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

Quoting: BeamboomBut if I may ask:
From your perspective, all things considered, does it really matter if Proton or not as long as it works 100% out of the box and on par with native builds? I mean, it's less work for the devs (ergo more profitable per sale) and the same experience for us?

Hm.
* I don't like it.
* I'm disappointed by Linux native gaming not keeping the traction it had (which I only partly accuse Proton for).
* It's technically inferior. Having a binary wrapper fells bad (spoken as software developer).
* Except for the few whitelisted games, it doesn't entitle me for a working game. (Whatever that in reality might be worth for a port...)
* It feels plain wrong to run Windows Exes on Linux.

So... It's a mixture of feelings, technically based gut feeling, call-it-ideology, legal based bad feelings, ...

I don't want to be third class citizen in these aspects.

Though I don't know what to do it native Linux gaming keeps losing traction.

I might buy Windows 10, or I might use Proton (which I might hide from the sales statistic).
Dunno.

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: BeamboomBut if I may ask:
From your perspective, all things considered, does it really matter if Proton or not as long as it works 100% out of the box and on par with native builds? I mean, it's less work for the devs (ergo more profitable per sale) and the same experience for us?

Hm.
* I don't like it.
* I'm disappointed by Linux native gaming not keeping the traction it had (which I only partly accuse Proton for).
* It's technically inferior. Having a binary wrapper fells bad (spoken as software developer).
* Except for the few whitelisted games, it doesn't entitle me for a working game. (Whatever that in reality might be worth for a port...)
* It feels plain wrong to run Windows Exes on Linux.

So... It's a mixture of feelings, technically based gut feeling, call-it-ideology, legal based bad feelings, ...

I don't want to be third class citizen in these aspects.

Though I don't know what to do it native Linux gaming keeps losing traction.

I might buy Windows 10, or I might use Proton (which I might hide from the sales statistic).
Dunno.

One positive of Proton on Linux vs Windows 10, is that at least when you play a game via Proton, it shows as a Linux sale.

That's better than it showing as a Windows sale, and reminds the developers that Linux gamers are playing their games. We may not have a userbase large enough to alter their business decisions or justify native ports in all circumstances, but at least showing up as a statistic on their revenue charts, even if that revenue is only 1% of their total, gives them a tiny incentive to not doing anything to explicitly lock us out of playing their games on purpose or accidentally, if it can be avoided.

Shipping a native Linux version of a game can be expensive. But sometimes making a game compatible with Proton doesn't involve extra work, or testing, or development. Sometimes it's just a matter of choosing 'Option B' instead of 'Option A' when there are two ways of doing something.

A great example is the current issue we have of video playback in some games and WMF. There's no reason why the developers couldn't pick an alternative format to wmv, which is currently an issue, due to patents among other things.

There's a possibility a developer might see Linux gamers trying to play their games, notice the issue that the WMV format creates, and think to themselves. "Hm. Well it's too late now to re-encode all those videos into a different format, but perhaps on our NEXT project, we might use a different format. Maybe WebM.".

That would pose no additional work for the developer, the videos have to be encoded into at least one format, why not pick the format that might just slightly increase the number of sales, even if it's only by 1%?

Those tiny changes in decisions and behaviour, can mount up over time. In that instance, boom, there's a developer already leaning away from a locked down format, and leaning towards a more open format. That's one less issue the developer would face if they decided to port their next project to Linux. Little changes in behaviour like that could eventually build up, until a developer realises that porting to Linux would be very little extra work at all, because they're already choosing to use development solutions that are strongly compatible with Linux by targeting Proton.

Quoting: Eike* I don't like it.
* I'm disappointed by Linux native gaming not keeping the traction it had (which I only partly accuse Proton for).
* It's technically inferior. Having a binary wrapper fells bad (spoken as software developer).
* Except for the few whitelisted games, it doesn't entitle me for a working game. (Whatever that in reality might be worth for a port...)
* It feels plain wrong to run Windows Exes on Linux.

I don't want to be third class citizen in these aspects.

I call this a good answer.
But it's also an answer based on ideology more than practicality.

But yes - the lost traction. Made us all depressive. It made me think. "Why?". We lost traction before Proton kicked in - it dropped in the wake of the "Steam Machines" flopping.
Then I brushed some dust off the theoretical models learnt during my university years (I got a degree in market economics - but have never worked in that field directly, my career is in the media and IT industry) and started to think about this from a business perspective. And while the depressive outlook remained ;) it all made rather clear sense. Business sense.

I was (and to a certain extent still am) of the exact same opinion as you list above. It feels dirty to run windows binaries on my beautiful Linux desktop. I never installed Linux to run windows bins on it in the first place!

But the gamer in me? Oh man, the gamer in me is just SO delightfully happy that he can finally - FINALLY - play Fallout 4. And man, what an experience. What a fantastically detailed universe to explore. Next up, after some hundred hours spent in F4? Then it's probably GTA5. After that? Maybe Cyberpunk 2077?

Oh joy of all joys. Happy times!


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 July 2019 at 11:31 am UTC

Quoting: BeamboomBut the gamer in me? Oh man, the gamer in me is just SO delightfully happy that he can finally - FINALLY - play Fallout 4. And man, what an experience. What a fantastically detailed universe to explore. Next up, after some hundred hours spent in F4? Then it's probably GTA5. After that? Maybe Cyberpunk 2077?

Oh joy of all joys. Happy times!

Fallout 4, Witcher 3, Kindom Come Deliverance do... pull on me.

My luck ;) is that I'm so short on time that I couldn't play any of them anyway.
(Tyranny, Pillars of Eternity II and Torment: Tides of Numenera are still waiting to even show me their first minutes...)

Quoting: BeamboomAnd it's not about greed. It's about making sensible decisions. Even the most credible artist want to survive and live on their art. And to survive you need to run a healthy business. Ideology is what you can afford when your business is doing good.

Not supporting Linux when it's profitable, while arguing that doing Windows only games is more profitable, is totally about greed, not about sensible decisions and healthy business.

How well artists survive such greed, you should know too. EA for example swallowed countless studios, which disappeared into oblivion in result. See below.

Quoting: BeamboomGaming is business. A major player in the entertainment industry, an industry with millions of artists doing fantastic work, from musicians to actors, 3D artists, makeup artists, game designers, composers, painters, map designers, you name it. Art and business can easily go hand in hand, in many cases great art is also good business.

They can, if art part is important. But if greed is the driver, you get EA and other similar crooked legacy publishers, who produce mass market junk and not masterpieces, since it makes more money. With some DRM for the good measure, and naturally no Linux support.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2019 at 6:07 pm UTC

Game development is maybe 20% "art" at best. The rest is hard work that you need to pay people for. Bugfixing is not art. Hitting the deadlines is not conducive to art. QA is (largely) not art. Game development needs to be sustainable. People will draw for free, but people will not clean up the mess for free. A typical game has a small "drawing" period and a very long "let's clean up this mess and ship it" period.

Right now game development is still a risky business even on platforms where a reliable monetary feedback exists, Linux gamedev is more a philanthropy. I don't see any factors that would change this on the horizon - Linux gaming squarely is in the same place when it was in 1999, it goes in circles (remember Indrema? Same fate happened to Steam Machines 15 years later). I think only the "emulation" approach (I know that Wine is not an emulator but running a Windows game on Linux is conceptually not that far from running a Xbox One game on Linux, so I'm using the term broadly) is viable. Happy to be disproven by some new unexpected development on the platform.

Who said art is not a hard work? Games themselves are art. Making them is technical sure, and it's not easy. But if it's profitable, it's not a philanthropy. We aren't talking about free work here.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2019 at 3:49 pm UTC

Quoting: RCLLinux gaming squarely is in the same place when it was in 1999

Well that's obviously not true.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: RCLLinux gaming squarely is in the same place when it was in 1999

Well that's obviously not true.

Indeed, that statement is completely false. Linux gaming has progressed a lot.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: RCLLinux gaming squarely is in the same place when it was in 1999

Well that's obviously not true.

Indeed, that statement is completely false. Linux gaming has progressed a lot.

I dunno how you measure that... Here's what leads to my impression. I remember 1999-2000 peak well (my college years).

- There was a lot of hype that Linux is going to be the next big thing not just for games, but overall replacing Windows. A lot of folks around were converting to Linux, myself included (I have always dual-booted though). There were first "memes" (then not known by that name) that Microsoft will release a Linux distro (Microsoft Linux 98.
- Top games were appearing for Linux, with proper 3D acceleration. You could play Quake, HoMM III. Unreal Tournament was being ported to Linux by Dan Vogel (currently of Epic Games, then of Loki).
- Market share was not measured accurately but the impression was that Linux desktop users were far more than 1%
- Literature about developing Linux games started to appear, including a book on SDL that I still have.
- There was even a Linux console in the works (Indrema). A new AmigaOS was supposedly based on Linux etc etc.

Then it all went bust after 2001.

Then there was a rise again in mid-2000s, when XP got stale, Vista screwed up and Ubuntu had it 15 minutes of fame. Open source games finally caught up on tech and while commercial releases weren't many (PC was dying as a platform altogether), Linux again got some credibility as an entertainment platform.

Then a rise in mid 2010s again, after a yet another PC renaissance. First Humble Bundle, then Steam. And again a down-slide.

Perhaps in absolute numbers of games currently runnable on Linux there's a change. Percentage-wise and attitude-wise, it feels the same. Similar technical problems, similar support issues, similar lack of market forces, similar market share.

Quoting: RCLI dunno how you measure that...

Perhaps in absolute numbers of games currently runnable on Linux there's a change. Percentage-wise and attitude-wise, it feels the same. Similar technical problems, similar support issues, similar lack of market forces, similar market share.

You can measure the progress using these metrics:

1. Maturity and competitiveness of technology that underpins Linux gaming. That's a hard must for anything else to even be an option.
2. Number of Linux gamers.
3. Number of Linux games coming out.
4. Number of developers making Linux games.

I see improvement on all of them, especially in the recent years. If you measure things using "when will Linux replace Windows for the masses", you won't see big change, because MS remains a stinking monopoly that is hard to dislodge. But it's in no way equal to lack of progress in Linux gaming in general, like the metrics above.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2019 at 4:20 pm UTC

Quoting: ShmerlNot supporting Linux when it's profitable, while arguing that doing Windows only games is more profitable, is totally about greed, not about sensible decisions and healthy business.

You obviously do not run a business.

You honestly seriously do not understand how choosing an alternative with barely any profit instead of focusing on the segment with a lot of potential is a poor business decision? Or is it just that you don't want to understand?
To earn one new Windows gamer as a customer is no less "honourable" than one new Linux gamer? A gamer is a gamer?

No, like I said, you need to have OTHER motivations to chose the lesser alternative. You need to be particularly interested in that segment. possibly for non-profit reasons. And many are! There's a LOT of developers out there who just simply loves Linux. I would not be surprised if that is the dominating reason why they support our platform at all. Several has openly admitted so.

But many doesn't. Without them being "greedy". Or capitalist swines. Or any lesser human beings.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 July 2019 at 6:01 pm UTC

Quoting: BeamboomYou obviously do not run a business.

Those who release Linux games do. And they are not greedy, as publishers who use the logic you described in order not to release for Linux. You can claim they don't know how to run business, and what not. But I'd rather welcome their attitude towards Linux community, instead of whitewashing the greed of legacy publishers who have more than enough money to make Linux games (and even make a profit), but don't.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 July 2019 at 6:06 pm UTC

Quoting: ShmerlBut I'd rather welcome their attitude towards Linux community, instead of whitewashing the greed of legacy publishers who have more than enough money to make Linux games (and even make a profit), but don't.

There's a difference between condoning a behaviour and expecting it. It doesn't matter what we all think of most companies' greed, the fact remains that they will keep doing what they think is most profitable for them. If you make predictions based on what you think people should do, I'm afraid you won't win your bets too often.

No one here is saying we don't want native games or don't appreciate those publishers, but the bigger the company, the more likely it is to disregard considerations other than profit, and it would be lunacy to expect all of them to operate on virtue and principle.

Quoting: SalvatosNo one here is saying we don't want native games or don't appreciate those publishers, but the bigger the company, the more likely it is to disregard considerations other than profit, and it would be lunacy to expect all of them to operate on virtue and principle.

Sure, I don't expect the likes of EA to operate any different from how they do. That wasn't my point. My point is that it's not required for gaming companies to operate that way and be a successful business, and positive examples demonstrate it. But surely we can't expect everyone to behave like better, and more forward looking publishers who support Linux.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 July 2019 at 12:32 am UTC

Quoting: SalvatosNo one here is saying we don't want native games or don't appreciate those publishers, but the bigger the company, the more likely it is to disregard considerations other than profit, and it would be lunacy to expect all of them to operate on virtue and principle.

Specially if those companies are public traded on Wall street.

I believe video game companies must be 100% private, like in the early days, because slowly they went to hell when they arrived at Wall st.

Quoting: ShmerlThose who release Linux games do. And they are not greedy, as publishers who use the logic you described in order not to release for Linux.

I assume you have a job. Let's say I offer you another job, the same tasks and responsibilities, only I offer you half as much in salary.

You can't keep both jobs, and you like your other job too. If you accept my job you need to work less on the other job. And as a consequence, your income goes down. Same job, same work hours, only less earnings. Your rent is the same, your expenses hard to cut.

I'm a cool guy, I'm fun to work for.
If you still decline my offer and figure you are better off to keep your current job, would you then describe yourself as greedy?
Or rather an idiot if you didn't?

Quoting: Shmerlcan claim they don't know how to run business, and what not. But I'd rather welcome their attitude towards Linux community

I claim they have other motivations to support our segment than for business reasons. Interests that others may not have. And that's fair enough.
A Linux gamer is not more "worth" than any other gamer, is my claim. You have to be particularly fond of our segment, have other reasons to support our platform. Motivations that may not be shared by all.

And that is backed by what many devs has publicly said. They are not doing it for the money but because they dig Linux.

We should appreciate those, of course. But it's wrong if you to just slander all those who don't have particular emotions towards our segment as "greedy".


Last edited by Beamboom on 4 July 2019 at 7:01 am UTC

Quoting: BeamboomI assume you have a job. Let's say I offer you another job, the same tasks and responsibilities, only I offer you half as much in salary.

Bad analogy. Let's say you have a job. Enough for your needs now. Someone comes and offers you a job of questionable nature (let's say because of this, you'll be excluding a whole range of people from access to your product). It pays more. You can take it, sure (though you don't have to). But you'll also be bearing the result of it. So, what would it be?

Quoting: BeamboomI claim they have other motivations to support our segment than for business reasons.

Good, and I told you, that those who treat art (like games) as pure business, produce garbage art. Because mass market pulp fiction pays. And making masterpieces is too expensive. And by art I mean in all artistic senses there. Same applies to reaching your target audience.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 July 2019 at 7:02 am UTC

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: BeamboomI assume you have a job. Let's say I offer you another job, the same tasks and responsibilities, only I offer you half as much in salary.

Bad analogy.

No - it's a very good analogy. You're already catering for one market. The question is, would you also embrace the new offer, with the consequence of having less working ours to spend on your current employer, and less outcome. This is the reality for almost all developers. Time is a limited asset.

Maybe you would still accept that job, if you liked the employer a lot. But the most rational thing - from a personal economy point of view - is of course to work fulltime for that other employer.

And this is really the simplicity of this question. And this does not indicate anything about the quality of your work as an employee.

Quoting: ShmerlGood, and I told you, that those who treat art (like games) as pure business, produce garbage art.

Do you yourself realise how exceptionally black and white you see the world?
It looks to me like you're saying that art is only found in indie releases - especially if they support linux?
No great art direction, scripting, design, voice acting, storyline, no artistic integrity, no artistic ambitions, nothing like that in big produtions?

I think you see this way, waaaay too political. It's clogging up your eyes!

Quoting: ShmerlAnd making masterpieces is too expensive.

If you by "masterpiece" means very niche work with restricted appeal and destined for a very particular audience, you got a point. This is why many western countries for example support certain segments of cultural work in their contry.

But one mans junk is another mans gold. And we should both be weary with sitting too high on our horses and believe we have the monopoly to define good art/games on behalf of all.

Quoting: BeamboomNo - it's a very good analogy. You're already catering for one market.

It's not a correct analogy. Releasing for Linux is expanding your audience. That wouldn't stop you from continuing releasing for Windows users. Releasing for Windows users more instead, means excluding Linux users, for more profits. That's greed.

Quoting: BeamboomIt looks to me like you're saying that art is only found in indie releases

Not every publisher is one of those backwards thinking legacy anti-Linux types. Not every independent creator is a good artist. I.e. good art is not dictated by those parameters. Good publisher gives creators ways to create good games and reach wider audience. And we have publishers who support Linux releases.

But in general yes, I'm saying that legacy publishers don't care about good art. They care about $$$ only. That's EA and Co. for you.

Quoting: BeamboomIf you by "masterpiece" means very niche work with restricted appeal and destined for a very particular audience, you got a point. This is why many western countries for example support certain segments of cultural work in their contry.

I mean it in wide enough sense. You can tell a masterpiece book from a mediocre one. Same applies to music, films or any other form of art, games included. I'm not saying every work should be a masterpiece. I'm just bringing the point about the inherent conflict in the commercialization of art. Those who run after more money, don't want masterpieces. They want fast produced mass market junk, that will be discarded tomorrow, but will sell due to "mass" part.

How creators approach their users is part of the same issue (more money vs art). And this results in differences in how they approach Linux releases.


Last edited by Shmerl on 4 July 2019 at 7:52 am UTC