Because traditionally there were few Linux devices.
Android 15 is going to change that: it comes with a virtual machine API and a Linux Terminal running Debian for ChromeOS compatibility.
Soon, the most popular consumer OS in the world will be Linux:
3.3 billion: Android / Linux
2.2 billion: Apple iOS/macOS *NIX
1.6 billion: Windows
400 million: Windows 11 + WSL 2.0
250 million: gaming consoles
"millions": SteamOS Linux
Wine might still make sense to keep things standardized for some time, and as a compatibility layer for older games, but native Linux games will also work on the Linux solutions for Android, Apple, and Windows.
Yes… it will kind of depend on which layer of compatibility will a game require. Debian is Linux + GNU, which is what most people identify as “a Linux system”. Android uses Linux without GNU, but starting with Android 15 it will come with a VM (container?) system to run a GNU userland. Android can already run Linux distros via Termux, which can be set up to run a desktop, but having it by default will mean apps will be able to use it directly. I’ve just tested RetroArch on Android, with DosBox to run Windows 98… but that’s kind of a mindfuck of its own 😂. macOS is BSD, which shares the POSIX interface with Linux, but it does some things in a different way, however there is a GNU userland for BSD, so games using only that, can run on it already. WSL 2.0 is a full first-class VM with full Linux + GNU and a desktop interface that can coexist with Windows… since Windows 10/11 itself runs by default in a Hyper-V VM (the bootloader is Hyper-V).
M$ did hella shady, monopolistic stuff (patent theft, market manipulation, very likely corporate espionage, and certainly most visibly prefferential treatment of their own software ecosystem and sabotage of third party software on their platforms) to create and enforce market dominance. Unless Valve has been doing something I’m unaware of to kill other platforms, they’re not really similar situations.
Valve runs a couple of online casinos that target children specifically, not sure we should be arguing who’s worse here. I think Steam is a clunky piece of software that’s popular mostly because everyone else missed the moment to start competing and Valve gained monopoly unopposed. Other viable competitors tried and failed at even gaining a foothold and are relegated to small niches because it’s impossible to move people who amassed content libraries over the years. Valve skims 10-30% of an insanely large volume of transactions and should be held to a much higher standard. You’re ignoring all of the warning signs because they didn’t screw you over yet.
Valve runs a couple of online casinos that target children specifically
I’m interested in which of their games that have loot crates you think are targeted specifically at children? Basically all of their games, but especially their games with loot crates, tend to be targeted towards adults. Hell, TF2 came out in 2007, which is 18 years ago, so no one who is a child today was even alive when it came out. It’s mostly elder to mid-Millennials. You can dislike loot boxes (I do), but don’t try to paint Valve like they’re Roblox or Epic Games.
everyone else missed the moment to start competing and Valve gained monopoly unopposed.
Other platforms were around before Steam was fully dominant, but they tended to be focused on the creators’ first-party games, and excluded other publishers and titles from using their platform. Desura and Central/Impulse both had decently large user bases. Stardock Central actually preceded Steam’s release, but was overtaken because Stardock was mostly just using it for its own games, but also billing the service more as a way to unify your physical and digital libraries, and to provide patches and whatnot, whereas Steam went all-in on digital-only.
because it’s impossible to move people who amassed content libraries over the years
Yes, but this is sadly just the natural reality of digital sales. Because you are buying a license, it’s not trivial from a company’s perspective to make those portable, and the company you’re moving the license to is then having to host your content without ever actually receiving the money for it, which isn’t super appealing. GOG actually tried this for a while(GOG Connect), where you could essentially redeem your Steam games to your GOG account, but they realized it wasn’t worth it (especially since there isn’t game parity on the 2, so most people have to keep Steam anyways).
You’re ignoring all of the warning signs because they didn’t screw you over yet.
I must have missed where I said Valve would never do something bad? But yes, I don’t believe in condemning someone for what they might do in the future, preemptively. If and when Valve goes darkside (probably when Gabe dies, and it ends up under new management), they should be condemned. Acting as though they’re bad just because they’re dominant in the market is silly, though; they didn’t get there through anti-competitive business practices, they got there through others failing to do better.
Adding gambling to video games without verifying user age is targeting children with gambling. There’s a lot of convenient combinations of circumstances that Valve is fully aware of and profiting from. I don’t care about plausible deniability because Valve employees were visibly smug and amused when questioned about it. There is no absolving Valve after this.
You blame others for Valve monopoly. Yeah, I said they missed the ship. We have a private monopoly in PC gaming storefronts now and that’s not good. It doesn’t matter if they won fair - they are a parasitic middle-man that makes everyone lose.
Ask yourself and be honest about it: if Valve had a true competitor would their cut be as high as it is now? This is the only thing you should be concerned about, not that they engage in Linux philanthropy or that they make cool games.
Valve runs a couple of online casinos that target children specifically, not sure we should be arguing who’s worse here.
I agree with the sentiment of this… MTX/lootbox shenanigans are a bad, harmful practice that should be much more heavily restrained…
But that has nothing to do with being a monopoly.
At this point, its a widespread industry problem.
You’d address that with regulation, but not on the basis of Steam being a de facto monopoly, instead based on some kind of consumer protection regulation.
… But Trump and Elon are blowing all of that up, so, probably not gonna happen anytime soon.
Valve skims 10-30% of an insanely large volume of transactions and should be held to a much higher standard.
10 - 30 % really isn’t that unreasonable compared to a lot of existing comptetitors… though I guess we’ll see how their ongoing lawsuit around that ends up.
Either way, this also doesn’t make or not make them a monopoly, unless you or the ongoing lawsuit can prove that a 30% is functionally an outsized monopoly rent, wildly out of step with the rest of the industry.
If this is instead roughly in line with the rest of the industry, you’d again need to address this with some other legislation that spans the whole industry, not specifically targeting Steam as a monopoly.
The monopoly case against MS was bullshit. They had all kinds of bad business practices to go after and they decided to go after them for including a web browser in the OS. They fucking made the whole process a waste of time.
Pressure on their web browser monopoly was necessary because IE6 was stifling entire industry. From a legal point of view it’s not illegal to be a monopoly but to abuse that position so there isn’t that much you can do about it, especially in the US. Going after operating system or office suite monopoly should have been done but matters less and less these days.
MS prevented you from using other browsers by using vendor lock-in. It was a prime example example of now misunderstood concept of embrace, extend, extinguish. You could download Mozilla Phoenix but you couldn’t use it for everything because CSS rendering in IE was so detached from standards. On top of that you had ActiveX which meant you HAD to use Windows for some websites.
So many nice recommendations here but here are some of my recommendations in genres (in top 5 form). All of them have PC ports (but not all of the series may be available on PC)
Platformers:
Rayman
Sonic
Wonder boy
Shantae
Trine
RPGs
Final Fantasy
Tales of Series
Star Ocean
Elder Scrolls
Pathfinder
Some noteworthy mentions for RPGs
YS
Mana
Shooters:
Medal of Honor
Shadow Warrior
Doom
Call of Duty
Wolfenstein
Puzzles, point and click: Note: This was very hard to list since most of them are standalone and those that are not have interesting plot lines that you will not appreciate unless you play in order such as Syberia, Gabriel Knight, Secret Files. Walking Dead)
Myst (You can play in any order but it would be nice to play the sequels or prequels)
Broken Sword (Don’t touch 4 and 5 but you can play in any order and it would be nice to play the sequels or prequels)
Life is Strange (1 and 2 are standalone stories)
of Loathing series (It has turned based combat but very fun)
Nancy Drew
I would say I prefer them in the chronological order of their release date. Some of the series I have listed completely have either loosely, small references or completely standalone only sharing a “franchise name”
Square chickened out after manchildren ree’d about the really interesting changes made in Remake, kinda walking it back and trying to pretend it didn’t happen. And ironically, that’s kind of just worse, because those nerds are never going to be happy with what happened in Remake and its ramifications in Rebirth and ReThree, my nerds are mourning for what we could’ve had, and Square looks kinda pathetic and easily bullied.
The nice thing about Steam, is that it’s “too big to clamp down”:
People used to 🏴☠️ on the high seas, for many reasons.
Steam came up as a “single point of sale”, at the same time as Netflix was doing the same for movies and series.
Over time, companies tried to carve out chunks of the pie, restoring some of the original fragmentation…
…but while Netflix has been torn to shreds of its former glory, Steam is still the main “single point” for games…
…with a “single point” DRM
Steam’s DRM only exists because game updates keep coming out with constantly updating DRM versions. The moment Steam tried to act against its clients, and they decided to leave Steam, every Steam game copy at that moment, would get cracked all at once.
Maybe EA, MS, Nintendo, Sony, etc. don’t see that as a great thing… and that’s why they’ve been setting up their own stores… but I think it’s AWESOME! 😁
Most single player steam games are cracked anyway. The real danger of steam is the reliance on it for most multiplayer games. Though if it were to get particularly nasty I imagine adding aftermarket multiplayer functionality would probably be in the realm of possibility. If private WoW servers are a thing, it stands to reason that the same can be done with a lot of other games.
Some games already use P2P, or provide servers for the community to run, so only the private servers would need replicating. Even in that case, I’d argue that having “some” common API, would make it easier than chasing around everyone’s different implementations.
As a gamedev I never saw this as a big issue. Just run Debian Oldstable on your build server, link whatever you can statically, and you are good.
(However, I am talking on a purely theoretical level here - we only released one Linux game, and that was before I joined the company. I will explain our actual reasons in a separate post.)
That would kinda mean you deliver every single dependency yourself, which kinda defeats the purpose of shared dependencies, which in turn proves my point that linux distros are fragmented to fuck. It also means you have to put actual effort into building your game for a userbase that was less than 1% before the steam deck came around.
So my point still stands - proton is the best thing that could’ve happened to linux gaming because it lets windows games run on linux with the dev putting only minimal effort - or even no effort - into making the game run on linux with near native performance. Hell, at times even with better performance.
I lean towards ‘no’ because I do not see moves on their part to actively attack other distributors, but I admit I have not done research on this subject.
Based purely on having used many other distribution platforms, I think they (Valve) just legitimately have the best service currently. Everyone else either kinda sucking (GOG, as much as I love them), or really sucking (EGS, Origin, UPlay, etc), and losing to you in the market, doesn’t make you a monopoly.
I think they care about their customers just about as much as they care about making money, and aside from GOG, the competition simply does not. It’s a pretty good demonstration to how capitalism has failed us, to be honest, because any of those competitors would have been able to compete if they hadn’t treated their customers like shit.
I lean towards 'no' because I do not see moves on their part to actively attack other distributors
That doesn't matter. There's a difference between having a monopoly and abusing it to distort the market. It's the abuse that's illegal, not the monopoly in itself.
There’s a difference between having a monopoly and abusing it
Sure, but whether Valve fits the definition is debatable. Being highly dominant does not automatically make something a monopoly. At best you could call it an imperfect monopoly/ imperfect competition, because substitutes absolutely do exist, but they’re not mostly close enough to be truly competitive. It’s also important to factor in that 4/5 of the largest games on PC are not even on Steam at all: Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, and League of Legends. PUBG is the only one of the top-5 that’s on Steam.
Because a monopoly is a company that operates in their market unopposed. In this instance, it’s not Steam’s fault the opposition kinda sucks (or doesn’t quite aim to be a direct competitor in the case of GoG) but the argument is still there that Steam is sitting as the only distributor for PC.
Personally, this is why I keep wanting to root for GoG, Epic and such. Monopolies are dangerous to consumers and the markets they operate in. Right now, Steam is being surprisingly effective at remaining a “good guy” but there’s a lot of concern even among Steam fans of what the landscape will look like in a post-Gaben world. Setting the PC gaming market up to have Steam as the only option when that inevitably comes to pass (touch wood that that’s no time soon, of course) could spell a certain level of disaster in a world where the anti-monopoly law-makers have shown to not really care about upholding that standard.
Edit: missed words. Never type when struggling to keep your eyes open kids!
There’s absolutely concern about Steam if you’re looking at the discourse. Personally, I hate the Steam launcher and have kept having problems with it ever since they changed the design to be more Baby’s First like everyone else has done (not just taking about launchers here) but the Steam launcher is still better than the others, which is infuriating.
The problem with judging Steam as a monopolistic platform is whether it uses its market position to maintain its monopoly or not.
Valve doesn’t really engage in vertical integration. There are a few games that Valve makes as a first party exclusive, but nowhere near other competitors like Nintendo or Activision Blizzard. There also isn’t a gaming engine that ties to Steam directly; the closest is Proton but that isn’t required.
Valve doesn’t seem to seem to require onerous requirements on third party game studios to publish on Steam. Outside of banning ad-supported gaming, Valve doesn’t seem to demand preferential treatment.
Valve could easily become a problematic monopoly, but it isn’t there yet.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne