Stellaris: Apocalypse is due soon & there's a new overview video up, also a note about Linux sales

Quoting: KimyrielleIf people like you would finally put their knuckleheaded ideology away and start buying games from Steam they would have bought from GOG without even thinking twice, publishers like Paradox wouldn't think about dropping support for us. In other words, yes, I think you're a part of the problem here.

I have bought games from Steam, GoG, Humble and Itch. I will likely buy from all of them again in the future. I have among other things a Netflix subscription.

But even though I accept DRM I have no delusions about how bad it actually is for us as consumers: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/faq
DRM takes away rights we should have under copyright law (such as fair use) by making it technically impossible to make use of those rights. It also allows actions against you if you try to brake the DRM under laws such as DMCA.

The argument that Steam's DRM isn't so bad in comparison or that it could be much worse I think is a little like arguing that you should be happy that someone is only sexually harassing you because it could be much worse and they could be raping you (sexual harassment and rape are of course two things that are much worse then DRM).

I envy people who can take a hard stance against DRM. I wish I could do that too. If enough of us did then DRM would be a thing of the past.

If you want argue that someone taking a hard stance against DRM is responsible for publishers not bringing games to Linux then I want to argue that you (and I) are responsible for DRM existence.

I also find it hard to believe that Linux is the only platform where people reject games with DRM. GoG and Humble both have more DRM free games for Windows then Linux but I don't see anyone arguing that the people using Windows and reject DRM will cause publishers to not bring games to Windows.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt is looking like the market share of Linux for gaming in specific may be less than 1%. I've been wondering about the difference; are Linux users mostly not gamers?

Actually, this feels about right. A quick Googling of the gaming and Windows stats seems to validate it. Let's assume, for the moment, that nearly 100% of American households have a computer (not far off). It seems 60% of households have someone who games. Roughly half of those gamers are doing so on a desktop, so roughly a third of households with a desktop game on it. If Linux desktop usage is 2-3% and the same stats hold that a third of those users are gamers, then it's possible that Linux gamers are less than a percent of the overall desktop gaming total.

Again, though, as many have said, it's not all about numbers. Linux users are among the more loyal and knowledgeable of the bunch. The Astrokill dev, for example, I think has said that although small as a percentage, his Linux players have been responsible for finding and killing most of the bugs and issues in the game's cross-platform engine.


Last edited by iiari on 16 February 2018 at 1:51 pm UTC

Also, BTW, have no idea why I don't own Stellaris. It's in a genre I like. Now purchased....

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt is looking like the market share of Linux for gaming in specific may be less than 1%. I've been wondering about the difference; are Linux users mostly not gamers?

Given that for the longest time of Linux' existence you had to accept having no games whatsoever available for it, I guess that's a safe assumption to make. For all but the last 3-4 years (plus the short time when Loki ported some games), Linux was one of the few operating systems on Earth you absolutely couldn't game with. I guess it's safe to say that -nobody- here starting using it for gaming, and I suppose a OS you can't game with is particularly attractive to people who don't game in the first place.
In my (totally not representative) group of Linux users I know in real life, I am the only gamer...


Last edited by Kimyrielle on 16 February 2018 at 4:01 pm UTC

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt is looking like the market share of Linux for gaming in specific may be less than 1%. I've been wondering about the difference; are Linux users mostly not gamers?

Given that for the longest time of Linux' existence you had to accept having no games whatsoever available for it, I guess that's a safe assumption to make. For all but the last 3-4 years (plus the short time when Loki ported some games), Linux was one of the few operating systems on Earth you absolutely couldn't game with. I guess it's safe to say that -nobody- here starting using it for gaming, and I suppose a OS you can't game with is particularly attractive to people who don't game in the first place.
In my (totally not representative) group of Linux users I know in real life, I am the only gamer...

The only Linux users I have ever known are IT professionals ( development or operations ). Some game, but most just liked having control over their PC.

The real problem with Linux adoption on the PC is that no-one is selling it. It has no brand, it has no retail presence. For the vast majority of all PC-like devices purchased, it is simply not an option that is presented.

Canonical have come closest to making the transition to a "brand" in the Linux PC space, but they have simply not had a good enough financial argument to get majo OEM interest.

In contrast, in the Smartphone market, several very large brands have made Linux in the guise of Android a dominant force; but this was in a void where there was no dominant alternative.

This is, I suppose, why SteamOS seems to have failed. There was never really enough of a coherent plan to get people buying anything that came with Linux by default.

No-one knows how much money Valve have spread around H/W OEMs and game developers, but whatever it was, it was not done in an effective manner.

let us hope we are spending enough to keep at least some games companies interested.

Quoting: etonbearsThis is, I suppose, why SteamOS seems to have failed. There was never really enough of a coherent plan to get people buying anything that came with Linux by default.

And at least part of the reason why: Valve did not promote Linux, it promoted "SteamOS" (or tried to do so) while forcefully removing the word "Linux" and even Tux icon from it. I bet half of the general audience hadn't got a clue about what OS it was.

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: libgradev

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: libgradev

Quoting: buenaventuraso Paradox, expect me to buy some DLC real soon!

I don't think their approach to DLC helps them personally... I own Stellaris but I've held fire on buying the DLC as they *just keep coming* and this seems to be a recurring theme...

For these titles I tend to wait for a 'collector's edition'.

I think their approach is one of the best personally.

They have seriously long-term support for their games, more so than the vast majority of developers. Pushing out DLC (that is not required) enables them to continue getting funds for each team working on each game, plus they always do a free content patch with each DLC.

Totally appreciate the support Paradox has given to the Linux gaming scene.

I've got very limited time to play a game nowadays (I appreciate your job allows the freedom to re-visit titles) I'm fortunate to get a single visit! I don't want to buy thinking there is likely to be 5+, game play changing, additions to the content.

This is what I find interesting though, you're not forced to buy the DLC, you can likely buy the base game and be content with the many hours it would bring you. Once it feels stale, pick up one the major DLC and so on. Paradox strategy games are generally full of content to keep you busy without expansions.

I agree with their approach but not with their pricing.

If wanted to get into Europa Universalis IV, I would definitely want to get all of the DLCs (other than skin packs etc.). That's solely for the reason how Stellaris DLCs have greatly improved the game.

Here's the problem though: The normal price for complete Europa Universalis IV pack is nearly 300€. For this reason alone, I've been holding off buying the game. I think the maximum should be around 100€ to get the game and existing DLCs.

Without a SteamOS-based Linux console, the sub 1% statistics aren't going to change. We need a company with huge resources that can actually pursue this and break the duopoly of PS4/XBox. Valve isn't committed to this, it must be someone else.

I hardly every buy a windows game any more, don't know what else to do.

Quoting: Alm888

Quoting: etonbearsThis is, I suppose, why SteamOS seems to have failed. There was never really enough of a coherent plan to get people buying anything that came with Linux by default.

And at least part of the reason why: Valve did not promote Linux, it promoted "SteamOS" (or tried to do so) while forcefully removing the word "Linux" and even Tux icon from it. I bet half of the general audience hadn't got a clue about what OS it was.

That's rather the point I am trying to make. "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" is not a brand, and not a product; it is more of an architecture label. Brands/products are the named distributions of that architecture, such as Ubuntu, Arch, Red Hat etc, and, of course SteamOS.

Most distributions do append "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" to their formal name, but the "brand" is usually just the one or two word distribution name.

SteamOS does not bother adding Linux to the name for a number of reasons. Firstly, they were designing a distribution whose primary purpose is to play Steam games from an OS designed to replicate a console experience. Secondly, they really were not focussed on the general ( non-game ) part of the distribution at all, so using "Linux" would be a bit misleading. And finally, their "brand" is "Steam", and it is actually MUCH stronger as a brand than Linux. If "Linux" as a brand was ever going to draw people away from othe PC operating systems in the consumer space, it would long since have done so.

If a SteamOS console had ( or will ) ever been successful, Linux users ( i.e. other distributions ) would benefit tangentially. I can honestly only ever see PC users moving to Linux in significant numbers if market actors like Microsoft make the existing status quo unacceptable.