What's the latest game you've played on FC5?

[Jongi]

Whether natively, through wine or Cedega?

I suppose for me it's Quake 4. Although I don't know if America's Army is older or newer.

[urmom9388]

well it depends on your definition of older or newer since AA has updates. But personally I don't do much gaming on linux. That's what I use winblows for. But linux will be my gaming os as soon as AA runs well in wine.

[Legomax]

well the only one i have running to the point you can see everything is civIV but im trying to fix some issues.

[kaconst]

The elder scrolls: Oblivion

With cedega ofcourse, it has some troubles loading saved games, but it runs fine except for the saving issue.
You also have to use oldblivion, to downgrade the shaders.

[mlavalle]

The latest games I have been playing are Prey and Guild Wars.

[Legomax]

lol, im trying to get guild wars working, does you start up menu show at all?

[Melio]

I tried playing X2: The Threat, by egosoft, a european/german based space simulator company, they released a version of they're Space Simulator that's fairly realistic recently for linux. and there's a 200 meg demo that lets you check out how to play it and what not.

I had a problem with it cause I'm running XGL/COMPIZ and I'm not sure how to fix it. so whatever :P

I got an xbox 360.

[Legomax]

i hear those things overheat...

[bitrain]

tux racer :D I'm not much of a gamer, sometimes a bit of quake 3, bzflag or tux racer and that's it.

[Thetargos]

Latest game I played on Linux was Cold War, even bought the full game on-line after playing the Demo. Nice game, I like the new elements introduced to Adventure/Action games.

[Invader02]

Enemy territory, since i can't run fear in WINE -_-

[Legomax]

i cant really run anything till i get ati acceleration up... nothing seems to work...

[Thetargos]

I thought ATi on Linux had recently started to be less of a problem? :confused:

[Wayne]

I find Aislerot Solitaire enough of a challenge :D

You can tell I'm not into games, that's why I haven't used DOS/windows since 1994 :)

Wayne

[Legomax]

lol, as if! i need to fix tons of issues with that ATI. i started a topic yesterday.. nobody responded to it lol. either my question is stupid or nobody knows the answer... the latter of which is impossible.

[Thetargos]

I find Aislerot Solitaire enough of a challenge :D

You can tell I'm not into games, that's why I haven't used DOS/windows since 1994 :)

Wayne
Those held me back for the longest time, until back in 2002 I decided I had enough of that Microsfot non sense, and even though I live in a country where 70% of the installed computers run pirated software one or another, the way to stand out is to be 100% legit, and OSS gives all that people usually seek in pirated software (free/low cost), with increased value in terms of quality and assurance.

I got tired of running a pirated copy of Windows and not be able to properly protect it, and to not wanting to spend $100 for it just to be able to play these games I found that I seldom played, anyway, and I was already way deep into Linux, so I went the easy way :D

I still play games, though. And I try to support Linux gaming by buying those games I like with Linux ports, and letting know the devs/community that I run Linux, and am happy with their products... Since I went clean, I haven't missed Microsoft products one bit... and it feels sooo good!

[Thetargos]

lol, as if! i need to fix tons of issues with that ATI. i started a topic yesterday.. nobody responded to it lol. either my question is stupid or nobody knows the answer... the latter of which is impossible.
That's strange... You'd probably be better off asking on the Phoronix forums or in the Linux forum over at Rage3D? Phoronix uses Fedora Core to conduct his driver reviews, and he seems to always be able to get the things working for the tests, so you may have better luck asking there?

[Legomax]

it works sort of... just barely, i cant play games on it, but i can do tests and get around 300 fps (if im lucky) ill check that out soon...

[Thetargos]

Well, it will also depend on what video card you have and all that... And you mean 300 fps, where, exactly? glxgears or fgl_glxgears?

[mlavalle]

lol, im trying to get guild wars working, does you start up menu show at all?

Yes, it starts up and I can get into the game.

Command Line Options: -dx8 -noshaders
General Settings: Windows98, XRandR, Managed, Mozilla Control, Freetype and XRender.
Audio Settings: OSS (Full Duplex).
Graphics Settings: Pixel Shaders 1.3, Vertex Shaders 1.1, NV_VAR Extension, ARB_VBO Extension, Fixel GL Extension Buffer: -GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object, Clip Space Fix.

[Legomax]

oh! i dont have it set like that! or i might i havent looked

[cruiseoveride]

Im playing most wanted again through Cedega.
But i have completed UT2004, Doom 3, Quake 4 (all native linux) recently too.

[cruiseoveride]

You know I was thinkin.
If Cedega, a under 50mb product is capable of playing windows games.
Why don;t game manufacturers write their games on directx or opengl but use a compatability wrapper similar to cedega, so that their games would run on any OS, Mac, Windows, Linux. This way they target a much larger audience without the need of completely re-writing the code for the new OS.
And if Linux X11 is and will never be capably of rendering directx extensions, why dont the game manufacturers, biuy the dx engine from microsoft and supply on disk with their "cedega" since it only takes less than 50mb to emulate any windows game on Mac or Linux, why isnt this being done?
The only thing standing between linux and world domination is computer games.
If the game manufacturers, wrote a base system, similar to what oracle was doing in the 1999s, so that all their products could run off it.
Or cant opengl itself, provide equivelent functions to that of directx or masqueraded functions at least.
A sort of "built in" wine.
I guess at the end of the day everything comes down to standardisation. Even linux has not got itself together on this department. Eg, we have .deb, .rpm. pkg, ckg. .... when they all do the same thing.
M$'s directX maybe their only saving grace, whether they know it or not.

Im talking only about the gfx part of the games, Binaries will have to be produced for each OS, but once the base has been made than its quite simple. Eg Quake from ID software. All u needed was seperate binaries to run the game natively on windows or linux. Quake being opengl or NFS-Most Wanted being directx9 should not be important as wine translates the library calls anyways.

Computer games should not be called "Windows Games"
Computer games must be OS independent.
Computer games must be "Computer Games"

If M$ sells dx to me, then one day when i have ebough pennies, ill buy it and give it to Sun or IBM under a GPL license. Just imagine the results of that, a few years later.

[Dan]

-Freecell-

[Jongi]

well it depends on your definition of older or newer since AA has updates. But personally I don't do much gaming on linux. That's what I use winblows for. But linux will be my gaming os as soon as AA runs well in wine.

Why not play the Linux version? That's what I do.

I had a problem with it cause I'm running XGL/COMPIZ and I'm not sure how to fix it. so whatever :P

Use xgame

http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/gentoo/distfiles/xgame-1.7.1.tar.gz

[Jongi]

My motivation for this thread was really the fact that i was thinking of upgrading my video card (nVidia FX5600). However this would require me buying a PCI-E motherboard as well. So it got me thinking that I don't play games that often in any event. And the fact that I am hardly booting into XP might mean that my graphics reqirements at present are not that extensive.

[3006828]

If M$ sells dx to me, then one day when i have ebough pennies, ill buy it and give it to Sun or IBM under a GPL license. Just imagine the results of that, a few years later.

they'd all go broke from law suits :P

no in all serious tho.. Brilliant ideolgy. That is indeed what should be happening!!

[3006828]

oh last game i playes was Art of Fighting on GXMame :cool:

[Donkyhotay]

You know I was thinkin.
If Cedega, a under 50mb product is capable of playing windows games.
Why don;t game manufacturers write their games on directx or opengl but use a compatability wrapper similar to cedega, so that their games would run on any OS, Mac, Windows, Linux. This way they target a much larger audience without the need of completely re-writing the code for the new OS.
And if Linux X11 is and will never be capably of rendering directx extensions, why dont the game manufacturers, biuy the dx engine from microsoft and supply on disk with their "cedega" since it only takes less than 50mb to emulate any windows game on Mac or Linux, why isnt this being done?
The only thing standing between linux and world domination is computer games.
If the game manufacturers, wrote a base system, similar to what oracle was doing in the 1999s, so that all their products could run off it.
Or cant opengl itself, provide equivelent functions to that of directx or masqueraded functions at least.
A sort of "built in" wine.
I guess at the end of the day everything comes down to standardisation. Even linux has not got itself together on this department. Eg, we have .deb, .rpm. pkg, ckg. .... when they all do the same thing.
M$'s directX maybe their only saving grace, whether they know it or not.

Im talking only about the gfx part of the games, Binaries will have to be produced for each OS, but once the base has been made than its quite simple. Eg Quake from ID software. All u needed was seperate binaries to run the game natively on windows or linux. Quake being opengl or NFS-Most Wanted being directx9 should not be important as wine translates the library calls anyways.

Computer games should not be called "Windows Games"
Computer games must be OS independent.
Computer games must be "Computer Games"

If M$ sells dx to me, then one day when i have ebough pennies, ill buy it and give it to Sun or IBM under a GPL license. Just imagine the results of that, a few years later.



M$ will NEVER do that for precisely the reason you state. They have a monopoly, everybody knows it. Why do you think just about every major country has cited them for anti-trust laws forcing them to buy their way out? If M$ were to realse DX then it could be rewritten to for systems like linux and bring out a mass of games NOT FOR THEIR SYSTEM!!! So long as computer games are 99% windows then kids will grow up using windows because of the games, get used to it, and not switch because their used to it. Admittedly I don't know but I'll bet that the license M$ gives to game companies to use DX probably states that it can never be used on another system. They do this with OEM retailers. A retailer can't sell M$ products and other OS's at the same time. If a retailer attempts to do so they jack the prices so high the retailer can't compete anymore. This is why there is such a huge difference in cost between buying a regular copy of windows and an OEM copy. To avoid anti-trust laws they claim the higher price is their "standard" price and give discounts to retailers that choose to only sell their product (which they can do). The standard price is so high though no one would ever buy it and since many people want windows (for their games and because their used to it) the retailer is stuck either selling windows only, or selling windows at a cost so high they go out of business. I've heard it's even worse in europe then it is in the USA. M$ has this vicious circle that people knowledgable about computers hate but what can you do. Consumers want to buy windows because it is compatible with the games being sold, game maker primarily make windows games because it's what retailers sell, retailers sell windows products because they will go out of business if they lose their M$ account, then once again we're back at the beginning where consumers buy windows because it is compatible with the games being sold. M$ is greedy, not stupid. They have a good thing going and they know it. They will do ANYTHING in their power to hold onto their monopoly which means never selling DX and using their influence to prevent software makers in general (especially game developers) from making non-windows software. One other thing to mention, cedega is not open-source so game companies would have to purchase a license to use it (which costs money) and since the linux market is relatively small and doing so might lose any discounts they recieve from M$ it probably would cost more money then they would get back (at least for right now) to simply add cedega as part of their game.

[cruiseoveride]

Since opengl is available for windows, why dont game manufacturers, write their games on opengl? it would be much cheaper than buying a proprietry sdk for directx.
Opengl provides everything that directx can do, and its free.
Why buy DirectX when openGL is free?

[Thetargos]

Since opengl is available for windows, why dont game manufacturers, write their games on opengl? it would be much cheaper than buying a proprietry sdk for directx.
Opengl provides everything that directx can do, and its free.
Why buy DirectX when openGL is free?
There must be some benefits... support?, discounts?, god-knows-what... Even coding for Direct X (at least D3D) is much more cumbersome than OGL... However I DO an advantage at using DirectX: You do pretty much all parts of a game using only one simple framework. The sound backend, DirectSound; the network backend, DirectPlay (or whatever is called nowadays); control backend, DirectInput; you name it! All under one nice, integrated, tightly connected with the underlying OS, framework. Maybe you could use OpenGL for the graphics, but then again, you should be using DirectDraw for your menu system, or DirectSound for your sound backend, or even DirectPlay for your network framework, which of course means paying Mcirosoft for using DirectX... If you are gonna pay for it, anyway, why not use Direct3D as well? OpenGL would be an alien in such system.

Until only recently companies have been aware of an alternative high-level-to-low-level API: SDL. Sure it has been around for quite sometime, and basically it aims at providing the same functionality of DirectX, even covering what DirectX already does, in a multiplatform framework. If memory serves right, I believe Sony said that they were going to use SDL for the UI of the PS3. SDL handles graphics by actually using OpenGL, however unlike OGL-GLUT applications, SDL takes the "windowing" and input responsibility, which was once part of GLUT, gaving a better way to interface with the graphics system of each particular platform, or how it was called in UT99, SDLGL.

SDL has great potential, but its penetration in big game studios I think is rather limited, basically because I personally think that programmers by now are way too used to DirectX, and learning another API, may indeed cost them more than stking to using DirectX, basically in terms training, plus who do they turn to if they require support or documentation?

[3006828]

fedora forums. where else :D

[Wayne]

Those held me back for the longest time, until back in 2002 I decided I had enough of that Microsfot non sense, and even though I live in a country where 70% of the installed computers run pirated software one or another, the way to stand out is to be 100% legit, and OSS gives all that people usually seek in pirated software (free/low cost), with increased value in terms of quality and assurance.

I got tired of running a pirated copy of Windows and not be able to properly protect it, and to not wanting to spend $100 for it just to be able to play these games I found that I seldom played, anyway, and I was already way deep into Linux, so I went the easy way :D

I still play games, though. And I try to support Linux gaming by buying those games I like with Linux ports, and letting know the devs/community that I run Linux, and am happy with their products... Since I went clean, I haven't missed Microsoft products one bit... and it feels sooo good!

Back in the 'old days' a friend here bought Red Baron. Now, that was a great flight game and one I'd play now if I hadn't given all my old stuff away ages ago! When he got a soundblaster card (showing our age here!) it was really the bees knees! I seem to remember in those days people freely exchanged their DOS disks :D I remember having Japanese DOS 3.2 on my Toshiba Dynabook J-3100GS!

Wayne

[cruiseoveride]

...OpenGL would be an alien in such system.

It may be alien, but if its free, why not sacrafice a few hundred megabytes and put the libraries on the disk, openGL can be use with openAL correct? So now you have both sound and video. The network can be done with anything,

[Thetargos]

It may be alien, but if its free, why not sacrafice a few hundred megabytes and put the libraries on the disk, openGL can be use with openAL correct? So now you have both sound and video. The network can be done with anything,
Indeed, but if you are to stay away from GLUT (to manage windowing and other stuff from your OGL app) you would have to use DirectDraw and DirectInput (or code the input code yourself, without nice templates).

Plus, pretty much any programmer getting out of college are trained on DirectX and Microsoft technologies, which means, the companies do not have to spend money on personnel training, which means less costs for them, which means more "productivity" as the associated costs have already been absorved by the personnel themselves (or their families, etc).

[Donkyhotay]

translation: microsoft has a monopoly and if anything is going to be done to combat it we will need to do it ourselves.

Honestly the best thing is to show support to companies that do provide linux services. Anyone remember loki? They were a great company dedicated to porting and selling proprietary windows games for linux but they had to file chapter 11 bankruptcy after only 3 years of busines. One of the downsides of opensource programs is the opensource mindset. People get used to the idea of opensource and everything being cheap (if not free) and able to be tinkered with but proprietary companies are not interested in ideologies, they are interested in money. They want software thats going to create hype with lots of eye candy so they can sell it for $50-$60. Why spend extra time and effort (not to mention possible wrath of M$) to create a version of your product that few people would need (lets face it, anyone serious about games either uses windows or at least dual-boots) and the people that are linux only do not fit the profile of wanting to pay money for games. I mean, most people that are exclusive to linux (though not all I admit) do so because they are trying to save money (which means they can't/won't pay $50-$60 for a game) or because they believe in the opensource ideology and won't buy proprietary software. I mean, where is the incentive for them? If we as the linux community want more proprietary software available for linux we're going to have to show the companies that not only is there a market here it will be a PROFITABLE market. This means not only writing letters to companies requesting more linux software but actually going out and buying the stuff when they do! Otherwise they'll just follow loki into bankruptcy. My first recommendation would be to start donating financially to open-source projects (especially games). Many open-source projects (like openoffice) have places where you can make donations via paypal or credit card. This will encourage those developers to spend more time working for linux projects instead of doing it whenever they can in their spare time. Then they can either band together into their own company or get hired by the big-name companies as part of their new "linux" division when they see the potential profit. I'll admit, I have never donated financially to any opensource project even though I use opensource programs exclusively. I would love to be able to play more games on my linux system, but I have to admit to myself the main reason I use linux is because I believe proprietary software is a scam and even if it was available today I wouldn't buy any proprietary games for linux. I would very happily continue playing BZflag and globulation2 which are both opensource and free.

[Dan]

Donkyhotay:

I believe you've just stuck your finger deep into the wound.

However, It's well and good to throw a bone to the open source developer, But in the case of something like Openoffice.org, they will not survive without the corporate sponsorship and licensing allowances of Sun Microsystems. So once the OOo folks have worked their magic, and the culmination of that magic gets introduced in Star Office 6,7,8 etc. You may want to think about coughing up the $80 bux or so to get get a fully licensed commercial version of Star Office from Sun Microsystems. If they sell a few, they'll be a lot more likely to continue to support the free stuff.

Dan

[Thetargos]

Indeed, Donkyhotay... You've hit the nail in the head... So it boils down to total lack of interest of Open Source users to pay even for that which they most want to be available in the platform, you admitted it yourself, you have not donated a penny to any Open Source developers, and yet, you use Open Source programs exclussively. And like yourself, there are quite a bit of other users who do the same, and not only that, but go farther and think they have no obligation whatsoever (and they are right!), but what is worse, is that yet a lot of these kinds of uesers bark about support for x, y or z for their a, b or c application, like it was the developer's obligation to do that. This attitude saddens me deeply. The devs work for nothing, out of simply the desire to have their application out and maybe used by someone, I think no user has the right to demand anything from them, unless they are contributing in any way, either donating money, code, feedback or anything else that might be constructive. How many passive Open Source users are there? Sadly the answer is: The great majority.

[Dan]

Thetargos... That was a mouthful! Well said!

Dan

[Thetargos]

The issue's way too complex to simply express it in a few lines, even pages of text, TangledWeb.

The problem lies right in the core of Open Source's most powerful force: its community, and beyond that the heterogeny of the community itself.

There is nothing wrong being a simple passive Open Source user. The problem comes when these users want to push for some change, get something implemented, redone, redisigned, you name it. In that very moment they're neither passive nor active, they're in limbo... demanding.

I'm sure we'd all like to see the Open Source and Linux communities, methodologies, ideologies and advantages take the world by storm, push for massive adoption and let the world be happy. However our whole way of living in this freaking planet is ruled by the money signs. We depend on it for everything, doing something out of good-will, or because you simply want and don't expect anything in return, does not buy you food, clothes, put a ceiling above your head or heat in your home in winter. Yet the Open Source methodology and ideology aknowledges this, and thus allows you to make money off Open Source, howver, how many Open Source users are willing to invest in Open Source?

And that's is a hard question to answer, as there are many ways to "invest". But still our world will be ruled by the money signs and we'll have to pay for our living.

[cruiseoveride]

How do Universities work?
They teach Microsoft Visual C++/Java/.Net etc are all that even ISO certified? If the University has a ISO certificate then they must comply in all areas?
How do I target Universities in my neighbourhood.
I remember having a tuff time when i was doing my 2nd yr Systems Engineering. We had to make sure the code worked in M$ visual, but all I wrote was proper ISO c++. And that never used to work on the visual machines.
Dont universities spend millions on software and licenses? How do i convice them that FOSS is a better choice for everyone.
I believe one man can make a difference, i just need to know how.
Where can i get info on where the university gets their software from? and how much they pay? and how often?

[Thetargos]

I really don't want to take this thread to a moral discussion... We've driven it way off topic already.

However, I do believe it is important to note and discuss the identifiable causes of what is preventing Linux penetration in some markets, like gaming.

[Dan]

The issue's way too complex to simply express it in a few lines, even pages of text, TangledWeb.

The problem lies right in the core of Open Source's most powerful force: its community, and beyond that the heterogeny of the community itself. I agree, but as your last post stated, That's a lot deeper into the sociology of the thing than we need to get. However, the paths to solutions begin with single steps. Step one? Understand that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[Seve]

Hello:
The latest game played on FC was UT2004 ..... last night ...got my butt kicked :p

there ...back on topic :)
Seve

[Dan]

got my butt kicked *sigh* Same thing here... only it was freecell...again...

[Donkyhotay]

Although it is possible to sell open source software by it's very nature you are not likely to recieve much back. Say you did build a wonderful opensource game that takes the world by storm. One person buys it, by the rules of the license they can turn around and sell it themself or just give it away so long as they acknowledge you are the principle author. This means for every copy you sell there are 50 free copies distributed. I've thought about this alot. As I mentioned I feel proprietary software is a scam and I use linux and open-source software largely to combat this. This belief came about AFTER I started using linux and becoming more aware of opensource options. I started using linux because I couldn't afford $200 for XP64 which I had been using free for a year when suddenly the beta expired and M$ essentially said "pay up or we'll shut down your computer". I believe strongly in linux but it was cost that got me started. Likewise you mentioned people should contribute financially and with code etc. Even though I have never paid any money I do contribute time/code to opensource projects (Take a look at the globulation2 forums/buglist and you'll see my contributions there) however it's just a hobby. I can't work full-time on it because there is reality to deal with and I have to go to school and when I'm done with that I'll have to go to a regular job. If I could turn my love for opensource software into a way to making money I would however I don't see any efficient way of doing it. As I said before, simply developing and selling open-source software is ridiculous since your first copy sold is essentially your last. There are too many passive users to live off just contributions unless you develop something that becomes REALLY big like bittorrent (which is rare).

[cruiseoveride]

wat gfx libraries to consoles use?
i heard the ps3 will be using embedded linux?
if so then games written for it could be ported, to an extent onto a pc.

[cruiseoveride]

bittorrent puts more power into the hands of individual users than other p2p networks did,
bittorrent is completely decentralised.

If Bush wanted he could absorbe the entire M$ and make it goverment proprietry. He will then have access to the homes and minds and eyes of every computer user in the world (to a great extent).
It is THE weapon of mass destruction.

[Donkyhotay]

BZflag all the way!!!

[cruiseoveride]

i hope u guys are not b*tchy about proprietry plugins
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2026180970694173814&q=microsoft+linux
if u are, then u missed a cool video.
http://www.macosforge.org/
Apple is also trying to get its Foss on

[Thetargos]

Although it is possible to sell open source software by it's very nature you are not likely to recieve much back. Say you did build a wonderful opensource game that takes the world by storm. One person buys it, by the rules of the license they can turn around and sell it themself or just give it away so long as they acknowledge you are the principle author. This means for every copy you sell there are 50 free copies distributed. I've thought about this alot. As I mentioned I feel proprietary software is a scam and I use linux and open-source software largely to combat this. This belief came about AFTER I started using linux and becoming more aware of opensource options. I started using linux because I couldn't afford $200 for XP64 which I had been using free for a year when suddenly the beta expired and M$ essentially said "pay up or we'll shut down your computer". I believe strongly in linux but it was cost that got me started. Likewise you mentioned people should contribute financially and with code etc. Even though I have never paid any money I do contribute time/code to opensource projects (Take a look at the globulation2 forums/buglist and you'll see my contributions there) however it's just a hobby. I can't work full-time on it because there is reality to deal with and I have to go to school and when I'm done with that I'll have to go to a regular job. If I could turn my love for opensource software into a way to making money I would however I don't see any efficient way of doing it. As I said before, simply developing and selling open-source software is ridiculous since your first copy sold is essentially your last. There are too many passive users to live off just contributions unless you develop something that becomes REALLY big like bittorrent (which is rare).
If that were the case, I think Red Hat would have gone belly up a long time ago ;)

Here comes to play two different aspects of the software industry and in particular how two different models work: Open Source Vs Proprietary. Trying to sell unitary OSS programs and make a living out of that is not possible, for the reasons you already mentioned, where as in the proprietary world it makes all the sense in the world, however FLOSS does have a strength: Support and assurance, and that's why Red Hat and others have been able to survive.

This is the very reason why (sticking to the topic at hand) Linux gaming has not fully taken off yet, especially with large corporations. Simply put, if they were to support a particular application, in this case, a game, Linux for all purposes poses a support hell. It is too heterogenous as an ecosystem.

If a company would be willing to take such burden, it would have to take into account the various versions of software out there, and have a very clear map of the application's dependencies. This is where Minimum System Requirements take another dimension. Because in Linux not only the version of the kernel, GlibC, SDL, OpenGL, or hardware change... As these changes affect the whole system at some point or another.

In Windows this is not such a problem becuase the customers and the developers expect the system to somewhat backwards compatible, so they can support a broader number of versions, this means that the system has to keep a number routines, functions, etc, from older versions available, otherwise the software will break. This also means that troubleshooting is less of a problem as having to deal with a much more heterogenic environment such as Linux.

Let us suppose that a company moves forward, then comes the whole issue about costs. And here Microsoft is correct, it Windows has a lower TCO in this regard, as supporting it is cheaper in the end, why? Because a great deal of people know Windows very well, and it is likely to find people who will be willing to accept support positions, the most unrewarding job on the face of the Earth. Trying to find capable Linux peeps to support a game, and willing to take all that bull from customers and users and accept such a low pay... Not likely. Linux technitians aren't cheap. The alternative for this company would be to train their staff to learn how to deal with Linux support, but who would then absorb the training cost? The customers, of course, so the product is a bit pricier.

Still, these companies will not be able to deal with all themselves, they will require the user to provide all the necessary information, and in most cases, guide the users to finding such information to provide them with in the first place.

And this is only one side of the story, the consumer-corporation relationship, there's a whole other issue to deal with: Development tools support. Who's behind GCC support? Generally this boils down to the distribution you are developing on and for. Who's behind SDL support? "Who you're gonna call?" and they're not the Ghostbusters I'm affraid (yeah, showing the age here!). Is not like it is not possible to find support and/or help with SDL issues, just not formal support, like in you call in, and if the rep can't assit you to solve your issue, because you have a deadline to meet, the rep will get the job done for you, as that's why you are paying them for support. With neither OpenGL nor SDL you get that, so game developers turn to they who can provide that kind of support, and we find the [vicious] cycle complete: Microsfot and its DirectX suite. Not only that, but their whole development environment too, one fee covers them all, the copropate's OS, framework and development tools support... How can any Linux provider beat that?

Even if the software doesn't cost a penny as such, but companies are willing to pay to be assured that their projects will come to fruition. It doesn't matter if the project will be delayed, a few weeks, months or even years, as long as they are assured they will get the proper support when they need it.

So as you can see the support knife has two edges, and they are very, very sharp. On the one hand we have the customer-corporation support, how is the company to support Linux when it is in practice more expensive (due to personnel, either training or hiring) and such a mess in terms of concurrent versions, etc; and who is going to support all the needs of the company in terms of support if anything goes wrong with the tools/OS, who takes responsibility? Who holds their hand through the crisis? Who do they sue if things go nasty? No one in the Linux world takes full responsiblity... Neither does Microsoft, but they do have more infrastructure to deal with emergency cases.

So the way I see it, we could say that lack of prorietary software (games or therwise) in Linux are due to at least three major extrincic factors (amongst those intrinsic which we've already discussed):

Market share. Due to its market size, albeit in the raise, is it cost effective to have a Linux port, in therms of cost/benefit?
Customer Support. Due to the very situation of how Linux professionals tend to be more expensive than Windows technitians, and due also to availability (mostly impacting the costs), it is indeed more expensive to provide customer support for Linux than what it is for Windows. Not to mention the potential training costs associated.
Software Support. The company will have to make use of a lot of tools and software to develop their application. Not only do they have to deal with the intrinsic and inherent restrictions of proprietary software linking against GPL software, which will render any program to virtually have to rely either on self built libraries, or LGPL toolkits only (like GTK, for graphics, for instance). But they will also require "someone" to take responsibilty and guide them/help them should anything go wrong during development. I know of no one with the required muscle to provide such support, unless IBM would be willing, through their services, provide such support and deal with potential legal difficulties.
Marketing. This is actually less of an issue, as the resources for the other platforms the product supports could be shared, however to push the Linux version even further, they will require to invest and deviate more resources exclussively for Linux marketing... Agan, that's expensive.


There are ways to overcome these issues, like Epic (Atari, more precisely) did with the Unreal series, by not providng direct support for the software under the Linux platform, but relying on the community to do so, by setting up a mailing list and having the main developer of the Linux version answer some of the hardest issues with support (I'm taliking about ut2004@icculus.org here). In that way they skip the whole Linux support expense altogether, and the users know if they run the software under Linux, they're pretty much on their own ("with a little help from their friends"). But since the Linux version was "outsourced" to Ryan, he is left alone to deal with all the support issues he may have, and he was left alone to figure out any problems that could arise, granted, Ryan C. Gordon is a Linux and *nix guru so this was no "problem" for him as an individual, but would have been for Epic as a corporation.

So should more companies be willing to provide native Linux ports of their software built in-house, these issues will still be there, unless someone took it to themselves to provide support not only for the version of Linux they may be running (distribution), but also the tools they will be using... and having such a company is not cheap nor easy task.

[cruiseoveride]

wow, my eyes are hurting after that,
ok, i agree with u...

So let a company like Redhat come with a Desktop OS which u have to pay for, but the minimilistic cost that the end user pays, covers proprietry plugins, support etc.
Then Redhat will sit in the same position microsoft is in, once it catches on.
People dont mind paying for software, when u compare it to what people pay for M$ products, If a company like RedHat go out and fight, take linux and put it on a stage. Make people awh it. Provided a cut throat marketting strategy, advertise, provide OEM support, so when i go to Future shop, i just choose which OS i want,
If people want to buy software and hence contribute to the cycle of market share and profits, then please for god sake take a linux distro and sell it to them.
Redhat's EL range of products' licensing schemes are almost identical to microsofts windows server.
So why dont they come back with Shrike part deux and give em a little push from behind to see if Microsoft can run.
Well i know, bold words, for a computer engineer sitting behind his pc, Capital investment is wat we need, the Peoples Operating Systems, POS. Sell linux, if its free, the first reaction is, there must be something wrong with it, so charge the bloody people, make em buy it, make software vendors drool at its marketing platform.
Common people, does anyone hear me!

[Dan]

As I recall, I bought my first Linux Distro (RH9) off the shelf at CompUSA where it sat comfortably ensconced beside SUSE 9 and Windows XP Home. The price of RH9 was less than a quarter of the price of Win XP.

Yet... I think you may be onto something. People do expect to be more pleased with something they buy, than something they get for free. Perhaps a $25.00 massively marketed boxed set of distro-generic Linux games is a good idea. I'd spend that much just to satisfy my curiosity!

Dan

[cruiseoveride]

i got my rh6.1, cartman, or catman something in january 2000, i got it of a pc mag, but never mind that.
i would buy the linux games. and for the same reason as TangledWeb.
If redhat came out with a desktop, thats wat ill be using. and i wouldnt mind paying for it.
i chose linux not because of its price,

Common redhat, sell use desktop linux please :):):)

[3006828]

i sadly chose it becasue of its price.. i was forced into it due to the price on widows.. if the shoes were reveresed i probaly would have never bothered with *nix

glad i ended up round this way.. *nix is a perfect day filler :D

actually i first got in to linux when it was for sale in a "pocket book" by a large mainstream computer mag publisher.

Downloading would have taken for ever not having access to afordable ADSL at the time, and the pocket book came with of course a basic guide to get me started, which i have subserquently lend out to get others started ;)

i bought each new pocket book preety much in line with each new red hat revision starting at 8, which also came with mandriva 7.2 or something, for at least 2 yrs actually,

Then fedora 3 came about and i downloaded it from uni, and used those early guides to help me along. ;)

Many thanks APC Linux Pocketbook


If i could have put that money directly into the distro's hands tho.... :( i would have.

[whatwhatwhat]

I played Nexuiz, a classic multiplayer deathmatch game. It comes included with my FC5 distro. I was just curious to see what it was like. It's pretty okay. I wish it had better weapons, though.

[Moik]

Neverwinter Nights is really the only game I play on Linux, and one of the few games that I've seen that has really good Linux support.

I'm going to try putting Dawn of War over into WINE from a Win install, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of confirmation that it will work, just rumours.

[Thetargos]

The games I most play are:

Diablo II LOD, NWN, UT2004 (and mods, lots of them), UT classic (again, with mods), Q3A/TA, RTCW (single player, I did not like the multiplayer of it), ET RTCW, Doom3/RoE, Warcraft III and Warcraft II BNE.

As you can see the Windows games I play, are pretty much Blizzard titles. I'm not all that interested on getting a working Half-Life 2 and mods, nor many other Windows games. I bought Cold War, which I haven't played since I finished it, and many other old Windows/Linux games (Heretic II, FAKK2, Rune, Shogo) that I occasionally play