I think it is. It’s more akin to a renovation project. Like when venues have a 1920’s pipe organ upgraded and refurbished to keep it playing. Sure the keyboard is now midi, the pump is electric instead of manual and the valves are electrically controlled now. But it keeps a masterpiece in working order and modernized for today’s enjoyment. While an engineer definitely lost nights of sleep and lots of elbow grease to make it possible. It’s not easy to keep such old code modern and playable.
The community updates for these sorts of things never seem to be interested in controller support and split-screen, so when those things are well supported, that’s when I get excited.
I just tried GZDoom from Flathub to try to see if these things were there, because they weren’t last I checked (which was admittedly a long time ago). The game couldn’t find my WADs after a few tries of trying to get it to work, even after using Flatseal. Flathub reviews indicate that those who managed to get it running were having trouble getting the game to recognize their controller. The Steam version just works. Having community source ports is great, but there’s value in the company updating their official version.
It’s not impressive, but it’s nice to get a mainstream release that maxes it out within reason for the vast majority of people with zero effort or inside knowledge. If you aren’t happy with anything less than 8k 144Hz, then you can make that happen for yourself by other means. But for the millions of people with 120Hz TVs from a Memorial Day sale, this really is a meaningful offering.
I don’t understand your view here. It’s not there to be impressive, it’s there to be up to date. If an old game is re-released with better controls, for example, it’s not “to be impressive”, it’s to make the experience better.
The marketing makes it sound like it’s supposed to be impressive. For such an old game that runs on everything with a computer chip it would just be strange if it was missing.
I get the testicular fortitude that someone has to have to make that kind of comment here on Lemmy, that has very hardcore Linux tech-based audience, but still, the general electronics using public would agree with what I’m saying.
TIL that typing in a username, server address and hitting ‘Connect’ is a bad UX.
Other countries got their price increase months ago. Ours was probably delayed so that they could tell how bad the damages of our idiot president would be.
I pretty much like Epic. I’ve gotten tons of free quality games for free that don’t have micropayment or tons of ads. Sure they might not be the newest version of the game, but there is something to be said about playing a game free from ads and not feeling like a second class citizen for not spending more on a “free” game than most people spend on rent and groceries combined.
Yeah, I get there’s complications and scummy statements, but at the end of the day people complain a.Lot about a free, reasonably simple and low fee storefront that’s missing tons of features but… works fine? And they have like a 0% chance of ever getting a monopoly.
Hence I never really understand being so vehemently “fuck EGS.” Unreal has given me some sweet games, especially compared to some failures of custom engines. These court cases are another, even if they’re for their own benefit.
Which is understandable, but also feels overblown seeing how Steam has a defacto monopoly and “soft” exclusivity (eg they will allegedly delist you if you try to price lower on lower fee stores). And that there have been exclusives on other stores, albeit less common ones for big games.
I don’t think steam is perfect, but they have shown over the years they will go above and beyond to make a good experience for the consumer, including tagging all kinds of negative things on games such as specific DRMs and drastically advancing the ability to run windows games on Linux
No publicly traded company will ever develop that kind of track record even if you give it a chance.
The only exclusives AFAIK are Valve games (understandable) and games that don’t bother listing elsewhere. I also think Valve’s “no undercutting” policy is reasonable. They give you free keys to sell elsewhere if you choose, and you can have sales happen elsewhwre at a different time (or the same) vs Steam, the only requirement is that you don’t undercut Steam.
That’s very far from monopolistic behavior. Adding to that, Valve also invests heavily in their own platform, providing features like Steam Input, Proton/Steam OS, etc.
Epic, on the other hand, bribes users to come via free games, bribes devs via paid exclusivity, and hasn’t meaningfully invested in their platform, they’re still lightyears away from Steam, and even GOG is way better from a features standpoint.
Which is showing more monopolistic behavior? Epic, and it’s not even close. The only “monopolistic” behavior from Valve is being really popular, and I think they’ve earned that.
They give you free keys to sell elsewhere if you choose
To be clear, this is a different system than stores listing non steam key games.
That’s very far from monopolistic behavior.
I mean, imagine if, say, Walmart or Amazon did this (assuming they don’t already). Every price is every other store has to be at or above theirs, or their product gets delisted, which is apocalypse for a supplier.
How does that not sound monopolistic to you?
Imagine if Amazon took 20% more cut that Newegg and passed that to hardware prices for literally everyone.
EGS literally can’t be monopolistic because they have like no market share, but yes, they’re being anticompetitive and bribing in an unsustainable way. It’s not good either. And their store is barebones, no question.
But the double standard of bothers me. Valve doesn’t get a free pass just cause they have a better platform and they’ve been fine in other areas so far.
To be clear, this is a different system than stores listing non steam key games.
That depends. For GOG and EGS, yeah, those stores don’t want to sell Steam keys, they want to sell keys for their own platform. But other stores like Fanatical sell Steam keys, and I’m not exactly sure how those work.
My point is that devs can sell keys on their own and take 100% profit if they want, they just can’t undercut Steam. And that’s pretty common in retail, if you see a product in store, it’ll be a very similar price to buy direct. It turns out, retail stores don’t like providing marketing just to get undercut on your website or a competitor store.
Valve doesn’t get a free pass just cause they have a better platform
Neither does EGS just because they take a lower cut and give away free games.
AFAIK, Steam isn’t doing anything differently than other retail stores. If EGS were in Valve’s position, you can bet they’d be way worse.
Steam is full of de-facto exclusives that cannot be purchased and played elsewhere, meaning that you have to accept the Steam price, policies, practices, and their launcher in order to play those. Borderlands 2 was de-facto exclusive to Steam from 2012 to 2020, when Epic effectively rescued it from the exclusivity by paying 2K to give it away and add to the Epic store. If anything, Epic rewarding developers for doing what they’ve been doing on Steam is better than them not getting paid.
That’s a choice those devs made, not an exclusivity deal.
As for Borderlands 2, it looks like it was available on most consoles as well. It was released in 2012, which was before Steam even came to Linux, before the original GOG Galaxy, and way before EGS. Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, The Witcher 1&2 were “exclusive” to Steam until ~2012 when GOG relaunched their website, so CD Project Red didn’t even bother selling their own games on their website. If they don’t, why would other devs?
I get it, I’m sad we don’t have good alternatives to Steam, but it’s not because of anything nefarious Valve is doing, it’s because their platform and policies are just better. I didn’t even have a Steam account until 2012 or so when they came to Linux, it just wasn’t necessary because everything I wanted to play was available elsewhere (e.g. direct from devs). These days I use Steam almost exclusively because they make playing on Linux so easy, not because I don’t have other options (I also play EGS and GOG games through Heroic, a community solution to support those stores on Linux because the stores themselves haven’t bothered).
An exclusivity deal is signed by both parties, so it’s just as much of a choice developers make. By the way, like Valve, Epic seems to favor Wine over native ports, given their donation to Lutris. Unlike Valve though, Epic isn’t iffy about others not using their launcher, so there’s an official GOG Galaxy plugin for Epic endorsed by Sweeney.
Yes, I’m not implying Epic is forcing game devs into anything, I’m saying it’s explicitly anticompetitive. Whether a business partner wants to be exclusive should be 100% their decision and not involve a legally binding contract or coercion, because that’s textbook anti-competitiveness.
Epic isn’t iffy about others not using their launcher, so there’s an official GOG Galaxy plugin for Epic endorsed by Sweeney.
Would they retain that policy if they or GOG became #1? I highly doubt it, this is merely a ploy to try to dethrone Steam, and you can be assured the policy will change once someone else gets on top.
Yes, I’m not implying Epic is forcing game devs into anything Whether a business partner wants to be exclusive should be 100% their decision
This reads as mutually exclusive to me. How can it not be 100% their decision if it’s their decision? Moreover, it’s very common for a publishing agreement to also be legally binding, so everyone in this and other industries is used to that (or guilty of it if you view it as negative).
that’s textbook anti-competitiveness.
Not if it’s done by an underdog. Much of the US antitrust law for example revolves around monopolizing. Challenging what is argued to be a monopoly in a currently ongoing court case ripe with evidence isn’t monopolizing.
Would they retain that policy if they or GOG became #1?
The reason the Epic store was created is Valve’s unwillingness to lower their store fee that was way above the operating cost (7% still being profitable in Epic’s internal calculations made public by a lawsuit).
Epic has a lot more power in the anti-cheat and game engine spaces, but still keeps their software open, whether it’s by keeping the source code available or making the software compatible with Linux.
How can it not be 100% their decision if it’s their decision?
It’s very hard to break a contract like that. So an exclusivity contract is strictly worse for consumers than a dev choosing to only list with one platform since it removes the possibility of listing elsewhere.
Not if it’s done by an underdog
Anticompetitiveness is bad regardless of market position. They may not get hit with antitrust until they get a dominant position, but it’s not great for consumers.
The reason the Epic store was created
No, it was created so they could keep all the money from Fortnite. It’s the same reason they sued Apple and Google. They don’t seem interested in actually having a competitive platform, they just want people to buy their MTX.
still keeps their software open
Yet their store still doesn’t support Linux, and Fortnite doesn’t work on Linux either, despite their anti-cheat technically being compatible.
So don’t tell me they’re doing open, they merely want their game engine and anti-cheat to sell.
Not in the short term, but having an alternative to Steam (or anything with a lot of market share) is great for the long run. Moreover, at least everyone knows that the majority of the contracts would expire in 6 to 12 months. For all intents and purposes, Steam exclusives are a lot worse because there are many times more of them, and you can’t mark a date on your calendar when you can buy them if you can’t or don’t want to buy from Steam.
Keep in mind that, as an example, just recently Steam just decided to no longer support the local currencies of Argentina and Turkey, resulting in no regional prices for the regions on Steam. If Epic didn’t exist and didn’t support regional prices for those regions, all those users would have for third-party titles is GOG, which has a much smaller catalog and seems to support fewer regions. Microsoft Store is also an alternative now, but I’d argue its rise was spearheaded by Game Pass, which relies on the “paid deal” model pioneered in the PC space by Epic.
No, it was created so they could keep all the money from Fortnite.
I think you’re confusing the launcher with the store. The origin of the store itself can be traced back to Sweeney arguing about Valve’s “junk fee” of 30%.
they merely want their game engine and anti-cheat to sell.
How is targeting niche operating systems helping the anti-cheat sell?
I don't like them because they took games that were perfectly functional on Linux and MacOS and made them not function anymore. I paid for Rocket League with the understanding that I'd be able to play it, and now I can't.
That was a side effect of them upgrading the game from DX9 to DX11 and from 32-bit to 64-bit. Also, are you consistent and dislike Valve as a company for doing the same with CS2 for Mac?
That’s cool and all, but the plan is to buy their way in by running at a massive loss then enshittify. Rather, even if that is not the current plan (it probably is), it will inevitably become the plan because it is a publicly traded company.
Yup. At some point even the play store was cool, somewhat nice to use and full of good free games. It always follows the same rulebook. Sadly people dont learn from history.
Just remember that they are trying to create a walled garden of exclusives, publishers are essentially bribed to publish their games only on the EGS. The money that funds these exclusivity deals, and your free games, are being funded majorly by selling gambling lootboxes to kids.
Also don’t forget that you are not being given ownership of those games, it’s pretty widely known by now that digital copies are not ownership, epic is fully able and capable to take those games from you.
Do you think the moment they decide that this “free game bribe tactic” isn’t working, they won’t just remove the free games given at the drop of a hat.
The money that funds these exclusivity deals, and your free games, are being funded majorly by selling gambling lootboxes to kids.
How the hell they would make so much money from gambling while not offering it in any first party games? Or the 12% from gacha like games is enough to fuel the entire game shop nowadays?
I mean, barring Nintendo, they still are and will continue to be as long as you don’t need to have games on day one. I very rarely spend more than $20 on Xbox games. Most AAA games go on sale within the first few months. $70 Ubisoft titles will literally be $15 a month after release, not that Ubisoft makes much worth buying these days but it was just an example. The digital storefronts (again, not Nintendo) have sales constantly, you just need a little impulse control.
We’re a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We’ll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it’s fun.
We’ll spend most if not all of our free time min maxing the stats of a fictional character all to draw out a single extra point of damage per second.
Many of us have made careers out of doing just these things: slogging through the grind, all day, the same quests over and over, hundreds of times to the point where we know evety little detail such that some have attained such gamer nirvana that they can literally play these games blindfolded.
Do these people have any idea how many controllers have been smashed, systems over heated, disks and carts destroyed 8n frustration? All to latter be referred to as bragging rights?
These people honestly think this is a battle they can win? They take our media? We’re already building a new one without them. They take our devs? Gamers aren’t shy about throwing their money else where, or even making the games our selves. They think calling us racist, mysoginistic, rape apologists is going to change us? We’ve been called worse things by prepubescent 10 year olds with a shitty head set. They picked a fight against a group that’s already grown desensitized to their strategies and methods. Who enjoy the battle of attrition they’ve threatened us with. Who take it as a challange when they tell us we no longer matter. Our obsession with proving we can after being told we can’t is so deeply ingrained from years of dealing with big brothers/sisters and friends laughing at how pathetic we used to be that proving you people wrong has become a very real need; a honed reflex.
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You’re not special, you’re not original, you’re not the first; this is just another boss fight.
I just don’t get why they didn’t think of quickly porting the Xbox interface over to desktop Windows. Should have been an easy fix to make handheld gaming on Windows more appealing.
It’s a lot more than that. SteamOS isn’t just Steam Big Picture Mode. There’s some special sauce in there to capture the active window so that you never lose focus of the game window and such. If you just run a Windows machine set to boot into Steam Big Picture on startup, you’ll find lots of times that you have to break out a keyboard to Alt+Tab for a variety of reasons that SteamOS never encounters. And given the other problems Windows has introduced over the past decade, that’s the least of their problems now.
5 mil yen is about $32k. In total they’re suing for about $100k.
I would imagine the 3rd patent at the very least should be invalidated - riding characters in video games predates Pokemon (MegaMan riding Rush comes to mind, as well as World of Warcraft [although I don’t know if the patent predates WOW mounts]). However the nature of patents is that once they’re granted they are very difficult to dismiss.
The other two are more tricky. Throwing balls at something us a uniquely Pokémon idea, I think, and the aiming one would come down to the technicalities of the patent itself, which is all Japanese to me.
Yeah the newer they are, the more frivolous they are - especially since you could argue the release of games using those patents amounts to public disclosure.
However, you’re still left in the situation where an established patent is very solid and difficult to challenge, even when it should never have been granted in the first place.
Ubisoft is nothing compared to Valve… You don’t own anything you purchase on Steam and it’s the biggest store by a huge margin, don’t know why Ubisoft is mentioned specifically…
Games sold on Steam are not required to use Steam’s DRM. There are lots of DRM free games on Steam. Steam is only required to be installed to purchase/download them but not to run them. After download, the game files can be copied and ran on any computer without any verification.
So they’re not DRM free then if you need Steam to download them. You also need to be connected to the internet at least once to confirm ownership, so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can’t.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical. The closest you’ll get to that with digital games is through GOG or Itch.io or anything similar where you can download the actual install files and you don’t need any launcher at all.
You can purchase the game in a web browser and use steamcmd, which (one could argue is still requiring an app) to download and install. In cases where the publisher is not invoking DRM (Larian games like BG3, DoS2, etc. for instance) once the game is downloaded you can certainly archive it and transfer it to another machine and run it there without Steam. In the end you are likely purchasing proprietary software (though again it’s not always the case on Steam) and we could say you don’t really own that either, so maybe take your complaints to the publishers or just use the power of your wallet and not buy those games and support libre games, of which there are many, another way. That said, Valve is actively making things better for users by developing and contributing to useful libre software like Proton (WINE, DXVK, etc) that can work outside of Steam.
once you downloaded the game you can copy it into a pendrive, upload it into mega or whatever storage and use it. I don’t get why y’all get so held up at the fact that steam might stop offering infinite downloads. Once you have downloaded the game you are free to burn it or store it wherever! This is different from streaming music for example, since with music you never have a local copy you can work with.
so even if you download it once and think that you can now just transfer the game from one PC to another without an internet connection or without Steam, you can’t.
You can. I have several games where I can literally copy the game folder into another computer, press the executable and be able to play it offline. Terraria, vampire survivors, stardew valley, pathfinder: WOTR, Grim Dawn, AoE2… And more. I literally have “backup” zips of several path versions of grim dawn to play different mods because I’m too lazy to patch the game each time I want to replay different versions.
DRM free and actual ownership means physical
Once the game it’s in your system it’s as physical as it can get. There’s no difference of storage in your disk, a pendrive, an external drive or an optical CD. You give the example of GoG, there’s plenty games in steam that once “installed” have all the files in the game folder and you can easily move them.
In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network,” Valve reps have said, “measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games.”
It’s even more basic than that: if there’s no escrow with money for that “end of life” “plan” and no contractual way to claw back money for it from those getting dividends from Valve, then what the “Valve representatives” said is a completelly empty promised, or in other words a shameless lie.
Genuine intentions actually have reliable funding attached to them, not just talkie talkie from people who will never suffer in even the tinyest of ways from not fulfulling what they promised.
In this day and age, we’ve been swamped with examples that we can’t simply trust in people having a genuine feeling of ethical and moral duty to do what they say they will do with no actual hard consequences for non-compliance or their money on the line for it.
PS: And by “we can’t trust in people” I really mean “we can’t trust in people who are making statements and promises as nameless representatives of a company”. Individuals personally speaking for themselves about something they control still generally are, even in this day and age, much better than people acting the role of anonymous corporate drone.
If there is one think we should all have learned by now in this Era is that talk means nothing at all: there have to be hard contractual clausules along with personal punishment for those who break them or some kind of escrow system for money meant to go into that “end of life” plan for it to actually be genuine.
“Valve reps have said” is worth as much as the paper it’s written on and that stuff is not even written on paper.
Except they have proven this so far to be accurate. Games that have long since been removed from sale are still downloadable for people who purchased them at the time. Which is more than others can say.
Well, as the guy falling from the top of the Empire State Building was overheard saying on his way down: “well, so far so good”.
Or as the common caveat given to retail investors goes: past performance is no predictor of future results.
“So far” proves nothing because it can be “so far” only because the conditions for something different haven’t yet happenned or it simply hasn’t been in their best interest yet to act differently.
If their intentions were really the purest, most honest and genuine of all, they could have placed themselves under a contractual obligation to do so and put money aside for an “end of life plan” in a way such that they can’t legally use it for other things, or even done like GoG and provided offline installer to those people who want them.
Steam have chosen to maintain their ability to claw back games in your library whilst they could have done otherwise as demonstrated by GoG which let you download offline installers - no matter what they say, their actions to keep open the option of doing otherwise say the very opposite.
But the steam network is still around. When steam actually shuts down and no longer has the infrastructure to provide downloads for games, I have no idea what their plan is. They hypothetically could provide a way to remove the DRM, but I doubt that it’s something the publishers of games would allow.
Just people trying to ride the wave for internet points without really knowing what they’re talking about. It’s just the popular “current thing” to hate on.
To add to your point, it’s amazing that so many people are still mindless fanboys, even of Steam.
Steam has restrictions on installing the games their customers supposedly own, even if it’s nothing more than “you can’t install it from a local copy of the installer and have to install it from the Steam servers” - it’s not full ownership if you can’t do what you want with it when you want it without the say so of a 3rd party.
That’s just how it is.
Now, it’s perfectly fair if one says “yeah, but I totally trust them” which IMHO is kinda naive in this day and age (personally, almost 4 decades of being a Techie and a gamer have taught me to distrust until there’s no way they can avoid their promises, but that just me), or that one knows the risks but still thinks that it’s worth it to purchase from Steam for many games and that the mere existence of Steam has allowed many games to exists that wouldn’t have existed otherwise (mainly Indie ones) - which is my own posture at least up to a point - but a whole different thing is the whole “I LoVe STeaM And tHeY CaN DO NotHInG wrONg” fanboyism.
Sorry but they have in place restrictions on game installation and often game playing which from the point of view of Customers are not needed and serve no purpose (they’re not optional and a choice for the customer, but imposed on customers), hence they serve somebody else than the customer. It being a valid business model and far too common in this day and age (hence people are used to it) doesn’t make those things be “in the interest of Customers” and similarly those being (so far) less enshittified than other similar artificial restrictions on Customers out there do not make them a good thing, only so far not as bad as others.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, this isn’t the loby of an EA multiplayer game and we’re supposed to be mostly adults here in Lemmy: lets think a bit like frigging adults rather than having knee-jerk pro-Steam reactions based on fucking brand-loyalty like mindless pimply-faced teen fanboys. (Apologies to the handful of wise-beyond-their-years pimply faced teens that might read this).
theverge.com
Ważne