4 ms·

Мake all of my steam backlog work on linux and I switch. And not a moment before that.

StavrosK 14y ago
If you're already using Linux as your day-to-day OS, there's no reason for you not to install Steam already, as there's no "switch" for you to make. If you are using Windows and aren't looking to switch otherwise, there's no reason to do it, since all games work fine there. This is for people who've wanted to switch (or have already switched) to Linux and miss Steam, or dual-boot (like me). So, basically, you're not the target market, and nobody cares what you do!
- vitalique 14y ago
  >If you are using Windows and aren't looking to switch otherwise, there's no reason to do it. Depends on what you mean by 'not looking to switch'. Permanent, set in stone decision? Then sure, no point in proving that 1 == 1. But decisions drift and change (which is nice), and so does software (which in some cases is excellent). So I wouldn't be that categorical. I'd agree that for some folks Steam not running on Linux may be the only reason to stay with Windows (though I don't think they miss Steam, as you put that; I think what they miss are their games - owned ones and not yet released - and venomsnake says just that, actually), but I'm pretty sure there's quite a large number of people who consider many different general-purpose sides of switching platforms (gaming, music, video, paper/docs work, some development), and for them Linux version of Steam as a provider of games may be an important signal.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Of course it is an important signal, but they don't say "I'll switch when all my games work, to the very last (even the ones I have no intention of ever playing again), and not a moment earlier". That's just an unreasonable position, which I'm sure not even venomsnake really believes. Now that I typed that, it's obvious that we're feeding the troll.
    - venomsnake 14y ago
      It was not attempted trolling. The problem comes from the fact that even if there cannot be "some" games working under linux. And i will try to argument myself. My steam and gog library is about 200 games. For the majority of them - i will never touch them again. But there are maybe 20 games that I play regularly. The problem comes from the fact that they are scattered trough time and technology. Giving up on the most of the games will be easy, not so much on vampire the masquerade, deus ex, painkiller, icewind dale, jedi outcast,skyrim, psychonauts or heroes 3. These are games I tend to play a lot. But you don't have much chance with compatibility - if you make any of these games work, there is strong chance you will be able to make most of the games of this generation also playable. And then comes the thing that everyone has some games that are dearly loved but they are different for each person. So yeah - all is not what I meant. So if Gabe wants the linux users to play from now on - that is amazing. If they want to get people to switch the comparability is important. And for old games too - because for some they are beloved classics that have stood the test of time.
Munksgaard 14y ago
We both know that's not going to happen. First of all, how would Valve go about porting thousands of games _made by other developers_? The main point is that Valve is trying to push for something different from Windows for gaming, and they're progressing nicely, which i think is commendable. Next time i get tired of waiting for my Windows 7 desktop to boot, I'll probably install some Linux distribution instead; Steam for linux can now satisfy most, if not all, of my gaming needs. But sure, it'd be nice to have _all_ of my steam games working natively on linux, but why stop there? I demand that someone makes _every game ever developed_ natively compatible with linux.
- venomsnake 14y ago
  Why port - the games use very little of the windows API. They shouldn't go very deep into COM. An emulator layer could do the trick, and moore's law will take care of the performance penalty in a year or two. If my 7970 makes sure bioshock runs as well it did on GTX 7900 6 years back that is fine for me. And the truth is I want to switch. But my 200 games are holding me back. If Gabe is serious about the platform - he has smart people, they can produce something.
  - zxcdw 14y ago
    The issue is so much more complex than providing an "emulator layer". There's no practical way to provide a software layer except for what Wine does, and it too is riddled with issues here and there and some are fatal while others simply make usability a pain. And it's been under development for years.
chongli 14y ago
Valve is getting Steam for Linux ready for the day when you may have to choose between keeping your Steam library on your existing PC or throwing it away to use some Windows 8 descendent. They are hoping you'll be able to switch to Linux instead of just losing everything (or never upgrading your computer).

If you're already using Linux as your day-to-day OS, there's no reason for you not to install Steam already, as there's no "switch" for you to make. If you are using Windows and aren't looking to switch otherwise, there's no reason to do it, since all games work fine there. This is for people who've wanted to switch (or have already switched) to Linux and miss Steam, or dual-boot (like me). So, basically, you're not the target market, and nobody cares what you do!

vitalique 14y ago
>If you are using Windows and aren't looking to switch otherwise, there's no reason to do it. Depends on what you mean by 'not looking to switch'. Permanent, set in stone decision? Then sure, no point in proving that 1 == 1. But decisions drift and change (which is nice), and so does software (which in some cases is excellent). So I wouldn't be that categorical. I'd agree that for some folks Steam not running on Linux may be the only reason to stay with Windows (though I don't think they miss Steam, as you put that; I think what they miss are their games - owned ones and not yet released - and venomsnake says just that, actually), but I'm pretty sure there's quite a large number of people who consider many different general-purpose sides of switching platforms (gaming, music, video, paper/docs work, some development), and for them Linux version of Steam as a provider of games may be an important signal.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  Of course it is an important signal, but they don't say "I'll switch when all my games work, to the very last (even the ones I have no intention of ever playing again), and not a moment earlier". That's just an unreasonable position, which I'm sure not even venomsnake really believes. Now that I typed that, it's obvious that we're feeding the troll.
  - venomsnake 14y ago
    It was not attempted trolling. The problem comes from the fact that even if there cannot be "some" games working under linux. And i will try to argument myself. My steam and gog library is about 200 games. For the majority of them - i will never touch them again. But there are maybe 20 games that I play regularly. The problem comes from the fact that they are scattered trough time and technology. Giving up on the most of the games will be easy, not so much on vampire the masquerade, deus ex, painkiller, icewind dale, jedi outcast,skyrim, psychonauts or heroes 3. These are games I tend to play a lot. But you don't have much chance with compatibility - if you make any of these games work, there is strong chance you will be able to make most of the games of this generation also playable. And then comes the thing that everyone has some games that are dearly loved but they are different for each person. So yeah - all is not what I meant. So if Gabe wants the linux users to play from now on - that is amazing. If they want to get people to switch the comparability is important. And for old games too - because for some they are beloved classics that have stood the test of time.

Munksgaard 14y ago

We both know that's not going to happen. First of all, how would Valve go about porting thousands of games _made by other developers_? The main point is that Valve is trying to push for something different from Windows for gaming, and they're progressing nicely, which i think is commendable. Next time i get tired of waiting for my Windows 7 desktop to boot, I'll probably install some Linux distribution instead; Steam for linux can now satisfy most, if not all, of my gaming needs. But sure, it'd be nice to have _all_ of my steam games working natively on linux, but why stop there? I demand that someone makes _every game ever developed_ natively compatible with linux.

venomsnake 14y ago
Why port - the games use very little of the windows API. They shouldn't go very deep into COM. An emulator layer could do the trick, and moore's law will take care of the performance penalty in a year or two. If my 7970 makes sure bioshock runs as well it did on GTX 7900 6 years back that is fine for me. And the truth is I want to switch. But my 200 games are holding me back. If Gabe is serious about the platform - he has smart people, they can produce something.
- zxcdw 14y ago
  The issue is so much more complex than providing an "emulator layer". There's no practical way to provide a software layer except for what Wine does, and it too is riddled with issues here and there and some are fatal while others simply make usability a pain. And it's been under development for years.

chongli 14y ago

Valve is getting Steam for Linux ready for the day when you may have to choose between keeping your Steam library on your existing PC or throwing it away to use some Windows 8 descendent. They are hoping you'll be able to switch to Linux instead of just losing everything (or never upgrading your computer).