Game Launchers - why the hate?

[blokeinkent]

Just out of curiosity, what is that really makes so many people hate the likes of Steam, Origin, and dare I say the word Epic?

[Zak33]

OK, here goes - I don't want to sign up to multiple systems and give my email details date of birth, and payment card details etc to them. Because they will be hacked one day, Period.

I don't want another sub system running on my PC everytime I want to play a game, and if I choose to swap between games on the same day, I don't want them both, or worse, 3 of them runnning. Im lukvy that I have good porcession power and reasonable ram, but not everyone does. Steam on a cheap low sped Laptop is horrible, even though many of the games are fine once loaded

Why do they need to run? Because they constantly monitor my PC use and so they are doing "something", allowing lots of connectivity and between me and them, which I didn't want nor ask for.
And then there's the game updates before game slike BF V will even run... I swear, I cant play that game anymore because when I want to play single player, it has to go through an entire update that I don't need to complete my single player mission. I gave up and uninstalled it. For the occassional user, it's useless. If it's single player, it should run just fine like last month, and not need a full hour of dicking about before I can use it.

Then there's the boot down/game close, while the game updates my awesomeness with the launcher, so instead of the game just closing... you have to wait while it shares yet more info, which should be on my HDD

If you have all 3 of the big launchers running all the time, the processing power, ram use and bandwidth they use is frankly scary.

Then there's the utterly ridiculous financial warware between them as they try to take games from each other as exclusives, or to increase their library - take Minion Masters for example which I play via Steam
Last year, Twitch gave it away for a weekend to anyone and it gained, rightly, in popularity.

But trying to play as a co-op team between a Twitch users and a Steam user took MLyons and myself hours to work out. Was a shambles.
The game should have a hyperlobby in it.
I don't want to be offered other games everytime I open it, becauase I'm able to choose new games myself with the power of my computer and my eyes.

then there's the passwords... Blloody hell I have enough passwords , but because this is a public access server I need another one.

Who owns them too? Chinese money owns loads of Epic, and I have no idea what they do with my data

I would like a choice too.. I'd like to OPT for a launcher and then, if I don't like it, remove it still be able to play the game.

[blokeinkent]

Now that's what I call an answer. Thanks

[Ttaskmaster]

AFAIK, they don't need to run and have the option to close them when you open a game.
None have my card details, although DoB is sometimes required for age verification
Certainly I don't have multiple launchers open at the same time and cannot imagine why such a thing would be necessary.

Exclusives I don't mind, so long as the launcher and everything is free. They tried competitive pricing, with all the Steam sales and things, but that just meant the hassle of seeing which was 50p cheaper and in many cases people didn't bother enough.

Offering other games I don't mind, because I don't have time to browse through thousands and thousands of titles to find the really cool ones I never knew about. As is, just last night I got offered something that was 80% off. More than once I've found absolute gems in these offers that I'd previously never heard of, with the added bonus that they're on sale too. Got a copy for each of my friends, also!

I'm nota fan of multiple launchers - As in, open Steam and launch game, which opens Uplay/Origin and launches the game, which then opens the game dev's own launcher, which takes you to the game website's lobby, from which you access the sub-lobby, from whcih you then launch your game.

But then, it wasn't so long ago that people were screaming about Steam having a monopoly, and how companies should do their own launchers to compete against Steam... Can't win!!

[kalniel]

But then, it wasn't so long ago that people were screaming about Steam having a monopoly, and how companies should do their own launchers to compete against Steam... Can't win!!

Can you provide any examples where people have asked for companies to do their own launchers to compete against Steam? I don't remember anyone asking for that. They have complained about games being exclusive to Steam, as opposed to being able to buy from a retailer of choice, but having yet more launchers with their own exclusive games does nothing to address that.

Me? I still miss the days of game boxes containing everything I need to run a game and a decent manual.

[Ttaskmaster]

Can you provide any examples where people have asked for companies to do their own launchers to compete against Steam? I don't remember anyone asking for that.

The arguments were never about having launchers and nothing to do with exclusives, but about how those launchers should be done in order to compete successfully.
Even now, Steam continue to dominate, through their presence as much as on pricing and sales.

I bought something off Humble last night - It was emailed to me, as a Steam code, because Steam is still very much the default. Frontier have their own game with their own launcher, but they still made it available on Steam. Ubisoft have their own games on their own launcher, but they still make it available on Steam.

GFWL and Impulse failed. Most other platforms have been from specific publisher-devs and limited to their own publishings.
Now Epic comes along and people complain that the game isn't on Steam!!

[Zak33]

Certainly I don't have multiple launchers open at the same time and cannot imagine why such a thing would be necessary.

well, I'm going to suggest that while I worked out how to stop them auto running on my PC at Windows bootr up, my son didn't suss it. And nor will millions of other users, who know no better. And therefore they likely are all running.
You did then say you're not a fan of multiple launchers, where Steam opens Uplay or Origin, etc, so maybe you've experienced it, no? I'm going to guess that was a version of Assassins Creed needing both open , as I do recall that winding people up not long ago

[Zak33]

actually... I think that some of my games on Steam DO need Steam running, because when I lost internet, Steam wouldn't allow them to run. I found the .exe and they didn't run.

[Ttaskmaster]

And nor will millions of other users, who know no better. And therefore they likely are all running.

The options are still there, in the settings menu, though...

You did then say you're not a fan of multiple launchers, where Steam opens Uplay or Origin, etc, so maybe you've experienced it, no? I'm going to guess that was a version of Assassins Creed needing both open , as I do recall that winding people up not long ago

Yep, Ass-as-sins Creed... I stopped using Steam to launch it, in the end, as it didn't actually need to be/stay open. Just went directly to Uplay. Dunno what it's like these days, as I stopped Ass-ing around partway through the one with the pirate ships.

Same with Elite and anything else that has its own launcher, I just use that. Steam is only useful to keep open if you're multiplayering something and want comms with your mates. I know there's TeamTalk and Ventrillo and Discord and all these other voice apps you can use, but again I see no point in having two dozen things open just to play a game.

actually... I think that some of my games on Steam DO need Steam running, because when I lost internet, Steam wouldn't allow them to run. I found the .exe and they didn't run.

Does Steam no longer have a Run In Offline Mode option?

[Zak33]

Does Steam no longer have a Run In Offline Mode option?

not unless you were logged in and it remembers your account... which I didn't used to do, because I hate having it logged in. So I'd log in the few times I used it and not leave it logged in.
and then I lost internet and I was shafted, so I'm kinda forced to leave the details in the Steam Account.

which brings us full rotation back to being forced to do things. Which, as you can tell, I dislike a lot.

[Ttaskmaster]

not unless you were logged in and it remembers your account... which I didn't used to do, because I hate having it logged in. So I'd log in the few times I used it and not leave it logged in.
and then I lost internet and I was shafted, so I'm kinda forced to leave the details in the Steam Account.

IIRC, I lost internet and only knew about it when I started Steam and went to log in. It then said it can't connect and would I like to start in Offline Mode.

[Zak33]

IIRC, I lost internet and only knew about it when I started Steam and went to log in. It then said it can't connect and would I like to start in Offline Mode.

try logging out first.. then turning off the internet.

you need to be logged in to activate Offline mode. Cruel Circle

[Spud1]

I think Zak33 gave a pretty comprehensive overview of why people generally don't like multiple launchers...I agree with pretty much all of that

The Epic situation is very different - the issue there is nothing to do wtih launchers/stores themselves, and has everything to do with the practice of buying up exclusives. I am running out of ways to phrase just how bad what Epic is doing is for gamers & the industry, so i'm just going to requote my post from other thread here

Epic are in the middle of trying to take a monopoly on the PC Gaming market, push prices higher than ever and ultimately remove choice and competition in the market. That is why I and so many are against them and will kick off at any given opportunity

The idea of another storefront is absolutely fine, and I would love Epic to succeed and provide competition against Steam - but that is *not* what they are doing. Their big play is that they pay developers more - great! That is good for developers and should allow for greater price competition, choice and all that, right?

Well that only works if you don't bribe said developers into exclusives for your platform. Picture two scenarios:

1) Borderlands 3 is released as an epic exclusive on PC. Consumers *have* to buy it from epic and *have* to pay £49.99 for it at launch. Epic makes $$, developers make more $$ than they would have on steam, consumers pay top whack and have no choice about it
2) Borderlands 3 is released on steam, epic, GOG and whatever other platform you want. Price on Steam is £49.99, Epic is £44.99 (as developers can afford to sell it for less and STILL make more money), GOG is £48.99 etc. Epic makes $$, developers make more $$ than only selling on steam, other companies also make $$ and consumers get to choose where to buy it from AND save some money.

Which option would you prefer?

Option 1 is killing the market at the moment and if the trend continues, we'll see less and less competition and higher and higher prices over the next few years.

I completely refuse to support their store initiative until they drop the exclusives approach - if they do and they try and compete fairly on price, features or whatever then great, i'll support them - but until then...any 3rd party game released as an Epic exclusive is going to be immediately blacklisted on PC. I should note that I don't have as much of an issue with this when it's 1st party games - e.g. what EA or Acti-Blizz are doing, particularly when there is a consumer benefits to doing so (e.g. given how tightly battle.net is integrated into most Blizz games) - its the practice of buying up exclusives they were intended to be multi store/platform that I find abhorrent.

edit: Problem is that most people CBA to put up a fight and just give in, or they dont have another platform to buy said game on, so Epic likely wont stop. We saw a similar thing with Microtransactions & FTP 15 years ago - we all *knew* it was a terrible thing for PC gaming that was going to push up prices, introduce the concept of paying full price for 50% of a game with the rest coming as paid DLC later...but we (the PC gaming community) still bought those games, still paid the cost...and now microtransctions are rife in our games and we can't get away from them. I'm as guilty as the next person of doing this, but this time I am taking a better position on it and not supporting Epic

[Saracen999]

On top of Zak's comprehensive list, I have two more.

1) It is not hard to spend a LOT of money on games over a period, and if they require not just a launcher, but an account with an online service to launch and/or run, your entire expenditure is at risk if, for any reason, you lose or have that account closed.

2) My primary gaming machine is on my air-gapped network and is never connected to the internet. It's a bit more complicated a configuration than that, but that covers the relevant aspects. As I am only interested in single-player games, or co-op mode on my network, I'm not connecting to the net to validate an install, never mind actually play.

It's not that I "hate" launchers. That's not quite it. If Steam et.al. want to offer their services and gamers are prepared to go that way, good luck to both. But it doesn't suit me, doesn't interest me and I never have and never will use them. If that means not playing some (or most) games, okay, so be it. I'll limit myself to DRM-free games or, if it comes to it, no new games at all. I can make do with the several hundred I already have.

[Scryder]

I have no problem with Steam, GOG or Origin, I've bought games there (or in Origin's case - had to install games on it - C&C Collection). I've also got the Twitch launcher, for all the free games they give away (although the quality of games in the last months have been pretty poor). But I refuse to buy anything on Epic because of their practices. They came along pretending to be pro-consumer, and trying to change Steam's policy, but their actions were not to my liking.

I've got over 600 games on Steam and is my preferred DRM platform! I prefer all my games in one location, rather than split all over the place. I'm getting to the point that I have to double-check on Steam before buying a game or DLC. Steam is the only one I have running at Startup. The others, Origin, Uplay, Battle.net and Twitch are run when I need to, and shut down after playing the game.

Also some games on Steam have their own launcher: Kalypso Games for example - Railway Empire and Battlestar Galactica Deadlock, I don't see the point in them. As I'll never click any of the links on there.

One of the other things that came to mind is that some smaller companies go out of business, and chances are you've lost your purchases. One I remember is Stardock store, which I bought some games 10 years ago. Sins of a Solar Empire and Gal Civ 2 and a few other games. Think they went out of business or were bought by Gamestop. Then I lost my purchases on these stores. This is another reason why I'd not want to use other companies' launcher.

Overall, game launchers are pointless IMHO, and all I want to do is play the game.

[Mr_Jon]

Also some games on Steam have their own launcher: Kalypso Games for example - Railway Empire and Battlestar Galactica Deadlock, I don't see the point in them. As I'll never click any of the links on there.

BSG is a Slitherine game. All Slitherine/Matrix games come with their own launcher as they're sold mainly through the main Slith/Matrix own webstore (they sell boxed copies too), and steam is an afterthought - unlike other entities whose games may only be available via steam key. This is the norm for the more traditional wargame companies. The launcher serves to keep players up to date (patches, dlc etc) on the game and provide news of others in the catalogue of the publishing company. Companies like that survive on their own outside of the steam bubble due to the niche nature of their products. For them, the launcher pretty much acts as a point of advertising in regards to people who have discovered their games via steam.