GameTree Linux Is Trying To Be Its Own Steam-Like Platform

[devius]

Why does everybody keep saying that audio on linux is bad? Just exactly what's wrong? I never had problems with audio.

Obviously, everyone else is just wrong.

That wasn't a rhetorical question I asked. I really want to know what the problem is, and since you seem to know please tell me so I become more informed.

Here's the thing that you are missing from Chris Cox's posts, outside of the VFX/Animation studios, no one is interested in Photoshop on Linux so there is no reason to deal with the architectural problems and the added cost of porting.

And in the Windows world how many users outside of the VFX/Animation studios have actually bought a legit copy of photoshop?

[yogi_berra]

There's LittleCMS.

Ever tried using lcms with a color calibrator? Right, thought not.

Why does everybody keep saying that audio on linux is bad? Just exactly what's wrong? I never had problems with audio. I even know that some audio engineers use linux for DAW work, so if it's all that bad and terrible why do they use it and why does it work so well for me and most other users?

Obviously, everyone else is just wrong.

Once more, this time with feeling:
That guy was saying that linux users aren't willing to pay for software. This simply isn't true because there are SOME users who would certainly pay IF the software they need was available.

Here's the thing that you are missing from Chris Cox's posts, outside of the VFX/Animation studios, no one is interested in Photoshop on Linux so there is no reason to deal with the architectural problems and the added cost of porting.

If GameTree is similar to Transgaming's cider product, some studios may be interested in using it rather than dealing with a native port. Granted its Transgaming so they'll screw it up somehow.

[L33F3R]

You're presuming one thing you shouldn't... "Less money". Why would they make "less money"? If it's a systematic loss of a Windows one and you're shipping SKUs at the same time or very close to it- why would you see a loss of money? You wouldn't, L33F3R.

assuming it costs money to pay a programmer, then yes it would, Svartalf.

[Svartalf]

Why the hell would game companies want people to switch to linux. There are people like me that will gladly buy a windows title. Dont get me wrong i would live to game on linux but it doesnt make sense to think that companies are going to go out of there way to make less money. This is not how the world works. In this situation the purchase of a linux title is the systematic loss of a windows one.

You're presuming one thing you shouldn't... "Less money". Why would they make "less money"? If it's a systematic loss of a Windows one and you're shipping SKUs at the same time or very close to it- why would you see a loss of money? You wouldn't, L33F3R.

[L33F3R]

Why the hell would game companies want people to switch to linux. There are people like me that will gladly buy a windows title. Dont get me wrong i would live to game on linux but it doesnt make sense to think that companies are going to go out of there way to make less money. This is not how the world works. In this situation the purchase of a linux title is the systematic loss of a windows one.

[devius]

So, how many new sales would be generated to pay for the Linux port? Just moving existing licenses between OSes would not justify the cost involved.
And that number is vanishingly small.

I know you didn't said that, but if you're quoting, presumably you believe it to be true right? I actually believe that a not so vanishingly small number people would in fact change OSes if the software was available. The thing is that Windows has a bad reputation regarding stability and security. For a business this is bad because it means extra expenses due to technical support. One of the reasons people change from windows to Mac OS is the improved security and stability. On Mac, they already have a bunch of prefessional productivity software. Macs, come with an associated high price tag and running costs though. Linux, on the other hand can be run on hardware with equivalent costs to windows pcs, and all the associated advantages (upgradeability being one of them). The only problem is lack of high quality professional productivity software. Hey, GIMP and Inkscape are great, but they struggle to compete in the professional world with something that has been around for 20 years.

[deanjo]

Once more, this time with feeling:
That guy was saying that linux users aren't willing to pay for software. This simply isn't true because there are SOME users who would certainly pay IF the software they need was available. It wouldn't be much different than it is with windows users. Some would gladly pay, some wouldn't. People don't change just because the OS changes:

"Hey, I used to buy software when I was using windows, but then I installed linux and now I expect all my software to be free. Yeah... that's right. I won't pay for software anymore."

OK how about you post his the gist of all his posts. Here is one just a few items down from the post you like to quote.

Sure there are some Linux users willing to pay for software, but as you noted: most of them already do pay for Photoshop on a different OS.

So, how many new sales would be generated to pay for the Linux port? Just moving existing licenses between OSes would not justify the cost involved.
And that number is vanishingly small.

So, to make the port feasible you have 2 factors available: increasing the number of users willing to pay for software, and lowering the barriers to making a port (reducing the cost). The barriers aren't super high, but reducing them would help bring in other developers. But the lack of paying customers: that's a killer problem.

[Remco]

Funny that this is what you take from that post. The money aspect. You ignore the fact that there isn't a standardized color management system, that tablet support is a horrible hack, X is an archaic mess, and audio is FUBAR, lets just focus on the money.

How about you ignore the architecture nonsense? It's not a problem. Read the followup post written by Cox himself. It's a money problem. It almost always is.

[devius]

You ignore the fact that there isn't a standardized color management system,

Sure, some of the problems he talks about are real and harmful, like deficient color management, although this is much better nowadays

There's LittleCMS.

that tablet support is a horrible hack

bad tablet support (of course you can't realy blame linux distros per se, as this is the manufacturer's fault for not making the drivers)

X is an archaic mess, and audio is FUBAR,

Yet some people still manage to make programs that use both and they work just fine. Why does everybody keep saying that audio on linux is bad? Just exactly what's wrong? I never had problems with audio. I even know that some audio engineers use linux for DAW work, so if it's all that bad and terrible why do they use it and why does it work so well for me and most other users?

Wow, Linux users paid $4 more, I don't know about you but I am going to spend millions porting my software based on those numbers that may or may not be canned...

Once more, this time with feeling:
That guy was saying that linux users aren't willing to pay for software. This simply isn't true because there are SOME users who would certainly pay IF the software they need was available. It wouldn't be much different than it is with windows users. Some would gladly pay, some wouldn't. People don't change just because the OS changes:

"Hey, I used to buy software when I was using windows, but then I installed linux and now I expect all my software to be free. Yeah... that's right. I won't pay for software anymore."

[yogi_berra]

But the very very wrong assumption he makes is that "Linux users are still not willing to pay for commercial software". What a huge pile of bullcrap! Linux users could very well just install pirated versions of windows if the only motivation for using linux in the first place was money.

Funny that this is what you take from that post. The money aspect. You ignore the fact that there isn't a standardized color management system, that tablet support is a horrible hack, X is an archaic mess, and audio is FUBAR, lets just focus on the money.

What about the humble bundle? linux users paid more than any other OS. I know for a fact that some companies would change all their computers to linux if the software they need was available. The problem is that they rely on "market research" companies to provide them with data. I highly doubt the accuracy of these "market research" companies.

Anyway... what the hell were we talking about? Ah yes... games. Nothing more to say about that sorry.

Wow, Linux users paid $4 more, I don't know about you but I am going to spend millions porting my software based on those numbers that may or may not be canned...