It's about time a major player got behind Linux, I'm glad it's Valve as they are arguably one of my favourite game developers not just because they make great games, but because of their overall attitude and work culture. Hopefully this gives Linux a little needed spotlight boost and perhaps gains Ubuntu a few new users.
This isn't really a major player getting behind Linux. The move has nothing to with Linux the desktop and everything to do with a future Linux-powered console/SteamBox. Desktop Linux could quintuple it's number of game purchasing users and it would still be inconsequential. The ancillary benefits for Linux, such as non-shitty gpu drivers, will be great but let's not make this out to be something it isn't.
The fact that they state they want to test steam on as many different configurations as possible directly contradicts the idea that they're testing ground for a console. After all, a console will only ship in one hardware configuration by definition.
You wouldn't call upon beta testers like this to decide upon hardware configurations. This beta process is definitely for a Desktop Linux client.
There is a chance that the rumours of a console could also be true as well though. There's no reason why they couldn't have a Linux console /AND/ desktop Linux support.
Why would they bother with all the Intel GPU work they have been doing? Whatever "that one" hardware configuration would be, it wouldn't include an Intel GPU...
Without any real knowledge of the industry, extrapolation to back up my point seems fraught with error. How much of Intel's progress has been the low hanging fruit, and is that last 10% going to take 90% of the time? And what measures would you actually use to measure progress?
I think even Intel would have a hard time producing something not just comparable to Nvidia/AMD's offerings today, but future-proof as well. Their stuff has gotten a lot better recently so I don't think there is any lack of effort on their part, there is just too much catching up to be done.
I would argue that this does count as a major player getting behind Linux. While Valve might have additional longer term goals in mind, their plans to support vanilla Ubuntu will only benefit gamers who wish to run Linux.
IMO the question is not 'will more Linux users buy games', but rather 'what percentage of games-playing Windows users will decide they no longer need a Windows box'.
I believe though, in the evolution of gaming and game makers, that the "brains" at Valve have taken one look at the "Windows Roadmap" and bet against it. Remeber that Windows 8 is the foundation of the "future" for microsoft. We going to see a massive shift in it's laws/legalities/processes for both gamers and game makers.
The change won't be over night, yes, but it's inevitable. Given a "free", open platform is now realitvely stable, why not move to it and not have the headache of having to "conform"?
I love linux. I don't mind Windows. If i have the option... it's an easy decision.
That Valve are working on a Steambox at all is pure speculation, it seems a bit of a jump to assume this all in service of a rumor. I think it's more likely Valve have been paying attention to stuff like the Humble Indie Bundle guys drawing about 1/4 of their revenue each time from Linux users. They may just be out to make money.
This is a fairly large and very long play. Right now, two years after launching, OS X accounts for 4.36% of Steam users [1]. In another two years time I can't imagine Linux users accounting for even 1/1000th of that.
Valve doesn't make business decisions out of kindness. They make them when it makes fiscal sense. Preparing Steam for Linux is a huge endeavor costing millions of dollars in salaries and an even larger opportunity cost.
This isn't just to make a few extra bucks from a handful of current Linux users. And don't be mistaken, the only extra money they'd see is from current Linux users who refuse to buy non-Linux games. If by some chance this converts large swaths of Windows users to Linux they wouldn't be new customers, just the same customers on a different platform.
> This is a fairly large and very long play. Right now, two years after launching, OS X accounts for 4.36% of Steam users [1]. In another two years time I can't imagine Linux users accounting for even 1/1000th of that.
1/1000? That's just plain ridiculous, at the very(!) most OS X has 10 times the number of users(probably a lot less). Also Apple plain doesn't care about desktop gaming, the only reason they care about ios gaming is that it became extremely popular without them and now it's such a big draw they have to care. I would assume most Apple users don't care too much. OTOH linux users are exactly the sort of geeky audience that tends to be gamers or potential gamers.
Your point about the users who simply use steam games on a windows box/vm/wine now that wouldn't add much to the bottom line hits much closer(Although the convenience/reliability of being able to buy games for their main computer could help existing users spend more freely) but I think that it is missing some like those who might use consoles less or those who aren't currently gamers but have decent potential to become gamers and customers thanks to the convenience of buying games on their main platform/pc.
Valve going into hardware is definitely one use of Linux support, however another is as an alternative to Windows 8 and OS X. Both Windows and OS X are moving towards an locked-down, app-store model and Gabe Newell recently expressed concern over that move. At the same time, Ubuntu is being sold pre-installed on computers worldwide (though less so in the US and UK, more in emerging markets). I'm not saying that Ubuntu will reach OS X's current level for Steam users straight away, but in 5 years or so, it's definitely possibly.
Yeah, I would rather believe that way of thinking. Who knows what Apple and Microsoft may do next to lock down their systems further, and extract more "tax" out of everyone publishing applications or games? The only way for a company like Valve to prevent a direct attack on their revenues is to develop a solution for an open system. It may very well be that it is not necessary in the end, but they are just planning for future scenarios like any other respectable company.
They are however Canonical is not moving towards locking down the OS which Apple and Microsoft are doing (though fans of either won't admit it). That's what Gabe is scared of.
> Valve doesn't make business decisions out of kindness.
Nobody every claimed that. Of course their support for Desktop Linux has nothing to do with kindness but is pure business.
Microsoft and Apple are forcing Appstores on their computers and naturally Valve sees this as a danger to Steam. That's why they want to support an alternative.
Remember that the idea of Steam on Linux was itself just a rumour mere months ago.
Regards the "Linux users pay more" meme on the humble bundle, bear in mind you are still talking about people only paying something like $10 for about 5 games. I assume that Steam prices will stay the same across OSs as well rather than charging more for a Linux version.
It's obvious that they are getting more interested in hardware such as the Oculus Rift, also with hardware getting cheaper there seems to be a growing market for people buying hardware/software integrated solutions.
Whatever it is they are planning to do, they want to become a first class player in the gaming market rather than being whim to Microsoft who look like they are wanting to produce their own hardware.
The best way to do that is to take an already proven kernel with good performance and no licensing and work on from there.
My guess is that porting Steam to Linux gives them an eager powerbase of vocal power users to use as a test market. It's the same principle Apple uses by marketing to the "fanboys" first and letting it trickle out from there.
Hopefully they will continue to support "normal" Linux distributions however, it would be nice to be able to hook up their controller and a headset to my PC and run everything that way if I don't want to buy a "steambox" or whatever.
While its possible that its for some yet unreleased Steam based console, the controller Valve patented is much more likely to be for their recently previewed Steam big picture mode that can turn any computer into a "steam box" that you can plug in your television. It's quite likely this same big picture mode would be used on their console, assuming one ever exists.
In addition Valve have been playing around with biometrics a lot for their internal playtesting, and have expressed interest in bringing that to the living room (for example, the "director" in Left4Dead is supposed to adjust the difficulty of the game dynamically to keep you on your toes - data on your current emotional state and stress levels would be a valuable input for that).
Gabe definitely mentioned at one point that there was a possibility of putting some basic biometric hardware into a controller, and they've also spoken about experimenting with new forms of input before (and have supported 3rd party novel input devices such as the Novint Falcon).
It's very clear they want to experiment in the controller space, and they have stated multiple times that they do not want to be in the console business, and would rather provide the software for other companies to build their own "Steam Boxes" - yet for some reason everyone fixates on the baseless rumour that they will be making a console, rather than the play that's right in front of them.
They may not do the manufacturing themselves, but it's clear that they see a future market for some form of Linux based games system for which they will be the main supplier of software.
It's either that or they are predicting a sharp upsurge in Linux usage after Windows 8 which seems like a very scary predication to make.
Gabe Newell has been publically denigrating Windows 8, but I think his real fear, and this idea would support the move to Linux, is the way Windows is moving towards a closed app store model, which brings it into direct competition with Steam.
Yes, I assume the idea is to integrate the Steambox and Ubuntu desktops together in the same way that Windows and Xbox go together although I would be surprised if they actually ditch Windows.
Assuming such a steambox does exist, what remains to be seen is whether they make it easy to turn it into a proper Linux PC.
That would effectively stealth install Linux desktops in millions of homes worldwide.
Meh, with the advent of Big Picture I see a console as even less likely. Why bother:
-adding a massive complication/cost in the form of a complete hardware division
-dropping a billion into upfront R/D, marketing and production
only to lose money per unit and only maybe make a profit in the end, when they can just charge Dell/Asus money for "Big Picture Certified" stickers and call it a day. Doing so on Linux just means they don't have to worry about the MS roadmap.
There's no evidence to prove that they're working on their own Linux powered gaming console and even if they were, it's still a Linux powered console at the end of the day and people will find a way to reverse engineer anything Linux based that Valve put out. So I would argue regardless of whether or not they develop a Linux console, that would still be a massive benefit to the Linux community.
If Valve a company that EA tried acquiring at a valuation of something in the vicinity of one billion dollars sometime ago isn't a major player, then you must have very high standards. Valve have produced so many cult classics and well-known titles that even years after being created are still played, modded and purchased — Counter Strike and Half Life anyone?
>The move has . . . everything to do with a future Linux-powered console/SteamBox
I doubt it. Right now Valve only sells software. To get into the console business is to radically change the nature of the organization. Just marketing a new console enough to give it a decent chance to break even would cost enough to require Valve to raise money. And since consoles are not a growing market, there is little potential financial benefit to the move. (In fact, the market is probably shrinking because of competition from tablets and smartphones.)
No, what Valve is trying to do here is make the Linux desktop a more attractive platform for games in order to give Steam a better chance to survive if Microsoft makes its survival on Windows untenable. Valve is worried by Microsoft's creation of an Apple-like app store because, well, Steam is an app store.
If they are sane, Valve does not want the hassle of creating and maintaining their own platform: they just want to be able to continue to deploy Steam on existing gaming platforms. They probably hope Steam will continue to be able to thrive on Windows and probably see their porting of Steam to Linux as an aid in negotiations with Microsoft.
I agree that valve isn't a hardware company, but there are plenty out there for them to partner with. They could be taking the Windows/android approach to set top boxes. That would certainly be refreshing.
Does not compute. Porting to Linux Desktop takes much more effort than porting to a console. With a console you have fixed hardware specs and you can tune everything in your software stack to fit your needs. With their current effort they have to worry about all the different hardware setups, future Ubuntu versions, integration into Unity (or whatever DE). All that is unneeded for a console.
And so far the console are just rumours and support for Desktop Linux is going Beta.
So the majority of the server market, and embedded market don't count as major players. (Also technicly android, but I think we are talking about GNU/linux)
"It's about time a major player got behind Linux [...]"
What about id Software?
They have a long-standing history of support for the platform, including John Carmack's philosophy and advocation of OSS that has driven his contribution of id Software game engine source code to the community, up to and including id Tech 4.
He even cares so deeply about the topic that he worked to keep id Tech 5 free from the shackles of proprietary code, because he wants to eventually release it as open source. He said (italic emphasis is mine):
"'Do we want to integrate some other vendor's solution, some proprietary code into this?' And the answer's usually no, because eventually id Tech 5 is going to be open source also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we're not going to integrate stuff that's going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release. We can argue the exact pros and cons from a pure business standpoint on it, and I can at least make some, perhaps somewhat, contrived cases that I think it's good for the business, but as a personal conviction it's still pretty important to me and I'm standing by that." [1]
I think the reality is that id Software has attempted to build the market-space, but the base just hasn't been there. For example, John had this to say recently at QuakeCon 2012:
"Other interesting sort of PC-ish platforms, we have... the Mac still remains a viable platform for us. The Mac has never required any charity from id, all of those ports have carried their own weight there; they've been viable business platforms.
[...]
Linux is an issue that's taken a lot more currency with Valve announcing Steam for Linux, and that does change, factor, you know, changes things a bit, but we've made two forays into the Linux commercial market, most recently with Quake Live client, and, you know, that platform just hasn't carried its weight compared to the Mac on there. It's great that people are enthusiastic about it, but there's just not nearly as many people that are interested in paying for a game on the platform, and that just seems to be the reality. Valve will probably pull a bunch more people there. I know absolutely nothing about any Valve plans for console, Steam-box stuff on there; I can speculate without violating anything.
[...]
So, it's enticing, the thought there that you might have a well-supported, completely open platform that you could deliver content through the Steam ecosystem there. It's a tough sell on there, but Valve gets huge kudos for having the vision for what they did with Steam, sticking through all of it. It's funny talking about Doom 3, where we can remember back in the days when they're like, 'Well, should you ship Doom 3 on Steam, go out there, make a splash?' ... I'm like, 'You're kidding, right?' That made no sense at all at that time, but you know Valve stuck with it and they're in a really enviable position from all of that now.
It still seems, probably crazy to me that they would be doing anything like that, you know, but, it's something that's not technically impossible, but would be really difficult from a market, sort of ecosystems standpoint." [2]
