Valve releases linux betas of Half Life 1 and Counter Strike 1.6


Recommended Posts

Impressive of Valve to actually make Linux versions of these games. You'd never see a company like EA do this to any of there games haha.

It appears as though they are porting ALL of their games over to linux as they are creating their own steam console specification. They obviously need to port all their own games if they want gamers to switch to linux and for other developers/publishers to release games on steam linux.

Exciting times :)

Impressive of Valve to actually make Linux versions of these games. You'd never see a company like EA do this to any of there games haha.

EA= no support and shut down of server after 1 year. False lock out of games for selfish greedy corporate reasons.

Valve= Maintaining servers, releasing patches, and releasing Linux versions over a decade later.

I buy valve games when they are full price, one of the only game developers I do that for. I will THINK about getting any EA game for a while when they hit around $5 bucks.

I wonder if this means that eventually us Mac users will get a port too?

Think it may be already there?

"Hot on the heels of Half-Life 1, Counter-Strike 1.6 is now available as a Beta for your testing pleasure on Linux (and OS X)."

Not sure though as I don't have a Mac.

Think it may be already there?

"Hot on the heels of Half-Life 1, Counter-Strike 1.6 is now available as a Beta for your testing pleasure on Linux (and OS X)."

Not sure though as I don't have a Mac.

Didn't even see that part. Will have to have a look :)

It appears as though they are porting ALL of their games over to linux as they are creating their own steam console specification. They obviously need to port all their own games if they want gamers to switch to linux and for other developers/publishers to release games on steam linux.

Exciting times :)

This x10000000000000.

It's good to know there are least some in the industry who care for retro gamers, although I'd say those two games are somewhere between retro and current.

Now look at EA and their ridiculous excuse to require an internet connection at all times with their new SimCity, because parts of the game run on their servers...

Yeah... that surely was really needed. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but if your game can't run on my i7 quad-core, gtfo and release it in the next generation or pimp it down a bit.

Single player games MUST be able to run offline and not require a server. (especially when talking about EA, although they did support the Sims 2 server for quite a long time for their standards. Still, I don't want single player games with an expiration date. I've got enough of that with multiplayer games that are also starting to exclude LAN play more and more...)

Slap future retro gamers right into the face, well done EA.

I've long been rather loyal to EA and never got the hate for them, but year by year I see more how absolutely anti-gamer they are becoming with all of their titles and their awful store.

At least Ubisoft backpedaled on their DRM tactics a bit and don't require always-online anymore. Props to them. (Y)

Glassed Silver:mac

Are these the Source version? If not, they have ran under Wine/WineX for a very long time.

Props to them for the effort though.

No, these are not the Source versions. SoldSrc. :o

It's interesting to see them porting something as old as the original half life. I think Goldsrc might be quite easy to port, since it used OpenGL for it's stuff (although DirectX was available as an option IIRC), so there's probably not very much code in there that couldn't be ported straight over to Linux/Mac.

Kudos to them.

  • Like 1

Valve is wasting its time and resources bringing a few games to desktop Linux. The market share of these OSes will remain insignificant for the foreseeable future, and that means new games will keep supporting only Windows and latest-gen consoles, and occasionally Mac.

Valve is wasting its time and resources bringing a few games to desktop Linux. The market share of these OSes will remain insignificant for the foreseeable future, and that means new games will keep supporting only Windows and latest-gen consoles, and occasionally Mac.

Clearly they see a business justification to push forward for platform independence of their games instead of the traditional Windows dominance. If that business justification is their Steam boxes then so be it.

Other than allegience to a platform I find it a bit puzzling why people (not referring to you, but in general) would stand opposed to efforts to bring games to a wider audience.

  • Like 1

Valve is wasting its time and resources bringing a few games to desktop Linux. The market share of these OSes will remain insignificant for the foreseeable future, and that means new games will keep supporting only Windows and latest-gen consoles, and occasionally Mac.

I guess you don't know how many people actually use Steam then.

Valve is wasting its time and resources bringing a few games to desktop Linux. The market share of these OSes will remain insignificant for the foreseeable future, and that means new games will keep supporting only Windows and latest-gen consoles, and occasionally Mac.

Linux will be the OS running the Steam box. I think it's pretty much a given that they're releasing these games on Linux in order to test and develop their IP for their console, rather than dedicating specifically to Linux development.

It's also worth bearing in mind that aside maybe from Desura, they don't actually have any competition in Linux gaming, therefore there's a lot of untapped potential userbase there. Humble Bundles have shown consistently that, given the choice, Linux users are happy to pay for games, so why not exploit that fact?

  • Like 2

Clearly they see a business justification to push forward for platform independence of their games instead of the traditional Windows dominance. If that business justification is their Steam boxes then so be it.

Other than allegience to a platform I find it a bit puzzling why people (not referring to you, but in general) would stand opposed to efforts to bring games to a wider audience.

Oh right, Steambox, forgot about that. I can't believe that's actually going to run Linux and be successful, considering there's essentially less than 0.001% of games that support Linux right now, and porting their own games to the platform won't skew that figure by much. It's... intriguing to say the least.

I'm not opposed to bringing games to a wider audience at all, I just don't see how bringing a few games to desktop Linux right now is a productive use of Valve's time. I suppose they're just trying to get some expertise and pushing issues out of the way for their Steambox as you mention but I'm extremely skeptical of what Steam can achieve on Ubuntu or such OSes.

It's also worth bearing in mind that aside maybe from Desura, they don't actually have any competition in Linux gaming, therefore there's a lot of untapped potential userbase there. Humble Bundles have shown consistently that, given the choice, Linux users are happy to pay for games, so why not exploit that fact?
Desktop Linux is still hovering around 1% market share like it always did. It's not a big potential userbase, and most of it probably doesn't have the drivers or even hardware to run modern video games.

Oh right, Steambox, forgot about that. I can't believe that's actually going to run Linux and be successful, considering there's essentially less than 0.001% of games that support Linux right now, and porting their own games to the platform won't skew that figure by much. It's... intriguing to say the least.

I'm not opposed to bringing games to a wider audience at all, I just don't see how bringing a few games to desktop Linux right now is a productive use of Valve's time. I suppose they're just trying to get some expertise and pushing issues out of the way for their Steambox as you mention but I'm extremely skeptical of what Steam can achieve on Ubuntu or such OSes.

Back in the days when GoldSrc wasn't called GoldSrc, HL1 and CS already had OpenGL support.

Oh right, Steambox, forgot about that. I can't believe that's actually going to run Linux and be successful, considering there's essentially less than 0.001% of games that support Linux right now, and porting their own games to the platform won't skew that figure by much. It's... intriguing to say the least.

How many people are using PS4's and XBox720's?

There's no distinction, Valve could have gone off and created their own ecosystem and released dev kits etc. and people would have still made games for it, as it is they've chosen an already established platform.

It's actually very clever and carries a lot less risk.

Desktop Linux is still hovering around 1% market share like it always did. It's not a big potential userbase, and most of it probably doesn't have the drivers or even hardware to run modern video games.

True, but pair that with the first part of my response and it makes sense IMO. If you're making games for Linux, why not make them available to desktop users too? We don't know either way if the Steambox will be a hit. A venture into the console market is always a risk, but if the likes of Sony and Microsoft can pull it off, the cards aren't off the table for Valve either.

As it stands, the Steambox is on target to have ~80 launch titles, assuming all developers commit in full before launch day. This could be as high as a hundred, but definitely more than the 49 games currently available to desktop users. Not a bad start if you ask me.

EA= no support and shut down of server after 1 year. False lock out of games for selfish greedy corporate reasons.

Valve= Maintaining servers, releasing patches, and releasing Linux versions over a decade later to fuel gabes hate for Windows 8. Not him caring about Linux just him wanting to be anti-Win8.

I buy valve games when they are full price, one of the only game developers I do that for. I will THINK about getting any EA game for a while when they hit around $5 bucks.

fixed for you. Don't want people getting the wrong idea. Gabe and Valve didn't give a rats ass about Linux or its users until gabe threw a tantrum about Windows 8 (hows that rage quit and no one using it going?). So don't try to pretend like he's seen the light and cares about us.

As it stands, the Steambox is on target to have ~80 launch titles, assuming all developers commit in full before launch day. This could be as high as a hundred, but definitely more than the 49 games currently available to desktop users. Not a bad start if you ask me.

Where do you get that figure and how many of these will be new games?

No new games as far as I'm aware, but I got the figures from a hand count here. Mostly indie games as it stands, but I can vouch that a fair few of them are pretty good.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!