Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 134 of 134

Thread: What Should Valve Do For Linux & Open-Source?

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KameZero View Post
    From your calculations here I can only assume that you're fully splitting your codebases between Operating Systems, and hiring substandard developers. Even for a large AAA game, it shouldn't take more than ONE good developer to port it given a years time. Hell, 900k just for the porting part? Just hire Icculus, he'll have it done in 3 months and then you can hire a linux dev to support it thereafter.
    I make the assumption that a DX to OGL conversion will take significant effort to undertake. You also make the (silly) assumption that most developers have a clue how to code properly.

    (A good article that matches my view of how most programmers are when leaving school: http://www.flounder.com/bricks.htm And in my mind, most don't get much better over time.)

    You're windows devs shouldn't be writing code that can't be used crossplatform. And most don't because they like being able to port to consoles.
    First and formost, I put in the disclaimer "when performance matters". Which in games, it typically does. Secondly, you make the assumption there is an intent to go multiplatform, which there typically isn't.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1c3d0g View Post
    None of this is relevant if the developers did their job right the first time. If they wrote the game conforming to the specs of OpenGL (instead of DirectX), you'd instantly eliminate most of the hassle of porting (as OpenGL is multi-platform and does not suffer DirectX's platform tie-in). Professional companies like Epic have done this way back then with UT2k4 (yes, I know it had 2 renderers, but both were equally capable), and it became one of the biggest, most-played (I'll say the best) game of all time. All-in-all, this will be a huge boost for OpenGL as they're already the standard when it comes to professional applications like CAD etc. Now that more games will be rendered using the OpenGL, we as Linux users have nothing to fear, we can only gain more users and better support from larger companies, which will make Linux a viable platform for gaming.
    The issue with OpenGL is the API isn't nearly as friendly as DX at this stage. Used it a handful of times, and while it has relative feature parity with DX, ease of use, and the fact that most middleware engines are coded in DX (Unreal, again) means thats the way the majority of the market will go.
    There will always be engines that use OGL, and titles using those engines should be SIGNIFICANTLY easier to port over.

    My primary point is this: Because WINE exists, why should developers spend time (money) developing a native linux release, especially in the case where the title already runs on WINE?

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Because people won't buy it?

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    59

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •