Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Also, GOG Galaxy is another, more unpopular client/launcher but it has its fair share of users too, and that one is taking from all the others as well. :)
Most likely, at least some of the other clients developers are probably looking at GOG Galaxy too. :)
(As it develops new features quite rapidly, being in constant Beta all the time with no Stable channel to speak of.)
OTOH, some smaller clients went away and migrated to Steam, a recent example is the Bethesda Launcher. :)
And yes, Epic and Steam have users that do this, Steam users do it for CS:GO so they can keep their comp account away from their fun knockaround account and Epic users do it for the same reason with Fortnite.
For some strange reason, it is "fun" to play the online multiplayer BattleZ mode with a Level 1 of everything, so some PvZ2 players have their regular, high-level plants account, plus a second one with everything still "fresh".
(I do not do this myself, but have seen a fair share of "All Level 1" of all players I played against.
The usual newbie will have at least some Level 2, 3 or higher plants.)
And I can tell you didn't bother to read further into the topic. ;)
Again: not talking about the insignificant number of power users or people who lost their passwords. Not even talking about cheaters, which I strongly assume is pretty on par on each platform.
I am talking about all those account created about the economy on Steam and featured games.
Don't worry, I figured, don't worry Epic games has a track record for massive scale hacking of their platform, 5 even on a record that you can find right here!
And your point?
---
Anyway, do clairfy what kind of accounts I mean:
Smurfs, alts, cheaters? No. Who cares, they exist in every game.
Claiming free games for selling them later? Exist on both services.
Back in the days of Greenlight there were commercial scale operations that dominated the process, pretty much leading Valve to deafetedly just admitt everything. We are talking about tens of thousands of bot accounts.
Back in the hayday of gambling sites, all of those sites maintained bot accounts. New ones being created by the day if not hour. And quite unsurprisingly they are still a thing. *sigh*
We still have lots of farming accounts for cards an in-game items. Some forum users were talking about having tens of alt accounts alone. So even with a comparable insignificant number of power users these numbers reach thousands easily. And there are again commercial scale operations doing so. Just do a cursory google for Steam level services.
Also there are quite a few highly frequented trading sites with automated trades.
All those reports about trade scams, accounts hijacked and trades diverted - there are throwaway accounts involved. We get such forum posts by the day. And these are people talking about. Who knows about the dark number.
Valve is pretty relentless at shutting down accounts suspected to be used for commercial use when you gifted too many games in a short period and is perfectly fine with normal users being caught in the crossfire. Suggesting a significant problem with accounts used in such a way, e.g. taking advantage of regional pricing. Again, just do some cursory look at the interwebs to find out about how much EGS is affected by it. You will find examples, but far, far less.
Valve has introduced a change to the review system few years ago to basically shadow ban accounts who up-/down vote to many reviews, again suggesting there is a significant problem that required curb stomping such behaviour instead of tracking down such accounts.
How much of that does exist for Epic? There are far less, if any incentives for a lot of those "services" to exist.
The more interesting number: monthly *recurrent* users are not given by either service.
For reviews, I don't buy that for a second, simply because your implying that such a system exists when you and I both know Valves chances of caring about games that get review bombed or properly reviewed does not exist, developers? Sure, we've heard plenty do that as it, but I highly doubt Valve would spare even the slightest hint that they care if reviews are just review bombs or not.
Actually on the topic of valve, they don't really care in general about alot of things unlike Epic because Valve has no need to care about such things, they have their VR headset but they are taking their time with it and the latest thing they've had is their Valve Desk, everything beyond that is really not Valves own battlefield because most games on here are not Valves, nor do they have say in them.
At best, were comparing Epic Games platform which ONLY SELLS GAMES MADE BY EPIC to a larger distribution platform, to me that never made sense unlike what people claim and think, because in this situation we've been comparing what amounts to Amazon being in a business war with say, Youtube; thats not how that really even works because Youtube in of itself is a Brand, its an actual company that only does Youtube things, Amazon however is the parents of several companies so hearing "Amazon Twitch" is not even shocking because ya, Amazon owns the Twitch platform, in this case Steam is owned by Valve, Valve itself has several other companies, including a literal deep sea exploration organization hosted by Gabe himself.
There has never been a war between Epic Games and Valve
Simply because Epic Games wants to attack Valve at every dang chance they get, does not mean they should be humored in their stunts, I'm shocked Epic has yet to pick a fight with EA, Ubisoft or even freaking Blizzard, and the reason is rather simple: Epic Games wants to fight the biggest bear on the block yet still don't understand how their attacking the distribution branch of a larger beast, its like attacking Activision whos part of the larger beast of Activision Blizzard, or attacking Bethesda whos part of the biggest beast of Microsoft Games, their going after who they think is a business worthy foe and just end up injuring themselves in the process.
Its never been about accounts, users, people playing games or any other nonsense hundreds of people bring up over the years, its about Epic having made themselves irrelevant to the modern gaming community because they don't produce anything anymore thats actually worthy of note and keep trying to attack valve, they've actually fallen so hard into their own pit that they did the cliche of getting into NTF's, which is yes, a gaming company cliche thing now because I've only seen failing companies get into it anyways, CCP, owners of EVE Online literally got into it last year and they've been lit up like the freaking New York Christmas Tree ON THE DAY OF ANNOUNCEMENT.
There's no fight, there's no battle and there's sure as heck nothing to learn from Epic beyond this: Don't follow in epics shoes else you'll end up attacking a company branch and just annoy its users when they find out.
Still, it uses a very different approach to them all. :)
I think it uses Qt or something like that, one of the suggestions above for Steam to use.
(Of course, it uses other frameworks too.)
RobotCache client runs in a single EXE file!
Not the Steam, Slack, Chrome, MS Edge, Evernote way, but old-school single Windows EXE.
EDIT: Major error above.
How many good non-Chrome web browsers do you know?
MS Edge, Opera, Chrome and others too are all Chrome based.
Firefox stands out, and Safari too but that is only for Mac/iPhone/iPad side. :)
(Apple killed off Safari for WIndows years ago.)
It is unlikely for a new, non-conforming web browser to take any, even minor market share quickly.
Maybe in 5, 10 years but not now. :)
And Chrome/Chrome has always been using many EXEs/processes (including per tab/etc) from its very start. :)
This multiple EXEs/processes spilt-up only came to Firefox fairly later on, and is still different from Chrome quite a bit. In Firefox, I think there is a upper limit to how many processes it will use.
Chrome can use lots.