Note: Article updated to better explain 1 or 2 points.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: tmtvlYou're welcome to disagree, but with over 15 thousand people playing it right now I think it would be good to have on Linux.Quoting: liamdaweFallout 4 on Linux, yes please.
No. No! Seriously, we already have plenty of crap games for Linux, we need good games, not festering piles of shit.
Yes, we also have good games, but I'd kinda prefer at least half of the games on Linux being good, rather than invoking Sturgeon's Law.
Also, you missed the point. It's not about that one specific game, replace that with any big popular game that would be well received on Linux.
2 Likes, Who?
I have too many games that I want to play but cannot play due to time reason. As a result I only support practices I like (to succeed). Meaning I don't but these games at all. Similar, I only buy games with Linux versions. And only full price only if it's a day-1 release (or at the very least never has been discounted before).
Ofc there might be exceptions if you really want to play but I try to stick with these rules as much as possible.
Ofc there might be exceptions if you really want to play but I try to stick with these rules as much as possible.
3 Likes, Who?
I completely disagree with charging twice for the same game.
What I'd understand is that you buy it for a platform, and there is a price tag to enable cross-platform play (like 10-25 % of the full title). That would be reasonable.
What I'd understand is that you buy it for a platform, and there is a price tag to enable cross-platform play (like 10-25 % of the full title). That would be reasonable.
0 Likes
Quoting: michaI have too many games that I want to play but cannot play due to time reason. As a result I only support practices I like (to succeed). Meaning I don't but these games at all. Similar, I only buy games with Linux versions. And only full price only if it's a day-1 release (or at the very least never has been discounted before).
Ofc there might be exceptions if you really want to play but I try to stick with these rules as much as possible.
Hi.As you are a game dev i want to ask you a simple question,which some people here are seems to more thick skulled than i think.
Is this kind of thing becomes a standart,if will be helpful to Linux community or not?
In my opinion it will stop all possible users who wants to switch from Windows.
What do you think,is this thing can be described as a nonsense or not?
0 Likes
To the people apparently glossing over the article, do note I specifically said this:
Quoting: meEven something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.I'm not specifically advocating for paying twice if you already own it, the point is to have the ability to pay something, if the developer/publisher so chooses.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: liamdaweTo the people apparently glossing over the article, do note I specifically said this:
Quoting: meEven something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.I'm not specifically advocating for paying twice if you already own it, the point is to have the ability to pay something, if the developer/publisher so chooses.
It will be only reasonable if there was a donational buy option.I suggest that;VP need to sell Steam key for this under their page or store if there is users who want justify their work.
But this inside Steam; Os differ sale will only hurt Linux.
0 Likes
I usually hold out on buying Windows version of games that I think will come to Linux in the near future.
For me, it's not that. It's that some games are just overpriced. I don't buy games that cost over 500 nok (or roughly 54 euros), and even 400 nok (or roughly 43 euros). Mostly it's that I think most games aren't worth that price.
People waiting for sales is just playing smart as a consumer. Why should we pay full price for a game when we know will go on sale a few months to half a year down the line?
I do think porters should get paid. Which is why I buy games from Feral store when I intend to buy Feral ported games. It's expected for people to get a Windows and Linux and Mac OS version on steam, but that's not cause people asked, but they just got it. Are they going to just take that away? That doesn't usually turn out well. Remember the whole paid DLC thing Bethesda and Valve tried to do? There has been apps on the google store that suddenly went from free to very expensive. From what I have seen, people have not reacted well to that. I think this is one of those "opening a can of worms" issues.
Last edited by Aryvandaar on 15 March 2017 at 3:34 pm UTC
QuoteWhy is a Linux port worth so much less to you?
For me, it's not that. It's that some games are just overpriced. I don't buy games that cost over 500 nok (or roughly 54 euros), and even 400 nok (or roughly 43 euros). Mostly it's that I think most games aren't worth that price.
People waiting for sales is just playing smart as a consumer. Why should we pay full price for a game when we know will go on sale a few months to half a year down the line?
I do think porters should get paid. Which is why I buy games from Feral store when I intend to buy Feral ported games. It's expected for people to get a Windows and Linux and Mac OS version on steam, but that's not cause people asked, but they just got it. Are they going to just take that away? That doesn't usually turn out well. Remember the whole paid DLC thing Bethesda and Valve tried to do? There has been apps on the google store that suddenly went from free to very expensive. From what I have seen, people have not reacted well to that. I think this is one of those "opening a can of worms" issues.
Last edited by Aryvandaar on 15 March 2017 at 3:34 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
I think the main issue is that Linux version are taking so much to be released, If all Linux versions were day one and you could chose one platform on buy to have it I would be far less conflicted about the whole issue.
The amount of broken/delayed promises for Linux from developers are already too much to make yet another barrier to gaming on Linux.
The amount of broken/delayed promises for Linux from developers are already too much to make yet another barrier to gaming on Linux.
8 Likes, Who?
Slippery slope.
No, I won't buy a game twice.
I would seriously consider *not* to pay for an "upgrade" to have a game I already bought run on another OS. I'd rather play it on Windows or not play it at all, and I really don't want to fire up any Windows installation in my household. I don't have the money to waste, which is one of the reasons that moved me away from console gaming years ago, since that's crazy expensive unless you live off of used games.
When it comes to supporting steamplay and porting fees the onus should be on the publisher.
Nowadays PC gaming is (becoming more and more) cross-OS and it should stay that way. If the publisher wishes to support more OSs it's due to the fact that they can reach a bigger market. That means selling more copies and earning more. That requires an investment, and that's where porting studios come into play. The publisher pays the porting studio to port the game to other OSs, every PC customer can buy the game without being restricted to Windows/OSX/Linux. Plus it lays the foundations of freeing themselves from Microsoft grip (altough freeing themselves from Steam is another thing).
If the publisher wishes to lock the game "ownership" to the specific OS, let them have it. They will sell even less on any other OS aside from Windows. That's because steamplay (and old humble bundle policies) do more to ease "established gamers with a backlog" into moving away from Windows than anything else. Nothing beats the confort of knowing that you can still run at least 40-50% of the games you already bought on your new OS. As noted by other, you simply won't see any gamer willing to part ways with tens/hundreds of games he has already bought to play on Linux, aside from a few crazies like myself. Moreover, when game streaming services will finally be viable, all this "you need to pay my game thrice because reasons" will slowly melt like a castle made of sand.
TD;DR: nowadays PC gaming is more and more cross-OS and it should stay that way *without extra fees*.
No, I won't buy a game twice.
I would seriously consider *not* to pay for an "upgrade" to have a game I already bought run on another OS. I'd rather play it on Windows or not play it at all, and I really don't want to fire up any Windows installation in my household. I don't have the money to waste, which is one of the reasons that moved me away from console gaming years ago, since that's crazy expensive unless you live off of used games.
When it comes to supporting steamplay and porting fees the onus should be on the publisher.
Nowadays PC gaming is (becoming more and more) cross-OS and it should stay that way. If the publisher wishes to support more OSs it's due to the fact that they can reach a bigger market. That means selling more copies and earning more. That requires an investment, and that's where porting studios come into play. The publisher pays the porting studio to port the game to other OSs, every PC customer can buy the game without being restricted to Windows/OSX/Linux. Plus it lays the foundations of freeing themselves from Microsoft grip (altough freeing themselves from Steam is another thing).
If the publisher wishes to lock the game "ownership" to the specific OS, let them have it. They will sell even less on any other OS aside from Windows. That's because steamplay (and old humble bundle policies) do more to ease "established gamers with a backlog" into moving away from Windows than anything else. Nothing beats the confort of knowing that you can still run at least 40-50% of the games you already bought on your new OS. As noted by other, you simply won't see any gamer willing to part ways with tens/hundreds of games he has already bought to play on Linux, aside from a few crazies like myself. Moreover, when game streaming services will finally be viable, all this "you need to pay my game thrice because reasons" will slowly melt like a castle made of sand.
TD;DR: nowadays PC gaming is more and more cross-OS and it should stay that way *without extra fees*.
6 Likes, Who?
"If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows."
So you bought Fallout 4 for Windows?
Nice way to throw the whole "no tux, no bux" out the window...
So you bought Fallout 4 for Windows?
Nice way to throw the whole "no tux, no bux" out the window...
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me