Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is id Abandoning Linux?

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-believe-they-stuck-it-out-this-long dept.

PC Games (Games) 339

edv writes "In a news posting dated 10th of September, Beyond3D is reporting of an article in a German publication in which id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead discusses the upcoming id title Rage and the engine it runs on, codenamed 'id Tech 5'. Amongst other things Todd mentions that no Linux version of the game is planned at the moment, and that it will run on Direct3D on Windows platform. OpenGL version is planned for the Mac however. If true, this would be a serious blow for Linux gaming (insert jokes here) as id and Carmack have been strong proponents of OpenGL and openness in the past."

cancel ×

339 comments

Hmm... (5, Informative)

jafoc (1151405) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667121)

A few months ago (in April) they certainly intended to prepare a GNU/Linux version [enemyterritory.com] .

Re:Hmm... (5, Insightful)

EriktheGreen (660160) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667319)

Another good point to remember is that ID is not of one mind.... back when they were deciding on their next product (Wolfenstein or Q4 or whatever) Hollenshead fired a few people loyal to Carmack as retribution for losing that argument. It's entirely possible that this guy thinks things are going one way and Carmack is going the other without telling him.

When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck :)

Erik

Re:Hmm... (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667463)

"When you get right down to it, having everyone in the world know the greatness of your company is entirely due to one man who is not you has got to suck"

I doubt anyone on slashdot can truly understand that feeling though ;)

Re:Hmm... (4, Informative)

bluephone (200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668131)

Actually, I remember that .plan update well. John, Paul Steed, and a bunch of others confronted Kevin Cloud and Adrian about their plan to remake Doom, saying that they felt so strongly to either agree to remake it or fire them. Adrian and Kevin were the other two co-owners beside John. Todd is just the business guy, and couldn't fire John if he wanted to. :) Paul Steed, their modeler, got fired in retaliation though for going along with John's mutiny.

Re:Hmm... (5, Insightful)

Azarael (896715) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667447)

Also, everyone should keep in mind that porting of Doom 3 to Linux didn't happen until fairly late in the development process. Just because they haven't planned to port it yet, doesn't mean that they aren't going to.

CRAMACK GONNA FIX IT!!!!~1 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667491)


Not wasting time anymore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668185)

Carmack, despite Slashdot attempts to twist his statements, has ALWAYS been a big proponent of DirectX. So this is really no surprise.

id will create the game one time, for Windows. It will be converted to OpenGL by another company... so by the time Quake 27 comes out for the PC, Mac gamers can get their "new" game.

As for teh Lunix... well, Carmack knows, as does the rest of id, that supporting teh Lunix for anything other than server will never sell any copies of the game. It also requires an outlay of time and money (since non-FOSSie programmers have to get paid), meaning id LOSES money on creating a Lunix client.

Carmack is far more interested in building rocket ships now. Wasting any more time with Teh Lunix only detracts from that.

It's good to have priorities!

Not Happening (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667133)

I seriously doubt this. That would mean writing 2 full graphical back-ends for the engine. That would be almost double the work. There is no way they would do that. There would be no point since OpenGL is available on Windows. I have no doubt that they are using DirectInput and such (as basically every game on Windows does) but I would be amazed is they wrote a Direct3D renderer in addition to the OpenGL one.

Re:Not Happening (1)

Hanners1979 (959741) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667265)

They'd still need to write a DirectX-based renderer for the Xbox 360...

Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (2, Insightful)

Visaris (553352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667421)

I was under the impression that Vista did not support OpenGL in the true sense of "support". I had heard that Vista emulates all OpenGL calls and turns them into DirectX equivalents. I hear the performance penalty is significant. If I am correct about this, ID may be forced to create a DirectX version if they want any chance of a well performing windows version. Similarly, if they target Mac/*nix, they will be forced into creating an OpenGL version. I think Microsoft intended this, as most companies will not create an OpenGL version, and the effect will be to lock all gaming onto an MS platform.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (3, Funny)

NoodleSlayer (603762) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667477)

Or they could write off the 1% of gamers out there that went to Vista and didn't switch back to XP already.

Long-term (3, Insightful)

Tony (765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667561)

Can't do that. Any new game engine must look to the next two or three years, and Microsoft is not going to let Vista fail. This time next year, Vista will have 25% of the market. In another year, it'll have 75%. Just like XP did, and MS-Win2k before that.

For PC gamers, the future is Vista.

At what price? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667777)

...and Microsoft is not going to let Vista fail. This time next year, Vista will have 25% of the market. In another year, it'll have 75%. Just like XP did, and MS-Win2k before that.

Only that Vista vs. XP seems to be more like Windows Me vs. 98. I guess Microsoft can still push Vista to high market share if they actually stop selling XP as announced.

But I strongly suspect that the remaining 25% would finally run off to Apple and Linux. Which would help those out of "niche" status and make them much more viable alternatives (OK, OK, they ARE viable now ;-). Thus, Microsoft might win the battle but lose the war.

Re:At what price? (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668273)

I'll start pirating XP in the workplace before I unleash the monstrosity that Vista is upon my users.

I don't have enough time, energy, staff, or money to deal with Vista and my users as well as upgrade nearly every PC to handle it (along with the outrageous license costs).

Re:Long-term (2, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667845)

For PC gamers, the future is Vista.

You made me cry in agonizing pain... and reasserted my hatred in MS all in one shot.

Re:Long-term (1)

VagaStorm (691999) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668305)

It should be noted that if vista fails, it is not the first time a windows has more or less failed due to low user adoption and general a "this version blows, lets stik to the last one" attitude. Windows ME anyone?

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667541)

I was under the impression that Vista did not support OpenGL in the true sense of "support". I had heard that Vista emulates all OpenGL calls and turns them into DirectX equivalents.
Stop spreading FUD. What you just said is so completely wrong [opengl.org] it's not even funny. Vista brings better OpenGL integration than XP. You're right that Vista does not include an OpenGL ICD in the box, but then again, neither did XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (1)

YankeeDeuce (826840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667677)

Stop spreading FUD. What you just said is so completely wrong it's not even funny. Vista brings better OpenGL integration than XP.
From your article:

Performance-wise, developers can expect a decrease of around 10-15% on Windows as compared to Windows XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667851)

Read the entire paragraph:

Performance-wise, developers can expect a decrease of around 10-15% on Windows as compared to Windows XP. Applications that use problematic cases (for example, excessive flushing, or rendering to the frontbuffer, as explained later) can see a larger performance degradation. However, expect this gap to become smaller over time while the graphics hardware vendors work on further optimizing their Windows Vista WDDM drivers.
first post ever, maybe I should cut you some slack, but my guess is that based on the age of your account and that this is the first post ever, you are probably an astroturfing, shilling troll. (For comparison, my account is probably somewhere around 2 years old, and yours is older)

So, you either didn't bother reading the entire paragraph, or you are a troll. I'm betting based on the evidence that you fall in the later category.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667995)

In his defense, I would say that "it will be fixed in the future" counts for nothing in a discussion about games being developed *now*. I'd rather believe it when I see it.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668113)

In his defense, I would say that "it will be fixed in the future" counts for nothing in a discussion about games being developed *now*. I'd rather believe it when I see it.
As others have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, what matters for developing games now is what the technology will be like 2-3 years, not what the technology is currently like.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (1)

heelrod (124784) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668209)

ouch. I could say the same about you troll boy.

be nice!

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (1)

Visaris (553352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667699)

What you just said is so completely wrong [opengl.org] it's not even funny.

I'm wrong that "I was under impression X"? Sounds pretty hard to be wrong when all I said was "I think" ...

Semantics aside, it seems my impression was incorrect: Windows Vista and OpenGL [opengl.org]

1. Windows Vista fully supports hardware accelerated OpenGL;
2. OpenGL applications can benefit from Window Vistas improved graphics resource management;
3. OpenGL performance on Windows Vista is extremely competitive with the performance on Windows XP.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667551)



I was under the impression ...
I had heard ...
I hear ...
If I am correct ...
I think ...


The most authoritative post of the year.


Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667611)

The correct thing to do when one is not 100% sure of something is to attach the appropriate qualifiers. It seems you are flaming Visaris for doing the only acceptable thing in such a situation, yes? You're just another troll I suppose...

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668319)

doing the only acceptable thing in such a situation, yes?


The only acceptable thing to do with that much uncertainty is not to post.




Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667625)

This is a common misconception regarding OpenGL on Vista - there are three options open to OpenGL developers on Vista:

  1. Default Implementation - this does as you say, translates OpenGL calls into Direct3D calls.
  2. Legacy Installable Client Driver - this runs OpenGL natively but is incompatible with some parts of Vista.
  3. Vista Compatible Installable Client Driver - this runs OpenGL natively.


As you can see, all is not as lost as some are making it out to be.

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667627)

Or, they could write it for XP? Why would they want to have it run on Vista, what is the point? I thought Vista sounded okay in theory, but the implementation has been astoundingly poor.

And to be honest, I think it takes a lot more work to create all the maps, characters, animations, artwork, etc than it does to write an engine (especially when they have so much experience with creating engines, though obviously they will have a lot of experience in modelling and stuff too). They've ported their engine between platforms before, so porting to a different graphics/input/whatever library won't be too much for them. And if they're supporting Mac then they may as well make a Linux version anyway. Yes, I have coded mods/bots for FPS shooters before, done a bit of OpenGL coding, and also done a small amount of mapping/modelling (though I wouldn't call myself an expert with any of them, my CS bots were pretty awesome ;) )

Re:Support(Vista, OpenGL) == SLOW_FPS (3, Informative)

Tinyn (1100891) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667749)

Thats only if you do not have proper Video card drivers installed. If you have the proper drivers installed they basically override MS's OpenGL with their own, and then the OpenGL calls run as fast as ATI/Nvidia can make them run.

Re:Not Happening (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667335)

Lots of games have both a direct3d and opengl renderer. wow, ut2k4 spring immediately to mind. Ultimately the two aren't that different, and it isn't that hard to code your engine using a generic wrapper so that there isn't that much work to be done to create the two render paths. Usually one of them is less optimized, and it's usually OpenGL since a lot of companies target Windows/Direct3D primarily and create the OpenGL path for the Mac port.

However coming from id I'm taking this with a huge grain of salt. Carmack isn't the kind of guy who likes to have two separate yet redundant render paths where one is probably more optimized than the other. Software vs hardware rendering ala quake2? Sure. But since they're already committed to an opengl path for the Mac, I just can't imagine them going through with creating the Direct3D one.

Though maybe it's a side effect of iD's business of selling engines? If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it.

Re:Not Happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667751)

If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it.
I cannot see how anyone would really be asking for direct3d. I can only assume that most gamers have no idea, or care if they do, what kind of renderer is used as long as it looks good - to which both, OpenGL and Direct3D can provide. The only people who would actually ask for a specific method have an ulterior motive - like rooting for the 'underdog', like OpenGL; or, more than likely, support/availability for their particular needs, e.g. cross-platform support which is again, OpenGL.

Re:Not Happening (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668303)

I cannot see how anyone would really be asking for direct3d. I can only assume that most gamers have no idea, or care if they do,

"Customers" here was referring to game development studios who want to use iD engines in their games. That's a major source of income for iD. They license their engines for $Big.

And another poster gave a plausible reason for why customers would be demanding Direct3D support: The Xbox 360.

Re:Not Happening (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668379)

Also remember that Rage is coming out for the PS3, which uses OpenGL as a graphics API.

Re:Not Happening (1)

IPFreely (47576) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668061)

Though maybe it's a side effect of iD's business of selling engines? If customers are demanding direct3d for whatever reason, they may very well get it.

Microsoft has been known to bend a few ears in the direction of their proprietary API over open API.

Re:Not Happening (1)

AmaDaden (794446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667359)

Yeah but I think that in Vista OpenGL is emulated with DirectX. Any code that uses it needs to do extra leg work of being translated from a OpenGL command to a DirectX equivalent. Carmack seems like the kind of guy who would not stand for that. He also seems to enjoy writing the engines. So the extra work would be fun for him. In any case I think the guy meant that no one is working on it this second. That does not mean no one will work on it ever.

Re:Not Happening (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667413)

This is a common misunderstanding and incorrect.

Microsoft's OpenGL implementation does use DirectX to complete OpenGL commands. However, no one really uses Microsoft's OpenGL implementation (and definitely not for games).

Every graphic card manufacturer distributes an OpenGL implementation specifically for their hardware. They do the same for Vista. When you run a game that uses OpenGL, it uses this pure implementation of OpenGL.

Is Emulation Really that Slow? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667563)

I guess the question is, really, how long does a function call take to execute? It takes -some- time, but I would imagine that an OpenGL wrap around Direct could actually be pretty quick, and should be, if it all it did was wrap equivalent function calls.

Re:Not Happening (1)

dumb_jedi (955432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667443)

This seems credible to me. Id has been one of the *very* few companies that support Linux gaming, and they do it by principle. But you can't swim against the current forever. Linux gaming might never happen. Games don't get Linux versions because there aren't many gamers and there aren't many gamers because there aren't many games. And no, as long as i heard, there's no OpenGL in Vista, it used DirectX to emulate it ( with a 99999999% performance penalty obviously ), so they can't build their graphic engine on OpenGL ( as they did since Quake 1 I guess ) to has cross-platform compatibility. One can argue that most effort for making a game goes to building its models and textures, but the game engine is no small feat either and after all, they're a commercial company that have bills to pay. What they COULD do is to license the content, so someone else could build a Linux engine based on OpenGL/SDL. That could be a better business model than Loki's. And I expect people respect Id's decision and not rant about it. After all at least they did it for some time, developers like Valve and Blizzard didn't even try.

Re:Not Happening (0, Flamebait)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667499)

The problem is that these days, it is so much convenient and easier to write for DirectX than to use openGl that is just no funny. Writting 2 versions of the engine takes a lot of times (and money), so if you need to choose, I'd be surprised if you choose openGl (political and ideological reasons aside).

Not only DirectX includes DirectSound, Directinput, Direct, but the grafical part is so much better these days that there is no comparation: it is often faster (better supported by all graphic card makers), the API is a lot more elegant and organized (IMO anyway, which have used both), and as a plus, using DirectX give you an almost automatic ticked to the XBox platform!.

I don't use Linuzz and all (and I'm not planing to) but i would like to see some project to bring DirectX to linuzzz (a'la Mono). Miguel, are you there?

Re:Not Happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667799)

wow

Re:Not Happening (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667825)

Not only DirectX includes DirectSound, Directinput, ...

That's why there's the Simple DirectMedia Layer [libsdl.org] .

plus, using DirectX give you an almost automatic ticked to the XBox platform

And you need OpenGL to work on the PS3. So the big commercial games are doing the multiple render paths anyway.

Re:Not Happening (1)

Aurin Wildfire (231048) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667571)

They're targeting the Xbox 360, which doesn't have OpenGL. They most definitely have a Direct3D backend.

Re:Not Happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667629)

It's not exactly a lot of work compared to the rest of a game's development. (I presume you're being either witty or ignorant when you claim it would be "double the work")

D3D and OGL do fundamentally the same things, and are driven in fundamentally the same ways. It's a commercial engine, so it'll eventually need to backend onto various APIs you haven't even heard of (e.g. libGCM for PS3). So let's see ... they've probably written an abstraction layer ... just like everyone else in the industry. It's really not that amazing.

Re:Not Happening (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667837)

If they're big projected moneymaker is licensing the engine rather than selling copies of a game, it doesn't seem completely implausible. Also, if this or the next generation of console are platforms they're aiming at then portability may have been a feature planned from the start.

Of course, this is all just idle speculation at this point.

Re:Not Happening (0, Offtopic)

Trespass (225077) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667871)

they're != their

god I feel retarded

-1 clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668055)

Every major engine has a renderer independant API, and you can switch between direct3d and opengl any time you want. The amount of direct3d and opengl code in an engine is pretty small, and its easily abstracted. Even if you didn't want to be portable, it would still be the only sane way to write your engine, you don't want to be pushing the low level details of directx or opengl calls up into your engine.

Re:Not Happening (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668293)

Why is this comment rated +5 Insightful? Do you not realize that to make a Mac port they have to do it in OpenGL?

shame... (2, Interesting)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667147)

Shame... id is one of the companies I've always financially supported buy buying at least one copy (if not 2 or 3) of their games, *especially* with explicit Linux support (or from a Linux friendly retailer).

Wonder if I should go ahead and open that unopened l33t tin edition of Q3 for Linux...

Re:shame... (0, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667239)

I think it is an issue you are one of the few people who do. Linux users have a strong trend of Wanting things free no matter at the cost of the developer. This trend is self destructive because it make the ability for comerical closed source software writters the make Linux non-profitable and combined with Linux still rather Low Market rate and the fact a lot of people with Linux still has Windows available. Linux has a lot of plusses wich can make it a great gamming platform but Game and Open Source models don't work to well.

Re:shame... (3, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667367)

Yeah, I'm a weird one when it comes to that. I like Freedom, and I like free, but I really like a stable OS where standards aren't broken/bastardized.

I don't mind binary blob drivers for my nVidia card - its the best hardware at the moment. I'll be happy to pay full retail for Acrobat Professional, the product formerlly known as the Macromedia Dreamweaver Suite (DW, Flash, Fireworks), etc. for Linux, and I won't get bitchy about source access. Heck, I'd pay for the windows version *if* it were packaged with a custom Wine that would let it Just Work. I really don't care - I just want the best tool for the job. Unfortunately for me, Windows isn't one of 'em...

I would buy Macromedia Suite for linux as well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668435)

.... please include freehand!!!!

Re:shame... (4, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667495)

I'd be willing to pay double the Windows version for a native version of SimCity 4 (or even SimCity3 or SimCity2k). No, Wine emulation doesn't count.

Just because we use linux doesn't mean we're not willing to put our money where our mouths are. My library holds almost 200 programming books, and the last I checked, books aren't cheap. Yes, its nice that linux is free (in both senses), but do you really believe that we use linux only because its free? Maybe we also like the lack of vendor lockin, the lack of viruses, etc.

Re:shame... (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668265)

And apparently, the lack of games too ;)

Re:shame... (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667737)

Good point. Windows users never make copies of programs.

Re:shame... (1)

argiedot (1035754) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668201)

Dude, we buy hardware, don't we? Lots of us have really high end hardware, no? How the hell can Linux users be considered cheap?

Re:shame... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667665)

Next time you feel the need to "support" a software publisher, just send them a check. Because buying extra copies mostly supports the retailer and wholesaler.

But forget all that. This isn't NPR, where they can run the whole thing on the generosity of the 10% of listeners who feel compelled to pay. This is a commercial operation, that can't survive without selling enough copies of the software to make back their development and support costs. This relies on there being lots of gamers with Linux boxes, not the sporadic generosity of individual gamers.

opengl (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667177)

A at least once supporter of OpenGl likely goes to the trouble of rewriting swaths of game code to produce games on a proprietary platform which is created by a known strong arm monopolist. must have been a big check.

Windows should be strictly for gaming. (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667211)

I use windows and mostly only use if for trivial things. Surfing in coffeeshops, gaming, watching vids. If I do plan to do something serious then it's going to be on Solaris or Linux.

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming. (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667399)

Yeah... because Windows is impossible to use for anything serious T_T oh no wait it just requires taking the time to learn how to utilize another OS for software development, though I understand how most people can't be bothered to expand their skillset beyond what they pick up in the first couple of years after University. You end up with the case where 90% of developers think that if a square peg isn't fitting into the round hole, the answer is to just shove in a lot of really small square pegs because that's all they know how to use.

Re:Windows should be strictly for gaming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667835)

Exactly.

With GNU/Linux market share around 1 or 2% is it worth supporting directly ?
Even the Mac has a 100x as many games as Linux and people actually purchase them.
Windows Gaming market is huge and the number 1 target for support (before the consoles got better).

Wow (1)

badenglishihave (944178) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667217)

This is really incredible. Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.

It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time. Of course most games today use Direct3D exclusively anyways so the impact could be small. However, up until now id has always kept the OpenGL/Linux community alive by designing games for OpenGL. Even if id and id alone makes this move, it could still be a big hit to the Linux gaming community.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667579)

because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.
Uh, by who exactly? And still?

JC's D3D criticisms are dated, likes modern D3D (4, Informative)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667855)

Carmack has always been a long time supporter of OpenGL, because afaik OpenGL has always been regarded as a more sophisticated and feature-rich graphics driver as opposed to Direct3D.

For many years Direct3D has had a substantial lead with respect to features and driver support.

Long ago and with respect to a very old Direct3D version Carmack really did rip into Direct3D. OpenGL advocates like to refer to this but the truth is that in recent years Carmack has pointed out that these criticisms are obsolete, that Direct3D has improved greatly and is now good.

"Carmack: No, because the DX9 stuff--actually, DX9 is really quite a good API [application programming interface] level. Even with the D3D [Direct3D] side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step--they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility--and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm [gameinformer.com]

"No business justification" for Linux (4, Insightful)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668017)

It'll be interesting to see if other developers decide to take this precedent and remove support for OpenGL from future games to speed up development time.

Support for OpenGL is not being removed, the Mac version will use it. This is not about OpenGL, this is about Linux gaming. Years ago id made an infamous comment in a Game Developer magazine interview, sorry no link - read the hard copy at the time. They said that there is no business justifcation for their Linux clients, that they merely do them because they think it is cool to do so. Perhaps they don't have enough time for this "hobby" anymore.

Keep in mind that the Linux game market is far smaller than most people think. It is not the number of people who buy the Linux version of the game. Given that most Linux gamers are willing to buy the Win32 version of a game and dual boot or emulate, a Linux sale is cannibalism. It replaces a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, it does not generate new income. The only new income is a sale to those who refuse to dual boot or emulate, who will only play native Linux versions. This native group is considered by many developers to be too small to justify the expenses related to porting, testing, and support.

That said, Linux based servers are an entirely different story. These make financial sense.

Just because it's not specifically mentioned... (4, Insightful)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667267)

I read the article with my high-school level German comprehension, and I don't see anywhere where Hollenshead specifically says they won't be supporting Linux. Just because it wasn't mentioned as a target platform doesn't mean it won't be on that platform. It could very well be that Hollenshead didn't mention it because their Linux versions haven't sold very well in comparison with the platforms that he did mention.
Also, I would think that if id went through the effort of making an OpenGL version of the engine, they might as well port it to Linux, particularly if they're also going to port it to Playstation 3 and XBox 360. I don't think there's anything to be worried about here.

the relevant part (2, Interesting)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667469)

This is the relevent part: "Auf die Frage danach, ob denn Rage bzw. die zu Grunde liegende id-Tech-5-Engine neben Mac, Windows-PC, PlayStation 3 und Xbox 360 auch Linux-PCs unterstützen werden, antwortete Hollenshead, dass dazu noch nichts geplant oder angekündigt worden sei. Technisch möglich wäre es, zumal auch mit MacOS X ein Unix-System unterstützt würde. Hollenshead zufolge ist John Carmack mittlerweile nicht mehr so an Linux interessiert wie zuvor, auch wenn es noch einige Linux-Fans bei id Software gebe. Hier müssen Linux-Fans also noch abwarten."

Hollenshead answers that no linux version is planned or announced. From a technical point of view it would be possible, since OS X will be supported.
According to Hollenshead, John Carmack isn't as interested in linux as he was earlier, though there are still some linux fans at id.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667525)

The relevant paragraph is this one: "Auch OpenGL hat mittlerweile nicht mehr die Top-Priorität bei id Software, Hollenshead zufolge habe Microsoft viel aus seinen Fehlern bei früheren DirectX-Versionen gelernt. Carmack sei von DirectX mittlerweile recht angetan. OpenGL werde zwar weiter unterstützt, was auch an der direkten Mac-Unterstützung zu sehen ist, da aber ein ganzes Konsortium hinter OpenGL stehe, brauche OpenGL länger bei der Entwicklung."

OpenGL no longer has the top priority at id Software. According to Hollenshead, Microsoft has learned a lot from its mistakes with earlier DirectX versions. Carmarck has come to like DirectX in the meantime. OpenGL will continue to be supported, which can also be derived from the Mac support, but since a whole consortium is behind OpenGL, OpenGL itself takes longer to evolve.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667577)

You should have taken a look at the second page, where it's said that John Carmack isn't as interested in linux as he used to be. However, it is also stated that there are others at his software company who are linux fans. Furthermore, it is said that linux users will have to await further information, it's just that a linux port isn't/hasn't been planned yet. Elsewhere in the article the engine's largely platform-independent code (about 90%) is heralded, so not all hope is lost for linux users who seriously want to play yet another FPS (actually, I'm just assuming it's an FPS).

There's also relatively interesting talk about the game not going to be able to fit on a DVD, and thus XBOX-360 owners without harddrives will probably be forced to change discs. This also appears to be the case with GTA4, according to the article.

Re:Just because it's not specifically mentioned... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667763)

I'm surprised they support Linux at all. I think some of the previous ports were done as a labor of love by a few employees on their time off.

Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (-1, Flamebait)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667437)

Until there's a more standardized desktop environment such that developers can target one one platform and know that they'll have broad Linux market reach, why would any company bother? Targeting one platform in a relatively tiny slice of the OS market just doesn't make much sense.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (5, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667637)

This is the epitome of FUD keeping people from switching to Linux. You COMPLETELY don't understand how software works apparently. First of all, there is a standard library for writing 3d games. It's called OpenGL. Second, what Desktop Environment you run is completely irrelevant to anything. I'm currently running Gnome on this computer. At home I have Fluxbox. At my parents they have KDE. Guess what? We can all run the exact same programs. People write programs for a certain toolkit, but in no way, shape, or form does this mean you can't run it in a different desktop environment. What desktop environment you are running has nothing, 0, none, zilch, to do with what programs you can run. The Windows world is no different in this respect. There are at least 10 different GUI toolkits floating around in the Windows world. For programs to work, all you need to do is include the proper libraries. The reason there is a low rate of Linux adoption in part is because of idiotic propaganda like this being spread around. It has zero basis of truth and I think anyone propagating this garbage should be called out for what they are.

OpenGL is not 'for games' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667969)

You need to check your OWN facts before running off at the mouth. OpenGL is a library for writing graphical applications, not 'games' per se. The consortium that created OpenGL and nurtured it didn't sit around in someone's living room and say 'duh, hey, dude, let's make a library for games'! By the way, OpenGL isn't a standard. You obviously know nothing about computing, either.

F**knut.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (4, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667695)

Until there's a more standardized desktop environment such that developers can target one one platform and know that they'll have broad Linux market reach, why would any company bother?

Um... there already is [libsdl.org] . OpenGL + SDL covers basically everything DirectX does (yes, DirectInput and all that). If you need environmental audio, you can use OpenAL [openal.org] , or roll your own as I gather Id did for Doom3 (and not just on Linux, on Windows as well - you need a patch for hardware audio [soundblaster.com] ). As a bonus, SDL apps run on Windows and OSX (along with several other platforms) as well.

Games don't care about the desktop, except for installing a menu item and/or an icon to run the game. And, well, there's a standard for that, too [freedesktop.org] . Once they're running, they take over the screen anyway.

The issues with Linux gaming is entirely a chicken-egg market-share problem. There is just not any kind of technical barrier. Anyone doing a PS3 version is already doing an OpenGL version anyway [wikipedia.org] , so a Linux port is actually quite easy at that point.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668275)

f you need environmental audio, you can use OpenAL, or roll your own as I gather Id did for Doom3 and not just on Linux, on Windows as well - you need a patch for hardware audio. Anyone doing a PS3 version is already doing an OpenGL version anyway, so a Linux port is actually quite easy at that point.

Anyone doing a project for the XBox 360 gets the Windows market as a bonus.

Why do you need EAX when the lowliest entry-level motherboard has multichannel digital audio output as standard?

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668349)

Why do you need EAX when the lowliest entry-level motherboard has multichannel digital audio output as standard

That's WHEN you really need EAX/OpenAL, doofus - it's a 3D spatial sound API. You just say "I want a sound 200m away moving at 200 m/s" and it does it, dopplering and all.

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (1)

vil3nr0b (930195) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667701)

I fully believe there will be a release on the Linux platform from Id. I understand about us only having a few percent of the market, but in the current market that few percent can make or brake the profitablity for a company already investing millions into a game. Besides, why bite the hand that has loyally supported you?

Re:Linux is the biggest Linux gaming obstacle (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667885)

I don't recall Epic creating several binaries for UT. In the end, Linux is Linux and if the developer doesn't want the distro to matter then it won't.

meh, let me know when the engine is licensed (2)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667453)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ffoj6oY3ug [youtube.com]

The rendering quality looks great but seriously, when was the last time id released a game and not a tech demo? I'm looking forward to seeing the games the licensees make, those I bet will rawk.

Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on list (4, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667461)

I hate to say it, but I don't think gaming on Linux is going to be a huge deal breaker for most people anyway. Most gamers I know are "Windows experts". They've got their Windows desktop super customized with skins and slick themes etc etc. They are probably the worst candidate for adopters of Linux. I've found Windows power users to be the most stubborn in switching. They think they understand something about computers and operating systems, but it comes down to they kinda understand how Windows works on the front end, and it's a HUGE blow to them when they have to start over. A lot of it is an ego thing. Instead of admitting they know less about computers than they thought, they pass it off as inferior. They do the same thing to Macs.

The best candidates to convert are people who actually really do understand how computers and operating systems work, or people that want a computer that "just works". Not people that get pissed off because there's no control panel. I come across this all the time. Windows users that I feel are scared they will look stupid and put Linux and OSX down as inferior. I'll ask them, "have you ever tried it?". Most have never tried it or made an attempt to figure out how it works. The thing that will bring about the most adoption of Linux and OSX is an entire generation being raised off Windows.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667565)

I got into an argument with a user such as you describe. At a certain point in the discussion, he fell back onto the old rhetoric: "Well, the ubiquity of Windows is one measure of its quality."

To which, I replied: "By that metric, McDonald's is the finest restaurant on Earth."

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668291)

'To which, I replied: "By that metric, McDonald's is the finest restaurant on Earth."'

You broke the golden /. rule: You must to use a car analogy! Something like, by that metric, VW Golf/Rabbit is a better car than a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren because more people use the former.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (0, Troll)

Cerberus911 (834576) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667779)

Yeah man, those stupid windows users wanting an easy interface to control most of their system's settings through a GUI. They should inform themselves of Linux and not dismiss it completely.

Oh, did you hear about Vista and how it doesn't support OpenGL at all? Also, did you hear about Vista backdoors Microsoft uses to empty your bank account? I don't see how anyone could use Windows anymore. I switched after 95.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667973)

Most gamers I know are "Windows experts". They've got their Windows desktop super customized with skins and slick themes etc etc. They are probably the worst candidate for adopters of Linux. They think they understand something about computers and operating systems, but it comes down to they kinda understand how Windows works on the front end, and it's a HUGE blow to them when they have to start over.

Gamers game.

They are not technical hobbyists as the Geek understands it. The Windows OS is simply another platform like the PS3 - The basics of Windows is all they need to know and all they want to know.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (1)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668387)

The set of Windows gamers and Windows ricers has considerable intersection though.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667997)

I wouldn't consider myself to be a "windows power user"...I mean, I can fix it if it's broken, and I know how to pummel the registry into submission, and how to prune the goddamn services to something sane and secure. I'm certainly very familiar with windows. But there is that little spark of, I don't know, "Taking it seriously" that I lack.

All that being said, Windows is my gaming platform of choice. I always have a good gaming rig running the latest stable version of Windows. I run games on Linux occasionally. I run games on Macs occasionally. But in both of those cases it's more to prove that I can, not because I want to actually play games in those environments.

Windows is a toy, even when I'm running it at work (like right now). Looking at the programs I have running currently, I have two programs connecting to MySQL databases running on linux machines, I have Eclipse running, and 4 terminal emulators hitting 2 linux servers, 1 solaris server, and 1 MPE/iX mainframe. Oh, and Outlook, which is the only thing that actually requires Windows.

So, what I'm saying is, I think it's cool that companies support Linux. Always gives me a fuzzy feeling to buy a game from Blizzard or Id that runs on Linux, but in the long run, I'd never actually PLAY it there unless my solitary Windows machine was dead.

Re:Gaming on Linux has always been number #39 on l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667999)

Hmmm...
Right in the next terminal on the other virtual desktop sits a vim-Session, editing FORTRAN intended to run on an old Alpha - so, thanks, I think I know _some_ things about how computers work, and yes, I might even happen to know a thing or two about Linux (surely enough for everyday use), having spent all my "scientific time" (now ~5 years) on it.

Still, I'm pretty much a hardcore Gamer. And therefore, (no) Gaming on Linux is a deal breaker for me.
Sure, I would like to get rid of the hassles of Windows (TeX-implementation, no proper shell, etc.), but give up gaming? Nope.

And why should I bother with a dual-boot system at home? Everything serious gets done at work, and for the casual stuff Windows is (barely) good enough.

How much of a market is there for Linux games? (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667597)

The question is not how many Linux users can play games on Linux, but how many Linux users will actually insist that it must be on Linux. I bet that most would-be Linux gamers are dual-booting, and until there reaches a critical mass of people who insist on not having to dual-boot, companies will have a business case for not supporting Linux.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667793)

Geez. "Dual-booting" is such a stupid word. It doesn't mean what it should mean, which would be booting two OS's at once. Please stop using it. Thank you very much.

Re:How much of a market is there for Linux games? (1)

12357bd (686909) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668159)

Yes, that's the question, but the fact is that the trend is to increase share, and with AMD/ATI going open (that is good 3d linux drivers in months), and an scheduler properly tuned (hear this kernel poeple), linux can become a major playing platform, with superb rendiment and customization. IMO that's one of the most strategicaly needed targets for the linux world.

Maybe later (1)

bgspence (155914) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667655)

After the pay version, game developers often make the source available for the free version.

Just wait and see....

Linux needs Windows emulation (1, Interesting)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667681)

Problem: 1.34% market share, and the remaining 98.66% of software is represented on Windows or Macintosh.

Current solution: make clones of existing software (Open Office, GIMPshop).

Future solution: either using virtualization or crafty API emulation, make Linux be able to transparently run Windows games and software.

It's a different approach, but you'd have more people using Linux, because since Windows is the de facto standard, it's the standard the software they need requires.

Re:Linux needs Windows emulation (3, Informative)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668027)

Future solution: either using virtualization or crafty API emulation, make Linux be able to transparently run Windows games and software.

Nope, that's a trap [wikipedia.org] . OS/2 was essentially 100% Windows 3.1 compatible, and what happened? Developers thought, "Why bother writing an OS/2 native app when I can just write a Windows app and be compatible?" So OS/2 never got any apps to speak of.

Linux needs a better, cross-platform gaming API. Fortunately, it has one [libsdl.org] .

However, if you really have your heart set on compatibility, check out WINE [winehq.org] . I'm running a few older Windows games (Alice, Freedom Force, Tomb Raider III) flawlessly with that. Many of 'em don't work, but I'm surprised how many are playable.

Wine? (1)

vinn (4370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667791)

Wine's Direct3D has taken amazing leaps over the past year. Maybe id should contribute a little love to that project to come up with a native version similar to how Google did Picasa?

Misinformative Article... (5, Informative)

CrusadeR (555) | more than 6 years ago | (#20667863)

Regarding id Tech 5 and Rage, id titles are usually ported to Linux relatively late in the development process when the programmer has the time, but they've always been ported. There were also these statements from Carmack at QuakeCon last month:

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0803.1731.12214.htm?Page=1 [gameinformer.com]

GI: Will this engine support any DX10 features?

Carmack: No, not currently. We're not expecting to. We're not sure if we're going to be a Vista title or not. There will be some support benefits by being Vista only. It depends when we get the game done what the adoption has been. But it's a OpenGL title on the PC and Mac right now, obviously D3D on the 360, and the PS3 it's kind of an in between where it's Open GLES but we do a lot of direct command buffer writing there. If necessary we can move the PC version over to DX10, but there's not much strong pull for us to do that. All of the toolset is in OpenGL, I wouldn't want to convert everything over.

http://www.linuxgames.com/news/feedback.php?identiferID=9374&action=flatview [linuxgames.com]

Q: I wanted to say thank you for open-sourcing the Quake 3 engine, it's made a huge difference to the community. I wanted to ask your opinion about the future of Linux and open source gaming.

A: I do take a great deal of personal pride and satisfaction with what I've been able to do with getting so much of the stuff out. Sometimes I think about it, and while I know it's not something I'm generally considered for, I may be one of the most prolific open source authors considering all the code that I've written over the last 15 years that I've made open source, or have made open source there. I do think it's very valuable. I'm very happy when I see both user gaming community stuff, or research universities, or people doing simulation tests, or bringing up things. Every new piece of hardware ends up having Doom or Quake titles used as an early form of test application. So I'm very happy to have done that. It's certainly going to continue. I mean I won't commit to a date, but the Doom 3 stuff will be open source. We still make those decisions even today when we're doing the Rage code when we have decisions about "do we want to integrate some other vendor's solution, some proprietary code into this". And the answer's usually no, because eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we're not going to integrate stuff that's going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release. We can argue the exact pros and cons from a pure business standpoint on it, and I can at least make some, perhaps somewhat, contrived cases that I think it's good for the business, but as a personal conviction it's still pretty important to me and I'm standing by that.

The id-produced title coming out at the end of the month, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, will have a Linux dedicated server and client as well:

http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/linux/etqw/ [idsoftware.com]

Linux client?

When it's done. We have beta testers, they are doing a great job, you don't need to apply. There is still some work to be done before it matches id quality standards, and we won't commit to any dates.

In summary: Don't panic.

Plain and simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20667919)

Not mentioning Linux is not equivalent to abandoning Linux. Clearly, id is a commercial business and will invest time and effort first in what gives the biggest return-on-investment first. Windows is the dominant platform for computer-gaming, but more and more people are getting Macs as well.

It still doesn't leave Linux out. For all you know, they are simply waiting for the Dell w/Ubuntu experiment to mature so that they can make a deal with Dell to offer Rage as an option.

Todd Hollenshead Is an Amateur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668005)

Todd Hollenshead is an asshole. His game and business vision is amateur at best. Without the tech and money of Id behind him he couldn't handle a burger flipping job. He should've been kicked out years ago and replaced with someone who has some sense of games design and staff issues. Just reading and watching some of his interviews and he strikes me as a guy that shovels bullet points to cover the fact he's winging it. I've been saying this for years and he somehow manages to get away with it, as he sniffs his way down one line of coke and bounces onto the next without so much as a sneeze. Another thing, Id gets really pissy if you hold him up to the light. What gives? Whose cock does he warm to get this grace and favour job when better people than him have been nuked? I'm beginning to think they keep him around so they feel smart.

Direct3D - monopoly abuse in practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668337)

Microsoft pushed direct3d via their desktop monopoly, only recently has it even been able to compete with OpenGL. Now we face the situation where most 3D content is being produced using a proprietary API that wasn't needed to begin with.

Why have games developers let Microsoft get away with this?

I think it may go back to what Carmack has said... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20668433)

And I could be wrong, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Carmack has always been a fan of Microsoft's development tools and platform. He finds it easy to build and develop his engines for Xbox 360 and the PC using these tools. I'm unsurprised that now he's on the Direct X platform, for similar reasons.

Maybe it just costs too much money to develop platforms on OpenGL? I could be wrong, but I am inferring that from Carmack's own statements earlier. Perhaps somebody could verify my thoughts, or negate them?

Who in their right mind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20668439)

Who in their right mind would choose DirectX over OpenGL when doing ANYTHING? I've tried both APIs and find OpenGL much easier to use and to tweak for my needs. Sure, there's a bit more "pencil-work" involved, but nothing that someone with an education in this field can't handle.

And why do game developers not understand that portability = ability to bring a game to more platforms = wider market base = more money for them than if it were JUST for Windows?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...