"Microsoft's done their best to kill gaming on PC"

It's the cool thing to hate Microsoft. That's all. Nothing is wrong with gaming on Windows.
If they would bring some of their titles to the PC AND Xbox One instead of making them exclusive then we'd be in business.
 
MetalX said:
Spoken like someone with little or no development experience on Windows.
Click to expand...

And do you have massive experience in game development on windows vs linux? Is one better than the other? I can gaurantee Linux has no development advantage to windows, Directx API is pretty damn straight forward, all engines are developed for it. Spoken like someone who has no development experience period.
 
Windows has by far the best dev environment and dev tools. Anything else is a joke, at least a decade behind in usability and features.

2 words - Visual Studio. End of all discussion.
 
For 99% of the population, pc == Windows. If you want to run on other platforms, you target consoles? Steam box is an alternative to consoles which Valve can control. That's their only reason for choosing to base it on Linux.
 
Carouselambra said:
It's the cool thing to hate Microsoft. That's all.
Click to expand...

Either hyperbole for effect or you don’t know what hate means. In reality some of the most vocal critics of Microsoft's Metro/Xbone era of blundering are the biggest historical users of Microsoft products.

Carouselambra said:
Nothing is wrong with gaming on Windows.
Click to expand...

Sure there isn't.. NOW. But there was a bad period where just about every developer was cancelling PC versions and focusing all their dollars on console development exclusively, until Steam slowly began bringing PC gaming back from that brink.

What did Microsoft do during that time that developers were abandoning PC development in droves? Nothing. "Just buy an Xbox" was their answer. Oh yes, and GFWL - which hurt PC gaming more than it helped. They were happy to let PC gaming twist in the wind. Sure, they kicked out an incremental DirectX every few years to coincide with a new Windows version release, but that did little more than encourage all but the biggest AAA developers to avoid it and keep developing for older DX versions in order to reach the biggest buying pool, since MS placed new DX versions behind a paywall. And so here we are in 2014 and games are still coming out based on XP era DirectX.

So after Valve carried the platform through its darkest days (my eyes moisten a little) and inspired the digital distro model for which competing offerings like Origin and others would begin to take root, and then Microsoft decides to signal that it was interested in moving the Windows platform to a closed, walled garden going forward (and if that wasn't their intention they did a catastrophic job of conveying it), Valve had every right to be concerned about their platform's future, and every reason to develop a hedging strategy and diversify so that their platform was not solely dependent on the whims of another corporation whose heads have been everywhere but PC gaming.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
That's a cop out, and flat out wrong. Some of the loudest critics of Microsoft's Metro/Xbone era of blundering are the biggest users of Microsoft products.



Sure there isn't.. NOW. But there was a long period where just about every developer was cancelling PC versions and focusing all their dollars on consoles exclusively, until Steam singlehandedly brought PC gaming back from that chasm.

What did Microsoft do during that time that developers were abandoning PC development in droves? Nada. Zip. Jack shit. "Just buy an Xbox" was their answer.

So after Valve carried the platform through its darkest days, and Microsoft to signal that it was interested in moving the platform to a closed, walled garden ecosystem going forward, Valve had every right to be concerned about their future, and every reason to develop a hedging strategy and diversify so that their platform was not solely dependent on the whims of another corporation whose heads were somewhere other than PC gaming.
Click to expand...

When exactly did this happen? Pretty much never. There was never an abandonment of PC development if anything, its worse now with us getting shitty ports like Dark Souls II. developers are focusing on consoles because their is higher volume/potential sales.
 
Ever since I first started gaming on PC, which was 1998, there has always been strong game releases on Windows. No matter what the consoles were doing, there was always some great gaming to be had on PC. Sure there were some devs who abandon PC for the consoles, but devs that hung in there and produced a great game for PC did alright. If you made a hit title on PC you did well.

Windows is an important gaming platform. I don't think Microsoft or the devs themselves want to see it killed. A Windows PC is the superior gaming platform. It has a huge world wide install base, and anyone who develops a worthy game, or a popular game, on Windows makes money. Even the Indies.
 
Poordevil said:
Windows is an important gaming platform. I don't think Microsoft or the devs themselves want to see it killed.
Click to expand...

The statement in the title of this thread by a game developer is obvious hyperbole for effect. Ofcourse Microsoft doesn't want to see it killed, because it helps their platform. What's on trial is that they've done pretty much nothing to prevent it from happening, other than suddenly announce a new version of DirectX coming in 18-24 months after it became apparent that SteamOS was shaping up into actually becoming a thing. And it was seemingly only after SteamOS became more prolific in tech news that MS reps suddenly began making statements about "Microsoft needing to do more for PC gaming".

Meanwhile Microsoft continues to devote all of the resources of its first party owned studios into development for Xbox exclusively. That's it.
 
DPI said:
The statement in the title of this thread by a game developer is obvious hyperbole for effect. Ofcourse Microsoft doesn't want to see it killed, because it helps their platform. What's on trial is that they've done pretty much nothing to prevent it from happening, other than suddenly announce a new version of DirectX coming in 18-24 months after it became apparent that SteamOS was shaping up into actually becoming a thing. And it was seemingly only after SteamOS became more prolific in tech news that MS reps suddenly began making statements about "Microsoft needing to do more for PC gaming".

Meanwhile Microsoft continues to devote all of the resources of its first party owned studios into development for Xbox exclusively. That's it.
Click to expand...

What more does microsoft have to do besides develop a graphics library? That is the ONLY thing an OS is responsible for. SteamOS is a joke, it offers absolutely nothing to the community that doesnt already exist. The graphics libraries are the exact same that are already on linux OS's. Adding a pretty little custom GUI to linux wont all of a sudden make it a more viable market for developers, especially when it is an extremely canned group. Nobody is going to trash their HTPCs to suddenly run steam os on it when every other feature of an HTPC media wise is junk on linux platforms.
 
DPI said:
The statement in the title of this thread by a game developer is obvious hyperbole for effect. Ofcourse Microsoft doesn't want to see it killed, because it helps their platform. What's on trial is that they've done pretty much nothing to prevent it from happening, other than suddenly announce a new version of DirectX coming in 18-24 months after it became apparent that SteamOS was shaping up into actually becoming a thing. And it was seemingly only after SteamOS became more prolific in tech news that MS reps suddenly began making statements about "Microsoft needing to do more for PC gaming".

Meanwhile Microsoft continues to devote all of the resources of its first party owned studios into development for Xbox exclusively. That's it.
Click to expand...

So Gabe and Steam has got Microsoft nervous. Great! so much the better. A little competition goes a long way. We might see some fast progress with the 4K trend and Direct X roll outs. Look what a little competition did for Diablo 3. Path of Exile raised its head and all of a sudden D3 is retooled, rebalanced, and has an expansion! Gabe and company might light a fire under Microsoft's ass.
 
Poordevil said:
So Gabe and Steam has got Microsoft nervous. Great!
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence of this?

I mean, the amount of Linux users (according to Valve's own hardware survey) on Steam is outnumbered by Windows 8 users by a factor of 20 - 1. Windows 7 users on Steam outnumber Linux users by a factor of 60 - 1.

I'm not an industry analyst, but those numbers don't jump out at me as indicating a groundswell.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Is there any evidence of this?

I mean, the amount of Linux users (according to Valve's own hardware survey) on Steam is outnumbered by Windows 8 users by a factor of 20 - 1. Windows 7 users on Steam outnumber Linux users by a factor of 60 - 1.

I'm not an industry analyst, but those numbers don't jump out at me as indicating a groundswell.
Click to expand...

He's referring to SteamOS, which hasn't officially launched yet, so "Linux users on Steam" is a red herring stat that I wouldn't rely on to remain static.

And yes, MS is keenly aware of it. Reps have made statements about it.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
He's referring to SteamOS, which hasn't officially launched yet, so "Linux users on Steam" is a red herring stat that I wouldn't rely on to remain static.

And yes, MS is keenly aware of its existence and the fact its coming. Reps have made statements about it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it mattered much. They were going to update Windows/DX one way or another. With DX12 still a long way off I don't think they moved up plans for development/implementation any quicker. I think they are simply waiting for the next OS as Win 8 doesn't have such a stellar reputation regardless if it was earned or not.
 
DPI said:
He's referring to SteamOS, which hasn't officially launched yet, so "Linux users on Steam" is a red herring stat that I wouldn't rely on to remain static.

And yes, MS is keenly aware of it. Reps have made statements about it.
Click to expand...

See this is the kind of thing that makes me laugh.

1) SteamOS will have far fewer numbers than Linux, and btw, its based on Linux... As an experienced Linux user, why would I pay all that money for a Steam box or get SteamOS just to play the games I can already play on my Linux box which is configured the way I want?

2) Is MS aware of it? Certainly, its in one of their fields. Are they that concerned about it? Not really.
 
You obviously don't need SteamOS. Is it difficult to understand that there exist certain products not meant for certain users?
 
wonderfield said:
You obviously don't need SteamOS. Is it difficult to understand that there exist certain products not meant for certain users?
Click to expand...

I mean this with all sincerity: who does need SteamOS? I understand what Valve is trying to do, but what benefits is it bringing to you? I'm struggling to see the value added with SteamOS.
 
SteamOS is a novelty that will be "free" to play with. It's like XBMC for games. There isn't a need for it per say, just that you can use your games on your tv in a different way. Not necessarily a better or worse way, just different.
 
chinesepiratefood said:
Android is popular for a number of reasons, but using the linux kernel isn't one of those reasons.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I imagine the exact same will hold true for SteamOS as well (if it becomes popular at all, that is...like quadnad said, I don't fully see the benefit of it over what already exists).
 
Carouselambra said:
SteamOS is a novelty that will be "free" to play with. It's like XBMC for games. There isn't a need for it per say, just that you can use your games on your tv in a different way. Not necessarily a better or worse way, just different.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the XBMC comparison is a little flimsy. If however XBMC was being developed by the (hypothetical) largest and most successful digital distributor of TV shows and Movies, then a comparison to SteamOS might begin to be relevant.
 
DPI said:
Sorry, but the XBMC comparison is a little flimsy. If however XBMC was being developed by the (hypothetical) largest and most successful digital distributor of TV and Movies, then a SteamOS comparison to it might be a little more relevant.
Click to expand...

No its not. The fact that it is developed by valve means jack shit. SteamOS provides absolutely nothing but a GUI on top of a linux kernal. The developer itself means nothing when its intended function is the same.

Im not going to switch all my computers to linux just because OMG ITS VALVE!!!!
 
VladDracule said:
No its not. The fact that it is developed by valve means jack shit. SteamOS provides absolutely nothing but a GUI on top of a linux kernal. The developer itself means nothing when its intended function is the same.

Im not going to switch all my computers to linux just because OMG ITS VALVE!!!!
Click to expand...

You really think that every time a publisher or engine developer makes news announcing SteamOS plans and support - that its because "SteamOS is nothing but a GUI on top of linux" and "the developer itself meaning nothing"? All the work Valve's doing behind the scenes corralling support, bringing Nvidia engineers in house, creating development tools and getting partners on board is hard to appreciate and get a sense of, since it's happening... behind the scenes.

As for "switching all your computers to linux", silly strawman argument aside its not what Valve's expectations are of anyone. Or at least I haven't read any statements to that effect. If you have, by all means, links please.
 
Last edited:
LOTD has been a joke for a decade. Gaming on Linux is an even bigger joke. Valve is a big name, but adding a GUI launcher won't suddenly make all of Linux's problems magically vanish. Its putting lipstick on a pig.

A gaming box built on WinRT, which btw has no license fees now and is just as free as Linux but much more capable and modern, makes much more sense. You get a modern OS, proper dev tools, and instant compatibility with hundreds of millions of pc's, Xbox consoles, WP phones etc. Instead of a hobbyist OS that no normal user has or will ever have.
 
DPI said:
You really think that every time a publisher or engine developer makes news announcing SteamOS plans and support - that its because "SteamOS is nothing but a GUI on top of linux" and "the developer itself meaning nothing"? All the work Valve's doing behind the scenes corralling support, bringing Nvidia engineers in house, creating development tools and getting partners on board is hard to appreciate and get a sense of, since it's happening... behind the scenes.

As for "switching all your computers to linux", silly strawman argument aside its not what Valve's expectations are of anyone. Or at least I haven't read any statements to that effect. If you have, by all means, links please.
Click to expand...

What more do you think SteamOS is? Is a freaking operating system built from a linux kernal, this is NOTHING new. Controller support? Sweet write a driver, its nothing that no other peripheral maker for windows doesnt already do. Dev Tools? Awesome, theyre developed using the API for that operating system, pretty sure thats the exact same as its done on windows. It is a GUI, nothing more. Every other thing such as controller support and engine support is already in place for linux kernals and linux library APIs. There is NEVER going to be a unique engine to steamos, you can count on it. Unless it is a half baked thing that some indie dev comes up with. The user base is not going to be broad enough to warrant exclusivity on things such as engines or games.

Every single thing SteamOS is trying to be has already been done in windows with HTPCs.
 
Wow at this thread. Regarding the Windows PC gaming thing, it is pretty simple. Windows will be the dominant PC game platform, until it isn't anymore. If people seriously believe that Windows will dominate PC gaming in perpetuity, they haven't been paying attention to the tech industry for the last 5 decades and are more delusional than "year of the linux desktop people". Winners come and go, no matter how big they are. Sometimes explosively, sometimes gradually.

That said, I will happily keep buying my Windows PC games and enjoying it, until something better comes along. As consumers, that is what we do anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for being the grammar police, but why do people keep using dominate instead of dominant? Its becoming really popular and is very annoying.
 
Linux still to this day doesn't have a standard for *anything* - GUI, printing, sound, file systems. Its all a bunch of people reinventing the wheel and frankly, copying Windows, every few years because NIH is the primary driving force in Linux and they'll never ever reuse anything.

Valve just wants their own box they can control, its like a Linux console for Valve games, not some revolution that will change the world of gaming.
 
MrCrispy said:
Sorry for being the grammar police, but why do people keep using dominate instead of dominant? Its becoming really popular and is very annoying.
Click to expand...

Cuz i dunt wurd so gud.

Seriously though, I left the verb form in after I restructured the sentence when I should have replaced it with the adjective form. The simple explanation is people make mistakes. To my credit I had correctly used the verb form the second time around.
 
I point to criticism of SteamOS from Forbes, PC Gamer and Ars Techinca - the Linux crowd rejects it as "troll posts" or "BS". I point to the rate of Linux adoption among Steam users - it's rejected as being a "red herring".

There is no criticism of Linux as a gaming OS that is valid in the eyes of Linux evangelists. You just simply cannot speak logic and reason to these people. Which is ironic, as they present themselves as being more open-minded then the unwashed Windows masses.
 
crusty_juggler said:
I point to criticism of SteamOS from Forbes, PC Gamer and Ars Techinca - the Linux crowd rejects it as "troll posts" or "BS". I point to the rate of Linux adoption among Steam users - it's rejected as being a "red herring".

There is no criticism of Linux as a gaming OS that is valid in the eyes of Linux evangelists. You just simply cannot speak logic and reason to these people. Which is ironic, as they present themselves as being more open-minded then the unwashed Windows masses.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a valid technical criticism of Linux as a gaming OS. The valid non-technical criticisms are that it has a huge dearth of games and it's not the monopoly OS so nobody is interested in it.

I'm not sure these affect Valve's plans though.
 
jwcalla said:
I don't think there's a valid technical criticism of Linux as a gaming OS. The valid non-technical criticisms are that it has a huge dearth of games and it's not the monopoly OS so nobody is interested in it.

I'm not sure these affect Valve's plans though.
Click to expand...

Their absolutely is valid technical criticism of linux. The fact that so many different distros exist is a criticism. It makes nothing a standard. Even drivers have some distro issues. Ive found wifi cards where the drivers work perfectly in ubuntu but are absolute garbage in Mint or Open Suse.

Linux distros dont properly use software abstraction which leaves dependencies that dont exist in windows. That is and always will be the downfall of open source development. Standards exist for a reason
 
VladDracule said:
Their absolutely is valid technical criticism of linux. The fact that so many different distros exist is a criticism.
Click to expand...

It's a criticism but it's not a valid criticism. Game developers have no need to care about distros. If id Software was distributing Doom 3 as a single zip file off an ftp server nearly a decade ago, devs today shouldn't have any problems.

This is one of the myths that I hear. If you want the easiest way, just target the Steam runtime. Valve makes it super-easy for you. Otherwise you can just package your libraries with your distributables.

Standards exist for a reason
Click to expand...

There is some irony here in that Microsoft has no interest in any industry standards at all. MS makes their own standard (usually closed and non-licensable) and that's what everyone else in the world has to follow. The problem is it puts the users in a position of dependence on MS. DirectX, SMB, Office, NTFS, .NET -- these are distinctly and intentionally non-portable items, and some of them are things that are "kinda important" (like NTFS).

Compare to the alternative truly open standards that are available for implementation across a variety of platforms.
 
jwcalla said:
It's a criticism but it's not a valid criticism. Game developers have no need to care about distros. If id Software was distributing Doom 3 as a single zip file off an ftp server nearly a decade ago, devs today shouldn't have any problems.

This is one of the myths that I hear. If you want the easiest way, just target the Steam runtime. Valve makes it super-easy for you. Otherwise you can just package your libraries with your distributables.



There is some irony here in that Microsoft has no interest in any industry standards at all. MS makes their own standard (usually closed and non-licensable) and that's what everyone else in the world has to follow. The problem is it puts the users in a position of dependence on MS. DirectX, SMB, Office, NTFS, .NET -- these are distinctly and intentionally non-portable items, and some of them are things that are "kinda important" (like NTFS).

Compare to the alternative truly open standards that are available for implementation across a variety of platforms.
Click to expand...

Why is microsoft creating the standard any different than open standards? Its the exact same thing, and its exactly what is lacking in Linux/Unix. code wise, even Linux has the same things. Simple programming example, opening and "binding" to a socket syntax is different in Linux than it is in Unix. Your criticizing things about MS that Linux itself does. Is linux not dependent on opengl? And the distros absolutely do matter to developers. I can very easially find a list of games that work well on ubuntu but dont on mint.
 
VladDracule said:
Why is microsoft creating the standard any different than open standards? Its the exact same thing, and its exactly what is lacking in Linux/Unix. code wise, even Linux has the same things. Simple programming example, opening and "binding" to a socket syntax is different in Linux than it is in Unix. Your criticizing things about MS that Linux itself does. Is linux not dependent on opengl? And the distros absolutely do matter to developers. I can very easially find a list of games that work well on ubuntu but dont on mint.
Click to expand...

Of course kernel system calls are different on Linux vs. Solaris vs. Windows vs. BSD vs. OS X. They all use different kernels. What does that have to do with it? They're going to be different everywhere.

And sure Linux commonly uses OpenGL (though not dependent on it). So what? OpenGL is an open industry standard that is cross-platform. Direct3D isn't. Do you see where I'm going here?
 
jwcalla said:
Of course kernel system calls are different on Linux vs. Solaris vs. Windows vs. BSD vs. OS X. They all use different kernels. What does that have to do with it? They're going to be different everywhere.

And sure Linux commonly uses OpenGL (though not dependent on it). So what? OpenGL is an open industry standard that is cross-platform. Direct3D isn't. Do you see where I'm going here?
Click to expand...

A standard is still a standard. It doesnt matter who created the standard so long as other people can follow it. No difference
 
VladDracule said:
No its not. The fact that it is developed by valve means jack shit. SteamOS provides absolutely nothing but a GUI on top of a linux kernel.
Click to expand...
Actually, they're tuning the kernel and other systems for latency. It's not just window dressing.

MrCrispy said:
Valve just wants their own box they can control, its like a Linux console for Valve games, not some revolution that will change the world of gaming.
Click to expand...
Considering they've announced no plans to produce any commercial Steam Boxes, Steam Box partners don't need to license anything or adhere to any requirements, and considering SteamOS is itself open source (save for the Steam bits itself, obviously), your claim here is a bit dubious.

What is it do you feel they are attempting to control?

VladDracule said:
A standard is still a standard. It doesnt matter who created the standard so long as other people can follow it. No difference
Click to expand...
Direct3D isn't a standard. It's an API Microsoft provides on their various platforms.
 
For those of us with a OS X computer, the idea of SteamOS makes some sense. It will be free and evidently there is to be more support by Steam to get games running on SteamOS than there has been getting them to run on OS X.

Bootcamping into 8.1 on the fly feels clunky. SteamOS is not available yet, but I for one will probably give it a try.
 
bvbz said:
For those of us with a OS X computer, the idea of SteamOS makes some sense. It will be free and evidently there is to be more support by Steam to get games running on SteamOS than there has been getting them to run on OS X.

Bootcamping into 8.1 on the fly feels clunky. SteamOS is not available yet, but I for one will probably give it a try.
Click to expand...

So the benefit from your perspective is that SteamOS is free, whereas Windows costs $100 for you to use? While that is obviously a savings, at least at this point if you want to be a gamer there is an infinitely larger game library on Windows.
 
quadnad said:
So the benefit from your perspective is that SteamOS is free, whereas Windows costs $100 for you to use? While that is obviously a savings, at least at this point if you want to be a gamer there is an infinitely larger game library on Windows.
Click to expand...

One would think that Steam would endeavor to make a respectable library of popular games from recent years as well as big titles going forward. If they do not, then it surely will fail and I have to think they know that. Sure, there will be games that will not be added to the SteamOS library, but if I'm realistic I play maybe 5% of the games on my normal steam library as is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top