Linux distributions have distinct names
Listing all Linux distributions in an application's "system requirements" would require excessive space. This means there's a need for a precise name for the set of Linux distributions that support Gtk+ and/or Qt userland as opposed to only the Android userland. Would Qt/Linux or Gtk+/Linux be more accurate?
GNU/Linux is a term that should be universally rejected
It's still far less clunky than "Linux-with-a-GNU-userland" or "Linux-that-isn't-Android-or-embedded".
If you must err on the side of brevity, GNU/Linux is best
I need brevity because there are plenty of Slashdot users who repeatedly point to Google Play Store as evidence that there are plenty of games and other commercial apps "on Linux". So is there a shorter term for Linux-based systems that aren't Android or embedded?
The "it" you are referring to doesn't need to be referred to at all.
It does when "free Linux-based OS with a multiwindow GUI" takes up the majority of a 50-character "Comment Subject" box. You need the "multiwindow GUI" part to distinguish the multitude of Linux distributions for desktop and laptop PCs from Android and from Linux distributions designed for servers.
Maybe that massive game development scene in soviet russia was a sign of the times to come, huh?
Alexey Pajitnov came from the Soviet Union and produced one of the most popular video game franchises ever, with ongoing sequels for nearly three decades and counting.
I expect most larger game publishing firms demand that you do not build in features to the game that allow you to buy less copies per person.
David Wong of Cracked would agree with you. But are there documented cases of couch multiplayer being cut from a PC or console game so that the publisher can sell multiple copies to one household?
Seriously, they just port the same code over anyway, why the hell can't you plug two USB game controllers into a PC and play a local multiplayer match? Never seen a single game support that
I'll show you more than "a single game". Street Fighter IV supports couch multiplayer, as does the (2 years delayed) port of Mortal Kombat (2011). So do a lot of the games on this page and on another page that nschubach pointed out. Look for indie and amateur games, as their developers are less likely to have console licenses to fall back on.
Why though does it need to be a Steam Box if it's really just a PC with SteamOS on it?
Because it ships with a gamepad and has a case designed to fit in next to a television. Your average PC has a massive case by consumer electronics standards: it makes Microsoft's infamously "XBOX HUEG" consoles look like a Wii or a PC Engine. It also ships with a mouse and keyboard and is marketed for use at a desk with a 19-24" desktop monitor. This is not the best fit for the sorts of games traditionally played on televisions, especially games that allow offline multiplayer using multiple gamepads. SteamOS and Steam Machine appear to be efforts to get more controller-friendly, Big Picture-ready games onto Steam.
With a Steam Machine you may not be able to play the newest AAA games, but you can play all the games you once enjoyed
Unless the game gets an update, and the update has increased the game's system requirements. Didn't this happen when Valve upgraded the Source engine not to run on older machines anymore, breaking existing copies of Half-Life 2? I know Sony did it with an EverQuest update back in 2001. Or is Valve going to do something like what Apple recently introduced, allowing users to download a previous version compatible with a given machine?
Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.