It wasn't literal what I said.... "If this game is so good, why isn't it released for Ubuntu or Linux in general?"

But Really a lot of people can't hardly play games on their windows computers because they are so jacked up. Viruses, stupid security holes, and general bloatware. Windows xp and vista are surprisingly slow. Ubuntu is much more efficient and easy to use. What I ask is for big companies like stardock to help move the masses to Linux. Why support the badly made operating systems. If more companies tried to make games for Linux (opengl) then people might actually start enjoying using their computers more.

If you haven't tried it, you should read this article:WWW Link


(I know there has to be at least some stardock programmers that use Linux on their computers and wish they could make good games for it and get paid)

Seriously I see people everyday so frustrated with how windows is. Then you show them Linux and it works so much better.

It's not the developer's place to force people to use different operating systems.
Anyone with any brains can keep their windows install running pretty smooth, I feel like you're somehow especially tainted against windows for some reason or another.

Many Linux users are (edit: meaning tainted against Windows). But it goes both ways. Just look at this thread as an example. All it takes is for someone to mention Linux in most forums and the flames start. I'm not a big fan of Windows, but I know how to run a clean system and I use it for gaming because I pretty much have to. But I'd prefer to do it all on Linux if given the choice. So, I still don't think it hurts to gives the developers of games a heads up that there are people out there that would like to see a Linux port of their games (and yes, they'd pay for them).

To the OP: apologies, but your original post came across as one of those militant Linux/anti-Windows posts. I agree with your sentiment to an extent, but I think your initial delivery came across poorly.

My Linux friend actually deleted/corrupted critical Windows files while trying to get the bootloader working on my computer after I installed a Linux partition. Plus my network drivers didn't work with Linux, so I was forced to perform a factory image reset on my computer due to lack of internet support.

Said friend also spent a better part of two months trying to get his laptop wireless card to work.

Sorry for the tangent, but Linux is NOT better because it's easier.

Yes Linux is a great Os and Micro$t could take a few notes on how to make an Os from them but I just cant seeing a game dev makeing a version of this game for and OS not many people use.

I'm not sure how that misses the point. Asking for a game won't do anything, because there's little profit in developing a game for a niche community. The real method for obtaining mainstream games on Linux is to advertise Linux, make it easy to use, heavily develop the OS, etc. Linux users can potentially do this thanks to open source coding, but it would be a very difficult long-term prospect.

The simple, easy method to access games is to boot up Windows.

Would I love games like this to be on Linux? Hell yeah! I'm a big Linux fan. The only time there's a need to run something other than Linux is when something isn't compatible with it. Unfortunately, in the world of games that tends to happen almost all the time, and it also tends to pop up elsewhere when it comes to deploying certain technologies.

The biggest hurdles to Linux-based games is that there's a lack of advertising, so many different versions of Linux, your average computer user doesn't use Linux, and developing a game that runs on multiple platforms can be a huge pain in the ass. You can pop out a DirectX game rather easily these days and only really have to worry about Windows XP and Vista. When you move to Linux you're going to have to use something else such as OpenGL and there's a lot more distributions to worry about which exponentially complicates things. Linux, as a whole, is not as developer-friendly as it could be, at least in my experience when compared to the mountains of documentation, samples, and support that exists for Windows. Graphics in particular are rather messy to deal with on Linux.

So I think the OP has been answered. How about let's be nice and let the thread die before people really start flaming?

-- Retro

(1) Sorry, I guess I missed the fight where DirectX really whipped OpenGL. I think John Carmack missed that fight as well.

DirectX capabilities are inferior to OpenGL capabilities. The market doesn't decide things like this. What DirectX has is Microsoft shoving it down every possible throat it can. It also has some ease-of-use advantages since Microsoft has made a lot of their other stuff 'compatible' with it in sort of the same way that Adobe has made all Photoshop/Flash/etc. 'compatible'.

When people ask for a game to be made for Linux, they are basically asking for three things - that the game be able to interact with any filesystem (this isn't a big deal), that it be made in OpenGL, and that it comes with a Linux binary or at least some way to compile the binary. The game will still run on Windows if it has a Windows binary. The Windows and Linux binaries are basically compiled from the same source code. So the only real issue is using OpenGL for your game. (There are other minor things as well.)

The problem OpenGL has is also one of its greatest assets. It doesn't have a huge money-hungry behemoth behind it. OpenGL is owned by no one. It's usable by anyone. You're not forced to use DLL's, you can use any library system you want. It will never be loaded down with DRM or act as a copy protection device. It will never be unusuable because some company scrapped it or died out. You can develop for any platform you want. You can develop for Windows or for Mac or for Linux or for cell phones, etc. etc. or you can make your own platform and develop for that.

There honestly is no reason for people not to use OpenGL besides that, wherever they go, whatever they do, DirectX is blaring in their ears. If you use 3D tools, a lot of them interact conveniently with some Direct3D functions. They're not incompatible with OpenGL, it's just that OpenGL hasn't paid them for advertising. EA believes their own lies these days and practically forces every game to be made in DirectX because the logo is good advertising for the EA-savvy buyer. nVidia and ATI love to buy into it as well, because people associate DirectX with their names. OpenGL what's that? That isn't on my Crysis box.

(2) You have it so bass-ackwards here. DirectX is like Internet Explorer for video games. Microsoft, in trying to kill out all competition, came up with DirectX - a proprietary Windows-only API - so that they could force at least SOME games to stay Windows-only. They've been very successful with this move so far since who's gonna pay billions of dollars to advertise OpenGL?

It's not as if DirectX won some contest, and Microsoft humbly accepted the gold medal.

Also, if you really look back and consider it, it's one of the dumbest things from a third-party perspective. The only thing worse is Microsoft basically inventing their own programming languages so that you could program only in Windows once you've learned them.

Seriously, I would drop windows in a heart beat if there were truely great games that were native to Linux. The only reason I own windows is for the games and if consoles had a keyboard/mouse for an interface with more complex titles like Sins I wouldn't even own a PC.

I'm guessing you were too busy calling me an idiot to actually read. Maybe the holier then thou shit they feed you on linux forums went to your head, and you don't understand basic english.

It's simple. Linux has become what people use to make themselves feel secure.



Bullshit. If it's true give us the name of the school. Show me proof.



Good job arguing any of my points. I guess your the typical loser.



Nice reference to me, while you ignore my points and act like the normal typical conceited new linux user.

Go hide in your Ubuntu. Real techies will use Slackware.




But your going to school? Now you have 12 years of experience eh?

Somehow I don't buy it.

And all your tough talk does nothing IF you joined the computer field in 1996. Try playing with dos on a 286 and then you'll know what true programming is.

Hell, play with dos on 5 1/2 floppies on a 8086 or a 8088. Try using a Commodore 64, or a Vic 20.



If your gonna tell me Vista is as pretty as some of the new Linux distros, then please go look again at your Ubuntu.

In fact, go hide with your Ubuntu. Go hug it. Go have sex with it. You obviously can't respond to any of my comments.

If you can, then please do. Explain the side of the new Linux users.

And you are a new linux user, because any old one would agree with me that the new users are mainly after graphics. Why do you think Ubuntu is causing segmentation?

Where does this come from? Have you ever coded in either?

The biggest difference between the two APIs is who they care about supporting most. DirectX is targetted primarily toward games, while OpenGL is targetted toward tools and research. However, in the end they're just graphics APIs, with hardly little true difference. One big reason why I don't use DirectX in research is that they don't support a true stereo mode - which is necessary for a large portion of virtual reality rendering. Also from a graphics card point of view, Nvidia still takes the time to support OpenGL well, as they also care about more than just the gaming industry.

Another fun fact - Did you know that OpenGL can utilize the "DirectX 10 functionality" on graphics cards and do it on Windows XP, and not have to settle for Vista?