this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
806 points (96.4% liked)

Games

32526 readers
1983 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
806
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world
 

I guess they're giving up on convincing people to download their launcher.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Steam already does that verification.

[–] trias10@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, but why should Steam be the only game in town? That's a very dangerous monopoly.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] trias10@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] trias10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pory@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gog? Itch? Plenty of developers choose to sell their games in DRM-free formats. Plenty of games don't even cost money.

[–] trias10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Also remember that Steam takes a 30% cut

20-30% cut, which is in-line with most digital storefronts.

which is totally unnecessary

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.

and is what directly caused giants like Ubisoft and Rockstar to make their own storefronts.

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.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's plenty of others. GoG and Humble come to mind as the major alternatives.

[–] trias10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, and GoG is fantastic and I'm so glad it exists. We need more DRM-free storefronts without launchers for sure.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.