Hard disagree on denuvo. If it’s no problem for you then you must have tons of experience in re. Which puts you into some 1%-ish group. Depends on the type of mods you do of course.
Hard disagree on denuvo. If it’s no problem for you then you must have tons of experience in re. Which puts you into some 1%-ish group. Depends on the type of mods you do of course.
You can. Google steamless.
Steam DRM is nothing like stuff people should be aware of. Ask any modder for confirmation.
I doubt devs meant that side of “woohoo our game is DRM free”. Even if that would be fine by me, you can see they are missing a lot. Cool if the developer got so much money they don’t care about sales. But that could mean they also don’t care much about user satisfaction or feedback.
There is a downside. The best looking option - the developer website option - comes without regional pricing. This makes it the worst option for many.
People like having stuff on their Steam account because there is a value to that. Other people should stop acting like it doesn’t matter.
Letting Fortnite money fund some developer is only good for that developer (and for some time), not the industry.
Judging by the size, just another electron app.
Steam is a product, Valve is a company.
No. Majority of all games are not bound by licensing. You should still be able to buy these games in years to come.
I mean people who is not even an audience for now, like children. Or those who is still not born. Or people in Russia.
It’s cool but it won’t help people who’ve yet to discover the game for one reason or another.
In a reality where there are no paid games (I assume Witcher-tier single player games would be free), those wouldn’t necessarily become a cancer. It all depends on what games you must compete with. Also there are many ways how you can implement cosmetics and other DLC. FOMO enforcement is not something that should automatically come with any game. Deep Rock Galactic handles paid dlc, free seasons and cosmetics brilliantly in my opinion, and I don’t see why other games can’t have success if they did it the same way. Maybe it’s a combination of original financial decisions, game quality, players reactions and overall current situation/background.
Also I can’t get rid of the thought that there is an underestimated connection between spending money on a game and desire to spend time on playing it. It seems that if developers of good games would be suitably rewarded according to players satisfaction, there will be no need to pursue financial success by pushing cancer on players.
There should be means that would allow fans and appreciators donate money to creators. And it looks like we already have a lot of those.
Also, culture and art should be promoted by governments. Therefore taxes could go that way too.
Anyway, it’s not like people say it’s fine for everyone to not pay. But at least we know it’s fine for many to pay much less than the rest, see regional pricing and discounts. Creators are totally fine with those. Nothing prevents it from being extended further to people who have a hard time trying to become potential customers.
Good for you I guess. Though it doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said, and I’d have repeated it all again even if I knew you’ve paid for just one product.
And that’s the main point of their business model - imposing artificial limits instead of caring about your experience. Don’t fall for it, don’t give them your money. The faster epic dies as a platform, the faster gaming industry will see improvements.
That’s not the point. If you ask me I’d rather pirate a game like this vs paying for it on a crappy platform. And in case it can’t be pirated I’d play something else. Though it’s also possible to emulate these games I guess.
Cause I would have preferred to buy it on Steam so all my things are in one place.
Maybe shouldn’t have bothered with epic in the first place?
I found quite a few articles on various sites about the matter. More articles mean more raised awareness.
deleted by creator
Wrong, it helps raise awareness at the very least.
It actually seems more like a windows 10 compatibility dilemma for developers. You can support older systems but it would require some effort. The problem is not the absence of some specific certificates, but the absence of newer ciphers altogether.
This does give security but also removes backwards compatibility with some clients that might be important for some websites.