No wonder Gabe is a billionaire.

every new user is one new nail in the coffin of epic games. :)

Logged in user doesn't mean money in the coffers for Valve.

I haven't supported Steam for several years, yet I still have Steam auto login everyday when I turn my computer on. I have a few games I still enjoy playing through Steam, but I don't give them money. Any new game for me is through GoG.

neatfeatguyLogged in user doesn't mean money in the coffers for Valve.

I haven't supported Steam for several years, yet I still have Steam auto login everyday when I turn my computer on. I have a few games I still enjoy playing through Steam, but I don't give them money. Any new game for me is through GoG.

Logged in user may not mean a proportionate increase in sales, but it does increase the chance of selling something. People don't log in Steam because of free games like EPIC. So for them to log in, they are likely looking at what is on sale, and potentially buy something for themselves or as a gift. On the other hand, EPIC tend to have people logging in because of the free games. As a result, people log in to claim the game, but may or may not buy something in addition to the freebie. I feel the number to focus on is not the existing users like you and me, rather, it is increase in log in, which may mean new users.

Same here, I am logged in daily while doing umiversity stuff. Same on my Mother's laptop lol

This stat means nothing to me. It only reminded me to uninstall steam as I dont play games on launchers anymore, since I found safe FTPs with every game DRM free, and me actually owning them without external software.

No offence but enthusiasts thinking their behaviours in any way reflect the general populace or market trends will never stop being amusing. Steam is growing, streaming is growing, subscription models are also still growing. The fact that GOG and platforms like that can exist successfully is really a testament to how big the market got overall that there is a place for them even despite the industry going firmly in the opposite direction.

GerKNGevery new user is one new nail in the coffin of epic games. :)

I am still unsure why monopolies are considered a good thing.

sepheronxI am still unsure why monopolies are considered a good thing.

I'm unsure why an astroturfed "competitor" run by the worst wishy-washey waste of air tim sweeny is considered a good thing, but some people sing his praises for "competing" (read: bribing devs) with steam and bringing us glorious things like timed exclusives and platform exclusivity. How Wonderful!

Look at it this way: people like Steeam because, frankly, they've been the most lenient platform. You cna buy nearly anything, the forums are a wild west, you have uncensored user reviews and rampant sales on older software, built in chat software, a fantastic modding system through steam workshop, the most unobtrustive DRM option of any major publisher, community tabs for updates on games, the list goes on. Valve has created an entire ecosystem that doesnt FEEL like a walled garden, unlike every other competitor.

Is there stuff valve could improve? Absolutely. In the meantime, no competitor has ever come close to what valve offers, while whining about how unfair it is they are not as successful (read: tim sweeny).

I miss owning my games.

TheinsanegamerNI'm unsure why an astroturfed "competitor" run by the worst wishy-washey waste of air tim sweeny is considered a good thing, but some people sing his praises for "competing" (read: bribing devs) with steam and bringing us glorious things like timed exclusives and platform exclusivity. How Wonderful!

Look at it this way: people like Steeam because, frankly, they've been the most lenient platform. You cna buy nearly anything, the forums are a wild west, you have uncensored user reviews and rampant sales on older software, built in chat software, a fantastic modding system through steam workshop, the most unobtrustive DRM option of any major publisher, community tabs for updates on games, the list goes on. Valve has created an entire ecosystem that doesnt FEEL like a walled garden, unlike every other competitor.

Is there stuff valve could improve? Absolutely. In the meantime, no competitor has ever come close to what valve offers, while whining about how unfair it is they are not as successful (read: tim sweeny).

that's fine, I have nothing against steam. But wishing competition away is not a very good thing. Sweeny wont be able to forever bribe devs if the financial losses is anything to go by. Maybe then they will find other ways to become competitive without the need to bribe. The concept of what Epic is doing is no different than what consoles do. Difference is, you do not have to buy into the propriety hardware in order to gain access to said software. Instead, you already have the hardware, you just have access to the propriety software.

But at same time too, nothing stops a user from buying from Epic vs buying from steam. End result is the same - you dont actually own the game. You own it through their platform and if their platform goes, so does the games you purchased. Steam did some very sketchy stuff like blocking mods in the past. Nothing could stop them if they tried again. If they were a monopoly, it would give them more power to act against the consumer.

I rather we go back to a time where you purchase a game and own it. Only one I am aware of doing this is GOG where you can download the installer directly. At least that was the case. Haven't delved too much into PC gaming in a while.

neatfeatguyLogged in user doesn't mean money in the coffers for Valve.

I haven't supported Steam for several years, yet I still have Steam auto login everyday when I turn my computer on. I have a few games I still enjoy playing through Steam, but I don't give them money. Any new game for me is through GoG.

Same it’s always “on” for me whether I’m using it or not same as Discord…

We need more competition and anyone saying otherwise is not being reasonable.

rares495I miss owning my games.

Is the definition of owning your game having a physical copy?

Do you prefer the Xbox Game Pass alternative?

Bomby569We need more competition and anyone saying otherwise is not being reasonable.

There is plenty of competition.

1. Apple
2. Microsoft
3. Amazon
4. Google
5. Epic
6. GOG
7. ActivisionBlizzard

RavenasIs the definition of owning your game having a physical copy?

Do you prefer the Xbox Game Pass alternative?

Owning your games means being able to play them whenever you want without access to internet/launchers/whatever. The only way to achieve that is through physical copies or GOG installers.

rares495Owning your games means being able to play them whenever you want without access to internet/launchers/whatever. The only way to achieve that is through physical copies or GOG installers.

False. You can play the games offline (unless the games require internet connection or has a launcher, nothing to do with Valve).

Steam Support :: Offline Mode (steampowered.com)

The distribution of the games is via internet. Is your definition of owning a game having a physical copy?

sepheronxI am still unsure why monopolies are considered a good thing.

They really aren't a bad thing, per se. Rules allowing said monopolies to do whatever are the actual bad thing.

RavenasActivisionBlizzard

Not if it burns to the ground like it seems that it might do if they don't get their shit together :rolleyes:

windwhirlNot if it burns to the ground like it seems that it might do if they don't get their shit together :rolleyes:

True. I would rather their games be on Steam anyway.

RavenasThere is plenty of competition.

1. Apple
2. Microsoft
3. Amazon
4. Google
5. Epic
6. GOG
7. ActivisionBlizzard

you know what i mean, no there isn't.

Bomby569you know what i mean, no there isn't.

Lol? "I know what you mean" ?

There is plenty of competition. I listed it.

Bomby569We need more competition and anyone saying otherwise is not being reasonable.

arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/11/judge-dismisses-steam-antitrust-case-for-lack-of-factual-support/

Tell it to that judge then

RavenasFalse. You can play the games offline (unless the games require internet connection or has a launcher, nothing to do with Valve).

Steam Support :: Offline Mode (steampowered.com)

The distribution of the games is via internet. Is your definition of owning a game having a physical copy?

It's not false at all. If Steam is down for whatever reason, you can't install any game from your library.

rares495It's not false at all. If Steam is down for whatever reason, you can't install any game from your library.

No. You stated you can't play games offline. YOU CAN.

Being able to download games while offline? Please tell me the voodoo magic!

RavenasNo. You stated you can't play games offline. YOU CAN.

Being able to download games while offline? Please tell me the voodoo magic!

How would I play a game before installing it? Voodoo magic?

There is no need to download anything if you have a physical copy. Anything else?

RavenasLol? "I know what you mean" ?

There is plenty of competition. I listed it.

The same way bing or duck duck go are competitors of google. Sure.
There is "competitors". There is no real competition and that's what's important.

The definition of monopoly is the the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. In this case control.

rares495There is no need to download anything if you have a physical copy. Anything else?

I want to know the voodoo magic though!!

Anyway, glad you didn't try to defend that statement. I asked you if your definition of owning a game is having a physical copy? You could have just replied and state yes, rather than stating some nonsense.

Games being physical copies kind of sucks in my opinion. Why?

1. You are limited to the capacity of the physical format.
2. Most times, the disk must be grabbed to play the game.
3. Physical copies lead to more pirating, worse for developers.
4. I like to be able to download my games when and where I want, without bring my case of physical copies along with me.

To each their own. :clap:

Bomby569The same way bing or duck duck go are competitors of google. Sure.
There is "competitors". There is no real competition and that's what's important.

The definition of monopoly is the the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service. In this case control.

The definition of monopoly would be if Google purchased Bing and DuckDuckDuck to block them from the market, or if they didn't allow any others search engine on Android. That doesn't support anything you just said. You're stating Google is a monopoly because of market share, which doesn't make them a monopoly.

People prefer Google because it provides the best service. People prefer Steam because it provides them the best service.