Valve publishes their own Linux Distribution

[PrincessFrosty]

Your credibility is slipping with every post.

This is just an appeal to authority, Gabe while he says a lot of smart things, isn't perfect, just because he said it doesn't make it true. His public ragging on windows 8 was completely unjustified.

As has already been said in this thread, windows 8 is just windows 7+, everything that is windows 7 is still there with a new metro overlay that you can escape out of with 1 keypress on boot. You can literally completely ignore the metro UI, I do, I hate it, so guess what, i don't use it.

You assume that the desktop will remain open and not locked to the Windows store (as in Windows RT). That's not a guarantee.

Windows RT is for mobile, desktop mode is not appropriate for mobile devices, before windows 8 we had metro for phones so in that respect nothing has changed, windows mobile devices were locked to metro and still are, and desktop OS used to have desktops and now have desktops+metro.

Also I said SP1 is what some people call it, not what I call it. It was also the nature of the update I was referring to. Many updates to the metro interface and live tiles with barely a scratch on the Desktop portion. Microsoft clearly wants to shift focus from the Desktop.

All of which is irrelevant. Your only support for your arguments is your own crystal ball that you can't even begin to explain. You expect us to take that seriously?

This is massively hypocritical, you're calling other people out about predicting with a crystal ball, yet in the same post you claim to know how microsoft intend to shift focus. Focus has NOT shifted, there is no deprecation of windows desktop features other than the start menu becoming a start screen windows fundamentally behaves in the same way.

The hating on windows 8 is just retarded, it's a little unintuitive to get used to and there's a new paridigm to learn, but basically it's the same thing as windows 7, I'm with 90% of you guys who dislike metro but I'm not going to get bent out of shape because I have to tap the windows key on startup to get to my desktop.

And moving to linux because of escaping out of metro being so damn hard, I had a hearty laugh at that, good luck with linux if you can't figure out how to get from metro to the desktop.

 

[irishScott]

This is massively hypocritical, you're calling other people out about predicting with a crystal ball, yet in the same post you claim to know how microsoft intend to shift focus. Focus has NOT shifted, there is no deprecation of windows desktop features other than the start menu becoming a start screen windows fundamentally behaves in the same way.

The hating on windows 8 is just retarded, it's a little unintuitive to get used to and there's a new paridigm to learn, but basically it's the same thing as windows 7, I'm with 90% of you guys who dislike metro but I'm not going to get bent out of shape because I have to tap the windows key on startup to get to my desktop.

And moving to linux because of escaping out of metro being so damn hard, I had a hearty laugh at that, good luck with linux if you can't figure out how to get from metro to the desktop.

The difference is my predictions are based on observations and confirmed facts and trends, not assumptions about Gabe Newell's psyche stated as fact (which is what I was responding to). Hypocrisy not found.

If you don't think Microsoft is moving away from the traditional Desktop or isn't trying to carve out its own ecosytem, you haven't been paying attention. Just because they're not killing the Desktop overnight doesn't mean they aren't shifting focus. Look at their latest update, they basically left the desktop alone despite making many improvements to/furthering integration of metro. That's how a migration usually starts.

I don't hate on Windows 8. Not sure where you're getting that. It's not my personal preference, I enjoy Windows 7 just fine.

I also never mentioned anything about moving to linux because metro is "hard". Where the hell are you getting that?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The difference is my predictions are based on observations and confirmed facts and trends, not assumptions about Gabe Newell's psyche stated as fact (which is what I was responding to). Hypocrisy not found.

If you don't think Microsoft is moving away from the traditional Desktop or isn't trying to carve out its own ecosytem, you haven't been paying attention. Just because they're not killing the Desktop overnight doesn't mean they aren't shifting focus. Look at their latest update, they basically left the desktop alone despite making many improvements to/furthering integration of metro. That's how a migration usually starts.

I don't hate on Windows 8. Not sure where you're getting that. It's not my personal preference, I enjoy Windows 7 just fine.

I also never mentioned anything about moving to linux because metro is "hard". Where the hell are you getting that?

As has been stated there has been no deprecation of desktop features, and the lack of updates in the desktop space is just not true, the desktop interface got a fairly decent overhaul, explorer moved towards ribbons, task manager and all its associated tabs were improved on massively, so was copy/move interface as were many other little things.

Most of the lack of changes in the desktop space are due to the fact that we don't actually need that many changes, windows desktop is pretty much feature complete you can only ask so much of your OS. Even if there had been none like you're suggesting (which is just flat out wrong) it wouldn't validate what you're saying because to demonstrate a shift in focus you have to demonstrate them reducing features in desktop and shifting them to metro only.

What you're doing is making your own predictions and assumptions about their direction, maybe they will shift focus and this is just a precursor, but maybe they won't and maybe metro will simply remain an optional overlap, this has not been established either way so stop peddling this as some fact.

The moving to linux comment was directed at someone else, I couldn't remember the name of who said that earlier in the thread, apologies if that was ambiguous.

 

[irishScott]

..

 

[irishScott]

As has been stated there has been no deprecation of desktop features, and the lack of updates in the desktop space is just not true, the desktop interface got a fairly decent overhaul, explorer moved towards ribbons, task manager and all its associated tabs were improved on massively, so was copy/move interface as were many other little things.

Most of the lack of changes in the desktop space are due to the fact that we don't actually need that many changes, windows desktop is pretty much feature complete you can only ask so much of your OS. Even if there had been none like you're suggesting (which is just flat out wrong) it wouldn't validate what you're saying because to demonstrate a shift in focus you have to demonstrate them reducing features in desktop and shifting them to metro only.

What you're doing is making your own predictions and assumptions about their direction, maybe they will shift focus and this is just a precursor, but maybe they won't and maybe metro will simply remain an optional overlap, this has not been established either way so stop peddling this as some fact.

The moving to linux comment was directed at someone else, I couldn't remember the name of who said that earlier in the thread, apologies if that was ambiguous.

Yes, meanwhile the control panel in Windows Blue was just metro-fied.

For the record, these aren't just my predictions: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57576474-75/with-windows-blue-comes-fear-of-desktops-demise/

And I don't need to demonstrate a reduction of Desktop features, merely a relative neglect. And the neglect would be quite natural overall. The Desktop-space is stagnant, mobile and touch are where the growth is.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Anytime something changes you have people claiming doom and gloom. Many people are just afraid of change, even if it might be a little easier or a little faster. I learned all the hotkeys for windows 8 in about 10 minutes of reading so navigating around is quick and painless for me.

Still nothing that happened with windows 8 has affected steam so Gabe really was just ranting on about something he thought might happen, not what did happen.

Microsoft is adjusting the tile interface because it is still a little tough to use with a touch screen. Few people complain the desktop isn't working by comparison. Touch screens will become mainstream in time and Microsoft is trying to tailor their os so they can have one os that works on them. That's all I see. *shrug*

 

[Texashiker]

None of these are innovative. Especially sales. Steam didn't invent sales, and they damn sure didn't innovate them. Automatic updates? Windows had that before Steam, I'm sure.
Integrated chat? The chat isn't integrated into anything. It is a DX injection overlay. It has the same effect, along with friends list, that ICQ had for me. I just had to Alt Tab to give up control, not Shift Tab.

Name a program that did automatic updates for all of your games, besides steam.

Like I said before, this is why I did not want to get this discussion started, as I knew people would be attacking single features rather then the sum of the whole.

Once you move past attacking single features one at a time, it is difficult to attack steam as a whole.

Centralized DRM, updates, chat, deep discounted sales,,, no other single program does everything steam does.

And you still haven't addressed the L4D being innovative claim.

What other game forces its team members to work together like l4d/l4d2? It is not "just" the zombies, it is the teamwork that makes the l4d series stand out.

But then again, valve bought l4d from turtle rock.

You implied that without Steam, none of those features would exist in the community.

That is how you took my post, it is not what I implied.

I was using quakespy before it ever became gamespy. That and ICQ is how I stayed in touch with friends.

Also, case in point, your argument for Steam is the exact argument you're making against Windows and for Valve's platform-on-OS - you don't want all your eggs in one basket, a monopoly on an environment if you will. :ninja:

:whiste:

Its not a matter of having everything in one basket, having steam on linux offers gamers a choice.

I do not want a metro inteface, all I want is a start button and a desktop.

 

[darkewaffle]

You assume that the desktop will remain open and not locked to the Windows store (as in Windows RT). That's not a guarantee.

You assume that Linux will remain open source and not composited into one central distro. That's not a guarantee.

Actually neither of those things will be happening of course, but that's kind of my point.

 

[darkewaffle]

And that's an interesting question posed above, would you play HL3 if it was Linux only? I think if I could get away with playing it on my own hardware, I'd try but definitely wouldn't buy a special box for it.

 

[Red Storm]

It's as simple as this. Steam coming to Linux offers gamers more choice, and that's a great thing. If it also ends up being a step towards getting developers to code for Linux too, then that's also great news. It's great to see that many popular Kickstarter funded games are going to have Linux versions available. That was more often than not achieved only through extra levels of funding, so it shows that people do care and want more options besides Windows.

I don't care what OS you're a fan of, more choice is a good thing.

 

[theevilsharpie]

You assume that Linux will remain open source and not composited into one central distro. That's not a guarantee.

Linux (and most of the userland software that make up the modern Linux desktop) will always and forever remain open source. That's legally guaranteed by the terms of its distribution license. Steam is not open source, but from a game developer's perspective, the only thing that Steam provides is DRM and some trivial levels of integration. If Valve ever falls from grace, a game developer can easily move to a competing distribution service.

Nice deflection, though.

 

[darkewaffle]

It's as simple as this. Steam coming to Linux offers gamers more choice, and that's a great thing.

Funny, not many people seem to feel that way about Origin though

Linux (and most of the userland software that make up the modern Linux desktop) will always and forever remain open source.

I know. That's the idea. It's not going to undergo a monumental paradigm shift, and neither will the Windows desktop.

 

[Red Storm]

Funny, not many people seem to feel that way about Origin though

Because Origin is run by EA, and they have a track record that causes people to feel a certain way. Also Origin didn't give more choice, EA pulled their titles and made them Origin exclusives. Nothing wrong with that as it's their choice to make, but again your example doesn't relate to what I said.

 

[smackababy]

Name a program that did automatic updates for all of your games, besides steam.

Like I said before, this is why I did not want to get this discussion started, as I knew people would be attacking single features rather then the sum of the whole.

Once you move past attacking single features one at a time, it is difficult to attack steam as a whole.

Centralized DRM, updates, chat, deep discounted sales,,, no other single program does everything steam does.

So, Steam is innovative because they took a bunch of already existing ideas and packaged them into one place? They weren't the first place to have sales, they weren't the first thing to automatically update, and they weren't the first chat system with a friend list. So, saying they did all of this at once does not make them innovators.

What other game forces its team members to work together like l4d/l4d2? It is not "just" the zombies, it is the teamwork that makes the l4d series stand out.

But then again, valve bought l4d from turtle rock.

L4D was not some magical game. Teamwork was not forced. The game did not innovate unless it was the first game to have a multiplayer campaign, which it wasn't.

 

[Red Storm]

So, Steam is innovative because they took a bunch of already existing ideas and packaged them into one place? They weren't the first place to have sales, they weren't the first thing to automatically update, and they weren't the first chat system with a friend list. So, saying they did all of this at once does not make them innovators.

That is precisely what makes it innovative.

 

[Texashiker]

So, Steam is innovative because they took a bunch of already existing ideas and packaged them into one place?

Here we are back at attacking the parts rather then discussing the sum of the whole.

Steam is not the first to do a lot of stuff, but they are the first to bundle what gamers need in a single package.

While id software, bethseda, blizzard, ea, activision,,, sat on their hands, steam was bundling products that gamers wanted and needed.

I need a quick way to find out what games my friends are playing, I need a way to easily join games my friends are in, I need a chat feature to stay in touch with friends, I need a way to keep my games updated, I want a centralized place to download modifications,,,.

Where is the EA, activision, id,,,, or any other solution for all of that?

L4D was not some magical game. Teamwork was not forced. The game did not innovate unless it was the first game to have a multiplayer campaign, which it wasn't.

Teamwork is a requirement for l4d/l4d2. If a single team member runs off, it affects the whole team.

What other zombie game lets you play as the infected?

 

[theevilsharpie]

I know. That's the idea. It's not going to undergo a monumental paradigm shift, and neither will the Windows desktop.

Linux will not undergo a "monumental paradigm shift" because its open source nature prevents anyone from taking control of the platform and locking others out, even if they wanted to. There is no "Microsoft" of the Linux world. The worst that someone like Valve can do is throw out the open source userland and replace it with their own in-house offering à la Android, but I haven't seen any indication from Valve that they have the resources, partner support, or the desire to maintain their own operating system.

On the other hands, Windows is in the process of undergoing a "monumental paradigm shift" as the market moves toward mobile devices, and Microsoft has already taken steps to restrict application installation on their mobile platform, despite the fact that their mobile offering contains an otherwise fully-functional desktop. You may claim that it will never happen to the desktop, but as I said, there's no guarantee that it won't.

 

[smackababy]

Here we are back at attacking the parts rather then discussing the sum of the whole.

Steam is not the first to do a lot of stuff, but they are the first to bundle what gamers need in a single package.

While id software, bethseda, blizzard, ea, activision,,, sat on their hands, steam was bundling products that gamers wanted and needed.

I need a quick way to find out what games my friends are playing, I need a way to easily join games my friends are in, I need a chat feature to stay in touch with friends, I need a way to keep my games updated, I want a centralized place to download modifications,,,.

Where is the EA, activision, id,,,, or any other solution for all of that?




Teamwork is a requirement for l4d/l4d2. If a single team member runs off, it affects the whole team.

What other zombie game lets you play as the infected?

Xbox Live had all of this, except for the sales before Steam. Steam launched a year after Xbox Live, which had all the features except the store.

L4D did nothing except turn an FPS into a zombie shooter. There was no innovation in making hordes of mindless NPCs rush at the players. Have a few boss type NPCs that had extra health a few special abilities didn't innovate either. Also, you don't need teamwork, you just have to not be a moron and you're fine.

 

[Texashiker]

Xbox Live had all of this, except for the sales before Steam. Steam launched a year after Xbox Live, which had all the features except the store.

Do you want to turn this into a console vs pc thread?

The last time I looked, this is the PC gaming section. Consoles are not even an option here.

L4D did nothing except turn an FPS into a zombie shooter. There was no innovation in making hordes of mindless NPCs rush at the players. Have a few boss type NPCs that had extra health a few special abilities didn't innovate either. Also, you don't need teamwork, you just have to not be a moron and you're fine.

I dont guess you play very much versus?

You have yet to post a link to your steam community profile.

 

[Red Storm]

Xbox Live had all of this, except for the sales before Steam. Steam launched a year after Xbox Live, which had all the features except the store.

L4D did nothing except turn an FPS into a zombie shooter. There was no innovation in making hordes of mindless NPCs rush at the players. Have a few boss type NPCs that had extra health a few special abilities didn't innovate either. Also, you don't need teamwork, you just have to not be a moron and you're fine.

Wait, really? You could download all of your games from anywhere on any Xbox as long as you had internet? And they had a workshop featuring user made customizations? And all this was free? Cool stuff, don't remember that from the reviews.

 

[Texashiker]

Wait, really? You could download all of your games from anywhere on any Xbox as long as you had internet? And they had a workshop featuring user made customizations? And all this was free? Cool stuff, don't remember that from the reviews.

Yea, really.

What other program keeps track of the games you bought, without intrusive DRM protection, download the games to any PC, server based anti-cheat feature (VAC secured servers), allows you to setup your own dedicated servers,,,,,.

I wonder if smackababy even uses steam, or if he is a console gamer trolling the PC gaming section?

 

[darkewaffle]

Because Origin is run by EA, and they have a track record that causes people to feel a certain way. Also Origin didn't give more choice, EA pulled their titles and made them Origin exclusives. Nothing wrong with that as it's their choice to make, but again your example doesn't relate to what I said.

How is two stores selling one game not giving you more choice relative to one store selling one game? They both have exclusive titles to be sure, but for the library of games they share the consumer can now choose to purchase from Steam or Origin. (Or any number of other digital stores). That's supposed to be a good thing, right?

Valve pushed Steam, in it's infancy, the same way EA is pushing Origin. By making their big name titles (HL2, CSS, ME3, BF3) require the program and making them exclusive to their own platform. The only difference is most of the notable Valve titles simply have never been available off Steam, EA's were for a time and they decided to retrofit them onto Origin instead.

Origin has merits, Steam is far from perfect (I'm still surprised that they don't have certain basic features nearly a decade after inception). Given the choice of buying the same game from either system (price being equal in this case), I would consider them both to be equally viable options. I would like to give the upper hand to whichever one implements more of the missing features I find valuable, such as bandwidth throttling, UI customization/skinning, better "games" list management, and hopefully those show up eventually. But I'm also willing to bet that without Origin, Steam would be even slower growing it's feature set; choice breeds competition, which is also good for the market.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Origin got some users, and Origin let them install their games into a user chosen directory rather than a pre-set one and then lo and behold, Steam eight years after release finally implements the same thing: one which I would think should be one of the most elementary features available for such a program.

Circling back around, I don't really care if Steam is on Linux or not. Good for them, it does nothing for me. But I think some of the principals people use to support that choice are subjective or unfair, and at times hypocritical. If it's good that people can choose to install Steam on Linux or Windows, how is it not good that people can choose to buy games from Origin or Steam? If Windows 8 is so bad because of it's learning curve, is moving to Linux really going to be a solution to that? Plus we see boatloads of praise for something like DayZ or EVE for being different (even when the execution is less than perfect) but as soon as Windows puts even a splash (that you can avoid if you so choose) of that in it's eviscerated for it? I know, apples to oranges between games and software, but I think both should move forward.

 

[Red Storm]

How is two stores selling one game not giving you more choice relative to one store selling one game? They both have exclusive titles to be sure, but for the library of games they share the consumer can now choose to purchase from Steam or Origin. (Or any number of other digital stores). That's supposed to be a good thing, right?

Valve pushed Steam, in it's infancy, the same way EA is pushing Origin. By making their big name titles (HL2, CSS, ME3, BF3) require the program and making them exclusive to their own platform. The only difference is most of the notable Valve titles simply have never been available off Steam, EA's were for a time and they decided to retrofit them onto Origin instead.

Origin has merits, Steam is far from perfect (I'm still surprised that they don't have certain basic features nearly a decade after inception). Given the choice of buying the same game from either system (price being equal in this case), I would consider them both to be equally viable options. I would like to give the upper hand to whichever one implements more of the missing features I find valuable, such as bandwidth throttling, UI customization/skinning, better "games" list management, and hopefully those show up eventually. But I'm also willing to bet that without Origin, Steam would be even slower growing it's feature set; choice breeds competition, which is also good for the market.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Origin got some users, and Origin let them install their games into a user chosen directory rather than a pre-set one and then lo and behold, Steam eight years after release finally implements the same thing: one which I would think should be one of the most elementary features available for such a program.

Circling back around, I don't really care if Steam is on Linux or not. Good for them, it does nothing for me. But I think some of the principals people use to support that choice are subjective or unfair, and at times hypocritical. If it's good that people can choose to install Steam on Linux or Windows, how is it not good that people can choose to buy games from Origin or Steam? If Windows 8 is so bad because of it's learning curve, is moving to Linux really going to be a solution to that? Plus we see boatloads of praise for something like DayZ or EVE for being different (even when the execution is less than perfect) but as soon as Windows puts even a splash (that you can avoid if you so choose) of that in it's eviscerated for it? I know, apples to oranges between games and software, but I think both should move forward.

I've only used Origin for a very brief time, but I thought EA only offers most of their titles through it and no longer Steam? EA being a publisher has a lot more games under its belt than Valve, who are developers not publishers.

Anyway, this is still off topic. This thread is about Valve setting up a Linux distro to make Steam on Linux easy for those that want it. This is a good thing. Having the majority of gaming being tied to one OS (that's not free and is apparently moving towards annual releases) just doesn't sound that great. This is what the thread is about. Also anyone here who is for some reason offended that people don't like Windows needs to deal with it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

And that's an interesting question posed above, would you play HL3 if it was Linux only? I think if I could get away with playing it on my own hardware, I'd try but definitely wouldn't buy a special box for it.

I would not. There are enough other games on established platforms that far outweigh HL3 in my mind if this ended up being the case.

 

[blurredvision]

I never understood the argument against Origin that EA only offers their games through their own service. Valve does the same with their games, yet it's a non-issue somehow.