WYP
News Guru
The Epic Games Store is behind Steam in a number of ways.
Read more about the Epic Games Store's lack of pre-loads for Metro Exodus.
Read more about the Epic Games Store's lack of pre-loads for Metro Exodus.
Metro Exodus can be pre-loaded on Steam, but not the Epic Store
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Not liking this article.
Ubisoft stated they like the direction Epic games are taking
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...pre-orders-of-the-division-2-with-a-free-game
But these articles are just feeding fuel to the fire of all the angry little ragers who only see Steam as the "be all" solution.
I'd expect people quoting you out of context now on the comments pages of steam.
quoted by you
Ubisoft stated they like the direction Epic games are taking
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...pre-orders-of-the-division-2-with-a-free-game
But these articles are just feeding fuel to the fire of all the angry little ragers who only see Steam as the "be all" solution.
I'd expect people quoting you out of context now on the comments pages of steam.
quoted by you
That could be a bold statement if untrue but you can see how people will remove your final comment to make it fit their arguement.
Last edited:
Darkdayzzz
New member
And here I sit, looking at Steam and thinking "Meh? could be better looking and overall its got a lot of bloat to it". Long as I can launch my games and they run as intended I don't care what launcher I use haha. Oh I have to install Epic or Origin or whatever that's fine. I've got 2TB of HDD I'm not using they can go on there.
Steam as a "be all" solution....yeah no. It's not that good at what it does; not anymore with all the other launchers out there.
EDIT: ^^^^^Yeah that
Yeah it's also worth noting that big features are getting added every couple of weeks with a fairly aggressive roadmap leading up to the store fully opening up to developers in mid-2019, adding a lot the more game focussed stuff. I think they're making an active choice to still keep it light and particularly the UI uncluttered though so I doubt there's plans to add many of the social/community/marketplace interaction features of Steam or lesser used features (Personally there's a lot of stuff on Steam; cards, badges, gems or whatever that I don't understand or get the value of at all, I'm sure some do though but the featureset in that aspect can seem crazy excessive for a storefront/launcher, more of a community thing, both are quite viable design philosophys)
Yeah it's also worth noting that big features are getting added every couple of weeks with a fairly aggressive roadmap leading up to the store fully opening up to developers in mid-2019, adding a lot the more game focussed stuff. I think they're making an active choice to still keep it light and particularly the UI uncluttered though so I doubt there's plans to add many of the social/community/marketplace interaction features of Steam or lesser used features (Personally there's a lot of stuff on Steam; cards, badges, gems or whatever that I don't understand or get the value of at all, I'm sure some do though but the featureset in that aspect can seem crazy excessive for a storefront/launcher, more of a community thing, both are quite viable design philosophys)
What do the other launchers do better than Steam?
To me, Steam is the "be all" solution and nothing else is/was needed. Steam itself wasn't needed at all, as well, though.
The new idea of a centralized hub for all your installed games and friends as well as the addition of achievements is now not centralized anymore... Especially the achievements are what keeps my love for Steam.
Imho, currently there's nothing better than Steam, seen from a user's perspective, that is. Uplay has a VERY slow UI, that doesn't properly track its own ingame challenges, Origin has an annoying overlay that can cause massive performance issues and shows game invites, although I turned the overlay off entirely. Epic's Store feels as bad as the Blizzard-App
That is exactly my point. Too many people think Steam is the only solution for all games. There are so many better launchers now. Yet they review bomb metro because its coming to Epic first.
Its childish beyond reason.
Steam is one of the worst of this day and age. Its archaic. Bloated beyond compare, buggy as hell for VR. Trading cards? wtf is the point of that. If thats a big thing for you, get your head checked. Achievements? who cares about epeen nonsense like that, it also has a poor layout. Actually.. not going into this debate. Its bad plain and simple.
Uplay is faster that Steam for me so not sure how you say its slow. Steam overlay actually causes me more crashes in SLI to the point I had disabled it. NEver saw the point of the overlay anyway unless its to check those important achievements that waste so much time...
Last edited:
jimthethesnake
New member
steam and others
well I just like all my games on 1 platform so like most players. I would like steam to make L4D2.1 and if they cant let some one that can
If Steam was modular I'd have no issue with Valve developing all these random features, but when rarely or hardly used features become a fixed part of the software it becomes bloat imo. Achievements are coming to Epic Store this month iirc tho, I think every launcher and game console has that really, but all the spin off stuff from it on Steam is insane. Obviously, the outdated and buggy UI that doesn't support stuff like multi monitor setups or many other use cases properly doesn't help.
I quite like the Big Picture UI given I game a lot with a controller and Steam Link but on any system I've tried it on it seems kinda laggy, abit like using an Xbox 360 with a dying HDD or something.
I quite like the Big Picture UI given I game a lot with a controller and Steam Link but on any system I've tried it on it seems kinda laggy, abit like using an Xbox 360 with a dying HDD or something.
Daiyus
Member
This whole launcher argument always makes me laugh. It doesn't matter to me which launcher games release on, they all end up being launched from LaunchBox for me.
But how can anyone think that that one player in any market is a good idea? If Steam were a not-for-profit organisation who had no financial stakes in the games it could launch then sure, that might be a defensible position. But as company out for nothing but profit? I'm sorry, but I just cannot help but thinking that the competition is a good thing, and Epic coming along and rocking the boat, trying to raise awareness of the cuts Steam (and other platforms) take is a positive thing.
If a publisher wants to avoid paying a cut at all and wants to create their own launcher, more power to them! As a customer you can vote with your wallet but there has yet to be a launcher that I refuse to use because none of them are useless. As long as it can verify that I own a game, allow me to install it, and allows me to run it then I'm a happy gamer (even better if I don't even need it to run the game like Galaxy). Sure there are nice-to-haves with these types of things which is exactly where customer relations comes into play.
You've got to be pretty short sighted to hold a "no Steam, no buy" mentality. Vetting new launchers before installing them is good practice, just like any software but most of them are legitimate and perfectly safe to use.
Therefore the only argument left for the one-launcher advocates is simply the practicality of having all their games under one ecosystem. I can understand that, but to be honest I'm just glad to have all my games from multiple generations on one machine rather than dealing with the generational changes and lack of backwards compatibility that plagued my teenage console years.
But how can anyone think that that one player in any market is a good idea? If Steam were a not-for-profit organisation who had no financial stakes in the games it could launch then sure, that might be a defensible position. But as company out for nothing but profit? I'm sorry, but I just cannot help but thinking that the competition is a good thing, and Epic coming along and rocking the boat, trying to raise awareness of the cuts Steam (and other platforms) take is a positive thing.
If a publisher wants to avoid paying a cut at all and wants to create their own launcher, more power to them! As a customer you can vote with your wallet but there has yet to be a launcher that I refuse to use because none of them are useless. As long as it can verify that I own a game, allow me to install it, and allows me to run it then I'm a happy gamer (even better if I don't even need it to run the game like Galaxy). Sure there are nice-to-haves with these types of things which is exactly where customer relations comes into play.
You've got to be pretty short sighted to hold a "no Steam, no buy" mentality. Vetting new launchers before installing them is good practice, just like any software but most of them are legitimate and perfectly safe to use.
Therefore the only argument left for the one-launcher advocates is simply the practicality of having all their games under one ecosystem. I can understand that, but to be honest I'm just glad to have all my games from multiple generations on one machine rather than dealing with the generational changes and lack of backwards compatibility that plagued my teenage console years.
