Bethesda To Retire Its Game Launcher, Migrate Titles Over To Steam (polygon.com) 15
Bethesda on Tuesday announced that it will retire its Bethesda.net Launcher later this year and migrate fans' game libraries and wallets to Steam. As Polygon notes, the launcher has since 2016 "served as a place for players to purchase and launch games made by the publisher." From the report: Players' Bethesda.net accounts will remain active; some games may still require you to log in for save files, in-game cosmetics, or access to a mod library. While the process to transfer Bethesda games to Steam begins in early April, the launcher itself will no longer launch games in May. (Players will retain access to these games and can migrate them at any time; they simply won't be playable through the launcher.) Saves, cosmetics, in-game currencies, and progress in Fallout 76's seasonal model will be able to transfer over to Steam as well, with one exception: saves in Wolfenstein: Youngblood which are "currently unable to transfer."
Bethesda's news post includes a more thorough FAQ, including a specific one for Fallout 76. As for the publisher's other large, live service game, the post states that "The Elder Scrolls Online is unaffected by this change."
Bethesda's news post includes a more thorough FAQ, including a specific one for Fallout 76. As for the publisher's other large, live service game, the post states that "The Elder Scrolls Online is unaffected by this change."
nice! (Score:2)
really wish they'd all do this.
all those launchers are rather annoying, particularly if you're using big screen mode. they also serve no other real purpose but to annoy and nag.
rockstar's though i found to be the worst, seems like about 50% of the time when trying to play RDR2 i'd first have to patch the god damn launcher.
Re: (Score:2)
If Bethesda (of Microsoft) is doing this most likely Blizzard (of Microsoft) will be doing this in the next few years.
Though with all the WoW, Diablo, Starcraft stuff being very server based - it's probably going to be a much harder transition to make sure everything gets copied across.
The new Microsoft seems happier to leverage competitors to fill gaps rather than to try and compete on every front.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. My initial reaction is that there is *no way* Blizzard is going to follow suit. But you're right - they don't make money off the launcher. It does seem weird that MS is willing to lose whatever share Steam takes instead of using the MS launcher.
It makes me wonder if steam is about to be bought by MS.
Re:nice! (Score:4)
Why is it weird? Steam has many Microsoft games on it - it seems Microsoft has been releasing a ton of their games on Steam over the past few years. I can understand why - Valve was found from ex-Microsoft employees and is still based in Seattle (Valve used to be right across the road from Microsoft when it started).
I can imagine the Microsoft games folks looking at "do we really want to do this via Windows App Store, our own launcher, or just let Steam do it all because they already have all the features we want".
Having Valve manage all the payments, accounts, content distribution, security and other things might just be easier for Microsoft than trying to do it via their internal processes. They may make more money, but incur extra costs.
It's really about focusing developer resources and effort. To use the Windows App Store is probably pointless as it's not the best, to make their own wastes developer effort, see Epic Games Store which has features still missing after all these years, and well, to compete in the crowded space. Or take the cut and have someone else worry about the stuff. Games for Windows Live wasn't well received either, and it handled all your friends and other stuff similar to Xbox Live.
Sometimes extracting every cent out of each transaction might not be worth it, especially with a powerhouse like Steam that can do a lot of the heavy lifting and marketing for you. You could try to make your own and get a few sales, or eat the cut and make way more sales Plus as a large publisher they may get access to a lower rate.
And given the reception has generally been positive, well, seems like Microsoft made the right move.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - you're right on all points.
I guess it seems weird from the same perspective that MS still ships their own browser. The launcher has become an important part of the the gaming infrastructure, and it just seems like something that they would not give up absolute control of.
It's not that I disbelieve it. It's just .. weird. And it still does make me wonder if MS is looking at buying Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: nice! (Score:2)
I'm not sure Microsoft really cares whether they run on other platforms as well. Microsoft seems to have taken the Google playbook and just have the web function as their platform. Windows is only a small part of their business these days, I'm inclined to think that their plans for gaming probably center more around cloud gaming, and AFAIK steam doesn't compete with that.
I think what could happen is Microsoft could make these titles exclusive to it's own streaming platform when they are streamed, but for no
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it weird? Steam has many Microsoft games on it - it seems Microsoft has been releasing a ton of their games on Steam over the past few years. I can understand why - Valve was found from ex-Microsoft employees and is still based in Seattle (Valve used to be right across the road from Microsoft when it started).
I can imagine the Microsoft games folks looking at "do we really want to do this via Windows App Store, our own launcher, or just let Steam do it all because they already have all the features we want".
It's more that everyone who tried to shoehorn us into using their stores have finally realised that all they did was lose sales and piss off their customers.
It's not just Microsoft giving up on the Microsoft store, it's Ubisoft giving up on Uplay, EA giving up on Origin. They've all come crawling back to Steam. Mark my words, Epic will do the same as soon as Fortnite stops printing money (their only USP is giving away games for free, that can only last whilst they can subsidise it). Steam is the 500 KG g
Re: nice! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate games that use their services even launchers inside Steam like Frontier's Elite Dangerous. :(
Re: (Score:2)
thank you! yes my sentiments exactly; and i think i misread the point of the article.
my beef is when you BUY a game through steam
launch the game through steam
and are interrupted by some other companies bullshit launcher
it's just a completely unnecessary hurdle.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like I'm better off using the other launchers to avoid launcher in a launcher. Also, other stuff. Argh.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate games that use their services even launchers inside Steam like Frontier's Elite Dangerous. :(
Like all of them. Cyberpunk 2077 update. I hit play and was greeted with ... WTF another launcher? I have a launcher. It's called Steam. Why do I now need the CDPR launcher.
Paradox did the same thing.
Rockstar did the same thing.
EA did the same fucking thing.
Although it was even more comical with Blizzard. I installed Battle.Net signed up for a Battle.net account and installed CoD. Went to play it ... oooh noooo. I need an Activision account too.
Honestly fuck these gaming companies.
its "microsoft" (Score:1)