Half Life 3 exclusively on Steam > Division 2 exclusively on blah blah blah
All jokes aside it all boils down to who provides the best situation for the consumer. I wonder which platform works out better when a developer releases some rubbish though? I'm sure the developer will call it down the middle.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I dont care about this game in particular but think theres an interesting conversation going on regarding Steam and what looks like an effort for many studios to move away from them in favor of their own launchers. Couple that with new competition and Steam has to be feeling the hurt.
The 30% or whatever that Steam takes off the top is insane tbh- This is a higher markup than most physical products in a brick and mortar store and those stores actually have to use shelf space as opposed to just digital. I'm sure there will be many more companies jumping ship if/when a real alternative comes around.
I personally love Steam. Have hundreds of games, a decent amount of friends im linked up with and feel that I always get a solid deal thanks to sales- I prefer one launcher, one friends list and 1 place for everything but realistically know that we are at the end of that 'era' and soon there will be many games I want that will require a separate launcher- For now I havnt really come across that issue.
I saw a comment or two regarding the fact that MMO players should be used to having different launchers- And thats true but this is far more complex. This is a friends list (I leave steam running 24/7 and am always PMing with people I game with or joining games I see my friends are in), a forum and potentially a reputation...Having multiple services is going to fracture the community even if you stay exclusively to steam.
So yeah- It sucks but its going to happen and if theres a game I really want to play i'll be having to have a myriad of launchers. Not going to particularly like it but it is what it is.
Every major gaming company is opposed to steam, Steam takes some their profit and they all wish their own game selling app was doing better. I don't see this being due to a concern about refunds, but time will tell. As always wait for the reviews before you buy.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I got a refund from Epic 2 years after I bought UE because they changed the pricing scheme (I didn't even ask for one). With that refund I bought Paragon, which was also refunded to me when they stopped development a few years down the line (again without even asking for a refund).
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine. I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
I've seen some discussion on twitter from developers on how steam player reviews are bad and how damaging review bombing is and how they wished they could dictate whether they would have player reviews on their games or not.
So lets reflect about it for a second. Having no player reviews. On Steam. And go by just whatever story the developers both indy and AAA want to push.
This is the current state of the Epic store. Enticing for developers (who wants criticism, right?) and repulsive for consumers.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I got a refund from Epic 2 years after I bought UE because they changed the pricing scheme (I didn't even ask for one). With that refund I bought Paragon, which was also refunded to me when they stopped development a few years down the line (again without even asking for a refund).
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine. I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
Those were paid for by Fortnite, but i wouldn't compare Epic games willingness to pay out for games they made themselves, with them doing the same thing for games they did not. I seriously doubt that Uplays refund policy is anything near as consumer friendly as that of Steam.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I got a refund from Epic 2 years after I bought UE because they changed the pricing scheme (I didn't even ask for one). With that refund I bought Paragon, which was also refunded to me when they stopped development a few years down the line (again without even asking for a refund).
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine. I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
Those were paid for by Fortnite, but i wouldn't compare Epic games willingness to pay out for games they made themselves, with them doing the same thing for games they did not. I seriously doubt that Uplays refund policy is anything near as consumer friendly as that of Steam.
It probably isn't. That doesn't mean I won't buy a game that isn't on Steam. I usually try before I buy hence I'm not that worried about getting refunds.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I got a refund from Epic 2 years after I bought UE because they changed the pricing scheme (I didn't even ask for one). With that refund I bought Paragon, which was also refunded to me when they stopped development a few years down the line (again without even asking for a refund).
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine. I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
Those were paid for by Fortnite, but i wouldn't compare Epic games willingness to pay out for games they made themselves, with them doing the same thing for games they did not. I seriously doubt that Uplays refund policy is anything near as consumer friendly as that of Steam.
It probably isn't. That doesn't mean I won't buy a game that isn't on Steam. I usually try before I buy hence I'm not that worried about getting refunds.
I really wish they would bring back free trials for games, more often than not entirely reliant on youtube videos etc. to give a more 'unbiased' and 'hype free' example of actual gameplay. That Steam offers a under 2 hour playing the game refund option is probably the closest we currently have to that.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
I got a refund from Epic 2 years after I bought UE because they changed the pricing scheme (I didn't even ask for one). With that refund I bought Paragon, which was also refunded to me when they stopped development a few years down the line (again without even asking for a refund).
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine. I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
Those were paid for by Fortnite, but i wouldn't compare Epic games willingness to pay out for games they made themselves, with them doing the same thing for games they did not. I seriously doubt that Uplays refund policy is anything near as consumer friendly as that of Steam.
It probably isn't. That doesn't mean I won't buy a game that isn't on Steam. I usually try before I buy hence I'm not that worried about getting refunds.
I really wish they would bring back free trials for games,
Me personally really like Uplay, never had any problems at all with that launcher, especiallly as a longtime The Division player. Also gave a really good 20% discount on my Ultimate edition for Division 2 for just 100 uplay coins... Also really glad they are skipping steam wich i have alot more problems with than Uplay... So only good news at my front
Why do we care about Steam's cut? Either way we're just putting more money into someone's pocket. A pocket that is already full of money.
Nothing is getting cheaper for us on these other launchers so the best option, for us, is to have it available on whatever platform/launcher we want.
Out of all the platforms/launchers out there, Steam is the one that makes PC gaming cheaper for US more often.
As I said above they may have charged more if they had released on Steam (as well).
Developers will run some numbers: if we charge $X we might sell N; charge more probably sell less; charge less probably sell more. And come up with a price they hope will cover their costs, have enough money to make another game and even make a profit.
Whether they get there numbers right - who knows. One thing is for sure though: the numbers will look a lot better without a 30% charge. Hence it may well be "cheaper" than it might otherwise have been.
I'd like to see some examples of games on other launchers being cheaper than on Steam. I don't mean a one off sales or promotions, I mean brand new games. Until I see that it just sounds like something you hope will happen instead of something that will.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Me personally really like Uplay, never had any problems at all with that launcher, especiallly as a longtime The Division player. Also gave a really good 20% discount on my Ultimate edition for Division 2 for just 100 uplay coins... Also really glad they are skipping steam wich i have alot more problems with than Uplay... So only good news at my front
Makes absolutely no sense, if you had problems with The Division on Steam then its a Uplay issue as all it does is launch Uplay anyway. The only difference between the two, is that if The Division 2 pulls a FO76 and goes all Bethesda, then you don't have the 'Steam' safety net of being able to refund the game. But if walking an untested tightrope without a safetynet is your thing, good luck!
Me personally really like Uplay, never had any problems at all with that launcher, especiallly as a longtime The Division player. Also gave a really good 20% discount on my Ultimate edition for Division 2 for just 100 uplay coins... Also really glad they are skipping steam wich i have alot more problems with than Uplay... So only good news at my front
Makes absolutely no sense, if you had problems with The Division on Steam then its a Uplay issue as all it does is launch Uplay anyway. The only difference between the two, is that if The Division 2 pulls a FO76 and goes all Bethesda, then you don't have the 'Steam' safety net of being able to refund the game. But if walking an untested tightrope without a safetynet is your thing, good luck!
Sorry, think you misunderstood me. I never played The Division on Steam, have only used Uplay for that and never had any problems. I have used Steam for other games and never really liked the platform for personal reasons/preferences...
Going through Epic gives UBI more money. Fine and good. But, does that mean that the game itself will be sold at a cheaper price as well? All the benefits go to UBI but none to the players. I don't care either way as I do not plan to purchase Division 2. It was just a thought.
If they had gone with Steam they would have factored Steam's % into the price and charged more. As said above though the benefit is developers get more, which funds more games, so more choice and competition.
Disagree with the cost analysis. Sony, Microsoft, and Apple all charge 30% for their cut and release price is always the same across platforms unless they have special bundles or sales. The only time Ubi games are cheaper is when you buy them directly from Uplay which they often do sell cheaper than Steam or PlayStation. PS4 usually gets better deals than PC/Steam does and we know Sony isn't cheap so I can't buy into your theory at all.
I didn't do an analysis though - I simply stated what companies do. Its actually more complex involving target prices during development, iterations, expected retailer discounts and more but at the end of the day developers set their prices with the intention of making a profit knowing that price is often the single biggest factor in whether people buy a game.
Historical example. Skyrim launched and sold 7M copies. Bethseda then - very publically - announced that they were reducing the price they charged retailers. And they sold another 13M copies. (More since of course). At price X they sold 7M, at a lower price they sold more.
Same deal with ESO as well actually. They said they had it down to 2 options: launch b2p sell a lot or launch with a sub - so more expensive - knowing they would sell less. And we know how that has played out.
No analysis; simple marketing economics.
What may - may - be evolving is a competitive marketplace for digital games.
Microsoft, Sony and Apple: we "know" that e.g. console games are typically more expensive than PC games and we know that the reason is that M and S control the platforms. Same deal with A but for mobile of course.
What it comes to UPlay though UbiSoft SELL games cheaper through UPlay its the fact that we can BUY UbiSoft games cheaper because Steam sell them for more than UPlay. See the different narrative?
(Simplistically) UbiSoft sell games at $X through UPlay and they sell games to Steam at $X and it is Steam who offer them for sale $X + 30%. And as with M, S and A we can decide whether we want to buy from them.
In the same way that we might buy a can of Heinz beans say from Wal-Mart at one price, Carrefour another, Tesco's another. (Target, Aldi, Lidl etc etc). We "know" that didn't stores might charge different prices and decide what is better for us - go to one next door or drive half-way across town to save a dime. We "know" the game.
Steam however have become ubiquitous. And yet Steam didn't become what they are today because of the "extras" they offered. They grew because they were cheaper than bricks and mortar stores. We bought from Steam because they were cheaper.
And whilst developers have launched their own stores - Origin, UPlay etc. - and for lower cost games we have seen the rise of GOG, Humble Bundle and some others Epic is - possibly - the first real challenge that Steam has faced in "forever". Maybe the Discord store as well. And as I said in my first post I wonder whether Epic have done a deal with UbiSoft to help promote their store. The type of thing we "know" that Microsoft and Sony do!
As I said: maybe - maybe - what might be evolving is a competitive marketplace for digital games. And as you say this may prompt Valve to "do more" for when it comes to refunds etc. that type of stuff is usually driven by what companies have to do by law.
Would have preferred if they put it in the discord store if I have to be honest. At least it's a program that the majority already have installed.
And yes, I hate Discord LOL -- I've only used it about a dozen times and only because I had to. I still have it installed, but it sits in a dusty corner of my HD.
I just don't get the whole "too many launchers" thing. I mean, I'm not a huge fan, but I'm not going to NOT play a game just because it's on Launcher A instead of Launcher B.
As to the notion they run in the background hogging up space, all I can say is "Say what?" I'm no genius when it comes to PCs, but even I understand how to stop that from happening.
Lastly, I have the Epic launcher and it never tried to install either version of Fortnite automatically.
Would have preferred if they put it in the discord store if I have to be honest. At least it's a program that the majority already have installed.
And yes, I hate Discord LOL -- I've only used it about a dozen times and only because I had to. I still have it installed, but it sits in a dusty corner of my HD.
I just don't get the whole "too many launchers" thing. I mean, I'm not a huge fan, but I'm not going to NOT play a game just because it's on Launcher A instead of Launcher B.
As to the notion they run in the background hogging up space, all I can say is "Say what?" I'm no genius when it comes to PCs, but even I understand how to stop that from happening.
Lastly, I have the Epic launcher and it never tried to install either version of Fortnite automatically.
It wouldn't stop me from buying the game (Not that I have any interest in the division series perse), tough I prefer having everything neatly in a single application instead of having to manage multiple ones.
I barely use discord too, but I have it installed as it's the go for group calls nowadays (Hence me mentioning it). I assume they went with epic's due to fortnite's success. As if that is going to factor in sales of other games lol.
Why do we care about Steam's cut? Either way we're just putting more money into someone's pocket. A pocket that is already full of money.
Nothing is getting cheaper for us on these other launchers so the best option, for us, is to have it available on whatever platform/launcher we want.
Out of all the platforms/launchers out there, Steam is the one that makes PC gaming cheaper for US more often.
This is my favorite quote in this entire thread because its the only one that doesnt pretend Steam is the reason we pay so much for games. Not to say Steam shouldn't come down off its high horse and charge less of a percentage, but all thats really happening here is production companies inconveniencing players by forcing them to have multiple unnecessary launchers in order to keep more money for themselves, youd have to be a fool to believe theyll pass those savings to the consumer.
I'll be playing it on Uplay since I use that daily for R6:Siege.
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
The Division also uses Uplay even though its on Steam, you can't avoid that, and honestly that isn't the issue because the resources used are negligible, if it affects your performance then running the game would be an issue regardless. No, this is about money and the possibility that its being done to avoid players being able to make use of Steams refund policy, which is far superior to that of Uplay's. Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
Or... wait for reviews and make an informed decision. I dont think the refund policy is for FOMO regret. Of course if games are going to offer pre purchases on digital sales, they should have a very lax refund policy, imo, which would most likely completely negate any financial reason to offer pre purchases on digital sales.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I didn't care for the first Division game. This one looks to be a little better, but I will have to wait and see once it's been out for a bit. If I do decide to get it, it will be via Uplay. I wouldn't go through Epic even if it was the only way to get it. They are great for developers, but not so much for consumers.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Comments
All jokes aside it all boils down to who provides the best situation for the consumer. I wonder which platform works out better when a developer releases some rubbish though? I'm sure the developer will call it down the middle.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I already have Steam/Uplay/Epic/Bnet and any other launcher needed for any game I'm playing.
Nothing is "sucking up" my internet in the background and having a few extra shortcuts on the desktop doesn't bother me.
I can't believe how dramatic some people get.
..Cake..
Of course reducing players ability to get a refund is just 'drama' and they should just suck it up right
The 30% or whatever that Steam takes off the top is insane tbh- This is a higher markup than most physical products in a brick and mortar store and those stores actually have to use shelf space as opposed to just digital. I'm sure there will be many more companies jumping ship if/when a real alternative comes around.
I personally love Steam. Have hundreds of games, a decent amount of friends im linked up with and feel that I always get a solid deal thanks to sales- I prefer one launcher, one friends list and 1 place for everything but realistically know that we are at the end of that 'era' and soon there will be many games I want that will require a separate launcher- For now I havnt really come across that issue.
I saw a comment or two regarding the fact that MMO players should be used to having different launchers- And thats true but this is far more complex. This is a friends list (I leave steam running 24/7 and am always PMing with people I game with or joining games I see my friends are in), a forum and potentially a reputation...Having multiple services is going to fracture the community even if you stay exclusively to steam.
So yeah- It sucks but its going to happen and if theres a game I really want to play i'll be having to have a myriad of launchers. Not going to particularly like it but it is what it is.
So my experience with Epic's refund policy is absolutely fine.
I've never had to refund a steam game but I'm sure theirs is fine as well.
..Cake..
So lets reflect about it for a second. Having no player reviews. On Steam. And go by just whatever story the developers both indy and AAA want to push.
This is the current state of the Epic store. Enticing for developers (who wants criticism, right?) and repulsive for consumers.
I usually try before I buy hence I'm not that worried about getting refunds.
..Cake..
That Steam offers a under 2 hour playing the game refund option is probably the closest we currently have to that.
..Cake..
But if walking an untested tightrope without a safetynet is your thing, good luck!
Historical example. Skyrim launched and sold 7M copies. Bethseda then - very publically - announced that they were reducing the price they charged retailers. And they sold another 13M copies. (More since of course). At price X they sold 7M, at a lower price they sold more.
Same deal with ESO as well actually. They said they had it down to 2 options: launch b2p sell a lot or launch with a sub - so more expensive - knowing they would sell less. And we know how that has played out.
No analysis; simple marketing economics.
What may - may - be evolving is a competitive marketplace for digital games.
Microsoft, Sony and Apple: we "know" that e.g. console games are typically more expensive than PC games and we know that the reason is that M and S control the platforms. Same deal with A but for mobile of course.
What it comes to UPlay though UbiSoft SELL games cheaper through UPlay its the fact that we can BUY UbiSoft games cheaper because Steam sell them for more than UPlay. See the different narrative?
(Simplistically) UbiSoft sell games at $X through UPlay and they sell games to Steam at $X and it is Steam who offer them for sale $X + 30%. And as with M, S and A we can decide whether we want to buy from them.
In the same way that we might buy a can of Heinz beans say from Wal-Mart at one price, Carrefour another, Tesco's another. (Target, Aldi, Lidl etc etc). We "know" that didn't stores might charge different prices and decide what is better for us - go to one next door or drive half-way across town to save a dime. We "know" the game.
Steam however have become ubiquitous. And yet Steam didn't become what they are today because of the "extras" they offered. They grew because they were cheaper than bricks and mortar stores. We bought from Steam because they were cheaper.
And whilst developers have launched their own stores - Origin, UPlay etc. - and for lower cost games we have seen the rise of GOG, Humble Bundle and some others Epic is - possibly - the first real challenge that Steam has faced in "forever". Maybe the Discord store as well. And as I said in my first post I wonder whether Epic have done a deal with UbiSoft to help promote their store. The type of thing we "know" that Microsoft and Sony do!
As I said: maybe - maybe - what might be evolving is a competitive marketplace for digital games. And as you say this may prompt Valve to "do more" for when it comes to refunds etc. that type of stuff is usually driven by what companies have to do by law.
Beta tester maniac
I just don't get the whole "too many launchers" thing. I mean, I'm not a huge fan, but I'm not going to NOT play a game just because it's on Launcher A instead of Launcher B.
As to the notion they run in the background hogging up space, all I can say is "Say what?" I'm no genius when it comes to PCs, but even I understand how to stop that from happening.
Lastly, I have the Epic launcher and it never tried to install either version of Fortnite automatically.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I barely use discord too, but I have it installed as it's the go for group calls nowadays (Hence me mentioning it). I assume they went with epic's due to fortnite's success. As if that is going to factor in sales of other games lol.
This is my favorite quote in this entire thread because its the only one that doesnt pretend Steam is the reason we pay so much for games. Not to say Steam shouldn't come down off its high horse and charge less of a percentage, but all thats really happening here is production companies inconveniencing players by forcing them to have multiple unnecessary launchers in order to keep more money for themselves, youd have to be a fool to believe theyll pass those savings to the consumer.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.