You're viewing a single thread.
Not interested.
Ubisoft Connect, no thanks.
I don't get the "launcher hate". Yes, they're not the most convenient, but I'm not playing in the launcher for hours.
Currently I play moddedDragon Age Inquisition. The launch sequence is:
Frosty Fix -> Frosty Manager -> Epic Games -> EA App -> Dragon Age.
Takes a few seconds and I'm in the game.
I dont hate them because theyre inconvenient. I hate them because there are so many of them. I don't want more bloatware.
Include the necessary binaries to access your servers in the game's master executable, its not hard.
I have several hundred games and a handful of launchers. I start one of them. Sometimes two when necessary. What's the hassle?
Because of bloatware, which they wrote. Its not that hard. Might not be a problem for you, but that doesn't say anything about others.
Bloatware and probably spyware. They're all out to get your data.
"Oh, cool. I don't want my 6 different launchers to all start every time I turn on my computer, so I'll only start the launcher that has the game I want to play, so long as I remember what launcher it is."
"Oh, awesome. I started the launcher. Now it's showing 278GB worth of updates to download since I haven't opened this one for a few months. Guess I'll start playing tomorrow."
Exactly, I'll start the game shortcut which launches the needed game store and then the game, done. None of the apps is in auto-start.
Updates are off course done via winget.
Please stop making up problems where there aren't any. I already do acknowledge that launchers and game stores aren't an ideal solution. But they work fine.
I don't get the "launcher apologists". Yes, the companies insist on using their own, but I'm not willing to expend system resources on multiple badly made memory-hog software doing fuck-knows-what running simultaneously that I don't even interact with.
Imagine how many great games people miss out on by being petty
There’s thousands of great games out there. I think I can live with missing the odd one here and there.
imagine a car company adding like another door or lock/2nd key you'd have to open/unlock every time. thats what those represent. we know the 95% of games don't need it. now for ones like paradox interactive games that have mod playlists support and is mostly utilitarian (they do have a little banner ad space for dlc etc), hell yeah thats fine, but when their just gross multi layer ads, odd trophy points shops/weird 2nd store front that smack of walled garden ecosystem shit those can fuck right off.
i mean im also someone who 99% of the time mod out intro/and dev splash screens to save seconds.
Tl;dr
It's not a car company. It's a PC that when it can run a game it can run a launcher simultaneously too.
And those extra launchers take up unnecessary resources and extra steps between you and the game.
If I buy a game on one launcher, I should only have to deal with that launcher.
I agree, launchers are one superfluous piece of software that require additional resources.
Steam takes half a gig of RAM. From my 32 gigs available.
Also around 1 or 1.5 gigs on my drive. Many games take 50 to 100 gigs.
It's a minor inconvenience. If one can't afford one gig for a launcher how would a game be installed anyway?
It’s not just one launcher in a lot of cases. Many cases have you also run another launcher such as Ubisoft and EA games that require their launchers to run along side Steam. It all adds up and it doesn’t need to be that way nor does it need defending.
I don’t really understand why you’re defending something thats worse for you than the alternative.
I don't defend the situation, I get along with it. Is it not possible for some people to have an issue with a product and still be able to use it?
Launchers aren't perfect, not even Steam as the pack leader. But they're a **minor inconvenience **.
I haven't got a single game installed that uses nearly as few resources as all the launchers. Mass Effect LE alone is around 100 times bigger than Steam on my drive. That's not bloatware, that's a mini tool in comparison.
Curseforge/Overwolf takes less than 500 MB of RAM, when I launch Minecraft through it the game takes 20 times the amount.
Tell me where the problem is. If your computer can run and install the game it can do so with the launcher too. Some of us can deal with that even if it's not a perfect situation.
Making excuses is defending the situation.
“Oh you can ignore it and other programs use more resources” is an excuse for the situation. It also missing the fact that games typically have good reason to be taking up so much resources. Bloatware launchers don’t.
Most people when they have an issue don’t go making excuses unless they’re ignorant or too lazy to want a change. Why else would anyone downplay an issue that theyd be better off without?
Yes, you can make anything look small in comparison to games. It’s a bit disingenuous to compare a launcher to something designed to use a lot of resources such as a game. You can’t really compare games and launchers, they’re completely different kinds of software.
A game has business using all the resources they do. Any launcher that is installed on top of a game that you bought from another storefront doesn’t.
Again, just as users shouldn’t have to put up with bloated games that take up unnecessary resources, they shouldn’t have to deal with unnecessary launchers that take up unnecessary resources.
It doesn’t matter that games are larger because that doesn’t change the point. Point is that these extra launchers just don’t need to be a thing. Whether or not games are larger in comparison is completely irrelevant.
It’s bloatware because they aren’t needed. Thats what bloatware is, unnecessary shit that takes up space and resources when it doesn’t need to. If I bought a game in steam, it should just require Steam to run. Not Origin or Uplay or other bloat on top.
It’s unnecessary no matter the scale. Why should I ignore something taking up 500mb when I can achieve the same thing for 250mb or less? In the end it’s always better to have a leaner system that doesn’t have shit you don't need taking up any amount of space.
Except everyone wants to have their own launcher and they all want to register background services that chew up resources constantly and do god knows what.
I currently have 8 stores installed and 1 (in words: one of them) runs a background task: Windows/XBox services. Come again.
You can take them off of the "launch on startup" list to make them not do that, but he said they "want" to, which is true.
Yes, just like Discord and many other apps that are useful but annoying: You take them off autostart once.
I don't get why people would rather be angry all the time instead of just performing these five clicks once.
It doesn’t stop being an issue just because you can brush it under the rug and ignore it.
The point is that the user shouldn’t have to work around these extra launchers. How about companies just stop pushing their own bloatware. If you buy a game through Steam, it should just require Steam. Same for GOG and all the others.
I don't claim it's not an issue and yes I can ignore it perfectly.
Compared to what amount of resources most modern games require, a launcher or store app needs a tiny fraction of that. The issue is overblown IMHO.
The way you downplay it sounds a lot like you’re trying to make it out as if it’s not an issue.
Games taking up resources doesn’t change anything I said either. Funnily enough though the same thing applies to games, users shouldn’t have to put up with games that take up unnecessary resources either. Just like they shouldn’t have to deal with bloatware launchers that take up unnecessary resources and throw more hoops to jump through.
Not really sure why you’re defending something that’s worse for you. What’s in it for you that you’d rather defend unnecessary launchers over not having to deal with them?
Good grief just read and reflect on the first sentence of my previous post.
Also, once they discontinue the launcher there's a fat chance the game will not start at all, like it happened with some games tied to M$ Games for Windows live
I paid 5€ for all three Mass Effects and another 5 for DA:Inquisition.
How long am I considered to "own" that before I can let go for good because I got my money's worth?
I won't ever play them a second time, so I gain nothing from games hogging my game library.
Ever, because you fucking bought them? Same way if you buy a car, a house, a pacifier...
I guess they get a house with an integrated landlord service
Again, I got to play four AAA games for the price of a movie ticket. How many lifetimes do I have to "own" these games?
I think I got my money's worth out of the deal. Four big games for a tenner and people are still like "but you don't really own them ". Yes, I know. It's more like a very long rental.
For the majority of users, launchers are not only unnecessary but also an unnecessary privacy and security risk, imo. They're running administrative privileges while in the background the entire time, when they only really need to be run for updates. That said, it's not a dealbreaker for me, either, I just don't like these companies in general.
The only time any launcher ever had administrator-like rights is while updating. Don't know why you would run them as admin.
That's literally what the launchers do, they try check for updates every time you start the game. It's going to prompt for admin rights every time a windows user runs it, without fail. How many of them run with no errors without the rights given, I'm not sure.
It's going to prompt for admin rights every time a windows user runs it
I can personally confirm: No, it does not.
Bro.
It's not gonna prompt after it finds out there are updates to install.
Are you dudes installing things to AppData, lmao?
Are you dudes installing things to AppData, lmao?
Most of my things aren't even installed on the same drive as AppData.
No they don't require admin rights at every startup. What's wrong with your setup?
Well... That's like alot of steps, lol. In UX design, we would call that a violation of the Three Click rule, and obfuscating the expression of user intent.
Like... Do you gain anything from these launchers? I guess Frosty you opt into because you use it to manage your mods. Maybe launching through that is how your mods get bootstrapped. Kay cool.
Epic games, you definitely need and want to use for other reasons-- Shopping for games and managing your library-- but is it really benefitting you to open that app so that you can open the app you actually want to use? Maybe you have a reason that you actually like that better, idk, but I'd rather just open the app that I want.
And then the EA app... What does it offer that makes it worth putting another step between you and your game? Login to the EA account you don't need? DRM? Ads for other games? The premise of most launchers is that the company has some goals that you don't share, and they're willing to add friction to your experience to achieve those.
Some launchers aren't so bad. I dunno what EA's deal is. Speaking of Ubisoft Connect specifically:
- It's an online-only service that forces you into having an account to play... It's not just an extra launcher in front of your game
- Ubisoft Connect is part of their DRM mechanism
- It wants admin privileges on your system
- It leaves processes running in the background when you aren't using it
- And more
Those things aren't necessarily all bad per se, and you'd certainly tolerate them for some apps... But it's a big imposition for the company to insist on, IMO, and part of the reason for the launcher hate.
I didn't downvote btw, I think you're entitled to your opinion and maybe you're fine with the launchers you use... But personally, I just choose not to play Ubisoft games for that reason, even though there are games that I would like to have played.
When playing modded games some rules of good practice don't apply because of jank. It's in the nature of things that aren't designed to be modified. Specifically for my DA:I installation I count about 5 clicks and the game is launched. Compared to the hundreds of clicks in the game itself it's a tiny inconvenience.
But to be clear once more: I never claimed launchers and game or app stores are an ideal solution, especially concerning their abundance and varying quality.
I want to play a certain game that requires a launcher, then I'll either get that launcher or I won't play the game.
Sorry you upset the hive mind buddy. You're absolutely right, but there are tons of people out there that can't even handle literal seconds of inconvenience. It's just not that big of a deal.
Oh thanks for the kind answer. I don't care about Internet clout. This isn't Reddit, I can live with 13 downvotes. :D