And it will last til Gabe dies. Then I guarantee it enshittifes so fast it will make your head spin.
post
I only buy games on Steam, GOG and ItchIO. The main reason I don't give a cent to stores from EA, Ubisoft or Epic Games anymore is their services and terms are horrible. I'm all in for supporting competition when it's good competition.
I would buy from GOG too, if they provided Linux support in form of an official launcher. And if available also official Linux builds. Back in the days GOG did that, but they stopped doing it. And before someone comes after me, I know there are alternative launchers on Linux. But I don't want to give GOG money for work others doing it for free. I don't want support a company who only cares about Windows.
I bought Resident Evil 0 on GOG yesterday but Heroic wouldn't download the game for some reason (stuck at 0%). Refunded, got it on Steam for cheaper and it launched right away.
Sometimes I purchase on GOG out of principle and for some reason they always punish me for it.
In the past, before Proton, if a game was available at comparable prices on GOG and on Steam, I'd buy it on GOG, also because no DRM meant better compatibility. After Proton, my purchases from GOG went way down.
I could understand this sentiment for any pc-platform but GOG. After all, they are the only ones (afaik) that make their launcher optional. And while i do ocassionally use launcher-functionalities from for example steam, i would much rather not have to bother with it if i didnt have to.
They started supporting and cooperating with heroic launcher.
Thus heroic is the defacto official GOG launcher on linux.
What type of support and cooperation? And where it is documented, so I can read about it?
Weird. I can fibd no source on it. However I seem to distinctly remember that GOG announced to help heroic implement more cloud features.
That does not mean it never happened, we just can't find the source. I had this with my own statements in the past too, sometimes it was true sometimes I was wrong. Therefore I cannot trust everyone in the internet. What I can imagine is, that GOG worked on the GOG API (the programming interface for other tools) to add access to the Cloud features in example. It might came out of a request from the Heroic Launcher project. So in a sense GOG would cooperate. But this is just speculation on my part here.
Still the Heroic Launcher is a separate project doing all the work on their own.
I used to be the same.
I have changed to prioritizing GOG though since I try to limit purchases from US companies and I despise how Steam knowingly profits from making children addicted to gambling.
If you login to the Lutris client with your GOG account it skips GOG Galaxy and install the game for you in proton.
You can just add it to Steam as a non-Steam game and launch it from there
This does not address the issue I brought up in my reply. Besides the brought up point, it would not solve all other issues I would have. I know the functionality to add non-Steam games since I am on Steam over 12 years ago.
Oh cool then just be a prick about it for no reason. Go fuck yourself, I was just trying to help you.
I told you that it does not address my issue. No need to be mad, I have no bad intentions. I expressed what issue I have and adding the game as a non-Steam game does not solve the issues I have.
It came off as hostile but maybe I misread.
How does it not fix the problem? You can buy a gog game, add it to Steam and launch it with Proton. You'd just be using Steam instead of the gog launcher you want.
The problem is the launcher. He does not want one.
This is directly from the comment I replied to:
I would buy from GOG too, if they provided Linux support in form of an official launcher
No need for an official launcher when you can just use Steam as a launcher.
I bought Anno 1800 through uPlay and, to be fair, the app is not too bad, but now that I'm on Linux idk if I'd be able to get it working again. Not that I necessarily have interest to play again.
Steam kinda killed gaming piracy for many. Hope they won't go the Netflix way in the future.
it's crazy how you offer people convenience and they willingly pay for it. I remember steam killing piracy before DRM or anything like that existing
You make it sound like drm didn't exist before steam or like steam isn't a form of drm itself. Old drm was more basic and far less nefarious, like entering a cd key or codes in your manual. This later escalated to online activated cd keys. At the very least, these forms of drm didn't run all the time like steam did- I remember steam getting huge pushback (from myself included) because it ran like absolute dogshit. Later forms of drm got worse with checks in the discs that collected data on your pc (securom, anyone?). Steam did a lot of good things but it did not erase drm- it merely created another form of it (I.e. You no longer own your games, you are buying licenses they can revoke at any time)
I'm curious what you mean by this.
Netflix only went the way it did because they were liscensing shows and movies from other publishers/studios who could have, and finally did, take their shit back and start their own subscription service.
It's not just Netflix that sucks now; it's the whole of legit streaming video services becoming what cable was that got Netflix popular to begin with.
This is unlikely to happen with Steam, given that competitors are already trying to do what they can similarly and it has yet to actually do anything.
I mean that although the good shows got removed by the other competitors and streaming got downhill with that, they increased prices, put ads, removed account sharing and their only focus is profit.
Edit: also they removed shows by themselves to countries that the particular shows were not that popular just to save money. That started before the rise of other streaming platforms.
Yeah streaming has an assumption of an exclusivity deal whereas in gaming it's unpopular and financially not worthwhile (though subscriptions would rapidly change that).
If Netflix and HBO and everyone else all were equally able to buy content and no service was the primary sponsor of content you'd get services competing on price, quality, and selection rather than each of them aiming to always have something worth the subscription price coming out.
They did for me, then my cost of living went up along with the cost of games. Now I'll only buy games that I intend to play multiplayer
For me cost of living went up but cost of games down. I mostly play indie games now since i find big AAA games not that interesting with one maybe two exceptions per year.
Depends on what games you play. I play lots of studio games and don't play a lot of indies. Now I just pirate. To paraphrase a wise man "this may or may not technically be legal... But 105aud for a new video game is a straight up crime"
Yeah, it sucks. A major reason that I abandoned Nintendo's Switch 2, and returned to PC after playing in Switch for some years. I used to pay 30-50€ for AAA, but they wanted people to jump to 70-80€.
i kinda agree:
but its still possible to pirate some Steam games without the Steam Client,
and some still require it.
Steam is the very, very rare case of a major company that is both not beholden to shareholders, and has a pretty good guy at the helm.
I simply do not understand the sentiment that not being a total bastard is something celebrated and not expected or required.
And while many like our Steam benevolent (almost) monopoly, I do wonder how would the market look like if we had 20 competing companies that cannot gain more than 5% of the market share. Can you imagine the competition between them and how would that benefit us, the consumer?
That would mean exclusives everywhere. Everyone would try to force some game pass on us, until our only choice to get an OK selection would be having 4 subscriptions. Or piracy.
With Steam, I get a well integrated platform for buying, updating and launching everything with the correct compatibility layer.
That's more convenient than piracy, so I use it.
Exclusives are a bastard child of oligopoly, where the distribution platform has more power than the publisher.
Before Steam physical games were NEVER sold only in ToysR, they were sold in all shops.
No, that's pretty wrong. There absolutely were exclusive store releases, or temporary releases where one store would get a certain game a whole month early.
they're still sold everywhere...just nobody buys em cause why the fuck would you when you can buy em online?
"Not being a total bastard" is a weird way to describe overhauling the gaming on linux experience at no additional cost to the end user, among many other incredibly pro consumer choices they've pushed in the last twenty odd years.
Yeah. Steam is fucking solid.
step aside jesus, we have a new savior and his name is gaben
Honestly 20 different companies would probably suck for the consumer. That's 20 different storefronts to compare, 20 different libraries to manage, potentially 20 different sets of logins, 20 sources of data breaches. It's unlikely they would adopt an open standard to allow a shared library. Maybe you have a 21st company that makes a product like heroic launcher. You'd likely run into regionality issues where a particular store is unavailable, so you may not be able to play purchased games. You would have all sorts of odd exclusive dlc and pre order bonuses so a cosmetic item you like could be locked to a store you haven't used. Multiplayer likely wouldn't be global cross play between all companies, you likely get some set of 20 companies working together for multiplayer. Some games may develop a good scene available to a single store, requiring a game to be repurchased. Exclusives or timed exclusives would be annoying to track, as each store would likely have different catalogs.
I think this amount of competition could be good if individual competitors were allowed to fail. All the parts that build vendor lock-in would need to be removed, and more things would need to be interoperable, but it could be quite good and even specialised.
Each storefront could live or die independent of each library and each game service. If one company tried to squeeze money from users, they could just take their elsewhere, without worrying about losing access to games or connections to friends.
Of course no company would create such a system voluntarily, most depend on monopolistic practices to survive. It would take monopoly busting-policy or a foss group to even begin such a thing.
I simply do not understand the sentiment that not being a total bastard is something celebrated and not expected or required.
It’s simple really. If you don’t give positive feedback, you’ve lost the major lever that can be used to get what you want.
Using negative feedback is a useful tool but it’ll never achieve the same outcomes if used by itself.
And while many like our Steam benevolent (almost) monopoly, I do wonder how would the market look like if we had 20 competing companies that cannot gain more than 5% of the market share. Can you imagine the competition between them and how would that benefit us, the consumer?
More comptetion wouldn't just benefit consumers, it would benefit devs. A dev could shop their game around go with a store front that suits their needs better.
If I'm going to need to install several different clients/launcher on my computer just to keep up with where games get published, I'll just resort to piracy.
Being forced to install some shitty client to run a specific game has been a deal breaker for me in the past. And there is no guarantee that other "competing" platforms will bother making Linux versions of their clients.
I feel like they've earned it because they've put in the most work. They are the best in the game because they make the user experience the best there is. EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft have/had their own storefronts or launchers but they are clunky and unpleasant to deal with and the only benefits they had were exclusives. They've never put any effort into user experience and were mainly doing it to make themselves more money and it definitely showed. The only one that's ever been a real competitor is Epic Launcher. And while it has gotten better over the years, the user experience is still not anywhere near Steam. And even now the Epic Launcher is still unpleasant to deal with in a lot of cases unless you just use it to play Fortnite.
With Steam everything just works and is basically seamless. Not only that, before Steam the modding community for most games had an immense learning curve and most people just avoided it save for Minecraft. And as far as I can tell you can't even mod games you buy on the Microsoft Store because their file structure is atrocious.
The only storefront I wish was better/more popular was GOG. It's not bad and has a lot of benefits (Like no DRM and offline installers), but Steam just makes everything so easy it's hard not to get stuck with them once you've started.
Offline installers are the reason I only use my money on gog. I like to have control over the things I own, though it's getting harder and harder these days. But where it's still possible I use it, and gog is the only storefront that offers this service (which beats every other service I could think of).
The only storefront I wish was better/more popular was GOG. It’s not bad and has a lot of benefits (Like no DRM and offline installers), but Steam just makes everything so easy it’s hard not to get stuck with them once you’ve started.
Well the no DRM/offline installer part is the most important part. I buy a game, I download and install it. If I need more features I may be better off with Steam anyway.
As far as I know the Steam DRM is not mandatory to use for developers.
Yes, I still need to go through Steam for every install.
While Steam is more or less the best big solution we have, it does leave a lot to be desired. The only reason they are the best is because they clawed their way to the top early, kept themselves "good enough" compared to the competition, and haven't yet sold out their entire customer base.
At this point, they completely dominate. It's insanely difficult to compete with them. So long as they make half of an effort to improve things and continue to be somewhat benevolent they'll likely keep their crown.
However, Valve is not ideal. They are still looking out for themselves, primarily. Many of Valves improvements have just been reactions to competitors and other threats not an inherent desire to deliver the best product possible or do the right thing. It's just the fact that most competitors are more obviously greedy and immoral that makes Valve look like the heroes.
Without Epic and others throwing cash on the fire trying to compete I doubt we'd have seen even the slow upgrades to the Steam experience we've seen in recent years.
Without the Australian lawsuit, we'd have no return policy.
Without the clever abuse of arbitration by a group of lawyers, Valve would still have forced arbitration in the agreements.
Steam OS was only a thing, and Proton only got backed by Valve, when Microsoft first started positioning itself to eat Valve's lunch by exerting control over Windows and pushing for things like UWP and the MS/Windows/XBOX storefronts on PC.
The vast majority of Valve's storefront improvements are algorithms and crowd sourcing solutions. They want to be as hands off as possible because being hands on is hard and comes with liability. The whole skins market and gambling fiasco kind of shows that they'd much rather just not get involved if possible - same risk/reward cost/benefit analysis used by every greedy company. If that means lying about how aware they are of it that's what they'll do.
Don't get me wrong. The least worst is, unfortunately, the best we've got. I love gaming and use Steam a lot. It's just that the other big players are just so terrible that I think Valve gets a free pass. Hell, much of the tech industry is swallowing tactical nukes hoping that the radiation will somehow mutate them into a good business. In the meantime they are using the illusion of "expansion" from the resulting explosions to make themselves look bigger for investors. I support anyone not doing that.
While many accuse Valve of monopolising the PC gaming market, others argue that Steam's dominance is simply the result of doing things right.
These assertions do not contradict. I cannot overstress that.
This whole article is 'Valve's monopoly is fine because they did things right.'
Having one good store is not, in itself, a problem. But it does mean we're one fuckup away from having no good stores.
People feel good about Valve because they don’t rely on anti consumer behavior. It does what I want and doesn’t enforce me on other crap.
I'm a fan of Valve and Steam too. But you cannot deny that Valve does shitty stuff too. In example Valve is the company who either invented or popularized Loot Boxes. And they don't do anything about the Black Market for the item trading and selling, such as Counter Strike skins and so on. And there are other little things that could be done, but nothing else upsets me as this.
But besides that, for the most part I love Valve. The commitment to support on Linux is unmatched in the gaming world. As a private company, Valve can do whatever they want. I genuinely think that PC gaming wouldn't be this good without Valve. If anything, Microsoft would have the power... which in an alternate universe people have to suffer.
The skins and loot boxes is the only negative thing I ever see brought up about steam, and it is a completely voluntary system that applies to a few of their own games. In fact, I keep forgetting they even have them unless someone brings it up and despite being a terrible thing people apparently love them and would be mad if they went away.
So I'll forgive them for one stupid thing they do and appreciate the other 99% of things they do.
Steam had been one of the good companies so far. Until they showed clear signs of enshitiffication, I will patronise Steam.
I will say they were less weirdly invasive than whatever it was EA had me running just to play sims 2 in 2017ish. Why tf do you really need to protect you IP that hard for a game that old with newer sequels for???

top 95 comments