My 3 cents: Maybe a possible alternative would be to focus on one particular linux distribution, like ubuntu or debian, with certain dirty intall scripts ? Or go all the way and just deliver a bootable CD or USB drive that install the games somewhere, and then boots up a certain linux kernel configuration with specific, working nvidia or amd drivers. Honestly if I had a successful game I could sell, I'd try to sell i…
> So drop the support of high end 3D features You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best? > do you really need that shader Yes! > I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA You'd be surprised with what a small developer can do, See tomorrow children. Sadly sometimes it sometime…
Better work in CGI graphics then. Also, what's the point of rendering ? You won't make a game if all you have is good rendering. You also need quality content. You can't be a good graphics programmers AND spend time producing geometry.
> Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence?
I just meant do improve designs that have been proven to work, not try to make the same kind of design you usually see in AAA shelves.
I see many indie games just being some remake, or influenced by many other games. They don't have any kind of standing out feature, the only interesting thing there is, is content, which is not what makes a good game. There is almost never a feature of the game that is standing out in term of gameplay and algorithm.
A good example is minecraft: the game is interesting because it has an infinite, consistent 3D level. No game had that before. All I care is gameplay and interactions. My point is this: if a game is not different in gameplay and can't attract the player imagination, it's maybe not worth doing.