ValantarHave to say I see this as pretty great. It's about time major players in this industry start making active moves towards breaking Steam's current near-monopoly. Not that this is new (Origin, Uplay, GoG Galaxy, Battle.net, and so on), and the forced walled-in distributor "exclucivity" of this is potentially a bad thing, but we need drastic measures like this (making high-profile games explicitly "non-Steam") to train end-users to look for games in other places than the ease and convenience of Steam's increasingly developer-unfriendly and profit-hungering machinery. If we can train users to look for games in different places and price- (or feature-)compare across distribution platforms, that will go a long way towards removing Steam from its current monopolist position. Which will ultimately gain all gamers.

While I agree, I also do not.

I think Steam in its current form is exactly what the 'platform' should look like. What needs to change here is who owns it. All of the publishers worldwide need to own it together and invest in it together to create a single unified platform where everyone has shared interest and where publishers can, or choose not to, implement their own layer of DRM behind it. Imagine that reality: even GOG would just have its place over there, and they would shine as one of the publishers that did not enforce DRM. It would create a whole new dynamic. Equal visibility, but some publishers stand out negatively and others do not. All it needs is a single, independent management that is guaranteed of funding by a share equal to the sales volume of each publisher.

At that point you as a customer are no longer in the hands of all these individual publishers but rather a customer at 'them all' - and its ONLY the offering of each publisher that determines their market share. Not some artificial middle-man called Stores for each individual publisher. The amount of money wasted on managing all that fragmented nonsense, and the lacking quality of many of them... it should really already be gone. The customer does not benefit in any way and all those involved just move money around and lose some in the process.


As for Fallout 76... I already dropped off the hype train when I saw what it looks like. Same shit different day, forced online. NOTY

RejZoRGreat, what we were always waiting for is 500 stupid launchers. GTFO Bethesda. I guess this is the end then as I really have no intention of running another one. Stop being greedy bastards and think of user convenience for once. Having just Steam and GOG was convenient. Then Origin and UPlay arrived and Battle.net, crappy Rockstar Launcher or whatever it was for GTA and Bethesda Launcher. Enough is enough. NO.

While I agree with your sentiment about 500 launchers, Battle.net has been around longer (1996) than any of the major platforms. Steam came out in 2003 and GoG in 2008. There was also Direct2Drive (2004) that I really liked. I only left Direct2Drive it because I wanted to manage my library from one location, thus I chose Steam.

I don't want another damn launcher for the same reason I made this decision years ago...

Vayra86While I agree, I also do not.

I think Steam in its current form is exactly what the 'platform' should look like. What needs to change here is who owns it. All of the publishers worldwide need to own it together and invest in it together to create a single unified platform where everyone has shared interest and where publishers can, or choose not to, implement their own layer of DRM behind it. Imagine that reality: even GOG would just have its place over there, and they would shine as one of the publishers that did not enforce DRM. It would create a whole new dynamic. Equal visibility, but some publishers stand out negatively and others do not. All it needs is a single, independent management that is guaranteed of funding by a share equal to the sales volume of each publisher.

At that point you as a customer are no longer in the hands of all these individual publishers but rather a customer at 'them all' - and its ONLY the offering of each publisher that determines their market share. Not some artificial middle-man called Stores for each individual publisher. The amount of money wasted on managing all that fragmented nonsense, and the lacking quality of many of them... it should really already be gone. The customer does not benefit in any way and all those involved just move money around and lose some in the process.


As for Fallout 76... I already dropped off the hype train when I saw what it looks like. Same shit different day, forced online. NOTY

Not gonna happen. There's a reason why Valve barely makes games anymore. Because they're swimming in money because of this.

While CD Projekt also bought GOG as a vehicle for their own games... sooner or later, they'll want to make more of use of it in that respect.

Fallout 76 doesn't look like the old game exactly. It's less destroyed/polluted.. seems like they updated the engine to add more flora as well (not to mention it's 4 times bigger worldspace). Creation used to suck at presenting proper forest sizes.. At least this looks a little on par with Ubi/Farcry, etc..

StrayKATNot gonna happen. There's a reason why Valve barely makes games anymore. Because they're swimming in money because of this.

While CD Projekt also bought GOG as a vehicle for their own games... sooner or later, they'll want to make more of use of it in that respect.

I know but one can dream, right :) What I am saying though is that having Steam is the lesser of evils versus having all those independent vendors with their own launcher and store. And, also, none of them will even remotely touch on what Steam offers UNLESS they band together.

FxWhile I agree with your sentiment about 500 launchers, Battle.net has been around longer (1996) than any of the major platforms. Steam came out in 2003 and GoG in 2008. There was also Direct2Drive (2004) that I really liked. I only left Direct2Drive it because I wanted to manage my library from one location, thus I chose Steam.

I don't want another damn launcher for the same reason I made this decision years ago...

Yes, but Battle.net was primarily an online gaming host/service that handed chat rooms, ranked/unranked matchmaking and custom map servers all in one go. So it is really nothing like Steam. The store part of it came later.

Vayra86I know but one can dream, right :) What I am saying though is that having Steam is the lesser of evils versus having all those independent vendors with their own launcher and store. And, also, none of them will even remotely touch on what Steam offers UNLESS they band together.

I've always thought Microsoft could.. but they're still deluded that the Xbox has a future. The minute they stop that, they can realize they have a whole other platform to focus on. They've got all the tools and interfaces.. and already an existing framework to do it. It's just not their priority gaming platform as of yet.

StrayKATI've always thought Microsoft could.. but they're still deluded that the Xbox has a future. The minute they stop that, they can realize they have a whole other platform to focus on. They've got all the tools and interfaces.. and already an existing framework to do it. It's just not their priority gaming platform as of yet.

Microsoft? No man, that company and gaming = combination meant to fail. It won't ever change. Company lacks the right culture and mindset - look at the launch of the Xbox One and how they blundered for proof - there is no vision, no real integration, its just trying to find some weird synergy where nobody wants it with their other services.

Does Bethesda Store even offer refunds like Steam?

W1zzardDoes Bethesda Store even offer refunds like Steam?

Not in the way Steam does it but Im sure you can use their customer service if a product fails to meet expectations.

Vayra86Microsoft? No man, that company and gaming = combination meant to fail. It won't ever change. Company lacks the right culture and mindset - look at the launch of the Xbox One and how they blundered for proof - there is no vision, no real integration, its just trying to find some weird synergy where nobody wants it with their other services.

I don't want to derail on Xbox fails too much, but I think some of their vision is now being adopted on a larger scale. In that sense, some of it was before it's time. They especially should have never focused on incorporating cable/tv services.. but they wouldn't have been wrong focusing on other services (like Netflix).

But what I'm trying to say is I hope for a resurgence of PC gaming.. and with that, Microsoft finally taking a leading role. No one else can unify people behind the platform, except the platform's creators.

StrayKATBut what I'm trying to say is I hope for a resurgence of PC gaming.

It already has. PC gaming is stronger than ever.

rtwjunkieIt already has. PC gaming is stronger than ever.

I'm talking about giving the PS4 a run for it's money, which the Xbox was always intended to do. That isn't happening until Microsoft abandons it.

edit: I think they knew all along that consoles had a life expectancy, and were just hoping to get people in the Microsoft ecosystem.. but I think that time is now. Especially for their own console.



edit:
Speaking of, as much as I like Steam, they put a great deal of broken shit on there. I've been reinstalling my game library and I'm reminded of that. I've had to configure more than a few games to run properly. EXE patches, full fledged overhaul/mods, etc.. Hell, the Jagged Alliance series is completely fubar to even run the Steam platform and needed "No CD" cracks to finally work. Not sure how that title even got approved. Then there's the issue of games being borked on various resolutions.

What Microsoft has done well with their own games/app store is One Click Installs.. It works as well as any console now. Now it just needs their full attention.

Only reason I have the stupid Bethesda launcher installed is so I can run the Creation Kit. YES TO MOD FALLOUT 4 YOU HAVE TO INSTALL A LAUNCHER WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT???

I'm pretty sure the only reason Beth is trying to foist their shitty launcher on us is because they're greedy fucks who don't appreciate Valve taking a cut. But, you know, maybe if they want to be an alternative to Steam, they should try to make their launcher not be a steaming pile of shit? IDK man, I get these wacky ideas sometimes.

Bethesda: take your launcher and stick it where the sun don't shine. And while you're at it, do some curatorship of your mod store thing that is basically 90% rehosted Nexus Mods content stolen by others.

AssimilatorOnly reason I have the stupid Bethesda launcher installed is so I can run the Creation Kit. YES TO MOD FALLOUT 4 YOU HAVE TO INSTALL A LAUNCHER WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT???

I'm pretty sure the only reason Beth is trying to foist their shitty launcher on us is because they're greedy fucks who don't appreciate Valve taking a cut. But, you know, maybe if they want to be an alternative to Steam, they should try to make their launcher not be a steaming pile of shit? IDK man, I get these wacky ideas sometimes.

Bethesda: take your launcher and stick it where the sun don't shine. And while you're at it, do some curatorship of your mod store thing that is basically 90% rehosted Nexus Mods content stolen by others.

Same here, but as I pointed out, I think it's more to do with the Creation Kit's need to upload to Xbox and PS4 platforms. So they had to integrate to a central place like Beth.net

I don't understand the anger over a launcher of all things though.

And I don't understand how it's a piece of shit. It's pretty straightforward. What's a piece of shit is their website.

FxWhile I agree with your sentiment about 500 launchers, Battle.net has been around longer (1996) than any of the major platforms. Steam came out in 2003 and GoG in 2008. There was also Direct2Drive (2004) that I really liked. I only left Direct2Drive it because I wanted to manage my library from one location, thus I chose Steam.

I don't want another damn launcher for the same reason I made this decision years ago...

The thing is, Steam is used by many publishers. Battle.net only by Blizzard. So, with Steam you play endless supply of games, with Battle.net, onl whatever Blizzard churned out. That's the huge difference.

I'm another one who doesn't want all these launchers. Why does every publisher need their own launcher? It's always a little upsetting when a game I may otherwise be interested in isn't available on Steam, and only some other platform, like Origin. Steam was the first platform of its kind, and many of us signed up for it thousands of internet years ago. We like it there and don't need 10 more accounts/platforms to keep track of.

RejZoRThe thing is, Steam is used by many publishers. Battle.net only by Blizzard. So, with Steam you play endless supply of games, with Battle.net, onl whatever Blizzard churned out. That's the huge difference.

Blizz already had their teaming systems with Diablo and such long ago and already had Battle.net gamer names.. so they probably just decided to stick with the in-house app as time went on. There's probably no easy way to migrate any of that to a third party like Steam... that you can't even manage or control. Not to mention World of Warcraft came out circa 2004-ish. A mere year after Steam released. There was no reason for them to think of using any other platform when these games came out. And now that they established it, no reason to adjust either. People are going to buy Blizzard games no matter what.

Soon ill need a second SSD just for the launchers and 32gb of ram because the launchers are too busy eating up system resources :P

I want it to be centralized for my convenience. Having Gog Galaxy was already pushing it for me after having steam. Either go back to the old days were I just install a game and that is that, or keep 1 platform.

Actually, just make it the old way - install a game and that is that. And then let us choose our own program like Nvidia game center or whatever its called, to centralize it. I know, never going to happen as it wont give them billions of $$ in revenue for not using their services, but a man can dream.

sepheronxSoon ill need a second SSD just for the launchers and 32gb of ram because the launchers are too busy eating up system resources :p

I want it to be centralized for my convenience. Having Gog Galaxy was already pushing it for me after having steam. Either go back to the old days were I just install a game and that is that, or keep 1 platform.

Actually, just make it the old way - install a game and that is that. And then let us choose our own program like Nvidia game center or whatever its called, to centralize it. I know, never going to happen as it wont give them billions of $$ in revenue for not using their services, but a man can dream.

I have Uplay, Origin and GoG Galaxy - along with Steam - on my computer. None of my launchers are setup to startup automatically. Here's my utilization of these launchers in order from least to most:

4) Origin - Last time I opened this launcher was about 3 months ago to check for an "on the house" game. Since they don't do this anymore, I'll probably never open the app again
3) Uplay - it gets used more than I think at times, but only for a few series such as Assassin's Creed/FarCry/Tom Clancy games. I have yet to actually purchase any game directly through Uplay.
2) GoG Galaxy - Uplay and Galaxy kind of trade blows in how often they're used. I do enjoy the Galaxy application, it's not very intrusive, easy to navigate and they're improving upon it all the time.
1) Steam - I open it almost daily, even if I'm not gaming. I generally use the (old, not the new shitty UI they pushed out) chat feature to bug some buddies or younger brother if I need to talk to them.

At least with Steam (I haven't looked into Galaxy if they do something similar) I can link non-Steam games in a shortcut so I can have all my games in one, easy to use location.

I personally don't need any other launchers. I used to fight with the NCSoft launcher program some years back when Aion came out. I'm not a big fan of all the launchers developers are throwing out. I can understand why companies would want to move away from Steam so they don't have to give Steam any kind of revenue from their sales, but it'll be hard to break users of what they like or are used to using.

sepheronxSoon ill need a second SSD just for the launchers and 32gb of ram because the launchers are too busy eating up system resources :p

I want it to be centralized for my convenience. Having Gog Galaxy was already pushing it for me after having steam. Either go back to the old days were I just install a game and that is that, or keep 1 platform.

Actually, just make it the old way - install a game and that is that. And then let us choose our own program like Nvidia game center or whatever its called, to centralize it. I know, never going to happen as it wont give them billions of $$ in revenue for not using their services, but a man can dream.

That's one big reason why I wish Microsoft took a leading role. The "launcher", so to speak, is just Windows itself. And their it automatically recognizes a game and enables Xbox/Gamebar features regardless of where it came from.

I am not sure this even matters the game looks wholy disappointing with its MMO schlick
but enough with everybody wants a piece of the distribution pie

Vayra86While I agree, I also do not.

I think Steam in its current form is exactly what the 'platform' should look like. What needs to change here is who owns it. All of the publishers worldwide need to own it together and invest in it together to create a single unified platform where everyone has shared interest and where publishers can, or choose not to, implement their own layer of DRM behind it. Imagine that reality: even GOG would just have its place over there, and they would shine as one of the publishers that did not enforce DRM. It would create a whole new dynamic. Equal visibility, but some publishers stand out negatively and others do not. All it needs is a single, independent management that is guaranteed of funding by a share equal to the sales volume of each publisher.

At that point you as a customer are no longer in the hands of all these individual publishers but rather a customer at 'them all' - and its ONLY the offering of each publisher that determines their market share. Not some artificial middle-man called Stores for each individual publisher. The amount of money wasted on managing all that fragmented nonsense, and the lacking quality of many of them... it should really already be gone. The customer does not benefit in any way and all those involved just move money around and lose some in the process.


As for Fallout 76... I already dropped off the hype train when I saw what it looks like. Same shit different day, forced online. NOTY

I agree that that would be the best possible solution, but I don't see that ever happening, sadly. Valve is too rich and has too strong a grip on the market, and all the other publishers are too insular and protective of their own profits to ever consider cooperation like this. Can you imagine EA openly embracing other publishers? That would be the day hell freezes over, for sure. Don't think Activision will be far ahead of them either.

neatfeatguyNever did like that excuse from companies when it came to PC gaming.

The real problem is, people that do this lack a moral compass and no excuse they can come up with can justify their actions of pirating a game/movie/music.

I've purchased some real lemons back in the day for PC games. Take the game Mistmare for example.....gawd awful. I tore through the first two Gothic games and when I saw Mistmare on the shelf and looked it over, it resembled Gothic in the images/artwork on the box. Got home, installed the game and tried so hard to play it for 3-4 hours, but the controls were horrid, graphics were below Gothic graphics and the story was rather bland. I put the game back in the box and I haven't opened it since.

That horrible experience with Mistmare didn't turn me to pirating games just because I felt ripped off for the $30 (or whatever I paid) the game cost me. I continued to buy games I wanted to play and I still do that to this day.

As for Bethesda wanting to force people to another launcher specifically for their game....maybe they should look into something that provides access to the game from multiple launchers, but offer some extra incentives for those that purchase the game from their Bethesda.net. Something like in game bonus items or offering a small weekly/monthly gift of whatever cash based coins required for purchases.

Hm. I guess making snarky comments on the Internet has become more difficult with time. You apparently need me to clarify: I responded to comments along the lines of "I wish we could just install our games like back in the day." Piracy is, ironically, the only method of straight-up installing most games today, as messed up as that is. The comment was pointing out how messed up that is, but I suppose that went a few yards above your head. Sorry about that. (Not that I'm interested in discussing piracy whatsoever - it's a non-issue, IMO - but I haven't pirated a game since I was in my teens. Steam (and the advent of pay-what-you-want game bundles!) has a large part of the honor for this, sadly. Now I instead have a game backlog I'll never catch up on. Yay. Really don't need to pirate games.)