Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 876 posts

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#481

Post by aydyn »

ethbr1 wrote: post #456
aydyn wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's not, all other things equal. 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.

But thats the point, Valve IS maximizing profits. If they treated their customers like Epic does, do you think people would still be using Valve when Epic is generally a bit cheaper?

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#482

Post by TulliusCicero »

lallysingh wrote: post #325
TulliusCicero wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an argument that loot boxes that give you cosmetics just aren't that big of a deal, at least if we're talking about adults. Especially since Magic the Gathering and similar card games are very normalized, and have a straightforwardly more evil monetization strategy, since you need to do gambling there to even play the game, it's not cosmetic. There's always this question when Valve comes up of, "why are peopl…

I always interpreted that as cosmetics are OK because it doesn't make the game unfair. You can't buy advancement in the game that way. Subsidizing the game's devel/ops cost isn't a bad thing. Especially if it's optional and doesn't change the game.

Very few people have a problem with just paying for cosmetics in a game. The main issue here is that it's gambling for cosmetics, rather than straightforwardly purchasing specific items.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#483

Post by johnnyanmac »

bigyabai wrote: post #114
charcircuit wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever heard of terms like "Playstation exclusive" before? Companies benefit from having good content on their platform and they typically are willing to pay for it.

Not since Bloodborne, I haven't. And I've heard people can play that game on Steam Deck now, too: https://youtu.be/eDHiVsr-jfM These days the only context I hear "Playstation exclusive" in comes from people trying to analyze how much money Sony lost developing Concord.

Real shame, you should try Ghosts of Yotei. It's good.

Astro Bot is a personal favorite too. That one would be tricky to get the true experience on in terms of PC platform.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#484

Post by johnnyanmac »

charcircuit wrote: post #451
sophrosyne42 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't forced to fund anything. They have the option for an additional value add, that's all.

Valve is known for never funding games which is why my original comment expressed surprise. Of course they aren't forced to fund content on their platform, but I had thought they had changed their strategy.

The clsoest thing to funding we ever got was Activision getting Valve to lower the cut for big publishers so they could get onto Steam.

Otherwise, I can't remember the last time they funded a game they didn't make themselves. Maybe in the very early Steam days, but that's long past.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#485

Post by TulliusCicero »

energy123 wrote: post #447
TulliusCicero wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're doing things that are simultaneously good for business and good for consumers. That contrasts against the companies doing things that are good for business (at least short term) and bad for consumers.

Sure but it's just being morally lucky. They found themself in a situation where there was temporary and situational alignment, why give them any credit for that? They didn't create that situation. It's like AMD open sourcing FSR or Meta open sourcing Llama. The outcome itself is good, but if they ever become leaders in these verticals, they will pivot to closed source quicker than you can blink, because the reason t…

> Sure but it's just being morally lucky.

No, it's not. They're choosing the path that builds user trust and positive sentiment for long term success, rather than choosing to fleece their customers and not worry about whether people hate it.

Other corporations in a similar spot for games and game platforms could choose to make the same type of choices, but they'd rather boost next quarter's profits, even if that means pissing off their userbase with consumer-hostile policies.

No one forced Valve to have a great form of family sharing. No one forced them to have generous policies around generating Steam keys. No one forced them to invent remote play together. They do these things because they're nice features that are useful for players and make people stay engaged on Steam, and more positively inclined towards Valve.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#486

Post by ascagnel_ »

franczesko wrote: post #205
alemanek wrote: post #105

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…

>Valve gets a large target market They don't need Apple for that. People who game already game elsewhere. Steam on Apple feels pointless. I wouldn't be surprised, if Valve will go for smartphones with their own at some point

This is really the endgame, I think. A modern smartphone with a controller attached is effectively the same as a Steam Deck or Switch 2, just with a different OS. Apple has been pushing higher-end games on phones lately (this year has seen iOS versions of Hitman 3, Sniper Elite 4, and Subnautica), and reports are that the new pro phones run them well (the limiting factor being thermal load).

A phone that can run my Steam library is super-compelling -- I travel a decent amount, so being able to chuck something smaller like a Backbone One in my bag vs. a Steam Deck would be a meaningful change.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#487

Post by mcny »

InvisibleUp wrote: post #457
xbmcuser wrote: post #251

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

I find it a touch strange, in the abstract, that a corporation being public is a bad thing. On paper it should be a good thing; being publicly owned should mean that your corporation has turned from a private business venture into effectively public infrastructure that's impossible to boycott and depended on to some extent by everybody. As a result, financial statements should be (and are) public and transparent, and…

> (There's also strange situations like Google/Alphabet, which is publicly owned, but effectively does not allow shareholders to vote on anything.)

You mean the special class B shares that gives 10 votes per share, right? It isn't just Google though. Facebook and Snapchat also do the same thing, iirc?

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#488

Post by ascagnel_ »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #241
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

Would love to see it on MacOS X -- Steam works great on my Mac Mini for the games it supports, would be great to see everything run on it.

But why? Valve is doing this because they don’t want to have the OS vendor exert total control over them and the gaming industry. Apple is a terrible choice by that metric.

It'll never happen for a whole bunch of reasons, but a phone with Apple's hardware, Valve's OS, and Nintendo's game library would be amazing.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#489

Post by TulliusCicero »

dataflow wrote: post #403
TulliusCicero wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an argument that loot boxes that give you cosmetics just aren't that big of a deal, at least if we're talking about adults. Especially since Magic the Gathering and similar card games are very normalized, and have a straightforwardly more evil monetization strategy, since you need to do gambling there to even play the game, it's not cosmetic. There's always this question when Valve comes up of, "why are peopl…

> There's always this question when Valve comes up of, "why are people more upset about gambling for cosmetics in a game than gambling for power/features in a game?" Do you have a link to this sentiment anywhere? It's the first time I'm hearing about it. > Especially since Magic the Gathering and similar card games are very normalized, and have a straightforwardly more evil monetization strategy, since you need to do…

I'm using "gambling" the same way it's typically used in these discussions. If you'd like to convince the rest of the internet that it should only apply to more traditional things like Poker or slots, where the house has some edge, be my guest.

Re: Valve reveals it’s the architect behind a push to bring Windows games to Arm

#490

Post by johnnyanmac »

ohdearnopls wrote: post #117
charcircuit wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a larger install base. Those users may require extra support, those users may tank your reviews, those users may have a worse looking game or one that crashes a lot that can result in reputational damage.

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.

>End of discussion.

And that's why Linux market share is a tiny drop in the pool. Devs have enough on their plates and being forced to do support for an attitude like this isn't in their budget.

>Are you advocating pro-monopoly?

Quite the contrary, I'd love for Valve to be taken down a notch.

> Should developers only release games on Windows by default unless other platforms decide to pay up?

If they want to be profitable, yes. If gamers really cared, they had 20, 30 years to put their money where their mouths were. Reality is often disappointing, though.

My future endeavors actually want to have a Linux-first development stack. To make a properly Native linux game, not this sham of compatibility not-emulation layers. But I know that will take some adjustment and me not using the two most popular game engines to help. I'm definitely not doing this because I hope to maximize revenue. I simply am tired of being trapped in the confines of billionaires who have actively made my society worse. But that stand has an opportunity cost, one a business like Valve won't truly make.

Post reply on HN