For a huge well known and popular IP - like Fallout - they dont need Steam.
Also remember - Steam takes 30% off the top from all sales. Also if Fallout 76 is planning on having any kind of cash shop sales - steam would take 30% there too and this really adds up over time.
Steam can be really great for less known IPs and games that need exposure to a huge potential playerbase.
So IMO - they are making the right move - also they can always launch on Steam later when sales really slow down.
Bottom line - huge well known IP not launching on Steam initially - smart move.
Having a 2nd steam launch later - can boost sales once the game is in a slump - also smart
so .. everything that has already been said ?
I don't think anyone has pointed out that not going Steam shows their intentions to make considerably profits via cash shop - which is where 30% profit cuts really hurt overtime.
I'm actually surprised that it took so long for someone on the board to speak out about losing that 30% too.
Yeah, Amazon is doing a similar share with their own platform.
But Amazon has a strong marketing arm with the deep Twitch integration and shares revenue with the streamers each sale, Steam has competition.
I dont want Twitch anywhere near becoming my next one stop shop for buying games, No thank you. The people that took over Twitch and now run that site are a bunch of loons.
For a huge well known and popular IP - like Fallout - they dont need Steam.
Also remember - Steam takes 30% off the top from all sales. Also if Fallout 76 is planning on having any kind of cash shop sales - steam would take 30% there too and this really adds up over time.
Steam can be really great for less known IPs and games that need exposure to a huge potential playerbase.
So IMO - they are making the right move - also they can always launch on Steam later when sales really slow down.
Bottom line - huge well known IP not launching on Steam initially - smart move.
Having a 2nd steam launch later - can boost sales once the game is in a slump - also smart
so .. everything that has already been said ?
I don't think anyone has pointed out that not going Steam shows their intentions to make considerably profits via cash shop - which is where 30% profit cuts really hurt overtime.
I'm actually surprised that it took so long for someone on the board to speak out about losing that 30% too.
It was mentioned ...
But if you sell 30% more thru Steam ................ then..... The only difference is exposing your game to a broader audience at launch and later for DLC
Personally, I prefer to buy games through steam..... in this case, I will relent. lol ----------------------------------
edit: Game is a must have since I am a Fall Out fan.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Sad to say, I've got all those launchers on my pc (except for my.com) and their third party programs. "It was the best of times, it's was the worst of times."
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
-So won't be able to get mods on nexus or steam workshop or anywhere else but Bethesda themselves -no steam -paid mods -probably be FULL of microtransaction on top of paid mods -online only -survival clone in the way of fortnite -no refunds (except despite Bethesda saying no refunds, its a legal requirement in EU and AU which overrides Bethesda if someone lives in either of those two. Steam tried already to avoid refunds Bethesda, you lose so go waste money on lawyers)
Anything else I'm missing?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Seriously, it's getting fairly ridiculous. Some companies have just a couple games but force a launcher for their titles. It's just messy and inconvenient. It makes sense for online games that require constant updating like MMOs and such, at least.
I don't really blame companies for not wanting to be Steam-dependent, though. So, I can live with that. But, as someone else mentioned, there's always the concern of a company and/or their launcher getting shutdown and losing whatever you have on that platform.
In this particular case, I can't gripe too much because I already have the Bethesda launcher
I am not a Bethesda fan nor do I plan on playing any sort of crafting focused game so as an outsider without any stake in any part of this I don't fully understand why people are angry about it.
Is it because people rely on the Steam community functionality? Can't you just add a non-steam game to run with steam? I've seen the option in steam but never used it so don't know if it hampers the community functionality (which I also don't use).
But, most mmorpgs I have played didn't release on steam and some are still not on steam and I honestly don't remember anyone ever caring about this. I do remember people being mad they had to use Origin to play SWtoR. But that seemed (at least to me) to be anger at being forced to use a new platform to play the game.
I skimmed through the posts above so may have missed something - but I didn't see any reason posted on why this would be a mistake, or why people want to be able to buy it on steam so badly.
The Origin launcher is terrible. But I haven't had a problem with any others yet. If Bethesda wants to consolidate their games into one launcher like Activision/blizzard then so be it. Just don't make it suck.
To me the bigger mistake is this comment from the end of the annoucement.
"new information from the B.E.T.A. FAQ is that testers will have access to the full game and that progress will be "saved for launch"."
If not wiping test progression then the game is actually "launched" in my book when B.E.T.A begins, especially as you have to pay to join the "testing."
Just another BS early access chirade to excuse bugs and crappy performance at the start.
Scowl....this shit is never going to end, now the bigger players are jumping in.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Developers have to either a) absorb this cost or b) pass the cost onto the customer / players. And if they choose to absorb the cost that means less money to support the game etc.
Now for some companies what Steam charges will be worth it. There will be stuff like not having to worry about having a secure payment option etc. but the big thing of course is that they may sell more copies of the game which may - may - make up for what Steam charges.
For others though - in particular big companies with big titles supported by big advertising budgets especially - Steam isn't going to drive sales. So it just means less money.
Will they try to sell other stuff through the launcher - like Steam does for example! - maybe. They will be trying 30% or whatever harder though if they have to pay Steam!
As I said for some - new indies especially who will rise or fall on their first game - it could weell be worth it.
For bigger, established companies though it means better profits; more money some of which will be ploughed back into game development. If its profitable they are more likley to reinvest.) And more likely perhaps to take the odd risk as well. Less money - as in paying Steam a significant cut, means less prfits, fewer games developed, less risks and - all to frequently - closing studios.
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
The Origin launcher is terrible. But I haven't had a problem with any others yet. If Bethesda wants to consolidate their games into one launcher like Activision/blizzard then so be it. Just don't make it suck.
I thought it was the norm for MMOs to have their own launcher. Seems odd for this community to oppose this so heavily.
No. All programs have their own launcher. What it sounds like they want to do with Fallout 76 is to use their own Bethesda branded game market launcher. Something that is totally unnecessary to play FO 76 and only exists as an online store to hard sell you more shit you probably don't want.
Well, the Bethesda launcher is already available. I mean, I haven't loaded it up since like Christmas time, but it was basically the exact same kind of launcher that Epic and Blizzard use. It's basically the Blizzard-App/Battle.net wtf-ever it's called these days.
Shows you the game news and updates all your games or install them directly through the launcher, etc. I'm sure you can directly buy the games through it, as well, but I never tried. So, it's no more of an obnoxious store front than the other launchers I mentioned.(last I checked)
With no actual single-player - I wasn't going to play it anyway. Good luck to Bethesda with these shitty games. The Ark/Minecraft/Rust/Fortnite etc bs time is coming to an end - single-player games is all I would buy. The brand new SO AWESOME cinematic of Elder Scrolls also has me SO wet, all around, to be sure it wouldn't just be another piece of shit online game. Or.... would it?
Simple tip also to those who love single-player games - buy a PS4 as well. Over the past few years the best single-player games have been exclusively on a console.... not PC.
I really don't get why anyone would have strong opinions either way about a frikking launcher. Are we that bored?
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I really don't get why anyone would have strong opinions either way about a frikking launcher. Are we that bored?
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
Heck I like Steam but that 30% is obvious why Bethesda is doing it.
I'll just do what I did with every other non-steam game like GW2, Diablo 3 etc and add it to steam anyway. They let you add non-steam games and launch them from steam.
I feel better supporting the devs with all my money anyway. Steam isn't exactly doing a ton with that 30% other than LOLing all the way to the bank.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
There does seem to be a move away from 3rd party app/game stores, Epic recently chose not to use Google Play for the Android version of Fortnite, with a game like Fortnite that makes sense, the game sells itself so why pay Google 30% of in game revenue if you don't have to. But Bethesda isn't in the same situation as Epic, the only question really is whether or not the decrease in sales numbers because its not on Steam, offsets the 30% or whatever it is that Steam takes on each sale. This is only of cursory interest to me as i have no interest in the Fallout series, but instead more interested in whether or not this is how Bethesda are going to market future games, like their next Elder Scrolls game.
Comments
Aloha Mr Hand !
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Steam
Blizzard
Ubisoft
EA
GoG
Trion
My.com
NCSoft
Edit: Forgot Twitch...
We could definitely use one more.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
-no steam
-paid mods
-probably be FULL of microtransaction on top of paid mods
-online only
-survival clone in the way of fortnite
-no refunds (except despite Bethesda saying no refunds, its a legal requirement in EU and AU which overrides Bethesda if someone lives in either of those two. Steam tried already to avoid refunds Bethesda, you lose so go waste money on lawyers)
Anything else I'm missing?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Seriously, it's getting fairly ridiculous. Some companies have just a couple games but force a launcher for their titles. It's just messy and inconvenient. It makes sense for online games that require constant updating like MMOs and such, at least.
I don't really blame companies for not wanting to be Steam-dependent, though. So, I can live with that.
But, as someone else mentioned, there's always the concern of a company and/or their launcher getting shutdown and losing whatever you have on that platform.
In this particular case, I can't gripe too much because I already have the Bethesda launcher
Is it because people rely on the Steam community functionality? Can't you just add a non-steam game to run with steam? I've seen the option in steam but never used it so don't know if it hampers the community functionality (which I also don't use).
But, most mmorpgs I have played didn't release on steam and some are still not on steam and I honestly don't remember anyone ever caring about this. I do remember people being mad they had to use Origin to play SWtoR. But that seemed (at least to me) to be anger at being forced to use a new platform to play the game.
I skimmed through the posts above so may have missed something - but I didn't see any reason posted on why this would be a mistake, or why people want to be able to buy it on steam so badly.
I've got the straight edge.
To me the bigger mistake is this comment from the end of the annoucement.
"new information from the B.E.T.A. FAQ is that testers will have access to the full game and that progress will be "saved for launch"."
If not wiping test progression then the game is actually "launched" in my book when B.E.T.A begins, especially as you have to pay to join the "testing."
Just another BS early access chirade to excuse bugs and crappy performance at the start.
Scowl....this shit is never going to end, now the bigger players are jumping in.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Developers have to either a) absorb this cost or b) pass the cost onto the customer / players. And if they choose to absorb the cost that means less money to support the game etc.
Now for some companies what Steam charges will be worth it. There will be stuff like not having to worry about having a secure payment option etc. but the big thing of course is that they may sell more copies of the game which may - may - make up for what Steam charges.
For others though - in particular big companies with big titles supported by big advertising budgets especially - Steam isn't going to drive sales. So it just means less money.
Will they try to sell other stuff through the launcher - like Steam does for example! - maybe. They will be trying 30% or whatever harder though if they have to pay Steam!
As I said for some - new indies especially who will rise or fall on their first game - it could weell be worth it.
For bigger, established companies though it means better profits; more money some of which will be ploughed back into game development. If its profitable they are more likley to reinvest.) And more likely perhaps to take the odd risk as well. Less money - as in paying Steam a significant cut, means less prfits, fewer games developed, less risks and - all to frequently - closing studios.
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Well, the Bethesda launcher is already available. I mean, I haven't loaded it up since like Christmas time, but it was basically the exact same kind of launcher that Epic and Blizzard use. It's basically the Blizzard-App/Battle.net wtf-ever it's called these days.
Shows you the game news and updates all your games or install them directly through the launcher, etc. I'm sure you can directly buy the games through it, as well, but I never tried. So, it's no more of an obnoxious store front than the other launchers I mentioned.(last I checked)
The Ark/Minecraft/Rust/Fortnite etc bs time is coming to an end - single-player games is all I would buy.
The brand new SO AWESOME cinematic of Elder Scrolls also has me SO wet, all around, to be sure it wouldn't just be another piece of shit online game. Or.... would it?
Let's party like it is 1863!
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Made even worse by the fact it requires a Bethesda account, which my oh so good childhood friend decided to steal from me after we ceased talking.
This will only continue to worsen as time goes on, won't it?