8 ms·

I get the impression you've missed the announcements of SteamBoxes and SteamOS. Valve do have triple-A titles, and they do -they may- have the incentive to rele

I get the impression you've missed the announcements of SteamBoxes and SteamOS. Valve do have triple-A titles, and they do -they may- have the incentive to release it exclusively on Linux/SteamOS. What concerns me about SteamOS is their (supposed, as I don't know if it's been actually confirmed yet) Ubuntu base. I personally loathe Ubuntu, it and all its derivatives seem bloated and unstable, I get the same feeling using it as I would get using Windows Vista. Remember the extra hoops Vista introduced to get to basic network settings? Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open, user-friendliness should not equate locking down an OS, there must be -and is- a better way. I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action.

Shivetya 13y ago
To be honest, if it were SteamBox exclusive I would not buy it. I don't buy exclusives. Gaming is about fun and convenience to me. Having to buy hardware always factors into my gaming, I am very content to not spend money on hardware, especially niche hardware. I was tempted to go with a PS/3 back in the days because I could offset the cost of a dedicated gaming machine with the fact I could play Blu-Ray. So unless this Steambox is insanely cheap or provides a significant other use and does those other uses really well I will factor its cost into the game I want to play.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  I was thinking earlier they might sell livebooting usb3 sticks with SteamOS and HL3 on them, alongside the actual Steamboxes. They could bundle it with the controller. Then release it for windows/mac a month later. If they could get it to boot in like 5 seconds, and it came with the ability to play a range of existing steam titles, it might be a winner.
  - jonhohle 13y ago
    I had thought of this as well, but one of the major benefits of Steam (access to all your purchased games) is lost if you can't play them due to resource constraints (not enough storage on the usb stick for persistence, long load times for large games that need to be downloaded each time you boot). Might be a good idea for single titles, though.
- Lewton 13y ago
  Released exclusively on SteamOS != SteamBox exclusive. SteamOS will be freely available
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  for perspective, Steambox Exclusive == Runs on Linux PC's. Not even Xbox/GFW can do that.
- snarkyturtle 13y ago
  The killer app probably wouldn't be a steambox exclusive but a steam exclusive. Which means that you'd be able to play it on practically anything you can throw at it. PC, Mac,Steambox, and it won't surprise me if you'd be able to pair up your steam controller to your tablet and be able to stream the feed from your PC ala nvidia shield. In terms of convenience, tying it to steam will do way more than it being exclusive to other systems.
- mattmanser 13y ago
  Half Life 3, Linux only...
- chm 13y ago
  > I don't buy exclusives. With all due respect, most people don't care.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  > I don't buy exclusives. You've never bought an exclusive game on a platform you already own? Given that some of the best games ever made have been exclusive to something or another, this seems rather self-defeating. Did you mean to say you've never bought a console because of exclusives? This strikes me as still quite unlikely (else why did you buy it in the first place?), but much more reasonable.
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  Do you understand that the Universe does not revolves around you. Do you?
cheald 13y ago
Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity? Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.
- eksith 13y ago
  I agree. It seems the biggest gripe with Ubuntu is Unity (and some of Gnome 3, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). I've been on Linux Mint - Ubuntu / Debian based - and it's closer to Windows 7 than Ubuntu's Vista.
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    but there's xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu studio, kubuntu ...
- hrkristian 13y ago
  That's a fair question, and the answer is no. Unity was an instant turn-off the minute I upgraded, yes, but pulling down another DE isn't exactly hard. The whole OS has just never worked out in the long run, and has always felt bloated and sluggish. A myriad of odd patches and poorly implemented automation made even the simplest problem solving a major gripe. I just couldn't stand it. This is all anecdotal of course, you obviously have a completely different experience.
  - michaelmior 13y ago
    You can also just select GNOME Classic for example on login without having to install anything.
- mitchty 13y ago
  I've only had issues with version upgrades. It might be easy, but upgrading is anything but seamless. Past that unity fits in here where things change drastically between releases.
  - MacsHeadroom 13y ago
pyre 13y ago
> Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open You do realize that there is someone to make a comment, much like this, on every piece of software ever created, right? > I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action. Since when has GNOME been banished from Ubuntu?
- orik 13y ago
  I think you're confusing transparent with open.
- milsorgen 13y ago
  I am confused on a few points myself. Granted I am the much quintessential Windows user but I have explored alternatives over the years in the realm of Linux. I must say picking up Red Hat at Fry's was indeed fun, but part of me wanted that boxed copy of Windows for Workgroups I saw nearby even more. The OP talks about bloated and forgive my ignorance but I though one of the most vaunted features GNU/Linux was it's user customization features. So why should Ubuntu really matter, or any distro. Why not give the user something easy to work with regardless of bloat or extraneous features as they can mature in knowledge and alter their OS to their hearts content. I am not trying to say one is something over the other. I'm just saying I use Windows and have for years and for my needs, cost and all, it really seems to fit the bill. I have used many flavors of Linux over the years but I rarely find it compelling enough to move beyond LiveCD or Pi usage. tl;dr Does distro matter, can the user not just customize at some point? edit: spelins
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    The distro matters in that 95% of users don't customize anything, but, yes, other than that, Ubuntu is just as customizable as any other Linux distribution.
ekianjo 13y ago
i dont really like ubunt for various reasons but you are using the wrong arguments here. you can easily change the ui in ubuntu and make it much more reactive if you dont like unity. use mate or cinnamon then. plus ubuntu is very stable, i dont really know what gripes you have with it in terms of stability. Ubuntu is used almost as is in several companie like Google and I seriously doubt they would go for something unstable.

Shivetya 13y ago

To be honest, if it were SteamBox exclusive I would not buy it. I don't buy exclusives. Gaming is about fun and convenience to me. Having to buy hardware always factors into my gaming, I am very content to not spend money on hardware, especially niche hardware. I was tempted to go with a PS/3 back in the days because I could offset the cost of a dedicated gaming machine with the fact I could play Blu-Ray. So unless this Steambox is insanely cheap or provides a significant other use and does those other uses really well I will factor its cost into the game I want to play.

JonnieCache 13y ago
I was thinking earlier they might sell livebooting usb3 sticks with SteamOS and HL3 on them, alongside the actual Steamboxes. They could bundle it with the controller. Then release it for windows/mac a month later. If they could get it to boot in like 5 seconds, and it came with the ability to play a range of existing steam titles, it might be a winner.
- jonhohle 13y ago
  I had thought of this as well, but one of the major benefits of Steam (access to all your purchased games) is lost if you can't play them due to resource constraints (not enough storage on the usb stick for persistence, long load times for large games that need to be downloaded each time you boot). Might be a good idea for single titles, though.
Lewton 13y ago
Released exclusively on SteamOS != SteamBox exclusive. SteamOS will be freely available
aclevernickname 13y ago
for perspective, Steambox Exclusive == Runs on Linux PC's. Not even Xbox/GFW can do that.
snarkyturtle 13y ago
The killer app probably wouldn't be a steambox exclusive but a steam exclusive. Which means that you'd be able to play it on practically anything you can throw at it. PC, Mac,Steambox, and it won't surprise me if you'd be able to pair up your steam controller to your tablet and be able to stream the feed from your PC ala nvidia shield. In terms of convenience, tying it to steam will do way more than it being exclusive to other systems.
mattmanser 13y ago
Half Life 3, Linux only...
chm 13y ago
> I don't buy exclusives. With all due respect, most people don't care.
stormbrew 13y ago
> I don't buy exclusives. You've never bought an exclusive game on a platform you already own? Given that some of the best games ever made have been exclusive to something or another, this seems rather self-defeating. Did you mean to say you've never bought a console because of exclusives? This strikes me as still quite unlikely (else why did you buy it in the first place?), but much more reasonable.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
Do you understand that the Universe does not revolves around you. Do you?

cheald 13y ago

Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity? Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.

eksith 13y ago
I agree. It seems the biggest gripe with Ubuntu is Unity (and some of Gnome 3, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). I've been on Linux Mint - Ubuntu / Debian based - and it's closer to Windows 7 than Ubuntu's Vista.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  but there's xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu studio, kubuntu ...
hrkristian 13y ago
That's a fair question, and the answer is no. Unity was an instant turn-off the minute I upgraded, yes, but pulling down another DE isn't exactly hard. The whole OS has just never worked out in the long run, and has always felt bloated and sluggish. A myriad of odd patches and poorly implemented automation made even the simplest problem solving a major gripe. I just couldn't stand it. This is all anecdotal of course, you obviously have a completely different experience.
- michaelmior 13y ago
  You can also just select GNOME Classic for example on login without having to install anything.
mitchty 13y ago
I've only had issues with version upgrades. It might be easy, but upgrading is anything but seamless. Past that unity fits in here where things change drastically between releases.
- MacsHeadroom 13y ago

pyre 13y ago

> Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open You do realize that there is someone to make a comment, much like this, on every piece of software ever created, right? > I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action. Since when has GNOME been banished from Ubuntu?

orik 13y ago
I think you're confusing transparent with open.
milsorgen 13y ago
I am confused on a few points myself. Granted I am the much quintessential Windows user but I have explored alternatives over the years in the realm of Linux. I must say picking up Red Hat at Fry's was indeed fun, but part of me wanted that boxed copy of Windows for Workgroups I saw nearby even more. The OP talks about bloated and forgive my ignorance but I though one of the most vaunted features GNU/Linux was it's user customization features. So why should Ubuntu really matter, or any distro. Why not give the user something easy to work with regardless of bloat or extraneous features as they can mature in knowledge and alter their OS to their hearts content. I am not trying to say one is something over the other. I'm just saying I use Windows and have for years and for my needs, cost and all, it really seems to fit the bill. I have used many flavors of Linux over the years but I rarely find it compelling enough to move beyond LiveCD or Pi usage. tl;dr Does distro matter, can the user not just customize at some point? edit: spelins
- StavrosK 13y ago
  The distro matters in that 95% of users don't customize anything, but, yes, other than that, Ubuntu is just as customizable as any other Linux distribution.

ekianjo 13y ago

i dont really like ubunt for various reasons but you are using the wrong arguments here. you can easily change the ui in ubuntu and make it much more reactive if you dont like unity. use mate or cinnamon then. plus ubuntu is very stable, i dont really know what gripes you have with it in terms of stability. Ubuntu is used almost as is in several companie like Google and I seriously doubt they would go for something unstable.