Dark Souls Man
- Oct 24, 2017
I'd be interested to know how many people give a shit about most of that stuff.
from "Steam sucks/is stagnating/needs to step up"
to "Steam is the most feature-rich client for gamers and developers, but some people don't give a shit about most of that stuff",
that would be a massive and very welcome step forward for the discussion.
Can people not prefer Steam but also think that competition is good for them?
- All of them are still missing some great features, and many of them (with the exception of e.g. GoG) show no inclination at all of catching up.
- You are forced to use them (or just skip some games) only because of exclusives.
- Some of them have actually been stopped and/or gone out of business, taking your platform features (and sometimes library) with them.
- Steam has continued to innovate and extend its feature set regardless of the lack of progress its competitors made in catching up.
So, the vast majority of the effects seem negative -- smaller feature set, less reliable platforms, exclusives reducing choice.
Competition might well be good for me, sometimes, eventually, but so far, ~10 years of experience have shown that most "competition" in this space actually is not (and I'll continue to argue that this is because it's not actually competition if I can't buy the same game on each platform).
Just to note while reading through this again: GoG is the only platform that actually tries to both catch up on features (e.g. with Galaxy and the introduction of leaderboards) and offer an actual platform defining customer-facing feature over Steam: only allowing DRM free games.
It's also a platform that doesn't moneyhat exclusives. Coincidence? I think not.