Quoting: Liam DaweI just don't get the point of constantly reiterating the same argument about local play though? Stadia was never designed for that and likely never will offer it because ~95% of "PC" gamers wouldn't be able to use what it offers (Linux builds).

drlamb is IMO correct though on what they actually said. More services that work on Linux will help Linux. That shouldn't even be a debate. Faced with working and not working, the service working is a clear advantage. It's pretty weird to think it wouldn't help. Not liking it or not liking how it does it, is different to it not helping Linux gaming further when you look at the whole picture. The same way Proton helps people not lose access to existing games, Stadia helps people play the same games on their various devices as they do on Linux through streaming.

The reason I bring up local play is because I believe Stadia could hurt Linux as much as it helps it. With ChromeOS overtaking Linux and halting the platform's momentum. Yes, it does help Linux with giving you choice to play games that are otherwise unplayable. By also further improving the ecosystem with patches and new development.

Local ports shows how Stadia diverges from what is good for Linux. So Google's intention seem not to help Linux gaming, and in long run Stadia could do alot damage. Linux isn't in a dire situation. Things are improving thanks to Valve and Codeweavers. So we might be risking Linux's chance to be adopted more by using Stadia. If I worked for Google I would use Stadia to sell Chromebooks without even blinking. And when Chromebooks becomes as widespread as Windows, then we will have another competitor to Linux. Google would likely continue to push streaming only game development with Chromebooks, which would also conflict with the idea of Linux becoming popular and having many native local ports.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweIt is still pure an absolute conjecture. There are no facts at play here because a lot of games removed from GFN have not given statements as to why. Don't ever act like speculation is a fact, it doesn't make a good argument. There's a reason why GFN has moved to an opt-in basis now, because their original model was clearly not sitting well with a lot of developers.

Do you really think most developers will come out and say they have removed their game from Geforce Now because of Stadia? In the case of Bethesda, do you really think they will come out and say anything about favoring Stadia over Geforce Now? So why is it necessary for statements from developers before it becomes fact? If Nvidia solves issues devs have, which they have and are doing, will games like DOOM come back to Geforce? Most likely not and because of what I said. Time will tell if I am entirely wrong or not. I disagree that it's pure conjecture and leave it at that.

Quoting: Liam DaweWe're not talking about FOSS though. Steam is not FOSS, the majority of games we play are not FOSS. This is not a FOSS vs proprietary argument. GOL is also clearly not a FOSS-only website, the majority of what we cover is actually proprietary, just something to keep in mind there.

I guess bringing FOSS into the picture did not good for point I was trying to make. Though I like FOSS I'm not against proprietary software.

Quoting: Liam DaweYou used a good word there though: choices. Stadia is a choice, another one, and clearly for some people (me included) one that works quite well.

Better than that would be the choice to be able to play the games locally as well as by streaming it. But that does not fit into what Google is pushing with Stadia and ChromeOS. Most Chromebooks seem to be low spec and not well suited for local play.

Quoting: Liam DaweGoogle doesn't need to fund or encourage developers to release games locally and on Linux, why would they? That is entirely besides the point and frankly nonsense to bring up into the argument your trying to make. They run a streaming service, they're obviously focused on that. I guess you were trying to use that to back up your argument here but it's an obvious point about their business model so it fell quite flat.

They don't and I don't expect them to do either.

Quoting: Liam DaweYou have a point there of course. Google are not "proponents" of Linux gaming and I do agree, anyone saying so are wrong. They are now proponents of actual gaming as a whole though, and their service happens to work on Linux and be built with Linux

That my point, which I replied to drlamb who made it seem like Stadia will only help Linux gaming. I disagree and the fact Google is persuing only streaming is proof they want to grow their own gaming space. Which I believe will be Chromebooks running ChromeOS, not Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweThe thing is here though, Google funded Gylt development. It's no different than Valve or any other store/console funding their own games and keeping them to their store.

Did they? From what I gleaned it seemed like a partnership and less about Tequilla Works becoming a studio under Google.

GameSkinny: How long has GYLT been in production? Has it always been envisioned as a Stadia exclusive?

Raul Rubio: Around two years. GYLT was our answer when the Stadia team asked what could we bring to the platform then known as Yeti. There was a previous prototype version before Stadia, but GYLT has been designed with Stadia in mind.

Furthermore, Rubio heavily implied that Gylt will come to other platforms based on his answers to questions asked by Eurogamer [External Link]. The fact Google has funded development justifies Google's actions yes, but I don't see how it invalidates my point. Gylt would have been available on Steam and other platforms and playable through Proton if it wasn't for it's exclusivity deal regardless of how it would have turned out without Google's funding.

Quoting: drlambThis is pure conjecture. Nvidia themselves have admitted they needed to work out licensing with publishers. Streaming is a new territory.

Pure conjecture, really? DOOM are among the games removed from GeforceNow. It's known Bethesda are a key player for Stadia. Yet those very same games can be streamed through Remote Play. It's not exactly the same, as you use your own PC, but ultimately you have paid for those games and with Geforce Now you are paying for a service to be able to stream them. Clearly there is licensing to be done, but it seems this became a issue mostly with arrival of Stadia.

And so I disagree. Saying what I said about Stadia making devs remove their game from Geforce Now is pure conjecture because there is licensing issues isn't convincing argument. Because of timing I pointed out, and because publishers and devs can redo their licensing. Except many of them likely won't. Why? Because Google and Stadia will be more lucrative to them than allowing gamers the freedom to stream their games through Geforce Now, a service they aren't currently getting money from.

Quoting: drlambI don't use Windows nor do I want to rent a Windows machine in the cloud just to play a game. GeforceNow is NOT Linux gaming even if it can be accessed via Linux (which atm, it cannot). How does buying a game on steam via GeforceNow benefit Linux gaming at all? Sure, you may eventually be able to access GFN on Linux but a game purchased there will still count as a Windows sale.

I did not bring up Windows to try persuade you to use Windows. What differentiates Linux and Windows more than anything? FOSS. It's not in line with FOSS principles or Linux spirit to remove games from a streaming service so that another one dominates. I'd argue Stadia isn't Linux gaming either. It's Google gaming. Just because Stadia is powered by Debian it does not make it FOSS. If it did, we would have seen Google being proactive about persuading developers to release their games locally too on Linux. Choices, that's another word that sums up Linux.
But Google has not encouraged or funded developers to release their games locally too. Their intention is clear; streaming is way they want it. That's choice your given, take it or leave it.

Metro Exodus is coming to desktop Linux. Discounting any exclusivity deals with google it's up to the developers/publishers. I'd argue that Epic store exclusive games for games/series (Metro) that would have otherwise come to steam/desktop Linux is more harmful to our goal (of Linux gaming). Google is one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel/open source in general. While not 100% gaming related, they still do contribute to the platform.

If you trace back Metro release on Linux, it was released alongside Steam machines. Publisher saw a interest in Steam machines and invested. Prior to that, Metro 2033, was not released on Linux alongside other platforms. The fact Metro Exodus is being released on Linux is credit to the developers, not Google. Half Life Alyx and Underlords being released on Linux is credit to Valve. Recently Exodus was released on GOG as well, which further proves the good intentions (Linux and DRMfree release) are with the devs not Google.

Just because Google is contributing to Linux kernel/open source it does not mean they are proponents of Linux gaming. They are of Google/ChromeOS gaming. There lies the difference. Should I start thinking Microsoft is good for desktop Linux simply because they use Linux and are contributing software (open source) to areas that benefits their business? No, they are in it for their own interest, just like Google. Stadia is streaming only service for similar reason many Microsoft apps are not on Linux, and DirectX is only available for WSL2.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: drlambHere's my thoughts on why I use Stadia. Stadia is Linux and DOES help Linux gaming. It's up to developers/publishers to bring their games to desktop Linux.

It also hurts Linux gaming too and could become a big threat to Linux adoption via ChromeOS in future. In your post you said native port is better than a proton release, and a supported Proton is better than a Stadia release. Gylt, a indie game, is exclusive to Stadia but will likely come to Steam. If it was already on Steam, you could most likely be able to play it exceptionally well with Proton. If it wasn't exclusive to Stadia, it could also potentially be released natively by developers themselves or by Ethan Lee porting the game.

Moreover PC gaming encompasses all major OSes. On Windows Stadia has made developers remove their games from Geforce Now. Why is this important? Well if Geforce Now was available on Linux, and it's possible it will be (with Valve's encouraging Nvidia), all those games being removed from the streaming service would have affected Linux users too. Geforce Now was launched 2015, Stadia 2019. In 2020 was when most publishers and developers started removing their games from Geforce Now.

Stadia games being released natively for Linux would work against Stadia. Google wants people to stream their games with Stadia, not play them locally. You could be lenient on Google and say Valve isn't encouraging developers to release their games on Linux, so Google should be in the clear, except Valve has released their games natively for Linux and are making big contributions to the platform.

EDIT: You are partially right though in saying it does help Linux through Vulkan adoption. But I could and have argued the opposite of that statement too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm actually hoping for ChromeOS to prosper. Oh, sure, it's not precisely Linux--but it's a lot closer than Android. It's basically Linux crippled. For Google to expand it beyond its niche, one thing they'll probably need to do is expand its capabilities by bringing more of Linux back in. It's going to be really hard for them to end up with a ChromeOS that runs things that can't be made to run in Linux. The bottom line for me is, growth in ChromeOS reduces the effectiveness of Windows lock-in and network effects, and does so with an OS that is basically Linux.
And as you note, it is currently smaller than Linux proper. It is blocked by the same lock-out barriers Linux is blocked by, and unless and until it gets a far, far larger market share its expansion is going to have to involve getting rid of them for all, not just for ChromeOS. When you're tiny and try to create lock-in, you just get whacked by the network effects of the bigger fish--you actually lock yourself out.
So looking at Stadia--sure, Stadia is potentially a tool for growing ChromeOS. But it is to the exact same extent a tool for growing Linux, and for that matter MacOS. And it's going to have to stay that way to work; they might be able to close it down and exclude other platforms if ChromeOS gets to, I dunno, 30% of the desktop. Talk to me again when we're in that kind of territory. In the mean time, Stadia is a cross-platform thing and an illustration of the kinds of tactics Google will need to use to grow ChromeOS, which are essentially the same ones proper Linux tends to use--encouraging cross-platform things so that the playing field with Windows is more level.

I think Linux has a real chance to be used more with things are going, with Proton, Valve and Vulkan. If ChromeOS is marketed towards gamers more heavily, it will without a doubt take users away from proper Linux. At same time you could be right, the hold Microsoft has on the industry could be to hard to break with Valve alone.I find it hard to believe that Ubisoft chose Vulkan for their games simply because of performance it gave. Stadia had to be another reason why they chose it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Patola* jealous of AMD GPU owners * :dizzy:

Get GreenwithEnvy!:P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest@linuxwarper, thank you for that awesome writeup :).

Glad that my points came across the way I meant them to:) Those are my concerns for Stadia. But as has been stated many times, Stadia is good in that it will help Vulkan adoption. It also can improve Linux ecosystem, with more work being done for issues Google has with running Stadia servers (It's Debian), which could came back to benefiting the platform as a whole.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm hoping whatever Valve is cooking with Steam Cloud will be a improved Remote Play. That is what I will be using. I don't think Geforce Now will be only stream service with Steam Cloud. I won't be using Geforce Now nor Stadia.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestGotcha, but I was expanding on your points to the common issue I read. Linux does flourish, in fact its growing, just not perhaps in areas you're aware of. Last I checked PC gaming itself was shrinking and if you're looking at just numbers, are you will to invest in an OS that's very muddy when it comes to future projections? I know Steam is helping here, but it may take awhile longer to have a case made.

What will happen to that growth and momentum if another propietary OS (ChromeOS) outgrows Linux? Google has the money to sell laptops (they already are) with ChromeOS installed. It could lead to another OS for Linux to compete with. With Stadia I believe Google has a strong case to gain marketshare. And that's just one service that Google has.

Quoting: GuestThat's quite rude, wanting for better wording? I gave you a point that you missed, not having to download extra libraries, drivers, proton, Valve etc. it a lot easier if you're wanting to jump right in with streaming that Staida provides, this attracts people who don't think about the angle you're coming from. Other streaming services may not so friendly to what we have on Linux, if I recall Geforce Now

I meant that Stadia can lead to ChromeOS success. And if we aren't careful we might end up contributing to ChromeOS far more than to Linux. There are already ChromeOS laptops on the market, and Google has had moderate success with them. If they make a bigger move to promote ChromeOS for gaming, it will outshine Linux.
ChromeOS comes with specs that are in line with the things you said Stadia doesn't need. Storage, memory, software etc. And ChromeOS is preinstalled on these laptops.

Quoting: GuestI don't like exclusives like that on any platform, Epic Store is a prime example, plus if you're into consoles you know they each have their exclusive games too. It's called competition however, of course they want it to be dominant, and is it OK if the exclusive isn't permanent?

It's a poor excuse for competition. Actual competition would be Google leveraging the benefits of Cloud to attract players to Stadia. Features like what they did with Ghost Recon (split screen cam views of fellow players). No, I don't find it OK. Because if you accept exclusivity they will continue to stretch that. It's OK if it's first party titles that Google themselves have developed from start to finish, but I wouldn't put it past companies like Google to pay for permanent exclusivity for third party games. If you accept a limited time exclusivity, they could move the goal post. Now the game is exclusive to Stadia on ChromeOS. It seems like a absurd thought, but that I think can surely happen if it becomes popular enough and Google has enough leeway to do that.

Quoting: GuestIsn't it already like that with Linux, go to GOG for example, are they fully supportive of Linux? Last I checked their launcher did not support Linux. I would argue with Valve's work on Linux/Proton we're better off now than ever before with the ability to play almost anywhere. Is Steam DRM? The effects with Stadia is unknown at this time, but again I get to play on Linux wherever I want and I am not limited to ChromeOS...Honestly, I can't blame developers wanting DRM, this is unpopular, but I know too many people, usually not linux ones weirdly lol, who are quick to pirate when they can.

GOG isn'tfully supportive no, but they do support Linux.They reported that their business was not doing so well. And in light of this, they had to drop a monetary benefit that buyers in certain region had. In other words, they dropped that benefit for all users (not just Linux) because they had to. It proves that they may be more restrained by costs than anything else. Ultimately they do support Linux, but more importantly they don't try to harm the platform.

Steam has DRM yes, but there are a big list of games that are DRM free. And Valve has not, to my knowledge, encouraged developers to add Denuvo to their games. And reason why Steam and Valve are not a issue is because they have been supporting us in so many ways over the years.

Quoting: GuestOverall though, I simply don't fully agree with your assessment, but time may and perhaps will tell one way or another.

According to netmarketshare [External Link], ChromeOS is at 0.42%. How accurate that number is, is for another discussion. But that's not far from Linux's 1.89%. Google has the brands and money. They have said they want to enter gaming space and use Youtube to promote Stadia. If they make a major push for gaming on ChromeOS with Stadia laptops, what do you think that will do to Linux? Do you think average users will think "I'll install Linux on my ChromeOS laptop and enjoy Linux gamin with Stadia"? No, they will stick to ChromeOS, and why not? From what I've heard they don't seem like bad laptops.

I could be entirely wrong in my thinking. But I find that the puzzles all line up perfectly for such business strategy, if that's what Google intends with ChromeOS and Stadia.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerBut what it does do is force developers to learn how to make their games work on Linux with Vulkan - since that's necessary for a game to work on Stadia - and Google will provide resources to help them do that. What the developers do with that knowledge and the product they've created after that is down to the developers. Many are going to shy away from the (real or perceived) costs of supporting actual Linux versions on actual customers' hardware, but they'll all have learned how to make games without Windows and without DirectX, which has been a barrier in the past.

Yes, this is the only reason I am glad Stadia exists.

Quoting: CatKillerWhether a move to streaming is good or bad for gaming as a whole in the long run, it's too early to say. It opens up gaming to people whose Internet is better than their hardware, which might increase the size of the market so that more people can make more games. Geforce Now doesn't tie purchasers to one provider, but it does tie game developers to Windows; Stadia is the other way round, and Google's reputation for dropping services does hurt them. There are things like anti-cheat and enormous worlds that are easier to do "in the cloud" than locally. But there is less (real or perceived) ownership with streaming than local installs. It could shake out as good, bad, or neutral over all.

That streaming is good and has benefits is undeniable. I am not questioning that for a second. When I say streaming will harm PC gaming I am thinking of all the bad practices that will be baked into Stadia. We have already seen signs of these practices. Games being removed from Geforce Now, exclusive deals and Stadia not providing local play release. As you pointed out Google will pay developers to not release their games locally if it will help Stadia. And have they already not done that? Isn't Gylt currently exclusive to Stadia? So already today we see the signs of damage to PC gaming.

Quoting: CatKillerPersonally, I'm more interested in a streaming service from Valve than anything that exists now. They have a better reputation for longevity than Google and they have a long-term investment in desktop Linux as a gaming platform. But it doesn't exist yet, except as speculation.

Me too. I've already tested Remote Play, and it was OK experience. According to a post I came across the streaming is not as good on AMDGPUs as it is on Nvidia because of some encoding thing. I'm eagerly waiting for that to happen, if it happens at all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments