451–460 of 876 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said they were forced to support, but that they are forced to fund such a thing for their game as opposed to their being an option for Valve to fund it.
They aren't forced to fund anything. They have the option for an additional value add, that's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is illogical. If devs don’t want to support it, they simply will not support it—as evidenced by the thousands of games that have yet to be SteamOS verified, but either run just fine, or don’t run at all with the devs not giving it a second thought. Besides, if this does end up putting pressure on the developers to start supporting more platforms than just Microsoft’s data collector ahem I mean, Windows,…
It's way harder to support Linux than Windows from a developer's perspective. Proprietary vs. open source drivers, approach to driver updates (rolling release vs. stable distros), 5 trillion incompatible glibc versions, X11 vs. Wayland etc, janky sound systems with varied support across Linux distributions (Pulse, Alsa, PipeWire), no ABI compatibility guarantee etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your errant interpretation of the title would imply that Valve was funding individual game developers to support valve? This would be a fool’s errand, compared to the much more obvious interpretation that valve is funding a compatibility layer that would enable broad support for ARM.
It's not a fool's errand. You are underestimating how few games most of Steam user's playtime is in. Getting proper support for ARM to make out the most performance on the most popular titles is a reasonable thing to fund. Valve can still use FEX for addressing the long tail of games, but it will have disadvantages to a proper ARM port.
Also Valve does fund plenty of games, such as all of the first party games you might have heard of, like Half Life, and its long tail of sequels and spin offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then developers should fix their games and make sure the software they are selling actually works as advertised. End of discussion. I don’t quite understand the logic behind your argument. Are you advocating pro-monopoly? Should developers only release games on Windows by default unless other platforms decide to pay up? That’s ridiculous, utterly consumer-hostile.
They are advertising that it works on Windows. Developers in an ideal world shouldn't have to worry about unsupported configurations. I'm advocating that developers should only have their games judged by supported configurations. >Should developers only release games on Windows by default unless other platforms decide to pay up? Other platforms could be profitable enough that developers could target and support them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more than "little motivation" if we're being honest. Right now Valve is quietly targeting MS' attempt to create a walled garden for gaming on Windows and (probably) cut them out. Their very clever approach has been a full end-run around the OS by using Proton, which I'm sure genuinely thrilled Apple... as long as Valve is only doing that to MS. Why would Apple ever invite Valve to potentially do the same…
Especially looking at Apples recent gaming history. When Cyberpunk, AC, and a couple other AAA titles came to macOS, Apple made a big deal of them being in the mac app store, specifically. They didn't go out of their way to call out that they run on mac, you can get them from Steam, etc. The big deal was they are in the app store. That's where Apple wants mac gaming to happen so they can get their 30% cut. I wish tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major reason is they are a private company with good business. The don't have a need to keep adding to shareholder value ie stock price instead just need to generate a yearly income. We have reached a point where the shareholders are a companies real customers and that is who they all try to attract.Everytthing else a company does is just to attract shareholders
Private or public, they are making stacks hand over fist. Why cant other companies learn that being good to your customers is a winning strategy?
Valve can be Valve because HL + Steam, in the same way that Google ~2010 could not be evil because search + ad revenue.
The difference is that Google IPO'd and took market capital, and Valve didn't.
Once public investors are onboard, you maximize profits or face lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People complain about the gambling/loot box stuff, and yeah there's legit ethical concerns there. But overall Valve just seems straightforwardly less shitty towards the consumer than other major companies in their space, by a long shot.
The major reason is they are a private company with good business. The don't have a need to keep adding to shareholder value ie stock price instead just need to generate a yearly income. We have reached a point where the shareholders are a companies real customers and that is who they all try to attract.Everytthing else a company does is just to attract shareholders
The issue really lies in the fact that the (long-term, majority) shareholders aren't much, if at all, related to the customers or employees of the business, but first the founders, and then parties who are merely interested in rising stock prices and dividends. It feels like the solution here ought to somehow desegregate voting rights from how many shares are owned, instead of dismantling the concept of public ownership entirely. (Or, perhaps, allow the general public to proxy vote via their 401(k) index funds?)
(There's also strange situations like Google/Alphabet, which is publicly owned, but effectively does not allow shareholders to vote on anything.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We have reached a point where the shareholders are a companies real customers and that is who they all try to attract. We currently have a handful of AI companies who make no profit, have revenue far below operating costs, their entire business runs on investment and they're posturing themselves for IPOs. Meaning that the reason they can keep the lights on solely comes from attracting investors (and will likely be t…
That's not unique to AI though. That's very common for tech startups. If they keep doing it, it must be because sometimes it works.
*At a specific point in time and for certain investors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apples biggest weakness is games. But it has a pretty large install base when compared to Linux (not counting phones or servers here).Seems like a win/win. Apple gets to address their weaknesses and Valve gets a large target market. I actually see it as the reverse. Valve might be going for the whole pie and want to carve out a niche for their Steam Box. Inviting Apple to the party might detract from that effort. Or…
Games are not a weakness for Apple. They have all the gaming revenue they seem to care about with mobile. They just don't have proper/immediate motivation to apply that effort to desktop. I'm not sure i even care anymore. I'm a valve fanboi at this point, until Gabe leaves and they go corporate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads can be disabled in the settings.
Not an excuse. It is not okay to abuse someone just because they can ask you to stop.
Particularly when you can easily disable them. No other game client I know of offers that.