Stadia to see more than 100 games through 2021

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

The #1 reason why Stadia != Desktop Linux, in terms of support? It's, well, support.

Stadia build has a bug because of the peculiarities of their specific hardware/distro/etc. combo? Google could help the dev fix it, or the dev can at least reproduce it easily, because of the console-like nature.

Desktop Linux? Oh, that bug only applies to people running... say Manjaro, who have this specific nVidia driver and kernel version. When the moon is full. On Sundays only. But damn if the people affected aren't going to complain, refund, etc. and tarnish your game's reputation for being buggy.

People are more accepting of a weird Windows glitch messing things up, and with more people running it, there's more incentive for a dev to squash bugs that could be affecting 20% of their players. But for a vocal 0.1% running that Frankenstein's monster of a tricked out Gentoo build? Not only do they likely have no hope of reproducing the environment, they likely can't afford the time to care.

How many times have we heard the 'dev drops/abandons Linux build because they can't support it' song and dance, now?

Stadia may have the tools and trappings of a Desktop Linux distro under the hood, but it's a single, console-like platform with a huge corporate behemoth and technical expertise behind it. Only Valve and the Steam Linux Runtime are sort of close in scope, but even using that specific set of libraries doesn't help if things like kernel drivers suck. Only devs who are committed to the ideal really stick it out.

It's better than it was, even 5-10 years ago, sure, but 'Linux' as a platform is way more complicated and fragmented than even Windows is, let alone a standardized, console-like environment, regardless if it's Stadia, or say, PS4/5 (BSD + OpenGL and Vulkan)

Quoting: KithopThe #1 reason why Stadia != Desktop Linux, in terms of support? It's, well, support.

Stadia build has a bug because of the peculiarities of their specific hardware/distro/etc. combo? Google could help the dev fix it, or the dev can at least reproduce it easily, because of the console-like nature.

Desktop Linux? Oh, that bug only applies to people running... say Manjaro, who have this specific nVidia driver and kernel version. When the moon is full. On Sundays only. But damn if the people affected aren't going to complain, refund, etc. and tarnish your game's reputation for being buggy.

People are more accepting of a weird Windows glitch messing things up, and with more people running it, there's more incentive for a dev to squash bugs that could be affecting 20% of their players. But for a vocal 0.1% running that Frankenstein's monster of a tricked out Gentoo build? Not only do they likely have no hope of reproducing the environment, they likely can't afford the time to care.

How many times have we heard the 'dev drops/abandons Linux build because they can't support it' song and dance, now?

Stadia may have the tools and trappings of a Desktop Linux distro under the hood, but it's a single, console-like platform with a huge corporate behemoth and technical expertise behind it. Only Valve and the Steam Linux Runtime are sort of close in scope, but even using that specific set of libraries doesn't help if things like kernel drivers suck. Only devs who are committed to the ideal really stick it out.

It's better than it was, even 5-10 years ago, sure, but 'Linux' as a platform is way more complicated and fragmented than even Windows is, let alone a standardized, console-like environment, regardless if it's Stadia, or say, PS4/5 (BSD + OpenGL and Vulkan)

I don't really buy the "Linux support way higher than other OSes" thing. People on minor distros know perfectly well nobody's gonna support them. Nearly all Linux people don't particularly expect devs to support more than Ubuntu and SteamOS, and I think most devs are realizing that that's the expectation. (What people using other distros expect is that their distros will try to make sure games that work on Ubuntu will also work on their distro) And anyhow if devs are worried about support across distros, or time, they can release as a Flatpak--bundle all the libs you can imagine the game caring about and it still would barely budge the download size for a typical game.

But any support is a lot for a market as small as Linux. The thing about Stadia is it actually has practically zero support, even compared with say Windows. Sure, if you release a game with bugs it has bugs, but in theory there should be no problem that one user has that all other users don't also have, even more so than with consoles.

Quoting: GuestThey are little more than hate for clicks peddlers

Well, if anyone deserves hate it's Facebook... but Google's a pretty good runner up for "disgustingly evil megacorp."

And hey, they may announce a whole 100 games, but whether or not those will actually land... we'll see when we get there.

And even if they land, until they support other browsers and running games offline I still hope Stadia dies horribly and makes Google's stock drop by 0.3%.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

Well, this post started an interesting discussion. Some things I've noticed are not as clear cut as they may appear.

First, we have native Linux support. It's been observed that perhaps the existence of Proton has curbed native Linux support so that fewer games are receiving it. However, I have noticed another trend. It seems to me that I've seen more games recently with day one Linux support*. What seems to have declined are games that have Linux support added later on. What this seems to result in (or perhaps be the effect of) is even more indie games with Linux support but fewer AAA titles with Linux support. Being someone who's not particularly enamored with a number of so-called AAA titles, I'm not certain how much this bothers me. Of course, any decline in Linux support is not a positive, because it means that there might be some title I would like that doesn't get it.

Another thing I've seen mentioned is the reliability of old games continuing to work on newer versions of Linux depending on which service distributes the games. Some have pointed out that they've seen a higher percentage of games continue working on GOG and Itch.io than on Steam. However, I haven't had any of my Steam titles quit working for Linux yet, with the exception of Supraland, which isn't old and which never worked as well natively as through Proton to begin with. On the other hand, I've had old Humble Bundle Linux titles quit working on newer distributions. What I'm wondering is how much this phenomenon is related to the service, and how much it's related to a particular game.

Finally, I see the question of why more Stadia titles doesn't necessarily mean more native Linux titles. It's been suggested that this is a lot a result of Linux "fragmentation"**. However, I don't believe that this is at all true. It is true that such a specific platform as Stadia or a game console is easier to support than a less specific one like Windows or Linux. However, when game companies look at supporting Linux, they don't expect to support every Linux distribution. They usually offer support for Ubuntu LTS, and nothing else. This gives support a similar degree of manageability as Windows support. The real issue is not support at all. The real issue is market share and market share alone. I'm always amazed at the lengths software publishers will go to in order to support a popular platform, and the lame excuses they'll use to justify lack of support for a less popular platform. They should just tell it like it is and say, 'The market's not big enough to justify development for us.'

*(My theory for why this is so is that Linux is becoming more and more a favorite platform for developers to run and that influences indie developers to also develop for it, more because they use it than because they are hoping to make a lot of money targeting it. Though it's also true that Indie developers are more interested in scraping every cent possible out of the market than big publishing houses, who are more interested in 'the fat part of the graph.')

**(I put this in quotes because what's referred to as Linux fragmentation is so different from what was meant by Unix fragmentation that it seems like it is sometimes used on purpose to scare people who remember the issues with Unix away from Linux.)


Last edited by CFWhitman on 13 February 2021 at 7:20 pm UTC

I'm extremely symphatetic to the cause of STadia - bringing easy access to triple-A titles with great performance accessible through merely a web browser. I was incredibly tempted to subscribe for a discounted fee due to Google One membership for months now and almost pulled the trigger when I read Cyberpunk 2077 worked so well on it. Something I would not have been able to get running on my 1070gtx rig on linux.

But. I just prefer to game on the rig that I built myself with handpicked parts, and got them setup and running after countless hours of tinkering on linux. Stadia and chrome browser gaming is just too easy. I would never forgive myself for succumbing to it, having not even bought a console. Sadomasochistic? Yes! Thoroughly pleasing and satisfying? Hell yea.

Yet looking at GPU prices these days, I probably will succumb to Google STadianess eventually. The laws of economics and having money (or not in this case) cannot be defied.

I'm not knowlegeable enough to comment on the bigger picture about proprietary Linux+Vulkan implementations in a closed-source console-like platform and its effects on the Linux gaming ecosphere. As contradictory as that should sound, I just, yeah, can't comment on it or will not speculate too much as I feel regardless it's out of my hands. Linux gaming will never overtake Windows gaming, but we might become a lot more relevant with Google and Valve backing it/us more.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

GNU/Linux stands for open, choice, the user being in control. Accessible to everyone. I write GNU/Linux out of respect to GNU components making up so much of the OS and it not just being a kernel (Linux). Having the ability for the user to decide what happens on their own machine is the idea - and if the user decides to run proprietary software, then that's part of it.

Towing Microsoft's line is not a part of that.

I don't see how having the option to run Windows software is toeing the line for Microsoft. If anything it's taking away the need to buy their operating system to run this stuff. Also, running Windows games, native games, Stadia games, open-source games, closed source games, GNU, MIT, whatever, is already a choice the user has. I don't see how working to make any of the above things work better is taking away the user's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to take people's freedom of choice away by shaming it away from them.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

GNU/Linux stands for open, choice, the user being in control. Accessible to everyone. I write GNU/Linux out of respect to GNU components making up so much of the OS and it not just being a kernel (Linux). Having the ability for the user to decide what happens on their own machine is the idea - and if the user decides to run proprietary software, then that's part of it.

Towing Microsoft's line is not a part of that.

I don't see how having the option to run Windows software is toeing the line for Microsoft. If anything it's taking away the need to buy their operating system to run this stuff. Also, running Windows games, native games, Stadia games, open-source games, closed source games, GNU, MIT, whatever, is already a choice the user has. I don't see how working to make any of the above things work better is taking away the user's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to take people's freedom of choice away by shaming it away from them.

Trying to reword yourself?
I'm commenting on suggestions of "Proton" being the way forward as being just walking blindly into Microsoft's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to have that.

No, Proton is NOT the way to walking into Microsoft's control. What does Microsoft control here exactly? And if Microsoft completely stops supporting Windows or phasing it out or the company liquidates or anything, Proton-supported games will continue to work because they are running on top of an open source runtime layer. You don't have a valid argument. I'm not even sure you know what you are arguing here.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: GuestOnly doing what Microsoft say (and ultimately, that's what "Proton" is) is really unhealthy for GNU/Linux. If nothing else, Stadia pushed Vulkan development into far more big budget developer hands than anything from Valve. Something to bear in mind.

Barriers to entry is bad for Linux adoption. And "can't play your games that you paid for" is a barrier to entry. So nah, Proton may be bad for some things, but the reason you don't have many big name games supported on Linux is due to how tiny the market is.

At what point though does removing barriers to entry overtake and remove everything GNU/Linux stands for though? If it's going to be just like Windows, and dictated by Microsoft, then market share won't grow because everyone will just use Windows instead.

And the real reason is not that there's a tiny market, it's more that nobody has come up with a way to make it into a larger market. Something needs to drive the market to grow, something that isn't already being provided. Google didn't wait for a massive game streaming market to exist and then create Stadia, Apple never waited for smartphones or tablets to be widespread before making their own offerings.

If you're going to talk about "everything GNU/Linux stands for" then I assume you only play open source games, yes?

GNU/Linux stands for open, choice, the user being in control. Accessible to everyone. I write GNU/Linux out of respect to GNU components making up so much of the OS and it not just being a kernel (Linux). Having the ability for the user to decide what happens on their own machine is the idea - and if the user decides to run proprietary software, then that's part of it.

Towing Microsoft's line is not a part of that.

I don't see how having the option to run Windows software is toeing the line for Microsoft. If anything it's taking away the need to buy their operating system to run this stuff. Also, running Windows games, native games, Stadia games, open-source games, closed source games, GNU, MIT, whatever, is already a choice the user has. I don't see how working to make any of the above things work better is taking away the user's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to take people's freedom of choice away by shaming it away from them.

Trying to reword yourself?
I'm commenting on suggestions of "Proton" being the way forward as being just walking blindly into Microsoft's control. Sounds to me like you are the one wanting to have that.

No, Proton is NOT the way to walking into Microsoft's control. What does Microsoft control here exactly? And if Microsoft completely stops supporting Windows or phasing it out or the company liquidates or anything, Proton-supported games will continue to work because they are running on top of an open source runtime layer. You don't have a valid argument. I'm not even sure you know what you are arguing here.

Wait....do you actually know what "Proton" is? I mean, that's possibly an invalid assumption I've been making.

Dude, you are not arguing in good faith at all. Of course I know what Proton is. I still want to know what control Microsoft is exerting over the user here. You have a choice not to run ANY Windows software if you choose not to. Proton is not taking any choice away from the user, it's adding choice. Your arguments are getting more and more antagonistic and ad hominem without actually adding anything new or useful tot he discussion.