Don't see why that's a given. Had Valve really thrown their weight behind it, devs would have followed.
Just because the market is a certain way doesn't mean that's out of necessity. There are large markets in developing economies that would benefit much (as would everyone else) from getting out of MS's grip.
Devs aren't the problem. There are a huge number of games available for Linux on Steam. Linux gaming on Steam is a success, well beyond the expectations of most.
Steam Machines are the failure. Making them even more expensive would not have helped.
It seems to me that the reason why they failed was because they were too expensive due to a reliance on OEMs like Alienware who inevitably put out overpriced junk. There were too many options. That's not how you win the market. Not sure they were really interested in doing so...it was more of a hedge against MS.
Hilariously enough, Alienware put out one of the only reasonably priced Steam Machines.
The lowest end Alpha was by all means a decent console contender in terms of size, graphics, processor, and memory, while also being one of the cheapest models of all Steam Machines.
The majority of OEMs pushed out overpriced garbage, but for the most part Alienware wasn't one of them. They committed to a custom, low profile case design AND worked with Nvidia to create a powerful low power GPU based on the GTX 960m. $400 for that versus the other companies pushing poorly supported low end Radeons? Phenomenal.
I bought on release day and still use my Alienware Steam Machine. Unfortunately, like many other said above, the developers simply don't optimize for Linux releases like they do for Windows, but the hardware pushes what you'd generally expect from what is effectively a couple years old gaming laptop hardware.
Is Valve as a company actually ever capable of throwing it's weight behind anything?
They had VR handed to them on a plate and all they've managed to ship is a tech demo. Almost feels like all these projects that should be major for them are treated like side projects.
I know people still have a lot of love for the games they released 13 years ago but for me I've learned to accept that Valve today isn't what Valve back then was.
> They had VR handed to them on a plate and all they've managed to ship is a tech demo. Almost feels like all these projects that should be major for them are treated like side projects.
They own the distribution of VR games. Even games that can't be distributed on Steam use their APIs, because it's the widely-supported way of doing it that works with all the headsets. Even if Valve never makes a VR game, they're going to make a lot of money from them if it ever takes off.
My argument isn't that their (almost) monopoly on PC games sales allow them to print money. My point is they're not the visionary games and hardware company that most of their cheerleading fans think they are.
They're just an online store, and for people like myself who grew up on Half Life it's a sad realisation.
As someone using a less-popular VR headset (Windows MR, it's what works with my hardware), Steam VR has let me play a lot of fun games that I probably wouldn't have got to otherwise. I don't know about "visionary", but they've put in the legwork to make it all work, and deserve credit for that.
Just because the market is a certain way doesn't mean that's out of necessity. There are large markets in developing economies that would benefit much (as would everyone else) from getting out of MS's grip.