• coffinwood@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree, launchers are one superfluous piece of software that require additional resources.

    Steam takes half a gig of RAM. From my 32 gigs available.

    Also around 1 or 1.5 gigs on my drive. Many games take 50 to 100 gigs.

    It’s a minor inconvenience. If one can’t afford one gig for a launcher how would a game be installed anyway?

    • LinyosT@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not just one launcher in a lot of cases. Many cases have you also run another launcher such as Ubisoft and EA games that require their launchers to run along side Steam. It all adds up and it doesn’t need to be that way nor does it need defending.

      I don’t really understand why you’re defending something thats worse for you than the alternative.

      • coffinwood@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t defend the situation, I get along with it. Is it not possible for some people to have an issue with a product and still be able to use it?

        Launchers aren’t perfect, not even Steam as the pack leader. But they’re a **minor inconvenience **.

        I haven’t got a single game installed that uses nearly as few resources as all the launchers. Mass Effect LE alone is around 100 times bigger than Steam on my drive. That’s not bloatware, that’s a mini tool in comparison.

        Curseforge/Overwolf takes less than 500 MB of RAM, when I launch Minecraft through it the game takes 20 times the amount.

        Tell me where the problem is. If your computer can run and install the game it can do so with the launcher too. Some of us can deal with that even if it’s not a perfect situation.