valve Valve cranks up Linux gaming, makes it faster than Windows

[Digitalfox]

Oh my :/ I don't think you could be more wrong. Do you really think they whipped up the Linux version in a few months? This is something they've been working for a long time, way before the MS Store was announced

Hi Ruddy :). Few months? Windows 8 DP came out almost a year ago and it was very well defined what track Microsoft was taking with Windows Phone (For the record I dislike Metro on the Desktop, but not in the WP".

Look don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with them giving more performance to users of Linux.

But this benchmarks as you know, can be easily fabricated. In 99% of the cases they show what the maker want to show shinning.

Now you might say "They're real". Ok good for Linux, but in how many games, on what graphics conditions, on what kind of hardware, etc... And what about also trying optimize the Windows version and see what benchmarks they get? As long as we humans are the one coding there's always "other" way of doing things and in some cases better.

And even if everything is superior to Windows DX, but with what margin? 1 or 2 frames/s? Not enough for me, and I believe the majority of the PC gamers to change.

You have to agree that the attitude of Valve is the one to blame.

They could just had stated better performance on Linux without coming out public and being jerks about Windows 8 (again I dislike Metro).

[HawkMan]

For one thing, anything that remotely resembles a distribution platform like the new Windows App store is a competitor. And look at the history of companies who write Windows software that Microsoft decided to compete with destroy:

1. Office software - Lotus, Coral, etc .

Yeah, when they bought out softimage they totally destroyed 3DSMAX, Lightwave, Maya and the rest... oh wait... And WP it totally destroyed iOS and Android.... umm... Well there's of course Hotmail that's crushed Gmail from ever becoming a success... ummm... oh and the PS3' the xbox totally wiped that and Nintendo of the face of the earth.

and it's not like WP was killing itself long before MS. and lotus, they died because they haven't innovated or even changed for the last 20 years.

Seriously have a clue what you're talking about before you open your mouth. you know the whole better to keep your mouth shut saying.

[Dashel]

It's stupid for developers to turn around after all this time and make it an issue now like they've been blindsided by it. Metro and the windows store is just another option on x86-64 hardware. It's only really closed on Windows RT tablets, but that's a different market by itself and by design.

Or more likely, like most TOSs we sign, the fine print allows all kinds of headaches later that many don't take seriously till they feel the effect. I wasn't even familiar with the Fez issue, holy **** you n00bsticks will swallow anything won't you.

So really, as long as we have 'open' modular hardware, you think Windows will remain a safe open haven for development. I generally agree. Now remind the 'desktop is dead' folks of that since they are predicting (and prefer) a closed hardware future.

[HawkMan]

That's exactly what they're doing with WinRT. They're still calling it Windows, except the only Windows application that will run is Microsoft Office.

No they're calling it windowsRT, and it's a locked platform because it's a secure mobile platform. and Office runs under an emulator. it's not efficient to allow all appsto run under an emulator and emulators can contain exploits so it's better to control what apps can run there and have a very small limit on them so that you have control and don't get any exploits.

Of course you're going to ignore this anyway and keep on with your "MS and Windows RT is evil" crusade. well noone is forcing you to buy an WinRT tablet. and you can always get an x86 tablet that will come with a proper digitizer and run all your x86/64 apps and run circles around any android(linux) tablet as well. Heck you might even be able to install GnomeOS on it so you can make it useless.

[ichi]

Now you might say "They're real". Ok good for Linux, but in how many games, on what graphics conditions, on what kind of hardware, etc...

And even if everything is superior to Windows DX, but with what margin? 1 or 2 frames/s? Not enough for me, and I believe the majority of the PC gamers to change.

You have to agree that the attitude of Valve is the one to blame.

They could just had stated better performance on Linux without coming out public and being jerks about Windows 8 (again I dislike Metro).

Maybe you are reading to much into it (or, paradoxically maybe you aren't reading it at all).

It's pretty clear in Valve's blog on what games, what hardware and by how many FPS they got better performance (45 FPS on their test machine).

If you go and actually read the blog you'll see they have also been implementing the performance fixes they have learned from the OpenGL development on Linux to Windows to also get a performance increase.

[Denis W. Veteran]

I agree with most of your post except the Halo part. Halo was never a PC/Windows-first title. (it was a Mac game in development but as most iPeople tell me Macs are not PCs. :p)

Perhaps Halo may not be the best example, but I can offer another one: Alan Wake. I'm sure fellow members here are well aware of the comments made by Microsoft Game Studios when the decision was made to initially drop the PC "port," that the game was meant to be "played on a couch." Of course it was only until earlier this year that Remedy sought another publisher to help them with retail PC distribution of Alan Wake, while they released the Steam version to respectable fanfare.

I acknowledge that at least in Alan Wake's case, it was merely a timed-exclusive for the Xbox 360 than a strictly one-platform-only exclusive as is the case for most PS3 exclusives. However that attitude portayed in the former comment, plus the state of Games for Windows Live, makes me very very skeptical of Microsoft's efforts to promote PC gaming, even come Windows 8. It's not that this is their first attempt - they've been at it since the release of Vista, and all that really came of it was a weak in-game overlay and a fairly small marketplace, plus branding on a few select PC games.

Could my perception be a case of bias against Microsoft's efforts, especially in comparison to Valve's? Indeed. While Microsoft has put commendable effort on the DirectX side to promote a good API for game developers, they've got only that and the ubiquity of Windows to depend on for dominance of PC gaming. Their marketing side has been less than stellar, though understandable as they've now got a powerful entertainment and games platform on the Xbox side.

Valve may have began weak with Steam and harshly criticized ~8, 10 years ago, but as mentioned already by prior posters they've managed to prove AAA developers wrong, that it is possible to make money and win over customer loyalty to curb piracy without the need of hardware-bound DRM. With the exception of cases where Valve suspends accounts due to hacking or arbitrary reasons, that customer loyalty is true and genuine to at least some of us on Neowin, and it'll be tough for Microsoft to convince us they can do better.

And with this multiplatform business, it makes sense. Now we can promote PC gaming as what it is: games on a PC. Pick whatever machine you like. Your games travel across your computers without extra costs. If Valve does end up with a Steam box that's a nice added bonus. Given their focus is offering entertainment as services rather than as products, it should matter little where customers are playing their games on.

[simplezz]

And as I said before, switchign between OGL and DX is actually fairly easy, far easier than the actual code base.

If it's well written with portability in mind, then no, the code base won't be difficult to port. For instance, if applications follow the POSIX standard, their code should be easily portable between GNU/Linux, OS X, and other *nix like systems.

There will be minor system specific bits of code such as Window creation, but generally, that's a small amount of code. I don't see any reason to hook into platform specific API's in games. Direct3D is platform specific, whereas OpenGL isn't. And to say that the graphics library is small part of game development is very inaccurate.

most sensible developers will even program the game so that the calls go through a "translator" that can talk to either DX or OGL

And that's a lot of extra work. It's not as simple as swapping one API call for another. That's why it's far easier to just write it in OpenGL. That way it works everywhere because it's based on the same specification all implementations use.

granted these numbers are still unproven and we only have the claims of someone at valve saying it is so.

So you're calling Valve a liar now?

Valve the company that's interested in selling their linux platform. to the tens of thousands of Linux gamers :laugh:

Cool story br0.

[George P Global Moderator]

Or more likely, like most TOSs we sign, the fine print allows all kinds of headaches later that many don't take seriously till they feel the effect. I wasn't even familiar with the Fez issue, holy **** you n00bsticks will swallow anything won't you.

So really, as long as we have 'open' modular hardware, you think Windows will remain a safe open haven for development. I generally agree. Now remind the 'desktop is dead' folks of that since they are predicting (and prefer) a closed hardware future.

I'd have to think that when you're paying $99 a year to sell XBLA games you read the fine print in the TOS before you join. For what it's worth I liked Fez, I found it fun and original actually but this whole "i'm not going to fix it cuz MS charges too much" thing is silly. I can understand why they charge as well, or at least the thinking behind doing so other than making some extra cash which is the first thing that crosses most peoples minds. I believe that by having some charge on patches it pushes developers to test more and make sure a game isn't full of issues when you put it up. The last thing they wanted was for it to be like the PC with patch after patch coming out for games. Just take more time and test it out more.

I think the desktop isn't going away at all, while I believe that with Windows 9 we'll see them opening up more of WinRT to developers as the API and framework matures. I think we'll see the ability for metro apps to run on the desktop at some point in windowed mode.

[pwgarner]

For one thing, anything that remotely resembles a distribution platform like the new Windows App store is a competitor. And look at the history of companies who write Windows software that Microsoft decided to compete with destroy:

1. Office software - Lotus, Coral, etc .

2. Browsers - Netscape, and now all other browsers except IE on WinRT.

There are others too. Microsoft has a history of giving its applications advantages over the competition using secret API's and such things in order to wipe out the competition. And let's not kid ourselves here, browsers like Firefox and Chrome are competition to Microsoft, as well as Steam and other platform within a platform software that takes users out of the Windows Start Screen experience.

Quite the opposite. Microsoft has an OEM monopoly. It can do what it likes, as shown by the complete disregard for desktop users with Windows 8. By forcing all apps to go through the Windows store, Microsoft stands to make a pretty penny. It's trying to emulate Apple's walled garden approach. I don't think it will work though, as evidenced by the rebellious comments by various game developers/publishers.

May have? Hehe. I guess you haven't read the Halloween Documents then ;) It's a very enlightening read. And I don't see anything to suggest the company has changed. The Anti-Linux litigation and FUD for one.

That's exactly what they're doing with WinRT. They're still calling it Windows, except the only Windows application that will run is Microsoft Office.

Come on! The office suites were there they just could not compete. There is a difference they were still allowed no one wanted them. Like Google Docs has garnered customers where Corel could not. Libre Office also comes to mind. The desktop is not going anywhere either. They have not abandoned the desktop. It is dead simple to get to the desktop. You can still install apps/programs on the desktop without going through Metro. In fact I think the next version o Windows will completely separate the two after everyone gets familiar with the differences in them. You do have a good point with the shady past though.

[Max Norris]

For one thing, anything that remotely resembles a distribution platform like the new Windows App store is a competitor. And look at the history of companies who write Windows software that Microsoft decided to compete with destroy:

1. Office software - Lotus, Coral, etc ....

And there's a crapton of office, browser etc applications that still work just fine and are still being sold. Including the Lotus and Corel office suites. Even open source ones. Yea, evil Microsoft really destroyed the competition there. (Mayyyyybe it's just because people like the Microsoft versions better? Just saying.) Even other stores like Steam, Origin, etc run under Windows 8. Sorry, don't buy into that conspiracy theory at all, nor does it show any indication of Microsoft suddenly killing x86 software in Windows in the future.

Quite the opposite. Microsoft has an OEM monopoly. It can do what it likes, as shown by the complete disregard for desktop users with Windows 8. By forcing all apps to go through the Windows store, Microsoft stands to make a pretty penny.

That's exactly what they're doing with WinRT. They're still calling it Windows, except the only Windows application that will run is Microsoft Office.

Metro apps. Not desktop apps, which you can install any damn way you please. And yes, its their closed platform, just like iOS, etc. Of course they can do what they want with it. Nobody's putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy stuff through it. Does that mean that the standard desktop software (on the non-RT devices) is going to suddenly break? No. Again, common sense. If you got a problem with Microsoft controlling Microsoft hardware.. then don't buy Microsof products. Kind of a given they're going to give preference to their system. How about trash talking Apple and iOS devices for a while? Seems to be quite an awful lot of happy users and developers for that platform. Or is it only ok to bash a closed system when it's Microsoft?

May have? Hehe. I guess you haven't read the Halloween Documents then ;) It's a very enlightening read. And I don't see anything to suggest the company has changed. The Anti-Linux litigation and FUD for one.

Yes, everybody knows the Halloween Documents, it's from the last century after all. Shady? Probably. Unique to Microsoft? Oh hell no. Just look at Apple, or even Google, whose really pushing hard into Microsoft's old evil-monopoly spot, never mind trying to cut all sorts of legal corners.

So far the only FUD here is just the anti-Microsoft people going on that Microsoft "might do this" and they "may do that". They also may require developers to sign NDA's in baby seal blood, doesn't make it true though. This is all great historical reading but it doesn't show anything.

Again, it's just stupid for Microsoft to do so. Let's take a show of hands. Here's a brand new shiny copy of Windows 9. Totally perfect, except it doesn't run any of your existing software that you may have written/bought/whatever over the past ~15-20 years. So, who wants a copy? Anyone? Right, that'll sell real well. Cheese off millions of people, both consumer and corporate globally? Awesome marketing strategy.

[Digitalfox]

Maybe you are reading to much into it (or, paradoxically maybe you aren't reading it at all).

It's pretty clear in Valve's blog on what games, what hardware and by how many FPS they got better performance (45 FPS on their test machine).

If you go and actually read the blog you'll see they have also been implementing the performance fixes they have learned from the OpenGL development on Linux to Windows to also get a performance increase.

Ok, I'll admit I didn't read most of the blog post, because I'm at work.

And if you say so, I'll take your words for it. I'm all grown up to admit when I'm wrong, so I'll retreat those statements.

But I'll maintain my point, this all about Microsoft Store and the fear Microsoft ecosystem goes Apple way, where besides Apple apps Store/iTunes there is no other way of buying apps and content (There's Cydia, but going that road is talking about jailbreaking).

[Dashel]

I'd have to think that when you're paying $99 a year to sell XBLA games you read the fine print in the TOS before you join. For what it's worth I liked Fez, I found it fun and original actually but this whole "i'm not going to fix it cuz MS charges too much" thing is silly. I can understand why they charge as well, or at least the thinking behind doing so other than making some extra cash which is the first thing that crosses most peoples minds. I believe that by having some charge on patches it pushes developers to test more and make sure a game isn't full of issues when you put it up. The last thing they wanted was for it to be like the PC with patch after patch coming out for games. Just take more time and test it out more.

We all want bug free releases, but it doesn't happen. I don't know any game of any merit that doesn't get at least 3-4 patches. $99 entry doesn't prepare you for potentially tens of thousands of dollar expenses to issue patches (Fez was $40K?). That's really the issue here of open vs closed, you have to use 'their' patcher, at a fee. You have to meet their approval to distribute. You can't just shoot it down yourself via other means. No download, no independent mirrors or 'direct' patching. Can you imagine if Blizzard wanted to put one of their games there? PC Games aren't static, haven't been in ages. They are meant to grow and evolve, not make you wait for the next 'paid' patch aka DLC.

If you prefer an XBox to the PC for gaming, your opinion is quite biased since you've already chosen a closed platform. I will never be an XBox gamer, so for you guys to tell me its gonna be ok, well, you are only evidence that it isn't OK. I see directly how your wants effect my wants.

[George P Global Moderator]

We all want bug free releases, but it doesn't happen. I don't know any game of any merit that doesn't get at least 3-4 patches. $99 entry doesn't prepare you for potentially tens of thousands of dollar expenses to issue patches (Fez was $40K?). That's really the issue here of open vs closed, you have to use 'their' patcher, at a fee. You have to meet their approval to distribute. You can't just shoot it down yourself via other means. No download, no independent mirrors or 'direct' patching. Can you imagine if Blizzard wanted to put one of their games there? PC Games aren't static, haven't been in ages. They are meant to grow and evolve, not make you wait for the next 'paid' patch aka DLC.

If you prefer an XBox to the PC for gaming, your opinion is quite biased since you've already chosen a closed platform. I will never be an XBox gamer, so for you guys to tell me its gonna be ok, well, you are only evidence that it isn't OK. I see directly how your wants effect my wants.

You're assuming that they're going to treat the PC side of things just like they treat the Xbox console. I don't think so, and I prefer the Xbox over the PC depending on the game, and vice versa, why limit myself to one platform only? Why can't I be a Xbox AND a PC gamer exactly? If you call my opinion biased then yours is just as much. You see it as them trying to close it off and make it a console when I don't and I doubt it ever will be.

[farmeunit]

This would be more interesting if they did this with a modern engine. But since this is valve we'll only get to see this "it's faster than windows" thing with the hideously outdated source engine.

Unreal Tournament always had good Linux support, but not sure with the newer ones.

[chrisj1968]

LINUX LINUX LINUX!

humans only see at 30fps.

[ichi]

Unreal Tournament always had good Linux support, but not sure with the newer ones.

I don't know about the latest Unreal engine, but Unigine runs on Linux and it looks quite nice. It'd be interesting to see how well it does with the performance improvements made by Intel, Nvidia and AMD along with Valve.

[Eric Veteran]

Why does valve dislike W8? Is there a blog entry from valve about this somewhere? I'd be interested in reading that...

I politely asked both Newell and the guy from Blizzard about that in tweets and they were promptly both removed from the conversation. I guess they don't want to clarify their statements.

[simplezz]

LINUX LINUX LINUX!

humans only see at 30fps.

I think the point is, Valve will be able to achieve acceptable performance on lesser hardware because of the optimisations they're doing and the fact that Linux and OpenGL are more efficient than Windows and Microsoft's Direct3D.

In the final build, the engine will run vsynced to the display, which will probably be 60 fps.

I don't know about the latest Unreal engine, but Unigine runs on Linux and it looks quite nice. It'd be interesting to see how well it does with the performance improvements made by Intel, Nvidia and AMD along with Valve.

Oil rush is a pretty neat game, and it has AAA graphics. I'd like to see more games like that based on Ungine's engine.

[spaceelf]

LINUX LINUX LINUX!

humans only see at 30fps.

The air force disagrees with you.

[Noir Angel]

Unreal Tournament always had good Linux support, but not sure with the newer ones.

Half-Life always ran pretty well on Linux as well, in fact even since they ported it and all it's mods like Blue-Shift and Opposing Force it still runs and looks better in OpenGL mode than in D3D mode

[Vice]

humans only see at 30fps.

This is false.

[Slammers]

What exactly is wrong with the Source engine out of curiosity? it still looks and performs great!

Erm... performs great because it was made to run even on integrated gfx chipsets from literally 11 years ago. It does not look great today by anymeans. Great for it's age maybe.... But even newer games like LFD2 look like games from 7 years ago.

LINUX LINUX LINUX!

humans only see at 30fps.

so sick of this claim.... the human senses can tell the difference between 60+fps because of the lag between control and visual, anything under 30+ looks like a slide show to me, and I can easily pick out the difference between 30 and 60fps from across the room - and I bet most pc gamers here can also.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Erm... performs great because it was made to run even on integrated gfx chipsets from literally 11 years ago. It does not look great today by anymeans. Great for it's age maybe.... But even newer games like LFD2 look like games from 7 years ago.

Is that really a problem? Does an engine really need reiterations every 5 years? Does a game really need cutting edge graphics to be good?

I for one would prefer a highly scalable game engine with modest requirements. More players to play with. Not everyone operates on a two year GPU refresh cycle.

That said, I believe the problem with L4D2 isn't so much the engine itself, but that some of the textures are low quality.

[Noir Angel]

The Source engine may not be as cutting edge as Cryengine, but I personally think it looks pretty damn good for a DX9 gaming engine. I'm sure eventually Valve will upgrade it, possibly with the next HL2 episodic release.

[ahhell]

I'm sure eventually Valve will upgrade it, possibly with the next HL2 episodic release.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. How many years has it been since the last one?