I think this thread has identified the major obstacles to Linux game development. In fact, several of these obstacles have posted in it.

As long as people keep claiming that the 70's style interface is good enough, linux doesn't stand a chance as a major entertainment delivery platform.

Quote: Original post by GBGames
And actually, going on that about driver installation, how many non-technical users install their own video cards? I don't know many non-technical gamers, but do they actually pay Best Buy or someone to do it for them (assuming they don't have technical friends themselves)?

Not to mention that you can do a fresh install of say Fedora Core 3 just as easy as you would install XP, it will work out of the box or the cdr (provided the hardware is compatible, which is a manufacturer issue) just as XP would, casual users wouldn't even need to know what a driver is, and they may go with the same outdated drivers for ages, just as they do in XP.

Miss Windows update? there is up2date,apt and yum, they will help you keep your system current.

I am not arguing that installation on Windows isn't easy. I'm merely arguing that it isn't that much more difficult on Linux, especially when you already know that the README or INSTALL file tells you what to type. Arguably, this makes it automatically difficult since most new people won't read them or know to do so, but typical Windows users aren't all brave and gungho about clicking Next when they don't know what it will do, even if the instructions tell them what it will do. Even with the words on the screen in front of them, they can still panic or otherwise worry that they are going to break their machine.

And what do you mean there is no discovery on the command line?

Quote: Original post by thegame
The reason primarily is _no market for linux games_. Nobody wants to make a game for 5% of _entire_ desktop users

Umm I think you mean more like 1-2% you for got that MAC has the rest right.

Quote: Original post by Arild Fines
I think this thread has identified the major obstacles to Linux game development. In fact, several of these obstacles have posted in it.

As long as people keep claiming that the 70's style interface is good enough, linux doesn't stand a chance as a major entertainment delivery platform.

Oh boy.
I'm going to assume that the 70s style interface you're referring to is the command line interface. I for one prefer it, but I know it wouldn't be appropriate for someone who knows nothing about Linux or PCs in general. There are GUI package installers. They work and are easy to use. Some people, such as myself, see no need for them because the CLI is good enough for them. But to claim that everyone should be forced to use it is not helpful at all. So I agree that if it was the case that people were holding back development because they believed it was good enough, then yes, Linux wouldn't have a chance as a major entertainment delivery platform.

But I don't believe that is the case.

But yeah, some obstacles have posted here. When you purposely make games exclusively for one platform instead of making them available for all platforms, you do two things: one, you contribute to the problem, and two, you lie to yourself when you talk about marketshare. If 90% of the gamers use Windows, and 5% use Linux and 5% use Mac, you are actually cutting out a portion of your audience when you make your game only for Windows. In fact, since Mac users, even with their small numbers, actually are more likely to buy games, you are losing a huge number of sales by Mac alone.

Quote: Original post by s_p_oneil

Quote: Original post by C-Junkie
Of course they're not, but every one anybody has to use is.

Of course all the most critical and commonly-used tools and libraries are well-documented. I didn't claim that they weren't. It's the newer tools that sit on top of them that try to keep up with the MS development environment that we've had poblems with. I also stated that my Linux experience is old. Undoubtedly many things have improved in the Linux environment. But many things have improved in the MS environment as well, and from what I've seen it seems that Linux has always taken a while to catch up.

Oh yeah. Docs for things like cairo and the new X composite extension I would probably consider lacking, but these are brand spanking new toys, and haven't moved mainstream just yet.

It is most definately true that you'll find released things with little to no documentation in open source, whereas with closed it will usually have decent docs. HOWEVER, you'll also find that open gets released a lot quicker, too. (which is the reason I'm a linux advocate instead of just a linux user: development is happening in the linux/open source world faster than any place else, or at least I see it that way.)

Quote: There have been other incidences. I'm not claiming that Linux or open source is at fault, just that closed source drivers are not necessarily bad. Since video drivers have been mentioned, nVidia in particular has a very good track record with their drivers.

Good with users, maybe, but then look at ATI. That's certainly not good with many users.

Bad for kernel developers because it means a pile of bug reports they can't do anything about.

And open is good for both. So, logically....

Quote: It's easy to explain why we're using Linux. Linux was chosen mainly because of the low cost RedHat quoted us on preparing a custom distro, and because that helped us get our product to market faster. The decision was made a number of years ago and has since been regretted. I'm not saying no one seriously thinks Linux is better, I'm just saying that no one who is paying attention would make the statement that BSD is dead.

My thinking is always slightly in the future. I also think KDE is dead, and that blackbox/etc are ancient history.

Quote: Please explain. I'm sure nVidia and ATI didn't do it because they thought it would improve their customers' experience. I've got it! Microsoft paid them to do it. ;-) I apologize in advance for being a smart-ass.

I don't know what to say, you just don't have to. They're kernel modules, they don't require the kernel to be recompiled. And I shouldn't be that out-of-touch... my desktop machine has an nvidia card.

Quote: Original post by Arild Fines
Merely clicking Next a couple of times will leave you with a working installation. That's what makes it infinitely superior to a cryptic command line - there is absolutely no discovery built into the command line.

Agreed, but even typing a consistent command is the masochistic way of doing it.

now i really am a bit pissed... let's sum up a few things:

1) graphics user interface, short GUI:
for those wishing power: XFCE4
for those wishing windows style: KDE
for those beeing masochists: Gnome

2) installing software:
mandrake: open package manager, click on what you want to install (with nice description), hit one button => system installed
gentoo: has also such a system like mandrake but who needs it? 'emerge what-i-wanna-install' => system installed
other linices: also graphiucal package managers

so let's compare:

windows: find driver on homepage. click through long lists of terms of usage, other notices, what os, OMG! . download. find that file on your hd. double click it. get smashes with another licence agreement. click through it. options. OMG?! what do i need? take default. install. reboot. ZONK! system crashes. rollback. install again... hours later... finally! it runs

linux: start package manager. search 'what i want'. put a tick next to it. hit the mighty install button. perhaps reboot. works.

wow... windows is really faster and easier for n00bs. and look at that: the window managers are so diverse that any user will find one suiting him... without hacking windows with ugly shareware accompained with spyware... ;)

side note: yes i am a hopeless linux-a-holic ^_^

rptd has clearly never used gnome. :)

Quote: Original post by GBGames

I'm going to assume that the 70s style interface you're referring to is the command line interface.

No, I am referring to the whole toolchain, the whole "if man was good enough for Dennis Ritchie, it's good enough for me" attitude. I positively detest the whole intellectual snobbery that comes with certain people using tools that have barely developed since 1972.

I have no problems with command lines in general, but I'd prefer a command shell that isn't as positively archaic as the ones commonly found on unix.

Quote:
I for one prefer it

I don't. Command line and graphical interfaces are both appriopriate for various tasks, with considerable overlap in functionality. Where there is overlap, and the GUI isn't 10x as clunky to use as the CLI, I prefer the GUI. Why? Because the GUI has discoverability. If I don't know, or don't remember, how to do something, a couple of seconds of looking at the menus or howering the mouse over stuff will usually tell me all I need to know. If I forget the command line syntax, I am going to have to wade through reams of documentation looking for what I need. I don't want to do that. It is a computer, and IT WORKS FOR ME, DAMNIT. It is not the other way around. It works for me. I don't work for it.

I find it pretty funny that you people actually consider yourself superior for having found a way of doing work *FOR* the computer.

Quote:
But yeah, some obstacles have posted here. When you purposely make games exclusively for one platform instead of making them available for all platforms, you do two things: one, you contribute to the problem, and two, you lie to yourself when you talk about marketshare.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. It is not the responsibility of game developers to make linux game development desirable. That burden is solely on the linux developers/zealots.

Quote:
If 90% of the gamers use Windows, and 5% use Linux and 5% use Mac, you are actually cutting out a portion of your audience when you make your game only for Windows. In fact, since Mac users, even with their small numbers, actually are more likely to buy games, you are losing a huge number of sales by Mac alone.

Your reasoning completely fails to take into account the added costs of developing, QA'ing and providing for multiple platforms. Especially a "platform" that is as unstable as linux. If a linux port doubles or triples your combined dev, QA and support costs, are those 5% still worth it?