• 👁️👄👁️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    352 years ago

    I’d love competition in the Linux gaming space, but none of them even attempt to support it

      • 👁️👄👁️
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        No they don’t lol. GOG doesn’t even have a client, you have to use Lutris or Heroic Launcher that support it.

        Itch has a half implemented Linux client that they gave up years ago and is straight up unusable/broken. The client is worse then a web wrapper and nas no support for Wine, so if the game doesn’t have native Linux support, it just won’t run through the client. It will download exe’s that won’t actually run and silently fail, and doesn’t have any wine support.

        • @teolan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          92 years ago

          They don’t have a client but both allow you to just download the game and run it from a .sh that installs it in the local folder. That’s enough for me but I agree it may not be for everyone.

  • @mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 years ago

    Steam’s de-facto monopoly is so strong, Epic can’t break it. Epic made four billion dollars per year on one game. Epic licenses the engine for like half of all noteworthy games. Epic has the only platform not seizing one-third of all revenue from developers, and that platform throws free shit at customers in constant desperation. And they still can’t move the needle.

    Monopoly doesn’t mean there’s zero competition. It means the competition does not matter.

    PC gamers have alternatives to Steam the way that Android users have alternatives to Google Play. Yes, there are dozens. And that’s how many users each one has.

  • @blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    102 years ago

    I personally get most of my games from GOG and itch.io these days. And I’ve never bought anything from the Epic store whatsoever.

    I will say though that I find it kind of weird how much hate Epic gets for their store. Like, I understand that someone prefers Steam, or doesn’t want to buy stuff from Epic etc. - but what we see goes way beyond that. Epic has people actively campaigning against it, as if its mere existence is insulting. I don’t really get why.

    As for the 30% cut… Developers will try to price their games competitively, and within customer expectations. So with or without Steam’s 30% cut, you can expect games to be similarly priced. The large 30% cut from Steam is basically coming out of the developer’s revenue rather than from your pocket. (I’m under the impression that GOG also has a similar 30% fee. Epic has a lower fee. And on itch.io the seller gets to choose how money goes to itch.io anywhere from 0% to 100%. So itch.io is the best deal for developers in terms of fees.)

    • @Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 years ago

      The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don’t give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players. At some point their client contained literal spyware, they tried to brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts, their software doesn’t have one tenth of the features Steam has, their CEO is a piece of shit, etc.

      • @blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -8
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The reason people hate Epic is fairly obvious – they don’t give a shit about the gaming industry nor about players.

        What do you mean by that? For developers, they take a much smaller fee than Steam or GOG, and for players they’re constantly giving away free games.

        At some point their client contained literal spyware.

        That sounds like a decent reason to campaign against them. I haven’t heard anything about that before. What was the story behind that? (As in, when / why / how / what? Perhaps you have a link or something.)

        brute force market share via sleazy exclusivity contracts

        I’ve heard people talk a lot about exclusivity contracts… but can you name even a single game that has such a contract? When people have discussed this the past, the relevant developers basically said “there is no contract”. But maybe there is some different case I don’t know about. In any case, that personally doesn’t bother me anyway. If some developer wants to take money to be on one store rather than another, they can do that at their own peril. As for customers, we’re only talking about a store. It’s not like anyone is in danger of not being able to buy / play their favourite games. So it seems like a bit of a nothing-burger to me. Like, is there actually something bad happening here? Or are people just speculating that something bad might one-day happen if Epic got bigger?

        their software doesn’t have one tenth of the features Steam has,

        Steam has more features, yeah. Steam is very good. But Steam has been around for some 20 years. It’s hard to catch up with that so quickly. In any case, although missing features is a good reason to prefer Steam, it certainly isn’t a reason to campaign against Epic.

        … So from your list, I’ll keep the spyware thing and the CEO complaint. I don’t know enough about either of those to say much though. I don’t recall who the CEO of Epic is right now, so I won’t say whether or not I think that’s a good reason. And the spyware… I take that kind of stuff seriously. Right now I’m posting this from Linux - because I’m fed-up with Windows spyware. But as I said, I’ve not heard any details about any Epic spyware thing.

        Incidentally, I’ve found that Steam is very good for Linux gaming. … But obviously that doesn’t mean that I’m going to start making posts trash-talking Epic. I don’t find it weird that people prefer Steam. I just find it weird that people put so much energy into attacking Epic.

        • @Kaijobu@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          It takes quite a lot of time to repeat all the wrong doings of Epic and it’s CEO Tim.

          Thus, I can only relay to the collected information of bad old Reddit, if you want to (I’m intentionally not linking, you can search it up easily). r/fuckepic has a lot of collected information on their side page.

          In short, biggest issue for me exclusivity contracts with games advertised on Steam, then as a bait and switch removed from the store page and their physical copies getting a sticker on top of the Steam logo, so a last minute deal, for Metro Exodus. And then they continued their exclusivity hunt for games, they didn’t even helped to develop. Nothing against self-made or published games to be limited time exclusive in my perspective, but not second hand bought (out).

          The other about their CEO, r/timcritizisestim He’s… a douche. Using kids with the free games to bait them to his store, using them against Apple’s store rules like a little army… he is a bad person with too much money and luck to have build the Epic engine with Fortnite…

        • @derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          As for the games that were Epic exclusive for a year: Borderlands 3, Satisfactory, Darksiders 3, Hitman 3, Dead Island 2, Borderlands TTW to name a few. They have a year exclusivity deal with Epic - we know how annoying exclusivity deals are on consoles.

          About the features, it’s quite tricky. Epic rather spends thousands on exclusivity deals rather than invest into a launcher to have a working basket.

          It’s super obvious where Epic’s priorities are, and it’s not the gamers. How are they able to dedicate so much work on Unreal, but now on a launcher? They try to substitute a half-assed launcher with exclusivity deals, because they know nobody would use it willingly.

        • @Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          For developers, they take a much smaller fee than Steam or GOG, and for players they’re constantly giving away free games.

          “Free stuff, pl0x” isn’t an indicator of supporting the industry or players. That’s a business tactic for clawing market share away from their competitors by attracting people without the means to buy games and devs desperate for funding. Also, if parity is your worry, many games on Steam go free or effectively free (<1 USD) all the time.

          That sounds like a decent reason to campaign against them. I haven’t heard anything about that before. What was the story behind that? (As in, when / why / how / what? Perhaps you have a link or something.)

          With Reddit going tits up and a coverup operation by Epic throwing a bunch of garbage info around, it’s been difficult to find the exact sources (why I’ve been taking so long to reply). If I find the actual articles/posts I’ll link them, but in summary:

          • EGS bypassed many APIs, such as Steam’s API, to data mine your usage statistics of their competitors, including friends and games played - they didn’t ask for your consent nor Steam’s.
          • Some major red flags with memory manipulation and internet traffic obfuscation.
          • They “apologized” about it, citing some bullshit reasons for that behavior. Suspiciously, behavior changed.

          I’ve heard people talk a lot about exclusivity contracts… but can you name even a single game that has such a contract? […] Like, is there actually something bad happening here? Or are people just speculating that something bad might one-day happen if Epic got bigger?

          There are loads of games in my “do not buy unless heavily discounted” list precisely for taking exclusivity deals. Hitman 3, Darkest Dungeon 2, Hades, Satisfactory, among others. The danger, beyond rewarding shitty behavior, shutting out large portions of the community, and limiting consumers’ options, is the same as always - you’re effectively telling companies that whoever has the biggest pocket gets to dictate what the entire industry has to do.

          But Steam has been around for some 20 years. It’s hard to catch up with that so quickly. In any case, although missing features is a good reason to prefer Steam, it certainly isn’t a reason to campaign against Epic.

          It wouldn’t be if Epic had shown any intention of eventually having parity. It’s been however many years since they released, with the immense advantage of seeing what works for Steam so they could copy it, and yet their client remains just as bad. It clearly shows that their focus in on getting market share to exploit gamers and devs, not on making the best platform possible.

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Anno 1800 was available for purchase on Steam prior to release but at some point they made a deal with Epic to sell it there for a year. Then it was removed from Steam. If you already bought it you could use it on Steam but everyone else had to wait. You could also directly buy it from Ubisoft’s own store Uplay so in the most strict sense it was not an exclusive contract but pretty damn close. Also it wasn’t a secret. The company talked about it. They had to, because it was literally available for pre purchase on Steam and then suddenly wasn’t.

    • @Saneless@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Higher fee but significantly many more multiples of customers on steam who see and buy the game.

      Just like I could sell on Etsy for a massive margin or I could sell it to Walmart at a smaller margin but make 100x the sales.

      You’re paying for the customer base

    • @Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      Steam can also leverage their insanely huge userbase. Even with the 30% cut, a company will probably see more profits if they use steam and give up 30% than trying to launch it outside.

      At this point. The 30% is just the cost of doing business

  • I Cast Fist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    202 years ago

    The funny thing is that Valve kickstarted the digital sales with Half Life 2 back in 2004. Steam was an utter piece of shit for, what, some 6 years? It took them a lot of time to make it bearable, then good.

    That the EGS launcher is a fucking Unreal app, needlessly bloated as fuck and with barely working UI shows their complete disregard for what is supposed to be their “money givers” (us, customers) and, like every other stupid company with their own launcher which manages to be worse than their fucking website, shows they refuse to learn the obvious.

    I hope GOG never goes the enshitification path.

  • @DarylDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 years ago

    I get it. Steam doesn’t seem to do exclusivity deals with 3rd party titles. So you could still sell your game on gog and humble without issue.

      • Paranomaly
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        They don’t though? Devs set the price. Steam just says that you need the same base price there as elsewhere.

        • @rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -62 years ago

          Yeah because if you don’t, they delist your game. That’s the literal definition of anti-competitiveness. They could never get away with that if they weren’t a monopoly.

          • @stillwater@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            That’s the literal definition of anti-competitiveness.

            No it isn’t. That’s actually a very common store policy that’s been in place since the days of brick and mortar locations. Why do you think you never see any platform listing games at higher or lower full retail prices than every other one regularly, even when they’re not on Steam?

            Where did you get the idea that this was the definition of anti-competitive? There are so many more things that define it more, like buying up all the competition or taking a big hit on loss leading pricing to force the competition to undercut themselves and collapse.

  • Pxtl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    652 years ago

    It’s incredibly frustrating from an ideological perspective that the whole PC gaming industry runs on a benevolent dictatorship by Valve.

    I mean they have near total control not just over sales, but over the gaming software installed on our PCs. They have the power to do whatever, whenever, to whoever.

    But at the same time, they’re cool people with good products who have good stewardship of this role.

    So we uncritically give them all the power.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      322 years ago

      GabeN is getting pretty old, and he can’t keep doing this forever. It’ll be interesting to see where the company goes after that.

      By “interesting” I mean “expecting it to be handed over to salivating, greedy idiots who don’t know what made it work before”.

      • JokeDeity
        link
        fedilink
        English
        222 years ago

        The day Gabe dies and pathetic bastards with business degrees take over and ruin everything that’s made Steam great for all these years, is the day I begin pirating everything.

        • Pxtl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Exactly. Steam is a load-bearing member. After seeing what happened to Twitter, Reddit, Unity, Wikia, etc. it’s reasonable to think ahead. If Valve gets enshittified that’s basically the end of PC gaming.

  • @Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    412 years ago

    This opinion is in no way unpopular. Valve is privately owned and headed by a single individual with tremendous purpose of will, which is how they’ve done so many great things for the gaming industry. The issue lies with said leadership vacating their role (GabeN is getting old) and some greedy bastard taking the company in a wholy different direction. tl;dr: we need a strong competitor, but not now, and ABSOLUTELY not Epic.

    • @jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      I can’t name a single other digital service anywhere near steam level of trust. things you bought don’t disappear. they are on the record saying there is a contingency in case of shutdown. they havnt a used their position. as far as market leaders go, you could do worse

      • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -52 years ago

        Steam happily took money from unity asset flips and one level early access titles for years.

        They have zero quality control and instead hashed out the curator system for users to do their job for them.

        • @stillwater@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Caveat emptor. If you bought an asset flip, that’s on you. Steam didn’t force you to buy it.

          • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -22 years ago

            Great job, missing my point entirely.

            Steam created an ecosystem for these asset flips for their own gain, at the expense of the customers and legitimate Devs.

            • @stillwater@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I didn’t ignore it, you just didn’t think it through.

              You’re complaining about having more options as if it’s some kind of moral stand. But the only reason to be mad about those things is if you were forced to buy them. Steam doesn’t only have to sell games that you specifically approve of and it’s not some kind of moral failing to sell games that are low quality.

              This isn’t even getting into how you’re ignoring history to make the claim that they did it all for their bottom line and not the huge amount of user demand for them to open up the store. This also isn’t getting into how any money coming in from asset flips specifically is negligible, and not at all like some kind of NFT scam level of dubious behaviour like you’re referring to it.

              The only reason to be this mad about more games being sold on Steam is if you feel a need to buy it all.

        • @Kimano@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          I mean, isn’t community self-policing and an overly tolerant attitude towards picking what type of games are allowed on your platform exactly what we want from them?

  • @TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 years ago

    Steam doesn’t have a monopoly, other platforms are just shit.

    Missing features, badly made features, fucking spyware, some barely working at all (I am looking at you, ubisoft)

    Perhaps if the other platforms tried a little bit, they would actually be a competition.

  • @McArthur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    79
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Competition sounds great, so long as it has all of the following:

    • Something better than steam input and the steam controller.
    • Something better than steam vr.
    • Something better than steam workshop.
    • something better than proton
    • Something better than steams friends/chat/activity interface.
    • Something better than the steam overlay.
    • Something better than big picture.
    • Absolutely no exclusives, and no deals forcing developers to use it.
    • A nicer store interface than valve, with better community pages, curator pages, discussion pages, etc.
    • An equivalent to steam fest with a strong demo scene.
    • Something better than remote play together

    This is of course also ignoring just how efficient, clean, customisable and ergonomic the steam interface is compared to all competition

    Oh wait! That doesn’t exist. All we need is some way to guarantee valve doesn’t become public.

    • @XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      252 years ago

      All we need is some way to guarantee valve doesn’t become public.

      I am hoping for aperture science to find a immortality solution for Gabe.

    • @CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      All of the following? Why would you need to be better in every way? There’s a perfectly valid use case for trade offs. Eg, let’s say some competitor had exclusives, no VR, the store interface was a little worse, and it was only roughly comparable on many other points. If it’s simply faster and more lightweight, that’s its competitive advantage. Or if it focuses on being open source and DRM free like GoG, that’s a competitive advantage.

      Expecting something to be better in every way (than something with a massive head start) or else it might as well not exist? That’s just unreasonable. I don’t require a clothing store to be better than Walmart to shop there. I mean, the clothing store doesn’t even sell fruit! Why would anyone shop there when you can go to the Walmart and buy some grapes with your jeans?

      • @Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Except these aren’t two different kinds of stores, they’d both be gaming marketplaces and if one has better features in every regard… Why use the inferior one at all?

      • @McArthur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        If It’s not better in every way why would I swap? I’ll just keep using steam. The only selling point you could use to get me to swap is the promise of feature parity with steam and open source. I would support that even if it hurt a lot along the way, but I doubt it will happen.

    • @herrvogel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      It can’t exist. You can’t launch a new competitor to a mature and well-developed platform and hope to come anywhere near its feature set right off the bat. That’s never gonna happen, especially when a lot of the “requirements” you presented there are expensive shit that takes years of hard work to develop. You’re gonna have to give them time. And money, as it happens. They’re not gonna be able to develop that VR you present as a requirement if everybody refuses to use their platform because there is no VR. It’s a catch 22.

      • @McArthur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        I’d be happy to support any kind of platform aiming to do these things even if it doesn’t have them yet, so long as it was open source or had some kind of structure that prevented enshitification. I’d contribute, probably force myself to use it where possible much like I do with other things. The issue is that the current competition trying to do what steam does (epic) is just trying to do it but worse.

    • @Chailles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      You don’t even need all of that really. A lot of Steam functionality can be utilized just by adding it as a Non-Steam Game. Steam Workshop isn’t the necessary if you have a modding scene, you just need a good mod manager.

      The key point on whether I’ll use your storefront or not is whether your plan for success is to buy out anti-Steam contracts (remember that it’s not exclusivity to EGS, its to not release on Steam) to get customers and low revenue cuts to get developers and most importantly, to run a loss leading business for a number of years until you are profitable. If EGS were to ever become profitable, how long until they switch to squeezing out as much as they can? They’ve already rescinded their “curated” catalog.

    • JackbyDev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Something better than steam workshop.

      Maybe Nexus Mods’ third mod manager will be better than the first two? lol.

    • @gamer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      This is not a good way to look at it. Competition is good regardless. It doesn’t matter how good Valve is today, if a viable competitor comes out, Valve will be forced to get better in order to compete.

      All we need is some way to guarantee valve doesn’t become public.

      This is wrong. Valve can enshittify without going public. If you think that public corporations are the only ones that are greedy/evil/anti-consumer, then you’ve never heard of the “private equity” industry. Look up the recent fight between the FTC and U.S. Anesthesia Partners in Texas for a clear example.

      In capitalism, free market forces are what keep tug of war between produces and consumers fair, and competition is the fuel that keeps those free market forces moving. The fact that the Valve of today is both good and a monopoly is just a temporary rounding error/outlier. Over time, Valve will go to shit and consumers will suffer simply because Valve has almost no competition. This isn’t a question, it’s a fact of the mechanism of the economic system they exist in. It’s like gravity; just because you haven’t hit the floor yet doesn’t mean jumping off that building was a good idea.

      Epic games, whether you hate them or not, is fighting the good fight. They are doing shitty things (exclusivity, etc), so maybe they aren’t the chosen one who will take challenge Valve, but they are on the right side of that fight. Hoping that Valve will stay great forever is foolish.

      …but I will add that I don’t think Epic alone should be trying to take down Valve. Valve is way too entrenched in this market to be taken down with any realistic competition (probably why Epic is resorting to exclusivity deals). The FTC needs to step in and regulate the market. Idk what that would look like, but it’s possible to do it in a way that makes everyone happy. For example (off the top of my head, so probably flawed but whatever) the FTC could enforce interoperability between digital marketplaces so that consumers don’t need to install 30 different launchers to access their purchased libraries. That relatively small change could lower the bar to entry for competitors by a lot, and not be a burden to consumers at the same time. EDIT: and it would not be anything drastic like forcing a break up of Valve.

      • @CommanderM2192@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        Epic games, whether you hate them or not, is fighting the good fight. They are doing shitty things (exclusivity, etc), so maybe they aren’t the chosen one who will take challenge Valve, but they are on the right side of that fight. Hoping that Valve will stay great forever is foolish.

        My dude… If you’re doing shitty things, you are in fact not “fighting the good fight”. if anyone is doing that it’s someone like GOG.

        • @gamer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -32 years ago

          I meant that they’re fighting Valve, which is “the good fight”. They’re not the only ones doing it, and they’re definitely not the best ones doing it, but they’re doing it. If they do manage to take a big chunk out of Valve’s marketshare somehow, that will be good for everyone, even people who decide to stay on Steam.

          • @Imotali@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            No they permanently lost claim to “fighting the good fight” when they literally bundled their software with malware.

      • @McArthur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Apologies for the confusion when I said to stop preventing steam becoming public. I was just too lazy to write something along the lines of defining some kind of perpetual way to prevent the downfall of steam. Ideally it becomes an open source utopia tomorrow… but that’s not exactly realistic for a game store or as a business decision by valve and without people beying able to fork it we are never safe.

      • @Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        52 years ago

        Its funny how you credit the invisible hand of free market forces to keep things fair but acknowledge everywhere else that the only thing that actually intervenes to promote fairness is the FTC as government regulatory body.

        If we could drop the obvious bullshit romanticism of capitalism this would be a mostly accurate post.

        • @gamer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -32 years ago

          Found the tankie lol

          Unregulated capitalism doesn’t work. I don’t think anyone has ever seriously claimed that it does. The FTC isn’t the only thing keeping the market fair, the free market does that on its own. When a company does a shitty thing, they lose customers and die. That’s true in pretty much every market in the real world, except for a few problematic ones where there are bad actors trying to cheat the system.

          • @Imotali@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            Anti-capitalist ≠ tankie

            In fact Communist ≠ tankie

            Tankies are specifically defenders of Marxist-Leninist communism and their one party state rule (which is ironically not communism, it’s Stalinism which is a form of autocratic socialism)

            • @gamer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -22 years ago

              Sure, but

              • Lemmy == Lots of tankies
              • Tankies == Anticapitalist

              So I operate on the assumption that anticapitalist people on Lemmy are tankies. It’s not true in all cases ofc, but without more info, I think that’s a safe default.

              That dude calling my post “bullshit romanticism of capitalism” gives a bit more confidence that they’re a tankie with a strong case of grassphobia.

              • @Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Great example of oversimplification and reaching for conclusions that reinforce your bias. An effective way to shield yourself from valid criticism or any self reflection is to automatically discredit the person who brings it to your attention, whether its true or not is of little importance right?

              • froggers
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Sure, but

                • Beer == Germans
                • Germans == Fascists

                So I operate on the assumption that German people on Lemmy are Fascists. It’s not true in all cases ofc, but without more info, I think that’s a safe default.

                And before you call my flawless reasoning stupid… I don’t really have anything to say.

                • @gamer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  02 years ago

                  logic error on line 2: Beer == Germans

                  Beer does not equate to Germans, rather Germans equate to Beer. If we fix that error, then it doesn’t fit the original pattern:

                  • Germans == Beer
                  • Germans == Fascists

                  That would only work if Beer == Fascists, which of course is not true.

                  Also, wrong does not equal stupid, rather stupid equals wrong. Which is to say, you comment is wrong, but not necessarily stupid.

              • @Imotali@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                Lemmy is not full of tankies, yours truly a communist.

                And your post was free market romanticism.

          • @Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            Plenty of people claim that it does. That is the entire ideological premise you invoke with the free market fetishism (laissez faire, Chicagoan school, Austrian economics) the “free market” means free to exploit consumers, not free to choose. Consumers do not have enough capital to afford any meaningful check against corporate snake oil. This over simplistic narrative youre spinning doesn’t match up with the track record.

            Also, you don’t have to be an authoritarian communist to know that the free market is a crock of shit. Anybody with the ability to look at the past few hundred years would know Friedman hayek rothbard and most all libertarians are absolutely full of shit or just plain misguided

    • AnyOldName3
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      It kind of doesn’t, though. Because you can still launch non-Steam games through Steam, and activate retail Steam keys without Valve taking a cut, there are plenty of ways for things to compete against the Steam Store without needing to also compete against the Steam launcher.

  • @punseye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 years ago

    that’s opposite of unpopular opinion lol

    that being said, a healthy competition is still necessary as we don’t know what valve would become post gabe

  • JokeDeity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    552 years ago

    Valve may not be the cheapest by any means, but that’s because they’re offering a product 30x as valuable. The other launchers companies have are shit, across the board, nothing but shit. It’s not even in the same continent. If any one of these companies actually wants to ever see this change, they are going to have to set their greed aside. That’s impossible for CEOs in this day and age, so I don’t see Steam ever losing their stranglehold unless they do an about-face from everything they’ve done so far. In the grand scheme of things, Valve is one of the most customer friendly companies on the face of the Earth and they continue to be innovative and supportive to users. Epic on the other hand is everything wrong with capitalism, and much the same can be said for any of the other companies with competing launchers/game stores.

  • @GenBlob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 years ago

    I will always support valve because of their amazing Linux support but if GOG finally made a client for Linux then I would try to use that more. I wish Epic would also support Linux but with massive douchebag Tim Sweeney running the company, that will never happen.