Linux Gaming Market

Hi everyone, I have a question.Was it worth it for Unity to make a port to Linux? They seem like a rather small market for gaming.

 

When Steam just got released on Linux? I'm betting a lot of Windows gamers consider moving on to Linux now.

 

Ventures into the Linux gaming market often do not end successfully, but there are still a few gamers on the platform that would probably be willing to buy a game. Remember that Unity does not only produce games, though. It is primarily a game engine, but Unity can be used for a variety of other purposes.

 

I don't see any reason for a gamer to move to Linux. I would not move to Linux for gaming unless Windows became so terrible in the future that I could not upgrade and the youngest acceptable copy was no longer supported.

 

Yeah... uh... no? Most gamers will go where their games work. They won't magically jump ship to Linux just because Steam is there with a whole 82 games.

 

There's a big step to take right now between considering to move and actually moving. The step will become easier as more games get added to the Linux platform via Steam. And it will happen really soon, considering Gabe's opinion on where Microsoft is going.
Just like how gamers go where their games work, games go where they get sold the most. Steam. If Steam is going to do more Linux in the future, games will follow.

 

Your logic is flawed at its core.

Most PC sales are handled through OEM sales, which means Windows will be installed by default. This instantly gives Windows the lion's share of the PC market. Because of this, there's very little reason for AAA releases to target Linux at all.

Who cares what Newell's opinion here is? This would be a major factor if Valve was producing loads of games and making them Linux exclusives, but they're not. Not at all.

Yes, and that's Windows because most people aren't going to install a second OS "just because." Much as you'd like the massive beast of Microsoft to tumble, that's really not in the cards.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that Steam will somehow make games work on Linux. That's... not how it works at all.

 

I was not exactly saying that Steam was going to magically make games work on Steam. I was referring to a possible Linux hype started by Steam. I am pretty sure people obsessively stuck with Steam because of its particular features, and not entirely because it's selling incredi-awesome titles.
Special discounts for the Linux guys, Linux extras for Team Fortress 2 (know what Team Fortress 2 players are able to do for another hat?). Food for the people that just want a +1 on their game count and buy whatever they can find. Also, for achievement whores. Things like these. That's what I see to be the main OS switch factor here.

 

The main OS switch factor is this: it's not going to happen because it requires an amount of technical knowledge and loss of general ease-of-use functionality for most people (yes, even gamers) to the point where there's no value proposition in Linux at all.

 

Judging by Linux's state at present time only? Do you not see any reason for such improvements in Linux accessibility to come in sync with the Steam wave? Besides, Steam is telling users to install Ubuntu. I personally find Ubuntu to be easier to use than Windows, but I am not the entire gaming community, so I cannot judge everyone by my standards.
Perhaps it's the fear of the unknown, or the annoyance of having to learn something new that you are referring to. But I am pretty confident any kind of hype can overcome this.

 

1993, year of Linux on the desktop.
1994, year of Linux on the desktop.
1995, year of Linux on the desktop.
1996, year of Linux on the desktop.
1997, year of Linux on the desktop.
1998, year of Linux on the desktop.
1999, year of Linux on the desktop.
2000, year of Linux on the desktop.
2001, year of Linux on the desktop.
2002, year of Linux on the desktop.
2003, year of Linux on the desktop.
2004, year of Linux on the desktop.
2005, year of Linux on the desktop.
2006, year of Linux on the desktop.
2007, year of Linux on the desktop.
2008, year of Linux on the desktop.
2009, year of Linux on the desktop.
2010, year of Linux on the desktop.
2011, year of Linux on the desktop.
2012, year of Linux on the desktop.
2013, year of Linux on the desktop.

But this year will be different because..? You keep saying "hype" but that's such a mindless, impossible to qualify variable. That's what they said about all the iD releases on Linux and Ubuntu in general. Steam adding Linux support changes nothing because Linux is still something that people need to do themselves. It requires a whole bunch of work for little to no actual return. It doesn't save money, it doesn't offer a better user-experience, it doesn't offer -anything- other than the nebulous term "free."

 

I never said this year is the year. You're essentially predicting the future of Linux based on various failed attempts, which is just as useless as my variable, if we take it so. You're also supposing that if a particular product had a history of either stagnation or too slow advancement, its future is undeniably going to be the same. Even worse, you're considering that if a product was and is behind another leading product, it will never take over, no matter what.

Or are you actually saying that without extra work on what matters, Linux is going to stay the same forever? Because that's just what I said in my last post.

 

Indeed, if you are a gamer Linux isn't for you because the majority of games will support only windows.Another question I want to ask is why did the Unity Team put so much effort into that Linux port for Unity?In the end it really doesn't seem to make a difference.Your Majority of PC gamers are going to be using Windows.So why bother with the meager percentage of Linux users in comparison?

 

and most of them will not be too fond of the required driver hunting for their hardware and distro and dealing with terminal a lot, lets face it, linux is still too much problem for the ordinary person who just want to have fun.. even miguel de icaza, developer of Gnome desktop and mono framework, has left linux behind, so what are the chances of a regular non tech involved person would choose linux as its main system

 

No, actually, using past trends is a super effective way to predict future trends, especially when there's so much evidence.

 

nVidia drivers auto-update nowadays, .*buntus auto-install them. Not sure about AMD's, since I do not have an AMD card. I have yet to find other kind of hardware for which the generic drivers won't work. Why did Miguel de Icaza leave Linux behind exactly? Is the reason related to this at all? I'm pretty sure a developer doesn't leave a platform like Linux because "he can't have fun easily enough on it". From an entertainment point of view.
I honestly don't understand why people throw this "it's hard to use" thing every time. What do you think it happens when you start linux? You get bombarded with errors? You have to undergo a terminal commands knowledge quiz? Do you actually START a linux distribution before talking? I'm not sure you're aware of the direction Ubuntu (because it's the subject of the day) is going. It's starting to resemble an iPhone more and more. Closed, less freedom, less errors, excellent functionality, inside its bounds.

 

How do you make a clickable shortcut to load Minecraft in Linux?

 

If there were no exceptions to this rule... I'd actually agree with you. In fact, I agree with you, up to a certain extent. Just right before I get to reach the "yeah, if the past is X and the present is X, the future is also going to be X, no matter what".

 

Except the fundamental truth about Linux is that you HAVE to install it yourself. You HAVE to go through that process. You HAVE to go through the poorly designed interface. You HAVE to do all these things before the OS actually functions well for the average user. It requires user intervention at multiple steps and most users don't even adjust the graphics settings of their games. Linux is never going to take over any significant market share because even if these things are fixed, there's still no compelling reason to migrate to it.

 

Are there actual statistics for how large the Linux Community is? I've looked for statistics and as far as I can tell there's pretty much nothing. The Unity Team probably had a good reason for making the Linux port, right?

 

@MarigoldFleur
You are unable to consider the possibility for Linux to improve in more than one area (if any area) during its lifetime. Then again, I'm predicting stuff, just like you. We're not going anywhere; I give up, you win!

 

What does that have to do with what we're talking about here?

 

Quite a lot, considering one of Linux's key problems stems from usability issues.

"It'll get better, honest!" doesn't mean much when its improvements have been near completely incremental over the past 20 years. Linux has barely been improving and all other operating systems are improving at a far faster rate than it.

 

What that statement fails to take into consideration is the fact that so many new platforms are possible now because of Linux. Take a look at Android, Chrome OS, the Ouya, etc. If Linux has a reputation of being "umimproveable" and "unusable", then why are major companies adopting it? Surely, the fact that it's free is not the only reason, as making a decision of the base of your new platform solely on price is ridiculous. No, Linux has potential. It may take awhile, but it'll get there.

Personally, I disagree with your assertion that Linux has barely been improving. It's improved a lot for an open source platform. It used to be that you couldn't even listen to music in Linux because of sound card problems. On new hardware, Linux performs spectacularly, and besides, what in other operating systems has improved that hasn't improved in Linux?

 

Android was built on a Linux core because of its scalability, not because of anything that ultimately benefits the user. Saying "Linux has potential" means NOTHING because that potential is completely squandered on ultimately meaningless technical bullshit instead of anything that makes it useable as a platform.

Also trying to use "Linux can play sounds now" as something that backs up your position is possibly not as effective as you think it is.

 

I agree with the general sentiment of "jumping ship" to Linux.
I was a Windows loyalist for many years(mostly due to my profession) until Windows 8 came along (I hate everything about it and it works against you).
If we want games on Linux, it has to become mainstream and in order for that to happen, they have to fix the usability problem. Regular people get scared right away when they see a command line.

I really hope Linux takes off. It's never good to put all your game development apples into the Microsoft basket. I really dislike the new blitzkrieg strategy Microsoft is taking Windows.

Ubuntu is definitively a step in the right direction.

 

But Linux does benefit the user because that "meaningless technical bullshit" is applied in areas where it matters. What you consider to be "technical bullshit" is the stability that makes Linux a viable option. Think about it. First you have to entirely consider what you think would make Linux useable as a platform. Given that you've trashed Linux's usability, let's start there. No software developer will develop on a platform that they consider to be unstable or a difficult environment to work in. Though the Linux die hards like to purport that that sparsity of Linux's software in the past had to do with its non-prevalence in the valid markets, the development environment itself was troublesome. The hardware support was lacking, the kernel drivers needed large improvements, and accessing networks was a problem.

That situation is changing though. The "meaningless technical bullshit" that is "squandering Linux's potential" are fixes for problems that Linux is and has been currently facing. A stable development environment is very important when creating software of any kind, and give that to developers, and they'll come and develop the software that will make Linux useable as a platform.

And, I used the example of sounds in Linux as an example of how far it has come. There are lots of other examples, the point is, what people like to see is improvement. No matter how poor of a platform it may have been when it started, things are different now. People who use Linux's issues 2, 5 or even 10 years ago as an example of how it fails now are not looking at the present. In my opinion, it's all about the numbers, and the numbers show Linux is being adopted by more people every day.

 

No, what will make Linux useable as a platform is having things like a properly useable interface. Things like making a clickable icon for Minecraft not require editing a file. You talk about stability? Stability hasn't been a problem for OSX or Windows for years outside of hardware failure! The primary cause of a BSOD in Windows now comes from faulty memory. The same applies to OSX kernel panics. Technical bullshit is just that: technical and bullshit. The average user doesn't care how something works under the hood. They never have and they never will. The average user cares about things working simply.

The numbers show that a whole Linux has had increased adoption? Those are including things like the mobile space. The adoption increase rate has had desktop linux grow from 0.98% to 1.21%. This is hardly significant.

 

The only way I see Linux being a primary platform is if every piece of windows software works out of the box. Without having to fiddle around with Wine and PlayOnLinux.Even with Wine and PlayOnLinux a majority of windows software doesn't work.That's the edge that Microsoft has over Linux and unless that changes I don't see Linux users as having a big impact on the gaming market.Simply because there won't be enough Linux users to matter.

 

As they explained in the past, they did it because people kept paying them to do it on a per-project basis anyway. It got to the point where they decided it was better value to just make it a supported platform.

 

Look at the humble bundle stats, linux is more popular than mac os, and they donate 50% more when they buy the bundle: https://www.humblebundle.com/

 

The majority is still windows though.

 

+1 for Linux, it simply works. The issue is that most people are already used to Windows while Linux is a completely new thing. Independent studies have already shown that the learn curve of completely beginners is much higher for Linux than Windows.

For the record... Ubuntu Phablet not yet released so:
Linux != (mobile space ~Android)

 

Linux population +2! HUZZAR

Seriously... The common gamer isn't going to just jump ship to Linux... Why would they... Everyday gamers want, as MarigoldFleur said, simplicity and ease of access.

Out of the odd 100 people I know, about 2 of them use linux.
^Not using that as a be all and end all, just stating

So yeah, I see no reason for me even as a developer to jump ship, but then again, I am not a fan of Steam

 

Really? Because depends almost entirely on what distribution you're using and what desktop environment you have installed.

 

I wonder if the ratings on DistroWatch a make good statistic.From the ratings there seems to be about 3000+ people.

 

Far more people use Linux than 3000. The official estimate is about 20/25 million worldwide. The DistroWatch statistics are not accurate though because they only judge the "hits" to a website, not the actual number of Linux installations, which are near to impossible to measure because one download != one install due to the free distribution afforded to Linux users, and the act that no registration is ever taken via an unwritten rule amongst Linux users.

 

If you actually plot the projected PC ownership over time where we have decently accurate sales estimates, the 1.2% to 1.5% marketshare statistic falls pretty much in line with 20-25 million linux users worldwide.

People don't install operating systems on their own on a regular basis. Almost all operating systems come from OEM sales, not people downloading a new OS. If Windows is to fall, people won't be moving to Linux en masse, they'll be moving to another OS from another company, which in this case will be Apple. Windows will never actually leave, though, since it'll still be required for office support.

 

Yeah just saying it's more popular than mac OS......which is a lot more than nothing. I believe people still target mac....but I guess many mac users probably use WINE and just use windows games...

I don't use Linux...

 

It's "more popular" in the sense of people who traditionally buy in to the Humble Bundles. That's not exactly a representative population sample and is full of factors that completely skew everything.

 

Ah true. Looks like there are around 800k linux steam users but that's out of 40 million total users. But it did double from 400k in January.

 

Which is where the estimate comes from.

You seem to like to argue this. I was talking about the fact that Linux installs are difficult to measure because one download of a distribution is not the same as one person who installs and uses Linux. And, yes, you're correct about people not frequently installing OSes, and yes, if Windows fails Apple will probably be the fall back for a sensible percentage of computer users, but not everyone can afford the price tag of Apple computers. Linux usually grabs users during a Windows launch (esp. Windows Vista). And in other places of the world, namely China, India, etc, Linux companies have invested a significant amount of money in their Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) so if Windows fails, we can expect some new users there, as those populations seem to be more aware of OS alternatives than others.

The bottom line: I was answering his question; not trying to start another pointless argument.

 

That's because in January it was still in beta.

 

Here's a pretty good site for marketshare statistics on OSes, Browsers etc.

For Feburary 2013:

Windows 91.62%
Mac 7.17%
Linux 1.21%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0

I believe those are global stats and you have to pay a subscription fee to filter the demographics and geographics.

 

That's not really a big deal to desktop Linux users, though. For the short period where I was one I used a fair bit of software that was in beta. In fact, it's a part of the culture to use and give feedback on beta software, since the user base is so developer heavy.

I'd expect Steam on Linux to start of with pretty significant growth because of the number of Linux users who are interested in playing games but aren't interested in installing Windows to do it. As the library of available games grows I'd expect many of those people to jump on board. (Lets ignore the fundamentalists who hold any closed-source/commercial software in contempt, they're nobody's target market.) I've no bearing on how large the Linux market for Steam games will be, but if I can spend a day making a port of my Unity game and it gets me a few thousand extra sales, that's a win for both myself and my customer.

 

Exactly. Even if it's a smaller market, it's still a market, and from a business platform that's solid justification.

 

Another thing about putting a game on linux: currently there are not many games that are built for linux, so any game released for linux will get a bigger share of that market. It's the difference between being a big fish in a small pond and a small fish in a big pond. Let's do some calculations using steam stats:

Let's just assume that every game gets an equal market share, regardless of quality (obviously not true, but bear with me).

Windows has ~40 million users, and has 1900 games (according to the steam search). So each game gets ~21050 players.
Linux has ~800k users, and has 83 games. So each game gets ~9640 players.

The difference is not that much (~50%), considering that the linux market is 1/50th of the windows market. And the linux market is growing faster than the windows market, probably proportionally faster than there are games being made for it.

And then realize that you have to do less to stand out on the linux platform, as there's less choice, and fewer AAA titles. There's hardly any FPSs for example. If you're about to release a shooter in Unity for windows, you're going to get a lot of exposure by releasing for linux too. If unity makes it easy to support the linux platform, there's no reason not to.

TL/DR: it's not just about how big the linux pie is vs the windows pie, it's about how big a slice can you get?

 

I agree totally with your comments, Spaniard.

 

Spot on. Who cares how big the rest of the pie is? The size of your slice is what matters.

 

IMO, if someone will take over Window's truf, it may end up being Google with Google Chrome OS (IF they get their act together and start consolidating "native" Android App tech into it)