4 ms·
> And the only price you pay is to install another launcher that costs you nothing Yeah, no. I'm not going to install another launcher that wastes RAM, bandwid
by anoncake 7y ago
> And the only price you pay is to install another launcher that costs you nothing
Yeah, no. I'm not going to install another launcher that wastes RAM, bandwidth etc. and begs for my attention. Having games spread across multiple launchers is horrible UX too.
The Steam monopoly is a good thing for customers. What's bad is that it's private property and run for profit rather than to be useful.
- belltaco 7y agoIt's not as bad as console exclusivity where you have to go out and buy another console for $400. I'd take the annoyance if I know that the middleman isn't taking 30% of what I am paying the dev and the dev is getting 88%.
- codexon 7y ago> Yeah, no. I'm not going to install another launcher that wastes RAM, bandwidth etc. and begs for my attention. Having games spread across multiple launchers is horrible UX too. Funny you mention this. Right now on my computer, Steam is using up over 450 mb ram while the Epic game store uses up 10 mb. Both of them being minimized. https://imgur.com/a/wZBnGZ1 https://imgur.com/a/wZBnGZ1 > Having games spread across multiple launchers is horrible UX too. The Steam monopoly is a good thing for customers. What's bad is that it's private property and run for profit rather than to be useful. Yeah and so is having software being spread across multiple OSes "horrible UX" too, so you are basically suggesting that the Windows monopoly is a good thing for customers in that same vein. We don't live in lala-land where things like this get made as non-profit. The only solution is competition.