>You don't have to buy twice.
How do you know ports will be free? It removes most of the incentive that developers would have to make a good port: money (unless Valve pays for the ports, which would be very expensive).
How do you know ports will be free? It removes most of the incentive that developers would have to make a good port: money (unless Valve pays for the ports, which would be very expensive).
I guess in terms of incentives to do ports, if Valve plans to launch a Linux based Steam box they can tempt developers with more prominent placing of games with Linux ports, a larger audience (assuming Steambox has good sales) or even flat out make it a requirement to get onto Steam.
There are also current Linux users like myself who are just more tempted to buy a game if it has a Linux port.
Let's hope not.
why not? i think if steam flex its muscle (of which it still doesn't have enough), it might jerk studios to put in the effort!
If Valve are serious about launching their own platform , they're likely to apply as much muscle as they can in order to get games on there.
Some developers still occasionally port to linux as is without any incentive other then a wider (albeit minor) possible audience.
Although given gabes apparent hate for windows, i wouldn't put it past value to pay for ports.
It's also the same version that's up on the Mac App Store which has limited multi player functionality.
Beside the Call of Duty port for Mac mentioned below, I know of no other game that has required multiple purchases for multiple platforms.