I have created a poll on our shopping site with a proper question that would interest commercial game developers and commercial game marketers.?(2010.08.27: Due to a site upgrade problem this poll no longer exists. A new poll will be created in the future.) Then refer all questions about commercial games on GNU/Linux to this article and the poll. Once some place can show some serious numbers, hundreds of thousands, to the commercial game people then they will be interested in the GNU/Linux gaming market.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of open source games that are already native on GNU/Linux. Unfortunately the commercial gaming market lags behind open source game development when it comes to GNU/Linux. Some people using GNU/Linux want the commercial games too. This article is an attempt to assist a move in the direction of GNU/Linux in the commercial gaming market.
I recently participated in a Digg posting on Digg.com titled, "Would U Use Linux fulltime if it supported mainstream games?". I dislike the use of "U" in place of "You", it causes my eyes to ache. Despite that I cast my vote in favor of the meaning behind the post. I would like to see more commercial game developers create native games for GNU/Linux. The problem with that Digg title is something I commented about on Digg. I will copy that here:
The problem with this question from the perspective of commercial game developers is it is backwards. A corporate "bean counter" (accountant) could not care less if developing games for Linux causes more people to use Linux full-time. He does not care what operating system is used as long as he can show a profit on the books. What a bean counter is going to care about is whether or not the company he represents can make a profit from selling to Linux users. The question would be better phrased something like, "Would you be willing to purchase commercial games for Linux if they were developed for Linux?", the answer to that question would definitely interest the bean counters that have the ears of the corporate "suits" (management).
My personal commitment is to never buy a commercial game that is not available natively for Linux. If I have to run a game under WINE or with Crossover then I am not going to spend my hard earned dollars for that game. For example I bought Unreal Tournament 2004 and Quake 4 specifically because I like the genre and both have a native Linux capability. If more people take this stance and are willing to say so in public on the 'net then that might make a difference. However, as long as people will keep buying game titles that are Microsoft based and keep using WINE or whatever to run them on Linux then there is no incentive for the corporate game developers to make Linux based games. As long as there is a large Microsoft installed base that will buy these games developed for Microsoft based systems then the game developers will keep grinding out the Microsoft based titles and ignoring "alternative" operating systems.
As I have said before, I do not need these games. The game developers do need my money if they are to stay in business. This is where all Linux users must make a similar decision because that is what will get the interest of corporate game developers / marketers.
My firm conviction is that commercial game developers and game marketers really have no idea how many GNU/Linux "gamers" there are that would buy their products. There is no way to get hard "market share" numbers for GNU/Linux users, especially home users that would buy games. Because of this these commercial game developers and marketers are reluctant to commit resources, which require money, into developing games on GNU/Linux for the GNU/Linux gamer.
If one is keeping around a Microsoft based operating system just to play games then one is contributing to the problem. I am convinced that if GNU/Linux gamers insisted on GNU/Linux game titles rather than being willing to compromise just so they can play some Microsoft based game, like Crysis for instance, then this situation would begin to change in favor of GNU/Linux.
Instead of using WINE or keeping a Microsoft OS around go buy some titles that were developed for GNU/Linux and let the game developers and marketers know, "We are not going to take it any longer." Or continue using WINE or a Microsoft box and continue to be part of the problem rather than the solution to getting commercial games developed for native use under GNU/Linux.
Here is one suggestion I have for a commercial game developed with the GNU/Linux gaming community in mind. If you have not tried Tribal Trouble then get the GNU/Linux demo and check it out. If you like it then pay for the GNU/Linux version and let Oddlabs know you want more GNU/linux game titles. If you have suggestions for commercial game titles for other readers to purchase that are developed for GNU/Linux then post a comment with your suggestions. Please only refer to games that can run natively on GNU/Linux.
NOTICE: All comments are approved by a moderator before they show here. Please only post comments once, they will show once they are approved. It may take up to a few hours for comments to be approved depending on the time of day based on UTC -0600.
This article has been accessed this many times:
| votech vocational schools |
Good article and very true.
Great post and I am on the same standpoint as you. however, I guess I fall into the “contributing to the problem” category by your definition. I boot to windows because the game(s) won’t requires a dozen or so tweaking on wine in order to get running, and I (unfortunatly) do actually get better performance in windows due to a bug in the kernel since 2.6.17. the only solution for linux enthusiasts would be in this case buying a console and miss out on the majority of PC games.
I will always pay for quality linux games, even if its not completly in my taste, just to raise the interest for the platform from game makers.
It is even worse than that they are contributing to the problem, by running Windows-exclusive games. There are companies like Blizzard and CCP that say, why in the hell should we produce a Linux-port when we have people buying our products for a completely unsupported operating system? These are customers who are paying for software support and providing those services for themselves. Companies will never, never, ever spend the money to port a game which will generate no additional money. The Linux Gaming World website has been discussing this topic throughout the last few years, in some interesting essays in their archives.
I pretty much buy every game that interests me for Linux and don’t dualboot.
Ken (comment #1), thank you for the comment.
Khaal (comment #2), I appreciate your comment. Yes, I do insist that using Microsoft operating systems just to run games is part of the problem. Don’t do that.
Tom (comment #3), thank you. Here is a URL to Linux Gaming World for any of you that want to read the articles there.
Vadi (comment #4), thanks for participating. You don’t multi-boot, but do you run games under WINE? If you do, then that is part of the problem, not the solution.
Natively targeting Linux is not worth it. Linux needs cross-distribution stable ABIs first.
Joe (comment #9), thank you for your opinion. You mean “Application Binary Interface”? Do you have some data to back up your claim? A URL to a discussion of the problem would be nice to provide.
However, since there are commercial companies and open source projects that have created games for GNU/Linux I do not believe the problem is a lack of “cross-distribution stable ABIs”. I think it is more that game developers and marketers do not know there is a lucrative market in the GNU/Linux game space.
Edit: a gamer is going to run a distribution that will run games. All the distributions I have tried will run Enemy Territory, Quake 4 and Unreal Tournament 2004.