Steam is coming to Linux!

[kavon89]

Phoronix Article (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE3Mw)


As the Linux gaming community was horribly shafted once before already by Epic Games with Unreal Tournament 3, that is understandable if you are skeptical until you see Valve's official announcement. However, from seeing these actual files to the other proof and the information from sources, I am 100% confident that the Steam client / Source engine are coming to Linux. If my information is correct, an official announcement regarding this Linux support may be here by this June.

[undecim]

I'll defenitely start buying games when I can run them natively.

Provided there is no restrictive DRM, that is.

[NMFTM]

Provided there is no restrictive DRM, that is.
Steam = restricted DRM.

[tica vun]

I'll defenitely start buying games when I can run them natively.

Provided there is no restrictive DRM, that is.

Steam IS restrictive DRM. I don't care for their corporate sales platform or their proprietary games. GNU/Linux could use native games, but they need to be Free and genuinely native, not half-arsed ports of proprietary windows crud. Did I mention Steam is a restrictive DRM platform?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Steam = restricted DRM.

I like to think of Steam's DRM as an unusual flavour of DRM that respects people :)

Steam provides an excellent offline mode (though everything needs online activation); updates are instant; if you move to a new computer, or delete some files in a game, it automatically downloads the stuff again so it works; you can install a game as many times as you like in as many places as you want; it provides some awesome community tools for free…
Valve is an awesome company for supporting their customers. They do a lot of neat stuff completely gratis, and they have found a good balance between their wishes and everyone else's wishes.

Granted, Steam provides a strict online activation mechanism and you need its blessing to run certain games, but that part is only the case for certain games that have asked for it. Steam also happily supports games that don't want DRM. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, though, and it does suck immensely from a software freedom standpoint. I wouldn't like this to be the norm twenty years from now.

I accept that some developers, for the time being, are hooked on the concept of DRM. As long as they can easily get such features somewhere, they'll go to that place and be blissfully unaware of the rest of the market. (Eg: Linux; already not a very big market). If they need to cook their own DRM, they will. (Sometimes they do anyway; Steam has a fairly light touch, though I doubt anything stronger actually makes a difference. The money people think it does because they're crazy). If Steam is becoming nice and cross platform, I would much rather developers do it through there than some unfriendly, harebrained scheme like this thing (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/03/08/ubisofts-drm-servers-broken-all-day/).



Edit: Aw gee, different versions quoted twice now. I'll stop editing now. Promise!

[jrothwell97]

I like to think of Steam's DRM as an unusual flavour of DRM that respects people :)

Steam provides an excellent offline mode (though everything needs online activation); updates are instant; if you move to a new computer, or delete some files in a game, it automatically downloads the stuff again so it works; it provides some awesome community tools for free…
Valve is an awesome company for supporting their customers. They do a lot of neat stuff completely gratis, and they have found a good balance between their wishes and everyone else's wishes.

Granted, Steam provides a strict online activation mechanism and you need its blessing to run certain games, but that part is only the case for certain games that have asked for it. Steam also happily supports games that don't want DRM.

^^this.

Honestly speaking, if you couldn't avoid DRM (which, unfortunately, as far as modern commercial games go, you can't) would you sooner have Steam, which has an offline mode and allows you to have as many copies of the game on as many computers as you like, or Ubisoft's draconian walled garden?

[FuturePilot]

I like to think of Steam's DRM as an unusual flavour of DRM that respects people :)

Steam provides an excellent offline mode (though everything needs online activation); updates are instant; if you move to a new computer, or delete some files in a game, it automatically downloads the stuff again so it works; it provides some awesome community tools for free…
Valve is an awesome company for supporting their customers. They do a lot of neat stuff completely gratis, and they have found a good balance between their wishes and everyone else's wishes.

Granted, Steam provides a strict online activation mechanism and you need its blessing to run certain games, but that part is only the case for certain games that have asked for it. Steam also happily supports games that don't want DRM.

I accept that some developers, for the time being, are hooked on the concept of DRM. As long as they can easily get such features somewhere, they'll go to that place and be blissfully unaware of the rest of the market. (Eg: Linux; already not a very big market). If they need to cook their own DRM, they will. (Sometimes they do anyway; Steam has a fairly light touch, though I doubt anything stronger actually makes a difference. The money people think it does because they're crazy). If Steam is becoming nice and cross platform, I would much rather developers do it through there than some unfriendly, harebrained scheme like this thing (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/03/08/ubisofts-drm-servers-broken-all-day/).

This

[tubezninja]

Steam IS restrictive DRM. I don't care for their corporate sales platform or their proprietary games. GNU/Linux could use native games, but they need to be Free and genuinely native, not half-arsed ports of proprietary windows crud. Did I mention Steam is a restrictive DRM platform?

I always find it funny when advocates of a particular free platform who nominally support the freedom to choose, actively advocate restricting the freedom to choose by insisting that certain software packages don't belong.

Like it or not, users choosing DRM is still a choice. Shouldn't users be free to choose, even if you disagree with that choice?

[kavon89]

show the developers we're disgusted by their DRM by violating the tyrannical and oppressive copyright laws and getting the version of their game that is free (as in beer) and without DRM restrictions.

There's a good reason why developers are flocking to Steam, Xbox Live Marketplace, iPhone App Store, Android Market, and Intel's AppUp. These software stores provide a simple, proven, and user friendly DRM and a great sales platform.

No one likes to see their hard work end up on a torrent while their savings account runs dry; all because someone doesn't understand the difficulty of writing software and thinks everything should be free.

[Yes]

I couldn't care less about the DRM, the games are awesome. If they port Steam to Linux I know I'll be buying at least a few Steam games.

[factotum218]

Freedom of choice.

But not if you CHOOSE to buy commercial software with a restrictive EULA?
That makes no sense to me. I never knew absolute freedom to be that restrictive.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I'm revolted by the concept of buying what amounts to a combination of ones and zeroes on recorded media just as much as I'm revolted by the fact that people are allowed to claim copyright and patents on particular combinations of such. Even if the GNU GPL allows for selling software, I absolutely refuse to buy any, and I absolutely refuse to acknowledge anyone's right to corporate profiteering off of it.

And yet, you seem unfazed that your computer is a particular combination of neutrons and protons.

[tica vun]

And yet, you seem unfazed that your computer is a particular combination of neutrons and protons.

Which make up an actual, physical product that cost money to produce, and aren't just an abstract mathematical concept that nobody should be making a profit off of. Making money with software is as absurd as if Euler were granted a copyright on graph theory in the 18th century, and a corporation were able to steal money from every mathematician who uses it up to this day, in his name.

[jpeddicord]

I really hope this turns out to be true. I have an ashamedly large library (http://steamcommunity.com/id/jpeddicord/games?tab=all) on Steam at the moment and to see them open up to Linux would be great. Especially if they're doing what they are with Mac and allow access to other OS versions without extra fees; I know that quite a few games on my list have Linux versions.

Steam is the only DRM solution I can accept, and is probably even beneficial. I get access to my games from anywhere as long as I have a connection to download them.

I have different opinions about proprietary games than I do with software: while you can sell support for software, the only real way to have a business model for a game is to sell it. As long as the publisher doesn't make it a pain to play (I'm looking at you, SecuROM) I think it's fine.

[tica vun]

I really hope this turns out to be true. I have an ashamedly large library (http://steamcommunity.com/id/jpeddicord/games?tab=all) on Steam at the moment and to see them open up to Linux would be great. Especially if they're doing what they are with Mac and allow access to other OS versions without extra fees; I know that quite a few games on my list have Linux versions.

Steam is the only DRM solution I can accept, and is probably even beneficial. I get access to my games from anywhere as long as I have a connection to download them.

You're forgetting that steam is just the platform. Even is the application itself is ported to GNU/Linux, they'd still have to port every game individually, or bundle it with wine/another compatibility layer somehow. What we're likely to see initially is a Steam port and wine bundles of some Valve games.

[jpeddicord]

You're forgetting that steam is just the platform. Even is the application itself is ported to GNU/Linux, they'd still have to port every game individually, or bundle it with wine/another compatibility layer somehow. What we're likely to see initially is a Steam port and wine bundles of some Valve games.

Right, I wouldn't expect to see every game on the Linux version, it would be up to individual developers, just as it's planned for Mac.

I have my doubts about them using Wine (though it could be beneficial for some instances). I remember when the Mac rumors of the Source Engine port were surfacing there was talk of a native Source port for Linux. (Source in this context is Valve's game engine; nothing to do with the license.)

[MooPi]

Steam is as benevolent as DRM can get. I will support Steam if they so choose to come to Linux. I have always said the day I can game on my Linux box is the day I dump Windows entirely. I too have a large library of games through Steam and would relish the chance to be able to play on Linux.

[Elfy]

off topic posts removed - please bear this in mind


Adult Content/Violence/Illegal Activity: Messages containing sexually oriented/violent/illegal dialogue, images, content, or links to these things will be deleted. Messages with links to or suggesting illegal activity will also be deleted. Posting or linking to any of these could result in a ban

[zekopeko]

Which make up an actual, physical product that cost money to produce, and aren't just an abstract mathematical concept that nobody should be making a profit off of. Making money with software is as absurd as if Euler were granted a copyright on graph theory in the 18th century, and a corporation were able to steal money from every mathematician who uses it up to this day, in his name.

I guess paying doctors,mathematicians,lawyers,engineers and everybody else that don't "produce" an actually physical product is out of the question.:lolflag:

[Elfy]

Keep this thread on topic or it will be closed.

[tica vun]

I guess paying doctors,mathematicians,lawyers,engineers and everybody else that don't "produce" an actually physical product is out of the question.:lolflag:

Doctors, lawyers and engineers are paid for the service they provide to their customers. Mathematicians are paid by the educational institutions they work at. You're not seriously proposing that mathematicians be allowed to charge every human who ever uses an equation or theorem they come up with? Because that's precisely what software developers are doing. If they did that, one of the following would happen:

1. Everyone would laugh it off, and continue using mathematics without ever paying. This is what the majority of sane people do with software.

or

2. People who stopped paying but still use advanced mathematics are arrested and punished by the MAFIAA. As a result, only wealthy researchers and government agencies are able to use mathematics beyond elementary algebra. Humanity as a species turns dumb.

Guess where the current copyright laws are taking us.