SteamOS

[Topweasel]

Dual boot is already pretty complicated for a lot of people. Plus, I don't think MS will give you windows for $29 on a competitor's machine.

No what he meant is that at the store front you have a SteamOS only version for $0 and a separate Mac/Linux/SteamOS/Windows version for normal pricing ($30-$50).

With Steam they can then track the use of SteamOS and sell that to developers to offer Linux/SteamOS ports.

 

[Juncar]

Oh, you mean the price of HL3 for SteamOS and other OS. You included SteamOS in your normal pricing list so that confused me
In that case, I still think it'll be too complicated for most people as you'll have to install the SteamOS just to get HL3 for free. HL3 will more likely to be pirated than to run through SteamOS.

 

[Topweasel]

Oh, you mean the price of HL3 for SteamOS and other OS. You included SteamOS in your normal pricing list so that confused me
In that case, I still think it'll be too complicated for most people as you'll have to install the SteamOS just to get HL3 for free. HL3 will more likely to be pirated than to run through SteamOS.

I did that because I figure if you get HL3 for windows it would be simpler to have it as an OS option on that then to add a second SteamOS option. I mean in the end it's the same thing. Just saying it's cleaner if SteamOS would a compatible option for the retail version and there wouldn't be a real reason not to have it that way.

 

[Lil Frier]

Even dual-boot (if you want to figure it out) is an unappealing solution. How many people like to casually play games while doing other things? IDK how SteamOS goes on running other x86 applications, but I have a tendency to do something like play music while playing TF2, and then doing a little bit of browsing during some of those 20-second respawns.

That, and I often find myself firing up a game because I'm bored of what I was previously doing on the PC. If the process then becomes having to reboot from Windows to SteamOS, it's less-enticing. Sure, I might try SteamOS because Half-Life 3 is free, but I almost might never play Half-Life 3 because it's not worth switching my running OS to do it. Alt+Tab in Windows is a much-preferable alternative to another OS.

For me, I'd MAYBE learn the whole partitioning and whatever and try SteamOS, but probably not. I'd maybe have a second, lesser computer run it to mess around with, if I had the extra money. I wouldn't likely get it onto a primary machine, because it's not worth the booting hassle to me. Of course, maybe the fast-booting process of an SSD changes that. If it's 10 seconds to boot, rather than a minute or two (to get it booted, get your programs open, and all of that), the perception might change.

 

[autoxerke]

I really just threw that (free HL3) out there as something Valve could possibly do to drive SteamOS adoption.

I've been reading about disruptive innovation, and one thing that is important for something that will be the start of a major change is that it offers something that nobody else does, or serves a market that nobody else serves. It doesn't have to do it well (and many disruptive innovations are crappy on first iterations), but it can't just incrementally improve on something that exists and expect to upset the apple cart.

It seems like everything SteamOS offers only improves on existing options, it doesn't create something we've never seen before. The fact that the latest console generation is based on PC architectures makes even less of a window for it to find a place.

Gabe/Valve are crazy rich these days, right? How much would they have to bundle for free to really make a run against other options.

The multi-purpose nature of PCs is another great argument - I'm posting this and about to do a number of other general tasks before I do any gaming. Any evidence Valve has looked into a hypervisor environment for Steamboxes?

 

[GullyFoyle]

Does anybody remember when Valve advertised that they got L4D2 running on Linux faster than Windows? What if most games ran on SteamOS faster than Windows? How many people upgraded to win 8 just because BF4 ran better on it?
it just seems like there is a lot of cynicism in this thread. People writing off SteamOS because of Linux's lack of success challenging Windows. I think Valve could have more success, because I see Linux's primary issue as a lack of central leadership, and lack of standardization, which I believe Valve can Provide. Who's more believable as a benevolent dictator? Bill Gates, or Gabe Newell?
There are plenty of reasons that could convince people to give SteamOS a shot. Better performance is one that could convince gamers, and gamers are influential force in the PC Ecosystem. Working and free is another possibility.
Don't dismiss the possibility before it even gets off the ground, just based on Linux history. Things don't always stay the same.
Look at Android. It's almost exactly the same. Android is a prime example of a what a big company can do with linux and commitment. If Google can do it, why not Valve?

 

[Lil Frier]

Except you have to offer more than "better game performance on occasion." The BEST you could hope for, in that case, is a dual-boot form tech-savvy folks. How is SteamOS, meant primarily for gaming (not sure of its capabilities outside of gaming), going to even challenge Ubuntu or OSX (let alone Windows), when the best you can offer is occasional game performance?

Yeah, gamers are usually the tech-savvy folks who influence the masses (family and friends). But what gamer's going to recommend an OS only good for slightly-optimized gaming, when the people who ask for an OS suggestion don't want something primarily for gaming (if not solely for it)?

Google competes with Apple because Apple's model demanded competition. iOS devices come in one legitimate type of hardware. It sells at one price point. It only looks one way. Android offers something that can be played with by the tech-savvy, and it's grown to the point where the masses won't miss out on apps, if leaving iOS. Android came out at the relative start of smartphones, like iOS, and took advantage of a new market. PCs are a dying market, if anything.

On top of that Android, has backers galore. Samsung thrives off of it. HTC is arguably a lost company without it. The same could be said about a lot of mobile hardware divisions (Motorola, LG, Sony). PC makers aren't really clamoring to support Linux. Gamers also have the option of building PCs to their liking, while mobile devices basically come in a mostly-identical set of specifications, based on price points.

Android thrives because it can hit price points iOS ignores. PCs are customizable at several price points (basically EVERY price point), so they don't leave a gaping hole in the market like iOS does.

 

[Skel]

Does anybody remember when Valve advertised that they got L4D2 running on Linux faster than Windows? What if most games ran on SteamOS faster than Windows? How many people upgraded to win 8 just because BF4 ran better on it?
it just seems like there is a lot of cynicism in this thread. People writing off SteamOS because of Linux's lack of success challenging Windows. I think Valve could have more success, because I see Linux's primary issue as a lack of central leadership, and lack of standardization, which I believe Valve can Provide. Who's more believable as a benevolent dictator? Bill Gates, or Gabe Newell?
There are plenty of reasons that could convince people to give SteamOS a shot. Better performance is one that could convince gamers, and gamers are influential force in the PC Ecosystem. Working and free is another possibility.
Don't dismiss the possibility before it even gets off the ground, just based on Linux history. Things don't always stay the same.
Look at Android. It's almost exactly the same. Android is a prime example of a what a big company can do with linux and commitment. If Google can do it, why not Valve?

Open source only works because there's on central leadership. Linux also only struggles on the desktop, the server market has a huge Linux footprint. SteamOS is just another branded version of it. All those performance gains you speak of requires the right driver support from manufactures. Yeah, I could develop my game to be huge with direct HW calls but I'd need the makers to keep updating as new stuff came out. While Linux does have good support for drivers (for the most part, some off the wall part may not, but everything major does) it would need a whole new level for the games to post high numbers. The only other option is to lock your specs and at that point remind me why this would be any better than a console? Locked specs, proprietary OS pretty much is a console.

And between those choices I'd rather take the guy who left the computer world behind and runs one of the largest transparently operated charitable foundations in the world... Gates for those that don't understand

 

[showb1z]

Does anybody remember when Valve advertised that they got L4D2 running on Linux faster than Windows? What if most games ran on SteamOS faster than Windows? How many people upgraded to win 8 just because BF4 ran better on it?

That's exactly what it was though, an advertisement.
Comparing their linux version to a decade-old DX9.0c engine (I know it had some updates but it's still crappy DX9) is misleading to say the least and doesn't prove anything.

 

[TheVrolok]

Well. Took 20 or so tries to install (would reboot whenever I tried to get into install - either expert or automatic). Now as soon as I boot into Linux from GRUB it just reboots. Sigh.

 

[Doppel]

Dual boot is a major pain in the ass, let us stop pretending otherwise and steamos is irrelevant if it thinks many people will do it and would actually rely on that. Clearly such an idea undermines any cost savings as well.

Hl3 will never require steamos, because it would kill its sales.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Does anybody remember when Valve advertised that they got L4D2 running on Linux faster than Windows? What if most games ran on SteamOS faster than Windows? How many people upgraded to win 8 just because BF4 ran better on it?
it just seems like there is a lot of cynicism in this thread. People writing off SteamOS because of Linux's lack of success challenging Windows. I think Valve could have more success, because I see Linux's primary issue as a lack of central leadership, and lack of standardization, which I believe Valve can Provide. Who's more believable as a benevolent dictator? Bill Gates, or Gabe Newell?
There are plenty of reasons that could convince people to give SteamOS a shot. Better performance is one that could convince gamers, and gamers are influential force in the PC Ecosystem. Working and free is another possibility.
Don't dismiss the possibility before it even gets off the ground, just based on Linux history. Things don't always stay the same.
Look at Android. It's almost exactly the same. Android is a prime example of a what a big company can do with linux and commitment. If Google can do it, why not Valve?

Bill Gates has nothing to do with Windows development anymore. Why do you bring that up?

The difference between Android and SteamOS is Android isn't created because someone is afraid of being pushed out of market dominance. Android was developed as an alternative to a locked down system with a lot of restrictions attached. Windows has none of these restrictions and SteamOS could likely have all of them.

 

[Jodell88]

Latest SteamOS beta has dual boot support and legacy bios support thanks to the community fork.

Oh and it has custom partitioning as well, also courtesy of the community fork.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU3ODM