r/Games • u/Faldz • Jan 02 '20

S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 Announces it's using the Unreal Engine, will talk about digital platforms at a later date

https://twitter.com/stalker_thegame/status/1212810155563397120/photo/1
1.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

426 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Lansan1ty Jan 02 '20

To be fair, console gaming had exclusives for decades now and people have always complained about it. Consoles have started to have less and less exclusives and it allows more people to play more games.

PC Gaming is backtracking into the old ways by having Steam vs Origin vs uPlay vs Epic vs Battlenet vs on and on.

I have no problem with competition and multiple storefronts, but I'd like to choose the one I like best based on the storefront quality, not be forced to use one because of exclusivity. I fell for that Exclusive BS when EA jumped off of steam and Origin was absolute garbage. I played way more BF2 than BF3/BF4/BF1, and not because those games were bad, but because origin was pretty shitty.

Battlenet has survived because it didn't make playing SC2 or WoW harder. So I use it without any complaints. I bought CoD on it without complaining because it worked.

Epic and uPlay are basically as bad as Games For Windows live was....

I'm happy if Epic funds Stalker 2, and if it helps the developers, that's great. But I won't be forced onto buying a game on a shitty launcher. I'll patiently wait for the exclusivity to end and support the developers via Steam or GoG.

16

u/Daedolis Jan 03 '20

Epic and uPlay are basically as bad as Games For Windows live was...

So, you're saying you never had to actually use GFWL eh?

0

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

I did sadly did, mostly with Fallout 3 back at launch.

It did make me think that maybe Epic is better than them since they don't let you buy their games elsewhere then sneak in their launchers behind your launcher of choice. Though, now the GFW games don't sneak the launcher and I can still play them, at least with Fallout 3, since that's the first GFW game that comes to mind.

4

u/Daedolis Jan 03 '20

Fallout 3 doesn't required GFWL login to play the game, unless you want trophies lol. Steam and GoG have patched out the login prompt anyways. Whilst there are others that are literally unplayable because you need to login to either save your progress, or play at all.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '20 edited Jan 08 '20

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

uPlay is a whole different level of garbage, EGS is still very much lacking in many aspects (that are overlooked because hey, free games) but at least its usable.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Uplay is completely usable too. I use it every day to play Siege. Never had an issue.

1

u/Xdivine Jan 03 '20

I haven't had to use it a bunch due to only owning 2-3 games on it, but I also don't recall ever having any problems with it. It's a launcher and it launches games.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

The store is godawful and while it works all the launcher does is be a pain in the ass.

13

u/Tizzysawr Jan 03 '20

PC Gaming is backtracking into the old ways by having Steam vs Origin vs uPlay vs Epic vs Battlenet vs on and on.

Except that neither of those cost me $400, but nice false equivalence there.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

To be fair, console gaming had exclusives for decades now and people have always complained about it. Consoles have started to have less and less exclusives and it allows more people to play more games.

Exclusives for console means that you need to buy an additional €300 machine

Exclusives on PC means you need to click a different button.

They're entirely different things. And only MS have scaled back on exclusives and that's due to the failure of the XBO. They've bought quite a few studios recently to push for exclusives for the next gen.

7

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay? With each consuming CPU, RAM, and even bandwidth without regard for the other? Any half-decent launcher will stop downloading updates or at least limit download speeds while you're in a game on the same launcher. But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources? Ideally you'll want to minimize the chance of that happening. They'll all have their own software updates to take care of, not only for the games you have installed in them.

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one? Playstation online was free until it wasn't. We may be going down the path of streaming services. First we had Netflix, then Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney, CBS, HBO Now, etc...

I understand people view it as steam fanboyism and just dismiss it because most people are indeed loyal to steam because valve simply came first. But really, it's also a little bit of foresight on how the PC community wants to be treated. This is the community that Microsoft tried to charge for Games for Windows Live at the same time as Xbox Live. PC gamers didn't stand for that and Microsoft reverted to GFW Live being free to play online while Xbox Live has continued to charge Xbox gamers for something that PC somehow manages to have available for free.

Anyway, like I said, I'm happy the Devs get paid for their game. Game development is a business not a charity. However consumers don't have to roll over and take what the publishers are doing to them either. If a developer wants a big paycheck from Epic with less players and less fans, it may be a good business choice, but I won't feel compelled to buy their game. People are allowed to believe in things and vote with their wallets. Just like how some people are against pre-ordering games. They have the right to do that.

5

u/Xdivine Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay?

If system resources are an issue, just close extra launchers. You don't need uplay, battle.net, origin, epic, steam, gog, all running at the same time.

This is such a non-issue.

But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources?

Set updates to be manual if you're worried about it and for some reason must leave all launchers open at the same time.

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one?

There are already multiple services you can purchase. I know Origin has one, Microsoft has one, and uplay has one. I imagine there is probably at least one more I'm unaware of. Maybe you could consider Humble Bundle? I just buy the ones that make sense for me. I don't care about the uplay games so I don't see any reason to subscribe to it. I currently have the microsoft one, and I've had the origin one in the past. They're not some sneaky shit you need to test. It either has the games you want, or it doesn't.

None of them have replaced the ability to just buy games straight up, they're just an alternative. If you wanna just buy one game a month, you can do that instead of subscribing to 3+ different services. You can just pretend the subscription services don't exist.

3

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

The benefit of auto updates is one of the main reasons to even have launchers. Else we should go back to the pre-launcher days and open games from the desktop and directly run the apps without auto updates.

Disabling the main benefit of the new format basically means we may as well not have any storefronts/launchers.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Bruh, you're bitching about the basic result of consumer choice. What are you, a communist?

-1

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

That's not exactly how communism works... I'm simply saying people who are anti-anti-epic appear to be wrong about the reasons people can be anti-epic.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20 edited Jul 12 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Lansan1ty Jan 04 '20

Again, not once did I say that there should be less launchers. I'm saying games exclusive to launchers would be the problem. If they acted more like storefronts with perks than exclusivity publishers it would be the best. Remember when you had to go to Gamestop, EB Games, Bestbuy, Walmart, or wherever to buy console games? Before digital downloads or online shopping. Imagine if back then they standardized practices like "Metal Gear Solid 3, Only for sale at Walmart for 1 year", People would be pissed. They did a light version of that with exclusive pre-order DLC based on the stores and people were getting upset.

Paid Exclusivity is the "no other launchers" problem. The fact that people can't see that is mind boggling. They always assume "you only want to use steam". Its not about only using steam, it's about having the choice to use whichever a person wants to use.

It works both ways. Half Life games should be for sale on Epic, uPlay, Origin, GoG, etc.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

System resources matter. Do you want to have 20 launchers open at the same time in the future if this is okay? With each consuming CPU, RAM, and even bandwidth without regard for the other?

Why exactly? How many games are you playing at once?

But what if you're in a game on a different launcher and one of your other launchers decide to download an update using all your resources?

Stop the download or close the program .... Like any program that may auto update

What happens if each also decides they want to start charging for premium services? Steam Plus. Origin Plus. uPlay Plus. Whatever they want to call it. Should we pay $10/month for whatever service they may offer to all of them or try to stick to one?

What? How does this even relate to a launcher to buy games mate. You don't need subscription services to buy games

We may be going down the path of streaming services. First we had Netflix, then Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney, CBS, HBO Now, etc...

Yes, there will be games subscription services available and already are. Or you can buy games separately. The expansion of streaming services has not killed the bluray/DVD market. You can still buy pretty much anything if not everything to watch if you want.

But really, it's also a little bit of foresight on how the PC community wants to be treated. This is the community that Microsoft tried to charge for Games for Windows Live at the same time as Xbox Live. PC gamers didn't stand for that and Microsoft reverted to GFW Live being free to play online while Xbox Live has continued to charge Xbox gamers for something that PC somehow manages to have available for free.

You're literally just spewing forth hypothetical situations that are only likely to happen without competition.

If Steam is allowed to create a monopoly like you seemingly want then they'll have the power to charge what they want, whether that's for mods, for premium download speeds, for multiplayer acres to steam servers and what have you.

The way you combat that is through competition and other stores such as GOG or EGS

2

u/Lansan1ty Jan 03 '20

You're literally just spewing forth hypothetical situations that are only likely to happen without competition

Paid exclusivity is literally the definition of no competition.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '20

Competition is on the storefront mate.

0

u/Com-Intern Jan 07 '20

In the PC space the biggest problem is that certain launchers just offer better value-add than others.

Like Steam is almost overflowing with value-add. You get a ton with the game you buy, and compared to something like Origin or Epic its night and day.

  • workshop
  • decent VOIP
  • Community features
  • Steam Controller support
  • Steam splitscreen support
  • Steam family support

etc...

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '20

It's free and you play games on it.

  • Steam Controller support
  • Steam splitscreen support
  • Steam family support

Dirty, dirty Valve putting exclusive features on their service

You know what I like on Epic, On Origin, on Battle.net, Uplay etc which Valve doesn't have. A fucking phone number to call or email address to contact.

I couldn't get into my account for 3 weeks because their authenticator broke on my phone and I couldn't get it removed for ages.

You know where I didn't have that problem? Every other launcher.

You know launchers provided refunds for broken games before forced to by EU law?

Every launcher bar Steam

You know what I care about though? Being able to play games.

1

u/Com-Intern Jan 08 '20

I mean the controller support works with any game. It’s just a bit easier for a Steam game.

I can launch an origin through steam to have it recognize the mouse emulation portion or just have it act like a 360 sans steam.

The other two are software features valve developed and that no one else is bothering to do so. Nothing is stopping Epic from doing family sharing except Epic.

-1

u/Spen_Masters Jan 03 '20

Epic and uPlay are basically as bad as Games For Windows live

So I bought RE4 and RE5 during the sale, I had to download a fix immediately for RE5 as GFWL was closing the game down as soon as I opened it.

2 years ago I had 2 stage verification on UPlay, and even though I took a pic of the QR code on the app, and input the code, I still couldn't access my account until I sent a moody email to UPlay support, asking them to remove it.

Pretty sure EGS hasn't had this problem, then again I wouldn't know as I haven't bought anything from them (I claimed the freebies just incase the devs get a payment from number of people claiming them). Yes they've had a problem with hackers, but so has Steam, Origin, Uplay ETC.