Reviews are actually a very good way to see how well your system will run, but it's obviously only a generalized tool, not to be taken as literal.
Just look at AssCree:Ori
There are reviews that will
List specs, only listen to these ones
State their average frames
State their general performance experience
State issues
State benefits
Listen only to the longest, most coherent reviews and you'll get a fairly accurate measurement. Origins in particular has a definite varying performance issue that other games usually don't have.
Except they sell private information and leaked emails have proven them to be giant scumfucks. They will also look for information they don't have, and never delete it, meaning you are at risk of having it leaked or sold to the wrong people.
Like you know, scam callers
Their entire business model is in the selling of data. They're worse than the government on this.
1.5m Users Hit By New Facebook Privacy Breach As Extent Of Data ..
Confidential emails sent by Facebook executives leaked online | ..
Facebook discussed cashing in on user data, emails suggest | Tec..
Sorry, but that is bullshit, a lot of recent launches has performance problems like Monster Hunter World, Just Cause 4, Fallout 76, etc. Do you think that people that criticize them are circle-jerking or
something? Can you give me a proof that "most of the time" are misinformed people writing these reviews?
I... don't know what to say to this honestly... To tell you the truth, I hope you are trolling us with this one.
Like how the fuck can someone not be aware of the issue with FB's data collection lmao
Just like any review aggregation there will be diamonds in the rough, so yeah that makes sense.
Yeah there are some bad apples that like to exploit good systems, I still think the act of using data to cater to the user experience is overall a beneficial practice.
This is completely wrong.
This would only apply to a black and white world, which does not exist.
You SHOULD damn well check user instore reviews to gauge the quality of the product AND look at gameplay videos, and in a perfect world also play a demo of it.
There are NO TRUSTED CRITICS. I'll say it again, there are NO TRUSTED CRITICS, because each person's metrics can be wildly different from yours. The usual "mileage may vary" deal.
The ideal path is to use reviews from multiple sources, and user reviews are IMO better than any trusted critics.
"oh but review bombing!"
Yeah, I think everyone has enough of a brain to tell what is reliable info about the game and what isn't right?... Like, say, some guy gives The Witcher 3 something equivalent to below 5 out of 10. I think its obvious something is wrong there.
Next point..
That is the most absurd thing to be said.
Epic doesn't wants anything like Steam has, which means Epic doesn't even cares about catering to the consumer.
What the fuck. Theres billions of people complaining about data leaks over ads and just complaining about ads and the intrusiveness of companies into our lives to sell as much as they can, and you're perfectly fine with it and even excuse it. Just because it isn't directly hurting you, doesn't means its right.
Congratulations, you've achieved the status of monopoly! The one thing everyone bitches about in regards to Steam, except the "monopoly" Steam has is due to devs preferring it over anything else since, well, everyone has it. This isn't right.
I'd like to emphasize again how it sounds like everyone had their dog killed by Steam aswell.
I'm getting the key on the worser platform, how do you not understand this?...
I think you are misinterpreting something: User data is very valuable for any developer, I tell that as a webdeveloper. Knowing what and where your user have problems on your app/website is super important to improve your product. But there is a line that you can't cross and that is interfere with the user's privacy. Yeah, you can use crash reports so you can know in which part of a game users have problems, you should't use it to sell it to another company to make some easy money.
Facebook promised to not do shitty stuff with your personal data, but the do it anyways. In the Epic Games store, people are scared that Epic was reading you Steam files so they have statics of Steam usage, user personal account and similar stuff. Maybe what they said is correct and they send the Steam Friends data, but is understable that on these days of Facebook and similar companies fucking users on the ass that people suspected that Epic was doing the same.
TLDR: Using data for improving user experience is fine, but companies prefer to make money with it.
So how bout that World War Z game guys, eh?
By trusted critic, I mean a critic you personally trust.
So you're saying EGS has been exonerated of the accusations people use to hate it, but you still hate it because "hey I still think they do it anyway regardless of evidence".
You're saying that isn't really important, but it's pretty huge considering it's the entire basis of your argument for EGS being shitty.
User reviews are viable aswell. Being there hurts nobody.
The game is good? The game sells.
By who? A random guy on this forum and a readily available program on the web? Hey look I'm China, lets do some spying that will easily be caught by a random guy in a forum...
Exonerating a criminal with a mechanic lands you the same spot.
@Staggr , EGS and the tactics used to promote it are just objectively bad for the industry at large. Beyond the usability of the client and the chinese drama, promoting PC store fronts with exclusive games generally isn't a great thing. It happens, but usually with a company's exclusive games. Think Valve, Ubisoft, Beth, etc. It's mildly annoying then, and most people who don't want to bother with multiple clients simply do not.
But what EGS is doing isn't just promoting their own games. They're sniping games off the steam store front in a very aggressive effort to bring as many users over as they possibly can. They're buying games that are about to release and stripping them off the market, they're stealing Kickstarter games that were funded by people expecting the game to be on steam.
For some reason, people look at this tactic and think, 'so what? anyone would do the same.' Those people are usually the same people that repeat the 'steam is a monopoly' point, and manage to miss their own point.
Steam isn't a monopoly, it's a dominant figure in the market. As the dominant, industry leader, it has set some exceptionally good standards. We have instore reviews, user forums attached to every game, curated searches and all of the good stuff. There's some negatives there, too, this post isn't to argue that steam is perfect.
So what standards is the EGS aiming to set?
Restricted power to the consumer, easier obfuscation of game details and statistics, and aggressive market splitting in the name of profit seeking.
Let's say that EGS grows to be a fair competitor to steam using the underhanded tactics that it has. Steam would be all but forced to respond with the same tactics, disturbing the most consumer-friendly section of the gaming industry with anti-consumer tactics that it has never needed to deal with before.
There are ways that the EGS could grow and make its mark in the market without offering developers enough cash they cannot refuse. Exclusives could exist in the PC market, but they often do not because the ecosystem of the PC gaming industry doesn't really promote it. Artificially promoting it is going down a dangerous path, and EGS is diving head first down that path for little reason other than a desire to be a competitor to steam, and having the money to do so. They have nothing to offer the PC market or its consumers, just the promise of features we've come to depend on being stripped in the future.
>"teach me the vietnam war"
>post the entire wiki article full of information
>"wow can you sum it up"
You asked whats so fucked about EGS, people post a post that had plenty of sources showing whats fucked while explaining it, and you feign ignorance and want a summary instead. Hows about you read what people are sending you rather than weaseling out of the argument just because they had the audacity to expect you to read.
I buy games and fund kickstarters based upon their content, not what store they're sold in.
I don't know why people keep insisting I think Steam is a monopoly, I said nothing like that.
Which has been present in the gaming industry since the first console wars
If you're saying the stores are going to start competing to pay more to game devs, then I'm all for it.
I can see how you think it could be a slippey slope. But for the time being this doesn't hinder my enjoyment of World War Z.
Are you sure you want to start being melodramatic about someone not wanting timed exclusives, scummy business tactics, a poor handling of a platform, illegal data-scrubbing of a blatant and flagrant degree, and people like you jumping up to antagonize anyone that even dares mention it like it's some sort of duty? You're being the exact thing you're bitching about.
I haven't been hostile towards anybody. I just asked a question and stated my opinion afterwards. I already said I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Well, okay. But a lot of people funded Pheonix Point with the specific promise that there would be a steam release. The people who literally funded the game not getting the product the way they were promised is just one of the many ways EGS' aggressive grasp for exclusives has disturbed the consumers in this scenario.
Yeah, and not really present on the PC. Which was a core point I was making in that post - the PC market is extremely pro-consumer compared to the console market. Why are we looking to shake that, exactly?
No. I'm saying that Steam is in a much better position to force the consumers' hand in regard to game availability. There's over a decade worth of user investment on that platform, for good reason. If more and more PC storefronts start engaging in underhanded anti-consumer tactics like storefront exclusives, what do you think Steam would be able to do to the industry? What would the PC gaming market look like after another decade of the store fronts fighting over game exclusives? (and yeah Steam's position is pretty bad, they should have that power diminished. Without impacting the consumer standards they've set so far.)
Again, this is just a "well, okay" statement. There's nothing to respond here, I don't think anyone cares about how you're enjoying World War Z or any EGS title. They're probably all fun video games. You came into this thread and specifically threw it off course by going against the general discourse, but refusing to research many of the points raised. What is your point here? I know I pinged you back into this thread, but it was because I assumed you had some interest in answering your initial question of why people are getting pissed at EGS.
I never brought up EGS, the first post in the thread did.
I said long ago let's agree to disagree but people don't want to let it go so I'm just entertaining y'all.
Is world war z good
Why are you asking this in an EGS thread...?
decent AA game at $35 that scratches the L4D itch, so yeah
If you want to scratch that L4D itch, why not just play L4D? 2 is still very active.
Except that you have, every time you reply to me has been hostile, calling me hiveminded, etc when I've simply been laying out my and others' points, and your reasons for disagreeing have been never stated or have otherwise been proven detrimental to everything else.
After the decidedly mediocre film I really didn't have very high hopes for this game at all. Having seen some streamers play the game themselves though, I'm actually very pleasantly surprised. It seems rather more polished than I'd have expected and while it doesn't seem anything especially standout (it certainly lacks character, so far all I've seen of the survivors indicates little more personality beyond gruff professionalism or angry survivorman/woman) it seems to at least do what it does well enough to earn a golf clap at least. I'd certainly not buy it for £30, but given a few months after a price drop or sale I'd likely consider suggesting it to some friends. The progression system sounds nice and I've heard there's a few PvPvE MP modes which have tickled my fancy as I've always had a bit of a stiffy for those kind of gigs.
There is no convincing; you simply don't give a shit about the consumer. People like you is what gave us loot boxes, gambling, day one DLC and every other abusive practice.
I never said you were hiveminded, I said people you disagree with aren't a hivemind. As in, I didn't see your past arguments from other threads because I wasn't there. Sorry if it came off like that.
Is this what looking into a mirror is like?
I kickstart a game thinking its on the platform I want because of X reasons. It leaves that platform and goes for a completely different system I don't want to deal with, its reason for me to be pissed.
People didn't kickstart because of the platform, because until this shit started being a thing, nobody even thought of such a worry. Its like buying a game on ps4 or xbox, whichever system I have and have used for a while, and suddenly it goes to Ouya for exclusivity.
And we didn't need that shit.
Console wars were laughable. Childish bulshit over very similar hardware configs that boiled down to "who has the best exclusives", and what do your friends have. Back then, those were the only ways to sell specific console systems. Live was payed for in comparison to the free psn, but it still gave you some stuff here and there. And those were dark times imo.
All that pc gaming had going down bad were shitty ports, and the exclusives that we sometimes never got.
And that was fucking awful. You shouldn't have to buy a whole console, to have to submit yourself to services you don't want for a single product you want.
This is where the EGS makes people pissed.
STOP GIVING A FUCK ABOUT GAME DEVS. THEY AREN'T YOUR FRIENDS.
Good fucking god, why are people sobbing over game devs?
I've said this before: your needs are first. Customer should come first, not werther the devs are making boatloads of money or not.
This dickwaving battle of who gives devs more cash is the epitome of greed.
We don't want that competition, because they won't give a fuck about consumers and what they want over the sound of dosh.
Look at Randy Bitchfork. He lies through his teeth saying steam reviews hurt devs, despite having a couple of games that could be bombed to FUCK and back, and still get him ez millions of sales. Why? Because the games are good. Because what matters is the product, not meme reviewers. And yet, he keeps peddling the "steam is shit lol" narrative because those sweet free exclusivity v bucks are tasty af.
This is just gonna spread further. Devs will keep on complaining about steam for baseless reasons, merely because they want to be paid in advance with the exclusive deals.
Again. We don't want store competition, because devs won't give a damn about what consumers want, if it means they can get more from worser anti consumer services.
Your attitude is why things are the way they are.
Because consumers give no fucks about quality anymore.
You know, we should really rename this forum Excuse Us Sir May We Explain To You One More Time Why The Epic Game Store Is Literally The Anti-Christ Forums at this point
How about just don't deliberately rile people up by saying "I don't get it, you are all just crybabies", and then dismiss every concern with "I don't use it thus it isn't important".
Like nothing new gets brought up anyways so I don't even bother to participate.
After so many Epic Games threads, I understand why some online communities use the "lurk moar" phrase so often.
About the game, it really looks like a diet Left 4 Dead, I don't understand why you want to play this if you have the good old L4D2.
Not really, you have to pay money for consoles, not for game launchers.
I work for and have a fair number of friends that are game devs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
