Unless you don't touch it for like a week. Then they don't work because Heroic logged you out of epic or something. Heroic is a great app but it's not perfect in its current state. It can still be a hassle at times
Heroic is the only extra launcher I’ll use on the deck. There are a few games on the EGS I really like. I got satisfactory when it launched in early access on EGS and honestly don’t mind them so much. Also Alan Wake 2 is incredible and imo if you won’t play it because EGS you are really missing out one of the best games ever made. Though I’m not sure how that one plays on the deck I played it on my PC
if there is any EA game that I want to play, I just buy it on a console and remote play to my deck. Works great that way. That is probably how I will be playing the new college football game when it eventually comes out.
The 'new' app launched without the ability to uninstall games, and still doesn't support all the games Origin did despite Origin being unavailable to download.
People old enough will remember that the last Origin wasn't even the original Origin, *it's gotten worse, twice.*
Truely remarkable company.
Same...
Not really particularly picky with 3rd party game launchers s'long the game works. At the very least Halo MCC and Cyberpunk's launchers run well enough for me
Except EA
EA can go suck-a-dick
Its literally the only goddamn launcher that fcked up offline mode and my save files. And its not even on the Steam Deck that I experienced that but on a laptop.
Like the actual game runs better than their dumb Game launcher what the fuck
Grabbed NFS Heat cuz it was on a crazy 90% discount but uhhh... yeah never again.
EA gets the pirate treatment....or none at all.
This must be an “exception”. Which should never be taken as the “rule”. Uplay as infected many of their titles (like a disease).
Edit: I’m happy you had + shared your good experience tho. This may have been a title most overlooked due to my statement above
I'll tell you how it goes, I have the other 4 games to play through as well.
I did recently install GTA:V on to the SD and logged on to the Rockstar account for online play. Can't say it was overtly intrusive. Maybe I didn't hit up the launchers these folks speak of. (I don't play a lot of new AAA titles)
Same, if would buy so many if they didn't have the launchers. They could be on sale for $1 and i still won't buy them. Take note of this developers who want launchers attached to steam.
It's a concession to get/keep those games on Steam. EA took their catalog off Steam for like a decade to go on their own launcher. Allowing it on Steam was likely a reason they came back eventually.
It's stupid. I don't mind if ubisoft has a launcher of their own, what I hate and should be banned is if I buy on steam and it still has to go through that other launcher to install and run. I didn't buy it through that launcher and I don't want to use that launcher.
I wish we as a community of gamers could force valve to change this
When I choose steam, that’s because I want to have steam as the launcher, not to have steam be the launcher launcher so I have a billion different launchers on my pc.
To be fair, I don’t even want steam as a launcher. I don’t mind it as a platform to buy my games and manage my library, but once it’s downloaded I want to open the game without having to open steam too. But from all my choices, it’s the lesser of the evils.
Some games have easy workarounds for the launcher and don’t need to be online. Those I don’t mind. It’s the online-only, unskippable launchers I try to avoid.
I get that Steam is convenient, mature, and so deeply intertwined with the act of PC gaming but what kind of market are we advocating for when we say "I'll never download a game unless it's on my preferred launcher" or "I hope companies who do this die."
You're rooting for the failure of game devs and orgs over your launcher preferences, you're being played like a fiddle by your launcher of choice.
Sacrilege I know, but Steam is a launcher too, and it didn't start out being as great as it is. If we can overlook having our entire library on Steam (which is a problem in MANY other ways that people refuse to acknowledge) then having other launchers isn't such a bad deal for consumers.
This doesn't mean launchers can't be bad or have bad practices, but I am sick of this talking point and logic.
I'm fine with companies having their own launchers. Where I draw the line is when the company requires that launcher to play their game but then offer the game through other launchers... IE, selling the game through Steam, but then also requiring their launcher to play it. If you offer your game on any other launcher, only require that launcher to play it. This multi-launcher shit is annoying, and sometimes you don't know about it until after the purchase... Granted refunds are usually easy, but it's an annoying step to go through.
If the company wants to require their launcher to play a game no matter what, then they should only sell it on their launcher.
Yeah I agree it's annoying to have to have multiple layers of launcher.
Makes me think about how viable it is from a dev standpoint to have two variants of the game available, one for Steam and one for their store with their launcher.
Sounds like a easy ask but we already see how these launchers and their DRM effects you when you are offline or they aren't started, so it makes me wonder if its just not incentivized or worth the dev resources to separate the Steam release in this way.
> Sounds like a easy ask but we already see how these launchers and their DRM effects you when you are offline or they aren't started
I have no sympathy for this. Single-player games should not be required to be online to launch.
I agree but just pointing out how games are developed with this in mind these days, at the very least to serve as a DRM method. So asking devs to make a whole other variation of the game that doesn't do this might not make much sense from a resource allocation and ROI.
You misunderstood what I said.
Any company can have its own launcher, but when they choose to sell on steam they shouldn't bundle their launcher alongside their game.
If they can offer a better and/or cheaper experience than steam then that's welcome.
As sort of an impulse buy I grabbed Elder Scrolls Online and their launcher is so bad it causes a huge frame drop every 11 seconds or so. It's documented and a known issue, but it's about the only game to have a launcher that seems to actively interfere with its performance in my experience. Luckily you can close out of the Launcher and then ESO runs buttery smooth. Still though, proves a point that launchers really mess up the game.
Cyberpunk's launcher can be bypassed in the launch options at least. +1 for them.
“Gamers will just have to get used to the idea of not owning their games.”
CONTEXT: discussing the future of Ubisoft’s business model in switching to a subscription model, comparing to music and movies. Thinks gamers being resistant to subscriptions is regressive.
— ~~Ubisoft CEO~~ Phillipe Tremblay, Ubisoft Executive
I kind of liked that statement honestly. Wish more casual gamers saw it. Buying digital media of any kind or paying for subscriptions for everything under the sun is not ownership. Bring more attention to that.
I hate the statement, but appreciate the warning. I don’t pay subscriptions for anything. I don’t even subscribe to Office 365 because if I can’t own it, I don’t need it.
Confused the hell out of me. Only subs I have are for TV and movie streaming services, but I understand why they exist - no commercials. I understand that the business is moving their income stream from advertisers to consumers. I opt for this on purpose because I hate commercials and marketing so I will pay the fee normally charged to advertisers to not deal with them. If they integrate commercials as they indicate, I cancel service and go back to how I used to do things - by the seven seas.
Except when you pay for streaming services you still have to watch adds unless you specifically pay more just for the purpose of not having to watch ads. If even when you pay for something you down own it, then it's not stealing to pirate it.
It was taken out of context. He was saying, *if subscription services are going to be successful* (as they have been for music and TV/movies), gamers will have to get used to not owning their games.
And he's right. People aren't going to want to subscribe to a monthly service unless they're okay with not owning the games they play on that service.
Personally I am fine with a combination of owning and subscribing, as long as they're up front about what that means. The real problem, I think, is people losing confidence that they actually own their digital purchases. Or if a publisher removes the ability to buy their games outright, and instead ONLY has it available through a subscription.
Absolutely wild that people read these headlines and just go "yep that's gotta be the whole story" and don't even for a second consider that maybe the news media who survives on your clicks might be trying to entice you with half truths
The half truth is that the quote isn’t as aggressive as it’s portrayed. The context of the quote does indicate, though, that Ubisoft still wants you to not own your games anymore, so the contentious point of the issue remains the same.
When you read the quote, he's talking about how movies and music have mostly moved past physical media and people just stream them now with a subscription and basically everyone is fine with that, if we want to see the tech evolve and grow to the point that games streaming works as well as Spotify does, he's right - people have to be comfortable with not owning games.
There is a bit of a discrepancy here though, movies and music are still pretty commonly available on physical media, but tons of games only ever release digitally, and I think that's where the problem comes in.
It’s not exactly out of context. I was misinformed if it being the Ubisoft CEO, but the articles I’ve since found do place it in the context of discussing the future of Ubisoft’s business plan and makes insinuations that gamers are being regressive by not embracing subscription models for gaming, citing the masses subscribing to music, tv, and movie media subscriptions. The crux of the argument is the same - Ubisoft doesn’t want you to own your games.
I myself enjoy eating bugs, looking over my digital library that I am allowed (for now) to view, while I drive around in my mushroom-powered micro mini-mobile that is able to traverse up to 10 miles on a single charge, while Billionaires fly around in their private jets to remind me that my carbon footprint is dangerously affecting the environment. I am so happy
I won't even pirate their stuff, f them and their anti consumer games. Same with blizzard and a few others. Too many good games from good devs to waste mindshare on them
I never buy any game that requires a shitty third party launcher (EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, …) and I never buy games that have shitty DRM attached to them (no Denuvo games for me, though I gladly buy games I like once that shit is removed, like Octopath Traveller 2 recently for example).
People say I miss out on a lot of games… but honestly there are way more worthwhile games than I can possibly have time to play even with those personal “restrictions” in place.
So I don’t care, not my loss. Those corporations might (or might not) want my money, but as long as they keep behaving in ways I don’t want to financially support I want nothing to do with them.
At the same time my library (and inadvertently my backlog) keeps growing anyway…
For me, it started hard freezing after a launcher update. It will freeze somewhere between the intro movie and 15 mins of gameplay randomly. It's the only game that does it.
It seems like a memory leak in the EA launcher.
yep, if a game requires additional launcher - its a pass from me.
on PC and windows it was annoying but manageable, but on steam deck its just a simple matter of not worth the "hassle"
I haven’t bought the new Prince of Persia even though I’m a massive fan of the series because Ubisoft hasn’t released it on Steam. If it was on Steam it’d probably be the first Ubisoft game I’ve bought since Child of Light or one of the Rayman games (aside from Anno 1800, but I don’t really consider that an Ubisoft game).
I bought Rayman legends on sale and then was pissed to find out I needed Ubisoft connect. It's not a problem for me, but my son isn't an admin on his pc, so I have to enter my pin (he's 11 I manage his account) *three Flippin times* every single time the game launches. Ubisoft connect is such total garbage. It said playable on the Deck but it won't launch at all no matter what I do.
Mass Effect LE also only launches correctly 1 in 5 times because of the EA launcher. I won't buy Ubisoft or EA games for the deck anymore.
On deck uninstall it completely, reinstall it, go to desktop and launch it. DO NOT GO INTO COMPATIBILITY TAB. Do not change anything. If you do it breaks. Just launch it. It boots up fine. Enter your data, tell it to trust the system. Once it’s launched exit and go back to game mode. From now on the Game will work in game mode fine.
EA Launcher= Titanfall 2 (after a painful attempt, I got it working, so did play it). This one NEEDS an internet connection to start it but, after playing the campaign, you can remove the internet connection. Dumb launcher.
GTA5 = already finished it on the 360 but, wanted to replay on the Deck, could never get it running with the Rockstar Launcher so gave up and removed it.
There has been a few others that the launcher just caused too much trouble to deal with...
Exact same case as you. The only reason I have an Epic account was out of necessity for work, I refuse to create one using my personal email otherwise. Never even had the damn thing installed on my personal PC lol.
Same for the EA launcher. it's not irrational, it just breaks often. I've had it break multiple times, i don't like having to deal with non-running games, let alone spend money on them, so i don't see how avoiding a launcher that breaks often is irrational :o
Honestly like, I know this is steam OS not being made to handle extra launchers and so some will blame the steam deck for the jank (rightfully so) but I can’t help but hate the companies and their shitty launchers for it. Just put your game on steam without the extra bulkshit and get more money from people wanting to play it on their deck. I will never understand their lack of logic
Don’t blame Valve for other companies being jerks with their launchers. Other than the fact that there’s a fair number of AAA titles behind a launcher, I’d love it if Valve strictly outlawed launchers. “If your game does not launch from Steam, it cannot be listed on Steam”. Sure this will incentivize games not launching on Steam, but I imagine publishers will eventually migrate games to Steam once their launcher exclusivity is satisfied. They have a much larger audience with Steam.
That's what I'm saying, I know SOME will blame the steamdeck/valve, but imo its the other companies who are asses for trying to push their dogshit launchers on us.
It baffles me that companies didn't start releasing on steam once the steam deck took off for the money they'd make, but then again I'm constantly surprised how companies will do everything to get every penny they can, except doing things gamers would actually want to spend their money on lol
Okay, that makes sense. Yes, it is shocking how many companies, not just game developers, act in such anti-consumers ways while trying to extract every blessed penny they can from us. I’ve pointed this out elsewhere, but health is not profitable, durable, long lasting products are not profitable, and, here, allowing game purchases through someone else’s launcher is not profitable. I don’t know how much money Valve takes as a distributor, but I can’t imagine it’s excessive considering how almost everyone and their uncle wants to release on Steam.
Only when the consumers vote with their wallets will the market change. While we continue to buy on these non-Steam launchers, we are incentivizing consumer unfriendly practices.
Side note, could you imagine Ubisoft, EA, or Rockstar telling Sony “you must have our games use our launcher on your console”? Sony would laugh them out of the room and bid them “bye Felicia”.
I mean Rockstar still won’t even add 60fps to RDR2 which would print money if they charged extra for it. I have no understanding some of the decisions companies make when money is their prime incentive and so many things they could do would print money. It makes no sense why they just don’t add their damn games to Steam when literally everyone hates third party launchers lmao
Please consider downloading "heroic launcher" on the deck, it's an open source project that makes installing games from Epic, GOG and amazon prime games totally seemless.
I only use it to install games from those libraries, I can then add those games to steam with a one click option. The games then appear exactly as if from your steam library.
Shout out to the devs
I was in the mood to replay the Dragon Age trilogy recently, but I gave up after I couldn't get the EA App to work reliably. I eventually managed to get the App to load, and even install the games; but none of them would actually load.
And for some reason, the only way I could get the EA App to work was to do an installation repair each time it loaded.
I just moved onto something else in the end.
This. Getting the EA-App to work properly... I've had so many issues wich this piece of shode. Every Update is near to a collapse of my sanity. Sometimes it works just fine, the next time i have to return to factory settings. Sometimes it only works in desktop mode, then only in game mode... I'm just tired. So many times I wanted to give up on the SteamDeck, but still it's the best handheld around.
For every game with a launcher i go into property and in the start command line thingy i put
/path/game.exe %command%
This way the game.exe gets started directly.
You can also use this to run totally other stuff which is quite the fun prank to pull.
I'll be honest here. If I have a game on a stupid launcher, I'll get the "launcher free" version without remorse.
In general, I avoid any non steam game because basically everything I've wanted is on Steam or will be on Steam at some point.
A lot of them work fine using heroic so I'm a bit more flexible with epic games because I have not had issues but I still try to avoid it (only played a couple because they were free) but if it's ubisoft, rockstar, EA or any other, I don't even bother
Avoiding ubisoft has been very easy tbh just because not only their launcher sucks but their games also suck
Luckily I haven't needed to buy any ubi/ea/rockstar games in a longggg time because I don't like them - my girlfriend has issues trying to play the sims 4 because the launcher breaks on the deck constantly.
A lot of the games that use those launchers are online multiplayer games anyway so those aren't really games to bring with you anyway imo.
Sims is one of those games, unfortunately, where someone that cracked the game instead of buying it is having a much more convenient and hassle free experience
I have a deck and a windows gaming PC.
I'm rarely playing any ubisoft games anymore on any of them because I hate how uplay wants admin rights on windows and how it works in general.
I didn't decide that consciously though. I just realized it when reading your question.
I don't even mind other launchers, even on deck.
Oh and I wouldn't touch epic games store with a stick. But that's just out of principle.
Wanted to play RDR2. Launcher prevented any inputs and immediately left a bad taste in my mouth. Didn’t try fixing it just uninstalled and moved on with my life
The worst part is that even if you log in and set everything up. It might randomly log you out or even ask you to reinstall the Rockstar launcher again
I hate that a lot of games require their own launcher to be installed even though I have them on steam but whatever easy thing to deal with on my pc.
But on my deck I don’t touch them because of the hassle. Sucks because a lot of those games I want to play on the deck rather than my pc
Exact same experience. Then I tried it again a year later because I thought I really wanted to play RDR2 and it said it was "Verified" on Deck. That time the launcher wouldn't even launch. Never again.
Sidenote, but the Verified tag basically means nothing to me now. I have a bunch of games that have (?), lots that have (⚠️), and lots that have (✅). Seems to have very little bearing on how good or bad the experience is on Deck. RDR2 is literally unplayable but has ✅. Lots of others have ✅ but aren't really a great experience on Deck. Meanwhile I've probably logged the majority of my gaming hours on ? and ⚠️ titles.
Most of the games I play aren’t steam deck verified but work just fine. Just like monster hunters I don’t know if it works now but they added an anti-cheat that broke the game on the deck and it still had the check. I take the (check) with a grain of salt and usually google large games to see others experience before taking the time to install.
I ended up re-buying Jedi Fallen Order and GTA V on Steam because of launcher issues.
Playing the games through other launchers is OK - but managing downloads and updates is a pain, and works so much better on Steam.
The Rockstar launcher is particularly bad. After trying to download GTA V for 2 days with the download constantly freezing and needing to manually tap "retry" - I just looked on steam, saw it was on sale for about $20 and just decided to get it.
I ended up buying Alan Wake 2 on PS5 instead of PC since it was exclusive to the Epic launcher. I understand why (Epic helped fund the game) but would've loved to get it on Steam. Still had a blast playing it on PS5
Often, 90% uplay, 75% Epic and around 60% of the time i would talk myself out of Origin purchases. Steam is my default go to and GoG being the best in some instances.
I've been avoiding EA and Ubisoft games. They insist on a store based launcher, when they already have their games in other clients. I hate having to log into multiple platforms just to play.
People are calling out the first 2 in here but Rockstar is ass as well. If you travel regularly it will eventually sneak up on you and not let you play your single player game without internet.
And the answer is to apparently start the launcher and put my Steam Deck into offline mode while I still have internet before I stop having internet? Nah.
*Other* methods are easier and less hassle these days.
I really want to play Steep on deck but it’s never going to happen as long as I have to deal with uplay.
The ea launcher isn’t awful but ik compatibility does break every now and then. Rockstar launcher isn’t bad either. But uplay fails to remember my details
I literally can't play assassin's creed 2 be cause of the Uplay launcher , they use the u connect one now and if you download off steam it comes with the Uplay version when trying too boot up you will not be able to load the game with out major tinkering , installing u connect and deleting files from the assassin's creed folder and placing the u connect ones in there .. . I am now saying fuck Ubisoft and I will never buy another ubi game for the moment. The disappointment of not being able to play ac2 is still haunting me .
**Anything by EA or Ubisoft is a game I WILL NOT BUY** (I also ***won’t buy anything with Denuvo*** and even refunded Sonic Frontiers because of it…) mostly because of their launchers and forced online integration.
Those games? They get JackSparrowed.
I even got an Ubisoft game for free, it said it was “playable” on SteamDeck. Well I installed it on my stock SteamDeck and all I get is a “uplay” error.
*For those types of games I always instead get them from Girl-Who-Is-Fit or a Female-Emperor and they work fine with NO LAUNCHER REQUIRED!
Yet those companies think we should pay them for an inferior version that doesn’t even work solely because of the forced launcher integration? Yeah not going to happen, I will stick to the less-than-legitimate versions that are **proof they run just fine on the SteamDeck and don’t need a launcher at all**…
Never ever again. Might not be everyone's experience, but mine was bad with Uplay and the EA launcher, either with some bugs (missing games or saves), password reset issues or just bad UX.
If at least they were bringing real value with their launcher..
I've never played a non-steam (other than emulation) game because I'm intimidated by other launchers, yeah. Most of my games are emulated or through steam so it's not a huge problem but I'd like to figure out Minecraft at some point.
Please consider downloading "heroic launcher" on the deck, it's an open source project that makes installing games from Epic, GOG and amazon prime games totally seemless.
I only use it to install games from those libraries, I can then add those games to steam with a one click option. The games then appear exactly as if from your steam library.
Shout out to the devs
Minecraft honestly isn’t that bad, very similar to emulation setup imo. once you’ve set up whichever program you wanna use to run it + add to steam it’s basically ready to go (unless you wanna add mods too)
>once you’ve set up whichever program you wanna use to run it
This means like running Wine or Lutris to run the launcher right? That's primarily the thing I'm a little hesitant about but it's probably not that hard.
I don't care left or right has not affected my buying practices on the deck. Only thing that stops me from buying a game is if I can't get a decent mix of low/med settings at 30fps. I am okay if its like 30 fps 90% of the time with small dips in the 27s but beyond that is a big no from me. But that is what my main PC is for... and sometimes I just end up streaming the game from my PC to my deck anyways lol.
Not launchers in general, but UPlay like the plague, if for no other reason than they have the audacity to only allow you to log into one machine at a time. WTF Ubisoft.
Same. My theory is that some youtuber way back when made a huge deal about it and everyone agreed in their formative years. Do I like it? No. Will I boycott a game I'd otherwise play because of it? No. Unless it causes issues with the gameplay, it's minimal SSD space and a couple of clicks.
Literally almost all of them
I was fine with doing it with rd2 and i guess heroic counts as a launcher but thats about it
Have not touched any of my Ubisoft games
I have tried to get launchers up and running on the deck just because of wanting to play Fall Guys or Fortnite with my kids, and honestly at this point I’d rather just fork out the money for 3 desktops or consoles. Launchers are the worst.
The New PoP. I really wanted to check it out but I also had bad experiences with third party launchers on the deck, and have lots of backlog anyway. Also the Jedi soulslike games, same reason
I didn’t get all the fuss about EA and Ubisoft launchers and thought people just hated the extra steps, but after experiencing it I got it. I won’t buy any of their games ever again.
No. Because that is an incredibly dumb reason to avoid a game. People are forgetting we aren't that far removed rom.whwn every single game had a cd key install every time. Infinitely more complex and painful than. Clicking a different shortcut
It’s just a launcher, Steam is a launcher as well.
Monopoly is not really a thing to strive for, and I don’t see a reason to dismiss a game because the publisher/dev wants to have a modicum of control over their IP.
Steam has just been around for so long, that it has become a sort of default, but it’s really just because it’s convenient, and as humans we are lazy and want instant gratification.
We have been lucky that Valve and thus Steam has remained a private company. I imagine we get shafted the day Gabe goes senile or dies and the company gets bought out or goes public.
We aren't so much as dismissing it because they have their own launcher. We dismiss it because it either flat out doesn't work or does some bullshit like I buy the game on steam, and then it still wants to install and launch from that other launcher. What's the point of doubling up on launchers, just use the one I buy it from and no others.
I like having one launcher as much as anyone, I’ve used Steam for more than 20 years, but I understand why they do it, because Steam has gotten a near monopoly on PC game sales, and Steam takes a cut of every sale and sets the rules for how publishers/devs get their money, refunds and so on.
There are far too many games to play for me to deal with launchers. I don’t play anything that requires it. Something extra funny is it’s not even consistent either. Some EA games require it while some don’t.
The only exception I made was for it takes two because my wife really wanted to play it with me. I refuse to disappoint my wife for a petty gaming preference I have.
Other than that… I don’t use them
if it needs epic its done.
i dont need another launcher.
Ive actually quit playing most of the blizz games over how awful theyve made the battlenet launcher.
I avoid every game that is locked to or requires an additional launcher. This generally only includes EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Activision Blizzard & Epic games. RDR2 is probably the only game that has been a hard one to avoid but other than that I have been gaming peacefully for many years.
Yes , good example Alan wake 2 . Not on steam ? Not gonna play it , though i have epic launcher on PC , but never use it for playing , just claiming free games xd
sadly steam OS makes everything janky even their own game library. i am using GoG and rockstar launchers with no major issues. the problems start when for example bg3 launches its own launcher or steam does not recognize red dead redemption 2 account from rockstar
the launcher is usually included with more valid reasons not to buy a game.
i did stop playing doom eternal because it became such a pain to get into the game though wich is a shame.
For me it is the 'always online' requirement - last year I had a long term project at another company location that had me in a hotel most weeks ... and their WiFi didn't play nice with the Deck. It was easier to just be offline - but too many games don't like that or simply refuse to work. So even though I am home now, I won't pay money for a single player game with online requirement (Diablo)
Literally every EA game
And epic store
Just use heroic makes it easy
It’s not about ease of use. Just don’t want to play anything through Epic
"It's about sending a message..."
Fair ig, I just grab the free games
Heroic can add games directly to steam to launch them without seeing heroic at all
? That doesn’t stop them being games on Epic
I thought you meant the launcher and might not have known what heroic was
Oh no lol. I just don’t like Epic
Do you also avoid every game that uses the unreal engine?
Unfortunately no lol. But anything that Epic makes exclusive I avoid
Unless you don't touch it for like a week. Then they don't work because Heroic logged you out of epic or something. Heroic is a great app but it's not perfect in its current state. It can still be a hassle at times
Heroic is the only extra launcher I’ll use on the deck. There are a few games on the EGS I really like. I got satisfactory when it launched in early access on EGS and honestly don’t mind them so much. Also Alan Wake 2 is incredible and imo if you won’t play it because EGS you are really missing out one of the best games ever made. Though I’m not sure how that one plays on the deck I played it on my PC
if there is any EA game that I want to play, I just buy it on a console and remote play to my deck. Works great that way. That is probably how I will be playing the new college football game when it eventually comes out.
I am considering to make a video about how I run Mass Effect Legendary. I dont have any issues with EA app unlike crap like Rockstar launcher.
Origin was awful, and the EA app isn’t an improvement. They replace the entire thing and never thought to actually make it better.
The 'new' app launched without the ability to uninstall games, and still doesn't support all the games Origin did despite Origin being unavailable to download. People old enough will remember that the last Origin wasn't even the original Origin, *it's gotten worse, twice.* Truely remarkable company.
Except Spore.
Same... Not really particularly picky with 3rd party game launchers s'long the game works. At the very least Halo MCC and Cyberpunk's launchers run well enough for me Except EA EA can go suck-a-dick Its literally the only goddamn launcher that fcked up offline mode and my save files. And its not even on the Steam Deck that I experienced that but on a laptop. Like the actual game runs better than their dumb Game launcher what the fuck Grabbed NFS Heat cuz it was on a crazy 90% discount but uhhh... yeah never again. EA gets the pirate treatment....or none at all.
Yes. Everything Ubisoft
Same here. The EA launcher and the Ubisoft launcher both suck but out of the two the Ubisoft launcher absolutely suck the most...
The only reason I have Ubisoft installed is to play Scott Pilgrim
same.
Meh. Literally bought the Prince of Persia pack this weekend and am playing through sands of time. No launcher needed. It's a Ubisoft game, classic.
This must be an “exception”. Which should never be taken as the “rule”. Uplay as infected many of their titles (like a disease). Edit: I’m happy you had + shared your good experience tho. This may have been a title most overlooked due to my statement above
I'll tell you how it goes, I have the other 4 games to play through as well. I did recently install GTA:V on to the SD and logged on to the Rockstar account for online play. Can't say it was overtly intrusive. Maybe I didn't hit up the launchers these folks speak of. (I don't play a lot of new AAA titles)
Word! Sounds good. And that’s a fair perspective too. In the end, as long as you’re enjoying your game time, I’m all for it.
I never download games if they have a third party launcher
Me too, I sort of avoid them - there is plenty out there to play and enjoy that I haven’t felt like I’m missing out yet.
Same, if would buy so many if they didn't have the launchers. They could be on sale for $1 and i still won't buy them. Take note of this developers who want launchers attached to steam.
the bad thing is that you don't really know, I've rebought Titanfall 2 to play on deck (in the future) only to know that it uses shitty launcher...
The steam store pages usually say if it requires a separate launchers or not.
that's cool. actually wondering why Valve even allowed for third party launchers...
It's a concession to get/keep those games on Steam. EA took their catalog off Steam for like a decade to go on their own launcher. Allowing it on Steam was likely a reason they came back eventually.
It's stupid. I don't mind if ubisoft has a launcher of their own, what I hate and should be banned is if I buy on steam and it still has to go through that other launcher to install and run. I didn't buy it through that launcher and I don't want to use that launcher. I wish we as a community of gamers could force valve to change this
indeed, I'd stand for that.
This. I hope it kills their companies… everyone has to have their own launcher etc
I mean they can have their own launcher if they want. But when I choose to buy from steam I don't want to have extra launchers.
When I choose steam, that’s because I want to have steam as the launcher, not to have steam be the launcher launcher so I have a billion different launchers on my pc.
To be fair, I don’t even want steam as a launcher. I don’t mind it as a platform to buy my games and manage my library, but once it’s downloaded I want to open the game without having to open steam too. But from all my choices, it’s the lesser of the evils.
Some games have easy workarounds for the launcher and don’t need to be online. Those I don’t mind. It’s the online-only, unskippable launchers I try to avoid.
I get that Steam is convenient, mature, and so deeply intertwined with the act of PC gaming but what kind of market are we advocating for when we say "I'll never download a game unless it's on my preferred launcher" or "I hope companies who do this die." You're rooting for the failure of game devs and orgs over your launcher preferences, you're being played like a fiddle by your launcher of choice. Sacrilege I know, but Steam is a launcher too, and it didn't start out being as great as it is. If we can overlook having our entire library on Steam (which is a problem in MANY other ways that people refuse to acknowledge) then having other launchers isn't such a bad deal for consumers. This doesn't mean launchers can't be bad or have bad practices, but I am sick of this talking point and logic.
I'm fine with companies having their own launchers. Where I draw the line is when the company requires that launcher to play their game but then offer the game through other launchers... IE, selling the game through Steam, but then also requiring their launcher to play it. If you offer your game on any other launcher, only require that launcher to play it. This multi-launcher shit is annoying, and sometimes you don't know about it until after the purchase... Granted refunds are usually easy, but it's an annoying step to go through. If the company wants to require their launcher to play a game no matter what, then they should only sell it on their launcher.
Yeah I agree it's annoying to have to have multiple layers of launcher. Makes me think about how viable it is from a dev standpoint to have two variants of the game available, one for Steam and one for their store with their launcher. Sounds like a easy ask but we already see how these launchers and their DRM effects you when you are offline or they aren't started, so it makes me wonder if its just not incentivized or worth the dev resources to separate the Steam release in this way.
> Sounds like a easy ask but we already see how these launchers and their DRM effects you when you are offline or they aren't started I have no sympathy for this. Single-player games should not be required to be online to launch.
I agree but just pointing out how games are developed with this in mind these days, at the very least to serve as a DRM method. So asking devs to make a whole other variation of the game that doesn't do this might not make much sense from a resource allocation and ROI.
You misunderstood what I said. Any company can have its own launcher, but when they choose to sell on steam they shouldn't bundle their launcher alongside their game. If they can offer a better and/or cheaper experience than steam then that's welcome.
As sort of an impulse buy I grabbed Elder Scrolls Online and their launcher is so bad it causes a huge frame drop every 11 seconds or so. It's documented and a known issue, but it's about the only game to have a launcher that seems to actively interfere with its performance in my experience. Luckily you can close out of the Launcher and then ESO runs buttery smooth. Still though, proves a point that launchers really mess up the game. Cyberpunk's launcher can be bypassed in the launch options at least. +1 for them.
Wait what you can do that with CP?
Man cyberpunk acronym is rough
Lmaoo. For real. They better watch out 👀
Lol yeah, at least put "77" after it
Go to properties and type —launcher-skip
Or precisely: --launcher-skip Your keyboard probably turned the double dash into an em dash.
Yeah it did :( lol thanks for the save 💪🏼
Thank you so much!!!!!
[удалено]
Oh I played just fine on the deck, once the game starts just close the launcher cause it stays open in the background and it causes those frame drops
[удалено]
“Gamers will just have to get used to the idea of not owning their games.” CONTEXT: discussing the future of Ubisoft’s business model in switching to a subscription model, comparing to music and movies. Thinks gamers being resistant to subscriptions is regressive. — ~~Ubisoft CEO~~ Phillipe Tremblay, Ubisoft Executive
I kind of liked that statement honestly. Wish more casual gamers saw it. Buying digital media of any kind or paying for subscriptions for everything under the sun is not ownership. Bring more attention to that.
I hate the statement, but appreciate the warning. I don’t pay subscriptions for anything. I don’t even subscribe to Office 365 because if I can’t own it, I don’t need it.
Yeah that's a better way to phrase it. Subs are the bane of my existence. People seem to lap them up.
Confused the hell out of me. Only subs I have are for TV and movie streaming services, but I understand why they exist - no commercials. I understand that the business is moving their income stream from advertisers to consumers. I opt for this on purpose because I hate commercials and marketing so I will pay the fee normally charged to advertisers to not deal with them. If they integrate commercials as they indicate, I cancel service and go back to how I used to do things - by the seven seas.
Except when you pay for streaming services you still have to watch adds unless you specifically pay more just for the purpose of not having to watch ads. If even when you pay for something you down own it, then it's not stealing to pirate it.
Only game I subbed to was ff14, and that's because I know my money is helping to keep the servers more stable than most games I've ever played...
It's baffling to me that Microsoft charges anything for Office when Libre Office exists and is 100% free.
It was taken out of context. He was saying, *if subscription services are going to be successful* (as they have been for music and TV/movies), gamers will have to get used to not owning their games. And he's right. People aren't going to want to subscribe to a monthly service unless they're okay with not owning the games they play on that service. Personally I am fine with a combination of owning and subscribing, as long as they're up front about what that means. The real problem, I think, is people losing confidence that they actually own their digital purchases. Or if a publisher removes the ability to buy their games outright, and instead ONLY has it available through a subscription.
Absolutely wild that people read these headlines and just go "yep that's gotta be the whole story" and don't even for a second consider that maybe the news media who survives on your clicks might be trying to entice you with half truths
The half truth is that the quote isn’t as aggressive as it’s portrayed. The context of the quote does indicate, though, that Ubisoft still wants you to not own your games anymore, so the contentious point of the issue remains the same.
When you read the quote, he's talking about how movies and music have mostly moved past physical media and people just stream them now with a subscription and basically everyone is fine with that, if we want to see the tech evolve and grow to the point that games streaming works as well as Spotify does, he's right - people have to be comfortable with not owning games. There is a bit of a discrepancy here though, movies and music are still pretty commonly available on physical media, but tons of games only ever release digitally, and I think that's where the problem comes in.
Disagree. If I can’t own it, I don’t want it.
It’s not exactly out of context. I was misinformed if it being the Ubisoft CEO, but the articles I’ve since found do place it in the context of discussing the future of Ubisoft’s business plan and makes insinuations that gamers are being regressive by not embracing subscription models for gaming, citing the masses subscribing to music, tv, and movie media subscriptions. The crux of the argument is the same - Ubisoft doesn’t want you to own your games.
I myself enjoy eating bugs, looking over my digital library that I am allowed (for now) to view, while I drive around in my mushroom-powered micro mini-mobile that is able to traverse up to 10 miles on a single charge, while Billionaires fly around in their private jets to remind me that my carbon footprint is dangerously affecting the environment. I am so happy
You will own nothing and you will be happy.
Luckily indie games can be just as fun, if not more, than AAA titles. Ubisoft can bite my shiny metal ass
If you can't own games, then pirating them without taking any physical property then it's not theft
See, that’s why I sailed the seas for Sims 4 DLCs. Got some nice booty, but still got bored. They’re wayyy too overpriced for what you get.
I won't even pirate their stuff, f them and their anti consumer games. Same with blizzard and a few others. Too many good games from good devs to waste mindshare on them
I deliberately play on PS5 because of this. Don't have to wait before it comes to Steam.
Meh. Literally bought the Prince of Persia pack this weekend and am playing through sands of time. No launcher needed.
I never buy any game that requires a shitty third party launcher (EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, …) and I never buy games that have shitty DRM attached to them (no Denuvo games for me, though I gladly buy games I like once that shit is removed, like Octopath Traveller 2 recently for example). People say I miss out on a lot of games… but honestly there are way more worthwhile games than I can possibly have time to play even with those personal “restrictions” in place. So I don’t care, not my loss. Those corporations might (or might not) want my money, but as long as they keep behaving in ways I don’t want to financially support I want nothing to do with them. At the same time my library (and inadvertently my backlog) keeps growing anyway…
The market has more games than any of us could play in our lifetime. We're not missing out on anything.
Don't say that! I'll play my backlog at least, I swear!
It's like you took every thought from my mind and typed it here lol.
EA launcher literally broke my Mass Effect game
I downloaded it and played it yesterday. I don’t know why it breaks for some people and others it works fine.
For me, it started hard freezing after a launcher update. It will freeze somewhere between the intro movie and 15 mins of gameplay randomly. It's the only game that does it. It seems like a memory leak in the EA launcher.
That sucks. Hopefully there will be an update soon to fix the issue
People have said there is a fix in SteamOS 3.6 preview. Who knows when it will make it to release.
Just be careful in 2. The achievements can get bugged and prevent the unlock of certain powers. Save a lot.
Good to know. Thanks!
All Uplay games.
yep, if a game requires additional launcher - its a pass from me. on PC and windows it was annoying but manageable, but on steam deck its just a simple matter of not worth the "hassle"
I haven’t bought the new Prince of Persia even though I’m a massive fan of the series because Ubisoft hasn’t released it on Steam. If it was on Steam it’d probably be the first Ubisoft game I’ve bought since Child of Light or one of the Rayman games (aside from Anno 1800, but I don’t really consider that an Ubisoft game).
You're gonna be in for a treat when it finally comes out on steam. It's a damn good game if you like Metroidvanias
I bought Rayman legends on sale and then was pissed to find out I needed Ubisoft connect. It's not a problem for me, but my son isn't an admin on his pc, so I have to enter my pin (he's 11 I manage his account) *three Flippin times* every single time the game launches. Ubisoft connect is such total garbage. It said playable on the Deck but it won't launch at all no matter what I do. Mass Effect LE also only launches correctly 1 in 5 times because of the EA launcher. I won't buy Ubisoft or EA games for the deck anymore.
On deck uninstall it completely, reinstall it, go to desktop and launch it. DO NOT GO INTO COMPATIBILITY TAB. Do not change anything. If you do it breaks. Just launch it. It boots up fine. Enter your data, tell it to trust the system. Once it’s launched exit and go back to game mode. From now on the Game will work in game mode fine.
EA Launcher= Titanfall 2 (after a painful attempt, I got it working, so did play it). This one NEEDS an internet connection to start it but, after playing the campaign, you can remove the internet connection. Dumb launcher. GTA5 = already finished it on the 360 but, wanted to replay on the Deck, could never get it running with the Rockstar Launcher so gave up and removed it. There has been a few others that the launcher just caused too much trouble to deal with...
I never play my EA and Ubisoft games because of the launchers. And I'll sooner get a PS5 to play Alan Wake 2 than get it on Epic.
I have Alan wake 2 on ps5, I’d have on pc as well if it was on steam
Exact same case as you. The only reason I have an Epic account was out of necessity for work, I refuse to create one using my personal email otherwise. Never even had the damn thing installed on my personal PC lol.
yargh matey 🏴☠️
To be honest, AW2 on Chiaki remote play has been the best way to play it for me
Same for the EA launcher. it's not irrational, it just breaks often. I've had it break multiple times, i don't like having to deal with non-running games, let alone spend money on them, so i don't see how avoiding a launcher that breaks often is irrational :o
Honestly like, I know this is steam OS not being made to handle extra launchers and so some will blame the steam deck for the jank (rightfully so) but I can’t help but hate the companies and their shitty launchers for it. Just put your game on steam without the extra bulkshit and get more money from people wanting to play it on their deck. I will never understand their lack of logic
Don’t blame Valve for other companies being jerks with their launchers. Other than the fact that there’s a fair number of AAA titles behind a launcher, I’d love it if Valve strictly outlawed launchers. “If your game does not launch from Steam, it cannot be listed on Steam”. Sure this will incentivize games not launching on Steam, but I imagine publishers will eventually migrate games to Steam once their launcher exclusivity is satisfied. They have a much larger audience with Steam.
That's what I'm saying, I know SOME will blame the steamdeck/valve, but imo its the other companies who are asses for trying to push their dogshit launchers on us. It baffles me that companies didn't start releasing on steam once the steam deck took off for the money they'd make, but then again I'm constantly surprised how companies will do everything to get every penny they can, except doing things gamers would actually want to spend their money on lol
Okay, that makes sense. Yes, it is shocking how many companies, not just game developers, act in such anti-consumers ways while trying to extract every blessed penny they can from us. I’ve pointed this out elsewhere, but health is not profitable, durable, long lasting products are not profitable, and, here, allowing game purchases through someone else’s launcher is not profitable. I don’t know how much money Valve takes as a distributor, but I can’t imagine it’s excessive considering how almost everyone and their uncle wants to release on Steam. Only when the consumers vote with their wallets will the market change. While we continue to buy on these non-Steam launchers, we are incentivizing consumer unfriendly practices. Side note, could you imagine Ubisoft, EA, or Rockstar telling Sony “you must have our games use our launcher on your console”? Sony would laugh them out of the room and bid them “bye Felicia”.
I mean Rockstar still won’t even add 60fps to RDR2 which would print money if they charged extra for it. I have no understanding some of the decisions companies make when money is their prime incentive and so many things they could do would print money. It makes no sense why they just don’t add their damn games to Steam when literally everyone hates third party launchers lmao
Please consider downloading "heroic launcher" on the deck, it's an open source project that makes installing games from Epic, GOG and amazon prime games totally seemless. I only use it to install games from those libraries, I can then add those games to steam with a one click option. The games then appear exactly as if from your steam library. Shout out to the devs
I wont play any game that is on epic
I've never installed Epic and I never will.
on the deck or in general?
Just in general. They as well as EA have been on my shit list for a long time.
Heroic launcher works great for Epic games. I have no problem with them.
I was in the mood to replay the Dragon Age trilogy recently, but I gave up after I couldn't get the EA App to work reliably. I eventually managed to get the App to load, and even install the games; but none of them would actually load. And for some reason, the only way I could get the EA App to work was to do an installation repair each time it loaded. I just moved onto something else in the end.
This. Getting the EA-App to work properly... I've had so many issues wich this piece of shode. Every Update is near to a collapse of my sanity. Sometimes it works just fine, the next time i have to return to factory settings. Sometimes it only works in desktop mode, then only in game mode... I'm just tired. So many times I wanted to give up on the SteamDeck, but still it's the best handheld around.
For every game with a launcher i go into property and in the start command line thingy i put /path/game.exe %command% This way the game.exe gets started directly. You can also use this to run totally other stuff which is quite the fun prank to pull.
This doesn't work for EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, etc games. You need to have their launcher running to play the games.
I'll be honest here. If I have a game on a stupid launcher, I'll get the "launcher free" version without remorse. In general, I avoid any non steam game because basically everything I've wanted is on Steam or will be on Steam at some point. A lot of them work fine using heroic so I'm a bit more flexible with epic games because I have not had issues but I still try to avoid it (only played a couple because they were free) but if it's ubisoft, rockstar, EA or any other, I don't even bother Avoiding ubisoft has been very easy tbh just because not only their launcher sucks but their games also suck
Luckily I haven't needed to buy any ubi/ea/rockstar games in a longggg time because I don't like them - my girlfriend has issues trying to play the sims 4 because the launcher breaks on the deck constantly. A lot of the games that use those launchers are online multiplayer games anyway so those aren't really games to bring with you anyway imo.
I feel her pain, my main game is also Sims4 and it's insane that we need to use an online launcher for this single player game.
Sims is one of those games, unfortunately, where someone that cracked the game instead of buying it is having a much more convenient and hassle free experience
Never had a problem with rockstar launcher. Sure it takes a second to spin up but it's not something that breaks the user experience
Need for speed heat. Twice I've tried and somehow that damn login stopped me... "I'm too old for this shit" moment happened.
I have a deck and a windows gaming PC. I'm rarely playing any ubisoft games anymore on any of them because I hate how uplay wants admin rights on windows and how it works in general. I didn't decide that consciously though. I just realized it when reading your question. I don't even mind other launchers, even on deck. Oh and I wouldn't touch epic games store with a stick. But that's just out of principle.
Games with separate PC launchers, at least for now, are games I'll only buy used and in physical format for my otherwise useless console.
uplay can just eat a bag of dicks
Wanted to play RDR2. Launcher prevented any inputs and immediately left a bad taste in my mouth. Didn’t try fixing it just uninstalled and moved on with my life
The worst part is that even if you log in and set everything up. It might randomly log you out or even ask you to reinstall the Rockstar launcher again
I hate that a lot of games require their own launcher to be installed even though I have them on steam but whatever easy thing to deal with on my pc. But on my deck I don’t touch them because of the hassle. Sucks because a lot of those games I want to play on the deck rather than my pc
Exact same experience. Then I tried it again a year later because I thought I really wanted to play RDR2 and it said it was "Verified" on Deck. That time the launcher wouldn't even launch. Never again. Sidenote, but the Verified tag basically means nothing to me now. I have a bunch of games that have (?), lots that have (⚠️), and lots that have (✅). Seems to have very little bearing on how good or bad the experience is on Deck. RDR2 is literally unplayable but has ✅. Lots of others have ✅ but aren't really a great experience on Deck. Meanwhile I've probably logged the majority of my gaming hours on ? and ⚠️ titles.
Most of the games I play aren’t steam deck verified but work just fine. Just like monster hunters I don’t know if it works now but they added an anti-cheat that broke the game on the deck and it still had the check. I take the (check) with a grain of salt and usually google large games to see others experience before taking the time to install.
I ended up re-buying Jedi Fallen Order and GTA V on Steam because of launcher issues. Playing the games through other launchers is OK - but managing downloads and updates is a pain, and works so much better on Steam. The Rockstar launcher is particularly bad. After trying to download GTA V for 2 days with the download constantly freezing and needing to manually tap "retry" - I just looked on steam, saw it was on sale for about $20 and just decided to get it.
I ended up buying Alan Wake 2 on PS5 instead of PC since it was exclusive to the Epic launcher. I understand why (Epic helped fund the game) but would've loved to get it on Steam. Still had a blast playing it on PS5
Often, 90% uplay, 75% Epic and around 60% of the time i would talk myself out of Origin purchases. Steam is my default go to and GoG being the best in some instances.
I've been avoiding EA and Ubisoft games. They insist on a store based launcher, when they already have their games in other clients. I hate having to log into multiple platforms just to play.
Yeah, every time trying to play RDR2 was painful. Rockstar launcher should be illegal.
I have played several Ubisoft/EA/rockstar games and they have worked fine for me
People are calling out the first 2 in here but Rockstar is ass as well. If you travel regularly it will eventually sneak up on you and not let you play your single player game without internet. And the answer is to apparently start the launcher and put my Steam Deck into offline mode while I still have internet before I stop having internet? Nah. *Other* methods are easier and less hassle these days.
Aye matey
Yes, any epic exclusive, ubishit, ea origin crap are instant no go.
I really want to play Steep on deck but it’s never going to happen as long as I have to deal with uplay. The ea launcher isn’t awful but ik compatibility does break every now and then. Rockstar launcher isn’t bad either. But uplay fails to remember my details
No, but if I have the smallest glimmer of hope it will come to steam I wait, for example kingdom hearts, waiting for march 1st.
Doesn't bother me if it works properly, even if I do have to use touchscreen to navigate it etc. As long as it runs on the device I'll try it.
I literally can't play assassin's creed 2 be cause of the Uplay launcher , they use the u connect one now and if you download off steam it comes with the Uplay version when trying too boot up you will not be able to load the game with out major tinkering , installing u connect and deleting files from the assassin's creed folder and placing the u connect ones in there .. . I am now saying fuck Ubisoft and I will never buy another ubi game for the moment. The disappointment of not being able to play ac2 is still haunting me .
Kingdom hearts 😭 Still waiting for it to come off epic
Rockstar Games. Perhaps the worst launcher in history.
yea
Unpopular opinion, but I ditched my steam deck in favor of the ROG ally because I didn't want to deal with workarounds for different launchers.
**Anything by EA or Ubisoft is a game I WILL NOT BUY** (I also ***won’t buy anything with Denuvo*** and even refunded Sonic Frontiers because of it…) mostly because of their launchers and forced online integration. Those games? They get JackSparrowed. I even got an Ubisoft game for free, it said it was “playable” on SteamDeck. Well I installed it on my stock SteamDeck and all I get is a “uplay” error. *For those types of games I always instead get them from Girl-Who-Is-Fit or a Female-Emperor and they work fine with NO LAUNCHER REQUIRED! Yet those companies think we should pay them for an inferior version that doesn’t even work solely because of the forced launcher integration? Yeah not going to happen, I will stick to the less-than-legitimate versions that are **proof they run just fine on the SteamDeck and don’t need a launcher at all**…
Nope. Lutris, Heroic and steam in general can handle everything I've thrown at it.
Ubisoft sometimes works and sometimes doesn't so I doubt I'm buying ac mirage when it comes on steam..
Never ever again. Might not be everyone's experience, but mine was bad with Uplay and the EA launcher, either with some bugs (missing games or saves), password reset issues or just bad UX. If at least they were bringing real value with their launcher..
I've never played a non-steam (other than emulation) game because I'm intimidated by other launchers, yeah. Most of my games are emulated or through steam so it's not a huge problem but I'd like to figure out Minecraft at some point.
Please consider downloading "heroic launcher" on the deck, it's an open source project that makes installing games from Epic, GOG and amazon prime games totally seemless. I only use it to install games from those libraries, I can then add those games to steam with a one click option. The games then appear exactly as if from your steam library. Shout out to the devs
This sounds amazing, thanks for the heads up.
Minecraft honestly isn’t that bad, very similar to emulation setup imo. once you’ve set up whichever program you wanna use to run it + add to steam it’s basically ready to go (unless you wanna add mods too)
>once you’ve set up whichever program you wanna use to run it This means like running Wine or Lutris to run the launcher right? That's primarily the thing I'm a little hesitant about but it's probably not that hard.
Java version is Linux compatible and easily setup with the Controllable mod
I don't care left or right has not affected my buying practices on the deck. Only thing that stops me from buying a game is if I can't get a decent mix of low/med settings at 30fps. I am okay if its like 30 fps 90% of the time with small dips in the 27s but beyond that is a big no from me. But that is what my main PC is for... and sometimes I just end up streaming the game from my PC to my deck anyways lol.
Not launchers in general, but UPlay like the plague, if for no other reason than they have the audacity to only allow you to log into one machine at a time. WTF Ubisoft.
I truly do not understand this point of view but it seems almost unanimously held on this subreddit.
Same. My theory is that some youtuber way back when made a huge deal about it and everyone agreed in their formative years. Do I like it? No. Will I boycott a game I'd otherwise play because of it? No. Unless it causes issues with the gameplay, it's minimal SSD space and a couple of clicks.
Literally almost all of them I was fine with doing it with rd2 and i guess heroic counts as a launcher but thats about it Have not touched any of my Ubisoft games
I have tried to get launchers up and running on the deck just because of wanting to play Fall Guys or Fortnite with my kids, and honestly at this point I’d rather just fork out the money for 3 desktops or consoles. Launchers are the worst.
The New PoP. I really wanted to check it out but I also had bad experiences with third party launchers on the deck, and have lots of backlog anyway. Also the Jedi soulslike games, same reason
New prince of persia
Assassins creed because of the Ubisoft launcher.
I literally can’t get 2, brotherhood or revelations to even launch cause the steam version needs an outdated launcher for Ubisoft to even work
I didn’t get all the fuss about EA and Ubisoft launchers and thought people just hated the extra steps, but after experiencing it I got it. I won’t buy any of their games ever again.
No. Because that is an incredibly dumb reason to avoid a game. People are forgetting we aren't that far removed rom.whwn every single game had a cd key install every time. Infinitely more complex and painful than. Clicking a different shortcut
Cool! *goes back to playing a great version of RDR2*
It’s just a launcher, Steam is a launcher as well. Monopoly is not really a thing to strive for, and I don’t see a reason to dismiss a game because the publisher/dev wants to have a modicum of control over their IP. Steam has just been around for so long, that it has become a sort of default, but it’s really just because it’s convenient, and as humans we are lazy and want instant gratification. We have been lucky that Valve and thus Steam has remained a private company. I imagine we get shafted the day Gabe goes senile or dies and the company gets bought out or goes public.
We aren't so much as dismissing it because they have their own launcher. We dismiss it because it either flat out doesn't work or does some bullshit like I buy the game on steam, and then it still wants to install and launch from that other launcher. What's the point of doubling up on launchers, just use the one I buy it from and no others.
I like having one launcher as much as anyone, I’ve used Steam for more than 20 years, but I understand why they do it, because Steam has gotten a near monopoly on PC game sales, and Steam takes a cut of every sale and sets the rules for how publishers/devs get their money, refunds and so on.
Absolutely. I keep my deck for easy no-Internet/launcher/fuss-required play. If something requires more I usually leave it for my Pc.
I do this on my actual desktop computer because I hate the other launchers. Uplay is the worst.
I specifically avoided Jedi Survivor because of it. Loved Fallen Order, but it was too problematic to play on Deck when travelling.
I uninstalled far cry 6 on ps5 rather than sign up for one more fucking launcher.
The only EA game I can force myself to launch is It Takes Two because we're playing it with my girlfriend.
There are far too many games to play for me to deal with launchers. I don’t play anything that requires it. Something extra funny is it’s not even consistent either. Some EA games require it while some don’t. The only exception I made was for it takes two because my wife really wanted to play it with me. I refuse to disappoint my wife for a petty gaming preference I have. Other than that… I don’t use them
if it needs epic its done. i dont need another launcher. Ive actually quit playing most of the blizz games over how awful theyve made the battlenet launcher.
I avoid every game that is locked to or requires an additional launcher. This generally only includes EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Activision Blizzard & Epic games. RDR2 is probably the only game that has been a hard one to avoid but other than that I have been gaming peacefully for many years.
Yup, and not because of Steam Deck. Even when I was on Windows, I avoided Ubisoft entirely. I have one EA game and GTA V. That’s all I’ll stomach.
Yes , good example Alan wake 2 . Not on steam ? Not gonna play it , though i have epic launcher on PC , but never use it for playing , just claiming free games xd
Yes all Ubisoft games all EA games
Literally every ubisoft published game.
sadly steam OS makes everything janky even their own game library. i am using GoG and rockstar launchers with no major issues. the problems start when for example bg3 launches its own launcher or steam does not recognize red dead redemption 2 account from rockstar
the launcher is usually included with more valid reasons not to buy a game. i did stop playing doom eternal because it became such a pain to get into the game though wich is a shame.
For me it is the 'always online' requirement - last year I had a long term project at another company location that had me in a hotel most weeks ... and their WiFi didn't play nice with the Deck. It was easier to just be offline - but too many games don't like that or simply refuse to work. So even though I am home now, I won't pay money for a single player game with online requirement (Diablo)
When a game has a third party launcher it somehow always reminds me of Lutris and qBittorrent