6 ms·

The only reason Linux now sees support is because it tied in with Valve's desire for a handheld console and them wanting to rattle MS's cage a bit by showing ho

The only reason Linux now sees support is because it tied in with Valve's desire for a handheld console and them wanting to rattle MS's cage a bit by showing how much better games ran on Linux. It worked; MS has devoted more effort in recent years to fixing gaming issues. The number of Steam Decks pales in comparison to the number of Macs, which now represent 30% market share of desktops, while linux is still stuck around 3%.

dinkblam 3y ago
Apple does not have a market share of 30% of desktops. Even it it had, what matters here is actual number of players. Steam stats come in at Windows 96.94% Linux 1.63% macOS 1.43% [1]. So when they say excluded platforms account for 1%, they are right, barring rounding errors. [1]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
- zymhan 3y ago
  Steam stats won't account for users who don't install Steam because there are no games they can run.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Valve is more concerned with meeting games were they are, not where they hypothetically could be. In the case of Linux (more gamers on Linux than Macs, although it's close), Valve has additional reason to care because they view Linux as insurance against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. Clearly they don't feel the same way about Macs (makes sense, because their Windows customers could more readily switch to Linux than Macs). So if gamers are already acquiring Windows/Linux machines to play games, why should Valve waste their resources trying to bring about a hypothetical reality where gamers choose to buy Macs instead? It's not Valve's responsibility to engage in pro-Mac activism. It would be weird if they were doing so.
    - KerrAvon 3y ago
      > Valve is more concerned with meeting games were they are, not where they hypothetically could be. I have no comment on the rest of it, but this is clearly false. Valve has been trying to make gaming on Linux happen for a long time now.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        As I said, Linux has more importance to Valve than can be accounted for by its popularity because Valve sees Linux as a hedge against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > Valve has additional reason to care because they view Linux as insurance against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. Clearly they don't feel the same way about Macs (makes sense, because their Windows customers could more readily switch to Linux than Macs). Agreed, and I think that's quite wise. When it comes to escaping tight-reigned dictators that can threaten your business, Apple is out of the frying pan an into the fire. Imagine if they invested heavily into macs and then Apple required all mac software to go through their store (with 30% cut of course) like they do on iOS? That would be disastrous
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    Why? Mac users are cornered into exclusively a mobile device(MacBooks) and will more than likely purchase game consoles... or even just use remote play services(I use GeForce Now) Windows users are already on Windows and Windows machines are much more open to dual-booting Linux... if needed.
    - Toutouxc 3y ago
      > Mac users are cornered into exclusively a mobile device(MacBooks) Huh? iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Studio, Mac Pro.
      - JAlexoid 3y ago
        And the sales of those are even remotely comparable to Windows desktops or MacBooks?
- pjmlp 3y ago
  No, but it has more iOS and iPad devices than Valve will ever ship SteamDecks.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    iOS isn't relevant to Valve due to the way Apple chooses to do business, so why bring that up?
    - SirMaster 3y ago
      What about after sideloading is allowed?
      - Macha 3y ago
        The vast majority of mobile games are not really substitutes for PC games the way e.g. console games are, except in the super broad "Netflix: Our biggest competitor is video games because customers only have so much time" way.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      It is relevant to Apple customers that care about playing games and don't need to care Valve exists at all.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        In other words, it's not relevant to the discussion at all.
        pjmlp 3y ago
        It is, as it shows Valve's decision doesn't matter to Apple customers, they have enough games from other publishers.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
- ok_dad 3y ago
  Rounding 3% to 1% is a hell of a rounding!
dangus 3y ago
There’s another problem with Mac gaming: even though Macs have a higher marketshare than they’ve ever had before, they aren’t owned by people who are expecting to use them for games. Someone who is into the PC gaming scene already owns a gaming PC by now. If they own a Mac it’s probably their productivity machine. It’s obviously an anecdote but that’s how I do things. I have a gaming PC and all it does is gaming. My Mac is for portable computing and general productivity. Even though I own a Mac and some of my games work on Mac (like Baldur’s Gate 3), I rarely if ever use that Mac for gaming. I think it’s on Apple to put real money into changing that perception (and to make the OS a little better for gaming - for example, Windows handles window management for games better, Mac handles mice with scroll wheels terribly unless you get third party software).
Nodebuck 3y ago
Valve has supported Linux for over a decade[1], way before they made any hardware. It makes sense for them to not rely on Microsoft which have threatened their position as a gaming store before with UWP games appearing exclusively on Microsoft Store and the win32 platform potentially being killed off (which all turned out to be a flop in the end). [1] https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/9289 https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/9289
throitallaway 3y ago
> MS has devoted more effort in recent years to fixing gaming issues. Could've fooled me. Their first party title Halo MCC is riddled with bugs (crashes, textures not loading, etc.) and has cheaters flaunting super speed in multiplayer.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  Delta Halo on Halo 2 is practically unbeatable on Legendary mode due to crashes, unless you use the original graphics. The big was reported to 343 years ago, I think back when MCC was still an Xbox exclusive, and they still haven't fixed it. And they don't give you any warning about it, you only figure it out after the game crashes halfway through the level for the 5th time and you decide to start Googling it.
some-guy 3y ago
I'm sure the number of Steam Decks is far higher than the number of people gaming on their Mac.
- philistine 3y ago
  Nope.
zamalek 3y ago
> The only reason Linux now sees support is because it tied in with Valve's desire for a handheld console Valve have been improving/supporting Linux gaming for almost a decade[1]. Apple figured out that privacy is a marketable product. They don't do it because of altruism, they do it because it makes extreme amounts of money. Likewise, Valve figured out that doing good by the customer is a marketable product. Gamer loyalty to Valve is an insurmountable fortress that no other storefront has managed to pierce. The likes of TotalBiscuit and AngryJoe galvanized the PC gaming community into one that does not tolerate anti-consumer bullshit, and anti-consumer bullshit Apple does. > The number of Steam Decks pales in comparison to the number of Macs, which now represent 30% market share of desktops, while linux is still stuck around 3%. Which is completely irrelevant to gamers. A substantial amount choose to have a console and no desktop/laptop machine at all[2]. Linux is trending up [3], while MacOS trending down (and in addition is installed on fewer gaming machines than Linux overall) [4]. MacOS is completely and utterly irrelevant to gaming - unless you're talking about Candy Crush and the sort. This is unlikely to change unless Apple has a radical change in direction regarding gaming; both in terms of hardware and business model. They have clearly and loudly demonstrated that they have no interest in either: you can't use GPUs with MacOS, and their fork of WINE is neither free nor upstreamed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) [2]: https://venturebeat.com/games/pc-and-console-sales-are-down-but-the-market-is-stabilizing-newzoo/ https://venturebeat.com/games/pc-and-console-sales-are-down-... [3]: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/steam-tracker/ https://www.gamingonlinux.com/steam-tracker/ [4]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...
- Panzer04 3y ago
  It helps that by and large gamers on PC are savvy enough to pirate if stores get too frisky. It's amazing valve managed to establish such a moat that they can take their 30% cut.
  - seec 3y ago
    That's because even with their cut the price consumers pay stays reasonable most of the time (and there is the second hand market). Thanks to sales and events you won't be paying 60 bucks for a 5 year old game. But thats how it works in the Mac App Store (I guess we should be thankful its not outright subscription yet). The reality is that developers follow Apple commercial practices on their platform (can't blame them) and it doesn't lead to an interesting competitive market. In fact I would argue that most peoples are getting priced out of the Apple market, they just didn't realise yet. It seems that their strategy is making and accommodating only luxury/premium priced products, so they are going to make a good amount of money for a bit but in the long term their technology will become irrelevant. And this is exactly what's happening with their M silicon despite what the general sentiment seems to be. Apart from lower power they are not actually that impressive in real world tasks and particularly not in gaming (optimised or not). In fact after switching to their own silicon, Apple has mostly increased the price to access a particular performance level, and I would argue that previous Intel machines were better gaming machines at equivalent prices points. Without concerning yourself about prices one can see that in best case scenario (taking Metal benchmarks for reference and extrapolating when needed) : M2 can be about as good as an AMD Ryzen APU destined to notebook/laptops (6800U) M2 Pro seems to be in between a RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 and it would be a slightly slower RTX 3080 laptop. M2 Max can be slightly faster than a RTX 3060 but slower than a RTX 4060 laptop ; it seems to be equivalent to the Radeon RX 7700S (AMD describe it as a notebook part...). M2 Ultra is irrelevant because it doesn't provide real improvements in graphics performance. Realistically the only way to get this low level of performance would be to buy a laptop (not too high end) or to go for pretty old or entry level desktop part. Now if we talk about AAA games, M2 is pretty much useless, it is somewhat better than previous Intel iGPUs but that isn't saying much ; you still won't be able to run anything graphically intensive at 1080P in an enjoyable manner. M2 Pro could potentially run some of the less demanding games with a decent experience (around 60 fps stable) but it starts around 1.5K in a desktop form factor (naked, no K&M nor display) yet it perform worse than cheaper 3050Ti laptops (that have all those things !). In laptop form factor it starts at 2.4K but is generally much worse in gaming performance than a similarly priced/specced PC laptop. And it feels that talking about M2 Max in any form factor is a major waste of time because it starts at 2.4k for the naked desktop but you can buy a better performing (for games at least) desktop PC and still have money left over to buy a Macbook Air (not even the cheapest version). So unless you really need that power for a macOS only software that properly use the new arch it doesn't make any sense. Not only very few will buy but they won't even think about gaming on it. It is unsurprising, after all the M2 Max has barely more Gflops than the 550$ Xbox Series X... Before their own silicon Apple was not particularly good at gaming (especially on the entry level) but at least if you were willing to pay you could access a decent level of performance. It wasn't very competitively priced but the premium was worth all the other benefits. For example an iMac 27 inch with a RX 5700 XT would cost you over 3K but it was worth it for the whole package (especially the display). Now even if you want to spend 3K on a mac, not only you won't get any package at all but the graphics performance will perform worse than this 3 year old iMac. And that is before talking about architectural optimisation problem and general support. So I believe Valve sees that and decided (rightfully) that it wasn't worth their time. Previously it was just a matter of making a build that could run in the macOS GUI and it wasn't too much work because both GPU and CPU APIs could be almost identical. I'm sure there were some differences at compile time but it didn't ask for a large parallel port and a decent amount of customers could get a pretty good experience (high end Macs and eGPU users). But now they would need to maintain a parallel port that would diverge in significant ways (even if we just account for the GPU code) and on top of that even the most high-end customers would only get a performance that would be considered ok for mid-range/high-end laptop. It is just not worth it. Considering that the 3nm A17 Pro isn't really the revolution it was touted to be ; this is probably the right move. Not only Apple hardware is becoming irrelevant to enthusiast but it seems it will not improve for a while (maybe ever) considering the A17 already has heat issues even though it isn't a whole lot faster it looks like M3 chips will run hotter and use more power without really closing the gap. Reality is catching up to the Apple arrogance, you can buy monopoly power on a technical advantage once but eventually competition is going to come around. Now is the time and I think it is only the start. Most cross platform software that needs a significant rewrite won't get ported to Apple Silicon, it doesn't make sense considering the weak hardware. They'll come and say : but it doesnt use a lot of power. Yeah I would be pretty mad if my slow small car would use as much gas as Porsche...

dinkblam 3y ago

Apple does not have a market share of 30% of desktops. Even it it had, what matters here is actual number of players. Steam stats come in at Windows 96.94% Linux 1.63% macOS 1.43% [1]. So when they say excluded platforms account for 1%, they are right, barring rounding errors. [1]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

zymhan 3y ago
Steam stats won't account for users who don't install Steam because there are no games they can run.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Valve is more concerned with meeting games were they are, not where they hypothetically could be. In the case of Linux (more gamers on Linux than Macs, although it's close), Valve has additional reason to care because they view Linux as insurance against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. Clearly they don't feel the same way about Macs (makes sense, because their Windows customers could more readily switch to Linux than Macs). So if gamers are already acquiring Windows/Linux machines to play games, why should Valve waste their resources trying to bring about a hypothetical reality where gamers choose to buy Macs instead? It's not Valve's responsibility to engage in pro-Mac activism. It would be weird if they were doing so.
  - KerrAvon 3y ago
    > Valve is more concerned with meeting games were they are, not where they hypothetically could be. I have no comment on the rest of it, but this is clearly false. Valve has been trying to make gaming on Linux happen for a long time now.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      As I said, Linux has more importance to Valve than can be accounted for by its popularity because Valve sees Linux as a hedge against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Valve has additional reason to care because they view Linux as insurance against anti-competitive behavior from Microsoft. Clearly they don't feel the same way about Macs (makes sense, because their Windows customers could more readily switch to Linux than Macs). Agreed, and I think that's quite wise. When it comes to escaping tight-reigned dictators that can threaten your business, Apple is out of the frying pan an into the fire. Imagine if they invested heavily into macs and then Apple required all mac software to go through their store (with 30% cut of course) like they do on iOS? That would be disastrous
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  Why? Mac users are cornered into exclusively a mobile device(MacBooks) and will more than likely purchase game consoles... or even just use remote play services(I use GeForce Now) Windows users are already on Windows and Windows machines are much more open to dual-booting Linux... if needed.
  - Toutouxc 3y ago
    > Mac users are cornered into exclusively a mobile device(MacBooks) Huh? iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Studio, Mac Pro.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      And the sales of those are even remotely comparable to Windows desktops or MacBooks?
pjmlp 3y ago
No, but it has more iOS and iPad devices than Valve will ever ship SteamDecks.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  iOS isn't relevant to Valve due to the way Apple chooses to do business, so why bring that up?
  - SirMaster 3y ago
    What about after sideloading is allowed?
    - Macha 3y ago
      The vast majority of mobile games are not really substitutes for PC games the way e.g. console games are, except in the super broad "Netflix: Our biggest competitor is video games because customers only have so much time" way.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    It is relevant to Apple customers that care about playing games and don't need to care Valve exists at all.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      In other words, it's not relevant to the discussion at all.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        It is, as it shows Valve's decision doesn't matter to Apple customers, they have enough games from other publishers.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
ok_dad 3y ago
Rounding 3% to 1% is a hell of a rounding!

dangus 3y ago

There’s another problem with Mac gaming: even though Macs have a higher marketshare than they’ve ever had before, they aren’t owned by people who are expecting to use them for games. Someone who is into the PC gaming scene already owns a gaming PC by now. If they own a Mac it’s probably their productivity machine. It’s obviously an anecdote but that’s how I do things. I have a gaming PC and all it does is gaming. My Mac is for portable computing and general productivity. Even though I own a Mac and some of my games work on Mac (like Baldur’s Gate 3), I rarely if ever use that Mac for gaming. I think it’s on Apple to put real money into changing that perception (and to make the OS a little better for gaming - for example, Windows handles window management for games better, Mac handles mice with scroll wheels terribly unless you get third party software).

Nodebuck 3y ago

Valve has supported Linux for over a decade[1], way before they made any hardware. It makes sense for them to not rely on Microsoft which have threatened their position as a gaming store before with UWP games appearing exclusively on Microsoft Store and the win32 platform potentially being killed off (which all turned out to be a flop in the end). [1] https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/9289 https://store.steampowered.com/oldnews/9289

throitallaway 3y ago

> MS has devoted more effort in recent years to fixing gaming issues. Could've fooled me. Their first party title Halo MCC is riddled with bugs (crashes, textures not loading, etc.) and has cheaters flaunting super speed in multiplayer.

HideousKojima 3y ago
Delta Halo on Halo 2 is practically unbeatable on Legendary mode due to crashes, unless you use the original graphics. The big was reported to 343 years ago, I think back when MCC was still an Xbox exclusive, and they still haven't fixed it. And they don't give you any warning about it, you only figure it out after the game crashes halfway through the level for the 5th time and you decide to start Googling it.

some-guy 3y ago

I'm sure the number of Steam Decks is far higher than the number of people gaming on their Mac.

philistine 3y ago
Nope.

zamalek 3y ago

> The only reason Linux now sees support is because it tied in with Valve's desire for a handheld console Valve have been improving/supporting Linux gaming for almost a decade[1]. Apple figured out that privacy is a marketable product. They don't do it because of altruism, they do it because it makes extreme amounts of money. Likewise, Valve figured out that doing good by the customer is a marketable product. Gamer loyalty to Valve is an insurmountable fortress that no other storefront has managed to pierce. The likes of TotalBiscuit and AngryJoe galvanized the PC gaming community into one that does not tolerate anti-consumer bullshit, and anti-consumer bullshit Apple does. > The number of Steam Decks pales in comparison to the number of Macs, which now represent 30% market share of desktops, while linux is still stuck around 3%. Which is completely irrelevant to gamers. A substantial amount choose to have a console and no desktop/laptop machine at all[2]. Linux is trending up [3], while MacOS trending down (and in addition is installed on fewer gaming machines than Linux overall) [4]. MacOS is completely and utterly irrelevant to gaming - unless you're talking about Candy Crush and the sort. This is unlikely to change unless Apple has a radical change in direction regarding gaming; both in terms of hardware and business model. They have clearly and loudly demonstrated that they have no interest in either: you can't use GPUs with MacOS, and their fork of WINE is neither free nor upstreamed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(computer) [2]: https://venturebeat.com/games/pc-and-console-sales-are-down-but-the-market-is-stabilizing-newzoo/ https://venturebeat.com/games/pc-and-console-sales-are-down-... [3]: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/steam-tracker/ https://www.gamingonlinux.com/steam-tracker/ [4]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

Panzer04 3y ago
It helps that by and large gamers on PC are savvy enough to pirate if stores get too frisky. It's amazing valve managed to establish such a moat that they can take their 30% cut.
- seec 3y ago
  That's because even with their cut the price consumers pay stays reasonable most of the time (and there is the second hand market). Thanks to sales and events you won't be paying 60 bucks for a 5 year old game. But thats how it works in the Mac App Store (I guess we should be thankful its not outright subscription yet). The reality is that developers follow Apple commercial practices on their platform (can't blame them) and it doesn't lead to an interesting competitive market. In fact I would argue that most peoples are getting priced out of the Apple market, they just didn't realise yet. It seems that their strategy is making and accommodating only luxury/premium priced products, so they are going to make a good amount of money for a bit but in the long term their technology will become irrelevant. And this is exactly what's happening with their M silicon despite what the general sentiment seems to be. Apart from lower power they are not actually that impressive in real world tasks and particularly not in gaming (optimised or not). In fact after switching to their own silicon, Apple has mostly increased the price to access a particular performance level, and I would argue that previous Intel machines were better gaming machines at equivalent prices points. Without concerning yourself about prices one can see that in best case scenario (taking Metal benchmarks for reference and extrapolating when needed) : M2 can be about as good as an AMD Ryzen APU destined to notebook/laptops (6800U) M2 Pro seems to be in between a RTX 2060 and RTX 2070 and it would be a slightly slower RTX 3080 laptop. M2 Max can be slightly faster than a RTX 3060 but slower than a RTX 4060 laptop ; it seems to be equivalent to the Radeon RX 7700S (AMD describe it as a notebook part...). M2 Ultra is irrelevant because it doesn't provide real improvements in graphics performance. Realistically the only way to get this low level of performance would be to buy a laptop (not too high end) or to go for pretty old or entry level desktop part. Now if we talk about AAA games, M2 is pretty much useless, it is somewhat better than previous Intel iGPUs but that isn't saying much ; you still won't be able to run anything graphically intensive at 1080P in an enjoyable manner. M2 Pro could potentially run some of the less demanding games with a decent experience (around 60 fps stable) but it starts around 1.5K in a desktop form factor (naked, no K&M nor display) yet it perform worse than cheaper 3050Ti laptops (that have all those things !). In laptop form factor it starts at 2.4K but is generally much worse in gaming performance than a similarly priced/specced PC laptop. And it feels that talking about M2 Max in any form factor is a major waste of time because it starts at 2.4k for the naked desktop but you can buy a better performing (for games at least) desktop PC and still have money left over to buy a Macbook Air (not even the cheapest version). So unless you really need that power for a macOS only software that properly use the new arch it doesn't make any sense. Not only very few will buy but they won't even think about gaming on it. It is unsurprising, after all the M2 Max has barely more Gflops than the 550$ Xbox Series X... Before their own silicon Apple was not particularly good at gaming (especially on the entry level) but at least if you were willing to pay you could access a decent level of performance. It wasn't very competitively priced but the premium was worth all the other benefits. For example an iMac 27 inch with a RX 5700 XT would cost you over 3K but it was worth it for the whole package (especially the display). Now even if you want to spend 3K on a mac, not only you won't get any package at all but the graphics performance will perform worse than this 3 year old iMac. And that is before talking about architectural optimisation problem and general support. So I believe Valve sees that and decided (rightfully) that it wasn't worth their time. Previously it was just a matter of making a build that could run in the macOS GUI and it wasn't too much work because both GPU and CPU APIs could be almost identical. I'm sure there were some differences at compile time but it didn't ask for a large parallel port and a decent amount of customers could get a pretty good experience (high end Macs and eGPU users). But now they would need to maintain a parallel port that would diverge in significant ways (even if we just account for the GPU code) and on top of that even the most high-end customers would only get a performance that would be considered ok for mid-range/high-end laptop. It is just not worth it. Considering that the 3nm A17 Pro isn't really the revolution it was touted to be ; this is probably the right move. Not only Apple hardware is becoming irrelevant to enthusiast but it seems it will not improve for a while (maybe ever) considering the A17 already has heat issues even though it isn't a whole lot faster it looks like M3 chips will run hotter and use more power without really closing the gap. Reality is catching up to the Apple arrogance, you can buy monopoly power on a technical advantage once but eventually competition is going to come around. Now is the time and I think it is only the start. Most cross platform software that needs a significant rewrite won't get ported to Apple Silicon, it doesn't make sense considering the weak hardware. They'll come and say : but it doesnt use a lot of power. Yeah I would be pretty mad if my slow small car would use as much gas as Porsche...