Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

bethesda.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 404 posts

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#141

Post by metalliqaz »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #45
stingraycharles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as is something that legislation could fix: digital licenses should be transferable between digital stores. If I buy a game in store X, and it’s available on store/platform Y, I should be able to play it on both. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the case. I recently bought a Nintendo Switch, and although I’m happy overall, some games have very heavy limits built in (think: max number of units in games),…

The thing is: This has happened without legislation in a very related industry: First via Ultraviolet, and then through Movies Anywhere. Digitally-purchased movies sync between Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Vudu, Comcast, Verizon, and DirectTV. Movies from Disney, Sony, Universal, and Warner Brothers all sync. Imagine the challenge of getting all these tech and entertainment competitors on the same page, and it h…

It sort-of worked for a while, now it is breaking down. The list of studios that fully participate is shrinking. The media giants are now locked in a battle to capture as much of the streaming market as possible. What a mess.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#142

Post by dzqhz »

ryandrake wrote: post #139
jmyeet wrote: post #130

Kill all the launchers. Ubisoft, Rockstar, Bethesda (RIP), Epic. I really hate these mediocre "me too" wannabe social network / launchers. I'm actually surprised this hasn't been rolled into the Xbox launcher, which still exists right (on PC)?

Thank you. I already have a "launcher" for my programs. It's called my computer's operating system. I don't understand why I should need to run a program just to have it run another program.

So you can conveniently buy, download and update certain programs.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#143

Post by LordDragonfang »

oblak wrote: post #13
kgwxd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Players should be saying they don't want "launchers" at all. They provide no benefit that couldn't be done a better way.

And what would that "other way" be? Let me guess, another launcher, or simply no launcher, no updates, no "cloud" saves, etc. Downloading games off Steam is easier than pirating them. If that's not progress, I don't know what is. Definitely not the same with movies and music which tells me they don't want it to be that easy.

> Definitely not the same with movies and music which tells me they don't want it to be that easy.

It actually is, it's just called "streaming" instead of downloading*.

For a very long time, Netflix was the go-to place for any movies, and piracy was on the decline. Now all the old media companies (who have even bigger god complexes than game studios) are doing the exact same thing everyone in this thread is discussing with alternate launchers, and creating their own streaming services. And piracy is suddenly back on the rise. Only time will tell whether this will play out the same way as the OP, or whether the flexibility afforded by inherently streamable format will allow them to succeed in splintering where game studios failed.

*Two notes on this:

1) it's a benefit afforded by having a much more linear data format

2) despite what HN commenters may believe, it's only a small percentage of users that care about owning content rather than being able to conveniently access it)

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#144

Post by staticman2 »

BbzzbB wrote: post #114

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 P…

For some reason none of Steam's competitors are willing to match their features.

The Microsoft store was obviously not designed by the Xbox division and was hostile to gamers wanting to enable modding or customize the installation.

Likely because Microsoft wanted a locked down app store to sell their Surface devices to schools and business.

Steam does things like converting Ps4 and Nintendo Switch controller input to Xbox 360 input, offering forums where people discuss patches and mods, and other features Epic seems uninterested in offering for whatever reason.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#145

Post by vultour »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #11
mastax wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft has been happy-ish to have their games on Steam for a while now. They probably would've gone all-in on the Xbox store if the windows store (backend) wasn't so shitty.

Windows store is really bad. The UI, the UX, the lag, the jank, all designed to spoil your day

I can't think of a single non-developer application by Microsoft which isn't absolute garbage. Skype (after the Microsoft "upgrade"), Teams, Windows Store, the Xbox apps... It's incredible that they are unable to produce a properly working application for their own operating system.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#146

Post by mjevans »

sbarre wrote: post #87
ivraatiems wrote: post #52

Thank goodness. Bethesda's launcher was uniquely awful in a number of unpleasant ways. Slow, prone to crashes, bad user communication, not suitable for use on small monitors. The worst of the launcher apps I have used - and there are so many! I remember when it was in vogue for every game maker to build their own launcher or even full Steam clone - when EA pulled all its new games from Steam to get people to use Orig…

With the rise of the Epic Game Store, I think there's more competition in the launcher/store space and I bet the big publishers got better deals which removed the need for them to invest in the ongoing development and maintenance of their own stores/launchers. It can't be that cheap to maintain an app like Origin or UPlay and all the associated infrastructure, etc..

Intangibles are a major cost factor as well. Not just the servers, but an entire authentication and customer support infrastructure.

Scammers are not an easy cost to estimate or an easy value to sell resistance against.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#147

Post by [deleted] »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #107
ivraatiems wrote: post #52

Thank goodness. Bethesda's launcher was uniquely awful in a number of unpleasant ways. Slow, prone to crashes, bad user communication, not suitable for use on small monitors. The worst of the launcher apps I have used - and there are so many! I remember when it was in vogue for every game maker to build their own launcher or even full Steam clone - when EA pulled all its new games from Steam to get people to use Orig…

Microsoft owns Bethesda, and has transitioned to primarily offering its games via Steam or via the Xbox app. I imagine that Bethesda is doing this to align with Microsoft; existing library through Steam (with potential to add them to the Xbox app if they join get added to GamePass, maybe), future releases through Steam and Xbox.

[deleted]

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#148

Post by Gigachad »

sbarre wrote: post #67
ascagnel_ wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying from day one that Stadia should have offered a subscription service similar to what Microsoft is doing with Game Pass. I don't want to pay full-price for games that require someone else maintaining hardware, especially when they're not booking any recurring revenue.

Google would have struggled to get a catalogue for their subscription I think, if only because they had to convince publishers (some that would consider Stadia to be competition) to put in work to get games running on their platform. I wonder if they tried the subscription thing first but then gave up and just went with the buy model as a least-worst choice at a point in the cycle where it was too late to back out of…

The ideal solution would have been charging a fee to use stadia and then just letting people link their steam account in. You still buy the games at full price, Google still gets paid, and you keep the games after they shut down.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#149

Post by indymike »

BbzzbB wrote: post #114

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 P…

> Is there a technical reason why Steam is a such a force in the space? \

I'm not much of a gamer - but my five kids are, and I can see the difference. It starts with being multiplatform. Buy once, run on PC, Mac, Linux. Steam's promise isn't cheap subscriptions, or trendy titles. I can buy games with confidence and know they will run - even if school requires a Mac next year or the only machine around is Dad's Linux laptop.

Steam also does a much better job of exposing new titles and player feedback. Shopping Steam is a better experience - even if it isn't as pretty. You know what you are getting when you buy, and the return policy seems fair enough.

It ends with simply working better. For example, last night I loaded up Steam and some PC games from a XBox Live Ultimate subscription. The Steam games worked. None of XBox games would even launch... on a brand new Lenovo gaming machine on Windows 11. Eventually the Xbox app volunteered to fix the messed up installation and ended up leaving 130GB of disk filled with old, inaccessible downloads.

Epic's store shows some promise, but there's a lot of rough edges where it installs some other studio's installer which installs the game. But, the free game thing is pretty nice.

Re: Sunsetting the Bethesda.net launcher and migrating to Steam

#150

Post by munk-a »

monocasa wrote: post #128
recursive wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only exists to I've used the file verification and repair feature many times. It's also a convenient place to enumerate the games I have access to so I can download them on a new PC.

Just because it has some useful features doesn't invalidate the fact that the only reason it exists to the management that's in charge of it is as a hedge against Valve. They don't care if it's a net win for their users or not until it gets so bad that people stop buying their games.

I think there's plenty of room for pessimism when it comes to the games industry. But Valve has (when not occasionally making games which, let's face it, isn't very often these days) become a business dedicated to the business to selling games. It offers a platform that has provided several innovations for usability to consumers ahead of competitors (it isn't continuously playing catchup - they're proactively investing) and it provides a relatively low barrier to entry for publishing a game in a pretty visible manner. I'm not certain if you ever lived with Gamestop and EBGames as your main source of purchasing games but it was pretty much impossible for small devs to get noticed that way - so small devs ended up posting their games on the internet (which was quite a strong limitation in terms of size) or trying to get on various ShareWare/Demo disks that'd circulate with magazines.

I'm sure this isn't the absolute best timeline, but it sure beats a land where Origin and UPlay successfully beatup Steam and we're all forced back onto walled gardens. And it seems sustainable, the second largest platform (IMO) out there is GOG which is owned and operated by CD Projekt Red - it seems like game studios see a lot of utility from owning a mostly open platform like this.

Post reply on HN