Gabe Newell Talks Linux Steam Client, Source Engine

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Gabe Newell Talks Linux Steam Client, Source Engine

#41

Post by toyg » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 12:46 AM UTC

sho_hn wrote: post #34

toyg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distribution bit is fairly irrelevant -- yes, you have different packages and filesystem standards, but those are trivial and have mostly been solved. The real problem for Linux games is platform fragmentation: every distribution has a specific set of libraries running with a specific set of kernels, they change very quickly, everyone can compile them with whatever flag they feel like... Anyone distributing binar…

No, the distribution bit is key and critical. "OK, so we're going to do a Linux version. How are we going to get it into the hands of our customers? What, we need to set up a download infrastructure for that? No, that's way too much overhead for a Linux version. What, we're supposed to partner with a small niche digital distribution platform we've never heard about? No, not worth it, either. Wait, we can just upload…

All this supposed stability doesn't seem to be reflected in a growing number of desktop products for Linux, not even ones that don't require a specific "download infrastructure" like recent games (which is really just a way of enforcing DRM, something that might not even be possible in the Linux world), so I'm really not convinced the main obstacle to commercial Linux development for the desktop is the distribution channel.

I think the bottom line is the opportunity price, and it's still way too high for Linux overall -- it's harder to support, harder to develop against, brings a several-orders-of-magnitude-smaller userbase who mostly resents having to pay for software... easy deployment won't change that figure very much, IMHO, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

Re: Gabe Newell Talks Linux Steam Client, Source Engine

#42

Post by sho_hn » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 2:17 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #41

sho_hn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the distribution bit is key and critical. "OK, so we're going to do a Linux version. How are we going to get it into the hands of our customers? What, we need to set up a download infrastructure for that? No, that's way too much overhead for a Linux version. What, we're supposed to partner with a small niche digital distribution platform we've never heard about? No, not worth it, either. Wait, we can just upload…

All this supposed stability doesn't seem to be reflected in a growing number of desktop products for Linux, not even ones that don't require a specific "download infrastructure" like recent games (which is really just a way of enforcing DRM, something that might not even be possible in the Linux world), so I'm really not convinced the main obstacle to commercial Linux development for the desktop is the distribution c…

> All this supposed stability doesn't seem to be reflected in a growing number of desktop products for Linux

You're shifting the goal posts. Nobody was claiming that ABI stability would lead to an increase in products, I was replying to you claiming ABI instability as a significant obstacle. As for the number of binary-distributed desktop products for Linux not having grown lately, I think you're completely wrong on that: See the Humble Bundle games.

And the userbase being so much smaller is, again, why Steam for Linux is such a big deal: It's an extension to a platform publishers are already familiar with, which makes it easier than ever for them to add the platform.

On top of that, Steam is more than just a distribution platform, it's also an SDK for things like multiplayer lobbies, meta-game systems like achievements and savegame sync. Dozens of titles are using that SDK now, and getting it ported to Linux maikes Steam for Linux also an important middleware port.

Post reply on HN