|
After my review of game development on the PC, I came to realize that there is very little if any support for Linux as a viable platform from the creators of game engines for the PC. Even those that advertise that they are cross platform engines only go so far as to be cross platform for Windows and Mac.
As a gamer that has decided to use Linux as my primary OS for me and my family, I find this disheartening.
I am well aware of the small market share that Linux has world wide. (around 1%) It is not that small when compared to the Mac market. (around 5%). (source) So why is Linux's 1% valued so little compared to the Mac's 5%. Both are relatively small compared to Windows' astounding 92%.
Before we dive into that question, let's look at the commercial engine market again and their cross platform support in both player and development view points:
- Flash - Has native player support for Linux. This allows any game developed using Flash technology to run on a Linux computer. Unfortunately, Adobe has no viable SDK or IDE for development on Linux. It is possible to develop Flash games on Linux, but that requires numerous workarounds. Adobe's Flex SDK has a beta for Linux development that has been in beta for a number of years.
- Silverlight - Silverlight has both player and development support for Linux through the Mono Project and its corresponding Moonlight player. Microsoft itself does not support Linux in any way other than to release the core functionality of Silverlight to the open source community. They do hold some functionality back unfortunately. This is seen in the Netflix Watch Instantly Player. Because Microsoft holds back the underlying code for the Silverlight DRM, viewing of Netflix movies on Linux is impossible.
- Unity - Unity support only Mac and Windows in game play and development. There is no Linux support for their Web Player or development. Although a feature request has been open for 10 months, there has been no word from Unity Developers on the matter. (source) Yet, they have responded to a forum topic on the subject in which they stated they have no reason to support Linux due to the small market size (source)There is one quote in there from the Unity CCO that I will discuss later in this article.
- Torque - Torque only has support for Windows and Mac. There was at one point a community maintained version of their Torque engine, but that was abandoned several years ago. It would seem that the core trunk of Torque took a direction that was incompatible with Linux.
- Unreal and XNA - Only Windows support with nothing to indicate that these will be coming even to Mac.
So what are the major arguments against developing for Linux? For the first of the common arguments let's take a look at that quote from the Unity CCO I mentioned earlier:
So yes, the market just isn't big enough. We
don't have the resources to cure the miniscule of the Linux-buying
games community... If the linux community suddenly starts buying up
huge amounts of games, then there is a case for us. So far, sadly, that
is not the case.
The core of the argument is that not enough Linux users are buying games so they don't feel the need to support the platform. Isn't this the very definition of a Catch 22? So how are Linux users supposed to buy games if there are no games for them to buy?Does anyplatform have fans before the games start rolling in?
As a bit of a contrast to that viewpoint, I would like to make a case of 2d Boy's World of Goo. According to their blog announcement of the Linux version of the game Linux versions account for 4.6% of the full downloads from their site. (source) During their Birthday Pay What You Want Sale, Linux downloads accounted for 17% of all downloads. (source)
The next argument against Linux comes from the discussion of Linux support for the Unity Player. This comes from someone in the discussion as they have no relation with the Unity company.
The question is, does it make sense right now, in the real world of
tradeoffs, limited resources and unintended consequences, and given the
fact that most linux geeks are constitutionally unwilling to pay for
stuff? It does not. (source)
The key take away from this point is the myth that Linux users are unwilling to pay for software. This is patently false. Yes the core idea behind Linux is the use of free and open source software. That does not mean that Linux users are unwilling to pay for quality games and software.
Again, we will look at 2d Boy for an example. During their Pay What You Want Sale, Linux users held the highest average price paid for World of Goo out of the three supported platforms. (source) So clearly Linux users were willing to pay for this game, why not others?
Personally I think these arguments have no merit. I think the games industry is looking at the Linux gamer in the wrong way. You really shouldn't be looking at Linux users in their willingness to purchase the games, but in their willingness to game period.
For this example, I point you towards the Wine project. (Wine HQ) Here is a community that is dedicated to trying to get the games that you make to work on the OS they choose. They want to play your games and they have to jump through some pretty amazing hoops to get there. Why would you not want such enthusiastic gamers buying your games?
Other things to consider as well is that many PC manufacturers are looking to Linux as an alternative OS to Windows. This is especially true for Netbooks. By ignoring this OS you are also ignoring the potential customers that choose those computers over their Windows based brothers.
In the end, I don't think the problem is with Linux or the users of Linux that brings about the shortage of games. It is the developers of the games whose unwillingness to support this emerging market that is failing here. If game developers took the initiative to support Linux as well as other platforms from the beginning, the impact would be negligible. It is easier to do it at the start of a project than to try to shoehorn it in at the end.
As an independent game developer, I have made the decision to only use technologies that will allow Linux, Mac and Windows gamers to enjoy my products. That is why I have decided on Flash for my first project and will be looking to the Open Source Community for the technologies I will be using to make PC games further down the road.
|
So most small devs i talk to may consider Mac as well as windows, but not many are that keen on the time and effort to support what they see as a platform that mostly supports pirate activity of their games.
I cant say if this really is the case or not, but that is what i mostly hear on this issue.
Piracy is a concern for all platforms. I don't have any numbers on piracy rates as that was not something that generally came up in these discussions I read.
But I think that goes back to the second argument I listed, that Linux users are unwilling to pay for games. They are just as willing to pay for games as their Windows and Mac counterparts.
Are there pirates on Linux? Yes. Just as there are on Macs and Windows.
"I am well aware of the small market share that Linux has world wide. (around 1%)."
I think you pretty much answer your own question there.
I'm wondering why developers bother with Mac versions, if indeed Mac's only comprise 5% of the market. They must be able to sell just enough to still be profitable.
If no one is selling Linux games, it must not be a profitable market. Hardly seems like a mystery to me.
yet that is 1% up from less than a percent in the past years. Yes it is small, but it is growing just as Mac market share is growing.
I know a lot of people who use linux, but every one of them has a way to boot into OSX or windows or a separate machine for it.
I would buy games if they came out. I bought Braid through Greenhouse when it launched on Windows so that I could play the theoretical Linux port whenever it came out. Greenhouse gives you a license to the game, and that license lets you install the game on any platform with which the game works. This is the way purchasing a game should work!
However, the situation is not so great for games. Games are not the same as software applications. They are not tools. They are content. There are some good open source games out there but since they are continue updated and tweaked for several years the lose their initial appeal, since they are a form of entertainment and as with any form of entertainment there should be an aspect of surprise.
As for closed-source games on an open-platform, there are so many issues with ensuring compatibility and providing technical support that it becomes less appealing. You can't always guarantee it will run on all distros. Graphics drivers are still iffy. These kind of issues are constantly improving but I'm not sure they could increase fast enough to really make it worth it. Even high-end gaming on Windows is gradually dying in favour of consoles, at least partly because of the plethora of configurations to be accounted for on PCs. When you multiply these combinations with different linux distros it doesn't look very tempting.
Of course, if you are making a 2D game the compability barriers are much lower and it may well be worth releasing for linux. Very often, 2D windows games run fine under Wine in Linux without any special configuration or updates by Wine developers. In addition, if your target market is small in the first place and Linux users tend to be the type of people who would like your game it worth doing much more, and I do agree that there is a market there that is under-served and willing to shell out some cash.
And in my experience, flash is pretty appalling in Linux at least on my computer. The fancier looking flash games run at an appalling frame rate in the lowest quality and my laptop is fairly high end. Also, many have visual artefacts :( damn you adobe!
To make a native linux game what would you develop for? Every distro does something a little bit different that makes developing for all nearly impossible.
Also, linux gives its users more tools to crack your game right out of the box :P
Telling someone they have to buy a different OS or computer is not conducive to finding a solution. That will actually alienate the audience.
I use Linux as my only OS. My family computer runs Linux with no other OS. I managed to get a handful of games to run on Wine, but I just don't buy Windows only games anymore. My kids love playing the the games that are provided by Ubuntu and Flash Games, but for me that is not enough. I would love to pick up games made by PC only developers, but I don't want to deal with the hassle of shoehorning their games into my OS.
@Prash,
The 1% came from Wikipedia which is an average of the 6 sources they listed. Some were as high as 4% market share, so yes, I was being conservative. The problem comes with the way the data is gathered. It comes from certain data mining service companies and their partnered websites. The websites glean the OS info from the client and report it to the data mining service. So it is a limited information pool.
As for Flash on Linux, I have not had any issues. Pretty much any game I have played or my kids have played work fine.
Game development for PCs is off currently, as developers find that it is easier (hence, more profitable) to develop for consoles that feature a fixed architecture, versus PC's with a wide variety of both graphics hardware, memory, CPU capability, etc, etc, etc. So, for those companies that still develop games for PCs, most of whom will fail to make any money anyway, do they develop for the market that has 95 potential customers for every 100 PC owners, or do they develop for that 1 person out of 100?
The game development business is hard enough as it is. It makes no financial sense whatsoever to develop games for Linux, other than hobbyists doing it for their own enjoyment.
If it doesn't make commercial sense, it won't get done, at least not by the big development companies. It's a waste of mental energy to agonize over it.
In the end we dream, but it is all about the money to continue on.
Basically, I use GNU/Linux, and it work.
And the games that I make work fine on several platforms. No "issues with all sorts of hardware"
I like being able to use programs like Word, Photoshop, etc. I like being able to download and run almost every program available on the web.
Forcing your family to use Linux is just cruel and unusual. Unless you're running a server, I say you just use Linux as a way of showing off.
I don't use Linux to show off - I use it because it's an efficient tool for getting stuff done. I can bang stuff out on the command line and chain tools together in ways I'd never dreamed about when I was a Windows user. I can also customize Linux however I like. I like that I can maximize a window to fill half the screen on my widescreen monitor.
There are a lot of free games on linux, and I'm a big NetHack fan, but the big developers don't focus on getting their AAA games into Linux.
What's needed I think is a killer game for Linux, or any commercial game, ported or not, to sell really well in Linux.
Make a good game for linux, thats well advertised, and sells really well. So far, no one has really done that, IMHO.
I think people should use whatever program they prefer. Not creating a game (port or otherwise) for another program when you can is lazy to me. But hey, I'm not the AAA programmer here ;).
Boy, people say Linux users are prideful.
I don't use Linux because Windows crashes a lot (although that didn't help any) I use Linux because of things like this:
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html
I hate DRM. I can't tell you the number of times that I have had a fresh Windows XP install tell me I was a pirate. I can't tell you the frustration it is to have to call Microsoft to tell them that I am not using the same disk install on more than one computer. That is my #1 complaint about Windows.
As for your software preferences, That is fine for you. Yet A vast majority of the non-professional computer users (ie more than 50% of the Windows market) can do just fine with free alternatives such as Open Office and GIMP. The Price of Photoshop and Microsoft Office alone is enough to alienate much of the consumer base. They could do well to release cheaper alternatives that only have the basic functionality used by the average user.
But again your argument of being able to use almost every application found on the Web on Windows goes back to my initial question posed in this article, "Why don't these software vendors produce Linux versions of their software, especially if they are already producing Mac versions?"
I use GNU/Linux because it work! I mean, I want a program, I don't even have to search google, I type "install program-name" and blam, it installs.
I have a Fedora, I installed a version 10, now it is a version 12... But guess what, I NEVER had to re-install my Fedora! I just type "preupgrade" and it opens a nice wizard that asks what version I want to upgrade to, and it downloads, upgrades ALL software registered, and installs!
While I even know on my head the serial number of some versions of windows that I had, because the amount of re-installs that I did, specially Windows XP (there are one that I installed it like 12 times...)
Also, one thing that make me keep working on GNU/Linux is that it has wonderfull development tools, like Valgrind, to programmers Valgrind is plainly AWESOME, it should be mandatory to everyone that make code use Valgrind!
Also even when I am using Windows, I use so much tools that came from GNU/Linux that it does not make much diffrence, like IDEs, compilers, libraries...
And example is the almight OpenAL, creative use OpenAL as official 3D audio library, if you want to use Creative EAX you have to use OpenAL in your game. Guess what, OpenAL was created by some guys years ago, to port AAA games to GNU/Linux, but it is so great, that even Microsoft disabled some support for some stuff on Windows 7, and if you complain they recommend using OpenAL.
Btw: Unreal, the most popular (and also most expensive) FPS engine that we have, use OpenAL.
In fact, all libraries needed to make a game, exist on GNU/Linux, the sole library that don't work outside Windows is DirectX, but you don't have to use DirectX, people use OpenGL, OpenAL, ODE, Bullet, SDL... All that work fine on GNU/Linux.
So I don't see why people say that GNU/Linux don't work, or is evil, or whatever...
EDIT: Also I don't use any Adobe product but the flash player, I do have Macromedia stuff, from before adobe bought Macromedia, and it works way better than Adobe stuff. And I dislike photoshop-style software (including photoshop itself and GIMP).
Also I don't use MS Office, it is YEARS that I use OpenOffice (In fact, I used StarOffice, before it was even Open), just fine, and not because it is free, but because it suited better my needs (like, generating PDF files without crappy plug-ins or workarounds).
Second, I do not know one GNU/Linux user that uses it because it is free (price). They use it either because of ethical and ideological reasons or based on technical merits (or a bit of both). People that do not want to pay for their OS run a cracked version of Windows. Many GNU/Linux users are even ready to pay for support services or donate into a fund.
Third, I think that the percentage of games within GNU/Linux desktop users is **significantly** higher than on any other platform. I do not have hard numbers, but the nature of the average GNU/Linux user is male, probably in his twenties and technologically savvy.
Finally there are many good reasons why, at least as small developer, you should support other platforms that Windows. Read http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-you-should-support-mac-os-x-and-linux/ for a good rundown; especially "3. Vocal minorities".
I use my linux laptop for the web and listening to music 99% of the time. Windows does not crash on me, but it is much slower at most things. It is improving but has not caught up to Linux. For example, Windows attempts to keep RAM free by swapping things out onto disk. Many Windows users obsess about keeping as much RAM free as possible for some reason. But RAM is much faster than a disk, and RAM not used is RAM wasted. I have a 1GB swap partition that I swear has never been touched and things run much more smoothly for it. Also, windows gets gradually slower and slower as time passes until you reinstall it. You can install Linux and leave it for a year or three and it will behave exactly the same as on day one. Also you don't need to run or update antivirus and antispyware software. Once it is set up is much lower maintenance than windows and saves time.
It's true that I only started using it out of curiosity and wanting to tinker with my computer but my reasons for staying are not to show off. And I did this despite the lure of games on Windows. I stopped playing games on my gaming laptop because of Linux! I just can't be bothered to boot to another OS.
Truth be told as the others have stated it is to do with the small 1-4% market share. Lets say even if they were BETTER at running games. Who would be your auidence? Tech Buffs maybe (How many will BUY the game, rather than illegally downloading it)? Lets say the perfect game gets pitched, who is willing to market/publish this game? This is high risk low reward all round. Better to publish to macs n' windows. No matter how bad the game quality would suffer.
Not to forget in that analogy was based that Linux was superior with games.
The argument is not which platform runs games better, but why ignore a growing market.
I also think you have missed the overall point of my article or didn't read it at all. Linux users are not all "Tech Buffs" but average consumers. More people are choosing Linux as an alternative to Windows and that number is growing, slowly but steadily.
All these computers (without exception) shipped with GNU/Linux (and even pissed MS... it was after that program that MS invented "Starter Edition", even if the program is not the sole reason).
The thing is: These computers, shipped with GNU/Linux, were 30% of the market share. And inside the other 70%, about 30% of these 70, people bought computers with GNU/Linux by choice.
Of course, one thing that make the PC market HUGE is the amount of previous install base, usually a new computer does not substitute a old computer, specially lower end ones, a new computer go to a person that never had one. So the "Windows Legacy" is great, but as the sales of computers with GNU/Linux increase, its total share slowly climb too.
Asked and answered. A 5% market share allows companies to provide a Mac version, and still make a profit. Apparently, a 1% market share does not.
Admittedly, that is just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good guess, regardless. If developers think there is money to be made there, they will give it a shot. Since no one is rushing out to develop Linux games, it appears the market has spoken, and the answer is "NO"!
I think that this is because they are misinformed. I know various developers that make OSX games and refuse to do to Linux because "there are no market share" but if I ask if he actually tested or did research, the answer is "No"
Let's think about this in round numbers rather than percentages. Percentages lend themselves to not seeing the big picture.
Let's say there are 1 billion computers in the world. This is the 100% total.
92% of that number are variations of Windows or 920 million.
5% of that number are Mac Computers or 50 million
1% of that number are Linux users or 10 million
That means there are 10 million potential customers for your game that you are ignoring.
Let's now assume that 10% of Linux users would buy your game*, that means 1 million sales x what ever you charged. Granted that is a high number. Things could be as low as 1% of Linux users or 100,000 sales.
So if you charge $20 for your game you are looking at revenue of $20 million for a 10% of Linux market or $2 million for the 1% of Linux Market.
How $2 million does not cover the cost of porting and then some I don't know. After all most of the cost of porting was subsidized by the Windows version.
Lets take a look at a PC example. Let's look at Starcraft. That game has sold roughly 11 million copies over its life. That is 1.2% of Windows market. If the game was ported to Linux, and that percentage holds true, that is 120,000 sales on Linux allowing for price drops over the years, you are looking at $3-5 million in revenue.
*this is an extremely almost obscenely optimistic estimate so take it with a grain of salt.
10% of users buying would mean you're selling 92 MILLION on windows, 5 MILLION on mac (btw mac is around 10-12% now anyway), and 1 million on linux.
If you have the type of game capable of selling that much, then 1 million is chump change.
That was why included the more accurate 1% notes in there and based the rest of the argument on that instead. As seen by the Starcraft example.
Btw, Linux is a very efficient OS, and the tools that are provided free or available are excellent! I ran Linux in my Intermediate school with LTSP, and along with the Science dept head, we were able to equipment 3 science labs for the price of one low-end server each, thus our kids got more computers to use. Why? The Spirit of Linux and it's awesome, caring community!
I don't badmouth Windows. But you have to severely respect the Linux community and it's champions for free software. All over the world Linux is being put to use as the system of choice, for governments, military, industry, and education. And did you ever hear of the Chinese government commissioned hackers breaking into any computers using FireFox? I don't think so...
Microsoft arrived early. They got paid because of timing,and they use their money to hold on as tight as possible to the market, even to the extent of illegality at some points. So Linux has a grand fight to get the business of games to support it, and there is no Linux independent game platform like XBox, PSP, Gameboy, etc. It's an uphill fight.
But the numbers are good. $1,000,000 is enough to get a port via the programming staff. Or maybe, since the Mac is BSD based, the developers can just tweak that version of software some more to fit the Linux systems? Some emulation may be required for the Linux port, but it's not too long of a stretch, and worth the bucks in the very long haul.
But this is just my two cents. I like Linux, and I don't hate Microsoft Windows. Linux is the OS of the people, and Microsoft is proprietary. Microsoft's Bill Gates does a lot of great humanitarian work too, so the money is not all for evil business purposes as we'd like to paint it. And Mac, closed as they are, and proprietary, and expensive, are a real class act. They just plain look great in your house!
Excuse that poor example I presented, I wanted to add a little something else rather than be another to blame it all on the market share. Take 2-
"The argument is not which platform runs games better, but why ignore a growing market."
But it is relevant. The dominant factor suggested is the small market share for the cause of neglect. Lets take the hypothetical that Linux and Microsoft had a equal market share. A 50/50 split. The other primary factor could be attributed to the difficulties in developing for Linux as expressed in your bulletins. (of course, this is ignoring if they had such a share that they would not be catered to. That would be taking this hyperbole out of context).
It is a Catch 22 as you said. "The core of the argument is that not enough Linux users are buying games so they don't feel the need to support the platform. Isn't this the very definition of a Catch 22? So how are Linux users supposed to buy games if there are no games for them to buy?Does anyplatform have fans before the games start rolling in?"
This works somewhat in the same in the favour of the developers, while not quite a Catch22. "Not not enough support in Linux. Unable to easily release games to be Linux compatible. How can developers release games that are not being supported? Might as well ignore Linux and all the busywork to appeal to this small market".
Also in regard to your World of Goo counter example, could the higher average pay not be attributed due to the starved gamers who use Linux exclusively?
I'm interested to see how it turns out. Obviously the hardware manufacturer has a way of monetizing the system but I'm curious to see what kind of support there will be for Commercial/Indie games.
Also this discussion got me thinking. Since Wine is open source someone should theoretically be able to trim it down to create a game specific "wrapper" as a port. If this would be possible it would only work for simpler games and ones that don’t utilize DX.
I use both Windows and Linux for their different strengths, but I would love to see more in the way of Linux supported games.
First, a graphics standard must be made equally available cross-platform (OpenCL being a candidate).
Then, hardware manufacturers need to recognise this graphics standard and build hardware to utilize it better.
Finally, someone needs to take the lead in developing a linux-first game engine/dev tools. To spear-head a linux minded game campaign. If someone were to do this, and possibly establish common standard distribution channel (like Steam), they could really gain a nice angle on the market.
I for one have wanted to use linux for a long time... but alas it currently is not the system of choice for a game developer/artist... not yet at least.
Problem #1
Linux' is NOT a consumer operating system and this is going to massivly retard Linux penetration into the computer world. You have to really know what you're doing to get benefit from Linux. That's not a large community. Also Linux makes a nifty server architecture. How many of those 1% or 10 million Linux installs are running on a box in an air-conditioned closet somewhere? How much of Linux' growth comes from technical rather than consumer usage? Put another way, how many *people* actually use Linux as their home computer OS? I suspect it's less than that 1% and that's what a game company is going to look at.
Problem #2:
compatibility within Linux. When everybody and their pet cat has their own Linux distro, a developer can't be sure what runs on one will necessarily run on another. Once again, this shrinks the poential size for a Linux game and makes it more costly to develop for Linux. Sure there's probably some basic compatibility between a lot of major distros, but it still shrinks the installed base a dev can expect to have for his product, and expands developing costs.
Problem #3
Backward compatibility. How can a developer be sure that the Linux they are developing a game on or for will be compatible at release time and over the shelf life of the game. Linux is stable in the sense of being low-error, yes, but every time someone recomplies their kernel, they roll the dice on whether that game will continue to run. Non-casual games always try to push the envelope so having a stable platform underneath them in important (and hence drives devs to console games and away from PCs period, let alone those running Linux). As a developer, you don't want the OS moving your compatibility goalposts.
Mac OS these days is an overlay on top of Unix or Linux (I forget). It gets some game development because:
1) It *IS* a consumer OS
2) Is compatibile within the MacOS community (by definition)
3) Pays attention to backward comaptibility
4) Has at MINIMUM 5 times the installed base to Linux.
...And even then suport is hardly universal.
Most game development companies are under capitalized as it is, so expending budget and development effort for a market with no significant purchasing history sounds like a good way for a program manager to get fired.
In your example, assuming a company had an extra $1,000,000 in budget for game development, which is likely to offer the best return on investment? Should I devote those funds to projects for the 95% market share segment, or the 1% market share port.
It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to figure that one out. There must be a reason why no games of significance have been developed for Linux. There is no 'there' there.
Does it matter that only 1% of the computers run Linux when considering all computers, if when we consider the people that actually buy games, the percentage is certainly much higher?
@Owain and @John, so, you don't need a MBA to figure that is better to make games for what has more installed base, why don't you make board games, or in case you use computer for its interactivity, why don't you make games exclusively for "casual" gamers? There are certainly much more normal people in the world than hardcore gamers, hardcore gamers are just 1% of the population, why we make games for them if they are just 1%?
In response to each of your points:
#1 Linux is becoming more of a consumer OS everyday. Efforts from the Gnome and KDE Desktop projects have pretty much sealed that. If you need more confidence in the consumer friendliness of Linux, look no further than the Netbook market and Dell's consumer laptops that come preinstalled with Ubuntu Linux.
As for the 1% market share, that is completely consumer equipment. No Servers to be found there. The data is gleaned from page reads at participating websites for each data mining service. A server would never initiate a page read and thus never be counted.
#2 and #3 Compatibility is less of an issue today than ever before. It is so easy to create a package installer that automatically checks for required libraries and installs them if they are not found on the system. Debian based distributions such as Ubuntu have made this even easier. As long as you as the developer know what your game needs in order to run, you can set up your install package to include it. Much the same way a Windows based game includes the necessary DLLs for the game to run.
It makes me laugh when people bring up these arguments. I seriously don't get it. You don't have to look any further than the Firefox browser to see that there are no problems with building and maintaining software on Linux. Firefox is available for Linux period. There are no distribution specific versions. Just one. It runs no matter what distribution you use. It runs no matter which kernel build you use. It just works.
Why? Most all NVidia and ATI card support OpenGL and are supported on all three platforms. OpenAL is compatible with Linux, Windows and Mac. Why would you need to duplicate DirectX in order to develop games for all three platforms?
Did not know the engine support was that bad! Perhaps we should start selling our engine ;)
Another good thing about developing for Linux is that there is not that many competitors so it more simply to reach Linux users the few games that run on Linux are so much more visible.
My Linux skills are close to nil, but the biggest problem I see is that installation can be quite strange. There is a vast difference on the q/a from our linux users compared to our win ones. That said, most seem to be able to install it :)
Even better: You know that Windows 7 dropped support for some Microsoft audio libraries and MS official answer is: Use OpenAL?
Also, Unreal Engine use OpenGL and OpenAL, Doom/Quake/Source family of engines use OpenGL, Unity use OpenGL... Why the hell someone need DX? To run XNA games?
@EK and John:
I did a test once... I left my Fedora with KDE 4 running during the XMas and New Year festivities in my house.
Two young cousins (both less than 10yo) used my machine, they accessed their Orkut/Facebook (most to play a Farmville clone and other social games), then the younger cousin that does not know how to read and write properly, fired up GIMP on his own, and used my Wacom tablet (that I had just hooked, I don't even bothered to search for drivers), to play painting stuff, and to my surprise the tablet worked fine (WITHOUT ME INSTALLING DRIVER, do you get it?), then the other cousin came, double clicked the steam icon on the desktop, and went around playing some games that I had.
They both use Windows at home, and neither them noticed the difference.
Them a cousin that is my age, came and too used my machine for his stuff, then he asked why I did made Windows look like Linux (lol...)
Only my sister knew what was going on (since she sometimes use Linux too).
So tell me, if even a computer engineering student (the cousin at my age) cannot tell the difference anymore as a user, why people still claim that GNU/Linux is not "for the consumer" ? This is ungrounded.
Extra data: Our government DID test, it was going to create a digital inclusion program, and to do so it needed to choose an OS, it created two "telecenters" (as it call their government run LAN house) apart, one running windows, other GNU/Linux. Children were taught and allowed to use when no class was running.
The ones using GNU/Linux believed that it was easy to learn, and when the children switched (they got the GNU/Linux children and put them in Windows computer, and the Windows computer children in GNU/Linux) both groups claimed that the other system was hard. Proving that is just a matter of learning, not inherent difficulty.
Also a final note on that: The conclusion of the experiment plus some others, was to use GNU/Linux. Today the government enforces all public schools (where the majority of our children is enrolled) to use and teach GNU/Linux, and the government create GNU/Linux LAN Houses and offer free courses there to children and adolescents. Also our armed forces are switching all machines to GNU/Linux or some other *nix. (the Air Force in a special case, enforces all user machines to be Ubuntu and all server machines with some exceptions be Debian, the mentioned exceptions use Fedora or Red Hat)
It's frustrating to ship a binary on a Linux distro because the environment is (mostly) hostile to binary blobs. Driver support is sometimes missing or poor, especially for new hardware. There are decent libraries(and dumptrucks worth of raw code), but the level of polish and documentation is way more variable than the "one-size-fits-all" solutions provided by MS or Apple. Flash has third-rate support, currently; fingers crossed for that situation to improve, it's really forced me away from the platform because I'm so heavily into web gaming. On the software development side, while there are good options for programmers, and a strong overall story for internal software and networked apps, the content creation is deficient. Content creation tools exist for most tasks now, but they often lag behind the Win/Mac commercial equivalents on features and polish, resulting in a huge aggregate time difference to produce anything.
None of it is insurmountable. Summed together, it makes it a struggle to target or develop on the platform. It's OK, though, because we are increasingly headed towards VM application environments, and those take the bulk of the technical aspects of portability off the table. Unity, Flash, etc. are just the beginning of this.
Glad to hear about another developer working supporting Linux. I am also glad to see that you have some success working with it as well. Good luck with all your future games.
Also, Thanks for pointing out those great libraries.
If major game publishers offered Linux-native and OpenGL games alongside their Windows
counterparts, Linux would soon begin to take over the world. Microsoft is doing everything
it can to keep that from happening. Hit the search engines and do some reading.
First: as a "Linux-optimist" (or more generally-speaking, an open-source optimist), I'm going to start by saying that I believe *POPULAR GAMES* are the only thing that Linux doesn't do better than Windows, and it's the only thing preventing global dominance. That, and a hapless lack of a good marketing campaign. Anyway, on to other comments... Where to start? I suppose I'll refute one-by-one and in order...
1) "Most developers consider Mac as well as Windows, but not many are that keen on the time and effort to support what they see as a platform that mostly supports piracy."
There's a connection here that isn't being made. Linux is generally found on the computers of people who understand computers at a certain level. Most people who understand their computer at such a level are also aware of and will use avenues to obtain software illegally. The same is true of a Windows user who is aware of the accessibility of piracy... there just seems to be more of it via Linux because there are more such users using Linux.
2) "I am well aware of the small market share that Linux has world wide. (around 1%)." I think you pretty much answered your own question there.
Here's something to consider. Almost every Linux user, including myself isn't using Linux exclusively. I'm dual-booting with Windows XP SP2, but only because I have to. The point being that those percentages are a little skewed by necessity due to most Linux users being also-Windows users. Most Linux users want to drop Windows altogether, and do so as soon as they realize that they have no reason to keep it around anymore. My only reason is new game releases. Dragon Age: Origins and WINE don't get along very well on my older hardware for example, sadly. If more people were *able* to remove Windows permanently (and like I said, I would if I could), those percentages would change dramatically.
3) "I don't understand people who use Linux as their primary OS."
The reasons are far, far more than showing off or not spending money. Microsoft's monopoly needs to be diluted somehow, and Microsoft is aware of that. They see Linux as a threat and they treat it as such. They've been accused of doing a great many underhanded things in order to retain their position in the global marketplace (a comprehensive Google search or two usually brings up several relevant articles) and those looking for any alternative see Linux (or any other open-source operating system) as the solution; rightly so. It can be. It just needs a push in the right direction.
4) "This is why Linux-lovers are so clueless: gamers DO NOT CARE about using which OS they're using unless it has some benefit and fewer drawbacks than another, so why should anyone move from Windows?"
I'll restate that for you (I've already corrected the grammar:P)...: "This is why Windows-lovers are so clueless: gamers DO NOT CARE about which OS they're using unless it has some benefit and fewer drawbacks than another, so why SHOULDN'T anyone move from Windows?" The argument on Linux's behalf, however, does not imply that game publishers (or players) should move entirely away from Windows. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a major game publisher release their content for all major platforms including Windows, Mac and Linux. The only thing that prevents this from being possible is DirectX. Why there aren't more OpenGL games boggles the mind. I'm told it's easier to work with as an API. I find that difficult to believe as the only reason. Microsoft has gone out of their way since Vista to break compatibility with OpenGL because they know as well as I do that games are their last tangible foothold in the PC market. Tear down that particular wall and Linux is put in place for a takeover. As it stands, Linux is a marketing nightmare. Even where there is also-Linux support, it's hardly featured or listed after an asterisk. Imagine the next Call of Duty game is developed using OpenGL 4.0 and Windows, Mac and Linux versions are released, it's accompanying poster board advertisement complete with a Tux, or Linux Foundation (I prefer this to the ridiculous penguin) logo alongside the "Games for Windows" and MacOS logos on the poster board in your local Best Buy. I'd be absolutely thrilled, and I'd be the first one to hand over my hard-earned $60 just to show my support for Linux to Activision.
I gotta wrap this up. I can type for days on this subject. I imagine this comment-on-comments will probably not even be seen by the original posters, or by very many people at all anymore, but there it is.
It has been 2 months since you actually commented, but I never like to leave a misguided comment uncorrected:
"Maur said: "Why the hell someone need DX? To run XNA games?"
Backwards compatability, can I play supreme commander with the same or BETTER performance on linux? If linux wants to be a gamers platform they have to make old games run FASTER on linux, there needs to be clear performance advantages AND backwards compatability, WINE does not cut it."
That is like saying, "Nobody should get a Wii because it doesn't play PS2 and Xbox games." Windows games and Linux games are very different beasts. It is very difficult to get Windows games to run on an OS that the game was not designed for. Wine has made tremendous steps to duplicate Windows system and API calls to make games run, but there is no standard development practice between all developers to make that task anything but impossible.
It is the responsibility of the game developer to make sure their games run on a different OS than the one it originally was developed for, not the OS maker. It is no more Microsoft's responsibility to update all the XP apps to run in Windows 7 than it is for Linux developers to make Windows games run in Linux. Are there people trying to do it? Yes. Wine is an example of that.
I guess your argument is that people have built a back catalog of games that they would lose access to if they switch to Linux. That is true. But it is nothing new in the game world. People switch consoles every 5-10 years with the same result. They either keep the old console for playing of those older games or they sell the console and all the games with it. A fact of life.
The fact that it is extremely easy to set up a dual boot between Windows and Linux is the same as owning two consoles. You have a Windows boot to run old Windows games and a Linux boot to run the Linux games. People argue that that is not an elegant solution, but neither is owning two consoles.
"If I wanted to make linux a game friendly platform I'd want to make sure ALL popular games had higher FPS under linux, then you'd start seeing people migrate - i.e. there are benefits."
So you would change the underlying rendering code of thousands , possibly millions, of games that you don't have source code access to? You really like to throw out impossible requirements. Why don't you tell Microsoft to do that for Windows 7.
In the end it is the developers that are going to make Linux a viable platform for gaming. As more developers make use of APIs that are cross platform friendly and include Linux support as part of their cross platform goals, it will become more viable.