> This is the native app vs Electron argument all over again (except limited to proprietary AAA games). "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" and all that.
Agreed and in both cases I'd rather have quality than quantity.
> Yes, a few game devs will drop native Linux support because building and maintaining just the Windows version and relying on Proton will be cheaper for them.
There have been pretty much no native ports of big games since proton got pushed by Steam. All Linux game porting companies have either shuttered or switched focus to only Mac and mobile.
> For most games, very few would have EVER had a native version for Linux. Source: the decades of PC gaming history prior to Proton.
There were many more native releases in the period before Proton than now.
> Getting that Deck Verified green checkmark is an actual economic incentive for game devs to support Linux in any way
In a way where they can in the future publish changes that break the game on Linux without you being able to complain because what you bought is a Windows game.
> So, like Electron, the argument is less "Electron app vs native app" and more "Electron(/Proton) app vs no app at all".
Absurd. There were plenty of native programs released before either compatibility layer.
> Agreed and in both cases I'd rather have quality than quantity.
Of course, but if there's a game that I really would like to play, it doesn't matter how good some hypothetical version of it might be if nobody ever ports it. The quality of a nonexistent game(/port) is zero, no?
> There have been pretty much no native ports of big games since proton got pushed by Steam. All Linux game porting companies have either shuttered or switched focus to only Mac and mobile.
> There were many more native releases in the period before Proton than now.
I suppose we are just in different circles of "big games". Before Proton, I can't recall the last time I saw a AAA game with Linux support. The occasional indie game had support, but that's still the case. World of Goo 2 just came out with native Linux support, for example. DRM free too, if you buy it direct from them.
> In a way where they can in the future publish changes that break the game on Linux without you being able to complain because what you bought is a Windows game.
This is the case regardless of native vs Proton. Just because a game has a native Linux version at some point is not a guarantee that an update won't break it nor that they won't just drop Linux as a platform outright.
> Absurd. There were plenty of native programs released before either compatibility layer.
And there are still about as many (in my experience) with both compatibility layers.
Agreed and in both cases I'd rather have quality than quantity.
> Yes, a few game devs will drop native Linux support because building and maintaining just the Windows version and relying on Proton will be cheaper for them.
There have been pretty much no native ports of big games since proton got pushed by Steam. All Linux game porting companies have either shuttered or switched focus to only Mac and mobile.
> For most games, very few would have EVER had a native version for Linux. Source: the decades of PC gaming history prior to Proton.
There were many more native releases in the period before Proton than now.
> Getting that Deck Verified green checkmark is an actual economic incentive for game devs to support Linux in any way
In a way where they can in the future publish changes that break the game on Linux without you being able to complain because what you bought is a Windows game.
> So, like Electron, the argument is less "Electron app vs native app" and more "Electron(/Proton) app vs no app at all".
Absurd. There were plenty of native programs released before either compatibility layer.