Valve publishes their own Linux Distribution

[Red Storm]

Steambox is $1000

just sayin'

Steam is a free program.

Just sayin'

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I seriously doubt he's "irrationally terrified" of Linux, let alone just "terrified". Your charge for him to switch to Linux to prove he's not afraid is laughable at best.

I think the opposition to Valve doing this is the fear of fragmentation, however I seriously don't see this gaining enough traction where any developer in their right mind would develop exclusively for Linux. I don't necessarily oppose it, I just find it hypocritical how they lambasted Microsoft for Windows 8 when it's obvious they are doing the same thing.

Fragmentation is an issue, but not my main concern. My main concern is that Linux is fundamentally community supported, and the linux community could be described as abrasive at best.

Valve will need to do exactly what Google did with android. Take the useful parts of linux, brand it themselves, and then do everything possible to ensure the end user does not realize it's linux and never has to come into contact with the open-source community at large.

 

[Jodell88]

Fragmentation is an issue, but not my main concern. My main concern is that Linux is fundamentally community supported, and the linux community could be described as abrasive at best.

Valve will need to do exactly what Google did with android. Take the useful parts of linux, brand it themselves, and then do everything possible to ensure the end user does not realize it's linux and never has to come into contact with the open-source community at large.

lulz. Spoken like someone that doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[Jodell88]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You actually think I'm part of the open source community? LOL!

 

[PingSpike]

Heh...from one monopoly to another is good eh?

Why is everyone so convinced in this thread that Valve is going to turn off steam on windows? Even if they wanted to do that the company would collapse if they did it.

 

[darkewaffle]

Develop games for Windows and Linux (and Mac OS). Steam is great in this regard because if you buy a Windows game that has a Mac port, you get both for the cost of one.

I find it curious how this is inherently and instantly a good thing and yet there's always constant speculation over the negative impact of a game being developed for both PC and consoles. If "consolization" is a real thing (it's not, but for the sake of argument), why not "linuxization"? Maybe the diversion of resources to make the game playable on Linux causes quality to suffer on other fronts. Maybe it encourages the game to be sharded up into even more DLC to account for the increased price of production. Maybe demographics show Linux users tend to have weaker GPUs than Windows users and drag down the average, causing development to 'aim lower' to accomodate them.

 

[Red Storm]

I find it curious how this is inherently and instantly a good thing and yet there's always constant speculation over the negative impact of a game being developed for both PC and consoles. If "consolization" is a real thing (it's not, but for the sake of argument), why not "linuxization"? Maybe the diversion of resources to make the game playable on Linux causes quality to suffer on other fronts. Maybe it encourages the game to be sharded up into even more DLC to account for the increased price of production. Maybe demographics show Linux users tend to have weaker GPUs than Windows users and drag down the average, causing development to 'aim lower' to accomodate them.

Um, because there is a clear difference. Mac, Linux, and Windows all use the same controls (KB&M), they also use the same hardware.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I find it curious how this is inherently and instantly a good thing and yet there's always constant speculation over the negative impact of a game being developed for both PC and consoles. If "consolization" is a real thing (it's not, but for the sake of argument), why not "linuxization"? Maybe the diversion of resources to make the game playable on Linux causes quality to suffer on other fronts. Maybe it encourages the game to be sharded up into even more DLC to account for the increased price of production. Maybe demographics show Linux users tend to have weaker GPUs than Windows users and drag down the average, causing development to 'aim lower' to accomodate them.

Consolation refers to the design choices that game developers have to make to accommodate the less powerful hardware, controllers, and audience tastes of the console market. With respect to Linux vs. Windows, the hardware and game controllers would be the same, and I doubt there would be much difference in the types of games that Windows and Linux users like, so Linux == Windows in regards to game design.

With respect to development costs, the vast majority of the game development costs are going to be in creating things such as levels, textures, character models, and other game assets that are common across all platforms. The only thing that would have to be ported would be the game engine, and in a lot of cases, developers source their engines from dedicated engine developers that have already built in cross-platform capability. If their engine is already built for Linux support, adding Linux as a supported platform is trivial, and the costs of doing so would be easily made up by the increased market for the game, particularly if the developer is only targeting a single distribution for support.

As for GPUs, the most popular Windows GPU is Intel's integrated crap, and I doubt Linux is going to be any worse in that regard.

 

[smackababy]

With respect to development costs, the vast majority of the game development costs are going to be in creating things such as levels, textures, character models, and other game assets that are common across all platforms. The only thing that would have to be ported would be the game engine, and in a lot of cases, developers source their engines from dedicated engine developers that have already built in cross-platform capability. If their engine is already built for Linux support, adding Linux as a supported platform is trivial, and the costs of doing so would be easily made up by the increased market for the game, particularly if the developer is only targeting a single distribution for support.

I am not a game developer, but as a developer switching to a new technology takes either time or money. You have to learn the new nuances and things to run it efficiently. This is translated into either longer development time or having to hire more developers. EA, Activision, and the like aren't going to want to take this extra expenditure. Even if it is only 3 extra developers and they pay something god awful like $45k a year, that is almost an extra $150k for development to access a platform with under 1% of the current game marketshare. They don't care that gamers MIGHT move to Linux, they care about gamers currently using Linux, which is almost 0.

As for GPUs, the most popular Windows GPU is Intel's integrated crap, and I doubt Linux is going to be any worse in that regard.

And the most powerful GPUs are on Windows. People usually don't buy Titans to boot into Ubuntu.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I've been using the Steam client on Ubuntu 12.04. Seems good so far. Things I like:

-Easy to use
-Tells me which driver I needed for my VGA, and Ubuntu had it ready. Installed it, and away I went
-Games for linux are well priced

Things I don't like:

-Games I want to play aren't available yet. Such as Torchlight 2, but that's not Valve's fault.

My hardware specs:

Q9550
Nvidia 275
4x1GB Corsair DDR2-PC6400

I've been mainly playing TF2 a few nights per week, it was free and fun. I had a long time love for Unreal Tournament '99, and TF2's game play kinda reminds me of it.

Overall, I'm impressed with Steam Client on Linux...so if SteamBox is the next step, count me in. Of course, just like Windows, it's all about cost.

 

[ControlD]

I am not a game developer, but as a developer switching to a new technology takes either time or money. You have to learn the new nuances and things to run it efficiently. This is translated into either longer development time or having to hire more developers. EA, Activision, and the like aren't going to want to take this extra expenditure. Even if it is only 3 extra developers and they pay something god awful like $45k a year, that is almost an extra $150k for development to access a platform with under 1% of the current game marketshare. They don't care that gamers MIGHT move to Linux, they care about gamers currently using Linux, which is almost 0.

And yet many two or three man Indie development teams seem to be able to port their games to Linux with little difficulty. It isn't like you need to hire two or three extra people for every game to get cross platform capability. You just need your game engine to be able to support those platforms, and then your work is pretty much done. A good number of the big engines already have OSX / Linux support.

The number of gamers currently using Linux is not almost 0. Unfortunately, it is more a case of Linux users having to boot back into Windows to play most games.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I am not a game developer, but as a developer switching to a new technology takes either time or money. You have to learn the new nuances and things to run it efficiently. This is translated into either longer development time or having to hire more developers. EA, Activision, and the like aren't going to want to take this extra expenditure. Even if it is only 3 extra developers and they pay something god awful like $45k a year, that is almost an extra $150k for development to access a platform with under 1% of the current game marketshare. They don't care that gamers MIGHT move to Linux, they care about gamers currently using Linux, which is almost 0.

Larger developers often re-use engines for different games, so that hypothetical $150k in development costs can be amortized across multiple games. In addition, the experiences and lessons learned from porting an engine to Linux the first time around don't vanish into thin air, and the costs of subsequent ports will decrease as developers gain more experience.

As has already been pointed out, indie game developers with very limited resources don't seem to have any problem making their games work on Windows, Mac, and Linux, so the costs of porting to Linux are hardly an insurmountable obstacle. Even if Steam/Valve's Linux/other Linux gaming efforts only produce a small uptick in the Linux gaming market, that could very well be enough to make porting games to Linux worthwhile for the larger development houses.

And the most powerful GPUs are on Windows. People usually don't buy Titans to boot into Ubuntu.

People don't buy Titans to boot into Windows, either. People buy Titans because they want the best gaming performance money can buy. The operating system that runs those games is irrelevant.

 

[smackababy]

Larger developers often re-use engines for different games, so that hypothetical $150k in development costs can be amortized across multiple games. In addition, the experiences and lessons learned from porting an engine to Linux the first time around don't vanish into thin air, and the costs of subsequent ports will decrease as developers gain more experience.

As has already been pointed out, indie game developers with very limited resources don't seem to have any problem making their games work on Windows, Mac, and Linux, so the costs of porting to Linux are hardly an insurmountable obstacle. Even if Steam/Valve's Linux/other Linux gaming efforts only produce a small uptick in the Linux gaming market, that could very well be enough to make porting games to Linux worthwhile for the larger development houses.



People don't buy Titans to boot into Windows, either. People buy Titans because they want the best gaming performance money can buy. The operating system that runs those games is irrelevant.

Larger developers also usually hire in people to work for peanuts for the 6-8 months of development and then when the game is finished, their contract is up and they are out the door. Big companies like EA know they don't have show any loyalty to coders because everyone wants to be a game developer and is willing to do it for $45k a year, working 12 hours a day.

And the reason small Kickstater companies have no problem porting to Linux, is they start early enough in the development and have no real deadline. For every $50k extra they raise, that is a year's wage for one developer. It is quite easy when they have no real overhead and just a small team to worry about. If it takes them an extra 3 months to learn OpenGL and port the game to Mac / Linux, they don't have managers and shareholders dictating their decisions.

 

[Jodell88]

Ryan Gordon will probably read this thread and laugh. He's a one man team that's ported countless games and other software to Linux and Mac.

 

[BladeVenom]

Ryan Gordon will probably read this thread and laugh. He's a one man team that's ported countless games and other software to Linux and Mac.

Or TTimo (Timothee Besset).

 

[irishScott]

Fragmentation is an issue, but not my main concern. My main concern is that Linux is fundamentally community supported, and the linux community could be described as abrasive at best.

Valve will need to do exactly what Google did with android. Take the useful parts of linux, brand it themselves, and then do everything possible to ensure the end user does not realize it's linux and never has to come into contact with the open-source community at large.

Huh? What is this singular "linux community" you speak of? The community varies from distro to distro, as different features attract different types of people. For my part I have nothing but good things to say. Sure there are some assholes, but that's the internet. More often than not I've gotten awesome help with any issues I couldn't solve myself. Not that there are many with modern distros.

You seem to be thinking of Linux in the 90s and early 2000s, where you basically had to be a fairly hardcore computer nerd just to get the system fully functional. That is no longer the case. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and many others are almost as plug-and-play as Windows.

And why would valve have to "hide" the fact that it's linux? You think console-owners care about what species of OS their platform runs? People who buy the steam box will care about:

1. Is is affordable?
2. Are there games I want to play on it?
3. Does it function well?

In that order. Whether it's linux, OSX, Windows or fucking BSD underneath is irrelevant, as it should be.

 

[smackababy]

Huh? What is this singular "linux community" you speak of? The community varies from distro to distro, as different features attract different types of people. For my part I have nothing but good things to say. Sure there are some assholes, but that's the internet. More often than not I've gotten awesome help with any issues I couldn't solve myself. Not that there are many with modern distros.

You seem to be thinking of Linux in the 90s and early 2000s, where you basically had to be a fairly hardcore computer nerd just to get the system fully functional. That is no longer the case. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and many others are almost as plug-and-play as Windows.

And why would valve have to "hide" the fact that it's linux? You think console-owners care about what species of OS their platform runs? People who buy the steam box will care about:

1. Is is affordable?
2. Are there games I want to play on it?
3. Does it function well?

In that order. Whether it's linux, OSX, Windows or fucking BSD underneath is irrelevant, as it should be.

You've got the order wrong.

1. Are there games I want to play on it?
2. Does it function well?
3. Is it affordable?

Now, I have no doubt Valve can do number 2 and probably number 3. The problem lies in number 1.

And the Linux community everyone speaks ill of, is the bunch of elitist pricks who post on forums about how crappy Windows is and how Linux is the best. The ones who call you stupid because nobody has written a driver for the bluetooth or wireless card in your computer yet. Yes, this isn't the entirity of smart and helpful people who actually contribute to the Linux community. It is a small, vocal group of trolls like every community has.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Huh? What is this singular "linux community" you speak of? The community varies from distro to distro, as different features attract different types of people. For my part I have nothing but good things to say. Sure there are some assholes, but that's the internet. More often than not I've gotten awesome help with any issues I couldn't solve myself. Not that there are many with modern distros.

I'm going by slashdot, Anandtech, and every gaming forum I've ever been to where Linux gaming has come up. Look back through this thread alone.

If those are just minor edge cases, then Linux desperately needs some much better envoys, cause that's the public face that gets put out there. The trolls are the ones out there on the Gaming boards. Angry nerds with a giant chip on their shoulder, very little talk about what we would actually gain from adopting Linux as a gaming platform, and a whole lot of badmouthing Microsoft.

And that's why they need to hide Linux away - the vast majority of the target end users for such a product are not technical. They barely want Windows, let alone a million versions of Linux. They want simple. Thus, they're not at technical forums where you might encounter a helpful or polite Linux enthusiast. They're at gaming forums - and all Linux has their are the angry trolls.


You could probably shorten your list to two points -
1) Can I play the games I want to play on it?
2) Can I afford it?

And 1 is a hell of a lot more important then 2.

 

[Kalmah]

Just a thought. I've had a few friends ask me to build them gaming pcs. Once the price of the OS was calculated their interest dropped to not wanting to do it. Trying to convert console gamers can be hard when you have to include the cost of an os. I can remove $150 from the pricetag once more games are available on linux to make it viable.

 

[smackababy]

Just a thought. I've had a few friends ask me to build them gaming pcs. Once the price of the OS was calculated their interest dropped to not wanting to do it. Trying to convert console gamers can be hard when you have to include the cost of an os. I can remove $150 from the pricetag once more games are available on linux to make it viable.

Which makes little sense. "Oh I want to spend $1000 on a gaming PC, but having to 'lose' $150 of that to an OS just makes it not worth it."

It makes sense for the lower priced markets, like HTPCs or just a Facebook / email checker.

 

[Red Storm]

Which makes little sense. "Oh I want to spend $1000 on a gaming PC, but having to 'lose' $150 of that to an OS just makes it not worth it."

It makes sense for the lower priced markets, like HTPCs or just a Facebook / email checker.

Gaming PCs do not cost $1000. You can build a good gaming rig for ~$600. An additional $150 on top of that is not insignificant at all.

 

[smackababy]

Gaming PCs do not cost $1000. You can build a good gaming rig for ~$600. An additional $150 on top of that is not insignificant at all.

With monitor, keyboard, mouse?

 

[BladeVenom]

With monitor, keyboard, mouse?

Their old ones can be reused.

You don't include the cost of a TV when calculating a consoles cost, do you?

 

[smackababy]

Their old ones can be reused.

You don't include the cost of a TV when calculating a consoles cost, do you?

Because it is common for people to own TVs. Console gamers who want gaming PCs don't magically have old monitors, keyboards, and mouses lying around.

If someone doesn't have a TV, you bet the cost of one is added into calculating the cost of a console.