You mean for white USA, not for ALL USA. I don't know if this can be called truly democracy.
If you're going to make that argument, then you need to say "white male USA".
You could make the same argument that none of the ancient Greek city-states weren't democracies either, using that argument. Or that the Roman Republic wasn't a representative democracy/republic, although those are generally accepted as the classic examples of those forms of government.
On the other hand, if they weren't democracies, then the U.S. wasn't a republic either until at least when the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, giving women the vote. The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed around 1870, giving all races the right to vote, technically (although it took the country almost 100 years to get serious about closing the loopholes).
I had an iPod Touch before I had any kind of smartphone. It was awesome for what it could do, but what it *couldn't* do influenced two choices for me. First, that I would get a smartphone. Second, that it wouldn't be an Apple, because it would be too much work getting it to do everything that I would want it to do. Nothing of consequence has changed in the balance there since I bought my first smartphone. In the meantime, I'm happy with what I've got, and I'm not going to begrudge the people that have different desires than I do, who are happy with what *they* have. Apple makes some great products. It's just my opinion that they aren't great for *my* uses.
The way I see it though, is that even with the assumption that *no* people that use Linux at all buy any games, and that they'd all represent part of a completely untapped market, they might make up 5% of the potential market (being generous, IMO). If there's already a MacOS port or the game was written in OpenGL anyhow, they may as well reach for that extra percentage. But of course, you've got the people that buy some Windows or consoles games anyhow (grudgingly or not), so that decreases the sales benefit of targeting that group.
I'm convinced that game developers will act in their own short-term best interests. 10% increase in dev costs to gain 15% of the market? Score! 10% increase in dev costs to gain 5% of the market? Even if there's a net profit, I think that they're worried about the percentage of the profit margin.
And all this doesn't even mention that "Linux" isn't exactly one platform. "Ubuntu" is several platforms, depending on the DE in use, and with frequent releases, it makes a kind of moving target. Add in all the people that want to use some kind of Redhat, Debian, SuSE, Arch, etc, and you've got a bigger mess than the dev issues deploying an app to Android. There are several fairly-solid reasons *not* to target Linux (favoring Windows, and Mac to a lesser extent), and comparatively-tenuous reasons *to* support it.
This is a Post Scriptum
A downside of having internet service be a public utility may be NO ONE wants to spend more than the absolute minimum to get into the business. It would be kind of like agreeing to buy a rent-controlled apartment, as an investment, to rent it out.
The government will have to figure some way to reward contribution of infrastructure so there are still some inducements for capitalist investors to create exciting new things.
As a consumer, not seeing much downside in that one. Can only mean we get rates that resemble the rest of the world. The tellcos have a long history of being money grabbing douche bags--at least here in the US. They got slapped for this with the Ma Bell breakup. They didn't learn. An intervention is long overdue.
Agree 200%. From our (the consumers') standpoint, having internet service as a public utility, and regulated as one, is the bees knees. I guess my comment was meant to express surprise that Big Cable says net neutrality is the reason for "pausing" gigabit rollout when their being ruled a public utility is vastly worse (for them).
It's the Public Utility issue. Their profits become whatever the government will allow.
Um, I'm that guy too.
This site has an unusual demographic, compared to the general population. We're much more likely to be Linux users, for instance, so this site was the wrong place to take my hyperbole in that direction. I'm still not convinced that there's a sizable market for Linux games. I'd consider the Humble Indie Bundle packs to be the best-case scenarios, and there, you see Linux users paying more than anyone else (which speaks to a desire among the Linux users out there), but there're generally about 50% as many sales as Mac users, and closer to 5% as many sales as Windows users.
Plus, my two biggest gaming time sinks got ported: Civilization 5 and Mount & Blade: Warband.
Gone are the days of fussing around with Wine or going through the hassle of discarding my workspace to boot Windows.
And I wish that was true for me, as well. The last time it was, my time sinks were Neverwinter Nights and Unreal Tournament 2003. Warcraft 3 worked passably in Wine without much futzing, and so did Alpha Centauri (I didn't know, at the time, that AC had a native Linux release). Ah, wait, that's not right. I played a fair amount of Minecraft a couple of years ago. Still, most of what I'm interested in isn't available on the platform I'd like it to use it on. I don't think that's going to change, because I just don't believe that a big enough market exists to justify the dev+support costs.
My point wasn't that your demographic doesn't exist, just that it's nowhere near low-hanging fruit. Being generous, it's the intersection of gamers and people who use Linux in any form. Realistically, the demographic is more nuanced, something like "Linux users who have an x% likelihood to buy a specific Windows-only game, and an increase of y% that they'll buy it as a Linux port". There's a point where the splinters of markets get too small for a lot of developers to worry about, where it becomes a question of spending 5% more in development to gain an extra 2% in sales, and it doesn't make sense any more.
I'd expect Humble Indie Bundle numbers to be fairly high, in terms of Linux user representation. I know that I've marked "Linux" as my OS of choice every time I've purchased one. Out of 4,998,506 purchases, 332,944 have been Linux (6.7%), 616,596 are OSX (12.3%), and 3,962,890 have been Windows (79.2%). Linux users generally pay nearly double what Windows users do, so there's that in their favor.
~20% of the market may be worth it, depending on how much more work it takes to get there. ~5% may not be, based on the same factors. Most of the large developers seem to be taking the gamble that enough of the people that are "Linux users" will still buy a Windows-only game (or buy the same thing on a console). And while there are exceptions, they seem to be mostly right. From the dev's perspective, losing a few percent of your market is bad; spending a disproportionate amount of your budget to pick up a few extra percent is worse.
From a marketing an pop-culture viewpoint, OSX is more similar to Windows. It's a larger market, and it's a mainstream product. It's actually available in stores and viewed as something that "normal people" buy. As an example, my fairly non-technical parents would consider (and have considered) buying an Apple computer. That is why I "casually lumped [them] together". The technical hurdles aren't the problem, IMO. Not the biggest barrier to seeing more games on Linux, anyhow.
Glass houses, and all that.
Then, over in a tiny little corner, you've got the Linux users with a gamer-grade PC, no OS but Linux, no console, and pockets lined with cash earmarked for games if only publishers'd release them on their OS of choice! Except it's "user", not "users". Yeah, that one guy standing in the corner. That's the market: people that want to buy games, want more than the (mostly Indie) games that have been released for Linux already, but won't (or can't) switch to a platform that has a larger selection.