What next for Steam, if Windows 8 fails?

[Asrokhel]

First Valve, then Blizzard - a lot of game makers think Windows 8 is looking like a poor fit for gaming and their distribution platforms. But what are the options?

As a tablet or touch interface, Windows 8 is looking pretty sweet. As something I, or anyone else I know for that matter, might want to use every day on my desktop machine...not so much. In fact, I?ve pretty much decided it?s an OS to skip ? assuming that?s going to be a viable option.

It?s curious enough that a lot of folks in the office, both PC&TA and otherwise, feel the same way, but it?s even more interesting ? and disturbing ? that our thoughts are echoed by big movers in the PC gaming space.

A couple of months ago, Valve?s Gabe Newell referred to Windows 8 as a ?catastrophe for everyone in the PC space?, and Blizzard?s Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design at the House of WoW, also chimed in ? and he agrees. He was asked on Twitter what he thought of Windows 8 and its impact on the gaming community; he had this to say:

?nice interview with Gabe Newell - "I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space* - not awesome for Blizzard either.?

If you add this up, it?s really not a rosy outlook: gamers don?t want it, game makers don?t want it, game distributors don?t want it.

The latter part was touched on by Newell, who feels that Microsoft?s decision to make its own Xbox LIVE and Windows Store a part of Windows 8 is more than a little worrying for third parties. ?There's a strong temptation to close the platform because they look at what they can accomplish when they limit the competitors' access to the platform, and they say, 'That's really exciting,'".

Newell?s concern over Windows 8 puts Valve?s efforts to port Steam to Linux into a very interesting light. Gaming on Linux has always been somewhat...uneven (don?t hate me, Linux fans!), but Steam could change all that, while also giving Valve and Steam a whole new audience that isn?t locked down by catastrophic operating systems.

However Richard Stallman recently waxed philosophical on what effects Steam might have on the free OS. ?Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear,? he said in at www.gnu.org. ?However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.?

It?s plain to see that Stallman sees Steam as somewhat of an existential risk to Linux, but at the same time, he also thinks that Linux could well change Steam and Valve, or even sway people away from Windows. ?It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux,? Stallman says. ?My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community??

The worst case scenario here is an interesting one. Assume Newell?s fears about Windows becoming a locked environment come true; assume, also, that Steam?s foray into the Linux world is not so well received. What then?

Well, and this might sound supremely crazy.... What about a SteamOS?

If you consider what Steam has already accomplished, from its built-in community functions, to game patching, to, well, everything else that makes it so convenient, it?s really not that long a bow to pull. Sitting back, and thinking about what I do on my home system, there?s really not a I can do in Windows that I couldn?t do in Steam; with built-in browser functionality, I can still access things like Google Docs, where I do a lot of writing and other work, and email, and.... The list goes on.

In fact, it?s a pretty attractive thought, if you?re a gamer. Sure, there's all kinds of issues, like the many publishers who don't want a part of Valve's service (I'm looking at you, EA, though Blizzard's not much better). But imagine an OS that is built just for you, designed around your gaming experience. More than a few people have already posited the idea on the Steam forums, so I think it?s probably safe to assume there are folks at Valve thinking about it, even if it?s only in a Blue Sky kind of way. Ironically, any SteamOS would probably run off Linux anyway, and would face a huge challenge in dealing with DirectX, but I'm sure folks far smarter than me can come up with interesting solutions.

But certainly, with Windows 8 looking ever more dire for PC gaming, perhaps it?s not so farfetched.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/320284,what-next-for-steam-if-windows-8-fails.aspx

[Japlabot]

Windows Vista flopped (yes yes "bad drivers" I know, but it still flopped) and the solution at the time was Windows XP, not GNU/Linux. The same thing applies for Windows 8, for anyone who doesn't want it, they will use Windows 7. Valve have got some work to go to make GNU/Linux the platform of choice, gamers will NOT use it if it results in even one less frame per second. If Windows 8 give more FPS, even if it is a pain to use, gamers would go for Windows 8 anyway, as they spend more time in-game and just want maximum FPS.

[PGHammer]

First Valve, then Blizzard - a lot of game makers think Windows 8 is looking like a poor fit for gaming and their distribution platforms. But what are the options?

As a tablet or touch interface, Windows 8 is looking pretty sweet. As something I, or anyone else I know for that matter, might want to use every day on my desktop machine...not so much. In fact, I?ve pretty much decided it?s an OS to skip ? assuming that?s going to be a viable option.

It?s curious enough that a lot of folks in the office, both PC&TA and otherwise, feel the same way, but it?s even more interesting ? and disturbing ? that our thoughts are echoed by big movers in the PC gaming space.

A couple of months ago, Valve?s Gabe Newell referred to Windows 8 as a ?catastrophe for everyone in the PC space?, and Blizzard?s Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design at the House of WoW, also chimed in ? and he agrees. He was asked on Twitter what he thought of Windows 8 and its impact on the gaming community; he had this to say:

?nice interview with Gabe Newell - "I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space* - not awesome for Blizzard either.?

If you add this up, it?s really not a rosy outlook: gamers don?t want it, game makers don?t want it, game distributors don?t want it.

The latter part was touched on by Newell, who feels that Microsoft?s decision to make its own Xbox LIVE and Windows Store a part of Windows 8 is more than a little worrying for third parties. ?There's a strong temptation to close the platform because they look at what they can accomplish when they limit the competitors' access to the platform, and they say, 'That's really exciting,'".

Newell?s concern over Windows 8 puts Valve?s efforts to port Steam to Linux into a very interesting light. Gaming on Linux has always been somewhat...uneven (don?t hate me, Linux fans!), but Steam could change all that, while also giving Valve and Steam a whole new audience that isn?t locked down by catastrophic operating systems.

However Richard Stallman recently waxed philosophical on what effects Steam might have on the free OS. ?Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear,? he said in at www.gnu.org. ?However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.?

It?s plain to see that Stallman sees Steam as somewhat of an existential risk to Linux, but at the same time, he also thinks that Linux could well change Steam and Valve, or even sway people away from Windows. ?It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux,? Stallman says. ?My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community??

The worst case scenario here is an interesting one. Assume Newell?s fears about Windows becoming a locked environment come true; assume, also, that Steam?s foray into the Linux world is not so well received. What then?

Well, and this might sound supremely crazy.... What about a SteamOS?

If you consider what Steam has already accomplished, from its built-in community functions, to game patching, to, well, everything else that makes it so convenient, it?s really not that long a bow to pull. Sitting back, and thinking about what I do on my home system, there?s really not a I can do in Windows that I couldn?t do in Steam; with built-in browser functionality, I can still access things like Google Docs, where I do a lot of writing and other work, and email, and.... The list goes on.

In fact, it?s a pretty attractive thought, if you?re a gamer. Sure, there's all kinds of issues, like the many publishers who don't want a part of Valve's service (I'm looking at you, EA, though Blizzard's not much better). But imagine an OS that is built just for you, designed around your gaming experience. More than a few people have already posited the idea on the Steam forums, so I think it?s probably safe to assume there are folks at Valve thinking about it, even if it?s only in a Blue Sky kind of way. Ironically, any SteamOS would probably run off Linux anyway, and would face a huge challenge in dealing with DirectX, but I'm sure folks far smarter than me can come up with interesting solutions.

But certainly, with Windows 8 looking ever more dire for PC gaming, perhaps it?s not so farfetched.

http://www.pcauthori...ws-8-fails.aspx

Blizzard has no issue with Windows 8 - and the only reason Gabe Newell does is the included ModernUI App Store (which he sees as a threat to Steam).

From a practical standpoint, Windows 8 is no threat to either, as all of Blizzard's games, and all of Valve's software - and especially Steam - has exactly zero issues running on Windows 8.

The article is trying to create a tempest where there really isn't one - apparently Gabe Newell failed in HIS attempt, so someone brought more chemicals, hoping to create that storm.

[Phouchg]

Linux fanbois should keep their wet dreams to themselves. Supporting Linux solely to scare Microsoft sounds dumb even miles away and Gabe is anything but dumb. Valve is going hardware, that's a fact. It's been confirmed by Valve, job listings have been made - friggin' fact. That means an underlying SteamOS or something, probably based on Linux kernel (because everything is these days, nobody thinks for themselves anymore). This will be their focus.

[Tomoko]

probably based on Linux kernel (because everything is these days, nobody thinks for themselves anymore).

Right, because it makes no sense to use something that already exists, is free, stable and tried and tested. It would be a lot better to spend a lot of time and money coming up with something completely from scratch for no reason at all. :rolleyes:

[azspeedbullet]

I have a gaming rig, and i spend all of my windows 8 time the desktop mode. Whats soo different with that and windows 7? If other people are like me, then why are steam worry about win8. The OS is identical to 7, but has better improvements then 7

[ahhell]

What the hell does Steam have to do with Win8 at all?

This thread makes no sense.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I'm not going to upgrade to Windows 8 because I'm happy with Windows 7. As a PC gamer, the only obvious benefit (aside from some slight performance improvements) to Windows 8 is DirectX 11.1. Only the GeForce 600 Series from NVIDIA and the Radeon HD 7000 Series from AMD supports it so developers won't adopt it on a wide scale. It's possible that Microsoft will release DX11.1 for Windows 7 and when that happens, PC gamers will have less of an incentive to upgrade.

But for those that do upgrade, their gaming experience won't differ from someone using Windows 7. So why should the OS matter? It's not like developers will make games that only work with Windows 8. They can do it if DX11.1 isn't released for Windows 7 but that wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

Steam will work the same way, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive will work the same way, Battlefield 3 will work the same way, etc. There's nothing to be worried about.

[fobban]

The Windows 8 Store is as much a threat to Steam as Notepad is to Word.

[Phouchg]

Right, because it makes no sense to use something that already exists, is free, stable and tried and tested. It would be a lot better to spend a lot of time and money coming up with something completely from scratch for no reason at all. :rolleyes:

Writing a microkernel for a specific set of hardware isn't that hard for a Gabe-sized... I mean... company of a size of Valve. And provides security through obscurity, too. Look at Sony, for instance - it has turned out quite well... for them.

[Nothing Here]

Maybe I am not understanding this thread, but Steam has always worked great on Win8. It's much smoother then on Win7. Maybe you mean as a Metro app? If so, most of my appz are not Metroized and I really don't care.

[Dashel]

Linux fanbois should keep their wet dreams to themselves. Supporting Linux solely to scare Microsoft sounds dumb even miles...That means an underlying SteamOS or something, probably based on Linux kernel (because everything is these days, nobody thinks for themselves anymore). This will be their focus.

So then its not really a wet dream is it?

[xendrome]

What the hell does Steam have to do with Win8 at all?

This thread makes no sense.

Not sure either... it works fine on PC and Mac..... be it XP, Vista, 7, or 8.. so I dunno.

[Phouchg]

So then its not really a wet dream is it?

Excuse me if I insist it is. There's no money in allowing to run full Linux on hardware they've been pouring boatloads of money into to design. Just as MS and Sony, initially they'll have to sell it at loss or even partly sponsor it, like Amazon does with Kindle, to even stand a chance in penetrating the market.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Excuse me if I insist it is. There's no money in allowing to run full Linux on hardware they've been pouring boatloads of money into to design. Just as MS and Sony, initially they'll have to sell it at loss or even partly sponsor it, like Amazon does with Kindle, to even stand a chance in penetrating the market.

Valve is working on Linux support for the Source engine. They can't do the same for other engines (e.g. CryENGINE 3, Unreal Engine 3, Frostbite 2). Why would they spend resources on making a new OS when they could easily support Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. It's not like they're going to use proprietary components for their hardware. And I doubt they'd even try to make an alternative to DirectX. At this point, it doesn't make sense for Valve to abandon the aforementioned operating systems. It makes more sense for them to try to revolutionize PC hardware as a whole.

[Corvini]

Microsoft have looked at Apple's iOS model, and they're besotted. Thus the move to wipe out all third party independent platforms via the in-your-face marketplace on the desktop and mobile devices. Not only that, but all application/game vendors then have to pay a fee for the privilege of featuring in said marketplace. But Google and Apple already do this critics decry. Well yes, however, that's how they were built from the get-go. Microsoft on the other hand is taking an already open application ecosystem and trying to get a slice of every purchase. I honestly can't blame Microsoft, after all its their duty to exploit their desktop monopoly to generate a return for shareholders, and that's exactly what they're trying to do - force all application purchases to go through them and as any good middle man does, take a percentage. It's just that these pesky app developers are accustomed to getting all that revenue for themselves. Have no fear Windows 8 proponents say, users can still install traditional desktop apps. Well, that's all good and well, except that the first thing users see is the startscreen and the Windows Marketplace, so naturally, they're going to take the path of least resistance - buying directly from Microsoft. It's a good business strategy for Microsoft. Not so much for app developers or users though, who inevitably end up getting ripped off.

In truth, a lot of application developers have sealed their own fate here. By exclusively developing for the Windows platform and ignoring all other os', they've tied themselves to Microsoft come rain or shine, and from the looks of things, a category ten storm's approaching.

Now, as far as Steam is concerned, Windows 8 is a direct threat to its business model, so is it any wonder that Gabe's seeking to extricate his platform from the Windows ecosystem? He's already got a head start because of the OS X support, so it's only a natural progression to support the GNU/Linux OS. Furthermore, supporting GNU/Linux opens up all kinds of possibilities such as a dedicated hardware platform aka the SteamBox without the need to develop an OS from scratch, something that requires years to develop and vast sums of money to produce. Then of course there's the potential for oem bundle deals. Buy a new PC with Ubuntu 12.10 and Steam preinstalled, perfect for gamers of all ages. I can see a lot of potential here.

[Dashel]

I'm feeling that storm coming too Corvini.

[Phouchg]

Valve is working on Linux support for the Source engine. They can't do the same for other engines (e.g. CryENGINE 3, Unreal Engine 3, Frostbite 2). Why would they spend resources on making a new OS when they could easily support Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. It's not like they're going to use proprietary components for their hardware. And I doubt they'd even try to make an alternative to DirectX. At this point, it doesn't make sense for Valve to abandon the aforementioned operating systems. It makes more sense for them to try to revolutionize PC hardware as a whole.

With heavy incentives of protection against piracy developers could be persuaded... it does sound unlikely the more I think of it, though. What's the other thing then? Phantom tried to stuff a desktop PC in a console sized box, backed by download service quite like Steam is now. Valve has got money Phantom didn't and the service is already running. Well, makes sense.

I must have drunk too much tea :wacko:

[Skin]

I'm not going to upgrade to Windows 8 because I'm happy with Windows 7. As a PC gamer, the only obvious benefit (aside from some slight performance improvements) to Windows 8 is DirectX 11.1. Only the GeForce 600 Series from NVIDIA and the Radeon HD 7000 Series from AMD supports it so developers won't adopt it on a wide scale. It's possible that Microsoft will release DX11.1 for Windows 7 and when that happens, PC gamers will have less of an incentive to upgrade.

But for those that do upgrade, their gaming experience won't differ from someone using Windows 7. So why should the OS matter? It's not like developers will make games that only work with Windows 8. They can do it if DX11.1 isn't released for Windows 7 but that wouldn't make sense from a business perspective.

Steam will work the same way, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive will work the same way, Battlefield 3 will work the same way, etc. There's nothing to be worried about.

yeah, but 40 bucks for improvements to performance, better stability, and the extras (DX11) even if not widely supported, all sound like a good deal to me.

why the rush NOT to upgrade, really?

[SharpGreen]

Writing a microkernel for a specific set of hardware isn't that hard for a Gabe-sized... I mean... company of a size of Valve. And provides security through obscurity, too. Look at Sony, for instance - it has turned out quite well... for them.

Security through obscurity is not security at all, as Sony has proven quite a few times over the past year or 2.

Plus all this fuss made over Windows 8's "closed app store" is freaking stupid. Nothing is changing in regards to desktop apps and nothing will likely change any time soon. It'll probably be Windows 10 or 11 before any of the energy wasted complaining about the app store really becomes worthwhile and by that time I'm sure it probably won't even matter anymore.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

People can't seem to see past their noses. Gabe is right and so are the likes of other devs and users, such as Corvini. Microsoft has sent a shot across the bow of their partners and their partners are now scrambling for the exits; rightfully so.

Of course, Windows 8 isn't going to kill the market for game companies or even companies like Valve, but Microsoft has said they are killing that market sooner versus later. That change could be in Windows 9 (in 2 years) or Windows 10 (in 4 years), but either way the industry needs to scramble for a future without Microsoft at its center. Since such a monumental transition takes time the work is beginning here and now and the end result will be arriving around the same time as Windows 9 or Windows 10. The major question for Microsoft is centered around can they become Apple, sadly I don't think they can.

I think Microsoft will be successful with Windows 8-n, but I don't think they will be the market leader anymore. The desktop market will eventually cede to Linux as MS continues to try to turn it into an appliance and Apple will continue to define mobile; largely because their lead has become staggering.

For instance, MS not only has to convince app developers to write apps for Metro, but they also have to convince hotels to configure all of their rooms for compatibility alongside accessories for end users. A whole ecosystem has sprung up around Apple in mobile and MS destroying their desktop OS to catchup wasn't a great idea.

[Yorak]

I think you people that say "x" works better or worse in Windows 8 are feeling a placebo effect, seriously. You read one person say it and you assume it must be the same case with you. I used Windows 8 since the RTM was released and recently switched back to 7 for a few reasons. However, there was only one program I had trouble running in 8. Steam ran fine. I played various games plenty of times, and the Steam app itself was great.

[Nothing Here]

I think you people that say "x" works better or worse in Windows 8 are feeling a placebo effect, seriously. You read one person say it and you assume it must be the same case with you. I used Windows 8 since the RTM was released and recently switched back to 7 for a few reasons. However, there was only one program I had trouble running in 8. Steam ran fine. I played various games plenty of times, and the Steam app itself was great.

I haven't had any issues running any app under Win8. Steam for me, seems to run a lot smoother under Win8 then it did under Win7. No clue how it runs in other versions of Windows. I have had the occassional Metro app break, like my calendar. But the store fixes it right up.

[Wakers]

Can we get something straight?

From a technical standpoint, Windows 8 is a step up for gaming, not a step backwards. Performance and hardware utilisation is improved over Windows 7.

The only reason it's "bad for gaming" (and this is in quotes for a reason) is because certain companies are not happy that MS want to build their own digital sales platform into the OS. That's the end of the story. Gabe Newell is just worried that he'll lose is monopoly, basically.

[Growled Member]

I think Value has bigger fish to fry than just Windows. I think they are planning to be platform independent. Windows 8 is just a good excuse for them. And I really don't blame them. Being platform independent would be an awesome thing.