Like I said, that you guys seem to be ignoring in the interest of just arguing for the sake of arguing: this is not all good or all bad. But competition in general is good, and should be encouraged, even if we criticize the specific decisions of some of the competition.
I think you're just arguing to argue. This actually affects me. A shooter I was interesting in playing is now no longer available because the publisher added Denuvo and moved it to an exclusive platform on Tencent/Epic.
Up until a couple days ago the publisher and studio were friendly to the Linux community. The previous 2 Metro games work on Ubuntu with native clients. They were advertising the game and I expected it might at least work through SteamPlay even if there wasn't a native client. Instead I got a big screw you promoting WIndows lockin and DRM. Of course I'm pissed.
I get it, and not to sound like a dick, but only about 2-4% of the private home (EDIT- personal sounded redundant here) PC market uses Linux. And you had to know that when you decided that was your OS of choice.
It's almost like importing a Russian car to the U.S. then bitching when most mechanics here in the U.S. won't/can't work on it.
That is true as for me I'm on Linux/Windows 10% of the time. I know what I am getting in too some games may work or may not work. All this competition with Valve and Epic is more making money for the dev not helpping the gamer in general.
Like I said, that you guys seem to be ignoring in the interest of just arguing for the sake of arguing: this is not all good or all bad. But competition in general is good, and should be encouraged, even if we criticize the specific decisions of some of the competition.
I think you're just arguing to argue. This actually affects me. A shooter I was interesting in playing is now no longer available because the publisher added Denuvo and moved it to an exclusive platform on Tencent/Epic.
Up until a couple days ago the publisher and studio were friendly to the Linux community. The previous 2 Metro games work on Ubuntu with native clients. They were advertising the game and I expected it might at least work through SteamPlay even if there wasn't a native client. Instead I got a big screw you promoting WIndows lockin and DRM. Of course I'm pissed.
I get it, and not to sound like a dick, but only about 2-4% of the private home (EDIT- personal sounded redundant here) PC market uses Linux. And you had to know that when you decided that was your OS of choice.
It's almost like importing a Russian car to the U.S. then bitching when most mechanics here in the U.S. won't/can't work on it.
That is true as for me I'm on Linux/Windows 10% of the time. I know what I am getting in too some games may work or may not work. All this competition with Valve and Epic is more making money for the dev not helpping the gamer in general.
Again, I don't see how that's even a bad thing. I'd rather the dev make the money than the publisher, as the developer creates the specifics of the game, which determines how much fun I'm having playing said game. Which is the point of my engaging in the hobby.
Obviously, that's watered down to a basic point, and there are caveats (publishers having a heavy-hand on the creative process, etc.), but the underlying principle remains true: devs create these experiences we all enjoy. In the case of digital storefronts, the "shopkeep's" role is merely to provide a virtual transaction bridge between devs and gamers.
Like I said, that you guys seem to be ignoring in the interest of just arguing for the sake of arguing: this is not all good or all bad. But competition in general is good, and should be encouraged, even if we criticize the specific decisions of some of the competition.
I think you're just arguing to argue. This actually affects me. A shooter I was interesting in playing is now no longer available because the publisher added Denuvo and moved it to an exclusive platform on Tencent/Epic.
Up until a couple days ago the publisher and studio were friendly to the Linux community. The previous 2 Metro games work on Ubuntu with native clients. They were advertising the game and I expected it might at least work through SteamPlay even if there wasn't a native client. Instead I got a big screw you promoting WIndows lockin and DRM. Of course I'm pissed.
I get it, and not to sound like a dick, but only about 2-4% of the private home (EDIT- personal sounded redundant here) PC market uses Linux. And you had to know that when you decided that was your OS of choice.
It's almost like importing a Russian car to the U.S. then bitching when most mechanics here in the U.S. won't/can't work on it.
I think the percentages are dependent on the country. For example, Germany I believe has a very high number of Linux users compared to the rest of Europe.
Like I said, that you guys seem to be ignoring in the interest of just arguing for the sake of arguing: this is not all good or all bad. But competition in general is good, and should be encouraged, even if we criticize the specific decisions of some of the competition.
I think you're just arguing to argue. This actually affects me. A shooter I was interesting in playing is now no longer available because the publisher added Denuvo and moved it to an exclusive platform on Tencent/Epic.
Up until a couple days ago the publisher and studio were friendly to the Linux community. The previous 2 Metro games work on Ubuntu with native clients. They were advertising the game and I expected it might at least work through SteamPlay even if there wasn't a native client. Instead I got a big screw you promoting WIndows lockin and DRM. Of course I'm pissed.
I get it, and not to sound like a dick, but only about 2-4% of the private home (EDIT- personal sounded redundant here) PC market uses Linux. And you had to know that when you decided that was your OS of choice.
It's almost like importing a Russian car to the U.S. then bitching when most mechanics here in the U.S. won't/can't work on it.
I think the percentages are dependent on the country. For example, Germany I believe has a very high number of Linux users compared to the rest of Europe.
None of the sites I've seen have it higher than 4% worldwide (or any specific country I could view; NetMarketShare will let you see the total market shares for free, but applying filters requires you be a paid member of the site). My estimate actually was a little generous. An example of the worldwide estimated market share:
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
I can shop for food online (and do), but having to be there to wait potentially hours for the delivery during which I could be interrupted at any moment, then have some random items dropped from the order because they were out of stock, is kind of annoying, even from just one supplier. I haven't had any such problems with downloading games, which can be done at my convenience.
If your personal priority is gaming on Linux, as seems to be the case for Torval, then yes, you definitely should be a big fan of Steam. But that is atypical.
That's not to say that it's irrelevant. Part of how you get a big market share is a few percent from this initiative, one percent from that one, and eventually it all adds up. But that's what Epic is working on, too: their own game Fortnite, a new free game every two weeks, a Metro Exodus exclusive, and so forth.
Whether or not Steam taking a 30% cut of sales is a good deal for developers could change with time. Getting, say, a Radeon HD 7870 worth of GPU performance for $200 would have been a terrific deal 10 years ago. Today, that would be hugely overpriced. The cost for a given amount of server processing power or Internet bandwidth has greatly decreased in that time, too.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
I can shop for food online (and do), but having to be there to wait potentially hours for the delivery during which I could be interrupted at any moment, then have some random items dropped from the order because they were out of stock, is kind of annoying, even from just one supplier. I haven't had any such problems with downloading games, which can be done at my convenience.
It's an analogy.. not a 100% proof comparison. Your anal retentiveness is really showing through... truly.
I'll say... again.. that the point is that some people like to buy things from one place, it's easier. How much easier in this case is not relevant, it's easier. Some might prefer the service or support they get from one place and stick to that. With storefronts it could also be the features offered. Some people just can't be bothered. To some it might just be tradition.
Telling people they should do things the way you do is narcissistic. If someone else doesn't want to use yet another launcher/storefront/whatever there are plenty of obvious reasons why they might feel that way.. stop telling people their choices are wrong. No one is telling 'you' that you shouldn't use more than one launcher if you want to.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
That's because the analogy doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the digital storefront situation.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
That's because the analogy doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the digital storefront situation.
Honestly, you guys are too literal and don't really know what the purpose of an analogy is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Remember when every MMO had it's own patcher/launcher?
How is this case of "too many storefronts" a whole lot different than that?
I'm not buying this kind of opinion.
It's like.. we all do our weekly food shopping, right? If we had to get bread from one store, fruit from a different store, milk from another, canned goods and cereal from another, frozen food from a different one, meat from another, soda from another, wine from another, etc. etc.
That analogy makes no sense. Its more like, we have one grocery store (PC) and people claim that one aisle (Steam) is better then another aisle (Epic Store) for one reason or another.
That argument works for consoles though!
Digital platforms on PC that sell games are different shops, literally. The analogy is fine.
We aren't buying games from 'PC' are we..?
If two grocery stores are several miles away from each other, it would take quite a bit of extra time to visit both. With digital stores on a PC, I can be in both at once and switch windows in a fraction of a second.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
We've already discussed this, you can shop for food online in this modern age just like you can for games. But that's all irrelevant.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
I can shop for food online (and do), but having to be there to wait potentially hours for the delivery during which I could be interrupted at any moment, then have some random items dropped from the order because they were out of stock, is kind of annoying, even from just one supplier. I haven't had any such problems with downloading games, which can be done at my convenience.
It's an analogy.. not a 100% proof comparison. Your anal retentiveness is really showing through... truly.
I'll say... again.. that the point is that some people like to buy things from one place, it's easier. How much easier in this case is not relevant, it's easier. Some might prefer the service or support they get from one place and stick to that. With storefronts it could also be the features offered. Some people just can't be bothered. To some it might just be tradition.
Telling people they should do things the way you do is narcissistic. If someone else doesn't want to use yet another launcher/storefront/whatever there are plenty of obvious reasons why they might feel that way.. stop telling people their choices are wrong. No one is telling 'you' that you shouldn't use more than one launcher if you want to.
You say that how much easier is not relevant. Except that the difference of how much easier is the whole point. There's an enormous difference between saving a second versus saving an hour, just like there's a difference between driving 56 in a 55 zone versus going 106 in a 55 zone.
You're the one trying to tell others what they have to do, not me. If you want to have your one favorite game store and ignore all games that aren't in that store, then go ahead. Just don't whine if that means you don't play some games that don't show up in that particular store.
Honestly, you guys are too literal and don't really know what the purpose of an analogy is.
Again, that's because some folks are hoping Valve's monopolistic position is met with major competition, as that's likely to result in good things for the industry all-round in terms of distribution services for devs and prices/availability of games for gamers. That's, like, the reason folks champion capitalism and the free market ideal.
Your counter has seemed to be "well maybe some of us don't feel like downloading another free launcher one time and then sometimes having to click this icon instead of that icon," which seems pretty small potatoes to many of us, apparently. The point of us contrasting the items of your analogy is to point out this very thing.
It's an analogy.. not a 100% proof comparison. Your anal retentiveness is really showing through... truly.
I'll say... again.. that the point is that some people like to buy things from one place, it's easier. How much easier in this case is not relevant, it's easier. Some might prefer the service or support they get from one place and stick to that. With storefronts it could also be the features offered. Some people just can't be bothered. To some it might just be tradition.
Telling people they should do things the way you do is narcissistic. If someone else doesn't want to use yet another launcher/storefront/whatever there are plenty of obvious reasons why they might feel that way.. stop telling people their choices are wrong. No one is telling 'you' that you shouldn't use more than one launcher if you want to.
You say that how much easier is not relevant. Except that the difference of how much easier is the whole point. There's an enormous difference between saving a second versus saving an hour, just like there's a difference between driving 56 in a 55 zone versus going 106 in a 55 zone.
You're the one trying to tell others what they have to do, not me. If you want to have your one favorite game store and ignore all games that aren't in that store, then go ahead. Just don't whine if that means you don't play some games that don't show up in that particular store.
Right, so you think telling people not to complain isn't telling them what to do? You gotta speak up if you want to affect change, or stop change in this case.
I didn't mean you specifically anyway, I guess I could have made that clearer.
I gave examples of reasons why people might not want to use loads of launchers other than the amount of time or effort needed to use them which is why it's not relevant. It's not the only reason. You are ignoring that and continuing on the same track...
It's going to be mental if we get to point where there's like 50 different launchers though...
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Honestly, you guys are too literal and don't really know what the purpose of an analogy is.
Again, that's because some folks are hoping Valve's monopolistic position is met with major competition, as that's likely to result in good things for the industry all-round in terms of distribution services for devs and prices/availability of games for gamers. That's, like, the reason folks champion capitalism and the free market ideal.
Your counter has seemed to be "well maybe some of us don't feel like downloading another free launcher one time and then sometimes having to click this icon instead of that icon," which seems pretty small potatoes to many of us, apparently. The point of us contrasting the items of your analogy is to point out this very thing.
You don't have to agree.
I said somewhere earlier in this thread that the best way to fix all the issues is to use the physical retail way of doing things.
Right now, publishers are going around trying to find the best deal. The storefronts are dictating the terms. It's messed up.
It should be the storefronts that are going to publishers, trying to get a good deal, buying the game licenses and then selling them, not selling game licenses 'for' the publishers.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It's an analogy.. not a 100% proof comparison. Your anal retentiveness is really showing through... truly.
I'll say... again.. that the point is that some people like to buy things from one place, it's easier. How much easier in this case is not relevant, it's easier. Some might prefer the service or support they get from one place and stick to that. With storefronts it could also be the features offered. Some people just can't be bothered. To some it might just be tradition.
Telling people they should do things the way you do is narcissistic. If someone else doesn't want to use yet another launcher/storefront/whatever there are plenty of obvious reasons why they might feel that way.. stop telling people their choices are wrong. No one is telling 'you' that you shouldn't use more than one launcher if you want to.
You say that how much easier is not relevant. Except that the difference of how much easier is the whole point. There's an enormous difference between saving a second versus saving an hour, just like there's a difference between driving 56 in a 55 zone versus going 106 in a 55 zone.
You're the one trying to tell others what they have to do, not me. If you want to have your one favorite game store and ignore all games that aren't in that store, then go ahead. Just don't whine if that means you don't play some games that don't show up in that particular store.
Right, so you think telling people not to complain isn't telling them what to do? You gotta speak up if you want to affect change, or stop change in this case.
I didn't mean you specifically anyway, I guess I could have made there clearer.
I gave examples of reasons why people might not want to use loads of launchers other than the amount of time or effort needed to use them which is why it's not relevant. It's not the only reason. You are ignoring that and continuing on the same track...
It's going to be mental if we get to point where there's like 50 different launchers though...
I can't see it getting to that point. More likely imo, the market will dictate a certain level of assimilation into larger, comprehensive storefronts that compete with one another. That may very well be the situation that sees storefronts searching out the deals from publishers they know will provide player adoption for their platform. Something like this:
In the end, we just see this differently due to differing perspectives. And that's okay, as our individual opinions have no bearing on the market direction and this is all for shits and gigs to pass our collective time in the first place. But had we the reins of the market... You'd just be flat out a danger to us all.
You know the fact that exclusives are for a year on "core gamer" stores, is just a sign of how crap competition is between the stores.
For web games exclusives last a month or three at most. Even signing for a 24 hour exclusive ends with you getting more cash up front, or a 10% better cut of ad revenue.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
That's one site I'd rather not visit, even to provide them with my visit metric. Just looking at the link, I'd say that stating the obvious is not some divine revelation.
Metro is in the unique position of having their pre-order becoming best seller and at the same time smearing their public image by strong arming those people who preorder to either do it or wait for a year.
It is obvious that people will be extremely annoyed and it is obvious that the steam reviews will mirror that annoyance. They are customer reviews after all, not shilled excuse pieces.
Comments
Obviously, that's watered down to a basic point, and there are caveats (publishers having a heavy-hand on the creative process, etc.), but the underlying principle remains true: devs create these experiences we all enjoy. In the case of digital storefronts, the "shopkeep's" role is merely to provide a virtual transaction bridge between devs and gamers.
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-201712-201812
EDIT2- Corrected link above to accurately reflect desktop market share picture listed below.
EDIT- Germany is relatively high, but still only 3.49%.
I also buy groceries a lot more often than I buy a new game. If you buy several new games every week, then I could understand why you don't like an excessive shopping load, but I would question how much time you have to actually play those games.
Why are people talking about the specifics of the analogy though... lol It's like, you're not disagreeing with the analogy, you're just saying the effect isn't as extreme with digital games. The principle is is the same though.
You all know what I meant by it. You know what I was getting at and the point I was trying to make. Why the need to be so anal....
That's not to say that it's irrelevant. Part of how you get a big market share is a few percent from this initiative, one percent from that one, and eventually it all adds up. But that's what Epic is working on, too: their own game Fortnite, a new free game every two weeks, a Metro Exodus exclusive, and so forth.
I'll say... again.. that the point is that some people like to buy things from one place, it's easier. How much easier in this case is not relevant, it's easier. Some might prefer the service or support they get from one place and stick to that. With storefronts it could also be the features offered. Some people just can't be bothered. To some it might just be tradition.
Telling people they should do things the way you do is narcissistic. If someone else doesn't want to use yet another launcher/storefront/whatever there are plenty of obvious reasons why they might feel that way.. stop telling people their choices are wrong. No one is telling 'you' that you shouldn't use more than one launcher if you want to.
You're the one trying to tell others what they have to do, not me. If you want to have your one favorite game store and ignore all games that aren't in that store, then go ahead. Just don't whine if that means you don't play some games that don't show up in that particular store.
Your counter has seemed to be "well maybe some of us don't feel like downloading another free launcher one time and then sometimes having to click this icon instead of that icon," which seems pretty small potatoes to many of us, apparently. The point of us contrasting the items of your analogy is to point out this very thing.
You don't have to agree.
I didn't mean you specifically anyway, I guess I could have made that clearer.
I gave examples of reasons why people might not want to use loads of launchers other than the amount of time or effort needed to use them which is why it's not relevant. It's not the only reason. You are ignoring that and continuing on the same track...
It's going to be mental if we get to point where there's like 50 different launchers though...
Right now, publishers are going around trying to find the best deal. The storefronts are dictating the terms. It's messed up.
It should be the storefronts that are going to publishers, trying to get a good deal, buying the game licenses and then selling them, not selling game licenses 'for' the publishers.
In the end, we just see this differently due to differing perspectives. And that's okay, as our individual opinions have no bearing on the market direction and this is all for shits and gigs to pass our collective time in the first place. But had we the reins of the market... You'd just be flat out a danger to us all.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
But it's actually not ...
Metro is in the unique position of having their pre-order becoming best seller and at the same time smearing their public image by strong arming those people who preorder to either do it or wait for a year.
It is obvious that people will be extremely annoyed and it is obvious that the steam reviews will mirror that annoyance. They are customer reviews after all, not shilled excuse pieces.