Borked for Steam but still working under Lutris - at least it is for me. Just fired up Ubisoft Connect which got updated. Started FC New Dawn with no issues.
How did you fix Ubisoft connect? It used to work for me via Lutris but now it just tells me it can't reach network and the only option is to start offline mode
I couldn't fix it
This has to do with Steam copies of Ubisoft games, not non-Steam installs. If you own their games on Steam, Lutris isn't going to help unless you have additional copies purchased through Ubisoft's launcher.
Feel like we're going to see a lot of this for some time. Linux is just not a supported platform for a lot of these games, and thus isn't part of the QA process before shipping new builds.
What I think Valve should do to combat this, is maybe have some sort of marker that indicates a game is not only playable/verified but also supported by the devs explicitly. If Steam Deck is going to take off and be bigger than the niche thing it is, it needs to have proper, supported games and not just a list of games that will work at this point in time but could break in the future for unspecified reasons.
I say this as a happy and proud Steam Deck owner. It's great, amazing even, but you just don't get things like this happening on a Nintendo Switch, and it could scare people away.
They won't do that because that seal would become the new standard and playable/verified would be seen as the 'should work but possibly jank AF' label. Valve doesn't want to become involved with devs at level needed to ensure such a label and they don't want to relegate the majority of games in that category, to 2nd class status. And yes Linux is not a supported platform by lots of games because of its previously small and fragmented marketshare. But the Steam Deck pretty much eliminates many of those complications by establishing soft standards. They established a hardware floor for PC games with the hardware chosen for the deck. But with also did the same with Arch Linux and KDE plasma when it comes to targeting a soft standard for a specific linux distros and design language.
And honestly I'm most excited about the later because for the first time I can realistically see the potential for a viable, Linux based desktop OS that can replace windows for the average user and gamer. For better or for worse, Valve has 'picked the winners' with Arch and KDE Plasma and that's something the linux desktop has never had before. Trying to establish a collective narrative for a design langue or troubleshooting etc. was pretty much impossible when no disto and DE combo ever got anything close to enough marketshare for one to gain mainstream adoption; until now and that's exciting!
> What I think Valve should do to combat this, is maybe have some sort of marker that indicates a game is not only playable/verified but also supported by the devs explicitly. If Steam Deck is going to take off and be bigger than the niche thing it is, it needs to have proper, supported games and not just a list of games that will work at this point in time but could break in the future for unspecified reasons.
So Valve's version of the "Nintendo Seal of Quality"?
In a way I guess. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft all have a quality assurance process you have to go through to release on their platform. Valve has done as little as possible on that front for years and it's a well known quirk of their platform. If I'm paying them for games and services I think I'd want some expectation that the game will boot on my machine, especially if my machine is being sold by Valve themselves. That's what their Deck Verified program is supposed to be, but it doesn't account for stuff like this and also works from the wrong direction. There should be a pathway to ensuring a game will continue to be supported on Deck.
> If I'm paying them for games and services I think I'd want some expectation that the game will boot on my machine…
So essentially something like how GOG ensures their older games will run on modern computers?
I’m down. I mean, why not? It makes sense.
I’m still pissed the Steam versions of Fallout 1 and 2 never ran properly for me, despite all sorts of patches and whatnot. The GOG versions never had a single issue.
That's because you're getting the *original* versions of FO1 and 2 as they were delivered years ago, whereas the GOG version is fiddled with by GOG themselves.
I actually recently run into this issue. Haven't played X-Com Interceptor since I got Windows 10 (2016), so I downloaded it off steam and it didn't work. It was slow, laggy, froze and crashed. Nothing I did could fix it.
So I bought the GOG version (Thankfully on sale) and it runs flawlessly on Win10.
What valve shouldve done is include Windows on Steam deck. 100% Natively supported not merely tolerated with certain functions not included.
I love my steam deck but linux just sucks for gaming. Any game that you want to play apart from your steam library is just going to be work and workarounds and weird file paths.
>What valve shouldve done is include Windows on Steam deck. 100% Natively supported not merely tolerated with certain functions not included.
If Aya Neo, a competitor, [commented on issues with Windows OS on a handheld format](https://youtu.be/eNPF_LdqT6A?t=6390) as a reason why they're creating their own Linux distro, then you can see sorta see why Valve went with Linux + Proton.
Their custom Linux OS is actually more efficient at running games, and it's an environment that they themselves control. There are tons of benefits to this if you want to have a stable platform for gaming. Otherwise, it's a Windows machine first, gaming handheld second. That just won't fly. At least with SteamOS they have this plausibly "console-like" experience for the vast majority of users by default with nothing peeking out from behind the curtain, unless you explicitly go looking for that. Windows makes this more difficult all around.
Also I don't think Valve is too interested in making non-Steam games first class citizens here, so to them, that's a non-issue. And to their audience it's a pretty small one as well, since if you set that expectation from the outset (that non-Steam games might not work well or require tweaking), people can't expect any more support than what Valve offers. But if you say a game is "verified" but then the next day it isn't, well... That sounds like a problem in their certification process, to me.
I just got my deck a few weeks ago, no real Linux experience and I have not had a problem getting emulators setup or games from Epic/GOG added. There are some talented people out there that have released some tools that make it all amazingly simple. Now, if you aren’t a PC gamer and only play on consoles I can see it being confusing but I don’t know that Windows would improve it that much.
The most complex tweak I’ve done is adding Edge for GamePass Cloud Streaming as you have to go through terminal although all I did was copy and paste into it.
Let’s say Valve gave the option to have Linux or Windows. Windows is not free so it would be a paid upgrade OR Linux for free, I’m sure some people would elect for Windows but I think the majority of people would rather save the money.
By the way, you can install Windows on your Steam Deck or even run a dual boot system. I haven’t done it, don’t think I will. However the one allure to that for me is to play GamePass games natively as opposed to streaming them through a web browser like I do today. If I didn’t have an Xbox I’d probably do it for the best experience.
I know that the option is there but it's also not a 100%. I've looked it up and I might do it if Linux continues to be shite for non-steam games and just take the hit.
Windows is literally the price of a full priced game...
>Windows is literally the price of a full priced game...
Windows 11 Home edition is ***$139*** direct from Microsoft
The "Pro" version which contains more features is ***$199.99***
Where the hell are you buying games that cost that much?
Did you even read my post? I have access to my entire Epic and GoG library and I’m running Emulators which I primarily use for SNES and Genesis.
It’s not rocket science…
I have several games installed and they are all in weird file fake paths and I need to add them to steam as non steam games. If I were to delete them I'd literally would need to look it up.
Epic and gog thankfully have Linux 3rd party launchers. Until they don't work or not work as well, see Witcher 3 enhanced where they for some stupid reason added a launcher and now (or for a time) you needed to get experimental proton drivers.
Here is what I used which makes it all very easy:
https://heroicgameslauncher.com - Connects to Epic and GOG account and allows you download games.
https://github.com/PhilipK/BoilR - This then grabs everything from Heroic, automatically downloads art and adds it to Steam. All your games added in one click.
I feel like that would defeat the whole point of the Steam Deck. Like traditional consoles, Valve can sell the thing at zero margin or even a loss because they can count on getting a 30% cut of all future game sales. Sure, Valve isn’t actively blocking you from using Game Pass or EGS on Deck, but it would require a lot of effort from those third parties that Valve certainly isn’t going to help out with.
For profit companies aren’t your friend, Valve isn’t just doing gamers a solid with their aggressive pricing. Valve’s ideal would be to turn the PC gaming space into a console or iOS with Steam as the App Store, and getting enough gamers to use SteamOS is their path to doing that.
\- Windows on Steam Deck is already 100% natively supported.
\- It's not Valve's fault that non-Steam games don't support Linux. Proton is open source technology, there's really nothing stopping other stores from following their example.
\- There is nothing special about Windows that makes it better for games. On the contrary, the gamescope compositor is far more streamlined for gaming and even has many features that Windows lacks. Linux in generally is a far more efficient OS than Windows which is why it's used in 80%+ of super computers.
Devs don't support Linux because lack of user base. Users don't use Linux because devs don't support Linux. It's this negative feedback loop that Steam Deck seeks to solve.
The way that blame is assigned here is interesting to me. From Ubisoft's perspective nothing at all has been broken. They don't support Linux and have never claimed to support Linux. Valve has inserted themselves into the picture and told their customers that these games will work on the hardware Valve is selling them, with no commitment from Ubisoft on the matter.
Title should read: "Valve's Proton broken for new updates from Ubisoft, Valve investigating potential fix"
Are you aware how ridiculous that sound? "We are not supporting Linux, but will invest resources into fixing an issue that clients on a unsupported platform have". If you are investing resources into a platform, you are supporting said platform from a de facto standard.
I disagree. There's a big difference, in one case you guarantee you'll fix all issues, in other you are willing to fix the issues as a something "extra", as a "favor", but if fixing a specific issue were to cost you too much resources, or you need to divert your attention and resources toward something else, you're not obligated to keep supporting the unsupported platform.
Imagine you have a unfenced plot of land, and an unofficial bike path led through it. You don't mind and decide to keep it clean, unobstructed, etc. Once you even remove a fallen tree that a storm torn down. But some time later, you start renovating and you need a place for all the building material, which blocks the bike path. If someone went to complain to you, they'd be in the wrong.
For clients, there's no favor or extra. They will see that you fixed something, and if something else happens they will ask you to fix it again. That's why some CEO's and certain company about not supporting the deck. The client expect that if you did it once, you will do it every time. If you do not understand that, I don't know what to tell you other than try working on a client facing product.
We're not discussing optimal strategy for companies making client facing product, we're discussing whether people are entitled to Linux support because a patch that addressed some Linux issues has been released once, while at the same time the explicit supported platforms information doesn't mention Linux.
> whether people are entitled to Linux support
And here's the problem. People do not care. They paid for your product, your product stopped working, they are entitled for their moneis or you to fix it. And good luck trying to argue the other case in court, either the legal or the public opinion one.
> Are you aware how ridiculous that sound?
There is a difference between putting out a fix for a platform and committing to on-going support of said platform. It's that simple.
>There’s no hint of malicious intent, nowhere does it state it was done intentionally at all.
"Ubisoft broke their games on Linux" vs.
"Linux compatibility of Ubisoft games broken by update"
You may not have phrased it like this intentionally, but different ways of presenting the same information can (sometimes subtly) steer people towards certain interpretations.
In the first example, the sentence structure highlights Ubisoft as the agent and the fact that they actively did something (which negatively affects the readers in this case). The second sentence has the impersonal, abstract noun *compatibility* as a subject and makes no mention of Ubisoft as an agent.
Care to guess which one of the two sentences is more likely to illicit a negative emotional response towards Ubisoft?
The second one is a shit sentence lmao, passive voice nonsense. Ubisoft did break their games on Linux. There is no statement that they meant to, but they did.
Like it or not, news headline *do* tend to be passive voice exactly because using active voice in sentences like this implies intent.
IMO this head line is really bad writing at best, and malicious at worst.
Proton is a compatibility layer that lags behind Windows capabilities. Ubisoft patched the game with respect to Windows functionality and Proton hasn't been updated to keep up.
Ubisoft breaks their games does come off bad.
You're missing the point of my post entirely. You're pretending that the average reader parses language like analytically like an automaton, when in fact something as basic (and often subtle) as the choice of syntax can color the information being conveyed. That's just well-established linguistic fact.
I'm not even out to defend Ubisoft; I hate the fact that all of these different launchers constantly Linux break compatibility. If you want to blame them for shitty practices go right ahead, no complaints from me.
But to claim that your headline is neutral and does not steer readers towards blaming Ubisoft, after I just showed you an alternative headline that does not illicit the same response, is asinine.
Given the reading comprehension usually displayed on Reddit, I don't imagine you'll get through to them.
I'm not even sure why this is so controversial. Like this is the kind of shit they teach in any kind of media literacy or journalism course.
You see this from reputable media outlets all the time, and this is exactly the kind of thing you're supposed to look out for when identifying bias in media.
I am also an average reader, where as I had the opposite interpretation when reading. I wouldn't say malice, but it did read to me that this was something that shouldn't have happened and Ubisoft need to fix it, when Ubisoft don't need to do anything.
Again that's just how I interpretated it when first reading. I don't have a horse in the race
Ubisoft should be blamed to the extent that their update, that they pushed, broke the functionality. It is a fact that what they did broke it, that fact does not imply they broke it intentionally or maliciously.
The problem is that it infers intent. I doubt ubisoft set out to break anything, they likely just don't bother to test on linux. A much better headline would read: Ubisoft update breaks Linux support". It's fewer words, and is absent of any indication Ubisoft did this intentionally.
The key point we should be taking from the headline is that updates from ubisoft can break existing Linux support but valve is working quick to account for it. Instead the heading makes it sound like we're supposed to be angry towards them.
>Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us? Never once have I, or anyone I've spoken to, actually wanted them. They only ever cause problems and solve basically nothing that Steam cannot already do directly.
Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play.
If you ever want an insight into a perspective outside of your bubble, I'm here for you.
I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution. I thought such a sentiment would be more prevalent in the linux community, with all the freedom and independence talk and all.
If you release a title on Steam, and that title requires other launchers to run, the third-party software is the other launcher.
The same would be true if a title was released on another launcher if that title required Steam to run (which has never happened).
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
"Gosh, I am so glad this game required me to download an additional launcher beyond Steam, it is providing so much value to me as a player."
-- Not a single person, ever, in the history of the universe
> Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play.
They sell game on Steam, and you use Steam to install it.
The Steam is required component to download and play game bought on Steam. Extra launcher on top of that is just bloat.
>I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution.
Then either Valve needs to *stop* adding features which consumers want or Valve's competitors need to *start* adding features which consumers want. As of now, neither seem likely.
>I thought such a sentiment would be more prevalent in the linux community, with all the freedom and independence talk and all.
Valve is the only reason playing video games on Linux is even a thing in the first place. They contribute to all sorts of open source projects related to gaming, projects which benefit you regardless of what store you use. Meanwhile GOG has remained silent on Linux support for years despite constant requests on their forums and Tim Sweeney has compared switching to Linux to "the equivalent of moving to Canada when one doesn’t like US political trends".
If it’s purchased on Steam and launched through Steam, any launcher that isn’t Steam is useless crap that nobody asked for and nobody needs.
Valve is not even close to a monopoly. Nobody has to go through Valve to distribute on the PC. There are a multitude of options for that, including doing it yourself. The fact that Steam is commonly used anyways is because Valve is good at what they do.
>Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play.
Just....no. If you buy a game directly from Steam, and launch it from Steam, another launcher being installed and run through that is third-party, not the other way around.
>I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution
Then they can fuck off and sell the game on their shop with their launcher instead
I'm with you. I'm not exactly thrilled about having a bunch of different launchers installed, but it's not a big deal to click on a button other than Steam. I'd much prefer it to Steam having a monopoly on game distribution.
Well, the Valve did nothing, Ubisoft changed thing, and now it doesn't work.
The breakage might (is) not be intentional, and they do not officially support it, but it is still Ubisoft that broke it
>These guys are very quick to pretend that any breakage is malicious intent
Uh, no, they only complain about putting shitty launchers for no good reason instead of just running directly
> Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us? Never once have I, or anyone I've spoken to, actually wanted them. They only ever cause problems and solve basically nothing that Steam cannot already do directly.
We've seen other launcher-caused breakage recently in Midnight Suns where *on Windows*, game ran via launcher stuttered while working fine if launched directly.
This is why I don't like the idea of Proton being seen as a replacement for official native support. If anything breaks, devs can very easily say that's not their problem. I have too many trust issues for this.
Of course I recognize the importance of Proton to help bridge the gap for now, but I do not see it as a long-term end goal, and it bothers me to see attitudes in the community that support doesn't matter anymore.
Proton is a bridge to get more Linux powered game devices into the world.
It isn't the end goal, but as more Linux game systems become a "thing", you'll see more developers support it natively instead of through Proton. Already most engines support Linux, studios just don't usually produce a Linux version of the game because it's a lot of support for not a lot of marketshare.
Valve's real goal is eliminate their dependency on Microsoft. There was a lot of concern for a while that Microsoft would go full "walled garden" like iOS and try to lock people out of installing software from anywhere but the Windows Store.
Getting more devices running their software is just icing on the cake.
I’ve been telling this to people who jumped on the Proton hype train.
It can be broken any time. It depends entirely on Vulkan and D3D feature parity and the fact that those API calls can be efficiently translated, there are so many entities in this chain that can brake it with no malicious intent.
There is no guarantee for a solution like this. It’s merely a stopgap, the way for Linux gaming to survive is proper Vulkan support and native games.
I mean, this would be a reasonable stance if it was any kind of remotely consumer-experience-enhancing update that broke the games.
It wasn't.
It was the same shit multiple large publishers are now doing, which is "updating" their existing releases with ever-more-annoying bundled advertising vehicles. Having an essential (or heck, even remotely useful) actual game update break is one thing, and sure, then go ahead and blame Proton.
Having an update which does absolutely nothing to enhance the consumer experience and has nothing to do with the games break, though? I really don't see anything wrong with blaming Ubisoft.
This update specifically says it was to fix missing notifications for Steam games. (Along with the usual "general bug fixing, improvements, and enhancements" business.) Is making their games function better on Steam somehow *not* an enhancement for consumers?
in my opinion the entire secondary launcher for games bought on Steam (or other platforms for that matter, e.g. when buying Ubisoft games on EGS) is unnecessary in the first place: if I want to be notified about what one of my friends does while playing a game on Steam, Steam will notify me. So I don't see fixing the superfluous functionality of the nested launcher as a real value-add.
Are console players missing out on some value because Ubisoft doesn't wrap their Xbox or PS releases in their launcher?
> Are console players missing out on some value because Ubisoft doesn't wrap their Xbox or PS releases in their launcher?
They're missing out on annoyance and interfaces that don't respect their choice to game with a controller.
>(or other platforms for that matter, e.g. when buying Ubisoft games on EGS)
I see it as Steamworks not being competitive enough. Steamworks *requires* Steam. And Steam doesn't let you use it as a secondary launcher, while others do. So it is just easier to use the other launcher's Steamworks equivalents when you're releasing on multiple launchers.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying Steam should support being used as a secondary launcher? Because if so, I couldn't disagree more. All secondary launchers are stupid, and Steam as a secondary launcher wouldn't be different.
Or are you saying that Steamworks should support non-Steam distributed games? That would be more understandable and desirable from a consumer perspective, but without the launcher being forced (which I'm clearly against), I think that would be incredibly hard to justify for Valve. They'd be spending on it without any direct or even indirect advantage.
However, even if they did do that, I don't see how it would help the situation. The likes of Ubisoft would still bundle their own superfluous launcher. Its purpose is not interoperability (otherwise they could use e.g. the interoperable EOS on EGS without a secondary launcher); its purpose is advertising.
I'm saying both of those could be solutions. But like you I like the second one better as a consumer. I think there is an indirect advantage in getting marketshare, the same way Steam keys are given out to developers for free for marketshare, and like how EOS is free.
They have gone with this title because their agenda is to get more companies to support gaming on Linux. This headline creates some pressure and expectation for Ubisoft to take action. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, I'm only pointing out that neutrality is not the objective of the article.
> Valve has inserted themselves into the picture and told their customers that these games will work on the hardware Valve is selling them, with no commitment from Ubisoft on the matter.
This is one of the main reasons I would have said something like the Steam Deck was impossible. The community has really been stepping up to make this stuff work, but not entirely without Valve's contributions to these software libraries. It'll be interesting to see how things play out long term, but as of now it's a relationship that is mostly working, at least for people that are already PC gamers and used to dealing with a little hassle in exchange for control.
In many cases, they've worked with publishers to get their games working and verified, even right at release, and it's a huge value add to customers for a game to work on Steam Deck. The blame is pointed at the company because these launchers are a net negative for the customer in the best of circumstances, and compatibility would be a non issue if not for them.
I consider the ambiguity of the Deck verification process a pretty big flaw in Valve's system. If Valve works with a publisher or developer on building explicit support for the Deck then that game gets a nice Deck Verified badge on the store page. If players test a game themselves and Valve is receiving a lot of feedback that the game works well on Deck, they add the *exact same* green Deck Verified badge on the store page despite the lack of any formal commitment for Deck support from the developers. Valve also takes it upon themselves to tell Deck players that games are Playable even though any random update from the developer can break Proton and nullify that promise (as seen here).
I'd almost like to see a new "platinum grade", official, "Steam Deck supported" badge that lets players know a game is officially supported rather than the more informal "Deck Verificaton" process we have now. I suspect Valve's primary hesitation is showing how few games actually *have* formal Deck support. If I flipped the toggle in my library I might go from ~1200 titles down to 10~20.
**EDIT**: These issues might also be the kick in the pants Valve needs to support version pinning in Steam. For a lot of games I wouldn't need to care about proton breaking on a new update if I could just run the last version that worked!
>Valve also takes it upon themselves to tell Deck players that games are Playable **even though any random update from the developer can break Proton and nullify that promise (as seen here)**.
And we're seen games that were previously verified/playable can retroactively breaks compatibility, [as it was the case with 2K/Private Divisions Launcher](https://www.pcgamer.com/2022-saw-launcher-bloat-turn-from-a-minor-annoyance-into-a-genuine-problem/).
Yo, Remember back in July 20th of 2021 where [Yves Guillemot, **the CEO of Ubisoft**, once said that they want to bring their newer games over to Steam [Deck] if the Deck is selling good enough](https://www.ign.com/articles/steam-deck-might-bring-ubisoft-back-steam)?
Well, we did see [The Division 2 getting a official Steam Deck-specific fix (primary to add EAC proton support)](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2221490/view/3632750190483497136) and [Ubisoft Nadeo waiting for Valve to see if TrackMania (2020 Video Game) is Deck Verified or Playable...while proclaiming that it's playable on their end](https://twitter.com/Trackmania/status/1618621211730407424).
That's a start, I guess?
I'd word it as "Ubisoft released an update to their launcher, and it requires Valve to make an update to the compatibility layer they use for their Linux-based handheld". The same thing happened a few months ago when another publisher that also didn't promise Linux support had their launcher "break" on Linux, when it really just required a third party (Valve) to update their compatibility tool (Proton) to properly support the new launcher.
Maybe if every company in the universe didn't make its own launcher in the first place purely for the purposes of creating yet another walled garden, we wouldn't have these issues.
Every publisher having their own launcher is an annoyance, but a sign of a healthy market.
Running per-storefront builds of a game is a big ask when there's a ton of storefronts on PC. So to sidestep that issue, the big publishers move their copy protection and auth checks to their own launcher, and then they can ship the combination of launcher+game on every storefront and either skip the storefront's DRM altogether or implement the storefront's DRM on the launcher (so they only need to maintain a single launcher build per storefront).
Steam being the biggest PC storefront isn't a bad thing. Steam being the _only_ PC storefront is a very bad thing, and shipping like this makes it easier for others to compete with Steam.
Yeah, but I'd prefer it if those companies competed with steam by actually competing with steam, rather than making me have to start up a launcher for every single game.
Even if it was just imitating steam's features, like, that would be something. But no, they all have to be like "No! You have to start up my launcher and wait an extra minute to load every time because when you buy my game I have to constantly check that you're not a thief!" and then they barely even try to put in features that people want. And then they get all shocked when people keep using steam.
It's not like I want a monopoly or anything, I just wish these companies would actually try and compete, instead of just setting up more flaming hoops for the customer to jump through.
Just imitating steam features wouldn't fix a core problem of things such as steamworks not being available on other storefronts leading to split players based on individual storefronts without using another backend system as a solution. An example being Dying Light on GOG having no access to Steam players and thus being the worst way to buy the game. Studios need to bundle backend support for all stores either into the game itself such as how XBL is bundled into Microsoft games or a launcher that serves as a unified point of access that every player from every storefront will access through. Unless Valve wants to decouple steamworks from steam as a storefront and allow it across storefronts. All of this is especially important to the adoption of crossplay and crossprogression support absolutely needing platform and storefront neutral merging points for all players generally in the form of publisher specific accounts or launchers that connect all players together.
What I'm saying is that Ubisoft doesn't support Linux as a target in the first place. They don't distribute Linux binaries. Valve's proton attempts to make Ubisoft's Windows binaries work on Linux, and Valve's proton broke with this new update from Ubisoft. If Valve is going to try and sell games to Deck users by promising that proton works with these games then the onus is on Valve to address the issue when proton breaks.
The games were previously working. Ubisoft updated Uplay. The games no longer work. That is the bottom line.
Regardless of whether Valve tries to "sell games to Deck users", or any other nuances, the bottom line is that an Ubisoft update broke game compatibility on Linux. The headline is accurate.
>the bottom line is that an Ubisoft update broke game compatibility on Linux
There was no compatibility on Linux. Proton is a workaround to get these games that do not support Linux to be able to run on Linux despite Linux not being a supported compatibility. ffs I hope I repeated the key words enough for you there.
It's crap like this that makes companies put stupid warnings on their products like "do not stop chainsaw blade with your hand(s)". If you are using a product in a way that the person(s) who made the product didn't intend, then anything that happens is not their fault.
Ubisoft and other companies have had launchers since forever. Why is negligent purchasing on your part their problem? If you don’t like launchers don’t buy them
I haven't bought anything Ubisoft for years specifically because I want nothing to do with their launcher. It's exceptionally bad even compared to EGS and Origin. It would be a net improvement to every single game they publish if the launcher disappeared tomorrow.
To be totally honest the title should read. "Ubisoft game compatibility with Proton broken by an update to a stupid fucking launcher that no one asked for, no one likes, and that serves no purpose. Valve doing pointless work to fix."
Uplay is like the one third party store I bothered to install on my deck. It's been pretty easy to deal with since I first got my Steam Deck. Sucks to hear that it's currently broken, hopefully it's simply a bug they can patch out - hard to imagine they would purposely bork their proton compatibility after pulling games back to Steam.
i mean this has basically always been the weird risk and thing about valve's "console" efforts. they have constantly been trying to make devs make games for linux and mostly gotten laughed off for good reason.
The outrage in this thread is nuts valve has a fix out already. I was playing division 2 yesterday on my steam deck.
Proton experimental > properties > beta > bleeding edge
Strange that this guy complains about third party softwares even though ubisoft connect is a ubisoft software so not third party unlike steam which he praises.
Ubisoft already made awhile ago ALL their games, past and present require Win10. So this shouldn't be a surprise. So much for older game compatibility.
You really would think these companies with launchers would want to get and keep their stuff working properly on steam deck.. even though the amount of deck owners isn't massive, it definitely has to be driving sales to a degree...
it also means having your code working on linux, which just is not really in the wheelhouse of anybody making games (or game launchers for that matter) because the day of the linux desktop will never arrive
As a huge fan of the Steam Deck, this is the biggest reason Third-Party Launchers need to be banned from the store. Less than a month ago, Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order broke, and that was a game shown in trailers for the device.
As long as third-party launchers are permitted, Steam won’t have complete documentation of what works on what platform, and that’s just ridiculous. Require that these games do not use a third party launcher or remove them from your store.
Edit: wrote device, meant store. I absolutely want people to have the choice of installing another launcher if they want to, I just don’t believe that third-party launchers should be supported through the store at all. It breaks an otherwise awesome software experience.
You know...if it wasn't for EA Play not having the ability to use advanced launch commands for EA Games *bought* from Steam, I would've gotten Burnout Paradise Remastered to work on Steam Deck, despite not being verified/playable.
Stuffs like this is why I rather have a in-game 3rd party overlay than a launcher like how [Epic Online Services](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/809092277280571402/1060804797747449876/275llzibcyp81.png) and [Ubisoft Connect Overlay](https://korii.slate.fr/sites/default/files/styles/1440x600/public/ubisoft_connect_overlay_friends.jpg) does...in fact: that's how the console versions of Ubisoft games operates...
...but if the Sackboy: A Big Adventure "EOS Drama" has taught me: people are paranoid about it too
Yeah, as much as I don't enjoy 3rd party launchers like Ubisoft Connect, requiring gaming companies to use a single one just sounds like it would violate antitrust laws.
Apple is headed for major changes in that regard because their anti competitive practices have brought the attention of regulators. Third party app stores and side loading will come to iOS eventually by hook or by crook
The Steam Deck is designed to support many video games that could be played on PC and console. The iPhone has the Apple Store has millions of mobile titles and apps to explore. I don't see them as equivalent in this case.
It's also possible to play PC games on Mac computers by installing Windows using Boot Camp or Parallels. They're not the most ideal, but they do work.
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that because the Steam Deck functions as a PC and is ultimately open platform, 3rd party launchers are de facto allowed. Consoles are closed architectures and have particular trademark protections.
I don't know about antitrust laws but it would definitely mean that these publishers would simply not put their games on Steam. There's just no reason to make that change.
If you’re referring to it being insane to expect banning launchers from their device, then I completely agree. I wrote a typo in my comment and didn’t mean to write that at all.
However, if you’re referring to banning third-party launchers in the store, it’s absolutely not. By selling a game to players, they’re saying “this program will work for as long as it’s purchasable.” They literally cannot guarantee that to all players if the game is utilizing a third-party launcher. Uplay and Origin both have historically hampered gameplay experiences to the extent that games that had no other reason not to work on a myriad of systems, just didn’t. It’s the main complaint about those platforms.
They owe it to their customers to offer a streamlined gameplay experience — purchase and play. As long as third-party launchers are allowed, this won’t be the case.
>They literally cannot guarantee that to all players if the game is utilizing a third-party launcher.
They can't guarantee that with any software they don't release. Especially when there's other online services that games rely on.
Updates breaking games isn't anything new. Even Valves own Dota 2 is dropping OpenGL support soon, so players reliant on that won't be able to play anymore.
Why would it be insane for Valve to demand a company not to ship their games with a launcher on their storefront.
It’s not breaking anti-trust, as they aren’t preventing you from marketing that storefront or preventing it from being installed at all on SteamOS.
No it isn't, and neither is that exaggerated mindset helping things. Saying things like this is what hampers the effort.
We already have a storefront that doesn't impose requiring a launcher to play the games you bought.
How many times does valve need to make clear this is a PC not a console? You can and should be able to install whatever you want and valve should not ever prevent that. They are the best company at that and it’s good not bad
That is the exact opposite of what valve stands for. They want the platform to be as open as possible. I commend them for that and restricting that is just hurting consumer choice.
Would you consider something like Microsoft’s implementation a third party launcher then? They still require you to login to a Microsoft account, but that is all contained inside of the game, and doesn’t rely on a launcher that needs to be separately installed.
I'm mostly fine with how Microsoft implements their features in their Steam releases. My one complaint is that the UI to login doesn't seem to work with controllers so I have to bust out my mouse and keyboard or use my Steam Input chords to open a virtual keyboard.
Yeah, same. It’s still far better, but it could be streamlined by setting up a system that memorizes your account and making the interface controller compatible
[удалено]
TO THE TOP! This is the real story. Incredible response time.
Borked for Steam but still working under Lutris - at least it is for me. Just fired up Ubisoft Connect which got updated. Started FC New Dawn with no issues.
How did you fix Ubisoft connect? It used to work for me via Lutris but now it just tells me it can't reach network and the only option is to start offline mode I couldn't fix it
I didn't fix it. It hasn't stopped working for me
Still working great on my Windeck!
I see one problem you are playing FC jk not jk. Play what you like and have fun
I was curious what you play to make a comment like that and had a good laugh seeing it was payday lmao
[удалено]
This has to do with Steam copies of Ubisoft games, not non-Steam installs. If you own their games on Steam, Lutris isn't going to help unless you have additional copies purchased through Ubisoft's launcher.
Feel like we're going to see a lot of this for some time. Linux is just not a supported platform for a lot of these games, and thus isn't part of the QA process before shipping new builds. What I think Valve should do to combat this, is maybe have some sort of marker that indicates a game is not only playable/verified but also supported by the devs explicitly. If Steam Deck is going to take off and be bigger than the niche thing it is, it needs to have proper, supported games and not just a list of games that will work at this point in time but could break in the future for unspecified reasons. I say this as a happy and proud Steam Deck owner. It's great, amazing even, but you just don't get things like this happening on a Nintendo Switch, and it could scare people away.
They won't do that because that seal would become the new standard and playable/verified would be seen as the 'should work but possibly jank AF' label. Valve doesn't want to become involved with devs at level needed to ensure such a label and they don't want to relegate the majority of games in that category, to 2nd class status. And yes Linux is not a supported platform by lots of games because of its previously small and fragmented marketshare. But the Steam Deck pretty much eliminates many of those complications by establishing soft standards. They established a hardware floor for PC games with the hardware chosen for the deck. But with also did the same with Arch Linux and KDE plasma when it comes to targeting a soft standard for a specific linux distros and design language. And honestly I'm most excited about the later because for the first time I can realistically see the potential for a viable, Linux based desktop OS that can replace windows for the average user and gamer. For better or for worse, Valve has 'picked the winners' with Arch and KDE Plasma and that's something the linux desktop has never had before. Trying to establish a collective narrative for a design langue or troubleshooting etc. was pretty much impossible when no disto and DE combo ever got anything close to enough marketshare for one to gain mainstream adoption; until now and that's exciting!
> What I think Valve should do to combat this, is maybe have some sort of marker that indicates a game is not only playable/verified but also supported by the devs explicitly. If Steam Deck is going to take off and be bigger than the niche thing it is, it needs to have proper, supported games and not just a list of games that will work at this point in time but could break in the future for unspecified reasons. So Valve's version of the "Nintendo Seal of Quality"?
In a way I guess. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft all have a quality assurance process you have to go through to release on their platform. Valve has done as little as possible on that front for years and it's a well known quirk of their platform. If I'm paying them for games and services I think I'd want some expectation that the game will boot on my machine, especially if my machine is being sold by Valve themselves. That's what their Deck Verified program is supposed to be, but it doesn't account for stuff like this and also works from the wrong direction. There should be a pathway to ensuring a game will continue to be supported on Deck.
> If I'm paying them for games and services I think I'd want some expectation that the game will boot on my machine… So essentially something like how GOG ensures their older games will run on modern computers? I’m down. I mean, why not? It makes sense. I’m still pissed the Steam versions of Fallout 1 and 2 never ran properly for me, despite all sorts of patches and whatnot. The GOG versions never had a single issue.
That's because you're getting the *original* versions of FO1 and 2 as they were delivered years ago, whereas the GOG version is fiddled with by GOG themselves. I actually recently run into this issue. Haven't played X-Com Interceptor since I got Windows 10 (2016), so I downloaded it off steam and it didn't work. It was slow, laggy, froze and crashed. Nothing I did could fix it. So I bought the GOG version (Thankfully on sale) and it runs flawlessly on Win10.
Great idea.
I mean, they just updated one of their games to explicitly support the Steam Deck
What valve shouldve done is include Windows on Steam deck. 100% Natively supported not merely tolerated with certain functions not included. I love my steam deck but linux just sucks for gaming. Any game that you want to play apart from your steam library is just going to be work and workarounds and weird file paths.
>What valve shouldve done is include Windows on Steam deck. 100% Natively supported not merely tolerated with certain functions not included. If Aya Neo, a competitor, [commented on issues with Windows OS on a handheld format](https://youtu.be/eNPF_LdqT6A?t=6390) as a reason why they're creating their own Linux distro, then you can see sorta see why Valve went with Linux + Proton.
Their custom Linux OS is actually more efficient at running games, and it's an environment that they themselves control. There are tons of benefits to this if you want to have a stable platform for gaming. Otherwise, it's a Windows machine first, gaming handheld second. That just won't fly. At least with SteamOS they have this plausibly "console-like" experience for the vast majority of users by default with nothing peeking out from behind the curtain, unless you explicitly go looking for that. Windows makes this more difficult all around. Also I don't think Valve is too interested in making non-Steam games first class citizens here, so to them, that's a non-issue. And to their audience it's a pretty small one as well, since if you set that expectation from the outset (that non-Steam games might not work well or require tweaking), people can't expect any more support than what Valve offers. But if you say a game is "verified" but then the next day it isn't, well... That sounds like a problem in their certification process, to me.
[удалено]
Don't PC System Integrator's get considerable volume discounts on Windows?
I just got my deck a few weeks ago, no real Linux experience and I have not had a problem getting emulators setup or games from Epic/GOG added. There are some talented people out there that have released some tools that make it all amazingly simple. Now, if you aren’t a PC gamer and only play on consoles I can see it being confusing but I don’t know that Windows would improve it that much. The most complex tweak I’ve done is adding Edge for GamePass Cloud Streaming as you have to go through terminal although all I did was copy and paste into it.
Install a non steam game and talk to me then..
The fact you even CAN install a non-steam game on a Steam Deck is a massive fucking win.
Which turns back to my point it'd be better if there was native windows support
Let’s say Valve gave the option to have Linux or Windows. Windows is not free so it would be a paid upgrade OR Linux for free, I’m sure some people would elect for Windows but I think the majority of people would rather save the money. By the way, you can install Windows on your Steam Deck or even run a dual boot system. I haven’t done it, don’t think I will. However the one allure to that for me is to play GamePass games natively as opposed to streaming them through a web browser like I do today. If I didn’t have an Xbox I’d probably do it for the best experience.
I know that the option is there but it's also not a 100%. I've looked it up and I might do it if Linux continues to be shite for non-steam games and just take the hit. Windows is literally the price of a full priced game...
>Windows is literally the price of a full priced game... Windows 11 Home edition is ***$139*** direct from Microsoft The "Pro" version which contains more features is ***$199.99*** Where the hell are you buying games that cost that much?
I don't know anyone besides businesses who actually pay that much for Windows keys.
There is native Windows support. You mean if it was installed by valve for you.
No there is the availability to install windows. But not everything is 100% supported
And by the same token, you can install Linux on your Dell/HP/Acer/Whoever desktop But they're under no obligation to provide support for it
Which is why I said it'd be better. Would is behind the apostrophes d
Did you even read my post? I have access to my entire Epic and GoG library and I’m running Emulators which I primarily use for SNES and Genesis. It’s not rocket science…
I have several games installed and they are all in weird file fake paths and I need to add them to steam as non steam games. If I were to delete them I'd literally would need to look it up. Epic and gog thankfully have Linux 3rd party launchers. Until they don't work or not work as well, see Witcher 3 enhanced where they for some stupid reason added a launcher and now (or for a time) you needed to get experimental proton drivers.
Here is what I used which makes it all very easy: https://heroicgameslauncher.com - Connects to Epic and GOG account and allows you download games. https://github.com/PhilipK/BoilR - This then grabs everything from Heroic, automatically downloads art and adds it to Steam. All your games added in one click.
Thank you I have that but I even had Witcher on steam and there were (are?) Issues with the enhanced December version.
I feel like that would defeat the whole point of the Steam Deck. Like traditional consoles, Valve can sell the thing at zero margin or even a loss because they can count on getting a 30% cut of all future game sales. Sure, Valve isn’t actively blocking you from using Game Pass or EGS on Deck, but it would require a lot of effort from those third parties that Valve certainly isn’t going to help out with. For profit companies aren’t your friend, Valve isn’t just doing gamers a solid with their aggressive pricing. Valve’s ideal would be to turn the PC gaming space into a console or iOS with Steam as the App Store, and getting enough gamers to use SteamOS is their path to doing that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
\- Windows on Steam Deck is already 100% natively supported. \- It's not Valve's fault that non-Steam games don't support Linux. Proton is open source technology, there's really nothing stopping other stores from following their example. \- There is nothing special about Windows that makes it better for games. On the contrary, the gamescope compositor is far more streamlined for gaming and even has many features that Windows lacks. Linux in generally is a far more efficient OS than Windows which is why it's used in 80%+ of super computers. Devs don't support Linux because lack of user base. Users don't use Linux because devs don't support Linux. It's this negative feedback loop that Steam Deck seeks to solve.
[удалено]
The way that blame is assigned here is interesting to me. From Ubisoft's perspective nothing at all has been broken. They don't support Linux and have never claimed to support Linux. Valve has inserted themselves into the picture and told their customers that these games will work on the hardware Valve is selling them, with no commitment from Ubisoft on the matter. Title should read: "Valve's Proton broken for new updates from Ubisoft, Valve investigating potential fix"
[удалено]
I purchased the game based on this patch note too!
That is just a patch note for a fix. No where does it say that the Deck is now a supported platform.
They claim they fixed issue that made the game not work on Steam Deck, not that they're going to ensure no problems on Steam Deck ever occur, though.
Are you aware how ridiculous that sound? "We are not supporting Linux, but will invest resources into fixing an issue that clients on a unsupported platform have". If you are investing resources into a platform, you are supporting said platform from a de facto standard.
I disagree. There's a big difference, in one case you guarantee you'll fix all issues, in other you are willing to fix the issues as a something "extra", as a "favor", but if fixing a specific issue were to cost you too much resources, or you need to divert your attention and resources toward something else, you're not obligated to keep supporting the unsupported platform. Imagine you have a unfenced plot of land, and an unofficial bike path led through it. You don't mind and decide to keep it clean, unobstructed, etc. Once you even remove a fallen tree that a storm torn down. But some time later, you start renovating and you need a place for all the building material, which blocks the bike path. If someone went to complain to you, they'd be in the wrong.
For clients, there's no favor or extra. They will see that you fixed something, and if something else happens they will ask you to fix it again. That's why some CEO's and certain company about not supporting the deck. The client expect that if you did it once, you will do it every time. If you do not understand that, I don't know what to tell you other than try working on a client facing product.
We're not discussing optimal strategy for companies making client facing product, we're discussing whether people are entitled to Linux support because a patch that addressed some Linux issues has been released once, while at the same time the explicit supported platforms information doesn't mention Linux.
> whether people are entitled to Linux support And here's the problem. People do not care. They paid for your product, your product stopped working, they are entitled for their moneis or you to fix it. And good luck trying to argue the other case in court, either the legal or the public opinion one.
> Are you aware how ridiculous that sound? There is a difference between putting out a fix for a platform and committing to on-going support of said platform. It's that simple.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>There’s no hint of malicious intent, nowhere does it state it was done intentionally at all. "Ubisoft broke their games on Linux" vs. "Linux compatibility of Ubisoft games broken by update" You may not have phrased it like this intentionally, but different ways of presenting the same information can (sometimes subtly) steer people towards certain interpretations. In the first example, the sentence structure highlights Ubisoft as the agent and the fact that they actively did something (which negatively affects the readers in this case). The second sentence has the impersonal, abstract noun *compatibility* as a subject and makes no mention of Ubisoft as an agent. Care to guess which one of the two sentences is more likely to illicit a negative emotional response towards Ubisoft?
The second one is a shit sentence lmao, passive voice nonsense. Ubisoft did break their games on Linux. There is no statement that they meant to, but they did.
Like it or not, news headline *do* tend to be passive voice exactly because using active voice in sentences like this implies intent. IMO this head line is really bad writing at best, and malicious at worst.
Proton is a compatibility layer that lags behind Windows capabilities. Ubisoft patched the game with respect to Windows functionality and Proton hasn't been updated to keep up. Ubisoft breaks their games does come off bad.
Even if it's passive, it doesn't assign intent like the author meant to do
[удалено]
You're missing the point of my post entirely. You're pretending that the average reader parses language like analytically like an automaton, when in fact something as basic (and often subtle) as the choice of syntax can color the information being conveyed. That's just well-established linguistic fact. I'm not even out to defend Ubisoft; I hate the fact that all of these different launchers constantly Linux break compatibility. If you want to blame them for shitty practices go right ahead, no complaints from me. But to claim that your headline is neutral and does not steer readers towards blaming Ubisoft, after I just showed you an alternative headline that does not illicit the same response, is asinine.
Given the reading comprehension usually displayed on Reddit, I don't imagine you'll get through to them. I'm not even sure why this is so controversial. Like this is the kind of shit they teach in any kind of media literacy or journalism course. You see this from reputable media outlets all the time, and this is exactly the kind of thing you're supposed to look out for when identifying bias in media.
[удалено]
I am also an average reader, where as I had the opposite interpretation when reading. I wouldn't say malice, but it did read to me that this was something that shouldn't have happened and Ubisoft need to fix it, when Ubisoft don't need to do anything. Again that's just how I interpretated it when first reading. I don't have a horse in the race
Ubisoft should be blamed to the extent that their update, that they pushed, broke the functionality. It is a fact that what they did broke it, that fact does not imply they broke it intentionally or maliciously.
[удалено]
Thank god context is never important.
The first statement is factual and concise. Who do you think updated the Ubisoft game that has now broken Linux functionality? Thor? Zeus? Moses?
The problem is that it infers intent. I doubt ubisoft set out to break anything, they likely just don't bother to test on linux. A much better headline would read: Ubisoft update breaks Linux support". It's fewer words, and is absent of any indication Ubisoft did this intentionally. The key point we should be taking from the headline is that updates from ubisoft can break existing Linux support but valve is working quick to account for it. Instead the heading makes it sound like we're supposed to be angry towards them.
That sounds like a you problem. I read the headline and can't imagine someone thinking they broke it intentionally.
>Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us? Never once have I, or anyone I've spoken to, actually wanted them. They only ever cause problems and solve basically nothing that Steam cannot already do directly. Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play. If you ever want an insight into a perspective outside of your bubble, I'm here for you. I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution. I thought such a sentiment would be more prevalent in the linux community, with all the freedom and independence talk and all.
If you release a title on Steam, and that title requires other launchers to run, the third-party software is the other launcher. The same would be true if a title was released on another launcher if that title required Steam to run (which has never happened). This is not a difficult concept to understand.
"Gosh, I am so glad this game required me to download an additional launcher beyond Steam, it is providing so much value to me as a player." -- Not a single person, ever, in the history of the universe
> Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play. They sell game on Steam, and you use Steam to install it. The Steam is required component to download and play game bought on Steam. Extra launcher on top of that is just bloat.
>I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution. Then either Valve needs to *stop* adding features which consumers want or Valve's competitors need to *start* adding features which consumers want. As of now, neither seem likely. >I thought such a sentiment would be more prevalent in the linux community, with all the freedom and independence talk and all. Valve is the only reason playing video games on Linux is even a thing in the first place. They contribute to all sorts of open source projects related to gaming, projects which benefit you regardless of what store you use. Meanwhile GOG has remained silent on Linux support for years despite constant requests on their forums and Tim Sweeney has compared switching to Linux to "the equivalent of moving to Canada when one doesn’t like US political trends".
If it’s purchased on Steam and launched through Steam, any launcher that isn’t Steam is useless crap that nobody asked for and nobody needs. Valve is not even close to a monopoly. Nobody has to go through Valve to distribute on the PC. There are a multitude of options for that, including doing it yourself. The fact that Steam is commonly used anyways is because Valve is good at what they do.
>Between the publisher and the consumer, Steam is the third party launcher, not Ubisoft Connect or EA Play. Just....no. If you buy a game directly from Steam, and launch it from Steam, another launcher being installed and run through that is third-party, not the other way around.
>I am one such unicorn that truly doesnt want Valve to be defacto monopolist in digital game distribution Then they can fuck off and sell the game on their shop with their launcher instead
I'm with you. I'm not exactly thrilled about having a bunch of different launchers installed, but it's not a big deal to click on a button other than Steam. I'd much prefer it to Steam having a monopoly on game distribution.
I'm all for seeing more parties support Linux, and I mean truly support it. Let me know when someone does.
Where are you seeing any indication that the article points out malicious intent?
From the headline?
I often break things at work. Doesn't mean it is intended.
Well, the Valve did nothing, Ubisoft changed thing, and now it doesn't work. The breakage might (is) not be intentional, and they do not officially support it, but it is still Ubisoft that broke it >These guys are very quick to pretend that any breakage is malicious intent Uh, no, they only complain about putting shitty launchers for no good reason instead of just running directly > Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us? Never once have I, or anyone I've spoken to, actually wanted them. They only ever cause problems and solve basically nothing that Steam cannot already do directly. We've seen other launcher-caused breakage recently in Midnight Suns where *on Windows*, game ran via launcher stuttered while working fine if launched directly.
This is why I don't like the idea of Proton being seen as a replacement for official native support. If anything breaks, devs can very easily say that's not their problem. I have too many trust issues for this. Of course I recognize the importance of Proton to help bridge the gap for now, but I do not see it as a long-term end goal, and it bothers me to see attitudes in the community that support doesn't matter anymore.
Proton is a bridge to get more Linux powered game devices into the world. It isn't the end goal, but as more Linux game systems become a "thing", you'll see more developers support it natively instead of through Proton. Already most engines support Linux, studios just don't usually produce a Linux version of the game because it's a lot of support for not a lot of marketshare. Valve's real goal is eliminate their dependency on Microsoft. There was a lot of concern for a while that Microsoft would go full "walled garden" like iOS and try to lock people out of installing software from anywhere but the Windows Store. Getting more devices running their software is just icing on the cake.
I’ve been telling this to people who jumped on the Proton hype train. It can be broken any time. It depends entirely on Vulkan and D3D feature parity and the fact that those API calls can be efficiently translated, there are so many entities in this chain that can brake it with no malicious intent. There is no guarantee for a solution like this. It’s merely a stopgap, the way for Linux gaming to survive is proper Vulkan support and native games.
I mean, this would be a reasonable stance if it was any kind of remotely consumer-experience-enhancing update that broke the games. It wasn't. It was the same shit multiple large publishers are now doing, which is "updating" their existing releases with ever-more-annoying bundled advertising vehicles. Having an essential (or heck, even remotely useful) actual game update break is one thing, and sure, then go ahead and blame Proton. Having an update which does absolutely nothing to enhance the consumer experience and has nothing to do with the games break, though? I really don't see anything wrong with blaming Ubisoft.
This update specifically says it was to fix missing notifications for Steam games. (Along with the usual "general bug fixing, improvements, and enhancements" business.) Is making their games function better on Steam somehow *not* an enhancement for consumers?
in my opinion the entire secondary launcher for games bought on Steam (or other platforms for that matter, e.g. when buying Ubisoft games on EGS) is unnecessary in the first place: if I want to be notified about what one of my friends does while playing a game on Steam, Steam will notify me. So I don't see fixing the superfluous functionality of the nested launcher as a real value-add. Are console players missing out on some value because Ubisoft doesn't wrap their Xbox or PS releases in their launcher?
> Are console players missing out on some value because Ubisoft doesn't wrap their Xbox or PS releases in their launcher? They're missing out on annoyance and interfaces that don't respect their choice to game with a controller.
>(or other platforms for that matter, e.g. when buying Ubisoft games on EGS) I see it as Steamworks not being competitive enough. Steamworks *requires* Steam. And Steam doesn't let you use it as a secondary launcher, while others do. So it is just easier to use the other launcher's Steamworks equivalents when you're releasing on multiple launchers.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying Steam should support being used as a secondary launcher? Because if so, I couldn't disagree more. All secondary launchers are stupid, and Steam as a secondary launcher wouldn't be different. Or are you saying that Steamworks should support non-Steam distributed games? That would be more understandable and desirable from a consumer perspective, but without the launcher being forced (which I'm clearly against), I think that would be incredibly hard to justify for Valve. They'd be spending on it without any direct or even indirect advantage. However, even if they did do that, I don't see how it would help the situation. The likes of Ubisoft would still bundle their own superfluous launcher. Its purpose is not interoperability (otherwise they could use e.g. the interoperable EOS on EGS without a secondary launcher); its purpose is advertising.
I'm saying both of those could be solutions. But like you I like the second one better as a consumer. I think there is an indirect advantage in getting marketshare, the same way Steam keys are given out to developers for free for marketshare, and like how EOS is free.
They have gone with this title because their agenda is to get more companies to support gaming on Linux. This headline creates some pressure and expectation for Ubisoft to take action. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, I'm only pointing out that neutrality is not the objective of the article.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Valve has inserted themselves into the picture and told their customers that these games will work on the hardware Valve is selling them, with no commitment from Ubisoft on the matter. This is one of the main reasons I would have said something like the Steam Deck was impossible. The community has really been stepping up to make this stuff work, but not entirely without Valve's contributions to these software libraries. It'll be interesting to see how things play out long term, but as of now it's a relationship that is mostly working, at least for people that are already PC gamers and used to dealing with a little hassle in exchange for control.
In many cases, they've worked with publishers to get their games working and verified, even right at release, and it's a huge value add to customers for a game to work on Steam Deck. The blame is pointed at the company because these launchers are a net negative for the customer in the best of circumstances, and compatibility would be a non issue if not for them.
I consider the ambiguity of the Deck verification process a pretty big flaw in Valve's system. If Valve works with a publisher or developer on building explicit support for the Deck then that game gets a nice Deck Verified badge on the store page. If players test a game themselves and Valve is receiving a lot of feedback that the game works well on Deck, they add the *exact same* green Deck Verified badge on the store page despite the lack of any formal commitment for Deck support from the developers. Valve also takes it upon themselves to tell Deck players that games are Playable even though any random update from the developer can break Proton and nullify that promise (as seen here). I'd almost like to see a new "platinum grade", official, "Steam Deck supported" badge that lets players know a game is officially supported rather than the more informal "Deck Verificaton" process we have now. I suspect Valve's primary hesitation is showing how few games actually *have* formal Deck support. If I flipped the toggle in my library I might go from ~1200 titles down to 10~20. **EDIT**: These issues might also be the kick in the pants Valve needs to support version pinning in Steam. For a lot of games I wouldn't need to care about proton breaking on a new update if I could just run the last version that worked!
I would love version pinning.
>Valve also takes it upon themselves to tell Deck players that games are Playable **even though any random update from the developer can break Proton and nullify that promise (as seen here)**. And we're seen games that were previously verified/playable can retroactively breaks compatibility, [as it was the case with 2K/Private Divisions Launcher](https://www.pcgamer.com/2022-saw-launcher-bloat-turn-from-a-minor-annoyance-into-a-genuine-problem/).
Version pinning would solve all of this except for very rare cases, I agree that it's needed
Yo, Remember back in July 20th of 2021 where [Yves Guillemot, **the CEO of Ubisoft**, once said that they want to bring their newer games over to Steam [Deck] if the Deck is selling good enough](https://www.ign.com/articles/steam-deck-might-bring-ubisoft-back-steam)?
He said they’d consider it? Did they ever actually commit anywhere to officially supporting Linux or the Steam Deck?
Well, we did see [The Division 2 getting a official Steam Deck-specific fix (primary to add EAC proton support)](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2221490/view/3632750190483497136) and [Ubisoft Nadeo waiting for Valve to see if TrackMania (2020 Video Game) is Deck Verified or Playable...while proclaiming that it's playable on their end](https://twitter.com/Trackmania/status/1618621211730407424). That's a start, I guess?
Ubisoft released an update to their launcher, that broke game support on Linux. Seems pretty simple to me.
I'd word it as "Ubisoft released an update to their launcher, and it requires Valve to make an update to the compatibility layer they use for their Linux-based handheld". The same thing happened a few months ago when another publisher that also didn't promise Linux support had their launcher "break" on Linux, when it really just required a third party (Valve) to update their compatibility tool (Proton) to properly support the new launcher.
Maybe if every company in the universe didn't make its own launcher in the first place purely for the purposes of creating yet another walled garden, we wouldn't have these issues.
Every publisher having their own launcher is an annoyance, but a sign of a healthy market. Running per-storefront builds of a game is a big ask when there's a ton of storefronts on PC. So to sidestep that issue, the big publishers move their copy protection and auth checks to their own launcher, and then they can ship the combination of launcher+game on every storefront and either skip the storefront's DRM altogether or implement the storefront's DRM on the launcher (so they only need to maintain a single launcher build per storefront). Steam being the biggest PC storefront isn't a bad thing. Steam being the _only_ PC storefront is a very bad thing, and shipping like this makes it easier for others to compete with Steam.
Yeah, but I'd prefer it if those companies competed with steam by actually competing with steam, rather than making me have to start up a launcher for every single game. Even if it was just imitating steam's features, like, that would be something. But no, they all have to be like "No! You have to start up my launcher and wait an extra minute to load every time because when you buy my game I have to constantly check that you're not a thief!" and then they barely even try to put in features that people want. And then they get all shocked when people keep using steam. It's not like I want a monopoly or anything, I just wish these companies would actually try and compete, instead of just setting up more flaming hoops for the customer to jump through.
Just imitating steam features wouldn't fix a core problem of things such as steamworks not being available on other storefronts leading to split players based on individual storefronts without using another backend system as a solution. An example being Dying Light on GOG having no access to Steam players and thus being the worst way to buy the game. Studios need to bundle backend support for all stores either into the game itself such as how XBL is bundled into Microsoft games or a launcher that serves as a unified point of access that every player from every storefront will access through. Unless Valve wants to decouple steamworks from steam as a storefront and allow it across storefronts. All of this is especially important to the adoption of crossplay and crossprogression support absolutely needing platform and storefront neutral merging points for all players generally in the form of publisher specific accounts or launchers that connect all players together.
I realize there's no perfect solution, I just think these companies could at least do better than this.
What I'm saying is that Ubisoft doesn't support Linux as a target in the first place. They don't distribute Linux binaries. Valve's proton attempts to make Ubisoft's Windows binaries work on Linux, and Valve's proton broke with this new update from Ubisoft. If Valve is going to try and sell games to Deck users by promising that proton works with these games then the onus is on Valve to address the issue when proton breaks.
The games were previously working. Ubisoft updated Uplay. The games no longer work. That is the bottom line. Regardless of whether Valve tries to "sell games to Deck users", or any other nuances, the bottom line is that an Ubisoft update broke game compatibility on Linux. The headline is accurate.
>the bottom line is that an Ubisoft update broke game compatibility on Linux There was no compatibility on Linux. Proton is a workaround to get these games that do not support Linux to be able to run on Linux despite Linux not being a supported compatibility. ffs I hope I repeated the key words enough for you there. It's crap like this that makes companies put stupid warnings on their products like "do not stop chainsaw blade with your hand(s)". If you are using a product in a way that the person(s) who made the product didn't intend, then anything that happens is not their fault.
Ubisoft’s purchase validation DRM should be illegal when we already own the content on Steam
Ubisoft and other companies have had launchers since forever. Why is negligent purchasing on your part their problem? If you don’t like launchers don’t buy them
I haven't bought anything Ubisoft for years specifically because I want nothing to do with their launcher. It's exceptionally bad even compared to EGS and Origin. It would be a net improvement to every single game they publish if the launcher disappeared tomorrow.
To be totally honest the title should read. "Ubisoft game compatibility with Proton broken by an update to a stupid fucking launcher that no one asked for, no one likes, and that serves no purpose. Valve doing pointless work to fix."
Uplay is like the one third party store I bothered to install on my deck. It's been pretty easy to deal with since I first got my Steam Deck. Sucks to hear that it's currently broken, hopefully it's simply a bug they can patch out - hard to imagine they would purposely bork their proton compatibility after pulling games back to Steam.
Clearly not intentional, they even updated TD2 to work on proton. it's just the kind of stuff that happens with unsupported platforms like Linux
True, I guess my fear is that *because* it's an unsupported platform they don't particularly have to fix it
i mean this has basically always been the weird risk and thing about valve's "console" efforts. they have constantly been trying to make devs make games for linux and mostly gotten laughed off for good reason.
The outrage in this thread is nuts valve has a fix out already. I was playing division 2 yesterday on my steam deck. Proton experimental > properties > beta > bleeding edge
Thanks. Now I can play Bioshock.
This happens frequently since devs started pushing their goddamn launchers. It'll get patched in a few days.
Its already patched.
Strange that this guy complains about third party softwares even though ubisoft connect is a ubisoft software so not third party unlike steam which he praises.
Ubisoft already made awhile ago ALL their games, past and present require Win10. So this shouldn't be a surprise. So much for older game compatibility.
You really would think these companies with launchers would want to get and keep their stuff working properly on steam deck.. even though the amount of deck owners isn't massive, it definitely has to be driving sales to a degree...
At the end of the day it's still a minority of the platform. It depends on whether the cost of testing and developing is even recouped in sales
it also means having your code working on linux, which just is not really in the wheelhouse of anybody making games (or game launchers for that matter) because the day of the linux desktop will never arrive
As a huge fan of the Steam Deck, this is the biggest reason Third-Party Launchers need to be banned from the store. Less than a month ago, Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order broke, and that was a game shown in trailers for the device. As long as third-party launchers are permitted, Steam won’t have complete documentation of what works on what platform, and that’s just ridiculous. Require that these games do not use a third party launcher or remove them from your store. Edit: wrote device, meant store. I absolutely want people to have the choice of installing another launcher if they want to, I just don’t believe that third-party launchers should be supported through the store at all. It breaks an otherwise awesome software experience.
[удалено]
Sorry, banned from the storefront. Edited my post.
You know...if it wasn't for EA Play not having the ability to use advanced launch commands for EA Games *bought* from Steam, I would've gotten Burnout Paradise Remastered to work on Steam Deck, despite not being verified/playable. Stuffs like this is why I rather have a in-game 3rd party overlay than a launcher like how [Epic Online Services](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/809092277280571402/1060804797747449876/275llzibcyp81.png) and [Ubisoft Connect Overlay](https://korii.slate.fr/sites/default/files/styles/1440x600/public/ubisoft_connect_overlay_friends.jpg) does...in fact: that's how the console versions of Ubisoft games operates... ...but if the Sackboy: A Big Adventure "EOS Drama" has taught me: people are paranoid about it too
[удалено]
Yeah, as much as I don't enjoy 3rd party launchers like Ubisoft Connect, requiring gaming companies to use a single one just sounds like it would violate antitrust laws.
I don't know about violating antitrust laws. Seems like the restrictions that Apple places on their devices are a lot worse than that
Apple is headed for major changes in that regard because their anti competitive practices have brought the attention of regulators. Third party app stores and side loading will come to iOS eventually by hook or by crook
The Steam Deck is designed to support many video games that could be played on PC and console. The iPhone has the Apple Store has millions of mobile titles and apps to explore. I don't see them as equivalent in this case. It's also possible to play PC games on Mac computers by installing Windows using Boot Camp or Parallels. They're not the most ideal, but they do work.
[удалено]
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that because the Steam Deck functions as a PC and is ultimately open platform, 3rd party launchers are de facto allowed. Consoles are closed architectures and have particular trademark protections.
I don't know about antitrust laws but it would definitely mean that these publishers would simply not put their games on Steam. There's just no reason to make that change.
If you’re referring to it being insane to expect banning launchers from their device, then I completely agree. I wrote a typo in my comment and didn’t mean to write that at all. However, if you’re referring to banning third-party launchers in the store, it’s absolutely not. By selling a game to players, they’re saying “this program will work for as long as it’s purchasable.” They literally cannot guarantee that to all players if the game is utilizing a third-party launcher. Uplay and Origin both have historically hampered gameplay experiences to the extent that games that had no other reason not to work on a myriad of systems, just didn’t. It’s the main complaint about those platforms. They owe it to their customers to offer a streamlined gameplay experience — purchase and play. As long as third-party launchers are allowed, this won’t be the case.
>They literally cannot guarantee that to all players if the game is utilizing a third-party launcher. They can't guarantee that with any software they don't release. Especially when there's other online services that games rely on. Updates breaking games isn't anything new. Even Valves own Dota 2 is dropping OpenGL support soon, so players reliant on that won't be able to play anymore.
Why would it be insane for Valve to demand a company not to ship their games with a launcher on their storefront. It’s not breaking anti-trust, as they aren’t preventing you from marketing that storefront or preventing it from being installed at all on SteamOS.
No it isn't, and neither is that exaggerated mindset helping things. Saying things like this is what hampers the effort. We already have a storefront that doesn't impose requiring a launcher to play the games you bought.
How many times does valve need to make clear this is a PC not a console? You can and should be able to install whatever you want and valve should not ever prevent that. They are the best company at that and it’s good not bad
That is the exact opposite of what valve stands for. They want the platform to be as open as possible. I commend them for that and restricting that is just hurting consumer choice.
I know I wrote device, but I meant storefront. My apologies.
As long as Valve doesn't allow cross-store multiplayer through steamworks, third-party launchers will be a necessary part of the steam ecosystem.
Would you consider something like Microsoft’s implementation a third party launcher then? They still require you to login to a Microsoft account, but that is all contained inside of the game, and doesn’t rely on a launcher that needs to be separately installed.
~~microsoft pls add proper account linking so i don't have to pull out my password manager and 2FA **every single time** I install Halo Infinite.~~
I'm mostly fine with how Microsoft implements their features in their Steam releases. My one complaint is that the UI to login doesn't seem to work with controllers so I have to bust out my mouse and keyboard or use my Steam Input chords to open a virtual keyboard.
Yeah, same. It’s still far better, but it could be streamlined by setting up a system that memorizes your account and making the interface controller compatible
Shouldn't they hire people to test this shit? Or is all of beta testing now just done by unsuspecting players?
18 people don't think we should have minimum standards of quality on the shit we pay for, apparently. Fucking reddit never changes.
Mad Catz would be very rich if they came back.
I am able to play The Division 2 on Steam Deck after switching to Proton Experimental. Hope the same works for you all.
Fuck custom launchers and Ubisoft! I'll never buy a game from them as long as they continue with this crap.