Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
Valve can not legally port games they do not own to another platform.
Edit: If there is a game that is not on console that you would like to see ported over, contact the game's publisher or devs. The game is their property so they're the only one's that can make that choose.
Also Microsoft isn't just going to allow a competitor set up shop in their house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DxuAzX2Hss
Valve pretty much abandoned all ambitions to release their games on consoles.
Just see how CS:GO ended up. Was dropped pretty fast after its release. Not even a year.
So, don't expect anything to happen. Especially since Valve now has their own SteamDeck, which is a portable PC and doing very fine.
I think they were sort of hedging their bets. That was a time when everyone was shouting about how "PC gaming is dead" and companies were focusing hard on consoles. Of course Valve's focus was PC, but in the off chance that console did turn out to be the future of gaming they didn't want to be left completely in the cold. Thankfully, PC gaming did not die and is in fact bigger than ever, and I think a lot of the companies that eschewed PC at the time are now kicking themselves a little.
While they can't PORT an individual game they don't own, making all of Steam work on a console is potentially a gray area. Making something interoperable is a carveout in copyright laws. They wouldn't be "porting" the game, they would be making a PC game work on a console. If successful they would probably be sued, but if they fought it they would probably win.
See the Bleem! lawsuits where Sony sued to stop Bleem from making the PS1 verions of Tekken 3 and MGS work on the Dreamcast. Bleem! actually won at the appellate level, but Sony managed to crush the company with legal fees and threats to retailers, Valve wouldn't be so easy a target.
Valve couldn't release an app on the console without the consoles approval so they just would deny it
The only way Steam would even run on other consoles is via homebrew and hacks, not official methods, because there's no way console manufacturers would allow Steam on a console.
Plus, what about the games themselves? For Valve to port all the games, they would either need to reverse engineer every single game, which is very labor and capital-intensive, then port the games, which is also labor and capital-intensive. Or run Linux, and just make good use of their investment and development into Proton.
So Steam-on-consoles is practically impossible without running Linux on those consoles, which sure, absolutely can be done *in a virtual machine*. You can even run a virtual machine in a web browser, albeit extremely slowly. Regardless of how it's running, virtual machines wouldn't work for gaming, not without full access to every single bit hardware, at least, which even homebrew doesn't have.
Alternately, Linux running natively would be fast and fine for gaming, but it's much harder. I don't think it's even currently possible on PS4/Xbox One or newer. Even the Switch can only run Android, but only early models. Plus, it's based on ARM, so running Steam stuff on the Switch would require 1) making the Switch run Linux, which is possible, but no solution currently exists, and 2) porting the games to ARM, which actually isn't that hard nowadays, but certainly would take up time, labor, and money, in particular due to the sheer number of games Steam has.
And even then, it would be a bad experience just due to the lack of support in Linux for modern consoles. To get better Linux support, Valve would have to make drivers for most parts of the console, which would also be quite labor and capital-intensive.
It would take tons of investment, and all for what, a few thousand customers, and at the cost of terrible relations with Microsoft and Sony, who could easily take their huge franchises to EGS and have Valve lose out on millions, or tens of millions, of dollars.
I know this thread recently got revived despite being 2 months old, but I wanna take this opportunity to clarify that Valve handled the 360 port, while EA handled the PS3 port. You can check here: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/The_Orange_Box_(Console)
Why is that a detail I wanted to clarify? Because in hindsight, we have a fantastic example of how games could be controlled. 360 is still alive, somewhat despite not having dedicated servers or a third party managing servers. While PS3 was just killed off despite being somewhat alive like the 360. What does this show? If you give people the ability to play a game regardless of dedicated servers, people would still take the effort to play it. And those crazy PS3 bastards are still trying.
It could be that, but also during that time consoles were becoming a thing. I mean, there were a lot of potential opportunities for consoles. And the idea of consoles is pretty enticing, "Oh, you have a fixed hardware that can give me these capabilities that I don't need to worry about? Kinda cool?" With consoles, you would only need to optimize for consoles. You don't need to worry about the next graphics card that might come out. That breakthrough CPU with breakneck speeds. Etc. You just had to worry about the console, and at the time they would be pretty powerful.
But also, you don't know what an environment is truly like until you actually get into it, right? So, it seems to me that Valve had a good opportunity to experiment. But I think consoles provide more problems then they actually solved. When that new console comes out, you don't have access to most old games because those old games weren't made for new consoles. Not only that, but the console environment seems so limiting in terms of what you can do. If you want to update your game you have to deal with a lot of red-tape. Got an important patch that needed to come out? Well, Microsoft/Sony has to take a look at it and/or release it on a certain day. The prime example is whenever Gabe talked about Apple and the Steam App. Apple didn't release their update until like 6 months later or something when Valve was literally ready to release it the next day after their App came out.
That I think is actually the biggest factor because if you look at how Steam operates their update system, its almost like developers can update their game whenever they want. Steam allows developers to do that. Want to update your game everyday? Sure, go for it. I think Valve abandoned consoles mostly because they felt it was too restricting on devs, and that lesson they learned kinda shows with how much freedom they let devs have on Steam.