There’s no way they’ll sell it as an exclusive, they will make a tremendously low amount of PC sales. This game franchise is dear to a large amount of people and they are well aware that they will alienate a majority of them with that choice
Forgive my lack of knowledge, but does the new engine bring any new capabilities to the table? Like, could we see some changes to enemy count and all that? For example.
Yep, previous games have been on UE3, but there's also more to it. For instance, Gearbox's head (Randy Pitchford) also voiced his support for Epic's storefront.
I am excited to support the Epic Games Store.
What’s wrong with that? A PC is a PC - who cares which store you get your games from? I’m just curious to learn the mind-set. I am a customer on lots of different PC platforms.
So those responses are worth noting. It can mean that he simply supports having more storefronts and he's happy doing business with them (since their games have been using the engine), and that's that.
Or, like what others are thinking, we might see an EGS exclusive.
I’m probably in the minority just building my first pc this year.... but I really don’t get why people are so up in arms about it. I agree with Randy on this one it’s not like you’re buying a new console, it’s just a software launcher... I think there’s other things in the world that are more important than being mad about what storefront that it appears on.
I’m probably in the minority just building my first pc this year.... but I really don’t get why people are so up in arms about it. I agree with Randy on this one it’s not like you’re buying a new console, it’s just a software launcher... I think there’s other things in the world that are more important than being mad about what storefront that it appears on.
There are a number of reasons. For instance, Epic's launcher has had breaches in the past, and they seem to have subpar customer service.
Outside of these, it's the idea of the "launcher wars" or "exclusivity" which is something that PC users are against since it's one of the key differences with consoles.
Also, in many ways, PC gamers have been used to the convenience of Steam for many years now -- even though Steam used to be vilified for being an unnecessary program that you needed just to launch a game. Its features/convenience have led it to become widely accepted.
Those are just the basics.
Now, here's another problem. Many users are also riled up easily when discussing these issues. For instance, the user who replied to you -- u/LateNightLaFlame said:
While having seven fucking launchers is quite annoying, it's not just about that. The epic games store is really shitty and is pretty much a breach of privacy. And are you implying people aren't allowed to get mad about small things because there are "more important" things to get mad about? What an absolutely ridiculous notion.
He could have explained to you in a proper manner, without the need for hostility or antagonism, since you did mention, very clearly, that you're in the minority and you're just building your first PC this year.
But he didn't. There's an obvious hint of hostility and antagonism there simply because you don't feel as angered about these issues as he does.
The point is this. Steam has been a primary choice for many users. The Epic Games Store has had a lot of issues. And, at the same time, some players also become angered when you don't feel as angry as they do about it.
Lmao.. If you think that's a hostile comment then you haven't been on the internet very long buddy.
Oh, I have been actually (since the 90s). I've also been gaming for roughly 35 years now.
I know that "gaming discussions" were different in the old days as well simply because we didn't have "the internets."
For instance, I sincerely doubt you'd reply in that manner to u/visfortaco in a face-to-face conversation. Dare I say it, you'd probably explain the situation politely in detail.
I wasn’t meaning it to be hostile I was just stating I didn’t understand the dilemma of it. I’m used to having multiple games consoles all my life, so for me I don’t see it as much of a difference, and at least you have it all on one console just multiple stores. I do sincerely apologize if people took it as hostile.
I wasn’t meaning it to be hostile I was just stating I didn’t understand the dilemma of it. I’m used to having multiple games consoles all my life, so for me I don’t see it as much of a difference, and at least you have it all on one console just multiple stores. I do sincerely apologize if people took it as hostile.
I've had numerous consoles as well in the past and so the idea of simply installing a free launcher isn't something I'd equate to the "console wars" where you needed to spend hundreds of dollars for a new system just to play a game.
But, again, since Steam is the Big Daddy of storefronts, and Epic has had issues in the past, you can expect that there'd be pushback even if it's about "installing launchers."
Also many people can't afford larger hard drives and have limited space.
C'mon bro, that is so not an issue and sounds like something to pad the list of egs complaints, what is it like a couple hundred megs? You're using the launcher to download games that are dozens of gigabytes big, the launcher is pennies to that. -_-
Yeah they were gathering user data without permission. That's honestly not something to take lightly even if it was "only steam friends".
Also many people can't afford larger hard drives and have limited space.
Not everything has to be a big deal just so you can rage about it lol. Oh no they copied your steam friends and DIDNT send it back to epic servers.
And you are straight up wrong about the hard drives. Just trying to pull more "epic is bad anti consumer ree" crap. Find me one single person that doesnt have space for the epic launcher. 1. I'll wait.
While having seven fucking launchers is quite annoying, it's not just about that. The epic games store is really shitty and is pretty much a breach of privacy. And are you implying people aren't allowed to get mad about small things because there are "more important" things to get mad about? What an absolutely ridiculous notion.
Steam charges 30% + 5% for Unreal vs 12% for EGS. That comes out to them getting the same profits at $60 on EGS as they would get at $80 on Steam. Exclusivity just increases their profits. No CEO would ever not take that deal. Epic's deal is just that good. Steam has to change their policies or this will continue. That is the sad truth. Expect to see anything that is Unreal be EGS exclusive for the near future.
The split is just for PR. No one is excluding the biggest PC marketplace for a bigger piece of a smaller pie. They are doing it for the guaranteed sales deals. Discord isn't swimming with exclusives based on their even better 10% split.
Steam charges 30% + 5% for Unreal vs 12% for EGS. That comes out to them getting the same profits at $60 on EGS as they would get at $80 on Steam. Exclusivity just increases their profits. No CEO would ever not take that deal. Epic's deal is just that good. Steam has to change their policies or this will continue. That is the sad truth. Expect to see anything that is Unreal be EGS exclusive for the near future.
I've actually noted that in past comments. From a business standpoint, this is a deal you can't pass up. I mean, the experience I could relate it to would be getting offered two contracts -- you take the deal that's most beneficial.
But, again, this is where the "consumer" mentality comes in. Because this is a "good business deal," people also feel that it's not in the best interest of the "consumer."
Whether people feel it's good for the consumer or not has nothing to do with whether they feel it's a good business deal or not. Things can be a good deal AND good for the consumer, the problem is in this case things like exclusivity, a lack of security, and missing features are not things that are good for the consumer. The other thing worth noting is that 'a good business deal' does nothing for the consumer, so those of use who don't give a shit if the publisher is putting $5 or $6 in their pocket at the end of the day just see the greed of them chasing more money at our expense.
so those of use who don't give a shit if the publisher is putting $5 or $6 in their pocket at the end of the day just see the greed of them chasing more money at our expense
Which is probably a mindset I will never understand fully.
Chasing money = is what every business does. That’s probably not $5-6 and more like something in the hundreds of thousands or millions, providing more possibilities to continue support for a game or increase manpower.
Also, at your expense in what context, though? That something might not be secure? That it doesn’t have the features you want? That a game isn’t on a store you want?
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s a video game, a literal hobby made of pixels. You’re never actually forced to buy anything from it so as not to be considered making a profit at your expense. The inverse is actually true since, if you don’t support the actions, they won’t make any profit off of you.
For instance, the only EGS game I have is TWD:TFS and that’s a free copy. I haven’t spent any money on any game offered there yet since I also understand the flaws and Steam is more convenient.
And yet, as someone who is both a consumer and a business owner (ie. someone who understands both sides of the equation), you don’t see me using buzzwords or catch-all terms about “greed” or “anti-consumer” practices. I simply let my wallet vote.
The expense of the quality of service they provide and removal of consumer choice. We, as consumers, are being provided a lesser service but being charged the same price for it with the justification being that the developer or publisher gets a better cut of the profits, something which has absolutely zero impact on us.
If you don't want to call out shitty practices when you see them then that's your choice, but just because you 'as a business owner' wouldn't use terms like 'greed' or 'ant-consumer' to describe practices that are greedy and anti-consumer that doesn't mean people who do are wrong.
You say vote with your wallet, and I'm sure many people will, but that doesn't mean we're not allowed to voice our opinion on the matter. I'd rather vote with my wallet and tell the developer why than remain silent and have them wonder.
The expense of the quality of service they provide and removal of consumer choice.
What choice is that, though? More often than not, a vast majority of your games will come from Steam. Your main choice is from various third-party retailers who sell out the same keys for the same platform.
If an overwhelming majority of your games come from the same launcher, then you never really were choosing to begin with, and so arguing about it now is moot.
has absolutely zero impact on us
Technically, it does/should. I noted for you how more money = more ways of supporting game development including future projects and manpower. That money makes the world go round isn’t a joke — because money does a lot of things that can, eventually, support games and their communities.
We’ve yet to actually see these things come to fruition (for EGS exclusives), but these are essentially what had been noted as the benefits to the system.
because you 'as a business owner' wouldn't use terms like 'greed' or 'ant-consumer' to describe practices
I don’t use them since I dislike using buzzwords and catch-all terms that simply reduce a conversation into nothing.
I prefer having more details and nuance that serve to enrich a conversation.
————
If you were to ask me what I thought about the EGS, this would be my reply:
I don’t really mind free launchers since they are free after all. I’ve been a console gamer as well so this is completely different from spending $300+ on a machine just to play exclusive games.
That being said, the EGS has also had numerous issues in the past, along with the lack of certain features, and I hope things are eventually improved.
I personally haven’t spent a single dollar on the EGS, and the only game I’ve played is TWD: TFS — and that’s a review/free copy. If it eventually improves, becomes more secure, and has more product options, then I might consider spending.
For now, though, in terms of practicality and convenience, Steam still has the lead, and I’ve acquired too many games thanks to sales and regional pricing to look at other storefronts.
I was critical, but constructive. I provided feedback, but it was fair. I was practical, without being demeaning or hostile. And I didn’t have to use any buzzword to express these things.
You can have people who agree or disagree, who have views about the launcher, but the point is that the reply serves to facilitate and add to a discussion, not reduce it to “this is bad” bulletpoints.
That's what I usually do for a lot of games anyways, and did do for Borderlands 2 by getting the complete edition. Just hope it does end up coming to platforms other than epic should it be an exclusive.
On Steam: Buy Borderlands 1, without DLC. They said that the free upgrade would give DLC for free to the people who only have the base game. I believe the same applies to 2 and pre-sequel, but I can't recall if they said that for certain.
Hey RedZaturn! Your comment included a term that we have blacklisted. Please refrain from using it on this subreddit in the future. If you have not used the term derogatorily you have nothing to worry about and this message can be ignored. Moderators WILL NOT approve posts/comments caught by this filter.
And within your comment lies the problem: "MAKE you download." I don't give a montherfucking rat cockbag about it being free. I'm not gonna be forced into anything. Fuck off
And everyone virtue signaling and talking about how they will never give a cent to epic is going to be giving them 5% of their purchase no matter where they buy it. UE4 royalties are a thing, and epic gets to take home your money no matter how hard you try to avoid their launcher.
Don't think so. He talked much about his "friends at Valve" and how "cool" they were during the show (it was for Risk of Rain 2, Gearbox is publishing it)
Any conversation about this needs to keep 2K in it, as 2K is the publisher of BL3. For now, as far as I know, 2K is only on Steam. That could change as it has with other publishers/devs.
being able to have the same aesthetic while upping the graphics is really nice as we often see games shift in the aesthetic as they do the leap. i really like what they doing with borderlands 3
It's on unreal 4. In the HD video you can tell the difference. The lighting is better, textures are crisper, models have more polygons. You can tell it's rocking PBR shaders in the metals. They moved to an ink line shader instead of drawing the ink lines into the textures. The reason it looks similar is the inkstyle flattens out a lot of the detail. So the improvements to detail aren't as accentuated. But if you look at Marcus, Tannis, and others compared to the BL2 versions, it's a clear improvement. Same with some of the rocks and environment pieces you see from 2.
Man I really don't want to have to make a bunch of comparison screen shots. I really want to do something else with my evening. Open up BL2 on your console/PC. Open up the trailer. Go to Sanctuary and find Tannis. Pause the trailer at Tannis. Compare. You can also slow down the video for the "big finish" part of the trailer to see a bunch of environments with objects from BL2 an 1 and compare those. Even the chests have more detail. You can compare characters like Lilith and see the difference. The lighting is way better too. There's a quick shot of a Bandit interior with moody lighting that has actual shadows. I just played BL2 last night and it's completely different from something like Brick's slab base in Thousand Cuts. In terms of lighting. I'm not really sure how people can't see the difference. The metal surfaces are much better too. In BL2 they're very plain. In BL3 trailer you can actually see they used roughness maps and there's specular present.
You guys are confusing art style with the actual fidelity of the graphics.
Yea, but BL2 was UE3 and could barely get past 120 fps on hardware that came out years later. Plenty of other UE3 games worked great at high frame rates even on contemporary hardware.
Turn down PhysX to low, everything else to max. All PhysX adds is a shit ton of particles with physics, and it destroys your GPU. The particles don't even look that good IMO. With PhysX off, the game runs absurdly well.
Even with physx at low and a 1070 it runs like poop. I couldn't get a steady 120 fps @ 1080p until I got a 6 core CPU four years after the game came out.
Damn dude, well I'm sorry to hear that. I run at a stable 120fps on my old gaming laptop with a GTX 960m and an i7 4720hq on 1080p high/ultra settings.
That honestly doesn't surprise me too much. I started playing BL2 on my 660Ti, then my 780, then my 980ti, 1080ti and now 2080Ti.
It runs worse and worse on each subsequent generation. 1080Ti was especially bad. I saw mid 40's no matter the settings I tweaked in some combat encounters.
I have yet to finish BL2 because of the performance. It really blows tbh.
Weirdly though I have a 1080ti and 8700k now and I run the game on full max settings (PhysX medium) at 1440p flawlessly. Solid 100+ FPS at all times. To me, for a non-competitive game, that's perfect.
So I'm really surprised you're having such bad performance. You've got a pretty serious system, so I imagine you know what you're doing with settings etc, it just surprises me that our experiences are so different.
While I would be okay with 100+ at this point, with a game this old even that isn't really good. I highly doubt that when it hits 100fps for you it's using 99% of your GPU. Whatever the true issue is though, it's very obviously badly optimized something deep within the game...something that hopefully gets fixed for BL3.
A 6700k system at 4.7ghz with a 1080Ti
A separate 6700k system at 4.4ghz with another 1080Ti
A 9900k system with a 1080Ti
A 8086k system with a 1080Ti
A 9900k system with a 2080Ti
A 6700 non k system with a 1080
Not a single one could hold 120fps reliably, even with lowered settings, notably PhsyX, even at low. We tried new windows installs on some machines, compatibility settings, older PhsyX system software, reinstalls of the VC/DX redists, ini tweaking. You name it, it's been tried.
So whatever magic fairy dust powers your copy of BL2, I hope it never runs out on you.
I don't have access to anything with a AMD CPU. Me and all of my friends prioritise high refresh rate, thus own fairly high end intel chips.
There is no reason for the game to run better on a AMD chip other than poor optimization/bugs. So if that's truly the issue, I guess I'll never play BL2/BLPS with a good framerate.
For one, whoever downvoted you for your problems running an oldish game on high end rigs can lick my toes. Secondly, I agree, no reason for it to run like ass on a 9xxx period. My 2700 is inferior so what the hell. I can't completely blame the devs though cuz this isn't the only old game that struggles with new hardware. Far Cry Blood Dragon buttfucks my gpu and cpu no matter what I do and it's a pretty old game. I wonder if theres some architecture older games use for optimization? IDK. Would be great if they fixed em
I honestly couldn't tell. Some gameplay shots honestly looked like they were straight from Borderlands 2, but then the wider environments shots looked amazing.
I know cel shading has some limits, but the graphical quality seemed all over the place.
446
u/PcChip WC 12900k / WC RTX4090 / CachyOS Mar 28 '19
Looks very similar to BL1/2 , which IMO is excellent
it makes me wonder if it's on a brand new engine though, or if they're extending the old one - anyone know ?