This is a classic argument and for this subject it just doesn't matter. The bottom line is that there isn't nearly enough extra money to made when you consider the extra costs involved to support Linux with most games. All other arguments consist of facts and opinions which are not relevant to the gaming industry when it comes to making this kind of decision.
This is a classic argument and for this subject it just doesn't matter. The bottom line is that there isn't nearly enough extra money to made when you consider the extra costs involved to support Linux with most games. All other arguments consist of facts and opinions which are not relevant to the gaming industry when it comes to making this kind of decision.
[if my spelling sucks, it's because I'm in IE and I don't have a spell checker]
Someone please enlighten me. Mac OSX and Linux are both based off of Unix. id software and Epic Games (maybe not anymore since they're cuting back on the PC side) develop .run files to install the games on Linux. (and I'm guessing OSX aswell, don't have enouogh for a Mac) Wouldn't it be easy to code a .run file? I'm no developer or programmer of any kind.
I didn't start this petition, I just brought it over here. I don't know what the petition starter's intent was, but I signed it because I want to see games in Linux because I want to see the big three OSes (maybe BSD, never used it) thrive because monopolies are never good for the consumer.
I should have thought of that (convincing the publisher) before bringing the petition over here.
Isn't Blizzard already notorious for taking a long time in developing their games?
Thanks.
Someone please enlighten me. Mac OSX and Linux are both based off of Unix. id software and Epic Games (maybe not anymore since they're cuting back on the PC side) develop .run files to install the games on Linux. (and I'm guessing OSX aswell, don't have enouogh for a Mac) Wouldn't it be easy to code a .run file? I'm no developer or programmer of any kind.
I didn't start this petition, I just brought it over here. I don't know what the petition starter's intent was, but I signed it because I want to see games in Linux because I want to see the big three OSes (maybe BSD, never used it) thrive because monopolies are never good for the consumer.
I should have thought of that (convincing the publisher) before bringing the petition over here.
Isn't Blizzard already notorious for taking a long time in developing their games?
Thanks.
There are always theories with why programming something should be easy or why it should be difficult, but when you boil it all down you are left with a bunch of extra complications that cost time and money. Most of those complications will not be foreseen by the developers beyond some simple assumptions that the process will just take longer and cost more because of that. Despite being based off of Unix, there are tons of differences between the two OS's. Coding a .run file is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yup, and their Publishers are aware of that and why they do it. They are currently ok with it despite development costs since we haven't seen any changes I guess. The ends justify the means in terms of profit. However, that doesn't mean they are willing to stack more time on top of the pile. Development costs these days are tremendous and the time it takes to develop defines those costs. Convincing a bunch of publishers to spend a lot more of their money for little to no profit by using development time to support Linux when it could be used for extra content or other games which bring in tons of profit instead is a very unrealistic goal.
Linux users need to convince the public to use Linux first. After that they will get the gaming support they want along with other support which is commonly complained about. Of course, that is it a bit of a catch 22 because a ton of people place gaming compatibility and ease of use amongst their top reasons when choosing an OS.
I'd largely agree. It really boils down to a chicken-and-the-egg argument, and at this point in time there's simply no reason to develop directly for Linux other than a conscious choice to try to support the platform.
Linux really is starting to grow again, and the software environment will continue to evolve as Apple cuts more and more into Microsoft's market share, which should open up possibilities for Linux, as well. Cost will continue to be a factor, though; when you look at the spiraling costs of a Microsoft Windows and Office license for Enterprise customers, the motivation to move over to Linux instead of upgrading to Vista becomes a lot more powerful, especially when the average corporate computer would start coughing up blood if it tried to run Vista. The French equivalent of the FBI is in the process of switching completely over to Ubuntu because of the cost of Microsoft, and I think this will continue to happen as MS costs go up.
Growing the baseline market share of Linux is really the most important thing it needs now and it won't be worthwhile to develop Linux-native games until it's got a much bigger presence.. But, dammit, I still want to be able to run native games anyway.
Ubuntu actually works very well out of the box for most desktop computers I've installed it on. Just talking basic usage here. Obviously, there can be a lot of issues if you want to do anything advanced, but in terms of installing it, basic setup, and getting web browsing and office type stuff running it's incredibly easy.
As I said, laptops and proprietary hardware (more common on higher-end comps) can be a pain, but if you're talking about slapping it on a $500 Dell or HP that's a few years old, Ubuntu (and some of the other Debian distros) is easier to install and get up and running than Windows in many cases.
Originally posted by: Scrimmy
I'd largely agree. It really boils down to a chicken-and-the-egg argument, and at this point in time there's simply no reason to develop directly for Linux other than a conscious choice to try to support the platform.
Linux really is starting to grow again, and the software environment will continue to evolve as Apple cuts more and more into Microsoft's market share, which should open up possibilities for Linux, as well. Cost will continue to be a factor, though; when you look at the spiraling costs of a Microsoft Windows and Office license for Enterprise customers, the motivation to move over to Linux instead of upgrading to Vista becomes a lot more powerful, especially when the average corporate computer would start coughing up blood if it tried to run Vista. The French equivalent of the FBI is in the process of switching completely over to Ubuntu because of the cost of Microsoft, and I think this will continue to happen as MS costs go up.
Growing the baseline market share of Linux is really the most important thing it needs now and it won't be worthwhile to develop Linux-native games until it's got a much bigger presence.. But, dammit, I still want to be able to run native games anyway.
Well, I tend to disagree with that part. When considering the cost of the software alone you are correct. However, the real expense when it comes to Linux is not the software. It is time. The time it takes for all employees to learn how to use Linux is ridiculously expensive and it is not easy when considering the average computer user in your average work place in America. Hell, most of those people can barely do what they need to do in MS Office beyond basic tasks despite having used it for years. That plus there is setup and configuration of the OS itself to do what it is that you need it to do for all of your software and the software you need for the future which may or may not have a Linux equivalent which is another problem entirely. The list goes on and on and you can barely get through half of the reasons with CEO before he tells you, "No way."
On top of that, hardly any businesses even need to switch to Vista let alone Linux. Vista and XP work together well enough to run your average business and those businesses that run into more problems are probably large enough to have an internal IT guy to fix it anyways. Businesses will upgrade their OS when the time comes to upgrade their computers like usual. When they do they will be buying from the usual vendors and they will come with either Vista or XP so long as XP is still being offered as an option. Upgrading an office like that is expensive and CEO's hate that enough as it is. Trying to pile on the costs associated with Linux on top of that will make it even harder but that is realistically the only time to do it. At best, we might see more servers with Linux but that's it.
I definitely agree with a lot of that, and I may just be a little too optimistic about Linux's future. That said, I think Microsoft is beginning to paint itself into a corner. They need to constantly improve their operating system or it'll fall behind the others in terms of features, but if the changes they make are too dramatic and happen too quickly, they risk alienating the user by giving them what feels like a completely new OS, and if you're going to switch to a new OS the free one (with paid tech support, of course, the open source model) is going to be more tempting.
Look at it this way: have you used Word 2007 yet? The layout is very different from all the earlier incarnations of Word and it felt totally foreign. Open Office Writer actually feels much more familiar compared to older version of Word than Word 2007. If you're going to have to relearn a new system, why not learn the one that doesn't require a $200 license? There are some issues of compatibility and retraining and such, of course, but it's possible the scale will eventually swing in that direction.
In the long haul, though, there will be a lot more computer users who learn to use Linux from the start because it's becoming the price point OS of choice. The Asus EEE PC comes with a version of Xandros, and even Sears sells a line of computers that comes with a Linux OS (Linspire).
Again, though, this is all speculation, much of it hopeful. There are still lots of arguments against using Linux, but the arguments in favor of it are getting a lot better.
Yes, desktop only.
The numbers I got were from the Walmart article about them dropping the lone Linux desktop they were selling due to poor sales. In the article it stated the desktop market for Linux, OSX, and Microsoft. Linux came in at .57%.
In regards to Word 2007, the changes to UI have also resulted in people transitioning to it much slower than usual. That alone says something. They really do not need to relearn anything provided their boss doesn't force it on them which will happen eventually I imagine. That or the next version of Word will revert back to a more classic UI as the default. We'll see.
It is also true that Linux has poked its nose out in the commercial computer industry more lately. Dell is also selling Ubuntu as an option or at least they used. We'll see what happens with that. Personally, I think some companies are just trying to dominate an untapped market. However, competition such as Sears might actually do more harm than good. If the profits that come with supporting Linux/Ubuntu become divided then there may not be a large slice of the pie to convince businesses to continue selling the product. This could become especially true when they are faced with the CS bills for it. The post above that threw Walmart into the mix are signs that support this idea. I am no expert on that subject though. It's just a theory.
QFT. Linux is a great OS for those of us willing to futz around, seek out drivers, read man pages, peruse forum posts, etc. The idea that it "works well out of the box" (in the sense that it is ready to be a gaming platform) is a little out there. Just look at the driver problems people are having with their 8800 series nVidia cards.
Guys, the absolute last thing the video game industry is ready and willing to support is another general purpose desktop gaming platform. Will. Not. Happen. It took ten years, a few billion dollars, and the economic weight of Microsoft to allign the industry around the Windows graphics and audio architecture, and still nobody can agree whether it has an actual future in competition with consoles.
I think that if the Linux community wants games, it is going to have to create them. Maybe there are enough potential buyers that some small group could take a shine to the "big fish/little pond niche" and produce some decent titles. As much as I love my Debian systems, and enjoy the fact that I can download just about any piece of server software I need and just run it, I ain't holding my breath for commercial games on those boxes.
While I do not disagree with you conceptually, what you are suggesting is damn near impossible in itself unless it revolves around the idea that these games are made by Linux users for Linux users just like how "Unix was made by programmers for programmers". There are many different reasons, but it revolves around how there is no where near a large enough customer pool to justify the costs of development. That is unless you can get a team of developers who have the skills and are willing to create a competitive title and releasing it for free over the internet. There is just no way anyone can convince a publisher or investors to take part in this kind of project due to money. They will not be able to afford a distributor either which is why it have to be available only via download. They could charge for the download I suppose, but then that means the customers have a reason to demand things like patches and CS which is a whole new problem in itself considering the downloads will be occurring world wide in different time zones.
After that, one needs to consider how taking on such a project will jump start Linux into the gaming industry if it does at all. I don't think it will. While we have seen similar games follow that path (ie Enemy Territory -> Quake Wars), those games were all offered on PC and Mac as well which is where it is primarily played.
The bottom line is that unless there is a customer pool large enough to project realistic profits which justify the costs of development, Linux will never step foot into the gaming industry. The only way they can achieve that is by somehow spreading Linux into the home (completely ignore all copies installed at any office or copies installed at home for reasons which do not include gaming) and that brings us back to square one.
RandomFool
Diamond Member
You'd have a better chance of getting games on the Mac than Linux. Xavier434 pretty much nailed it.
Yes, Macs are definitely more successful. The main reason why I believe that is true (beyond sheer quality) is that they really take on the industry from the perspective of a business to make money. Linux supports tend to be on a mission to uphold what they believe are better standards and quality. Whether or not they are correct doesn't matter. What does matter is that they don't have any real money to be competitive, but Apple does.
Apple made a fine choice a long time ago when they decided to grab the bull by the balls against MS. They decided to market their products as a stylish fad and it really worked. TV commercials, magazine articles, flashy stands at tech shows and even in commerical stores made them very popular. Before you knew it, all of Hollywood's most popular WiFi hang outs were filled with rich people showing off their LED lit iBooks as they browse the internet sipping their double mocha lattes. They also decided to expand into the gadget market and hit it big before MS really started to tackle it. A whole book could be written on this stuff but I'll stop there and finish by saying that the end result which really separates Linux from Mac is that all of that effort on Apples part made them a ton of money while Linux's efforts have given them squat. Should Apple choose to get involved with the industry, they could come out with their own console and try to compete with MS, Sony, and Nintendo. That is the way to start. Porting more games to Macs after that is step 2.
Really worked in terms of getting them a tiny share of the desktop market. They should have ignored Gassee and opened the hardware back in the 80's. I do agree that under Jobs they have returned to their former days of glory, but they seem more like a consumer products powerhouse to me now, rather than a systems company.
Ya, I don't think many would argue with that. There is no doubt that you will find more consumers with ipods in their pockets than you will with Macs sitting at home.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter