I really think we need to get out of the habit of calling game developers 'Lazy', especially for an industry that is famous, notorious even, for overwork and crunching.

I think it would be fairer to say that it doesn't get prioritised, especially over anti-features such as microtransactions, DRM or things of that ilk. Calling them lazy is disrespectful, hurtful and betrays a lack of understanding of the development process and the industry at large.

It doesn't help that game dev (IMO) is literally the most difficult software development possible:

- massive front-end visual dev, both static and animation, that often require logistics and endless fiddling to get it just right - hefty back-end dev, especially when dealing with massive latency questions (e.g., MMOs) and calculations (e.g., 4X strat) - audio design that must sync with graphical elements - on top of all that, higher standards for input syncing to video output than almost any other type of app

...and then overworked and crunch-time to top it all. I'm amazed that we're even getting finished games these days now that devs can sell a near-playable v0.6 as "Early Access"!

To not enable a feature that EAC explicitly provides and would allow people to use a product, and that requires almost no additional work (since it's not linux support in general, just EAC linux support), I consider to be lazy. Although, it's probably a mgmt decision, not a dev decision.

I understand linux support takes time and it usually isn't worth it. But this is just flipping a switch from what I've heard.

I think flipping the flag is likely not the only amount of work. Support will at the very least involve customer support, legal, marketing, sales etc. Dev effort to enable is likely not a factor in their reasoning to not support the platform.

Even then, I would be reluctant to call it institutional laziness. Businesses strive for efficiency. Can not doing a high cost thing be called laziness? Sure, but I think it's still disingenuous and misrepresents the issue.