[NTLUG:Discuss] Wine presentation

[Steve]

Steve Baker wrote:


 > Right - which neatly explains how come Quake is the only succesful 
commercial
 > game to date that's been written for Linux and Windoze 
simultaneously. Carmack
 > and his *small* team are successful and independent enough to do 
things the
 > *WANT* to do.


I could be wrong, but I think Carmack has stated that for what's
considered typical PC game development, you just end up losing money on
Linux as it stands today. The love that I'm talking about means a
sacrifice on id's part to do a Linux release even though it'll cost them
more than it'll bring in.

This is admirable, but for somebody without these resources, it is not
sustainable.


 > Every other commercial games house will be totally dominated by the 
money men -
 > marketeers - advertisers - the movie companies...the creative team 
(artists
 > and programmers) can't just say "we want to make a Linux port - just for
 > the love of it"...you'd get laughed out of the company.


Maybe they should be today for the typical commercial house game (and 
its movie-like costs) and the current Linux gaming market? Again, I 
don't think id made any money off of Linux (which wasn't their goal, 
(again, "I think.")) Gaming market is pretty brutal like you mentioned 
which doesn't lend itself to taking risks.

You sorta make it sound like Carmack's team, full of artists and 
programmers rather than the evil money men, took a gamble and were 
rewarded from it. I think what happened was that the only reward they 
got was doing something for Linux. There wasn't an economic motive 
behind it. If there is any sort of opportunity cost for their efforts, 
the company lost money. I think Carmack knew this going in. Wish I could 
find the interview where he talks about this (also to be sure that I'm 
accurate on the views...).


 > Games programming is generally a ferocious business (which is why I don't
 > do it for a living - preferring to write games for fun and give them
 > away - taking a more relaxing day job instead).

No reason why a simpler game than Quake, something like Myst or Tetris,
something that relied more on concept than just sheer brute-force pixel
pushing, can't do well on Linux financially. But today's games more and
more resemble the movie industry for better or worse.


 > They did well within the parameters they set for themselves - but 
their business
 > model is fatally flawed by the fact that they can never get a game 
ported in
 > zero time.  The long delay between the Windoze game emerging with all the
 > hoopla and advertising - and Loki finally getting their port out - 
means that:
 >
 >  a) Their games look expensive compared to the same game under Windoze
 >     (which being six months old is now discounted below production 
costs).
 >
 >  b) They miss the big advertising campaign that promoted the original 
game.
 >     The magazines have long stopped printing reviews and cheats and other
 >     things that keep the game 'alive'.
 >
 >  c) All of the other 16 to 20 year olds have already played the Windoze
 >     version to death and are looking forward to the next big thing.


The business model isn't fundamentally broken for the reasons that you 
mention. These same 3 problems are problems that MacOS users usually 
encounter. However, you can still make some money doing MacOS ports 
because the market is there. The returns kinda suck, but they're there. 
It is not there yet for Linux for games for these types of games.

(BTW, those Mac porters are also doing it for the love of the system.
They could be making more money working elsewhere, but they want to see
games come to the Mac. I don't hear much about Windows developers doing 
something for the love of the system and its users.)


 > Well, that's where the chicken-and-egg thing bites us.

 > So games players don't use Linux - Linux isn't an economic target for
 > games companies -  so games players don't use Linux.


I don't see this as a problem in itself. So, Windows gamers don't use
Linux...that's fine. Linux will continue to grow its apps to satisfy its 
current user base. As the apps grow, newer users with different needs 
will trickle in just as it grew from uber geeks to somebody like me. 
Later on, it'll grow to include another guy that's closer to the Windows 
spectrum than me.

If your goal is to grow your user base organically, there is no chicken
and egg problem. Take a look at open source solutions in general. It's 
built to satisfy a particular need. Then later on, something else is 
brought alone to satisfy another need. As time goes on, and the solution 
grows from point A to B to C to D. With respect to Linux, the OS grows 
beyond what it was originally. The solution at D looks a lot different 
than at A.

There is nothing chicken-n-egg about going from A to B to C to D. There
is something chicken-n-egg about going from A to D in one step. There's 
no starting point because the value of D reflects stuff that came before 
it.

That's why there's no quick fix to make Windows users migrate en masse 
to Linux. But by the same token, that's also why Linux is not stuck in 
some dilemma of "no apps, no users; no users, no apps" that some tech 
rags claim. There are certain apps for certain types of users which in 
turn will cause new apps which will cause a few more users to come in. 
As impressive as Linux's growth has been, it's still difficult to create 
a Windows/MacOS/desktopy user system overnight.

(In some ways, this slow mode is healthier because if I can write 
Windows games that will run on Linux, I have no interest in coding 
specifically for Linux. So, my games will always run on a Microsoft 
system, but there's always the chance that Microsoft can break it from 
running well on Linux. Microsoft is still in command of the technology, 
not the Linux community.)

I dunno. Look at PCs as a gaming platform vs. dedicated gaming consoles 
in the early 80's. The "cool" games were on the Atari's, Coleco's, 
Intellivisions, whatever. Different devices for different audiences, but 
after a while, the PC matures so that it can provide good games too. 
Just because it didn't have cutting edge gaming features and was 
primarily used for productivity doesn't stop it from becoming something 
to have if you really like to play games. Sony's doing a clever reverse 
variant with the PS2 to penetrate the home without going head to head 
with a PC. It just takes time.

Steve