Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve Writes About Their Linux Client Plans

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

  • #71
    I am pretty skeptical of that claim. Hopefully it is just a misunderstanding.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
      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...

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by AJSB View Post
        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?

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
          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 ?

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                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?

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                  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).

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X