Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Nevertheless

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Nevertheless

Quoting: MohandevirGoogle Stadia... Atari VCS... I still wonder if we'll ever see a Linux gaming system that starts with a "Bang! Nailed it!".

It's not impossible... Sony's Playstation is similar to a BSD platform... They did it.

They did it because they could legally own the underlying pre-existing operating system, and because it's relatively easy to support uniform hardware of dedicated vendors with drivers. It did not help people wanting to play games on their BSD boxes.
To support Desktop Linux means wanting to support open gaming on a wide variety of hardware and drivers.

Totally... Still, I'm wondering what would have happened if Valve decided to go all in in the Console market with a Steam Machine initiative like Microsoft's Xbox. I mean, with a dedicated Steam Machine store that's a subset of what you may find in the desktop client (100% Linux/Proton and controller supported titles only) and optimized for the Steam Machine (dedicated hardware built by Valve)... But the games you buy on the Steam Machines' store are then available and synced on any other desktop clients...

Well we'll never know, I guess...

Maybe Valve is sort of "all in" already. The question is what they want to achieve.
I think you have to look at the revenue side and the expenditure side. Someone who wants to market a closed console system like XBox, has to spend money to solve a manageable technical problem. The more defined the hardware and OS to be supported, the smaller the amount of money needed. Much more money is needed to get developers to support the console with games and to establish the platform on the market. In return, the owner of the platform earns an exclusive share on the software, while the hardware is often sold at a loss in the beginning.
Valve seems to pursue (or have to pursue) the exact opposite goal with its Linux initiative. An open system consisting of various hardware and OS variants, which even starts the (partly outdated) software of other platforms, sometimes even coming from other distribution platforms. It is the approach which needs the biggest technical effort, but has the advantage of lots of existing software. They get money for all they sell on the Steam shop and support the software they already sold. The Steam Machine plus Steam Controller could have been an attempt to standardize the hardware and the controller concept. This didn't work very well, baybe partly because the Steam Machines weren't nessessary to use the software.
I also see the VCS as a kind of in-between thing with a uniform controller concept for Atari retro software and the possibility for other more open uses, which probably will be very limited considering the performance of the hardware, and from which Atari won't earn anything or at least not much.

You got my point. Thing is Valve tried a "middle" solution that resulted in a confusing offer... Was it to bring PC gamers to the console market, or console gamers to the PC market? They failed at both. Nobody knew who it was for.

I think it could have been possible to create a pure Linux based console (SteamOS, remember?), based on one or two sets of x64 PC hardware built by Valve (Just like the Atari VCS) and support the PC market as two separate offers, that would benefit both, software side (it's all open source afterall); one for the console gamers and one for the PC gamers. Yes, it requires more investments and that's what I would have liked to see. More investments also means more determination.

This said, don't get me wrong, Valve is doing awesome things for Linux on the desktop and I'm really thankful for that, but for the Steam Machine thing, they seem to have got it off the door, and never looked at it again. Like they knew, from the start, that it would fail. Just maintaining SteamOS looked like it became a burden, early on.

But I'm no insider and I don't want to underestimate the work of anyone. The guys who worked directly on the project have all my admiration (PLGriffais, Timothee Besset, JVert and others I can't remember)... It's just my impressions.

My point is: If Valve did create an open console with a narrow set of hardware and just 64bit Linux, then most pre existing software on Steam would not run on it, and the software made for this platform would not nessessarily run on existing Steam-users Linux boxes. I don't think such a platform would take off any more than Steam Machines did.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lucinos

Quoting: NeverthelessMaybe limiting the scope of the executable software is not what Valve wants. Or did I understand you wrongly?

Saying "this is the right way to do it" does not limit executable software. It changes nothing about what is executable or not, it only informs about the right way so they will have the best support.

I did understand you wrongly! Well I think Valve do tell developers to best use Vulkan and multiplatform tools for their games, but they want to support as much of the other (and older) software too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: lucinos

Quoting: NeverthelessTo support Desktop Linux means wanting to support open gaming on a wide variety of hardware and drivers.

This is not such a big problem as you make it sound. One should just say "64bit only and an open source vulkan implementation"

If games are working good in these terms then old hardware, who cares, and all other drivers should just get good as it does work on an open source driver there is no real handicap for every other modern enough hardware.

For lightweight games you want to run on older hardware just support OGL3.

If you want to support even older hardware then why not make it all the way and support DOS or even old 8bit computers?

Maybe limiting the scope of the executable software is not what Valve wants. Or did I understand you wrongly?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Nevertheless

Quoting: MohandevirGoogle Stadia... Atari VCS... I still wonder if we'll ever see a Linux gaming system that starts with a "Bang! Nailed it!".

It's not impossible... Sony's Playstation is similar to a BSD platform... They did it.

They did it because they could legally own the underlying pre-existing operating system, and because it's relatively easy to support uniform hardware of dedicated vendors with drivers. It did not help people wanting to play games on their BSD boxes.
To support Desktop Linux means wanting to support open gaming on a wide variety of hardware and drivers.

Totally... Still, I'm wondering what would have happened if Valve decided to go all in in the Console market with a Steam Machine initiative like Microsoft's Xbox. I mean, with a dedicated Steam Machine store that's a subset of what you may find in the desktop client (100% Linux/Proton and controller supported titles only) and optimized for the Steam Machine (dedicated hardware built by Valve)... But the games you buy on the Steam Machines' store are then available and synced on any other desktop clients...

Well we'll never know, I guess...

Maybe Valve is sort of "all in" already. The question is what they want to achieve.
I think you have to look at the revenue side and the expenditure side. Someone who wants to market a closed console system like XBox, has to spend money to solve a manageable technical problem. The more defined the hardware and OS to be supported, the smaller the amount of money needed. Much more money is needed to get developers to support the console with games and to establish the platform on the market. In return, the owner of the platform earns an exclusive share on the software, while the hardware is often sold at a loss in the beginning.
Valve seems to pursue (or have to pursue) the exact opposite goal with its Linux initiative. An open system consisting of various hardware and OS variants, which even starts the (partly outdated) software of other platforms, sometimes even coming from other distribution platforms. It is the approach which needs the biggest technical effort, but has the advantage of lots of existing software. They get money for all they sell on the Steam shop and support the software they already sold. The Steam Machine plus Steam Controller could have been an attempt to standardize the hardware and the controller concept. This didn't work very well, baybe partly because the Steam Machines weren't nessessary to use the software.
I also see the VCS as a kind of in-between thing with a uniform controller concept for Atari retro software and the possibility for other more open uses, which probably will be very limited considering the performance of the hardware, and from which Atari won't earn anything or at least not much.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirGoogle Stadia... Atari VCS... I still wonder if we'll ever see a Linux gaming system that starts with a "Bang! Nailed it!".

It's not impossible... Sony's Playstation is similar to a BSD platform... They did it.

They did it because they could legally own the underlying pre-existing operating system, and because it's relatively easy to support uniform hardware of dedicated vendors with drivers. It did not help people wanting to play games on their BSD boxes.
To support Desktop Linux means wanting to support open gaming on a wide variety of hardware and drivers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: NeverthelessDo I understand this correctly when I assume you could add post-processing where there is none, or where it's faulty? Does it work with Proton?

Works with Proton yup, and yes that's the point of it to add in. However, it has drawbacks as it applies it to the whole screen so even UI elements get it.

Still a great idea. It will have its appliances! :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Do I understand this correctly when I assume you could add post-processing where there is none, or where it's faulty? Does it work with Proton?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wytrabbitI don't understand the reason to automatically assume the worst. There is no definitive evidence supporting either theory, so why not keep an open mind? You don't have to get your hopes up, but you're making assumptions without any support. Microsoft bought them but we're not privy to how much control and influence MS exerts on inXile internally. Being negative at this point benefits nobody.

I never closed my mind on it. At the time they aquired Obsidian and InXile, MS tried to promote their store and XBox with exclusives. They also have the habbit of pushing their tech with their products, and MS gaming tech still is very anti-anything but MS. So it was logical for me to assume that the purchases were made for this reason. Of course when/if Microsoft changes their Strategy, anything could happen, but at the time (and still) I don't see them offering their games (after Wasteland 3 and PoE2) on Steam or GOG, and I certainly expect them to offer Linux games on the MS store.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wytrabbitTo all the people last year who immediately assumed inXile being acquired by Microsoft meant the end of their Linux ports, you should try to keep an open mind next time.

That would be me then. Only the Linux support of Wasteland 3 was promised in the Fig campaign way before they were aquired by Microsoft. It was clear they would stay true to their word given for Bards Tale 4 and Wasteland 3. Lets wait for the next game...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14Does this mean a Windows friend could run the Linux version of a game? Like, I could finally play some of my co-op games that don't support cross-platform play? I doubt this is the case, but one can hope.

For some reason, they are still too scared to boot into a flash drive to play the Linux version of a game. I even told them I'd buy a dedicated hard drive for them to isolate Linux stuff and they could dual boot. :'( Being the 1% sucks sometimes.

It's not a Linux emulator. It's based on Linux Namespaces, which is a feature of the Linux kernel to isolate kernel resources. This can't be built into the Windows client.

View this comment - View article - View full comments