See my other post: Linux supporting ACs have existed for 3 years.
The functionality to support them already exists, the market share is arguably already there, and the cost to game dev teams to enable these already existing linux AC functionality is in many cases literally 0. They’re already paying to license Battleye or EAC or Denuvo, and all they have to do is request usage of a feature that already exists, that they are already paying for, but just not using.
Also, as you seem to agree, the vast, vast majority of cheats/hacks/trainers are made for and used by Windows users despite ACs having kernel level access in Windows.
Ye, some people just want to game and not care. Windows can do that, linux can’t. And the market share is nowhere near what it needs to be to be a viable option.
Maybe for a small studio that can pick up the crumbs of the market, but no major studio benefits much from supporting linux
My out of the box set up process for getting a Steam Deck playing games was significantly simpler and less time consuming than with a Windows PC.
So linux absolutely can ‘just game’, even more straightforwardly than a Windows machine.
As for not being viable… you’re saying that checking a few boxes in a your dev panel to make it so your next build supports approximately 5% of the market that you previously did not… that this has no major benefits …
I mean… 5% more potential marketshare availability isn’t major, but for approximately 0 additional cost seems, this seems like a no brainer, obvious benefit to me.
The ACs and Proton handle working on linux.
Proton is not paid for or developed by these studios.
Thats the magic of Proton, it functionally ports everything designed for Windows automatically, at no cost to the game studio.
The ACs already include linux/proton compatibility in their agreements with the game studios… they don’t need to pay them more for supporting it.
This isn’t like the game studios have to ‘port’ a game to linux, like the immense cost of porting a console game to PC, back before most game engines just had an ‘export to whatever architecture’ functionality.
This is ‘We can choose to increase our potential player base by about 5%, for essentially 0 expenditure, but nah, fuck that, who wants a free buff to sales?’
The point I am making is not that linux can perfectly run every game. Obviously it cannot.
The point I am making is that for many popular online games, the only reason that this is the case is because many game studios just don’t bother to click a few options, which would cost them basically nothing.
… Anyway on a Steam Deck its super simple, the compatibility grade is just right there in the screen for looking at and potentially buying the game, simple color codes.
… Compared to a Windows PC where you’ll need to check your hardware specs against the min and optimal specs and basically just guess how well you can run it.
Steam Decks, like consoles, all have the same hardware, so its a unified experience, simplified.
Anyone who has played PC games on Windows knows that you’re probably gonna have to do research to figure out how to build or upgrade your rig to be able to play any given game at the fidelity and frame rate you want, which is significantly more time consuming, complex and disparate than looking at a single, built-in-to-your-gaming-device color grade that lets you know what to expect in 2 seconds.
Personally, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve bought a PC game for Windows and oh oops, turns out the min specs are functionally unplayable, turns out the advertised graphics at a stated hardware level was false advertising, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, almost everything in my Steam Library works on a Steam Deck, with the most major exceptions being online multiplayer games that just refuse to enable their Anti Cheat to allow the game to run.
See my other post: Linux supporting ACs have existed for 3 years.
The functionality to support them already exists, the market share is arguably already there, and the cost to game dev teams to enable these already existing linux AC functionality is in many cases literally 0. They’re already paying to license Battleye or EAC or Denuvo, and all they have to do is request usage of a feature that already exists, that they are already paying for, but just not using.
Also, as you seem to agree, the vast, vast majority of cheats/hacks/trainers are made for and used by Windows users despite ACs having kernel level access in Windows.
Ye, some people just want to game and not care. Windows can do that, linux can’t. And the market share is nowhere near what it needs to be to be a viable option.
Maybe for a small studio that can pick up the crumbs of the market, but no major studio benefits much from supporting linux
My out of the box set up process for getting a Steam Deck playing games was significantly simpler and less time consuming than with a Windows PC.
So linux absolutely can ‘just game’, even more straightforwardly than a Windows machine.
As for not being viable… you’re saying that checking a few boxes in a your dev panel to make it so your next build supports approximately 5% of the market that you previously did not… that this has no major benefits …
I mean… 5% more potential marketshare availability isn’t major, but for approximately 0 additional cost seems, this seems like a no brainer, obvious benefit to me.
The ACs and Proton handle working on linux.
Proton is not paid for or developed by these studios.
Thats the magic of Proton, it functionally ports everything designed for Windows automatically, at no cost to the game studio.
The ACs already include linux/proton compatibility in their agreements with the game studios… they don’t need to pay them more for supporting it.
This isn’t like the game studios have to ‘port’ a game to linux, like the immense cost of porting a console game to PC, back before most game engines just had an ‘export to whatever architecture’ functionality.
This is ‘We can choose to increase our potential player base by about 5%, for essentially 0 expenditure, but nah, fuck that, who wants a free buff to sales?’
If you can “just game” then you wouldn’t need a database just to check if your game might run at all
The point I am making is not that linux can perfectly run every game. Obviously it cannot.
The point I am making is that for many popular online games, the only reason that this is the case is because many game studios just don’t bother to click a few options, which would cost them basically nothing.
… Anyway on a Steam Deck its super simple, the compatibility grade is just right there in the screen for looking at and potentially buying the game, simple color codes.
… Compared to a Windows PC where you’ll need to check your hardware specs against the min and optimal specs and basically just guess how well you can run it.
Steam Decks, like consoles, all have the same hardware, so its a unified experience, simplified.
Anyone who has played PC games on Windows knows that you’re probably gonna have to do research to figure out how to build or upgrade your rig to be able to play any given game at the fidelity and frame rate you want, which is significantly more time consuming, complex and disparate than looking at a single, built-in-to-your-gaming-device color grade that lets you know what to expect in 2 seconds.
Personally, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve bought a PC game for Windows and oh oops, turns out the min specs are functionally unplayable, turns out the advertised graphics at a stated hardware level was false advertising, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, almost everything in my Steam Library works on a Steam Deck, with the most major exceptions being online multiplayer games that just refuse to enable their Anti Cheat to allow the game to run.