• LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • coffinwood
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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?

      • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • coffinwood
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.