I mean, Steam is owned by Valve, and they make some pretty good games. Half-Life, Portal are some of the best series out there. I recently played HL Alyx and it was a banger.
But you have to give Valve credit for supporting Linux gaming witch if gets popular enough will create perfect competition for Windows. imagine system that requires 1GB or RAM instead of 4-5GB when idle , that doesn’t spy on you and is more secure. Perfect for gaming IMHO if taken seriously.
Windows PC gamers and Xbox gamers are more or less the only ones who game on non-*Nix kernels; PlayStation is BSD-derived, Switch is BSD+Android, Steam Deck is of course Linux, a lot of arcade cabinets run on Debian. Gaming on non-Windows platforms is absolutely viable, it’s just being hidden from players by a thin layer of customization.
yes it is, in fact it would be much better experience if properly supported if nothing else because Linux can be modyfied into anything, though free community driven Linux is preferable to Sony’s closed system.
The Hunter: Call Of The Wild. Not as focused of a hunting game as you think. I find it a super chill walking nature simulator with amazing views and animal models.
I got into this game when RDR2 awakened a need for a good hunting game in me. I really enjoyed my time with it! Looking forward to the fishing one once they iron out most of the issues.
I wish they were the same game I’d pay twice for it as the Angler forests, ambience and maps are no where near as good as the hunter. Waiting for a need zone? Throw a line out and have a fish.
I hate it when they give something the suffix “one” when there have been multiple previous versions. This is like the 13th game in the main series, but some asshole was like “Let’s call it Mortal Kombat 1!”, same goes for “Xbox One”.
When it started out as “One” suffix to signal that it’s a hub sort-of-thing it made sense but then they took it and ran with it. I wonder how many sales XBox missed because of their dumb naming schemes. I honestly still don’t know which xbox is the newest one.
Well not to discourage them but I like Epic games because every Thursday they give me a free game sometimes two. Hell all the 100 games I own on their platform I gotten for free. So maybe that’s why it’s not profitable?
Beyond that I see no monopoly every game on their I can find on Steam and so far have had no issues with it.
They literally pay for exclusivity. It's weird that people seem to selectively ignore that every time someone brings up their desire to get free games from them.
Epic still has to pay the developers even if they give away the game for free. I'm happy to help bleed Epic dry by taking their free games. But I will never ever spend a single cent on their platform.
You’re lying to yourself. They pay a fixed amount for the giveaway and it doesn’t matter if the games are claimed. If anything, you owning a game on Epic means you’re more likely to mention it to your friends and possibly get them to use the platform and spend on it.
Yes, but those buyout prices aren't negotiated in a vacuum. When the number of entitlements goes up, studios will demand higher buyout prices. There's a reason free game quality has been lackluster lately. Studios demand a higher buyouts and Epic doesn't want to spend too much money, so they go with smaller titles.
I’m pretty sure the prices are based on the projected sales using industry knowledge and tools like SteamSpy, created by Epic’s head of the publishing strategy at the time. It’s not common that a publisher participating in a giveaway would get to use their own figures from a prior giveaway to change the price offered by Epic, while the others’ figures are available only for the games in those leaks. In other words, claiming many copies in the present is extremely unlikely to have any effect on the future buyout prices.
This. Active usernumbers are more worth to them than the small fee they pay the Devs. Everyone who “just redeems the free games” is helping them actively.
I mean, I get why people hate this, but some games would literally not exist if not for that exclusivity funding. For example, the newly released Alan Wake 2 is completely funded by Epic. I’d say at that point, the exclusivity is fair game.
After Control’s success, I’d imagine AW2 still would’ve been made even without Epic’s exclusivity/publishing deal. If anything, Control’s timed EGS exclusivity hurt their numbers until they eventually hit Steam.
Epic funding games development was only a recent thing. For the most part, they were buying exclusivity for games that were already set to be released or were already in active development. The other reason why this was hated was because they bought exclusivity for games that were crowd-funded back when the store was newly opened.
They are literally releasing their games on another platform that actually requires them to put money into the project again to develop a port. So yeah, even PS atm is better than Epic.
So Playstation releasing some of their games literally years later as often sub-par ports is better than being able to play a game day 1 native on PC? I’d love to hear to the logic for that lol
You also don’t like exclusives and want ppl to be able to play the way they want.
…and somehow Playstation - actively releasing their games on PC, investing time, money & effort - are worse than Epic who just want to lure ppl to their store/launcher and actively taking away the choice of playing method?
And they release them day 1, without the multiple year wait from console release, and not as shitty ports. Fuck yes that’s better than PlayStation, it’s a no-brainer.
I’m truly baffled that anyone could have this take seriously. PC =/= Steam.
Wow… Seriously? No they release it for their launcher exclusively not for pc.
If you’re talking platforms Sony is WAY MORE OPEN than Epic ever will be, we can just pray they fail hard and this practice doesn’t become the norm (again)
Sony & Xbox once used to have exclusives for their platforms. Xbox opened up completely and releases everything to PC as well. Sony opened up later and now brings their games to PC as well. Sometimes a year later, sometimes a month. So they’re multi Plattform now and you can choose where and how to play it.
EA and Ubisoft decided to open up their LAUNCHERS and give you the choice where to buy& play - it’s not completely open, because often you’ll still need their browsers but it’s a step in the right direction.
So the trend seems to be to open up more to reach more people and sell more games that way.
EPIC on the other hand is completely closed, buying exclusives for their launcher or for a certain time. It’s a shitty approach to force people to their store and they still aren’t profitable - that’s the only good thing about epic proofing that this approach doesn’t work anymore.
Are Sony/Xbox/EA/Ubisoft perfect? No. - but they all get that being more open is the way to go. They don’t do it because they’re nice or want us to be happy with games - They do it because it’s profitable, but coincidentally that’s a good trend that’s worthy of support.
Okay, fair, there are some exclusives. But reading through these, wow, nothing of value is lost.
Most importantly because for the newest ones like AW2, they’re just on a 1 year Early Access release in a lot of ways. Every time someone I know bought a game there, I was grateful they did the paid (as in, they pay, not get paid) bug testing work for the poor devs. And then once it releases on other stores, you can buy a somewhat patched-up version, and usually for 25%-50% off.
“Let’s release a worse product. Hey, no one likes it. Okay, let’s spend money on games so THEY can essentially force people to use our software. Hey, still, no one really likes it. Okay, let’s try to give away stuff for free. Hey, people use our thing for the free stuff but still no one likes it for any other reason.”
They just keep spending money to up their numbers and their product is still missing features and inferior to competition. They spend big money on exclusivity, but that is only temporary - if that’s how you’re getting your customers, you’re going to have to keep doing it forever to retain them. If people only use you for free stuff, you’re just going to have to keep giving stuff away at a loss to retain them.
This model is not sustainable. You’re not doing anything that aligns value with your customers besides just throwing free stuff at them. That’s not a business.
What’s especially sad to me is they could literally have just spent that same money to improve their launcher and have an actual product. Instead they’ve invested in temporary stats. They’re essentially bankrolling other devs on games with temporary popularity instead of in their lifelong product.
Using other games exclusivity as sway into your ecosystem only works when you have a good product the person would be interested in but they haven’t seen it yet. EGS is currently something people are essentially coerced into using but no one really gets any real value out of it other than “well I couldn’t buy this game anywhere else”
I think it just depends on how long they can do this. I think they are banking on getting the fortnite kiddies hooked on the store. They typically have far less disposable income (yet they still charge kids for 20$ skins), they will most likely not have a super large steam library (probably due to the aformentioned skins) so they are banking on the store being that kids default to Epic rather than steam. Its not terribly odd since Steam basically did the same thing, when it used to have those mega sales with the flash sales and the such. That is when the love for Steam basically exploded and its been cruising on that hypetrain for a while.
Plus it’s not like there wasn’t room for a good shopping client, if you go smart about it.
Steam had at the time - and still has - tons of bad UI design, stemming for its very old layouts wrangling with newer client additions and changes. Plus Steam for the longest time until the new client solved it had serious issues with late boots and hanging closures. GOG had just tried to bring out their own client a few years before, but in the move to GOG Galaxy had gotten a lot of ire and fucked a lot of things up. All the per-developer clients were berated constantly.
There was room there. But Epic, hell, this is so not it. Your client is so much worse than even the bad competitors…
Steam may suck at extra goodies like streaming but they sure as hell don’t suck at selling games. Constant sales, cloud saves, pre-downloads, a solid friend system for co-op games. They nail all the important shit and that’s really all that matters to most people.
Yeah, if I’m reading that right they’re complaining that they’re stuck at phase one of enshitification - lose money on aquiring users. The reason behind that is they’re not able to monopolize the market for their games. “These damn mobile stores won’t let us turn the corner and put the clamps on our users. Fix it please.”
If you count all of Steam’s features (Steam Input, Big Picture Mode, Proton etc), then Epic has decades of catching up to do. The problem is that usually executives will choose the “easy way out” of problems, so let’s just give free games instead of making a good platform.
Is that a press release for a trailer? Are you going to release a trailer for the trailer next? Just fucking tell us the release date and shut up until then. It’s not like you need to introduce the GTA brand to anyone.
I find installing via Lutris works most of the time for most games. Definitely not as clean or easy as going through Steam, but it’s typically not hard enough to avoid entirely.
I’d love for Blizzard to pursue a genuine passion project. Ask the Microsoft overlords for a few years to put out something not beholden to sales expectations or profit. They can devote a small team to make something that they want to while the rest of the company continues on with its soulless corporate entertainment fabricator to fund the creative projects. You need creative projects to keep the workforce engaged.
If nothing else, Activision Blizzard was seen as a greedy, profit-driven machine which continually pushed out semi-entertaining products with en emphasis on FOMO micro-transactions and monetization schemes. Blizzard is a shell of what it once was.
Let them get back to their roots. Let them focus on engagement and fun.
I doubt they could at this point. With how much time has passed since Blizzard was any good, the people and culture that produced their best stuff are gone. It’s more like a company of theseus now, it’s name being the only vestige of what once was.
consoles will get dlc content today for the anniversary. I think they’ll only announce the dlc properly, and let people play with Risk of Rain Returns for a while before releasing the DLC. it would be bad marketing strategy to split the community between two game
games
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.