SoylentNews

Linux Usage on Steam Continues to Decline

posted by janrinok on Wednesday May 27 2015, @11:24PM   
from the wheeee! dept.

Celestial writes:

It looked for a little while there two years ago that gaming on Linux was finally beginning to take off, mostly thanks to Valve. That push seems to quickly be evaporating. Valve's latest Steam statistics shows that usage of both Linux and MacOS X on Steam is declining, while Windows usage is actually gaining. Linux usage on Steam is down to 0.94% from 1.05% last month, while Windows usage is up to a whopping 95.81%. Was that push for SteamOS in particular and gaming on Linux in general just all smoke?

---

[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]

• Re:Games aren't a good fit for FOSS Re:Games aren't a good fit for FOSS (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:36PM

  by edIII (791) on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:36PM (#189271)

  So, DRM for games isn't automatically a moral failure.

  You've said nothing to justify this statement.....

  Lots of stuff can and should be Creative Commons or whatever... but a big-budget movie, a professional photograph or illustration, a song - those people can morally copyright, and charge money for. I don't pirate games and such; the laborer is worthy of their hire and all that. (Sure, the length of copyright now is insane, but that's a separate issue.)

  This doesn't justify your statement that DRM isn't an automatic moral failure, which it most certainly, an unarguably is. What you have conflated is the reasonable position of "moral copyright", and the position that through "moral copyright(s)", one can establish rather severe controls to effect the enforcement of said "moral copyright(s)".

  I "finger quote" the word moral to indicate my extreme skepticism. The arguments over length, enforcement, and fair use of copyrights hardly makes most of what we consider today morally sound intellectual property. However, let's assume it to be 100% in your positions's favor, and all copyrights that are granted and recognized are purely legitimate, and all disputes with copyright holders are exclusively over distribution with illicit profits. I still fail to see how that morality somehow flows over into the draconian controls being established that erase privacy, eliminate 1st Sale rights, interfere with peaceful enjoyment, etc.

  The idea of DRM is to control consumer hardware and software well beyond the point of sale where ownership 1 trillion percent transfers to the new owner in order to effect controls over content. It's very nature not only provides controls, but also provides a wealth of information (see LG performing illicit surveillance of consumer networks) that can be abused. There is simply no way I can ever be made to believe this was the reasonable intents of morally sound copyrights. At what point did we decide to build the "Enforcement Death Star" for the copyright holders again? So while I agree that artists and people should be rewarded (I hardly pirate anything in truth), I steadfastly, and to the death, refuse to give up my privacy, peaceful enjoyment, and in general my freedoms to enjoy my own spaces, virtual or otherwise. I can find no enjoyment when I realize that my space is not my own, my purchase was not respected, and I'm treated as a criminal. I have de facto ended up marrying the copyright holder so they can sit next to me on my couch till the end of time obsessing about what I'm doing with their great works.

  Sorry, but none of that was even conceived as possible when the morality of copyrights was being discussed during their creation. What we are trying to do is have that conversation now, but people in my position usually get attacked as unreasonable or paranoid when we bring up the overreach occurring in enforcement :) No, you need to fully and completely justify your invasion into my space as "moral". Please be thorough, and one appeal to emotion over the copyright holder and their work isn't going to cut it. Persuade me to give up my privacy and freedoms, and describe to me the great benefits to the public domain ultimately. I'll wait......

  Especially when its as forgiving as Steam is

  I wholly, and fully, stipulate that Gabe's reach-around skills are truly stellar in this regard. However, a reach-around implies what again? It matters not how fine the garden is, or how beautiful and distracting its delights are, you are still being deprived of true ownership. Gabe, still knows far more about you then he needs to, and has way too much control.

  And, for whatever it's worth, they've promised to put out an update removing restrictions if that ever happens.

  Translation: For as long as we are alive, we are going to leave our secret codes and DRM technology running on your systems. It's like a guard dog, but it's not working for you. It will most likely never bite you during its stay there, and if it does, we promise, it didn't mean it in anger. Just a mistake. For what it's worth, if something *ever* happens to us, we promise that regardless of the legal and practical natures of our transition being involved, our guard dogs will all be removed. Until then, you just need to trust us about the dogs and their activities, as even though they are on your property and using your hardware, you're expressly forbidden by law to interfere with them.

  Translated Response: Get your fucking dogs off my property, and pick up that one's dump it just left in my kernel. Thanks.

  P.S - I don't hate Steam. What I find morally abhorrent, are DRM enabled platforms that don't allow me to enjoy something so simple from my youth: I paid for a game and I got to keep it for life in peace and privacy. You can exchange Steam with Amazon and their Kindle offerings if you want too, or basically anything from Apple.

  --
  Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Games aren't a good fit for FOSS (Score: 1) by Dr. Manhattan on Friday May 29 2015, @06:29PM

  by Dr. Manhattan (5273) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:29PM (#189772)

  The idea of DRM is to control consumer hardware and software well beyond the point of sale where ownership 1 trillion percent transfers to the new owner in order to effect controls over content.

  You have absolute control over whether you install Steam or not. If you don't like what it does - if you don't agree with the terms on offer - don't install it. Steam offers services beyond a one-time download - cloud saves, installs without having to carry around the media, 'achievements' for whatever they're worth, etc. If Steam were required to get the water you needed to live, that'd be one thing - but if the game isn't worth the bargain to you, don't make it.

  I still fail to see how that morality somehow flows over into the draconian controls being established that erase privacy, eliminate 1st Sale rights, interfere with peaceful enjoyment, etc.

  The 'first sale' thing... if that's vital to you, don't use Steam. I haven't found my peaceful enjoyment interfered with. As to 'erase privacy' - you say, "Gabe, still knows far more about you then he needs to, and has way too much control." Okay, fine. Go ahead. Outline your scheme - what does "Gabe" need to know, and control?

  I mean, what, is Steam digging into your browser history or something, and I haven't heard about that? Or is it recording your usage of a game?

  Parent