Yeah been keeping eye on it and they’ve been making good progress with some of the story being playable already.

I want Crew 1 offline more than the others because it has an actual single player campaign.

Not like console gamers were ever given a choice, but PC gamers kept wanting PC ports for more frames over the 30 fps standard. Graphics were already good during the PS4 era and PS5 is still crutching so hard on PS4 games during their PS5 pro showcasing. Now console users wanting the same after finally getting the option over a decade later I think shows they aren’t too different from PC gamers in loving frames.

I considered getting a dualsense before for pcgaming, but the stick issues pushed me away when other alternatives have hall effect sticks and grip buttons without paying the price of the dualsense edge.

When you post a comment it shows up whether it is a new or old account instead of having to meet some karma requirement. Also third party apps are very nice over being pushed to use some bloated ad filled official app.

It’s also that they put out a product I actually find value from like Linux support, Steam Input, forums, workshop, etc. I enjoy using Steam because I find it to be a good experience.

It’s like reasons people prefer Android or Apple even if they share the same apps. Really can’t discount the experience simple things like navigation and social features do to add value. Those who dismiss it as unimportant probably share the same views as some MBA who only looks at the numbers and think they can just enter and corner a market through brute force spending.

In a way it like trying to enter the smartphone market and paying for app exclusives then ignoring the part about polishing the OS experience as much as possible and putting out something that is from the flip phone era.

Epic store not being profitable and despite the backing of Fortnite and Unreal Engine surplas being at the state that it is shows that it is probably much more expensive than expected to make a feature rich launcher. What epic has is more a glorified storefront like humble bundle or Fanatical but worse because it isn’t even selling keys for the platform of your choice, and they have to handle server costs of storing all the games too.

There’s Marvel Rivals which is going to be f2p and is another hero shooter too. So just bad timing and executive decisions overall.

Sorry I don’t remember usernames. All these comments just got mixed up with the rest playing up that angle.

You still haven’t given a reason why to actually use epic despite your attempts to paint a billion dollar company as though it is some altruistic startup. If product isn’t good why should I go out of my way to pay for a worse one from another billionaire. If it is all billionaires I’m going to just pick the better product.

Naive to think epic is offering a lower cut for altruistic reasons as opposed to it being the only method they could think of to try to convince devs to sell there. And that they wouldn’t jack up the rate once they corned the market given how their how strategy has been more reminiscent of Walmart approach of pricing lowering to gain market share. Biggest sign is that the store isn’t even profitable much like how lot of services these days aren’t profitable and burn money then jack up prices and offer less once they corner the market. Hell even Microsoft Store has offered low rates of 12% because few want to use it. Going to argue Microsoft is nice too now? Not falling for it Tim.

Anyways existing doesn’t entitle you to money. Make something people actually want to use and don’t piss off your potential consumer base from the get go.

I prefer EA and Ubisoft.

It makes Suicide Squad and Redfall in retrospect not look as sad with their launch day player counts.

I wish they’d at least do some fun story driven coop stuff instead of only pvp stuff. But, I miss the single player days.

Explains why I don’t like eating out and never cared for paying for stuff like the ambiance even at fancy restaurants and prefer take out.

Nooooo!!!

That’s with trusted parties where that type of collaboration is less likely to happen between parties that are hostile to each other. I would not expect blank country to trust any blank adversary countries software and instead be wary of their motives and back doors, and they would be smart not to with both sides seeking each other harm.

I don’t think you understand that I am viewing this from how sides that see each other as potential threats view and treat each other. Not talking about countries that are already collaborating as if they were allies.

In case you don’t understand. I am not claiming that countries do not spy on their own citizens and seek methods to spy even more on them. I’m talking about how countries can react to countries they label as adversaries.

Trying to set barriers seems logical when it comes to outsiders. But, spying by its nature is constant attempts to sneak past barriers, so attempts aren’t going to stop. It’d just be called collaboration instead of spying if information was shared freely and spying would be unnecessary.

Maybe we have a different definition of deter. I don’t see it as stop, but trying to make it less easier. Why would spies stop trying to spy? I don’t expect that number to change. If it did that would be some pitiful spies.

Not saying it is okay. Pointing out that even if hypocritical there’s generally a strategic reason for countries to deter international spying. Would be quite a puzzling decision for any country to provide an open door for other countries to spy on them.