Steam based their OS on Linux, so of course it's broken shit
-
Did anyone ever claim Linux has a large market share? Or that you personally should use Linux?
No, all we said is that a Linux-based console is feasible. You're just
all the time.
-
I'm sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the concept that a company's first outing into console is going to be successful based on the fact that companies several times larger have done something completely different that was successful.
You said that back when 2000 was around people were saying it wasn't built for videogames. No one built a console against it at that time.
I'm saying Linux isn't built for videogames NOW, and yet someone is expecting a console to be successful based off of Linux NOW.
-
Red Hat never marketed their distribution to home users.
-
No, all we said is that a Linux-based console is feasible.
Yeah, if Google or Apple, or Sony, or Nintendo, was interested, maybe it would end up successful.
This is far more marketable.
-
I'm saying Linux isn't built for videogames NOW
. What does "built for video games" even mean? The GPU drivers are comparable to the Windows drivers these days, so it's reasonable to write video games for Linux. Whether developers are likely to do that is a completely different topic/question.
-
What does "built for video games" even mean?
I don't know. I was using the Grunnen terminology.
My initially phrase was, "Games don't run on Linux", which is an acceptable generalization in this case.
-
I don't know.
I you don't even understand what you're trying to say, then I'll stop arguing with you.
-
And yet, not one successful console based on Windows 2000 exists.
I'm sorry you can't remember the three that were. And I'm not counting Grunnen's idiocy -- the X Bone was based not on Windows 2000 but on Windows 7.
-
-
I'm sorry you can't remember the three that were. And I'm not counting Grunnen's idiocy -- the X Bone was based not on Windows 2000 but on its direct descendant Windows 7.
FTFY
-
That's I'm absurd for saying that Linux barely makes it into the home market, and even its branded versions like Red Hat still have problems in compatibility and user-friendly departments?
eh? Look, you said before that nothing ever works on Linux but it pretty much always does on Windows. And that if it doesn't, Windows magically fixes it when you're not looking.
-
I'm sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the concept that a company's first outing into console is going to be successful based on the fact that companies several times larger have done something completely different that was successful.
Huh?
I'm saying Linux isn't built for videogames NOW, and yet someone is expecting a console to be successful based off of Linux NOW.
Why couldn't someone set one up to do that? Linux does all sorts of stuff after people customize it. Headless webservers, DVRs, smart phones. I'm not sure why "videogames" should be so unique here.
-
I'm sorry if it was interpreted that way.
When you find someone who had no problems, they fucking let you know. Either they are the self-acclaimed god of Linux, or they are Linux's most devout worshiper.
I meant that Linux users that are successful getting it to work are usually pretty boastful about it.
The idea that they silently move on is not what I've experienced.
-
When is 7 greater than 8? When it has "Windows" in front of it.
-
-
I'm sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the concept that a company's first outing into console is going to be successful based on the fact that companies several times larger have done something completely different that was successful.
You said that back when 2000 was around people were saying it wasn't built for videogames. No one built a console against it at that time.
I'm saying Linux isn't built for videogames NOW, and yet someone is expecting a console to be successful based off of Linux NOW.
Software is not a plant. Even if Linux is called a kernel, you cannot put it into the ground like a seed and wait until it grows to be suitable for gaming, and then 'build a console against it'. That's not how it works. Linux and Windows NT and FreeBSD (on which the PS4 software is supposedly based) etc. are all general-purpose systems, which you can tweak to use for a certain specific purpose.
-
I meant that Linux users that are successful getting it to work are usually pretty boastful about it.
I can accept that your ignorance tells you this.
The idea that they silently move on is not what I've experienced.
Please re-read that sentence carefully and think about why it's funny.
-
Linux does all sorts of stuff after people customize it. Headless webservers, DVRs, smart phones. I'm not sure why "videogames" should be so unique here.
Yeah, I believe that someone can make a console that plays PC games on linux. If it was something they developed from start to finish for personal use.
They might even pass on how to do it to someone else, but it's not going to be something my grandma will build.
The other case is. Yes, I believe a big corporation like Google or Apple with their experience in hardware and software can do it, and with the resources to do it at a net loss.
I don't think what Valve made fits either case.
-
You said that back when 2000 was around people were saying it wasn't built for videogames. No one built a console against it at that time.
I know the original Xbox got curb stomped by the PS2, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
-
Even if Linux is called a kernel, you cannot put it into the ground like a seed and wait until it grows to be suitable for gaming
Every success has been building a console with the expectation that companies will program against it.
And then being able to drum up the market to support that.
That's not what SteamOS is trying to do.
-
that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
SteamOS exists too.
That's not what I said.
Also, I'd be interested in taking a time machine down an alternate timeline where Halo was never made.
-
@Grunnen said:
Even if Linux is called a kernel, you cannot put it into the ground like a seed and wait until it grows to be suitable for gaming
Every success has been building a console with the expectation that companies will program against it.
And then being able to drum up the market to support that.
That's not what SteamOS is trying to do.
So, you're basically telling that Valve is Doing It Wrong and blaming Linux for that?
-
So, you're basically telling that Valve is Doing It Wrong and blaming Linux for that?
No, I'm saying Valve is doing it wrong for multiple reasons, and Linux is working against them.
Look, it's obvious that they have a personal interest in encouraging more games to be ported to / cross-platform with Linux. They've took the effort themselves.
But, I don't think they have the resources to make it successful.
Is it possible to make a console out of Linux, yes. But you're starting from a platform that is at a disadvantage.
This doesn't mean it's Linux's FAULT. It means it's a disadvantage.
-
-
Just found out the latest Tomb Raider is available from the Windows Store. I wonder how much a current-gen-console-specs tiny computer would cost me...
-
Because people are getting stuck on the word fault like fault implies the only problem, main problem, stupid decision, etc.
Whereas "disadvantage" confers the more logical point I'm trying to make.
If you pick out the weak kid to fight off a bully, it's not the weak kid's fault if he fails. It's your fault for not equipping him to succeed (get him stronger, teach him the skills, etc).
However, it doesn't remove the fact that you've picked a kid with a disadvantage.
EDIT: I understand that SteamOS has not yet "failed"... My point is that it appears to me that when I use the word "fault" people misunderstand it to mean the only disadvantage. I don't understand why people can only indicate one disadvantage...
-
That… doesn't explain your self-contradiction at all.
In equally surprising news, I'm typing on a keyboard.
-
And now you're comparing a general purpose operating system with a gaming console.
Valve's selling it as a gaming console; in what way is that comparison unfair?
-
That… doesn't explain your self-contradiction at all.
Because you're being stubborn.
"I want to make a console system that plays PC games. Let me pick the OS that only has a fraction of the games, where most of the AAA titles on it that work on that OS are made by me, and sold in my store. It will have much success".
How...
Please show me how you can expect no problems from that?
-
I want to design a submarine.
I'm going to start my design by refactoring from a plane instead of a boat.
But, that's not a disadvantage, because you can modify any design from any other object. I just have to add concepts that already exist on the boat.
Nope, no disadvantage there.
Not only that, you're going to market this in an industry where cost-efficiency is a huge factor.
-
I love Indie Game: The Movie. It has the best boss fights, and Xbox 360 controller support!
Oh wait it's a movie.
Chicken Invaders: Cluck of the Dark Side? Seriously?
-
can they make it as successfull as the Wii?
Actually that would be an achievable goal.
-
This follows the logic from the thread.
I want to make a game, surely I can take the content of a movie and turn it into a game!!!
No disadvantage there!
"But but.... there have been successful games made from movies. And surely someone can do it!"
Yes, but not the indie studio that has no experience making video game from movies.
-
The GPU drivers are comparable to the Windows drivers these days, so it's reasonable to write video games for Linux.
Comparable, as in "can be compared". (And when the comparison is actually made, Linux always comes out 15-25% slower for identical rendering.) Not comparable, as in, "competitive".
-
I'm going to start my design by refactoring from a plane instead of a boat.
Or build your spaceship from a fishing boat instead of a plane.
-
Or build your spaceship from a fishing boat instead of a plane.
Nope, you're totally wrong.
Look, it exists. So your argument that they faced a disadvantage is wrong.
EDIT: added sarcasm tags.
-
Nope, you're totally wrong.
About what? I just made a dumb Cowboy Bebop joke. I don't even know what you're arguing about.
Look, it exists. So your argument that they faced a disadvantage is wrong.
Uh. Ok. I wasn't making any argument, but sure why not. Wrong.
-
"I want to make a console system that plays PC games. Let me pick the OS that only has a fraction of the games, where most of the AAA titles on it that work on that OS are made by me, and sold in my store. It will have much success".
The PS4 is an x64 box that, for all intensive porpoises, is a PC with fixed specs. it has an OS literally no other machine uses. And it has sold nearly 36 million units.You greatly overestimate the importance of the OS choice in the success of a gaming machine.
-
it has an OS literally no other machine uses. And it has sold nearly 36 million units.
It's not doing the same thing.
It made a box and told people "Go code against that". By this point, it has enough following that "If I want to be successful I have to contend with PS4's flaws".
SteamOS made a box and told people "Make it work with some pre-existing games.... Good luck."
Do you think, at this point, any developer is going to say,
"People are struggling getting my game to work on Steam box. Call the emergency staff".
Right now they are marketing which games work well on SteamOS.
As opposed to getting developers to say, "Made for SteamOS".
The vast majority of their problem is their marketing.
But yes, the OS they picked is giving them a disadvantage when competing with just going to a store, buying a computer, and sticking a PC controller in it.
-
It's not doing the same thing.
The PS4 is a box designed to play games.
The SteamBox is a box designed to play games.I see how they're so radically different now.
It made a box and told people "Go code against that". By this point, it has enough following that "If I want to be successful I have to contend with PS4's flaws".
@xaade said:SteamOS made a box and told people "Make it work with some pre-existing games.... Good luck."
Have you seen how many ports and HD remakes are on the PS4?If you want to know the real problem with the SteamBox, it's simple: almost everyone who would buy one has a gaming PC already. So why would they buy another one?
Edit: And how about trying to write your whole post in one go for a fucking change?
-
almost everyone who would buy one has a Windows gaming PC already. So why would they buy another one that supports less games?
Two problems there.
-
Ah, so you agree with me. At last, progress.
-
Ah, so you agree with me.
GAWD... it's only what I've said the whole damn time.
@Grunnen said:
So, you're basically telling that Valve is Doing It Wrong and blaming Linux for that?
No, I'm saying Valve is doing it wrong for multiple reasons, and Linux is working against them.I don't think they have the resources to make it successful.
There are multiple very big problems with this before you even get into it, and Linux is definitely ONE of those problems.
-
Ah, so now you don't agree with me?
-
Are we only allowed to have one problem?
-
You're the one harping on about how the choice of OS is a disaster, when it's clear that there are machines with an even less popular OS that sell tens of millions of units.
-
when it's clear that there are machines with an even less popular OS that sell tens of millions of units.
Ok,
If Valve had the same clout as Sony, and they convinced game makers to design games for their system, you'd have a point.
Two completely different marketing strategies here. And for their marketing strategy of, "Play existing games", their OS is a disadvantage, compared to had they convinced Microsoft to let them build it based on Windows.
But that's going no where.
But it is a disadvantage.
So going back to where this discussion started.
Am I surprised if it fails? No.
-
@Grunnen said:
Android is also based on Linux and works fine. So the problem isn't Linux and the problem isn't that a component is open-source.
Android didn't come out of the open source community. I wish people would stop pretending that.
Android is open-source.
It was started as an open source project, acquired by Google, and remained open-source.
It most certainly did come out of the open source community.
-
-
It was started as an open source project, acquired by Google, and remained open-source.It most certainly did come out of the open source community.
The finished OS comes from Google.
Without Google, we would not have Android cell phones.
Without Google, AT&T/Sprint/every other cell phone guy, would not have designed Android phones.
To say how it started or the fact that people can look at the source code is equivalent to a homebrew project is dishonest.
Google Reveals $99 Nexus Games Console
