Could Linux replace Windows If..

[envy me]

If say, game makers released new games that ONLY worked on linux. Seeing as most applications can be run on both (or at least substituted with other applications) But if a game maker were to release strictly linux games, and the interface was improved upon, and major computer makers offered a choice between windows and linux, do you think it would be possible for linux to overtake windows in the future?

 

[Markbnj]

Yes, if Congress passes a law that software must be written for Linux. I think it is more likely that Microsoft will become a unit of the Federal Government under the Commerce Dept., or that a judge will break it up into several regional software providers who will later reunite in altered form to pursue declining markets.

 

[Malak]

Just because more game makers started using Linux doesn't mean people would necessarily use it. Personally, I don't like linux. I'd probably quit gaming if all games were on linux.

 

[Leros]

Im willing to bet at least 95% of gamers do not really know how to use a computer. Even people who do, would not want to switch to Linux just for games (such as myself). With the competition in the gaming market, it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

 

[cpacini]

it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

:thumbsup:

 

[Nothinman]

I'd probably quit gaming if all games were on linux.

That's why I quit gaming on my machines. Installing Windows for them just isn't worth it.

Im willing to bet at least 95% of gamers do not really know how to use a computer.

That contradicts the stereotype that gamers are power users, heavy tweakers, etc. Just because they don't know how VM really works doesn't mean the don't know how to use the machine.

With the competition in the gaming market, it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

The thing is that most Linux games port to Windows and OS X extremely easily. Things like OpenGL, SDL, etc that would be used for a Linux game are also available on Windows and OS X. The sad part is that the opposite isn't true, DirectX is a Windows-only thing. But that was obviously MS' choice, it's not like they would want users of their technology to have a choice as to what system they use it on.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'd probably quit gaming if all games were on linux.

That's why I quit gaming on my machines. Installing Windows for them just isn't worth it.

Im willing to bet at least 95% of gamers do not really know how to use a computer.

That contradicts the stereotype that gamers are power users, heavy tweakers, etc. Just because they don't know how VM really works doesn't mean the don't know how to use the machine.

With the competition in the gaming market, it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

The thing is that most Linux games port to Windows and OS X extremely easily. Things like OpenGL, SDL, etc that would be used for a Linux game are also available on Windows and OS X. The sad part is that the opposite isn't true, DirectX is a Windows-only thing. But that was obviously MS' choice, it's not like they would want users of their technology to have a choice as to what system they use it on.

Nuff Said!!.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'd probably quit gaming if all games were on linux.

That's why I quit gaming on my machines. Installing Windows for them just isn't worth it.

Im willing to bet at least 95% of gamers do not really know how to use a computer.

That contradicts the stereotype that gamers are power users, heavy tweakers, etc. Just because they don't know how VM really works doesn't mean the don't know how to use the machine.

You would be surpised. Most gamers dont know squat about computers. Gamers being everybody who purchases the game. I know about 30 people who buy games regularly and maybe 3 of them really understand computers.

With the competition in the gaming market, it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

The thing is that most Linux games port to Windows and OS X extremely easily. Things like OpenGL, SDL, etc that would be used for a Linux game are also available on Windows and OS X. The sad part is that the opposite isn't true, DirectX is a Windows-only thing. But that was obviously MS' choice, it's not like they would want users of their technology to have a choice as to what system they use it on.

I agree, however the topic is about Linux only games.

 

[Nothinman]

Most gamers dont know squat about computers. Gamers being everybody who purchases the game.

Just because someone buys a game, they don't automatically become a gamer any more than someone who drives their car over the speed limit automatically becomes a racer.

I know about 30 people who buy games regularly and maybe 3 of them really understand computers.

And of all of the people that I know, it's probably around a 50/50 split. I know a few people that I would actually call gamers that can barely turn the thing on, but most of them can handle basic day-to-day use of computer pretty readily.

And by "understand computers" do you mean they understand how to use Windows? Do they understand the hardware in their computer? Do they understand low level computer OS theory like CPU timesharing, VM, IRQ and other resource allocation? Computers are a very broad subject, just because someone can install Windows and get it to boot properly doesn't mean they understand computers.

I agree, however the topic is about Linux only games.

Which as I said are very difficult to make. To make a Linux only game you would have to specifically avoid all of the libraries out there that would speed up your development. You would have to skip SDL completely and write your own image loading, sound, network, font handling, etc systems. I don't think you could avoid OpenGL unless you were making a really low resource 2D game and just wanted to use X.

 

[Leros]

Ok, gamers are people who buy games that have a hardcore attitude or whatever, I understand that.

What I'm saying is that as far as making profitable games, most of the people who are going to be purchasing a game will be using Windows and will not be computer-savy enough to switch to Linux. I think we can all agree on that. So, for that reason alone, game manafacturers will continue to code primarily for Windows, possibly porting to Mac, Linux, whatever.

 

[Nothinman]

Pretty much.

The sad thing is that if game manufactures would develop on Linux and then port to Windows like some smaller companies, like id, do they would end up with a better codebase and more customers.

 

[earthman]

I doubt it, considering how stingy Linux users are and how small the potential market would be for any game company. They're going to spend millions of dollars and years of development time to make games that would potentially sell maybe a few thousand copies?

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Most gamers dont know squat about computers. Gamers being everybody who purchases the game.

Just because someone buys a game, they don't automatically become a gamer any more than someone who drives their car over the speed limit automatically becomes a racer.

I know about 30 people who buy games regularly and maybe 3 of them really understand computers.

And of all of the people that I know, it's probably around a 50/50 split. I know a few people that I would actually call gamers that can barely turn the thing on, but most of them can handle basic day-to-day use of computer pretty readily.

And by "understand computers" do you mean they understand how to use Windows? Do they understand the hardware in their computer? Do they understand low level computer OS theory like CPU timesharing, VM, IRQ and other resource allocation? Computers are a very broad subject, just because someone can install Windows and get it to boot properly doesn't mean they understand computers.

I agree, however the topic is about Linux only games.

Which as I said are very difficult to make. To make a Linux only game you would have to specifically avoid all of the libraries out there that would speed up your development. You would have to skip SDL completely and write your own image loading, sound, network, font handling, etc systems. I don't think you could avoid OpenGL unless you were making a really low resource 2D game and just wanted to use X.

Nah, you could just use some CD copy protection that requires a kernel module to run. That way we couldn't pirate the game. Then the company could say its not worth the trouble to write a windows driver to do the same.

 

[Nothinman]

I doubt it, considering how stingy Linux users are and how small the potential market would be for any game company. They're going to spend millions of dollars and years of development time to make games that would potentially sell maybe a few thousand copies?

My point is that all of those development costs wouldn't be wasted even if no Linux users bought the game because 95% of the development would result in code that worked on Linux, OS X and Windows.

Nah, you could just use some CD copy protection that requires a kernel module to run. That way we couldn't pirate the game. Then the company could say its not worth the trouble to write a windows driver to do the same.

Like I said, very difficult to make. And since the in-kernel API is in a constant state of flux your module would have to be OSS to stay working for any meaningful length of time. And on top of that I doubt your module would stay secret very long, since we all have the source to the kernel it wouldn't be terribly hard to add some debug statements to the various subsystems to figure out what you're doing. It might work if you encrypted the whole CD, but that's a lot of work for virtually no gain.

 

[GreyMittens]

Originally posted by: earthman
I doubt it, considering how stingy Linux users are and how small the potential market would be for any game company. They're going to spend millions of dollars and years of development time to make games that would potentially sell maybe a few thousand copies?

... and then they'd be up in arms because the games come with a price tag and aren't open source

 

[phisrow]

http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/games.html is an interesting article with an informal study of the economics of open source gaming. The conclusions seem quite plausible. It'll be a cold day in hell before we see much in the way of real open source gaming(yeah, yeah, Battle for Wesnoth is kinda addictive and ID's back catalogue is more or less available, if you can snarf the .WADs but generally speaking the point is clear). Engine and library suppport, though, are logical areas of strength, and hopefully will allow the "modder" types to become game creators much more easily. This would be to the benefit of all involved and isn't too implausible. Imagine the following hypothetical situations: With a modicum of cleanup and some scripting language hooks, and similar bits and pieces, the open source Quake 3 engine becomes generally usable for any mildly to moderately talented developer. This implies that any game company, no matter how indie, has neither the need, nor the excuse, to use an engine that is worse than Q3 assuming their planned game is close enough to the code. This is good for them; because they don't need to cobble together some in-house monstrosity or pay huge licencing fees to get a real engine, and they can spend the money on story guys, artists, and the like.

This is good for gamers; because they have to deal with fewer horrific engine bugs, have a wider selection of independent game production houses to choose from(who spend more on making games fun, and less on making their lousy engines not crash too much), and; because the underlying engine is open, will be effectively platform independent. This would help deal with GreyMittens' point. Sure, some OSS users are basically just stingy, and absolutely won't pay for anything. Such people would just pirate the closed source games anyway, as they already do. OSS people who don't have any problems with, say, buying CDs of artists they like, would presumably have a similarly positive attitude towards buying the work of game designers they liked, and since the design would pretty much just be the art, story, meshes, scripts, video, sounds, music, etc. that makes the given game what it is, on top of an open engine, they wouldn't have to install any closed code. I know of a fair number of people who won't load unfree code onto their systems, and I am among them; but I don't know anybody who refuses to look at, or listen too, video and songs that are licenced under anything but a permissive Creative Commons licence. It is very important that the programs that we use to handle the media are open, for technical and ethical reasons; but as long as the media files do not restrict our fair use of such tools, it is hardly necessary that those files be free as in beer.

Obviously, the ideal, general purpose, set of open engines and libraries is still in the future(if anywhere); but if such a framework were to exist it would effectively make the distribution of, and market for, games look a lot like the one for music, albeit with a diffirent creative class. This does mean that there would be the abuses of the gaming equivalent of the RIAA, SonyBMG, etc. but it would also make possible the use of game analogs to the various alternative relationships(which generally seem to work pretty well) between the creative producers and the fans.

 

[Nothinman]

... and then they'd be up in arms because the games come with a price tag and aren't open source

No one complained when id did it.

 

[microAmp]

Reminds me of the time my brother wrote to IBM and suggested they come out with 10 kick butt computer games to help OS/2 (I think that was the OS) get more wide spread. They later said thank you and sent him a free copy of OS/2.

 

[nweaver]

Games will not be the make/break point of Linux. The make/break for desktop distribution will be commercial use. Commercial use will be driven (mainly) by bottom line and management's reluctance to change (which is offset by managments reluctance to shell out licensing money)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Games will not be the make/break point of Linux. The make/break for desktop distribution will be commercial use. Commercial use will be driven (mainly) by bottom line and management's reluctance to change (which is offset by managments reluctance to shell out licensing money)

Yep.. Linux-on-the-desktop is the one place that Linux is having the hardest time on.

I guess it's because people are slow to change.

Linux already successfull for most other things:

It's the most popular OS for super computing. Over 70% of the Top500.org list of fastest supercomputers are running Linux. Last list one Windows made it on... which is remarkable considuring Windows is Windows, but it got kicked off by the shear number of new Linux systems.

It's one of the more popular OSes for Embedded work and is gaining in popularity. It's posed to dominate smart phones and people like Palm are moving to Linux-based systems. Surveys show that people are looking towards open source systems and commercial Linux-based systems as much as anything else.

For servers Linux is the 2nd most popular OS out there. It is the most popular for web serving and I've read more then a few places that people are 'running' to linux for it's use in the datacenter.

But Microsoft has a stranglehold on desktop systems and it's the hardest thing for linux to do at this point.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'd probably quit gaming if all games were on linux.

That's why I quit gaming on my machines. Installing Windows for them just isn't worth it.

Im willing to bet at least 95% of gamers do not really know how to use a computer.

That contradicts the stereotype that gamers are power users, heavy tweakers, etc. Just because they don't know how VM really works doesn't mean the don't know how to use the machine.

With the competition in the gaming market, it would be very very stupid for anybody to put out a Linux only game.

The thing is that most Linux games port to Windows and OS X extremely easily. Things like OpenGL, SDL, etc that would be used for a Linux game are also available on Windows and OS X. The sad part is that the opposite isn't true, DirectX is a Windows-only thing. But that was obviously MS' choice, it's not like they would want users of their technology to have a choice as to what system they use it on.

I don't have any problem with windows personally, and I don't like linux. If all games were produced on a mac, I'd probably have a mac, but not linux. I don't like linux.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I doubt it, considering how stingy Linux users are and how small the potential market would be for any game company. They're going to spend millions of dollars and years of development time to make games that would potentially sell maybe a few thousand copies?

My point is that all of those development costs wouldn't be wasted even if no Linux users bought the game because 95% of the development would result in code that worked on Linux, OS X and Windows.

Nah, you could just use some CD copy protection that requires a kernel module to run. That way we couldn't pirate the game. Then the company could say its not worth the trouble to write a windows driver to do the same.

Like I said, very difficult to make. And since the in-kernel API is in a constant state of flux your module would have to be OSS to stay working for any meaningful length of time. And on top of that I doubt your module would stay secret very long, since we all have the source to the kernel it wouldn't be terribly hard to add some debug statements to the various subsystems to figure out what you're doing. It might work if you encrypted the whole CD, but that's a lot of work for virtually no gain.

you mean like star force drivers?

 

[Nothinman]

I don't have any problem with windows personally, and I don't like linux. If all games were produced on a mac, I'd probably have a mac, but not linux. I don't like linux.

You'd buy a Mac because the game was produced on a Mac? So by that logic, you'll only watch movies like Titanic, Shrek, Toystory, etc on a Linux based device because they were rendered on Linux machines? Just because the game was produced on one platform doesn't mean it won't run on others, hell you can even cross-compile from one arch to another as long as you have the right environment setup.

you mean like star force drivers?

Hard to say, their site is extremely thin on information. But from the look of it their protection relys on the physical characteristics of their media but is readable in a normal drive, so duplication would be easy if you could burn a physically exact copy of the disc.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I don't have any problem with windows personally, and I don't like linux. If all games were produced on a mac, I'd probably have a mac, but not linux. I don't like linux.

You'd buy a Mac because the game was produced on a Mac? So by that logic, you'll only watch movies like Titanic, Shrek, Toystory, etc on a Linux based device because they were rendered on Linux machines? Just because the game was produced on one platform doesn't mean it won't run on others, hell you can even cross-compile from one arch to another as long as you have the right environment setup.

I don't think you are understanding me. I don't care what it's made on, I care what it's made for. You can't just play a game on any platform, you can only play it on the platform it was designed for. Right now, games are primarily designed for Windows. If the case were switched and games were primarily designed for another OS, the only other OS I'd game on is Mac OS. The OS is more important than the games to me, and I don't like Linux. I do like Mac OS, and would switch if it had anything close to the gaming experience Windows offers me. Right now, despite being a decent OS, Macs can't offer me more than Windows, which I don't have a problem with. I like Windows too.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't think you are understanding me. I don't care what it's made on, I care what it's made for

I know that's what you meant, but you specifically said "produced on" which doesn't mean that.

You can't just play a game on any platform, you can only play it on the platform it was designed for.

Not according to Cedega.

Right now, despite being a decent OS, Macs can't offer me more than Windows,

And infact it would offer you a lot less in terms of hardware support, speed and customizability compared to both Linux and Windows.