I got out of video game piracy for a while, but I’m coming back. One thing I have been absolutely SHOCKED by is how finding PC game torrents is actually kind of difficult from my normal sources. Now it’d be one thing if I just wasn’t seeing games, but for some reason Playstation and Switch have far more uploaders and seeders on the sites. This is something that would have been unthinkable when I was into piracy. But from a quick glance, it looks like the Switch has a bigger piracy scene than PCs do right now. This was so extreme I couldn’t find a torrent for Minecraft past 1.12. I found a download, but not a torrent. Or I couldn’t find any of the old versions of Five Nights At Freddy’s on PC, but could find them on other platforms. Things I’d consider true PC staples of the past decade with absolutely nothing popping up in my normal sources.

I’m not asking where to find PC torrents (although I certainly wouldn’t mind). Are consoles actually becoming more popular to pirate for?

  • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Update: It looks like it’s handling the offline installers in game-by-game batches. I told it to download the offline installer for a game that if I used browser I’d have to download two files; it shows as just one item and one download in the client, and I verified that it actually does give me both files.

    • drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      ok, you convinced me that I want Galaxy for Linux too 😁

      the achievements, social, and install management stuff wasn’t too important for me but having it simplify offline installer downloads vs doing it from browser would be great.

      Definitely agree that being able to control install location + whether or not to update is nice (compared to steam) but I was comparing vs what I can already do in the offline installers so I guess that’s why it didn’t matter to me if the client could do it. But some games you need to download a lot of files which is kind of a pain in the ass from the browser (especially when it’s something you need to run under wine since gog tends to split windows games into multiple pieces/.bin files more often than they do native linux ones from what i’ve seen).

      • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I thought the file splits are based on size? But maybe I’m wrong. The larger games I have also tend to be Windows-only anyway so maybe I just don’t know this stuff.

        • drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          they are based on size but it’s only the windows versions. for example, witcher 2 has windows and linux versions. linux version is a single ~20 GiB file while the windows version has a small exe + lots of bin files that are 1.5 GiB or less and you need all of them to install.

          • seaturtle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Oh, I see. That’s quite interesting. And I noticed that the Mac version is only split into 4 parts, with one clocking in at 11.6 GB (though others are capped at 4 GB).

            I’m very curious why these differences exist.

            • drunkensailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Oh yeah, completely forgot about Mac version lol.

              As for why, no way to know for sure without inside info, but best guess is that they are trying to account for maximum file size limits across all the various possible Windows/Mac filesystem types but whichever employee setup the Linux ones realized that most Linux users wouldn’t be using shitty Microsoft filesystems. FAT12 is fairly safe to ignore but they might have been considering FAT16 and HFS as the lowest common denominators, then making the files slightly smaller than the max file size just in case.

              That or possible that they were balancing by network loads (since Windows versions probably account for around 99% of all downloads) and that was somehow determined to be the sweet spot.