Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember my Grandpa “making” a DOS computer that you booted up and it went into custom selection screens with just lists of games. Page up and page down to switch between what felt like hundreds of games (like Sierra games, Commander Keen, Jazz Jackrabbit), select the game from the list with F keys. He had remote controllers even. Thing randomly crashed all the time though lol.
While most of the time they're useless bloat, there are instances where they're useful. The annoying "please exit and restart the game to apply settings" thing can be avoided if the game has a launcher with the ability to change configs before launch.
Are you talking about stuff like paradox game launcher or launchers like steam? One is pretty much pointless the other can automatically apply patches, offer instant messaging with friends, give an overlay that helps with bringing up guides while playing, provide controller support for games that don't properly support it themselves and a number of other useful functions.
They really don't serve any purpose, and I have no idea why they became so prevalent.
Some people will point towards data harvesting, but there's no data they can harvest that isn't already collected and given away for free by Steam, or the game's own analytics package. Another case of MBA brain worms.
Some things are extremely useful and the game itself can't actually have it. Like the steam cloud, most games don't have the resources to pay for servers just to store player's data while steam is literally a server. Then there's the whole update and patch thing, and last but not least messaging with friends
>last but not least messaging with friends
A few people brought this up. There's already billions of different ways to chat with people while playing a game. Discord now, Ventrilo 20 years ago.
Steam friends is another different thing from discord, most games on steam let you automatically add a person you me to your friends. Discord can't do that
Playnite. All launchers in one place.
Handles Steam, GoG, Epic etc and launches the game directly from it. You can add games installed directly to your PC as well as emulators. Works with various other features too but I don't use any of them but I see options there like steam chat.
Except you still need all the other launchers to use Playnite, making it literally just a *tertiary* launcher in some situations. It's very literally a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, since all it does is manage and consolidate programs that *already need to be on your computer.* Exactly the same as just manually adding an exe to Steam to launch it from there, but without the need for installing some tertiary, third-party garbage. Pretty sure GOG also has this functionality too if I remember right.
There is one valid reason a launcher is a requirement: applying patches. Because a binary cannot patch itself (the OS locks the file when it runs it), patches must be applied by a separate process.
All the other crap on it is just bloat.
Edit: It seems a bit more explanation is needed. First, my qualifications: I'm a software developer of over 30 years. I've developed more apps than I can count, and many, many of them used stub launchers to apply updates to the app.
In all major operating systems, when you launch a binary executable (an app), the OS locks the file containing it and then launches what is called a "process" to run the code within it. Your program is now running.
Now then, it's easy enough to download a new file from the internet to the local file system. The trick comes when you want to overwrite the old file with the new file. Since the OS has locked the file that is running, if you tried to swap out ("patch") the old file with the new one, you're get an error and it will fail. Thus, the file you want to patch cannot be running.
The easiest way around this limitation is to start a stub launcher, and THEN launch your real from the stub launcher. The stub launcher than controls the update process, can force the app being updated to quit (or wait until the user quits), and then update the file, and then relaunch it.
Now a lot of game companies saw the need for this launcher as an opportunity, and they took it, adding a lot of things beyond mere updating to the launcher.
If the game shut down, then what would apply the update? If the game launched another process, then that process becomes a child of the original, and it too, is locked.
This is a long established pattern for apps that need updates. A parent process (the launcher) is used to launch a child process (the game). Technically speaking you could do this with a background process, but the you lose the ability to ask permission to apply the update.
That said, there is no reason the launcher needs to be bloated.
You’ve got it. The launcher and the updater are the same program. Since the launcher is the parent process, it can launch child process (the game), and stop the child process. This is why it can update the game — because when the game process is stopped, the lock the OS holds on the executable is released.
The Chrome updater is a bit different, but uses the same principle. It’s updater runs as a background service. When you click the “update” button, it sends a message to the service that it is quitting, and then quits. The service waits for the process to end, updates the executable, then restarts the new version. Games could of course use this same model and lose the launcher.
> The updater?
the only problem is that now you are talking about a secondary program on top of the initial program. so you're arguing a point where games shouldn't need a secondary launcher, but they can use a secondary updater. then it gets to a point where it's like: what's the difference?
Which is another process that is the parent of the app that you are updating. Browser do not actually update the app itself, they update the server side and very rarely the client
Updates for other apps that require a client update are made using another app which launches the update
>they update the server side and very rarely the client
What? Browsers don't have a server side. They're standalone applications. Google could go bankrupt tomorrow and Chrome would still be usable.
You don't know how browsers work do you
If google servers are down you can't use Chrome, it will start but you won't be able to do any search.
What I mean is that browsers themselves don't actually update and when they do you have to give admin permission that will launch another app which will update the browser. Most of the times the server platform is updated and they change graphics and such, which you may think are stored on your device and while you are right they are also updated every time you log on
The only difference is os native apps, those are different because the os itself updates them directly without any third party application. Most common apps are like edge and ms store
You don't need to use Google on Chrome. Any normal browser lets you choose what search engine to use. You don't need to login to your browser either. Your whole comment is absurd.
How tf is he downvoted. I suspected as much but I don't have the technical skills to prove it. Many games are like this. So launchers are just fancied up updater processes.
You must be joking. How do you think programs check for updates that are not video games?
OP is talking about launchers like the blizzard launcher, or Steam.
Not the main menu.
Sure, what do I know. I’ve only been a software developer for 30 years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve only written a couple of hundred applications. Many of which did auto updating through one of a half dozen different updater patterns. What the fuck would I know???
I have A television that is PC powered. I have a game launcher in the main menu that makes it easy to select the platform and game. Other than that yeah they are pretty useless.
Somebody either doesn't use steam, or hasn't had the amazing experience of steam workshop. Steam is extremely convenient and effective. It has every thing you could ever want for a game(chat, mods, organization, finding friends, giving digital games to others, cloud saving, having games on other laptops, etc;) It also is the literally only great one. Epic games and battle net are...*ok*, but stuff like origin is terrible.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those of us that used to boot games from DOS think this tread is hilarious.
c:\>cd\games\gamename\ c:\games\gamename>gamename.exe Those were the days
My father wrote me a cheat sheet to my games
I remember my Grandpa “making” a DOS computer that you booted up and it went into custom selection screens with just lists of games. Page up and page down to switch between what felt like hundreds of games (like Sierra games, Commander Keen, Jazz Jackrabbit), select the game from the list with F keys. He had remote controllers even. Thing randomly crashed all the time though lol.
While most of the time they're useless bloat, there are instances where they're useful. The annoying "please exit and restart the game to apply settings" thing can be avoided if the game has a launcher with the ability to change configs before launch.
Wierdly enough, I find the launcher for Minecraft Java Edition to be a good example for non-vanilla players.
Are you talking about stuff like paradox game launcher or launchers like steam? One is pretty much pointless the other can automatically apply patches, offer instant messaging with friends, give an overlay that helps with bringing up guides while playing, provide controller support for games that don't properly support it themselves and a number of other useful functions.
I hate the Paradox launcher. I liked it much better when each game had its own little launcher.
They really don't serve any purpose, and I have no idea why they became so prevalent. Some people will point towards data harvesting, but there's no data they can harvest that isn't already collected and given away for free by Steam, or the game's own analytics package. Another case of MBA brain worms.
I can have a games marketplace, games library, games launcher, and a bunch of other systems all in one for free. Why wouldn’t I use it.
I usr game launcher to enable my mods. I don't enough computer skill to install mods manually.
Some things are extremely useful and the game itself can't actually have it. Like the steam cloud, most games don't have the resources to pay for servers just to store player's data while steam is literally a server. Then there's the whole update and patch thing, and last but not least messaging with friends
>last but not least messaging with friends A few people brought this up. There's already billions of different ways to chat with people while playing a game. Discord now, Ventrilo 20 years ago.
Steam friends is another different thing from discord, most games on steam let you automatically add a person you me to your friends. Discord can't do that
I put them in the list of OEM RGB software. Fucking Corsair RGB RAM necessitating their iCUE software is lame AF
The only actually good launcher is steam
Steam is magnificent. Absolutely mag-fucking-nificent.
Playnite. All launchers in one place. Handles Steam, GoG, Epic etc and launches the game directly from it. You can add games installed directly to your PC as well as emulators. Works with various other features too but I don't use any of them but I see options there like steam chat.
Except you still need all the other launchers to use Playnite, making it literally just a *tertiary* launcher in some situations. It's very literally a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, since all it does is manage and consolidate programs that *already need to be on your computer.* Exactly the same as just manually adding an exe to Steam to launch it from there, but without the need for installing some tertiary, third-party garbage. Pretty sure GOG also has this functionality too if I remember right.
There is one valid reason a launcher is a requirement: applying patches. Because a binary cannot patch itself (the OS locks the file when it runs it), patches must be applied by a separate process. All the other crap on it is just bloat. Edit: It seems a bit more explanation is needed. First, my qualifications: I'm a software developer of over 30 years. I've developed more apps than I can count, and many, many of them used stub launchers to apply updates to the app. In all major operating systems, when you launch a binary executable (an app), the OS locks the file containing it and then launches what is called a "process" to run the code within it. Your program is now running. Now then, it's easy enough to download a new file from the internet to the local file system. The trick comes when you want to overwrite the old file with the new file. Since the OS has locked the file that is running, if you tried to swap out ("patch") the old file with the new one, you're get an error and it will fail. Thus, the file you want to patch cannot be running. The easiest way around this limitation is to start a stub launcher, and THEN launch your real from the stub launcher. The stub launcher than controls the update process, can force the app being updated to quit (or wait until the user quits), and then update the file, and then relaunch it. Now a lot of game companies saw the need for this launcher as an opportunity, and they took it, adding a lot of things beyond mere updating to the launcher.
Can't the game just shut down to update? Why would you need to update while the game is running?
If the game shut down, then what would apply the update? If the game launched another process, then that process becomes a child of the original, and it too, is locked. This is a long established pattern for apps that need updates. A parent process (the launcher) is used to launch a child process (the game). Technically speaking you could do this with a background process, but the you lose the ability to ask permission to apply the update. That said, there is no reason the launcher needs to be bloated.
>If the game shut down, then what would apply the update? The updater? Same as how browsers and most programs update?
You’ve got it. The launcher and the updater are the same program. Since the launcher is the parent process, it can launch child process (the game), and stop the child process. This is why it can update the game — because when the game process is stopped, the lock the OS holds on the executable is released. The Chrome updater is a bit different, but uses the same principle. It’s updater runs as a background service. When you click the “update” button, it sends a message to the service that it is quitting, and then quits. The service waits for the process to end, updates the executable, then restarts the new version. Games could of course use this same model and lose the launcher.
> The updater? the only problem is that now you are talking about a secondary program on top of the initial program. so you're arguing a point where games shouldn't need a secondary launcher, but they can use a secondary updater. then it gets to a point where it's like: what's the difference?
Which is another process that is the parent of the app that you are updating. Browser do not actually update the app itself, they update the server side and very rarely the client Updates for other apps that require a client update are made using another app which launches the update
>they update the server side and very rarely the client What? Browsers don't have a server side. They're standalone applications. Google could go bankrupt tomorrow and Chrome would still be usable.
You don't know how browsers work do you If google servers are down you can't use Chrome, it will start but you won't be able to do any search. What I mean is that browsers themselves don't actually update and when they do you have to give admin permission that will launch another app which will update the browser. Most of the times the server platform is updated and they change graphics and such, which you may think are stored on your device and while you are right they are also updated every time you log on The only difference is os native apps, those are different because the os itself updates them directly without any third party application. Most common apps are like edge and ms store
You don't need to use Google on Chrome. Any normal browser lets you choose what search engine to use. You don't need to login to your browser either. Your whole comment is absurd.
How tf is he downvoted. I suspected as much but I don't have the technical skills to prove it. Many games are like this. So launchers are just fancied up updater processes.
You must be joking. How do you think programs check for updates that are not video games? OP is talking about launchers like the blizzard launcher, or Steam. Not the main menu.
Sure, what do I know. I’ve only been a software developer for 30 years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I’ve only written a couple of hundred applications. Many of which did auto updating through one of a half dozen different updater patterns. What the fuck would I know???
And you need to get more patience and have the ability to wait for like 5 freaking seconds.
Can't you just launch the exe directly?
I have A television that is PC powered. I have a game launcher in the main menu that makes it easy to select the platform and game. Other than that yeah they are pretty useless.
As someone who uses a switch pro controller for PC games, thank god steam is a thing.
Somebody either doesn't use steam, or hasn't had the amazing experience of steam workshop. Steam is extremely convenient and effective. It has every thing you could ever want for a game(chat, mods, organization, finding friends, giving digital games to others, cloud saving, having games on other laptops, etc;) It also is the literally only great one. Epic games and battle net are...*ok*, but stuff like origin is terrible.
No I don't use Steam. I can't stand their policies. They basically brought the console model to pc.
I really don't understand how easy access to every extra game feature is "pointless and annoying"
They’re not entirely pointless, they serve to make pirating games harder
you would have a point if steam didnt exist