New hardware needed

[SilverWarior]

Just think about it, who is most likely buy your commercial software, a guy that spent $500 on his Windows PC or a Mac "freak" who spent over $2000 on his Macbook Pro?

If you are thinking that those who spend more money on computer will also be more prepared to pay for a game I must dissapoint you but you are wrong. There are many pepole who spend even more than $3000 and still don't buy any game.

I think that most important thing is the price for each game. Nowadays many games are way overpriced. So chosing right price for your game will aslo lower the chances for it go get pirated.

[Super Vegeta]

Adding Linux to your supported list of platforms is simply PR for your game as most Linux users don't want to buy anything that they use.

Not true, and the Humble Indie Bundle is a good example of this. Linux users provide about 12% of the incomes and the average payment of a Linux user is almost 2x higher than that of a Windows guy.

[LP]

If you are thinking that those who spend more money on computer will also be more prepared to pay for a game I must dissapoint you but you are wrong. There are many pepole who spend even more than $3000 and still don't buy any game.

I think that most important thing is the price for each game. Nowadays many games are way overpriced. So chosing right price for your game will aslo lower the chances for it go get pirated.

The next sentence in my post says that it was an exaggerated speculation. You have to be picky, don't you?

According to this reference:

Under pricing. Pricing your products for too low a cost can have a disastrous impact on your bottom line...

Over pricing. On the flip side, overpricing a product can be just as detrimental since the buyer is always going to be looking at your competitors pricing...

Unfortunately, it's not the reference I was looking for. There was an article that described the cost of the game in terms of prestige or quality. So a more expensive game might be perceived as better (or having more content) than a less priced game. However, as you've said, it is important to choose the right and fair price.

[LP]

Linux users provide about 12% of the incomes and the average payment of a Linux user is almost 2x higher than that of a Windows guy.

Do you mind explaining this one with more details? Why do you think so?

[Super Vegeta]

I wrote those words citing the example of the Humble Indie Bundle; the above is a screenshot from their site.

[code_glitch]

Hmm.... Thats says a lot more than it lets on at first Super Vegeta. Given that theres around 9 PCs for every Mac and a few Macs for every linux box... Somthing Like a 12:3:1 ish ratio (yes, thats off the top of my head ) then wouldnt it be safeish to assume linux people are the most generous? I mean, thats quite the turnabout given that 99.9999999% of the linux experience is free...

Edit: oh, wait. It states the values down the left... -_-...

[LP]

{image}
I wrote those words citing the example of the Humble Indie Bundle; the above is a screenshot from their site.

That graphics can be interpreted as Windows buyers are some cheap bastards.

Edit.... or that Linux stuff is too expensive.

[WILL]

Not true, and the Humble Indie Bundle is a good example of this. Linux users provide about 12% of the incomes and the average payment of a Linux user is almost 2x higher than that of a Windows guy.

These people aren't buying the games as much as they are contributing or donating to a cause. A very different model and considering that these are only some of the very popular games from indie developers, I don't see this as viable market data.

Further to that I don't consider the pie chart reflective of amount of buyers as it is the actual dollars donated to a "cause." That is still very few Linux users however.

I get that you can buy games for Linux and there is even an Ubuntu Store, but it's such a small teeny tiny drop in the water that even if you wee successful on Linux, you'd still be way better off with Windows and Mac ports a thousand fold.

Linux is great for network gurus, uber geeks and your "free" thinkers, but it's useless for commercial gain. Unless you are are using it for IT purposes.

[Super Vegeta]

Both yes and no. Yes, people are donating more than buying and it's a bit different. No - I think that most people, no matter the OS, will go with free software as long as it fulfils their needs. After all, if you can have something for free, why pay for it? The answer: when the free stuff isn't good enough. Or the commercial stuff is somewhat unique. Or there is no free stuff to do something.

Whereas I agree that developing a commercial app with solely Linux in mind is shooting yourself in the foot, I wouldn't consider Linux a dead market. Linux ports of some good games or specialistic soft (CAD?) would definitely get some buyers - the question is dev cost vs. income.

Last, consider how many pirated Winderps are installed on computers. Some people won't pay for software no matter what.

[code_glitch]

Ah, but WILL... WINE. For isntance, I buy AAA titles, but I dont have a copy of windows to my name anymore - I'm a linux user buying retail games (okay, from the local trade in store ). Though this is also true for Mac I believe that WINE is currently more popular on Linux than Mac. And heres the interesting thing: after a little WINE tweaking I get higher frame rates on Linux with WINE in most of my games than I do on windows... Interesting

Linux is great for network gurus, uber geeks and your "free" thinkers, but it's useless for commercial gain. Unless you are are using it for IT purposes.

This I believe to be debatable though. Yes, the market share of AAA titles sold to linux users and other mianstream software is teeny tiny. In that sense of commercial gain Linux has lost and as much as I hate to admit it, I dont see it catching up with Windows. However look at the kernel - theres IBM, Intel, Sun and every other big comapnys' code in there. Simply because its a more flexible platform - thus it was easier to pay people to contribute to the linux kernel than go out and make an in house product or modify existing alternatives. In this sense, Linux was of massive commercial gain to the R&D teams working all the 'new stuff' coming out today.

Then theres the fact that distros now seem to get sponsorhip from search engines based on how much search traffic they get from that OS. eg. Mint & duckduck go. Same story here as what is happening with firefox versus chrome: it is, at the moment, in googles' interest to not mess up relations with mozilla - since if mozilla sets their default search engine they get more queries on which they can display ads. (this one isn't my point, I read it in a ff vs chrome debate type article ). Or you could look at the VPS route everyone on the internet is now rolling out - especcially those on large infrastuctures (eg Amazon eucalyptus bucket E2/3 thing) and those on very limited plans (linode type services for hackers, small companies and so on). These people rely on the fact linux is as versatile as it is to make their products viable and sell in those rather niche/extreme markets.

So when it comes down to it - yes, Linux people dont directly buy products from companies and thus its not of massive commercial gain to the sales people. But when you look at the fact that Linux is responsible for entire markets on which a large portion of the world wide webs and infrastructure we now take for granted - as well as all the trade that generates - supporting the Linux folk becomes far more attractive.