Hacker News Reader

It's the userbase. Steam works well enough, hasn't changed really at all in years (a feature in and of itself), and has mostly everything a user would ever want or need.

Why then install an alternative client?

Source: I tried to compete with steam once. Tech was better. Nobody cared.

View on HN

I wouldn't even say Steam works well. The UI is laggy and clunky, the mobile app is a joke (literally worse than the web version). But it's good enough, it beats learning something new, especially since all game launchers seem to have some flashy custom UI instead of standard widgets.

I think Steam works very well. I heavily use in-homestreaming and big picture mode on my shield and it offers a nice experience that I've yet to see emulated elsewhere. I usually have a browse in the store and watch trailers on the TV before launching my game.

Remote Play is fun on games that support it.

And it runs on osx, linux and windows.

And then theres Broadcasting, chat. Its a heavily featured launcher, and offers way more than some of the alternatives out there.

> well enough

I had all the same gripes you do, believe me. I face similar issues with Steam. Nonetheless, people don't care. It works well enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com