"But another huge boost to the game’s popularity has been cross-platform play — meaning you can play with your friends who are accessing it on a variety of devices and platforms."
And it can run on iOS and soon Android as well.. but not Linux.
That's a bit of a shame, kind of curious to try that game out now but I can't imagine gaming on Android / iOS is something comfortable.
Just weigh the benefits and costs of supporting Linux and it's obvious why they made that decision. How many million people are not playing Fortnite because they don't support Linux? I bet it rounds to zero.
Epic doesn’t really support Linux that well - they mainly support Linux as a cross-compile target, running the editor natively is a bit more hairy and extremely poorly documented.
It doesn’t run currently on Android and BattleEye doesn’t work on iOS either they don’t bother with anti cheat on mobile you just do root / jailbreak detection as you can’t really cheat without them as you need to hook into the memory and the network stack.
There is a single developer who writes changes to UE4 for Linux support. And he doesn't work in Epic.
UnrealED doesn't work on Linux, AFAIK only HTML5 build pipeline could be run on Linux, so you could make changes to code, but you can't test them if you're using "officially supported" platform.
Do you run in windowed (macOS-native) fullscreen or (what I assume is) direct-to-graphics-card fullscreen? The windowed fullscreen performance was abysmal compared to when I switched to the other. I forget what the default was, but it's worth investigating.
On Windows it's probably more performant either way, but at least with the above change I was able to at least run it playably on my 2017.
I'm not a big gamer, but i recall in the late 90s - early 2000s timeframe there were several big-title FPS games available on Linux (Quake series, Unreal, Half Life). Whatever happened to that momentum? Not enough demand, I guess?
Not sure what you mean. Video drivers on Linux are finally coming together for all the main players. Nvidia's proprietary drivers are still good, Radeon's free drivers are very competitive and Intel free drivers are still great (though suck for gaming).
Yeah, just stop your X server and run this opaque binary, answer these questions about kernel modules, restart X, and hope your display config isn't completely messed up... super easy!
Note: helper packages (i.e. installer cleanup and kernel mod builder) are in both contrib and main repos, so I highly recommend setting up APT-preferences.
Except that Intel still doesn't make a graphics chip worth anything when it comes to running 3D games like Fortnight. And AMD opensource drivers are far from having nVidia-like feature and capabilitiy parity with their Windwos counterparts. Sadly.
What is missing from AMD's drivers? They are great now IME, I'm using them to play games. (Note I have older GCN hardware - there seem to be more bugs with more recent hardware where they are still making bigger changes)
For a while my employer was buying motherboards with a graphics chip that requires gma500 drivers. Forget which but it was an Atom platform of somewhat recent vintage. gma500 ain't dead yet, sadly
I don't dare update my display drivers unless I have 3 days without a deliverable because of the disaster it usually is.
Usually (yes, more than 50% of the times) it will break my displays (fail to detect both monitors, switch to some weird resolution etc), and always it will break CUDA/CUDNN so I have hours of work making that work again.
I have a completely standard setup: Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, NVidia GPU, Intel CPU.
(I've been using Linux since Slackware 0.9, so yes I do know how to configure things. I'm sick of it not getting better since then).
I suggest you switch to btrfs and use volume snapshots. That way you can take a snapshot just before you do a major upgrade (like a driver update) and if things don't work out you can instantly restore your system so you can keep working.
Historically, drivers were often not available at all, at least not ones that actually exposed the real power of the hardware - and performance is usually lower.
See this set of recent benchmarks for instance, which show Linux performance lagging behind W10 by 15-25%.
These days, the performance diff is mostly from relatively low effort ports. I'm not really complaining about them - they have to earn money.
But in most cases it's not primarily a drivers problem anymore.
I feel like Fortnite's success is the first major success in Epic's master plan -- with that 5% rake on the Unreal Engine license they've got a back door into the sales data for all their licensees. (And because of the openness of their program, they have a lot more to peek into and, assumably, fewer contractual obligations to them).
Can't help but wonder if they looked at PUBG's figures and saw their market research done for them? I was looking forward to Fortnite as the Garry's-Mod-meets-Left-for-Dead and its sudden emphasis on Battle Royale was a little disappointing.
Battle Royale wasn't in their plan though. They were making the PvE version ("Save the World") for a while (years) and had just released a beta version you could buy over the summer.
I believe the story goes that just a couple of devs went off and made the Battle Royale version to see if it would be fun to play.
So it "changed gaming" because it's one of the current top games with record-breaking user numbers? (The other one being PUBG)
I'm not so sure. Did World of Warcraft change gaming? It surely changed the MMO scene, and they went from total niche market to being very openly discussed and for a while (ca 2008 to 2014?) you found people everywhere that didn't identify as gamers before, but got hooked on WoW. But did it change "gaming"? I don't know, console gamers still play their console games, there are some MMOs, but the majority is still single player/coop/small team and I don't see the PC (non-RPG) gaming market being totally different since WoW was released in 2004.
TLDR: Huge hit: yes. Changed a certain genre of games: probably. Changed gaming: nope.
If anything WOW has resisted the trend in MMOs where many have a well developed free to play mechanic backed up by unlocking individual features and content. Bioware's SWTOR does very well money wise with a much smaller player base. The cartel shop is which is nearly all cosmetic is a huge source of revenue. WOW is a relic from a previous generation of subscription only games which started in the 90s and faded out by 2010 with very few relying solely on subscriptions.
The future is subscriptions for steady defined bonuses backed up with digital content which can be merely cosmetic or bonuses that don't exceed what a subscription grants and can even enhance that. See Wargaming, which produces games like World of Tanks, World of Warships, and more. You can be wholly free to play or you pay to ease the grind. Working this way you let players get midway into the game before the grind starts to be noticeable then sell them a means to ease it
The pay to win loot box crowd may have finally killed their golden goose with relentless greed brought to the forefront by some very large titles by well known companies generating a lot of bad press.
There are countless small games on tablets and phones which pull in large revenue for boosts and cosmetics.
> The future is subscriptions for steady defined bonuses backed up with digital content which can be merely cosmetic or bonuses that don't exceed what a subscription grants and can even enhance that.
Why? Subscriptions are not casual-friendly at all. Take GW2, for example. I bought the expansion in august, and had to stop playing in october. I might've logged in for the daily chest, but otherwise I haven't played. When I played, I bought some gold and cosmetic items. A few QoL items as well. And I bought the game plus expansions/DLCs. The original game is now F2P. There is no subscription. Me basically not having played the game since october cost me nothing. If I were playing WoW still, I'd have paid 13 EUR a month for essentially nothing. WoW's main gameplay is raiding. Raiding requires M+ dungeons and grinding. WoW's subscription model means that if you stop playing, you fall behind. The entire game is made to keep you subbed (I call it "forced errands"). It made me feel bad when I didn't play the game ("FOMO"). Contrast that to GW2: I can take a break whenever I feel like. A subscription model does not cater well to casuals. And the casuals are the masses. You don't see new MMOs follow subscription models. Some tried to, and they failed, including your SWTOR example.
There's been some rumours that SWTOR might be axed soonish, although I hope it's not true.
You're also kind of glossing over the fact that SWTOR is still (rightfully) ridiculed in MMO circles for its initial F2P offering (click here to buy this additional hotbar!).
IMHO the most healthy MMOs are still subscription-driven: WoW, EVE, and FFXIV.
I wouldn't call this free to play though. It's a free trial, so to speak.
Even the most decidedly non-hardcore "regular" WoW players would reach Level 20 in a month easily, whereas there's enough content to keep you occupied for years even if you started just now.
Please elaborate how you think it changed gaming as a whole? If you think it shaped the whole landscape in general, as in.. transformed one niche genre to a mainstream genre - then yes.
Maybe we're just talking different viewpoints. When did "online gaming" change gaming? (If we can agree that it did?) There were online MUDs in the 80s, but hardly anyone knew of them. I'd say the break through in online games were the mid- to end 90s in the upcoming web. (Quake et.al, I wouldn't say Doom already counts, but maybe my own experience is too prominent here) - and then again the MMO years - nothing of that changed the whole spectrum of gaming. On the other hand, maybe ever shift from 8bit to 16bit to 32bit changed gaming. Did the release of every breakthrough console change gaming?
Maybe I just fail to see the revolutionary steps :)
Games that take an existing model (100 player PvP) and add a twist can be called game changing. The twist with Fortnite is building (ala Minecraft in a way) which is game changing as far as how you play.
The other element is Epic Games pushing Sony, Microsoft towards cross-play. That would change gaming if they can get them to agree to it. They are inching towards it with consoles, mobile and PC playing together - PS4 to Xbox1 hasn't happened but would change gaming.
Social circles with kids are around what gaming platform they are on. Mine mostly play with friends to goof around and chat with each other (live talking, not instant message kind of chat). Cross play across consoles would change gaming - they would not be confined to a certain console dictating who they play with.
Their backend systems are doing the cross play, can you imagine if they stand up their backend platform to allow other developers on Unreal Engine to use that for cross play in their games?
I don't buy the crossplay argument though, it's just a given that you usually don't crossplay, but I simply cannot imagine the studios are internally using different protocols or even different servers. Sure, you need to port the "client" game on different platforms and sometimes make some adjustments (twinstick shooter vs keyboard mouse, etc) - but there's no inherent reason (at least to me) that crossplay can work. So is this accidentally game changing then when someone finally decides to tear down the barriers? :)
The difficult part of cross-play is probably in the matchmaking and friend lists. My guess is Sony and Microsoft have different methods for implementing those.
I think it would be game changing if it pushed the industry to not have platform exclusives and to just allow a player on any platform to play against a player from any other platform.
Game changing doesn't have to be something highly technical or in a 3D engine, etc.
Make it look like a cartoon without too much blood so that children can play it. Stuff it with memes and dances for children. Parents approve and ignore the fact that the child is playing an extremely violent (and detailed) game 12hrs a day and gets rewarded for shooting other players in the head. Parents pay up for lootboxes and micro transactions every time the child screams
That is one perspective. My kids played Skylanders and Disney Infinity when they were younger. Those games both had elements of shooting projectiles at enemies to eliminate them.
Fortnite is rated T and not M because there isn't realistic violence. When a player is eliminated a small flying object with an antenna shows up and it looks like they are teleported elsewhere. There is no blood or corpse or anything like that. It is not extremely violent enough to get an M rating like Grand Theft Auto or Call Of Duty.
There are very unrealistic elements of the game, like a grenade launcher that shoots large eggs (or snowballs in winter season), the fact that you can rapidly build forts out of mined materials, and a boogie bomb that when thrown at an enemy makes them dance for 3-5 seconds.
Yes I sort of agree, but I still think the game is centered around violence and guns, the best gun, the most deadly gun, the recoil of a gun, the damage of a gun, headshots, murder. The way my nephews speak now is sickening. And I also think it is purposely crafted and targeted at children because of their consumer power. See my reply below
Yes, I have observed my two nephews over quite some time now. Even play it with them sometimes even though I suck. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter, but it is strange watching a whole community of 8-9 year olds(!) begging for ingame purchases and discussing detailed specs of Assault Rifles with their friends. And it is pretty clear (to me) what drives the money in this game, and for example Rocket League. Parents paying for ingame goodies of children. (Yes I know 8 yo is young. But most parents will stop caring because of the peer pressure, every classmate they have get to play the game.
It does look like a fun game, and I’d like to play it, but not with the obscene monetization strategy they employ. These modern freemium games are downright toxic, and the only winning move is not to play.
Real money for cosmetic items that give no advantage in-game is the only IAP/freemium model that I will support.
I’ve bought Fortnite skins, and likewise on Starcraft II.
Other than being a little pricey, I don’t see any problem with Epic’s monetization strategy with Fortnite.
and Id pay full game price just to not see those cancerous hats of yours. they seriously mess with my snap aiming and if they interfere with gameplay, to hell with them.
Obscene? You will run out of superlatives pretty quickly if you use them so casually.
As VR has brought me closer to a world I previously had little contact with I've find the gaming community's quickness to anger and it's (lack of a) sense of perspective fairly exhausting.
It's impossible to even begin a discussion about monetisation strategies without getting shouted down. You'd think we were discussing gun reform in the midwest. ;-)
I grew up on games that had no monetization strategy beyond an initial investment. Many popular and hugely influential online games -- TF/TFC, the original Counterstrike -- were mods made by hobbyists and released for free, with the blessing of the original game's developers[1]. Gamers self-organized to create an infrastructure of public servers.
Pay to win games just moved the Overton window so far that these days, paying for cosmetic items doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm not angry about any of this; with ever decreasing time left for playing games I don't really care. Obscene may be a bit harsh -- I recycled it from the grandparent; but it does also imply that the judgment is relative and based on taste more than anything. I'd also use it when saying that I use an obscene amount of salt or that a sweater is an obscene color without intending to downplay affairs of state.
"But another huge boost to the game’s popularity has been cross-platform play — meaning you can play with your friends who are accessing it on a variety of devices and platforms."
And it can run on iOS and soon Android as well.. but not Linux.
That's a bit of a shame, kind of curious to try that game out now but I can't imagine gaming on Android / iOS is something comfortable.