Fostering developers to go ham on windows to Linux comparability and now the same for X86/64 to ARM is much more than nothing. Valve have actually been the ones doing the most to pave the way for theirs and anyone who follows’ future.
I’m not too jazzed about their virtual monopoly but that’s sadly because they’ve just been working for consumers in more ways than the others. They’re not the best at everything like GOG trumps then when it comes to actual ownership but it’s sum of all of their parts that puts them head and shoulders above the rest.
They’ve done so much that they’ve paved the way for non gamers to be able to switch over to Linux much easier (I wouldn’t say it’s all on them but they’ve helped foster cross compatible development on Linux in general). I don’t think you could say the others have done as much to affect the space outside of gaming as valve either. Except Microsoft, but their decisions have been much more controversial.
I hate to see myself glazing valve as much as I have here but it is what it is. I’ll criticise them when the context allows and praise them like this in other times.
Stop giving credence to valve being a monopoly. That’s tech bro propaganda. They are literally not a monopoly. There is multiple digital storefronts for PC gaming. There is options. There is choice. Do not further the narrative and get fucking valve antitrusted for no goddamn reason other than Microsoft wants them dead.
That’s why i said a virtual monopoly not an actual one. Their prevalence in the industry among pc gamers makes them seem like a monopoly even though there are choices. The rest of my comment also explains why people choose them over other options so I don’t know what your trying to get at…
I would go further and say that all that they’ve done are “”“merely”“” sound elements in a strategy to avoid that in the era of always-online remote updateable software, Microsoft successfully uses their position as the provider (and, more importantly, controller of some of what runs in pretty much all consumer instances) of Windows to squeeze out Steam as a games store.
Microsoft slowly transforming for Windows applications into the equivalent of Apple for iOS applications (and their move towards signed applications could be part of that) would be a nightmare scenario for Steam and it’s a realistic possibility, especially if you notice that Microsoft is moving towards “everything must be cryptographically signed by Microsoft” to run in Windows.
So it totally makes strategical sense for Steam to invest into getting as many gamers as possible away from the Windows ecosystem, and one path is to get more games to as easily as possible run in the already existing and established alternative to Windows - Linux - the easiest way being to invest in an ever improved Windows-Linux adaptor layer (i.e. Wine/Proton) backed by a Steam store in Linux which just seamlessly uses that layer when needed, whilst another path is to sell their own game machines which do not run Windows and there again using Linux makes sense as the OS, both because it already exists and is mature and because using it on their machines has synergies with their investment in the “make games targeting Windows seamlessly run on Linux without needing changes”.
This isn’t Valve and Steam being nice guys doing nice things because they love their customers who use Linux, it’s just good long term business planning and management of maybe their greatest external risk - Microsoft.
I mean, “Yay for choosing Linux!” and “Respect for their business sense”, but lets not deceive ourselves into thinking they’re good guys because of doing what just makes sense strategically to manage Microsoft as a risk.
I agree, it’s just nice that they chose a platform that others can use what they’ve implemented whilst they’re still around and if they somehow go tits up on Sunday.
Their decision to do it open source is the nice guy side but you are right they have ulterior motives that just make perfect business sense rather than it just them being “nice”.
Fostering developers to go ham on windows to Linux comparability and now the same for X86/64 to ARM is much more than nothing. Valve have actually been the ones doing the most to pave the way for theirs and anyone who follows’ future.
I’m not too jazzed about their virtual monopoly but that’s sadly because they’ve just been working for consumers in more ways than the others. They’re not the best at everything like GOG trumps then when it comes to actual ownership but it’s sum of all of their parts that puts them head and shoulders above the rest.
They’ve done so much that they’ve paved the way for non gamers to be able to switch over to Linux much easier (I wouldn’t say it’s all on them but they’ve helped foster cross compatible development on Linux in general). I don’t think you could say the others have done as much to affect the space outside of gaming as valve either. Except Microsoft, but their decisions have been much more controversial.
I hate to see myself glazing valve as much as I have here but it is what it is. I’ll criticise them when the context allows and praise them like this in other times.
Stop giving credence to valve being a monopoly. That’s tech bro propaganda. They are literally not a monopoly. There is multiple digital storefronts for PC gaming. There is options. There is choice. Do not further the narrative and get fucking valve antitrusted for no goddamn reason other than Microsoft wants them dead.
That’s why i said a virtual monopoly not an actual one. Their prevalence in the industry among pc gamers makes them seem like a monopoly even though there are choices. The rest of my comment also explains why people choose them over other options so I don’t know what your trying to get at…
I would go further and say that all that they’ve done are “”“merely”“” sound elements in a strategy to avoid that in the era of always-online remote updateable software, Microsoft successfully uses their position as the provider (and, more importantly, controller of some of what runs in pretty much all consumer instances) of Windows to squeeze out Steam as a games store.
Microsoft slowly transforming for Windows applications into the equivalent of Apple for iOS applications (and their move towards signed applications could be part of that) would be a nightmare scenario for Steam and it’s a realistic possibility, especially if you notice that Microsoft is moving towards “everything must be cryptographically signed by Microsoft” to run in Windows.
So it totally makes strategical sense for Steam to invest into getting as many gamers as possible away from the Windows ecosystem, and one path is to get more games to as easily as possible run in the already existing and established alternative to Windows - Linux - the easiest way being to invest in an ever improved Windows-Linux adaptor layer (i.e. Wine/Proton) backed by a Steam store in Linux which just seamlessly uses that layer when needed, whilst another path is to sell their own game machines which do not run Windows and there again using Linux makes sense as the OS, both because it already exists and is mature and because using it on their machines has synergies with their investment in the “make games targeting Windows seamlessly run on Linux without needing changes”.
This isn’t Valve and Steam being nice guys doing nice things because they love their customers who use Linux, it’s just good long term business planning and management of maybe their greatest external risk - Microsoft.
I mean, “Yay for choosing Linux!” and “Respect for their business sense”, but lets not deceive ourselves into thinking they’re good guys because of doing what just makes sense strategically to manage Microsoft as a risk.
I agree, it’s just nice that they chose a platform that others can use what they’ve implemented whilst they’re still around and if they somehow go tits up on Sunday.
Their decision to do it open source is the nice guy side but you are right they have ulterior motives that just make perfect business sense rather than it just them being “nice”.