Here's another way to look at the Linux market share on Steam

Quoting: Boogiepop_PhantomProbably off-topic, so put it under spoiler.

Spoiler, click me

Quoting: Boogiepop_PhantomAll the most horrible atrocities were commit by states, governments. Look at 20th century and even now. Corporations are little children compared to them.

Well... Companies have never been so powerful. So this might be subject to change.

Looking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

Well, if they came out with an AMD-based Steam Machine, it could end up being a fair bit cheaper than an Intel model and still perform really well. It also gives them an advantage there, with the open drivers that they can help shape and control updates closer.

It doesn't sound too far-fetched either, considering all the Mesa work Valve has employed people to do. Although they previously mentioned a large part of that was to get VR in shape on Linux.

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

Well, if they came out with an AMD-based Steam Machine, it could end up being a fair bit cheaper than an Intel model and still perform really well. It also gives them an advantage there, with the open drivers that they can help shape and control updates closer.

It doesn't sound too far-fetched either, considering all the Mesa work Valve has employed people to do. Although they previously mentioned a large part of that was to get VR in shape on Linux.

Steam VR... Yes.

Sony has it's own VR Headset to go along the PS4... Same for future Steam Machine?

Edit: Might not be their intention at all, but nobody else is in a better position than Valve to sell consoles under cost like Microsoft and Sony are doing.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 4 December 2017 at 3:09 pm UTC

Quoting: liamdaweWell, if they came out with an AMD-based Steam Machine, it could end up being a fair bit cheaper than an Intel model and still perform really well. It also gives them an advantage there, with the open drivers that they can help shape and control updates closer.

It doesn't sound too far-fetched either, considering all the Mesa work Valve has employed people to do. Although they previously mentioned a large part of that was to get VR in shape on Linux.

Although people still want those F2P, AA, AAA games. Unless valve make a move to wrap games up in WINE and port using say flatpack then there is still a gap no matter how cheap the unit is, perhaps they could incentivize developers by taking less of a cut on each sale ?

Maybe Valve will make a target VR platform. SteamOS2 might be a VR centric unit with the headset bundled.
Vulkan, AMD drivers with new low latency modes implemented (by valve), a free OS with as you said reduced cost using AMD hardware. They cut a deal and it becomes the cheapest, most stable and fastest way to VR on PC.

After all there isn't the gulf of VR titles between Windows and Linux just yet


Last edited by on 4 December 2017 at 4:09 pm UTC

Quoting: meggermanAlthough people still want those F2P, AA, AAA games. Unless valve make a move to wrap games up in WINE and port using say flatpack...

While I don't subscribe to John Carmack's idea that everyone should just forget porting to Linux and rely on WINE instead, I think there is a case to be made for a standardized WINE setup as part of Steam's Linux runtime to encourage adoption. A lot (a lot) of Windows games would just work straight out of the box, and it might encourage reluctant developers to dip their toes in the water if “porting” to SteamOS were just a case of tweaking their existing code a little.

Obviously some games don't work too well under WINE, so there'd have to be some kind of testing and certification process before a Windows game got its SteamOS logo (maybe in collaboration with the existing AppDB), otherwise the program could actually do more harm than good with SteamOS gaining a reputation for running games poorly, but I think it's definitely somthing Valve should be considering at this stage.

To be clear: I'm absolutely not suggesting it as a long-term solution, but as a sort of kick-start, maybe restricted to existing titles rather than new ones (think of the way GoG bundles DOSBox, but for more recent games), it might help.

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

I would not completely rule out a Valve-produced device, but it would be against their general reasoning regarding the value to gaming of an open market of upgradeable hardware.

To produce something compelling at a similar price point ( c.f. XBox / PS4 ), Valve would likely have to follow a similar route, contracting AMD to produce semi-custom designs. They could yet do that; it depends on where the market pressures fall.

Valve support Linux because it is the leading platform amongst those that are unowned and uncontrolled. Valve have clearly helped make Linux a more viable platform for gamers, but I think it would be a mistake to assume this means they view Linux the same way evangelical Linux supporters do.

Quoting: etonbears

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

I would not completely rule out a Valve-produced device, but it would be against their general reasoning regarding the value to gaming of an open market of upgradeable hardware.

To produce something compelling at a similar price point ( c.f. XBox / PS4 ), Valve would likely have to follow a similar route, contracting AMD to produce semi-custom designs. They could yet do that; it depends on where the market pressures fall.

Valve support Linux because it is the leading platform amongst those that are unowned and uncontrolled. Valve have clearly helped make Linux a more viable platform for gamers, but I think it would be a mistake to assume this means they view Linux the same way evangelical Linux supporters do.

Edit 1: I don't know why, it didn't record my comment... So here it is:

True enough, but I started to think it possible when Atari announced an AMD based custom hardware that is compatible with x86 platform for the Ataribox.

Couldn't Valve follow the same path with a more powerfull offer? The logic is "if you want a small footprint, buy a Steam Machine but if you want upgradbility, build a full fledged PC." Afterall, Alienware and Zotac were official Steam Machines and were lacking upgradability...

Edit 2: Removed my initial comment that was in the middle of quote.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 4 December 2017 at 6:15 pm UTC

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: etonbears

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

I would not completely rule out a Valve-produced device, but it would be against their general reasoning regarding the value to gaming of an open market of upgradeable hardware.

To produce something compelling at a similar price point ( c.f. XBox / PS4 ), Valve would likely have to follow a similar route, contracting AMD to produce semi-custom designs. They could yet do that; it depends on where the market pressures fall.

Valve support Linux because it is the leading platform amongst those that are unowned and uncontrolled. Valve have clearly helped make Linux a more viable platform for gamers, but I think it would be a mistake to assume this means they view Linux the same way evangelical Linux supporters do.

Edit 1: I don't know why, it didn't record my comment... So here it is:

True enough, but I started to think it possible when Atari announced an AMD based custom hardware that is compatible with x86 platform for the Ataribox.

Couldn't Valve follow the same path with a more powerfull offer?

Edit 2: Removed my initial comment that was in the middle of quote.

Valve absolutely could produce a box of their own - and it would probably be good - and they still may do so.

But their original gambit with SteamOS/Linux was around uniting the many companies involved in the PC games industry in a collaborative open ecosystem for the benefit of all; and to avoid Valve becoming roadkill to proprietary lock-in ( specifically the threat of Windows store ). For this to succeed, they must not appear to put themselves in a position of advantage or control while encouraging developers to write games/software for SteamOS/Linux, and hardware manufacturers to offer console-like upgradeable games-friendly PCs.

So they work mostly in the background to push things along, while trying to get the ecosystem robust. Clearly, they are having some success with the software side, due in no small part to the main game engines supporting Linux, but there doesn't appear to be much traction in the hardware side. I think it is difficult for PC manufacturers to come up with anything compelling using off-the-shelf parts. The Dell/Zotac machines are no more than interesting, are no better value than self-build, and can't easily be used for other purposes than Big-Picture gaming ( SteamOS really doesn't do anything else well ).

Valve risk damaging what hardware industry support they have if they build a Steam PC themselves ( arguably Steam Link already caused damage by removing streaming as a Steam hardware selling point ). But, if they get to the point where no company wants to partner with them on hardware, that is when they are most likely to produce a box of their own.

Quoting: ShmerlI'd say they failed pretty badly at pushing supported gaming consoles with Linux. Their effort of Steam machines was underwhelming.

Depends on what they wanted to achieve in the first place. If they wanted to create a PS4 like thingie, sure, they failed horribly. But, this is what I believe more, if they wanted to mostly give a hint to other competitors that they can move into other directions if they want to, I guess then it wasn't too bad.

Quoting: jens

Quoting: appetrosyanI don't care anymore. Steam doesn't care about Linux, no surprise that the statistics drop.

They do care, but unfortunately they can't do magic.

I'm not asking for magic, I'm asking for some effort.

Incentivising developers to engage in their platform is not particularly difficult. I understand that they can't force any developer's hand to do as they want, particularly since Linux is mostly uncharted territory for Game devs. Why not encourage developers to go the extra mile and support Steam OS, by for example collaborating on Linux ports.

Or giving games with Steam OS support more exposure: bring them to the featured list, as would Mirosoft, Sony or Nintendo.

Make using wrappers like Wine easier, by maybe letting people use Windows executables directly without a massive amount of publisher effort going in. If they'd done that, the list of Linux-supported games would nearly triple: Deus Ex:Human revolution runs on Linux better than on Windows, yet there's no official icon.

These small differences make a huge impact. Why don't we have more Linux ports?
a) Because it's hard. Feral and VP are about the only studio that does this commercially. Valve stopped game porting after all of their titles were available. These guys have massive experience. Share it! Make it so indie developers have an easier time starting on Linux: make tutorials, release developer tools for your engine.
b) Because it's expensive. Right now if you wanted to publish on Steam OS you need an SDL wrapped version of your game which costs money and often is worse than the wine version. If the choice was a simple "Do you want me to ship your game with a compatibility program, and let you access an extra audience for no extra time or money", we would have lots more games.
c) Because there's no benefit in having a Linux version. If publishers knew, that there's a "Featured Steam OS game" on the Steam front page we'd have some more penguins. It takes little effort, it's morally justified within bounds of what Valve is doing and I don't know why has nobody done it.
d) Because giving the platform a middle finger has no consequences. Bethesda soft-works sits on top of a bunch of games that have Native Linux support, not available on Steam. Yet their games consistently show up on the top trending lists. If I were in Valve's shoes I'd kindly ask Beth to fix this, and since hey have no excuse not to do this, ban them and their games from Steam. Yes it's ugly. Not nearly as ugly as online DRM, Microtransactions and Lootboxes, which Valve, incidentally, introduced to the Gaming world.

If you have better insight into these issues I've raised, I'm interested to know.

Quoting: etonbears

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: etonbears

Quoting: MohandevirLooking at this:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Gallium3D-NIR-Link-Opts

Valve still cares and is still investing in Linux. They wouldn't bother with that otherwise.

Something will happen regarding this, I'm not going to put all my faith in that, but it smells like an AMD based Steam Machine or something similar is on the way... Maybe... Hopefully...

How I would like to see Valve release it's own Steam Machine (no third party involved) with only one or two hardware specs (like PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro) along with a complete SteamOS overhaul.

I would not completely rule out a Valve-produced device, but it would be against their general reasoning regarding the value to gaming of an open market of upgradeable hardware.

To produce something compelling at a similar price point ( c.f. XBox / PS4 ), Valve would likely have to follow a similar route, contracting AMD to produce semi-custom designs. They could yet do that; it depends on where the market pressures fall.

Valve support Linux because it is the leading platform amongst those that are unowned and uncontrolled. Valve have clearly helped make Linux a more viable platform for gamers, but I think it would be a mistake to assume this means they view Linux the same way evangelical Linux supporters do.

Edit 1: I don't know why, it didn't record my comment... So here it is:

True enough, but I started to think it possible when Atari announced an AMD based custom hardware that is compatible with x86 platform for the Ataribox.

Couldn't Valve follow the same path with a more powerfull offer?

Edit 2: Removed my initial comment that was in the middle of quote.

Valve absolutely could produce a box of their own - and it would probably be good - and they still may do so.

But their original gambit with SteamOS/Linux was around uniting the many companies involved in the PC games industry in a collaborative open ecosystem for the benefit of all; and to avoid Valve becoming roadkill to proprietary lock-in ( specifically the threat of Windows store ). For this to succeed, they must not appear to put themselves in a position of advantage or control while encouraging developers to write games/software for SteamOS/Linux, and hardware manufacturers to offer console-like upgradeable games-friendly PCs.

So they work mostly in the background to push things along, while trying to get the ecosystem robust. Clearly, they are having some success with the software side, due in no small part to the main game engines supporting Linux, but there doesn't appear to be much traction in the hardware side. I think it is difficult for PC manufacturers to come up with anything compelling using off-the-shelf parts. The Dell/Zotac machines are no more than interesting, are no better value than self-build, and can't easily be used for other purposes than Big-Picture gaming ( SteamOS really doesn't do anything else well ).

Valve risk damaging what hardware industry support they have if they build a Steam PC themselves ( arguably Steam Link already caused damage by removing streaming as a Steam hardware selling point ). But, if they get to the point where no company wants to partner with them on hardware, that is when they are most likely to produce a box of their own.

Really interresting. It all comes down to one hardware partner that is all you just described: Cyberpower Steam Machine. Not as small as Dell or Zotac but fully upgradeable with on the shelf parts and the Steam Machine offer is still available with up-to-date parts.

This said, Dell is still trying to sell it's nearly 2 years old Steam Machine and no upgrades seem to be planned and Zotac seems to have vanished from the radar.

Let's wait and see...


Last edited by Mohandevir on 4 December 2017 at 7:57 pm UTC

as long their will not be AAA games ONLY for linux this low linux market share will continue to be.

Idea of exclusives is dead. No one is going to make games only for one OS.

@Mohandevir

Yes, the Cyberpower is most like an upgradeable PC, and least like a console in size and price. I don't know how well it has sold. I suppose it sits in the niche appealing to console gamers that want PC power but are too worried about fiddling? But then they probably wouldn't feel confident to upgrade it either.

I was always unclear as to the exact audience for Steam boxes; small/value doesn't sit easily with powerful/upgradeable, and how many would spend £1000-£1500 on something that only really runs Steam Big Picture well...? I struggle to visualize a mass market.

Quoting: appetrosyan

Quoting: jens

Quoting: appetrosyanI don't care anymore. Steam doesn't care about Linux, no surprise that the statistics drop.

They do care, but unfortunately they can't do magic.

I'm not asking for magic, I'm asking for some effort.

Incentivising developers to engage in their platform is not particularly difficult. I understand that they can't force any developer's hand to do as they want, particularly since Linux is mostly uncharted territory for Game devs. Why not encourage developers to go the extra mile and support Steam OS, by for example collaborating on Linux ports.

Or giving games with Steam OS support more exposure: bring them to the featured list, as would Mirosoft, Sony or Nintendo.

Make using wrappers like Wine easier, by maybe letting people use Windows executables directly without a massive amount of publisher effort going in. If they'd done that, the list of Linux-supported games would nearly triple: Deus Ex:Human revolution runs on Linux better than on Windows, yet there's no official icon.

These small differences make a huge impact. Why don't we have more Linux ports?
a) Because it's hard. Feral and VP are about the only studio that does this commercially. Valve stopped game porting after all of their titles were available. These guys have massive experience. Share it! Make it so indie developers have an easier time starting on Linux: make tutorials, release developer tools for your engine.
b) Because it's expensive. Right now if you wanted to publish on Steam OS you need an SDL wrapped version of your game which costs money and often is worse than the wine version. If the choice was a simple "Do you want me to ship your game with a compatibility program, and let you access an extra audience for no extra time or money", we would have lots more games.
c) Because there's no benefit in having a Linux version. If publishers knew, that there's a "Featured Steam OS game" on the Steam front page we'd have some more penguins. It takes little effort, it's morally justified within bounds of what Valve is doing and I don't know why has nobody done it.
d) Because giving the platform a middle finger has no consequences. Bethesda soft-works sits on top of a bunch of games that have Native Linux support, not available on Steam. Yet their games consistently show up on the top trending lists. If I were in Valve's shoes I'd kindly ask Beth to fix this, and since hey have no excuse not to do this, ban them and their games from Steam. Yes it's ugly. Not nearly as ugly as online DRM, Microtransactions and Lootboxes, which Valve, incidentally, introduced to the Gaming world.

If you have better insight into these issues I've raised, I'm interested to know.

Valve's use of Linux is purely business-driven.

They could do more to promote in the shop front, certainly; the fact they don't suggests they are content with the current situation.

Wrapping old games is a good idea, but automation would not be trivial to do reliably; and with the number of products on Steam not practical to offer on a manual basis.

I have not seen anything beyond speculation as to how much persuasion they are attempting. Wielding a stick at someone like Bethesda ( who provide a significant chunk of revenue ) would probably be both counter-productive and damage their standing in the industry.

Ultimately the reasoning is financial; they are clearly spending money on Linux and using what influence they have; presumably as much as they think reasonable ( how can we tell? ). I think the progress has been good, so far, given the size and nature of the task.

The acid test, to my mind, will be how many developers move to a more multi-platform outlook with their whole development process. It's likely to be a long slow journey for many of them, if it occurs at all.

Quoting: Boogiepop_PhantomProbably off-topic, so put it under spoiler.

Spoiler, click me

Quotebut how did you come to such conclusion?

I am actually live in one of aforementioned countries, and I doubt they will bring any kind of freedom to the world.

QuotePower of corporations is a grim alternative to power of dictators.

No, just no. All the most horrible atrocities were commit by states, governments. Look at 20th century and even now. Corporations are little children compared to them. Plus I never had this resentment against corporations to begin with. I would take Microsoft over Putin any day.

Spoiler, click me

This is something of a misconception. Governments do, it's true, do plenty of atrocities 'on their own hook' for reasons of state. But an awful lot of government atrocities are committed on behalf of corporations. So for instance, much of the impetus for WW I on the British, German and French sides at least was about cornering markets for their respective industrialists and financiers. Most of the impetus for colonialism was commercial; India was conquered largely for the benefit of the British East India company, the genocide in the Belgian Congo was an almost entirely private matter (the CEO happened to be a king, but the Belgian state had nothing to do with it) and so on. In Latin America, coups were fomented, dictators installed, thousands massacred and disappeared, mainly for the benefit of outfits such as the United Fruit Company. Nowadays the big players backing the wars tend to be oil companies, mining companies, military contractors (Halliburton anyone?)
Corporations play a huge role in the impetus for most wars and atrocities, and have for as long as they've existed.

Quoting: ageresSteamspy says there are 275 million active users on Steam. 0.27% is about 750 thousand. Maybe it's true that Linux users migrate to Windows? Before PUBG and China, there were 150m and 1% respectively, which gave us 1.5 million of Linux users.

Not necessarily. If Linux gamers play less, the percentages go down and those of Windows go up.

When Valve started with Linux in 2013, people usually played CS, L4D, TF or Dota. GTA V was only available for the consoles and PUBG did not exist. So the most popular games on Steam have been available for Linux in the first years. But today's evergreens like GTA V, PUBG or Rocket League are not controlled by Valve any more. Only for Rocket League they managed to organize a Linux port. Rocket League is usually number one in the Steam sales charts.

It weirds me out that with the thousands of games around, many of them really good, the statistics can be pulled around so much by one or two top-selling games. Clearly everyone's buying the top game because everyone else is buying the top game, not because it's one they will intrinsically find fun. The mindset unsettles me.

Quoting: Boogiepop_PhantomNo, just no. All the most horrible atrocities were commit by states, governments.

Spoiler, click me

Consider corporation, that basically became the government. What will prevent same atrocities from happening? Something like USSR was actually the case. The government had full monopoly on production.

Same Putin and his cronies basically control all of the big money in Russia. So here you have it.

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 December 2017 at 1:22 am UTC