The news doing the rounds right now is that the Nintendo Switch, the new gaming device from Nintendo, will use Vulkan. People are getting rather excited and thinking it will mean more Linux ports, but right now it won't.
For one thing, the Switch hasn't even been released yet and it remains to be seen if it's even successful. It seems obvious, but people aren't even thinking about that.
The second most important thing to remember is that this is a brand new API, it's not proven itself just yet and not that many developers are actually using it. It's been out for nearly a year and so far on Linux only two games use Vulkan.
For the record: Using an open API is amazing for the success of the API. I think this is a great thing for it, but I don't want people to be unrealistic about what this means for Linux gaming. I also want to state for clarity I am not being negative here, but trying to help people be realistic for now.
This could push Vulkan forward some more, because it will be in the minds of more developers and hopefully more will end up using it. This is good for the stability of the API too, since more feedback will be sent off for the drivers and so on. For the API itself, it's going to help it. If more games eventually come to Linux and use Vulkan, it may mean we get a more stable experience too. What it doesn't mean is that by using Vulkan more games will come to Linux.
There is far more to a game than a graphics API. Sure, it gives developers a lower barrier for entry, but when has that alone suddenly meant more Linux ports? Not often at all. We are still to this day dealing with tons of developers using Unity that don't want to bring their games to Linux, for example.
You still have to worry about:
- Vulkan itself
Vulkan is more complex than both OpenGL and earlier versions of DirectX, it will take quite some time to learn.
- Development for every other bit of the puzzle
There's still tons of middleware that doesn't support Linux, for example.
- Testing for the above
People like to claim distribution fragmentation isn't an issue, but I see a lot of support requests of games not working on certain distributions for a variety of reasons.
- Post-release fixes
No game is really finished at release
- Marketing (if they actually want to make any money at all)
Just being on Steam doesn't make a game sell any more.
The biggest issue however, is the same as always: publishers and our market share. We still have that small market share to think about, so do the publishers.
To wrap up all of the above: It's good for the API, everything else people claim about it meaning more Linux ports are speculating.
What can we do about it? We continue on as we always have without getting too hyped about things that, right now, don't really concern us directly.
Buy Linux games from legitimate stores (Steam, GOG, itch.io, Humble, directly from developers), as that helps Linux gaming directly. Don't buy games before they are released on Linux (be sure your money counts!), and make sure developers know you want their games on Linux.
Also, make sure developers know to get in touch with us directly, since we have a rather big reach nowadays. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
For one thing, the Switch hasn't even been released yet and it remains to be seen if it's even successful. It seems obvious, but people aren't even thinking about that.
The second most important thing to remember is that this is a brand new API, it's not proven itself just yet and not that many developers are actually using it. It's been out for nearly a year and so far on Linux only two games use Vulkan.
For the record: Using an open API is amazing for the success of the API. I think this is a great thing for it, but I don't want people to be unrealistic about what this means for Linux gaming. I also want to state for clarity I am not being negative here, but trying to help people be realistic for now.
This could push Vulkan forward some more, because it will be in the minds of more developers and hopefully more will end up using it. This is good for the stability of the API too, since more feedback will be sent off for the drivers and so on. For the API itself, it's going to help it. If more games eventually come to Linux and use Vulkan, it may mean we get a more stable experience too. What it doesn't mean is that by using Vulkan more games will come to Linux.
There is far more to a game than a graphics API. Sure, it gives developers a lower barrier for entry, but when has that alone suddenly meant more Linux ports? Not often at all. We are still to this day dealing with tons of developers using Unity that don't want to bring their games to Linux, for example.
You still have to worry about:
- Vulkan itself
Vulkan is more complex than both OpenGL and earlier versions of DirectX, it will take quite some time to learn.
- Development for every other bit of the puzzle
There's still tons of middleware that doesn't support Linux, for example.
- Testing for the above
People like to claim distribution fragmentation isn't an issue, but I see a lot of support requests of games not working on certain distributions for a variety of reasons.
- Post-release fixes
No game is really finished at release
- Marketing (if they actually want to make any money at all)
Just being on Steam doesn't make a game sell any more.
The biggest issue however, is the same as always: publishers and our market share. We still have that small market share to think about, so do the publishers.
To wrap up all of the above: It's good for the API, everything else people claim about it meaning more Linux ports are speculating.
What can we do about it? We continue on as we always have without getting too hyped about things that, right now, don't really concern us directly.
Buy Linux games from legitimate stores (Steam, GOG, itch.io, Humble, directly from developers), as that helps Linux gaming directly. Don't buy games before they are released on Linux (be sure your money counts!), and make sure developers know you want their games on Linux.
Also, make sure developers know to get in touch with us directly, since we have a rather big reach nowadays. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: silmethYeah, I suppose you're not wrong on that point.Quoting: liamdaweA different platform using Vulkan will not change our situation. Windows is a much bigger platform that exists right now and supported Vulkan day-1 just like we did. So far not much has changed there.
Windows also have extremely popular D3D, so Vulkan on Windows won’t get traction all by itself. Something other than Windows must push gamedev industry into using it in DX’s stead. Until now this “it” was Android. Now Nintendo joins.
0 Likes
Arehandoro Dec 20, 2016
Quoting: CreakQuoting: t3gIf AAA developers and publishers bring their game to he switch and are forced to learn and use Vulkan, it is a huge benefit for everyone as they may use Vulkan for their PC releases too.Right now, even with Nintendo using Vulkan, DirectX is still more interesting. Having a graphics engine based on DirectX ensures to have a game compatible with Windows and XBox. It's like 50% of the market. The rest is mainly Sony with its PS4. That's why Nintendo announcing they're supporting Vulkan just isn't enough. But if Sony announces it, it might change the situation.
In terms of portability Nintendo still has like 75% of sales for both hardware and software. Now on mobiles as well with Super Mario Run and Pokémon Go. And that considering Switch is still an enigma about how successful will be... but as a reminder people declared the first Wii as a low specs gimmick console that would kill Nintendo once and for all though instead sold more than 100 million units.
Just because Wii U didn't sell as planned does not mean there were hundred of developments for it. Besides, if we count the developments for 3DS <thousands> that will be now unified with Switch I do believe is a milestone for Vulkan, open APIs, Nintendo and eventually us PC/Linux users.
Last edited by Arehandoro on 20 December 2016 at 11:48 am UTC
0 Likes
The issue at here is not the Linux itself.
But Linux gaming is desperately needs Vulkan to be adopted by developers.And here is one the chances.
It will provide benefit to Linux gaming eventually.Not just so fast,but eventually will.
But Linux gaming is desperately needs Vulkan to be adopted by developers.And here is one the chances.
It will provide benefit to Linux gaming eventually.Not just so fast,but eventually will.
0 Likes
Quoting: LeopardThe issue at here is not the Linux itself.Doom 2016 uses Vulkan too but will maybe never come to Linux. Does this still help Linux? I don't know.
But Linux gaming is desperately needs Vulkan to be adopted by developers.And here is one the chances.
It will provide benefit to Linux gaming eventually.Not just so fast,but eventually will.
Also Vulkan do not have only benefits. Direct HW access means that programming errors can result in hard crashes where the game can stuck easily forever in a kernel function. Most of us use Nvidia cards with the proprietary driver. Vulkan and a proprietary driver will result in system stability problems depending on the game code. We could already observe this with Dota2, where people had to do a hard system reset in some situations.
Even though I have some performance issues with OpenGL my system has never crashed. The games crashes sometimes but my host system stays rock solid meanwhile. With Vulkan and direct HW access this could change. Linux could then feel like Windows.
Last edited by 0aTT on 20 December 2016 at 1:09 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: 0aTTQuoting: LeopardThe issue at here is not the Linux itself.Doom 2016 uses Vulkan too but will maybe never come to Linux. Does this still help Linux? I don't know.
But Linux gaming is desperately needs Vulkan to be adopted by developers.And here is one the chances.
It will provide benefit to Linux gaming eventually.Not just so fast,but eventually will.
Also Vulkan do not have only benefits. Direct HW access means that programming errors can result in hard crashes where the game can stuck easily forever in a kernel function. Most of us use Nvidia cards with the proprietary driver. Vulkan and a proprietary driver will result in system stability problems depending on the game code. We could already observe this with Dota2, where people had to do a hard system reset in some situations.
Even though I have some performance issues with OpenGL my system has never crashed. The games crashes sometimes but my host system stays rock solid meanwhile. With Vulkan and direct HW access this could change. Linux could then feel like Windows.
Ohh,Vulkan is entirely out of need then.
If you think like this(seems so)and saying Linux will become Windows like.Then you don't have to cry for lack of gaming on Linux.
I think some people at here,just don't want to improve Linux gaming at all.
By the Doom thing,we know Bethesda.Where is the money and here they are.Just look at Skyrim Remastered.They just resold it to Ps and Xbox users.And they gave it free to pc Legendary Edition owners.
Why?That's because pc owners already achieved greater visual with tons of mods.In this case,try to resell it to pc owners is gonna be hilarious.
What they do instead?Consoles lacks of mods,so they need enhanced visuals.Then sell it again.
Bethesda is a hungry beast for money,they don't care about gaming a bit
0 Likes
Quoting: pi4630Which are the two games on Linux that use Vulcan already?There, you killed a baby seal, happy?
It's Vulkan :D
Quoting: liamdaweBeing realistic and trying to keep everyone's hype in check is not being pessimistic. I do wish people would understand the difference. I am looking outside the box here and not giving into hyped up speculation about our future.I really like that you didn't throw yourself in the hype. I don't want false optimism and click bait titles and I'm glad you don't do that.
I am optimistic for Linux gaming as I always am, wouldn't be running GOL if I wasn't.
I think your position made us think a bit more than usual, which is a good thing! ;)
And even if you have made the opposite, we would still have argued about it... We're a Linux community after all :D
2 Likes, Who?
A lower barrier to entry will naturally lead to more ports (by third party publishers anyway), but it's no guarantee of any particular percentage of ports.
This is because if you are using an API that makes a port very easy, then your investment in the port is minimal, and you have a greater chance of making money on the port. If a port takes 100 man-hours to complete and will require twice as much technical support, then it is not that likely to happen for 1% more revenue. If it takes 10 man-hours to complete and one percent more technical support, then it becomes far more likely to happen. I'm sure those aren't the right numbers, but whatever the numbers, the principle is the same. A lower barrier to entry means more games will be ported.
Of course more games ported could be three or four more games a year or thirty or forty more games a year. That will be heavily influenced by other factors.
This is because if you are using an API that makes a port very easy, then your investment in the port is minimal, and you have a greater chance of making money on the port. If a port takes 100 man-hours to complete and will require twice as much technical support, then it is not that likely to happen for 1% more revenue. If it takes 10 man-hours to complete and one percent more technical support, then it becomes far more likely to happen. I'm sure those aren't the right numbers, but whatever the numbers, the principle is the same. A lower barrier to entry means more games will be ported.
Of course more games ported could be three or four more games a year or thirty or forty more games a year. That will be heavily influenced by other factors.
0 Likes
wintermute Dec 20, 2016
Quoting: liamdaweWeb development is an entirely different thing. The web is literally everywhere and can be easily accessed, Linux desktop gaming is completely different (again, market-share here).
Yes, but there are parallels, IE had a 95% market share at one point. As @silmeth discussed, the web was very close to becoming a single-vendor walled garden in the 2000s. Even as it's become more and more based on standards we (as in: web developers) were wasting a lot of dev time until recently on making things work in old IE despite its lack of standards support simply because of the massive installed base.
This actually feeds into your point: it took about a decade and the resources of both Apple and Google to knock IE out of its entrenched position in the browser market. Wide ranging Vulkan support is a good step along the road but it is not the answer by itself.
Quoting: 0aTTOn what Nintendo OS is based? FreeBSD?
I'm not sure, but the hardware seems to be next gen Nvidia Shield so the low budget approach would be to use a Linux kernel and drivers (which already exist because of Android) with a custom Nintendo user space.
0 Likes
Do you want a joke?
When games are ported from "Switch" they first will be brought to Windows and thus will be rewritten to Direct3D 12. And from that point onward it would be too late in their life cycle to spend extra money on other platforms (as Nintendo Vulkan will differ from Windows Vulkan). ^‿^
Insanity? Definitely! But we shall see...
When games are ported from "Switch" they first will be brought to Windows and thus will be rewritten to Direct3D 12. And from that point onward it would be too late in their life cycle to spend extra money on other platforms (as Nintendo Vulkan will differ from Windows Vulkan). ^‿^
Insanity? Definitely! But we shall see...
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me