PDA

View Full Version : Linux Games



mrmonday
May 1st, 2007, 04:47 PM
I think game developers should add native compatibility to games. Some games already support Macs, and I think they should also support Linux. I think that we, the Linux community, should start a petition to get games to support Linux. There must be a huge demand in the Linux community for native commercial game support, as I know lots of users have to use Virtual machines or reboot into windows.

Introducing Linux support would also help to solve Ubuntu bug #1 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1), Microsoft having the majority of the market share. I know that lots of people are deterred from Linux, because of lack of native game support, and support could boost Linux users massively.

What do you think?

Sluipvoet
May 1st, 2007, 05:16 PM
I've probably read thousands of similar topics on different forums.

A) You can't force a company to make software for your OS
B) If it were profitable, there would be lots more games on Linux.

Linux will not become a serious gaming OS in the near(and probably even the not so near) future.
Live with it.

Eric Layne
May 1st, 2007, 05:32 PM
Programmers don't write games for Linux because not enough people use Linux, hence no profits.

EdThaSlayer
May 1st, 2007, 05:39 PM
Why would any gaming company target a user base that is small?
Also there are so many different Linux distros and each has slight differences and that could pose a problem for the game developers. Hopefully with Dell seling Linux pcs this should change. :)

Tomosaur
May 1st, 2007, 05:42 PM
Perhaps in the future, big games developers will start writing games for Linux, but at the moment there are a few barriers in the way:

1) Linux still has a tiny market share - creating a game isn't that profitable on Linux at the moment.
2) Developers see open-source as a challenge, not only because they don't want to open-source their technology (or can't, if the developer licenced their code from elsewhere), but because there are still very real problems with Linux development. The differences between distributions, dependencies etc etc. More work needs to be done on cross-distribution standards, before big commercial developers will even look at Linux.
3) Developers still believe that Linux users will never pay for software. We need to demonstrate that this is not the case - but if there's nothing to buy, then we can't. Hopefully Dell will help this point.

bonzodog
May 1st, 2007, 05:56 PM
Thing is, there are quite a few mainline titles that have Linux Native versions provided alongside the Windows versions.

With all of these, you still HAVE to buy the Windows version, then you download the Linux binary and engine from the games site, and combine it with the data from the bought game.

A couple of these are:

Doom 3

UT 2004

Quake - the entire series

Neverwinter Nights

mech7
May 1st, 2007, 06:04 PM
Probably not.. games these days are very expensive to creat, and linux has a supersmall marketshare especially under gamers. And linux users tend to whine of they need to pay for anything (not everybody) :)

Tomosaur
May 1st, 2007, 06:21 PM
@bonzodog

Yeah, that situation sucks. Hopefully with the online distribution model that Steam pioneered (and, of course, the repository system Linux uses!), we'll start to see a system whereby the data is isolated from the binary - just like how many games currently are in the repos.

Somenoob
May 1st, 2007, 06:23 PM
To port games to other OS, isn't that difficult, So I don't see why.

qamelian
May 1st, 2007, 06:37 PM
Programmers don't write games for Linux because not enough people use Linux, hence no profits.

This logic doesn't wash. Back in the late 80's and early 90's game companies were quite capable of making a profit from games for OSs with a much smaller user base than Linux. By this logic, no one ever would have written a game for the Commodore 64 because it's user base at its peak was only about 20% of the current estimated number of Linux users.

The problem is more specifically that the numbers are extremely waited towards Windows users and rather than make a smaller profit (but still a profit) on Linux ports, they prefer not to make the effort.

In the 80's and 90's, it was very common to see game developers port games to multiple OSs. A game might originally be written for DOS, and would then be ported to the Amiga, Atari ST, Atari XE, Commodore 64, Apple II, etc. Because each of these OSs held a substantial piece of the market, it simply wasn't viable to ignore any of them too frequently.

So I don't believe that the size of the Linux community would mean no profits; it would just mean much smaller profits compared to supporting the larger install base of Windows.

ThinkBuntu
May 1st, 2007, 06:44 PM
Apples had this problem for years, until certain very popular games began to release simultaneously with Mac and Windows. Over time, if you gain enough market share, software vendors naturally will support your OS.

mech7
May 1st, 2007, 07:32 PM
This logic doesn't wash. Back in the late 80's and early 90's game companies were quite capable of making a profit from games for OSs with a much smaller user base than Linux. By this logic, no one ever would have written a game for the Commodore 64 because it's user base at its peak was only about 20% of the current estimated number of Linux users.
.

Back in that day games did not cost multi million dollars to produce ;) current games are a huge investment.

twogunmickey
May 2nd, 2007, 06:57 AM
I've had the idea before that game makers could make games as a Live-Distro type thing that boots straight to the game. It doesn't matter what OS you have installed on your PC because the OS is on the disc. Also you get much better performance because the OS is tweak/customized for the game. While Linux is technically capable I don't think this kind of marketing with closed source commercial games agrees with the license. Maybe BSD?

mrmonday
May 20th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Can everyone sign this please!
http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html
It's a petition for blizzard to make linux installers!

-

The more people to sign it the better! It could be a step towards linux gaming!

Digg it here - http://digg.com/pc_games/Help_get_native_Linux_support_for_Starcraft_2

einsteinisgaurav
May 20th, 2007, 12:30 PM
linux users dont need games to play
they hav their distros to play wid

koshatnik
May 20th, 2007, 12:41 PM
Buy a console. Problem solved.

mech7
May 20th, 2007, 12:43 PM
I've had the idea before that game makers could make games as a Live-Distro type thing that boots straight to the game. It doesn't matter what OS you have installed on your PC because the OS is on the disc. Also you get much better performance because the OS is tweak/customized for the game. While Linux is technically capable I don't think this kind of marketing with closed source commercial games agrees with the license. Maybe BSD?

Won't happen it takes way too long to start up from a live cd, and that is from a cd alone.. would not want to think what would happen with a game of 7 gb :)

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2007, 01:06 PM
Why would any gaming company target a user base that is small?
Also there are so many different Linux distros and each has slight differences and that could pose a problem for the game developers. Hopefully with Dell seling Linux pcs this should change. :)

Every commercial game installer that we do have works with any distro flawlessly. It doesn't matter that we are small, it's still possible for them to easily make a profit. It is possible to make a game engine that will compile for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Just look at Ogre. With Ogre, you write your code once, and compile binaries for different OSs. I know it's open source, and game companies won't want to use open source, but that is just an example that it is possible to easily make games that work on multiple OSs.


Back in that day games did not cost multi million dollars to produce ;) current games are a huge investment.

Actually, the investments put into Commodore games were huge. You have to remember, they didn't have nearly as much to work with back then, and it took more resources to make a good game.


Buy a console. Problem solved.

I really hate that argument. You're right, it would solve the problem, but today's consoles cost as much as or more than a good computer. I don't have that kind of money.

guitarmaniac
May 20th, 2007, 01:23 PM
I've had the idea before that game makers could make games as a Live-Distro type thing that boots straight to the game. It doesn't matter what OS you have installed on your PC because the OS is on the disc. Also you get much better performance because the OS is tweak/customized for the game. While Linux is technically capable I don't think this kind of marketing with closed source commercial games agrees with the license. Maybe BSD?

yeah, its a good idea in theory. but being a live CD its bound to be slow.

I thought of a possible solution though.
What if the game comes on a bootable usb drive instead of/along with a CD.
just plug her in, boot her up and your set!

DirtyJayx
May 20th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Games is one of the most important reasons that windows users don't switch to Linux. So i don't think that a small community is the reason why game developers don't spend time on native Linux games.

I think its a Microsoft conspiracy :roll::sad:

bobbob94
May 20th, 2007, 01:47 PM
I really don't think that a lack of games is a major reason why people don't switch to linux, as i'd guess the majority of windows pcs never play anything more demanding than solitaire! actually i don't think most people will switch from anything to anything, they'll use what came on their computer till they buy a new one and then use whatever comes with that, which is why i feel that getting linux sold as a preinstalled OS from large suppliers (like dell) would do far more to increase the linux user base than having more games. though of course once the user base is large enough, the games would start to be made...

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2007, 11:03 PM
I really don't think that a lack of games is a major reason why people don't switch to linux, as i'd guess the majority of windows pcs never play anything more demanding than solitaire! actually i don't think most people will switch from anything to anything, they'll use what came on their computer till they buy a new one and then use whatever comes with that, which is why i feel that getting linux sold as a preinstalled OS from large suppliers (like dell) would do far more to increase the linux user base than having more games. though of course once the user base is large enough, the games would start to be made...

You're right that most people just want to use what they already have. But I personally know people who are the type that do not play heavy duty games, but they still wouldn't switch just because of the idea that Linux can't run them.

blackspyder
May 20th, 2007, 11:49 PM
A few games were sold for Linux directly (ie out of box came Linux CD's instead of Windows CDs) one that comes to me is Quake 2 .

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 01:51 AM
A petition will do nothing.

Get all these PC-gaming-playing Linux users to stop dual booting and start threatening. Once that happens, the games will be ported.

Write some letters along the lines of "I love PC gaming and typically spend $___ [or whatever relevant currency] on games a month, but I'm going to buy a game console instead because you do not create Linux-compatible games." And then follow through with your threat. There are millions of Linux users who play PC games but who have no leverage against gaming companies because these Linux users continue to buy Windows-only games and play them through Cedega or a dual-boot with Windows.


I really don't think that a lack of games is a major reason why people don't switch to linux, as i'd guess the majority of windows pcs never play anything more demanding than solitaire! I agree wholeheartedly and wrote a little essay about it. (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/gamingperspective) I've had many people disagree but not one has cited any hard evidence supporting gaming being the main reason most people don't switch to Linux.

KIAaze
May 21st, 2007, 02:12 AM
Can everyone sign this please!
http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html
It's a petition for blizzard to make linux installers!

-

The more people to sign it the better! It could be a step towards linux gaming!

Digg it here - http://digg.com/pc_games/Help_get_native_Linux_support_for_Starcraft_2

+1 :D

It won't be a Vista exclusive, which is already one great thing, now let's hope it will also get a GNU/Linux installer. :D

Will the game run natively on Windows Vista?

StarCraft II will be fully compatible with Windows Vista, as well as XP. We'll have more details on system requirements closer to release.
Will StarCraft II be available on Mac simultaneously with PC?

As with all of Blizzard's recent releases, StarCraft II will ship on both PC and Mac simultaneously.


edit:

A petition will do nothing.

Get all these PC-gaming-playing Linux users to stop dual booting and start threatening. Once that happens, the games will be ported.

Write some letters along the lines of "I love PC gaming and typically spend $___ [or whatever relevant currency] on games a month, but I'm going to buy a game console instead because you do not create Linux-compatible games." And then follow through with your threat. There are millions of Linux users who play PC games but who have no leverage against gaming companies because these Linux users continue to buy Windows-only games and play them through Cedega or a dual-boot with Windows.


I don't see any problem with doing all of what you suggested including the petition. ^^

Tundro Walker
May 21st, 2007, 02:43 AM
Back in the late 80's and early 90's game companies were quite capable of making a profit from games for OSs with a much smaller user base than Linux.

Back in the 80's and 90's, you had games produced by a single person, or a small team of folks, and it only took a few months. These days, there's huge teams of people working for years on a game.

Back in the 80's and 90's, games weren't a very big money-making aspect of computers. These days, game development out-competes the movie-making industry as a viable money-making business.

So, there's more at stake then in the 80's and 90's. You have the huge projects that have lots of folks years to work on. It's not so easy to just "tack on" Linux portability. Heck, Windows games already have enough issues with hardware configurations and stuff. They'd then have to deal with hardware configurations in a different OS.

Linux gaming is a chicken and egg problem. There needs to be more games on Linux to show companies that Linux is a viable gaming market. But, since very few companies product Linux games, the market doesn't exist yet, and companies don't want to take the plunge.

DarkDancer
May 21st, 2007, 04:10 AM
Buy a console. Problem solved.

NO! Consiles suck and they cost too much. I already have an expensive piece of equipment sitting right here in front of me that is capable of playing games, why would I wantr another one that I would have to leave this one for?

igknighted
May 21st, 2007, 04:25 AM
I really hate that argument. You're right, it would solve the problem, but today's consoles cost as much as or more than a good computer. I don't have that kind of money.

Computer to run linux VERY well: $200-$300. In fact, I picked up a computer from the trash near me with an Athlon 1600+ and 512mb ram running win2k, rigged it up for linux and had a perfectly working system with beryl in a matter of hours, for the price of one lonely blank CD. Not typical, sure, but if you are not gaming the demands on your computer are quite low with linux. With Vista out, scour for deals on pre-vista computers, the prices are rock bottom. Heck, I built a fairly high end system (see sig) recently for ~$350 (thank you new egg), so it can certainly be done in this price range.

New Game console: $250-$550 If you can find a Wii, its more fun than any computer game and very cheap as far as these systems go. Xbox360 and PS3 are more.

So worst case you are looking at $850. If you would spend less than that on a gaming rig, the game quality you get wouldn't even compare to a console. You would probably end up dropping ~$1500 or so. So in the end, yes, I feel like the console is cheaper. Plus you get the luxury of having selection. Many new games aren't even releasing for windows anymore (RIP any MLB title). The reason: Games are too advanced to run on top of an OS like windows. Linux has the capacity to run them better (less going on with the system) but not the user base to sell the games. So dedicated platforms will dominate, and the transition is already happening.

koshatnik
May 21st, 2007, 12:59 PM
I really hate that argument. You're right, it would solve the problem, but today's consoles cost as much as or more than a good computer. I don't have that kind of money.

I don't understand why linux user demand that top titles are ported to it. Just because you use linux it doesnt mean you have a divine right to have what you want. At the end of the day, the decision to use linux was yours and you knew what that entailed - ie, no top game titles. So deal with it, or use Windows, or buy a console. Most top titles are ported to consoles or to PC anyway. Why port again?

Also, a PS3's spec is better than any gaming PC you could hope to buy. Its like £400, even cheaper if you live in the US or Japan. That cost, for the spec it has, is cheap. Try and put together a PC with the same spec, see how much it totals.

forrestcupp
May 22nd, 2007, 02:44 PM
I don't understand why linux user demand that top titles are ported to it. Just because you use linux it doesnt mean you have a divine right to have what you want. At the end of the day, the decision to use linux was yours and you knew what that entailed - ie, no top game titles. So deal with it, or use Windows, or buy a console. Most top titles are ported to consoles or to PC anyway. Why port again?

Also, a PS3's spec is better than any gaming PC you could hope to buy. Its like £400, even cheaper if you live in the US or Japan. That cost, for the spec it has, is cheap. Try and put together a PC with the same spec, see how much it totals.

Boy, you guys are harsh. I don't demand or expect that I have a divine right for anything. And yes, I did know what switching to Linux entailed. I just think it would be nice if games were supported.

As I stated in an earlier post, it would be easy for companies to make a game engine that could compile one set of code into binaries for different OS's. There would be no porting involved. Just write code once, make the content once, and compile the separate binaries. There are already open source engines out there that can do this, so that shows me that it is a viable and easy option.

Here is why I don't want a console. Consoles last a couple of years max, then they are obsolete. I have had several old consoles cluttering up the place that I will probably never get out, because it's a pain to find all the parts and plug them in. Only lately have they really put any effort into any backward compatibility, and those attempts are usually pitiful. In a couple of years the PS3's specs will not be any better than a low-end PC. However, with a PC, I can have the same rig for several years and upgrade my current setup a part at a time as I have need and money. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to have a top of the line $3000 computer to have an enjoyable gaming experience.

While it may not be the number 1 reason people aren't switching to Linux, no one can deny that better game support would help. And just to clear things up, I definitely don't think it is any fault of the Linux community.