149
The Outer Worlds w/ All DLC free until 26 Dec 2023 4PM UTC
(store.epicgames.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
149 points (85.3% liked)
Patient Gamers
10292 readers
17 users here now
A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.
^(placeholder)^
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh fuck off you big baby, we don't need people like you in every discussion about free games on EGS, we get it, you're mad that someone dared stand up to Gaben and his monopoly, go bitch somewhere else and let people enjoy the free games.
And you can tell that by how much they complain(ed) about Itch, GoG, Desura, and other competitors, right?
Yup, EGS doesn't get a pass for sucking just because it's an underdog. The store experience sucks, the company behind it actively avoids supporting the Steam Deck (valid business reasons imo, but it still sucks), and they have stupid exclusives that just delay when I get to play games on my platform of choice.
EGS sucking doesn't make Steam good, it just means EGS sucks.
While GOG's client kinda sucks, it's better than EGS and their games are DRM-free. So I'll give them a pass on their client kinda sucking and not porting to my preferred platform, Linux. I'd just GOG in a heartbeat if they gave half as much attention to Linux as Steam (I don't want much, just officially endorse Heroic and/or port Galaxy).
I keep my fingers crossed that one day GoG Galaxy will be given a developer or two instead of a single untrained monkey. I like the concept, I like some of the features and love that I can view all my libraries in one place, but man it's so janky and there's no support from the company at all and they don't fix issues or work on anything new for it and what they do add is done at a glacial pace.
Meanwhile, Valve keeps rolling out new features, such as:
Sometimes it's pretty stagnant, but overall it gets way more attention than any other client. All GOG needs to do is get like 5 full-time devs and Galaxy would be a much better client. They have the money (Witcher, Cyberpunk, etc), they just need to improve their client so people actually want to use it.
I think out of those only GoG can be called, by any stretch, a competitor
Those stores don't challenge the monopoly, so they don't trigger anyone. They get praised but you'll have a hard time finding anyone who regularly uses them, let alone as their main gaming platform.
They sure do bitch about EA and Ubisoft having their own launcher!
Funny that the services you mentioned don't try to play in the exact same playground as Steam, contrary to EGS.
You mean Tim Sweeny, the guy preaching about monopolistic practices while directing his company to take anticompetitive actions in a thinly-veiled attempt to take away consumers' choice of storefront and create his own monopoly?
It's more morally acceptable to pirate games than take free games off Epic Games Store. At least in the former case, I'm not supporting their campaign by being a statistic they can boast about.
Actually if you hated EGS so much you should take these free games. Each free game costs them money.
EGS isn't paying per download, they're paying the developer an upfront cost to make the game a free offer regardless of how many copies get downloaded.
I stand corrected then if that's the case. But also if more people download them (even if they don't play them or buy on the store elsewhere) then they are likely to make more deals and spend more money :p
They want more active players on their shitty platform. So by claiming and downloading free games you are actually doing what they want you to do.
Yeah, but are you really active if you're not even playing them. You're just a number on some stats sheets for the store itself. I personally have no gripes with EGS myself, by the way. I'm just playing devil's advocate on why even claiming the free games could become detrimental to EGS if you are one more inclined to want it's downfall.
Sure, give them your data instead of just pirating the game. It’s free either way. Except one way you don’t have to give them data on your life.
They only get what you give though. Plus I feel like the whole "oh no they'll get my data" arguments for a lot of things pretty weak. Being one that briefly used to work in data science and adtech. They don't know you personally, you're just in a cohort of similar people. You're not individually identifiable. Which is fine by me. I'd rather get given targeted ads (when they're not blocked) than the absolute wild west of a mess ads were in the 90s and early 00s.
But you could just… not. Installing their software on your machine gives them file system access, soooo… maybe just pirate and get the game for free just the same.
Um... No, I'd bitch about it being on Steam too. I just like actually owning my games.
Also, wow, fucking chill, dude...
It's DRM-free on Epic.
So it doesn't require the EGS Launcher? It doesn't require any form of Internet connection to install, launch, or play?
With all due respect, if the answer is "it does" to either one of those questions, then that's still a very strong form of DRM.
I mean, you're stuck playing on consoles with version 1.0 if that's your criteria so I don't know why we should care about your opinion of PC launchers.
Not really. On GOG, with most instances you actually own the games you buy.
How do you install a game from GOG without an internet connection?
You download the backup installer after you buy the game. I save mine on an external hard drive.
Ok so how do you download the backup installer without an internet connection?
I never said you could, so that's irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts.
And to be fair, neither Steam nor Epic even allows you to download an offliner installer; GOG does.
`So it doesn't require the EGS Launcher? It doesn't require any form of Internet connection to install, launch, or play?
With all due respect, if the answer is "it does" to either one of those questions, then that's still a very strong form of DRM.`
Guess that GOG is a very strong form of DRM
Not at all.
Of course you require an Internet connection to download the offline installer. How the hell do you expect to get it otherwise? For them to ship a disk to you? In 2023? As awesome as that would be, that's funny.
In any case, downloading it isn't DRM; it's no different than having to go to the store to pick up an item. Lol.
You're the one who said that needing an internet connection to be able to install a game is a strong form of DRM, not me 🤷 But now that I point out it applies to your store of choice too then the goalpost sure is moving quick!
I did say that. You only need an Internet connection download the offline installer (because how else are you gonna get it). Once you have the installer, though, you can install the game completely offline anytime you want.
I never contradicted myself; I was being very clear. You're just being nitpicky and shifting the goalposts repeatedly.
Yeah, you were very clear that needing the internet to install a game is DRM, so as I said, only physical media is DRM free so I don't know why you're arguing about PC gaming since you can only play console games.
Just keep movin' those goalposts, friend.
[Re-commented down here because I was tired as fuck and didn't reply to the right one.]
But I didn't move it though, I just quoted you and you're the one who's trying to pretend it wasn't what you meant... I don't think you understand what "moving the goalpost" means...
You claimed it's DRM-free on Epic.
I disputed this, asking if it requires any form of Internet connection to install, launch, or play the game. Instead of responding to my dispute with actual reasoning, you turned to avoiding the issue entirely by shifting the focus from backing up your claim to making an entirely new claim attempting to discredit my definition of DRM. That's called dodging the issue, FYI.
In other words, if you can't beat an argument, try to invalidate it. Basic of the basics in the rulebook of debating.
Then, when I defined DRM for you, you asked, "How do you install a game from GOG without an internet connection?" I answered by stating you use the offline installer. Which doesn't require an Internet connection to use, meaning you don't require the Internet to install it. You also are not required to have an Internet connection to launch the game or to then proceed to play the game after having launched it.
When I described this to you, you completely ignored that answer and acted like I had stated you do require an Internet connection:
The fact is that downloading the offline installer is not DRM at all. It's an offline, backup installer: you only need to download it once and then you'll have it available whenever you want to install said game. Requiring the Internet to download an offline, backup installer that once you download you never have to download again is no different than requiring fuel for your car or a time expenditure for public transport in order to go pick up a physical copy of a game from a store across town.
In any case, all of this is so completely detracted by this point from the original topic of you claiming the game The Outer Worlds is available, DRM-free, on Epic Games Store, that it's quite frankly become really ridiculous. It's been done to hell and back, as has been my patience with this absurdity of a discussion.
Good day, and be well.
So...
TL;DR of this whole discussion: When I point out that you said that requiring an internet connection is a form of DRM and it therefore means that GOG basically has DRM in place because it requires an internet connection (even if it's just once to download the games, just like for Epic DRM free games) you get mad...
By your definition, the only way to truly own a game and for it to be DRM free is to buy a physical copy and then, as I mentioned, you're DRM free only as long as you don't want a patched version.
Again, quoting you:
"It doesn't require any form of Internet connection to install, launch, or play?
With all due respect, if the answer is "it does" to either one of those questions, then that's still a very strong form of DRM."
If an internet connection is required to install the game, BY YOUR DEFINITION, it's a form of DRM. You still need to download the install file from GOG at least once, which requires you logging in to your account, therefore there's DRM in place. You wouldn't be able to play a game you bought on GOG if you didn't have the data necessary to download it contrary to a true DRM free game.
I said good day.
Yeah, you did...
I was almost with you until you said that dumb shit in the second half.
Thanks for sharing
You sad excuse of a human being
♥️
People bitch way too much about EGS. Yeah, we get it, it's not steam and the dude that runs it pissed in their Cheerios once. Claim the free fucking game or don't.
Every single god damn time there's a post about a good free game on EGS, there's always some tool who's gotta mention how bad EGS sucks and that they only play the finest Linux games available. They act like they are stuck up losers. Let's be completely honest. Gaming on Linux still blows.
Nobody gives a shit about your Linux gaming. Nobody gives a shit if you like Steam more. Nobody gives a shit if you have a beef with Tim Sweeny.
Just shut the fuck up already.
It's even worse when you're old enough to remember the same kind of people that were complaining about Valve creating Steam and forcing them to download it in order to play their games and then complaining that non-Valve games were starting to depend on having Steam installed and having to download part of the game at a time when bandwidth sucked... The same kind of people were saying they would forever boycott Steam but today they're made that someone tried to break the status quo again.
Huh, I actually never used Steam until it came to Linux. I switched back in 2010 or so, and before that I either downloaded games directly from the dev or bought disks.
I don't understand what was wrong with that model. I remember buying Minecraft directly from the website back in 2012 or so, and I did the same with Factorio (2014?). I remember playing Starcraft 2 with its own launcher, which again I got through the website. The same is true for League of Legends.
I don't get why everything has to be through some launcher, though I do appreciate what Steam is doing for the Linux community, so they have earned my business (if it wasn't for Steam, I wouldn't play nearly as many games). But from an overall gaming perspective, I agree that having such a dominant platform isn't good, and I would probably buy from other stores if they offered a decent experience, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to play games.
The problem was/is their policy of allowing the non-Valve games to also require their own storefront launcher alongside Steam.
There was that one dark period of "Games For Windows Live" on Steam, but those issues are pretty rare nowadays.
That's also an issue, but them becoming the default provider and having such a huge market share isn't something that players should be happy about, they might be managed by someone that cares about players but Gaben could die tomorrow and get replaced by someone that doesn't. Competition should be celebrated even if it's not perfect.
Competition needs to do better than simply existing to be celebrated.
If I open a storefront that costs twice as much as Steam with none of the features you wouldn't support it just because "it's competition".
I would certainly encourage the effort but tell you that you need to do better on pricing