Maybe a possible alternative would be to focus on one particular linux distribution, like ubuntu or debian, with certain dirty intall scripts ?
Or go all the way and just deliver a bootable CD or USB drive that install the games somewhere, and then boots up a certain linux kernel configuration with specific, working nvidia or amd drivers.
Honestly if I had a successful game I could sell, I'd try to sell it at half the price by packaging it with some linux distribution the game works on, just for promoting linux to show the consumers that developers appreciate it.
Maybe another other alternative would be to offer games on certain hardware which is supported, and not to other types of hardware.
But obviously, as long as hardware vendors don't give a damn about linux, I won't be surprised reading those posts.
Game developers should not expect being able to use the latest graphics features on an open platform. It just won't happen. The 3D hardware industry always adds new things, it's impossible to keep up unless you had engineers working tightly with nvidia or AMD.
So drop the support of high end 3D features, only keep the core ones that have been working for a long time (do you really need that shader ?), focus on other basic things (like scriptability and other libraries, there is so much stuff to put in a game engine), and deliver a working 3D engine that is easy to use and program with. I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA, high end graphics titles. The only possible way to compete is to bring something new in term of gameplay, stop focusing on the graphics and the bells and whistles, it just won't happen.
TLDR:
gaming is obviously anti competitive if you want to release on linux. what to do: don't try to compete with what other games have already done, and focus on things that are doable and have been done well for a long time. There are many existing game concept that could be improved if you stop wasting time on the graphics. Having basic 3D rendering is already awesome in itself.
You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best?
> do you really need that shader
Yes!
> I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA
You'd be surprised with what a small developer can do, See tomorrow children. Sadly sometimes it sometimes seems that if you want to push graphics features, you cannot release on Linux.
> Having basic 3D rendering is already awesome in itself
No, not really. I'd prefer 2D rendering to basic 3D rendering.
> don't try to compete with what other games have already done, and focus on things that are doable and have been done well for a long time
Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence?
Though, more to the point, the problem isn't that getting something running Linux would be difficult. The problem is that in order for Linux to have proper and first-rate support, or in some cases, any support at all, you need to start getting developers working on it as a primary development platform. And if I can't do the things that I, as a graphics programmer, need to do, I'll go elsewhere. Working on Linux is nice, but if I have to choose between developing the game I want to, or having Linux support, that's a trivial decision.
> You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best?
Better work in CGI graphics then. Also, what's the point of rendering ? You won't make a game if all you have is good rendering. You also need quality content. You can't be a good graphics programmers AND spend time producing geometry.
> Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence?
I just meant do improve designs that have been proven to work, not try to make the same kind of design you usually see in AAA shelves.
I see many indie games just being some remake, or influenced by many other games. They don't have any kind of standing out feature, the only interesting thing there is, is content, which is not what makes a good game. There is almost never a feature of the game that is standing out in term of gameplay and algorithm.
A good example is minecraft: the game is interesting because it has an infinite, consistent 3D level. No game had that before. All I care is gameplay and interactions. My point is this: if a game is not different in gameplay and can't attract the player imagination, it's maybe not worth doing.
Unless SteamOS and Steam Boxes becomes a thing releasing native games on Linux doesn't really make sense unfortunately, cost of customer support alone would be prohibitive, and the negative backslash from the Linux community if Linux distro X on hardware Y is not supported would do the rest to drive devs away. The most realistic distribution platform for games on Linux (unless SteamOS takes off) would actually be HTML5 games using WebGL for 3D rendering. In this case the browser vendors do all the hard work to provide a unified platform wrapper (not that I ever got WebGL support working on Linux in a VM though).
I don't know if you can make a serious game with js though. ASM.js might help, the 3D demo from the unreal engine showed a decent framerate, but I don't know if it can go from the neat demo to something that can be sold.
Maybe a possible alternative would be to focus on one particular linux distribution, like ubuntu or debian, with certain dirty intall scripts ?
Or go all the way and just deliver a bootable CD or USB drive that install the games somewhere, and then boots up a certain linux kernel configuration with specific, working nvidia or amd drivers.
Honestly if I had a successful game I could sell, I'd try to sell it at half the price by packaging it with some linux distribution the game works on, just for promoting linux to show the consumers that developers appreciate it.
Maybe another other alternative would be to offer games on certain hardware which is supported, and not to other types of hardware.
But obviously, as long as hardware vendors don't give a damn about linux, I won't be surprised reading those posts.
Game developers should not expect being able to use the latest graphics features on an open platform. It just won't happen. The 3D hardware industry always adds new things, it's impossible to keep up unless you had engineers working tightly with nvidia or AMD.
So drop the support of high end 3D features, only keep the core ones that have been working for a long time (do you really need that shader ?), focus on other basic things (like scriptability and other libraries, there is so much stuff to put in a game engine), and deliver a working 3D engine that is easy to use and program with. I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA, high end graphics titles. The only possible way to compete is to bring something new in term of gameplay, stop focusing on the graphics and the bells and whistles, it just won't happen.
TLDR:
gaming is obviously anti competitive if you want to release on linux. what to do: don't try to compete with what other games have already done, and focus on things that are doable and have been done well for a long time. There are many existing game concept that could be improved if you stop wasting time on the graphics. Having basic 3D rendering is already awesome in itself.