I mean, it's there so the game can utilize Epic's online services, like achievements. Doing so requires the use of the EOS SDK. So it's not like they can just include a check box to disable the functionality; that would require an entirely separate release of the game. It's already not doing anything besides making sure the EOS server exists unless you're engaging with Epic systems. At least that's the case for dedicated servers, but I would assume that it's the same if you only select Steam multiplayer (or single player mode).

[–] Cris16228 0 points 2 months ago (8 children)

So it's not like they can just include a check box to disable the functionality;

Risk of rain? Is the first that comes in mind. You can also delete it and works great. I try to avoid as much as possible and if I can't because bought before knowing or added later, I delete the file, if it doesn't work I'm refunding it. It's dumb? Yeah. I'll keep doing it? Yes

I mean, it's there so the game can utilize Epic's online services, like achievements

I don't get this. If bought on steam it should NOT use it by default and using it SHOULD be optional, off by default and toggleable in settings.

As I said above: If the game can run without the file, I think about buying it

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

RoR is likely turning off some of the functionality but the EOS SDK is still used in the binary. I'm assuming here, I don't know the specific implementation, but if there's a check box and you don't need to restart the whole game after checking it, there's no way it's somehow removing EOS from the program. It likely just disables various functionality, but I bet it's still making a couple calls to verify the existence of the EOS network, just like Satisfactory does.

Games (and programs in general) have to be built with support for any environments they want to run on. If you want to release your game on multiple storefronts and take advantage of their built in social functions, you need to build in support for those functions, even if they won't be used in some cases.

[–] Cris16228 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not if you delete the dll file, unless it's both inthe dll and the exe..?

I think it requires a restart but it's off by default, it asks when you first run it (first install? Each install?) And you can disable it but after deleting the .dll file, the game runs perfectly fine

I guess? But some people aren't really happy with these changes, especially old games where it gets added or the fact is required in a single-player only game

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

DLLs are libraries that get called by the binary. So deleting the DLL stops any calls from executing, but the code still contains calls to the SDK.

Go ahead and boycott any game that uses EOS, but it's a weird hill to die on.

[–] Cris16228 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But if it's deleting it stops any call then it's like not having it in the first place

Nah, don't care. Devs are learning where is better to release games (aka not exclusively) soo🤷‍♂️ it's a matter of time and we'll either see it die or adapt and make something worth using and not trying to be a monopoly

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But... you're basically arguing for more exclusivity by effectively boycotting the majority of products that choose to release on the Epic store, as most of them will include EOS functionality. Why is steamworks fine?

I'm a valve fanboy but they're only company that's even got a prayer of monopolizing the PC games market. Epic is if anything an anti-monopolistic force here -- the Unreal Engine is the Epic product that's threatening market dominance.

[–] Cris16228 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No because a lot of people hate the exclusives and they don't buy those games, devs will realize it (one day). Look at how Ubi went back to steam, Square too🤷‍♂️

Honestly, a eos+steamworks would be better 🤷‍♂️ but even a simple "cross platform" (epic/steam) would work.

Is epic anti-monopolistic? Are you sure?

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I agree that the exclusivity is a bummer, but on the other hand multiple games exist today that would not without Epic's funding. I just don't buy games on the Epic store (everything I own on there was from a free giveaway). When they come to Steam, I get to buy them on my platform of choice, and the injection of capital means they're much further along than they would be otherwise, if they would even exist without the funding. I just think of it as an Early Access period.

Yes, from an objective standpoint I would of course prefer an open cross-platform standard, but while it's the sort of thing I could see Steam adopting and even contributing to, Epic definitely wants the lock-in. And while Epic would obviously love to be a monopoly, as long as they have less market share than Steam, they're an anti-monopolistic force as a direct competitor to Steam.

In this scenario, boycotting games that include the EOS SDK is a pointless gesture and the only reason to do so is if you're worried about the telemetry in the SDK, which from the documentation and from Satisfactory dedicated server logs is pretty minimal unless you log into Epic through the game. It sounds like your main issue is the exclusivity, which has nothing to do with the SDK, and would be effectively "voted against with your wallet" by just not spending money on the Epic store. But as long as Epic keeps offering significant chunks of cash for timed exclusivity, it will remain an extremely attractive deal for any game without significant pre-relrase hype.

[–] Cris16228 1 points 2 months ago

Sorry! Honestly I like this loooong talk

Maybe but why make them exclusive? Look at the recent alan wake 2. A complete flop because they released on a platform no one wants to buy and remedy recoup the dev costs from it.

If you buy them day one on Steam doesn't that mean you're fine to wait and tell devs/pubs that exclusivity is good? They get money from epic for going exclusive then on Steam again, doesn't it incentives more exclusives?

I wouldn't call it a "competitor". To be a competitor you should offer something that people can like like new features or copy stuff others have and make it better, I guess? Why don't you make something useful like helping/funding part of the handheld/linux development? Wouldn't that be awesome instead of throwing money at will hoping to get a few users to use your (IMO) inferior platform?

Look at what they did: bought rocket league, removed from steam (WHY?) and transformed it into a garbage shit requiring epic account. I don't own it nor I've ever played it (if we don't count the free trial downloaded somewhere).

No, Im not gonna trust someone who does what is currently doing right now, like paying for exclusives, so if the dll method doesn't work im gonna refund it. I don't care how pointless that is.

My main issue is exclusives (especially the timed exclusives from PS, but 🤷‍♂️) and also the person behind Epic. There's nothing that makes me want to use the store or have anything to do with them.

load more comments (5 replies)