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: bubexelIt 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
Linux gamers aren't just gamers. We're also Linux enthusiasts, or at least people who aren't very fond of Windows. If people come to me asking for advice to try Linux I will give it, but also with the cold hard truth of Linux vs Windows.
5 Likes, Who?
ObsidianBlk Mar 15, 2017
Porters should get paid, but, it shouldn't be the customer's responsibility to worry about whether someone's financially supported or not. The developers who are too lazy (or inexperienced, if you want to be kind) to make the game cross platform in the first place and decide to hire an outside porter should be solely responsible for the financial well being of that porter... whether that be a lump-sum payment or a percentage royalty payment to the porter.
As far as whether I should have to buy the game all over again for each platform I want to play it on...
First of all, comparing having a game for Playstation and XBox to that of PCs is a bullsh*t argument. Firstly, PC has no bar to entry. Develop your game and sell. Steam, Origin, etc, are not REQUIRED to sell your game. Putting your game on Playstation and/or XBox (from what I've heard) is a chore and a half, even IF the game was written to cross support those platforms. Until Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (to go with the big three) take the sticks out their collective asses about what games can and cannot run on their system, it, at least, makes sense you can't but a game for Playstation and expect to play it on XBox. For crying out loud, the two systems won't even talk to each other from a network perspective (and I have a huge issue with not being able to play cross network. All limitations to that degree are artificial)
Now, on the PC side of things... I absolutely abore the idea of having to pay for a game more than once if I wanted to play that game in more than one OS. Firstly, when you think of everything that comes in the game, 99% of a physical space of the game is taken up purely by Assets (graphics, audio, scripts, etc). Assets DO NOT change from platform to platform... so why am I paying for the 3D model of my in-game character twice? No! So... beyond assets, you have the Binaries (executable and associated libraries). It's in the Binaries that the porter's work is done... and the amount of work the porter has to do is proportional to how many proprietary libraries the original developer went with instead of cross platform libraries. If the developers were even a little worth their salt, the core mechanics of the game would be decoupled from the difficult to port systems (audio/graphic engines, network interfaces, and, possibly, scripts interpreters), and, as such, the porter shouldn't really even be poking in the game mechanics.
Paying full price for a game for each OS you want to play that game on is purely greed, and, I say again, it should NOT be MY responsibility to make sure any porter is paid... that's the developer's job. That said, I will concede that a small "unlock" cost is acceptable. Full price for the first OS, then a smaller percentage for each additional (say, something like 10% the base cost). As an example, I buy "AAA Game Deluxe" on Linux for $60. I want to play it on my Windows partition too, so, since I already bought the game, $6 will give me access to the game for Windows. If I want to, then, play on Mac, then $6 again.
Realistically, though... all three platforms should be default.
As far as whether I should have to buy the game all over again for each platform I want to play it on...
First of all, comparing having a game for Playstation and XBox to that of PCs is a bullsh*t argument. Firstly, PC has no bar to entry. Develop your game and sell. Steam, Origin, etc, are not REQUIRED to sell your game. Putting your game on Playstation and/or XBox (from what I've heard) is a chore and a half, even IF the game was written to cross support those platforms. Until Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (to go with the big three) take the sticks out their collective asses about what games can and cannot run on their system, it, at least, makes sense you can't but a game for Playstation and expect to play it on XBox. For crying out loud, the two systems won't even talk to each other from a network perspective (and I have a huge issue with not being able to play cross network. All limitations to that degree are artificial)
Now, on the PC side of things... I absolutely abore the idea of having to pay for a game more than once if I wanted to play that game in more than one OS. Firstly, when you think of everything that comes in the game, 99% of a physical space of the game is taken up purely by Assets (graphics, audio, scripts, etc). Assets DO NOT change from platform to platform... so why am I paying for the 3D model of my in-game character twice? No! So... beyond assets, you have the Binaries (executable and associated libraries). It's in the Binaries that the porter's work is done... and the amount of work the porter has to do is proportional to how many proprietary libraries the original developer went with instead of cross platform libraries. If the developers were even a little worth their salt, the core mechanics of the game would be decoupled from the difficult to port systems (audio/graphic engines, network interfaces, and, possibly, scripts interpreters), and, as such, the porter shouldn't really even be poking in the game mechanics.
Paying full price for a game for each OS you want to play that game on is purely greed, and, I say again, it should NOT be MY responsibility to make sure any porter is paid... that's the developer's job. That said, I will concede that a small "unlock" cost is acceptable. Full price for the first OS, then a smaller percentage for each additional (say, something like 10% the base cost). As an example, I buy "AAA Game Deluxe" on Linux for $60. I want to play it on my Windows partition too, so, since I already bought the game, $6 will give me access to the game for Windows. If I want to, then, play on Mac, then $6 again.
Realistically, though... all three platforms should be default.
5 Likes, Who?
This is a really bad idea.
If I own a particular game it makes no diffrence what so ever if the game gets ported at a later date as I can still play the game on the OS that it was released for so why would I purchase the game again.
If I already own the game then the porter is out of luck, However if I dont own the game then I am now a potential customer.
This is not the same as Consoles vs PC but even Microsoft are now starting to allow Xbox players to play on PC as even they see the benefit of cross platform play.
I would happily pay say £5 extra for a game at release that had cross platform support on day 1 but other than this its a definitive NO and I would seriouly consider giving up PC gaming entirly if games were to split.
The whole point of porting games to other platforms is to reach a wider customer base and thus get more game sales and not to milk customers for more money.
If I own a particular game it makes no diffrence what so ever if the game gets ported at a later date as I can still play the game on the OS that it was released for so why would I purchase the game again.
If I already own the game then the porter is out of luck, However if I dont own the game then I am now a potential customer.
This is not the same as Consoles vs PC but even Microsoft are now starting to allow Xbox players to play on PC as even they see the benefit of cross platform play.
I would happily pay say £5 extra for a game at release that had cross platform support on day 1 but other than this its a definitive NO and I would seriouly consider giving up PC gaming entirly if games were to split.
The whole point of porting games to other platforms is to reach a wider customer base and thus get more game sales and not to milk customers for more money.
1 Likes, Who?
To me, if this policy would become widespread it'd just make me even less likely to buy windows games. I can see how it might hurt those who already have a lot of windows games though.
I try to avoid any windows games unless they're from a developer that I really like. (Xseed, NIS America, Atlus, Stardock, etc.)
I try to avoid any windows games unless they're from a developer that I really like. (Xseed, NIS America, Atlus, Stardock, etc.)
0 Likes
Quoting: LeopardThat is reasonable but i hope this approach won't be a tradition about other releases.That is against to platform freedom.
Most of the people came to Linux from Windows platform,including me.If people had to pay again their owned games again,that will change their minds.No one wants to pay twice.
If we need more users on platform (which obviously we need),that is a dangerous move if this turn into a normal thing.
Agreed if i had to start paying for the Linux only versions of games I bought back in the day, i d be annoyed but i probably make a call if i liked the game that much i d probably run it on wine if it was feasible or if not i would go back to dual booting.
1 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Mar 15, 2017
Guys/gals ... it's not an all or nothing question.
Of course nobody wants to re-buy all their games again on Linux if they already have them on Windows and in 99% of cases developers don't expect you to, but in some cases it makes more sense for the porter to do that, as with the stated example "Arma: Cold War Assault".
Anyhoo, I'm done.
Of course nobody wants to re-buy all their games again on Linux if they already have them on Windows and in 99% of cases developers don't expect you to, but in some cases it makes more sense for the porter to do that, as with the stated example "Arma: Cold War Assault".
Anyhoo, I'm done.
4 Likes, Who?
kernel.havok Mar 15, 2017
The mentality in the comments of those complaining about having to pay for linux versions are the very reason developers don't bother with the burden of making sure it's linux supported in the first place.
It would be different if the game had, by the same team, been linux compatible from launch and then crossplay removed so you had to buy a linux key -- but that is clearly not the case.
Last edited by kernel.havok on 16 March 2017 at 9:09 pm UTC
It would be different if the game had, by the same team, been linux compatible from launch and then crossplay removed so you had to buy a linux key -- but that is clearly not the case.
Last edited by kernel.havok on 16 March 2017 at 9:09 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: AryvandaarQuoting: bubexelIt 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
Linux gamers aren't just gamers. We're also Linux enthusiasts, or at least people who aren't very fond of Windows. If people come to me asking for advice to try Linux I will give it, but also with the cold hard truth of Linux vs Windows.
You are right, but this proposal about pay again in linux make the Linux vs Windows MUCH WORST that is right now.
Do you think people will buy again their games to test if it work nice in linux? What if they don't like linux and want back to windows? what a mess
Your ideas are just a problem to people to give a try linux. I think companies should pay a fixed price to porting companies and not make them gain cash for the sales.
Last edited by bubexel on 15 March 2017 at 9:55 pm UTC
0 Likes
MintedGamer Mar 15, 2017
I can see both sides of the issue and it is a difficult situation.
One one side Valve is shooting themselves in the foot. Microsoft is working to close off Windows and move developers and customers to the Windows Store and they will go after Valves business, they already are. You're also buying the game and the underlying OS should be completely irrelevant in this day and age. The main benefit to switching from Windows to Linux as a gamer is that all your games come with you. If they didn't it would be an enormous barrier to people switching and Valve would lose any leverage they have over Microsoft to providing an alternative to MS cutting them out and shutting their business down.
Most companies see the underlying OS as irrelevant, Google, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft all have the policy where if you buy games/media on one platform it works across other platforms, e.g. PS4 and the Vita. Even the money hungry movie industry has relented and you get a digital film with your disk-based BluRay movie to play across platforms.
On the other hand ports cost money and take a lot of time and effort. Linux developers need to be supported or they will go out of business. Maybe an upgrade price would work but I doubt many gamers would pay it, they would say well I bought the game already so why do I have to pay again.
Hopefully its just a one-off and not a trend or it could potentially wipe out Linux as a gaming platform.
One one side Valve is shooting themselves in the foot. Microsoft is working to close off Windows and move developers and customers to the Windows Store and they will go after Valves business, they already are. You're also buying the game and the underlying OS should be completely irrelevant in this day and age. The main benefit to switching from Windows to Linux as a gamer is that all your games come with you. If they didn't it would be an enormous barrier to people switching and Valve would lose any leverage they have over Microsoft to providing an alternative to MS cutting them out and shutting their business down.
Most companies see the underlying OS as irrelevant, Google, Amazon, Sony, Microsoft all have the policy where if you buy games/media on one platform it works across other platforms, e.g. PS4 and the Vita. Even the money hungry movie industry has relented and you get a digital film with your disk-based BluRay movie to play across platforms.
On the other hand ports cost money and take a lot of time and effort. Linux developers need to be supported or they will go out of business. Maybe an upgrade price would work but I doubt many gamers would pay it, they would say well I bought the game already so why do I have to pay again.
Hopefully its just a one-off and not a trend or it could potentially wipe out Linux as a gaming platform.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: kernel.havokThe mentality see in the comments of those complaining about having to pay for linux versions are the very reason developers don't bother with the burden of making sure it's linux supported in the first place.
It would be different if the game had, by the same team, been linux compatible from launch and then crossplay removed so you had to buy a linux key -- but that is clearly not the case.
Pff,such a weak reason.
We didn't say 'we don't want to pay for the game anyway'
We already bought it,can you understand?We don't want to pay again.If case turns into this most of the users turn again to Windows;which in this case that greedy developers you defend starts to eat rocks.
I'm on Linux for two years but i already bought bunch of games on Linux.You all just wanting to let them squeeze our wallets.
Last edited by Leopard on 15 March 2017 at 11:31 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me