Tech industry general discussion thread

So...SteamOS. A linux-based OS for Steam. If Valve is to be believed, they will aggressively push for native "AAA" titles within the next year or two to eliminate the relative uselessness of its currently proposed iteration (basically, an OS to stream games playing on a windows computer to your TV.)

I think it's great--IF publishers actually get on board with coding games for it natively. It would certainly be great for the niche market of system builders who just want to build a gaming or home-theater PC and don't necessarily need all Windows offers, but who also don't want to deal with learning how to use Linux. I would love to throw SteamOS, if it becomes viable, on a little gaming/HTPC and make my own little Steambox.

Obviously Valve is thinking much bigger than the tiny sliver of people who like building their own PCs though. We will see how this all pans out however and if SteamOS can truly offer the all-encompassing ease and compatibility of Windows. I think more competition and more choice in the PC OS marketplace is always good.
 
Windows -- too expensive;
Linux -- too unfamiliar, too many compatibility issues. Even if Valve solves compatibility issues and pushes devs to work more with OpenGL or whatever, the tailored SteamOS may still be the best option for someone who wants that type of frontend;
Console -- depending on utility of SteamOS and the utility of whatever front-ends Sony and MS put in their consoles, this is the real competition. For someone who likes tinkering and the fun of building their own stuff though consoles are a non-starter. SteamOS could also technically co-exist with whatever other OS the user wants on their living room machine. Consoles are closed environments.
 
Windows as too expensive I think is the one I have the most trouble with. You're realistically looking at a minimum of $600 for any PC worth gaming on, so you're looking at some weird subset of users who are willing to pay halfway between a console and a Windows PC for something that at best falls midway between the capabilities of the other two.
 
Or you could build a good gaming rig comparable with any other PC, not have to bother with the extra $100 for an OEM copy of Windows, and run a tailored gaming/media focused OS that doesn't run on top of anything else.

Valve also claims that once devs get on board with OpenGL and what not, you will see performance increases. They claimed, for example, that Left4Dead 2 was faster once it was optimized for Linux. So if that pans out you could also see a benefit from being able to buy cheaper hardware for the same performance as a Windows based gaming machine.
 
What I see here is Steam moving the PC gaming demographic to... consoles? Personally I feel it's a bad idea, everybody has a PC or Mac. Now we are being expected to buy another console or move to a Linux distro just to play exclusive Steam releases? That would be a terrible market model.
 
I don't think they will be exclusives. Most Steam games are not exclusive to Steam (I think). I think Steam sees their survival hinging on guaranteeing the continued existence of Steam as a marketplace rather than getting edged out by a Windows or Android or Xbox One online games store or whatever. Since they have a specialty--games--along with market clout, they can probably wedge their way in now, before your average home starts moving all of its computing power into its living room. Their strategy to differentiate, by appealing to PC gamers, needs to look in a market where there is not a lot of competition. There certainly is no one else offering a PC operating system focused solely on gaming. Yes the end result is something similar to a console but it is also different. The machine you would have is at its core a PC, which you can change, tinker with, upgrade, do whatever with. They have an ace in the hole with Half Life 3, which they could probably offer in some sort of SteamBox bundle or as a Steam exclusive at first.

I don't know how this will turn out but I do like that they are trying.
 
"Get Linux gaming-ready" would be preferable to "Hack something together on top of Linux".
Attempts to "streamline" Linux creates layers of abstractions that don't mesh well with the way Linux works - as a tangle of independent projects sharing resources in an evolving ecosystem.

Exercising a light touch - tweak existing software to their needs, contribute to outside projects tackling common problems - would avoid commitments Valve has no real interest in and enable them to concentrate on what they are good at. From what I've read so far, this isn't going to happen though.
 
Well Steam has already killed PC gaming for me personally due to exorbitant bandwidth requirements so I've mostly moved to MMO's (not dota2) which often have a stand-alone client.
 
Well Steam has already killed PC gaming for me personally due to exorbitant bandwidth requirements so I've mostly moved to MMO's (not dota2) which often have a stand-alone client.

I think you mean that your ISP has killed PC gaming for you because of its outrageously low bandwidth allowances.

Buying discs for either consoles or PCs is a relic of the past.
 
There is no excuse for excessive bandwidth requirements. It's like saying "The heck with fuel efficient cars man, lets just drill for more oil".
 
I never noticed a problem downloading stuff from them? Even with slow internet, just wait it out. Once it is downloaded you don't need a fast connection.
 
He may be in an area where his only high speed option is satellite, which has pretty severe bandwidth limitations. Only allowed ridiculously small amounts per month, etc.
 
I don't recall him demanding anything of Steam. He simply voiced his displeasure at them. Also, you seem to be suggesting that we should live our lives based around quality internet service? That's... well that's a little peculiar.
 
Thing is, modern gaming forces one to live with quite a few unpleasant things.

Bandwidth, tacky advertising, privacy concerns, questionable licenses, distribution and business models that favour compromised game design, being forced to run dodgy distribution/enabling/DRM software to get the programs you want...

I'm reluctant to buy games if I'm likely to be cheesed off before I arrive at the main screen. Something similar applies to other media/distribution channels - not in the mood to buy a movie if I have to expect unskippable crud before I get to watch it.
Books, traditional games and Roguelikes could last me for a lifetime of entertainment in a pinch... but I hope it won't come to that, because modern technology has potential to be awesome.


Bandwidth is one of the more benign issues though. That always got somewhat annoying before infrastructure caught up: changing floppies and bad loading times until hard disks, many disks to a game before the switch to CD, trouble with online games before ISPs caught up.
 
I live on a hut on a mountain on an island and there are no gas stations, I am very displeased that Ford does not build a wood burning car.

Hardly, it would be more akin to a car manufacturer who refused to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicle lineup simply because the majority of their customers could afford 10 MPG mileage.

In my experience this is steam over and over, their service becomes more bloated and demanding over time without regard to the segment of the population with sub par connections simply because they won't make enough $$$ streamlining and improving their software. Sure you can offer the 10 MPG vehicle but also offer the 28MPG vehicle for those of us who cannot affford to commute with such ridiculously poor fuel economy.

I'm not being unreasonable here, I'm not asking Steam to "snail mail" me updates or activation codes (wood burning car), I'm want Steam to stop ignoring the number of their users who cannot afford to download the game through capped connections (10 mpg mileage).

He may be in an area where his only high speed option is satellite, which has pretty severe bandwidth limitations. Only allowed ridiculously small amounts per month, etc.

Where I live in the US we can get 10GB/month for ~$50, if you pop in a game disk you just bought and forget to type in some command codes you could use up 10GB just installing the game because Steam, in all their wisdom, has decided it's so much better to download the damn game through your interconnection rather than locally.

I'm suggesting that playing modern video games isn't worthwhile without quality internet service.

I appreciate your concern but I think I'll decide that. If I want to play Civ 4 single player Steam should not get in the way of that simply because they suck at providing services to users on limited connections.
 
Top Bottom