Steam's top releases of May show why Steam Play is needed for Linux

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe production of native Linux games could totally plummet in that scenario. For Steamplay to be a Good Thing it has to result in a big market share gain. And we don't actually know that's going to happen. I think we have to roll those dice anyway because the stagnation we have right now isn't viable in the medium term, but the concerns about Steamplay potentially damaging native game production are pretty valid.

Thanks for these two posts. I cited the second one to say: Yes, this is a) what I'm fearing and b) what, in my eyes, seems to be actually happening. Even many GoL readers, probably more involved than the average Linux gamer, seem to jump on Proton like the starved, and we're not seeing a decent raise on the Steam survey side. I already had the impression of a decline in interesting Linux releases before Proton, but IMHO, Proton... it doesn't seem to stop this to say the least.

I was afraid of what would be happening when Proton was announced, and I see my fears coming true.


... to an extend that I might use it myself some day.

If I will, I'll think about hiding the Linux sale by the way. I figure it might be actually counterproductive to show that Linux users buy Windows only games.

Just to be sure, for me (and for I guess lots of other people here) a native Linux version still has priority over a Steam Play version. I haven't touched Shadow of the Tomb Raider nor Life is Strange 2, but will both buy at day one at Feral's store. I've bought quite a few games for Steam Play now, but for all I'm pretty certain that there will never be Linux version (GTA 5, Dark Souls 3, TW3, tree Lego games and a few others). Since these get into the books as Linux I'm still feeling that I did something good for me and for our tiny market. One might argue that without Steam Play I would have spend this money into Linux indie titles, but that is not the case. Without Steam Play I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have spend this money at all for gaming.

As stated above by others, Steam Play is not the new messiah, but I see it as our best bet since a long time. Of course, people should still use their brains and not replace _everything_ with Steam Play. If Linux share is indeed increasing, I think too that it will most likely a combination of several factors, so just Steam Play might not be enough. Though lets see if market share changes in the first place and analyze then what it might have been. It's still also very likely that nothing changes.


Last edited by jens on 30 June 2019 at 12:49 pm UTC

There's a lot of talk about market share here. Lots of assumptions and theories. But if there's one thing we DO know, is the fact that Steam has been on Linux for several years now, and the Linux user base has been, for all practical purposes, completely stationary. Hasn't moved in any significant rate at all.

And while it is logical that Steam Play may cause a few games to not be "natively" ported* that might have been, the fact remains the same: We are only ONE PERCENT.

Now, from a market economical point of view, the additional cost of supporting an additional platform for ONE percent potential increase in sale: Well, the years with Steam so far displays how attractive that is, doesn't it? There's not even a point arguing for that - it does not make good business sense. PERIOD.

And we KNOW by now that there's no reason to expect our share to naturally increase. In fact, the rational thing to expect is that we remain around 1-2% in the foreseeable future - REGARDLESS of Steam Play. And the native games offered us will predominately be indies. Just like it's been up until now.

That's the only rational assumption to draw from what we know so far.



* "native ports"... Now that is a discussion in itself. The "ports" are also based on translation layers, just like Wine/Proton. So in effect, you all are playing "Feral's Proton" instead of Steam Play. Yes really.


Last edited by Beamboom on 1 July 2019 at 9:06 am UTC

Quoting: BeamboomThere's a lot of talk about market share here. Lots of assumptions and theories. But if there's one thing we DO know, is that the fact that Steam has been on Linux for several years now, and the Linux user base has been, for all practical purposes, completely stationary. Hasn't moved in any significant rate at all.

To be precise, the amount of Linux gamers did rise - at a similar extend as the amount of Windows gamers. And I don't feel this is nitpicking, a raised amount should result in more copies sold (if that's the only change).

Yes, we're still not many.

Quoting: BeamboomNow, from a market economical point of view, the additional cost of supporting an additional platform for ONE percent potential increase in sale: Well, the years with Steam so far displays how attractive that is, doesn't it? There's not even a point arguing for that - it does not make good business sense. PERIOD.

A "period" at the end of an argument is a red flag... You did discuss this with the hundreds of developers doing Linux releases, didn't you?

Quoting: Beamboom* "native ports"... Now that is a discussion in itself. The "ports" are also based on translation layers, just like Wine/Proton. So in effect, you all are playing "Feral's Proton" instead of Steam Play. Yes really.

No, really not, from my software developers point of view. There's a huge difference between binary and code wrappers. But this has been discussed often and long enough.

Quoting: EikeTo be precise, the amount of Linux gamers did rise - at a similar extend as the amount of Windows gamers. And I don't feel this is nitpicking, a raised amount should result in more copies sold (if that's the only change).

Yes, not going down in the numbers means that the numbers of Linux users rises as fast as the number of Windows users. This could even be seen as a compliment considering the advantage Windows has with being pre-installed on essentially every new machine. :)

Quoting: GuestUh no, the AAA games we have on Linux were not for charity or good will, we have proof that the work done releasing for and supporting Linux was compensated for.

Fact is if Linux was profitable for triple A and indie AAA (as Ninja Theory calls it), then we would see more than two AAA games for Linux at E3. One of them, the Borderlands DLC isn't even confirmed, I just included it just because Liam implied it would come because of Aspyr. So tell me again if Linux is profitable:
where is Ashes of Singularity. It's been two years. Where is Doom 2016? The port is basically done. Do you really believe those in charge of Doom would not port it to Linux if they could make more money?
Just because Linux has AAA games it does not prove that it's sustainable business as a whole. The sooner you realize that the sooner Linux gaming will be better because of it.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe rest of what he said is pretty frightening though. He seems quite definite that Linux gaming is shrinking over time. This over a time period when on a technical level, near as I can figure out Linux has been significantly improving as a gaming platform.
We may need Proton, and Stadia I guess, more than I thought.

It seems quite evident to me. With some exceptions and indies Linux isn't profitable.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'd certainly love to see that Windows 7--> Linux migration scenario materialize. But I've seen a couple of other "This MS screw-up should drive people our way" events that never worked out, so I dunno. Time will tell.

I think for that to be effective couple things needs to be in order: anti cheat (EAC and BattleEye), even more driver improvements and gamers on Linux doing free ad campaign for Linux.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 30 June 2019 at 1:32 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestWithout choosing sides (I haven't dug enough into evidence, data sets, etc, myself yet to make a judgement), quite often there's also the case that supporting GNU/Linux might be profitable, but not quite as profitable as putting that same investment back into the original platform, or to a console, or better marketing.

Then it comes down to it not being profitable enough. I did express that in my posts, that they could use the money to make DLC for Windows and get more.
No matter the outcome it comes down to the marketshare. And that's the issue that needs to be adressed, and I think Valve is adressing.

Quoting: Linuxwarper

Quoting: GuestUh no, the AAA games we have on Linux were not for charity or good will, we have proof that the work done releasing for and supporting Linux was compensated for.

Fact is if Linux was profitable for triple A and indie AAA (as Ninja Theory calls it), then we would see more than two AAA games for Linux at E3. One of them, the Borderlands DLC isn't even confirmed, I just included it just because Liam implied it would come because of Aspyr. So tell me again if Linux is profitable:
where is Ashes of Singularity. It's been two years. Where is Doom 2016? The port is basically done. Do you really believe those in charge of Doom would not port it to Linux if they could make more money?
Just because Linux has AAA games it does not prove that it's sustainable business as a whole. The sooner you realize that the sooner Linux gaming will be better because of it.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe rest of what he said is pretty frightening though. He seems quite definite that Linux gaming is shrinking over time. This over a time period when on a technical level, near as I can figure out Linux has been significantly improving as a gaming platform.
We may need Proton, and Stadia I guess, more than I thought.

It seems quite evident to me. With some exceptions and indies Linux isn't profitable.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'd certainly love to see that Windows 7--> Linux migration scenario materialize. But I've seen a couple of other "This MS screw-up should drive people our way" events that never worked out, so I dunno. Time will tell.

I think for that to be effective couple things needs to be in order: anti cheat (EAC and BattleEye), even more driver improvements and gamers on Linux doing free ad campaign for Linux.

About Doom 2016: id Software was releasing unofficial Linux binaries until Bethesda/Zenimax acquired them. Thing is ; SteamPlay showed that maybe the most important case here is using a native graphics api exists on Linux. Wine can cover other needs. I bought Doom on this Grand Prix Sale and it works awesome. So really nothing changed. You were not getting support from id for unofficial binaries , same with SteamPlay case.

Ashes of Singularity: They're working on Linux port.Iirc , they have no experience on Linux at all. So it is very normal it takes time.

Quoting: LeopardAbout Doom 2016: id Software was releasing unofficial Linux binaries until Bethesda/Zenimax acquired them. Thing is ; SteamPlay showed that maybe the most important case here is using a native graphics api exists on Linux. Wine can cover other needs. I bought Doom on this Grand Prix Sale and it works awesome. So really nothing changed. You were not getting support from id for unofficial binaries , same with SteamPlay case.

Ashes of Singularity: They're working on Linux port.Iirc , they have no experience on Linux at all. So it is very normal it takes time.

Still, if Linux was profitable enough they would have supported us officially seeing as Doom uses Vulkan already. I have no complaints about running DOOM through Proton, I was just making point that if Linux was worth porting to Bethesda/Zenimax would do it. One thing that would contradict that is notion that Bethesda/Zenimax may be relying on Proton to get money from us, but E3 and Stadia proves that Linux isn't considered (even with Vulkan).

For Ashes, that's also a good point. But it's been so long now. On Steam they asked for people to express their interest as part of their consideration for porting to Linux. If it was profitable, they would not need to be convinced.

Bottomline is: Either Linux is profitable but it's not as profitable as making a DLC for Windows. Whether it's one or the other, we will only get things changed if our marketshare increases. There used to be a big barrier to Linux, games not working and you had to tinker alot with Wine, Proton removed that. Now many games work and people have switched, ditched dual or stayed on Linux as result of that. The next barrier that's being worked on is anticheat. Then many of the multiplayer games will work, and more people will switch over. Then the train continues, and the more progress is made the more viable platform Linux becomes. One last comment: Steam being on Linux is not the same as whole Steam catalogue being playable on Linux. So of course it hasn't made significant impact.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 30 June 2019 at 2:40 pm UTC

Quoting: BeamboomThere's a lot of talk about market share here. Lots of assumptions and theories. But if there's one thing we DO know, is that the fact that Steam has been on Linux for several years now, and the Linux user base has been, for all practical purposes, completely stationary. Hasn't moved in any significant rate at all.

Total number of Linux gamers affects sales, not market share. From what I've seen, total number of Linux gamers has been growing, year after year. I explained the idea above though. As with classic supply and demand, potential profits depend on both. If there are too many games per certain amount of gamers, profits will go down for developers, even if amount of gamers is growing. So market will balance naturally by lowering the number of produced games. It's not a sign of anything negative.


Last edited by Shmerl on 30 June 2019 at 3:23 pm UTC

Quoting: LinuxwarperThere used to be a big barrier to Linux, games not working and you had to tinker alot with Wine, Proton removed that. Now many games work and people have switched, ditched dual or stayed on Linux as result of that. The next barrier that's being worked on is anticheat. Then many of the multiplayer games will work, and more people will switch over.

(emphasis added by me)
See, this is the assumption I question--that if we just make things better, people will just automatically switch and our share will increase. If we build it they will come.
They probably won't. Oh, there will be a few, there have already been a few and there will be a few more. But that's at the level of anecdotes, not percentages. In the economy we have, and with people being what people are, just having a better technology or even a better product overall is not enough. You can't switch to something you've never heard of, and most people don't even get the concept that "switching" is a thing; they see a computer as an appliance that comes a certain way and that's how it is.
What I think is true is that if the technology is good enough, like Proton works on most games and so on, then something like a Steam Machine which was not really viable years ago becomes viable. So if someone with money and marketing muscle makes some kind of push for something involving Linux, Linux will be a vehicle that can take them to the finish line. That's what makes Steamplay important.