this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
845 points (96.5% liked)
Games
32475 readers
772 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
People love a monopoly when it suits them
Steam is the best platform by far, and the only one with Linux support. It's not Valve's fault if other publishers aren't even trying to make a good product.
People love things that benefit them as consumers and hate things that don't, end of
It wouldnt be so notable if they just let me download the game by itself. If I have to download a fucking launcher every time then I want the games to be centralized atleast somewhat.
Seriously every fucking conpany a fucking launcher for a while there, even fucking bethesda had one.
I'm permanently annoyed with the launcher thing, too. I wish someone would come up with a software store app that 1) installed all the right crap so the game works right and 2) didn't require you to open the app to open the game. Steam, for example, lets you install the game with a start menu shortcut, but if you don't have Steam open, clicking on the start menu shortcut opens Steam first, then Steam launches the friggin' game. Then there is the Bethesda launcher. Then Blizzard's Battle.net launcher. There's an Xbox launcher. Yadda yadda. I don't know if their primary goal is monopoly as much as it is forcing you to open a program with a store in it so you see stuff to buy when you want to play a game. I think having a monopoly is secondary. Primary to them is forcing you to see that they have more shit for you to buy. I'm pretty sure Apple's iTunes is the one that started it all. Let's integrate shopping for music into the computer. Then, the phone. Now it's not just music. It's every friggin' thing. People with shopping addictions must have a hard time if they're also gamers or fans of other digital media.
I think you can choose your library as the startscreen when steam opens.
But I think you are right that the game should open without starting steam. I would guess it has something to do with DRM? because with GOG you can just download the game and start it from desktop without launcher.
Yes, your library can be the start screen when it opens. But first you must see the other window (that I always close without reading) telling you about today's "special deal" or some game you might like to buy.
I doubt anyone will complain if Blizzard's games are brought to other storefronts too.
I like Steam. Steam has the best features, best UI, good sales, and while they are not without faults (systems can stay unchanged for a long time!), they are run by a company that by and large respects its userbase.
I don't mind if games are brought to Steam and any or all other storefronts. Put it on GOG, Windows Store, EGS, Itch.io, battlenet, Origin, Uplay... You name it, I approve of it going there also. If those other storefronts want me to use them, they need to provide a comparable or superior experience. GOG comes the closest, but its inability to get games in a timely or predictable manner, if at all, is too much of an obstacle for me.
Steam has one of the worst UIs I've ever seen lol. It looks and feels like a website from the early 2000s.
I find it infinitely more usable than all of the other storefronts I've used or seen. Interacting with my library is easy and straight forward. Buying games is easy and straight forward. When it opens I'm not inundated with ads for games I don't care about, or ads at all.
Showing you games that are available on the store isn’t an “ad”. This mentality needs to go away. If you walk into a store, everything on the shelves isn’t an “ad”, it’s a product.
Functionality over form. This ain’t Apple
I'm ambivalent on console exclusives for this reason. It certainly drives sales for a console, but it's so anti consumer
I feel like a game being made available on an additional platform is like the opposite of monopoly. If steam paid Blizzard for exclusive storefront rights and you could only get the games on PC from Steam id be inclined to agree.
“Steam should be the only game launcher I use”
Indeed! Monopolies are great. Why have five stores when you can have a one-stop-shop?
It is the capitalism that is wrong.
You could stop at five or six stores... or just one.
Just stop already with the “capitalism bad” shit. The only negative thing about Lemmy so far. In all systems its the people who ruin it. End of story.
But that’s the point…? Pretty much every economic or political system “works” In theory. Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, Dictatorship. What goes wrong is always the people.
Therefore, one should aim for a system where people have the least possible ways to screw everything up (not that I have a suggestion, sadly)
Apparently Steam is being sued for being a monopoly and abusing it, which is probably why they have to allow other companies games now.
Valve has like five games, and the hundreds of thousands of other games on Steam are from other companies, and they've had 3rd-party games since 2005.
Activision/Blizzard didn't put their games on Steam so they can push their own store, it was to not make payments to a third party, and have high visibility of their own products (e.g. advertise CoD to Diablo players and vice versa). Of course, they miss out on the visibility of being on the largest game marketplace.
Correction: Activision)blizzard COULDN'T put their game on steam with their own store because of steams monopolistic TOS: which is what they got sued over.
EA have their games on Steam and Origin and have for years, Blizzard could (and will) have their games on Steam and Battle.NET. I've seen nothing to suggested they were unable to put their games on Steam, but rather decided it wasn't in their interest, given Steam's TOS and/or what they could gain from having their own marketplace.
Steam is being sued by Wolfire for antitrust, but there is no outcome in this suit yet. Unless you're referring to a different suit I don't know about.
Even if Valve loses this lawsuit, it doesn't meant they have to allow any specific products from other companies on Steam. It just might mean a reduction in fees, or an inability to sign exclusivity deals (which are common across the industry, weather you like them or not, and I know I don't). The Wolfire antitrust lawsuit is because they sell other companies games on Steam, to the point that they dominate the marketplace, not because they were stopping other companies from selling games on Steam.