I was thinking more from a point of view of Epic, the company, wanting to secure its future. In Epic's case they're actually currently suing (and running a propaganda campaign) against Apple and Google because the latter are charging 30% of all revenue including in-game purchases.

Rather than funding the development of the similar initiatives on PC (i.e. Linux) to prevent Microsoft from doing the same thing, instead Tim Sweeney tweets about how switching to Linux is like moving to Canada and is generally rude and unpleasant about it.

The fact that someone else had to make a launcher for Epic is further proof that Epic is not interested in even supporting Linux, let alone invest in it.

Sure, but that's always the case. Valve didn't offer native Linux support when Steam came out. With that being said, Tim Sweeney can be as unpleasant about it as he likes, I'm not begging for native Fortnite support anytime soon.

They didn't offer native Linux support, but from its inception Valve has been working to remove dependencies and combat existential threats. It used the quake engine for half life, then developed their own engine. They were dependent on bricks and mortar retail who were losing interest in PC, so they made Steam. Windows 8 made it look like Microsoft was making a land grab for a desktop store, so Valve made Steam OS and Steam machines (and latterly Proton).

Epic is almost taking the opposite approach. Denying or not addressing a problem until it's already established to the point is a market norm. If Epic had caused the amount of fuss they are now in 2011, maybe it wouldn't have needed a hundred thousand dollar YouTube campaign and a multi-million dollar lawsuit to resolve.

I dunno, it's true that's it's not Epic's MO, but it's not _smart_.