I think you misunderstood what’s happening here. The steam client was historically 32 bit but now will only be 64bit.
Everything 32 bit runs on 64 bit systems, but 64 bit apps won’t work on 32 bit systems.
Windows started supporting 64 bit in 2001, and really any modern game is probably 64 bit already since 32 bit applications can’t address more than 4gb of RAM (not that anyone can afford more than that right now)
To me I’m shocked anyone at all is on a 32 bit os, phones don’t even really have 32 bit anymore and in the world of personal computers it would be more work to find 32 bit hardware than 64 bit hardware.
Most likely that 0.1% will just have to wipe their computers and install 64 bit windows which their hardware probably supports already and they somehow accidentally installed the 32 bit option.
Not everything 32 bit runs on a 64-bit system. A vast majority of things do, but there are a number of unsafe operations that will break your game across architectures, and because games are closed source and the source code is often lost, it’s nearly impossible to get some games working on 64 bit architecture. That’s why Steam held out so long, some things are just going to break, and their only option is to basically delete them.
The last windows version to run 32 bit was windows 10 and there is no 32 bit version of windows 11. So for the steam windows client there is no point supporting a end of life OS.
While true… I’m not aware of a single 16-bit game sold by steam. Are there actually any? (EDIT: I mean in context of Steam, ofc. systems running older 16bit games probably are not getting them from Steam).
Admittedly sample size of 1, but the only 16bit windows game I care about (Castle of the winds) runs fine on wine.
I had the choice when buying a new PC to go with single threaded 64-bit or multiple cores. Particularly for gaming, I figured a single core was all I really needed, and 64-bit was the future.
The correct choice at the time was multiple cores. Everything going to 64-bit wasn’t going to happen until that computer was long dead.
Guessing or do you have some edge case to present? Last I tried portal 2 ran fine on 64bit system. In fact I’m not entirely use I have ever actually ran it on 32bit one.
What’s the benefit, besides having older 32-bit libraries installed and be dependent on them? I mean is there any other technical benefit of 64-bit only? It could use more than 4gb of RAM, but for Steam itself this shouldn’t be needed.
New instructions and only having to deal with one codebase are big, but there are some fringe reasons regarding security that I could see also being a factor. A 32-bit processor means something like a thunderbird athlon on the high end, maybe an old Pentium 4. Single core and pushing 30 in the best cases. You need an operating system that supports that chip, and there really is only so much you can do to make that setup even work in 2025.
It’s more a matter of why support that? Trying to run steam on a single core Athlon from 2000 would be painfully slow, to the point of being unusable. You couldn’t reasonably even keep steam running with a game, it would hog too much CPU. It’s possible to try it if you have an ancient tower laying around (don’t use your real steam account online with something like windows XP, it will be compromised in seconds connecting to the internet).
People with systems like that are going to need to use gog installers or use period accurate methods to install games. 32-bit only processors were already on the chopping block when steam came out, they really can’t handle modern steam. It would be a bit unreasonable to expect them to add a separate version for those chips, especially with the vulnerable operating systems they require going online being an issue, so we are left with a vestigial feature of 32-bit support for no great reason.
It really just makes more sense to cut it than keep it for the sake of novelty. There is some liability in keeping it, as well as technical overhead.
From my anecdotal experience (and this was from 3-4 years), the last remaining 32-bit Windows installations are on much newer CPUs (from 2009-2014) than the last 32-bit only CPUs from 2004 or so.
Typically there are cases where the users aren’t technically inclined, they just need a basic web browser, a video player and a PDF reader. They have a computer that works, so why bother with paying money for a new one?
Typically users of Steam would figure out that they do have a 64-bit capable CPU, they would buy some RAM and re-install Windows (or find someone who can do this for them).
Benefit of 64-bit only? They don’t have to develop and test everything for two architectures, and if there are CPU extensions only available on 64-bit processors, they can start using them now.
They don’t need to test two architectures, if there is only 32-bit. So that’s not a real point. And CPU extensions for a basically shop? Alright the Steam app is not just a store, that’s true, but it’s not like a game or low level library itself. So I am not sure if additional 64-bit only CPU extensions is a great reason.
I’m not convinced at the moment that this is a huge win. The biggest reason is being dependent on the older libraries, which in some environments is just nasty. I am also not against 64-bit only. It is just surprising how much demanding some users are and how hugely celebrated this is, if it actually doesn’t matter much in real world. As said, besides the library thing.
With windows 11 not supporting 32 bit the librarys will slowly start become stale and more work would need to be done to upgrade or patch issues that arise. In theory any program should be forward compatible but steam is still active and needs to be a moving target. but what would be the point supporting an architecture that the os isn’t even supporting.
That is not what i was asking. I’m not negative here (if it sounds like). Besides supporting legacy old 32 bit libraries, are there reasons why someone want to go 64-bit only?
But what part does apply to the Steam app itself? I am aware of benefits of 64-bit. If you guys don’t know or don’t want to answer, then why even bother with replies like these? What is the 64-bit executable worth for the Steam app specifically? Besides getting rid of old libraries. Does the steam app has any benefits from 64-bit?
You did not ask about steam specifically, I’ll Google that for you as well.
Why is Steam moving to full 64-bit and dropping 32-bit OS support?
Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’ moving forward. Why? The simple answer is that planned platform upgrades and core features of Steam rely on drivers and other libraries that only support 64-bit OS’. Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’. That means that users of 32-bit OS’ should upgrade their systems. Valve recommends that users do this “sooner rather than later”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
To be clear, 32-bit games will continue to work.
I feel like it’s fair to sunset 32-bit Windows support if this segment represents 0.01% of your installed base
At that point it makes very little monetary sense to bother, either.
If they’re willing to issue refunds for all games bought for 32bit.
I think you misunderstood what’s happening here. The steam client was historically 32 bit but now will only be 64bit.
Everything 32 bit runs on 64 bit systems, but 64 bit apps won’t work on 32 bit systems.
Windows started supporting 64 bit in 2001, and really any modern game is probably 64 bit already since 32 bit applications can’t address more than 4gb of RAM (not that anyone can afford more than that right now)
To me I’m shocked anyone at all is on a 32 bit os, phones don’t even really have 32 bit anymore and in the world of personal computers it would be more work to find 32 bit hardware than 64 bit hardware.
Most likely that 0.1% will just have to wipe their computers and install 64 bit windows which their hardware probably supports already and they somehow accidentally installed the 32 bit option.
Not everything 32 bit runs on a 64-bit system. A vast majority of things do, but there are a number of unsafe operations that will break your game across architectures, and because games are closed source and the source code is often lost, it’s nearly impossible to get some games working on 64 bit architecture. That’s why Steam held out so long, some things are just going to break, and their only option is to basically delete them.
Most likely some South American Internet Cafe that never upgraded their hardware. In any case, the user‘s better off installing a 64Bit Linux Distro.
The last windows version to run 32 bit was windows 10 and there is no 32 bit version of windows 11. So for the steam windows client there is no point supporting a end of life OS.
and windows 10 does offer 64 bit by default, you have to specifically pick the 32 bit option to install it
I am still using windows 10. I upgraded from 11.
Maybe it’s just the nostalgia talking, but I think XP would be an even better upgrade.
Are there any games that won’t work on 64bit?
All of the 16bit and older games will have to be emulated.
While true… I’m not aware of a single 16-bit game sold by steam. Are there actually any? (EDIT: I mean in context of Steam, ofc. systems running older 16bit games probably are not getting them from Steam).
Admittedly sample size of 1, but the only 16bit windows game I care about (Castle of the winds) runs fine on wine.
64 bit architecture can emulate / run 32 bit processes but the reverse doesnt work.
They could, actually. I was there, in the olden times.
Not efficiently, of course. And these days it’d be a disaster. But it was possible.
You learn something new everyday, must have been prone to mem allocation issues no?
I had the choice when buying a new PC to go with single threaded 64-bit or multiple cores. Particularly for gaming, I figured a single core was all I really needed, and 64-bit was the future.
The correct choice at the time was multiple cores. Everything going to 64-bit wasn’t going to happen until that computer was long dead.
Portal 2?
Guessing or do you have some edge case to present? Last I tried portal 2 ran fine on 64bit system. In fact I’m not entirely use I have ever actually ran it on 32bit one.
No! My Compaq Presario!
Anyone know when 64bit only client for Linux?
Probably will be released officially in a patch or as a separate download soon™
Great, now do Linux
This is not negotiable. (It must happen.)
Doodoo doooo doo.
Doodoo doo doo doo.
What’s the benefit, besides having older 32-bit libraries installed and be dependent on them? I mean is there any other technical benefit of 64-bit only? It could use more than 4gb of RAM, but for Steam itself this shouldn’t be needed.
New instructions and only having to deal with one codebase are big, but there are some fringe reasons regarding security that I could see also being a factor. A 32-bit processor means something like a thunderbird athlon on the high end, maybe an old Pentium 4. Single core and pushing 30 in the best cases. You need an operating system that supports that chip, and there really is only so much you can do to make that setup even work in 2025.
It’s more a matter of why support that? Trying to run steam on a single core Athlon from 2000 would be painfully slow, to the point of being unusable. You couldn’t reasonably even keep steam running with a game, it would hog too much CPU. It’s possible to try it if you have an ancient tower laying around (don’t use your real steam account online with something like windows XP, it will be compromised in seconds connecting to the internet).
People with systems like that are going to need to use gog installers or use period accurate methods to install games. 32-bit only processors were already on the chopping block when steam came out, they really can’t handle modern steam. It would be a bit unreasonable to expect them to add a separate version for those chips, especially with the vulnerable operating systems they require going online being an issue, so we are left with a vestigial feature of 32-bit support for no great reason.
It really just makes more sense to cut it than keep it for the sake of novelty. There is some liability in keeping it, as well as technical overhead.
Sorry for the ramble.
From my anecdotal experience (and this was from 3-4 years), the last remaining 32-bit Windows installations are on much newer CPUs (from 2009-2014) than the last 32-bit only CPUs from 2004 or so.
Typically there are cases where the users aren’t technically inclined, they just need a basic web browser, a video player and a PDF reader. They have a computer that works, so why bother with paying money for a new one?
Typically users of Steam would figure out that they do have a 64-bit capable CPU, they would buy some RAM and re-install Windows (or find someone who can do this for them).
Benefit of 64-bit only? They don’t have to develop and test everything for two architectures, and if there are CPU extensions only available on 64-bit processors, they can start using them now.
They don’t need to test two architectures, if there is only 32-bit. So that’s not a real point. And CPU extensions for a basically shop? Alright the Steam app is not just a store, that’s true, but it’s not like a game or low level library itself. So I am not sure if additional 64-bit only CPU extensions is a great reason.
I’m not convinced at the moment that this is a huge win. The biggest reason is being dependent on the older libraries, which in some environments is just nasty. I am also not against 64-bit only. It is just surprising how much demanding some users are and how hugely celebrated this is, if it actually doesn’t matter much in real world. As said, besides the library thing.
With windows 11 not supporting 32 bit the librarys will slowly start become stale and more work would need to be done to upgrade or patch issues that arise. In theory any program should be forward compatible but steam is still active and needs to be a moving target. but what would be the point supporting an architecture that the os isn’t even supporting.
That is not what i was asking. I’m not negative here (if it sounds like). Besides supporting legacy old 32 bit libraries, are there reasons why someone want to go 64-bit only?
Some bug and issues only appear on 32-bit architectures, so you do have to test for both. Which is a strain, for only such a amall userbase.
https://helpdesk.microsurvey.com/article/1072-benefits-of-a-64-bit-application
But what part does apply to the Steam app itself? I am aware of benefits of 64-bit. If you guys don’t know or don’t want to answer, then why even bother with replies like these? What is the 64-bit executable worth for the Steam app specifically? Besides getting rid of old libraries. Does the steam app has any benefits from 64-bit?
You did not ask about steam specifically, I’ll Google that for you as well. Why is Steam moving to full 64-bit and dropping 32-bit OS support?
Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’ moving forward. Why? The simple answer is that planned platform upgrades and core features of Steam rely on drivers and other libraries that only support 64-bit OS’. Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’. That means that users of 32-bit OS’ should upgrade their systems. Valve recommends that users do this “sooner rather than later”.
You can join the discussion on Steam’s 64-bit upgrade on the OC3D Forums. https://overclock3d.net/news/software/steam-has-finally-upgraded-to-64-bit/
deleted by creator