Support us on Patreon
PayPal
Note: Article updated to better explain 1 or 2 points.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.
First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.
I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.
Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.
It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.
You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.
I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.
That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.
I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.
I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.
Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.
Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.
If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.
We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.
Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
For me this would be solved with a bridge between Wine and Steam. Currently i have 3 steam installs - Linux, Win32 and Win64. Even if i buy the Windows version i'm still playing them on Linux. I'd be a very happy person if i could launch all my games from the Steam Linux Install.
0 Likes
This really is a mixed bag. I think what I would be OK with would be:
- If the game already has multiplatform support when you buy it, you should get cross-compatibility included in the price
- If a new platform comes up after you bought the game (there, we could say more than 2 months, for example), you have to pay for it (possibly and preferably at a discounted price, because the first option includes the port + the game, and the second one only the port).
I think I could discuss at length why it makes sense to me.
I guess they are also using it as a way to track the buyers, but I don't think that's the only way they could do it.
I think that one of the call of duty games had to be bought separately for Mac as well, for the record.
Regarding what you wrote, Liam, I would argue that I wouldn't be against paying more and getting a game that works across ps, xbox, PC, etc... I've dreamed of it, even. But that's not coming soon :P
Small rant on economics (feel free to skip, I wrote that a bit impulsively)
Now, it is also a question of how developers see you: some will see the cashcow you have to milk to its blood, other will see a member of a community to conquer by making small sacrifices. Usually, the second are the ones that fare well with a reduced number of games, and the first ones are big corporations with lots of titles; but that's not always the case.
I thought a bit about this (I am not an economist), and tried to draw parallels with how economy works in other domains. I think that the problem is, like most artistic content, that the product is not a commodity. If you want a carrot, you have tons of producers to choose from, all selling more or less the same products. There, you can negotiate your products, weight the quality against the price. That's simply not the case with art products, or games, since they are individual products.
If you want *that* game, you have to talk to _this_ publisher. The only thing they have to do is to make it good enough so that you will buy it for its price, that they choose according to the quality of the product. Now, that's pretty similar to the previous case, excepted for the fact that you can't go buy it elsewhere if you don't like them.
- If the game already has multiplatform support when you buy it, you should get cross-compatibility included in the price
- If a new platform comes up after you bought the game (there, we could say more than 2 months, for example), you have to pay for it (possibly and preferably at a discounted price, because the first option includes the port + the game, and the second one only the port).
I think I could discuss at length why it makes sense to me.
I guess they are also using it as a way to track the buyers, but I don't think that's the only way they could do it.
I think that one of the call of duty games had to be bought separately for Mac as well, for the record.
Regarding what you wrote, Liam, I would argue that I wouldn't be against paying more and getting a game that works across ps, xbox, PC, etc... I've dreamed of it, even. But that's not coming soon :P
Small rant on economics (feel free to skip, I wrote that a bit impulsively)
Spoiler, click me
Now, it is also a question of how developers see you: some will see the cashcow you have to milk to its blood, other will see a member of a community to conquer by making small sacrifices. Usually, the second are the ones that fare well with a reduced number of games, and the first ones are big corporations with lots of titles; but that's not always the case.
I thought a bit about this (I am not an economist), and tried to draw parallels with how economy works in other domains. I think that the problem is, like most artistic content, that the product is not a commodity. If you want a carrot, you have tons of producers to choose from, all selling more or less the same products. There, you can negotiate your products, weight the quality against the price. That's simply not the case with art products, or games, since they are individual products.
If you want *that* game, you have to talk to _this_ publisher. The only thing they have to do is to make it good enough so that you will buy it for its price, that they choose according to the quality of the product. Now, that's pretty similar to the previous case, excepted for the fact that you can't go buy it elsewhere if you don't like them.
1 Likes, Who?
I always thought the platform should be sold as and upgrade or DLC option, to pay something to the porting job.
Games data could be purchased at 90% of the game's price, and then you buy the platform binairies like a DLC at 10% the price. In this way every platform developer is paid their due. This also applies for porters if different from the original developer.
Games data could be purchased at 90% of the game's price, and then you buy the platform binairies like a DLC at 10% the price. In this way every platform developer is paid their due. This also applies for porters if different from the original developer.
6 Likes, Who?
I think it's wonderful to receive free (or discounted) Linux ports of games I previously bought on Windows, but I certainly don't expect them. On my version of Earth things just don't work like that except in special cases. It's not normal to receive two things whenever we buy one thing. I.e.:
Well said, Liam! Case closed.
Last edited by Nanobang on 15 March 2017 at 1:27 pm UTC
Quoting: liamdaweYou don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well ...
Well said, Liam! Case closed.
Last edited by Nanobang on 15 March 2017 at 1:27 pm UTC
6 Likes, Who?
TheRiddick Mar 15, 2017
If they release a SkyrimSE/Fallout4/GTA5/Witcher3 on Linux and ask for a reasonable price then I would be OK with paying again if that's what it takes. But again, at a reasonable price point!!!!
But in all honestly I have very limited funds and I'm sure many others do so buying 2 PC copies for every game isn't practical and will likely result in my just not buying many games and sticking to the ones I already have available. But those 4 above I would make an exception if need be.
Buying Linux support as a DLC option is fine imo.
Last edited by TheRiddick on 15 March 2017 at 1:27 pm UTC
But in all honestly I have very limited funds and I'm sure many others do so buying 2 PC copies for every game isn't practical and will likely result in my just not buying many games and sticking to the ones I already have available. But those 4 above I would make an exception if need be.
Buying Linux support as a DLC option is fine imo.
Last edited by TheRiddick on 15 March 2017 at 1:27 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
This seems like a bad precedent for Linux gaming.
I agree that porters should get paid; but one of the biggest things we have going for us as a growing platform, is the access to one's old games when hopping over to Linux. If separate OS sales were standard or widespread practice, we wouldn't gone nearly as far as we have now.
I certainly wouldn't want Bethesda to start releasing all of their games separately per client. That could badly entrench people further into their OS of choice - or switch people back to Windows.
Maybe it is still best for the occasional port or game to go this route of separating OS sales. I honestly don't know.
I think maybe it might be best to just release some sort of "Tux DLC" when these late ports happen. Support the porter with a DLC purchase and get a Tux cosmetic, item or something, like TF2 had during it's beta test.
Another thought occurred to me.
While separating the game like this will most likely help with sales and income, would it perhaps be better to focus on keeping the game OS-agnostic and reap the benefits of a larger linux market further down the road?
Last edited by Marky on 15 March 2017 at 1:37 pm UTC
I agree that porters should get paid; but one of the biggest things we have going for us as a growing platform, is the access to one's old games when hopping over to Linux. If separate OS sales were standard or widespread practice, we wouldn't gone nearly as far as we have now.
I certainly wouldn't want Bethesda to start releasing all of their games separately per client. That could badly entrench people further into their OS of choice - or switch people back to Windows.
Maybe it is still best for the occasional port or game to go this route of separating OS sales. I honestly don't know.
I think maybe it might be best to just release some sort of "Tux DLC" when these late ports happen. Support the porter with a DLC purchase and get a Tux cosmetic, item or something, like TF2 had during it's beta test.
Another thought occurred to me.
While separating the game like this will most likely help with sales and income, would it perhaps be better to focus on keeping the game OS-agnostic and reap the benefits of a larger linux market further down the road?
Last edited by Marky on 15 March 2017 at 1:37 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
cRaZy-bisCuiT Mar 15, 2017
I really do get all of your points! Still I think cross-platform-access is a unique point of sale. Therefor either the publishers or Valve should make sure there will be ways to solve the issue. It should only be a problem for the next few years to come since most of the people will be buying only games on Linux after they made the switch. Still I do hope cross-platform-access will be available for those.
0 Likes
This topic is very complicated. Years ago, I made that call. I only support/buy/use a game if it has a Linux release that I can play @ that moment.
Everything else in between ain't for me.
Everything else in between ain't for me.
4 Likes, Who?
One point is that, too often, the game is "ported to", not "developed for" Linux OS.
For older games, the ones i bought before being a full-Linux user, i don't care, prices have drop a lot and it's easy to get games for less than 10 or even 5€, legally and legitimately. For new games, i'm ready to pay a fee for a port, if, everyone pay for it too. I like the idea to pay for "the core game + OS", so i could buy a game let say 25€ + 5€ for Linux, +5€ for Windows OS, +5€ for Mac.
However i think Linux is still seen as a garage-geek OS by a huge amount of people, and the market is not ready nor willing to adapt. And more than everything else, i think the pressure from Microsoft is way too important. Just look how many devs use "PC/Mac/Linux", instead of "Win/Mac/Linux", to advertize the game. It was not like this a few years ago. Linux/Mac is growing, but people didn't change their habit "PC games" is related to Windows, and i don't see it changing anytime soon.
For older games, the ones i bought before being a full-Linux user, i don't care, prices have drop a lot and it's easy to get games for less than 10 or even 5€, legally and legitimately. For new games, i'm ready to pay a fee for a port, if, everyone pay for it too. I like the idea to pay for "the core game + OS", so i could buy a game let say 25€ + 5€ for Linux, +5€ for Windows OS, +5€ for Mac.
However i think Linux is still seen as a garage-geek OS by a huge amount of people, and the market is not ready nor willing to adapt. And more than everything else, i think the pressure from Microsoft is way too important. Just look how many devs use "PC/Mac/Linux", instead of "Win/Mac/Linux", to advertize the game. It was not like this a few years ago. Linux/Mac is growing, but people didn't change their habit "PC games" is related to Windows, and i don't see it changing anytime soon.
3 Likes, Who?
As many have pointed out the Porters need paid. On the other hand if you have to pay separately for all linux versions of games this discourages people making the switch to Linux. They already have to deal with a good portion of their games not being on linux. My steam library says I have 612 games but only 260 are for linux and I haven't bought games that don't have a linux version in over a year. If people basically have no games on linux without buying them again I don't think many people who play PC games would even attempt the switch to Linux. Plus isn't this what steamplay was/is all about. Buy it once and get it on all platforms.
Maybe they add a steamplay fee. So you can buy the game with steamplay or without. The deveoloper for the OS you buy it on/first play it on gets the main money and the other OS developer gets the steamplay fee. Also if the game is on windows, mac, and linux then the steamplay fee may have 3 options. This way the developer for the OS you use gets the main money. Plus you have the option of having it on the other available OS's and giving them some money for it.
Last edited by SpacePizza on 15 March 2017 at 2:07 pm UTC
Maybe they add a steamplay fee. So you can buy the game with steamplay or without. The deveoloper for the OS you buy it on/first play it on gets the main money and the other OS developer gets the steamplay fee. Also if the game is on windows, mac, and linux then the steamplay fee may have 3 options. This way the developer for the OS you use gets the main money. Plus you have the option of having it on the other available OS's and giving them some money for it.
Last edited by SpacePizza on 15 March 2017 at 2:07 pm UTC
0 Likes
See more from me