Long story short, if the Steam Machine gains enough market share, game publishers will want to join in because it will mean more money for them. It's all about money.
Linux Gaming
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
Resources
WWW:
- Linux Gaming wiki
- Gaming on Linux
- ProtonDB
- Lutris
- PCGamingWiki
- LibreGameWiki
- Boiling Steam
- Phoronix
- Linux VR Adventures
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
Use Linux to game folks
I originally thought the Steam Deck would be enough for that, but it appears not yet. Maybe the combined share can move the needle
I didn't feel the steam deck is really a multi player device, as Valve mentions. It's more of a pick up and play for a little bit when I have the time or public transportation.
My solution is simple: if it does not work on Linux, the game is out.
Same. I didn't even move my Windows SSD over from my old computer. I wasn't using it before anyway, since a few years ago. Everything I play just mostly works in Linux now so what's the point. I didn't use Windows for anything else but Steam.
Kernel-level anti-cheat tools aren't even effective at stopping cheaters. They should just drop that dumb bullshit altogether.
Pretty much the answer I'd expect. In my most outlandish hopes, I'd love for this thing to serve as proper competition to the PS5, it's certainly more exciting than Xbox right now, and pretty much sounds like what MS is planning to try for the next Xbox anyway.
That's probably not likely, that kind of threat would require some really aggressive pricing, and Valve can't guarantee as much vendor lock-in money post-sale as Sony can. That said... man it'd be incredible to see Valve step into that near-monopoly as well and viably compete against both Switch and PS5, as they both pretty desperately need competition to keep them working for the consumer.
I agree it'll require aggressive pricing, and I'm also sure they know this. I think most of the predictions of price are too high. I won't be surprised if this is sold at a loss. Valve makes their money off the marketplace, not selling hardware. If they can move console players into their market, that'll provide huge returns.
Consoles used to be sold at a loss. They don't now because they don't directly compete really. Either people get both or they choose based on brand loyalty or peer pressure. I hope Valve comes in and has a price so low you can't ignore it if you're looking to buy a console. The Xbox Series S is $400. I'm expecting it'll be the same at most, potentially even lower if it's sold at a loss. If it's $300 then they'll shake up the market without a doubt.
If they sold it a $400 they'd be at a loss, at $300 they would crash the desktop market. People would by it for general desktop use. Similar how so many PS2 were bought just because it was the cheapest DVD player and didn't buy games.
Hell, there was a supercomputers built with PS3 clusters. Maybe that explains why the Steam Machine only has a 1Gbps nic...
I think the estimates are that $400 is reasonable for the hardware. It's not particularly great, and makes some sacrifices for cost saving, which is fine. Like 8GB VRAM is pretty low for modern hardware. It's enough for a lot of games, but modern AAA games it's probably a little low.
I agree, $300 will be good enough people will get it for a computer. That's what selling at a cost does. These manufacturers already get a bulk discount that buying as a consumer doesn't, and selling it at cost makes it even lower. It'll definitely be a good value for low performance computing, and I'd wager that's part of the goal too. It isn't just a console. It's also an alternative to your computer and, importantly for Valve, gets you out of the MS ecosystem.
Couldn't a problem be that If they set the price too low, companies buy them in bulk and using them as cheap, performant and sexy looking pcs? Consoles are very restricted in terms of os and other software, forcing people to use them in a way that almost guarantees you earning back your loss in the long term.
Steam machines are the opposite, you can install virtually anything on it and use them for whatever.
"We're expecting console numbers this time, and then they developers will have to support it."
There's really nothing new, it's the same as it was on the Steam Deck.
If the devs are not assholes they can easily allow Proton, from what Valve said before often all it takes is literally one checkbox on their side.
I agree, but I also want to point out it isn't the fault of the devs usually. It's the publisher and executives. The devs are just trying to make a good game.
That's true, but unfortunately some of them were against it for all the usual incorrect reasons. :/
What kind of shit question is that???
You should be questioning the game developers if they want to implement server side solutions instead of installing rootkits on users PCs and dictating what settings they should use.
Fuck off Eurogamer. No game should require any sort of kernel level access or setting change on your PC.
I mean, Valve could explicitly say that they have some trusted hardware and software stack or something and let games know whether the environment's been modified.
That'd require support from Valve and be about the only way that you could have both a way to run in locked down mode for multiplayer games where addressing cheating is a problem (and where I think the "closed console system" model is probably mote appropriate and the "open PC model" is at best kludged into kimda-sorta working like a console) and also let the system still run in an "open mode".
My own approach is just to not play most multiplayer competitive games on PCs. I've enjoyed them in the past, but for anything seriously reflex-oriented like FPSes, your reflexes go downhill with age anyway. And they come with all kinds of issues, even on a locked-down system that successfully avoids cheating. People griefing. You can't generally pause the game to use the toilet, deal with a screaming kid, or answer the door. The other players, unlike game AIs, aren't necessarily going to be optimized to play a "fun" game for me. You don't need an Internet connection, and being in a remote area isn't a limiting factor.
I think that the future is gonna be shifting towards better game AIs. Hard technical problems to solve there, but it's a ratchet
we only get better over time.
The burden should be on the developers and a server side solution. No PC should be invaded with software to stop cheating. It's cat and mouse anyway with client side detection, by chasing it so hard they are just incentivizing the creation of less and less detectable cheats.
The whole "its an untampered system" thing doesnt work. It's like Secure Boot now randomly being required in games. No user should have to enable or disable anything like that just to run a game. It's their device, they should have the freedom to do what they want and still run an application.
I think the invasion of bots in games is ruining them personally, no matter how old I get, or how bad I get at them, I still want to play against real players. I wouldnt mind a mode with just AI for people, but they should never be mixed in with real players.
Kernel level anything is malware and should not be allowed to be sold.
It's just a skill issue on the part of the developers.
Making anti-cheat properly is hard. Writing a spyware that watches everything that happens on your PC and blocks any attempts of touching the game is way easier, but bypassing that is easy with solutions that have higher privledges, thus being invisible even for the anti-cheat. You can just fake calls or hide memory from the anti-cheat, or just edit the anti-cheat in itself.
The solution for that is to run anti-cheat in the highest possible permission - the kernel.
Now, you could just make another kernel-level program that would have the same permissions to defeat that, or just edit your OS (i.e Linux, or a VM) where your cheat lives outside and has even higher privileges than the anti-cheat.
This is where Windows comes in - the only way to run kernel code is to have it signed by Microsoft, and that certification process is extremely difficult and annoying, which puts a pretty big hurdle in front of cheat developers. It's the easy way out.
You could also somehow reverse-engineer Windows and run a custom version to bypass this. And that's where TPM comes in, which (if I understood it right) validates that your Windows is the official signed one, and thus the kernel anti-cheat is safe. You can't have this kind of affirmation on Linux, and the lazy developers who don't want to invest into actual moderation and proper anti-cheat solutions just resort to kernel anti-cheat rootkit and require TPM to be enabled.
There's not much Steam can do about this, aside from locking up their OS with signign keys and certification for priviliged software, along with setting up the whole TPM so you can't run modified versions, which isn't really possible since they are based on Linux.
The solution for that is to run anti-cheat in the highest possible permission - the kernel.
Cheaters just sidestep the kernel entirely and use DMA hardware instead.

At the moment its rather expensive at ~$400 but prices will probably drop over time.
Oh, cool, so if I understand it right, you have a hardware that directly reads the physical memory, so you can access it unrestricted and undetectable from another PC, where the cheat runs, and then you use a HDMI fuser to merge the output of the game and the cheat that runs on the second PC on a single monitor.
That's actually really clever, I love solutions like this. Not that I approve of cheating, I have 0 respect for people who (unconsesualy, as in all involved parties agree to it being allowed) cheat. But from the hardware/security point of view, it's amazing.
Oh, cool. Tbh I haven't really looked into cheats much, but I did briefly work in cybersecurity where I was doing malware development, where AV avoidance is basically the same problem as game cheats are dealing with, so I just extrapolated what I assumed works the same.
This is a cool piece of tech, I'll look into it more. I like seeing new exploits, thanks!
That's too complicated to teabag people in Battlefield, but what would I know about the scene I'm not a part of.
Well, now I'm interested how far it can go in professional cheating. Any vids about that?
Not necessarily cheating, but use of external cheaters like this guy using an AI and electric shocks to have it move his arm
Thanks for sharing them. I'd consider the second one completely unfair, while the first one is, well, that's how I'd like to imagine the experience of occasional cheaters from now on.
They could also ban such games from their platform, which would be a huge hit to studios implementing rootkits.
You absolutely can have that and more, what we in industry, attestation on Linux. Though the most obvious adaptation of that would the confidential computing space for key bits of the game data instead of the whole fucking OS. Though hardware level memory encryption is a server CPU feature that I don't think any desktop ones support yet
Perhaps the issue is, partially, structural?
I know some games are super competitive, but what if we generally went back to user hosted (and moderated) lobbies? They clean their own house. Some cheaters would get through, sure, but I feel like there's more social pressure not to cheat among a group of friends vs. raging strangers.
We can't have that, it would stop them from killing games to make you buy the new version and would probably make implementing microtransactions harder
because online multiplayer games are now made as a service. they need a centralized server for matchmaking and give you access to micro-transactions
It also leaves room for something silly that I've always wanted to do
An online lobby where cheating is completely allowed
"Kernel-level anti-cheat" is just a PR term for malware, change my mind.
Malware with ring 0.
I remember buying a Steam Link directly from Valve back in the day for like $7 because of some sale they had. I really hope the same thing doesn't happen to the new Steam Machine
Steam link and controller! That was such an amazing deal
I think it would have to be wildly successful to achieve that goal but 🤞🤞