The Lenovo Legion Go S is a frustrating disappointment, but SteamOS could save this handheld

[Windows Central]

Lenovo's Legion Go S handheld boasts beautiful hardware and grand promises, but its performance and battery life lead to nothing but disappointment at this price.

The Lenovo Legion Go S is a frustrating disappointment, but SteamOS could save this handheld : Read more

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Steam OS is an unethical OS that is basically a pirate OS. Valve would not have reached its scale if not for Microsoft and Windows. And instead of thanking MS, they stole the APIs that MS invested in creating and getting developers to use. Yes, this is legal, because a quirk in the law prohibits copyrighting the API or patenting software, but that doesn't make it ethical.

This site has done a good job criticizing AI for learning by using written and artistic work of others, whom it might subsequently displace after learning from their hard, creative work. That's exactly what Steam OS is to Windows and it's unethical. That alone is enough of a reason for me, and hopefully others, to never use Steam OS.

How is Steam OS a threat to Windows? Not today, but in the long run, it weakens one of the chief marketing arguments for using Windows vs. Mac OS or other competing computer OS. This is because one of Windows competitive advantages against Mac OS is that in addition to running all the productivity software, Windows is ALSO the only OS that really supports gaming (similar reason Android beat Windows Phone OS on mobile -- if you wanted access to all apps, including games, Android was the only choice). If gamers leave Windows for Steam OS, then their computer device might as well be a Mac instead of a Windows PC.

None of this means that Steam OS provides a bad UX or that Windows provides a good UX. There's plenty of legit reason to criticize Microsoft for its gaming work and to applaud Valve's contributions to gaming with Steam on Windows and the hardware design of the Steam Deck. But that doesn't mean a Microsoft-focused site called WINDOWS Central should ever cover Steam OS without at least acknowledging that it's a threat to Windows. Valve's CEO has said himself that he hopes to knock down Windows.

Note that this is nothing like PlayStation vs. Xbox. Sony did its own work to build PS, as MS did to build Xbox. Those are legit competitors, slugging it out fairly. Same with Mac OS in the OS realm. Steam OS is completely different, stealing from MS like a pirate OS, and is not a legit player in the market.

 

[thearchbishop]

So, preinstalling an inferior OS is going to save Legion Go S? How exactly will SteamOS save it?

 

[thearchbishop]

Steam OS is an unethical OS that is basically a pirate OS. Valve would not have reached its scale if not for Microsoft and Windows. And instead of thanking MS, they stole the APIs that MS invested in creating and getting developers to use. Yes, this is legal, because a quirk in the law prohibits copyrighting the API or patenting software, but that doesn't make it ethical.

This site has done a good job criticizing AI for learning by using written and artistic work of others, whom it might subsequently displace after learning from their hard, creative work. That's exactly what Steam OS is to Windows and it's unethical. That alone is enough of a reason for me, and hopefully others, to never use Steam OS.

How is Steam OS a threat to Windows? Not today, but in the long run, it weakens one of the chief marketing arguments for using Windows vs. Mac OS or other competing computer OS. This is because one of Windows competitive advantages against Mac OS is that in addition to running all the productivity software, Windows is ALSO the only OS that really supports gaming (similar reason Android beat Windows Phone OS on mobile -- if you wanted access to all apps, including games, Android was the only choice). If gamers leave Windows for Steam OS, then their computer device might as well be a Mac instead of a Windows PC.

None of this means that Steam OS provides a bad UX or that Windows provides a good UX. There's plenty of legit reason to criticize Microsoft for its gaming work and to applaud Valve's contributions to gaming with Steam on Windows and the hardware design of the Steam Deck. But that doesn't mean a Microsoft-focused site called WINDOWS Central should ever cover Steam OS without at least acknowledging that it's a threat to Windows. Valve's CEO has said himself that he hopes to knock down Windows.

Note that this is nothing like PlayStation vs. Xbox. Sony did its own work to build PS, as MS did to build Xbox. Those are legit competitors, slugging it out fairly. Same with Mac OS in the OS realm. Steam OS is completely different, stealing from MS like a pirate OS, and is not a legit player in the market.

I agree. As if there weren't enough anti-MS Web sites out there, now I have to read that same venom here.

 

[DaiaX]

Sorry if i missed it, but is there a score from MH Wilds Benchmark?

 

[Zachary Boddy]

Sorry if i missed it, but is there a score from MH Wilds Benchmark?

I did not benchmark Monster Hunter: Wilds specifically, but your odds are not great. The game is incredibly resource intensive on PC; we couldn't get the game to run at all on the Steam Deck, and while we haven't tried other handhelds like the ROG Ally X, we don't have high expectations.

Seeing as the Legion Go S is closer to being a more powerful Steam Deck than something like the ASUS ROG Ally X, I'd be surprised if the game ran in a playable state.

 

[Zachary Boddy]

Steam OS is an unethical OS that is basically a pirate OS. Valve would not have reached its scale if not for Microsoft and Windows. And instead of thanking MS, they stole the APIs that MS invested in creating and getting developers to use. Yes, this is legal, because a quirk in the law prohibits copyrighting the API or patenting software, but that doesn't make it ethical.

This site has done a good job criticizing AI for learning by using written and artistic work of others, whom it might subsequently displace after learning from their hard, creative work. That's exactly what Steam OS is to Windows and it's unethical. That alone is enough of a reason for me, and hopefully others, to never use Steam OS.

How is Steam OS a threat to Windows? Not today, but in the long run, it weakens one of the chief marketing arguments for using Windows vs. Mac OS or other competing computer OS. This is because one of Windows competitive advantages against Mac OS is that in addition to running all the productivity software, Windows is ALSO the only OS that really supports gaming (similar reason Android beat Windows Phone OS on mobile -- if you wanted access to all apps, including games, Android was the only choice). If gamers leave Windows for Steam OS, then their computer device might as well be a Mac instead of a Windows PC.

None of this means that Steam OS provides a bad UX or that Windows provides a good UX. There's plenty of legit reason to criticize Microsoft for its gaming work and to applaud Valve's contributions to gaming with Steam on Windows and the hardware design of the Steam Deck. But that doesn't mean a Microsoft-focused site called WINDOWS Central should ever cover Steam OS without at least acknowledging that it's a threat to Windows. Valve's CEO has said himself that he hopes to knock down Windows.

Note that this is nothing like PlayStation vs. Xbox. Sony did its own work to build PS, as MS did to build Xbox. Those are legit competitors, slugging it out fairly. Same with Mac OS in the OS realm. Steam OS is completely different, stealing from MS like a pirate OS, and is not a legit player in the market.

I do think it's odd whenever anyone assumes that because we are Windows Central, we only care about Windows. I don't subscribe to bizarre company tribalism and neither do any of my colleagues, so I'm not going to go to war against SteamOS just because it may pose a threat to Microsoft's complete and utter dominance in the PC gaming space. Competition is rarely a bad thing in consumer tech, and if SteamOS pushes Microsoft to finally meaningfully invest in improving the Windows experience on PC gaming handhelds I'm all for it.

You can believe that Valve and SteamOS are as shady as you want, but Valve has always been about taking advantage of open-source development tools and features, leaning on third-party developers to do a lot of the work for them. Microsoft also loves to make much of the software, APIs, and other products it creates and invests in open source. It just makes sense with video games, which span such a ridiculous breadth of devices with different hardware, architectures, driver support, connected peripherals, custom interfaces, etcetera; why would Valve build everything from scratch when some of what it needs already exists and is readily available to use?

Also, one of SteamOS' developers, Pierre-Loup Griffais, said, "I don't think the goal is to have a certain market share, or to push users away from Windows. If a user has a good experience on Windows, there's no problem." Even if Valve's CEO said something different, is that really so surprising? Windows might as well hold a monopoly on non-console gaming, and I'm sure Valve doesn't love being so wholly reliant on a company that's actively trying to find its own ways to monetize its PC gaming efforts through its own OS-level storefront.

If SteamOS really is riding on the back of Microsoft's Windows investments, and that really does lead to SteamOS becoming a viable alternative to Windows that draws PC gamers away, then Microsoft only has itself to blame for its complacency on Windows. SteamOS is an intuitive, focused operating system that on Steam Deck (and soon Legion Go S), guarantees a level of compatibility and usability that casual gamers look for. It's no wonder that's appealing to so many people who want something in between a console and a gaming PC.

Support SteamOS or don't support SteamOS, that's on everyone individually and is just the name of the game for, well, most competitions between consumer-facing companies. Being a part of Windows Central doesn't mean blindly throwing my weight behind Windows, though. SteamOS is here, and it's growing, and anyone who truly loves Windows should hope that it drives Microsoft to make Windows better for PC gamers, rather than hoping SteamOS (the only legitimate competitor in the space, Mac isn't it) dies because Valve isn't building something 100% from scratch.

 

[Zachary Boddy]

So, preinstalling an inferior OS is going to save Legion Go S? How exactly will SteamOS save it?

"Inferior" is a matter of opinion. SteamOS doesn't provide as much flexibility and control as Windows, but that only matters if your hardware has the power to support that heavier operating system before stacking intensive video games on top of it.

The Legion Go S feels underpowered for Windows, but it's still more powerful than the Steam Deck. SteamOS will immediately give players access to a massive and growing curated library of titles specifically verified for full compatibility with the Steam Deck, and the Legion Go S will play all of them (but better). That's a lot better than buying a Legion Go S and wondering why it won't play the same games that the ROG Ally X does in the same price range.

The biggest reason is pricing, though. Windows has a $100 licensing fee attached to it, which likely contributes to the Legion Go S being more expensive than it should be. If the SteamOS version comes in at the right price ($500 or less for 16GB/512GB) with the same hardware and display, it'll go a long way toward smoothing over the value concerns with the Windows version.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I do think it's odd whenever anyone assumes that because we are Windows Central, we only care about Windows. I don't subscribe to bizarre company tribalism and neither do any of my colleagues, so I'm not going to go to war against SteamOS just because it may pose a threat to Microsoft's complete and utter dominance in the PC gaming space. Competition is rarely a bad thing in consumer tech, and if SteamOS pushes Microsoft to finally meaningfully invest in improving the Windows experience on PC gaming handhelds I'm all for it.

You can believe that Valve and SteamOS are as shady as you want, but Valve has always been about taking advantage of open-source development tools and features, leaning on third-party developers to do a lot of the work for them. Microsoft also loves to make much of the software, APIs, and other products it creates and invests in open source. It just makes sense with video games, which span such a ridiculous breadth of devices with different hardware, architectures, driver support, connected peripherals, custom interfaces, etcetera; why would Valve build everything from scratch when some of what it needs already exists and is readily available to use?

Also, one of SteamOS' developers, Pierre-Loup Griffais, said, "I don't think the goal is to have a certain market share, or to push users away from Windows. If a user has a good experience on Windows, there's no problem." Even if Valve's CEO said something different, is that really so surprising? Windows might as well hold a monopoly on non-console gaming, and I'm sure Valve doesn't love being so wholly reliant on a company that's actively trying to find its own ways to monetize its PC gaming efforts through its own OS-level storefront.

If SteamOS really is riding on the back of Microsoft's Windows investments, and that really does lead to SteamOS becoming a viable alternative to Windows that draws PC gamers away, then Microsoft only has itself to blame for its complacency on Windows. SteamOS is an intuitive, focused operating system that on Steam Deck (and soon Legion Go S), guarantees a level of compatibility and usability that casual gamers look for. It's no wonder that's appealing to so many people who want something in between a console and a gaming PC.

Support SteamOS or don't support SteamOS, that's on everyone individually and is just the name of the game for, well, most competitions between consumer-facing companies. Being a part of Windows Central doesn't mean blindly throwing my weight behind Windows, though. SteamOS is here, and it's growing, and anyone who truly loves Windows should hope that it drives Microsoft to make Windows better for PC gamers, rather than hoping SteamOS (the only legitimate competitor in the space, Mac isn't it) dies because Valve isn't building something 100% from scratch.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I strongly agree with you that competition is good, vital even. I also agree that Microsoft probably has itself at least partly to blame should Steam OS become successful: no question that MS has failed to provide a clear vision for its own gaming store or for handhelds. Further, I support you and the other writers at Windows Central to both A) having your own opinions, which could certainly include a love for Steam OS and B) honestly discussing both facts and opinions about how MS compares to competing options.

I also don't have a problem with Steam as an application, whether that's running on Windows or Mac OS.

Where I have a problem is with a site that is focused on Microsoft only telling half the story and leaving out the entire portion that relates to Microsoft. In any decent reporting, you'll present all the relevant sides of an issue. Unlike what I would consider to be legitimate competitors like Apple, Google, Sony, and even Steam running on Windows, all of which are fine, Valve's Steam OS can only do what it does because it ripped off Microsoft's APIs. None of those other competing companies or platforms did that. They all built their own. I do expect to see that in the reporting. If people (including the author) then choose to support it in spite of that, that's fine (I'd say unethical, but I accept that others may define that differently), but don't fail to inform.

The equivalent would be if the Wall Street Journal ignored the facets of a corporate story that would be relevant to investors in that corporation, or if a health periodical praised a new drug's benefits without covering the known side effects. It's improper journalism.

Regarding your line that "Mac isn't it" is missing the point (or I was unclear) on the nature of the threat: Steam OS is obviously not going to take over Windows for the person or enterprise using it for web browsing or application software. What Steam OS does is removes the need for Windows over Mac OS for the user who has their games on the Steam OS system. Where before, the Windows system was more attractive than the Mac because it ALSO could run their games, if they already have a dedicated handheld for that, now they might as well use a Mac instead of a Windows computer for the other stuff. Steam OS takes away one of the core advantages of Windows over Mac. Microsoft went through the huge expense and R&D to create the gaming APIs that allowed Windows to run games at a high performance (before that, they ran on DOS, even if the launcher was in Windows).

And if Steam OS built that themselves, I'd say more power to them and too bad for Microsoft (like I do with Android and iOS over Windows Phone). But they didn't. They stole the APIs that allow those games to run from Microsoft. Yes, some of that comes from the Linux WINE project, but using that in a for-profit device changes whether that's acceptable. If you make a copy of a book or a tape for your own use, that's fine. But when you then turn around and sell and take money away from the artist who created it, it's not.

I ran product development for a game company for a time and we used Linux over Windows in our system, mainly to keep the cost down to hit a marketable price point (Windows added almost $100 per device for the embedded license). I was never entirely convinced that what we did was purely ethical there either when it involved MS APIs, but unlike Valve, we LICENSED the games from the studios who created them and our own engineers re-programmed them where needed and recompiled the games to run on Linux. Every game we monetized, we had rewritten. That meant 0% of new games for Windows could run on our system without our expending real effort to make each one work. For me, that materially changes the acceptability (but like I said, even so, I was never entirely convinced that what we did was right either).

Further, if MS had had the policy then that they have now of not charging for a Windows license for a small tablet, we would have absolutely used Windows. Valve had that option and CHOSE not to do it because, according to their CEO, they wanted to hurt Microsoft. Malicious intent seems quite different from pricing ourselves out of the market altogether.

I'm not asking you to share my concerns or saying you need to agree with me, but that would be great if you did ;-), just please include the facts in the stories on Steam OS and cover, at least in some stories, the impact to Microsoft.

 

[Zachary Boddy]

Sorry if i missed it, but is there a score from MH Wilds Benchmark?

I went ahead and downloaded the Monster Hunter: Wilds benchmark tool on both the Lenovo Legion Go S and my personal ASUS ROG Ally X, and ran it at identical settings (16:9 aspect ratio, 1080p resolution, fullscreen, "Lowest" graphical preset, AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 3 set to "Ultra Performance," Frame Generation disabled).

The Legion Go S does play the game, so it beats the Steam Deck in that regard, but I have to be honest that it's a terrible experience. The benchmark finished with a 23 FPS average, and was plagued with frequent framerate drops and latency spikes. On top of that, the game looks like garbage, and MHW doesn't look great at the lowest settings regardless. Additional noise that makes the textures look like pixel art, a ton of visual artifacts (especially with moving objects), it's just not good.

The ROG Ally X still doesn't look amazing, but it certainly fares a lot better. 31 FPS average, and with far higher framerate stability and fewer dropped frames. There's less noise, too, so textures look cleaner (I assume the ROG Ally X can run the game at a higher internal resolution), and I noticed very few visual artifacts or screen tearing (not zero, but still acceptable). I could play the game on the Ally X, I personally wouldn't on the Legion Go S. I hope this helps!

 

[Zachary Boddy]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I strongly agree with you that competition is good, vital even. I also agree that Microsoft probably has itself at least partly to blame should Steam OS become successful: no question that MS has failed to provide a clear vision for its own gaming store or for handhelds. Further, I support you and the other writers at Windows Central to both A) having your own opinions, which could certainly include a love for Steam OS and B) honestly discussing both facts and opinions about how MS compares to competing options.

I also don't have a problem with Steam as an application, whether that's running on Windows or Mac OS.

Where I have a problem is with a site that is focused on Microsoft only telling half the story and leaving out the entire portion that relates to Microsoft. In any decent reporting, you'll present all the relevant sides of an issue. Unlike what I would consider to be legitimate competitors like Apple, Google, Sony, and even Steam running on Windows, all of which are fine, Valve's Steam OS can only do what it does because it ripped off Microsoft's APIs. None of those other competing companies or platforms did that. They all built their own. I do expect to see that in the reporting. If people (including the author) then choose to support it in spite of that, that's fine (I'd say unethical, but I accept that others may define that differently), but don't fail to inform.

The equivalent would be if the Wall Street Journal ignored the facets of a corporate story that would be relevant to investors in that corporation, or if a health periodical praised a new drug's benefits without covering the known side effects. It's improper journalism.

Regarding your line that "Mac isn't it" is missing the point (or I was unclear) on the nature of the threat: Steam OS is obviously not going to take over Windows for the person or enterprise using it for web browsing or application software. What Steam OS does is removes the need for Windows over Mac OS for the user who has their games on the Steam OS system. Where before, the Windows system was more attractive than the Mac because it ALSO could run their games, if they already have a dedicated handheld for that, now they might as well use a Mac instead of a Windows computer for the other stuff. Steam OS takes away one of the core advantages of Windows over Mac. Microsoft went through the huge expense and R&D to create the gaming APIs that allowed Windows to run games at a high performance (before that, they ran on DOS, even if the launcher was in Windows).

And if Steam OS built that themselves, I'd say more power to them and too bad for Microsoft (like I do with Android and iOS over Windows Phone). But they didn't. They stole the APIs that allow those games to run from Microsoft. Yes, some of that comes from the Linux WINE project, but using that in a for-profit device changes whether that's acceptable. If you make a copy of a book or a tape for your own use, that's fine. But when you then turn around and sell and take money away from the artist who created it, it's not.

I ran product development for a game company for a time and we used Linux over Windows in our system, mainly to keep the cost down to hit a marketable price point (Windows added almost $100 per device for the embedded license). I was never entirely convinced that what we did was purely ethical there either when it involved MS APIs, but unlike Valve, we LICENSED the games from the studios who created them and our own engineers re-programmed them where needed and recompiled the games to run on Linux. Every game we monetized, we had rewritten. That meant 0% of new games for Windows could run on our system without our expending real effort to make each one work. For me, that materially changes the acceptability (but like I said, even so, I was never entirely convinced that what we did was right either).

Further, if MS had had the policy then that they have now of not charging for a Windows license for a small tablet, we would have absolutely used Windows. Valve had that option and CHOSE not to do it because, according to their CEO, they wanted to hurt Microsoft. Malicious intent seems quite different from pricing ourselves out of the market altogether.

I'm not asking you to share my concerns or saying you need to agree with me, but that would be great if you did ;-), just please include the facts in the stories on Steam OS and cover, at least in some stories, the impact to Microsoft.

I also appreciate you responding to my points instead of dismissing them out of turn, haha.

In an ideal world, every game would be thoroughly compiled and polished for every platform by its creators, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world in which the vast majority of developers have highly limited resources, and have to focus those resources on the platforms that make sense. When 99% of PC gamers are using Windows, supporting Linux and MacOS natively doesn't make sense. Even when developers do release native Linux versions, they're often left behind the Windows version with post-launch support. Why shouldn't there be an open-source, community-driven project to help native Windows games seamlessly run on Linux devices?

I do understand. Proton and its Wine components need to access Microsoft's DirectX APIs and Windows binaries in order to convert them to Vulkan and everything else that helps those games run on Linux. Valve is a business, obviously developing SteamOS with the intent to make money, selling the Steam Deck with the intent to make money, and taking a cut of Steam purchases with the intent to make money. Investing so heavily in Proton is clearly an extension of that goal. But none of this is new, and the development of Proton and its inclusion in SteamOS isn't taking away from who really matters: the developers creating these video games.

This isn't an emulation layer that allows for piracy, it's a compatibility layer that allows people to play the games they buy on more devices. It's also the only way for any viable alternative to Windows for PC gaming to have any hope of succeeding. It was the same case with Windows phones: the apps weren't there, so the people weren't there, so the developers weren't there. There's not going to suddenly be a huge surge of developers compiling for Linux natively just because the Steam Deck and other SteamOS devices gain popularity, because 99% of gamers will still be on Windows... and even those who'd consider a Steam Deck would probably just get an ROG Ally or Legion Go if they knew many of their Windows games wouldn't run.

SteamOS also isn't a closed platform. Other publishers can build their launchers for SteamOS, even Microsoft. Proton also isn't restricted to SteamOS, anyone who uses Linux can download it, and Microsoft is still making money if people are using it to play Xbox published games on Linux. There's nothing stopping you from dual-booting Windows and SteamOS, too. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is I do see it from your perspective, but the reason you won't see this debate mentioned whenever I cover SteamOS is because I don't see it as a controversy or ethical discussion worth persistent reiteration; it's an understandable difference in opinion, but one that likely began when Proton did... seven years ago.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I also appreciate you responding to my points instead of dismissing them out of turn, haha.

In an ideal world, every game would be thoroughly compiled and polished for every platform by its creators, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world in which the vast majority of developers have highly limited resources, and have to focus those resources on the platforms that make sense. When 99% of PC gamers are using Windows, supporting Linux and MacOS natively doesn't make sense. Even when developers do release native Linux versions, they're often left behind the Windows version with post-launch support. Why shouldn't there be an open-source, community-driven project to help native Windows games seamlessly run on Linux devices?

I do understand. Proton and its Wine components need to access Microsoft's DirectX APIs and Windows binaries in order to convert them to Vulkan and everything else that helps those games run on Linux. Valve is a business, obviously developing SteamOS with the intent to make money, selling the Steam Deck with the intent to make money, and taking a cut of Steam purchases with the intent to make money. Investing so heavily in Proton is clearly an extension of that goal. But none of this is new, and the development of Proton and its inclusion in SteamOS isn't taking away from who really matters: the developers creating these video games.

This isn't an emulation layer that allows for piracy, it's a compatibility layer that allows people to play the games they buy on more devices. It's also the only way for any viable alternative to Windows for PC gaming to have any hope of succeeding. It was the same case with Windows phones: the apps weren't there, so the people weren't there, so the developers weren't there. There's not going to suddenly be a huge surge of developers compiling for Linux natively just because the Steam Deck and other SteamOS devices gain popularity, because 99% of gamers will still be on Windows... and even those who'd consider a Steam Deck would probably just get an ROG Ally or Legion Go if they knew many of their Windows games wouldn't run.

SteamOS also isn't a closed platform. Other publishers can build their launchers for SteamOS, even Microsoft. Proton also isn't restricted to SteamOS, anyone who uses Linux can download it, and Microsoft is still making money if people are using it to play Xbox published games on Linux. There's nothing stopping you from dual-booting Windows and SteamOS, too. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is I do see it from your perspective, but the reason you won't see this debate mentioned whenever I cover SteamOS is because I don't see it as a controversy or ethical discussion worth persistent reiteration; it's an understandable difference in opinion, but one that likely began when Proton did... seven years ago.

I do disagree with much of that, but respect your position. (Very much in fact -- wonderfully well said.) I should also say that, as a frequent reader of Windows Central, I almost always enjoy your articles (this Steam OS area possibly being the sole exception).

Specifically, I think the heart of the disagreement is around the sentence: "It's also the only way for any viable alternative to Windows for PC gaming to have any hope of succeeding." You say that as if that's important, something we should value. I don't see why we would want competitors who created nothing to succeed. It's not just the game developers who create something of value that should be protected. Microsoft created those APIs and deserves just as much (well, maybe not quite as much, but close) appreciation and loyalty for doing that as the game developers for creating the games.

Proton and Wine are just barely on the legal side of piracy, and only due to that quirk in the law prohibiting protecting innovation in software code. It's no more ethical to steal those kinds of ideas than anything else, even if it is technically legal.

To your point, I don't hold it against the game developer for making the game run on Steam OS -- they need to make the games work wherever the gamers are.

I know we'll never see this the same, so I won't try to convert you, but I will just give one more facet to my perspective that's different from what I've said so far: I mentioned that I led product development for a game company a while back. In product development, you can either knockoff others and undercut on price or innovate and create something new. Price-fighting for the same market with no real differentiation is called red ocean marketing -- like sharks churning the sea, fighting over the same scraps of chum in the water. This is like Coke and Pepsi fighting over the same soda drinkers. Or when you go on Amazon and see a dozen different brand names of the exact same product, clearly all made using the same exact injection mold design, just with different logos painted or stickered on them.

The other approach is to look for new opportunities, to create something new and deliver something to the market it didn't have before, setting sail in search of new lands. That's called blue ocean marketing. Apple creating the iPhone. Nintendo creating the Wii and then the Switch. Microsoft launching Live Tiles when all other smartphones used a grid, and creating the gaming APIs before Valve stole them.

I never respect red ocean companies unless they provide at least some technical innovation. They have every right to do what they do and even perform a useful service of driving down prices through their direct competition, but they're the kind of people who say things like, "It's just business" as they ruthlessly attack others (similar to short sellers in the stock market culling the weaker businesses). They don't care about ethics in business and I suspect they cheat when they play board games.

I respect blue ocean companies who create, lead, and expand the options for customers without slitting the throats of their competitors. Generally, this is also where the biggest financial rewards are, not in copying, but in creating and leading.

In this case, not with Steam, but with Steam OS with its Microsoft-stolen APIs, Valve is the red ocean company. MS has been red ocean in the past -- Word fighting Word Perfect, Excel fighting Lotus, Internet Explorer fighting Netscape, but MS has been a mostly Blue Ocean company for the past 20 years. Valve's Steam OS is just a red ocean parasitic lamprey.

 

[Zachary Boddy]

I do disagree with much of that, but respect your position. (Very much in fact -- wonderfully well said.) I should also say that, as a frequent reader of Windows Central, I almost always enjoy your articles (this Steam OS area possibly being the sole exception).

Specifically, I think the heart of the disagreement is around the sentence: "It's also the only way for any viable alternative to Windows for PC gaming to have any hope of succeeding." You say that as if that's important, something we should value. I don't see why we would want competitors who created nothing to succeed. It's not just the game developers who create something of value that should be protected. Microsoft created those APIs and deserves just as much (well, maybe not quite as much, but close) appreciation and loyalty for doing that as the game developers for creating the games.

Proton and Wine are just barely on the legal side of piracy, and only due to that quirk in the law prohibiting protecting innovation in software code. It's no more ethical to steal those kinds of ideas than anything else, even if it is technically legal.

To your point, I don't hold it against the game developer for making the game run on Steam OS -- they need to make the games work wherever the gamers are.

I know we'll never see this the same, so I won't try to convert you, but I will just give one more facet to my perspective that's different from what I've said so far: I mentioned that I led product development for a game company a while back. In product development, you can either knockoff others and undercut on price or innovate and create something new. Price-fighting for the same market with no real differentiation is called red ocean marketing -- like sharks churning the sea, fighting over the same scraps of chum in the water. This is like Coke and Pepsi fighting over the same soda drinkers. Or when you go on Amazon and see a dozen different brand names of the exact same product, clearly all made using the same exact injection mold design, just with different logos painted or stickered on them.

The other approach is to look for new opportunities, to create something new and deliver something to the market it didn't have before, setting sail in search of new lands. That's called blue ocean marketing. Apple creating the iPhone. Nintendo creating the Wii and then the Switch. Microsoft launching Live Tiles when all other smartphones used a grid, and creating the gaming APIs before Valve stole them.

I never respect red ocean companies unless they provide at least some technical innovation. They have every right to do what they do and even perform a useful service of driving down prices through their direct competition, but they're the kind of people who say things like, "It's just business" as they ruthlessly attack others (similar to short sellers in the stock market culling the weaker businesses). They don't care about ethics in business and I suspect they cheat when they play board games.

I respect blue ocean companies who create, lead, and expand the options for customers without slitting the throats of their competitors. Generally, this is also where the biggest financial rewards are, not in copying, but in creating and leading.

In this case, not with Steam, but with Steam OS with its Microsoft-stolen APIs, Valve is the red ocean company. MS has been red ocean in the past -- Word fighting Word Perfect, Excel fighting Lotus, Internet Explorer fighting Netscape, but MS has been a mostly Blue Ocean company for the past 20 years. Valve's Steam OS is just a red ocean parasitic lamprey.

It's obvious we won't sway each other, and that's okay, so I'll put this debate to rest with one final response. On one hand, the more innovative company should come out on top, or at least carve out a sustainable slice of the market for itself, but that's often not the case. With multimedia, hardware, software products, even operating systems and design languages, the "best" in many scenarios lost to an inferior competitor because it unfortunately takes more than innovation to reach consumers. Windows phone is a great example; Microsoft innovated with Live Tiles, made something unique and different, but ultimately failed for a variety of reasons, but it wouldn't be absurd to reduce all of them down to "Windows phones didn't have apps."

If Microsoft had built a comprehensive, stable, and continually improving compatibility layer that alloyed people to use the Android apps they paid for on the Google Play Store without taking those profits away from Google, would things have changed for Windows phone? I imagine people would be having this same debate about that if it had happened, and knowing how Google was as a company at the time I also imagine there would've been some backlash. On the other hand, I'm not sure I entirely agree that Valve is hands-down the "read ocean" company here. The development of and reliance on Proton may have its concerns worth monitoring to avoid abuse, but is Proton in itself not innovating for the Linux platform?

Valve isn't exactly haphazardly tossing together a half-baked Linux distro with a Steam wrapper and calling it a day, it's meaningfully and genuinely investing in both SteamOS and Proton, to the point that development for Proton would stall almost completely without Valve's continued support. It's fair to claim that Valve is piggybacking off Microsoft's decades-long efforts to develop the Windows platform for gaming, but it's equally fair to acknowledge that it's nearly impossible for new platforms to gain a foothold in today's market. Smartphones, consoles, computers — all of these product categories are incredibly mature at this point. No company is going to succeed if they start that decade's worth of work to build something unique right now.

Like I said, though, I know that won't sway you, just my final thoughts on everything. Appreciate the considerate and intelligent debate, it's a rarity on the internet (and even in our own forums, sadly).