Over some specific games, yes. There is no shortage of quality games to play so it's not a hard decision.
Opinion Publishers are turning pc gaming into a mess
- Thread starter Hektor
- Start date
I don't think anyone is saying there's a bad reason per se.
And that's completely valid. I'm not trying to say that using Steam is somehow bad. I'm closing in on 400 games on Steam, so I'm not exactly innocent of anything here., I just don't like the idea that the client should win out over wanting to play the game, which is what I see lot of the recent EGS/Steam thread turn into. If a game is somewhere that isn't steam or doesn't activate on steam from a 3rd party site, I won't automatically turn up the chance to buy it simply because it's not on steam. Hell, id go physical 100% if it was still an option so i wouldnt have to launch anything but the game.
So what?
Honestly, this is a really poor argument that could have been deconstructed by spending a few minutes reading the issues laid out on like, the first page of this thread. "It's still on your same device" is a poor way to hand wave all the issues that the new stores are bringing:
- Most obviously, yes, they're creating fragmentation in libraries. It's already a pain keeping track of what you own across Steam, Itch.io, GOG, Battle.net, Origin, etc. New stores like Epic's and Discord's compounds this inconvenience, and more individual publishers like Bethesda creating launchers makes an even huger mess. Where we for years could primarily use games through a few centralized launchers, now it increasingly looks as though companies like Bethesda are going to hop on the "keep our games in our own launcher" train. More bloat on my computer for absolutely (or near absolutely) no benefit to me as a consumer.
- Fragmentation of game collections might be a more niche issue for those of us with larger libraries, but fragmentation of collections also tends to lead to fragmentation of communities. Many of us have a centralized, international list of friends/guilds/groups on places like Steam. A number of launchers, do not replicate this and force you to swap regions to play or merely talk with friends. In some cases, the launchers are so horrendously designed, that they do not. As the prime example of this, Blizzard's launcher has region-specific game keys, upgrades, in-game items, game progress, and friend lists. Garbage.
- More publisher launchers, inevitably and obviously means more control by the publisher around the game. Which as far as I can think, has basically never been a benefit to consumers. Expect a lack of basic functionality, like reviews, forums or feedback avenues, as publishers will be able to (and want to) wholly control all negative discussion about the game on their own launcher.
- Generally, these launchers lack both quality design and quality service. Steam has been accused ad nauseam, for years, of being both home to poor service and a poor piece of software. The service has gotten significantly better (and more transparent), and the software is improving. Most of the launchers I've downloaded don't even meet the standards that Valve set like a decade ago. They're buggy, slow, resource hogs with horrendous customer service.
- Just because a storefront is on the "same platform" doesn't mean it actually offers the same features. Big Picture Mode, controller integration, Linux support, all of these things (and many, many more) are usually lacking on these first-party launchers (as well as many of the storefront launchers).
- And perhaps the most important issue right now is lack of regional pricing. Given the absolute ignorance and disdain that some developers seem to have towards their customers (and just the lack of this function on some storefronts), there's a possibility we might see the rise of regional pricing take a step back, which will of course cause a rise in piracy again.
Post automatically merged:
This is like the kind of silliness you get from Nintendo fans when you complain about a barebones OS or the poorly featured Switch Online subscription.
"DON'T YOU LIKE PLAYING GAMES? ISN'T IT ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT PLAYING GAMES? I LOVE PLAYING GAMES, SO I FOR ONE RELISH A BAREBONES OS TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE GAMES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE GAMES, WHY DO YOU OWN A SWITCH?"
Okay, fine, let's reframe the issue then. Yes, some features like friends lists, fragmented libraries and poorer launchers could be called mere "client" issues that we can live having to work around
That said, the client "wins out over wanting to play the game" because the client is often offering essential features to play the damn game.
Linux gamer? Steam's integration of Proton is essential to you playing many games that otherwise are Windows (sometimes WIN/MAC) exclusive.
Game connected to a TV? Steam's BPM is hugely useful to making that a useable experience.
Use a particular controller for accessibility and comfort reasons? Good luck getting your non-Steam launcher of choice to support you!
Live in a non-Western country with a lower purchasing power? Steam's regional pricing was probably a godsend for you.
Those are just the four most basic examples that come to mind.
Last edited:
You give a lot of great reasons someone might prefer steam, even why people would be disappointed if a game didnt come to steam and why that would be fair. None of them actually entitle anyone to demand that a game be put on steam, tho. And I cant help but feel like some of the argument and hypothetical situations come off like faux altruism that seems to crop up whenever an argument needs to be made. I.E. "what about the guys on the submarines".
And with that I'm out have a great weekend/safe holiday!
If you're going to launch a game on a storefront that lacks basic functionality that I need to play the game comfortably, affordably or even at all, I feel pretty okay saying that the game should be launched on my preferred launcher that actually has those functions.
The accusations of "entitlement" are so yawn-inducing, and it's honestly really annoying how everyone has been gaslit into using the American, conservative/right-wing usage of the word "entitlement" and turned it into something it's not.
If you're going to try and earn my money by putting a game onto the free market, I'm perfectly "entitled" to an opinion about the thing you're putting onto the market. I'm perfectly "entitled" to say "Nah bruv, that store is a dump, but if you put it in [insert consumer-friendly storefront], I'll give your product a whirl."
Am I "entitled" to harass you, send you death threats, DDOS your servers and make your life miserable? Of course not. Am I entitled to my opinion to think your decision is bad and to say that as much as I feel like?
100%
LOL. We literally have people in this thread, and others, who have testified to the necessity of and their usage of regional pricing, Linux integration, controller support and BPM.
But yeah "WhAt aBoUt tEH GuYs oN tEh sUBMaRinEs" amirite?
Yep you're entitled to your opinion and to withhold your purchase. Conversely the publisher is entitled to not care about your opinion or your money. They are entitled to tell you that if you want the product at that time you'll buy it where its sold. Or not.
I didn't mean to cause personal offense but if I'm honest I'd ask which of those scenarios apply to you. Because yea I know there are people who've testified as to those things, and I'll never say they aren't valid. Valid as it is for those people tho, if they don't actually apply to you (which is how it comes off when you list hypotheticals that others experience.) then you are essentially asking what about the poor guys on the submarine.
Not that I'm really asking. Just explaining how it comes off that way.
Last edited:
In particular, I've been using BPM and Steam's family sharing (another feature I forgot to mention) since like 2012.
You don't actually seem to care, considering you've made numerous posts in this thread downplaying the poorness of the Epic Store as well as bemoaning the "iron-fisted grip" that Steam has.
I could use zero of Steam's accessibility and QOL features (although it's nearly impossible for any given person to use none of the features), and my concern about them not existing would still be valid, since you know, I care about consumers (notably: my friends) that do use them.
The fact that Valve has made games accessible to those who game on Linux is good.
The fact that Valve has made games accessible to those who like controllers, and especially those who are disabled to the point of needing custom controllers (e.g. the Steam controller), is good.
The fact that Valve has pushed regional pricing almost everywhere, and given developers tools to set it and forget it if they want, is good.
The fact that Steam has created tools for those who use larger screen/couch/family setups, is good.
Whether or not a person in this thread uses those features does not change that it's valuable they exist, and it's worth fighting to make sure other launchers do the bare minimum to reach Steam's level of comfort, accessibility and economic fairness.
Ah yes, the "I'm just asking questions" method.
Last edited:
guys ... relax
take a deep breath
just talk calmly
try to explain and understand ... at least make an effort
but most importantly - relax ... no need to get worked up about it
oki?
---
i do agree with Sampson, though .... and just because i don't use some of those features doesn't mean i can't sympathize with people who do
like, just because i'm not homeless - does that mean i can't care about what happens to people who are? i don't think that's how things work
it's called empathy
take a deep breath
just talk calmly
try to explain and understand ... at least make an effortbut most importantly - relax ... no need to get worked up about it
oki?
---
i do agree with Sampson, though .... and just because i don't use some of those features doesn't mean i can't sympathize with people who do
like, just because i'm not homeless - does that mean i can't care about what happens to people who are? i don't think that's how things work
it's called empathy
Lol, I specifically said I wasn't asking. But since you were inclined to share, BPM, sharing and what about the other people who ______.
Got it. Lol.
Think I'll take my leave of this thread. I don't have enough attachment to steam for it, I think.
I hear ya brother, don't worry I'm done with this thread.
I don't particularly care for any third party exclusivity, and I appreciate empathy as much as the next guy. I dunno tho maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age but the idea that steam fans (in the greater sense) demand everything be on steam out of noble altruism is pretty eye roll inducing, tbh.
Got it. Lol.
Think I'll take my leave of this thread. I don't have enough attachment to steam for it, I think.
Post automatically merged:
guys ... relax
take a deep breath
just talk calmly
but most importantly - relax ... no need to get worked up about it
oki?
---
i do agree with Sampson, though .... and just because i don't use some of those features doesn't mean i can't sympathize with people who do
like, just because i'm not homeless - does that mean i can't care about what happens to people who are? i don't think that's how things work
it's called empathy
I hear ya brother, don't worry I'm done with this thread.
I don't particularly care for any third party exclusivity, and I appreciate empathy as much as the next guy. I dunno tho maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age but the idea that steam fans (in the greater sense) demand everything be on steam out of noble altruism is pretty eye roll inducing, tbh.
Last edited:
For as long as I've been gaming there are two schools of thought on this issue. The first is "you go where the games are", which is perfectly valid and I won't begrudge anyone for sticking to that. The second is "vote with your wallet" and it's the one I mostly stick to. One quick example, for a very long time Dark Souls was only available on consoles. It was a game I was very interested in playing. I could have bought a console to play it on but I didn't. Instead, I expressed my support in the campaign to bring the game over to PC and in the end, because the demand was big enough, the game was ported. Enough people stuck to their guns for the company to reconsider its stance and bring the game over to the platform that the customers wanted.
On a larger scale, a few years ago a big part of the industry wanted to leave PC gaming behind and focus on consoles. I find it somewhat ironic that one of the more vocal supporters of that shift was Epic Games. Valve gave the PC gaming audience the chance to vote with their wallets and express their support of the platform and the result today is a PC gaming industry that is very strong and keeps growing. Would that have happened if people had decided to go where the games were back in the day?
In closing, a game is just one game. A platform affects the quality of the gaming experience you'll have for all games. As such I feel that it is way more important than any single game and worth supporting.
It doesn't matter if it is "eye roll inducing". Even if the people arguing with you do not actually need those features themselves, that does not mean that they are not needed, regional pricing being a particularly obvious example, as is basic access to the store (remember that the Epic store is unavailable in China). What you are doing appears to be little more than an attempt to discredit the people you are arguing with, coupled with a lack of engagement with the actual facts of the matter.
If you can't keep track of the games you own, regardless of client/store, I wouldn't blame multiple launchers for that. If anything split launchers would force you to remember what's where simply because they're going to be segmented by publisher. I'm all for games being on every client/store just an fyi, but i think library fragmentation is bullshit since it's again, all at your finger tips at an equal number of clicks away. Laziness is not an excuse. You wouldn't blame the store in any other instance of life if you bought something at say Walmart and then went to Best Buy and bought the same item because you forgot.
I can't argue against this, so I won't try to defend it.
I mean aside from the reviews, it's not like pubishers can't control things on steam.
In terms of design, I'd say uplay is probably the best. It's straight forward and easy to get to exactly what you want without little to no learning curve.
In terms of services, yes Steam clearly walks al over everything.
I never argued that clients should or do have the same feature set, I argued that at that point you're only arguing in favour of the client features and to me, those are less important unless they actually overcome an inability to play or buy the the game. Proton, regional pricing, and controller support I would put as the three best options that Steam has over the others that should be everywhere. Something like big picture is QOL, but not essential to playing on a pc, even on a tv. I game on my htpc and dont need big picture to do it with ease.
I don't know if you ignored my post where I said I was completely in favour of this? This is one thing that goes beyond the level of store or client because it affects the actual customer's ability to purchase the title in a reasonable manner. Arguing about controller support or friends list requires the game already be purchased. If you can't do that, everything else is moot.
It's not silliness if I really don't see the features essential to my use of the PC platform, especially since most of my gaming is single player oriented. I don't need a friends list or massive community if I'm going to fire up Prey or Deus Ex for example. They're nice to have, but I can game without them and have done so for many years on pc. One persons QOL feature is another's clutter.
But steam is still easily usable in desktop [is that the name for it?] mode, and I speak from experience. Yes BPM is better suited to comfy couch with a controller, but are definitely not required. So are any other client for that matter.
These three, you and I agree are actually something every other store/launcher should have and steam truly rules with these, though I don't know how much Proton helps on top of WINE as ive yet to use it. Has Proton been released independent of Steam by Valve yet? I know there was a third party package of it
Even if people don’t use the features currently, and don’t have empathy for people that do, there’s still good reasons to want those features “selfishly.”
Don’t use regional pricing? Don’t care about people who do?
- Regional pricing assures that if your country’s economy ever tanks, and therefore your relative purchasing power tanks, you’ll still be able to purchase games.
- Regional pricing generally decreases piracy, which is good for you, because it means better support for PC from your favorite devs.
- Regional pricing is good even if you live in a country where you really don’t expect to ever have an economic crash. Because it means if you ever have to move to a country with a weaker economy, you’ll still be able to play games in your new home.
- Valve’s Linux efforts are valuable to you for future game preservation. When current developers abandon their backcatalog, as so many have, you’ll still be able to play your stuff.
- Linux support provides you a contingency plan should Mac OS or Windows ever go completely crazy, so you’ll still have a way to use your library.
- Family sharing is still useful between friends, especially roommates. It’s an extremely handy way for friends to test games before they buy them.
- And hey, someday you might have kids and the feature will be even more useful.
- Someday, you will be old and weighed down by health problems. Having accessible controllers available will be a godsend for you if you’re interested in still playing games.
To say nothing obviously, of all of us that actually use the features day-to-day anyways.
Nah fam I'm not discrediting any of the facts. I don't have enough investment in Steam or opposing it to go to that length. I never said those features aren't great features that every store should have. What I did say is that I don't believe when people try to tell me they wont purchase something they want based on the fact that someone who is not them might be inconvenienced, have to pay more, or even be unable to play it due to where its being sold. it Its ok to just want it to be on steam because its where your library is. You don't have to try to take some kind of gaming moral high ground and pretend that things that dont actually affect you are why you are upset when things don't come to steam.
Also It makes me wonder if people don't think that stores that arent steam and lack the things that all the very altruistc people are worried about for the sake of other people would be completely unable to eventually add, if they were oh I dunno allowed to thrive a bit and evolve instead of being rejected immediately for not being steam. Its not like steam arrived where it is immediately either.
*Edit: for clarity "You" doesnt mean anyone here specifically.
Last edited:
I completely disagree, and I think the bolded in particular is a really bad comparison that's not at all related to the issues inherent to digital ownership.
Here's a real-life example. I preordered a copy of Yakuza Kiwami around when it was announced. I forgot that I had ordered it, and I ordered another copy around two weeks before release. I ended up surprised with two copies on the same day, but simply returned one.
So here's the total possible end results of this experience:
- I buy an extra copy of the game, and easily return the unopened copy to the storefront I bought it from and receive a full refund, no harm, no foul.
- I take the extra copy of the game, and simply give it to a friend or family member instead.
- On many storefronts, I'm going to have trouble returning it (the EGS as an example apparently only gives you two refund tokens that refill once a year).
- And being digital, I can't just simply transfer ownership of the copy like I can with a physical copy.
The annoyance has more to do with having collections spread across different places. Consider your example. If I buy a physical Blu-ray at Walmart, and a physical Blu-ray at Best Buy, they go onto the same shelf, and are used in the same disc player.
Whereas my digital movie collection is spread across (as far as I can remember) Amazon Video, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, Crackle, PlayStation Video and Microsoft Video. There's no way, short of basically cracking DRM or re-recording the videos via capture system, to actually unify my video library into one central location.
Similarly, my digital game purchases are spread across GoG (DRM free at least), Steam, Origin, PSN, Xbox, Nintendo eShop and Battle.net. Again, short of cracking the DRM and creating ROMs/ISOs/whatever, there's really no way to get all of my digital games in one central location off of their respective launchers and hardware.
Is this some end of the world nightmare? Absolutely not.
Is it the highest priority in terms of my non-Steam client complaints? Nope, not even close.
Is it an annoyance? Absolutely.
Does it impact where I buy my games? Sometimes, yes. If a game is somehow cheaper on GoG than Steam, I sometimes don't buy it. Not because I dislike GoG or love the Steam client. I just like the convenience of centralizing my library in one place as much as possible.
The fact that they can't really control reviews is a huge deal. Sure, it sucks that you have people acting childish and review-bombing for dumb stuff, but it's still a valuable tool (and one of the few that we have!) to communicate issues to fellow consumers and to influence developers to change legitimate issues.
That's fine if you're completely self-interested, but I would say you have to recognize that's an inherently self-centered position since many people do use these features. This again kind of returns to my example of Nintendo fans basically decrying the mere addition of features. Even if you don't use them, there's nothing to be gained by you claiming they're not worthwhile or necessary or "clutter." They're good for someone, and there's basically no benefit to not having them in the client. Hell, communities are still even useful in singleplayer games to troubleshoot tech issues and find solution to in-game challenges.
Also no, they don't clutter anything since most of these features, if not all, can be toggled off and/or ignored.
And, I think in our online, hyper-connected world, it makes little sense to think of the PC world as anything but largely multiplayer-online oriented. Your penchant for singleplayer games isn't exactly niche, but it's also not the dominant mode of play anymore. The most popular, money making games are online, multiplayer experiences. Games are more complex and community driven than ever, even singleplayer titles. And if companies are going to continue trying to sell me that experience, I feel quite comfortable demanding that they put useful features and safeguards in for my digital ownership.
ValveSoftware/Proton
Okay, fair enough. Thank you for better explaining what you meant. I guess something like library fragmentation is just not something that has ever bothered me. I don't preorder games often except on the rarest of occasions and I've never had an issue with double dipping at the preorder stage - I generally go with price over anything with a preference for GOG because I can play without a client if I so choose. For me the shelf space, in your bluray example is just the OS I game on. the launchers are simply slight abstractions on top of that and no where near annoying enough to stick with only one over the other.
That said I believe your digital example of being spread across multiple places to me holds up better for video because unlike a pc that's been built or bought specifically for gaming, not every tv or set top box will work with every digital video service. Unless you're jumping between different pc's to game, you're always on the same machine and can easily find your library at a moments notice. Annoying? Maybe. But maybe I'm just too stuck in my line of thinking to see why it's such a problem to open more than one launcher and see oh yeah, there's game X. The computer itself is the shelf space to me.
This is obviously very tied to a Windows OS mindset, since I don't know how the other stores or clients behave with Linux by default or Mac if one isn't bootcamping. I'd like to switch to Linux for gaming full time, but it's not in the cards. That shouldn't stop those that do use linux full time from gaming though, and if one client does that then of course I see it making more sense to favour. it
I agree, the review feature is actually a good way for gamers to hit back at the way gaming media presents the quality of a game, and like all things can be bastardized by those who misuse it.
I know I tend to come off as self centred when these threads come up, but I really don't try to be. Yes I know my opinions are my own alone and likely not shared by many people here. I don't decry the features steam has, and use some of them quite often but I do not ever let them decide for me where I purchase a game.
Yes I know my focus on single player games is somewhat at odds with the majority of pc gaming, but it shouldn't make my opinions invalid. Not the focus sure, but I'm not arguing that any client shouldn't have features or drop them (ie steam become more barebones), but I don't see a lack of some features as a reason to stick up ones nose and completely ignore other areas of pc gaming because it's not Steam. Steam for me shouldnt be pc gaming. It should be a part of a larger whole. And by that I mean the steam ecosystem shouldnt be pc gaming defacto because 3rd party key sellers inevitably feed back into it. I don't see Steam as a monopoly but I also don't want it to become one either.
I'll have to look into it more. I like open source where I can find it.
I feel like we're going in circles here, but there's two basic issues that we've covered with this mindset:
- Your library is fragmented, so you're assuming you even remember where all your digital goods even are. To repeat, with a physical library, all my stuff is in one place. I want to see my Blu-ray collection? I just literally go and look at the two shelves they're on. Easy peasy. I want to see all my physical books? I just go into my personal library room and look at my neatly organized collection. My digital goods are not in one location, and I have to rely on library unifying apps like Playnite (better hope the dude developing it gets enough donations!) or manually track my library via something like Excel.
- Then we get back to the primary issue with "Just switch launchers dude, it's just another app!" being the the whole feature discussion we just had. Sure, I can "just switch the launcher on," but I'm hardly incentivized to do that if the launcher is lacking good features like the Linux integration, regional pricing, BPM, and community features. Your computer isn't like your shelf, because your shelf isn't providing features for the books/movies/games you're pulling off of it. It's a holding space, that's it. Your launcher is not just a holding space.