Support us on Patreon
PayPalThe rumour mill is spinning rather quickly lately, with rumours about Microsoft apparently looking at buying Valve, EA and others.
Polygon cites a "reliable source" for this information:
Some of the names being thrown around as possible acquisitions by Microsoft are, frankly, astounding, even unthinkable. But the fact that they are doing the rounds is instructive. The most recent one we heard (from a reliable source close to Microsoft) was, in fact, Electronic Arts. We also heard a whisper about Valve and about Korean outfit PUBG Corp., which Microsoft last year signed to a timed exclusive for its hit survival shooter, PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds.
Considering Valve has a majority grip on the PC gaming market, constant growth and quite likely more money than they know what to do with, it would obviously be a target for Microsoft. However, to me, those are also all reasons why it just wouldn't happen. On top of that, Valve is privately owned and I doubt Gabe Newell will suddenly give it all over to Microsoft.
Let's not forget how Valve has also been paying people to improve Linux gaming. Valve has people working on SDL, Mesa, SteamOS (multiple updates this year already), Virtual Reality and plenty more towards making Linux a more attractive gaming platform. There's also this recent interview with Timothee Besset from our friends at BoilingSteam which gives a little glimpse into the work Valve is doing behind the scenes for Linux gaming too. It also seems from that, the Linux port of Street Fighter V is not actually dead. It seems they have a habit of announcing things too early!
Obviously if Microsoft somehow convinced Gabe and co to sell up, Linux gaming would change significantly, but I'm telling you now—it just won't happen.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
appetrosyan Jan 31, 2018
Quoting: ShmerlQuoting: tmtvlMicrosoft have proven themselves to be rather decent towards Linux as of late.
Not towards Vulkan though, which reflects the sick lock-in mindset of their gaming branch.
Quoting: tmtvlThey also haven't blocked Minecraft from opposing platforms, so I don't think there's much to worry about no matter who they decide to buy out.
The only reason Minecraft wasn't borked is the fact that it already worked for Linux, so they didn't want to make their reputation even worse than it is now by axing it.
I think that is an oversimplification. The reason why Microsoft is playing nice with competing platforms is twofold.
For one they have the maximum market share on Desktop, and virtually all of it is habitual. I'm not only talking about Windows, they acquired Skype, and support their OS X and Linux clients reasonably well. Why? Because most people have synonimised Skype with free internet video calls, much like Copiers are synonimised with Xerox, or google with searching. It makes no sense to shoot themselves in the foot and cut their own profits.
Secondly I should quote that Microsoft is primarily interested in controlling the market. The reason why they support ubuntu on windows, is because that gives them extra leverage in a market they can't access conventionally. The entire point of this exercise is to proliferate everywhere they can, and compete wherever they can. They rarely ever have the best tool for the job, but they have always been ubiquitous. What would they gain from reabsorbing the Linux and Mac OS market share that they couldn't have gained without? Now that they're contributing to Linux kernel they get to pressure the foundation to do what they need.
Even if they acquired Valve, they wouldn't change much: the Linux ports we used to have will still be available and be stably made. Except everything that went into funding their competitors, now pays them a cut. Get the same effect, both venturing minimum effort and bearing none of the risks. They'd be insane to change anything, right now.
2 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Jan 31, 2018
QuoteObviously if Microsoft somehow convinced Gabe and co to sell up, Linux gaming would change significantly..."Change significantly" is an understatement. It would cease to be. Microsoft would kill all support for Linux gaming and force all developers to support Windows exclusively.
0 Likes
Mohandevir Jan 31, 2018
Microsoft wants to buy Valve... Probably a "courteous call" to gauge the interest and possibility, only. "The worst that may happen is a -No!" and it's probably what happened. Still, they made "the call" and are free to spread the FUD. Pure Microsoft strategy.
Still, it's logical for Microsoft to try... Imagine if Gaben was "foolish" enough to acccept... It would permit them to make Steam incompatible with Win7 & Win8, upgrade it so it gets locked to UWP and then start to dissolve it, over time, into the uwp. As a bonus, they put their filty hands on Valve's games ips and do wathever they will with it. It would be a glorious win on all boards, for Microsoft!
Edit: At least, Valve and "Lord Gaben" are now aware that Microsoft is looking to "up their game" and that the statu-quo is about to change. They should get ready accordingly.
Last edited by Mohandevir on 31 January 2018 at 3:12 pm UTC
Still, it's logical for Microsoft to try... Imagine if Gaben was "foolish" enough to acccept... It would permit them to make Steam incompatible with Win7 & Win8, upgrade it so it gets locked to UWP and then start to dissolve it, over time, into the uwp. As a bonus, they put their filty hands on Valve's games ips and do wathever they will with it. It would be a glorious win on all boards, for Microsoft!
Edit: At least, Valve and "Lord Gaben" are now aware that Microsoft is looking to "up their game" and that the statu-quo is about to change. They should get ready accordingly.
Last edited by Mohandevir on 31 January 2018 at 3:12 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: MohandevirIt would permit them to make Steam incompatible with Win7 & Win8
68.80% of Steam users run Windows 7 64 bit.
24.77% of Steam users run Windows 10 64 bit.
Now just to point out - free update period has ended on 31st of Dec. Even if another free period was to mysteriously pop up, I find it unlikely that most people would buy a product from a company that just fleeced them out of their multi hundred dollar Steam accounts, not to mention that a massive chunk of user base is from Russia and China, where finding someone willing to pay $119 on anything as perishable as Windows 10 stability becomes a problem.
If anything, an event like that would only boost Linux popularity, as:
1. Some sort of a workaround allowing people to use non-Win10 OSes would be inevitable considering the sheer amount of people (tech-savvy or not) using it.
2. MS would severely poop the proverbial bed as far as user trust is concerned after a stunt like this and Windows 7 and 8 are still MS products. Products with expiry date of 2020 and 2023, so not that far off.
1 Likes, Who?
Mohandevir Jan 31, 2018
Quoting: fractalQuoting: MohandevirIt would permit them to make Steam incompatible with Win7 & Win8
68.80% of Steam users run Windows 7 64 bit.
24.77% of Steam users run Windows 10 64 bit.
Now just to point out - free update period has ended on 31st of Dec. Even if another free period was to mysteriously pop up, I find it unlikely that most people would buy a product from a company that just fleeced them out of their multi hundred dollar Steam accounts, not to mention that a massive chunk of user base is from Russia and China, where finding someone willing to pay $119 on anything as perishable as Windows 10 stability becomes a problem.
If anything, an event like that would only boost Linux popularity, as:
1. Some sort of a workaround allowing people to use non-Win10 OSes would be inevitable considering the sheer amount of people (tech-savvy or not) using it.
2. MS would severely poop the proverbial bed as far as user trust is concerned after a stunt like this and Windows 7 and 8 are still MS products. Products with expiry date of 2020 and 2023, so not that far off.
Did I say they would do this on day one of the acquisition? It's always gradually done. Still MS, would gain control over it and do it a lot faster than Valve will (along with a PR campaign to prepare everyone). As an example, WinXP as been suppported a lot longer than Microsoft would have liked, in many applications. They even had to patch it, couple of months ago, because it is still used in public services.
Thing is, Microsoft are trying hard to make Windows 10 the only OS to maintain. If they have the chance to take measures to acclelerate it's adoption, they will do it. Buying Steam would be one such step.
Edit: In the actual situation, I'm pretty sure we will be able to launch Steam on Win7 way past 2023, if we so choose. Windows 10 offers not much more if not for DX12. On my i7-3770, that still got lots of power in it, it's garbage (for gaming). Not going to buy a brand new CPU just to run Win10 effectively.
Last edited by Mohandevir on 31 January 2018 at 4:47 pm UTC
0 Likes
The very day Microsoft buys Valve, the next day I buy a console.
Last edited by omer666 on 31 January 2018 at 5:58 pm UTC
Last edited by omer666 on 31 January 2018 at 5:58 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: KimyrielleThe last thing this planet needs is more monopolies.This is way off topic and theoretical, but there can also be serious problems with meaningful competition. There was a group of economists in the 19th century called the "railway economists", now little known, who were grappling with the problem of why railways kept going bust. It turned out that the problem was that in a capital-intensive industry, because of debt service costs there is a gap between the price at which you make a profit from each customer and the price at which you break even overall.
I am generally curious when the world is going to realize that unregulated wild-west markets do not work, and the economy needs meaningful competition to function... *sigh*
Spoiler, click me
So, say you have two competing railways running passenger services between two cities. They have each borrowed $120 million for tracks, trains and whatnot. At 4% interest they owe 4.8 million a year, or $400,000 per month. They also have operating costs--fuel, maintenance, paying employees and such. This is also $400,000 per month, for a total of $800,000. But there are 20,000 passengers per month on average between the two cities. If the two railways split the passengers equally and charge $80/ticket, they break even at 10,000 passengers * $80 = $800,000.
But they don't want to break even, they want to make a profit--and they're competing. If one company could get more of the passengers it would make more money. Say company A drops its price to $70/ticket and most of the passengers switch to the cheaper option--it will get nearly $1.4 million per month. The actual cost per passenger is way below $70, so they totally make money dropping the price. But of course the other competitor will drop its prices to get business back, maybe even further--it can still make a bunch at $60/ticket if it can get all the passengers.
The railway economists concluded that such price wars go until the price charged to each customer is enough to barely make an operating profit--but not to service debt. At this point it's still better to carry passengers than to just stop; the revenue you'd lose by stopping operations is still more than the costs you'd eliminate. But you're losing money on debt service because of the sunk capital costs for all the equipment and eventually you go bankrupt. This in fact happened to a ton of railway lines in the 19th century and indeed seems to have been a problem for a lot of capital-intensive firms; eventually the likes of J.P. Morgan "solved" the problem by creating monopolies and trusts.
Nowadays I think this problem has been visible for some time in the airline business, with airlines repeatedly going under or amalgamating into bigger and bigger companies for survival.
But they don't want to break even, they want to make a profit--and they're competing. If one company could get more of the passengers it would make more money. Say company A drops its price to $70/ticket and most of the passengers switch to the cheaper option--it will get nearly $1.4 million per month. The actual cost per passenger is way below $70, so they totally make money dropping the price. But of course the other competitor will drop its prices to get business back, maybe even further--it can still make a bunch at $60/ticket if it can get all the passengers.
The railway economists concluded that such price wars go until the price charged to each customer is enough to barely make an operating profit--but not to service debt. At this point it's still better to carry passengers than to just stop; the revenue you'd lose by stopping operations is still more than the costs you'd eliminate. But you're losing money on debt service because of the sunk capital costs for all the equipment and eventually you go bankrupt. This in fact happened to a ton of railway lines in the 19th century and indeed seems to have been a problem for a lot of capital-intensive firms; eventually the likes of J.P. Morgan "solved" the problem by creating monopolies and trusts.
Nowadays I think this problem has been visible for some time in the airline business, with airlines repeatedly going under or amalgamating into bigger and bigger companies for survival.
2 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Jan 31, 2018
Quoting: PatolaTwo important stipulations in the Steam subscriber agreement.Quoting: Mountain ManAnd is that really believable? Lots of Steam users already bought lots of games (me included) and have the legal right to continue using the platform on their OS and have the game updates. If they just shut it down, it would likely involve them in a whole amount of legal trouble, if not a downright scandal. Adding an OS to Steam is easy, stopping supporting it when you're already in legal ties with its users is not.QuoteObviously if Microsoft somehow convinced Gabe and co to sell up, Linux gaming would change significantly..."Change significantly" is an understatement. It would cease to be. Microsoft would kill all support for Linux gaming and force all developers to support Windows exclusively.
First:
"NEITHER VALVE NOR ITS AFFILIATES GUARANTEE CONTINUOUS, ERROR-FREE, VIRUS-FREE OR SECURE OPERATION AND ACCESS TO STEAM, THE CONTENT AND SERVICES, YOUR ACCOUNT AND/OR YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS(S) OR ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH."
Second:
"Valve may cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally..."
If Microsoft acquired Steam, they would immediately invoke that second clause against Linux users (us being "similarly situated Subscribers generally" ) which would kill Linux gaming almost on the spot, unless somebody like GoG stepped in to fill the void, and they've been rather lukewarm towards Linux in general.
Last edited by Mountain Man on 31 January 2018 at 7:09 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Mountain Manwhich would kill Linux gaming almost on the spot, unless somebody like GoG stepped in to fill the void, and they've been rather lukewarm towards Linux in general.
Termination of Steam accounts would have little effect, since developers can find other ways to distribute games to Linux users. It's Valve's contribution to Mesa and graphics / VR in general that would be threatened.
2 Likes, Who?
If that really happen, I keep playing open source games only. No more pirating.
VERY Unpopular opinion on GOG:
I am very skeptical GoG can/will fill the Steam gap if Valve (or anyone or any "force of nature" ) shut it down. We might see gamers split to buying at several shops elsewhere (including the return of physical copy maybe) which comfortable to them buy and not burning their pocket.
Steam have regional pricing with local currencies means cheaper and affordable games (one of factors I'm no longer a pirates); and most importantly very easy to making payment (now you can pay for Steam games with Celcom/Maxis/DiGi* in Malaysia), something I cannot see that will happen on GoG right now.
And my biggest doubt: If GoG is "near perfect" as some people says why don't CD Projekt show us their faith by making their games as GoG exclusively only or **at least timed exclusive**? Why need to put their games anywhere even on EA Origin? **(I really dislike EA Origin)**
Lastly, GoG Galaxy on Linux. :( :S:
This is my point of view of my skeptical-ness on GoG. If you offended, apologize. If you think I wrong or inaccurate, please enlighten me.
(*)Malaysian major telco companies.
EDIT: Added **at least timed exclusive** and **(I really dislike EA Origin)**
Last edited by tonR on 31 January 2018 at 10:09 pm UTC
VERY Unpopular opinion on GOG:
I am very skeptical GoG can/will fill the Steam gap if Valve (or anyone or any "force of nature" ) shut it down. We might see gamers split to buying at several shops elsewhere (including the return of physical copy maybe) which comfortable to them buy and not burning their pocket.
Steam have regional pricing with local currencies means cheaper and affordable games (one of factors I'm no longer a pirates); and most importantly very easy to making payment (now you can pay for Steam games with Celcom/Maxis/DiGi* in Malaysia), something I cannot see that will happen on GoG right now.
And my biggest doubt: If GoG is "near perfect" as some people says why don't CD Projekt show us their faith by making their games as GoG exclusively only or **at least timed exclusive**? Why need to put their games anywhere even on EA Origin? **(I really dislike EA Origin)**
Lastly, GoG Galaxy on Linux. :( :S:
This is my point of view of my skeptical-ness on GoG. If you offended, apologize. If you think I wrong or inaccurate, please enlighten me.
(*)Malaysian major telco companies.
EDIT: Added **at least timed exclusive** and **(I really dislike EA Origin)**
Last edited by tonR on 31 January 2018 at 10:09 pm UTC
0 Likes
See more from me