Since switching to Linux...

Ignorance is bliss!

So serious.

There are lots of games for GNU/Linux. Way more if you include games that run using Wine.

I have 17 games in my Steam library. All are playable on Windows, 4 on OS X, and 1 on Linux. Well, it claims it's playable but I haven't managed to get the Steam client to download it yet. There is a long, long way to go before gaming on Linux compares to Windows. There seem to be a fair selection of shoot-em-ups and role playing fantasies, but no decent flight sims, racing games, city building/god sim games which many people enjoy. And having seen the specifications of the planned Steam console I am not convinced that it will be a commercial success.

Having said that, I really don't know why I took part in this thread. The OP is an obvious Troll.

I don't see why anyone would expect otherwise. Windows does have a bit of a head start.

The consumer versions of Windows NT are newer than Linux. All you are really saying is that Windows has better support for games than Linux. True.

That's bullshit.

The truth is this:

1. Big studios simply do not MAKE games for GNU/Linux (or MacOS either for that matter).

2. Even with the lack luster drivers from both Nvidia and AMD/Ati, there is more than enough OpenGL support and performance to make "triple A games" for GNU/Linux.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
- Linux market share: 1.6%
- Mac OSX market share: 7.55%
- Who in their right mind would make PC games for less than 10% of the possible PC users?

When one considers that most games people play on GNU/Linux were actually made for other platforms and were forced to work under GNU/Linux by multiple volunteers from around the world, the catalog of games one can play is very impressive. Comparing GNU/Linux to Windows, in any regard, is stupid - One is/was created by volunteers, with a handful of people who are paid to work on the kernel, while the other is/was created by a massive corporation of well paid, well educated employees, run by none other than the richest man in the USA.

Anyhow, that's a pretty fail line of reasoning you had there.

And yet in your answers you back up my argument perfectly! Big studios do not make games for Linux because of the small market. in other words, Windows has better support for games than Linux.

Bluster all you like with words like "bullshit" (at least you managed to refrain from the "riff-raff" jibe this time), you can't hide from the obvious truth. I love Linux - I've been using it for over 15 years now - but it's not (yet) a viable games platform.

Anyhow, that's a pretty fail line of reasoning you had there.

Yes that is exactly what I was saying. Games on Windows predate consumer versions of Windows NT so the fact that it is technically newer than Linux doesn't matter. The Windows ecosystem has been the dominant PC platform for games in the last 2 decades and you can't replace an incumbent platform overnight, especially if you're not offering some incredible killer features to gain interest. The only way for Linux support to "catch up" is for developers to stop making games that work on Windows (keep dreaming), or to wait for enough time to pass that all the games that don't already have Linux ports fail to work on current Windows versions. At this point the number of games that work on both platforms should be roughly equal.

That's basically what I was saying. Games are not widely supported on Linux because there has, until now, been little demand. There is an additional, technical factor, which is the fact that Linux is very fragmented compared with Windows. There are a large number of variations of the kernel and libraries in widespread use, which makes it very difficult for pre-compiled, commercial software. And I don't see the games publishers supplying source code.

The Steam hardware project is a possible answer to this, providing a relatively fixed hardware/software platform, but the specifications so far published are way over the top. The proposed viedo card alone costs more than a PS4 plus an X Box One.

As a development platform Linux is superb and I wouldn't use anything else; I can't see it being a viable games platform for a long time yet. Much the same is true of OS X; good as it may be at some things it's not good for gaming.

Full-O-Fail...

GNU/Linux supports OpenGL, OpenAL, and many APIs in their entirety. It's not the GNU/Linux (or Mac OS) community's fault that game creators haven't been making many games for the GNU/Linux (or Mac OS) platform. Nope, that problem lies squarely with the folks making games.

And like I said, why would they make games for so few people?

You're notion fails, because you're under the incorrect assumption that GNU/Linux can't be used to make "triple A games", based upon your own personal views of "Linux". Please stop. It's really quite sad.

They wouldn't, and by asking this question the implication is that you are absolving them of the blame that you laid on them in the previous sentence. In one twisted sense it is the community's fault. It's the community's fault for being too small and unattractive to both game developers and other end users.

In the end it's pointless to idly blame the developers, the community or the tooth fairy and hope that this will somehow improve the situation. Nothing changes the fact that there are fewer games for Linux (fewer still that people actually play), and therefore Windows is the better platform to buy in to if you plan to spend much of your time playing games.

I'm afraid you continue to fail to make any argument and just resort to personal insult instead.

Like it or not, there are a very small proportion of games for Linux compared to Windows. Games are poorly supported under Linux.

This doesn't mean that Linux is incapable of running games if companies wrote them. But the simple fact is that they don't. I fear that you seem to be incapable of understanding simple English. I am not asserting that there is any technical reason why good games can't be written for Linux, but it just doesn't happen.

Now, try getting away from the personal stuff and actually discuss the point rationally. Are there loads of Linux games compared to Windows? Is the fact that of the 17 Steam games that I have only one claims to run under Linux an atypical experience? Is the Linux gaming experience as smooth and easy as under Windows or consoles? Or is it true that there is very little support for games under Linux?

I can provide some insight into this argument, I am a game developer!

So, this is what it ultimately boils down to...

Years ago when D3D (would eventually become DX) and OpenGL (OGL from here on out) were competing for the API crown, M$ made D3D/DX proprietary, and OGL was an open source standard API.

Now, what M$ did was basically say, windows games can use D3D or OGL, however, non windows games cannot use D3D, only OGL.

If anyone has ever actually used OGL, they know, it's archaic. The API is a mess with legacy code and other things coming along making things confusing for new developers to use. On top of that, OGL doesn't have one easiest or fastest way to do something. You can typically do the same thing 5 different ways, no single way is the fastest, and all are easiest to the guy that did them that way. However, they're confusing to anyone coming behind them trying to figure out exactly what it was that was done; unless they think like the first guy that did it.

Now, D3D has easy to use developer tools, with far more first and third party support. It's not as easy as other APIs, like Glide on 3DFX cards back in the day, however, it's uniform and easily repeatable. This means it's easier to develop on, plus it works in Windows which is the lion's share of DT PCs anyway.

Now, you could make a windows game to run a Linux version pretty easily if you recompiled and used OGL as your 3D API; however, since it's so convoluted and poorly supported, no one bothers to do this. Throw in that DX11 has some features that are more cutting edge, and you can quickly see why many developers just use DX and basically say "screw off" to OSX and Linux in general.

Now, what WINE does essentially is not emulate windows to get these games to work. Instead, it runs them in a virtual machine and basically puts a "wrapper" on the D3D calls it has "tricked" the game into running, and converts them to OGL draw calls.

The complication runs into areas when OGL does not support features that DX does. Up to DX9, OGL has full support, so given enough time and effort, you could theoretically convert any DX9 game into a WINE compatible game. Now, with DX11 and newer, there are some features that the Khronos Group has not bothered to bring to OGL because they are too busy dropping the ball to be bothered (which is typical, they have played drop the ball many times over the years).

Now, fast forward to Steam and all this hoopla about Linux gaming now...

Well, Source Engine and several other engines have been ported to Linux, so you could feasibly build a AAA title on Linux, though few developers want to because of limited market share. For some, the additional trouble to run it on Linux and Windows would be amazingly productive; for other developers, they frankly could care less...

There are, however, currently a list of engines waiting to be ported with proper support.

For example, CryENGINE 3.4 will run on WINE, however, CE 3.5 will not...yet. CryTek is trying to get someone to convert the engine to Linux, but it's a fairly daunting task.

Next up: AMD's new MANTLE API.

This, seriously, could be the massive equalizer. It's an open source standard for the hardware, and allows developers to code much closer to the metal than either D3D or OGL. Plus, it uses the same shader language as DX (HLSL) so you can code for both at the same time.

Now, if this takes off, and gains wide support and acceptance. Then the effort barrier to produce AAA titles on Linux will effectively have the bar for entry lowered dramatically.

So, as a game developer, here's hoping MANTLE takes off like a rocket. Additionally, if you would like to see better future support for gaming on Linux, then help promote things like getting CE 3.5 converted to Linux, getting MANTLE into mainstream games, and/or getting someone to get the Khronos Group off their duffs to rewrite OGL into something at all usable.

Well, there you have it!

That's a very interesting insight into the current state of gaming support on various platforms.

@ 8350rocks You are either one masterful bullshitter or really know your stuff. I go with the latter.

I would add some points that favor an acceleration of development in the Linux direction.

I think what Steam is doing is very smart, while windows does own the lion's share of desktops it is also the most competitive market for games. If you come up with a great Windows game you are competing with hundreds or thousands of other great windows games for market share. Steam will have Linux to itself for some time and even if it's less than 2% of desktops that's still a lot of desktops. Plus, I've yet to see a study that can be accurate since so many of the Linux versions are free to download and share so it's hard to say. I myself have installed Ubuntu on hundreds of computers yet I only download two copies of each version, 32 and 64 bit.

Now, will Linux gain market share? Most certainly. Already the number of "computer" devices running on the Linux kernal is well over 50%. That includes desktops, laptops, tablets and smart phones. With convergence looming near, next year for Ubuntu, where all software written for one device will run on the others, it is likely that Google and others will put their billions behind the very things you say are needed to keep their market share. I just don't see Microsoft offering to let users of Windows phones to run Android too like Ubuntu has suggested.

Under those circumstances do you see developers moving to at least dual platform?

I just don't see Microsoft offering to let users of Windows phones to run Android too like Ubuntu has suggested.

Click to expand...

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/microsoft-talking-to-htc-about-adding-windows-option-on-android-phones/426919-11.html

Hmm.

I think if MANTLE becomes mainstream and sort of usurps DX, then yes, it would be *very* easy for developers to make Linux games, and there's already a large distribution network out there via steam.

In the tablet/phone space, there are already a great deal of apps that developers have taken time to port from Android to iOS or vice versa. So there is a precedent given enough market share.

I think the primary issue at this point is that too many developers are all in on DX and therefore, pay no mind to anything that does not offer DX support.

However, the consoles will run DX, as well as OGL, and MANTLE. This means you could theoretically build a Linux game and a console game at the same time, which could be ported to windows. Given the fact that PS4 OS is loosely based on FreeBSD 9, the idea is closer to reality at this point than not. Since many games will already be dealing with Linux based middleware in the consoles, it is entirely feasible.

LOL...that's M$ trying to find a back door way into the Android market share. They wouldn't offer anyone to run Android on a windows phone, but they'll allow android users to install their OS. With M$ it's typically a one way street.

In it's current state, windows phone is so terribly low in market penetration, M$ would probably be willing to give away a free pony with each windows phone purchase just to get people to adopt it.

In Europe Windows phone market share is 12%. That's 12% of a huge user base - hardly what you would call "terribly low".

Worldwide adoption is <5%, in the US, adoption is <3%, based on the last metrics I was exposed to. My brother is a VP for a company called Balderdash, they write mobile apps for iOS and Android. M$ actually approached them about doing apps for universities, colleges, etc. on Windows phone. They are considering the idea, but he was a bit surprised M$ contacted them, directly no less, because M$ is typically difficult to develop for (see: Bungie Games/HALO), and normally leave most of that to 3rd parties. Though he did say in the conversation that they acknowledged the lack of apps. My brother pointed out that the comparative user base is so low that you would basically have to pay companies to develop apps, as opposed to them being willing to do so based on generated revenue. To get companies who use their apps to generate money to use your platform, you'd have to subsidize their development. The revenue streams would be far less substantial on the Windows phone platform.

Purely from a business perspective, if you called Balderdash asking about a windows phone app, and you weren't calling from Microsoft, then you likely wouldn't get much traction.

EDIT: TL;DR, M$ has an issue with their mobile platform, and they would have to subsidize or gain large market share to be relevant in the mobile world.

12% of Europe isn't bad, but in the US adoption rates are much lower...last figures I saw were <3% adoption in the US. In Asian markets, adoption is even lower from what I understand. Windows phone is in the same place that desktop Linux is in...if that puts things more into perspective. Now, Windows desktop...that's another matter entirely...