PDA

View Full Version : What marketshare do you think Linux needs to get for native games?



phrostbyte
October 19th, 2007, 02:25 PM
What marketshare will cause game development houses to drop DirectX in favor of OpenGL/OpenAL and port games to Linux?

Edit: sorry, I mean <= instead of >=

sicofante
October 19th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Anything below two figures is like we don't exist, and not just for games developers, but for any commercial proprietary software developer.

Apple keeps growing, we seem to be stuck. :-(

tom-ubuntu
October 19th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Very interesting question.
What is the markeshare of linux on the desktop now?

I think, it is also a question of libraries. Microsoft did a good job with Direct X for Video, Audio, Input, aso. This is missing for Linux, except for OpenGL. Or am I wrong?

phrostbyte
October 19th, 2007, 02:30 PM
If MacOS X gets more marketshare it's not a bad thing for Linux, since they use OpenGL too. Even if there is no native Linux binaries, if developers code for OpenGL it makes it much easier to run on Linux.

phrostbyte
October 19th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Very interesting question.
What is the markeshare of linux on the desktop now?

I think, it is also a question of libraries. Microsoft did a good job with Direct X for Video, Audio, Input, aso. This is missing for Linux, except for OpenGL. Or am I wrong?

No, there is open OpenGL for video, and OpenAL for audio. Both are very mature libraries/standards. There is also a OpenIL (Open Input Library).

For everything, there is SDL, or the Simple DirectMedia Layer, which handles input, video, and audio. SDL is used very much in real games.

That advantage of using SDL or the Open* APIs directly is they are multiplatform, that is, you can compile games developed against them for Linux, OS X, and even Windows. Also the PS3, and the Wii largely have OpenGL support.

tom-ubuntu
October 19th, 2007, 02:34 PM
No, there is open OpenGL for video, and OpenAL for audio. Both are very mature libraries/standards. There is also a OpenIL (Open Input Library).

For everything, the is SDL, or the Simple DirectMedia Layer, which handles input, video, and audio. SDL is used very much in real games.
Thanks for clarification. Didn't know about these.

FranMichaels
October 19th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Hmm. Do these companies have to pay licensing fees to use DirectX?

Anyway, I don't know the answer to this market share question.

What I do know, is that cross platform developement needs to be inviting, and these companies should try to reach as many people as possible.

I don't know about you, but for me, a company that offers Linux compatibility is one I buy from. Dell, Intel, HP, etc.

So use a console (gamecube/ps2 for me) or let these companies know you want a Linux version. buy games from those that provide one.

The other option is these companies build against Wine. Think of all the machines running Windows, replaced with some other *nix with Wine, the savings in terms of licensing fees would be huge...

Google got their Picasa and Google Earth working in this way, and submitted wine patches. I believe Disney runs Adobe Photoshop on top wine. Imagine how it would be if more companies followed suite. :)

Lastly, I think some companies need to stop making their game installs like rootkits. Another reason I prefer console (and with emulation eventually/now you can play them under Ubuntu or whatever anyway...)

My 2 cents :KS

CaptainTux
October 19th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Boy. This is a loaded gun. I remember being so excited a few years back when I found out you could get The Sims for Linux. Only later to find out that to do so I needed to get a commercial version of Mandrake (now Mandriva). I already had a Linux distro I was comfortable with. I just wanted the game.

I think this is a question that goes beyond marketshare. I think it is one that goes to other aspects.

Look, at the end of the day, the gaming industry does not need to make games for Linux. If I want to go native on Linux, I have to make choices. I use OOo instead of MS Office, I use MoneyDance or GNUCash as opposed to MS Money, I use MyBooks Pro for business instead of QuickBooks. GIMP instead of Photoshop. Now, (please do not hurt me), moving away from Excel, Money,PS and QB did require some minor sacrifices.

Most gamers I know who use Linux do not go native. THey either have a Windows partition or a dedicated Windows machine. Those that do go native use Cedega or some other tool to allow them to go to Best Buy and purchase the Windows version.

The gaming market does not have to do anything. There is no demand in the market, there is no risk of losing sales as Linux grows because owning and playing the games is too important to the gamer. I am not criticizing the gamer, it is what it is.

If the industry currently released a popular game for Linux, I am not sure they would do well in sales. If a gamer spent $50 for a game...will he/she be willing to purchase it again for another $50? Some will to support the cause, but not enough to make a dent in the market.

What CAN a gamer do? Well, there is power behind the consumer that is underestimated. When I could not bank online due to my OS and browser choice, I sent a letter to my bank. In less than 30 days I was able to bank online. I had the same situation with the Old Navy Website. When I got MyBooks Pro for my business I sent the makers of MyBooks a letter of appreciation for making a quality business finance package available for Linux users. I then sent a letter to Intuit informing them that they have a quality product which I liked very much, but since they have no Linux offering, I am now using a competitors product. I am also advising them that I am encouraging other busienss in my sphere of infuince to make the switch as well. Now they know they lost a seat and may lose more to *gasp* competition. They also know there is a demand.

On a lessor scale, gamers could do the same thing. They could write the makers of the games and say.."I like your products, I love game xyz and play it often. I wanted you to know, however, that I do not get the full experience of the game. I am a Linux user who uses Cedega as a bridge to play my game on my Linux platform. I would appreciate it if for future versions you release the game for Linux so I can experience the game's full value.

This lets them know there is a demand and there is a Linux user out there.

So, I do not think the market share matters on the OS front if the gaming industry is not losing sales over it.

saxuntu
October 19th, 2007, 03:11 PM
From what i've read the lack of OpenGL development lead to greater DirectX usage and has nothing to do with linux. Hopefully OpenGL 3.0 will draw game developers back. Even if they don't want to develop it for linux, they could develop it for Wine, assuming since it's designed to run windows software it would be easier to port (right word?) to.

phrostbyte
October 19th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Hmm. Do these companies have to pay licensing fees to use DirectX?

No, hell no. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the opposite - that large game companies get "kickbacks" for developing against DirectX. I don't have any proof of this however. :mad: But I've personally been involved some DirectX and OpenGL development (admittedly nothing huge), and really, OpenGL is much much cleaner and easy to work with. There is also a plethora of high level scene graph libraries that build right on top of OpenGL. I really can't think of any reason a game development company would choose Direct3D over OpenGL, and they destine to tie themselves to one platform if they do so.

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 03:19 PM
I think a 20% market share might be enough to get the game developers attention. That would mean somewhere around 130 million Linux desktop PCs, based on today's numbers. Assuming that the average Linux user is more inclined to game than the average Windows user, that could mean a significant profit for the game makers.


Even if they don't want to develop it for linux, they could develop it for Wine, assuming since it's designed to run windows software it would be easier to port (right word?) to.
Wine is an open implementation of the Windows API. By coding a game for the Windows platform, it is already coded for Wine. The problem with Wine is not that developers don't make games compatible with it, it is that Wine is not complete. It is still only a beta and while it has made significant improvements, it is no where near done. Once it is done, playing Windows games on Linux should be completely seamless.

frup
October 19th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Possibly instead of Native before say 20-30% we would see some game companies working with wine to ensure it works a la Google Picassa. Personally I am interested in the idea of Professional Quality open source games. Here I see the possibility of not just relying on one engine for the entire game because of cost but have one strategy level, a FPS level, a puzzle level etc... Very interesting to me at least especially if it tied in with the story line. Now please forgive me as I am really not to familiar with games any more but when I used to play Command & Conquer (I would have been 11-12) I always thought it would be awesome if when you sent in engineers to a opposition factory you could go in to a FPS mini game for extra tech or something... That's the kind of thing I am getting at.

Imagine a game which started off with one level and each week a new level was added. I would subscribe to something like this if it was open source and say an opt in price per week/month.

Tomosaur
October 19th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Apple Mac has about a 5% market share, and developers are releasing games in stores for that, so I reckon about 5%.

However - some developers already release Linux native versions of their games (Quake 3, UT etc) - you just won't find them in shops. Generally you need to buy the Windows version from a shop then download the Linux installer from the website.

Ultra Magnus
October 19th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Apple Mac has about a 5% market share, and developers are releasing games in stores for that, so I reckon about 5%.

However - some developers already release Linux native versions of their games (Quake 3, UT etc) - you just won't find them in shops. Generally you need to buy the Windows version from a shop then download the Linux installer from the website.

I think Apple gets games the same way we do - through things like wine and cedega.

I reakon when we hit about 20% or atleast over 10% of the market then we might see some more significant activity on the games front

justin whitaker
October 19th, 2007, 03:31 PM
I think this might be the wrong question. Even if we had comparable market share to OSX, there is no indication that the Linux community, as a whole, is ready to actually buy software for the platform.

One of the biggest complaints about Cedega, for example, other than the fact that it doesn't always work, is that you have to pay a subscription. Similarly, Codeweavers gets dinged as a pay version of WINE.

So, if I am a developer, I am dropping 10-30 million on a game, and I need to commit resources ahead of time to make sure that the game I develop gets the greatest return possible...why would I commit part of a development team to a native Linux port when I am unsure that I can recover even the costs of that dev team from the Linux Community?

CaptainTux
October 19th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Apple Mac has about a 5% market share, and developers are releasing games in stores for that, so I reckon about 5%.


Some studies show that we may already be equal to or greater than Apple in market share. Since we do not have commercial offerings other than Linspire, Xandros, or Turbolinux (maybe one or two others), it is really hard to guage.

How many downloads equals an install? Does that install stay on the pc? Does that person make copies of the disk and pass it out?

I am not sure how we measure marketshare accurately in Linux. It seems to be like herding cats. ;)

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 03:40 PM
I think this might be the wrong question. Even if we had comparable market share to OSX, there is no indication that the Linux community, as a whole, is ready to actually buy software for the platform.

One of the biggest complaints about Cedega, for example, other than the fact that it doesn't always work, is that you have to pay a subscription. Similarly, Codeweavers gets dinged as a pay version of WINE.

So, if I am a developer, I am dropping 10-30 million on a game, and I need to commit resources ahead of time to make sure that the game I develop gets the greatest return possible...why would I commit part of a development team to a native Linux port when I am unsure that I can recover even the costs of that dev team from the Linux Community?
Bad example. Wine/Cedega/CrossOver are all attempts to get the closed source Windows API replicated in the Linux environment and allow Windows native apps to work in Linux. Of course its not going to work well and people are going to complain, Microsoft doesn't even have good documentation for the API, let alone available source code to work from. It is amazing that they have gotten the successful results they already have.

But we are talking about a game that is already Linux native. It should work right out of the box, nobody will complain about that.

LokeTheDog
October 19th, 2007, 03:45 PM
I think Mac gets games not because of rational planning from the side of developers, but because certain people used money and influence to get them to make games for Mac.

This is also the way it will happen for Linux. It has nothing at all to do with how many uses the OS, what matters is who likes Linux or perhaps who hates Microsoft. As Linux improves and proves itself, it will get supporters. As Microsoft tries to control the world, it will get enemies. Slowly, important people will fall into these categories and develop games for Linux simply because they want to.

But if we pretended these things didn't matter? Oh, I'd say when Linux and Mac together is somewhere around 20% or so, it will be impossible to ignore. But of course, linux will never get there without getting games first.

justin whitaker
October 19th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Bad example. Wine/Cedega/CrossOver are all attempts to get the closed source Windows API replicated in the Linux environment and allow Windows native apps to work in Linux. Of course its not going to work well and people are going to complain, Microsoft doesn't even have good documentation for the API, let alone available source code to work from. It is amazing that they have gotten the successful results they already have.

But we are talking about a game that is already Linux native. It should work right out of the box, nobody will complain about that.

No, it's not. You are talking technical issues, I am talking revenue.

Think about how a game developer's mind works. They have consoles, PCs, and handhelds to develop for, and a finite number of developers and resources to do it with.

If you look at the 10-Ks for most game companies, their product mix is skewed towards consoles, because they get the most sales out of those systems. Even THQ, which sees the Windows PC as a main component of their product mix, has less than 45% of their revenues coming from that platform in 2006.

Now, iD and Epic both use Linux as part of their development process, so they release an installer for the Open GL assets that they already have created. There is little issue with them giving some development time to Linux "fan service", as it's 90% done when the game is in beta.

For everyone else, there is a cost involved, and frankly, most developers are more willing to look at other console ports instead of making the effort to do a native Linux implementation of their IP. There is more money in releasing a PS2 or PS3 port of a Xbox 360/PC title than there is in releasing a Linux port.

If anything, the existence of Cedega and Wine have let developers off the hook a little bit in this case. Blizzard was working on their own Linux version of World of Warcraft, but basically gave up and decided to help Transgaming and Wine solve the game's issues with Wine and Linux. They can't be the only developer doing that.

What I am getting at is: the Linux community has not shown that they are willing to actually buy something designed for their platform. If anything, in every forum that I frequent, there is this anti-proprietary bias, even with games.

You need to show that Linux users as a whole would be willing to pay for a game, and be a revenue generator for a game developer, before we see any major game releases for Linux.

Tom Mann
October 19th, 2007, 04:29 PM
OpenGL was assassinated by Microsoft in the Windows 98 era, when they chose to emulate OpenGL instead of use graphics hardware capability. This come as a massive performance hit and made manufacturers start to use DirectX.

OpenGL only started recovering from when Quake3 come out. (I think)

My thoughts on this is if Apple's market is expanding then games should be headed their way soon. Being from a Unix base the games for Apple should be easy to move to Linux and give game developers less of an excuse not to.

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 04:38 PM
No, it's not. You are talking technical issues, I am talking revenue.

Think about how a game developer's mind works. They have consoles, PCs, and handhelds to develop for, and a finite number of developers and resources to do it with.

If you look at the 10-Ks for most game companies, their product mix is skewed towards consoles, because they get the most sales out of those systems. Even THQ, which sees the Windows PC as a main component of their product mix, has less than 45% of their revenues coming from that platform in 2006.

Now, iD and Epic both use Linux as part of their development process, so they release an installer for the Open GL assets that they already have created. There is little issue with them giving some development time to Linux "fan service", as it's 90% done when the game is in beta.

For everyone else, there is a cost involved, and frankly, most developers are more willing to look at other console ports instead of making the effort to do a native Linux implementation of their IP. There is more money in releasing a PS2 or PS3 port of a Xbox 360/PC title than there is in releasing a Linux port.

If anything, the existence of Cedega and Wine have let developers off the hook a little bit in this case. Blizzard was working on their own Linux version of World of Warcraft, but basically gave up and decided to help Transgaming and Wine solve the game's issues with Wine and Linux. They can't be the only developer doing that.

What I am getting at is: the Linux community has not shown that they are willing to actually buy something designed for their platform. If anything, in every forum that I frequent, there is this anti-proprietary bias, even with games.

You need to show that Linux users as a whole would be willing to pay for a game, and be a revenue generator for a game developer, before we see any major game releases for Linux.


I think you missed my point. Cedega and CrossOver get criticized when it doesn't always work because you paid good money for it. The two complaints complement each other, they do not exclude each other. Wouldn't you complain if you bought a car and it only worked when driven on certain roads?

Linux users are definitely willing to pay for native games, there just aren't enough Linux games out there to truly illustrate that and no one really sells separate "Linux only" editions that could be used to track those sales. Epic even admitted that Linux users outnumber Mac users by a lot in UT (they wouldn't admit to actual numbers). I myself only bought Neverwinter Nights because it has a native client. In both those instances, there is no way to show that those sales actually belong to Linux and not Windows gamers. As far as Epic and Atari are concerned, they are just sales, with no distinction as to which OS they were bought for.

Frak
October 19th, 2007, 04:52 PM
At least 10%

Also, DX10 is slowly being ported to both OS X and Linux, along with Silverlight.

sicofante
October 19th, 2007, 05:34 PM
Some studies show that we may already be equal to or greater than Apple in market share. Since we do not have commercial offerings other than Linspire, Xandros, or Turbolinux (maybe one or two others), it is really hard to guage.

How many downloads equals an install? Does that install stay on the pc? Does that person make copies of the disk and pass it out?

I am not sure how we measure market share accurately in Linux. It seems to be like herding cats. ;)
Market share is measured by websites access, not by actual sales figures. Current numbers indicate that Apple is somewhat 4~5 times bigger than Linux in the desktop, and it keeps growing, while Linux has been stuck in the same figures for years now (and I'm afraid that won't change for a while yet, if ever).


OpenGL was assassinated by Microsoft in the Windows 98 era, when they chose to emulate OpenGL instead of use graphics hardware capability. This come as a massive performance hit and made manufacturers start to use DirectX.
I used to code OpenGL apps for SGI workstations (I also coded plain GL apps before it became OpenGL). OpenGL ALWAYS could emulate in software what hardware couldn't provide. This was announced out loud by SGI back then, since it allowed a developer to use an O2 while making software for an Onyx, which costed 100 times more.

The reason why Microsoft decided to create their own graphics library is better explained by their usual business policy of owning the platform. OpenGL simply wasn't theirs.


My thoughts on this is if Apple's market is expanding then games should be headed their way soon. Being from a Unix base the games for Apple should be easy to move to Linux and give game developers less of an excuse not to.While Linux and Mac OSX share the same roots, that's pretty it, and doesn't help that much when developing cross-platform outside the usual paths: Java, X, etc. If I were a games developer, I wouldn't care for Apple either, BTW. I only mentioned how fast Apple was growing to show that at the same time Linux is stuck. If game developers ignore the Mac, just imagine how much they ignore us.

I also agree that selling software to a community so used to free software is harder, but if Linux ever grows past the 10% mark, that will mean lots of ordinary people will be using Linux (there are simply not that many geeks out there). Ordinary people pays for their software. ;)

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 05:39 PM
Ordinary people pays for their software. ;)
Or they steals it. [-X

sicofante
October 19th, 2007, 05:57 PM
Or they steals it. [-X
Yeah, that's true, but everyone knows that something that's pirated is also being bought by other people. Piracy has always helped the pirated software.

bashveank
October 19th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Anything under 10% is like we're invisible, after that it depends on how many devs realize that OpenGL is miles ahead of DirectX, and that once they program in OpenGL they can port it somewhat easily.

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 06:58 PM
I haven't really researched the accuracy of this, but you all might find this a little bit interesting:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=104
Basically, it attempts to show what percentage of the market is occupied by each OS through website hits to participating sites. Basically if you combine all the versions of Windows, it holds nearly 94% of the market, with the remaining 6% split up between the OS alternatives. This tool indicates that Linux holds less than 1% of the market, while Mac holds a bit more than 5%. Looking at this thing, we've got a really long way to go...

However, this shows Linux on a relatively steady climb for the past year:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux

Frak
October 19th, 2007, 07:26 PM
I haven't really researched the accuracy of this, but you all might find this a little bit interesting:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=104
Basically, it attempts to show what percentage of the market is occupied by each OS through website hits to participating sites. Basically if you combine all the versions of Windows, it holds nearly 94% of the market, with the remaining 6% split up between the OS alternatives. This tool indicates that Linux holds less than 1% of the market, while Mac holds a bit more than 5%. Looking at this thing, we've got a really long way to go...

However, this shows Linux on a relatively steady climb for the past year:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustom=Linux
I've noticed the peaks are also exactly tuned to Ubuntu release dates.

Also, that is a very inaccurate way of measuring.

Hortinstein
October 19th, 2007, 08:04 PM
hahaha i am not even concerned about new native games right now...dofus is enough....it would be nice to play MTGO though

Fbot1
October 19th, 2007, 08:37 PM
The better question is how low does Microsoft's market share have to be.

cogadh
October 19th, 2007, 08:45 PM
I'd say no higher than 60 - 70%, with the rest divided up between the alternate choices. In an ideal world, OS usage would be evenly distributed between all choices, but this isn't an ideal world and that will never happen.

sicofante
October 20th, 2007, 06:56 AM
Also, that is a very inaccurate way of measuring.
Really? If we agree that almost every desktop out there accesses the internet, it sounds to me like the best way to do it.

However, if you know of other methods used, I'd love to hear about them.

cogadh
October 20th, 2007, 02:39 PM
It's inaccurate because only PCs that connect to participating websites are counted. Depending on the website, that could produce data that is skewed towards one OS or another. I think at most, you could call it a means reasonably estimating OS distribution, but it is in no way 100% accurate.

Dixon Bainbridge
October 20th, 2007, 04:05 PM
What marketshare will cause game development houses to drop DirectX in favor of OpenGL/OpenAL and port games to Linux?

Edit: sorry, I mean <= instead of >=

The last thing games developers need is another platform to develop for, so I doubt it'll ever happen.

EA have recently stated they want to see one platform inthe games console market, something that I applaud. There really is no need for all these platforms, all it does is lock consumers in and drive up development costs.

There needs to be one game development platform for all media. It can be done incredibly easily, but wont happen for a long time because people are too obssessed with walled gardens and holding on to what they have. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo could all make more money from licensing software on a single patform than they could for developeing their own hardware and software platforms. Its a no brainer.

Linux isn't even on the radar for game devs. Never will be. The only way forward for the video games industry is to kill all platform wars.

thx11381974
October 20th, 2007, 05:45 PM
It's inaccurate because only PCs that connect to participating websites are counted. Depending on the website, that could produce data that is skewed towards one OS or another. I think at most, you could call it a means reasonably estimating OS distribution, but it is in no way 100% accurate.

I agree but remember Linux isn't even listed it's so small. I'd guess less than 1% is about right.

For the poll I answered 60% this was too high even at 20 a lot would be getting done. The real key is at what % of market share do hardware manufacturers start supporting Linux. Right now even the one's who do don't put forth much effort.

cogadh
October 20th, 2007, 07:05 PM
The last thing games developers need is another platform to develop for, so I doubt it'll ever happen.

EA have recently stated they want to see one platform inthe games console market, something that I applaud. There really is no need for all these platforms, all it does is lock consumers in and drive up development costs.

There needs to be one game development platform for all media. It can be done incredibly easily, but wont happen for a long time because people are too obssessed with walled gardens and holding on to what they have. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo could all make more money from licensing software on a single patform than they could for developeing their own hardware and software platforms. Its a no brainer.

Linux isn't even on the radar for game devs. Never will be. The only way forward for the video games industry is to kill all platform wars.
There wouldn't really be "another platform to develop for" if they just used open standards and products for development purposes. OpenGL is already used for graphics programming on Windows, Linux, PS3 and Xbox and is proven to be effective. If they just standardized under one open standard, the hardware and OS wouldn't really matter at all.

Frak
October 20th, 2007, 07:49 PM
There wouldn't really be "another platform to develop for" if they just used open standards and products for development purposes. OpenGL is already used for graphics programming on Windows, Linux, PS3 and Xbox and is proven to be effective. If they just standardized under one open standard, the hardware and OS wouldn't really matter at all.
I agree, I've found it harder to develop for Windows, than to develop for Linux, Unix, or Mac OS X.
Windows has its own unique structure, while Linux, Unix, and Mac OS X's structures are so alike that very, VERY, few modifications have to be made from platform to platform.

Also, if you develop for OpenGL, you skip Windows uniqueness and can easily cross compile, because OpenGL and OpenAL clients are different for each platform, but developing for it is constant.

DX9 and DX10 just ruin this.

Example
Tremulous is based off Quake with alot of modifications; it was created for Linux. It uses OpenGL and OpenAL.
Tremulous was then ported to Windows with the Linux binary using MinGW. Then ported to OS X by making a couple (very slight) changes and compiled using X Code.

Dimitriid
October 20th, 2007, 07:57 PM
There are some porting as it is already so I say 20%.

Dixon Bainbridge
October 20th, 2007, 11:50 PM
My friend is a game dev with a leading software company. He says porting is a pain in the ***, and drives up the production cost of a title. Having to port it to 4 systems is a nightmare. Its not as easy and straightforward as you guys seem to think it is. If it was, it would be happening - linux and OSX would get all the titles in the world. All the licensing agreementswhich have to be met, contract restrictions, legal implications, testing for each platform, marketing costs per platform... it goes on and on driving up the cost of the port.

Saying, well OpenGL is the answer is a little simplistic and naieve to say the least.

Frak
October 20th, 2007, 11:55 PM
My friend is a game dev with a leading software company. He says porting is a pain in the ***, and drives up the production cost of a title. Having to port it to 4 systems is a nightmare. Its not as easy and straightforward as you guys seem to think it is. If it was, it would be happening - linux and OSX would get all the titles in the world. All the licensing agreementswhich have to be met, contract restrictions, legal implications, testing for each platform, marketing costs per platform... it goes on and on driving up the cost of the port.

Saying, well OpenGL is the answer is a little simplistic and naieve to say the least.
What Software Company is this?

Dixon Bainbridge
October 20th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Rockstar.

Frak
October 21st, 2007, 12:02 AM
Rockstar.
Rockstar made a great Linux/BSD port of GTA 3, didn't cost a dime. Free download of it from their site. (They did discontinued the BSD port because it was too difficult to port)

The only difficulty they had was converting a DX game into OpenGL.

Dimitriid
October 21st, 2007, 12:03 AM
There is some confusion here, people often mistakes different hardware platforms and operative systems, which is NOT a problem, with different API implementations, specially if they are locked to specific hardware or OS, which IS a problem. The gaming industry needs to take a stand against Microsoft to push for an unified open API like opengl that can be implemented across many different hardware and software platforms easily.

Even EA seems to think so:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7052420.stm

cogadh
October 21st, 2007, 12:55 AM
Rockstar made a great Linux/BSD port of GTA 3, didn't cost a dime. Free download of it from their site. (They did discontinued the BSD port because it was too difficult to port)

The only difficulty they had was converting a DX game into OpenGL.
:shock:
There's a native port of GTA3!? I can't find it on their site, do you know where it can be found?

Frak
October 21st, 2007, 01:50 AM
:shock:
There's a native port of GTA3!? I can't find it on their site, do you know where it can be found?
It was about a year ago, I don't know if they still have it, but you may search some torrents for it.

cogadh
October 21st, 2007, 02:09 AM
Yeah, I already did that but most of the search results were full CD downloads (PC or PS2) or sketchy warez links. I guess I'll just keep looking...

Ireclan
October 21st, 2007, 02:10 AM
I voted 40 percent, which I think is about right. Remember, it's not just lack of market share Linux would be fighting against, but active resistance from some companies because of its principles. Therefore, Linux is going to have to be more prevalent in order to FORCE these game companies by its sheer prevalence to develop games for the Linux platform. On a side note, I want to say that the dropping of DirectX does not necessarily corrolate with the rise of Linux.

-grubby
October 21st, 2007, 02:15 AM
probably about 20+% I don't think anything lower than that will get many game developers or software developers for that matter to release on Linux

pt123
October 21st, 2007, 04:11 AM
If Linux can get 10% desktop share. it would only take a short time to get to 20%.

Dimitriid
October 21st, 2007, 07:00 AM
On a side note, I want to say that the dropping of DirectX does not necessarily corrolate with the rise of Linux.

By "dropping DirectX" is implied we mean "...and replacing it with an open sourced API, not more proprietary/lock in API"

The problem with DirectX, .net framework, and so on is not the implementation itself, its Microsoft monopoly and control over it. Any company that would replace or beat Microsoft to just go do the same would cause the same problems, so "DirectX" wouldn't be "dropped" but just replaced. If its truly dropped it means no more proprietary API's.

Frak
October 21st, 2007, 07:02 AM
By "dropping DirectX" is implied we mean "...and replacing it with an open sourced API, not more proprietary/lock in API"

The problem with DirectX, .net framework, and so on is not the implementation itself, its Microsoft monopoly and control over it. Any company that would replace or beat Microsoft to just go do the same would cause the same problems, so "DirectX" wouldn't be "dropped" but just replaced. If its truly dropped it means no more proprietary API's.
Well said.