Then steam is the most well behaved monopoly I know. They care about Linux.
People Make Games made an enlightening documentary on the Valve model and where it fails: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo
Though if you need an example: Steam still doesn't have M1 binaries. Steam uses about 15 variants of UI framework, and some of it simply doesn't work on some platforms. Steam also took record time shipping an x86_64 (over x86) binary back in the day. Everything that's not the shiny current thing receives life support at most.
After all you can install it in Parallels and play Windows versions just fine.
I suppose Proton could probably be ported to OSX with enough work. Apple isn't making it easy by refusing to natively implement Vulkan, though. DirectX to Vulkan to Metal conversion on top of x86-64 emulation is just a lot going on. It seems like no one's interested in doing the work to convert DirectX directly to Metal.
This is where I'd disagree with you. Valve has all sorts of levers they could pull to encourage ARM builds. One example, they could offer a lower commission rate on games which have ARM builds available. This would incentivize developers to target the platform.
Offering their client on Mac to those of their producers and consumers who are inherently motivated to use it but otherwise keeping a low profile there seems like just the right call to me.
They've invested massively on Linux and have attacked the problem from two angles in the last ten years because they need to diversify. They can't single-handedly rely on Microsoft for their continued existence. Hence the VR headsets, the Steam Machines, and now the Steam Deck.
They've put zero effort on macOS on Apple Silicon because they would gain nothing strategically, and the percentage of Mac users using Steam is small. The hardcore gamer on a Mac does not exist. We have consoles.
There's definitely something for Valve to gain by porting Steam to MacOS, after all they did support MacOS with Proton originally. The work required to fix it for modern MacOS is monumental though, and unless Apple sponsors it I see no reason why it would happen. Once they axed 32-bit execution support on Mac, there was effectively no reason to keep supporting the platform anymore gaming-wise. OpenGL depreciations were the icing on the disappointment cake, very clearly Valve was being told to pound sand by Apple.
Indeed the Mac support is lackluster, but it's yet another proprietary platform and Apple makes it difficult to work on.
Steam doesn't need more than 2/4GB so it doesn't seem like that matters.
They care about making money. Their investments in Linux are their future insurance policy from Microsoft, as unlike Sony or Nintendo, Valve only own the storefront but not the platform on which their games would run, and with Windows being their biggest customer platform, makes their survival completely dependent on the mercy of Microsoft and the potential dystopian scenario where, for example, on Windows 12, 13 or 14 you'll only be able to install apps through the official Microsoft store.
Linux compatibility was their only ticket out. It's purely a business decision, not a benevolent one.
Not knocking them for it, but it's good to keep in mind the reality and not blindly worship a for-profit corporation.
Microsoft has that in certain areas, like Typescript. Not so much anything related to Windows.
It also goes deeper than just Linux, and the Steam Deck is a perfect example of this. It's a real PC, and they allow you to use the device you bought as you wish.
Our incentives are aligned and due to how they operate it's likely that it'll stay that way for a long time.
As long as this is the case I will keep giving Valve my money and recommending their products to others.
They don't care what devices you use to play the games you bought on Steam since you're still tied to their platform.
Yeah companies want to survive economically. If they don't exist the products they make would be completely unavailable. It is a rather uninteresting angle to take.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
"Commoditize your complements."
In general you open source / lower price (to free if possible) your complements.
Pretty much all companies do this.
It's honestly a dice roll whether a visual novel will be accepted or rejected from Steam. Whatever reason used will weirdly not apply for titles already released and even titles that will apply after you. It doesn't matter if youre an indie game dev or Square Enix publishing a game set in the same universe as the widely loved Steins;Gate. You're still subject for a ban and for what really? Square Enix at least has the ability to talk behind the scenes to have the game approved.
This all matters so much because visual novels are already a niche. If you want to turn a profit you must sell on steam. This means that in response to an imprecise, contradictory policy it's in your best interest to self-censor as much as you can because you can not afford to have your game rejected.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/onboarding...
Visual novels and similar games with young (looking) characters tend to get rejected for sexualizing those characters (rule 8). But there are also plenty of examples of tame games getting rejected, while similar but much more risque games were permitted, so it's hard to figure out exactly what Valve objects to.