The first few months of a game release are absolutely critical, no matter the size of the studio. I won’t buy anything on Epic just out of principle, and I’m sure there are countless other people who share the mindset. A 100% share, vs a 70% one, is definitely appealing at first glance, but it’ll butcher your numbers for short-term gain
As a gamer living in eastern Asia, Epic's exclusives that could only be bought in certain countries due to payment processors pissed me off enough to boycott. I generally don't touch any games that started as exclusives there, either. The couple of exceptions I have, I waited until they were a couple of years old and > 50% off on Steam or GoG
A game that sells 10,000 copies on Epic may sell 20,000 or more on Steam since Steam is so popular. If the game sold for $20 they would get $200,000 from Epic or $280,000 from Steam in that scenario.
That's an awfully generous ratio. I don't recall all the specifics, but a year or so ago an indie game dev posted the sales stats of his game and left out the Epic Store numbers. When asked, he said that EGS accounted for less than 1% of his sales. Now, I'm not saying that's going to be the case for all games, but considering EGS's status as the "black hole of videogame marketing" I would say a 10-1 Steam/EGS ratio wouldn't be surprising.
It's their largest issue and they literally just won't fix it.. Ostensibly because they don't "track user behavior". Yeah sure Epic, go with that.
When it introduced Steam Direct, Valve prioritized the development of Steam features that helped users discover games they might be interested in, such as the Discovery Queue. The Epic Games Store will continue to get interface updates, but as a matter of principle, Allison says that Epic will not track user behavior and use it to algorithmically recommend games. Epic has said in the past that it's more interested in supporting the game discovery that already happens outside of stores, such as on Twitch and YouTube.
Why the fuck do you care if I don't like your favorite multibillion dollar corporation? Fuck I wish I could find someone who loves me as much as you love Epic Games Store of all things
It’s Tim. Why else would he be personally offended on behalf of epic when people say they don’t use it. He got offended I didn’t install the launcher and play the games despite having an account and at least claiming them on the browser.
Or even just has the same features. The EGS launcher is hilariously bad. It’s barebones and intentionally difficult. It’s basically just a shell for their website API, when then raises the question of why they even have a launcher when it’s just a glorified browser.
And the lack of a shopping cart on their store is just plain aggravating. Maybe I don’t want to do a purchase for each individual game/DLC. But I’m sure they did a focus study somewhere, which found that having a shopping cart encourages people to second-guess their purchasing decisions. Like if you allow people to cart things, they may rethink some/all of those purchases once they get to the final checkout screen and see the grand total. So instead, they’ve opted to make the user experience worse, by forcing you to immediately check out for every single individual item.
Not that I want to defend EGS here, but I would like to point out that they actually have had a shopping cart for a bit now. Hilarious how long it took them to implement, but they do in fact have one now.
If you want to criticize the product you should at least stay up to date on what they offer because now we know you don’t know what you’re talking about :)
On the other side of the same coin, it proves that I don’t use the EGS because the launcher has historically been (and still continues to be, as far as I can tell) hilariously bad.
They’re not really trying to compete financially at the moment. They’re trying to build a solid userbase and gain a high market share with younger gamers (the Fortnite crowd). They’re more than willing to lose money to do this. Once they meet the userbase target deals like this and the free weekly games will disappear.
It’s that upfront money they give that’s the big thing for some of these devs I can’t blame them for taking that upfront influx of development capital.
Still not buying it from Epic, I hate console exclusivity, including Nintendo, and I’m not going to support it on PC.
As I heard it, the fact that they were heavily implying (and often delivering) versions of the emulator that worked with as yet unreleased games for Patreon backers exclusively while the 'open to everyone' version was not as compatible, is what probably did them in.
It would have been pretty hard for them to argue that their emulator was for legal means when they were constantly telling people to pay up for the Patreon to get access to builds optimized for games that hadn't yet gone on sale. If they had just kept the public in parity with the Patreon and just coincidentally had performance uplifts on upcoming games before they dropped, they'd probably have been fine. As it is, they painted a pretty compelling picture that they were "pay for piracy" and that's where the lawyers probably told them to take a deal and get out.
It’s was naive of them to think they could get away with making optimizations for games that haven’t been released yet as long as it’s behind a paywall. As if Nintendo didn’t make a Patreon account and sub to them to collect evidence for their case.
The moment they even touched the ROMs of unreleased games they were engaging in piracy.
So they walked back the part where they would’ve been sued anyways because it was already in their contract that they couldn’t retroactively charge you unless you renewed/updated. They of course changed it for this update.
“Oops you caught us doing something illegal and bad so we’ll still do the bad part, but we are sooo sorry you caught us trying to do something against our contracts, so I guess we’ll remove that part. See how sorry and humbled we are? Now give us your money.”
Someone finally calculated the cost of legal challenges, I guess. While this certainly saves in developer costs in legal fees, I don't see why anyone would keep their projects in Unity under the new terms, charging a developer based on a metric disconnected from sales is always going to incur unacceptable risk unless the developer has really deep pockets.
I never understood why they even had that clause in their contract. You’re already not allowed to change the terms of a contract after the contract has been agreed (because otherwise what’s the point), you don’t need to independently include wording to say you won’t do it. Equally removing the wording doesn’t allow you to make those changes.
So effectively they had some wording that didn’t give anybody any additional protections, then removed it, thus not removing any protections. They then acted as if that weirdly allowed them to break the law, and then broke the law. Then when someone pointed out that’s not how it works, they backtracked.
I think it would be better for all involved if we figure this out now. Existing Voice Actors should not have their performances used without their explicit consent. Any performances used by current or past voice actors must have explicit consent and compensation. “New” voices generates by AI must be sufficiently differing from existing performances and any existing performances used in the generation must have consent by the original voice actor.
That's correct, but it's important to distinguish something explicitly here. The voices may not be copyrightable, but the dialogue is, as long as it's not also generated by AI (i.e., dynamically generated). Also, the trained model that generates the voice is still proprietary: only its product (and only the sound itself, not the words if the speech is from a script) can be openly used.
New creations from existing training data from an actor should have some type of royalties involved. The complication with that is the AI tools are largely a black box and it can be murky on where things come from.
Thats a solid and necessary addition. This comment section alone has already done more than any regulators. Its like they’re afraid to at least lay down protective ground rules so VAs can continue to eat. Too much profit salivation.
Existing performances must not be used to train models. If you wish to train a model you should need explicit consent and hire an actor to record such data. The actor should also receive royalties when the resulting model is used for a commercial purpose.
See, minus the royalty part (in most cases) this has been how VOCALOID, SynthV and the like has more or less operated for two decades now.
It’s worth remembering that this guy says anything that’s in the current trend because just saying those things helps share prices. Then nothing comes of it.
FF16 wasn’t stuffed full of nfts or crypto or even microtransactions even though the president makes comments about this stuff.
It’s all just SEO farming. Square Enix isn’t setting the world on fire with 14 and 16, and there was exactly zero hype for OT2 and Various Daylife (worst game title ever), so they need to always say hypemachine phrases just in case anyone searching for AI or NFTs is also hungry for a milquetoast JRPG.
If AI can’t find its market (which for all the hype it hasn’t thus far), then yes. Alternatively AI finds its market and it just becomes a norm that’s expected so no one will mention it at all
In that specific context - of generating idle chit chat, sure. But is it ever going to be capable of generating the crucifixion quest from CP77, or Guild quests from Skyrim or the Festers Blue Star Bottlecaps from FONV?
or is it going to be more A New Settlement Needs Your Help from FO4, or Dunk the Shape / Kill X Enemy Ys from Destiny 2? which, yknow, we already have.
Generating idle text does not a great game make. Especially when you could just write it better.
And that’s not to mention the impact on the VO actor - who is unlikely to want to sell the IP to their voice
I am actually working on something for the quest generation problem. It is still in the experimental phases, so who knows if it will bear fruit, but don’t sell the concept short.
I remain politely skeptical. I’m not the least technical person- but also not a dev - but this AI has to create multiple NPCs that say sensical things, in a narrative form, in a reachable location, in a playable architecture and geography, using themed assets, realistic and not over-/under- powered rewards… draw, plot and arrange said assets, actors, cues, generate speech-to-text and assign the correct asset to the correct cue/trigger — all of which seem to me to be beyond the reach of AI/ML models at the current point in time, or else subject to multi-hour loading and generation times.
Then there’s the issue of if you’re generating assets for the engine, and it needs a filesystem to store those assets, is it not incredibly easy to create massive security holes? An attacker looks at the program, see it generates and FBX or OBJ and can use that as a security hole to inject malicious code.
Also, doesn’t engines like Unity, Godot, need to compile these assets and process them? It’s beyond my technical knowledge but you can’t edit game assets on the fly, right? Like I can’t just open up MYGUN.TEXTURE and paint it blue and now I have a blue gun without closing the game, right? How do you work around that?
On your first point, no, an individual AI is not, and never will be, capable of doing all of those things. What is will be is an analog to how the human brain works. You don’t see, hear, move, and process the words of a conversation you have while walking down the street with a friend using the same pieces of the brain. The occipital lobe, auditory and locomotive sections of the somatosensory cortex, and language center of the prefrontal lobe handle the parts independently of each other, then the information is brought together and presented to your conscious mind. An AI-driven questing system would have multiple specialized AIs that worked together to generate it. So a model which analyzes the current state of the player to determine valid reward thresholds and quest objective difficulties, another one which maps the current world lore to make sure that the quest fits into the world state, another which fills in all of the dialog based on NPC background variables, then a final AI which is trained to look at the outputs of the others to resolve conflicts. Finally, an AI voice synthesis can round out the experience for players. All of those can run in parallel and can use quite a few metrics from player interaction as feedback for refining the training.
To your second point, most of the aspects of a quest are rather small and can be stored in memory. The rewards can get interesting. If they are a world object, procedural modeling can go a long way to making it so asset generation is not necessary. If it is perks or traits of some variety, this could be something generational which uses keyword detailing to create the parameters for the trait. Generation and storage of details and items are not really much of an issue.
As for the engine questions, all of them can process geometry, textures, and text from memory or new files on disk. If something needs to be compiled, then it can be compiled on the fly. Again, individual assets are pretty lightweight and would not require a lot of processessing.
Another speed-up would be to pregenerate details of the quests rather than attempting to do it all using a just-in-time implementation. The game could generate the parameters for the world for NPC’s in town when you load in, starting with the ones closest to the player position and progressively iterating over them in the direction of travel. All you need to do is have details ready for the “chat bot” portion of the interaction by the time the player is capable of reaching any given NPC. These are the boundaries of what is possible so not as heavy as generating the whole thing. Then the rest can be filled in while the player talks with them.
The biggest issue I see is continuity error hardening. Making sure that all of the NPC’s worlds are consistent with each other and nobody makes changes that break the world for other NPC’s. That is specifically what I am trying to work on.
I’ve been hearing promises of the human brain being replicated by a PC since the 1980s, so again, politely, I consider that hyperbole/marketing gumpf until we see a working model.
I don’t particularly care if “AI” means a single model, multiple models, or multiple models banded together to appear as a single model or vice versa.
I didn’t realize you can just chop and change models on the fly, but taking those and similar issues as read (or at least probably solvable with modern day tech) — that leaves us with your multiple-AIs with specific functions.
Now I’m not saying it’s theoretically impossible, but i am asking: will you have a working prototype that can be run on a consumer home pc in the next 5 years? Or, are you, as I am very keenly aware of, simply doing what I stated in my first post: being a tech start up promising eventual, incremental process as product features?
Because my experience is, to generate a flat image from a model takes at least 20 seconds, not to mention 3D models with collision, mesh, animations etc. And 20 seconds is considered a long loading screen by modern standards. Gamers expect entire cities/planets to load in their game in under a minute.
Are we even close to generating even an untextured room with a single untextured T-pose NPC with no cues, triggers or animations from AI? Or, would it simply be using a language model to obfuscate the current and standard process for generating those assets to the user, when actually it’s just loading them from RNG.
Are we close to generating an untextured room with a single untextured T-pose NPC?
This is unnecessary. The environment and characters can all still be built and rigged using modern hand modeling and set design techniques. The get here would be the animations. All animations, and I mean all, are just a bunch of splines and interpolations in the engine. Curve fitting is something that AI’s have been getting trained to do for 50 years. It is a solved problem. What is not solved, and the reason we don’t see a ton of AI animation tools already is a lack of sufficiently large sample sets of good animations attached to a variety of rigs and a method of training the AI to be environmentally aware. I imagine the latter could be solved using computer vision techniques with virtual sensors like what is used for Crowds. It is actually a hypothetical problem that I am planning on tackling after my current project.
Or would it be using a language model to obfuscate using an RNG?
This is almost insulting to the entire field of AI development, not to mention the mathematical fields of Probability Theory and Statistics. While AI models do function on Game Theory and Probability Theory models and are probabilistic, they are most definitely not any form of RNG. If you have that mindset, I suggest you do some more reading on the topics in scholarly publications or textbooks. Skip the pop-sci articles and blog posts.
As to your questions on timing, it may be this year, it may be 20 years. 2 years ago the idea of making photoreal images with AI was a pipe dream, then along comes Stable Diffusion and in less than 18 months we have gone from making passable images of a cat to an almost fully art-directable toolset capable of creating coherent videos. This is an amazing progressive leap and AIs in general have become more diverse because of it. It is a testament to just how fast something like this can grow given the right FOSS architecture and public interest. My guess is that it is closer to the 2 to 3-year range for a coherent world-building AI. That is not modeling, rigging, or animating, just the textual stuff. Story, relationships, lore, history, etc. My first tool I am trying to build is a world-building assistant for TTRPG GMs if that gives you a clearer picture of what I’m talking about.
Finally, the geometry generation times. You mention your experience, but I am struggling to pin down exactly what that entails for you. I mentioned using procedural modeling and having an AI that decides the parameters of the procedural when doing the modeling. In this setup the modeling is all mathematics and is done instantly. It can even include procedurally defined animations and affects that are able to be generated on the fly in microseconds. If you have 3D experience, I would suggest checking out Houdini ( www.sidefx.com ) to get a better grip on what is possible with proceduralism. They also have tools for doing rigging and animation that an AI could directly interface with, which can be utilized in game development realms as well as VFX.
You misread me when i said RNG - I was saying using a language model to appear as if it’s generating a quest on the fly, but actually its just picking Kill [5-30] [Goblins / Demons / Beasts / Mechs] from a list is not “AI generated quests”
And you misunderstood what I was saying about being a Dev - I said I was not a dev.
I know the following style of reply is a bit rude - but I want to highlight how I said that much of what tech companies are promising with AI is an empty promise that will only lead to semantic satiation of the term “AI” leading it to become a term of derision
can be built with hand modeling techniques
so not AI.
lack of sample sets
so AI can’t do it (yet)
[no] method of training the AI to be env aware
so AI can’t do it (possibly ever)
it may be 20 years
so unlikely to be a reliable marketing promise to consumers in this generation or the next
my guess is it’s closer to 3 years
sounds like marketing bumpf
…just the textual stuff
so not AI generated quests in game as originally promised…
Look, I really don’t mean to pick a fight with you - but saying “I’m working on AI generated quests!” to mean “I’m working on using an existing LLM to create text-based lore entries on my world” is a very different expectation to reality ratio.
Your response style is not rude. It is disingenuous confirmation hunting cherry picking. I addressed everything in your response in detail, but you latched on to the qualifiers and clarifications because those are the parts that satisfy your confirmation bias, even though in the full context they mean quite the opposite. I also am recognizing that you are not a dev, not a game designer, not an AI architect nor mathematician, or a computer scientist. All of this means that the scope and breadth of your understanding of the topic you are attempting to belittle and demean is myopic at best. It is obvious that you do not understand what a “quest” in a game is nor what it takes to craft or write one. It is clear that you have 0 understanding of how LLM or AIs as a larger topic function or generate information. You deign to belittle the work that I am doing on this topic without asking a single question or clarifying a single detail from me. I’m sure you are getting a nosebleed for your perch on Mt. Dunning-Kruger. I can see you from my position on the adjacent slope. I will humor you though, since you seem to at least care about the topic, even though you seem utterly incapable of recognizing when something should be informative and educational.
What is a “quest” in a game: The abstract of this article covers some key concepts of both current anf potential future paradigms of quest design in video games. Currently, quests, even handcrafted ones, consist of a list of tasks. Lists of tasks are text. Well-crafted ones include lore hooks, personal interactions with a variety of NPCs, tasks that are meaningful to the world, and rewards/results that either expand the player’s capabilities or draw the player into the world and the story. Components needed to craft a quest are a means of initiating the quest for the player (quest givers, discovered information like a letter or journal, an event that happens in the player’s presence), dialog, goals/tasks, and a location. For a well-made persistent world, locations, and NPCs are persistent as well. They don’t need to be AI-crafted on the fly. They should have been created when the game was made, or at least some period long before the players interacted with them. What can be crafted as a just-in-time or an emergent experience is the interaction with the player. Dialog with lore hooks that give the quest grounded footing in the world. Interactions with other NPCs which are based with the relationships of the NPCs with each other instead of just the player, etc. All of this is textual in nature. Dialog, relationships, interaction. The secondary stuff, like animations, could be handled in a lot of clever ways. They could be hand-crafted by animators and an AI could be trained on what animation links to what interaction type. The AI then selects and blends the canned animations when it is interacting with the player. And before you have something to say about that, it is literally how animation is done now by people. I absolutely have authority on this topic as I have a graduate degree in animation and visual effects. The AI I am working to create currently is being designed around the goal of making a consistent world with complex relationships and personalities so quests can be written that are self-consistent and coherent with the world. It is not worried about writing dialog or generating rewards, just making a world and quests that are cogent and have minimal plot holes.
What isn’t part of a quest? Geometry, models, textures, particles, VFX, rooms, people, trees, animals… basically anything that has physical form or defines a physical characteristic of an object. These things may be involved in the completion of the tasks themselves, but they are all separate from the quest. As an analog, your wife hands you a grocery list and asks you to go to the store to pick up the things she needs for dinner. This would constitute your bog-standard fetch quest in a video game. The quest is to obtain the listed items. All of the items exist independently of the quest. The grocer and cashier at the till do as well. As does your wife. The only thing that the quest consists of is the request which is made, and the list which is requested. Everything else does not need to be created, it already exists. I hope that clears up your misunderstanding of the topic.
You can erase the entire concept of modeling or texturing from your mind in relation to an AI creating quests. I mentioned it because I recognise that some objects may need to be created. Perhaps your wife asks for a product which the store did not contain already. So in a gaming context, this should be cleaned up so the quest is able to be completed. The product needs to be created. You can place limits on the list of items so they are all canned goods. Now you have a rudimentary prototype object that can be anything. Canned beans, sure. Canned orc tongue, why not? All that is needed is a label and a spot on a shelf. SD can create a label in a few seconds while the player moves from his home to the store and an observation-aware procedural system can stock it on the shelves when no players are looking and inform the AI driving the cashier of the existence and location of the item. Nothing needed modeled. Hell, all that was really needed was a procedural text generator to make a label for the can, no AI was needed for that. What the AI is needed for to make the trip to the grocery feel right is the request from your wife, the conversation with the cashier at checkout, and the smile and thanks from your wife when you got home with the items.
If more modeling is needed, procedural modeling takes care of that. Artists create prototype objects with fixed bounds on parameters and an AI is trained on how to set those parameters, so whenever a quest needs an item, the quest generation AI requests the type if item and the context in which it will be used, and the modeling AI interprets the request, prepares the correct prototype, determines the contextually appropriate parameters for it, then places it where the quest giver needs it. No muss, no fuss. Eventually, there will be SD analogs for 3D geometry and generative modeling. It is a field of active research at IBM, nVidia, AMD, Meta, and many others. It will happen, and it will happen sooner than anyone will be ready for it, much like SD. But for now, it is overkill. AIs can use procedural modeling to adequately furnish and populate a world without much overhead. I think I may play with that as well. Rip the character creator from the likes of Skyrim or Starfield and train an AI on faces and the character creator parameterization and have it go wild. The AI is still creating the characters, it is just using the same tool as the player to do so.
You took all that to say what I was originally saying 4 or 5 comments higher in the chain: for idle chitchat yes AI could probably do it, but it can’t make quests on the level of CP77’s crucifixion quest, all it can do is choose from preselected parameters - but we don’t need to do that. We have radiant quests already (as mentioned, Preston Garvey…)
Also your character creator randomizer doesn’t need AI, it just needs a restrictive algorithm (maybe not even) not to get too random - ie don’t put lizard hands on a human body, limit how big you can make the nose, ensure skin tone is even…)
Same for your canned goods creator, it doesn’t need AI it just needs a pick list and an RNG. You don’t even need AI to make the picklist, you can just scrape a list of most popular canned goods from Wikipedia or some stats site, and a list of your in-game races/affiliations/species
When you say that in-game characters, geography and props aren’t needed, you’re wrong — going to New locations, meeting new people and seeing unique things is part of what makes a quest interesting. You must of heard of gamers complaining about reused assets and reskinned characters and guns as rewards- adding a system that puts more “kill 5 goblins to get the same sword you’ve got but slightly more blue” will only make the game worse not better.
So, no, AI can’t “do quests” as most people understand them, it can only create busy work, which is considered one of the things dragging the gaming industry down right now.
Ok, I’m done trying to educate you. You, by your own admission, are lay on literally every topic that you are speaking about and I am literally an expert. I have put in my thousand hours on modeling, animation, and VFX, as well as hundreds of hours on quest design for TTRPGs. I have a master’s degree in Animation and a bachelor’s degree in Applied Mathematics. I am professionally a developer and am actively designing AIs. Why the hell are you arguing with me on what is and is not possible? You know nothing but what you have read in a few pop-sci articles and blogs along with some observations from playing games. I have all of that too, plus everything else. Your opinions are based on incorrect assumptions that invalidate them from the start. If you can provide me a single scholarly article, published in a journal in the last 2 years that supports a single one of your assertions, I will yield on whatever you are able to support. Hell, I will even take a passage from a textbook on AI design published in the last year. I have already provided support for some of my assertions. Please provide some of yours. Again, scholarly publication. Not blog. Not pop-sci articles. A recent whitepaper from a research group is also acceptable.
I dont have to understand the deep complexities of those things because we haven’t even got past the basics, and where the key issue lies.
I dont need a degree in animation to confidently tell you that AI isn’t in the place where it can generate animations at scale for a playable experience without significant hand-holding. Is that true or not? In your reply above you agree with me saying AI can only pick from a list of already-created animations, which makes it no different to an RNG.
There aren’t any scholarly articles about “AI can’t make video games for you” because scholarly articles are about proving things can happen. Can you provide scholarly articles on consumer-ready video games that have been created with majority AI parts? After all extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you can do this- why haven’t you? (“The technology isn’t there yet!” I know that’s been my argument from the start)
You can change assets on the fly, yeah. Usually with stuff like making a gun blue you’d just load another texture and apply it to the material. It really depends on what the game is designed to do. For example a game where all the lighting is baked would have issues if certain parts of the level were changed in real time because you’d need to rebake the lighting (or add some dynamic lights specifically for certain objects)
Stuff like creating a quest in real time to the extent of hand crafted quests doesn’t sound like it’s quite there yet but there doesn’t seem to be a technical limitation there other than what AI can do and how to refine it to do that in an interesting way. You never know but it still feels a bit early considering how little has been done so far.
There are already mods that add voices to mod-scripted lines for Skyrim and Fallout 4. As well as a joke mod where the author took all of the recorded voice lines for Deep Rock Galactic(DRG), ran them through AI translators 40 times, then had an AI record the end result using the intonation and inflection of the characters in DRG.
However, the quotes from MS in the article provide an insight into their plans.
Replace all localization teams.
Replace all QA teams with AI that just run the level infinitely.
Interestingly, both of those show a fundamental lack of understanding of what a LLM can do. Yes it can do basic translation, but it fails on context in translations. E.g:
The French translation "you are a fool" can be "tu es un imbecile" but can also be "vous etes un imbecile" depending on the relationship context of the people talking.
And asking AI to replace QA entirely.. oof, I guess I know to avoid MS games at launch from now on. Will be a lot of bugs.
So, to sum up this article, the credits for the porting team don’t directly credit the original game staff… but the original game credits are untouched.
Someday maybe they will try to improve the launcher instead of burning all the money in exclusives that only pisses people off. I uninstalled that shit and don’t even bother to take the free games anymore.
The Epic launcher takes longer to load than the average Steam game + launcher combined. I could start from an empty desktop, open something through Steam’s launcher, and be at the game’s main menu in the time it takes to get to the frontpage in Epic.
I had to request and confirm the deletion of my account to stop chinese people trying to hack it or something because I kept getting e-mails from Epig that someone in China is trying to access my account EVERY GODDAMN MONTH.
Why should you be happy it has the most bare functionality it could possibly have. It's 2023. On Steam I can stream from a Linux PC to my living room, play on some Nintendo Joycons with full gyro support, have a YouTube video playing picture-in-picture and bringing up an achievement guide with one button press. Epic is just a launcher, Steam is a full-fledged gaming platform.
... What are you even talking about. I never even said the first statement so how could I possibly be a hypocrite lmao. And having features isn't "bloat". Your argument is just all kinds of nonsensical.
It will probably work fine but it's not an officially supported use case of the software. You can't exactly submit a ticket to Valve if something doesn't work right because the game isn't even on their store.
They would have been complaining about Steam killing distributors when it released and vowing to boycott it forever. I’m old enough to remember these guys back in the day, now they’re basically sucking Gaben’s dick and bowing in front of his virtual monopoly.
They’ve done everything to encourage game developers, expecting consumers to follow. But none of this entices me to leave steam. I, like many, will gladly wait.
I will never get this sentiment. It’s a fucking game launcher, it downloads the games quickly and launches them. I just don’t get this hate boner people have for it.
I played Red Dead 2 and Control through it and had absolutely zero problems. You all just want a steam monopoly for whatever gods forsaken reason.
The launch is a piece of shit that doesn’t do the 2 thing it’s supposedly good at. Downloads are excessively slow and game launching doesn’t work half the time. It’s so slow that it has a noticeable effect on boot times.
Yes, I’d rather a steam monopoly than have to use that shit launcher ever again. Steam is a useable piece of software that doesn’t suck donkey cock.
I can’t figure out how to stop EGS from pushing notifications that don’t go away without clicking on them in Windows.
And occasionally it will just push a quasi-notification through just the app to make it start flashing on the taskbar and forcing itself over other open apps. Nothing even is happening it just desperately wants to be on top.
An absolute garbage fire of a game launcher, barely worth the free games it gives. (and seeing as I don’t play them I guess fully not worth)
Their checkout still doesn’t have a cart, it takes forever to load, the UI is terribly clunky, the library sorting is terrible (how do you fuck this up), it’s resource heavy, and I’d be willing to overlook all that oof they had an in game overlay with web browser.
Aside from the terrible experience, they have profit seeking investors, one of which is Tencent. We all have seen were it goes when profits are priority over consumers.
Not a hate boner. Just genuine dislike of the platform as it stands right now.
I bought Tetris Effect on it back when that game seemed to take every single exclusive offer before finally landing on steam (PS4, then Epic then Gamepass/Xbox THEN Steam) man that’s annoying. Prior I picked up Rebel Galaxy Outlaw on the cheap cheap thanks to a coupon but later got a Steam copy through a bundle.
I don’t remember when they added the cart but it’s there. I can see it right now. It works. At least when adding 2 free games at once.
Elite Dangerous was their free game for the month awhile back. I made extra accounts and snagged free copies for people that wanted to try it, because I adore that game and love having people to fly with.
You know, oddly enough, no one wants it, even for free, expressly because they don’t want to deal with the dog’s anus EGS launcher.
My biggest complaint about E:D is that star citizen’s flight mechanics and ship design ruined the game for me. Star Citizen has a wider variety of ship designs than E:D. Additionally, the ships I’ve tried in SC are incredibly responsive, to the point where even the nimblest E:D ship feels like a whale. However, that’s about all I can say for star citizen. I mean, it’s getting there, slowly but I swear to god the world is going to end before they finish the fucking game.
Meanwhile, E:D is very much a complete game in a massive galaxy. Sure, it may not have as much detail as CIG is trying to put into star citizen, sure it may not have the complexity of star citizen, but that doesn’t matter if you can’t finish your game. However, E:D’s ships suck.
Can we take star citizen’s good half and E:D’s good half and make one complete game please?
This is said a lot but… Is it really? And if so why should I, the customer, care?
I can’t think of any other good or service in my life that I would go out of my way to buy from an alternative store so that the manufacturer makes more money. I don’t choose between Aldi and Whole Foods based on whether the manufacturer of my chicken bullion cubes makes more margin with one or the other. It’s just fuckin weird.
I claim every epic game through the website, but I actually haven’t bothered installing the epic launcher since I did a fresh install of my OS months back. I’ve got other non steam launchers like GOG installed. So yeah, I’ll take the free game, but I don’t feel like spending money on the epic store even if it were more heavily discounted.
videogameschronicle.com
Hot