A look at the top 100 Steam games and how many will work on Linux and the Steam Deck

Quoting: CFWhitmanI suspect that there are legal obstacles to them shipping protonGE, or they would already make it available through Steam.

That was the first thing i asked about:

Quoting: kokoko3kAre there licensing issues i'm not aware of?

Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoEverytime that somebody suggest to install a WMF patch with a link included, Kisak delete it because is a "legally problematic workaround"

Thanks :)

Quoting: BielFPsOn the contrary, popular games can separate a company from being a big profitable one to bankruptcy. Take Nintendo for example, a multi millionaire multinational company which holds in 3 specific franchises: Mario, Zelda and Pokemon. It doesn't matter if they have less games that other platforms, or if the competition have more capable performance, because people are willing to buy their products in order to play those popular ones. And if for some reason they launch an console without those games, then it would fail for sure.

But they have control over exclusivity. You want to play Mario kart? Buy Switch. There's zero chance valve would convince other developers on Linux exclusivity to make this work. They could only make their games so exclusive, but what have they released lately? Alyx? It is already trying to take this approach with VR. Exclusivity for both Linux and VR would kill it.

Quoting: BielFPsThey still could do it by sponsoring already consolidated games (like the ones in this article for example). If Linux was the only platform that steam supported, then Valve would need to do this (like consoles do for example). Since Valve profits from both systems they don't have any reason to heavily push one of them.

Well, they can achieve the same result with a proton. Moreover, it is possible that the approach of sponsoring development was what convinced Anticheat to support proton.

Quoting: BielFPsA whole lot, and this article is the illustration of it. When you're a big company selling something quantities of sales matter (sometimes over quality unfortunately), 1 game played by thousands matter more than 100 games played by 10 people, you may don't agree with it but it's the reality.

Almost everyone has an old game that they think they'll play sometimes even if they're not playing it at the moment.

Quoting: CFWhitmanThey can do this as long as they don't care about missing out on any sales that would go to Steam Deck owners. In that case

It all depends on the math with costs with supporting another platform (yes support, because they have to make sure bugs don't happen like the AC banning people for using proton for example) versus potentially new sales (those who already bough the game / DLC doesn't count)

Quoting: CFWhitmanChanging the operating system to Windows is not something the majority of people will be interested in doing (especially not permanently).

With motivation (like more games / that specific game who doesn't run on steam) and a YouTube tutorial they can.

Quoting: CFWhitmanYes, very much so. Valve making sure Windows will install is in no way the same thing as supporting it.

And what else do they need? Steam already supports Windows since it's conception, and AMD will probably release those drivers for windows too (not doing so would be bad PR for then).

Quoting: CFWhitmanYou seem assured that running Windows on the Steam Deck will be a very common thing.

It will if games that people want to play doesn't work with SteamOS, once people spend money with the device they will do whatever it takes to make sure it works as they intended, and Valve will have profit from that in both ways.

Quoting: BielFPsIt will if games that people want to play doesn't work with SteamOS, once people spend money with the device they will do whatever it takes to make sure it works as they intended, and Valve will have profit from that in both ways.

I can't say either how often this will happen. But most ordinary people to not tinker with their device following some YouTube tips. This might be an impression to get when moving in nerd circles and their websites, but it's not the average Joe and Jane.

Quoting: ArtenBut they have control over exclusivity. You want to play Mario kart? Buy Switch.

Exactly, which confirms the point I'm trying to say

You said before

Quoting: ArtenSponsoring popular games would not be an effective use of resources, regardless of the reason.

and

Quoting: ArtenBesides, how many people play just popular games?

And then you give yourself an example. The fact people are willing to spend money on a console only to play a popular game / franchise (with exclusivity or not) shows the power of popular games.

You have no idea how many consoles Sony / Microsoft sold just because of people who want to play FIFA with a joystick.

Quoting: ArtenWell, they can achieve the same result with a proton. Moreover, it is possible that the approach of sponsoring development was what convinced Anticheat to support proton.

If they support it, AC works different from games so those who opt in will have to make sure the AC software is not banning people wrongly, and to do this has costs. So don't be surprised if the situation doesn't change so much after deck release.

Quoting: ArtenAlmost everyone has an old game that they think they'll play sometimes even if they're not playing it at the moment.

Old games doesn't generate so much revenue like new games, specially if people already bough it. And if those old games are already working right now them opt-in in the AC support won't be necessary for the companies.

Quoting: EikeI can't say either how often this will happen. But most ordinary people to not tinker with their device following some YouTube tips. This might be an impression to get when moving in nerd circles and their websites, but it's not the average Joe and Jane.

Then average Joe and Jane might not even buy deck in this case, usually what brings people to buy a new console is "I want to play this specific game on it".

Let's take the hype of the moment for example: Amazon's New World

If Steam deck was released today and you said to the average users "you can play New world on it" then this might give impulse for people to buy it. (Gave this example as a "hyped" game, let's not enter into the technical specs)

-If you say "This game doesn't work on it" and average people won't buy it, then it'll result in less steam deck sales.

-Less steam deck sales results in less games being bought because of it.

-Less games being bought results in companies not bothering to opt-in / support AC on SteamOS / Linux.

-Companies not supporting AC software on SteamOS / Linux means the situation will remain the same for us as it is today (or worse if Valve suddenly decides to reduce investments on Linux gaming).

The two main point I said before all these people quoting me was
-Valve profit from both Windows and Linux sales, despite deck success or not
-Valve is not support Linux for ideological reasons, but because Linux is a way to make then independent to Microsoft.

Quoting: BielFPsThe two main point I said before all these people quoting me was
-Valve profit from both Windows and Linux sales, despite deck success or not
-Valve is not support Linux for ideological reasons, but because Linux is a way to make then independent to Microsoft.

I want to make it clear that I never intended to contradict these two points. They are both true.

I do think, however, that if the Steam Deck were to be turned into something that most people converted to Windows, Valve would consider it a failed attempt to further establish their independence from Microsoft. Having people running Windows on the Steam Deck is not their goal, despite that still being profitable for them.

I also have serious doubts that any less than 75%, and probably more like 90%+, of Steam Deck owners will keep Steam OS as the installed system (at least for the first three years) just because that's what came on it.

(Edit: I would like to add that I don't think Valve would go to all the trouble they have supporting Linux strictly for ideological reasons, but I do think that Gabe Newell likes that supporting Linux also is in line with his ideology on the subject of operating systems.)


Last edited by CFWhitman on 7 October 2021 at 3:34 pm UTC

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: BielFPsThe two main point I said before all these people quoting me was
-Valve profit from both Windows and Linux sales, despite deck success or not
-Valve is not support Linux for ideological reasons, but because Linux is a way to make then independent to Microsoft.

I want to make it clear that I never intended to contradict these two points. They are both true.

I do think, however, that if the Steam Deck were to be turned into something that most people converted to Windows, Valve would consider it a failed attempt to further establish their independence from Microsoft. Having people running Windows on the Steam Deck is not their goal, despite that still being profitable for them.

I also have serious doubts that any less than 75%, and probably more like 90%+, of Steam Deck owners will keep Steam OS as the installed system (at least for the first three years) just because that's what came on it.

(Edit: I would like to add that I don't think Valve would go to all the trouble they have supporting Linux strictly for ideological reasons, but I do think that Gabe Newell likes that supporting Linux also is in line with his ideology on the subject of operating systems.)

The mere fact that one is even allowed to install Windows on the Steam Deck negates this argument.

I hope most people keep Linux on the Steam Deck. However, I've known enough Windows gamer's over the years to know that many of them will be more than willing to install Windows on the Steam Deck even if it is something they normally wouldn't do.

Quoting: KohlyKohlThe mere fact that one is even allowed to install Windows on the Steam Deck negates this argument.

I don't think it does. Aside from it being fundamentally hard to claim you're advocating for open systems while peddling a closed machine, there's a gamble there.
The question is, can Valve get more sales to people who wouldn't buy if the safety, ahem, valve of Windows as an option weren't there, than the number of people who end up actually exercising that option? If they can get the SteamOS Steam Deck and Proton working smooth enough, arguably few people will feel the need to go to the trouble of installing for themselves a not-actively-supported OS on the device.

So like, say they sell three million units to people who would buy the thing no matter what OS was running or available on it. That by itself would be three million Linux installs they would get with a locked down machine.
And say they sell another one million to people who are skeptical of SteamOS/Linux but figure if it's a problem they can always load Windows on it. But only 200,000 of those actually do so. Then they have 3.8 million Linux installs instead of 3 million--a net gain. Even if a couple hundred thousand of the original three million end up ripping out Linux, they're still ahead on the open platform vs the closed.

And they'll probably get some sales, though not in huge numbers, to people who have no intention of putting Windows on it but are interested in the idea of having a Switch-like thing that isn't crippleware, that they can tinker with in different ways. Those people are also often influencers, so they could boost broader sales by talking the thing up. So leaving it open has that benefit.

It's still a gamble. If SteamOS and Proton don't deliver and users get frustrated, and so lots of people who started out platform agnostic end up ripping SteamOS out and putting on Windows, they could end up with less net Linux installs than if they'd sold a locked down device. But if it's that bad it'll be a failure anyway so whether it's locked down becomes kind of moot.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 13 October 2021 at 7:36 pm UTC

Quoting: KohlyKohlThe mere fact that one is even allowed to install Windows on the Steam Deck negates this argument.

How so? Do you know what "negates this argument" means? It implies a significant logical flaw that makes the argument invalid. Even if what I said turns out not to be the case, it would not be logically flawed; it would merely be incorrect.

Quoting: KohlyKohlI hope most people keep Linux on the Steam Deck. However, I've known enough Windows gamer's over the years to know that many of them will be more than willing to install Windows on the Steam Deck even if it is something they normally wouldn't do.

We'll see I suppose. I don't see a high percentage of people moving it to Windows unless Valve "drops the ball" somehow. The most likely way I could see would be if this is too soon for the whole Proton/Steam OS approach to be truly ready (or, conceivably, that the Proton/Steam OS approach could never be ready enough).

What kind of chipset has the SteamDeck?

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: KohlyKohlThe mere fact that one is even allowed to install Windows on the Steam Deck negates this argument.

How so? Do you know what "negates this argument" means? It implies a significant logical flaw that makes the argument invalid. Even if what I said turns out not to be the case, it would not be logically flawed; it would merely be incorrect.

Quoting: KohlyKohlI hope most people keep Linux on the Steam Deck. However, I've known enough Windows gamer's over the years to know that many of them will be more than willing to install Windows on the Steam Deck even if it is something they normally wouldn't do.

We'll see I suppose. I don't see a high percentage of people moving it to Windows unless Valve "drops the ball" somehow. The most likely way I could see would be if this is too soon for the whole Proton/Steam OS approach to be truly ready (or, conceivably, that the Proton/Steam OS approach could never be ready enough).

Your argument was that Valve wanted SteamOS VIA Linux to succeed. By allowing Windows to be installed on Steam Deck, it negates that argument as SteamOS 3.0 will also be on Windows.

By allowing other ecosystem, such as different manufacturers or different operating systems, it shows that they are fine with whatever happens. They only care about Steam succeeding and they are hoping that Steam Deck furthers that goal.

Dying Light should be listed as Linux Native (broken) if anything. People literally tell you to use the Windows version on Proton over the Native one.

Quoting: KohlyKohl

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: KohlyKohlThe mere fact that one is even allowed to install Windows on the Steam Deck negates this argument.

How so? Do you know what "negates this argument" means? It implies a significant logical flaw that makes the argument invalid. Even if what I said turns out not to be the case, it would not be logically flawed; it would merely be incorrect.

Quoting: KohlyKohlI hope most people keep Linux on the Steam Deck. However, I've known enough Windows gamer's over the years to know that many of them will be more than willing to install Windows on the Steam Deck even if it is something they normally wouldn't do.

We'll see I suppose. I don't see a high percentage of people moving it to Windows unless Valve "drops the ball" somehow. The most likely way I could see would be if this is too soon for the whole Proton/Steam OS approach to be truly ready (or, conceivably, that the Proton/Steam OS approach could never be ready enough).

Your argument was that Valve wanted SteamOS VIA Linux to succeed. By allowing Windows to be installed on Steam Deck, it negates that argument as SteamOS 3.0 will also be on Windows.

By allowing other ecosystem, such as different manufacturers or different operating systems, it shows that they are fine with whatever happens. They only care about Steam succeeding and they are hoping that Steam Deck furthers that goal.

You asserting that doesn't make it so. Is there some argument you're not making because you think it's self-evident? 'Cause, my previous post explains why I don't think it's self-evident.

Quoting: KohlyKohlYour argument was that Valve wanted SteamOS VIA Linux to succeed. By allowing Windows to be installed on Steam Deck, it negates that argument as SteamOS 3.0 will also be on Windows.

You do realize that Steam OS 3 is a Linux distribution and will not be "on Windows." Steam has been on Windows a long time. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. (Edit: It occurs to me that perhaps you are talking about the new UI mode for Steam? That will be available for all Steam clients, including the Windows one, yes, and will replace Big Picture Mode.)

Quoting: KohlyKohlBy allowing other ecosystem, such as different manufacturers or different operating systems, it shows that they are fine with whatever happens. They only care about Steam succeeding and they are hoping that Steam Deck furthers that goal.

This does not follow at all. Valve wants the Steam Deck to be an open AMD64 hardware platform. That means allowing Windows. If people put Windows on it, Valve can still make a profit on games bought for it, so they won't altogether lose financially if that happens. That doesn't mean they don't care whether Steam OS on the Steam Deck succeeds or not. They put work into that for a reason. They want it to succeed. Hedging your bets does not mean you don't care about the outcome.


Last edited by CFWhitman on 14 October 2021 at 1:22 pm UTC

Quoting: AederDying Light should be listed as Linux Native (broken) if anything. People literally tell you to use the Windows version on Proton over the Native one.

For me it was fine enough on NVidia proprietary drivers, but after switching to AMD and Mesa it's much harder to get working. Haven't tried yet compiling custom Mesa, so I haven't personally verified if workaround works.

Which of course means that on SteamDeck it could be pretty much broken without Proton.


Last edited by Anza on 14 October 2021 at 3:07 pm UTC