Tim Sweeney, the Founder and CEO of Epic Games took to Twitter again recently to answer some questions about Linux and gaming.
Why? Well, it seems the previously incorrect reports about Easy Anti-Cheat dropping Linux support like to reappear and people end up spreading it around. Even though it has since been clarified, people still end up spreading it.
In reply to someone on Twitter asking Sweeney what his "beef" is with Linux, Sweeney replied with:
Linux is a great. UE4, Epic Online Services, and Easy Anti-Cheat support it as a native runtime platform, and we’re seeking to better support Wine as a solution for running Epic Games store window titles.
Note: I did attempt to get clarification on the Wine and Epic Games Store bit in the above quote, to see if Sweeney meant the whole store in Wine or to get the store on Linux and use Wine like Valve does with Steam Play but he hasn't replied yet.
Another interesting thing Sweeney said around this, was in reply to a user asking about Easy Anti-Cheat, to which Sweeney responded with:
EAC has native Linux binaries in beta, supporting several native games in active release. This missing link is native Linux anti-cheat integration with Wine/Proton so that games running under Wine are protected. This is in the works but is a big task.
So the situation sounds pretty clear. Easy Anti-Cheat does continue to support Linux and Wine/Steam Play support for Easy Anti-Cheat should be happening. Sweeney's comments shouldn't be too surprising if you've been following our news for a while, as he previously said "WINE is the one hope for breaking the cycle".
A long time ago I would have disagreed, but since Valve came along with Steam Play (which bundles Wine, DXVK and more together in the Steam Client) I somewhat agree with this. It has opened up Linux gaming to a wider audience already, so people don't have to worry about losing their entire back catalogue of Windows-only titles and compatibility continues to improve with new each release.
As for some other interesting things that came up recently, someone mentioned Sweeney's previous comment comparing installing Linux to moving to Canada, if you didn't like "US political trends". Sweeney also replied to clarify what he meant by this:
These statements are consistent. 99.9% of game playing is on mobile, console, and PC. A game developer who’s frustrated with other platforms can’t just retreat to Linux. They couldn’t earn a living. We have to fight for our freedoms on today’s platforms as they stand.
It's the whole chicken and egg debate again, users don't want to switch to Linux due to games and game developers don't want to support Linux due to fewer users.
I do get what he's saying, but I don't think the majority mean to only support Linux. On that point, I think he missed the mark a little. It's more about supporting Linux as an additional platform to help against lock-in, monopolies and continue to help break the cycle. Although, as mentioned above Wine/Steam Play have started to slowly even the playing field a bit there.
He goes on:
What are those rights? I think it’s the user’s right to install software of their choosing from sources of their choosing, developers’ right to release software on their own, and competition among stores.
I don't think anyone can truly disagree with that. Installing software from where you choose is quite important, as is competition. Even in the open source space, competition can be very healthy and push everyone to improve. That's true for online stores as well of course, a monopoly of any sort is a bad idea.
And finally:
Does this mean ever game developer has an obligation to release their game on every store? No, it’s their creative work, and they have a right to choose how to distribute it. That includes the right to negotiate store terms and reject stores that don’t pay them adequately.
He's not wrong there either of course, it is entirely down to a developer/publisher on where they release their games and what deals they take to do it. Be it Steam, Epic Store, Humble Store, GOG, itch.io and all the smaller stores.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: johndoeAgain some people here are bashing against someone they DON'T KNOW.
Is Tim Sweeney someones uncle etc. here??? I don't think so.
Even his tweets might not be from himself.
People always tend (ME included) to interpret things into something that wasn't said.
I mean... when someone says his favourite color is PINK, it does not immediately mean he/she is gay.
It "might" be so, but you "really" don't know.
Yes, Tim Sweeney made "exclusive" deals with developers/publishers and what now? Did he force them to do it? NO. So, is he evil? No.
Saying bullshit about someone you don't know because it does't make you comfortable is a waste of time and leads only to another game client which will never be released for Linux - thank you.
Instead we should at least try to convince people to support us and not whinge around.
Man... he's a public person releasing public statements and running a company making very public disruptive actions that have very real impact on our hobby. Ofc we interpret and give a judgement on what he's saying. Especially against what he's actually doing.
He can complain as much as he wants about the suspicious, inquisitive, sometimes paranoid nature of the average linux user out there (it's part of that serie of tweets, but Liam left it out to not prompt an obvious flamefest I guess). We have a brain and we use it. Being part of a community that looks beyond press statements and vague tweet promises is a strength. Being resistant to manipulation and PR brainwashing is not a weakness.
Facts are that today he's making PC gaming worse. Now. It's visible and we feel it. He claims that it's a worth sacrifice for a better future. Fine. Which better future? For who? When? How? Apart from the jingle that "competition is always good" and "steam makes often more money than devs" (both very true statements yet small and incomplete fragments of today's gaming big picture) he has never provided a real, practical, concrete or even credible scenario of how this will benefit users. And actual developers. Some guarantees? Some facts? Today we only see how his cartel is benefiting big publishers and occasionally some known indie with a successful kickstarter campaign at their back (congrats to them, I understand. Good luck with the next kickstarter campaign though). The vast majority of unknown indie devs are barred out EGS "selected catalog" eden. While devs already with a publisher contract have already negotiated their compensation and have 0 power on those additional revenues EGS offers. And remember that big publishers have never been so profitable as they are today for their shareholders. Yet games are designed over micro transactions, gambling and it looks that in near future even non skip-able commercials rather than user experience. While actual devs are always expected to crunch. And sometimes get paid for it, sometimes not and sometimes they become redundant after release. It doesn't exactly make me positive that more moeny to publishers translates to happier devs and better games and better gaming services. So can he explain exactly how in practice his actions will compensate in the future all the damage they are doing now? Nobody see the future I know. But he as a CEO has a vision. He should be able to transmit it to us. I mean the non obvious part. The obvious one (more revenues for big pubs shareholders) it's pretty darn obvious.
Also, it's not relevant that the developers 'chose' to go exclusive. I'm not mad they took the deal, I'm sure the pressure's high and money can be pretty tight for a lot of devs, especially the crowd-funded lot. The argument reminds me of that "Well, it isn't illegal" line that gets thrown around when people talk about dev crunch. That's not what's being argued, and we shouldn't have to wait until someone's at literal gunpoint before we address foul business practices.
Last edited by HadBabits on 15 July 2019 at 10:12 pm UTC
QuoteWell, it seems the previously incorrect reports about Easy Anti-Cheat dropping Linux support like to reappear and people end up spreading it around. Even though it has since been clarified, people still end up spreading it.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1150521599633874949
Which is also a very important matter.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou know, I didn't even read the article.Yeah, you are right.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou do realize that the main reason people don't like exclusives is about their impact on consumers, not developers, right? So developers not being coerced has nothing to do with whether Sweeney is evil. Completely off topic.Off topic??? This Sweeney-Bashing started from the day Valve announced that Metro: Exodus goes "exclusive" to EGS - my argument. From this day on lots of gamers where angry. This is understandable but honestly does not give anybody the right to give him names. He is still a business man.
And now people are bashing against Sweeney in this article/post.
This article is in no way negative - it tells only "POSITIVE" things about Sweeney.
Look... he said (wrote) that Linux is great!
Next question should be...
Cool, Mr. Sweeny. So Linux client is CONFIRMED;). When will the launch happen? Because of the lack of functions in EGS this should be doable THIS year, right?.
... instead of bashing.
Who is now off topic??????
Quoting: MalMan... he's a public person releasing public statementsNo - I don't share your opinion. He is a "private" person doing "public" statements.
Having "a bad fur day" is one thing, bashing people "publicly" another.
I understand your anger - but it does not help Linux to grow market share.
Quoting: johndoeThis Sweeney-Bashing started from the day Valve announced that Metro: Exodus goes "exclusive" to EGS - my argument. From this day on lots of gamers where angry. This is understandable but honestly does not give anybody the right to give him names. He is still a business man.Being a human gives anyone the right to voice their opinion on someone else, even if it's insulting.
I think Tim Sweeney is a bad person. I have no reason to believe his statements are honest given his track record of dishonesty. Regardless of the neutrality of this article, I, and many others, have a negative personal opinion on this man. The comments section, not the article, is the place to express opinion. The article section is for (relatively) neutral reporting.
Quoting: MunkBeing a human gives anyone the right to voice their opinion on someone elseAgreed.
Quoting: Munkeven if it's insulting.Disagreed.
You will never get a "higher" respect when you treat people this way.
Driving up the wall should not become daily routine.
Last edited by johndoe on 16 July 2019 at 7:16 pm UTC
Quoting: johndoeWho is off topic? Still you. You said developers weren't being harmed, therefore Sweeney wasn't evil. But nobody's allegations about Sweeney being evil have had to do with developers being harmed (by exclusives). They have been on a different topic--the question of consumers being harmed (by exclusives). Therefore, your point, being on a different topic from the one people were up in arms about, failed to refute their collective positions because it was off topic.Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou know, I didn't even read the article.Yeah, you are right.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou do realize that the main reason people don't like exclusives is about their impact on consumers, not developers, right? So developers not being coerced has nothing to do with whether Sweeney is evil. Completely off topic.Off topic??? This Sweeney-Bashing started from the day Valve announced that Metro: Exodus goes "exclusive" to EGS - my argument. From this day on lots of gamers where angry. This is understandable but honestly does not give anybody the right to give him names. He is still a business man.
And now people are bashing against Sweeney in this article/post.
This article is in no way negative - it tells only "POSITIVE" things about Sweeney.
Look... he said (wrote) that Linux is great!
Next question should be...
Cool, Mr. Sweeny. So Linux client is CONFIRMED;). When will the launch happen? Because of the lack of functions in EGS this should be doable THIS year, right?.
... instead of bashing.
Who is now off topic??????
Note that this does not constitute me saying Sweeney is, or isn't, evil. The point is that if some people say apples are green and you say no, oranges are orange, this--despite being true--fails to refute the people alleging apples are green, because it is off topic. To do that, you would have to argue that apples are red.
I would add that you are saying to me that I should repent of my position that I think Sweeney's words generally don't have any meaning and aren't worth paying attention to--because his most recent words sound pleasant. This also seems to me to miss the point I was making, rather than refuting it. I'm willing to stipulate that his most recent words sound pleasant; I trust you entirely on this. I just don't think it matters much.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 16 July 2019 at 8:41 pm UTC
Quoting: johndoeAnd who is treating whom how in this discussion? You seem an imperfect instance of what you preach.Quoting: MunkBeing a human gives anyone the right to voice their opinion on someone elseAgreed.
Quoting: Munkeven if it's insulting.Disagreed.
You will never get a "higher" respect when you treat people this way.
Driving up the wall should not become daily routine.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me