Insurgency: Sandstorm no longer getting Linux/Mac support or a campaign mode

The year so in between Steam Machines and Proton was when Valve was visited by corrupting bribing suits from Microsoft as reported by Phoronix.

Can you please point me to this article?


Btw, here comes another crazy conspiracy theory:

What if Proton IS Valve's exit strategy wrt Linux?

I mean they cannot easily just drop the Linux client (can they?).
People have bought games supporting a certain platform and Valve cannot
just say "use the Windows version instead".
So the Linux client is here to stay - even if Valve would maybe better get rid of it.
If you don't have faith in a platform (anymore) but have to stick with it,
wouldn't sth like Proton be a ... natural move?


Last edited by sub on 10 December 2019 at 6:34 pm UTC

This is the second disappointment I have with this game. Well I'm glad I didn't brought it :)

This one? http://richg42.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-faster-zombies-blog-post.html

Pushing Linux games with Linux support = growth. Pushing Windows gaming = recession. We grew because of Valve and other devs, but now we're in a recession because of Valve no longer encouraging developers to support Linux gaming and instead providing them with ways in which they can avoid doing so.

This is wishful thinking. The brute fact is that our current market share is not enough to encourage native ports even if we all buy only native Linux games. And Valve asking people to is also not enough. There was a big burst of interest in native ports related to the Steam Machine, which has been gradually losing . . . ah . . . steam ever since. We are in a chicken-egg situation, and the only way out is an increase in Linux desktop(ish) use, either independent of games or due to some market share shock like a successful Steam Machine.

In theory, things like Proton could make things even worse, but I have seen no particular inflection point where after Proton became viable there was a sudden increase in the downward trend. I myself have never actually used Proton and used Wine for exactly one game, but the strategy associated with Proton is clear and reasonable: Drop the barrier to using Linux low enough that uptake will increase, resulting in more reason to do native ports in the long term. Whether it will actually work is another question, but emphasizing native games has been proved not to work. Insisting on native games would also be a reasonable strategy, if our market share were significantly larger. Unfortunately, it isn't.

The only thing that could make insisting on native games a workable strategy for Linux gamers at 1% market share would be if it was combined with a successful developer push to make Linux an incredibly easy development platform so that it actually definitively cost less than 1% to release for Linux. So like if you used a game engine like Unity or Godot it really would be almost clicking the Linux button, and there was a sort of standard Linux gaming environment you could aim for, whether by saying "Just targeting Steam Linux" or via a standardized Flatpak to stick games in or something, so that complaints about Linux support and such basically evaporated. I'm not at all sure this is plausible, although as far as I can tell the costs of releasing on Linux are way lower than they used to be and it's just continuing to drop; there are developers working on lowering that barrier. But 1% is, like, really low--how do you push costs that low for releasing on a whole platform? If we were at 5% we'd have a way, way better case.

So yeah. Bigger market share is our only hope. If Proton can help get us that, it will be worth any dilution in our purchasing power for native games. If it can't and nothing else happens, we're probably doomed anyway.

Right now, the only thing I see actually doing anything that resembles increasing Linux desktop share is . . . not my favourite thing to see doing that. Specifically, I see Google's Chromebooks, which are now going to be able to run Google's Stadia games. If ChromeOS was going to move past its little niche it was going to need to be able to run games. Typical of Google that they found a way which wouldn't require them to un-cripple the little buggers.

Comments here derailed so much from the article that I thought it was Phoronix :P

I have some another example like this : Eugen Systems (which have turned evil towards their own employees), made the Wargame series.

What happened there ?

Maybe you missed it, but the entire problem is that WINE/Proton encourages Linux gamers to buy and support Windows games that come with zero Linux support and from devs who don't care about supporting Linux.

This isn't entirely wrong, but you have to understand that people who aren't complete zealots will never give up Windows unless their favorite games run on Linux. You bash Proton as if the devil itself had coded it, but from my perspective, Proton/DXVK is what allowed me to abandon Windows for good. Feral and the handful of publishers that release native games couldn't do it. Valve did.

I am an MMO fan. If you think I'd no longer play MMOs just to make a meaningless political statement, you're mistaken. And the number of MMORPGs available for Linux that don't suck is exactly zero. I am happy to have Proton/WINE, because it allows me to play these games in Linux. I honestly don't gave a damn what runs them, as long as they run. I am not saying you don't have a point, as running Windows games in Linux will always be considered unofficial and unsupported by devs, and there is no guarantee that a game that runs in Proton today will still run after the next patch.

But I prefer that over having to dual-boot into Windows every single time I want to play the 95% of AAA games that aren't available for Linux natively. Proton might not allow me to get rid of Windows games. But it allowed me to get rid of Windows. And that's a good thing.


Last edited by Kimyrielle on 10 December 2019 at 9:50 pm UTC

You're a fan of us not being given support for running a game on our OS like everyone else gets? Great, thanks for that, and for encouraging Windows gaming. Now those of us who support native releases with real Linux support, and those like you paying for Windows games with no Linux support, can all be 2nd class gamers together! <3

Show some respect? He never stated what you claim he has. We all want a game to be properly developed for Linux. If we didn't why would we be using Linux? There are so many games that I've not been able to play because developers never support the platform. And it has been said a million times, we don't have the userbase to justify major games (Call of Duty, Horizon Zero Dawn, Resident Evil to name a few) be developed for us as well.
Even if numbers were enough to turn a small profit...developing new content for Windows most likely gives more.

So if you think it is right for you to demand Focus Home Interactive to provide a Linux support (and continue doing so) I think you come off as entitled. I believe you are a passionate about Linux, but right now is not a point in time that we can demand things. Unless of course Focus Home Interactive has given a iron clad promise to provide Linux port. Assuming they have not done such thing, at most we should hope for the developers to get involved with Proton. If Proton stays consistent and makes more games available to us, hopefully anti cheat issue will be resolved, then most likely a glorious day will come where we will have adequate enough users to demand. But that day is not today.

I have technically the highest respect for Proton and the like.
Yet, I see it as big problem for native Linux gaming and danger for AAA Linux gaming as a whole.
What if we will see a new Direct3D or similar API which will be widely adopted
and no old renderer is supported by most devs?
Now imagine this new API is - for whatever reason (maybe by intention) - extremely hard to reverse engineer and map to Vulkan/OpenGL? Hence, a well supported Proton/WINE layer is not available or will take years until it barely runs.

Proton not only helps games work on Linux but also improves upon Linux ecosystem in small ways AND promotes Vulkan. From Proton post (FAQ):

Q: I'm a developer; I wasn't planning on targeting Linux, how can I best leverage the new Steam Play?

We recommend you target Vulkan natively in order to offer the best possible performance on all platforms, or at least offer it as an option if possible. It's also a good idea to avoid any invasive third-party DRM middleware, as they sometimes prevent compatibility features from working as intended.

Last edited by Linuxwarper on 10 December 2019 at 10:09 pm UTC

So the potential developer looks at the situation and says "Why develop specifically for OS/2, when we can just develop for Windows and 'kill two birds with one stone?'".

If IBM had done a better job of selling OS/2 then developers would have had a different answer to the question. Users were asking the question "Why would I spend more money on OS/2 when I just want to run Windows programs anyway.

Wow, I didn't know that about OS/2. Always fun to find historical examples proving your point.

It would be nice but it's not true, OS/2 failed due to a number of bad decisions made by IBM, the Windows app support was a last ditch attempt to save it. It's a popular myth among Linux users.

A lot of disappointing news in the Linux gaming world this year :(

True, but the rapid pace of development of Proton/DXVK/D9VK and Valve still cooking Linux goodies are keeping me warm and cozy.

Well yes but if you now buy sandstorm are you not vindicating that decision see the linux guys bought it anyway and didnt cost us a dime.

Truly the best and worst of times for Linux gaming to be sure... I have to say, I feel for developers. It's a very uncertain time and very hard to know where to put resources. I heard a Qualcomm rep say that mobile gaming revenue has surpassed all other gaming combined (including PC and console). You have to decide if you're going to do Epic, or Origin, or go in on streaming with Stadia or any of the other streamers waiting in the wings (XBox, Valve, NVIDA, etc). Costs keep going up. Psychiatrists are calling excessive playing a disorder.... There's an increasing glut of games and it's hard to get noticed...

Those are big decisions with a lot of cash on the line. It almost makes the decision of whether to support Linux or Mac seem quaint and homey by comparison. Ah, the good ol' simpler days!

Our future, as someone put it waaay back on page 1, is to back streaming and Proton solutions which allow us to play everything regardless of OS. Linux is a platform to run software, period. If that platform runs games which run elsewhere, I'm not bothered. Linux is too small for dedicated efforts, the Mac is small for dedicated efforts, and hell, it seems like Windows is too small for dedicated efforts, as it feels like everything needs a console and Switch edition these days, if not mobile too (including games like XPlane and Eve Online!).

Speaking of Sandstorm, as someone pointed out, it's been a rough launch on Windows for them as well. This one has had issues...


Last edited by iiari on 11 December 2019 at 6:04 am UTC

The sad news. You can play Squad with Proton.

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

You may be right but I think it's still a little early to tell with Proton. I mean, for most of that "over a year" it's been in beta. Is it out of beta yet, even? And for the most part, the only people who have heard of it are people already running Linux. That obviously isn't going to help people to think of trying Linux.
Proton isn't going to significantly accelerate Linux adoption unless/until some kind of product is released that runs Linux and uses Proton's ready access to Windows games as a selling point. And there's not much point in a company funding Proton (as Valve have) unless they plan some such product (or, OK, maybe just to use the threat of such a product to keep MS from pushing them). But I don't expect Valve, or anyone else, to try to release a product that significantly requires Proton as a selling point until anti-cheat issues are resolved. Anti-cheat just blocks too many of the most popular games.

So I'd want to claim the jury's still out on what effect Proton is going to have. We won't know until someone tries to use it for something, and either succeeds or fails.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 11 December 2019 at 6:31 pm UTC

I was on the fence of a few things until I read the actual post on steam community and they noted:

"... that our team is plowing full speed ahead with our efforts at bringing Insurgency: Sandstorm to console."

Ahhhh that explains a lot. They've chosen to go with the more Expensive and at this point in time riskier target, quite possibly believing there are more moneys to be made there, won't blame them since that is generally the case.
IMO on consoles this game is DOA, they're aiming a bazooka at their foot with this move.

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

You may be right but I think it's still a little early to tell with Proton. I mean, for most of that "over a year" it's been in beta. Is it out of beta yet, even? And for the most part, the only people who have heard of it are people already running Linux. That obviously isn't going to help people to think of trying Linux.
Proton isn't going to significantly accelerate Linux adoption unless/until some kind of product is released that runs Linux and uses Proton's ready access to Windows games as a selling point. And there's not much point in a company funding Proton (as Valve have) unless they plan some such product (or, OK, maybe just to use the threat of such a product to keep MS from pushing them). But I don't expect Valve, or anyone else, to try to release a product that significantly requires Proton as a selling point until anti-cheat issues are resolved. Anti-cheat just blocks too many of the most popular games.

So I'd want to claim the jury's still out on what effect Proton is going to have. We won't know until someone tries to use it for something, and either succeeds or fails.

Which brings up another concern valve money tap am starting to worry they will go ahh well we tried and we didnt gain any traction.

Well yes but if you now buy sandstorm are you not vindicating that decision see the linux guys bought it anyway and didnt cost us a dime.

This is EXACTLY my point. Why would any company that sees that Linux users are willing to pay for a Windows game ever make an effort to create a Linux-native version? Heck, if I were a business owner, even I would do the same thing; create only a Windows port, and get the Linux users 'for free'. I just don't see the incentive for any other action. Never have, really.

Except Insurgency Sandstorm does not work through Proton because of EAC. So for this particular case, making the claim that the developers are being lazy is completely void. I don't get what's so hard to understand. Many games, particularly major ones, are not profitable or yields little compared to developing new content for Windows. As consequent of that the developers drop support. Many developers probably aren't even aware of Proton, WINE or Linux (japanese devs I imagine). Many have already made up their mind and will NEVER make their game available for Linux regardless of any petition or outcry for support. I don't see anything nefarious with Focus Home Interactive omiting Linux (and MAC) support to focus on the game and more profitable consoles.

If any complaint I have it is that developers should help out with running games through WINE. For example if there is something in their source code that is important to know for WINE and DXVK devs, they should be nice and provide it with a agreement they won't disclose it to others. Or maybe they can give back some money to Linux users who decide to play a Windows game through Proton. Suppose the game costs $60: You buy and play the game (on Linux) til you no longer are able to refund it, you then receive $10 or $10 of wallet back.

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

I don't see any problem with any of the tactics. If you are able to and like a game that's developed for Linux, your purchase will be a win for Linux. With Proton you are forgetting some things. First, the project isn't complete. One of biggest missing puzzle to be solved is anti cheat. If that is solved many major online games such as FortNite, Apex Legends, PUBG, etc will work or be easier to work around. These are games that many people would switch over for. Lastly, it will take more than a year or two for Proton to increase number of Linux gamers. But one thing is certain, it has helped retain users and convince X people to switch to Linux. For any compatiblity layer, starting at 1% marketshare and trying to make it 5% by itself will be like a slow and difficult task. And it can and will be disrupted by ChromeOs (Stadia) and Windows (Xbox Game Pass and XCloud). So while Linux is starting to become feasible thanks to Proton, other platforms are also on the rise and making it harder to persuade people to switch.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 11 December 2019 at 11:00 pm UTC

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

You may be right but I think it's still a little early to tell with Proton. I mean, for most of that "over a year" it's been in beta. Is it out of beta yet, even? And for the most part, the only people who have heard of it are people already running Linux. That obviously isn't going to help people to think of trying Linux.
Proton isn't going to significantly accelerate Linux adoption unless/until some kind of product is released that runs Linux and uses Proton's ready access to Windows games as a selling point. And there's not much point in a company funding Proton (as Valve have) unless they plan some such product (or, OK, maybe just to use the threat of such a product to keep MS from pushing them). But I don't expect Valve, or anyone else, to try to release a product that significantly requires Proton as a selling point until anti-cheat issues are resolved. Anti-cheat just blocks too many of the most popular games.

So I'd want to claim the jury's still out on what effect Proton is going to have. We won't know until someone tries to use it for something, and either succeeds or fails.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but why would anyone other than Valve be funding "Proton"?
Wine, on the other hand, companies (including Valve) do fund.

A default packaging of wine for gaming (without needing Steam) is really needed if gaming is going to go that route. That's not something Valve alone can fix - distros, GOG, itch.io, etc, really all need to come together for a GNU/Linux gaming desktop experience, rather than Steam/Linux gaming desktop experience.

That was sort of my point, actually. Valve made (and therefore funded; it wasn't free, it cost them something) Proton. One would expect they expended those resources for some reason; just allowing existing Linux users to have a slightly better Wine doesn't seem likely to be that reason.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 11 December 2019 at 11:55 pm UTC

Ignore = not develop games for.

So what, as long as people are using Linux?

As I said, even if Proton only manages to double the Linux market share to around 2%, I'd see that as a net win. But let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that as many as 25% of the people playing Windows games end up doing it on Linux instead of natively... how could that be a bad thing?

The trouble with both tactics, "No Tux, no bucks!" for more native games as well as Proton for more Linux gamers is that they didn't work. We tried the former one for years, and Linux ports were on a decline lately, then Proton arrived over a year ago, and the number of Linux gamers didn't rise.

You may be right but I think it's still a little early to tell with Proton. I mean, for most of that "over a year" it's been in beta. Is it out of beta yet, even? And for the most part, the only people who have heard of it are people already running Linux. That obviously isn't going to help people to think of trying Linux.
Proton isn't going to significantly accelerate Linux adoption unless/until some kind of product is released that runs Linux and uses Proton's ready access to Windows games as a selling point. And there's not much point in a company funding Proton (as Valve have) unless they plan some such product (or, OK, maybe just to use the threat of such a product to keep MS from pushing them). But I don't expect Valve, or anyone else, to try to release a product that significantly requires Proton as a selling point until anti-cheat issues are resolved. Anti-cheat just blocks too many of the most popular games.

So I'd want to claim the jury's still out on what effect Proton is going to have. We won't know until someone tries to use it for something, and either succeeds or fails.

Which brings up another concern valve money tap am starting to worry they will go ahh well we tried and we didnt gain any traction.

That's certainly also possible. But I have the impression Valve is very, very, very, very, very rich. What they've been doing, with the exception perhaps of the big "launch the Steam Machine" phase, is not a huge expense even just for a hedge against future contingencies, let alone if they have actual projects in mind.
The very fact that they could keep up their current level of effort forever and never notice it is actually one of the stronger counterarguments against my theory that they must have something in mind. They might just be laying groundwork so that if "just in case" ever happens, Linux will be as ready as possible for whatever play they might need to make with it, because what the heck, it's cheap insurance. It might even just be that a few upper-level Valve people have sentimental attachments to Linux; many developers are fond of Linux for its open source nature and its so-much-less-broken-than-alternatives status in many non-desktop roles.
Nonetheless, I think balance of probabilities is that they have some kind of strategy.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 12 December 2019 at 12:10 am UTC