Fallout 76 - Multiplayer, online, BGS Austin

I feel like they know that this game is not the next “numbered” single player RPG game from their franchise, and more of an experiment in a new style of game. Why not try something new when it comes to distribution? Worth a shot, especially with the always-online aspect of this game to include paid dlc, lootboxes, etc. Why not have 100% monetary control over this one?

It makes me less likely to buy this game, but I don’t think it is a huge deal overall. If it is good, I will buy it, if Bethesdanet’s launcher sucks or the game stinks, I won’t buy it.

They are just removing the ease of Steam’s “Maybe I should give this game a chance on sale” aspect of 95% of my game purchases.

Wanting to recoup tens of millions of dollars in development costs seems like a pretty good “why not” to me. :)

Nah, they’ll just release Skyrim again on another new platform if they need more cash. Fallout 76 seems like they are trying something altogether new.

Any takers on the next Skyrim platform? I’m thinking either Virtual Boy or TI-83.

Well they can try, but my enthusiasm was waning already. If it’s not on Steam I feel like it’s just a no go, unless it shows up on GOG or one of the other ones I already use.

You guys who are saying, I’ll only buy it if it’s on Steam.
You realize that you’re actively reinforcing a monopoly right?

This whole multiple online store fronts thing is clamoring for a proper aggregated solution. A universal game store management app that supports all the major players (Steam, Origin, GOG etc).

EDIT: hmm… https://playnite.link/

I fail to see the difference between putting it on Steam and putting it on their store. It still only runs from one location.

Except one of those is tried-and-true, has benefited the PC community for over a decade and has continually demonstrated to promote lower prices along with a robust modding scene. The other is brand-new, exclusive and company stores have repeatedly shown to result in higher prices. Not to mention Bethesda’s repeated attempts to get a cut of the mod scene.

You might have a point there, draxen, but personally I’m just less than enthusiastic about the idea of installing yet another unproven game launcher/store that will inevitably turn out to be a pain in the ass, when there’s already a perfectly good platform that I trust. Every time I go against this rule I end up regretting it.

Historically, I’ve never been one to make “well, I’m out” comments in these threads when stuff like this comes to light, but this time I’m seriously reconsidering my planned Day One purchase.

I look at it differently. I’m actively refusing my dollars to someone who is trying to bully me into installing yet another front end I don’t want by holding their software hostage. There is no game made that I need that badly.

As a consumer, enticing me to try your product, is much more effective than trying to bully me into it.

The opposite. Preferring that our retailer and provider of choice is able to sell anything we want. It’s the exclusive storefronts that are annoying.

Hhhmm… but there are no bullying tactics being employed here?

Steam is a middle man that takes a percentage cut. They are an uncontrollable third party that you must cede control to if you wish to sell your game via their service. I don’t blame anyone that wants to try and cut them out of the equation by creating their own service.

Bethesda are using their game (Fallout 76) as a carrot to try and entice you to their service.
It’s a carrot, not a stick.

EDIT: Which was precisely how Steam got started. Except it was Valve and Half-Life was the carrot.

Having to run multiple stupid apps to manage all this stuff is a nightmare though. I really wish there was a better aggregation solution. An app that controlled all of these services without having to install/run all the individual apps (Steam, Origin etc) too.

Ideally what we need is the major players to get together to define a unified service/protocol. Yeah, like that’s gonna happen ;)

EDIT: What really needs to happen is that all the major players get together in a room somewhere and hash out a protocol/api:
buy(gameId), install(gameId), update(gameId)
Then all the stores implement the protocol and the whole marketplace opens up for aggregation. Place your game on any x number of online stores and use the application of your choice (Steam, GOG, user-created) to manage it.

I don’t blame them either, but I also don’t blame anyone for wanting their digital library to be consolidated with a proven service that they trust and enjoy.

The thing is, nobody feels leery about gog.com the way they might about EA’s Origin or Uplay, because gog.com has done a good job at offering additional value and service to make themselves an attractive alternative. If Bethesda offers some value add to make players feel like they are gaining something by using their service, rather than just being encumbered with a new service that offers nothing other than access to something that was previously available on Steam, the transition may be something players accommodate but it is exactly that: an accommodation and a compromise of our preference, rather than something that offers us recognizable utility. But I guess we’ll see how the service is rolled out.

As someone who uses Uplay reluctantly just because I want to play their many many games, I have no trouble installing Bethesda.net, IF AND ONLY IF the games on it are compelling. Hell even if Bethesda.net is a sack of shit, if Fallout 76 is good enough I am willing to endure.

In Bethesda’s defence however I really do understand why they would want to move away from Steam. It is offering less and less value to developers and, not to put too fine a point at it, we are now in a world where its pretty much a mid tier and below games distribution site. The biggest PC games in the world are not on Steam and that trend seems likely to accelerate.

Other than nearly all the biggest games being on it?

The only “big” games not on Steam are… League of Legends and Blizzard titles?
Sea of Thieves? Destiny 2?

Literally all of them are on Steam. Even free stuff like Warframe.

Activision can get away with it by piggypbacking on Blizzard. Not sure Bethesda can.
People don’t want a hundred launchers that do nothing other than let you play games.

Add in that these exclusive store fronts basically never have anything on sale ever and… yeah. Most people will pass.

Well the top 2 in the world are not.

Fornite
League of legends

I would also toss in the others below them we can argue if they are the biggest or just big but it doesnt really matter:

Minecraft
Hearthstone
Overwatch
World of Tanks
Sims 4
Destiny 2
Call of Duty
Battlefield
WoW
Roblox

I dont deny the size of PUBG, CSGO and DOTA 2, GTA V etc but the trend does seem to be away from Steam. It certainly wouldnt surprise me to see say the next GTA or Ubisoft eventually make the switch to direct or negotiate a better deal with Steam. Why give away 30% when you know players will come to you regardless?

I think it would be more correct to say that more games from major publishers are ending up exclusively in their own controlled closed ecosystem rather than exclusively leaving Steam, the later is just a byproduct of the former. The decision also has impacts on GOG and other third-party distributors, it isn’t solely tied to Steam it currently just has the most noticeable impact on Steam.

At least one major developer\publisher, likely Epic, would have cut out Microsoft and Sony by now if they could currently do so, and likely will do in the future if device agnostic game streaming gets off the ground. Already happening on mobile with Fortnite where the difference between Epic being on one app store and not the other is the open and closed nature of the Android and Apple ecosystems respectively.

This is all about gaining more control over things by tying everything into your own closed ecosystem and conveniently either stacking negotiations heavily in your favour or cutting out the middle man all together. This won’t be unique to Steam at all.

/shrug. Releasing your game on Steam, and releasing the game on your own platform, but giving me some special foozles for using your service, that’s what would be enticing to me.

The multiple front end thing is really the problem for me, I hate it. I’m not a particular Steam fanboy, and actually hated the service when it started, but at this point, it works well, doesn’t cause me any problems, and I have a ton of games there.

From a consumer standpoint, your desire to make more money as a publisher counts for exactly zero in my calculations as to why I want to use your service. I understand why they want to do it, the question is, why should I?

At some point, Steam is going to screw up, whether it’s privacy concerns, their ongoing slide into not curating their catalogue, and the resulting security problems that could arise from that…but it’s going to take something like that for anyone to make meaningful inroads into their hold on the market.

Good post. I think thats a good way of saying it. I think its more than just large publishers though? More over time when you become big enough you consider leaving.

Steam and other store fronts are offering less and less value to developers (particularly user acquisition) so the temptation is to go to more flexible store fronts or roll your own. I mean if a store front isnt bringing you any customers for free then why pay marketing dollars to get them only to pay a store front 30% for the customers you acquired? If that makes sense.