this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
847 points (96.5% liked)
Games
32666 readers
1438 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really wish Steam would put their foot down and stop these launchers. They are nothing but a nuisance and add no value for the customer.
EDIT: Just to be clear, when EA Play joined Gamepass there wasn't a separate launcher when you went to play an EA game on the Xbox. Steam could make this work with them and the other companies. They have enough pull to make this work - it would be greatly welcomed.
According to the steam page it says it only requires a battle.net account. Usually it says when another launcher is required.
Steam having a monopoly is not a good thing for anyone. Competition is good, even if the other launchers are a bit annoying.
Yeah but like, launcher isn't a market. Game Store is the market they're in. I'll happily buy a game from a different store if thats the only place it's offered or even if it's just cheaper there. The annoyance is when they want to be Steam. I don't want to be forced to download another launcher to play a game. If you want what Steam has, create a launcher that offers better services than Steam.
But most games aren't DRM-free, so the launchers are necessary to verify your account and ownership of the game. Otherwise every store would be GOG, and most publishers won't use it.
Steam already does that verification.
Yeah, but why should Steam be the only game in town? That's a very dangerous monopoly.
What are you even talking about? It's an application that launches a game. It adds nothing of value to the process of opening the game. How is it less of a monopoly to use a launcher to launch a launcher to launch a game?
It's not just a launcher, it's a storefront. Uplay, EA-whatever, and Rockstar Launcher are all storefronts where you can buy the games those companies make.
The launcher itself is a UI which lets you "launch" the game. Steam for example, is a launcher and a storefront, as is Uplay.
Having all your games in a single launcher/storefront is bad, as it gives a single company entire control over your games, and monopoly pricing.
Also remember that Steam takes a 30% cut, which is totally unnecessary, and is what directly caused giants like Ubisoft and Rockstar to make their own storefronts. Because why pay a 30% tax just for selling your game, this ain't the 1990s anymore with CD-ROM pressings.
Fuck Steam and it's monopolistic, 30% rent seeking bollocks.
Tell me a single benefit to me as the consumer of blizzard or any other company forcing me to install their launcher and run it everytime I open a game I bought through Steam.
It's adware.
Edit: To be fair and give credit where it's due: Mike Ybarra said it will be "directly through steam", so if they follow through with that I commend them for it.
There is no benefit, I never claimed the launcher within a launcher was a benefit.
The problem is the cancer that is Steam itself. We need more competing storefronts which don't require the Steam launcher, and even better if there's no launcher of any kind at all, just a binary to run to play the game.
Gog? Itch? Plenty of developers choose to sell their games in DRM-free formats. Plenty of games don't even cost money.
Exactly, and I have written about how much I love GOG and Itch and why I hope they take more market share away from Steam.
Just a note, as a storefront, there are plenty of competing options that work with Steam. Think Humble Store and other resellers, Steam doesn't take any cut from those sales and while they do enforce some standards (Things like staying close to price parity with Steam on alternate storefronts) and can refuse to give out keys, the market there is definitely very healthy.
20-30% cut, which is in-line with most digital storefronts.
Companies exist to make money. Making money will never be "unnecessary" for a company. And hosting secure data centers around the world delivering 15 Tbps a day is not exactly cheap.
Also remember that Ubisoft and Rockstar (and Microsoft and Blizzard) came crawling back to Steam all the same, meaning they thought they would make more money even with the 20-30% tax. So a 20-30% tax must seem pretty fair to these companies for what they are getting.
There's plenty of others. GoG and Humble come to mind as the major alternatives.
Yeah, and GoG is fantastic and I'm so glad it exists. We need more DRM-free storefronts without launchers for sure.
That's an argument for Steam not being the only game store, it doesn't make much sense after you already bought it from Steam and the game requires an alternate launcher to be installed.
But on that other matter, I think you have a point in theory, but EA, Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard don't seem to have any interest in providing a better service or unique benefits. Steam's dominance is overly maligned when it's the only one where the company actually earned its place, by providing a better service.
And even then Steam doesn't even have as much of a monopoly over PC games as console manufacturers actually do over each of their platforms. But since it is by design that consoles only support the platform-maker approved games, it doesn't even register in people's minds as a monopoly. As if they were never supposed to control these devices they have bought.
Launchers are a solution to DRM, not the solution. The way today's modern market is, it's understandable that some gamers have forgotten that there used to be games you bought directly from the publisher's website. DRM was done by asking you to sign into your account before launching the game, a lot of games still make you do this today. There's also the tried and true method of phoning home with a product key for DRM as well. There's no shortage of ways to be independent, very few companies are interested in doing so because Steam is convenient.
Aside from the fact that logging into every game separately would be a nightmare, it would only work for online games and be a major hassle for developers because it means they also need to compensate for not having a launcher on things like automatic updates and deployments. It's not really a solution either side would like.
I'm getting downvoted hard but people are forgetting that a game store not having a launcher is suicide. GOG tried that, started bleeding money, caved in and made their own launcher. Steam also has 20 years under their belt so saying worse launchers shouldn't be allowed to exist would just kill competition entirely.
GOG and Humble are really good stores though
Gog is reportedly failing and Humble's success is because they're selling Steam keys, so they still depend on them.
This isn't a monopoly issue. Other launchers exist. Most of the games on Steam are available on these other launcher, yet people still prefer Steam.
I can only speak for myself, but I prefer Steam because it's more customizable so I can set it to open to my library first instead of a rotating ad banner, the storefront ads are not intrusive and can be easily ignored, and steams remote play is something that no other launcher offers.
In fact, I am not sure what the other launchers offer that they excel at over Steam.
Steam has competition by way of Epic, EA, Blizzard. Steam is just the far superior product and people don’t want to change
Having a monopoly is not good.. I just wish others wouldn't completely ignore Linux users.. Valve/Steam on the other hand is seriously pushing it forward which makes me very much biased toward them.
Yeah. While them having the most successful platform for distributing games can be troublesome in the monopoly sense, I'm still sunny to them just because of their support for the Linux community.
At least Valve isn't a public company and beholden to shitty investor politics though, so I am more okay with Steam than... literally any other game launcher.
Plus they're the only launcher that fully supports Linux, so until that changes I am rooting for Steam.
Yeah, steam is good, but it can get bad if they sit around for too long and get fat. The threat of others is a good thing.
I just wish the competition gave any attention to Linux support. GOG Galaxy has been out idk how long, they sell Linux games, and still not even a launcher.
What does "competition" between companies really mean? It means they are competing for customers. Annoying me with shitty launchers is the opposite of competing. Make things cheaper, offer better services and more features. This is competition. Steam (and GOG) is the only one actually "competing" here. And look what happened? Microsoft, Ubisoft, Blizzard... one by one they fall to Steam because they simply cannot comprehend this fact.
i love how polarizing the votes on this are, you aren't wrong. gog is a huge competitor but they have their own launcher too which is annoying
False. It’s a good thing for Gabe.
How is a shiti launcher a competition...
You want competition go to GoG or Epic... Or pirate
So let them distribute their launchers and storefronts, Valve couldn't stop it. But it's not monopolistic for Steam to say "if you want us to approve your product for our store, you can't have the game launch into a pop-up for someone else's store".