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

Quoting: GuestYou should direct asking for Linux support to all devs that have games that you'd like to support.

Why should I? I know better than that. Linux port isn't profitable enough or worth doing. Instead of making a native port they can make a DLC and get much more money out of it. Then they can use that money to nurture their company.
To begin with, many developers use DX. That already kills prospect of game being ported to Linux. If they chose to do it, it will be a uphill battle not only because of the api but because of their lack of experience with Linux. And there there is that Linux isn't completely polished from a desktop and driver point of view.

Let's use Cyberpunk 2077 as example. It's not been revealed what api they have used. But assuming they are using DX11...for them to port such a massive game to Linux would be a huge mistake business wise. With GOG store they are already struggling. To port Cyberpunk to Linux would costs alot. And for what? 1%? The cost probably far outweighs the outcome.

Until Linux reaches a marketshare that justifies porting a game, I will be grateful with devs supporting Linux by ensuring great compatibility with Proton. It costs little for them to do so and it will give great experience if they use Vulkan.
The fact you don't comprehend that we can't demand native games because our marketshare can't back it up. You make game to sell it and profit. Linux isn't profitable for many games. To change that we need more users on Linux. But users don't come because Linux doesn't have games. So devs don't make games because there aren't enough users and users don't switch because there isn't even close to same amount of games as on Windows.

If Proton starts working with BattleEye and EAC, and more devs adopt Vulkan for their games, I promise you...many users will switch. And the marketshare increasing will go faster than it is at the moment.

On a other note: Maybe we can get Tomb Raider with Vulkan since it's going to be put on Stadia. Making the work for Feral easier. I can't wait for that :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestNumbers of Linux gamers or subscribers to whatever website increasing has no effect on Linux games if the demand for Linux games isn't also increasing.

I wasn't arguing that it does. But it clearly shows that Valve's involvement with Linux is working to bring users to the platform. And it will only go up when they further polished Proton and Linux desktop and make anticheat work with Proton. Proton is still not complete. But even in it's incomplete state it has persuaded alot people to stay on/switch to Linux. Infact, I might have changed back to Windows if it wasn't for Proton.

If there is one thing I agree with you on, it is that you should ask for Linux port. But you should direct it at developers supporting Stadia and indie devs. Indie devs because their game is easier to port because of scale of the game. Stadia developers because Vulkan is used and Paradox has said there are also other aspects that Stadia shares with Linux. Vulkan and Linux similarity reduces cost for the port. Asking or demanding a port from devs that won't be using Vulkan is futile. They can use the money instead to make a dlc and get more returns from Windows.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Linux_gaming suscribers is on the rise. I'd argue its because of Proton:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: GuestI've said it before and I will say it again, "no tux no bucks" does more harm than good and this shows why

No Tux No Bux is exactly what we need more of so that we get more Linux support. We want to be Linux gamers and help the Linux support ecosystem, not Windows gamers helping the Windows support ecosystem.

I disagree strongly. It may be that No Tux No Bux is effective for indie games, but for major games it means nothing.

Imagine the scenario that 10 big companies, Ubisoft and EA to name two, release 10 major games on Linux. As it is we are already at 1%, so few buyers. Then those 10 companies's games have to compete against eachother to get your money. There are other factors too such as maybe the game being released doesn't interest the linux user.
Anyone with common sense will know that "No Tux No Bux" is not effective when it comes to semi major to major games. If I remember correctly Feral even expressed that they are able to do what they do because they are one of few companies catering to Linux. The more big companies support Linux with their games the less profit, and as it is Linux is already not profitable enough with few actors in the playground!

There may come a time when "No Tux No Bux" will have more meaning behind it, and that is when Linux reaches marketshare that makes native ports worth funding. Until that time "No Tux No Bux" is as far as I understand it meaningless.

View this comment - View article - View full comments