646
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
646 points (97.8% liked)
Linux Gaming
15256 readers
139 users here now
Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.
Recommended news sources:
Related chat:
Related Communities:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So he want the game to get to 10 millions player on steam deck only then support it, but without supporting it the game won't get to 10 millions player. It's not a linux problem Tim, it's you.
Yea it's not even like Fortnite runs unofficially on Linux. Fucking "anticheat"
Tim is not preventing people from using Linux. Linux is.
Linux is preventing people from booting up Steam Deck?
...what?
Exactly.
Ahhhhh BURN!
No.
He wants the Steamdeck user base to be 10 million, so it’s large enough to support a player base that can generate revenue if targeted.
And frankly it’s not a him problem. Nearly every dev refuses to release on Linux (and Mac) because of its small user base.
They don't have to release on Linux at all!!
All they have to do is click a checkbox in the EAC SDK & contact Battleye to support Valve's Proton & that's it!!
It is a Tim Sweeney problem.
Also, Unreal Engine, which the Epic Games Launcher was built in for some reason also has a checkmark for Linux, and they refuse to tick it. It's to the point that while it is possible to do development for Unreal on Linux, they had to build a completely different way to get it up and running since the launcher doesn't support Linux.
They consciously make efforts not to support Linux, it would literally take less effort to do it.
To be entirely fair this is much less of a "tick the Linux box" solution, you actually have to program thing differently to work on Linux in that case. They obviously have the resources to do it but it's less infuriating than the literal single click it would take to enable EAC on Linux on $game.
Fortnite loads fine on Linux but closes after reaching the main menu. It doesn't crash, it closes. They're actively blocking the community from self-supporting.
There have even been times when Fortnite's anti cheat was broken so that you could actually play the game perfectly fine on Linux.
I also once managed to get long enough into a game to be yelled at because the mic is open by default (which happened to be my laptop mic). Then I got kicked by anti cheat.
Do you have video of this? Would appreciate it if you shared it, if you do.
Prolly would go viral if you posted it here actually.
Nah, I was just boredly fooling around a few years ago.
Pretty sure you're wrong, got any source on that info?
Yeah, but to be fair, maybe that fact about the EAC SDK isn't common knowledge. I mean, we know it in our community, but a Windows-only game dev like Epic might not quite notice.
If that's the case, then maybe whoever owns EAC could get some good publicity if they could convince Tim Sweeney to do a public stunt like livestreaming the process of opening up the config for Fortnite, enabling it for Proton, and then testing it on the Steam Deck. EAC gets good publicity, and Fortnite gets all the extra revenue from the Steam Deck users.
Of course, Tim Sweeney wouldn't reach out on his own, he's probably got far too many bigger things to do. It's up to whoever owns EAC to get that ball rolling and schedule a meeting with Sweeney to make this proposal and see if they can make it work.
Does anyone know who that second person is? Not Tim Sweeney (the guy who probably doesn't realize how easy it is to enable this in EAC), but the other person (the person who owns EAC)? Because trying to get through to that first guy is a challenge, so maybe we can get that second person to try their hand at it.
/j
To be fair, you don't look at the whole picture.
Yes, generating a Linux build wouldn't require a lot of changes to the code.
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.
They don’t even have to support Linux. They just have to stop actively preventing the game from launching on Linux platforms.
Then they get bad press for cheaters using Linux or whatever due to some bug they easily could've caught during the QA they didn't do. So they either need to scramble to fix it, or pull Linux support and block those older versions from connecting.
All of that is worse than never supporting Linux in the first place. So if they're going to support it, they're going to need to do proper QA and get their support staff trained to deal with Linux issues.
A smaller studio or something with SP only mode can get away with it, but it's a lot more tricky for big MP games.
If Apex can do it, then so can Epic Games.
Can and should are very different things. Here are some big differences to understand why it doesn't make sense for Fortnite, but it might make sense for Apex:
I wish they'd support Linux, but I don't think comparing to Apex makes a lot of sense here.
https://lemmy.world/comment/6016698
Fortnite doesn't have to be on steam to work. The only thing they'd likely have to change is removing the steam runtime, assuming Epic were to make a Linux store front, which is completely unnecessary because we already have our own solutions : Legendary/Heroic & Lutris.
https://lemmy.world/comment/6020626
Just like how Valve worked with Epic to get EAC working, they also worked with Battleye to get Battleye working, just have to contact Battleye to enable it.
It's literally just another runtime.
There's cheaters on every single platform, I can deadass cheat in fortnite from my android phone, PS4, Windows PC, and everything in between. What's 2 more cheater's per thousands more users.
Fuck, I can use an external raspberry pi and bypass their kernel lvl tamper protection in a snap.
And again, if Apex can detect people cheating on Linux from server side like EAC and Battleye is supposed to in the first place, then so can Epic Games.
Please stop defending this bullshit, Epic Games has everything in their power to support Linux and their excuses are merely just that, excuses.
I'm sick and tired of people shilling for this POS mega corp with the same bs arguments.
I'm not saying it needs be on Steam to work, I'm saying it needs to be on Steam to be popular on the Steam Deck since the install process is otherwise quite involved. So if they just enable Proton in EAC, they'll only get a handful of enthusiasts (who are probably playing on another platform anyway) and open themselves up to Linux-specific cheats.
I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying it's probably not profitable for them to do so. They're not going to get many new users if they support Linux, so the net impact is that they'll have another platform for support requests and potential cheats.
Apex is on Steam, so the barrier to play their game on Linux/Steam Deck is really low (just enable and potential users are now ~2% higher). So for them, turning on Linux support is probably profitable since they'll convert a lot more people on that platform.
What am I defending? I'm explaining why it likely doesn't make business sense for Epic to support Linux. My point here isn't to claim that Epic is doing something good here, but to show it's probably not some weird hatred of Linux, but a business choice. Some of it is also probably a rivalry with Valve, but I don't think Sweeney would let that get in the way of profits if push came to shove. Sweeney's main goal AFAICT is to make money, not to stick it to some competitor.
Yes, Epic could support Linux pretty quickly if they chose to. They're choosing not to, most likely because it won't make them as much money as other efforts would. It's really not complicated.
You can install other store fronts on Steam Deck with ease. It's called flatpak : lutris, heroic.
The install process is not that involved, we can literally install fortnite right now on steam deck.
Hell, it even briefly ran on Steam Deck in 2022 when they fucked up and the Anti-cheat was half broken.
Yeah, Epic totally killed the pre-existing, and flawlessly working Linux version of Rocket League when they acquired the studio and then refused to refund because "meh profits, leh business choice" (ಠ_ಠ)>⌐■-■
They couldn't possibly have a hard on for fucking over Linux users.
The fact they even still allow it to run under proton is a fuckin miracle, or rather they know that'd they get bad PR as it's already proven to be viable.
Also, don't you find it fucking hilarious how they fired a fuck load of developers and then Tim goes "if only we had more developers" 💀
Yes, I have those installed as well, and it's not hard. But it's a barrier for mass adoption. I'm interested to know how many people who own a Steam Deck actually have Lutris or Heroic installed, and how many of those actually use it. I have both, but I've only used them a handful of times. My guess is less than half have either installed, and less than half of those use them.
So we're looking at a fraction of an already small group of users, and the vast majority who would use it to play Fortnite already play on another supported platform. So why should Epic go out of their way to support it? The playerbase isn't there, so there's really not much economic incentive to do so.
That's a separate issue IMO. They wanted it exclusive on EGS (mostly for sweet sweet MTX profit), and EGS didn't (and still doesn't) support Linux. So their choice is one of the following:
They knew they'd lose some users in the EGS switch, but the point with Rocket League wasn't to maximize players of RL, but to maximize users of EGS, which they hope would result in higher total sales on the platform. If you're already on EGS for RL, maybe you'll try Fortnite and get hooked. It's a harder sell if you can still use your platform of choice.
Epic wants to sell EGS exclusives and make that MTX recurring revenue. That's why they bought RL, why they made it free, and why is exclusive to EGS. That's already why they buy these exclusivity agreements, and supporting Linux doesn't fit in that strategy.
It kinda sucks, but at the end of the day, I have plenty of other options on Steam that I'm not going to bother much (I actually still play SP RL sometimes on Steam when I get a hankering, but I'm boycotting MP). I have never purchased anything from Epic, nor have I played any of their games outside of a quick test to mess with my Steam Deck. It's an unattractive platform because they don't support my platform. If they decided to support Linux, maybe I'd give them another shot.
I don't hate Epic because of it, I totally understand why they're making the choices they are. I'm not going to go through hoops to play their games until they go through hoops to earn me as a customer. They don't seem to want that, so whatever. The same is true for Origin (or EA Play out whatever it's called now), Microsoft Gamepass, UPlay, etc no, and other game platforms, so I just don't buy from them. Every year Valve earns my business by making more and more games available (I've been Linux only since before Steam on Linux was a thing), so they get my money.
Just so I don't have to repeat myself 1000 times.
https://lemmy.world/comment/6016698
https://lemmy.world/comment/6013450
https://lemmy.world/comment/6014060
https://lemmy.world/comment/6020626
That should cover most if not all of your arguments.
total* across all platforms, not exclusively desktop.
Also, what [email protected] said.
It's one thing to not release for Linux (thanks to wine and proton it's no Biggie) another thing is to actively sabotage it to run on Linux which some Developers who can't check a fricking Checkbox in EAC do.
Not preventing Linux use is implicit support, and it opens up another platform for cheaters to exploit. So if it works and your entire game is based on the online, MP experience, you need to QA on all possible platforms to stay on top of cheaters.
Support for Steam Deck != support for Linux version. Steam Deck use Proton to run Windows game on linux seamlessly.
Their direct competitor, Apex Legend, is steam deck verified. Big games like Monster Hunter World/Rise, Cyberpunk, Baldurs Gate 3, Elden Ring, etc etc, all steam deck verified. Check out this page for more info
It's not a Linux problem, it's a Tim Sweeny problem.
10 million is just an arbitrary number he will not honor when it is reached.
Valve has sold 'multiple millions'(source) already. The 10 million will probably be reached soon. Not even to mention all the Linux users.
Yes it is. He does not have to release for Linux. He just needs to allow the anti cheat to run on Proton. This is a simple config change not more. Fortnite will probably run fine on Proton.
With that mind set explains why Epic was so late into trying to get into PC distribution.
Wuh? They started on PC.
ZZT was fucking amazing to play and make games with as a kid.
And look how late they were when it came to launching their own digital platform. I'm not taking about games being on PC.
This is a company that saw consoles more worth putting resources towards and didn't see it worth it too start their own Steam competitor even back in 2008.
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Tim-Sweeney-Says-the-PC-Is-Dead-for-Games-80714.shtml
They had many chances to become the go to digital platform for PC.
Every gaming company basically thought the PC was dead for gaming, only to be relegated to nerd paying high prices for hardware to play niche nerdy shit.
Honestly I still don’t know what changed, even Japanese devs are releasing on PC again, it’s a weird time.
Well apparently Valve didn't get the memo. By the time PS3 came out and the further into the Gen it got it became clearer that digital was the way forward. And you'd think a company with PC roots would have gotten their own digital distribution platform started once steam sales caught on.
The whole everyone thought pc was dead excuse is a poor one because Epic took until 2018 to bother with their own distribution platform. That's a hell of a long time and too many years from the PC is dead excuse.
That's what I mean by many many many missed chances. They had over a decade to enter as it became more and more obvious the money there was to be made from PC gamers.
Why should they have a distribution platform? Pretty much every game except Gears of War had a Windows release, and at least I never considered a digital distribution platform as a kid since boxed games worked just fine. I didn't have a Steam account until Steam came to Linux, yet I played plenty of PC games in the meantime on both Windows and Linux. I bought a mixture of boxed games and online downloads, I didn't need a launcher to do that for me.
Yes, they missed the boat, but it wasn't obvious that the boat was going where they wanted to go. Valve took that risk and won big, but other large studios didn't and were absolutely fine focusing on game dev, and it wasn't until recently that they wanted in.
PC gaming has only had a slow, steady rise since Steam entered the scene. But perhaps one other catalyst might have been the Games For Windows initiative (not "Live") that standardized controller support, added some extra marketing oomph, and gave more incentive to make the same game on PC and console rather than making two entirely different games (sometimes with the same title, like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter).
I think stardust meant Epic Games was very late in opening their own storefront, to become a distributor on PC.
Yes that's correct. They seemed dismissive of it even back in 2008 seeing more cons than potential in the market. It's like the Windows approach to smartphones entering in after Android and iOS established themselves. Except even later with years and years passing as it became clearer PC gaming was becoming more accessible and it's own formidable market. They missed a lot of earlier chances to enter.
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Tim-Sweeney-Says-the-PC-Is-Dead-for-Games-80714.shtml
Ah yeah that makes sense.