My favorite PC games of the moment are Rise of the Tomb Raider and XCOM 2. Both games are only available on Steam. GOG does not even have them, nor the previous games in the series, (i.e., Tomb Raider 2013 and XCOM: Enemy Unknown/Within.)

Actually, even though I've been buying PC games from both Steam and GOP, all of my favorite games from the past few years were exclusively on Steam: Batman Arkham series, the rebooted Tomb Raider series, the rebooted XCOM series, South Park: The Stick of Truth. The Walking Dead did come over to GOG, but I had already completed them on Steam long before GOG got them, (and I am not gonna buy them again on GOG.)

So yeah, Steam is pretty important to me - because it has all my favorite games. My personal experience is that Steam has been fairly benevolent in their policies. At least I have not had any issues or problems against/with Steam so far.

it may not be altruism but there is a directed effort to do things.. well, at Valve. they have demonstrated a certain judiciousness and reflection to the methods and courses of action they take and employ.

look at their position in the industry. and then look at what Steam is. Valve came out of Microsoft guys so sure they're about profit but for them it's more about keeping stuff lined up than it is about bending the world to its knee.

Look, I know what you're saying, but it's all based on assumptions and made up statistics. The fact is that UWP apps can be sideloaded, the fact is that on other platforms in a similar situation - such as on the Mac and Android - people seem to manage to find this setting and flip the switch, if they need.

Further more, the fact is that by *default* sideloading UWP apps is *on* in Windows 10. So no switches need to be flipped.

And no, we don't want another Steam-like situation, Steam sucks balls, but this isn't a zero sum scenario. This is actual competition. There will be the App store, Steam, GOG, Origin etc. and "what if" scenarios like you present at the end are actually very unlikely, especially since that would be illegal due to competitive reasons.

The Subscription model
Non compliance with 3rd party EULA's
Removal of personal use from the SSA (original SSA allowed people to let trusted parties the use of an account)
Altering Steam to ensure the Removal of personal use
Excessive and obfuscatory legal language of the SSA
Legal manoeuvre which cast doubt over computer games being software

VALVe is all about control of the PC gaming market.

Everyone seems to be trying to do the same thing. But I think the big thing with MS is that it's the OS that most people use.

It may make good business sense, but it's not pro-consumer. And I hope a lot of us will continue to make pro-consumer choices. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll be many of us.

Once again.
80% (guestimate) of all popular computer games are bound to Steam. Windows 10 has less than 13% market share.

I know what you're saying. But Steam isn't an OS (well, it is now :D). When an OS acts like a store -- an exclusive store that holds back the ability to use portions of itself unless you use it -- it feels a bit more underhanded compared to an entity that is just a store.

Nonetheless, I agree. How many times have we seen Steam exclusives b/c their APIs make things easier. It's a smooth move by MS and Steam, but pretty anti-choice. Which is, of course, what the stores want.

totally confused on whats going on, on the other hand the word "sweeney" always felt like some is about to get backstabbed

In short, it won't be that bad if people won't allow it to be. Which makes sense... But I put very little faith in people doing that. See this discussion here too. See where GOG was allowed to go. See what many others were already allowed, in whatever field you wish.

If it'll harm the interests and profits of other major corporations that'd normally work with Microsoft and they won't be able to come to a mutually satisfying agreement, yeah, then they'll likely put a stop to it one way or another. But their way still won't be a good thing for the rest of us.

I am amazed that Tim (from Epic Games) comes to defend the openness of PC gaming. Wasn't he or someone else from Epic some years ago proclaiming how PC gamers and PC gaming sucks compared to gaming consoles, and was happily making XBox-only games that never appear on PC? Maybe he had a change of heart then.

I am delighted there is this discussion though, ie. people do see the (semi-)openness of PC gaming and usage as something worthwile to preserve. I hope for that too, albeit at the same time I am unsure if Microsoft can be really blamed for trying to get a similar position as what Google and Apple have in their own ecosystems. I just hope MS wouldn't do it, but at the same time I recognize they have right(?) to do it.

This is also a good place for all those Steam fanatics to eat crow who have been claiming in the past that Steam is here to stay, and no other store could ever possibly undermine its position in PC gaming. As in that your Steam library will always be safe as the Steam service will always be around.

My comments to some that were written earlier here from both sides of the fence (not exact quotes, mind you):

"Valve does the same with Steam!"

Not really, as Valve doesn't control the OS itself. Valve has gotten to its position mainly by pleasing PC game developers and users, not by ironhand practises (mostly, see the next part). You could possibly use this argument with SteamOS though, if it seems that Steam is the favored store in that OS, and other stores can't operate as freely and visibly inside SteamOS but always play a second fiddle there.

"Valve doesn't try to control or hinder other stores from operating, in fact they are telling developers to release their games on other stores too!"

That is a rather naive opinion. Talk is cheap. While Steam has mostly gathered its position by the support from the developers and users, it has clearly tried to reinforce Steam's dominating position by different actions, partly similar what other stores have used too.

For instance, no Valve games sold in other services. How is that different from e.g. EA restricting its games to its own store, or MS selling Quantum Break PC only on Windows Store? Is it any more acceptable?

Steam Controller: Valve has chosen to support it fully only with the Steam client. Nothing would have prevented them from making it having universal support with all Windows games (also run without Steam), they have just chosen not to do that. Why? To reinforce Steam's position, of course. Claiming otherwise would be just naive and stupid. It would be similar if Microsoft's future PC controllers work only with games you buy from Windows Store. I won't be surprised if that happens, but if that ever happens and before you start complaining about it, remember Steam Controller.

Or then there are the actions how Valve is trying to make sure that mod development for PC games would happen through Steam, and remain within Steam (the latest initiative being selling mods for money inside Steam; do you think the same mods can be sold on other stores too, for non-Steam versions of the games?). Again, if Microsoft tried to make sure game mods would be made and work only with Windows Store games, I am sure Steam users would protest too.

That's easy, Steam has essentially unified the entire PC gaming fanbase. Did they do it for commercial reasons? Of course, but you can't say that having a unified community where the vast bulk of PC gamers can all communicate is a bad thing. Before Steam PC gamers were all spread apart over a large amount of websites and forums, now they're centralized. Yes there's bad sides to this, Steam's monopoly and so on, but Steam has also made "PC Gamers" into a large, powerful and influential bloc of customers who can voice their opinions and change things.

Steam unified PC gaming just as Microsoft unified the PC environment.

Both did so by having a good product, but its their actions they take once they have that impetus that shows the more insidious side of big business. Microsoft has a far bigger rap sheet, but they've got 20 more years over Valve.

as for I disagree.
PC gamers are mostly powerless. Prisoned within walls for Cast Iron Steam. 9000 gamers where completely ignored by VALVe during the SFS beta.

Xbox gamers where able to force Microsoft to make an enormous u-turn on the design of the XBone (namely account tying games). They could do this because a viable alternative existed for them to migrate too, the PS4.
PC gamers are powerless themselves, but their unified existence give VALVe humongous power.

UWP in its current state is a poor alternative to a full blown program, but if Microsoft are serious about that it will get better.
WIndows Store is a fugly mess and Win10 doesn't have big enough market share to be a serious competitor to Steam. Hopefully Windows Store will get prettier and more usable and win10 will slowly grow.

VALVe needs a competitor, a company willing to fully embrace competitors products. Origin and Uplay are too insular to ever be an issue for VALVe.

Microsoft are not a knight in shining armour, its another warlord. But at least we can have the power of choice. And as fat boy slim knows, that's one powerful weapon.

I guess I should've mentioned I am using jessie-backports for kernel, nvidia drivers and bumblebee (nvidia bloody optimus..)

horrible!

sounds like in a few years we'll have to use win1x with uwp with steam with denuvo, if one wants to play legally a fresh released game!