Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Well, maybe you can argue that the Linux community does not owe him anything.
    But the open source community does!
    No more than he owns Linux and its community - Linux servers.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sgtGarcia View Post
      Well, if You think that everybody is going jump for your software just because You made it, than You are wrong.
      If You are going to made software that nobody needs ( there is free "good enough" application [that does the same/do more] or there is no need for that kind of software ), that means You have no idea how to make a business/money.
      If You are going to make really good software that have free ( but worse ) counterpart, at a reasonable price ( reasonable means adequate to segment of software ) it will find buyers.
      If You are going to make software in segment that there is not much competition ( free & paid ), You probably will find buyers.
      Shocking, I know.
      But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

      In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
        But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

        In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.

        You do realise that there is a silver lining on that...the fact that can actually be a good thing because devs will care with QUALITY instead of making half-baked products like BF3...

        Also, you assume that devs make a game for Linux alone....if a game is made for Windows and Linux, the Windows version will pay the Linux version....even if it's only a average success...we can also see some examples in KickStarter...Wasteland 2...they wanted 1500000 to a make also a MAC and Linux version , well they got almost 3000000 !!! So, make Linux and MAC versions turn out not to be an issue any more...there is also another example at KS where the devs didn't get as much as they wanted for a Linux version but they got real close so they said "WTH, we gonna do it anyway !!!".

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
          But the big difference is one of market share. Even if someone put out a POS, with enough advertising and word of mouth, they can expect to at least recoup development costs on the Windows platform, simply because enough people will buy it. How else do you think Norton/McAfee are still in business? Sure, there are far better free options out there for your AV needs, but enough windows users will buy where they can still be expected to turn a profit.

          In Linux, with its VERY minimal market share, that assumption no longer holds. So you need a much better overall program, which increases development costs, which in turn necessitates a higher price of sale. Eventually, the price reaches a point where another product, even if significantly worse feature wise, becomes attractive simply because of its price beneift [IE: Good enough]. Hence the disincentive to develop, because I can't even gurantee I'll recoup cost of development, let alone turn a profit.
          Well, market share and advertising dollars is a valid argument. Your previous statement of "I don't develope for linux because I can't compete with free" has nothing to do with market share.

          However, to be honest with you, although marketing is required, I'd probably hate myself if I developed stuff people didn't want, or need, but got shovled down their throats because my behemoth of a company wills it so. You can make money without ripping your customers off.

          P.S. I'm not saying you rip your customers off, I'm saying if you have something of merit, it would probably still have merit on top of linux. That merit may not outweigh the cost of porting, which is a valid concern, but your other opinions don't seem to actually be based on business realities.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
            P.S. I'm not saying you rip your customers off, I'm saying if you have something of merit, it would probably still have merit on top of linux. That merit may not outweigh the cost of porting, which is a valid concern, but your other opinions don't seem to actually be based on business realities.
            One of the biggest hurdles that developers face is figuring out how to make a buck developing for linux. Under the Windows/OSX ecosystems, it's pretty straightforward. Under the Linux and FOSS ecosystem, it requires that you get creative.

            With the Ubuntu software center, we'll probably start seeing an influx of non-free user space applications coming from developers clinging to the last remnants of the old model. We may see a couple pay-for-support companies spring up as well. I think that the real money will be made by professional services companies that leverage FOSS software.

            F

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AJSB View Post
              Also, you assume that devs make a game for Linux alone....if a game is made for Windows and Linux, the Windows version will pay the Linux version
              Which they'll likely take a loss on. Why even bother with a Linux version if I won't make money on it?

              And again, you have the spectre of WINE. Best possible outcome for a dev: The Linux people who want the software can buy the Windows version, run it through Wine, and best of all, they're not required to spend money to support it, because its an "unsupported config". Spares the hassle of having to ensure the linux version works across all the major distros/kernel versions/desktop environments (and so on and so on).

              Well, market share and advertising dollars is a valid argument. Your previous statement of "I don't develope for linux because I can't compete with free" has nothing to do with market share.
              It does. On a Windows PC, how many free antivirus SW suites are better then Norton? Probably at least a dozen. But if even 1/100 people purchase paid antivirus, and 1/100 of those purchase Norton, Norton will end up with quite the profit at the end of the day.

              On linux...not so much. Especially since the users who use linux in the first place would be even more apt to use free software if available.

              So combine fewer overall users and the fact that most users will be more likely to go with free software compared to PC users, and you end up with a VERY limited area where you can really cost justify software development and still have the expectation to make a profit. And most of those areas are already filled.

              ---------

              In my opinion, the major linux devs need to have a sit down and figure out what Linux wants to be. Then figure out all the interfaces to the OS [I should have one way to do audio/video/whatever, regardless of what environments/kernels/whatever the user decides to use], get basic drivers working for the majority of all devices that are supported in Windows [and I don't mean with a reduced feature set/performance], then give me a compiler with good performance AND is easy to develop with [GCC is horrid in this regard; developers like me who grew up with MSVC have VERY high standards], and then maybe linux for the desktop will start going somewhere. When I see Linux right now, I see an OS without any direction, just milling about and trying to stay up to date without really advancing anywhere in particular.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                give me a compiler with good performance AND is easy to develop with [GCC is horrid in this regard; developers like me who grew up with MSVC have VERY high standards]
                This is now a compiler thread. Benchmarks and list of things that are harder in gcc please?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                  Which they'll likely take a loss on. Why even bother with a Linux version if I won't make money on it?

                  And again, you have the spectre of WINE. Best possible outcome for a dev: The Linux people who want the software can buy the Windows version, run it through Wine, and best of all, they're not required to spend money to support it, because its an "unsupported config". Spares the hassle of having to ensure the linux version works across all the major distros/kernel versions/desktop environments (and so on and so on).
                  You don't develop like that if you're a professional with experience, do you? I mean, you might never be interested in porting to Linux, but at the very least if you're interested in porting to consoles, you'd be writing software which is portable. You then do tha maths based on whether or not Linux would pay for itself in porting hours.

                  I think the real answer to that question is probably sometimes yes, but unfortauntly, most large companies aren't typically very happy with anything that isn't a slam dunk for some reason. Again though, it depends if what your developing has merit for the platform.

                  Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                  It does. On a Windows PC, how many free antivirus SW suites are better then Norton? Probably at least a dozen. But if even 1/100 people purchase paid antivirus, and 1/100 of those purchase Norton, Norton will end up with quite the profit at the end of the day.

                  On linux...not so much. Especially since the users who use linux in the first place would be even more apt to use free software if available.

                  So combine fewer overall users and the fact that most users will be more likely to go with free software compared to PC users, and you end up with a VERY limited area where you can really cost justify software development and still have the expectation to make a profit. And most of those areas are already filled.
                  I think users of both platforms are likely to pick free, I can't count how many priated A/V's I've came across either. Some people do buy them though, and thats more of a trust issue than a price comparison, trust which is probably bought in advertising dollars. You're probably right to some extent though, some normal apps which provide no value because of free alternatives can probably still live, but I think we have the same problem in Linux.

                  I've been using the platform for many years, and I still can't find good software in repos unless I'm actually looking for something specific by name. If you tell me theres something to meet my needs and it costs $20, and I don't know of a free alternative, I'll part with my cash no problem.

                  Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                  In my opinion, the major linux devs need to have a sit down and figure out what Linux wants to be. Then figure out all the interfaces to the OS [I should have one way to do audio/video/whatever, regardless of what environments/kernels/whatever the user decides to use], get basic drivers working for the majority of all devices that are supported in Windows [and I don't mean with a reduced feature set/performance], then give me a compiler with good performance AND is easy to develop with [GCC is horrid in this regard; developers like me who grew up with MSVC have VERY high standards], and then maybe linux for the desktop will start going somewhere. When I see Linux right now, I see an OS without any direction, just milling about and trying to stay up to date without really advancing anywhere in particular.
                  Linux can be everything, it has some issues when it comes to the graphical stack and GUIs, and some other things which means gaming on Linux is less than an ideal experience. I also think someone big like Valve coming to the platform, could help standardise and resolve some issues, which will make it just as good as any other platform. Its pretty simple though, I have windows for games alone. If valve helps the linux devs focus on the issues with Linux gaming, I'll use it and probably delete my windows partition. If it doesn't, I wont.

                  Linux is winning on servers, phones, embeded devices, etc. The only places Linux isn't winning on is the desktop, and corporate networks, the latter of which is all about software on top of the OS.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                    Which they'll likely take a loss on. Why even bother with a Linux version if I won't make money on it?

                    And again, you have the spectre of WINE. Best possible outcome for a dev: The Linux people who want the software can buy the Windows version, run it through Wine, and best of all, they're not required to spend money to support it, because its an "unsupported config". Spares the hassle of having to ensure the linux version works across all the major distros/kernel versions/desktop environments (and so on and so on).

                    That wasn't what i meant to say....the Linux version is NOT a loss at all !!!...What i meant to say is that making for both OS cuts the costs of Linux version almost to 0 (not to 0 of course but you understand me for sure) ....it's simply porting it....it's not like to make a game only to Linux from the ground up where you invest a lot in developing it's own textures,audio, story line, game logic, etc.

                    It's "simply" port it...it makes a LOT of difference.

                    Because the investment is only for the porting, that reduces the minimum of sells needed to reach profit....

                    ...and so, it's makes the Linux version profitable.

                    WINE crosses all distros ?!? LOL !!! You sure didn't test WINE as much as i did and with as many games as i did

                    ...and like i already told, WINE is NOT an option to any serious gamer , in fact, not even to any casual player...i know of what i'm talking...i USED WINE and even contributed to bug reports.

                    WINE will NEVER be truly an option and any devs that says otherwise they only make me NOT buy their games no matter how good they might be.



                    As for drivers, in special video drivers, the Linux "problem" is that Linux users want FLOSS , after all, it's all part of the same concept as of the OS itself....that however, sometimes collide with the OEM that simply don't want to disclose their secrets...

                    As for audio , YEAH, what a nightmare...let's hope that KLANG solves the problem but i don't bet too much on it till i see it working...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      This is now a compiler thread. Benchmarks and list of things that are harder in gcc please?

                      ...and we intend to talk later about Anna Kournikova

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AJSB View Post
                        As for audio , YEAH, what a nightmare...let's hope that KLANG solves the problem but i don't bet too much on it till i see it working...
                        I'm waiting for something like KLANG since 1997. OK maybe 2000.

                        OT:
                        Originally posted by AJSB View Post
                        ...and we intend to talk later about Anna Kournikova
                        NEXT ON THIS THREAD:
                        1. We gonna talk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson bout how Mars mission would fail if Mars Curiosity would be powered by Windows instead Linux & how Valve rescued mission;
                        2. Anna Kournikova will tell us how Linux helped develop her backhand;
                        3. Linux saves Japan from tsunami - people stopped throwing computers out to ocean after installing newest Ubuntu.

                        But wait there's more. So watch Us on next episode of "I Linux".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by sgtGarcia View Post
                          I'm waiting for something like KLANG since 1997. OK maybe 2000.

                          OT:


                          NEXT ON THIS THREAD:
                          1. We gonna talk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson bout how Mars mission would fail if Mars Curiosity would be powered by Windows instead Linux & how Valve rescued mission;
                          2. Anna Kournikova will tell us how Linux helped develop her backhand;
                          3. Linux saves Japan from tsunami - people stopped throwing computers out to ocean after installing newest Ubuntu.

                          But wait there's more. So watch Us on next episode of "I Linux".
                          I LOL'ed !

                          1.You know....NASA's Mars Curiosity s powered by the same OS than previous rovers...VxWorks.
                          NASA uses it for 20 years now.

                          2: AK backhand is indeed lovely

                          3. The Japanese stopped throwing PCs to ocean because their eyes got blind with that ugly reddish backgrounds of Ubuntu
                          witch bring us back to point one because the real reason why Ubuntu uses from some time those ugly reddish backgrounds is because they wanted to replace VxWorks at NASA
                          but NASA said "No can do....we are already used to use same crap for 20years....we might as well continue to do so....besides....we don't like Unity"
                          Last edited by AJSB; 08-08-2012, 02:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Anna Kournikova should really thank linux for all those websites hosting images of her, which helped boost her career. :P

                            Comment


                            • PC Developers On Microsoft's "Wrongheaded Strategy" for Windows 8

                              oops

                              Comment


                              • I really hope Microsoft is stupid enough not to backpedal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X