I read this as banning something like lutris and was very confused.
If they did ban launchers most the big companies would not do what you want and just not release on steam.
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
283 points (94.9% liked)
PC Master Race
16444 readers
4 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.
Notes:
- PCMR Community Name - Our Response and the Survey
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Disagree. Most big companies have tried the way of not releasing on Steam, and almost everyone came back over the years because they realized a lot more people buy your game if it's on Steam.
But they came back with the launchers.. I think less would have come back if they couldn't also install launchers.
A lot of companies would but big games that are going to sell just on the name like GTA would be fine without steam. Multiplayer features and APIs are all built into the launchers, I don't see them rewriting huge chunks to remove it so steam can take a cut of the sale.
Oh well. I believe Ubisoft or EA tried doing that, and they came crawling back after a while.
If they did ban launchers most the big companies would not do what you want and just not release on steam.
Good! Releasing it in Steam should mean releasing it on Steam, and not releasing what's tantamount to a shortcut to another launcher.
A steam frontpage without ubisoft and ea would be heaven.
Going against the grain here, but conceptually is that really such a good thing?
Yes, Steam is pretty decent and yes, Valve have consistently shown good business practice and a pro-consumer stance, and yes third party launchers are generally absolute donkey tonk... but isn't converging onto one launcher like Steam very anti-consumer at its core?
Isn't this about stopping games from being launched like this:
- Launch Steam
- Launch game, but instead...
- It launches a launcher for the game.
- That launcher launches the game
Going Launcher => Launcher => game.
That should be banned.
It sounds like what you're interpreting it as is "Games that have their own or alternate launchers should be banned from sale on Steam" (e.g., games available on Epic, EA, etc. shouldn't be available on Steam).
I'd agree that that's anti-consumer. But if I buy the game on Steam, it shouldn't feed me through an additional launcher. If I want to buy the game directly from elsewhere and that requires a different launcher, that's perfectly fine.
Launcher > Launcher > Game is grotesque. 2 different accounts and an internet connection required just to play a game you ""own"".
Fuck that shit
Girls' Frontline 2 is basically a launcher you download on Steam, which then downloads the actual game
Wouldn't that also count for Emulators?
Good point, but it could be argued to be a different case where the secondary launcher only runs silently in the background to support running the game.
vs. something else that pops up and is trying to get you to sign up for an external account
Anti-consumer is forcing them to use a service they don't want to in order to use the thing they paid for. Someone using steam clearly wants to use steam.
Now, is it a good idea to put all our eggs in the valve basket? Probably not, but that's not "anti-consumer", it's just unwise.
Nah that's cool, thanks for your view. I'm on board with what you're saying.
I fucking hate launchers with a passion, almost as much as I hated when Steam came out with one of the Half Life patches.
Admittedly though, if there was going to be one current launcher to rule them all, Steam is the best bet.
I was forced to use Steam when I bought a physical copy of Portal and the only thing inside was a CD with Steam installer and a code. I didn't want Steam, but it was the only way to play Portal.
So Steam is also anti-consumer.
I mean, sure, but that Portal launch was almost 2 decades ago lol
No, nobody said they couldn't have there own launcher or put it on other platforms, we just don't want launchers in our launcher that we have to use a keyboard and mouse on an other wise controller based game.
I am about to have an old man yells at cloud moment but I remember when it was incredibly controversial to have a launcher at all, steam itself in a less restricted form than we have today was very controversial.
At least give GOG a try
GOG is the GOAT, but this meme misses the mark.
it's not a wrong meme but valve is ok to do this because the device, like many consoles, is a loss leader.
however, try to even find the Linux desktop mode on a ps5/xbox... in this way we're still treated above and beyond what's industry standard.
microsoft, on the other hand, has overstayed their welcome so often and so obnoxiously, people just don't want any of their shit
It's been a minute since I set up my steam deck, is it not possible to get into desktop mode without signing into a steam account?
You can use Desktop Mode without a steam account.
This meme is just dumb and contrarian. They're comparing an OS to a games distribution platform that requires user accounts to function.
FitGirl has no launchers whatsoever, if you're into single player games.
What if I wanna use a third party launcher to launch Steam games that themselves need a further third party launcher?
Steam is a third party launcher.
Exactly, we're already on one, we don't need third party launchers being launched by the third party launcher lmao
Yo dawg
You wouldn't be able to play any games then lmao. No CDPR games. Rockstar, blizzard, EA, ubi, Sony. Microsoft. Korean games. Most MMOs.
I'm pretty sure the logic intended is that they'd remove their launchers to stay on steam
You're rockstar. Are you going to give up on all steam sales for all your games, or your shitty launcher?
Why do you want to ban third party launchers? Wouldn't having more control over your launcher by having access to third party launchers be a benefit? I'm confused, I don't know what this is.
When I launch a game from steam I would like it to launch from steam. Not launch a launcher which then launches the game. Why would I ever want to launch a launcher to launch my game when I'm doing it from steam. If I want choice so bad I'll go and buy it from the 2nd launcher. But I didn't. I bought it from steam. Cause I want steam to launch my game.
OOOH!! I see what you mean!
I thought you were talking about like... Using a different Steam launcher to browse and launch everything. I don't know, I'm not a big gamer...
Thanks for clarifying!
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞