Steam OS

tonicmole

tonicmole

1311-steam-blue-steam-logo-on-black-1024x576.jpg

Valve has posted a count down page to make three different announcements. The first announcement was of the new Linux based Steam OS. You can check out the count down page here: http://store.steampowered.com/livingroom/

The second appears it will be revealed on September 25, 2013.....aka tomorrow. I don't wanna spoil the surprise, but one of them will be Valve's Steam box....oops sorry. Now it appears on the page that Steam OS is part of the third reveal. So, Reveal one, plus reveal two, equals Steam Box.....however two is the real mystery. Anyways......what we know for certain is that the Steam OS is real......

What is Steam OS? Basically Valve has for sometime been attempting to circumvent Microsoft's Windows operating system. The idea is a gaming PC running on nothing but the free Steam OS. In theory this has more benefits then just being free versus the $100 or so for Windows. Firstly, Steam OS would be a dedicated entertainment operating system similar to a game console's OS. This would (in theory) free up massive amounts of power and resources for gaming. Generally, when an OS only has one mission it can do so with far less horsepower then a jack of all trades. However, unlike a gaming console, it would remain 100% open source, like a PC.....however, there is a catch 22.

Linux. You see, several companies have tried to free themselves of the Windows OS. The problem is that the majority of software in existence depends heavily on Windows tech. Not to say that it would be all that difficult to port Steams existing library of games over to Linux, but frankly the current offerings are limited. Scroll through the entire list of Linux games and the only major players are Valves own games....that are already available on basically.....everything ever. So, developers are looking at this from a financial angle. First they have Xbox One OS, then PS 4 OS, followed by Windows, and now Linux. That's a lot of porting. Also, the least likely platform to be given more attention is PC, and for good reason. Frankly, there is no money in it. Generally PC gaming sales at best make up one sixth of a games total sales, and at worst aren't worth acknowledging. It varies wildly, but is always a multiplatform game's weakest link. Steam has to convince developers that Linux can be a major money maker......soon.

The silver lining however is this: VALVE. They are single handedly the only reason PC gaming exists today. Also, in reality this isn't Linux vs Windows. This is Steam OS vs Windows. Though Steam OS is based on Linux, that really doesn't mean anything. To be fair Windows 8 is based on Windows 7 yet sucks like a top dollar Dyson Vacuum available at Sears for the low, low price of your dignity. Have they found ways to optimize the Linux platform for gaming......to make it not only run like Windows, but.....better? An OS lives and dies by two things. Performance and developer support. With Valve I'd assume the performance is there, but whether they have the muscle to get developers to invest in their zany plan has yet to be seen.

UPDATE: Valve just announced "Steam Machines". As you may have assumed, it's machines specifically designed to run Steam OS. Basically this is in fact Steam box......so what the heck is the third reveal. Half Life 3 exclusive to Steam OS? Who knows. We'll find out in about 2 days.
 
Last edited:
Simple problem. When you make a game for linux.. it has to be made FOR linux. Well, ok, I should clarify. When you make a modern game, that's typically the result. There are ways to get at hardware that are platform-agnostic, but if you use windows, it's almost assured you're going to end up using directx. If your game uses directx for whatever reason, congratulations, it won't run off windows. Supposedly the 360 is similar but I don't know about that, and it's not like you can cleanly port your pc game to consoles or back. If that was the case things would be a lot easier. Point though is your Valve SteamOS is going to have to not use directx. That means it has to have its own things, probably openGL for graphics among things. Some of them work to windows machines. For things that don't, you have to port.

Suddenly now, it's not "another competitor on the PC". It's multiple systems. Consoles (they make enough money that with the exception of exclusives who don't count for these purposes it's guaranteed if your game comes out for one you'll do your best to port to the other), PCs running Windows, and PCs running SteamOS. Or the Steam Box, I guess. Except unless they can do a lot of trick under the hood, it's not gonna be easily compatible back and forth. That means now suddenly Steam vs Steam. Whoops.

So, now you're publishing a game. You want the most bang for your buck, so what do you do. The market for compuiter games is tiny compared to consoles, as you noted. First, you design it for the two major consoles, the One and the PS4. Then you consider.. do you want to get the computer market? We'll assume you love computers and want to give them your game to play. That's not a choice a lot of games make, sadly. Then, now instead of saying "Ok, so a windows port" you have to decide, windows port, or Steam port. And 90% of the market is windows, since most people just buy windows, or have a computer that HAS to use windows. It's illegal the courts have said, but Microsoft will refuse to give liscences to companies who sell linux PCs. Not a joke. But it works because if you don't get windows liscences for your hardware, you can't sell a prebuilt PC, all but guaranteed, so you sure as hell stop selling the non-windows box.
So, you do a windows port. Valve is happily spitting money, and throwing muscle, but you have to decide. You're already doing 3 ports. Are you doing a 4th? The game has to actually make a profit. There's developers to pay, they ported it. There's staff to pay, you're a company. There's profit to be made, you probably have shareholders to pay up too. Will the SteamOS make a profit? It's a niche market. Very niche. Valve is not a publisher, unless you count their own games. Games cost money, Valve does not give money, even for indie games, they host them but not fund them, so they're distribution not publishing.

The end result will be unless they can have a MAJOR incentive for users to move en masse to this OS, no one will go there, and no publishers/developers will either. No amount of force thrown at it by Valve will change that simple fact.
 
I don't want to get into this. However, i do want to point out that the PC, counting Windows, Mac, and Linux (especially in the future!) is not exactly a small market.

Microsoft's own PR materials in May claimed that PC-related "gaming spending" -- which may include hardware and Windows itself; they don't specify -- were higher than those of any individual console: http://news.xbox.com/2013/05/x360-aaron-greenberg-industry-growth How do we know they were higher than that of any individual console? It's $12 billion in sales versus $27 billion combined for the 360, PS3, and Wii. Now let's break down the sales among those systems. We don't know exactly what time span Microsoft's data includes, so let's look at two years we have access to, 2011 and 2012. VGChartz may or may not be the most reliable source of information, but it should serve to illustrate the split, at least.

2011: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/
hardware: PS3 14,706,691; X360 13,808,365; Wii 11,522,685
software: PS3 148,974,355; X360 154,515,522; Wii 135,502,236
totals: PS3 = 34%; X360 = 35%; Wii = 30% (approximated)​

2012: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2012/Global/
hardware: PS3 12,734,949; X360 11,097,669; Wii 5,246,228
software: PS3 128,418,262; X360 135,596,735; Wii 72,955,521
totals: PS3: 39%; X360: 40%; Wii: 21% (approximated)​

Best case scenario, X360 in 2012, 40% of $27 billion comes out to $10.8 billion, less than Microsoft's figure for PC spending. One of the later images labels the X360 as bringing in "$11 billion" of revenue, so my numbers seem to be lining up pretty well with theirs. I think. Again, the slides aren't very clear on exactly what they're saying.

My point is that, at least according to this data, it's not irrelevant and it's not a bad option as a release platform. It certainly looks more attractive than a Wii/WiiU release, at this point.

I like the PC as a platform, and i'm (figuratively) scared shitless with the direction Microsoft has been taking Windows. Having an OS that somebody actually wants to optimize for the purpose of gaming (latency, audio quality, and so on) sounds heavenly. Certain AAA studios just need to target OpenGL more instead of using Direct3D for absolutely everything, and the rest will flow naturally.

(I am having a hell of a time getting this post to work right. Edit, edit!)
 
Last edited:
I cant see myself using this either; Valve are going to have a hell of a hard time getting this started properly; people prefer consoles because of the simplicity and I can see this just making PC more complicated; I like my Windows 7 based computer and cant see me switching any time soon.

Personally I think developers are just going to be like 'ppfft, another PC OS? Can't be bothered with that'. They have enough quaffles with windows with is used by 99% of the computer gamers (at least 1% think they can game on a mac? XD).

Although I can ser Valve's goal and its a good one; I just don't think it will have the user base it needs to get up and running; not to mention all of Steam's users owning games for either mac or PC who is going to want to switch to this or even dual-boot with windows it would be pointless; yes it will have a game streaming service for Win and mac games but I don't know about you but personally id rather have my games running off my HDD so I dont require a constant web connection.

IMO I think this will flop badly but we'll if om wrong...
 
All in all, before I pass judgement or even color my opinion on Steam OS at all, I agree with Rich from RTU, I need to see it in action. I don't want to paint my outlook with "I think it's going to fail" or "I think it's a great idea and a great addition to Steam's software and services" mostly because we have nothing but a simple announcement for it so far. I at least want to see this OS in action before I say anything one way or another.
 
Corrodias said:
I don't want to get into this. However, i do want to point out that the PC, counting Windows, Mac, and Linux (especially in the future!) is not exactly a small market.

Microsoft's own PR materials in May claimed that PC-related "gaming spending" -- which may include hardware and Windows itself; they don't specify -- were higher than those of any individual console: http://news.xbox.com/2013/05/x360-aaron-greenberg-industry-growth How do we know they were higher than that of any individual console? It's $12 billion in sales versus $27 billion combined for the 360, PS3, and Wii. Now let's break down the sales among those systems. We don't know exactly what time span Microsoft's data includes, so let's look at two years we have access to, 2011 and 2012. VGChartz may or may not be the most reliable source of information, but it should serve to illustrate the split, at least.

2011: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2011/Global/
hardware: PS3 14,706,691; X360 13,808,365; Wii 11,522,685
software: PS3 148,974,355; X360 154,515,522; Wii 135,502,236
totals: PS3 = 34%; X360 = 35%; Wii = 30% (approximated)​

2012: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2012/Global/
hardware: PS3 12,734,949; X360 11,097,669; Wii 5,246,228
software: PS3 128,418,262; X360 135,596,735; Wii 72,955,521
totals: PS3: 39%; X360: 40%; Wii: 21% (approximated)​

Best case scenario, X360 in 2012, 40% of $27 billion comes out to $10.8 billion, less than Microsoft's figure for PC spending. One of the later images labels the X360 as bringing in "$11 billion" of revenue, so my numbers seem to be lining up pretty well with theirs. I think. Again, the slides aren't very clear on exactly what they're saying.

My point is that, at least according to this data, it's not irrelevant and it's not a bad option as a release platform. It certainly looks more attractive than a Wii/WiiU release, at this point.

I like the PC as a platform, and i'm (figuratively) scared shitless with the direction Microsoft has been taking Windows. Having an OS that somebody actually wants to optimize for the purpose of gaming (latency, audio quality, and so on) sounds heavenly. Certain AAA studios just need to target OpenGL more instead of using Direct3D for absolutely everything, and the rest will flow naturally.

(I am having a hell of a time getting this post to work right. Edit, edit!)
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind is that the majority of that revenue is from one or two games. Mainly World of War Craft, which only help Blizzard Activision. Blizzard has 7 million or so subscribers, each paying $14 a month.....That's a lotta nutts! I ain't so good at math, but I think that's around 1 Hundred Million dollars a month....however, I'm not saying we are doomed. Things are a changing. In the end, developers decide what the future holds.....

Another thing to keep in mind is that most games are Steam exclusive already, they just use Windows. Valve has a way with developers. Developers have really been open to Valves idea's. Achievements, trading cards, Big Picture mode....Valve is the PC market. If a migration to Linux can happen it will be Valve that does it. Additionally.......it ain't for shits and giggles. I'm assuming more then just Valve want to get away from Windows. I have a feeling Valve has been talking to it's partners and we may very well be about to witness a mass exodus. Just guessing.....
 
The problem isn't that developers will or won't want it. I mean, lots of developers love Steam, lots hate Steam, and lots are ambivalent or what have you. The problem is that very very few developers are the ones to ask. Sure the indie market is free to do as they want, but most larger games involve a publisher, and that's when they're independent studios. Those ones have to fight tooth and nail for a publishing contract, and even then it doesn't always turn out. Losing contracts from publishers (particularly before it sells) can kill a developer. The other option is like Volition to be an owned studio, where they don't have to worry about any of that end, and probably won't go bankrupt for lack of a contract to pay the bills, but on the other hand loses some freedom. The best publishers still give creative freedom, stepping in as needed to guide things or better yet discuss options and honestly consider feedback (not everything works, they're not designers, a good publisher realizes that). The bad publishers are EA, who don't actually HAVE owned studios. When they buy a studio, that studio ceases to exist as a separate entity, and eventually may well be shut down and staff lucky to keep their jobs. It may not happen immediately, but it WILL happen. They're a very centralized operation. (Yes there's some good to come out of that like greater resource sharing and developmental assists and so on, but it seems to have problems with creative freedom)

The problem then is that when a game is made for a system, unless you're talking about the indie games only (Steam is great for that, but without having numbers I'm going to wager it's not that big a slice of the pie even for ALL games).. you're talking about the publishers, not the developers. Valve has money to throw about, but publishers do too. Some of them are fine with Steam, I mean, it's a distribution platform, and I'd wager Valve's cut isn't that big (Valve can afford to take a small percentage since the volume is astronomical). Many.. are not. Ever heard of this Origin thing? It's just a well-known one. A lot of publishers are doing their best to move off of Steam, and Steam is an option to sell games, not the only way (and that's not even including box retailers etc).
That means that you have to convince publishers, many of whom haven't even gotten their heads around digital distribution and kickstarters as a thing, to understand a new platform. A fledgeling platform that has nothing for it yet because in theory they'd be developing for it. It's a pretty obvious result. You go up, and pitch this new platform for--- and at that point they've already ignored you. They don't DO untested. They let everyone else do that, then follow and take the credit. Trusting in untested ideas is for those without stockholders who will decry it and have you fired if it's not up to the hype you sold them on (not even successful, but the projected target). Convincing them to put games for a system like that will be an uphill battle at BEST. Most likely, they'll put a few crap titles out, and almost zero publicity. The market isn't there, so they won't. The only option is if Valve can put enough money up to get some big-name games on the system that the market goes.. but then it's a console you're selling it as, not an operating system.

It's a major problem.. the big names won't go for it. They'll stay on PC where there's a proven market, and more than that go to consoles where there's a big market. It doesn't matter how much potential there is, remember. Some people might want to take that risk, but they still have the inertia of the entire company fighting them on it.

(As for your sales figures, they're kind of a non-point by now. Try pulling up say the 2006 sales figures for consoles vs computers. In a year or so, pull up the ones for the next gen consoles vs computers.)
 
I have a few issues with that post.

A lot of publishers are doing their best to move off of Steam
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of this being true except for EA. Most publishers just want their games available on as many platforms as they can afford, and in the PC space, it's cheap to add a copy to Uplay and Origin and whatever stores in addition to Steam, because you don't need to make new code. EA just wanted to make their own thing and not publish in any other store so they could have all the revenue.

many of whom haven't even gotten their heads around digital distribution and kickstarters as a thing
Click to expand...
Publishers fucking love digital distribution. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Valve, and so on, all distribute games via digital distribution on the PC platform. It's just not quite as popular on consoles for what i believe to be two reasons: the infrastructure sucks, so it takes ages to download a game and then it takes another age to install it; and many vocal players have this thing about wanting physical copies that they can trade or sell when they're done playing, and whether that's good or bad, it means they have a resistance to buying digitally.

As for Kickstarter, why would they bother? They can already afford to make games with vastly larger budgets than Kickstarter-funded games. Kickstarter also has a rule that projects "cannot be used to fund software projects not run by the developers themselves", so i don't think a game publisher could use it.

You go up, and pitch this new platform for--- and at that point they've already ignored you. They don't DO untested.
Click to expand...
Valve is just asking them to stop using Direct3D exclusively in the PC space and start making Linux builds. This is less of a change than Microsoft asking them to make builds for their Xbox, or Sony asking them to make builds for their new PlayStation. I mean the first ones, not the newest iterations. The market may be different from 19 and 12 years ago, so if you want to try to poke a hole in this argument, i suggest you aim there.

In addition, i want to caution you not to conflate Steam OS with Linux. Steam has already been available on Linux for a while now, and Steam OS is just a custom distro with Steam already installed. This is just the next stage to Valve giving the industry an incentive to cut loose its dependency on Windows, which as a platform is falling on its ass. There's no reason to use Windows any more except to play games and run certain business software. Let me reiterate that: for a home user, Windows has nothing going for it except playing games (and maybe it's a little more user friendly? Jury's out on that.), and it's not exactly great at doing that. It has a lot of overhead, since Vista the audio engine has sucked, in 8 you have Metro getting in the way, and the list goes on and will continue to grow. Microsoft doesn't want you to play games on Windows. It wants you to play them on its console.

As for the sales figures, let me note that Valve doesn't publicize sales figures for games on Steam. It only tells the publisher. I suspect Microsoft's numbers for PC sales are lowballing. They can't even take a guess at sales based on Valve's revenue, because that's not public information either.
 
Last edited:
Hold on guys. Let's all agree to ignore EA. I mean, really? Origin literally sales copies of Steam games for Steam....wha? So, it's not a issue....oh....and it's Origin...so....What we need is bullet points!

*Steam is the largest distributor of PC games: FACT
*Steam OS is based on Linux: FACT
*Though Valve has begun it's push to port games to Linux there is currently a limited Library: FACT
*However, Linux is fully capable of performing as well as Windows, and actually far better in Steam OS version: MOST LIKELY
*Publishers have a large incentive to begin supporting Steam OS: I BELIEVE SO

My main bullet point would be that WE as PC gamer's want this to work. It is most likely that Steam OS will run games far faster with far less resources then Windows. Also it's free. I have a Phenom 2 quad, with a GT 450 just sitting there because it's not worth buying windows for, but once Steam OS comes out it'll make one hell of a Steam Box. I can't wait to load one of my HDD's on my main PC with Steam OS. I can still Boot Windows 7, but if I'm gaming I can Switch to Steam OS and rock it.....eventually.

History tells us that Valve can get support for non Windows platforms. 2010 was when Steam made it's big push for OS X support, and maybe it's just me, but I'm amazed at how successful it's been. Now imagine it was their own platform. Frankly I see a number of challenges, however this has to work. PC market share is dwindling, and admittedly the Xbox One and PS 4 are likely to learn a hard lesson in the iPad generation.

Prediction Time!!!

I predict that the Xbox One and PS 4 (even if they have good launches) bottom out before their first year on shelves. Tablets, and smart phones continue to grow in power and quickly replace the "home console". They'll hook to your TV and output games at 1080p, and even have their own controllers. Basically they will replace both the Xbox One and the 3DS/Vita in one swoop. (Apple will most likely be able to fit a current gen iPad into an iPhone in a couple of years.) However, this will roll back mainstream gaming graphics to Xbox 360 generation so they can through a smart phone/tablet. Leaving only the PC as the high end gaming machine. Much like the digital camera, and phone market we see people wanting one device that does it all....AKA the smart phone. You know what gaming machine also does it all, and is already in 90% of Americans homes.....PC. That's what I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top