Valve Writes About Their Linux Client Plans

[Kristian Joensen]

I am pretty skeptical of that claim. Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding.

[AJSB]

Open world games are games like GTA 4, Skyrim, Fallout 3/New Vegas, ... .

The only of those that i have is F3 and it works flawless in windows 32bit , even in WinXP...

[TobiSGD]

The only of those that i have is F3 and it works flawless in windows 32bit , even in WinXP...

Right, that 2008 game works in 32 bit, so why should we progress at all?

[AJSB]

Right, that 2008 game works in 32 bit, so why should we progress at all?

I didn't said that....it simply of those in the list provided is the only one that i have ...i don't like and shouldn't comment about games that i never played....or i was supposed to make up facts about Skyrim ?!? i never played it in any OS, so, how can i ever can comment about it and 32bit vs 64bit OSs ?

[gamerk2]

IIRC, we are talking about Steam here. You won't download physical media via Steam and it should be no problem at all for the client to determine if you run 32 or 64 bit Linux.

How many developers (aside from Valve, obviously) use Steam as their primary distribution platform? Sure, if you go all digital, no problem (assuming you have the ability to develop a 64-bit exe). Otherwise, you have to be aware of disk space limitations when shipping your media.

[gamerk2]

That's downright disturbing. An entire Ubuntu or OS X install, after decompression, is only about 5 GB. Who are these game developers building 2 GB binaries and why have they not been flogged profusely?

Well, it depends how much you want in the .exe proper, and how much you want in outside binaries.

[gamerk2]

Right, that 2008 game works in 32 bit, so why should we progress at all?

Why should support be dropped for ~60% of the total market, for very minimal performance gain and no financial benefit?

[TobiSGD]

Why should support be dropped for ~60% of the total market, for very minimal performance gain and no financial benefit?

Where did I state that there should be no 32 bit exe? As I said before:

It shouldn't be that hard to compile a program for 32 and 64 bit and let the user decide which one to use (or some kind of automatism in the installer).

[Kristian Joensen]

Well, it depends how much you want in the .exe proper, and how much you want in outside binaries.

Dude, what we take issue with is ALL binaries even approaching that.

[meklu]

I've never seen an executable take up even 30MB (let alone a freaking gigabyte!), unless it's been an installer that's contained all the assets in it. Usually they're just a few megs.