I will say, Cyberpunk runs a lot better on the Deck than Clair Obscur does. Clair Obscur isn’t worth running on Deck IMO - frames drop below 30, hair and shadows are a horrible mess, and in the game’s first big cutscene that wasn’t an FMV it was so stuttery that it was making the music crackle. Completely ruins the game.

My steam deck is 95% docked gameplay. I love the ui, ux, cross saves, steam features, ability to play non steam games, and ease of use with the pile of controllers I’ve accreted over the years.

The same experience but it can run Expedition 33 at 1080p without looking like a framey disaster? Sign me up unless it’s ridiculously expensive. I’ve got no interest at all in buying one of the big 3’s DRM boxes, and building a PC for the living room is very expensive unless I’m willing to have it be a bigass tower. The cube is for meeeeeeee.

From what I can see, this doesn’t need privilege escalation. Just for the user to grant it screen reader privileges, which many users aren’t conditioned to see as the giant flashing red alarm bell it is.

Malware is like fishing. Bait a million hooks and throw them out there, something’s gonna bite and get hooked even if 999,999 lines never even get tugged.

I have yet to see a well made Unreal Engine 5 game

Do you not consider Expedition 33 a well-made game?

I have less issue with smaller devs doing it

The comment I replied to says “we should push smaller devs to try engines like Godot now for that as Unity and UE got too big for their boots.”

Indie games on shoestring budgets are also the games that can least afford to pay employees to learn the “better” tool set on the job. Hiring devs that are experienced in Unreal or Unity means your onboarding is just about teaching them your studio’s stuff, and the demands of your game. Budget is a zero sum game - if something like Expedition 33 (UE5) did it “right” instead of doing it “easy”, they might not have been able to afford or produce the phenomenal mocap/VA/soundtrack/environments in the game.

Godot continues to mature, and some relatively big names in the indie space are publicly dumping Unity for it (like Mega Crit with Slay the Spire 2). But “pushing” smaller devs to ignore the onboarding problem isn’t the way. It’s the smaller devs that benefit most from engines with “good enough” defaults - bigger studios can afford to pay someone to “do the lighting”.

Picking an engine (including the option of rolling your own shit) has to be a decision made very early in the game development cycle, like “before you hire anybody” early, and it’s a really hard one to change your mind on later. For a lot of studios, the right decision isn’t the “best, most capable, free-est” one. Hell, for Balatro the dev chose LOVE, which is usually used for VNs, because he didn’t need all the other features he’d get out of something like Unity or Godot.

I mean, this article was spawned by The Alters, which had a bad machine translation segment (a thing since long before we called it AI) and… Some lorem ipsum in a background texture.

It’s already in every game in the background. Do you think paid graphic designers are instructed not to use the AI features built into Photoshop/Illustrator?

Yeah, there’s less reason than ever before to play something like Stardew or Isaac or Hades on the Nintendo box where your save file is hostage to their system and you’ll never be able to use mods and the developers have to outsource the patches to a third party so the game’s always a couple months behind on the new features…

When the Switch 1 came out it was also the only console that had the “half-handheld” form factor. A lot of indie games like Isaac, Hades, and Slay the Spire got PC gamers like me to double dip (or in Hades’ case, actually choose Switch over Steam) for the gameboy factor. The Switch (2) is no longer unique in that regard. I haven’t touched my Switch 1 for anything but exclusives since the Steam Deck came out.

In 2025, a company that is just looking to make a shitload of money is enough to automatically “win”.

Valve: “What are you selling?” Video games, video game hardware without vendor lock-in, and in-app purchases. “Who are you selling it to?” PC gamers.

Literally everyone else in the space except for Itch, which is decidedly focused on too-indie-for-indie games and is small enough to be acquired if it ever gets popular: “What are you selling?” The promise that we’ll make more profit next year than this year. “Who are you selling it to?” Shareholders or a corp that’ll buy the whole company.

It’s an absolute no-brainer. Until anyone else can answer these questions in the same way Valve does, Valve is automatically the best player in the space. Even if another store sells games for cheaper, or has exclusives, or bans DRM, or manages to make a better storefront program, or pays developers a bigger cut. I’m not on some “good guy Gabe” circlejerk shit. There’s no morals to ascribe here. Valve makes enough money and is okay with making enough money, forever. MS, Epic, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Sony, CDPR, Apple, Amazon, ActiBlizz, and every other storefront operator will be considered a failure if they don’t make “more more money than last year” every year forever. I know which platform I want to maintain a library on. I’ll happily use GOG and Itch to buy DRM-free installers though, those will outlast any enshittification the platform does in the future.

Valve will never IPO, yes! I don’t care why. That automatically makes it better than any other launcher/storefront platform that’ll exist in my lifetime, barring one that commits to staying private, succeeds as a private company, and is content with “staying profitable” for x years. Platforms that IPO universally get worse and worse as they wring every drop of shareholder value from their users to feed the infinite growth machine. We’re having this conversation on Lemmy instead of on Reddit for presumably this reason. Platforms that have shareholders (which includes Epic and CDPR’s GOG) have a primary motive of “being more profitable than last year”. If, let’s say, Epic made ten billion dollars in profit last year but also made ten billion dollars in profit in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, it’d be a failed company.

I’ll happily take the only company in the PC gaming space that’s content with one money printer over every other option that’s always thinking about how to make a second one, or reduce the ink costs, or blah blah blah. It’s just a happy coincidence that in the PC gaming space (unlike pretty much every other space), the shareholder-free thing is also the most popular, and best thing. I’d use the worse less-popular thing if that thing were the only thing free from growth capitalism.

If a game dev doesn’t value their presence on the Steam store higher than the cost of Steam’s service, they don’t list on Steam. Simple as. It’s just that a lot of dev studios consider “visible on the Steam store” to be very valuable indeed. That’s what they’re paying for, not the stuff about Steam that benefits the user (client features like Input, Workshop, Cloud, Community, etc).

If tomorrow someone made a better Steam, how many years would you have to wait to be reasonably secure that it’s not fueled by venture capital and serving as a loss leader foot-in-the-door scheme? It’s not impossible that Steam itself would enshittify and open an IPO, but the fact that the option’s been on the table for decades and Valve hasn’t taken it is better evidence than any other platform could muster. Valve has proven that it’s profitable and that it doesn’t need to care about YoY growth. Let’s overestimate their operations costs (CDN, R&D, employee salaries, hardware production, licensing, etc etc) at 5 billion a year. If they made ten billion in revenue last year and only make seven billion this year, Valve is fine. Think about that. Think about what a sixty percent drop in profits would do to literally any shareholder-backed company. It’d be apocalyptic.

That’s the main reason I’ll use Steam happily but never install another storefront on my PC. I’ll buy games on GOG or Itch as DRM-free installers, and store the installers locally, and I’ll buy and play games that distribute without a storefront launcher, but the only “storefront platform” anyone’s gonna get me to install in the next decade is Steam. If “better Steam” happens, it needs to demonstrate immunity to being bought out by Microsoft/Elon Musk for eighty morbillion dollars. And that can’t be demonstrated in a day.

That’s without any mention of actual “features” like reviews or remote play or proton or steam input or anything that actually makes Steam as a program good/bad. It’s all about the company’s refusal to go shareholder-driven. If Gabe sells Valve or his successors do, I’m off the ship and scraping the DRM off of my library. What I won’t do if that happens is go to someone else’s shareholder-value-generating storefront.

Gabe Newell is a man who, for the past decade at least, has had a big red button on his desk. This button, if pressed, will deposit eleven or twelve figures directly into his wallet to distribute however he likes, at the cost of letting some company gain control of how Valve operates. Make all his employees multimillionaires! Race Musk and Bezos for biggest number! Buy a small country! Whatever! Gabe Newell has not pressed this button, and has signaled that after his retirement or death that no successor to the company is going to be allowed to press it either. If Newell’s managed not to press it for this long, I’ll “trust” him as far as it goes. His successor hasn’t earned that trust yet, so is only coasting on “trusting Newell to pick the right guy” which isn’t guaranteed - a lot of guys would sacrifice a lot to press that button.

Yeah, all they need to rake in direct profits from the MS store and especially gamepass lock-in is to make it easier to do that than install software through other means. Don’t forget though, even if it’s possible to buy this WinXbox and completely remove Windows from it for SteamOS or Bazzite (unlikely), MS still gets to sell controllers and accessories for the thing. And also, just like installing Linux on a laptop or ad-ridden Smart TV homepages, most users are going to use it out of the box. Anything that’ll require plugging in a keyboard will immediately gate out any chance of a majority of users not using xbox storefront/gamepass/etc on this thing.

It’s also Microsoft. Their video games division is tiny compared to their business sector and other arms. Taking losses in video games just to push the concept of “windows is good and open!” harder to normies (you and i on fucking lemmy know that “more open than a nintendo switch” is a low bar to clear and Windows is far from “freedom”) might be worth it to the shareholders. After all, they spend how many billions on advertising every year and that’s a direct loss in exchange for more consumer awareness of their products. It could also be a targeted tactic to just obliterate Sony as a competitor in the console space. Sell something cheaper and stronger, with more games including your already-paid-for Steam games on it and compare that to vendor lock-in for the PS6? Where the PS6 only has timed exclusivity on most first-party games and the occasional Astro Bot style exclusive? Can’t even be open to anti-trust if they do nuke Sony, because they can just point at Nintendo selling a donkey kongillion Switch 2s in the same exact market space.

So imagine an Xbox Series X that’s also as open as a Steam Deck. Or, to put it simply, imagine a gaming PC with a comfortable couch layout, sold at a much cheaper price point than it’d be as a laptop/desktop because Microsoft can afford to sell it at (or below) cost of parts to push Gamepass subs and adherence to the Windows ecosystem. Mods, your existing Steam / Epic / GOG / pirated libraries. Assuming it’s not locked down, it’s the first time I’ve considered owning an Xbox product since the 360.

Don’t forget, an Xbox that’s just a PC is an Xbox that gets all of Sony’s cutscene hallways too. And all of Nintendo’s games through emulation. And the entire Steam library, and hell since it’s Windows (and thus plays nice with rootkit DRM) it’s a console that runs League of Legends. A console that runs world of warcraft if you want. A console that gets day zero access to those cool indie games on Itch. A console that’s immune to port beggars every time something like Balatro drops PC-first. That’s a console someone’s gonna buy, unlike the XSX which is a console with no exclusives (vs PC) and also doesn’t have the PC’s multiple storefronts and compatibility with your existing libraries and mods.

“why do you have a playstation instead of just a gaming pc in your living room?” Has very legitimate answers other than “i like sony exclusives”. More technical setup. Worse controller UI. More expensive. Bigger. Bulkier. Needs research to determine best parts. Doesn’t have the seamless ability to boot the system from the couch with a controller. All of these could be handled by an MS-backed PC-in-Xbox-Clothing. Yes, they could also (except price point) be handled by a well-researched custom build, but bringing PC to the living room for the kind of person that doesn’t know what an OS is would be a pretty big deal.

The ideal outcome (that’ll never happen) is a PS6 that is a PC. But shareholders would never go for tearing down a walled garden ecosystem. At least not when they can wait for MS to do it first and prove it does/doesn’t work.

The GAAS crashouts are the modern equivalent. Shareholders were sold the idea of “our own Fortnite! Infinite money forever!”. What they got was Concord. Anthem. Marathon. There’ll still be cash-grab GAAS out there, but eventually investors are going to put it together that it’s not a safe gamble.

But unlike the ET “moment”, video games as an industry, product, and art medium are here to stay. Making the things is too accessible now for the entire concept to ever be at risk again. The ET moment didn’t just threaten Atari, it threatened the concept of home consoles. Trying to imagine a single steaming pile of shit or even industry trend “threatening video games” now is like imagining a movie so bad that it kills cinema. Even if every single shareholder-backed games studio got rugpulled tomorrow, there are plenty of other studios out there to pick up the slack.

Worse for CRTs than that - the manufacturing process and power draw of the finished product wouldn’t pass modern environmental regs. The heavy glass is leaded, because the CRT is beaming you in the face with radiation. Leaded glass is a big no-no nowadays. Even if someone got a CRT factory up and running they wouldn’t likely be allowed to operate domestically in Europe/North America, and shipping 200 pound glass sealed vacuum flasks is a recipe for lost inventory.

Not to mention, even with economies of scale in play, the kind of monitors/TVs that modern CRT enthusiasts want cost thousands of dollars new in the late 90s/early '00s. The material costs wouldn’t have gotten cheaper, so even if somehow Sony or whoever started producing CRTs at scale again they’d likely be $3k+ luxury products (again). Flatscreen panels, even those HDR 8K OLED ones, are simply way way cheaper to manufacture and ship.

My 32 inch Trinitron ($35 on craigslist, it was actually free but the dude agreed to $25 to drive it over and I tipped him ten bucks) cost some schmuck $999 in 2003, that’s $1800 in today money. A quick amazon search shows that if you’re willing to pay $2k on a TV in 2025 it buys you a 65-inch 8k 120hz Samsung display. An 85-inch 60hz 4k display also by Samsung is “only” $1200. No CRT purist niche is gonna make producing 200 pound radioactive power sucking naturally blurry chonkbeasts worthwhile for a company, even if they could theoretically get them made for as cheap as they made 'em in 2005.

Well, you have to buy the game to try launching it without Steam. Or ask someone who did, of course. It’d be nice to know before buying.

Do note that the default shortcuts Steam uses are Steam dependent - they’re “steam://” addresses that tell Steam to load the game, not shortcuts to the game’s raw executable.

Steam notifies for third party DRM, but not for the games that do/don’t use Steamworks DRM. There are games on Steam that are completely DRM free and will launch from the exe file without Steam running at all, but there’s no way to tell if Game X is one of those other than word of mouth.

Unlike most "everything"s out there, games are doing great. Ignore shovelware and corpo schlock, some of the best games ever made have come out in the past few years. Genres get pushed, art gets made, phenomenal brain-off gameplay loops are polished, stories get told. Which world is better:

4 good games come out every year but it’s Nintendo and co making them. Also 100k bad games come out every year.

10 good games come out every year. Nintendo and Ubisoft and Sony churn out 29 shareholder revenue generators. There are nine million AI asset flip cash grabs and porn VNs released that year. People are paying 20,000 dollars a month for catgirl jpgs on their gambling phone games.

Who cares about “ratio” of good to schlock? You were never gonna play it all anyway. The last couple years alone saw everything from Balatro to Caves of Qud to Blue Prince.

And the thing is… Because Steam is better for the user, it becomes better from the developer. 70% of your game’s Steam revenue will always be bigger than 100% of your Epic revenue. It’s probably bigger than 300% of your Epic revenue. That’s why Steam doesn’t need to buy exclusives or run loss leaders or try to lock you in with “free!” promos. Epic needs to pay developers up front to get them to not go to Steam, because in every case a dual Steam/whatever-else release is better than a whatever-else release. So Epic needs to pay the indie game studio that made a $10 game a million dollars for timed exclusivity, which allows the studio to not worry about losing their Steam revenue from selling 130,000 copies. Then they release it on Steam later anyway.

If it was as simple as “cutting out middlemen” or using cheaper middlemen, devs would just be selling you exe files. CDN costs wouldn’t come close to 30% of revenue, after all. People like buying games on Steam. People buy games on Steam that are cheaper and DRM-free on GOG or Itch. People buy games on Steam that are free downloads like Dwarf Fortress. People buy games on Steam that are free browser pages like Cookie Clicker. Epic wants people to be invested in their “free!” libraries enough to actually be like “oh I mean I’ve got the Epic account, may as well buy this game here because it’s cheaper or more of my money goes to the devs or because it’s a timed exclusive…” And people simply aren’t doing it.