Originally posted by Uncle Sam:

Can the ToS please get updated to ban a mandatory launcher that isn't Steam if the game is bought on Steam. Example: You download Apex Legends, not only does it require Steam but also the Origin launcher, and more and more publishers/ developers are updating older games to require their launcher as well to play games we've bought on Steam. It's getting really irritating that I need to have multiple launchers for games that I've bought on Steam.

Great suggestion.

Consider Steam IS the 'external' launcher for those games.

Devs aren't going to maintain two game clients for the sake of selling in one store. They'll simply sell elsewhere.

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Consider Steam IS the 'external' launcher for those games.

Devs aren't going to maintain two game clients for the sake of selling in one store. They'll simply sell elsewhere.

That confirms my fears... I'm afraid steam is losing influence... :(

A 3rd party launcher (Origin etc) is required by the 3rd party developer, publisher to VERIFY ownership of the licence.

Valve did not create said game, nor have the rights to determine what it should include in fact Steam IS the 3rd party launcher for those games.

You could buy those 3rd party games on their respective platform (launcher) rather than expect Valve to lose business partners.

You after all chose to get the game on Steam and were aware of said requirements as it literally states on the store page what is required.

Steam can't really force publishers to forfeit their launchers in favor of this one. Sometimes Steamworks might offer a good compromise but generally publishers prefer using their own launchers, because of checking for licenses, showing marketing, and stuff like that. They won't just shoo these launchers away because that will just cause a lot of publishers to run away from making business with Steam.

Yeah, perhaps it is to the detriment of us consumers a little bit but for Valve I imagine the decision is very straight forward to make.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

A 3rd party launcher (Origin etc) is required by the 3rd party developer, publisher to VERIFY ownership of the licence.

That is only the case where digital license verification is tied to licenses held via an underwater generated account on storefronts such as UPlay or Origin linked to your Steam account, where the digital license you have on Steam basically amounts to nothing more than a proxy to 'the real thing' on the other platform.

There are plenty of games which gate the game behind a launcher without that being the case. Kalypso's Tropico games; Cities Skylines and anything else Paradox Interactive published; etc.

And even where that is the case, it is possible to bridge that gap with a headless bit of middleware that contains only the necessary logic to perform the license verification.


The reality is; plenty of publishers simply want to those launchers because it gives them a way to push advertisement for other content they sell. To every screen they already have in their audience pool. At every game launch.
These publishers are simply greedy little piggies that will stoop to any low imaginable given enough incentive and pay-off, and don't really care about the fact that a percentage of their customers is annoyed by the additional interstitial.

This becomes incredibly evident through cases such as aforementioned Tropico games; where the developer came forth to instruct players on how to bypass the sign-in with an account that the publisher put into the launcher. Or aforementioned Cities Skylines, where the developer had to go out of their way to instruct some people on how to bypass the Paradox-issued launcher because it was completely broken and prevent them from launching the game at all.
There is literally no functional need for those launchers. They are only there as a means to present advertisements; or tempt people into signing in with additional accounts and more strongly roping them into the publisher's ecosystem.

Originally posted by RiO:

This becomes incredibly evident by cases such as aforementioned Tropico games; where the developer came forth to instruct players on how to bypass the sign-in with an account that the publisher put into the launcher. Or aforementioned Cities Skylines, where the developer had to go out of their way to instruct some people on how to bypass the Paradox-issued launcher because it was completely broken and prevent them from launching the game at all.

I'm pretty sure the same has happened to XCOM 2 as well, with some new launcher that has only been a detriment to people trying to play the game. This is unfortunately a very valid concern. Specifically with older games, I wish they would just be left alone in a state where they used to work better.

Originally posted by RiO:

That is only the case where digital license verification is tied to licenses held via an underwater generated account on storefronts such as UPlay or Origin linked to your Steam account, where the digital license you have on Steam basically amounts to nothing more than a proxy to 'the real thing' on the other platform.

There are plenty of games which gate the game behind a launcher without that being the case. Kalypso's Tropico games; Cities Skylines and anything else Paradox Interactive published; etc.

And even where that is the case, it is possible to bridge that gap with a headless bit of middleware that contains only the necessary logic to perform the license verification.


The reality is; plenty of publishers simply want to those launchers because it gives them a way to push advertisement for other content they sell to every screen they already have in their audience pool. At every game launch.
These publishers are simply greedy little piggies that will stoop to any low imaginable given enough incentive and pay-off, and don't really care about the fact that a percentage of their customers is annoyed by the additional interstitial.

This becomes incredibly evident through cases such as aforementioned Tropico games; where the developer came forth to instruct players on how to bypass the sign-in with an account that the publisher put into the launcher. Or aforementioned Cities Skylines, where the developer had to go out of their way to instruct some people on how to bypass the Paradox-issued launcher because it was completely broken and prevent them from launching the game at all.
There is literally no functional need for those launchers. They are only there as a means to present advertisements; or coax people into signing in with additional accounts and more strongly roping them into the publisher's ecosystem.

And none of that changes it is the developers, publishers choice to include a launcher and what "functionality" it uses. The OP "specifically referenced" Apex Legends and Origin and not Tropico etc.

Most notably they CAN advertise products via the launcher despite you referencing them as "greedy little piggies" which is odd based on you paint the EU as the "eutopia" of freedoms for citizens and business alike, while seemingly have an issue with said freedoms.

Originally posted by RiO:

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

A 3rd party launcher (Origin etc) is required by the 3rd party developer, publisher to VERIFY ownership of the licence.

That is only the case where digital license verification is tied to licenses held via an underwater generated account on storefronts such as UPlay or Origin linked to your Steam account, where the digital license you have on Steam basically amounts to nothing more than a proxy to 'the real thing' on the other platform.

There are plenty of games which gate the game behind a launcher without that being the case. Kalypso's Tropico games; Cities Skylines and anything else Paradox Interactive published; etc.

And even where that is the case, it is possible to bridge that gap with a headless bit of middleware that contains only the necessary logic to perform the license verification.


The reality is; plenty of publishers simply want to those launchers because it gives them a way to push advertisement for other content they sell to every screen they already have in their audience pool. At every game launch.
These publishers are simply greedy little piggies that will stoop to any low imaginable given enough incentive and pay-off, and don't really care about the fact that a percentage of their customers is annoyed by the additional interstitial.

This becomes incredibly evident through cases such as aforementioned Tropico games; where the developer came forth to instruct players on how to bypass the sign-in with an account that the publisher put into the launcher. Or aforementioned Cities Skylines, where the developer had to go out of their way to instruct some people on how to bypass the Paradox-issued launcher because it was completely broken and prevent them from launching the game at all.
There is literally no functional need for those launchers. They are only there as a means to present advertisements; or coax people into signing in with additional accounts and more strongly roping them into the publisher's ecosystem.

Seems about right.

I was surprised of the recent QoL improvement for Bioshock: Infinite earlier this week. Not that it matter much, but I was interested to see why and how they improved the game so far after launch. Yea, it seems they updated the game to require the 2K launcher.

There wasn't any info or a need for that launcher when I bought and played the game. Now there is. Does OP have a decent argument? I think he does.

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

And none of that changes it is the developers, publishers choice to include a launcher and what "functionality" it uses and the OP "specifically referenced" Apex Legends and Origin.

Most notably they CAN advertise products via the launcher despite you referencing them as "greedy little piggies" which is odd based on you paint the EU as the "eutopia" of freedoms for citizens and business alike, while seemingly have an issue with said freedoms.

And none of that changes that it is the platform-holder, i.e. Steam, which decides the rules for what is allowed to be published through the platform. The suggestion here is that the platform-holder protect consumers by making rules which disallow these practices.

Ultimately, the fact that the publishers can decide to include something means nothing if the platform holder won't allow it.


Also; I fail to see what the reference to anything EU-related here is meant to achieve, other than thinly veiled bait.

Originally posted by RiO:

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

And none of that changes it is the developers, publishers choice to include a launcher and what "functionality" it uses...

And none of that changes that it is the platform-holder, i.e. Steam, which decides the rules for what is allowed to be published through the platform. The suggestion here is that the platform-holder protect consumers by making rules which disallow these practices.

Ultimately, the fact that the publishers can decide to include something means nothing if the platform holder won't allow it.

Both statements are true. The developer/publisher can include a launcher or other features and Valve as the storefront can introduce rules that forbid such action.

Now then, which one is more likely? Valve adds a rule that drives developers/publishers away meaning they get zero sales for those games OR Valve does not interfere and some consumers do not buy said products?

From a business perspective it's not hard to guess which stance Valve might take.

Originally posted by RiO:

And none of that changes that it is the platform-holder, i.e. Steam, which decides the rules for what is allowed to be published through the platform. The suggestion here is that the platform-holder protect consumers by making rules which disallow these practices.

Also; I fail to see what the reference to anything EU-related here is meant to achieve, other than thinly veiled bait.

Seemingly you believe Valve is omnipotent and yet they did not build Steam into a successful by dictating to their business partners.

Secondly Valve does not decide IF a "3rd party launcher" is include as that is solely a decision of the developer, publisher. Valve did not create the game, nor own the rights to it to determine what is included.

EDIT: Developers, publishers can include a launcher and advertise due to "ownership" of the game/s hence the relevance of "freedom".


Ubisoft is an EU company and they decide whether they want to sell on Steam, whether a launcher is mandatory and/or includes Denuvo but more importantly they maintain the store page and ALL relevant information.

Assassin's Creed® Odyssey

Warning: This title uses 3rd-party DRM (Ubisoft Connect, Denuvo Anti-Tamper).

Note: the use of the word "warning".

Get it on Steam, or on Uplay Connect either way Ubisoft dictates what the requirements are.


As a sidenote: if the developer, publisher wants to tell end users how to bypass their launcher it is them who "decide" not Valve.

EDIT: The OP's point "a mandatory ban on launchers" with the example given been Origin (hence my comment) and that would include Uplay Connect, Rockstar Launcher. The OP made no mention of bypassing launchers.

EDIT: OP quoted for reference.

Originally posted by Uncle Sam:

Can the ToS please get updated to ban a mandatory launcher that isn't Steam if the game is bought on Steam. Example: You download Apex Legends, not only does it require Steam but also the Origin launcher, and more and more publishers/ developers are updating older games to require their launcher as well to play games we've bought on Steam. It's getting really irritating that I need to have multiple launchers for games that I've bought on Steam.

Originally posted by Yasahi:

Now then, which one is more likely? Valve adds a rule that drives developers/publishers away meaning they get zero sales for those games OR Valve does not interfere and some consumers do not buy said products?

From a business perspective it's not hard to guess which stance Valve might take.

Let's get to the real core of the suggestion:

OP wants Steam to strongarm developers into removing their own launchers in order to be able to sell on Steam. Theoretically resulting in developers caving in and removing those launchers.

My take on it? It might have worked 15 years ago when Steam was basically the only venue for digital game sales. Nowadays? It'd only result in those games selling elsewhere. If Steam tries to strongarm them they can easily jump ship to Epic, Humble or any of the other storefronts people have been used to buy from for years... Then come the 'Why X game isn't on Steam'.

And Steam absolutely will not be able to strongarm the big AAAs into doing that. Forget about EA removing Origin or Ubisoft doing the same for Uplay. EA took Battlefield 3 to origin because Steam tried to strongarm them into using Steam's enviroment for MTX in order to sell in the store. And that was a decade ago.

o

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by RiO:

And none of that changes that it is the platform-holder, i.e. Steam, which decides the rules for what is allowed to be published through the platform. The suggestion here is that the platform-holder protect consumers by making rules which disallow these practices.

Also; I fail to see what the reference to anything EU-related here is meant to achieve, other than thinly veiled bait.

Seemingly you believe Valve is omnipotent and yet they did not build Steam into a successful by dictating to their business partners.

Secondly Valve does not decide IF a 3rd party launcher is include as that is solely a decision of the developer, publisher. Valve did not create the game, nor own the rights to it to determine what is included.

Ubisoft is an EU company and they decide whether they want to sell on Steam, whether a launcher is mandatory and/or includes Denuvo but more importantly they maintain the store page and ALL relevant information.

Assassin's Creed® Odyssey

Warning: This title uses 3rd-party DRM (Ubisoft Connect, Denuvo Anti-Tamper).

Note: the use of the word "warning".

Get it on Steam, or on Uplay Connect either way Ubisoft "dictates" what the requirements are.


As a sidenote: if the developer, publisher wants to tell end users how to bypass their launcher it is them who "decide" not Valve.

When Steam was new:
"Why do I need an account to play my games?" ... "Ok, but not one step further"

[Spongebob title card: Several Years Later]
"Steam is the greatest thing ever, but these other launchers are the devil's tools"

Every. Single. Time.