6 ms·

> I never understood why people on Linux always fight to have games on the platform. Because it is important to challenge monopolies least they abuse their pos

> I never understood why people on Linux always fight to have games on the platform. Because it is important to challenge monopolies least they abuse their position of power. With DirectX, XNA etc., Microsoft pretty much holds the monopoly as the PC gaming OS. Microsoft has made bold moves against individual freedom and privacy in Windows 10, and I'm sure more will follow. And what better platform to compete against Windows' monopoly on PC gaming than the most popular free OS? I think that in the long run, continuing to create and display demand for PC games on Linux will only help gaming and even computing in general.

NEDM64 10y ago
Sorry, but you're being naive. Rarely there are standards bodies that aren't controlled by companies and their interests. If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. Somebody has to pay the engineers. Look at W3C, if is practically controlled by Google, and they only do what suits their needs, the way they want. Look at Bluetooth, Apple is controlling the thing, and now they are releasing a newer version that's selfishly taylored for Apple to sell expensive headphones probably with patented methods, which they will use to protect themselves in court in case someone goes on a patent war against them.
- shmerl 10y ago
  So, you think it's better not to have open standards and let lock-in and monopolies run rampant? Hard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
  - kordless 10y ago
    I agree with you, but I also think asking leading question sucks. Just say what you mean! Open Standards are the MOST CRITICAL thing we can be considering right now. If we can agree on standards that can adapt to other standards, using AI most likely, then we can get on with being able to trust each other again. In order to trust each other, we have to be honest about our intent. Personally, I think the use case of games on insecure hardware is probably fine. To a point.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      It was a rhetorical question :) I don't think anyone in their mind would say that we should pursue lock-in rather than open standards. Except crooked monopolists.
- CyberShadow 10y ago
  You are talking about something else. > If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. As opposed to DirectX, which is not implementable on other systems without large reverse-engineering efforts, because the technology depends on proprietary and encumbered middle-ware. Does a former specification for DirectX even exist (aside the documentation for Microsoft's implementation of the API)? Or it is one and the same, is it not? Where is the DirectX equivalent of MESA? W3C, Bluetooth etc. have nothing to do with PC gaming. Why are you bringing this up? But since you mentioned W3C, what would you prefer - proprietary technology controlled by a single entity, such as Adobe Flash, or an open standard, such as HTML5? An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with. A closed platform restricts those choices. A monopoly in control of a closed platform has even more freedom to restrict freedom of choice, and push forward with platform lock-in.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    "An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is such that nobody but huge monoliths that can focus lots of paid personnel to implement the GPU, implement the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers... It's grueling, backbraking work to make a complete hardware based graphics stack. Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. We can argue what do we mean by "gaming" of course. Solitaire, chess, tuxracer - yeah, I agree, free is very doable. GTA v, Witcher 3 ( triple aaa titles) - you need a BigOrg to mind your graphics stack, of which there are only handfull on earth, of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others (if we limit discussion to games).
    - shmerl 10y ago
      > Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. Mesa has hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL. You don't need "big org" to do it. But it surely helps if they put resources into that work. > of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others ( It's worse than many others because their goal is not to improve the graphics stack, but to lock everyone into using MS systems.
- frik 10y ago
  MS actively has been trying to negated PC gaming to get consumer to XBox (closed all MS Game Studios, stopped all franchises like Age ofvEmpire and FlightSimulator series (everyone is angry about the Farmville style cheap F2P knockoffs), closed MS Windows Live, stopped DirectXdotNet and XNA, changed completely the direction of DirectX with DX10 and yet again with DX12, and the infamous privacy issues aka telemetry that half of the gamers will never upgrade to Win10 including myself). macOS, SteamOS/Linux, PS4 and WiiU/NX will get a lot more gamers - and that will continue until MS fires its third CEO sooner than later. Win10 UniversalRuntime/Store games are implemented in such a bad way it's just laughable and XBoxOne has little marketshare compared to PS4. And Win32 game market share is still huge, also thank to Steam (Valve is very much against Win10!), compared to the WinStore which has little to offer and compared to Android and iOS the WinStore on WinPhone smells and feels like it is already and legacy platform.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    As far as I know, all the antiprivacy bullshit was introduced in Win7 too
fsloth 10y ago
"XNA" XNA is deprecated: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/185894/Its_official_XNA_is_dead.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/185894/Its_official_XNA_i... I find it hard to believe gaming capability would be a major motivator in the PC market. They're more of an item in the PC enthusiast segment - which is not the majority of the market. If one looks at what sort of hardware is sold in systems - the majority is not really well equipped for high end gaming[0][1]. Therefore I conclude in the general PC market does not hold games that important. My view of the hardware spec of the average desktop or laptop GPU is anecdotal but I would guess it's fair to say they are sub NVidia's 960M in performance (which I have on my years old 'gaming' laptop and which is kinda slow). If someone has better statistics I'm all ears! [0] http://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-f... [1] http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-10-year-low-in-q2-2015/ http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov...
- CyberShadow 10y ago
  > I find it hard to believe gaming capability would be a major motivator in the PC market. One of the most frequently cited reasons I hear about for why home users and enthusiasts are not using Linux is availability of games. It's true that this does not speak of the entire market, but it's not an insignificant part. It is also a market segment that is more realistic to dislodge than, e.g. corporate use. > the majority is not really well equipped for high end gaming[0][1]. But "gaming" != "high-end gaming"...

NEDM64 10y ago

Sorry, but you're being naive. Rarely there are standards bodies that aren't controlled by companies and their interests. If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. Somebody has to pay the engineers. Look at W3C, if is practically controlled by Google, and they only do what suits their needs, the way they want. Look at Bluetooth, Apple is controlling the thing, and now they are releasing a newer version that's selfishly taylored for Apple to sell expensive headphones probably with patented methods, which they will use to protect themselves in court in case someone goes on a patent war against them.

shmerl 10y ago
So, you think it's better not to have open standards and let lock-in and monopolies run rampant? Hard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
- kordless 10y ago
  I agree with you, but I also think asking leading question sucks. Just say what you mean! Open Standards are the MOST CRITICAL thing we can be considering right now. If we can agree on standards that can adapt to other standards, using AI most likely, then we can get on with being able to trust each other again. In order to trust each other, we have to be honest about our intent. Personally, I think the use case of games on insecure hardware is probably fine. To a point.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    It was a rhetorical question :) I don't think anyone in their mind would say that we should pursue lock-in rather than open standards. Except crooked monopolists.
CyberShadow 10y ago
You are talking about something else. > If they allowed OpenGL to flourish, it would ultimately be controlled by either Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR or someone else in the interest group to suit their hardware. As opposed to DirectX, which is not implementable on other systems without large reverse-engineering efforts, because the technology depends on proprietary and encumbered middle-ware. Does a former specification for DirectX even exist (aside the documentation for Microsoft's implementation of the API)? Or it is one and the same, is it not? Where is the DirectX equivalent of MESA? W3C, Bluetooth etc. have nothing to do with PC gaming. Why are you bringing this up? But since you mentioned W3C, what would you prefer - proprietary technology controlled by a single entity, such as Adobe Flash, or an open standard, such as HTML5? An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with. A closed platform restricts those choices. A monopoly in control of a closed platform has even more freedom to restrict freedom of choice, and push forward with platform lock-in.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "An open platform allows free choice of technologies to use it with." Which are also made by companies just like Microsoft. It's really hard to combine gaming enthusiasm (with the exception of retro gaming) with love of the 'free choice' and not be delusional. The main reason: the GPU. There is very little value in having an open specification, if the implementation sucks. And the complexity of the graphics stack is such that nobody but huge monoliths that can focus lots of paid personnel to implement the GPU, implement the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers, fix the drivers... It's grueling, backbraking work to make a complete hardware based graphics stack. Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. We can argue what do we mean by "gaming" of course. Solitaire, chess, tuxracer - yeah, I agree, free is very doable. GTA v, Witcher 3 ( triple aaa titles) - you need a BigOrg to mind your graphics stack, of which there are only handfull on earth, of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others (if we limit discussion to games).
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > Yes, there is MESA - so if software rendering suffices one can use more open options. Mesa has hardware accelerated implementation of OpenGL. You don't need "big org" to do it. But it surely helps if they put resources into that work. > of which Microsoft is one, and not worse as the others ( It's worse than many others because their goal is not to improve the graphics stack, but to lock everyone into using MS systems.
frik 10y ago
MS actively has been trying to negated PC gaming to get consumer to XBox (closed all MS Game Studios, stopped all franchises like Age ofvEmpire and FlightSimulator series (everyone is angry about the Farmville style cheap F2P knockoffs), closed MS Windows Live, stopped DirectXdotNet and XNA, changed completely the direction of DirectX with DX10 and yet again with DX12, and the infamous privacy issues aka telemetry that half of the gamers will never upgrade to Win10 including myself). macOS, SteamOS/Linux, PS4 and WiiU/NX will get a lot more gamers - and that will continue until MS fires its third CEO sooner than later. Win10 UniversalRuntime/Store games are implemented in such a bad way it's just laughable and XBoxOne has little marketshare compared to PS4. And Win32 game market share is still huge, also thank to Steam (Valve is very much against Win10!), compared to the WinStore which has little to offer and compared to Android and iOS the WinStore on WinPhone smells and feels like it is already and legacy platform.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  As far as I know, all the antiprivacy bullshit was introduced in Win7 too

fsloth 10y ago

"XNA" XNA is deprecated: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/185894/Its_official_XNA_is_dead.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/185894/Its_official_XNA_i... I find it hard to believe gaming capability would be a major motivator in the PC market. They're more of an item in the PC enthusiast segment - which is not the majority of the market. If one looks at what sort of hardware is sold in systems - the majority is not really well equipped for high end gaming[0][1]. Therefore I conclude in the general PC market does not hold games that important. My view of the hardware spec of the average desktop or laptop GPU is anecdotal but I would guess it's fair to say they are sub NVidia's 960M in performance (which I have on my years old 'gaming' laptop and which is kinda slow). If someone has better statistics I'm all ears! [0] http://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-f... [1] http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-10-year-low-in-q2-2015/ http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov...

CyberShadow 10y ago
> I find it hard to believe gaming capability would be a major motivator in the PC market. One of the most frequently cited reasons I hear about for why home users and enthusiasts are not using Linux is availability of games. It's true that this does not speak of the entire market, but it's not an insignificant part. It is also a market segment that is more realistic to dislodge than, e.g. corporate use. > the majority is not really well equipped for high end gaming[0][1]. But "gaming" != "high-end gaming"...