Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's Official: Valve Releasing Steam, Source Engine For Linux!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pfunkman View Post
    Just get a prepaid credit card, they sell them just about everywhere. Even the local gas station chain around here sells them.

    They work just like normal credit cards.
    Ah yes, I had forgotten about those. Pretty sure the bank I use will sell them (yep, just checked, it does). Cheers for that!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
      Also some studios will compile their games on Linux just to provide better code with no plans what-so-ever of releasing that client.
      There is no evidence to suggest anything to the contrary.
      Well...
      I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it would have to be exceedingly rare. First of all, most studios don't consider Linux to be anywhere near a viable platform - hell, most studios are just now again seeing Windows as a viable platform, which is in no small part thanks to Valve and Steam. Linux is somewhat widely used for things like video and audio editing and post processing, offline rendering, etc. As an actual target for game development (released or not), not so much, and I know this first-hand. This is why the possibility of Steam coming to the platform is such a big deal, and I happen to think it may well be very good for Valve to be the first.
      But I have yet to see a first or second tier studio that does PC development do hands-on Linux development of their titles as well.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dodger View Post
        But I have yet to see a first or second tier studio that does PC development do hands-on Linux development of their titles as well.
        Well...I guess you've never seen iD or (until recently...we won't get into the recent debacle as it's becoming clear what happened there...) Epic, then.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dodger View Post
          Well...
          I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it would have to be exceedingly rare. First of all, most studios don't consider Linux to be anywhere near a viable platform - hell, most studios are just now again seeing Windows as a viable platform, which is in no small part thanks to Valve and Steam. Linux is somewhat widely used for things like video and audio editing and post processing, offline rendering, etc. As an actual target for game development (released or not), not so much, and I know this first-hand. This is why the possibility of Steam coming to the platform is such a big deal, and I happen to think it may well be very good for Valve to be the first.
          But I have yet to see a first or second tier studio that does PC development do hands-on Linux development of their titles as well.
          What use is a Steam for Linux for game developers? What keeps game devs from making Linux versions of their games is time and money. They have to port it and porting equals to costs and time expenses (for business suits). You can not simply put your Windows game on Steam and "poof" it works on Linux. This is the main problem and Steam does nothing about that. So it's no big deal and is not going to improve Linux gaming much at all since it doesn't solve the inherent problem.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
            What use is a Steam for Linux for game developers? What keeps game devs from making Linux versions of their games is time and money. They have to port it and porting equals to costs and time expenses (for business suits). You can not simply put your Windows game on Steam and "poof" it works on Linux. This is the main problem and Steam does nothing about that. So it's no big deal and is not going to improve Linux gaming much at all since it doesn't solve the inherent problem.
            1. A Linux version of Steamworks and the Source engine reduces the time and money required for porting, which makes it more likely for Linux ports to be made.
            2. It's a well-known distribution channel. Where do your customers go to buy the latest Linux games?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
              What use is a Steam for Linux for game developers?
              It is where allmost all PC gamers are at and where a shitload of PC users exclusively buy their games from. You might want to sell you 'product' in a place where most potential customers come?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                Well...I guess you've never seen iD or (until recently...we won't get into the recent debacle as it's becoming clear what happened there...) Epic, then.
                Touche. And you're right, of course, but they haven't done anything in what seems like ages. I know Rage is supposed to get Linux binaries, but that's also something that is, I would say, at least one to two years out. But, you are correct.

                My point, though, was simply that it's a rare thing. And studios developing for Linux to keep portability an option, and not releasing their Linux binaries, is even rarer.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
                  What use is a Steam for Linux for game developers? What keeps game devs from making Linux versions of their games is time and money. They have to port it and porting equals to costs and time expenses (for business suits). You can not simply put your Windows game on Steam and "poof" it works on Linux. This is the main problem and Steam does nothing about that. So it's no big deal and is not going to improve Linux gaming much at all since it doesn't solve the inherent problem.
                  First of all, Source is a solid, proven Engine to build games on - not state-of-the-art in all respects, but solid. And no, porting is still not a magic snap-your-fingers process, but having something like Source (or Unreal, in its time) makes this process tremendously easier. If file handling and asset management, scripting, rendering, networking, etc., are all done by the engine in a platform agnostic manner, porting becomes a *much* simpler matter.
                  As for Steam itself, it's a solid, proven distribution platform with currently over 25M users. It's *the* digital distribution platform for PC games. Publishers know its DRM works (not getting into the debate, but it is important to them so it's important for the platform). Users know its DRM is reasonably unintrusive. Developers know it's easy to get games set up for it, tie it in with their achievement and stats tracking systems, and maintenance in terms of patches, updates and DLC is a snap. Steam is a big deal - as I said, it's in no small part responsible for a number of big studios and publishers picking up the PC business again that had almost completely abandoned it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Remco View Post
                    1. A Linux version of Steamworks and the Source engine reduces the time and money required for porting, which makes it more likely for Linux ports to be made.
                    2. It's a well-known distribution channel. Where do your customers go to buy the latest Linux games?
                    Incorrect, together with the rest here. The engine running on Linux doesn't make a game more portable than otherwise. The engine is one part of the puzzle but there is a lot around which is a show stopper:
                    - including patching for multiple game versions
                    - operating specific problems (source is not as solid as somebody here thinks because it is a c++ mess/hell, I know from experience)
                    - operating specific 3rd party tools
                    - "special hacks" (source games are full of them) which often don't translate well across OSes
                    - support problems (you have to support more OS which can put quite a damper on your reputation if you can't handle it like Windows)

                    The UEngine as somebody mentioned it here is a lot more portable than this mess called Source Engine. As mentioned, the problem for the games itself is supporting "another" OS and that's the real problem that steam does not solve. It makes it "at best" "slightly" less troublesome but if you are Sisyphus then it doesn't matter if one less little pebble is on your way as there are still hundred others.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dodger View Post
                      First of all, Source is a solid, proven Engine to build games on - not state-of-the-art in all respects, but solid. And no, porting is still not a magic snap-your-fingers process, but having something like Source (or Unreal, in its time) makes this process tremendously easier. If file handling and asset management, scripting, rendering, networking, etc., are all done by the engine in a platform agnostic manner, porting becomes a *much* simpler matter.
                      As for Steam itself, it's a solid, proven distribution platform with currently over 25M users. It's *the* digital distribution platform for PC games. Publishers know its DRM works (not getting into the debate, but it is important to them so it's important for the platform). Users know its DRM is reasonably unintrusive. Developers know it's easy to get games set up for it, tie it in with their achievement and stats tracking systems, and maintenance in terms of patches, updates and DLC is a snap. Steam is a big deal - as I said, it's in no small part responsible for a number of big studios and publishers picking up the PC business again that had almost completely abandoned it.
                      I'm thinking linux is a very viable platform. Windows 7 seems to have broken a lot of compatibility with older games. Games that even worked on windows vista... Gaming on linux is new grounds to many of these studios so they probably don't see any gain from it. Hell even at university they teach that linux is only 3% vs 80% (or more) windows.. So people think 3% money vs 80% money.... Remember though that all statistics are a lie. Heh.

                      Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                      Well...I guess you've never seen iD or (until recently...we won't get into the recent debacle as it's becoming clear what happened there...) Epic, then.
                      Interesting? I don't know actually... I know epic has changed their business, but id?

                      Originally posted by Dragonlord View Post
                      Incorrect, together with the rest here. The engine running on Linux doesn't make a game more portable than otherwise. The engine is one part of the puzzle but there is a lot around which is a show stopper:
                      - including patching for multiple game versions
                      - operating specific problems (source is not as solid as somebody here thinks because it is a c++ mess/hell, I know from experience)
                      - operating specific 3rd party tools
                      - "special hacks" (source games are full of them) which often don't translate well across OSes
                      - support problems (you have to support more OS which can put quite a damper on your reputation if you can't handle it like Windows)

                      The UEngine as somebody mentioned it here is a lot more portable than this mess called Source Engine. As mentioned, the problem for the games itself is supporting "another" OS and that's the real problem that steam does not solve. It makes it "at best" "slightly" less troublesome but if you are Sisyphus then it doesn't matter if one less little pebble is on your way as there are still hundred others.
                      Hmm I still believe most of the art work and audio is superficial compared to the source code. I believe the problem with Linux is actually the fact that it's so sparse. Making a game that will easily fit on many distributions is the nightmare. The support problems will be the major issue. I think this is why it's far easier to port a Linux engine back to windows than Win to Linux.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X