Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Steam On Linux Ends Q1'2021 Still Below 1% Marketshare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Citan
    replied
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

    Closed source is not "unethical" and open source is not about "ethics". It is just a different paradigm of software development. There is absolutely no reason to be restricted to one over the other, they can coexist and there is nothing wrong about that.
    You're right about the bolded part, sadly hundred percent wrong on the rest.

    A choice of licence defines a legally binding contract between author and users. How you authorize people to use your work derives from goals and expectations that are representative of your values and how you view the world, so, ethics.

    Choosing a free software licence like GPL instead of an open source licence like MIT displays a very different ethics framework.

    Leave a comment:


  • TemplarGR
    replied
    Originally posted by Citan View Post

    He's actually right on that though. Linux is free software in essence, and the notion of free software itself is intrisically incompatible with restrictions whether legal or technical.
    However, I agree with you that "opening up" a bit the ecosystem was a necessary evil.
    It does not prevent those who want to stay faithful to original paradigm to respect it (there are distributions for that ^^), but for regular people who are less concerned with ethics and more about getting a quality tool it really helped grow Linux userbase (even if 90% of new users don't know jack about it so can hardly contribute technically) and as such bring interest from software and hardware developers.
    Closed source is not "unethical" and open source is not about "ethics". It is just a different paradigm of software development. There is absolutely no reason to be restricted to one over the other, they can coexist and there is nothing wrong about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    The biggest issue with gaming on linux for most people is the hassle. very few people want to dual boot their PC just to play multiplayer, when linux doesn't actually add anything for the vast majority of people. in the end an OS is just the engine in the car. and the vast majority of people couldn't care less what they run so long as they

    A. Don't have to re-learn everything. (Why win 8 was such a faliure but 8.1 wasn't)
    B. Just works with all the stuff they want to Be Able to do. Yes a lot of people do not play multiplayer games. HOWEVER very few people want to migrate to a system where they are told they CANNOT play the more popular multiplayer games, EVEN if they don't play them. for most people its a downgrade from something they didn't even pay for in the first place. (Or so they think anyway)

    Leave a comment:


  • Citan
    replied
    Originally posted by Nocifer View Post

    And I'm one of them; I've always loved playing single player games (and I'm not talking about Farmville) and I really dislike most multiplayer games, especially those made by today's standards. But that still doesn't change the fact that what most people play on their PCs today is competitive multiplayer games, be it CoD Warzone, CS, Rocket League, Fortnite, PUBG, Apex Legends, Rainbow Six, Hitman, Grand Theft Auto and the many many others out there. That's where the money is, unfortunately, and that's why making the anti-cheat stuff work on Linux is so very important (and why Valve are focused so much on achieving that). Single player games are important, sure, especially the blockbuster AAA releases (speaking clearly from a financial point of view), but they're not what makes Windows gamers chained to Microsoft and unwilling/unable to switch over to this side. Not to mention that most of them already play just fine with Proton.

    Just check Steam's Top 10 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
    There is a flaw in that reasoning though: the essence of multiplayer games is being connected with others to play, and sadly LAN are a thing of the past since a decade. So obviously, any and EVERY active user of a game can be "tracked" in good faith, so you can get a reliable and representative overview of "multiplayer gamers" any time of any day.

    Single player games however, at least the ones properly developed, don't mind being played offline, whether on purpose (putting steam offline), because game is out any "gaming platform" (there are still lots of them, especially indies) or simply by constraint (people actually don't have internet connection at that moment).
    So by essence it's very hard to track and thus evaluate the proportion of "single player gaming", since you can always only see a tip of the iceberg (aka "single player games attached to a gaming platform that tracks usage, which are played while platform is launch and internet connection is active).

    Hence, while it's certain that multiplayer is a growing market and the one favored by editors for obvious (and not always good) reasons, I think it would be a bit hasty to dismiss singleplayer games as "something of the past, just for a niche and much smaller userbase".

    Leave a comment:


  • Citan
    replied
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

    Who says that? Linux is not all things open source, and open source is not just about Linux. DRM is fine for Linux if it helps bringing more content here. Not everyone can make money on open source and "free stuff".
    He's actually right on that though. Linux is free software in essence, and the notion of free software itself is intrisically incompatible with restrictions whether legal or technical.
    However, I agree with you that "opening up" a bit the ecosystem was a necessary evil.
    It does not prevent those who want to stay faithful to original paradigm to respect it (there are distributions for that ^^), but for regular people who are less concerned with ethics and more about getting a quality tool it really helped grow Linux userbase (even if 90% of new users don't know jack about it so can hardly contribute technically) and as such bring interest from software and hardware developers.

    Leave a comment:


  • jacob
    replied
    Originally posted by Nocifer View Post

    This. People (especially former gamers of the 90s/00s who've grown older) don't seem to understand that nowadays gaming isn't single player adventure games and RPGs, gaming is either casual gaming on the smartphone or multiplayer competitive FPS/action games. The former case has nothing to do with Linux, and the latter has everything to do with anti-cheat. So as long as the various anti-cheat "solutions" don't work on Linux, people won't even consider switching to Linux (not that there are many people that would consider switching to Linux anyway), even if everything else was absolutely 100% perfect in the Linux world (which of course it isn't).
    .
    Funny. I thought gaming was about... y'a know... games. Playing. Having fun. Unwinding, unstressing, enjoying yourself. I can't be bothered with mobile games laden with adds, on a minuscule screen and with crappy sound and I especially can't be bothered with multiplayer "competitive" games. When I feel competitive, which happens often, I go out and practice some REAL sport that involves REAL skills in the REAL world. You don't have to be "old" for that, just not dumb.

    Leave a comment:


  • TemplarGR
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfyrion View Post
    I thought that because there are a lot of conspiracy idiots that they think that Bill Gates will put microchip into vaccines maybe some will try to switch to Linux but after I was meh, no chance,Idiots cant handle Linux....
    Actually, Gates does want to place identification mechanisms on your skin with the vaccines, and that is a documented FACT. No one said the microchip would be placed in the liquid of the vaccines.... So it appears the conspiracy folk are actually more intelligent and more informed than you.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfyrion
    replied
    I thought that because there are a lot of conspiracy idiots that they think that Bill Gates will put microchip into vaccines maybe some will try to switch to Linux but after I was meh, no chance,Idiots cant handle Linux....

    Anyway....

    Gamers always wants to play the latest games in the market and the Big Titles.
    As long as the TOP Games or the newly released games dont run in Linux , gamers will not switch to Linux no matter what.

    if one day all the newly released games are available to Linux and Linux has better performance than windows then a lot of gamers maybe will migrate to Linux.


    Leave a comment:


  • jacob
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
    Much higher? So you think the Linux share would actually crack 1% in North America?
    Honestly I'd be surprised if it was the case in North America (or Australia), but in Europe it's possible. The Linux desktop has always been taken more seriously there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
    It's time to accept that we _are_ the 1% and that _is_ a good thing.

    The richest 1% don't wish they were part of the 99%. Embrace it, we are the elite in this context.
    yes right we are the Elite in the Computer Science field

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X