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

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.

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 Oct 2021 at 3:34 pm UTC

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.

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.

The 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 Oct 2021 at 7:36 pm UTC

The 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.

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.

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?

The 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.

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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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 Oct 2021 at 1:22 pm UTC

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.

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 Oct 2021 at 3:07 pm UTC