Skip to main content

Destiny 2 for PC will be exclusive to Blizzard's Battle.net

Activision has revealed that Destiny 2's PC version will be distributed via Battle.net – an in-house PC gaming service often reserved games from Blizzard Entertainment. Announced as a part of the Destiny 2 Gameplay Premiere event, the game will be sold exclusively via the service while leveraging its existing social features.

Mike Morhaime, president and co-founder of Blizzard Entertainment, announced the partnership on stage, alongside Activision CEO, Eric Hirshberg. Morhaime outlined the potential to bring two existing player bases into a single location through the deal, while keeping the game within their own service. In a broader post on Blizzard's official site, the publisher clarified the decision behind bringing Destiny 2 to Battle.net.

Blizzard has an established and successful global internet infrastructure we've used for years to support our own games. Creating a new network client for Destiny 2, which is bringing the franchise to PC for the first time, would needlessly extend the development period for the game. We want to get our hands on Destiny 2 as soon as possible like everybody else, so we offered to share our PC platform with our sister companies for this release.

As an exclusive to Battle.net, Destiny 2 won't be sold via other popular game distribution services like Steam. However, as a majority of Activision's other franchises continue to release on the platform, it will be interesting to see if other titles make the shift to Battle.net going forward.

Destiny 2 will now join an extensive catalog of games offered by Blizzard Entertainment on the platform, including Overwatch, World of Warcraft and Heroes of the Storm. Existing cross-game social features utilized by Blizzard's other titles will also see integration into Destiny 2's PC version.

See at Amazon (opens in new tab)

Matt Brown is Windows Central's Senior Games Editor, Xbox & PC, at Future. Following over seven years of professional consumer technology and gaming coverage, he’s focused on the world of Microsoft's gaming efforts. You can follow him on Twitter @mattjbrown.

35 Comments
  • I know that with shooters everyone gets up in arms about PC/Console crossplay, but as a person that travels for work I was hoping for that possibility. Oh well I guess
  • Not a huge Destiny fan but I would have bought it with Play Anywhere. Now it's a hard pass.
  • I'm with you. Why aren't these companies not getting on board with play anywhere. Surely it's not that hard to do ?
  • A majority of people are mortified of using the Windows Store. People like to have all their games and their list of friends in ONE place. Not fragmented out among 30 different clients/stores.
  • How does doing it over Battle.net help?
  • Never said battle net was the answer, they're part of the problem as well. Good assumption though I guess...
  • One place? LOL neverrr gonna happen. Just on my PC alone, I have: Steam GOG Battle.Net Windows Store Origin League SWOTOR Marvel Heroes Guild Wars 2 All with their own clients and installers. There is nothing wrong with the Windows Store, in if you have Windows you are almost certainly going to have a Microsoft Account, so why is having your license attached to your account an issue? Seems like whining about a non problem to my mind.    
  • Because it's not cost effective for the companies, not only does it potentially limit sales (I know some people who have bought something both on console and PC, although it isn't an exhaustive list), but then profits also have to go to Microsoft, meaning they need to sell even more to break even.
  • becuase of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  • While being on the windows store with play anywhere would have been ideal, snubbing steam in any fashion is a boon for breaking up their near monopoly which could benefit Microsoft down the road. At least the battlenet client is well built unlike steam 
  • One thing that I find annoying about Steam, Battle.net, and Origin is that it spams me several times a week when I startup my pc. If there is an option of "don't show me your awesome effing deals" in settings...then I haven't found them. Not having autostart means that when I want to play, I may have to wait for a while while updates download and install.
  • In Steam, go to settings>interface>uncheck notify me about additions, new releases, upcoming releases, etc. (Last option)
  • thank you very much!
  • Really, I have all three and don't get that. I only get popups in the corner from gog when it is updating.
  • Well, looks like they just lost my money, just as EA lost mine when they tried forcing Origin down our throats with Battlefield. This greedy bandwagon that EA,Activision,Ubisoft,Bethesda, Blizzard, SEGA, etc are all doing with their own launchers for their own respective games needs to end. This only hurts gamers by having to install 30 different programs to play their games instead of just having them and their friends list all in one place. Thanks to the greed, PC gaming is now more fragmented than the Android market. Ubisoft and SEGA gets a slight pass though as their clients work with Steam and Steam's friendslist while giving users the FREEDOM to decide which client they want to use.
  • Windows never had to offer a store like it has now that can host all of the games there, plus it still has many restrictions. Yea we need to have a lot of clients for that reason. Sometime in the future i hope happens, but at least battle net is not as bad most of the launchers and for me steam spesiffically!! ^_^
  • wait a minute, it's ok that Valve forced Steam down our throats when they released Half-Life 2? You do know that Valve takes a 30% cut on all sales on steam right? Nice to see that Valve tricked you into thinking that Steam is the holy one in all this.
  • Its not greed is it Thunder350. The publushers will want to distribute their own IP via there own platform, rather than give away a cut to someone else like Valve - when they can write their own client and distribute via their own CDN.  Its like complaining that Audi only let you buy their cars from Audi dealerships, rather than not running their own dealerships and partnering with Ford and Ford taking a cut of the sales profit for the benefit of of not running your own showrooms. This is the same as "real life". Gamers are really weird when it comes to understanding basic economics, the world doesn;t revolve around your conveniences, and companies exist to make money, not to give up money to make your personal life easier.
  • Since when does Sega have their own client?
  • Exclusive content on the PS4
    Exclusive PC release on Battle.net All this exclusivity is a turn off and I'd rather not buy the game than continue to support a system that is bad for gamers.
  • Why is it bad for gamers? Battle.Net is good client. Install it, purchase game, download, run - Enjoy. Hardly rocket science is it.
  • I've used Battle.net in the past, and it is good.  I don't have a problem with the actual service.  But so is GOG and Steam.  Both companies are more than capable of selling you a copy of D2.  More than likely, Blizzard paid for that exclusivity.  And Sony definitely paid for exclusive content.  Unfortunately, that bill gets passed onto you.  Activision isn't going to pay that bill out of the kindness of their heart.  Activision will probably overcharge for expansions much like they did with Rise of Iron.  As they say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch," and all these exclusive contracts have to be paid for somehow.  They're either going to get you through microtransactions, season passes, or DLC.
  • Albeit, Activision and Blizzard are the same company (since the merger of Vivendi Games and the former in 2008).
  • Man I missed that.  Thanks for the update.
  • OHHH MOTHER BLIZZARD XD
  • It being on Battle.net and not on Steam is a definite no buy. Better luck next time Activision.
  • So by that logic, you want a Steam monopoly? You don't want to play League of Legends, Guild Wars, Starcraft, Overwatch, Warcraft, Battlefield, Marvel Heroes, SWOTOR - because you can't get them on Steam. Thats a lot of quality games to miss out on, because of your preferred monopoly. PC Gamers need to get over this pantie wetting over Steam. It really isn't a big deal to have multiple clients.
  • Thats exactly right, I play none of "League of Legends, Guild Wars, Starcraft, Overwatch, Warcraft, Battlefield, Marvel Heroes, SWOTOR " and have no plan to do so, I haven't even looked at half those games. If its not on Steam or GOG, then no thanks; I have a huge game backlog anyway so its not like I need to search for new games to play, so its up to game publishers to get my attention and money, and key to that is making it simple and easy to get and play their games. If you buy Humble Bundles you most likely have games to last you for the next ten years, so why should I bother looking at what is on battle.net? Either the game comes to me or it can dissapear with the rest of them.  
  • So you would buy it if it were in the Windows Store? I mean, the Windows Store is by far the easiest way to get games, given that you don't even need to install anything, it's just right there, part of Windows 10.
  • No I would not, because currently on my gaming laptop HP failed to release Win8 or Win10 drivers for swichable graphics; so am stuck on Win7 until I scrape together enough cash for an upgrade.
  • The issue is having to have over 9000 game clients to access PC games. It has nothing to do with wanting Steam to be the only place to buy games. I'd like to see Valve seperate the Steam client (which handles the DRM, game management and community infrastructure) from the Steam store. I'm all for publishers offering their own storefronts. I just don't want them to use their own DRM/game management/community client as well.
  • That's not really the only possible logical answer though. How many games can you buy on more than one client? He prefers Steam, and the game isn't important enough for him to jump clients. I can't really blame him, but I don't exactly agree. I go where i can get the better price.
  • It's not even called Battle.net anymore - rather Blizzard.net...
  • Maybe if maybe we put the word actually to Microsoft and Blizzard it could be done give the idea not a complaint. Also it could always release later for play anywhere. We seriously need to show MS and Companies the reason. Maybe MS needs to do what GOG.com does. Idc about DRM free with the games cos MS ain't going to offer it but where we can sync are libraries and get a copy for free if already owned on steam for to be then played via Windows Store.
  • Isn't it blizzard.net?