Proton 8.0-4 brings more game support to Steam Deck and desktop Linux

Quoting: Raaben

Quoting: Linux_RocksDoesn't KotOR II support Linux natively? 👀

Yes, but a bug fixed there can still be a bug fixed overall so it's worth WINE/Proton development to go after those cases.

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: Raaben

Quoting: Linux_RocksDoesn't KotOR II support Linux natively? 👀

Yes, but a bug fixed there can still be a bug fixed overall so it's worth WINE/Proton development to go after those cases.

It's surprising people still ask this question. Wine and Proton aim to work with everything they can.

I didn't even think of it that way. Makes sense.

Tested quickly in Overwatch 2 - I know get unplayable 40 FPS. Back to GE-Proton (or Experimental, might try it too).

Quoting: denyasisIf you're taking that much from a dev that did 100% of the work making a game as a cost for a sales platform, you better be doing something much more that processing credit card payments and running an E-stote.

The 30%-cut was established for decades, including the storefronts on consoles. It's only after Tim Sweeney started pushing this false narrative of 30 percent being 'too much', that the cut gets this undeserved scrutiny.

You know very well the 30% cut is not for Proton - Proton is an extra. Or did I miss Microsoft and Sony developing compatibilty layers for various operating systems???

Quoting: rustybroomhandleI am sure you know this and just making bad faith arguments to be edgy.

Yeah...

Quoting: benstor214The 30%-cut was established for decades, including the storefronts on consoles.

That is true, but it doesn't actually establish anything about how fair that is. Almost all the storefronts involved are some kind of functional near-monopoly. Someone established 30% as "what the market will bear if it has no choice", everyone else followed, and it has become pretty much traditional. But the players involved have been pretty close-mouthed about whether that 30% bears the tiniest resemblance to their expenses. The general impression one gets is that 30% results in pretty fat profits.

We like Valve because they seem to be kind of on Linux's side and because of all those monopolistic players in different online sale sectors they're about the only one that seems to have any willingness to play nice with their community. But still, it's pretty likely they're putting away great walloping masses of windfall profit.

Quoting: benstor214

Quoting: denyasisIf you're taking that much from a dev that did 100% of the work making a game as a cost for a sales platform, you better be doing something much more that processing credit card payments and running an E-stote.

The 30%-cut was established for decades, including the storefronts on consoles. It's only after Tim Sweeney started pushing this false narrative of 30 percent being 'too much', that the cut gets this undeserved scrutiny.

You know very well the 30% cut is not for Proton - Proton is an extra. Or did I miss Microsoft and Sony developing compatibilty layers for various operating systems???

Quoting: rustybroomhandleI am sure you know this and just making bad faith arguments to be edgy.

Yeah...

Correct. However, times change as do consumers expectations. Glance through almost any news article on this site about GOG or Epic and you'll see plenty of complaints about how the stores don't support Linux and that we, as a community, will prefer Steam because we demand/expect better support. We simply expect more: Cloud saves, steam input, achievements etc, and I would argue, for Valve, Proton as well. They have raised the bar. And yes... That is funded through their revenue from sales.

Or to flip it around. Imagine if Valve got rid of Proton? How many people would be thoroughly upset, especially given the reliance (and success) of the Steam Deck on it? Proton isn't an extra anymore, it's a committed part of their business practice. I'm glad to have it and, as a customer, I expect it to continue to get that support.

Quoting: benstor214Valve should charge them!

The amount of hoops you are forced to jump through as a modern gamer keeps baffling me. It is a sign that these companies couldn’t care less about the troubles their customers have to go through as soon as the credit card details landed in the inbox.

You're Valve's customer. Your system is not supported by many developers. Why would you expect anything at all?

Quoting: benstor214The 30%-cut was established for decades, including the storefronts on consoles. It's only after Tim Sweeney started pushing this false narrative of 30 percent being 'too much', that the cut gets this undeserved scrutiny.

Having sold succesful games, Sweeney can make an estimate on what the platforms are earning. Which insights can you share to call it undeserved?

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: benstor214Valve should charge them!

The amount of hoops you are forced to jump through as a modern gamer keeps baffling me. It is a sign that these companies couldn’t care less about the troubles their customers have to go through as soon as the credit card details landed in the inbox.

You're Valve's customer. Your system is not supported by many developers. Why would you expect anything at all?

I don't think we're talking about issues that are specific to Linux, though? Everyone hates all the launchers and shit.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: benstor214The 30%-cut was established for decades, including the storefronts on consoles. It's only after Tim Sweeney started pushing this false narrative of 30 percent being 'too much', that the cut gets this undeserved scrutiny.

Having sold succesful games, Sweeney can make an estimate on what the platforms are earning. Which insights can you share to call it undeserved?

I myself have serious doubts about the 30% cut being reasonable. But Sweeney isn't saying it's a bad thing for that reason. He is offering a lower cut, talking about the higher cut being bad, and doing various other tactics, in an attempt to get his store to occupy the position Steam currently occupies, of dominant player with network effects that are functionally much like a monopoly. He has been willing to take considerable losses to push this attempt. If he succeeds, he will immediately jack the percentage back up, maybe even beyond 30%. He calculates that the losses he takes trying to boost market share will be well worth it when he is able to charge monopoly rents later. This is a very common tactic; it's been particularly noticeable in airlines, where in any given region the airline with the deepest pockets will often operate at a loss, trying to bankrupt the others as they scramble to compete, only to jack up fares once the competition is gone.

I think Sweeney will fail. But succeed or fail, nothing he says can be considered information, beyond "Sweeney thinks it will be to his advantage if you believe this". Not that everything he says is a lie--that would actually be information. Rather, if the truth happens to be advantageous, he will tell it, and if it isn't, he won't, so him saying something doesn't tell you anything about it.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI myself have serious doubts about the 30% cut being reasonable.

I recall that during the Epic vs Apple trial, there were Microsoft (pretty sure) documents released that estimated the break-even commission rates at 20-25% for game stores, with GOG's needed rate being higher than Valve's because of scale. I can't find the document now to cite it, so you'd be justified in saying that this is unsubstantiated.

Break-even isn't sufficient for a business, though: you need to make a profit for the endeavour to be worth doing at all, and you need it to be sustainable by reinvesting revenues into the business (all the value-add Steam services mentioned upthread, for example).

These figures tally with the numbers we see: Valve's commission rate drops to 20% if you make enough money; Humble (~15% commission) has relegated itself to being a Steam key reseller; Epic and Microsoft's Windows Store (12%) are massively subsidised by revenue elsewhere, so they can afford to take a loss on the store itself; and everywhere else (including Microsoft's Xbox) is 30%.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI don't think we're talking about issues that are specific to Linux, though?

Yes we are. Direct customers of game developers (Windows users) can expect direct support. That's why updates get tested & have less breakage. These problems are Proton specific & Valve's responsibility.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyEveryone hates all the launchers and shit.

I wouldn't say I hate Steam, it's just a really annoying software.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut Sweeney isn't saying it's a bad thing for that reason. He is offering a lower cut, talking about the higher cut being bad, and doing various other tactics, in an attempt to get his store to occupy the position Steam currently occupies, of dominant player with network effects that are functionally much like a monopoly. He has been willing to take considerable losses to push this attempt. If he succeeds, he will immediately jack the percentage back up, maybe even beyond 30%. He calculates that the losses he takes trying to boost market share will be well worth it when he is able to charge monopoly rents later.

Accusations based on what?

Quoting: CatKillerI recall that during the Epic vs Apple trial, there were Microsoft (pretty sure) documents released that estimated the break-even commission rates at 20-25% for game stores, with GOG's needed rate being higher than Valve's because of scale. I can't find the document now to cite it, so you'd be justified in saying that this is unsubstantiated.

[…]

These figures tally with the numbers we see: Valve's commission rate drops to 20% if you make enough money; Humble (~15% commission) has relegated itself to being a Steam key reseller; Epic and Microsoft's Windows Store (12%) are massively subsidised by revenue elsewhere, so they can afford to take a loss on the store itself; and everywhere else (including Microsoft's Xbox) is 30%.

Without a source I really doubt that value. All I could find are Microsoft's claims that they must take 30% with the Xbox because they take a loss on the hardware. They deny the necessity on "general purpose" devices (which they count iOS to). And Apple created a study to show that everyone takes 30%. But as far as I can see they don't talk about expenses & income.

Epic is not comparable since their expenses are not limited to running the platform. They invest (are they still?) more into give aways to draw customers into the platform. That this can't be sustainable is obvious.

How high do you estimate running & developing Steam (without any hardware projects, Proton or game development)? 10, 50, 100 or 500 million dollar?

Quoting: CatKiller[…] you need to make a profit for the endeavour to be worth doing at all, and you need it to be sustainable by reinvesting revenues into the business (all the value-add Steam services mentioned upthread, for example).

I'm pretty sure they're making a lot more than enough money.

But how & where Valve is investing their money is of no concern for third party developers. They don't have much of a gain through the Steam Deck, Proton or even VR (the latter is exempt for VR developers). In a GDC survey from 2021 only 3% of the questioned thought the 30/70 split to be justified (https://gdconf.com/news/gdc-state-industry-devs-irked-30-percent-storefront-revenue-cuts, I didn't register to see if the results change in 22 or 23).

I'm pretty sure if developers could choose between Steam Deck/Proton support or less commission the majority would choose the latter.