What’s next for Battle.net now that Microsoft owns it and 100 other studios?

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Imagine this: every fantastic game you've acquired from these studios on Steam becomes available with the simple step of linking your Steam account to Battle.net. Just like that, your entire library is seamlessly consolidated in one place. Now, envision the thrill as Microsoft unveils that all upcoming releases will be exclusively on Battle.net. Steam would no longer be part of the equation for me. It makes me giddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyHoohNyYkw&list=LL&index=1

[datCookie]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Boblin the Goblin:

It's not leaving Steam though. So it isn't migrating, just getting added to another service.

Migration coming soon... :Lorelei:

And yet, every game on battlenet, both exception to blizzard games, are also on Steam.

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

This platform revolution you keep preaching about is never going to happen, not from battlenet at least

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Migration coming soon...

And yet, every game on battlenet, both exception to blizzard games, are also on Steam.

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

This platform revolution you keep preaching about is never going to happen, not from battlenet at least

I'm fully confident in my analysis.

[datCookie]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

And yet, every game on battlenet, both exception to blizzard games, are also on Steam.

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

This platform revolution you keep preaching about is never going to happen, not from battlenet at least

I'm fully confident in my analysis. :Lorelei:

Your confidence doesn't change the facts, buddy. Steam has a catalogue of over 200 thousand games, which grows by thousands every year. Battlenet has a grand total of what, 15 games on their store? Most of which can be bought here on Steam anyway.

Your analysis is hilariously incorrect. But we all love a good laugh.

[d@v3]

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Your confidence doesn't change the facts, buddy. Steam has a catalogue of over 200 thousand games, which grows by thousands every year. Battlenet has a grand total of what, 15 games on their store? Most of which can be bought here on Steam anyway.

b-b-but world of warcraft!

[cinedine]

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

[datCookie]

Oprindeligt skrevet af cinedine:

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

I wasn't talking about the Blizzard games. Back in 2018, Battlenet had CoD on their platform and was made exclusive to it, removing various CoD titles from even the Steam store. It didn't work out for them and they removed the exclusivity and put the CoD games they took off Steam, back onto it.

[doomshadow612]

BNet was always an awful and unintuitive platform. I had it for some time because some friends used it. But with ‘releases’ like Diablow 4(and expac) and WoW going to hell, I’ve deleted this semi-spyware from my computer. Playing Blizzard games in 2025 is something I could do only after a bottle of cheap whiskey. The big fall came after they sold out to Activision. Now that MS owns the whole thing - we can all imagine the hilarity that will come. DEI companies never ever make good products

[HIVEmind]

why shouldn't we have starcraft and Diablo in steams lineup. I wouldn't mind playing theses games. the 15 other games I don't know about or care. you argument diminishes us and our shopping power

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

I'm fully confident in my analysis.

Your confidence doesn't change the facts, buddy. Steam has a catalogue of over 200 thousand games, which grows by thousands every year. Battlenet has a grand total of what, 15 games on their store? Most of which can be bought here on Steam anyway.

Your analysis is hilariously incorrect. But we all love a good laugh.

I wouldn’t glorify shovelware dumps. I prefer a polished store that’s curated.

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af cinedine:

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

Correct.

[Amaterasu]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Oprindeligt skrevet af cinedine:

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

Correct.

If Warcraft 1 and 2 were on Steam or on GoG again, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. But I'm not going over to Battlenet to get a couple of games.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Amaterasu:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Correct.

If Warcraft 1 and 2 were on Steam or on GoG again, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. But I'm not going over to Battlenet to get a couple of games.

Glad i snapped those up when I did :P

Oprindeligt skrevet af cinedine:

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Battlenet already tried going the exclusivity route, it didn't work.

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

If they were doing so well MS would not be in a position to buy them out :P

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Amaterasu:

If Warcraft 1 and 2 were on Steam or on GoG again, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. But I'm not going over to Battlenet to get a couple of games.

Glad i snapped those up when I did :P

Oprindeligt skrevet af cinedine:

It worked well enough for 20 years. Will work for another twenty years.
You might want to look into when the first Blizzard games hit Steam and what was going on at the time in the company and you might find a reason there ...

If anything has been proven so far is that Steam didn't offer any additional value.

If they were doing so well MS would not be in a position to buy them out :P

“If you smile through your fear and sorrow“

[datCookie]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Oprindeligt skrevet af datCookie:

Your confidence doesn't change the facts, buddy. Steam has a catalogue of over 200 thousand games, which grows by thousands every year. Battlenet has a grand total of what, 15 games on their store? Most of which can be bought here on Steam anyway.

Your analysis is hilariously incorrect. But we all love a good laugh.

I wouldn’t glorify shovelware dumps. I prefer a polished store that’s curated.

And yet you are here, glorifying the CoD games that have poor reviews and are available on battlenet. Doesn't seem like quality curation to me.

At least Steam provides players with the freedom to choose what games they want to play, because they have such a large catalogue of them.

I'm still laughing at this, it's just too funny.

[cinedine]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Amaterasu:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Rob⛧Pentakill:

Correct.

If Warcraft 1 and 2 were on Steam or on GoG again, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. But I'm not going over to Battlenet to get a couple of games.

Cool. People who use Steam as their one and only godstore/launcher are too few to really care about. The reason for some of those releases to hit Steam is to get more sales, not get sales at all or to prevent anti-trust lawsuits.

Minecraft, Battle.net, Escape from Tarkov, Fortnite, even EA and Ubi have proven that you don't need Steam. They will gladly take the more sales, but they are not needed and some even decided it's too much hassle to bother.
(And no, EA did not came "crawling back" ...)