Gaming on Linux [news and developments]

+
If you are somehow expecting the SteamOS version to come out before SteamBox does or at the very least until Steam OS get's out of beta then I think you're quite mistaken.

Do you mean the unconfirmed Witcher 3 Linux version, or other games? Releasing for SteamOS doesn't limit developers from releasing it for Linux before Steam Machines are officially launched.

Many developers develop for Linux already now and it's not up to you to call them not real - you aren't their peer. Anyway, those who are funded by publishers don't even make such choice. Their bosses decide for them. And the number of publishers who fund Linux development is growing.

Whether you like it or not, Linux as a gaming platform is advancing rapidly. You can talk about "real" developers all you want, but development happens in real life and now.
 
Last edited:
Whether you like it or not, Linux as a gaming platform is advancing rapidly. You can talk about "real" developers all you want, but development happens in real life and now.

When you've got at least a dozen AAA games on Linux give me a call until then I will continue calling your propaganda for what it is: Wishful thinking.

Whether you like it or not Linux as a platform is only used by developers in dire financial straights or crowd funded projects.
 
Last edited:
I'm using linux since RedHat 7.0 ( before Fedora and Ubuntu came in this world). I've manually installed drivers for the lower versions of Fedora. Still doing it for CentOS.
As I see it, in the last 10 years linux worked hard to be a friendly desktop to newbies as Windows is while Windows tried hard to be as good server as linux is.
We have now open-source video drivers as well as official linux drivers from NVidia and AMD. We have indies games running natively on linux distros. We have one big publisher (Valve) supporting linux gaming thou through their own platform (which is a good and a bad thing at the same time). We have gog.com working on supporting linux.
It's comming. It's not whishful thinking but reality, even if this shift to also embrace *nix world is barely visible and has a really slow velocity.
 
Collector Edition and Linux

Will the collector edition work on Linux, or will I also need to buy a steam key ?
 
Whether you like it or not Linux as a platform is only used by developers in dire financial straights or crowd funded projects.

I'm comparing the situation now, and a few years ago. Linux gaming grew by leaps and bounds. Nothing like that was going on even 5 years ago. So you can be all negative and grumpy, but the market is rapidly changing and no complaining can deny that. The strange part though is such complaining itself. It's as if you are paid by MS who are scared of competition. Get used to it. Competition will only grow.

Linux as a platform is only used by developers in dire financial straights or crowd funded projects.

This is complete nonsense. You seem to repeat such kind of trolling statements quite often. Do you have anything better to do? May be go research the subject first.

It's comming. It's not whishful thinking but reality, even if this shift to also embrace *nix world is barely visible and has a really slow velocity.

Some people just like to stick to their negativity despite facts.

Will the collector edition work on Linux, or will I also need to buy a steam key ?

Do you mean of the Witcher 3? Linux version is not even confirmed yet. I recommend to hold off preordering anything before such confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Why must linux gaming always lead to arguments? Seriously guys.

I do have to say, @Costin, you obviously don't do any technical work on the computer and have no need or interest in using linux. Fine. But you care about games and that's what linux gaming is all about. In the end, a specialized low latency and high performance system for games can only be a good thing, so I understand your lack of interest but I don't understand your hatred. It's almost like you care about windows more than the games themselves.

Also who cares about big shot multi million dollar companies? We know the really good games are made elsewhere.

PC gaming is also about open platforms. That's what this is all about. You choose your CPU, GPU, and OS.

So much hostility towards linux...
 
It's as if you are paid by MS who are scared of competitio

Says the forum spammer who has nothing better then do then constantly post about the greatness of Linux. If you are going to accuse someone of being a shill then how about you look in the fucking mirror.

This is complete nonsense. You seem to repeat such kind of trolling statements quite often. Do you have anything better to do? May be go research the subject first.

So trolling and a shill, how wonderful.

You don't have valid proof to deny my argument, the only big games that are coming on Linux besides Steam OS ( and even Steam OS games are few and far between ) are crowdedfunded games or games made by companies in a tough financial situation ( see also Age of Wonders 3 ).

@Costin , you obviously don't do any technical work on the computer and have no need or interest in using linux. Fine. But you care about games and that's what linux gaming is all about. In the end, a specialized low latency and high performance system for games can only be a good thing, so I understand your lack of interest but I don't understand your hatred. It's almost like you care about windows more than the games themselves.

I obviously don't give a rat's ass about servers, nor do I see how Linux's server superiority there matters at all here. As for well Linux runs games, well that's up for grabs isn't it? OpenGL might be able to run games better but far easier to use DirectX as a developer ( I've asked around ) because of it's far bigger library.

Also despite Gilrond's claim to the contrary making a game engine run on Open GL is not a trivial matter, as Christ Roberts himself said when he announced Star Citizen on Linux. I'd prefer if developers spend time on making games run on a single API rather multiple ones so they can advantage of that API to it's fullest extent, which the vast majority of game developers do not do and we both know that.

Finally my hatred: If you're willing to hand fucking Valve monopoly on the PC gaming market go ahead, you talked about competition and no DRM...while the only real growth ( and for now it's just talk ) for the Linux market is coming/going to come from Steam OS.

Valve's move there is nothing more then seeking tor retain their digital market dominance, that's simple fact, sure Steam OS may be open but that's irrelevant when you've pretty much got Valve in a dominant position already. The worst thing that could happen to gaming is if Valve gains a dominant position on the console front, the OS front with Steam OS and digital distribution front. So much for competition.

There's no coincidence this all started with Windows Store which threatens Valve's monopoly of digital distribution. Why bother with a third party program when you can just buy games and run directly through Windows?
 
Last edited:
@Costin: You consistently troll the topic with false statements which you never could back up. It's up to you to prove your false arguments that only companies with "financial troubles" develop for Linux. I won't even spend time on disproving such nonsense.

You aren't an expert in the subject and your opinions about the industry aren't even informed.

The whole mantra of "gaming monopoly on PC" is just bizarre. Where did you see such monopoly? I don't buy from Valve for example while doing all my gaming on PC (on Linux). Valve has lock-in problems yes, and I don't like them for that same way as for using DRM, but they aren't a monopoly.

Also despite Gilrond's claim to the contrary making a game engine run on Open GL is not a trivial matter, as Christ Roberts himself said when he announced Star Citizen on Linux. I'd prefer if developers spend time on making games run on a single API rather multiple ones so they can advantage of that API to it's fullest extent, which the vast majority of game developers do not do and we both know that.

Making any good engine is not a trivial matter regardless what API it's using. Making it in different API is like rewriting it from scratch. So, it's not trivial, yes. Writing it originally wasn't trivial as well. It's not news.

Developers already write games for multiple APIs. Surprise. Even CDPR do that. Especially on consoles where all APIs are fragmented (such as on Xbox and PlayStation) and share no common options.
 
Last edited:
You consistently troll the topic with false statements which you never could back up. It's up to you to prove your false arguments that only companies with "financial troubles" develop for Linux. I won't even spend time on disproving such nonsense.

Either companies with financial issues, which include indie developers ( because they obviously are desperate for cash, or well attention at any rate ) and crowdfunded games.

You argue that Linux gaming is on the rise, well where's proof to back that up? Where's the AAA games coming to Linux outside of Steam Box/Valve games,

The burden of proof is on your shoulders. I've consistently brought up figures throughout our arguments to back my claims while you've brought zilch.

The whole mantra of "gaming monopoly on PC" is just bizarre. Where did you see such monopoly? I don't buy from Valve for example while doing all my gaming on PC (on Linux).

Valve has a share of 70%-80% of the entire digital distribution market, how exactly is that not a dominant position if not an outright monopoly?

Some figures suggest a lower figure of 50%-60% but that's still dominant.

Making any good engine is not a trivial matter regardless what API it's using. Making it in different API is like rewriting it from scratch. So, it's not trivial, yes. Writing it originally wasn't trivial as well. It's not news.

Developers already write games for multiple APIs. Surprise. Even CDPR do that. Especially on consoles where all APIs are fragmented (such as on Xbox and PlayStation) and share no common options.

Interesting cause you argued the exact opposite that it would be cheap and easy for developers to switch to using OpenGL.
 
Last edited:
@Costin: It was your claim about financial issues, not mine. Prove that. Here are a few lists, try showing that each of those has financial problems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_gaming

See how many of those were released in just few last years, and it will show the market growth.

70-80% of the distribution market is not a monopoly. Plus Valve is facing the increasing competition from GOG, Humble Bundle and other distributors. Valve were first major distributor, but they aren't alone.

Where did I argue that switching to OpenGL or any other API is "cheap" i.e. can happen without any effort?
 
It was your claim about financial issues, not mine. Prove that. Here are a few lists, try showing that each of those has financial problems:

It was your claim in the first place the companies are embracing Linux, I replied that with exception of crowdfunded games and companies that have financial issues ( low game sales, low publicity that kind of stuff ) are the only ones who do it.. Financial issues doesn't mean company is going bankrupt, it may as well mean company isn't making huge sales on their game so they give a Linux version to increase publicity.

Look at Metro: Last Light, great game but not a good financial success. Serious Sam 3, decent game but bad sales. Wargame Series same deal.

Oh and just ignore the fact that any middle market game on that list or even AAA game there is on Steam only.

The reality is your "market growth" exists solely because of the high publicity generated by Valve when they told Windows to fuck itself, and thus generated headlines.

70-80% of the distribution market is not a monopoly. Plus Valve is facing the increasing competition from GOG, Humble Bundle and other distributors. Valve were first major distributor, but they aren't alone.

Then windows isn't a monoply either, or does one need 90% of the entire market share to be considered a monopoly?

Where did I argue that switching to OpenGL or any other API is "cheap" i.e. can happen without any effort?

Several months ago when we are arguing as to whether or not giving Witcher 3 an OpenGL version. I said it would be difficult and cost them while you argued it would be cheap.
 
I replied that with exception of crowdfunded games and companies that have financial issues ( low game sales, low publicity that kind of stuff ) are the only ones who do it.. Financial issues doesn't mean company is going bankrupt, it may as well mean company isn't making huge sales on their game so they give a Linux version to increase publicity.

You failed to demonstrate your point which is purely speculative. The only way to have such claim is if you have a list of all such companies and demonstrate that they are all in financial crisis. I doubt you even attempted to do such review. Your claim is based on nothing but speculation.

The reality is your "market growth" exists solely because of the high publicity generated by Valve when they told Windows to fuck itself, and thus generated headlines.

I partially agree that Valve had a hand in the market growth. But only in part. They basically boosted it, but it started before they got interested (I already linked to articles about it).

Then windows isn't a monoply either, or does one need 90% of the entire market share to be considered a monopoly?
Not anymore, surely nothing like the sick situation of the late 90s. Windows is still way more dominating in PC market than Valve in gaming in comparison, so it has more power to abuse.

Several months ago when we are arguing as to whether or not giving Witcher 3 an OpenGL version. I said it would be difficult and cost them while you argued it would be cheap.

I said it would be cheaper if the engine is already generic to support multiple backends. For engines which were never designed to have such, adding new API requires more work. In either case making engines without multiple APIs support is not sufficient especially if the engine is intended to be used outside the company (which is the case with RedEngine).
 
Last edited:
You failed to demonstrate your point which is purely speculative. The only way to have such claim is if you have a list of all such companies and demonstrate that they are all in financial crisis. I doubt you even attempted to do such review. Your claim is based on nothing but speculation.

Not really speculation. I've actually played most of the titles that are linked there and have Linux versions I also know those companies.

I partially agree that Valve had a hand in the market growth. But only in part. They basically boosted it, but it started before they got interested (I already linked to articles about it)

That's really a load of shit, most of the games on Steam right now that support Linux, at least AAA or AA ones, are Valve titles, the rest are either from people interested in some publicity, or looking to get into the console space with genre's that aren't there ( strategy titles ).

Civ V exists on Linux solely because of Steam OS and Steam Controller, they made their engine OpenGL because they want to launch their titles on the Steam Box.

Not anymore, surely nothing like the sick situation of the late 90s. Windows is still way more dominating in PC market than Valve in gaming in comparison, so it has more power to abuse.

Windows and Valve are both monopolies, don't tell me Valve having that power is good for a privately owned company: At least MS answers to shareholders, Valve answers to no one but Gabe.

I said it would be cheaper if the engine is already generic to support multiple backends. For engines which were never designed to have such, adding new API requires more work. In either case making engines without multiple APIs support is not sufficient especially if the engine is intended to be used outside the company (which is the case with RedEngine).

How many titles do you see with the same features on OpenGL as DirectX titles have? An honest question here.
 
@Costin: What brought developers and publishers to start making Linux titles is secondary. It can be Steam controller, it can be interest in the new market (which already brings profit) or whatever. That's not even relevant anymore, since the market is already growing. MS is well familiar with network effects, and now they'll feel it in reverse (i.e. when they'll work with competition). Growth of the market means more developers and more engines. More engines means more games i.e. more growth.

Those cross platform titles which use DirectX 9 - all match features in OpenGL (usually 3.2) because it's deployed everywhere. Tons of such titles are already out. What so far is very uncommon are games which use DirectX 11 supporting OpenGL 4 at the same time (for example Metro doesn't). For the most part it's caused by the fact that OS X didn't support OpenGL 4.x at all until like this year (even now they aren't quite up to date with it). With importance of OS X becoming less than Linux in non Windows gaming this will improve since developers would worry less about Apple's slowness. Now with Apple's switch to Metal this might stop being an obstacle altogether.
 
Last edited:
Sarcasm

Maybe ask them why they bother with a server system. Or how much is Valve's presence in the gaming scene increasing by releasing a linux (not steamos specific) version.

End sarcasm.

Seriously we've already made it clear linux is as much a server system as windows is an accounting system. Drop that uninformed argument.
 
@Costin, this is a thread for news and developments on Linux gaming, so please allow it to be kept as such. Arguing over the viability of Linux games isn't appropriate here.
 
More posts have been deleted. We do not permit Linux vs Windows flamewars in the rest of the forum, nor should they be conducted here.
 
Top Bottom