I made games primarily for Windows which we also compiled for Linux. It is mostly input/output stuff, aka hardware issues. That is, audio issues, input issues, storage issues, dependency issues. Modern game engine mostly handle the rest. It wasn’t such a big deal to fix, but most gamedev lacked experience with Linux, and most projects are already over budget and late, so fixing Linux for an extra 2-5% of sales didn’t make much sense at small scale. Proton kind off fixed all of this tho.

In practice it mostly affect studio making over 1M in sales per year. The download fee only occur on pro users past that threshold. The fee is so ridiculous that they’re basically forcing devs to get pro, but that was kinda already a thing anyway. For studios malong over 1M a year, well they gotta pay up unfortunately. Unfortunately 1M per year ins’t that much for a middle-sized studio, but small studio are barely affected by this change.

Unity don’t take royalties, this is their piss-poor attempt at doing that.

Indeed. What sucks is that it is off by default, I figure most small-time devs simply need to be told it exists. I definitely wouldn’t excuse the big players though, most AAA game companies can get fucked for all I care.

A bare bone program with rendering and movement is not a game, it’s a prototype, and this demonstrate nothing about modern game development. Of course a prototype with nothing but rendering and basic inputs coded in c++ is gonna be multi-platform by default. Hell, it is just code on a repo, you don’t even need to build it and test it and deploy it for all platforms as it is up to the user. I don’t think you understand the scope of making a fully-completed game. I had dozens of unfinished prototypes on my computer, some of which I made decades ago, some are multi-platform because of the language and tech. Still, this means nothing. It still cost money to support multiple platforms. Only exception nowadays is if your game happen to be compatible with Proton. But yeah, supporting Mac and a bunch of other platforms? It is not free my dude.

Valve is definitely an exception. I am not sure why, but it is pretty much in the open that Gabe Newell has a bone to pick with Microsoft and he has been throwing money at Linux for over a decade to break their monopoly on gaming. I’d argue that this has nothing to do with their love for the community and more so with Gabe’s personal vendetta against Microsoft.

Reality is that most game devs, most executives and most people in marketing don’t really care about Linux. It is good PR to support Mac and Linux, and some of the geekier developers will go the extra mile to support it, but I think it is common in the industry to assume that Linux users are not gamer, or that they have enough knowledge to install a dual boot. They don’t care in the sense that they don’t even think about it, its not even on the radar for most game companies. Most studios probably never even had a discussion about it. That is how irrelevant Linux has been to gaming. Hence why Proton is such a tour de force.

Not sure I want to name the game because this would make me very easy to identify from my post history. It’s a game on Steam that sold over 250k copies. My boss promised a Linux version very early on because they thought it would be easy, but we ended up being stuck with that promise.

In an ideal world everything would work out, but for some business it is a pretty huge commitment for what was less than 2% of the market just a few months ago. We certainly lost money porting our game in Linux at that last place I worked. It was before Proton though. Obviously each case is different, and some games work on Linux out-the-box due to Photon so this become a non-issue.

Virtually no anticheat worked on Linux just a few years ago except maybe Valve and Blizzard in-house solutions. Games that are out and already committed to a specific anticheat can’t do much but to wait, so it is not really on them. Changing the anticheat solution mid-way on a released game would piss off so many people you can’t imagine. On a brand new game though, I would agree that this should be considered.

Well, first of all I know multi-platform game exists and in some case it will just work out of the box. If it doesn’t though, not all companies have the money to hire QA for other platforms or devs to look into issues when stuff goes wrong on Linux. Most game companies fail and run out of cash, only the top survives. They don’t have that sort of money laying around to mess around a platform with 2% of users. My previous company certainly loss money on Linux and it was a cause of tension internally.

Secondly, a Minecraft prototype written in c++ and using native OpenGL calls is a terrible example. Even though I understand the dev volunteer his time so money isn’t an issue, it would cost a fortune and take years for your average studio to make a game from scratch like this without a game engine.

There are tons of reasons my dude. You can still have platform-dependant technologies in your game even if the base engine itself supports linux.

The entitlement in this whole thread is insane. Is that how linux gamers are? Not to mention that modern gaming require developers to use third-party anti-cheat solution on which they have little control. You’d think the Linux crowd would understand that it makes more sense to please the 98% of players up until anti-cheats get better Linux support.

It is almost always due to the anticheat programs.

Who is “they”? Not all game companies can afford to support multiple platforms. You’re not entitled for developers to support your preferred platform nor does it make sense yo give a negative review unless they lied in the product description.