This is pretty god damn simple; if SteamOS runs games faster, or is somehow more user friendly/convinient, then I'll use it.
Why are people whining about it not having exclusives?`I really don't get people. Why would you WANT to be forced to purchase YET ANOTHER piece of hardware to play that ONE game you like?
Sarge034 said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Its a PC that can also be a console. It has every PC exclusive while also allowing console-like play.
If you don't want to buy one, just download the OS and put it on your PC. Its free.
I already own a pc and I already own several consoles. So the question remains. Why would I buy a steam machine or, now because people are brining up the OS "is free" card, even take the time to download the OS to my computer? It provides nothing new to the market, so unless you are chomping at the bit to transfer everything you can to Linux or need to buy everything Valve because... Valve(?) then there is no reason to bother with it. Then add on the fact that all MS, Sony, and Nintendo exclusives will be held from it as well and you see that nothing has changed.
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... but I don't worship Valve either so perhaps I'm "missing the point".
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
I already own a pc and I already own several consoles. So the question remains. Why would I buy a steam machine or, now because people are brining up the OS "is free" card, even take the time to download the OS to my computer? It provides nothing new to the market, so unless you are chomping at the bit to transfer everything you can to Linux
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
And this is a perfect example of why Valve is the Good Guy Greg of the industry. Even making a game exclusive to a free OS that anyone can download and install on the computer they already have (assuming they have enough free hard drive space) is considered a dick move by their standards. And why not? Once you make your game, you want people to be able to play it, so you should make it playable on whatever they happen to have instead of making them jump through hoops they might decide aren't worth it. Why 90% of the industry can't wrap their heads around this idea is beyond my understanding.
You forget that they did exactly that when they launched Steam. They made highly anticipated titles, such as Half Life 2, Steam exclusives (And all games from then on). Which of course meant people just took the crap it was back then so they could get at those games.
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.
No, they don't accept them, they CLAIM for them. It would be fun to see such foolishness if it wasn't so common on the consumer side.
With this Valve guaranteed my support if their product works as well as a current windows 7 with steam, because fuck exclusives and I will vote to fuck them with my wallet.
black_knight1337 said:
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.
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
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.
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
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.
I think you missed the entire point. I'm not saying that SteamOS will be better or worse than Windows, I'm merely saying that it COULD be better - hence there's no point dismissing anything until we have conclusive information about the OSs performance. It could be a superior platform to Windows due to software running at better frame-rates. Your negativity is baffling.
And consoles are just PCs too. PCs that run exclusives. Nothing more.
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
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!"
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.
You can't get a large amount of games working on Linux. Especially working well. And the ones you can play require an ungodly amount of tinkering, in short it just isn't feasible right now. If valve can show decent market penetration with their OS big publishers will be far more likely to make games that run on Linux and OSX, allowing more people to play games with a lower initial investment which is a good thing no matter how you slice it. If you're happy with windows then the steam OS isn't for you, but for those of us who aren't (and there are many) it is an interesting proposition.
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.
On this front you're simply wrong. Have you never looked into Linux based operating systems? You wont pay anything for them, there isn't really an EULA because it all falls under GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. And Dwarf Fortress (as mentioned) is completely free. That's it. You can donate to the creator if you want to, but it's a free game in the purest sense of the word.
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
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.
Jesus man, what are you complaining about?
A free OS specifically made to run games?
More options?
FREE options?
If you don't think there's anything good to come out of free stuff dedicated to your hobby, then fine, just don't fuckin use it. Your Windows PC isn't going to stop working when SteamOS comes out.
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. -__-
Good grief, I am so on board with you from Windows>Linux, if this works out right. There were so few things I couldn't do well enough on a Linux distribution that Windows could, and gaming was the major factor that keeps me locked to this shitty OS.
And I was always under the impression that the basic idea behind consoles was to make the 'computer' part of video games accessible to a more general audience. I know I've avoided regular PC upgrades in favor of consoles merely for the difference in hassle. Since that is somewhat reversing course, now Steam tries its hand at making the PC accessible again...? A back-to-basics move I (somehow) see in this, for gods know the consoles out have surely lost their way.
And Tanakh makes a fair point, Steam is putting principles ahead of business. But I think a very large segment of the 'gaming' populace has Steam floating in consciousness, so something that makes the transition easier from idea of typical PC to typical console will bring in the customers (plus they have their infamous deals, and plenty of variety in games to play off the bat).
Besides, what has Valve put the plethora of cash it's most likely made through Steam into? Not so many games out in the past couple of years, and Steam maintenance can't be prohibitive. It's a risk to make a console, but it's one they've got a body of funds to take it with, I think.
And this is a perfect example of why Valve is the Good Guy Greg of the industry. Even making a game exclusive to a free OS that anyone can download and install on the computer they already have (assuming they have enough free hard drive space) is considered a dick move by their standards. And why not? Once you make your game, you want people to be able to play it, so you should make it playable on whatever they happen to have instead of making them jump through hoops they might decide aren't worth it. Why 90% of the industry can't wrap their heads around this idea is beyond my understanding.
Console exclusivity works bad in two ways; if you want all the exclusive games, you need ALL of the consoles. The other is that they simultaneously provoke pirates to put them on an emulator long before the console is discontinued, & make the people who download the ROM feel justified because the software they were more than willing to pay for legally was not made available to them. ::Looking at you, Red Dead Redemption. That rumor of a 2014 PC port is the only thing preventing me from turning to the dark side::
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.
Ok, here are some valid points I have been waiting on and not just the "OMGZ VALVE" sentiment surrounding this things. So the console is being sold as a platform that will run the current backlog of PC games. It is being sold to the casual PC market and non-PC gamers. These are interesting pros but it adds nothing to the market in the grand scheme of things. This is what baffles me. People act like it is this revolutionary thing and it is most decidedly not.
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
Dwarf Fortress is funded through donations so it does not have ads. It is not, however, a fully completed project so you have a "free beta" essentially. The majority of the data mining would then be bugs, glitches, and player strategy to refine the game. And the game is on your PC so unless you physically disconnect the internet don't assume it is not sending information.
Aurora is funded with the dev's online poker winnings so again no ads. That is about all the info I could find so I'll just assume I'm right because I'm too lazy to care.
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.
lacktheknack said:
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.
I can't speak for Aurora, but in terms of Dwarf Fortress, which doesn't even have an EULA, nope. You're wrong.
u can play require an ungodly amount of tinkering, in short it just isn't feasible right now. If valve can show decent market penetration with their OS big publishers will be far more likely to make games that run on Linux and OSX, allowing more people to play games with a lower initial investment which is a good thing no matter how you slice it. If you're happy with windows then the steam OS isn't for you, but for those of us who aren't (and there are many) it is an interesting proposition.
It isn't about being more happy with one or the other I simply can't see the SM or the OS bringing anything awe inspiring enough to the table to have nearly as big of a market impact as you seem to. I just don't think it is competitive enough to make a dent, let alone thrive, in the current market.
front you're simply wrong. Have you never looked into Linux based operating systems? You wont pay anything for them, there isn't really an EULA because it all falls under GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. And Dwarf Fortress (as mentioned) is completely free. That's it. You can donate to the creator if you want to, but it's a free game in the purest sense of the word.
Living room PCs are rare, and unless you want to deal with falcon northwest for an overpriced shoebox, Valve is the best bet. Not that it would work well since its actually meant for LAN parties. Falcon's "Steam box" doesn't have the OS to put it in the living room easily, its just a desktop computer that you can move around.
If you don't want your PC in the living room or don't want to stream PC games to the living room, its not for you.
You skillfully sidestepped my initial question. Why not just use a PC? I know several people who have their whole setup of consoles, media players, and their PC in their living room. Hell, the only reason all of my shit isn't in my living room is because I have a bigger tv in my room. I'm just not seeing what the SM or the OS could possibly bring to the table that a legit PC couldn't do better.
Linux OS meant to side step microsoft. MS wants to lock it down so they can make money off their OS.
That is bad for gaming, and bad for PC gaming. Its a tactic that they want to do to try to flush out PC gamers and developers onto xbox by trying to make PC gaming more expensive. They tried it before with GFWL, and now they want to do it again with Windows 8 and on.
STEAM OS doesn't data mine anything. Its linux under a different name with optimizations for gaming. Its meant to make PC gaming even easier for everyone and taking away Microsoft's stranglehold. Its not some Ponzi Scheme because Sony and Microsoft do it.
They don't make money off selling data. They make money off games. If Microsoft locks it down, they can refuse steam a certification, and make steam no longer work on newer windows. They can lock steam out of the entire market if they don't give microsoft a huge paycheck. MS will do it to everyone. Its basically extortion.
Same with Nvidia and AMD. They want Microsoft to no longer control PC gaming through APIs like directx and OSes. They don't want MS to try to destroy PC gaming so it may have a bigger audience on the xbox.
They want a free market. That's why mantle exists. That's why developers talk about openGL. That's why linux is now big and exciting.
AMD and Nvidia would lose market share and would be at the beck and call of Sony and Microsoft. Because the majority of their profits, PC gamers, are now gone. They would need to beg for console money so Microsoft and Sony can leverage better components at the expense of manufacturers.
That's whats happening. A potential power grab by microsoft to try to save its dying xbox division by borrowing from its software division's monopoly.
A power grab that can destroy PC gaming in a single instant. They have been gloating that "they make the OS" and that gives them power.
Linux was made to be free and open source. That corporations cannot lock it down. Microsoft can't touch linux, and in linux every PC gamer would be safe from that reality.
STEAM os isn't intended to be a push for console dominance. Its an insurance policy for PC gaming, and everything related to it.
Yup, you sure got 'em good!
Braedan said:
Jesus man, what are you complaining about?
A free OS specifically made to run games?
More options?
FREE options?
If you don't think there's anything good to come out of free stuff dedicated to your hobby, then fine, just don't fuckin use it. Your Windows PC isn't going to stop working when SteamOS comes out.
Well welcome to the middle of a conversation that didn't involve you. So because you jumped in the middle I'll give you the short version. It brings nothing unique to the table and as such I am asking what is the point. It has next to no market weight to make a difference and a PC can do everything this thing is supposed to do.
I don't want exclusive games. I want my steam library, my full library. THATS the make or break. At first I assumed it was there, but people keep making me question that. I don't see why more people aren't talking about that. I don't need two steam libraries. I want the games I have but on my big TV in a way more like a console. (Plus steam sales).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
