There is a chance that the rumours of a console could also be true as well though. There's no reason why they couldn't have a Linux console /AND/ desktop Linux support.
Without any real knowledge of the industry, extrapolation to back up my point seems fraught with error. How much of Intel's progress has been the low hanging fruit, and is that last 10% going to take 90% of the time? And what measures would you actually use to measure progress?
IMO the question is not 'will more Linux users buy games', but rather 'what percentage of games-playing Windows users will decide they no longer need a Windows box'.
I believe though, in the evolution of gaming and game makers, that the "brains" at Valve have taken one look at the "Windows Roadmap" and bet against it. Remeber that Windows 8 is the foundation of the "future" for microsoft. We going to see a massive shift in it's laws/legalities/processes for both gamers and game makers.
The change won't be over night, yes, but it's inevitable. Given a "free", open platform is now realitvely stable, why not move to it and not have the headache of having to "conform"?
I love linux. I don't mind Windows. If i have the option... it's an easy decision.
Valve doesn't make business decisions out of kindness. They make them when it makes fiscal sense. Preparing Steam for Linux is a huge endeavor costing millions of dollars in salaries and an even larger opportunity cost.
This isn't just to make a few extra bucks from a handful of current Linux users. And don't be mistaken, the only extra money they'd see is from current Linux users who refuse to buy non-Linux games. If by some chance this converts large swaths of Windows users to Linux they wouldn't be new customers, just the same customers on a different platform.
Steam itself is an app-store model too.
1/1000? That's just plain ridiculous, at the very(!) most OS X has 10 times the number of users(probably a lot less). Also Apple plain doesn't care about desktop gaming, the only reason they care about ios gaming is that it became extremely popular without them and now it's such a big draw they have to care. I would assume most Apple users don't care too much. OTOH linux users are exactly the sort of geeky audience that tends to be gamers or potential gamers.
Your point about the users who simply use steam games on a windows box/vm/wine now that wouldn't add much to the bottom line hits much closer(Although the convenience/reliability of being able to buy games for their main computer could help existing users spend more freely) but I think that it is missing some like those who might use consoles less or those who aren't currently gamers but have decent potential to become gamers and customers thanks to the convenience of buying games on their main platform/pc.
Nobody every claimed that. Of course their support for Desktop Linux has nothing to do with kindness but is pure business.
Microsoft and Apple are forcing Appstores on their computers and naturally Valve sees this as a danger to Steam. That's why they want to support an alternative.
The first "Humble Bundle" got approximately 20000 Linux purchases. I'd imagine Steam would get significantly more than that at release.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/03/05/valve-patent-shows-steam-box...
Remember that the idea of Steam on Linux was itself just a rumour mere months ago.
Regards the "Linux users pay more" meme on the humble bundle, bear in mind you are still talking about people only paying something like $10 for about 5 games. I assume that Steam prices will stay the same across OSs as well rather than charging more for a Linux version.
It's obvious that they are getting more interested in hardware such as the Oculus Rift, also with hardware getting cheaper there seems to be a growing market for people buying hardware/software integrated solutions.
Whatever it is they are planning to do, they want to become a first class player in the gaming market rather than being whim to Microsoft who look like they are wanting to produce their own hardware.
The best way to do that is to take an already proven kernel with good performance and no licensing and work on from there.
My guess is that porting Steam to Linux gives them an eager powerbase of vocal power users to use as a test market. It's the same principle Apple uses by marketing to the "fanboys" first and letting it trickle out from there.
Hopefully they will continue to support "normal" Linux distributions however, it would be nice to be able to hook up their controller and a headset to my PC and run everything that way if I don't want to buy a "steambox" or whatever.
Gabe definitely mentioned at one point that there was a possibility of putting some basic biometric hardware into a controller, and they've also spoken about experimenting with new forms of input before (and have supported 3rd party novel input devices such as the Novint Falcon).
It's very clear they want to experiment in the controller space, and they have stated multiple times that they do not want to be in the console business, and would rather provide the software for other companies to build their own "Steam Boxes" - yet for some reason everyone fixates on the baseless rumour that they will be making a console, rather than the play that's right in front of them.
It's either that or they are predicting a sharp upsurge in Linux usage after Windows 8 which seems like a very scary predication to make.
Assuming such a steambox does exist, what remains to be seen is whether they make it easy to turn it into a proper Linux PC.
That would effectively stealth install Linux desktops in millions of homes worldwide.
-adding a massive complication/cost in the form of a complete hardware division
-dropping a billion into upfront R/D, marketing and production
only to lose money per unit and only maybe make a profit in the end, when they can just charge Dell/Asus money for "Big Picture Certified" stickers and call it a day. Doing so on Linux just means they don't have to worry about the MS roadmap.
If Valve a company that EA tried acquiring at a valuation of something in the vicinity of one billion dollars sometime ago isn't a major player, then you must have very high standards. Valve have produced so many cult classics and well-known titles that even years after being created are still played, modded and purchased — Counter Strike and Half Life anyone?
I doubt it. Right now Valve only sells software. To get into the console business is to radically change the nature of the organization. Just marketing a new console enough to give it a decent chance to break even would cost enough to require Valve to raise money. And since consoles are not a growing market, there is little potential financial benefit to the move. (In fact, the market is probably shrinking because of competition from tablets and smartphones.)
No, what Valve is trying to do here is make the Linux desktop a more attractive platform for games in order to give Steam a better chance to survive if Microsoft makes its survival on Windows untenable. Valve is worried by Microsoft's creation of an Apple-like app store because, well, Steam is an app store.
If they are sane, Valve does not want the hassle of creating and maintaining their own platform: they just want to be able to continue to deploy Steam on existing gaming platforms. They probably hope Steam will continue to be able to thrive on Windows and probably see their porting of Steam to Linux as an aid in negotiations with Microsoft.
I agree that valve isn't a hardware company, but there are plenty out there for them to partner with. They could be taking the Windows/android approach to set top boxes. That would certainly be refreshing.
And so far the console are just rumours and support for Desktop Linux is going Beta.