3 ms·

> many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, an

> many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, and each launcher potentially adds it's own stream of notifications and adverts to their system so there is a cost to having multiple active even if the PC resource cost is practically undetectable. Furthermore if comparing game launches and related issues to political climates, I'd consider all the current closed source ones to be the same in those respects. Also we are not subject to several local political climates at any one time in that way (though we are when looking at a wider scale, of course). > Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service While there are other issues (each service tracking you etc.) this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. This doesn't really equate to trust on political climates (except where commercial greed is considered a political matter).

lotsofpulp 1y ago
> this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
- dspillett 1y ago
  > That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?” There is no “make good” since there was no contract about long term expectations. Even the media business’ leaders don’t know the future. Fewer eyeballs watching or listening to a specific piece of media means the cost has to be amortized over a smaller audience, meaning higher prices, or less quantity and quality of media. Price volatility should be expected in a changing business environment, and the media business got rocked by increasing supply (Meta/ByteDance/video games/on demand historic catalogs/etc) in the last 20 years, as evidenced by the change in their market values. It’s just business, so no one needs your sympathy, but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves.
    - dspillett 1y ago
      > but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves I suppose. But it is also weird to see supposedly numerate businesses repeatedly having the same trouble then blaming everyone else for it. It is almost like they are deliberately running a long-term bait & switch everytime (see also another item coincidently on HN's front page today, Stop selling "unlimited", when you mean "until we change our minds").
freehorse 1y ago
> I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less Why does one need a game launcher? Cannot we just like run games as we run any app? Having to use a launcher that by default requires internet connection, even if the game itself doesn’t, sounds like a very specific choice of how to do things. We don’t run any other kind of program like that.
- lan321 1y ago
  I don't think Steam requires internet access past initial login. In any case, I'd much rather have our lord and saviour Gaben, between me and toxic corpo X than have to deal with the corpos directly when an issue arises. I'd also much rather give Gaben my coins since he essentially made gaming on Linux viable. Right as Microsoft decided to fuck around, our lord Gaben came to the rescue. It'll be sad when he one day retires, but hopefully he'll be able to find a decent successor.
  - freehorse 1y ago
    I think that you need to set it to be able to launch online, but maybe I am wrong. I have no issue with steam per se. It has actually kept on its path threw the years and it actually invests back into gaming with games and steam deck/proton. However, I find it hard to trust good intentions after many platforms with good intentions were at some point sold and enshittified. I would rather have DRM-free games that do not depend on a launcher that maybe after 10 or 20 years will not work the same. Otherwise, steam is a great platform and a rare example of a platform that not only has not enshitified but invested back to the product they sell in ways that benefit users.
    - lan321 1y ago
      I don't think one excludes the other. I want DRM-free games, but I would also like a launcher like Steam, so I don't have to manage my library most of the time. For example, I have 1000+ games, of which I only care about, let's say, 50. With a launcher, I can back up the 50 I care about and leave the storage of the rest to it. If they were to disappear without warning, I don't ~really~ care, but I still have easy access to them. Then the launcher can also take care of compatibility issues with old games automatically. Say a game is dependent on X, which was made in the Win XP times and no longer works, the launcher can find a modern fork/substitute and auto replace it, so that I don't have to fuck around with it myself.. There's value in it. Then you get the platform itself with good guide integration, mod workshop integration, friends (game invites, sharing, etc), combined store... It's kinda like what I believe GOG is trying to do, though I'm not very familiar with them since I just don't like how much their launcher pings (blows through my NextDNS usage limit in a week).
numpad0 1y ago
GP's saying that having and embracing Steam client is technically wrong, as comfortable as it might feel to you.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

> this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.

dspillett 1y ago
> That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  > When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?” There is no “make good” since there was no contract about long term expectations. Even the media business’ leaders don’t know the future. Fewer eyeballs watching or listening to a specific piece of media means the cost has to be amortized over a smaller audience, meaning higher prices, or less quantity and quality of media. Price volatility should be expected in a changing business environment, and the media business got rocked by increasing supply (Meta/ByteDance/video games/on demand historic catalogs/etc) in the last 20 years, as evidenced by the change in their market values. It’s just business, so no one needs your sympathy, but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves.
  - dspillett 1y ago
    > but it is also weird to see supposedly numerate people gripe about the effects of rapidly shifting supply and demand curves I suppose. But it is also weird to see supposedly numerate businesses repeatedly having the same trouble then blaming everyone else for it. It is almost like they are deliberately running a long-term bait & switch everytime (see also another item coincidently on HN's front page today, Stop selling "unlimited", when you mean "until we change our minds").

freehorse 1y ago

> I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less Why does one need a game launcher? Cannot we just like run games as we run any app? Having to use a launcher that by default requires internet connection, even if the game itself doesn’t, sounds like a very specific choice of how to do things. We don’t run any other kind of program like that.

lan321 1y ago
I don't think Steam requires internet access past initial login. In any case, I'd much rather have our lord and saviour Gaben, between me and toxic corpo X than have to deal with the corpos directly when an issue arises. I'd also much rather give Gaben my coins since he essentially made gaming on Linux viable. Right as Microsoft decided to fuck around, our lord Gaben came to the rescue. It'll be sad when he one day retires, but hopefully he'll be able to find a decent successor.
- freehorse 1y ago
  I think that you need to set it to be able to launch online, but maybe I am wrong. I have no issue with steam per se. It has actually kept on its path threw the years and it actually invests back into gaming with games and steam deck/proton. However, I find it hard to trust good intentions after many platforms with good intentions were at some point sold and enshittified. I would rather have DRM-free games that do not depend on a launcher that maybe after 10 or 20 years will not work the same. Otherwise, steam is a great platform and a rare example of a platform that not only has not enshitified but invested back to the product they sell in ways that benefit users.
  - lan321 1y ago
    I don't think one excludes the other. I want DRM-free games, but I would also like a launcher like Steam, so I don't have to manage my library most of the time. For example, I have 1000+ games, of which I only care about, let's say, 50. With a launcher, I can back up the 50 I care about and leave the storage of the rest to it. If they were to disappear without warning, I don't ~really~ care, but I still have easy access to them. Then the launcher can also take care of compatibility issues with old games automatically. Say a game is dependent on X, which was made in the Win XP times and no longer works, the launcher can find a modern fork/substitute and auto replace it, so that I don't have to fuck around with it myself.. There's value in it. Then you get the platform itself with good guide integration, mod workshop integration, friends (game invites, sharing, etc), combined store... It's kinda like what I believe GOG is trying to do, though I'm not very familiar with them since I just don't like how much their launcher pings (blows through my NextDNS usage limit in a week).

numpad0 1y ago

GP's saying that having and embracing Steam client is technically wrong, as comfortable as it might feel to you.