this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
915 points (98.2% liked)
Gaming
3164 readers
342 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But honestly, what would be better?
No launchers at all? They do help to organize the game library, synchronize saves across devices, enable achievements and friend lists, make it possible to share game libraries, install all your games from a single place, have a shop to discover new games. Steam even provides basic APIs for games to enable multiplayer. Many of these things could be baked into the game, though that would be extra work some devs might not do.
One centralised launcher? Such a monopoly might lead to problems such as higher prices / less money for game devs (especially the good indie studios that don't have negotiation power), less innovation around that launcher and less effort towards a good experience with few bugs etc.
The problem isn't launchers like steam or origin etc. it's that when you install a EA game with steam you end up launching both steam and origin to play. Same with Ubisoft and Uplay.
The game should run without the specific launcher, so that it works with any launcher. Not this launcher inception nested dolls bullshit we have today