Its time for a change! Its time for Linux!

[LloydShade]

A reason why games don't work on Linux is because Linux is not uniformed. There are countless versions of Linux. Among each versions, such as Ubuntu, there are A LOT of sub-versions. Some of them receive longer term support from Ubuntu, but most are unsupported (meaning you deal with any issues you face yourself and only blame yourself if you screw up).

Also, one thing Linux does is every now and then, the Operating System is remade from scratch to improve itself. With being open source and such, then every Linux can benefit.

Making a game for PC is already a nightmare. EVERYONE has a different hardware. It might be the same PC model, but some pieces might be different. Some build their PCs from scratch, some buy them. Some play on laptops, some on desktops. A game on a PC usually involves a lot of testing to make sure as many players are able to play them as possible. The only constant is Windows operating system. You got only 3 major versions to consider: Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8. XP is about to bit the dust, so a lot will not test it anymore. All three versions are base on the same core programming, which allows a better uniformity. This means that because of Windows, you can only state simple hardware requirement, such as graphic card, RAM and processor. With Linux, you need so much more both hardware and software and you need to do it yourself.

Now, just imagine developing a game for Linux. Countless operating systems and countless hardware settings. You just can't test that much possibilities. So you have to restrict. If Linux is to be stable enough for game developers, that means more restrictions for Linux and Linux is an unrestrained operating system. In other words, for games to be released on Linux, you need Linux to stop being Linux. Linux will then stagnate as games would no longer work properly if not. If Linux stagnate, then it will just become another Windows-like operating system.

Finally, SteamOS is based on Linux. If it get properly commercialized, then Steam will keep it the same, almost regardless of future innovations Linux might bring. At some point, it will only be SteamOS and won't have much to do with Linux. This means just a new player in the operating system market. If SteamOS is kept free, then it doesn't generate revenues, only expenses for support and development. Will Steam be able to afford it? Will Steam be able to compete against Windows and Apple? I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know. I do think it is more likely that if SteamOS does something truly good, then Windows and Apple will copy it.

[cotti]

Oh my, another one of those that don't search or look the threads created in the last few days...


There's quite a bunch of nonsense from some people, but this individual takes the cake by far...

A reason why games don't work on Linux is because Linux is not uniformed. There are countless versions of Linux. Among each versions, such as Ubuntu, there are A LOT of sub-versions. Some of them receive longer term support from Ubuntu, but most are unsupported (meaning you deal with any issues you face yourself and only blame yourself if you screw up).

Nope, that has little to no practical meaning nowadays. If you don't have a recommended version of something needed to run a game, you can always look for other community-driven repositories, download it ready somewhere, or make it yourself.

Also, one thing Linux does is every now and then, the Operating System is remade from scratch to improve itself. With being open source and such, then every Linux can benefit.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA, that's beautiful. You already proved just with this that you know nothing about how the Linux kernel development works. Because that's what it is: just a kernel. Let's not mind all the other things that make a complete OS, each one with their own development models...

Making a game for PC is already a nightmare. EVERYONE has a different hardware. It might be the same PC model, but some pieces might be different. Some build their PCs from scratch, some buy them. Some play on laptops, some on desktops. A game on a PC usually involves a lot of testing to make sure as many players are able to play them as possible. The only constant is Windows operating system. You got only 3 major versions to consider: Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8. XP is about to bit the dust, so a lot will not test it anymore. All three versions are base on the same core programming, which allows a better uniformity. This means that because of Windows, you can only state simple hardware requirement, such as graphic card, RAM and processor. With Linux, you need so much more both hardware and software and you need to do it yourself.

Nice FUD there. You smell like Microsoft PR... Let's ignore the astounding out-of-the-box support for devices that the kernel offers, which makes for most of its recent size and patch volume on each version. And the rule number one about the kernel development: They are to not break userland. EVER. Regressions are always reverted as soon as possible. That's stability the NT kernel wouldn't dream of.

Now, just imagine developing a game for Linux. Countless operating systems and countless hardware settings. You just can't test that much possibilities. So you have to restrict. If Linux is to be stable enough for game developers, that means more restrictions for Linux and Linux is an unrestrained operating system. In other words, for games to be released on Linux, you need Linux to stop being Linux. Linux will then stagnate as games would no longer work properly if not. If Linux stagnate, then it will just become another Windows-like operating system.

Yeah... No. Just no. You show that you don't know how the OS works, and assume that Windows is better. Exactly because it promotes user freedom, you can grab whatever is needed to run an application. With the astounding support from the community, all major distributions would have in an instant a package that already installs everything that is needed if you don't have the prerequisites. There isn't nearly that much of a "hardware difference". Are you perhaps talking for example about... the dozens of CPU architectures supported by the kernel and the ecosystem? If you don't have a x86-based processor, it's unlikely you'd like to play ARR on it anyway.

Finally, SteamOS is based on Linux. If it get properly commercialized, then Steam will keep it the same, almost regardless of future innovations Linux might bring. At some point, it will only be SteamOS and won't have much to do with Linux. This means just a new player in the operating system market. If SteamOS is kept free, then it doesn't generate revenues, only expenses for support and development. Will Steam be able to afford it? Will Steam be able to compete against Windows and Apple? I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know. I do think it is more likely that if SteamOS does something truly good, then Windows and Apple will copy it.

Finally, we reach the end of that incredible garbage.

[LloydShade]

There's quite a bunch of nonsense from some people, but this individual takes the cake by far...

That would have been a truly interesting post if you would have spent more time explaining yourself rather than insult me.

I would really enjoy arguing with you, but your post lack the consistence for me to do so.

[cotti]

not lies you make edits to any open source code you have to release it.
every linux distro is made by different companys they would have to go by there rules also, and different disrtos have different repositories so one driver you need might not be on another distro. you can run DX on linux using wine & getting the right .dll's
no linux is managed other then red hat. SE having issues debugging PS3 & windows version you think they want to mess with the 500 versions of linux? or force you to use one distro.

DX is proprietary its SDK is complete, openGL is opensource and you have to hunt down libarys and files. consoles SDK's are also proprietary & managed. you'll see a macOSX version before you see a linux version.

What's your idea of "open source code" that they need to change to release a compatible version? Why are you implying there's no proprietary software for GNU/Linux? If they want to patch something to work the way they want, why would they need to release everything else? Did you even read the contents of any of those licenses? I have so many questions!


Also, there can be hundreds of distros, but they roughly use the same components. You are creating problems where they don't exist. The community can always patch any issues - and in popular distros they do it quickly. Even the steam beta was distributed officially for Ubuntu, but in a matter of hours other distros had their own solutions for their users.

That would have been a truly interesting post if you would have spent more time explaining yourself rather than insult me.

I would really enjoy arguing with you, but your post lack the consistence for me to do so.

Are you implying that your post with completely nonsensical and unfactual statements has any consistence whatsoever? I'd stay away from such consistency.

[Ryios]

When razor launches Project Christine, it might change how pc gaming works and could lead to a revolution in modular PC design, which could make it possible for hardware to be more controlled. This would open the door for a new Gaming OS just for modular PC's which could forever change the face of the PC and PC Gaming and maybe even replace consoles.

The future will tell!

http://hexus.net/tech/news/systems/6...sign-unveiled/

[Tiggy]

There is nearly no money in a Linux version of the game. There is no possible way to justify the expense of developing a version of the game for it.

[Ryios]

If companies adopted OpenGL over DirectX out of the gate, they could build games for all 3 platforms in one shot with a little conditional compilation with encapsulation. E.g. They build a FileSystem/Sound layer for Linux, Windows, and Mac from day one, then use conditional compilation to build the game for all 3 plats. It wouldn't cost them much more if they did it from day 1. And OpenGL is arguably as good or better than DirectX. Microsoft is even considering supporting WebGL in IE 11 and has rumored a tablet with Windows and Android installed. They could be changing their ways in the future.

[Zfz]

DirectX = little hope of Linux version.

Linux doesn't mean no gaming market. It's just minuscule compared to the Windows install base.

[Gramul]

Sure. Go for it. Let's do all the OS's.

[sruon]

The amount of false information on page 1 gave me cancer. Only bad devs target MSWin only.