No Linux Steam - Really

The vocal Linux community has been asking Valve for a Linux native Steam client for some time now, but Valve has stated this was not to be, saying simply in their FAQ: "The Steam Client is strictly a Windows application, and there are no current plans to create a native Linux Steam Client at this time." Perhaps inspired by the hope provided by "no current plans" and "at this time," Linux fans have continued inquiring about this, leading to a post on the Steam Users Forums that says Valve's stance on this issue has been stated repeatedly, and "The next person who posts a new thread on this issue will be banned." This has inspired a heated discussion on Digg (thanks Ant) that seems pretty well divided between those who feel this is a disservice to the community, and those who are more sympathetic to Valve's position. Many posts repeat the salient point that a native Linux Steam client will not do anything to help Windows games run under Linux without emulation anyway.
View : : :
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
56.
 
...
Jul 24, 2007, 19:06
56.
... Jul 24, 2007, 19:06
Jul 24, 2007, 19:06
 
Mostly, I was speaking in a modern/future sense. Like Crysis, Bioshock, Supreme Commnader, Stalker, GR:AW, Armed Assault, Company of Heroes, etc.
STALKER can hardly be considering a modern game - although it was released recently the technology is actually very dated and even so it didn't run well. It's sad that people went out and bought it, as it's an insult how overhyped it was and how lacklustre it proved.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
55.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 22, 2007, 22:11
Prez
 
55.
Re: oye.. Jul 22, 2007, 22:11
Jul 22, 2007, 22:11
 Prez
 
True enough. I use dosbox with 99% success rate to pay old dos games, though. The few games that won't run in compatability mode in XP work fine on my Windows 98 machine.

Mostly, I was speaking in a modern/future sense. Like Crysis, Bioshock, Supreme Commnader, Stalker, GR:AW, Armed Assault, Company of Heroes, etc. I'm pretty sure many of the titles I am interested in will not play nice with Linux.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
54.
 
No subject
Jul 22, 2007, 14:26
54.
No subject Jul 22, 2007, 14:26
Jul 22, 2007, 14:26
 
I just don't want to see that idiot Ballmer dancing around like a moron, it seems to scare little children, LOL.

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
Avatar 38109
53.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 22, 2007, 09:19
53.
Re: oye.. Jul 22, 2007, 09:19
Jul 22, 2007, 09:19
 
I don't know what games you have, but I think its safe to assume you can't use "windows" to run them, you can use Windows XP. 2000,NT,98 and Vista will not run 100% of your games.

Seeing that Microsoft does not backward support games (and programming languages, and runtime envs) while wine does (wine is not emulation) on linux, I'd say you need to join the wine/cedega/code weaver crossoffice ASAP if you want to continue being able to play 100% of the games you own.

52.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 22, 2007, 09:04
52.
Re: oye.. Jul 22, 2007, 09:04
Jul 22, 2007, 09:04
 
I don't see my needs alone; I, too, have not used linux when all it was is a way to boot your machine to a text console. I didn't use it before nvidia drivers were available, even. So I am your average joe in that regard; that's exactly why I see how games in linux will be beneficial to the average joe.

also, Vista is such a success it will get XP to sell more at 2008 than at 2007... http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/21/0624233


51.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 22:26
51.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 22:26
Jul 21, 2007, 22:26
 
I actually made it for consoles exactly.

Consoles are slightly different, in that it's very easy to tell the difference, and they're just for gaming. With OSs, you're going far beyond that, and often with an audience not as savvy. C'mon, everyone had a friend whose parent bought them Mortal Kombat for the wrong system because the parent was clueless.
Imagine that on a far wider scale.

Even still, consoles tend to only support a certain amount. It's always been a two system game. Last generation was the first time a third survived, and even then it lost major money. Every other system to try has failed.

People want a standard.

But having a "linux" section on a wall instead of (well, as well as) a "ps3" section, or a "wii" section wouldn't be the end of the gaming world.

We already have Mac sections. Sometimes. Mac pushes Windows, as does Linux. Competition is there. But Windows wins by default, as it's the standard.
And Apple survived for so long because of this. Steve Jobs would be lost if Apple dominated market share. Any speech he gives is pretty much "Microsoft, now they drive like this: dee dee dee, but Apple, we drive like this, vrrrrooooom!" He's built Apple's computer side up entirely as "not Microsoft." Microsoft's dominance has made him a billionaire.
50.
 
No subject
Jul 21, 2007, 21:53
50.
No subject Jul 21, 2007, 21:53
Jul 21, 2007, 21:53
 
I don't even care, I don't use that BS piece of crap steam client, for all you know it can be full of spyware.

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
Avatar 38109
49.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 19:30
Prez
 
49.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 19:30
Jul 21, 2007, 19:30
 Prez
 
Linux could be 1000% more stable than Windows, completely bug-free, and even hold the secret to the cure for cancer for all I know - I've never used it. But because it will not play 100% of the games that I own or am interested in, as a gamer, it has absolutely no value to me whatsoever.

I'll stick with Windows, with all of its faults, transgressions, and shortcomings, safe in the knowledge that I can play anything the industry puts out.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
48.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 18:10
48.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 18:10
Jul 21, 2007, 18:10
 
computer users as a whole need a standard. It's that simple. It makes life easier for everyone Even developers, who know that developing a product for Windows means they have access to over 90% of the market.

The problem with that argument is that it can, with very few modifications, be made for consoles as well. I mean, come on, developers don't want to have to develop for 3 different consoles. We should have 1 standard console.

Competition isn't a bad thing, and is usually a good one. I'll be the first to admit that the fracturing of the linux community into so many distros is going overboard. But having a "linux" section on a wall instead of (well, as well as) a "ps3" section, or a "wii" section wouldn't be the end of the gaming world.

47.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 16:54
47.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 16:54
Jul 21, 2007, 16:54
 
Trashy, what are your system specs?
64bit or 32bit?



I'm running 32-bit on a 64-bit system... I actually had little trouble with games on 64-bit Fedora core, but what I did have trouble with is Browser plugins and multimedia software, some programs just didn't want compile even if I compiled them as 32-bit. I'll try 64-bit again sometime, but In general I noticed my performance is better in 32-bit only thing I can think of is more developed code.

I rocked out an AMD Athlon XP system for close to 5 years but my newer system is an AMD Athlon 64 4600+ dual core, 2gigs RAM, and EVGA Geforge 7950 GT KO 512meg ddr3 ram

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 16:59.
Avatar 17084
46.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 16:43
46.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 16:43
Jul 21, 2007, 16:43
 
And you think Linux has shifted that much?

Even Apple has shifted less than 1% from 2004 to 2006 (when the most recent, accurate figures are available.)

PC sales are down. OS changes usually happen with new PCs.
In other words, change is like a glacier.



You really only see your own uses and project them upon the entire community, huh? You're incapable of seeing how you, as one power user, are entirely insignificant?
45.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 15:35
45.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 15:35
Jul 21, 2007, 15:35
 
your numbers are from 2004... thats.. well, 3 years ago..

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 15:35.
44.
 
Re: ...
Jul 21, 2007, 14:51
44.
Re: ... Jul 21, 2007, 14:51
Jul 21, 2007, 14:51
 
>>Someone down there said, that Vista gaming for windows is a joke.
>>That's not true.

>I found it great for a bit, then I found
>performance in Cubase was appalling, games were slower >(minimising out of Guild Wars now took an extra 5-10 seconds) >and even browsing my computer and using Firefox was slower.

Well, my PC has 2GB of DDR PC3200 and Athlton X2 3800+ overclocked to 5000+ levels. With this dual-boot system, Vista runs better than XP. In my original post, I list out the PC games I have tried. They all run more responsive, alt-tab out better and while the average frame rates may be a bit lower (though I can't tell), the minimum rates are better in most games. The search engine in Vista is great, support for SATA2 drives are better done that what it is in XP, and the AeroGlass interface gives the desktop a very solid feel. Best thing is that the DOSBox application runs absolutely fine and so this Vista PC is still the best solution to play those DOS games from 80s and 90s.

Dual core CPUs are about $70-80 and they overclock exceedingly well. 2GB RAM is between $70-100. Very capable DX9 level cards like X1950Pro or 7900GT/GS are going for $100.

XP will be gone just like Win9x before it (and DOS / Win3.11 earlier).

43.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 11:23
43.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 11:23
Jul 21, 2007, 11:23
 
Shul, you can show examples, it's all fine.

But the bottom line is the masses need a standard. How well would it have worked if every car manufacturer ran on different kinds of fuel, with some gas stations supporting one kind of fuel and other supporting multiple kinds? It would be aggravating, it would be obnoxious, and many people would be confused.

With computers it is the same way.


Linux has very narrow specialties in which it blows everything else away (as you mentioned, game servers. And for people falling into those specialties, it's wonderful.

But for everything else, Windows makes far more sense. There's more software for it, there's more support for it (assuming you're an average user, like the vast majority), and it's just a standard - you're safe assuming something will work on it.



Which is why the western world kisses its ass. It was in the right place at the right time and unless it massively screws up it will stay that way.

computer users as a whole need a standard. It's that simple. It makes life easier for everyone Even developers, who know that developing a product for Windows means they have access to over 90% of the market.

Develop one for Linux and you have access to what, 1.3% of the market share?
And your facts wrong. The Chinese government might use Linux, but the people use Windows. Hell, how many MMORPGs are written for Linux?
http://www.emarketer.com/images/chart_gifs/061001-062000/061243.gif
42.
 
Re: oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 11:03
42.
Re: oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 11:03
Jul 21, 2007, 11:03
 
Trashy, what are your system specs?
64bit or 32bit?

41.
 
oye..
Jul 21, 2007, 08:25
41.
oye.. Jul 21, 2007, 08:25
Jul 21, 2007, 08:25
 
My main system is Linux and been running Linux exclusively for close to 3 years now. I do get to play a good share of games native games and with Cedega/Wine, although recently mostly WoW damn addictive MMOs. Well anyways Steam does run fine with Cedega and I can get all the Half-Life engined games and HL2 and CS:Source working fine, but I had to finally dual boot a few weeks ago because I wanted to try Titan Quest which doesn't work at all with Cedega or Wine. I'm actually getting better frame rates in WoW in Linux than Windows had to drop my AA down to 4x to match my Linux frame rate.

I'm tired and will continue to ramble on...

Avatar 17084
40.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 21, 2007, 07:53
40.
Re: No subject Jul 21, 2007, 07:53
Jul 21, 2007, 07:53
 
tried answering your other thread with quotes and stuff , but there is some problem, so you'll need to find my answers in there somewhere (hint-identation).

as for this post, beamer, I hold a CS degree as well and I can't understand what you are on about, I know CGI people, home users, people in developing countries use linux, with no CS degree whatsoever, why would the western world need microsofts pat on the back ?

Oh, btw, china uses linux as well.. ehmm..

39.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 21, 2007, 07:42
39.
Re: No subject Jul 21, 2007, 07:42
Jul 21, 2007, 07:42
 
q[No, shul. You proved nothing wrong. There aren't enough gamers to make gaming on linux viable. And there's no good reason for games to go to linux. There's no good reason for gamers to go to linux, either.]

This relates to the circular logic applied; there aren't enough gamers because there aren't enough games. Looking at the gamers around me, the'd be happy to install freely available OS rather than paying for a virus infested hassle.

q[Linux is more stable than Windows. This is useful if you're running servers. Linux is more open than Windows. This is useful if you have the knowledge to take advantage of it.]

Tried Ubuntu lately?

q[Windows, on the other hand, is a self-contained enviroment. The variables are far fewer. Most Windows builds are somewhat similar. This allows devs to test far more efficiently. And it's still a nightmare.]

That's just wrong, I am involved with several multiplatform softwares and none had more issues in linux compared to windows, on the other hand, issues in windows are usually related to faulty concepts that no one can debug because they are part of the os (threads, for example, act differently in win98, winxp, and vista)

q[Why should developers enter the world of Linux? So they can have more headaches? So they can spend more money for hardly any more profits? ]

Hmm.. checked out how many game servers which run on linux are there? checked the community around nwn1 on linux?

q[Why should gamers go to Linux? Again, more headaches and fewer choices?]

again with the circular logic, and as for headaches, I simply don't agree, try out ubuntu, really (I am an FC user myself, btw)


q[If you use Linux and you want to game: dual boot. It's simple. There's no reason not to have a version of windows on your system if it serves some of your purposes, unless you're one of those idiots that thinks Microsoft is out to get you.]

already answered by another poster, but to re-iterate on his theme: I wrote code for linux which does all sorts of data manipulations and gathering for a project, I don't want to stop it and a VM is not a viable choice, so please tell me, should I buy a new computer now?

q[Yes, Vista is arguably a step back, and if Microsoft doesn't respond the community will. But Me was a step back and it didn't matter. XP came along and became the best gaming platform the PC has ever seen. Why would ANYONE want to abandon that, on the developer or consumer side?]

Vista is more than a step back from a linux point of view, vista locks all future games for the PC on directX 10 so xbox 360 will be the only platform worth migrating too.. sounds a bit like a monopol to me, wouldn't you say? and by locking I don't mean that the games wouldn't be portable, thats because C and C++ are ANSI, I mean that WGA won't let you install DX10 on any other platform than vista. and sence OpenGL gives the same capabilities as DX10 I reckon this is not exactly because XP does not have the right software..

So do tell me, why are you so eager to give unplausable reasons to stay with windows when others like to use other OSs?


q[Probably because he's an idiot.]

Sorry if you got insolted, I really thought you were a troll..

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 07:44.
38.
 
Business sense
Jul 21, 2007, 04:13
38.
Business sense Jul 21, 2007, 04:13
Jul 21, 2007, 04:13
 
You know, this thread has been very educational. It's taught me that the more rabid the linux supporter, the less business sense the person tends to have.

Let's do a quick 5 minute feasibility "study" to see what it would take, using good round numbers, and being conservative or even favorable.

Let's say that, over the span of a 6 month dev cycle (pretty brief) you develop a Linux version of Steam and the cost to develop, test, and implement the client is $500,000 dollars, which is peanuts in the game industry (realistically, I'd think the starting cost would be 10 times that, but let's run with this number right now). We'll say the launch is perfect, there are no unknown development costs, and that there is already a software library in place to offer.

Let's be extra-generous and say that thanks to online distribution, on a 50 dollar game, you have a 20% profit margin (which I suspect is absurdly high and probably is around 10 percent in reality). This margin is only concerning the game itself. So with a 20% profit margin on a $50 game, you end up with a 10 dollar "profit". It would take 50,000 sales to break even with the development cost alone, and in this case, none of your software would be earning you profit for the first 50,000 sales. Realistically, your software library isn't going to be 1st party titles developed in house, so you're going to have to split that "profit" in some way. If you only take 5% of the profit and give the rest to the developer, we're talking 200,000 sales before you break even. If you split it evenly, as we will for this thought exercise, you're looking at 100,000 game sales to recoup dev costs.

On top of that, it's feasible that between technicians to maintain the new equipment, bandwidth requirements, and other ongoing costs, you could rack up a 10,000 dollar a month service cost. You'd then have to sell at *least* 1000 games PER MONTH just to pay for the upkeep of the "added traffic". And you're still making no "profit" off of those first 1000 sales. Again, if you take only 10% of the profit off of each game, that jumps up to 2000 sales a month.

Finally, let's look at market share. Linux has, and I looked but I could only find vague numbers, around a 12% market share (again, being generous from the numbers I saw). Microsoft has a market share in the high 70's if memory serves. Let's say that linux market saturation (the percent of users who will, on average, buy your game) is obscenely high at 75%, because the community *really* wants to support this. You'll be getting identical sales as if Microsoft had a roughly 6% saturation rate for your game, which if it's a AAA title, is not very likely. Again, you'll hit the saturation rate faster with linux, which means that sales will peter out quicker, and that results in less profit.

All in all, it's a poor business decision. It's made even poorer when you consider that a significant number of linux users will own a MS box to play THE SAME GAME on, without any of the added overhead. Note that I also used very favorable numbers. If the dev cost really was in the millions of dollars, then the number of sales required to turn a profit skyrockets.

It's just too big of a gamble. In the end, this amounts to Linux saying "Waaah! Spend money and promote us so we can play cool games too!! Waaah!" and Valve saying "I'm sorry, our business statement doesn't include propping up other industries like that".

Again, if I had a financial planner in my business approach me with something that made as little business sense as Linux Steam, I'd probably fire the person and hire someone who's better at the job.

Edit: Don't take my numbers as gospel, especially the market share numbers. I'm exhausted and don't feel like breaking out a calculator to be accurate. The order of magnitude is pretty close though.

This comment was edited on Jul 21, 04:18.
37.
 
Re: MMORPGHoD
Jul 21, 2007, 01:44
37.
Re: MMORPGHoD Jul 21, 2007, 01:44
Jul 21, 2007, 01:44
 
Your assertion is a far cry from my statement. I'm only pointing out one of Valve's talking points describing the reason for the creation of their service and an obvious parallel to small developers for Linux.

Yea, game developers! Not OS developers or application developers.

I understood your intention over your initial statement just fine. You are suggesting Valve make a Linux client to help Linux gain more users through gamers, and you even stated that it would make more sense to have Steam on Linux instead of Windows...which really is baffling from any sort of logical business thinking.

Do you really think Indie game developers would rush to develop game for Linux and have even fewer people play their games?

----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing WoW - Burning Crusade
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older