Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2012 23:34 UTC
Games I'm not 100% sure this is actually word-for-word, but alas. "In a presentation at Ubuntu Developer Summit currently going on in Denmark, Drew Bliss from Valve said that Linux is more viable than Windows 8 for gaming. Windows 8 ships with its own app store and it is moving away from an open platform model." I feel like a broken record by now but here we go again: keep an eye on Valve, even if you're not into games. This is the company pushing NVIDIA and AMD to improve their Linux support, with enough clout and name to actually get stuff done. Valve doesn't mess around.
Permalink for comment 540453
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Depends on your definition of "viable"
by WereCatf on Tue 30th Oct 2012 00:35 UTC
Member since:

I do realize that Gabe Newell is worried about Microsoft pushing for their Windows Store and thereby possibly making Steam less relevant/attractive to customers and therefore Valve has to try to bolster their presence. Trying to make Windows 8 sound less attractive and downplaying its importance and usability in the media is a common PR-tactic employed by thousands of other companies, too.

However, how does one define "viable" in this case? It doesn't seem like Gabe is even trying to do that, except going on a tangent about Windows 8 being less of "an open platform." As far as I know there is absolutely nothing in Windows 8 that prevents you from running all the same apps and games you already run, nor anything to stop you from developing those, so I do not see how it is less of an open platform. Windows Store is not Windows and therefore complaining about it being closed is misguided in this context. Also, I have not heard of side-loading Metro-applications/games being restricted, either, except on Windows RT -- and we're obviously not talking about that here. So, what exactly is it about Windows 8 that makes it less of a viable gaming platform or a platform to target games for? Why was Windows 7 seemingly good enough, what with Gabe never complaining about it?

From an end-user's point of view how is Linux more viable a gaming platform when you take into account the facts that a lot of gaming-oriented devices only support Windows, most PC-games are only for Windows, there is no stereoscopic 3D - support under Linux and so on? All I see is a lot of complications and misbehaving or missing features. For a developer Linux is a viable platform, yes, but then again it has always been that. I mean, Linux is a great OS, but let's keep things based on reality.

Personally I welcome Steam on Linux wholeheartedly and I hope Valve will find it commercially viable -- everyone will be better off that way, but Linux simply does not work for me for gaming; I want to keep my stereoscopic 3D and surround sound, plus I want to play the games I have already bought.

Reply Score: 5