4 ms·

I'm not sure how they could have failed that if that was never their goal in the first place. The entire point of Proton is that the Win32 API is infinitely mor

I'm not sure how they could have failed that if that was never their goal in the first place. The entire point of Proton is that the Win32 API is infinitely more stable and worthwhile to target than anything Linux distros offer, and that the financial incentives aren't there for developers to 5x their platform distribution effort to reach 1% more users. An approach that relies on developers doing that would never work, and fortunately for Valve that isn't their approach.

fooqux 9mo ago
You're thinking of now. Proton didn't exist yet the first time they tried Steam OS. To be fair to Valve though, back then, there was a lot of movement in direct ports for Linux games. Humble Bundle (before they were bought) was spending real money on it and companies like Feral sprang up to help with titles like Mordor. It looked like there was going to be some real change. But for various reasons the momentum waned. One of those reasons might be the existence of Proton itself. Some people were very against it because they thought it might lead to less native ports.
- anonymous908213 9mo ago
  Oh, right. I completely forgot SteamOS 1 existed, haha.
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  Which is exactly my point, keeping game studios on Windows + Visual Studio acomplishes nothing in regards to cut the dependency on Windows gaming.
  - fooqux 9mo ago
    I wouldn't say that. Software support for Linux is a chicken and egg problem. No software because there's no users because there's no software. Proton helps fix the users part. If a critical mass is accomplished, that can have real long-term impact.
    - pjmlp 9mo ago
      Helps as much as it helped OS/2.
      - seabrookmx 9mo ago
        Is that a fair comparison? It seems like people have a compelling reason to use Linux (hardware compatibility, avoiding MS spyware, price, etc). I admit it was before my time, but what was the draw for OS/2? Even it's technical superiority to Windows was gone as soon as NT dropped right?
      - smm11 9mo ago
        How many know what that was?

fooqux 9mo ago

You're thinking of now. Proton didn't exist yet the first time they tried Steam OS. To be fair to Valve though, back then, there was a lot of movement in direct ports for Linux games. Humble Bundle (before they were bought) was spending real money on it and companies like Feral sprang up to help with titles like Mordor. It looked like there was going to be some real change. But for various reasons the momentum waned. One of those reasons might be the existence of Proton itself. Some people were very against it because they thought it might lead to less native ports.

anonymous908213 9mo ago
Oh, right. I completely forgot SteamOS 1 existed, haha.
pjmlp 9mo ago
Which is exactly my point, keeping game studios on Windows + Visual Studio acomplishes nothing in regards to cut the dependency on Windows gaming.
- fooqux 9mo ago
  I wouldn't say that. Software support for Linux is a chicken and egg problem. No software because there's no users because there's no software. Proton helps fix the users part. If a critical mass is accomplished, that can have real long-term impact.
  - pjmlp 9mo ago
    Helps as much as it helped OS/2.
    - seabrookmx 9mo ago
      Is that a fair comparison? It seems like people have a compelling reason to use Linux (hardware compatibility, avoiding MS spyware, price, etc). I admit it was before my time, but what was the draw for OS/2? Even it's technical superiority to Windows was gone as soon as NT dropped right?
    - smm11 9mo ago
      How many know what that was?