The "closed" part of the ecosystem is Windows RT, in the sense that apps for that platform must come from the Windows Store. Windows 8 runs Steam very well, and has no such restrictions. Steam's not available on the iPad either.

You do realize both Microsoft as well as Apple are trying to separate the consumer market from the high end, professional market. The cheapest Apple device that allows side-loading costs 999 euro's. The cheapest win8 device that allows side loading will be at least 800 euro's.

I understand why. The biggest problem of the convential desktop is the ugly compomize between freedom, power users and professionals on one end, and casual consumer usage at the other end.

But that does mean, many of Valves current customers, that buy midrange devices, will end up on RT or iOS.

And the crowd on this site, will likely find the devices aimed for them moving to a more expensive and exclusive niche.

I think you have drastically misrepresented the computing market. The cheapest device you can put Windows 8 on is a $200 (maybe 250 EUR) netbook. It will then run whatever you want - including Valve. There are zero restrictions there. Can you game on that $200 machine? Sure, just probably not the games you want to play. That's hardly Microsoft's fault though, it's a $200 computer.

Amazon sells a Mac Mini for 600EUR (at least Amazon.fr does). That's about what an unsubsidized iPhone costs, right?

So where is this doom-and-gloom everything-is-locked-down-except-the-ultra-expensive actually coming from?

What about $199 + 99/year to sideload onto an iPod Touch?

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing and getting the wrong take away. It's not about the price. It's about the experience. It's classic Android vs iPhone (for some at least): do you want a phone that provides a really good experience, or one that provides a mediocre (well, now really good) experience but with many fewer limitations, more features and more options.

Do you want an iPad/iPhone/WinRT/Android tablet with "apps", or do you want an x86 device with the ability to run whatever binary code you want and an OS that enables that.

It's not about price, because you're right, I can find devices in both categories at literally all sorts of data points. But it is about the experience.

Valve's business RELIES on the experience that enables users to run, in this case, native code. Since they're being pushed out as a result of this shift... they're naturally trying to warn people and shift interest to a platform where they can more easily operate... or survive.

In fact, your example is ironic. People are more likely to go buy a $500 iPad than they are a $300 full featured Windows laptop. That's exactly what worries Valve. Or it should.

The cheapest Windows 8 device that allows you to install desktop software is exactly as expensive as you want it to be. It's a normal PC. Buy a laptop, buy a desktop, build your own; it doesn't matter. It's a PC. You can buy/build one and install Windows 8 on it. You won't see desktops at Best Buy running Windows RT.

Your argument is completely fallacious.

They're charging 999 Euros for the Mac Mini? I didn't think the regional pricing variations were that bad.

How much does a Mac Mini cost in Europe? 629€ on Apple France's website.

Those points were addressed in this article: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/179420/

Some TL;DR:

The article speculates that the emergence of Windows Store app platform from the Windows desktop could become similar to the emergence of Windows from DOS, and that newer technologies will similarly only be available on the Windows Store app platform.

It describes the locked-down properties of the Windows Store, and, extrapolating from the current certification requirements for Windows Store apps, it asserts that a game like Skyrim would be denied certification on Windows Store in 2032 because of its PEGI rating.

BTW, Microsoft did back down from that policy (not allowing games like Skyrim and its ilk): http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/microsoft-to-allow-mat...

In this case "open platform" means "platform where a publisher other than the operating system vendor can make a profit".

In my view the ability for anyone to hack on their own device is valuable, too. I learned to program because GORILLAS.BAS came with the source code (and I think required you to view it in order to run it!)

I use closed devices with some mixed feelings about it, the thing I'm most sad to support is the move toward devices with bigger barriers toward tinkering than what I had as a kid. I'm probably more accepting of it when it's a device I never had as a kid, but when barriers are constructed for once-open platforms it starts to irk me.

I've heard this argument before and it's a load of crap.

If I had a choice between a C64 with BASIC and an iPad with a browser, I'd take the browser every time.

Within twenty seconds you can have http://jsfiddle.net/ up in a window and be programming JavaScript.

Within a few minutes you could create a Linode account and be using vi through ssh.

Within a few days you could be creating a much more significant application using the enormous selection of open-source tools that never, ever existed on the same platforms that GORILLA.BAS came from. You could do things that were virtually impossible in the 1980s in a matter of days or weeks, even with no prior experience.

People decry the App Store as "closed", but it's basically open to anyone with a hundred bucks and the ability to ship an executable to Apple. Sure, theoretically you could've shipped your game on your C64 on floppy disks, as some people successfully did, but the enormity of this undertaking is well beyond the ability of most beginner programmers. It was basically impossible to go it alone without a publisher for distribution. Now anyone can self-publish.

If you ask me, the ecosystem has never been more open and accessible to developers of all ages and backgrounds. It's also more open, more friendly to users of all stripes, not just enthusiasts. Your grandmother can buy apps through the app store. This sort of thing simply didn't happen in the so-called glorious old days of "open" computers.

The barrier to entry for GORILLAS.BAS was "hey, what's this number do and what happens if I change it?"

I didn't even have to know I wanted to learn to program.

I agree with you that there are tons of awesome things at our fingertips for shipping applications to people, or for learning to code once you know that's what you want to do. jsfiddle looks great, if you know you want to learn JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. Linode is awesome, once you know you want to host a site. The App Store is incredible, once you can write an acceptable app.

Those are all great things, and they are all a few steps beyond the stage I'm talking about. You're talking about learning to walk; I'm talking about learning to crawl.

Publishers can make profits on closed platforms; in fact, they're almost essential due to the work it takes getting to market on a closed platform.

Middle-man distributors, however, don't typically profit from platforms. Valve's position on platforms that have built-in preferred digital distribution systems isn't surprising, they're using their position as OS vendor to boost their digital software distribution business.

Is there anything wrong with making a profit ?

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying that "open" here doesn't mean "open" as other people use it as in "open source" or "open access".

> The title (and article) is really bad journalism.

I don't know if the title has been changed since it was posted—I suspect not, since it matches the URL—but what it actually says is that Linux is more viable than Windows for gaming (which is probably more surprising; but, in any case, is certainly a different point).

>Valve has always been in favor of open platforms.

Steam?

With all due respect, you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.

First of all, every damn time someone brings up the "you just have to double click the installer on Windows" argument, they leave out the steps before that (most prominently, locate and download a safe copy of said installer).

Second, I don't know what FUD you have been told about Linux on the desktop, but contrary to what you assert about it, no, installing applications on almost all widespread Linux distributions I can spontaneously think of - except Gentoo - requires neither compiling nor messing around with dependencies.

Third, no, not everything on Ubuntu comes from the "Ubuntu store" or "Apitude store" - in fact, neither of those exists. If you are talking about the Ubuntu Software Center, that's basically just a fancy front-end for APT - as is Aptitude. If I remember correctly, the UCS also allows purchasing of some commercial software as of recently (I don't use Ubuntu).

In addition, Ubuntu (and derived distributions) have a thing called Personal Package Archives, whose very concept is to make it possible to easily add your own package sources to complement the official repositories. The UCS can handle those, too.

Also, there's a very important distinction between a package repository as used in many Linux distributions and a closed app store: the former is, at least to an extent, managed by the community and the users. You cannot say that of the latter.

And to add to that, installing a .deb or an .rpm (if that's the route the software is distributed, like with Chrome) is a one-click solution (the rough equivalent to an .msi).

And if someone wants to give you simply a precompiled binary, they can do that too. Though in Linux you need to set the executable flag on it so you don't shoot yourself in the foot like you so easily can with malicious .exe files.