Tweet
Sadly gaming on Linux is a vicious cycle. There are no games because IHVs claim a slim market -> New users end up dual-booting due to lack of games -> giving the impression of a slim market.
Plus there's the whole "Music-like" business model of the whole gaming industry (what the hell, the whole entertainment industry is managed the same) which leads to utter inflexibility from the actual content creators to deliver their content wherever they see fit. A few notable exceptions exist, but big as they may be, they don't seem to be influencing the big corporate publishers into exploring new markets or having their products available for proven potential markets (like MacOS X with its huge annual growth). I totally agree with Svartalf with regards to a necessity to reinvent the rules. Especially with the advent of the Internet and the publishing potential it has (just look at Valve and how well has Steam paid off to them). I also agree that it is with independent content producers that the most potential for this lies, and that maybe (just maybe) that could influence the big corps to turn their collective heads to Linux. Or as he says wait a few more years, 'cause if the trend is steady, Linux is going to be huge in less than 5 years.
The way I see it, the root of the problem (more than the actual number of users, and hence potential market) lies in the foundation of the business model. It sure as hell benefits big time the publishers, which in turn has enabled them to acquire content producers, aka studios. Guess who gets screwed with that model? Publishers are totally independent, as they don't have to wait for someone to want to publish something, they simply do it all in-house. But the system is such, that the associated costs for publishing make it almost impossible for small studios to it on their own... And the big studios are usually owned or associated with the big publishers... Another vicious cycle.
Plus there's the whole "Music-like" business model of the whole gaming industry (what the hell, the whole entertainment industry is managed the same) which leads to utter inflexibility from the actual content creators to deliver their content wherever they see fit. A few notable exceptions exist, but big as they may be, they don't seem to be influencing the big corporate publishers into exploring new markets or having their products available for proven potential markets (like MacOS X with its huge annual growth). I totally agree with Svartalf with regards to a necessity to reinvent the rules. Especially with the advent of the Internet and the publishing potential it has (just look at Valve and how well has Steam paid off to them). I also agree that it is with independent content producers that the most potential for this lies, and that maybe (just maybe) that could influence the big corps to turn their collective heads to Linux. Or as he says wait a few more years, 'cause if the trend is steady, Linux is going to be huge in less than 5 years.
The way I see it, the root of the problem (more than the actual number of users, and hence potential market) lies in the foundation of the business model. It sure as hell benefits big time the publishers, which in turn has enabled them to acquire content producers, aka studios. Guess who gets screwed with that model? Publishers are totally independent, as they don't have to wait for someone to want to publish something, they simply do it all in-house. But the system is such, that the associated costs for publishing make it almost impossible for small studios to it on their own... And the big studios are usually owned or associated with the big publishers... Another vicious cycle.
Comment