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.
ObsidianBlk Mar 18, 2017
Quoting: kernel.havok[/quote]Quoting: ObsidianBlkIf you want to make this an issue of Entitlement, then the same right back at the developers too that feel they should be entitled to full cost twiceFull cost -- we're talking about 5 dollars (here in Australia). As minimum wage here is ~17 dollars an hour, I can honestly tell you it would take you more than 20 minutes (the cost of working to earn 5 dollars) to code a game client that could execute natively on linux using those game assets.
...
Please stop it. I believe you're smart enough to have realized I was not speaking solely of this one game, but more to the president is may set for other games that cost several times more than this one example. You also seem smart enough to have grasped that I never suggested (1) Porters don't do a lot of work or (2) some form of compensation was totally out of the question. Your suggestion of my lack of competency in software development suggests you do not feel my evaluation of what components within the over-all application would/should not need porting was accurate... fair enough. I'd be happy to debate that with you in some other form, if you'd like... I'm not perfect. That said, if YOU are familiar with software development, then you should know that virtually no [game] developer builds an application from total scratch, and many libraries used (within the last two decades) are, indeed, universally compilable on most platforms, reducing the work a porter would need to do. This leaves the fact that, again, a porter is not rewriting %100 of the original code, and virtually nothing changes with the assets.
In regards to the argument over getting a game from 2001 to work in 2017... even within Windows there can be issues with that, and sometimes developers put out patches to allow those older games to run some 16 years later. Perhaps they should charge for those patches too. Sure, patching up within the same OS isn't nearly that hard... then again, considering how much Windows has changed from 2001 to 2017, it very well may be just as hard.
Finally, I'm sure you know that both Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior have had their source released. Duke had his source exposed (*chuckles*) for over a decade now. If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again.
0 Likes
"In regards to the argument over getting a game from 2001 to work in 2017... even within Windows there can be issues with that, and sometimes developers put out patches to allow those older games to run some 16 years later."
microsoft do a lot of work to keep the backward compatibility working, that explain part of the reason we can run 16 years old games, about those patches, even games who dont receive then officialy may get from the hacking comunity.
the company may charge for those patches, sure, but they will not risk geting 90% of their users mad, we are, again, in an niche market.
even PC is a niche, witcher 3 sold 3x more on console than on PC, when xbox1/ps4 had about ~30 millions of owners.
we arent even 1%, we are 1% of 25%.
as said by liam, we dont expect to buy the PS4 version of an game and get the xbox1 for free, so why we expect that from pc games?
". If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again."
or maybe they just want to support companys that do the right thing?
i would love to discuss the technical details, but i dont understand nothing about low level.
but even if many libs are multiplatform are they really? feature parity and even bug parity? even simple things as the way an random number is chosen matter.
microsoft do a lot of work to keep the backward compatibility working, that explain part of the reason we can run 16 years old games, about those patches, even games who dont receive then officialy may get from the hacking comunity.
the company may charge for those patches, sure, but they will not risk geting 90% of their users mad, we are, again, in an niche market.
even PC is a niche, witcher 3 sold 3x more on console than on PC, when xbox1/ps4 had about ~30 millions of owners.
we arent even 1%, we are 1% of 25%.
as said by liam, we dont expect to buy the PS4 version of an game and get the xbox1 for free, so why we expect that from pc games?
". If anyone's buying Duke or Shadow now, it is most definitely because they don't own all of the Assets... or they're not savvy enough to know they don't have to buy it again."
or maybe they just want to support companys that do the right thing?
i would love to discuss the technical details, but i dont understand nothing about low level.
but even if many libs are multiplatform are they really? feature parity and even bug parity? even simple things as the way an random number is chosen matter.
0 Likes
what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
0 Likes
Quoting: peterf28what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
i dont know if they removed it, or it was implicity since all games support it so they didnt need an logo for that.
that explain why we have 2 entries of the same game (one for the windows version one for the mac/linux version)
instead of, the only difference be that for this game we dont have the steamplay logo
0 Likes
People not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
1 Likes, Who?
thelimeydragon Mar 21, 2017
Quoting: peterf28what valve removed steamplay ??? that was the only feature that got me convinced to actually pay for game . no way i will pay twice . they can call themselves lucky when i pay once . but i already got used to greedy corporations, I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore .
No there are just 2 versions of the game on Steam. One package has the depots of the Mac and Linux versions which are steamplay with each other. One package only has the Windows version which is also steamplay but as the only depot in it is the Windows version it's only "steamplay" with Windows.
0 Likes
Quoting: JanPeople not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
A couple of counter points where the hell did you get that information from as i googled that and got nothing are you sure thats real because 2k have been very pro Linux. Point 2 Braid sold badly under linux okay boo hoo maybe it was the length of time it took to get to linux and secondly its not exactly a must play game imo. Double fine abandoning Linux would be a shame but meh can live without more pixel retro indie games.
Secondly why would anyone be happy to pay for a game twice I own it played it and beat it on another platform. When i switched to Linux I made a point to only buy games that are Linux but why should i be financially punished for dual booting back in the day.
0 Likes
Quoting: Whitewolfe80Quoting: JanPeople not willing to pay for essential work like converting or partly rebuilding a DirectX-based game for OpenGL or Vulkan and play-testing on several distributions is both sad and frustrating to see.
As long as the attitude of some Linux users (both new and veteran) regarding this topic is not changing, I'm afraid Linux gaming will remain a tiny niche even compared to Mac gaming.
To give you 3 current examples:
1. Aspyr pitched both a Mac and Linux version of Mafia III to 2K. They agreed on macOS, but were not interested in the Linux market.
2. Jonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later. Some people on Twitter and I guess reddit asked him for a Linux version. He basically answered "no one would buy them anyway as Braid didn't make any money on Linux".
3. Double Fine released Headlander for Mac using Apple's Metal-API and denied plans for Linux support because Adult Swim doesn't see its viability. The game was built for DirectX and Metal only -- no OpenGL or Vulkan support.
This might change as soon as more companies start to build their games from scratch using Vulkan instead of DirectX 12.
But for the moment, Apple's decision to axe OpenGL and go Metal-only on macOS and iOS hurts Linux gaming more than some people might admit.
A couple of counter points where the hell did you get that information from as i googled that and got nothing are you sure thats real because 2k have been very pro Linux. Point 2 Braid sold badly under linux okay boo hoo maybe it was the length of time it took to get to linux and secondly its not exactly a must play game imo. Double fine abandoning Linux would be a shame but meh can live without more pixel retro indie games.
Secondly why would anyone be happy to pay for a game twice I own it played it and beat it on another platform. When i switched to Linux I made a point to only buy games that are Linux but why should i be financially punished for dual booting back in the day.
He is just making things out of his.... mind.
That is not about api,if a game comes to Linux 2 years later;of course people won't buy it.Because game will be unpopular as the time goes by.
And that 'Braid'. C'mon,it's not a must play game so it shouldn't be surprising.
0 Likes
I'm not making things up -- I'm just stating facts, not alternative ones, directly from the horse's mouth.
Do you guys even read Aspyr's or Feral's Facebook pages, are you subscribed to their newsletters?
Aspyr Facebook on December 22, 2016: "Linux users... I love you. There has been some talk about linux, but there is nothing in the works."
They repeated this statement several times on their social media channels using different formulations, but it's basically: "We talked it about it (with the publisher), but it won't happen".
Just to remind you:
Aspyr released KotOR II on Mac on Linux simultaneously. In October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
Of course, these are just re-releases of older classics, but still: Why did they bother to bring Fahrenheit and KotOR II over to Linux and now they're scaling their business model back to Mac and iOS ports (and delayed Linux releases like Civ VI)?
Porters need to get paid and at least break-even with their titles. It's easier to do that without SteamPlay and a viable user base/market size (see Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store or Aspyr's recent titles).
Last edited by Jan on 21 March 2017 at 5:44 pm UTC
Do you guys even read Aspyr's or Feral's Facebook pages, are you subscribed to their newsletters?
Aspyr Facebook on December 22, 2016: "Linux users... I love you. There has been some talk about linux, but there is nothing in the works."
They repeated this statement several times on their social media channels using different formulations, but it's basically: "We talked it about it (with the publisher), but it won't happen".
Just to remind you:
Aspyr released KotOR II on Mac on Linux simultaneously. In October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
Of course, these are just re-releases of older classics, but still: Why did they bother to bring Fahrenheit and KotOR II over to Linux and now they're scaling their business model back to Mac and iOS ports (and delayed Linux releases like Civ VI)?
Porters need to get paid and at least break-even with their titles. It's easier to do that without SteamPlay and a viable user base/market size (see Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store or Aspyr's recent titles).
Last edited by Jan on 21 March 2017 at 5:44 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: JanJonathan Blow released the Mac version of The Witness using the Metal-API a few days ago on the Mac App Store first (self-published), Steam will follow later.
Sure... targeting 3.5% of market share first is a sound business strategy for a guy complaining for "Braid didn't make any money on Linux"... Don't make my horseshoes laugh!
Seriously, those "Indie Guys" are full of themselves. I wonder, why didn't you remember Tommy Refenes with his "There'll also be a Linux version, because we're gonna waste our time with a Linux version. Linux is garbage." and "Linux can fuck off for all I care!" opinion.
Quoting: JanIn October 2016 they brought Jade Empire Special Edition to Mac and iOS -- not Linux -- and exclusively through Apple's storefronts (Mac and iOS App Store). The game is not even on Steam (most likely due to SteamPlay concerns).
...
Feral releasing Life Is Strange timed-exclusive on the Mac App Store...
So, we can see what is going on here. Namely, Apple® trying to protect its Walled Garden by providing exclusives. We can assume it will be doing so for quite some time in the future, given that current game projects are refusing to support Metal™ technology.
But what has it to do with "the attitude of some Linux users"?
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me