Rage 2 Exclusive to Bethesda Launcher?

This really smart? So far, most of their games, outside of TES/Fallout have underperformed, sales-wise. Bethesda doesn't have the grout to attract players to their own platform: especially with all the blundering in last few years.

Well part of the problem is that I figure their launcher and security will be as good as their games 'cept modders won't be able to fix em just hack em.... if you get my drift.
-
Companies have no problem leaking data right and left and that often seem to be an after thought.

JDR13 said:

Well no shit. I'm pretty sure we'd all prefer that.

However, I won't be denying myself quality games because of it.

Click to expand...

Silver said:

I know this walled garden thing works for a lot of developers money wise but for players its an annoyance. A lot of these immature clients take years to iron out and don't have many features compared to Steam.

Click to expand...

Origin still doesn't support 4K screens really, doesn't respect Windows scaling settings so its entire window is basically unreadable without a magnifying glass. Amazingly, laughably bad. The "feature request" for properly supporting high-DPI monitors has been kicking around in a big thread on their forums for years.

Stingray said:

Origin still doesn't support 4K screens really, doesn't respect Windows scaling settings so its entire window is basically unreadable without a magnifying glass. Amazingly, laughably bad. The "feature request" for properly supporting high-DPI monitors has been kicking around in a big thread on their forums for years.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that the complaints about Origin are getting as much attention as the complaints about loot boxes.

After the their customer support releasing people's credit card info with Fallout 76 I won't be trusting Bethesda's launcher anytime soon.

But by the time Rage 2 is on sale at least 25% off maybe they'll have their shit together.

Another launcher is annoying, but whatever, as long as it works and is secure.

I've always just run the launcher when I'm using it/playing a game and turn them off when I'm not. Having all that crap running in the background is no good.

Ironically, the incident that happened with Fallout 76 was a good thing for those of us who don't have their launcher yet. It forced them to make improvements, and security is no doubt more of a priority now.

Yes, unwelcome news.

Their game, their launcher. I see nothing wrong about that.

As for what's smart and what's not - I don't know. I can see all kinds of both good and bad about Steam getting challenged.

But I can sympathise with developers wanting to maximise profit.

I once struggled accepting that I had to use Steam - because I was OCD about superfluous software and platforms on my computer, but once I got over it, I realised it's trivial. I mean, Windows is already about a thousand times more than we actually need in terms of using our hardware to launch our software. We'd need a few hundred launchers installed before it compares.

So, I really - truly - don't give a shit.

Competition is good, but the fragmentation of game libraries is not. A game should be purchased based on price and quality rather than which download client it comes with. Unfortunately that's not really the case.

I said it in the past and I'll say it again: why the hell don't the big publishers work together (share costs) and come up with a "universal library" which honors all game keys, no matter where they were purchased? By decoupling the actual library from the stores they no longer would have to rely on the various digital distribution platforms, could probably eventually compete with Steam, and wouldn't have to share large chunks of their profits with them.

I said it in the past and I'll say it again: why the hell don't the big publishers work together (share costs) and come up with a "universal library" which honors all game keys, no matter where they were purchased? By decoupling the actual library from the stores they no longer would have to rely on the various digital distribution platforms, could probably eventually compete with Steam, and wouldn't have to share large chunks of their profits with them.

Click to expand...

Why don't all big countries of the world come together in unison?

There's always a bigger suit wanting to keep a bigger piece of the pie. It's the cycle of greed that's inevitably the result of capitalism mixed with human nature.

Darth Tagnan said:

Why don't all big countries of the world come together in unison?

There's always a bigger suit wanting to keep a bigger piece of the pie. It's the cycle of greed that's inevitably the result of capitalism mixed with human nature.

Click to expand...

I think the scale is "somewhat" different when it comes to countries. And also the involved problems.

As for the bigger piece of the pie, I would understand it if Origin/Uplay/Bethesda.net would be incredibly successful, but are they really? I somewhat doubt it.

abharsair said:

I think the scale is "somewhat" different when it comes to countries. And also the involved problems.

Click to expand...

It all boils down to the same things, though. They all look after their own interests before the common good which, ironically, would be better for all involved in the long term.

But the short term is, unfortunately, how the world thinks.

As for the bigger piece of the pie, I would understand it if Origin/Uplay/Bethesda.net would be incredibly successful, but are they really? I somewhat doubt it.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about Steam. To "get together" - Steam would have to concede the near-monopoly they've enjoyed for so many years.

So, in order to break this trend - Origin/uPlay/Bethesda are forced to try their own launchers.

I have no idea how successful they'll end up being, though I would expect them to do better with their own launchers in the end.

Darth Tagnan said:

I'm talking about Steam. To "get together" - Steam would have to concede the near-monopoly they've enjoyed for so many years.

So, in order to break this trend - Origin/uPlay/Bethesda are forced to try their own launchers.

Click to expand...

They'll probably never make a serious dent into Steam's monopoly, because a lot of people want to have all their games in one place. And that's - at this point - Steam.

However, if the publishers would forgo short-term profit in lieu of long-term success by allowing consumers to migrate their libraries to a "universal library" (similar to GOG Connect, only on a larger scale), then I'd be pretty confident they could break Steam's dominance.

abharsair said:

They'll probably never make a serious dent into Steam's monopoly, because a lot of people want to have all their games in one place. And that's - at this point - Steam.

Click to expand...

Trust me, they will. It's inevitable. I'd argue that's already happened. Steam/Valve don't have the same clout they used to - and the recent Epic Games initiative represents a major threat to them.

That's my entire point. Steam holds on because of greed. Other publishers rebel - and eventually they will have broken Steam as a matter of natural consequence. That doesn't mean each individual publisher will be better off, necessarily - but it means Steam will be worse off.

In less than 5 years, Steam will be in a very different place in terms of this "monopoly".

I make this bold claim right now

However, if the publishers would forgo short-term profit in lieu of long-term success by allowing consumers to migrate their libraries to a "universal library" (similar to GOG Connect, only on a larger scale), then I'd be pretty confident they could break Steam's dominance.

Click to expand...

Certainly, the more people joining together - the stronger they'd be.

My point is that Steam would benefit from joining in in the long term as well, for the reason I stated above.

But no, they'd rather struggle to maintain their position until everyone is fighting each other.

Which is potentially good for the consumer, though I'm not entirely convinced of that.