5 ms·

I don't see anything in this space attracting Windows gamers to Linux, but if you are already a Linux user, things are getting better. No one can really claim

by rrreese 14y ago

I don't see anything in this space attracting Windows gamers to Linux, but if you are already a Linux user, things are getting better. No one can really claim "year of Linux gaming" until we start seeing a wide variety of publishers releasing AAA titles. And until that happens, windows gamers will like it or not remain with Windows.

jiggy2011 14y ago
It is early days yet, proving any market for Linux games at all is big at this point. Linux has always had a hurdle in the (probably mostly wrong) assumption that Linux users will pathologically not pay for software.
- niggler 14y ago
  Linux had always had a hurdle in the correct assumption that uniform Linux support is difficult (playing the distro game is difficult when supporting redhead-based and Debian-based distributions) and there's nothing that will change the landscape. On the other hand, if one distribution emerges as the clear desktop leader (and no, Ubuntu isn't there yet) then maybe we will see support for it.
- mhaymo 14y ago
  Assumptions have nothing to do with it. As John Carmack has stated[1], games have been released to Linux, and they have mostly failed to make money. The only major exception that comes to mind are the Humble Bundles, whose unique business model makes them a special case. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/17x0sh/john_carmack_asks_why_wine_isnt_good_enough/c89sfto http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/17x0sh/john_carmack_a...
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I don't think there's really enough data to draw a conclusion here. Carmack's arguments seem to be based on their web game which everyone already played to death 10 years ago when it was called Quake3.
- spacelizard 14y ago
  Why would GNU/Linux users pay to use proprietary software? As long as these games are proprietary, they will only see adoption among recent Windows converts who want the same experience. What's the point? I mean I get it that Windows 8 is bad, but I've seen the same share of gripes about Unity. Plus a lot of these companies offer low quality ports and little to no customer support for Linux users, and if you don't use a supported distro then too bad for you. So again, what's the point? It's the same bad experience as using Wine.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    Why would you not pay for proprietary software? It seems like asking "why would windows users use free software?". Of course there are some who will only use 100% free/open source software for ideological reasons but these people are a small minority of Linux users in practise. Most of the new indie game Linux ports work quite well in my experience though YMMV I guess. It would be unrealistic to expect support for every distro.
    - spacelizard 14y ago
      It wouldn't be unrealistic to expect distro support if these were free software packages that distros could patch and package up for their own needs. But they aren't, they are proprietary blobs distributed through a proprietary app store that is only supported on Ubuntu. And that's the thing with proprietary software: you DON'T get what you pay for. Personally, I refuse to play proprietary games, they offer nothing to me and the experience is always negative. I think it is a farce to say that the technical benefits of GNU/Linux are not owed to the fact that it is an entire ecosystem of free software. If you believe this is a question of ideology, and you willingly disregard it, then what is the problem with Windows?
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        You probably aren't the target market for Steam in that case. If there was a compelling collection of open source games I would certainly play them but that has never really been the case. There are tangible advantages in having open source tools and components such as compilers,kernels and desktop environments even without every program on the system being open source.

by rrreese 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

It is early days yet, proving any market for Linux games at all is big at this point. Linux has always had a hurdle in the (probably mostly wrong) assumption that Linux users will pathologically not pay for software.

niggler 14y ago
Linux had always had a hurdle in the correct assumption that uniform Linux support is difficult (playing the distro game is difficult when supporting redhead-based and Debian-based distributions) and there's nothing that will change the landscape. On the other hand, if one distribution emerges as the clear desktop leader (and no, Ubuntu isn't there yet) then maybe we will see support for it.
mhaymo 14y ago
Assumptions have nothing to do with it. As John Carmack has stated[1], games have been released to Linux, and they have mostly failed to make money. The only major exception that comes to mind are the Humble Bundles, whose unique business model makes them a special case. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/17x0sh/john_carmack_asks_why_wine_isnt_good_enough/c89sfto http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/17x0sh/john_carmack_a...
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I don't think there's really enough data to draw a conclusion here. Carmack's arguments seem to be based on their web game which everyone already played to death 10 years ago when it was called Quake3.
spacelizard 14y ago
Why would GNU/Linux users pay to use proprietary software? As long as these games are proprietary, they will only see adoption among recent Windows converts who want the same experience. What's the point? I mean I get it that Windows 8 is bad, but I've seen the same share of gripes about Unity. Plus a lot of these companies offer low quality ports and little to no customer support for Linux users, and if you don't use a supported distro then too bad for you. So again, what's the point? It's the same bad experience as using Wine.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Why would you not pay for proprietary software? It seems like asking "why would windows users use free software?". Of course there are some who will only use 100% free/open source software for ideological reasons but these people are a small minority of Linux users in practise. Most of the new indie game Linux ports work quite well in my experience though YMMV I guess. It would be unrealistic to expect support for every distro.
  - spacelizard 14y ago
    It wouldn't be unrealistic to expect distro support if these were free software packages that distros could patch and package up for their own needs. But they aren't, they are proprietary blobs distributed through a proprietary app store that is only supported on Ubuntu. And that's the thing with proprietary software: you DON'T get what you pay for. Personally, I refuse to play proprietary games, they offer nothing to me and the experience is always negative. I think it is a farce to say that the technical benefits of GNU/Linux are not owed to the fact that it is an entire ecosystem of free software. If you believe this is a question of ideology, and you willingly disregard it, then what is the problem with Windows?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      You probably aren't the target market for Steam in that case. If there was a compelling collection of open source games I would certainly play them but that has never really been the case. There are tangible advantages in having open source tools and components such as compilers,kernels and desktop environments even without every program on the system being open source.