On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
