Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 16:48 UTC, submitted by aargh
Games From Valve's Linux blog: "That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive, given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL." If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now: Valve has started its marketing campaign for Linux. With the Windows platform in the process of closing itself off, Valve has to look to greener pastures. This is all to motive third parties to get their stuff ready for a possible Linux-powered 'Steambox' - not a console, but a set of generic PC specifications. Remember: the Xbox is the only machine tied to DirectX - OpenGL runs everywhere else, including Windows (the PS3 is an oddball, and has a sort-of Sony-specific FrankenOpenGL). OpenGL simply makes more sense for developers, and now Valve is working very closely with Nvidia, AMD, and Intel to optimise their Linux drivers. Do the math, people.
Thread beginning with comment 529420
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not too fast
by fretinator on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Not too fast"
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

This makes sense for a new developer who say, "I want to make games." But for the vast majority of big games out there that would be ported to Linux, these are Windows games. Most of these games use DirectX.

I agree that as more and more developers come in and decide that they want to develop games for many platforms, then OpenGL makes sense. But for the current batch of big Windows games, these target Windows and XBox (with perhaps a crappy port to other consoles) and are written in DirectX.

Even for the current Windows dev who writes Windows and XBox games (using same development environment - XNA), if they decide to write (or rewrite) their current games for OpenGL, what do they do for XBox, which is most likely their premier platform.

I think as mobile games, tablet games, and the non-microsft platform in general grows, we may reach this tipping point. I don't think we are there yet. It is possible that Windows 8 will help, but a lot depends of how successful Microsoft is with Windows Surface on tablets, convertibles, and whether or not they can resurrect the Windows Phone market.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not too fast
by robojerk on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 20:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Not too fast"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Most games use existing code. And big name developer houses happily sell their code to other developers. All of these games

idTech 1,2,3,4, & 5 (Quake series, and Rage)
CryENGINE
Unreal Engine
Source (based of idTech)
IW Engine (Based off idTech3, used in all CoD games so far)
Unity Engine
etc......

I believe all those game engines have been ported to Linux except for IW Engine and Source, however it's rooted in idTech3 so a lot of the work is probably done for them already, but I am not sure of how much they changed it.

If you looked up what games use those engines, you'd probably find a BIG list of games that are potentially Linux compatible, or would require a small amount of work to get it supported.

It will be the small and indy game developers that will do a lot of work porting their games to Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Not too fast
by zima on Tue 7th Aug 2012 22:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Not too fast"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Small and indy probably mostly simply won't port - so they'll have it easier, in a way.

And actually, much easier if they build on "very Microsoft" XNA (which got kinda popular in ~indy stuff) ...the process of porting those might be even the simplest ( http://monogame.codeplex.com/ with existing examples in various app stores), most straightforward - to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if many indy devs might stayed with the nice & comfy XNA.

Reply Parent Score: 2