How many would actually purchase Crash 4 on Steam?

[Kuriishi]

Personally, I was looking forward to Crash 4 coming to PC but I can't be bothered dealing with Battle.net. Is there a large percentage of people that would only purchase on Steam or are most just gonna buy it on Battle.net anyway?

Also would you still get it on Steam if it came much later than Battle.net? I certainly would but I also think it's doubtful.

Edit: Now we know Crash 4 is always online, how does that impact on using Battle.net for the game?

[hoga]

well for me I actually want to play crash 4 badly and idec if its on a different launcher anyway cuz i just wanna play the game on my PC cuz there is no way im playing it on my ps4 with a dualshock ps4 controller and 30 - 50 fps average when it cant even keep a stable 60

[hoga]

alright look...we all know its clear steam is the better launcher compared to any other ones out there. But if we're being reasonable here it still kinda doesnt harm at all just to buy the game especially for a still great price for a brand new game. If we're being more reasonable again your simply just going to press play and play the game and thats really it. It doesnt affect performance or anything at all especially for people who always used the battle net launcher. If it was on steam we're just going to get ofc trading cards, achievements, and a few more features and thats it but mainly ur just going to simply PLAY THE GAME which both can do.

[Kuriishi]

Originally posted by Hoga:

alright look...we all know its clear steam is the better launcher compared to any other ones out there. But if we're being reasonable here it still kinda doesnt harm at all just to buy the game especially for a still great price for a brand new game. If we're being more reasonable again your simply just going to press play and play the game and thats really it. It doesnt affect performance or anything at all especially for people who always used the battle net launcher. If it was on steam we're just going to get ofc trading cards, achievements, and a few more features and thats it but mainly ur just going to simply PLAY THE GAME which both can do.

Well, Activision is making the problem for themselves. Like, why not just release the game on Steam and Battle.net? Then people can choose where they want to play the game. Why ask people to use their launcher for 1 game when they already have 100's on Steam?

Basically, when they're putting their profits before customer convenience, I don't really think they deserve a reward for that, personally

[The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit Fest]

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Originally posted by Hoga:

alright look...we all know its clear steam is the better launcher compared to any other ones out there. But if we're being reasonable here it still kinda doesnt harm at all just to buy the game especially for a still great price for a brand new game. If we're being more reasonable again your simply just going to press play and play the game and thats really it. It doesnt affect performance or anything at all especially for people who always used the battle net launcher. If it was on steam we're just going to get ofc trading cards, achievements, and a few more features and thats it but mainly ur just going to simply PLAY THE GAME which both can do.

Well, Activision is making the problem for themselves. Like, why not just release the game on Steam and Battle.net? Then people can choose where they want to play the game. Why ask people to use their launcher for 1 game when they already have 100's on Steam?

Basically, when they're putting their profits before customer convenience, I don't really think they deserve a reward for that, personally

This customer "convenience" argument is completely overblown. The game will play the same regardless of what store you download it from, as is the case with any game that's not on Steam which includes several of the most popular games in existence.

Do you play games by clicking on a desktop app icon? Congrats, you'll still be able to do that. Do you want to launch the game through Steam, use the Steam overlay and even save and share screenshots and other community content to the Steam cloud? Cool, that is also still very much possible.

[Kuriishi]

Originally posted by Thurbo:

This customer "convenience" argument is completely overblown. The game will play the same regardless of what store you download it from, as is the case with any game that's not on Steam which includes several of the most popular games in existence.

Do you play games by clicking on a desktop app icon? Congrats, you'll still be able to do that. Do you want to launch the game through Steam, use the Steam overlay and even save and share screenshots and other community content to the Steam cloud? Cool, that is also still very much possible.

No one is arguing that isn't the case but simple fact of the matter is that I don't care personally to deal with another launcher for the sake of one game. Especially when there is no good reason to go out of my way to do that, the experience is no better there. In some ways it is worse (no achievements, always online DRM etc.)

[King of Nep]

As a real crash fan ill buy it where they put it. I aint a whinny little pissant who cares about launchers

[The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit Fest]

You are arguing it but are being vague about it. "I don't care personally to deal with another launcher" - Why not? What does that even mean? Please clarify. You do not have to "deal" with it. You can launch the game from your desktop icon. You can launch it from Steam. It is like any other non-Steam game.

Since this gets misunderstood time and time again. If you personally don't want to play games originating from somewhere that isn't Steam, that's cool. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, you do you. All I'm asking is that when you come online to argue that you won't buy it, and that other people have supposedly good yet unstated reasons to buy it, that you clarify. Because as it stands this is erring on the side of misinformation, and to me it seems as though you realize you are not being completely rational but are trying to not come across as such.

Also, there's some blatant misinformation as is par for the course in these forums:

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Especially when there is no good reason to go out of my way to do that, the experience is no better there.

Playing a game is not a good reason? I would say this is the entire point of even going through with a store purchase.

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

In some ways it is worse (no achievements

Several games on Bnet have achievements so this is incorrect. I'm personally worried Toys for Bob might omit them for Crash 4 since it's their first time releasing on Bnet, but this very much remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

always online DRM etc.)

There's no always-online DRM.

[Kuriishi]

Originally posted by Thurbo:

You are arguing it but are being vague about it. "I don't care personally to deal with another launcher" - Why not? What does that even mean? Please clarify. You do not have to "deal" with it. You can launch the game from your desktop icon. You can launch it from Steam. It is like any other non-Steam game.

Since this gets misunderstood time and time again. If you personally don't want to play games originating from somewhere that isn't Steam, that's cool. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, you do you. All I'm asking is that when you come online to argue that you won't buy it, and that other people have supposedly good yet unstated reasons to buy it, that you clarify. Because as it stands this is erring on the side of misinformation, and to me it seems as though you realize you are not being completely rational but are trying to not come across as such.

It's as simple as I like to have my library in one place and don't want to deal with a different account/launcher for every game. I don't like the precedent it sets, in splitting up game libraries across different accounts/launchers.

Originally posted by Thurbo:

Playing a game is not a good reason? I would say this is the entire point of even going through with a store purchase.

Not really, if you think about it, the move to battle.net is purely cynical. How does that provide a better experience for players/customers? Why not sell it on Steam? Simple answer is greed and I don't really think that's a convincing reason to install bloat on my system for 1 game.

Personally, I don't like the direction Blizzard has taken and I don't want to use their launcher

Originally posted by Thurbo:

Several games on Bnet have achievements so this is incorrect. I'm personally worried Toys for Bob might omit them for Crash 4 since it's their first time releasing on Bnet, but this very much remains to be seen.

Some games do have in-game achievements but it's not a platform wide feature

Originally posted by Thurbo:

There's no always-online DRM.

Maybe, this is something I see repeated but have yet to see evidence for myself. A lot of people say that Battle.net has always online as an antipiracy/anticheat feature in its games

I would add though, I'm not calling for boycotts or anything. Just sharing my own personal opinion. In fact, this isn't really a point of discussion I wanted to cover in this thread. Basically, I was just trying to gather "what" the ratio of people okay with battle.net Vs Steam was. The "why" isn't really important.

[SHREDDER]

Perhaps, but it could be a considerable amount of time before they return. I'm not really confident they will return personally because it is Activision Blizzard. Who knows, maybe they are just doing a test and if it doesn't work out they'll adjust their planning in the future [/quote]
I already has resisteed long enough and havent played call of duty 2019 and 2020 games because of battlenet but it seems like i will not resist any more for crash bandiccot 4! And it will be the first game that i will use battlenet for. But we all know that they will come back to steam sooner or later even if it takes years like ea and microsoft did.

[olc]

the future is ditch one generic digital stores like steam, since steam takes a cut out of the game money. even if it takes 20% if a game is sold for 50 usd, steam takes 10 just for place it on the store and add some mbs to do save games backups.

battle.net can do that and keep the % steam takes. or epic. or gog, etc. the console stores are respected cause each console has a unique and copyrighted OS that will only allow games made for that OS signed by the manufacturer work. so with consoles they are screwed. with pc they get a microsoft license and thats it. even now adays they dont even get the license and still release it. (specially if they use some platform like real engine, etc)

[Kuriishi]

Originally posted by olc:

the future is ditch one generic digital stores like steam, since steam takes a cut out of the game money. even if it takes 20% if a game is sold for 50 usd, steam takes 10 just for place it on the store and add some mbs to do save games backups.

battle.net can do that and keep the % steam takes. or epic. or gog, etc. the console stores are respected cause each console has a unique and copyrighted OS that will only allow games made for that OS signed by the manufacturer work. so with consoles they are screwed. with pc they get a microsoft license and thats it. even now adays they dont even get the license and still release it. (specially if they use some platform like real engine, etc)

The framing of this is quite strange. "Since Steam takes a cut of the game money" same as any other platform including consoles. It's a normal practice

"Console Stores are respected" so is Steam as a platform. That's why it's the biggest distribution platform for PC Games. Only very few fringe groups decide to not distribute here. Steam has the biggest audience and so most Devs/publishers publish here due to that massive influence and power

[olc]

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Originally posted by olc:

the future is ditch one generic digital stores like steam, since steam takes a cut out of the game money. even if it takes 20% if a game is sold for 50 usd, steam takes 10 just for place it on the store and add some mbs to do save games backups.

battle.net can do that and keep the % steam takes. or epic. or gog, etc. the console stores are respected cause each console has a unique and copyrighted OS that will only allow games made for that OS signed by the manufacturer work. so with consoles they are screwed. with pc they get a microsoft license and thats it. even now adays they dont even get the license and still release it. (specially if they use some platform like real engine, etc)

The framing of this is quite strange. "Since Steam takes a cut of the game money" same as any other platform including consoles. It's a normal practice

"Console Stores are respected" so is Steam as a platform. That's why it's the biggest distribution platform for PC Games. Only very few fringe groups decide to not distribute here. Steam has the biggest audience and so most Devs/publishers publish here due to that massive influence and power

activision as long as they keep the 100% of the cash, they will push battle.net down your throat with a toilet plunger, cartoonish style. battle.net exists since wow cataclysm and nobody likes it. yet they will migrate all their franchises over there to get all the moneys. steam is not a platform, is a store. a platform is where things run. like steam runs on MS windows. you cannot boot your pc using steam alone without the OS. the consoles OS only allows to run/install games from their store or their encrypted signature the game devs must add so the game runs on it. thats why on consoles they will keep their content as it is. on pc they dont need it.

[Kuriishi]

Originally posted by olc:

activision as long as they keep the 100% of the cash, they will push battle.net down your throat with a toilet plunger, cartoonish style. battle.net exists since wow cataclysm and nobody likes it. yet they will migrate all their franchises over there to get all the moneys. steam is not a platform, is a store. a platform is where things run. like steam runs on MS windows. you cannot boot your pc using steam alone without the OS. the consoles OS only allows to run/install games from their store or their encrypted signature the game devs must add so the game runs on it. thats why on consoles they will keep their content as it is. on pc they dont need it.

Activision can try and force that platform but people don't have to accept it.

Steam is much more than a storefront. It is a PC distribution platform which many features which go beyond a storefront. Things like Steam Input, Big Picture Remote Play/Together, Achievements, Community hub (discussions/artwork/screenshots etc.), Friends/chat, cloud saving. List goes on and on.

[olc]

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Originally posted by olc:

activision as long as they keep the 100% of the cash, they will push battle.net down your throat with a toilet plunger, cartoonish style. battle.net exists since wow cataclysm and nobody likes it. yet they will migrate all their franchises over there to get all the moneys. steam is not a platform, is a store. a platform is where things run. like steam runs on MS windows. you cannot boot your pc using steam alone without the OS. the consoles OS only allows to run/install games from their store or their encrypted signature the game devs must add so the game runs on it. thats why on consoles they will keep their content as it is. on pc they dont need it.

Activision can try and force that platform but people don't have to accept it.

Steam is much more than a storefront. It is a PC distribution platform which many features which go beyond a storefront. Things like Steam Input, Big Picture Remote Play/Together, Achievements, Community hub (discussions/artwork/screenshots etc.), Friends/chat, cloud saving. List goes on and on.

im not arguing with you. just stating the facts and how activision sees it. activision only cares one thing: money. steam takes a cut, then steam must be cut out. if the fans want those functions, then go and purchase a steam game, not our perfection of crash game.

[The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit Fest]

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

It's as simple as I like to have my library in one place

That's good, because all your games are on your computer. They can even all be app icons on your desktop. They can even all be added to Steam as non-Steam games.

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

and don't want to deal with a different account/launcher for every game. I don't like the precedent it sets, in splitting up game libraries across different accounts/launchers.

You are 20 years late for that. This precedent has already been set long before Steam. Do you have any idea how many launchers there are that only host a SINGLE game, even for modern titles? Path of Exile has its own account and launcher. Paladins has its own account and launcher. Black Desert. Genshin Impact. Minecraft. League of Legends/Valorant. Eve Online. Elite Dangerous.
Many of these games are hosted on Steam and STILL require you to install their launchers with them.
Heck, the vast majority of Ubisoft/EA/Rockstar/Microsoft games on Steam require you to log into their Uplay/Origin/Rockstar/Xbox clients, respectively.

But that aside, I asked for clarification but you just repeated "I don't want to deal with it". I'm just trying to understand what problem you're having.

If you bought Crash 4 on Bnet, you can install it and add it to your Steam library. In the Blizzard client, set "close this app upon starting a game". Unlike Steam Bnet doesn't even have to be running to play DRM-protected games, in this regard it's actually less bloat than Steam. It just launches for verification and closes right after. So you click launch in your Steam library, the game runs, and you wouldn't even notice it's not a Steam native game if you didn't know.

Is it about remembering passwords in case you get a new computer or SSD or something and need to redownload your games? I'd suggest getting a password manager.

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Originally posted by Thurbo:

Playing a game is not a good reason? I would say this is the entire point of even going through with a store purchase.

Not really, if you think about it, the move to battle.net is purely cynical. How does that provide a better experience for players/customers? Why not sell it on Steam? Simple answer is greed and I don't really think that's a convincing reason to install bloat on my system for 1 game.

Yes, really. Playing games was the entire reason for any client I installed, including Steam. Back when I installed Steam, it was for a single game I wanted to play. And this wasn't even new to me because again, games required accounts way before Steam was a thing. Steam is no different than Bnet. It's the same required "bloat" as you say.

What was your first game on Steam? Why did it not bother you then?

So far this boils down to "Not wanting to give a third-party 30% of our revenue for no apparent reason is greedy." The suggested reason coming from you is "I don't want to deal with it". That's why I'd like you to clarify because you're just claiming they're greedy but not justifying it. 30% is a lot.

The "bloat" is about a mere 300 MB. Frankly you might as well view it as part of the game installation which is 40 GB anyways.

Originally posted by Kuriishi:

Originally posted by Thurbo:

There's no always-online DRM.

Maybe, this is something I see repeated but have yet to see evidence for myself. A lot of people say that Battle.net has always online as an antipiracy/anticheat feature in its games

Misinformation spreads easily.