Valve Doesn't Care About Making Games Anymore Since Steam Makes Them Enough Money

Steam really has done an amazing job making Linux systems viable gaming platforms.

The manner in which they've done so shows a delightful understanding of the "unix philosophy" in so many ways, too.

Last month I was doing hardware changes on our home systems, my daughter's steam install and mine copied to new systems with a quick "tar" and no fuss; which was a very pleasant discovery.

They've rarely if ever (that I've seen) gone to extra effort to introduce warts the user has to deal with. Opening up the new deck hardware to show us how to do so, etc... Good eggs there.

Yeah I rarely ever "like" a company but Valve has done so much it's honestly amazing. The 30% they take is soooo worth it for developers who don't have natural Linux support.

Reaching a single digit percentage larger user count in exchange for 30% of your revenue is questionable accounting

Valve does quite a bit more than just proton.

0. They manage the most popular games store in the western world.

1. They provide a community forum for your users.

2. Host downloads of games (sometimes 100s of GBs). They distribute the content all across the world and handle region specific laws about what can be sold, etc. They host content at edge so downloads are super fast.

3. Process refund requests.

4. Have one of the better VR abstraction layers for game devs.

5. Provide networking and social integration (chat, anti-cheat, friends, etc).

6. They allow you to generate steam keys (at no cost to you) and sell them on your own website.

7. They process payments (PayPal charges ~3% for this, Stripe is 2.9%)

8. Achievements, time tracking, etc. These are useful for game devs who iterate on their formula (most use achievements to see what percent of a user base does X).

That's what I can think off the top of my head benefits the game developers. The list of things that benefits the users is also pretty big (steam sales).

I don't think any company is good or bad but Valve's offer to game devs is a pretty decent one.

> Anecdote: some one else's account of this was that it was really helpful because the Linux portion of the community (while much smaller than other segments) provided consistently high quality feedback/bug reports.

Apart from a few games purchased on GoG, everything I buy is on Steam. It's been a very consistent experience for a long time. My first Steam "purchase" was me plugging in the CD code from a copy of Half-Life purchased ~1999. Everything I've purchased since then is playable in minutes—most of it playable on Linux.

The killer feature of Valve / Steam for game developers is customer trust. For me, that trust has translated into a resolute refusal to buy games on any other platform.

Shoutouts to GoG. I'll buy games off of them even if they're on Steam. Making old games compatible and offering DRM free downloads deserves respect.

I've started to migrate off of GOG again after switching to linux.

The main reason was steam's investment into linux gaming and I decided to support that.

Also, GOG have promised a linux client for years that still hasn't materialised.

Considering all the broken or neglected games on Steam I've lost trust in them. GOG has started slipping in quality as they've grown, but at least they strive to host playable games and without DRM.

Competition among stores and hosting is good IMO, even if a modest inconvenience.

Platform loyalty in gaming has always struck me as an odd phenomenon. You don't hear people raving about netflix or hulu being superior, but for some reason there is a huge fanbase for Steam itself.

I mean, I don't mind steam, but I'd really prefer to have software that I purchase not check with a gate keeping entity before launching itself.

I bought several games in my childhood. Games that mean a lot to me personally because of how much I had to scrimp and save to be able to afford. It took me nearly a year to cobble enough money to buy Warcraft III. And I can't play the game anymore because I've lost the CD. Ditto with Halo, CS, AoE and others.

Every game I've purchased on Steam I can play right now with one click. Obviously others offer the same thing now but Steam offered it first. They also have region specific pricing, a huge pull for me at some point.

There are other good store fronts, I'm sure. But the amount of trust they've built with me over the last 10+ years can't be replicated overnight by anyone else.

>And I can't play the game anymore because I've lost the CD. Ditto with Halo, CS, AoE and others.

The disadvantage is that your game is locked now to your account, I cant just gift my games to my son. I have to make sure to keep my Steam version in Offline mode before he tries to play from his PC using my Steam Account. I wish there was a way to create family accounts and share the game or even gift them to your children, you could add some rules like you can't re-gift same game for say n years or whatever.

The problem with Family Sharing is that it requires that the donor account not be playing any of its games while the recipient does. The workaround is to kill the internet connection to the donor account, then both accounts can play to their hearts' content! Er, as long as the donor doesn't mind single-player content.

Which is essentially what grandparent is already doing. Alas!

you dont have to kill your internet connection, the steam client has an "offline mode" that works as well

>the steam client has an "offline mode"

I know it's unusual for HN, but I read both the GGGP and am a user of the thing under discussion! Steam's settings in that regard aren't "sticky" enough for me. I've set myself to Offline, quit, and then found myself Online often enough under both Windows and Linux that it's just easier to write a little script to keep Steam from connecting to the internet.

Worth pointing out to others that even if offline mode fails and one intemperately starts a game while someone else is using one's library, that user will get a minute or two to save their game before Steam closes the game for them, but my cousins have found this annoying enough that I figured I'd take OS-level action.

Ensuring that the recipient also has the ability to deny Steam internet access allows my cousins to log into actually-offline Steam as me, and play single-player content, while I'm actually-online and playing multiplayer.

I never had the issue with Steam going Online without my permissions on Ubuntu.

One thing that affects me with Offline mode is this scenario,

1 the kid is playing with his friends soemthing

2 I am in Offline mode but I just found a cheap game I want to try, but I would need to go Online but this would kick my son out.

so going Offline is an ugly workaround for my scenario.

Feh, it works on your machine, eh? :D

But seriously, you need Family Sharing. Make your kid an account, then set your account to Family Share with his. Now, he can play games from your library as long as you're not playing any, even if your account is online too.

So, when you want to play some singleplayer stuff, log into your account and buy and download the game as you normally would, whilst your son plays with his friends. Now kill Steam's internet connection on your computer, and play your freshly purchased cheap singleplayer game without bothering or having bothered your son.

So we don't need sharing, I want transferring/gifting. Basically i have a ton of games , very old not this last years AAA , that I won't play again but my son will play, like Gary's mod that can import content from Half Life games and Portal if you have them installed, so I would like to create a new account for my son and completely transfer half of my library to him.

Most people don't care about privacy much, so they don't notice that if you try to use Steam in offline mode permanently it's impossible. Valve like most other big tech companies wants all their user data too.

I don't think that's the reason. Valve is too small to really achieve anything with our user data, nor do they have any impetus to collect it. The Hardware Survey is technically optional, and my recommendations are so unbelievably poor that I can't seriously believe that feature ingests any individual user data.

I suspect it's more to do with the fact that without requiring a new Steam Ticket every once in a while, I could go and install much of my library on a friend's computer (or any number of friends!), rig the OS to deny Steam internet connectivity, and thereby allow them to play games with my licenses indefinitely and undetectably! The horror!

This is already possible if you just download a cracked version in the first place, and it is technically more demanding (of the users), and more inconvenient. So what is it achieving exactly?

Can it really be that you're arguing that turning off wifi is "technically more demanding" than locating and installing a cracked version?

They also have quite a bit of useful Middleware nowadays, like Steam Input and Audio, which are both great.

Their controller wrapper obsoleted all of the messy third party tools you used to need on Windows, and they have a sharing platform for controller profiles.

Many comments also seem to be grounded in the false notions that running a store is easy and inexpensive.

Mod support via Workshop is pretty sweet, too. I don't use mods much but when I do, and the game supports it, workshop makes it incredibly easy to plug an go.

> They allow you to generate steam keys (at no cost to you) and sell them on your own website.

Only if you charge the same as Steam, i.e. you can't pass the 27% (still pay payment processing) savings on to customers, unless it is a limited time sale.

Well yes, they don't want you to generate code sand then sell for less than you sell at steam because that's a suicide level business model for them. But you can still sell the codes yourself without cost to you. I don't understand why what you're saying is relevant.

You are bringing in new users and locking them into Steam.

Steam only allows it because they want to be one centralized hub with more and more people locked in through social features, existing libraries, recommendation traffic, etc., but it is only allowed if it isn't price competition so that consumers can't feel the weight of the 30% directly.

no one is locked in anywhere. It's the developers choice to put in DRM or not. Steam by itself doesn't force it.

No business plan makes sense if they give away their product for free without taking any form of revenue. Casting that as evil is odd and misleading. That they allow devs to generate codes that give steam no revenue at all is pretty incredible.

I know devs who do free giveaways through steam keys once in a while so presumably there is a provision in place for that too.

> you can't pass the 27% (still pay payment processing) savings on to customers

Well yeah... whether you sell your game on Steam or via Steam codes on your website, the soft-, hardware and business infrastructure in the background handling the sale and distribution of your game is the same. So why would they let you use their infrastructure without letting them have their cut? It wouldn't make any sense.

And also provide region sensitive pricing, allowing gamers in the third world to buy games often at very affordable prices in their local currencies.

They've also got a network of servers to help reduce latency in P2P games, which is actually pretty impressive to me. I don't know how effective it is, but as a GAMER any solution to latency is a great boon.

>0. They manage the most popular games store in the western world.

I do not like the app store model. I rather buy from the developer.

> I do not like the app store model. I rather buy from the developer.

You, as a person might not like it and you as a developer might like to directly sell games, but as pointed out above, Steam/Valve does make it easier for the developer to be legally clear in terms of taxes, refunds, etc. and also makes it easier to distribute by leveraging their "warehouse" which some do prefer.

From my point of view the store model simply is more convenient for consumers and worth the extra price. I know that I stopped pirating games, music and movies when I started using Steam, Spotify and Netflix.

> I know that I stopped pirating games, music and movies when I started using Steam, Spotify and Netflix.

But is it a causal relation? You probably have a steadier income now than you had back then.

Don't know about I_Byte, though I could have written what he has written.

I can now actually afford games (in the quantity I consume them) now, so that question is fair. But thankfully the video landscape fractured, now you better have NowTv, Netflix, Prime and Disney+ and you still can't watch all. I've started pirating again after 10 years or so of complete abstinence. So I think it's causal (if you have money)

With games, an important part of the equation is DRM. I prefer buying (DRM-free) things from GOG where possible, but steam has provided developers with a decent bit of DRM that is not too intrusive for consumers. There's plenty of older games from before Steam became dominant that I refused to buy because of their draconian DRM solutions.

I have to say that Spotify completely changed the way I listen to music, and I would really struggle to go back to buying individual albums.

I think of the three, movies are the only one where the "more disposable income" part of things is the dominant component of why I changed behaviours.

This makes me think of GabeN's 2011 commentary on expanding Steam into notoriously hax0r-infested Russia: the smart money scoffed at the prospect, keenly aware that the Russkies will just steal your product and why not make it that much harder for them to get their hands on it?

"Russia now outside of Germany is our largest continental European market [...] The people who are telling you that Russians pirate everything are the people who wait six months to localize their product into Russia. It doesn't take much in terms of providing a better service to make pirates a non-issue." [0]

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable." [1]

I for one absolutely have more money than I once did, but to be honest I stopped pirating long before that in '09 or '10, once I realized that the then-ridiculous Humble Bundles and Steam sales reduced the actual expenditure required from "gotta save up" to a mere "gotta skip buying takeout tonight". Of course the sales have decreased in quality since then, but so too has the number of games I want to play, and the time I can spend doing it.

[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-suc...

[1] http://www.escapistmagazine.com/Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Pira...

I still pirate most movies and some TV shows because the selection on streaming services is bad, particularly for movies. I don't pirate many new movies, it's almost all back catalogue stuff.

I don't pirate games and music because Steam and Spotify (or Apple/Amazon music) are a better experience than piracy.

Anecdote: some one else's account of this was that it was really helpful because the Linux portion of the community (while much smaller than other segments) provided consistently high quality feedback/bug reports.

That was just one company though. Other devs have said it isn't worth supporting Linux because the majority of the bug reports they get are distro specific edge cases.

That anecdote is in part due to the fact that the engine that was used was already Linux-friendly and was already ironed-out, so it made sense that more agnostic bugs are reported, whereas other developers resent (native) Linux support due to distros not even fully following LSB or outdated libraries, which in Windows has at least the concept of side-by-side libraries.

I saw an RPG maker who's been making games for over 20 years on GDC recently. He talks about steam's 30% cut. His basic takeaway, is that he used to need to employ an entire fulltime employee to handle all the things that steam now does for him. For him, the steam tax pays for itself for support and distribution alone.

Yes but that's not what I said! If you make a game that doesn't have native support I will not buy it. 70% is much bette than 0%! I'm sure if they had the choice between no fees or 30% fees and Linux support they would take the zero but they don't.

In that case i'd like a refund as we ship a native linux version ourself

Maybe I wasn't clear but if you dont have native support then it's really worth the 30%! If a game does it's more debatable. I also always try to buy the DRM free version if it's available!

This past week, I witness Steam/Proton making it possible to play Age of Empires 4 just 4 days after its official release (and 2 of those days were Saturday and Sunday).

That is just awesome.

To be fair the public stress test beta already showed some problems that needed to be fixed and people started working on it back then.

But the point still stands, for big titles you don't have to wait long for Proton support nowadays.

A bit off topic, but what you think of the game itself? Big AoE 2 fan here, and a bit on the edge if I should try it or not.

Being a big AoE2 fan myself (pre-ordered the original version back in the day), I think you should try it.

For me, there is one major downside: The camera. I really don't like the 3D camera. I think it could be worse. So you can actually play the game without turning the camera, but what I don't like is the perspective. Sometimes you have to move to camera to another position, just to be able to click on a unit. I found that much better with the classic dimetric projection [1]. In addition, I like the art-style of AoE2 a bit better.

However, after putting these things aside, I love how they have adapted the AoE2 concepts. It still feels like an Age of Empires. But then again different enough to be AoE4. So if you like the changes from AoE1 to AoE2 then you might like AoE4 ;-)

The civilizations play more diverse than those of AoE2 so even with just 8, there is a lot to learn. The story telling of the campaigns is also a bit different, but it still has the concept of teaching some history. AoE4 actually has some nice videos about armor and weapons of the time. The fortress building in AoE4 feels a bit more like Stronghold with the ability to move units on the walls and I think that is a good thing :-)

So much after playing AoE4 for about 13 hours.

[1]: https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/16757

>Steam on Linux after opening up access to everyone was seeing around a ~2% marketshare prior to falling with the setbacks in Linux gaming. But ever since Steam Play (Proton) was introduced in 2018, it's begun rebounding. This past month it set a new multi-year high with a 1.13% marketshare for Steam on Linux after surpassing the 1.0% mark this summer.

From 1% to 1.13%. Isn't it glorious?

Since Linux only has between 1-2% market share of desktop operating systems in total, that 0.13% increase is a reasonable proportion of the Linux users out there. So not too bad I'd say.

Quite a few people cite games (and software) as the reason they don't switch, so hopefully that 0.13% are converted people and not work-only users that started gaming.

Valve has proven to me that a wildly profitable company's interests can very much aligned with my own. Guess I should be thanking MS for prompting this amazing development.

Part of me can't wait for the winter to come so that I can start using my Index again without feeling like I am wasting my time at home instead of enjoying a nice day outside.

Now if only AMD didn't treat ROCm as an afterthought the graghics card landscape could see an interesting shift. Steamdeck with ML capabilities wolud be pretty cool.

Play only on linux since the last year or so and got away from the dedicated windows machine i had to have for only gaming. I had some bugs in the beginning but with recent versions of proton it feels a lot more stable. I don't have any bugs anymore in any games and don't notice any slowdowns or degraded performance. It is quite amazing.

I think it is incredible that after all these years the best target for Linux gaming is still a Windows compatibility shim.

The Windows user base is too large, and the cost of maintaining two versions is too costly for most publishers to even think of making two versions. They instead learned how to write Windows games that can be easily run under Linux with no or minimum effort. Once a significant number of people will transition to Linux because they have enough apps/games that do what they want under Linux, and the gain in stability, privacy and cost is worth the migration, major games being written only for Linux may become a reality. Although this would require many years, Microsoft has been well aware for a long time, and it's the main reason they already aimed at taking control of Linux before it was too late (WSL, VS Code, Edge for Linux, etc), and it's very likely we'll see a Microsoft branded free only as in beer Linux distribution soon. Unfortunately, I'm 100% sure they will succeed.

I don't think MS is still in its EEE days (or at least its EEL), but its pretty obvious they want part of the new cake while having their own.

Microsoft will most likely continue to adapt the open source model with lock downs like the rest of the industry.

The question is will they be like red hat or Oracle.

Also they already have a distro although internal: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-released-cbl-mar...

It's just an interesting shift in the wind.

A few years ago I'd get flamed hard for suggesting that just building Wine-compatible Windows builds was smarter than trying to build native linux versions.

you still will. there just happens to be more people arguing with them now than there used to be.

You would be writing linux-to-linux compatibility shims instead. Desktop linux is forever stuck in the "move fast and break things" mindset that just isn't compatible with the release-and-forget style of proprietary software.

Unrealistic for most games, there just aren't enough users.

With Proton now, there's probably more games playable on Linux than MacOS, even though the latter as far higher uptake among consumers.

Going through a shim is better. It allows you to modify the open-source shim to analyze and patch the closed source game. This is why Proton can release fixes so fast.

It also lets each party care about the natural thing for them: gamedevs care about windows and do a good job writing windows code; winedevs care about linux and do a good job writing linux code. Gamedevs don't care about linux so their native linux code is crap.

But in some cases it is also the reason why anti-cheat software is such a pain and for multiplayer it sucks :-/

"Cheating," also known as modifying user facing software to better satisfy the user needs. Perhaps sealing the user is net-positive for games (I personally don't think so), but any OS with such a capability will get abused (e.g., look at iOS).

Android and ChromeOS games make use of ISO C, ISO C++, OpenGL, Vulkan, OpenSL, almost no one cares to port their games to GNU/Linux, quite telling.

Android and ChromeOS have native Linux support in what concerns game development APIs, amount of games that were ported to GNU/Linux, almost irrelevant.

Yes, that's why you still have these 'ubuntu_12' folders in the Steam installation, since they have never updated this in the past 9 years. So in reality, native Linux development has pretty much failed, and they have put all their money on Proton. That is probably the right decision from a business perspective, but it's pretty much a defeat nonetheless.

What's wrong with it? Having the Windows APIs turn into a portable abstraction layer is certainly amusing, but having wine sitting underneath the program is really nice (essentially for the same reason a VM is). For one thing, winedevs are way better at linux support than random gamedevs.

One has to remember what Valve tried to achieve. If I remember correctly, Microsoft back then announced that the Microsoft Store would be an integral part of the upcoming Windows 10. Seeing the huge amounts of money Apple/Google/Valve were making with their stores, they openly played with the idea to only allow application installations through the Microsoft Store, most importantly games.

So Valve tried to break the Windows monopoly on games by creating a native Linux SDK and releasing the Steam Machine, which was based on Ubuntu. The goal was to make Linux a first class citizen as a gaming development platform, not just something to run an emulation layer. The Steam Machine failed, because it simply wasn't very good. Valve quickly lost interest in native Linux and let the native SDK rot away into obsoletion. Fortunately, Microsoft being Microsoft, the Windows Store was (and still is) a terrible platform, so pretty much nobody is buying games there (except for Minecraft), and you can still install anything you want on Windows.

So of course you can say that you don't care if it runs natively or in an emulation shim. It would have been nice if Linux had become a game development platform and not just a kernel with a Windows API layer on top. So in a way, Linux' success here is similar to Android's: Yes, it's technically Linux, but not really.

> One has to remember what Valve tried to achieve. If I remember correctly, Microsoft back then announced that the Microsoft Store would be an integral part of the upcoming Windows 10

Your recollection is incomplete. Microsoft was threatening to lockdown Windows app installations by requiring app signing for all executables in Win10. In the worst case, it meant the Microsoft Store would be the only store on Windows, and Steam simply wouldn't work on Windows.

Microsoft was toying with an idea that posed an existential threat to Valve. IMO, Valve's goal was to be unshackled from Microsoft's mercurial whims, and despite a slow start, they have finally achieved that goal in the last few years. Microsoft is still proceeding doen the TPM path, and has a turnkey walled garden - I think Valves call was the right one.

> Fortunately, Microsoft being Microsoft, the Windows Store was (and still is) a terrible platform, so pretty much nobody is buying games there (except for Minecraft), and you can still install anything you want on Windows.

Microsoft has the disadvantage of being the biggest platform and the most scrutinized.

The Microsoft store is as good as the Apple and Android stores, but people using Microsoft are much more used to downloading something from the website they want to install something from. And developers don't have a strong incentive to send them to the Microsoft store from their website.

And Microsoft being such a big player, even time they make moves, everyone else digs in to prevent them from taking over. An example of the is steam machine.

> The goal was to make Linux a first class citizen as a gaming development platform, not just something to run an emulation layer.

Was it? Or was it a strategy they ended up not needing?

Yesterday my son wanted to play Overlord II that I had purchased ages ago. It has a native linux version, and I remember 3-4 years and a few distro/steam updates ago it worked fine. Yesterday it would hang on startup. I didn't want to spend an evening debugging it, so I flipped the proton override on steam. After a quick reinstall, it worked immediately and flawlessly.

So, I don't care whether a game is native [1] or run on an emulation layer as long as it works and performs reasonably well and, most importantly, it is supported.

[1] the reality of course is that many, but not all, native ports still run on some sort of buggy, proprietary translation layer.

I think it was Supergiant Games who said that because Proton is good enough, they're don't plan to provide native Linux versions of their games in the future.

Does the game run well in Proton? Then who cares if it's not native. What's wrong with using Windows APIs to run games on Linux? Let's take Microsoft's API, embrace it, and steal that sweet sweet gaming marketshare.

The other day I bought Ziggurat 2, a great game except for some mysterious input lag on the native version. Partially out of amusement, I tried playing it through Proton and poof, there went the latency. I do not know what kind of black magic it's using, but it seems to work quite well.

At least we're past the days where the Steam installer would rm -rf your home directory

Personally I'd rather have all software like this.

Have platform agnostic code, or let it prefer windows. If your compatibility layer is so good I don't care.

Better than what we have now where tons of applications don't run on Linux or Mac OS.

Not so much failed as it was never a real thing in the first place. Valve supported steam machines and linux gaming so they could fend off Microsoft's attempts to monopolize all gaming with proprietary executable formats like in the windows store. Every time MS starts this up again Valve will wave around the linux/steam machine flag until it stops and then they go back to not caring about linux.

> then they go back to not caring about linux.

So they care so little about Linux they are going to release a subsidized console using Linux next year? Give me a break with your cynicism.

Steam is a trap though, no?

You buy software, but if you leave, you lose it all.

Is that correct? there's no way to retain what you've bought?

Valve/Steam does not require games distributed through its platform to use their SDK/DRM in any way. It's up to the individual game developers if they set such a Steam a trap.

Valve doesn't even give an outright monetary incentive to do it. i.e. Valve's 30% cut doesn't turn into 10% if you link in Steamworks.

Though one could argue there's an indirect monetary incentive created by locking away all the platform/social features behind a wall accessed through their proprietary library. But last I checked the DRM aspects of that library could be ignored while using the rest of the platform. It does automatically stay updated though, so they could turn Evil and force DRM @ initialization if they wanted, hypothetically speaking.

It depends. Some games are DRM free, and those can be backed up and kept wherever you wish. I can copy my Kerbal Space Program directory anywhere, for example, and it works fine. I use this to have several differently modded installs.

You can absolutely retain what you've bought: all content is saved in the steam/steamapps/common folder. If you want you can rip those files out and run them separately with cracks or Steam emulators like Goldberg, but the supporting infrastructure and dependencies for games (like multiplayer services, matchmaking, official support) will be lost. Many games prefer to rely on Steam's platform and support for core features by their own design.

There are DRM-free games on steam, but how many people maintain backups of their games? And this is not limited to steam. Most distribution these days on PC is digital, and even consoles moved there. If you lose your account for whatever reason, you will lose them all. Same problem with other content (video, audio, etc.). As long as there is no law protecting the customers from those things, it will remain a problem.

What you're saying is absolutely true, not sure why people are trying to bury your comment.

I'm kind of surprised it doesn't have a subscription service yet. Seems like an obvious way to go, and Game Pass seems to have been fairly successful.

Is Microsoft actually making money with Game Pass? I'm guessing many users just subscribe for a month or two when a new interesting game is released and cancel just after they are done with it.

Google isn't a subscription service either, and people lose access to their Google account for completely arbitrary reasons, seemingly without recourse. I believe it's the same risk

I do make a habit out of using the Backup Games option in the Steam client, but I usually do that more as a caching strategy to save myself the 30GB download in the future than addressing the risk of my Steam account going poof

Something I always told myself I'd get around to. I've been meaning to set up Ubuntu on my desktop so I can use it for development, anyone have a good tutorial for setting up steam/proton?

You basically just install steam from within your linux distributions package manager. I use and recommend some arch based distro but for Ubuntu it should be apt-get or some gui tool like synaptic.

After you installed steam it will probably just work. You might need to go into settings -> steam play and enable proton. that's it.

It's basically set-and-forget. Just download Steam from your preferred package manager, and all of the verified Proton titles should be playable without manual intervention. If you want to open up Proton to all your Windows games, you have to enable it in Settings > Steam Play. ProtonDB is your best friend, but besides that it's fairly easy to get up and running. Props to Valve for removing the friction, here!

If it's an s-curve, then yes: it will never reach 100%.

But if it's an s-curve it will reach 70% much sooner than 891 years.

In my opinion 1% of the Earth in 9 years is a triumph. Electric cars are not there yet and people are quite optimistic.

I understand your point, but I just want to say that electric cars are well beyond 1% in markets where they are for sale.

But electric cars have existed since the 1880s, so it's still a pretty slow growth rate overall.

True, but the technology has improved a lot recently. Perhaps Linux on desktop needs to improve a lot too.