Steam goes Linux

DirectX is only for windows. So until they decide to use OpenGL in a game, they're stuck with windows.

Same goes for the Source engine that - until now - had been dx only

Steam is already very popular in the nerd scene.

Also, the 'cage' that StarDock and Valve have been holding themselves in is a very large cage. In fact, the cage encompasses almost all of the world, except for the small, jail cell-sized areas that Mac and Linux occupy outside of this cage.

(Note: I run Linux, but unlike many other open-source advocates, I don't have an inflated view of the significance of the Linux market to game developers.)

No kidding, until my dad can run linux without him pestering me to death over the phone it isn't a viable platform for entertainment developers. Let's face it they need to appeal to a broader market. Not to mention the simple fact that DirectX is light years easier in terms of development. The bottom line? OpenGL needs to grow up, and linux needs to move beyond its "I don't pre-can squat" attitude.

True, the Linux market is quite small. And also true, OpenGL has some serious issues. I really miss some big developer taking charge there and bringing it up-to-date in the gaming section (for "professional" 3D development it is by far superior to DirectX ... that's the main problem: OpenGL wasn't made for games).

However, even if the additional market is quite small, as long as the cost to get there is not too high (which it is not, ID software has only one man writing their linux clients (I think)) it shouldn't matter. In addition to that we have the biggest nerds (most vocal people in online communities) who fancy Linux - meaning the mouth-to-mouth-propaganda impact of a Linux version is much bigger then it's potential customer base (e.g. Linux fans like me suddenly liking Steam instead of hating it and therefor recommending it to their not-so-nerdy friends who then use it on Windows).

Chicken and egg scenario.
There aren't many gamers on Linux because there's no games.
There's no games on Linux because there aren't many gamers.

Not to mention that most people who have Linux also have Windows, so it's a hard sell to sell a separate Linux version of a game (though most games that support Linux generally do it at no extra cost). Not to mention that Wine does a pretty good job on a heck of a lot of games.

Honestly, I think it would benefit the gaming industry in the long run if game developers took the hit now and ported their games to Linux. At the very least, work with Wine (or Cedega's new program) to try to ensure compatibility.

Funny enough, Steam and many of its games already work pretty well under Wine, and Stardock and its games aren't half bad as well. (though not on par with valve's stuff under wine)

Anyhow, Steam is probably coming to Linux for 2 reasons:
A significant enough number of people (probably a few percentage points) were identified as using Wine through valve's hardware profilers and...
They already had to rewrite their engines in OpenGL to port the Orange Box to PS3.

OpenGL for gaming sucks. Linux for gaming sucks. Mac for gaming sucks. Even most advocates of all the above mentioned garbage consider Windows to be at the least a Gaming Console.

Windows isn't a cage, it just happens to be an excellent option for gaming. I hate that Linux fanboys, and Mac fanboys act like Windows is nothing, and worthless, and dismiss the fact that %92+ of the world uses Windows for a reason. A lot of reasons. And games are made on it for another reason.

Stardock made a good choice going for the Games for Windows entitlement. Though I wish that they had used the Live support as well as ICO.

Microsoft certainly doesn't do everything right, and often not even most of it. But they do do a lot of things well. They just have to do it well for everyone at the same time or they get flak. Apple and Linux have to appease a tiny percentage of diehard fans. Microsoft has to appease those guys, and everyone else with every step. Or else they get labeled as a terrible company. I have to say, if they are a poorly run and operated company, I wish I was that inefficent as to be that successful.

1.  Reading the article it's the Source engine they're looking to port.  Not Steam.  This means we could see a linux compatible version of Half Life 2 at some point.  Not necessarily that we will see a Steam client for Linux.

2.  Games supported under WINE/Transgaming etc. aren't usually done by the game developer themselves.  Specifically in the case of Cedega, they have to patch in game-specific support.

As a part-time linux user myself, I've come to accept the fact that linux is not destined to be a gaming OS.  Until either developers abandon DirectX, or someone figures out a 100% painless DX port for linux, you won't see a big move on linux games.  Why?  Because transitioning from a DX based engine to an OGL one is not in the least bit trivial.  iD can do it because I believe their games are done in OpenGL to begin with, so getting it to run on Linux is a much simpler task for them (by comparison).  UnrealEngine is built for both DX and OGL.

To get developers porting games to linux, there has to be a guarantee on the return on investment.  If it takes 1 full time developer a year to port some game, then that game has to at least sell enough copies to cover the cost.  To make it actually worth the time though it would have to make a lot more money than the cost to develop, otherwise it's a better value to have that developer work on the Windows version which is a better financial bet.

The platform needs a few big-name champions to make it viable, but in a market where a big-name game can cost in the millions of dollars to develop, that's a risk not many companies are generally willing to take. 

That's where I am. I have 6 computers in my house. Two run Windows: My wife's laptop, and my gaming rig. If games ran on Linux, I'd ditch Windows on that machine - but only because I have the ability to support my machines. Linux is not a mainstream OS, and won't be for a long time, if ever.



There-in is the problem. "Pretty" well. I hear that argument from my fellow linux users all the time. I don't know bout you, but when I spend $50+ on a game, I want it to run perfectly, not just "good enough."

I had some games installed through Wine on my laptop for use on the road, and you know what? I said "screw it" and put a Windows partition on it just for games. It's easier and works better.



Ah, and there-in lies the rub: The culture and development of Linux apps is geared towards an open-source and -more often than not- free system. This makes it even less likely that a developer will see an ROI for Linux games.

Bottom line - I use Linux for much of my day-to-day computing, but for games I stick to Windows. Getting ticked that Linux doesn't have more games is like getting pissed at Wii for not having as many FPS as Xbox. They're two different cultures, and were designed for two different purposes.





People might be more receptive if you didn't attack so openly. Just my 2 credits.

 

Agreed, but there is something you are overlooking in the financial planning. This article explains it quite well:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-you-should-support-mac-os-x-and-linux/
Especially the 3rd point, vocal minorities (or: word of mouth) is very important I'd say.

Of cause it is very costly to port an existing dx-only game to ogl. But I don't see any reason why a game developer should start with dx to begin with. SDL and OpenGL are just as powerful and offer easy access to graphics cars as well as the sound system and controls across many platforms. Chosing dx for the engine means that the developer willingly locks himself in and can never again change the system without huge cost (which is basically the whole reason why MS is making money, because most of the market is locked in and it is very costly and in many fields simply not possible to get out).
Is it just me or does that look like a very, very bad long term strategy? If there is any possibility to avoid some lock-in effect a company should take it in my opinion. It may not make a difference today but 10 years from now you might be very happy.

So yes, porting GC2 or Sins to Linux is probably not possible. But you can still release your next game with an OpenGL engine

Generally people tend to over-estimate the windows gamer market and underestimate the GNU/Linux market. Most windows users are not gamers and most games are not made for windows. GNU/Linux has estimates from 1%-5% of the PC market. That's a few million people, of these millions, say a couple of hundred thousands are also gamers. Trust you me, that these gamers will reward developers who look to their side in order to provide an incentive to keep doing so.

GnU/Linux users are more than happy to pay for something that is worth it, check out for example Penny Arcarde's On the Rainslick Precipice of Darkness which runs natively. And Stardock already realizes that people will not copy a game just because they can, otherwise they would have used DRM. If they can give the game out through Impulse with no DRM to windows, they can do the same thing in GNU/Linux with no fear.

I believe that game devs should be making sure their game runs well on wine as they code it. Wine has already a lot of developers working on it and if internal game developers cooperated with them, it would certainly make the job easier. The problem right now is that wine devs have to work alone and reverse engineer the solutions to problems. Each wine game can be taken over by a "maintainer" which can easily be the developer. He can then see what problems there are and help to resolve them through internal knowledge and cooperation.

Yes, and the reason is windows lock-in and that most people don't know better. Check what happens when they do

Windows is a good gaming OS, but it is total crap for doing serious work. It's a toy OS. Just to play a GC2 game, I should reboot to Windows. Now, while in Windows, I cannot alt+tab to the more serious applications that I use under Linux. This makes it a serious annoyance.

And here is the commercial reason to make games compatible with Linux. If there is a Linux version of a game, I am prepared to pay good money for it, since it makes enjoying the game to so much more comfortable.

Why? Having coded for both Direct3D & OpenGL, I prefer OpenGL any time.

The problem is that the size of the PC gaming market is known.  With linux, who knows?  Developers and publishers can make a reasonable estimate of the potential customer base on Windows for any given game they're going to release.  And you make the point that most Windows users aren't gamers, so the same would hold true for Linux gamers.

Lets say for a moment that there are 1,000,000 Linux Desktop Users world-wide. (A low number I know, but it's an even one for the purpose of example)

• Now, we'll chop off 10% straight off the top to account for those who are purists and won't pay for anything that's closed source.  You now have 900,000 potential customers
• Of course, the majority of Linux users will be like Windows users and not be gamers.  From what's left, lets take away 75%.  You're at 225,000 potential customers now.
• Next you have to account for game tastes.  Strategy games tend to appeal to a small chunk of the gaming population.  Lets be generous and say a third of all gamers are strategy fans.  So chop 66% off of what's left.  76,500.
• Not every gamer buys every game that comes out in a genre either.  Again lets assume that a given strategy game is REALLY popular.  Half of the strategy fans pick the title up.  38,250 Customers.

Playing with the number of Linux users in total you get different final numbers (3mil total ends up with 114k at the end).  But my estimates above are probably aggressively positive (I don't have sales figures, I'm just carving up the total based on guesses.  I'm probably assuming more users will buy than actually will).

So we've defined a, by comparison, ridicuously small potential audience for a game on Linux.  But remember it's a guess, no one really knows how these numbers actually pan out, and with the costs of developing games, and later supporting them are skyrocketing it's hard to throw a lot of money at a complete unknown.

And honestly, I feel one of the single largest barriers to getting games onto Linux is support.  Oh my lord supporting software on Linux is a logistical nightmare.  There is no single base configuration you can count on.  One can't assume that anyone will have X version of Y library, or that they haven't done something hacky to circumvent a problem on their system.  The state of Linux video card drivers is also a shakey thing.  They lag behind Windows drivers as a general rule.  Same issue with sound.  Toss in all the different distributions there are out there that behave very differently, and you have a test and support matrix that is crazy.  

I think you're making things look too grim on the support side. Problems like missing libraries are almost never encountered and when they are the solutions are found and publicized immediately. The hacking and distros behaving differently does not really apply as all use the same standarized filesystem and it's a rare case that the way a distro is made will have any effect on the closed source program if you code it right (ie, don't hardlink to speicific files in a specific directory). You're making it sound much scarier than it is.

I can agree with the VGA drivers (sound isn't really a problem as you have pulse audio and the like for that) although I don't know what severe effect a few versions of delay can have.

But seriously support is one of the strongest points of GNU/Linux. Just look at how much support popular and semi-popular games on wine are having. Not only are people willing to peer-support but the whole culture is that way that information is found and shared ASAP.

As for sales, well at the moment it is estimated that there are 29mil of GNU/Linux users. By your calculations that means there are potentially ~1.1mil users who would consider buying the game. Even if I consider that you overestimated and the number of potential buyers for a strategy game is half that much, then for a 45$ game you will still earn $27mil! Cut that in half once again. $13.5mil

Is that really an amount you can afford to lose?

And that is by considering that you overestimated, which I do not think you have. I consider that you have ignored that huge amount of buzz the a large commercial non-fps title to fully support GNU/Linux will have on the community. I believe that were you to attempt something on this scale, not only would the community rush to support you by avoiding piracy and buying the game even if it's not wholly their style, but you would get tremendous amount of support on the platform because the hackers would rush to prove how superior the platform is.

But most of all, I think the free publicity would be outstanding.

IMHO, the problem is that nobody even tries to do it. Everyone (from the large gaming companies) seems to be waiting until someone makes an attempt.

 

 

 

 

The 29 million number does not specifically target desktop users and the number is outdated from 2005, which was before the Linux market size wrote numbers in billions of $$. I think web browser statistics are more realiable, which show the Linux market share to be around 1%. As the total PC desktop market is something in the order of 600 million desktop users, the number of Linux desktop users should be about 6 million.

The issue about supportability is already well tested in the professional world. We see that some distributions are officially supported by most software vendors, mostly SuSE & Red Hat. Most software vendors are still helpfull when users run a different distribution, as long as they have the knowledge to perform specific instructions ordered by support people (i.e. please upgrade package X, please set environment variable X like this).

Linux support is not really much harder from Windows support, but very different. For example, handling drivers issues can be very easy on Linux, because the kernel comes with a set of high quality drivers. A too old kernel can be easily diagnosed by a support engineer and followed by an instruction to upgrade the kernel.

The main problem regarding support is that the infrastructure does not exist. Many publshers have support teams in many countries, which do not have people that have the skills to diagnose typical Linux issues. This makes supporting Linux more expensive. ID Software evades this problem, there is no Linux support on the CD by default, the publisher hasn't sold Linux support, so don't bother the publisher with it. You can download the Linux exe from ID's website and use the forums in case you have problems.

They're not losing it to begin with.

The development of a game is a big "loss" and every sale contributes to turn that "loss" into a profit. Linux sales don't contribute any less to this than Windows sales. The question is how much additional costs have to be made to get these additional sales in.

If middleware like OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL and so on has been used to write the game, the additional development effort can be negligible. In such case, it can become a very good business decision to release Linux and Mac versions, especially because Mac support often comes for free once it runs on Linux.

However, if the coders have programmed themselves into a corner, the effort to port a game can be huge and I fully understand that the Linux gaming market is too small for such efforts.

That is true, although the devs might be able to alleviate that if they help with wine maintenance.

Well, fixing/improving Wine's DirectX emulation on top of OpenGL by programmers that are unknown to the Wine source code, doesn't sound an easy port, and therefore, it won't be cheap. It would be a different thing if Galciv2 ran close to perfect under Wine, but alas it does not.

But basically the choice you have is reimplement the engine in OpenGL, or link against Wine's Direct3D implementation. The Wine route would probably still be the most realistic one for a game like Galciv2.

Very funny... i am a Linux user and i use Sins on Linux... I have Win Xp pro x64 too but there, i am limited to 4 gb ram and only 1 core... using the game on Linux, i have game who have reach the 10 gb ram, something impossible on Win... i use a virtual processor ( 10 ghz ) to boost sins speed in place of 8 core at 2.66ghz where sins use only one of them...

 

More, i can on linux use my bios "discrete MTTR allocation" who work only for linux/unix system with more of 4 gb... it allow faster and better graphic effect... my driver is a nvidia one, one of the lastest version a dev version with cuda engine... ready to handle directx 11...

 

DirectX is not a problem for game on Linux... the big problem is the online gaming... at the begin, two problem was stopping us for online game... one is resolved, people are working on the second one... some other people are working on the impulse problem too...

 

About opengl... it is more used that some think... Only Windows and Xbox use DirectX... Linux, Mac OS, playstation 3, Wii, Nintendo DS, Playstation portable, Iphone, Android, Symbian Os and more use opengl...

 

One more advantage... using wine and playonlinux, i have several installation of sins... one for any upgrade, each with his own mod related to the sins version.... one click, i have the 1.05 with 7DS... a second click and i have the last version 1.12... both version can run in the same time, on the same desktop... try to make this on windows ( without using any virtual machine )...

 

Sound support problem... don't know them... my 7.1+2HD box work great... my supermicro install CD have linux, unix, solaris, mac, win, and vista driver...

 

For info, sins run ( not perfectly ) on openSolaris too... Some people have it running on Mac with OS X...

Im with you 100% there. I have games on one of my linux machines, but tbh i only have them on there because i can't get them for windows! Its amazing how good free arcade games get when there is nothing 'better' to compete! I do not see linux as a gaming platform, because it simply isnt good at it.The only way for gaming to come across the OS's is for some really clever dev team to get loads of funding to create a better way to implement the 3D graphics in games. Maybe intels new ray graphics will do this? And TBH if i have to pay £30 to intel to put cutting edge games on my linux boxes id be chuffed!

Why isn't it good at it?

What? OpenGL?

Guys, find someone with a GP2X, take a look at it and think again wether Linux is unsuitable for games. I never had so much fun with a handheld as with my GP2X. And yes, there exist commercial closed source games for the GP2X (which allthough marketed for the GP2X are technically generic Linux games for the ARM processor).

The reason why no one makes large commercial games with Linux or Mac in mind is that the incentives simply do not exist. DirectX is used commonly because of it's big name support and the fact that most programmers in the industry are comfortable with it. To transition to OpenGL would require retraining and a loss of man hours. On top of this is the fact that Windows is, and shall be for a long time, the overwhelming majority of the PC userbase. From an economic stand point, the Windows market is the best option by far, and the easier it is to bring the consumer a product for this platform, the better off you will be economically. With most Linux and Mac users running Windows to play games anyway, there is simply no logical reason to focus ones efforts on the smaller markets for the sake of "growing" them. All this talk of lost sales is hollow, as people who use Linux and Mac who want to play these games will do whatever they can to be able to, even if it means buying/stealing a copy of Windows to do so. The idea that we will all be worse off by having game developers focus on Windows is a poor arguement, as an shift toward Linux or Mac as a viable platform for selling games will bring about a shift in developers towards making games for these platforms. Please consider economics before making an arguement based solely on platform faith.

~No Name McGee