Support us on Patreon
PayPal
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: gurv"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."Nice assumption there. It came free with my GPU. Really people, come on. Let's not do childish remarks at me here.
So you bought Fallout 4 for Windows?
Nice way to throw the whole "no tux, no bux" out the window...
2 Likes, Who?
Who said I bought a Windows version? I don't need Windows games I get them in bundles but they only clutter my library. I don't care if the game is ported day-1 or day-100, I don't think it's honest by any measure to pay 100% for Windows version and 110% for Linux version, but it would be honest to pay 100% for Windows OR Linux OR Mac version and +10% for each additional OS.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: pbWho said I bought a Windows version? I don't need Windows games I get them in bundles but they only clutter my library. I don't care if the game is ported day-1 or day-100, I don't think it's honest by any measure to pay 100% for Windows version and 110% for Linux version, but it would be honest to pay 100% for Windows OR Linux OR Mac version and +10% for each additional OS.Indeed, that was part of my point in the article about an upgrade option :)
1 Likes, Who?
Schattenspiegel Mar 15, 2017
While it is good that developers/publishers try to find new ways to make a port profitable for them (which could lead to more ports in the future), I simply do not think that this is the way to go.
While I will probably at least download and look at an old game I already own from my windows days I will be massively less tempted to do so if there is a paywall.
I would really have to want to play that game again to even consider buying it again. This might even result in lower Linux sales and therefore also less future ports because I am not very likely to recommend that game to a friend, who has not bought it yet, plus: the positive credit for doing a Linux port in the first place is negated by the per OS paymodel( even if I did not own the game before I am less tempted to buy it now unless my desire to play it was very - and I mean very - high).
Cross OS playability once purchased has become a standard in the last couple of years and I think we should try to defend it.
That does not mean that porters should not be compensated adequately, but there are other ways to do so.
Why not a virtual "Thanks for the Linux/Mac version!" poster DLC that supporters can buy to support the port if they so desire. They might even make additional money of people that really enjoy the game and feel ashamed that they got this gem in a cheap bundle by doing that.
While I will probably at least download and look at an old game I already own from my windows days I will be massively less tempted to do so if there is a paywall.
I would really have to want to play that game again to even consider buying it again. This might even result in lower Linux sales and therefore also less future ports because I am not very likely to recommend that game to a friend, who has not bought it yet, plus: the positive credit for doing a Linux port in the first place is negated by the per OS paymodel( even if I did not own the game before I am less tempted to buy it now unless my desire to play it was very - and I mean very - high).
Cross OS playability once purchased has become a standard in the last couple of years and I think we should try to defend it.
That does not mean that porters should not be compensated adequately, but there are other ways to do so.
Why not a virtual "Thanks for the Linux/Mac version!" poster DLC that supporters can buy to support the port if they so desire. They might even make additional money of people that really enjoy the game and feel ashamed that they got this gem in a cheap bundle by doing that.
2 Likes, Who?
I would rebuy the GTA series I already have (for wine) if it came out on linux if necessary. Absolutely no problem with that.
The same with every game I already own as windows only and now gets a linux port.
I rebought games again and again...
First on CD, since the CD's are unreadable I now only buy on steam or gog, but last few years steam only, as GOG had no support or patches for lgogdownloader.
Now I buy only linux, and I will rebuy all the games I do not have a linux version if it is necessary.
I will even rebuy the linux versions of games I already have...
Heavy Gear 2, awesome, but support is exit.
Any loki games that do not run anymore.
Prey... that was an awesome icculus port, which I will buy again, if I can just press buy on steam big picture.
UT2004, UT, unreal... all those with official linux ports. I would buy those again to have a <click here to install> in steam big picture.
The same with every game I already own as windows only and now gets a linux port.
I rebought games again and again...
First on CD, since the CD's are unreadable I now only buy on steam or gog, but last few years steam only, as GOG had no support or patches for lgogdownloader.
Now I buy only linux, and I will rebuy all the games I do not have a linux version if it is necessary.
I will even rebuy the linux versions of games I already have...
Heavy Gear 2, awesome, but support is exit.
Any loki games that do not run anymore.
Prey... that was an awesome icculus port, which I will buy again, if I can just press buy on steam big picture.
UT2004, UT, unreal... all those with official linux ports. I would buy those again to have a <click here to install> in steam big picture.
2 Likes, Who?
Kimyrielle Mar 15, 2017
I'd rather want publishers to pay porting houses a flat sum for the porting work instead of sub-licensing the game to them and make them rely on their own sales. This would end this discussion right here and there, eliminate the confusing "which platform is the purchase actually attributed to?" stuff, and is more befitting the actual work they do anyway (which is essentially outsourcing).
I can see this particular case as being exceptional, but generally I do not wish to pay separately for each platform I want to play a game on, and would largely refuse to. I hope Valve won't stop pressuring publishers not to adopt "per platform" sales. Ideally, a game runs on every platform on release day and people can install it on whatever OS they prefer.
Really what's next? Charging again to make the game run on a different GPU?
I can see this particular case as being exceptional, but generally I do not wish to pay separately for each platform I want to play a game on, and would largely refuse to. I hope Valve won't stop pressuring publishers not to adopt "per platform" sales. Ideally, a game runs on every platform on release day and people can install it on whatever OS they prefer.
Really what's next? Charging again to make the game run on a different GPU?
6 Likes, Who?
Quoting: liamdaweQuoting: pbWho said I bought a Windows version? I don't need Windows games I get them in bundles but they only clutter my library. I don't care if the game is ported day-1 or day-100, I don't think it's honest by any measure to pay 100% for Windows version and 110% for Linux version, but it would be honest to pay 100% for Windows OR Linux OR Mac version and +10% for each additional OS.Indeed, that was part of my point in the article about an upgrade option :)
Yeah, you should probably go read your article (I just did it *for the second time*) because there is no such statement in your text. You said "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." and that implies Linux/Mac version should be an upgrade to a Windows version, I simply can't agree to that because I'm interested exclusively in the Linux version and I don't see a reason why I should pay for the main game + for the "upgrade" just for the sake of it. I can buy the "upgrade" IF I have the Windows version from some bundle etc. but if I'm a new buyer, I should be able to buy a Linux version "just like that" without giving as much as a single thought to the Windows one.
ACTUALLY it could be perfectly well executed even now and even in this specific case. Consider this:
Let's make three separate titles:
- Arma Windows
- Arma Mac
- Arma Linux
Let's say all of them are 3,99 for new purchases BUT each of them automatically has a -90% discount if I own the game for another OS. This way if I'm only interested in Linux version, I pay 3,99 and if I want to have the game for Windows AND Linux, I pay 3,99 + 0,40. And if I already have the Windows version "from the olden times" I pay 0,40 for the "upgrade" - who in their right mind would complain about that?
Values/percentages are just an example of course, but you get the idea. You could make that -75% and it would still be ok *in this specific case*, but for a $60 game it may not look that good.
Last edited by pb on 15 March 2017 at 5:29 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: liamdaweI'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.But this something should not be added on top of original platform's price. If the game was being sold $60 on Win and the port comes out then it should cost the same 60$ for whoever buying it first time and 10$ for whoever already owns it. Obviously, you wouldn't get Win version if you buy it for 60$ on Linux.
Although, I do agree it's a very grey area since there is no point in not giving Windows version for free, if the game is several months old. But I really don't want the precedent in buying the game first time and paying extra for a port. If anything, I shouldn't pay for Windows binaries.
Last edited by redshift on 15 March 2017 at 5:27 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: JanYou can argue as much as you like -- the market reality is pretty simple: From a publisher's point of view Linux is only an afterthought to Mac porting. Mac porting is an afterthought to Windows porting and the whole 'PC' ecosystem is an afterthought compared to the console and mobile market.Hmm you know things have evolved quite a bit these last years.
The Windows gaming market is huge and not really an afterthought anymore.
Quoting: JanThe Mac, even though only 5 % to 10 % of the desktop OS market, is considered a 'viable' platform for software developers.I've never seen any source giving Mac more then 5% market share worldwide (in the US sure but not globally)
Quoting: JanLinux needs a huge corporation with a 'real' consumer product like the combination of iPhone + App Store or MacBook (Pro) + Mac App Store to really breakthrough into the minds of possible customers.That's Valve.
Steam has no future without Linux because every other OS is going the despicable locked App store way (first brought to the world by Apple...).
Quoting: JanFeral's revenue is roughly 50 % Mac App Store and 50 % Steam. They're anxiously waiting for Apple to update Metal so they can finally release Deus Ex, Hitman or Dirt Rally on OS X as well. Because they need the money.Source?
Quoting: JanIf they would solely depend on Linux/SteamOS: Game Over, mate.Nonetheless they release more and more Linux-only ports so that must be profitable enough right?
And I think they see where gaming is going : Linux not Mac.
Why? because even Apple's own CEO doesn't see the point in Mac anymore.
Apple only care about mobile and companion devices nowadays. "PC" is dead to them.
(and they're right PC will eventually disappear except for workstation and hardcore gaming because it's becoming irrelevant outside of these use cases)
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: KimyrielleI'd rather want publishers to pay porting houses a flat sum for the porting work instead of sub-licensing the game to them and make them rely on their own sales. This would end this discussion right here and there, eliminate the confusing "which platform is the purchase actually attributed to?" stuff, and is more befitting the actual work they do anyway (which is essentially outsourcing).
I can see this particular case as being exceptional, but generally I do not wish to pay separately for each platform I want to play a game on, and would largely refuse to. I hope Valve won't stop pressuring publishers not to adopt "per platform" sales. Ideally, a game runs on every platform on release day and people can install it on whatever OS they prefer.
Really what's next? Charging again to make the game run on a different GPU?
No,this VP's greed.
http://www.deliver2.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=331
They're even selling this game via their site,going into a discrimination like that in Steam is unacceptable.
Feral is also porting games and selling keys via their store but they're not dividing games in Steam.
0 Likes
Quoting: wolfyrionNope , Nope , Nope!!!
Please stop this NOW and dont make it a trend!
I will not support any company or any porter who wants to have a separate version of a Game just for its greedy purposes.
This is a total Fiasco!
A game should support from the beginning the 3 OS...
Win , Mac and Linux! End of Story!
If you are a porter and you want to port an existing game then get money from the people who didnt buy the specific game from the start.
I have supported that company and I bought it when it was in windows, its an old version of the game that I already have and I have just switched OS to Linux and if its ported to Linux , yes I should have the right to get it for FREE!
Example 1 :
I am a windows user and have already bought many games on Windows and I want to migrate to Linux!
OHHHH MY GOD!!!!
ALL MY GAMES ARE NOT SUPPORTED ON LINUX AND I HAVE TO BUY 2K GAMES AGAIN JUST FOR LINUX WTF??!?!?!!!!
#@$%@#% THIS!
I AM STAYING WITH WINDOWS!!!!
Please STOP THIS trend and dont support this kind of porters!!!
We want everyone to play their games on their favorite OS!!! Doesnt matter if its Windows or Mac or Linux!
With this kind of practices you are forcing all the people to buy again all the games from the start because at that time there was not a Linux native port!
NOPE NOPE NOPE!!!
At the end we will have 3 separate version of the games
Rocket League for MAC
Rocket League for Windows
Rocket League for Linux
Do you really want this scenario to happen??? I DONT!!!
We want all the games to have 3 versions and buy it only once! that is called a PC - MY PC can have any different OS
Linux , Mac , Windows - I do whatever I want with my PC
PC's are not consoles!
I really disagree with this kind of practises and I am very disappointed because Gamingonlinux supported this kind of ports.
Many companies are giving away many re-mastered versions of their existing games for FREE which now are supporting Linux and Mac.
I demand from this company to merge the existing game into one and refund all the money to the people who have bought it if they already own the existing game!
If you decide to buy a MacBook Pro running macOS Sierra and you buy a game from the Mac App Store -- you are not entitled to get a free Steam or GOG copy of the same title. Why? Because we are talking about different platforms, different programmers and support staff: Apple takes a 30 % cut of your software, there's a different validation and approval process for software, Valve and Microsoft also take around 30 % of each purchase -- just like a "physical" retail company like Best Buy.
There wouldn't be any AAA games on Linux if it wasn't for porters like Aspyr or Feral. Big publishers are not interested in Linux at all, Steam machines failed.
What do you expect?
Feral needs to pay for project leads, programmers, marketing and PR people. They need to secure publishing rights, take care of legal stuff, get in contact with Apple and Valve to get software approved, test and support games, even when they're older and not profitable anymore.
You don't get that for free. Do you work for free? Do you demand free rent from your landlord just because you used to pay for your former flat in a different place?
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: pbSo, I did say exactly what I said - that I said I did. Okay.Quoting: liamdaweQuoting: pbWho said I bought a Windows version? I don't need Windows games I get them in bundles but they only clutter my library. I don't care if the game is ported day-1 or day-100, I don't think it's honest by any measure to pay 100% for Windows version and 110% for Linux version, but it would be honest to pay 100% for Windows OR Linux OR Mac version and +10% for each additional OS.Indeed, that was part of my point in the article about an upgrade option :)
Yeah, you should probably go read your article (I just did it *for the second time*) because there is no such statement in your text. You said "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."
Quoting: pband that implies Linux/Mac version should be an upgrade to a Windows version, I simply can't agree to that because I'm interested exclusively in the Linux version and I don't see a reason why I should pay for the main game + for the "upgrade" just for the sake of it.I was talking specifically about if you already own the Windows version. Not saying you need to pay for Windows AND then Linux too on top of it. I mentioned an upgrade option, meaning paying less to have it also on that other platform. So it's a way for people to appreciate the porting work, porters actually get paid and we continue to get more ports by properly funded porters.
Again, you're not reading what I wrote correctly :)
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 15 March 2017 at 5:38 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: liamdaweSorry, I was trolling youQuoting: gurv"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."Nice assumption there. It came free with my GPU. Really people, come on. Let's not do childish remarks at me here.
So you bought Fallout 4 for Windows?
Nice way to throw the whole "no tux, no bux" out the window...
I actually thought you described an hypothetical situation.But still, I think a little clarification was welcome given the subject we're discussing.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: gurvAh yeah, there's always room for improvements for sure, will add it in :)Quoting: liamdaweSorry, I was trolling youQuoting: gurv"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."Nice assumption there. It came free with my GPU. Really people, come on. Let's not do childish remarks at me here.
So you bought Fallout 4 for Windows?
Nice way to throw the whole "no tux, no bux" out the window...
But still, I think a little clarification was welcome given the subject we're discussing.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: liamdaweAgain, you're not reading what I wrote correctly :)
Gee, I wonder why that is.
0 Likes
Quoting: JanThere wouldn't be any AAA games on Linux if it wasn't for porters like Aspyr or Feral. Big publishers are not interested in Linux at all, Steam machines failed.That's assuming Valve did give up on it.
And they most likely haven't (cue: they hire more and more Linux developers)
0 Likes
Quoting: pbYes, I do wonder why? The term "upgrade" is pretty clear in what it means.Quoting: liamdaweAgain, you're not reading what I wrote correctly :)
Gee, I wonder why that is.
0 Likes
Quoting: JanQuoting: wolfyrionNope , Nope , Nope!!!
Please stop this NOW and dont make it a trend!
I will not support any company or any porter who wants to have a separate version of a Game just for its greedy purposes.
This is a total Fiasco!
A game should support from the beginning the 3 OS...
Win , Mac and Linux! End of Story!
If you are a porter and you want to port an existing game then get money from the people who didnt buy the specific game from the start.
I have supported that company and I bought it when it was in windows, its an old version of the game that I already have and I have just switched OS to Linux and if its ported to Linux , yes I should have the right to get it for FREE!
Example 1 :
I am a windows user and have already bought many games on Windows and I want to migrate to Linux!
OHHHH MY GOD!!!!
ALL MY GAMES ARE NOT SUPPORTED ON LINUX AND I HAVE TO BUY 2K GAMES AGAIN JUST FOR LINUX WTF??!?!?!!!!
#@$%@#% THIS!
I AM STAYING WITH WINDOWS!!!!
Please STOP THIS trend and dont support this kind of porters!!!
We want everyone to play their games on their favorite OS!!! Doesnt matter if its Windows or Mac or Linux!
With this kind of practices you are forcing all the people to buy again all the games from the start because at that time there was not a Linux native port!
NOPE NOPE NOPE!!!
At the end we will have 3 separate version of the games
Rocket League for MAC
Rocket League for Windows
Rocket League for Linux
Do you really want this scenario to happen??? I DONT!!!
We want all the games to have 3 versions and buy it only once! that is called a PC - MY PC can have any different OS
Linux , Mac , Windows - I do whatever I want with my PC
PC's are not consoles!
I really disagree with this kind of practises and I am very disappointed because Gamingonlinux supported this kind of ports.
Many companies are giving away many re-mastered versions of their existing games for FREE which now are supporting Linux and Mac.
I demand from this company to merge the existing game into one and refund all the money to the people who have bought it if they already own the existing game!
If you decide to buy a MacBook Pro running macOS Sierra and you buy a game from the Mac App Store -- you are not entitled to get a free Steam or GOG copy of the same title. Why? Because we are talking about different platforms, different programmers and support staff: Apple takes a 30 % cut of your software, there's a different validation and approval process for software, Valve and Microsoft also take around 30 % of each purchase -- just like a "physical" retail company like Best Buy.
There wouldn't be any AAA games on Linux if it wasn't for porters like Aspyr or Feral. Big publishers are not interested in Linux at all, Steam machines failed.
What do you expect?
Feral needs to pay for project leads, programmers, marketing and PR people. They need to secure publishing rights, take care of legal stuff, get in contact with Apple and Valve to get software approved, test and support games, even when they're older and not profitable anymore.
You don't get that for free. Do you work for free? Do you demand free rent from your landlord just because you used to pay for your former flat in a different place?
Hahhaha,i can kill your argument over Feral with one sentence.
They're already selling their ported games via Feral Store;which gives them much more money and people on here are know that situation and do shopping from there.
So;are you satisfied?There is no need for seperation in Steam.Which VP is also selling keys in their store.
It's obvious you get used to ripping off by long times you spent on Apple's ecosystem;so it is normal that you can justify greed.
1 Likes, Who?
So, here's how I feel about it.
Nowadays, I only buy games that run on Linux, where the Linux icon appears on Steam. I do even wait to buy it, until I'm on a Linux box, should I somehow be on another platform at the moment. I try to buy as many games from publishers, like Feral, on their site directly, if they have a Steam key. So far so good.
Now, there are currently 90 Windows-only games in my library (I now have many more games that run on Linux too), from when I was still gaming on Windows, like 3 years ago. And there, it becomes a difficult question.
Honestly, if a game was really worth it, I might buy it again.
However, that being said, before a game is ported to Linux, or any other platform it currently runs on (this isn't a Linux-only problem), the developer/publisher of course needs to do a market analysis, if the port is even worth it.
Now, that analysis will probably include a lot of factors, such as:
a) Will people, that have the game on one platform, buy it again for the target platform?
Probably some will do, as we have already seen by the comments to this article. But you can not count on the fact that everyone will. It would not make sense from a business perspective to expect that, either.
b) How many new sales can we generate?
Here again, you can not rely on the fact that 100% of the users of your target platform will actually buy the game. Some are not interested, some don't have the money, some already have the game on another platform. Also, you have to account for the fact that some people only buy games on sale.
c) How much buzz can we generate?
When porting to another platform, there is also another thing, besides money for the port, that you get. Popularity. Even if you may not break even on this port, you have to consider future games, too. If people know you release games for their platform, and they like your games, there's a good chance they'll buy in the future. The future porting will probably also be less costly, as you can pre-plan for the platform from the get-go, and make porting a lot easier. Or develop for the platform directly from the get-go.
TL;DR: So what I'm saying is, as a developer/publisher, you probably already take into account sales on other platforms, and that they might not rebuy, before doing the port, amongst other factors.
It's not an easy business, and everyone should get paid what they deserve, but you have to do your market studies. Just like for every other product you want to sell.
Nowadays, I only buy games that run on Linux, where the Linux icon appears on Steam. I do even wait to buy it, until I'm on a Linux box, should I somehow be on another platform at the moment. I try to buy as many games from publishers, like Feral, on their site directly, if they have a Steam key. So far so good.
Now, there are currently 90 Windows-only games in my library (I now have many more games that run on Linux too), from when I was still gaming on Windows, like 3 years ago. And there, it becomes a difficult question.
Honestly, if a game was really worth it, I might buy it again.
However, that being said, before a game is ported to Linux, or any other platform it currently runs on (this isn't a Linux-only problem), the developer/publisher of course needs to do a market analysis, if the port is even worth it.
Now, that analysis will probably include a lot of factors, such as:
a) Will people, that have the game on one platform, buy it again for the target platform?
Probably some will do, as we have already seen by the comments to this article. But you can not count on the fact that everyone will. It would not make sense from a business perspective to expect that, either.
b) How many new sales can we generate?
Here again, you can not rely on the fact that 100% of the users of your target platform will actually buy the game. Some are not interested, some don't have the money, some already have the game on another platform. Also, you have to account for the fact that some people only buy games on sale.
c) How much buzz can we generate?
When porting to another platform, there is also another thing, besides money for the port, that you get. Popularity. Even if you may not break even on this port, you have to consider future games, too. If people know you release games for their platform, and they like your games, there's a good chance they'll buy in the future. The future porting will probably also be less costly, as you can pre-plan for the platform from the get-go, and make porting a lot easier. Or develop for the platform directly from the get-go.
TL;DR: So what I'm saying is, as a developer/publisher, you probably already take into account sales on other platforms, and that they might not rebuy, before doing the port, amongst other factors.
It's not an easy business, and everyone should get paid what they deserve, but you have to do your market studies. Just like for every other product you want to sell.
5 Likes, Who?
See more from me