Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 22,645
Does anyone else use the grid view? I still think that's the most visually appealing option. Especially if you take the time to download/create artwork and include your non-Steam games.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I like this new steam look
Big Screen Mode refresh pls
The UI of Steam as it is and has always been is terrible. But my GOD, everyone loves it.
Why change something that is crap but everyone from some unknown reason seems to love?
My problem with this statement is that Epic is not abusing customers any more than Valve is. My preferred storefront is and into the forseeable future will continue to be GOG. Before GOG there was Stardock Impulse (before they sold it). Both were, IMHO, superior to Steam and yet Steam was the default and frequently ONLY venue for new game releases. Epic is doing to Steam what Steam has been doing to everyone else all along, only more people are used to using Steam and fail to see the hypocrisy of their position.
Valve never ever mandated exclusivity. Ever. So, no. They aren't doing the same thing that Epic is.
The UI of Steam as it is and has always been is terrible. But my GOD, everyone loves it.
Why change something that is crap but everyone from some unknown reason seems to love?
Valve didn't have to mandate exclusivity - exclusivity happened because they were in the defacto monopoly position. My point still stands.
Fanboys do. “No Steam, no purchase.” I bet that is more significant than the fake outrage about Epic exclusivity.Valve never ever mandated exclusivity. Ever. So, no. They aren't doing the same thing that Epic is.
It really doesn't though. It actually falls apart and you're not willing to admit it. Consumer demand dictated support. Not corporate decisions. That's a huge difference.
If the end result is exactly the same: I am unable to purchase a product on my preferred platform and there is no technical reason for this limitation - then there is no difference to me at all. The cause of the result is irrelevant.
No. Again, if it's due to popular demand, then you're paying the price from populations choice. Not a singular entity making a choice for you. If you cannot understand that difference, then there's not much more to discuss. The differences are huge.
You guys should just copy and paste the debates from the other bunch of Steam vs EGS threads and save yourselves the time.
I understand what you are saying perfectly well. What YOU are not understanding is that the end result being the same, the reasons for it don't matter. There is no PRACTICAL difference. You can argue there is an ethical difference, but since Business Ethics is a mythical beast on par with the Unicorn, that argument is pointless. Without regulation, every business there is will fuck you in the ass just as hard as they are able every time. Full stop.
There is a very practical difference. There are a number of games I can choose to buy from Steam, GOG or other stores. The games aren't exclusive to Steam. Steam did not tell anyone they could not sell their games on other platforms. That the game is on Steam is irrelevant when I can buy that very same game somewhere else. Full stop.
The only exceptions are Valve games. Which it shouldn't be ironic since Valve and Steam are owned by the same entity. I also have no problem with this since they are owned by the same entity. Same issue with Epic store. Games owned by Epic I have no problem with being exclusive on its own store. Although I'd say there is a bit of an issue if they remove games from other stores which were previously on there.
But this isn't what you're arguing. Actually, I'm not sure what you're arguing since what you're arguing doesn't make any logical sense.
If the end result is exactly the same: I am unable to purchase a product on my preferred platform and there is no technical reason for this limitation - then there is no difference to me at all. The cause of the result is irrelevant.
is that for real?...the text is a bit hard to read
It is obvious you don't understand, because whatever it is YOU are talking about is entirely different than what WE are talking about.
WE are discussing how most games for a while have been ONLY available from Steam - and nowhere else (thankfully, this is now less true than it has been) and how now Epic is buying exclusivity for some high-demand games so that they are NOT available on Steam (at least, for a while). MY argument is that, from the perspective of a non-Steam non-Epic game store user, Steam and Epic are engaging in the same behavior. I can't buy whatever game from my preferred store (in this case, GOG), when that game is exclusive to Epic or Steam. . HIS argument is that Epic is MOAR EEEVIL than Steam because Epic is paying developers to have exclusivity periods with them, and that Steam is GOOD because they didn't have to spend money for their exclusives and that Steam only even has exclusives because they are the biggest store. It's not STEAM'S fault that most people buy all of their PC games there. Personally, it is an ethical/moral argument - something I don't apply to business.
The fact is this: Steam was first to market with a viable online store which they used to sell their own products. They later expanded that store by offering "distribution" to third-party publishers, and even later, directly to third-party devs. Publishers were willing to give it a go because of the inherent DRM in the platform. Because of their first mover advantage and their savvy in opening up their store, Steam has become the default PC gaming platform that it is today. Steam is the PC software store equivalent of 1981 AT&T. There are other stores out there, but they all pale in comparison to the sheer size and scope of Steam. The publishers saw the writing on the wall far too late, and their own storefronts were and are too little, too late to upset the Steam hegemony.
Of those other stores, some live entirely on their own exclusives (Activision/Blizzard). Some capitulated and rejoined Steam while also offering their own storefront (Ubisoft and Paradox). Others are still trying to out-Steam Steam (EA is also trying to cater to third-party devs). Still others are relying on a gimmick (GOG with its DRM free sales and NON-exclusivity - remember the owners of GOG also make The Witcher games and Cyberpunk 2077). And lastly, we get to Epic who said "Fuck it" and is throwing money at devs to grow their market share.
Hell, all Valve really IS anymore is a publisher via Steam. You can't really call them a game developer anymore when they don't actually seem to develop any games. Make no mistake: Valve has more in common with EA than it does with any developer.
And do you want to know which storefront has made the largest progress in disrupting the Steam hegemony in the shortest time? Epic. Personally, I don't buy anything from them, but whatever you think of their tactics, they are making a dent.
Anyone else miss the days when you could go into just about ANY software store and buy just about ANY game?
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about. The only way you could say Steam is any way the same or even similar to Epic is if Steam bought exclusives. Steam doesn't and never has.
If you don't like the fact that you can't buy any and all games on GOG, then you need to talk to the publishers. It's the publishers' fault that games don't end up on GOG for you to buy them there. I'll well aware the makers of The Witcher series also owns GOG. I've also purchased a number of games on GOG and tend to purchase there over any other place simply because they don't allow DRM on anything on their store. The very reason I tend to purchase from GOG is the exact reason few publishers allow their games on GOG, the lack of DRM.
You're attempting to argue something which doesn't exist. The only games on Steam which are exclusive are Valve games. Everything else is perfectly free to be sold on any other store if the publishers wish to do so. Stop trying to blame Steam for something which isn't Steam's fault.
Therein lies your problem:
I DIDN'T blame Steam for it. I only noted that the situation exists, and that it is ironic so many people are getting their panties in a twist about it now that it is happening to Steam when I have been having this same user experience all along - i.e. Welcome to the party. The reasoning behind the experience (the WHY of it) does not objectively change the experience. If I get run over by a car and survive, I am still injured regardless of whether or not the driver intended to hit me. My experience is the same regardless.
And nothing I've said is in any way false. I do know what I am talking about, because I have been living it. Again, welcome to the party.
There is a very practical difference. There are a number of games I can choose to buy from Steam, GOG or other stores. The games aren't exclusive to Steam. Steam did not tell anyone they could not sell their games on other platforms. That the game is on Steam is irrelevant when I can buy that very same game somewhere else. Full stop.
Something new! Everyone here hates it.
I swear, everyone on [H] is over 50.
No, I don't hate it because it's new, I hate it because it's pointless and bloated "UI" wankery which ends up creating visual noise.
I prefer minimalist and clean UIs which provide the bare minimum for needed information and nothing else.
Also I am <30 so please, take your ageism elsewhere lol.
Why pay when you get it for freeValve didn't have to mandate exclusivity - exclusivity happened because they were in the defacto monopoly position. My point still stands.
I actually like the new layout...visually it's a big step up...Valve is obviously trying to fend off Discord with this new look and added features...
I've always found Windows Explorer and Start Menu the best game launcher and GOG works beautifully with it.Not sure if I like the look or not.
I really with GOG would just hurry it up with Galaxy 2.0 so that I don't have to concern myself with Steam's UI anymore.