Fornite on Android Forgoes the Google Play Store for Increased Revenue

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,784
Tim Sweeney has finally confirmed that Fortnite on the Android platform will forgo the Google Play store in favor of a direct sales approach. Mr. Sweeney explains that Android is an open platform and having multiple sources for software will benefit consumers in the long run. He also says that the 30% tax that Google Play charges does not reflect its input and maintenance of the game. As far as consumers going to the wrong website and downloading a malicious file, Tim Sweeney says that PC gamers have been using other download services than Steam and have done quite well in identifying the correct source for software and updates.

If you could have done this on iOS, would you have?

Yes.
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
People have also been getting viruses on PC for years by downloading the wrong thing from the wrong place, so I am not sure what his point is.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,885
I don't see anything technically wrong with this. I also get wanting to keep more of the money you're making as a company. However, what I dislike about things like this, is having to use multiple shops, multiple clients, multiple methods for storage, that sort of thing. I hate it on the PC, and I'd hate it on Android too.

On the PC I primarily use Steam. I have a GOG account, but tend to just download the offline installs for things. I have an Origin account with precisely the five games I wanted from EA, and couldn't get on Steam. I don't keep Origin installed unless I want to play Mass Effect 3, Mirror's Edge 2, etc. I don't use GOG Galaxy either, or Windows Store. I want ONE client, ONE place to open my games.

The Epic thing is actually why I never really played UT4 at all.

I don't think I'm in their demographic though. They're making boatloads of money off of Fortnite. They don't need me. :D
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
People have also been getting viruses on PC for years by downloading the wrong thing from the wrong place, so I am not sure what his point is.

His point is USERS bear responsibility for ensuring they get the correct files. If a user cannot do this, they do not belong operating a computer. too many want to restrict what can be done on a computer because of morons. ENOUGH.

This is a good thing, there needs to be more than jsut Google Play to get software. IOS will eventually be forced to have multiple stores as well. There is zero reason to allow single stores on hardware deployed by the billions.
 

Jovian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
362
People have also been getting viruses on PC for years by downloading the wrong thing from the wrong place, so I am not sure what his point is.

People have also been getting viruses on Androids for years by downloading the wrong thing

Google play store is not a clean place and there is lots of malware and sometimes viruses from sound/look-alike apps. Its really not any different from PC's

iOS store isnt free from virus/malware but its extremely rare. Their approval process is stupid strict speaking from experience. Android was always so much easier to get our app pushed to.
 

Shmee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,148
His point is USERS bear responsibility for ensuring they get the correct files. If a user cannot do this, they do not belong operating a computer. too many want to restrict what can be done on a computer because of morons. ENOUGH.

This is a good thing, there needs to be more than jsut Google Play to get software. IOS will eventually be forced to have multiple stores as well. There is zero reason to allow single stores on hardware deployed by the billions.

I get what you are saying, but Fortnite is played by kids, and now they will have unlocked phones.
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
People have also been getting viruses on Androids for years by downloading the wrong thing

Google play store is not a clean place and there is lots of malware and sometimes viruses from sound/look-alike apps. Its really not any different from PC's

iOS store isnt free from virus/malware but its extremely rare. Their approval process is stupid strict speaking from experience. Android was always so much easier to get our app pushed to.

That's because Apple uses humans to review apps. Google's Play Store uses an automated approval process that simply scans for malware/known suspicious behavior. The only time a human reviews anything on the Play Store is if it is reported.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,062
I think this is going to backfire and result in less total revenue. Yes giving up 30% sucks, but making the app harder to get sucks even worse.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,211
People have also been getting viruses on Androids for years by downloading the wrong thing

Google play store is not a clean place and there is lots of malware and sometimes viruses from sound/look-alike apps. Its really not any different from PC's

iOS store isnt free from virus/malware but its extremely rare. Their approval process is stupid strict speaking from experience. Android was always so much easier to get our app pushed to.

Just starting my product for mobiles (iOS and Android). Have to agree with you.

Would love your opinion on this: I appreciate the strictness of Apple to ensure the user experience stays excellent. BUT, I get the feeling that a large portion of the strictness, has nothing to do with providing a good experience, but instead to ensure there revenue streams are off limits to developers.
 

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
I'm just surprised that Valve hasn't offered Steam-Mobile for more "Premium" mobile games with cross-buy with PC games being a bonus. Instead Valve went the other way with mobile games showing up on Steam.
 

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
How about releasing the game on Linux? No 30% there, and the engine already supports Linux...

Just gotta do it Epic, our wallets are waiting ;)
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Not surprising, this is the same reason it's not on Steam. But I do think it might be a penny-wise but pound foolish decision. This distribution method will surely reduce the Android audience.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,062
His point is USERS bear responsibility for ensuring they get the correct files. If a user cannot do this, they do not belong operating a computer.

I think he is overstimating the age and brainpower of the game’s player base.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,025
and now they will have unlocked phones.

You don't need an unlocked phone to install .apk's under Android. Personally I think this idea was a joke when EA left Steam for that abomination called Origin under Windows and I still think it's a joke in relation to the Android platform.

"Our" wallets as in all six of the Linux gamers? They're gonna get right on it!

Coming from the four members of the HOCP Windows mind control brigade... :ROFLMAO:
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Personally I think this idea was a joke when EA left Steam for that abomination called Origin under Windows and I still think it's a joke in relation to the Android platform.

EA gets what it gets in places like this but to me Origin is just another store just like Steam, Microsoft Store or GoG. I get wanting to have everything in one place but why should Steam automatically get 30% of every game sale? That's no better than people who got all weird about the Microsoft Store becoming the only distribution source for all Windows software, which is complete BS considering how many of those same people complain about Origin.

Open platforms means this is how it works. Things get done every which way.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,347
I think this is going to backfire and result in less total revenue. Yes giving up 30% sucks, but making the app harder to get sucks even worse.
I think Fortnite and its players couldn't care less about that.
 

lostinseganet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
1,187
People have also been getting viruses on PC for years by downloading the wrong thing from the wrong place, so I am not sure what his point is.
His point is hes willing to bet money that PC gamers can handle the responsibility of downloading programs themselves. They don't need a location designated by the phone manufacture as safe to be safe. PC games are a bit smarter than that or know someone who is....for free.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,513
People have also been getting viruses on PC for years by downloading the wrong thing from the wrong place, so I am not sure what his point is.
His point is fuck the weak and the stupid. And I can't really disagree.
 

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
Hey look! It's the tired rhetoric! Only x gamers play on Linux!

Get with the time gramps. There's more than enough people gaming on Linux for it too be profitable. How exactly do you think the thousands of games that are native to Linux on STEAM make money?

People pay for them who play on Linux. GO FIGURE.

"Our" wallets as in all six of the Linux gamers? They're gonna get right on it!
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
How exactly do you think the thousands of games that are native to Linux on STEAM make money?

Those thousands of games only represent about a 1/5th of all games on Steam. If the profit in Linux gaming were that compelling I'm sure there'd be a lot more Linux games. Indeed year to date of 2018 alone, Steam has added more Windows titles than in the entire five years of Linux. I think a lot of Linux fans see the advance of Linux gaming these last five years but don't realize just how much bigger Windows gaming got over the same period. That's why places like Walmart now have dedicate PC gaming sections with items that you'd never have seen in a Walmart just a few years ago.

In any case developers aren't stupid and clearly they are go where the gamers are and now they are going after mobile which is the biggest money maker in gaming right now. If desktop Linux is worth it for most developers, they'll go after that group as well.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,229
Ugh.. this is another of those decisions that I think will have many negative consequences in the long term. I would not be adverse to them offering a direct APK or whatnot for those who for one reason or another want to download directly, but to avoid the use of Google Play and make that the primary way to distribute on Android seems like a huge issue. Hell, it isn't even like they're using a specific, verified open source app-store alternative such as F-Droid (which I know, would not work thanks to Fortnite being proprietary) or at least something like Aptoid with a specific Epic Games repository.

Fortnite is very popular especially with young kids and likely those who are not very technically savvy. With this decision Epic is basically undermining security on Android devices by giving users who perhaps never before have needed to check that "install from 3rd party services" box, click a link to download an APK from somewhere besides Google Play, and grant permissions to install/download, thus opening a pandora's box of malware opportunities. I can guarantee that as soon as reading this, there are now tons of malware developers getting their identity theft trojans, rootkits, and cryptominers wrapped in Fortnite APKs so that when someone searches for "download Fortnite for Android" there's a good chance they'll be redirected to some fake installer somewhere and/or looking at how the legit version asks for permissions for the installer stub to download the game; this is to say nothing for all those enticed by all of the "Fortnite for Android PREMIUM FREE VERSION ALL SKINS" or whatever that will be loaded out there.

I can nearly guarantee that there will be article after clickbait article about how someone's bank account was emptied by a hacked Fortnite client for Android etc. This will of course spawn Apple iSmug about how their locked down platform where there was no legit option save to use their particular store is the "right" decision and make Android's openness look like a vulnerability by comparison; all because a very visible developer made an idiotic decision. Furthermore, this could probably negatively effect Android's openness and Google's attitude in the future. Google has already been making some elements of Android more proprietary and is working on a mobile OS that they can totally control top to bottom without having to worry about GPLed bits or the Linux kernel ( which hopefully will remain an experimental project and that Android and its open components will remain and thrive etc). I can bet that Google was looking forward to getting a share of the massive Fortnite revenue that Apple is enjoying from their mobile version, so Epic basically saying NOPE SORRY ALL MINE will likely sting; lets hope it doesn't make them develop a method to make it more difficult for developers to do this in the future at the cost of our openness and/or privacy.

All of this garbage is because Epic is unwilling to share some of the revenue for a game that has basically spawned an entirely new fad including a new monetization method in the Battle Pass? I'm nonplussed when Epic pushed out yet another "Launcher" when they only had one really successful game upon it, and I'd rather them push it stand-alone and/or via Steam, but at least on PC people are somewhat used to the idea that you have to be careful what you click, what you choose to install. With all their revenue they haven't even released for OSX/Linux, despite Unreal Engine 4 exporting easily to the platform, so I am even less sympathetic to the "we don't want to give a cut to any 3rd party" dynamic when they seem to be doing very little in terms of development on the Battle Royale side at least (new/edit skins, map edits here and there, etc.. . we're not talking about mountains of new and different content by nature, thanks to the design of the game itself).

Unmitigated greed from a company and property already doing so well leaves a bitter taste when they make a decision that will likely lead to a huge security issue for Android users, with potential ramifications not just on all the individuals who will be hurt trying to download their game legitimately or not, but far beyond as well.
 
Last edited:

BloodyIron

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
3,439
So six people are supporting all those thousands of games?

You're missing the point. There's enough people playing on Linux for games being released on it to be profitable.

It _DOES NOT MATTER_ that Linux does not currently have market dominance. IT IS STILL PROFITABLE TO RELEASE GAMES FOR LINUX.

If it wasn't we would not see more and more games coming to Linux, which we do see.

Get over it.

Those thousands of games only represent about a 1/5th of all games on Steam. If the profit in Linux gaming were that compelling I'm sure there'd be a lot more Linux games. Indeed year to date of 2018 alone, Steam has added more Windows titles than in the entire five years of Linux. I think a lot of Linux fans see the advance of Linux gaming these last five years but don't realize just how much bigger Windows gaming got over the same period. That's why places like Walmart now have dedicate PC gaming sections with items that you'd never have seen in a Walmart just a few years ago.

In any case developers aren't stupid and clearly they are go where the gamers are and now they are going after mobile which is the biggest money maker in gaming right now. If desktop Linux is worth it for most developers, they'll go after that group as well.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
It _DOES NOT MATTER_ that Linux does not currently have market dominance. IT IS STILL PROFITABLE TO RELEASE GAMES FOR LINUX.

Since only about 20% of Steam games have native Linux titles most developers obviously don't see it this way. It's not a matter of market dominance but of market to begin with. The latest Steam survey put Linux at 0.49%. I'm not saying there's no money to be made in desktop Linux gaming but it's a niche platform for gaming at best currently.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,229
Since only about 20% of Steam games have native Linux titles most developers obviously don't see it this way. It's not a matter of market dominance but of market to begin with. The latest Steam survey put Linux at 0.49%. I'm not saying there's no money to be made in desktop Linux gaming but it's a niche platform for gaming at best currently.

Steam metrics are a very, very poor way to gauge adoption of Linux (and probably to a lesser extent Mac) use and especially the desirability/viability of the platform as a destination for any given piece of software. There is an absolute litany of problems with how Steam metrics (and some other sites sales metrics - Humble for instance is actually one of the better ones, but unless you specifically are sure that a title is purchased with a Linux browser user agent, it will count for Windows ) work and because of that really underrepresent Linux use and especially Linux interest/motivation for purchase via support for the platform.

Affecting both "general" metrics and those that developers can access in respect to their title, there are many many improvements that need to be made before they should be given any credence at all, much less making decisions about future profitability. If you're interested I'd be happy to go into detail, but suffice it to say that the crux of the issue is this - the current metrics are only valid when dealing with "100% Linux Purist" gamers - those that exclusively use Linux to browse/purchase games on client or browser, only use Steam for Linux, only Wishlist while exclusively with Linux as their platform, only buy games that at that very moment have official Linux (non-beta etc..) versions and the Linux/SteamOS icon on the purchase page, and they buy and play all these games exclusively on Linux. Atop this, they also never use WINE or virtualization of any kind that does not show up as baseline Linux. The fact is, there are a TON more "pragmatic Linux gamers" who don't fall into the above category, and the metrics massively underrepresent their use and choices, in many cases counting "against" them as Windows sales, playtime etc. There's a lot more to it, but this is the crux of the issue.

While a perfect solution may not be easy to find to cover every situation, there are many changes that could be made that could improve things significantly. Until then, I think that providing supposed numbers of low LInux adoption/use etc.. as justification for not supporting the platform is based on erroneous data.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,347
Ugh.. this is another of those decisions that I think will have many negative consequences in the long term. I would not be adverse to them offering a direct APK or whatnot for those who for one reason or another want to download directly, but to avoid the use of Google Play and make that the primary way to distribute on Android seems like a huge issue. Hell, it isn't even like they're using a specific, verified open source app-store alternative such as F-Droid (which I know, would not work thanks to Fortnite being proprietary) or at least something like Aptoid with a specific Epic Games repository.

Fortnite is very popular especially with young kids and likely those who are not very technically savvy. With this decision Epic is basically undermining security on Android devices by giving users who perhaps never before have needed to check that "install from 3rd party services" box, click a link to download an APK from somewhere besides Google Play, and grant permissions to install/download, thus opening a pandora's box of malware opportunities. I can guarantee that as soon as reading this, there are now tons of malware developers getting their identity theft trojans, rootkits, and cryptominers wrapped in Fortnite APKs so that when someone searches for "download Fortnite for Android" there's a good chance they'll be redirected to some fake installer somewhere and/or looking at how the legit version asks for permissions for the installer stub to download the game; this is to say nothing for all those enticed by all of the "Fortnite for Android PREMIUM FREE VERSION ALL SKINS" or whatever that will be loaded out there.

I can nearly guarantee that there will be article after clickbait article about how someone's bank account was emptied by a hacked Fortnite client for Android etc. This will of course spawn Apple iSmug about how their locked down platform where there was no legit option save to use their particular store is the "right" decision and make Android's openness look like a vulnerability by comparison; all because a very visible developer made an idiotic decision. Furthermore, this could probably negatively effect Android's openness and Google's attitude in the future. Google has already been making some elements of Android more proprietary and is working on a mobile OS that they can totally control top to bottom without having to worry about GPLed bits or the Linux kernel ( which hopefully will remain an experimental project and that Android and its open components will remain and thrive etc). I can bet that Google was looking forward to getting a share of the massive Fortnite revenue that Apple is enjoying from their mobile version, so Epic basically saying NOPE SORRY ALL MINE will likely sting; lets hope it doesn't make them develop a method to make it more difficult for developers to do this in the future at the cost of our openness and/or privacy.

All of this garbage is because Epic is unwilling to share some of the revenue for a game that has basically spawned an entirely new fad including a new monetization method in the Battle Pass? I'm nonplussed when Epic pushed out yet another "Launcher" when they only had one really successful game upon it, and I'd rather them push it stand-alone and/or via Steam, but at least on PC people are somewhat used to the idea that you have to be careful what you click, what you choose to install. With all their revenue they haven't even released for OSX/Linux, despite Unreal Engine 4 exporting easily to the platform, so I am even less sympathetic to the "we don't want to give a cut to any 3rd party" dynamic when they seem to be doing very little in terms of development on the Battle Royale side at least (new/edit skins, map edits here and there, etc.. . we're not talking about mountains of new and different content by nature, thanks to the design of the game itself).

Unmitigated greed from a company and property already doing so well leaves a bitter taste when they make a decision that will likely lead to a huge security issue for Android users, with potential ramifications not just on all the individuals who will be hurt trying to download their game legitimately or not, but far beyond as well.
Fuck Google. Some of the revenue? 30% is some? And for what, a download link in the store? More big time developers should do the same. Apple has things closed down, but they offer infinite amount more service for iOS and their devices than Google does for Android phones.

Oh, and fuck the people that download shady stuff and get themselves in trouble.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,229
Those who know my posts know I am critical of Google for many things yet try to be fair. How do you think that Apple taking an equal or larger (depending on certain parameters) percentage as well as locking things down so you have no alternatives etc... is justified, when somehow it is not for Google? Google offers lots of APIs and things for Android apps to hook into and use, Play Store services for all kinds of stuff from updating/hosting/CDN, game achievements/features/multiplayer, handling payments etc... and more, so I don't know if it would be correct to claim they do nothing to justify their cut. Furthermore, it is well in line with most other major marketplaces like the aforementioned Apple, Steam, and other vendors - many game consoles are more restrictive and take a bigger cut depending on feature sets and options, even

If you want to say "fuck people who download shady stuff" then why are you giving a pass to a company who is encouraging "unsafe" behavior? If they stayed with Google Play (or some verified repositories which would act as a middle ground, like I mentioned) those users would never have to grant certain permissions or 3rd party install options when searching for non-shifty/legit stuff, but thanks to Epic a ton of users are going to think its a "normal" thing to do and just click through all the approvals, simply so Epic gets a few more dollars.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Until then, I think that providing supposed numbers of low LInux adoption/use etc.. as justification for not supporting the platform is based on erroneous data.

Steam has supported Linux for 5 and a half years. Valve and developers have PLENTY of good data by now to know very well the true size and demand of the desktop Linux gaming market. Linux fan sites Phoronix.com and GamingOnLinux.com have on many occasions reached out to cross platform game developers and asked them directly about their Linux sales and that market share is almost always in the very low single digits.

It can't be that big of a secret. Surely if Valve were seeing or hearing of solid numbers or growth in Linux gaming they'd have said something. Valve went down the Linux road (and Mac) in part to get away from almost total dependence on Windows and that's gone no where. Desktop Linux gaming a currently a niche market of hardcore Linux fans and it'll be obvious if that changes significantly.
 

DaRkL3AD3R

n00b
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
63
This is the same bullshit that is happening today with Steam. These scumbag companies were happy to let the storefront owners build up their product and create a massive and reliable userbase for them, and now they swoop in for a kill and claim those same customers, without the tax of operating on their system. It's nothing but pure greed, plain and simple.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,229
Steam has supported Linux for 5 and a half years. Valve and developers have PLENTY of good data by now to know very well the true size and demand of the desktop Linux gaming market. Linux fan sites Phoronix.com and GamingOnLinux.com have on many occasions reached out to cross platform game developers and asked them directly about their Linux sales and that market share is almost always in the very low single digits.

It can't be that big of a secret. Surely if Valve were seeing or hearing of solid numbers or growth in Linux gaming they'd have said something. Valve went down the Linux road (and Mac) in part to get away from almost total dependence on Windows and that's gone no where. Desktop Linux gaming a currently a niche market of hardcore Linux fans and it'll be obvious if that changes significantly.


While I have to give Valve and Steam credit for great contributions to Linux, the metrics are skewed in such a way to massively under report the data they've been collecting. Linux gaming sites and many developers t they interview etc... are still dealing with those very same metrics ( the developer side ones i mentioned in my post) so its no surprise they report results as you describe Thus, it isn't that Valve or whatnot is secreting away ultra high Linux adoption rates or something, though it is worth it to consider how many other factors not pegged to the built-in metrics encourage not just Valve to continue Steam for Linux development but also for game developers, indies and larger studios alike, to increasingly add Linux support at a greater and greater rate. For instance, many developers of crowdfunded projects see overall funding much higher if they make Linux support a goal, developers see a large subjective demand for Linux support (ie Steam forums threads requesting Linux etc) and then notice that overall sales seem to spike after it is promised and/or delivered, even when Steam metrics on actual Linux sales and play appear underwhelming.

Basically, if they're working off flawed methodology you're going to get inaccurate data and that's the situation we have now. As I said above, the metric is assuming that Linux gamers are purists when most of those who game on the platform and especially request titles not currently supported to add a Linux port etc... are far from it. Here are a few examples of how the data under reports Linux...

WINE and virtualization are simple to understand and have a big impact - as far as Steam is concerned, it is Windows Steam playing Windows games on Windows. Lots of Linux users will at least attempt to use WINE or one of its many frontends if a game doesn't yet have a native client. This is also one of the few elements it will be harder to "fix", but perhaps if Valve and WINE got together they could at very least find a way to show the WINE identifier separate from regular Windows, but who knows if that can be done without causing incompatibilities or other issues somewhere along the line.

Anyone who dual boots, or uses a non-Linux OS for either purchase or play, even part of the time, is at risk of having their game sales and playtime counted and eventually locked in for Windows. There are somewhat complicated rules to how a game "counts" as a Steam sale based on what platform it is purchased upon, if it is played within 7 days and how many hours/what platforms within that time, so it takes a rather concerted effort to get a game to count for Linux in this way if you have a mixed environment. Note that this also bleeds over into other vendors such as Humble who (like Steam when it comes to purchases made originally by browser) use browser user agent to decide what platform the sale counts toward initially; this is actually different from the early days of Humble when users could manually assign credit for their bundle or purchase to a specific platform of choice.

Wishlisting and Platform Preferences is currently borked as well. Right now a game only "counts" as Wishlisted for Linux if a Steam user toggles the Platform Preferences option EXCLUSIVELY for SteamOS+Linux. The system allows players to check as many boxes as they wish (Win, Mac, SteamOS/Linux) and this affects pretty much everything heuristically that Steam shows you and reports about you etc. However, if a user has say both Windows + Linux checked, a game developer trying to make a decision about porting to Linux looking for how many Linux users have wishlisted their title will NOT see that person; they'll be counted under Windows if at all. Its also worth noting that if a pragmatic Linux user is aware of all this and chooses to check SteamOS+Linux exclusively, it means they'll have to deal with a lesser experience as it willl impact all of their Discovery queue,suggested games, even New and Trending/Top Selling lists among other features by only showing content that currently and officially supports Linux; not very useful if you want to keep an eye on upcoming games that don't yet promise Linux support and lobby them to do so, or many other situations for Linux-preferring users etc.

There are many other situations including those that get a bit more difficult to handle (ie Dev launches for Windows. Players lobby for Linux support. Dev eventually decides to support Linux and announces this and/or even creates a Linux beta for QA. Anyone who purchases at this stage to encourage the developer and play via WINE i nthe meantime or help test will have their sale counted by metrics as a Windows sale, as there is not as of yet official Linux support; not good! Worse, consider a Dev goes through porting and isn't aware of the aforementioned, then gets frustrated because they don't get as large a bubble of Linux launch sales they expect based on hype, unaware that many of their most hyped players may have already purchased or helped to test and had their copy counted as Windows already). , but these are just a few of the ways the metrics are flawed and under report Linux use. It shouldn't take either 100% Linux purist policy and/or understanding of somewhat complex series of hoops to jump through for the end user in order for the metrics to report somewhat correctly.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Linux gaming sites and many developers t they interview etc... are still dealing with those very same metrics ( the developer side ones i mentioned in my post) so its no surprise they report results as you describe

With all of the gaming platforms out there, mobile, console, PC and now streaming becoming a thing, I think it's at best wishful thinking that there's a significant group in desktop Linux that's large enough to warrant top tier attention from developers. It can't possibly be as difficult to identify a widely profitable gaming platform as you're saying after over 5 years of Steam support for Linux especially considering the failure of Steam Machines.

Maybe you're right or maybe things will change. Gaming is red hot at the moment. Mobile has gone nuclear and Windows gaming is at the point that you can buy decent gaming equipment at Walmart. Maybe the dust needs to settle and a clearer picture of just what the Linux gaming market will emerge when there's a more normal business cycle than now.
 

jnemesh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
1,084
I originally chose Android over IOS because of the ability to side-load apps. I envisioned an open platform much like Windows, where anyone could develop for the device without limitations or restrictions by the owner of the platform. In reality, however, 100% of my software comes through the Google Play store. I am hoping that Fortnite sets a trend, and starts others thinking about bypassing Google's store. If enough major players start doing this, then Google's dominance over the platform is lessened, and that is a good thing!
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,347
Those who know my posts know I am critical of Google for many things yet try to be fair. How do you think that Apple taking an equal or larger (depending on certain parameters) percentage as well as locking things down so you have no alternatives etc... is justified, when somehow it is not for Google? Google offers lots of APIs and things for Android apps to hook into and use, Play Store services for all kinds of stuff from updating/hosting/CDN, game achievements/features/multiplayer, handling payments etc... and more, so I don't know if it would be correct to claim they do nothing to justify their cut.
I think none of them deserves 30%, but Apple more than Google.

If you want to say "fuck people who download shady stuff" then why are you giving a pass to a company who is encouraging "unsafe" behavior? If they stayed with Google Play (or some verified repositories which would act as a middle ground, like I mentioned) those users would never have to grant certain permissions or 3rd party install options when searching for non-shifty/legit stuff, but thanks to Epic a ton of users are going to think its a "normal" thing to do and just click through all the approvals, simply so Epic gets a few more dollars.
They aren't encouraging unsafe behavior, they just aren't babysitting people. And anyone who thinks that a 3rd party app from an established developer means they can install bigboobs4free.apk without thinking, deserves whatever happens. What is it with people today and their need for a nanny figure to control their lives and guide them, be it the government or a corporation?
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
A lot of people here aren't really thinking about what is really going on here.
Saving 30% of the purchase is not even remotely the main point. Every so often in history someone gets massively popular, and at that point what you want to do is leverage your popularity to its FULL extent. Lets talk about our favorite example her name was counter strike. At the time counter strike was so poplar it made every other game look like a mom and pop shop, it was the product of an easy simple to play game combined with millions of dot com newbies joining the world of the PC. So valve leveraged this massive success to force people to use steam, they made CSS the multiplayer for HL2, think about how ridiculous that is for a second, the multiplayer for HL2 had not one shred of anything to do with the HL2 single player at all, and the rest is history that one critical opportunity created every thing valve is today. Now just about every game is forced to pay valve a cut. Why? Because people are used to steam and because humans want things to be easy and simple they want everything to be on steam. Very few people thought this way back when valve announced steam or when they made it mandatory for HL2, CSS. And if you were sentient back then you probably remember all the problems, all the hassles, all the threads, you can probably go dig up on this forum.

But there was one company that didn't have to succumb to steam, it was blizzard, they had such a loyal following with their games they just and would be releasing their mega hit WOW that would dominat the MMO scene and be so far out there it would make CS look like a joke. Not surprisingly due to this power Blizzard never had to put their games on steam.

Everyone gets their day, for EA it was battlefield.

And now its Epics turn, finally after like 2 decades they have a relevant product again and they can finally muscle their way back into the consumer space. So for epic this is critical in any chance they get they are going to try to get people using their launcher, and trapped in their ecosystem.

For apple it was the ipod, for google it was android, does it suck to have all these stores, ya I suppose so, but its just reality. And no its not going to get better. And one day we might even see laws passed that force companies to allow other stores on to their platforms.
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
So valve leveraged this massive success to force people to use steam, they made CSS the multiplayer for HL2, think about how ridiculous that is for a second, the multiplayer for HL2 had not one shred of anything to do with the HL2 single player at all, and the rest is history that one critical opportunity created every thing valve is today.

did you forget about Half life 2 deathmatch?
 
Top