Valve Joins The Linux Foundation

[log0]

Greater power efficiency is one that I remember Torvalds mentioning, due to mobile devices requirement, which also come to be useful for server and laptop.

I would guess attention to power efficiency is a general trend with growing mobile devices market.

[curaga]

Too bad they're only a Silver member (according to Engadget, logo is not yet in LF website). This means they only pay 5k-20k, not 100k or 500k per year.

[mrugiero]

Try to be a bit more realistic. Already from the comments here it is obvious that the so called linux user doesn't give crap about open source as long as it is free for him to use... Thus I am quite sure the majority will be running blob drivers (except for intel, but then you don't really want to game on intel gpus). I guess the steam defenders here would be quite happy even if the kernel was a blob. Why should they care, right?

So in the end, what is the point of using linux for steam? Just the convenience to not have to boot into windows for gaming?

And sorry, but I don't buy the positive effects on foss story. What positive effects have been there by google using linux kernel for android? A dozen more blob drivers?

Personally, I don't use Steam (well, I "use" it from time to time, owning only Portal because it was free of charge at the time, and since I won it I only play for testing it on Linux), and I use only the open source drivers. I do agree that the only benefits for someone who doesn't care about free software from having Steam support here is to avoid paying Windows. However, there are benefits for open source. For a start, they pay the Linux Foundation, which means MAINSTREAM VANILLA KERNEL will receive developers paid with that money. It is different as to what Google does with Android, having their own branch worked locally and publishing on release. This not only means changes get no discussion on their branch (if it fits them, that's enough to accept the patch, contrary to how vanilla works), but that any changes will then be harder to merge. And even though they did this that way, the Summer of Code Google sponsors helps the FOSS community greatly.
Steam itself, I agree, is no direct benefit to FOSS. However, they did help mesa drivers, they did invest in open source tools, and they will be putting money on the vanilla kernel, and all of those are benefits on having Valve working with Linux. It is a closed, proprietary company, and their main product is probably evil according to free software ethics, but the company is at worst gray, as they DO invest in FOSS, be it for selfish or altruist reasons is not really relevant to judge if it is good for FOSS (as this is based on facts, as which license it uses and such), as it is only relevant to ethics (which depends on WHO is judging).

[log0]

Personally, I don't use Steam (well, I "use" it from time to time, owning only Portal because it was free of charge at the time, and since I won it I only play for testing it on Linux), and I use only the open source drivers. I do agree that the only benefits for someone who doesn't care about free software from having Steam support here is to avoid paying Windows. However, there are benefits for open source. For a start, they pay the Linux Foundation, which means MAINSTREAM VANILLA KERNEL will receive developers paid with that money. It is different as to what Google does with Android, having their own branch worked locally and publishing on release. This not only means changes get no discussion on their branch (if it fits them, that's enough to accept the patch, contrary to how vanilla works), but that any changes will then be harder to merge. And even though they did this that way, the Summer of Code Google sponsors helps the FOSS community greatly.
Steam itself, I agree, is no direct benefit to FOSS. However, they did help mesa drivers, they did invest in open source tools, and they will be putting money on the vanilla kernel, and all of those are benefits on having Valve working with Linux. It is a closed, proprietary company, and their main product is probably evil according to free software ethics, but the company is at worst gray, as they DO invest in FOSS, be it for selfish or altruist reasons is not really relevant to judge if it is good for FOSS (as this is based on facts, as which license it uses and such), as it is only relevant to ethics (which depends on WHO is judging).

I guess I should have been more exact, with the Google example I meant Android and its blob friendliness. Now GSOC is a completely different story and I hope Google will continue expanding this program.

I am also not judging Valve, well maybe their PR. They are creating a proprietary platform(software), while talking about how they love open source and stuff. Imho if it wasn't for MS and their attempt to copy Mac App Store, I really doubt Valve would give a shit about open source and Linux.

[mrugiero]

I guess I should have been more exact, with the Google example I meant Android and its blob friendliness. Now GSOC is a completely different story and I hope Google will continue expanding this program.

Point taken.

I am also not judging Valve, well maybe their PR. They are creating a proprietary platform(software), while talking about how they love open source and stuff. Imho if it wasn't for MS and their attempt to copy Mac App Store, I really doubt Valve would give a shit about open source and Linux.

Well, it is true that it is a show of hypocrisy to talk about loving open source (not about Linux, as Linux is a kernel and they might love it beside being open source, and not because of this) when their only product on the platform is closed source, even more if they talk about liking free software and then supporting and using DRM. What I was trying to refute is the fact that it is bad they joined the Linux Foundation, not the fact they are hypocrites and don't really give shit about free software. They do play with it, because it seems to be good for their business, and as a side effect free software users (and supporters of freedom in software) get a benefit. I do not recall if it was you who stated it was bad for us, though.

[mmstick]

Point taken.


Well, it is true that it is a show of hypocrisy to talk about loving open source (not about Linux, as Linux is a kernel and they might love it beside being open source, and not because of this) when their only product on the platform is closed source, even more if they talk about liking free software and then supporting and using DRM. What I was trying to refute is the fact that it is bad they joined the Linux Foundation, not the fact they are hypocrites and don't really give shit about free software. They do play with it, because it seems to be good for their business, and as a side effect free software users (and supporters of freedom in software) get a benefit. I do not recall if it was you who stated it was bad for us, though.

They aren't really hyprocrits at all, nor have they displayed any sort of hyprocrisy. It would be highly ignorant to think that. Steam is not just a product, it's a service. I don't see how in the world that Steam would be able to succeed as open source. Steam's DRM too is a necessary requirement. Without it, there would be no Steam today. Unlike other forms of DRM, everyone actually loves Steam's DRM.

[mrugiero]

They aren't really hyprocrits at all, nor have they displayed any sort of hyprocrisy. It would be highly ignorant to think that. Steam is not just a product, it's a service. I don't see how in the world that Steam would be able to succeed as open source. Steam's DRM too is a necessary requirement. Without it, there would be no Steam today. Unlike other forms of DRM, everyone actually loves Steam's DRM.

Again. They are hypocrites if they talk about how much they love open source software, but they don't open source their own. Also, not everyone loves Steam's DRM, Steam wouldn't necessarily be less successful without DRM (as almost every high revenue game has already been cracked, the ones who would pirate the games if there were no DRM already do), and it is still quite the opposite of free software, so they are hypocrites if they say they like free software. Having said this, I have no problem with them, and I find their kind of DRM (non-hardware binding) to be acceptable for me. This doesn't change the facts that (conditional, as I don't know if they did state such things) IF they claim to love open source and free software, they are hypocrites, as they act the opposite way.

[mmstick]

Again. They are hypocrites if they talk about how much they love open source software, but they don't open source their own. Also, not everyone loves Steam's DRM, Steam wouldn't necessarily be less successful without DRM (as almost every high revenue game has already been cracked, the ones who would pirate the games if there were no DRM already do), and it is still quite the opposite of free software, so they are hypocrites if they say they like free software. Having said this, I have no problem with them, and I find their kind of DRM (non-hardware binding) to be acceptable for me. This doesn't change the facts that (conditional, as I don't know if they did state such things) IF they claim to love open source and free software, they are hypocrites, as they act the opposite way.

The only people who don't like Steam's DRM are either noobs who are new to the Steam thing, or complete idiots (see trolls). If you don't like their DRM, then you obviously aren't a gamer. You also seem to have little clue about Valve and piracy considering Gabe Newell stated piracy is encouraged because pirates distribute games better than publishers and their draconian DRM. Steam is different from that, as Steam delivers a better service and distributes games better than a pirate. With Steam's DRM you get Steam community access, Steam achievements, Steam cards, ability to track hours, download and redownload your games at any time on a high speed network, the ease of use of access to Steam-integrated online games which make creating dedicated servers and starting up lobby-based multiplayer games and easily connecting to your friends games without needing to port forward all the better.

Don't you realize that without DRM, no publisher would have ever sold their games on Steam? And even if they did, they would have insisted on using their own form of DRM instead of opting to using Steams? Would you really want to go back to that era of PC gaming? It wasn't a nice place.

I highly doubt that joining the Linux Foundation, and actively getting into Linux development, shows hyprocrisy. They've already done a lot for Linux in the last year alone. Actually, without them, I probably wouldn't even be here in the first place because my RadeonSI card was unsupported until Steam For Linux showed up and Valve was putting pressure on NVIDIA, AMD, Mesa, and dabbling in kernel mailing lists. What kind of open source software are you expecting from a game developer who is developing open source tools for other game developers, has been actively working on fixing bugs and porting their Steam service, working on porting all of their games (and still isn't done), has such deep integration into the foundations of Linux, and is even working on bringing Linux to the living room to provide a PC-console hybrid gaming experience? Is that not enough?

[mrugiero]

The only people who don't like Steam's DRM are either noobs who are new to the Steam thing, or complete idiots (see trolls). If you don't like their DRM, then you obviously aren't a gamer. You also seem to have little clue about Valve and piracy considering Gabe Newell stated piracy is encouraged because pirates distribute games better than publishers and their draconian DRM. Steam is different from that, as Steam delivers a better service and distributes games better than a pirate. With Steam's DRM you get Steam community access, Steam achievements, Steam cards, ability to track hours, download and redownload your games at any time on a high speed network, the ease of use of access to Steam-integrated online games which make creating dedicated servers and starting up lobby-based multiplayer games and easily connecting to your friends games without needing to port forward all the better.

Don't you realize that without DRM, no publisher would have ever sold their games on Steam? And even if they did, they would have insisted on using their own form of DRM instead of opting to using Steams? Would you really want to go back to that era of PC gaming? It wasn't a nice place.

I'm aware of all of that. I am not a gamer, you got that right, though. Still, this doesn't mean "everyone love Steam's DRM". I recognize other forms are far worse, and even though I don't find their way crippling, I'm indifferent to it, rather than "loving" it. And again, from a free software perspective, every form of DRM, even the best ones, are bad, as they are there to ban you from distributing (one of the basic software freedoms).

I highly doubt that joining the Linux Foundation, and actively getting into Linux development, shows hyprocrisy. They've already done a lot for Linux in the last year alone. Actually, without them, I probably wouldn't even be here in the first place because my RadeonSI card was unsupported until Steam For Linux showed up and Valve was putting pressure on NVIDIA, AMD, Mesa, and dabbling in kernel mailing lists. What kind of open source software are you expecting from a game developer who is developing open source tools for other game developers, has been actively working on fixing bugs and porting their Steam service, working on porting all of their games (and still isn't done), has such deep integration into the foundations of Linux, and is even working on bringing Linux to the living room to provide a PC-console hybrid gaming experience? Is that not enough?

Let me know what about what I wrote leads you to think I said joining the Linux Foundation and actively getting into Linux development shows hypocrisy, please. I clearly said it is only in the claims of loving open source and free software that they could be considered hypocrites, by heaven's sake I wouldn't say the same for actively helping. If you read my other posts, I clearly stated that it is actually good for free software, even when their motivation is far from altruist (and most investor's motivations are far from altruist anyway). AMD was already actively working on hardware enabling before Steam showed up on Linux, so at most you could say it got faster thanks to Steam. I already noted all of the good things Steam did for free software. Again, I'm not denying they did contribute, and I appreciate, and Valve is currently the most open source friendly company on the gaming industry. Again, what I'm saying is (or would be) hypocritical is not the deeds, which are good and consistent, but the claims. If you love something, you don't go the other way around with your battle horse, as simple as that. Considering open source tools great tools and loving open source are different things. If you love open source, you prefer open source software precisely because it is open source. If you love good quality, you prefer *some* open source tools because they are good quality. Valve is more in the latter, otherwise they would try to be more open with their other services. Still, they are the most open gaming company I know of, specially as they (AFAIK) will keep their SteamOS mostly open source, they work with mainstream, they impose no restrictions on distributing custom SteamBoxes, and their controller will be open source.

[GreatEmerald]

The only people who don't like Steam's DRM are either noobs who are new to the Steam thing, or complete idiots (see trolls). If you don't like their DRM, then you obviously aren't a gamer. You also seem to have little clue about Valve and piracy considering Gabe Newell stated piracy is encouraged because pirates distribute games better than publishers and their draconian DRM. Steam is different from that, as Steam delivers a better service and distributes games better than a pirate. With Steam's DRM you get Steam community access, Steam achievements, Steam cards, ability to track hours, download and redownload your games at any time on a high speed network, the ease of use of access to Steam-integrated online games which make creating dedicated servers and starting up lobby-based multiplayer games and easily connecting to your friends games without needing to port forward all the better.

Don't you realize that without DRM, no publisher would have ever sold their games on Steam? And even if they did, they would have insisted on using their own form of DRM instead of opting to using Steams? Would you really want to go back to that era of PC gaming? It wasn't a nice place.

No. Steam's DRM is horrible. It requires you to be online every time you want to play a game (unless you're in offline mode and thus disabled half the Steam functionality to begin with) ? if your internet is down, bye bye your entire game collection!; it slows down game load times significantly (what's worse, it slows down the start time of game development tools, like UnrealEd!); all your games disappear once Steam goes down; all the "features" you list are useless. They can be gained by using XFire (community access, OSD, hour tracking, multiplayer setup) or are largely unnecessary (achievements, which are just there for bragging rights, have always existed in the form of personal challenges and can be better showcased through let's plays, or are integrated into games themselves therefore don't even need Steam; or cards, which sounds like a really silly concept). The redownloading part is also completely unnecessary, because guess what, with no DRM, you get to "redownload" your game at speeds of 6 Gbps! And by far you can be a gamer without using it ? there are lots and lots of games that don't use it or are DRM-free that you can play (just look at the GOG game list).

And no again, games on Steam use their own DRM regardless of the layer added by Steam. Which means you get double DRM. That's not helping anyone in the slightest. And some publishers would publish their titles happily on Steam if there was no DRM just the same (if they are DRM-free, like everyone who publishes on GOG, or use their own DRM, in which case they don't need Steam's).