Valve: Linux More Viable Than Windows 8 for Gaming


Recommended Posts

So instead of a chunk of money going to MS, It'll go to Valve instead? How is that any less "unfair".

Less arbitrary restrictions and fairer distribution costs.

Whether their customers are prepared to use it isn't their issue, it's the freedom Microsoft are giving developers that Valve have the problem with. Most people don't even seem to be interested in trying to understand the point Valve are making they just fly off the handle the moment anyone says anything negative about Microsoft.

Valve don't HAVE a point. They're just spreading FUD so they can attempt to protect their own revenue stream.

Valve don't HAVE a point. They're just spreading FUD so they can attempt to protect their own revenue stream.

Of course they have a point, if the direction taken with 8 is a part of a move to close Windows as a platform, it's bad news for companies like Valve, and anyone who produces anything that isn't a casual game or a fart app.

Less arbitrary restrictions and fairer distribution costs.

I'm not aware that Valve's distribution costs are standardised or even published. Quick research suggests that Valve takes a share of 30%+, which means that they're equal to, or more expensive than the Windows store. Hardly less arbitrary or fair.

Valve don't HAVE a point. They're just spreading FUD so they can attempt to protect their own revenue stream.

Yeah, Valve don't have a point. Because they never said that 8 was closed in the first place.

Every person in this thread so far crying their eyes out over the "closed" comment has been trolled by the OP, because it doesn't exist in the original article linked.

So instead of a chunk of money going to MS, It'll go to Valve instead? How is that any less "unfair".

How is that ANY different to what Valve do with Steam? They don't put games on their store they don't want, and they take a cut of every sale, just like MS are doing with the Windows 8 store. Gabe is just throwing his toys out of the pram because MS, unlike EA with their Origin store, have the muscle to affect his bottom line.

If you submit your game in Steam Greenlight, It costs you a flat 100 dollars. Like Javik said: Less arbitrary restrictions and fairer distribution costs. If I remember right Microsoft takes 30%

Who decides what's "fairer"?

Developers

Really? From what I can find online (and info is rather scarce on this). Valve appear to take a 30-40% cut of all sales. Is that fairer than MS's cut?

Evidence I've seen suggests otherwise, most indie game developers in particular have been full of praise for both the helpfulness of Valve's staff and the fairness of the deals Valve gave them.

Got any proof to back this up with?

Proof of the arbitrary restrictions is pretty evident to be honest. Proof of the fair deals is in the words of indie developers.

Of course they have a point, if the direction taken with 8 is a part of a move to close Windows as a platform, it's bad news for companies like Valve, and anyone who produces anything that isn't a casual game or a fart app.

IF. There's a lot of supposition there from such a small word.

Tell me. Can you think of any sane justification as to why Microsoft would actually WANT to cut off the literally millions of desktop application developers out there, and actually FORCE people to move to another OS? Why would any company in their right mind do something so monumentally stupid?

The W8 app store is there for one thing, for MS to get their hands into the tablet market. They improve their chances of this by having those tablet "cool" tablet apps also running on the desktop for a single, unified experience. There is no way they'll drop the desktop side of things, or seal Windows off from the millions of desktop developers out there. There's just too much you CANNOT do in metro.

For the same reason that Apple do it. Controlling your ecosystem like a megalomaniac forces developers and consumers to dance to your tune and increases profits.

Evidence I've seen suggests otherwise, most indie game developers in particular have been full of praise for both the helpfulness of Valve's staff and the fairness of the deals Valve gave them.

Proof of the arbitrary restrictions is pretty evident to be honest. Proof of the fair deals is in the words of indie developers.

Oh please, show us this evidence proving that it's a fairer deal than MS's, or even Apple's or Google's. I suspect the comparison the Indie devs are making is against traditional games publishing, which is a horrendously expensive business.

The W8 app store is there for one thing, for MS to get their hands into the tablet market. They improve their chances of this by having those tablet "cool" tablet apps also running on the desktop for a single, unified experience. There is no way they'll drop the desktop side of things, or seal Windows off from the millions of desktop developers out there. There's just too much you CANNOT do in metro.

Add to this, Microsoft get fined several hundred million dollars by the EU for bundling Internet Explorer. If they were to close off the desktop in x86/x64 they would be sued to hell and back.

If you submit your game in Steam Greenlight, It costs you a flat 100 dollars. Like Javik said: Less arbitrary restrictions and fairer distribution costs. If I remember right Microsoft takes 30%

You seem to be confused. Just submitting to Greenlight does not guarantee your game will be sold on Steam. Developers could pay the $100 and never have their game go on sale. If Valve decides to sell a game, then they take 30%+ of every sale, just like Microsoft.

Developers

I haven't seen any developers say their apps have been refused from the windows 8 market place.. got any proof?

Evidence I've seen suggests otherwise, most indie game developers in particular have been full of praise for both the helpfulness of Valve's staff and the fairness of the deals Valve gave them.

That's great, but what does that even mean? are you saying Microsoft is mean to its developers? i'd beg otherwise..

Proof of the arbitrary restrictions is pretty evident to be honest. Proof of the fair deals is in the words of indie developers.

No it isn't.. that's an absurd statement to make.

You seem to be confused. Just submitting to Greenlight does not guarantee your game will be sold on Steam. Developers could pay the $100 and never have their game go on sale. If Valve decides to sell a game, then they take 30%+ of every sale, just like Microsoft.

And to clarify further. MS charge $99 a year to submit apps to their store (individuals can get it for $49 I think). You can submit multiple apps for that fee, priced or free, and it WILL go on to the store, not "may" go on to it. Also, your app can (depending on the developer), run on three different platforms, greatly increasing the target audience.

Add to this, Microsoft get fined several hundred million dollars by the EU for bundling Internet Explorer. If they were to close off the desktop in x86/x64 they would be sued to hell and back.

EU already said they're not interested in IE on Windows RT.. The old browser ballet is a bandaid on a problem that doesn't exist today and just wastes money for everyone involved. Times have changed and man, some people need to get over this.

I haven't seen any developers say their apps have been refused from the windows 8 market place.. got any proof?

I never said apps are getting refused en mass, but they will if the developers don't do exactly what Microsoft tells them to. What they can and cannot do is being arbitrarily controlled.

No it isn't.. that's an absurd statement to make.

No it isn't, you're more than capable of using google and reading the app store guidelines for yourself.

You seem to be confused. Just submitting to Greenlight does not guarantee your game will be sold on Steam. Developers could pay the $100 and never have their game go on sale. If Valve decides to sell a game, then they take 30%+ of every sale, just like Microsoft.

I'm on a campus computer now, so I can't verify that. I'll check it out when I have the chance.

Valve introduced the fee for Greenlight to cut down on spam and malicious entries, it was initially free, and all proceeds will be donated to charity. How much of Microsoft's fees get donated to charity?

Source

  • Like 2

Value also pick and choose what apps they publish to Steam.

Users choose what goes and blows with Greenlight.

Valve introduced the fee for Greenlight to cut down on spam and malicious entries, it was initially free, and all proceeds will be donated to charity. How much of Microsoft's fees get donated to charity?

Source

^THIS!!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!