Vincente
I don’t have a cool kb&mouse combination for the deck. I just use the K380+Pebble, it’s not cool, but it works well for both my Deck and my iPad.
I think this shows a kind of intellectual impairment.
The 2.13 update is terrible; it doesn't work at all.
Maybe it’s great, but I cant even download the installer on linux.
I never said it would happen in the next two years. I just said that it's a possible path, and apparently, it has no chance of happening in two years. Valve's next step in two years is apparently to update the Steam Deck 2 with AMD x86 chips. A 5- to 10-year period is what I expect.
I won’t talk about this anymore with you. Bye.
And hardware acceleration is not as important as you emphasize. A traditional ARM chip running native ARM and cross-platform games, and some x86/Windows/DirectX games that don’t need hardware acceleration to translate on Linux on ARM is competitive enough in the gaming market. At least it's more ecologically rich than Android games (if you have any doubt, just look at the Nintendo Switch!), and it would function as a PC too.
Some games don’t need hardware acceleration to be translated. Others that do need it can’t be translated, just like some games don’t support SteamOS. Overall, it doesn’t affect the Steam Deck’s success!
The translation on ARM macs is actually strongly related to Valve because Rosetta 2 and the Game Porting Toolkit are based on the open-source Proton, which was developed by Valve. So, it’s not an Apple-exclusive technology; it’s closely tied to Valve. Valve could also collaborate with AMD or others to develop custom SoCs, similar to what Apple has done. I believe Valve has the ability and ambition to do the same thing, but even better than Apple. Because they have done it once with the Steam Deck.
That's a backward compatibility issue, which means some games developed for x86, Windows, or DirectX just can’t be translated without glitches. This means not every game developed for x86, Windows, or DirectX can be translated well on ARM.
I said that 'some games that are developed only for x86 or the DirectX API have performance issues'; I didn’t say 'every game.' I mean that games with native support or cross-platform support are certainly better than those developed only for DirectX, Windows, or x86.
For example, many games developed exclusively for Windows/DX can’t be played on SteamOS. So how can you be certain that games developed for x86, Windows, or by DirectX would be totally well supported on ARM?
And you mentioned Qualcomm. Fine, look at the Qualcomm X Elite SoC computers. Do they run x86, Windows, or DirectX software or games steadily, efficiently, and well? Do they have many glitches when running Windows and x86 software?
And the second example is Rosetta 2 for gaming on ARM-based Macs. You mentioned that some emulators running x86 games (on ARM) are inefficient.
That's the point: emulation is not the same as translation.
Translation is generally more efficient than emulation and can sometimes even match or exceed the performance of native execution.
Which you said is a backward compatibility issue. Some games that are developed only for x86 or the DirectX API have performance issues, but other games that support cross-platform or cross-platform APIs like Vulkan do not have this problem.
An obvious example is the Nintendo Switch, which goes against your argument.
Because of backward compatibility, x86's efficiency still can't match ARM's. That's why I said games run on ARM would be more efficient, lighter, and smaller (when they natively support ARM).
If you have any doubts, just look at the Nintendo Switch.
Same, I use it as a PC to learn English, browse the Internet, play music and videos, write, and manage my files.