Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 184

Thread: Is Valve's Steam Client Bad & Damaging For Linux?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    63

    Default

    This is exactly why the Linux has never taken off on the desktop. People bitch about politics too much instead of actually progressing the operating system for the majority of users. Ever since Valve started working on Linux with STEAM, both NVIDIA and AMD have been finding (and fixing) countless issues that plagued the OS for years! This is a good thing, no?

    I love open source, and stand by it, but I personally want Linux to be able to run ALL open source and ALL closed source applications if THE USER WANTS IT. Only like using open source strictly? No problem, just don't force it on the rest of us. STEAM is currently contibuting more than almost any other group or entity when it comes to graphics on Linux. How did I know some people were going to find an issue with this?

    As a system builder, I have been trying to get people to switch over to Linux for YEARS, but the gamers will not even consider it (until recently). Only for one issue: Windows DESTROYS Linux in OVERALL graphics performance. Period.

    No wonder some developers don't want to come to Linux, or doubt it's gaming future! It's a shame...I wish Linux would stop arguing politics and take over the world already!!


    P.S... Thank you Valve & Canonical!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enfocomp View Post
    This is exactly why the Linux has never taken off on the desktop. People bitch about politics too much instead of actually progressing the operating system for the majority of users. Ever since Valve started working on Linux with STEAM, both NVIDIA and AMD have been finding (and fixing) countless issues that plagued the OS for years! This is a good thing, no?
    It is good. What people complain about is the lack of better alternatives. But thanks to Valve for the initiative, even though they have their own drawbacks, at least they show interest in Linux. Others just sit and wait.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So this is what really boggles my mind.
    ...
    There's a fundamental contradiction in your argument: Linux is open source, yet you want proprietary stuff on Linux because "open source stuff sucks". Why.. what... error error does not compute * head explodes *
    Fully agreed. Most of the OSS I work with on a daily basis is top notch and easily compares to proprietary counterparts. Some of it (most games are one example) however, simply doesn't cut the mustard. There are many possible reasons for that, and we could discuss all of them until the end of days, but for most end users that doesn't make a difference. It's up to professional developers to solve these problems, but until they are solved. something like Steam running natively on Linux, providing native games, is A Good Thing. It's good for more wide spread acceptance and credibility of the OS as a platform, it eliminates much of the need to boot to another OS for the end user, and it brings more developers to the table to make their software available natively. I fail to see how any of these are a bad thing. Drawbacks come with any positive aspect. That's life - perfection is something we strive for while realizing that it can never be truly achieved.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    Steam is definitely a good thing for the Linux ecosystem. Improvements in open-source and proprietary drivers have already been visible as a result of its appearance.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodger73 View Post
    something like Steam running natively on Linux, providing native games, is A Good Thing. It's good for more wide spread acceptance and credibility of the OS as a platform, it eliminates much of the need to boot to another OS for the end user, and it brings more developers to the table to make their software available natively.
    In essence developers don't need Steam to come to the table. They can come any time - without Steam as well. But the good thing that Valve does is PRing Linux as a gaming platform. And if they'll show successful sales, more developers will be interested to develop for Linux. And more distributors will be interested in selling for Linux. But Steam isn't really enabling anything that's not already available now, except of course improvements that Valve managed to get in the drivers.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    A bit too much hyperbole imho. Nobody is asking for giving out stuff for free. This would be completely irrational. Keep the content under whatever license you prefer. I mean content in the widest sense from art to scripts and shaders. You know the stuff that makes the actual game. Just allow your users to run the game on the platform of their choice by making the source of your game engine available. This is what I would understand with open-sourcing a game. And to my delight there are companies doing it, even if with a temporal delay.
    That would almost work, other than the fact that the source of the game engine is a large part of the effort, and as such a large part of the development cost - and that is especially if you roll your own and develop literally everything in-house, which few studios do. If you don't, you rely on middleware, and I think you'd have a hard time convincing Epic to release full source for UE3 or UE4, or Crytek for their CryEngine, given that that's where their business lies. And that's only the major piece of middleware used, not counting lighting, physics, AI and navigation and potentially visibility middleware.
    Open sourcing for example Id tech 3 or something similar is easier for the companies, since these are pieces of technology that are fully outdated and of no practical use to them anymore. It'll take a long time for that model to change, especially considering that nobody even knows what it could potentially change to - it's not like you can recoup your development cost or maybe turn a profit from support contracts on a game.

    Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    10

    Default

    What I'm saying is, it would be nice if it was an option. The reality is that, right now, it's not. There's a lot that needs to happen in terms of development practices, business models, and also people's mind sets for that reality to change. This change isn't going to happen overnight, and as of now, there are no credible alternatives. The way I see it, AAA games are going to stay proprietary for the near future - and it's up to each individual to either embrace or reject that concept. Embracing means buying and playing proprietary games. Rejection means staying away from them. Neither option is more right or wrong - it's simply a matter of perspective, personal preference, and choice.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodger73 View Post
    What I'm saying is, it would be nice if it was an option. The reality is that, right now, it's not. There's a lot that needs to happen in terms of development practices, business models, and also people's mind sets for that reality to change. This change isn't going to happen overnight, and as of now, there are no credible alternatives. The way I see it, AAA games are going to stay proprietary for the near future - and it's up to each individual to either embrace or reject that concept. Embracing means buying and playing proprietary games. Rejection means staying away from them. Neither option is more right or wrong - it's simply a matter of perspective, personal preference, and choice.
    Thats right. But for those of us that are buying, buy in a way that gets counted as a linux sale. These companies are looking at numbers and they want to know that their efforts are paying off. The more sales for linux platforms that get counted the better off we'll be in the future.

    Steam provides a metric on which sales can get counted by platform.

    EDIT: About DRM on steam.... It is almost entirely invisible. Whether a game uses DRM or not legitimate end users are pretty much oblivious to it. Thats a good thing. If a publisher is going to require DRM then there is no better than steams as far as end user experience goes.
    Last edited by duby229; 04-07-2013 at 07:37 PM.

  9. #69

    Default

    Anyone who's a friend of Linux is my friend.

    When you have a commercial business and you spend your income to support a small market like Linux - that's a very generous and forward thinking thing to do. Value has put a wedge in the Microsoft Monopoly, and I want to see them succeed in bringing other big name developers to Linux so the Operating System can grow to overshadow Windows and OS X.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Seems the overwhelming amount of forum users suggest it is okay.
    Could the OP mark the topic as solved?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •