For those who don't know, Kaldaien is a prolific modder of PC games, a well known and frequently controversial figure. He has created QoL patches and fixes for various games that were released but 'ignored' by their publishers afterwards. PCGW reference: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_compatible_w...
I must admit that the Steam client is quite slow and bloated. Having used it for many years, I often avoid launching it. Epic has replicated these same issues. Consequently, I end up using GOG instead.
The Steam client is so bloated at the point it takes 40% of my computer's resources, leaving little to no resources for the actual game I want to play, and thus making the gameplay experience feel worse than it should. That is one of the reasons I would pirate or try to find a workaround to download the games from Steam and run them outside.
Am I reading this wrong? He complaints that Valve deleted items and posts, despite them promising that it would not happen... only for the quote he provided to state that "they might not delete everything".
> "Stores should only provide DRM, and anything else that they do must be optional."
Why would I buy at ${store} then? If a store has features, while piracy does not have them, I have an incentive to buy at the store. If a store only has DRM, while piracy does not, I will be incentivised to use piracy.
I need to use a crack anyway to play the official steam distribution of Medieval or skip the Windows 11 installer of CnC Generals anyhow, so piracy is needed anyway. The store seems to never be needed.
The nice thing is having a community page tell me to skip installers or the faulty DRM in just one place, but $store pays their community zero worth back for doing their tech support.
> I buy games from Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store and GOG precisely because those stores have no bloated features unrelated to DRM crammed down your throat.
I figured that I was reading yet another gamer plea to just use GOG due to lack of DRM and instead we got… this. The MS store even has a weird save game format so you can’t transfer game saves between stores.
Steam is still the only platform I'm using regularly, and IMHO it does everything right. I'm planning to try to put an app on it and have high hopes for it, but I'm still trying to find a gaming-related angle that makes them accept it. I believe to understand the reasons why Steam avoids ordinary apps, but at the same time have a hard time figuring out how the existing non-game content like tools and general productivity apps made it on the platform. Officially, they're not supported. Do the publishers have some personal connection to Steam employees? Or do they brand them as game-content creation related?
I think i disagree? you do own games on steam: just download them, and you can then launch them without the steam client. At least Paradox/Sid Meiers games work without steam, i did not test others, but i remember playing Dragon Age (the first one) and Mass effect without launching steam (basically we used steam to install those game on my PC, then disconected from my friend account account, and could play a "pirated" game like this)
This is part of the broader discussion on commercial platforms limiting accessibility (including software compatibility) for short-term interests. Much like social media platforms shape media on their platforms, the platforms themselves are shaped by the owner's commercial interests.
tl;dr seems to be: "Steam makes my work as a modder much harder so I'm done spending my time making broken games on their platform work well" plus a lot of salt.
Bummer for the community but it seems like a reasonable position.
>Games you purchased on a Windows 98 machine later had their system requirements bumped up to Windows XP, then to Windows 7, then to Windows 10...
>Because the Steam client patches itself and because Valve was lying about contingency plans, their DRM prevents running Windows 98-era games on original hardware.
What about Linux? Steam has supported Linux since 2013, and is notably the only big store that does. Personally, I don't even see the other stores as competition since they don't even let you install them from my OS.
It is always interesting seeing the mostly blind loyalty that Valve seems to get for no real clear reason.
Don't get me wrong, I love their games (when they bother to make one) and my Steam Deck. But lets not pretend that Valve is our friend either and their main goal is anything but to make money.
While I think that going so far as to delete my Steam library is a fairly extreme situation, I do think supporting a diverse marketplace and actually using other stores is a good idea. I have games on Xbox App (on PC), GOG, Epic, EA, etc. It really isn't that big of a deal to have alternatives installed, and if you are worried about the software there are alternatives like Heroic Launcher.
The controller situation is an interesting one though that I will need to do my own reading on, I knew that Steam tried to manage controller settings itself (which just further encourages you to only use Steam...) and has caused me to have issues with buttons registering twice. I was not aware that sometimes games had different controller functionality on different stores. Is there some requirement of this on Steam?
> It is always interesting seeing the mostly blind loyalty that Valve seems to get for no real clear reason.
Trust, it's trust. Valve has continuously proven to be good-faith actors who work with the gaming community on mutual goals. See: everything they've done for gaming on Linux.
The reason it feels very out of place is because pretty much every company on Earth has eroded any modicum of trust they have. Or, um, had.
Really, all it takes is a few bad decisions for Valve to fall out of favor. They just haven't made those decisions yet and we're all praying they don't.
>The biggest obstacle to game ownership on PC is the store you licensed it from, not developers.
There is no "Game Ownership" on pc or elsewhere. you purchase a license. That license is always obscenely limited, whether or not they enforce it with DRM.
The only real control of a game worth mentioning is piracy, then open source.
I totally disagree with the author. His main complaint seems to be this: "Games you purchased on a Windows 98 machine later had their system requirements bumped up to Windows XP, then to Windows 7, then to Windows 10."
Essentially, you can't run your Steam games without also being able to run the Steam client, and the Steam client will drop support for old versions of Windows after they are end-of-life'd. The author describes this as a violation of freedom, but to me it's totally understandable: when Windows 98 gets end-of-life'd, users have to upgrade anyway because security patches won't keep coming. Most people have, by that point, upgraded years earlier. Their Steam keeps working, and so do most of their games.
I'm not sure what kind of changes would satisfy the author. Should Steam still devote a small team to maintaining Windows 98 compatibility to satisfy him personally (as I doubt anyone else cares)? Should they do away with DRM entirely and just ship unlocked exe's (and have every major publisher bail on them)?
And, more broadly on the subject of game compatibility: the pre-internet method of shipping CD-ROM's also did not ensure that your games would run forever. You'll eventually replace your computer, and your Win98 CD-ROM games will generally not work if you try to install them on your new Win11 box.
It's true that Steam is a DRMed app store, and that means you are as owner of your game as in any other DRMed app store, but they prove regularly they are for the moment the most consumer friendly DRMed app store. They support linux, they support macos, they open their steam deck, they open their steamos beyond what is required legally, and many I don't remember.
GOG is great because of they are DRM-free app store but there are also challenges: no linux client, no support for the steam deck, etc..
There are some insane takes also: nobody care that windows 98 is not supported anymore, steam is no more responsible for the fragmentation than any others distributors, Ubisoft+, EA Access (and maybe Game Pass) are much worse than Steam
It’s really weird for the author to put all blame on Steam while they don’t actually require devs to use any of their proprietary features, including DRM. Lots of indie games on Steam are just like the GOG games, you can copy and run anywhere. It’s all dev choice
Lots of the key people working on things like SDL that Value very heavily relies on are also very vocal critics of the Steam Input API. Steam Input is a bastardization of SDL technically.
I have personally benefitted from the steam input feature in niche cases, but the way it hijacks everything by default even when not enabled does seem to be poor engineer-ship. I have run into some issues when doing controller management within games, only to realize it has to be solved at the steam level.
So, I've interacted with Kaldaien a good bit over the years and while he can have strongly stated opinions that are at times a little at odds with the intensity of an issue, it's not generally that he's fundamentally wrong. It's partially that intensity that seems to keep him so invested in the things he does.
Gabe Newell left a platform company that knew how important becoming a platform was. Microsoft has a great track record with software compatibility, if imperfect. Gabe didn't exactly want to create a platform, but there were very real difficulties in game distribution at the time and internet broadband had expanded. That Valve created Steam was not unwise.
That said, whether it's browsers, simple music playing, open source projects, software like Adobe Photoshop, etc there has been a rise in business and software complexity. Cross-platform compromises, unknown tool chains, unbuildable dependencies, dynamic ecosystems where a static program that just works no longer feels like a guarantee, megaprojects that increasingly solve a thousand problems you don't have.
Managing Steam is an unenviable task, depending on Chromium and Windows, expanding into an operating system project, hardware projects, even a bit of a social network... the mission has clearly expanded. The organizing principles of Steam have adjusted to a new environment and that has consequences. In the Steam UI you can go to View -> Small Mode to at least visualize how simple Steam could be, but all the other concerns still remain in the background.
When you have so many customers you can develop features for and deliver at scale, it's hard to reject the draw of shaping that clay. Hey, they've done a lot of great things with that power, but when you're so hooked in with momentum it's more difficult to undo the things you've done.
The problem is similar to browsers, though. When you become the leader, in a way you become the standard. You can still deliver DRM free games on Steam, but as far as I know you can't simply download them from the website the way you can with GoG. All the integrations Steam supports become a sort of standard that many customers expect rather than the true supportable platform baseline. Many games won't even release outside of Steam, so the only version that will exist is a Steam version.
Steam could address some of these concerns by developing a thinner optional client that aims for maximum platform compatibility and simplicity for use with a subset of games. That could then become another Steam feature that players demand or can filter the store by. Customers could opt to encourage developers to support that simpler client even if it means some features will be disabled.
Obviously, those games could get updated to need the fatter client, integrating more features, but that can be managed with good communication and options for developers or consumers. There can even be a different release channel or separate product ID. The simple client doesn't need an integrated Web UI either, since it could just open a URL in your browser that logs you in where you can buy games, check chat messages and so on.
I'm not sure if SteamOS could run on a Windows 98 era machine and run those games, but that would at least allow for a side argument that they maintain some compatibility. I kind of doubt that's high priority for them, though.
29 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] thread"Might" is not "will".
Why would I buy at ${store} then? If a store has features, while piracy does not have them, I have an incentive to buy at the store. If a store only has DRM, while piracy does not, I will be incentivised to use piracy.
I need to use a crack anyway to play the official steam distribution of Medieval or skip the Windows 11 installer of CnC Generals anyhow, so piracy is needed anyway. The store seems to never be needed.
The nice thing is having a community page tell me to skip installers or the faulty DRM in just one place, but $store pays their community zero worth back for doing their tech support.
Absolutely unhinged opinion.
The only people to blame are the developers, not Valve.
I prefer GOG, but it's cool that Valve are advancing Linux gaming.
This is part of the broader discussion on commercial platforms limiting accessibility (including software compatibility) for short-term interests. Much like social media platforms shape media on their platforms, the platforms themselves are shaped by the owner's commercial interests.
Bummer for the community but it seems like a reasonable position.
>Because the Steam client patches itself and because Valve was lying about contingency plans, their DRM prevents running Windows 98-era games on original hardware.
What about Linux? Steam has supported Linux since 2013, and is notably the only big store that does. Personally, I don't even see the other stores as competition since they don't even let you install them from my OS.
Don't get me wrong, I love their games (when they bother to make one) and my Steam Deck. But lets not pretend that Valve is our friend either and their main goal is anything but to make money.
While I think that going so far as to delete my Steam library is a fairly extreme situation, I do think supporting a diverse marketplace and actually using other stores is a good idea. I have games on Xbox App (on PC), GOG, Epic, EA, etc. It really isn't that big of a deal to have alternatives installed, and if you are worried about the software there are alternatives like Heroic Launcher.
The controller situation is an interesting one though that I will need to do my own reading on, I knew that Steam tried to manage controller settings itself (which just further encourages you to only use Steam...) and has caused me to have issues with buttons registering twice. I was not aware that sometimes games had different controller functionality on different stores. Is there some requirement of this on Steam?
Trust, it's trust. Valve has continuously proven to be good-faith actors who work with the gaming community on mutual goals. See: everything they've done for gaming on Linux.
The reason it feels very out of place is because pretty much every company on Earth has eroded any modicum of trust they have. Or, um, had.
Really, all it takes is a few bad decisions for Valve to fall out of favor. They just haven't made those decisions yet and we're all praying they don't.
There is no "Game Ownership" on pc or elsewhere. you purchase a license. That license is always obscenely limited, whether or not they enforce it with DRM.
The only real control of a game worth mentioning is piracy, then open source.
Essentially, you can't run your Steam games without also being able to run the Steam client, and the Steam client will drop support for old versions of Windows after they are end-of-life'd. The author describes this as a violation of freedom, but to me it's totally understandable: when Windows 98 gets end-of-life'd, users have to upgrade anyway because security patches won't keep coming. Most people have, by that point, upgraded years earlier. Their Steam keeps working, and so do most of their games.
I'm not sure what kind of changes would satisfy the author. Should Steam still devote a small team to maintaining Windows 98 compatibility to satisfy him personally (as I doubt anyone else cares)? Should they do away with DRM entirely and just ship unlocked exe's (and have every major publisher bail on them)?
And, more broadly on the subject of game compatibility: the pre-internet method of shipping CD-ROM's also did not ensure that your games would run forever. You'll eventually replace your computer, and your Win98 CD-ROM games will generally not work if you try to install them on your new Win11 box.
GOG is great because of they are DRM-free app store but there are also challenges: no linux client, no support for the steam deck, etc..
There are some insane takes also: nobody care that windows 98 is not supported anymore, steam is no more responsible for the fragmentation than any others distributors, Ubisoft+, EA Access (and maybe Game Pass) are much worse than Steam
I have personally benefitted from the steam input feature in niche cases, but the way it hijacks everything by default even when not enabled does seem to be poor engineer-ship. I have run into some issues when doing controller management within games, only to realize it has to be solved at the steam level.
Gabe Newell left a platform company that knew how important becoming a platform was. Microsoft has a great track record with software compatibility, if imperfect. Gabe didn't exactly want to create a platform, but there were very real difficulties in game distribution at the time and internet broadband had expanded. That Valve created Steam was not unwise.
That said, whether it's browsers, simple music playing, open source projects, software like Adobe Photoshop, etc there has been a rise in business and software complexity. Cross-platform compromises, unknown tool chains, unbuildable dependencies, dynamic ecosystems where a static program that just works no longer feels like a guarantee, megaprojects that increasingly solve a thousand problems you don't have.
Managing Steam is an unenviable task, depending on Chromium and Windows, expanding into an operating system project, hardware projects, even a bit of a social network... the mission has clearly expanded. The organizing principles of Steam have adjusted to a new environment and that has consequences. In the Steam UI you can go to View -> Small Mode to at least visualize how simple Steam could be, but all the other concerns still remain in the background.
When you have so many customers you can develop features for and deliver at scale, it's hard to reject the draw of shaping that clay. Hey, they've done a lot of great things with that power, but when you're so hooked in with momentum it's more difficult to undo the things you've done.
The problem is similar to browsers, though. When you become the leader, in a way you become the standard. You can still deliver DRM free games on Steam, but as far as I know you can't simply download them from the website the way you can with GoG. All the integrations Steam supports become a sort of standard that many customers expect rather than the true supportable platform baseline. Many games won't even release outside of Steam, so the only version that will exist is a Steam version.
Steam could address some of these concerns by developing a thinner optional client that aims for maximum platform compatibility and simplicity for use with a subset of games. That could then become another Steam feature that players demand or can filter the store by. Customers could opt to encourage developers to support that simpler client even if it means some features will be disabled.
Obviously, those games could get updated to need the fatter client, integrating more features, but that can be managed with good communication and options for developers or consumers. There can even be a different release channel or separate product ID. The simple client doesn't need an integrated Web UI either, since it could just open a URL in your browser that logs you in where you can buy games, check chat messages and so on.
I'm not sure if SteamOS could run on a Windows 98 era machine and run those games, but that would at least allow for a side argument that they maintain some compatibility. I kind of doubt that's high priority for them, though.
Absolutely insane take. Guess we'll have to see which side customers take.