Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
- 4 Posts
- 2.82K Comments
Exactly. I have something like 10-20 “complete” games because they either give 100% completion for rolling credits or I really enjoyed the game and ended up completing the achievements anyway. Of the rest, I’ve probably rolled credits on 80% of my “played” games, because sometimes I just lose interest before I reach the end, while still enjoying my time w/ it.
Games should be fun, and if they stop being fun, move on.
A lot of Steam games don’t have any DRM, and most of the rest are pretty easy to strip.
Give it a shot sometime. Completely quit out of Steam, turn off your internet, and try running some of your older Steam games directly from the Steam folder.
I do this somewhat often when my kids are on my other computer playing games on my account and I still want to play something. It’s a little trickier on Linux since you need something to run the Proton/WINE layer, so I mostly stick to Linux-native games in that pretty rare case.
Exactly!
And it’s highly unlikely that OP is playing 100% new-releases, especially w/ that 200+ installed games, so they’re probably getting a bunch of those well below store price (i.e. through bundles and whatnot). I have several hundred games, many of which I haven’t played, and most of those came in a bundle that included a couple games I did play (and the total price was significantly less than the retail price of the games I did play).
I’m guessing that’s OP’s case, and given how many they claim to have played, I’m guessing they have a lot of time to play games.
not finishing so many of your games shows some kind of problem
If they’ve played 23%, that’s a lot of games, as in, well over 1k. Thy said nothing about how many they’ve finished, but I don’t think “finishing” is all that important.
What I’m more interested in is how much time they have for playing games. What’s they’re lifestyle like that they can play nearly 2k games while also accomplishing other life goals? It’s not an unreasonable amount, just sufficiently high that it raises some eyebrows.
I feel like it’s an obligation for me to finish a game unless I don’t like it.
If OP isn’t finishing any games, yeah, I agree. But there are a ton of games that I don’t find worth finishing, in any sense you define that, but that I still find worth playing.
For example, I didn’t finish Brutal Legend because I really didn’t like the RTS bits at the end. I still love that game and recommend it, but I only recommend it w/ the caveat that the ending is quite different from the rest of the game and it’s okay to bail. That type of game isn’t going to have an amazing ending, so the risk of not seeing the ending is pretty small (and I can always look that up on YT or elsewhere if I want). I did the same for Clustertruck because the ending had an insane difficulty spike on the last level and I just didn’t care enough to finish it.
However, other times I have pushed through, such as Ys 1 Chronicles, which has an insane difficulty spike on the final boss. I am happy I pushed through, because I really liked the world and the ending, which feeds into the next game (in fact, on Steam, it automatically started Ys II after finishing Ys 1). I ended up not liking Ys II as much (still finished), but I really liked the tie-over from the first to the second.
So yeah, I don’t fault someone for not finishing games, but I do think they’re missing out if they never finish games.
While true, I think it’s important to note that many buy the Switch for other reasons. My kids wanted a Switch, but I didn’t get it until there were enough games my wife and I really wanted to play. My wife was bummed about Kinect dying and was Ted a replacement for her exercise games, and I had been missing Zelda games, so I got the Switch, some Just Dance games, Ring Fit Adventure, the two Zelda remakes, and a couple games for the kids. The kids have kind of taken it over, but it still fulfills our purposes in getting it.
My point is that the Switch has a lot more appeal than just shutting kids up for a bit. It’s a good console on its own, and the only console I’m willing to buy. The PS5 and Xbox Series has nothing I’m interested outside of a few exclusives, so my wife and I just play on our PCs and my Steam Deck.
My history with consoles is:
- Whatever by brother bought
- OG Xbox to play Halo
- Xbox 360 for Kinect games
- Switch - play w/ kids; Smash has been amazing for this
- Steam Deck - not a console, but I use it as one; got it to play games in bed
I play most games on PC because I’m just not as interested in exclusives anymore, except maybe Zelda games, and with BOTW and TOTK, I’m less interested in those (they lost the formula I like).
I’ll probably get the Switch 2 eventually, but I’ll wait until there’s a game I really want (say, ALttP remake or something), my kids break our OLED Switch, or there’s an OLED Switch 2 with better battery life.
Neither make sense plot-wise. The opening to TOTK doesn’t even follow BOTW’s ending IMO. I haven’t finished it, so I don’t know if they tie things together later, but the reuse of the world doesn’t feel plot-relevant at all.
Musings
It could make sense as a prequel though, but as a sequel, it feels like a stretch. We’ll see how the game progresses.
I do recommend playing TOTK after BOTW, but not for plot, but because it’s the same world and TOTK is simply more populated with things to do (more enemy types, more towns, etc). Both are fun games.
If you’re looking for a Zelda game though, this just doesn’t feel like one. Yeah, you play as Link and do Link things, but the classic formula (find dungeon, get new equipment, solve puzzles, beat boss, repeat) isn’t there.
I’m playing TOTK right now and while it’s better than BOTW (which I enjoyed), I still much prefer other Zelda games. Skyward Sword is my favorite on Switch, followed by Link’s Awakening and then Echoes of Wisdom. It’s my first time playing those first two, and I absolutely loved them.
I’m a sucker for the classic Zelda formula: find dungeon, solve puzzles, get new ability, use ability to defeat dungeon, repeat.
BOTW and TOTK don’t have that, the “dungeons” suck, the puzzles are even more gimmicky, and I absolutely hate crafting mechanics (cooking and elixers suck). But they’re still fun, so I play them.
If you’ll only play one, play TOTK. If you’ll play both eventually, play BOTW. If you’re looking for a classic Zelda experience, get something else.
I’m not a fan of BOTW because it doesn’t feel like a Zelda game, but a Zelda-themed open world adventure game. TOTK is a better sandbox game, and everything except the abilities and puzzles feel strictly better (though I’ve only done 15 or so), and the puzzles kinda sucked in BOTW anyway.
I don’t recommend either to Zelda fans, but I would recommend TOTK over BOTW for someone considering getting one. If you’ll eventually play both, play BOTW first.
TOTK has more creative combat, such as my kid fusing a bomb barrel to a shield, which blows up enemies when they attack. Other than that, the combat feels very similar to BOTW, and there’s new enemy types (and I think more variety?).
It’s certainly gimmicky, and I think the puzzles are easier, though neither has particularly great puzzles. I personally think TOTK is the better sandbox game, while BOTW is a little better Zelda game, but they’re both kinda crappy Zelda games IMO.
Maybe. But in many areas, only one party realistically has a shot, so reps basically get elected in their primary process. So instead of needing a majority of the total population to win, you just need a plurality of the few who get involved in the primary process.
Blame the people involved in the primary process, not the people who only vote in the general election.
I really like the Ys games, and I think Y’s Origin meets those requirements. The boss fights are difficult, but no crazy difficulty spikes, provided you’ve been killing things properly along the way. I only had to grind for a few min for one boss, and that’s back because I actively avoided the mobs and ended up underleveled.
Zelda games tend to also be really well designed, pretty much any will do.
Why is it Valve’s job to make sure that legacy 32-bit games continue to run? They’re not the vendor of the game, and they’re not the vendor of the OS.
They have a responsibility to ensure that games they sell continue to work. They ship libraries on Linux so there’s a common base, and they should also do so for 32-bit games. GOG does this for older games using things like dosbox or whatever, and Steam should follow suit.
Why would I use a launcher if it doesn’t launch games?
Sure, and that’s because:
- Nobody bothered competing with them for years
- Those that did eventually compete didn’t get anywhere near feature parity
I think EGS and GOG could get most of Steam’s features with 2-3 years of solid development effort, but instead EGS whines about Steam having unfair market share and GOG just refuses to innovate on their client.
That’s not Valve’s fault, what is in their control is whether they use their market position to kill off competitors, and they don’t do that.
But there is competition in PC gaming, GOGA, EGS, and Prime (and others) exist. One player being dominant isn’t an issue if that player isn’t being anticompetitive.
The closest thing I’ve seen is the policy that you can’t sell for less than on Steam, while allowing for sales to happen separately from on Steam. Publishers can even generate keys for free and sell them without any profit sharing elsewhere, and customers can still use those keys on Steam.
EGS is acting more like a monopoly than Steam and undercuts Steam on fees, Prime bundles its services, and Microsoft has an inexpensive subscription for unlimited games, yet Steam is still more popular. Why? People prefer Steam’s service, and publishers are willing to pay a premium to sell on Steam, all without anticompetitive behavior.
Valve is a shining example of how to handle having a commanding market share: they invest in their products so customers want to stay.
A store charging 30% has zero impact on the end user if the price is the same, which it is in many cases. And popular titles pay 20%, not 30%.
The moment their monopoly is self perpetuating is the moment we no longer are in a free market
That depends on your definition of “self-perpetuating”.
To me, it’s only problematic if Valve is anticompetitive, such as paying for exclusives (like Epic does), preventing cross-play, or charging a subscription or something for users to keep having access to their games.
Just having a better product isn’t anticompetitive though. I’ve laid out my requirements for a viable competitor, and I’m sure other gamers have their own. If a competitor wants our business, they need to meet our requirements.
Alan Wake 2 wasn’t profitable until EGS exclusivity expired
Well yeah, because EGS sucks.
If you look at Steam’s competitors, none of them are really developing their feature set. So even if customers were dissatisfied w/ Steam, who is actively trying to earn their business?
aren’t you worried that having one good option is being one good option away from having no good options?
Sure, I’d love it if another platform stepped up to actually compete w/ Steam.
My expectations are fairly low: it needs to work well on Linux. Heroic largely resolves that for EGS and GOG, but I’m not particularly interested in supporting a platform that only works because some community project has done the work for them. So if GOG supported Galaxy on Linux as a first class citizen, I’d probably still use Heroic, but I’d buy a lot more games from them. But as it stands, GOG is one update away from blocking access to my games through a launcher, and dealing w/ WINE/Proton directly is a pain. EGS is so far away from what I care about that I don’t think they could ever earn my business, but who knows, maybe they’ll surprise me.
But the fact that we’re even having this discussion is a testament to Steam’s success. Heroic probably wouldn’t be a thing w/o Valve’s investment into Proton/WINE, so GOG/EGS wouldn’t even be a consideration for me at all. But since that work was done, I now have more options. I’ve played some GOG and EGS games through Heroic, so it’s not even theoretical, they are realistic alternatives.
It’s important to note that at every turn, Valve has earned my trust. When games are pulled from their store, owners of those games still have access (e.g. I bought Rocket League on Steam, and when they went EGS exclusive, I still had the old version of the game). They have a solid refund policy, and they have gone out of their way to make things more pleasant for their customers. Even if they didn’t have a dominant market position, I’d probably still choose them just based on the user experience. So yeah, not having a realistic alternative isn’t great, but I don’t think it’s because of anything nefarious Valve has done, but instead lack of interest by their competitors.
PC gamers aren’t “stuck with Steam,” they very much have options. And Steam is likely way better than whatever Battle.net would’ve become, so I’m quite happy with how things turned out.
And yeah, Valve was quite lucky in nailing the timing, however, that was also a very conscious choice since they filled a need they saw. Valve is perhaps the best company you could ask for to have such a dominant position, pretty much any other company would’ve resulted in a way worse situation for gamers.
It was proposed, but Blizzard rejected it:
Schreier reports in the book that a few years before Steam launched, a group of employees pitched the company on a plan “to turn Battle.net into a digital store for a variety of PC games.”
Battle.net basically approached the same problem as Steam but from the multiplayer side, whereas Steam approached from the distribution side.
Valve supports Linux just to safeguard their monopoly.
I wouldn’t put it like that. They support Linux to safeguard against Microsoft pushing their monopoly, and they did seem to be gearing up to do just that. Epic had similar concerns, hence the lawsuits against Google and Apple.
All of this is pointless for most of the
How is Linux support pointless? Having more options to play your games is a good thing! I don’t think Heroic would’ve had as much of an impact w/o Valve’s investment into Proton/WINE, and that gives customers a choice on which platform to buy and play their games on. It also allowed for the Steam OS market, and competitors are absolutely welcome to create their own spin with their own store, they just don’t for whatever reason.
Downloading and updating games, for me, is actually the least important part of what Steam offers. I care far more about Linux support (I was a Linux user before I was a Steam user), Steam Input (Steam Deck, and I prefer controller on PC), and consolidating sales to one store. Whether I need to launch it separately or whatever isn’t a big deal.
No, it is where it is because Valve decided it wanted to invest in it outside of it being a launcher/updater for Valve games.
And it’s not really the first. The first was probably Battle.net by Blizzard, which initially was a way to connect players (chat and join games) back in the mid-90s. It wasn’t a game sales/distribution service for many years, but it got there w/ the release of the dedicated desktop app in 2013 and had some of the core features that makes Steam special (chat and match making). In fact, I had the desktop app before I had a Steam account, which I created in ~2013 when Steam came to Linux (I switched to Linux in ~2009, and had played games on Windows for years before that). Blizzard was never interested in becoming a game distribution network, so Battle.net remained largely exclusive to Blizzard titles.
I wouldn’t have bothered w/ Steam if it didn’t provide value. I was fine managing games individually, and I bought many games from Humble Bundle and directly from devs for years before Steam became a thing. I only started preferring Steam when it provided features I couldn’t get elsewhere. These days, it provides so much value since I’m a Linux user, that I honestly don’t consider alternatives, because everything else is painful. Heroic launcher closes that gap substantially, so I’m actually considering buying more from GOG (outside of a handful of old games I can’t find elsewhere).
If another launcher provided better value vs Steam, I’d switch in a heartbeat. I use both Steam and Heroic, and I still prefer Steam because it has great features like controller mapping. But if, say, GOG supported the features I care about on the platform I use, I’d probably switch to GOG because I also care about DRM-free games. But they don’t, so I largely stick to Steam.
If I don’t like what Comcast charges I don’t do a class action lawsuit.
That’s a poor example, because in many markets, Comcast (or another cable provider) is the only option, or there’s only one other option with much lower top-end speeds (e.g. DSL). So a class-action against Comcast may be a reasonable idea, since they’re an actual monopoly in many markets.
The games industry is different. Steam does have a commanding share of the market, but there’s no real lock-in there, a developer can choose to not publish there and succeed. Minecraft, famously, never released on Steam, and it has been wildly successful. Likewise for Blizzard games, like Starcraft and World of Warcraft.
Maybe a better comparison is grocery store chains? Walmart has something like 60% market share in the US, yet I have successfully been able to completely avoid shopping there.
I and my kids value the exclusives, especially Smash Brothers, Mario Kart, Zelda, and Kirby. I could emulate those, but getting local multiplayer working is tricky and not something I expect my kids to do with their friends. We also share games with neighbors, which is nice too.
Most of my time and gaming money goes to my Steam Deck, because that’s what I play when the kids go to bed. In fact, I never play the Switch without my kids watching. We have maybe 20 Switch games, and I have hundreds of Steam games. I see value in both ecosystems.
I’ll probably get one eventually, but I’m in no rush. We still have lots of Switch games to play, and nothing yet is a must have. Now, if they make a great Zelda game or something, maybe I’ll be convinced.
Most of my gaming is on PC or Steam Deck, so the Switch is mostly for my kids and family game time. So as long as the OG fulfills that purpose, I’m not upgrading.
That sounds awesome!
I chose a bit of a different life path with different rewards and caveats. I’m glad you found something that brings you joy. :)