Your avatar fits this post like a cylinder a gentleman, lol.Wait, SteamOS is gonna be free!?
Yes, SteamOS is free.
Your avatar fits this post like a cylinder a gentleman, lol.Wait, SteamOS is gonna be free!?
But Linux is a pain in the ass to use, you can't push to play games on a OS that's UI is horrific to use.
But Linux is a pain in the ass to use, you can't push to play games on a OS that's UI is horrific to use.
There is also that other elephant in the room called DirectX.
That is the worst analogy ever, he has a point that most of the UI can be foreign and be preconceived as "sucking"Saying Linux sucks because of it's UI is about as meaningful as saying a car sucks because it doesn't make toast.
You really don't understand what Linux is, do you?
OpenGL is way ahead of DirectX wich still stands only because ME throws money pushing for it.
Guess what'll happen when someone throws more money and people the other direction...
How many game developers want to release their source code for games as required by the Linux licensing rules?
Saying Linux sucks because of it's UI is about as meaningful as saying a car sucks because it doesn't make toast.
It used to be true until DX9 and the opengl 2 and 3 debacles.OpenGL is way ahead of DirectX wich still stands only because ME throws money pushing for it.
Linux snobs are also a big barrier to linux.
I've been a game developer for a long time, and I've ran into difficulty with Linux users.
When I was working on my last game (using Unity) I toyed with the idea of doing a Linux build of the game. Midway through development I said 'here's a Linux build. If some of you Linux users can test it I'd really appreciate it'. Their responses were 'Where's the source code? I'm not running anything I haven't compiled myself! It could be full of malicious code!' and 'Ugh, it's made in Unity Pro? Unity Pro isn't free, and the source isn't available!'
So, at the end of this experience, I decided to not bother with the headache of releasing a Linux build. It was only a small free game, not worth such aggro.
I do think the SteamOS is a good step forward for games. It's just ironic that Linux fans would endorse such a closed platform.
How many game developers want to release their source code for games as required by the Linux licensing rules?
That is the worst analogy ever, he has a point that most of the UI can be foreign and be preconceived as "sucking"
My only other concern is the many, many variations of Linux.
If Valve gets some big names to release linux ports it could convince others to follow.
When all your games already run on dos, why switch?When all your games already run on Windows, why switch?
Are you suggesting emulation or something else like WINE? Forcing games to run on Linux that aren't natively supported is not a good idea. It generally results in worse performance or various bugs.
OpenGL is way ahead of DirectX wich still stands only because ME throws money pushing for it.
Guess what'll happen when someone throws more money and people the other direction...
When all your games already run on dos, why switch?
Linux snobs are also a big barrier to linux.
I've been a game developer for a long time, and I've ran into difficulty with Linux users.
When I was working on my last game (using Unity) I toyed with the idea of doing a Linux build of the game. Midway through development I said 'here's a Linux build. If some of you Linux users can test it I'd really appreciate it'. Their responses were 'Where's the source code? I'm not running anything I haven't compiled myself! It could be full of malicious code!' and 'Ugh, it's made in Unity Pro? Unity Pro isn't free, and the source isn't available!'
So, at the end of this experience, I decided to not bother with the headache of releasing a Linux build. It was only a small free game, not worth such aggro.
I do think the SteamOS is a good step forward for games. It's just ironic that Linux fans would endorse such a closed platform.
When all your games already run on Windows, why switch?
This really isn't the same scenario.
Jesus dude... Are we really going to that length and pretend people who say Linux when talking generally don't mean Linux Distributions?The Linux kernel has no UI, the UI is dependent on which linux distro you use, in each distro you have multiple different UI's at your disposal.
When all your games run on Linux at some point in the future why not?
Jesus dude... Are we really going to that length and pretend people who say Linux when talking generally don't mean Linux Distributions?
Whatever, explain then your toaster analogy.
A UI is a vital part of using Linux for the masses. It's like how cars use roads today, sure it's not needed but it makes things a helluva lot easier.
Flash is installed either via your web browser of choice or, if you are using Ubuntu, through the Software Center. Probably just as easy, or easier, than under Windows and OSX.Installing Linux isn't any harder than installing Windows. Good luck installing essentials like Flash though.
But Linux is a pain in the ass to use, you can't push to play games on a OS that's UI is horrific to use.
fud spreading juniors to benefit MS. hmmm.
But Linux is a pain in the ass to use, you can't push to play games on a OS that's UI is horrific to use.
I dont think valve have something big enough to drive steamOS, they already did linux tf2 items.
Half-life 3 exclusive would be suidide
Linux has lots of great apps though. I think the issue is many people are too familiar with windows and don't want to try anything new. That said, there are definitely some things on windows that are not on linux that some people need e.g. photoshop which I could see being an issue.It's not only about games, but also about other software and ease of use. In other words, when Linux is Windows, maybe then. It's still a very long way unless MS really fucks up Windows.
When all your games already run on dos, why switch?
Wait, SteamOS is gonna be free!?
Windows gaming was not made popular by Gabe's Doom port. The Windows version of Doom wasn't even very well known or in demand at the time.
Windows certainly did not offer a better experience than dos when it came to games.Because Windows offered a noticeably better experience than DOS? Don't even know why I bothered to respond.
Reading this post makes me feel like it's 1999 again.But Linux is a pain in the ass to use, you can't push to play games on a OS that's UI is horrific to use.
Nor did he claim it did.
WAIT. Newell's Windows port (commonly referred to as DOOM95 http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom95) was never popular and very few DOOM players knew it even existed. It certainly didn't prove to the masses that Windows was a viable gaming platform.
Those that do recall the Windows port do so in the the context of Microsoft telling people that '32 bit Doom will be twice as fast' before finding out that wasn't true.
The most popular - read 'only' - PC version of Doom was the DOS 4GW version. Ditto Doom 2, Hexen, etc. Quake also assumed DOS. No Windows port of those games was mainstream. Go read the DOOM FAQ - last time I checked it, DOOM95 isn't even mentioned (actually it is, as port of regular DOOM http://www.gamers.org/docs/FAQ/doomfaq/sect1.html#5-6).
DOOM was released in the era of 386s (when 486s were new). 32 bit Windows required at practically at least 16MB of memory and a 486. For the people that had those specs, if the Windows DOOM port was faster, people would have used it - but they didn't, because DOOM95 wasn't faster.
Years later Quake 2 came with a Windows installer and was frequently launched on Windows.
I guess your post did not either. Of course we can draw a parallel between both cases. I hope it works out, I would love to see linux as a viable gaming OS. I just dont want people thinking Gabe was responsible for the popularity if Windows and that he will therefore do the same for Linux.
Gabe Newell said:When I was working on Windows, there was a point in time when the common wisdom was that while Windows might be fine to run spreadsheets and word processors, that it wasn’t possible to run games without writing to the bare metal. This annoyed me as it didn’t make any sense, and so I decided to find the coolest and most demanding game and work with that developer to get it running on Windows.
Well, I think one of my points was that Newell said (Dos-)Doom was even more popular than Windows itself. Which gave him the idea to have killer apps (games) in Windows.
The Doom port was a developed as a *free* proof of concept experiment to prove it WAS possible to make games as demanding as Doom run on Windows because people thought otherwise.
A bazillion of developers and the system could not be usable for me