Well, then you disagree with me and a lot of other people. Everyone has different tastes, but I loved those games, and I can't really see how anyone could not love Portal and Portal 2.
There is a lot to do, and not enough people doing it, all while new versions of Windows come out every x years. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that it's not going to happen. What is more likely is just that the engines and toolkits people use become cross platform to the point wine isn't needed. (Hopefully).
Yeah, well, I guess that's a licensing issue - I'm talking Valve here, other publishers may not be so generous. Hopefully it'll become the standard, however.
Oh, come on, the 'I think' is implied. I love a lot of Valve games, that's all I'm saying. For me, they are some of the best games I've ever played. That's all. Don't take it too seriously.
Who ever said it would cause mass exodus? Stop putting words in people's mouths then arguing against it. This is good news for me because I use Linux, and I want to play my games under Linux. That's it.
http://www.sevendaycooldown.com/site/episode001/ That's an interview with Gabe Newell where he specifically states he is currently working on Linux. The Phoronix article talks about him going to see Valve working on it, and Valve are hiring Linux developers. That's pretty strong confirmation.
Well, yeah, but that's understating it. I'll also get a platform that gives developers more reason to release for Linux, I get future Valve games (which I care about a lot more than most companies), and I get it for free in a way that's convinient to me. Where is the downside?
Uh... Portal 2 is under a year old. Counter Strike: Global Offensive comes out this year and uses the Source engine. Virtually every game Valve has made is a masterpiece and worth playing no matter the age. Beyond that, PC gaming isn't a niche market, and who cares about people switching to Linux, I just like the idea I can play my games under my normal OS.
Just as a note, when Steam was released for OS X, existing accounts could play all the games they had already purchased on a Mac without re-buying them (aka: Steam sells you a licence to play the game on any platform it is availible for, not a particular one) - so there is no reason to presume they wouldn't do that with Linux to. Hence the price would be the same, and you could play it where you want.
Yes. And? No one is ever going to make wine perfect or port every game to Linux. At some point if gaming is going to happen under Linux, someone needs to make a move like this. No, there will not be a massive library to begin with, that doesn't make it wortheless. People might still want to play the games they can, and it makes it easier to release stuff in future. If I want to play Portal 2 on my Linux PC and it's availible, why wouldn't I? There is a point to it, even if it isn't every game. For some people, every game they want might have a Linux version. More likely, some won't, but that doesn't mean it's a no-go.
I think that would be a good reason for them to do this. At the moment, it wouldn't really work as it'd mean the majority of their library wouldn't work, but if they can get stuff ported over, and get people releasing for all platforms, it puts them in a much stronger position to release a console, as they don't have to be under Microsoft's thumb, and they have a stronger position to negotiate for windows licences.
I don't think that a steam box is something we'll see soon, but this is probably a move that helps them, just in case they do decide to do it in the future. It's a bit of a Google move in that it's designed to make the ecosystem better suited to support what they want to do.
As much as normally Phronix trumpets nothing, this time it's legit. He visited Valve and saw it, and Gabe has talked about how he, personally, has been working on Linux-related stuff recently in a podcast. We don't know when it'll happen, but Valve are pretty well known for keeping stuff under wraps until they have it close to delivery.
Well, if you bothered to read even the title, you'd see that says Source, which is Valve's game engine. That's a lot of games and mods, not to mention that they are all very good games. There are also a fair number of titles on Steam with Linux versions anyway, and this opens the way for more to happen. You can't expect it to be instant, but this gives devs a reason to release Linux versions, and a way to reach Linux users.
Exactly - if there was one game engine to see under Linux, it's Source. I mean, you have a lot of the best games ever made under one banner right there.
I don't think that's really true. There are some people out there who think closed software is a crime against humanity, but to be frank, those people are generally not gamers. Gamers are used to a system where you are lucky not to be forced to play on closed hardware, let alone just on closed software on an open OS.
I think the reality is Steam is a good idea (if not implemented perfectly) and Valve are a company that are almost universally doing things right. They make some of the best games ever created, and do it pretty ethically. It's not really surprising they'd be the folks to look at Linux first.
Valve care about the consumer, and that is more important, I think, that whether or not it's open or closed. If a product is good, I'll use it. I mostly use open source software as, for what I need, I find it's generally best, but there are exceptions (I'm a big fan of PyCharm, the python IDE which is closed source).
Most people will love this, and for good reason. Good games on a good platform can only be a good thing, and it means we might start to see the barrier breaking down, and people producing for Linux because suddenly there is a way to do it more easily.
I don't get this - I would think most guys would love to see more women coming into software development. I went to an all-male grammar school for my secondary school education, and I can assure you I don't really want to go into an all-male workplace.
As far as I can tell, it's not men keeping women out of programming, it's that they don't want to do it. The only time I've ever seen anyone try to disuade a girl from programming, it's been other girls calling it geeky.
They have a really clever solution to this, you see, everyone has to give lots of money to ICANN, then we wait for about 6 months, then they give more money to ICANN, and then one of them gets to pay ICANN to give money to ICANN yearly to have.coke. Genius!
This is just like chrome - Google are not doing it to make money, they are doing it to ensure they have a good position for their core products. Sure, it'd be nice to get some money on the side, but making sure phones continue to evolve and push the boundaries benefits Google a lot, just as browsers doing so did too.
Google are protecting against a monopoly where the market stagnates, because as a big player, it can push innovation. Which also happens to be awesome for the consumer.
I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar. Plenty of films, books and even games have endings lots of people don't like, but the endings that don't answer questions and give closure are the ones where everyone has a problem with them. People can live with an ending they don't like - but an ending that doesn't leave them feeling like it's done? People do this kind of thing. It's the difference between some people not liking it, and virtually everyone who played the game being dissapointed by it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then you disagree with me and a lot of other people. Everyone has different tastes, but I loved those games, and I can't really see how anyone could not love Portal and Portal 2.
Yes, but OpenGL developers working on the Source engine wouldn't be much use there.
Valve have a pretty good track record in the coutroom, and they are known for doing the right thing wherever possible. We'll see.
There is a lot to do, and not enough people doing it, all while new versions of Windows come out every x years. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that it's not going to happen. What is more likely is just that the engines and toolkits people use become cross platform to the point wine isn't needed. (Hopefully).
Yeah, well, I guess that's a licensing issue - I'm talking Valve here, other publishers may not be so generous. Hopefully it'll become the standard, however.
Oh, come on, the 'I think' is implied. I love a lot of Valve games, that's all I'm saying. For me, they are some of the best games I've ever played. That's all. Don't take it too seriously.
Who ever said it would cause mass exodus? Stop putting words in people's mouths then arguing against it. This is good news for me because I use Linux, and I want to play my games under Linux. That's it.
http://www.sevendaycooldown.com/site/episode001/ That's an interview with Gabe Newell where he specifically states he is currently working on Linux. The Phoronix article talks about him going to see Valve working on it, and Valve are hiring Linux developers. That's pretty strong confirmation.
Well, yeah, but that's understating it. I'll also get a platform that gives developers more reason to release for Linux, I get future Valve games (which I care about a lot more than most companies), and I get it for free in a way that's convinient to me. Where is the downside?
Uh... Portal 2 is under a year old. Counter Strike: Global Offensive comes out this year and uses the Source engine. Virtually every game Valve has made is a masterpiece and worth playing no matter the age. Beyond that, PC gaming isn't a niche market, and who cares about people switching to Linux, I just like the idea I can play my games under my normal OS.
Just as a note, when Steam was released for OS X, existing accounts could play all the games they had already purchased on a Mac without re-buying them (aka: Steam sells you a licence to play the game on any platform it is availible for, not a particular one) - so there is no reason to presume they wouldn't do that with Linux to. Hence the price would be the same, and you could play it where you want.
Yes. And? No one is ever going to make wine perfect or port every game to Linux. At some point if gaming is going to happen under Linux, someone needs to make a move like this. No, there will not be a massive library to begin with, that doesn't make it wortheless. People might still want to play the games they can, and it makes it easier to release stuff in future. If I want to play Portal 2 on my Linux PC and it's availible, why wouldn't I? There is a point to it, even if it isn't every game. For some people, every game they want might have a Linux version. More likely, some won't, but that doesn't mean it's a no-go.
I think that would be a good reason for them to do this. At the moment, it wouldn't really work as it'd mean the majority of their library wouldn't work, but if they can get stuff ported over, and get people releasing for all platforms, it puts them in a much stronger position to release a console, as they don't have to be under Microsoft's thumb, and they have a stronger position to negotiate for windows licences. I don't think that a steam box is something we'll see soon, but this is probably a move that helps them, just in case they do decide to do it in the future. It's a bit of a Google move in that it's designed to make the ecosystem better suited to support what they want to do.
As much as normally Phronix trumpets nothing, this time it's legit. He visited Valve and saw it, and Gabe has talked about how he, personally, has been working on Linux-related stuff recently in a podcast. We don't know when it'll happen, but Valve are pretty well known for keeping stuff under wraps until they have it close to delivery.
Well, if you bothered to read even the title, you'd see that says Source, which is Valve's game engine. That's a lot of games and mods, not to mention that they are all very good games. There are also a fair number of titles on Steam with Linux versions anyway, and this opens the way for more to happen. You can't expect it to be instant, but this gives devs a reason to release Linux versions, and a way to reach Linux users.
Exactly - if there was one game engine to see under Linux, it's Source. I mean, you have a lot of the best games ever made under one banner right there.
I don't think that's really true. There are some people out there who think closed software is a crime against humanity, but to be frank, those people are generally not gamers. Gamers are used to a system where you are lucky not to be forced to play on closed hardware, let alone just on closed software on an open OS.
I think the reality is Steam is a good idea (if not implemented perfectly) and Valve are a company that are almost universally doing things right. They make some of the best games ever created, and do it pretty ethically. It's not really surprising they'd be the folks to look at Linux first.
Valve care about the consumer, and that is more important, I think, that whether or not it's open or closed. If a product is good, I'll use it. I mostly use open source software as, for what I need, I find it's generally best, but there are exceptions (I'm a big fan of PyCharm, the python IDE which is closed source).
Most people will love this, and for good reason. Good games on a good platform can only be a good thing, and it means we might start to see the barrier breaking down, and people producing for Linux because suddenly there is a way to do it more easily.
Wow, I got modded troll for this, really?
What's wrong with timeline? I actually think it's a really good idea, works well.
I don't get this - I would think most guys would love to see more women coming into software development. I went to an all-male grammar school for my secondary school education, and I can assure you I don't really want to go into an all-male workplace.
As far as I can tell, it's not men keeping women out of programming, it's that they don't want to do it. The only time I've ever seen anyone try to disuade a girl from programming, it's been other girls calling it geeky.
They have a really clever solution to this, you see, everyone has to give lots of money to ICANN, then we wait for about 6 months, then they give more money to ICANN, and then one of them gets to pay ICANN to give money to ICANN yearly to have .coke. Genius!
This is just like chrome - Google are not doing it to make money, they are doing it to ensure they have a good position for their core products. Sure, it'd be nice to get some money on the side, but making sure phones continue to evolve and push the boundaries benefits Google a lot, just as browsers doing so did too.
Google are protecting against a monopoly where the market stagnates, because as a big player, it can push innovation. Which also happens to be awesome for the consumer.
Yeah, I think that all would have been overlookable, however. It's the lack of closure that really stung.
... where did I claim otherwise?
I'm just talking about why there was such an uproar. Plenty of films, books and even games have endings lots of people don't like, but the endings that don't answer questions and give closure are the ones where everyone has a problem with them. People can live with an ending they don't like - but an ending that doesn't leave them feeling like it's done? People do this kind of thing. It's the difference between some people not liking it, and virtually everyone who played the game being dissapointed by it.