From: <vo...@mi...> - 2001-10-03 01:56:06
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > From: vo...@mi... > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:39:25 -0400 (EDT) > > I would say that with Linux, the proper business model should be not > "release binary game", but "provide artwork for an existing engine". > I.e. have Open Source game engine (bet it Q3 like or Civilization like) > and sell artwork for it - artwork which does not crash because of a newer > library version. > > Yep, as soon as companies like ID stop enjoying licensing fees on the > order of a million US dollars a shot for the rights to use these > engines :-) Hmm, I did not know about this. > > Be a realist, there is a lot of money in game engine licensing. So it Still, they sell engines to companies not people. So a NPL-like license would allow the end user to have the code and let them collect royalties as well. But, you are right: ID might be afraid to open the product that pays well. On the other hand, you mentioned millions - how about other companies teaming up and financing a project ala XFree ? You know, for millions of dollars... Unless, of course, ID has patents. > is very unlikely companies will just stop doing so today to make Linux > game releases easier. > > The onus is more so on distribution makers to get the libraries all > compatible and in sync. > > But to be honest I've never run into the library problems you mention > at least amongst the same vendor. So for example, I've installed > vanilla Loki Quake3 from the CD on everything from a Red Hat 6.2 > 7.1 with no problems. All of the point releases from ID installed > fine as well. I had few problems with (demo) quake as well. But Quake isn't my game. When I looked at Civ III it said something about requiring special Xservers - and I decided to stick with Windows version that I already paid for. Vladimir Dergachev > > Franks a lot, > David S. Miller > da...@re... > |