This issue has multiple facets and the answer changes depending on the end result you want.
The author of the article sees the problem as “Old games you bought on steam are unplayable on modern hardware”. Kaldaien sees the problem as “Steam cannot run on older hardware anymore, even if the games I bought still work there”. Both people want the same thing (To be able to play the games they bought) but are looking at it from different angles.
Ultimately, Steam is a DRM tool that has a very good storefront attached to it. If you want true ownership of the software, buy the game in a way that will let you run the software by itself. Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask. However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
I agree with the opinions of the article’s author. It would be far better to ensure that support for the old titles you bought are available on modern hardware rather than making sure Steam is still accessible on a PC running windows 98. This is one of those corner-cases where piracy is acceptable. You already paid for the game, you just need to jump through some hoops to play it on your 30 year old PC.
This seems like the wisest option for the long term. I just recently decided that any games that are available on both and don’t make use of Steam-exclusive features I will buy from GOG instead. Up until that point I had been buying games on Steam by default when they had sales, but GOG has equivalent sales at the same time. Unless the game takes advantage of some Steam-exclusive feature, there seems to be no good reason to buy it from Steam instead of from GOG.
I like Steam, but they are catering to a certain audience that doesn’t care as much about game preservation. Now that GoG is doing the opposite… it is the optimal place to buy those old games you want to keep forever. Seems simple to me. It’s healthy to have two different markets anyway.
I agree with you, but I started thinking about this not even from a game preservation perspective but from a DRM perspective. This article was a timely reminder that if I buy any media with DRM, no matter how purportedly lenient and user-friendly it is, the DRM controls when and where I’m allowed to use that media in perpetuity unless I break the DRM, which I understand is illegal in some jurisdictions. Imagine having to jump through hoops or even break the law just to keep using the media that you “bought” with your hard-earned cash.
I do the exact same, but I also buy multiplayer and VR games on Steam, because I run Linux, and GOG Galaxy isn’t out on Linux (yet). I really don’t want to faff about getting all of that working on each individual game. I bought Rain World and FTL on GOG, but Star Wars: Battlefront 2 on Steam.
Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask.
Valve is forcing them to upgrade their software and hardware to keep playing games they already purchased, on the hardware they purchased it on.
However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
It is very reasonable. No one forced Valve to build their business model this way, and they are one of the most profitable companies per employee, ever. It would not be onerous for them to continue supporting a couple of old versions of Windows, they would just have to hire a few more people to do it. Gabe would still be a billionaire.
It is very reasonable. No one forced Valve to build their business model this way, and they are one of the most profitable companies per employee, ever.
Literally every software company built their business model this way. Go open a support case with any software vendor complaining that their product won’t run on Windows 98 and see how many help you out beyond “Buy a computer from this millennium”
It would not be onerous for them to continue supporting a couple of old versions of Windows, they would just have to hire a few more people to do it.
You are failing to understand just how much has changed since Windows 98. It’s a completely different environment that requires specialized knowledge to develop for. They can’t just dust off some old source code and re-release the client. The entire back-end has changed. It would be a massive undertaking that would appease about 12 people total.
Gabe would still be a billionaire.
Sure, but I would argue that there are a lot of better things that Valve could be doing with those resources than supporting Windows 98
Literally. People miss the fact that Steam is still a 32-bit app just to support older games. The rest of the world has moved onto 64-bit operating systems and applications. It’s shocking they still support 32-bit in 2025. So the argument that they aren’t supporting older titles is a little misleading because that’s the whole reason they still run a 32-bit client.
Most operating systems are no longer even offered in a 32-bit variant, 64-bit only.
I haven’t had a device with 32-bit hardware in almost 15 years. The last device I can even think of that was still 32-bit within the last 15 years was a Google Nexus 6 in 2014. All the Pixel line have been 64-bit.
Steam is literally one of the last 32-bit holdouts. Everything else has moved on. Even Discord dropped 32-bit support last year.
EDIT: Also, for reference, since Windows 98 is heavily mentioned in the arguments, those operating systems included 16-bit code. We’re talking about dropping 32-bit code, 16-bit code is deader than a doornail. Windows 3.11 was the first introduction of 32-bit code. Windows XP seems to be where they dropped all 16-bit code in 2001. We’re talking over 30 years of hardware changes.
All versions of MS-DOS and the below versions of Windows had 16 bit code:
MS-DOS (all versions)
Windows 1.x/2.x/3.x (all versions)
Windows 4.x or 9x (Windows 95/98/Millennium Edition) (all versions)
They keep a bunch of 32-bit libraries for backwards compatibility with older games that they launch. You can find numerous discussions about this in the Steam forums as well as on sites like Hackernews.
If you want, I can give it to you from a Valve employee:
We will not drop support for the many games that have shipped on Steam with only 32-bit builds, so Steam will continue to deploy a 32-bit execution environment. To that end, it will continue to need some basic 32-bit support from the host distribution (a 32-bit glibc, ELF loader, and OpenGL driver library).
Whether the Steam client graphical interface component itself gets ported to 64-bit is a different question altogether, and is largely irrelevant as the need for the 32-bit execution environment would still be there because of the many 32-bit games to support.
Maybe do some cursory research before talking out of your ass.
Literally every software company built their business model this way. Go open a support case with any software vendor complaining that their product won’t run on Windows 98 and see how many help you out beyond “Buy a computer from this millennium”
No, they didn’t. I can install the software I bought back in the day on the computers I bought it for, using the license key provided. GoG also famously uses a model where GoG does not care what OS you’re using.
You are failing to understand just how much has changed since Windows 98. It’s a completely different environment that requires specialized knowledge to develop for. They can’t just dust off some old source code and re-release the client. The entire back-end has changed. It would be a massive undertaking that would appease about 12 people total.
Lol, I’m a software developer that started by writing legacy windows software, I know exactly how much (little) has changed.
Sure, but I would argue that there are a lot of better things that Valve could be doing with those resources than supporting Windows 98
I don’t care. They have the resources to support it.
Either strip the DRM out and pay whatever you have to to the publishers to do that, or keep supporting the systems you sold your software for.
The idea that Valve is blameless for shitty behaviour because other tech companies also do that shitty behaviour is nonsense. They have been the dominant platform forever, and have had an insane amount of resources available to them.
Lol, I’m a software developer that started by writing legacy windows software, I know exactly how much (little) has changed.
It is this perspective that exposes your bias and colors your perception.
We live in a post-Heartbleed world. We live in a post-UAC world. We constantly find new bugs and vulnerabilities, and they cannot always be patched without massive changes to the architecture. We cannot forever maintain old systems that cultivated bad habits in it’s users.
Not all change is good, but all change is inevitable.
No that perspective is what makes me understand that when corporations talk about obsceleting things for security reasons, it’s almost always not actually because of security, because it would be a little less profitable to continue support.
And Valve didnt have to build a business around always checking in DRM if they didn’t want to support old clients, and they have more than enough resources to continue support.
Can I hold you to the decisions you made 20 years ago? I bought that program you built decades ago, that means I’m entitled to your continued support. And don’t you even think about getting paid, your support should be free. You shouldn’t have built and sold the software if you can’t support it…
The GOG Preservation Program ensures classic games remain playable on modern systems, even after their developers stopped supporting them. By maintaining these iconic titles, GOG helps you protect and relive the memories that shaped you, DRM-free and with dedicated tech support.
The fact that their games are DRM free means that doesn’t matter one iota. If you buy a game from them on a set of hardware you’ll be able to play it on that hardware forever, regardless of whether their desktop client changes.
But if they keep it updated for modern systems that means as time goes on the files they are offering to install… won’t work on old hardware because they’ve been updated to the modern era.
Sure if you grab a file from them and never get a newer, more maintained version, it will play on exactly the hardware and software you had when you bought it… But if you lost the install file somehow and went to grab a new copy five years later the updated ones may no longer run on your old hardware
Sure if you grab a file from them snd never get a newer, more maintained version, it will play on exactly the hardware and software you had when you bought it…
That’s literally the entire point.
Also, they can still offer the olde versions of the file for download.
Literally any game sold that didn’t include always checking in DRM through a particular desktop client. i.e. virtually every single PC game not sold through steam.
Lots. Do you know how much corporate software is still of that vintage?
Literally like half of AutoCAD’s products still use the graphics and windowing APIs from that era as one example. The WinForms API are clunky by modern standards but also relatively trivial for a programmer to pick up and code with.
I mean, there is still an industry of Cobol engineers maintaining mainframe code for banks from the 80s.
I am aware that some corporate infrastructure is hopelessly tangled up in legacy systems. But we are talking about consumer support here, which I know you know is very different.
No. The question at hand is whether you expect any company, or any person, to indefinitely fix and maintain legacy systems. And yes, your argument is indefinite support because you want the purchasing machine to be granted use of the software in perpetuity, you want it to never lose access to the software. You provided no deadline by which anyone is allowed to stop fixing things that broke. And yes, things break naturally as a function of time.
This issue has multiple facets and the answer changes depending on the end result you want.
The author of the article sees the problem as “Old games you bought on steam are unplayable on modern hardware”. Kaldaien sees the problem as “Steam cannot run on older hardware anymore, even if the games I bought still work there”. Both people want the same thing (To be able to play the games they bought) but are looking at it from different angles.
Ultimately, Steam is a DRM tool that has a very good storefront attached to it. If you want true ownership of the software, buy the game in a way that will let you run the software by itself. Valve expects that the overwhelming majority of its users will keep up with semi-modern hardware (In this case, a machine capable of running windows 10/SteamOS) which I don’t feel is is an unreasonable ask. However, expecting Valve to retain support for an OS that hit end of life 20 years ago is unreasonable.
I agree with the opinions of the article’s author. It would be far better to ensure that support for the old titles you bought are available on modern hardware rather than making sure Steam is still accessible on a PC running windows 98. This is one of those corner-cases where piracy is acceptable. You already paid for the game, you just need to jump through some hoops to play it on your 30 year old PC.
Or just support GoG and buy the game from them.
This seems like the wisest option for the long term. I just recently decided that any games that are available on both and don’t make use of Steam-exclusive features I will buy from GOG instead. Up until that point I had been buying games on Steam by default when they had sales, but GOG has equivalent sales at the same time. Unless the game takes advantage of some Steam-exclusive feature, there seems to be no good reason to buy it from Steam instead of from GOG.
I like Steam, but they are catering to a certain audience that doesn’t care as much about game preservation. Now that GoG is doing the opposite… it is the optimal place to buy those old games you want to keep forever. Seems simple to me. It’s healthy to have two different markets anyway.
I agree with you, but I started thinking about this not even from a game preservation perspective but from a DRM perspective. This article was a timely reminder that if I buy any media with DRM, no matter how purportedly lenient and user-friendly it is, the DRM controls when and where I’m allowed to use that media in perpetuity unless I break the DRM, which I understand is illegal in some jurisdictions. Imagine having to jump through hoops or even break the law just to keep using the media that you “bought” with your hard-earned cash.
I just move the games folder out of steam.
I agree with you though.
I’d love a tutorial on this on Linux.
The games folders are the same on linux. Theyre just in home>deck>steam instead of c>programs>steam, or whatever the paths are.
I do the exact same, but I also buy multiplayer and VR games on Steam, because I run Linux, and GOG Galaxy isn’t out on Linux (yet). I really don’t want to faff about getting all of that working on each individual game. I bought Rain World and FTL on GOG, but Star Wars: Battlefront 2 on Steam.
Thanks for pointing this out about multiplayer and VR games. I had wondered about this exact thing, so I appreciate your confirming it!
You can run Heroic Launcher on Linux and it ties into GoG, didn’t know if you knew. (I run Linux too! There’s dozens of us xD)
I already use it, but thanks for recommending it. It’s really great. Here on Lemmy, I think the number of Linux users is in the thousands, not dozens.
Can confirm
Heck I just run GOG Galaxy in Proton to not have to patch everything manually.
Valve is forcing them to upgrade their software and hardware to keep playing games they already purchased, on the hardware they purchased it on.
It is very reasonable. No one forced Valve to build their business model this way, and they are one of the most profitable companies per employee, ever. It would not be onerous for them to continue supporting a couple of old versions of Windows, they would just have to hire a few more people to do it. Gabe would still be a billionaire.
Literally every software company built their business model this way. Go open a support case with any software vendor complaining that their product won’t run on Windows 98 and see how many help you out beyond “Buy a computer from this millennium”
You are failing to understand just how much has changed since Windows 98. It’s a completely different environment that requires specialized knowledge to develop for. They can’t just dust off some old source code and re-release the client. The entire back-end has changed. It would be a massive undertaking that would appease about 12 people total.
Sure, but I would argue that there are a lot of better things that Valve could be doing with those resources than supporting Windows 98
Literally. People miss the fact that Steam is still a 32-bit app just to support older games. The rest of the world has moved onto 64-bit operating systems and applications. It’s shocking they still support 32-bit in 2025. So the argument that they aren’t supporting older titles is a little misleading because that’s the whole reason they still run a 32-bit client.
Most operating systems are no longer even offered in a 32-bit variant, 64-bit only.
I haven’t had a device with 32-bit hardware in almost 15 years. The last device I can even think of that was still 32-bit within the last 15 years was a Google Nexus 6 in 2014. All the Pixel line have been 64-bit.
Steam is literally one of the last 32-bit holdouts. Everything else has moved on. Even Discord dropped 32-bit support last year.
EDIT: Also, for reference, since Windows 98 is heavily mentioned in the arguments, those operating systems included 16-bit code. We’re talking about dropping 32-bit code, 16-bit code is deader than a doornail. Windows 3.11 was the first introduction of 32-bit code. Windows XP seems to be where they dropped all 16-bit code in 2001. We’re talking over 30 years of hardware changes.
The steam client has nothing to do with the games it launches.
Process.Start() works on 32 bit or 64 bit processes…
They are on 32 bit because they don’t need to upgrade to 64 bit and it’s likely too complex to upgrade.
Visual Studio, which actually benefits from 64 bit, just recently upgraded because these massive software stacks are difficult to update.
They keep a bunch of 32-bit libraries for backwards compatibility with older games that they launch. You can find numerous discussions about this in the Steam forums as well as on sites like Hackernews.
If you want, I can give it to you from a Valve employee:
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/179#issuecomment-267790879
Maybe do some cursory research before talking out of your ass.
You just proved my point.
Runtime environment != the steam client.
Starting a 32 bit process (ie, process.start()) means nothing to the 32 bit steam client.
They can upgrade the steam client to 64 bit without affecting the launched games. that’s the point I was making.
They just haven’t.
No, they didn’t. I can install the software I bought back in the day on the computers I bought it for, using the license key provided. GoG also famously uses a model where GoG does not care what OS you’re using.
Lol, I’m a software developer that started by writing legacy windows software, I know exactly how much (little) has changed.
I don’t care. They have the resources to support it.
Either strip the DRM out and pay whatever you have to to the publishers to do that, or keep supporting the systems you sold your software for.
The idea that Valve is blameless for shitty behaviour because other tech companies also do that shitty behaviour is nonsense. They have been the dominant platform forever, and have had an insane amount of resources available to them.
Oh, so this whole situation is to a significant degree, your fault.
=P
It is this perspective that exposes your bias and colors your perception.
We live in a post-Heartbleed world. We live in a post-UAC world. We constantly find new bugs and vulnerabilities, and they cannot always be patched without massive changes to the architecture. We cannot forever maintain old systems that cultivated bad habits in it’s users.
Not all change is good, but all change is inevitable.
No that perspective is what makes me understand that when corporations talk about obsceleting things for security reasons, it’s almost always not actually because of security, because it would be a little less profitable to continue support.
And Valve didnt have to build a business around always checking in DRM if they didn’t want to support old clients, and they have more than enough resources to continue support.
Can I hold you to the decisions you made 20 years ago? I bought that program you built decades ago, that means I’m entitled to your continued support. And don’t you even think about getting paid, your support should be free. You shouldn’t have built and sold the software if you can’t support it…
We’re not talking about support, we’re talking about not breaking the software we bought after the fact.
All software breaks.
You literally did say support.
I could have sworn their model was keeping old games updated to work functionally on newer hardware.
https://www.gog.com/en/gog-preservation-program
Yes, and thats literally completely irrelevant.
The fact that their games are DRM free means that doesn’t matter one iota. If you buy a game from them on a set of hardware you’ll be able to play it on that hardware forever, regardless of whether their desktop client changes.
But if they keep it updated for modern systems that means as time goes on the files they are offering to install… won’t work on old hardware because they’ve been updated to the modern era.
Sure if you grab a file from them and never get a newer, more maintained version, it will play on exactly the hardware and software you had when you bought it… But if you lost the install file somehow and went to grab a new copy five years later the updated ones may no longer run on your old hardware
That’s literally the entire point.
Also, they can still offer the olde versions of the file for download.
Except in a lot of cases they really don’t.
Can you name any other company that supports Windows 98 in 2025?
Literally any game sold that didn’t include always checking in DRM through a particular desktop client. i.e. virtually every single PC game not sold through steam.
That’s not what I asked. You said you wanted Valve to hire people to support Windows 98. What company still supports Windows 98 like that?
Lots. Do you know how much corporate software is still of that vintage?
Literally like half of AutoCAD’s products still use the graphics and windowing APIs from that era as one example. The WinForms API are clunky by modern standards but also relatively trivial for a programmer to pick up and code with.
I mean, there is still an industry of Cobol engineers maintaining mainframe code for banks from the 80s.
I am aware that some corporate infrastructure is hopelessly tangled up in legacy systems. But we are talking about consumer support here, which I know you know is very different.
No, it’s not. Autodesk sells that software to consumers and corporations literally every single day.
Try and code a WinForms app, follow any tutorial you can, and notice that it’s very possible and not that onerous.
People these days just accept the shit tech companies feed them because they’re using to eating shit from them.
my gramps, that’s not the beacon of good business practice you think it is 🤣
The question at hand is whether or not there are enough engineers to feasibly support Windows 98. Try and work on your reading comprehension.
No. The question at hand is whether you expect any company, or any person, to indefinitely fix and maintain legacy systems. And yes, your argument is indefinite support because you want the purchasing machine to be granted use of the software in perpetuity, you want it to never lose access to the software. You provided no deadline by which anyone is allowed to stop fixing things that broke. And yes, things break naturally as a function of time.