Your controversial gaming opinions?
- Thread starter tgrfawcett
- Start date
[
There will also be some that genuinely didn't know that these games (or other EGS exclusives) were even on PC in the first place.
Personally, I have Steam running constantly. I browse the store from time to time. Therefore I'm often aware of new or upcoming games from that alone. I have no reason for EGS to be open unless I'm specifically playing an EGS game. All my friends are on Steam, most games are on Steam, most games I'm currently playing are on Steam - so I have a reason to keep it open and to be on Steam. With EGS and Ubi Connect and EA Desktop etc. I have no reason to open them usually. They very much feel like launchers while Steam feels like a platform/ecosystem. And I don't even dislike them. I actually quite like what Ubisoft has done with Ubisoft Connect. It's good for what it is IMO. EGS often has cheaper prices than even Steam key sellers in my region which I've taken advantage of in many cases but not all.
Not everyone who prefers to use Steam is some kind of anti-anything but Steam zealot. Some people want to play the games on their Steam Deck without jumping through hoops. Others want to use their controller of choice, again without having to jump through hoops. Some might like collecting/selling Trading Cards. Others still might prefer Steam Achievements. Or they want to use Steam Remote play. Or Steam Remote Play Together. Some people prefer keeping their library in one place. There are a few multiplayer games that split the playerbase by PC store, so buying those on EGS instead of Steam is not a great idea. Some may just be anti-EGS solely for their exclusivity policy over the years. Some people have concerns over the longevity of EGS given how low game sales are and don't feel secure in spending money there. These are all things that have been discussed to death and then some.
There will also be some that genuinely didn't know that these games (or other EGS exclusives) were even on PC in the first place.
Personally, I have Steam running constantly. I browse the store from time to time. Therefore I'm often aware of new or upcoming games from that alone. I have no reason for EGS to be open unless I'm specifically playing an EGS game. All my friends are on Steam, most games are on Steam, most games I'm currently playing are on Steam - so I have a reason to keep it open and to be on Steam. With EGS and Ubi Connect and EA Desktop etc. I have no reason to open them usually. They very much feel like launchers while Steam feels like a platform/ecosystem. And I don't even dislike them. I actually quite like what Ubisoft has done with Ubisoft Connect. It's good for what it is IMO. EGS often has cheaper prices than even Steam key sellers in my region which I've taken advantage of in many cases but not all.
Thid post does not belong here. There should be an "awful take" thread
That's a very reasonable response, but there are also many people who flat out refused to play Alan Wake 2 (single-player, not Steam Deck friendly) because it was exclusive to the EGS. That's something I find very disconcerting.
Console wars are toxic but at least they are based on physical reality to a degree. If you don't own a console, you can't play games on that console. Launcher wars are entirely about… software launchers. People want to stick it to big corpo Epic by… supporting big corpo Valve? I think it's having a negative effect in gaming at large, and consequently on the discourse in this forum as well. There's a lot that would be tagged as console warring and ban-worthy in a discussion between PlayStation and Xbox (or Nintendo), that is casually accepted instead when the platform of choice is Steam (not PC, Steam specifically). Criticism of EGS is basically a Wild West where anything goes in a way that doesn't make sense as ultimately, it's tangential to video games. Once you launch the game, it doesn't really matter what store you're using. It's not hardware, it doesn't make the game perform better. It's just a store.
Oh. I am lol.
But yes, I think it's stupid that people religiously consider Steam the only PC platform that they are willing to touch. It's a fucking launcher, like are you here to play games or here to get upset about the first 9 seconds of the experience not being the same series of button presses as other games.
I get that it's nice to have everything in one place because it's hard to remember things, but not at the expense of refusing to acknowledge the existence of and even create animosity toward games that aren't on Steam. That is veering far too close to corporate boot licking behaviour.
Also, GoG Galaxy exists, Playnite exists, etc, if you want a unified launcher.
"just" a launcher, that:
- has universal controller support for all sorts of controllers thats basically plug and play
- has vast social features that allow you to take and upload screenshots accsible from your profile (I have over 15k screenshots, as someone that loves virtual photography, its a fantastic, easy way to show stuff off to my friends and obviously to archive for myself)
- family sharing
- Steam Deck. Do I need to say more?
- has multiple knick-knacks that helps build attachment, like steam cards that you can turn into small bits of money or create badges to display on your profile (I have bought multiple games over the years from accumulating hundreds of card drops)
And there's a lot of other fluff like user reviews, guides, workshop, blah blah. Some obviously game specific, but still.
Steam may "just" be a launcher at its core but as a platform it's basically the most robust of them all, consoles included. I personally find it extremely easy to give a game a pass if its not on steam, unless its something I am absolutely dying to play. Steam brings me a lot of added value that I'm not comfortable throwing away especially when there's more games to play than time I have anyway.
I will say I was and am careful not to come across or have anybody else 'dumb down' this little bugbear of mine into terms such as 'launcher wars' - it's merely a shorthand to be used for ease of understanding.
I went all in on PC GamePass and it was not a nice time. I watched Origin go through its growing pains to become quite a well-oiled machine, Battle Net is probably my most used thanks to Overwatch.
I got a Deck and yes I'm amazed at how smug I feel but that's a tick for it not against it.
Back to my original point though, I think there is a correlation beteeen what I'm trying to get out and saying something like how there are fewer websites now and more larger and consolidated one-stop-shops that people are only getting onboard because they need to do so.
Uber Eats is a great example. I admire one particular local outlet that I still order from the traditional way. Yes I would say it's more convenient for me if they joined, but I admire them for not doing so all the same.
I went all in on PC GamePass and it was not a nice time. I watched Origin go through its growing pains to become quite a well-oiled machine, Battle Net is probably my most used thanks to Overwatch.
I got a Deck and yes I'm amazed at how smug I feel but that's a tick for it not against it.
Back to my original point though, I think there is a correlation beteeen what I'm trying to get out and saying something like how there are fewer websites now and more larger and consolidated one-stop-shops that people are only getting onboard because they need to do so.
Uber Eats is a great example. I admire one particular local outlet that I still order from the traditional way. Yes I would say it's more convenient for me if they joined, but I admire them for not doing so all the same.
Neither controversial or a gaming opinion but thanks for playing.
Statistically speaking, given the time difference between NV and 1/2, that's probably just true.
It's fine to charge £50 for a 5 hour game.
You don't have to buy it, but tying the cost of entry to quality rather than arbitrary length seems entirely reasonable.
How much you're willing to pay for a thing is tied to how much value you feel it delivers. For too many that value is tied to how much or how long you can engage with the thing.
In a cost-of-living-crisis time I do understand, and people should vote with their wallets but the immediate takes that a game that short should never cost that much are silly.
You don't have to buy it, but tying the cost of entry to quality rather than arbitrary length seems entirely reasonable.
How much you're willing to pay for a thing is tied to how much value you feel it delivers. For too many that value is tied to how much or how long you can engage with the thing.
In a cost-of-living-crisis time I do understand, and people should vote with their wallets but the immediate takes that a game that short should never cost that much are silly.
I'm not sure about that in 2024, but I do wish it would come back and vastly prefer it to what we have now.
I liked the dumb pageantry that created memes and discussion points for days or weeks afterward. I liked having genuine crowd reactions to stuff. I liked that you had all of the industry's luminaries in one place for a week, giving interviews and sitting on couches to talk about games. Hell I even to some extent miss the arguing about who of the three "won" E3 every year.
It felt more alive than what we have now. The energy was just different.
I wonder if Steam is also more liked because it accepts more payment methods and is just nicer to use, i mean, you don't even need credit cards to buy Steam games, i don't think there are EGS or GOG wallet cards, but there are with Steam, a kid can just buy them with their allowance, or you can give them as a physical gift or just buy one at a store.
Not that i think Steam Wallet Cards are that big...i don't know honestly, but is just one example of how Steam just has more to it including payment methods than any other launcher.
Not that i think Steam Wallet Cards are that big...i don't know honestly, but is just one example of how Steam just has more to it including payment methods than any other launcher.
I agree, but I would change that to "E3 is important for the gaming community."
The industry is fine* but it's the sense of community and comradery that's completely gone. Nothing is unified and everything feels so...sterile.
*Well no, it's not. It's actually in dire straits but that has nothing to do with E3.
This. I genuinely can't fathom people who say they don't miss it, or that we aren't worse off without it.
E3 was our Christmas. Our Super Bowl. Our World Cup. And now it's just...gone.
I'm so over people saying that SGF is a poor replacement for E3. This isn't a comment on the quality of SGF, but more than it's never been a replacement for E3. It's a different thing.
The choice was never between E3 or SGF. E3 was always going to die because the publishers decided they didn't need or want it anymore (Covid helped demonstrate that for them, but they wouldn't have worked it out eventually anyway). The real choice is between an industry with no E3 or SGF, and an industry that at least has SGF in it. Like the alternative to SGF is just nothing, or maybe someone other than Geoff taking up the mantle, but I fail to see how that'd be any different from what he's already doing.
Like yeah Geoff's a bit of an opportunist in that he's used E3's death to promote his own stuff, but that's just good marketing really. The reality is he didn't kill E3 and he's just filling part of the gap that E3 left behind.
The choice was never between E3 or SGF. E3 was always going to die because the publishers decided they didn't need or want it anymore (Covid helped demonstrate that for them, but they wouldn't have worked it out eventually anyway). The real choice is between an industry with no E3 or SGF, and an industry that at least has SGF in it. Like the alternative to SGF is just nothing, or maybe someone other than Geoff taking up the mantle, but I fail to see how that'd be any different from what he's already doing.
Like yeah Geoff's a bit of an opportunist in that he's used E3's death to promote his own stuff, but that's just good marketing really. The reality is he didn't kill E3 and he's just filling part of the gap that E3 left behind.
Absolutely agree. I mostly play RPGs and UI/menus are so important. If I'm on the fence and you don't have previews of the menus, I'll just not buy and move on..
I get missing it and having nostalgia for it, but the posts about it are just so over the top. Like, okay you didn't actually didn't lose Christmas, they are commercials, that you're still getting.
I missed Toonami while it was gone, I was still able to watch anime. And now that it's back I'm still watching it the new way.
Yep. They think of the Sony 2013 conference and reimagine all of E3 as being that. Most of the time it was some EA guy talking to a bewildered Pele about the new knee animations in FIFA.
FF can still keep the same quality and sell more, but we all know what does it have to do to get there
which, funnily enough, is the main "opposite" reaction that I find in these FF threads. a lot of people just want more sales without realising that the main deterrent against it is not just platform availability or marketing, but the fact that these games are simply not built to reach a big portion of gaming audience today
and I get it. people don't want things to change. they like it too much and they are afraid of what can happen to it if it changes. I dont agree with that stance but I know why people have it, it's a tough ask
This isn't a controversial opinion, or even gaming-related. People have been ignoring OPs since the days forums began lol.
Also think it generally applies to moments where a more recent highly regarded entry has some large time gap to the original also highly regarded entrie(s).
ex: Deus Ex Human Revolution to Deus Ex (11 years), Baldur's Gate 3 to Baldur's Gate 1& 2 (23 years), Doom 1 & 2 to Doom Eternal (26 years).
I think there's an anecdote that a lot of contemporary Final Fantasy fans never bothered to play entries earlier than FF7. Of course we should understand there's possibility of a lack of availability for modern systems as old games are rarely carried forward with the same effort as more recent titles rather than just "EW! SMELLY OLD GAME."
It was a complete tonal and gameplay shift from CE. The changes in what the franchise was and how the games played never really recovered from it. The entire franchise is much closer in everything its done to H2 than CE.
I can't and won't take E-Sports seriously until people start using their real names and not their Gamertags.
Regarding the Steam vs other launchers discussion.
I am not a Steam purist and use all launchers, direct from dev methods, Matrix/Slitherine, etc. While there is a potential concern with concentrating too much market control and revenue through Valve I also just can't be bothered with policing others preferences.
I've been noticing that more recently where Era users are starting to make snide, biting, or sarcastic comments about others preferring Steam. Just seems pointlessly hostile and unproductive. It is especially rich when those comments come from console gamers that congregate in OTs and spend all of their money on a closed platform with one isolated store that entirely depends on the goodwill of the controlling megacorp.
While I definitely wish there wasn't one dominant store on PC I just don't see the point in policing others preferences. There is enough shit in the gaming industry and discourse already. Hostile drive by comments won't get anyone to change their preference, probably just reinforces a digging in of heels. Just let people enjoy their preferences and let the chips fall where they may.
Relatedly, I really miss Stardock's Impulse launcher and Direct2Drives old Xfire like small launcher. Dozens of us!
I am not a Steam purist and use all launchers, direct from dev methods, Matrix/Slitherine, etc. While there is a potential concern with concentrating too much market control and revenue through Valve I also just can't be bothered with policing others preferences.
I've been noticing that more recently where Era users are starting to make snide, biting, or sarcastic comments about others preferring Steam. Just seems pointlessly hostile and unproductive. It is especially rich when those comments come from console gamers that congregate in OTs and spend all of their money on a closed platform with one isolated store that entirely depends on the goodwill of the controlling megacorp.
While I definitely wish there wasn't one dominant store on PC I just don't see the point in policing others preferences. There is enough shit in the gaming industry and discourse already. Hostile drive by comments won't get anyone to change their preference, probably just reinforces a digging in of heels. Just let people enjoy their preferences and let the chips fall where they may.
Relatedly, I really miss Stardock's Impulse launcher and Direct2Drives old Xfire like small launcher. Dozens of us!
I'm thankful my Christmases weren't just boxes filled with vague hype and promises of things I might be able to purchase months or years later.
And your right we're getting the same games whether they all get announced at one event or not. Also a lot of us weren't in the right time zone so your having to comb through way too many things being announced at the same time the next day. It was a mess, and cool smaller games would be lost under the big hype pieces.
I've been playing Ghost of Tsushima on PS4 again after seeing some streams of the PC version that recently released, and while I do enjoy the game a lot and think it's a great game, it's kind of just Assassin's Creed Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla at its core. I personally don't think that's a bad thing, I love me some Odyssey, but I feel like a lot of the discussion online kind of elevates Tsushima as "above" those other games when they're basically siblings. I felt like this about Shadow of Mordor as well, it was very much just another Assassin's Creed 2 but with an admittedly pretty neat extra system bolted on.
To get more praise than Ubisoft on something, all you have to do is do it and not be Ubisoft.
Not that there isn't a ton a of criticism they deserve, but one it comes to game design itself ... it's like a whole different rulebook with people.
What do you mean? I used to love waking up at 2am (UK time) for like three nights in a row to watch some soulless executive have a scripted conversation with a minor celebrity about a game neither of them have or will play.
Like sure, moments like the Twilight Princess reveal, or Sony's 2013 and 2015 conferences, were cool to see live. But the majority of the experience of watching E3 online was watching a random suit use phrases like "bombastic action" or "player engagement" about games that you'll probably not actually play and will get a 80 MC at best.
I've played Ghost, Origin and Odyssey and I would say Ghost is the best of those three. I feel like whereas the AC games got larger and more unwieldy, Ghost came along and was a more focused, refined version of that template. Like yeah they're the same format, but Ghost is the better version of that, at least to my taste.
Last edited:
I didn't even watch E3 live, but it was a fun time at the old place. Think the site would go down due to traffic sometimes. Lots of enjoyable threads. I miss the general vibe of excitement. But perhaps we've outgrown such things.
I actually understand this even though I don't hate Halo 2 I do admit it's my least favorite Bungie Halo for campaign and is very much a different game than many want to admit. CE is very light and far more interested in mechanical play than 2 is and in a way I feel CE has far more in common with shooters like Red Faction, Renegade, Elite Force, etc. Halo 2 though is heavily scripted, linear, and far more story & set piece focussed.
I could get more granular (like 2s vehicle sections greatly discourage you from leaving a vehicle as oppose to CE's more back & forth moments) but I will add I feel like Halo 3 tried to go back to CE at least in levels and trying to be more about "play" like CE. It's somewhat like Mass Effect 2 for me in how I felt it departed too much from what I loved about ME1 despite 2 being uninamously celebrated as "superior" and so I never felt I got the real sequel.
Yep, 100% spot on in how I feel too. Even though I never got into he mass effects.
Yeah and it's not even full price. The value proposition is still better than most other hobbies/experiences and there's an alternative if it's not financially viable in playing it through gamepass. The length should only matter in evaluation if it negatively impacts the experience by not feeling complete. Like The Order and Ground Zeros just felt like extended prologues both in terms of gameplay and story. I only played a bit of Hellblade last night, but it just seems like it's just ultra focused on its strengths. I can't imagine preferring that be potentially diluted by padding it out just so you can feel a bit better about buying it. Like is there even a meaningful difference in "value" between a 5 and 8 hour experience? You got 1 or 2 extra play sessions out of it.
Excellent point Mr Vegas
I don't mind what name they use, I will never take esports seriously
It's not Soulsborne, it's just Souls.
Look, I like Bloodborne. It's a good game. But it was one game that came out a decade ago and its design was an evolution of what From had done in Demon's Souls.
Just… we know. If you call something a Souls-like, everyone knows you mean Bloodborne too.
Look, I like Bloodborne. It's a good game. But it was one game that came out a decade ago and its design was an evolution of what From had done in Demon's Souls.
Just… we know. If you call something a Souls-like, everyone knows you mean Bloodborne too.
The whole price thing is crazy because its a 15 dollars for a movie ticket for 2 hours of your time... and 4x that for a game that even if it takes 8 hours of your time or you get 8 hours of enjoyment.... somehow isn't worth the time or money.
Yooka Laylee is really good. Not as good as Banjo Kazooie or Tooie but a totally worthy sequel. People acted like it was a travesty only because it became the popular thing to dogpile on.
But this is consistent with people's outlook on spending money on movies as well. Take one look at movie theater sales. Most people don't think that 15/2hrs is worth their money when they have endless stuff to watch at home already. Sort of similar to how they already have infinite GAAS games to spend their time on rather than 10 hr detour through a new narrative based game.
Which is fine if they don't then go on to loudly yell about how yet another studio has been closed or shifted to GAAS or yet another beloved franchise is being put on ice because people don't flippin' buy the games they scream they want publishers to make.
$70 for a single player game is not an unreasonable ask. If you want more of them, you have to be willing to prioritize and pony up. If it's not that important to you, no problem, but you give up the right to be upset about the onset of infinite GAAS.
I agree with that.
Think if they did an "Ultra Games" and released games under a different name, people would give them more slack. Their games are usually well made.
I think they also had a period of samey games releasing very close together which created "Ubisoft game" chatter making it easy to dismiss them
I think Ubisoft comes across as an incredibly frightened company and the failure of their ability to make Skull & Bones into something interesting after over a fucking decade of development just confirms it. They are kneecapped by Assassin's Creed. They literally can't fathom making any kind of non-Tom Clancy game that isn't Assassin's Creed and, as a result, I tend to handwave a lot of what could be interesting game settings and premises away because they've jammed Assassin's Creed into it.
Greek mythology? Vikings? Pirates? Ninjas? Totally solid concepts for a high budget single player game and Ubisoft is scared shitless of putting them out as their own thing and it shows and it's off-putting.
Maybe that comes across as flimsy criticism but that level of creative cowardice actually does impact my interest in their games.
I can sort of agree, but you don't need to tell me lol. I am already buying $35 4k blu-rays and full priced games day one that I do want. It is undeniable that the market at large has shifted in recent years and a small number of people who agree with us are probably not enough to keep everything afloat. The people complaining are probably already part of the minority that do find the games worth it.
But we saw what happened with Immortals and sales. Starlink.
This pretends Watch Dogs didn't exist.
Mario + Rabbids doesn't count I guess.
And how many devs have worked on the same IP for 20+ years and we just compliment them for innovating something old when they could've done what you're suggesting.
I'm not even that big a fan personally, but I can't unsee all the strays.
For what it's worth, I'd put something like Activision in the same category.
It's just disheartening is all. I know there are a lot of talented devs at Ubisoft and I'm completely guilty of ignoring their work because I can't stand Assassin's Creed lore.
Skull and Bones was like the closest thing I've ever seen to a layup in my life after Black Flag and look at what happened. They couldn't get out of their own way.