Valve have put out a news post to highlight some of the top games put onto Steam in May and it's another reminder of why Steam Play is needed.
In this blog post they start by listing 20 games that had the top revenue earned in the first two weeks following their release. Without looking, take a guess at the number of games in that list that actually support Linux.
Did you take a guess? The answer is a rather sobering two: Rise of Industry and Total War: THREE KINGDOMS. What happens to that number if we include those that can be run with Steam Play, with a "Platinum" rating from user reports on ProtonDB? That brings it right up to nine, which is far more impressive. It would be even higher, if Easy Anti-Cheat and BattlEye worked with Steam Play and since both said they're working on it (Sources: EAC - BattlEye), things can only get better.
They also went over the top five free games, measured by peak player count within the first two weeks following release: Conqueror's Blade, Splitgate: Arena Warfare, Minion Masters, Eden Rising and Never Split the Party. Of those, only one supports Linux which is Never Split the Party. If we take "Platinum" Steam Play games again, that only rises to two.
Note: The top free games list has two entries that also appear in the top revenue list.
Without popular games, Linux gaming won't grow to a point where it will be noticeable. Once again, this is a big reason why Steam Play is going to help in the long run. First we get games, then we get players, then we hopefully get developers wanting control with their own supported Linux builds.
What's interesting though, is this only takes into account the first two weeks in both cases. Taking a look myself a bit closer, out of the top 20 games most played on Steam right now (players online) only one of those games Valve listed in the blog post actually make it at all, which is Total War: THREE KINGDOMS and that does support Linux. Going even further, out of the top 100 games on Steam for player count, from Valve's list, only currently Total War: THREE KINGDOMS shows up.
As a quick additional and interesting measure for June: Looking at the top 20 by player count right now, how many in total support Linux? A much healthier 10, so half which isn't so bad. Stretching it out even more, from the top 100 by player count, 43 of them support Linux.
So while we don't get the "latest and greatest" games, keep in mind that we do have a lot of games that stay popular supported on Linux, so there's at least a silver lining of sorts there.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: GuestGamers who switch to Linux will demand Linux games
I believe this is a good argument! However, the flip side of it is getting them here in the first place so that they'll be in the position to demand the games. If we don't get them here in the first place then the increased demand will never come. If a person's primary use of their computer is gaming then, pre-Steam Play, Linux looks like the worst possible option for them both catalog-wise and performance-wise. They'll never switch.
Steam Play is what got people like Linus at Linus Tech Tips to take a second look at Linux as a viable gaming platform after having brushed it off on several occasions over the last few years. So, because of Steam Play we now have had several Tech "YouTubers" doing marketing for us, which in turn gets users, which in turn gets sales, which translates as demand for Linux.
Post Steam Play, while Linux still doesn't live up to the catalog of Windows games, it at least looks like a far better option than macOS because the catalog of playable AAA games is probably 2 or 3 times larger than macOS, maybe more. So, if the user is looking for an alternative to Windows, there is something they can go to where their gaming compromise isn't as huge of a hump to get over.
I suppose my ultimate argument can actually be presented as a question. If you had to choose, do you prefer more people switching to Linux, or more games that have native ports, because I don't believe we can have both at this point. :\ We have to pick one or the other. I choose the former.
1 Likes, Who?
Nevertheless Jun 29, 2019
Quoting: GuestQuoting: NeverthelessQuoting: EikeQuoting: NeverthelessQuoting: EikeYou will know as soon as your game is not Proton compatible and therefore will not sell to Linux users.Quoting: aldyIf they see that their games are selling well on Linux then they'll consider porting games.They're already buying, why invest money?
So you're with me it's no incentive to port...
(And the incentive to do larger changes, like using Vulkan instead of DirectX, wouldn't be bigger.)
Yes, I think right now it is no incentive to port to Linux natively, with a big BUT.
I think Proton made a big number of games availlable to play on Linux. It made and will still go on to make large portions of peoples libraries availlable to play on Linux. I think the percentage of new released games playable on Linux is higher than ever. Although the percentage of native releases might/will decrease, and although we will never know if the percentage of native games would have risen significantly without Proton (which I strongly doubt), I really do think Proton is the only hope for a rise in Linux user percentage. This rise should make developers at least look for Proton compatibility, which is achieved by using Vulkan and non Windows exclusive content. That would make native ports much easier, and that might rise the number of native ports and again Linux users in the long run.
It's a hope, yes, but I know of no other mechanism to reach that goal.
You show your own faulty logic by saying "that might rise the number of native ports and again Linux users in the long run." What will increase the number of Linux titles is an increased demand for Linux titles. If the demand for Linux support doesn't increase, there's no reason why developers would give more Linux support. Gamers have to come over to Linux and demand Linux support in order for us to have more Linux support. GOG, itch.io, etc need to grow with more Linux support, too.
Demand for Linux games won't grow if Linux gamers are demanding Windows games by buying Windows games. That will just mean more Windows games. Will some of those gamers demand better and demand Linux games instead and show that by buying Linux games? Yes. And that's what we need more of. But if they buy more and more Windows games, that means more and more financial support for developers who decided to not give a shit about Linux.
I think whats faulty is to think that you'll find lots of Windows gamers who are willing to install Linux, and happily doing without large parts of their game libraries.
If buying Windows games means demanding Windows games that are also Linux games, then that's ok with me! If that (and other resons) helps making devs use Vulkan instead of DXxx, even better!
1 Likes, Who?
Comandante Ñoñardo Jun 29, 2019
I prefer a good native port than a good Proton game...
But I prefer a good Proton game than a bad native ports.(The Metro Redux, for example)
And I prefer a good Proton game than nothing.
I can play the game. It counts as a Linux sale and part of the money goes to Proton Devs anyway.
But I prefer a good Proton game than a bad native ports.(The Metro Redux, for example)
And I prefer a good Proton game than nothing.
I can play the game. It counts as a Linux sale and part of the money goes to Proton Devs anyway.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestYou should direct asking for Linux support to all devs that have games that you'd like to support.Why should I? I know better than that. Linux port isn't profitable enough or worth doing. Instead of making a native port they can make a DLC and get much more money out of it. Then they can use that money to nurture their company.
To begin with, many developers use DX. That already kills prospect of game being ported to Linux. If they chose to do it, it will be a uphill battle not only because of the api but because of their lack of experience with Linux. And there there is that Linux isn't completely polished from a desktop and driver point of view.
Let's use Cyberpunk 2077 as example. It's not been revealed what api they have used. But assuming they are using DX11...for them to port such a massive game to Linux would be a huge mistake business wise. With GOG store they are already struggling. To port Cyberpunk to Linux would costs alot. And for what? 1%? The cost probably far outweighs the outcome.
Until Linux reaches a marketshare that justifies porting a game, I will be grateful with devs supporting Linux by ensuring great compatibility with Proton. It costs little for them to do so and it will give great experience if they use Vulkan.
The fact you don't comprehend that we can't demand native games because our marketshare can't back it up. You make game to sell it and profit. Linux isn't profitable for many games. To change that we need more users on Linux. But users don't come because Linux doesn't have games. So devs don't make games because there aren't enough users and users don't switch because there isn't even close to same amount of games as on Windows.
If Proton starts working with BattleEye and EAC, and more devs adopt Vulkan for their games, I promise you...many users will switch. And the marketshare increasing will go faster than it is at the moment.
On a other note: Maybe we can get Tomb Raider with Vulkan since it's going to be put on Stadia. Making the work for Feral easier. I can't wait for that :)
Last edited by Linuxwarper on 29 June 2019 at 9:02 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestWe have "AAA" games on Linux right now, so no more proof is needed. That's why you should ask for more, not that merely asking is always going to work but sometimes it can.There are AAA games that are profitable on Linux (Feral). But in general they seem not to be. Having many AAA games doesn't prove they are profitable. It means they came to Linux for a reason other than it being profitable, goodwill or company seeing potential in a new market. Metro Last Light for example was ported because of Steam Machines. That port is now crap compared to running it through Proton. Now why is Metro Exodus not on Linux? Why isn't Doom 2016, that had internal linux build, not released? Why is..??
Let me prove my point with something else. Out of all games from E3 2019, coming to Linux, only two of them are triple A. One of them is Wastelands 3, the other is Borderlands Lilith. If Linux is profitable and worth doing a port for, why was it only two games ?
I'll say it again, we have no basis to make demands. We will when our marketshare grows big enough. Proton will help with that. There is a opportunity though. With games being made for Stadia, and Paradox devs have confirmed that Stadia is similar to Linux, that means devs will get more experience with Linux code. There is also Vulkan. This means adapting the stadia version to Linux should cost much less than porting a game with DX11 to Linux.
Last edited by Linuxwarper on 29 June 2019 at 9:57 pm UTC
0 Likes
Nevertheless Jun 29, 2019
Quoting: GuestQuoting: LinuxwarperQuoting: GuestNumbers of Linux gamers or subscribers to whatever website increasing has no effect on Linux games if the demand for Linux games isn't also increasing.I wasn't arguing that it does. But it clearly shows that Valve's involvement with Linux is working to bring users to the platform. And it will only go up when they further polished Proton and Linux desktop and make anticheat work with Proton. Proton is still not complete. But even in it's incomplete state it has persuaded alot people to stay on/switch to Linux. Infact, I might have changed back to Windows if it wasn't for Proton.
If there is one thing I agree with you on, it is that you should ask for Linux port. But you should direct it at developers supporting Stadia and indie devs. Indie devs because their game is easier to port because of scale of the game. Stadia developers because Vulkan is used and Paradox has said there are also other aspects that Stadia shares with Linux. Vulkan and Linux similarity reduces cost for the port. Asking or demanding a port from devs that won't be using Vulkan is futile. They can use the money instead to make a dlc and get more returns from Windows.
You should direct asking for Linux support to all devs that have games that you'd like to support.
Quoting: EikeQuoting: GuestSo far I'm not seeing an increased in the demand for Linux games, though, when looking at hard evidence and the actual numbers.
https://i.redd.it/ilxuecfkp6731.png
Am I right to assume the release date you're using is the first Steam release? Then I figure the curve looks similar to this for a long time, as we often do not see first day Linux releases...
Correct, and correct, you will always have lower release counts in the current month and no counts future months where there are no releases, or do you have a time machine I can borrow? :3
Quoting: NatedawgQuoting: GuestGamers who switch to Linux will demand Linux games
I believe this is a good argument! However, the flip side of it is getting them here in the first place so that they'll be in the position to demand the games. If we don't get them here in the first place then the increased demand will never come. If a person's primary use of their computer is gaming then, pre-Steam Play, Linux looks like the worst possible option for them both catalog-wise and performance-wise. They'll never switch.
Steam Play is what got people like Linus at Linus Tech Tips to take a second look at Linux as a viable gaming platform after having brushed it off on several occasions over the last few years. So, because of Steam Play we now have had several Tech "YouTubers" doing marketing for us, which in turn gets users, which in turn gets sales, which translates as demand for Linux.
Post Steam Play, while Linux still doesn't live up to the catalog of Windows games, it at least looks like a far better option than macOS because the catalog of playable AAA games is probably 2 or 3 times larger than macOS, maybe more. So, if the user is looking for an alternative to Windows, there is something they can go to where their gaming compromise isn't as huge of a hump to get over.
I suppose my ultimate argument can actually be presented as a question. If you had to choose, do you prefer more people switching to Linux, or more games that have native ports, because I don't believe we can have both at this point. :\ We have to pick one or the other. I choose the former.
I was saying that they were saying that, I'm not saying that myself, lol. X3
We need more gamers demanding and supporting Linux games, and to get there Proton may help, but the argument is if Proton is allowing gamers to just buy Windows games and they start doing that a lot, it would help Windows games, and if the demand for Linux games decreases because of it, that also would hurt Linux games.
We need Linux gamers both increasing in numbers and demanding Linux games. Spreading the message to demand games that are fully supported on Linux helps, so No Tux No Bux helps to increase that demand, but we need to see that demand increase, and so far I'm not too impressed by the numbers which seem to be at best holding steady if not down a little bit.
https://i.redd.it/ilxuecfkp6731.png
Quoting: NeverthelessQuoting: GuestQuoting: NeverthelessQuoting: EikeQuoting: NeverthelessQuoting: EikeYou will know as soon as your game is not Proton compatible and therefore will not sell to Linux users.Quoting: aldyIf they see that their games are selling well on Linux then they'll consider porting games.They're already buying, why invest money?
So you're with me it's no incentive to port...
(And the incentive to do larger changes, like using Vulkan instead of DirectX, wouldn't be bigger.)
Yes, I think right now it is no incentive to port to Linux natively, with a big BUT.
I think Proton made a big number of games availlable to play on Linux. It made and will still go on to make large portions of peoples libraries availlable to play on Linux. I think the percentage of new released games playable on Linux is higher than ever. Although the percentage of native releases might/will decrease, and although we will never know if the percentage of native games would have risen significantly without Proton (which I strongly doubt), I really do think Proton is the only hope for a rise in Linux user percentage. This rise should make developers at least look for Proton compatibility, which is achieved by using Vulkan and non Windows exclusive content. That would make native ports much easier, and that might rise the number of native ports and again Linux users in the long run.
It's a hope, yes, but I know of no other mechanism to reach that goal.
You show your own faulty logic by saying "that might rise the number of native ports and again Linux users in the long run." What will increase the number of Linux titles is an increased demand for Linux titles. If the demand for Linux support doesn't increase, there's no reason why developers would give more Linux support. Gamers have to come over to Linux and demand Linux support in order for us to have more Linux support. GOG, itch.io, etc need to grow with more Linux support, too.
Demand for Linux games won't grow if Linux gamers are demanding Windows games by buying Windows games. That will just mean more Windows games. Will some of those gamers demand better and demand Linux games instead and show that by buying Linux games? Yes. And that's what we need more of. But if they buy more and more Windows games, that means more and more financial support for developers who decided to not give a shit about Linux.
I think whats faulty is to think that you'll find lots of Windows gamers who are willing to install Linux, and happily doing without large parts of their game libraries.
If buying Windows games means demanding Windows games that are also Linux games, then that's ok with me! If that (and other resons) helps making devs use Vulkan instead of DXxx, even better!
Windows games aren't Linux games, they're Windows games only supported on Windows. If they were Linux games, you'd see a little SteamOS icon on Steam, and they might be available on GOG and itch.io as well.
Linux support is key, and Linux games come with Linux support. I'll never support games without support for the OS I use, that would be crazy. The only way to get normal support, be able to count on day-1 releases working properly, be able to review the game and report bugs etc is when the developer supports running it on our OS.
To make "good" or "bad" differences between proprietary binaries is a bit too puristic for my taste. I simply don't see that difference. If it's running on my system, it's ok to me category wise. I would even play DOS games, or emulated console games if they run without issues.
I see differences when it's about buying software that counts as anti-Linux, anti-consumer-interests (although I don't like the word consumer) or anti-privacy.
I also strongly believe that Proton is one key to more Linux users, and more Linux users is the only way to get more market leverage (and I will still not care if it'll be more native games or better Proton compatibility #Vulkan).
Even if I'm wrong, and Proton won't help, I'm absolutely sure about one thing: Binary purism will neither give us more Linux users nor more support by developers.
Also, if the numbers should grow in the future, you should not expect too many of the new users (most probably coming from Windows) to subscribe to your opinion.
Edit: typo
Last edited by Nevertheless on 29 June 2019 at 10:41 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestI've said it before and I will say it again, "no tux no bucks" does more harm than good and this shows whyNot sure I see the conflict. Steamplay is for making migration to Linux easier. No Tux no Bux is current Linux users rewarding developers who support Linux. Both those things have a place; indeed I'd say they're complementary.
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestIf you only target Windows, you may want to use Vulkan simply because DirectX12 doesn't work on all Windows versions.Quoting: liamdaweAs for your other bits, well, Vulkan is needed for a big part of Proton remember, so that makes no sense. SDL is also used a lot outside of Linux FYI.
Yes, Vulkan is needed for Proton... and ignored by PC developers* as there is no need for it if you only target Windows.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: gradyvuckovicSo many people here keep saying that Proton supports the Windows ecosystem, but I don't think anyone here seems to have seen that actually Proton is more like EEE: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. But it's not Microsoft using EEE this time, it's US!I was around back when the memos about "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" surfaced. That's not really what it means.
Proton Embraces DirectX/.Net/Win32, then Extends those APIs to Linux, by creating an abstraction layer that converts them to Vulkan/Linux/POSIX/etc.
But how does it Extinguish those APIs?
When a gamer is convinced by Proton to switch to Linux because '90% of the games I'm playing work on Linux', you shouldn't underestimate the mental size of the barrier to switching back to Windows. Sure it's something that could be done in a day, but most users are not like technical Linux users and enjoy switching OS all the time. Most like to set things up once, get them working, and then leave things the way they are. And the longer you spend on Linux, the larger that barrier will become as you start to get more cozy and familiar with Linux.
So after switching from Windows to Linux, as long as the user never gets up the mental energy to switch back to Windows, they should remain on Linux. So, unless something terrible happens and they never lose access to an important piece of software, chances are that gamer is going to make decisions on what to buy based on how well each game will run on Linux.
So that gamer won't likely buy exclusively Linux native games, but they will be unlikely to buy games that won't at least run through Proton, and chances are, most importantly: They are less likely to go back to Windows.
But! Think about what that is going to do to the Windows ecosystem as more and more people switch to Linux because of Proton.
Proton starts to alter developer behaviour. Those developers will notice that their Proton compatible games make more sales than their Proton incompatible games. And for absolutely minimal work! Work so easy, they've often done it by accident! Suddenly developers aren't developing for "Windows", they developing for "Windows + Proton". By following a few simple rules for what Windows APIs to use and which ones not to use, the developers can gain some extra sales with minimal work and almost zero investment.
Suddenly, Proton is dictating which Windows APIs are used, as targeting Proton/Windows means targeting the lowest common denominator of both.
When that starts to happen(we shouldn't expect to see that yet, games take years to develop, it's only been 10 months), it will mean more games will work via Proton on purpose instead of by accident, which will mean more gamers will be able to make the switch to Linux and have even more games available to them to buy than before. The number of 'truly Windows only' games will get smaller and smaller as a result.
Thus it creates a cycle, of creating customers who will prefer Linux native, but will buy Linux compatible games. Which in turn will encourage more developers to make their games Linux compatible, until the number of customers becomes large enough to justify Linux native games as well.
Ultimately I see Proton as EEE, it Embraces, Extends, then Extinguishes the vendor-lockin of Windows APIs. Unpicking the Windows monopoly one API at a time. Using Microsoft's requirements for backwards compatibility with their huge software library against them.
This is what EEE is and how it works. Say you're a Big Player in an industry. And say there's a standard, a protocol, something like that, which is open and which is being used by competitors to do stuff. The interoperability of this open thing is good for users/customers and allows competition on a level playing field with low barriers to entry, because everyone can do their own version of the thing and as long as it adheres to the open spec, it can be used by everyone. Obviously if this is what everyone ends up using, that would be a disaster--you'd constantly have little nobodies yapping at your heels with competing products that might end up growing and challenging you. So you want to kill it. Ideally you want to kill it with a minimum of terrible press. What do you do?
First, you adopt the standard/specification/whatever. Look at us, aren't we team players who appreciate the wonders of open standards? Press releases, kiss kiss, kudos, hurrah. Embrace. And being a Big Player, you get lots of people to use your products which have embraced the thing.
Then, you say "But it could be improved. As an industry leader we will add these wonderful extra improvements (extensions) to the protocol! Then it will be even better!" Ideally, your improvements actually are useful for something, so your customers keep on happily using it. But the key is, the improvements are actually incompatible, and closed. Extend.
But since you are claiming that it's still part of the standard, people are confused how to react. Some of your competitors try to achieve compatibility with your version, but since you control your version you can make sure they fail; meanwhile they are spending effort chasing your designs rather than working on their own. Others may denounce your compatibility breakage and insist on sticking to the original standard. But since you are a Big Player, for practical customer purposes it is they who aren't compatible with you. If you can play the PR right, they will look bad for denouncing the team player you who was so good about embracing the standard, and they will look old fashioned for failing to innovate with useful new functionality like you have. Still others may try to compete with your innovation with their own extensions; this merely fragments the standard further. Extinguish.
At this point at best you own the market because your closed version of the standard is what everyone has to chase. Short of that, at least the open standard is dead and its threats of low barrier to entry with it--the market will now be dominated by a few incompatible versions in the hands of a few Big Players, one of which is you.
This tactic obviously does not work if you are small, you have to have major muscle.
0 Likes
Quoting: NeverthelessI think developers tend to be quite pragmatic thinkers. They might not easily understand why someone would demand a native version when there is a Proton version that runs without issues. They may even think it's esoteric or amusing.If they're genuinely pragmatic thinkers would it matter to them whether they understood why someone was paying money for something, just so long as they understood under what conditions the money would be paid?
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 30 June 2019 at 3:50 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me