Now and then I come across a game on Steam where I ask in the Steam forum about possible Linux support, Marble It Up! is one such game but the developer has decided to let Valve handle it with Steam Play.
I’ll get something out of the way first: I think Steam Play is great, I do use it but I appreciate it’s a complicated subject for many reasons and some people don’t want to use it. This is meant to highlight some issues facing future Linux support as a gaming platform and as a talking point. Now, onto the topic at hand…
After the developer suggested the use of Steam Play, one user said “OK but that's not Linux support” and mentioned how they won’t buy it for that. This seems to have caused this particular developer to go on a little rant, where they gave some reasons why.
“Steam Beta includes Proton out of box. I guess technically the game is not Linux native but if you can play it with one click, I'm not sure there's a lot to argue about. You can refund it no questions asked. I think you'll like the game and there is no risk to you. Why not try it?”
Note: On ProtonDB, the unofficial website where people can rate how well Windows games work on Linux with Steam Play, Marble It Up! has a “Platinum” rating. This means it should be click and play, like any other game. To be clear though, that’s only from four tests so far.
The developer goes on to mention how Unity games aren’t technically native “no Unity game is able to run as fully native code”, how Feral Interactive (made a lot of AAA Linux ports) have their own graphics emulation layer, games like Curious Expedition that use Electron and so on. They also directly mentioned Tropico 6 too, which apparently works better with Steam Play/Proton than the native version, although ProtonDB only has one report to say so. They mention plenty more types of games and how they could package it up with Proton themselves and all the points are very interesting.
One part I found particularly interesting was this statement: “Is a truly native Linux worth it you that you would pay 15-25% more for games that had it? I've seen a lot of people say that but when it came down to it they just really wanted it to be free like Linux. So - would you really? Would you switch to a different Linux distro if yours wasn't supported?”
For me personally, it’s not a case of a game needing to be “native”, I’m so long past caring about the internals of a game. I want a game that both works and is supported. The latter obviously being extremely important, since if a game update breaks the Linux version then as a paying customer I would expect something to be looked into and fixed up.
Support is the biggest problem, we still don’t really know how things will go down in future when games stop working. The support with Steam Play is supposed to be on Valve’s end, although technically only for titles that are in the Steam Play whitelist which hasn’t seen an update since December last year and Marble It Up! Is not on that list.
You may end up waiting a day, a week, a month or perhaps longer if a game update or a Steam Play update breaks a game. Being realistic here, it’s not like a game developer is going to go and help fix up Steam Play themselves when part of the reason a developer is even using Steam Play, is so they don’t do the Linux side themselves. There’s also the idea of vendor lock-in here, Steam Play is all open on GitHub which is fantastic but again, how many are likely to go and pull it themselves for their games to put them on other stores for Linux? I’m betting about zero.
I don’t want to seem like I’m being a “debbie downer” (remember my starting statement, I really do like Steam Play) but it’s already happened with multiple titles that stopped working due to changes with Easy Anti-Cheat like Darwin Project, Paladins and Pandemic Express. That might not be an issue forever though but you get the idea, it can and will happen.
To the credit of Valve/CodeWeavers and Steam Play here, they did get a fix out for RAGE 2 into a Steam Play release the day RAGE 2 became available which was impressive, but that’s likely a special case due it being a bigger release.
As for the developers comment about people wanting things for free like Linux, I had an entire paragraph dedicated to debunking that but 99% of our readers know such a statement just isn’t true. It’s not worth any argument or time on, it’s silly and has been proven wrong time and time again.
They end their post with “Linux gaming has never been better than it is today in large part thanks to WINE and investments like Valve is making. Why not embrace it however it comes?”
I will absolutely agree that right now, Linux gaming is a fun place. Thousands of games supported and plenty more available to play with Steam Play, I’m certainly never bored! However, I'm interested to see how Valve and game developers handle issues as they come up in future before putting down a lot more money into games played with Steam Play.
So, what do you make of all this? What are your thoughts? Has Steam Play changed things completely for you, are you using it purely for old games or games both old and new?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: liamdaweWorth reading Ethan's tweets about this: https://twitter.com/flibitijibibo/status/1134236589297717248?s=19
He hit most the points I was going to bring up including the fact that any thing using the Mono based side of Unity is as native on Windows as it is under Linux. Granted I don't think I would have been as polite pointing things out as he was. Hopefully the dev has enough brains not to try and take any pot shots at Ethan but sadly it seems brains is not a department this particular dev is leading in though.
EDIT: Also has Mac port but no Linux when even though Linux has a lower market share that we Linux users actually tend to buy more games, and I've read devs talking about the fact that's true even outside of Steam. Which I think is part of the reason why you are seeing more games with a Linux version but not a Mac build, plus it doesn't help developing for mac takes extra hardware that is pricey where as Linux worst case scenario it takes an extra disc and some effort to test it.
Last edited by Gamewitch on 31 May 2019 at 6:56 am UTC
But then again, especially his arguments about also "ports" using middle layer translation libraries is particularly important. There's a reason why Feral can spit out "ports" of massive games as fast as they can, and with as few bugs as there are.
So in essence, as long as the performance is good and we're one click away of getting them installed and working, why should we complain, really.
I don't think that we in reality have any alternative if we want a good chunk of the AAA titles playable. And at least for this gamer, it's the big titles that is the reason I'm still a gamer. Not the small "indie" games.
/me returns to playing Fallout 4 on his Linux workstation.
Last edited by Beamboom on 31 May 2019 at 2:48 pm UTC
The basic choice I make is whether a developer gave a single thought to how they could make it available to our platform of choice or just make an offhanded "just emulate it" remark (Proton also being an emulation layer). If they advertise Linux on their store pages and make it easy for me to install their product and give it a go, then I won't mind tossing a few coins their way if I have some available.
Then there are developers and publishers who make it very difficult for us to even try their products. Any time I get wise about "anti-tampering software" being installed on the side, I just avoid such a product. Epic's hostile approach to locking games into their exclusivity contracts means I take a very wide berth around their store and anyone who decides to join them and will think extra hard about purchasing such a product within the coming 10 years or so, even if they have native Linux support available outside of the Epic store.
In a similar vein I abhor and avoid third party launchers as much as possible. If I can buy a DRM-free game, I will do so. Lutris has saved me from having to run everything from my Steam library, although the process of adding new games could be made easier (I often have to pop open Wikipedia to figure out the year of release for older games in my collection, for instance). I did try out the Paradox launcher for a bit, but it has nothing I can't go without.
Basic tl;dr; If a developer is open enough to port their game to our platform, I would buy even an emulation -- as long as proper support is given for that version.
Anyway, IMHO if the developer guarantees Proton compatibility, I'm totally fine with that. However, I wonder on how far this would be easier than actually porting the game, since it's the Unity engine after all.
thelimeydragon May 31, 2019
Quoting: ElectricPrism...
As a Linux Gamer with 350+ games I've purchased it's not worth it to me to buy a game with 0 expectation that it will continue to work in the future. To my knowledge I am not able to download "old versions" of the game on Steam if the new versions break the game.
...
you can
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=889624474
Last edited by thelimeydragon on 31 May 2019 at 2:44 pm UTC
I always think: "Why don't you just shut up?!"
We are a minority, It does not make sense for a dev to put lots of time in a Linux build, lets thank them, if they support Linux.
And yes, officialy supporting Proton is Linuxsupport because I can than play the game on my Linux rig and can be sure that updates do not kill it on Linux.
Bu if we want us to be seen as a nerving, demanding minority go on with that :><:
Last edited by einherjar on 31 May 2019 at 10:02 am UTC
I love Steam Play.
I don't really see its close integration with Steam as a downside. Sure, this or that update could break something, but that's no different than any other situation as far as I can tell. It's all gonna require something gets fixed, maybe something I can do something about, maybe not.
In fact, Steam Play can even fix an update-induced problem. Aspyr, our porter of B'lands 2, hasn't patched our official Linux version since the last Gearbox graphicx update. Tired of waiting, I just forced Borderlands 2 to run with Steam Play so I could return to playing with a friend I've been playing with for years. Huh---in a word---zah!
Old games, new games ... it doesn't really matter to me. Nowadays I don't look for "Linux" games, I just look for games---games I want to play.
Last edited by Nanobang on 31 May 2019 at 12:15 pm UTC
Mountain Man May 31, 2019
Quoting: DribbleondoGaming on Linux is exactly that.A seemingly obvious but nevertheless profound statement. Does it really matter, in the end, if it's native code or being passed through an emulation layer just so long as you can play whatever you want on the operating system of your choice?
The only argument I can see against something like Proton/Wine is that there are more things that can go wrong, and the developer might balk at offering official support since they have no control over the "middleware" that is used to run their software.
MisterPaytwick May 31, 2019
Because I got disconnected with the previous comment I typed, I'll try to keep this one shorter, but it may look like a Quote Battle or something, as the readme of xterm would say: "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here"
Last: I'm kinda hard line but on the Jim Sterling way of it: Demanding better standards is the way to ensure quality, expecting quality to rose from nothingness but competition or self-discipline is expecting for nothing. It isn't about supporting everything, it's about sticking to a known and reasonably usable sets that can be find and used by most people. (Think rather than supporting all the distro, do what Steam does: ask a fixed set of libs, and ship them as extra to ensure they are there)
TL;DR: He's full of shit, if he doesn't want to support Linux, he should say so. Here he is going against his own interest and the platform own interest.
QuoteSteam Beta includes Proton out of box.
Proton isn't a way to play a game. It's an awesome piece of software, but like emulation isn't a way to play the game, Proton/Wine isn't one. There is no support from devs. It's a good way to drag people into testing playing on Linux, it isn't a cardinal sin or anything to play a game on Proton but it's not a good way to play on Linux. For the long term health of Linux as a gaming platform outside of services that have to prove their worth (ie Stadia), native support is required. Even if that native support is against a restricted list of libraries.
QuoteYou can refund it no questions asked. I think you'll like the game and there is no risk to you. Why not try it?
A personal thing from the company. Good, but not everybody will abide to do that, hence no security, nor a solid reason.
Quote[tech stuff about Unity -and all modern game engines- basically running a Virtual Machine -àla Java, or surprise, C#- to run crossplatforms write-once-play-everywhere-games]Does that mean you don't play any Unity game that is available on Linux?
Those games list Linux as a supported OS, hence people can expect a minimum support quality from that, and hold the developers to that minimum quality. Saying that shit is disingenuous: it's like saying a game that'll be held to a set quality is on part with a game held to no quality. And, from that comment, it expend in saying that Proton for that game is the same minimum quality as Windows (which has that VM shit too, but is listed as supported as "Native). Neither of those are true.
Nonetheless: Game engines are a layers of abstraction for devs to simply not have to care for the platform they develop for, until they don't use crossplatform APIs, but then, they consciously, knowingly, cut off a market share.
Quote[proceed to list a large amount of layers and companies using them]
None of those can be deemed "Native". The best example for that is Relic-made Feral-ported games: The multiplayer simply doesn't exist for MacOS / Linux, saying those games are native is bullshit as the layers often mangle features of the game.
And to the extend where he quote bytecode and pack them as layers basically: they would count as native if they are treated as they Windows counterpart that use the same tech, because that tech make you ignore the OS running the bytecode, it's the whole point of game engines. They count as native for Windows, and are supported as native, isn't it? This is a fallacy sir. This is being full of shit.
QuoteIs a truly native Linux worth it you that you would pay 15-25% more for games that had it? they just really wanted it to be free like Linux.
Now this is insulting, it's not just a fallacy to say that, it's FUD. Humble Bundle first years showed endless amount of support for bundles that had full linux supports (they were like the 3-4 first years), even excluding the just-$1-for-steam-key-resells abuse, Linux users had a largely above average price. Linux gamers are ready to put the price. Hell, Linux users are ready to put the price for any software that support Linux and is good. I didn't pirated Substance painter, nor Da Vinci, nor a rig. So please tone down that kind of bullshit.
QuoteBut I played my first game on Linux before you were born, wrote my first game on Linux before you were ten, and I was shipping a commercial game engine that ran on Linux when you were a teenager.
I was sure it was over, it's not. Note above I was talking about fallacy, here is some fallacious authority call, first I'd request source on that or call bullshit, because I know my Internets. Second, this is even more the reason to understand: If you are using a game engine, to understand that you can support those platforms with the right techs. Saying that is disingenuous. The dev doesn't want to support Linux for reasons he has, fine, say so, yeah Linux users won't be happy, but that's it, at least its honest. And even Linux users prefer honesty to bullshit.
To finish that, sorry but I've to right a wrong call that was made in comment (sorry einherjar, nothing personal)
Quoting: einherjarWe are a minority, It does not make sense for a dev to put lots of time in a Linux build, lets thank them, if they support Linux.
This is bullshit, and it's not me saying that: It's not healthy for the OSes ecosystem, because Proton/Wine are viewed from the game devs numbers as Windows. And the dev of Smith and Winston had a word about that a while back (please note that he's a BSD fanboy, so he doesn't support Linux by fanaticism, Linux is just a competitor to support to help the competition play out), the devs of Wolfire had a word about directly supporting small OSes too. (that blog is gold mine about game related tech things, with interesting talk for example about OpenGL vs DirectX, and the problem of network effect, which apply to us in the Linux vs Windows duality)
edit: fixed the url to Smith and Winston's dev's blog.
Last edited by MisterPaytwick on 31 May 2019 at 11:34 pm UTC
Quoting: alex9kAnyway, IMHO if the developer guarantees Proton compatibility, I'm totally fine with that.This. But it's a big “if”. I know Valve has taken on responsibility for Proton compatibility itself, but I don't want developers batting away Linux support questions with Proton then six months down the line telling Linux customers any problems are all their own fault for running an unsupported OS.
Just be clear. We know some developers don't support Linux, and that's fine. We'll either ignore them or use Proton/WINE and figure out the issues ourselves. But if you're telling us to use Proton, then support it when things go wrong, and don't break compatibility by introducing incompatible middleware.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me