Counter-Strike 2 cheats run for $10 per month and Valorant is not just higher priced but sometimes listed as Out of Stock, so I guess certain providers got striked down.
It is not a claim, it is a fact the cheating hurdle is higher. You clearly are not the target demographic, not affected by cheats and not interested, so you really should not tell others what to do with their hobbies.
What a terrible, uneducated comment. The anti-cheat solutions cost developers tons of money. Better netcode to disable wall hacking? Do you just randomly create arguments for your point? There is already as much engine and netcode obfuscation as feasible, strategy games render only few units into the fog of war. You need first a big enough barrier before you collapse the labour intensive moderation which can yield false positives.
Do you know how clean Valorant is to play compared to Counter-Strike? Definitely worth it. Shooters just don’t work anymore without kernel level anti-cheat. The demand is real that even third party add-ons are used to play with them, e. g. Face It for Counter-Strike. It doesn’t stop all cheats and never will, but makes cheating expensive enough to exclude many.
The famous Escape from Tarkov Wiggle video should put it into perspective.
The Linux - FOSS user group of Lemmy is obviously mad, but that is the new reality.
Is the cheating in LoL that bad from somebody who regularly plays at least middle level ranked games? I am very glad to have it for Valorant compared to the mess Counter-Strike is in. Kernel level anti-cheats are a must nowadays to lift the barrier to entry which excludes quite a bunch of cheaters.
Which is also what the last CEO of Square Enix rode on. This is either investor appeasement or indeed improvement of quality with these tools or, and far more likely both buzzwords and producing crap to cut costs.
Your points are very valid and it was a terrible thing for Epic to do, but they backpedaled on that and have never done the removing a product from Steam afterwards ever again.
Your post and further explanations are excellent. Don’t let the down vote fool from people with parasocial bonding to their game launcher fool you. Valve introduced account bound DRM, unregulated lootbox gambling, skin gambling and for the better part of a decade their UI was crap, there were no user reviews etc.
Epic Games paid big money to make some games platform exclusive.
Their launcher is, just like Origin and Ubisoft’s one, features wise vastly inferior to Steam.
Smaller indie level multiplayer games do not have crossplatform play with Steam, or other issues like DNF duel breaking player room ping indicators.
None of these explain the amount of frequency of anemosity towards Epic for their store. It seems some are in a parasocial relationship with their Steam launcher. A bit like console fanboy wars. And for some reason they prefer a monopoly without alternatives than one with alternatives. Perhaps some see the installation of another program as an intrusion to to their private comfort. Not rationally like Microsoft’s ill willed spying telemetry, but emotionally led. I encountered a few people who just don’t want to install new programs and perhaps see Epic a threat to their habits.
But I dislike them for dropping Unreal Tournament.
Typical case of judicial discrimination against autism. Autistic people get way harsher sentences for the same crime as they are considered a public safety threat by default. There was the case of a German autist who committed a simple robbery. You would think it would be handled as one, instead they had to overturn a court order which could have meant a life sentence without parole, if the mental asylum hospital would have deemed him by arbitrary rules unfit for society.
I would not say it is as broadly self defined and I tried to give specific reasons. Elden Ring itself at its very core is about the core difficulty and yet I had way too many deaths caused by jank (the difference on how much better my experience with the same bosses in a cleaner arena speaks volumes, or the terrible twin fights) , not just some side nitpicking on minor mechanics. And so many reviews giving it excellence and yet there is apparently quite a bunch of people rating it below many of their other titles as at the last part of the game the problems pile up to an even worse degree.
I do enjoy it for most of the other aspects and I understand and agree what it is why people rave about it so much , but I would have loved to see scaled down boss damage, especially combos and twin fights to bridge the fun-defying issues, although a different design philosophy would be the better solution.
Skellige Island and the two expansions were actually great. Blood & Wine had an amazing flow. Otherwise I agree. It was a rehash of The Witcher 1, but not as charming.
Unpopular opinion: Many hyped up games fail immensely at some parts. But due to the social group effect criticism gets drowned out. Currently playing Elden Ring and while it makes a massively great impression all around it shows really bad game design cracks after more intense looking, especially in the boss and arena encounter design as if they were inexperienced. Cluttered, glitchy arenas impeding gameplay, just annoyingly specific roll tells, bad hitbox choices and the requirement to memorize full boss combo routes like a multiplayer fighter add to that 1-2 kill combos and it is terrible at times to me not we the effort. I am at Leyndell with almost all available side content/areas done. Waiting for the obligatory git gud chads storming in.
Then you really don’t want to know a lot I guess. This indicates nothing about the quality. Could be marketing failure, overly high system requirement targets, financial crisis lessening buying power or simply one of the best games nobody has played like Psychonauts 1, because they were out of the current trends.