Linked by Debjit on Mon 23rd Aug 2010 21:16 UTC
Games A rumor has been going around for about four months now that Valve is coming out with a Linux version of Steam and had a lot of people in the Linux community very excited. However Valve have officially killed the rumor. And it is not what people wants to hear - there is no Linux version of Steam in development.
Thread beginning with comment 437902
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Too bad.
by nt_jerkface on Tue 24th Aug 2010 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too bad."
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Don't be pedantic, people can't go to steam and go click click click and then install any game they want and that is what counts.

The real problem is that Linux isn't a single platform for game developers to target. It's an amalgamation of distros, desktops and sound stacks. And on top of it all there is a hostile attitude towards proprietary software.

Go buy a console if you don't want to game in Windows or OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Too bad.
by Ford Prefect on Tue 24th Aug 2010 10:54 in reply to "RE[3]: Too bad."
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I see that the market is not relevant to the publisher. Almost all linux users who want to play just bite the bullet and boot Windows (which as we all know is just available on any machine).

What is incorrect, however, is the belief that there would be significant technical reasons hindering Linux as a gaming platform. The infamous distro argument is just one of them that is easily understood and sounds convincing by/to outsiders but in fact is not relevant.

I don't need to go into technical details either to prove my point. Just look at id software. They managed to release all their major games without any trouble (they have only one guy responsible for Linux porting in their team). I never heard any complaints about "Quake does not run on Distro XY" or "Quake is unstable", "Quake runs only with lib version XY" or "Don't install Quake after installing another program/lib" anything like that. It is just no issue. It is just not.

Another example would be Ryan Gordon (Icculus), who ported a lot of games including the UT series just by himself, on a contract basis. I also never heard that UT would run on Distro X but fail on Distro Y.


Thing is, there is no technical reason why a game should not satisfy Linux customers as well as it would Windows customers. The windows platform has all its problems in itself for games. Read about the "install latest drivers" comments all over the net.


Still I understand that for a major publisher there is marginal business sense in supporting the Linux platform. It's just not for technical reasons but for how the OS market currently works.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Too bad.
by nt_jerkface on Tue 24th Aug 2010 18:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Too bad."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Just look at id software. They managed to release all their major games without any trouble (they have only one guy responsible for Linux porting in their team).

Funny how you mentioned iD because it was Loki that brought Quake 3 to Linux and they later went bankrupt trying to sell games to Linux users.

I understand that for a major publisher there is marginal business sense in supporting the Linux platform. It's just not for technical reasons but for how the OS market currently works.


So Linux is just as easy to target as OS X?

Just because Linux occasionally gets a port does not mean that the often complained about technical issues do not exist. Testing alone is a major issue with Linux due to all the different disros and versions. Packaging / static linking is also a major issue when compared to OS X.

I think a blog post from a developer who brought his game to Linux gives better insight:
http://www.hemispheregames.com/2010/05/18/porting-osmos-to-linux-a-...

or the infamous Braid post on porting to Linux:
http://braid-game.com/news/?p=364

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Too bad.
by Zifre on Tue 24th Aug 2010 13:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Too bad."
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

The real problem is that Linux isn't a single platform for game developers to target. It's an amalgamation of distros, desktops and sound stacks.

When will people stop repeating this myth? Your average game just needs SDL and OpenGL. You can pretty much assume that those are installed, and you can statically link against everything else. It's really not very hard.

And on top of it all there is a hostile attitude towards proprietary software.

Most people are not like that. Linux users in general are less likely to pirate software, and will generally be willing to pay more for it. See http://www.wolfire.com/humble. Linux users payed almost twice as much as Windows users, and more than Mac users too. They even made more profit from Linux users, even though more Mac users bought the bundle.

Go buy a console if you don't want to game in Windows or OS X.

Admittedly, that's probably the best option. It's what I do.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: Too bad.
by deathshadow on Tue 24th Aug 2010 18:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Too bad."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

When will people stop repeating this myth? Your average game just needs SDL and OpenGL. You can pretty much assume that those are installed, and you can statically link against everything else. It's really not very hard.

Unless SDL on linux's audio latency is too low for what you want to do. Unless the input latency is too low or doesn't support half the devices you want to... Unless a change to the kernel or a different version of the static libraries is present than the one's your linked against breaking the whole thing forcing a recompile... Which if you don't want to release the source to your code due to how easy that would make it to pirate, as if all the code monkeys reverse engineering binaries to bypass checks isn't bad enough?

See why Loki Software was damned near stillborn. Doesn't help that even the binary drivers are like driving with the parking brake on even when allegedly it's the same drivers working through an abstraction. I didn't buy a GTX 260 SLI rig to have no SLI, no CUDA, no Physx, and to have my single GTX 260 perform like a 9800GT.

Though admittedly, I game in linux all the time -- on my Dingoo running Dingux in emulators.... and on my droid. Amazing how linux becomes a viable gaming platform and practical for daily consumer use once you get that fat bloated pig X11 out of the equation.

"And on top of it all there is a hostile attitude towards proprietary software.

Most people are not like that. Linux users in general are less likely to pirate software, and will generally be willing to pay more for it.
"
Not any of the free{sexual preference slur deleted}'s I know. Mind you that may be a vocal minority, but damn they're vocal. See all the whackjobs who hate Ubuntu just because it gives the OPTION of using restricted files and comes with the multiverse enabled by default. (what, don't remember the total outrage over that decision?)

See http://www.wolfire.com/humble. Linux users payed almost twice as much as Windows users, and more than Mac users too.

Probably because zero windows users and less than zero Mac users gave a flying **** about the outdated half-assed indie games listed? You mention that to windows users 99% of them are going to go "What the **** is that?" -- I know I did.

You aren't going to drive Windows gamers in droves to spend money on games that have been in the $10 a pop bargain bin for over two years the same year ME2, MW2 and SC2 drop.

While your people who buy into the snake oil 'free as in freedom' rhetoric it's one of the few choices they have... ending up a bit like the old Mac joke:

"There are good games on the Mac, you know they're all good games because you played them three or four years ago on PC"

Edited 2010-08-24 18:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2