> 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
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2019/07/a-look-over-the-proton...
--- end quote ---
> 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.
Indeed it is.