Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
Because in order to push more game clients, the publisher must be absolutely sure that there will be high ROI. And that means a lot of purchases should happen. And that only comes if platform is popular, or has large userbase. Linux was not popular prior to Steam, Steam brought large userbase.
I suspect most people use Win/Mac/Linux systems for work/school reasons first and games are an afterthought. Anecdotally, almost all the programmers I know used to use Windows exclusively and have gradually migrated to Linux or Mac and many of them don't play games or that is a distant consideration. I'm skeptical that Steam has brought a large user base to Linux.

Publishers investing in game projects need to see a high ROI to support a Linux client. This means some combination of increasing revenue or reducing cost/effort of multiplatform development.

Developers often run more on passion and interest than accountant like calculations; I think making multiplatform development easy is key to winning over support from smaller programmer run shops.

Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
I think its unethical for GAME DEVELOPER to publish ONLY Steam version AND DOING IT PROPRIETARY.
As easy as that.

Look, I still did not install Steam, nor I am pressured to. For real.
Lots of games are exclusively distributed through Steam. When I was on Windows, many games I wanted to play were on Steam, and users are required to install Steam and setup an account to play.

I also suspect that developers are limited in how they can price their game when distributed elsewhere. I don't have proof, and the contracts are kept secret, but why else don't developers price their non-Steam games at a lower price to reflect the savings of omitting the middle man?