Uplay is the reason why I don't buy a single Ubisoft title on Steam, just like games with GFWL. I already have a single platform (PC -> Steam) and I don't need anything else. Just imagine having up to 6 different clients including 6 accounts, passwords, stores for every major publisher... sounds like a lot of fun. Digital games libraries may become a complete mess. I'm already eagerly waiting until Origin disappears.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Escapist: Warner Bros. developing their own distribution platform? WB Play
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, if they're smart, they'll make it full aware of and completely compatible with existing major platforms they sell on, the way Steamworks is integrated into a lot of third party service-driven games. Even without a new publisher-centric service, games still have to be mindful of how easy their products are to use, or suffer the consequences. I don't see the issue especially after how loudly everyone complains when Uplay doesn't work or prevents certain features from working as intended in the case of timeouts or outages. With a dedicated setup, they can simplify the quality of service across the board instead of leaving individual titles to break or ship with broken network integration and support...as they sometimes already do. Of course, this means if the wider service is having issues, everything does...nothing new under the current paradigm of digital platforms with Steam/XBL/PSN. The current set of networks already have options to enable the sharing of existing user account information, making sign-in easy enough, so there isn't really much upfront complication added to the customer-side of the equation.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I'm sure it's coming.
Not surprised if this turns out to be a distribution service. Why would any big publisher want Valve to be getting all the business?
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Makes a lot of sense. No reason to give Valve 30% of your profits. Yeah, a good chunk of sales probably come from Amazon Steam keys or whatever but the majority of them are most likely from within Steam, meaning 30% gone just like that.
Well, I mean they're getting that 30 percent back, but they're also going to lose some customers too. Splintering off isn't going to get them all of their old customers. So I'd say that's some reason. They need to be able to make enough profit to justify it. Some can do it, but probably not every one. WB doesn't really have any competitive multiplayer games in the works aside from Mortal Kombat, and those tend to be a pretty big driving force.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Yeah if they can just break even from the loss of the "Steam or bust" crew and the advertising from Steam, it's worth it. Even a little less than even is still worth it in the end.
BibiMaghoo
Member
it's hard for me to get upset at stuff like this simply because i'm interested in so few games from big publishers to begin with.
on principle i guess it'd be cool if they stick with steamworks at least. running their own storefront isn't a problem as long as their don't fragment the actual platform.
on principle i guess it'd be cool if they stick with steamworks at least. running their own storefront isn't a problem as long as their don't fragment the actual platform.
Does it make sense to promote and sell your game to a 80m userbase for 70% or 1-5m (at best) while getting 100% of the profits? Just look at games which you can buy on Steam or different platforms (Origin, Uplay, HB)... you can bet that Steam is responsible for 70-90% of those sales:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DavidGalindo/20140109/208337/How_much_do_indie_PC_devs_make_anyways_Part_V.php
Not even mentioning that Steam flash sales strongly boost the sales and revenue of a game, even if it is significantly cheaper.
2spooky4me
Member
The thing is, if the publisher is large enough (I would argue WB is, with its licenses of the LEGO, Batman, and DC franchises) then they will have a much larger user base than 1-5 m. People said the same thing about Origins (that it will never accrue many users) but the user base exceeded 50M in 2013, and they are reporting profits.
It is never a good thing for one company to hold a monopoly on digital distribution, like some of you are arguing. You believe your personal comfort is more important than encouraging competition and innovation in this industry. Which is understandable, but incredibly selfish and naive.
This only counts when your brand is unknown. The PC market isn't a console market; just because something isn't on the storefront doesn't mean it's unknown or unpurchaseable to the user base.
For example, Diablo 3 and Battlefield 3 were likely unhurt financially (in the 70%/larger audience vs. 100%/smaller audience battle).
Whether Batman, Lego, and Mortal Kombat are big enough brands is unknown (and unlikely). Additionally we don't know if this is just a storefront, a secondary DRM, an additive client (a la Uplay), or an exclusive client (a la Origin).
That said, I am mostly against this market splintering.
A customer should only look out for their own interests, anything less is asinine. Those interests can be in the long term successes of the things they like, but that balance is not for an external party to decide.
flaxknuckles
Member
They should just make a storefront and sell Steam codes with additional bonuses there. Don't they retain 100% of sales using Steam codes?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
GifGafIsTheBestGaf
Member
Lego is certainly not a pillar they're standing on on PC. They release them at 20 or 30 dollars even when launching alongside 60 dollar console versions. Arkham Knight is their strongest contender, but is a series that's supposedly ending. Mortal Kombat is iffy, as their previous fighting game ports have been lackluster and haven't had active communities for very long. They've got a few other 2015 games but new IPs.
They really need a competitive game, most likely, or an annual megahit like Assasin's Creed, to support a dedicated platform. I could see someone like Take 2 pulling it off between stuff like GTA V, Evolve, Borderlands, and Firaxis games, but unless WB has a lot of aces up their sleeves it seems questionable.
They really need a competitive game, most likely, or an annual megahit like Assasin's Creed, to support a dedicated platform. I could see someone like Take 2 pulling it off between stuff like GTA V, Evolve, Borderlands, and Firaxis games, but unless WB has a lot of aces up their sleeves it seems questionable.
CosmicQueso
Member
That's not a new competitor to Steam or even PC focused guys. Everything WB publishes on the PC is Steamworks now, and how many times has BAC been in a Steam sale of bundle? Some of the conclusions being jumped to are a little extreme.
AcademicSaucer
Member
the reactions tell me that there is a lot of monopoly supporters around here
Yep.
Best case scenario is keep the Steam version as Steamworks, but allow Steam keys to activate on the WB client if the consumer chooses. Allow keys purcashed on the WB client to activate on Steam.
2spooky4me
Member
It is in their interests, many people just don't realize it because they can't see the bigger picture. If Steam continued to hold a monopolistic grip on PC digital distribution, Valve would demand a higher cut of games and add more restrictions. In short, Valve would realize they can get away with more by giving less.
The rise of these other platforms is a good thing for the market. Valve will have to make their own platform more appealing instead of sitting on their asses, which is great for Steam users. There are really very few negatives too...all it takes is the installation of a free program. It's not like they are asking you to pay any additional money to use their service...
SliceSabre
Banned
I never play games they make so it doesn't really affect me so I don't have much to say personally.
But I know this is gonna be sucky for the people that do buy games from them. On some level I understand why they're doing it. I mean its a way for them to get some of their money back.
But I know this is gonna be sucky for the people that do buy games from them. On some level I understand why they're doing it. I mean its a way for them to get some of their money back.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
WB Montreal will continue making DCU games, likely including Batman ones. Their next project is Suicide Squad. Rocksteady's next game after AK will probably be pushed heavily. I agree they lack the portfolio that EA or Ubi have but idk if that means they won't turn a profit.
Has Suicide Squad been confirmed? I know they said that was the plan around Origins time but it seems like it's been largely mum's the word on that front, and I wouldn't doubt if the somewhat middling reception of Origins slowed things down for the project.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I can't wait to see what Rocksteady does after Batman games.
ShockingAlberto
Member
ShockingAlberto to decide WB games on Steam are no longer worth the hassle?
Valve is nothing like Microsoft in that Valve is privately owned and isn't required by law to make as much profit as possible. They do not have the same culture as MS or the same culture as any public company. A benevolent dictatorship offers more benefits than a collection of competing services that offer independent products with identical services.
That said, I do not trust Valve blindly or totally, but there is no advantage to me as a consumer having Origin offer one feature set for their games and every other game offering a different for their service. And having multiple friends lists. And multiple applications to launch. And multiple DRM solutions to worry about. Etc etc.
Not literally law. Publicly trader companies simply have to answer to their share holders.
Wiktor
Member
The more the merrier I say, at least if they won't go exclusivity route. I don't want everything solely on Steam. If I wanted closed ecosystem I would buy a console.
I wish somebody would just create a standalone client where all other services would be integrated in one tidy little place, with easy friends lists, ability to view all your games and compare prices on all avaible services. The sad thing is the only company who could pull it off is propably Microsoft and they seem to be intent on hurting pcgaming instead of promiting it.
I wish somebody would just create a standalone client where all other services would be integrated in one tidy little place, with easy friends lists, ability to view all your games and compare prices on all avaible services. The sad thing is the only company who could pull it off is propably Microsoft and they seem to be intent on hurting pcgaming instead of promiting it.
I think it makes sense for businesses to own their distribution, consolidation has certain perks but can ultimately be dangerous especially since Steam is a relative monopoly on PC. It's not like there are 2 or 3 big and competitive aggregators like with movies and music, it's kinda becoming Steam with GOG picking up table scraps. Breaking from it should give incentive to innovate because you'll wither otherwise. Whether or not it ultimately pans out is due to the skill of the business but I think it'll promote a healthier market in the long-term.
EA just have the right franchises to leverage their own client.
Successful F2P MMO in TOR and a massive PC franchise in Battlefield.
I don't necessarily see that in other publishers. What does Ubi, Activision, or WB have to leverage the PC fan base? Undoubtedly, they have some massive franchises, but I would associate them more to console appeal.
IndoAssassin
Banned
So EA, Ubisoft, and WB are console only games for me now. Who's next to lose my PC purchase?
Leafhopper
Banned
Hmm, dunno if I agree with this one.
I get why companies are doing it but I am just stubborn and like all my stuff in one spot without multiple clients. Main reason I didn't go back to Demigod using Impulse.
Then again unlike Origin and UPlay, I might actually have to just accept that I might have to use this if Mortal Kombat X ends up only being on this, granted if its own client like Origin that is.
I get why companies are doing it but I am just stubborn and like all my stuff in one spot without multiple clients. Main reason I didn't go back to Demigod using Impulse.
Then again unlike Origin and UPlay, I might actually have to just accept that I might have to use this if Mortal Kombat X ends up only being on this, granted if its own client like Origin that is.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
You forgot battle net
Lord_Balkan
Member
I fail to see how competition to steam is a bad thing.
Wiktor
Member
Erm...Activision has Blizzard
And Ubi has plenty of strong PC IPs. Strong enough that they don't have to worry about the "uPlay=no sale" crowd really affecting their bottom line. Especially since they still put their games on Steam, just with uPlay bundled with. So they get to have their own DD service, can sell boxed copies with more than keys for 3rd party store (and I suspect a large portion of Ubisoft's sales are still retail on PC), while still getting access to Steam userbase.
Wiktor
Member
Some people stopped being pcgamers and became steam gamers. Platform fanboyism isn't anything new, especially considering how convienient Steam is.
GrandHarrier
Member
I'm OK with this. Logging into a client doesn't take as much effort as people make it out to. Both Steam and Origin are on my task bar and I just click and they load.
MasterOfPastures
Banned
It was inevitable. We let Origin live, and now every business suit in a publisher will try to follow along in order to chase the illusion of more profits. Eventually, the dozen or so independent and exclusive game clients will destroy the very thing that brought PC gaming back to it's master status: convenience and price.
Farewell, sweet prince.
Farewell, sweet prince.
This is true. Though I have trouble thinking of a body of shareholders that would agree to having their stock go down for any reason. The larger the body of shareholders, the greater the likelihood of anonymous independents and less the likelihood they could agree on anything other than having their stock prices go up.
But yes, it was an over-assertion on my part.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
It's not competition, though. Things like this in no way compete with Steam.
They add extra DRM and make it harder to buy games. That's it. There's no gain, no way where the market comes out any better.
Activision has Diablo/Starcraft/Warcraft from Blizzard. Ubisoft has Settlers, Might and Magic series.
Anyway, this is competition and this is what open platform as PCs allow. Multiple clients, multiple bloatware to just run a damn game. And I think it's good more companies try to provide alternative to Steam.
Mass Effect
Member
But what makes these publishers think people will flock to their platform instead of staying on Steam. WB is not EA, they can't remove their games and expect people to follow. It won't happen.
MightyHedgehog
Member
This doesn't seem to be a threat to Steam. Anyway, there was never really stopping this and there should never be any stopping it on PC as long as it's healthy enough to support the will of software makers and not just the merchant middlemen. I don't see the value in putting too much weight on any one storefront when that is certain to lead to a messy situation when the inevitable tides change and de facto standards change with them. I mean, there will be a time when Steam is no longer what most gamers and game makers want to be so dominant.
It seems a bit pointless unless they stop selling in Steam etc. Not giving that 30%. Is customer interaction really worth that much with your own system overhead?
Has it got to that point were it's like Nestle having it's own store instead of selling in supermarkets etc. Just wrong, go were customers will be, end of.
Has it got to that point were it's like Nestle having it's own store instead of selling in supermarkets etc. Just wrong, go were customers will be, end of.
Wiktor
Member
Who says they will remove them though? Most likely they will do it like Ubisoft, have their own storefront/client and still sell on Steam. A lot of companies have their own clients and still sell on Steam. From big publishers only EA went to exclusivity route.
Wiktor
Member
I doubt it will cost them much to run such service and it can be beneficial for them. They will still get plenty of sales there, can plug all their F2P titles there (F2P titles generally seem to be much less dependent on Steam for success than traditional games) and cross promote. Plus it's foolish to assume Valve will always remain hands free. There's nothing stopping them from starting to charge for Steam keys tomorrow, crippling retail business. Best to keep some kind of insurance. And the existence of alternatives will also serve as detterent for Valve to not go stupid.
Hamster Plugin
Member
Not this shit again. Uplay is the worst client out there - it downloads installers instead of the game itself and the installer is for v1.00 so you have to download patchers after the game is installed. It's absolutely dreadful after getting used to Steam and Origin.
Even if WBplay client doesn't suck (Origin isn't too bad), it's still another login in a sea of logins everywhere.
Even if WBplay client doesn't suck (Origin isn't too bad), it's still another login in a sea of logins everywhere.
CecilRousso
Member
At worst? Well, that actually is the worst.
A client launching a client to be able to play singleplayer games is a big no no for me.