-
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
Feel free to migrate to PCEra if you can't handle the scathing critiques from the console proletariat.
/s
This doesn't make any sense at all.
Will a console allow me forward- and backward hardware/software compatibility?
Fully custom graphics settings?
Using arbitrary input and output devices, some 15 years old and some not even invented yet?
Modding?
Then why on earth would this (if it were to actually happen -- currently, pretty much everything I want is coming to Steam) cause me to switch my primary gaming platform?
Then other companies should actually start competing.
The problem is that nothing on any platform actually competes with Steam in terms of features (for both developers and users). And you don't pay a monthly fee to "unlock" half of them either!
I have rather small hands and the Steam controller is by far the most ergonomic I've used.
You don't want to have a conversation about it. You're not addressing anything I'm saying and just focusing on some percieved slight so you don't have to.
Makes sense. Why the hell would they pay 30% to Valve (+interest as they wait for Valve to get some interest before transfering the funds) for pretty much nothing.
I love the talks about Valve's complacency coming from people who clearly don't know or care about PC gaming. Apparently the way to fix that is releasing games on stores and clients with far less features, because reasons.
Same deal with competition. What better way to promote competition than locking it to a single store? One owned by the publisher, at that. Surely that's the most competitive idea ever!
Same deal with competition. What better way to promote competition than locking it to a single store? One owned by the publisher, at that. Surely that's the most competitive idea ever!
Add me to the list of people who were only slightly interested before and now not interested if it's not on Steam. What suprises me is these launchers such as Origin and Uplay are saving the 30% cut but never actually pass it onto the consumer. Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age DLC shit still remains overpriced (Bought everything from Mass Effect 1 and 2 but as a result never bought anything from 3)Can almost garuntee if Bethesda are able to lock their products down they would keep their price at the top line and leave it there.
Once it releases on Steam I might consider it, as a long time Fallout fan they've already soured me a but and not providing it on Steam adds an extra hoop I'm not willing to jump.
Once it releases on Steam I might consider it, as a long time Fallout fan they've already soured me a but and not providing it on Steam adds an extra hoop I'm not willing to jump.
User Warned - Thread Derailment; Inflammatory commentary regarding a developer's output
Yea i hope more devs will do this. I played on pc for almost a decade and switched to console because i didnt want support a company that dont make what i care about(games).
I agree with you. I am also entitled to new Valve games and until they release a proper single player game that isn't a VR game, a card game or a walking simulator, I will continue to boycott Steam and play on consoles instead.
what the fuck are you talking about??
Steam the platform really has nothing to do with Valve the game developer
For a dev that makes billions year over year, the output is shit at best even if the games themself are good.
Nothing?
You can ask some devs what they get:
Free Downloadservers.
SteamAPI for matchmaking.
SteamAPI for VAC (Cheating).
SteamAPI for Cloudsaves.
Ability to earn more money with trading cards as a dev.
Free Steam Workshop API and tools.
Free Steam Streaming servers to promote your game.
A free analytics tool.
A way to sell OSTs without any hassle.
Translation of parts of your game thanks to Steam Translation efforts.
SteamAPI for achievments.
A SteamAPI for all controllerconfigs.
Thats just from the top of my head that Valve offers to devs/pubs.
Level of entitlement has reached critical mass.
"Valve no make game I want so fuck them and everything they do forever reeee"
30% cut is an industry standard. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft also take a 30% cut and you don't see people stop buying games on those digital stores for some blind crusade because Valve doesn't make the games they want anymore.
Valve even offers more than any of those three storefronts in terms of support; Steamworks is both publisher and developer friendly, and in terms of feature sets is far more complete than any other digital storefront period.
Definitely not. I'm just not going to support services that I feel are not worth it.
There is one reason that consoles are getting away with it. Doing your own store is a alot cheaper than making your own console Every pub would make their own client if the gamers would accept more than one store.
just another reason why steam is good
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/monster-hunter-world-review-deadliest-catch/1900-6416842/
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/monster-hunter-world-review-deadliest-catch/1900-6416842/
How would you know what it costs for their infrastructure? You think CDN storage is cheap? Your ignorance is so clear, it's actually blinding.
I'd happily have a conversation about it; there's no perceived slight, there's a slight.
I think, logically speaking, that the assertion of "no Steam, no sale" can reasonably be interpreted as wanting to only purchase through Steam. It is not a logical leap to take "no sale" as meaning there could be a sale if it were on Steam, and further, by indicating "no Steam" as a condition, then they are earmarking that aspect as the important criterion for which they decide to buy/not buy. As you know, conditions precedent in clauses are strictly construed.
From there, it is not a broad logical leap to assume a user having a position of "no Steam, no sale" would be an advocate that everything must be on Steam; again, "no Steam, no sale." Unless they separately or discretely identify further conditions to their transaction, it would be difficult to assume anything other than "they prefer to purchase only from Steam, nowhere else." Given the tenor of a vast swath of replies here and elsewhere, I do not believe that the assertion that they "prefer to purchase only from Steam, nowhere else" is belied by practice or other possible indicators of intent. In fact, it's supported by my own anecdotal experiences here and elsewhere.
(I'm not even sure if I disagree with an even broader assertion that everything must be on Steam, although it is an interesting dilemma to consider as more and more "big" games leave Steam behind.)
I can see why you would interpret "no Steam, no sale" separately, as you believe it could mean something without as much positive extrapolation from the negative connotation latent within the statement itself. I disagree with your interpretation, as I think you need to read into the statement some manner of intent that might not otherwise be there, and in my practice, anytime I read something into a set piece of language I'm imbuing my own subjectivity. That being said, if you personally believe in "no Steam, no sale," and if you personally think that it means what you detailed above, then that's another manner entirely. But either way, with my interpretation or yours, both are reading some level of subjective bias into the statement. I just believe mine is less than yours, at least based on what's been offered so far.
Now, getting back to what you consider a perceived slight and what I consider an actual slight--I don't believe your interpretation is unreasonable, but I do not believe it is the only possible interpretation particularly in light of (i) the greater context, (ii) my anecdotal experiences, and (iii) the general structure in which I've seen these statements conditioned both grammatically and from lay intention. Given the room in which I leave for discussion, I find your "I can't believe you could possibly think this" to be needless and antithetical to honest discussion.
This isn't competition.
this is the silliest post in this thread yet. I hope you don't get any of your games from Amazon or best buy.
Do you think making a console is cheap. Bethesda would ditch Sony, ms and Nintendo if they could.
because that never happens everytime theres an Xbox one X related thread.
You're right, making a console is something that Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft do out of the goodness of their hearts. Every time you buy a Xbox, Phil Spencer personally loses 50$ and gets kicked in the chin. What good Samaritans.
But Valve canceled Ricochet 2, therefore this doesn't count.
That's why I jumped ship and only buy Ouya games now.
Yes not denying these are great for smaller devs. However, Bethesda will have to develop most of these themselves anyway on account of it being a big multiplatform game.
I was saying it makes sense for Bethesda, not its customers. I have a slight preference for everything being on Steam, but it ultimately doesn't matter to me if I want the game. I'm sure over time they will release it on Steam if they feel there are still many people who do. It makes sense for Bethesda to pay the 30% to console owners because it opens up their game to 140M players they wouldn't get otherwise. Steam doesn't have that luxury of a monopoly. Steam is necessary if you want exposure. But it's becoming poorer at it and arguably Fallout doesn't need it.
Anybody else want to play a drinking game where we take a shot every time somebody says valve has a monopoly in this thread?
*Gets to page 3*
*Gets to page 3*
So what is stopping everyone here from just adding the Fallout 76 executable to Steam? Am I missing something can't all game be added regardless if they actually exist in the storefront?
Even if you cannot, do you guys actually use Steam this much vs just having the current game(s) shortcut in your desktop?
I keep trying to sympathize but this is very trivial. A non-issue?
Even if you cannot, do you guys actually use Steam this much vs just having the current game(s) shortcut in your desktop?
I keep trying to sympathize but this is very trivial. A non-issue?
Considering they are all sold at a profit, i don't see what your point is supposed to be here. The consoles don't offer even half of the advantages Steam gives to developers, they have ridiculous royalties fees on top of the standard cut, and then they also basically get free money for blocking online behind a paywall despite them not actually hosting shit.
Because most arguments on here aren't driven by thoughts, facts and conclusions but pathetic platformwars
Bethesda is stopping it. Nobody is asking for sympathy. We are just airing grievances at having to use inferior launchers time and time again with absolutely no benefit to us.
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.
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.
i did last time , similar thread appeared ... my head hurds even tday from itAnybody else want to play a drinking game where we take a shot every time somebody says valve has a monopoly in this thread?
*Gets to page 3*
I really don't understand these posts. Like Steam, other launchers are just another folder for your games. It's not really hard to have a shortcut to different launchers on your desktop.
If you really cared about discussion, you could have tried reading the thread. There are tons of posts answering your questions and addressing the stuff that non-Steam games are missing. But of course you don't care about that, do you?
Do these shortcuts also inject features like refund policies into the executable?
But, why would I want to do that? Steam is far and away the best launcher out there, thats where all my friends are, thats where the vast majority of my games are. Why should I have to get yet ANOTHER launcher just to play your game?
you don't think anyone believes that that was your actual reasoning behind switching over, do you? I certainly hope not.
One year ago this would have been a problem for me. Now, I just hit the windows key and type in the game I want to play; it doesn't matter if it's Origin, uPlay or Steam. Steam, now, is just one way to manage games, which I can also with desktop shortcuts or other means. Of course Steam trading cards, achievements etc. is a nice plus, but in in the end it's not something that matters much to me.