The crash will mostly be silent, it's happening all around us but most don't see it due to how many new games come out all the time. Developers are constantly talking about Steam not making them enough money when previous titles sold like hot cakes, too many titles and so on. The crash already started but it's so easy to get started making games now, that they will continue to flow in from people doing it as hobbies for indies and AAA will continue on pumping money into shit as they always do.

Update to this thread: It is definitely the end of the most recent golden age of gaming on Linux. See: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/psyonix-are-ending-support-for-rocket-league-on-both-linux-and-macos.15833/

The first golden age was around ~2001 with Loki and an otherwise healthy share of commercial ports. I was not on the scene then, and so I cannot comment.

But the most recent golden age, I would be confident defining as beginning in ~2013 with the announcement of Steam for Linux. Peaking around 2015-2016 and ending somewhere around today (this end date will be easier to assess in retrospective, but that will need to wait).

It is very likely that the 2020s will be another few years of relative decline and silence for commercial Linux gaming, a "dark age" more or less.

I am no fan of cloud computing (deferring your computing to somebody else's computer), although I do wonder if resources like Stadia will be somehow responsible for kicking off the next golden age in a few years.

I like what TTimo and Icculus said on Twitter;

[TTimo](https://twitter.com/TTimo/status/1220481320549339136):

the Linux gaming ecosystem has never been better. It's unfortunate to lose RL but there's so much to look forward to

[Icculus](https://twitter.com/icculus/status/1220481702700769281)

Indeed, there will not only be other games, but other _phenomenons_ like Rocket League.

There are [667 million Steam accounts](https://twitter.com/thexpaw/status/1220707166379761665). 0.67% of them being Linux users makes 4.5 million user base. More Linux gamers ⇒ more attention to Linux from game developers and publishers. Sure, Epic Games are trying to hurt Valve and Steam, thus Linux gaming as well, because Valve are the biggest force which pushes Linux gaming forward. But calling that the end of Linux gaming and a dark age? It's an overstatement.

Liam, have you tried to use your contacts to Valve to get any information about the *lack of information* about HL:Alyx and Linux?

This is, tbh, by far the biggest disappointment for me when it comes to Valve, Steam and Linux gaming on the whole for a very long time. And while some might consider this as 'just one game', this potentially tells us so much more - that we probably refuse to acknowledge. :/

Quoting: subLiam, have you tried to use your contacts to Valve to get any information about the *lack of information* about HL:Alyx and Linux?

This is, tbh, by far the biggest disappointment for me when it comes to Valve, Steam and Linux gaming on the whole for a very long time. And while some might consider this as 'just one game', this potentially tells us so much more - that we probably refuse to acknowledge. :/

As far as I'm aware Valve is quite a decentralized company, so above facts just could also just point out that the different islands at Valve do operate quite independently and aim for different goals.

Last edited by jens on 25 Jan 2020 at 8:56 pm UTC

Desktop Linux in general has improved a ton over the last years. I've used it from the late 90s to 2005 and now again since 2019. The difference is huge. Things that were really tedious to get working back then now often work out of the box or with minimal configuration, and I'm not even talking about a "newbie-friendly distribution" (I use Arch).
The amount of tediousness I had to deal with has decreased substantially, and the amount of games that either work natively or run really well with Wine/Proton has increased substantially.
It's amazing.
Unfortunately, Linux has already firmly earned its reputation of being too tedious for general use way back in the late 90s already so it is always an uphill battle for market share and company support. That's why you shouldn't think that progress will be fast. It might be fast once it reaches critical market share. But that's way off. Until then, progress will be slow but steady. It's just a matter of time.

One year follow up: choo choo the train is steaming ahead at full throttle, I can confidently and conclusively say that 2018-2019 had definitely been the bookend for the recent surge of commercial games as the trend is clearly downward. Another "golden age" may arrive again in a few years with renewed interest from some yet-unknown party.

I was reminded of this by https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/09/borderlands-2-will-see-no-further-updates-for-linux-macos-from-aspyr-media

Windows hegemony in PC gaming is powerful and immovable, an engine driven by the fuels of ignorance, short term convenience, unshakable social inertia and a fresh new batch of millions of newbies every year.

I actually see this as more of a Valve problem than a Linux problem. Unfortunately Linux's gaming decline is more of a side effect of it being near completely controlled by Valve.

Don't get me wrong here, Valve did it the best business wise. They embraced Linux, making their client native, encouraged the use of the store for publishers, developers, and gamers. They even made steam machines to learn more about Linux and scoop up Linux programmers as well as the stream link and controller (none of which were ever intended as serious commercial ventures).

They even extended our gaming abilities, with contributions to the kernel, drivers, etc. Then they introduced proton, which really lowered the complexity bar with wine.

So, now most of us are at the mercy of Valve. Proton has given too much competition to porting houses, so high end ports might decline. What dev can argue with free after all? Proton is great, but how long till it joins the like of all those other past iniatives? It's only justification to exist outside an experience venture is that it brings in enough purchases of windows games on Linux platforms to make money.

I doubt they would turn it off, but if it's not making money I can see the updates stopping.

I'd still think we are in a golden age. Valve and the rest of the world is slowing down, it's can't be fast forever. I'd say the end would be when the porting houses stop and Valve gives up on proton.

Last edited by denyasis on 12 Sep 2020 at 6:00 pm UTC

Quoting: denyasisI'd still think we are in a golden age. Valve and the rest of the world is slowing down, it's can't be fast forever. I'd say the end would be when the porting houses stop and Valve gives up on proton.

I don't think Valve will ever drop it.
The costs are very low in comparison (only my guess, but compare the numbers of employees working on wine and Proton etc. with large software companies) and Valve is veery rich.
And Gaben comes from Microsoft so he knows the "devil from inside", I think his strategy is to keep Microsoft at check and for now it is kind of working.
Microsofts attempt to include Linux is both a prove for the potencial power of linux and also for Microsoft taking it seriously now.
Of course this doesn't mean that Microsoft will not try to throw sticks into Linux legs, but if they are clever enough they might have realized by now, that significant numbers of people are sick of them.
If even Republicans think about tightening Anti-Trust laws, I would be cautious in microsofts position.

Regarding the future of Gaming on Linux, I think there are some main points to consider:

1. Open Source is something everyone can profit from (that's the reason it is working now), so if big players (whatever companies those might be, maybe computer & hardware manufacturers etc.) would decide that they have enough of Microsoft, the shift to Linux might happen very fast.

2. DRM: Imo this is the main point against Open Source right now.
Especially the big companies (EA, Ubisoft etc.) are looking for ways to maximize their profit and some potencial directions of this are tightening the control over Games even more (e.g. restricting the Time and Content of Games playable; enforcing InGame-Stores even more etc.).
Some of this we can already see: Online-Servers are shut down just very few years after Release etc.
On an OpenSource system this tight control is not so easily possible.

3. Cloud-Gaming: While behind the scenes it could mean a big push for Linux, it will certainly not be a good thing for "free" gaming (which means: buying a Game and do with it what you want (playing whenver and in whatever way you want, Modding, Emulators etc.)).

4. Mobile Gaming: A very similar topic to cloud gaming, while it uses Linux behind the scenes (at least on Android), in the front you can't see any positive benefits of it.
Mobile is a perfect business model for Google and Apple, do almost nothing and earn money through big percentage (30%!) in their stores.

5. Engines: While Proton, DXVK and all that stuff is great, there is still a lack in native implementations of Games on Linux.
While some engines support Linux or at least Graphics technologies like Vulkan, others don't support it.
Imagine a developer could simply develop something for both Linux and Windows, without the need to change code for Linux compatibility.
I am no expert, but while it can't be too complicated to port things to Linux (because otherwise Feral Interactive & Aspyr Media would not be able to port things so "easily"), it still seems to be complicated enough for developers to shy away from it.

So all in all, it will depend on the will of big players whether Linux Gaming will see a brighter future or not.
The only positive point in a further niche position of linux is probably, that right now, we are flying a bit under the radar, in terms of companies trying to destroy all efforts of "emulation".

Last edited by dr_jekyll on 12 Sep 2020 at 7:31 pm UTC

Quoting: denyasisI actually see this as more of a Valve problem than a Linux problem. Unfortunately Linux's gaming decline is more of a side effect of it being near completely controlled by Valve.

This was always the danger of having only one company genuinely interested in promoting and improving gaming on Linux. Other developers said, "Eh, we'll give it a try," but they were never wholly vested in it and saw it as more trouble than it was worth. Linux gaming is better than it has ever been, but it feels like it could easily collapse overnight.

There is still native ports being produced, just not from the majority of AAA game companies, which have never cared about the Linux platform.

Last edited by Jared on 13 Sep 2020 at 6:21 pm UTC

[quote=Mountain Man
This was always the danger of having only one company genuinely interested in promoting and improving gaming on Linux.[/quote]I agree we need more diversity. Valve has done very well poisoning the well, so to speak, towards other services, mostly by raising the bar in terms of quality of access to games. Take GOG for example. Many people disparage it for lack of a client (most likely comparing it to Steam), despite that one of their main selling points (DRM free) would seemingly appeal strongly to the Linux audience. Simply, we've been spoiled somewhat by Valve, which makes it a lot harder for competing services.

Quoting: dr_jekyllI don't think Valve will ever drop it.(Proton)

You raise some very good points there, although, I think I have a more pessimistic view:
We're what, 1% of users, so reasonable to assume we're 1% of the revenue stream, no? Even if the average Linux gamer spent double, we'd only be 2%.

I see Proton filling 2 possible roles. First, as a source of profit. For that to work, our purchases would likely need to cover the cost of future development. The obvious concern if that should it become unprofitable, there is little reason to maintain it. That brings us to the second role.

Secondly, Proton, might not be a source of profit, but serve an experiential or strategic purpose. You can use it to hire Linux game industry talent, thus starving the competition and slowing their efforts. You can use it for R&D for streaming, game engines, etc, porting the knowledge gained into more profitable projects. You can also use it for training for programmers to get more familiar with Linux for future projects. You can also use it as corporate training. Give newer managers and executives real world training with little risk, after all even if they screw up, Valve is only risking 1% revenue. The concern here is that this may be a more "pet project" type of status, meaning it could be abandoned when something else interesting comes along.

I like Proton and everything, but I have trouble thinking the leadership has any interest in Linux other than what they benefit from it. I doubt they'll keep it going once benefit is gone.

Quoting: denyasisWe're what, 1% of users, so reasonable to assume we're 1% of the revenue stream, no? Even if the average Linux gamer spent double, we'd only be 2%.

1% still means millions dollars. I'm sure Proton is profitable for Valve right now. What are their expenses, salaries for few guys working on DXVK and Proton?

With Windows there’s also just one company genuinely interested in promoting it and that’s MS. All the other companies just follow suit because that’s where the consumers are.

Linux has no company backing it as a whole. Red Hat does their thing in their niche (multi-billion dollar though it may be) and does nothing outside of it. Valve stepped in to take care of another slice of the pie and they’ve had great success, even if it’s not enough to challenge the monopoly MS has.

Marketing clout is Linux’s single weakest point.

Quoting: damarrinMarketing clout is Linux’s single weakest point.

Worth it though, if the alternative is being less open and collaborative.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: damarrinMarketing clout is Linux’s single weakest point.

Worth it though, if the alternative is being less open and collaborative.

I disagree, Linux totally needs to grow its market share to be trully viable as a PC OS, I'd say 10% should be enough, and it needs marketing for that.

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: damarrinMarketing clout is Linux’s single weakest point.

Worth it though, if the alternative is being less open and collaborative.

I disagree, Linux totally needs to grow its market share to be trully viable as a PC OS, I'd say 10% should be enough, and it needs marketing for that.

No amount of market share is worth losing what makes Linux better than the competition. And I really mean that it's already a better PC OS than Windows or Mac OS. But I guess we all have our own criteria.

I don't see how marketing and thus bigger market share is going to make Linux a worse OS. I just don't see what one has to do with the other.

Quoting: damarrinI don't see how marketing and thus bigger market share is going to make Linux a worse OS. I just don't see what one has to do with the other.

Nether do I, but that's not what I said. You might want to read back our conversation to refresh your memory. But here's a recap:

You said that "Marketing clout is Linux’s single weakest point", attributing it to not having a "company backing it as a whole." I replied that not having marketing clout is "Worth it though, if the alternative is being less open and collaborative." Your answer to this was "I disagree".