Your avatar fits this post like a cylinder a gentleman, lol.
Yes, SteamOS is free.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
If we consider Newell's history porting Doom to Win to show it can be a gaming platf.
- Thread starter angular graphics
- Start date
Yes, SteamOS is free.
cheezcake
Member
Saying Linux sucks because of it's UI is about as meaningful as saying a car sucks because it doesn't make toast.
My father can barely make the microwave work and he uses Ubuntu with no problems at all (and no one needs to worry about virus and malwares that would inevitably be installed if he was using windows). People are just too used to windows to bother to spend 5 minutes to comprehend other OS.
Your post is bad. And you should feel bad.
Linux snobs are also a big barrier to linux.
I've been a game developer for a long time, and I've ran into difficulty with Linux users.
When I was working on my last game (using Unity) I toyed with the idea of doing a Linux build of the game. Midway through development I said 'here's a Linux build. If some of you Linux users can test it I'd really appreciate it'. Their responses were 'Where's the source code? I'm not running anything I haven't compiled myself! It could be full of malicious code!' and 'Ugh, it's made in Unity Pro? Unity Pro isn't free, and the source isn't available!'
So, at the end of this experience, I decided to not bother with the headache of releasing a Linux build. It was only a small free game, not worth such aggro.
I do think the SteamOS is a good step forward for games. It's just ironic that Linux fans would endorse such a closed platform.
I've been a game developer for a long time, and I've ran into difficulty with Linux users.
When I was working on my last game (using Unity) I toyed with the idea of doing a Linux build of the game. Midway through development I said 'here's a Linux build. If some of you Linux users can test it I'd really appreciate it'. Their responses were 'Where's the source code? I'm not running anything I haven't compiled myself! It could be full of malicious code!' and 'Ugh, it's made in Unity Pro? Unity Pro isn't free, and the source isn't available!'
So, at the end of this experience, I decided to not bother with the headache of releasing a Linux build. It was only a small free game, not worth such aggro.
I do think the SteamOS is a good step forward for games. It's just ironic that Linux fans would endorse such a closed platform.
angular graphics
Banned
Which 100% of the multiplatform titles released today have at least one version (PS3, WiiU, or whatever) that do NOT use it.
Megadragon15
Member
How many game developers want to release their source code for games as required by the Linux licensing rules?
That is the worst analogy ever, he has a point that most of the UI can be foreign and be preconceived as "sucking"
blurredvision
Member
This is exactly Linux's problem. Bad rep as a "power user" only OS, doesn't come pre-installed on computers in any significant count like Windows, too many distros to choose from, etc. I work in IT and am very computer savvy, but have no interest in Linux because it just seems like too much work. Why bother when I can install Windows and everything just works? Maybe Linux has reached that point but I don't see the need to try it out. What does Linux give me that Windows doesn't? That's my ultimate question.
My thoughts are that SteamOS will only help Linux gaming inside its own shell. It's not going to cause the mass adoption of Linux that nerds have been hoping for for 15 years now.
LiquidSolid
Member
No.
Which seems like a fine point until your next target audience is people who are trying to get good toasters.
It used to be true until DX9 and the opengl 2 and 3 debacles.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html
Oh, yes. Yes, yes.
That sounds terrible. I wouldn't want to deal with people like that either.
You seem quite confused about what requirements must be meant to be forced to release their source code.
Game developers would not need to release their code in normal situations.
cheezcake
Member
The Linux kernel has no UI, the UI is dependent on which linux distro you use, in each distro you have multiple different UI's at your disposal.
Since Steam is on linux I think the people on the more hardcore variants will just be able to build Steam and play linux supported games via that whilst the easy to use Steam OS will be for the general public with an easy to use live CD to install from.
This is early days but I think it's important to recognise this as being a step in the right direction. If Valve gets some big names to release linux ports it could convince others to follow.
The only way that will happen is financial incentive. With some developers it's like pulling teeth to get them to even release their games on Windows. Linux is a whole different ballpark.
When all your games already run on dos, why switch?
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
It depends on what the software solution is and how much of an application needs that software solution.
'worse performance' is moot if the softwares original target platform is orders of magnitude weaker that the modern platform it is being run on.
All software is mathematics, and all mathematical problems can be solved given enough time, money, and effort.
samjaza
Member
The only reason i don't use a Linux distro full time is due to games.
I don't know if i would use the SteamOS because its is apparently designed around big picture mode and im not sure what X system its running underneath that.
If valve works on WINE as well so that all the games that don't run natively can be run through it.
I don't know if i would use the SteamOS because its is apparently designed around big picture mode and im not sure what X system its running underneath that.
If valve works on WINE as well so that all the games that don't run natively can be run through it.
dragonelite
Member
I don't know but if you follow some game programmers on twitter all i hear is opengl does something else for the same feature
on different operating systems. Or driver are having issues.
Linux has different problems not sure if it is still so but if two distro say
we are going to use this the other will say fuck you will use that instead.
So an unified game os like SteamOs distro that standardizes a lot of things can get a lot of following.
And a programmer worth its salary should have no/minimal problem abstract away a graphics sub system.
Because wrapping OpenGL or DirectX too a commen rendering interface is such a small issues in the complexity that comes with writing an engine.
This really isn't the same scenario.
That is the equivalent of not releasing your game at all because some people's response to it is "indie game? Please gimme AAA bang bang shoot bro". Humble Bundle's have proved for a while that quite a few Linux users are interested in paying for proprietary software like games, you just have to know where to sell it.
People won't switch, Valve's idea is to push Linux enough so that all games come out there eventually, and then a Steam box can be sold without paying royalties to Microsoft. They want to make buying and playing games on Steam easy and accessible to random Walmart shoppers.
Yeah I know, but it seemed appropriate considering the OP.
Personally, I definitely remember being frustrated by the windows versions of many games and wishing that everyone would just stick with dos.
Jesus dude... Are we really going to that length and pretend people who say Linux when talking generally don't mean Linux Distributions?
Whatever, explain then your toaster analogy.
A UI is a vital part of using Linux for the masses. It's like how cars use roads today, sure it's not needed but it makes things a helluva lot easier.
nephilimdj
Member
I dont think valve have something big enough to drive steamOS, they already did linux tf2 items.
Half-life 3 exclusive would be suidide
Half-life 3 exclusive would be suidide
It's not only about games, but also about other software and ease of use. In other words, when Linux is Windows, maybe then. It's still a very long way unless MS really fucks up Windows.
cheezcake
Member
It was just a poorly worded sentence which mildly annoyed the programmer in me heh.
In any case he made a blanket statement, the linux UI sucks, which still makes no sense considering there's a bazillion different desktop environments for linux distributions, some of which are practically carbon copies of windows anyway.
Flash is installed either via your web browser of choice or, if you are using Ubuntu, through the Software Center. Probably just as easy, or easier, than under Windows and OSX.
fud spreading juniors to benefit MS. hmmm.
dragonelite
Member
For the average user that is used to windows it probably is.
But most of it depends on the distro. Something like ubuntu it has an easy way to install it.
I rather recommend my parents to get an tablet to consume media on then i would recommend to use a desktop Linux distro or windows. Tablets aren't that hard to use for their usage pattern like facebook and ebay just point the to the app they can use to access the internet or install the facebook app.
thewhitehawk
Member
Your ignorance regarding Linux is quite glaring. Most modern operating systems are based on Linux or Unix (Linux is based on Unix). Have you ever used OSX, iOS, Android? Then guess what... you've used Linux or Unix.
Linux, on its own has no graphic user interface but it is very modular and easy to adapt to your needs, and very versatile because it can be used by very low-power devices lke a Pi, and scaled all the way up to very stable enterprise servers.
Regarding the GUI, which is what I guess you're alluding to with the "UI" in your quote, the most popular Linux distros haven't been ugly for a bigger half than the last decade and if you look at some of the examples I mentioned on the first paragraph, well, you should just feel embarrassed.
What you can argue is that some of the most popular Linux distros weren't stable or user-friendly enough for newcomers for the past few years, and in my opinion, for some users, Linux is still not the best choice. It's easy to get a nice looking easy to use Linux distro up and running, but if it breaks, it's not as easy to fix it as it is with most other consumer-focused operating systems. To me that is still Linux's Achille's kneel.
But if a strong and rich consumer-facing company gets behind Linux and helps alleviate those issues and suddenly we have a very easy to use, consumer-focused Linux distro that is available for free. Well, let's just say that I think that will be exciting for consumers and the market in general.
TyrantGuardian
Member
This post is hilarious to me.
First off, the Linux TF2 thing didn't "take off" because Linux is (seemingly or otherwise) hard to use for many players to the point where few were going to bother with it solely for items. With SteamOS, there are lots of other benefits and hopefully it will be so easy to install/use that it won't even be an issue.
Second, I think you underestimate the Half-Life brand, honestly. Not that I would for a second think Valve would make it exclusive (why should they? As others have pointed out) but if they did, you can bet your ass that SteamOS would get a lot more users than it would otherwise. A huge lot.
fluffydelusions
Member
He's not wrong.games was always the biggest issue with Linux for me. Used it for 10+ years.
fluffydelusions
Member
Linux has lots of great apps though. I think the issue is many people are too familiar with windows and don't want to try anything new. That said, there are definitely some things on windows that are not on linux that some people need e.g. photoshop which I could see being an issue.
blurredvision
Member
Because Windows offered a noticeably better experience than DOS? Don't even know why I bothered to respond.
AdmiralPain
Banned
Yes.
IrishNinja
Member
nintendo maybe, but sega? nah, gabe
angular graphics
Banned
Nor did he claim it did.
Windows certainly did not offer a better experience than dos when it came to games.
I guess your post did not either. Of course we can draw a parallel between both cases. I hope it works out, I would love to see linux as a viable gaming OS. I just dont want people thinking Gabe was responsible for the popularity if Windows and that he will therefore do the same for Linux.
fushi
Member
WAR recon zero
Banned
I tried to use several linux distros. It was slower, nvidia drivers were ass and setting up 2 screens was a matter of editing several .conf files. Couldn't do simple tasks such as changing the fan speed
After a while de xwin died and i couldn't recover. A bazillion of developers and the system could not be usable for me
After a while de xwin died and i couldn't recover. A bazillion of developers and the system could not be usable for me
angular graphics
Banned
Well, I think one of my points was that Newell said (Dos-)Doom was even more popular than Windows itself. Which gave him the idea to have killer apps (games) in Windows.
The Doom port was developed as a *free* proof of concept experiment to prove it WAS possible to make games as demanding as Doom run on Windows because people thought otherwise.
Gabe Newell said:
Yes, certainly it would be good to destroy such misconceptions. Just reading this thread we already covered all the standard "problems with Linux" posts we always see.
Those developers have more important issues than whether your video output works. I'm serious.
I don't understand why people say that Linux is being held back. Linux has never been developed with a focus on the desktop. It's fine on servers and I'd rather developers focus on it's intended use instead of the desktop.