Over 1,000 games have released on Steam this year with Linux support

1111

Quoting: BdMdesigN

Quoting: GoLBuzzkill80% of steam catalog was released in last 3 years and you dont see any problem with that? EA, Greenlight?
Gaming industry is going down and all you can say is 1k games are supporting Linux?!?!? First of all, pushing "Build for Linux" in Unity editor is not SPUPPROTING LINUX you stupid traitors!!! 99% of games in last 3 years where Unity crap default assets games, indy bullshit and poor AAA console DLC/Seasson_pass fest "ports".
Everybody is focusing on VR which is failing it will barly happen on Windows, Linux can forget about it; at least in this VR hype wave, last one failed in '90s.
Is it even possible with you traitors to have a game that is "ported" on Linux and to say that that game is objectively tehnicaly bad?(not looking at content)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNLemHpDQ60

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
^this happened because games where pure shit

How old are you?

I have start Videogaming with the Pong Console, then with the Atari 2600, the CBS (ColecoVision, the Commodore VC 20, C64, Amiga 500, A2000, A4000 and from 1998 on a Windows PC.

So i know the Gaming History and why Manufacturers went bankruptcy. In the 1980-1990 it was not because the games are crap. It was about the self-marketing. Many small game companies in UK went bankruptcy in this time, because they don't have a Publisher at this time.

Now you say all Unity Games are Crap, yes many of the Unity Games are Crap (70 %), but not all.
You say many AAA Games Ports are Crap? Yes here you are right: Many AAA Ports (Windows -> Console, Console -> Windows) have Crap Ports, because people like you buy every AAA Shit.

So if Windows have a Crap AAA Console Port you think the Port was better, if the game was a Windows (Crap Console port) to Linux Port?

So you think many Indi Games are Crap? Yes on Steam are 20 % Indi Games Crap.
And yes on Steam's EA and GL are some Scammers. Most of the big AAA (Who decides whether a game is high-class (AAA)?) productions are Crap.

If you support Publisher like Ubisoft or EA, then you are an Idiot.

Did you know thats we had on Linux until the year 2013 ~90 Commercial Gameports?
After 2013 we got more and more Games on Linux. Yes most are Crap, but this Crap you have on Windows, too.

In your words: 60 % of all Games on Windows are Crap.

To the VR thing: If VR fails in the future we will see.
The VR in the 90 fails, because the technology was not yet so far and the people had since there was no desire for VR.

Did you remember the Commodore CDTV?
This was the first Gaming Console with CD's 1990/1991.

Did you know thats this Console fails, because it used CD's at this time? Now look at the Consoles today: Every big Console maker use CD's/BR's.

I hope you know what it means to be ahead of its time and thus also fail on the technical side. This happened exactly in the 1990s

The opposite was true in the US. It was the publishers themselves that pretty much caused the Video Game crash in the 80s. Activision had split off from Atari because Time Warner had changed their royalty policies, and suddenly all these other video game companies started splintering off and publishing whatever crap they could. People were tired of being shoveled shitty arcade ports (Pacman on 2600 was atrocious, and Joust had floating eggs that would never land). So Most brand new games would hit stores, sit there for a few weeks then go into the bargain bin.

Fortunately, most of the games that are 'indie' are already straight into the cheap end of things. It's the 60 dollar games with 60 more dollars worth of DLC upon release that are ending up in the list of 'will buy when on sale'. Ultimately I hope more and more people will refuse to buy games that are empty shells without DLC. I have enough video games to last me the rest of my life at this point.

I do find the comment earlier about VR failing in the 90's. It never actually took off. Atari canned the headset with the most potential, and disappeared into Video game history. Apparently Virtuality never even got paid for their efforts. But even then, it was pretty simple head tracking. With the Vive and full roomscale, Virtual Reality is an actual thing now. It's just a matter of the big guns firing their bullets (Bethesda releasing Fallout 4 VR) and then others will join in.

Quoting: amkHi people.
I just registered to express my opinion about this, I had to.

Yeah, the number looks cool, but as others posted, many of those released are crap.

I visit GOL from time to time just to see what's new that can maybe a good time waster, but sadly, whole PC gaming business is what it is. I intentionally wrote "PC", not just Linux gaming.

I game since my MZ-800, I'm not a subject to ignorance as many younger people.

Today's titles, including most of so called AAA ones, suffer from two problems.
First, they suck as there is mostly just a lot of content, but missing game itself. More like interactive movie, often with completely unoriginal story on top of that. And open-world, crafting and sandbox words are making me sick. Or there isn't that much of movie parts either, just crap.

-- snipped a lot of good rant.

This is pretty much why I pulled out my Atari STs and have been playing games on those, even though I have just over 1700 games in Steam.

@tuubi : Oh dear, I sincerely apologize that my comment seems to have upset or angered you. I do not comment very often, and generally try to keep my tone as neutral as possible to avoid giving offence, but I have clearly failed on this occasion.

On re-reading, I should probably have avoided the word "junk" to describe the games explosion. Some truly are that bad, but most are just uninspired. That may be in part because the games engines powering many titles lack flexibility, but is also influenced by a lot of copying what is out there already.

The rest of my comments are generalizations ( i.e. don't apply to every developer ) relating to the effect of PC gaming going mainstream. These are examples of the trends in gaming that people complain about that resonate with me, as I can think of titles that reflect each of these, especially in the big-budget portion of the market. These particular trends may not concern you, but I would be surprised if you never found a title to be unexpectedly disappointing.

I don't think old PC games are better, but the move from niche to mainstream has changed the dynamic. In the niche market developers had less competition for gamers money, and with less diverse gamer opinions could focus on fewer "hot" areas and arguably afford to be more radical in design evolution.

The larger market provides a greater opportunity to make money, but is more diverse, and more difficult to address, since gamer demands and volume of criticism reflect the added diversity. This is particularly difficult if you are a small or independent developer with low budgets and low visibility, as EgoSoft - one of my favourite indy developers and an early Linux adopter - found when they released X Rebirth.

I would also say that I agree with your earlier comment that you would never have expected this many Linux titles to even be available. I have a hundred or so, most of which I have not played yet; good or bad, I hope they keep coming.

Quoting: etonbears@tuubi : Oh dear, I sincerely apologize that my comment seems to have upset or angered you. I do not comment very often, and generally try to keep my tone as neutral as possible to avoid giving offence, but I have clearly failed on this occasion.

But I was not upset, angry or offended. I just rather bluntly (sorry about that, too sleep-deprived for diplomacy) expressed my opinion that your rant came from the gut, not the head. There's a lot of feeling and no real attempt at rational justification. Nothing but vague, nostalgic tales of bygone times when every game was golden and crap was yet to be invented.

Speaking of those times, I for one seem to remember a lot of shitty games from the eighties and nineties with simplistic, half-baked or recycled gameplay wrapped in the thinnest veneer of content. Every platform had their share. Some obvious mass-market franchise cash-grabs as well, as soon as the market was there. No DLC, but that's only because there was no way for us gamers to actually DL that C, and what passed for DRM was printed in the game manual or inside the cassette cover. Sure there were many great games as well, but those still pop up at a healthy pace. It's simply unfair to compare the worst of today to the best of the past.

Tabletop and pen-and-paper gaming have very little to do with the discussion, as both genres obviously still survive and thrive in their own little niches.


I think it's silly to condemn the fact that it's easier to produce and market a game than it used to be, or to insist that we're all somehow forced to personally suffer through every single piece of shovelware out there. Surprisingly little of consequence has changed for the worse, and quite a lot for the better. Just my humble enlightened opinion of course. No offense intended. Apologies available upon request.

Guessing 1047 :)

Quoting: tuubi1040
Remember when you were looking to buy a game and there was simply nothing you wanted available for Linux? Because I do. Strange to think this was only a few years ago.

I was ready to buy *any* game just to support developers.
Now I can't because the amount of great and cool new games >> budget. And I also want to play them.

Quoting: zimplex1Steam has been going downhill in terms of quality for a few years now... That's why I've been trying to use GOG more and more. The lack of quality control will be Steam's downfall.

I think steam has gone uphill. But what they really did is put quality control in the hands of gamers, which I think is where it belongs. Gamers just need to adjust to their QA position.
Playing and promoting games will be another big social thing.
And you just have to find the person that has the same interest as you, and read that persons reviews and recommendations.
There are a lot of games that I consider lost money while a lot of people think it's great. The good thing is that I won't cry over money spend on linux games.
There are games that I was sure about that it was not well spend after 1 hour playing although screenshots convinced me otherwise. A game I bought from EA, which was too blocky in my opinion ended up sucking > 1100 hours, and I am now a patreon supporter of the developer.
EA helps and works wonders. But we as players have to choose carefully, and we even have to ask ourselves if we are ready to invest in EA.
Things I did not regret buying in EA:
Fortresscraft evolved ( > 1100hours..., still a noob)
Dying light ( >100h )
Ark: survival ( >100h I think, I am basically still nowhere)
Planet Explorer
And probably much more.
I have planet nomads in the alpha trials, which looks prommising for an alpha.
Not so happy with sky break yet, but I have yet to replay it to give it a review, while Far Sky from the same developers, really has blown me away, and set me on the path of FCE, PE and PN.

Ardje: may be this the first nonwhiny post in this topic? +iternet

Quoting: etonbearsBut this is not unequivocally a good sign. Along with all the genuine improvements that have been possible as games hardware and software technology have progressed, it has also become markedly easier to produce titles, leading to the huge number of games now being produced. The normal rules of supply and demand operate, meaning that most of these titles are low budget, low quality, and few will make any money.

I think this is a misinterpretation. As you say, it is markedly easier to produce titles. That is, it is markedly cheaper--a "low budget" gets you more game than it ever would have before. This in turn means that a simple game can break even with lower sales than ever before. It also means that a slightly more ambitious game can break even with lower sales than a game of that level of ambition could before, and that a game with sophistication equivalent to what would have been AAA a few years ago can break even with lower sales than ever before. So hobbyists can now be indies, indies can be mid-tier, mid-tier can be AAA, and AAA . . . can lard on even more graphics and celebrity voice overs?

Does that mean average quality will be lower? I don't see why. I might posit that the number of available broad genres of gaming will not grow as fast as the number of games, and furthermore time will continue to simply move forward, so more and more games will be derivative (at the dawn of computer gaming, no game could be derivative because there were none to derive from; the more games exist, the harder it is for them to be original). But the simple fact that people with less money can now make games of a given complexity level doesn't seem to me to imply those games will be worse. More uneven, maybe, but also games at any given sophistication level will have less commercial bureaucracy involved to stifle the creativity.