I find it weird that Activision and Rockstar are pushing their crap launchers in late 2021.
By - BuldozerX
They should just try to have the best of both worlds and release their games on both Steam and their own launchers. While a Steam version is usually the best due to features, they could offer incentives for people to go buy the game on their own launcher, like discounts / coupons for future use.
Does steam allow you to sell for less in your own store, and still put it on steam?
When it comes to **Steam keys**, you must "[not] give Steam customers a worse deal [than selling those keys on other stores]". (See: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys)
When it comes to selling a **non-Steam** version, there are no (officially published) rules.
So since Activision/Rockstar versions would use their own stores, they could sell at whatever price they want to.
In theory, it means *on average* Steam will never be higher price than getting a Steam key elsewhere. In practice, there are a few caveats:
* It relies on Valve enforcing the rules. They *probably* don't except in extreme cases or for high-profile alternate stores. I don't recall hearing about any such cases, and you can probably find a few examples of places selling Steam keys for less than the direct purchase.
* Valve may negotiate individual contracts with publishers which would supersede the generic rules. Of course, any such deals aren't discussed publicly so there aren't any specific details to share, but we do know Valve have negotiated with big-name publishers with respect to other aspects.
* It's rather vague wording, which gives Valve flexibility (e.g. a "reasonable" amount of time might be unofficially different for two different publishers) but also makes it difficult to provide examples of people breaking the rules and getting away with it.
* It's not foolproof - various sale methods might get around the rules. For example, Epic's store often has a generic "$10 off" coupon - which wouldn't count as putting an individual game on sale.
So in general it's still a good idea to check sites like "isthereanydeal.com" or "gg.deals" to make sure you're getting the best deal for yourself. Plus, the rules allow sales to be at different times on different storefronts, so if you're looking to buy a game *now* then there's no guarantee that Steam will have the lowest price *at the moment*, even if the above caveats didn't apply.
I mean take a look at Isthereanydeal. I havent bought a game direcrly from steam in 5 years, there are plenty of stores selling the games for cheaper that you activate on steam so no, steam is often the most expensive.
Well that's clearly false as third party key sites are at worst equivalent to Steam prices or (most of the time) cheaper.
I actually almost never buy stuff on Steam now as they are usually the most expensive place to do it (except in sale and even then not necessarily)
I'm pretty sure devs can generate Steam keys that can be sold elsewhere without Steam getting a cut. It's why lots of different 3rd party stores exist on PC. A dev could sell keys to Green Man Gaming for $45 each, compared to $60 for the game on Steam, then GMG can sell the game for $50 each and make a profit. In that case, the dev would get $3 extra profit per copy sold to GMG, and GMG would make $5 profit per copy they sell.
Steam doesn't allow selling games at a lower price off-site. You can do sakes of course but those sales need to also happen on Steam (Although they're not required to happen simultaneously).
So yeah, while steam does allow generating and selling steam keys (and it doesn't take a cut), you're not allowed to try to game the system by selling them for less.
>Steam doesn't allow selling games at a lower price off-site. You can do sakes of course but those sales need to also happen on Steam (Although they're not required to happen simultaneously).
That's Steam's TOS, but it is different than what is actually enforced (which is rarely). There are plenty of games sold off-Steam for cheaper for lower or independent of Steam sales (see isthereanydeal.com).
A retailer listing vs the publisher listing is very different, and operating a business based on "what is enforced" is not a particularly smart idea.
>and operating a business based on "what is enforced" is not a particularly smart idea.
The entire marijuana industry is based on the lack of federal enforcement of the law.
One of the things that happens also is some third party will buy up steam keys when a game is on sale and then later resell them at higher rate than the sale, but lower than the normal price.
Which like you said is a much different thing than the publisher/dev selling them lower.
I always wondered how this worked and that makes sense. Not like the key is going anywhere. Was always concerned those cheaper than any where else places were on the less then legit side (which maybe they are) but this is at least a path seemingly.
Some of them are on the less legit side. They do the same thing except with stolen payment info so it's 100% profit.
I am not disagreeing with you because you are 100% correct but your statement made me think about how certain U.S. states decriminalizing weed is a very similar scenario - federal law not being enforced. Swap out the ganj with video game keys and swap the law with the TOS and you have pretty close to the same idea.
That is about where the similarity ends though. Two private companies vs. the entire federal government/30 some odd state governments fighitng over TOS are two very different animals.
Glad I stumbled upon this thread. Sorry for the derailing ramble there.
Don't know the exact terms, but I remember Forza Horizon 4 costing 10€ more on Steam compared to the Microsoft Store.
IIRC steam doesn't allow you to put lower base prices elsewhere, but sales are ok, unless they changed it.
Last I checked, the policy is basically that you can't set the price different, but you can have sales elsewhere so long as you offer a similar deal on Steam in a reasonable point of time. Though, as someone who checks isthereanydeal regularly for sales, that's a policy that is *far* from enforced.
There are *many* games whose record lowest price is lower than it's ever been on Steam. For instance, Deathloop has been $50 on several sites since launch, but it has yet to be lower than $60 on Steam.
while thats most likely true, deathloop hasn't even been out for a month. "resonable point of time" is ambigious and could mean "within 6months" for all we know
I mean, there are plenty of other games to use as an example. Yakuza Kiwami 2 has been hitting $7-9 for over a year by now, while the Steam version never goes below $14.99.
Let the user decide where to buy. I would even pay more on Steam. But they want you to use their launcher, because it makes it more likely that you buy another stuff over there then. And buying from their client will skip the fee to pay to Valve. But as said before, I am more than happy to pay the difference (30%) if the game is on Steam.
This exactly, I was a huge borderlands fan and played all the others as a console player. When 3 came out as a timed exclusive on Epic I refused to buy it until it came to steam and buy the time it did I had lost all interest and was playing other games.
Happened to me with Tetris Effect too and probably other games I forgot.
This happened to me with a game called Rebel Galaxy Outlaw. By the time a year passed my interest died out and I didn't bother even when it was on sale. It was a combination of waiting that long and other similar games came out on Steam and I opted to try out a different game.
Even now with the Steam Deck coming out I'm pretty sure I'm not going to purchase outside their ecosystem for a long time. Having my whole library on a handheld without having to pay for a second copy is pretty sweet.
Yeah that happened to me too with BL3, massive fan of BL1 and 2, played them both for hundreds of hours and was eagerly waiting for BL3 to drop but when it became a timed-exclusive I lost interest and even though it came on Steam later, I'd already moved on and I still haven't bought it yet and probably won't until the edition with all the DLC is heavily discounted, I guess that's my punishment to Gearbox for taking Epic's money and doing dirty to Steam costumers.
For bringing anti-consomer console-style exclusivity to the PC in an even more arbitrary way than it was on consoles because we're all on the same console technically.
If Epic/Timmy had their way they’d have their own Epic Store on PS, Xbox, Nintendo, iOS without the platform holder making a dime off it, and they can start paying devs/publishers to not release on the main platform holder store for a year. That’s what they want, and that would be even worse than the existing method of console “timed exclusivity”.
Same here, that was a game I would have bought day 1 60 dollars np. Then when it finally came out on steam I didn't even mind waiting for sale since I already waited a year. Ending up getting the super deluxe edition for like $40.
I wouldn't pay more than $15 for any of these games. Epic already paid them for no one to buy it. Because that's the business model they are turning this into: here's some money so it can go on our half-ass launcher, where no one will buy it and where your customers definitely are not. This is not an honest way of doing business for either party. At this point I wonder why they're bothering to make actual games since they don't want or need any gamer to buy them since their business model is now just getting paid by epic to not sell their game and delay release.
Most of us have huge backlogs or a torrent downloader. Not a single person needs what they're offering.
I just came from console less than a year ago and had no clue how pc worked. Kind of lame I have to use another company's launcher when I'm on steam or games locked into certain launchers. But I am older and have a lot of patience so that helps with not wanting it day 1. Being an Xbox guy it is nice to see them playing ball with steam though.
I do this anyways by choosing to forget a game exists if it’s not on steam. They shoot themselves in their own feet by being dicks about launchers.
TBh it’s not hard to just forget normally. If not for how funny it is I wouldn’t remember Kingdom Hearts is on PC, because nobody talks about it. Beyond just the egs jail issue it is tremendously overpriced. But in general it’s easy to forget a game has come “out” when it is only on the egs. It’s more like a prison. You may as well cut down your marketing department, or outright fire anyone involved in PC marketing since you’re making their job actually impossible.
Launch is the bulk of sales for the vast majority of all games. Not every game is going to be Mario Kart or GTAV selling millions years after it came out. So you’re wasting your launch sales potential on PC by doing these deals. Hype dies down while games are in egs jail and by the time it’s out elsewhere people have moved on.
Doesn’t help a loooot of the games taking the deal are underwhelming for their franchises. A few exceptions, but it’s usually a sign of lack of faith in the product imo.
Often Steam provides the most accessible way to buy the game. Even though Activision is shitty, I do want to buy some of their games officially. But since it's on their stupid BattleNet, I get prices in US Dollars. If I were to buy, I would incur currency exchange charges on top of the other charges I am liable to incur anyways.
It only makes it more likely that people pirate their game, look at epic. I just got hacked on rockstar and I'm thinking about buying rdr2 again on steam and waste the copy on rockstar given how bad it is. Also, on steam I can change dlss version to one that has less artifacts for the hair, where stupid rockstar launcher overwrites the file everytime.
Yuuuuup it’s easier to pirate dedicated launcher games.
While I personally not going to pirate these games, but just ignore them. Unfortunately RDRD2 price does not go down as much like other games. So you are stuck with high price, if you decide buying again. Maybe there are third party shops to buy a Steam license very cheap. To me ^(attention: just my personal opinion does not give anyone the right!!), this is fair, as you already purchased the game on this inferior storefront.
Back then when I purchased my graphics card, I got Witcher 3 for free on GOG (and played a bit). Later I buyed the game again on Steam and transferred my save file. So that copy is wasted now. Especially as a Linux user Steam is the best thing.
Glad I'm not the only one still waiting for RDR2 to go down in price....
Pirating the game and ignoring them is the exact same thing to a company at the end of the day. They lose the same amount.
Are you telling me that creating a copy of a digital product is not exactly the same as removing a physical product from a brick and mortar store?!?! 😱
Yeah but how many pirates would have actually ignored it forever if piracy wasnt an option.
Apathy is far worse for a company than having people showing interest via piracy. If you actually want to hurt a game act like it doesn’t exist at all. If everyone who took issue with companies did this then they’d hurt really bad. But the majority of consumers are casual ones who don’t even think of how buying $20 of mtx makes games worse over time. They only play a handful of games a year anyway so are spending less than we are total despite paying for things that amount to nothing. (Excluding whales, they’re not the average consumer)
FWIW paying a 30% fee doesn't mean you'd have to pay an extra 30%, you'd have to pay an extra ~43% (1/0.7). A game at $70 without a 30% fee has to be priced at $100 before fees.
Also, the 30% "valve tax" on the store isn't common. Bigger games, especially AAA games from AAA franchises get way less skimmed off. The 30% is the baseline, and adjusts based on sales.
Aye I am aware, I believe it goes down to 20% after 50m. Just chiming in to fix some maths XD
Especially when the other storefronts are barebones and barely work.
The Bethesda and Rockstar launchers are probably the most barebones launchers out there, just completely uninspired clone of Battle.net with 0 interesting features for customers.
With competition like that it’s no wonder that Steam is bigger than ever.
The Rockstar one truly confuses me because there's nothing on there anyway. They don't have the catalog for it. There's 10 games on Rockstar launcher. That's insane that they invested in this piece of shit, believing they need their own store front, for 10 fuggin games. And most of them are old af.
I don't even want a launcher
Epic still doesn't have a shopping cart for the store. And one time they suspended somebodies account because of unusual activity. He bought a bunch of games during a sale....
for me, it's the reviews. it's so useful to see what others think of a game, or whether the port works properly or not. steam reviews have saved my butt multiple times. I mean yeah you can look online but why would I do that when steam has it there already.
I feel like Epic isn't adding a shopping cart out of spite at this point. The store has been out for, what 4 years? And all they have to show for it is a wishlist feature. It still baffles me that 0 effort is put into that store, not minimal but 0.
Like I've said in another comment similar to this one nothing is more useful than a 1000+ hour player leaving a bad review.
Getting the opinion from a super fan who's been there possibly since day one is an extreme eye opener for a game. All the terrible patches made, disgusting business practices, treatment of the community, etc.
They know it all and are frustrated enough to leave a note for everyone warning future players of what's going on behind the curtain.
People complain about review bombing but it's super easy to just comb through the comments for ten minutes to figure out what state the game is really in.
My point exactly!
Exactly, for me it's seeing if the game has any problems on PC or not, I bought Bully a long time ago on steam without looking at the reviews on steam. lunched it, it kept crashing. then I looked at the reviews to see a lot of people complaining about the win 10 version not running properly. (idk how it is now). if I had seen them before buying the game I would have known.
The top review of Fallout 3 on Steam is what showed me how to get the game running on my new machine. I'm still thankful for that person.
Heh. Destiny 2 vibes. So many 2k+ hour reviews on the negative side, including my own.
There's truly nothing more valuable in terms of reviews- especially the in-depth ones that explain why they invested time into it and why they enjoyed it. Often those reviews say how the game drifted away from the core reasons to enjoy it.
Payday 2 was my game. Played it since launch and got plenty of complaints on how the company monetized it and how they drifted away from the original play style.
A game of holding your ground and conserving your resources as every enemy whittles you down to surviving on just your core skill alone.
Now an arcade shooter with regen health and ammo perks and a philosophy of eventually playing as a jack of all trades who fills all the roles needed in a heist.
It's still fun but god do I miss the old gameplay. Having scenarios where your whole team is in custody and you have to tip toe your way to the escape with just a single mistake being your last.
I've also noticed that on the Epic Games Store certain games which aren't star performers don't have reviews present because the Publishers are allowed to opt out of review display.
I feel like that's kind of a dick move that you can opt out of bad coverage.
Fanatical just added reviews recently to their site and I just got an email about the chance to win $100 on their shop for writing reviews. While steam reviews have many problems, generally you as the end user can shift through the garbage. Steam shows most of the info you need to see to weigh against the text of a review to decide if it’s worth listening to.
The only thing I’d like to see is a “subscription” icon for people who played a game through EA Play (or any future ones that may happen). I think that can weigh a game’s reception positive when it’s gotten for a low subscription price vs the higher sale price. So it’s info worth having, like getting a key for free or offsite.
But hey they're adding achievements this month. The feature most of their customers said they don't give a shit about whenever I've asked why they don't care about Steam.
I wouldn't be surprised if not having the shopping cart is intentional. You lose so many sales just by having a cart, yet you can rack up impulse-purchase profits without one. Given their competition, and their lawsuits, I'm not putting this kind of penny pinching beyond them. If they were customer-friendly, they could offer both direct-purchase and add-to-cart like Bandcamp, but only time will tell. What I do know is that a shopping cart doesn't take years to develop.
It has to be intentional. Implementing a shopping cart would take, at most, a day or two for an intern dev whose never looked at the code before. Throw another day in for a tester to get around to making sure it works.
Not to mention having to add all your friends on multiple platforms and then check said platforms to see who is playing what.
Speaking of, does anyone know how that worked out for borderlands 3? I know personally that I was waiting for the steam release, and then just kinda lost interest and still don’t own it. I wonder how common that is.
Any active MMOs on Steam you can recommend? I know FFXIV is on there at least and that's something many fans can be grateful about I suppose. And if I can remember right, you can even use your Steam wallet for subs which definitely makes things very convenient.
ESO is on Steam now
Though FFXIV is on Steam I wouldn’t recommend it and would suggest buying the windows version from the SE store.
My reason being that the Steam version hardly ever goes on sale while the windows version goes on sale regularly, even for preorder. The two are not compatible, so once you buy one you’re committed
Yeah it’s weird. In a couple years will find these games back on steam at a discount.
Being off of steam simply does not hurt R* as much as it would most other companies. They can drop GTA6 and most people would flock to them without batting an eye
No. People need to stop buying GTA. The only way we will ever get a new one is if sales dip
Unless it hurts their bottom line, you won't.
They can get away with this because their games pull you to their launchers. The sad part is despite having that advantage both companies have done nothing to make their launcher a Steam or Epic competitor which isn't a surprise for one of these companies as they focused on drinking at work and sexually harassing their female employees.
>because their games pull you to their launchers
This is apparently not what EA found and has subsequently reversed their decision to only sell PC games through their online store and put their games back on Steam.
It still sucks because they're still forcing you to use their shitty program to open the game (which Steam doesn't seem to take any issue with), but you can buy the games through Steam now.
> they're still forcing you to use their shitty program to open the game (which Steam doesn't seem to take any issue with)
Does any other store on PC prohibit it, besides GOG? I assume EGS doesn't, since their business model is to cater to publishers and gamedevs.
Any basic launcher is an Epic competitor. With how barebones that shit is, having the bare minimum counts as being competitive.
Agrees the only thing going for the epic launcher is free games. Oh and it's not the ubisoft launcher which is somehow worse.
That sucks, I hate the Rockstar store/launcher. Just the other day I spent hours trying to fix it after it randomly wouldn't let me sign into my account and then when I did it said I owned no games and wouldn't locate any of em. Had to uninstall and reinstall a bunch of times and I still have no idea what fixed it.
Also I only buy games from steam so I will be speaking with my wallet. Then again, if they make an RDR1 port I will prbly cave
I really hate having to boot up RDR2 on Steam, just so it can boot up the Rockstar Launcher, just so it can log me into the Social Club, just so it can then launch my Steam game. It's just aggravating. If we had something like game suspension like how consoles have, then I wouldn't mind having to do it here or there, but EVERY TIME I launch it? No thanks, Rockstar.
Wait, you gotta install another launcher for RDR2? Dang. I've had it on my wishlist for ages waiting for a good sale but nevermind. Extra garbage launchers are such a pain
It is available without a launcher in certain... free... formats. If you're fine with doing that of course. And no online if you go that route
Unnecessary launchers are the new toolbars.
"Please, download our extra crap onto your system even though you already have something that can do this."
Yup :(. If you try to just install RDR2 through Steam, it will install the Rockstar launcher and Social Club when you try to launch the game. It will launch both of those things every time you try to start the game, which takes like, 30+ seconds the last time I tried. The base game RDR2 already has a long enough boot up time, and the Rockstar stuff just makes it worse.
Even if you buy it on Steam, doesn't it also force you to use the launcher? I've had that happen with several Ubisoft games, where I install them on Steam and it just launches the Ubisoft launcher.
I have RDR2 on Epic but it still requires the Rockstar launcher, and I'm assuming it works the same on Steam.
Yup, and guess what i havent bothered redownloading seige because i fucking hate the ubisoft connect garbage.
I pirated a second copy of Red Dead 2 and GTA 5 for this reason, the launcher is crap and updates constantly because of the online features that I couldn't care less about. At this point I'll gladly pirate any future games they release on there just cause I know I'll have a smoother experience that way.
Don't cave, if you keep doing that and they will keep doing same thing. vote your wallet and said no
Personally, I enjoy having 12 different game launchers/stores that run on startup. It helps me exercise my computer and keep it in shape. It also makes it so that I don't have to open Chrome in order to use all of my available memory. /s
Edit - that "/s" means sarcasm.
Gotta keep the computer sharp
> It also makes it so that I don't have to open Chrome in order to use all of my available memory
*Laughs in game launchers using Chromium under the hood*
And no, that is no joke. Some game launchers use a version of Chromium (the open source version of Chrome) as the core for the user interface.
Nothing is worse than Ubisoft. Buy a game anywhere, and when toy launch it, their launcher will ALSO start and won't let you play until you click through 6 or 7 update windows for it.
Vote with your wallet and don't buy games on shitty launchers.
I will wait for GTA Trilogy to come to Steam. If it doesn't I won't play it.
I’m not getting in on principle since they killed the reverse engineering project that improved these games.
Rockstar let them age and did not even add xinput to these games so people reverse engineered the game engine so y out could have modern features.
You still needed to own the games to use their project so it wasn’t a piracy thing. Rockstar still had their project taken down. Now they announce this.
RIP GTA4 mods :(
So much this man. I can't stand people defending R*/take two, with the amount of shit they've done in such a short amount of time I'm surprised there's little to no backlash from the general public, I guess people really don't care about modding/open source reverse engineering projects.
The general public isn’t aware of these things.
> I guess people really don't care
Honest question, which people? Who is defending Rockstar? I don't think I've ever seen that before. Or at least, not in many years.
If instead of defending, you mean that people still buy their games, then yeah. That's not going to stop happening any time soon. The public doesn't give even a tiny shit about modding, that's just not on anyone's radar.
Any word on whether they were planning to do this compilation before the reverse engineering project? Or did they just let the community effectively do market research for them and then throw this compilation together?
Because worst case scenario they're not even "protecting their IP" they'd be literally parasites, especially if they even looked at the RE project source to assist then in their in-house ports.
There's like a million games. I haven't played an Activision game in like 10 years. I don't need another launcher and they're a shit company, so I play the nearly infinite alternatives available.
>>I will wait for GTA Trilogy to come to Steam. If it doesn't I won't play it.
>Sailing the high seas it will be
I saw GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas and IV with all DLC as package a few years ago for 15$.
I own all of them + GTA V on Steam. They removing it from Steam store but I still can download it. IDK how worthwhile the trilogy will be, I'll be honest.
Nah, not worth it for me. I'll just skip it. There is more then plenty interesting titles to play.
Rockstar social club drm will surely happen for this trilogy.
Why bother. It'll eventually come, and my backlog is so humongous, I really don't need more.
Exactly. If it ain't on Steam, that's not my problem.
I am with this. Steam, Game Pass, and GOG are my preferred gaming platforms, and I'm fine missing out on content not delivered through these platforms.
There's so many games and so little time for me to play them. I can skip their shit and still have plenty of fun.
I don't mind companies having their own launchers, but it's super annoying when the steam version forces you to open the crappy additional launchers. I stopped buying ubisoft games on steam cause of it.
It does not bother me too much if I don't have to interact with them once I click play on Steam and their launcher closes automatically once I exit the game.
It might have changed, before it opened the external launcher, and you had to launch the game from there iirc.
The Paradox Interactive launcher does the same thing, super annoying.
The worst part is that the Rockstar launcher won't even load to tray, no it needs to be front and center every boot, but if you don't load it then the one time you want to play one of their games it is bound to need an update that despite gigabit internet, still takes 20 minutes to download and install.
this is easy to answer, Steam is very expensive to them, and they clearly feel they make more money doing it independently, even with slightly lower volume, then giving up such a large percentage of the sales they do make to Steam.
They might be right, they might be wrong, but if they thought steam would make them more money they would join it.
If you did read anything from Apple vs Epic leaked documents, you would know that the cut was just a smokescreen, at least when it comes to Steam. Yes steam takes 30% cut, but steam provides everything - servers, review pages, forums, community pages, screenshot pages, user profiles and much more. What do other launchers provide - a store and thats it. Not to mention that steam allows publishers to use and sell free Steam keys for games from outside the steam, where steam doesnt get a penny from.
Another huge deal are steam reviews. Many publishers hate that users can write reviews in steam, and that publishers cant hide or remove them. This "feature" (no option to write reviews) was heavily advertised by Epic to other game publishers. Publishers hate user reviews, they will take option to hide or disable them if they can, and just advertise "gaming site reviews" that are basically shills these days, who are afraid to lose early access to games and ad revenue.
Yeah I don’t like it but I don’t find it weird at all. They’re pushing their own launchers because they don’t want to give Valve a cut
I remember a time when games didn't have launchers. Mostly, this was also before digital distribution, but anyway... Once hard drives got big enough that you could run gamesoff of them without CDs, it was kind of nice and direct just having shortcuts to .exe files each game just right there on the desktop. Figure out how to auto update without a launcher, let me download the game from your website, and make it a few bucks cheaper than Steam to make it worth the trouble.
AC1's retail copy for pc has an auto updater that doesn't go through uplay. It's the best.
Uplay is annoying, but I
I do like getting discounts from their coins you can earn by playing games.
Honestly I'll give ubisoft credit that there ui design is very slick, and they have ubisoft connect by default not start on boot which is a nice thing to see.
Agreed, I liked that feature a lot. I wish more publishers and platforms would do it, it helped make me feel like I was bring rewarded as a customer.
A while back they said something about coming back to Steam if the Steam Deck sells well, so we may see Ubi games on Steam soon
I wonder why they are even trying. Maybe to save that cut the steam takes from publishers. But they forgot that their launchers does not provide as much incentive as the steam launcher and probably they never will be able to provide such incentives.
Steam is all publishers on one platform and these are one publisher on there one platform.
Sony and microsoft have there own hardware and software so, it is some what okay for them to try their launcher providing home to multiple publishers.
But for game devs studios, story is different. They are dependent on hardware to provide there software. For them, no hardware is a big no to no software.
Steam with their steam deck is moving to hardware as well. It doesn't matter they fail or get success. Their methods are good for long run.
They might save a cut, but they end up selling less games.
Can we really say they are saving on the cut when they have to incur the expense of developing and maintaining their own launchers.
Are you insinuating Ubisoft maintains Uplay in any way 😂😂😂
Lmao. True. That's Ubisoft.
But jokes aside, thing is that they all would have been better off simply selling the keys through their own website instead of spending money on the launchers.
Most probably it some stubborn upper management going, nyehhh I want it to be on our own.
Yep. I want Crash 4 - but no Steam, no money from me.
It is really annoying that you have to have most of a franchise on one store, then one game randomly tucked away in another that you probably will forget about later down the line.
Annoys me so much that with crash I just forget 4 exists, and it is only the trilogy.
Wait... 4 exists? As in, it’s after being developed and has been released to the public?
Crash 4 exists in another timeline.
Unless it doesn't in which case it's all just a dream.
I did this with BL3, forgot it existed.
>I want Crash 4 - but no Steam, no money from me.
TIL Crash 4 already released on PC
It's also the only version with Always-Online DRM!
And then Activision wondered why the game didn't do so well.
Crash 4 sold well. On consoles, at least.
I mean the Blizzard half of Activision have been using their launcher for a long, long time. It’s nothing new - it’s just it has been expanded to cover other products now too.
I can see why, I mean they have a fairly high install base and their products are so huge that they don’t need the promotion they would get from launching on steam.
If they had a wider catalogue like EA has I think it would make more sense for them to go to steam.
I suspect part of the motivation is to ultimately try and be the next steam. Take rockstar for example. Their games are enormously popular. As people start to use their launcher more and more, next thing you know they could be cutting deals with indie Devs to run their games on the Rockstar launcher, and longer term other larger publishers.
Running a wildly popular store front/launcher is big big money, as valve has shown.
Maybe or maybe not. From my current experience with the rockstar launcher. It is not optimal and stable as a storefront because it is just a cloud authentication and storage medium. But anything can happen in future, given enough time many things can happen.
But rockstar giving support to indie dev is something I don't see coming anywhere. They forced re3 and reVC team to abandon the project just to sell old games again (which is okay as they have the rights but they don't support anyone but themself).
Except as we've seen from Epic, trying to entice devs over to your inferior platform just with money backfires massively when sales slump massively because everyone knows what you're doing and your launcher is godawful and the devs lose a massive amount of community goodwill and respect.
Their launcher is the worst fucking thing ever. It will never take off in its current state, at best it will just succeed in spite of how shit it is... because GTA and Red Dead are mammoth IPs.
> does not provide as much incentive as the steam launcher and probably they never will be able to provide such incentives.
They would have to see sales drop-off 20-30% for it to be not worth it to them.
I dont give a S\*\*t. I am not interested in having 15 different launchers. I have steam, most of my games are there, if yours isnt there or GOG, bye.
wishful thinking on my part, but i’m tired of having all of these digital games and i can’t really own them.
we need digital ownership and if i want to have my digital games moved from my xbox to pc i should be able to do this at anytime. if i want to transfer a collection of pc games from one launcher to another i should be able to.
Doesn't EA game on Steam just opens Origin anyway?
a lite version that's very much unnoticeable, It launches when you launch the game and closes itself when you exit the game, It lacks pretty much most of the features from the main origin.
It is strange, but take comfort in knowing that they all come crawling back eventually.
I'm sure Microsoft will eventually push their store yet again, Sony will probably make one too, they might even integrate it into PSNow
Microsoft already do so.
The Xbox app and Windows Store are a thing, plus Game Pass on PC is becoming a better and better deal.
I would still rather buy on Steam if there is the choice though.
So far, MS is on Steam for the long haul. They know where the audience can be found and we can all be grateful for that decision.
Sony already had their own PC gaming service called The Station but they sold it way back, and they divested of Everquest as well. I don't think they're interested in making another one, they're basically an insurance company that happens to make movies and games these days.
Times have changed and Sony will eventually make a store
Yep, they would be foolish not to. They can still have games on Epic and Steam, but their own storefront can offer things like ps trophies, and crossbuy with playstation etc. Stream games via PSNow straight from the app.
Far cry 6 not on steam... fuck ubisoft
Used to buy every. single. Ubisoft. game.
Haven’t buy one since they got out of steam.
Gaming executives aren't the brightest people.
EA: Ha! We are smart. We don’t need steam. They just steal our money. Origin is the way.
Few years later: jea. That failed. Nobody plays our games if they’re only on origin. Let’s go back to steam.
Microsoft: Ha! We are smart. We don’t need steam. They just steal our money. Games for windows live is the way.
Few years later: jea. That failed. Nobody plays our games if they’re only on GFWL. Let’s go back to steam.
Rockstar: Ha! We are smart. We don’t need steam. They just steal our money. R* club is the way.
God I will choose Origin or even Windows Store over R\* club even with a gun on my head.
I'd pull the trigger myself in that situation.
EA made a huge amount of money only releasing their games on Origin. After initial hiccups, their stuff like Dragon Age and Battlefield and Mass Effect was selling gangbusters. But they saw a mutually beneficial agreement with Valve. Valve wanted Apex on Steam. EA wanted a version of their subscription service on Steam. This arrangement benefits both companies.
Interestingly, the game that originally caused the split between EA and Valve was Crysis 2. EA wanted to sell DLC for Crysis 2 outside of Steam, bypassing the 30% cut. Valve disagreed with this, and after some squabbling the game was delisted.
The two parties couldn't come to an agreement, and while a version of Crysis 2 was relisted that met Valve's requirements, EA moved everything subsequently off Steam. I believe this also affected Dragon Age 2, which was doing something similar DLC-wise.
I think it massively screwed over some games -- the sacrificial lambs of early Origin exclusivity -- such as Syndicate 2012 and Crysis 3. I think that Crysis 3 (even if it required a DX11 GPU) would have sold significantly more copies if it had been on Steam. In early 2013, anti-Origin fervour was a peak. And, yes, some of it was just daft "It's malware" nonsense. The Mass Effect 3 hype train crashed through it, but for a lot of people, stuff like Syndicate or Crysis were not "gotta have it or I'll literally die" enough.
The thing about Rockstar is that they have such immense brand power and blind loyalty (I mean absolutely blind loyalty where essentially tens of millions of people will handwave any bad thing the company does) so they can release their games wherever they want. People will go where the Rockstar games are.
It's the same with Call of Duty. Call of Duty doesn't need Steam. It will sell millions of copies on Battle net. Same with Diablo.
Also, Ubisoft seem to be doing fine, but Ubisoft have massively known brands. People will go where Far Cry is. It doesn't need reach or discoverability or anything like that.
> EA wanted to sell DLC for Crysis 2 outside of Steam, bypassing the 30% cut.
The way EA was selling DLCs in that period was really bad. I wanted to buy DLCs for Mass Effect 2, and had to buy "bioware points" from the Bioware website, then buy the DLCs with these points, and each DLC was an .exe that I had to run and install manually. And if you're wondering, yes, I had ME2 on Steam. And, don't know if the website it's still up, but I bet I have points left, because obviously I had to buy 10€ worth of points for a 6€ DLC.
Bioware, or EA, I don't know who to blame for that situation and I don't care, but the Bioware points system was the worst system of buying DLC system I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Pretty sure it's defunct now, but EA carries legacy download links of every Mass Effect 1 and 2 DLC on their site that you had to manually download anyway after you bought them with Bioware points, but anybody can download them now if you have the link.
The verification system ME2 uses is completely broken today, so when I replayed the original not too long ago, I had to jump through many hoops as a result of their asinine system because the game refused to verify DLC I had downloaded off EA's site that I was entitled to. Even though I had legally purchased all of it many years ago, I had to resort to cracking it to actually getting it to work because it's just broken now and you can't connect to the network anymore.
It truly was fucking awful when EA split up from Steam back then and basically left everybody who had owned games like Mass Effect in the dark. Even after bringing some of their games back to Steam, EA still hasn't provided Steam users a way to buy DLC for Mass Effect 2. You can buy a DLC bundle for 3, but not for 2.
Because of all of this, I have no hesitation or shame telling people that if they own the original ME2 today, they don't have to pay a dime to play the DLC on PC. EA offers the DLC links and downloads on their site, and as long as you know how to crack it, you can get it all free, I just won't be the one giving links. After all the hassle I was put through to play DLC I owned and purchased, I'd say EA deserves to miss out a little for facilitating such an anti-consumer purchase system in the first place.
Steam started getting installed because it was required for CS and Half Life then it blew up. These companies are hoping they can pull the same thing off because of the brand recognition of their games, but if you invested a lot of time and money into your Steam account you're not going to jump ship. Also they were 18 years too late trying to pull off the same thing Valve did.
And, of course, one of the common denominators here was they're all shitty services. GFWL from what I recall was rife with issues to the point that it could even impact performance in games. Origin lacked a lot of features and was fairly clunky. And Rockstar's launcher is not without its own problems.
By this point, developers should realize that pulling their games to segregate them to their own service isn't enough to compete with Steam. You have to put a little more effort in than that. Rockstar may fare better than most given how much of a juggernaut GTA is, though I imagine it'll be begrudgingly, and it remains to be seen how much of a draw the trilogy remaster will be.
I’m just going to continue to not buy the game. It’s whatever at this point. Between this and Epic exclusives, it’s a mess.
EA came back to Steam after they formed a "partnership" with Valve. So I'm assuming they're getting a bigger cut than they used to. Sony is only releasing their games on PC to lure players into buying Playstations, it wouldn't make sense for them to go with their own store when all they want is exposure. Microsoft is kinda the same, they want as many people as possible to play their games but unlike Sony they don't care if people bought an Xbox.
Any big AAA company will try to go with their own store, there is a reason why these companies have the shittiest regional pricing, they'll try to milk every cent they smell.
And we can all be grateful for MS's decision to be on Steam for the long haul.
It shouldn't be weird that these giant companies are trying to avoid Steam, because Valve (usually) takes 30% of all sales from their platform, including microtransaction sales. Activision and Rockstar don't have discoverability or marketing issues, so they likely think that whatever discoverability boost they get from Steam isn't worth losing 30% of revenue right off the top.
The 30% cut only applies to smaller developers. I remember when EGS was combating Steam with the 12% cut, Steam caved in a little and announced they would take 20% with their bigger publishers. So there's probably some under the table deals with other AAA developers. Developers like Ubisoft, Activision and now Rockstar are just greedy and don't want to work with Valve.
30% is for something like the first million of sales, then 25% after a certain amount, then 20.
Not really bothered about launchers. I usually just buy my games where they're cheapest. As much as it would be more convenient if all my games were in the same place, I can just put a shortcut on my desktop and ignore them for the most part.
What I do care about is that fact that if I buy a legitimate copy of a game on one store with one launcher, I shouldn't have to have another launcher open at the same time to play it.
I doubt Microsoft will push their shop again they want a combined pc Xbox ecosystem. Also they like money and steams user bases is huge they know that cutting that out to make slightly more revenue on individual games is short sighted also they want game pass on Steam.
GamePass can't come to steam....third party publishers would be against that.
Otherwise, Steam sales are basically subsidizing the dev costs of first party games on GamePass. Putting it on steam would jeopardize that as well.
I understand why companies want to distribute their own games and maximize profit, or why they want a slice of the pie, but personally I don’t want to use more than one launcher on my system. Steam has been working well for me for over a decade, nearly all of my PC games are there, and I really like having my games in the same place.
If publishers don’t offer their PC games on Steam, I won’t buy them. I’ll miss out on some games, but realistically I miss out on numerous games anyway as I don’t have the time to play everything I want to play even if it’s on Steam already.
Would be nice if there was another steam to compete with steam. All those launchers for one company effectively hide their products. I'm not gonna open 4 launchers to see if there is anything new or upcoming. I open steam. Used to use GOG and Origin. "Let's play password recovery and update launcher just to think about playing that one star wars game I bought". A friend has reinstalled windows like 5 times, blames steam usually, and will always check to buy from a company launcher before buying on steam. He would also like to see real competition to steam.
I just skip stuff that's not on Steam.
It's not just me finding it annoying to have to handle multiple launchers, but Valve actively supports and works to improve the Linux ecosystem (which is the OS I use).
I have dozens of free games on Epic for example, but they don't even have a native build of their launcher, nor do they offer native linux builds of the games that have one on Steam.
I understand it's a small market on Linux, but hey, you ignore me I'll ignore you too I guess. Not like I miss out on much really, Activision is EA 2 and Rockstar is just set on re-releasing GTA V ad-infinitum so whatever floats their boat.
I personally don't bother buying games if they aren't available on steam.
Not going to pollute my hard drive with more tracker DRM bullshit than is necessary tbh
One of the biggest reasons I use Steam now is the upfront knowledge of controller support, and the ability to quickly swap to a community layout if the dev is sniffing their own farts with their "official" one and the ability to have actual PS4 controller support instead of tricking it into think it's an Xbox controller.
I had no issues on Origin with BF1 as long as I used InputMapper, but BF4 just wasn't having it. So even though I already own BF4 on Origin, I had to buy it again ($5) on Steam to get the controller support (controller still doesn't work in some parts of menus). And no, adding it to the games list from Origin, for some dumbass reason didn't work.
Everyone who plays on PC knows that Steam is just where it's at. I don't agree with everything, but I definitely like that they aren't just there to take your money at the gate like literally every other game store, they actually make improvements that the devs just don't bother to do on their own, or require the devs to do it because they know a portion of us use controllers or we don't buy/play the game.
I’m surprised that devs are still taking exclusive deals with the Chinese malware launcher. Haven’t bought a single game that did so, even after they released on Steam.
Many people are ignoring the fact that Activision and rockstar do not need the reach and advertising that steam brings, because their games already have massive advertising campaigns and everybody knows when their games come out. The cut in sales they get from not using steam is less than the cut in profit when steam takes 30%
I don't think EA is giving up, they have a new launcher to replace Origin in beta. EA games in gamepass on pc require it to be downloaded & I'm sure the ones on steam will at some point.
It's because Steam charges a cut to put games on their store. More and more developers are saying "Well, why don't we just make our own launcher so we can save 20%". I can see why they want to do it, but what happens is they almost always release a very bad launcher for their games and the community hates it (including me).
I wish the model could seperate paying for the game content and paying to use that game on a specific launcher. I'd rather have my games on steam because of the great features like big picture, top shelf controller customization, ease of use, etc. I would seriously pay up to $15/25% more for a game on steam or GOG than on a third party launcher. License me the game and let me pay a seperate fee to launch it on the drm platform of my choosing.
I'm not buying any games that require a different launcher than Steam or are required in addition to Steam.
Rockstar, ActiBliz, Ubisoft, they can all suck it and shove their launchers up their ass.
[Edit] one exception: Good Old Games
Basically they all suck now.
Rockstar and Activision are now run by business people. They probably don't play PC games and maybe never have. All they can see is an opportunity for vertical integration, cut out the middle man, that sort of thing. What they don't understand is that PC gamers for the most part prefer Steam. If they did play PC games, at least one them would probably understand why Steam is so valuable for long term sales.
I imagine at launch, at the height of their marketing campaigns, their sales won't be impacted much by the fact that people have to deal with yet another launcher. They probably would come out ahead in terms of revenue by keeping the portion they'd have to share with Valve. However, Steam is ubiquitous. Basically everybody has it and they are probably looking at it every day. They have friends on Steam that will tell them about games they should play. There's **community** there. In my experience, Origin never really had that, Battle.net might have a little of that and the Epic Launcher probably has that but only for Fortnite die-hards. In the past year I've bought probably a dozen games (Arma 3, Insurgency 2, Naval Action, Project Winter, MechWarrior 5, Carrier Command 2, to name a few) that I play, not because I was interested on my own, but because I had friends who were playing them. I probably *never* would have bought these games if not for that. The advantage of this word-of-mouth-style marketing is that it's free and can continue indefinitely. It is also more credible. Nobody has to tell me a game is good if I have three good friends playing it. That goes double for a multiplayer game.
I expect that EA and Microsoft both found that their sales *in the long term* are higher when they put their games on Steam and this more than makes up for the cut of those sales that Valve takes. If they put Halo 5 (or whatever) on Steam I may play it eventually, even though I played half a dozen Halo games a decade ago and am kind of sick of them. If it's on the Microsoft store, I'll forget about it entirely. Similarly I loved Battlefield Bad Company, but never played Bad Company 2. If I saw a few friends were getting into it, I'd probably buy it and join them. I would *never* put up with the horseshit of a new Battlefield release like 2042, but I have good friends who would, and I love playing games with them soooo... I might decide to put up with that horseshit this time. If it was being released on Origin, I might not have even seen the trailer by this point.
Most of these launchers are ass too. Rockstar launcher never let's me play red dead and always fails to connect to the internet. I've completely given up trying to launch red dead I don't even want to play it anymore. The epic games launcher is just as bad too if not more janky
If it ain't on steam or GOG launchers I ain't buying it.
I'm horrifically lazy as a gamer, and will in most cases just not bother buying a game if it isn't on Steam (there are a few rare exceptions).
Hopefully more companies follow EA's lead :)
It's especially annoying for Rockstar. I don't want a launcher on my PC for games that release once every 8 years
Steam has public player reviews, a public mod workshop, public forums, public player screenshots, achievements, direct chat, group chats, separate groups + group forums, game specific emotes & backgrounds to collect & use, a shit ton of profile customization and last but not least, discount events, discount bundles and a way to buy games on 3rd party sites (HumbleBundle, Kinguin, etc.) thanks to it's key system.
Steam is THE platform on PC and that won't change for a long, long time.
To top it off, Steam has so many games that many people simply do not care about PC games on other platforms. Tbh if it's not on Steam, why should I play it? I just wait til it gets it's Steam release. Until then I play something else.
idk about you but my PC can easily handle more than one game launcher. No biggie.
You got to admit the only decent client beside Steam is Battle.net, it is the only client that actualy is decent and works compared to all the other clients out there.