Valve on why they're favouring Linux over Windows 8

[JimboUK]

http://www.pcgamesn.com/article/valve-linux-better-windows-8-gaming

 

This is interesting, I know developers don't like Windows 8 but this is quite a step.

[bben46]

I used Unix back in the 80s and early 90s. Linux is derived from that. I have been hoping that Linux would eventually come up with an operating sys that would unseat MS on my computers. Unfortunately, every distro I have tried is lacking something that I need or want. Whether a viable wifi, USB3, support for some peripheral I use or support for the games I like. With Valve throwing their weight behind whichever distro they settle on (looks like Ubuntu right now) I have hopes that we will finally see Linux taking games seriously. :thumbsup:

[hector530]

thats ok because not even Microsoft wants to make games for windows 8

[RitualBlack]

I am completely for this. Games are the only thing keeping me on Windows :laugh: .

[Dark0ne]

Of course Valve are scared; Microsoft have just released a new operating system with a game distribution system built in to it. They're going to throw all their toys out of the pram and make you think like Windows 8 is the end of the world as we know it because it directly competes with their model of doing business.

 

As far as I've read, however, Windows 8 hasn't turned out to be this all-fearful closed system where you can't install anything you want on it. From what I'm reading, you can install Steam on it just fine, and any other game you like from the disc or through Steam. The only place you can't install Steam or these games from is from Windows own App Store. OH NO! /sacrasm. Having said that I haven't installed Windows 8 and have no intention to because Windows 7 is perfect for me.

 

So really it seems what this boils down to is Valve spreading fear about Windows 8 because Microsoft might take a cut of Steams ludicrous 30% of profits from game makers. 30 freaking percent. How Valve are still considered the saviors of gaming is beyond me. I'm looking forward to some proper competition being made to Valve and Steam. I know it's on its way, I've turned down two separate meaningful invitations to join projects to help out in such an endeavour.

[JimboUK]

30% is pretty much standard, it's what Apple take and it's what Microsoft will take with their app store. It's not Windows 8 that's the real concern, it's where Microsoft are headed, there is a fear that Windows 9 will be a closed system. It's not only Valve, there is widespread dislike of it across the industry and not only from the producers of software, hardware OEMs aren't happy either.

 

Steam didn't save PC gaming on their own but they did make quite a difference, when this generation of consoles came along retail all but abandoned PC gaming, game stores stuffed them at the back of the store and supermarkets didn't (and still don't) stock them at all. I can see why people don't like Steams dominant position but they stuck with the PC when others walked away, they didn't have to earn their dominant position, others handed it to them on a plate.

[Halororor]

So really it seems what this boils down to is Valve spreading fear about Windows 8 because Microsoft might take a cut of Steams ludicrous 30% of profits from game makers. 30 freaking percent. How Valve are still considered the saviors of gaming is beyond me. I'm looking forward to some proper competition being made to Valve and Steam. I know it's on its way, I've turned down two separate meaningful invitations to join projects to help out in such an endeavour.

 

Have you considered that that 30% is probably roughly the equivalent of what publishers would be paying if they had to buy and print discs, jewel cases, jewel case covers as well as the game manual, plus had to pay for shipping and distribution costs? Oh, and brick and mortar shops don't sell videogames for free either, they also need their cut.

 

When you consider all the extra costs for retail games, I honestly don't think a 30% cut from Valve is as bad as people want to make it out to be.

 

And it's pretty ironic that you slam Valve for being 'greedy' by not wanting to host Steam on what is going to be an insanely, ridiculously overpriced OS from Microsoft, a company with a history of overcharging for pretty much anything. :P

 

I'm pretty glad that Steam is focusing on Linux, because the only reason I fork out ridiculous amounts of cash for Windows every time is because most games require it. If I can play games on Linux I'm moving over there and I won't ever look back at Windows again. Overpriced rubbish is what it is.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Halororor

[Dark0ne]

Have you considered that that 30% is probably roughly the equivalent of what publishers would be paying if they had to buy and print discs, jewel cases, jewel case covers as well as the game manual, plus had to pay for shipping and distribution costs? Oh, and brick and mortar shops don't sell videogames for free either, they also need their cut.

 

So your point is that digital distributors should charge the same amount of commission as brick-and-mortar businesses when they've got much lower overheads than their rivals? And that's what makes them good? Reeeeeally?

 

Now I'm no Microsoft fan boy, and I didn't once allude to being one. But similarly I'm not a Steam fan boy. I'm also not a Steam hater, I'm just not one of those people who puts the "saviour of the PC" moniker on them or splurges all over the screen every time Gabe Newell is even mentioned. What's actually ironic is Windows 8 costs about half the price of Windows 7. It's £45 at retail, and I paid around £80-£90 for Windows 7. That's the price of 1 and a 1/3 AAA games. I don't think that's overpriced at all. Windows 8 is actually only £25 if you upgrade from Windows 7, but I think I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a fork than do that.

[lonewolfkai]

Of course Valve are scared; Microsoft have just released a new operating system with a game distribution system built in to it. They're going to throw all their toys out of the pram and make you think like Windows 8 is the end of the world as we know it because it directly competes with their model of doing business.

 

As far as I've read, however, Windows 8 hasn't turned out to be this all-fearful closed system where you can't install anything you want on it. From what I'm reading, you can install Steam on it just fine, and any other game you like from the disc or through Steam. The only place you can't install Steam or these games from is from Windows own App Store. OH NO! /sacrasm. Having said that I haven't installed Windows 8 and have no intention to because Windows 7 is perfect for me.

 

So really it seems what this boils down to is Valve spreading fear about Windows 8 because Microsoft might take a cut of Steams ludicrous 30% of profits from game makers. 30 freaking percent. How Valve are still considered the saviors of gaming is beyond me. I'm looking forward to some proper competition being made to Valve and Steam. I know it's on its way, I've turned down two separate meaningful invitations to join projects to help out in such an endeavour.

I seem to recall a panic of similarity when Vista came out.

 

The day Microsoft stops supporting games from its OS is the day they pull the trigger on themselves. They would be stupid to do that. I agree with Dark0ne here. Valve is just not wanting to cooperate with the competition, which is ironic because neither did Microsoft before their monopoly judgement from years back, which that is also understandable for both considering they are a business out to make money.

Edited November 14, 2012 by lonewolf_kai

[Vagrant0]

Regardless of Valve's agenda here, I personally think that this is a good thing for Linux since this might help push more hardware manufacturers, game makers and more independent coders to start adapting games and hardware for easier use in a Linux environment, instead of requiring some sort of Windows emulator.

 

As far as Microsoft is concerned, almost every version of Windows came with its own share of complications and restrictions on actual user control over their system and software under the guise of being "user friendly". The problem is that Microsoft hasn't ever really stepped back on these restrictions, but rather users have had to find ways to disable them, or deal with them. I would say that W7, as it comes fresh on a new install is about as far as you can get from perfect or even desirable for anyone who does anything more meaningful than surf the web or use facebook. To get it to a state where it is stable you have to disable most of the visual enhancements, toolbars, and other bits of useless RAM-hording flash in addition to disabling UAC, replacing the firewall with one that actually works, removing the tech support user account and blocking access, and a half dozen other things that I've forgotten. Just because W7 is the most stable version since Windows 98, does not mean it is particularly good. From what I've read of W8, even those aspects which are published and shown by Microsoft, I wouldn't want to use it either.