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
Most games that work on Steam Deck aren’t technically Linux-compatible and therefore have no “Linux support” needed. Proton has come very very far, and most games are running the Windows exe through Steam using Proton.
In fact, I’ve played several games that do have native Linux support, and they still play better using the Windows version through Proton. On my Steam Deck, and on my shitty non-gaming laptop.
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.
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”)
Sure, but that’s dev resources they need to spend on a small market, and they’d suggest need to hire Linux devs or pull from other projects. It’s quite likely the math just doesn’t add up given the likelihood for profit for other uses of those resources.
I doubt Epic would lose money in it, but they probably wouldn’t make as much as other options.
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.
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.
Honestly, I’d just test on Steam Deck (performance, recent libs) and Debian (desktop experience, older libs) and that’s it.
They also need to fix any exploits they find, which means they probably need Linux devs.
Dude, steam ships with a bunch of libraries enabling cross distro support. It ain’t that complicated https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/steamrt/steam-runtime-tools/-/blob/main/docs/container-runtime.md
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
deleted by creator
Did you read the second line of my post?
The code changes aren’t the issue.
Did you read my comment? They ship with libraries to unify distribution across distros
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?
Most games that work on Steam Deck aren’t technically Linux-compatible and therefore have no “Linux support” needed. Proton has come very very far, and most games are running the Windows exe through Steam using Proton.
In fact, I’ve played several games that do have native Linux support, and they still play better using the Windows version through Proton. On my Steam Deck, and on my shitty non-gaming laptop.
So no, they don’t have to support anything new.
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.
Sure, but that’s dev resources they need to spend on a small market, and they’d suggest need to hire Linux devs or pull from other projects. It’s quite likely the math just doesn’t add up given the likelihood for profit for other uses of those resources.
I doubt Epic would lose money in it, but they probably wouldn’t make as much as other options.