Great news for Steam OS and Linux in general. It's not as popular as UDK or Unity (especially at small studios), but this definitely opens the doors to getting games on Linux that wouldn't have been otherwise.
Off the top of my head, Star Citizen is using the next gen CryEngine. Along with the next Crysis game and who knows what else.
> Along with the next Crysis game and who knows what else.
I know almost nobody has done that yet, but it would be great to make the previous games in their catalog available (Crysis 1 and 2 for example) on Linux. I'd buy that.
I haven't seen ANY Unity devs commit to making native linux ports rather than just using Unity. Until SteamOS can make it as simple as Unity, it's going to be a tough sell to anyone who is already using Unity.
Why would I rewrite my game from scratch if I was using Unity? I just compile it to a native Linux binary, tada! Native Linux support.
I think you might be misunderstanding what Unity is. Unity doesn't take some game and wrap it like Wine. Unity is a full game engine like UDK or Crysis. It compiles to Native Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, Windows Phone, XBOX, Playstation, Wii, and many more I can't think of right now.
Nothing is a wrapper or emulated/simulated/whatever-ulated. It's all compiled natively for each platform.
For those about to jump on the downvote bandwagon, I think the argument here was poorly phrased but might actually makes sense:
> [Despite the fact that Unity supports building native linux binaries] I haven't seen ANY Unity devs commit to making native linux ports rather than just using Unity [to build binaries for the usual platforms]. Until SteamOS can make it as simple [to build native linux binaries] as Unity [already does], it's going to be a tough sell to [, at the very least,] anyone who is already using Unity [and doesn't build linux binaries, since this sizable population has already been given the choice to "check a box and build for linux" and declined].
Assuming that is the argument my counter argument would be that making a Linux version involves more than a checkbox; you now have extra platforms you need to test on and extra complexity in supporting your game in return for very little benefit. If there are issues on the new platform you then need dev time to address them; Unity might support multiple platforms but that doesn't guarantee your code will 100% work everywhere.
If steambox provides a known Linux environment with users wanting games it becomes a much better proposition to make a Linux version, even if official support is only for Steam Linux and not Linux in general.
> my counter argument would be that making a Linux version involves more than a checkbox; you now have extra platforms you need to test on and extra complexity in supporting your game in return for very little benefit.
I don't think that's a counterargument, I think you're agreeing with what he said ;)
> If steambox provides a known Linux environment with users wanting games it becomes a much better proposition to make a Linux version
That is a counterargument. I tend to agree. I hope you're right!
I'm not sure what you're getting at with Unity devs not committing to Linux ports except using Unity. They're Unity devs, of course that's how they do their Linux versions. It's also how they do their Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, and console versions.
If you mean devs in general, then sure. People writing their own engines aren't necessarily supporting Linux. But games in Unreal Engine, Unity, and CryEngine are a huge chunk of the market, and all three now play nice with Linux.
I don't know what "native linux ports" is exactly, but Kerbal Space Program uses Unity and has a very nice Linux build. It even has an x86_64 build, which isn't available for Windows or Mac.
Not anymore, 4.2 added 64-bit support on OS X in September. The difference was probably hysterical reasons. OS X was their first platform and it was released in 2005. I'm guessing the code supporting Macs was exactly what you'd expect for a first iteration.
Unity has a lot of old stuff lying around (they only very recently dropped DirectX7), so I'm not really shocked, but I was surprised it was still i386 because the upgrade should (well, okay, "should") be pretty trivial and i386 Macs have been out of support for a while.
My understanding is that the KSP devs have experienced instability and bugs with the x64 builds for Windows/OSX which they attribute to Unity.
In my experience (a few months out of date now) the x64 builds for Linux are not terribly stable, but perhaps the devs think they are more stable, or think that linux users are better equipped to deal with questionable stability and released that version despite the stability issues.
There hasn't been a large reason to until SteamOS. SteamOS is the best thing to happen to linux since Mac OSX/iPhone surge. Lots of people export to Mac which is unix.
I'm really hoping to see Linux become the go-to Operating System for gamers. The idealogical basis has little to do with it: it's mostly personal laziness, less hassle getting a pirated Windows install with spyware, hassles of installing legitimate copies across machines.
But most importantly it we need competition on the desktop. Like it or not, Microsoft still has a monopoly in this market. This can only be good for people who like technology.
There is already competition on Desktop. I see more Macs nowadays (clear bias though, but the user base has definitely grown over the years), and the Linux user base is stable and slightly growing. Linux won't be the go-to operating system for gamers for a long time, though, unless publishers and indie game makers alike decide suddenly to drop windows and so Linux only from now on. It's not going to happen anytime soon.
It's all resting on Valve and their SteamOS. If they're able to make it a viable gaming alternative, we might just see a pretty significant change.
The best part is, a game made for or ported to SteamOS (and Steam Machines) runs perfectly fine on my Arch install, played Portal 2 beta just yesterday.
By contrast, a game made for X360/XOne (Steam Machine competitor) does not by default run on a desktop OS, even Windows. The same goes for PS3/4.
You still have the fragmentation of the PC market, but much less so as optimization on the developer level can be reserved for Steam Machine hardware, I'm confident my GTX 660M will run stuff just fine even so.
That's a potentially huge win for Linux as both a desktop OS and a platform. I can easily see it snowballing, with teenagers going "Yeah, I ditched Winlol and OS-SuX for Fedora, rippin' though Crysis 4. Yo have you tried extensions in GNOME Shell? Shit's so cash", that's a culture change in favor of Open Source. Might not happen, might just happen.
/I obviously have no idea how teenagers talk these days
Wow I am amazed at the negative tone of this article, the author clearly being dismissive about Steam and Linux. I thought that Ars was supposed to be one of the better tech blogs out there but I think I need to reevaluate my opinion. This is pitiful journalism at best.
I have always found Ars to be hostile to Linux in General. Really all things open source, which is funny given their coverage of patent and copyright law
I think this attitude stems from their lack of an editor dedicated to that subject. Their Android/Google reviewer, Ron Amadeo, is the farthest they stray from the dominant Microsoft/Apple ecosystem. If you've ever wondered why their coverage seems so slanted, just look at the overwhelming number of MacBooks in any of their "what's in my bag" posts.
Honestly, I think you're taking "lack of marked enthusiasm" as "dismissive tone".
It's barely 5 sentences... I think calling it "pitiful journalism" is a stretch, mostly because calling it journalism is a stretch. It's a news update, not an op-ed.
"Hype Machine" = Gives a very Negative appearance.
Steam OS is a 10+ year play we are at the foundation stage.
Things will go through the roof when computer builders start ditching Windows on their own builds. Looking for that to happen at say Maximum PC in about 3 years.
Surely "hype" involves some sort of unrealised promise. As far as I can see, the SteamOS is going to be a success. As to whether it is a runaway success remains to be seen but you can't deny its potential. Cross platform dev is not so hard if you commit to it from the get go.
PC sales to homes are down, think tablet / smartphone users who want a box to hook up to the TV. Valve already have the software distribution part solved and a catalogue of proven games. For users the SteamBox isn't so much of a gamble and cheap enough for people to take a punt.
What's more, the upgrade path is there, imagine an XBox where you can buy next year's model and the games you already bought look better.
Xbox One games are already last gen graphics, even some smartphones have better res.
I don't doubt that, i just don't see alot of value in SteamOS right now. Id just get a Steambox and put Windows on it and have the same experience, just with the full catalogue of games.
I think that SteamOS/Steamboxes could be a win for people who are not currently PC gamers. I do some minimal gaming in Debian on my laptop (KSP, occasional minecraft), but I could see myself getting a Steambox to do some proper gaming (I haven't played a GTA since GTA3, but the most recent looks pretty cool. If Steamboxes got that I'd get one in a heartbeat).
Steam Machines are additive, they don't replace gamer's existing windows machines, they take those windows games and make them more accessible in the living room.
Over time as SteamOS gets more native titles it'll be able to run those natively.
Most of the announced machines mentioned "late 2014" as their release date. That gives Valve the better part of the year to polish the OS and for publishers/developers to keep porting games.
But _today_ you can run SteamOS on a relatively inexpensive NUC or used PC as a streaming client and that's probably the kind of early adopter that Valve is looking for for now.
But yeah, the Digital Storm $2,000+ Steam Machine makes no sense to me, considering there's only one game for Linux (Metro Last Light) that would even come close to stressing the hardware.
That's what bugs me so much about Steam Machines. When Valve originally announced it, there were no hardware partners announced yet, and they said they'd have three basic tiers -- a $99 or under "good" that presumably did nothing but in-home streaming, a console-priced "better," and then the "best" tier, where manufacturers could ship whatever. They announce the OEM partners and what's being built, and EVERY machine comes up in the best tier. So the idea of leveraging a $99 machine to do for Steam what Roku or Chromecast does for video streaming was put out there by Valve, and then they've completely failed to deliver on it in hardware. They're still hard at work at in-home streaming, but none of the actual Steam Machines announced seem to be built for it; you don't need most of those machines to stream Bioshock Infinite off the gaming PC you already own.
S/He is probably referring to the lack of titles for Linux right now.
S/He probably has an unrealistic expectation that valve should be able to snap their fingers and make a catalog they spent 10 years building all work on Linux automagically.
That's completely unfair. It may not be realistic to expect Valve to get the same catalog for Linux gaming as is available on Windows, but Steam Boxes cost roughly the same as similarly-equipped Windows gaming PCs, so it's the same market. It's unrealistic to expect Valve to be able to deliver the full Steam catalog on Linux now, but it's equally unrealistic to expect potential users to not care about the number of games available, particularly AAA games.
I mean, we can talk later, but we have some information on the capabilities of the proposed Steam Machines, the prices, and what games are available right now and what are announced (the majority of AAA games between now and the end of summer are already announced, I can't think of any that have Linux support announced alongside Windows/Xbox/Playstation). There's certainly enough information to make SOME judgement about what Valve is doing. Being openminded enough to receive new information doesn't require us to shut off our brains now.
Choo choo, all aboard! From what I've seen in recent comparisons to other engines, Cryengine remains the best in "photorealism" and graphics quality, so this is great news. I hope that means they will offer great support for Oculus Rift, too, in the near future.
That game has piles of stretch goals already. Maybe they'll just say "We're doing Linux because it's easy and will help us make money" instead of trying to juice more preorders out of it.
Then again, whether it helps moves sales would depend on whether the Steam Machines get any sort of adoption and on RSI releasing the game before Linux has a lot of notable titles supporting it. Who knows?
Oh thank god. With all of their stretch goals and what they're charging for preorder ships that you can look at in a pretend hangar, it's awfully hard to tell. I'm looking forward to the game, but their crowdfunding is a kind of strange mess.
Yeah, I'm just not a big fan of the endless stream of stretch goals. Some of them are notable things like an improved mission editor, but a lot of them are "not particularly remarkable star system" and "extra class of fighter that we hadn't mentioned before." As if they weren't going to have a huge pile of star systems and several types of fighters anyway.
It comes across like they're trying to guilt people into upgrading to higher preorder tiers because otherwise there won't be any more ships or worlds. I backed it on Kickstarter for whatever tier buys the game, but I'll pass on the $275 in-game spaceship and spaceship shaped flash drive (plus a pile of other stuff).
But hey, it's their money and if people want to invest it in this, that's up to them. Hell of a lot better than Candy Crush, if you ask me.
There is not mac support for the cryengine? This is really strange considering that apple has surely a bigger installed base in consumer computers compared to linux
Macs have sucked, do suck, and likely will suck for all time to come as far as gaming is concerned. They ship with shitty graphics cards, have bad cooling, and there's simply not much in the way of interest from Apple in supporting gaming.
If enough large games were released for OS X, even as a port, Apple may put a little more effort in. And yes, the graphics cards are weak (mine is an Intel HD 4000.) But look at the Mac Pro. They invested a ton on engineering it for performance, including a lot of effort on the cooling. Apple can do it, they just need a little push. And now is a great time for it, they have no place else to go. They can't keep marketing the CPU speed or how thin the machines are for much longer. They need a new metric to push and gaming performance would be a great one.
The only way Apple would become a good choice for PC gamers is if they started shipping computers that competed on price with gaming PCs while offering comparable performance.
I could easily see "casual" PC gamers (people who play games casually, not who play casual games) buying a Mac for their general purpose PC and playing games on the side, iff the Mac offered decent gaming performance (they don't) and were priced around the same as a decent gaming PC (they aren't).
It's a chicken-and-egg problem, though. Studios don't want to invest in making (or even porting) games for a non-gaming platform, gamers don't want to buy a computer they can't play games on, and Apple doesn't want to invest in pleasing a consumer segment that doesn't exist.
Off the top of my head, Star Citizen is using the next gen CryEngine. Along with the next Crysis game and who knows what else.