Valve announces SteamOS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, there will be several models of the Steambox. The cheapest will be solely for streaming for existing Steam consumers.

The more expensive models will provide a dedicated gaming PC with SteamOS. All models will be able to dualboot Windows if you so desire.

Few things to look forward to in the future. Further native Linux ports, OGL wrapper for the majority of Steam's backcatalog (Valve's own games utilize this currently), and the eventual ARM compatibility. The latter is well down the line though.

Gotcha, I agree with this. I think I'm just missing something. It's new and I'm not trying to bash it. I want Microsoft to be forced to compete in the market and not pull their "Direct X 11.2 only will work on 8.1" crap. It's not good for the market.

I wish them luck, I was mainly just trying to find out if the SteamOS is more than a StreamBox at the moment, or a neat Linux box.

Will I download this and try it? Absolutely. I'm curious. But I just don't see it taking off it stays a streaming system.
 
I would want this over a windows gaming PC or a console...why?

I can't access my Steam library on a console. If Windows exclusive games are that important, they'll continue to be there. Without some kind of groundwork, the actual adoption of game development would likely never occur naturally. The prospect of a free OS that caters to usability and focuses specifically on games/media is otherwise very enticing.
 
I have 599 Steam games, 84 which are Linux. Not even close to half.

No one is saying that it is already there, but with Valve pushing hard in that direction the situation is rapidly getting better. If (and it's a big if) SteamOS can get a foothold and Vavle put enough pressure for some of the major players to jump on board we could quickly see a snowball effect leading to a very large upswing in Linux game support.

There are already signs of movement in that direction, and I believe that Valve have been working behind the scenes for some time. Both UE4 and Cryengine look to be coming to Linux. Several smaller publishers are pushing forward with Linux ports such as Devolver Digital and Nordic Games.

Only time will tell how it will work out, but it's far to soon to write it off, it hasn't even begun yet.
 
This is the only reason i can think of.

Unless i can get most of my 500 games on it then its a dud.

Your right, today it makes little sense to uninstall Windows for this. 5 years from now, things might look different. Windows 7 won't be supported forever, and Valve is clearly thinking long term.
 
Your right, today it makes little sense to uninstall Windows for this. 5 years from now, things might look different. Windows 7 won't be supported forever, and Valve is clearly thinking long term.

Why wouldn't windows 7 be supported forever. I am sure these companies know most use windows 7. Also who is to say windows 9 doesn't return to from? People hated vista and then liked windows 7. I prefer having windows than a barebone steam os.
 
You're right, there will probably some resistance from the publishers who happen to also have a store on Windows. But it means looking at SteamOS just as another distro, competing with Windows. Or we know SteamOS is madly bipolar and when bundled with a Steambox can be considered as a console, or "a new system to play games in the living room".

Technically speaking nothing prevents EA and Ubi to port their games on Linux, They already make ports for a thousand machines, if they think the userbase is /will be important enough to recoup their cost, they will want to do it. What may prevent them doing so is your argumentation and my first paragraph. however there is a third way that could be explored.

Publish games on Steam for SteamOS only. No cross-platform. Games can be bought on Steam but can only be played on SteamOS (just like we can already buy games on Steam and only play them on Windows). If the user wants to play them on Windows they have to buy on Origin. (Possibly make a gracious SteamOS key offer on Origin and at retail?) EA and Ubi are already perfectly contempt publishing on consoles, which don't sport Origin nor Uplay stores and have them fork a bit of their money on digital.

SteamOS port would be seen as "just another console port", would not invade the Windows only Origin market, and Valve would be happy to have its userbase grow. This is pure speculation on my part obviously but such a way would bring more money for both parties while not take a cut from Origin. I'm pretty sure right now Valve only care for crossplatform to go Windows -> Linux but have no interest at all to have it the other way around. i find such a deal with EA (we'll publish on SteamOS if you leave us the Windows space) perfectly reasonable.

That depends on whether or not Valve will allow other developers to create (or port) their distribution platforms to Steam OS. Theoretically all EA has to do is create an Origin client for Linux. Same with Ubisoft and UPlay.

I don't care if people like indie games but only having indie games? Yeah, I might as well fill my library up with demos. Some of you might game differently but the majority of indie games I have I will never finish. They're cheap enough (and bundled enough) that I get my 5 minutes of fun with them and uninstall them.

They're like above-ground pools. Sure, they work and they get the job done without the cost of an in-ground pool, but you're going to have a much fun as an above-ground pool can provide.

Seriously, my thing is I just don't get the big craze over this OS other than getting away from Microsoft. I guess I'm right in assuming then that it's basically just a StreamBox OS for people that don't want a tower in the living room.

Again, in the OP Valve already states they're in agreements to get AAA developer support on this thing next year. We'll probably hear about that in the coming announcements.

I would want this over a windows gaming PC or a console...why?

I imagine it'll be easier to set up than a Windows gaming PC, but will probably offer more freedom than a console, and likely a shitload of games that aren't available on consoles. It might be a sort of compromise between the openness of PC gaming and the accessibility of console gaming.
 
Why wouldn't windows 7 be supported forever. I am sure these companies know most use windows 7. Also who is to say windows 9 doesn't return to from? People hated vista and then liked windows 7. I prefer having windows than a barebone steam os.

Because Windows 98 isn't?

You honestly expect Windows 7 to be supported FOREVER?

Also Windows 8 from a inner organs standpoint is fine, if not great. That's not Microsoft's problem. It's their currently and potentially future philosophy.
 
I would want this over a windows gaming PC or a console...why?

short term, no reason other than trying it out.

long term, is where the competition will be.

If valve can deliver on the performance optimizations, and developers embrace the platform.

If people are happy with it they can stick with Windows 7 for 5-6 years, or as long as Microsoft supports it.
 
I imagine it'll be easier to set up than a Windows gaming PC, but will probably offer more freedom than a console, and likely a shitload of games that aren't available on consoles. It might be a sort of compromise between the openness of PC gaming and the accessibility of console gaming.

Is setting up a Windows gaming PC hard?, its install the OS and let Windows update auto install the drivers now, then Install Steam and your good to go.

I can't see how valve will make that easier.
 
Is setting up a Windows gaming PC hard?, its install the OS and let Windows update auto install the drivers now, then Install Steam and your good to go.

I can't see how valve will make that easier.

People finding issues with Windows that haven't existed in 20 years news at 11
 
Defeats the purpose. Why would I dual boot if I can run all my games of the Windows Machine?
They made several performance gains in Linux over Windows. Those looking to get the best bang for their buck can go there. Some people like to grab every frame they can out of an OS that doesn't contain bloat.
 
Why wouldn't windows 7 be supported forever. I am sure these companies know most use windows 7. Also who is to say windows 9 doesn't return to from? People hated vista and then liked windows 7. I prefer having windows than a barebone steam os.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/default.aspx?LN=en-us&x=15&y=15&c2=14019
Mainstream support until January 13, 2015.
Extended support until January 14, 2020.


Because the less Microsoft the better, for a start.
Why?
 
People finding issues with Windows that haven't existed in 20 years news at 11

What ever. I'm going to start purchasing Linux versions of games as soon as they start hitting for that MAXIMUM performance. Plus, maybe if this does well, MS might have a little bit more competition. And competition is ALWAYS healthy. Right folks?
 
They need to make Half Life 3 and Left 4 Dead 3 on SteamOS exclusive on non Windows OS to drive the adoption of SteamOS and increase support of OpenGL driver from AMD and Nvidia.

So it's a win-win for Mac and Linux users.
 
And yet they keep harping on windows when its not really about replacing windows at all.

Two-pronged future proofing.

Protecting in case Windows becomes more closed off, or takes a huge hit in the casual user base.
Also protecting against the inevitable market share loss of x86 for ARM.

How does a predominantly PC gamer benefit from this? If anything it means less developer support for keyboard/mouse.

Not very much, but then again, you aren't the target market for the Steambox.
 
short term, no reason other than trying it out.

long term, is where the competition will be.

If valve can deliver on the performance optimizations, and developers embrace the platform.

If people are happy with it they can stick with Windows 7 for 5-6 years, or as long as Microsoft supports it.

The benefit I have on a windows PC is that I can not only game at a high level but I can also download just about any application under the sun and run it.

for valve, it would be smarter to go after the console landscape and bifurcate the effort. Allow people to have a Valve Box that supports all Steam games and then allow then cross platform play with the PC counterparts. You end with a good setup.

If their goal is migrate all PC gaming away to Steam OS on their own hardware and eventually stop steam on the PC, good luck with that..
 
Why wouldn't windows 7 be supported forever. I am sure these companies know most use windows 7. Also who is to say windows 9 doesn't return to from? People hated vista and then liked windows 7. I prefer having windows than a barebone steam os.

Microsoft will end mainstream support for Windows 7 in January 2015 (that's 18 months from now). After that it will only be security fixes until it goes completely out of support in 2020.

That is of course unless Microsoft extends support like they did with WinXP.
 
Why wouldn't windows 7 be supported forever. I am sure these companies know most use windows 7. Also who is to say windows 9 doesn't return to from? People hated vista and then liked windows 7. I prefer having windows than a barebone steam os.

Microsoft is dropping extended support for XP next year. Most software companies are looking forward to this, as it is one less platform to test for and support. I assume drivers will no longer be released for XP soon. Support will be dropped for windows 7 at some point. It's possible that Microsoft may see the error of it's ways and return to a more open OS, or it's possible they may double down on the walled garden approach. Valve does not want to be in the position of having their entire business depend on what their competition does. Right now Windows 7 or 8 is clearly the best choice for a gaming PC, but that could change in 5 or 10 years. In the mean time, SteamOS should be great for media center/streaming PCs.
 
They need to make Half Life 3 and Left 4 Dead 3 on SteamOS exclusive on non Windows OS to drive the adoption of SteamOS and increase support of OpenGL driver from AMD and Nvidia.

So it's a win-win for Mac and Linux users.

That would be an incredibly dumb thing to do.
 
Defeats the purpose. Why would I dual boot if I can run all my games of the Windows Machine?

Look, this probably isn't for you right now. With the questions you keep asking it's clear you want all your games to work when you download them. That's fine and that's what everybody here wants. SteamOS more than likely won't be able to support that for a while so Windows serves your purpose for now.

This is an announcement about a streamlined operating system that's going to be fast, open source and flexible. Consoles marrying PCs. It's going to take a little bit to get there which is also ok because the fact that this is set in motion is great for the PC market. When that support gets there (heck, and we even know the specs of all this software) then jump in.
 

I guess it's because of complains about devs, making it easier for people to play videogames and get access to Steam.

I still remember people complaining that every damn time one is going to play a new game, DirectX has to reconfigure for that one game (something that wasn't thought in advanced when it was released). I guess this is one of the things that Valve wants to simplify.
 
Does another "console" that can play PC/XBO exclusives further screw the XBO?

I think I'll end up being PS4/Steambox this gen.
 
They made several performance gains in Linux over Windows. Those looking to get the best bang for their buck can go there. Some people like to grab every frame they can out of an OS that doesn't contain bloat.

They made a 10% gain by updating their game to run on Linux. Who's to say that by making those same adjustments to the game on the Windows side they couldn't see the same gain? With this latest announcement it serves them nicely to have that little comment posted some time ago about how it runs "better" on Linux.

I would love someone to show me this bloat that Windows has? I mean I could see a case being made back in the XP days. But in this day and age? Really?
 
Is setting up a Windows gaming PC hard?, its install the OS and let Windows update auto install the drivers now, then Install Steam and your good to go.

I can't see how valve will make that easier.

Apparently it's too difficult for all the people who only play games on consoles.
 
Microsoft is dropping extended support for XP next year. Most software companies are looking forward to this, as it is one less platform to test for and support. I assume drivers will no longer be released for XP soon. Support will be dropped for windows 7 at some point. It's possible that Microsoft may see the error of it's ways and return to a more open OS, or it's possible they may double down on the walled garden approach. Valve does not want to be in the position of having their entire business depend on what their competition does. Right now Windows 7 or 8 is clearly the best choice for a gaming PC, but that could change in 5 or 10 years. In the mean time, SteamOS should be great for media center/streaming PCs.

Lets say windows becomes more closed then what about people that want steam on a desktop? The steam os is not meant for that right? Are they screwed?
 
jediyoshi said:
If the market takes off of people willing to get more PC like entertainment boxes in their living room setup that's based around options
The issue here is that this is a poor alternative for any consumer.
Existing Steam users can get a better experience with their existing PC(complete library and all), and if they need wireless-2-TV there are far better options available as well.
For new users, this competes with other boxes under TV, and the native-library looks weak at this point.
 
They made a 10% gain by updating their game to run on Linux. Who's to say that by making those same adjustments to the game on the Windows side they couldn't see the same gain? With this latest announcement it serves them nicely to have that little comment posted some time ago about how it runs "better" on Linux.

I would love someone to show me this bloat that Windows has? I mean I could see a case being made back in the XP days. But in this day and age? Really?

They can't make the same adjustments Windows side because only MS has the code.

Whereas Valve can modify any part of the Linux stack, since it's mostly open source (minus the graphics drivers)
 
They made a 10% gain by updating their game to run on Linux. Who's to say that by making those same adjustments to the game on the Windows side they couldn't see the same gain? With this latest announcement it serves them nicely to have that little comment posted some time ago about how it runs "better" on Linux.

I would love someone to show me this bloat that Windows has? I mean I could see a case being made back in the XP days. But in this day and age? Really?

bring up task manager and then hit show all system processes.
 
Does another "console" that can play PC/XBO exclusives further screw the XBO?

I think I'll end up being PS4/Steambox this gen.

If you're thinking on Titanfall, there's a chance that EA might just make it exclusive on Origin. So unless you can install Origin and run it without a hiccup on a SteamOS living room machine, I don't think this threatens anything at all.

And if you have to install another program, it's not most definitely not going to be done by everyone, so really, it doesn't matter anyway if you can (on terms of threatening the XB1).
 
The benefit I have on a windows PC is that I can not only game at a high level but I can also download just about any application under the sun and run it.

for valve, it would be smarter to go after the console landscape and bifurcate the effort. Allow people to have a Valve Box that supports all Steam games and then allow then cross platform play with the PC counterparts. You end with a good setup.

If their goal is migrate all PC gaming away to Steam OS on their own hardware and eventually stop steam on the PC, good luck with that..

I think that's exactly what Valve is trying to do. Or at least they're making a Valve Box that supports all Steam Linux games (because they don't want to license Windows for their hardware). Valve is almost certainly going to continue supporting Steam on Windows as long as Windows gaming is viable.
 
Microsoft is dropping extended support for XP next year. Most software companies are looking forward to this, as it is one less platform to test for and support. I assume drivers will no longer be released for XP soon. Support will be dropped for windows 7 at some point. It's possible that Microsoft may see the error of it's ways and return to a more open OS, or it's possible they may double down on the walled garden approach. Valve does not want to be in the position of having their entire business depend on what their competition does. Right now Windows 7 or 8 is clearly the best choice for a gaming PC, but that could change in 5 or 10 years. In the mean time, SteamOS should be great for media center/streaming PCs.

The proliferation of x86 will be down considerably in the consumer environment over the next 5 years.
SteamOS is the first step towards ARM/OGL compatibility

PbgWqDX.png
.

I think that's exactly what Valve is trying to do. Or at least they're making a Valve Box that supports all Steam Linux games (because they don't want to license Windows for their hardware). Valve is almost certainly going to continue supporting Steam on Windows as long as Windows gaming is viable.

You can always dualboot on any of the Steambox models to get that 100% compatibility.
 
This is truly next gen. I was expecting something like this coming from the console manufacturers after the PS4/XBone/WiiU gen.
 
They made a 10% gain by updating their game to run on Linux. Who's to say that by making those same adjustments to the game on the Windows side they couldn't see the same gain? With this latest announcement it serves them nicely to have that little comment posted some time ago about how it runs "better" on Linux.

I would love someone to show me this bloat that Windows has? I mean I could see a case being made back in the XP days. But in this day and age? Really?
Now imagine if all hardware vendors gave Linux the same attention as Windows for driver support. So you honestly think that a single company can make EVERYTHING better from the get-go? Or would you think having more companies on board improving software they can find more room for performance gains? You talk like every major manufacturer is in on Linux already.

As for bloat - why is it that every cross-platform program I have flat out outperforms Windows in a Linux environment on my exact hardware? Surely my computer is made with pixie dust and Windows isn't a more bloated, resource hungry, slower OS. Its just my magical pixie dust, of course!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom