Remix.run Logo
▲ kakuri 5 hours ago

Ok but why didn't they do it sooner? The Steam client is terrible and there is no excuse for it.

▲kllrnohj 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The Steam client is terrible

Things nobody has said since like 2005? A faster startup is certainly appreciated, but steam's 10 second cold launch time is hardly a big deal. Especially when everyone just leaves it running anyway. There's far more significant aspects like memory usage, game library, and general features.

▲gunalx 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The client is definetly terrible. Slow to start. I have frikkin 2 different topbars that seemingly have similar options. Way to many locations for settings, spammy store page. Hard to navigate game library. The fact that the store page often is a better look at the game than the one in the library. Impossible to see what dlcs that is enabled unless you happen to borrow the game from someone in your family. Why van games corrupt and un and reinstalling is the only fix (verifying does sometimes not catch it).

I could go on. Its still the only store with acceptable linux experience sadly.

▲smallmancontrov 5 hours ago | parent [-]

"Acceptable" is doing heavy lifting, because if you have a non-us keyboard layout Steam moves heaven and earth to ensure that no matter how hard you work to launch games with US keyboard, they will still use your non-US layout and be broken by default.

▲dmix 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A faster startup is certainly appreciated, but steam's 10 second cold launch time is hardly a big deal.

When I hear about a game on social media I often want to add it to a wishlist on Steam but I dread opening the app because I know it will take forever to open on MacOS.

I don't mind a game launcher taking time, but the store is a part of that which makes it annoying I avoid the native app for that reason.

▲a1o 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s been a little while since I used Steam but you used to be able to do that from their own website, I think it was store.steampowered.com (I am guessing the website from memory). My game PC wasn’t my main PC so I didn’t even had Steam on that pc and it was what I used to buy the games - don’t really remember if I wishlist too because I use bookmarks in web browsers and folders for the bookmarks.

▲Gigachad an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Steam client on macos is the slowest program I've used. I just uninstalled it and use the browser for store/community pages because the steam client is unusable.

I get people hate Epic, but the Steam client is not particularly well made or snappy. And I'd love to see competition kick their asses in to improving it.

▲Sharlin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A launcher is a parasite mostly used to collect stats. Having it take five seconds before you even get to the point of actually starting to load your game is preposterous. Whereas who cares if it takes five seconds for a store to load? At least I play games more often than buy new ones.

▲kllrnohj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't have a MacOS comparison point, but steam for me is pretty equivalent to the numbers in the article. ~10 seconds for a cold start, half a second for a warm start. Unless you have a very different definition of "take forever"? What are you seeing on MacOS?

▲dmix 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I tested the latest Steam build on MacOS and it took 7 seconds to load on an M4 Max and I had to close a popup when it opened.

In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever. Same with mobile, if you tapped an app icon and it loaded that slow it would never be tolerated.

▲crtasm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thankfully you can turn off that news popup in the settings.

▲the_af 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever.

But a game client is not a web page. You open it once (some people, on boot) and then it's just sitting there. You don't randomly start it from scratch whenever you run a game...

And even if you did, 7-10 seconds waiting for a game to start is not the same as waiting for a page to load. You can wait for the game.

▲sleepybrett 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

m5pro 64gb, 3s to get to the first 'loading window', 5s to get to the store page. But honestly who gives a shit. If you are the average working joe who comes home from work and fires up the pc to play a game, a 5s load of steam is not even a piece of gravel in the road let alone a speed bump. It's not like i'm opening and closing steam 100, 50 or even 5 times a day. It's a useless metric.

▲dmix 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

Standards are so low these days.

> If you are the average working joe who comes home from work and fires up the pc to play a game

My usecase was wanting to add a game to a wishlist

> It's not like i'm opening and closing steam 100, 50 or even 5 times a day.

I've opened Steam app about a thousand times and it's always felt like clunky dated software.

▲simoncion 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever.

Given that its primary purposes are to start video games that take anywhere from five to thirty+ seconds to start and to download video games and their patches which range in size between many hundreds of MBs to a hundred+ GBs, the client taking roughly ten seconds to start is no problem.

Optimize where it makes sense, yanno? I'd much rather have to "deal with" the Steam client taking ten seconds to start than to have to deal with the Epic Games Launcher's download rate being limited to 100->150 mbit/s. [0]

[0] Last I checked on this was a few years ago -like twelve months after Sea Of Thieves stopped being widely popular- so it may have improved. The absurdly slow download speeds [1] are one of the bigger reasons why I stopped using EGS.

[1] Sure, many people don't have connections any faster than that. I do. Steam saturates it, and -at the time- EGS absolutely did not and occupied 100% of one logical CPU while failing to do so.

▲dmix 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

? I already addressed in my original comment that I wouldn't care if it was just a game launcher but the Stream app is more than that.

It opens to the store page for a reason, not to your library page.

▲bakugo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I highly recommend just using your normal browser to navigate the store. Using it within the client doesn't really provide any advantages at all.

▲mrdependable 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My computer in the 90s used to take 30 minutes to boot. Now we complain about 10 second load times. What a world.

▲nubinetwork 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A modern computer runs circles around your 90s computer... if the code was the same, it should be crazy fast. Instead, everything is a web browser, and each of them need to load 1gb of junk into memory each time you click on them.

▲mrdependable 4 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

▲platevoltage 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's excessive even for the 90's

▲kylec 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I definitely don't leave the Steam launcher running all the time, on macOS it takes up a non-trivial amount of memory that I want to have available for other apps. I launch Steam when I want to play some games, then quit it when I want to do other stuff.

▲ntoskrnl_exe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Startup is one thing, using the program is another. Steamwebhelper, the chromium based tool that renders everything web based in the client is awfully optimized and likes to noticeably utilize the CPU even when minimized on the tray, yet somehow always serves me with a blank page whenever I go store, community etc. on first try, I have to click the label multiple times to get anything. You can't even kill the process, because it's immediately relaunched, I just wish there was an option to disable it and only get the library.

▲bradishungry 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the steam client is definitely kind of terrible, maybe i’m just biased because i have used steam deck since launch which uses big picture, but there have been bugs in the client that were extremely annoying and obvious that took years to fix (for example, closing a store page and losing page position, but then the page would scroll up when pressing down on a controller for years).

A very obvious non-deck example is how bad it can be at loading and showing videos on the store page. They consistently have issues with smooth playback, this is not my network, others i know have the same issue. it’s to the point that I scroll down and look at gifs in the description for gameplay footage first. I use the discovery queue often and it’s pretty apparent.

▲redhale 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When I browse the store, I specifically do it in a browser because the client is so unpleasant to use. For launching games I have no choice. I love Steam as a concept and company, but it is not an enjoyable app to use by its own merits, in my opinion.

▲ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲tikhonj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find it very annoying. But not annoying enough to make me stop using Steam.

The upsides of having a de facto monopoly, I suppose—lamentably common story in tech.

▲ambicapter 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Steam crashes my window manager every time I close it now. This started a couple weeks ago.

▲sitzkrieg 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it changed from a small, fast native client to webshit quite a few years ago. the performance is acceptable now but it is indeed magnitudes slower. it also steals focus several times during startup which is the single greatest thing a developer of client software can do to be a shithead

▲ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲avazhi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well two of us have said it just today so you’ll have to update your assumption.

Steam is dogshit and it’s crazy they haven’t optimised it all in 20 years.

▲sleepybrett 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the steam client on my current windows system is using 115mb of ram. I don't care how long it takes to start up, i just start it and leave it running.

▲bakugo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I said it back when they first migrated to Electron, and I'll say it again now. It's not the slowest thing ever by modern standards, but it's definitely not fast, either, and is pretty bloated in terms of memory usage.

It only looks good if you compare it to the Epic client, which somehow manages to be much worse.

▲righthand 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I definitely don’t leave the resource hog Steam running, because it can be slow and terrible. I turned off Steam Overlay and Notifications to get substantial speed up improvements.

▲jasonmp85 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲jerf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My guess based on the timing is that it is primarily for the Steam Frame. Steam is not just a game launcher but the entire desktop environment for the Steam Machine, the Steam Deck, and anything else like Bazzite that uses it as its primary UI as well. But in those cases, while at scale every second saved is nice, for the most part a second here or there doesn't really amount to that much.

But for the Steam Frame, which is probably booting while it is strapped to your face and completely obscuring your vision, every second is felt much more intensely. Anything that can be done to get to first interaction sooner has a much, much larger effect on the feel of the experience.

The speed would always have been nice to have, but it moves beyond "nice to have" for the Steam Frame case into having a significant effect on how it feels to use and the out-of-box experience. Yes, you'll use sleep most of the time, but when you do a full boot or reboot, you feel the seconds.

▲DrammBA 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was in the beta channel from some time now being updated and refined, steam is constantly updating the beta channel and promotes updates to general channel every now and then.

▲my123 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was a planned update since long before. Just a coincidence in timelines.

▲wging 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They might've pushed it from beta to stable reactively, but an improvement to startup times was in their beta channel last month: https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4397053?emclan=103...

▲LollipopYakuza 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good to know. I would have hated if Valve was capable of such optimization in 24h all this time but didn't if it wasn't to answer Epic.

▲hungryhobbit 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They released it like a day or two after Epic right? That is quite a coincidence ...

▲kimixa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From what I can see they actually started pushing the steam update to stable users before the epic tweet. And has been on the beta channel for weeks.

So I wonder if it's the other way round, Epic rushed out the boast because they knew the window that it would be even remotely correct to most users was closing.

▲my123 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The CEF update was baking in the public beta channel for around the last 6 weeks.

Epic could have benchmarked their beta client against the Steam beta client which would have shown this.

▲sznio 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If I had a performance improvement ready for release, and my competitor started bragging about being faster, I'd for sure jump at the opportunity to release it sooner.

▲the_af 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Ok but why didn't they do it sooner? The Steam client is terrible and there is no excuse for it.

It's bad, but I wouldn't call it terrible.

It does have unresolved annoyances, like how context menus randomly stop working on Linux, and tweaking that setting (whose name I forget) on/off does little to fix them. You have to resort to using Big Picture mode, which is annoying. If they ever fix this, I'd have zero problems with the Steam client.

Mostly though I don't care about the client, I care about the games and they work seamlessly in Linux!

▲kg 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most likely nobody complained and startup time isn't an important metric for them. The typical user may have Steam launch at startup or launch it once after booting their PC and then leave it running for days or weeks.

▲willis936 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Personally, my longest and loudest complaint with steam is reliably putting a long hold on inputs when it starts up. If I launch steam on startup then I can't start doing anything else until it's done because it will jump on top of everything else when it feels like it. This is a particularly bad sin because this behavior is a way for credentials to leak.

▲knollimar 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is there no option to prevent it stealing focus?!?

▲VohuMana 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can honestly say I haven’t really had any issues with the client. Sure restoring from tray and starting are slow but other than that it’s been rock solid for me and for something that is mainly hosting a web view it’s nice that it doesn’t eat 1-3GB of memory in the background.

I’m curious what issues you have run into that you consider it terrible?

▲VCFundedGenYer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲beart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Disagree. It does what I need it to do. The store might be slow but my games work great.