I’m not really sure why this is surprising at all. Isn’t steam based on web tech? If anything I think the comparison should be on features and experience. I don’t think it’s that hard to make something launch faster than steam. I do think it’s hard to make a better experience than steam.

> The results reported that Epic's client is 46% faster than Valve's client during cold starts, clocking in at 5.47 seconds compared to Steam taking 10.07 seconds. When you restore both apps from system tray background states, the new client takes 0.36 seconds while Steam takes 0.42 seconds, according to the report.

> There are still missing features that the legacy client currently has, like comprehensive social panels and advanced account management options, with its developers "working toward feature parity."

Seems fairly likely it'll get slower as they add all the missing features. I'm not sure a couple of seconds startup time will be relevant to users.

Epic is just setting up for the same rug-pull as every other tech company: get you entrenched, and then turn the screws. I don't care what they give away for free or what improvements they make.

Oh boy! A whole .06 seconds?! I can't wait to abandon the last company in the industry that atleast tries to pretend they care about the consumer, for .06 seconds faster launch!

Would love for someone to pentest the launcher. Every company being this AI-pilled is really just asking for it when they brag about their vibe-coded products.

The steam client has always been a bit clunky, that's not the issue. They don't seem to be able to understand that.

I'm personally more interested in how quickly it uninstalls.

It's clear that Epic keeps track of the consumer and industry pulse by shooting themselves on the foot and tracking litters of blood lost per minute.

And I'm sure it still sucks compared to Steam.