-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
RAGE 2 will skip Steam, launching on Bethesda Launcher, pre-orders are LIVE for all platforms
- Thread starter Rodjer
- Start date
- Status
Count me in with the no steam no buy crowd. I don't think they're going to like the sales numbers on the PC and they only have themselves to blame.
I'm skipping this one because there's no refund policy in place, and Bethesda often release games in a shitty state. I won't buy any game from them until I know I can get my money back if it's a trash product.
You can just come out and say you're doing it for the cut. No one is fooled by "competition" when a player can only buy a game from one store.
Not just that, but no real review system and no forums for community support. For a company with a notorious reputation like Bethesda that's even worse.
Have you not seen the absolute shit show that is Fallout 76? Not even talking about the game but periphery things like the launcher deleting files, support tickets doxxing customers, etc. No god damn way do I trust Bethesda in this arena.
If DD was a new thing then i could maybe understand this happening. After the fallout 76 fiasco on the bethesda launcher i cannot believe they are going this route.
A barebones client, with no featueres and only issues. This isnt competition. Not even origin or uplay are competition to steam. Much less a game like rage 2.
I can handle 3 clients with origin uplay and steam but now epic and bethesda. Its so stupid.
A barebones client, with no featueres and only issues. This isnt competition. Not even origin or uplay are competition to steam. Much less a game like rage 2.
I can handle 3 clients with origin uplay and steam but now epic and bethesda. Its so stupid.
Or any other storefronts, thats the problem, why is this so hard to understand? I'd probably still buy it if it was coming out on Origin, or fuck it even uPlay, but Bethesda tying it to their shitty launcher they've put zero fucking effort into? Not a chance.
It's a removal of choice if you can't use features like in-home streaming, controller input mapping, big picture mode, etc with games released via per-publisher portals.
Buy this game on bethesda launcher and have your credit card details sent to a random person's inbox
huh? why not just wait a day to see the review? will it kill you?
i don't understand this sentiment. you won't buy it because it doesn't have refund, and bethesda releases buggy games. why not wait a day for impressions, then buy it if it isn't buggy? seems so odd that you won't buy a game because the platform doesn't have a refund, in fear the game might be buggy, when you can just wait a day to find out whether or not it is - and then you don't have to worry about no-refund.
Except it clearly is not "just because they aren't releasing on Steam" at all, and is very blatantly about the alternative now defacto service that is absolutely woeful - objectively.
You would be better off changing this argument to "no 'service that I enjoy using and provides me with great ways to enjoy my time playing' no buy"
No more free lunches for valve. Most of the major western publishers seem to have left with EA, Activision, Bethesda and Epic.
With that the only major western publisher left still supporting them is Ubisoft, which may also go uplay exclusive in the future.
With that the only major western publisher left still supporting them is Ubisoft, which may also go uplay exclusive in the future.
because then we'll miss out on our pre-order bonuses and be a day behind everybody else in multiplayer! /s
The more you realize how many gamers have FOMO, the more you understand their seemingly illogical positions and purchasing habits
Honestly i'm more likely to just get it on playstation and stop playing PC.
Oh, there are other reasons. For example, someone above mentioned it also doesn't have two-factor authentication, making it decidedly less secure than other launchers, and the interface is poorly designed. I just don't want to bother with a company that doesn't even care enough to do the bare minimum at making a decent storefront.
Most people are annoyed by how shitty Bethesda launcher is. And they have every reason to be after the FO76 fiasco, like no refunds or doxxing through customer support.
I do not want to put my credit card information on a broken store that just leaked personal info a few days ago. I also don't want to pay over twice as much than I usually do because these half assed tries at a storefront don't have regional pricing.
I own hundreds of PC games. I'm not exactly hurting for more so I'm not gonna jump through hoops and bullshit to access them.
Oh I agree with that, too. I just saw a few people making that association.
Why are people ignoring all the other competitors that have showed up along the years and pretending this is the first time Steam faces competition?
Besides the dedicated launchers such as Battle.net and Bethesda, you've had GOG, Origin, Uplay, itch.io, Windows Store, Discord, Impulse (dead), GFWL (dead), Direct2Drive (died and was revived) and Desura (dead), not to mention all the online stores such as Humble, Amazon Digital, GMG and Voidu.
The issue is when a competitor appears in the form of a storefront attached to a barebones platform, whose main approach to competition revolves around making titles exclusive to their store. In Epic's case, even going so far as removing games from platforms they were already present (Genesis Alpha One) or were confirmed to release on (Satisfactory, Ashen).
More competition does not equal more choice as some are proclaiming; that's a false equivalence. No one would be complaining if these services had a similar approach to Humble: sell the game but let the developer use any platform they want, whether it's a Steamworks game, an Uplay game, a custom platform or just completely DRM free. I'm certain people would be fine with Ubisoft's approach too: sell the game in all the stores, but run everything through Uplay. Both of these approaches encourage healthy competition and give the customers additional choice.
The reason people are complaining is because choice is being removed, rather than added. They're being forced to use a digital platform to be able to play certain games, with absolutely no benefits to the customer. And if Fallout 76 is any indication, what they'll be getting are considerable drawbacks.
it's seriously stupid. i mean, the game isn't gonna run away. it's single-player, too. you spend your days doing mundane shit, you can't wait a day to play a game just so impressions can come in from those who get paid to give people impressions. apparently it's the platform's fault..i mean when will these consumers learn patience and accountability for their purchases..
if i'm on the fence over a movie, i wait a week and look at other people's impressions. it won't kill me and i won't have to waste my money. god.
Consumers that don't have any form of consideration for value outside of the game they buy are hard to educate on why it matters to support a system like Steam. If Steam is just a launcher like any other to you then you have failed as a customer and deserve to be taken advantage of in the end by the same people you are so thoughtlessly giving your money to, the real sad part is that these people drag other, more considerate people down with them when they are in the majority. Luckily it's not that easy anymore to destroy what we have atm, at least I hope so.
So if you say "No Steam no buy!" don't let nobody tell you any nonsense why that should be a bad thing!
So if you say "No Steam no buy!" don't let nobody tell you any nonsense why that should be a bad thing!
I'm in no way in the "No Steam, No Buy" crowd, but I would imagine if you suddenly asked console gamers to create and maintain individual accounts on half a dozen different launchers that required your personal and billing information, and that even if they quit out of those launchers, most of them would still maintain some sort of memory/storage footprint on the console for updates, and on top of that having to contend with security concerns between all of those digital platforms on one console, those console gamers wouldn't be super happy about that.
But it's okay to do it to PC gamers, because whatever, we're just lucky we're getting games, right?
Simply put, we disagree about Bethesda's motivations and what the outcomes of this will be. Bethesda will make minimal attempts, if any, to compete on service. Compelling reasons why Bethesda games are best served by a Bethesda launcher will fail to materialize. Bethesda is nowhere near feature parity, and I highly doubt they ever will be. Bethesda has no motivation to compete on service when it's not how they intend to acquire your business through their launcher in the first game.
EA made similar claims about being able to better serve their customers through Origin than they could through Steam. A compelling and justifying feature has yet to materialize. EA does not appear to be trying to change this. Origin is far more stagnant a client than Steam. I expect no better of Bethesda.
I admire your positivity, but I the way I see things is this: there is no reason to believe that some day in the future, a publisher will unveil a compelling reason that their game is best served by their platform, in a way that Steam or indeed other platforms never could have matched. There is every reason to be ticked that I have to deal with every single subpar launcher.
Shit like this is why I went back to consoles. At least that way I don't have to maintain multiple accounts and applications just to buy stuff.
While I agree in general, in the case of Bethesda the big issue is that they don't have a refund policy for digital games, while Steam does.
You're not far off though. We will be going from console war to service war. PC has gone from being completely detached from this, to being the main battleground.
The problem is that Steam has had such a head start that for a competitor to have complete feature parity with them would turn the project into a several years-long boondoggle. Valve also has the enviable position of being able to divert talent away from game development for several years at this point and just put it to work on building more features into the platform.
These competitors are still game publishers first, and are looking to ship a minimum viable product to get the ball rolling and start building a user base and momentum. The only way they can get traction initially is by having exclusives that force people to come to their platform. Origin would've been DOA if they didn't require everybody who wanted Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 to use it. They know they're not direct competition to Steam today, but they hope to get their one day (at least in Epic's case, as they seem the most committed to dethroning Steam).
I don't quite get the resistance. I remember a time where PC games had to be purchased, installed, and patched separately. Steam has coddled a lot of people in the last ten years. PC gaming has always been harder than consoles and always required more effort, investment, and troubleshooting know-how. If people's main priority is having all of their games in one launcher, there's some great consoles for them to try.
Say what?
Not having to use multiple credentials is one of the benefits of playing on a console.
At this point is safe to assume unless the Bethesda launcher crashes and burns in the next 4 or so years that's a given.
"PC gamers don't want convenience"
Origin has been a minimum viable product for 7 years, and it's probably the best launcher other than Steam.
Point being that it's something you don't have to deal with. And until the broad proliferation of platforms, it wasn't something we had to deal with either.
- Status