I don't know if this a good idea or not... A Steam flavored Linux..
1. The amount of bugs And incompatibility among steam users hardware is going to be huge.
2. There aint that many linux games, And the decent games a built for windows.. Better have a HUGE support center if you try and emulate windows games on your OS..
edit: If they are only going to stream the games from another computer what is the point? Run a cable to your TV!
It all depens how much money Valve is putting behind SteamOS. If they go full on(which it doesn't look like) they might have change to get major part of hardcore PC gamers. They need first to do what Google did with Android and cut ties to nut job Linux developers. Then get AMD, Intel and Nvidia to provide better graphics drivers for SteamOS. Then they need to convince developers to support SteamOS by offering better tooling for porting console games. Essentially this is just Valves first step for SteamConsole.
I think there is 2 possibilities:
1) Valve knows they are in dying platform(Windows desktop), knowing current Linux strategy isn't working. Using Linux as base to build OS which they can control makes more sense than fighting wind mills trying to get Steam program work with Linux distros.
2) They are using this as leverage on negoations with Microsoft to allow Steam to install games on Modern UI side.
This is a great first step on making an OS, and i can see valve adding more and more in the future... Watch as it becomes bigger and bigger and windows lose most of it's gaming population.
Would be neat if they build the next generation of their game engine into the OS itself as well.
As in no extra executables, drivers, etc needed beyond the OS and the asset packages. Steam OS just reads the packages and renders out the game natively.
Enjoyable idea with a lot of hurdles.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989 Originally posted by NitthOriginally posted by Mtibbs1989Originally posted by SnkByteWhy i would need this? What this will give me that i don't have already ?A toy for wana-feel like pro gamers.
Typically a Windows OS is a major resource hog in comparison to Linux based OS's. So one that's focused purely on gaming would be very beneficial for gaming customers. Linux is 'Missing' tons of shit windows has out of the box. As soon as you start adding 'features' and 'services' like windows does, you will soon see an overhead. However, you won't see a fraction of the process hogging like you would by using windows; assuming that their OS is done properly.
Outside of gaming, what does the Windows OS have that Linux doesn't? I've been running a Linux laptop as my general purpose machine for years, and outside of gaming, I haven't missed anything.
For the average user, the only advantage Windows has is gaming.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Ridelynn It will be more interesting when it releases, and we see what the hardware support looks like. Linux is notorious for poor graphics drivers, and for gaming, that's the meat and potatoes of the business. If Steam has some deal here, either writing their own drivers or getting the GPU manufacturers to provide good drivers, it could be a game changer. If they are relying on the same old driver support we've had in the past, or the open source community to provide drivers, this will pretty much just be another headline with no substance.
I suspect that Valve's goal is a console of some sort. Instead of buying a computer and setting it up for the living room, people would buy a Steam Box, and plug it in to the television. Valve might have to tweak the drivers themselves, or they can work with the hardware manufacturer to get drivers for their specific box that work really well. I'm not sure about general purpose stuff though. Some kind of critical mass would have to be reached with players and developers adopting or wanting Linux.
If developers write games that can run on the Steam Box, and realize they can sell those games to Linux users if the hardware manufacturers would just write supported drivers, then that would be the push needed to get commercial support. If gamers realize they can build purpose built gaming rigs that have very little OS overhead and perform better for less money, they'll want to do it. That will be another push. The games wouldn't have to be Windows exclusives either. OpenGL works on Windows just fine. If little indie developers can do it, then major developers can do it too. The only road block is making it financially worth it.
There are a lot of "ifs" to go from where we are now to a Linux Gaming Distro that actually works. Nobody has really tried it before. But then I bet nobody thought a video game could generate a billion dollars worth of revenue in a week either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Linux is a high performance OS, but there are ongoing issues with regard to the Nvidia and AMD's proprietary video drivers. I have doubts.
Plus...Are thy going to use Wine? OMG if they use wine. LOL
Steam on Linux doesn't use Wine right now. The games are written to either run on multiple platforms or a version is written for Linux.
For what it's worth, I ran WoW under Wine for over a year. I actually had fewer issues than my Windows guild mates. Of course, it took awhile to get it running in the first place. I'm not sure the average user is going to do that unless they are really dedicated to the idea of Linux.
I did finally start running Windows because I wanted to start playing other games and the driver support really was cr@p under Linux.
**
I've also used Steam in Linux. It works the same way Steam works in Windows. Pick a game, download the game, install the game and then run it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Linux is a high performance OS, but there are ongoing issues with regard to the Nvidia and AMD's proprietary video drivers. I have doubts.
Plus...Are thy going to use Wine? OMG if they use wine. LOL
Steam on Linux doesn't use Wine right now. The games are written to either run on multiple platforms or a version is written for Linux.
For what it's worth, I ran WoW under Wine for over a year. I actually had fewer issues than my Windows guild mates. Of course, it took awhile to get it running in the first place. I'm not sure the average user is going to do that unless they are really dedicated to the idea of Linux.
I did finally start running Windows because I wanted to start playing other games and the driver support really was cr@p under Linux.
**
I've also used Steam in Linux. It works the same way Steam works in Windows. Pick a game, download the game, install the game and then run it.
Running games that are ported specifically to Linux is great for those individual games, but it will limit the selection of games available. Not running Wine will be both good and bad for the same reason I just mentioned. Games will run better, but there will be fewer of them.
As for WoW, yeah, it's always run better than most other games under Wine because it's always had an army of devs making it so. But most games, don't have that going for them, also, if your game isn't designed to run with Native OpenGL support (WoW is) then your game has to be supported by Wine's emulated DirectX. Don't even bother...... Unless of course you are happy with single digit FPS. I too had WoW successfully running under Linux this way. It was great. But later, Rift and then GW2? Yeah, not so much. Sure, they ran. But the FPS was so slow, they truly were unplayable.
A few years back, I had tried to go completely Windows free using Linux. And while I almost got there, in the end, I couldn't. Not for lack of trying though. I think many people are going to find that this steam OS will be great for the game that are available through it, but for the ones that aren't, they will still need a dual boot. And of you need a dual boot for Windows, What's the point?
I guess my question is where is this going to leave current Steam users if this gets into an all out Brawl between Sony, Microsoft, and Steam. Almost seems like if Microsoft sees this as a real threat they could essentially cut Valve's legs out from under them at any moment. What then? Rush out a Steam box or SteamOS? I can't see the majority really accepting a sudden change like that. So Steam will just give people who don't want a forced switch digital copies of their current games that don't require Steam?
Given the way Valve seems to treat their Steam client I have a hard to picturing(with my limited knowledge) them being able to or even willing to compete with the Xbox or PlayStation. They are already so far behind out the gate and by showing their hand so early, doesn't seem like that's helping. Seems like there are a lot of "if's", way to many, for this to be in the spotlight just yet?
Can Microsoft break the Steam client whenever it feels like it at this point? I mean legally. If they can. Wow..
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by GeezerGamer Linux is a high performance OS, but there are ongoing issues with regard to the Nvidia and AMD's proprietary video drivers. I have doubts. Plus...Are thy going to use Wine? OMG if they use wine. LOL
Steam on Linux doesn't use Wine right now. The games are written to either run on multiple platforms or a version is written for Linux. For what it's worth, I ran WoW under Wine for over a year. I actually had fewer issues than my Windows guild mates. Of course, it took awhile to get it running in the first place. I'm not sure the average user is going to do that unless they are really dedicated to the idea of Linux. I did finally start running Windows because I wanted to start playing other games and the driver support really was cr@p under Linux. ** I've also used Steam in Linux. It works the same way Steam works in Windows. Pick a game, download the game, install the game and then run it. Running games that are ported specifically to Linux is great for those individual games, but it will limit the selection of games available. Not running Wine will be both good and bad for the same reason I just mentioned. Games will run better, but there will be fewer of them.
As for WoW, yeah, it's always run better than most other games under Wine because it's always had an army of devs making it so. But most games, don't have that going for them, also, if your game isn't designed to run with Native OpenGL support (WoW is) then your game has to be supported by Wine's emulated DirectX. Don't even bother...... Unless of course you are happy with single digit FPS. I too had WoW successfully running under Linux this way. It was great. But later, Rift and then GW2? Yeah, not so much. Sure, they ran. But the FPS was so slow, they truly were unplayable.
A few years back, I had tried to go completely Windows free using Linux. And while I almost got there, in the end, I couldn't. Not for lack of trying though. I think many people are going to find that this steam OS will be great for the game that are available through it, but for the ones that aren't, they will still need a dual boot. And of you need a dual boot for Windows, What's the point?
Out of twenty or so games, I have about six available under Linux. That's one of those "ifs" that Valve needs to overcome. I would expect that they look to the future, rather than try to bring old games back from the past. As new games come out, they'll be runnable under SteamOS because developers want to get sales through Steam.
I bet that Valve's goal isn't nearly so much to have SteamOS out there as it is to have a SteamBox out there. The rest of it is just a bunch of "ifs". If this and if that we'll see a future where gamers get an operating system that is made to run games instead of an operating system that's made to do everything OK, but no particular thing really well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Or, Valve isn't going to build their own SteamBox. They're just going to license the OS, and manufacturers like Samsung or Toshiba can build boxes that run the SteamOS.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
ROFL!game maker not Dev for this?impossible. Count the amount game maker pay to ms in various fee and you all see this is awesome.nobody would do this ,but now that it exist?ROFL gamer should rejoice , Linux just entered the gaming world!and in case you forgot it IBM made happen all last gen console and IBM is also pushing Linux ,(ya the grand dad of computing)so I wouldn't sweat it to much,IBM don't make ps4 or xb1 so this will probably be one new thing they help in.hardware wise?aren't they making a 22 nm sized cell processor already?one last thing ,only game Dev aren't on Linux,all major computing corp are all on Linux!so steam gaming os?ITS ABOUT TIME
You know, they make games for PC/XBOX360/PS3 at the same time. Porting a game to PS3 is way harder than porting it to Linux, you know. So there should be no problem per say to port it - problem is to get an installed userbase. There's not many linux gamers so there's not many linux games so there's not many linux gamers...
It will be more interesting when it releases, and we see what the hardware support looks like.
Linux is notorious for poor graphics drivers, and for gaming, that's the meat and potatoes of the business. If Steam has some deal here, either writing their own drivers or getting the GPU manufacturers to provide good drivers, it could be a game changer. If they are relying on the same old driver support we've had in the past, or the open source community to provide drivers, this will pretty much just be another headline with no substance.
Open drivers are definitely not "there" yet, but the closed drivers Nvidia and AMD provide are pretty good. There is room for improvement, but we see that a lot whenever Nvidia, for example, releases a new card or new driver versions for existing cards on Windows - it's about performance improvements and reliability. I feel like most of the bad wrap driver performance in Linux gets is because the more hardcore foss people don't want to use the proprietary blobs.
I think the deal breaker is Direct-X and backwards compatibility. If companies are willing to refactor using OpenGL and compile native binaries then that would make a huge difference. If they even just started with major titles it would be huge. Many of the older titles can easily run under WINE or DOSBox just fine, but some of the newer titles and anything with DRM won't work. How are the gaming companies going to work out DRM? Steam is a popular platform, but if that sort of thing is required to make gaming work it's going to be a big hurdle and arguably more locked in and restrictive than a proprietary Windows OS that has an open installation platform. Also if Steam OS is going to lock down the other things that make Linux great and attractive it will be a serious impediment to adoption.
I'm all for it working though. I have Linux Mint installed in vmware on my work desktop and I love it. It's solid, powerful, still easy to use without the console, and it's flexible and configurable. I like Win8 just fine (it's their best OS yet), but I would rather be using Mint for gaming and work.
Proprietary video drivers for Linux are at best, an afterthought. I had to drop Fedora Core 17 due to buggy drivers. I suppose I could have used the beta drivers that had the proprietary watermark.I gave up on ARCH as a quality Distro (Arch went downhill after they went to a rolling release schedule) since getting that to work with the drivers is an all out wrestling match using google-fu. Ultimately, I had to go back to Mint. Currently, I am now in the process of installing CrunchBang, but again, the proprietary drivers are not installable without more manual configuration of the OS.
My point is, different distros react differently to the video drivers. I suppose Steam will make sure they work...obviously, but what about the rest of Steam's OS's Linux functionality? If it's just to get into Steam, do we really want to turn our PCs into dedicated Steam game consoles? At the end of the day, This really does sound like a move to a Steam based console system. I really don't see this catching on as a stand alone OS except, maybe in some niche groups.
If this is a true OS, and has to be booted into, and can prevent some piracy, they might take over the PC market for games. But the latter seems unlikely. Better performance for free though is appealing if true.
I think PC gaming is about to go niche, and I don't think this is going to stop that.
Originally posted by VastoHorde Not interested in streaming games. I want the best possible gaming experience.
yep hdmi ftw
You know that HDMI is, techically, streaming from your computer to a TV.
Streaming trough ethernet is no diferent, specially when there are gigabit cables and routers.
Yeah, my point was that you are better off connecting to your tv with a port you already have. Then using steam, it will be to buggy and will bring up cost for any game dev. If anything steam can force ftp games to make their games compatible but even then, the market is just not there.
But I guess time will tell...
I just dont see this working. If anything they are using it for pr.
Driver won't be a big issue!GPU fully support Ubuntu and other so we know how steam will fare,But gaming on Linus was always an after taught!till steam showed up!game is more lucrative then movie,if steam can create a non official standard Linux gaming way via steam os?Dev cost would drop a lot!the main issue with Linux in the past was the amount of possible distro.nobody want to Dev for countless distro,and none were really gamer meant!steam os clearly define it self here so Dev can say OK we don't Dev for Linux we Dev for steam os!so the rest is up to steam to make sure Dev and gamer get simple.and supply link if tweak are needed
Originally posted by ray12k Originally posted by wickedptOriginally posted by ray12kOriginally posted by VastoHordeNot interested in streaming games. I want the best possible gaming experience.
yep hdmi ftwYou know that HDMI is, techically, streaming from your computer to a TV.Streaming trough ethernet is no diferent, specially when there are gigabit cables and routers.Yeah, my point was that you are better off connecting to your tv with a port you already have. Then using steam, it will be to buggy and will bring up cost for any game dev. If anything steam can force ftp games to make their games compatible but even then, the market is just not there.
But I guess time will tell...
I just dont see this working. If anything they are using it for pr.
What in the world are you talking about?
SteamOS is a Linux distribution, designed to run games. Plugging a computer that's running SteamOS into your television would work exactly the same way as plugging any other computer or gaming device into your television. Through the HDMI port. What other port would you use to plug a device into your television?
The SteamOS computer itself would be acting as a game console, letting users download and run games from Steam, on the computer itself. In addition to acting as a game console, it would also allow you have a movie on your desktop PC, you can stream it to your television in the living room, using software on the SteamOS, and probably using the Steam software on your desktop PC. This isn't any different from what's already possible with the XBox or PS3.
That's not to say they have an easy job ahead. There are what, a dozen consoles that tried to make it and didn't?* How many Linux gaming distributions are there? Less than one? The only things Valve has going for them is Valve, and Steam's millions of players and customers who might hop on board a Steam powered console with an open OS. Well, they kind of have the push towards more platforms with mobile too, so moving away from DirectX isn't the insanity that it used to be. But still, lots of work ahead for them.
Finally, Steam on Linux already works. The games that will run on Linux through Steam work the same way the games run under Windows. Click, download, install and then run. Valve managed this on Linux distributions that they aren't managing. It should be a little easier on a distribution that they do manage. It could still fail, but not because Valve doesn't know what they are doing.
**
* One of their announcements this week is going to be a new console.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
For those that are having a conversation about whether it will use wine or not, it's all moot. SteamOS is another linux distro. Their intention is to bring games NATIVE to linux however if someone (you) choose to, you can install wine yourself and run games made for windows.
Something I ran across today that might interest you, a gameplay comparison between windows and linux. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pdEftFFG_I both running natively, vsync turned off.
Originally posted by VastoHordeNot interested in streaming games. I want the best possible gaming experience.
yep hdmi ftw
You know that HDMI is, techically, streaming from your computer to a TV.Streaming trough ethernet is no diferent, specially when there are gigabit cables and routers.
Yeah, my point was that you are better off connecting to your tv with a port you already have. Then using steam, it will be to buggy and will bring up cost for any game dev. If anything steam can force ftp games to make their games compatible but even then, the market is just not there.
But I guess time will tell...
I just dont see this working. If anything they are using it for pr.
What in the world are you talking about?
SteamOS is a Linux distribution, designed to run games. Plugging a computer that's running SteamOS into your television would work exactly the same way as plugging any other computer or gaming device into your television. Through the HDMI port. What other port would you use to plug a device into your television?
The SteamOS computer itself would be acting as a game console, letting users download and run games from Steam, on the computer itself. In addition to acting as a game console, it would also allow you have a movie on your desktop PC, you can stream it to your television in the living room, using software on the SteamOS, and probably using the Steam software on your desktop PC. This isn't any different from what's already possible with the XBox or PS3.
That's not to say they have an easy job ahead. There are what, a dozen consoles that tried to make it and didn't?* How many Linux gaming distributions are there? Less than one? The only things Valve has going for them is Valve, and Steam's millions of players and customers who might hop on board a Steam powered console with an open OS. Well, they kind of have the push towards more platforms with mobile too, so moving away from DirectX isn't the insanity that it used to be. But still, lots of work ahead for them.
Finally, Steam on Linux already works. The games that will run on Linux through Steam work the same way the games run under Windows. Click, download, install and then run. Valve managed this on Linux distributions that they aren't managing. It should be a little easier on a distribution that they do manage. It could still fail, but not because Valve doesn't know what they are doing.
**
* One of their announcements this week is going to be a new console.
steam os is being created for the steam console they are releasing.
What I am talking about is all the failed promises of linux since i fist heard of it in the late 90's. The amount of dedication and creativity it would take for steam to go were so many other's have failed seems unlikely to happen. In fact I don't think they have the skill or talent to pull of making a os that would be better at gaming then Windows or Apples OS.
Valve has to talk players, most who have never had any interaction with linux into moving over from the familiar Windows OS. Not to mention I dont see any interest in anyone switching from Apples OS to linux.
As far as gaming, Good luck on people going out in droves, spending 2k+ on a gaming machine. because what your saying is that the elite gamers are looking for something new...
Again time will tell, I myself wouldnt put a dollar on it following through.
It will be more interesting when it releases, and we see what the hardware support looks like.
Linux is notorious for poor graphics drivers, and for gaming, that's the meat and potatoes of the business. If Steam has some deal here, either writing their own drivers or getting the GPU manufacturers to provide good drivers, it could be a game changer. If they are relying on the same old driver support we've had in the past, or the open source community to provide drivers, this will pretty much just be another headline with no substance.
Open drivers are definitely not "there" yet, but the closed drivers Nvidia and AMD provide are pretty good. There is room for improvement, but we see that a lot whenever Nvidia, for example, releases a new card or new driver versions for existing cards on Windows - it's about performance improvements and reliability. I feel like most of the bad wrap driver performance in Linux gets is because the more hardcore foss people don't want to use the proprietary blobs.
I think the deal breaker is Direct-X and backwards compatibility. If companies are willing to refactor using OpenGL and compile native binaries then that would make a huge difference. If they even just started with major titles it would be huge. Many of the older titles can easily run under WINE or DOSBox just fine, but some of the newer titles and anything with DRM won't work. How are the gaming companies going to work out DRM? Steam is a popular platform, but if that sort of thing is required to make gaming work it's going to be a big hurdle and arguably more locked in and restrictive than a proprietary Windows OS that has an open installation platform. Also if Steam OS is going to lock down the other things that make Linux great and attractive it will be a serious impediment to adoption.
I'm all for it working though. I have Linux Mint installed in vmware on my work desktop and I love it. It's solid, powerful, still easy to use without the console, and it's flexible and configurable. I like Win8 just fine (it's their best OS yet), but I would rather be using Mint for gaming and work.
Proprietary video drivers for Linux are at best, an afterthought. I had to drop Fedora Core 17 due to buggy drivers. I suppose I could have used the beta drivers that had the proprietary watermark.I gave up on ARCH as a quality Distro (Arch went downhill after they went to a rolling release schedule) since getting that to work with the drivers is an all out wrestling match using google-fu. Ultimately, I had to go back to Mint. Currently, I am now in the process of installing CrunchBang, but again, the proprietary drivers are not installable without more manual configuration of the OS.
My point is, different distros react differently to the video drivers. I suppose Steam will make sure they work...obviously, but what about the rest of Steam's OS's Linux functionality? If it's just to get into Steam, do we really want to turn our PCs into dedicated Steam game consoles? At the end of the day, This really does sound like a move to a Steam based console system. I really don't see this catching on as a stand alone OS except, maybe in some niche groups.
That said, I'll try it just because it's there.
I agree, many distros, especially those trying to remain totally foss, make you jump through quite a few hoops to get the binary blobs from nvidia and amd working. That is probably why I've always ended up with a Debian or Ubuntu desktop (or a derivative). Once those are installed they seem to work pretty good. I'm curious why you went back to Mint as a last resort and why you would want to stay on Fedora? It's not that Fedora is bad, but it's just much less flexible with alternatives to the foss implementation.
With that said, I do think the issues and questions you ask are the speed bumps people will hit. Do I really want to run a steam os as my main install? If it's just going to be a media center then I think other solutions are more attractive. And again, how will other Windows (ie Steam Library) games work on this?
I'll also try it (at least in a vmware session) because it's there and I want to see what they're doing with it.
Hopefully the Wednesday reveal will have some good info in it.
I chose Linux because I'm a minimalist. Mint is an excellent Distro, but I want mine to be totally custom and extremely specific to my machine and needs. But I still like to try different distros.
To be honest. Now with 64bits and multi core CPUs, my old needs and preferences don't mean so much and distros like Mint are becoming more appealing to me. I used to love the challenge. Now I just want it to work as easily as possible.
The question isn't "Can you port games to Linux", or even "DirectX"
The vast majority of games written today don't use DirectX at all - they run on PS3's and Nintendos and iOS and Android - none of those use DirectX.
Windows games use DirectX. Xbox games use a version of DirectX. That's pretty much it.
We have gotten used to the concept, as PC Gamers, that games require DirectX. But most games out there don't - ~most~ games aren't PC games.
Other people have brought up very valid points. Most AAA games that release do so for all major consoles, and perhaps the PC as well. Only 1 of the consoles uses DirectX, but they still run on the PS3, and often Nintendo. And sometimes they get ported to OS X or Linux. And a lot of older titles have been ported to iOS.
So DirectX isn't required to make a game. There are alternaives, mainly OpenGL, but even past that there are other options.
The real question here is, will Developers port? We know they can, even aside from the DirectX argument. They will not if there is no money in it - that's the cold truth of it, and the reason we see a lot of mobile games popping up all over the place. If Valve can pull off making this thing ubiquitous enough that it catches on - it's already free so financial isn't a factor, but performance and ease to use will be the next barriers to entry, then it could have a decent shot.
Comments
It all depens how much money Valve is putting behind SteamOS. If they go full on(which it doesn't look like) they might have change to get major part of hardcore PC gamers. They need first to do what Google did with Android and cut ties to nut job Linux developers. Then get AMD, Intel and Nvidia to provide better graphics drivers for SteamOS. Then they need to convince developers to support SteamOS by offering better tooling for porting console games. Essentially this is just Valves first step for SteamConsole.
I think there is 2 possibilities:
1) Valve knows they are in dying platform(Windows desktop), knowing current Linux strategy isn't working. Using Linux as base to build OS which they can control makes more sense than fighting wind mills trying to get Steam program work with Linux distros.
2) They are using this as leverage on negoations with Microsoft to allow Steam to install games on Modern UI side.
Would be neat if they build the next generation of their game engine into the OS itself as well.
As in no extra executables, drivers, etc needed beyond the OS and the asset packages. Steam OS just reads the packages and renders out the game natively.
Enjoyable idea with a lot of hurdles.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Linux is 'Missing' tons of shit windows has out of the box. As soon as you start adding 'features' and 'services' like windows does, you will soon see an overhead.
However, you won't see a fraction of the process hogging like you would by using windows; assuming that their OS is done properly.
Outside of gaming, what does the Windows OS have that Linux doesn't? I've been running a Linux laptop as my general purpose machine for years, and outside of gaming, I haven't missed anything.
For the average user, the only advantage Windows has is gaming.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Linux is a high performance OS, but there are ongoing issues with regard to the Nvidia and AMD's proprietary video drivers. I have doubts.
Plus...Are thy going to use Wine? OMG if they use wine. LOL
I suspect that Valve's goal is a console of some sort. Instead of buying a computer and setting it up for the living room, people would buy a Steam Box, and plug it in to the television. Valve might have to tweak the drivers themselves, or they can work with the hardware manufacturer to get drivers for their specific box that work really well. I'm not sure about general purpose stuff though. Some kind of critical mass would have to be reached with players and developers adopting or wanting Linux.
If developers write games that can run on the Steam Box, and realize they can sell those games to Linux users if the hardware manufacturers would just write supported drivers, then that would be the push needed to get commercial support. If gamers realize they can build purpose built gaming rigs that have very little OS overhead and perform better for less money, they'll want to do it. That will be another push. The games wouldn't have to be Windows exclusives either. OpenGL works on Windows just fine. If little indie developers can do it, then major developers can do it too. The only road block is making it financially worth it.
There are a lot of "ifs" to go from where we are now to a Linux Gaming Distro that actually works. Nobody has really tried it before. But then I bet nobody thought a video game could generate a billion dollars worth of revenue in a week either.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Steam on Linux doesn't use Wine right now. The games are written to either run on multiple platforms or a version is written for Linux.
For what it's worth, I ran WoW under Wine for over a year. I actually had fewer issues than my Windows guild mates. Of course, it took awhile to get it running in the first place. I'm not sure the average user is going to do that unless they are really dedicated to the idea of Linux.
I did finally start running Windows because I wanted to start playing other games and the driver support really was cr@p under Linux.
**
I've also used Steam in Linux. It works the same way Steam works in Windows. Pick a game, download the game, install the game and then run it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/valve-brings-pc-gaming-living-room-steam-os/nZ56g/
Valve’s next big announcement is scheduled for Wednesday at 1 p.m. Eastern.
EQ2 fan sites
Running games that are ported specifically to Linux is great for those individual games, but it will limit the selection of games available. Not running Wine will be both good and bad for the same reason I just mentioned. Games will run better, but there will be fewer of them.
As for WoW, yeah, it's always run better than most other games under Wine because it's always had an army of devs making it so. But most games, don't have that going for them, also, if your game isn't designed to run with Native OpenGL support (WoW is) then your game has to be supported by Wine's emulated DirectX. Don't even bother...... Unless of course you are happy with single digit FPS. I too had WoW successfully running under Linux this way. It was great. But later, Rift and then GW2? Yeah, not so much. Sure, they ran. But the FPS was so slow, they truly were unplayable.
A few years back, I had tried to go completely Windows free using Linux. And while I almost got there, in the end, I couldn't. Not for lack of trying though. I think many people are going to find that this steam OS will be great for the game that are available through it, but for the ones that aren't, they will still need a dual boot. And of you need a dual boot for Windows, What's the point?
I guess my question is where is this going to leave current Steam users if this gets into an all out Brawl between Sony, Microsoft, and Steam. Almost seems like if Microsoft sees this as a real threat they could essentially cut Valve's legs out from under them at any moment. What then? Rush out a Steam box or SteamOS? I can't see the majority really accepting a sudden change like that. So Steam will just give people who don't want a forced switch digital copies of their current games that don't require Steam?
Given the way Valve seems to treat their Steam client I have a hard to picturing(with my limited knowledge) them being able to or even willing to compete with the Xbox or PlayStation. They are already so far behind out the gate and by showing their hand so early, doesn't seem like that's helping. Seems like there are a lot of "if's", way to many, for this to be in the spotlight just yet?
Can Microsoft break the Steam client whenever it feels like it at this point? I mean legally. If they can. Wow..
Running games that are ported specifically to Linux is great for those individual games, but it will limit the selection of games available. Not running Wine will be both good and bad for the same reason I just mentioned. Games will run better, but there will be fewer of them.
As for WoW, yeah, it's always run better than most other games under Wine because it's always had an army of devs making it so. But most games, don't have that going for them, also, if your game isn't designed to run with Native OpenGL support (WoW is) then your game has to be supported by Wine's emulated DirectX. Don't even bother...... Unless of course you are happy with single digit FPS. I too had WoW successfully running under Linux this way. It was great. But later, Rift and then GW2? Yeah, not so much. Sure, they ran. But the FPS was so slow, they truly were unplayable.
A few years back, I had tried to go completely Windows free using Linux. And while I almost got there, in the end, I couldn't. Not for lack of trying though. I think many people are going to find that this steam OS will be great for the game that are available through it, but for the ones that aren't, they will still need a dual boot. And of you need a dual boot for Windows, What's the point?
Out of twenty or so games, I have about six available under Linux. That's one of those "ifs" that Valve needs to overcome. I would expect that they look to the future, rather than try to bring old games back from the past. As new games come out, they'll be runnable under SteamOS because developers want to get sales through Steam.
I bet that Valve's goal isn't nearly so much to have SteamOS out there as it is to have a SteamBox out there. The rest of it is just a bunch of "ifs". If this and if that we'll see a future where gamers get an operating system that is made to run games instead of an operating system that's made to do everything OK, but no particular thing really well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Or, Valve isn't going to build their own SteamBox. They're just going to license the OS, and manufacturers like Samsung or Toshiba can build boxes that run the SteamOS.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Proprietary video drivers for Linux are at best, an afterthought. I had to drop Fedora Core 17 due to buggy drivers. I suppose I could have used the beta drivers that had the proprietary watermark.I gave up on ARCH as a quality Distro (Arch went downhill after they went to a rolling release schedule) since getting that to work with the drivers is an all out wrestling match using google-fu. Ultimately, I had to go back to Mint. Currently, I am now in the process of installing CrunchBang, but again, the proprietary drivers are not installable without more manual configuration of the OS.
My point is, different distros react differently to the video drivers. I suppose Steam will make sure they work...obviously, but what about the rest of Steam's OS's Linux functionality? If it's just to get into Steam, do we really want to turn our PCs into dedicated Steam game consoles? At the end of the day, This really does sound like a move to a Steam based console system. I really don't see this catching on as a stand alone OS except, maybe in some niche groups.
That said, I'll try it just because it's there.
If this is a true OS, and has to be booted into, and can prevent some piracy, they might take over the PC market for games. But the latter seems unlikely. Better performance for free though is appealing if true.
I think PC gaming is about to go niche, and I don't think this is going to stop that.
Yeah, my point was that you are better off connecting to your tv with a port you already have. Then using steam, it will be to buggy and will bring up cost for any game dev. If anything steam can force ftp games to make their games compatible but even then, the market is just not there.
But I guess time will tell...
I just dont see this working. If anything they are using it for pr.
You know that HDMI is, techically, streaming from your computer to a TV. Streaming trough ethernet is no diferent, specially when there are gigabit cables and routers.
Yeah, my point was that you are better off connecting to your tv with a port you already have. Then using steam, it will be to buggy and will bring up cost for any game dev. If anything steam can force ftp games to make their games compatible but even then, the market is just not there.
But I guess time will tell...
I just dont see this working. If anything they are using it for pr.
What in the world are you talking about?
SteamOS is a Linux distribution, designed to run games. Plugging a computer that's running SteamOS into your television would work exactly the same way as plugging any other computer or gaming device into your television. Through the HDMI port. What other port would you use to plug a device into your television?
The SteamOS computer itself would be acting as a game console, letting users download and run games from Steam, on the computer itself. In addition to acting as a game console, it would also allow you have a movie on your desktop PC, you can stream it to your television in the living room, using software on the SteamOS, and probably using the Steam software on your desktop PC. This isn't any different from what's already possible with the XBox or PS3.
That's not to say they have an easy job ahead. There are what, a dozen consoles that tried to make it and didn't?* How many Linux gaming distributions are there? Less than one? The only things Valve has going for them is Valve, and Steam's millions of players and customers who might hop on board a Steam powered console with an open OS. Well, they kind of have the push towards more platforms with mobile too, so moving away from DirectX isn't the insanity that it used to be. But still, lots of work ahead for them.
Finally, Steam on Linux already works. The games that will run on Linux through Steam work the same way the games run under Windows. Click, download, install and then run. Valve managed this on Linux distributions that they aren't managing. It should be a little easier on a distribution that they do manage. It could still fail, but not because Valve doesn't know what they are doing.
**
* One of their announcements this week is going to be a new console.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
For those that are having a conversation about whether it will use wine or not, it's all moot. SteamOS is another linux distro. Their intention is to bring games NATIVE to linux however if someone (you) choose to, you can install wine yourself and run games made for windows.
Something I ran across today that might interest you, a gameplay comparison between windows and linux. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pdEftFFG_I both running natively, vsync turned off.
steam os is being created for the steam console they are releasing.
What I am talking about is all the failed promises of linux since i fist heard of it in the late 90's. The amount of dedication and creativity it would take for steam to go were so many other's have failed seems unlikely to happen. In fact I don't think they have the skill or talent to pull of making a os that would be better at gaming then Windows or Apples OS.
Valve has to talk players, most who have never had any interaction with linux into moving over from the familiar Windows OS. Not to mention I dont see any interest in anyone switching from Apples OS to linux.
As far as gaming, Good luck on people going out in droves, spending 2k+ on a gaming machine. because what your saying is that the elite gamers are looking for something new...
Again time will tell, I myself wouldnt put a dollar on it following through.
I chose Linux because I'm a minimalist. Mint is an excellent Distro, but I want mine to be totally custom and extremely specific to my machine and needs. But I still like to try different distros.
To be honest. Now with 64bits and multi core CPUs, my old needs and preferences don't mean so much and distros like Mint are becoming more appealing to me. I used to love the challenge. Now I just want it to work as easily as possible.
The question isn't "Can you port games to Linux", or even "DirectX"
The vast majority of games written today don't use DirectX at all - they run on PS3's and Nintendos and iOS and Android - none of those use DirectX.
Windows games use DirectX. Xbox games use a version of DirectX. That's pretty much it.
We have gotten used to the concept, as PC Gamers, that games require DirectX. But most games out there don't - ~most~ games aren't PC games.
Other people have brought up very valid points. Most AAA games that release do so for all major consoles, and perhaps the PC as well. Only 1 of the consoles uses DirectX, but they still run on the PS3, and often Nintendo. And sometimes they get ported to OS X or Linux. And a lot of older titles have been ported to iOS.
So DirectX isn't required to make a game. There are alternaives, mainly OpenGL, but even past that there are other options.
The real question here is, will Developers port? We know they can, even aside from the DirectX argument. They will not if there is no money in it - that's the cold truth of it, and the reason we see a lot of mobile games popping up all over the place. If Valve can pull off making this thing ubiquitous enough that it catches on - it's already free so financial isn't a factor, but performance and ease to use will be the next barriers to entry, then it could have a decent shot.
Yeah, we need this....