Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmduke | Hacker News Reader

The question at the heart of this: what stakeholders exist that are incentivized to create a Linux-exclusive game?

Halo was XBOX-exclusive because Bungie was owned by Microsoft; their specific goal was to make an XBOX-exclusive title, and there was a very real incentive for them to funnel energy into the platform. DICE (and to a much lesser extent, Valve[1]) gets nothing specifically from having a Linux version besides the slightly larger target audience (and PR); there's nothing in it for them to spend massive development time on a AAA game and not release it on Windows + Mac + Consoles as well.

Am I missing something?

[1] From what I understand, Valve's pursuing non-Windows options to try and avoid a shootout between them and Windows Store. That's pretty understandable in of itself.

View on HN

I get the impression you've missed the announcements of SteamBoxes and SteamOS. Valve do have triple-A titles, and they do -they may- have the incentive to release it exclusively on Linux/SteamOS.

What concerns me about SteamOS is their (supposed, as I don't know if it's been actually confirmed yet) Ubuntu base. I personally loathe Ubuntu, it and all its derivatives seem bloated and unstable, I get the same feeling using it as I would get using Windows Vista. Remember the extra hoops Vista introduced to get to basic network settings?

Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open, user-friendliness should not equate locking down an OS, there must be -and is- a better way. I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action.

To be honest, if it were SteamBox exclusive I would not buy it. I don't buy exclusives. Gaming is about fun and convenience to me. Having to buy hardware always factors into my gaming, I am very content to not spend money on hardware, especially niche hardware.

I was tempted to go with a PS/3 back in the days because I could offset the cost of a dedicated gaming machine with the fact I could play Blu-Ray. So unless this Steambox is insanely cheap or provides a significant other use and does those other uses really well I will factor its cost into the game I want to play.

I was thinking earlier they might sell livebooting usb3 sticks with SteamOS and HL3 on them, alongside the actual Steamboxes. They could bundle it with the controller. Then release it for windows/mac a month later.

If they could get it to boot in like 5 seconds, and it came with the ability to play a range of existing steam titles, it might be a winner.

I had thought of this as well, but one of the major benefits of Steam (access to all your purchased games) is lost if you can't play them due to resource constraints (not enough storage on the usb stick for persistence, long load times for large games that need to be downloaded each time you boot).

Might be a good idea for single titles, though.

Released exclusively on SteamOS != SteamBox exclusive.

SteamOS will be freely available

for perspective, Steambox Exclusive == Runs on Linux PC's.

Not even Xbox/GFW can do that.

The killer app probably wouldn't be a steambox exclusive but a steam exclusive. Which means that you'd be able to play it on practically anything you can throw at it. PC, Mac,Steambox, and it won't surprise me if you'd be able to pair up your steam controller to your tablet and be able to stream the feed from your PC ala nvidia shield. In terms of convenience, tying it to steam will do way more than it being exclusive to other systems.

Half Life 3, Linux only...

> I don't buy exclusives.

With all due respect, most people don't care.

> I don't buy exclusives.

You've never bought an exclusive game on a platform you already own? Given that some of the best games ever made have been exclusive to something or another, this seems rather self-defeating.

Did you mean to say you've never bought a console because of exclusives? This strikes me as still quite unlikely (else why did you buy it in the first place?), but much more reasonable.

Do you understand that the Universe does not revolves around you. Do you?

Are you conflating Ubuntu with Unity?

Unity's kind of hit-or-miss, but Ubuntu as a distro has always been fine for me.

I agree. It seems the biggest gripe with Ubuntu is Unity (and some of Gnome 3, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). I've been on Linux Mint - Ubuntu / Debian based - and it's closer to Windows 7 than Ubuntu's Vista.

but there's xubuntu, lubuntu, ubuntu studio, kubuntu ...

I've only had issues with version upgrades. It might be easy, but upgrading is anything but seamless.

Past that unity fits in here where things change drastically between releases.

You should only be upgrading every four years, between Long Term Support releases. Non LTS releases are more for Linux developers and power-users.

Upgrading between non LTS releases is not meant to be seamless. To make it so would take a lot of unnecessary effort. There are LTS releases for a reason.

You don't see Microsoft coming out with a new OS every 6 months.

With a Microsoft OS you're not pegged to versions of 3rd party software for the duration of the support life. Using the LTS version of Ubuntu on a daily use desktop/laptop would leave you with a very frustrating application availability experience.

> There are LTS releases for a reason.

Yes, and the reason is servers. On a computer you use, you generally want the new functionality (like, for example, the ability to read and write to a nexus 4).

I've upgraded ubuntu a few times, including once from LTS to LTS. It ranged from unpleasant to awful ("why has everything been uninstalled?") each time.

It is strange. I often upgrade my distros or those of my other not-informatized friends and I never had a single problem. Writing now from a ubuntu 13.10 upgraded since 11.04

Microsoft no, but I do see Apple doing new osx releases every 1-2 years. Upgrade only every 4 years? Surely you're joking, LTS is for servers not desktops.

That's a fair question, and the answer is no. Unity was an instant turn-off the minute I upgraded, yes, but pulling down another DE isn't exactly hard.

The whole OS has just never worked out in the long run, and has always felt bloated and sluggish. A myriad of odd patches and poorly implemented automation made even the simplest problem solving a major gripe. I just couldn't stand it.

This is all anecdotal of course, you obviously have a completely different experience.

You can also just select GNOME Classic for example on login without having to install anything.

> Ubuntu might be Open Source, but it's not open

You do realize that there is someone to make a comment, much like this, on every piece of software ever created, right?

> I feel GNOME on my Arch install does the job admirably, so much so that friends want a piece of the action.

Since when has GNOME been banished from Ubuntu?

I think you're confusing transparent with open.

I am confused on a few points myself. Granted I am the much quintessential Windows user but I have explored alternatives over the years in the realm of Linux. I must say picking up Red Hat at Fry's was indeed fun, but part of me wanted that boxed copy of Windows for Workgroups I saw nearby even more. The OP talks about bloated and forgive my ignorance but I though one of the most vaunted features GNU/Linux was it's user customization features. So why should Ubuntu really matter, or any distro. Why not give the user something easy to work with regardless of bloat or extraneous features as they can mature in knowledge and alter their OS to their hearts content.

I am not trying to say one is something over the other. I'm just saying I use Windows and have for years and for my needs, cost and all, it really seems to fit the bill. I have used many flavors of Linux over the years but I rarely find it compelling enough to move beyond LiveCD or Pi usage.

tl;dr Does distro matter, can the user not just customize at some point?

edit: spelins

The distro matters in that 95% of users don't customize anything, but, yes, other than that, Ubuntu is just as customizable as any other Linux distribution.

i dont really like ubunt for various reasons but you are using the wrong arguments here. you can easily change the ui in ubuntu and make it much more reactive if you dont like unity. use mate or cinnamon then. plus ubuntu is very stable, i dont really know what gripes you have with it in terms of stability. Ubuntu is used almost as is in several companie like Google and I seriously doubt they would go for something unstable.

  half-life 3 confirmed

Valve gets their platform launched. Strategically, in the long-term, a platform is worth far more than any individual AAA title, or even a franchise. Note: not a "linux version", a "steambox version".

Yes, no one has the incentive to push Valve's platform but Valve. They might pay someone else, but any game of comparable interest to HL3 would be very expensive. They aren't as wealthy as Microsoft. No one is. So, really, HL3 absolutely fits - this even makes sense of its curious delay.

They can always port it later (though, not foreshadow, and well after the initial publicity, or its force will be dissipated).

Valve can use Half-Life 3 / Portal 3 exclusives on SteamOS to push adoption of the OS/console which benefits them greatly.

Exactly,

Back when HL2 came out, I didn't want to install Steam, but ultimately I wasn't going to miss out on the sequel to the best FPS ever made. Then again, it's far easier to install Steam than it is for the average person to abandon Windows. I guess that's where the Steam Box comes in.

But that would be Steam OS exlcusive, not actually on any other Linux distro. So while it might trickle down to better game dev tool support in linux, it wouldn't on face effect adoption rates.

If you say that SteamOS means a game is Linux exclusive, you can say Metal Gear Solid for was CellOS/BSD exclusive[0].

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_system_software

MGS was released for the original playstation, which did not run either CellOS or BSD.

I meant MGS 4. Somehow I left out the 4.

Or commit fiscal suicide. I'm not interested in installing a gaming focused OS on my desktop just to play a single game.

You need to think about this not on a simplistic single-game game theory model, but more specifically, creating a linux exclusive game would be part of a broader long term strategy. Boosting the popularity of an open gaming system would reduce the rents that can be charged by network holders on gaming companies. This would, obviously be a short term money loser, but with firms like Valve, that have a major foothold and could take the short term hit, boosting a open system/network could pay dividends in reduced future costs (granted, i'm not in the industry, and this is purely speculative).

What about Ubuntu? they have their own store so they could benefit directly from the game's sales

But Ubuntu is open-source, so if Ubuntu tries to lock anyone in, Valve just forks and has full control. The very nature of Linux and open source distros is what Valve likes, Ubuntu is simply the most accessible and easiest to recommend. Steam works just fine on a number of other Linux distros BTW (I've run it on Arch and openSUSE machines too).

It only has to be exclusive to the Ubuntu store, doesn't stop people playing Steam games. Valve forking Ubuntu, doesn't give them right distribute the game.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I do think however that if Linux is going to take off because of a game, it'll be a SteamOS exclusive. The advantage of Steam is that it runs on every Linux distro, (even automatically solving dependencies), versus the Software centre which is an Ubuntu exclusive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com