•  stardust   ( @stardust@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    786 months ago

    Them not bother with Linux says all there is to say about their anti trust cases. Only thing that bothers them about monopolies is that they arent one, and even when there is an opportunity to enter into a market where there is no competitors they don’t want to bother investing in it. They don’t care about open platforms or investing in it first.

    It’s why they were late to getting a hold of PC distribution. And in the unlikely event Linux OS takes off be complaining about Steam’s presence there.

  • I think, people here look at it from the wrong side.

    The code changes required for Linux support aren’t the issue.

    But if they support Linux, they have to support Linux. This is not some student’s first indie game, but instead a massive game with up to 290 million monthly active users. That’s 3.7% of the whole world’s population! (And it’s also more than the number of total Linux users.)

    So supporting Linux means they need to test on at least all currently maintained versions of maybe the top 20 or so distros on all sorts of hardware configurations. That would increase their testing costs by around a factor of 20.

    They also need to support customers if they have problems. Considering the variability of Linux configurations, chances are high that this comparatively small segment of players will consume an aproportional amount of difficult support requests.

    And lastly, if the Linux version of the game has some serious bugs on some setup, it might likely be that all these Linux users think the game is shit and start talking badly about it.

    So it’s just a simple cost calculation: Does Linux support increase or decrease the total profit?

    And if the variables change, the calculation changes with it. Exactly as Sweeny said in his post. People like Sweeny don’t care about ideals or about which OS they prefer. They only care about money.

    And the revelation that a CEO likes money and dislikes risk isn’t exactly hard to figure out.

    I’m not saying that it’s good, but top capitalists tend to be capitalists.

    And in the end, I’m pretty sure someone who has all the business figures and frequently has to defend those in front of the shareholders probably knows much better what makes business sense than any of us. Someone like him goes where the money flows.

    • So supporting Linux means they need to test on at least all currently maintained versions of maybe the top 20 or so distros

      It absolutely does not mean that.

      Pick a steam deck, support a steam deck, 3 major releases. If the SD runs on enterprise Linux that’s a 10 year support window.

      That’s a perfectly viable plan - much like “releasing on x box” - and with an understandable market clearly delineated. Everything else can be “hey try, but don’t call us” and we’d all still try.

      • To be honest… Yes it’s that complicated. I’ve read that, Apparently valve had to spent massive ressource to figure out the load order of librairies and what to include for the steam runtime.

        Granted, all they made is open source iirc. But it was a massive pita

        •  wax   ( @wax@lemmy.wtf ) 
          link
          fedilink
          16 months ago

          Yes, their first attempt used load order overrides and search patch patching. Now, it uses linux containers to ship an isolated environment. Think of it as more similar to docker (or LXC/LXD). That said, I haven’t used it myself to so cannot comment on how difficult it is to use. Most people here are advocating for them permitting proton use without necessarily supporting it officially though. Which can easily be done by changing an option in EAC.

          • I said: Code changes are easy, all the other things in regards to supporting playing on Linux (anticheat, support requests, testing, …) is hard.

            You said: But code changes are easy because steam has libraries to unify distribution.

            Do you see the problem here?

            What are you going to tell me next? That code changes are easy?

    • I’m going to do a hard disagree here - they don’t have to support Linux, just add compatibility in terms of anti-cheat for Linux. Proton is likely good enough to run the game itself but the anti-cheat sees Linux and just craps itself.

      They don’t even have to provide support - League of Legends runs on Linux if you install the game using community scripts and custom proton, and while the client runs poorly nobody spams the Riot Games support about how the “Linux version” client doesn’t work the well because people understand that it’s a community effort. Riot themselves have only made a statement saying how they’ll try not to break the game for Linux users, and that’s pretty much it.

      League of Legends is a massively popular game as well, yet Riot barely has to do anything to maintain it on Linux, let community fix issues that come up, let community provide support as it’s their tools.

      And while I do understand that porting an anti-cheat to be more friendly to another operating system isn’t an easy task (such as for Rust, where they tried to make the anti-cheat compatible with Linux but it introduced other issues so it got shelved), I think you’re vastly overstating the amount of areas a company has to cover for a game to be playable on Linux.

      • There’s a difference though.

        If the game doesn’t work for (some or all) Linux users, that’s not a big problem from Epic’s POV. They’ll lose a couple users that wouldn’t have been able to play the game without Linux support anyway.

        But if the Anticheat faills on Linux, that is a completely different story. Then cheaters would all dual boot over to Linux to cheat all they want. That’s now a problem for the whole game’s user base and consequently for the publisher as well.

        Something as low-level as an Anticheat would have to be rewritten almost from scratch to work on Linux and this one really needs to be tested with every possible permutation of installed relevant software. Because if one combination is found where it doesn’t work, you can be sure that the day after every cheater will be running this config.

        (Just to check, do you have a background in game development and/or low-level Windows/Linux programming? I got all of that and I can tell you, nothing that looks easy from the outside is actually easy. I think you are vastly underestimating how much work goes into something until it “just works as expected”)

        • Speaking as a former game cheater…

          Cheaters are going to cheat. Booting into Linux isn’t going to change that.

          Anti-cheats just keep the filthy casuals from cheating. A broken anti-cheat on Linux would be fixed pretty quickly.

        • EAC has a check box for Proton compatibility. Battleeye is linux native. All they have to do is check a box, and test to see if they can break it. If they let it out in the works and there’s some influx of cheaters, they can check the box again. Halo Infinite, Apex Legends, Smite, Battlebit etc etc were all capable of checking the box and testing.

          I suspect Sweenys hesitation over support is caused by a lack of control.

          Upgrading EAC in an unreal engine game is trivial, it’s basically baked into the engine. They update EAC all the time.

    • If it can be made to run via Steam, then they only need to support it as far as getting it installed in Steam. Either Proton or native, it can be made an invisible issue from the user perspective. They have made a choice not to do so.

      • Apparently, their cost calculation is different. Also, Fortnite has about 50x active users compared to Apex Legends. That also changes a lot.

        Sweeny said it doesn’t make business sense for them and if it will make sense in the future, they will support Linux.

        I’m pretty sure that someone who does know their business figures and frequently has to justify them to shareholders has a better overview about what makes business sense for them than anyone of us.

        •  stardust   ( @stardust@lemmy.ca ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          I’m pretty sure that someone who does know their business figures and frequently has to justify them to shareholders has a better overview about what makes business sense for them than anyone of us.

          Every time someone makes the business argument all I can think of Microsoft flopping with Windows Phone despite all their money. Google failing with Stadia and losing opportunity they had with hangouts to imessage. LG bowing out of smartphones. Blackberry and Nokia too late to enter smartphones despite prior dominance. Epic was so late into trying their hand at digital distribution until 2018 when doing it earlier over the past decade would have made entry easier.

          Companies just because they have money doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. And sometimes even less than random people.

          • Companies just because they have money doesn’t mean they know what they are doing. And sometimes even less than random people.

            Well, if half a million people are guessing on a choice of two options, some are going to get it right. But that’s not due to the insight of the people, but due to numbers.

            Every time someone makes the business argument all I can think of Microsoft flopping with Windows Phone despite all their money. Google failing with Stadia and losing opportunity they had with hangouts to imessage. LG bowing out of smartphones. Blackberry and Nokia too late to enter smartphones despite prior dominance. Epic was so late into trying their hand at digital distribution until 2018 when doing it earlier over the past decade would have made entry easier.

            These examples really don’t apply here.

            • Windows Phone, Blackberry and Nokia were caught up in a massive market change where they where too little and too late.
            • Stadia was a purpously risky gamble to be first at a potential “next big thing” and was scrapped when the global economy crumbled and cloud gaming showed no signs of wide spread adoption. If anything, this is the opposite situation than Epic and Linux.
            • Hangouts was renamed and merged with other Google chat apps, but in the end they now have messages, which is the messenger with the highest install count worldwide.
            • EGS is still a comparably new thing, considering that Steam is in the market since ~20 years while the EGS is here only ~5 years. They are growing steadily, so this is not an example that we can look at in retrospect, because it’s still unfolding. Also, sure it would have been great if they would have had to run a game distribution platform in 2003, but their money shower didn’t start until Fortnite exploded in 2017. And they pretty much immediately got into the business when they had the money to.

            Also, there are some other factors in play that you didn’t consider.

            Smartphones exploded between 2007 and 2010. It went from nothing to almost everything in just a few years, and those who got lucky and where ready at the right time managed to take the new market. Windows Mobile proves that it’s not enough to be super early. You need the right timing in both directions.

            There is no indication that Linux will have >50% market share among gamers within the next 3 years. Yes, it nudged Linux over the 3% mark but at that rate it’s going to take a long while. Also, contrary to smartphones vs feature phones, the steam deck is an additional gaming PC for on the go. It doesn’t replace desktop gaming.

            Also, when it comes to mobile gaming, the Steam Deck is a distant fourth between Android, iOS and the Switch.

            And even if you limit the scope to x86 mobile gaming, they are by far not the only competitor. There are lots of others, many of them using Windows, who do the same.

            And the biggest edge the Steam Deck is it’s value, because Steam subsidizes the Deck with their Store sales. Most people don’t care whether it runs Linux or not.

  • what’s fortnite’s anticheat like? my understanding is that a lot of games that would normally have no problem running on some flavor of linux or another but their anticheat software requires some ridiculous level of privilege that linux won’t (and shouldn’t) give it

    • Fortnite uses Easy Anti Cheat, which is made by Epic (that is, Fortnite’s own developer). EAC works fine on Linux; it just needs the developer to enable it.

        • My understanding is that it uses EAC and Battleye, but in an “either/or” arrangement. That is, both are installed but which one is activated when you boot the game is essentially random (or driven by some logic that is not readily apparent).

          Battleye also claims to have native Linux support.

          But even if it didn’t, it would be trivial to have a Linux version which only used (the Linux version of) EAC. Presumably Epic have enough faith in their own anticheat product to rely on it for their flagship game for a small minority of users.

  • also why the fuck does Lego Fortnite require anticheat? it’s a survival co-op, there’s no competitive element, and yet from what I’ve read it still kicks you out when you’re trying to play it on Linux.

  • What if, and hear me out on this one, Epic Games really just love closed platforms for the built-in DRM of “secret sauce” and binary blobs to protect their intellectual property, even if the Steam Deck now has a TPM 2.0 equivalent. In fact, they would rather deprive the user of as much agency as possible to retain most of the control.

    That might be a tinfoil hat take, but I stand by it.

    • If they do think that - and I absolutely do not claim you are wrong - Then it’s through ignorance. Developers can just as easily distribute compiled binaries for linux as they can for Windows, and even encrypt them if that’s what they want to do.

      Because linux itself is free and open, it doesn’t mean you can’t run commercial software on it without it being ripped off. I mean, my work pays many tens of thousands of pounds for commercial software running on Linux, and it’s not just licencing that stops it being spread.

  • I mean we all know that, he didn’t need to say anything. They want to make billions and they think Linux doesn’t have enough users to get those billions going. Not worth it to them. But hey, fuck him, fortnite is a shit game anyway.