Steam paves way for dropping Win XP and Vista for 2019

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

I'm very happy that Steam is finally dropping the platform from it's support, it's been a long overdue problem that XP and Vista are practically ancient, practically dinosaurs at this rate, Get them outta here, upgrade to a more secure OS god damn it. 

 

Why are you glad? If you are getting support for the OS you use, what's in it for you? What is the extra benefit to you that someone somewhere gets cut out?

Are things better if you enjoy them and others can't, than if you enjoy them, period?

 

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I can think of at least one rather popular game that is still Vista only primarily: Fallout 3

I had no problem with it in Windows 7.

 

2 hours ago, Tsuki said:

its about fucking time.  they should have done it when Microsoft stopped supporting them.

 

windows xp is older than half the people on this forum, nobody has a reason to still be using it.

And? Sound like good reasons for you not to use it, but again, if everything works fine in your OS, where does this need for things not working as well for other people? I can understand indifference to whether they want to support it or not, but I don't understand why it would be a positive thing instead.

 

2 hours ago, Tsuki said:

  and every game that "only works on XP" will run fine on 7. the only exception is dos based games, but then you should be running dos, and not expect people to support you.

No, DOS games are far from the only exception. Plenty old games don't work in Windows 7, and many others half-work after fighting with compatibility settings and trial and error checklists.

 

 

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

People who bought games for a particular OS shouldn't lose access to those games based on which OS they're using. If those games were made to be run on earlier OSes, then they should still be accessible for the people who bought them specifically to play on those OSes.

 

Jito463's idea is the right one: Release a dated Steam client that doesn't have access to other features, so that people with older OSes and Steam-bought games for those older OSes can continue to download and play their purchased and owned games.

 

And if Valve don't do that, then all games which are not designed for Windows 7 and later should be removed from the Steam store, and refunds issued to the people who purchased those games.

 

Or just do as @Zodiark1593 suggest: remove the DRM, the need to have Steam's client running at all to play the game. The game and the OS are mutually compatible: it's the stupid middle man who is mutating and abandoning them. Not a good reason to be unable to play a game you bought (although a very good reason not to buy games through Steam).

 

42 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

valve is making updates to their platform that are not compatible with older version of windows.  steam will not function. 

No problem. People bought the games, it's the games they want to work, not Steam.

42 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

should we expect them to continue updating their platform for the .22% of people on XP?  thats ridiculous. why should we expect them to keep their software updated for software that A. nobody is using, and B. has so many security flaws that its impossible to code correctly and actually expect you to have real security.

We shouldn't. Instead, I would expect Valve to move out of the way and let old games and old OSes alone with some form of bypass of the steam client requirement. Because, again, the games that actually work on XP are not exactly latest-release-best-sellers...

 

42 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

Game developers should update their game to the new standard.

LOL. You'd be lucky if the developers of the relevant games still exist  

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

9 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

i dont disagree. valve should be pressuring the developers on their platform instead of letting them do whatever the fuck they want like they have been.  but then its up to the developers to update their games so that we can continue playing them. 

Im just saying we shouldnt expect Valve to continue making its own software compatible with older systems.  should we also expect them to keep it functioning on Windows 95 or 3.1 or Mac OS 10.6(Snow Leopard)? are people going to be pissed when they stop supporting Lion(10.7) too? 

 

there has to be a point where we stop expecting them to support it.  and i think a depreciated 16 year old OS has finally more than hit that point.  keep in mind, Snow Leopard is 12 years old and no longer supported(and actually hasnt been since 2015 so it was only 9 years old when they stopped supporting it).

I'm not so much asking Valve to support a deprecated OS so much as it is asking Valve to stop supporting games that developers won't update. Strip away the DRM, and the more dedicated players can support the games on their own without further action on Valve's part. (Which quite frankly, most any player using such old computers are the determined type to get stubborn old games running anyway)

[Tsuki]

12 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I'm not so much asking Valve to support a deprecated OS so much as it is asking Valve to stop supporting games that developers won't update. Strip away the DRM, and the more dedicated players can support the games on their own without further action on Valve's part. (Which quite frankly, most any player using such old computers are the determined type to get stubborn old games running anyway)

i agree with this.  it really falls on Valve to stop being so lax with developers.

 

and you're right about the players as well, those that are going to insist on playing those games, will be determined to make them work regardless.  one of my favorite of games Wizards and Warriors(not on steam but i have the install disks still), doesnt work on anything newer than XP. but ive made it work on 7, and it took a lot more work than just compatibility mode.

if the player is going to insist on playing games that dont work on currently supported software or hardware, then it should be up to the player to figure out how to do so.

[Master Disaster]

6 hours ago, Kamina said:

Fallout 3 remaster, when?

Soon apparently, it might be Switch only though.

 

8 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

I can think of at least one rather popular game that is still Vista only primarily: Fallout 3

 

Have they patched it so it installs and works by default on 10?

Fallout 3 has issues bigger than Windows version, the game hates running on systems with more than 2 cores and constantly crashes or freezes. This can be mitigated slightly by ini editing but even then it's still very unstable on modern systems.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Soon apparently, it might be Switch only though.

 

Fallout 3 has issues bigger than Windows version, the game hates running on systems with more than 2 cores and constantly crashes or freezes. This can be mitigated slightly by ini editing but even then it's still very unstable on modern systems.

Which is where Fallout Tale of Two Wastelands is your friend. Its a port of FO3 to FNV, with both being fully playable from within the same save.

[Cookybiscuit]

It's terrible that they are pulling the plug without even offering a legacy client, and even worse that people are celebrating this. I don't think the people still on XP and Vista will be too happy to boot up Steam on January 1st and just see a message that says "go fuck yourself u cant use ur games anymore lmao".

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

It's terrible that they are pulling the plug without even offering a legacy client, and even worse that people are celebrating this. I don't think the people still on XP and Vista will be too happy to boot up Steam on January 1st and just see a message that says "go fuck yourself u cant use ur games anymore lmao".

As much as it sucks for those people, I'm sure this was a very calculated move.

I'm sure they looked at the telemetry, at the man hours used and potential problems going forward and thought it would be a good decision to make the announcement now.

[ItsMitch]

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Why are you glad? If you are getting support for the OS you use, what's in it for you? What is the extra benefit to you that someone somewhere gets cut out?

 

Yes, Steam does support me with issues on their client with Windows 10, but if you look at this, XP is literally such a tiny marketshare on Steam it's frankly pointless for them to consider supporting it for any longer. It came out back in 2001 for god sake, it's 17 years old! How long do people expect companies to keep supporting it? It's got more security flaws than Equifax at this point. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Yes, Steam does support me with issues on their client with Windows 10, but if you look at this, XP is literally such a tiny marketshare on Steam it's frankly pointless for them to consider supporting it for any longer. It came out back in 2001 for god sake, it's 17 years old! How long do people expect companies to keep supporting it? It's got more security flaws than Equifax at this point. 

None of that is what I asked. My question was why it makes you happy that someone else somewhere is losing support, instead of being indifferent to it? What is the benefit to you?

[Centurius]

8 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

It's like you don't know who Bethesda is.

 

Skyrim

Skyrim LE (Original +DLC)

Anthology

Skyrim SE (the remaster)

Switch and VR (SE with adapted control schemes)

 

and charged for every single one of them. I'm sure there will be a 10 year anniversary edition at some point too.

If you had Skyrim plus the DLC, your version automatically became LE. If you had LE before SE was released, you got SE for free. Anthology was a fairly limited run for people who wanted all the games with some fancy goodies. Switch is a different platform entirely, VR is a pretty fundamental recode of the game.

[Sir Asvald]

People are still connecting their XP machines to the internet? Oh boy. You're in a lot trouble, let alone issues. 

[Cookybiscuit]

52 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

As much as it sucks for those people, I'm sure this was a very calculated move.

I'm sure they looked at the telemetry, at the man hours used and potential problems going forward and thought it would be a good decision to make the announcement now.

How many man hours do you really think it would take for them to simply not push an update that locks people out of the client?

[Trixanity]

14 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

How many man hours do you really think it would take for them to simply not push an update that locks people out of the client?

How many do you think it takes to ensure compatibility or to do support for those who encounter problems?

[Jito463]

27 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

How many do you think it takes to ensure compatibility or to do support for those who encounter problems?

No one is saying they should continue supporting it, just that they shouldn't simply abandon those users without a means to play their games legitimately purchased through Steam.

[Cookybiscuit]

40 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

How many do you think it takes to ensure compatibility or to do support for those who encounter problems?

Does Steam work on XP and Vista right now?

[ItsMitch]

Just now, Cookybiscuit said:

Does Steam work on XP and Vista right now?

Yeah, but the support has been very limited for a long ass time.

[Cookybiscuit]

13 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Yeah, but the support has been very limited for a long ass time.

Exactly, so why pull the plug? 

 

Doing this is akin to booting up a iPhone 5 to see that Apple pushed a software update you couldn't opt out of and now the phone is completely non-functional.

[ItsMitch]

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Exactly, so why pull the plug? 

 

Cost saving maybe? Maybe Valve wants to fully drop older systems to focus on more modern hardware? 

[Trixanity]

33 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

No one is saying they should continue supporting it, just that they shouldn't simply abandon those users without a means to play their games legitimately purchased through Steam.

I disagree with the idea of blocking users but you're likely to experience a lot of problems given how newer components won't run on older operating systems. 

 

The issue is probably a lot more complex than people assume it is. I'm betting this is a DRM/security question as much as it is a support issue.

 

I would hope users can run legacy clients but as I said: I think they block it for DRM reasons too.

[Sauron]

15 hours ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

i would think they would just stop fixing whatever problems may arise from updates rather than activily blocking them

If those "problems" mean Steam can't even start, I don't see a distinction...

10 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Start buying Linux games on Steam

Good luck running Steam on Ubuntu 4.10... the only real difference is that at least you won't be charged for upgrading to a newer version.

10 hours ago, Tsuki said:

but then its up to the developers to update their games so that we can continue playing them. 

Sure, how about, as an incentive, valve threatens to kick them from the store if they aren't fixed within a year? Then again they don't seem to care if new games run on any system at all, so I don't see why they would care about this.

11 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Valve to threaten to strip the DRM. 

What's the point, if the games don't run pirating them is of little use... and it's not like Steam's DRM has ever prevented that to begin with. Besides, I'm sure they can't legally do that without express permission from the developer or publisher. What they can do is stop selling it, which is a reasonable response when you know for a fact the game won't run, and offer some store credit to those who own the game and will no longer be able to play it.

[Cookybiscuit]

13 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Cost saving maybe? Maybe Valve wants to fully drop older systems to focus on more modern hardware? 

They aren't dropping support, they are actively blocking users from continuing to use software that already exists.

[Doobeedoo]

Good, there's no need to support such decade+ old OS's.

[S w a t s o n]

2 hours ago, Abdul201588 said:

People are still connecting their XP machines to the internet? Oh boy. You're in a lot trouble, let alone issues. 

This.

 

XP is no longer secure, plus they have to drop support at some point. Unless you think supporting XP in 2030 is a smart idea.

[Delicieuxz]

3 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

Yes, Steam does support me with issues on their client with Windows 10, but if you look at this, XP is literally such a tiny marketshare on Steam it's frankly pointless for them to consider supporting it for any longer. It came out back in 2001 for god sake, it's 17 years old! How long do people expect companies to keep supporting it? It's got more security flaws than Equifax at this point. 

 

22 minutes ago, Swatson said:

XP is no longer secure, plus they have to drop support at some point. Unless you think supporting XP in 2030 is a smart idea.

 

There's a difference between not supporting an OS and denying access from an OS. Let's not conflate the two.

 

All that Valve has to do to enable access for people with XP and Vista is to release a legacy client - such as the Steam as it is right now. And then Valve never need to update it, ever. That's all that's needed to satisfy everybody. This shouldn't be a zero-sum issue, where some people have to lose so that others can win (psychologically?).

[Jtalk4456]

12 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

It's like you don't know who Bethesda is.

 

Skyrim

Skyrim LE (Original +DLC)

Anthology

Skyrim SE (the remaster)

Switch and VR (SE with adapted control schemes)

 

and charged for every single one of them. I'm sure there will be a 10 year anniversary edition at some point too.

While I don't mess with dlc much, it did annoy me when skyrim vr came out as a separate full priced title. I have PSVR and would love to be able to just play with my existing copy of skyrim and update it