All I'm saying is that "it’s actually Stadia that made linux gaming the most feasible" statement is at best contentious because in reality gaming on Linux was already made (more) feasible when Stadia had only just launched.
And Stadia used the same tech without ever giving back to Proton at all (atl least nothing I can quickly discover). So the absolute vast majority of work on Proton was done by Valve which you dismissed as "when Proton came around" (it came around before Stadia) and "quite a lot of heavy lifting had gone away" (Valve did most of the heavy lifting).
That's the extent of my "problem".
> at least some of the AAA games I worked on would not function at all on Linux without Stadias commercial interference.
So, not "actually Stadia that made gaming feasible on Linux" but "because Stadia used all the same tech, and there were possible commercial incentives early on until Google completely dropped the ball, bigger studios also invested in compatibility with the tech stack"
Stadia did a lot to help by being a stable target and by being seen as commercially viable. Google also helped a lot to aid developers, not just financially.
That they didn’t contribute code to proton doesn’t factor at all, I just hate to see people not get their dues for their part in the prolification of Linux gaming- because I saw it first hand.
You are labouring under the delusion that I’ve implied Proton did nothing, no, they levied a lot of existing technology and put in a lot of polish. They were helped by Stadia, by Wine, by DXVK and others.
They didn’t do it alone, that doesn’t minimise their contribution, it contextualises them.
Also: Stadia ports of games were native, they did not use proton- it was architecture changes of the games themselves that made proton work better- not Google making proton itself function better.
That proton was running some games is a weird revisionist take, very few AAA games ran at all, those that did were super old and there was always some crazy weird bugs- proton got better but also AAA games coalesced into conforming to linux-y paradigms underneath better- so support got better much quicker than expected. You can even see this if you track the “gold” released games over years, some of the worst supported games for Proton are from 2015-16; before stadia but after game complexity started rocketing up with next game engines of the day.
Hope that helps, because honestly this conversation is like talking to a brick wall.
> They didn’t do it alone, that doesn’t minimise their contribution, it contextualises them.
Oh, you very much minimised their contribution. From "when Proton came" (again, Proton came before Stadia) to "Stadia made gaming feasible on Linux" (when Proton made it feasible before Stadia)
> Also: Stadia ports of games were native, they did not use proton- it was architecture changes of the games themselves that made proton work better- not Google making proton itself function better.
So, Stadie games were Linux ports. But as a result of this there are still literally no Linux ports. None of the tech behind Stadia ever made it back into software behind Proton. And "native stadia ports" are somehow responsible for more games that target Windows and DirectX to run better via Proton
> That proton was running some games is a weird revisionist take
Funny to hear this coming from a revisionist. I literally provided you with links you carefully ignored
--- start quote ---
A look over the ProtonDB reports for June 2019, over 5.5K games reported to work with Steam Play
> You can even see this if you track the “gold” released games over years, some of the worst supported games for Proton are from 2015-16; before stadia but after game complexity started rocketing up with next game engines of the day.
Or because the actual heavy lifting that Valve did with Proton paid off, and not the nebulous "native ports" and code that never saw the light of day.
> because honestly this conversation is like talking to a brick wall.
All I'm saying is that "it’s actually Stadia that made linux gaming the most feasible" statement is at best contentious because in reality gaming on Linux was already made (more) feasible when Stadia had only just launched.
And Stadia used the same tech without ever giving back to Proton at all (atl least nothing I can quickly discover). So the absolute vast majority of work on Proton was done by Valve which you dismissed as "when Proton came around" (it came around before Stadia) and "quite a lot of heavy lifting had gone away" (Valve did most of the heavy lifting).
That's the extent of my "problem".
> at least some of the AAA games I worked on would not function at all on Linux without Stadias commercial interference.
So, not "actually Stadia that made gaming feasible on Linux" but "because Stadia used all the same tech, and there were possible commercial incentives early on until Google completely dropped the ball, bigger studios also invested in compatibility with the tech stack"