It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Johnathanamz: Why need a expensive Steam Machine when you can build your own PC for cheaper from scratch from the ground up and set it up in the living room and play PC versions of video games from your PC on your TV?
avatar
shmerl: Sure no need to. And you can install Linux on that machine all the same. However I suspect that the vast majority of users never built anything and only buy prebuilt hardware. Same as the vast majority would never even install an operating system on their own, be it Linux or Windows.

So Valve have a chance to increase the number of PCs (Steam Machines) sold with Linux preinstalled. That's a major step to reduce Windows dominance.
I just don't see Linux growing at all on Steam Linux grows 0.xx% each year, outside of Steam I do not know how much % Linux grows each year.

People will still continue to purchase a pre-built PC with Windows installed, a PlayStation 4 (PS4) or a Xbox One.

I just don't see VALVe being very successful with having Steam Machines selling very well at all.

2016 Time will tell. If Linux after GDC 2015 in April is still at 1.xx% on Steam then in 2016 if Linux is still at 1.xx% then that means Linux will never take off, unless Microsoft really messes up Windows 10 a lot. Which so far 3 million people who have tested Windows 10 or was it 2 million people? I can't remember, but a lot of them are very happy with Windows 10.

There is even talk from Alienware, Dell, HP (Hewlett Packard), Intel that Microsoft will end up selling 600 million Windows license copies.

So time is the only thing that will tell Windows and Linuxes future. Time is what will determine the success of Linux.

If not many people start using Linux it's over for Alienware to sell the Steam Machines, then later it's over VALVe selling Steam Machines.

So 2016, maybe after GDC 2015 we will see the %'s.
avatar
shmerl: Why so? I usually use Nvidia way with Debian testing (using sgfxi for managing the driver) if I need a driver which is newer than the one from the distro (Debian way) and it works very well, never really had a problem with it.
avatar
ssokolow: My brother had the same issue when we first installed the then-new Ubuntu 12.04 on his brand new machine with a GeForce 760 back in mid-2012.

Distros like Ubuntu want to do their own quality control "stuff" on driver packages (and they generally semi-freeze the "stable" driver package at each twice-yearly release to limit the risk of breaking cards that already work) and that adds lag-time. The solution was to explicitly select an unstable/experimental driver rather than the default nvidia driver package.
Debian also packages the driver, but you still can install it "Nvidia way" which allows installing the newer ones which are ahead of what's packaged. sgfxi is a great tool which automates it all: http://smxi.org
avatar
Johnathanamz: I just don't see Linux growing at all on Steam Linux grows 0.xx% each year, outside of Steam I do not know how much % Linux grows each year.
Steam numbers are quite useless as is to estimate Linux sales potential. What you should evaluate are percentages of sales per OS for cross platform games (for example ones which release all versions for all OSes at once). Steam doesn't offer such statistics. Also don't forget that a lot of Linux users avoid DRM and Steam as well as a result. So to have a better estimation you should get such stats for games which are DRM-free. May be GOG can publish some?

avatar
Johnathanamz: I just don't see VALVe being very successful with having Steam Machines selling very well at all.
They didn't even start selling them, so there is nothing to evaluate yet.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by shmerl
I think that when it comes to game creation, most developers don't deal with the DirectX/OpenGL level. Engines make creating graphics pretty seamless. In this respect I think that Linux gaming would continue to grow, as long as people there are paying for games, because there's less need to deal with the platform differences if you're using Unity or Unreal Engine, and most devs will go that way.
avatar
ET3D: I think that when it comes to game creation, most developers don't deal with the DirectX/OpenGL level. Engines make creating graphics pretty seamless. In this respect I think that Linux gaming would continue to grow, as long as people there are paying for games, because there's less need to deal with the platform differences if you're using Unity or Unreal Engine, and most devs will go that way.
If developers have no experience with Linux, the fact that engine supports it won't help them. You can expect to get a junk version in which developers won't be fixing any bugs because they can't program for Linux. May be for lower end games it's less of a problem, but for high end ones it's for sure more important.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by shmerl
avatar
shmerl: If developers have no experience with Linux, the fact that engine supports it won't help them. You can expect to get a junk version in which developers won't be fixing any bugs because they can't program for Linux. May be for lower end games it's less of a problem, but for high end ones it's for sure more important.
I guess you're right, but I hope that won't stop Linux gamers from buying these games (and providing suitable feedback). The more people but games for Linux, the more developers will see it as a target market, and the more experience they'll get with it.
avatar
ET3D: I guess you're right, but I hope that won't stop Linux gamers from buying these games (and providing suitable feedback). The more people but games for Linux, the more developers will see it as a target market, and the more experience they'll get with it.
That may be, but it can also create a reputation of Linux versions being always broken. More than once I saw Unity based games made by developers with little knowledge of Linux who just press some "export" button and don't care to address any bugs reported to them because they probably even can't.
avatar
Johnathanamz: Why need a expensive Steam Machine when you can build your own PC for cheaper from scratch from the ground up and set it up in the living room and play PC versions of video games from your PC on your TV?
avatar
shmerl: Sure no need to. And you can install Linux on that machine all the same. However I suspect that the vast majority of users never built anything and only buy prebuilt hardware. Same as the vast majority would never even install an operating system on their own, be it Linux or Windows.

So Valve have a chance to increase the number of PCs (Steam Machines) sold with Linux preinstalled. That's a major step to reduce Windows dominance.
More and more people are building their own system because it's actually quite easy to do now. A friend of mine who is passionate console gamer once said that PC's are big bulky and stupid. After building a custom rig her opinion has changed.
avatar
Magmarock: More people are building their own system because it's actually quite easy to do now. A friend of mine who is passionate console gamer once said that PC's are big bulky and stupid. After building a custom rig her opinion has changed.
May be more, but I strongly doubt it's a majority of users.
avatar
Magmarock: More and more people are building their own system because it's actually quite easy to do now.
I'll have to see some stats to believe that the number of people building custom PC's is growing.
avatar
shmerl: Completely the opposite. The industry hates DirectX because it's closed and MS only. Try using it anywhere outside MS systems? Good luck with that. So OpenGL is the only option precisely because it's an open standard. Except that on MS platforms you have no choice (Xbox for instance).
The industry has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. I am reminded of Jim Sterling's coffee episode, when he pointed that among people served everyone said they prefer their coffee black when in fact most people prefer it with milk. Point is people said they prefer black because it's trendy thing to say.

The games industry can stop using Direct X anytime they want. It doesn't even seem like it would even take a lot of effort to port something from direct X to OpenGL since the Linux community seems to do a half way decent job for free.
avatar
shmerl: Because no one attempted to push OpenGL forward seriously until like last year. I mean rewriting the API from the ground up. And also because MS always push for their poisonous lock-in when they can.
That's not true at all. AS I said before Id's John Carmac make the Quack 3 engine OpenGL based and Q3 was one of the most used game engines in the early 00s. So this has been done by people a lot more influential them Valve. Steam is influential yes, but I don't think Valve are as big as they think they are.
avatar
Magmarock: More and more people are building their own system because it's actually quite easy to do now.
avatar
ET3D: I'll have to see some stats to believe that the number of people building custom PC's is growing.
You could post a poll on a general gaming site. I can tell you now though that more people build their systems today then they did years ago. But you can also get pre built PC's like the NUC and Brix. So there's still no need for a Steam box.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by Magmarock
avatar
Magmarock: You could post a poll on a general gaming site. I can tell you now though that more people build their systems today then they did years ago. But you can also get pre built PC's like the NUC and Brix. So there's still no need for a Steam box.
I'm not sure where I could post it and what to ask to make it feel like I'm getting real results.

It's possible though that a higher percentage of desktop users are building PC's, simply because many of those who don't have moved to laptops.
avatar
shmerl: Because no one attempted to push OpenGL forward seriously until like last year. I mean rewriting the API from the ground up. And also because MS always push for their poisonous lock-in when they can.
avatar
Magmarock: That's not true at all. AS I said before Id's John Carmac make the Quack 3 engine OpenGL based and Q3 was one of the most used game engines in the early 00s. So this has been done by people a lot more influential them Valve. Steam is influential yes, but I don't think Valve are as big as they think they are.
That's a very long time ago when it comes to APIs. What happened in 2000s is now not really relevant. What's happening right now is very different.

avatar
Magmarock: You could post a poll on a general gaming site. I can tell you now though that more people build their systems today then they did years ago. But you can also get pre built PC's like the NUC and Brix. So there's still no need for a Steam box.
avatar
ET3D: I'm not sure where I could post it and what to ask to make it feel like I'm getting real results.

It's possible though that a higher percentage of desktop users are building PC's, simply because many of those who don't have moved to laptops.
I'd expect a small percentage to build their own systems. I do so myself, but the amount of effort and research it requires is way above the habits of your average user. Enthusiasts do that, yes. But they are way not the majority.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by shmerl
Can someone please explain to me in a very basic way what this new rewrite of OpenGL is about? I have some experience with OpenGL, I was dabbling in it a bit last year, so you don't have to completely avoid technical terms. I know that OpenGL 3 was all about removing the fixed-function pipeline in favour of the programmable shader-based pipeline. So what is the next big leap?
avatar
shmerl: I'd expect a small percentage to build their own systems. I do so myself, but the amount of effort and research it requires is way above the habits of your average user. Enthusiasts do that, yes. But they are way not the majority.
I agree (which is why I doubt the assertion that more people are doing it now), but if most users are moving to laptops, those left using desktops are more likely to be those who build them themselves. So if you're looking at just the desktop market, you might see a higher percentage of custom built PC's. Perhaps still a minority, but a larger one than before.
avatar
Magmarock: If there's one thing I'll say about the mass PC user base that is all they want to do is click on little pictures and have things work with as little getting in the way as possible. Not only is nothing in Linux quite that simple I found that in my experience with Linux fans is that they tend to resent that very idea/ Almost as if ease of use and simplicity is some kind of sin. They seem to prefer doing things the hard way, even when using Windows where an easier way is available the common Linux user will try and take a more unorthodox way of solving it. Case and point. Trying to manually extract game data from the most idiot proof installer I have ever seen.
I think that's a rather poor example to prove your point, as that is an example of trying to use/run a Windows-only game on an unsupported (Linux) system. I understood the current installers (with password-protected RAR files) cause extra problems running the games in e.g. Wine.

I don't consider it different than e.g. a Windows user wanting to run his old (DOS) PC game in DOSBox or ScummVM, by using only the data files from the game. Or me last week wanting to "extract" data files from the original Quake and Quake 2, in order to use them with mods like Quake Darkplaces or KMQuake2 (running them on Windows 7). Yeah, I guess I was being "unorthodox", since I didn't simply try to install and play the vanilla Quake or Quake 2 on Windows 7.

Heck, with many GOG DOS games I've performed extra measures to change the music source from Soundblaster to Roland MT-32 or General MIDI, in order to get better music. Sometimes that has been a bit tricky because GOG has removed the sound setup executables, and even when they are there, it is not straightforward to get to a DOSBox session in order to change the sound card.

One complaint I quite often also hear is that there are too many user interfaces for different Linux distros, and that makes it too complicated to many users. I think that is hogwash, as overall the differences are quite trivial (the "start menu" items arranged in a different order... so what), and generally these changes are much smaller than e.g. the UI changes between Windows 7 and 8, or even 8 and 8.1. If normal users can live with how the user interface can change even drastically between Windows versions, I don't think they should have any problems learning their way around in a slightly different Linux UI.

At home I mostly use XFCE in Linux because I like the idea of it being a lightweight UI (esp. as I quite often run Linux on older PCs with obsolete Windows versions, even with 32bit CPUs), but I have no problem occasionally using Linux with some totally different desktop environment. Ok, the mobile-friendly Ubuntu UI was a bit awkward to me, the same way like Windows 8 Metro was.
Post edited January 13, 2015 by timppu