Propietary games for Linux/BSD - Will ye | Nil ye?

[the yawner]

I'd suggest focusing on Linux platform first and work on supporting other platforms later.

[Xanderfoxx]

SDL is a very simple abstraction layer and has a very minimal (likely unnoticeable) performance hit. Games like Quake 4 and ET:QW use it for their Linux version..

AFAIK they have hand-crafted Windows versions because SDL wraps around DirectX 7, so if you want an OpenGL or DirectX 9/10 based game, I don't think that will work.

Ok. Does using SDL preclude the more advanced features, such as EAX 4 (3d sound hardware acceleration for occlusion, positional audio, and source effects, available on Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy cards, such as those used under Linux), and other thngs like that?

Also, what are the merits of using SDL rather than a heavily modified version of PyGame?

[insane_alien]

If games were made for linux and they were good then i would buy them proprietry or not. although that depends on if they appeal to my preferences(zombie killin, lots of zombie killin).

[BigSilly]

As a gamer and a Linux user, I would be very happy to buy games made for Linux. The only downside I see is that many Linux users have very unremarkable hardware. I know it might sound silly and a bit of a generalisation, but many use Linux because it makes the most of older and somewhat unspectacular hardware. I can't imagine it being worth any developer's time making games as demanding as something like Crysis work on Linux.

Then again, I say that but speaking for myself I'm hoping to upgrade the old PC soon into something a bit more up to date. Since I won't be 'upgrading' to any new version of Windows, it'd be great to think that modern games could be forthcoming for Linux.

I'm not making this any easier am I? Bottom line, yes I would buy Linux games.

[super breadfish]

No thanks. Considering all that malware, sorry, copy protection included with commercial PC games now you might as well be running Windows in the first place. Who wants a Linux port of a game if it comes with a Linux port of Starforce?

[Tuna-Fish]

The freedom argument simply disappears when you consider that games are basically interchangeable commodities that have no importance on individual freedoms. Having your life's work in a proprietary format only accessible by a closed application is a major problem. Spending your free time shooting bad guys in a closed app - not so much.

I'm perfectly willing to pay for quality games on any platform, and I wish more were made for linux so I could stop wasting my time with wine. (Not either having a native linux port or working in wine is a showstopper for me - I don't want to have a win partition with all it's troubles just for games.)

List of games I've bought for linux:
Defcon - Awesome nuclear war game. Try the free demo, after that it's so cheap you just can't avoid buying it...
Dominions 2, 3 - An old-school strategy gem from sweden with a fantasy background that for once is well-researched, ridiculously deep and not just a cheap tolkien copy. Somewhat micromanagement-heavy, and kinda sucks for single player, but endless hours of pure fun in multiplayer.
UT 2004 - Half of all linux gamers have this. I wish we'd get a linux port of UT 2007 soon.

also, I play a lot of free software games, mainly spring (it has an ubuntu repo.), Vega strike (an old version is in the ubuntu repos, a new one can be compiled with help from the wiki).

I also have my hopes up for thousand parsec, being an old-time stars! aficionado.

[Tuna-Fish]

No thanks. Considering all that malware, sorry, copy protection included with commercial PC games now you might as well be running Windows in the first place. Who wants a Linux port of a game if it comes with a Linux port of Starforce?

You cannot make a linux port of starforce - at least not one that cannot be removed easily and safely. A free kernel does give some assurances.

[Tuxoid]

The issue around FOSS games is that it doesn't facilitates parts of the creative design. I myself am an aspiring Game Designer. I have tried FOSS games for Linux and have been fairly unimpressed. I don't believe FOSS games necessarily need to be bad, they could be good. I don't think can be good under the current GPL. The GPL allows people to modify the creativity that can only exist in the game's source code. I am not talking about the technical pieces of code being creative; I'm talking any code required to make the game difficult, code used to design gameplay mechanics, and many other pieces of code that do not have just a technical advantage.

Richard Stallman stated in a talk, "Games are separated by a game engine (the technical part), and a collection of media"

I believe this is an inaccurate statement. As I mentioned, there are some creative pieces of games that can only exist in code. Allowing modification of any creative work is considered taboo in any media field.
These people (including myself) can be highly critical. Giving people the ability to modify creative parts of a game can destroy the Designer's vision and reputation.

The source code needs to be available to certain extent, modification should available to a certain extent, but when it comes to publication of modifications, players could be to believe mislead that it was the original copy from the original team. Even if there is a message in the game stating it is not the original copy, it's possible that many player will not see it.

The thing with general purpose applications is that they are not designed for stand-alone entertainment. For example, with a media player like Totem, it requires audio or video files to actually serve the function of entertainment. A game does serve as stand-alone entertainment.

Game software therefore requires the same respect as any other form of entertainment media.

[Xanderfoxx]

The issue around FOSS games is that it doesn't facilitates parts of the creative design. ... The GPL allows people to modify the creativity that can only exist in the game's source code. I am not talking about the technical pieces of code being creative; I'm talking any code required to make the game difficult, code used to design gameplay mechanics, and many other pieces of code that do not have just a technical advantage.

Richard Stallman stated in a talk, "Games are separated by a game engine (the technical part), and a collection of media"

I believe this is an inaccurate statement.

...

Game software therefore requires the same respect as any other form of entertainment media.

This is a good point.

One could make this code available under a different name than the propietary product, where the name indicates the whole product, including the sprites, models, audio and video, but is clearly linked the the source code available under an open source project, or is this taboo?

My initial idea was to make the engine highly modular, so that critical components of gameplay, such as the AI and logic specific to the game, rather than the genre (the engine), as well as the multimedia, would not be released immediately.

Some components, like the game application framework (newly coded or modified by paid staff) would be released as an open source project immediately, and to a commercial mindset, like that of investors lending capital to me, I can explain that this is a promotional and loyalty-gaining gig, while truly, I believe that this should be made available, anyway.

Despite what Stallman says, I will design it so that loadable modules containing game -specific logic and AI, that would not be good to release immediately, can be released after 7 years. This way, I can release the core engine the moment it is finished.

I still have to think about what would be best for the community, and for the investors, as well. Delicate balance, indeed!

[Luke has no name]

I don't believe Proprietary is inherently evil (I just lost a friend in RMS).

While completely free is great for some applications, it is not bad to have binary only distributions of a game. It can be very expensive to produce a good game, and it takes very specific talent to make a good game. Also considering that a game is not a necessary piece of software (As opposed to spreadsheets and word editors), I believe that I would pay for a good game.

Cross-platform would be the best way, like UT2004 did. When is OGL3 coming out?