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

[Yfrwlf]

No, my confirmation or sources are not The Telegraph. I simply linked to The Telegraph as another place that has also confirmed this information, albeit I have had my sources on the matter much longer than they have.

It would be nice to actually see your sources, otherwise it's only confirmation from you, making it not official.

[thebwt]

After installing L4D via Steam on my computer, I was not able to play L4D without Steam running. It is required that you log in to run L4D.

This is DRM. Do not pay for Steam games. You shouldn't have to ask for permission to play your own games.

What about people who disagree with your view on DRM? It seems like you are assuming that we all 'know' DRM = Evil. We know what we're getting into when we buy games from them...

[TheWretched]

After installing L4D via Steam on my computer, I was not able to play L4D without Steam running. It is required that you log in to run L4D.

This is DRM. Do not pay for Steam games. You shouldn't have to ask for permission to play your own games.

No shocker to most of you, but just saying.

If you run your argument further, even having to have the CD in the drive can be considered "DRM"...

[Licaon]

This is DRM. Do not pay for Steam games. You shouldn't have to ask for permission to play your own games.

then why did you buy the game and why did you agree to the EULA?

[deanjo]

If you run your argument further, even having to have the CD in the drive can be considered "DRM"...

That would be more copy protection then DRM. DRM entails getting permission from an outside system to authorize the use of their product.

[V!NCENT]

PSSSSSSSSSSSSST!

*And to think that L4D is a multiplayer co-op mode that you need to contact the central game server for so you can be linked to an online co-op match*

FAIL

[Yfrwlf]

What about people who disagree with your view on DRM? It seems like you are assuming that we all 'know' DRM = Evil. We know what we're getting into when we buy games from them...

DRM is bad because it is a hindrance for you, the consumer. But, let corporations convince you a hindrance is good for you like a good sheeple.

If you run your argument further, even having to have the CD in the drive can be considered "DRM"...

Correct, you should be able to copy data where you want so you can run programs from anywhere. CD copy protection preventing "full installation" is a form of DRM, dur.

then why did you buy the game and why did you agree to the EULA?

Did I say I did? No. Neither does most anyone who clicks on them. No one reads them. I also never said I clicked on any EULAs. EULAs are "fine print designed to fuck you". Do you honestly believe corporations have your best interests in mind? What planet are you from? The only way Steam gets away with it is because it's "on the web" to begin with.

That would be more copy protection then DRM. DRM entails getting permission from an outside system to authorize the use of their product.

"Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices."

While software can have limitations in the form of a lack of features, DRM is thus an intentional device to "impose limitations on the usage", so yes, copy protection is of course DRM, dur.

PSSSSSSSSSSSSST!

*And to think that L4D is a multiplayer co-op mode that you need to contact the central game server for so you can be linked to an online co-op match*

FAIL

Which requires you to connect to Steam in order to get their permission before playing, instead of playing co-op over LAN, Internet, or ANY central server (not just Valve's, or playing single-player.


I have reached the conclusion that you are all either retarded or/and corporate sellouts. You of course all have the freedom to be corporate sellouts and let corporations p0wn you on their terms when they feel like doing so, but others like myself will not accept those terms.

Steam can fuck off. Long live DRM-free software, and best: open source software.

Switch to bounty models. Also, live in countries which don't have out-of-control costs of living so that it will cost less to program.

[Svartalf]

Switch to bounty models. Also, live in countries which don't have out-of-control costs of living so that it will cost less to program.

I think Wolfire and the other indies from the Humble Bundle are striving for something along those lines.

Heh...I'll say it again...I'm mildly surprised Phoronix didn't cover that more than they did this stuff. It's as big as Valve possibly doing Steam and Source for Linux- which is all he's got for actual things he can state and have people verify right at the moment.

[pingufunkybeat]

So, is it official yet?

[Yfrwlf]

I think Wolfire and the other indies from the Humble Bundle are striving for something along those lines.

Heh...I'll say it again...I'm mildly surprised Phoronix didn't cover that more than they did this stuff. It's as big as Valve possibly doing Steam and Source for Linux- which is all he's got for actual things he can state and have people verify right at the moment.

Seemed to cover it quite a bit...but yes, DRM-less developers and their pay-what-you-want models are good development models to consider, but as of yet there hasn't really been any bounty model set up in quite the way I'm imagining.

Several of the new games coming out have pre-payments available, which is more along the lines of an actual "bounty", except they are bounties for only things like extra features and whatnot. Bounties can be a bit scary though for several reasons, the primary concern being the assurance that you really will get what you paid for. I believe that if you can address that problem and have a system in which money will be returned to you if, say, said project doesn't meet it's deadline, or doesn't meet it's stated features, or whatever it may be, while still securing that payment for the project if they do meet the goals they put forth, will be a much more successful model. Something like this:

This project will have features and gameplay held to standards yay high (determined by the organization sponsoring the project?), this feature set, and this amount of average gameplay time. Upon accomplishing these goals, the software will be released as open source to the world to build upon as desired. If unsuccessful, all credits will be returned to the payees.

Credits being convertible back and forth into real money of course, but credits might make things easier for a number of reasons, one being legal matters involving the handling of direct money.

I tried making a website that could act as a hub for bounty projects so that you'd have somewhere to go to find out about them, which is really needed especially as that model grows larger, but I didn't spend much time with the project to make it successful.