| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| 'Valve: Linux more viable than Windows 8 for gaming' |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-29 23:34:02 |
| I'm not 100% sure this is actually word-for-word, but alas. "In a presentation at Ubuntu Developer Summit currently going on in Denmark, Drew Bliss from Valve said that Linux is more viable than Windows 8 for gaming. Windows 8 ships with its own app store and it is moving away from an open platform model." I feel like a broken record by now but here we go again: keep an eye on Valve, even if you're not into games. This is the company pushing NVIDIA and AMD to improve their Linux support, with enough clout and name to actually get stuff done. Valve doesn't mess around. |
|
| RE[5]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By galvanash on 2012-10-31 04:38:50 |
|
> Yes, I know Microsoft plan's for Win32 for the next five years and its not going anywhere. Of course its not going anywhere... You guys are missing the point. Microsoft doesn't need to kill win32 to start down this path... Step one - "since the Windows Store has been such a success, MS is now gong to offer developers the opportunity to sell their win32 apps through our app store. The process is virtually the same as Metro, submit your app for approval and we will sign them for you!" Nay, I don't want to do that. I like to distribute myself... Step two - "from now on, in an effort to eliminate malware, you will be required to sign your win32 apps just as is already done for in store apps. We won't make you sell through the Windows Store, and we won't make you get approval, it will simply allow users to establish the identity of the publisher and scan the apps for malware and viruses. Getting an app signed will be easy and free, but you have to supply identity credentials. Unsigned apps will now start generating a warning in the desktop UI" ? huh... Thats kinda sucks. Oh well, not too terribly troublesome (I don't mind giving up anominity), and anyway, its free. Geez though, having to submit my app to MS just to get it signed is a pain. But getting rid of malware is a good goal, Im in. Step three - "We have determined that the benefits of app signing (for security) are so great that in the next version of Windows unsigned apps will no longer run. We have implemented a whitelist of known-good legacy apps so that they will run going forward without signing, but going forward signing will be required. We highly recommend selling your app through the app store, as the process will be much easier..." ???? Now I HAVE to do it? This is starting to be a real PITA. Maybe I should just publish in the app store? If it is not obvious, at this point it is game over. They have effectively closed off their platform - even though they havent really closed off the platform yet. All without breaking a single app (at least the ones they don't want to break). The infrastructure to do this is already in the OS - it would be trivial for them to pull this whenever they want to.... Just saying, the issue is not them "killing off" win32, it is closing it off. Edited 2012-10-31 04:42 UTC |
 - Score: 4 |
| The future in gaming. |
| By westlake on 2012-10-31 05:31:28 |
|
Steam is an app store subject to the same economic, legal and cultural restraints as any other. I don't see Valve leading the charge to push "adult" content in gaming beyond the M or M+ ratings or their global equivalents. In other media, there are thousands, tens of thousands, of titles available that successfully and profitably target an adult audience --- without indulging an adolescent's taste for explicit violence and porn. Microsoft wants to use the Windows Store to create a more urban and sophisticated image of the Windows marketplace. The M rated game has a place in that strategy. But L.A. Noire makes a better fit then Duke Nukem Forever. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By TM99 on 2012-10-31 07:14:34 |
|
Exactly! This is really how Apple did it. And as the current market leader, Microsoft really wants to use that business model to stay viable in the next decade of computing. Apple would never get rid of Classic. After all, there is tons of software code out there that would cost millions to upgrade or replace. Apple will maintain Rosetta for as long as necessary to make the transition that none of us saw coming, right? Apple would never stop the successful individual developer from creating the software real people want to use. Apple is purchasing these companies so that they can make that software better for its users from audio/video software to PIM. Apple is only doing the App Store for the convenience of both users and developers. Apple is doing away with software DVD's to protect the environment. After all, everyone who uses a Mac has fast internet anyway, so downloading the next OS upgrade is surely no problem, right? Apple is making important changes so that security is maintained for all users. Apple is requiring a percentage of sales from every App sold so that the user experience is preserved and everything is uniform & easy for the consumer. Microsoft will not do this exactly the way Apple did, however, any one who thinks they won't be getting ride of 'classic' on the Windows platform in the next 5 to 10 years, is just not paying attention to history or the computing industry as it has evolved today. |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[6]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By ansidotsys on 2012-10-31 08:13:52 |
|
I thought you weren't the "omg the sky is falling" type? Those fictional series of steps you just listed are the epitome of the paranoid quote you just said you were not. When I was referencing Win32 backwards compatibility based on the APIs, that same dependency applies to the current distribution model of a Win32 application (On x86, the only ISA that matters for PC Gaming). In other words, Microsoft CAN'T close off Win32. Because again, the basis of what makes Windows so powerful are applications that exist today *AS THEY ARE NOW*. Closing off Win32 applications and requiring that they be installed via a Store is exactly the same as breaking Win32 API compatibility. Why? Because by virtue of Windows rejecting an installer, it is breaking compatibility; there are thousands of applications whose installers will never be re-written. Like I mentioned earlier to Thom, this disaster scenario you are making up is making the following assumptions: 1. That Microsoft is willing to throw away all of their backwards compatibility that they worked so hard to preserve the past few decades. 2. That Microsoft even WANTS to get rid of the desktop. 3. That Microsoft even CAN get rid of the desktop. Microsoft recognizes the strength they have with the desktop. It's why they are using it is as a selling point for Windows 8. Microsoft will not abandon the desktop until the desktop and laptop form factor themselves are dead. And the only way that will happen is if every x86 device on the planet dies and x86 is never again produced. But hey, that's another ridiculous assumption altogether. Edited 2012-10-31 08:23 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[6]: It's a Valve's game |
| By karunko on 2012-10-31 10:20:33 |
|
> Anyway, all my steam games work on Windows 8 perfectly fine, so that alone disproves Gabe's "viability argument". Exactly! And just a few days ago Tom's Hardware benchmarked a few games on both Windows 7 and Windows 8: http://www.tomshardware.com/revi... In other words, if someone has something to sell you, you better not take his words as the Gospel. Also, although I would like to see modern games run on Linux without having to jump through hoops, I'm afraid it's never going to happen. A "Steam Box", on the other hand, is far more likely. RT. RT. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[7]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By dnebdal on 2012-10-31 10:25:06 |
|
> I thought you weren't the "omg the sky is falling" type? Those fictional series of steps you just listed are the epitome of the paranoid quote you just said you were not. When I was referencing Win32 backwards compatibility based on the APIs, that same dependency applies to the current distribution model of a Win32 application (On x86, the only ISA that matters for PC Gaming). In other words, Microsoft CAN'T close off Win32. Because again, the basis of what makes Windows so powerful are applications that exist today *AS THEY ARE NOW*. Closing off Win32 applications and requiring that they be installed via a Store is exactly the same as breaking Win32 API compatibility. Why? Because by virtue of Windows rejecting an installer, it is breaking compatibility; there are thousands of applications whose installers will never be re-written. Like I mentioned earlier to Thom, this disaster scenario you are making up is making the following assumptions: 1. That Microsoft is willing to throw away all of their backwards compatibility that they worked so hard to preserve the past few decades. 2. That Microsoft even WANTS to get rid of the desktop. 3. That Microsoft even CAN get rid of the desktop. Microsoft recognizes the strength they have with the desktop. It's why they are using it is as a selling point for Windows 8. Microsoft will not abandon the desktop until the desktop and laptop form factor themselves are dead. And the only way that will happen is if every x86 device on the planet dies and x86 is never again produced. But hey, that's another ridiculous assumption altogether. I think you're being very optimistic here - MS are perfectly capable of going down a path like that. Sure, it will mean throwing away some of the reasons people use windows. The benefit is that they get to decide what runs on windows, and that they earn 20% on every single windows application sold. That might well be worth the customer loss it would cause. It might not even be a large loss: Eased in over time, the number of consumers lost to other OSes wouldn't need to be especially large. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: I'm not a agmer, but |
| By bassbeast on 2012-10-31 16:16:38 |
|
The problem is gonna be the "FOSSies" and by FOSSies I mean those that hold up the GPL like the 10 commandments because there is a LOT of those guys working on the lower level internals and let us not forget that no matter how you pretty it up Steam is a NON GPL DRM PLATFORM and the FOSSie faction would rather burn the place to the ground than let that take hold. You see Linux is split in 2 right now, the pragmatists that want a viable alternative to the big 2 and the FOSSies who frankly don't care if Linux never gets beyond a handful of users as long as the GPL is held inviolate. So mark my words, what you will see with Steam is this: "Oops, updates broke Steam sound, well that wouldn't happen Gabe if you'd open up the source but since you won't well too bad, so sad" "Oops, networking is broken for Steam users? Well that wouldn't happen if you'd just open up the source but since you won't nothing we can do, sorry". There is a reason why you don't see proprietary programs on Linux, its not because you can't get them to run in the first place, its the simple fact that you'll never keep them running because you will have devs actively sabotaging your efforts. I pointed this out on Linux forums and was told "So, GPL is pure and we don't want it contaminated so you can keep your DRM on Windowz" and that is pretty much why Valve hasn't got a chance. |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE[3]: It's a Valve's game |
| By bassbeast on 2012-10-31 16:36:25 |
|
See where its going? You mean another Vista flop? and even if it doesn't flop, lets just say for the sake of argument it don't...I direct your attention to Games For Windows Live, which MSFT has had YEARS to fix and to this very day if you look for a game for your PC will give you 3 dozen X360 games without a single product for THE SYSTEM YOU ARE USING! Lets face it Mr Holwerda, MSFT does NOT do "consumer friendly" worth a damn, they just don't. Even when given a successful competitor to crib off of, like Apple or valve, they ruin the execution, because they have "AOL syndrome" where you have 300 PHBs for every grunt and constant meddling to "push the product" even where the product doesn't make sense. i'm sure the reason you get 300 X360 games in GFWL when you go looking ON a PC FOR PC games is some PHB brought out a spreadsheet showing X360 trailing in some metric so they needed to "push the product". Well that is nice for a spreadsheet in a meeting, doesn't make for a working games platform though. To put it bluntly Valve has as much to worry about from the appstore as i have reason to worry i might grow wings out my butt and fly south for the winter, IE not at all. MSFT has become this big, bloated, PHB heavy trainwreck of a company and they couldn't get a gaming platform right if you stuck a gun to their heads, again look at GFWL. How much you wanna bet you'll start seeing a billion X360 games in there too? After all X360 sales are down, look at the spreadsheet...sigh. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By bassbeast on 2012-10-31 16:51:53 |
|
Not to mention the rotting elephant in the room Werecat which is so far the reviews of Win 8 are terrible, even worse than Vista, and we ALL know how well it went over right? Lets face it, getting a product to go over despite huge amounts of bad buzz is nearly impossible for a company with a GREAT PR dept, and MSFT's PR certainly ain't great. Final verdict? Win 7 is supported until 2020, I have a feeling after a dead XMas season the OEMs will demand the right to sell Win 7 (just as they did with XP) and MSFT will cave, just as they did on Vista. They are pushing an appstore because it gives them a walled garden but they AIN'T Apple, they simply aren't a premier brand and never will be. This is like marking everything in Walmart up 300% and suddenly thinking that makes you Macy's...it don't. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[7]: Depends on your definition of "viable" |
| By galvanash on 2012-10-31 16:53:16 |
|
> I thought you weren't the "omg the sky is falling" type? Those fictional series of steps you just listed are the epitome of the paranoid quote you just said you were not. Im not being paranoid. I don't believe Microsoft will end up doing that. But it is a completely realistic scenario. I believe it is naive to pretend that something like this couldn't happen, it could - quite easily actually. > In other words, Microsoft CAN'T close off Win32. Because again, the basis of what makes Windows so powerful are applications that exist today *AS THEY ARE NOW* You didn't read what I posted. If they wanted to they could make a whitelist of popular apps and allow them to run unsigned... Sure, they can't include everything obviously, but they could more than likely include enough to make the vast majority of users not notice. They could even forego the whitelist and just go the "bug the user with a warning" route indefinitely - i.e. never really "break" the apps, just make it a pain to run them if they are not signed... The result is the same either way - it herds developers to their distribution model, and they make more $$$. Don't underestimate the power of $$$. > Like I mentioned earlier to Thom, this disaster scenario you are making up is making the following assumptions: 1. That Microsoft is willing to throw away all of their backwards compatibility that they worked so hard to preserve the past few decades. 2. That Microsoft even WANTS to get rid of the desktop. 3. That Microsoft even CAN get rid of the desktop. Your absolutely right. The thing is nobody but Microsoft knows the answer to 1 and 2. But 3 is definitely true, pretending its not isn't terribly useful. > Microsoft recognizes the strength they have with the desktop. It's why they are using it is as a selling point for Windows 8. Microsoft will not abandon the desktop until the desktop and laptop form factor themselves are dead. And the only way that will happen is if every x86 device on the planet dies and x86 is never again produced. But hey, that's another ridiculous assumption altogether. I think you are underestimating the allure of having total control of distribution on the platform... Again, I don't think Microsoft will go this route - but at the same time I don't for a second believe they wouldn't do to if they felt they could get away with it. I just want to keep them honest. I think demanding a roadmap for win32 development going forward is not too much to ask. Edited 2012-10-31 17:02 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |