Supraland stops supporting Linux shortly after leaving GOG entirely

So it's still very much relevant which platform is underneath.

It's of technical relevance yes - but to the average end consumer it doesn't matter as long as the games play well on the platform.

You can't realistically see Wine/Proton as a direct target for game developers, the actual target is still Windows and DirectX in that case and they remain closed source.

Open or close source is irrelevant. But you too seem to talk about compiling cross platform. That's not what I talk about. I talk about it being less important what platform it is compiled for. Due to the mentioned reasons I think that is a very likely scenario.

If I put a gamer in front of my PC on GTA5 and ask him what OS it runs on, he would not be able to tell. I installed that game in exactly the same way as I would on a Windows machine. And not a soul over at Rockstar even considered Linux as a platform to run their game on. That's what I talk about.

A reality where OS matters much less. We're well on the way there:
Today, as a Linux VR gamer, I purchase games tagged as VR in the Steam store, I don't even pay attention to what OS it is tagged for. It doesn't matter. Thus far they've all run flawlessly.

And this is the status - today.

An extension of this "transparency" is what I believe was LibertyPaulM's dream.


Last edited by Beamboom on 28 June 2020 at 1:59 pm UTC

I am sorry i disagree completely really how many linux gamers have bought Red dead 2 how many are going to by cyberpunk neither of which is ever coming to linux because the majority of linux gamers will buy them and play them on proton. Which means why the fuck would a small publisher waste the cash doing a linux port when they have seen their peers profit from no effort from linux gamers.

Do you think porting Hollow Knight to Linux is as costly as porting Cyberpunk? If on a scale of one to ten where one is no cost and ten is very costly, what would you guess Cyberpunk and Hollow Knight porting score would be?

I would guess Hollow Knight is a 3/10 and Cyberpunk is 9/10. So we have established the required work to port these games (an indie and a AAA) are different. So it's easier for an indie game, which are simple in nature, to be ported to Linux than a game that over 100 people are working on. Red Dead and Cyberpunk will never come to Linux even if gamers on the platform decide to not buy them either.

You are completely right though in thinking developers who provide quality native r.eleases should be rewarded. This would surely help indie devs and I am all for that.

Do you think porting Hollow Knight to Linux is as costly as porting Cyberpunk?

Regardless of the cost, if "Linux Gamers" are buying your Windows game you as a developer shall not waste your time and manpower on an unnecessary port. All those who purchase Windows games have all the rights to consider themselves "Linux Gamers", but for all intents and purposes they are Windows® gamers (even better, actually: they are unsupported Windows gamers :) ). And writing "+1 for Linux" in the forum threads means nothing.

Red Dead and Cyberpunk will never come to Linux even if gamers on the platform decide to not buy them either.

As I see it, this is "Red Dead" and "Cyborg & Punk" problems, not mine. No one has an unlimited amount of funds (and more importantly, time), so money and time invested in a Windows® game (that "will never come to Linux") is a money and time wasted. All of this money and time could be invested into Linux games instead. So, if some "AAA game" is not gonna be ported to Linux, just ignore it and play Linux games.

At the end of the day, all games, even the "AAA masterpieces" are just entertainment and not necessary to live.
Even the "But all of my friends are playing this game!" argument is rather weak. Surely, a friendship will not be broken if one to skip some games (and if it will… Well, is it really a friendship, or just a "pub acquaintance"?).

Do you think porting Hollow Knight to Linux is as costly as porting Cyberpunk?

Regardless of the cost, if "Linux Gamers" are buying your Windows game you as a developer shall not waste your time and manpower on an unnecessary port. All those who purchase Windows games have all the rights to consider themselves "Linux Gamers", but for all intents and purposes they are Windows® gamers (even better, actually: they are unsupported Windows gamers :) ). And writing "+1 for Linux" in the forum threads means nothing.

Red Dead and Cyberpunk will never come to Linux even if gamers on the platform decide to not buy them either.

As I see it, this is "Red Dead" and "Cyborg & Punk" problems, not mine. No one has an unlimited amount of funds (and more importantly, time), so money and time invested in a Windows® game (that "will never come to Linux") is a money and time wasted. All of this money and time could be invested into Linux games instead. So, if some "AAA game" is not gonna be ported to Linux, just ignore it and play Linux games.

At the end of the day, all games, even the "AAA masterpieces" are just entertainment and not necessary to live.
Even the "But all of my friends are playing this game!" argument is rather weak. Surely, a friendship will not be broken if one to skip some games (and if it will… Well, is it really a friendship, or just a "pub acquaintance"?).

I dunno. That argument's fine for me . . . the style of game I like to play isn't usually AAA anyway, and Linux has indeed lots of good indies, more than I could ever play. I basically lose nothing by playing only native games.

But if what you like is AAA games, and very few such are released for Linux, you are missing out a lot more if you refuse to play games not released for Linux. And pub acquaintances are nice to have, and it's probably not fun to go from having some of those to not having any. And even with friends who are relatively close . . . if a major thing you bond over is gaming, giving up playing anything they play would be like having a long distance relationship: You don't see each other as much, you don't have as much to talk about, you grow apart. So for people who aren't me, I can see that stance costing much more.

Regardless of the cost, if "Linux Gamers" are buying your Windows game you as a developer shall not waste your time and manpower on an unnecessary port. All those who purchase Windows games have all the rights to consider themselves "Linux Gamers", but for all intents and purposes they are Windows® gamers (even better, actually: they are unsupported Windows gamers :) ). And writing "+1 for Linux" in the forum threads means nothing.

Cost is important. Do you think developers are evil people who neglect Linux because they dislike the platform? No, they get less money making games for Linux. In some cases they are most likely even losing money. You can't argue that Indie devs will have more reasons to do as other devs (Rockstar), relying on Proton to get money from Linux users, when there is clear difference between a indie game and a major one. As I pointed out with Hollow Knight and Cyberpunk, the latter is far more difficult to port than former. And that to a degree justifies why AAA games aren't ported by developers.

Can they develop the game for Linux? Of course they can, but at what price? And will they profit or have loss? If profit how much? If the profit they get from porting a major game to Linux is 1/10 of profit they get from making a DLC for Windows, then it's more understandable why they don't bother with Linux. Afterall it is a business too. Another obvious reason why so many indie games are on Linux is because there is less cluster of software involved. I'd argue if most if not all indie games became more complex (3D models for example) and deployed tech like RTX they would decide to not port their games to Linux. More complex a game gets more difficult and costly it becomes to develop for Linux as well.

I am a Linux gamer. Buying Windows games and playing them through Proton counts as purchase on Linux. Furthermore there has been enough cases where developers have helped out or shown interest to resolve issues that Proton has had.

As I see it, this is "Red Dead" and "Cyborg & Punk" problems, not mine. No one has an unlimited amount of funds (and more importantly, time), so money and time invested in a Windows® game (that "will never come to Linux") is a money and time wasted. All of this money and time could be invested into Linux games instead. So, if some "AAA game" is not gonna be ported to Linux, just ignore it and play Linux games.

To you it does not matter but for me it does matter. I want to play Cyberpunk. Others want to play Red Dead. So should they ditch Linux and go use Windows? Or stay on Linux and play through Proton? Playing games through Proton may be somewhat detrimental (as we would want all money to go to native quality games), but at least the user is on a Linux OS which will help the ecosystem. If there was only 100 Linux users total (across all distros), almost noone would be compelled to make any kind of software for Linux.

At the end of the day, all games, even the "AAA masterpieces" are just entertainment and not necessary to live.
Even the "But all of my friends are playing this game!" argument is rather weak. Surely, a friendship will not be broken if one to skip some games (and if it will… Well, is it really a friendship, or just a "pub acquaintance"?).

If you view the games as simply entertainment and there to be enjoyed, then it shouldn't matter if you play them through Proton or not. You should then have the freedom to play games you want to play regardless of it's native or not, as long as it works well.

I find most of your arguments weak. If the notion that spending money only on native games would have led to Linux getting foothold, then it would have happened years ago. Money from Linux is little and the more native games available to spend it on the worse the profitability gets. People should spend their money accordingly. If there is a game that has a quality release for Linux, pay alot to play it. If there is a Proton game, wait for sale and buy it. Trying to always find alternative games to games you want to play is wrong. I want to play Cyberpunk 2077 not a equivalent indie game with Cyberpunk theme just because it has native support.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 29 June 2020 at 12:07 pm UTC

As I pointed out with Hollow Knight and Cyberpunk, the latter is far more difficult to port than former. And that to a degree justifies why AAA games aren't ported by developers.

"AAA" or "indie" developers do not need any sort of "justification" (they are not criminals). It is a simple matter of business decision (called ROI: "Return on Investement"). And if the so called "Linux players" are happy to purchase a Windows® game, well, the more the merrier! Even less incentive to waste money on unnecessary work. Better work on a DLC, higher ROI. :)

I am a Linux gamer. Buying Windows games and playing them through Proton counts as purchase on Linux.

It counts as another copy of a Windows® game sold. :D Thanks for the money; enjoy your Windows game!

I want to play Cyberpunk.

[offtopic]Then grab yourself a copy of recent Shadowrun. If you want to play GTA with cyborgs and punks…[/offtopic]
Then do so! Last time I've checked using Windows® was not considered to be a sin.

…but at least the user is on a Linux OS which will help the ecosystem.

In what manner, exactly? You do understand that playing, suggesting to friends, making Reddit threads and YouTube videos about a game "Working Great With Proton!" is in fact acting like a voluntary unpaid marketing agent for a Windows game, right? Especially true on the Linux-related sites and news outlets: it is like preaching to the choir, persuading Linux users to waste money on a Windows® game (and not Windows users to try Linux instead).

You should then have the freedom to play games you want to play regardless of it's native or not, as long as it works well.

And the freedom you have. No one is forcing you to use Linux. Again, last time I've checked, Windows® worked all right. And if Proton™ works better, no complaints from me! But the money still goes to a Windows developer for a Windows game, that is undeniable.

If the notion that spending money only on native games would have led to Linux getting foothold, then it would have happened years ago.

So far nothing has changed. The "Linux users" number has been artificially inflated with Proton users, but they do not act as Linux buyers. The Linux market capacity stays the same.

Money from Linux is little and the more native games available to spend it on the worse the profitability gets.

Now, this I do not get. Are you suggesting we should dissuade AAA developers from releasing Linux games as it would hurt indie ones? Or are you admitting that despite the inflated numbers of "Linux users" the Linux gaming market capacity did not grow to accommodate more native Linux releases?

People should spend their money accordingly.

This we can agree on.

If there is a Proton game, wait for sale and buy it.

Or, better yet, skip it entirely and move on.

I want to play Cyberpunk 2077 not a equivalent indie game with Cyberpunk theme just because it has native support.

Then again, do so! But do not lull yourself into thinking this will somehow "help Linux community".

Pre: Sorry, didn't read all the preceding discussion this time.

Looking forward to doing the reverse one day - releasing a game for Linux-only, because I don't know anything about Windows/Mac and don't want to spend my time/energy troubleshooting them. I just have to try hard not to be a dick about it (because any people I'm interacting with wouldn't be the direct source of any of my negative feelings). If it's an open-source game, someone else can support it at least.


Last edited by chr on 29 June 2020 at 9:01 pm UTC

"AAA" or "indie" developers do not need any sort of "justification" (they are not criminals). It is a simple matter of business decision (called ROI: "Return on Investement"). And if the so called "Linux players" are happy to purchase a Windows® game, well, the more the merrier! Even less incentive to waste money on unnecessary work. Better work on a DLC, higher ROI. :)

I didn't say they were criminals, that's you understanding my point poorly. Whatever word you like to use, what developers assert is more or less in line with how things actually are. Linux isn't profitable or not enough. You're leaving out something when you mention Linux players being happy to purchase a Windows game, and that is marketshare. Linux gaming marketshare isn't even above 1%, so I as a Linux user do not have anything bad to say about developers who use marketshare as their reasoning for not providing native support. But when circumstance changes and Linux has 3%+ share, I would less likely to accept playing games through Proton.

It counts as another copy of a Windows® game sold. :D Thanks for the money; enjoy your Windows game!

Cyberpunk is crossplatform. Just because I may playing the Windows version it does not mean anything for Windows. Steam has info for developers that highlights that their game is being played on Linux through Proton. So that sends the message to developers that the player is interested in playing the game on Linux. It does mean that the player is endorsing Windows platform.

[offtopic]Then grab yourself a copy of recent Shadowrun. If you want to play GTA with cyborgs and punks…[/offtopic]
Then do so! Last time I've checked using Windows® was not considered to be a sin.

I meant Cyberpunk 2077. And no playing on Window isn't a sin but I like Linux. I prefer to send a message to developers that I am interested in playing games on Linux than on Windows with more performance (assuming It's a DX11-12 game).

And the freedom you have. No one is forcing you to use Linux. Again, last time I've checked, Windows® worked all right. And if Proton™ works better, no complaints from me! But the money still goes to a Windows developer for a Windows game, that is undeniable.

I've not argued against that. I've even made the point that Valve should reward native releases. Or if possible lower price for "Proton purchases".

So far nothing has changed. The "Linux users" number has been artificially inflated with Proton users, but they do not act as Linux buyers. The Linux market capacity stays the same.

No, but one day if platform has enough users it can and should be enough to persuade developers to support the platform natively.

Now, this I do not get. Are you suggesting we should dissuade AAA developers from releasing Linux games as it would hurt indie ones? Or are you admitting that despite the inflated numbers of "Linux users" the Linux gaming market capacity did not grow to accommodate more native Linux releases?

Whatever platform, all developers are competing against eachother for gamers money. Disregard indie or AAA context. Assume there are 100 users on Linux platform and each year three games (no other game whatsoever) are released. The 100 users will have to decide which of the three games they want to purchase with money they have. They all can't buy all three games and must make a choice. 50% users bought game A, 20% bought game B and 30% bought game C. Developers of the three games all got significant piece of the Linux moneypool. Now imagine 150 games were released each year on Linux and the 100 users had to make a choice to purchase one of the 150. Money is spread across all games and developers will get low ROI. More native games on Linux makes profitability of the platform less, especially for complex games where costs are very high.

I don't believe the amount of Linux users is adequate for "No Tux No Bux" strategy.

Or, better yet, skip it entirely and move on.

If you are going to do that for games you really want to play then you might as well skip gaming as a whole.

Then again, do so! But do not lull yourself into thinking this will somehow "help Linux community".

I haven't. But I could argue that if there are enough gamers on Linux (3-7% marketshare) it would bring about good things for gaming on Linux even if all of the users played games through Proton. Developers would be hardpressed to ignore that many users playing on Linux, regardless of native or not. They would consider native release or at very least use Vulkan to eliminate performance penalty.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 30 June 2020 at 12:17 am UTC

Or, better yet, skip it entirely and move on.

If you are going to do that for games you really want to play then you might as well skip gaming as a whole.

Are you saying it's not worth having any fun at all if you can't have all the fun? Should I also stop gaming because there are console exclusives I'd be interested in playing, but don't feel like buying a console is worth it? Not like anyone has the time (or cash) to play absolutely everything they want to play anyway. As evidenced by my Steam wishlist that's currently at >180 Linux games, even though my backlog just keeps growing.

I don't feel like taking part in the speculation on how buying Windows games to play on Proton affects the growth of Linux as a gaming platform, but that comment of yours just bugged the hell out of me.

Are you saying it's not worth having any fun at all if you can't have all the fun?

Actually no. I just think it's not a good thing to encourage people to buy native games simply because they are native. If I had to make choice between Skyrim or a Skyrim alternative that's native, which I don't like nearly as much, and I was told to buy the alternative for good of Linux I would not. Because I don't believe buying capacity of Linux is large enough to change the core issue of native support. Which is caused by marketshare. So why would I limit myself to lesser choices when it will have little impact?

The argument to buy alternative native games would have a better one if Proton games did nothing for the platform. Except it does. Proton encourages Vulkan, a prerequisite for native development, and the purchase counts as a Linux one. Biggest factor for you buying a game should be that you want to play it.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 1 July 2020 at 9:47 pm UTC

Vulkan is not a prerequisite for native development. It helps cross-platform dev, but is not required. 3D acceleration is not required for "gaming" either, because not all games are 3D. For games that do use it - OpenGL was around for a long time.

I was thinking of major games not indie. It's not indie games that stops adoption it's AAA games. And for such games Vulkan is best choice not OpenGL.

There's a lot to your argument that's missing. Like support. We should be encouraging people to buy supported games. If they don't want to, fine, but at least people should be properly informed about where they're sending their money.
Also, I would argue that while yes, one of the largest factors in any game purchase is if someone wants to play the game, there are many other considerations that should not be sidelined. Increasingly we're hearing of large "AAAaaaaaa" companies and how they treat workers - perhaps the end user doesn't care. I would argue that they _should_ care, that they game they want to play may have hidden human costs.
Now that's a bit of a heavy addition, but it excellently highlights the point of there being more to it than you've mentioned.

Just because I've not mentioned the things you have it does not mean I don't consider them. I'm just saying you shouldn't buy a native game over a non native one that you like to play.

...aaand the Linux build is gone after the new update. No mention of it on the changelog, of course.