4 ms·

They care about whatever Valve employees are interested in / is perceived as creating most value (not always the same as creating most value). Valve has a syste

by _cenw 4y ago

They care about whatever Valve employees are interested in / is perceived as creating most value (not always the same as creating most value). Valve has a system of weighted peer feedback (impacting salary and sometimes continued employment) that encourages follow-the-leader mentality despite their supposedly open culture. People Make Games made an enlightening documentary on the Valve model and where it fails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo Though if you need an example: Steam still doesn't have M1 binaries. Steam uses about 15 variants of UI framework, and some of it simply doesn't work on some platforms. Steam also took record time shipping an x86_64 (over x86) binary back in the day. Everything that's not the shiny current thing receives life support at most.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
When 32-bit binaries on macOS died, all the old Source games went with them, and Valve has seemingly never fixed it. :(
- SXX 4y ago
  There a lot of Mac software that been abandoned at some point in time due to API breakage on MacOS updates, driver API changes, etc. Supporting OS that breaks compatibility all the time is expansive even for less complex software and fixing games created on custom engines likely way too expensive. After all you can install it in Parallels and play Windows versions just fine.
SXX 4y ago
On M1 support. Apple been actively hostile to game developers. Apple has not maintained OpenGL support well, dropped 32-bit binaries, have no Vulkan support and break their APIs and compatibility all the time. No surprise Valve is not enthusiastic about supporting their platform.
sgtnoodle 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand your example. What actual value would M1/aarch64 compiled steam binaries be? Practically all games available on their platform are made for x86 or x86-64. That doesn't seem like something Valve can change. The only reason gaming on Linux is becoming practical is because Vulkan support is maturing and Valve doubled down on getting windows binary compatibility. I suppose Proton could probably be ported to OSX with enough work. Apple isn't making it easy by refusing to natively implement Vulkan, though. DirectX to Vulkan to Metal conversion on top of x86-64 emulation is just a lot going on. It seems like no one's interested in doing the work to convert DirectX directly to Metal.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  > That doesn't seem like something Valve can change. This is where I'd disagree with you. Valve has all sorts of levers they could pull to encourage ARM builds. One example, they could offer a lower commission rate on games which have ARM builds available. This would incentivize developers to target the platform.
  - wheybags 4y ago
    Given the tiny percentage that osx represents, why would they bother? It's just not worth investing too much effort in apple platforms.
    - BirAdam 4y ago
      Linux was less until SteamDeck.
      - depressedpanda 4y ago
        Irrelevant given the potential Linux brings to the table.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        Linux support was (is) a hedge against an OS vendor using their power to force themselves into the lucrative middle man position. MacOS support is not.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Linux doesn't depreciate major graphics APIs or CPU features willy-nilly.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    If 70% of the sales price isn’t enough profit incentive, I kind of doubt that making that 80% would tip the scales to it being desirable to the game studio.
  - andrepd 4y ago
dbeley 4y ago
They supported linux in order to have their own platform outside of Microsoft's reach (first through the Steam Machines, now the Steam Deck). Indeed the Mac support is lackluster, but it's yet another proprietary platform and Apple makes it difficult to work on.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> Steam also took record time shipping an x86_64 (over x86) binary back in the day. Steam doesn't need more than 2/4GB so it doesn't seem like that matters.

by _cenw 4y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

When 32-bit binaries on macOS died, all the old Source games went with them, and Valve has seemingly never fixed it. :(

SXX 4y ago
There a lot of Mac software that been abandoned at some point in time due to API breakage on MacOS updates, driver API changes, etc. Supporting OS that breaks compatibility all the time is expansive even for less complex software and fixing games created on custom engines likely way too expensive. After all you can install it in Parallels and play Windows versions just fine.

SXX 4y ago

On M1 support. Apple been actively hostile to game developers. Apple has not maintained OpenGL support well, dropped 32-bit binaries, have no Vulkan support and break their APIs and compatibility all the time. No surprise Valve is not enthusiastic about supporting their platform.

sgtnoodle 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand your example. What actual value would M1/aarch64 compiled steam binaries be? Practically all games available on their platform are made for x86 or x86-64. That doesn't seem like something Valve can change. The only reason gaming on Linux is becoming practical is because Vulkan support is maturing and Valve doubled down on getting windows binary compatibility. I suppose Proton could probably be ported to OSX with enough work. Apple isn't making it easy by refusing to natively implement Vulkan, though. DirectX to Vulkan to Metal conversion on top of x86-64 emulation is just a lot going on. It seems like no one's interested in doing the work to convert DirectX directly to Metal.

tstrimple 4y ago
> That doesn't seem like something Valve can change. This is where I'd disagree with you. Valve has all sorts of levers they could pull to encourage ARM builds. One example, they could offer a lower commission rate on games which have ARM builds available. This would incentivize developers to target the platform.
- wheybags 4y ago
  Given the tiny percentage that osx represents, why would they bother? It's just not worth investing too much effort in apple platforms.
  - BirAdam 4y ago
    Linux was less until SteamDeck.
    - depressedpanda 4y ago
      Irrelevant given the potential Linux brings to the table.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      Linux support was (is) a hedge against an OS vendor using their power to force themselves into the lucrative middle man position. MacOS support is not.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Linux doesn't depreciate major graphics APIs or CPU features willy-nilly.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If 70% of the sales price isn’t enough profit incentive, I kind of doubt that making that 80% would tip the scales to it being desirable to the game studio.
- andrepd 4y ago

dbeley 4y ago

They supported linux in order to have their own platform outside of Microsoft's reach (first through the Steam Machines, now the Steam Deck). Indeed the Mac support is lackluster, but it's yet another proprietary platform and Apple makes it difficult to work on.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> Steam also took record time shipping an x86_64 (over x86) binary back in the day. Steam doesn't need more than 2/4GB so it doesn't seem like that matters.