Getting SEV to work with linux - Page 2

Santiago · #1 December 30th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Fyron is right - Strategy games generally don't work/play well on consoles. And as for Linux- its not really worth the effort for a limited audience.

Baron Munchausen · #2 December 30th, 2006, 08:28 PM

This is true. Starfury would be a better candidate for the console route. How does one develop for a console, though? Do you need to be 'invited' to make a game for their proprietary hardware? I wonder if one of the major console makers would be interested in a Starfury II for their machine...

Hugh Manatee · #3 December 30th, 2006, 09:37 PM

As far as I know you have to buy out their liscence which costs a few grand, and they have to aprove of the purchase or something. If Big Mutha Trucka can get a liscence on consoles there's not much that can't.....

AstralWanderer · #4 December 31st, 2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Malfador has never gone for the latest graphics tech. SE5 requires only DX 8.1, and it came out well into the DX 9 era. I doubt SE6 will even require DX 9...

A couple of years from now, DX10 may well be compulsory with DX9 support going the way of OpenGL.

DX10 is Microsoft's big carrot/stick for forcing Vista adoption (and all the DRM-goodness that will allow MS to screw the MPAA/RIAA) so it is likely that they will ramp up the pressure for its adoption, moving from persuasion to coercion.

Fyron · #5 December 31st, 2006, 04:06 PM

But if most people do not migrate to Vista in a timely manner, as has happened with all previous incarnations of Windows, we've got a wide window of usability for DX8/9... MS is working on a DX9 compatibility layer for Vista though, so it probably won't be a carrot on a stick issue in reality.

Hugh Manatee · #6 December 31st, 2006, 05:31 PM

question, could you put out a game with it's own O/S? like when it installs it makes it's own partition on your HD and has it's own set of drivers and such, effectively bypassing dx10 and vista's compatibility issues? Like say it was one of the smaller linux distros with enough functionallity to install itself, launch the game, and detect and debug the drivers for all the devices? Maybe with a built in web browser and some basic tools....

Suicide Junkie · #7 December 31st, 2006, 05:51 PM

Or why not just a bootable CD?
With a decent amount of RAM, you don't even need a harddrive except to store savegames and preferences, and a USB stick covers that too...

Either a cheap 64meg one for savegames, or a big 2gig one and have the game come on the bootable USB drive.

Its an easily portable game and a security dongle all in one.

The downside is no alt-tabbing out to chat while you play.

Baron Munchausen · #8 January 1st, 2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Hugh Manatee said:
question, could you put out a game with it's own O/S? like when it installs it makes it's own partition on your HD and has it's own set of drivers and such, effectively bypassing dx10 and vista's compatibility issues? Like say it was one of the smaller linux distros with enough functionallity to install itself, launch the game, and detect and debug the drivers for all the devices? Maybe with a built in web browser and some basic tools....

What an interesting idea. You do know that in the early days of Pagemaker for MS-DOS it included a custom version of GEM Desktop because "Wind'ohs" was so cruddy at the time. So there is a sort of precedent for a custom OS with an application. The problem now is that hardware is many times more complex than in the days of MS-DOS and you'd need to get custom drivers for God-knows how many video and sound cards. Linux can only have drivers that are available with source. Since many companies are not willing to release source and possibly give away their 'technical secrets' MS now has a stranglehold on much of the PC industry because of their control of drivers.

And then there is Direct X, which saves many game developers a lot of time and effort to develop basic graphics libraries. Spending the time to develop a substitute would be a very large hurdle to get over.

AstralWanderer · #9 January 3rd, 2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
But if most people do not migrate to Vista in a timely manner, as has happened with all previous incarnations of Windows...

The key word here is but. WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista. Even those with currently activated copies of XP will then need to purchase to cover against the day when it demands re-activation (with one hardware change too many).

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

Fyron · #10 January 3rd, 2007, 12:42 AM

AstralWanderer said:
WinXP requires online activation so all MS has to do is close down the XP activation service to force users to move to Vista.

You have to be extremely paranoid to think that MS would stop activation of XP before the planned product life cycle is up. We have at minimum 5 years after they stop selling licenses (which they have not stopped yet). Windows 2000 had several extensions to its support cycle due to customer demand (mostly from the volume license customers), so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that XP will as well.

As such, continued reliance on Windows (and continued development) risks gamers being forced onto an upgrade treadmill very much under Microsoft's control.

No, it doesn't. This is all just typical Internet fud with little basis in economic or legal reality. There is no way MS could or would pull off such a ridiculous kill switch operation.