why doesnt valve demand devs make linux builds? if microsoft changed their apis wouldnt new games just not work on proton?
You must log in or register to comment.
Proton is filling a role until Linux gets popular enough. Once there is enough demand for Linux, devs will start making games with Linux support in mind meaning more well compiled native games. While proton is very good it’s far from perfect and devs will want people to have the most seamless experience possible with their game.
I don’t think that will happen. I think windows and Wine support will be the target platform, not native binaries for Linux
Even if that is the way they chose, if it means games are compatible I dont see an issue.
But I don’t think they will, ultimately if games are properly compiled esspecially for linux they will be better than wine, and of course game devs want there game to run as fast as possible.
No offence but Microsoft is the king of backwards compatibility. Them changing their API is a lot less likely the Linux. I have old windows games I can still play but I can’t play my old Loki games.
Linux builds suck, they’re less well maintained than the Windows build. If Valve gave me the option to use Proton by default even when there is a native Linux build, I would enable that in a heartbeat.
I think there already is an option to enable proton for all titles instead of doing it for every one separately.
There is but it only applies to games without Linux versions. The default behavior is to install the Linux version and, if it doesn’t exist, install the Windows version and use Proton.
In order to install the Windows version you have to check the ‘Force the use of a specific Steam Play compatibility tool’ for that specific game and click the update button to download the Windows version.
Yeah, thats kinda been my experience too. Any time a game has a linux build on steam I swear its a 50/50 if it’ll even run. I almost always end up switching to proton.
I’m genuinely wondering if there is any specific game where you noticed that the Linux version was worse than the Windows version on Proton, and how you verified that the Windows version wasn’t just as bad.
One example is Civilization VI, where the Linux build is several versions older than the Windows build, and one of the DLCs just silently doesn’t install unless you force Proton.
I’ve just heard tales. If a game doesn’t work on Linux I just put it at the bottom of my backlog and hope it’s eventually fixed.
Baldur’s Gate 3 apparently had a Linux build that didn’t work well on anything but the Steam deck, and Left 4 Dead 2 apparently has a terrible Linux port.
L4D2’s port was great when I played it, and Valve even made a big triumphant blog post with all the benchmarks proving it worked better than the Windows binary. Maybe your confusing it with Dying Light? That native port was so incredibly trash that everyone forced Proton on to avoid it.
Linux breaks itself all the time and is a moving target. Even in EPEL land, comparability is lacking. As this blog post said a few years ago, w32 is the only stable ABI on Linux.
Doesn’t Valve fix this for games with their Steam Runtime?
More like proton makes windows binaries not dependent on windows.
Would be pretty funny if Valve demanded that, but I don’t see it happening.
It’s really up to users and developers to grow some balls and stop suckling the corporate teat.
No, because proton is not Windows. Wine only works on Linux, so it’s actually a Linux platform. I consider every developer/publisher who targets proton to actually be targeting Linux, rather than windows. Every single time a windows update breaks something that continues to work on proton I laugh
See also: https://steamcommunity.com/app/221410/discussions/8/1734336452576620754/?l=czech
“Targeting proton” is another reason why I don’t take the development community at large seriously.
It’s full of dipshits all regurgitating each other’s stupidity.
I really don’t understand the reasoning. Obviously wine works only on Linux, it converts Windows calls to Linux… And there are Windows devs targeting proton compatibility specifically?! In my opinion proton could somehow helps devs realizing that there could be a Linux market but that doesn’t go further than that.
And there are Windows devs targeting proton compatibility specifically?!
A lot of them aim for Steam Deck, so maybe not explicitly, but yeah.
Interesting, do you have any devs communication about it?
Not off the top of my head… But many games have a specific “Steam Deck” graphics setting that’s optimized for Deck, so I imagine those devs have talked about it.
Valve is solving the chicken-and-egg problem. For a developer, it is costly to maintain a separate build for Linux without the consumer base to justify the effort. And without games, most people will not leave windows.
Proton offers Valve independence from windows without effort and cost for the developers. And without penalties for the gamers as well.
For a developer, it is costly to maintain a separate build for Linux without the consumer base to justify the effort.
Only if you’re a bad developer or using bad tools!
I encourage everyone who thinks “it’s too difficult or costly” to see for themselves before believing the people taking them for a ride!
I haven’t kept up with wine development in many years, but they used to have (and might still) winelib, which allowed you to compile a window app against it to create a native linux binary.
why doesnt valve demand devs make linux builds?
You mean games aren’t listed on Steam unless a Linux build is provided? I know Steam has a de-facto monopoly on PC gaming, but I’m afraid studios would just quit the PC market (or move to another PC store) if Valve were to enforce such a rule.
if microsoft changed their apis wouldnt new games just not work on proton?
It’s very unlikely Microsoft would introduce such breaking changes in their APIs. And even if they did, well yes, it would until Proton maintainers add support for these new APIs.
if microsoft changed their apis wouldnt new games just not work on proton?
Also, this is antithetical to the purpose of Windows when it comes to backwards compatibility. Remember that one of its main selling points is the ability to run old programs, regardless of what version it originally targeted.
Believe it or not, the industry would probably start a riot if ms breaks that paradigm. It’s like, one of the main reasons that it has the market-share that it does.
Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out, I lacked the time to mention it in my answer.
Linux ABI compatibility is a fuck.
Valve archives an acceptable level of Linux game compatibility by shipping ancient Ubuntu libraries.
Honestly Proton is the better option.
if microsoft changed their apis wouldnt new games just not work om proton?
If game developers make use of the new API and wine or proton doesn’t add support for the new API. Sure. It happens it’s not a big problem just an ongoing effort.
It won’t break all existing games just new builds that use the newest APIa that aren’t supported.
I think the bigger risk is Microsoft harassing wine or proton developers. Perhaps similar to the oracle google lawsuit about the use of the Java API in the android SDK.
Linux ABI compatibility is a fuck.
I’m never convinced by this argument. If game developers have problems with ABI they can do what they’re already doing on Windows: ship their game with all the dependencies. Casual gamer’s Windows system might have more versions of Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable than they have games installed. This had been my experience.
With gl/Vulcan and some other libraries that’s pretty challenging to do if your goal is to become more portable not less portable.
Shipping also sort of different libraries with your proprietary game could also be a licensing issue.
They tried making devs port their games to linux, but most of them didnt bother as the userbase of steamOS was very small, and the userbase did not grow because the game catalogue was very small.
because it has been proven time and time again that only insignificant amount of devs actually care until there’s a major adoption. Look at original Steam Machines or on NVDIA SLI or 3D TV, Apple Vision Pro, etc… these things take a lot of time and are very gradual
why doesnt valve demand devs make linux builds?
Because nobody would do that. Valve is not PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo. Every publisher would rather release games elsewhere than spend resources on Linux builds.
Plus, most Linux builds are terrible and Proton works much better. To make this happen, first of all you’d need Unreal to die and for most bottom game developers to either lose their jobs or to learn actual game development.
Coming from the indie dev scene a while back, as an indie dev, you are typically burning every single hour in your day making a game, begging for money to get the game to market, pitching your game to publishers, or screaming into the void that is social media in hopes anyone will click your link. You simply do not have time or effort to spare. It’s a hugely saturated market and the currency is public attention.
So, you tend to cast the widest net possible in hopes you get some kind of traction, which means marketing to Windows users. I’m sure plenty of devs would vastly prefer to be on and build for Linux, but the fact of the matter is the marketshare is smaller and Proton exists.
most Linux builds are terrible
wrong.
4/5 Linux builds I’ve used on steam run significantly worse than the windows build through proton or just crash.
ok buddy sure native applications are harder to run than ones through a shim.
It’s not harder to run, but the devs ime give it less attention and testing before release. Also undeclared required libraries are super common so the game just doesn’t start until you check the logs to find out what it’s missing.
I’d love to see more Linux builds, but only if they’re actually something the dev cares about rather than just ticking all the checkboxes in their game engine’s export menu and saying “fuck it we ball”
And yet for games they are.
Microsoft generally doesn’t worry about losing market share to Linux over games. They don’t even worry about losing desktop share for the public sector. Only businesses matter, and they have heavy vendor lock in there as Microsoft Office, Teams, and to a lesser extent, Azure, keep them subscribed/enslaved.
Microsoft also gives a shit ton of money to the Linux Foundation,along with the rest of MMAANG and many other companies. All these companies know Linux runs the back end servers, and its free for them to use however they want, and they have a vested interest in Linux being around for servers as even they are aware it’s superior for that specific purpose.
Microsoft runs the Desktop, Apple runs the phone, Google and Amazon compete for cloud, and Meta owns marketing. Sure, they sometimes compete in other spaces like Android and Azure, but those are generally the established fiefdoms.
And Linux is all of their removed, but also all of their main support beam without which nothing works.
The true underdog is BSD.
Apple runs the phone,
something like 80% of phones worldwide use Android. Maybe there are different metrics for “runs the phone”
The true underdog is BSD.
Oh, BSD runs in lots of places.
In secret. Because of the “do whatever the fuck you want” licence
Azure and Cloud Services is over 30% of their revenue and a growing percentage of the total revenue, while their Office products and services are closer to 20% and a shrinking portion. I’d claim Azure is their largest business by a good margin.
to a lesser extent, Azure
This is their most profitable sector, by a large margin (along with 365 offerings, whatever they call it this month). Even Windows Server and Enterprise pale by comparison.
