FLServer and the future

Bas wrote:
In the end, the average linux user did “donate” almost as twice as much as the average windows user.

This is superficially interesting…it is interesting, I say superficially because what they are presenting is significantly lacking in information.

For example - I would be interested to know the age demographic for all the people donating, as well as their employment, income and traditional outlay for games.

For example:

If there are many games for your platform you may be more discerning about how much you spend. If there is only 1 game, you may have different concerns - such as giving more (which they state), or simply the knowledge that you don’t have to budget to get the maximum game experiences for your money.

BUT

there is no demographics of the donors - such as their income, their occupation, number of games etc. It may be that Linux users are willing to pay more on average simply because Windows users involves youngsters with little income, or what income they do get, spread across multiple game titles (they have to spend wisely).

However, it is quite a sizeable difference in price. Impressive (but I’m still thinking the linux users are all employed 30-50 yr old computer professionals…such a stereotyped view!)

Bas wrote:

@Chips: Wine tries to “translate” the Windows-Code to linux equivalents. It doesn’t work always or with the same performance as with Windows, but it has worked out pretty often good. I personally have played Warcraft III at Wine and after some configuration to get the game running it ran at the same speed as with Windows (I didn’t record frames per second, just my feeling - it might has been running even better than at Windows).

In theory, it might be even easier to work on a re-coded FLServer version which is wine compatible instead of re-writing it to be 100%ly Linux compatible. So, an indirect way might lead to the same goal (I mean, Wine might take off some work for you (for the code it already translates fine).

That is actually cool, I’ve never looked at it - I know I should be aware of it, but I’ve always ignored it by working on the principle that if I use Linux, it’s to get away from Windows…not then use Windows on Linux

C, I have added something about wine in my last post:
€// LOOOL. You read my edit after I added it to this next posting. That an epic fail for both of us, isn’t it?

Another interesting point is, although it doesn’t nullify the “linux niche market” argument is this article: http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Linux … -as-much-as-Windows-users In short, there was some kind of “humble bundle” which included about 6 games (aviable for Mac, Windows & Linux) for what the “buyer” could pay any price he wants (yep, even 0.01 U$D were possible). In the end, the average linux user did “donate” almost as twice as much as the average windows user. This means, that linux users are indeed interested in games and will pay for them, even if they are proprietary. They are even willing to pay more than windows users. Here is an article from wolfire games why game developers might at least should consider to support all three major plattforms: http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-y … pport-mac-os-x-and-linux/ I don’t say it overwights the value of money which is necessary to create the cross-plattform games, but they are at least things to might think about. I just love this blog. It comes up with interesting articles and a very different point of view. @Chips: Wine tries to “translate” the Windows-Code to linux equivalents. It doesn’t work always or with the same performance as with Windows, but it has worked out pretty often good. I personally have played Warcraft III at Wine and after some configuration to get the game running it ran at the same speed as with Windows (I didn’t record frames per second, just my feeling - it might has been running even better than at Windows). In theory, it might be even easier to work on a re-coded FLServer version which is wine compatible instead of re-writing it to be 100%ly Linux compatible. So, an indirect way might lead to the same goal (I mean, Wine might take off some work for you (for the code it already translates fine).

Sure, that article is no deep analysis, but it provides at least a tendence.

there is no demographics of the donors - such as their income, their occupation, number of games etc. It may be that Linux users are willing to pay more on average simply because Windows users involves youngsters with little income, or what income they do get,

This is- in my opinion - not such important for the high pets out there. They want to see the money, why people are buying that games on that plattform is less important for them.

spread across multiple game titles (they have to spend wisely).

This might be indeed a point why people are paying more for Linux games, but this could also mean that publishers might should take their chance to be one of the very few developers for this plattform (less concurrence, eh?).

That is actually cool, I’ve never looked at it - I know I should be aware of it, but I’ve always ignored it by working on the principle that if I use Linux, it’s to get away from Windows…not then use Windows on Linux

Can be quit useful if you don’t want to miss a few applications which you loved at Windows, especially games.

For FF, this is an interesting article about openGL:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX
What caught my attention pretty much was the FUD of M$ and the fear that openGL won’t be supported properly at Windows Vista anymore.

I’m sorry but there’s no FUD in the fact that OpenGL is lagging behind. Just that is justification enough for most devs to support DX over OGL.

Also no, you still don’t understand. Wine is a fix at best. A company would never take the legal risk to rest their entire support infrastructure for an operating system on THAT. If you can’t see that, you’re seriously deluding yourself. I like Wine, it’s nice for tinkerers, it’s an excellent stopgap solution, but you cannot hope to ever see a game get released on this officially.

As for the indie package…. Why yes, indie devs do tend to release for more platforms. Indie games also tend to be many orders of magnitude smaller on all levels. It’s much more practical to port a 2D game with simple gameplay than it is to port Mass Effect 2. Again, I feel you are grasping at straws.

The reality is harsh, but you can’t honestly tell me Linux is a suitable gaming platform. Do I like that fact? No. Do I understand it and accept it? Yes.

I’m sorry but there’s no FUD in the fact that OpenGL is lagging behind. Just that is justification enough for most devs to support DX over OGL.

I don’t say it doesn’t nor do I say it does, I simple don’t have enough insight into this scene.
I find it just interesting, the whole stuff behind the scenes, and for the second sentence, that M$ did some FUD-strategies against openGL whcih just strengthen the position of DirectX. I am just thinking about the situation that openGL should never be implented into Vista (which was a DirectLie) but finally got after all. So many game devs were focussing at DX then (weakening openGL’s position).

Also no, you still don’t understand. Wine is a fix at best. A company would never take the legal risk to rest their entire support infrastructure for an operating system on THAT. If you can’t see that, you’re seriously deluding yourself. I like Wine, it’s nice for tinkerers, it’s an excellent stopgap solution, but you cannot hope to ever see a game get released on this officially.

I wasn’t referring to games, just to the single case of teamviewer (at least if my memory and information source don’t betray me).

As for the indie package…. Why yes, indie devs do tend to release for more platforms. Indie games also tend to be many orders of magnitude smaller on all levels. It’s much more practical to port a 2D game with simple gameplay than it is to port Mass Effect 2. Again, I feel you are grasping at straws.

Well, at least one game of the humble bundle is in 3D (Lugaro) and his successor…Overgrowth is as well in 3D-graphics. Though I am not deep enough into such stuff to draw more complex conclusions, but you are at least certainly right that 2D games are A LOT easier to port to another plattform.

The reality is harsh, but you can’t honestly tell me Linux is a suitable gaming platform. Do I like that fact? No. Do I understand it and accept it? Yes.

Suitable maybe not. But it isn’t entirely excluded from gaming, also because of wine (Eh, I just read that SC II runs quite good at it).
There are games which you can play at Linux, but surely by far not as many as at Windows.
Hence, atm I am even at Windows XP (shame on me!) to play Gothic I & Freelancer, blame this #$%% stupid graphics card drivers for ATI Radeon 9550 (pretty sure that those are the sources of my problems).
That’s another point I heard when I was travelling to a friend for a weekend a week ago, I mean, you and maybe even me might be Linux lunatics, but those two guys there were by far beyond that. One of them said Linux could only become a real gaming plattform if good graphics card drivers/interfaces gets released by the manufacturers.

Eh FF…weren’t we at this stage already earlier?

Pretty much

The only thing I’m saying is that Wine is good and exists, but it’ll never be officially supported because it wouldn’t be a safe bet for any respectable company. They’d expose themselves to a ton of crap if they did. Honestly, it’d be as if a dev asked you to run an Xbox 360 emulator to play their PC games. Would that make any sense? No, but for those who want to use it without support, it’s a nice alternative.

I said 2D to make a clear case, but 3D games can be simple too. Look at Minecraft - can’t get much more simple than that as far as graphics go.

Then you haven’t been following things closely, Wolfie. DirectX basically dictates GPU features. DirectX is being updated quickly while it took years for OpenGL to sort itself up.

OGL is reorienting itself towards viz apps. Heck, id gave up on OGL. That alone should be more than enough to tell you OGL is lagging behind.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Games are produced on the back of an investors money, seeing as the majority of people who use linux etc don’t see fit to invest money in so much as buying an OS, what would lead those developers to believe that they would spend money on the software and games they run on it. Games also need good graphics drivers, Nvidia and ATI invest a lot of cash and engineering man hours in many of todays quality games, their return is in the hardware we buy to run the games, at present that would be something with a dx11 sticker on it. Again, they probably think linux users dont invest in the OS, so probably have a piss poor computer, probably don’t invest in regular graphics cards upgrades, probably pirate their games, probably don’t pay for anything at all if they can help it, so screw em.

The linux argument is just like that horrible little whining noise you get in your ear from time to time, it happens for no good reason and once it starts it just doesn’t seem in any hurry to go away.

Nice try Wolfie (a few posts back, to get it on track)

kosacid wrote:
i belive lance is working on a engine wee might be able to use

Kosacid - any more details as to what this means? Right now it’s a little too cryptic for me to be able to get the gist of what you mean

All the Linux vs Windows, DirectX vs OpenGL… unless anyone really works with either or both of these, then I don’t think it’s right to say which is best without sources (Bas provides some, but I can’t help feeling that source is biased ).

@ Chips - this http://ss.galaxyempire.com/index.php

Well, I think OpenGL is kinda less popular to developers because new features are added via extensions and often this results in an extension mess whereas DirectX has some rather strict rules as to what a Direct3D card has to support.

The OpenGL extension mechanism is probably the most heavily disputed difference between the two APIs. OpenGL includes a mechanism where any driver can advertise its own extensions to the API, thus introducing new functionality such as blend modes, new ways of transferring data to the GPU, or different texture wrapping parameters. (…)
On the other hand, Direct3D is specified by one vendor (Microsoft) only, leading to a more consistent API, but denying access to vendor-specific features.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D

Games are produced on the back of an investors money, seeing as the majority of people who use linux etc don’t see fit to invest money in so much as buying an OS, what would lead those developers to believe that they would spend money on the software and games they run on it. Games also need good graphics drivers, Nvidia and ATI invest a lot of cash and engineering man hours in many of todays quality games, their return is in the hardware we buy to run the games, at present that would be something with a dx11 sticker on it. Again, they probably think linux users dont invest in the OS, so probably have a piss poor computer, probably don’t invest in regular graphics cards upgrades, probably pirate their games, probably don’t pay for anything at all if they can help it, so screw em. The linux argument is just like that horrible little whining noise you get in your ear from time to time, it happens for no good reason and once it starts it just doesn’t seem in any hurry to go away.

You are moving on a very thing ice here, without meaning to be offensive towards you.

Games are produced on the back of an investors money, seeing as the majority of people who use linux etc don’t see fit to invest money in so much as buying an OS, what would lead those developers to believe that they would spend money on the software and games they run on it.

Oh?
You know, many Linux users still own a M$ license from before they swtiched to Linux and not such few are using it still in a dualboot. They are using Linux because they think it is the better OS (or at least the better OS for them), not mostly because it doesn’t cost anything. You can try to find a Linux user which never had Windows license before, but should be hard to find.
Or they are using Linux because it is free software. Free as in speech, not as in free bear. Not to mention that Linux is incredible stable and in my eyes less buggy.
For instance, it sucks to me pretty much that my Windows XP eats more ressources than Linux, plus, I hate those message windows which aren’t displayed at the taskbar. You know, those in the background, such as “properties”-windows or finished installation.
At Ubuntu I had a task in the task bar whcih showed me every window (it isn’t such filled up as you might think) so no problem to re-find “lost” application windows at all. Then, there is the package manager which simple is by far better than Microsoft Windows Software Center. Need an app? Just search directly at the Linux Software Center, click at Install and let it be downloaded and installed automatically.

Plus: How many percent of the Windows copies are pirated anyways?
So be careful about saying that ONLY Linux users aren’t willing to pay for an OS.

Plus²: If you read that one artcile correctly, it is quite interesting that Linux users did donate about twice as much per user as windows users, so you can hardly say that Linux users aren’t going to pay for any things which are good.

Don’t assume that Linux users don’t upgrade their hardware at all. This seems to me like a speculation of yourself, nothing more.
They do pirate games more? Wouldn’t pirates pay less for games than non-pirates (I am referring to this humble bundle thing again)?
I personally believe even that Windows users are pirating more, There is proprietary (“un-free Software”, closed-source, in this case also commercial) Software like hell at Windows, and I believe once a user has started to pirate software regulary they will hardly stop doing it. Just my own speculation, anyways.
I also think if you have a lot of free software aviable it is more likely to pay for good software simple because you have more money left.

Again, this isn’t a post against yourself or meant any way aggressive, I just disagree with what you are saying.

Bas wrote:
If you read that one article correctly, it is quite interesting that Linux users did donate about twice as much per user as windows users,

that’s because us Windows users are saving up for the next Windows version

Wolfie wrote:
Bas’ source is biased.

FF: What GPU features then? If I’m not wrong OpenGL 4.0 slapped DX11 all over the face.

What you said might have been true for OpenGL 2.0 to 3.0, those were a mess.

Chips wrote:
Nice try Wolfie (a few posts back, to get it on track)

I obviously failed…

I’ll kindly point out two things:
A) You said that OpenGL 2.0 and 3.0 were a mess. That we can agree with.
B) OpenGL 4.0 is only supported by the GTX 400 and HD 5000 series and above.

Therefore, developers can either choose to support DirectX 9 and 10 or OpenGL 2 and 3. DX11 and OGL4 are, for the moment, a tiny slice of the market.

What do you think devs will do?

I guess you missed the point.