Looks like Valve may be preparing a 64bit version of the Steam client

2019: 128-bit architectures roll out and become pervasive with 100% market penetration.

2031: Valve FINALLY delivers 128-bit Steam client.

It's about time too, I've been using 64bit Ubuntu since 6.06.

If the installation of Steam will be easier that would be fine. Maybe Steam will still depend on some 32 bit libs because of all the games that are 32 bit (such as Civ 5 for example). If that is true, there would be literally no benefit from changing the client from 32 to 64 bit.

Quoting: Doc AngeloIf the installation of Steam will be easier that would be fine. Maybe Steam will still depend on some 32 bit libs because of all the games that are 32 bit (such as Civ 5 for example). If that is true, there would be literally no benefit from changing the client from 32 to 64 bit.

I agree, a 64bit only steam will most likely prevent playing majority of games.

Having a 64bit steam using the 64 bit sys libs but brings with the 32bit part system independently. But I know about the technical difficulties regarding all the different distros and versions. So just a whish.

However, 64 bit client would be a step into the right direction.

Quoting: GuestYes, there will still be a benefit

Maybe I missed it, but what would the technical benefit be?


Last edited by Doc Angelo on 9 August 2018 at 5:13 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestIn isolation, nothing. In eventually forcing companies to move to 64-bit, it should be obvious.

Steam needs to support 32 bit applications as long as it exists. I don't even know how many games in my library are 32 bit, but I think there's a lot of them.

For every app, the developer should evaluate what would be the right thing to do: 32 or 64 bit. I'm sure the devs of Civ 5 had their reasons. That Steam is 32 bit doesn't mean that every game dev is also inclined to use 32 bit.

Well, if the app doesn't have actual technical benefits from being 64 bit, I don't care. That's all I can say.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Doc AngeloMaybe I missed it, but what would the technical benefit be?

In isolation, nothing. In eventually forcing companies to move to 64-bit, it should be obvious.

Consider imagining that it wasn't obvious because someone asked quite specifically what it was.

Let's quote an old Valve statement on this:
quote=[Plagman]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.[/quote]
So you'd still need a few "bits" to continue supporting 32bit apps. But that would be a step in the right direction. AND SHOW THE DAMN EXAMPLE! How can we be taken seriously when asking for a 64bit build if Valve doesn't even bother with their client?

In my opinion, the Steam client should have been 64bit from the start on Linux (even though I was using more 32bit computers at the time, I would have understood). Maybe they could deprecate support for 32bit, telling developers that they will refuse submissions of 32bit apps in the future? Or just refuse for new apps to use the 32bit steam runtime, so developers could bundle them, together with an hypothetical future shim for 32 <-> 64bit openGL, and other critical libraries.

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: 14

Quoting: EikeMany Games will still come in 32 bits...

And?

... these will still need 32 bit libraries?

Can't Steam include the dependencies like game installation wizards of old? Think about .NET prerequisites in Windows. Steam games will install those if missing.