Linux game sales statistics from multiple developers, part 5

I have seen it justified plenty of times on Reddit

Any examples? Linux users are generally supportive of developers who release for Linux. Anyway, as I said, instead of focusing on piracy itself (which probably will always exist in some form), developers can focus on positive stuff that can reduce it - removing DRM, being more open in their communication to have more direct relationship with the community, and so on. All that builds respect. I.e. it's the opposite of what legacy publishers are normally doing (DRM, complete distancing from the community and etc.). On average, I'd say Linux developers are doing a better job than usual in that. Good examples are companies like inXile, Obsidian and the like.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 August 2017 at 4:34 pm UTC

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan. That means if you primiarily game you won't need to use our OS, and hardware either, just go with linux'. Does that make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing?

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan.

Yes, same as Adobe recently did with Flash, saying they will abandon it, and will support HTML (common open standard). MS kind of officially didn't do it with ActiveX and Silverlight, but de-facto did by supporting modern HTML in IE / Edge. I don't see why graphics need to be any worse in this sense. That would be competing on merit (let them make their systems better than the rest, instead of forcing lock-in through tools).

Admittedly, all that happened because HTML won, and balkanized lock-in lost in the browser wars. In graphics situation is far from healthy, with lock-in being very dominant, like early days of the Web with "best viewed in IE" and the like.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 August 2017 at 5:50 pm UTC

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan. That means if you primiarily game you won't need to use our OS, and hardware either, just go with linux'. Does that make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing?

Well if the commercial entity sells something actually valuable on its own merits and not snake oil then yes. :D

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan. That means if you primiarily game you won't need to use our OS, and hardware either, just go with linux'. Does that make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing?

Well, the theory of capitalist competition is that people use one product over another because it works better, has nicer features, is cheaper and whatnot. That's what's supposed to be good about it--that this competition stuff will result in good cheap products. If that's not how capitalism really works I don't have a duty to defend its dysfunction. Traditionally the supposed remedy was laws enforcing real competition and disallowing various kinds of anticompetitive behaviour--including, but not limited to, antitrust laws. Again, if the political climate is such that passing or enforcing such laws is impossible, then that's how it is--but if there ought to be a law, then surely one can at least complain.
And if capitalism never actually does the stuff it's supposed to do, if it doesn't "make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing" as actual competition by creating better products rather than by erecting barriers to entry, that doesn't mean I should rearrange my notions of what's OK to include stuff that's harmful, it means I should start questioning the virtues of a system that does not work as advertised.

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan. That means if you primiarily game you won't need to use our OS, and hardware either, just go with linux'. Does that make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing?

Well, the theory of capitalist competition is that people use one product over another because it works better, has nicer features, is cheaper and whatnot. That's what's supposed to be good about it--that this competition stuff will result in good cheap products. If that's not how capitalism really works I don't have a duty to defend its dysfunction. Traditionally the supposed remedy was laws enforcing real competition and disallowing various kinds of anticompetitive behaviour--including, but not limited to, antitrust laws. Again, if the political climate is such that passing or enforcing such laws is impossible, then that's how it is--but if there ought to be a law, then surely one can at least complain.
And if capitalism never actually does the stuff it's supposed to do, if it doesn't "make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing" as actual competition by creating better products rather than by erecting barriers to entry, that doesn't mean I should rearrange my notions of what's OK to include stuff that's harmful, it means I should start questioning the virtues of a system that does not work as advertised.

Not a personal attack, more an admission of my own failing (and probably dementia): even though I studied English and thought I was pretty competent at it, I haven't understood anything above.

Not a personal attack, more an admission of my own failing (and probably dementia): even though I studied English and thought I was pretty competent at it, I haven't understood anything above.

I think @Purple Library Guy is saying, that monopoly and monopolistic (anti-competitive) practices are reasonably considered harmful to the free market, and normally are supposed to be prevented by anti-trust law and etc. But if the law fails to prevent it (because of political dysfunction, corruption, and so on), it doesn't make those practices any less damaging and crooked, and neither is whitewashing them a good thing.

You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 August 2017 at 6:16 pm UTC

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan.

Yes, same as Adobe recently did with Flash, saying they will abandon it, and will support HTML (common open standard). MS kind of officially didn't do it with ActiveX and Silverlight, but de-facto did by supporting modern HTML in IE / Edge. I don't see why graphics need to be any worse in this sense. That would be competing on merit (let them make their systems better than the rest, instead of forcing lock-in through tools).

Admittedly, all that happened because HTML won, and balkanized lock-in lost in the browser wars. In graphics situation is far from healthy, with lock-in being very dominant, like early days of the Web with "best viewed in IE" and the like.

It doesn't work like that: if Metal and DX bring Apple and MS money (and they do) then that's all that counts. Any lofty ideas about openness, getting rid of lock-in etc. are irrelevant at that point. You think abandonig flash by adobe was dictated by the company's goodwill and benevolence? The same with other examples, i'm pretty sure it's all dictated by economy and nothing else.

It doesn't work like that: if Metal and DX bring Apple and MS money (and they do) then that's all that counts.

For crooks yes, goals always justify the means. Wasn't that the whole point of the discussion above (in the context of lock-in)? We aren't arguing really.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 August 2017 at 6:20 pm UTC

It doesn't work like that: if Metal and DX bring Apple and MS money (and they do) then that's all that counts.

For crooks yes, goals always justify the means. Wasn't that the whole point of the discussion above (in the context of lock-in)? We aren't arguing really.

Probably, I just don't consider them crooks. Anyway thx for the civilised and interesting discussion, let's agree to disagree, move on and enjoy the glorious world of linux gaming, cheers :-)

It always surprises me just how many people are willing to defend lock-in and anti-competitive practice. There's a world of difference between "making money" and "taking money". The "Windows tax" present on the majority machines is a prime example of "taking money".

Has anyone done a side by side comparison of graphics for a PC vs Mac to see if they 'console-ize' Mac versions? I know I tried playing Total War: Attila on my Mac and the fan went crazy, the frame rate was barely more than a slide show, and I thought it was going to melt. I just figured the Intel chipset in it couldn't handle it, but it did make me wonder what kind of person uses solely a Mac for gaming? I'm really curious how their numbers are higher than ours, unless it is some sort of 'inside job'.

There has always been a group of dedicated Mac gaming enthusiasts -- just visit insidemacgames.com and learn more about the topic. Most 'hardcore' Mac gamers used to buy the old-school expandable Mac Pro (which still supports the latest Kepler GPUs) or the high-end iMac, which usually has a decent graphics card (the Nvidia 680MX in the 2012 model was the fastest mobile GPU available back then).

Most Mac users nowadays run a MacBook (Pro). Thanks to official eGPU support (Apple offers a dev kit with an AMD RX580) this won't be a bottleneck in the foreseeable future. My own experiences with unofficially supported eGPUs on the Mac have been mixed. It worked after some Terminal hacks, but the official solution should be stable.

If you ask me to portray an average Mac gaming enthusiast? Creative professional (designer, audio/video editor, etc.), scientist or student who needs a reliable working machine with little to no support costs, well designed (both OS and device), standard software support and likes to play games in his/her spare time. All on one box. Some dual-boot with Windows (Boot Camp), but the majority doesn't. Only half of them use Steam, the remaining 50 % buy their games off of the Mac App Store (according to Feral's numbers).

Hmm, I'm still wondering if there is any dumbing down of graphics during porting. A good example is some of the things like PhysX that wasn't supported by OpenGL/nvidia driver when Borderlands was ported to Linux means that the water effects aren't as cool looking.

Frontier Development simply just didn't release Horizons for mac due to lack of OpenGL 4.5 requirement.

Generally the 'Creative professionals' tend to be more casual gamers, not hard core ones. Always exception to every rule, that's for sure. I don't know about scientists using macs all that much, seems to me there are quite a few Linux distributions and tools out there specifically written by scientists for scientists. I think Macs are mostly used by sys admins who need to have their computers watched over by IT, but still need a *nix of some sort.. and students and the Creative types like you said. None of those are usually all that hardcore of gamers. Hell, even people into VR right now aren't really getting the 'Hardcore Gaming' experience. That's probably the biggest complaint right now with it, is you have to have a hardcore rig, but there aren't really any (or may, aforementioned E:D is certainly hardcore) that support VR yet, so people label it 'niche'.

So with that in mind, A) SteamVR on Linux required Vulkan. B) SteamVR is going to use Metal on Apple, and C) SteamVR is going to use DirectX/Vulkan on Windows. What do you think makes things easier to port to?

So should Apple (and Microsoft) just say: 'Listen guys, we abandon Metal (or DX11/12 in the case of MS) and support Vulkan. That means if you primiarily game you won't need to use our OS, and hardware either, just go with linux'. Does that make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing?

Well, the theory of capitalist competition is that people use one product over another because it works better, has nicer features, is cheaper and whatnot. That's what's supposed to be good about it--that this competition stuff will result in good cheap products. If that's not how capitalism really works I don't have a duty to defend its dysfunction. Traditionally the supposed remedy was laws enforcing real competition and disallowing various kinds of anticompetitive behaviour--including, but not limited to, antitrust laws. Again, if the political climate is such that passing or enforcing such laws is impossible, then that's how it is--but if there ought to be a law, then surely one can at least complain.
And if capitalism never actually does the stuff it's supposed to do, if it doesn't "make sense for a commercial entity to even consider such a thing" as actual competition by creating better products rather than by erecting barriers to entry, that doesn't mean I should rearrange my notions of what's OK to include stuff that's harmful, it means I should start questioning the virtues of a system that does not work as advertised.

Not a personal attack, more an admission of my own failing (and probably dementia): even though I studied English and thought I was pretty competent at it, I haven't understood anything above.

Maybe you're used to assuming that there doesn't have to be a reason for markets to be good, they just are by definition, and so someone talking different seems incoherent? But the original theorists of capital, like Adam Smith and Ricardo and so forth, didn't treat capitalism and markets as ends in themselves, but as means to an end. They were justified to the extent that they were useful, to actual people--or could be made, by government regulation or social custom, to be so. If you can assimilate that idea, I think my comment is more or less understandable.

(Side note: It is actually often the case that a lot of people speaking ill of a corporation for antisocial behaviour has produced some changes to the corporation's behaviour. I wouldn't expect it to work in the case of Apple, since their misdeeds are relatively subtle and require some knowledge to understand. But it's not like getting mad at companies is completely useless--to the contrary, they tend to consider their public image very important, whatever their private amorality.)


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 4 August 2017 at 9:03 pm UTC

And with a quote from Adam Smith we might summarise the whole discussion about Apple: '...that I have fresh bread and rolls every morning is not because of the baker's goodwill, it's because of his greed' (or something to that effect, quoted from a failing memory).
I suggest we leave it at that and do not open this usual can of worms, it might turn too political and heated.

And with a quote from Adam Smith we might summarise the whole discussion about Apple: '...that I have fresh bread and rolls every morning is not because of the baker's goodwill, it's because of his greed' (or something to that effect, quoted from a failing memory).
I suggest we leave it at that and do not open this usual can of worms, it might turn too political and heated.

That's fine in a competitive market where there are many bakers, but should one baker have a monopoly on the supply of wheat... your bread will most probably be stale, and most --certainly-- a lot more expensive.

I have seen it justified plenty of times on Reddit

Any examples? Linux users are generally supportive of developers who release for Linux. Anyway, as I said, instead of focusing on piracy itself (which probably will always exist in some form), developers can focus on positive stuff that can reduce it - removing DRM, being more open in their communication to have more direct relationship with the community, and so on. All that builds respect. I.e. it's the opposite of what legacy publishers are normally doing (DRM, complete distancing from the community and etc.). On average, I'd say Linux developers are doing a better job than usual in that. Good examples are companies like inXile, Obsidian and the like.

Just go to any reddit forum that mentions the words Bethesda and linux. They are not going to remove DRM if anything I forsee companies spending more and more on it. For every person that legit buys a copy on gog,all it takes is one guy/girl and it's up on a torrent.

Oh I grant you having a dialogue with the end users helps but there will always be that crowd and its not just on Linux, it's on Windows and Mac too. That just flat out refuse to pay for anything entertainment related. I get pirates are everywhere but when the Linux games market is so small (in comparison) anyone effecting the success of a port on linux is f**king us all over.


Last edited by Whitewolfe80 on 5 August 2017 at 4:26 pm UTC

And with a quote from Adam Smith we might summarise the whole discussion about Apple: '...that I have fresh bread and rolls every morning is not because of the baker's goodwill, it's because of his greed' (or something to that effect, quoted from a failing memory).
I suggest we leave it at that and do not open this usual can of worms, it might turn too political and heated.

That's fine in a competitive market where there are many bakers, but should one baker have a monopoly on the supply of wheat... your bread will most probably be stale, and most --certainly-- a lot more expensive.

And aren't there companies competing with Apple on basically all fronts? Samsung? Microsoft? Google?

And with a quote from Adam Smith we might summarise the whole discussion about Apple: '...that I have fresh bread and rolls every morning is not because of the baker's goodwill, it's because of his greed' (or something to that effect, quoted from a failing memory).
I suggest we leave it at that and do not open this usual can of worms, it might turn too political and heated.

That's fine in a competitive market where there are many bakers, but should one baker have a monopoly on the supply of wheat... your bread will most probably be stale, and most --certainly-- a lot more expensive.

And aren't there companies competing with Apple on basically all fronts? Samsung? Microsoft? Google?

My attitude is along the lines of 'provide me with ease of legally obtaining such things, don't gouge on the price, and I won't attempt to obtain your product for free.' A perfect example of this is HBO. I really wanted to watch Game of Thrones. I just simply couldn't do it unless A) I decided to fork over to a cable company tons of money for crap I'll never watch. B) Obtain the episodes illegally. They finally got a bit of a brain and released HBO Now. I paid for a subscription up until it stopped working on my Android phone because it was rooted, and the HBO Now web client stopped working on Linux.

Come to the current time; I canceled my HBO Now account through T-Mobile google, since the only source I could watch it on decently was my PS4 (and no I don't count watching Game of thrones on my 5.7" Note 4 or even my 12" Note Pro as decent). And now Amazon actually provides the option to subscribe to HBO, and Amazon Video pretty much works everywhere (Including Linux browsers).

Provide us with a legal way to obtain it, and we'll pay for it. Price point is important too, I mean if HBO Now was more than 15 a month, I wouldn't get it. There are 3 shows in total that I want to watch on it, I even ended up getting Showtime this way as well. Smartest thing these companies ever did, now I don't have to deal with 200 channels of bullshit just to watch something.

The funny thing about Pirating games though, much like HBO Now's DRM preventing it from working directly in Linux browsers, there have been so many cases where people would buy legitimate copies of games, only to have their computer lockup, become unstable, or kill their kitten because of some DRM that came with their game. When they would have saved time and effort and money if they'd just downloaded it. The publishers are so afraid of piracy, they ended up forcing some people to just so they could play a game they already paid for, so then they start doing that more, without paying for them.

About availability. That's no longer really the case, with digital stores, etc. But not too long ago when we had more platforms to choose from, stores were drying up left and right. They blamed Atari and Amiga disappearing due to piracy and no one wanted to buy software for them if they got it for free. Problem was, it was the ONLY way to get software for a long time. Any of the computer stores that carried it usually had a section that dwindled more and more every year, so once again people just stopped going to the store to see if anything was new, they just hit the BBS's.

Thank goodness for sites like this one where we get announcements that games came out, and we have access to just buy things from the comfort of our own homes.

Sorry for the rant, Game on!

Just go to any reddit forum that mentions the words Bethesda and linux. They are not going to remove DRM if anything I forsee companies spending more and more on it.

Then they shouldn't complain about piracy, since they are shooting themselves in the foot.

And with a quote from Adam Smith we might summarise the whole discussion about Apple: '...that I have fresh bread and rolls every morning is not because of the baker's goodwill, it's because of his greed' (or something to that effect, quoted from a failing memory).
I suggest we leave it at that and do not open this usual can of worms, it might turn too political and heated.

Here's another relevant quote from Adam Smith:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.