SteamOS Will Not Have Exclusive Games

[w00tage]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

You mean, no reason for YOU to get it.

If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-

I applaud this news! It is VERY good that Valve wont support this shitty practice of exclusivity!
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

If only MS and Valve settled their differences and Windows 9 came with a modified Steam OS mode made for gaming and still had all the emulation and backwards compatibility . Alas my dreams

Two hard drives (or two partitions on the same hard drive) = dual boot. The OS really doesn't have much of a say about it. So you should be all set

 

[w00tage]

I hope they hook up with Mike Robertson (the guy who tried to make Linspire work). a) he deserves another chance given how hard he pushed Linspire, and b) if he can get Linspire that far on his own efforts, he'll definitely move SteamOS forward in the applications marketplace.

 

[Vrach]

He did, however, concede that small, independent studios who only have the resources to focus on one platform may inevitably make games that only run on SteamOS, "but that's a very different thing."

It's also what makes your title misleading and downright untrue. It should read:
"Valve will not make exclusive games or pay for exclusives for Steam OS". That's not the same thing as "there'll be no exclusives for Steam OS"

 

[black_knight1337]

Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.

I like how you don't quote the part that addresses this. The thing is, Valve has already done exactly that before. When they launched Steam it excluded EVERYONE from both Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2. But did they have horrendous sales and fail completely? No, they sold millions and set Steam on track to becoming the dominating digital distribution service that it is today. The potential is there for the SteamOS along with their Steam Machines to do the same again, but it really does need some "killer apps" to get it there. And like I said, even just making them timed exclusives would do the trick and work out as a good middle ground.

 

[klaynexas3]

snip

Okay, you seem interested in a reason for the existance of such a creation as the steamOS and the steambox. Well, considering no one else seems to want to give a reason besides "Valve is God, trust in them," I'll try to give you a few examples for its existance. For the OS, many people, especially with this site, many people love Linux, or at least the concept of Linux, but just hate its lack of practicality, and so wish it had more practical uses, such as more games to play natively for it. They assume SteamOS will fix this, though that has yet to be seen. It's a safe bet with Valve, considering their sway in the industry, but it isn't a promise yet. As for the box, as I saw someone else say, it's for people that don't necessarily want to try and build their own PC, but still want to play PC games. Or, there might also be people that love consoles for their relaxed sort of play, but prefer the major concepts of having a PC, like the massive amounts of games or the flexibility of the system. As for why you specifically might want to buy that, you probably don't. And it's a product, some people will want it, which i feel is a bigger group than most think, but not everyone will want it. So I can't answer why you should buy it, only why a person might want to buy it if they see those features as what they want.

 

[hawkeye52]

And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?

As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.

Sorry this little thing here caught my attention and it's something that needs to be corrected. These games don't have EULA's because they have been made from the ground up for anyone to play for free and the developers who make them live off of donations from the community. There is no agreements you have to sign or anything. Just download and play.

The developers have enough on their hands as it is creating the games without putting in some overly complicated system just for a little extra cash.

Also just because a game is free doesn't mean it's Pay to Win in the microtransaction area if it does have one. Take for example League of Legends there is no pay to win.

Also the point of the SteamOS is to create an OS that is specifically built for games. Windows isn't that. It's fucking terrible as far as OS's go but the reason why it is the primary OS is because it is the most successful which developers feel comfortable developing for. Tbh Windows is just the OS which is slightly less terrible then Mac.

Also since it's being developed in Linux it means that it will probably open up more avenues for other markets on the PC since the step from Linux to Mac (Although I find Mac's to be terrible as well) isn't great.

As a side effect which is something that is more interesting then it is useful or linked to this is that it will drive down the costs of building a game PC as well since it will allow for you to skip out on a £70 OS and instead invest that elsewhere.

 

[Yopaz]

Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.

I like how you don't quote the part that addresses this. The thing is, Valve has already done exactly that before. When they launched Steam it excluded EVERYONE from both Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2. But did they have horrendous sales and fail completely? No, they sold millions and set Steam on track to becoming the dominating digital distribution service that it is today. The potential is there for the SteamOS along with their Steam Machines to do the same again, but it really does need some "killer apps" to get it there. And like I said, even just making them timed exclusives would do the trick and work out as a good middle ground.

Creating a platform that separates software completely is something else than creating a DRM model. They created a MANAGER not a new platform. It required Steam to run, sure, it didn't change anything in regards to Windows, it didn't limit people to an unfamiliar OS, it didn't interfere with the compatibility of other software and games.

Comparing the two is like comparing a bike and a car. Both are faster than walking.

Edit: Also I like how you simply threw out an accusation rather than read WHY forcing SteamOS on their users wouldn't work. They already have Steam, they don't earn anything by people downloading SteamOS, they earn by people buying things from Steam regardless of if they're running Steam or Windows. I explained this too. You ignored both and accuse me of ignoring you. First class hypocrisy there. Well done.

 

[lacktheknack]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

You mean, no reason for YOU to get it.

If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.

EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-

I applaud this news! It is VERY good that Valve wont support this shitty practice of exclusivity!
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .

If only MS and Valve settled their differences and Windows 9 came with a modified Steam OS mode made for gaming and still had all the emulation and backwards compatibility . Alas my dreams

1. All OS's are dual-bootable. ALL of them. This cannot be changed.

2. How can it not be as capable as Linux if it IS Linux?

So much misunderstanding.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because Wine is terrible?

Because native support is infinitely better than non-native support?

Why would I want to hack something into half-working when Valve's push into Linux will cause a rush of native support? These are exciting times, and I don't buy any argument that says "But it kind of works already!"

So Valve is going to recode all those games from the ground up to run on Linux? Or are they just gong to put a program in the OS that, how did you say it? "...to hack something into half-working..." Will the OS bring more developers to support Linux? I don't know, but if I were a betting man I would say no. The steam machine and the OS have almost no market weight because other than the Valve-lovers and Linux supporter no one else has a reason to get it. Limited market share is limited.

Streaming is not a half-working hack. It's a full feature that works as a placeholder for older programs, like emulation (except, unlike Wine, this one looks like it'll actually work).

Also, Valve already HAS recoded a whackload of its games to work on Linux natively (Including Half Life, Portal and Left 4 Dead 2), and there's nothing stopping other devs from doing the same thing if they so desire.

Also, you hideously underestimate the number of Valve fans and Linux supporters. Furthermore, this won't build Rome in a day, and therefore we shouldn't try? You're the type of person that Johnathan Swift addressed "A Modest Proposal" to.

 

[kasperbbs]

I'm glad that i wont have to dualboot, no matter how great steamOS might be for games, but i still need the features that windows provides and the apps to go along with it.

 

[zumbledum]

I kindda figured Valve would shy away from exclusives, but I also know that the SteamOS will not have any of the other exclusive titles either. So what is the point of buying one? While I am a huge proponent of the "one console future" we aren't there yet. If your product does not offer something unique then there is no reason to buy it. It's kinnda sad to know the "one console future" will be doomed to fail by its' own merits. *Sigh*

unique features for steam machines as consoles.

access to the PC back catalogue.
Not a monopoly environment
open source
everything is hackable modable personally configurable.

no $20 DRM fee , so prices will be PC prices not console prices.

anyone can patch or upgrade their products no draconian MS or Sony vetting testing and charging you for the privilege.

 

[lacktheknack]

snip

EDIT: Ah, you edited out the section of my post you quoted. Sorry.

 

[Dragonbums]

Great on Valve for not doing exclusives.


However that just means that it will be very slow for getting a strong userbase to Steam OS.

If there are no sequels to be had on the machine, than people who are satisfied with Windows will simply not bother with it unless they are a Valve fan.

 

[babinro]

It's good to know I'll never have any reason to get one then.

I'm already going to be tempted by the 3DS, WiiU, PS4, and Xbone (in that order).
Who needs even more consoles grabbing their attention?

 

[ForumSafari]

Also, I'm wondering what else the OS will do when you install it your computer. Nothing is free, so I could see some sort of data mining going on.

Not to put too fine a point on it but you are completely and totally wrong. A lot of software is completely and totally free, in fact anything under GPL is written and licensed in such a way that anyone trying to infringe upon a user's freedom is in breach of license.

Whether this particular project is fully free is another matter of course, though if it isn't you'll be able to just install Steam on a distro of your choice and have that functionality back.

 

[AWAR]

No exclusives...so absolutely fuck all reason to get it.

1. It's free
2. Supposedly we're gonna have better gaming performance
3. It's not Windows
4. Did I mention that it's free?

 

[Vegosiux]

There is no such thing as "too" cynical, and I prefer to call myself a "realist" anyway.

I call myself "the resident cynic" often and even I get the feeling you're being cynical just for the sake of being cynical.

That said, of course I'm going to keep a careful eye on it and not jump aboard anything without care to look at it. Don't feel much of a need for a new OS at the moment, and all.

 

[AWAR]

snip

You won't have to pay for windows if you're a gamer. That brings the cost down.
As for performance, Valve claims that their games get better performance on Linux. Of course that remains to be seen.
As for my last point, yes there is an advantage of not being windows. Windows is an unstable OS that hogs resources with a dated and inefficient file system. If you want to use windows nobody is stopping you, however we really shouldn't be restricted to windows only. It's terrible for competition and that affects us consumers negatively.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No exclusives... from Valve.

But Valve did say that small developers may only have the resources to make a game for one platform, and that platform could be SteamOS. Plus there is the possibility that other developers may release for SteamOS first, then other OS's later.

In that case, it wouldn't be Valve mandating any sort of exclusivity from them, it would be the developer.
That's closer to the sort of market neutrality we need more of; and less of this consumer arm twisting over exclusivity.

There is no such thing as "too" cynical, and I prefer to call myself a "realist" anyway.

Oh, there very much is such a thing as being too cynical.
Pure cynics can enjoy little because they're too busy smugly questioning everything and everyone.

Cynicism is just directed pessimism. Wrought from a fear of being implicitly wrong ("inward cynic"), or a need to feel "more right" than others ("outward cynic". Most hipsters fall into this category).

And I've seen the "Realist" title all too often (used to use it a lot myself), but thinking about it, the term doesn't really fit because an actual "realist" would actually be more objective in their mannerisms rather than assuming they're more objective (yes, there is a difference).

Put another way:
Cynic: "I assume everything is shit until proven otherwise."
Realist: "I assume nothing except what I can infer from the information available."

 

[Zipa]

Valve really is the embodiment of the good guy Greg meme.

Spoiler