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: wintermuteQuoting: 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.
google will try to push Android or ChromeOS on desktop, but i dont see it puting money on hardcore games, just android bullshit games.
if it make an partnership with valve, it would be perfect, many people will not buy again games that they already have for windows anyway, so its the best bet to sell the product for gamers, but i dont see it even trying.
about the drivers, nope, the hardware maybe new, so its pointless to reuse code from the drivers for linux.
0 Likes
Quoting: elmapulgoogle will try to push Android or ChromeOS on desktop
I don't consider it good. Android is best friend and worst enemy (the way Aaron Seigo put it. It would be pretty bad for Linux if Android with its bionic mess would spill to the desktop. If Google would use glibc + Wayland, that could end up beneficial for Linux desktop, but Android as it is now (bionic + Surfaceflinger) is actually harmful in a number of ways. It would be like another Windows to fight with.
Last edited by Shmerl on 20 December 2016 at 8:20 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: CreakQuoting: elmapulDoom runs on wine, show this to your friends who play or want to play doom, and bah!There are always tweaks and tricks to do to have a game working on Wine. It's not really an advertisement for Linux IMO.
they have 1 less reason to not give linux a try.
those tricks may take years to work, vulkan is making things go faster.
if people who want to use linux but can't because their favorite games dont run on it, sundely realise they can, they might change.
i know a lot of people who dont use linux, not because they dont know it (never heard of), or don't like or think it sucks, but because it can't run something they love.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ShmerlQuoting: elmapulgoogle will try to push Android or ChromeOS on desktop
I don't consider it good. Android is best friend and worst enemy (the way Aaron Seigo put it. It would be pretty bad for Linux if Android with its bionic mess would spill to the desktop. If Google would use glibc + Wayland, that could end up beneficial for Linux desktop, but Android as it is now (bionic + Surfaceflinger) is actually harmful in a number of ways. It would be like another Windows to fight with.
it would be worse, because we wouldnt have an better kernel as selling point.
but i'm talking about an strategic partnership where valve dont shoot then selfs in the foot as they did with steam machines.
one side of the deal is to not break compatibility.
i dont know if that is even possible. but i rather have 20 games with exclusivity deals for android and 20 for Linux desktop and everything else multiplatform than 7000 games being windows only.
its a shame that we have things like, linux programs on windows (due to windows sub system for linux) and wine for android x86 and microsoft puting money into bringing x86 programs and games to arm windows 10 mobile devices.
yet, we cant run android apps/games on linux or linux games/apps on android.
we already have an "windows2", we have literaly nothing to lose anymore, things can only go worse if nothing change now.
0 Likes
Samsung is supporting Tizen and Tizen is using Wayland, and maybe Vulkan.
Edit: yep, Wayland+Vulkan for Tizen:
As for Tizen and Wayland, they seem to get along together quite well: https://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/Wayland_Rendering_Analysis_Tool
Last edited by Creak on 20 December 2016 at 9:52 pm UTC
Edit: yep, Wayland+Vulkan for Tizen:
QuoteSome other XDC2016 Day 1 presentations worthy of a shout-out include Samsung R&D talking about Tizen 3.0's Window System Integration Layer of OpenGLES/EGL & Vulkan Driver
As for Tizen and Wayland, they seem to get along together quite well: https://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/Wayland_Rendering_Analysis_Tool
Last edited by Creak on 20 December 2016 at 9:52 pm UTC
0 Likes
Well, Tizen is normal glibc/Wayland/Linux, same as SailfishOS. But it's nowhere near to Android in adoption.
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlWell, Tizen is normal glibc/Wayland/Linux, same as SailfishOS. But it's nowhere near to Android in adoption.Indeed, but it's no secret that Samsung is supporting it and want to get free of Google's Android Walled Garden.
And Samsung is the most important Android device manufacturer...
Last edited by Creak on 20 December 2016 at 10:07 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: CreakQuoting: ShmerlWell, Tizen is normal glibc/Wayland/Linux, same as SailfishOS. But it's nowhere near to Android in adoption.Indeed, but it's no secret that Samsung is supporting it and want to get free of Google's Android Walled Garden.
And Samsung is the most important Android device manufacturer...
or maybe they're using this just to keep google in control, instead of trying to attack, they will menance and only enter this market if google steal their marketshare.
0 Likes
wintermute Dec 21, 2016
Quoting: CreakI'm sad you don't mention Firefox, which was the first and main opponent against IE and was promoting open standards.
So am I, but that fact remains it was the resources of Google and Apple which made the difference. Also remember that Firefox was funded in large part by Google until recently.
0 Likes
Quoting: wintermuteSo am I, but that fact remains it was the resources of Google and Apple which made the difference. Also remember that Firefox was funded in large part by Google until recently.
Firefox was releases in 2002 and, at the time, IE had 95% of marketshare. But yet Firefox was close to 40% of marketshare when Chrome came into play in September 2008, 6 years later.
IE 7, which is the first release where Microsoft started to be more open-standards compliant (although not enough), was released in October 2006, thus before Chrome's release. This proves that Firefox had a decisive impact on the respect of open standards in the industry. And finally, IE 8, which is way more open-standards compliant then its predecessors, was released in March 2009, just 6 months after Chrome. And 6 months is not enough to this kind of refactoring. So they clearly anticipated the need to respect open standards before Chrome arrived in the scene.
It is true that Google funded the Mozilla Foundation, but if Google hadn't, someone else would have (like Yahoo! for instance).
So it did take the resources of Google to get IE out, but without Mozilla, it would have take probably 6 more years.
Last edited by Creak on 21 December 2016 at 9:59 pm UTC
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me