this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
303 points (96.6% liked)
Linux Gaming
15846 readers
20 users here now
Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.
Recommended news sources:
Related chat:
Related Communities:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Valve good.
But valve company. Company bad.
But valve company do good thing.
But selfish reason.
But good outcome.
But what if no GabeN.
We pray.
Valve is motivated by money. But their strategy is to make excellent products, that put the customers first. A rare sight these days.
I think the the main reason is that they're private with no intention to go public. They're not beholden to random shareholders who know nothing about games and just want infinite growth, their decisions are actually made by people inside the company.
I played a lot of Sierra games in the 80s. I grew away from computers for a while and at some point in the 90s, Sierra sold out. They were basically drug through the mud, canned all its devs and became a brand rather than a software company. Sierra was also the first publisher of Half Life.
I was reading the history of Sierra there other night on Wikipedia and was sad because so many great games came out of that company and most were memorable. Hard to see that in any gaming these days
Back to my point, I started thinking that Valve saw what happened to Sierra and Newell decided fairly early on that they would be a software company and publisher and not sell out to a third party or take the company into the market. Pure speculation on my part, but they got their start sort of at the end of life of a bunch of 80s software companies. EA is certainly a shadow of what it was but it's still around at least as a brand.
Valve's strategy is to maintain dominance of their software platform, Steam.
It has been pushing Linux as a viable computer platform as a counter to if/when Microsoft wanted to monetize PC gaming in direct competition to Steam, which seems to be a wise decision.
As we get closer to Microsoft forcefully shoving windows 11 down our throats, more and more I consider switching to Linux as my daily driver for home.
I'm not saying Valve was wrong. However, I can see Valve trying to do the same with Linux.
What will they shove though¿? They don't control linux like how Microsoft controls windows. The only OS they have control over is SteamOS.
And what are most people running to game on Linux? Consumer Linux right now is Android and Steam; servers have their own systems.
Valve is not forcing us to run steam. It can't do that. What it can do is offer a very good product which makes us use it. If in the future, valve starts doing shitty things with steam, most of the community will just move on.
Also what the hell do you mean by consumer linux is steam¿?
Valve runs the DRM that runs Steam. They are making the platform desktop agnostic, but that may not be sustainable.
Also what the hell do you mean by consumer linux is steam¿?
After the release of the Steam Deck, Linux on Steam has seen an increase so large that it now beats Apple for the #2. Steam may push users to Linux, but still run the Steam walled garden.
Sure, but they can't force Linux users to use Steam. It just so happens that most Linux gamers use Steam because it works well for them, thanks to the hard work of the various open-source devs (along with Valve, Codeweavers, etc) behind WINE, DXVK, and Proton. Microsoft can theoretically force Windows users to use only their store, if they felt like that was a good idea for whatever reason.
The Steam Deck has both a Desktop Mode which lets you run any application you want (so long as its Linux compatible of course), SteamOS is built on top of Arch (which you can build on top of), and lets you run whatever OS you would like (you can even go as far as removing SteamOS if that is what you want). I'm not sure how it's a "Walled Garden". A walled garden would be the Xbox / PlayStation / Switch and basically any other console, along with most mobile phones, where you cannot install the OS that you want - you're forced to use what the manufacturer provides.
You can use Android without Google Play Services and people do, but the vast majority of people using Android use Google Play Services.
I can see that happening to Linux on the desktop if the main driver is Steam.
There's a huge difference between GPS which is effectively a rootkit, and Steam which is a userland application however. To actually remove GPS requires that you have a device with an unlockable bootloader (or an active exploit to gain root privileges) so that you can flash a ROM without it - Steam is one simple uninstall away.
Sure, a monopoly on the gaming market isn't great, and while I hope I don't bite my words anytime soon - Valve/Steam is the lesser of the two evils. Especially if you consider that it wasn't really all that long ago where Linux gaming was an absolutely crazy idea that resulted in the pool of games available to you to be very very small.
For now. But also, phone companies can use Android without GPS, but they have to rebuild a lot of functionally to get it to work, and this was done as a design decision by Google to maintain control over Android. I can easily see Valve doing this in the future. Hell, imagine Valve buying Unity and integrating it to Steam while keeping developer costs low.
My brother in Christ you know not of what you speak
Right now Valve could disappear and gaming on Linux would continue, better for the efforts Valve have already made. I would think that the improvements would stagnate without Valve, though.
Non-Steam utilities like Lutris, Bottles and Heroic run games nearly as well as Steam. We'd carry on.
Most of the linux world is not for "consumers", it's for "participants" also refered to as "the linux community". Android and SteamOS are consumer oriented indeed, you buy your device that ships with a Linux-based OS. But on the PC side of things, you just get, install and use linux for free with no strings attached. Just by doing so you become a participant of the linux community, and you contribute to shape the future of Linux as an OS by choosing a distro over another, by choosing a DE, by reporting bugs, etc.
Any company that has influence on the development of Linux, can only have it by contributing to the whole project. This is what Valve is doing, as well as Intel, Canonical, Redhat and even Microsoft.
Do you count Android users as "participants"?
It's going to depend. Are you using the Android version that can shipped with your device, or a custom ROM? are you using F-droid? have you ever reported a bug to an app developer ? I assume a big majority of Android users are consumers and not participants, but at least with Android you have options to participate. Nothing wrong with being a consumer BTW.
However, Android is quite a bit different from what is broadly understood as Linux. Yes, Android uses the Linux kernel, but appart from that it's not a very open eco-system and Google absolutely controls the AOSP.
I would argue that the difference has a lot to do with whether the user is typically a consumer or participant. Valve seems to be making a a form of Linux for consumers, even if participants can use the system.
After all, why buy the Steam Deck to delete Steam from it?
On everything but the steam deck people are running their own choice of distro. You can't even install steamos on a non steam deck right now
Valve is one of the few big companies that still knows money comes from users and users come from a good product
sometimes users come from other users
That's the advertisement part that I skipped because it doesn't fit so well, the users need to hear about the good product before becoming a user.
Also, when a mummy user and a daddy user love each other very much, they go into a special private online matchmaking lobby and make little baby users.
but if they turn out to be ms edge users, those get aborted out of the womb.
verily, from their loins they cometh
Gaben is fucking smart and gives a shit.
Not just money, they're motivated by a long-term success. A lot of these companies can't see past this quarter's profits and bring a lot of Goodwill trying to make the numbers go up forever.
If they ever went public & were legally bound to make profit for shareholders, there would be no good feelings anymore.
Going public is usually bad for product quality and consumer oriented business models.
Private companies still have shareholders who they are bound to make profit for. They're just shareholders not fixated on stock value as it's not publicly traded.
Private companies aren’t bound to make profit. I purposefully tanked my companies profit to literally 0 during the pandemic so I could keep my employee on at full wage while only open half time. A private company can make profit for shareholders, but it doesn’t have to. It can do whatever the shareholders want it to do, within the boundaries of the law.
We pray.
We pray.
🙏🏻
Hahaha thanks for this. I really find it fascinating how bad CEOs make lemmy think all companies are bad. It makes no sense.
Blame the system maybe, I get that. But good grief we are all trying to make a living. The only way to do it is to do business. Like any system, it will be exploited, but I'm not gonna shit on private companies especially who clearly have a vision and don't need investor snobs to drive them to commit evil.
I meant it the other way around. No matter how benevolent a dictatorship is, eventually the dictator will change and you better hope there will be another benevolent one.
I personally don't think the problem is doing business. I think the problem is businesses not being democratic.
It's not their own opinion, they're just repeating what they learned online. There's multiple valve devs being "exploited" for $250k a year, it's really tragic. They even exploit their worker by having college classes on the top of their building for their employees.
Thats funny because shareholders are deeply involved in Valve, and those shareholders frequently decide which products get investment and which don't.
Which stockholders? Valve does have some, but it doesn't appear that they are published and are probably mostly employees since it's not publicly traded. Maybe you're saying that like game publisher stockholders from EA and such are involved in decision making at Valve? That seems plausible but it doesn't seem like they'd have a ton of power over operations, more just some negotiating power.
Valve gud. EA bad. Why Valve gud? Because me am told Valve gud. Why EA bad? Because me an told EA bad. Fact that each is purely motivated by profit and that my sentiment is almost entirely a byproduct of effective Valve PR coupled with it being the defacto gaming marketplace for 20 years and that the only value I have to it is as a data point in a spreadsheet is lost on me.