zlacker

Let's be honest about this current situation.

Valve pushing for Linux gaming is for survival, not charity.

Windows is closing in on them: stricter kernel access (tougher time for anti-cheat)

Encouraging users to use the app store, or more accurately: discouraging users to install from binary

They threaten Valve's business model, and Valve is responding with proton & SteamOS

>>MattDa+(OP)
Why is it though. Just release a SteamOS with Secure Boot enabled and you’re done. It’s really simple

>>MattDa+(OP)
Your argument doesn’t make any sense. What does this have to do with supporting Arm chips? It’s not like AMD and Intel are waging a war against Valve. If anything Steam helps them by strengthening the PC gaming market, leading to higher CPU/GPU sales.

>>MattDa+(OP)
> Windows is closing in on them: stricter kernel access (tougher time for anti-cheat)

Why would Microsoft not work with leaders of a multi-billion dollar industry they benefit from to develop anti-cheats that work with whatever limitations they put on kernel access? Also isn't stricter kernel access in part being done for anti-cheat and related measures?

> Encouraging users to use the app store, or more accurately: discouraging users to install from binary

Why would this threaten Steam? Unless you're suggesting they can't just distribute Steam through this app store?

> They threaten Valve's business model, and Valve is responding with proton & SteamOS

You didn't even mention Game Pass or their store, which are actually more of a threat!

>>squigz+l4
Microsoft's a competitor. And they have a reputation for being the first ally to stab you in the back (e.g. SGI / DirectX). You don't want to depend or trust them when they like the market you're in.

>>sheeps+N3
Slowly getting their stuff independent of wintel gives a lot of flexibility. And the big gaming market's on phones / tablets. A steam controller could find itself paired to an iPad running steam in a year or two.

>>MattDa+(OP)
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.

>>Tulliu+l6
yes. it aligns, for now. But only for now. all those FAANG's had the same status too, once upon a time.

>>MattDa+(OP)
I don’t see it. Stricter kernel access is pressure on game devs, not Valve. And I don’t see MS booting steam off windows any time soon.

It’s more about Valve having complete control over the stack and being able to vertically integrate, something they will never have with windows, especially as it continues to enshittify

>>johnny+V9
Valve predates Google by two years (at least per the wiki), and was started by Microsoft employees who didn't particularly like Microsoft's operation. Hoping Valve has a long future ahead of them :)

>>lallys+t5
We're too far into the grip of monopolies for that. Apple would never let a full version of Steam run on iPads. Google wouldn't either.

I think more ARM Valve hardware is likely.

>>0x1ch+Nl
Yeah, and they shifted from being a gamik studio to a middleman. The signs are already there, but greed arrives all the same.

>>Tulliu+l6
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 they're doing it is just coincidental to the public good, not because of a genuine motivation to do good.

>>energy+wo
I strongly disagree with this approach in life.

I am “morally lucky” because every decision I make is to ensure I can always be morally lucky, 10 years later. I take certain kinds of jobs in certain kinds of industries.

It’s my same approach to reducing stress or getting things done. I never get a parking ticket not because I’m amazing — it’s because I know if I have to go out later and move my car, I’ll forget, so I’ll just park right the first time. 10 years later and no parking tickets and no stress — if someone tells me “oh you’re just lucky,” I can only chuckle.

>>energy+wo
> 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.

>>harral+Vs
I don't see it as an "approach", I see it as a description. If the FSR upscaler becomes better than DLSS, then my description leads to the prediction that AMD will make FSR closed source. The prevailing camp that says AMD are exercising their moral compass will predict that AMD will keep FSR open source. We'll see who has a description that aligns with reality if that day comes.

>>lallys+t5
The only play I see here is a legitimate Valve console to take on XBOX and Sony. Plus Arm on a Steam Deck would improve the battery life considerably (assuming they are able to integrate with some powerful GPU solution).

>>johnny+8o
Valve has had all the triggers and opportunities to change for the worse and it didn't. Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I don't see what would ruin it now.

>>energy+wo
Why not give them credit for that? There is no moral rule that to be virtuous, it has to be self-sacrificial. If you narrow a commendable course of action to some sort of ascetic vision of martyrdom and self-punishment, then yes everybody and everything is evil.

So they may pivot to closed source when the circumstances will benefit it, or they may actually not do that. They have no shareholders that force them to squeeze the bottom line. The perceived benefits may just be slight and their culture will push them to stay the course on the long term, where other companies will do the reverse. Maybe if their survival is at stake, but wouldn't anyone faced with existential danger do anything to stay alive, including the worst imaginable?

Within certain commercial boundaries that keeps the business profitable, companies can and do make all sorts of decisions based on values and visions that are more than just economical, especially companies not beholden to shareholders that only care about short-term profits. Even the economical decisions aren't purely rational and often done from some kind of cultural bias.

>>ahartm+5c1
You can argue they did, depending on what you value. If you loved valve as a premier developer discovering unique experiences and narratives, thars been gone for 14 years now. If you valued not having your software locked down to middlemen or preferred physical media, Valved killed those off in the PC market. If you are a dev and wanted to set your own prices, Valve is current under litigation for price parties.

Its not all sunshine and windows.

>Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore, I

In the same way Bill Gates did not force you to use Internet Explorer, yes. Both are free applications with alternatives. Let's not forget our history.

>>ahartm+5c1
> Short of Gabe Newell not controlling it anymore

That's only a matter of time, and probably not a very long time.

>>accoun+1q1
Sure, Valve may turn bad after Gaben. It is also possible that he thought of something for the long term that will prevent enshittification. Some companies have managed.