I'm with Valve on this. They offer alot for us consumers. To name one, on consoles you have to pay for the online service. For most big companies I don't really care. They detract more from gaming than add to it. These companies that I have in mind are ones that are likely to abuse purpose of Steam Play by not using developing their games natively for Linux if a time comes when we have market share. They are the ones that want better condition for themselves, more money, but then don't give a damn about linux gamers even when situation allows them to do so with little cost (e.g Doom and Bethesda/Zenimax). They are the ones that divide us on hardware and software platforms through exclusivity deals instead of uniting us. They will claim to set a precedent with the 12-88 split, that a new age of better prices for PC gamers will come. As "developers" will pass on the savings.

They are the developers who cheer Google on when they announce their Stadia announcement. And as they cheer them on, many of them probably don't think "This great. I can now also justify a Linux port because Stadia and Linux are in same pool". Excuse me but I don't care that much about devs except those who I know are worthy of praise. Why should I care about fairness in relation to the split when they don't care about me as a gamer? That said, I do think Valve's 30% for indies is not fair. For the bigger companies, I think it's justified.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestAbsolutely agreed.

I also forgot to mention another benefit of Wine in general (and I'll stick to writing "Wine" because this applies outside of Steam) and that's for archival. Old games, some even with GNU/Linux native versions, may not run properly on modern systems. Wine helps resolve that in some cases, similar to dosbox, though I daresay with increasing complexity of larger modern games this won't be as viable in the future.

...of course source code would be even better, but hey, that's orthogonal to the conversation really.

Indeed. I hope though that Steam Play can be able to achieve its goal of increasing market share before it's effort is shutdown by companies like Microsoft putting in software in games that will make the games not run as good as they do currently. That is my only concern for Steam Play. Otherwise I am optimistic that in long run (three years from now) the market share will surely have increased.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestThere are other reasons for not wanting to rely on Wine for gaming, even if Vulkan is used natively (by the way, a Stadia port does not mean a Windows version will also use Vulkan - in fact, there's very little chance of that if the Windows version is using DX11 or DX12).

Ancillary benefits from natively developed games include: better tooling, more stable drivers, investment in resolving certain compatibility problems, non-reliance on Microsoft, different compilers (often can spot problems, so I would imagine a Stadia port would help here as well as native for desktop GNU/Linux), possible peripheral devices being better supported (if more native games exist, and market share grows), etc.

But of course Wine (and anything based off it), eON, dosbox, etc, all help individuals play games they want without locking themselves into Windows. So it's very important to have that.

Basically there is _plenty_ of room for both native and wrapped games, and both are absolutely needed.

It goes without saying that native ports is the ultimate outcome. But market share must be higher for that to happen. Even if we reach market share that rivals Mac, developers could be lazy and rely on Steam Play for easy money. So I expect gaming on Linux will go through a phase of many games being played through Steam Play. And if that is what we have to settle with, until market share is so significant they can't neglect us anymore, then I hope the developers at least ensure best possible compliance with Steam Play (Vulkan, no drm, no middleware etc).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomBut 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.

Definitely we are small. Even if we do get 5% marketshare and the game in question will be supported on Stadia, companies like EA may take the lazy route and not release a native port and let Steam Play do the work for them. But even if they take that route, as long as Vulkan is available for SteamPlay for games it will still add tremendously to Linux. There is barely any difference between a native Vulkan game and one that runs through Steam Play. It's not even close to as pronounced as running game on Steam Play through DXVK.

I am optimistic about 2020. I just hope Valve can resolve anti cheat before end of year.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomMac is at, what, 6-7 % now? And they are barely supported more than us. And they are SEVEN TIMES larger.

Apple'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. Furthermore you can buy a IMac 27 inch with 5k Retina display, Radeon Pro 570x 4GB, 1TB Fusion drive and 8GB 2666 memory for $1800 or you can build a better gaming PC yourself for $945 [External Link]. Granted that build doesn't have a 5K display but for major games you can't expect such a Radeon Pro 570x to keep up with 5K.

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuySee, this is the assumption I question--that if we just make things better, people will just automatically switch and our share will increase. If we build it they will come.
They probably won't. Oh, there will be a few, there have already been a few and there will be a few more. But that's at the level of anecdotes, not percentages. In the economy we have, and with people being what people are, just having a better technology or even a better product overall is not enough. You can't switch to something you've never heard of, and most people don't even get the concept that "switching" is a thing; they see a computer as an appliance that comes a certain way and that's how it is.
What I think is true is that if the technology is good enough, like Proton works on most games and so on, then something like a Steam Machine which was not really viable years ago becomes viable. So if someone with money and marketing muscle makes some kind of push for something involving Linux, Linux will be a vehicle that can take them to the finish line. That's what makes Steamplay important.

There are alot PC gamers. Many of them are aware of Linux and that you can switch to it. Those who don't will be guided by them. Awareness about Linux will then grow alongside our marketshare.
But before anything can happen Linux must be able to run most if not all games. So important issues like EAC and BattleEye working with wine needs to be resolved.
Your points are valid. Alot people don't know about Linux or even that they can switch. But if Linux becomes even better than it currently is, then PC gamers will be first wave to get news about it and switch. That first wave of people will create a buzz, and that will further help.

But you are right, we need someone with money and marketing muscle to push Linux, when the time you can play almost all your games on it. I hope Valve will do that. Until that, the progress will be slow. I really believe people will switch. If they don't know about Linux they will through word of mouth. But the most crucial thing is that games must work. If it doesn't people will switch and not be happy and switch back. Foundation has to be solid as it is with some games running through Proton (Doom, Witcher 3, etc).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LeopardAbout Doom 2016: id Software was releasing unofficial Linux binaries until Bethesda/Zenimax acquired them. Thing is ; SteamPlay showed that maybe the most important case here is using a native graphics api exists on Linux. Wine can cover other needs. I bought Doom on this Grand Prix Sale and it works awesome. So really nothing changed. You were not getting support from id for unofficial binaries , same with SteamPlay case.

Ashes of Singularity: They're working on Linux port.Iirc , they have no experience on Linux at all. So it is very normal it takes time.

Still, if Linux was profitable enough they would have supported us officially seeing as Doom uses Vulkan already. I have no complaints about running DOOM through Proton, I was just making point that if Linux was worth porting to Bethesda/Zenimax would do it. One thing that would contradict that is notion that Bethesda/Zenimax may be relying on Proton to get money from us, but E3 and Stadia proves that Linux isn't considered (even with Vulkan).

For Ashes, that's also a good point. But it's been so long now. On Steam they asked for people to express their interest as part of their consideration for porting to Linux. If it was profitable, they would not need to be convinced.

Bottomline is: Either Linux is profitable but it's not as profitable as making a DLC for Windows. Whether it's one or the other, we will only get things changed if our marketshare increases. There used to be a big barrier to Linux, games not working and you had to tinker alot with Wine, Proton removed that. Now many games work and people have switched, ditched dual or stayed on Linux as result of that. The next barrier that's being worked on is anticheat. Then many of the multiplayer games will work, and more people will switch over. Then the train continues, and the more progress is made the more viable platform Linux becomes. One last comment: Steam being on Linux is not the same as whole Steam catalogue being playable on Linux. So of course it hasn't made significant impact.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWithout choosing sides (I haven't dug enough into evidence, data sets, etc, myself yet to make a judgement), quite often there's also the case that supporting GNU/Linux might be profitable, but not quite as profitable as putting that same investment back into the original platform, or to a console, or better marketing.

Then it comes down to it not being profitable enough. I did express that in my posts, that they could use the money to make DLC for Windows and get more.
No matter the outcome it comes down to the marketshare. And that's the issue that needs to be adressed, and I think Valve is adressing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestUh no, the AAA games we have on Linux were not for charity or good will, we have proof that the work done releasing for and supporting Linux was compensated for.

Fact is if Linux was profitable for triple A and indie AAA (as Ninja Theory calls it), then we would see more than two AAA games for Linux at E3. One of them, the Borderlands DLC isn't even confirmed, I just included it just because Liam implied it would come because of Aspyr. So tell me again if Linux is profitable:
where is Ashes of Singularity. It's been two years. Where is Doom 2016? The port is basically done. Do you really believe those in charge of Doom would not port it to Linux if they could make more money?
Just because Linux has AAA games it does not prove that it's sustainable business as a whole. The sooner you realize that the sooner Linux gaming will be better because of it.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe rest of what he said is pretty frightening though. He seems quite definite that Linux gaming is shrinking over time. This over a time period when on a technical level, near as I can figure out Linux has been significantly improving as a gaming platform.
We may need Proton, and Stadia I guess, more than I thought.

It seems quite evident to me. With some exceptions and indies Linux isn't profitable.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'd certainly love to see that Windows 7--> Linux migration scenario materialize. But I've seen a couple of other "This MS screw-up should drive people our way" events that never worked out, so I dunno. Time will tell.

I think for that to be effective couple things needs to be in order: anti cheat (EAC and BattleEye), even more driver improvements and gamers on Linux doing free ad campaign for Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWe have "AAA" games on Linux right now, so no more proof is needed. That's why you should ask for more, not that merely asking is always going to work but sometimes it can.

There are AAA games that are profitable on Linux (Feral). But in general they seem not to be. Having many AAA games doesn't prove they are profitable. It means they came to Linux for a reason other than it being profitable, goodwill or company seeing potential in a new market. Metro Last Light for example was ported because of Steam Machines. That port is now crap compared to running it through Proton. Now why is Metro Exodus not on Linux? Why isn't Doom 2016, that had internal linux build, not released? Why is..??

Let me prove my point with something else. Out of all games from E3 2019, coming to Linux, only two of them are triple A. One of them is Wastelands 3, the other is Borderlands Lilith. If Linux is profitable and worth doing a port for, why was it only two games ?

I'll say it again, we have no basis to make demands. We will when our marketshare grows big enough. Proton will help with that. There is a opportunity though. With games being made for Stadia, and Paradox devs have confirmed that Stadia is similar to Linux, that means devs will get more experience with Linux code. There is also Vulkan. This means adapting the stadia version to Linux should cost much less than porting a game with DX11 to Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments