[yladiz]

Yes, some do development in OpenGL, but why would a big company put resources in the development of something unless it has tangible benefits for the company? E.g. why would a big AAA company like EA put effort into changing their tooling to support OpenGL when they make millions from consoles and PC? It would only make sense to develop for non-DirectX or change tooling if the cost of changing is outweighed by the benefit. It's the same reason why a team like Github took 2 years to change from Rails 2.3 to 3 even though 4 had already been released for a while by that point.

I'm not saying it's right, and I wouldn't mind seeing better gaming support on Linux and Mac, but I'm saying it's reality.

[shmerl]

Asking common sense questions about practices of legacy publishers is a futile endeavor. I stopped asking such questions for a while already. Those who want to innovate, do it, and find it useful for them. Size of the budget has nothing to do with interest to release for Linux and have wider cross platform reach. If anything, big publishers have more resources to do it. At the same time, innovators happen to be smaller studios, who actually are expanding Linux gaming market, while legacy publishers don't pay attention.