The Unreal Engine Map Editor crashed on me a lot when I tried making maps for it.
Source so far has not crashed on me once.
You aren't alone. UnrealEd is positively infamous for its instability, and just general quality. Which is to say, it's a truly horrible devtool, and I only wish I could sue to get back all the days of my life spent dealing with it.
Several developers have, in fact, taken legal action because of UnrealEd stalling or ruining their pipeline. Most of them switching to different engines afterward...
I'm going to go on a ledge here and assume that they'll use the Heroengine as they've said that the game won't take that long to come into frution. Said engine is already used by a number of AAA-MMOs and is very capable indeed, it should be enough for whatever Paizo has in mind and cut down on an otherwise lengthy development process.
I doubt they'll use Unreal/Gamebryo/Cryengine for this reason.
The Source engine would be great. Cryengine may be a bit much for most low to mid level PCs. Hero would be a good fit. But, for the love of all that's holy, stay away from the Unreal Engine. The Unreal engine stores it's SDK locally on any machine that is running an Unreal powered game. And, if you look at the problems that GamersFirst is having with people using the SDK to hack the locally stored game code for APB: Reloaded to cheat the game, the Unreal Engine leaves too many holes for people to exploit.
Can you discuss which engines are in the running?The big MMO engines: BigWorld, HeroEngine. We also have a few other options that we'd like to explore.
I'm certainly no expert on the inner workings of various engines. Having only ever messed around with Unity & Realmcrafter most of any knowledge I have on the matter is from reading others reports.
However, after seeing how poorly SWTOR handles large scale open PvP performance-wise with the Hero Engine, part of me is a bit dubious.
Certainly some of that could have been their coding or due to any number of modifications made to the engine, as well as things I'm potentially not even aware of.
In my experience though that engine in that incarnation completely fails to handle large groups of players well. Their somewhat insulting reply was that 'only 5% of players were experiencing performance issues', which means our entire 100+ member guild IS that exact 5% despite the variance in our hardware.
So hopefully before you decide you, can identify why it handles those situations so poorly and be certain your designs won't end up in the same situation.
This is really less about me telling you something obvious that you're more qualified to judge anyway, and more about me explaining a bad experience and expressing some concerns.
If you *do* need my professional help outside of any art related capacity, I'd be more than happy to teach you how to make two cylinders with health bars run at each other, get stuck, and spin endlessly around one another in the Unity Engine. Don't hesitate to let me know if that's of any value to you ;)
And again, like I might have said...the more we look at existing engines the more we can expect to fall in the pitfall of making just another generic MMO...
Goblin Squad Member
|
And again, like I might have said...the more we look at existing engines the more we can expect to fall in the pitfall of making just another generic MMO...
I don't think the engine really has that much to do with the full game system.
I could be wrong, but I believe the engine is really only responsible for:
1. Network connectivity
2. Rendering the game world, and character models
3. Interacting with in-game objects (characters, levers, etc.)
4. Interacting with UI Windows
I believe the engine is not responsible for:
1. The skill system
2. The crafting system
3. The inventory system (the items themselves, and how they're equipped by characters)
If I'm right, this leaves a world of room to allow PFO to differentiate from any other game that uses the same engine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - you're right.
Also, the HeroEngine that is in Star Wars was so heavily modded by Bioware that it is now incompatible with the HeroEngine code distributed to new users. The current version of HeroEngine and the Star Wars code are now on divergent development tracks.
(Just a side note: I keep hearing people talk about frustrations they have with Star Wars graphics, followed by "I had to turn off x, y or z feature" in order to get acceptable frame rates. For the most part that's a graphic card problem not a software problem - or rather, that's a game that's designed for a more recent graphic card than yours. Since Moore's Law applies, remember that in general that technology gets twice as fast or half as expensive every 18 months, so even a few years' time will render your card obsolete for high-end graphic features. Most dev teams consider the ability to turn off features that are too hard for your card to be an acceptable tradeoff.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - you're right.
Also, the HeroEngine that is in Star Wars was so heavily modded by Bioware that it is now incompatible with the HeroEngine code distributed to new users. The current version of HeroEngine and the Star Wars code are now on divergent development tracks.
(Just a side note: I keep hearing people talk about frustrations they have with Star Wars graphics, followed by "I had to turn off x, y or z feature" in order to get acceptable frame rates. For the most part that's a graphic card problem not a software problem - or rather, that's a game that's designed for a more recent graphic card than yours. Since Moore's Law applies, remember that in general that technology gets twice as fast or half as expensive every 18 months, so even a few years' time will render your card obsolete for high-end graphic features. Most dev teams consider the ability to turn off features that are too hard for your card to be an acceptable tradeoff.)
This right here.
My card is pretty beefy, but it still won't do very high framerates on SW:TOR. And you know what? That's fine!
If I want super awesome detailed screencaps, I'll turn up all of my settings, accept a horrific framerate for however long it takes me to get a shot of that stunning vista or that pile of corpses surrounding a lone astromech droid, and then I'll tune my settings back to what I need to actually PLAY the game.
But I'm one of those weirdos who prefers decent gameplay over awesome graphics, any day of the week. So take that with some salt. ;)
I hope someone else has already said this, but just in case not, I hope Mac is a supported option at release. Apple is now the largest corporation in the world, and Apple use is increasing at a rapid rate each year, and Windows OS is losing ground each year.
Another side note, almost every single Mac using gamer I know is DYING for some MMO to replace. Honestly, the only reason I ever even look at warcraft anymore is because it is the only real Mac MMO available.
Take advantage of this! Capitalize on Mac users' desperation for an alternative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope someone else has already said this, but just in case not, I hope Mac is a supported option at release. Apple is now the largest corporation in the world, and Apple use is increasing at a rapid rate each year, and Windows OS is losing ground each year.
Apple is the 35th largest corporation in the world for 2011, according to Forbes (but they're much higher in market capitalization)
Although I'm not against supporting apple for gaming, data and prediction don't appear to support your conclusions about Mac OS use increasing at a rapid rate each year. New worldwide sales of Mac OS for 2011 desktop/laptop were 4.5% of all PC's and only predicted to go up just over another half percent by 2015: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems ...while their US market share of new shipments went from 10.7% for Q2 to 10.92% for Q4, according to Gartner (about 0.2% increase).
And looking at Nov/Dec using impressions to calculate market share, apple inched down bit late last year
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - you're right.
Also, the HeroEngine that is in Star Wars was so heavily modded by Bioware that it is now incompatible with the HeroEngine code distributed to new users. The current version of HeroEngine and the Star Wars code are now on divergent development tracks.
(Just a side note: I keep hearing people talk about frustrations they have with Star Wars graphics, followed by "I had to turn off x, y or z feature" in order to get acceptable frame rates. For the most part that's a graphic card problem not a software problem - or rather, that's a game that's designed for a more recent graphic card than yours. Since Moore's Law applies, remember that in general that technology gets twice as fast or half as expensive every 18 months, so even a few years' time will render your card obsolete for high-end graphic features. Most dev teams consider the ability to turn off features that are too hard for your card to be an acceptable tradeoff.)
Interesting! It's good to hear that the game world can be very different regardless of game engine.
@Nihimon - you're right.
Also, the HeroEngine that is in Star Wars was so heavily modded by Bioware that it is now incompatible with the HeroEngine code distributed to new users.
I'm not a super technical guy but Biowares end result is a total WoW-and-clones-rip-off....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope someone else has already said this, but just in case not, I hope Mac is a supported option at release. Apple is now the largest corporation in the world, and Apple use is increasing at a rapid rate each year, and Windows OS is losing ground each year.
Another side note, almost every single Mac using gamer I know is DYING for some MMO to replace. Honestly, the only reason I ever even look at warcraft anymore is because it is the only real Mac MMO available.
Take advantage of this! Capitalize on Mac users' desperation for an alternative.
That one good reason to use the source engine, that and Source also works on some consoles (PS3).
The tools are nice, friendly and hardly crash.
The engine is modular meaning,
if there is a part of the engine you don't like, put in your own part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is an idea, to wait for xbox 720 sdk, then big devs like crytek and epic will release their new engines.
And about HeroEnigine. I was dissapointed in the result of Bioware work with this engine.
You do know that the xbox 720 is being designed to block used games
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Apple is the 35th largest corporation in the world for 2011, according to Forbes (but they're much higher in market capitalization)Although I'm not against supporting apple for gaming, data and prediction don't appear to support your conclusions about Mac OS use increasing at a rapid rate each year. New worldwide sales of Mac OS for 2011 desktop/laptop were 4.5% of all PC's and only predicted to go up just over another half percent by 2015: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems ...while their US market share of new shipments went from 10.7% for Q2 to 10.92% for Q4, according to Gartner (about 0.2% increase).
And looking at Nov/Dec using impressions to calculate market share, apple inched down bit late last year
I'm pretty sure those numbers are only garnered from business users, and if so, are probably pretty accurate.
I've said this before in this and similar thread (at least I think I've said it before in this thread), but business/IT numbers are always going to be skewed and different from actual home-use statistics. Apple products as a whole outsell all other home computing devices, hands down - iPads made such a cut in Best Buy's WinPC laptop sales, they had to take drastic measures to get people to start buying them again, remember?
The chestnut I like to trot out for this sort of discussion is to state that when I managed customer service for a cable-modem ISP for a few years, our headend statistics (for an installed user base of several million customers in the US, Puerto Rico, Canada, Japan, and Hong Kong) put us at a roughly 50/50 split (closer to 45/50) between MacOS and Windows, with the remainder being taken up by a few OS2/Warp holdouts, a rising number of *Nix-istas, and one guy on BeOS.
Business-based numbers and home-based numbers are hard to compare. The former is easily obtained based on corporate invoices and earnings/expenditure reports. The latter, not so much.
But really, none of this matters.
The important, fact-based question to answer is this:
Does Goblinworks want everyone's money? Or just a lot of people's money?
If the answer to the first question is "Yes," then the answer is simple:
Make the damn game for every OS possible. Don't buy into out-of-date hype and the fear of the modern programming educational system, which in many cases (so I've seen, working at a tech company) still insists that Apple machines use "obsolete" processors and "proprietary" graphics cards. I'd hardly call Intel, nVidia, or ATI either of those words. Take the high road, like Epic did with Unreal - allow every gamer who wants to play, the chance to play.
In the end, you'll end up with a stronger game, and a more robust client base. You'll also laugh all the way to the bank.
Now, if the answer is really only that Goblinworks only wants a lot of people's money, then, well, I hope you know you're going to lose a ton of fans. I'll say no more on that, because it'd be editorializing.
You do know that the xbox 720 is being designed to block used games
That's all conjecture at this point, based on one comment with very little context behind it. We really shouldn't be discussing it here in this thread. Just sayin'. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
FYI, the FAQ addresses this pretty directly.
What platforms are the game being developed for?
The game engine we intend to use is currently PC only. A Mac OS X version of the engine is in development, but we can't guarantee that it will be ready for the launch of Pathfinder Online.
The thing to keep in mind is that PFO will be using an existing game engine, they won't be building their own. That means the answer to whether it runs on MacOS is entirely dependent on the actual creators of the game engine, and we won't know who they are until GW officially announces which engine they're going to use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The important, fact-based question to answer is this:
Does Goblinworks want everyone's money? Or just a lot of people's money?
If the answer to the first question is "Yes," then the answer is simple:
Make the damn game for every OS possible. Don't buy into out-of-date hype and the fear of the modern programming educational system, which in many cases (so I've seen, working at a tech company) still insists that Apple machines use "obsolete" processors and "proprietary" graphics cards. I'd hardly call Intel, nVidia, or ATI either of those words. Take the high road, like Epic did with Unreal - allow every gamer who wants to play, the chance to play.
No the question is, is the income of the increased players > the cost of porting, testing and assuring the compatibility of the platform. If say I am writing a tablet app, and with the value of my time at a set price etc..., it costs me 150 to write it for iOS, 75 to port it from iOS to android, and another 75 to port it to blackberry, and another 75 to port it to webOS (HP's abandoned tablet OS). if I make $200 in sales on the IOS great it was worth it, if I make 125 on the android, great it was worth it, if I make $25 on sales from the blackberry, I just threw away $50, and I make $10 off web OS, I just threw away $65.
Also factoring in that most mac gamers, either have windows installed in addition on their mac or have a spare PC for games, most linux users dual boot etc...
It widely depends on the engine they buy, but it is hardly the deciding factor in the engine. Development is a cost/benefit game, it is a business and attempting to please everyone all the time is a fast way to wind up going bankrupt and disapointing everyone when you shut down because your development costs were greater then your profits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The important, fact-based question to answer is this:
Does Goblinworks want everyone's money? Or just a lot of people's money?
If the answer to the first question is "Yes," then the answer is simple:
Make the damn game for every OS possible. Don't buy into out-of-date hype and the fear of the modern programming educational system, which in many cases (so I've seen, working at a tech company) still insists that Apple machines use "obsolete" processors and "proprietary" graphics cards. I'd hardly call Intel, nVidia, or ATI either of those words. Take the high road, like Epic did with Unreal - allow every gamer who wants to play, the chance to play.
No the question is, is the income of the increased players > the cost of porting, testing and assuring the compatibility of the platform. If say I am writing a tablet app, and with the value of my time at a set price etc..., it costs me 150 to write it for iOS, 75 to port it from iOS to android, and another 75 to port it to blackberry, and another 75 to port it to webOS (HP's abandoned tablet OS). if I make $200 in sales on the IOS great it was worth it, if I make 125 on the android, great it was worth it, if I make $25 on sales from the blackberry, I just threw away $50, and I make $10 off web OS, I just threw away $65.
Also factoring in that most mac gamers, either have windows installed in addition on their mac or have a spare PC for games, most linux users dual boot etc...
It widely depends on the engine they buy, but it is hardly the deciding factor in the engine. Development is a cost/benefit game, it is a business and attempting to please everyone all the time is a fast way to wind up going bankrupt and disapointing everyone when you shut down because your development costs were greater then your profits.
I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with the core assumptions of your argument. You are approaching this from the perspective of a programmer who writes-many for read-many, rather than write-once for read-many.
As Nihimon pointed out, the FAQ says that the game engine they intend to use is currently Windows only (I personally hate the fact that "Personal Computer" is defaulted to mean Windows, so forgive me if I don't quote the FAQ word for word in that regard). Now, to me that says that Goblinworks is looking to go with a convenient, easily implemented solution to grab the majority of gamers. And that's fine. Would they be better suited, in the long run, to go with an engine that's cross-platform out of the gate? Yes. Will they? Probably not.
The core assumption here, in your argument, is that they absolutely will be doing a write-many, read-many approach, meaning (for those who don't follow) write for Windows a Windows application, then write for MacOS a MacOS application.
This is a viable and perfectly acceptable solution. It's also, if I may be so bold, ass-backward.
The more elegant - and reliably proven profitable - solution is to write a single series of libraries and readables that are then interpreted by independent executables. At this point, you have a write-once and read-many solution. This saves time - you're only writing one set of libraries that the executables themselves get to interpret. It saves money - By the same virtue as the "saving time" item. And it saves space - a couple of small executables (okay, maybe not so small) with a bunch of shared libraries is always going to take up less space than full-on clients with all their stuff built into it.
Your argument holds water, to a certain degree, I won't pretend it doesn't. But frankly, it's simply off-base from what I'm trying to get across. There is a way to do it that keeps costs down, and makes it so that everyone who wants to play can play - and isn't that what this whole forum is supposed to be about? You can start a slippery-slope fallacy and quote numbers and costs and effectiveness, and you'll have a valid point for the argument you're trying to have, but it comes down to not "making everyone happy," but rather "maximizing profits through maximizing exposure."
And those are two different arguments.
I'm of the camp that says "Find an engine that works on both operating systems, right out of the gate, and just work that bad boy until you've got it right."
That is a completely different thing than having to port the entire game code from one OS to another. With the multi-platform engine, you're looking at code that is already proven to work on both platforms. Your investment in code parity is minimal. And, as I've said before, you get stronger code out of it, because you are forced to ensure that the bugs get quashed twice.
I realize it's crazy talk, but for my money, and looking at it long-term, it's a better idea all around to go cross-platform at launch. Will they? Probably not. But would it make the game stronger on the backend for the effort? Absolutely.
(And just a minor quibble - most Mac users I know who are also gamers don't have a Windows box or partition. I do, mind you, but most of the folks I know, for their gaming dollar? If they can't get it native on their Mac, they buy it for their consoles. Your mileage may vary, of course.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what about we open source Linux users...? =P
Hey, my Penguinista friend, I'm on your side. I want you to have games natively on your OS. I want to play games with you, I want us to have fun and beat up Goblins and steal away their fire and shudder around the bar in the inn after the mission as we recount the... noises... we heard coming from their warrens.
I say: Games for all. OS Evangelism isn't my thing. Getting us all the game we want to play? That is.
*sigh*, some people just love to complicate things, huh?
As is your right! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will definitely do everything we can to serve Mac users. But realistically, we won't have the budget for fundamental engine changes for some time.
Hi, Mark, and thank you for making such a clear statement. I for one really appreciate it.
Would you mind answering this question, though?
Why not pick a cross-platform capable engine right out of the gate? I think the reason that there is so much concern among the MacOS crowd here on the boards (and anyone can smack me if they feel I'm speaking for them out of turn) is pretty much summed up in that question. By going with a Windows-only engine as your primary choice, the "message" that many people may feel is being sent is a pretty clear one: that non-WinPC users are an afterthought.
As you no doubt understand, no one likes being looked at as an afterthought. Now, I for one am certain that that's not the intent. But it is the interpretation that a clear portion of the audience for the game is getting, I think (as evidenced by many replies, above).
I'm sure that Goblinworks has its reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised if those reasons were monetarily-based (at least in part). But - and again, folks are free to smack me if they think I'm speaking for them out of turn - I would hazard to say that the question I've asked above is on the tongues of a lot of people, in that "Well, if you want our money, why not approach the game engine from a cross-platform perspective from the word 'go'?" kind of way.
I for one can't wait to see how PFO shakes out. I really want it to be as awesome as awesome can be. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will definitely do everything we can to serve Mac users. But realistically, we won't have the budget for fundamental engine changes for some time.Sounds like Goblinworks has picked the game engine that they'll use.
Not necessarily. They've said all along they want to use an engine that supports Mac users, but they may have their hand forced because of cost/time constraints we're not privy to.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Why not pick a cross-platform capable engine right out of the gate?
If all other things were equal, we would. But if the choice is between a mostly decent engine that's cross-platform now and an awesome engine that's currently Windows-only—but with Mac OS support coming soon—we're going to take the latter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not pick a cross-platform capable engine right out of the gate?If all other things were equal, we would. But if the choice is between a mostly decent engine that's cross-platform now and an awesome engine that's currently Windows-only—but with Mac OS support coming soon—we're going to take the latter.
Agreed, everything is a trade off. Bottom line is if the development time to make the engine do what they want is significantly higher on a cross platform engine, then the game will be slightly or possibly greatly worse for 99.5% of fans, while if the engine does not work on mac at all, they will lose 0.2% of fans at the worse I would estimate (odds are if someone is a mac user, and they don't have some sort of backup system or install to play PC games, isn't likely to be someone who is into games at all.) (I am leaving .3% guess of people who own a mac that is more powerful then their PC to the point where they would play the game, but have a worse experience)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed, everything is a trade off. Bottom line is if the development time to make the engine do what they want is significantly higher on a cross platform engine, then the game will be slightly or possibly greatly worse for 99.5% of fans, while if the engine does not work on mac at all, they will lose 0.2% of fans at the worse I would estimate (odds are if someone is a mac user, and they don't have some sort of backup system or install to play PC games, isn't likely to be someone who is into games at all.) (I am leaving .3% guess of people who own a mac that is more powerful then their PC to the point where they would play the game, but have a worse experience)Why not pick a cross-platform capable engine right out of the gate?If all other things were equal, we would. But if the choice is between a mostly decent engine that's cross-platform now and an awesome engine that's currently Windows-only—but with Mac OS support coming soon—we're going to take the latter.
While Vic's answer is exactly the answer I was expecting (and hoping for, honestly), I really want to encourage all of you (tongue-mostly-planted-in-cheek, mind you) to bone up on your OS distribution numbers. You're way off base, there, Onishi. Waayyyyy. ;)
But seriously, yeah, believe it or not I know a good deal about software and game development, product life cycles, and cost/return theories. Vic's answer provides me with a great depth of information, for being as brief as it was.
Thank you sir. You again satisfy my curiosity. :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I really want to encourage all of you (tongue-mostly-planted-in-cheek, mind you) to bone up on your OS distribution numbers.
netmarketshare.com currently estimates the following market share for desktop computer OSs:
Worldwide
Windows: 92.05%
Mac OS: 6.39%
Linux: 1.56%
USA
Windows: 83.09%
Mac OS: 13.89%
Linux: 3.02%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really want to encourage all of you (tongue-mostly-planted-in-cheek, mind you) to bone up on your OS distribution numbers.netmarketshare.com currently estimates the following market share for desktop computer OSs:
Worldwide
Windows: 92.05%
Mac OS: 6.39%
Linux: 1.56%USA
Windows: 83.09%
Mac OS: 13.89%
Linux: 3.02%
Yeah, I'm familiar with their data, and the fact that they only gather it from people who subscribe to their service. My point is and always has been that there is a tremendous difference between business-level usage and home-level usage. In a way I'm sad I no longer have the numbers breakdown from the ISP I worked at, since even though it was years ago, it was still pretty telling. I've said it before in this thread, it doesn't need repeating.
I'm not trying to flog the horse, here. I'm just saying that business vs. home usage numbers is apples and oranges. Pretty much every business in the world runs on the WinPC platform. Folks at home can and will be a different story. Aggregating the numbers into one lump whole is simply bad math.
But, I'm going to stop myself before it does become a beaten horse.
Instead I'll just repeat my previous statement:
I for one can't wait to see how PFO shakes out. I really want it to be as awesome as awesome can be. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think the most telling statistic would be what percent of WoW users run on Macs.
Most likely that would be the closest to a valid statistic as it focuses on gamers, though it also still has the weakness of not compensating for multi-os/computer households. Myself I'm a huge linux fan, and if I can run a game from linux I do, if I can't however, if I was going to buy the game, it isn't a lost sale, I boot into windows. So if say DDO or Ryzom ran a stat on me, they would consider me as a linux user, but if they weren't playable in linux, they would not have lost their sales to me, I'd have booted to windows, and I'm pretty darn sure that a very large percentage of people who care about games, and prefer an unpopular OS are used to doing very similar.
I would think the most telling statistic would be what percent of WoW users run on Macs.
Isn't WoW a completely different target audience especially since they've been giving everyone everything on a stick and they're going down the line of hand-holding?
I'd say EVE's Mac userbase is a much likelier measurement in regards to the mentality of the gamers it appeals to. Personally I think the Sci-fi versus Fantasy setting difference is less important than the essentially genre difference of "interactive world simulation" vs "BIG SPIKEY ARMOUR AND DRAGONS IN YOUR FACE BUT ITS OKAY YOU'RE ALWAYS SAFE." I could be wrong xD
Anyway if what I guess is right, then I'm sure no one knows those numbers better than Ryan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want to go on record saying how much a loath Macs.
That being said, Mac users are the very first to put their money where their mouths go. They spend. Linux users like me are stingy bastards that will try to find any way possible to not pay. Windows users are in the middle.
I greatly disagree with your assesment on linux users being stingy. When the humble indie bundle came out with a pay what you like, system (basically they allowed people to put their own price tag for the games).
They divided the results by operating system and averaged out what people payed
the average results were
Windows $4.58
Mac $7.43
Linux $10.30
Mac users payed more than windows users, but less than linux users.
______________
again I still think all of this is a moot point. I still hold to my view that almost every linux and mac user that cares about games, has a windows box of some sort for gaming. Linux support itself is probably unneeded because unless they throw in some il-concieved anti-cheat software like gamegaurd etc... (Programs which IMO never work, because they are just as easy to circumvent as the game itself), 90% of games and engines can be run via WINE in linux with just a few minor tweaks.
and if I recall macs now have boot camp that can run windows side by side, and of course all linux boxes are capable of dual booting. Just because 95% of the time I am in linux, and if both choices are available I chose linux every time, does not mean I will ever miss out on a game just because it isn't available for linux.
Admitted there are times I will try a game soley for the fact that it is available on linux. Savage 2 for instance, I never played it on windows, but when I heard it was linux compatible I tried it out entirely on the grounds that they had a linux version.