The "needs to launch on startup" is FALSE , you can have this launchers set no to start at all and you launch the game and the launcher will start if needed (not all Steam games need Steam in background).
FYI GOG launcher is optional, you can just download the game from the website with a browser and then install it as in old times.
Competition is good and except the Epic drama I did not see anyone complaining the GOG, HumbleBundle, itch.io or downloading from Patreon is a bad thing for PC. I expect though if Apple blocks all launchers on the new OSX for ARM then an army of people will say that downloading a small game directly from Patron is too complicated and insecure for the average Apple user mind.
I'd be interested to see whether any jurisdiction would hand down a consumer mandate for unbundling the DRM component from the storefront app; the former only updates occasionally.
Launcher apps are garbage, but you just move right past that to one single game that can be downloaded directly out of hundreds that can’t.
You are ignoring that except the exclusives you can game most of your games on one store. I do not support exclusivity for one store either and I would prefer I always had the option to buy the products directly from the developer. Like my Intellij subscription I don't want that Microsoft or other big american company gets 30% of the money this hard working developers deserve because I am forced to use a middle man.
By contrast, if I want iMessage on my phone, Epic has to distribute Fortnight to me though Apple.
But that doesn't require you to use EGS for anything else, and the cost of using multiple game stores is minor, because installing them is free.
And how do you mean that Apple doesn't force you to use only their own launcher and platform? If I want iMessage, I not only have to buy their phone hardware, and their platform, and get it from their store, I also have to get everything else from their store even if I don't want to. To avoid this I would have to buy two separate phones at a cost of hundreds of dollars, with two separate phone contracts and phone numbers, and then carry them both around. Nobody is going to do that, whereas installing multiple game stores on your PC is the rule rather than the exception, exactly because you can easily have more than one on the same device.
> To avoid this I would have to buy two separate phones at a cost of hundreds of dollars, with two separate phone contracts and phone numbers, and then carry them both around.
I believe you can use iMessage on iPadOS and macOS as well. You can even use a Mac as relay via Airmessage [1]. Its true that some Apple software is specific to their platforms though.
Its annoying having to use different IM clients or different e-mail addresses or different store launchers. They each use their own resources, each have their own attack surface, requires maintenance, and I need to remember who/which to use where. An abstraction layer like Lutris (or Pidgin/Bitlbee/Jabber/..., or (Neo)Mutt instead of e.g. Yahoo Mail) is my preference. This way, you stick to the same UI.
Just to be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with your disliking of Apple's practices. Its just that I find Epic's behaviour also annoying, and its precisely them who complain.
So you get it from whichever store has it early. That's kind of the point. But as long as that store isn't requiring you to buy their particular kind of device or preclude you from using other stores on your device, it's not the same problem.
> I believe you can use iMessage on iPadOS and macOS as well.
It's a messaging app. It goes on your phone. And that would still require you to spend hundreds on an Apple device, then hundreds more on an Android device.
> You can even use a Mac as relay via Airmessage
Which not only requires you to buy both devices, now the Apple device has to be a desktop which you have to leave turned on and burning electricity at all times in order to receive messages on your phone.
It isn't not a problem just because you can work around it by walking up hill both ways in the snow every summer, it's a problem because people aren't actually going to do it that way.
> Its annoying having to use different IM clients or different e-mail addresses or different store launchers. They each use their own resources, each have their own attack surface, requires maintenance, and I need to remember who/which to use where.
None of that stuff is huge. It doesn't prevent people from doing it in practice.
> An abstraction layer like Lutris (or Pidgin/Bitlbee/Jabber/..., or (Neo)Mutt instead of e.g. Yahoo Mail) is my preference. This way, you stick to the same UI.
Yes, exactly, which then addresses your concerns with having multiple stores -- but only if you can have multiple stores and use a single interface for all of them.
For example, where is the version of Pidgin which runs on Android and is compatible with iMessage without using some kind of farcical relay system? Who is the party that prevents this from existing?
> Its just that I find Epic's behaviour also annoying, and its precisely them who complain.
It turns out that if you apply "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to the legal system, nobody would have standing and perpetrators could never be held to account. Fortunately that's not how it works.
- as a developer you don't get "a sack of money" but you get a 30% tax (larger then Epic
- as a user you don't get free games, discounts or the option to wait for the exclusivity to expire. On top of that you will never(probably) have the option to touch the game files and mod it.
The App Store also pays out more revenue to developers than other stores, a major reason being that you can literally access all the users on iOS by publishing on just one store.
The only store that has a place on my devices is the OS vendor store.
If being more open magically offered the same quality all kind of third party open platforms would have flourished.
But even in the semi-closed Android you have 95% of mobile malware according to surveys, devices abandoned without updates after 1-2 releases, tons of crap trojan apps, widespread spyware, and so on...
A third party app store can be fine at first. "You can chose whether to use it or not" after all.
Then some major software only comes for that store, and now you don't have either a unified store, or a way not to use 2 stores (since you need the software).
Then each major vendor (Google, Adobe, Amazon, etc) make their own app stores on the platform. Because, why not?
Oh, and Facebook can demand you get their app from their store, where it comes with all kinds of private API abuse and surveillance (some of this might be solvable with stronger sandboxing, if it's not deemed "anti-competitive" itself).
Then there are all kinds of minor stores, luring your less tech savvy parents, siblings, etc, with BS offers, more malware, pirated versions of software, etc.
Oh, and there are "free" stores, you can just install, all kinds of shady stuff that ocassionally roots your iPhone with 0-days and is not revocable.
Suddenly app developers don't feel so good about this ability to have multiple stores. They mainly wanted lower Apple rates, but now they have to ship to different stores, track different vendor rules, and so on. And if they stick to a store or two, they're less discoverable. Now you have meta-services that ship your app to many stores and handle the hassle. But they can not do much for the free stores that give pirated copies of your app, or full title+branding+UI rip-offs of your app by small e.g. Chinese devs.
And if one of the big app stores gets popular, they now have control over the platform too. Apple wants to move forward with an API change? Not so fast, the big app store doesn't agree (similar to how Apple was beholden to the goodwill of Microsoft and Adobe back in the day).
This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.
Maybe I should complain that Sony abuses the PS4 market so I can't run Switch titles on the PS4.
But can you write me a logical phrase about what should happen if a judge declares that Apple can continue locking the phones because there is a duopoly and the next day Google does the exact same thing since now is 100% legal.
It has been legal since ever, game consoles have 40 years of history by now.
And back in the 16 bit days, one would need to pay for SDKs.
PCs only became open due to IBM's failure to keep ownership of their creation, and Compaq's cleverness in clean room reverse engineering.
Since Windows 8 I am a big fan of Windows store app.
Other giant difference between smartphones and consoles is that smartphones and internet are required for a majority of people (banking, messaging/email, COVID apps, 2FA apps ) I can't tell my bank please make an app for this free OS, or my company please make a 2FA app for this free OS and the reverse the company/bank can tell us "use Android because Apple banned our app because the small bug fix update triggered someone"
A few years ago some money exchanges were abusing the users by having large commissions rates, then a law was passed so this commissions will be printed in large fonts outside the exchange, this worked so maybe we can force Apple to print with large fonts on the box "30% of all future transactions go to Apple" (Apple can add with smaller fonts that they have some special exceptions) or "Apple decides what can you install and can change it's mind at any moment".
Banking, one can walk to the bank office, use any phone model to call them, use the mobile Web site no need for an iPhone specifically.
Alone the fact that iPhone only matters to 22% of the world population pretty much validates the fact that is isn't water.
> Since Windows 8 I am a big fan of Windows store app
Do you think it would have been better if PCs were not open (so going through IBM or Microsoft was the only effective way to distribute software)?
In certain ways the freedom that PCs allow is less convenient than having everything go through a central authority, but as one example I don't think web browsers would have been allowed to develop as they did under this model (since forcing more areas of software development to use platform-specific native apps would be more advantageous for the platform owners with market share).
If anything the iPhone was responsible for driving everyone down, as developers abandoned J2ME, Brew, Symbian, Blackberry into iOS.
If iOS doesn't offer what they want, don't buy Apple, plain and simple, there is nothing more to discuss and the judge will set this straight.
I am curious if TikTok gets banned and then will Apple remove the app from existing phones or somehow block it and will they do it for non US citizens (inside and outside US).
I also don't get to choose what goes into my cable tv box software although it runs some strange Linux distribution, and I really don't care.
Consider that there will be a judge and a trial and you can't claim that someone else started it , you need to show the judge that the users are not hurt by Apple businesses and IMO if we are lucky a law will be passed that will also fix console issues too.
People in Bielorussia are being hurt.
Apple is not hurting anyone, beside a couple of people that has been giving money to Apple because they do UNIX, instead of supporting Linux OEMs, and now complain that Apple isn't the hippie they came to expect.
I will be OK if it is cleared what rights you have on your device, can Apple update the TOS whenever they want? are those pages of TOS you agree when you buy a device enforceable? What is the limit Apple can censor information that user receive from third parties.
If you or any consumer feels lied to, misled or falsely advertised to, they should return their device to Apple.
If enough people choose non-Apple products then Apple might change its position. Until then, buy a different brand.
I specifically bought Apple vs Android for these reasons. I run my life and business form my phone, I trust Apple to provide me with a working experience and support when needed.
Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apples control, and an app causes my phone to crash. Who will support me? I have to go digging to the app developer, or the App Store developer, or Apple?
Apple went this route to specifically remove the fragmentation of the PC market, and what you see similar in the Android market. The closed system provides better quality. That is why Apple is where it is today.
Don't use one, install only Apple approved content from Apple approved stores but don't force everyone to do so. If you want to pay 15-30% more for stuff from the Apple Store then you are free to do so. On PC you can use only Steam, if say you want to buy Fallout 3 today and is 75% of on GOG you are not forced to buy it from GOG, you can buy it from Steam and give Valve their cut.
But you should have bought Android if you want freedom ... I think it does not make sense that a judge should decide if somebody is abusing their power should depend on the market share of Andoid and would include a condition like "When Android market share gets under X or when Google locks down Android then the current Apple good abuses become over night bad).
No, all the websites I seen that offer mobile apps have 2 links, one for Apple and one for Google store . I never seen an app forcing a different store but I know Epic is trying to do that and offer some needed competition.
As far as the MacBook goes, it's a different target market. MacBooks are targeted for professionals that do all sorts of things with them.
Instead they are beefing up the iPad, which has the same target market as the iPhone. That target market doesn't care about all this crap and just wants their tech to work.
However, I would not purchase such a MacBook Pro. I would purchase such a MacBook or iPhone though.
Some of the titles on the store allow peer to peer connection multiplayer which doesn’t have any drm checks. But most titles that use servers to simplify matchmaking or connection with other players have a check that validates that gog galaxy is logged into an account that has purchased the game.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be compatible with GoG's marketing as "the DRM-free home for games".
EDIT: even googled it, found out Darkest Dungeon by default install a version that does need GoG Galaxy, but the DRM-free version is available on GoG site too, just need to choose that downloader instead. But that was it. Didn't found any other obvious complaints of GoG Galaxy being required.
Your response says more about what you can tell with a quick google search than anything else.
I'm fascinated that I've been complaining about this here on HN for months, and the only response I ever get -- which comes up every time -- is "what are you talking about, that's not true". This isn't a matter of opinion. It's not even difficult to check. And yet, there are so many people whose worldview apparently rests on the opposite of the facts.
https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re...
However, I haven't found any evidence that Galaxy is required for single player. In fact, I found evidence to the contrary: the game has a Linux version, where Galaxy is not available.
Here's a prominent forum thread in the Northgard forum on GoG: https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re...
Note that title: "Warning: GOG Galaxy is required to use conquest mode."
Conquest mode is a single-player mode. In fact, it's the only mode that allows you to use any of the Northgard DLC content. Without running Galaxy, all you can do is run through the story campaign.
What is your mental model of my commenting here? I posted a rant complaining about deluded people contradicting the basic facts every time I bring this up, and that's the comment you responded to in order to... demonstrate an example? Did you really think I was just making it all up?
It is similar to Diablo 3, SimCity 5 and Anno 2070 that have single-player features that are processed server-side, maybe like these ones it is a disguised DRM too.
So your original argument is still wrong.
Galaxy is not required to play "many newer games", it is required to play one, maybe a bit more games, where the dev made some questionable decision.
Also you asked about GoG being a platform for DRM-free games, even Northgard would still fit some definition of that: skirmish mode and campaign mode work even in the Steam version without the DRM. Seemly that particular game online shenanigans is purely to add DRM to the DLC, not the main game. (I still think that this is shady, but the original argument others were making still stands, Galaxy is not DRM, and you usually don't need it.)
---
I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.
This is not the main issue, its on the other end. If you are a developer, and you don't like the App Store, you have no options. You can't publish on an alt store because those are not allowed. So your only option is to not provide services to 50% of your customers and thats assuming the google play store doesn't have the same issue you are avoiding.
A real world example of this is vape companies provide an app which lets you do things like lock your vape so kids can't use it. Apple said those apps are not allowed on the app store. The vape company has no options, they just can't sell products to apple users now.
The problem is these tech companies hold way to much power. It would be like if 2 landlords owned literally every single block of land in the entire country. Now normally it would be fair for the landlord to pick which types of businesses to rent out to but when both options say your business isn't accepted and the only alternative is to build your own island in the ocean and create a civilisation on it so you can open your store then something is seriously wrong.
Quite frankly, the lockdown of the OS and rejection of this is one of the primary reasons I'm on iPhone.
_You_ are neither the vendor OR the citizen in the parent comment's metaphor, trying to build or be part of a civilization in the middle of the ocean.
Please do not try to justify a restriction because you happen to personally be happy with the current offering, the world is larger than you. There being more freedoms for others will not stop you from restricting yourself.
Case and point, Swipe keyboards. It was the biggest missing feature for three years when I moved from Android to iPhone. I still preferred my iPhone!
There is no need for them to ask for my payment information in a way that can be fraudulent.
There are many reasons for them why they’d want to reduce subscription cancellation and other dark patterns.
There is no reason for them to be able to install anything, or run arbitrary code on my device.
If epic wants to do business with me, they can go through my secretary/lawyer/firewall (Apple).
I’m more than 10x likely to spend money on apps, so I think that more than evens it out.
Which apps are missing? I’m so t see any added value in another AppStore. Heck, I’d love for Apple to lockdown OS X so that adobe’s store/updater is banned. Wishful thinking
Case in point: "Satisfactory". I was pretty excited about the game when it was first shown, then found later
* it would be removed from Steam,
* I'd have to get an account for another store,
* use a store made by some incompetents who couldn't implement basic functionality like a "shopping cart" even months after release (does it have one by now?)
* give part of my money through Epic to fucking Tencent and install a piece of Chinese spyware on my PC in order to run it. Also no implicit Linux support because no Proton and because Sweeney loves to bend over for Microsoft exclusively.
Compare to Iron Harvest, for example.
You could invest in the development via Kickstarter. Which boils down to making the project happen (due to lack of otherwise investors aka due to crowdfunding). Now, basically right after release, you can buy the game from Steam, too, but you pay full price for it (in contrast to the crowdfunders).
Contrast this to EGS. Stuff gets released on Steam many months later, say 6 months or a year, due to EGS getting the sack of money for being the sole distributor. Then, they release for full price on Steam. Why would I pay full price for a 6-12 month old game? I won't.
Borderlands 3 I bought when it came out on Steam, I believe in start of Steam release it was on sale. Else I wouldn't have picked it up, simple as that. They release DLCs for the game, so that's nice, and keeps it a little bit alive I suppose.
Guild Wars 2 recently launched on Steam (like 8 years after release). I cannot merge my Guild Wars 2 account to Steam though, so its useless to me.
Humblebundle, in contrast to platforms like EGS, yields you serials you can apply to a launcher, usually Steam. That's convenient, but I suppose it isn't for people who don't want to use Steam.
Though I'm a heavy Steam user, so Steam being the defacto standard is fine with me.
I don't want another launcher, therefore I either use Steam or use Lutris to abstract all other launchers (and emulators and such).
The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games Launcher, Origin, GoG, and a bunch of more obscure launchers that need to be installed to play particular games.