SteamOS

[dpodblood]

I hope that Valve are successful with Steam OS. I would really be nice to see PC games compete in the living room space. By removing the cost of a Windows License and giving us Steam OS for free they make PC gaming just that much more affordable. The key will be to make it streamlined enough for a casual user to be able to use it - the exact opposite of what Linux is for most users atm.

Going forward I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of new games developed under Open GL and maybe even Mantle, and ditching DX just to take advantage of Steam OS. That has got to be the biggest stumbling block currently to getting games ported over to Linux.

 

[cbrunny]

Has anyone installed this yet?

 

[mmntech]

I was going to install it but it doesn't support AMD GPUs yet.

I hope that Valve are successful with Steam OS. I would really be nice to see PC games compete in the living room space. By removing the cost of a Windows License and giving us Steam OS for free they make PC gaming just that much more affordable. The key will be to make it streamlined enough for a casual user to be able to use it - the exact opposite of what Linux is for most users atm.

Going forward I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of new games developed under Open GL and maybe even Mantle, and ditching DX just to take advantage of Steam OS. That has got to be the biggest stumbling block currently to getting games ported over to Linux.

Agree with this 100%. It effectively reduces the cost of a gaming PC by at least $100. Linux isn't the most user friendly but it's very easy to install. Plus they're using front end software so it's rare that your average gamer would have to muck about in the backend. Much like XBMCbuntu. OS X is another good example of how to create a user friendly Unix-like OS. The key is keeping folks out of the terminal, and keeping it as similar to Windows as possible. I think most PC gamers do have at least intermediate computer literacy so it shouldn't be a problem.

As for OpenGL vs DirectX, I don't think porting will be that big a deal. The PlayStation 4 supports OpenGL 4.0, so that's a place to start. The biggest hurdle is hardware support. Especially from nVidia and AMD. Drivers don't get regular updates, lack half the features they have on Windows, and are generally coded like a dog's breakfast.

 

[cbrunny]

I was going to install it but it doesn't support AMD GPUs yet.

LOL really? Well glad I didn't even try then. Clearly I didn't read the release notes enough to know this! Thanks for the tip.

 

[Skel]

I hope that Valve are successful with Steam OS. I would really be nice to see PC games compete in the living room space. By removing the cost of a Windows License and giving us Steam OS for free they make PC gaming just that much more affordable. The key will be to make it streamlined enough for a casual user to be able to use it - the exact opposite of what Linux is for most users atm.

Going forward I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of new games developed under Open GL and maybe even Mantle, and ditching DX just to take advantage of Steam OS. That has got to be the biggest stumbling block currently to getting games ported over to Linux.

One thing I've never heard anyone say.. "Man, I was going to get more into PC Gaming with my high end very costly PC parts but that damn Windows License is too expensive. If only the license was free so I could use this $500 video card."

 

[ImpulsE69]

One thing I've never heard anyone say.. "Man, I was going to get more into PC Gaming with my high end very costly PC parts but that damn Windows License is too expensive. If only the license was free so I could use this $500 video card."

Well that's because everyone pi-- gets Windows free

 

[frozentundra123456]

One thing I've never heard anyone say.. "Man, I was going to get more into PC Gaming with my high end very costly PC parts but that damn Windows License is too expensive. If only the license was free so I could use this $500 video card."

Well, you get much more functionality from a real PC with windows than a dedicated box running steam OS. I suppose it could have a place as a secondary system for gaming only, or one running steam OS and Linux, but there is just so much more functionality with windows installed, I dont really see going to the expense of buying all the hardware and not getting a windows license.

 

[Qwertilot]

Well there's a full debian desktop waiting for use underneath. Very much a fully featured operating system.

Of course it isn't planned to be configured for that as its main use so likely a bit of work needed to get it looking 'desktop focused'.

Luckily, with it being open source and all, I'd be really very surprised if a few 'desktop focused' distributions building off SteamOS don't appear. They'd be very directly comparable to windows/Steam as an experience.
(And a bit smoother in terms of graphics cards/games etc than a 'random' linux distribution and Steam.).

 

[PliotronX]

I hope that Valve are successful with Steam OS. I would really be nice to see PC games compete in the living room space. By removing the cost of a Windows License and giving us Steam OS for free they make PC gaming just that much more affordable. The key will be to make it streamlined enough for a casual user to be able to use it - the exact opposite of what Linux is for most users atm.

Going forward I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of new games developed under Open GL and maybe even Mantle, and ditching DX just to take advantage of Steam OS. That has got to be the biggest stumbling block currently to getting games ported over to Linux.

+1 I still prefer PC gaming at a desk with a mouse and keyboard but the Steam boxes have better looking concept designs than the consoles IMO and it opens up further competition.

 

[mmntech]

Don't forget that Steam OS will benefit all Linux users if it takes off. Better drivers, better multimedia support (Flash, Netflix), and you'll still be able to use Steam to play your games the old fashioned way.

One thing I've never heard anyone say.. "Man, I was going to get more into PC Gaming with my high end very costly PC parts but that damn Windows License is too expensive. If only the license was free so I could use this $500 video card."

Depends on what kind of PC gamer you are. Not everyone has a $5000 custom built rig. If you're on a budget, $100 makes a huge difference. Especially if the entire rig is $500, that money is better spent on better hardware. I've never heard about anybody complaining that something was free.

LOL really? Well glad I didn't even try then. Clearly I didn't read the release notes enough to know this! Thanks for the tip.

<--- Mint user. AMD's proprietary Linux drivers are absolute rubbish. I can't even run Folding@Home GPU due to their crappy OpenCL support.

 

[PliotronX]

Don't forget that Steam OS will benefit all Linux users if it takes off. Better drivers, better multimedia support (Flash, Netflix), and you'll still be able to use Steam to play your games the old fashioned way.



Depends on what kind of PC gamer you are. Not everyone has a $5000 custom built rig. If you're on a budget, $100 makes a huge difference. Especially if the entire rig is $500, that money is better spent on better hardware. I've never heard about anybody complaining that something was free.



<--- Mint user. AMD's proprietary Linux drivers are absolute rubbish. I can't even run Folding@Home GPU due to their crappy OpenCL support.

Hell yes! This is only a good thing, MS' deathgrip on PC gaming could be loosened by all of this. It was only a matter of time before Linux would shine. I dream of a day without having to worry about spyware on a gaming PC

 

[dpodblood]

Depends on what kind of PC gamer you are. Not everyone has a $5000 custom built rig. If you're on a budget, $100 makes a huge difference. Especially if the entire rig is $500, that money is better spent on better hardware. I've never heard about anybody complaining that something was free.

This is my thought exactly. I specced out a PC the other day which would be better performing that the Xbox one for ~$500. So realistically PC gaming can happen at the same price/performance point as current console as long as you subtract out the cost of a Windows license.

For me personally it isn't going to help a lot as I am always going to invest in high end parts, and I'm more interested in playing at my desk with a keyboard and mouse. For people who want to get into PC gaming inexpensively it's a big deal.

 

[Super56K]

I know this will be a long journey for SteamOS, but as the beta stands it makes a convincing case as to why paying for a Windows license is worth it. There really needs to be some compelling reasons for gamers to choose this over Windows as the beta goes on and improves. Not needing to pay for a MS license every 3-5 years isn't nearly enough.

 

[sweenish]

, better multimedia support (Flash, Netflix),

That's still a pipe dream at this point. Flash is a thing and it works well enough already. Things like Netflix will require the content owners to get on board. I'm pretty sure they won't.

 

[Nintendesert]

It's a reach to claim the cost of a Windows license is some sort of barrier to entry for gamers. XBoners pay more a year for XBLive than you can get a Windows license for. So do Playstation gamers now.

Valve/Steam will find a way to nickle and dime you out of some money somewhere, for those of us that use Steam on the PC it's through their horrid return policy.

 

[Childs]

One thing I've never heard anyone say.. "Man, I was going to get more into PC Gaming with my high end very costly PC parts but that damn Windows License is too expensive. If only the license was free so I could use this $500 video card."

Getting the good version of Windows (pro/ultimate) was like $300 or more. In most cases it was the most expensive component of a build. While the OS is fundamental, it really shouldn't matter. People want to run programs, not deal with the OS. The cost should be minimal. And nothing beats free, which is why people would pirate it.

 

[darkewaffle]

Getting the good version of Windows (pro/ultimate) was like $300 or more. In most cases it was the most expensive component of a build. While the OS is fundamental, it really shouldn't matter. People want to run programs, not deal with the OS. The cost should be minimal. And nothing beats free, which is why people would pirate it.

Some of the big Vista bundles were pricey but I got XP pro for like... $80 in 03-04, 7 Pro for $40 a few years back and 8 for $15 at it's release.

I mean if you go to Staples and buy a box off the shelf, maybe you hit three digits. But who builds their own PC and does that?

 

[smackababy]

Some of the big Vista bundles were pricey but I got XP pro for like... $80 in 03-04, 7 Pro for $40 a few years back and 8 for $15 at it's release.

I mean if you go to Staples and buy a box off the shelf, maybe you hit three digits. But who builds their own PC and does that?

Even if you get Windows for $40, the idea of a SteamOS is bring down the cost of the SteamBox, which is supposed to compete with consoles. Now, they have to be priced lower, because they have much less value. They don't have the libraries (or promised libraries), they don't have the exclusives, and they don't have streamlined experience. Will SteamOS automatically detect the best settings for each game?

 

[Childs]

Some of the big Vista bundles were pricey but I got XP pro for like... $80 in 03-04, 7 Pro for $40 a few years back and 8 for $15 at it's release.

I mean if you go to Staples and buy a box off the shelf, maybe you hit three digits. But who builds their own PC and does that?

I usually dont buy when until its $100 or less, but I would say most people that buy their OS just go into Frys or Microcenter and buy it. Probably pick an OEM version, but OEM is still a significant % of the non OEM cost. I remember buying an non upgrade OEM version of 95 at a computer show for ~$100, and it was a deal.

 

[Skel]

Don't forget that Steam OS will benefit all Linux users if it takes off. Better drivers, better multimedia support (Flash, Netflix), and you'll still be able to use Steam to play your games the old fashioned way.



Depends on what kind of PC gamer you are. Not everyone has a $5000 custom built rig. If you're on a budget, $100 makes a huge difference. Especially if the entire rig is $500, that money is better spent on better hardware. I've never heard about anybody complaining that something was free.
<snip>.

People complain about everything, if the OS was free people would still bitch. I'm still sticking with the fact that the Windows license isn't a barrier to get into PCs, gaming or otherwise. If it really was that huge of a deal Linux would have a much higher desktop market share. Oddly enough my understanding of this SteamBox is it isn't for the desktop market share but the living room/console share.

Getting the good version of Windows (pro/ultimate) was like $300 or more. In most cases it was the most expensive component of a build. While the OS is fundamental, it really shouldn't matter. People want to run programs, not deal with the OS. The cost should be minimal. And nothing beats free, which is why people would pirate it.

If you need all the bells and whistles that the higher priced versions of Windows has than you aren't the right fit for SteamOS. If anything you should be looking at a more feature filled Linux version.

 

[Childs]

If you need all the bells and whistles that the higher priced versions of Windows has than you aren't the right fit for SteamOS. If anything you should be looking at a more feature filled Linux version.

The difference between different versions of Windows is fairly arbitrary. With Linux you can install whatever you want, but with Windows you are not going to convert the low end to the high end. I dont remember what the differences were, but usually the only thing of interest was MCE. There were some other things, but they always gimp the low end Windows just enough so that no one would buy it unless it came preinstalled on their machine.

 

[Jodell88]

Don't forget that Steam OS will benefit all Linux users if it takes off. Better drivers, better multimedia support (Flash, Netflix), and you'll still be able to use Steam to play your games the old fashioned way.

You can have netflix on Linux if you want. Works Identical to windows and Mac OSX.

<--- Mint user. AMD's proprietary Linux drivers are absolute rubbish. I can't even run Folding@Home GPU due to their crappy OpenCL support.

When the open source drivers are better than the official ones, AMD dun goofed.

 

[smackababy]

You can have netflix on Linux if you want. Works Identical to windows and Mac OSX.
When the open source drivers are better than the official ones, AMD dun goofed.

Unless there have been advances recently in how they emulate SilverLight, I highly doubt the experience on Linux is close to the experience on Windows. Sorry, but no.

 

[Childs]

Unless there have been advances recently in how they emulate SilverLight, I highly doubt the experience on Linux is close to the experience on Windows. Sorry, but no.

Well, Netflix works on all the streaming players and tvs, so its doable. No reason why a similar app couldn't be written to work on SteamOS.

 

[smackababy]

Well, Netflix works on all the streaming players and tvs, so its doable. No reason why a similar app couldn't be written to work on SteamOS.

Netflix won't supper any DRM free technology and since Linux doesn't have SliverLight (which supports DRM), they don't have an official app. Now, does that mean Valve won't try and coax Netflix into making an app for them.