If a company isn’t willing to support steam deck/Linux through an easier support option like proton, I highly doubt they’ll be willing to support it with higher effort native ports.
As a hardcore Linux fan, the only way I see game devs publishing native Linux ports is when when it has a >30% market share.
But I’m pretty sure the publishers will still come up with excuses like “The Linux platform is uncontrollable; there is no way to verify the platform integrity because everyone has root”
As a hardcore Linux fan, the only way I see game devs publishing native Linux ports is when when it has a >30% market share.
For Valve Linux isn’t just another OS. It’s their Steam Deck platform which they could promote towards publishers the same way as console makers promote their platforms. This story once again shows that chasing Windows compatibility without using Windows is a stepping stone but not the final answer.
We don’t need native Linux ports. Valve already created Linux compatible DRM anti-cheat and I’d be surprised if they weren’t pressuring publishers to use it at all.
I really don’t know what more they can do, other than refusing to sell games that don’t work on Linux, which would obviously hurt them very badly, considering that makes up ~2% of their customers.
The cost to maintain “native” ports is too high to make sense for most developers.
PS:
Proton also makes it easier to preserve games since an “native” port would become incompatible overtime without work to adapt the software to changes in the system it’s running.
The cost to maintain “native” ports is too high to make sense for most developers.
If that was the case, no console ports would exist, except maybe Xbox because Xbox uses modified Windows internally.
Proton also makes it easier to preserve games since an “native” port would become incompatible overtime without work to adapt the software to changes in the system it’s running.
Inform yourself what Steam Linux Runtime is before making such comments. You are 100% wrong.
How fucking idiot would you have to be to complain about users sending bug reports. Linux users usually send very detailed bug reports, which can uncover bugs that might happen on all platforms.
Yes Linux users generate great reports because they care and usually are more knowledgeable.
But treat the reports cost time and work, and usually this problems will not happen for the majority of their use base.
So, as the company, you can have 0.1% of your sales generating 20% of extra work that will not benefit 99.9% of the users. It is easier and cheaper to cut that group (us Linux users) instead of support.
I understand people not wanting to support Linux, that’s fine. But complaining like that guy did is just stupid. Complains about auto-generated bug reports from people that play the game and then complains about that same group of people of participating in the forums. 🤦
He should have complained to the graphics hardware manufacturers and pushed to get them to release more open source drivers for their hardware. Instead, he bitches about Linux instead of the problem root.
Instead, he bitches about Linux instead of the problem root.
Game company funds through Kickstarter.
Game company reaches goal from taking money from Linux users.
Game company releases a shoddy port that crashes
Sales data shows that customers don’t wanna buy a separate SKU of a game that crashes all the time
*LInUx bAd!!!*
Also this is a Steam Deck community. It should be obvious that all discussion around native games centers around stable Steam Deck hardware specs, SteamOS, and the Steam Linux Runtime container solution for games released on Steam, not some buggy (and mediocre) game from a literal decade ago released as tar.gz file into the wild.
Inform yourself what Steam Linux Runtime is before making such comments. You are 100% wrong.
If a game depends on an API and this API gets discontinued, without adaptation it will have problems. That’s true for any software and any system. As a compatibility layer, Proton can keep old games compatible despite the system changes when it translates the API calls that the games depend on to what the base system has to offer.
(I’m not talking necessarily of a game running on Steam in this case)
So you’re too lazy to read up on Steam Linux Runtimes and expect me to explain it to you? SLR 1.0 Scout keeps full binary compatibility to Ubuntu 12.04, so 12 years already. SLR APIs don’t change. That’s the point. Get a clue.
You are getting downvoted by people that have no idea how software development and maintence works.
Every feature cost. More than most people realise. Both in development time and to maintain it over time and releases. It all adds up, not saying EA are correct in not supporting it. But to think it is free is just incorrect.
They made a business decision to not support it. We think it is the wrong decision, but it is ultimately theirs to make.
Games made in Unity or Unreal Engine literally do not require any additional effort from the developer aside from choosing Linux as the build target from a drop-down menu. So native Linux ports of UE and Unity games cost virtually nothing.
You still need to keep supporting it for future releases, make sure it actually works and not just builds, test, update QA pipeline, tell support, etc etc
Did anybody say that making Linux ports is free? I certainly didn’t. I said that native Linux ports lead to a better consumer experience which cannot be denied as seen with the submitted story about the Rally game.
Also Arthur made his obliviousness regarding Steam Linux Runtimes very clear by claiming that they were affected by changing Linux APIs all the time. That claim is just factually wrong.
That seems to be the general atmosphere, “leaving money”. They probably analysed it and thought it wasn’t worth the effort. Companies like to make money after all.
They probably analysed it and thought it wasn’t worth the effort. Companies like to make money after all.
If all the economic news from the games industry from the last year or so should have taught you anything: No. Shortsighted whims of shareholders are not proper financial analysis. The same people who also concluded years ago that leaving Steam and going exclusively to Origin was a good idea are definitively not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Yet another proof that Proton is a great stop-gap solution but Valve should be pushing game publishers to make native Linux ports.
If a company isn’t willing to support steam deck/Linux through an easier support option like proton, I highly doubt they’ll be willing to support it with higher effort native ports.
As a hardcore Linux fan, the only way I see game devs publishing native Linux ports is when when it has a >30% market share.
But I’m pretty sure the publishers will still come up with excuses like “The Linux platform is uncontrollable; there is no way to verify the platform integrity because everyone has root”
For Valve Linux isn’t just another OS. It’s their Steam Deck platform which they could promote towards publishers the same way as console makers promote their platforms. This story once again shows that chasing Windows compatibility without using Windows is a stepping stone but not the final answer.
Valve isn’t promoting native ports in the first place and suits only know “Works with Windows games, we don’t need to care about details”.
They already tried that in the Steam Machines era. It clearly wasn’t working.
Steam Deck is way more successful than 3rd party Steam Machines. The comparison makes zero sense because it ignores all developments since then.
It would be just as (un)popular as the Steam Machines if it wasn’t for Proton, that’s my whole point.
Which part of “Proton is a great stop-gap solution” makes you think I’m opposed to Proton?
They would still want kernel level anti-cheat in that case.
We don’t need native Linux ports. Valve already created Linux compatible DRM anti-cheat and I’d be surprised if they weren’t pressuring publishers to use it at all.
I really don’t know what more they can do, other than refusing to sell games that don’t work on Linux, which would obviously hurt them very badly, considering that makes up ~2% of their customers.
The cost to maintain “native” ports is too high to make sense for most developers.
PS: Proton also makes it easier to preserve games since an “native” port would become incompatible overtime without work to adapt the software to changes in the system it’s running.
If that was the case, no console ports would exist, except maybe Xbox because Xbox uses modified Windows internally.
Inform yourself what Steam Linux Runtime is before making such comments. You are 100% wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18845205
How fucking idiot would you have to be to complain about users sending bug reports. Linux users usually send very detailed bug reports, which can uncover bugs that might happen on all platforms.
*publisher disables crash reporter*
Well, that’s even worse. You are auto-generating bug reports and complaining about the users that send those reports 🤦
Yes Linux users generate great reports because they care and usually are more knowledgeable.
But treat the reports cost time and work, and usually this problems will not happen for the majority of their use base.
So, as the company, you can have 0.1% of your sales generating 20% of extra work that will not benefit 99.9% of the users. It is easier and cheaper to cut that group (us Linux users) instead of support.
I understand people not wanting to support Linux, that’s fine. But complaining like that guy did is just stupid. Complains about auto-generated bug reports from people that play the game and then complains about that same group of people of participating in the forums. 🤦
Ports aren’t individual products on Steam.
He should have complained to the graphics hardware manufacturers and pushed to get them to release more open source drivers for their hardware. Instead, he bitches about Linux instead of the problem root.
Game company funds through Kickstarter.
Game company reaches goal from taking money from Linux users.
Game company releases a shoddy port that crashes
Sales data shows that customers don’t wanna buy a separate SKU of a game that crashes all the time
*LInUx bAd!!!*
Also this is a Steam Deck community. It should be obvious that all discussion around native games centers around stable Steam Deck hardware specs, SteamOS, and the Steam Linux Runtime container solution for games released on Steam, not some buggy (and mediocre) game from a literal decade ago released as tar.gz file into the wild.
If a game depends on an API and this API gets discontinued, without adaptation it will have problems. That’s true for any software and any system. As a compatibility layer, Proton can keep old games compatible despite the system changes when it translates the API calls that the games depend on to what the base system has to offer. (I’m not talking necessarily of a game running on Steam in this case)
So, enlighten me, where am I wrong?
So you’re too lazy to read up on Steam Linux Runtimes and expect me to explain it to you? SLR 1.0 Scout keeps full binary compatibility to Ubuntu 12.04, so 12 years already. SLR APIs don’t change. That’s the point. Get a clue.
You are getting downvoted by people that have no idea how software development and maintence works.
Every feature cost. More than most people realise. Both in development time and to maintain it over time and releases. It all adds up, not saying EA are correct in not supporting it. But to think it is free is just incorrect.
They made a business decision to not support it. We think it is the wrong decision, but it is ultimately theirs to make.
Games made in Unity or Unreal Engine literally do not require any additional effort from the developer aside from choosing Linux as the build target from a drop-down menu. So native Linux ports of UE and Unity games cost virtually nothing.
You still need to keep supporting it for future releases, make sure it actually works and not just builds, test, update QA pipeline, tell support, etc etc
Did anybody say that making Linux ports is free? I certainly didn’t. I said that native Linux ports lead to a better consumer experience which cannot be denied as seen with the submitted story about the Rally game.
Also Arthur made his obliviousness regarding Steam Linux Runtimes very clear by claiming that they were affected by changing Linux APIs all the time. That claim is just factually wrong.
That seems to be the general atmosphere, “leaving money”. They probably analysed it and thought it wasn’t worth the effort. Companies like to make money after all.
If all the economic news from the games industry from the last year or so should have taught you anything: No. Shortsighted whims of shareholders are not proper financial analysis. The same people who also concluded years ago that leaving Steam and going exclusively to Origin was a good idea are definitively not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Everybody has the right to be wrong I guess xD