Valve admits "Steam Machines aren't exactly flying off shelves"

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If valve are serious about SteamOS, then that would be a good way to push it. It would certainly make or break the entire project
I'm still surprised the rift doesn't work, I thought SteamVR had been fully ported over?

If that happened they would get exactly ZERO sales from me - I have no interest in installing an OS just to run ONE game as it will be taking up space on my SSD,especially when that very OS only does one thing,ie,gaming.

Also analogue controllers to play an FPS game - just no.

[DanceswithUnix]

If that happened they would get exactly ZERO sales from me - I have no interest in installing an OS just to run ONE game as it will be taking up space on my SSD,especially when that very OS only does one thing,ie,gaming.

Also analogue controllers to play an FPS game - just no.

As someone who has to have Windows installed just to run a couple of games, which thanks to the utter bloat and poor performance of Windows means purchase of an SSD as well as a Windows license I am over £200 down because a few games like Elite won't run on Linux. Even more annoying in a way, my Linux work environment is running off an ancient HDD because it can so most of the time I don't get good use of my best hardware because modern Windows runs like a dog on spinning disks so that is where it has to go.

You could put SteamOS on an old hard drive, in fact last I looked it expected a 1TB drive so you were *expected* to use spinning rust. So if you have no spare storage you are at worst down £60 if you went for a 1TB 2.5" 7200RPM WD Black drive which even in a SFF case I'm sure you can find space and power requirements for. If that is too much for you, you could get a Toshiba 3.5in P300 drive for £35.

If Steam could do a deal with Toshiba so that you could buy a 1TB drive for £35 that came pre-loaded with SteamOS and a copy of HalfLife 3? Because from a business point of view that is more likely than Valve actually writing HalfLife 3.

So you would be down £35, I am already down £120 for an SSD and £80 for a Windows license so that I can run an OS where the Meltdown patch was so botched that Microsoft introduced a vulnerability massively worse than Meltdown itself and now we hear that if you download a rar file that is put together just so then just the act of it existing on your machine means Microsoft's anti virus will open it for a content scan and run code contained in it at a high privilege level because MS forked some open source RAR code and then converted all the ints into unsigned ints like the bunch of utter amateurs that they are.

OFC SteamOS is just Linux underneath and can run other software, or like me you can run another Linux distribution. ISTR on my Fedora box I typed "yum install steam" and it pulled in the normal Steam client as well as all the DLLs and other packaged that were required but not yet on my system (mainly 32 bit support as I didn't have much 32 bit code on here).

Not sure where you are getting the analogue controllers bit from, just like under Windows they are useful for getting around the Big Picture mode but otherwise not needed. I played most of Witcher 2 under Linux and that was with usual mouse controls.

Sorry Cat, but the worlds smallest violin just isn't small enough, I'm not feeling sorry for you here.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As someone who has to have Windows installed just to run a couple of games, which thanks to the utter bloat and poor performance of Windows means purchase of an SSD as well as a Windows license I am over £200 down because a few games like Elite won't run on Linux. Even more annoying in a way, my Linux work environment is running off an ancient HDD because it can so most of the time I don't get good use of my best hardware because modern Windows runs like a dog on spinning disks so that is where it has to go.

Well considering a lot of the software I actually care about outside of gaming runs on Windows and not Linux?? 100% of games I play run fine on Windows not Linux. Valve forcing me to use another OS for some games,is only fragmenting things.

Tried Linux a few years back for gaming and it was not worth it,and as much as MS is annoying,I am not interested in bothering with Linux for gaming. For many other things,maybe,not gaming. That doesn't even include specific software too(and no not all Linux equivalents are as good or as well supported despite what people say).

With Linux its NEWS if a major game even comes to the platform even within 12 months of release. Meh.

100% of hardware I use runs fine under Windows not Linux too.

Windows is a tool to do a job - I have zero interest in running an OS which is does not have 100% the compatability with the stuff I want to run. YMMV,and maybe PC Linux is BETTER for YOU and what YOU run.

Until 100% of all reasonably large PC titles,are launched at exactly the same time and with the same level of software,hardware and MOD support for Linux,then I have ZERO interest in PC Linux for gaming.

You could put SteamOS on an old hard drive, in fact last I looked it expected a 1TB drive so you were *expected* to use spinning rust. So if you have no spare storage you are at worst down £60 if you went for a 1TB 2.5" 7200RPM WD Black drive which even in a SFF case I'm sure you can find space and power requirements for. If that is too much for you, you could get a Toshiba 3.5in P300 drive for £35.

If Steam could do a deal with Toshiba so that you could buy a 1TB drive for £35 that came pre-loaded with SteamOS and a copy of HalfLife 3? Because from a business point of view that is more likely than Valve actually writing HalfLife 3.

I run an SFF system so have limitations on the number of drives - Linux takes up space and costs ME money in stuff which I would never use it for.

HL3 can go and do one if it means I need to:
1.)Install another disk FOR ONLY ONE GAME hence costing me extra money for something which won't be used for often. Also,one drive is lost.
2.)Install it on an existing disk,hence taking up valuable space for stuff I actually might use for more than one game playthough.

I am not going to be LOCKED into installing a whole OS to run ONE game - if I am having a lock-in I might as well have it for an OS which will run almost all PC games,and not be some secondary thought. As much as it is annoying to say it,Windows is that OS and not Linux.

So you would be down £35, I am already down £120 for an SSD and £80 for a Windows license so that I can run an OS where the Meltdown patch was so botched that Microsoft introduced a vulnerability massively worse than Meltdown itself and now we hear that if you download a rar file that is put together just so then just the act of it existing on your machine means Microsoft's anti virus will open it for a content scan and run code contained in it at a high privilege level because MS forked some open source RAR code and then converted all the ints into unsigned ints like the bunch of utter amateurs that they are.

Except,I don't give a flying fig about Linux for normal usage since I am already using Windows for normal usage and its a sunk cost like for over 80% of the PC market. If not I would not be using Windows then? This would be adding cost,and reducing the expansion capabilities of my SFF system,and I do want to go even smaller in the future(which means less drives),so this would also affect my hobby too if it happened(would be forced to spend much more on drives to replicate functionality).

You know - so what is costs money to buy Windows,considering it still means "despite the tax" I have more chance of at least getting games to run in the first place,even £80 to £100 over 4 years is nothing as much as I hate to admit it. Until every largish gaming dev releases its games on Linux,and makes sure that its previous releases from the last few years can also work to a degree,then Linux is still going to be the minor partner when it comes to a lot of largish game releases.

Plus sure you can wait - it could be months or years for a port to come along,or maybe never. At this point whilst everyone is enjoying the release,you end up having to wait around for it. FFS Rise of the Tombraider was available on PC over two years ago and yet a Linux port is only hitting at some point THIS YEAR.

So,what next every game dev now makes a separate OS for each of their stupid games?

What,now BethesdaOS,BlizzOS??

OFC SteamOS is just Linux underneath and can run other software, or like me you can run another Linux distribution. ISTR on my Fedora box I typed "yum install steam" and it pulled in the normal Steam client as well as all the DLLs and other packaged that were required but not yet on my system (mainly 32 bit support as I didn't have much 32 bit code on here).

Not sure where you are getting the analogue controllers bit from, just like under Windows they are useful for getting around the Big Picture mode but otherwise not needed. I played most of Witcher 2 under Linux and that was with usual mouse controls.

The whole Steam Machine concept was just a stupid attempt to try to take on consoles with controllers when cheaper consoles did the same job. I have no interest in it,and I have zero interest in farting around with Linux based gaming when Windows based gaming seems perfectly fine.

I will keep checking though,just in case PC Linux becomes the de-facto gaming OS!

Sorry Cat, but the worlds smallest violin just isn't small enough, I'm not feeling sorry for you here.

Sorry DanceswithUnix, but the worlds smallest violin just isn't small enough, I'm not feeling sorry for you here,as shown with Netbooks where nobody in the RL cared.

Or like all the Linux heads who thought Steam Machines would destroy windows - it hasn't and SteamOS and Linux desktop gaming is just a niche. I am happy for people running Linux as their main OS,they have far more titles than they used to,but its still more a case of some devs being charitable.

Of all the dozens of PC gamers I have met,including those who have enough experience with Linux,EXACTLY ZERO use PC Linux for gaming.

In fact the few people who I know who are really anti-Windows PC gaming,actually just bought consoles instead. Most of them are software devs who run Linux as their main OS.

Last time I checked,most people use Windows followed by MacOS for their desktops and laptops:

https://netmarketshare.com/operating...%22-1000%22%7D

Platform Share
Windows 88.72%
Mac OS 8.56%
Linux 2.30%
Chrome OS 0.31%
Unknown 0.10%
BSD

Edit!!

In B4 another 10 pages of arguing about Linux is "fine" for gaming and Windows "isn't",I am not going to agree with anyone on Linux and gaming in its current state.

Great in concept,but I am not going to install another OS on my SSDs,just to run one game,and I am certainly not going to also buy ANOTHER SSD,to install an OS to run a single game. When I was younger I would be more inclined to but I have just come to the point,I just want to run the games I buy when I want,etc and not bother with whether the OS is supported,the hardware is supported by the OS,etc.

If not every single gaming company with start this same crap,and I don't want a billion different OSes to run a few games.

Windows might be a cruddy unifier but its still the best one. Just like Steam is a cruddy unifier but the best one. Just because their are more "humane" alternatives it does not mean they are better,or viable. A bit like AMD and Nvidia when it comes to the graphics market in 2018.

Second Edit!!

Plus the fact is if Linux was perfectly fine for gaming,Steam Machines "would be flying off the shelves" but they they apparently are not. That should tell you volumes about how even a prebuilt and pre-configured Linux gaming PC with gaming orientated features can't even get any interest from an average gamer. With all noise,Linux gaming is just really an afterthought it most cases,and with under 2.5% of the installed PC OS base for ALL versions,its no wonder companies smell where the money is. On top of this there are plenty of console alternatives if you don't want a Windows gaming PC too.

Steam Machines were just slightly cheaper but crap Windows gaming PCs and most people saw through that,and when you are spending much more money on the hardware,than the software people don't want that.

[Xlucine]

The only way to get SteamOS adopted is to release HalfLife 3 and Portal 3 as SteamOS exclusives. Then we'll see how good Microsoft's Linux on Windows emulation layer is

It worked last time steam wanted to change the market. Maybe some (bright orange) tie-in steam machines to match? Toss in TF3 to make it a full set!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Valve was distributing its own games on Windows. Battle.net pre-dated Steam for a number of features.

Its not going to work though - some of you are in an utter fantasy land.Look at the thread title - Valve admits "Steam Machines aren't exactly flying off shelves".

So shiny,PRE-BUILT and PRE-CONFIGURED Linux gaming rigs pushed by a gaming company have shown very little traction for the better of over 4 years.

The same happened with Linux based netbooks,etc or ChromeOS based ones. None of these have gained traction in the desktop/laptop market.

So do you honestly think,then all of a sudden GAMERs(which does not equate to enthusiasts) will suddenly install another OS,and then make a dual boot machine??

You mean the same people who would buy an Nvidia FX(over an ATI 9000 series) or a Pentium 4(over an Athlon 64) as Nvidia and Intel are more "trusted" brands.

Go onto the street and ask how many people have anything other than Windows for their gaming PC?? How many even would know how to make a dual boot machine let alone even care??

If prebuilt Linux machines can't gain traction with marketing from Valve and lots of well known gaming brands like Alienware,suddenly people are making mental acrobatics that gamers will now start farting around with PCs(which are most likely pre-built from a major OEM),so they can run a single game.

Edit!!

Plus back in 2013 people were making the same claims about how SteamOS would give MS a good one.

I pretty much nailed it back then when I said it probably wouldn't gain as much traction as people thought,and I was right. Its no point saying Linux is free when its an afterthought for gaming.

If Valve become so desperate to salvage SteamOS they need to lock-in their first major game release in years to it,that tells you volumes of how poorly it has done.

If Valve forces people to install another OS for HL3/TF3 it would generate far more negative publicity from anything other than uber geeks,and if Valve really were clever,they would be releasing the games to iOS and Android(irony) rather than their own OS who most gamers have just ignored.

With well under 3% marketshare on desktop/laptops for Linux,it makes more sense if Valve improved performance even under OS X.

In fact if we look at the Steam stats:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

98% of users surveyed used Windows,1.64% used OS X and 0.33% Linux.

So it appears for gamers things look even worse!

[spacein_vader]

Valve was distributing its own games on Windows. Battle.net pre-dated Steam for a number of features.

Its not going to work though - some of you are in an utter fantasy land.Look at the thread title - Valve admits "Steam Machines aren't exactly flying off shelves".

So shiny,PRE-BUILT and PRE-CONFIGURED Linux gaming rigs pushed by a gaming company have shown very little traction for the better of over 4 years.

The same happened with Linux based netbooks,etc or ChromeOS based ones. None of these have gained traction in the desktop/laptop market.

So do you honestly think,then all of a sudden GAMERs(which does not equate to enthusiasts) will suddenly install another OS,and then make a dual boot machine??

You mean the same people who would buy an Nvidia FX(over an ATI 9000 series) or a Pentium 4(over an Athlon 64) as Nvidia and Intel are more "trusted" brands.

Go onto the street and ask how many people have anything other than Windows for their gaming PC?? How many even would know how to make a dual boot machine let alone even care??

If prebuilt Linux machines can't gain traction with marketing from Valve and lots of well known gaming brands like Alienware,suddenly people are making mental acrobatics that gamers will now start farting around with PCs(which are most likely pre-built from a major OEM),so they can run a single game.

Edit!!

Plus back in 2013 people were making the same claims about how SteamOS would give MS a good one.

I pretty much nailed it back then when I said it probably wouldn't gain as much traction as people thought,and I was right. Its no point saying Linux is free when its an afterthought for gaming.

If Valve become so desperate to salvage SteamOS they need to lock-in their first major game release in years to it,that tells you volumes of how poorly it has done.

If Valve forces people to install another OS for HL3/TF3 it would generate far more negative publicity from anything other than uber geeks,and if Valve really were clever,they would be releasing the games to iOS and Android(irony) rather than their own OS who most gamers have just ignored.

With well under 3% marketshare on desktop/laptops for Linux,it makes more sense if Valve improved performance even under OS X.

In fact if we look at the Steam stats:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

98% of users surveyed used Windows,1.64% used OS X and 0.33% Linux.

So it appears for gamers things look even worse!

SteamOS is an insurance policy. If MS do depreciate Win32 support then they'll have a ready to go alternative for people already invested in those games.

In that scenario there would be at least a partial shift of gamer support to alternative OS unless people are happy to write off all their previous games.

If I wanted MS vendor lock in I'd have bought an Xbox.

[DanceswithUnix]

I am not going to be LOCKED into installing a whole OS to run ONE game - if I am having a lock-in I might as well have it for an OS which will run almost all PC games,and not be some secondary thought. As much as it is annoying to say it,Windows is that OS and not Linux.

This is Linux we are talking about, you aren't "locked "into anything. But you seem to be mistaking me for someone who thinks Linux will displace Windows and I'm not that deluded, let me boil my comments down to one line:

You are complaining about the possibility of installing a free operating system to play a game when that OS runs on low end & cheap hardware, I live in the reality that I already pay large amounts of money JUST to play Windows games; the two are not symmetrical due to software cost and hardware requirements.

Or to put it another way: complaining about being GIVEN a gaming platform because you would rather pay through the nose is just bizarre. Stick SteamOS on a £35 USB drive, when you finish the game you can format it with NTFS, stick it in a drawer and use it for backups. Your pages of typing ignore the simple truth that no-one is forcing you to uninstall Windows, you get to keep that and all the software you use in it. My original point was that the hardware required to make a PC run SteamOS (a cheap hard disk) is on par with the cost of one game, so Valve could do some sort of bundling with hardware deal if they were giving the game away and users would be no worse off than buying a game.

[Zimano]

It's worth remembering that this has been the case with consoles for a long time too Sony/Microsoft etc typically lose money on their consoles when they first launch - upwards of £300-£400 in some cases on lauch, and they make this back on game sales and eventual scale as component/build prices drop during the lifespan of a console

I thought this time with, PS4 & XBoxOne, they were breaking even to start with explaining why this generation was so underpowered.