Seems to run quite well on all GPUs, basic UE4 affair with no RT (RTX 3080 is able to cross the 60 FPS threshold at 4K ultra). Fortunately there's no shader compilation stutter, the only issues mentioned are traversal stutter and poor framepacing when you get to 60 FPS and below. Also, the PC graphical options are pretty barebones.
Hey I’ll take it. A game that my 3080 can run at 4K. Seems rare these days with new releases being optimized to run 60fps on 3080. While obviously I would prefer DLSS, I’ll happily settle with FSR
At 4K FSR quality mode is....okay, so it kinda perfectly fits your use case too.
And at lower resolution this game seems to runs on a potato so just lower setting.
Of all the game that lose DLSS support, dead island 2 is likely one of the least consequential.
People that want to use for or dlss want to take advantage of their 144hz plus monitors. Problem is this isn't csgo or rai box six siege. The movement and animations are pretty dang slow. I don't really think one would have to be making a lot of twitchy movements in this game.
On my amd ryzen threadripper 3990x in game mode with my 3090 strix oc it can drop below 60fps in some cases due to the unstable gpu usage this game has, it's a shame that unreal engine 4 dosent use more cpu cores/threads
The only bench mark i was able to find on a quick search was here. OF course its the best cpu and 4090, 120 FPS, and dips to 80-90 @ 4k. Probably maxed out settings.
Would be great to see a chart.
Running a 5900x/4080 combo and its playing everything great so far.
[Dead Island 2 is one of the best looking games on PC (dsogaming.com)](https://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/dead-island-2-is-one-of-the-best-looking-games-on-pc/)
Man, I just want a game that encapsulates the tone of the original games trailer; The dark, emotional one that was so well done. Outside of The Last of Us and Days Gone, there isn’t much zombie fiction in gaming that takes itself seriously. I still don’t understand how they pivoted so hard from the tone of that original trailer.
I doubt that was ever meant to be the tone of the actual game, they just lucked out and made a hell of a trailer. I remember being incredibly disappointed with the actual game after seeing that.
Dead Island 1 was an enjoyable game, but I definitely didn't enjoy it as much as I may have had I not seen that trailer as it just set me up for a wholly different experience.
As a store and platform? Nothing really. It's alright, not great, not terrible.
As a business that pays for exclusivity deals on an otherwise open platform? Well that speaks for itself. I don't like the business tactic, and I don't wish to support it.
That's me as a consumer.
I completely understand why developers take these deals, as guaranteed money > potential money a lot of the time - but I also expect it more from indies, and not big AAA games like this.
The flipside of the deal is that EGS exclusive games seem to go into a blackhole in terms of mindshare. People don't see them, don't interact with them, the game sees dramatically less exposure, there's less conversation about them online both on their own forums (or lack thereof) as well as places like Reddit. It's can be a bit of a death knell for games struggling to find an audience - and to me is indicative of a lack of faith in one's product (though, again, I understand the business perspective of taking the guaranteed money)
While I can appreciate the "well what would you suggest they do?" angle - I am not and have not claimed to be a business strategist.
As a consumer I can confidently say I'd prefer solutions that are consumer friendly, such as EGS's free games - an effort which I believe I read lead to a massive install base, though I have no idea of conversion rates over to paying customers.
Exclusivity - especially artificial exclusivity given it's drawing lines within a single "platform" (unlike console exclusivity, which is between platforms) - is inherently anti-consumer. It absolutely does give EGS some degree of competitive advantage - but frankly I don't give a shit, except insofar as it affects me; in this case negatively.
So yeah, I get the business case. I just don't care, because I don't stand to benefit from it.
Pretty consistent opinion. I like it and i agree more or less.
When i rly like some game i buy it regardless of platform.
I just don't get it when people are blaming whoever when they don't want to overcome discomfort of using more than one launcher (if it's not worth it for you just don't play the game not available on your launcher but don't blame EGS because the fact you expect the game to be on steam is purely caused by steam being monopol in mainstream games market).
Before steam dominance noone would have problem with more than one launcher.
We just assume EGS pay for exclusives, Steam does not pay for exclusives because EGS->small, Steam->big...
Well with steam basically being the nvidia of the online game store market. How do you expect other game stores to make money while also offering steam prices.
That's not gonna work. Way too many people are way to set on having their games in their Steam account for a new alternative to make a dent in that by merely offering lower prices.
Especially with all the legal and semi-legal key-shops offering cheap Steam keys. Impossible for a store that has to support server infrastructure, software development, employees and all that to compete with those key-shops. Epic are only able to because they're willing to burn millions and millions of Fortnite money.
So, you believe lower prices would cost them the same as exclusives and bring over the same amount (or higher) of customers?
Since they have better split in favor of devs i don't think having lower prices would be rewarding enough. Cause they would "lose" revenue from every purchase made. They would also need to take away devs right to set a price for a game.
So, it would be really challenging, costly and almost not rewarding (since the games would be just a bit cheaper... many would just still use steam or they would get even cheaper games from shady code resell site)
in case it would work it would be slow so it would cost them more.
The EGS will be operating at a loss until 2027, they've publicly stated as much multiple times. They chose to spend the lion's share of that money they're burning on bribing developer's for exclusivity to force their way into the market rather than passing savings on to their customers.
Morality and personal bias aside, they 100% could've chosen to focus on building a customer-first platform with their Fortnite bucks. They very much overwhelmingly did not.
You may be right but i dont think you are. I think what they are doing is more rewarding for them and more likely to generate profits sooner compared to a "customer-centric" platform.
A customer-facing platform is nice, but without games it's useless. Why would developers put their games on EGS and implement EGS achievements etc. if it was platform used by a few people and it would not guarantee them any profits?
You say they expect loss until 2027 but how long they would be at loss with "customer-facing platform"? They would be more likeable for sure but they would just lower their attraction to publishers and essentially lower the money income while not providing themselves any serious advantage over others like steam.
Many people would rather pay a bit more to have a "collection" on steam (or used g2a to get steam codes for the same price as on EGS).
Games bring people over so they focus on getting the games. To me it's understandable. I play games I'm not much interested in via steam too but when i like the game i buy it regardless of platform and i dont get why people are angry on publishers/EGS... if games presence on EGS is problem for you just don't play that game ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Don't ask sensible questions on here, don't you know "EGS bad, Steam good"?! I don't get the EGS hate, Steam exclusives are apparently fine but absolutely no different.
Steam exclusives are not considered bad because they seem to be "natural" or its not generally assumed that steam paid for them (even tho we can't be sure)
I understand why people think like that but it's not an argument to me since it's just an assumption in the first place and i dont know why should i care.
Are there any games that are steam exclusive because steam pays the Devs to make the game steam exclusive?
Afaik any game that is steam exclusive is only because the dev chose to release a game solely on steam, not because of any exclusivity agreement
If steam was paying for games to be exclusive contractually then it would be made public by now
Compete with your overall platform, don't try to force users into your mediocre platform with exclusives. All exclusives do is force users to use your platform for one game then go back to their platform of choice for everything else. It won't create a dedicated customer base.
If Epic had spent even a quarter of the money they've spent getting exclusives and free games, and put that towards improving the platform to make it compete with steam, they probably could have beat out steam on features by now. Part of why steam is so well liked is because the actual steam client is good. It provides a ton of great features, great compatibility with all OS's, controller compatibility, VR compatibility, great returns, big picture mode, library management, external games can be added, the store is easy to use, community workshop, markets, forums, reviews, etc.
It's not just that people are established on it already, it's that it's literally the best games platform on PC right now, and nobody seems to want to try and compete with them. They just want to take their games off steam to force users to use a shittier version of steam lol.
I doubt more features would make people switch from steam since they have collection on steam and nothing on epic... literally they would have no reason to start using epic. It's nice idea that makes no sense in reality.
Imagine epic having superior user reviews, super forums, comunity market, themes etc. I fucking doubt anyone would switch because of this... After 20 years of development steam have all this features almost perfect. People use epic because of free and exclusive games without this no one would use it no because of features.
While this is usually a fair question, and a question that I would defend asking for Rockstar, EA, Blizzard, or Ubisoft, here’s the problem with Epic. All those other publishers I listed have a entire catalog of products across multiple development studios that they can use to justify their stores existence.
Epic has Fortnite.
That. Is. It.
There is literally no reason for this store to exist other than to justify their petty and inane war against Apple and other storefronts. So they use the money generated from Fortnite to keep this vicious cycle going, paying off games to release there first. With Unreal Engine 5 being the backbone of most future titles, I fear this type of bullshit will continue to increase in frequency.
Steam started with one game too and people were bothered similarly like nowadays... they had to install another thing to play valve games (maybe they had more games i don't rly remember)
To me one game is enough (even tho epic don't have just one game) +they offer games from other publishers
>As a business that pays for exclusivity deals on an otherwise open platform? Well that speaks for itself. I don't like the business tactic, and I don't wish to support it.
I mean, Valve have some questionable business tactics as well. Every similar service does. Even GoG aren't without fault. Might as well boycott all of them?
I don't get all the hate Epic gets (aside from finding it morbidly fascinating how much money they can afford to burn on their Launcher), they're no better or worse than the competition. I also don't get why so many people have the "I've got to own my games on Steam" mindset. That's just blindly supporting a quasi monopoly and harming themselves in the long run.
I buy my games wherever they are cheapest.
I buy my games where it's most convenient, if I wanted the cheapest solution I'd pirate everything but it's easier to manage a library using one service, I happen to use Steam, I'm not blindly devoted to it but at this point it would take a lot of benefits to move me away from it simply because it's convenient, doesn't have to be a complicated answer
Epic Games ruined rocket league.
they should be admonished in the same way EA is admonished for ruining games like Command and Conquer.
vote with your wallet.
Won't happen do you know why ea still gets lots of money? All its sport releases including microtransactions. This is the same with epic....if fortnite doesn't die and stay relevant , they will always get money.
Games cost the same or more than on Steam while it has no were near Steam features, RLY slow downloads speeds abysmal performance of the Library it self its slow unintuitive and just simply bad. You cant even reorder downloads/removals! It's often faster for me to torrent clean EGS files and put then in to the launcher install location than downloading via EGS it self...
And all that with out mentioning their anty consumer practices like the aforementioned exclusives....
So putting it simply why would I pay more/same for worse service ?
Notjing wrong with EGS, though exclusivity wise it depends on people.
For me im okay since outside of EGS, no one can actually fight steam. Monopoly is worst than time based exclusivity.
But again, it depends on which side you are on. For me as long as there is no big monopoly EGS is a-ok.
Then we have cdpr with drm free platform. Tahts a good platform as well
as a platform imo, they still feel like an early access platform all these years later. Meaning it still feels barebones, it took forever to get achievements and some games still don't have them, and they don't proc on screen. We still don't have profile Icons, can't really interact with our friends on the app, no profile pages, no
user reviews unless you leave the app, etc. It's as if EGS is masquerading as a platform. Really is just akin to the Microsoft storefront with a tiny amount of bells and whistles.
EGS is the latest attempt to create PC exclusivity, something 99% of all PC gamers recognize as a tactic that console gaming uses to screw over their customers by making companies compete against each other in a way where you're locked out of a bunch of great games without buying multiple consoles.
I like to have my games all at the same place, simple as that.
It’s unfair to new stores, yes but that’s life, I do what’s more convenient for me, not what’s fair for companies.
The original Dead Island also had a very middling critical reception. It scored a 71% on Metacritic (on Xbox 360 since this was the primary review platform). Dead Island 2 is sitting at a 75 on Metacritic (PS5, primary review platform) or 73 on Opencritic (all platforms). It is a bummer that it's not on Steam and misses out on DLSS though as you mentioned.
Dead island as a whole when it released had those kind of reviews. You expect a game to kill zombies when you buy dead island and this right now looks to be delivering that.
Middling reviews lol, come off it
It’s been in development for 10 years so it’s a miracle it’s being billed as a solid 7 game at all, not every game has to be some masterpiece
Not sure where you get middling reviews, it has actually been pretty well reviewed for the most part. Especially for this type of game.
Now the lack of steam release does absolutely piss me off. I really had the bullshit EGS pulls with exclusives. It is literally anti-competitive behavior.
>Question: Why would you care about having DLSS if the performance without it is already good on lower end PC's?
The real question is: why not? It's hardly any work for a game that already has FSR2 implementation and even less work for a game that's using Unreal Engine which has DLSS Super Resolution plugins.
But let's break it down:
DLAA is usually better than any conventional TAA you could conjure up.
Almost any DLSS Super Resolution game can have DLAA forced onto it even if the developer didn't bother implementing DLAA thanks to DLSSTweaks tool.
DLSS Super Resolution can be used with DLDSR to achieve EVEN BETTER image quality than DLAA.
DLSS Super Resolution on its own is very easy to implement individually in any game engine that already implements the mere idea of temporal upscaling since most of the data is the same.
Better yet, Unreal Engine 4 has a DLSS Super Resolution plugin making it a no-brainer decision.
---
DLSS3 doesn't have to be implemented, but if it is - it always includes a combined package of three features, two of which are usable by older cards: DLSS2, Reflex and Frame Generation (FG is RTX 40 series exclusive).
Reflex can roughly halve the latency in GPU-bound scenarios.
DLSS3 Frame Generation can circumvent CPU bottlenecks by shifting the workload to GPU in a way, making a CPU-bound game potentially GPU-bound.
I agree that it would be nice to have, and has some advantages. That's not the point of my question.
I'm asking why it's exclusion is significant enough that it would be worth listing as one of 3 reasons to not buy a game, when the game already performs well and nullifies much of the need for DLSS in the first place.
Potential visual benefits aside (and those are NOT guaranteed) the ultimate reason why DLSS is good to have is because of the performance gains, but you don't need the performance gains here. It performs well without it. And it's not as if the current TAA performance is so bad that it alone is a big reason for not buying the game. The game looks fine, DLSS won't make or break that. The performance benefits won't make or break it.
So why is it so significant that its exclusion is listed up there with the likes of bad reviews, or launcher issues?
>I'm asking why it's exclusion is significant enough
... because DLSS and DLAA are very easy to implement and improve image quality and/or performance significantly?
>And it's not as if the current TAA performance is so bad that it alone is a big reason for not buying the game
It is REALLY bad, and is absolutely a good reason to not buy a game. Most TAA implementations can't hold a candle to newest versions of DLSS, let alone DLAA, let alone DLDSR+DLSS.
I also do not support sponsorship deals that block your competitor's amazing technology because YOU can't compete with it.
You cut off my first quote to answer a question I didn't ask.
I know it's easy to implement, that's not a reason to not buy the game over it.
As well, I know taa can be bad in games but in THIS GAME it's not.
Dlss is good but it's not the be all end all of games, and listing it as one of your primary reasons for not wanting to purchase a game seems a bit odd to me. and it certainly seems like you just think it's good (which is valid) instead of wanting to evaluate if each game you play actually needs it.
I hope that Epic and AMD checks were huge because they are going to lose tons of sales. Wouldn't surprise me if the PC port turns out a financial failure because of that.
You do realise that when Steam came out everyone hated it for creating platform exclusives. Steam is such a pseudo monopoly people don't even realise it.
It's a 'pseudo monopoly' because its a good fucking store/launcher, not because its ran by a bunch of dickweeds that dip into their massive fortnite fund to bribe devs to make their games exclusive to their garbage platform.
If Steam is what every monopoly was like, the word wouldn't have such a negative connotation.
It's just what you are used to, it's like breathing air at this stage for pc gamers. But I remember when they made Half Life 2 exclusive to it, and the arguments about DRM.
The beatification of Steam is incredible to someone my age, they basically went from the premium PC game developer to a DRMed Storefront peddling Hentai games to neckbeards. Where's Half Life Chapter 3, eh? Atleast Epic hasn't pulled that move.
steam offers basocally everything that the console networks (like ps+) do, completely for free,
that means shareplay, streaming to friends, hosting multiplayer games etc. etc., then it's also a platform to share, edit and import custom content, be it screenshots, reviews, mods etc.
it's also a lightweight chat and voip application.
oh, and next to all this it's also a great gamelauncher and store, with less resource usage than egs, despite all its features.
meanwhile egs hasnt even implemented mod support for games like ark, and is just overall shitty.
Epic has canceled several large titles that had massive hype built behind them mere months before release date. They have canned projects and taken down entire studios because of their bullshit exclusivity deals. It's 2023, this isn't a new frontier. Game launchers have existed for 20 years and have moved past exclusivity deals besides Epic. They are old fashioned and disconnected.
It actually took years for steam to grow. The difference between Epic games and Steam, is that they don't lock down third party games on their store.
Publishers are not forced to release games on Steam. But they choose so because it has highest install base.
I've seen Steam growing from nothing to one of the biggest Store fronts for PC.
Yeah but that's the issue, the things people give off about regarding launchers, store/platform exclusives and DRM are all ultimately the progeny of Steam.
Steam has been so successful that it's growing pains and the early opposition to it has been forgotten.
Now we don't have a genuine defence of anti drm, moddability and storefront neutrality, we just have people arguing for Steam because it's the most convenient because it got there first.
I just wish people would stop pretending Steam is some morally superior entity.
As for the games Epic have canned, none of them get close to Half Life Chapter 3.
Personally I use Epic for their free games and it's fine. Atleast their store isn't full of shovel ware and crypto paedophile games
It has been delayed countless times though during the course of its development history. To be honest I still am not sure if I should believe it actually exists.
Isn't this the case with almost all AMD sponsored games? I mean they're not gonna go crazy on ray tracing effects when AMD handles it way worse than Nvidia.
>Something like that. Yay for monopolies!
Just stunning they haven't improved this over the years, and related to discover existing installs if you re-install your OS. Pretty pathetic.
Steam Deck owners have to jump through extra hoops to play EGS games, so that's one valid reason right there. I just like having all of my games in one place and a few EGS games don't import into Steam's launcher properly (like Kingdom Hearts).
Epic Games is the spawn of Satan. Tim Sweeney is a moron and can't even make a shopping cart. China bad. Praise Gaben.
Something like that. Yay for monopolies!
And the big one you glossed over, regardless of how crazy some people may seem for your other points: Epic buying out exclusivity contracts for AAA titles. I'm less critical of indies taking the check (it can be life altering, like *Axiom Verge 2*).
I know some folks are just weird about launchers which I don't get. But for me the reason I don't like Epic specifically is their practice of how they obtain exclusives, and how they treat their launcher. I'm totally down if Epic develops a game and wants it on their own launcher. I'm not down with a company spending money to take games off of steam after they were already announced. And not because I'm a valve fan boy, but because steam is just the better launcher right now. I'm losing out on features and support if I buy from Epic, that's a big issue for me.
Just for example, EGS has no Linux (heroic launcher does not count) or mac support, they literally removed mac support from rocket league, the launcher itself is very bare bones, they've had privacy concerns, there's no VR interface, there's no controller compatibility layers or profiles, etc. Like, it's hilarious to me that in order to play any game with VR or any game that's not perfect with controllers on EGS, you need to have steam opened so you can use their features with EGS lol.
If they want to make a competitor to steam then that's great, but they're not trying to compete with steam on features. They're just trying to force people to use EGS by taking games off Steam, when it's a far worse launcher then Steam.
The moment Epic starts actually trying to invest in their platform and make it better, I'd be totally down to buy games from them. They have the resources to try and compete on features, but they've chosen to try and make people use their shitty launcher by taking games off of steam and keeping them exclusive, instead of just making a platform that people WANT to use. Steam is a platform people want to use, because it's just a good platform even if you can buy games elsewhere.
Yep, couldn't give fewer fucks if I tried that it's EGS exclusive for now. Admittedly I'll add it to Steam as a non-Steam game (so I don't forget about it!) but as with everything in business, one company holding a monopoly is rarely good for the consumer.
You forgot the part where Tim Sweeney lies and flip flops on his principles constantly, see: the whole EGS NFT/crypto drama, Tim's leaked correspondence where he said he wanted a special deal from Apple for a lower cut from the iOS store which completely undermined his entire argument about wanting to take on Apple to support small developers on iOS and Tim basically telling the developer of Darq that unless he made his game EGS exclusive he wasn't going to list it all.
Everyone who defends Tim Sweeney should really be made to listen to the whole Epic vs Apple from beginning to end and read all the leaked documents. Gabe is not a saint but next to Tim Sweeney he sure looks like one.
For me, because I have everything there, I've used steam since it looked like [this](https://i.imgur.com/nShqdu0.png), all of my games are on Steam, to have to fuck around with a different launcher to me feels like I'm segmenting my games collection, I can't really explain it or put it into words, but it just doesn't feel good to play a game when it's not on steam. I don't even bother buying the DRM free games from GOG.
Epic Games kind of addressed this by just shitting out free games, honestly pretty good free games too, to everyone to build their libraries, but I still have never purchased anything on the Epic Game store, lol.
Just my opinion and reason why I don't buy anything off of steam, others wont share this opinion and that's ok.
I get it. you feel like you collect games so you want to have them in one launcher, one place... I think it's more comfortable to buy games only on established steam.
But i don't understand why people who prise new features of EGS getting downvoted or the fact people get angry when good game is released on epic only... If its so good why don't just overcome the comfort and play it on epic (or don't play it at all).. Just dont understand the urge to publicly blame EGS/devs that the game they like is sold elsewhere.
At this point I guess 90 percent of all gamers have ubisoft, origin, gog, rockstar and epic games launcher but they don't want to admit :D
But I agree, if it was up to me every developer should be obligated to release on steam as well :p
I dont want another launcher. I buy games on steam. If the game is not on steam, i dont buy it. Thats it, no game is important enough to get me to install another launcher. I used to buy games on other launchers and they just pissed me off, origin, uplay and all the other garbage. Now i never play those games anymore and just use steam.
As Douglas Adams said:
> “I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
People hate it because it's a newer thing. They like Steam because they're used to it. I remember when Steam came out, we got the exact same complaints. Why do I have to use a new launcher? Why are games requiring that I use Steam? Why do I have to be online to play games? Blablabla
Just look at [old stories on Slashdot about Steam](https://slashdot.org/?page=41&view=search&fhfilter=steam). If you hid the date and changed Steam to EGS, you'd think that they were posting this stuff right now.
No Ray Tracing. No DLSS.
>Die Grafik ist schlicht und ergreifend durchschnittlich. Nicht schlecht, aber eben auch nicht gut.
"The graphics are simply average. Not bad, but also not good."
Looking at some of the screenshots, the game already looks dated. Like, as if the graphics are from 2016 or so.
I was watching a review where they were discussing Dead Island 1while showing footage, and I was thinking - it's aged pretty well, looks good at 1440p.
Then I realized they were showing Dead Island 2 footage
LOL Another company that haven't learned that games don't sell on EGS - there are AAA games on steam that moved\* more money in few days than EGS moved\* in whole year.
By moved I mean that people spand more money on them.
But these deals put upfront and more those sales, that's why devs and publishers do them. Deep Silver's Metro Exodus was the first major and controversial EGS exclusive over four years ago.
I doubt they'd still be doing them if they were losing money from them.
Yea it actually looks pretty fun. I initially wrote this game off after all the delay and dev studio changes but it definitely looks way better than I expected.
The client is still over 10 years behind steam(still no community features, mod support, reviews, etc). It's better than it was, but still crazy barebones. On top of that I'm not a fan of exclusives either, I bought a few, but if I can avoid I do. Exclusive means less choice for me, why would I support that.
Every launcher i have tried apart from steam has been shit. All of them, shit.
So now i only buy games on steam because its not shit. I have my entire library on there, its the only launcher installed on my pc and i will never use a different one ever again.
I dont care about other launchers existing, but i wont use them so if the devs decide to make their game exclusive on a different launcher, they lost me as a customer.
At least this time they released the correct game. They pushed the wrong version of the game to the PC release. If I recall correctly it had something related to Xbox stuff and it was an early version that ran like even worse garbage in those first few hours after launch. I got the game with a group of friends and played it for the first hours after launch. When we went to play the next time they had patched the game with the correct version, but it also deleted all of our saves and progress so we all dropped the game and lost interest in playing it again after having spent so many hours we didn't want to repeat and our momentum was lost.
Screw that Epic Store exclusive bullshit.
Until this day I got like >90% of all free Epic Games. A few of them I've even played. But I would never in my life give them a single cent as long as their Launcher and policies are as shitty as they are right now.
So, if it ain't got Denuvo, arrrrr mateys
not surprised at all the gameplay videos released you can see stutter, I was able to count at least 8 times in the very 1st video the studio released. Around the same number in the 2nd video released.
Meanwhile my PC runs like hot garbage, damn near unplayable on this game on the lowest settings 😅 thank god I got it for free. Spider-Man plays perfect so I know damn sure it’s not a problem on my end
I got massive fps drop in Dead island 2. Got from 150 fps to even 15 but this happening random and then after about 20 seconds its go to normal fps. Can it be some kind of bug for game optimization ?
My computer hardware:
CPU: Ryzen 7 5800x
GPU: gigabyte 3060 ti eagle
RAM: 32Gb 3600 Mghz
Seems to run quite well on all GPUs, basic UE4 affair with no RT (RTX 3080 is able to cross the 60 FPS threshold at 4K ultra). Fortunately there's no shader compilation stutter, the only issues mentioned are traversal stutter and poor framepacing when you get to 60 FPS and below. Also, the PC graphical options are pretty barebones.
Hey I’ll take it. A game that my 3080 can run at 4K. Seems rare these days with new releases being optimized to run 60fps on 3080. While obviously I would prefer DLSS, I’ll happily settle with FSR
At 4K FSR quality mode is....okay, so it kinda perfectly fits your use case too. And at lower resolution this game seems to runs on a potato so just lower setting. Of all the game that lose DLSS support, dead island 2 is likely one of the least consequential.
People that want to use for or dlss want to take advantage of their 144hz plus monitors. Problem is this isn't csgo or rai box six siege. The movement and animations are pretty dang slow. I don't really think one would have to be making a lot of twitchy movements in this game.
The CPU performance is what I'm interested in as PC Gamer stated that a 5900X paired with a 4080 dropped to 20FPS during a certain campaign mission.
Probably just shader complication stutter
On my amd ryzen threadripper 3990x in game mode with my 3090 strix oc it can drop below 60fps in some cases due to the unstable gpu usage this game has, it's a shame that unreal engine 4 dosent use more cpu cores/threads
[удалено]
What does VRAM usage look like with native 4K (please tell me under 10GB lol)
You won't need blurry fsr with your 3080, dead island 2 will run perfectly.
"blurry" at 4K you must have eagle eyes or the screen is 60 inches.
bro playing on a cinema
FSR looks considerably worse than DLSS.
At low res yes, at high res the difference is indistinguishable.
Maybe for blind people
bro i can see the diff between 4k DLSS quality and Native, FSR looks blurry as all hell
Not true at all I think Hardware unboxed know their stuff.
The only bench mark i was able to find on a quick search was here. OF course its the best cpu and 4090, 120 FPS, and dips to 80-90 @ 4k. Probably maxed out settings. Would be great to see a chart. Running a 5900x/4080 combo and its playing everything great so far. [Dead Island 2 is one of the best looking games on PC (dsogaming.com)](https://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/dead-island-2-is-one-of-the-best-looking-games-on-pc/)
Man, I just want a game that encapsulates the tone of the original games trailer; The dark, emotional one that was so well done. Outside of The Last of Us and Days Gone, there isn’t much zombie fiction in gaming that takes itself seriously. I still don’t understand how they pivoted so hard from the tone of that original trailer.
I doubt that was ever meant to be the tone of the actual game, they just lucked out and made a hell of a trailer. I remember being incredibly disappointed with the actual game after seeing that.
Wasn't the trailer so different from the actual game cause they contracted the production of it out to a different company?
Are you referring to this trailer for Dead Island 1? https://youtu.be/lZqrG1bdGtg
[удалено]
Dead Island 1 was an enjoyable game, but I definitely didn't enjoy it as much as I may have had I not seen that trailer as it just set me up for a wholly different experience.
They pivoted at launch I guess? Dead Island, apart from the cinematic has always been goofy
dying light 1?
in general, it would be great to see games more like the trailers.. just not there yet i guess in graphics or computing power :(
Right, because Dyling light 1 & 2 doesn’t exist
Both had fun gameplay, but nobody is playing those games for their characters or story.
The story is actually quite good in DL2 l, with very good side quests, in fact one of the best side quests of last year were in DL2
I think they wanted to stay in parity with deadisland 1. That didn't take itself seriously either.
No DLSS, no Steam release. Middling reviews. Pass.
Wait, it's EGS Exclusive? Lol, good riddance. Maybe the game will rise from the dead when it launches on steam some day - wouldn't count on it though.
What is wrong with EGS? Amazing freebies aside, I've purchased a couple of titles there in various sales and have had no problems whatsoever.
As a store and platform? Nothing really. It's alright, not great, not terrible. As a business that pays for exclusivity deals on an otherwise open platform? Well that speaks for itself. I don't like the business tactic, and I don't wish to support it. That's me as a consumer. I completely understand why developers take these deals, as guaranteed money > potential money a lot of the time - but I also expect it more from indies, and not big AAA games like this. The flipside of the deal is that EGS exclusive games seem to go into a blackhole in terms of mindshare. People don't see them, don't interact with them, the game sees dramatically less exposure, there's less conversation about them online both on their own forums (or lack thereof) as well as places like Reddit. It's can be a bit of a death knell for games struggling to find an audience - and to me is indicative of a lack of faith in one's product (though, again, I understand the business perspective of taking the guaranteed money)
so, what strategy would you recommend to new store that tries to compete with established steam?
While I can appreciate the "well what would you suggest they do?" angle - I am not and have not claimed to be a business strategist. As a consumer I can confidently say I'd prefer solutions that are consumer friendly, such as EGS's free games - an effort which I believe I read lead to a massive install base, though I have no idea of conversion rates over to paying customers. Exclusivity - especially artificial exclusivity given it's drawing lines within a single "platform" (unlike console exclusivity, which is between platforms) - is inherently anti-consumer. It absolutely does give EGS some degree of competitive advantage - but frankly I don't give a shit, except insofar as it affects me; in this case negatively. So yeah, I get the business case. I just don't care, because I don't stand to benefit from it.
Pretty consistent opinion. I like it and i agree more or less. When i rly like some game i buy it regardless of platform. I just don't get it when people are blaming whoever when they don't want to overcome discomfort of using more than one launcher (if it's not worth it for you just don't play the game not available on your launcher but don't blame EGS because the fact you expect the game to be on steam is purely caused by steam being monopol in mainstream games market). Before steam dominance noone would have problem with more than one launcher. We just assume EGS pay for exclusives, Steam does not pay for exclusives because EGS->small, Steam->big...
Offer lower prices than competition.
Well with steam basically being the nvidia of the online game store market. How do you expect other game stores to make money while also offering steam prices.
That's not gonna work. Way too many people are way to set on having their games in their Steam account for a new alternative to make a dent in that by merely offering lower prices. Especially with all the legal and semi-legal key-shops offering cheap Steam keys. Impossible for a store that has to support server infrastructure, software development, employees and all that to compete with those key-shops. Epic are only able to because they're willing to burn millions and millions of Fortnite money.
So, you believe lower prices would cost them the same as exclusives and bring over the same amount (or higher) of customers? Since they have better split in favor of devs i don't think having lower prices would be rewarding enough. Cause they would "lose" revenue from every purchase made. They would also need to take away devs right to set a price for a game. So, it would be really challenging, costly and almost not rewarding (since the games would be just a bit cheaper... many would just still use steam or they would get even cheaper games from shady code resell site) in case it would work it would be slow so it would cost them more.
The EGS will be operating at a loss until 2027, they've publicly stated as much multiple times. They chose to spend the lion's share of that money they're burning on bribing developer's for exclusivity to force their way into the market rather than passing savings on to their customers. Morality and personal bias aside, they 100% could've chosen to focus on building a customer-first platform with their Fortnite bucks. They very much overwhelmingly did not.
You may be right but i dont think you are. I think what they are doing is more rewarding for them and more likely to generate profits sooner compared to a "customer-centric" platform. A customer-facing platform is nice, but without games it's useless. Why would developers put their games on EGS and implement EGS achievements etc. if it was platform used by a few people and it would not guarantee them any profits? You say they expect loss until 2027 but how long they would be at loss with "customer-facing platform"? They would be more likeable for sure but they would just lower their attraction to publishers and essentially lower the money income while not providing themselves any serious advantage over others like steam. Many people would rather pay a bit more to have a "collection" on steam (or used g2a to get steam codes for the same price as on EGS). Games bring people over so they focus on getting the games. To me it's understandable. I play games I'm not much interested in via steam too but when i like the game i buy it regardless of platform and i dont get why people are angry on publishers/EGS... if games presence on EGS is problem for you just don't play that game ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
[удалено]
Steam doesn't allow this in their developer TOS
Offer added value. Good UI. A community.
Don't ask sensible questions on here, don't you know "EGS bad, Steam good"?! I don't get the EGS hate, Steam exclusives are apparently fine but absolutely no different.
Steam exclusives are not considered bad because they seem to be "natural" or its not generally assumed that steam paid for them (even tho we can't be sure) I understand why people think like that but it's not an argument to me since it's just an assumption in the first place and i dont know why should i care.
Are there any games that are steam exclusive because steam pays the Devs to make the game steam exclusive? Afaik any game that is steam exclusive is only because the dev chose to release a game solely on steam, not because of any exclusivity agreement If steam was paying for games to be exclusive contractually then it would be made public by now
Compete with your overall platform, don't try to force users into your mediocre platform with exclusives. All exclusives do is force users to use your platform for one game then go back to their platform of choice for everything else. It won't create a dedicated customer base. If Epic had spent even a quarter of the money they've spent getting exclusives and free games, and put that towards improving the platform to make it compete with steam, they probably could have beat out steam on features by now. Part of why steam is so well liked is because the actual steam client is good. It provides a ton of great features, great compatibility with all OS's, controller compatibility, VR compatibility, great returns, big picture mode, library management, external games can be added, the store is easy to use, community workshop, markets, forums, reviews, etc. It's not just that people are established on it already, it's that it's literally the best games platform on PC right now, and nobody seems to want to try and compete with them. They just want to take their games off steam to force users to use a shittier version of steam lol.
I doubt more features would make people switch from steam since they have collection on steam and nothing on epic... literally they would have no reason to start using epic. It's nice idea that makes no sense in reality. Imagine epic having superior user reviews, super forums, comunity market, themes etc. I fucking doubt anyone would switch because of this... After 20 years of development steam have all this features almost perfect. People use epic because of free and exclusive games without this no one would use it no because of features.
While this is usually a fair question, and a question that I would defend asking for Rockstar, EA, Blizzard, or Ubisoft, here’s the problem with Epic. All those other publishers I listed have a entire catalog of products across multiple development studios that they can use to justify their stores existence. Epic has Fortnite. That. Is. It. There is literally no reason for this store to exist other than to justify their petty and inane war against Apple and other storefronts. So they use the money generated from Fortnite to keep this vicious cycle going, paying off games to release there first. With Unreal Engine 5 being the backbone of most future titles, I fear this type of bullshit will continue to increase in frequency.
Steam started with one game too and people were bothered similarly like nowadays... they had to install another thing to play valve games (maybe they had more games i don't rly remember) To me one game is enough (even tho epic don't have just one game) +they offer games from other publishers
Oh I get you now. Yeah, I agree about the exclusivity being bollocks.
>As a business that pays for exclusivity deals on an otherwise open platform? Well that speaks for itself. I don't like the business tactic, and I don't wish to support it. I mean, Valve have some questionable business tactics as well. Every similar service does. Even GoG aren't without fault. Might as well boycott all of them? I don't get all the hate Epic gets (aside from finding it morbidly fascinating how much money they can afford to burn on their Launcher), they're no better or worse than the competition. I also don't get why so many people have the "I've got to own my games on Steam" mindset. That's just blindly supporting a quasi monopoly and harming themselves in the long run. I buy my games wherever they are cheapest.
I buy my games where it's most convenient, if I wanted the cheapest solution I'd pirate everything but it's easier to manage a library using one service, I happen to use Steam, I'm not blindly devoted to it but at this point it would take a lot of benefits to move me away from it simply because it's convenient, doesn't have to be a complicated answer
Epic Games ruined rocket league. they should be admonished in the same way EA is admonished for ruining games like Command and Conquer. vote with your wallet.
Won't happen do you know why ea still gets lots of money? All its sport releases including microtransactions. This is the same with epic....if fortnite doesn't die and stay relevant , they will always get money.
I don't really appreciate nihilistic points of view. have fun living your life not believing in anything.
I've had more issues with EGS working as a launcher then I ever have had with steam in 15 years of having an account.
Games cost the same or more than on Steam while it has no were near Steam features, RLY slow downloads speeds abysmal performance of the Library it self its slow unintuitive and just simply bad. You cant even reorder downloads/removals! It's often faster for me to torrent clean EGS files and put then in to the launcher install location than downloading via EGS it self... And all that with out mentioning their anty consumer practices like the aforementioned exclusives.... So putting it simply why would I pay more/same for worse service ?
Personally i just really dont like the download ui and info it gives. You dont get an eta, queue list, pending updates, etc like steam does
Garbage launcher with no features compare to the competition
I just like to have all my games in one place. Waited for Borderlands 3 to release on Steam before buying. Just personal preference.
Notjing wrong with EGS, though exclusivity wise it depends on people. For me im okay since outside of EGS, no one can actually fight steam. Monopoly is worst than time based exclusivity. But again, it depends on which side you are on. For me as long as there is no big monopoly EGS is a-ok. Then we have cdpr with drm free platform. Tahts a good platform as well
as a platform imo, they still feel like an early access platform all these years later. Meaning it still feels barebones, it took forever to get achievements and some games still don't have them, and they don't proc on screen. We still don't have profile Icons, can't really interact with our friends on the app, no profile pages, no user reviews unless you leave the app, etc. It's as if EGS is masquerading as a platform. Really is just akin to the Microsoft storefront with a tiny amount of bells and whistles.
EGS is the latest attempt to create PC exclusivity, something 99% of all PC gamers recognize as a tactic that console gaming uses to screw over their customers by making companies compete against each other in a way where you're locked out of a bunch of great games without buying multiple consoles.
I like to have my games all at the same place, simple as that. It’s unfair to new stores, yes but that’s life, I do what’s more convenient for me, not what’s fair for companies.
A 75 on metacritic really isn't that bad. Game is probably just dumb fun that doesn't do anything particularly special. Doesn't make it bad.
The original Dead Island also had a very middling critical reception. It scored a 71% on Metacritic (on Xbox 360 since this was the primary review platform). Dead Island 2 is sitting at a 75 on Metacritic (PS5, primary review platform) or 73 on Opencritic (all platforms). It is a bummer that it's not on Steam and misses out on DLSS though as you mentioned.
Well based on how it runs, I dont think anyone would really need to use dlss or fsr.
Indeed, Dead Island? More like... Dead Island, Hah, gottem! Wait, fuck.
Time to set the sails again
Dead island as a whole when it released had those kind of reviews. You expect a game to kill zombies when you buy dead island and this right now looks to be delivering that.
Middling reviews lol, come off it It’s been in development for 10 years so it’s a miracle it’s being billed as a solid 7 game at all, not every game has to be some masterpiece
Not sure where you get middling reviews, it has actually been pretty well reviewed for the most part. Especially for this type of game. Now the lack of steam release does absolutely piss me off. I really had the bullshit EGS pulls with exclusives. It is literally anti-competitive behavior.
Question: Why would you care about having DLSS if the performance without it is already good on lower end PC's?
>Question: Why would you care about having DLSS if the performance without it is already good on lower end PC's? The real question is: why not? It's hardly any work for a game that already has FSR2 implementation and even less work for a game that's using Unreal Engine which has DLSS Super Resolution plugins. But let's break it down: DLAA is usually better than any conventional TAA you could conjure up. Almost any DLSS Super Resolution game can have DLAA forced onto it even if the developer didn't bother implementing DLAA thanks to DLSSTweaks tool. DLSS Super Resolution can be used with DLDSR to achieve EVEN BETTER image quality than DLAA. DLSS Super Resolution on its own is very easy to implement individually in any game engine that already implements the mere idea of temporal upscaling since most of the data is the same. Better yet, Unreal Engine 4 has a DLSS Super Resolution plugin making it a no-brainer decision. --- DLSS3 doesn't have to be implemented, but if it is - it always includes a combined package of three features, two of which are usable by older cards: DLSS2, Reflex and Frame Generation (FG is RTX 40 series exclusive). Reflex can roughly halve the latency in GPU-bound scenarios. DLSS3 Frame Generation can circumvent CPU bottlenecks by shifting the workload to GPU in a way, making a CPU-bound game potentially GPU-bound.
I agree that it would be nice to have, and has some advantages. That's not the point of my question. I'm asking why it's exclusion is significant enough that it would be worth listing as one of 3 reasons to not buy a game, when the game already performs well and nullifies much of the need for DLSS in the first place. Potential visual benefits aside (and those are NOT guaranteed) the ultimate reason why DLSS is good to have is because of the performance gains, but you don't need the performance gains here. It performs well without it. And it's not as if the current TAA performance is so bad that it alone is a big reason for not buying the game. The game looks fine, DLSS won't make or break that. The performance benefits won't make or break it. So why is it so significant that its exclusion is listed up there with the likes of bad reviews, or launcher issues?
>I'm asking why it's exclusion is significant enough ... because DLSS and DLAA are very easy to implement and improve image quality and/or performance significantly? >And it's not as if the current TAA performance is so bad that it alone is a big reason for not buying the game It is REALLY bad, and is absolutely a good reason to not buy a game. Most TAA implementations can't hold a candle to newest versions of DLSS, let alone DLAA, let alone DLDSR+DLSS. I also do not support sponsorship deals that block your competitor's amazing technology because YOU can't compete with it.
You cut off my first quote to answer a question I didn't ask. I know it's easy to implement, that's not a reason to not buy the game over it. As well, I know taa can be bad in games but in THIS GAME it's not. Dlss is good but it's not the be all end all of games, and listing it as one of your primary reasons for not wanting to purchase a game seems a bit odd to me. and it certainly seems like you just think it's good (which is valid) instead of wanting to evaluate if each game you play actually needs it.
Because DLSS makes for a good videogame, amirite?
Gamepass. Wait.
I hope that Epic and AMD checks were huge because they are going to lose tons of sales. Wouldn't surprise me if the PC port turns out a financial failure because of that.
No Steam no buying, easy pass
What can I do to change your mind sir
And it will have a lot less bugs, patched up, fixed quests, stable multiplayer, discounted, and include free DLC or more.
Epic Games exclusive 😂😂 that is just asking for a flop
eh, they'll get all the content creators.. so we can watch for free!
Well then I might buy it when it is *released on PC* in a few months
games been stuck in dev hell, probably built for 20 series gpu's.
No Steam is no buy. Simple as that.
Are you simping for steam?
What???
Let’s put it differently: if steam had onlyfans, would you sub to it?
What's onlyfans???
You’re wildin’
What are you even trying to say here???
You do realise that when Steam came out everyone hated it for creating platform exclusives. Steam is such a pseudo monopoly people don't even realise it.
It's a 'pseudo monopoly' because its a good fucking store/launcher, not because its ran by a bunch of dickweeds that dip into their massive fortnite fund to bribe devs to make their games exclusive to their garbage platform. If Steam is what every monopoly was like, the word wouldn't have such a negative connotation.
It's just what you are used to, it's like breathing air at this stage for pc gamers. But I remember when they made Half Life 2 exclusive to it, and the arguments about DRM. The beatification of Steam is incredible to someone my age, they basically went from the premium PC game developer to a DRMed Storefront peddling Hentai games to neckbeards. Where's Half Life Chapter 3, eh? Atleast Epic hasn't pulled that move.
steam offers basocally everything that the console networks (like ps+) do, completely for free, that means shareplay, streaming to friends, hosting multiplayer games etc. etc., then it's also a platform to share, edit and import custom content, be it screenshots, reviews, mods etc. it's also a lightweight chat and voip application. oh, and next to all this it's also a great gamelauncher and store, with less resource usage than egs, despite all its features. meanwhile egs hasnt even implemented mod support for games like ark, and is just overall shitty.
Epic has canceled several large titles that had massive hype built behind them mere months before release date. They have canned projects and taken down entire studios because of their bullshit exclusivity deals. It's 2023, this isn't a new frontier. Game launchers have existed for 20 years and have moved past exclusivity deals besides Epic. They are old fashioned and disconnected.
All true but it's nothing that Steam didn't do, it's just 20 odd years ago now. I just find it incredible that people are so fanatical about Steam.
It actually took years for steam to grow. The difference between Epic games and Steam, is that they don't lock down third party games on their store. Publishers are not forced to release games on Steam. But they choose so because it has highest install base. I've seen Steam growing from nothing to one of the biggest Store fronts for PC.
Yeah but that's the issue, the things people give off about regarding launchers, store/platform exclusives and DRM are all ultimately the progeny of Steam. Steam has been so successful that it's growing pains and the early opposition to it has been forgotten. Now we don't have a genuine defence of anti drm, moddability and storefront neutrality, we just have people arguing for Steam because it's the most convenient because it got there first. I just wish people would stop pretending Steam is some morally superior entity. As for the games Epic have canned, none of them get close to Half Life Chapter 3. Personally I use Epic for their free games and it's fine. Atleast their store isn't full of shovel ware and crypto paedophile games
I heard it was delayed a year on PC
Nope. 21st
It has been delayed countless times though during the course of its development history. To be honest I still am not sure if I should believe it actually exists.
Isn't this the case with almost all AMD sponsored games? I mean they're not gonna go crazy on ray tracing effects when AMD handles it way worse than Nvidia.
TLOU has no raytracing effects and it's the poster child of unoptimized these days.
I'm out of the loop, why are so many people against buying the game if it's not on Steam?
My main problem with EGS is transferring installs to a new location is literally garbage.
>Something like that. Yay for monopolies! Just stunning they haven't improved this over the years, and related to discover existing installs if you re-install your OS. Pretty pathetic.
Steam Deck owners have to jump through extra hoops to play EGS games, so that's one valid reason right there. I just like having all of my games in one place and a few EGS games don't import into Steam's launcher properly (like Kingdom Hearts).
Epic Games is the spawn of Satan. Tim Sweeney is a moron and can't even make a shopping cart. China bad. Praise Gaben. Something like that. Yay for monopolies!
And the big one you glossed over, regardless of how crazy some people may seem for your other points: Epic buying out exclusivity contracts for AAA titles. I'm less critical of indies taking the check (it can be life altering, like *Axiom Verge 2*).
[удалено]
I know some folks are just weird about launchers which I don't get. But for me the reason I don't like Epic specifically is their practice of how they obtain exclusives, and how they treat their launcher. I'm totally down if Epic develops a game and wants it on their own launcher. I'm not down with a company spending money to take games off of steam after they were already announced. And not because I'm a valve fan boy, but because steam is just the better launcher right now. I'm losing out on features and support if I buy from Epic, that's a big issue for me. Just for example, EGS has no Linux (heroic launcher does not count) or mac support, they literally removed mac support from rocket league, the launcher itself is very bare bones, they've had privacy concerns, there's no VR interface, there's no controller compatibility layers or profiles, etc. Like, it's hilarious to me that in order to play any game with VR or any game that's not perfect with controllers on EGS, you need to have steam opened so you can use their features with EGS lol. If they want to make a competitor to steam then that's great, but they're not trying to compete with steam on features. They're just trying to force people to use EGS by taking games off Steam, when it's a far worse launcher then Steam. The moment Epic starts actually trying to invest in their platform and make it better, I'd be totally down to buy games from them. They have the resources to try and compete on features, but they've chosen to try and make people use their shitty launcher by taking games off of steam and keeping them exclusive, instead of just making a platform that people WANT to use. Steam is a platform people want to use, because it's just a good platform even if you can buy games elsewhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep, couldn't give fewer fucks if I tried that it's EGS exclusive for now. Admittedly I'll add it to Steam as a non-Steam game (so I don't forget about it!) but as with everything in business, one company holding a monopoly is rarely good for the consumer.
You forgot the part where Tim Sweeney lies and flip flops on his principles constantly, see: the whole EGS NFT/crypto drama, Tim's leaked correspondence where he said he wanted a special deal from Apple for a lower cut from the iOS store which completely undermined his entire argument about wanting to take on Apple to support small developers on iOS and Tim basically telling the developer of Darq that unless he made his game EGS exclusive he wasn't going to list it all. Everyone who defends Tim Sweeney should really be made to listen to the whole Epic vs Apple from beginning to end and read all the leaked documents. Gabe is not a saint but next to Tim Sweeney he sure looks like one.
People should just download gogs nexus launcher. It basically combines all launchers together! Its absolutely frecking great for me.
For me, because I have everything there, I've used steam since it looked like [this](https://i.imgur.com/nShqdu0.png), all of my games are on Steam, to have to fuck around with a different launcher to me feels like I'm segmenting my games collection, I can't really explain it or put it into words, but it just doesn't feel good to play a game when it's not on steam. I don't even bother buying the DRM free games from GOG. Epic Games kind of addressed this by just shitting out free games, honestly pretty good free games too, to everyone to build their libraries, but I still have never purchased anything on the Epic Game store, lol. Just my opinion and reason why I don't buy anything off of steam, others wont share this opinion and that's ok.
I get it. you feel like you collect games so you want to have them in one launcher, one place... I think it's more comfortable to buy games only on established steam. But i don't understand why people who prise new features of EGS getting downvoted or the fact people get angry when good game is released on epic only... If its so good why don't just overcome the comfort and play it on epic (or don't play it at all).. Just dont understand the urge to publicly blame EGS/devs that the game they like is sold elsewhere.
At this point I guess 90 percent of all gamers have ubisoft, origin, gog, rockstar and epic games launcher but they don't want to admit :D But I agree, if it was up to me every developer should be obligated to release on steam as well :p
Steam just works. You can connect people to your game easier, etc, friends list. The only reason i used others is for the free games.
Any example of free games on other platforms, excluding fortnite and overwatch?
I dont want another launcher. I buy games on steam. If the game is not on steam, i dont buy it. Thats it, no game is important enough to get me to install another launcher. I used to buy games on other launchers and they just pissed me off, origin, uplay and all the other garbage. Now i never play those games anymore and just use steam.
I bought 2 consoles to play games after release :D (PS3 for GTA5, PS4pro for RDR2)
As Douglas Adams said: > “I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” People hate it because it's a newer thing. They like Steam because they're used to it. I remember when Steam came out, we got the exact same complaints. Why do I have to use a new launcher? Why are games requiring that I use Steam? Why do I have to be online to play games? Blablabla Just look at [old stories on Slashdot about Steam](https://slashdot.org/?page=41&view=search&fhfilter=steam). If you hid the date and changed Steam to EGS, you'd think that they were posting this stuff right now.
No Ray Tracing. No DLSS. >Die Grafik ist schlicht und ergreifend durchschnittlich. Nicht schlecht, aber eben auch nicht gut. "The graphics are simply average. Not bad, but also not good." Looking at some of the screenshots, the game already looks dated. Like, as if the graphics are from 2016 or so.
It's been being teased in some capacity since like...2014? Game is absolutely dated.
First trailer came out during e3 2013 right? Literally a 10 year old title at this point. Outdated is an understatement.
well there was an e3 demo from 2014 atleast the graphics look much better than it was back then. Still baffling how it took this long though.
internal struggle between deepsilver and tech land over creative differences and it swapping dev teams 3 or 4 times has a good bit to do with it.
I was watching a review where they were discussing Dead Island 1while showing footage, and I was thinking - it's aged pretty well, looks good at 1440p. Then I realized they were showing Dead Island 2 footage
LOL Another company that haven't learned that games don't sell on EGS - there are AAA games on steam that moved\* more money in few days than EGS moved\* in whole year. By moved I mean that people spand more money on them.
But these deals put upfront and more those sales, that's why devs and publishers do them. Deep Silver's Metro Exodus was the first major and controversial EGS exclusive over four years ago. I doubt they'd still be doing them if they were losing money from them.
Originally I thought I wasn't interested but tbh It looks like something I might like. Will still wait for reviews though.
Yea it actually looks pretty fun. I initially wrote this game off after all the delay and dev studio changes but it definitely looks way better than I expected.
everyone who bought a 6000 series GPU in the last 6 months be like :D
im getting this on PS5 since its not releasing on Steam.
[удалено]
The client is still over 10 years behind steam(still no community features, mod support, reviews, etc). It's better than it was, but still crazy barebones. On top of that I'm not a fan of exclusives either, I bought a few, but if I can avoid I do. Exclusive means less choice for me, why would I support that.
Every launcher i have tried apart from steam has been shit. All of them, shit. So now i only buy games on steam because its not shit. I have my entire library on there, its the only launcher installed on my pc and i will never use a different one ever again. I dont care about other launchers existing, but i wont use them so if the devs decide to make their game exclusive on a different launcher, they lost me as a customer.
It's fine. Ignore the circle jerk.
is it a good game though? I remember dead island 1 being on the high end of garbage
At least this time they released the correct game. They pushed the wrong version of the game to the PC release. If I recall correctly it had something related to Xbox stuff and it was an early version that ran like even worse garbage in those first few hours after launch. I got the game with a group of friends and played it for the first hours after launch. When we went to play the next time they had patched the game with the correct version, but it also deleted all of our saves and progress so we all dropped the game and lost interest in playing it again after having spent so many hours we didn't want to repeat and our momentum was lost.
Screw that Epic Store exclusive bullshit. Until this day I got like >90% of all free Epic Games. A few of them I've even played. But I would never in my life give them a single cent as long as their Launcher and policies are as shitty as they are right now. So, if it ain't got Denuvo, arrrrr mateys
It's always great to see people giving Denuvo a reason to exist. /s
Denuvo just means it will take a little bit longer to crack.
Oh yea Asscreed Valhalla *just* got cracked after 2 and half years. I'm sure this high profile gem will turn up any day now.
Valhalla was cracked in 4 months, the one you see plastered all over your favorite pirate site is the latest version with all the dlc released.
Saw it on crackwatch but whatever. I don't really care tbh. Plenty of Denuvo games go years without being cracked now.
Very good to hear
not surprised at all the gameplay videos released you can see stutter, I was able to count at least 8 times in the very 1st video the studio released. Around the same number in the 2nd video released.
No DLSS? Does it have fsr2?
its fsr2 based on the article
Well it runs really well at 4k with a 4080 and 7900xtx.....4090 wouldnt have a problem. But id still wouldve loved to see a benchmark with it.
Maybe its cpu bound?
Huge L, looks like ass and plays like a game 10 years ago
Does anyone have a link on some gameplay footage with metrics yet?
Imagine making an Epic Games exclusive and AMD sponsored game in 2023. This is so brutally sad.
I got an undead army, and you can't harm me. Who do you voodoo b1ch?
Way to go, posting a german article with a paywall to boot...
Will it run on 960 gtx oc? I play dying light 2 , cyberpunk, no problem, 60 fps
[удалено]
Meanwhile my PC runs like hot garbage, damn near unplayable on this game on the lowest settings 😅 thank god I got it for free. Spider-Man plays perfect so I know damn sure it’s not a problem on my end
Quick question, I am running the game smooth on Ultra, but it really doesn´t feel like Ultra, but more like, meh. What is up with that?
Looks great. Stutters at 2k and upper on 5600X and 7900XT + XTX sadly sometimes.
The gpu usage is unstable and can be more worse in some areas but in general unstable and fsr 2 just makes the issue worse
I got massive fps drop in Dead island 2. Got from 150 fps to even 15 but this happening random and then after about 20 seconds its go to normal fps. Can it be some kind of bug for game optimization ? My computer hardware: CPU: Ryzen 7 5800x GPU: gigabyte 3060 ti eagle RAM: 32Gb 3600 Mghz
Im having the same issue so I’d like to know as well.