This is why Steam is as popular as it is, they just release features that people like. Sure GOG doesn't have DRM and Epic Games gives a bigger share to developers but Steam gives players what they actually want.
Steams custom controller profiles alone used on Steam Deck are killers for me. Nothing else amounts.
Steaminput is a massive deal, it supports gyro, remapping, profiles, and extensive customization. XInput can't compare and the epic games store relies on developers for everything. That's the reason why I will always pick a Steam Controller over an Xbox controller.
Now if they would only release a Steam Controller 2...
I wish, the first one still stands as the best controller imo but it still has so much that can be improved (USB C, dual thumbsticks and trackpads, two back paddles, improved haptics, better gyro, better ergonomics, etc).
I want them to launch a Deck v2, Controller v2, and a new take on the Steam Machine simultaneously with a goal of knocking Xbox out of the market and replacing them as the third console. A new Steam Machine right now would play all of Xbox's exclusives on day one and some of Sony's.
I bet my right testicle that the very reason Sony and others have started bringing console ports to steam, is that steam has promised not to compete in the same space. Or something like that. Otherwise removing all those from steam is just something that’ll probably happen if they do enter the market again.
Then again, Steam Deck is a little bit in that direction. So perhaps not.
I think Sony wants out of the physical console market. They just don't know how to do it. The consoles are sold at a loss, but the games sales are massive returns on investments.
If they can double their sales by releasing on steam at the cost of 30% per sale, they still come out ahead, and can save all the R&D cost on developing a physical console, plus the loss from each individual console sale.
GOG has DRM for many titles: see Galaxy. As I understand it, it isn't as pervasive as Steam, but is necessary if you want multiplayer on many titles or care about extras like achievements.
Cloud sync also requires the drm, but the advantage that gog and itch have over steam is that for most games you just get the executables and you're good to go.
Tbf to cloud sync, nothing is stopping you from using your own backup/restore service with your drm-free titles compared to the other features that Galaxy offers.
You can also use a third party launcher. I use Lutris on Linux. The GOG Integration is excellent.
Achievements or multiplayer matching not being implemented in the game itself isn't on GOG. They still allow you to download and launch any game you've bought, without even requiring galaxy.
Also lesser known is the fact that there are DRM-free games on steam. Download them once, you can play without having steam running or even installed. Using a client to download isn't inherently DRM either.
It's hilarious to me that Epic will never introduce features like this, and also complain Steam has a monopoly, as if they're at all comparable
The fact that Epic Game Store exists at all is proof that Steam isn't a monopoly. A monopoly means they're the only option. Steam is not the only option. It is simply the best option.
But how does the EGS exist?
Because they are able to subsidize it with investor as well as Fortnite money. I doubt it's turned a profit for them.
Wouldn't exactly call that "viable competition"
That's the thing that gets me. Undercutting is the quintessential anticompetitive practice, and it's Epic's entire business model. They give away games for free because they are trying to siphon some of Steam's customers. They make exclusive release deals with publishers because they want to force people to use their platform. They are trying to compete with Steam using their resources from the success of Fortnite and Unreal rather than compete with the storefront by actually having a better storefront.
One of the problems Epic has is that it is only a store front. Steam is a fully featured platform.
Epic, in their lawsuit, wants to break Steam's store and platform into separate applications, so they can compete.
Sort of like how people want to have different app stores on their iphones.
Difference is: Steam has no restrictions in the first place. You can add non-Steam games to the client if you want. You can use Proton if you want.
Steam offers all of these features for free. What is the point in breaking them apart.
Most important difference: Steam isn't the only way to install apps. Even on Steam Deck.
That's easy to explain. EGS managed to make everyone hate them just as it started. How do they expect to be profitable if they piss off the entire market?
There are other stores such as GoG that have actual users.
EGS is the Fortnite launcher. Fortnite's player base is insanely huge. Those people have EGS installed, they just choose not to buy anything else on that platform, except maybe V Bucks.
PS: The installed base of the Microsoft Store and Xbox apps are even bigger because Microsoft is allowed to bundle those with Windows.
Steam does have a monopoly though. They don't do anything anti-competitive with it, so there is not much Epic can do about it (other than make their platform better for the people using it).
Steam does not have a monopoly by any actual definition of monopoly, though. A) Mobile gaming makes up the most of all video gaming revenue. B) On PC the most revenue is made by games that aren't even on Steam in the first place (Minecraft, Fortnite, Roblox). Steam's 2023 revenue has been estimated to be around 8.6bn USD out of 45bn USD of PC gaming revenue. That's barely a 5th of the market power. By no account this can be actually considered to be a monopoly.
I love this graphic because it’s a reminder to self-proclaimed “gamers” that mobile gaming has been doing laps around “real” gaming for over half a decade now, with no indication of the trend changing. Yes, mobile games are typically lower quality and more predatory, but it’s undeniable that the average person who plays video games now is just a regular person with a phone.
Yes, but... it's like comparing people that go to the cinema and people who watch reels on Instagram.
Okay, both things involve watching a video, but they are two very different experiences.
This is awesome. Steam continues to release great stuff
This is pretty great! I'm interested to see how the quality will compare with my OBS replay buffer settings. One of the best things is that it's coming to Steam Deck! Mostly excited to see how well this works on Linux.
If my screen recorder software doesn't put an "UNREGISTERED HYPERCAM 2" watermark at the top left corner, then I'm completely uninterested, smh
It'll almost be like having xFire again!
...I miss that software. IIRC they were bullshit-litigated out of existence.
Now there's a bit of software I haven't thought about in a long time
IT WAS SO GOOD! It was better in like 2010 than shit like discord is today.
Would be an incredible product today if it continued to receive development (w/o enshitification ofc).
it pisses me off to this day what we lost. That platform was, apparently, 15 years ahead of its time. I remember streaming gameplay to my friends. We seriously lost so much when it died.
I miss xfire too.
So that's what happened to them
Excellent.
Any information on if this tool separates game audio from other applications?
Maybe?
The page says it captures game audio only by default. But you can switch it to all audio if UPI want to capture something like external voice chat.
Currently it cannot. It does let you select which applications it records from though (ex: I have it set to record my game audio, discord, and my microphone, but not Spotify).
Awesome. OBS has never prioritized Linux performance, curious how this will compare.
To be honest, OBS is way more advanced than a screen recording tool. It's basically a live program director
I don't get it why people care so much about this, your AMD and Nvidia cards already did it for years, are they all deck users?
There are two factors.
First is simply the convenience of having it all built in to the gaming platform you're using instead of juggling other software. Plus Steam will host content you want to share for you, which neither AMD nor Nvidia does. Also, neither AMD nor Nvidia's offering providers a two hour rolling recording that you can just skim through and pick clips from at your leisure.
Second is the hope for better reliability. Shadowplay/replay/whatever nvidia is calling it now just stops working at random for a lot of people, myself included, with no warning or indication until you hit the "save replay" button and get a popup telling you that its not running. I also wrestled for a while with it recording the wrong screen when I had two monitors, so I'd just get clips of my second monitor desktop with the audio of the game. There are lots of people hoping that Steam will manage better.
Many are, yes. But for some like me who play via cloud streaming where at least Nvidia stops that function, it's a great thing. It's also nice to have it all in one place, most people already use Steams screenshot function so having this too is just nice. This has been a commonly requested feature for a long time, it's only weird that it has taken so long for it to exist.
No but I fucking hate geforce experience and the fact that I need to have an Nvidia account to use the features of my hardware. Now I can remove that garbage app from my pc, thanks Valve.
This is awesome
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
