And by different I mean that it proves how superior Steam is next to all these other garbage launchers. I was one of the lucky few who had to re-download Fallout 76 due to issues with the Bethesda Launcher, just like many of us already had to do using Microsoft Store. A game that shouldn`t have been bought, and it`s even impossible to request a refund because the launcher doesn`t offer that very feature.
-
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.
The Bethesda launcher is an prime example for why I hate different launchers.
- Thread starter GameZone
- Start date
I wish everyone would just unite to one launcher. Maybe we won`t hear everyone complaining about Valve "stealing" 30% of their money.
I could deal with some of them if they were decent, buy they aren't.
I had enough issues with patches fucking up on the F2P version of Quake Champions i just broke down and paid the 30 bucks on steam so i could get that pos launcher out of my life
That's a false equivalency. If the launchers were easy or beneficial to deal with, that'd be one thing. But they're not, as they are now they offer very little for the consumer outside of games locked to these platforms. At best, they're lagging behind the features of the current top leads, at worst they have serious issues and nuisances.
You have a choice of what to use, but really at the heart of this this is nothing compared to if you want to be a multi-console user, and is more similar to something like streaming services, like for watching things I personally pay a subscription to Netflix, Crunchyroll, Shudder, and Hulu for very different things, and those are paid subscripts and each one uses a different app for different platforms. However, I just use Steam and none of the other ones you've mentioned and I've been fine (given I mainly follow horror games, which the other stuff outside of Steam don't really have a robust horror library).
Counterpoint: When there was only one launcher... we didn't hear about Valve stealing 30%.
We suspected it... but because they were the only game in town, no one talked.
OP: do you understand why only having one launcher is a bad thing?
I'm one of the lucky few who hasn't had issues with any of the launchers I've run across... but, imagine if there was only one launcher... and it was one of the ones you hated.
That shit is why competition is good.
Do people not remember when Steam started?... it fucking sucked, and people hated it.
As others have already commented, both of these things are true. The benefits of an open platform manifest fully when various companies compete by offering better services. They don't manifest when consumers are being denied choice by companies arbitrarily locking games behind bad clients.
I have the choice to not play a huge amount of games. The situation on console isn't really comparable, at least on Xbox and PS4 you have all the big third party games (and most indies) in one place.
Steam being garbage 15 years ago isn't really an excuse for others having a garbage store in 2018 though.
That's not an excuse to keep launching awful services in 2018. Steam launched in 2003.
Explain how these launchers are competing?
They're not even trying.
It's pretty crazy how it can't even do the most basic function of delivering what you paid for.
From now on if you want me to buy on your store, you are going to have to earn it. Start matching Steam on features. Just holding your game hostage isn't going to work on me. I already have more games than I could play in my lifetime.
From now on if you want me to buy on your store, you are going to have to earn it. Start matching Steam on features. Just holding your game hostage isn't going to work on me. I already have more games than I could play in my lifetime.
It seems like you jumped into the thread without even reading the OP. Well done.
This isn't about having to use different launchers. This is about certain different launchers being unable to handle basic features that you would expect of them. In the instances where companies release launchers which are feature rich and work as intended then you will see very few complaints.
Because they DO suck. We have 100 different options and 99 of them blow because they dont want to give a nickel to the guy whos doing it best. I find it completely laughable and at the same time very depressing that I practically can't play my Forza Horizon 3 copy on PC because the store gives me so many issues. It worked one time. Once. I paid for a product and it can't even download properly. That one dude from 343 said they know about it and are working on it, but its been a fucking disaster since day one. Origin likes to randomly crash and DC me, Uplay I also have massive issues downloading games at my actual download speed. I can't tell you the last time I've even had a small problem with steam, something ive been using daily since 2011.
Launchers aren't the same as competing storefronts. Walling games behind exclusive stores is the opposite of an open platform. Valve allowing steam keys to be sold on other storefronts is allowing for competition.
Yup. It is laughable that Valve is doing more for competition against itself, than the "competition".
But Steam got good at some point, something many of the other launchers doesn't.
And stop calling it competition when they aren't even trying. Microsoft dealt with PC gaming before Valve existed, and they probably have the worst store.
I agree that the Bethesda launcher is absolute trash. However it is not indicative of every other launcher besides steam. Origins has quitely put itself in a better place over the years (it still has some issues for sure but i feel like it has infinitely improved in stability and features significantly since launch) and Bnet is also in a good place at the moment.
I really don't understand the issue of multiple launchers - it really shouldn't bother people the fact that there are multiple launchers on the market competing. The sooner some stubborn people move from the mentality that everything should be on one platform and one platform only to create essentially a monopoly the better we will be. Steam has not had a genuinely GREAT sale in years nor has it radically changed in terms of it's launcher either in a number of years, partly (i feel) because of this mentality.
What people should be upset about and have every justification to be upset about though is if the launcher is not doing what it should be and lacks basic functionality/stability. The bethesda launcher is a prime example where nowhere near enough attention was given to it, it feels like a quick slash-dash attempt to try to re-aquire steams 30% cut and as a result the gamers suffer and likely because of the poor effort sales will also suffer on PC.
I really don't understand the issue of multiple launchers - it really shouldn't bother people the fact that there are multiple launchers on the market competing. The sooner some stubborn people move from the mentality that everything should be on one platform and one platform only to create essentially a monopoly the better we will be. Steam has not had a genuinely GREAT sale in years nor has it radically changed in terms of it's launcher either in a number of years, partly (i feel) because of this mentality.
What people should be upset about and have every justification to be upset about though is if the launcher is not doing what it should be and lacks basic functionality/stability. The bethesda launcher is a prime example where nowhere near enough attention was given to it, it feels like a quick slash-dash attempt to try to re-aquire steams 30% cut and as a result the gamers suffer and likely because of the poor effort sales will also suffer on PC.
Probably not the same people speaking. Simple as that.
I'm a PC gamer and I'm perfectly fine with using different launchers when I need to. I just never check the "launch on PC startup" option and only use when needed.
The problem is that it's not competition. None of these launchers/platforms are actually trying to compete with Steam. They exist solely so that their respective owners can cut out the middle-man, not provide customers with a superior alternative to Steam. GOG is the one exception but even that is pretty barebones compared to what Steam offers.
When was the last time Uplay or Origin had a great sale? Also, why would Valve choose to radically change Steam when they can simply iterate and improve on it, as they've been doing ever since it launched? Steam has more useful features, more selection and better sales than Uplay, Origin, Battle.net, Bethesda.net, etc, combined. It's not even close.
Counterpoint: Steam has never deleted a game from my computer because I clicked on any button in the client.
The fact of the matter is the vast majority of PC launchers aren't even trying to compete with Steam in features. They're typically barebones to downright broken. If Valve doesn't deserve 30% than most other clients that sell third party games deserve way less than that.
Last edited:
They don't have to. Their games are locked behind their launcher, so it's impossible to get somewhere else. That's why different launchers are bad.
They don't even take 30% for keys sold outside of Steam. They take nothing from that.
The easiest way to unify imo would be to go back to no launchers. Then they'd all be unified as icons on my gad dang desktop
Steam client isnt even that good. It has a lot of issue of its own.
I still think the best client was EADM back in the past.
--
Ps. I used Bethesda launcher for Elder Scrolls Online and Elders Scrolls Legends and it was fine.
I mean if there wouldnt be Origin we wouldnt get a refund policy on steam, so yeah competition is great.
I still think the best client was EADM back in the past.
--
Ps. I used Bethesda launcher for Elder Scrolls Online and Elders Scrolls Legends and it was fine.
75% of everything in the client just opens up a webpage in your default browser too. Helps make the whole thing seem even more unnecessary.
But like you literally just said - they are not trying to compete with steam. Why would they? But if the launchers are functional and offer basic/moderate level of features isn't that enough? What does it matter if a game is on steam or not if the launcher it is exclusive to is at a good standard?
Also i don't know too much about recent sales as i have not been on my PC as much lately but i know Origins constantly have sales with some games upto 85% off and also used to have the "On the House" monthly free game and also still give away quite a bit of DLC for free. Also they offer Origin Access as a subscription service which Steam currently does not have.
I write that not because i dislike Steam - i really do like it. It has the best features of all the launchers and it is a great platform all around (it still has room for improvement in my view but that dosen't take away too much from it). However it does not need to be the only platform on PC.
You don't know that. Steam have been the first client to announce many features.
People wanted refund policy for years and it happened after EA implemented it.
It's a relatively new launcher, these things are hard to make. I feel like people forget that Steam was bad for a *long* time
Even platforms like Origin and uPlay are good now after they weren't. The only reason to prefer Steam is because it's convenient, not because it's astronomically better than the other platforms
Even platforms like Origin and uPlay are good now after they weren't. The only reason to prefer Steam is because it's convenient, not because it's astronomically better than the other platforms
And nowadays it is much better implemented than EA (and actually, the implementation was forced onto Steam after Australia and the EU forced digital content to have a refund policy).
The divsion between good and bad changes with time. When Steam launched for the first time it was an OK service for its time and nowadays it would be a really bad one.
Steam as the market leader is what determines the base line of "good" and "bad" providers. This means that any update of it changes the perception of what a good and bad launcher is. Origin launched at a parity level with Steam (even better on some parts), nowadays it is greatly outclassed by Steam therefore it is not good, just OK.
There are ways to separate yourself from this ranking such as having an attractive main feature that Steam cant provide (such as GOG or itch.io) but most launchers launch in a state that it is vastly inferior than Steam and their update rate is vastly inferior than Steam.
Well, it could be worse: you could have an unified storefront and that could be the PS Store.
Bullshit.
The refund policy was basically pushed by court ruling about consumer rights across several countries, especially here in Europe. It has hardly anything to do with Origin.
This is a rather common sentiment, but Valve's refund policy followed EA's by almost two full years and is far more broad. The actual catalyst was almost certainly the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission suing Valve over its refusal to offer refunds on released titles, especially as Valve immediately did a 180 and began obliging such requests from Australian users.
Well next to Itunes there are no other computer software I hate with passion as much as Steam. Steam is even after all these years a shitty platform, thus I dont condemn bethesdas launcher for being bad when it's relatively young.
The sooner steams digital almost-monopoly dies - the better for everyone.
The sooner steams digital almost-monopoly dies - the better for everyone.
Is it? 'within 14 days of purchase and have played the title for less than two hours' vs 'you can return game downloads for full refunds within 24 hours of the first time you launch the game, within seven days from when you purchase it, or within the first seven days after the game's release if you pre-ordered'.
^
"I'm going to make random baseless claims trying to sound confident in the process".
He's referring to the breadth of the policies. Valve's applies to virtually everything while EA's is limited to its own games and less than a dozen third-party titles.
Something doesn't have to be the best for it to be good, and it's absurd to say that Origin is not good
And to say that when Steam launched it was okay for it's time is some serious revisionism. It was actively bad
As a customer, I have no interest in using separate launchers for separate games unless they provide good reasons to. I only use Origins and Uplay to play the games that require them. Same for Battle.net and every other launcher. They haven't justified their existence by providing anything useful to me.
Those big discounts are exclusively for EA games. By that logic, I could argue that Steam has fantastic sales because Valve's games have gone as far as 90% off. On the House is dead. Free DLC is limited to EA's multiplayer games with dwindling/dead player bases. Origin Access is good if you really like EA games and have never bought any.
I agree. However, other platforms need to justify their existence beyond just giving publishers more money.
Sure. Let's have 20 terrible launchers when we can have one good.
I have had many problems with steam as well. Recently had to re-download bioshock 2 twice. Also games not showing up in my library. And steam customer support sucks to this very day
I am just saying that as a consumer given two choices if we were to rank Steam (as the market leader) as a 7/10, Origin would be just 5/10. Origin is OK, it is not actively a bad product and it is serviceable but lacks many of the added features available both for consumers and developers Steam has.
Just to expand on that, I didnt say Origin was not good just that the way to rank launchers evolves with time and Steam being the market leader provides the baseline. If Steam is good, can we say the same about Origin? Not really as Origin is outclassed heavily. Can we say Origin is bad? No, like uPlay, it is a very functional launcher that does its job without adding that much extra value.
Now about Steam launch:
Steam launched in a bad state but given the shit lvl of the other products at the time (such as Stardock launcher) and the really bad state of DRM in PC it can be seen as "OK". I am not giving it a pass, just that all other options were also shit.
I still bother with PC, but the launcher problem is the prime issue I have with PC gaming and it's the reason why I migrated back to consoles for the most part, except for when it comes to playing FPS games.
Origin, Uplay and blizzard launchers are all great and work perfectly. I still mostly use Steam because like 95% of my games are there. But yeah, all of the aforementioned launchers are far superior to anything that you can find on consoles for example and in my experience, they work flawlessly.
Origin is merely adequate. I can't say I've ever had any trouble with it personally (even back when it was the EA Download Manager) but it's really basic. In that respect it looks quite poor compared with Steam and its long and growing list of features.