SteamOS Will Not Have Exclusive Games

[Sarge034]

First off, for the love of god only post the portions of the reply that were for you.

You said STEAM OS data mines you that does nothing.

Ok. SHOW ME IT DOES NOT! You can't because while it might be based on Linux you don't know if or how it was modified. Linux can be used to undermine your security and slip past your firewalls (ie Linux on the PS3) so even if there is no first party data mining show me proof that the system can not be used for third parties to data mine you.

I said its an insurance policy for PC gaming.

And I said it did nothing a PC couldn't do, but I'll play ball with this one. The steam OS is an insurance policy for PC gaming is it? You said that MS could block steam if it didn't pay them money. So will MS games and services magically work on the steam OS or do ya think they might lock them out of that too? And is steam the last bastion of hope for free PC gaming? Cus last I checked there was GoG and the like dealing in games without ANY DRM and make no mistake Steam is DRM.

 

[Oskuro]

Why bother? What does this add to my experience?

You keep bringing up this point, yet I fail to see how exclusive titles bring anything "new". An exclusive title is an artificial limitation meant to force players to buy specific hardware, not only does it NOT bring anything new, but it actually takes freedom of choice AWAY from the consumer.

What this brings to the table is the possibility of OS/Hardware manufacturers focusing on making the best products they can, without relying on exclusivity deals (money) to artificially boost sales.

Someone mentioned the idea of a "one console future". The only "one console" future worth having is one where, no matter what physical console a consumer buys, she can play ANY GAME SHE CHOOSES on it.

Additionally, this means that developers won't be tied to an specific hardware/OS, and thus won't sink if the Hardware/OS manufacturers mishandle their product (as has happened countless times, and not only on gaming... Ask anyone who adopted J# before Microsoft pulled the plug).

If Valve keeps it's word on this, they might just have earned my support, both as consumer and (hobbyist) developer.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

You mean, no reason for YOU to get it.

If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-

Wow, someone who understands!

Even if I don't initially install SteamOS, I'm glad that it exists as an option if MS goes even more retarded post-Ballmer.

Captcha: it's super effective (lets hope so Captcha)

 

[Petromir]

HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well.

Whats this IF, you can dual boot OSX, and apple don't want you to, but you still can. The problems with dual booting has more commonly been hardware related than software, and since all the steam boxes effectively use off the shelf parts for PCs that shouldnt be an issue.

Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

Not as capable as Linux, please go back to the start, engage your brain and then read even a small part of the info which will tell you that SteamOS is effectively a linux distro, so being not capable as linux would mean its not as capable as itself....... Theres been nothing to suggest that this distro will lock out anything, only that it will have features designed to make it work better with a TV/controller style arrangement and nothing to suggest that a more traditional desktop mode wont be present, almost like they are replicating the current steam options, just built into the OS.....



I do plan to dual boot it (am even hoping that they fix it for dual booters to be able to have 95+% of a games files shared between OSs so I can access games avaliable on both on both without duplicate installs).

I don't share quite the gloom of others about MS plans for windows, I cant see them locking things down more than OSX is, and that still lets me install 3rd party programs from sources other than their own store, which OSX has had far longer than windows has.

A move to cross platformal compeiters to DirectX as being pushed by AMD at least is only good for consumers. The reason wine et al tend to have issues on osx and linux is often due to emulation of directx and other MS protocals. PC gaming (and by that I use PC to refer to OSX, Windows and Linux machines) these days mostly needs the shift to platform agnostic protocals like OpenGL for it to become platmform agnostic itself.

 

[Teoes]

HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

Well the machines are going to be hackable and moddable, plus the OS itself will be freely available with the source code. Even if somehow the "official" Steam machines aren't capable of supporting a dual boot set-up there'd be nothing stopping you getting hold of any old standard Windows PC and putting the Steam OS on it to dual boot.

 

[Yopaz]

OT: I can't see why they wouldn't want to put something like Half Life 3 (or Left 4 Dead 3 or Portal 3 or Team Fortress 3) as an exclusive for either the SteamOS or their Steam Machines or at the very least having them as timed exclusives. Sure, they gain a bit of good will (Which I don't think they could possibly get more, on the Escapist anyway) but it puts both the SteamOS and the Steam Machines at an even greater risk of just failing completely. Exclusives was how they made Steam as dominating as it is now after all.

Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.

 

[Battenberg]

Great for gamers, possibly not so much for Valve. I think both the Steam OS and Steam Machine will have to be that much better to make up for a 'feature' that all the other consoles will happily bring up when competing with it. But if it does manage that then maybe it will have a positive effect on the game industry, reducing or even eliminating the concept of exclusives over time.

As long as the price point is right I think I'll probably be getting some form of Steam product for next gen as they'r fast becoming the most exciting alternative to the current stale console market.

 

[Mromson]

Your negativity is baffling.

To be completely honest I get really edgy when people flock to Valve because... Valve. In this very thread I have seen them be called, among other kind names, the "good guy greg of the industry" and that really pisses me off. What have they done to earn that? They said they were going to do HL in an episodic manner to release cheaper games faster but in order to do that the games had to be shorter. We, as the community, were ok with that so we gave it a go. One outta three aint bad, I guess.

And consoles are just PCs too. PCs that run exclusives. Nothing more.

This is true, but what I was trying to show was at least they bring something unique to the table (the exclusives) to make themselves competitive in the market. Like I said I do want exclusivity to go away, but until it goes away uniformly then those with exclusives will always be more competitive in the market.

I don't think you've seen very much Valve flocking of any kind in this thread. This isn't just another player joining the Linux market, Valve is big (and rich) enough to make a significant impact on the future development of Linux - just on that merit alone, especially compared to the competition, you'd be hard pressed to do anything but praise them for it. You might not be aware of this, but having someone this big join in on the development of Linux is really a big deal - as they won't simply be porting over a OS, but also developing for it, something that helps ALL Linux distributors, not just Valve.

They've already created the OS, which means they've already put in significant contributions to various Linux drivers - whether or not that will end up breaking the issues with Linux will be determined later, but some work is already unquestionably done.

The main make or break point will be the interface, Linux has a major interface usability issue in every distro I've encountered, so if they can break the ice in that department then they might as well be holding on to a killer-app in and of itself. Exclusivity is nothing compared to that. There are plenty of games on the Xbox that I'd love to play, but the exclusive nature of the system prevents me from purchasing, as the investment simply isn't worth it for me, and no game on the PC runs better on an Xbox. But are you trying to tell us that you wouldn't play the latest games on SteamOS if said games performed better on said OS? Would you stick around with Windows if SteamOS provides a better user interface and usability?

it's the hope that SteamOS will provide a competition to Windows. Linux is already superior to Windows, it's just not as user-friendly. If Valve can make it user friendly, without locking it ala-Apple, then they'll do a considerable service to consumers worldwide, not just gamers.

 

[CriticalMiss]

I wasn't really expecting there to be any exclusives, at least any permanent ones. A couple of timed exclusives to launch the thing sure but it would be silly to expect Valve to ransom off some of their highly-anticipated-but-not-real games to try and sell a few more boxes.

 

[Clovus]

The point of the console is to be an alternative to other next gen consoles.

It may not have any that are steam OS exclusive, but there are MANY PC games that never make it to consoles that it will play that other consoles wont.

But you said it yourself... It plays PC games. You know what else plays PC games? PCs do. It is not an alternative to the "other" next gen consoles because the steam box is not a next gen console. It is a box running PC software to play the PC titles on your PC. Why not just hook up your computer to a big TV and link in a USB controller?

And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?

As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.

As for Steam OS, naturally they will have their store front built in, so they will still be making money through the simplicity of clicking to buy a game, and the people who buy the steam box will likely buy a number of games through steam as well.

And this brings up the question again. If I can do the same thing and play the same games on my PC, what is the point?

Because not everyone has a PC that can run games that well? Some that dont think they are smart enough to build their own PCs?

And dear god, you couldnt be more wrong. Neither of them connect to the internet...At all, neither have microtransactions... at all... and neither have advertisments in the slightest. They are completely free and are fun, and pretty damn awesome, you are just too cynical.

And see my first part.

Not true. Dwarf Fortress has microtransactions. The only way you can get a hand crayon (pronounced "cran") drawing is to make a "donation". Only then will Tarn and his brother go to their grandma's house and sit around playing with crayons. Breaking out the wallet is also the only way to get a few ANSI characters and a story written by Tarn's brother about the characters. Dwarf Fortress pretty much invented microtransactions.

 

[w00tage]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

You mean, no reason for YOU to get it.

If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-

I applaud this news! It is VERY good that Valve wont support this shitty practice of exclusivity!
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

If only MS and Valve settled their differences and Windows 9 came with a modified Steam OS mode made for gaming and still had all the emulation and backwards compatibility . Alas my dreams

Two hard drives (or two partitions on the same hard drive) = dual boot. The OS really doesn't have much of a say about it. So you should be all set

 

[w00tage]

I hope they hook up with Mike Robertson (the guy who tried to make Linspire work). a) he deserves another chance given how hard he pushed Linspire, and b) if he can get Linspire that far on his own efforts, he'll definitely move SteamOS forward in the applications marketplace.

 

[Vrach]

He did, however, concede that small, independent studios who only have the resources to focus on one platform may inevitably make games that only run on SteamOS, "but that's a very different thing."

It's also what makes your title misleading and downright untrue. It should read:
"Valve will not make exclusive games or pay for exclusives for Steam OS". That's not the same thing as "there'll be no exclusives for Steam OS"

 

[black_knight1337]

Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.

I like how you don't quote the part that addresses this. The thing is, Valve has already done exactly that before. When they launched Steam it excluded EVERYONE from both Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2. But did they have horrendous sales and fail completely? No, they sold millions and set Steam on track to becoming the dominating digital distribution service that it is today. The potential is there for the SteamOS along with their Steam Machines to do the same again, but it really does need some "killer apps" to get it there. And like I said, even just making them timed exclusives would do the trick and work out as a good middle ground.

 

[klaynexas3]

snip

Okay, you seem interested in a reason for the existance of such a creation as the steamOS and the steambox. Well, considering no one else seems to want to give a reason besides "Valve is God, trust in them," I'll try to give you a few examples for its existance. For the OS, many people, especially with this site, many people love Linux, or at least the concept of Linux, but just hate its lack of practicality, and so wish it had more practical uses, such as more games to play natively for it. They assume SteamOS will fix this, though that has yet to be seen. It's a safe bet with Valve, considering their sway in the industry, but it isn't a promise yet. As for the box, as I saw someone else say, it's for people that don't necessarily want to try and build their own PC, but still want to play PC games. Or, there might also be people that love consoles for their relaxed sort of play, but prefer the major concepts of having a PC, like the massive amounts of games or the flexibility of the system. As for why you specifically might want to buy that, you probably don't. And it's a product, some people will want it, which i feel is a bigger group than most think, but not everyone will want it. So I can't answer why you should buy it, only why a person might want to buy it if they see those features as what they want.

 

[hawkeye52]

And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?

As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.

Sorry this little thing here caught my attention and it's something that needs to be corrected. These games don't have EULA's because they have been made from the ground up for anyone to play for free and the developers who make them live off of donations from the community. There is no agreements you have to sign or anything. Just download and play.

The developers have enough on their hands as it is creating the games without putting in some overly complicated system just for a little extra cash.

Also just because a game is free doesn't mean it's Pay to Win in the microtransaction area if it does have one. Take for example League of Legends there is no pay to win.

Also the point of the SteamOS is to create an OS that is specifically built for games. Windows isn't that. It's fucking terrible as far as OS's go but the reason why it is the primary OS is because it is the most successful which developers feel comfortable developing for. Tbh Windows is just the OS which is slightly less terrible then Mac.

Also since it's being developed in Linux it means that it will probably open up more avenues for other markets on the PC since the step from Linux to Mac (Although I find Mac's to be terrible as well) isn't great.

As a side effect which is something that is more interesting then it is useful or linked to this is that it will drive down the costs of building a game PC as well since it will allow for you to skip out on a £70 OS and instead invest that elsewhere.

 

[Yopaz]

Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.

I like how you don't quote the part that addresses this. The thing is, Valve has already done exactly that before. When they launched Steam it excluded EVERYONE from both Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2. But did they have horrendous sales and fail completely? No, they sold millions and set Steam on track to becoming the dominating digital distribution service that it is today. The potential is there for the SteamOS along with their Steam Machines to do the same again, but it really does need some "killer apps" to get it there. And like I said, even just making them timed exclusives would do the trick and work out as a good middle ground.

Creating a platform that separates software completely is something else than creating a DRM model. They created a MANAGER not a new platform. It required Steam to run, sure, it didn't change anything in regards to Windows, it didn't limit people to an unfamiliar OS, it didn't interfere with the compatibility of other software and games.

Comparing the two is like comparing a bike and a car. Both are faster than walking.

Edit: Also I like how you simply threw out an accusation rather than read WHY forcing SteamOS on their users wouldn't work. They already have Steam, they don't earn anything by people downloading SteamOS, they earn by people buying things from Steam regardless of if they're running Steam or Windows. I explained this too. You ignored both and accuse me of ignoring you. First class hypocrisy there. Well done.

 

[lacktheknack]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

You mean, no reason for YOU to get it.

If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-

I applaud this news! It is VERY good that Valve wont support this shitty practice of exclusivity!
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

If only MS and Valve settled their differences and Windows 9 came with a modified Steam OS mode made for gaming and still had all the emulation and backwards compatibility . Alas my dreams

1. All OS's are dual-bootable. ALL of them. This cannot be changed.

2. How can it not be as capable as Linux if it IS Linux?

So much misunderstanding.