Now there is another Steam clone called Core Client

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,905
I got a free t-shirt and beta code for Blacklight Retribution from Intel with my i7 2600K purchase yesterday.
You have to install this new client software called Core from Perfect World to access the Beta (and probably the full game). :(


core-client.jpg
 
Oh joy, there is already enough that I know of...

  • Steam (Valve)
  • GFWL (Microsoft)
  • Origin (EA)
  • Capsule (Green Man Gaming)
  • Gamestop Impulse (Gamestop)
  • Desura (DesuraNET)
  • YUPLAY (YuPlay)
What others are there?
 
Gamefly will also be using a client based approach to distribution, they will be replacing D2D. Amazon also uses a client distribution method. Many other smaller specialty stores (such as the one mentioned in the OP) already use clients.

Gamersgate and GoG are the only ones which do not use clients, and Gamersgate is the only one that will sell "new" titles. I'm not sure about Getgames. Some other smaller specialty stores may not as well, such as the Adventure Game Shop (? not sure exact name).

However not all these "clients" are clients in the same sense.
 
Ah yes, I did forget about the new Gamefly client... I have that installed.
 
Everyone is trying to cash in on this growing distribution model. In the end, 90% of them will fail, and the strong will survive. Personally, I won't buy anything that doesn't activate on steam. Not because I think the others are inherently flawed, I just don't want to have to keep track of my games in 10 different places.
 
^^ to be fair, the Amazon and Blizzard clients are not really clients, just an one use downloader file... exactly how I like it :)
 
^^ to be fair, the Amazon and Blizzard clients are not really clients, just an one use downloader file... exactly how I like it :)

I actually haven't used the Amazon client (since I am technically not allowed to buy from there), so this is possibly a misunderstanding on my part. I thought the client is a program you download, that than download and activates/installs your games? Or are you saying every game download is just separate download and standalone? Is the Amazon download only an initial validation on install?

Everyone is trying to cash in on this growing distribution model. In the end, 90% of them will fail, and the strong will survive. Personally, I won't buy anything that doesn't activate on steam. Not because I think the others are inherently flawed, I just don't want to have to keep track of my games in 10 different places.

In terms of the concept, I am firmly against the current models for digital distribution in which basically customers end up beholden to a middleman distributor. People would have never accepted this previously with retail. For example if someone for instance felt like they had to shop at Gamestop or even pay more for games at Gamestop just because of previous purchases this would have been considered ridiculous, among other things that consumers accept from digital distribution. Overall I feel linking everything to the content provider is a much lesser evil, whether or not they choose to employ third party services.
 
my CORE client always freezes when i try to launch it... so i can't even play BL:R

and theres also Impulse. GameStop bought them out, it looks like.
 
my CORE client always freezes when i try to launch it... so i can't even play BL:R

and theres also Impulse. GameStop bought them out, it looks like.

I just played a round of Blacklight and it is pretty fun. MP feels a lot like Blacksite: Area51 and Crysis 2.
graphics looks decent as well.
 
Sigh... Guess I'll be passing on Blacklight then. I already hate having Steam and Origin. Not putting a third on.
 
People would have never accepted this previously with retail. For example if someone for instance felt like they had to shop at Gamestop or even pay more for games at Gamestop just because of previous purchases this would have been considered ridiculous, among other things that consumers accept from digital distribution. Overall I feel linking everything to the content provider is a much lesser evil, whether or not they choose to employ third party services.

People do this all the time at retail. I almost always shop at the same supermarket due to convenience. I know people who only buy console games at Gamestop because of their loyalty promotions. For the same reason that I don't drive halfway across town to save $0.50 on a loaf of bread, I will not install other platforms like Origin or Core to save a bit on games.

The best solution, of course, is DRM-free downloads with no publishers, third party clients or distribution services in the way, and that's already started to happen with folks like Gamersgate and Humble Indie Bundle leading the way. Even Amazon has jumped on this train as of late.
 
The cool thing about Core is that it is only a client downloader. Unlike Steam or Origin where they're "unobtrusive" forms of DRM. My ass, earlier, Valve had trouble with servers on their end. So, even trying to get Steam start in offline mode was impossible, because you must first authenticate online. There is a way to use command lines via a config, however it won't work if you don't save your credentials(i.e. you don't save your password and login). I just played Blacklight without even launching core. Btw blacklight is pretty fun, with quite a bit of graphics/ game options.
 
Last edited:
Everyone is trying to cash in on this growing distribution model. In the end, 90% of them will fail, and the strong will survive. Personally, I won't buy anything that doesn't activate on steam. Not because I think the others are inherently flawed, I just don't want to have to keep track of my games in 10 different places.

I couldn't agree more.

If it's not a Steam game (or a completely standalone title at the very least), thanks but no thanks. I'd love to give BF3 a shot (among other games) but I'm opposed to using EA downloader (err, Origin). Had I been aware of Battle.net before buying StarCraft2, I probably would of passed on it as well (considering how little I've actually played it).

I really hope this doesn't become a mainstream practice and every publisher starts using their own online service. I like steam because, for the most part, it brings the unified console experience to the PC. Your friends, messages, clans, achievements, etc are all located in one place. There is no way that I want to deal with that across multiple online services.
 
The best solution, of course, is DRM-free downloads with no publishers, third party clients or distribution services in the way, and that's already started to happen with folks like Gamersgate and Humble Indie Bundle leading the way. Even Amazon has jumped on this train as of late.
If you're in the habit of reinstalling your OS often like I am, the best solution is actually to have that third party client there to automate the process of managing cloud saves and reinstalling registry entries + DirectX components and such.
 
For those who hate these client...............
If it means better games, more games for PC, are you in?
 
For those who hate these client...............
If it means better games, more games for PC, are you in?
If it means installing a second digital download client in addition to what I already use, then no. Because when the options are:

A) Put up with having another unnecessary client shoved down my throat to play a certain game.
or
B) Work through my 100+ game backlog on the client I already use.

I will pick B. Or C, which is acquire the game mentioned in A) through other means that doesn't involve client mentioned in A)...
 
For those who hate these client...............
If it means better games, more games for PC, are you in?
It doesn't mean better games. I'd rather they use an existing and established service instead of forcing me to use a poor imitation of one.
 
I don't mind them, but what I hate is having just 1 game on the client. If there are loads of games available and that I like it's not a huge problem for me. My problem is that that isn't true for most...
 
People do this all the time at retail. I almost always shop at the same supermarket due to convenience. I know people who only buy console games at Gamestop because of their loyalty promotions. For the same reason that I don't drive halfway across town to save $0.50 on a loaf of bread, I will not install other platforms like Origin or Core to save a bit on games.

The best solution, of course, is DRM-free downloads with no publishers, third party clients or distribution services in the way, and that's already started to happen with folks like Gamersgate and Humble Indie Bundle leading the way. Even Amazon has jumped on this train as of late.

You mention two reasons why people might stick with one vendor, inconvenience to change and incentives to stay.

Addressing inconvenience first, the problem is with digital distribution the inconvenience issues are artificially created. Basically if this applied to the real world it would be a store such as Gamestop could somehow create a noncompete situation where there are no other retailers in a 20 mile radius. With the current market situation, distributors have basically erected these barriers to competition by having everything linked to accounts/clients. In reality competition should be open akin to having say a Best Buy and Gamestop next to each other. If Best Buy offers the better price on a game, you'd have no qualms about going over their to purchase over Gamestop even if all your previous purchases have been their. If Bestbuy upsets you from a customer relations standpoint, you would have no problems shopping at the Gamestop next door. Yet with how things are moving forward, this ease of switching your business is not their.

The other is incentives, well not many digital distributors actually have customer loyalty programs which is not very common at the moment, and not directly impacted by the account/client issue.

IF it did, sure, yeah, why not... but it doesn't, so no :p

In some ways it can lead to a better product and customer experience. For example I know for instance you recently were looking at and bought Batman Arkham City, but you did have some doubts on the distributor to use despite the better price. Now imagine if the publisher took responsibility of this instead, whether linking it to Steam, Origin or their own program. This means regardless of where you buy it you know you are getting the same experience, would that have made going for the cheapest price an easy decision?

The problem with fragmenting it over different distributors is it creates the possibility of issues where the end product may not be the same. Patches and DLC for example need to be deployed differently, and levels of support may not be the same. Another example is right now if I buy a game at a one vendor, I may end up being limited in my options of where to purchase future DLC. What if this vendor is smaller and the patch for their specific version is delayed? These are issues that would not crop up if everything were unified and handled by the content provider instead.
 
Everyone is trying to cash in on this growing distribution model. In the end, 90% of them will fail, and the strong will survive. Personally, I won't buy anything that doesn't activate on steam. Not because I think the others are inherently flawed, I just don't want to have to keep track of my games in 10 different places.

And this is why 90% of them will fail. Being strong or good doesn't come into it when you have so many people taking this approach.
 
Game looks like it might be ok. Too bad I will never buy it a long as it requires yet another client.

"Client", is becoming a dirty word. Pretty soon marketing departments will stop using it.
 
For those who hate these client...............
If it means better games, more games for PC, are you in?

The biggest complaint with PC gaming is that it is confusing and not universal. As long as steam held a near total monopoly that was becoming fixed, as soon as these other guys all started jumping in it went right back to confusing. I know lots of ignorant people who say steam when they mean all sorts of things about games. When in fact steam is NOT the game, kinda like people who say iPod when they mean mp3 player or even just music. The point is with a console you have a login a single login and you are done and it all makes sense. With PC gaming you are going to have like 30 logins and hundreds of programs to open and WTF? Just look at the disaster BF3 is if you do not think this sucks. Login for origin, login for battle log, install like 4+ items, origin, battlelog, BF3, punkbuster.

The more of these that show up the more freaking stupid it will be. At some point I believe we will have a backlash. But the thing is for game company that does not care or has a smaller budget these services are nice. The onlything we really gained out of this is simplification of patching, gone are the days when people had out of date clients, and had to go find the patch. I just think that microsoft needs to let alot more companies role updates into windows update.
 
Everyone is trying to cash in on this growing distribution model. In the end, 90% of them will fail, and the strong will survive. Personally, I won't buy anything that doesn't activate on steam. Not because I think the others are inherently flawed, I just don't want to have to keep track of my games in 10 different places.

Right, and this is perfectly logical right, I mean you don't carry 10 mobile phones or have 10 internet connections because that's just stupid.

That's why I stick to steam only, I want 1 library of all my games in one place. But the moment you say you didn't buy BF3 because it doesn't use steam people seem to go completely irrational and spout all sorts of nonsense.

I'll ignore Core like I ignore all the other clients, it's not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with them, it's just that splitting up your library over multiple digital distribution platforms can only degrade user experience rather than improve it.
 
Right, and this is perfectly logical right, I mean you don't carry 10 mobile phones or have 10 internet connections because that's just stupid.

That's why I stick to steam only, I want 1 library of all my games in one place. But the moment you say you didn't buy BF3 because it doesn't use steam people seem to go completely irrational and spout all sorts of nonsense.

I'll ignore Core like I ignore all the other clients, it's not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with them, it's just that splitting up your library over multiple digital distribution platforms can only degrade user experience rather than improve it.

A lot of people do pay for 2 internet connections though, 1 for home and 1 for the phone.
 
A lot of people do pay for 2 internet connections though, 1 for home and 1 for the phone.

That's a technical limitation and not relevant. What I'm saying is you wouldn't have 1 phone to connect to the T-mobile network, and 1 phone to connect to the Orange network and 1 phone to connect to the TalkTalk network, you just have 1 phone, and if someone releases a network which has proprietary devices then everyone says "fuck you then" and forgoes access.

People are more blasé about digital distribution services because it is seen as less of a hassle to install 2 than to carry 2 phones, the problems aren't immediate but before long you'll have loads of digital distribution platforms all fighting for your time and attention, all trying to hook in to the same games all fighting with each other and that will be when there's a problem, by then it will be too late, you'll be forced to use that service forever or lose your games.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top