Is that true? And if it is true, why is that?
Pointing to free games on Epic and non usage tells you that people don’t want Epic. Doesn’t tell you why. Nor does it tell you whether people continue to stick with Valve. And that is the point in my original comment.
If Valve isn’t good, you can’t just say people won’t go for another better option “just because”.
If 50% of the games I want to play in the future decided to move to a different store front and launcher that was incompatible with Steam that would honestly be a worst-case scenario.
One doesn't "switch" clients like they do operating systems.
You can install more than one at once. They're not mutually exclusive.
I want a million dollars and a DGX Spark. That's not a point, that's just a personal desire or opinion, which isn't an argument.
I already explained how this is false as my point: "I want X" is not an argument. Your desire is not an argument.
Valid points include things like "I think that users should be able to pick the client that they run a game from." That is an argument.
So, again: what is your argument that you are making?
Are you even reading the thread?
It's really not hard to understand that if you want to keep your library, you just don't delete your Steam account.
Your "POINT I AM POINTING TO" is exactly as stupid as someone saying "if I drove my car into the river, my car would be destroyed". That's correct, and the solution is trivial: do not drive your car into the river.
Yet again, you haven't made a single coherent argument.
Because they already have 100+ games in Steam because of the early head start.
> If Valve isn’t good, you can’t just say people won’t go for another better option “just because”.
Never said that, I said people don't want the hassle of running 2 game launcher apps with fragmented libraries.