Support us on Patreon
PayPal
In the beginning, a brief historical overview.
While PC was the platform that enabled mass-scale game development as we know it now, its Golden Age only lasted from about 1992 to 2005. Back then PC replaced the arcade machines as the primary target for both AAA and smaller game developers, while console ports usually came after a successful PC release and were inferior due to a weaker console hardware.
Things have changed in mid-2000s, when consoles that were at least as powerful as a typical user’s PC appeared. Hard-core gamers with their beefy rigs still had the upper hand, but a mass user’s desktop (slowly turning into a laptop at that point) was outclassed by the console hardware - and this hardware came bundled with online services which were better than what was available on PC (Steam and GameSpy, let alone Games For Windows), without the need to muck with the drivers and run PunkBuster to weed out the cheaters. And, more importantly, the games on the platform were designed to be played from the couch, often together with a friend or a partner - very important thing if you consider the prevalence of casual players over the hard core ones on any platform.
Sales quickly reflected the changed environment - take any cross-platform game of the era and compare PC and 360 copies sold on a sales tracking site like VGChartz - PC figures will be consistently smaller (and don’t forget that PC price is usually lower).
No wonder that for non-indie game developers, PC has not been a popular platform since then. Game developers and publishers alike are more than willing to concentrate on the console market, which consistently accounted for the majority of the sales while being relatively easy to develop for.
What has changed?
“PC renaissance” of early 2010s happened largely due to two factors, one of them being proliferation of the “free to play” format. Initially unpopular in the console-dominated West, F2P spread like wildfire due to the success of MOBA type of games. Both because F2P favors a large installed base and because it is inherently resistant to piracy, F2P once again made PC a viable platform for making money.
The second important factor was the “indie revolution”. Easier access to professional tools (e.g. Epic’s UDK released for free in 2009) and inexpensive engines (Unity, Cocos2D), widespread acceptance of the digital delivery (Steam) and significantly improved compared to early 2000s hardware and software (on Windows side) of an average PC allowed small teams to develop games that could be played by millions.
That said, these days PC is still an “ugly duckling” of the AAA game development. Contrary to its golden age, it is now the PC version that is released after the game proved to be a success, if at all. For whatever reasons, AAA games that don’t utilize “free-to-play” mechanics but are instead sold traditionally, enjoy larger sales in terms of profit on the console platforms - and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
How does Linux fit into this picture?
I dare to say that it was PC renaissance that enabled Linux gaming and not vice versa. While it is certain that Humble Indie Bundles benefited from claiming Linux support, the Linux ecosystem was not (and is not yet as of now) able to sustain game development even of F2P games and has to piggy-back on OS X porting efforts - or, sometimes, on the fact that the Linux port is comparatively cheap due to a cross-platform engine.
Demands for the Linux version of a game can be sometimes quite vocal, but its actual release does not seem to bring much, if any, profit. This is not because Linux users are not willing to pay in general; rather, it means that targeting the platform is more expensive than the price that can be reasonably charged for a single copy. Other platforms are helped by the economies of scale, but this is not the case for Linux.
The above applies to the traditional model of selling games; targeting Linux for a F2P game is probably even worse, since this model relies on the large player base, which is seemingly not there in Linux case according to statistics.
All in all, it seems that releasing the game on Linux now is done mostly due to developers’ enthusiasm about the platform, goodwill or - rarely - “long term” investment in making their tech cross-platform in case SteamOS turns out to be popular (there’s no immediate value in being cross-platform - developers may fix some bugs while porting, but if those bugs never mattered for their best selling platform, this is still a waste of time).
What are the problems with Linux as a gaming platform?
The overarching problem is that Linux-based operating systems are not designed to facilitate running closed-source binary blobs, let alone blobs that depend on so many system components at once. Graphics drivers are the most visible part, but problems with window, audio and input systems can also be severe, if games are to be held to the strictest standards of competitive PC gaming, particularly for e-sports.
Part of the problem is what we call “Linux” is vague - there are several related, yet different OS sharing that name. Even within a single OS there is sometimes a multitude of choices, sometimes subtle, that can make a problem reproducible only on that user’s machine. There are numerous micro-decisions to be done while writing the software, and sometimes there’s no other specification than the de-facto behavior of the developer’s system. If a user’s system behaves differently, we have a problem.
This, to an extent, applies to Windows as well (which is one of the reasons why console platforms with their deterministic behaviour are cheaper to develop for), but the FOSS principles that put everything on user’s system under the user’s control greatly amplify that problem.
Another problem is the cultural clash. Game developers make money from selling their proprietary software (even if sometimes indirectly), and as such are inherently incompatible with FOSS goals. The effect of this is two-fold: not only the likelihood of the developers’ prior experience with Linux is smaller than what would be expected from an average user, but this operating system is built on the principles that are contrary to and sometimes outright incompatible with their modus operandi, which presents them with unique challenges not encountered on other (proprietary) gaming platforms.
To add insult to the injury, Linux gaming community abounds in radically minded folks, who often are not willing to bridge that cultural gap - in spite of Linux gamers themselves being an eclectic minority within the larger, and even more radical, Linux community. It is curious how people could hold seemingly incompatible beliefs at once, both despising the closed source software and demanding its authors to support it on more FOSS platforms (yes, there are people who attempt to run Steam on gNewSense).
What can be done to improve Linux gaming?
First of all, we (all people interested in Linux gaming) should understand and respect the status quo before attempting to change it. Linux users are the minority among computer users, and that applies to game developers as well. A typical game developer does not possess an intrinsic interest in Linux, they may not have necessary knowledge nor patience needed for an enthusiast OS based on principles hostile to them - and they may happily live the rest of their lives without it. Their enthusiasm lies in creating games, and the proprietary platforms are not hindering their creativity anyhow significantly - learn to understand and respect this world view.
Second, understand where the money is. For a typical, non-indie game, Linux sales constitute negligible percent of the overall PC sales, which are themselves dwarfed by the console sales - to such an extent that even Windows version can be cut. Even for indie games that only sell on PC, Linux sales are unlikely to surpass 10%. It is safe to say that turning profit on a Linux version is extremely hard - if you are a developer, expect to lose money. If you are a gamer, be friendly to developers who are not doing this for profit and can be sometimes bitter about their experience. Also, when trying to reach out to devs for the help, keep in mind that players usually outnumber the developers by several orders of magnitude.
Third, understand the platform - both as a user and as a developer.
As a user, realize that the freedom to build your own system has an associated responsibility - you get to maintain it. You may be the only person on the planet who runs this particular combination of software on this hardware! If anything goes wrong on your system, you - first and foremost - are responsible for fixing it, or at least diagnosing the problem. This is both the blessing and curse of FOSS.
As a developer, do not claim to support more than you actually do. If you only packaged the game for Linux without even running it, state so. If you only can afford to run it on Ubuntu using NVidia drivers to make sure it starts, be upfront about this. Try not to use vague terms as “Linux version”, don’t be afraid to brand it as “Ubuntu version” or “SteamOS version” (if you are testing on these OS of course). In the latter case, I hope that Valve will start a certification program to help provide a consistent experience.
Fourth - pay attention to the attitude and the self-fulfilling prophecies it starts. Support companies that invested into Linux. Right now the best thing you can do for Linux gaming is switching to SteamOS for your gaming purposes (Ubuntu is reasonably close). Embrace the proprietary drivers. Run Steam. Be friendly and supportive to proprietary software developers. This seems to be anti-FOSS - it’s not in the big picture. What is at stake now is whether free software can be used as a foundation for a large scale digital entertainment platform (which involves compromises with proprietary software). It certainly worked for Android, so let’s hope it can work for the SteamOS. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
While PC was the platform that enabled mass-scale game development as we know it now, its Golden Age only lasted from about 1992 to 2005. Back then PC replaced the arcade machines as the primary target for both AAA and smaller game developers, while console ports usually came after a successful PC release and were inferior due to a weaker console hardware.
Things have changed in mid-2000s, when consoles that were at least as powerful as a typical user’s PC appeared. Hard-core gamers with their beefy rigs still had the upper hand, but a mass user’s desktop (slowly turning into a laptop at that point) was outclassed by the console hardware - and this hardware came bundled with online services which were better than what was available on PC (Steam and GameSpy, let alone Games For Windows), without the need to muck with the drivers and run PunkBuster to weed out the cheaters. And, more importantly, the games on the platform were designed to be played from the couch, often together with a friend or a partner - very important thing if you consider the prevalence of casual players over the hard core ones on any platform.
Sales quickly reflected the changed environment - take any cross-platform game of the era and compare PC and 360 copies sold on a sales tracking site like VGChartz - PC figures will be consistently smaller (and don’t forget that PC price is usually lower).
No wonder that for non-indie game developers, PC has not been a popular platform since then. Game developers and publishers alike are more than willing to concentrate on the console market, which consistently accounted for the majority of the sales while being relatively easy to develop for.
What has changed?
“PC renaissance” of early 2010s happened largely due to two factors, one of them being proliferation of the “free to play” format. Initially unpopular in the console-dominated West, F2P spread like wildfire due to the success of MOBA type of games. Both because F2P favors a large installed base and because it is inherently resistant to piracy, F2P once again made PC a viable platform for making money.
The second important factor was the “indie revolution”. Easier access to professional tools (e.g. Epic’s UDK released for free in 2009) and inexpensive engines (Unity, Cocos2D), widespread acceptance of the digital delivery (Steam) and significantly improved compared to early 2000s hardware and software (on Windows side) of an average PC allowed small teams to develop games that could be played by millions.
That said, these days PC is still an “ugly duckling” of the AAA game development. Contrary to its golden age, it is now the PC version that is released after the game proved to be a success, if at all. For whatever reasons, AAA games that don’t utilize “free-to-play” mechanics but are instead sold traditionally, enjoy larger sales in terms of profit on the console platforms - and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
How does Linux fit into this picture?
I dare to say that it was PC renaissance that enabled Linux gaming and not vice versa. While it is certain that Humble Indie Bundles benefited from claiming Linux support, the Linux ecosystem was not (and is not yet as of now) able to sustain game development even of F2P games and has to piggy-back on OS X porting efforts - or, sometimes, on the fact that the Linux port is comparatively cheap due to a cross-platform engine.
Demands for the Linux version of a game can be sometimes quite vocal, but its actual release does not seem to bring much, if any, profit. This is not because Linux users are not willing to pay in general; rather, it means that targeting the platform is more expensive than the price that can be reasonably charged for a single copy. Other platforms are helped by the economies of scale, but this is not the case for Linux.
The above applies to the traditional model of selling games; targeting Linux for a F2P game is probably even worse, since this model relies on the large player base, which is seemingly not there in Linux case according to statistics.
All in all, it seems that releasing the game on Linux now is done mostly due to developers’ enthusiasm about the platform, goodwill or - rarely - “long term” investment in making their tech cross-platform in case SteamOS turns out to be popular (there’s no immediate value in being cross-platform - developers may fix some bugs while porting, but if those bugs never mattered for their best selling platform, this is still a waste of time).
What are the problems with Linux as a gaming platform?
The overarching problem is that Linux-based operating systems are not designed to facilitate running closed-source binary blobs, let alone blobs that depend on so many system components at once. Graphics drivers are the most visible part, but problems with window, audio and input systems can also be severe, if games are to be held to the strictest standards of competitive PC gaming, particularly for e-sports.
Part of the problem is what we call “Linux” is vague - there are several related, yet different OS sharing that name. Even within a single OS there is sometimes a multitude of choices, sometimes subtle, that can make a problem reproducible only on that user’s machine. There are numerous micro-decisions to be done while writing the software, and sometimes there’s no other specification than the de-facto behavior of the developer’s system. If a user’s system behaves differently, we have a problem.
This, to an extent, applies to Windows as well (which is one of the reasons why console platforms with their deterministic behaviour are cheaper to develop for), but the FOSS principles that put everything on user’s system under the user’s control greatly amplify that problem.
Another problem is the cultural clash. Game developers make money from selling their proprietary software (even if sometimes indirectly), and as such are inherently incompatible with FOSS goals. The effect of this is two-fold: not only the likelihood of the developers’ prior experience with Linux is smaller than what would be expected from an average user, but this operating system is built on the principles that are contrary to and sometimes outright incompatible with their modus operandi, which presents them with unique challenges not encountered on other (proprietary) gaming platforms.
To add insult to the injury, Linux gaming community abounds in radically minded folks, who often are not willing to bridge that cultural gap - in spite of Linux gamers themselves being an eclectic minority within the larger, and even more radical, Linux community. It is curious how people could hold seemingly incompatible beliefs at once, both despising the closed source software and demanding its authors to support it on more FOSS platforms (yes, there are people who attempt to run Steam on gNewSense).
What can be done to improve Linux gaming?
First of all, we (all people interested in Linux gaming) should understand and respect the status quo before attempting to change it. Linux users are the minority among computer users, and that applies to game developers as well. A typical game developer does not possess an intrinsic interest in Linux, they may not have necessary knowledge nor patience needed for an enthusiast OS based on principles hostile to them - and they may happily live the rest of their lives without it. Their enthusiasm lies in creating games, and the proprietary platforms are not hindering their creativity anyhow significantly - learn to understand and respect this world view.
Second, understand where the money is. For a typical, non-indie game, Linux sales constitute negligible percent of the overall PC sales, which are themselves dwarfed by the console sales - to such an extent that even Windows version can be cut. Even for indie games that only sell on PC, Linux sales are unlikely to surpass 10%. It is safe to say that turning profit on a Linux version is extremely hard - if you are a developer, expect to lose money. If you are a gamer, be friendly to developers who are not doing this for profit and can be sometimes bitter about their experience. Also, when trying to reach out to devs for the help, keep in mind that players usually outnumber the developers by several orders of magnitude.
Third, understand the platform - both as a user and as a developer.
As a user, realize that the freedom to build your own system has an associated responsibility - you get to maintain it. You may be the only person on the planet who runs this particular combination of software on this hardware! If anything goes wrong on your system, you - first and foremost - are responsible for fixing it, or at least diagnosing the problem. This is both the blessing and curse of FOSS.
As a developer, do not claim to support more than you actually do. If you only packaged the game for Linux without even running it, state so. If you only can afford to run it on Ubuntu using NVidia drivers to make sure it starts, be upfront about this. Try not to use vague terms as “Linux version”, don’t be afraid to brand it as “Ubuntu version” or “SteamOS version” (if you are testing on these OS of course). In the latter case, I hope that Valve will start a certification program to help provide a consistent experience.
Fourth - pay attention to the attitude and the self-fulfilling prophecies it starts. Support companies that invested into Linux. Right now the best thing you can do for Linux gaming is switching to SteamOS for your gaming purposes (Ubuntu is reasonably close). Embrace the proprietary drivers. Run Steam. Be friendly and supportive to proprietary software developers. This seems to be anti-FOSS - it’s not in the big picture. What is at stake now is whether free software can be used as a foundation for a large scale digital entertainment platform (which involves compromises with proprietary software). It certainly worked for Android, so let’s hope it can work for the SteamOS. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I think developpers are not earning so much for porting to Linux. And they have to deal with a system they don't know well. But I also think Linux operating system is turning quickly in the right direction about gaming, thanks to Valve.
Actually I shouldn't say Linux, because the problem isn't about the operating system itself, it has always been the popularity of it.
No user => No money to get out of it => Bad ecosystem => Lack of proprietary softwares => No user
It is mostly because of Microsoft who managed to force people and developpers to use their products.
Mac OS X isn't so much more popular to people, much more taken seriously though because there is a corporation behind and Linux seems to be made by nobody and everybody at the same time.
It seems like you need some kind of fanatism to get away from Windows. Mac users used to claim the hardware was much better and lasts longer, now it seems like the design is what do the trick, it "looks" professional, clean and cool.
The original purpose of GNU is freedom, and Linux users inherited this to different degrees. And as someone already claimed here, a big majority of Linux gamers are using proprietary softwares, at least Nvidia drivers, games, and Steam, even if some prefere to have the freedom not to use Steam if possible. I prefere to buy on gog.com because it's DRM-free for instance.
And as many said, if you have to develop on Linux and you are not familiar with it:
- include your libs in the same folder (but we'll have problem with duplicated libs, I guess we can live with this)
- use Steam's libs
- use cross-platform softwares (I think this one was too obvious)
- target a subset of popular linux distributions, such as Ubuntu (Valve did this)
However that being said...
The problem isn't in how split the communities are (as in multiple flavours, multiple variants of doing the same thing, multiple desktops). What defines "linux" is honestly the kernel. plain and simple. The problem also isn't in the game devs not packaging their libraries with them. Packaging libs that could, in theory, cause conflicts with other libraries is generally a development no-no in a lot of ways. Sure you can do it in some cases, but in this case, I don't believe it to be a good idea. Games generally don't get the same level of updates that core libs may get.
As for the nVidia/AMD thing.. Let me say this. While nVidia may have given Linus Torvalds an ucler and him responding by flipping them the bird.. AMD is in some ways far worse with their driver system. I have a mix of AMD and nVidia systems here, and I have far far more problems with AMD than I do with nVidia. This is largely due to the fact AMD drivers tend to break in every subsequent linux kernel release. Weither this is due to their own incompetence, or some other thing I really don't know. That's the primary argument about AMD being crap on linux: Update kernel or another lib that directly depends on video drivers, something breaks. nVidia has had a better track record on this than in previous years. So that is part of a continuing problem.
Honestly, I can see SteamOS becoming the defacto linux gaming platform. however, it's nothing really more than a custom Debian system, with some properitary drivers pre-built and ready to update at any time.
Can linux gaming be a real thing? Sure. Is the community ready for it? Questionable. I see arguments both for and against this. It ultimately is up to the developers themselves to decide if it's worth it. No amount of "fixing" a distribution will make a difference in this. (it might help!)
Yeah I totally agree. With every operating system you will have different versions, different drivers and different installed software or libraries. This is just a fact of PC (including Mac) and can only be totally solved by consoles with only one hardware. Everything is "fragmented" and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
The Linux kernel on its own is pretty consistent and stable. Like you said if you use a runtime or ship all the libraries you should really have no issue from this perspective.
What you can have is issues with is:
1) Certain custom setups. Someone may decide they do not want to use PulseAudio or installing a non stable version of Mesa. This is just the "fault"/choice of the user and in some cases you just pretty much have to say they are on their own or put the bug to the bottom of the list.
2) Assume all Window Managers on all platforms work the same. Use cross platform APIs like QT or SDL usually solves this.
Some people may be using tiling instead of stacking Window Managers or using a mobile OS. Where x, y position of a window make no sense. Or the WM may not use all of the extensions available.
This is usually solved in most cases don't make stupid assumptions and try to control what a window does directly too much. Showing and hiding a top level window for example should be up to the OS not the application.
This is just to say that now that Steam Machines are coming up, mentality of people is changing, mentality of companies is changing - this is all causing for them to work together to make sure that developing on the Linux platform becomes easier and more unified. This said, I can see that maybe in a year, development for Linux will be a lot easier, less time consuming and more rewarding for game developers.
I am glad I made the switch to Linux, I am more than happy with the titles currently in my Steam library/DRM free list which all work fine. Gaming on Linux (oh I did that!) will never reach Windows levels, but I see the world changing and I can assure that in the future, games for Linux will net more than 1-3% of the sales.
offtopic: that said, I wonder what the % is for the ARK sales.
Yes, they do not get the same level of updates as system libs. That's the whole point in supplying your own (and to some extent the reason for stuff like Steam runtime): to avoid your binary breaking when everything it is linked against gets updated rapidly over time. There is no harm/conflicts coming from bundling necessary libraries _if_ done right. I really want this myth to die.
Also, yes the problem can be the game devs not packaging their own libs. Just yesterday I ran into a game that is linked against some ancient version of one particular library that exists in most of the systems. It was not supplied with the game, so I'll be compiling it myself and playing with LD_PRELOAD if I want it to work. Sucks.
Reading that made me sad. As if having more proprietary components would be a good thing in any way.
Last edited by skry on 7 July 2015 at 8:35 am UTC
I would love all OSes to be (at least) open source and community-improved, as it helps solve problems and security flaws at lightning speed (something the press often neglects to mention about Linux). Realistically, it won't happen... at least not for a very long time. It's also completely the opposite of how Windows and Mac currently work as operating systems.
Anyone who games on Linux should at least be aware of this, and any Linux user of Steam knows this. We are also very generous with our praise of every developer who supports Linux, even sometimes with non-recommended distributions. Every time I've bought a game on Steam that supports Linux, there are at least 1 to 5 threads in the game's Steam discussion boards thanking the devs. We are also very good at providing specific bug reporting and rarely fail to mention our hardware and software specs.
Right now, Valve is building up resources for developers to help them transition from one-OS development to OS-agnostic development, and this can only lead to more games for everybody.
Allow me to agree with your disagreement :-)
I later did moderate my comment. There's parts of the text I disagree with and others here have pointed out most of it well enough so I won't repeat that.
What I had in my (selective) mind when stating the above quote was that it gives a very good perspective on where PC gaming in general is today, and Linux gaming' place in that picture. That is, to me, the core point of this article.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7 July 2015 at 9:00 am UTC
Pardon me? If done right, a bundled library causes NO conflicts. So it's not a development no-no, it is a viable option. Why? Because Libraries APIs & Functions change. I have some old Linux Games which have been developed your way, and don't run with newer version of this library. With bundled libraries that wouldn't have been a problem. Which is the whole idea of bundling it. Static builds would be nice, but thats a no-go with GPL libraries, except you plan to release the source of the game anyway :D. Otherwise it's a GPL violation.
The reason for not bundling Libraries is coming from 15-20 years ago, as then we didn't have that plenty of disk & ram space as we have now. Yes there were conflicts with other libraries AT THIS TIME. But this is history! So please forget it and let it die! Thanks!
It's not. It is already! But to be honest just pick a mainstream distribution and build your game for it. In the End it will run on almost every Linux Distribution. Just tell me the requirements or bring your environment (Libraries). What is a Linux distribution? Nothing more then a selected and preconfigured bundle of software with a Linux kernel.
The Community is ready, and we support developers a lot more then other platforms. Not will you only receive a bug report, you will also get a fix for that issue with it. I have seen that many times on steam and other platforms already. That is what differs the Linux community from others.
It is possible to work with the community, as long you don't feed them with FUD and lame excuses.
The open source drivers do not have the best performance or the newest feature, right, but I do not care for this.
Regarding the "support developers" policy... NO, I won't do this ANYMORE (!). Why? Because I pledged and supported many projects, be that on Kickstarter or other platforms and even though many developers seemed quite capable and although THEY (!) stated they want to support Linux (often given some monetary goal) THEY (!) failed to deliver. THEY (!) used middleware that would only run on Windows, while it took me only a few seconds to find out what that middleware would run on.
So THEY (!) took my money, gladly, but THEY (!) didn't provide me with anything and if you ask them then you get answers like "Well, you're a minority, we can't focus on that." Ya, nobody is speaking about focusing, we are speaking about getting your basics right.
And if you do not want to support Linux in the first place, then shut up and DO NOT (!) take my money with false claims! </rant>
Do not get me wrong, I will still support promising titles, but only titles I would really like to play, not some that I do not care for in the first place but supported because I wanted to support my platform.
If the age of Linux gaming ends in a few years, well, so be it.
Last edited by Maelrane on 7 July 2015 at 9:53 am UTC