ban(ish) games with launchers

[lx]

many games come with launchers and many are not integrated with steam. thats not cool.
tell those devs to get their staff together and make a proper support for the steam platform, or get their stuff out of here and use only their sites to provide the games.

many... thats actually becoming a standard. why would anyone need steam then? steam, your existence is in danger, act now.

i rely on steam as a trustworthy source, but this is not the case with those launchers. they make modifications after steam, download, upload, spy, require agreements, new accounts, ...

[Crashed]

Escrito originalmente por Snakub Plissken:

It's just a rationalization to repeat over and over. Not liking additional launchers isn't a strong enough argument. Exaggerating and spreading FUD about security concerns though seems a bit more serious.

Keep in mind having a launcher doesn't mean the game has any more privilege than without. Almost always the launcher runs in the same privilege level as non-launcher games.
Pretty much the only time there is elevation on modern games is when they have anti-cheat, both Steam's VAC which runs as a service and third party anti-cheats that run as Ring-0 drivers.

[Frostbringer]

Escrito originalmente por The End:

Escrito originalmente por Gus the Crocodile:

A game itself can do all the apparently worrisome things that a “launcher” can do. If you distrust a particular developer to the point of thinking their launcher is spying on you maliciously, I’m not sure why you’d want their software on your computer at all, regardless of whether they stopped having a launcher.

You hit the nail, afraid of the launcher but not the game from the same publisher/developer, seems a bit dumb imo.

That wouldn’t fit the narrative of the OP, so it’s probably why they haven’t responded to that logical thought.

Or they’ll claim that launchers are created by a different company than the devs that created the game they enjoy and isn’t part of the “conspiracy” to spy/inject malware/ steal your kidneys that all launchers do.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por lx:

fun fact: this has become a very hot topic, full of opponents to the suggestion. :D
i even get negative personal messages on my profile.
like i touched a nerve, or something

Your original post implies that Steam is something else than complete and absolute perfection.

They don't take kindly to yer kind 'round here! Hehehe.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

You want Valve to remove games other people like because of a personal preference. Did you really expect people to simply agree with you?

Well, when you think about it, allowing third party launchers didn't stop ubisoft from not putting their newer games on steam anymore. So might as well enforce some standards.

If ubisoft ever decides they need steam again, it's not gonna be wether or not they can force their launcher on steam users that gets to be the deciding factor. I highly doubt it.

[Mad Scientist]

Escrito originalmente por lx:

fun fact: this has become a very hot topic, full of opponents to the suggestion. :D
i even get negative personal messages on my profile.
like i touched a nerve, or something

Not really a hot topic, it's just another generic topic. There are no messages present on your profile page as of this post, and we're not responsible for any one users posts on your profile. Seems like you're trying to deflect from your behavior more than anything.

[Crazy Tiger]

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

You want Valve to remove games other people like because of a personal preference. Did you really expect people to simply agree with you?

Well, when you think about it, allowing third party launchers didn't stop ubisoft from not putting their newer games on steam anymore. So might as well enforce some standards.

If ubisoft ever decides they need steam again, it's not gonna be wether or not they can force their launcher on steam users that gets to be the deciding factor. I highly doubt it.

Ubisoft wasn't forcibly removed by Valve but made their own choice.

Allowing launchers also is a standard. Just becuase it's a different standard than some people want, doesn't make it "not a standard".

As I also said in my post: "I mean, I can certainly understand not liking the additional launchers, but I can not understand wanting to limit purchasing options for others when those people have no issue with them."
And I mean that. I can't understand why people want to limit others purchasing options based on a personal preference. It has nothing to do with "standard", but merely personal preference.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Ubisoft wasn't forcibly removed by Valve but made their own choice.

Never said they were forcibly removed. What I said was that allowing them to shove their launcher down steam user's throats didn't stop them from eventually leaving.

[Crazy Tiger]

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Ubisoft wasn't forcibly removed by Valve but made their own choice.

Never said they were forcibly removed. What I said was that allowing them to shove their launcher down steam user's throats didn't stop them from eventually leaving.

Neither did I say that allowing launchers would stop publishers from using Steam.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

Never said they were forcibly removed. What I said was that allowing them to shove their launcher down steam user's throats didn't stop them from eventually leaving.

Neither did I say that allowing launchers would stop publishers from using Steam.

No, but you did write this:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

You want Valve to remove games other people like because of a personal preference. Did you really expect people to simply agree with you?

So that's I was simply illustrating how it doesn't really make a difference. If a publisher wants to keep their game on or off of Steam, it doesn't matter what Valve if Valve has a hard stance on launchers or not.

[Tito Shivan]

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

I can't understand why people want to limit others purchasing options based on a personal preference. It has nothing to do with "standard", but merely personal preference.

Quite easy to understand. It all boils down to thinking Steam can strongarm publishers into not adding those launchers.
It doesn't work that way.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

I can't understand why people want to limit others purchasing options based on a personal preference. It has nothing to do with "standard", but merely personal preference.

Quite easy to understand. It all boils down to thinking Steam can strongarm publishers into not adding those launchers.
It doesn't work that way.

Steam's position as a market leader for over a decade placed them in the perfect position to strongarm whoever they wanted if they wanted. Even EA came back crawling after they tried to make it without Steam. We could even have had a Steam free of third party DRM like Denuvo if Valve so wished.

Ubisoft only jumped ship recently because Epic Games is positioning themselves as a viable alternative and will likely be dominant force in the future, with a more generous revenue split and, thanks to the cultural phenomenon that is fortnite, an entire generation of young gamers with no sense of loyalty towards steam because their first experience with PC gaming was through the Epic Games Store. But prior to that, Valve 100% could have strongarmed ubisoft to stop that double launcher nonsense. Steam missed their window to do that, and they still ended up without new ubisoft games in the end.

[Crashed]

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

Escrito originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Quite easy to understand. It all boils down to thinking Steam can strongarm publishers into not adding those launchers.
It doesn't work that way.

Steam's position as a market leader for over a decade placed them in the perfect position to strongarm whoever they wanted if they wanted. Even EA came back crawling after they tried to make it without Steam. We could even have had a Steam free of third party DRM like Denuvo if Valve so wished.

Ubisoft only jumped ship recently because Epic Games is positioning themselves as a viable alternative and will likely be dominant force in the future, with a more generous revenue split and, thanks to the cultural phenomenon that is fortnite, an entire generation of young gamers with no sense of loyalty towards steam because their first experience with PC gaming was through the Epic Games Store. But prior to that, Valve 100% could have strongarmed ubisoft to stop that double launcher nonsense. Steam missed their window to do that, and they still ended up without new ubisoft games in the end.

Denuvo isn't even relevant to this thread; there is no launcher or account needed, only misinformation.

[Mad Scientist]

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

Escrito originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Quite easy to understand. It all boils down to thinking Steam can strongarm publishers into not adding those launchers.
It doesn't work that way.

Steam's position as a market leader for over a decade placed them in the perfect position to strongarm whoever they wanted if they wanted.

You do realize that companies are held to laws and standards, right?
"Strongarm" in the eyes of the law can be anything, and can bring severe legal issues. In such a case, attempting to strongarm anyone can easily result in anti-trust lawsuits or any one government group coming down on them to ensure they are competing fairly.

People and entities can only do so much incentivizing before it is a legal liability. It can also be seen as intimidation depending on how they would attempt to strongarm someone, plus it would be possibly stepping on the rights of the other involved companies quite easily.

So as Tito mentioned, "It doesn't work that way"

Escrito originalmente por FOXDUDE:

But prior to that, Valve 100% could have strongarmed ubisoft to stop that double launcher nonsense. Steam missed their window to do that, and they still ended up without new ubisoft games in the end.

Except any company making a video game can decide if they want to use a launcher or not, I doubt they would let Steam (Valve) attempt to strongarm them, especially since the Dev receives the larger cut and can decide if Valve receives any cut, by selling on their site instead, seeing how Ubisoft is basically its own thing lately, I would say people would rather release their games however they like without interference.

Steam is a store, not a dictator, nor some shady entity trying to push other companies around. They sit back and collect money by offering more services than the competition, allowing Devs/Publishers to decide what their vision of a game and its distribution/login and possible DRM is.

[FOXDUDE69]

Escrito originalmente por Crashed:

Denuvo isn't even relevant to this thread; there is no launcher or account needed, only misinformation.

Backseat moderating is against the rules. And it was relevant for the point I was making.

[Brian9824]

Escrito originalmente por Tito Shivan:

Escrito originalmente por Crazy Tiger:

I can't understand why people want to limit others purchasing options based on a personal preference. It has nothing to do with "standard", but merely personal preference.

Quite easy to understand. It all boils down to thinking Steam can strongarm publishers into not adding those launchers.
It doesn't work that way.

Yep and with other stores like Microsoft, Epic, etc if they try to strongarm them they will just push them away and onto other stores.