well of course not. These aren't product that directly make money. Maybe a small chinese startup can do it, but they would still prefer to ship with Windows.
I only really played Portal so I have no real fond memories of TF/CS/HL. But I'm just saying that Valve definitely has the money to invest in games if they really wanted to.
I'm being pretty critical of Valve on here in other places, but I would say that taking the time to make an excellent game even though a platform is niche and even though that game is essentially just a hardware advertisement and even though that advertisement isn't likely to move that platform to be non-niche to me shows a strong commitment to good game design.
Alyx didn't really need to exist I don't think. I don't think it moved the needle on making VR any less niche. I don't see it as a good economic move. And yet it's arguably one of the best shooters on VR.
I do think they're a lot less interested in game development than they used to be, I do have criticisms of some of their monetization schemes, but whenever they do get interested in games enough to actually make something, they seem to do a pretty good job of it. Even with Artefact, I'm not sure if the game was bad as much as just part of a crowded market and burdened with Valve's (admittedly awful) monetization philosophies for games as a service.
They have billions so they can do both games and services if they want to. But it sounds like there was a lot of brain drain from the game designer perspective as Valve's priorities shifted. Why risk something as unstable as a game if you can focus on steady income from others making games?