Just another launcher to hate on story. I've already come to terms with my 6 or so game launchers and although i'd like them all on one of them, i also think Steam is talkin the pish and is losing custom because of greed. If a game is good enough i don't care which launcher it's on. The way things are going now i think Steam is the loser in this current shift against them. Seems like more & more titles are refusing to be released through Steam.

Good news. EGS haters surely will appreciate no need for 2 launchers required just to launch a game. Nothing wrong with Uplay, it's a solid platform. Bypassing Steam is a plus.

Redemption80:

Great news, the less games on Steam the better.

Congratulations you have won the award for most illogical statement made in this thread! Now, what you meant to say is, the more games on all platforms, the better! Glad i could fix that completely illogical, nonsensical statement for you!

0blivious:

Why does it HAVE to be on steam and why are people such steam apologists? Having to go through steam and then the ubisoft launcher is silly. That's how the last game worked. Screw steam.

herd mentality 'no steam no buy'

Aura89:

Congratulations you have won the award for most illogical statement made in this thread! Now, what you meant to say is, the more games on all platforms, the better! Glad i could fix that completely illogical, nonsensical statement for you!

Sometimes I miss the days when we had less games coming out and more of them stood out.

waltc3:

Unless I'm getting a nice discount, as a customer, I don't care where I buy a game, really. Every bit of this from Epic, etc., has to do with with what is convenient and more cost effective for the game publisher--not me, as a customer. If the change in distributor has no positive benefits for me then it really is a yawn event. In all these discussions the *customer* is being ignored by the game distributors, devs and publishers. Not as smart a move as they might think, imo.

How isn't publisher saving like 20% of middle-man money the best interest of the end users? It's roughly the same thing as paying that extra 20% car tariff to buy a proper car in the USA.

fantaskarsef:

Hey, to be fair, at least it's not only on EGS. And exactly because you already had to have a uplay account, it's just a matter in which launcher you buy it, not launch it. Or am I off here? Don't think this is a problem because it's not a temporary exclusive to anything. I have to be so fair to not bash EGS here.

Exactly. Here I have a choice can remain loyal to the Uplay client (the game needs it in the background anyway). The game will be cheaper (20% discount) and I'll have my Uplay friends close by. Here I can actively choose to ditch EGS but still be able to play the game - and it sure feels good. Btw, I've not bought Ubi published games on Steam for some time now, probably since The Division 1.

Didn't realize people liked launching Uplay from steam that much. As i'm buying my Ubisoft games from Uplay, i really don't care at all. And to naysayers/trash talker/drama seeker, R6S and AC:Odissey are some of the best games i've played on PC for the last 5 years.

kings:

There was also controversy when they removed Anno 1800 from Steam and it was the best release ever of the saga.

Nobody knows if it's thanks to this, or even though. Actually, that alone doesn't say much to be fair. But it's not like you ever could play recent ubisoft titles without uplay... the question is why anybody should buy this on EGS and not on uplay directly.

waltc3:

Unless I'm getting a nice discount, as a customer, I don't care where I buy a game, really. Every bit of this from Epic, etc., has to do with with what is convenient and more cost effective for the game publisher--not me, as a customer. If the change in distributor has no positive benefits for me then it really is a yawn event. In all these discussions the *customer* is being ignored by the game distributors, devs and publishers. Not as smart a move as they might think, imo.

That it´s one of the issues i have with Epic store, besides the exclusives. They claim that more competition is better for the customer but in the end the customer sees no benefits of such competition! If publishers use their higher margins to drop their prices on Epic store then i would consider buying games from them but if the prices are the same on Steam and Epic and publishers are simply pocketing the difference in margins then were´s the benefit of competition to us?...

Undying:

I hope you guys do not like ubisoft games becouse this only shows where their allegiance lies with their future games.

You have Epic if you don't like Uplay...

user1:

Its not really about steam , its the anti-conusmer sentiment , they want people to pay more , and a bigger cut, without fixing their internal development problems, its that simple.

You might see the problem with Steam as an editor would see it (can be Ubisoft but not only): -Why pay developement to fix issue due to Steam (GR: Wildlands, AC origin as an Ubi's exemple), when you don't have issue on own portal? -Why earn less money because Steam is much more greedy than other game portal? Do we have to rise up Steam game price to earn the same (btw it's illegal in most country and not good too)? For my point, Steam was crap at start but it was the only one, now that they have a good basis of customer, they make it pay a lot to editor, and sometime to customer too for being in their portal \Oo/. Also their scheme haven't evolved, but now that physical game is dead it might be a good idea to change Steam... But they don't. Also they don't support so much MAC and Linux, their catalog is so minimal (i would say that it's a joke) and i don't talk about the Steambox fail: low/mid class PC with SteamOS sold at gold price, that perform worse than real inexpensive and more versatile Linux distro PC with game. Last point: the closed system of their multiplayer games, most of the time you can't play with other in game that were bough on other game portal despite being compatible... Why as it is possible on concurent system? (maybe Valve Anti-Cheat have to be removed? ).

lucidus:

Hardly a surprise, epic is paying them to do so. They did release a smaller game called starlink on steam though.

Paying them? LOL. Fact is, Steam has been charging way to much to developers for many years and this decision has consequences. What developer in their right mind would pay Steam 30% when they can pay Epic 12% or just do it themselves for even less. Switching from Steam to Epic is probably the best single cost savings that developers have had in decades. I know it sucks to have multiple game platforms on your PC. I agree. This is the future, however.

H83:

That it´s one of the issues i have with Epic store, besides the exclusives. They claim that more competition is better for the customer but in the end the customer sees no benefits of such competition! If publishers use their higher margins to drop their prices on Epic store then i would consider buying games from them but if the prices are the same on Steam and Epic and publishers are simply pocketing the difference in margins then were´s the benefit of competition to us?...

i am agree with you, but if this difference in marging permit to save job and dev a bit more, and if Ubi was your company what would you do?

0blivious:

Why does it HAVE to be on steam and why are people such steam apologists? Having to go through steam and then the ubisoft launcher is silly. That's how the last game worked. Screw steam.

Frankly, the only reason to have ever buy an Ubisoft game through Steam is if the sale was good enough, because as you said, you need Uplay anyway. So, I think people are more bothered out of principle: whether people were going to buy the games or not, they don't like how they're no longer available on a platform where they traditionally were available. People don't like being told "you can't do this", especially when they used to be able to. As for "screw Steam", I don't really understand why you say that. As a Linux user, maybe I'm slightly biased, but as far as I'm concerned, Steam/Valve has done more good than harm for PC gaming. So ironically, it seems to me your sentiment is also based on principle.

Redemption80:

Great news, the less games on Steam the better. Last i checked Uplay was mandatory anyway, so getting it on Steam was stupid. This just removed stupidity as an option.

Couldn't the exact opposite be argued? If someone paid for a game through an arguably effective DRM, isn't it pretty stupid to require players to install yet another DRM? Keep in mind, if you buy an Ubisoft game through Steam, Uplay requires you to have Steam running. If Ubisoft acknowledges I own the game, why does it matter what Steam thinks of it? Ubisoft in this context is pulling the stupid move, not Valve. Also, how exactly are fewer games on Steam a good thing, under any definition? There's no reason games can't be available on multiple platforms. Games being platform-exclusive is almost always a bad thing.

rl66:

You have Epic if you don't like Uplay... You might see the problem with Steam as an editor would see it (can be Ubisoft but not only): -Why pay developement to fix issue due to Steam (GR: Wildlands, AC origin as an Ubi's exemple), when you don't have issue on own portal? -Why earn less money because Steam is much more greedy than other game portal? Do we have to rise up Steam game price to earn the same (btw it's illegal in most country and not good too)? For my point, Steam was crap at start but it was the only one, now that they have a good basis of customer, they make it pay a lot to editor, and sometime to customer too for being in their portal \Oo/. Also their scheme haven't evolved, but now that physical game is dead it might be a good idea to change Steam... But they don't. Also they don't support so much MAC and Linux, their catalog is so minimal (i would say that it's a joke) and i don't talk about the Steambox fail: low/mid class PC with SteamOS sold at gold price, that perform worse than real inexpensive and more versatile Linux distro PC with game. Last point: the closed system of their multiplayer games, most of the time you can't play with other in game that were bough on other game portal despite being compatible... Why as it is possible on concurent system? (maybe Valve Anti-Cheat have to be removed? ).

heres the thing, steam's cut is less than retail, it is a popular platform, it includes the cost of all transaction fees of payment processors, could it be better? sure, thats what competition is suppose to help with, and thats the thing, developers choosing to align exclusively with EGS isn't competitive, EGS may only take a 12% cut(for now) but it doesn't include transaction fees and all of the other features steam has, so what ends up happening? you the customer, have to buy either from uplay or egs, there are no price cuts, so what does that mean, that means you pay full price (lets say $60) and have to pay the transaction fee on top of that. you end up paying more, than if it was on steam, and you get games that are still buggy and unfinished. if they really wanted to compete with steam, they would lower their prices on EGS and sell their games on as many other platforms as they can , but they dont do that because they probably wont make as much in the short term, which the upper management probably doesn't like. The problem with cross platform play is not steam, you can actually do it, and valve doesn't mandate anything against it. the problem is on the microsoft and sony side/developer not wanting to do the work to support it, older games like cod waw that shipped on both steam and non-steam retail work completely fine with eachother. Im going to disagree on the linux front, valve's investment into linux based platforms is disporportionate, they put way more in then they get out, steam can't force publishers to build against linux, with this inmind, they have ported all of their own titles to linux, and now they are developing /implementing a compatibility layer based off wine, it's updated regularly, their linux client works well,with no major issues, gaming on linux would be a pain and far more buggy without their support. It's very close to being vitually equal to windows, I actually haven't played any games on windows for about 2 months, (granted i dont play recent titles),but its good enough that most of the titles in my library are playable on linux, it will only improve over time.

rl66:

i am agree with you, but if this difference in marging permit to save job and dev a bit more, and if Ubi was your company what would you do?

it wont save any jobs, it will only line the pockets of the execs, and please the shareholders there is a reason talk of unionization is comming up more and more often.

Whiners gonna whine.

Rx4speed:

Paying them? LOL. Fact is, Steam has been charging way to much to developers for many years and this decision has consequences. What developer in their right mind would pay Steam 30% when they can pay Epic 12% or just do it themselves for even less. Switching from Steam to Epic is probably the best single cost savings that developers have had in decades. I know it sucks to have multiple game platforms on your PC. I agree. This is the future, however.

Steam is charging market rate, and has a platform full of features to support for all games on their service. EGS is inferior and can only undercut for as long as they lack the platform scope and don't need to pay for it.

Redemption80:

Unless i'm missing your point, Ubisoft games are Uplay games, getting it on Steam is you intentionally choosing to add yet another level of DRM.

Again, depends how you look at it. Just about every other publisher who has their own DRM does at least one of the following: A. Let the store you bought it from handle the DRM, and don't force your own. B. If you insist on having your own DRM, allow people play their game on your DRM without the one you bought it from. C. Don't use a DRM. Ubisoft does none of these. They force you to use their DRM regardless of where you bought it, and if you didn't buy it from them, Ubisoft forces you to use the DRM of wherever you bought it; Valve doesn't give a crap if developers don't use their DRM - I've been able to play several games (without modification) without Steam running. So, it's Ubisoft that's making this needlessly difficult, thus being stupid.

It's a good thing because anything that powerful needs to be contained, as people won't even entertain the thought of a competitor unless they are forced to. We all have our silly OCD habits, and as much as i dislike Steam, even i hesitated buying the much cheaper Play Anywhere version of RE7 because i have every other RE game on Steam.

Monopolies are anti-consumer but so are anti-competitive measures, like artificial exclusivity. So, although Steam shouldn't control the overwhelming majority of PC game sales, removing titles from it isn't doing customers any favors. I still don't really understand what it is you dislike about Steam though - you haven't really made that clear.

It's pretty much blackmail on both sides though, devs are asking that you buy the game from their own store or you won't get a chance to play it, while consumers are saying put the game on the store i like or i won't buy it.

Interesting point, but I would argue the game publishers/devs are at fault here. There's no reason they can't sell on both stores and then pull an Epic where they just undercut Valve.

user1:

The problem with cross platform play is not steam, you can actually do it, and valve doesn't mandate anything against it. the problem is on the microsoft and sony side/developer not wanting to do the work to support it, older games like cod waw that shipped on both steam and non-steam retail work completely fine with eachother.

nope it's to play same game from Steam to Gog (as AoS as an exemple), or Steam and Origin, or Steam and Epic, or Steam and ... while it is possible in beween the seconds listed portal (i don't talk about game that need both program open).

rl66:

nope it's to play same game from Steam to Gog (as AoS as an exemple), or Steam and Origin, or Steam and Epic, or Steam and ... while it is possible in beween the seconds listed portal (i don't talk about game that need both program open).

a more apt example would be BFBC2, available on both steam and origin, the multiplayer works between people on either platform, since the Multiplayer services are separate from steam or origin, it uses a serverlist and has its own in-game login, like alot of older PC games that predate steam and origin. cross-platform has to be supported by the developer .