you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 5 days ago (7 children)

On the one hand, they're not really competing on features right now.

On the other hand, I have heard (more times than I can count or remember), that Steam users will never use another launcher for any reason ever.

So they kind of have a point. If they invest hundreds of millions or billions into features, would Steam users really use the Epic launcher? I don't think so.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    I'd be fine using a different launcher. Just not theirs.

    Epic has done so much to breed ill will with gamers. If they wanted to be disruptors they should have just followed the typical tactics. Come in with a decent or even good service that is cheaper or more user friendly than the competition, be extremely consumer focused with customer support and decisions, get enough market share to have a solid user base, then start tightening the strings so they can turn a profit.

    Instead, they said 'fuck gamers', spent years bribing developers for exclusives, offered fuck-all in terms of features that people want, had very strict customer service, and then proceeded to tell everyone that they're wrong for preferring the other guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago

    I’d be fine using a different launcher. Just not theirs.

    Do you not have games on Steam then, or are you saying you'd be fine using two launchers?

    Most people have a ton of games on Steam and would not use multiple launchers. People here on Lemmy are always going to be a strongly opinionated minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    they released a new video codec for steamlink vr streaming not too long ago, and are adding achievement categories

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    There are a couple things that cement Steam at the top, imo.

    The first is obviously familiarity and completeness - everyone knows Steam and it almost certainly has whatever game you are looking to buy.

    The second is added value - very good controller support, mod support, (some) good community spaces, easy multiplayer sessions, proton integration, regular updates, etc. These are genuinely worth using the launcher for.

    The third is the single-launcher desire (or the sunk cost effect depending on your point of view). People already have massive libraries on steam, keeping their collection there just makes it easier to browse and find whatever they want to play. Yes, there are other solutions for this, but that is an extra step - there will always be people who don't take that step.

    Familiarity can't exactly be bought - Epic tried. Completeness can be bought (Epic, Gamepass) but it is hideously expensive. Added value is difficult to get to parity (mod authors aren't going to instantly port to a new launcher even if there is support). The single launcher effect is a massive first-mover advantage.

    I completely agree that Valve having a monopoly on PC game distribution is unhealthy long-term, they also just offer a better experience to me as a consumer than the competition. Even when games have GoG versions, for instance, they are often not updated as frequently and mod support is often more difficult, controller support is hit-or-miss, etc.

  • source
  • parent