GOG - Galaxy 2.0: Unite all Game Launchers

It might be a simpler approach. They might simply provide a foreground shell for the native application in the background.
Yep, that's most likley how it's done. Just like Steam starting the UPlay client
Also there needs to be some kind of services where the GOG client can remoteley ask other stores to share some information like bought/installed games, playtime, friends etc. after the user shared the account name and some verification.
 
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,968
Location
Germany
Epic Games isn't some no-name company who lucked into one profitable game as you would have us believe. It's one of the big three early pioneers of shooters along with Valve and id Software, and it develops the most popular engine used for big-name games today. Did you have these same concerns back when a similar company, Valve, created a platform and started selling games? If so, did those concerns turn out to be warranted?


Complete and utter horseshit, nothing like that has been proven. Anyone can run Process Monitor and see stuff that any complex piece of Windows software is doing and be able to call it "nefarious looking". You yourself linked Epic's explanation of what was going on with the Epic Store app earlier in this thread, it's pretty innocent by any reasonable estimation, and there's no real reason to disbelieve them unless you've got a case of EDS (Epic Derangement Syndrome). Stop spreading garbage FUD.

Yes, I have similar concerns with Valve. The only reason I can tolerate them is because something I already said, and you chose to ignore:

1. Great refund policy
2. Unmatched game roster
3. In-built, unintrusive, useful social capabilities

They have gotten much better over the years, and only then it's BARELY tolerable.

Those things I said about Epic are proven facts and anyone can see it unless they have EFS (Epic Fanboyism Syndrome). They are "innocent?" You mean the guys backhandedly buying out developers to withdraw their games from Steam under the weight of dollar-filled suitcases? Seriously. There's nothing more sad than someone whiteknighting for those who use him to get rich, so how about you stop sucking up, they're not gonna give you a discount anyway. Anyway, not sure why you waste time in a niche RPG site, you should go buy some minor colour hue modification for your gun for a mere 10$ as we speak.
 
Those things I said about Epic are proven facts and anyone can see it unless they have EFS (Epic Fanboyism Syndrome).
Again, they're not proven facts. You just don't know what you're talking about. Let's take one example. Earlier in this thread, you posted this link as if it's some proof that Epic's store is "malware":
https://i.imgur.com/IRjCX3I.png

Now, anyone who uses Process Monitor on a regular basis as part of their job, like myself, would immediately know that saying that screenshot means anything is pretty laughable. But here's a guy who's actually spent the time that I'm not going to, and broken it all down in a post:
https://nickcano.com/epic-games-spyware/

They are "innocent?" You mean the guys backhandedly buying out developers to withdraw their games from Steam under the weight of dollar-filled suitcases? Seriously. There's nothing more sad than someone whiteknighting for those who use him to get rich, so how about you stop sucking up, they're not gonna give you a discount anyway. Anyway, not sure why you waste time in a niche RPG site, you should go buy some minor colour hue modification for your gun for a mere 10$ as we speak.
I've never bought a game on Epic (yet) and I'm not white knighting them. I merely believe in spreading truth and shutting down bullshit. You're spreading bogus FUD for Steam's benefit. It's almost certain that Valve makes more money than Epic Games. Are they using you to get rich?

If you like Steam because they let you get refunds, then just say that and stop spreading bullshit about Epic.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
Yes, I have similar concerns with Valve. The only reason I can tolerate them is because something I already said, and you chose to ignore:

1. Great refund policy
2. Unmatched game roster
3. In-built, unintrusive, useful social capabilities

1. Epic has the 14 days / 2 hours played refund policy. What's to bitch about?
2. Yeah, how come? STEAM is the in this business for the longest time. EPIC tries to change that as good as they can. God forbid they use exclusives in their way…
3. Give the friggin' client time. The STEAM client is a nightmare and is long drowned in the amount of crap the store has to offer. Have you seen the new BETA? It is just laughable..

Why don't you talk about the amount of freebies EPIC has given away and still will at least until the end of 2019? Look what even uPlay gifted away: Watch Dogs, Settlers, a whole bunch of Assasins Creeds… What has STEAM to offer? F2P stuff galore. Laughable, just laughable.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
635
Location
Germany
It is anti competitive because it reduces consumer choices. Epic could for example offer the games at significantly reduce price (they could pay the difference instead of pre-paying the developer) and let the consumer choose. They could also offer free games (they do some of this) to lure consumers to their site. Instead they have chosen a path that reduces consumer platform options (if they desire a specific game).
-
The end game (if they had infinite cash) would to be make all games exclusive on their site. Naturally this can't happen for several reason the least of which they do not have infinite cash.
-
I should have said anti-consumer-choice rather than anti-competitive. So I will add that correction here.

It's actually not anti-competitive, it's pro-competition. Epic is doing the exclusives to boost awareness and market share of their store - ultimately creating more competition in the future. Steps such as this are necessary to rid the PC gaming industry of the 30% Steam tax and will result in better games for everyone later down the line, when game developers aren't paying that huge tax on all their revenue. The notion that Steam deserves 30% of all PC game sales and the developers only deserve 70% is ludicrous on its face, and it's also hurting indie'ish developers most because all the biggest AAA developers have their own stores now and aren't using Steam anymore anyway. (Though if the Steam tax wasn't so high, maybe they'd come back)

Anyway, exclusives have happened before, even before the digital game purchasing age. Wizardry 8 was exclusive to Electronics Boutique (EB Games). Don't remember people bitching about that, they just went where it was being sold and bought it.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
1. Epic has the 14 days / 2 hours played refund policy. What's to bitch about?
2. Yeah, how come? STEAM is the in this business for the longest time. EPIC tries to change that as good as they can. God forbid they use exclusives in their way…
3. Give the friggin' client time. The STEAM client is a nightmare and is long drowned in the amount of crap the store has to offer. Have you seen the new BETA? It is just laughable..

Why don't you talk about the amount of freebies EPIC has given away and still will at least until the end of 2019? Look what even uPlay gifted away: Watch Dogs, Settlers, a whole bunch of Assasins Creeds… What has STEAM to offer? F2P stuff galore. Laughable, just laughable.

This is so pointless.

Firstly, I'll keep saying, Steam is a cancer, I hate it, and I hate that we've become so tame as to have to live with it. What can we do about it, right? Online gaming is the only industry in which this DRM shit is tolerated and accepted. At least with Steam you can share you games with a bunch of friends and family, which you can't do in EGS, by the way. Steam also doesn't force exclusivity on games blackmailing developers with money they've made out of microtransactions in a game formula they copied from someone else and worked far too well. Never saw plagiarism so well rewarded in the history of mankind, but there it is.

And instead of being happy and keeping charging people for redunant skins with a different colour hue, they got greedy and wanted more. It's as if Riot started their own DRM launcher just because they got stupidly rich copying DOTA.

Don't fool yourself, they're not doing this to "diversify gaming". A couple posters here seem to think EGS is some kind of charity, which is laughable. If they wanted to promote game access diversity they'd do similar to GOG, go DRM free and trust players not to abuse it, rather than buy out developers to deny players from playing games in the platform of their choice. Some of you are so unbelievable that it hurts human intelligence to even read it.
 
A topic I find boring turned into a thread of bitching pro and contra.
Nice move people! :D

<imagine popcorn eating gif - too lazy to insert one>
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
This is exactly what is needed….they need something like this for streaming media as well we don't need all these launchers.

Way to go guys, you made this into a personal pissing match.

For the record I hate having to load multiple launchers...it's a pain in the ass, that I would rather not have to do...it's not about how easy it is to do, it's about the hassle of having all these going. I don't care what company does it, just get it done.

This is even worse with netflix, amazon, crave etc...I should be able to turn on my tv and search for a show and it runs from one I pay for. Ease of use.

No other reason trumps ease of use to me.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
5,749
Yes, Epic games,the great and noble company, in partnership with Tencent, a gigantic Chinese gaming company, are determined to help us gamers get out from under the awful tyranny of Steam, to a glorious new future of cheaper games! Wait, they are charging the same price for AAA games on Epic as they do on Steam? Well, disregard that tiny detail! Onwards, to the glorious gamer future led by the noble saviors Epic games/Tencent! :p
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
2,244
Location
Pacific NorthWest, USA!
It is anti competitive because it reduces consumer choices. Epic could for example offer the games at significantly reduce price (they could pay the difference instead of pre-paying the developer) and let the consumer choose. They could also offer free games (they do some of this) to lure consumers to their site. Instead they have chosen a path that reduces consumer platform options (if they desire a specific game).
This has already been covered multiple times on these forums: What you're suggesting isn't possible because the Steam contract doesn't allow you to sell a game at a cheaper price elsewhere, without first removing it from Steam.

Yes, Epic games,the great and noble company, in partnership with Tencent, a gigantic Chinese gaming company, are determined to help us gamers get out from under the awful tyranny of Steam, to a glorious new future of cheaper games! Wait, they are charging the same price for AAA games on Epic as they do on Steam? Well, disregard that tiny detail! Onwards, to the glorious gamer future led by the noble saviors Epic games/Tencent! :p
Some games have already been offered cheaper on Epic, such as Metro Exodus which got a $10 price reduction after being yanked from Steam and made Epic exclusive. I don't think we should expect that in most cases though, the usual benefit is going to be more money to the people who actually make the games and less to Valve (or whoever else is selling the game). If you can't see why that's a very good thing then I don't know what to say.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
This is exactly what is needed….they need something like this for streaming media as well we don't need all these launchers.

Way to go guys, you made this into a personal pissing match.

For the record I hate having to load multiple launchers…it's a pain in the ass, that I would rather not have to do…it's not about how easy it is to do, it's about the hassle of having all these going. I don't care what company does it, just get it done.

This is even worse with netflix, amazon, crave etc…I should be able to turn on my tv and search for a show and it runs from one I pay for. Ease of use.

No other reason trumps ease of use to me.

That's why I'm actually quite optimistic that, in time, unification of media license management will occur. I think that, in the end, the improvement of the user experience and ease of use, as it affects the whole market, will outweigh the logic of their squabbling.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
That's why I'm actually quite optimistic that, in time, unification of media license management will occur. I think that, in the end, the improvement of the user experience and ease of use, as it affects the whole market, will outweigh the logic of their squabbling.

Occasionally you have these brilliant moments of optimism. Almost like you forget human nature :)
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,871
Occasionally you have these brilliant moments of optimism. Almost like you forget human nature :)

I don't think it requires a magical improvement in human behavior. I think there's an incentive that can be seen at play in the tech industry, that pushes towards open standards. I think the logic of it is essentially that when the status quo favours a dominant incumbent, it's often to the advantage of the competitors to nullify that advantage through co-operation. The web is almost entirely built on open standards, Flash has been largely killed off by HTML5, they're working on killing off proprietary media codecs with AV1, they're consolidating DRM through EME, and so on.

I can't be sure, of course, that the same thing will occur with game licensing, but I don't think it's all that far fetched. I suspect eventually they will realise the cost of customer frustration, and probably increased piracy (we have a couple of vocal and energetic Epic pirates aboard the craft) because of all the walled gardens.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Back
Top Bottom