And THAT to me is more anti consumerism than exclusivity deals on an given launcher providing they allow "lets call it cross launcher" multiplayer.
The Outer Worlds is now an Epic Games Store Exclusive
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
And THAT to me is more anti consumerism than exclusivity deals on an given launcher providing they allow "lets call it cross launcher" multiplayer.
Take it that was done with Fortnite? That game is an almost unstoppable money making machine at the moment.
demonking
New member
If we can get a system that can then talk to all of the libraries then that will be a step in the right direction.
The other parts are things like downloads and resources used. My steam is set to jot download while I'm playing a steam game but couldnt care less if I'm on a origin game and vice versa. I wonder how much system resources it would consume having all of the clients open? Like I've said before we need a single place to run our games from wherever we buy them from like consoles have, they are all games for Windows after all. Unless we are talking mac and Linux, further segmenting the pc gaming market. Christ its no wonder anyone develops for pc at all!
Daiyus
Member
I notice the Xbox application on Windows 10 recognises when I play almost any game, regardless of where it was bought, or even if it was installed outside of a client. As all these clients are mostly focused on Windows, and Microsoft are wanting to make more waves in the PC scene, perhaps it will be Microsoft that will lead the way in the integration? They could allow you to connect your various accounts and allow you to choose which store to buy things from at point of purchase, etc. One app that does the work of all those launchers so you don't need to install them individually.
[EDIT] Probably be worth mentioning that I usually have every client start with Windows and I don’t see any performance hits compared to when I have them all closed down. I also use LaunchBox as a frontend so I can launch all my games from one place. For me that’s enough, but the idea of having all storefronts with universally controlled options (such as updating while in game) wouldn’t be unwelcome.
Last edited:
I have opened all my launchers once, and saw 0 impact on my gaming. Division 1 retained its 85fps while in windowed and fullscreen modes.
Steam,
GoG
Origin
Uplay
Rockstar
Epic
Battlenet
Google chrome browser //since we know its hungry
All these open. No issues at all.
as for a single place for everything. Its called your desktop
I have all my shortcuts there, and doubleclick them just like any normal app. It opens the launcher and automatically proceeds to run the game (They are all "windows" games after all" ). Problem solved.Yeah as long as they're not actively open the only resource they're going to possibly use is RAM but even then Windows now aggressively unloads unused applications to the page file(Thanks to the battery savings of this technique on portable devices) so chances are they won't even be using RAM now either.
You can get third party applications that act as launcher-launchers, or you can use something like Kodi if you want it for a controller based system, but the desktop or start menu or whatever also work pretty well. Or just add them to Steam(Bit more work for UWP apps but more than possible).
For downloads I just go into each launchers settings and set them to only download over night.
You can get third party applications that act as launcher-launchers, or you can use something like Kodi if you want it for a controller based system, but the desktop or start menu or whatever also work pretty well. Or just add them to Steam(Bit more work for UWP apps but more than possible).
For downloads I just go into each launchers settings and set them to only download over night.
Last edited:
Dark NighT
New member
Alright you have a fair point, buuuut still exclusivity deals are bad and Epic also recently bought a exclusivity deal with a game that was Crowdfunded and had GoG and Steam listed as their release platform only to basically go back on their word because epic was swinging a large sum of money in front of them.
The problem is, because everyone is like but yeah steam needs competition, which is a fair call, they ignore stuff like this for the sake of having competition, its not fair and it is anti consumer in a way that it screws over promises made and leaves good will behind.
I would do the same if Epic offered me a wonderful cut in royalties. Game industry is so volatile and cutthroat now.
Game doesnt launch that well? ok np, EA tells Bioware to lay off 10% of work force. New DLC wasn't a hit? sorry guys we are shutting down this studio. Engine falls behind in the gfx fidelity race? sorry guys I know we sold hundreds of thousands of copies of crysis, but we can't afford to pay our staff.
its tough. And I think you need to be ruthless these days. Being ruthless against other competitors is ok, as long as you dont sacrifice the consumer and what they want. So far, I havent seen Epic do that. It could happen, but right now, they seem to be giving a 2 finger salute to Steam. Long way to go and many paths to take that change the future, so we shall see.
Until then. Keep it up Epic.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Apparently cutting throats is all a part of capitalism, and we are supposed to embrace it..
Yeah, sadly sometimes capitalism isn't very nice at all. All you need to do is look at what Edison did to Tesla. Human nature, personified.
TBH? capitalism doesn't work. I mean sure, it's better than communism but it still reeks to high heaven of dog toffee.
Oh it does work. And work well too. I don't think our world would be anywhere near as advanced as it is without it. Problem is, as you say, its not nice and we have to embrace it.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Capitalism is the only thing that works. Life was never meant to be easy anyway. Blaming capitalism for that is wrong, the sole reason for advancement in life with technology is to make life easier.
Leaving the market to decide what's best is the only thing that works. It puts responsibility into the business. It makes them accountable. If they don't do well with their products they fail and that business goes under and the person who owns it goes into debt.
If you leave the government to do it they have 0 incentive to do well. Why? Because of taxes. They literally have endless amounts of money. There's no incentive to do well. It's not them who suffers and goes into debt. It's the people who suffer and never get a better product or just get taxed more because the government is losing money.
Just look at the original telephone. Mr. Bell sold the product to the US government. The government hardly built any phone lines, I believe it was around 100 miles. If I recall it was 7 years they were losing money at a exponentially higher rate every year. Did it matter? Not at all. They had taxes to fund it they didn't care. However seeing it as obviously a failure they sold the rights over back to entrepreneurs. Within the first year capitalism expanded the phone lines to thousands of miles and despite that made more money in the first year than the government made in 7 years.
Just look at Venezuela. Was the most economiclly prosperous country in South America. Then they turned to socialism. Now the country is back in the dirt. Doesn't even have power to turn on lights for it's people
Leaving the market to decide what's best is the only thing that works. It puts responsibility into the business. It makes them accountable. If they don't do well with their products they fail and that business goes under and the person who owns it goes into debt.
If you leave the government to do it they have 0 incentive to do well. Why? Because of taxes. They literally have endless amounts of money. There's no incentive to do well. It's not them who suffers and goes into debt. It's the people who suffer and never get a better product or just get taxed more because the government is losing money.
Just look at the original telephone. Mr. Bell sold the product to the US government. The government hardly built any phone lines, I believe it was around 100 miles. If I recall it was 7 years they were losing money at a exponentially higher rate every year. Did it matter? Not at all. They had taxes to fund it they didn't care. However seeing it as obviously a failure they sold the rights over back to entrepreneurs. Within the first year capitalism expanded the phone lines to thousands of miles and despite that made more money in the first year than the government made in 7 years.
Just look at Venezuela. Was the most economiclly prosperous country in South America. Then they turned to socialism. Now the country is back in the dirt. Doesn't even have power to turn on lights for it's people
Maybe you should look at British Telecom then, the nationalised British equivalent that invented fibre optic internet. Nationalised services done right often achieve the same result at a fraction of the cost of a privatised system because the tax income is often put under far more scrutiny in a functional government to ensure good value while the easy way for many companies to turn out a profit is not to improve their services but instead to market their services better, so instead precious money that could be put into development is often diverted to marketing warfare instead. Or even crazier in America often to government lobbyists so these private companies can have influence on government decision, while that money just lines the pockets of dodgy politicians.
Last edited:
looz
Active member
Some services are better in governments' hands, others can be left to free market while preventing monopolies and cartels from forming.
Utilities is a good example, where infrastructure is costly so it's difficult for new companies to compete, but one company in charge with existing infrastructure would lead to poor maintenance and unfair pricing - see your situation with Internet providers.
Utilities is a good example, where infrastructure is costly so it's difficult for new companies to compete, but one company in charge with existing infrastructure would lead to poor maintenance and unfair pricing - see your situation with Internet providers.
off topic but the one service the UK needs to take back under the governments wing is public transport. UK has probably the worst public transport I have ever known.
Even had to resit my first year at uni since the great western train didnt show up... so I missed my exam.
Absolutely agree, whenever a transport services here has to be renationalised, reliability and customer satisfaction shoots up. Then Virgin will rebuy the contract or something, and boom straight back down again.
The East Coast main line is currently nationalised, an incredibly profitable line for the government, after Virgin and Stagecoach couldn't keep up with payments, but it's set to be sold back to a "sub-optimal" company because it doesn't look very good on Chris Grayling & the Tories wider policies to have the nationalised line outperforming all the privatised ones.
Massive variety in QoS across the nation, with London having mostly nationalised functional services, midlands get privatised but well invested lines... then you have the north. Here in Manchester our inner city trains are literally recycled 1980's bus'(No bogeys, IE their wheels can't turn around corners, they have to grind and bump, you've never had a ride like it) and are 3 decades over due for their replacement. We don't even have electrification on these lines yet, all diesel.
I must have read an article saying this exact thing about 20 times in the last 5 years:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ill-not-begin-retiring-pacer-trains-this-year
The East Coast main line is currently nationalised, an incredibly profitable line for the government, after Virgin and Stagecoach couldn't keep up with payments, but it's set to be sold back to a "sub-optimal" company because it doesn't look very good on Chris Grayling & the Tories wider policies to have the nationalised line outperforming all the privatised ones.
Massive variety in QoS across the nation, with London having mostly nationalised functional services, midlands get privatised but well invested lines... then you have the north. Here in Manchester our inner city trains are literally recycled 1980's bus'(No bogeys, IE their wheels can't turn around corners, they have to grind and bump, you've never had a ride like it) and are 3 decades over due for their replacement. We don't even have electrification on these lines yet, all diesel.
I must have read an article saying this exact thing about 20 times in the last 5 years:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ill-not-begin-retiring-pacer-trains-this-year
looz
Active member
Channel 4 News made a short documentary about the train situation as well:
https://youtu.be/njJ94o1B0qI
https://youtu.be/njJ94o1B0qI
Yeah that videos quite good, the rail line mentioned at the start as the first commercial line is the one I commute on into central Manchester that is still dogged with the bus-trains.
The fact is companies are starting to realise that rail services aren't going to work as high-margin operations, and so it's becoming a less lucrative market and losing what little competition there was. Many of the companies that do operate relatively successful UK rail lines are predominantly owned by other European nations successful nationalised services and a portion of what slim profits there are often goes back to them, rather than the ageing rail infrastructure.
The fact is companies are starting to realise that rail services aren't going to work as high-margin operations, and so it's becoming a less lucrative market and losing what little competition there was. Many of the companies that do operate relatively successful UK rail lines are predominantly owned by other European nations successful nationalised services and a portion of what slim profits there are often goes back to them, rather than the ageing rail infrastructure.
Last edited:
