News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
I personally feel like it's a bit too late for any launcher to jump into Achievements at this point. Reminds me of Origin doing the same.
There's a point where it's just not worth the effort and no one is really going to care.
All 3 of the big ones have one thing in common, they've had achievements for a long time now.
No one really wants to "start" over at this rate if they actually care for them.
There's a point where it's just not worth the effort and no one is really going to care.
All 3 of the big ones have one thing in common, they've had achievements for a long time now.
No one really wants to "start" over at this rate if they actually care for them.
New generation of players tho, that's what Epic is betting on, Mainly fortnite players jumping into their ecosystem hoping they invest money in third party games, I don't think it's too late for anything, it's just waiting for the right people, I guess.
I guess anything is possible but I don't see it taking off unless really pronounced offerings are tied to them. Gotta have an angle that really lets them stand out from the rest even for a new generation. Trophy rates across the board are already low for the most part on any platform.
That's true, I'm not a trophy hunter myself or even care about them so I never checked the rates for them anywhere, but we will see I guess ^^
I think eggs planned to have the barest bones launcher but the kick back from players has swayed them to implement the basic minimum things that they can get away with. So for many people that'll be cloud saves and achievements and perhaps one or two more (and maybe a shopping cart). Once people decide that there is enough value in its launcher and the numbers are good (actual numbers of people buying games) they will not bother with anything else.
I was gonna write a joke about how epic would allow it because Tim would say "free market".
But then i refrained from posting, cause I thought they would say anything because it require some work to do.
Guess I was wrong.
E:
so he posted this like 3 weeks ago:
But then i refrained from posting, cause I thought they would say anything because it require some work to do.
Guess I was wrong.
E:
so he posted this like 3 weeks ago:
Last edited:
He buys land in order to protect/conserve the forest and its wildlife (and I'll admit that is the only thing about him that I respect even if most of that money comes from crunching his developers to death).
Ofcourse they are, now imagine the "metaverse" powered by blockchain and fueled by NFTs.
Tim Sweeny describing blockchain as a utility or tool, separate from cryptocurrency, is both pretending that blockchain has any meaningful application outside of cryptocurrency AND has not been the key mechanism by which cryptocurrency gained any semblance of legitimacy.
In other words, blockchain and cryptocurrency are SO inseprable at this point, it completely shifts the onus onto ardent blockchain supporters to show why blockchain needs to be used and why an existing method would not work better, all while not relying on or leading to crypto/NFTs/etc. junk.
So far, I have yet to see or hear of anything that needs blockchain that is not crypto OR could not be done with other more established methods.
In other words, blockchain and cryptocurrency are SO inseprable at this point, it completely shifts the onus onto ardent blockchain supporters to show why blockchain needs to be used and why an existing method would not work better, all while not relying on or leading to crypto/NFTs/etc. junk.
So far, I have yet to see or hear of anything that needs blockchain that is not crypto OR could not be done with other more established methods.
It's like reading the title of an Onion article
1000%,
By this point, satire sites have to just literally throw their hands up and chuck in the towel. Reality is its own satire. If Epic announced the handheld Epic Patio, I would not even be fazed.
Honest question, what benefit would there be to using blockchain for games or any kind of Epic Fortnite nonsense?
None as far as I know, but Epic could rack a obscene amount of money if they decide to NFT some Fortnite skins while this stuff is hot, than they would be forced to blockchain that shit.
You all misunderstand Epic's intent here and aren't following the through-line: their priority is to ensure you don't get to play video games. Their exclusivity program isn't working, so now they're going to work to ensure you can't buy the hardware needed to run them,
In the context of gaming, blockchain taps into the idea that the digital goods you own, would be more legitimate since your ownership of the goods would be unique and recorded (e.g. Developer adds a good that once you obtain, it is tied to you in a way that no one else could own that exact item unless you transfer ownership to someone else). The fact that you would own the digital good in a broader sense is enticing for folks who think that means they can profit from that ownership and are likely to pay more to obtain those goods than they would otherwise since it is not just acquiring the good for use within the game world, but something transferable to real world wealth.
The fact that folks would likely pay more to obtain digital goods tied to blockchain, is a chance for developers and publishers to exploit folks for more money. Suddenly that horse armor goes from $5 dollars to $500 dollars since it is uniquely tied to the person who purchased it. The person that purchased it is led to believe that they are not just buying something to use in game, they are investing in an item that will be worth many times more at some point.
In short, the benefit is maximizing revenue from a player base who is speculatively investing in a game goods (Of course, while ignoring the possibility of folks losing a lot of money for what amounts to digital Beanie Babies).
Of course, folks will try to handwave that blockchain in gaming does not need to revolve around making money or whatnot, but I have never seen someone give an idea that was more than one degree removed from someone trying to make a lot of money off of someone's hope that they might make a lot of money.
Reason: Added a clarifier "in gaming"
Last edited:
So from a development or code/creation perspective, it offers no value or improvement on existing frameworks. It's simply for the same reason NFT and bitcoin use it, but now with game items.
Essentially, or at least, that is how games have been trying to implement it since really the only other uses of blockchain are limited.
For instance, the game that was banned off of Steam had the following listed in their features:
Of course, some folks focus on the non-crypto/NFT uses of blockchain to defend it while failing to address how those uses could not be solved through established means (i.e. why is a blockchain needed; what is being solved by blockchain) and/or ignoring how those uses are fraught with companies only trying to capture the attention of investors (e.g. there are already companies using or planning to use blockchain, but this might be more trend chasing rather than a confidence in the use case). As I mentioned above, I still think legitimizing blockchain in a broader sense, brings with it the legitimizing of crypto/NFTs as they are almost inseparable since blockchain is what has given legitimacy to the value of crypto/NFTs, which is why I think the cons vastly outweigh the pros in using blockchain for anything and everything under the sun, let alone gaming.
I could rant more, but I will pause for now haha.
I'm visualizing a piece of cardboard duct taped over a phone with Fortnite pre-installed.
As an old comic book fan I don't hate the multiverse because I got some cool comics from that theory.
In the sense that advertisers are using it, it can die in a fiery hell along with whoever first coined it in that context.
Edit: Sigh, my brain isn't firing up this morning. Missed the Mulit vs Metaverse. However my statement about Fiery Hells still stands.
It's metaverse, which I still don't know is despite having asked it once.
Multiverse is just different universes have intertwined with each other for complex and confusing stories
The old definition of metaverse was stories spread across different media formats that are all canon and all form the same univers. Think Halo Games, Comics and Books all being part of the same universe.
I think what sweeney is talking about is a bastardisation of that. Look at Fortnight, it's not unusual to see something a Stomtrooper, Wonderwoman, Chun-Li and Magneto all on the battlefield at the same time. I think they want to expand it further so you can run around as the Colonel with a KFC bucket on your head or some over advertisers wet dream. The real clever trick behind all this is that they already have kids paying them to advertise the latest MCU film or TV series and I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow get a deal with the upcoming Batman film.
I am sure the end goal for the likes of Epic is far more complex than that. But the springboard for it appears to be Fortnite.
I take the metaverse as epic (and others) want to build the hubworld for anything virtual that will eventually change how we interact with technology. Instead of loading into windows/ios/android and then starting a video you just go into fortnite or whatever and walk into the virtual cinema, instead of playing an audio file you go to a concert, instead of clicking on a game you want to play and it then loading you warp into call of duty world from the warp portals in the hubworld town center. As far as user interaction goes turning the OS into a giant game. The advantage being that the average user doesn't have to wrap their head around difficult and abstract concepts like applications and files at all anymore, that is stuff for tech enthusiasts.
And you'd want to be the first/biggest metaverse of course because as the ultimate middleman you'd profit off of everything.
And you'd want to be the first/biggest metaverse of course because as the ultimate middleman you'd profit off of everything.
So 4 million copies redeemed in the first day and ~1 million a day thereafter.
They are missing a shitload of new good looking games, games that are releases on both like B4B and BF2042 have been on Steams top seller list (B4B has been on top on Steam since the release) and a ton of other good looking indie games and bigger games only have Steam store pages or announced for Steam (Choo Choo Charles, Propnight seems to have made quite som splash in social media to give a quick example) and a lot of bigger games for the next few months not coming to EGS (Elden Ring, Halo, Forza etc.)
Remember, Valve has been in this game for so damn many years, they know what's going on, them being private and self-funded also allows them the creative freedom to look at the competition in a way GOG, Epic, MS etc. can't. Like, Epic is private, but not self-funded, the majority of companies are not self-funded.
Everything points to that the people working at Valve are passionate PC players themself in opposite to a lot of other companies having their own storefront on PC and Valve being both private and sef-funded means that the one people they need to listen to is the end-user - the people who plays games on PC. Other companies can't do that. Epic need to listen to investors and others funding them.
Valve can do whatever they wanna do as long as the laws allows it, Epic etc. can't. If Tencent wants Epic to start a paywall for online, Epic needs to negotiate and disuss that, if a company approached Valve with a paywall for online plan, Valve can tell them to fuck off.
Last edited:
VERY well said. I can't stress enough how important this is, it's the reason why PC gaming is as great and open as it is today.
Imagine what happened if a company like Microsoft was in control of PC gaming. We would have been playing €70 games with multiplayer locked behind the Xbox Live paywall, and mods would be impossible because of locked game files. While Epic probably wouldn't do most of these things, they wouldn't have done many of the great things that Valve did either (3rd party keystores or user reviews for example).
Not only being private, which a lot of companies like Epic and Valve are, but also self-funded, which only Valve is, is extremely important for creative freedom and doing things the way they want. Like even a "small" investment like 10 million into a company like CDPR or Epic can change a lot regardless how many times the company bosses says nothing changes. Because that 10 million investment will always hang over he company's shoulders and the company investing can whenever they want pop up and say "no, we don't like what you are doing".
Valve should price themself lucky for having started as a self-funded company, a game like HL Alyx and a product like the Steam Deck could most likely not have happened or Valve would have discussed with any company or people giving them money.
I have no doubt that a ton of companies would have loved investing, funding or giving money to Valve, but them rejecting it all gives them very important creative control.
Valve should price themself lucky for having started as a self-funded company, a game like HL Alyx and a product like the Steam Deck could most likely not have happened or Valve would have discussed with any company or people giving them money.
I have no doubt that a ton of companies would have loved investing, funding or giving money to Valve, but them rejecting it all gives them very important creative control.
steam: "we've worked out a algorithm that detects when game files are broken and automatically remove them from the store"
epic: "BROKEN GAMES WELCOME"
steam: "im allergic to bananas"
epic: "BANANA-BASED CURRENCY ONLY".
epic: "BROKEN GAMES WELCOME"
steam: "im allergic to bananas"
epic: "BANANA-BASED CURRENCY ONLY".
Last edited:
So, the question of what the metaverse is came up yesterday. Funnily enough the BBC have a small article about just that.
BBC’s metaverse article
Tl;dr it’s 50-60 year olds ideas of ready player one but with less Gundams and more corporate BS
BBC’s metaverse article
Tl;dr it’s 50-60 year olds ideas of ready player one but with less Gundams and more corporate BS
I saw some EGS accounts on sale with all the games offered since day one included on different websites, do we have an idea how many accounts are concerned ? A estimated but reliable number ?
I truly wonder how many real users are collecting the free games (even if they do not play every game they own) and how many are just bots filling up fake accounts.
noted on the document, I think prudis might want to add something on why this is a simultaneous PC release alongside PS when none previous game from this dev was like that ^^
Not like I have 100s of other games I can play instead.
Like literrally, my biggest complaints today is that there's so goddamn many games I can play.
I never got around to playing the first, will be more likely with the Steam Deck.
I am just surprised Epic is still signing exclusives. Like at this point, its the sort of scenario that if someone is planning on using the store, they probably are. Will this be the game, or any game, be the game that pushes someone over? It really feels like they are spending money since they have it.
I would be curious what guarantees look these days and if any devs have leveraged the information from the Apple trial.
I am just surprised Epic is still signing exclusives. Like at this point, its the sort of scenario that if someone is planning on using the store, they probably are. Will this be the game, or any game, be the game that pushes someone over? It really feels like they are spending money since they have it.
I would be curious what guarantees look these days and if any devs have leveraged the information from the Apple trial.
Epic said in February that there were more exclusives coming so I can't say I'm surprised. I'd guess a lot of announcements were pushed back due to COVID and we're just now seeing the next wave of exclusives being revealed.
This one is following the pattern of "indie shown on Sony event = Indie that goes EGS for 12 months"