Here's something interesting, Tim Sweeney, the founder and CEO of Epic Games has been chatting on Twitter again and what he said is quite interesting.
In reply to a user on Twitter who said about users not liking change, Sweeney said this:
Actually I think WINE is the one hope for breaking the cycle. If most PC games were automatically compatible with Linux, it would greatly increase the viability of Linux as a consumer platform.
This is as a result of this article on Wccftech, which highlights a number of other interesting statements made by Sweeney recently. The funny this is, Valve themselves are helping to improve Wine (which Sweeney touches on below) with Steam Play (which is all open source remember) and a lot of the changes make it back into vanilla Wine.
Another very interesting statement for Linux gamers, was a mention of Easy Anti-Cheat:
No, that was a misleading article. The Easy Anti Cheat team is continuing to work on Linux support. Native support is in a beta state and works for some games, however we’re quite a ways from the ideal of a WINE/Proton solution for emulated games.
Note: Not sure what article he is referring to, as he didn't link to any.
Easy Anti-Cheat support in Wine really would be quite something, it would overnight make a huge amount more games work on Linux so fingers crossed something actually comes out of it. What I get from all this, is that Sweeney does seem to be keeping a close eye on Steam Play/Proton and Wine, to the point of even replying on Twitter about the Ubuntu situation:
The problem isn’t Steam 64-bit support - Valve is working prodigiously to advance Linux and Proton - the problem is that Ubuntu dropping 32-bit support breaks all 32-bit Linux and Wine/win32 games, which comprise a huge fraction of the legacy game library.
There's a lot of other things Sweeney talked about recently too, naturally exclusive games being a hot topic and something Sweeney certainly doesn't shy away from. Here's one such statement that actually did genuinely make me stop and think for brief moment:
I’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
Let's take Feral Interactive as an example of this, I've seen a lot of comments from people saying they buy directly through the Feral store, so Feral gets the full cut and that's just one of many such examples. However, the difference of course is the majority of the time the games are available across multiple stores, you still have the choice.
I'm personally torn on it all. I don't particularly like exclusives, as I don't like any kind of lock-in but I don't blame developers for doing it. Good games take a lot of time and money to produce and support after release. Offering developers the chance to earn more money from a smaller store cut, plus limited-time exclusive funds to help them finish their game and improve it, developers are obviously going to take it.
It's just a huge shame for Linux users, since the Epic Store is not available on Linux and it sounds like they still have no plans to change that any time soon. There's been a few times a game was announced with Linux support, to then later became an Epic Store exclusive which means they won't even be doing a Linux version until the exclusive time is over. For us, that really sucks and it's part of the reason I don't like it.
I do hope all of that changes eventually but I am glad that Sweeney seems to be quite positive about things like Wine and possible EAC support in future.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
QuoteI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
On the above, I have no problem with developers trying to maximise their takings from the games they sell especially Indies who can struggle with revenue in a crowded marketplace. My problem wth the EPIC store, other than the obvious lack of Linux support, is that it is currently vastly inferior when it comes to feature parity with Steam or even GOG Galaxy (Though again it lacks a Linux client) and instead of working to improve the store and let consumers choose to support games at a place where they also have a good service but allow developers to get a bigger cut (I will often buy Feral games from their website) they have instead worked to make games exclusives by paying developers to ditch steam releases.
The moral principle I have is the manner by which EPIC has gone about this.
QuoteI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
That has never been the issue. In fact pretty much everybody cheered when Epic announced EGS.
The main issue is him using his outrageous amount of money to actively degrade the PC experience of gamers instead of using it to produce a superior product that wins customer affection (something that shouldn't be that hard with all that cash).
I'm growing tired of all these bullshit articles made by bribed journalists who carefully avoid to pursue questions and arguments that might be uncomfortable for their hidden masters and instead help them establish their narrative.
When TS says that EGS allows small developers studios to avoid "steam tax" for instance, one should point out what actual guarantees are there that when a publishers gets higher revenues because of EGS this money goes to actual developers and not entirely to publisher shareholders. And when it comes to transaction fees I like the argument and I always have defended it (I genuinely think it would be better if CC fees were payed by CC users). But then you point out how it comes that Steam 30% tax is not 30% anymore if it eats up a 8% of transaction fee. And then you go on by uniting the points above and tweet him if it is better for PC gaming to make gamers pay more for less just so publishers can pay higher dividends.
I understand that gaming is not politics or finance, but it's not that gaming journalism couldn't use some actual journalists working in it.
Last edited by Mal on 24 June 2019 at 1:46 pm UTC
QuoteI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
It's quite simple really. Valve gets 30%, yes, but only on Steam Store purchases. Every developer or publisher are welcome to generate keys for free and sell them in their own shop or other stores. So effectively Valve's cut is significantly less. And with all that Steam provides (infrastructure, community, marketing) it's really just about right. Does Epic allow devs/pubs to sell Epic Store keys elsewhere? If not, why?
Quoting: pbDoes Epic allow devs/pubs to sell Epic Store keys elsewhere? If not, why?
There are Epic codes on Humble. Whether they can be generated free of change remains to be seen though.
At the end of day, it seems that Sweeney doesn't get it or tries very hard to make it look different to what it is.
Back in the day you would buy a game on disk so you were not reliant on store fronts. Once you had the game in your possession you were free to do as you wish whereas now you are relying on a launcher to just play the game.
with the recent events with EPIC and Canonical as well as all these new steaming services appearing I am reviewing my purchasing habits as I have grave concerns that I may soon loose access to a lot of my games. If SHTF I will have no option but to sail the high seas and try to salvage every game that I own to archive which at present is nearly 400 games. I really don't want to have to deal with that.
We do need competition in the marketplace and I welcome it but I would ask all publishers to play fair and put the gamers interest first. Why not work together to create a free, open and universal store front and share the burden in exchange for a lower cut.
Linux-based games, on the other hand, will grow very strongly in the next 20 years due to streaming. Nobody will want to work with compatibility layers like Wine in this area in the long run. Every percent loss in performance costs hardware.
The switch to Linux is a huge effort. You can do that by taking millions of dollars into your hands like Google or you can do it like Valve bit by bit.
Windows hangs to 100% on Windows desktops. Linux is independent of the desktop. And the classic desktop will disappear from most households in the next 20 years. Maybe there will be separate gaming machines for VR. But most things will run on mobile/new devices and via streaming.
Quoting: TimmyI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
What. The. Actual. FUCK?
Quoting: TimmyI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake.
What moral principles do you think exist, Tim? There's no Universal list of axiomatic Moral Principles issued by a cosmic HR department that everybody can look to, so you'll have to present them if you want to talk about them.
How about you tell us what you think you're being criticized about, and give us some examples. People who don't like you or your company store, or whatever, are under absolutely no obligation to meet your "challenge" or prove anything at all to you or anyone. What? If you don't feel like they've made a worthy case then they'll have to like you?
Quoting: TimmyIf it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store...
Which company Tim? GoG? Itch? Walmart? All of these are avoiding Valve's "30%" fee (a tax may be a fee, but a fee isn't a tax; Valve isn't a government, Tim). First you make us play "Guess the Moral Principle," and now we have to play "Guess the Company?" This isn't a very good challenge, Tim.
Quoting: Timmy... why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
You mean like price fixing? That's a legal thing that depends upon what is being sold and where, it seems. You need to---again---say what is being called wrong, here, and then say why it isn't, Tim, or is "Guess the Wrong," the last game?
Timmy doesn't want to argue with his/Epic Store's critics or detractors. He doesn't care what their complaints are. He just wants to be right, or at least to be seen as right by others as he sees himself.
Last edited by Nanobang on 24 June 2019 at 11:40 am UTC
QuoteThe Easy Anti Cheat team is continuing to work on Linux support. Native support is in a beta state and works for some games
That sounds good.
QuoteActually I think WINE is the one hope for breaking the cycle. If most PC games were automatically compatible with Linux, it would greatly increase the viability of Linux as a consumer platform.
He is just full of shit. What he is actually saying is "I think Linux is not viable. I want my games to work automatically without putting any effort. There is no way you are going to make me support Linux except by doing all the work for me."
For us, Wine is great because it is the only alternative. Without access to the source code or funds to pay for a port, we need Wine to run software. For someone that has complete control over the development, is establishing an entire new platform and pouring money egregiously into that, even putting effort/money towards Wine isn't good enough. At least make the damn store client (that I heard uses electron, even) run natively so that people can use Wine. They have an engine (literally own the engine) that supposedly abstracts away the OS, so port your flagship game to Linux (there is even a mobile version already) - especially because it won't work with Wine due to anti-cheat. Steam started putting money into Wine after they exhausted their options to support Linux themselves (with the client, their own games, they even made their own distro).
QuoteI’d like to challenge critics to state what moral principle you feel is at stake. If it’s okay for one company to avoid the 30% Valve tax by selling exclusively through their own store, why is it wrong for multiple companies to work together to achieve the same goals?
Before we start on moral principles, I'd like to point people are against it in great part by practical reasons. Neither the lower cut, the guaranteed sales (or direct payments) are for the benefit of customers - they are only good for the publishers and developers. For a customer, there is no added value in buying at the Epic Store, only disadvantages. And before someone says that developers will lower prices or invest more in their games, I'd like to point out we already know it does not. Games were already being pre-ordered on Steam or crowdfunded, did their prices decrease? No. Those games were already at the end of development, all fully funded before, no significant changes. For Phoenix Point, we know that when they got the money they just gave the shareholders a bonus, and the infamous quote that they didn't care if backers refunded the game because they would still be in the blue. So, no advantages for players. On the other hand, many people directly benefit from Steam features. So with exclusives publishers/developers are acting against customer's interests and Epic is actively pushing that agenda - it is only rational people get mad. Sure, it might be rational to take the money or to offer the money to gain market share, but it is also rational for players to boycott and campaign against it.
As for the moral principle: anti-competitive practices. Trying to corner competitors out of the market is wrong. They are actively using their money to harm a competitor, which is wrong.
"But Steam is too big, we can't compete unless we use dirty tactics." Well, then either your product is simply not good enough and Valve deserves its position or the free market does not work for digital game stores and we need regulation to guarantee competition. Or a mix of both; pick your economic theory. There are certainly positive externalities that Steam is not paying for (network benefits) and it might count as a natural monopoly. But what we can't have is rich people doing wrong things for some supposed greater good, especially when those things harm smaller competitors.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me