Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

Probably not. I was waiting for my gamepass subscription to expire last week so I could renew using the Xbox Live Gold upgrade. I was constantly notified that my subscription was expiring soon, but never actually got a notice when it actually expired. All of my games still looked playable until I tried actually playing them.

Is there a technical reason why Steam is a such a force in the space? People, myself certainly included, often criticize Apple for taking 30% of developer revenue for merely existing in it's walled garden. Right or wrong, they control the ecosystem, so their ability to monopolize and heavily tax the App Store is unsurprising, they're exercising their pricing power as much as they possibly can.

But how is it that on PC, where we have a mostly open field on which anyone can participate freely without a gatekeeper's blessing, Steam managed to consolidate so much of the gaming marketplace that even a titan like Microsoft is throwing the towel and bowing to Steam's cartelish 30%? I get that being the dominant two-sided marketplace of a given space is a strong network effect and moat, and consolidation is certainly convenient for users (I like having all my purchased games on a single account), but intuition tells me Bethesda doesn't need Steam's exposure to sell games or make new arrivals known (their announcement will go viral regardless), similarly to Riot, Mojang, Epic and co not listing on Steam. So I've always found it surprising they were dual listing their games in the first place, but the fact they're now entirely giving up on direct selling is a testament to Steam's might in the gaming industry.

Is Steam's product particularly good and hard to reproduce from the publisher's PoV, even one backed by Microsoft, to the extent it is hard to compete against with something like Microsoft Store? Or is this just another case of being early enough to establish the initial brand and let the self-fulfilling network effect kick in - with the userbase acting like gravity to bring in more users and developers - until it's large enough that sheer force of habit/inertia makes it quasi-"indisruptible"?

Either way, I found it fascinating how Valve turned into Steam, whether it was accidental or not, what a homerun pivot. Seems that is the way of the Internet, being first matters more than just about anything, having the superior product (not claiming there is one for game stores) is irrelevant if you're remotely late, it just won't matter how much cash you pour into a Microsoft Store or a Google+. My gut tells me Microsoft is salivating at the idea of buying out Steam, seems like a perfect fit for the conglomerate if it wasn't for the scrutiny it would bring their way while they are positioning themselves as the good FAAMG.

As a matter of principle, I think digital delivery platforms benefit from competition, and we should not be locked down into a single monopolistic, stagnating platform.

As a selfish consumer though, I hugely wish we just had Steam and Netflix:

The Origins and Uplays and Battle.nets of the world exist solely to make my life difficult, refusing to play my game when I want it due to obscure update required or forgotten password or old email account (especially when they are an overlay on top of Steam), and have zero repeat zero positively zero benefit to myself as a consumer. It is blatantly anti-consumer, and not made with customer view in mind.

(Gog.com gets a pass because it allows me to JUST download the game, with no launcher and crap, so essentially going into opposite direction from all publisher-owned platforms and provides a unique value proposition)

Same for Netflix. It's fine. It's good. It's great! Over the last 5 years, proliferation of Disneys, Amazons, HBOs, Hulus, CBS All Access, Paramount Ultra Plus Exclusive Diamond Platinum... the whatEVERs, all they do is make me have to guess which service is content I want to play on. All they are, at any level, is "we want more money for less consumer convenience, and we think we can get away with it due to exclusive content lock-in we refuse to license to the convenient platform".

I understand I'm supposed to vote with my money, but with exclusive lock-in that's difficult. My kid wants their Octonauts and their Stinky & Dirties, dammit :D

Pretty sure QC was on Steam at launch, it was on the Bethesda Launcher only during beta. Quake games are just too hard for most people nowadays, and the new stuff pushed away some of the old players. I enjoyed it but Live was still better, and with matchmaking being dead I just stopped playing it.

Steam had the distinct advantage of being first, and they've built a rich storefront with tons of useful features. Forums, reviews, discovery queues, recommendations based on your purchases, bundles, curators, account security (steamguard), etc. Valve also built a development ecosystem with integrated (optional) DRM, achievements, leaderboards, stats, multiplayer, voice chat, controller support with full remapping and such, just a ton of stuff.

As a consumer, Steam is a much better platform than any of the alternatives. I prefer to buy games on Steam, all things being equal.

As a dev studio, Steam takes 30% and Epic takes 12% (7% if you use Unreal engine).