You wouldn't know this looking at the Steam page for ARK: Survival Evolved but Studio Wildcard have now put their Native Linux version behind a Beta on Steam as they now prefer Linux users to play with the Proton compatibility layer.
They didn't announce this change on Steam, instead leaving it somewhat hidden on their official forum post that reads:
Steam Proton has been enabled by default on ARK: Survival Evolved for Steam Linux players, include complete BattlEye support. If you are experiencing any issues with the Proton version of the game, please let us know in this thread and we'll work with Valve (Steam) to get these resolved as soon as possible.
If you do, for whatever reason, wish to use their rather poorly supported Native Linux build you can access it by opting into the "linuxnative" Beta on Steam.
Not overly surprising. As someone who followed along ARK ever since release, their Native Linux version always had a ridiculous amount of issues and they never seemed to pay much attention to it at all. In this case, it has been preferable for quite some time to just play it through Proton anyway. Given the time and resources Valve puts into Proton, and Studio Wildcard ensuring the BattlEye anti-cheat works, it's a far better experience.
ARK was Steam Deck Verified some time ago, which was also using the Windows version run through Proton which you can see some footage of mine on below:
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: drjomsQuoting: StalePopcornI understand the "no tux no bux" argument but if Linux-native sales don't warrant development and maintenance while the same product works just as well via Proton, why bother?Don't disagree with this, but have a point or two.
1. How do i know if Proton is actually supported? I shall happily buy game on 90% sale, if its not native. If i want game and its not for collection only, i will also pay full price for native port on day of release. And it can be expensive AAA title.
2. How can i help with debugging where there is major layer of proton between game and OS?
Devs do shoot themselves into foot with those two points.
Agree. In most cases it looks like only Valve feels responsible to make a game supported by Proton, when it would be a good start if the devs also do their share.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: subAgree. In most cases it looks like only Valve feels responsible to make a game supported by Proton, when it would be a good start if the devs also do their share.
Thing is, they actually tried to get native support. Remember Steam Machines? The Tux item in Team Fortress 2 to get people to switch over? They legitimately tried to make devs natively support linux. Didn't work out. Proton is the nuclear option.
Spoiler, click me
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if a game runs indistinguishably from windows on proton, there's no issue since proton only gets better and better as the years go by (even today there's the occasional example where it runs windows games better than windows) but that's just me.
5 Likes, Who?
Quoting: subIt's going the way lots of us expected with Proton.It'd be lovely to see some stats on that, because it hasn't felt like that to me. I've actually been surprised how much native stuff there's been lately--if anything, it seems like more, and that's really not what I was expecting. It's just, on top of that there have been a bunch of announcements of "We're tweaking the game to run on Proton" from people who just wouldn't have worried about Linux in any way shape or form before. So the proportion of announcements that are about native Linux is lower, but not the actual number I don't think.
Instead of supporting games without native binaries,
fewer and fewer developers are willing to port their games.
If I were doing a graph by pure instinct, the two lines for "native Linux" and "some effort to make Proton work" would go like, native Linux on a long slow decline over the last few years, followed by an uptick as the Deck is released. And, "effort on Proton" starting from nothing about a year ago, with a slow rise from zero starting to curve up as Deck buzz grew, and rising rapidly once the Deck released and it was clear the thing was selling well and received positively.
Of course I have no idea if any of that is true--clearly your instinctive perception is different. Real data would be good to have.
9 Likes, Who?
Sooo . . . as to the specific Ark thing, is this one of those social situations where I'm supposed to politely pretend to be surprised?
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: StoneColdSpiderARK: Survival Evolved....... also known as the answer to the question of where did the free space on my hard drive go???....... 125.95 GIGGARYDOOS!!!!
Isn't that for the native Linux version? I have the windows version installed (with DLCs) and it's sitting just shy of 250 GBs.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: cbstrykerIsn't that for the native Linux version? I have the windows version installed (with DLCs) and it's sitting just shy of 250 GBs.
Just base game without DLCs is ~130GB for windows builds and ~70GB for linux native builds... with DLCs the windows builds go well beyond 200GB indeed
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: cbstrykerMy god. It could take up a smallish SSD all by itself.Quoting: StoneColdSpiderARK: Survival Evolved....... also known as the answer to the question of where did the free space on my hard drive go???....... 125.95 GIGGARYDOOS!!!!
Isn't that for the native Linux version? I have the windows version installed (with DLCs) and it's sitting just shy of 250 GBs.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: cbstrykerMy ARK install is at 290.42GB. I'm probably going to drop it because I just don't play it enough. Nothing even comes close to sucking up that much space. The next few big games on my drive currently installed are:Quoting: StoneColdSpiderARK: Survival Evolved....... also known as the answer to the question of where did the free space on my hard drive go???....... 125.95 GIGGARYDOOS!!!!
Isn't that for the native Linux version? I have the windows version installed (with DLCs) and it's sitting just shy of 250 GBs.
Borderlands 3 - 125.47GB
Inquisitor Martyr - 77.04GB
Guardians of the Galaxy - 75.66 GB
Tiny Tina's Wonderlands - 45.78
Those are fairly big games and ARK takes up just a little less than all those put together.
0 Likes
wit_as_a_riddle Jul 12, 2022
Quoting: subImho bad ports are not an argument against native versions.
It's going the way lots of us expected with Proton.
Instead of supporting games without native binaries,
fewer and fewer developers are willing to port their games.
This is a problematic dependency on Proton.
I'd rather see the awareness AND SKILLS for Linux grow in developer studios.
This is quite the opposite. :/
Proton will grow the linux market share, only then will studios make more effort for native builds.
0 Likes
ElectricPrism Jul 12, 2022
Ark is the definition of Technical Debt.
Poor engineering decisions stacked on top of poor engineering decisions dictated by management. I actually feel bad for anyone involved in programming it as it was moving scope and a mess of a fork of the Unreal 4 Engine in the early days.
I'm not surprised they wanted to cut off the Linux port, the git differences were probably worlds apart and anyone who owns a copy and has played the Linux versions has seen how the graphics are absolutely butchered.
You can have a $10,000 computer with a $2,000 Graphics Card on Linux and the graphics were still absolute shit.
This move is not better, but it's not worse either. It's a side-grade.
Considering I have no problem with containerizing apps with Flatpak I have no problem with Valve containerizing games with Wine/Proton.
Games are not in the same software-class as Server Utilities, Professional Desktop Tools, Desktop Applications, etc... and it's totally acceptable to me if someone figure out a "1-click" way to make things work.
That said, a game that ships a Linux "Native" (They're technically both "native") version will go to the top of my list as it's advertised to work for my Platform.
I exchange money for support. In other words -- money in exchange for expecting my product to work.
Poor engineering decisions stacked on top of poor engineering decisions dictated by management. I actually feel bad for anyone involved in programming it as it was moving scope and a mess of a fork of the Unreal 4 Engine in the early days.
I'm not surprised they wanted to cut off the Linux port, the git differences were probably worlds apart and anyone who owns a copy and has played the Linux versions has seen how the graphics are absolutely butchered.
You can have a $10,000 computer with a $2,000 Graphics Card on Linux and the graphics were still absolute shit.
This move is not better, but it's not worse either. It's a side-grade.
Considering I have no problem with containerizing apps with Flatpak I have no problem with Valve containerizing games with Wine/Proton.
Games are not in the same software-class as Server Utilities, Professional Desktop Tools, Desktop Applications, etc... and it's totally acceptable to me if someone figure out a "1-click" way to make things work.
That said, a game that ships a Linux "Native" (They're technically both "native") version will go to the top of my list as it's advertised to work for my Platform.
I exchange money for support. In other words -- money in exchange for expecting my product to work.
3 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me