It's Official: Valve Releasing Steam, Source Engine For Linux!

[KameZero]

I think the reason there is not a coming binary but PR practice. There had been such anti-Linux behaviors in forums at other publishers too. In the recent times though a bunch of "explosions" happened when people got enraged enough about their Linux talk (which most of the time included Wine) got trashed that they produced quite an uproar. Angry customers is not something to have especially with people getting more pissed due to increasingly aggressive DRM and other so-called anti-piracy stuff which hits only legit customers. Enraging people enough can make them no more buy your stuff and that's something a good business man tries to avoid. I chalk this let-it-happen attitude therefore more to the fact that valve doesn't want to piss off people more than they already did with their various "faux-pas" in the recent history (HL3 delay drama, LfD2 drama to name a few of the obvious ones). So I think you read something into this PR stunt which doesn't exist.

I'm going to graciously assume that Valve is smart enough to realize that the uproar from stringing people along this long without an official statement and then saying that they have no plans for a Linux client would be PR suicide.

[yogi_berra]

Guys... calm down...

What you don't like the Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I?" conversations that get started from Michael's articles because he has no direct evidence other than hearsay?

What is wrong with you?!? d-;

[V!NCENT]

What you don't like the Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I?" conversations that get started from Michael's articles because he has no direct evidence other than hearsay?

What is wrong with you?!? d-;

Haha what is not wrong with me? Who am I? Oh... and what is this?

[Dragonlord]

I'm going to graciously assume that Valve is smart enough to realize that the uproar from stringing people along this long without an official statement and then saying that they have no plans for a Linux client would be PR suicide.

No, it's not. If a company does not give an "official statement" that it "supports Linux by making a client" then it is not their fault if none is coming. It would be a PR suicide if you say it comes and then fail to do so (see UT3 drama).

[V!NCENT]

Lol maybe Valve did actualy wanted to hype it up through Michael and then stumbled upon some kind of a, uh... UT3 topic and thought "If we don't deliver this then we are majorly screwed if we would release it 2 years late, like we usualy do" xD

[tmpdir]

For sure because it is not the case that this is an ongoing project with high investment costs. Otherwise they would deal with it differently. That's 100% for sure a mockup of somebody going along the line of "let's see how this could look like". There had been for sure no investment going for that mockup there, seriously not.

Most large software project starts with a poc (proof of concept). We can safely assume valve would do a serie of pocs before starting something most of us are hoping for.

And even a simple poc or mockup as you call it, cost time and money. In my book thats an investment.

It's a total no-brainer to pull the plug on a project no money went in yet... and it's the usual course of actions and will be.

You don't know about the money that went into 'this' project... I don't either.

But its 'not' a no-brainer to pull the plug on a project no money went into. This depends on the expected results. For example if someone start a project where no money went into and the benefits are huge... than it shouldn't be a no-brainer to pull te plug. This should be at least a hard decision.

Or did they make available more versions of this mockup? I didn't hear about such a thing.

This question is 'kind of' the main topic of this thread, welcome to the club

[tmpdir]

Depends on the nature of the risks posed by the problem. If you endanger millions on things, I can assure you that the guy in charge will very much pull the plug on something- if only to avoid fiduciary responsibility suits from shareholders if the company's public.

"If you endanger millions on things"

I know such a example to:

"if you don't endanger millions on things AND you become the best, rich and most famous company in the world" than a company would NOT pull the plug.

yah I know my argument sounds just as silly as the previous one... but in another context it would sound rather intelligent don't you think?

Heh... You've little good knowledge in that space, yourself apparently, based on the response to Dragonlord here.

Wrong

I've been in a similar role in the past and present- I'd pull the plug if it didn't align with my philosophy and posed a major expense with little apparent payoff. So, don't tell me that's why I'm not in charge. As for that company...it's extant, but I'm trying to resurrect it. Why? Because the CFO was caught embezzling investor funding at a critical time and we lost the wind in our sails. At that time, I was just the CTO, but I've been "promoted" since that time.

Depends on whether they're seeing this as an investment or a lark that might just pay off a bit down the line. If it's the latter, you can be assured they'll pull the plug.

Okay... I won't pull any cheap ones here, this sound horrible. Sad to hear about your colleagues and yourself. But this example is pretty concreet while the variables in our discussion isn't. I just don't believe any commercial enterprise would pull the plug without solid facts about the risks.

Ofcourse 'If' these risks are big enough I also believe most enterprises would make such decissions. For now I just don't see this. Because valve hasn't announced anything there pretty save and their marketing machine will make the best of it... whatever course they decide to walk. Even now this is good for valve.

[Dragonlord]

Most large software project starts with a poc (proof of concept). We can safely assume valve would do a serie of pocs before starting something most of us are hoping for.

And even a simple poc or mockup as you call it, cost time and money. In my book thats an investment.

That's true that something like that requires a few mockups or prototypes to lead before the actual client starts off. It is though incorrect that it always has to cost money. Ever done some fiddling with some code in your spare time because it interest you? That's how mockups and prototypes tend to start their lives. These are though not necessarily ordered to by the business suits which leads to the next question.

But its 'not' a no-brainer to pull the plug on a project no money went into. This depends on the expected results. For example if someone start a project where no money went into and the benefits are huge... than it shouldn't be a no-brainer to pull te plug. This should be at least a hard decision.

It actually is if you think once from the position of a business suit. What risk would it pose to you if you launch steam on Linux and due to people hacking the binary (as they have proven to do without second thoughts) piracy goes rampage? If that's not a reason to pull the plug to not endanger your already good running windows steam world then you are a bad business suit.

[fenixkane]

.What risk would it pose to you if you launch steam on Linux and due to people hacking the binary (as they have proven to do without second thoughts) piracy goes rampage? If that's not a reason to pull the plug to not endanger your already good running windows steam world then you are a bad business suit.

...
Uhh...
What does piracy have to do with any of this...
Are you just protesting Steam coming to Linux because you don't like DRM?
Well to break it down for you Steams DRM just is a randomized code that is unique to your install of the game. Thats it. I don't like DRM but as far as DRM goes thats probably the least intrusive way to do it and wont mess with anything on your computer.
Also, theres no point in arguing about whether Steam is or isn't coming anyway. Once there is an official statement regarding this matter (all evidence shown thus-far is in-admissible seeing as there was a statement saying that valves games were not coming to PS3 and yet, come E3 there was Valve at Sony's press conference talking about how all there new games are coming to PS3 AKA: businesses will never have plans to support X until the big unveiling) positive or negative there is nothing really to talk about other than the possible hints for it (seeing as hinting toward something is something that Valve is notorious for, they are not notorious for hinting against something).
Seeing as Valve is trying to corner the Computer gaming market, it would make sense to secure Linux whether or not they see profit in it as of this moment.
These are my speculations as of this point.
Well I feel I've rambled enough for one post.

[Dragonlord]

I don't read or quote unthoughtful crap like that. Please read my posts before jolting out a crap like that. You wanted to know why somebody would want to pull the plug in such a situation or how he could loose money and one solution is piracy concern. Fact is as soon as the binary had been discovered Linux people had been all over it and "binary modified it". This is (in game security view) the first step on piracy of your product. Steam is a money-bag for Valve. If they allow this platform to be compromised from release time on they endanger their revenue stream. Would you put your game on steam if every Linux guy can pirate it for free? You might say now "who cares about the Linux guys, they have Windows copies to sell!". Unfortunately this is not true. Let's say you can get the Windows or Linux copy of the same game through steam. Let's assume the Linux version is cracked. Would people buy the Windows version if they can get the cracked Linux version for free? As you can see a compromised Linux steam client due to binary hacking is serious danger. This is nothing a good business suit takes lightly, especially not a successful one.

Hopefully you read this time before writing half-asses crap like that. The Games-World doesn't turn they way many here think it does.