It's only ever revisited after updates when a huge company breaks all their games and valve has shown in the past that they're willing to bend the rules of verification for some high-profile games.
We should ignore it and use protondb instead. You always get the latest comments from people and there is no corporation with a conflict of interest behind it.
While this is true, ProtonDB has even better numbers than Valve so it's still a win for the topic.
While it's unfortunate that the verification process isn't iron-clad, it still reflects a good goal and substantial progress toward it. The fact is, the verification program serves more as a fancy inventory of how their software catalog runs on Proton/Linux and Valve is probably more worried about games people play that are no longer actively developed than it is on fixing every game for every developer.
Personally, I suspect that 3-5 years from now, once Valve has done a complete once-over of their complete library, they'll come back around with a 'premium' version of verified that's more geared toward requirements for current and new games, one which is more focused on working with active developers.
That's what I've been half expecting to happen with the success of the Steam Deck, a "Steam Deck Certified" program. Something opt in from the publisher, where they meet some standard, and in exchange they get placement in the "Steam Deck Store" or something.
Many publishers are already testing build against the Steam Deck, it's a single locked down hardware specification, so serves as a useful target. A super-verified "Certified" or whatever it gets called, would put a bit of the onus for ensuring compatibility on the publisher. Plus, you could have a higher standard than "runs on Steam Deck" and actually require that "Certified" software automatically use SD-friendly settings.
Unfortunately verification is massively broken.
It's only ever revisited after updates when a huge company breaks all their games and valve has shown in the past that they're willing to bend the rules of verification for some high-profile games.
We should ignore it and use protondb instead. You always get the latest comments from people and there is no corporation with a conflict of interest behind it.
While this is true, ProtonDB has even better numbers than Valve so it's still a win for the topic.
While it's unfortunate that the verification process isn't iron-clad, it still reflects a good goal and substantial progress toward it. The fact is, the verification program serves more as a fancy inventory of how their software catalog runs on Proton/Linux and Valve is probably more worried about games people play that are no longer actively developed than it is on fixing every game for every developer.
Personally, I suspect that 3-5 years from now, once Valve has done a complete once-over of their complete library, they'll come back around with a 'premium' version of verified that's more geared toward requirements for current and new games, one which is more focused on working with active developers.
That's what I've been half expecting to happen with the success of the Steam Deck, a "Steam Deck Certified" program. Something opt in from the publisher, where they meet some standard, and in exchange they get placement in the "Steam Deck Store" or something.
Many publishers are already testing build against the Steam Deck, it's a single locked down hardware specification, so serves as a useful target. A super-verified "Certified" or whatever it gets called, would put a bit of the onus for ensuring compatibility on the publisher. Plus, you could have a higher standard than "runs on Steam Deck" and actually require that "Certified" software automatically use SD-friendly settings.