This article has the fundamental flaw of completely ignoring the market place. While it's great that there are folks out there who can make a living creating applications for *nix platforms the bottom line is that that just isn't true for all of us. Look, for example, at the games industry: despite how much we want people to make games for, say, Linux there just isn't the market to support Linux only (or even *nix only) game development right now. If studios want to make their money back on big budget titles (which is what the consuers want to play) then they need to sell a _lot_. That's just not going to happen, as I think Loki amply demonstrated - they did a great job, but even without the costs of initial development (they only did ports) they couldn't keep it together long enough to avoid going out of business. The market just isn't there.
The article ignores this idea completely, to it's detriment.
You may develope games primarily for Windows, but you can choose to develope those games wisely.
Instead of Direct X (which MS can shift anytime they want) use OpenGL for 3-D graphics. Use SDL for audio interfacing.
Wolfenstein was primarily released for Windows: but it ran under OS X, Linux and FreeBSD (through Linux emulation). You're developing for Windows, but leaving your options open. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Did you just miss the point completly?? That's exactly what the parent poster said. Loki did just ports, mostly of OpenGL games and they still couldn't stay in buisness. The bottom line is that there is no money in it since Linux users won't pay for software. Sad but true.
What I want to see are Windows/Linux "hybrid" game CDs, like the Windows/Mac hybrids we used to see more often.
Unreal Tournament 2003 does this, and it worked nicely. For publishers, the great thing is that you don't have to worry about putting your "other" version of the game on the shelves, as it's built right into your "regular" product.
I think that's the only viable way of putting "Linux games" on the shelves. Trying to publish Linux-only versions just ain't gonna work.
This article has the fundamental flaw of completely ignoring the market place....
He doesn't ignore it. He understands fully that Microsoft and Apple and others own a *huge* chunk of prime virtual real-estate -- the desktop. It's been *the* place to deliver applications since the PC revolution happened in the late 1970's/early 80's, and it's still a place where a lot of software is grown and marketed. And despite the fact that you're sharecropping and marketing on someone else's land, sometimes it's worth
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
Ignoring the marketplace... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article ignores this idea completely, to it's detriment.
Linux games (Score:0)
Instead of Direct X (which MS can shift anytime they want) use OpenGL for 3-D graphics. Use SDL for audio interfacing.
Wolfenstein was primarily released for Windows: but it ran under OS X, Linux and FreeBSD (through Linux emulation). You're developing for Windows, but leaving your options open. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Re:Linux games (Score:-1)
MOM
Microsoft can't just shift DirectX (Score:2)
Hybrids (Score:2)
Unreal Tournament 2003 does this, and it worked nicely. For publishers, the great thing is that you don't have to worry about putting your "other" version of the game on the shelves, as it's built right into your "regular" product.
I think that's the only viable way of putting "Linux games" on the shelves. Trying to publish Linux-only versions just ain't gonna work.
Re:Ignoring the marketplace... (Score:2)
He doesn't ignore it. He understands fully that Microsoft and Apple and others own a *huge* chunk of prime virtual real-estate -- the desktop. It's been *the* place to deliver applications since the PC revolution happened in the late 1970's/early 80's, and it's still a place where a lot of software is grown and marketed. And despite the fact that you're sharecropping and marketing on someone else's land, sometimes it's worth