The Valve and Steam Platform Discussion Thread

[Metro]

They've been trying (and failing) for years now.

 

[Morgoth]

With Ballmer and Mattrick out, things can only improve from now on.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

You can turn that metro shit off and never see it. Our laptop is Windows 8 and I have seen that metro shit exactly once, when we first booted it up. People who hate Windows always have these narratives to sell. "Microsoft is going to make it a closed system!" people shout, ignoring that the main purpose of Windows is to sell it to businesses, and they can't limit what runs on it because it would destroy that entire market. "Microsoft is making their own store!" So what? The only person who should worry about this is Gaben, because it threatens his profits. The only way it would catch on is if consumers liked it and started opting to buy games there, in which case it must not be a bad place to shop (and if it ever has exclusives I am sure TPB will give you another option).

You sound like every other Linux nut who hates Windows irrationally and expects me to want to ditch it for no actual reason. It's like people on GOG who expect me to hate Steam because they do. Guess what! I don't give a fuck about your weird paranoia and hatred of an OS. Windows 7 is stable, efficient and does exactly what I want it to do. Linux and SteamOS will run a tiny fraction of the games I want to run, meaning I will need Windows anyway, making the whole fucking thing pointless unless your goal is to use Windows as little as possible just because. That's not my goal. I don't think it's most PC gamers' goal either.

Hey, remember what happened to PC gaming after the release of the original Xbox? A lot of that can be attributed to Microsoft deciding that people should play games on their new console, instead of Windows PCs. Who knows where we might be right now if Steam hadn't taken off the way it did.

So fundamentally, the question is this: Who do you trust more with the future of PC gaming, Microsoft or Valve?

 

[TheRealTimesplitter]

Valve (steam) made and make mistakes but i love what they have done for PC gaming. And although i am not looking into linux right now i am very curious to see what they will make of the steambox.

 

[Zewp]

You sound like every other Linux nut who hates Windows irrationally and expects me to want to ditch it for no actual reason.

Isn't that a bit ironic, seeing as I've never even used Linux? It's easy to say "oh, you're just a Linux nut" without actually addressing the point properly, which is that Windows is, and has mostly always been, a pretty shit OS. Win7 suits your needs. For now.

I'm not trying to tell you you should hate Windows. If you want to buy a $250 OS every few years then it's your choice. I'm telling you why (I think) SteamOS will be good for the gaming market in the long run.

 

[Telengard]

• Windows 1 was the original decline, demanding that we all load up a GUI before loading any other program.
  
• Bill Gates put the final nail into the coffin of Sierra/Dynamix with his little talk with Mr. Williams.
  
• Ye olde xbox.
  
• In general, dominating the software marketplace through aggressive tactics rather than actually producing superior products. Thus forcing everyone to use their drek.

Put it all together, and MS has been a plague upon gaming for three decades now and counting. Anything that loosens their stranglehold on the PC comes as a relief.

 

[DalekFlay]

If you don't think Microsoft is trying to move to a closed system you aren't paying attention. I suppose it could change now that Ballmer is out, but I doubt it.

It's impossible for them to do that, literally. Half their business clients would quickly abandon Windows. They're trying to make a "closed feeling" style mode in Windows, for sure. Not the same thing.

So fundamentally, the question is this: Who do you trust more with the future of PC gaming, Microsoft or Valve?

We're stuck with Windows. It would take years for SteamOS to get a version of everything assuming it even takes off into the stratosphere, which is quite the assumption. And of course even then there would be hundreds if not thousands of games that would never work on SteamOS. I don't see a choice, I'm stuck with Windows no matter what, the only question is whether someday I will also use SteamOS as well.

Isn't that a bit ironic, seeing as I've never even used Linux? It's easy to say "oh, you're just a Linux nut" without actually addressing the point properly, which is that Windows is, and has mostly always been, a pretty shit OS. Win7 suits your needs. For now.

Windows is a pretty shit OS "because I said so." Okay then.

I like to play PC games, surf the internet, play music and occasionally watch a video on my PC. Windows 7 does all of that extremely well with no issues and complete stability. If you want me to care about some niche bullshit issue you have with it I'm sorry but I can't. I don't think the majority can. If Valve want people to switch to SteamOS they're going to have to do better than "Windows is shit lulzzzzz."

I'm not trying to tell you you should hate Windows. If you want to buy a $250 OS every few years then it's your choice. I'm telling you why (I think) SteamOS will be good for the gaming market in the long run.

If you're paying $250 every few years for Windows then you're too stupid to be having this conversation.

Put it all together, and MS has been a plague upon gaming for three decades now and counting.

Not saying otherwise really. All I'm saying is I am stuck with Windows either way, so whatareyagonnado.

 

[tuluse]

It's impossible for them to do that, literally. Half their business clients would quickly abandon Windows. They're trying to make a "closed feeling" style mode in Windows, for sure. Not the same thing.

Get all the programs big clients need into the closed system.

Lots of companies use iProducts just fine.

It's not going to happen tomorrow obviously, but it's the direction they're trying to go.

 

[DalekFlay]

Get all the programs big clients need into the closed system.

Lots of companies use iProducts just fine.

It's not going to happen tomorrow obviously, but it's the direction they're trying to go.

iShit is an open platform as well when it comes to their actual computers, as far as I know. Thousands of businesses use unique software or old software, very few of them will want to give that up and pay more for new shit they might not even like. Closing the platform down would be the absolute dumbest thing MS ever did, and they have done some dumb shit. It would obliterate their most solid revenue base. Windows 8 having an entirely optional storefront/tablet style interface that will likely be much improved next go around doesn't change that fact.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

• Bill Gates put the final nail into the coffin of Sierra/Dynamix with his little talk with Mr. Williams.

I'd like to hear more about this point.

 

[Infinitron]

I'd like to hear more about this point.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...0-proofs-of-decline.78162/page-4#post-2382981

 

[Unkillable Cat]

And that talk between Mr. Gates and Mr. Williams is supposed to have killed Sierra On-Line?

There are really only two things that killed Sierra On-Line: That fucker who bought them out, and the fact that Sierra had built its reputation and success upon a foundation that was obviously doomed to fail... namely, overly frustrating adventure games.

For us that grew up with them this may come as a bit of a shock, but try to get a "new" gamer to play any of the Quest series of games today. With the possible exception of the first Larry game or the Quest for Glory games, you will hear the word "frustrating" crop up far too soon and way too often. There's even a metagame involved in the Space Quest series where you try to discover how many different ways Roger Wilco can die. Adventure games where the gamer is punished harshly for something as simple as failing to notice a tiny pixel 10 screens ago, combined with a primitive parser and some hair-brained design decisions - it's obvious that this would not work forever. LucasArts saw this, came up with a better design philosophy for adventure games and overtook Sierra as the greatest Adventure game studio out there. That even LucasArts couldn't keep adventure games alive should tell people how flimsy a gaming model they are, that's a lesson that both Telltale and Daedalic are learning... and how are they reacting? By adapting.

Sierra had to make a choice: Adapt or die. Change the business plan. Sounds to me like Ken Williams tried just that. It doesn't work all the time. It's a stretch for me to try to blame Bill Gates for this.

Sierra had some AWESOME titles that were not adventure games. Jones in the Fast Lane is the best example, and Dynamix created The Incredible Machine which is STILL kicking 20 years later.

EDIT: Dumbfuckery-level grammar error.

 

[Arcks]

And that talk between Mr. Gates and Mr. Williams is supposed to have killed Sierra On-Line?

...Sierra only had one choice: Adapt or die. Change the business plan. Sounds to me like Ken Williams tried just that. It doesn't work all the time. It's a stretch for me to try to blame Bill Gates for this.

Sierra had some AWESOME titles that were not adventure games. Jones in the Fast Lane is the best example, and Dynamix created The Incredible Machine which is STILL kicking 20 years later.

I prefer death to playing any kind of telltale "game". I guess is adapting is all right if you prefer the fate of Ted from IHNMAIMS.

 

[Telengard]

And that talk between Mr. Gates and Mr. Williams is supposed to have killed Sierra On-Line?

There are really only two things that killed Sierra On-Line: That fucker who bought them out, and the fact that Sierra had built its reputation and success upon a foundation that was obviously doomed to fail... namely, overly frustrating adventure games.

For us that grew up with them this may come as a bit of a shock, but try to get a "new" gamer to play any of the Quest series of games today. With the possible exception of the first Larry game or the Quest for Glory games, you will hear the word "frustrating" crop up far too soon and way too often. There's even a metagame involved in the Space Quest series where you try to discover how many different ways Roger Wilco can die. Adventure games where the gamer is punished harshly for something as simple as failing to notice a tiny pixel 10 screens ago, combined with a primitive parser and some hair-brained design decisions - it's obvious that this would not work forever. LucasArts saw this, came up with a better design philosophy for adventure games and overtook Sierra as the greatest Adventure game studio out there. That even LucasArts couldn't keep adventure games alive should tell people how flimsy a gaming model they are, that's a lesson that both Telltale and Daedalic are learning... and how are they reacting? By adapting.

Sierra had to make a choice: Adapt or die. Change the business plan. Sounds to me like Ken Williams tried just that. It doesn't work all the time. It's a stretch for me to try to blame Bill Gates for this.

Sierra had some AWESOME titles that were not adventure games. Jones in the Fast Lane is the best example, and Dynamix created The Incredible Machine which is STILL kicking 20 years later.

EDIT: Dumbfuckery-level grammar error.

Dynamix also had some notably popular sim series, and Sierra published a lot of different titles. They're known for adventures, but their portfolio was actually quite diverse.

But almost none of it could be put on an investor-loving yearly release schedule, a la COD and EA Sports. Games don't tend to do well on yearly release schedules, for what is by now well-known reasons. And so, everything that couldn't be annualized got binned, including all of Dynamix. The overall company was already being changed, including trying to mainstream their product lines, so Bill Gates is is hardly solely responsible for what happened; he just finished off their games division. The final nail, if you will. Because after that talk, that's when the company got reorganized out of games and into educational software and whatnot, plus a few games that could maintain a yearly release. The supposedly safe software that they could easily annualize.

So, to translate the talk. "If you want to be safe and have a solid, growing business, then no more producing niche games for a niche audience. Produce mainstream items only and only mainstream items that can be annualized." Or to put that in Codexian terms, Decline personified. Keep in mind the timeline. This is the nascent days of the Decline. The day of the FPS is on the horizon. You want to know why RPGs weren't being made anymore? This is it. This is why it happened. This is the beginning.

 

[Kane]

 

[Gragt]

From dweeb to asshole to fatso.

 

[LordDenton]

Valve (steam) made and make mistakes but i love what they have done for PC gaming. And although i am not looking into linux right now i am very curious to see what they will make of the steambox.

They gave PC gaming the cancer of Steam. I honestly hope they completely move away from PCs to their shitty console called Steambox.

 

[Zewp]

Steam practically saved PC gaming.

 

[LordDenton]

Steam practically saved PC gaming.

No

 

[Cowboy Moment]

It had saved it. It's debatable whether the rise of some kind of digital distribution platform was inevitable, but Steam nevertheless helped a lot. We could have had it much, much worse.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

I love Steam ,but saving something that never was in danger is silly statement."We could have had it much, much worse" or better ,who knows.

 

[Infinitron]

The question is, what do you oppose? Steam specifically, or the concept of a universal standard digital distribution platform and client in general? I think most Steam-haters are in the latter camp - they find the existence of a standardized gaming "portal" controlled by a third party to be inherently offensive.

However, this was the only way to bring PC gaming back to a position of prominence. Most PC users like having universal standard tools for doing stuff on the Internet. We search with Google. We mail with Gmail. And we game with Steam. Media that doesn't have this type of online centralization and standardization tends to suffer.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

PC gaming is saved!!! GTA V is coming to PC!!! Praise Steam!!! All pop-a-moles are better looking on PC!!! We are saved!!!

On a serious note Steam is serving a need in the market.It does it well ,so it's successful.Fast and cheap internet speed did more for PC gaming that anything,also cheap hardware and torrents.

 

[tuluse]

I love Steam ,but saving something that never was in danger is silly statement."We could have had it much, much worse" or better ,who knows.

Here in the US, you could only find the most popular PC titles in brick and mortar stores around the time Steam launched. The selection was seriously like 10-15 games and that's it.

I don't know if Steam saved PC gaming, but it did save whatever is left of the PC dev middle class and eventually created an indie market that never really existed before.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Steam replaced my torrent site,before that my torrent side replaced my LAN server for pirated games,that replaced game clubs selling burned CD/DVDs...Nothing to do with good PC centric games.Real bros are game designers and developers that keep making them.As I see it ,it's like saying Wallmart saved X-industry because selling cheap and it's convenient.