The Outer Worlds information overload

I would really like to respond on the subject of The Outer Worlds now being released on Epic store first but I don't know what to add on the forum that has not already been said by others.
Some of them are also better in the know (details about production, publishers, etc) than I am so it is not as if I can add more details that may be of more interest.

Well my first reaction is of course that I am really disappointed that the publisher of The Outer Worlds which I think is a subsidiary of Take Two has decided to publish on that online store first.

I have no experience with Epic store other than years ago I downloaded a launcher to play a free game but have removed it since.
Most of what I know comes from secondary sources; that the Epic store launcher lacks a lot of features that the Steam launcher does seem to have such as player feedback/reviews, I don't know if users are allowed to return games if they do not like these titles, and I believe it also lacks support features and workshop function which can be found on Steam. Oh and I also believe its offline feature is problematic to use at best.

I am not going to say that Steam is without any criticism. As some people here and the on the Codex poined out Steam as much guilty of Exclusives as Epic store is, as when it came out more fourteen/fifteen years ago it started a trend that some games could only be played through the launcher now, even if just in offline mode.
And it started the trend of other major publishers now offering their own online store and launcher program which are now seen as common.

Rather shows my age, I remember a period in which we could just directly install games in Dos and Windows, something which I still do these days. At best I find the launcher useful for patches and updates which we now do not have to look up and download separately.
Well I do like the discussion and chat options as well to talk with fans of certain titles and franchises.

My main reason of now wanting Epic store on my computer is because of its connection to Tencent and the accusations/confirmation that Epic store is actually data mining users' computers.

In an era in which online surveillance is increasing, internet privacy is decreasing, and Sillicon Valley and other interest groups are manipulating the internet, I feel more reluctant that ever to have new programs installed on my computer that actively monitor my behavior, even if just for advertisement purposes.

"Well if you have nothing to hide you should not worry" is something an apologist or what I now consider a stooge of such practices would say because I do have things to hide, not because they are criminal but because they are personal matters or personal tastes.
Unless I feel like sharing these with others they along with the rest of my computer use are my own damn business.

The Outer Worlds itself. Well I would definitely have liked to have played it if it was indeed anything like Fallout New Vegas because I genuinely love that game and I find it a bit easier to come into these days that Fallout 1 and 2 (that is why I look forwards to the remakes in FNV)

It would definitely be the gameplay that would draw me in because setting wise it would not have been an automatic buy for me.
I love science fiction and I liked the Western/Wild West vibe in FNV which I personally found appropriate for the Mojave but I am not a big fan of the Space Western sub genre which could be found in Firefly and a couple of old cartoons I remember such as Bravestart. I rather have something like Star Trek, Alien, or if retro like Buck Rogers which could have featured a Space Wild West Frontier here and there.

So if the gameplay is good it could have drawn me into the setting and Space Western elements.

But that is all moot now because The Outer Worlds will not be released on Steam for a year. And then the question is if I actually want to buy it on Steam.

My current computer is more than ten years old now (I did update the video card) and while it shows its age here and there it in general runs all the games and emulators I play fine (just probably needs some cleaning, both physically and computer wise).
The only game I have an issue with is a Doom mod that has been expanded with all kinds of features. But the reason why I have problems with that is because it can not make use of additional graphics accelerator hardware, I just need a faster CPU.

That is one of the reasons why I would like to have a faster computer but other reasons would have to be because I want to play the latest games and be able to play them as they are meant to be (the reason why gamers bought graphic accelerator cards in order to play Unreal and Quake 2).
Thing is, there barely are any recent games I genuinely want to play, and to spend 1500 Euros on a new computer just to play a single game for now seems a little bit overkill.

Eh I went a little off topic. On the Outer Worlds, I might as well now wait for it to appear on GOG or if it doesn't reach GOG wait for it until it is being sold on Steam for 75% discount like some of my fellow forum members here now do when they realized how rapidly new games could become discounted. (or these weekend sales with a discount)

I don't know about the situation regarding Steam/Valve and publishers who are selling their games through Steam and how much of a percentage Valve takes. Don't publishers already calculate that into their games' prices? (I sure do when I sell something on Ebay)

So far I have also not looked into if Epic store offers games for a much lower price because Epic takes a smaller percentage than Steam does, but I genuinely doubt that prices will be lower.

If this was indeed about general competition between Steam, Epic, Windows store the gamers would indeed be the ones who would benefit the most as long each shared most of the catalogue of games and allowing us to pick the most affordable one.
Same goes for services, if one store/launcher offered better options and the company behind it better services that would only benefit the customers.

But neither seem to be the case and instead it seems to be more about what "necessary evil" you are willing to take in order to play games.
Are you willing to have backdoor software installed on your computer in order to play exclusives?

Personally if this is what the price is that I have to pay in order to play games then I rather skip it and just go back to older games, homebrew games, and focus on other hobbies.
Lately I already feel that I have been postponing my ambitions of doing something artistic or creative of my own for to long in my life.

My unnecessary two cents

 

I am gonna operate under the premise that the game just got delayed for next year. I have a bunch of stuff to play on my PC and switch (finish Trails of Vold Steel 1 and 2, Re2 Remake, Fractured but whole, Fire Emblem Three Houses, Pokemon Sword and shield, etc) so I am not gonna suffer too much. It sucks tho that I wanted to support Obsidian. Microsoft really squandered all the Hype and good faith the Game Awards announcement created, this has to be the most boneheaded decision ever, but I am not surprised (most excecutives are rich idiots in suits completely detached from the world), only dissappointed

 

No, I'm not exaggerating. Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean we are lying, it happens to us, so it doesn't really matter how well, or fast it is for you. I'm glad it works fine for you, but don't downplay how shitty it is for those that have these problems.
This is a case where you're biased in favor of Steam, because it works fast for you, but it's also the case of me being biased against Steam because it doesn't work fast for me. Each case is a case and each user is a user, experiences for one person can be totally different for another person.

Sometimes (like Jabberwok just mentioned), Steam is verifying installation, it just freezes and will not even start. If the internet gets intermittent for example (happen a lot here when there's storms/thunderstorms).

Steam is frozen with the popup saying verifying installation, and that popup is over everything. So you can't even ignore it and do something else on the computer because that popup is just there, frozen, blocking your screen.
If I'm lucky, I can close the process using task manager, but sometimes no matter how many times I do that, it will always freeze and I can't use Steam or play any of my Steam games, because I can't change the setting to go offline mode again (because Steam will not open past the verifying installation popup).

 

Yeah. In an ideal world, no matter where you buy a copy of the game, you SHOULD be able to install and play it, regardless of whether you're online or offline. This is why a GOG copy of a game is the best digital copy you could ever get.

Holy shit, what? So cross-play is (or was) possible all along?

Anyway, you're right https://partner.steamgames.com/

Spoiler

And reading into it further, apparently it's a way for developers to generate achievements and allows players to get them for a game.

Still, I think this is a *form* of DRM. I'm not saying it is DRM nor it's what it's (all) about. Just the fact that they basically forced players to always register an account and launch the launcher when installing and playing the game means it's a form of DRM, instead of exclusivity.

That's a rather close minded and ignorant stance you put there. It's an entirely different issue altogether, and it's not even Valve's fault that a game (that aren't theirs) requires Steamworks to run. It's entirely up to a developer if they want to integrate Steamworks into their game (or is it the opposite?), and if there's anybody who needs to be blamed for New Vegas being fucking Steam only until 2017, it's Bethsoft/Obsidian.

Using this issue to somewhat approving what Epic is about, or just plainly wanting to lead your argument to boil down to "more competition is good" is mindboggling. Epic's shenanigans aren't competition, it's complete 180 and it's Epic who's actually monopolizing all these new games coming out, if only just for 1 year. You want to know what a competition is? GOG, that's what.

Then you should be condemning Epic more than Steam. You can say all you want about Valve, but they get to where they are now after years and years of effort, and while many people dislike what they did at first with their games being exclusive in their store, it's THEIR games, unless there are games not theirs being exclusive at the time which is something I don't know then it's just as shitty. Meanwhile, here comes Epic with barebone storefronts with barely functioning features it already has, standard features such as refund policy were messed up initially, coupled with regional pricing not implemented in all countries when (as far as I know) Steam already have it in place, NO FORUMS for players to easily communicate with the devs (especially about bugs and glitches) because allegedly forums brings only toxicity, developers CAN OPT OUT OF GETTING THEIR GAMES REVIEWED BY PLAYERS because warning people that a game currently have issues or is just plain shit is toxic, and yet it dares to try sticking it up to Valve by strong arming new games and forcing players to get it from there? Even though we already had GOG sticking it up to Valve but in more subtle and elegant manner? I know that at least TOW is accessible from Microsoft Store, but, ugh, Microsoft Store....

I know Walp didn't pursue you on this matter, but I'll bite the bullet and say you're rather rude to him here. Have you ever tried buying games on Steam/GOG? At the very least, Steam has Steam Wallet where you can buy a voucher for it somewhere and in my country it's possible to get it from convenience store (even though I've to get yet another voucher to get the voucher to fill my Steam Wallet), but the more convenient option is to register your credit card so that you could simply, easily click 'Add to Cart' when buying a game, and then the store (either Steam or GOG) will charge that credit card as a payment. The way you mentioned it, it seems you're a GOG-only guy, but I'm not sure how you pay for the games there because the only way for me who live in Indonesia to pay for a GOG copy of a game is to register my credit card there. I just know that there's a 'default' way to pay for GOG copy of games, but I don't know how it's done. HOWEVER! GOG doesn't have regional pricing, of which Steam does, which is what Walp already pointed out. I personally registered my credit card for both Steam and GOG, Steam so I can get reasonably regional-priced copy of a game (and even real dirt cheap stuff when it's discount period), THEN buy another copy from GOG IF I really, REALLY liked the game. You might think why pay twice for a game, but hey, it's much better way to support a developer's endeavor, considering the Steam copy of the game is most likely only as much worth as a peanut on certain regions, instead of condoning Epic's shenanigans.

Why do people keep saying this? I'm not exactly in the know with what and how did a game came to cost certain amount, but isn't a retail shop takes even bigger %cut when selling a physical copy? And that's not including the cost of making physical copies. If so, then by that virtue Steam is already quite generous. Not to mention (as far as I know) Sony and Microsoft takes more or less the same amount of %cut for selling games through their digital stores, and nobody are screaming at them for it. Not even the devs, why? Because being able to sell in those digital stores means your game has a potential to be looked at by millions and millions of paying customer, and even a small percentage of them (from both of the stores combined provided you sell at both) ACTUALLY paying for your games is actually worth those 30% cut. And that's what Steam primarily provides for developers, an easy access to bajillion paying customers, not the stores itself. Also, since I don't have a background in economy, I'll quote someone who does:

Vince was a Vice President of Sales & Marketing of a company based in Canada, so I'll trust his words on this. He even admitted AoD sold more in the first month on Steam than he sold it in over a year on their own website.

Also, if devs are still not comfortable with paying Steam 30% cut, then with just their registration/administration(?) fee to be recognized as a game developer who's selling their game on the platform, devs could simply generate Steam keys, as many as you want to, free of charge, you can sell it anywhere you want and Steam doesn't take a single %cut for these keys sold on other places. It's... not exactly a good business practice for consumer because what you get aren't games but keys, but since we're discussing the topic in context of business for developers....

Have you tried changing your setting? You can definitely change the setting so it'll only download updates on your order, and if you're (also) referring to Steam client itself updating once in awhile, as far as I know the default setting for this is that it'll asks if you want to restart the client to update, because I never change the setting for this (if there's any, that is). There's the issue of the game not wanting to launch unless it's updated, though, and I don't know how a Steam version of the game works in this regard, but the solution to this is to check if the game you want to play is DRM-free. By this, I mean you could simply access the folder where a Steam version of a game is installed, and try launching it via the .exe while Steam is not launched. If it prompt you to log in to Steam, the DRM is there. If not, enjoy playing the game. Steam version of Age of Decadence, Underrail, and Tales of Maj'Eyal, for example, are DRM-free and I've played them without launching Steam and just launching them through the exe.

They..... do. I'm not sure where you read the topic for this, but the first time I read it they admitted as much that their DRM policy is the exact same as Steam. If they're truly DRM-free, then they would've brag about it so much, and people in the Codex who hates Steam with their guts would've use it as an argument long ago.

Hol' up. I'm not downplaying the issues you guys experience, but how old and what specs are your rigs? I'm playing on a laptop that's now nearly 7 years old, died twice and is currently on its third life, and had its (broken) cooling fan replaced with one that's not optimally working on its own. And yet, I was able to wait for Steam verifying installation WHILE having Chrome open with 20+ tabs (I'm trying to catch up with all the threads in NMA and the Codex, so I didn't bother closing them and always restoring them when I turned the laptop on every time). Perhaps it's thanks to having 10 GB of RAM? (the laptop initally had 2+2 GB of RAM, but I replaced on of them with an 8 GB RAM so it's a total of 10 GB).

 

Um. Not sure in what way you're asking. Even PS2 had cross-play with PC with Final Fantasy XI. It's other consoles that Sony chose not to connect with. It's always been possible. And the only reason Microsoft has been pushing it is to seem like the good guy when historically they've always been against it in the past. The reason FFXIV isn't on Xbox One is because they wanted to force Square-Enix to require Xbox Live Gold so that users were going through their own servers and not Square-Enix's. The 180 on this issue is because Sony is kicking their ass.

 

I asked that question because I have an impression that crossplay between different gaming platform is basically still a dream, even to this day. Dang, why aren't we funding this?

 

I don't like credit cards not in the mood to go into debt for games and streaming. If your service has a debit option for my country it's a huge plus for me and ensures I use your service (Steam, Spotify and Netflix all have this), I got the money in my pocket or bank account, I don't want digital I.O.U.s when buying things. Buying physical games over here is expensive because they are either expensive as shit (up to 80 dollars sometimes) or not in stock so I have to order them from the US which not only means waiting from 1 to 2 weeks but sometimes a shipping fee depending on the seller, I only buy Switch games because a guy here sells them american prices, but I still deal with the shipping waits.

 

From what I read, Epic's DRM policy was that there was no store-wide DRM policy and that developers/publishers are free to use any or no DRM as they see fit.

I'm not sure if that means there is an Epic DRM that they can choose or not but Epic themselves is not requiring it, I guess. That's all I can take away from it.

 

No it isn't. Epic aren't any better than steam but they are only following the same pattern, a pattern that exist only because millions of butterflies dropped their pants and spread their legs for steam's own ways of enforcing their online third party spyware. It's cause and effect.
Now I am here to laugh at the irony, steamers indignated at being strong armed. A situation they have more than their share at creating.

I am comdemning everyone who had a part in creating the current market. From those who invented a horror like steam (and include in there any steam-like program) to the publishers chosing to use their online DRM, to customers who spread their legs for it, and other companies following the pattern.

I won't pursue this at all as my opinion is categoric and final about all this, and I already said my part before. About the pricing, I can't speak about regional prices for the entire world. All I can say is that if I buy 2 games, or even one in the same year, GOG must either pop the champagne or comment something like: 'Oh, one of our worst customer actually bought something...' Excluding the games I already owned in physical but re-bought to express my apreciation at greatness, or for modern systems.
But I don't care for prices, I would pay triple for a game I can backup and won't connect to internet once downloaded. If GOG ever enforce galaxy, I am out of buying games at all in the current market.
Some of you speak as if you buy games like you buy food for the week. If buying a game may put you in debt, maybe you should look into that and play games in better time?
As for GOG payment, from europe I see credit/debit card, paypal, and two others I never used, paysafecard and skrill.

 

Not using steam means a lot this guy.

 

In my experience, all that setting does is not queue the updates for download, but the games will still be flagged for update, which will still make them unplayable until the update is completed. Except now the update won't complete until I've actually noticed that it needs to be downloaded.

The DRM is the overarching problem, really, because it means that any problems with the Steam client are also problems with almost everything installed through the client. As you said, perhaps not all, but many games on Steam will require Steam to be launched to launch the game, even though all of the data is local. This is why, other things being equal, I would choose to buy through GOG or now even Epic, rather than Steam. I have many issues with GOG, but if I install a game through it, I can run that game on its own with no outside interference. And that's really all I want.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my issues have nothing to do with my computer. My laptop is about a year old, and I can run almost any new game that comes out. The issues are completely problems with the Internet connection, coupled with software (like Windows itself) that assumes the end user has constant and reliable access to the Internet.

 

This is not a laptop issue, it's an internet/Steam issue. If the internet is intermittent, Steam gets bottle-necked and it destroys the "verifying installation" of Steam, freezing the process and it never "unfreezes" even when the internet gets better.
Only way of getting rid of it is terminating the service.
This is a flaw from Steam, it expects non intermittent internet, if the signal fails in any way, it freezes it. It should have at least a fail-safe that will run the process and if internet fails/the process gets interrupted, then it ends it and shows an error message. Instead, it just breaks.

 

Im also thinking of buying The Outer Worlds on PS4 as an alternate option to pirating but it feels weird to play an rpg on console, like the equivalent of playing the Orange Box on PS3, some games are meant to be played on PC you know?

 

Exactly the same as how it works on Steam, then. The devs can choose whether or not they want to include DRM into the Steam version of their game. And as you can see, Steam version of aforementioned games like Underrail, Age of Decadence, and Tales of Maj'Eyal are all DRM-free, and you can just launch them straight from the .exe found in Steam folder of the games, without the need to launch Steam at all. Full list here https://steam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games @Atomkilla turns out even Paradox's games are DRM-free. Have you tried launching them straight from the .exe? Obviously this doesn't mean much because at the end of the day they do require you to register an account and launch Steam to at least install the game.

Now, if you asks me, would the devs pass on the chance to include DRM onto the games they published on Epic Store? Personally, I doubt it. The mindset behind abandoning Steam, GOG, and practically other stores and sites out there, and go exclusive on Epic for 1 year is purely money-driven. The most obvious one is those sweet sales guarantee money they got upfront, but that doesn't mean they would ignore the lower %cut entirely. And thus, I think they'll include DRM nonetheless, to ensure maximum profit gain from the lower %cut, instead of risking some guy buying 1 copy of a DRM-free game and distributes it elsewhere.

This is still purely ignorance. What pattern did Steam set in the games industry? What I know is that they certainly fought tooth and nail to gain a foothold in the industry through PC gaming, when everyone else abandoned the ship thinking it's sinking and that console gaming is the future, including EPIC. After years of effort, time, and money invested Steam is now as big as it is because they are (or rather, were) fucking good at what they do. They're kind of not doing good at the moment because of stuff like Artifact, and the big boys like Bethesda not publishing Fallout 76 on Steam, but they're still a thousand miles ahead of whatever Epic is doing.
And if Epic's truly following the pattern of Steam, why don't they include all the pluses offered by Steam since Day 1? Why are they adding them now, why are they solely focused on enticing developers at first, instead of doing things to lure in consumers properly?

Now, I'm actually indifferent to the whole spyware debacle confirmed for Epic Store. I have nothing to say about it because I know jack shit, but the fact that you're using spyware arguments against Steam, when Epic's pretty much confirmed to be a literal spyware, not even long after their first launch, while at the same time we (or rather, I) heard no news of Steam being a literal spyware, 'cause otherwise ALL of people like you would've shout about it 24/7, is pretty damn amusing.

Also, it's funny that you say you laugh at the irony that Steam fans are being upset about this. Do you know if there are any buyers from other stores and sites who also felt they were stabbed in the back, and not just Steam fans? I'm gonna let you answer that question by yourself, and if your answer is actually none and you actually think the games being strong armed are going to only be absent on Steam (aside from a couple few confirmed to come out on big publisher's stores as well, but fuck that shit), then you're a fucking retard and I'm going to call you out on it.

There are multiple niche, genres, and kinds of players across the market, and Steam existed to accommodate practically all of them. As you can see from the features of Steamworks, it was mainly used to accommodate multiplayer system with features such as matchmaking and anti-cheat tech. You might condemn them anyway because it leads to you getting shafted by devs who included it into their singleplayer games, but don't you think you're still rather ignorant for doing so? Once again, Valve have literally zero fault for Steamworks being integrated into singleplayer games, it was the devs/publishers fault alone for using Steamworks for a purpose it wasn't meant to be.

You deliberately ignore the definition of exclusivity and you attack Steam from the wrong angle, and because of it I think your opinion is purely fueled by hatred. You should educate yourself properly on this matter, instead of outright giving in to your hatred, because it saddens me to see people being like that.
Now, I might not make it clear, but I don't 100% condone Steam's business practice. For starters, the fact that they don't sell actual games, and instead selling 'the right' to play the games, is the number one reason to condemn their business practice. This is almost, I repeat, ALMOST canceled out by the fact that they regionally price the games and frequently went on sale, so you can get games from there practically for free (or at least worth of a peanut), and then just buy the game full price on GOG if you really like the game and want to support the developers. Now, the fact that Epic's policy on DRM is exactly the same as Steam, could imply they ALSO didn't sell the actual games, and this is coupled by the fact they didn't regionally price the games initially, means they're instantly the inferior system, and not even lower %cut could be used to justify using their store at all, except for fucktards, that is.

It's not hard to imagine. Third-world country would pay lower prices when converted from regional currency to USD. For example, since I live in one, what cost normally 10 USD if you buy it there on Steam will, instead, cost somewhere between 6-7 USD after converted from the actual price displayed in regional currency (in my case).

Well, coupled by my experience with regional pricing where I live as described above, AND the fact that games on Steam frequently went on sale (and there's shit loads of them), means it's possible for someone to basically go on a shopping spree and grab literally 10 games for just a low low price of (for example) 10 USD total in a single swoop.
This isn't entirely possible when there's no regional pricing, however, which is what Walp mentioned in his post and his reluctance to buy games not regionally priced. Because buying a game straight from its USD price can be a bitch to one's wallet, especially if you live in a country whose currency is weak against USD (I'm paraphrasing here, not sure how to say it in proper English-economic terms).

Ah, you're right. Shame, I thought it was possible to choose when to download updates but turns out they just give you an option to restrict updates to a certain period of time.
Still, wouldn't it be better to keep your games updated? Unless you have good reason not to update, like patching the game actually broke it because the devs derped but in that case just don't play the game until the devs fix it.

And if it's actually internet problem....

I also have occasionally intermittent connection, and yet I never really get this problem. Perhaps I did, but maybe once or twice in the past. I just tried launching Steam while my wifi is off, straight after turning on my laptop, and instead of freezing the "verifying installation" process, it just went on for a while (not even 5 minutes) and then load up login window anyway. Maybe Steam behaves differently when there's no connection and when it's intermittent connection? Still, how often does the internet you guys have goes derp? It can't be that often to the point that it conveniently occurs as you launch Steam. Unless below average internet connection is all you have, which.... well, no comment there.

Would you really go to Epic, of all places? Even though it's objectively inferior storefront? No forums to easily communicate with the devs when you encounter bugs and glitches, reviews can be opt out of (preventing you from warning other consumer that the game is shit or is currently on shitty state), they only recently added regional pricing and it's not in every country yet, and initially they got messed up refund system. Not to mention they've got the exact same policy as Steam on DRM, so chance are you're gonna have to launch the games you buy from the launcher anyway for some games. And the worse of all, would you condone their exclusivity bullshit practice? Because I can't see how doing this would lead to Steam trying to fix their shit at all, and instead Valve (and most probably other publishers) will begin to retaliate with the exact same exclusivity deals, bribing game devs left and right to prevent them from offering their products on other stores/sites, and thus the plague of console gaming arrives on PC community.

 

Well, it's happened to me since 2001, when I got Steam. On 5 different laptops, on 3 different countries, on 4 different ISP, on 3 different OS and 4 different houses.
It's one of the reasons why I don't turn on Steam at computer start automatically. And most days don't turn on Steam at all.

It doesn't happen always, but it happens enough for me to avoid Steam whenever I can.

 

Ah yes, the good ol' trauma. I imagine you'll only launch Steam whenever you want to fiddle with TTW, then? Unless you decided to ditch Steam entirely and get GOG copy of Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I've been waiting for GOG Connect to let me get my DRM-free New Vegas, because ugh who wants to even spend a cent to Bethsoft. It's also not helping that GOG doesn't have regional pricing.

 

I have both Fallout 3 and FNV on GOG.
It was a gift from a TTW fan, when GOG first got the games and we needed their versions, so we could make the TTW installer compatible .

Also I typed the wrong date it's not from 2001. It was since 2010 that I got Steam, got it so I could play Empire Total War (because I got the hardcopy but it required Steam). Damn Dyscalculia, sorry about that.

I actually run Steam when I want to play Crusader Kings 2, Don't Starve Together, Civilization V and Secret World Legends.

 

As I mentioned earlier on in the thread, most of the features that make Steam superior in your eyes are things that I don't actually want. I already waste far too much time in Steam's information loop, when I should just be playing games or doing something more productive. I read reviews and use discussion forums all the time, but they haven't improved my life in the long run. All I really want is a downloader. I go to website, I buy game, game downloads, I play game. That is as much interacting as I want to do with a client.

Yes, I don't have to use those features of Steam if I don't want to. And that's exactly what I'm saying. I am not judging a pissing contest or deciding who to pledge loyalty to. I'm just saying that given the choice, I will choose the option that is the simplest and gives me the most freedom. Steam is certainly feature rich, but most of those features are little more than a time sink for me. A collection of distractions, or even advertisements, adjacent to the product I'm actually interested in.

I will use whichever service has the thing I want to buy, for the lowest price, with minimal bullshit. If the thing I want to buy is on Epic, I'll use it. But basically, my ideal client is no client at all.

As to why I would not want to update, that is (for the most part) solely because updates can take days to finish for me. Even longer if the connection actually goes down for a weekend, which is not at all uncommon where I live. Things are a bit better than before because the overall speeds are faster, but if this were last year, when download speeds averaged around 20 KB/s? It could take me over a week to get through a Steam update queue. I had to be very careful about when I chose to go online, not knowing what might need an update. GOG lets me control which games will auto-update, and I never have to update them if I don't want to. Which is great, because I still prefer to think of games as a product rather than a service. Something that I own and can do what I want with.

 

This is all fine and dandy, and I agree that no client, just download an installer that we can keep all the time is the best way to go with it. What I'm asking is WILL you actually go to Epic, despite the fact that they've proven to be maliciously anti-consumer right from the get go? Don't tell me you're actually going to be okay with this exclusivity bullshit. It's a plague in console gaming, and we don't need it in PC community. It's highly likely that if Epic's shenanigans actually succeed or generate some form of high profit in the long run, not just Valve but every single publishers and storefronts out there will follow the path paved by Epic, bribing devs left and right to sell games on their own store and only their store alone.

Do remember that I'm not defending Steam here. Not only Epic kept the games away from Steam, but ALSO from GOG, places like itch.io and Discord Store, and other sites such as Green Man Gaming. This whole debacle isn't Epic vs. Steam, it's Epic vs. PC Gaming.

Is this connection established in your house? If yes, have you tried using wifi service from a local coffee shops? My friends and I tend to hangout in one during the weekends, and I personally use it to make sure the updates don't get fucked by my house's occasionally intermittent connection. If you happen to live in... less fortunate country where even your local coffee shop doesn't provide wifi, then I know how you feel. It's basically my experience when we don't yet have access to relatively better speed we have nowadays.

 

Local coffee shops do not exist where I live. The closest one is an hour taxi ride away, and has worse connection speeds than my apartment.

I have no particular interest in Epic, but it seems to me that exclusives are already a fairly common occurrence across the board. I don't really know why I should be up-in-arms about it. Maybe I just don't know enough about what makes this malicious. My posts here have been mostly concentrated on the reasons I don't like using Steam, rather than comparing them to Epic.

I find it unlikely that I will use Epic any time soon, mostly out of laziness and not wanting to download yet another client. But if I somehow manage to get excited about the Outer Worlds, or one of their other in-dev games, I might cave on that.