pek
prairie dog
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,021
https://bethesda.net/en/article/2RX...53312&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=Community
One less launcher cluttering up my desktop.
One less launcher cluttering up my desktop.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
this is rare... i would've expected the opposite news, i.e. "all of our games in your steam library will now feature our bethesda.net launcher and you will be required to make an account to log in and play" so this is very welcome. i imagine it's because so few people bothered with their stupid launcher that it was more money in upkeep and support costs than it was worth.https://bethesda.net/en/article/2RX...53312&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=Community
One less launcher cluttering up my desktop.
Implying Bethesda only uses one engine in their games.Good.
now if they could drop that piece of shit game engine, for something better...
i'm sure they were referring to the bethesda heavy hitters (fallout, skyrim/elder scrolls) i.e. creation engine. but yeah.Implying Bethesda only uses one engine in their games.
List of engines currently in use by studios with Bethesda Softworks:
Creation Engine
"ESO Engine" (unnamed proprietary engine)
id Tech 6
id Tech 7
Unity
Unreal Engine 4
Void Engine
They desperately need to use a better engine than the Creation engine for Starfield. Otherwise they're just polishing a turd.i'm sure they were referring to the bethesda heavy hitters (fallout, skyrim/elder scrolls) i.e. creation engine. but yeah.
Per the wiki (I know, I know) they are using the Creation engine 2 (!).They desperately need to use a better engine than the Creation engine for Starfield. Otherwise they're just polishing a turd.
Hopefully they've actually learned from their previous mistakes in that case. Ladder climbing, anyone?Per the wiki (I know, I know) they are using the Creation engine 2 (!).
? Why? Once you're in game who cares?Better on Steam.
? Why? Once you're in game who cares?
200mb isn't exactly big on an ssd nowadays...Saves space on my SSD having less launches instead of more launchers.
Bethesda.net launcher was 250MB. Steam is 374MB and Origin is 220MB, for comparison. All my launchers are taking up 1.5GB of space, at most. Even on a 64GB drive that isn't a whole lot, unless your OS is also on it.Saves space on my SSD having less launches instead of more launchers.
Some people prefer the tidiness of "one platform." That shouldn't be dictated by a company but by the consumer's choice. I only support two launchers myself, Steam and GOG. If it ain't on those, it ain't on my PC. Not to say I haven't tried others...but when you game via Steam Big Box and through your TV setup, it becomes tedious to use extra launchers. Even games with setup launchers are annoying in these cases.Bethesda.net launcher was 250MB. Steam is 374MB and Origin is 220MB, for comparison. All my launchers are taking up 1.5GB of space, at most. Even on a 64GB drive that isn't a whole lot, unless your OS is also on it.
Implying Bethesda only uses one engine in their games.
List of engines currently in use by studios with Bethesda Softworks:
Creation Engine
"ESO Engine" (unnamed proprietary engine)
id Tech 6
id Tech 7
Unity
Unreal Engine 4
Void Engine
Back in the day, there was only one: GameSpy. One launcher for playing on line games only.
View attachment 479210
Pretty sure 99% of Epics user base has no more than 2-3 purchased games and several dozen free. I have over 150 games on epic, and have bought *two*. And I dont ever use the launcher, nor play the games. I dont like the epic launcher, its just slower and clunkier. When I was on a 12mb connection, Epic could take up to two minutes to open because it does something on every launch that it downloads a large amount of data. Not sure what, but its clearly download or upload, as I can replicate it at will by reducing my current bandwidth down to those levels and it immediately starts taking forever to launch. It will do this if I have already run it today, restart the PC, and re-open it again as well.I remember playing BBS games using SirDoom. Originally it was just for Doom, but by the end of the line it worked with quite a few other FPS games, though. DWANGO was another launcher along those lines when things became internet-based.
Personally, I just want a few of the shitty launchers to die. Both Origin and EA App (Origin's beta-stage replacement) are atop the list. Rockstar's pointless one would be next. Uplay wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't constantly causing performance issues. Battle.net has whittled their library down enough that I'd rather they just moved their games elsewhere. GOG has the right idea, but it doesn't work that well as a universal launcher like they wanted. Epic's is bare bones AF (and problematic with HDR), but I have a shitload of free games on it, so I can deal.
Back in the day, there was only one: GameSpy. One launcher for playing on line games only.
View attachment 479210
I used Kali in the mid-90s. Moved to primarily using Heat.net in the late-90s. Didn't start using standalone Gamespy until the mid-00s.No love for Kali?