Interview With Icculus on GNU/Linux Gaming 74
Via Phoronix comes a link to an interview with prolific GNU/Linux game porter Icculus about the state of gaming on GNU/Linux. Topics include Steam, Windows 8, his experiences trying to push FatELF vs full screen games, and the general state of the game industry. From the article (on the general state of games on GNU/Linux): "It's making progress. We're turning out to have a pretty big year, with Unity3D coming to the platform, and Valve preparing to release Steam. These are just good foundations to an awesome 2013."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Bringing in Steam and closed source games doesn't turn a GNU/Linux platform into a closed source OS. The closed bits have to behave and accept that I control the system.
I'm trying to get away from it. Games moving to Linux gives me more reason to leave.
Some do, eventually.
How about we move games, and users, to Linux first? Silly absolutist stances accomplish nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you bring closed, proprietary, DRM-infested software onto it, you're just turning it into another Windows; you might as well just go back to it.
Nonsense. Bringing in Steam and closed source games doesn't turn a GNU/Linux platform into a closed source OS. The closed bits have to behave and accept that I control the system.
I'm amazed at the number of people with such an attitude to which you respond. For some reason, some number of unintelligent people actually believe making Linux popular and attractive to game developers and publishers, somehow Linux itself will be magically destroyed. The complete lack of critical thought to reach such a conclussion is truly amazing I completely agree with you. Even beyond that, availability of Steam and game frameworks is going to attract developers and games, which have absolutely nothin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, for many in the Linux community, if Linux were to become popular, it would be magically destroyed. For many, Linux is not just an operating system, it is an exclusive club. Like all exclusive clubs, the appeal is the exclusivity...i.e. "I'm better than you because I'm in club X." If the platform were to become popular, it would destroy the exclusivity, and then the nerds would have to find something else to make themselves feel superior.
Then, there are the purists. "All closed-source software
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything already existing hasn't been ported, but I've definitely noticed a rise in games with Windows/OS X simultaneous launch on Steam. Every game doesn't get a port, but the ones which do at least get them sooner. But OS X probably has ~15x as many desktop users as the various Linux distros, so it might not be that awesome for Linux. We can be certain the indies won't have any reservations now, though. Unity3D is huge among them, and the Linux client export is a first-class feature, like the OS X and Windows players.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
Before the fanboys come out of the woodwork to accuse me of being a 'Hater'. Please notice that I did not comment on the quality of the OS. Only it's market share.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is, most Linux users don't care about games.
There is a causal element there: Most people who care about games don't use linux. If games come to linux that could change.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
What about people who use Android?
Re: (Score:2)
By Linux, I mean GNU/Linux, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Hey honey. Wake up, go to the street, get some fresh air. Phone a friend, a girl if you know any. Drink a tea or a beer with her. Go to bed, feel happy playing with your "google".
Now that you are a healthy humane person, repeat with me: If you computer does have a free operating system running propietary software from time to time, that is much better than having a propietary operating system running free software from time to time.
If you can't understand that, then just buy a Mac and stop whinning.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
W.T.F. How did that patronising, sarcastic comment get +4? The parent isn't even a troll, it just raises a quite extreme viewpoint
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm all for DRM, I really like the accelerated desktop experience personally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're an idiot. DRM in the context of the Linux kernel means Direct Rendering Management, part of the graphics subsystem which does in fact help with desktop acceleration.
Re: (Score:1)
Why does the linux communities have to act like a bunch of bullies. You expect a company who spend millions of dollars and years to develop a game or gaming engine to release the source code to you just like that, get real. If you are talented to add features or modify a game engine than maybe you are talented enough to create your own game engine from scratch instead of expecting others to give one to you for free. And nobody is forcing you to install a closed sourced or DRM based program. Linux deskto
Re: (Score:1)
No, what we need to get these people to do is to give us the code to their engines (even if under a mostly proprietary license). That way we will be able to continue enjoying what makes GNU/Linux attractive and play games as well.
That just doesn't leave enough incentive for developers to work on the platform. I'm a die hard Linux fan, but I don't think most game developers are. And keeping us happy isn't really that high on their priorities list. I think they're thinking somewhere along the lines of "take it or leave it"? Lord knows Valve can afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
For most applications i would agree, but games?
These are applications that noone *needs*, noone depends on, don't hold your data to ransom and just provide casual entertainment... Just keep them appropriately sandboxed away from any of your important data.
DRM is a separate issue, and a ridiculous one... Sooner or later they will realise it just doesn't and cannot work, and all they achieve is to irritate their paying customers while making the pirate copies more attractive.
You do make a good point however,
Walled Garden (Score:2)
From the interview:
Between Apple and Microsoft, Valve has to fight for a less restrictive platform.
The interesting thing here is that Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all building app stores with serious restrictions as a way to improve security, but aside from making stronger brands and improving user experience in removing malware, they don't get a lot out of the restrictiveness. Apple doesn't make money by not allowing pornography apps. There is potential for abuse, but realistically none of the major players have been doing a lot to promote their own software with these restriction
Re:Walled Garden (Score:4, Informative)
Google is largely exempt from this implication so long as Android continues to come with a simple check-box for side loading software.
For Android this is already possible, as evidenced by the Amazon App Store. For Microsoft and Apple, you'll have to force the issue legally. They're quite content to maintain lock-down on their "current" platforms. I say current because Microsoft has extended the walled garden to x86, but only for formerly-Metro applications.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing here is that Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all building app stores with serious restrictions as a way to improve security, but aside from making stronger brands and improving user experience in removing malware, they don't get a lot out of the restrictiveness.
Google is largely exempt from this implication so long as Android continues to come with a simple check-box for side loading software.
I'm not sure I agree. The problem with Google's solution is that it does not do just what I described, split the security auditing from the distribution. To get software Google does not approve of (for any not necessarily disclosed reason) you have to go out on a limb and try to independently verify the security of an app, and frankly 99% of users can't do that. This is one of the major reasons why there is such a malware problem on Android compared to the other phone platforms.
For Android this is already possible, as evidenced by the Amazon App Store.
You're missing the point. The
Re: (Score:3)
No, my point was that the stores with serious restrictions are not purely for security purposes. Google does not have a walled garden, Microsoft and Apple do, and they do because they want 100% control over the platform. Beyond security, it lets them play gatekeeper and impose a toll on both developers and users they haven't been able to before.
Every store is going to perform it
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Google's solution is that it does not do just what I described, split the security auditing from the distribution.
No, my point was that the stores with serious restrictions are not purely for security purposes. Google does not have a walled garden, Microsoft and Apple do, and they do because they want 100% control over the platform. Beyond security, it lets them play gatekeeper and impose a toll on both developers and users they haven't been able to before.
I understand your point but I don't think I agree. It is easy to try to villify Apple and MS for their choices and to ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives. I think it's bunk. I think they're primarily interested in making money and the App stores are there to make it convenient and easy for users to get apps without getting any malware. It serves the needs of 90% of users and makes things very easy for those users at the expense of power users and those who want a bit more choice.
You ascribe, for example,
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that if, say, McAfee proved that they did a better job checking for malware, Apple would just turn over the App store to them? With the 30% cut (after all, that's just expenses for checking the app's compatibil
Re: (Score:2)
To get software Google does not approve of (for any not necessarily disclosed reason) you have to go out on a limb and try to independently verify the security of an app, and frankly 99% of users can't do that. This is one of the major reasons why there is such a malware problem on Android compared to the other phone platforms.
The reason why Android has malware is because Google app store is not premoderated, so more crap gets in - and even though it gets kicked out eventually after users report it, it's there for long enough that someone downloads and installs it. It has nothing to do with the ability to sideload apps. It's not like that functionality is enabled by default - you have to go fairly deep into advanced settings to even see the checkbox that lets you install random APKs.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't get a lot out of the restrictiveness
From what I understand Apple (and probably the others) makes loads of money out of every sell on their store, they don't make money when someone sell a macosx software outside apple's store.
I'm not sure why you think that. Apple makes a crapton of money selling iPhones, iPods, and Macs. They make basically nothing selling software and content. They have a "razors" business model where they sell the content at near cost to motivate purchases of hardware. Their whole software and services division accounts for something like 3% of revenue. The management would have to be idiots to make any decision to try to get profit from those services at the expense of their current, super profitable, hardwa
Re:Walled Garden (Score:5, Interesting)
I feel like you are talking about different things. Steam isn't a developer, it's a gaming platform and a game store.
Agreed, but Steam is a distribution platform and a store. They add value by handling a lot of the purchasing and with value added integration. They are competing with the App stores for about half of their business model. It is likely not sustainable unless there is some sort of major technological shift.
That would be like talking about putting Steam into Game for Windows Live. You can talk about Valve putting their games into other people's store, but not Steam as a platform.
Well, yes and no. Steam is not a fixed technology. One of the benefits is that across platforms it can link users together to play, chat, share scores, etc. Valve introducing not only their games to Windows Live but also their reputation and ability to audit games to determine which ones are malware or crashy or will otherwise cause users problems is a very real value, especially if MS were to walk away from that service and leave it up to third parties. Xbox, however is the most locked down and least likely of platforms. Phones and desktop OS's on the other hand are a more plausible situation.
So, there is no scenario in which Steam can be a first class citizen. You're mixing Valve the developers, and Steam as a distribution platform.
So imagine a world where Apple announced they were going to allow absolutely any application to be distributed in the App store... but by default users would only see the ones Apple approved. Imagine, however, that users could add any company/organization they wanted to approve or disapprove of software and provide ratings for it. For example, Symantec could feed information to the Apple store and users that enabled it could (for a fee) have all applications vetted against Symantec's white/black list. Users could add the Catholic Church's whitelist to remove even apps Apple provided that did not align with the beliefs of those adherents. Users could also add Valve and see added to the store any games Valve had approved as options for purchase. Further Valve approved apps (submitted to the store by Valve) all included integration with Steam's network services to add value.
In the example above Steam is a first class citizen as much as any other distributor of software and while Apple might exclude some of their games by default for whatever reason, users could still get those games from the same place as all their other games. This is a survivable situation for Valve so long as they keep producing games and adding value with their network services (like integration with other platforms and authentication on other platforms) and Apple wins because more people can get the apps they want and Apple sells more hardware all without seriously degrading the security benefits of the current App store.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Valve is simply moving their walled garden elsewhere. And yes, Steam is a walled garden - until recently, unless you
No. Just no. (Score:1)
I don't want another Minecraft. I want Mass Effect. I want Command & Conquer. I want Supreme Commander. I want Borderlands. And I want the absolute latest sequels to each and every one of these. Yes, even Mass Effect 3 (aside from the worst ending in the history of gaming, it's still a good game for the first 99 hours...)
I am sitting here, running XP x64 on a system that isn't even 2 years old built specifically for gaming (an ASUS G72 if you're curious) with Backtrack 5r3 in a VMWare guest runnin
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the latest and greatest games, I have to ask - why Windows XP 64-bit? While there aren't all that many games that -require- DirectX 10 or higher yet, there are a few,and some of them are really damned good. (Just Cause 2 springs to mind.)
Even games that don't require it are often markedly visually improved by DX10/11 (like Lord of the Rings Online, for instance.)
And the Linux naming experts strike again (Score:3)
Seriously, fat elf? ELF was fine, it's another TLA that you might pronounce as E-L-F, but there's only one way people would say FatELF. "Just turn the GIMP into a FatELF and it'll run on all platforms.", seriously RMS should add another one to the list, free as in beer, free as in speech and free as in puns.
Re:And the Linux naming experts strike again (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, fat elf? ELF was fine, it's another TLA that you might pronounce as E-L-F, but there's only one way people would say FatELF. "Just turn the GIMP into a FatELF and it'll run on all platforms.", seriously RMS should add another one to the list, free as in beer, free as in speech and free as in puns.
Funny. Seriously though application formats are not user facing so you can name them "BinaryBlumpers" for all I care. I just wish Linux as a desktop were not quite so castrated by Linux as a server design choices and mentality. Icculus's experiences mirrored my own when trying to discuss ways Linux could borrow from other OS's to make it a better desktop. It's all fine and dandy unless you want to add something fundamental and then a million angry server monkeys appear and throw poo. Unless the culture changes Linux will forever be relegated to server and appliance roles.
Re: (Score:1)
It's all fine and dandy unless you want to add something fundamental and then a million angry server monkeys appear and throw poo. Unless the culture changes Linux will forever be relegated to server and appliance roles.
Beyond funny and spot on. Wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:1)
Icculus's experiences mirrored my own when trying to discuss ways Linux could borrow from other OS's to make it a better desktop. It's all fine and dandy unless you want to add something fundamental and then a million angry server monkeys appear and throw poo. Unless the culture changes Linux will forever be relegated to server and appliance roles.
That's the strength of free software -- if you want something done then just do it. What I don't understand is why Icculus is complaining about this being rejected. Something must have been seriously wrong with it if he couldn't convince ANYONE else to start using his patches. Even just one distro being interested would have been enough. The free software community is no different than any other, you need to "market" your idea otherwise no one is going to care.
Re:And the Linux naming experts strike again (Score:5, Informative)
Desktop integration isn't there ("standard" SDL will not help you detect multiple monitors), when your app crashes you are left with broken screen. Just allocating too much (overcommit by a few GB) memory can make your Linux desktop unresponsive enough so you have to SSH to it from another machine and kill the offending process.
Now compare it to Windows where TDR allows you to survive even a driver crash! There's A LOT of work needed if Linux is to become a good desktop, and the majority of it is not about fancy UI. It's about getting a solid graphics stack, good support for debugging, good tools built on top of that. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure that community can provide that. This requires unification of will on a large scale, and community tends to produce loosely-knit patchwork of locally optimal solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Linux to run XBMC (my video media center) at my house. So does my brother at his dorm and my mom at her home and my dad in his.
That said, I do dual boot for most of my games but I hate it to the point that I just don't bother to play that many games anymore. It's not convenient having to stop whatever is going on in the background of my linux machine just to play a game in windows for an hour. I am really hoping that Steam changes that.
Re: (Score:3)
Available API (de facto standard: OpenGL + SDL) sucks
I know several ways in which SDL sucks, but they don't really differentiate it from DirectX, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. OpenGL doesn't seem to suck at all, but the support does vary broadly.
drivers suck (except for NVidia, who gets blamed for being binary),
Eh, the nVidia drivers have been sucking more and more of late themselves...
Now compare it to Windows where TDR allows you to survive even a driver crash!
Haha, maybe. I've had Windows taken out by graphics drivers more than everything else put together.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL doesn't seem to suck at all, but the support does vary broadly.
OpenGL has multiple flaws which are well documented on the net. The core API is too high level, while at the same time its extension model pushes the burden of supporting incompatible hardware to application developers. Its internal state can be changed at unpredictable times and the API remains essentially single-threaded as far as a single context is concerned. It is getting better in recent versions, but we will have to support older profiles for a long time, given the fact that only proprietary drivers
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't ask for permission, you just go forth and do it, and if the people use it, then you win. And if they don't, you should have done it better :)
I was waiting and waiting for someone to make something like MacOS (classic) on top of Linux that I could give to my friends who just wanted something simple that worked, because I didn't have the skills to do all of it and therefore didn't want to bother taking on yet another project, I have more than enough of them already. How fortunate for me that Google
Even open source games need "FATELFS" (Score:2)
And the reason why open source games need statically compiled cross-distro binaries is that these days, you need to assure your game works in an online environment.
Online play requires all clients to have the same game version. There are exceptions I guess, but they aren't worth mentioning it.
What this means is that you need all distros to release(update) your newest game version at the same time, and if they don't (which they can't realistically) users will get locked out.
A good example of this is the Spri
Re: (Score:1)
The numbers matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
And the sad fact is, that as of today, Windows 8 under steam outnumbers *all* versions of Mac OS all together. You can bet that the desktop distribution to Mac is higher than Linux, so what is the point here?
Valve is caught with a problem, they are trying desperately to stay relevant in an era where XBox is actually really good, and while the integration into Windows 8 leaves much to be desired, you now give companies a huge benefit in added revenue via XBox points and Xbox Achievements (which points can unlock certain things). Simply stated, developers and publishers make more money through the Xbox channels than they do anywhere else.
I know the idea of Linux gaming is great on /. but let's face the bad news; only if the community takes on the challenge of porting games (ala Wine or something), will it ever be bothered to be played. And even then, every Linux "gamer" will keep a Windows partition because all games will come to Windows, and only some will come to Linux -- and that's in an ideal world. So if publishers/developers know this, what's the point in adding Linux support in? The games won't play as well, they will lose added revenue via Xbox points/achievements, and they will make a few nerds happy.
Sorry to say but getting a Humble Bundle developer to push the idea that Steam on Linux will be "moderately successful" to "wildly successful" is idiotic and naive. Next time show an interview from a big name publisher and let the entire interview be three minutes of laughing.
Re: (Score:1)