Looking at those requirements, I doubt this will ever get that much adoption.
Additionally macOS is transitioning to have only userspace drivers.
I suspect that eventually Microsoft will be pressured to do the same with the ongoing cyber security liability laws, and disasters like in 2024.
So will they only do consoles when it comes to it?
Stadia used Linux and they never had anti-cheat.
Desktop Linux has none of that.
Look, if Canonical had one of their keys leaked, I can go and sign my kernel and kernel modules and secure boot just fine as if my kernel is one distributed by Canonical. There are no checks on whether the contents of the kernel are correct. So, let's exclude people entirely from tuning their kernel for performance etc, and tell them they have to go to a narrow set of approved vendors, who must listen to Epic rather than their users. This is about control over the ecosystem, an ecosystem Epic has spent their years spitting in the face of.
Secure boot is not attestation. It does not provide userspace any guarantee the system booted a secure boot chain.
Secure boot can be bypassed by dodgy firmware (cough cough msi) or the kernel can lie to userspace about the secure boot state.
The moment the UEFI firmware jumps to the bootloader, secure boot is no longer useful.
> Look, if Canonical had one of their keys leaked, I can go and sign my kernel and kernel modules and secure boot just fine as if my kernel is one distributed by Canonical. There are no checks on whether the contents of the kernel are correct
This is literally where the TPM comes into play because your kernels signature would get written to the PCR register and fail an attestation check.
> This is about control over the ecosystem, an ecosystem Epic has spent their years spitting in the face of.
This is just FUD
I'm not sure how you get that from the article (maybe it was pointed to a different article earlier?).
I don't have a Steam Deck, but as I understand it, it does not support Secure Boot out-of-the-box. Also, SteamOS is Arch-based, and it doesn't look like Arch is listed among the "well-known" signing keys that EACv2 lists as trusted.
But not supporting the EACv2's requirements today, doesn't mean that Valve is inherently opposed to doing so. If you have a statement from Valve claiming that, please share it.