this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
231 points (99.1% liked)
PC Gaming
12990 readers
553 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- 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.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).