Steam keeps on winning

Steam doesn't enforce anything. They provide a very weak opt-in DRM that they literally tell developers they should expect will by bypassed. There are plenty of actual DRM free games on Steam.

People use Steam instead of GoG because Steam works and provides a wide array of value adding features and GoG doesn't.

Ddgewddtrfft
- If it's actual ownership instead of availability, then according to GOG's own EULA, you don't own the games there either.
  
  Wouldn't even matter anyway. If either service dies the games are gone unless you go through the hassle of manually backing up every single one - which you can do with the majority of games on Steam too.
  
  No, you can't.
  
  And that's a big "unless". I actually do have a stored backup of my GOG library installers (of the ones where I don't own a physical copy, anyway). GOG could disappear into thin air tomorrow and I would lose zero access. Not so with Steam.
  
  Yes you can. Just because you don't make a backup of one over the other doesn't mean it isn't possible. lol
  
  I don't think people get what I'm saying.
  
  On Steam you can back up game files only in the tiny fraction of games that ship with no DRM. Cases where you have to break DRM to make a backup are not "making a backup". If that's your standard you may as well just download a cracked copy later.
  
  On GOG you specifically get an option to download a stand-alone installer for every game in the service.
  
  Not the same.
  
  I am starting to understand you but it’s taking a lot of work tbh
  
  Many steam games already have no DRM and ones that use Steam Launcher presence can be launched using a Steam Launcher emulator.
  
  Ones you have to worry about are Denuvio games that aren't cracked (you can keep track of them here).
  
  You know what? You guys keep making the same argument, I guess I'll just have to keep giving the same answer.
  
  How many is many? PC Gaming Wiki lists 1000 DRM free games in Steam's library. That is 2.6% of the service, by their count.
  
  And all you get from those is the ability to rip loose game files, which is not the same as having an installer or a portable installation. GOG will let you download a backup installer of every game on the service. Not the same thing.
  
  Adam af af AC f fe
  
  How could I possibly have it backwards? I manually backed up my installers. I don't even know what you think "having it backwards" means. You think I'm misremembering downloading the installer files and backing them up? You think I did that on Steam and somehow forgot?
  
  No, I don't have it backwards, that's how it works. There are terabytes of data on my backup drives to account for it.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  I am losing my mind.
  
  Have you guys never even tried any PC storefront that isn't Steam? And if so, why are you arguing about easily verifable facts? Go check it out, see if it's for you.
  
  GOG does have a launcher, it's called GOG Galaxy. It's... fine to good, depending on what you want to do with it. That will download, install and patch games for you, just like Steam does.
  
  The launcher is optional, though. If you don't want to use it, you can download installer files from the GOG site or from the launcher itself. Those are yours to store as backups. This also allows you to snapshot earlier patches and do other goo preservation stuff if that's your thing. Steam has none of those features.
  
  You can either take my word for it or go check it out, but seriously, I'm not lying to you. Why is this an argument every time? Why are there fanboys for digital distribution services? None of this makes sense.
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  Wfbwrhwrhqbqdb
  
  "You know what I am talking about colloquially"
  
  I must not, because I see zero difference between Steam and GoG in this regard other than the fact that Steam provides a bunch of side services that GoG does not. Otherwise they're both just selling you a revokable license to play a game.
  
  Wfwbwfnwfnwfneg ge
  
  It kinda sounds like you dont either, tho
  
  Wfbwrnwrnwtnwfn
  
  When people say “I own the game” these days they are generally saying there is no DRM or other factor preventing their passing it around for whatever reason
  
  That's why I said:
  
  If it's actual ownership instead of availability
  
  The context is that the person I was responding to said they use GOG because they 'own' the game, in response to someone else saying that there are games on Steam with zero DRM that you can also buy.
  
  Frankly, with the 'availability' argument you also don't need Steam to play them and could copy them over to a PC that's never had Steam installed and play them as well.
  
  "I'm right and you're wrong". Colloquially, of course.
  
  Thanks for helping to derail the conversation you weren’t a part of. Really appreciate it.
- People prefer Steam to GoG because Steam is a massively better product than GoG. It's not complicated.

I mean it's not technically a monopoly. Steam's advantage is that Valve is a private company and can do what they like, it's not without problems, but it does a great job where it needs to.

Steam also sells DRM-free games, so that's just mis-information. You can copy the files anywhere and use them without Steam running, it's entirely on the developers/publishers to make that decision. Cyberpunk 2077 is DRM-free on Steam, just like GOG. Steamworks just has an incredible feature set for developers to use, so for multiplayer games it's unlikey to see DRM-free anymore as people would rather invite via a friendslist than sharing IPs directly, having to open ports etc.

Not misinformation. GOG requires games to be DRM free to sell there, Steam provides first party DRM (being crackable doesn't make it not DRM) and it actively encourages developers publishing on Steam to double down with more GaaS features and secondary DRM in their instructions to developers.

Why do people feel the need to shill for billionaires? I don't get it.
- Nobody is shilling. It's completely up to the developers/publishers to sell DRM-free or not - CDPR aren't the holy grail company you think they are.
  
  every game you buy isn’t yours, it’s effectively an unlimited time rental that can be withdrawn for a multitude of reasons. GOG and the like actually sell you the game proper such that it’s yours to keep forever no matter what happens to GOG
  
  This is mis-information - every game you buy on Steam is not DRM and thus is not subject to the 'digital license' approach.
  
  Look, I like GOG, I will buy from there if I can't get a DRM-free version on Steam and the deal is good, I own many GOG titles.
  Steam 1000% needs to label what games have DRM or not and embrace that with a category.
  
  Nobody is shilling? This entire post is called "Steam keeps on winning", sharing a link to an article about how other competitors are becoming less relevant. The shilling is gleeful at this point.
  
  And hey, no, I don't claim that CDPR is "the holy grail". You want me to give them crap? I have multiple active grudges. Why is Galaxy so slow when fully packed? Why can't I cull games imported from integrations if they're not gonna bother to cache the DB and insist on auditing on load? Why is the browser in their launcher slower than opening their own store on Firefox? Will they ever stop with the surveys about the Discovery view? It's bad enough that you started inserting ads in the launcher, you don't need to pester me about it every time I open the thing.
  
  I don't need GOG to be perfect to tell you Valve isn't your friend. GOG is, though, actually DRM free. Steam is not. They will let you upload a DRM free game if you want, but they don't recommend it, they actively want you to use Steamworks, and even when you do that, they recommend you add a second layer of DRM to your game.
  
  That sucks.
  
  They also overmonetize their games aggressively, insist on rather toxic MTX and aggressively crowdsource as many parts of their business as they can, just like any other tech startup.
  
  And they have the most feature-rich launcher, great controller support and it's cool that they want to safeguard against Windows having a monopoly on PC gaming.
  
  Neither of those big companies is my firend or yours and if they want either of us to sell their product they should pay us for it.
  
  Why are you shilling for GoG? This whole comment thread is so funny to me. Like a hour ago I saw comment on another post that said GoG is turning to shit. If I find it I will copy it here.
  
  Here it is:
  
  Pushing a shitty launcher, selling abandoned games, selling incomplete games, putting DRMs on multiplayer, selling a lot of low quality games, not expanding their overworked team despite the profits they make, etc. It got much worse with the success of the Witcher3 and has kept on going down.
  
  I think there's even a browser extension that is used to mark shitty games on gog, that have missing features or DRMs. Funny for a platform that has the motto of selling hand-picked, DRM-free games.
- Not misinformation. GOG requires games to be DRM free to sell there
  
  Misinformation: GoG allows DRM games in their store: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/page1
  
  Also to address another common misinformation, the one about steam being rent and Gog being buy, this is from GoG terms and licences:
  
  You have the personal right to use GOG content and services. This right can be suspended or stopped by us in some situations.
  
  Long story short, they're also selling you a licence, same thing steam gets shitted for.
  
  Steam provides first party DRM (being crackable doesn't make it not DRM)
  
  True
  
  and it actively encourages developers publishing on Steam to double down with more GaaS features and secondary DRM in their instructions to developers.
  
  False. Valve does not encourage or force you to use their DRM, in fact you don't need to use Steam's API to publish a game on steam, it just makes your life a lot easier than having to manually write the code to do the things that Steam already does for you, so most lazy Devs just rely on that. Some Devs don't, and those games are sold on Steam as well, which is why you can simply copy them and play on other machines, even multiplayer, I know this because I've done that with several games to show them to my friends and push them to buy them.
  
  Why do people feel the need to shill for billionaires? I don't get it.
  
  You're shilling for Gog, you're attacking steam because you don't know that they sell DRM-free games, saying GoG is better without knowing that GoG sells DRMd games, so they're the same.
- Steam provides first party DRM (being crackable doesn’t make it not DRM) and it actively encourages developers publishing on Steam to double down with more GaaS features and secondary DRM in their instructions to developers.
  
  The copy of Krita that I bought on Steam not only has no DRM at all, it even runs completely independent of Steam. I have several DRM-free games from Steam as well. It's definitively optional.

My issue is that I use Linux, so I either need to download games from their website (no automatic updates) or use a third party client like Heroic launcher. If GOG had first class support for Linux, I'd probably buy most of my games through them.

But Linux users are a small minority, so the main issue is probably selection. Steam has pretty much all of the popular games, whereas GOG only has the DRM-free games. It's the same problem Linux has had and continues to have, why would you use platform A if platform B is the same price and has more of the games you want to play? Splitting your library across services sucks, so most people will go with the one has most of their games.

The solution here imo it's make licenses portable so you can easily switch platforms. If I want to move my brokerage, I just need to fill out a form and wait a few days. If I want to switch game platforms, I need to repurchase or abandon my games. That doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is a real reason people don't switch.

What's wrong with Heroic launcher? Being a linux user you should be used by now to workarounds and alternative solutions to various problems, so why is that tool (that is pretty good and can even be used on steam deck) a deal breaker? That small inconvenience pales in comparison to benefits of DRM-free games and not supporting a monopoly IMHO.
- My experience with Heroic has been... okay. I think the big issue is that a lot of tools are built with Steam in mind and not Heroic, which unintentionally adds friction.
- I’m using epic on Steam deck.
  
  I have to tweak something every now and then but I just won a Star Wars Resurgence giveaway here on Lemmy and with a tiny bit of work it runs perfectly.
  
  I’ve been using Linux since Redhat 5.2 so I’m definitely used to workarounds and alternative solutions haha.
- It just... doesn't work as well as Steam. For example:
  
  cloud saves between devices - sometimes I'll decide to play on my Steam Deck, and later on my PC
  
  controller configuration
  
  game selection - GOG/publisher issue, not Heroic
  
  It works fine, but given that it's worse than Steam and GOG doesn't support it, I don't really see how it makes my life much better. Yeah, DRM-free is nice, but many (most?) if my games on Steam are also DRM-free, they're just not labeled or packaged as such, so I can often just copy the game directory somewhere and run w/o Steam running.
  
  So GOG needs to give me a better reason to use their service. I'm not going to jump through hoops just because "DRM-free" is advertised instead of hidden. For me, that means one of the following:
  
  Galaxy client on Linux
  
  official backing of Heroic launcher (financial and listing on their website)
  
  commitment to an open API (these unofficial docs exist, but it can change at any time)
  
  Pick one and I'll feel more confident in using their products.
Or maybe the solution is to use the right tool for the job? I don't complain that I can't play PS5 games because I made the choice to buy a Switch or that I can't play the newest AAA game because I bought a Chromebook or that I can't go see my friend that lives 600km away over the weekend because I made the choice to only own a bike!

A lot of Linux users talk like entitled children wherever there's a discussion about Epic. I can't count the number of times their gripe can be summarized to "Fuck Epic for not supporting Linux!" They made the choice to use Linux instead of Windows, that means they were ready to make some sacrifices when it comes to what's available, they can't complain about GOG or Epic not supporting their favorite OS when they never said they would! And why would they? Nvidia hardware works when it feels like it, AMD is better but still not as user friendly as on Windows and who's getting shat on when a game won't work? Who's asked for a refund because a game won't launch because of an issue with the user's Arch install? All that trouble for what % of gamers compared to Windows?

When you run a business you don't go chasing after that extra 1% of clients unless you're very well established and at the moment there's only one distributor that is in a position where it's worth it to give themselves all that trouble and it's Valve, the others have much more to gain from trying to take a bite from their 70% hold on 96% of the market.
- Entitled? There's certainly some of that among Linux users, and there's definitely a lot of that among Windows users as well (not sure on percentages of each). However, it doesn't fit me at all.
  
  I used Linux before Steam released their client for it, so I just limited myself to the games that did work (Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, and later Factorio; some Starcraft and League of Legends in WINE). When Steam came, I suddenly had a lot more options, and then later they released Proton and I had way more choices.
  
  If Steam never came to Linux, I'd still be playing the few games that work properly. I use my computer primarily for other stuff, and games are just something I do for fun. If games aren't there, I do other stuff for fun.
  
  So if a platform makes it easy to play games, I'll give them money. If they don't, I'll avoid them. It's really as simple as that. I don't feel entitled to GOG or EGS porting their clients to Linux, but I'm not going to use their service until they do.
- Windows being a monopoly isn't a good thing either.
  
  In fact, I'd say it's almost worse than steam having a monopoly on video games, because windows is an operating system.
- You sound like you dont understand what linux, or windows for that matter, even is. As if you just hear the name a lot online, and think its like a form of digital diet.
  
  Dude, I've been building computers since Windows 3.0 and I've run all types of OS. If I choose to buy a Mac tomorrow morning who am I to bitch that company X doesn't support OSX? Well it's the same if you install Linux and in the vast majority of cases the arguments against game launchers that aren't Steam that come from Linux users are either outdated stuff (no shopping cart, no friends list...) or pure entitlement like they were owed support for their OS. Well no, you knowingly make the choice to install an OS that is historically known not to have much support from gaming companies, that's on you and it doesn't justify being mad at them. As I said, I can't be mad at Valve if I can't play my Steam games on my laptop if I bought at Chromebook, well that's exactly the discourse of most Linux users that are mad at Epic or GOG.
  
  The only one who comes across as mad here is you. Saying "if you don't support the system I use I am not going to give you money" is not mad, it is just common sense.
  
  There's a difference between saying "I won't give you money" and "Your product is a piece of shit"
  
  You sound insanely intitled, so its very funny having you throw that around

I think it says something that people still prefer Steam in spite of all that. Even people who pirate games appreciate it. Convenience is a wonderful thing and most people don't really care to own if the game they want will be there when and if they need it.

Convenience is paramount. It's why the in-app purchases that are most likely to be bought in games by the most people (not counting whales) are ones that make the game experience more convenient, rather than just giving special currency.

I have been playing computer games since the late 90s and for me steam hits all the important things with few of the downsides that existed prior to an online storefront.

Games had DRM prior to steam and other online services. A key you had to keep track of, something from the instructions, or in some cases an online authentication process. All of these could be lost or the online component be retired and you ended up needing to hack the games anyway.

Games often had issues over time due to a lack of ongoing support. Driver issues or other problems might cause a game that previously worked to fail after a decade. The earliest game I remember with that issue was Crescent Hawks Revenge which was tied to the processor speed and over time it sped up so fast that it was unplayable as games got faster. Again, it was necessary to hack the game or the PC to address the issue. If the games did have updates, they were often tedious to find and install.

Games on PC have pretty much always been a license to use and not actual ownership. If you read the EULA you were banned from hacking to fix the issues I already mentioned just to get it to play.

Then there is a personal thing I noticed which was that I didn't want to put forth any effort for older games just to play them. Like, sure I might want to give it a spin for an hour, but not if it took an hour to address issues due to changes in hardware or software since I last played it.

So along comes steam and while it had a rough start, it solved all of my computer gaming issues. Games were perpetually maintained, so if I bought an older game it would most likely work on current hardware. Sales meant I could afford to try out new games at a decent price! Games updated automatically when one was available and I didn't need to do anything extra! Every game I have purchased from steam can be downloaded on a whim and be expected to play. Maybe there are some exceptions, but I haven't run into any.

Only one game I purchased stopped working because it was multiplayer only and the servers shut down. Owning it outright wouldn't have mattered.

While it is possible that steam could shit the bed at any point in time and I could lose all the games on it, the value for the money has been totally worth it. I am glad that there are alternates and that GOG exists for DRM free versions of games, but the ease of use and reliability that I have had with steam has made it worth far more than I have paid into it.

Steam has got to be the most loved monopoly ever. It’s inherently toxic to the gaming community

Steam isn't a monopoly but Windows is. Money earned on Steam goes into developing open source technologies that undermine the Windows monopoly.

We've been really lucky that Steam hasn't been enshittified yet but it's just a matter of time, so I am happy that alternatives like GOG exist, and yes = even alternatives like Epic. Doesn't matter if my library is spread around if I can just launch anything from playnite anyway.

I think the points about GOG being DRM free and selling you the game (not just a license) need to be made as often as possible.

I am going to try to look there first from now on because of this.

I think the points about GOG being DRM free and selling you the game (not just a license) need to be made as often as possible.

Just because there is no DRM on GOG doesn't mean that the games aren't just licensed. Copyright law doesn't get magically circumvented. You aren't allowed to sell the GOG downloads. All GOG allows you to do is to make backups of the games you licensed.

I think people actually realised back in the mid-to-late 2010s. The paid mod debacle, the shlock that kept going through, the failure of Steam Machines in their attempt to move to Linux... you get the idea. It was to the point where people were flat-out cheering for Epic Games joining the scene when they attached a storefront to their Fortnite launcher, which is unthinkable now.

True, Epic could have provided good competition, but instead of gaining the trust of potential users and building a feature rich store - they immediately went down the most anti-consumer route they could with exclusive deals and free game bait, all while pretending they are the good buys and Valve are an evil-mega corp. The pot calling the kettle black. So yeah, fuck Epic Games.
- The free games system isnt anti consumer. And the exclusives are an industry standard, that steam also is involved in.
  
  You have a laundry list of actual hostile practices, why did you pick the two that arent?
  
  Permanently Deleted
  
  If you think me giving you things you want that cost you money elsewhere for free is anti-you, you shouldnt be having this conversation. Full stop. Video games arent meth.
  
  No, steam isn't "also involved" in paying publishers to take their games off of other platforms.
  
  Steam "exclusives" exist because every other platform is too dogshit to bother making a business relationship with.
  
  Exclusives are not paying publishers to remove games from platforms. Those are two completely different things.
  
  If you do not understand that simple fact, you probably shouldnt be wading into this discussion.
  
  Yes, they are. That's what exclusive means.
  
  Only being on one platform because no other platform makes business sense is not an exclusive. An exclusive means an exclusivity contract.
  
  But even if you lie and pretend your version is an "exclusive", it absolutely is not "steam playing the exclusive game", because that unconditionally would require steam actively incentivizing staying off of other platforms.
  
  You let me know when you parse this out
  
  Don't bother, this guy is just a troll. Look at all his other responses lmao.
  
  Did you call me a troll because I caught you out calling free things anti consumer?
  
  If Im the troll, why did you delete your comment? Dick move dude
It was to the point where people were flat-out cheering for Epic Games joining the scene

Windows users maybe, Linux users liked that Steam Machines resulted in a bunch of native Linux ports of high-profile games such as Borderlands 2 or X-Com.
I mean, yes, there will always be a minority (often quite vocal) who will cheer on the failure of any platform. No matter how good or bad it is.

They weren't by any stretch, an effective representation of the userbase. Most either stuck with Steam or installed the Epic launcher as well to get some free games.