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.
What will be next? Nvidia or AMD graphics? Vive or Occulus? a game for exactly diferent PC configuration or what?
Its' only 1 platform and its called PC. Doesn't matter what OS im using or what graphic card or sound card... camon guys.. where is the spirit of PC?
-Ey dude try linux is nice to play.
-oh, nice idea... oh wait! i should buy all games again! no way!
Last edited by bubexel on 15 March 2017 at 6:02 pm UTC
Its' only 1 platform and its called PC. Doesn't matter what OS im using or what graphic card or sound card... camon guys.. where is the spirit of PC?
-Ey dude try linux is nice to play.
-oh, nice idea... oh wait! i should buy all games again! no way!
Last edited by bubexel on 15 March 2017 at 6:02 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: gurvQuoting: 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)
Feral has built their business over 20 years solely on Mac customers.
They even created their own multiplayer and matchmaking service called 'Calico" exclusively for Mac App Store users -- it's like a proper version of Apple's own (and flawed) Game Center.
Edwin Smith and several other high-profile Feral employees -- even in their official Feral newsletter 'News from the source' and on Facebook -- mentioned that the App Store business is roughly half of their customer base. That's the reason why 'Calico' exists.
Ellie or Edwin, please correct me if I'm totally wrong. ;-)
It's my impression Feral is focusing a bit more on premium AAA iOS ports recently -- like Total War and GRID Autosport.
I'm sure and I hope they will release more big Linux/Mac titles like Rise of the Tomb Raider or Shadow of War -- but I highly doubt they could survive (at least in their current form) without the Apple market.
It's not my intention to start a Mac vs. Linux debate -- both platforms are very important for diversity -- it's just a reality check and we shouldn't be delusional about the commercial state of Linux gaming.
Take a look at Aspyr: Jade Empire Remastered released only for Mac and iOS, Mafia III is only announced for Mac, Civ VI was delayed. Even though the only Mac with a gaming capable GPU are the higher-end iMacs.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: bubexelWhat will be next? Nvidia or AMD graphics? Vive or Occulus? a game for exactly diferent PC configuration or what?
Its' only 1 platform and its called PC. Doesn't matter what OS im using or what graphic card or sound card... camon guys.. where is the spirit of PC?
They already have that covered, games running on the x86 hardware. That covers the "PC". The OS is normally considered a different platform. But I do get your point and what you mean.
0 Likes
Quoting: t3gNo.
I have games that I bought prior to Linux gaming and won't pay extra. Especially for ports that perform much worse than the Windows one.
If that happens, ill just game on Windows 100%
Then you're not part of the solution, at least not given the current market circumstances. It's a chicken-and-egg situation: As long as there are porting companies their employees need to be paid.
No porters, no games, at least until Vulkan is ready and all the big publishers embrace it for their AAA titles. Indies are different because they're mostly using Unity anyway.
Last edited by Jan on 15 March 2017 at 6:11 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Mar 15, 2017
Quoting: LeopardHahhaha,i can kill your argument over Feral with one sentence.
You killed nothing.
When a company licenses a port from a publisher, like Feral and Aspyr do, they don't get any money from the Windows sales. So, you wonder why these companies still honour the Steamplay system?.. easy:
When Feral chooses an older game to port, like "Dawn of War II" or "Total War: Shogun 2", these tend to be games with DLCs available. So there's a fairly good chance that someone with a game already on Windows might show additional support by picking up a DLC or two, or maybe to pick up a DLC so they have something new to enjoy with the game they already own.
Anyway, this is not an all out or all in situation. In cases where a game is ported from day 1, I see no reason to charge separately. In other cases it's quite necessary to charge again if the porter hopes to actually recoup the money/effort they spent porting it. It's not about "greed".
Basically, in a nutshell: Read Liam's article again, slowly.
8 Likes, Who?
Quoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: LeopardHahhaha,i can kill your argument over Feral with one sentence.
You killed nothing.
When a company licenses a port from a publisher, like Feral and Aspyr do, they don't get any money from the Windows sales. So, you wonder why these companies still honour the Steamplay system?.. easy:
When Feral chooses an older game to port, like "Dawn of War II" or "Total War: Shogun 2", these tend to be games with DLCs available. So there's a fairly good chance that someone with a game already on Windows might show additional support by picking up a DLC or two, or maybe to pick up a DLC so they have something new to enjoy with the game they already own.
Anyway, this is not an all out or all in situation. In cases where a game is ported from day 1, I see no reason to charge separately. In other cases it's quite necessary to charge again if the porter hopes to actually recoup the money/effort they spent porting it. It's not about "greed".
Basically, in a nutshell: Read Liam's article again, slowly.
Are you aware of they're done porting of games after one year(most optimistic time) after Windows version released?
Do you know that when you buy their game via Steam on LINUX;they paid.If you get it from Steam on Windows they will get nothing.I think you don't know that.And in this cases already Windows users are disposing that fairly new ported game months ago.
You said:When a company licenses a port from a publisher, like Feral and Aspyr do, they don't get any money from the Windows sales. So, you wonder why these companies still honour the Steamplay system?.. easy:
Yes,that is why they have a seperate store selling Steam keys?!
Basically, in a nutshell:Keep licking companies.
Last edited by Leopard on 15 March 2017 at 6:20 pm UTC
0 Likes
Crazy Penguin Mar 15, 2017
What the hell? There is no way that I'm going to support this! Our Goal should be Day-1 Release for Linux and nothing else! If this becomes common practice I'm back on Windows for Gaming! Such practices are the first nail into the coffin for Linux-Gaming!
2 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Mar 15, 2017
There used to be some horrible myths about Linux and gaming going around... you know them well, things like "too many distributions to support" and "nobody plays games on Linux" - that sort of thing.
One of these myths was always "Linux users just want everything for free". Our support of Humble Indie Bundle debunked this one fast, but now I'm starting to think there's something to this. Maybe these people were right.
Porting games to Linux costs money. You should jump at opportunities to support your porters financially so they can keep on doing it. If there's nobody doing Linux ports, WE GET NO LINUX PORTS.
One of these myths was always "Linux users just want everything for free". Our support of Humble Indie Bundle debunked this one fast, but now I'm starting to think there's something to this. Maybe these people were right.
Porting games to Linux costs money. You should jump at opportunities to support your porters financially so they can keep on doing it. If there's nobody doing Linux ports, WE GET NO LINUX PORTS.
7 Likes, Who?
No, just no.
Additionally, your logic is "well someone has to pay the porters!". Ok, so why am I paying the FULL price of the game again, not just a "porting fee"? I've already bought it once - that paid the designers, the artists, the writers, the coders. You're telling me to pay the FULL price of the game again JUST for the port? No, that's greedy and they can fuck off if that's how they want to play.
EDIT: Actually I'm going to add to this as the editorial appears to be full of shitty strawmen:
How did you go from people being frugal to a Linux port being worth less? You've taken one thing and made a massive assumption. Don't you think those people also only buy Windows games when they're on big sales because they're trying to be savvy with their money?
Yes, yes I would turn away from it. I've already paid AAA release title price, why would I pay that again? How much, out of the total that they need to recover, do you think the porting cost? The game costs X because they have to pay a LOT of people (as well as extra work such as marketing, etc). Double dipping on a second sister-platform for people that already own a copy doesn't sit well because that person has already funded every part of that development, except for the porting, which compared to the whole would be a pretty insignificant amount of money.
Last edited by Enverex on 15 March 2017 at 6:54 pm UTC
Additionally, your logic is "well someone has to pay the porters!". Ok, so why am I paying the FULL price of the game again, not just a "porting fee"? I've already bought it once - that paid the designers, the artists, the writers, the coders. You're telling me to pay the FULL price of the game again JUST for the port? No, that's greedy and they can fuck off if that's how they want to play.
EDIT: Actually I'm going to add to this as the editorial appears to be full of shitty strawmen:
QuoteEvery 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.
How did you go from people being frugal to a Linux port being worth less? You've taken one thing and made a massive assumption. Don't you think those people also only buy Windows games when they're on big sales because they're trying to be savvy with their money?
QuoteIf 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?
Yes, yes I would turn away from it. I've already paid AAA release title price, why would I pay that again? How much, out of the total that they need to recover, do you think the porting cost? The game costs X because they have to pay a LOT of people (as well as extra work such as marketing, etc). Double dipping on a second sister-platform for people that already own a copy doesn't sit well because that person has already funded every part of that development, except for the porting, which compared to the whole would be a pretty insignificant amount of money.
Last edited by Enverex on 15 March 2017 at 6:54 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: rustybroomhandleThere used to be some horrible myths about Linux and gaming going around... you know them well, things like "too many distributions to support" and "nobody plays games on Linux" - that sort of thing.
One of these myths was always "Linux users just want everything for free". Our support of Humble Indie Bundle debunked this one fast, but now I'm starting to think there's something to this. Maybe these people were right.
Porting games to Linux costs money. You should jump at opportunities to support your porters financially so they can keep on doing it. If there's nobody doing Linux ports, WE GET NO LINUX PORTS.
Then buy it from their store and activate it on Steam?Is it that hard to understand?
This kinda moves will change minds of people who wants to switch to Linux from Windows.No body will buy their owned games twice.
1 Likes, Who?
One thing I am wondering here is about Cory Doctorows article about "The coming war on general purpose computing".
This outright claims that the problems porting between systems are only because of the software on propriety hardware is designed to make it hard. I trust Cory Doctorow, but he isn't a game developer. Is there more to it than that?
QuoteWe don't know how to build a general-purpose computer that is capable of running any program except for some program that we don't like, is prohibited by law, or which loses us money. The closest approximation that we have to this is a computer with spyware: a computer on which remote parties set policies without the computer user's knowledge, or over the objection of the computer's owner. Digital rights management always converges on malware.
-Cory Doctorow
This outright claims that the problems porting between systems are only because of the software on propriety hardware is designed to make it hard. I trust Cory Doctorow, but he isn't a game developer. Is there more to it than that?
0 Likes
Ok, i read all comments. And yes it's a very hard topic.
I agree with some and i don't agree with some statements.
But i would like to add some issue, that nobody talked here and i think it's important.
==> The DRM-Free case.
I mean, buy a Linux version of a game ported/developed by some companies (that i already have on Windows or not), i don't have problems with this.
But stay stuck in the Steam environment, with all it's monopoly, DRM etc. I don't think it's an ultimate goal of Gaming on Linux, and even Windows or OS X...
In all cases, it's not really good, and even more when we're speaking about Linux, the Open Source OS.
And that's the main reason i'm still don't buy games ported by Feral and many others.
I already asked this question, why they don't release at DMR-Free, for example on their own store if they want to have Full money on it ?
I'll not have the answer soon...
Besides that, the "No Tux = No Bux", i don't apply blindly that, for some old games for example, in sold.
I can buy them if it's run pretty well on Wine. I accept that.
All the old games can't be ported to Linux/OS X...
In fact for me it's (1 is top) :
1 - Open Source Linux Game
2 - DRM-Free Linux Game
3 - DRM-Free Windows Game
4 - Linux Game with DRM
5 - Windows Game with DRM
But, in practice, i never buy games with DRM.
I agree with some and i don't agree with some statements.
But i would like to add some issue, that nobody talked here and i think it's important.
==> The DRM-Free case.
I mean, buy a Linux version of a game ported/developed by some companies (that i already have on Windows or not), i don't have problems with this.
But stay stuck in the Steam environment, with all it's monopoly, DRM etc. I don't think it's an ultimate goal of Gaming on Linux, and even Windows or OS X...
In all cases, it's not really good, and even more when we're speaking about Linux, the Open Source OS.
And that's the main reason i'm still don't buy games ported by Feral and many others.
I already asked this question, why they don't release at DMR-Free, for example on their own store if they want to have Full money on it ?
I'll not have the answer soon...
Besides that, the "No Tux = No Bux", i don't apply blindly that, for some old games for example, in sold.
I can buy them if it's run pretty well on Wine. I accept that.
All the old games can't be ported to Linux/OS X...
In fact for me it's (1 is top) :
1 - Open Source Linux Game
2 - DRM-Free Linux Game
3 - DRM-Free Windows Game
4 - Linux Game with DRM
5 - Windows Game with DRM
But, in practice, i never buy games with DRM.
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: rustybroomhandleThere used to be some horrible myths about Linux and gaming going around... you know them well, things like "too many distributions to support" and "nobody plays games on Linux" - that sort of thing.'
One of these myths was always "Linux users just want everything for free". Our support of Humble Indie Bundle debunked this one fast, but now I'm starting to think there's something to this. Maybe these people were right.
Porting games to Linux costs money. You should jump at opportunities to support your porters financially so they can keep on doing it. If there's nobody doing Linux ports, WE GET NO LINUX PORTS.
I think you're trying to argue against the human psyche. If we turned it around and Linux was the dominating OS with all the games and Windows getting a few ports, it would still be the same. Why would you spend your hard earned money twice on something you already own?
Who doesn't like getting things for free?
It's not a consumers job to to support a company financially. Consumer buy a product they want to buy. Don't give people the idea that they should buy games even if they don't like a game, or that they should go out of their way to support a company (beyond buying the product). If people want to play games on Linux, that's cool, and if they want to play on Windows that's cool too.
3 Likes, Who?
Comandante Ñoñardo Mar 15, 2017
I agree on paying for Linux games when you already have the Windows version in your steam library, because is the only thing that makes the gaming on Linux a serious business and is the best way to track Linux numbers...
And publishers should get a higher cut from the Linux version than the cut they got from the windows version, if Valve want the success of Steam OS... Example: If We want big publishers like Activision or Bethesda releasing their games on Linux, Valve must give them an offer that they can not reject: a higher cut than Windows and consoles.
I disagree with those who want to get the linux version as a DLC of the Windows version they bought years ago, because that is to treat Linux as a residual of Windows.
I disagree with those who thing that Steam is a platform.
Steam is an store and a DRM; the platform is the OS where the Steam client and the games are running.
Licences must be per OS if we want to attract publishers, Developers and porters.
To want that a licence of a game from the Windows platform must be valid on the Linux platform, is like to want that a licence of a PS4 game platform must be valid on the Xbox one platform.
I don't understand why Feral, publisher of the Linux ports they make, don't list their ports apart from the windows version.. They are loosing a lot money, because a lot of people are playing their ports for free, due to the Steamplay.
If You switched from Windows for never come back, the best way to support Linux is to forget about the Steam account from your windows era, open a new Steam account and buy the games again.
In my case, I have two machines; one with a legit Windows 7 and another with Ubuntu (the one I am using for to write this)
For to support Linux, I created an steam account just for that and I re-bought a lot of the games I have on my windows steam account.
I support the gaming on linux so much, that some games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Mad Max, Alien isolation, Shadow of Mordor and a few indie games are only present in my Linux Steam account...
(sadly there are windows games in the linux steam account, because they came bundled)
I am thinking about to do the same with GOG.
And publishers should get a higher cut from the Linux version than the cut they got from the windows version, if Valve want the success of Steam OS... Example: If We want big publishers like Activision or Bethesda releasing their games on Linux, Valve must give them an offer that they can not reject: a higher cut than Windows and consoles.
I disagree with those who want to get the linux version as a DLC of the Windows version they bought years ago, because that is to treat Linux as a residual of Windows.
I disagree with those who thing that Steam is a platform.
Steam is an store and a DRM; the platform is the OS where the Steam client and the games are running.
Licences must be per OS if we want to attract publishers, Developers and porters.
To want that a licence of a game from the Windows platform must be valid on the Linux platform, is like to want that a licence of a PS4 game platform must be valid on the Xbox one platform.
I don't understand why Feral, publisher of the Linux ports they make, don't list their ports apart from the windows version.. They are loosing a lot money, because a lot of people are playing their ports for free, due to the Steamplay.
If You switched from Windows for never come back, the best way to support Linux is to forget about the Steam account from your windows era, open a new Steam account and buy the games again.
In my case, I have two machines; one with a legit Windows 7 and another with Ubuntu (the one I am using for to write this)
For to support Linux, I created an steam account just for that and I re-bought a lot of the games I have on my windows steam account.
I support the gaming on linux so much, that some games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Mad Max, Alien isolation, Shadow of Mordor and a few indie games are only present in my Linux Steam account...
(sadly there are windows games in the linux steam account, because they came bundled)
I am thinking about to do the same with GOG.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: EnverexNo, just no.How about, you read the article, slowly. I clearly said they could use an upgrade type of deal.
Additionally, your logic is "well someone has to pay the porters!". Ok, so why am I paying the FULL price of the game again, not just a "porting fee"? I've already bought it once - that paid the designers, the artists, the writers, the coders. You're telling me to pay the FULL price of the game again JUST for the port? No, that's greedy and they can fuck off if that's how they want to play.
I'm not outright saying people have to buy a Linux copy 100% full price for every single Windows game they own. Also, for a lot of people who claim to be Linux-only gamers, there sure is a lot of people getting angry at having to apparently pay double, when they only buy Linux games? If that was true, this wouldn't be an issue ;)
Like I also said, very clearly, it is not a one size fits all approach.
Some of the attitudes being shown in here are absolutely shocking. Mainly, because it seems people keep glossing over things I've actually said in the article.
Quoting: EnverexYes, yes I would turn away from it. I've already paid AAA release title price, why would I pay that again? How much, out of the total that they need to recover, do you think the porting cost? The game costs X because they have to pay a LOT of people (as well as extra work such as marketing, etc). Double dipping on a second sister-platform for people that already own a copy doesn't sit well because that person has already funded every part of that development, except for the porting, which compared to the whole would be a pretty insignificant amount of money.You, like a lot of others are making assumptions here. Who said you would have to pay the exact same amount as the price it was on Windows at original release? I sure didn't. It would of course be up to the porter/publisher to decide on the price of it. I said I (specifically I) would, not that everyone should.
Last edited by Liam Dawe on 15 March 2017 at 7:33 pm UTC
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoIf You switched from Windows for never come back, the best way to support Linux is to forget about the Steam account from your windows era, open a new Steam account and buy the games again.
I fail to understand your reasoning here. If you buy a game on Linux and play it on Linux it counts as a Linux sale. Why do you need a new account only for Linux?
Last edited by Aryvandaar on 15 March 2017 at 7:32 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
thelimeydragon Mar 15, 2017
Only other case I am aware of:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/214630/
Essentially there's two copies of the game on the steam store.
The "Arma: Cold War Assault" in question is Steamplay... it's just Steamplay between Mac and Linux computers.
The other "Arma: Cold War Assault" is also technically Steamplay.. except it only has a Windows version.
I believe valve prefers companies not divide games up like this but I guess sometimes contractual reasons cause games to be split.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/214630/
Essentially there's two copies of the game on the steam store.
The "Arma: Cold War Assault" in question is Steamplay... it's just Steamplay between Mac and Linux computers.
The other "Arma: Cold War Assault" is also technically Steamplay.. except it only has a Windows version.
I believe valve prefers companies not divide games up like this but I guess sometimes contractual reasons cause games to be split.
0 Likes
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoI agree on paying for Linux games when you already have the Windows version in your steam library, because is the only thing that makes the gaming on Linux a serious business and is the best way to track Linux numbers...
And publishers should get a higher cut from the Linux version than the cut they got from the windows version, if Valve want the success of Steam OS... Example: If We want big publishers like Activision or Bethesda releasing their games on Linux, Valve must give them an offer that they can not reject: a higher cut than Windows and consoles.
I disagree with those who want to get the linux version as a DLC of the Windows version they bought years ago, because that is to treat Linux as a residual of Windows.
I disagree with those who thing that Steam is a platform.
Steam is an store and a DRM; the platform is the OS where the Steam client and the games are running.
Licences must be per OS if we want to attract publishers, Developers and porters.
To want that a licence of a game from the Windows platform must be valid on the Linux platform, is like to want that a licence of a PS4 game platform must be valid on the Xbox one platform.
I don't understand why Feral, publisher of the Linux ports they make, don't list their ports apart from the windows version.. They are loosing a lot money, because a lot of people are playing their ports for free, due to the Steamplay.
If You switched from Windows for never come back, the best way to support Linux is to forget about the Steam account from your windows era, open a new Steam account and buy the games again.
In my case, I have two machines; one with a legit Windows 7 and another with Ubuntu (the one I am using for to write this)
For to support Linux, I created an steam account just for that and I re-bought a lot of the games I have on my windows steam account.
I support the gaming on linux so much, that some games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Mad Max, Alien isolation, Shadow of Mordor and a few indie games are only present in my Linux Steam account...
(sadly there are windows games in the linux steam account, because they came bundled)
I am thinking about to do the same with GOG.
It work perfect for you, who love linux. But when friends ask me to try linux and they get dissapointed because not all their games works on linux now i just need to sum that no one of their games will work because they have to buy them all again. Yes sure, its a great idea... bleh
2 Likes, Who?
QuoteIt work perfect for you, who love linux. But when friends ask me to try linux and they get dissapointed because not all their games works on linux now i just need to sum that no one of their games will work because they have to buy them all again. Yes sure, its a great idea... bleh
Yeah but if you want to switch from Windows to Linux, it's not just for Games. It have generally a philosophy behind that.
So it's not so easy, i can understand that.
The problem here, it's just that Windows version and Linux/OSX versions have not always multiplayer compatibilities etc.
That's the main issue, without this, you could play all games with your friends.
But yeah not so simple due to middleware and so on...
2 Likes, Who?
"There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway."
and this is an extra reason to then to not take off.
its a shame that microsoft is doing an "if you purchase an game on xbox you can play then on windows"
and steam machines that always had ths selling point are loosing it.
i dont blame the port house, i blame valve for leting this happen, their strategy with steam machines was the same as their market: null.
i dont know what is worse, to think that the only reason we are getting some games is because valve Subsidized part of the cost of the port and if they ever give up on that, we will stop geting new games...
or to think that valve may not be putting money into this at all.
yeah, they are hiring one developer here and there, i dont see this as Serious investment/commitment.
" you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? "
except that sony get an cut on each games sold for PS4, microsoft get an cut for every sale on xb1, but guess what?
valve get an cut of every game sold on steam for both windows and linux, couldnt then solve it?
and this is an extra reason to then to not take off.
its a shame that microsoft is doing an "if you purchase an game on xbox you can play then on windows"
and steam machines that always had ths selling point are loosing it.
i dont blame the port house, i blame valve for leting this happen, their strategy with steam machines was the same as their market: null.
i dont know what is worse, to think that the only reason we are getting some games is because valve Subsidized part of the cost of the port and if they ever give up on that, we will stop geting new games...
or to think that valve may not be putting money into this at all.
yeah, they are hiring one developer here and there, i dont see this as Serious investment/commitment.
" you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? "
except that sony get an cut on each games sold for PS4, microsoft get an cut for every sale on xb1, but guess what?
valve get an cut of every game sold on steam for both windows and linux, couldnt then solve it?
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me