4 ms·

They definitely have a profit motive, mostly to avoid being subject to MS shenanigans. It’s just mutually beneficial for Linux users

smoldesu 3y ago
Honestly, I consider a profit motive to upstream open source work more altruistic than selling a proprietary graphics API.
Avshalom 3y ago
And they were pretty upfront about that when they started their Linux work. That said I'd bet they're pretty happy with that decision, I don't know that Linux has made them any money yet but Microsoft has definitely continued to shenanig
- mpixel 3y ago
  It's making them money even if it doesn't up in a balance sheet. A push from MS that would threaten Steam's business model would only trigger a stronger push towards the Linux side of things and MS knowing that would tread carefully, which affects the Windows side of the business for Valve.
HeckFeck 3y ago
If they profit in a way that gives back to everyone else, that's pretty good as I see it. Even RMS wouldn't be against this idea (though he'd hate the proprietary binaries of games ofc).
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Technically Epic does too, but consumers still hate them.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    Consumers hate epic cos Tim is a liar and pretends to care about gamers and developers. In reality he’s jealous of gabe.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Case and point.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  RMS is also not against the idea of selling software for profit and not giving back to everyone else. All that he cares about related to this is: * The sale includes access to the source code * The access to the source code includes the right to redistribute it, or modified versions. If the people who pay for software choose not to redistribute it, it would not benefit everyone else.
caskstrength 3y ago
> They definitely have a profit motive, mostly to avoid being subject to MS shenanigans. It’s just mutually beneficial for Linux users Good! I would prefer them not to go bankrupt while working on all those wonderful things.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  Meanwhile, all the flak devs get when they charge more than $5 for a game... Rough market.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Huh? I haven't played Baulder's Gate 3 yet but I have seen nothing but praise for that game, and I don't believe a copy has been sold for less than $60 yet. I don't think games being too expensive is the issue. Games simply not being interesting or fun is.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      it's more for indie games than AAA stuff. But AAA did have complaints of going from $60-70, so there's that. >I don't think games being too expensive is the issue. Games simply not being interesting or fun is. Certainly. When prices raise demands change. But I don't think any other industry would call a $10 price hike "anti-consumer". That's where it gets a bit weird. It is ultimately internet noise either way, though. Not reflective of how consumers really buy. Zelda sold fine even without a new console to justify its price raise to. I'm not worried about Spiderman 2 either.

smoldesu 3y ago

Honestly, I consider a profit motive to upstream open source work more altruistic than selling a proprietary graphics API.

Avshalom 3y ago

And they were pretty upfront about that when they started their Linux work. That said I'd bet they're pretty happy with that decision, I don't know that Linux has made them any money yet but Microsoft has definitely continued to shenanig

mpixel 3y ago
It's making them money even if it doesn't up in a balance sheet. A push from MS that would threaten Steam's business model would only trigger a stronger push towards the Linux side of things and MS knowing that would tread carefully, which affects the Windows side of the business for Valve.

HeckFeck 3y ago

If they profit in a way that gives back to everyone else, that's pretty good as I see it. Even RMS wouldn't be against this idea (though he'd hate the proprietary binaries of games ofc).

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Technically Epic does too, but consumers still hate them.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  Consumers hate epic cos Tim is a liar and pretends to care about gamers and developers. In reality he’s jealous of gabe.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Case and point.
Zambyte 3y ago
RMS is also not against the idea of selling software for profit and not giving back to everyone else. All that he cares about related to this is: * The sale includes access to the source code * The access to the source code includes the right to redistribute it, or modified versions. If the people who pay for software choose not to redistribute it, it would not benefit everyone else.

caskstrength 3y ago

> They definitely have a profit motive, mostly to avoid being subject to MS shenanigans. It’s just mutually beneficial for Linux users Good! I would prefer them not to go bankrupt while working on all those wonderful things.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
Meanwhile, all the flak devs get when they charge more than $5 for a game... Rough market.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Huh? I haven't played Baulder's Gate 3 yet but I have seen nothing but praise for that game, and I don't believe a copy has been sold for less than $60 yet. I don't think games being too expensive is the issue. Games simply not being interesting or fun is.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    it's more for indie games than AAA stuff. But AAA did have complaints of going from $60-70, so there's that. >I don't think games being too expensive is the issue. Games simply not being interesting or fun is. Certainly. When prices raise demands change. But I don't think any other industry would call a $10 price hike "anti-consumer". That's where it gets a bit weird. It is ultimately internet noise either way, though. Not reflective of how consumers really buy. Zelda sold fine even without a new console to justify its price raise to. I'm not worried about Spiderman 2 either.