Gamers are a passionate bunch. Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won. And also because a lot of their competitors fucked up to pave the road for them (Think Sony's PS fiasco, Microsoft's X-Box clusterfuck from which they're yet to recover from, a decade later). Valve has gotten alot of billion dollar lessons in here that Valve got for free.

> Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won.

What universe do you live in?

- Broken games still pre-ordered

- marginal updates sold at full price

- double/triple-dipping with microtransactions and battle passes

- DRM still [predominant and still hurts performance

- every publisher with more than one game has their own launcher (usually shitty and brings no value)

- rootkit as anti-cheat

- offline game that require online connectivety

- online services get shutdown

- LAN multiplayer is a thing of a past

What did games exactly won?

- Paid skyrim mods? It's back.

- MS game sharing thing that rendered GameStop business model useless? IMO a mistake, MS was onto something there.

> every publisher with more than one game has their own launcher (usually shitty and brings no value)

I view this as a positive -- it's not feasible to maintain a build for every game and storefront's DRM/auth (unless you go DRM-free, which is the ideal but not something publishers and developers do on release). A launcher is the layer that sits between -- the games are written to auth against a launcher, and the launcher has builds for each storefront.

Otherwise you're just further entrenching Steam as the de facto monopoly on sales.

My problem with launchers other than steam and galaxy from GOG: usually shitty and brings no value.

Paradox launcher is alright for example, it adds value in form of mod preset managment and ability to launch straight into saved game.

What ever is in dune: awakening" exists just to tell me about their other games and as a result make game launching longer than it needs to be. Not only that it adds A LOT of friction when I launch it via Remote Play with a controller.

Point is: if you make a launcher make sure it adds any value and not just an advertisementr billboard.

As for store fronts: steam by far has the most functionality among PC storefronts.

> - Broken games still pre-ordered

Only because new population enters the market.

I pre-ordered a game once. F1 2010. Since then, I have *never* pre-ordered anything.

I also opted out from any game that required a rootkit to play.

LAN gameplay is still a thing in the simracing world.

Again, this only continues because of new players. Any burned player will not fall for the same trick twice.

> Only because new population enters the market.

Yeah, not. I'm not saying is the same people pre-order the same games, but there is not THAT much new population influx.

> LAN gameplay is still a thing in the simracing world.

It's a niche within a niche. Also, I remember a guy named Max had a lot to say about the current state of sim-racing.

The PlayStation seems pretty successful, not sure what "PS fiasco" you're referring to. The stock price is doing fine, at any rate

Possibly the ps3? They did eventually recover but the early years were rough

> . Screwing around with them is a losing game that no one has historically ever won

DRM is everywhere so gamers have clearly lost

We live in the live service microtransaction era. Gamers have proven as resolute as wet tissue.

Don't sugarcoat it. Valve has to make sure this is advertised as a PC to keep the licensing good on the games you've bought and that they are allowed to sell. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony have closed ecosystems with their consoles. Well, Microsoft seems to be throwing in the towel on consoles.

> keep the licensing good

That’s an imaginary issue.

Didn't Xbox pivot to be an entertainment system a couple generations ago and flop compared to PlayStation?

It probably didn't help that they removed all of those features over time.

You mean compared to the PS3, one of the strong points of which was also having a Blu-Ray drive ?

This was the Xbone/PS4 generation.

The Blu-Ray drive is basically no added cost since the games were already distributed on optical disks, it’s like how the PS2 was one of the most popular DVD players. The problem with the Xbone was that, at least judging on their marketing at the time, Microsoft was far more focused on broadening the scope of the device beyond games while Sony stayed focused on gaming. That’s why I bought a PS4 despite previously using an Xbox 360.

> it’s like how the PS2 was one of the most popular DVD players

I worked for a Sony dealer when the PS2 launched, and they wouldn't give us one :-/

What I thought at the time was insane was that they were still selling a 200-disc carousel CD changer, and DVD version of the same thing (same box, different shade of silver grey, different drive mechanism, two chips different on the PCB) - but they had no plans to sell a 200-disc carousel PS2.

Imagine if you could have had all your movies, audio CDs, PSX, and shiny new PS2 games in one big box, tucked away out of sight, with your spiffy new 576p projector and 5.1 speakers hooked up to it!

Xbox One/PS4 is when both sides standardized on BluRay.

When Xbox360 and PS3 came out, the format war was only just starting, and the consoles were on either side of it.

PS3 came with a BluRay drive and the games were delivered on BluRay.

Xbox360 came with software support for HDDVD, but the actual disk reader hardware was a DVD reader (famously, a large off-the-shelf part selected at the last minute that required a redesign of the cooling system to accomodate its size), and the HDDVD drive was an optional add-on that nobody bought.

The fact that every PS3 could read BluRay, but you needed a special extra to play HDDVD on Xbox 360 is arguably the main reason BluRay won the format war.

Which is probably why Microsoft decided to focus so much on media features for the Xbone. What they should have considered was that they had won the Xbox 360 generation by being a better game platform; it should really be no skin off Microsoft’s back that Blu-Ray won the format war.

I know a lot of folk (myself included) who pretty much only bought the PS3 because of the Blu-Ray drive.

I wasn't an early adopter and only bought a PS3 in 2010. In the intervening 15 years I have bought four Blu-Rays, and been given two more.

I own (and watch) more VHS tapes than Blu-Rays.

I sure did play a lot of GTA4, GTA5, Infamous, and Little Big Planet though.

> Well, Microsoft seems to be throwing in the towel on consoles.

Can you expand on this? I'm not a massive gamer, I thought xbox was doing well?

>I thought xbox was doing well?

Microsoft lost the console wars. Their new generation (Series S & X) sold almost 1/4 of what PS5 did because they basically don't have any exclusive game that you can only play in their hardware. Microsoft invested heavily in their Gamepass subscription (that has more than 35 million users) and they believe that the future is on PC. The newest xbox hardware, a handheld made by Asus, is a PC running windows. The next generation of xbox hardware that will compete with the PS6 will also very likely be a PC. The xbox console is dead.

“I already have an Xbox One from 2013, why would I buy an extra X or S version?”

“Oh, there’s a PlayStation 5 now? Man I gotta upgrade from my PS4!”

Microsoft evidently did not learn from the Wii U.

Microsoft’s naming scheme has to be one of the biggest self-goals in console gaming. Number go up.

Back in the 1980s you got your Mom to buy you a game console and you would have needed a logical naming scheme so she would know an PS 3 was better than a PS 2.

XBOX cultivates a "gamer" who is heavily invested in the identity and is well educated in the various versions of XBOX and how the naming scheme works and since they are an adult buying the console for themselves they don't need to explain it to outsiders.

There are always first timers. How you treat your newbies says a lot about your respect for your customer.

If your marketing makes it hard to figure out what is what, well a Playstation $int[max] it is...

sure i guess if you only want money from adults born in the 80s maybe it seems like an okay idea. abandon the market of humans born after the year 2000, should be fine.

That still proves my point.

the Series is one of the worst naming decisions in history. To this day I find myself mixing up the One X, One S, Series X, and Series S.

Even before they muddied things with reusing the S and X names for completely different things, "Xbox One" was bad enough

I worked at a pawn shop when that console generation kicked off. One day a guy called in and asked if he could bring in his Xbox One. "Of course," I told him, until I had to turn him away because it was an original Xbox.

In theory you can run all your GamesPass games on a Steam Machine in the same way you can run arbitrary games through Proton, which is what Steam is doing.

What a wild world it would be, if Microsoft release a GamesPass client for linux so it can try and get a slice of all this new linux gaming happening on SteamOS.

In theory you can, in practice Game Pass games are distributed in such a way only Windows can run them. You can use Game Pass Streaming which is fine when at home, and entirely useless when on a train using a Steam Deck.

The ideal would be MS just selling Game Pass subscriptions via Steam but I expect we'll see that happen shortly after hell freezes over.

They can just add an API and let the folks from the Heroic Launcher do the rest.

I feel like everyone lost the "console wars". Sony is not doing much better considering almost all of their former exclusives are on steam these days. Those next-gen Xboxes will have access to those sony games at discount pricing.

> Sony is not doing much better considering almost all of their former exclusives are on steam these days.

I still can't wrap my head around why they decided to do this considering they were in a pretty killer position coming out of the PS4 generation. I mean, it's probably a positive for consumers to have more options for platforms, so I won't exactly complain. But I do want PlayStation to stick around as a strong competitor because fierce competition is best for consumers in the long-term.

At first it seemed like they were just porting the previous game in a series when the sequel came out exclusively on PS5, as a way to get people into the series and then making them buy their console to play the next game. But now it seems like there's barely any wait between when one of Sony's exclusives comes to PS5 and the PC launch afterwards. If Sony is confused as to why the PS5 isn't selling up to expectations, the answer to that seems pretty obvious to me.

Also they state that the console will remain the centerpiece, they want to make Xbox a "platform" to reuse their own term. It becomes an ecosystem rather than a hardware product. They idea is that as long as you have a gamepass, you can play on whatever you want - except macOS and Linux...

I think they think that's converted by streaming unfortunately.

> They idea is that as long as you have a gamepass

Didn't they just blow the remaining goodwill they had by increasing the gamepads price by 50% overnight?

You can play gamepass on mac and linux via cloud streaming.

Halo was announced for PS5 recently

> I thought xbox was doing well?

It very much isn’t.

If only they had a game company like Bethesda or Actision. /S

But it is also a PC, so I don't see the issue even if this were true. It's just a box running an Arch Linux flavour.

This could be restated as: open systems mean you don't need a tangled web of partnerships to provide content, and Valve is taking advantage of this.

Except that you don't own the things you buy on steam

This is true. But it doesn't matter to me.

Most media for me is a one and done. A book, a movie, a computer game. Granted a computer games version of "done" might mean "played on and off for a year".

There are exceptions to this - books I read again, shows I'd watch again, but games seem to age poorly by comparison. Original Syndicate or Deus Ex - while playable - is not what I remember it to be and I'd rather keep the nostalgic memories than shatter them with a replay.

This rarity of exceptions means that I wouldn't lose much if my Steam account disappeared - mainly just "whatever I'm playing now". Create a new account and go again, or buy off GOG or something.

However in return for using Steam I get a lot of convenience - updates, propogated save files, easy chat and "Right click -> Join Game" with friends. That "Right click -> Join Game" is almost worth it on it's own for ease of social gaming.

Most people consume like this, but some like the warm fuzzies that hoarding gives them.

I would like to see change there for sure. That said, DRM is optional for publishers on Steam. Once you've downloaded a game without DRM (steam's or otherwise) you can back it up and play it without Steam.

This is true for all digital purchases, video games or otherwise.

There is no such thing as "owning" a game unless you're the company that developed the game (or bought the company that did).

That is true for all media purchases since the invention of copyright in 1662.

You think you own the Silmarillion because you have a paper copy? Hah! No, you have a transferrable license to read it.

Every hard copy movie you have starts with a big green FBI warning reminding you that having that disc does not means you own the movie, it means you have a transferrable license to play it for yourself and small groups on small screens.

Digital media with DRM allow content distributors to remove the "transferrable" part of the license if they want, which often allows them to sell for cheaper since they know that each sale represents only one person recieving the experience. The license comes with less rights (no transferrance), so it can be priced lower.

Because they're not owned by private equity/publicly traded. If that ever happens the "let's squeeze this for every dime it's worth" will happen.

That's really the saddest thing about capitalism, if everything around us wasn't getting enshittified in the exact same way at least the future would be more alluring.

It is nice to see people bucking the trend getting rewarded, I see a bright future for an open ecosystem for gaming (even ignoring the Steam announcements).

DRM is the publishers choice, worth noting.

Gabe is literally practising Noblesse Oblige, which is really funny but really shows that our billionare society is really just a reduction to old aristocracy. He's just the good Duke, whereas most Dukes are horrible, horrible people.

Noblesse oblige exists because of a moral economy. You can be a horrible Duke, because there's no real reward for being the good one.

This is not that - Steam has to compete on the free market, there is a reward for making the product everyone else refuses to make. In a post-Deck world, it's hard to believe that moral obligation plays a bigger role than the overall hatred of Windows for seamless gaming experiences.

> Noblesse oblige exists because

... the plebs know what is good for them. Horrible Dukes get horses wanting nails.

Well the complements of steam are the OS and hardware. So commoditizing them increases sales.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

"A complement is a product that you usually buy together with another product. Gas and cars are complements. Computer hardware is a classic complement of computer operating systems. And babysitters are a complement of dinner at fine restaurants."

>He's just the good Duke

The Gaben house is building a secret army, using a technique unknown to us; a technique involving steam.

>> Valve respects its customers.

That's the same Valve that doesn't let me play the games I paid it for unless they are running on its platform? That's how it "respects" me?

I think that's more a situation where publishers demand some form of DRM so steam is trying to provide a default solution that most publishers are happy with.

To be fair there are a lot of games on Steam that don't have DRM, which means you can just drag them out of the steamapps folder to a computer that doesn't have Steam and they work fine. The decision to add DRM comes from the developer/publisher, not Valve.

> That's the same Valve that doesn't let me play the games I paid it for unless they are running on its platform?

What exactly does that mean, for you?

It's just something to whine about, more than anything.

Name a game distribution platform that doesn't do this. It will be a toy example like a zip file purchased off of itch.io or something.

Humble Bundle

The most common activation keys in a bundle are ... Steam keys.

https://www.gog.com/ Is the largest one

GOG is hardly a toy and is the platform I look to purchase tons of games on instead of Steam (which I really like) and definitely over Epic (which I've never even installed)

Right. I have to be signed in to GOG to play Cyberpunk. That violates the spirit of the original commenter

Do you? I was pretty sure the Cyberpunk launcher has a "don't use account" button.

You can play Cyberpunk downloaded from GOG without launching Galaxy.

Basically just go the the folder and run bin\x64\Cyberpunk2077.exe

The "Launch Cyberpunk" shortcut in the folder starts Galaxy and then runs the game from there.

The same is true for Steam games.

Only drm free steam games. The ones with the steam drm require steam client to be running to launch (steam itself can be in offline mode but it still needs to be running)

Games using things like steam input might also require steam to be running so there is some drm free games that might not run also. Some of those will if you move them outside the steam folder / rename Steam.exe. If you leave them in the steam folder the game will start steam for you if when you launch it.

>> Name a game distribution platform that doesn't do this.

Why? If another platform also disrespects me, does that mean Steam doesn't disrespect me?

I think that's the point. The GP post basically said, "Gamers can't be messed with." A child post gave a ton of examples of how gamers are messed with, and this comment helps cement that. It does beg the question as to why Steam isn't as evil as it could be but does choose to be as evil as they are. To me (a very casual gamer) they do seem like the least evil.

Also don't knock those zip files purchased off of itch.io. Sometimes it's good to visit a cottage industry to see what's passing under the radar of the big guys.

Gabe remembers both shareware era, and all the pains to get people to trust Steam in the first place.

Your usual publicly traded (or owned by publicly traded entity) corporation in its accidental intelligence does not

DRM is optional on Steam and up to the game developer.

Were you not aware of that before you purchased the game? How has this negatively impacted you?