D
DArtagnan
Guest
Based on the Steam client - I can't say I'm confident Valve knows what they're doing when it comes to something like this. It's needlessly slow and awkward to navigate - especially given how simple the tasks you perform actually are.
Developing a fully featured OS to compete with modern alternatives is no small feat.
I prefer a monopoly when it comes to operating systems - because it means less hassle and less decision making for the consumer. Having to dual boot or figure out what OS is best for whatever game can be a bitch - and I certainly don't see any real advantage for myself. It just means some developers will meet another obstacle and they need more resources to support both platforms - or they need to ignore a piece of the action, because they don't have the necessary manpower.
Besides, I've never been a fan of Valve or Steam. I think both are given too much credit - though I concede Steam is very convenient because of its semi-monopoly status, and not because it's an impressive piece of software.
Valve as developers have always seemed overly confident and complacent - based on games that I don't think are all THAT great.
I'm not saying their games suck - they're just not that special to me - and given the amount of resources they must have available - I think they're being way too conservative when it comes to game design and technical innovation. The last truly impressive thing they did was the Source engine - and everything since then has been "meh" - from my point of view.
"Meh" isn't exactly a catastrophe, but AFAIK they have more money than anyone could ever need - so I'm surprised they're not doing more for gaming with it. It's like they don't understand or care about making great games, which is strange for a game developer.
Creating a "gamer OS" would have been great if I could trust them to actually care about and understand games. Instead, I can't help but suspect it's all about money - which is never that interesting to me.
Developing a fully featured OS to compete with modern alternatives is no small feat.
I prefer a monopoly when it comes to operating systems - because it means less hassle and less decision making for the consumer. Having to dual boot or figure out what OS is best for whatever game can be a bitch - and I certainly don't see any real advantage for myself. It just means some developers will meet another obstacle and they need more resources to support both platforms - or they need to ignore a piece of the action, because they don't have the necessary manpower.
Besides, I've never been a fan of Valve or Steam. I think both are given too much credit - though I concede Steam is very convenient because of its semi-monopoly status, and not because it's an impressive piece of software.
Valve as developers have always seemed overly confident and complacent - based on games that I don't think are all THAT great.
I'm not saying their games suck - they're just not that special to me - and given the amount of resources they must have available - I think they're being way too conservative when it comes to game design and technical innovation. The last truly impressive thing they did was the Source engine - and everything since then has been "meh" - from my point of view.
"Meh" isn't exactly a catastrophe, but AFAIK they have more money than anyone could ever need - so I'm surprised they're not doing more for gaming with it. It's like they don't understand or care about making great games, which is strange for a game developer.
Creating a "gamer OS" would have been great if I could trust them to actually care about and understand games. Instead, I can't help but suspect it's all about money - which is never that interesting to me.