4 ms·

I thought for a moment from the title that Valve has finally started funding game developers to make content from SteamOS, but no, this is just another case whe

I thought for a moment from the title that Valve has finally started funding game developers to make content from SteamOS, but no, this is just another case where Valve pays some contractors for open source projects and force developers to foot the bill for verifying compatibility.

ThrowawayTestr 11mo ago
I'm sure those developers hate getting a larger install base for free.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  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.
  - ohdearnopls 11mo ago
    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.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      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 on their own volition.
      - avianlyric 11mo ago
        I don’t think anyone can seriously hold up the PC gaming platform as a paragon of “supported configurations”. The stupid number of tiny things that can cause a PC game to fail on a supposedly “supported configuration” is beyond ludicrous. To the point where I’ve personally given up running Windows completely because it’s less reliable at actual running the game I care about than Proton is.
    - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
      >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.
    - tomovo 11mo ago
      I don't think that's the end of the discussion. Let's try to talk separately about developers and publishers. I'm sure game developers would love to spend time making the game run on everything. But publishers work with a budget and schedule and have to consider the returns. If the potential new customers bring more support load and bad reviews, it's not worth it. That, I think, is the end of the discussion for the publisher.
marcellus23 11mo ago
> force developers to foot the bill for verifying compatibility How are they forcing developers? If developers don't think it's worth it to make their game compatible with Steam Deck, can't they just avoid doing that?
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  They are forcing developers to be the one to pay for it if they do it because there is no other player in the space that would financially benefit from games having SteamOS support. Practically every other company with an game platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform. Also developers can't avoid supporting SteamOS because there is no way for them to 100% opt out of being on that platform.
  - blibble 11mo ago
    > Practically every other company with an application platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform. the only platforms I've ever heard of this for were Windows Phone and the Epic Store both of which were runaway commercial successes
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      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.
      - bigyabai 11mo ago
        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 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.
dev0p 11mo ago
Why the vitriol? This is one of the rare cases where a company actually puts money in open source development. Of course they ultimately do it for business reasons but everyone benefits from it as a whole, so I fail to understand the issue here.
- charcircuit 11mo ago
  Because the title mislead me. It turned out that 0 windows games are receiving funding to add ARM compatibility.
  - ninth_ant 11mo ago
    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.
    - charcircuit 11mo ago
      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.
      - sophrosyne42 11mo ago
        But is the disadvantage worth the relatively high overhead of specifically adding arm support? I doubt that. It is better game devs focus on what they're better at - x86 - while valve and open source devs focus on what they're better at, than trying to split funds across competing solutions to the problem.
        charcircuit 11mo ago
danbolt 11mo ago
The last studio I worked at where the Steam Deck came up, the rendering lead muttered “ew, no! we don’t have time to figure that out!” and that was the end of the conversation. A week after launch, the Proton devs pushed a hotfix and the binary’s been compatible with Linux ever since.

ThrowawayTestr 11mo ago

I'm sure those developers hate getting a larger install base for free.

charcircuit 11mo ago
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.
- ohdearnopls 11mo ago
  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.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    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 on their own volition.
    - avianlyric 11mo ago
      I don’t think anyone can seriously hold up the PC gaming platform as a paragon of “supported configurations”. The stupid number of tiny things that can cause a PC game to fail on a supposedly “supported configuration” is beyond ludicrous. To the point where I’ve personally given up running Windows completely because it’s less reliable at actual running the game I care about than Proton is.
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    >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.
  - tomovo 11mo ago
    I don't think that's the end of the discussion. Let's try to talk separately about developers and publishers. I'm sure game developers would love to spend time making the game run on everything. But publishers work with a budget and schedule and have to consider the returns. If the potential new customers bring more support load and bad reviews, it's not worth it. That, I think, is the end of the discussion for the publisher.

marcellus23 11mo ago

> force developers to foot the bill for verifying compatibility How are they forcing developers? If developers don't think it's worth it to make their game compatible with Steam Deck, can't they just avoid doing that?

charcircuit 11mo ago
They are forcing developers to be the one to pay for it if they do it because there is no other player in the space that would financially benefit from games having SteamOS support. Practically every other company with an game platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform. Also developers can't avoid supporting SteamOS because there is no way for them to 100% opt out of being on that platform.
- blibble 11mo ago
  > Practically every other company with an application platform, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS, Android, etc have programs to fund bringing content to their platform. the only platforms I've ever heard of this for were Windows Phone and the Epic Store both of which were runaway commercial successes
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    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.
    - bigyabai 11mo ago
      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 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.

dev0p 11mo ago

Why the vitriol? This is one of the rare cases where a company actually puts money in open source development. Of course they ultimately do it for business reasons but everyone benefits from it as a whole, so I fail to understand the issue here.

charcircuit 11mo ago
Because the title mislead me. It turned out that 0 windows games are receiving funding to add ARM compatibility.
- ninth_ant 11mo ago
  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.
  - charcircuit 11mo ago
    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.
    - sophrosyne42 11mo ago
      But is the disadvantage worth the relatively high overhead of specifically adding arm support? I doubt that. It is better game devs focus on what they're better at - x86 - while valve and open source devs focus on what they're better at, than trying to split funds across competing solutions to the problem.
      - charcircuit 11mo ago

danbolt 11mo ago

The last studio I worked at where the Steam Deck came up, the rendering lead muttered “ew, no! we don’t have time to figure that out!” and that was the end of the conversation. A week after launch, the Proton devs pushed a hotfix and the binary’s been compatible with Linux ever since.