> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Linux Gaming Made Easy
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Going Native. With the possible exceptions of Battlefield 2 and
>>| perhaps World of Warcraft, I simply can't see the advantage in
>>| supporting games that choose not to support us. To me, the short
>>| answer to this is to support those gaming companies that have worked
>>| very hard to make sure that Linux admirers are not being left out in
>>| the dark.
>> `----
The author seems to be under the misconception that games are
interchangeable. e.g., whether I use OpenOffice or Microsoft Office, the end
result is pretty much the same, therefore anyone who is loves Super Mario
Kart is should be perfectly fine with Tux Racer, right? Or people who like
Morrowind Oblivion should enjoy a good game of NetHack. Or People who like
Warcraft III should settle for Battle for Wesnoth, right?
Generally speaking, if a gamer wants to play game Foo, then game Bar,
which is of the same genre or style, isn't going to cut it. And most gamers
will buy whatever it is they have to buy in order to get their game working,
without any thoughts of idealogical principles of FOSS vs CSS or Linux vs
Windows, etc. Case in point: I didn't buy the XBox360 not because I hate
Microsoft, but simply because there were no good games for it. But now that
it's been announced that "Guitar Hero 2" is going to be released for the
360, I'm strongly considering getting a 360.
Boycotting games that haven't been released on Linux may be a noble act
and all that, but if the end goal is getting companies to publish more games
for Linux, I think this strategy is short sighted. If you're the type of
person who says "My desire to support Linux is stronger than my desire to
plunk down cold hard cash to buy games", then you're not exactly the target
audience the game is being marketed at anyway.
I think a better idea would be software bounties: If you want a game to
be ported to Linux, put some money into a bounty for that game.
Specifically, that means you'd put add $60 to a pool of money and add your
name to a list of guaranteed sales if they make a Linux port. If the pool of
money grows to between a million to ten million dollars (I.e. 20'000-100'000
Linux users willing to contribute around $60), you can be sure the companies
which own the license are going to take interest. If they release the game,
they get to collect the bounty, and you get your copy of the game, since
you've already paid for it via the bounty (in fact, the company may choose
to release it for free [as in beer] once they collect the bounty). If a year
or two goes by, and they don't release the game, you get your money back.
And the bank-like organization which takes care of babysitting your
money for that year, and does all the administrative task of making sure the
money goes to the company should the bounty be fufilled, gets to make money
off of the interest from sitting on such a large lump of money. Everybody
wins.
[...]
"Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i3vbv3-b48.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 5. Windows Vista's OpenGL support is essentially crippled, as Microsoft
> seek to make creation of cross-platform games as difficult as possible.
You've been corrected on this (see
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0646a9c7be7276b9)
so please stop spreading this lie.
- Oliver
|
|
