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

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