How many game launchers have you installed ?

[timecop]

I generally install all of them. Then I get OCD by seeing so many software doing the same thing but badly compared to steam. Then I uninstall every one of them including the games that use them.
I guess I'll stop buying games that use other launchers. I should have refunded 2042 when I had the time.

[my new friend]

From the last time it was brought up, "My taskbar is so full. https://imgur.com/a/lZcpo1H "

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por LowJack_VA1:

Publicado originalmente por Chavasse:

LowJack thanks for this..didn’t know it existed!

You're very welcome!! :dracul:

And also, Playnite is a neat little tool too.

It's a really light and easy to read front end where you can bung games from a whole host of sources - Steam, Epic, Gog, Origin. I use it.

[Wizardhermit]

Steam

Origin (which I almost never use)

Battlestate (for Escape from Tarkov).

[Halo]

I think the idea of the original post is slightly loaded and the respondents gave the answers they wanted to air and the poster got the answers they wanted to hear, i.e. only Steam unless forced to.

So to upset the apple cart - any and all of them that I need to play whatever games I buy at discount of Steam or more commonly now get for free that are on my wishlist.

If large companies want to give me $60 titles to use their launcher, fine by me, especially if I wanted them anyway.

If you all want to sit in your ivory towers and look down on us frail and imperfect mortals who get $100+ of software of a month for free - you go ahead.

While you sit surrounded by the warm glow of contributing to Valve and the software developer I will be spending that $100 a month on things I need.

And fascinating fact - at no time in the past 18 years has Steam been so irrelevant to me, I have used it the least ever and of all the launchers it engages me the least.

In fact the main activity I have on Steam now is managing my wishlist of games I got elsewhere.

[Jamebonds1]

Not recommend to do that without disabled auto start, but I have Steam and Origin.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por Halo:

I think the idea of the original post is slightly loaded and the respondents gave the answers they wanted to air and the poster got the answers they wanted to hear, i.e. only Steam unless forced to.

So to upset the apple cart - any and all of them that I need to play whatever games I buy at discount of Steam or more commonly now get for free that are on my wishlist.

If large companies want to give me $60 titles to use their launcher, fine by me, especially if I wanted them anyway.

If you all want to sit in your ivory towers and look down on us frail and imperfect mortals who get $100+ of software of a month for free - you go ahead.

While you sit surrounded by the warm glow of contributing to Valve and the software developer I will be spending that $100 a month on things I need.

And fascinating fact - at no time in the past 18 years has Steam been so irrelevant to me, I have used it the least ever and of all the launchers it engages me the least.

In fact the main activity I have on Steam now is managing my wishlist of games I got elsewhere.

Yup, I've never understood this point.

It's all a bit like the idiot platform monogamy we get with consoles. It's chidlish - I must only have one console and I will make up ♥♥♥♥ to defend it for all my might. Never understood that.

It's possibly even worse in this situation as I've seen many say they don't want cluttering with loads of launchers?

What?

Even if you had twelve lanuchers, they're just icons on a desktop and files on a pc. Not like there's only a tiny bit of space there. It seems truly weird to me.

[MonkehMaster]

battlenet and steam, the rest are garbage, that aside, i actively avoid or bypass third party launchers.

[MonkehMaster]

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Publicado originalmente por Halo:

I think the idea of the original post is slightly loaded and the respondents gave the answers they wanted to air and the poster got the answers they wanted to hear, i.e. only Steam unless forced to.

So to upset the apple cart - any and all of them that I need to play whatever games I buy at discount of Steam or more commonly now get for free that are on my wishlist.

If large companies want to give me $60 titles to use their launcher, fine by me, especially if I wanted them anyway.

If you all want to sit in your ivory towers and look down on us frail and imperfect mortals who get $100+ of software of a month for free - you go ahead.

While you sit surrounded by the warm glow of contributing to Valve and the software developer I will be spending that $100 a month on things I need.

And fascinating fact - at no time in the past 18 years has Steam been so irrelevant to me, I have used it the least ever and of all the launchers it engages me the least.

In fact the main activity I have on Steam now is managing my wishlist of games I got elsewhere.

Yup, I've never understood this point.

It's all a bit like the idiot platform monogamy we get with consoles. It's chidlish - I must only have one console and I will make up ♥♥♥♥ to defend it for all my might. Never understood that.

It's possibly even worse in this situation as I've seen many say they don't want cluttering with loads of launchers?

What?

Even if you had twelve lanuchers, they're just icons on a desktop and files on a pc. Not like there's only a tiny bit of space there. It seems truly weird to me.

not everyone wants to deal with 100's of game launchers, including passwords/accounts, just to simply play a game(s).

1 is enough, i will tolerate 2 at best, but nothing more, those 2 are steam and battlenet for me, the rest wont be touching my pc.

[timecop]

Publicado originalmente por MonkehMaster:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Yup, I've never understood this point.

It's all a bit like the idiot platform monogamy we get with consoles. It's chidlish - I must only have one console and I will make up ♥♥♥♥ to defend it for all my might. Never understood that.

It's possibly even worse in this situation as I've seen many say they don't want cluttering with loads of launchers?

What?

Even if you had twelve lanuchers, they're just icons on a desktop and files on a pc. Not like there's only a tiny bit of space there. It seems truly weird to me.

not everyone wants to deal with 100's of game launchers, including passwords/accounts, just to simply play a game(s).

1 is enough, i will tolerate 2 at best, but nothing more, those 2 are steam and battlenet for me, the rest wont be touching my pc.

I get OCD by seeing those icons. I like everything as minimal as possible. I just installed GOG and seems to be working fine for now.

[Dynamonic]

I exclusively game on Steam, and this is largely due to the fact that I’ve had my account for almost as long as Steam existed (to play Half-Life 2), and have amassed a massive collection of games on here over the years.
That, and the feature set on Steam is simply awesome!

Valve were investing in PC gaming through Steam when the rest of the industry had declared it dead, but they’ve all now realised their mistake far too late for me to warrant splitting my collection across other launchers for the trickle of games you can’t get here.

The other launchers I have installed in Origin, Ubisoft Connect and the Rockstar Games Launcher only launch when the Steam releases that require them start them. I never use them outside of that.

If my book, if you want me to buy and play your game, you’ll release it here on Steam.

[crunchyfrog]

Publicado originalmente por MonkehMaster:

Publicado originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Yup, I've never understood this point.

It's all a bit like the idiot platform monogamy we get with consoles. It's chidlish - I must only have one console and I will make up ♥♥♥♥ to defend it for all my might. Never understood that.

It's possibly even worse in this situation as I've seen many say they don't want cluttering with loads of launchers?

What?

Even if you had twelve lanuchers, they're just icons on a desktop and files on a pc. Not like there's only a tiny bit of space there. It seems truly weird to me.

not everyone wants to deal with 100's of game launchers, including passwords/accounts, just to simply play a game(s).

1 is enough, i will tolerate 2 at best, but nothing more, those 2 are steam and battlenet for me, the rest wont be touching my pc.

Except that's not my point.

I never adderssed whether people LIKE having a few launchers or one.

I was aaddressing the point that those who make up stupid ♥♥♥♥ to support the idea that they can't use loads of launchers. Those will make up stupid ♥♥♥♥ as I referenced and it's hilarious.

[MoonC A T]

Steam and Epic. Will gladly add more for the right game.

[Sazzouu]

I have Steam, Origin and Ubisoft Connect. The first one I am actually using actively. The other two are just installed because they are needed for some games even on Steam.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

I've got GOG Galaxy, Steam, and Uplay. I once had Battle.net but never used it much. I could get EA Origin.

None of them start on system startup for me. I only run what I need to run.

I used to have Steam running pretty frequently because that was how to access the bulk of my PC collection and also communicate with a variety of friends, but then Steam had its big UI update in October 2019 which made things work a lot worse, and so I've used Steam a lot less since then.

I've considered getting Playnite, a launcher that's independent of any store and which is also open-source, but based on its screenshots I don't think it's really what I want anyway.

Besides, Galaxy already works as a universal launcher, if I really want one. And unlike Steam these days, Galaxy has List View!

Though Galaxy is not without hiccups. For example, to add your own choice of game you have to go through their semi-official list of games so you probably won't be able to find some more obscure indie games. Also, if you attach your Steam account to it (which you can do), it'll launch Steam to play Steam games...but it doesn't give editable launch parameters, so I can't tell Steam to launch with -no-browser which is how I normally launch Steam these days.

(-no-browser is a launch parameter that makes Steam not start any of the steamwebhelper.exe processes, which cuts out some features of the modern Steam client but there's still enough to launch games and Steam itself also launches faster and uses fewer resources this way.)

Uplay I basically don't use because I only have like one or two games on it.



All in all, though, I still prefer the launcher that comes by default on my computer. And by that, I mean File Explorer. It's simple enough and it's also super quick to use a built-in application in Windows to get to my agmes, whether they be the executables or batch files or shortcuts. I can use them any way I want, display them and sort them any way I want, rename the folders any way I want, make and delete shortcuts as I desire, and it's all integrated with my operating system. Plus I don't have to deal with strangely dark-colored application colors (now that all those old Steam skins that make things light are broken).

[[N]ebsun]

Steam installed
battle .net previously installed, but not now
origin previously installed, but not now
epic games previously installed, but not now

I don't want to have to deal with more than 1 game launcher, the less additional rubbish installed on my PC the better.