libraries. UNIX came first, and by far there are more experienced developers using Linux (however there are probably more commercialized developers (who most are probably unqualified) for Windows.

2) DirectX is no where near as stable as Mesa3D, X11, SDL, YLib, etc. These libraries are far more stable (at least from our tests of them) than DirectX. You should also take a look at Ylib, http://wolfpack.twu.net/YIFF/ since it''s far more mature than DirectX, OpenAL, and ESD combined.

3) DirectX is proprietery to Windows, therefore it lacks the portability of OpenGL. OpenGL is for graphics, DirectX is a much larger system-wide wrapper compareable like SDL.

4) This is more of a socio-economic issue, our world is at a bronze stage of industrial revolution (in general). And that means we need to use money to get people to cooperate rather than people taking the pride in accompishments regardless of who got the credit. (I did not want to mention Loki games because they did afterall, go out of business).

5) I use Linux on a desktop, and most of the computers in our lab are Linux and are used as a desktop. We have two Windows computers but they are in the minority.

With regards to games on the Linux console... I really don''t think that is a good target to write a game for.

Overall, Linux is *different* and yes it requires more experience and maturity from users. It''s probably ahead of its time compared with the education and social-economic status of the general population. But there are games on Linux compareable to Windows games:

http://wolfpack.twu.net/SearchAndRescue/
http://wolfpack.twu.net/ShipWars/XShipWars/
http://xsw.terminator.net/

These are just our games, there are hundreds of other Linux games out there.

Also, yes there are also Linux users who can''t figure out how to use their keyboard yet they can manage to recompile their kernel. Just because someone sticks two disks in when an installation dialog says "insert disk 2" dosen''t mean they are stupid, they just might have a problem in one particular area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points, Martee.

quote:
Original post by eldee
odd that they would continue
to even release games for linux

They only release binaries, in part as a goodwill/philanthropic gesture and in part because that expands their market for the exact same product to a different sector (Linux users need to buy the Windows version to play under Linux). Smart business.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Martee
Allow me to phrase this question in a slightly different way: Why should Linux gaming take off? What does Linux offer as a gaming platform that Windows doesn''t? What advantages do I gain by switching to it? (And before I get flamed, please note that I am putting these forward as rhetorical questions.)



i think the reason why the majority of game developers havent
accepted linux game development is because there really isnt
much of an audience to speak of.. sure there are people
here and there who are willing to buy your game, but not
enough to turn a profit (as john carmack stated with q3a)


-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]


::evolve::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I shouldn''t have commented on points 1-3, as I honestly have little no experience with the above platforms . My Linux programming experience is creating windows in GTK and Xlib, and that''s it I did do a GLUT window through MESA, but my knowledge of OpenGL calls is also nil. As for DirectX, I''ve made some spinning cubes but that''s it. So my knowledge is woefully lacking from a programming perspective...either in system calls, API''s, or other middleware.

However, I enumerated those points because they seem to be commonly held beliefs. As I learn more about Linux, I realize that in some aspects it is easier, and others it is harder. It''s nice that everything is open so I can examine what''s going on. But it does seem more obscure in others. All I know is that I love the freedom, and I''ve decided to concentrate on learning Linux rather than M$ first.

So I''ll defer others judgements on the first 3 points. As for #4 and #5, I honestly don''t know how to change the situation. Loki seems to have been run poorly, but I still think the sales overall were poor. It doesn''t help that these were "clones" (ports would be more accurate I guess) of Windows games, and that may have hurt their prospects greatly.

Perhaps I should add a 6th theory:

#6 WIne and Winex are stifling native linux game development.

Which is the more valid business approach to Linux gaming: Supporting emulators like Wine and winex, or creating native games on Linux? I think games are the killer app for Windows, and is what really drives people to continuely upgrade their machines. If all people wanted was an office suite, internet access, and multimedia apps, then Linux is a serious contender to Windows (though the Multimedia apps are still very rough around the edges....I can''t wait for Xine to get more polished...or Ogle). I know of 3 people at work who would love to try Linux, but the lack of games just sours their interest. Why invest in a steep learning curve for something that doesn''t offer them what they want most in an OS?

But if creators rely on emulators to intercept win32 and directX calls, then why create original concepts on a Linux platform when you can just make it on windows, and play it through WineX? Since games are in many ways a killer app for Windows, I think Linux needs to move in this direction as well. If it wants to succeed on the desktop, it must offer what people expect: apps, simplicity, and support. And unfortunately it fails on all three counts. I think if developers create games for the Linux market that are cool enough, perhaps other designers will sit up and take notice, and maybe consumers will too. If the gaming public can see the potential games that can be made on Linux, they may slowly be weaned off of Windows. I actually think it will be a detriment to Linux gaming if native games in Linux are ported to Windows. If it comes out on windows, the average person will think, "I''ll just wait till the windows version comes out". I''m seriously thinking of getting an Xbox just to play HALO....if it''s released for the PC, I won''t buy an Xbox, it''s the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Martee
Allow me to phrase this question in a slightly different way: Why should Linux gaming take off? What does Linux offer as a gaming platform that Windows doesn''t? What advantages do I gain by switching to it?

That phrasing makes a good contrast. To the developer and the desktop user there are notable advantages, but to the pure gamer I don''t see any large and specific reasons to use Linux. There are performance advantages for some people, but not for everyone...
quote:
Original post by Martee
This ties in directly with your item #5. More people gaming in Linux = more people using Linux on the desktop = more marketshare = more games being developed for Linux.

Good point. You take the position that gaming will lead to more desktop usage, while I had simply assumed that the gaming would be a side effect of desktop usage. Though, in reality it will probably be a constant trickle that expands both areas...
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
They only release binaries, in part as a goodwill/philanthropic gesture and in part because that expands their market for the exact same product to a different sector (Linux users need to buy the Windows version to play under Linux). Smart business.

Yes, I agree that it''s a good idea as well as a great PR gesture. What I''ve been telling people is that it isn''t much harder to keep your code portable, so what is there to lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Martee
IMHO, people in general, and gamers in particular, won''t switch to Linux unless they have some concrete reason to. Saying "Switch to Linux because Micro$oft is evil" accomplishes nothing. Saying "Switch to Linux because Winblows is an unstable piece of crap" accomplishes nothing. But saying something like "If you switch to Linux, you might notice that your games run faster" is music to a gamer''s ears.



I''ve personaly heard from someone who was running Linux on his machine and was playing HL via Wine and apprently he was getting better fps than when he was playing in windows

Just to add my views to this, part of the reason for the lack of Linux games was (until recently) lack of driver support from the gfx card makers, which led to a lack of Hardware accelrated OGL support, however recently its been getting better and maybe this will help as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know, the only main card manufacture(VisionTek, PNY, ATI, etc.) that supports linux is PNY. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

edit: Which is why the next card I'm going to get (I have a 16MB ATI Xpert 128) is probably going to be a PNY. I'm tired of running 'impure' linux (as in linux that doesn't support the the peripherals etc.).

edit: I'm sure that once shareware games are starting to get played a lot on linux (or some commercial games), and the developers start seeing a market for it, maybe a couple of the main card manufacturers will start supporting linux.

[edited by - tuxx on May 5, 2002 11:58:42 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Maybe we should have a freindly linux game development contest where we all will develop a linux game. With that we can help the community and help linux in general and allow some of the nice opensource linux developers to have some fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wont comment on 1-3 since they have been tackled already, but

4) Linux users arent adverse to paying or just cheap in general, but tend to buy less software since they get better or comperable quality from free software. Why get Visual SouceSafe when you get CVS for free? Same for VC++ when there are tons of IDEs that will do the job and for much less $$$.

5) Bingo. The main reason for this is because MSFT had contracts with all the OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) saying that if they put any other OS on there computers, they will lose their right to sell Windows. This would be suicide for any OEM, so none of them sold other OSes. When BeOS hit the scene, Be offered it for free for a year to any OEM, but none of them would take it. Other OSes arent know to the average user mainly because they cant make that critical mass where they are able to be profitable. There is the small matter of an antitrust trial going on now that may change this. The proposed settlement states that MSFT must treat all OEMs equally and cannot retaliate if an OEM sells PCs with other OSes or other programs, althought there are loopholes in the settlement.

About IBM: They tried to replace Office with Lotus on their PCs, and MSFT withheld Win98 from them until after the Back to School season, costing IBM big money. Eventually IBM caved and took Lotus off of their own PCs. IBM isnt immune to MSFTs methods.
Also, IBM isnt interested in making their own OS or even a Linux distro. They have shown time and again that they cant make money selling cheap things (OS2, Lotus), so they wont. They might sell
PCs with other Linux distros like Lindows when/if it comes out, but they will definitetly not make there own distro. (This is info I got from IBMs Linux Advocate)

quote:

Allow me to phrase this question in a slightly different way: Why should Linux gaming take off? What does Linux offer as a gaming platform that Windows doesn''t? What advantages do I gain by switching to it? (And before I get flamed, please note that I am putting these forward as rhetorical questions.)

IMHO, people in general, and gamers in particular, won''t switch to Linux unless they have some concrete reason to. Saying "Switch to Linux because Micro$oft is evil" accomplishes nothing. Saying "Switch to Linux because Winblows is an unstable piece of crap" accomplishes nothing. But saying something like "If you switch to Linux, you might notice that your games run faster" is music to a gamer''s ears.



You forgot "Switch to Linux because Windows is more expensive" will probably work. This will be more of an issue with businesses who dont want to outfit all their computers every time MSFT comes out with an OS. Once people start becoming more familiar with Linux at work, the more that will start using it at home. This will also build up a user base and make the Linux gaming market more attractive to game developers.


University is a fountain of knowledge, and students go there to drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Big B
You forgot "Switch to Linux because Windows is more expensive" will probably work. This will be more of an issue with businesses who dont want to outfit all their computers every time MSFT comes out with an OS.

Excellent point. Using Linux for industry lowers TCO (no licensing - especially the evil multiseat variety, no necessitated distribution costs or cheap media - and reusable on several machines, and lower support and services costs) and generally requires less maintenance and monitoring. Because the sources are completely available, customization to specific purposes is a (relative) snap (part of why it''s big in the embedded sector right now), and bugfixes can be made immediate (given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow).

Quite honestly, though, Linux is far from becoming a mainstream desktop operating system. I''ve outlined my belief that Linux will play an integral role in the next generation of "invisible computers" as all sorts of appliances embed computers in them, from refridgerators to microwave ovens.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn''t linux have like a 0.1% market share on the desktop or something ridiculously low like that? Can''t remember where I heard that now but with a share like that it''s not worth the hassle to develop for them for most I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Writing games for multiple platforms is normal within the commercial games industry. If Tomb Raider can be released on Windows, PS2 and XBox, adding a Linux target is hardly going to tax the programmers.

Libraries and APIs are all much of a muchness: there's little to choose between them. Hardware support is also less of an issue than it appears: the PC may have thousands of peripherals, but the majority are built around identical chipsets. (This is why nVidia's Detonator drivers work on just about every card with one of their chips on it.)

Points 1-3 are therefore irrelevant.

The problem is sales & marketing. 99.999% of the games-buying masses couldn't give a gnat's chuff about Linux *or* Windows, neither of which are anywhere near as big a market as consoles.

It doesn't help that 99% of PC users don't even know what an operating system is. Windows is just a user interface to them -- a fact that the majority of the Linux community just doesn't understand.

Unix is already on the desktop. It's not a distro based on Linux though: it's called "MacOS X" and is based on the equally free BSD Unix kernel.

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley


[edited by - stimarco on May 5, 2002 4:00:12 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by stimarco
Unix is already on the desktop. It''s not a distro based on Linux though: it''s called "MacOS X" and is based on the equally free BSD Unix kernel.

Funny you mentioned that; I was just going to say that what Linux needs is for some (major) commercial entity to spruce it up visually and brand name it much like Apple and MacOS X (BSD). However, Apple has the distinct advantage of controlling the hardware and access to it, something Linux on the x86 will never enjoy. Furthermore, Apple, being the platform manufacturer, can tell it users to move to MacOS X while no Linux distributer will be able to do what Microsoft does - or at least not for a long time to come.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Recent advancements like http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6049 will definitely put more light into Linux. As one can see that Taiwan etc are major hardware manufactures and maybe if they move towards linux we might see more support for hardware in linux. Also with a lot of companies moving towards linux we might see a lot more support for linux. With more support for hardware and from companies we might just be moving into the era of games actually doing very well in Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dauntless

4) Linux users don't want to pay for software



Your point being??? Anything you can do in windows, I can do in linux including GFX, SOUND files, etc. and with free software.


quote:

Something like 90% of the desktop marketplace is M$. M$ is for the masses because Joe-six pack doesn't want to have to figure out how to run Linux....and perhaps more importantly, he wants tech support to be there when his machine runs afoul. I work in tech support and I know how this goes.



Last I check, it was 85% of the Desktop market.

quote:

There is no one to go to to point a finger at or escalate business failures to. And this is a huge issue for the company and I would imagine for Joe Six pack too. When Joe six pack runs into trouble, who does he call? Most distributions only have limited support, and what vendors sell Linux installed PC's? Basically there is no one anywhere to hold anyone's hand...and that really scares people away.



Ever heard of Linux user groups? That's basicly what they do. There are also some companies that offer support for Linux. Do a search on the net, you will find some.

quote:

The other major issue is that Linux gamers probably wouldn't pay for software. I think in some ways they are spoiled by free software to the point that they expect things to be free. While you can make amateur games for free pretty easily, if you want professional caliber games with models and cut scenes created on Maya, and professional quality music and effects, then it's not going to happen on Linux.



I'm a Linux user and net admin and when I want to run a game that's ported to Linux, I do buy it, that's what I did for Quake 3. And so did my friends.

quote:

I don't really know how to counter any of my above points. Perhaps in time 1-3 will be abolished, but something needs to change for 4 and 5. Hopefully with IBM throwing it's support for Linux on the mainframe, maybe it will eventually start supporting Linux on the desktop too. Hey, if IBM could make M$ what it is today by bundling MS-DOS with their PC's, why not for Linux? Without IBM, M$ would be nothing (and probably Intel too for that matter).



Even without IBM, M$ might have been where they are now but with some other company's computers. Who knows, maybe we would all be using Altairs or Crays or Vaxs, etc. There were other computers long before IBM.



"And that's the bottom line cause I said so!"

Cyberdrek
danielc@iquebec.com
Founder
Laval Linux

/(bb|[^b]{2})/ that is the Question -- ThinkGeek.com
Hash Bang Slash bin Slash Bash -- #!/bin/bash

[edited by - cyberdrek on May 5, 2002 10:56:29 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cyberdrek: Watch the tone. If you had read the posts you would have seen that Issues #1-3 are now off-limits (deemed irrelevant). There''s also no need to attack Dauntless - calling him a "Microsoft addict" and such rot. His points are valid, and he''s asking for information and input, not trying to incite something.

Don''t make me close an excellent discussion thread.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Cyberdrek: Watch the tone. If you had read the posts you would have seen that Issues #1-3 are now off-limits (deemed irrelevant). There''s also no need to attack Dauntless - calling him a "Microsoft addict" and such rot. His points are valid, and he''s asking for information and input, not trying to incite something.

Don''t make me close an excellent discussion thread.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!



I read it after. I fixed my post and removed anything offensive. I got carried away. sorry...





"And that''s the bottom line cause I said so!"

Cyberdrek
danielc@iquebec.com
Founder
Laval Linux

/(bb|[^b]{2})/ that is the Question -- ThinkGeek.com
Hash Bang Slash bin Slash Bash -- #!/bin/bash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites