Probably not. Kernel level anti cheat is the problem. I know BF6 isn't proton safe. Fortnite is the same.
GTA VI will probably run single player on proton fine, GTA V does. Multiplayer will probably not.
The multiplayer with kernel level anti cheat will keep Sony safe through at least another generation; Microsoft is less safe as they're so vulnerable this generation anyway.
There's a circular opportunity though - if the SteamOS market share gets anywhere, then it might become worth it for these developers to support anti-cheat on the that platform. Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
> Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
This isn't really true. As GP said, there isn't a kernel level anti cheat for linux. You can switch a flick on BattleEye to run on linux but it wont be a kernel level as it is on windows. So there is an incentive for them to not turn it on because it simply is the worse version than the windows one. As far as I know even on windows you get cheats even if it is kernel level. Meaning, allowing linux you'd probably be flooded with cheaters if you already get them on windows.
These are not winner games these days. Gaming trends are so fast that indie games like the one where you play a duck with a gun is what's driving the gaming community these days.
That's a misconception. Majority of players are with the big Franchises, and they stay with them. The variety-gamers who are playing multiple different games are a minority, though they are a big crowd, loud and have for obvious reasons more attention, leading to this misconception. For example, Escape from Duckov, which you are speaking about, had at it's peak "just" roughly as many players as Battlefield 6 has on average every day. And Battlefield is the smaller one of the big games.
I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of - they're playing live service games that have been around for years. Games like League of Legends, Counterstrike, Fortnite, Dota, WoW, PUBG etc. Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. (Although Fifa and GTA definitely are.)
For example, the top 10 games in Korean PC bangs last week were:
1. League of Legends
2. PUBG (I think)
3. Fifa
4. Valorant
5. Overwatch 2
6. Sudden Attack (a KR FPS game)
7. Maple Story
8. Lost Ark
9. Dungeon Fighter Online
10. StarCraft (Brood War, I believe)
The next 15: Diablo 2 Resurrection, World of Warcraft, Diablo 4, Lineage, Eternal Return, Path of Exile, Warcraft 3, Black Desert, Cyphers, Aion, Path of Exile 2, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Tales Runner, Final Fantasy 14.
Lineage and Brood War weren't even made in this millennium!
That's a lot of guesswork for such a strong claim as yours. You can actually see gaming distribution on open steamdb[1] stats and every year the amount of games avg player plays grows higher and higher.
A linux native game called Banana got almost a million concurrent player peak (compared to #1 CS2 having only 1.8M). This didn't exist 10 years ago - the gaming landscape is entirely different in 2025.
This call that gamers generally play 1 game only is extremely dated especially when flavor of the month games are extremely in right now. I'm sure Valve with the biggest gaming dataset in the world didn't just dive into this blind.
I would say that‘s a bit overly simplified, as much as the indie or indie like game scene is thriving, so is the online multiplayer scene. Gaming is huge and just because one thing is big doesn’t mean another is not. Not a zero sum game here.
Sure but not being able to play 4 games is not an indication of success either way. It's not 2012 when you had to have Call of Duty - you can not have battlefield, cod or fort nite and still never run out of incredible, popular games to play.
Sure, but those AAA games still exist, and people still want to play them.
As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games?
There's a nonzero chance that BF6/GTA6/etc becomes a thing that everyone wants to play. If all your friends are raging about how much fun it is and are all playing together, aren't you going to regret buying a Steam Machine?
Sure, you can still play Super Meat Boy, but that doesn't matter - they regret what they can't do.
If there is a non-zero chance that I might want to play such a game, from time to time, I can stream it.
Why would I want to limit my options for occasional AAA gaming to the graphics supported by a particular console, when I can spring for GeForce Ultimate for a month and play BF6 with amazing graphics at 120 FPS, on my TV or my laptop, or my iPad or my phone? And play with even better graphics two years from now, as the state of the art advances.
Sure a different option would likely be best for people who know they want to play AAA, all the time. Although, even for many of these people, the Steam machine is probably a great second box for many, that gets you however many 100s or 1000s of titles they have in their Steam library.
But a fear based "you might miss out occasionally" argument is unpersuasive. Especially in a world where some games are exclusive. My swanky new PlayStation is no help if everyone is raving about the new Nintendo game.
>As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games?
???
Look at steam top 100, sure there are 2 or 3 games you wont be able to play on there, but there rest work just fine. And sure there are popular games outside steam, but even if none of them worked (which is not true), for most gamers its a non issue. (And Valve is probably not really concerned about them)
The only games this limits are online competitive (most of the time FPS) games. There are plenty of gamers, myself included, that have 0 interest in such games.
In short even if 0 online FPS games are playable on steam console(which is not true), there are still 10s of millions of gamers, who wouldn't care.
As far as why wouldn't people pick something that can play 100% of games is because they cant. Even the best PC cant play Nintendo games, not all PS games are on PC or xbox, etc. You always have a trade off. And plenty of people still buy PC's,Deck, PS5's and Switch consoles.
My guess id more people won't buy it because, they want better specs, not because a few games wont work on them.
But that still leaves millions, potentially tens of millions of people.
Nonsense. People don't buy a PS5 and regret they can't play League of Legends. There's been games exclusive to one platform or the other since the dawn of time, yet people still buy them for the games they do have.
That thing is going to run a ton of games that other consoles don't.
Few customers are going to replace their PC with it, but if you have the cash and want to add a sleek console to your living room that will also stream from your desktop in a pinch, it's probably a great deal.
No, and I understand if that's a deal-breaker for you, but for me I refuse avoid kernel level anticheat wherever possible, so I'm none too fussed about it. If a game wants to run malware, it can do it on a console where it's nice and segmented off from my general-purpose computing.
I can’t speak for brendo, but I do most of my gaming on a separate PC-class machine from my home workstation, both of which are separate from my work laptop and personal laptop.
I game primarily on my Linux PC, including multiplayer games. I do have a PS5 and other game consoles, though honestly, they see more use as set-top boxes than they do as gaming devices. I have a separate Windows laptop for work.
5 years ago, if someone told you about a commercial Linux gaming console. You were right to laugh.
Now, with IA cheating being the norm now, I think Valve has a real chance to add a microchip to "certify" its console and so playing Fornite (or over 3A) on it.
Will be a added value over a gaming PC, I don't think they will miss this opportunity for too long.
At least to start. Microsoft strongly encourages all Xbox games to also come out on PC, though they sometimes release later. I cannot find any game developed originally for Xbox Series X|S where this hasn't happened eventually (and the developers definitively aren't still working on the PC version).
I think Valve has a fairly good grasp of what they addressable market is at this point with the Steam Deck having been out for so long.
The value proposition is basically play your existing Steam library (and emulated games but that will be left unsaid) in 4k on your TV with an interface suited for it. I am not sure they are that dependent of upcoming games.
I will probably buy one because I really enjoy my Deck and I would like to play some more taxing games on a large screen from time to time and I’m never going to buy a PS5 because I have no interest in tying myself to Sony and playing exclusively on my TV.
If you can’t play Fortnite on it it sounds like a great time to line up a lawsuit against Epic Games for refusing to allow you to play Fortnite on the Steam box.
I can see developers work on SteamOS anticheat soon, once it gains more traction (chicken / egg problem though). Those games are available on mobile phones and consoles as well, so "windows" is not a requirement.
I think that the idea is that if you get enough users on Linux, it seems foolish from the game studio's perspective not to add Linux support to their anticheat.
Battlefield 6 might never run on the average Linux desktop, but I could see a future where it would run on Steam hardware in an end-to-end Secure Boot environment.
Jesus, since when Fortnite and BF6 became gaming benchmark nowadays?
In order to 'win' a console generation there needs to be support for the games people want to play. Capitalism is a literal popularity contest, and any console that doesn't have Fortnite, COD, FIFA, etc won't win, regardless of what you or I might think of the games.
The reason why Steam can't win a console generation is simply because Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have enough sway over publishers (especially ones they own) than they stop popular games being available on a rival platform. They market it as 'exclusives' but really it's just anti-consumer.
Probably not. Kernel level anti cheat is the problem. I know BF6 isn't proton safe. Fortnite is the same.
GTA VI will probably run single player on proton fine, GTA V does. Multiplayer will probably not.
The multiplayer with kernel level anti cheat will keep Sony safe through at least another generation; Microsoft is less safe as they're so vulnerable this generation anyway.
There's a circular opportunity though - if the SteamOS market share gets anywhere, then it might become worth it for these developers to support anti-cheat on the that platform. Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
> Some systems (notably BattleEye) actually have Linux support, they just need to enable it, but there's no incentive for them to do so.
This isn't really true. As GP said, there isn't a kernel level anti cheat for linux. You can switch a flick on BattleEye to run on linux but it wont be a kernel level as it is on windows. So there is an incentive for them to not turn it on because it simply is the worse version than the windows one. As far as I know even on windows you get cheats even if it is kernel level. Meaning, allowing linux you'd probably be flooded with cheaters if you already get them on windows.
7 replies →
Why not, isn’t it a win/win to increase the player base? What are the downsides?
After the CrowdStrike debacle, it’s amazing Microsoft isn’t coming for kernel-level gaming patches.
I don't think kernel-level anti-cheat is a big problem on company managed PCs.
GTA V multiplayer was working fine on Proton not too long ago. Haven't played in years though.
There where changes a few months ago. Multiplayer is completely non-viable since then.
These are not winner games these days. Gaming trends are so fast that indie games like the one where you play a duck with a gun is what's driving the gaming community these days.
That's a misconception. Majority of players are with the big Franchises, and they stay with them. The variety-gamers who are playing multiple different games are a minority, though they are a big crowd, loud and have for obvious reasons more attention, leading to this misconception. For example, Escape from Duckov, which you are speaking about, had at it's peak "just" roughly as many players as Battlefield 6 has on average every day. And Battlefield is the smaller one of the big games.
I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of - they're playing live service games that have been around for years. Games like League of Legends, Counterstrike, Fortnite, Dota, WoW, PUBG etc. Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. (Although Fifa and GTA definitely are.)
For example, the top 10 games in Korean PC bangs last week were:
1. League of Legends
2. PUBG (I think)
3. Fifa
4. Valorant
5. Overwatch 2
6. Sudden Attack (a KR FPS game)
7. Maple Story
8. Lost Ark
9. Dungeon Fighter Online
10. StarCraft (Brood War, I believe)
The next 15: Diablo 2 Resurrection, World of Warcraft, Diablo 4, Lineage, Eternal Return, Path of Exile, Warcraft 3, Black Desert, Cyphers, Aion, Path of Exile 2, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Tales Runner, Final Fantasy 14.
Lineage and Brood War weren't even made in this millennium!
3 replies →
That's a lot of guesswork for such a strong claim as yours. You can actually see gaming distribution on open steamdb[1] stats and every year the amount of games avg player plays grows higher and higher.
A linux native game called Banana got almost a million concurrent player peak (compared to #1 CS2 having only 1.8M). This didn't exist 10 years ago - the gaming landscape is entirely different in 2025.
This call that gamers generally play 1 game only is extremely dated especially when flavor of the month games are extremely in right now. I'm sure Valve with the biggest gaming dataset in the world didn't just dive into this blind.
1 - https://steamdb.info/charts/
3 replies →
I would say that‘s a bit overly simplified, as much as the indie or indie like game scene is thriving, so is the online multiplayer scene. Gaming is huge and just because one thing is big doesn’t mean another is not. Not a zero sum game here.
Sure but not being able to play 4 games is not an indication of success either way. It's not 2012 when you had to have Call of Duty - you can not have battlefield, cod or fort nite and still never run out of incredible, popular games to play.
7 replies →
Duckov is not indie. It's a reasonably sized game backed by a large (Chinese) publisher.
Sure, but those AAA games still exist, and people still want to play them.
As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games?
There's a nonzero chance that BF6/GTA6/etc becomes a thing that everyone wants to play. If all your friends are raging about how much fun it is and are all playing together, aren't you going to regret buying a Steam Machine?
Sure, you can still play Super Meat Boy, but that doesn't matter - they regret what they can't do.
According to your logic, then no one should be currently buying a Switch 2, because it won't play GTA6. Yet people are buying that console!
Is it you, or is it the children? No, it's definitely the children who are wrong.
7 replies →
If there is a non-zero chance that I might want to play such a game, from time to time, I can stream it.
Why would I want to limit my options for occasional AAA gaming to the graphics supported by a particular console, when I can spring for GeForce Ultimate for a month and play BF6 with amazing graphics at 120 FPS, on my TV or my laptop, or my iPad or my phone? And play with even better graphics two years from now, as the state of the art advances.
Sure a different option would likely be best for people who know they want to play AAA, all the time. Although, even for many of these people, the Steam machine is probably a great second box for many, that gets you however many 100s or 1000s of titles they have in their Steam library.
But a fear based "you might miss out occasionally" argument is unpersuasive. Especially in a world where some games are exclusive. My swanky new PlayStation is no help if everyone is raving about the new Nintendo game.
>As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games?
???
Look at steam top 100, sure there are 2 or 3 games you wont be able to play on there, but there rest work just fine. And sure there are popular games outside steam, but even if none of them worked (which is not true), for most gamers its a non issue. (And Valve is probably not really concerned about them)
The only games this limits are online competitive (most of the time FPS) games. There are plenty of gamers, myself included, that have 0 interest in such games.
In short even if 0 online FPS games are playable on steam console(which is not true), there are still 10s of millions of gamers, who wouldn't care.
As far as why wouldn't people pick something that can play 100% of games is because they cant. Even the best PC cant play Nintendo games, not all PS games are on PC or xbox, etc. You always have a trade off. And plenty of people still buy PC's,Deck, PS5's and Switch consoles.
My guess id more people won't buy it because, they want better specs, not because a few games wont work on them.
But that still leaves millions, potentially tens of millions of people.
Exactly, this competes with a second hand PS5.
Nonsense. People don't buy a PS5 and regret they can't play League of Legends. There's been games exclusive to one platform or the other since the dawn of time, yet people still buy them for the games they do have.
That thing is going to run a ton of games that other consoles don't.
Few customers are going to replace their PC with it, but if you have the cash and want to add a sleek console to your living room that will also stream from your desktop in a pinch, it's probably a great deal.
thats not accurate. they have improved, but the market does not look as you described
No, and I understand if that's a deal-breaker for you, but for me I refuse avoid kernel level anticheat wherever possible, so I'm none too fussed about it. If a game wants to run malware, it can do it on a console where it's nice and segmented off from my general-purpose computing.
It's not a deal breaker for me, but it doesn't sound like a recipe for "winning the console generation".
Do you also game on a separate windows/Linux user?
I can’t speak for brendo, but I do most of my gaming on a separate PC-class machine from my home workstation, both of which are separate from my work laptop and personal laptop.
I game primarily on my Linux PC, including multiplayer games. I do have a PS5 and other game consoles, though honestly, they see more use as set-top boxes than they do as gaming devices. I have a separate Windows laptop for work.
1 reply →
5 years ago, if someone told you about a commercial Linux gaming console. You were right to laugh.
Now, with IA cheating being the norm now, I think Valve has a real chance to add a microchip to "certify" its console and so playing Fornite (or over 3A) on it.
Will be a added value over a gaming PC, I don't think they will miss this opportunity for too long.
It’s unlikely you’ll be able to play GTA 6 on any PC platform as it’s only coming out on consoles.
At least to start. Microsoft strongly encourages all Xbox games to also come out on PC, though they sometimes release later. I cannot find any game developed originally for Xbox Series X|S where this hasn't happened eventually (and the developers definitively aren't still working on the PC version).
And they might eventually steer all games into XBox store.
I am expecting the day Microsoft decides to take all their studios out of Steam, if SteamOS starts to be too much of a pain.
no but the headline is "valve is about to win the console generation"
I think Valve has a fairly good grasp of what they addressable market is at this point with the Steam Deck having been out for so long.
The value proposition is basically play your existing Steam library (and emulated games but that will be left unsaid) in 4k on your TV with an interface suited for it. I am not sure they are that dependent of upcoming games.
I will probably buy one because I really enjoy my Deck and I would like to play some more taxing games on a large screen from time to time and I’m never going to buy a PS5 because I have no interest in tying myself to Sony and playing exclusively on my TV.
If you can’t play Fortnite on it it sounds like a great time to line up a lawsuit against Epic Games for refusing to allow you to play Fortnite on the Steam box.
I can see developers work on SteamOS anticheat soon, once it gains more traction (chicken / egg problem though). Those games are available on mobile phones and consoles as well, so "windows" is not a requirement.
If any game has DRM or anti-cheat technology which BF6 does and even most AAA games, then it cannot play it at all without it.
That is going to be a no go for any SteamOS device when an highly anticipated game gets released on day 1.
I think that the idea is that if you get enough users on Linux, it seems foolish from the game studio's perspective not to add Linux support to their anticheat.
Not necessarily, the anticheat will end up much easier to defeat on Linux.
9 replies →
ARC Raiders runs fine with anticheat on Linux. As does the Finals.
Market pressure can change game studios behavior.
Battlefield 6 might never run on the average Linux desktop, but I could see a future where it would run on Steam hardware in an end-to-end Secure Boot environment.
Gamers don't like playing with cheaters.
7 replies →
Not the case - lots of games including AAA ones have these things on the Steam Deck.
anti-cheat is one thing, but i'm not aware of any DRM that doesn't work on linux? I know denuvo is one of the most popular ones and it definitely does
Jesus, since when Fortnite and BF6 became gaming benchmark nowadays?
There’s Dota 2, CS2, TF2 all of which are much better games that you’ve listed, and thousands games more.
And you can absolutely play GTA, thankfully without horrendous online. The only thing steam should do is to ban their shitty launcher for eternity.
Jesus, since when Fortnite and BF6 became gaming benchmark nowadays?
In order to 'win' a console generation there needs to be support for the games people want to play. Capitalism is a literal popularity contest, and any console that doesn't have Fortnite, COD, FIFA, etc won't win, regardless of what you or I might think of the games.
The reason why Steam can't win a console generation is simply because Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have enough sway over publishers (especially ones they own) than they stop popular games being available on a rival platform. They market it as 'exclusives' but really it's just anti-consumer.
That you are talking about a hypothetical game not running says enough...
Fortnite came out in '17, at some point it's no longer going to be relevant.
Counter Strike came out in '99 and it's more relevant than ever. Some games just keep going and going.
Its not the same game today as it was '99. You could try to make the argument for Fortnite but the differences are not substantial.
Point being that if changes are a given, then it's possible for it to run on Linux in the future.
I hate to break it to you, but CS is not relevant. How much money do you think it makes, compared to recent top sellers or live service/mobile games?
7 replies →