There is, you might not like it - it's up to you. There is no source however which supposes the opposite, at least you never demonstrated one.
Key point here is "still" - you yourself realize that things are changing. Distributors realized that before you however, that's why they started or will start offering Linux support.
Did you look at their sources? The two articles used to justify the claim that the numbers may not be accurate are a) an Ars Technica article from 2007 forecasting that Linux market share may surpass Win 98, and b) an article from 2005. The 2009 quote stating that China and developing countries weren't taken into consideration had no hard data to back it up, nor is there any immediate reason to consider it significant as far as gaming is concerned.
Link, please. (Unless it's a warez site, in which case that isn't representative either. Computer used for torrenting =/= computer used for gaming)
Where did you find that? They all are different, because of different nature of how they were gathered. Where did you see "the same thing"?
I already linked in the thread above on HB stats. Sardukhar thinks it's not representative, but he has no numbers which demonstrate his point (that percentages are the same). I see no reason to assume that each OS has the same distribution of gamers amongst its users.
I'm saying that using DRMed releases to measure potential of Linux sales is a bad idea, because amongst Linux users opposition to DRM is higher than amongst Windows users. So any game with DRM will skew the numbers because more Linux users will simply skip it.
My retort is that if the Linux market can only be measured by the so called "success" ( as in 5% of sales, yeah that's some market there ) of non DRM games then it is not a market at all. You preclude the vast majority of games from the list.
Actually, I said I see no contradictory -evidence- that they aren't similar percentages. I haven't seen your HB link at all. SHOW ME. I have seen evidence that they are the same - STEAM user base numbers match global user base numbers, as provided in my link http://www.develop-online.net/news/l...-steam/0114175
Nope, still missing it. Sard said:
All of the statistics I quoted give a market share of no more than 5%.
We are talking about estimating sales, not about markets. Majority or non majority of games doesn't matter. I.e. we are talking about hypothetical developer who plans to release a new cross platform game and tries to estimate what percentage of sales can happen on each platform. Existing DRM-free games give you best expectations because they are likely to be bought by the widest range of users (including those who buy only DRM-free and those who buy DRM and DRM-free. I've never heard of those who buy only DRM-ed stuff). Some estimations consider DRM to be reducing sales by as much as 30% (see links in the DRM thread I posted recently). Besides that, I'd expect such percentage to be higher amongst Linux users who more commonly are opposed to DRM. Estimating your sales with numbers where 1/3 or more are simply excluded doesn't make sense.
You probably missed it. We discussed it with Costin for a while in this thread: http://cheesetalks.twolofbees.com/humble/
Steam numbers could be useful if all their catalog would be cross platform. It's not the case. Most of their games are Windows only. So trying to show this number which is not based on uniform data is pointless. Find me Steam numbers for cross platform games only. If you want to do the math, do the math. So far you are trying to use wrong numbers to prove unrelated point.
No numbers for what? I'm not sure what you are asking about.
Maybe in fantasy land we would live in a world where most games are DRM-free, but we don't and that will not change any time soon. If you want to argue the relevancy of Linux as a gaming OS then DRM games must counted in.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. We are talking about estimating sales, not about whether more games use DRM than not. How can it be put in simpler terms. Imagine you are trying to sell new sport shoes. And you are trying to estimate, how many sales you'll get (let's say from runners or athletes or whoever). Let's say you know that certain group of people is less likely to buy shoes in one place, but on the other hand in another place all buy with equal probability. Which place would you use for estimation? I'd say the second, because the first one is limiting your selection so it doesn't represent the full potential.
Oh so giving Valve an even greater monopoly over PC gaming is a good thing now, right. Demanding developers spend money on irrelevant OS's is useful, sure. I fail to see how that would mean we would be better off.
On indie titles that gaming audience at large hasn't heard or cared about while removing every single AAA title, including ones with OpenGL support, from the equation.
Calling it irrelevant won't make it irrelevant ;D I think we already established in the previous discussion that you aren't a developer. So, don't forget to add "irrelevant according to my non technical bias".
Of course not. Linux is a worthwhile gaming OS not because "Windows sucks" but because of its own technical merits.
So it's "relevant" according to my own bias which ignores facts because I as an engineer not a game developer know better. Absolutely.
These were already discussed in the Linux gaming thread, you might want to revisit it. If you think this is worth another discussion, better open a new thread something like "technical advantages and disadvantages of Linux OS for gaming". Or even without opening a new one, just ask this question in the old thread.
No, you're not wrong.
