Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 30th Dec 2008 23:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 342198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sorry Tomcat , but in 2009 , I pass on replying to your lies that have no basis on reality.
You just replied, moron. Too bad there's no way to resolve to raise your IQ. Stupidity is permanent.
As for Loki, refer to this 1998 article (http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066046p1.html): "Loki calls Linux "the only viable threat to Microsoft's hold on the market", and the company believes that by bringing PC games to Linux it will broaden the appeal of the platform.""
We all know how well that worked out. Linux is, by all practical standards, no closer to building desktop market share and countering "Microsoft's hold on the market".
Doubt it? Here's another 2006 article (http://www.linux.com/feature/59180) titled "Commercial gaming: Can it thrive on Linux?" The fact that they even had to ask the question in 2006 should inform the answer. The state of Linux gaming is deplorable; mostly, lousy titles that were available -- technologically speaking -- on Windows TEN YEARS AGO.
Why? Because the sub-1% market share of desktop Linux means there's no money in Linux game development. And making games requires financial investment in areas other than coding (e.g. art, storyboarding, writing, sound design, etc). No customers, no games.
Complain about my response, mod it down, whatever. I don't care. Reality is reality. Put some ice on that, and walk it off ...
Edited 2009-01-04 01:33 UTC







Member since:
2006-01-06
Totally wrong. Loki failed because they jumped the gun in getting into the Linux game market; when, in fact, there were no customers actually buying Linux games.