I Deleted My Steam Account After 20 Years
gist.github.com
gist.github.com
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.
>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.
The most problematic was Deathloop, which flashed up some messages about it being an unsupported APU but ultimately worked fine. Occasionally some games crash after waking from a suspend.
A bigger issue is the size and resolution of the screen. Many games of this type assume at least 1080p.
But the SD is just a PC in a handheld form factor. You can plug in a dock, external monitor and other peripherals, only removing it when travelling, if that suits you.
I have a monitor i'm borrowing from work, a mouse, keyboard, and the steamdeck Dock. And I just treat it like a desktop. You can still easily use steam big picture mode. OR you can boot to desktop, as the Steamdeck is just a Arch linux install. Its honestly amazing.
Steam is a big contributor to making games run on Linux but it's not some magical sauce unique to Steam. Unless you're talking about the store client software itself having better support, I haven't used any of the first party store clients on Linux. My GOG games run fine on Linux with Heroic Launcher.
But the bigger issue for me was when I bought older games from the Steam store only to discover that they didn't run properly or at all on Windows 10 despite the statement that they do. I bought them again from GOG who actually patched them to work. Supporting the OS I bought the games for should be guaranteed unconditionally for as long as I own the game. Support for additional OSes, especially when it's best effort, is just a bonus not a replacement.
While compatibility has improved a lot, it's difficult to argue it's on par with a game on as-released hardware + OS.
There will always be gaps or altered functionality in compatibility.
And unfortunately, because of the recency bias of popularity, there won't be large enough player bases to justify corporate fixes.
It needs to be a priority despite finances (e.g. GoG) or community driven (e.g. Kaldaien and the moding community).
And it seems fair for the latter to be pissed off when Valve intentionally creates extra work for them, because either Valve doesn't care or it makes business sense for them.
And if nobody cares... troublesome games just disappear. Which seems tragic.
Agreed, but at this point Wine is a better Win32 implementation than Win32. You typically have more success running old programs under Wine than under new versions of Windows.
Happens less in PC, because compute power progression, but I wouldn't dare say there aren't any such programs out there.
Interestingly, the Epic store is not, or rather it is but it uses Unreal to render it (or at least the Slate UI component of it). On my laptop it uses the discrete GPU to render instead of the integrated one, which has an impact on power use and battery life.
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
Absolutely unhinged opinion.
Epic: Basic library management, No user reviews system, Missing social features like forums, No mod support integration, Inconsistent cloud save functionality, Aggressive exclusive deals that remove games from other platforms, Perceived as "buying" market share rather than earning it, Heavy reliance on free games to attract users, Slower, less responsive launcher, More frequent bugs and crashes, Limited offline functionality Fewer accessibility options, No linux support and aggressive stance against free software in general.
For the rest of the stores some are better than others but at the end of the day they're "better features" rather than fundamentally better, like GOG is. Because ultimately what I'm doing is buying a game, not a forum or a review (as useful as those are), and definitely not renting a game.
You "have" games on Steam as much as you "have" the apartment you're currently renting.
GOG is pretty great.
The article mentions things like input APIs, so I kind of understand where the author is coming from. As someone who doesn't play a lot of games, it sounds like a very valid opinion to me.
Some of those examples are almost parodistic, specifically compared to the Epic Games Store equivalent offered. It feels there's something missing from the full story presented here.
And the library management is pretty basic. And the whole thing is slowwww. Especially, if you don't know what to play and need to look at multiple store pages to figure out what those games are about. I switched to Playnite
Also what does it look like if you use multiple DRM's? Does Apple Fairplay have a carve out in their contract that doesnt let me also have Denuvo? This is honestly a minefield and as smart as the poster might be, I dont think he has answers even he would like for all these questions.
Gaben saved gaming.
I dont understand the hate for other stores.
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?
I've used Steam almost since its inception, and by and large, it stays out of my way while playing, lets me install any game I've purchased historically without any trouble, and provides download speeds that approach my fiber's max limit when I do install a game. For me, it just works™. I've yet to have a bad experience with it.
Sure, I also use GoG semi-regularly, particularly because it's also been relatively painless to use but also because the often overlapping sales on both frequently result in games I'm interested showing up cheaper on one store than the other (but not always the same one). However, it started off pretty niche, and CD Projekt Red publishes their really big games to other stores (much to their credit), so I won't fault someone for not having used GoG yet.
I've also dipped my toes a little in the EA store, but only because there have been a few games I've wanted which required it. It struck me as an inferior experience to Steam and GoG, and I admit a particular distaste in the handful of cases where games bought on Steam/GoG still ultimately require launching the EA store before the games themselves load. If this is someone's first experience outside Steam, I totally understand retreating back to familiar territory.
I won't dispute if someone else claims having a bad experience with Steam - I just haven't shared it. However, I do find hate because "they want to make money" puzzling. Every store does.
We see a little bit of it on HN, but look at the comments on the Gist itself. This was also shared on /r/steam and the comments there. Or the fact that this is currently sitting at "flagged" on HN for no valid reason I can figure out.
There are a (seemingly) rather large subset of gamers that any talk of using another store is immediately scoffed at. Dare have to be critical of Valve/Steam (except for them not putting out games anymore, everyone seems to be in agreement that it sucks) and people try to pivot to all of the good things they have done as if that just makes whatever bad behavior they are doing justified.
Edit: Seriously, go look at some of the more recent comments on the gist attacking this guy and tell me there is not blind loyalty to Valve. Some of these responses are seriously unhinged.
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.
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.
I prefer GOG, but it's cool that Valve are advancing Linux gaming.
But then says well lets play a game on gamepass. I mean I guess that DOES solve the "patch it so that the game no longer works" problem. Just dont own anything.
Or is this an apples and oranges situation where microsoft doesn't "break trust" because they dont even offer you the ability to play the game.
Also I would love a example of a game that no longer works at all.
It’s false advertising when you ”buy” things with modern DRM, no? Maybe he’s tired of the hypocrisy.
"DRM means you don't own the product, and you'll eventually lose acces to it. Therefore, subscription based gaming plans are a preferred option, as they don't attempt to deceive you into thinking you're buying an ownable game, often with a real, ownable game price tag. The subscription starts at a given date, has a defined expiration date that depends on the offering you choose, and provides a clearer statement of non-ownership of games."
Personally I get the point, but this take is missing lots of important details that should've been considered before making such an impactful decision:
- Think, for instance, of some of the policies that are already present in some services, such as restrictions for offline play.
- And how much this opinion actually benefits videogame lobbies that are looking into pushing game-as-a-service practices that, very coincidentally, we're attempting to fight against in Europe with initiatives like "Stop Killing Games".
In fact, this message, at this time, could have counterproductive consequences for the non DRM market and overall customer rights exactly because of the surrounding situation.
"Might" is not "will".
> Will all of my information be deleted? Your personal information is removed, but some content you’ve posted in community areas is not. This includes things like discussion posts, or content that you posted in Steam community hubs, as well as comments you made on other Steam account’s profiles.
I read that as describing the types of content which would be deleted: "some" content but not all, and that the types of content that would not be deleted include the following: ...
I can also see how one might read that as saying that some of the following content may or may not be removed.
"Your personal information is removed, but some content you’ve posted in community areas is not. This includes things like discussion posts, or content that you posted in Steam community hubs, as well as comments you made on other Steam account’s profiles."
The only people to blame are the developers, not Valve.
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.
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.
like, steam sucks, but man the other platforms are worse. steam, for all it's misery and crashes, mostly stays out of my way.
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.
Absolutely insane take. Guess we'll have to see which side customers take.
I'm probably not an average gamer in the sense that I don't particularly care about playing games when they come out, and I've played many "big title" games months or years after their release because they became available on GamePass, but in general, I feel like my GamePass experience was better value than Steam and I'm considering resubscribing.
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.
Bummer for the community but it seems like a reasonable position.