Valve: Linux More Viable Than Windows 8 for Gaming


Recommended Posts

thealexweb

Well Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 will surely use the same store right ? I do hope the next xbox will use the same for xbla games as well.

There's a finite number of times i'm willing to pay for Andry Birds :p

Well they are both NT based OS and both have to have touch controls so the only thing needed is to scale up the graphics, so I could be possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

Windows is not what it used to be.... is becoming slowly and apple-esque platform [. . .]

Which is something that is great, in my opinion :) I enjoy Apple's more closed platform. Linux distros, and even Android, are way too open, in different ways, in my opinion, and not just in regard to gaming (e.g. the ability to completely change the look and design philosophy of the entire operating system).

Link to post
Share on other sites
McKay

Until Valve ships out an update which prevents the Steam client running on Windows 8, I shall continue to use the Steam Store in Windows 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel

Then sincerely go back to your tribe and stop diluting our product with your asinine LCD suggestions and comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Athernar

Actually it's not an oxymoron, what you fail to understand is that the people you are trying to defend are the ones who would benefit.

You do realize that the way it is today with special deals. the small indie devs probably needs to give away around 30%, meanwhile the big devs and publishers who are guaranteed huge sales, and have expensive very well qualified sales reps. they get away with 20-10%.

you probably though the small devs got the better deals, sorry that's not how it works, small games who are expected to sell little get higher rates, while the big games that are guaranteed to sell a lot they get low rates because 10% of 1 million is a heck of a lot more than 30% of 50 000.

Hence why a flate rate like Microsoft does where everyone pays 30% untill they reach a certain treshold then the rate on ALL their sales(the previous ones as well) get reduced to 20%

So yes, that is a lot more fair than special deals for the big ones. But hey, I guess you're in support for no taxes for the rich as well ? (yeah I can do that to:rolleyes:)

Sorry, but that isn't how it works. Maybe that's how it is/was in Microsoft land where the sole focus is on appealing shareholders and milking your franchises dry, not taking any risks unless it's neccesary. ($10k 360 patches anyone?)

This is backed up by indie studios like Tripwire, so you'll excuse me if I place a higher level of trust in them than some dude on a forum posting rubbish about "engine cores".

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Ok, so now we know you don't know anything about game engines, coding OR economics. good to get that out of the way. Yous till haven't replied to that other post btw, just of on your tangents still.

Also hat article you posted, doesn't negate what I said in the LEAST. it just said they got a good deal. which compared to the other deals he said we was offered, getting 70% and paying Valve 30% is a pretty damn good deal in comparison.

and they can't reveal how much they have to pay because of the NDA, which hides the fact that they pay ~30% while the big guaranteed to sell in the millions triple A games, that are also more expensive, they pay ~20%

This is not ripping off anyone, this is simply paying for distribution, because your title is smaller and cheaper and won't sell nearly as much, you need to pay a higher percentage.

The MS way is of course more fair, everyone pays 30% until you hit a threshold, then you pay 20% on all past and future sales. That way even the small self publishers will get the good 20% deals, simply by selling good. AND it's transparent and not hidden behind secret deals.

If you seriously think that triple AAA publishers would publish their games on steam if they had to pay 30%of their very expensive game that is guaranteed to sell millions and rake in huge profits for Valve, while the tiny garage outfits get a nice little 5% deal from their 100k copies of a 5 dollar game, then you're smoking some good ****, and you're not on this planet.

Also the first patch on the 360 arcade games is free, there is a very good reason for the price. so that ****ty developers can't do a **** poor job at coding to frustrate their customers (hey Fez). and if that particular Developer had tried a dialog with MS instead of whining on the so called blogosphere, I'm sure MS would have cut them a deal, contrary to your belief, MS is a very nice company and will help out any of their small developers and publishers as best they can when there's a problem like this, They're even known to offer coding help and expertise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NightScreams

I don't get the issue here, Is it not nice to have other options besides Steam? We have Uplay, Origins, Impulse and now MS Store, so there are complaints just because Gabe's jelly and is trying a Linux version? Fear that they abandon WIndows or something? with 100 million in sales I doubt it. Valve could never beable to market their consumers to just pack up and move to a new platform like that, instead they'll just have a Linux version alongside their Mac version. Likely with as much popularity in title selections if not less.

I think its great to see more commercial software heading towards Linux, but it's going to take a lot more, aside from more game developers giving it support, They need some ITunes, Netflix..etc for it too just to make it more modern and useful to the general masses out there which will further need some OEM hardware support and marketing muscle. We've been through all this before back in 2007 with all the hype of Ubuntu getting somewhere and despite Dell's ghost support, it ended up still under that 1% laptop/desktop home userbase. I used Mint and Ubuntu recently and its still lacking in areas and really easy to mess up an install quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Athernar

Ok, so now we know you don't know anything about game engines, coding OR economics. good to get that out of the way. Yous till haven't replied to that other post btw, just of on your tangents still.

The sheer level of hypocracy in this line is hilarious. You've still not cited a single component of Source that needs replacing, I realise you're embarrased that you've been caught out on your ignorance - but you haven't even tried.

Also hat article you posted, doesn't negate what I said in the LEAST. it just said they got a good deal. which compared to the other deals he said we was offered, getting 70% and paying Valve 30% is a pretty damn good deal in comparison.

and they can't reveal how much they have to pay because of the NDA, which hides the fact that they pay ~30% while the big guaranteed to sell in the millions triple A games, that are also more expensive, they pay ~20%

This is not ripping off anyone, this is simply paying for distribution, because your title is smaller and cheaper and won't sell nearly as much, you need to pay a higher percentage.

Yeah, it really kinda does. You're still pulling figures out of your ass and trying to act like that's the supreme truth by the way.

The last line just goes to show how ignorant you are, as not only does it not make sense (smaller title = less bandwidth in terms of payload and count), but it goes in the face of one of the biggest indie successes in pretty much forever - being Minecraft.

If you seriously think that triple AAA publishers would publish their games on steam if they had to pay 30%of their very expensive game that is guaranteed to sell millions and rake in huge profits for Valve, while the tiny garage outfits get a nice little 5% deal from their 100k copies of a 5 dollar game, then you're smoking some good ****, and you're not on this planet.

Which is why the cut is under NDA. Durrrrr :rolleyes:

Also the first patch on the 360 arcade games is free, there is a very good reason for the price. so that ****ty developers can't do a **** poor job at coding to frustrate their customers (hey Fez). and if that particular Developer had tried a dialog with MS instead of whining on the so called blogosphere, I'm sure MS would have cut them a deal, contrary to your belief, MS is a very nice company and will help out any of their small developers and publishers as best they can when there's a problem like this, They're even known to offer coding help and expertise.

But it isn't fair to the triple-As!!11111 Everyone should pay the same!!11111 Waaaaah!!1111

Microsoft a nice company? Now we can add naivety to the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

I honestly can't see Linux as a gaming platform. The video and audio drivers are terrible and result in very poor performance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ambroos

I honestly can't see Linux as a gaming platform. The video and audio drivers are terrible and result in very poor performance.

Yeah. Totally.

Valve's optimizations make Linux port of L4D2 outperform Windows version

Personally, I love Steam. I don't see why everyone suddenly seems to hate it. It's an incredibly convenient platform as a user and I think it's pretty good for developers too.

The comments Valve has about Windows 8 are just opinions, but I can see where they're going. Windows 8 is a huge gamble for Microsoft and whether you want to admit it or not, it is a step backwards in some areas. It's not just the Windows Store but other things in Windows 8 that simply make it less interesting for Valve's target audience. If Microsoft doesn't get it's act together I can actually see 2013 finally being the year of anything Unix-based.

Link to post
Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou
I honestly can't see Linux as a gaming platform. The video and audio drivers are terrible and result in very poor performance.

This isn't a short-term project. Don't forget that DirectX was a joke when it first started and it wasn't until DirectX 5 - with games like Jedi Knight - that it really took off. If there is a real focus on gaming and it is supported by companies like Valve, nVidia and AMD then a gaming Linux distribution could certainly take shape quite quickly. That said, it's going to take a lot of work and I'm not sure how committed Valve really is to this idea. If Windows 8 sells well then they're going to have an uphill struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cybertimber2008

While I would love to see more gaming on linux, didn't we just have an topic about how poorly Minecraft runs on Ubuntu?

After lots of google searching in that thread I came to the conclusion that gaming performance is hit or miss in Linux for games like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ahhell

Yeah. Totally.

Valve's optimizations make Linux port of L4D2 outperform Windows version

Personally, I love Steam. I don't see why everyone suddenly seems to hate it. It's an incredibly convenient platform as a user and I think it's pretty good for developers too.

The comments Valve has about Windows 8 are just opinions, but I can see where they're going. Windows 8 is a huge gamble for Microsoft and whether you want to admit it or not, it is a step backwards in some areas. It's not just the Windows Store but other things in Windows 8 that simply make it less interesting for Valve's target audience. If Microsoft doesn't get it's act together I can actually see 2013 finally being the year of anything Unix-based.

So ONE dev out of thousands. Yeah, it's the YEAR OF LINUX.

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ambroos

So ONE dev out of thousands. Yeah, it's the YEAR OF LINUX.

:rolleyes:

Well at least I'm pretty sure we're going to see significant growth - if Windows 8 backlashes (and I sort of believe it will). Perhaps not just Linux but OSX will keep growing too. Windows marketshare has been going down steadily for the last few years and Windows 8 could really accelerate that process. It might start with techy people. Windows 8 is annoying for people who tweak a lot and like to make their PC work for them and both Linux and OSX are starting to be really, really viable alternatives.

Now that it's been in the newspapers and everything I'm hearing everyone talk about Windows 8, even the least techy peoople out there. And even they say they heard it's nice for tablets but not really an improvement for laptops and regular computers. I'm just observing.

(before you attack me, I'm using Windows 8 right now and have always been a Windows user - I'm giving it a lot of chances to prove itself but every day it annoys me more and more)

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

That article btw should be titled " optimized version of linux L4D2 runs better than the windows version running on an old unoptimized engine", And looking where Valve/Gabe has been going with it since then, I'm starting to doubt the factuality of it int he first place. it seems it was just him laying down some groundwork for his FUD campaign. and hey look, it worked.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav

Yeah. Totally.

Valve's optimizations make Linux port of L4D2 outperform Windows version

Personally, I love Steam. I don't see why everyone suddenly seems to hate it. It's an incredibly convenient platform as a user and I think it's pretty good for developers too.

The comments Valve has about Windows 8 are just opinions, but I can see where they're going. Windows 8 is a huge gamble for Microsoft and whether you want to admit it or not, it is a step backwards in some areas. It's not just the Windows Store but other things in Windows 8 that simply make it less interesting for Valve's target audience. If Microsoft doesn't get it's act together I can actually see 2013 finally being the year of anything Unix-based.

Who here is hating Steam? Most have problems with their unnecessary FUD against Windows 8. It's not just an opinion when 1. it is repeated almost every month 2. there are rumors of a Valve game console. 3. Steam has a competition in the form of the Windows Store.

2007-2010 was the year of Unix in the form of iOS dominance and Windows still steam rolled it

2010-2012 has been year of Linux in the form of Android and Windows still steam rolled it

Let's see what 2013 brings along...

The bold part of your post is, you know,

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

The sheer level of hypocracy in this line is hilarious. You've still not cited a single component of Source that needs replacing, I realise you're embarrased that you've been caught out on your ignorance - but you haven't even tried.

Yeah, it really kinda does. You're still pulling figures out of your ass and trying to act like that's the supreme truth by the way.

The last line just goes to show how ignorant you are, as not only does it not make sense (smaller title = less bandwidth in terms of payload and count), but it goes in the face of one of the biggest indie successes in pretty much forever - being Minecraft.

Which is why the cut is under NDA. Durrrrr :rolleyes:

But it isn't fair to the triple-As!!11111 Everyone should pay the same!!11111 Waaaaah!!1111

Microsoft a nice company? Now we can add naivety to the list.

No actually, you're still going off on tangents and havent replied to my post. come back when you've learnt a little. The one that should be embarrassed about his ignorance here is you.

I mean seriously, Grow up. people do that. But if you are still 14, then I'm sorry then it makes sense.

btw, that biggest indie success, it refuses to be on steam, because he doesn't want to share his profits. Also Minecraft was really only indi in the early alpha/beta, Mojang isn't close to indie anymore. he simply used his early success as indie to take it out of the indie category.

and I see you still don't understand economics. yes, smaller games are smaller. and use less bandwidth, still bandwidth is pretty much free, that's not what Valve is selling their selling distribution. are you that dense that you don't even know this. Valve isn't in this to be nice, they're in this to make money. and that means games that are predicted to sell less, will need a higher percentage cut. while games that's expected to sell tons, they get a better deal for a lower percentage, they still make 100 times as much of them with half the cut.

Seriously, do the math,

10% of AAA game that sells for 100 Million

vs

30% of indie game that sells for 100 thousand

And about your off tangent silly minecraft analogy that doesn't have anythign to do with the discussion anyway. it only further proves my point. some indie games DO turn out to be a success, which is why a flate rate, with a reduced rate on all sales after you hit a sales threshold is good. at the start Minecraft would have gotten a basic indie deal, 30% cut, it's not expected to make much money. But hey, look, it's actually taking off and selling ****loads... well now the game has sold so much, they get the same low 20% rate on their sales as all the big sellers.

are you SERIOUSLY saying this is a bad thing,

As for Microsoft being a bad company, I see you completely ignored my actual arguments there(wow, surprise, that never happened before) and just went of on a "BOO MS IS BAD!!!" rant. You do realize there's probably no company that has provided as much help and guidance for indie devs as MS. From huge code gatherings where multiple developers can meet, greet and learn from each other, and from classes being held, these are often even free for many of them. To direct involvement with the devs to help them out.

When was the last time Valve sent their own engineers and coders out to other devs to help them...

You come off as one of those MS haters who don't actually know anything about MS except that you're supposed to hate them.

Also your fake troll quote of me doesn't make any sense, since the deals aren't unfair to the triple A's they're the ones who get the good deals, which is my whole point. And they're the ones with the power. If Valve demanded 30% from one of them, they'd say "eh no thanks, We'll just not put it on steam then". and then not only is steam not getting 30% of 100 Million, they're also not gettign 10 or 20% of 100 Million. Think about it, who do you think have the power here. Most gamers won't refuse to buy a game if it's not on steam, they'll buy it elsewhere, Valve doesn't have the power. it's simply better for both parties to give the big ones a lower percentage, then the publisher gets a few more sales and makes more money, and Valve makes a few more million extra.

If a tiny indie dev who hasn't made a game before says "I don't want to pay 30% of my profits to you,, give me 15% or I'll go somewhere else" then Valve will laugh and say "go ahead"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knife Party

They should. That's why it's called a percentage.

Now go back to playing your stupid little hipster indie games that no one else gives a crap about.

I honestly don't even think you know what you are talking about half the time, a load of rubbish to be exact. I think a mod should have given you a warning a long time ago. Since you joined in 2012, try not to make bias, idiotic and one sided arguments, It's one of the fastest ways of showing others you really having nothing of worth to say. (N)

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrdeezus

Who games on a PC anymore anyway? What about consoles? Are they gonna move away from those closed systems too? Hey I got an idea, make a MP game on pc that isn't hacked to death in six months or less and ill listen til then pls stfu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon H

Who games on a PC anymore anyway? What about consoles? Are they gonna move away from those closed systems too? Hey I got an idea, make a MP game on pc that isn't hacked to death in six months or less and ill listen til then pls stfu.

how about make a COD game for consoles where the MP doesn't get hacked to death in 6 months then we'll talk

really what i'm saying is you have no argument as consoles aren't any better in that regard

Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav

Who games on a PC anymore anyway? What about consoles? Are they gonna move away from those closed systems too? Hey I got an idea, make a MP game on pc that isn't hacked to death in six months or less and ill listen til then pls stfu.

Valve complaining about closed systems is like Google/facebook complaining about privacy violations.

Consoles may have (I doubt) overtaken PCs, but PCs still have a good marketshare. If we keep that viewpoint, who needs consoles because Mobile games clearly have more mind and marketshare these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Athernar

No actually, you're still going off on tangents and havent replied to my post. come back when you've learnt a little. The one that should be embarrassed about his ignorance here is you.

I mean seriously, Grow up. people do that. But if you are still 14, then I'm sorry then it makes sense.

I asked you a question first, and you're still running away. Come back when you have some integrity.

btw, that biggest indie success, it refuses to be on steam, because he doesn't want to share his profits. Also Minecraft was really only indi in the early alpha/beta, Mojang isn't close to indie anymore. he simply used his early success as indie to take it out of the indie category.

Congratulations on missing the point, not that I'd expect anything less from you. If Minecraft is or is not indie any more is irrelevant, simply the fact it was.

and I see you still don't understand economics. yes, smaller games are smaller. and use less bandwidth, still bandwidth is pretty much free, that's not what Valve is selling their selling distribution. are you that dense that you don't even know this. Valve isn't in this to be nice, they're in this to make money. and that means games that are predicted to sell less, will need a higher percentage cut. while games that's expected to sell tons, they get a better deal for a lower percentage, they still make 100 times as much of them with half the cut.

Oh wow you're so utterly dense you killed your own argument. If bandwidth is "pretty much free" as you say, then Valve has absolutely nothing to lose by offering a game on Steam. If anything, simply having that game on Steam will expand the install base, which equals more customers and more sales. You're about as good at "economics" as you are at graphics engines.

Not only that, but the fact that you - the person that thinks the large faceless corporation that is a convicted monopolist is "very nice"; can then have the gall to say "Valve isn't in this to be nice"? Valve, the small privately owned company that has given it's communities numerous free content updates?

Yes, I can see that Reality Distortion Field Microsoft got in Steve Jobs's will works quite effectively on you indeed.

Also your fake troll quote of me doesn't make any sense, since the deals aren't unfair to the triple A's they're the ones who get the good deals, which is my whole point. And they're the ones with the power. If Valve demanded 30% from one of them, they'd say "eh no thanks, We'll just not put it on steam then". and then not only is steam not getting 30% of 100 Million, they're also not gettign 10 or 20% of 100 Million. Think about it, who do you think have the power here. Most gamers won't refuse to buy a game if it's not on steam, they'll buy it elsewhere, Valve doesn't have the power. it's simply better for both parties to give the big ones a lower percentage, then the publisher gets a few more sales and makes more money, and Valve makes a few more million extra.

Fake troll quote? Wow, you must think your own words are pretty stupid then, because all I've done is snip out certain sections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

I asked you a question first, and you're still running away. Come back when you have some integrity.

I already repsonded and it doesn't belong in this thread, I'll reply when you actually reply to y post in that other post. untill then grow up.

Congratulations on missing the point, not that I'd expect anything less from you. If Minecraft is or is not indie any more is irrelevant, simply the fact it was.

Oh wow you're so utterly dense you killed your own argument. If bandwidth is "pretty much free" as you say, then Valve has absolutely nothing to lose by offering a game on Steam. If anything, simply having that game on Steam will expand the install base, which equals more customers and more sales. You're about as good at "economics" as you are at graphics engines.

Not only that, but the fact that you - the person that thinks the large faceless corporation that is a convicted monopolist is "very nice"; can then have the gall to say "Valve isn't in this to be nice"? Valve, the small privately owned company that has given it's communities numerous free content updates?

Yes, I can see that Reality Distortion Field Microsoft got in Steve Jobs's will works quite effectively on you indeed.

Fake troll quote? Wow, you must think your own words are pretty stupid then, because all I've done is snip out certain sections.

No indi being and then not being indie plays perfectly into my point, I still don't think you understand what my point it, since I don't think you have a point, you surely haven't said what your point is for the last 10 posts, you've just been arguing off tangents on other things.it however does not prove your point that everyone should have special deals (you know outside of that dreamworld of you where you think garage devs without economy experts get 5% deals, while the huge AAA devs with economy experts and expensive contract lawyers get 30% deals :rolleyes:)

what is your point again ?

and as I said, Valve isn't offering games on steam because they're nice, they're doing it to make money. they're offerign other devs to sell their games on their service. a service that costs to maintain, to pay for developers and management and servers for the service. a service that offers a valuable servcie that they're using to make money. to make money, they need to be paid by the people who use their valuable service.

You REALLY don't understand economics do you ? based on your argument style evasions, off tangents and lack of understanding of basic concepts like economy, I'm starting to think you really are 14, most 14 year olds don't understand money and think everything is free because their mother pays for them. So again, if you're 14, then I'm sorry then I understand why you don't understand these things.

And avgaink you're showing that you know nothing of Microsoft and going off on tangents ignoring everything I wrote. MS offer free expert help to startups and indie devs that show promkise, Devs that are having issue get free advice, and they offer seminars for up and coming devs and coding gatherings. You know all the community stuff that Valve doesn't do. A

And WOW, free content updates ... yup, you must be ~14 if you think that's anywhere close to the stuff MS does for the dev community.

And since your fake troll quote didn't contain a single word I said, and also said the opposite of what I said. then no you didn't snip out anything. you simply made up a whine comment that had no relation to what I said at all.

Grow the F up.

At this point there's not point arguing with you anymore, since you don't understand the economics, you don't understand how the world works, you think valve magically gives away money and gives good deals to small companies and bad deals to big ones who can refuse and they can't afford to lose, you don't read my posts and you don't reply to what I actually post.

So until you actually reply to my post and show you can act like an adult, there's no point arguing with you, I've already explained it all to you several times, and you have yet to reply to it once. Could it be because you're to stubborn to admit you're wrong, so you just keep on arguing around the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ingramator

(facepalm) Closed platform because it has an app browser? Really? Ubuntu has software center for years but you declare it as open? Give me a break.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogurtmaster

What happens if in five years you wanna move to OS X or Linux or whatever the next thing is, you have to rebuy. with Steam there's a sense of they'll be there for you

That is a big assumption that many people (aside from a small minority) are willing to entertain the thought. Most people don't really like change. Some will do it because they have to be political knuckleheads, but other than that I don't see this as a realistic option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.