Steam for OS X.

[Gache]

Some interesting news on the new Steam beta: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/show...d.php?t=1157656

- Gache

Edited February 25, 2010 by Gache

[Cobblers]

Excellent news!!

[Gache]

Confirmed: Steam & Source are on OS X.

- Gache

[Gache]

First screenshots of the native Linux Steam client...

[firefly2442]

http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/05/12/1831208/Steam-Client-for-Mac-Launches-Linux-Client-On-the-Way?art_pos=18

Linux is confirmed. Yay!

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Cool, too bad i hate steam though

The question still would be... will the game be linux compatible.

[Gache]

Initially, it's likely that Linux support will be limited to indie games and whatever Valve ports to demonstrate Source on the new platform.

However, compared to the differences between OS X and Windows, the difference between OS X and Linux is relatively small. Devs who use Source in a cross-platform manner shouldn't find it any great stretch to get their game running on Linux as well.

Executive politics may be a problem, but I'm hopeful

[ApexMods]

A little update on Valve's experience with Steam for Mac (from Valve's Steam Blog):

- Roughly two thirds of all Steam Mac users are running on a laptop.

- Portal (with the same code base across platforms) is one fifth as likely to crash on a Mac than on Windows.

- And one week after launch, already more than eleven percent of all Steam purchases are for the Mac.

With Steam offering only a handful of games for Mac so far, an 11% share of sales within the first week at the market leader for digital games distribution (Steam controls an estimated 70% of the market) is not too shabby. It certainly shows the business potential of cross-platform development and should be a wake-up call for all game developers. Especially now that Apple has passed Microsoft as the world's largest tech company, this will most likely inspire a few platform policy changes at other game developers, too. Never mind Ubisoft, though. Their DRM is a declaration that they've probably given up on reason altogether.

Edit: As there is some confusion in the DirectX/Direct3D vs. OpenGL debate, here's some food for thought:

• DirectX/Direct3D is a proprietary API owned by Microsoft and used in Windows/Xbox
  
• OpenGL is an open standard API available on most modern operating systems and Windows
  
• DirectX/Direct3D 9 is the last version Microsoft allows on Windows XP, later versions require Vista/Windows 7
  
• Xbox 360 has a slightly modified version of DirectX/Direct3D 9 as its native API
  
• All current graphics cards fully support OpenGL out-of-the-box
  
• OpenGL 4.0 (released March 2010) is fully supported on e.g. nVIDIA GTX 400 series, ATI HD 5000 series
  
• Developers can achieve virtually identical results (visuals and performance) with OpenGL and DirectX/Direct3D
  
• Many popular games (e.g. Call of Duty series, Half-Life series) and applications (e.g. 3D Studio Max) are OpenGL-based
  
• Chris Hecker, Microsoft's creator of WinG (DirectX foundation), is an avid OpenGL advocate and D3D opponent today
  
• John Carmack, founder of id Software (Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake etc.) and rendering guru has a similar opinion
  

For cross-platform game development there's basically no way around OpenGL. Sooner or later Microsoft won't be able to suppress open standards for games anymore, just as they could not hold on to their proprietary way to render the web. And just as in the web browser example, a paradigm shift towards open standards in games will benefit us all.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Not to bash you, but i wouldn't use wikipedia for your links for pushing your point.