Valve and Linux... my, my, things are getting interesting!

[Ahris]

It's been obvious for a while that Microsoft want to move people from PC to Xbox and mobile platforms and and they will succeed if no other OS takes over as a PC gaming standard.
While Valve and Blizzard do have financial concerns regarding this, they are right that we should be worried if we want a lot of games to be developed for PC's in the future.

MS do of course have a strong position on the PC market but compared to how much money the mobile devices and console markets has to offer, Windows for PC isn't worth squat. Consoles and mobile devices eliminates piracy completely as far as the OS is concerned since all units includes it.

If they can move PC users by getting them used enough to Metro to prefer it on their other devices they will hit the jackpot with a market they have complete control of. Since Metro apps have to go through their store they'll also have complete control of the developers as well as direct control of what software the end user 'are allowed' to use according to their policies.

[polytourist97]

Truthfully, people with 2GB of ram or more wouldn't notice the difference between it and XP if they didn't have a number informing them 7 is using more.

Not necessarily true. I have friends that run 7 on their (relatively new) laptops, and games/programs that are heavy on memory usage routinely crash. However with my 6 year old laptop I can run those same programs with no issue using XP. I'm sure you're right about 7's ability to "intelligently" use the memory it takes up, but I've still seen people having plenty of issues with 7's performance on machines with less resources (much like the problems encountered with vista).

Seriously? How can you not like type to search? It's literally "I want to launch this program or find this file...tap tap...there it is".

I never said I don't like the feature, I said that I don't like it being implemented as a replacement for expanding menus (which is the argument I see people use when those like me clamor for a classic-style menu). Do I think the type to search (as it appears in 7) is a great tool? Absolutely. And I would love for it to be integrated within an otherwise classic-style menu. However I'm very much a visually/spatially inclined person, and expanding menus are a great representation of my file structure and program locations. To that point, I like being able to browse through all of my programs using simple sweeps of the mouse.

Also, another difference I have is that unlike you, I prefer to keep my taskbar free from clutter, so pinning things to my taskbar is completely useless to me. I don't need quick links in my start menu to commonly used programs because...that's what I use desktop icons for. So now here is an area where my biggest gripe with 7 (feeling boxed in to a specific way of interacting with the OS) comes into play: I can choose to not use quick-links in the start menu, but then I'm basically left with a big unused white area of the start menu. It's obvious that 7 meant for you to use that area for quick-links (and/or commonly accessed programs), and nothing else. If you don't want to use them? Or if you find that their function is needlessly repetitive due to similar ways of getting the same functionality within the OS (by using desktop shortcuts or pinning to task bar)? You get stuck with a "not-how-it-was-meant-to-be-used" os. And that is very frustrating and alienating for me.

[Koki]

Consoles and mobile devices eliminates piracy completely as far as the OS is concerned since all units includes it.

Consoles don't have OS to speak of and among mobiles Android already holds 59% of the market.

[Ahris]

Consoles don't have OS to speak of and among mobiles Android already holds 59% of the market.

I work in the mobile devices business, most people don't really care what OS are on their phones but the majority prefer to go with what they use on their computer if they get an option.
That's what Apple has been doing, most people who has a Mac will automatically get an iPhone since they are familiar. The current trend since about a year back is that more and more people ditch their laptops and PC's in favour of tablets and do their gaming on consoles.

About a month ago Microsoft announced their new Win8 tablet:
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en/us/default.aspx

[polytourist97]

I don't know anyone using a tablet that sees it as a total replacement for their laptop/desktop. In fact, of the people that do use tablets, I have been told by them that they find they're using it for less and less things than they thought they would when they first acquired one. Most of them seem to tow around a combination of tablet, phone, and laptop in order to fill all of their computing/technology needs (which sort of defeats the selling point of the tablet).

It may be the "current trend" for more and more people to use tablets in place of their desktop/laptops, but I certainly haven't seen anything that suggests it is a significant amount of people.

[EvaUnit02]

Ahris, I believe that Koki's point was that Android is a pirate's paradise. Android has the biggest marketshare, so...

[lost_soul]

More info is revealed. http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

Apparently they got L4d2 running faster in Linux than Windows 7 now on the same hardware. It was something like 270 and 310 FPS. That's pretty damn impressive actually. Although the speed difference seems worthless at such a high speed, if it were on low end hardware and 20 vs 30 FPS, it would be a big deal.

[heywood]

Not surprisingly, Stallman says Steam on Linux is unethical.

[dethtoll]

Oh, someone tell him go shave his damn beard.

[Neb]

stallman gonna stall

[polytourist97]

Reading Stallman's exact quotations, he seems more at odds with the idea of promoting "non-free" software (i.e. the games that steam provides access to) using Linux as a selling point, rather than having problems with Steam promoting Linux use. He even goes on to say that if it encourages more people to migrate to Linux, then it would probably be worth any clashes in ethics, because it would allow people more freedoms in their OS choice. I don't see this as too extreme a standpoint. His philosophy is total freedom of software, and charging for software inhibits upon certain freedoms.

I'm actually quite surprised at how pragmatic his point comes across. Essentially he submits that the more that people are inclined (and able) to use Linux the better, which Steam on Linux is sure to allow, so he's really not that against it.

[dethtoll]

Yes, but his idea that software -- i.e. games should be free is naive at best, downright delusional at worst. Releasing a AAA game like Dishonored or Fallout or Skyrim for free doesn't put food on the dev team's plates.

[polytourist97]

Yes, but his idea that software -- i.e. games should be free is naive at best, downright delusional at worst..

Is it though? There are a lot of free games available within the various Linux package managers, on android marketplace, and just via the internet through independent channels (LEGITIMATE channels I mean). Also, the rise in prominence of the free-to-play business model (and I'm referring to the more recent model, a la Team Fortress 2: giving users the freedom to decide what monetary commitments they wish to make towards the game without it hindering their access) suggests AAA titles not only can be "free", but competitively lucrative by following such a model. Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games are actually happening.

But of course, one doesn't get involved in open source software development solely as a way to make ends meet (that I'm aware of). So to expect food on your table from contributing to such a project is probably not the best plan.

[lost_soul]

I was hoping this Stallman argument wouldn't show up here. It has been said a million times. You can release the source code to a product but STILL SELL the assets like levels, models, textures, etc. That just means the gamers (like me) won't get fucked over and left with a malware-laden executable that we can't make reasonable use of down the line. However, it is more profitable to leave people with encrypted blobs so you can make them buy the same game over and over again.

Only down side to the open engines would be that it would likely be easier to cheat in online games if everyone has the engine source. I suppose you could have a checksum system, but what is to stop the gamer from just commenting that out of the code and recompiling it?

[Phatose]

More then just cheating, it would make any kind of version control near impossible, since the version reporting code can be changed just as easily as anything else. Online play becomes an instant nightmare.

And by 'still sell the art assets', you mean 'still sell the art assets, packaged in a way that allows for convenient modification,alteration and redistribution by the end user', right? Cause hey, we care about the end users freedoms more then anything.

[heywood]

Is it though? There are a lot of free games available within the various Linux package managers, on android marketplace, and just via the internet through independent channels (LEGITIMATE channels I mean). Also, the rise in prominence of the free-to-play business model (and I'm referring to the more recent model, a la Team Fortress 2: giving users the freedom to decide what monetary commitments they wish to make towards the game without it hindering their access) suggests AAA titles not only can be "free", but competitively lucrative by following such a model. Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games are actually happening.

Stallman's definition of free is not no-cost. When he says free he's referring to the licensing model not the price. Free software is software that can be freely modified, tinkered with, redistributed, forked, etc. Free-to-play software like TF2 doesn't qualify as "free software". It's still proprietary.

I was hoping this Stallman argument wouldn't show up here. It has been said a million times. You can release the source code to a product but STILL SELL the assets like levels, models, textures, etc. That just means the gamers (like me) won't get fucked over and left with a malware-laden executable that we can't make reasonable use of down the line. However, it is more profitable to leave people with encrypted blobs so you can make them buy the same game over and over again.

They would likely use DRM to protect the assets even if the source code to the engine is free. Even if they didn't use DRM, the license on the assets would still be proprietary. It wouldn't count as free software by Stallman's definition.

All I really want is a game to be opened up to modification at some reasonable time after the release date.

[lost_soul]

IIRC Stallman has said that it counts as free software even if the assets are closed. You may have a point though when it comes to levels/maps where they're pre-compiled. Technically they still have a "source" and are most of the time "closed source" in that you don't get the unprocessed levels the devs originally made.

[Yakoob]

They would likely use DRM to protect the assets even if the source code to the engine is free. Even if they didn't use DRM, the license on the assets would still be proprietary. It wouldn't count as free software by Stallman's definition.

That's still a shitty viewpoint, as a programmer. So what, the stuff artists makes is all valuble and propriety and can be "sold" but not the code I wrote? Screw that, i deserve as much payment as the artists for the work I have done.

There are a lot of free games available .... Team Fortress 2 ... Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games are actually happening. .

True, but those games still aren't "free;" you still can opt in to pay for the DLC and bonus content. By definition, a 100% free game could not exist as no one would willingly donate millions of dollars at a project knowing they won't see any profit. Games aren't charity.

That, and as explained above, Stallman refers to "free" as in source code released, rather than "you don't need to buy the game to play."

[Briareos H]

Screw that, i deserve as much payment as the artists for the work I have done.

John Carmack is about a million times better at programming than you and still releases all of his code. I don't think his ego is hurt when he does. After a few years, your precious little algorithms usually aren't worth much, especially in games where things go forward with technology extremely fast. And there are so many game programmers anyway that no one can rightfully believe that they program in a new and unique way.

And gg at understanding (also, gg at thinking that if the code is open-sourced, the programmers aren't paid??). People were not implying that game art has more intrinsic value than code (although I'll add my opinion that it has in most cases), but that in order to make a game future-proof and 'open' while still requiring for people to buy it, only releasing the code is necessary.

There is not a single reason why all games shouldn't see their codebase open-sourced 3 to 5 years after release unless the developer is still pushing updates at that point.

[Briareos H]

The point is moot anyway considering the amount of COTS and third-party shit that are thrown into games today.

[Yakoob]

No one's harping on artists to release their raw *.PSD files or MAX/Blender model files. That's my point. Why should code be treated different?

Also way to assume I am against releasing source code or think I am better than Carmack. Strawman gonna straw.

[Briareos H]

People were not implying that game art has more intrinsic value than code (...) but that in order to make a game future-proof and 'open' (ie. the game having any form of legacy, which wins you the hearts of the press & gamers and may allow you to make more games) while still requiring for people to buy it (ie. everyone in the team including coders still get paid), only releasing the code is necessary (ie. releasing art PSDs will achieve nothing towards forward-compatibility)

Yeah man why should code be treated any different?

[lost_soul]

Coders can still get paid for their skills even if it is open source. There's a game I like, but it doesn't have a feature I want. I don't know jack about programming beyond writing scripts, and I'm too old to learn. I would pay someone to implement the feature I want.

or...

This game has a bug that annoys the hell out of me. The developers stopped supporting it forever ago. So, I'll pay someone to fix it.

Admittedly this hasn't happened, because when I want a feature in an open source game, it has usually already been implemented by someone who wanted the exact same thing but had the skills to make it happen... e.g. Darkplaces

An exception is EDuke32. I *would* pay somebody to implement a reliable TCP/IP play system with an integrated server browser. Of course I wouldn't pay much, but if enough players got together........ you see my point.

[zombe]

Coders can still get paid for their skills even if it is open source. There's a game I like, but it doesn't have a feature I want. I don't know jack about programming beyond writing scripts, and I'm too old to learn. I would pay someone to implement the feature I want.

Very funny.

[lost_soul]

Why is it funny? I'm suggesting people get paid for the work of building something. If they want paid again, they have to build something else (just like everyone else). Do you honestly prefer the current system where you have to pay a company for a product they never even had anything to do with the creation of because they "bought the rights"?