4 ms·

SteamOS is based on Debian last I heard. Not that many games for Linux and at least 90 percent of video game companies target Windows. Until Linux gets more sup

SteamOS is based on Debian last I heard. Not that many games for Linux and at least 90 percent of video game companies target Windows. Until Linux gets more support, SteamOS will not be viable enough for people to buy. Anyone remember the Indrema that was Linux based? It had some of the same problems.

moron4hire 9y ago
Pretty sure Indrema was just a money laundering scam.
conorcleary 9y ago
I think the thing was built on a custom distro to accommodate all of the games, including Mac & Windows oriented releases.
jblow 9y ago
Consoles routinely launch new machines with not-previously-existing operating systems and do fine. So "there aren't enough pre-existing Linux games" is not explanatory.
- candiodari 9y ago
  That's true. The issue is that no linux API has ever existed that can guarantee binary compatibility with at least $x (measured in millions) machines (for $40/game games, like the big consoles), or $x00 (millions) machines (for $5/game games, like phones).
- pandaman 9y ago
  To overcome the "no pre-existing software" consoles use two things: 1) First party studios/Second party publishing arm (even MS releases more 1st/2nd party games than Valve by far and Microsoft has the weakest 1st party out of three) . 2) Powerful 3d party developer support/QA (even Nintendo has more people in dev support than entire Valve's staff and N has the weakest 3d party support out of three). A small company cannot possibly launch a brand new platform the same way consoles launch.
  - jblow 9y ago
    Valve has enough money in the bank to do a console launch and spend as much as Microsoft or Sony do. It's just, their corporate culture makes them very conservative about spending money. SpaceX they ain't.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      SpaceX appears to be extremely $$-efficient at developing rockets. Maybe you should think of a different example?
erikb 9y ago
> Until Linux gets more support, SteamOS will not be viable enough for people to buy. I don't see why this argument is reasonable. Windows is currently costing you about $100. Linux is currently costing you exactly $0. Linux has come so far, I doubt there is any area where it doesn't make you at least 80% satisfied. So the choice would save you about $80 of value, two triple A games in a Steam sale. And I don't know what your choice of games are, but while there may be really 90% of steam product listings without Windows support most people also wouldn't buy/play about 90% of the products. If you look at the interesting games the feeling is more like 80% of what we need is there as well. And the rest will certainly follow once the user demand for Linux is there. So, please continue to think what the real reason for not switching is. The providers would certainly follow. Most already have a Linux deployment pipeline ready and just wait for users to ask for it.
- orionblastar 9y ago
  Ok a better argument would be that GPU companies put driver priority on Windows drivers and don't do too much for Linux. Some popular games like Civilization VI have been ported to Linux but they run better on Windows and faster for some reason. I suspect the Windows drivers are better optimized. I triple boot Linux Mint, Windows 7 Pro, and Windows 10 Pro. Linux Mint seems to play the Civ 6 game slower than 10 or 7.
  - the_af 9y ago
    Depending on your hardware (of course), many AAA games run fantastically well on Linux. I'm playing Mad Max for example, and it runs beautifully on a GTX960M, great framerate and no glitches that I can see.
- izacus 9y ago
  We're talking about gaming here - Steam machines had to compete against consoles as well. And they were more expensive, ran significantly less games than PS4 or XB and were slower to boot.
  - erikb 9y ago

moron4hire 9y ago

Pretty sure Indrema was just a money laundering scam.

conorcleary 9y ago

I think the thing was built on a custom distro to accommodate all of the games, including Mac & Windows oriented releases.

jblow 9y ago

Consoles routinely launch new machines with not-previously-existing operating systems and do fine. So "there aren't enough pre-existing Linux games" is not explanatory.

candiodari 9y ago
That's true. The issue is that no linux API has ever existed that can guarantee binary compatibility with at least $x (measured in millions) machines (for $40/game games, like the big consoles), or $x00 (millions) machines (for $5/game games, like phones).
pandaman 9y ago
To overcome the "no pre-existing software" consoles use two things: 1) First party studios/Second party publishing arm (even MS releases more 1st/2nd party games than Valve by far and Microsoft has the weakest 1st party out of three) . 2) Powerful 3d party developer support/QA (even Nintendo has more people in dev support than entire Valve's staff and N has the weakest 3d party support out of three). A small company cannot possibly launch a brand new platform the same way consoles launch.
- jblow 9y ago
  Valve has enough money in the bank to do a console launch and spend as much as Microsoft or Sony do. It's just, their corporate culture makes them very conservative about spending money. SpaceX they ain't.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    SpaceX appears to be extremely $$-efficient at developing rockets. Maybe you should think of a different example?

erikb 9y ago

> Until Linux gets more support, SteamOS will not be viable enough for people to buy. I don't see why this argument is reasonable. Windows is currently costing you about $100. Linux is currently costing you exactly $0. Linux has come so far, I doubt there is any area where it doesn't make you at least 80% satisfied. So the choice would save you about $80 of value, two triple A games in a Steam sale. And I don't know what your choice of games are, but while there may be really 90% of steam product listings without Windows support most people also wouldn't buy/play about 90% of the products. If you look at the interesting games the feeling is more like 80% of what we need is there as well. And the rest will certainly follow once the user demand for Linux is there. So, please continue to think what the real reason for not switching is. The providers would certainly follow. Most already have a Linux deployment pipeline ready and just wait for users to ask for it.

orionblastar 9y ago
Ok a better argument would be that GPU companies put driver priority on Windows drivers and don't do too much for Linux. Some popular games like Civilization VI have been ported to Linux but they run better on Windows and faster for some reason. I suspect the Windows drivers are better optimized. I triple boot Linux Mint, Windows 7 Pro, and Windows 10 Pro. Linux Mint seems to play the Civ 6 game slower than 10 or 7.
- the_af 9y ago
  Depending on your hardware (of course), many AAA games run fantastically well on Linux. I'm playing Mad Max for example, and it runs beautifully on a GTX960M, great framerate and no glitches that I can see.
izacus 9y ago
We're talking about gaming here - Steam machines had to compete against consoles as well. And they were more expensive, ran significantly less games than PS4 or XB and were slower to boot.
- erikb 9y ago