Honestly 20 different companies would probably suck for the consumer. That’s 20 different storefronts to compare, 20 different libraries to manage, potentially 20 different sets of logins, 20 sources of data breaches. It’s unlikely they would adopt an open standard to allow a shared library. Maybe you have a 21st company that makes a product like heroic launcher. You’d likely run into regionality issues where a particular store is unavailable, so you may not be able to play purchased games. You would have all sorts of odd exclusive dlc and pre order bonuses so a cosmetic item you like could be locked to a store you haven’t used. Multiplayer likely wouldn’t be global cross play between all companies, you likely get some set of 20 companies working together for multiplayer. Some games may develop a good scene available to a single store, requiring a game to be repurchased. Exclusives or timed exclusives would be annoying to track, as each store would likely have different catalogs.

That’s far to generous to other companies, they were far more like the WiiU.

I think this amount of competition could be good if individual competitors were allowed to fail. All the parts that build vendor lock-in would need to be removed, and more things would need to be interoperable, but it could be quite good and even specialised.

Each storefront could live or die independent of each library and each game service. If one company tried to squeeze money from users, they could just take their elsewhere, without worrying about losing access to games or connections to friends.

Of course no company would create such a system voluntarily, most depend on monopolistic practices to survive. It would take monopoly busting-policy or a foss group to even begin such a thing.

I think you switched to cons without saying.

I admit I haven’t tried very many, but I think you can launch any steam app “normally” without steam running. If you can find the executable or startup script, you can just point a shortcut to it. Some games will need Steam Services to run, but it’s not blocked or anything.

They did for me, then my cost of living went up along with the cost of games. Now I’ll only buy games that I intend to play multiplayer

Maybe there isn’t one.

This is what I’m talking about: people think monopoly = bad, so if I say Valve has a monopoly, I must want them burned to the ground. Nah. They’re mostly fine. Having only one good option is precarious, but it is still a good option. For now.

But they’re still a monopoly. We should say so, because it’s true, and important. It shapes the entire PC gaming market.

For me cost of living went up but cost of games down. I mostly play indie games now since i find big AAA games not that interesting with one maybe two exceptions per year.

Depends on what games you play. I play lots of studio games and don’t play a lot of indies. Now I just pirate. To paraphrase a wise man “this may or may not technically be legal… But 105aud for a new video game is a straight up crime”

Yeah, it sucks. A major reason that I abandoned Nintendo’s Switch 2, and returned to PC after playing in Switch for some years. I used to pay 30-50€ for AAA, but they wanted people to jump to 70-80€.

I think you switched to cons without saying.

I admit I haven’t tried very many, but I think you can launch any steam app “normally” without steam running. If you can find the executable or startup script, you can just point a shortcut to it. Some games will need Steam Services to run, but it’s not blocked or anything.

There’s a ‘but the bad things’ buried in the middle, desperately wanting a line break.

I did the same thing initially and tried re-reading it as sass. Especially if “TF2 neglect” was considered positive.

Steam’s “most favored nation” contracts with devs explicitly prohibit this