-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Fallout 76: Bethesda confirms to PC Gamer that it will not be on Steam at launch
- Thread starter SFLUFAN
- Start date
Considering how Destiny 2 died in one month, and CoD....fucking lmao, that thing simply doesn't sell on PC, Battle.net isn't going to magically change that.
I know a lot of people say that online but I find it hard to believe that many only buy and play on steam in the general gaming audience these days.
Most people who play games are in multiple ecosystems including mobile, and console.
Even PC only gamers rarely only play thru one ecosystem.
These publishers aren't trying to convince the few hardcore steam enthusiasts, they want to grab the majority who will generally go where content that interests them goes.
The open platform of Pc that people wanted locked onto steam for gaming
It makes no sense stop complaining about it this is a trait of the platform to have multiple vendors and software options that's how it has been made to be
Enough with the bullshit platform elitism either use it or don't and don't complain about steam doesn't need competition what bullshit maybe they'll try to make a game for once when they realize they aren't the only show in town
It makes no sense stop complaining about it this is a trait of the platform to have multiple vendors and software options that's how it has been made to be
Enough with the bullshit platform elitism either use it or don't and don't complain about steam doesn't need competition what bullshit maybe they'll try to make a game for once when they realize they aren't the only show in town
I don't find it annoying really.
It simply becomes a decision of how much I can "trust" a service long term and if it will support it's games thoroughly and with the feature set I need. None of these are true for the BethesdaNet launcher, so I won't buy anything from it.
At least for some vendors, these launchers do tend to improve over time, but they are so far behind Steam the choice is a very simple one. Most often, it is simply because all of these publishers are not actually that interested in service customers on the PC as a platform, but rather just selling the game with the bare minimum of support.
Until any of these services step up the game, they are going no where and are less likely to get my money.
Feel free to explain how Bethesda.net actually improves and supports PC games better than any other PC game distributor, and how little competition there is to Steam.
As always, any move against Valve riles people up and makes them defend the company with an almost religious devotion.
Fallout is an insanely popular brand that is more popular on consoles. It will in all likelihood bridge any divide of console gamers and survival games.
Being an industry standard is largely irrelevant if you have your own launcher though. 30% is a large cut regardless of whether it's standard, and why wouldn't you keep that 30% in-house when you have the option? More money to fund more Bethesda games sounds good to me. They produce far more games than Valve does, so I'm happy =P
Well, that makes it easy to not pre-order then.
I'm not a "No Steam; No Buy" guy - But if you're off of Steam, and thus not covered by their Refund policies, the game has to prove itself first.
Also totally betting on this having Microtransactions in it because of this news.
I'm not a "No Steam; No Buy" guy - But if you're off of Steam, and thus not covered by their Refund policies, the game has to prove itself first.
Also totally betting on this having Microtransactions in it because of this news.
This is the opposite of what you're saying. It's not "software options" or "multiple vendors". Like, it's literally doing the exact opposite of that.
Jesus christ guys you really don't know what competition is.
Not a single post in this thread has defended Valve though? Like, what's there to defend about? Have you actually read the thread at all?
Nope. Sorry.
I already have Steam, uPlay, Origin and the Epic Games Launcher.
I want less invasive, proprietary frameworks, not more.
I'm not investing in your ecosystem for a one-off game I'm pretty darn pessimistic about.
EDIT: Oh, right! And Battle.net.
I already have Steam, uPlay, Origin and the Epic Games Launcher.
I want less invasive, proprietary frameworks, not more.
I'm not investing in your ecosystem for a one-off game I'm pretty darn pessimistic about.
EDIT: Oh, right! And Battle.net.
Our future:
Steam
GOG.com
Origin exclusive storefront and client
UPlay exclusive storefront and client
Epic exclusive storefront and client
Blizzard.net exclusive storefront and client
Bethesda.net exclusive storefront and client
WB Games exclusive storefront and client
Rockstar exclusive storefront and client
Square Enix exclusive storefront and client
Steam
GOG.com
Origin exclusive storefront and client
UPlay exclusive storefront and client
Epic exclusive storefront and client
Blizzard.net exclusive storefront and client
Bethesda.net exclusive storefront and client
WB Games exclusive storefront and client
Rockstar exclusive storefront and client
Square Enix exclusive storefront and client
Same. I've never had a great interest in Vault 76 so this comes as no great loss to me, but I'll sure be disappointed if they continue this with their future games.
you're right people should just shut up and accept this subpar substitute, good argument bro
No, but I can still be pouty about it and drag my heels on buying their games.
I'm voicing my own interests here, Valve had the good fortune and foresight to get to the table first, and to do this job better than anyone, so their interests and mine align on this shit.
It's especially hilarious considering their next game is hitting in 2 months lmao
The problem is not the launcher or services themselves, the problem is when they only make the games available on a single service.
Ubisoft has uPlay and while it's a decent service I have no issue with it since their games can also be purchased on other services. Personally I have not bought any games from EA or Blizzard on PC because they refuse to sell them on my launcher of choice, Steam.
Let's start dismissing the myth that this will bring them more money. For every "outrageous 30% cut they won't pay to Valve on a copy" they'll have probably to deal with a copy that won't get sold, and an overall decrease in sales.
People may get used to the new platform and accept it... Eventually. But it won't be a painless, costless process for sure.
Because I should be forced to use a weaker platform because of any of the stupid reasons you could use to leave steam as a publisher.
All my friends are on Steam - this may impact mu decision to buy it, given the social nature of FO76
Too bad ...
Too bad ...
That doesn't count though it's a card game not a $80 million shooter.
/s just in case it wasn't obvious.
It is and this is how pc gaming always was
You either want to play the game or don't use the platform or not
Why you people want everything steam compliant is just horseshit lol these companies are making Pc games not steam games
If u want a locked platform that every game works the same way as all other games buy a Nintendo or PlayStation
It's hilarious how narrow minded some of you are that you demand all developers and publishers to stroke Gabe's fortune just because you don't want to install another program
Pc gaming is Pc gaming because you don't and shouldn't need to go to steam or make publishers put all their games on steam
Stop bitching about something that makes the plarform worse lol mandatory shit or having to be on steam is not what pc gaming is about or have we all forgot that
I don't mind what they do with it, they earned it. This weird allegiance to Steam baffles me. I'd much rather see more profits go to devs and publishers from my purchases, than keep funnelling money to Steam who favour selling other people's games over making their own these days.
Many tried that logic, many failed.
I won't say that Fallout survival on Consoles will flop, but it is not a certainty thing that a Genre, that is mostly PC focused will magically be a Console darling because of one games Brand power.
Same, but there are at least a fair few with refund policies too (albeit not so consistent or reliable).
Bethesda.net to the best of my knowledge doesn't have one beyond cancelling pre-orders
MaKiNg ThIs GaMe ExClUsiVe To A pLaTfOrM wItHoUt AnY fEaTurEs aNd NoT GiViNg aNy oPtIoNs tO YoUr CoNsUmERs aNd HaVe AbSolUtE PrIcE CoNtRoL iS BeNeFitIaL tO tHe CoNsUmERS
Who the fuck is talking about a "locked platform"?
Release the fucking game in every possible store. That's actual real competition.
It's just as bizarre to me to see people fighting against their own interests to benefit a faceless corporation that doesn't give two shits about them.
That applies to both Valve and Bethesda, but Valve is generally not making things worse on PC with their platform.
Yes, we have many ecosystems, and there comes a point when you say: "You know, I don't need to add another launcher, I can skip that game."
Maybe! I bet they're thinking it will all pay off long term when Starfield and TES6 are ready. Personally I just don't see the issue with the creators of a game wanting to sell directly to keep more of the profits from their creations, rather than forking over so much to a middle man. I'm not sure why so many people are upset about the hassle of spending a few seconds opening a different launcher.
Me neither, but I won't deny that if you are not on Steam you'll need to have a fucking convincing product on your hand, something that I count as a must buy (and they are pretty damn rare), while on Steam I'm far more open to "tentative" exploratory purchases.
For instance I didn't really give a shit about Fallout 76, since I pretty much hated any 3D Fallout from Bethesda. But I could have made an exploratory purchase if the price lowered enough at some point on Steam.
On this ridiculous satellite platform? it would hardly feel like an actual purchase. I wouldn't even be confident about it sticking around in few years.
Because maybe, just maybe, steam has good community features that everyone likes using? The argument that "PC games not steam games" doesn't hold up when their delivery platform for said games is absolute horseshit.
I've had so many issues with B.net throughout the years, that I never play any of the games on there just due to the stupidity of it sometimes.
This isn't a "Everything should be on steam" argument, It's a "Every platform should have the same feature set as Steam" Argument.
This isn't a bad thing for me. It simply means I do the same as now - I buy from the services that actually work, and generally aggregate with the service providing the most useful features (so far still Steam). Any incompatibilities with that setup, or poor support / reliability for the client / storefront and i won't buy whatever it is. Simple
How have they lost the plot in relation to "pubs"?
Just a reminder that the Bethesda Launcher is arguably the worst launcher since Overwolf.
BUT COMPETITION
BUT COMPETITION
I laughed.
MaKiNg ThIs GaMe ExClUsiVe To A pLaTfOrM wItHoUt AnY fEaTurEs aNd NoT GiViNg aNy oPtIoNs tO YoUr CoNsUmERs aNd HaVe AbSolUtE PrIcE CoNtRoL iS BeNeFitIaL tO tHe CoNsUmERS
You forgot the MS store lol. And besides that's pretty much the here and now.
IMO, I don't mind at all. I'm already used to having multiple clients and the fact that certain games wont release on Steam. Although I would like there to be a client (and personally Steam to be that client) that regardless of needing the other clients, would sync them all together and present them in my games list. It's understandable.. you want your own storefront and client and to be 100% in control.. I get that. As an end user, I just want to be able to launch them all from a nicely presented client which is convenient for me. And although I get that WINDOWS should essentially be that client, it's not presented in a way that's optimal for me, honestly.
People who say this by this point should be forced to explain why and how it benefits the consumer. And not with the token "competition is good" statement that you learned in econ 101, actually explain how this supposed competition benefits us using the other clients out there as examples.
Also, seriously, have people forgotten about the existence of desktop and Start Menu shortcuts?
Shit, you can even just press the windows key and type in the name of a game and launch it instantly regardless of the client it's attached to.
You're on the same platform. What.
User warned: personal attacks, inflammatory comments
No it fucking isn't
MaKiNg ThIs GaMe ExClUsiVe To A pLaTfOrM wItHoUt AnY fEaTurEs aNd NoT GiViNg aNy oPtIoNs tO YoUr CoNsUmERs aNd HaVe AbSolUtE PrIcE CoNtRoL iS BeNeFitIaL tO tHe CoNsUmERS
Who the fuck is talking about a "locked platform"?
Release the fucking game in every possible store. That's actual real competition.
Pull your head out of Gabe's ass for a second and realize that publishers and developers having a choice of how to distribute the games is why Pc gaming is good
Advocating compliance and less choice for developers is bullshit
Here dear take my 30% of all sales even though I don't have to give you this lmao what bullshit
The money ideally goes to the people making the game sorry that's what an open platform is it means not being forced to release your games on the most popular vendor
Fuck off with the steam worship such garbage