Interview with Tribsoft 86
Christian Schaller wrote to us with an interview running on Linuxpower.org that talks with the folks at TribSoft. Tribsoft is the company responsible for the port of Jagged Alliance 2 to Linux - something that we've referred to before.
Jumping on the Bandwagon... (Score:1)
I too, would love to see FF8 for Linux. Or Ultima 9, for that matter. (anyone played it? I know the system requirements are insane...)
Hopefully, as more shrink-wrapped games and apps for Linux come out, the (often non-existent) Linux section in the local software stores will grow and swell and make people say "What's that penguin?"
Linux: it's not just for bookstores anymore...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Jumping on the Bandwagon... (Score:1)
Yes, I've heard good things about Electronics Boutique, although I haven't been to one in a while.
CompUSA has gotten better though, and I've even started to see Linux in some Babbage's/Software Etc.'s...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:Jumping on the Bandwagon... (Score:1)
Hi, Spot!
Wow, we have an Electronics Bo... We have a mall? Wow, I *do* need to get out more!
Oh man, after I get my new computer next summer, maybe I'll worry about real cool hardcore linux gaming. But not yet...
later,
Peter
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
banner is your friend (Score:1)
Better yet... (Score:1)
(Actually, as it is, I'll switch to whatever OS runs the game best that I'm playing right now. I've been known to keep an NT partition around for the Quake series games...)
Re:Jumping on the Bandwagon... (Score:1)
~spot
Similar Codbases and Open Source Games (Score:1)
I don't think that Open Source games will be entire titles developed and distributed for free (beer or speech, your choice), but rather Open Source engines (CrystalSpace among others) that will be added to with a couple of libraries and maybe the core executable with the proprietary section being the images, story, characters (actors), audio and so on.
This would bring down the ROI for people to make games that were more content focused. People could still add on to engines or write there own to produce the Quake III's of the genre.
I think that this would open up the market, and allow for more experimentation, thus growing the market (hopefully) and allowing larger investments in riskier envelope expanding projects.
Just a couple of thoughts from an avid gamer
Now this I'd like to see... (Score:2)
Personally I would like to target more processors. However it won't be a simple recompile.
We will release our games for Intel x86 based processor first. Maybe once JA2 is finished, we will look at the possibilities of making a PowerPC and maybe an Alpha version. The solution would be to have one programmer dedicated to porting games to different processor architectures since we already have enough work.
Excellent, but for some odd reason having to do wth the number of people who have an Alpha for a PC I don't see that last bit happening...
B for knowledge, A for knowing Linux people (Score:1)
Chris Hagar
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
You seriously think that it is more likely that we'll see non-Windows Direct3D, than that people will stop using D3D and use another standard? Microsoft will never port DirectX to an OS they don't control, because DirectX is a large part of what keeps Windows the PC gaming OS of choice. And if anyone manages to reverse engineer it, I predict updates plained to create lots of work for the reverse engineers to keep up with official DirectX versions. Particularly seen I'd guess DirectX ties into other Windows specific APIs and features, non-Windows DirectX would probably be a nightmare.
No, I would hope to see people stop using DirectX for the same reason other proprietry standards have fallen from dominance - other standards with better features and interoperability look more attractive. In this particular case, as Linux and other OSes become more attractive markets for game companies, hopefully companies will realise that OpenGL makes for less development time for non-Windows versions of games, leaving DirectX to slowly die a natural death
Re:games on linux. (Score:2)
I think a better, more reallistic goal (in the near future) is 80% or more. The way I see it, the more games that are ported to linux the less likely people are to decide not to use linux based on lack of games. So more people will come, and the user base will grow, more companies will port, more users will come... you get the idea. But I think that until Linux has about 30%+ of the desktop market, companies will not always consider it a neccesity to have a linux version available.
most games played today are either console games or games on windows
This is an interesting point... I don't consider console games in normal thought, as I do not own a console system (actually I have a Genesis that I haven't used in years...) I do all of my gaming on PC because of the nifty graphics and because I spend so much money on my PC that I'm not about to go out and buy a console system... but I think consoles will be around for a long time, and will probably hold a large part of the market regardless of linux ports. I don't feel that consoles will detract from linux ports. [[END RANT]]
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
Re:games on linux. (Score:2)
--
linuxisgood:~$ man woman
Flame off! (Score:1)
Games under linux (Score:2)
Whenever I run games on linux (almost any game except extremely simple stuff using standard curses/ncurses combinations) my machine tried to betray me. I have had extremely sluggish preformance for what games that are actually GPLed and such. It seems that the insidious minions of Orthodoxy have decided that some users are worthy of the mantle of playing games and some are not. My question is exactly how are things being made as backwards compatable and streamlined to allow a usable experience for everyone. Another little thing currently on my debian box I have nearly 20+ libraries that are needed by just one program that only serve that program or game. Why do all developers see that developing games to require the use or implimentation of a different set of libraries and a different philosophy about exactly how to code?
The results of these things have essentially been that you machine's resources are being wasted and wasted hard to run even a cheesy game badly.
My question is what makes this game so special in terms of it being ported to linux. Not being one of the monied few who has accewss to a NASA JPL mainframe to run these on what is so good about it.
I remember buying a game about around Christhmas time and it really sucked and didn't hardly offer most of what it promised. That was my most expensive and last purtchess in the game arena (it was called Pyro technica created by Gt Interactive if anyone wants to know).
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:2)
OpenGL is hardly a competitor to DirectX as a whole.
Tagline (Score:1)
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
Re:Jumping on the Bandwagon... (Score:1)
In the Electronics Botique (mall video game shop) at my local mall (Buffalo, NY), of the wall devoted to computer software, a good 10% of it is devoted to Linux games and distros. The size of that section increases every month. A lot of Loki games, UT and Quake. It's pretty exciting.
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
So this is good and bad for the Linux platform. DirectX provides a common API for the most popular platform (Win32). It also provides acceptable performance.
So what does Linux need to get a foothold? Well, simply having more users won't quite do it. Consider how slow developers are in releasing Mac ports of games. And there are quite a few Mac users out there.
Whatever API that is used for Linux must be usable on Win32 also (at least, as long as Win32 is the dominant platform). Furthermore, it needs to be equal to, or easier to code for than DirectX. If it can get improved performance, even better. Finally, compiling a Linux version vs. a Win32 version must require almost no changes. When this is accomplished, you will see DirectX begin to take a back seat. I expect that XFree86 4.x will help the situation also, especially as more hardware vendors lend support.
Game developers will jump ship and toss old code out the window as soon as you show them something better. We rewrite code all the time, and we don't usually care about backwards compatibility.
Best regards,
SEAL
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
It would be so worth it for someone in the Linux community to do thism, despite the need to be playing catch up. Many projects commit to a version of DX (Whatever the newest one is at the time) and stick with it. Very rarely does a team change to a new version halfway throught the development cycle. A team won't want to re-code major sections of the engine due to changed interfaces. There are two ways that the interfaces will change.
The first is a change for the better. A sample of this would be the changes in D3D. Esp. from IDirect3D3 to IDirect3D7 with DX7. Before D3D3 and it's DrawPrimitive function it was a pain in the ass to learn the API. With DX7 it's so simple to get things set up that with 20 lines of code (plus skeleton) you can have a textured lit polygon up using hardware transforming and lighting (if supported).
The second type of change would be to change just to throw off the OpenSource developers off. Many game developers that I've worked with need to be dragged kicking and screaming when a new version comes out. Each time it means re-learning a whole bunch and a LOT of re-testing just to get some new features to work. I don't know very many people who are going to switch to a new DX interface with no benifit. It's just silly.
I'd guess DirectX ties into other Windows specific APIs and features, non-Windows DirectX would probably be a nightmare.
Yes and no... There are a few thing that DirectX and Windows tie into. The one that I'm thinking of is that you can lock a DirectDraw surface and use GDI on it (By grabbing a Device Context). I've only done this to use TextOut to a DD surface to display some debugging info. Nothing that I'd use in production code because it so SLOW. The freakin' docs tell you not to do it. (And D3D now has a method that takes a string parameter so you don't use GDI at all.) What I'm saying is: It's a small subset of the API set that many developers don't use.
So... I wouldn't hold my breath for DX to die a natural death. MS has actually done quite a good job of evolving it to be useful. D3D going from being a really crappy standard to being, IMHO, as good as OpenGL and MUCH easier to use.
Yeah yeah... Evil Empire... Not open source... Etc... Who cares? Not too many people care in the real world of Game Development. Game developers are going to do what's in thier own best interests and until it's economically feasable to use other platforms it won't happen. When that does happen expect developers to bail by the boat loads. (As we've all seen happen in the past.)Jagged Alliance rules, any more games to come? (Score:1)
One more Game? (Score:1)
Re:Jagged Alliance rules, any more games to come? (Score:1)
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
Re:first!? (Score:1)
"There is an enormous untapped market here of about 15 million users"
Unfortunately this number include servers and users that are not buying games. Anyway I don't mind since this job is simply too fun!
Mathieu Pinard
Tribsoft Inc.
games on linux. (Score:1)
How do you create these images??? (Score:1)
Please provide some info on this, it is really quite amazing.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
Re:second (Score:1)
Re:second (Score:1)
"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
My dream would be that game programmers would stop using Direct3D and DirectPlay.
My dream, on the other hand, would be that more people begin to understand how hard it is to change standards once they're established. Yes, it's unfortunate that so much code goes in that direction now, but since the trend is set, it is impossibly difficult to switch back. So, with the real world in mind, the only solution is porting the Direct3D, etc, engines rather than the games themselves. Fix the problem, not the solution.
Re:first!? (Score:1)
Re:"My dream would be..." (Score:1)
What's really needed for Linux to become a realistic gaming platform isn't more ports (although I wouldn't discourage them), but more simultaneous development, similar to what is often done for titles which will be released for both console and PC. Without simultaneous development or games written exclusively for Linux, it will suffer the same fate gamers on the Mac have - You make less money porting then writing from scratch, and it's less appealing to the programmers and artists involved as well as management, so you'll never get done nearly as often.