I hear about SteamOS. I hear the fanboys giggle to their hearts' content. But personally I don't see a real future in it. What's making anyone leave their current environment to develop or play games on SteamOS? What is it bring to the game that Windows, Mac, or Linux isn't? Or even PS4, X1, or WiiU isn't? All I see is a bunch of hype. A loud minority. And sales rivaling the WiiU... if they're lucky.

But I honestly would like to hear everyone else's take on this.

SteamOS is Linux-based operating system, so if Valve does it right, Linux gaming would probably gain a massive boost.

SteamOS is Linux-based operating system, so if Valve does it right, Linux gaming would probably gain a massive boost.

Not to be curt, but .... yeah, so. How does that affect me as a gamer? Or a developer? For Linux enthuasists, that's +1 for them. Outside of that.... what?

Yes, what SteamOS brings is brand name and support to the Linux environment. Even SteamOS remains a minority of the user base, as long as they maintain client access for other flavours and Valve shows support for Linux, then that helps encourage other developers to consider releasing for Linux based operating systems.

More developers working on it, the more tools and support that comes with it, and that allows the market share to grow. For now it isn't a huge deal, but Apple and Microsoft are moving towards systems which are more and more closed. If nothing else strong support behind a highly open market system will help keep things from turning too bad in the world of Windows.

Personally I'm rather disappointed that they didn't simply tag on with another existing Linux flavour and back a project with the option of a strong Steam integration, as 'yet another flavour' is exactly the opposite of what Linux needs to become mainstream.

At the moment the big players are scared of supporting steambox, they don't think they will get a return on investment.

Which is a bitch for me as I was lined up for a job porting games to steam.

If one game gets sales figures that make the big boys pay attention, then steam will suddenly become much more viable, and then you might get some of the pass on effects for other linux users.

Chicken and egg I'm afraid. Until someone ports a game that makes lots of people want steam, there won't be any reason to port a game to steam.

Yes, Linux sitting at 1.2% of users on the Steam Hardware Survey isn't looking all that hot. Especially since I'm not seeing numbers on total users polled.

And it is a sad chicken and egg deal. Personally I greatly prefer Unix like environments over Microsoft's offerings, but the lack of third party software support on Linux flavours keeps me from diving in too seriously on it so my main rig still runs windows. Lack of hardware options and support for custom builds keeps me from diving in with OSX, but then again some of the UI quirks here do bug me to no end anyway.

I tought the steam-os was completely 100% free linux distribution based on ubuntu running on everyday pc hardware. As long as a game has linux support it will run in steam-os. And seeing that linux/crossplatform gaming is on the rise it doesn't even need the steam platform to be a viable os.

If you are talking about the steambox then its another matter. Seeing as that is just a normal pc with a preinstalled linux. Steam platform has almost nothing to do with it since it will run just fine even without steamos. Since both the steam platform and the steam-os can run without the other just fine the only real difference between other linux distros and steam-os is that steam-os has all the drivers and dependencys the steam platform and its products need pre installed.

The real question is wether it is viable to sell a pc with a preinstalled free linux in it. And even that simplifies to "Is a linux os a viable replacement for windows in everyday use?"

My answer would be yes. Sure the way linux handles software distribution is radically different from windows and can be hard to get into but nowdays there are very few things you can't do with a linux that you can do with windows or mac.

Anyway this is mostly guessing as there are no previous attempts of this scale to use as comparison to make any solid prediction.

From what I gather they don't aim for becoming a desktop OS, but rather competing with consoles by making it much easier to port PC games to it and enable streaming from Windows (both media and Steam games). I think the idea is that your powerful desktop with Windows can run the games and simply stream the image over the network to your Steambox in your living-room so you can play your Windows games on the TV while keeping your PC somewhere else.

The default login on Steam OS seems to be something like Metro on WinRT with the desktop login not really meant for actual use.

Linux still has a very tiny market share.

The OS is iffy - as even minor updates can still "break" stuff.

Why does Google give you free email when their core business is selling ads? Simple, it keeps you more connected to a space they control, where they can put more ads in front of your eyeballs. They actually have a formula that they use to project how much money they make from you from every minute you spend on the web, regardless of where you're browsing. This is why all of Google's businesses are things that get you to log on.

SteamOS is exactly that for Valve. Valve's core business isn't making games, its selling you content and taking a cut of that sale. They could care less who produced the content or on which platform you're accessing it. They've done really great on the traditional PC platforms, but their defacto standing is under renewed attack on their largest platform, Microsoft Windows--which is competing now with their own integrated storefront--and under attack on your television screen as well--where the Windows Store will soon extend to Xbox One, and all the other competitors have their own storefronts too--including myriad android devices, some of which from heavy hitters like Amazon, Google, and soon-to-be Apple in all likelihood. Without their own contender in the livingroom, they would have no choice to to cede that space to their competitors -- Few competitors offer boxes with enough power to run the content that valve sells and none of them are interested in lettings third-party stores live on their devices, those with powerful enough hardware--Microsoft and Sony--are even less interested. With the PC gaming market being mature, its not going to grow by leaps and bounds -- console gaming, however, is larger today and growing more quickly than PC gaming. Its a move thats necessary for them to grow or even maintain market share, and also to maintain relevance. If they ceded the living room to Microsoft, Sony, and others, the entire steam platform would become increasingly marginalized as PC gaming looses ground to the consoles.

Linux itself is irrelevent -- its a convenient basis for their platform that they can tune to their needs and which is mature. Developing an entirely in-house platform would cost too much money and time. The platform must also be turnkey and tuned for the livingroom. Normal people don't want a computer in the living room, they want an appliance. That's what SteamOS is -- combined with appropriate hardware and the steam controller.

This is what SteamOS and steam boxes provide valve.

For the consumer, SteamOS and SteamBoxes offer that appliance to play their favorite PC content in full fidelity and with their usual PC-gaming friends. They offer a sort of "premium" console that's more powerful in some respects than even current-gen consoles, and one which can theoretically be upgraded with a more-powerful GPU in a couple years. I've valve can succeed in making SteamOS and SteamBoxes console-simple, then their other advantages will be worthwhile to a significant number of people, I predict, though you're probably right that they won't achieve the ubiquity of the XBox One or PS4 (far from it), though they may do better than the Wii U.