If Valve would enforce that, two things will happen:

1) The companies relying on such launchers will leave Steam
2) Valve will get an antitrust lawsuit due to alleged abuse of its marketshare

So no, not gonna happen.

While extra accounts indeed are annoying, I prefer to have those games available on Steam.

I don't like it when people try to limit my purchasing options based on their personal whims. Not when MC/Visa do it, not you either.

That's too far, but if the launcher doesn't work, it should 100% be removed, GTA 4 had some issues, I stopped playing because of that and haven't checked back and Bioshock 1 and 2 were unplayable for awhile until the remastered versions came out.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

If Valve would enforce that, two things will happen:

1) The companies relying on such launchers will leave Steam
2) Valve will get an antitrust lawsuit due to alleged abuse of its marketshare

So no, not gonna happen.

They already tried to leave for Epic's payoffs and came crawling back. Steam can enforce any policy they want on new releases being added. There's no excuse for every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ publisher requiring separate accounts, and some of them are even doing it for singleplayer. It's ridiculous. If you want to release on Steam, the game should work with only a Steam account. Everything that requires Epic, people review nuke. People are screaming about PSN too ever since the Helldivers 2 thing.

Originally posted by NoLifeDGenerate:

They already tried to leave for Epic's payoffs and came crawling back.

Because in that case it was the developer/publisher's decision, not Valve's. And the ban on release on Steam was something Epic enforced as a contractual part (exclusivity clause). Your example is obviously nothing the dev/pub can sue Valve for over.

Originally posted by NoLifeDGenerate:

Steam can enforce any policy they want on new releases being added. There's no excuse for every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ publisher requiring separate accounts, and some of them are even doing it for singleplayer. It's ridiculous. If you want to release on Steam, the game should work with only a Steam account.

Valve cannot force the exclusive use of their proprietary components, including account management, for release on their platform on virtue of antitrust laws. They do not own the IP, nor the exclusive distribution license of third-party titles.

Due to the marketshare of Steam, antitrust protections apply as well and restrict Valve under which conditions they can accept or reject titles for distribution on their platform.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

If Valve would enforce that, two things will happen:

1) The companies relying on such launchers will leave Steam
2) Valve will get an antitrust lawsuit due to alleged abuse of its marketshare

So no, not gonna happen.

If they leave steam I'll have less games to ignore, that's a win for me.

Originally posted by Pocahawtness:

What I mean by this is that games that are registered on Steam, should not require additional emails or usernames to log in. It's information that can be lost, and then the game become unrecoverable.

What happens when you lose all your Steam account info? If you can keep track of that, you can keep track of other accounts. And it's not like managing accounts is some new problem, or some impossible problem. Fact of the matter is, and Valve agrees, product owners manage their own products and that includes having their own account requirements.

If it's one too many accounts for you to remember, use a proper password manager to help you track accounts and their details. I use KeePass, but there's like a thousand options for this. You ought to be doing it anyway given how fallible human memory is, and how often we see people struggling to remember account credentials, including old Steam accounts.

Originally posted by Pocahawtness:

I have one game on Steam that was bought and paid for on Steam but I can't access it because I have stopped receiving emails from the launcher two-factor authentication. This sort of thing should be banned.

Your technical issues may not be a problem Valve needs to solve. Take the issue up with the publisher's customer service.

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

I will never understand why people are so certain about these lawsuits when payment processors do not have to suffer them for identical behavior. How many lawsuits did Valve suffer for all the things Valve already forbids, like ads?

They're actually being sued for their revenue share and the MFC clauses for selling Steam keys. Digital Homicide sued Valve because of users ' online harassment' against their studio...

There's a difference between a lawsuit happening and a lawsuit being succesful. The first is more likely to happen than the second.

The logic chain is that Valve cannot do X because X will lead to a lawsuit. And the fact that it will lead to a lawsuit means it is a wrong action. Your examples serve to detonate that chain of logic quite well.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

They're actually being sued for their revenue share and the MFC clauses for selling Steam keys. Digital Homicide sued Valve because of users ' online harassment' against their studio...

There's a difference between a lawsuit happening and a lawsuit being succesful. The first is more likely to happen than the second.

The logic chain is that Valve cannot do X because X will lead to a lawsuit. And the fact that it will lead to a lawsuit means it is a wrong action. Your examples serve to detonate that chain of logic quite well.

Except the lawsuit being talked about for banning logins would come from the FTC. Not a disgruntled developer.

Very big difference that was purposely ignored.

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

The logic chain is that Valve cannot do X because X will lead to a lawsuit. And the fact that it will lead to a lawsuit means it is a wrong action. Your examples serve to detonate that chain of logic quite well.

Except the lawsuit being talked about for banning logins would come from the FTC. Not a disgruntled developer.

Very big difference that was purposely ignored.

Well. i thought it was a strange thing for him to ignore too but I figured he was going somewhere with it.

You may be right and thus my point still stands.

Valve will never tell Activision that they can not require a 3rd party login for Call of Duty.

Yup!

Then you have the same with Delta Force and Apex, both of which are sitting at #5 and #6 right now and both requiring a 3rd party account login...

https://steamhost.cn/charts/mostplayed

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Valve will never tell Activision that they can not require a 3rd party login for Call of Duty.

Specially when they know concern for third party launchers is at best as minoritary issue.

Typically launchers have some sort of feature to save the credentials where the 2fa code (if setup) is all that is needed. I cannot comprehend how people are having issues with that portion yet are capable of gaming immediately after. As far as credentials/emails being lost that is a user error, have been able to keep my credentials safe for years and will continue to do so.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

They're actually being sued for their revenue share and the MFC clauses for selling Steam keys. Digital Homicide sued Valve because of users ' online harassment' against their studio...

There's a difference between a lawsuit happening and a lawsuit being succesful. The first is more likely to happen than the second.

The logic chain is that Valve cannot do X because X will lead to a lawsuit. And the fact that it will lead to a lawsuit means it is a wrong action. Your examples serve to detonate that chain of logic quite well.

Well some users aren't lawyers and don't understand lawsuits and maybe use sloppy language to describe their thoughts. Reading to far into random users thoughts is a bit of a mistake.

At any rate I'd take most users legal claims with a grain of salt. That being said, lots of users suggest ideas that are just bad, would cause more problem then they solve, and they haven't stopped to think about anything beyond their knee-jerk self-serving thinking.

So in the case of OP's idea. It seems pretty likely Valve would be sued for instituting rules that are designed to harm other publishers launchers and storefronts. Valve having a strong market share would likely work against them in a legal challenge. So in the hypothetical Valve bans launchers, it's a given there would be lawsuits, and maybe Valve doesn't want to go down that road on this subject.

In a broader scope there's no way Valve can please everyone in all cases and so it's inevitable people will sue over grievances, real or imagined. Valve can't avoid being sued ever. But they can avoid obvious landmines, that's not rocket surgery.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

If Valve would enforce that, two things will happen:

1) The companies relying on such launchers will leave Steam
2) Valve will get an antitrust lawsuit due to alleged abuse of its marketshare

So no, not gonna happen.

Correct, it's only payment processors who are allowed to abuse their market share