why hasn't Linux gaming taken off?

Started by
46 comments, last by Dauntless 21 years, 11 months ago
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.
The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." - General Omar Bradley
Advertisement
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?

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.

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]
[email=dumass@poppet.com]dumass@poppet.com[/email]
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.
Hello from my world
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.
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!
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.
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]
Sean Timarco Baggaley (Est. 1971.)Warning: May contain bollocks.
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!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement