Can Linux ever get mainstream enough to have commercial games made for it?? [Archive]

jdodson

November 16th, 2004, 05:33 PM

Will that ever become a reality?
most games are directx now, and altho cedega and wine try to emulate windows, will we ever see a lot of major titles become OS-independent?

is there anything the OS community can do at the moment to make Linux a gamers' platform?

is there a role for Ubuntu in this?

yes it will, as gnu/linux ubuntu already can play many game titles. take a look at my list, where as windows blows this list out of the water, many companies are porting games to linux. the thing the OS community can do right now is sign petitions, and stop using windows as a gaming platform.

most games are programmed to handle both directx and opengl, example seen in warcraft 3. you can set a flag on game start to use either opengl or directx. war3 could be ported to gnu/linux, however most companies do not see a reason to port a game to linux as they do not believe the user base is there. it seems that if a company can port a game to macos(being a unix clone) they can port the game to gnu/linux. as gnu/linux gains more popularity, more game makers will jump aboard.

imho wine is a bad solution because it gives game companies no incentive to port the game to linux as we can just 'wine' it. its kind of a catch 22, cant play windows game on gnu/linux, use wine, developer sees you use wine has no reason to port game. hopefully companies will see the light and 'just port it.'

zenwhen

November 16th, 2004, 08:12 PM

I use Cedega and WINE. I hate myself for doing so.

Honestly, I think a boycott of Cedega, and a steady stream of complaint letters and calls are the only way to make ourselves heard.

HiddenWolf

November 16th, 2004, 10:08 PM

I use Cedega and WINE. I hate myself for doing so.

Honestly, I think a boycott of Cedega, and a steady stream of complaint letters and calls are the only way to make ourselves heard.

The problem with cedega/wine/winex is that it usually doesn't support the games I would want to play. :-S

Anyhow, I'm going to try that strategy game that is mentioned in the list.

Dadeeo

November 19th, 2004, 10:38 AM

Will that ever become a reality?

is there anything the OS community can do at the moment to make Linux a gamers' platform?

is there a role for Ubuntu in this?

I doubt it, at least any time in the forseeable future. I'm an avid gamer Wolfenstein Enemy Territory - online of course) and I can not for the life of me figure out how to install ET or TeamSpeak for that matter. In Windows, I just run the executable by double clicking on it where ever it resides. ubuntu/linux just gives me a headache. This is a sample of the last e-mail I received from a follow clan member, (after another failure), who is trying to help me;

"to execute a program from a command line you have to run it like this ./check.su
Plus, you need to have the executable bit set on the file. If it's not you type 'chmod +x check.su'
Plus, you may need to specifiy a shell interpreter. Like this 'sh ./check.su'
If you can't make a command work, just type 'chmod +x check.su' hit enter then type, 'sh ./check.su' then hit enter, that should do it.".

And in a previous e-mail he advises that I "might" have to create a launcher, OH Great!!!

Until the common dunderhead like myself can install software painlessly, linux will never expand into the major gaming community, or into the general population as an OS. Everyone I know of who runs linux is some kind of programmer. And when I say dunderhead, I don't mean complete idiot, I know plenty about DOS and MSWindows, My first computer was a Commodore 64 in the early 80's, and I built my first computer shortly after using the x386 platfrom. Linux's command line is just too cryptic, and help is almost non-existant.

Is there a "Linux for Dummys" book? And with so many versions of linux, you can never know if your getting the correct info for your version.

I would love to put Win2K on the bookshelf, but I can't reach high enough to do it...

Dadeeo

](*,) ](*,)

jwenting

November 19th, 2004, 01:53 PM

yes it will, as gnu/linux ubuntu already can play many game titles. take a look at my list, where as windows blows this list out of the water, many companies are porting games to linux. the thing the OS community can do right now is sign petitions, and stop using windows as a gaming platform.

imho wine is a bad solution because it gives game companies no incentive to port the game to linux as we can just 'wine' it. its kind of a catch 22, cant play windows game on gnu/linux, use wine, developer sees you use wine has no reason to port game. hopefully companies will see the light and 'just port it.'

Petitions won't do anything except show how pathetic the attitude of the average Linux user is.
"You're in league with the master Evil in this world and we will not buy from you unless and until you submit to our demands" isn't exactly something an exec from a multinational corporation is likely to listen to.

Like it or not, unless there's a clear commercial incentive they're not going to release a separate Linux version and even if they do will it work on Ubuntu or just on Redhat or Suse (remember there's a long way to go to achieve true binary compatibility between distributions)?
With potential sales of 100000 Windows versions and a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand at most) Linux versions they're unlikely to even recover the cost of porting the software.
Remember that many Linux users are the hardliners who will not pay for anything.
Borland tried to make inroads with Kylix (an IDE for creating Linux GUI applications) and it took a LOT of heat from the hardliners because they DARED to charge for it (never mind the multimillion dollar investment in creating the product).
They had to go so far as to release a free version (with a license restricting commercial distribution of created products) in order to get a lot of people to even try it (there had been a demo available before).

This is the crowd game developers will have to apeace when creating Linux versions of their software.

Until such days as there's a significant enough installed base of non-religious zealots running Linux I don't think you'll see a large number of game titles available for the platform (and even less highstreet stores selling them).

jwenting

November 19th, 2004, 01:57 PM

Is there a "Linux for Dummys" book? And with so many versions of linux, you can never know if your getting the correct info for your version.

yes there is :)
and I know where you're coming from. It was only after a 3 day Unix course given by a Unix guru of 30 years that I became comfortable (and I'm now lobbying with the company to pay for the followup courses to give me more knowledge about things beyond the basics).

And I AM a programmer with experience on a range of operating systems dating back to the early 1980s.

jdodson

November 19th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Petitions won't do anything except show how pathetic the attitude of the average Linux user is.
"You're in league with the master Evil in this world and we will not buy from you unless and until you submit to our demands" isn't exactly something an exec from a multinational corporation is likely to listen to.

who is taking that attitude? i dont see any petitions saying anything like this. please provide proof of your assertation. however, i still disagree, corporations want to go for the market, most companies see that market shifting twoard linux, how else can you explain the spike in 4 star titles being ported to gnu/linux?

With potential sales of 100000 Windows versions and a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand at most) Linux versions they're unlikely to even recover the cost of porting the software.
Remember that many Linux users are the hardliners who will not pay for anything.

most new games that have linux playablility ship the linux binaries on the windows CDs. most games nowdays are multiplayer, all a company has to do is make a way for the client to send info on the computer to the server. if people didnt use the gnu/linux ports of games, companies like ID, atari, bioware, etc would stop making them available.

Borland tried to make inroads with Kylix (an IDE for creating Linux GUI applications) and it took a LOT of heat from the hardliners because they DARED to charge for it (never mind the multimillion dollar investment in creating the product).
They had to go so far as to release a free version (with a license restricting commercial distribution of created products) in order to get a lot of people to even try it (there had been a demo available before).

you are comparing apples to oranges here, i am talking about games. gnu/linux has NO shortage of compilers and borland was wasting its time. there are however is a shortage of certain kinds of gnu/linux game genres, like strategy. how many free programming languages come with gnu/linux again? i guess i just must be a wierdo for not purchasing a programming language, but it seems to be you do not have to. if you want to program a quick GUI GLADE or QT designer for C++ seems good. python and perl have many RAD tools, java has netbeans and PHP/HTML have tons of GUI builders too. i guess i just live in the future, where programming languages dont need to be bought to be useful.

Until such days as there's a significant enough installed base of non-religious zealots running Linux I don't think you'll see a large number of game titles available for the platform (and even less highstreet stores selling them).

yet again, there already are a signifigant number of games. however religious zelots are why gnu/linux is free as in freedom. i am not sure why people slam this every chance they get. stores sell gnu/linux games already, unreal 2004, 2004 and GOTY edition ALL ship with gnu/linux binaries on the install CDS. Neverwinter Nights and Doom3, both can be patched to play on gnu/linux. why does the gnu/linux install base have to lack religiousity to bring more games? i fail to see the logic here, there is religiousity on ANY OS! please believe MAC users seem like fiends moreso than gnu/linux folk at times. yet mac is privy to games, so perhaps it is more about market share than zelotry. MAC has what a 5% market share as a liberal guess, and blizzard ports everything to mac, along with tons of other companies. it seems to me gnu/linux doesnt have much further to go until it gets mainline recognition, and that has everything to do with religious zealots spreading the movement.

i could be wrong but it seems you have a problem with the gnu/linux software advocacy religion. understand that this OS was incepted in such advocacy and "crazy" ideals. linus torvalds wont TOUCH anything but gnu/linux, reason, "its a religious thing." richard stallman, ummm i think he would rather be thrown in jail than not be free. etc, etc, etc.

TravisNewman

November 19th, 2004, 05:54 PM

Actually a few months ago I read that market share for gnu/linux has surpassed market share for Mac OS. It was only by about .2% but that's still a lot of users when you're comparing like 4.8 and 5%.

Anyway, I'd like to see all games run natively in Linux, especially the Maxis games. Though I don't LIKE the Sims games, a lot of people are addicted to them and might not use Linux unless they can play their Sims. Sad but true.

jdodson

November 19th, 2004, 05:59 PM

it will happen and gnu/linux will continue to grow, and in a few years(like 3 or so) this discussion will be more like, remember the days when.....

TravisNewman

November 19th, 2004, 06:06 PM

hoping you're right, but I think you are. Maybe not 3 years, but soon enough.

jwenting

November 20th, 2004, 01:14 PM

I'm against all religious zealots, whichever side they take.
I don't care if people prefer one platform over another, but religious zeal has never caused the world anything but grief.

And the attitude of the Linux zealots that everything should be free (in every sense of the word, so also monetary) is causing massive problems in the adoption of the platform whether you like it or not.

If there's no money in it companies won't make it, it's that simple.
And if everything is open source there's no more money in creating software so software creation will die. For a while services companies may survive but soon those will find it hard to find capable people to work for them as programmers leave the field in order to pay the rent.
It won't happen overnight, but that will be the eventual outcome.
Being a professional software developer myself that's not a nice outlook for the future, I can only hope that it either doesn't come to pass (iow OS doesn't take over) or that I can retire before it happens.

BWF89

November 20th, 2004, 05:25 PM

How do you figure that the majority of Linux users are free software zelots? I plan to use Linux after I shovel enough driveways to afford a computer and I believe that not all software should be free. I would gladly pay to get a game for Linux...

TravisNewman

November 20th, 2004, 05:52 PM

Open Source doesn't mean you don't get paid, and no, most Linux users aren't religious zealots, and the ones who are really only care about free-as-in-free-speech software, not free-as-in-free-beer software. Lots of companies make money off of open source.

zenwhen

November 20th, 2004, 05:57 PM

I'm against all religious zealots, whichever side they take.
I don't care if people prefer one platform over another, but religious zeal has never caused the world anything but grief.

And the attitude of the Linux zealots that everything should be free (in every sense of the word, so also monetary) is causing massive problems in the adoption of the platform whether you like it or not.

If there's no money in it companies won't make it, it's that simple.
And if everything is open source there's no more money in creating software so software creation will die. For a while services companies may survive but soon those will find it hard to find capable people to work for them as programmers leave the field in order to pay the rent.
It won't happen overnight, but that will be the eventual outcome.
Being a professional software developer myself that's not a nice outlook for the future, I can only hope that it either doesn't come to pass (iow OS doesn't take over) or that I can retire before it happens.

http://zenhardwhere.com/images/rolleyesbarf.gif

Linux users are not asking game developers to open source their games or not port them. I bet you can find one or two Linux users who have this attitude, but it is not such a normal stance that it is having an effect on companies porting games.

The only problem is lack of installed consumer desktop base, which Ubuntu is working on getting rid of.

Please take your anti-OSS opinions somewhere else. No one here wants to hear them.

jdodson

November 21st, 2004, 05:14 AM

I'm against all religious zealots, whichever side they take.
I don't care if people prefer one platform over another, but religious zeal has never caused the world anything but grief.

hmmmm, i completley disagree. the reason why you are here, now, on this forum, is because of religous zeal. linus torvalds, richard stallman, alan cox, eric raymond, guido van roisum, all full of zeal. if you use gnu/linux, its very inception was because of a return to the unix community zeal of the past come new today. the country you live in(if it is the usa) is because of religious zeal to be free. if you drive a ford, yet again, henry ford a crazy zeal filled man. there is nothing wrong with having opinions and standing by them, there is however a problem with forcing them on everyone. no one on these forums is forcing anyone to do anything, we simply prefer and suggest freedom. i would recommend the ubuntu philosophy for a good example of the ubuntu community zeal. goodwill twoard all mankind is not forcing ideals down throats.

And the attitude of the Linux zealots that everything should be free (in every sense of the word, so also monetary) is causing massive problems in the adoption of the platform whether you like it or not.

well i dont think you have the pulse on all gnu/linux zealots. i am a gnu/linux zealot and i am not suggesting the entire world "open source." i am offering people that they understand a free alternative that is every bit as good as the non free variety. there is nothing wrong with free community software, it is a reality and that reality will change how computing buisness is done. this is both scary and awesome because change is a hard path for anyone.

If there's no money in it companies won't make it, it's that simple.

if anyone on these forums says something otherwise, please provide a link. i dont think anyone here disagrees with you on that one. i think people understand the number one goal of any corporation is to make money. companies like ibm can make tons of money off gnu/linux, therefore they use it and it is that simple.

And if everything is open source there's no more money in creating software so software creation will die. For a while services companies may survive but soon those will find it hard to find capable people to work for them as programmers leave the field in order to pay the rent.
It won't happen overnight, but that will be the eventual outcome.

if i said the free software revolution will not change the world i would be wrong. people seem to keep forgetting that things change over time. some people call that evolution. i know people that sold horses were mad when henry ford created automobiles, but that was just 'how it was.' things change over time, and the software business is no different. why would we need as many programmers if most things have been programmed? do we need 50,000 word processors? do we need 50,000 RDBMS, 20,000 badly written c# apps? i am a recent graduate of CS and this trend does not scare me in the slightest. companies will still need to in house some things, and that will not change. programming is changing and that is just the way of life. i will not pine away for the good old days, i will become relevant in the new way of things. perhaps that means the death of the modern programmer, perhaps not. personally i dont think it will be the death of any programming profession, the profession will just change.

Being a professional software developer myself that's not a nice outlook for the future, I can only hope that it either doesn't come to pass (iow OS doesn't take over) or that I can retire before it happens.

gnu/linux will only keep gaining in popularity. there is no reason for its slow down and more and more companies are coming on board.

i would suggest that you stop lumping all gnu/linux zealots into stereotypical categories. you cannot simply say "all people types are like category X." it is simply incorrect as all people differ in ideology.

senectus

November 22nd, 2004, 03:11 AM

*/disclaimer/*
I have been a long time supporter of Transgaming and of linux porters like Icculus...

Guys even Linux native porting hero's like Ryan (www.Icculus.org), believe that Transgaming have a place in the linux gaming world, and Ryan even has a friendship with Gabrial etc.

Cedega (wineX) is good for the industry and will eventually be no longer necessary. But by then they hopefully will have diversified their "emulation" branch (yes yes I know its not emulation), into a Loki type company.

The world is too complex to see things in black and white there are many other angles that are important as well.

oh and for some hints and tips on tweaking your linux gaming machine try here:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/User_talk:Senectus
Much of what is on there has been copied from other peoples pages, I haven't done this for the glory of it but rather so that I always have a copy and if the original sites vanish then I'm still covered.
I've tried to maintain kudos and credits.. please let me know if I've missed any.

jdodson

November 22nd, 2004, 03:28 AM

senectus

November 22nd, 2004, 03:39 AM

you've got to look at it logically as well.. eventually there will be a higher demand for gaming on linux.
Although transgaming do a pretty good job of getting most games they support to work well, its never going to be perfect.
Demand equals $$$, so eventually game makers will start asking for thrid party help in porting to try and claim a part of that market.
That should progress to the game makers not porting the games, but making them native from day 1.

It'll happen.. it's just going to take time is all...

jingo811

January 15th, 2006, 06:18 PM

Hi I don't know squat about programming. Except for *hello world!* in Assembly but I don't think that knowing only that qualifies as being a true programmer.

1.
Does anybody know of any good website portals that explains more in depth what each Programming language is best suited for? A site which compares all the programming languages against eachother bringing out strengths and weaknesses.

2.
If for example I wanted to start a company consisting primarily of programmers. Is it best to have a 100% ratio of every programmer using the same language. Or can you like mix 50% language programmers and still do a good job for a company?
What's the most sanest thing to do in such a recruiting position?
(I'm mainly talking about designing computer programs! so html and php people are in a separate chapter for some other time. See where I'm going at?)

3.
Could somebody explain to me why almost all Computer Game Developers only create games playable only in Windows sometimes Mac?
Is it b'coz that those companies lack someone who can program for Linux?
Or don't they simply care about making games for Linux?

23meg

January 15th, 2006, 06:56 PM

3.

- Because Linux doesn't have a user base as large as Mac and Windows
- Because gaming is an area that doesn't really require technical support so they can't have a service based profit in contrast to how most open source businesses operate
- Because video hardware manufacturers are too slow to ship good Linux drivers

cwaldbieser

January 15th, 2006, 09:12 PM

2.
If for example I wanted to start a company consisting primarily of programmers. Is it best to have a 100% ratio of every programmer using the same language. Or can you like mix 50% language programmers and still do a good job for a company?
What's the most sanest thing to do in such a recruiting position?
(I'm mainly talking about designing computer programs! so html and php people are in a separate chapter for some other time. See where I'm going at?)

It really depends on what your business goals are. If you want to run a consultancy customizing a cobol based system, it makes sense for your employees to all know cobol. If you plan to work with heterogeneous environments a broader skill set may be required.

Also, I am not sure what fraction you mean by "mostly programmers", but a successful business is probably going to need a fair number of employees with other skills, even if they double as programmers.

gord

January 16th, 2006, 10:00 AM

it can be rediclously easy to develop games that work on many, many systems [as aposed to developing for one system] as long as you stay away from microsoft products (not because of any opinions we or i might have but simply because they only work on windows). i think the main reasons for not developing for multiple systems are two fold,

a; when you goto college/university and do computer programing courses you learn visual basic and then direct x and other windows only systems, generally people who know howto develop things for other systems learn because they want to themselfs, unfortunatly the game industry (at least here in the uk) is chock-a-block full of people who learned to program like a robot in university.

2; the more systems you make a product for the more (as in volume and varied) support you are obliged to offer, there non windows market isn't big enough to make companys think that is worth it apprently.

if you ask me, most game companys won't develop for non windows systems until there is a need to, which hopefully systems like ubuntu are starting to make :)

jingo811

January 16th, 2006, 12:50 PM

2.

It really depends on what your business goals are.
I was hypothetically thinking in the line of, having a group of ppl programming a product like lets say Gimp. Which I was told from some other forum is a program designed by C++ language. Seeing that you can install it both in Linux as in Windows without compromising any functions, at least to my knowledge.

I was wondering did the Gimp team (as an example) consist of C++ programmers only or did they have to take in some Linux based language programmers in order to make it happen. Thus dividing the so called company (team) in two camps? Thus my reasoning of 50-50% consistence.

Or doesn't it matter what programming language you use as long as there is a (compiling device?) that's able to translate your product into different OS platforms?
In such a case is the 100% ratio still a better choice, or is there some gain in having like 50-50% or 30-30-30% consistencs in a team for this kind of project?

If you plan to work with heterogeneous environments a broader skill set may be required.
Could you explain this in "for Dummies language" I didn't quite understand your explanation and train of thought here?

3.

it can be rediclously easy to develop games that work on many, many systems [as aposed to developing for one system] as long as you stay away from microsoft products
Does anybody know of an overview list or website that tells what certain programming languages belong to *Microsoft products category* or vice versa?

If I understood Gord correctly then:
Visual Basic
Direct X
Is *Mircrosoft products category* only. Is there some list or website that portrays what more products of this kind is Windows only? Maybe you could list some more from the top of your heads perhaps?

if you ask me, most game companys won't develop for non windows systems until there is a need to, which hopefully systems like ubuntu are starting to make
If you look at big name games such as Counterstrike and Battlefield 2 they offer server files for both Windows and Linux. But only Windows operated games.
With my kind of thinking as long as you have made the trouble to make server files for Linux why not make game install files for Linux also ;)
Besides I would love to have such big and complex games to run on a modular based core such as Linux, instead of Windows intertangled innerworkings which quite often causes my PC to freeze which might I say is amongst the top notches on the market, since I bought it last christmas custom built only for the sake of HL2: Counter Strike.

gord

January 16th, 2006, 01:38 PM

server applications often come out for linux because there is a need for them, if you set up a game server on a windows box, chances are its gonna get comprimised, its much easyer to secure a linux/unix box so anyone seriously considering hosting a game server (this includes the offical game servers) will be wanting to run on a unix box.

as far as i know, no programing languages *belong* to microsoft (allthough with the way things are going...), games are typically coded in C++, microsoft has its own api's for dealing with multimedia (directx) and other things as well, these api's only work on windows machines (well, sometimes wine can emulate them but thats another topic). if game company A makes a game that is developed with those api's , said game will not work on anything which doesn't have those api's available to it.

linux and *unix and bsd and everything under the sun (including windows) has another 'api' called OpenGL, if game company B makes a game which uses opengl and other multiplatform "api"'s, that game will be able to run on many systems.

right now most games are made with the windows only directX and thus would take a lot of work to make them word on non windows sytems, if they were designed with opengl instead, they would require very little.
hope that clears things up a bit

commodore

January 16th, 2006, 03:53 PM

There are games that doesn't use DirectX, D3D at all and that can be run on Linux. Like Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory.

I think the problem of having games made for Windows only is money. Maybe the programmers want to make games for Linux, but the owners of the company's they work for don't. And they can't start their own business because of lack of money. And as said before, you don't need support for games so they can't make free software.

LordHunter317

January 16th, 2006, 04:07 PM

it can be rediclously easy to develop games that work on many, many systems [as aposed to developing for one system] as long as you stay away from microsoft products (not because of any opinions we or i might have but simply because they only work on windows).No, you're letting your opinions blind you.

For graphics and maybe audio, then yes, you'll have a harder time if you use Direct3D and DirectAudio over OpenGL and OpenAL.

But not a substantially harder time.

You still have to write portability layers for input, network, and other things anyway, and no such layers exist besides SDL which isn't optimial for everyone.

All ID games that run on Linux use and require portions of DirectX on windows. They just don't use Direct3D.

The Unreal engine can do both, so it's obviously possible to do both if you want to, and if your coding skills are good enough.

2; the more systems you make a product for the more (as in volume and varied) support you are obliged to offer, there non windows market isn't big enough to make companys think that is worth it apprently.This is the only reason: there is no business case for it for most companies.

LordHunter317

January 16th, 2006, 04:07 PM

There are games that doesn't use DirectX, D3D at all and that can be run on Linux. Like Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory.Wrong, they all use DirectX.

tbrownaw

January 17th, 2006, 05:59 AM

a; when you goto college/university and do computer programing courses you learn visual basic and then direct x and other windows only systems, generally people who know howto develop things for other systems learn because they want to themselfs,
The computer programming courses I've had used Java (intro), C++ (data structures), and C/C++ (systems programming).

And the computer labs here are split (fairly evenly, it seems) between Linux, Solaris, and Windows. So I don't think "windows only systems" are very common in the courses here. (The only one I've used for any course was a Xilinx tool, which has since also become available on Linux.)

Tim

gord

January 17th, 2006, 02:36 PM

just to clear up, i wasn't compairing developing for multiple systems to developing for one system, saying that one was easyer than the other. i was just saying that developing for multiple systems can be nice and easy. words don't come easy to some of us :)

skirkpatrick

January 17th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Firstly, programming languages are pretty much universal. You just need a compiler for that language on that particular processor (note: not OS or hardware platform). You can write C++ code to compile on an embedded 8051 microcontroller if you want. Exceptions to this are things like .Net, which is currently being made universal by people like the Mono group.

It's the OS system interface and API's (Application Programming Interface) that can make it difficult to program for multiple platforms. A group of programmers that know how to squeeze the last drop of performance out of Direct3D may be completely lost when it comes to OpenGL. Of course you can write your game to work on OpenGL only and it will work on multiple systems but few programming houses do that. The biggest reason is the target audience and support. It can really extend the development cycle of of a project to test on a lot of Linux distributions and the after-sales tech support can be a nightmare.

The reason you see Linux game servers is because the server code doesn't have to worry about graphics or sound, it really only has to interface with networking hardware/protocols and perform a lot of calculations. This is pretty easy to implement for two platforms and isn't much more than a recompile. Also, a lot of rentable game servers are Linux due to the cost and performance over MS servers and they want as many game servers out there as possible.

Viro

January 17th, 2006, 03:12 PM

The reason you see Linux game servers is because the server code doesn't have to worry about graphics or sound, it really only has to interface with networking hardware/protocols and perform a lot of calculations. This is pretty easy to implement for two platforms and isn't much more than a recompile.

I think it's actually simpler than that. Since most processing in games occur on the client (that's why you need such killer machines to play the latest games), the server really doesn't need much processing power. It pretty much acts as a large router, making sure everyone playing the game is in sync by communicating the updates to the game world to each client. Very simple stuff, compared to what happens on the client.

Saying that since the game server is implemented on Linux, why not have the client too is just unwise. The game server itself is pretty simple to implement as all the heavy duty processing is on the client.

Wille

January 17th, 2006, 03:44 PM

Wrong, they all use DirectX.
Nope, they use OpenGL for 3d rendering. They only use DirectX for "trivial" stuff like sound.

jingo811

January 17th, 2006, 05:46 PM

skirkpatrick>>>

Firstly, programming languages are pretty much universal. You just need a compiler for that language on that particular processor (note: not OS or hardware platform). You can write C++ code to compile on an embedded 8051 microcontroller if you want.
So lets say you have 3 programmers in a team:
C++ programmer,
C programmer,
Python programmer

They've set their goals as to what the product will do in regards of function for a particular processor. They've split up the task in 3 building blocks which they will bring together later into one thing.
Will that be workable or is the risk of conflicts in the system to great to pull such a stunt?

All>>>
4.
I did a little Googling on the net about DirectX and OpenGL/OpenAL:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OpenGL.html
Is it true that DirectX takes advantage of 3D-accelarator-Cards while OpenGL does not? That OpenGL only takes advantage of a systems CPU?
And that's why so many modern games today are stuck with using DirectX and not some other Graphics Library?
(or maybe I've misinterpreted the Webopedia text.)

5.
Is DirectX coding and libraries more powerful and faster than OpenGL/OpenAL coding and libraries?
Maybe I should say API instead of "coding and libraries", are they the same thing or 2 separate concepts?

LordHunter317

January 17th, 2006, 06:36 PM

Firstly, programming languages are pretty much universal. You just need a compiler for that language on that particular processor (note: not OS or hardware platform).Actually no, for most high-level languages, the compiler and generated code are operating system specific.

Nope, they use OpenGL for 3d rendering. They only use DirectX for "trivial" stuff like sound.Which is what I said, if you had bothered to read the thread.

Is it true that DirectX takes advantage of 3D-accelarator-Cards while OpenGL does not? That OpenGL only takes advantage of a systems CPU?I didn't read that link, but that statement is false. What is true is that DirectX by standard supports more features of a card than OpenGL does. However, OpenGL supports extensions and the various card vendors provide extensions to access their features that go above and beyond the OpenGL standard.

Viro

January 17th, 2006, 06:53 PM

Nope, they use OpenGL for 3d rendering. They only use DirectX for "trivial" stuff like sound.

I would hardly call non-graphics related stuff "trivial" ;).

skirkpatrick

January 17th, 2006, 06:56 PM

Actually no, for most high-level languages, the compiler and generated code are operating system specific.

The generated code is only OS specific because of the libraries that are linked with the application. A simple "Hello world" command-line program in C++ only needs recompiled and relinked to work on any system. The compiler generates machine code specific to that processor, the linker adds in calls to standard libraries, OS specific libraries, and creates an executable in the format that the OS needs. Some non-standard libraries have multi-platform versions (SDL comes to mind) but if you write API calls to the Windows GUI API, then you're kind of stuck with Windows. You could very easily write a game server that runs on Linus/OSX/Windows and all you have to do is compile it for the target system and not have to change any code.

I didn't read that link, but that statement is false. What is true is that DirectX by standard supports more features of a card than OpenGL does. However, OpenGL supports extensions and the various card vendors provide extensions to access their features that go above and beyond the OpenGL standard.
You are correct. That's basically what the NVidia binary driver for Linux gives you is the optimized performance for OpenGL for that card.

skirkpatrick

January 17th, 2006, 07:06 PM

skirkpatrick>>>

So lets say you have 3 programmers in a team:
C++ programmer,
C programmer,
Python programmer

They've set their goals as to what the product will do in regards of function for a particular processor. They've split up the task in 3 building blocks which they will bring together later into one thing.
Will that be workable or is the risk of conflicts in the system to great to pull such a stunt?

A C++ programmer can do anything a C programmer can do. A goodprogrammer can learn to program in any language, it's all a matter of syntax and structure. Shifting your thinking from a non-OO approach to an OO approach (Object Oriented) isn't a great leap either.

Splitting up a project into separate tasks is how it is generally done. However, you wouldn't generally setup project to use multiple languages unless it played to that languages strengths (like using Python for interpreting game scripts). It makes it a little more difficult to integrate all the blocks as they will, at some point, have to be all compiled together into a monolithic executable and/or it's supporting DLL's. Game programming is usually split up into sections like game engine, user interface, graphic engine, sound engine, etc. And that doesn't even include the modelers, texturers, scene designers, sound guys, and what not.

LordHunter317

January 17th, 2006, 07:39 PM

The generated code is only OS specific because of the libraries that are linked with the application.No, not necessarily true.
The generated code may very well be platform specific: w.r.t syscalls and stuff emitted by the compiler. Calling standards as well.

Libraries are the most common concern but hardly the only one when talking about ABI compatibility.

You could very easily write a game server that runs on Linus/OSX/Windows and all you have to do is compile it for the target system and not have to change any code.You'd still be writing platform specific code for all three and not compiling certain bits at build time.

xequence

January 17th, 2006, 11:37 PM

Could somebody explain to me why almost all Computer Game Developers only create games playable only in Windows sometimes Mac?

They dont. Alot of games are for linux... Think UT and Quake ;)

skirkpatrick

January 18th, 2006, 01:16 AM

No, not necessarily true.
The generated code may very well be platform specific: w.r.t syscalls and stuff emitted by the compiler. Calling standards as well.

True the generated executable will be different but the source code could still be the same across platforms.

Libraries are the most common concern but hardly the only one when talking about ABI compatibility.

You'd still be writing platform specific code for all three and not compiling certain bits at build time.
But for a game server, the platform specific code is going to be very small compared to the bulk of the code.

Viro

January 18th, 2006, 08:42 AM

They dont. Alot of games are for linux... Think UT and Quake ;)

Compared to the hundreds of game titles released on the PC, how many are available on Linux? The answer is not many. Not everyone is interested in first person shooters. What about other genres?

presbp

February 1st, 2007, 07:10 AM

Can Linux ever get to the point where popular game developers will make games for Linux? I know the Epic Games is good about this and has made plenty of versions of their games for Linux but will Linux ever be big enough to get where it have popular games readily available like Windows does? The only reason I am still using Windows is because I like to play PC games.

I am lucky that I do not have a profession or anything else that ties me to Windows. I know Wine, Cedega and Crossover are trying to make Windows programs and games work well on Linux but right now the progress is looking not-so-great. Not to say they are working hard it is just so hard to emulate DirectX. With the release of DX10 interoperability with Windows games is even farther away from great.. because now DX9 is still being worked on.

I think the obvious issue (apart from the obvious problem that Linux isn't an option in OEM PCs) is that that the market share is so low. I don't know where Windows, Mac Operating Systems and Linux stand in terms of percentage of market share but Mac OS's and Linux are apparently not high enough to get great third-party support.

I don't know what problems the Mac OS's have but the Linux OS's have the problem that since there are so many distributions there isn't a "standard" distribution to load onto OEM PCs. I have heard that Ubuntu is one of the most popular Linux distros and is a good step into bringing balance to the market so that instead of Windows 95% Mac 3% and Linux 2% it would be more like 33% for each. Is it possible that Linux could ever get centralized enough to have a "standard" distribution that has all of the most commonly used applications pre-packaged, and get enough publicity to get third-party support?
Man I really wish Linux would get to be more known I like it so much better! I just see the whole thing seeing as Linux is free it would be hard for a company to push it onto a PC manufacturer.. and even if they did wouldn't MS pull the plug (as said in another topic) on those manufacturers and make them pay full price thus hurting the companies.. or would that just make the companies turn to full adoption of Linux and therefore making Linux a more common OS?

I know there is a "What is Keeping Linux from going Mainstream" topic but it is so big I don't even feel like messing with it. If you can I would like to have this as a separate topic. :D

delfick

February 1st, 2007, 07:25 AM

i hope one day linux will be able to play games too :D

maybe that will happen one day....(i.e. maybe if this happens http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/79728/index.html)

untill then, i think dualbooting will have to be the way unfortunately (either with winxp or xsos (i can't find anything that explains xsos, but here is a thread http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=128986)

though there are already games that run great on linux, like quake 3, quake 4, doom3, unreal tournament, etc :D

btw :: text is easier to read when the writer uses the enter key :D

aysiu

February 1st, 2007, 07:33 AM

I have heard that Ubuntu is one of the most popular Linux distros and is a good step into bringing balance to the market so that instead of Windows 95% Mac 3% and Linux 2% it would be more like 33% for each. Is it possible that Linux could ever get centralized enough to have a "standard" distribution that has all of the most commonly used applications pre-packaged, and get enough publicity to get third-party support? Well, Mac OS X has applications pre-packaged but still has lame gaming support and a low desktop marketshare (single digits), so I think it all just boils down to Windows have a virtual monopoly and Microsoft doing everything it can to keep it that way. I'm glad you brought up Mac OS X, as you can see from Apple's OS that the gaming support problem has nothing to do with standardization, centralization, user-friendliness, preinstallation, or any of the other red herrings out there.

I know there is a "What is Keeping Linux from going Mainstream" topic but it is so big I don't even feel like messing with it. If you can I would like to have this as a separate topic. I can understand you wanting to keep this separate from In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=88023), but since it has mainly to do with gaming, I'm merging your thread with another gaming/Linux thread and then moving it to the games and leisure forum.

I'm also going to throw in a cheap plug for a little write-up I did on the exaggerated importance of PC gaming. (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/gamingperspective)

presbp

February 1st, 2007, 07:40 AM

yeah sorry about the wall of text

presbp

February 1st, 2007, 07:52 AM

if only there was a way to get Linux advertised as the "Linux is a free and fully capable operating system that you can customize to your specific needs, and by free we mean completely free.. you don't have to sign any legal agreements" maybe an advertisement like that would make people be like huh.. free software that works, no legal agreements.. hmmm. ..

then maybe more people would try it and we could get more support. Personally it seems to me that Microsoft knows their product isn't the best or they wouldn't work so hard to bash Linux. I mean if they knew their product was good and could compete then why would they bash it and make ridiculous claims and try to do outlandish things such as them attempting to sue Linux. By the way.. how in the world can you sue Linux.. Linux doesn't even have an owner! Are you going to sue all the people that use it? What needs to happen is we need somebody or a group of people to pay some money and get some advertisements out there for Linux.. but the first step is to get the Linux community working together on a smaller group of distributions and really trying to get a few distributions awesome instead of having just a few hundred good ones.

tenn

February 1st, 2007, 07:55 AM

I reckon its all to do with money, that's reason they make the games they don't do it for the fun of it.
There needs to be guaranteed return for the them to set out making it in the first place with Mac and Linux with a small user base they may not be guaranteed that they will make there money back.
They need financial incentive.

muguwmp67

February 1st, 2007, 08:08 AM

I think the advertising campaign shouid be a linux guy with the mac and PC guy. Bring out 3 desktops:

One with Beryl/Compiz: Can you do this?
One on a really old slow PC: Can you run on this?
(not really a desktop) but show google/amazon or some other server farm: How bout this?

How much do I have to spend to use you?
etc., etc.
Case dismissed

Linux has had some commercial games released for it. It will have more. I think the key to widespread adoption for Linux is actually that elusive 'killer app'. Once people see a piece of software that they just 'have' to have, whether its a game or productivity app, they will move in droves. How many Xboxes did Microsoft sell to people who just 'had' to have Halo?

presbp

February 1st, 2007, 08:02 PM

I know that PC gaming isn't as major as it is said to be.. I think 3% said aysui of the Ubuntu forum staff. While I do realize that there is such a low percentage of people that play the big commercial games what if ALL 3% that are gamers found out that Ubuntu could play their favorite commercial games?

That is 3% more market share for Linux. But the thing is that since there s such a low percentage of commercial gamers it wouldn't make much since financially to make these popular commercial games for such a low percentage of the computing population.

The thing is the Linux community needs to look at what programs the majority of the PC community uses in an everyday situation and start to make those programs as best as they can.

Another thing holding Linux back from getting commercial game support is that so many businesses and institutions use Windows for their office work and many of those people use Windows at their homes so that they can easily transfer information to and from work.

We just need to look and see what the most commonly used applications are for the average PC user and try to make a few applications that combine all those commonly used ones into about 2 or 3 "killer apps"

aysiu

February 1st, 2007, 09:50 PM

rekahsoft

February 2nd, 2007, 12:50 AM

I admit that it is auite a short list of trans-platform games but hey... Who wants to play when you can code :)

Second that :)

tenkabuto

February 2nd, 2007, 05:22 AM

I'm not sure, but I would like to see a Linux-specific game creator.

Frem

February 3rd, 2007, 10:18 AM

Major game companies making Linux games?
Blizzard Entertainment was letting people test a Linux World of Warcraft client during the game's closed beta. When release time came, they dropped it. I would venture to say that there is a rather large likelyhood that they're at least playing around with Linux internally. Maybe they'll even ship a linux version of their next game, I dunno. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

aysiu

February 12th, 2007, 06:33 AM

If there are any Linux game developers out there, Virgin America wants your help developing some Linux games for their in-flight entertainment system. From the Virgin America webpage (http://www.letvafly.com/VADIFE.php):
Red, the Virgin America In-Flight Entertainment system will provide each guest with the most advanced entertainment system in the sky.

* 9 inch integrated touch screens at every seat
* Full QWERTY keyboard/game controller to interact with all applications
* Live TV provided by Dish Network
* The world's only In Flight Program guide (IPG) for live television
* Over 25 Hollywood Pay-per-view movies available completely on-demand
* Email/SMS/instant messaging/chat rooms, providing an airborne social network
* An audio experience with over 3,000 mp3 tracks - allowing guests to customize their playlists - as well as 20 radio channels.
* Open source video games (and a future invitation for savvy linux game developers to participate in Red)
* All aircraft are equipped with wireless access points and are broadband-ready
* Ability to order food when you want it directly from your seat

Check out the video below in which Virgin America's Director - In-Flight Entertainment and Partnerships, Charles Ogilvie gives a unique look at "Red", Virgin America's revolutionary In-Flight Entertainment system. My emphasis added.