PC Gaming isn't locked in to one store, so why is the hate for Steam competitors?
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
I'm not sure how you consider Origin bloated. If anything, it's seriously lacking features. I'd much rather use Steam than any of the others, but the interface is in serious need of upgrades. If anything, Steam is slow and bloated.
I agree UPlay is an unnecessary piece of bloatware. It's like Ubisoft thought people loved GFWL and wanted their own. They were wrong.
That link just takes me to the homepage of uPlay.
If L4D is available on uPlay, it isn't available in Australia. I specifically searched for it on my client beforehand.
l4d is available on uplay
thehunter01
Banned
The real problem that people seem to have here, is that there library gets separated with different stores being used.
What people then throw out as conclusion is that everything different then there main store front is bad, because it gives them extra hassle.
What they fail to realize is that the problem isn't the different stores but is there own store trying to handicap them by making your software bound towards there library systems that only support select amount of titles.
Why does steam decide that i can't add battlefield 4 towards my library? because it's not something they sell? why does origin .... etc etc etc.
Exactly, i decide what i buy and how my library looks like, what i do with my games, to who i resell it, and who plays with it on party's. I don't need a program like steam to tell me what i can't do with my software that i bought.
A good DD solution would be:
You buy a game, you can install it into a library ( like steam origins whatever does atm ). But that library is not crippled by what a "company" accepts or does business with. The library program needs to be maintained by a company that has no relationships with such company's.
GOG is great, because it gives you total control over your library, but it's kinda a outdated solution as people just want to have a library in front of them that auto patches etc.
We need a program that acts like steam where you can add all your games bought from every digital store front towards, but doesn't wants to tie you towards there "idea's of pushing more numbers'. That program needs to shut down the moment you open up a game, needs to make you capable to trade games to wherever you want, and needs to be able to resell it.
Until something like that is going to happen. That gives you full control over your library without having to relay on what a company accepts you to add towards it. DD solutions are still a terrible place to buy games on.
What people then throw out as conclusion is that everything different then there main store front is bad, because it gives them extra hassle.
What they fail to realize is that the problem isn't the different stores but is there own store trying to handicap them by making your software bound towards there library systems that only support select amount of titles.
Why does steam decide that i can't add battlefield 4 towards my library? because it's not something they sell? why does origin .... etc etc etc.
Exactly, i decide what i buy and how my library looks like, what i do with my games, to who i resell it, and who plays with it on party's. I don't need a program like steam to tell me what i can't do with my software that i bought.
A good DD solution would be:
You buy a game, you can install it into a library ( like steam origins whatever does atm ). But that library is not crippled by what a "company" accepts or does business with. The library program needs to be maintained by a company that has no relationships with such company's.
GOG is great, because it gives you total control over your library, but it's kinda a outdated solution as people just want to have a library in front of them that auto patches etc.
We need a program that acts like steam where you can add all your games bought from every digital store front towards, but doesn't wants to tie you towards there "idea's of pushing more numbers'. That program needs to shut down the moment you open up a game, needs to make you capable to trade games to wherever you want, and needs to be able to resell it.
Until something like that is going to happen. That gives you full control over your library without having to relay on what a company accepts you to add towards it. DD solutions are still a terrible place to buy games on.
Dehumanizer
Member
You're defending Origin and uPlay? Are you serious???
Dota 2 is free-to-play and designed to take advantage of Steam specific features. Why would it be available on Uplay?
Steam isn't any better than Origin, in fact it's slower and less stable. Uplay is terrible though.
The ideal would be all games being DRM free with built-in extensions for various clients (raptr, xfire, steam, origin etc) so that you don't have to worry about Ubisoft's or Valve's egregious DRM schemes but at the same time have full platform-like integration with your service of choice. Alas, that's a pipe dream.
CS:GO is
dota 2 isn't, but that's pointless since it's free to play and you need a steam account anyway
SteveWinwood
Member
Why would dota be on any store? You don't buy it.
jim-jam bongs
Member
This OP is greatly overestimating the number of people for whom this is a genuine issue. There are a handful of "no Steam, no buy" people out there, but most people just prefer Steam and would rather take their business there when they have the choice.
Speaking for myself, I like being able to install a single piece of software on a new PC and have immediate access to my games. That won't stop me going elsewhere if I need to, but Steam is where my games are so that's where I tend to gravitate.
Speaking for myself, I like being able to install a single piece of software on a new PC and have immediate access to my games. That won't stop me going elsewhere if I need to, but Steam is where my games are so that's where I tend to gravitate.
KefkaPalazzo
Member
Take your pick
A. People like convenience and a centralized DRM makes sense for that.
B. Some like to brag about their steam game count for some strange reason.
C. Some are really bloated (See Uplay)
D. SOME ISH MADEZ BY EVILZ THEY IS (See Origin)
E. People like to complain
F. Steam did it good first and they are attached
G. All of the above.
A. People like convenience and a centralized DRM makes sense for that.
B. Some like to brag about their steam game count for some strange reason.
C. Some are really bloated (See Uplay)
D. SOME ISH MADEZ BY EVILZ THEY IS (See Origin)
E. People like to complain
F. Steam did it good first and they are attached
G. All of the above.
Why would a marketplace be out of the question on uPlay? uPlay is integrated into Steam, why not the other way around? Why not give players their preference of service?
I'm not saying people should use uPlay to play DotA2, but Valve games appear to be inconsistently available on other services and they like to trojan horse to their games on their own service. Shitting on EA for doing the same is hypocritical. There's plenty of other stuff you can get attack EA over, but if you're going after that practice then Valve is right there with them.
EDIT: Also the CS:GO link isn't working for me. It doesn't seem that any Valve game is available in Australia.
Multiple people in this thread have attested to the convenience of having all their games in one place. I have no idea if anyone does that for uPlay or why they would, but they should have that option right?
I'll grant you it's a small number on this forum, but I would bet almost everyone on this forum is an alpha consumer that influences the purchasing decisions of a lot of other people around them who aren't as interested in games. That is why the social side of this is so key and what Steam's community features get right.
A small number of very dedicated people can have a big effect on a lot of people.
I'm going to mostly treat this as an Origin vs Steam question as that's essentially what this boils down to as uPlay is all but unusable and the others aren't even really competitors in any normal use of the word. It's pretty simple for me. I really despise the way EA treats gamers and developers alike. That said I really enjoy games and they're an enormous publisher and I also happen to enjoy some of their first party titles like the Fight Night series, so I tolerate them on consoles. However, there is 0 chance I let them run their client on any of my PCs. On top of disliking them as a company, I also have 0 trust for them. If they could make a buck doing anything on my machine, for instance spying on my usage and directing advertising towards me based on that, I have 0 doubt they would. Apparently at one time they had a clause in their T&C authorizing them to do exactly that. I imagine it was only removed after extensive complaints. But of course that also means nothing as like all these joke T&C they undoubtedly include a clause at some point that basically says they can change them whenever and to whatever they like and if you continue using "your" software, you automatically agree to their new T&C.
I don't think I like this analogy. A Ferrari isn't always the most practical car. I actually think if you had to drive a Ferrari around as an every day car, it would do your fucking head in.
I agree, though it's still good that there are DRM-free games available too for people who don't want to use Steam. In fact, I'd like every game to have a DRM-free version, even though I'd always go with the Steam one.
But other DD clients? I would only care for them if they added features that Steam doesn't have (or that can't be easily implemented otherwise), which isn't the case with Origin and Uplay. Having the games split into different services helps no one.
No one said that you have no right to express your opinion about it but from a business perspective it is perfectly reasonable and rational to put your own product on your own E-shop.
Why would I want to share any profit with Steam, thus another company, when I can do the exact same thing? And why exactly it is greedy to do that? It is my product (s) to distribute.
What does it have to do with you as a gamer where I distribute the product if I deliver the product that I said I would deliver?
Unless you are working for Valve or you profit through Steam or you are a fanboy of Valve/Steam, why is it your business to dictate where a company should put its product and where it shouldn't and threat that if they do not put it in X location instead of Y location, you will not buy it?
What I am trying to say is that stating that unless a company A puts its product (s) to location B then you, the customer C will not purchase is an act going beyond gaming.
Is it extremely inconvenient that we have multiple Eshops for PC games? It is. Would it be ideal to buy every PC game in one place? It would be.
But as a gamer my priority is the state of the game and not whether I would get it digitally through Steam or through Origin because that is irrelevant.
Spoken like someone who has never used Origin. There is nothing slow or bloated about Origin, and half the games you buy through the service don't even require you to run it in the first place.
It is strange how people rage against company monopolies, but essentially want Steam to have a monopoly on the digital games front.
Origin does not bother me. UPlay is a bit wacky with its online forcing, but otherwise has done nothing bad to me either. Cloud saving for Origin games has actually worked better than Steam for me, although i have way more steam games in my Library.
Origin does not bother me. UPlay is a bit wacky with its online forcing, but otherwise has done nothing bad to me either. Cloud saving for Origin games has actually worked better than Steam for me, although i have way more steam games in my Library.
Did you even read what I wrote? They can put their game wherever they choose and add whatever hoops they want me to jump through, but they have no claim on my money, and I will make my decision to buy or not based on the whole situation - not just the state of the game.
While the game being good is important, we are reaching a point where there are already too many good games to realistically play all of them (certainly in my limited amount of time), so I get to be even more exclusive about where I put my money. Origin exclusivity is just not worth it when there are so many other good or great games that I still haven't been able to play.
Aretak
Member
uPlay has absolutely no reason to exist, but it doesn't stop me buying Ubisoft games (on Steam). Origin on the other hand does stop me from buying EA games. I wouldn't mind having to launch Origin ala uPlay if I could buy the games on Steam and have them in my library there. But I won't ever install it as long as EA keep holding their games to ransom via it.
Hari Seldon
Member
I don't really have a problem with Origin itself, at least not anymore. The problem is that I rarely boot it up so whatever sales they have going on I don't ever see. It is basically just EA's version of the battle.net launcher. I only use it when I'm playing a specific game and not any time else.
I think its relevant. Therefore it IS my business where they put it. Simple as that.
SteveWinwood
Member
what trading features on uplay would i be able to use to trade my dota 2 items
To all those talking about how competition is good.
This is not competition. Origin's keeping games as hostages, so to force people to adopt EA's platform. They're not building any loyalty, they're not winning over consumers for their great deals, community and infrastructure.
They just force you to play Battlefield, etc. through Origin. If that wasn't the case I doubt they'd have even half their user-base.
This is not competition. Origin's keeping games as hostages, so to force people to adopt EA's platform. They're not building any loyalty, they're not winning over consumers for their great deals, community and infrastructure.
They just force you to play Battlefield, etc. through Origin. If that wasn't the case I doubt they'd have even half their user-base.
GravityMan
Member
EA created Origin for one reason only: greed. Same could probably be said for Ubi and Uplay.
It's quite telling that EA was happy with Steam (the store) and Valve taking their 30% cut back in the day...but suddenly were not OK with it as of a few years ago due to Steam blowing up in popularity and EA wanting a bigger slice of the pie. EA is currently OK with places like GMG, etc. selling their games because those places are niche in terms of exposure. (Yes I know Amazon sells EA PC games too.)
As others pointed out, Valve only takes their cut on games sold through the Steam store; they do not take a cut on Steam keys. I view the storefront and client as two different things. If EA was smarter in their desire to want a larger slice of the whole pie, they would have been better off putting their games on their own website storefront (no Origin client) and sold Steam keys and have the games be Steamworks. They'd keep their games on Steam's store, but have nice incentives and sales to get gamers to buy their games on their own store. Much like GMG or GamersGate. This keeps things simple for the consumer (one client, one account...i.e. centralization).
There is little practical reason for Origin as a standalone client to exist...although admittedly the program has improved recently. Steam was already quite good before Origin existed...Valve is one of those companies that doesn't worry too much about competitors; they just do their own thing.
As for Uplay...that thing is just a bloated mess and screams "me too!"
It's quite telling that EA was happy with Steam (the store) and Valve taking their 30% cut back in the day...but suddenly were not OK with it as of a few years ago due to Steam blowing up in popularity and EA wanting a bigger slice of the pie. EA is currently OK with places like GMG, etc. selling their games because those places are niche in terms of exposure. (Yes I know Amazon sells EA PC games too.)
As others pointed out, Valve only takes their cut on games sold through the Steam store; they do not take a cut on Steam keys. I view the storefront and client as two different things. If EA was smarter in their desire to want a larger slice of the whole pie, they would have been better off putting their games on their own website storefront (no Origin client) and sold Steam keys and have the games be Steamworks. They'd keep their games on Steam's store, but have nice incentives and sales to get gamers to buy their games on their own store. Much like GMG or GamersGate. This keeps things simple for the consumer (one client, one account...i.e. centralization).
There is little practical reason for Origin as a standalone client to exist...although admittedly the program has improved recently. Steam was already quite good before Origin existed...Valve is one of those companies that doesn't worry too much about competitors; they just do their own thing.
As for Uplay...that thing is just a bloated mess and screams "me too!"
Fornaximus
Member
- Origin isn't that bad. I hate EA. I haven't bought an EA game since ME3. I considered getting Titanfall on PC if my friends were gonna get into it. Requiring Origin was just an easy out, although my pre-existing hatred of EA would have sufficed.
- Ubisoft isn't that bad. I HATE uPlay. I'm buying future Ubisoft titles on PS4 because of uPlay cancer on PC.
- Microsoft is bad and so is GFWL. GFWL is shutting down. Good.
That's about it. I've never heard of anyone shitting on GoG or any other distributor out there.
- Ubisoft isn't that bad. I HATE uPlay. I'm buying future Ubisoft titles on PS4 because of uPlay cancer on PC.
- Microsoft is bad and so is GFWL. GFWL is shutting down. Good.
That's about it. I've never heard of anyone shitting on GoG or any other distributor out there.
"Intrusive online DRM software". Yeah, that's exactly what Steam is. CEG isn't optional, not at all, and developers can't choose to release their games DRM-free, of course.
Being well informed is usually a good thing if you're going to enter any discussion. I know I'm being condescending, but spreading lies isn't a nice thing to do.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Fixed for reality. You make it sound as if you buy a game in the store you can avoid Steam which is not the case.
id love to post more in this thread but work calls.
FuKuy
Member
I really appreciate having different Webstores to choose from. BUT I love to have all my games and friends in one place, so at the end I prefer to choose only one service: STEAM.
Why? 10 years using the service have convinced me. STEAM have all I want, rather than Uplay or Origin, which, like GFWL does not add any interesting value to me: sharing screenshots, workshop, guides, achievements, cloud support, VAC, community features, etc.
I know how STEAM works, I trust this platform, my friends are there and I'm used to spend money on it.
I HATE to have so many different launchers, so many login information and different friend lists. If another service can not provide anything better then I'm not interested in creating a new account. PLEASE UBI, EA, Battle.net, STOP wasting money in your own service and embrace an open platform: Steam.
Why? 10 years using the service have convinced me. STEAM have all I want, rather than Uplay or Origin, which, like GFWL does not add any interesting value to me: sharing screenshots, workshop, guides, achievements, cloud support, VAC, community features, etc.
I know how STEAM works, I trust this platform, my friends are there and I'm used to spend money on it.
I HATE to have so many different launchers, so many login information and different friend lists. If another service can not provide anything better then I'm not interested in creating a new account. PLEASE UBI, EA, Battle.net, STOP wasting money in your own service and embrace an open platform: Steam.
The majority of companies don't function like Valve does. I'm perfectly fine with the borderline monopoly Valve already has. They've been adding some great features and working on amazing things over the past few years and doing it with no real "reason" to, other than them thinking it'd be a cool thing to do. They're not perfect but if anyone's going to have a monopoly I'd rather it be them than someone who has to answer to dumbass shareholders.
my problem is that a grand majority of these other pc platforms that have popped up are merely chasing the dollar rather than trying to put together a worthwhile store and creating a solid ecosystem on pc
other retailers that sell steam keys are great though, same with drm free retailers like gog, it's just platforms like uplay and origin that are worthless, because they're either trying to make a quick buck or are just useless bloatware
other retailers that sell steam keys are great though, same with drm free retailers like gog, it's just platforms like uplay and origin that are worthless, because they're either trying to make a quick buck or are just useless bloatware
Again, why can't Steam integrate their marketplace and trading? Ubisoft do it on Steam with uPlay.
I'm not saying uPlay is the ideal service for the game, but the point is clearly Valve are not interested in playing nice. The don't make all their games available on other services and they're region restricted at that. Shitting on EA for doing the same but not holding Valve up to the same standard is hypocritical, yes?
SteveWinwood
Member
Ubisoft does not integrate their marketplace and trading onto steam.
Because they don't have one.
unless youre talking about trading u points for hot wallpapers
People rage against exploitative monopolies.
Monopolies aren't inherently bad. What is bad is when companies exploitatively take advantage of monopolies to make more money for themselves at the expense of everybody who isn't them. Steam and Valve seem to show an interest that goes beyond their bottom line. EA is essentially the opposite.
I'd love to have a world where Valve competed against companies who were ideologically similar, but in this world it's a whole lot easier to get ahead being an EA than it is being a Valve. And as such I'd be perfectly happy for them to have the market all to themselves as, for now, they've shown 0 reason for them to not deserve my trust.
Helsinki Syndrome.
Liamario
Banned
Every one of them are completely unnecessary and most of them can't even be compared to the steam store in terms of catalogue.
I want all my games in the one place, I don't want to have to use origin because EA want more money. Origin and Uplay are nothing more than DRM in disguise.
So is Steam.
Just because it isn't a comparative 1:1 example doesn't mean it isn't possible. DotA2 could be accessed through other services, Valve could use their marketplace or they could sell items as DLC which uPlay supports. Whatever. They could make it work, they choose not to because they want all DotA2 gameplay to happen on their terms where they don't have to give a cut. Just like how EA wants the same for Titanfall. Do you get that?
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
So the fact that I own 3 games on Origin is what's preventing Valve from abusing me via EULA changes?
Origin is a non-competitor in its current form. It's not stopping Valve from doing anything because Valve's service is richer by orders of magnitude.
I get where you're coming from in terms of wanting some competition to exist, but I completely disagree if you think people should like Origin or UPlay because they allegedly fill that role.
When a good service is created that I actually want to install on my machine rather than having it forced as part of a game purchase, then I will be completely open to it. People hate Steam competitors because they suck, they aren't necessary, and they don't provide any competitive force.