Actually, nah- leave it dead.
Not so long ago, at least in my warped recollection of the past few years, Bethesda really did have their angsty teen phase, didn't they? There was a coordinated cut-off from general communication with their consumers, (which has largely persisted to this day) Bethesda rather suddenly decided that they didn't like reviewers anymore and so stopped working with them, (which I understand in principle, most official review sites are corrupt ridden cesspits; but they're also kind of a necessary evil) and they followed the path most worn by their contemporaries and created their own game launcher. Although at least they didn't go full goth and cut off all possible purchases from other storefronts so that income could be funnelled directly into their company, like EA did and still does with 'The Sims'. This was all just another step in the industries' insistence on shoving innumerable launchers and storefronts and complications between buying games and playing them. And they want to try and up the industry standard price by £10 for the inconvenience? No thank you.
I think a great number of companies seriously misjudge just how much effort goes into making and maintaining a proper storefront, believing it to be the simplest thing in the world based on all those online retailers that litter the web-surfing experience. "If they can do it, why can't I?" Well, because a game launcher requires a bit more than your typical online shop does. It needs to facilitate hosting applications, integrate itself smoothly with the types of features one might require when playing a game (Such as custom controller support), match the bells and whistles of the industry leader, Steam, (Through offering features like achievements) and, let's not forget, feature a bloody search bar! (Looking you squarely in the eyes, Stadia...) More often than not, launching your brave new excursion into triumphant self reliance ends up playing out much as one would expect from embarking off a high-tide dock in a 10-foot long wooden dingy with holes in most of the planks. Which is to say it doesn't last all that long and even if they do manage to keep afloat, it's typically less than a successful venture.
Point-in-case being the Bethesda Launcher, which seems to have served as more of a confusingly irrelevant piece of software for most of it's life. Bethesda never took its games down from Steam, and you've never needed both Steam and Bethesda.Net to play one of their titles, so the utility of this whole operation is severely questionable. Actually I say that, although I've never played Fallout 76 on Steam and so it's entirely possible that 76 was the sole exception where needing this launcher was the case. Only people like me who wanted to mess around with Fallout 4's or Skyrim: Special Edition's Creation kit probably even has the thing installed. Alongside those who wanted to play the smash-hit card game: The Elder Scrolls Legends! (I still cry myself to sleep some nights thinking on how that game is dead. I know it wasn't exactly a unique creative swangsong, but I liked the thing dammit... it was taken from us all far too soon.) As such, the prevailing takeaway from the recent news that Bethesda.Net would soon be no more is- 'Bethesda.Net is a thing?'
Indeed not many mournful flags have been waved over this passing, more joyous jeering at further consolidation of the PC playspace. And whilst consolidation is usually something of a cause for concern in this industry- I don't think the whole 'competing launchers' thing has ever been a benefit to the consumer. Epic Games, with all the money in the world, still can't put together a launcher that loads as consistently as Steam does- still! Yes, they have achievements now; yes, third-party support is finally somewhat decent; but goodlord, why must I wrestle the infrastructure everytime I want to see the new free game on the front page and then promptly bounce? Is it because you know I've spent literally no money on your platform and am actively punishing me for my reticence? Because if so then- yeah, actually, that would probably be justified. I can't really say anything to that. And Bethesda.Net never even had any features approaching what Epic is struggling to achieve, so again: Pointless.
Those who bought the 'hype', however, (if there was ever any hype for a perpetually redundant launcher) might be wondering about the type of sudden damage this end-to-the-Bethesda-verse is going to deal them. Because afterall, you could buy games through the Bethesda.Net store at a time, and now that store is going away some might be worried about what that means for their property. But luckily they have more to fear for the day when Origin inevitably goes under, because Bethesda have confirmed that all ownership can be transferred to Steam free-of-charge and most progress will be carried over too. The only game which definitely will not carry over progress is 'Wolfenstein: Young Blood'; but let's be honest, that's more of a boon than a drawback. It's a clear incentive to stop playing 'Wolfenstein: Young Blood'. How kind of them.
I would also imagine that those with modded versions of their favourite Bethesda titles might also need to be looking into alternative conversion processes, because I can just sense something going wrong in that whole equation. But let's be honest: if you were sold into the whole 'modding Bethesda games' world there's probably no way you were using Bethesda.Net to hold those games. (I don't even know if they hosted any of their wildly moddable games on that launcher anyway.) Personally, I'm excited for the prospect of two creation kits coming to the Steam eco-system, as previously there was actually no way to use them outside of the launcher. Which was great given the launcher penchant for wobbly servers that could drop you like a stone. (Stop making launchers everybody; you're bad at it!)
From all this I wonder at the role of developers and publishers in the industry and the ways in which they choose to expand upon their responsibilities (and thus, influence), because I think we can all agree this whole 'everybody has their own launcher' experiment has been a garbage fire. But then, what else is open to a company who wants to diversify their model? NFTs is you ask the gibbering buffoons running Ubisoft, crypto platforms for the inept. For me I'd have to take the uncharacteristically conservative stance and say 'nothing, just stick to what you're good at'. Imagine a movie studio coming out and starting a cinema chain that premiered only their own films; you'd rightly find that as a bit of an overreach and quite foolhardy, would you not? I know that Valve used to be a cutting edge developer too, but remember that they had to effectively torpedo all game design aspirations in order to keep Steam running and welcoming. Any other game studio who wants to match that level of commitment needs to, you know, commit!
So sayonara to Bethesda.Net and thus the last of the distractions between Bethesda and making that new 'Starfield' game of theirs which I've all but lost interest in at this point; maybe now that thing will actually be looking at a sensible launch date. (Although somehow I doubt it.) Alas, the need for a Bethesda account has not been exorcised from every one of their games, (so more dealing with those crappy servers) and we can expect many more questionably ambitious 'innovations' from the team in the future. Starfield Creation Club at launch? You betcha! At the very least I can hope that this trend hits off and we see Ubisoft retire their genuinely godawful launcher (Which I think you still need for Splinter Cell games), and EA's Origin get the axe. Then we can live on with the truly godawfully trinity of Steam, Epic and Rockstar Games. (Bloody Rockstar...)
No comments:
Post a Comment