Support us on Patreon to keep GamingOnLinux alive. This ensures all of our main content remains free for everyone. Just good, fresh content! Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal. You can also buy games using our partner links for GOG and Humble Store.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.
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.
Tags: Editorial
24 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
172 comments
Page: «14/18»
  Go to:

Geppeto35 Mar 16, 2017
To fund linux ports from windows or console games, thus which development has been covered but not the port work, YES I would pay an extra for a linux port of an old game. I hope every one agree on that, as long as linux is not a widely-adopted gaming OS.

Let's take Skyrim for example: it cost 15€ / 15$ on windows on steam, I agree to pay for port an extra. If I already own that game, I should ONLY pay for this extra (thus related to the port and directly payed to the port company: Feral, Aspyr, future companies). The problem is the cost of this extra: should we pay 1/3 more, 50% more, 100% more?
Globally, I will personnaly agree to pay 10€ / 10$ more for a old game I would like to be ported natively on linux. Thus, if I don't own it on windows, to pay its current price on windows plus 10€. If I already own it on windows, only the 10€ extra for the port directly to the port company. It would be normal that the porting company fund-back on those 10€ the game right owners if I already bought the game on windows. Conversely, it would be normal that the game right owners pay-back the port company if it is a total new sale of the game. In the two case let's say 1 or 2€?

And I would pay the traditional 60€ for a AAA game I expect to play having day-one linux release. A day-one would thus be more rewarding than a port after months or years of windows selling for both game right owners and port company as the total amount would be higher than the price of an old game plus its linux port.

On the amount, Feral, Aspyr & cie should tell us the level of cost a port involves?
Skudra Mar 16, 2017
my issue here isn't that I already have a Windows build on steam and i have to pay for it again. it's that there were no Linux build before and i had no choice to get Windows version and now i have to pay again. if there were windows/linux choice when i bought it initially, i wouldn't have any problem with this type of purchase
Crazy Penguin Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: Nor MantisSorry I don't get it. In my opinion PC is not a platform, the OS is the platform and no different than a Saga Genesis and a Super Nintendo, a VHS or Beta-Max, BlueRay or HDdvd, CD's or records, Netflix or Amazon. That is why it is called cross-platform gaming.

Well, your platforms are using DIFFERENT HARDWARE where not even the used media is compatible. In contrary is the OS to a PC, which is PURE SOFTWARE. I can run different OS on my PC. Which allows me to run Windows Games on Linux also.

Quoting: Nor MantisI agree with Liam on this.

I do not! It is very short sighted. Please don't open this Pandoras Box just for some old Triple-crAp games. I guarantee you that we will see this splitting for newer games too. On one side you will make Linux more attractive for companies, but also less attractive for Gamers. At the moment everyone can try Linux as Gaming platform for free if they have bought the Windows-Version before. How many people do you think will use Linux if you raise an additional pay wall? Keep in mind we still have to grow! We are on a good way. Don't ruin it!


Last edited by Crazy Penguin on 16 March 2017 at 9:43 am UTC
Arehandoro Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: Nor MantisI look at games much like I look at music. When I was a kid I purchased records only. Then I got a car and wanted to listen while driving, so I bought the same music on tape. Then CD's came and I bought the same music again. Then MP3 came in and I paid to download. Now records are back in and once again, I am buying the same music I love.

Well, my father had records and copied his music, the one I liked, into tapes. I bought tapes for music he didn't have.

Then CDs came along and bought both music I had and I didn't have, and when MP3s started to be a thing I just ripped those to have them in MP3s.

Now records are a thing again and I use my father's one or get new ones if I feel like it. At the same time, new ones come with digital version too. But to be fair, mainly I pay Spotify monthly.

I didn't do anything illegal and I think used my right as consumer, in my opinion, better -monetarily speaking-.
bubexel Mar 16, 2017
I will put various examples, netflix or spotify.

You need to have a new account or pay again for use it on a phone? or your smart tv or on your pc, linux or windows or whatever?

Simple Not. Steam should be the same, you buy a game and it should work on steam, doesnt matter where you have steam installed.

Do you imagine they do the same with opengl, vulkan or directx? Selling games depending on wich engine is build. It's absurd all games have option to change the engine if its available. All games should have the option to run in other OS if its available.

Really stop talking about it, you are going to shooting your feet.


Last edited by bubexel on 16 March 2017 at 10:55 am UTC
Liam Dawe Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: bubexelI will put various examples, netflix or spotify.

You have to have a new account or pay again for use it on a phone? or your smart tv or on your pc, linux or windows or whatever?
So, but that's a bad example. You don't even remotely own anything on either service, you're renting time from them to Stream copyrighted content. Stop paying, you lose access. Netflix and Spotify are platforms themselves, they are a very different thing to what we're talking about here.
bubexel Mar 16, 2017
More absurd what you said. What diference make if its a rent or its a propierty about the crossplatform dilema?
Arehandoro Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: liamdawe
Quoting: bubexelI will put various examples, netflix or spotify.

You have to have a new account or pay again for use it on a phone? or your smart tv or on your pc, linux or windows or whatever?
So, but that's a bad example. You don't even remotely own anything on either service, you're renting time from them to Stream copyrighted content. Stop paying, you lose access. Netflix and Spotify are platforms themselves, they are a very different thing to what we're talking about here.

You don't own anything on Steam either. If you stop using the account you stop playing games bought on it too. Besides, Spotify can be used for free too albeit with limitations.


Last edited by Arehandoro on 16 March 2017 at 11:30 am UTC
Crazy Penguin Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: liamdawe
Quoting: bubexelI will put various examples, netflix or spotify.

You have to have a new account or pay again for use it on a phone? or your smart tv or on your pc, linux or windows or whatever?
So, but that's a bad example. You don't even remotely own anything on either service, you're renting time from them to Stream copyrighted content. Stop paying, you lose access. Netflix and Spotify are platforms themselves, they are a very different thing to what we're talking about here.
No! It is a very good example, because you don't buy games on steam. You only have a subscription to the Steam Service and if this subscription/service is terminated for any reason you lose access to your games! The only difference is that you don't pay a monthly fee for your subscription.

EDIT: If you want to support a porter on Steam but own the game on Windows already then create a 2nd account and buy it again! Simple! BUT DON'T FORCE THAT OPTION ON EVERYONE! As I said this will hurt Linux Gaming badly. For new games which get a Linux Day-1 Release we don't have this problem anyway.

IMHO if you want more older AAA games ported then use platforms like Kickstarter. This way you will not only get your porting costs covered. You also know before you begin the port if there is enough demand for the game. If you get the money then port it if not then don't. Simple! There is no need to mess around with cross-platform in the stores.


Last edited by Crazy Penguin on 16 March 2017 at 12:15 pm UTC
Wendigo Mar 16, 2017
I personally don't think it should be the duty of the end customer to ensure payment of the porting companies.
A Linux port of their games gives the original developers a wider customer base and thus a bigger income.
If the developers don't do the ports themselves the porter should be paid per order by the original developer. "Port our game X to platform Y and we pay you X€ for this job."
There should be a one time payment for the porting (+ a software support contract for eliminating bugs after the port).

Basically like it is handled with books.
Translators are usually only paid once by the original author / publishing company and not for every sold book in the additional language.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.