SteamOS Will Not Have Exclusive Games

[lacktheknack]

Because Wine is terrible?

Because native support is infinitely better than non-native support?

Why would I want to hack something into half-working when Valve's push into Linux will cause a rush of native support? These are exciting times, and I don't buy any argument that says "But it kind of works already!"

So Valve is going to recode all those games from the ground up to run on Linux? Or are they just gong to put a program in the OS that, how did you say it? "...to hack something into half-working..." Will the OS bring more developers to support Linux? I don't know, but if I were a betting man I would say no. The steam machine and the OS have almost no market weight because other than the Valve-lovers and Linux supporter no one else has a reason to get it. Limited market share is limited.

Streaming is not a half-working hack. It's a full feature that works as a placeholder for older programs, like emulation (except, unlike Wine, this one looks like it'll actually work).

Also, Valve already HAS recoded a whackload of its games to work on Linux natively (Including Half Life, Portal and Left 4 Dead 2), and there's nothing stopping other devs from doing the same thing if they so desire.

Also, you hideously underestimate the number of Valve fans and Linux supporters. Furthermore, this won't build Rome in a day, and therefore we shouldn't try? You're the type of person that Johnathan Swift addressed "A Modest Proposal" to.

 

[kasperbbs]

I'm glad that i wont have to dualboot, no matter how great steamOS might be for games, but i still need the features that windows provides and the apps to go along with it.

 

[zumbledum]

I kindda figured Valve would shy away from exclusives, but I also know that the SteamOS will not have any of the other exclusive titles either. So what is the point of buying one? While I am a huge proponent of the "one console future" we aren't there yet. If your product does not offer something unique then there is no reason to buy it. It's kinnda sad to know the "one console future" will be doomed to fail by its' own merits. *Sigh*

unique features for steam machines as consoles.

access to the PC back catalogue.
Not a monopoly environment
open source
everything is hackable modable personally configurable.

no $20 DRM fee , so prices will be PC prices not console prices.

anyone can patch or upgrade their products no draconian MS or Sony vetting testing and charging you for the privilege.

 

[lacktheknack]

snip

EDIT: Ah, you edited out the section of my post you quoted. Sorry.

 

[Dragonbums]

Great on Valve for not doing exclusives.


However that just means that it will be very slow for getting a strong userbase to Steam OS.

If there are no sequels to be had on the machine, than people who are satisfied with Windows will simply not bother with it unless they are a Valve fan.

 

[babinro]

It's good to know I'll never have any reason to get one then.

I'm already going to be tempted by the 3DS, WiiU, PS4, and Xbone (in that order).
Who needs even more consoles grabbing their attention?

 

[ForumSafari]

Also, I'm wondering what else the OS will do when you install it your computer. Nothing is free, so I could see some sort of data mining going on.

Not to put too fine a point on it but you are completely and totally wrong. A lot of software is completely and totally free, in fact anything under GPL is written and licensed in such a way that anyone trying to infringe upon a user's freedom is in breach of license.

Whether this particular project is fully free is another matter of course, though if it isn't you'll be able to just install Steam on a distro of your choice and have that functionality back.

 

[AWAR]

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

1. It's free
2. Supposedly we're gonna have better gaming performance
3. It's not Windows
4. Did I mention that it's free?

 

[Vegosiux]

There is no such thing as "too" cynical, and I prefer to call myself a "realist" anyway.

I call myself "the resident cynic" often and even I get the feeling you're being cynical just for the sake of being cynical.

That said, of course I'm going to keep a careful eye on it and not jump aboard anything without care to look at it. Don't feel much of a need for a new OS at the moment, and all.

 

[AWAR]

snip

You won't have to pay for windows if you're a gamer. That brings the cost down.
As for performance, Valve claims that their games get better performance on Linux. Of course that remains to be seen.
As for my last point, yes there is an advantage of not being windows. Windows is an unstable OS that hogs resources with a dated and inefficient file system. If you want to use windows nobody is stopping you, however we really shouldn't be restricted to windows only. It's terrible for competition and that affects us consumers negatively.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No exclusives... from Valve.

But Valve did say that small developers may only have the resources to make a game for one platform, and that platform could be SteamOS. Plus there is the possibility that other developers may release for SteamOS first, then other OS's later.

In that case, it wouldn't be Valve mandating any sort of exclusivity from them, it would be the developer.
That's closer to the sort of market neutrality we need more of; and less of this consumer arm twisting over exclusivity.

There is no such thing as "too" cynical, and I prefer to call myself a "realist" anyway.

Oh, there very much is such a thing as being too cynical.
Pure cynics can enjoy little because they're too busy smugly questioning everything and everyone.

Cynicism is just directed pessimism. Wrought from a fear of being implicitly wrong ("inward cynic"), or a need to feel "more right" than others ("outward cynic". Most hipsters fall into this category).

And I've seen the "Realist" title all too often (used to use it a lot myself), but thinking about it, the term doesn't really fit because an actual "realist" would actually be more objective in their mannerisms rather than assuming they're more objective (yes, there is a difference).

Put another way:
Cynic: "I assume everything is shit until proven otherwise."
Realist: "I assume nothing except what I can infer from the information available."

 

[Zipa]

Valve really is the embodiment of the good guy Greg meme.

Spoiler

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

I couldn't agree more with this. Since Microsoft gave up on Windows as a gaming platform (which I find completely bizarre considering they *own* it) and the shift of development has moved wholesale to consoles, we've only gotten at best, decent ports of console games and at worst, awful ports of console games or none at all in the case of Rockstar.

They tried creating GfWL to bring PC games in-line with the way console games sell, but we hated it as a collective because, well it is crap. I don't need MS approval or processes to install or play a game, I never have. Consoles however, there's no getting around it. You buy into a walled garden, you play only what they rubber stamp, be it physical, digital, XBLA or something else.

If not for DirectX, I would have abandoned Windows long ago. I would throw money at whomever could get DX games working flawlessly on Linux (or an as yet uninvented platform). Microsoft giving up on Windows and concentrating solely on consoles has, IMHO, made the greatest impact to alter the gaming industry. More than multi-platform development, more than the hardware capabilities of last/current gen consoles, more than former PC studios (like BW, R*, Epic, etc) making the shift (tho maybe not as much as online/multiplayer crap we now have to put up with whether we want to or not). They want the money from console game sales and from "app" sales, money they don't get from PC game or application sales, I get it. But there's money to be made in PC gaming if only they remembered their old successes and the fact that 99.99% of PC gamers run Windows.

 

[prpshrt]

How is this of surprise to anyone :\ There's no way Valve would have steam OS exclusives because that would piss off a lot of PC gamers to which steam has been a beacon of hope. Granted Valve may take its user base for granted every now and then (diretide 2013, don't get angry at me mods) but it would be pretty fucking stupid to alienate their PC user base.

 

[J.McMillen]

OT: Um, bullshit? The SteamOS is a PC OS, yes? Therefore, it has PC Exclusives. I can't play Civ V or Starcraft on my Playstation or Xbox.

And I can play all those games with Windows 7, so what exclusives does steam OS give that you can not get by using Windows 7?

What SteamOS gives is an OS that is streamlined and not loaded with unnecessary programs and processes running in the background like pretty much every version of Windows has. Since I do most of my non-gaming on a Mac, my Win7 PC stays pretty streamlined and rarely has issues running games since I don't have other stuff running in the background that can cause conflicts or wonky behavior.

But if you read the bottom of the article, even Steam admits that some small developers may only be able to initially develop for one OS, and that OS may be SteamOS. So there may be indie titles that are initially exclusive to SteamOS, and without support they may not get ported over to Win and/or Mac.

 

[K12]

I might buy this for the sole reason that they're doing all the pro-consumer things we've been begging everyone else to years.

I'm tempted to postpone my (long overdue) PC update and then just get a functional notebook and the most advanced Steam machine. If I don't miss out on anything significant then this is my perfect set up.