Epic Games Store now open!
- Thread starter ic1male
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 149
My main concerns with different launchers:
- Poor quality launchers (e.g. download issues on Blizzard's launcher)
- Not wanting every launcher running at once and even downloading in the background while i'm playing another game
- Not wanting to play a MP game, load the launcher and then find out there's a massive update
If there was a third party service that consolidated my libraries and solved the latter two points, i'd be happy. Also, Blizzard needs to sort their stuff out
- Poor quality launchers (e.g. download issues on Blizzard's launcher)
- Not wanting every launcher running at once and even downloading in the background while i'm playing another game
- Not wanting to play a MP game, load the launcher and then find out there's a massive update
If there was a third party service that consolidated my libraries and solved the latter two points, i'd be happy. Also, Blizzard needs to sort their stuff out
Can't say I've ever experienced issues with the Blizzard launcher, I actually quite like it, seems nice and light weight.
The second point isn't an issue for me as I don't have any set to launch automatically.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,109
EDIT: Nvm.
Last edited:
(Copied from OcUK's Discord)
Here's the thing, Epic aren't out for our best interests, and neither are the developers who choose to make their games exclusive to the platform. They want to maximize profits, not offer huge discounts in an effort to drive competition. I'd wager that in the long-term, there won't be much of a difference in terms of pricing when compared to Steam etc. Most people opt to purchase games through key sites anyway, which are usually much cheaper than on Steam.
The features listed on the bottom right of that image are quite valid, and unless Epic can offer something comparable out of the gate (which they've already failed to do), then I can't see people jumping ship anytime soon.
Competition is good, however Epic aren't competing with Steam at this moment in time. They have a barebones store, with virtually no features whatsoever, and a handful of indie titles that most people couldn't give a monkey's toss about.
You can't just turn your nose up at Steam's 3rd party controller support, marketplace, refund policy, VR support, workshop etc.
Here's the thing, Epic aren't out for our best interests, and neither are the developers who choose to make their games exclusive to the platform. They want to maximize profits, not offer huge discounts in an effort to drive competition. I'd wager that in the long-term, there won't be much of a difference in terms of pricing when compared to Steam etc. Most people opt to purchase games through key sites anyway, which are usually much cheaper than on Steam.
The features listed on the bottom right of that image are quite valid, and unless Epic can offer something comparable out of the gate (which they've already failed to do), then I can't see people jumping ship anytime soon.
Competition is good, however Epic aren't competing with Steam at this moment in time. They have a barebones store, with virtually no features whatsoever, and a handful of indie titles that most people couldn't give a monkey's toss about.
You can't just turn your nose up at Steam's 3rd party controller support, marketplace, refund policy, VR support, workshop etc.
Soldato
Give that guy a cigar
Would Epic be doing this if not for Fortnite which has the most gullible audience in the history of gaming?
Give that guy a cigar
Would Epic be doing this if not for Fortnite which has the most gullible audience in the history of gaming?
A game that will ostensibly die at some point when the next big thing comes out. Mind you it could probably survive long enough that it doesn't matter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,645
Only reason I'll be using it is for the free games
LOL, sounds like me. They gave away Shadow Complex Remastered when it first came out, 2-3 years ago so I signed up way back then and it's never been used since. I can't even change my email address for the log in. That's just nuts.
Assume you still keep the free games beyond the allocated time slot?
Also considering it lets me sign in with my PSN account - any info about whether this is like the Microsoft service where if if I have Subnautica in my library I can also play it on the PS4?
Also considering it lets me sign in with my PSN account - any info about whether this is like the Microsoft service where if if I have Subnautica in my library I can also play it on the PS4?
I think the PSN login is just for ease of use so you don’t have to create a new login/password. It may give you access to friends but it won’t be game sharing.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 149
There's a number of widely known issues that I've personally found as well as others where the downloads would flat out not work correctly.
The problem with setting stuff to not launch automatically is the update issue for multiplayer games :/
It's no surprise why more gaming companies are moving towards their own platforms for hosting their games, Valve's greed has pushed them in that direction.
I think Valve really needs to wake up and smell the coffee, it's early enough for them to make some drastic changes for it to not be so much of a problem. But if they don't react for a few years, they may find a steep uphill battle further down the line.
I think Valve really needs to wake up and smell the coffee, it's early enough for them to make some drastic changes for it to not be so much of a problem. But if they don't react for a few years, they may find a steep uphill battle further down the line.
![Pyr0m@nI@]{](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
good luck to em, but i'll probably just use it for the freebies 
This is so naive it hurts
Gosh, we've got a load of anti-Valve people in this thread don't we? As far as I'm aware, none of the competitors offer even anywhere near the amount of features and options that you get with Steam. GoG has it's own captive audience with the older games that it has, but isn't anywhere near as useful so for new games I don't ever buy anything on that because I'd prefer to use Steam. In fact I only have The Witcher 3 (which was my first and only purchase on GoG Galaxy and only because I got offered a big discount to buy it on that) and I'm now wishing I'd have paid the extra to get it on Steam when it released because GoG Galaxy is a dead platform to me.
The rest don't even compare. Origin has no features whatsoever, Ubi's is the most rubbish and the fact that it insists you use uPlay even when launching through Steam is laughable, and I have no desire to use the Epic platform. I tried the launcher once and closed it down because it was clunky and rubbish.
Whatever people may think, Valve have developed one of the best platforms around for gamers, with so many features that benefit us, as well as the developers releasing on Steam. I think that they can be allowed to charge a bit more to developers wanting to release on their platform. After all, they do provide developers with a rather large audience to market their games to, and the features that they get no doubt from linking with Valve must be useful as well. Multiplayer games through the Valve interface just work. Chat is built into the Steam client. You can stream and allow others on your friends list to watch just by clicking an option in the Steam user interface. I've made use of all of these features and I haven't had to pay for them.
Whatever people might think, I can't imagine that producing such a feature-rich platform that barely ever has any issues could have been a cheap enterprise. So sure, game developers might not be getting as much monetarily, but I'd say the benefits from using the platform are far more worthwhile because they're not having to provide a lot of these features directly in the game. Steam gives them the tools to provide this through the Steam interface and that must be worth quite a bit if you're a developer wanting these options in your game.
The rest don't even compare. Origin has no features whatsoever, Ubi's is the most rubbish and the fact that it insists you use uPlay even when launching through Steam is laughable, and I have no desire to use the Epic platform. I tried the launcher once and closed it down because it was clunky and rubbish.
Whatever people may think, Valve have developed one of the best platforms around for gamers, with so many features that benefit us, as well as the developers releasing on Steam. I think that they can be allowed to charge a bit more to developers wanting to release on their platform. After all, they do provide developers with a rather large audience to market their games to, and the features that they get no doubt from linking with Valve must be useful as well. Multiplayer games through the Valve interface just work. Chat is built into the Steam client. You can stream and allow others on your friends list to watch just by clicking an option in the Steam user interface. I've made use of all of these features and I haven't had to pay for them.
Whatever people might think, I can't imagine that producing such a feature-rich platform that barely ever has any issues could have been a cheap enterprise. So sure, game developers might not be getting as much monetarily, but I'd say the benefits from using the platform are far more worthwhile because they're not having to provide a lot of these features directly in the game. Steam gives them the tools to provide this through the Steam interface and that must be worth quite a bit if you're a developer wanting these options in your game.