- Joined
- May 2, 2017
- Messages
- 7,762 (3.04/day)
- Location
- Back in Norway
| System Name | Hotbox |
|---|---|
| Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6), |
| Motherboard | ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax |
| Cooling | LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14 |
| Memory | 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15 |
| Video Card(s) | PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W |
| Storage | 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro |
| Display(s) | Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary |
| Case | SSUPD Meshlicious |
| Audio Device(s) | Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3 |
| Power Supply | Corsair SF750 Platinum |
| Mouse | Logitech G603 |
| Keyboard | Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro |
Lol, what? Let's see:
Do I need to go back several pages? I have been plenty clear that EGS is not good. I have gone into quite some detail that while their policies are beneficial in specific ways, I do not regard them as good - I simply don't accept the exaggerated claims of them being evil either, and am thus forced into arguing for them not being particularly bad. People misreading that for me saying they are good? That's not my problem, not when I'm clear on this not being the case. IMO, they're entirely comparable to Valve, except I haven't been paying them a stupidly high 30% of most of my game purchases for a decade and a half. But both are corporations, and I owe neither any allegiance. I am entirely aware of the cynicism behind their policies. That doesn't mean I can't be equally cynical in exploiting them. That's not buying into the PR, that's being conscious of my actions.
As for the Linux comparison: you're changing your argument as you go. You said that I, in choosing to also use EGS, was comparable to never-MS Linux diehards crippling themselves by consciously choosing away a more feature-rich option. I responded that I haven't chosen away anything. I use these features if I feel like it. Using EGS does not prevent me from doing so (except in the very few situations where a feature is directly tied to a game). Please at least have the decency to admit that your comparison didn't work, instead of trying to twist it into meaning something different from what you said.
And again: the entirety of your first paragraph here rests on the assumption that using EGS means not using Steam! I don't understand how hard it is to grasp that both can be used. Sure, I won't get to play my EGS games on the Steam Deck I have pre-ordered, but ... so what? I don't care much. I'm perfectly fine with playing only my Steam library in those cases - though if it's a game I'm particularly fond of I might buy another copy if it's cheap enough, or just find a way to play EGS games through Proton. But it's not a big deal.
But ... you're using GOG. GOG Galaxy does all the organization for you. Every library, across PC and consoles. In one app. Shows where you own the games, lets you organize and categorize, launches them directly. It bypasses that problem entirely. No, it doesn't let you cross-shop, that's the one weakness.
Also ... are you claiming to notice 1-2-3% performance differences? If so, that's pretty impressive. Most of us aren't even close to that. I guess I'm lucky in that regard? Resorting to 'slippery slope' style arguments is also a surefire sign that you don't have much of an argument to begin with. Unless you know of dozens of alternative game launcher/storefronts that are on the cusp of launching? If not: let me know when this goes from being a rhetorical device to an actual problem.
Sorry, but no. That's you denying yourself that choice. That is also obviously a choice, but it's your choice, not someone else denying it to you. And, of course, boycotting a store is entirely fine - I just find the reasoning for people boycotting EGS to be particularly selective and hollow. At this point, you're saying "I like choice, but mainly I like the freedom to make the same choice every time". Which is ... rather odd.
Nah, sorry. Those needs are still pretty basic. Food, shelter, safety, social relations, something to keep our brains busy/entertained. There are of course many possible variations on and specific instances of these, but as you go more specific (I'd say "online storefront+library application selling and distributingcomputer-run games plus various other features" is pretty specific (going something like 'games' -> 'videogames' -> 'videogames sold online' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online in an application' -> 'videogames sold and distributed online in an application that also has various secondary features' - when the innovations you're asking for is in those secondary features, it's pretty difficult to implement anything radical), the list of possible future innovations shrinks. Of course it might all take a radical left turn and change entirely, but that's quite unlikely. VR and its niche long-term appeal is a good example of this. Do you have an example of someone radically changing how these needs are covered that doesn't constitute inventing an entirely new medium? 'Cause that's pretty rare.
Yes, we now heat our food using electricity or gas, which is transported through massive wire networks or tubes, trucks, trains, etc. But we still heat our food. That's the base need. The changes are in method, not in effect. The same goes for games - we now buy them online and download them rather than walk/bike/drive/whatever to a store and pick up some sort of physical storage medium. Yet you're asking for something radically new - what would that be? What Steam did was not radically new, it was the systematic application of relatively obvious ideas by a company with the resources and content to make this stick. Yet you're asking their competitors to pass a much, much higher bar. Why?
This seems to be a rather underinformed view of the games industry. Most studios are small. Sure, the huge ones take the vast majority of profits (and to a large extent, sales), and there's little reason to support these. EA or Activision is no better than Valve or Epic, after all. But for all the small ones? That 18% increase, or EGS buying a guaranteed minimum copies of their game might be the difference between them going bankrupt or not. These studios don't generally have well-off CEOs or the like. I'm not talking about pay raises in big companies, I'm talking about small companies staying afloat and being able to pay their employees at all. The EAs and Activisions of the world will be okay nearly no matter what (and the ways in which they mistreat their developers are generally not pay related.)
As for "most people are cynical" (yes, that's a paraphrasing of your first sentence) ... is that an argument for ... also being so? If anything, it's an argument for the opposite, no? It's also rather weird to somehow project the evils of predatory capitalism solely onto Epic, as if they are somehow worse than Valve in this regard.
But they weren't the first. That was the entire point. Steam grew big due to exclusives. In particular, HL2 and its derivatives. Also, comparing EGS to a decade-old smartphone ... I still haven't seen any actual descriptions of how using EGS makes for a worse gameplay experience. I would honestly love to hear some.That's just how things are. If you're the first, all you need to do is be there. I remember how crap the first smartphones were, but they evolved. Try to release an equally crap smartphone now. Nobody will buy it.
Not the end of the world, but I imagine it would be very uncomfortable to use it with my shopping style. When I see a game that I like, I move it to my wish list. During big sales, I take a look at my list, and buy several, most often heavily discounted games at the same time. One more reason to stay with Steam and GOG, I guess.