Yup. I didn't use Steam until they came to Linux, and I don't have any loyalty to them. I'll buy from any platform that supports my OS of choice.

If I used Windows, I would probably use GOG because I value DRM-free games. But I desire convenience more, and GOG isn't as convenient as Steam on Linux, so I don't. It's pretty simple.

Steam doesn't enforce anything. They provide a very weak opt-in DRM that they literally tell developers they should expect will by bypassed. There are plenty of actual DRM free games on Steam.

People use Steam instead of GoG because Steam works and provides a wide array of value adding features and GoG doesn't.

I mean it's not technically a monopoly. Steam's advantage is that Valve is a private company and can do what they like, it's not without problems, but it does a great job where it needs to.

Steam also sells DRM-free games, so that's just mis-information. You can copy the files anywhere and use them without Steam running, it's entirely on the developers/publishers to make that decision. Cyberpunk 2077 is DRM-free on Steam, just like GOG. Steamworks just has an incredible feature set for developers to use, so for multiplayer games it's unlikey to see DRM-free anymore as people would rather invite via a friendslist than sharing IPs directly, having to open ports etc.

I think it says something that people still prefer Steam in spite of all that. Even people who pirate games appreciate it. Convenience is a wonderful thing and most people don't really care to own if the game they want will be there when and if they need it.

My issue is that I use Linux, so I either need to download games from their website (no automatic updates) or use a third party client like Heroic launcher. If GOG had first class support for Linux, I'd probably buy most of my games through them.

But Linux users are a small minority, so the main issue is probably selection. Steam has pretty much all of the popular games, whereas GOG only has the DRM-free games. It's the same problem Linux has had and continues to have, why would you use platform A if platform B is the same price and has more of the games you want to play? Splitting your library across services sucks, so most people will go with the one has most of their games.

The solution here imo it's make licenses portable so you can easily switch platforms. If I want to move my brokerage, I just need to fill out a form and wait a few days. If I want to switch game platforms, I need to repurchase or abandon my games. That doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is a real reason people don't switch.

I have been playing computer games since the late 90s and for me steam hits all the important things with few of the downsides that existed prior to an online storefront.

Games had DRM prior to steam and other online services. A key you had to keep track of, something from the instructions, or in some cases an online authentication process. All of these could be lost or the online component be retired and you ended up needing to hack the games anyway.

Games often had issues over time due to a lack of ongoing support. Driver issues or other problems might cause a game that previously worked to fail after a decade. The earliest game I remember with that issue was Crescent Hawks Revenge which was tied to the processor speed and over time it sped up so fast that it was unplayable as games got faster. Again, it was necessary to hack the game or the PC to address the issue. If the games did have updates, they were often tedious to find and install.

Games on PC have pretty much always been a license to use and not actual ownership. If you read the EULA you were banned from hacking to fix the issues I already mentioned just to get it to play.

Then there is a personal thing I noticed which was that I didn't want to put forth any effort for older games just to play them. Like, sure I might want to give it a spin for an hour, but not if it took an hour to address issues due to changes in hardware or software since I last played it.

So along comes steam and while it had a rough start, it solved all of my computer gaming issues. Games were perpetually maintained, so if I bought an older game it would most likely work on current hardware. Sales meant I could afford to try out new games at a decent price! Games updated automatically when one was available and I didn't need to do anything extra! Every game I have purchased from steam can be downloaded on a whim and be expected to play. Maybe there are some exceptions, but I haven't run into any.

Only one game I purchased stopped working because it was multiplayer only and the servers shut down. Owning it outright wouldn't have mattered.

While it is possible that steam could shit the bed at any point in time and I could lose all the games on it, the value for the money has been totally worth it. I am glad that there are alternates and that GOG exists for DRM free versions of games, but the ease of use and reliability that I have had with steam has made it worth far more than I have paid into it.

Steam has got to be the most loved monopoly ever. It’s inherently toxic to the gaming community

Steam isn't a monopoly but Windows is. Money earned on Steam goes into developing open source technologies that undermine the Windows monopoly.

We've been really lucky that Steam hasn't been enshittified yet but it's just a matter of time, so I am happy that alternatives like GOG exist, and yes = even alternatives like Epic. Doesn't matter if my library is spread around if I can just launch anything from playnite anyway.

It would be extra cool to separate licenses from delivery. So I could buy a license from Rockstar directly or through my service if choice, and then play it on another delivery service if I wanted. That way, if Steam or EGS goes under, I can move my games elsewhere, just like I can today with stocks at a brokerage. In other words, I'd have a Rockstar key, not a Steam key.

I imagine store fronts would then charge some fee for access to their network to download games or whatever, and that would trigger price competition on the delivery end. I imagine stores would end up with a "free service if you spend $X/year" or whatever.

I can do that occasionally, but it's far from the norm. For example, I bought Factorio directly from the devs, and they provided me a free Steam key as well. So I could download it from them directly or through Steam, at my option. I want more of that.

Yup, I'm with Steam because it's better, not because I like Valve or something. If someone else provides a better service for my use case (Linux with a mix of PC and handheld PC), I'll use them.

I avoid Epic on the principle of hating exclusives (I give Valve a pass on their games because they don't make many), I avoid UPlay and EA because I hate their stupid DRM, and I don't use GOG because they don't have an official Linux client and they don't support third party clients. Any of those could win by business if they catered to what I care about, for example:

• make a Linux client
• make their games offline capable
• offer a good selection of games

That's it. They don't even need to beat Steam in terms of investing in Linux, I just want to be a first class citizen on their platform.

EA would pull their own games from Steam before they would ditch their own launcher...

But, counterpoint: EA would pull their own games from Steam before they would ditch their own launcher.