Quoting: LinuxwarperWhen and if that time ever comes, "No Tux No Buck" will be as meaningful response as it ever can be.

... But why? Why does it matter, if Proton provides a 100% working out of the box experience on par with a native build?
If you experience no difference?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeYour hope for AAA games made by ROI maximizing oriented stock corporations is minimal, rightfully so, and so your hopes are on playing such games via Proton, while my chances for great indie games made by developers who got their heart invested in them (still) coming to Linux are lowered by Proton.

I believe this sums it up exceptionally well, Eike.

But if I may ask:
From your perspective, all things considered, does it really matter if Proton or not as long as it works 100% out of the box and on par with native builds? I mean, it's less work for the devs (ergo more profitable per sale) and the same experience for us?

And even for indie games, the amount of games made accessible via Proton is much higher than the theoretical, potential amount of native builds that would have been made if not for Proton. So doesn't that make Proton a Good Thing(TM) either way?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just to provide a perspective on that number:
Unless recently changed, 30% is also what Google and Apple takes on transactions at their marketplaces. Apple takes an annual developer fee of $99 in addition, and they both have a one time fee of $25 per app.

Steam is very much the Google Play / Apple Store of PC gaming.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeSo, you think it's irelevant if there's one million potential Linux buyers or two million potential Linux buyers?

In essence: Yes. Please read my reply to Shmerl in the post above yours for the reason why.

Quoting: EikeDid you actually take a look at the list?
It's not about AAA.

Well, it's a good mix, since there's probably several hundred indies released for each individual AAA and this is a list for the time span of just one month.

But the point is, the most popular games. And that very much includes the AAA. And that's where we're almost entirely missing out. That is the massive hole in our landscape today.

Quoting: EikeWhat we do know is developers already explicitly pointed at Steam Play when been asked for a native port.

And to continue my not-so-humble presentation of my view on this: I don't really care if some indie says so. We got so, SO many various gorgeous little indie gems to choose from. We're covered, imo.

The AAAs, though. That's a totally different matter. We miss out on far, far too many of those. And without Wine/Steam Play, we'd continue to miss out on those until something really dramatic happened.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlLet's say you have a hundred million users altogether. Even 1% out of that, already means a million users. That's a lot. I.e. probably enough to cover your production costs through sales. Who cares if total number is hundred million? For viability, it's not the market share that matters, it's the size of your market (which means total number of your users).

Not when there is a more profitable alternative. When the alternative is that you earn more to cater better to your current platform than to embrace yet another platform, business sense is to stay where you are.
If the cost per sale on that new platform is higher than if you, for example, spend those resources on a new DLC instead - you do that.

This is crucial to understand for anyone doing business: The profit per product sold dictates where to put your efforts. To just go in plus, to have some profit, is not good enough. For each hour you spend on a less profitable market, you miss out on one hour worth of profit on the more profitable market.

Don't waste time on the less profitable markets unless there's nothing more to exploit in your current market and you need to focus on secondary markets for further growth - and by then you're probably better off defending your current position in the main market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeWe won't get anywhere when we cannot even agree on what we're talking about. When I talk about the absolute number of Linux users having grown well in the last years, and you answer that the percentage is still low, this will lead nowhere. Neither when I'm talking about all games and you insist this would be only about AAA games.

... But when the absolute number is growing on our platform the absolute number is growing TENFOLD on that other platform. That's the point here. Steam grows! Steam gets more users overall, a few of them also on Linux, leading to our relative share of the market to stay stagnant.

You make a point about the absolute number like that's what matters in regards to supporting the platform - and it's not (from a market analyst perspective).

May I remind you that the theme here is, "Steam's top releases of May show why Steam Play is needed for Linux", with an accompanying discussion about whether or not Steam Play is a blessing or a curse in this respect. Would more of those games be made native if Steam Play wasn't there?
The myriad of indie devs, may the gods bless them of course, is simply not the topic. We got plenty indie devs. That part is pretty much covered.

The challenge ahead is to get the BIG companies to support Linux. Some here claim that thanks to Steam Play we will now never get that support. I claim that we will never get that support regardless, unless we get a SIGNIFICANT increase in market share. Like, up to at least TEN PERCENT. That massive jump. And that's totally unrealistic.

And THAT is why "Steam Play is needed for Linux".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SalvatosI think the ideology at our roots actually plays more of a role than we may sometimes admit. Just seeing Paradox recently saying that they will still consider porting future games to Linux on a case-by-case basis even though they have barely been turning a profit on them if at all, to me, is quite impressive. Many companies would (and have) just give up on us completely and choose easier ways to make more money (the DLC example being a very good one).

I'm not too much of an idealist, but in this case our track record shows that we can at least keep some hope alive despite slim odds :)

Absolutely. And I love that enthusiasm.
But I still think we need to "adjust our aim" a little bit in this case. I hate to see "friends" (fellow Linux gamers) having a downright unrealistic approach to this whole situation.

Speaking of idealism, what disappoints me personally the most these last years is that it doesn't seem like "Steam on Linux" was the big break for our ultimate dream, "the year of the Linux desktop" where we see a significant influx of new Linux desktop users. For a long time I expected we would see a good jump of Linux desktop users, primarily from users out there that are already familiar with Linux as a server OS, but used Windows on their desktops.

For me personally, with Steam and Bitwig (music production software) coming to Linux roughly at the same time it were the last two pieces missing before I could finally switch 100% to Linux, and I thought there were more people like me.
So that's been my disappointment in all this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinuxwarperApple's approach to gaming is quite hostile. Poor OpenGL support and have deprecated it in favor of Metal. Speaking of low level api, Vulkan isn't officially supported.
[...]
I think if there were less of these issues for Mac devices, they would get more support. Also Valve is quite committed to Linux. So they will most likely capitalize on marketshare, unlike Apple who are neglecting gaming.

Absolutely, and I did consider this when writing my comment. But I came to the conclusion that my point still stands in regards to the market share perspective.

If we had the same market share as Apple, I am one hundred percent convinced that the support for Linux would be higher than Apple, for the exact reasons you mention.

But my main point is to try to establish an understanding on just how small we are in this pond. That perspective is fundamental when considering the pros and cons for Steam Play.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlTotal number of Linux gamers affects sales, not market share. From what I've seen, total number of Linux gamers has been growing, year after year.

They are not two different things. It evens out since the larger platform they currently support have an even higher increase in numbers. Think about it: For the relative shares to remain the same, roughly a HUNDRED new Windows gamers must be added for every single Linux gamer. This is why the percentage number is what matters.

Supporting an entirely new platform is no small decision to make. It's not a "free" new group of potential customers.
To prepare their customer support (how many of those are well experienced with Linux, you think?), maintaining a second code branch, relate to bugs on one more platform... That is a massive decision. And you don't do that for a potential increase in sales of one percent.

I mean - why do we even discuss this? Just look at what's happened these years - or rather what's not happened. The industry is not made out of imbeciles. It's not like we sit here and have understood something that the entire industry has missed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeTo be precise, the amount of Linux gamers did rise - at a similar extend as the amount of Windows gamers.

You talk about decimals now, Eike. It's nothing. Nothing. You must focus on the broader picture and stop counting breadcrumbs. One percent market share is nothing, never was, never will be. Totally insignificant.

Mac is at, what, 6-7 % now? And they are barely supported more than us. And they are SEVEN TIMES larger.
When I talk about seeing changes in our market shares, I talk about changes counted in percent. Not per mille, so tiny that it becomes statistical insignificant.

When talking about market shares, we really should be talking in five percent intervals, rounded to nearest fiver. Windows is roughly 95%, Apple is roughly 5%, we are roughly 0%. That's how the decision makers see us.

I have to give it to you guys though: I kind of envy the confidence at display here. It takes SOME confidence to actually believe one has understood something that pretty much the entire multi-billion industry fails to see... ;)

Quoting: EikeYou did discuss this with the hundreds of developers doing Linux releases, didn't you?

Obviously you now are talking about indie devs. You really can not count a two-three man team and spare time single developers as the same as projects with hundreds of developers working for years. In this context they are irrelevant. They operate under a completely different cost VS gain scenario, and their projects are a lot less complex. A game is not a game on equal terms.

What we talk about here are the games that makes headlines and enter top seller lists. The big titles from the big developers. Those that do not support us today and that will not ever do that unless our share increase in a significant amount. That's where Steam Play has a role to play. Not to enable us to play yet another little indie.

Remember when the news broke about the Steam Machines and SteamOS and all that? All of a sudden we were promised a LOT of big titles. I'm sure you remember?
Now, why did that happen? It happened because they assumed that Linux would jump in market share to a level worth supporting.

That never happened - so the ports were then cancelled again. And our market share has not risen since then, not even by a mere percent.

Linuxwarper exemplified this by making a very good practical point:

Quoting: LinuxwarperThey earn more by spending the resources to make a DLC for Windows instead.

This is how market economics works. This is how a business must operate.

View this comment - View article - View full comments