Its not up to valve to make it easier to access epic. It’s up to epic. I think having an os that is owned by neither valve nor epic would make it more likely to have both storefronts supported as first party citizens.
Epic isn’t going to come to the table just to make steamOS better. Same as Microsoft isn’t going to make steamOS better.
But they epic might come to the table and try and get their platform supported if it was an OS not controlled by their direct competition.
That makes sense in my head but I’m not sure if i have conveyed the idea clearly.
This is exactly my point. Microsoft is not supporting linux to improve steamOS or linux gaming. Microsoft supports Linux because they have their own Linux distro that they use and benefit from. The more companies we can get using Linux the better.
No they support it because of Azure Cloud and DotNet applications. But in some point in time, epic will probably deliver a Linux client and then Valve will probably be forced to make it easier to get the launcher, because they ship steam per default. It’s the same thing the EU is cracking down on with Apple and Microsoft.
This argument is like saying the switch needs to include steam os software because they’re both handheld gaming devices
Also, as I said previously, it’s incredibly easy to install things on the steam deck, I don’t think there is any way they could make it easier because you would just install it like any other Linux program
You either don’t own a deck or don’t know how to use desktop mode
It is though, I’ve been using non ie/edge browsers for over 15 years, but that’s not why the EU went after them. It was because you could not change certain types of links and windows OS searches to open in anything other than edge
Could you argue in good faith please, or at least do some basic research on your points first
No they support it because of Azure Cloud and DotNet applications.
That is exactly what I said.
But in some point in time, epic will probably deliver a Linux client and then Valve will probably be forced to make it easier to get the launcher,
Epic might* make a linux client if they see a reason to. But is very unlikely valve will be forced to adopt the epic games launcher into their “gaming mode” that is unrealistic. There is 10000x more monopolies to crack down on before anyone takes a look at the tiny handheld linux gaming market.
Nothing you’ve said provides a reason why Playtron entering the linux gaming market is anything but a positive for linux as a whole. I feel like you think I am attacking valve by talking about their monopoly. I assure you I am not, I like valve and I own a steamdeck. The idea of a gaming app that easily allows users to run games from all platforms equally aligns more with the linux ethos more than the only option being the Steam gaming mode store front and everything else must be added as a non steam game.
Its not up to valve to make it easier to access epic. It’s up to epic. I think having an os that is owned by neither valve nor epic would make it more likely to have both storefronts supported as first party citizens.
Epic isn’t going to come to the table just to make steamOS better. Same as Microsoft isn’t going to make steamOS better.
But they epic might come to the table and try and get their platform supported if it was an OS not controlled by their direct competition.
That makes sense in my head but I’m not sure if i have conveyed the idea clearly.
Microsoft supports SteamDeck. They are platinum sponsor of the Linux Foundation.
This is exactly my point. Microsoft is not supporting linux to improve steamOS or linux gaming. Microsoft supports Linux because they have their own Linux distro that they use and benefit from. The more companies we can get using Linux the better.
No they support it because of Azure Cloud and DotNet applications. But in some point in time, epic will probably deliver a Linux client and then Valve will probably be forced to make it easier to get the launcher, because they ship steam per default. It’s the same thing the EU is cracking down on with Apple and Microsoft.
This argument is like saying the switch needs to include steam os software because they’re both handheld gaming devices
Also, as I said previously, it’s incredibly easy to install things on the steam deck, I don’t think there is any way they could make it easier because you would just install it like any other Linux program
You either don’t own a deck or don’t know how to use desktop mode
It’s just as easy to install a different browser on Windows.
It is though, I’ve been using non ie/edge browsers for over 15 years, but that’s not why the EU went after them. It was because you could not change certain types of links and windows OS searches to open in anything other than edge
Could you argue in good faith please, or at least do some basic research on your points first
That is exactly what I said.
Epic might* make a linux client if they see a reason to. But is very unlikely valve will be forced to adopt the epic games launcher into their “gaming mode” that is unrealistic. There is 10000x more monopolies to crack down on before anyone takes a look at the tiny handheld linux gaming market.
Nothing you’ve said provides a reason why Playtron entering the linux gaming market is anything but a positive for linux as a whole. I feel like you think I am attacking valve by talking about their monopoly. I assure you I am not, I like valve and I own a steamdeck. The idea of a gaming app that easily allows users to run games from all platforms equally aligns more with the linux ethos more than the only option being the Steam gaming mode store front and everything else must be added as a non steam game.