PC Gaming, General & Off Topic Chat

Kiith · 12-03-2019 11:25pm

Delighted to finally see the MCC. Especially with Reach. Only bad thing is they are staggering the releases, but I'll take it

All we need is Halo 4 now, to complete the story on pc.

CastorTroy · 12-03-2019 11:32pm

Halo 4 is there. It's Halo 5 that isn't included

Kiith · 12-03-2019 11:35pm

Yeah, just noticed that. Thought 5 had been announced for pc already, but apparently not.

Mickeroo · 13-03-2019 12:35am

I'd expect 5 shouldn't be too far behind, would end up being the only one not on pc otherwise.

I suppose I'll have to buy the game again to get it on steam. It already has a store page it seems.

dreamers75 · 13-03-2019 1:40am

https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-ceo-the-only-way-to-displace-steam-is-with-exclusives-good-prices-and-better-revenue-sharing/?utm_content=bufferc9efd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer-pcgamertw

Thats a horrific read.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has spoken at length about the company's push into the digital storefront frontier, and what it might take to displace Steam from market dominance. In an interview with MCV, Sweeney explained that it will take exclusives, decent prices and fairer revenue share with studios—not necessary the rolling out of new features.

"It’s nearly perfect for consumers already... There is no hope of displacing a dominant storefront solely by adding marginally more store features or a marginally better install experience," he said. "These battles will be won on the basis of game supply, consumer prices, and developer revenue sharing."

Still cant play Coop in Ashen, its on steam soon so looking forward to that, wonder if the dev will let me have it for free because i bought it on Epic Store and it literally does not work. Steam games say EA in the description, Ashen does not.

I doubt I am the only one who views Epic store as the new GFWL led by someone who hates GFWL. Theres irony there somewhere.

Remouad · 13-03-2019 9:39am

TitianGerm wrote: »

MCC just announced for PC and will be available from Steam.

https://twitter.com/Xbox/status/1105576974120939520?s=19

Edit: full graphics options as well I think.

Day friggin' made.

Already has a steam page

Not many details on graphics options besides 4K so really hoping for Ultrawide support.

Also hope there's split screen coop & multiplayer.

Steam page says xbox live account required so is that just for online or does it mean that it wouid be added to your xbox library too?

Would be nice to have if I ever got an xbox.

TitianGerm · 13-03-2019 9:45am

Remouad wrote: »

Day friggin' made.

Already has a steam page

Not many details on graphics options besides 4K so really hoping for Ultrawide support.

Also hope there's split screen coop & multiplayer.

Steam page says xbox live account required so is that just for online or does it mean that it wouid be added to your xbox library too?

Would be nice to have if I ever got an xbox.

It'll be available on Microsoft Store as well so maybe the steam description is just a copy and paste from there but not sure really.

I'd say if you buy on Steam you won't get an Xbox Version but if you buy from MS Store it'll be play anywhere.

TerrorFirmer · 13-03-2019 10:45am

Day one purchase for me. Halo Reach multiplayer is legendary. This will probably see me sell my One X as well, already have a PS4 Pro, Halo was pretty much the only reason I had the Xbox.

mrcheez · 13-03-2019 10:56am

The advantage of the new Steam release of Halo Master Chief Collection is purely an update in graphics yes?

Skerries · 13-03-2019 11:04am

for the first 2 games that I can see, not sure about the others

The only one I ever played was the original on PC back in the day so will pick this up

Headshot · 13-03-2019 11:10am

I think it was Halo 3 I played on the PC back in the day, very enjoyable but iirc that was very CPU hungry

mrcheez · 13-03-2019 11:38am

I played em all on my Xbox so not really bothered unless something new in there (like modding or VR!)

VR would kick ass

Glebee · 13-03-2019 11:53am

Remember playing Halo 1 on pc when it got to pc. Dont think i ever finished it and have never played any other Halo game since. Never got the hype behind Halo.

Mr Crispy · 13-03-2019 11:53am

I only ever played the first two installments on the original XBOX, back in the day™. I remember thinking I'd hate them having been playing PC FPS games with a mouse and keyboard for a few years, but genuinely I found them to be a lot of fun. So yeah, very happy to read this.

farmerwifelet · 13-03-2019 12:00pm

Anyone else excited at the warcraft 3 release for pc next year? Warcraft 1 and 2 on the pc were my my most played strategy games. Hated wow on the xbox.

TerrorFirmer · 13-03-2019 12:21pm

mrcheez wrote: »

I played em all on my Xbox so not really bothered unless something new in there (like modding or VR!)

VR would kick ass

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for from the games. I'd say for most of us, it's the idea that we can revisit an iconic multiplayer experience in high resolution and framerate with keyboard and mouse.

Halo and Halo 2 ports to PC weren't anything special, it was a pretty crowded market at that point on PC.... the original game in particular was competent, but unremarkable compared to other PC offerings.

They really perfected the multiplayer experience with Halo 3 and Halo: Reach though, but they've never been available on PC....and Halo 4 and Halo 5 are nowhere near as good either.

The chance to play those online again in 4K/60fps is mouth-watering, and the campaigns are still pretty decent too.

As someone who plays a ton of Battlefield/Overwatch/Apex etc on PC, I still go back to Halo: Reach on the Xbox every now and again, still a stellar game almost 10 years later.

I'll buy the full collection, but it's really only Reach that I'm interested in, maybe H3 for nostalgias sake.

Shiminay · 13-03-2019 12:33pm

I'm not sure I understand the hype for the release of Halo to PC, I think people are going to very quickly realise that an FPS game designed for the XBox controller hasn't aged all that well and isn't a patch on a proper PC/Mouse & Keyboard FPS

That said, I've had a whole lot of fun over the years with the Halo series, I even have a Halo themed 360 in the house although it had a RROD like the other 3(!) dud Xboxes that are sitting in the flat...

I guess there's a generation of young adults for whom this will be their first genuine nostalgic moment which isn't to be ignored, so I hope it's not a disappointment for them

Mickeroo · 13-03-2019 12:45pm

Halo 5 multiplayer with m/kb on PC feels really good.

Gunmonkey · 13-03-2019 1:43pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

Cool. Just need Rare Replay and any reason for getting a Xbox One is gone.

This is the only thing I am excited for over this whole Halo tsunami. Have heard rumours they wont port RR as it would mean putting a X360 emulator on the PC...but seeing as Halo 3 and 4 are X360 games that theory is dead in the water now.

Mickeroo · 13-03-2019 1:47pm

Gunmonkey wrote: »

This is the only thing I am excited for over this whole Halo tsunami. Have heard rumours they wont port RR as it would mean putting a X360 emulator on the PC...but seeing as Halo 3 and 4 are X360 games that theory is dead in the water now.

Not really, halo 3 and 4 were fully ported to the xbox one as part of the original MCC release.

I'm sure they would have no issues getting the 360 emulator to work on pc if they wanted to though.

TerrorFirmer · 13-03-2019 10:51pm

Shiminay wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the hype for the release of Halo to PC, I think people are going to very quickly realise that an FPS game designed for the XBox controller hasn't aged all that well and isn't a patch on a proper PC/Mouse & Keyboard FPS

That's often said, but that, and the whole thing about Halo fans "not knowing better" is really unfounded.

Nothing to do with age really - obviously the first two games which were on PC have aged, but Halo 3/Reach are still amazing FPS experiences in multiplayer, regardless of platform.

I'm a major PC player since the 90's and I consider H3 and HReach up there with the best MP shooters ever made.

Still dip into Halo Reach on the Xbox every now and again. The prospect now of being able to play it at proper 1440P/4K 60fps on PC is amazing.

There was a test-the-waters Halo Online that was only available in Russia, and is still available via certain means - sort of a H3/H4 hybrid....and it's seriously good, was a shame it was never expanded but I would now suspect that the reason behind that was this upcoming release.

Also...who can forget this amazing ad, still get goosebumps watching it almost a decade later:

Kiith · 14-03-2019 10:13am

There are better shooters on the pc then Halo. No doubt about it imo. But there are very few shooters as cinematic as Halo. Driving around in the warthog with that music playing can be a whole lot of fun. Can't wait to play through it again tbh...definitely one of my most anticipated games now.

This is purely single player to be fair, as i don't really do mp.

Mr. CooL ICE · 14-03-2019 11:15am

Skerries wrote: »

The only one I ever played was the original on PC back in the day so will pick this up

Me too. And I was very bitter about 2 being for Vista only.

I've sorta self excluded myself from playing any games since around Christmas time to get some study done but I'd buy the MCC to play 1 again. And possibly the rest.

Remouad · 14-03-2019 11:24am

TitianGerm wrote: »

It'll be available on Microsoft Store as well so maybe the steam description is just a copy and paste from there but not sure really.

I'd say if you buy on Steam you won't get an Xbox Version but if you buy from MS Store it'll be play anywhere.

I've read that it's not going to be a cross play title even if you buy it on the Microsoft store.

So Steam it is.

Remouad · 15-03-2019 3:13pm

Little more info for Master chief collection here

Important points for me are Ultrawide support, the release order (Reach>CE>2>ODST>3>4) and also that even though you need a live account you don't need gold for multiplayer.

I was hoping they'd be released in original release order.

CastorTroy · 15-03-2019 6:45pm

Wonder if the games will appear separate in the library or as part of a collection

Mickeroo · 15-03-2019 8:27pm

Remouad wrote: »

Little more info for Master chief collection here

Important points for me are Ultrawide support, the release order (Reach>CE>2>ODST>3>4) and also that even though you need a live account you don't need gold for multiplayer.

I was hoping they'd be released in original release order.

Pretty good order to play them in though Reach being a prequel.

K.O.Kiki · 31-03-2019 7:50pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnt64H-Wouk

Photorealism 1080p 60fps on a single GTX 1080 Ti

Headshot · 02-04-2019 5:37pm

Steam having issues as I cannot sign in?

K.O.Kiki · 03-04-2019 12:43am

Hmm...

Monotype · 03-04-2019 10:51am

Most of the steam features took years to implement. If you compare steam launch with epic store launch, it's doing pretty well.
Many of these things are tremendously biased towards steam - and highly subjective. How useful are trading cards? It's just another money making scheme for valve. Though it makes a few cents for me for free games.
Also, epic do have regional pricing (which I think is a negative anyway) and 3rd party keys.

People forget how steam started with exclusives - the very popular HL and CS. Other companies have been given incentives to cement their power such as free keys to tie with steam.

Shiminay · 03-04-2019 11:45am

The biggest bug-bear for me is having separate friends lists and not being able to join in on games via that oh-so-handy "right click" menu. This is leading to "cross-platform" issues in PC Gaming and that's simply inexcusable. Fair play to Apex Legends, they were smart in using the Steam API to be able to import your Steam Friends list - it's not a perfect solution, but it's clever thinking and it's a testament to the way those Respawn people think about gaming UI/UX - a frequently overlooked area that really needs some more attention.

As said, Trading Cards are just another way to extract money from gullible people for a fictitious thing - it's paid for several small items for me over the last few years, so let them away. Achievements are nonsense and mostly serve to let game dev's know how far the average person gets into their game. Screenshots are natively built into your OS if you really need them but I concede that the inbuilt ability to share and so on is done very well. The community features being absent are a very, very big problem, but we know they're in the works to some extent or another if they want to be a credible alternative to Steam. Integration with something like Discord could be a nice coup for them, but I believe Discord has already fended off a buy-out from Amazon and so they may not be too interested as they seem to see themselves as another launcher and they are a store front too. I'd also look at integration with somewhere like Nexus Mods or ModDB as a quick win in terms of getting a "Workshop" equivalent up and running - it's definitely one of the most important features for me.

I remember the hot mess Steam was when it launched, Epic has been a lot less of a sht-show, but it's definitely fair to point out the missing features as they've become the new "normal" expectation for what people want as supporting structures around their games. I work in software, I know how difficult it is to try to deploy a product with all of those features, it's not how modern software is written anyway - you start with an MVP and iterate on top of that. But the roadmap is available for all to see, at least we'll know what's coming next.

Kiith · 03-04-2019 12:47pm

While some of those are biased towards Steam (i.e trading cards, item trading etc...), some of them should be the absolute minimum a digital platform starts with. Saying Steam didn't have them for years isn't the same, as they were pretty much the first platform available. Surely Epic could have just looked at Steam, seen the features it had, and copied them? Instead they roll it out with barely any features, slap some exclusivity on games, and expect people to just be ok with that.

Can't believe it doesn't have offline play though...surely that's not right?

gizmo · 03-04-2019 1:04pm

Shiminay wrote: »

The biggest bug-bear for me is having separate friends lists and not being able to join in on games via that oh-so-handy "right click" menu. This is leading to "cross-platform" issues in PC Gaming and that's simply inexcusable. Fair play to Apex Legends, they were smart in using the Steam API to be able to import your Steam Friends list - it's not a perfect solution, but it's clever thinking and it's a testament to the way those Respawn people think about gaming UI/UX - a frequently overlooked area that really needs some more attention.

Hmm, what exactly are you looking for here? The ability to import your Friends List from Steam and then join a game your friend is playing on Steam from the Friends list in the EGS?

TerrorFirmer · 03-04-2019 1:43pm

It does have offline play. That chart to me is a joke and blatantly heavily biased towards Steam, and some of it is very outdated and a lot of it is guff. Also, some of the bigger issues Epic are planning on introducing shortly (like cloud saves).

It will likely improve with time but most of the missing features (not saying all) aren't really crucial to most gamers.

Steam is hands down the best digital platform, but Battle.net, Uplay or Origin don't have a fraction of its features either. Functional, but basic. I see Epic the same way - just another storefront I have to install to play certain games, that'll likely improve with time for those seeking certain feature sets....for everyone else, it's functional.

More competition is certainly good. Developers getting more money from sales is good. Paying for exclusives would annoy me on console, but the 'cost' on the PC is hardly excessive - download and install another launcher in the existing sea of clients. Besides, Steam has had a monopoly for too long.

Dave_The_Sheep · 03-04-2019 2:47pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

More competition is certainly good. Developers getting more money from sales is good. Paying for exclusives would annoy me on console, but the 'cost' on the PC is hardly excessive - download and install another launcher in the existing sea of clients. Besides, Steam has had a monopoly for too long.

This isn't competition. It's bribery.

Competition would be having it on both, and letting consumers decide. Epic taking less of a cut than Steam? Prices should be lower, people would go to Epic (not taking into account loyalty, etc) - much like they go to 3rd-party key sellers now and don't buy directly from Steam. Steam would then have to lower their prices (or their cut, whatever) to compete. That's how competition should work, not making it so that publishers and devs are getting a load of cash aside from sales, and have it exclusively on Epic.

As it stands now, Epic [edited in lieu of Variks' point] Publishers/Devs can set the price point for whatever they like for the duration of their exclusitivty deal - no incentive to lower the price to beat Steam's price. That's not good for consumers, and that's not taking into account the numerous problems with their service and client that have been done to death.

The 'competition' argument just doesn't hold up given the way they're doing things.

Varik · 03-04-2019 2:49pm

Competition is't just consumer facing. competition from Epic could force Valve to reduced their 30% cut.

Platforms also don't set the price on their store.

Dave_The_Sheep · 03-04-2019 2:52pm

What incentive to Steam have to reduce their cut, if they're being cut out of any sales for the first 6 months/year?

If the dev cut being lower than Steam was all Epic was doing, I'd be happy out. That's not what's happening though.

All this being said, I am curious as to how Steam are going to respond. They have to do something.

Varik wrote: »

Platforms also don't set the price on their store.

That's a fair point.

TheChrisD · 03-04-2019 3:01pm

gizmo wrote: »

Hmm, what exactly are you looking for here? The ability to import your Friends List from Steam and then join a game your friend is playing on Steam from the Friends list in the EGS?

Ideally, there would be just one friends list (which for most people would be their Steam list) that you can tap into from any game regardless of platform and chat/invite/etc. there.

But with every new game launcher comes an entirely new separate friend list that you have to re-add people on, assuming they've also made an account, not to mention that you have to check separately to see if someone in particular is online; or even the mess of trying to send someone a message and hoping you send it to the right launcher account so that they will see it sooner rather than later.

Discord kind of helps somewhat in having all your lists together, but it still brings in the old XKCD problem:

It's this exact problem as to why I don't play Overwatch on PC despite having owned it for the longest time - an entirely separate friends infrastructure which I'd have to re-add people on (and is made even worse by being region-specific; seriously Blizzard, wtf?) and check in on to see if people want to play? Too much effort, honestly.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also, some of the bigger issues Epic are planning on introducing shortly (like cloud saves).

Shortly isn't really good enough though. They should have had things like that to start with before throwing their money around. People have been used to a certain feature set for years now, and suddenly with their game being bribed to a different platform that lacks those features - it hasn't painted Epic in a great light.

Varik wrote: »

competition from Epic could force Valve to reduced their 30% cut.

They already have - Steam's cut is now on a small sliding scale: 30% base, dropping to 25% over $10mil; then 20% over $50mil.

Mickeroo · 03-04-2019 3:07pm

I have never found that to be troublesome on PC. I generally just add the few people I'm actually playing a particular game with, never even crossed my mind that I would want or need to add everyone from my steam friends list or any other friends list to a particular client.

TitianGerm · 03-04-2019 3:09pm

TheChrisD wrote: »

Ideally, there would be just one friends list (which for most people would be their Steam list) that you can tap into from any game regardless of platform and chat/invite/etc. there.

But with every new game launcher comes an entirely new separate friend list that you have to re-add people on, assuming they've also made an account, not to mention that you have to check separately to see if someone in particular is online; or even the mess of trying to send someone a message and hoping you send it to the right launcher account so that they will see it sooner rather than later.

Discord kind of helps somewhat in having all your lists together, but it still brings in the old XKCD problem:

It's this exact problem as to why I don't play Overwatch on PC despite having owned it for the longest time - an entirely separate friends infrastructure which I'd have to re-add people on (and is made even worse by being region-specific; seriously Blizzard, wtf?) and check in on to see if people want to play? Too much effort, honestly.

Shortly isn't really good enough though. They should have had things like that to start with before throwing their money around. People have been used to a certain feature set for years now, and suddenly with their game being bribed to a different platform that lacks those features - it hasn't painted Epic in a great light.

They already have - Steam's cut is now on a small sliding scale: 30% base, dropping to 25% over $10mil; then 20% over $50mil.

Epic have the money so they can throw it around what ever way they want. Same as Sky buying the rights to the Masters, or Adidas buying the kit manufacturing contact for Man United, or Disney buying up the rights to Marvel.

Shiminay · 03-04-2019 4:20pm

Chris said it best - I want a single friends list and I want to be able to quickly and simply join in on their game or invite them to mine.

In my Steam Friends list, I can see who's playing what and join on it or I can launch the game and invite them. Similarly with my Battle.net list and my Origin list. That's not consumer friendly really. Add into that the idea that some games have their own insulated online/friend/group services - Warframe would be my most frequent example, but it also has ties to Steam in terms of letting me see that someone on my friends list has warframe.exe currently running and if applicable, I can join their game, so I'm still reliant on Steam.

Discord is the only service I regularly use that centralises my friends' activity and gives me some means to arrange to play with them. But as of this moment in time, I have separate friends lists on Steam, Origin, UPlay, Battle.net, GoG and now I'll need one on Epic too.

A real world example I had recently that made me really regret my decision to get a key for Battletech from their Kickstarter on GoG instead of Steam - I cannot play multiplayer Battletech with my friend who has it on Steam. It just won't work for us, and there are many posts from people saying they can't get it to work either despite there being an internal Battletech infrastructure that's supposed to just work and be launcher independent. It's worse than "console wars" cause you can at least say "well this is a different piece of hardware" where as some consumer focused thinking instead of shareholder based thinking would fix this in a month.

dreamers75 · 03-04-2019 4:55pm

Just to be clear on that one thing, that scenario we have been used on steam for years "shiminay is playing">> Join Game does not function on EGS unless the game is called Fortnite.

I noticed that a lot of the games EGS have bought are single players games *, B3 is probably the biggest MP one they have bought. They are also buying a lot of Unreal made games from indies.

I wonder if the MP thing is engine related and they simply havent mastered it yet except for fortnite.

*open to correction but MP games on EGS store are either Uplay or Dauntless which has/had its own launcher.

Shiminay · 03-04-2019 7:12pm

Could well be that they're avoiding having to deal with all that and are not seeking out multiplayer games until such a time as they feel they have the infrastructure in place - Fortnite being what it is is a pretty good stress test for any massive system, but it's nowhere near the same as replicating Steam.