• 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.

ramoisdead

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,525
How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?

I won't switch to consoles because every publisher is going to have their own launcher but I won't buy their games if it means that's the only way I get to play their games and deliver a subpar experience compared to other services like Steam or GOG Galaxy.
 

Deleted member 2840

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,400
That's exactly what I mean; did they earn your choice "yesterday" or if you had to make a brand new choice today, would it be the same?

Let's say that reality changed and now we're in an Universe where: All PC storefronts JUST got released, and all of them have all games. But their features are the same as they are now.

In this universe you don't already have a massive Steam Library/Steam friends.

It's a new start.

In this case, why wouldn't you choose to stick with Steam? In a world where every platform has the same games and you don't have a backlog in one of them, Steam still has the most features and better features, by far. It's kinda weird when people imply that Steam only got to where it is now because it was "the first" or because it forced people to download it for their games, when every other platform doesn't have a tenth of the features that Steam has. Do they need to improve? Of course. Would an actual competition maybe slap them awake to focus more on certain parts of the client/store that are lacking? Absolutely. But a "competition" that just sticks together a half-functioning launcher may as well be irrelevant.

Big publishers aren't leaving Steam because it doesn't have a new client, or because they want Steam to have curation. I have a brain fart every time I see one of those threads and people are going
"YEAH, that'll make Steam actually improve their client and store!!!!", like that'd stop a publisher like Activision to release their games on their own service.
 

Pixieking

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,956
Going to avoid getting into a quote-off (because those are never fun)

But the alternative is freeware. That's the alternative. I mean, saying "Steam is how PC gaming was going to look like in 2018 whether Valve was behind it or not" is undeniably true. I'm not really gonna fight you there. But just because it's inevitable doesn't mean I have to like it!

Entirely true, sure. :)
It's a big big picture thing, because to me, the alternative is a world without capitalism where this is freeware, that's what I think is *good*. An industry where Valve holds an extremely dominant position in the market because they got their first, to me, is just not good, and won't ever be good. And that's not to say that you're wrong about how you feel about Valve, it's just how I feel.

I want to say that's a little naive - like, Freeware is not a sustainable system. But at the same time, I can't argue with that being how you'd like it, and perhaps I'd like it too, just I'm way too pragmatic to entertain its idea.

Also holy hell if you think the DS4 is cramped and the steam controller is perfectly shaped I would love to give you a high five sometime:
Bit blurry, but it gives you an idea - big hands+long fingers. I shoulda been a concert pianist. :p

QCs0xWg.jpg


Edit: Also, again, apologies if I came across rude - literally have no idea why you didn't say more in your first post than "Fuck valve", like you did here, as it was interesting. :)
 

whistleklik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
260
Kentucky
I don't mind, it's not even a big deal to be honest. Bethesda doesn't need Valve. I'm more concerned with the game even being any good. So far they haven't really inspired any confidence in that.
 

Kage Maru

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,804
This isn't too surprising and really not a big deal. There have been multiple stores/launchers on PC for a while now. Sure it's a bit of a hassle to manage a handful of accounts but that's what PC gaming these days. No sense in me complaining about it after all this time.
 

Cecil

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,445
How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?

I don't really care when it's about online service games. It's single player games I want on platforms/stores that I trust and like, like Steam, Humble and GOG.

That said, for any game, if it's on the services I regularly use, chances are that it will just pass me by.
 

bbq of doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,606
Let's say that reality changed and now we're in an Universe where: All PC storefronts JUST got released, and all of them have all games. But their features are the same as they are now.

In this universe you don't already have a massive Steam Library/Steam friends.

It's a new start.

In this case, why wouldn't you choose to stick with Steam? In a world where every platform has the same games and you don't have a backlog in one of them, Steam still has the most features and better features, by far. It's kinda weird when people imply that Steam only got to where it is now because it was "the first" or because it forced people to download it for their games, when every other platform doesn't have a tenth of the features that Steam has. Do they need to improve? Of course. Would an actual competition maybe slap them awake to focus more on certain parts of the client/store that are lacking? Absolutely. But a "competition" that just sticks together a half-functioning launcher may as well be irrelevant.

Big publishers aren't leaving Steam because it doesn't have a new client, or because they want Steam to have curation. I have a brain fart every time I see one of those threads and people are going
"YEAH, that'll make Steam actually improve their client and store!!!!", like that'd stop a publisher like Activision to release their games on their own service.

I ask this question because I literally had this fresh start; I had a Steam account from years ago with some games, no friends, etc. I had a new PC with nothing on it. So the slate was clean and I was looking out for the best and most efficient means of (i) socializing, and (ii) gaming. For me, the result of that was (i) Discord, and (ii) whatever launcher had the game for the cheapest price. Often times that's Steam! In the case of F76, it will be Bethesda (for at least the time being).

Again, for me starting fresh in 2018, it makes zero sense to tie myself to one launcher when I can have them all and then route everything via Discord/Slack/etc. My gaming folks long ago abandoned XBL, PSN, etc. as the means for communication and grouping. Discord is king there.

More specifically re: Steam, the features I've used with any sort of regularity: the store, the library, and achievements. End of list. Are those features not available elsewhere? The social features are a matter of convenience, sure, but they absolutely pale when compared to something like Discord. So when you're starting out new, why not use the best tool for the job?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 2840

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,400
I ask this question because I literally had this fresh start; I had a Steam account from years ago with some games, no friends, etc. I had a new PC with nothing on it. So the slate was clean and I was looking out for the best and most efficient means of (i) socializing, and (ii) gaming. For me, the result of that was (i) Discord, and (ii) whatever launcher had the game for the cheapest price. Often times that's Steam! In the case of F76, it will be Bethesda (for at least the time being).

Again, for me starting fresh in 2018, it makes zero sense to tie myself to one launcher when I can have them all and then route everything via Discord/Slack/etc. My gaming folks long ago abandoned XBL, PSN, etc. as the means for communication and grouping. Discord is king there.

More specifically re: Steam, the features I've used with any sort of regularity: the store, the library, and achievements. End of list. Are those features not available elsewhere? The social features are a matter of convenience, sure, but they absolutely pale when compared to something like Discord. So when you're starting out new, why not use the best tool for the job?

That's exactly what I am talking about. In a world where every platform has every game, why wouldn't you use Steam? Even if you only use the store, the library and achievements, which platform has those but does them better than Steam? That's kinda the point people are trying to make here.
 

Deleted member 41271

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 21, 2018
2,258
How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?

I won't care. I welcome any alternative to steam, and starting bloatware like steam is no different than starting uplay or whatever nonsense launcher EA cooked up. I don't want any of them, but as long as I like the games, and can only get them in a bloatware platform, that's what I have to do. For everything else, there's gog.

But I'd not skip a game because omg another launcher. That'd be silly. It's just a launcher at the end of the day, which one starts before a game I want to play starts has zero impact on me. I don't want any of them to run when I'm not playing, I care nothing for achievements. Give me the game and leave me alone.

In this case, why wouldn't you choose to stick with Steam? In a world where every platform has the same games and you don't have a backlog in one of them, Steam still has the most features and better features, by far.

????

It has zero features I care for. Why would I pick it over others? "The most features" is meaningless, you can add a million features, but if they do nothing for me, why would the number of features matter to me?
 

ChrisJSY

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,053
Steam, Bnet, Uplay, Origin, The Twitch App, Windows Store, GOG and now Bethesda Whatever.
Come on: It's getting annoying.

The only thing I like is that UPlay, B.Net, Origin etc will maximise a 1Gbit connection (for me) where as Steam no longer does, though it's still fast.

Though wherever possible I buy on Steam.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,312
Honestly I'd like people to move away from steam as well. I don't like the monopoly they have. I have a lot of games in my steam library though but there's only a few that I'd really miss if they weren't available anywhere else. I want my collection of Total War games playable for all eternity, other than that Steam can disappear.
 

bbq of doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,606
That's exactly what I am talking about. In a world where every platform has every game, why wouldn't you use Steam? Even if you only use the store, the library and achievements, which platform has those but does them better than Steam? That's kinda the point people are trying to make here.

Why would I only use Steam? The issue isn't using Steam--it's having to only use Steam.
 

Deleted member 2840

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,400
Why would I only use Steam? The issue isn't using Steam--it's having to only use Steam.
I don't really think there are people here advocating for using only Steam. Some people prefer to buy it on Steam because of convenience and/or features. It's just that players don't like being forced to install a new platform to use. PC players hated it back when HL2 released, and we hate it today when yet another publisher tries to force their launcher on us.
 

Cleve

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,022
Good. Steam shouldn't be the be-all end-all for PC game releases.

As much as everyone likes to bitch about multiple launchers, all my friends and I congregate via discord anyway, and the more competition valve has the better. I love steam, but they really need to get their shit together in terms of limiting the garbage games and abuses of their systems.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,312
They still don't have a monopoly. Just saying.

I think it could be considered an effective monopoly at this point. Just reading the Wikipedia, in 2013 they had 75% of the market space. Steam generally accounts for 50-70% of a game's sales when sold across multiple digital distribution services. Are people choosing steam for their features or just because that's where all there other stuff is now? I think that's what makes it an effective monopoly, people are locked into it.
 

bbq of doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,606
I don't really think there are people here advocating for using only Steam. Some people prefer to buy it on Steam because of convenience and/or features. It's just that players don't like being forced to install a new platform to use. PC players hated it back when HL2 released, and we hate it today when yet another publisher tries to force their launcher on us.

Plenty of folks have said "I won't buy a game if it's not on Steam," both in regard to this specific game and also more broadly. I don't know of any other reasonable interpretation of such a position other than as advocating for using only Steam.
 

Kyougar

Cute Animal Whisperer
Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,354
I get it, just saying most people don't care. The US especially is a huge consumer based culture. Just like many consume from more than one streaming content ecosystem as they too have expanded as content owners realize they can have their own.

If you want to play that game or watch a certain series a new launcher or service app won't stop the majority and it's a lot easier than having to get a new console for instance.

People who lock themselves into one ecosystem and people who refuse to engage with one no matter what are edge cases. I have friends who refuse to use steam for whatever reason, Valve is not worried about them.

You know why I don't want more (publisher games only) Launchers?
Because I don't trust them to still support the title 10 years from now.
Activision, EA, Bethesda, Rockstar, etc. already treat PC gamers like the red-headed step-child and I don't trust them to support a game indefinitely. If I bought a game on Steam 2008, I can still download and play it, even if it was taken off of the store. The publisher-game-only launchers could just shut down their service or not offer a download anymore with a bullshit argument like "there isn't a demand for it)

They could even go bankrupt and you will lose everything.
Steam (and GoG) are not dependent on the health of their Parent company. Half-Life 3 could cost 500 Million and bomb spectacularly but it would not threaten the health and continued operation of Steam.
 

Isee

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,235
The only thing I like is that UPlay, B.Net, Origin etc will maximise a 1Gbit connection (for me) where as Steam no longer does, though it's still fast.

Though wherever possible I buy on Steam.

I have problems with origin and the windows store. Both aren't able to max out my max speed (420 mbit). Windows Store is even sometimes as slow as 3-4 mbit. No idea why, tried every solution on the net. Origins goes above 100mbit, at least. All the other services give me my max speed, can't complain.
 

John Harker

Knows things...
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,346
Santa Destroy
Wow this is kind of a big deal, huh? Wouldnt this be their first title to not be on Steam?

Probably going to see it more and more.
The successes of owned-launcher-exclusive Activision, Epic, etc games isn't going unnoticed.

As platforms finally start to reach at least a functional level of parity, good content drives adoption where for awhile it was distribution reach that drove it because of many Steam advantages
 

CountAntonio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,699
I hope by the time the game comes to steam it will be dirt cheap on CDkeys cause I probably would double dip just to get rid of the Bethesda launcher and be able to use steam features again. Overlay does not work with Bethesda.net game btw.
 

Timeaisis

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,139
Austin, TX
Because it's a store people shop at, it has features that people use and it has constant sales.

Your turn.
A publisher's own client gives them more freedom to release their products as they see fit and discount them on their own schedule, and allow direct communication with their player base, and allows them to recoup closer 100% of sales cost likely leading to lower prices in the long run.

Honestly the only thing that will annoy me is having to recompile a friends list for FO76. But they could do discord integration or something.
 

Deleted member 2171

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,731
I also find the pricing argument baseless as they can set whatever price they want on Steam already, and you don't have to participate in or ever put a title on sale, so I'm not sure how making your own client suddenly would give you that power.
 

MrBob

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,668
How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?
Naw. Its really only big publishers that are doing this and most pc gamers can take or leave their games.

Having another launcher isn't that big of a deal. You start the launcher, go to discord, and done.
 

Fanta

Member
May 27, 2018
508
allows them to recoup closer 100% of sales cost likely leading to lower prices in the long run.

This has never happened, Origin, Uplay, Battle.net games all still go for full price even if they get back that 30%, in fact I've still yet to see what any of these companies are actually doing to improve their services now that they have an extra 30%.
 

mario_O

Member
Nov 15, 2017
2,755
I'm not sure I'm in with this Fallout experiment, but not having the game on steam will make it easier not to pre-order.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,673
USA USA USA
Plenty of folks have said "I won't buy a game if it's not on Steam," both in regard to this specific game and also more broadly. I don't know of any other reasonable interpretation of such a position other than as advocating for using only Steam.
I think that's a poor interpretation and I'm not even sure how you got there so no it's not reasonable.

It means they want it on steam, and they like having their things on steam. It can be on any other platform as well, whether that means consoles or (in PC land) gog, origin, uplay, Bethesda launcher, battle.net, whatever they don't care. They just also want it on steam so they can use the features they care about that other platforms don't have.

They themselves can be steam exclusive players, whatever thats their choice good for them. No one gives a shit if a game is steam exclusive though. Put it on everything go nuts it's not console wars. Then you can buy it on uplay if you like that. That's real competition. Forcing you to use a crappy launcher to launch an exclusive game in an attempt to get bigger and more popular, instead of making their client better and people actually wanting to use it (like steam as you just saw) is bad for everyone.
 

texhnolyze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,150
Indonesia
I think it could be considered an effective monopoly at this point. Just reading the Wikipedia, in 2013 they had 75% of the market space. Steam generally accounts for 50-70% of a game's sales when sold across multiple digital distribution services. Are people choosing steam for their features or just because that's where all there other stuff is now? I think that's what makes it an effective monopoly, people are locked into it.
Do you know what monopoly exactly means, beforehand?
 

Kraken3dfx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,944
Denver, CO
This will mark the end of the road going forward modding BGS titles outside of their own walled system. The writing has been on the wall for awhile though, so no one should be surprised at this point.
 

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,622
How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?

Yes I think about going mainly consoles all the time for this very reason. I do not like multiple account handling.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,991
None of these platforms bring anything to the table, or offer competition to Steam when the games are exclusive to them.
Making the game exclusive is of no benefit to anyone except Bethesda - and even then, it's only going to be a benefit if the loss of sales and costs of running the service themselves is less than Steam's cut.

Good, Steam needs a kicking.
Based on what, exactly?
No other storefront/launcher has a fraction of the features that Steam provides, and features that they add often cause issues.
The Origin and Uplay overlays cause problems for a number of games, and Uplay even complains when you try to launch a game with it disabled.

Change and competition are good.
Change is not inherently good, and this isn't competition.

I've noticed this bizarre trend where more often than not the people who mostly play on consoles and hardly give a shit about PC gaming are the ones who "don't get what's so good about Steam" and "wish it had dozens more storefronts to compete with", because, you know, monopoly are bad... except on their favorite consoles.
I'm not convinced that all of these people even play games on their PC.
There are a lot of people on these forums that actually seem to be angry about the fact that many games are now multiplatform so that more people get to play them, rather than being exclusive to one console.

How do you PC gamers feel about this? It doesnt seem like its a trend thats going away anytime soon. It just gonna get worse. Anyone thinking of switching to consoles instead because of this?
The only thing this changes for me is that it makes me significantly less interested in their games, and gives them far less visibility.
It certainly doesn't make me think about switching over to a console with far more limitations.
It's bad enough for me to keep track of a game if it's announced for Steam but doesn't have a page up on the store so that I can add it to my wishlist, until very shortly before release. I've usually forgotten all about it by then.

Tried running Bethesda.net version of Quake Live through Steam just now and... Looks like you can't even use the add bethesda.net titles as non-steam games and use the overlay.
KmodHTA.png


Fallout Shelter has similar message.


I'm aware both of these games are on Steam btw. But when I can I like to launch games through steam and use the overlay.
Unless they do something about this, it means their games will be incompatible with the Steam Controller now.
Got to love that competition.

Puhlease I turboe'd that 133 mhz to 166 mhz for Tib Sun.
Don't give me that shit :D
(And it still ran like shiteee)
The 'Turbo' button didn't do what you're thinking it did.
It shifted the CPU to a low performance state to match the performance of an original Intel 8088 running at 4.77 MHz for older applications/games that relied on that specific timing.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
A publisher's own client gives them more freedom to release their products as they see fit and discount them on their own schedule, and allow direct communication with their player base, and allows them to recoup closer 100% of sales cost likely leading to lower prices in the long run.
People said this about digital distribution and it didn't happen either. Bethesda is simply taking a much larger margin of sales due to the lack of retail margins and manufacturing costs.
 

bbq of doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,606
I think that's a poor interpretation and I'm not even sure how you got there so no it's not reasonable..

You're kidding? Do you want me to quote each and every post in each and every thread like this--including this very thread--where folks say "no Steam, no sale" or the equivalent?

You don't have to be obtuse about it; hand waving does nothing for the discussion.
 

GameZone

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,838
Norway
This will mark the end of the road going forward modding BGS titles outside of their own walled system. The writing has been on the wall for awhile though, so no one should be surprised at this point.

Fallout 76 will be on Steam, people just have to wait.

Where were these threads when Bethesda didn't release ESO, Fallout Shelter and Quake Champions on Steam?
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,673
USA USA USA
You're kidding? Do you want me to quote each and every post in each and every thread like this--including this very thread--where folks say "no Steam, no sale" or the equivalent?

You don't have to be obtuse about it; hand waving does nothing for the discussion.
I explained it in the post you didn't quote for some reason.

That means for them. They want a steam version. Good for them whatever who cares.

They don't mind if it's on gog, or uplay, or Bethesda. They're not asking for exclusivity on the platform of choice. That's a really big difference that I'm still not sure how you don't get.
 

bbq of doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,606
I explained it in the post you didn't quote for some reason.

That means for them. They want a steam version. Good for them whatever who cares.

They don't mind if it's on gog, or uplay, or Bethesda. They're not asking for exclusivity on the platform of choice. That's a really big difference that I'm still not sure how you don't get.

I didn't quote it because I couldn't get beyond the condescension of your opening statement.

We can agree to disagree, because your feigned disbelief and continued use of subtle condescension derail an otherwise interesting conversation of the launchers and why folks are choosing to align with certain platforms.

Fallout 76 will be on Steam, people just have to wait.

Where were these threads when Bethesda didn't release ESO, Fallout Shelter and Quake Champions on Steam?

I think Fallout 76 has ruffled quite a lot of feathers from the get go, for better or for worse?
 

alexbull_uk

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,923
UK
I prefer my library to be in one place but using a different program to launch the game won't stop me from buying it.

I am worried about what this means for paid mods and microtransactions though. I have to assume there are going to be a lot of in-game purchases.
 

GameZone

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,838
Norway
Please explain to me how a client where publishers only sell their own games and that lacks lots of Steams features is an alternative to Steam? I'd love to know!

People hate Valve because they don't make the games they want, so let's hate their client, even though it provides more features than any other client do.
 

matimeo

UI/UX Game Industry Veteran
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
979
You know why I don't want more (publisher games only) Launchers?
Because I don't trust them to still support the title 10 years from now.
Activision, EA, Bethesda, Rockstar, etc. already treat PC gamers like the red-headed step-child and I don't trust them to support a game indefinitely. If I bought a game on Steam 2008, I can still download and play it, even if it was taken off of the store. The publisher-game-only launchers could just shut down their service or not offer a download anymore with a bullshit argument like "there isn't a demand for it)

They could even go bankrupt and you will lose everything.
Steam (and GoG) are not dependent on the health of their Parent company. Half-Life 3 could cost 500 Million and bomb spectacularly but it would not threaten the health and continued operation of Steam.

This is not relevant with online only games. When the publisher pulls the plug that's it, doesn't matter if it's on steam or console. Not trusting is fine, but really you shouldn't fully trust any company anyway. At any time they can walk away , companies do not care about you, they do what is in their best interest.