By Jim Rossignol on August 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm.
A post on the EA forums has thrown a bit more detail into the blaze of speculation surrounding Battlefield 3′s failure to appear on Steam. While we’re still not precisely sure what it is in Steam’s terms of service that preclude its inclusion, it is, as many speculated, down to how Steam restricts DLC and patch distribution on their service. The author of the post explains: “EA offers games to all major download services. Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content. No other download service has adopted these practices.”
More on EA’s own policies appear here. I don’t think expect this will be the end of this particular power struggle.
07/08/2011 at 17:57 Jumwa says:
It’s funny how EA is the only company to have ever chaffed at these “restrictive” measures, and only after their own download service launched.
Valve aren’t saints, and I’m not presuming much on things especially with their remaining quiet (for whatever reason, good or bad), but somehow I doubt this is really all about them playing hard and unfairly with EA.
07/08/2011 at 18:23 Nalano says:
Seriously.
It’s like EA complaining that Valve refused to allow them to set up a kiosk right outside the Steam store for the purposes of avoiding distribution fees.
07/08/2011 at 18:24 Burning Man says:
That is a very nice summary of the entire mess.
07/08/2011 at 18:49 Archonsod says:
They’re not. Ubisoft has had problems with it too, but they just removed the offending titles without complaining about it.
07/08/2011 at 18:54 Nalano says:
Because Ubisoft has a stellar reputation of having a principled stance and a good rapport with customers.
07/08/2011 at 19:03 bleeters says:
Funny, I don’t remember ever being forced to use Origin to obtain EA dlc from games pulled from Steam anyway.
07/08/2011 at 19:21 gwathdring says:
@ Nalano:
I think it’s more like Steam offering to sell EA’s vacuums at their store. They also offer to handle repairs and upgrades, as long as EA sends over the parts and the instructions for how to use them. EA also has to make sure that those instructions and parts are compatible with the existing methodologies of Steam’s repair guys. EA says that they really want to use some upgrades that don’t work well in that system and–either in a pleading or a underhanded and resentful way, I don’t know the details of the disagreement–considers setting up a kiosk right outside Steam’s store for customer convenience and including coupons in the products they sell through Steam. Steam, understandably, takes exception to this and either kicks the products out of the store or asks for a different solution at which point EA takes their products from the store (again, don’t know the details).
In other words, both companies seem to want/need more control over the product than the other is willing to allow. The specific details that would allow us to tell how reasonable any of this is are being kept to vague for anyone to really accuse either EA or Steam of being childish or unfair to customers. As such, since the product belongs to EA … I’m going to side with letting the publisher decide how their product gets distributed. It’s the same thing Valve does with their games … only Valve doesn’t also offer those games outside of their DL service. Whether EA is going to tie all of their future games form all distribution platforms to Origin as Valve has done with Steam remains to be seen.
But they haven’t done so yet, which gives them points in my book. One of the only points they have over Steam with me so far (the others being related to healthy competition and such, so nothing for EA to write home about) and they may well lose it in the coming months. But we’ll see.
07/08/2011 at 20:37 Bilbo says:
“EA are the only company to have complained about this”
- Only that’s total crap. Plenty of games and other services don’t make it to Xbox 360 for this exact reason.
07/08/2011 at 20:37 jezcentral says:
I wish EA would actually say what the problem specifically is, rather than a generic “It woz the downloadz wot dunnit”. Give us book, chapter and verse.
Despite several announcements from them, I’m no clearer on the issue.
07/08/2011 at 20:39 Parthon says:
I get the impression it’s because Steam refuses to give out customer email addresses in order to allow EA to spam users about DLCs and other products.
Either that, or EA is trying to get around Steam’s 30% cut for DLC sold on steam.
07/08/2011 at 21:10 coledognz says:
At the end of the day, the game is published by EA so they get to decide how it’s distributed. And that’s that. People need to stop acting like Steam is entitled to distribute the game.
& @Parthon EA doesn’t spam it’s users. You have to opt in/out of the promotional offers when you create an account. Also the 30% is if i’m not mistaken the highest cut of any digital distributor.
07/08/2011 at 21:58 Nalano says:
@ gwathdring
Your alternative falls flat because EA simply doesn’t care about patches and maintenance et al. EA cares about DLC and not wanting to share profits. The other download services give people the game and then those same people must then buy the DLC straight from EA.
So it’s still pretty much EA wanting to set up a kiosk right outside of Steamworks so they don’t have to give Valve a cut.
That they’re trying to make this out to be a “we’re doing this for the customers” schtick is full of bull and shit.
07/08/2011 at 22:42 Thomas says:
@Parthon:
Valve does allow an optional newsletter signup, Telltale, for example, uses it and i think Ubisoft does too.
07/08/2011 at 22:46 Jumwa says:
@ Bilbo
Why are you talking about the 360? What’s that have to do with anything here?
Also, if Ubisoft has complained about Steam on this issue then I’m only more convinced EA is in the wrong. Excuse me if might be accused of indulging in hyperbole, but Ubisoft is the biggest blight on PC gaming right now (though Activision-Blizzard seems to be competing for the spot). So many fine looking games I’ve had to pass up because of their anti-consumer policies.
07/08/2011 at 23:45 StuffedCabbage says:
I’m no fan of EA. In fact I think they’re a bunch of assholes, but I don’t see why you people have a problem with the fact that EA wants to sell their own games and/or their own DLC “via a kiosk outside of the Steam store.” It’s their game, and I think they have the right to refuse/protest whatever restrictions Steam is imposing on them. They have their own digital distribution network now and they seem to be the only ones with the balls to stand up to, what is seeming to be a bully in Steam. I, like all you people don’t know what the problem is, but do you honestly think that EA is stupid enough to restrict or lose sales of their games just to spite Steam. I know they are a bunch of stupid pricks in suits, but I don’t think they are that stupid. Steam must be doing something that nobody likes and EA, thusfar, are the only ones to say, or do, anything about it.
07/08/2011 at 23:56 Bilbo says:
@Jumwa read my fucking comment, I don’t need to make it any clearer
360!?! WE ARENT TALKING ABOUT 360 THIS IS ROCK PAPER SCISSORS HURR DURR I DONT NEED TO READ THE REST BECUS I SEE WORD I NO IS BAD WORD KMART SUCKS
08/08/2011 at 00:35 qrter says:
But.. they literally weren’t talking about the 360 – they’re talking about Steam and publishers that have released through Steam..
08/08/2011 at 00:43 Jumwa says:
I don’t even know what you’re supposedly talking about, but you obviously need to take a break from the internets. They are angering up your blood somethin’ fierce.
I don’t know squat about the 360 or how its services work or might relate to Steam or this scenario, and I certainly don’t have any preconceived notion about the console being bad (or good or anything). But I do know internet ragers aren’t worth my time trying to understand anyhow.
08/08/2011 at 02:54 thebigJ_A says:
I’m siding with the people saying bilbo’s comment makes no sense. He responded to
“EA is the only company to take issue with Steam’s DLC TOS”
with
“Nuh-uh, some games don’t come out on Xbox for this reason”.
For what reason? Are you saying companies don’t release games on Microsoft’s console because they don’t like something in Steam’s TOS? That’s what it sounds like, and that makes no sense. You can’t get mad at people for asking what you’re talking about when you throw something seemingly unrelated into a conversation.
08/08/2011 at 03:48 DeschainVox says:
@archonsod
Which Ubisoft titles have been removed. I’m not aware of any. The only ones I know of are the EA titles (Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2). Steam UK did not release AC2 initially (not sure about now) but the title was released in the US and other regions.
08/08/2011 at 08:35 Bilbo says:
Obviously this community’s more insular than I’d realised.
It isn’t about “Steam’s TOS”, because obviously Steam /= Microsoft, but the particular clause EA don’t like – the control over distribution of patches – is the same reason some games don’t make it to 360, MS control how and when you can distribute patches over the system and some developers can’t work with that.
Honestly I thought it was open-and-shut obvious, amazed how many of you were willing to hold up your hands and say “BTW I’m dumb”. And with such righteous fury! BILBO R TEH DUMBS
08/08/2011 at 09:14 Milky1985 says:
“Also the 30% is if i’m not mistaken the highest cut of any digital distributor.”
AFAIK 30% is the standard cut for the basic number (it tends to go down with big deals.
The 30% number you see on impulse, and i tunes on marketplace etc etc etc
hell there was a big deal about impulse because it was 30%
But hey, facts are boring right!
08/08/2011 at 09:18 Milky1985 says:
“I’m siding with the people saying bilbo’s comment makes no sense. He responded to
“EA is the only company to take issue with Steam’s DLC TOS”
with
“Nuh-uh, some games don’t come out on Xbox for this reason”.
For what reason? Are you saying companies don’t release games on Microsoft’s console because they don’t like something in Steam’s TOS? That’s what it sounds like, and that makes no sense. You can’t get mad at people for asking what you’re talking about when you throw something seemingly unrelated into a conversation.”
Or you can use a bit of logical thinking?
The 360 has a system wheere you have to buy DLC using MS’s system, using points etc, there are some work arounds but it has to go through the 360 marketplace and generally use MS points.
Do you see the similarity between that system adn teh steam system (where you have to use steam)
Hes making a point that the restrictions on having stuff on teh 360 is the same as on steam (if everything is to be believed) but they are fine with that!
So yes, you have done what others have done and seen 360 and gone “OMG SODDING CONSOLE PEOPEL ON MY PC SITE WHAT ARE YOU DOING WTF BBQ” without engaging the brain
08/08/2011 at 09:54 Malk_Content says:
@Milky1985
I think the confusion comes from the fact that people were discussing how no other company has openly objected to steams way of handling things and many have praised it. Lots of companies not getting on well with Xbox Live doesn’t really do anything for the argument except say “there are restrictive services out there that developers don’t like” and has little bearing on what Valves ToS might or might not be. If his post was about EA had done something similar with Microsoft (never happen, xbox too big a market but this is just a point being made) or another dev/publisher criticizing steam then it would have made more sense.
As it is the comment added that some other people (not involved in the debate) have problems with some other service (not involved in the debate. Like adding in an argument over whether pears or peaches make a better tart that, actually, you’ll find bananas make the best bread.
OT: Naturally side towards valve, but I’m not going to just dump EAs products (like B3) unless valve come out and say “this is why they are being dicks” (if they are) or “here is a letter from our legal team suggesting we shouldn’t openly discuss our business practices and grievances with the general public.”
08/08/2011 at 10:43 Jumwa says:
As Malk Content laid out, the remark has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that a similar situation might exist in the console market involving completely different players has no bearing upon what we’re talking about.
And Bilbo, with that kind of irrational hostility you might want to think about checking out another game forum where you’d be more apt to consort with your own angry little manchild kind. You know, all us dullards who failed Xboxology at Gaming University are just too dumb for you, as you said.
08/08/2011 at 15:27 SaVi says:
I am siding with those that say that EA are not obliged to release on Steam and can do with their games whatever they want for whatever reasons. All EA has to consider is the willingness of people to use other publishing services beside already established ones like steam. It’ll show in sales if that was a wise decision.
08/08/2011 at 18:27 Bilbo says:
“All he said is nvm about Steam because other companies exist that have restrictive policies”
-No. OP’s comment was that “EA are teh sux for getting angry about this and obviously no other publisher cares”. My comment was “Well, obviously lots of other companies care about this exact issue, it happens all the time on Xbox”.
TOTALLY UNRELATED. And yes, by saying “Hmm, you guys are missing the point, and you’re oddly proud about it” I’m an AGGRESSIVE LITTLE MANCHILD
I mean, you wanna talk about making statements that have fucking nothing to do with the conversation? Pot, kettle, both totally fucking black. Fuck off.
Milky’s obviously the only one who gets it. The rest of you are stoically sticking to your original, totally-batshit-wrong-and-by-the-way-fucking-stupid hypothesis that my comment was irrelevant rather than face up to the obvious and admit that you were wrong. You’re terrible commenters and yes, I am going to take a break from this fucking community, thankyou very fucking much, fuck fuck etc. Fuck.
08/08/2011 at 22:57 Malk_Content says:
RPS needs a swear jar.
OT: I realize the point of your post and I apologize that I feel it has little bearing on the topic. Xbox Live ToS are fairly openly talked about in terms of what you can and cannot do, whereas we have no idea whether or not steam ToS are as limiting seeing as only EA have publicly gone against it and have not named any of the apparently unworkable restrictions. If it turns out that Steam does have limiting ToS and we find out that yes in fact this is similar to what xbox does then a comparison should be drawn, till then it may as well be EA PR bullshit.
07/08/2011 at 17:58 Text_Fish says:
My experience of Valve and EA tell me that these “restrictive terms of service” on Steam are designed to benefit the customer before the developer/publisher.
But I’m just a cynic. Or am I? No. Yes. I don’t know.
07/08/2011 at 18:11 RianXD says:
My thoughts exactly. people know what EA are like. Ive heard the phrase “money hungry capitalist pigs” describe them more than a few times :D
07/08/2011 at 18:47 gwathdring says:
Bloody $*#&!@& hell, they’re a business. And they aren’t all that bad as large corporations go. Money hungry capitalist pigs my ass. Of course they want money. Of course they’re capitalist. Welcome to American business. Now if you have more [i]general[/i] ethical and philosophical issues with corporate practice and capitalism, then I’m more receptive and I misinterpreted. I don’t like general corporate practice either. I believe in environmentally, economically, and socially/culturally sustainable business. We can be “screw capitalism” buddies. But EA really isn’t bad.
Valve is an unusually customer friendly corporation. Google is one third terrifyingly unfeeling and two thirds Valve–they’re above way average when the chips are in their favor, and moderately below it when the chips are down (which is rarely so far because they’re damn successful) . EA is right about in the middle. They aren’t swindling anyone, they make some respectable if not outstanding games, and they publish a lot of games similarly large companies never would. It’s unfortunate that they have a tendency to sit on those IPs once the experiment is over, neither selling them nor fulfilling their potential. And to their credit, their Call of Duty isn’t a single game: the Sims and their licensed sports franchise. The sims gets points for not being brown, and being more accessible than a shooter even if I never found it any more interesting; some of their sports games are also about as good as sports games get. I found various games from the FIFA series quite fun, even though I’ve never quite seen the point in playing a sports game more than once in a blue moon. EA is hilariously out of their depth in terms of customer disdain and super-villain behaviors.
07/08/2011 at 19:16 ericks says:
If they had half a brain they would know they’ll lose more money from not being on Steam than not getting 100% of the price from their DLC.
Unless they’re planing on coming out with LOTS of DLC, and in either case, they’re not getting my money.
07/08/2011 at 19:18 rayne117 says:
“Welcome to American business.”
You think American businesses are the ONLY ones who do shit like this?
Stick your huge pile of words up your bottom, sir.
07/08/2011 at 19:37 Fox89 says:
@rayne117
That really, really wasn’t his point.
The argument was “this is what capitalism is like, deal with it, and all things considered EA are OK”, rather than anything US-centric. And he’s right. Whilst I love Valve and Steam to bits and side with them on things like this (also because I like all my games on one platform where possible…) EA have to look out for themselves as well.
If you or I were in their position, we may well have the same complaints. They know as well as anyone that not being on Steam will negatively affect sales, it’s all about deciding whether the long term gains will outweigh that drop in revenue.
It’s not like they’re pulling some Ubisoft DRM shit that stops you playing your games.
07/08/2011 at 19:44 gwathdring says:
That was unnecessarily rude. Of course companies elsewhere do things like this. Hell, corporations in certain parts of the world are worse because the US has a fair bit of regulation. I said “American” because EA is an American company, and it was the first adjective that came to mind. It was not intended to be an exclusive statement. I could as easily have said “Welcome to the video games industry,” but then you might have accused me of forgetting to add television, crackerjacks, and t-shirts.
I do apologize for stating the obvious, such as “business wants your money.” That was unnecessarily condescending on my part. But it comes out of frustration with the constant disproportionate accusations about EA’s “evil” behavior. No, I don’t think you should have to maintain perfect relativity in every statement. You’re welcome to complain about being hungry even if people in certain parts of the city you live in are starving–not every conversation needs to cover every angle (or every country, as it happens …). But when the same people who talk about how they will only use Steam complain about “evil” EA doing the exact same thing steam does (exclusive use through their own DL service) … I am bewildered and frustrated by their lack of perspective. I apologize for taking my frustration out on you.
That being said, I will not be ramming anything up anything else, as I stand by the rest of my statement.
P.S. @ eriks
That’s sort of how I think about it. This isn’t entirely about money. It’s about control of the product. EA wants more control over their own products than selling through Steam allows them. Valve feels the same way about non-steam venues–including standard retail (as opposed to retail with Steam codes). The way I see it, EA has as much of a right to that control as Valve does, and if I’m going to buy EA products, I’m as happy to buy them from EA as from Valve.The fact that EA might lose money in order to gain this control of their product changes the game a little bit (I’m not convinced this is true, though …). It’s not just a money-hungry market grab, if you assume that EA is going to lose money by not selling on Steam–and that they know it.
07/08/2011 at 19:46 gwathdring says:
@Fox89
You beat me to it, and put it much better than I did. Thank you.
07/08/2011 at 20:14 billyblaze says:
@ericks
Don’t you think their financial analysts did a calculation or two to decide what’s the more profitable approach? If the EA criticism is that they’re capitalist, one should also acknowledge that they’ve proven to be quite good at capitalism. So maybe it’s not as clear cut as you make it out. I mean, if all of us consider ourselves “in touch” with the gaming community, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable assumption that EA hired people that chip in there as well.
It’s an experiment, a gamble, at worst. If they lose money they will obviously rejoin Steam instantly, because otherwise they wouldn’t run a good business, which I think is the only thing one can’t fault EA for.
07/08/2011 at 20:22 Rii says:
I think “American capitalism” is a useful term. Capitalist organs everywhere are the same, but the cultural background is different. In most capitalist societies capitalism is a means to an end, only in America is capitalism an end unto itself, i.e. something that is inherently good, rather than a system that is used because it mostly works most of the time and which is readily abandoned when and where it doesn’t.
07/08/2011 at 21:51 Idiotmancer says:
Valve zealot detected.
You claim that these terms are there to benefit the consumer? I mean, really? Do you truly believe that Valve’s DLC policy is there to benefit you? Oh Jesus, this guy is hopelessly naive.
07/08/2011 at 21:53 Cyampagn says:
@ericks
Oh yes, EA should listen to ericks, his knowledge on how to run a multinational gaming publisher is from another planet.
Stick to statements you can actually handle instead of throwing up bullshit made of thin air.
07/08/2011 at 22:32 Nalano says:
I really do think an observation must be made on the difference between a private company and a publicly-traded company. Valve is the former; EA is the latter.
EA must attempt to dominate the industry via closed loops. EA must attempt to maximize profits while minimizing investments. EA must be tireless in its search for short-term profits above all, because if it isn’t, then the leaders of EA must then answer to their investors. They are bound by law to screw us.
They are only to be trusted as far as you trust the capitalist system to, well, “lift all boats:” To create an equitable and acceptable reality for the consumer and the industry overall. I hold no such hope.
07/08/2011 at 22:56 Text_Fish says:
EA Evil, etc. etc.
Generally speaking I imagine people are aware that it’s an exageration to call EA evil or “capitalist pigs” and they probably don’t need to have it explained to them. It’s like when people call Microsoft evil … they don’t actually mean “Bill Gates draws pentagrams with the blood of toddlers to appease Satan” — they just mean “Microsoft have been known to supply faulty or self-interested products and services to me in exchange for my hard earned cash, so I’m not too fond of them”. Likewise, EA have been known to supply shoddy products to earn a quick buck, in stark contrast to Valve who are always seen to strive for quality in both their products and services, at least to the best of their ability.
As has been observed, Valve are generally an exception to the rule, but if EA want to take Valve on at their own game they would do well to learn a lesson or two from them first, if nothing else then to earn some consumer trust.
07/08/2011 at 23:16 mlstrum says:
@Text_Fish
Extremely well said.
And that is why I will not encourage origin yet I’ve bought more than my share of games on Steam. May Valve stay prosperous in their agenda to give their customers satisfaction and service.
08/08/2011 at 01:27 skalpadda says:
“Bloody $*#&!@& hell, they’re a business. And they aren’t all that bad as large corporations go.”
That you happen to be slightly nicer than Activision doesn’t mean you get a free pass. The fact that being a bit shit and always caring about money above everything else is part of being a big company doesn’t mean that consumers have to passively accept everything have no opinions about it either.
08/08/2011 at 01:47 Fox89 says:
Also for those criticizing the ‘evil’ EA, what exactly is your issue again? You’ll have to use Origin not Steam? It’ll cost you slightly more to buy BF3 than it otherwise would?
There is an awful lot of “Vilify the money hungry corporate machine”, but naturally no thought to the money hungry consumer. It’s ever so common to see people with a sense of entitlement. Who here cares that by making things 100% convenient for YOU, EA will suffer, and they’ll help secure Valve’s monopoly over the digital distribution market even further?
OK, EA are a big corporate machine who deal in millions, so let me put it another way.
If EA are making this move, they are making this move because they will, according to their analysts, benefit from it financially in the long run. And you WANT EA to benefit financially. The more money they have the more money they can spend on their products and services. The more money they can spend on their products and services the better they will likely be. The better they are the more money EA will make. Why begrudge a games company making as much money as they can? You end up reaping the benefits of that as well.
08/08/2011 at 03:48 LuNatic says:
Look at all us cool people, redefining words to support our arguments. I want in on this bandwagon!
Capitalism, in its purest form, is evil. It may not eat babies, but it is horribly destructive, trampling over anyone its way in the name of short-term profits, and to hell with the consequences. See: Animals being hunted to extinction, mass deforestation, strip mining, pollution, sweatshop labour, lowest bidder quality-of-goods, blood diamonds, etc. Capitalism cuts off its own feet to put money in its hands. This is why the civilised world has regulatory bodies, and consumer protection laws. Apparently these things are uncool in the US though.
Back on topic, EA has a history of consumer unfriendly behaviour. Exclusive DLC, shoddy post release support, artificial price inflation, shutting down multiplayer master servers in short order, releasing exceedingly buggy titles in order to meet marketing deadlines, and I’m sure 5 mins of googling can find more. Valve aren’t perfect, but they have a history of respecting, and even doting upon their customers. High quality release standards. Great post release support. Free content additions. A free game. Fair prices. If Valve sell me a game, I trust them to provide it to me, consistently, and promptly. But how can I trust EA’s new Origin service, when I feel that the people who own it have burnt me so many times? How long will the games be available for download? How long will Origin last before it gets scrapped in favour of corporates next big idea? How many hoops will I have to jump through to get my game working?
From the evidence presented for this squabble, I can’t honestly say EA is in the wrong here and now, but I have difficulty trusting them considering their past behaviour.
08/08/2011 at 05:45 Mitthrawn says:
No capitalism is not evil. Jesus christ, the amount of ignorance and naivete in this thread is frightening. Its like no one ever had an economics class. Capitalism is the only model of economics that has been proven to work on a large scale. The only one. Only. One. Why? Because its brilliant, thats why. It understands that people aren’t huggy lovable folk who go around singing songs and communing with trees. People aren’t evil money grubbing bastards either. Most people are self interested. That’s it. They want to advance their own position, power, influence and money. That’s it. So it uses that self interest, , ambition and everything else the human mind possesses. It is the economic model for the real world. Its not evil. That’s stupid and belies a total ignorance of a) human behavior, and b) economic theory. People act and spend money and manipulate the market because either they are motivated to do it or there is economic incentive to do so. You may hug trees and give all your money to charity and never once be acted upon by the market, but you would be in the tiniest minority of the tiniest percentage of people and you’d probably work for a university, where you are insulated from the real world. Capitalism isn’t bad. Capitalism is practical. It is the internal combustion engine of economic models. Its practical and dirty and gets the job done. And all the other theoretical models sit there in museums and history books gathering dust because, for all their perfection and theoretical beauty, they fail to understand one basic concept: humans aren’t perfect, so we can’t use a perfect model. Capitalism, learn to love it.
08/08/2011 at 06:59 LuNatic says:
Wow. Way to jump to conclusions there. Capitalism has its uses for sure, but only when its self-destructive tendencies can be regulated to minimise harm. Its not about hugging trees, it’s about sustainability. There’s nothing wrong with making a mess, if you clean up after yourself. But when the short term is the only priority, the long term will suffer. My assertion of evil isn’t about what people have, it’s about how they get it. The only way to climb to the top is to step on other peoples heads, and if you are trying to say that such behaviour isn’t evil, lets just agree to disagree.
08/08/2011 at 10:00 Text_Fish says:
Mitthrawn, you’ve taken a very black & white stance there. Yes, capitalism works well economically and, yes, it’s very likely that anybody who can afford to visit this forum has benefitted from living in a capitalist society but that doesn’t mean we should let capitalism make us its bitches. In fact, the reason capitalism hasn’t been relegated to the history books is because it’s a business model that relies heavily on its consumers to regulate its behaviour — if a company strays too far from the moral consensus of the consumers, it will suffer.
From a purely capitalist viewpoint EA are a great business because they make a lot of money, but their reputation as a consumer friendly business is poor and that could very well undermine projects like Origin. They’re currently in a position, that the best business decision for them is to produce Origin (and the games on it) for as little money as possible and then rely on their (probably) multibillion $ marketing budget to sell it to less discerning consumers – like you – for profit. The only reason this is a sustainable business plan for the foreseeable future is that there are a lot of stupid people with too much money out there, just begging to be fleeced by a pig in a nice suit.
08/08/2011 at 11:17 Tatourmi says:
Sir, beginning your rant with “Jesus christ, the amount of ignorance and naivete in this thread is frightening.” is not socially acceptable and won’t lead anywhere in my opinion. I will also say that the other systems in the books were not really written by idiots either.
But more to the point: As a responsable consumer in a capitalist society I will always try to give my monnies to businesses whose behavior and practises I support, in order to spread, to strengthen them. And that is pretty much why I won’t buy from origin.
For the “capitalism is evil” thingie: Well, I guess it depends on how you define evil, if it is something that goes contrary to your moral beliefs and then yes, capitalism might very well be evil. Or at least allows evil to exist and encourage it.
08/08/2011 at 13:28 Malk_Content says:
I agree with the “Capitalism isn’t inherently evil” statement. What makes it seem evil is when companies do it badly. Valve are incredibly capitalist, but because they actually do it right nobody really notices or complains much.
EA has in the past shown practises of bad capitalism, much like theives or pillagers, they get short term profits but burn that source of profits. The reason they do so well is that there is still a very large pool of things for them to raid. For proof look at how in the past they’ve gobbled up studios, forced them to mass produce until they run out of creative juice then move onto the next studio and do the same. That they haven’t run out of things to buy and rape is why they are wealthy and continue to prosper, theoretically though one day they will run out of things to pillage.
Valve on the other hand follows fairly proper capitalism by buying and investing and then nurturing talent, building consumer trust and loyalty as well as slowly bringing more and more titles under their digital distribution such that now they hold the majority of download trade. Valve has slowly build up its profit margins and much like starting a farm rather than poaching of the land, will likely prosper for it in the long run.
Both companies pursue capitalism, both companies make profits, but Valve use sustainable capitalism whereas EA have demonstrated a preference for short term profits jumping from favoured studio to favoured studio.
For examples of EAs buy, produce and then fold business structure look at: Bullfrog, Black Box, Origin Systems (irony!) and Maxis. See also the current row between Valve and EA, where Valve was partnering with EA for publishing disc copies of their games, a deal that will probably no longer persist.
08/08/2011 at 15:55 Chorltonwheelie says:
Mitthrawn:
I am not motivated by pure self interest. Nobody I know is.
Only Panglossian apologists for the monetarist right ever claim this is the source of all human motivation.
Got that? Good.
07/08/2011 at 18:00 pkt-zer0 says:
Oh EA, when will the intentionally vague language stop? Have they even implied in some way that this is because Steam wants DLC to be sold through their storefront as well, not exclusively behind their backs? It’s always just “restrictive terms”, “limited interaction with customers” and whatnot.
07/08/2011 at 19:32 Shivoa says:
That’s definitely the vibe I’m getting from the vagueness and other games continuing to exist and bring out new DLC which can be purchased through several avenues (one of which has always been Steam for those games not violating these new business terms).
EA may try and imply that Valve are refusing the let them sell their own content however they see fit while still making use of the Steam store but it seems like the safe bet is that EA are taking their games off Steam because Valve refuse to allow them to put out games on Steam which have DLC without offering the option to install and buy that DLC through the Steam ecosystem. That seems like something you’d add to your terms around the time you bring F2P games to a service.
For the physical equivalent (if you need to relate this to the physical world for additional context) see retailers and their dislike of selling a PSP Go. Now a PSP, a device with exactly the same retailer bypassing digital store is fine, Sony can sell their games to PSP on PSN and avoid retailer profits but retailers do not like it when they’re being used as the middleman to sell a conduit that can only be used to exclude them from future sales.
While I’m no massive fan of the current Steam DLC implementation (you have to install it all with the game, no option to leave an expansion off etc – it would be nice if they could change this and while they’re at it them could also add the ability to change patch rather than just offering to stay current or stop at some point you switch updates off), I’m less of a fan of this idea that after buying something on Steam and opting into that ecosystem I will be blocked from accessing DLC through the same ecosystem / patching method / guaranteed access DRM. So I guess I don’t really want BF3 all that much, I’ll see how I feel once retail discs drop below £8 (same for Diablo 3, the value of what they’re offering no longer feels lie a £20-35 PC game sale, but I wouldn’t say they’ll never see a penny from me as I do love me some games and this isn’t exactly sweatshop level of things you should avoid being a part of).
08/08/2011 at 04:08 Baines says:
Except EA didn’t take their games off of Steam, Valve took EA’s games off of Steam.
EA isn’t going into explicit details, but they have said that much and Valve hasn’t denied it.Even if people believe Valve is trying to stay “above it all” by not engaging in a public shouting match, do you really think Valve stay quiet if EA was outright lying publicly about events?
I’m not saying EA is blameless. They chose to go ahead and take actions that would violate the Steam TOS. We don’t know the exact details, and can only speculate. But again, while EA is being vague, Valve is being completely silent. Odds are both companies have details that they want to keep out of public debate.
(As for speculation, my belief is that Valve changed the Steam TOS when they started offering free-to-play games, requiring that DLC be made available through Steam so that Valve can take a cut. EA in return thinks that Valve should only get the cut of the initial game sale, and doesn’t want to also split DLC profits. EA pushed through to see if Steam would bend. Steam didn’t bend to EA.)
07/08/2011 at 18:00 Anjiro says:
Not exactly surprising given the recent removals of Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2 from Steam. EA’s Origin service also has nothing to do with it (yeah right.)
07/08/2011 at 18:01 Bursar says:
The fact that Valve appear to have made no comments about this makes me wonder if there isn’t some legal shenanigans in the offing.
The silence from Valve is deafening!
07/08/2011 at 18:18 Monkey says:
I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!!!!
07/08/2011 at 18:42 frymaster says:
Valve have never commented on these kinds of things, ever
07/08/2011 at 19:34 The Sentinel says:
Getting Valve to comment – on anything – was one of the original 12 Tasks of Hercules. They’re stupidly tight-lipped.
07/08/2011 at 20:34 zeroskill says:
I dont think Valve really cares if Battlefield 3, Crysis 2 or Dragon Age 2 is on their service or not. Its no like they are dependent on those titles. Also I think they are pretty busy finishing Dota 2 since they ARE a developer unlike EA.
07/08/2011 at 23:51 Mistabashi says:
Thing is, EA is a public company, which means it’s CEO and all it’s management staff are beholden to a a board of shareholders, in fact they’re legally required to do everything in their ability to make the company as profitable as possible, which includes putting out the kind of vague bullshit PR spin we see here. It’s obvious that this is all down to their strategy with Origin, and they’re using PR spin to make it look like their main competition is to blame.
Valve are a private company, so it’s pretty much up to Gabe what they say or do. I’m not sure what the exact reasons for their lack of comments are, but I reckon it’s partly because they still do a lot of business with EA and want to do more in the future, and also because they have a little bit of class and would prefer to compete on product/service rather than (frankly shitty) PR wars.
07/08/2011 at 18:01 Raiyan 1.0 says:
Guys, if buying stuff from Origin really chafes you, just get it from another digital distributor.
07/08/2011 at 18:16 President Weasel says:
I like the convenience of having my games all on the one download service, for which I can easily remember the password. I have pre-ordered BF3 from a non-origin, non-steam service, but I find the requirement irksome.
07/08/2011 at 18:42 HeavyStorm says:
Same here.
07/08/2011 at 19:21 OddsAgainst says:
Nonetheless, D2D (much like Steam does) is discounting the game preorders 10%, while Origin is charging the full price. My wallet tells me to stay away from Origin.
07/08/2011 at 19:37 The Sentinel says:
There were some interesting thoughts around this ‘one-source’ subject in the Sunday Papers this morning. I reckon a goodly plortion of the Valve love around here is precisely due to the inherent, and reasonable, position of not wanting to belong to seventeen different download portals, all with different logins, passwords, Ts & C’s…
07/08/2011 at 19:51 Walsh says:
Umm, I would bet money that BF3 requires Origin running in order to launch the game.
PS I would win that bet so it’s not very sporting.
07/08/2011 at 19:56 Walsh says:
I am also surprised Direct2Drive isn’t pitching a fit about this since they went crazy over games that were bundled with Steam. Maybe they don’t know it yet…. or maybe they are just so happy to have something Steam doesn’t.
07/08/2011 at 20:17 Kryopsis says:
No game on Origin requires Origin running simultaneously.
07/08/2011 at 21:18 Walsh says:
Those that were in the BF3 Alpha say otherwise.
07/08/2011 at 23:28 qwiggalo says:
You still will be having to use Origin…
07/08/2011 at 18:03 Zorak says:
Valve’s TOS has download restrictions based on how it validates installs and does re-installs through the client itself. EA wants to run content updates/ DLC through secondary services outside Valve’s sight (as they stated in previous announcements).
So the issue is that EA’s demands on how downloads are handled are impossible in the Steam client, as the client itself would be unable to validate caches/ installs (what since the updated content wouldn’t be Steam’s server, making them see updated changes to the game as erroneous), all on top of a good helping of the fact that it’d be screwing over Valve’s customers by making them have to update their game via a secondary service with no content back-ups or support by Valve.
Yes, this is a wonderful stance to take EA.
07/08/2011 at 18:47 Zelius says:
If that´s the restriction, Valve isn´t enforcing it at all. There are lots of Games for Windows Live games on Steam as well, and those should be subject to the same restriction. Either EA is using this as an excuse, or there is something else going on entirely.
07/08/2011 at 18:55 Zorak says:
Not all DLC or content updates need to over-write local data. They just expand onto pre-built in game code.
07/08/2011 at 18:58 gwathdring says:
I agree, that’s my impression of matters.
I disagree however, with your last statement. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that stance. EA games have ha automatic patching systems for years. My ancient FIFA 2002 game had a rather primitive patch and match-making system. The BFME games had automatic patching systems. I haven’t played too many EA games so other than saying the BF series had manual patches that’s all I’ve got. My point, however, is this: I find the implication that a game company shouldn’t want direct control over the file system, timing, and functionality of their DLC and patches absolutely absurd. I love using Steam, and I wish EA was willing to work around them. And do think it is wrong of them not to do the extra work for already released games as when they released and outstanding piece of DLC for Mirror’s Edge with no intention of giving Steam users any options to play it. But I think they have every right to decide whether or not they want to limit their options to valve’s system of content updates before they commit their games to the download service.
07/08/2011 at 22:46 RDG says:
Valve probably changed their terms and conditions with the launch of free to play games. In order to avoid the situation where developers would host their free games on Valve’s server and thus get free distribution, while then being able to sell the DLC outside of Steam and avoiding the 30% cut Steam (apparently) demands. Seeing as DLC is the primary (and only) source of income for F2P games, a move by Valve to protect their own interests would seem likely.
08/08/2011 at 01:09 skalpadda says:
Does anyone know where this 30% number comes from? I’ve seen it in a lot of forum posts but never a mention of where it originated.
08/08/2011 at 01:38 Azradesh says:
Value’s TOS changed but is not retro active. Old games that did this stay, any new games or DLC can not do this.
07/08/2011 at 18:03 Koozer says:
I’m guessing by “restrictive…patches” they mean they can’t force downloads from their servers to play if a user has turned off automatic updates. I can’t really think of any other reason why having to release your patches wrapped up in a Valve parcel would be so godawful for developers – besides the extra effort of making your patches Valvelated.
07/08/2011 at 18:09 Zorak says:
No, you see, EA says they want to have a “closer relationship” in how patches and DLC are handed to us, is all. Intermediaries get in the way of that closeness!
I get the feeling the closer relationship has a lot to do with being much closer to our wallets.
07/08/2011 at 18:16 Koozer says:
But wait! I remember Fallout 3 only patched through GfWL – I played it for a week before logging in to GfWL, which patched my game and promptly deleted all my saves.
This must mean that EA truly do care about snuggling up to customers* and being the most kind and considerate** company ever!
*bank accounts.
**despicable and conniving.
07/08/2011 at 18:57 Pardoz says:
There’s also all the lovely, lovely demographic data they can collect and datamine (or sell on). With the phone-home element of games like ME2 and DA, they know when and where you play and what you do when you play; tie that in with name/address/gender/age/etc. information from your Origin account, and there’s gold in them thar hills that they don’t get if you buy the game from a different download service.
07/08/2011 at 19:00 gwathdring says:
But it’s not an Origin exclusive. This isn’t about forcing people to use Origin, I don’t think. They offer it on all the other download services, and I haven’t seen a “registers on Origin” warning.
07/08/2011 at 20:16 Zorak says:
Pretty sure the playable versions of B3 that are out right now all require Origin. So uh.
07/08/2011 at 22:59 PoulWrist says:
Except, Zorak, Origin isn’t required to run in order to play games bought with it.
08/08/2011 at 01:06 skalpadda says:
@PoulWrist:
..yet.
07/08/2011 at 18:05 Sunjammer says:
Between BF and CoD being expensive turds as a whole, I can’t see this in any other way than as a triumph for PC gaming. Fuck those games.
07/08/2011 at 18:17 frenz0rz says:
CoD? Absolutely. Battlefield? Hardly. I dont suppose you’ve played Bad Company 2, have you? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who’d played the multiplayer for more than 5 minutes could call it an expensive turd.
07/08/2011 at 19:20 gganate says:
Expensive turd is pushing it, but I was surprised how similar BC2 was to the Desert Combat mod I played all those years ago with BF1942.
07/08/2011 at 19:49 gwathdring says:
Whoops. Thought you said “BF2″ not “BC2.”
Completely changes the post. Sorry.
07/08/2011 at 20:47 AlonePlusEasyTarget says:
Then the only thing you need to do is to buy Red Orchestra 2 : Heroes of Stalingrad. I bet you got your money worth with all the mods and free updates from Tripwire Interactive.
07/08/2011 at 20:57 Koozer says:
If you think BC2 is in any way similar to DC apart from the setting you need to either reinstall DC or see a doctor.
07/08/2011 at 18:07 Ham Solo says:
Weird no other developers and publishers complain and withhold games from Steam.
I guess EA wants some new, original way to cornhole their customers via Steam, and it doesn’t quite work that well. Or they are making it up in order to “pursuade” people to use Origin.
07/08/2011 at 18:08 skurmedel says:
Wonder if they’ll peddle it on GamersGate. I’m going to stay away from Origin. I don’t trust I’ll be able to download my game after a couple of years there.
07/08/2011 at 19:11 Megadyptes says:
It’s already up for pre-order on GG and probably other downloadery stores.
07/08/2011 at 19:53 skurmedel says:
Ok thanks. Strange I used the search on GG but couldn’t find it.
07/08/2011 at 20:27 ScubaMonster says:
Impulse also has BF3 preorders
07/08/2011 at 21:06 Koozer says:
@Scuba:
Not if you’re in the UK it isn’t.
07/08/2011 at 18:08 acidtestportfolio says:
electronic arts pitches a fit because valve won’t let them use their own download service (also a backhanded attempt for more money)
good riddance
07/08/2011 at 18:09 Rii says:
There’s a reasonable argument to be made in EA’s favour here, but it ignores the market reality whereby Steam is the single largest DD vendor and therefore that jumping through their hoops is not actually a significant imposition in terms of the market thereby served.
And one could reasonably reply to that with “so what, there’s a principle at stake.”
And my reply to THAT would be that EA are willing to jump through Sony’s and Microsoft’s hoops for the returns on offer, why is Steam any different?
And then we come back to Origin.
07/08/2011 at 18:30 Gnarf says:
Because it’s a platform on a platform.
By jumping through Sony’s hoops they are making the game available to PS3 users. By jumping through Valve’s hoops they are making the game available to PC users. Only the game will be available to those users either way.
I guess there are some dudes that really, really like Steam and won’t get the game unless it’s on Steam. But still, I’d jump though more hoops for “otherwise these people won’t be able to buy your game” than for “otherwise some of these people might not want to buy your game”.
07/08/2011 at 18:43 Wulf says:
And then there’s my problem with it: The name ‘Origin’ is a massive kick to the balls for any Ultima loyalists. This pretty much means that this is what they want to do with the name Origin, now, and it completely kills any hope that they’ll ever bring Garriott back for one, last amazing Ultima adventure. Why? Think about it. Origin and Origin Systems would create too much confusion in the simple minds of their customers, so they can’t use the name Origin Systems for the development of great games.
They’ve taken the name of one of the best RPG developers of the past, one of my all time favourites, and slapped it on that piece of shit. Thus not only being an insult to that developer but, again, dashing any hope I had for future Ultima goodness. It was a very cruel and unusual thing to do.
This is what Origin is now. It’s a download service.
FFFFFFFFF.
Valve at least had the creativity to come up with their own name, so I’ll stick with Steam, Gamer’s Gate, and GoG, with a little D2D on the side, maybe.
07/08/2011 at 18:46 Nalano says:
@ Gnarf
So your complaint is that the PC isn’t a closed loop?
And here I thought that was one of its advantages.
I’ve had no problem never buying a console game since the original NES specifically because of the nature of consoles’ closed loops.
07/08/2011 at 18:56 Doesntmeananything says:
@Gnarf
It’s not the question of customers’ convenience. The thought that ‘it’s better for gamers to launch our games directly instead of relying on a client’ (with which many, many people are happy, by the way) would virtually never cross EA’s mind. The fact remains: “Steam is the single largest DD vendor”. It doesn’t take a lot of insight to see what EA is really doing here by not releasing one of their leading titles on Steam.
07/08/2011 at 20:17 Gnarf says:
Eh? I wasn’t making a complaint. It was about the “EA are willing to jump through Sony’s and Microsoft’s hoops for the returns on offer, why is Steam any different?” And I think it’s because they don’t have to go through Steam in order to make their games available on the PC. (And I agree that that’s a good thing.)
With Sony, you’re probably willing to jump through more of their hoops, because if you don’t then the PS3 users won’t be able to buy the game.
Also not what I was getting at, but yeah. And all the EA games have always been available outside of Steam anyway, so it’s not like the people who would rather not use Steam are gaining anything from this.
I’m looking forward to this game and would prefer to get it on Steam. For the record, or something.
08/08/2011 at 01:41 G_Man_007 says:
My two cents is this; I’m on Valve’s side – though their silence isn’t helping them, and never has done, would be nice if they were more communicative – as it appears that they are trying to make sure that their customers have access to DLC, irrespective of what version of the game they have (in terms of what vendor they bought from; I think Gamersgate are offering a version of Borderlands that isn’t compatible with the DLC, for example, and I think there is DLC in say Burnout Paradise City that you can only get through the game itself, at least I saw that when I played it on the PS3). Now, I’m not pretending that Valve have our best interests at heart, but if this is all to do with how DLC and patches are provided, then I’m all for providing them to the download service you chose to use, to allow you to get the most out of your purchase. I know this is rather a simplistic view, but without knowing more, all we have to assume is that it’s to do with DLC.
I’d rather not see DLC at all, some games are reasonable with it like Fallout, as it adds a lot to the game (for the most part anyway), whereas with others such as say, Dirt 3, it takes what you would expect in a brand new £30 game, and turns it into a £70-100 or more title. Just allow me the choice to get it from where I want. I like Steam.
Also, what is it with the big publishers trying to outdo each other to win the Cuntiest Of Them All Crown? EA had the crown for a while during the first Sims influx (at least that was the feeling back then when I was reading PC Zone), then Activision took it in a big way, and has recently been jostling for it with Ubisoft. I’m not feeling the love anymore. Not from them anyway. My love belongs to Valve, CD Projekt and numerous indies, and lets face it, Valve are doing a lot for them. So who really seems the better horse here?
07/08/2011 at 18:09 kikito says:
To me, if it’s not on Steam or free, it doesn’t exist.
07/08/2011 at 18:13 aircool says:
Oooh, you’re missing out on Gal Civ II…
07/08/2011 at 18:16 Rii says:
Valve appreciates your subbing for them.
07/08/2011 at 18:18 frenz0rz says:
Hang on. So half the catalogue of GoG no longer exists?
07/08/2011 at 18:19 Koozer says:
A life without Dwarf Fortress is no life indeed.
PS. I just realised DF is effectively free.
07/08/2011 at 18:26 Quatto says:
Few games can break my steadfast steam fundamentalism. I’m sure that those with only a mild interest simply can’t be arsed to go elsewhere.
07/08/2011 at 18:28 StingingVelvet says:
That kind of attitude is outright anti-PC gaming really. One of the best aspects of the PC is that it is an open platform with no real overseer. Volunteering for Valve to control everything you can play is pretty opposed to that sense of freedom.
07/08/2011 at 18:35 Rii says:
“That kind of attitude is outright anti-PC gaming really.”
Yep. There’s no getting around the dominance of Windows, but there’s virtually nothing outside Valve’s own catalogue that’s only available through Steam. In swearing undying fealty to them regardless, well, yeah, you’re pretty much a traitor to the cause. Collect your Xbox and iPad on the way out.
07/08/2011 at 18:42 StingingVelvet says:
@ Rii
And on top of that Windows is rather different because they don’t control what can be used with it after it is released. Windows itself is an open platform, while what is on Steam is completely controlled by Valve and must be approved by them.
I welcome anything that weakens Steam because if they get much bigger they will basically have defacto control over what indie games can be successful and not.
07/08/2011 at 18:50 Nalano says:
I’m not a Steam fundamentalist (GoG is too good) and while I think competition is good for ensuring good service, this is not the way to compete and what we’re going to end up with vis a vis Origin is pretty much the opposite of good service.
07/08/2011 at 18:58 Rii says:
@StingingVelvet: “I welcome anything that weakens Steam because if they get much bigger they will basically have defacto control over what indie games can be successful and not.”
I hear you. This is one of those multifaceted issues that’s difficult to talk about though, in that you say A and people go on to assume you’re also arguing B, C, D, etc. It’s not so much that I support EA in this matter as that I oppose those who are opposed to anything which threatens their precious Steam. I don’t really think Origin will be a boon for consumers by increasing competition in the market, but most of the opposition to it falls into one of several objectionable categories of which this one – mindless obeisance to the almighty Valve – is perhaps the most vexing.
07/08/2011 at 21:50 Starky says:
Steam might have the power to make a unsuccessful indie game massively popular – but it will NEVER have the power to prevent a indie game (or any game) becoming massively popular.
Basically it is massive influence in a one-way direction, they can be massively beneficial, or not – but they cannot directly harm.
Take for example Minecraft – massively successful – would probably sell a million more copies within a week of been available on Steam – but it is massively successful already anyway.
The only way it could “harm”, is if a indie dev assumed Steam support (front page ads, and sales) – and Valve refused the game or didn’t advertise it front of house.
Which would be a case of developer stupidity and not Valves fault, no indie dev should ever dare to count those chickens too soon.
07/08/2011 at 22:33 mouton says:
Thankfully, blind fanatics are a minority. I like and use Steam, but it is sad to see how religious some people get towards it.
08/08/2011 at 00:43 pekbro says:
Having all your games centrally located with steam is nice and all, but pray you never find yourself in a dispute with them. I have had issues with them in the past but always backed down out of fear of having my account disabled thus losing 150 or so games in one shot.
Steam is fine so long as you don’t piss them off…
08/08/2011 at 10:43 kikito says:
Dudes, chill.
When I was younger, I could afford spending 2 or 3 hours fiddling with autoexec.bat settings in order to squeeze the 640KB of memory that my PC had in order to run this or that game.
But I’m 32 now. I have maybe 5 or 6 hours per week to spend on gaming, and that’s it. I want that time to be enjoyable. And with Steam, it is.
I don’t have time to fiddle with DRMs, updates, external programs and whatnot any more. I *might* consider spending some extra time installing good, free stuff (mods, for example); but an extra client is just a no-go for me.
Let me be clear: that’s where my own line is. I’m not saying everyone should have the same … “tolerance levels”; I’m happy there are alternatives to Steam, and people use them. But right now Steam it’s just too convenient for me.
If you have the time or energy to jump through the extra hooks, please do, with my blessings.
07/08/2011 at 18:10 unangbangkay says:
I sure wish SOMEONE would reveal just what these restrictive terms of service are that EA is blaming just about everything on. Honestly, no one is coming out of this petty slapping match looking the better for it.
EA’s trying to make Valve look like the big bully on the playground, throwing its weight around to get special treatment from the poor little megacorporations. They’re succeeding to an extent, given that Valve has yet to say anything substantial in their “defense”.
On the other hand EA is also making itself looking petulant and childish, refusing to do the right thing for customers due to greed and envy, and treating everything as some ludicrous either/or proposition. Either we choose the wonders of Origin and all of its wonderful EA-published games, or we choose Steam and all of its wonderful games from pretty much everyone else.
07/08/2011 at 18:57 Archonsod says:
Because we’ve all got the mental faculties of goldfish and therefore cannot possibly use both services?
07/08/2011 at 19:05 Nalano says:
Not just two, really.
Rockstar’s Social Club, Valve’s Steam, Microsoft’s Games for Windows Live, Blizzard’s Battle.net 2.0, GamersFirst Live, Bioware’s EA Online and Cerberus Network…
…there are a lot of running-in-the-background online services.
07/08/2011 at 18:12 aircool says:
Hmmm, where on the fence to sit, stand or fall. On the one hand, I’ve a well developed mistrust of EA. However, I also get annoyed at Steam whenever it decides to update a game that I’ve bought somewhere else (most usually, a physical copy).
With BF3 being an EA game, I’d expect any updates to come straight from EA. If that means installing Origin, so be it. Both Steam and GFWL can be annoyingly intrusive at times, and I doubt EA will start installing mind control devices onto my PC. So as long as it’s no worse than Steam and GFWL, I guess there’s nothing to really complain about.
Wait and see I guess.
07/08/2011 at 18:12 StingingVelvet says:
Pretty sure it has been made very clear that Valve changed their ToS to force any DLC for a game sold on Steam also be sold on Steam. This change occurred roughly when they started offering free-to-play games and is surely related. Crysis was pulled the day it offered DLC that was not on Steam, Dragon Age 2 was pulled the day it offered DLC that was not on Steam. Fable 3 and Super Street Fighter 2 Arcade were both the first GFWL games with DLC sold on Steam as well as GFWL. Anything older than these was grandfathered-in, of course.
Battlefield 3 will certainly be offering DLC on day one and afterward and EA have no intention of selling that stuff outside their own marketplace. On top of that EA have tied Battlefield 3 completely in with Origin judging by the alpha, which means Steam would basically be selling Origin codes like Direct2Drive and Gamersgate sell Steam codes. I don’t think Steam wants to do that.
In the end EA are doing exactly what Valve have been doing for years now, tying their games to their own platform and selling DLC directly to the consumer through the game and their own service. It’s hypocrisy to scream at EA for doing the same thing Valve do. What I do admit is that their “power struggle” hurts Steam customers, but then that was probably inevitable and the same could be said of Blizzard going their own way with Battle.net. When all is said and done I think a developer or publisher cutting out the middle-man and selling direct to the consumer is a good thing, so I would have bought the game on Origin anyway.
07/08/2011 at 18:48 frymaster says:
it hasn’t been made clear.
I’d agree that that is one very valid hypothesis, but that’s all it is
07/08/2011 at 19:10 gwathdring says:
I agree completely.
Steam games require special delivery methods that further require access to the Steam delivery system; my guess is that EA is being a tad hyperbolic and what they really mean is that they want to have control of delivery methods without having to wait for an OK from Steam that their patch works with the system and is ready for delivery–or maybe they just don’t want to have to engineer multiple patches. Or maybe, as with Mirror’s Edge, they want to include their own authentication software in the patches. Or maybe they just, quite sensibly, want to make a patch delivery system every bit as customized for their particular games as Steam was once customized for Valve’s games … that sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I don’t understand how some of the people here who have basically acknowledged that argument as EA’s most likely reasoning still seem to find it despicable.
07/08/2011 at 19:51 Shivoa says:
@gwathdring:
Because the likely scenario is:
-EA wanting to be the only retailer of DLC for their games (but still with access to the retail ecosystem of Steam) and bypassing the Steam patch/DLC system to do it while…
-Valve only want to restrict Steam purchased copies of the game to have the option to buy DLC inside the ecosystem (or maybe you’d rather by direct from Origin or GfWL or whatever – we’ve seen since the rule change that other stores have not been blocked from offering DLC for Steam copies of games, the rule seems to be that you must also offer a Steam DLC route if you want to offer a non-Steam DLC route for new content, not that Steam is the only route).
So EA have every right to take their ball and go home with it if they don’t want to also support Steam DLC as well as Origin DLC for their games. But, being as EA are the guys who hardballed MS on xbox to retain matchmaking / online auth rights for all their Live games and have used this to switch off all online functionality in many, many games; I can’t see locking my DLC to EA’s ecosystem makes me feel more secure about my continued access to the content I’m thinking about buying.
In the end, I trust Valve more than EA to not work against the rights of consumers and that makes a difference to how I want to buy my content and how I value that content. That means that my preference is to buy content inside the Steam ecosystem and Valve enforcing the option to let me do that sounds cool to me. It’s a shame that EA do not see it that way, especially as Valve seem good enough to not be restricting anyone from offering their own DLC shop as long as they also offer the same stuff inside Steam for those who don’t want to leave.
07/08/2011 at 20:02 gwathdring says:
It is a shame EA isn’t willing to do that. And I can see your perspective. But I strongly object to the idea, clearly not espoused by you, that EA is doing something downright wrong and unfair by taking their ball and going home to play by their rules with their stuff. Sure it’s nice when everyone cooperates and gets along, but as much as I love using Steam and appreciate Steam policies from the perspective of an end-user … as a content provider I can see how Steam would be difficult to work with. You have a whole new set of technical issues to resolve, a lot of restrictions on how you deliver content … and maybe you just don’t want to have to play Steam’s way. And while I wish EA was willing to do so, I’m completely understanding of that decision.
07/08/2011 at 21:34 StingingVelvet says:
I understand the perspective of “I like EA more than Valve.” I also understand the perspective of “man another account? what a hassle!”
That all said you can’t be mad at EA for doing what other publishers, Valve themselves included, already do. The PC platform offers an excellent opportunity to directly sell to your consumers and keep 100% of the profit, which in turn makes the PC platform more appealing despite lower sales numbers. I am sure that is one reason Battlefield 3 is leading on PC development-wise. Assuming you have been buying Valve games directly on Steam for years when they were not available anywhere else you can’t then call this “wrong” in turn. You can say it annoys you certainly, but it’s not any more wrong or bad than what Valve and Blizzard do.
07/08/2011 at 18:14 RegisteredUser says:
Or, they just want to keep building their own EA store, because they want to make the money themselves.
07/08/2011 at 22:08 Cyampagn says:
Seriously, who wouldn’t?
07/08/2011 at 18:15 Daiv says:
Why does this strike me as the Empire from Star Wars complaining loudly and publicly about the cost of Death Star Laser raw materials?
07/08/2011 at 18:15 BobJustBob says:
Remember that EA is the company that refused to get on board with Xbox Live until Microsoft agreed to let EA run their own servers, so now EA has some of the only Xbox Live games that you can no longer play multiplayer because they shut down the servers. I won’t go so far as to say EA is always the dishonest party, but it would take a pretty monumental pile of evidence to make me believe they were in the right.
07/08/2011 at 18:42 Rii says:
Microsoft has shut down all game servers for the original Xbox. And y’know, it’s not like they actually served the games in the first place. How EA’s stuff works I don’t know.
07/08/2011 at 18:47 TillEulenspiegel says:
http://www.ea.com/1/service-updates
07/08/2011 at 20:06 Rii says:
No, I mean how it works in terms of whether they’re merely running matchmaking (and other ancillary services) for peer-to-peer, or hosting honest-to-god dedicated servers.
07/08/2011 at 18:15 Coins says:
They still haven’t explained what those “restrictive terms of service” are.
07/08/2011 at 18:18 Werd says:
Greedy EA, real greedy. Oh well I WAS interested in BF3 but now I think I’ll give it a pass.
07/08/2011 at 18:19 kila1221 says:
He says at the bottom: “The good news is: you’ve got plenty of choices.” Doesn’t that sound alot like Blizzard’s thing of play other games
07/08/2011 at 18:25 Torgen says:
They have crunched the numbers, and have decided that the increased profits offset the extremely tiny number of people who won’t buy the game over this.
07/08/2011 at 18:26 StingingVelvet says:
Unlike Blizzard and Valve games you really do have a choice though. Origin games are still sold on Gamersgate, Impulse, Direct2Drive and more.
07/08/2011 at 18:55 Wulf says:
I’ll likely still be buying the odd EA game from Gamer’s Gate. My problem isn’t with the games, it’s entirely with Origin.
07/08/2011 at 22:14 Cyampagn says:
@Wulf
Excuse me,but that sounds like some unfounded biased statement; I myself downloaded Origin, redeemed my codes for BF BC2 and ME1 (which I bought reatail) like npnpn, then proceeded to pre order the new BF. And it, fanboyism aside, runs great, smooth.
I think people are hating on Origin because of EA’s (awful) old EA DM. Well, Origin ‘not only looks but works so different IMO.
07/08/2011 at 18:23 FhnuZoag says:
Am I the only one that doesn’t care because I buy half my games from GamersGate anyway?
07/08/2011 at 18:26 StingingVelvet says:
I buy everything that isn’t Steamworks on Gamersgate. I like Origin though, so I will probably buy EA games on there from now on.
07/08/2011 at 18:28 Kaira- says:
We could form a club. Not that I’m interested in BF3, but this “fight” between Steam and Origin and their fanboys is bound to be interesting one to follow.
07/08/2011 at 18:32 Fuxalodapus says:
I’m also full of “meh.” Steam doesn’t add to the gameplay experience for me so no loss.
Though I have to admit, it gets annoying trying to sort through which games you bought from which DD service sometimes.
07/08/2011 at 18:45 StingingVelvet says:
@ Fuxalodapus
“Steam doesn’t add to the gameplay experience for me so no loss.”
That’s a really good point. Battlefield 3 was not going to be a Steamworks game anyway, no EA games are, so really all you are losing by buying it on one of the other platforms is… I don’t even know what really. Nothing.
07/08/2011 at 22:37 Nalano says:
Steam adds to my gameplay experience. I no longer have to worry about patching my game. Ever.
07/08/2011 at 18:25 Rirse says:
No Steam, No Sale
07/08/2011 at 18:34 Navagon says:
Do EA really think that it’s not obvious why they’re doing this?
07/08/2011 at 18:37 Pantsman says:
I guess this will be the first game in a few years that I buy a boxed copy of. If and when I decide to get it at all, that is.
07/08/2011 at 18:46 StingingVelvet says:
Box copies will tie to Origin anyway, just like Valve games tie to Steam.
07/08/2011 at 18:44 Pardoz says:
File this spat beside UbiDRM and the Actiblizzvendi Diablo 3 clusterfuck in the “company that publishes games I have no interest in ever buying does dumb shit; I point, laugh, and go back to playing games that are actually good” file.
07/08/2011 at 23:09 Kuraudo says:
There are so many games to play already that all this does is further ensure that I won’t be tempted to buy BF3 on release.
07/08/2011 at 18:44 Hensler says:
Am I the only one who thinks EA and Valve are equally to blame for this, and Valve aren’t saints?
07/08/2011 at 18:46 StingingVelvet says:
I’m not sure either is a good guy or a bad guy really. They’re both doing the exact same thing.
07/08/2011 at 18:48 TillEulenspiegel says:
Why would you make that kind of judgement when virtually none of the facts are known?
07/08/2011 at 21:35 StingingVelvet says:
Because even if it was EA saying “nanner nanner we don’t like Steam har har” they still would not be doing anything worse than Valve have for 8 years?
08/08/2011 at 00:29 Hematite says:
Ah, but EA are certainly playing up the “poor us, Valve won’t take our games” line – it’s pretty dickish, and my only stake in this is that I don’t like doing business with dicks.
Edit: By which I mean, if EA just came out and said “We’re starting our own DL service, and that’s where you’ll get our games. Because they’re our games” I’d be cool with it. They could compete on price, or total value package or something. Have at thee, warriors of capitalism! But they just seem to be defaming their business partner and tactically pulling titles which might ‘flip’ customers to their service. It’s not cool.
07/08/2011 at 18:49 ecat says:
Maybe there is a clue in the possibly all embracing term ‘and other services’. The phrase appears twice in the link. We can speculate what the ‘other services’ may be, but that is the whole point. It is one thing If EA is reluctant to describe services to the general public – though it may be a sign of avoiding public backlash, but it is a totally different matter if EA is also reluctant to detail the meaning of ‘other serves’ to Steam. Only a fool would sign a totally open, we can do anything contract.
07/08/2011 at 18:58 Big Murray says:
Once again EA have shot themsleves in the foot by making me utterly unable to care about their Origin service.
Come back when you’re trying to pull this crap with a game I care about.
07/08/2011 at 19:03 The Sentinel says:
“Moron EA’s own policies appear here”
Fixed for ya. :)
07/08/2011 at 19:05 D3xter says:
Honestly I don’t wanna jump on the EA hate-train and I don’t fucking care if Battlefield 3 is on Steam or not cause I’ll buy it Retail anyway, but I find it highly unlikely that this has something to do with DLC e.g.:
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/gameservices.php
“In-game DLCSell additional content from within your game to the customers who want it most. Steamworks provides true in-game DLC, allowing customers to select, buy, and use DLC — all without leaving the game. Additionally, using Steamworks’ DLC does not close off your other channels. You are still free to sell the content at retail, either with other online sites or through the Steam store.”
Furthermore Dragon Age: Origins has a bunch of DLC items that aren’t sold over Steam either or might only be in the Ultimate Edition, they didn’t remove that… And this all started after EA “introduced” Origin.
07/08/2011 at 20:05 gwathdring says:
Which is why I suspect it has to do with content delivery and authentication rather than the actual sale of content. Or maybe EA just really wants to be able to use Origin like Valve uses Steam.
07/08/2011 at 21:36 StingingVelvet says:
That doesn’t conflict with the common assumption at all. For one thing it’s not selling the DLC elsewhere that is the problem, it is NOT selling it Steam. Secondly Dragon Age and its DLC came out a long time ago and therefore would be grandfathered-in.
07/08/2011 at 19:07 My2CENTS says:
Ohh come on everyone can see this is just an excuse to move to Origin. Without a big title Origin cannot possibly monetize the potential in the platform. Plus i prefer a non-steam version anytime. This fucks can disable you entire account on a bad transaction any day. I was this close to losing all of my games.
07/08/2011 at 19:09 deadsexy says:
As I see it, EA have set up 2 games to be released soon. Both of those games cost 60€. That’s 10-20€ more than other newly released big budget PC games except for Activision’s CoD of course. So, yeah, I really don’t care if they’re on Steam or not. I really don’t see a reason why I have to pay as much as I would for the console version, nobody made my PC parts cheaper in exchange for fees on every game I buy…
07/08/2011 at 22:17 Cyampagn says:
Actually it is 49,95 euros on Origin, so please stop spreading lies.
08/08/2011 at 11:38 deadsexy says:
Actually it is 59,99€ here in Austria.
How about you stop insinuating that I’m a liar?
08/08/2011 at 16:58 Cyampagn says:
Ok. my apologies.
But I can’t get how I’m getting it cheaper (living in Argentina) than anyone from the EU.
07/08/2011 at 19:09 PenTagonL says:
I have been made aware of this, and perhaps others have seen it as well and mentioned it in some other comment, though I have not seen it made mention here, so I thought I would point this out.
Another game which came out fairly recently, DiRT 3 (on May 23rd, 2011, to be exact, so essentially after the enactment of these “new”, “restrictive” terms of service), also has DLC which can only be purchased outside of Steam, via GFWL. Yet the game is still happily sold on Valve’s service. Why has Codemaster’s game not been pulled from Steam? Is there something special with the way EA does it? Perhaps. It all seems a bit fishy to me, however. EA doesn’t quite have the best reputation, as I’m sure we are all aware, and all these shenanigans seem a bit too coincidental.
On the same token, Valve could very well be being childish towards EA and booting their games for the tiniest reasons in response to Origin. Though that doesn’t quite seem to be Valve’s style, nor would it make any sense, considering Valve’s market share of online distribution. These actions would only serve to benefit EA’s service, not harm them. But I could be ignorant on the matter.
Anyway, that’s my two pence.
08/08/2011 at 13:02 DClark says:
The Dirt 3 DLC was grandfathered by about 2 weeks. It was released on GFWL on June 1st while the Free to Play games came to Steam on June 14th (which is when I suspect the TOS was changed).
Edit: Ah, yes, I see more DLC was added later, well after the free to play games launched on Steam. It would be interesting to find out whether Codemasters negotiated some sort of deal with regards to their DLC.
07/08/2011 at 19:19 Deano2099 says:
You can patch through your own client and sell on Steam.
You can sell DLC through your own client, and also sell on Steam.
But if you want to sell on Steam and also want to offer either of those two services, you also have to provide them via Steam as well.
Steam insists that the player is given the choice to patch and buy DLC through Steam, if they want to. That’s all.
07/08/2011 at 19:22 gritz says:
As interesting as EA vs. Valve is, there’s not much to the story if neither side is willing to come forth with an honest accounting of their side.
So why not report on EA’s weird relationship with GOG instead? Even if they can’t legally say anything of substance, I bet the guys at GOG/CDProjekt could at least give entertaining responses.
07/08/2011 at 19:23 CerberuX says:
Annoying to say the least. I do find it amusing EA is the only publisher having problems though, “Oh its Valves fault with their silly terms”, tbh the way I speculate this is they found a hole they could exploit with these “new terms” seeing as it’s ONLY EA.
What bums me out even more is it seems like BF3 is going to have payed DLC, I knew about the Karkland thing if you didn’t pre-order but if theres more than that you can imagine me crying in a corner. I’m sick of payed DLC I still refuse to buy it, mediocre content at best and you charge so much for it. Not to mention if there IS payed DLC it seems the console centric game BC2 gets free DLC and the PC centric game BF3 has to pay.. I think they have got things a little mixed up. The more I hear about this the more sour the taste in my mouth becomes about this situation/game.
07/08/2011 at 23:11 Shivoa says:
To be fair they’re not the only publisher to have issues complying with the new rules.
See Fable 3. MS added the ability to buy codes to enter into GfWL to buy the DLC from Steam. Rather than touch the Steam integration options, MS just hooked up their retail system for DLC code generation to the Steam store (which already has a cd key system for displaying the auth key to the user and instructs the user to open GfWL and enter the code into their game). You can also buy that DLC on GfWL directly.
So EA either can’t work out how to generate redeemable keys for DLC (to redeem in their Origin/in-game store) or have decided to use this excuse and the launch of Origin to make a grab for some customers and cut out the optional middleman.
07/08/2011 at 23:53 CerberuX says:
Yep it proves there is a way to do it. Not a fan of GFWL but props for it all the same at least trying to get along with Steam. Come to think of it I guess games have been doing that for a while, GFWL included, having to enter a CD key etc. I dunno EA just smell fishy on this one… If I do buy BF3, which I do want too it will most definitely be through a site like Amazon. I wish we had some facts for this, at the minute I just see it as one biiiiig excuse.
07/08/2011 at 19:29 PersianImm0rtal says:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bf3boycott
Join the boycott!
07/08/2011 at 19:45 Doesntmeananything says:
Why? Origin may suck whatever it is the most insulting to suck, but the game isn’t exclusive to EA’s DD service. Yes, it may be nice to have all (most of) the games in one handy place, but which Steam features would be essential for this, not Steamworks, game? As was the case with BFBC2, Steam would just play the role of a purchasing platform.
EA’s policy is one matter, the actual game is quite another. Boycotting the game based on the former, more so that it isn’t some heinous crime against gaming community, seems like a stupid thing to do.
07/08/2011 at 20:01 Fox89 says:
Because that worked SO well with MW2…
07/08/2011 at 22:19 Cyampagn says:
N-N-N-N-Nerd Attack
07/08/2011 at 22:25 reticulate says:
I believe this efficiently sums up my opinion of “Boycott Game X” Steam groups.
08/08/2011 at 13:58 Milky1985 says:
Ah the picture choosen to prove a point, made an a undeterminded time after release, after IW did make some consessions. You should also take into account that while you might not follow through with the boycott, the threat of a boycott is a MASSIVE thing for a publicially traded company as it makes investors worried.
But hey lets not use our heads and just go “hurp durp boycotting peopel ended up playing the game”
BTW I am of the firm belief that anyone who brings out that picture as an argument that boycotts does not work is a idiot. As it shows that you don’t know the ideas behind the boycott or the simple fact that people don’t always follow through, but the threat to not follow through is good enough.
07/08/2011 at 19:30 malkav11 says:
Hey EA: if I want you to handle DLC and patching for a game, I’ll buy it from you. If I buy it from Steam, I am most likely buying it there because I prefer to have Steam handle my DLC purchases and patching. Is this hard? I don’t think so.
07/08/2011 at 19:31 paco says:
All EA are really doing is screwing themselves out of publishing rights for Valve titles in the future.
No one will adopt Origin over Steam, at best they’ll buy the few EA titles they want from Origin, only use it for those games and the service will otherwise rot just like GFWL
07/08/2011 at 19:33 Vinraith says:
What’s remarkable about this is that it’s a rare instance of a publicly traded company thinking ahead. There’s no question that in the short term EA would make more money if they had these games on Steam. There’s also no question that in the long term it’s bad for everyone but Valve if Steam is allowed complete dominance of the platform. Trading short term money for the a long term chance at a significant slice of the pie is downright forward-thinking, who knew they had it in them?
07/08/2011 at 19:56 gwathdring says:
That is sort of unusual isn’t it? And I’m not even being all that flippant when I say it. Normally these sorts of companies aren’t savvy in the slightest. That’s why advertising is so lucrative.
07/08/2011 at 20:05 Xiyng says:
On a side note, most people on the net (including here) don’t seem to be able to grasp the idea.
07/08/2011 at 20:18 TillEulenspiegel says:
You’re confusing not understanding with not caring.
For the most part, the customer doesn’t and really shouldn’t give a crap about what may be best for any given business.
Sure, EA doesn’t want to give Valve a large chunk of their revenue. The motivation is pretty obvious, and if this puts pressure on Valve to lower their fees to stay relevant, great for developers.
07/08/2011 at 20:29 Xiyng says:
What I mean is that there’s tons of people who seem to think EA’s going to lose money etc. because of this. It’s a very stupid argument to use if they do understand the idea behind it.
07/08/2011 at 20:33 Calabi says:
The thing is it might be too late. Valve came in with a product at just the right time with a ton of good grace from customers.
EA have to do this thing perfectly, they cant make any of the tons of mistakes that Steam made along the way, the will not get any compassion or patience from customers, especially with solid competition.
Is one game enough to do it with?
07/08/2011 at 21:42 StingingVelvet says:
@ Calabi
No one is unbeatable. Even the most loyal customer will skip off to somewhere else when given a better deal or faced with an exclusive. The fall of Nintendo to Sony, then Sony to Nintendo and Microsoft, shows this clearly in the games industry.
Big releases not being on Steam will take away from Steam’s market share without question. Is Battlefield 3 enough on its own? No, probably not. Every EA game from now on though? Every Blizzard game? Every Activision game if they start using battle.net more effectively? Yes, that shit adds up. Then you have the THQs and Ubisofts and Eidoses thinking to themselves “hmmmm 100% of the profit sounds good” and so on and so on.
07/08/2011 at 20:17 Xiyng says:
Some of the complainers are funny.
Some seem to think EA is evil for wanting control over THEIR game. Naturally Valve is not at all evil for wanting to control the games of OTHERS on their platform. If a publisher wants its game on Steam, I agree that they have to follow the rules. But if the publisher doesn’t agree to the rules, I also think it’s fine if they don’t use the service.
Some seem to think that having all in one place is good, and there’s nothing wrong there (well, at least nothing I want to talk about right now). However, I bet many of these complainers still buy games that use GfWL (Fallout 3 for example) and while they’re probably quite unhappy about it, they don’t do anything about it. In the end, they have to create another account and also use a service that’s probably much worse than EA’s Origin. And that’s not all, GfWL is also likely to handle updates and DLC. This makes me wonder: how exactly is EA more evil? Origin is probably superior to GfWL, AFAIK you don’t have to run it in the background, and you can still add the games as non-Steam games if you really want. The only practical difference could be that you didn’t buy the game on Steam. (Please note that I don’t know how Steam handles in-game chatting for GfWL titles and non-Steam games so there could be some differences too.)
Also, don’t take this too seriously (because I really don’t want to get in a fight because of this again): how is Valve better than EA when Valve’s games are available on Steam only while EA’s games are available everywhere but Steam (well, actually only EA’s newest games aren’t available on Steam)?
I don’t see why people want to defend Valve so blindly. I can understand people wanting all their games on one service and I don’t necessarily mind it. I just find blind Valve fanboys very annoying and hard to understand. In fact, lately even console fanboys haven’t been able to come even close to Valve fanboys, and they used to be pretty bad.
07/08/2011 at 20:48 paco says:
People defend Valve over EA because Valve doesn’t fuck their customers, offers a simple platform full of great deals that are easily accessible. Only Europeans cry about Valve, because of the pricing in Europe. Anyone who defends EA over Valve prove themselves an unreliable opinion because of the simple history of the two companies and how they treat their customers and fanbase.
Valve, simply put, are the gamers bros. EA are not.
07/08/2011 at 21:46 StingingVelvet says:
@ paco
Valve have certainly nurtured that reputation despite doing a ton of things other companies get bashed for (DRM, paid DLC and microtransactions, keeping their games exclusive). It’s kind of amusing how good they are at it.
At the end of the day both these companies want money and power though, make no mistake. Neither is your bro.
07/08/2011 at 22:40 Nalano says:
Valve offers tangible benefits along with its DRM. Other publishers don’t.
07/08/2011 at 23:09 paco says:
Nothing Valve does is onerous is how they get away with it. Paid content dlc for…games they then give away for free, items you can acquire in game anyway without paying anything, “drm” that is the least restrictive of any kind on the market, these aren’t things to complain about, some people simply are never satisfied.
Valve is our, the gaming communities, bros. That’s why they’re so successful. EA has shat on us for decades.
Sorry but you’re just flat out wrong
08/08/2011 at 01:53 Kaira- says:
You are truly a funny man, I believed you for a second and then you said this. And Valve is definetly not my bros. Maybe yours.
08/08/2011 at 02:32 paco says:
Kaira = No ability to actually back up his whining about valve drm
Enjoy being butthurt over nothing bro
08/08/2011 at 02:59 Kaira- says:
@paco
Eh wut?
How about… let’s see… Steam being the only DRM so far that has prevented me from playing a game that I’ve bought? As compared to CD-keys, CD-checks and so? Or even Tages (though removing that was really unpleasant experience and I’d rather not install it again on my computer).
08/08/2011 at 03:01 Rii says:
The only butthurt I’m seeing here is from you, paco. Apparently you can’t handle the fact that not everyone bends the knee to Valve.
08/08/2011 at 09:49 Xiyng says:
@paco:
I wasn’t talking about why people defend Valve. I was talking about why people blame EA.
I did bring up a point my Valve isn’t the saint people claim it to be, but that wasn’t the point this time. And when I said I’m annoyed by blind Valve fanboys, I meant blind – people who defend Valve no matter what. Even when Valve does something that would be loathed should anyone else do it, these people just say just Valve did it for our own good.
Also, you’re obviously wrong about only Europeans complaining about Valve. Personally I am annoyed by it, but was that my complaint? No, it wasn’t. And I believe many Americans find the same problems with Valve as I do, excluding regional pricing.
Also, Steam is one of the most restrictive forms of DRM if you really think about it. It just happens to have an actual service tied to it as well so people don’t notice it.
07/08/2011 at 20:24 zeroskill says:
No mod tools -> dont care. Battlefield used to be a PC game with a proper modding community. Now its just a empty shell designed to milk the fanbase with Paid DLC. No thanks. Dont even care if it is on Steam or on Origin or in my freaking crapper. I just know one thing. EA stands for no modding tools and paid DLC. With Origin, they bring the way of the console to the PC. Go die EA.
07/08/2011 at 20:33 Xiyng says:
This, very much this. Worst of all, they have maps as pre-order DLC. I don’t really see a much better way to divide the community. It’s almost like they want the game to fail. Seeing how they are ready to divide the community at release, I have no doubt they’re going to release even more DLC later. They want to beat CoD but they are damaging the part that made CoD popular: multiplayer. When you release DLC, you have to be careful not to divide the community too much. I’d say a game can take two or three map packs at most without suffering a lot, and even that’s a lot.
07/08/2011 at 22:23 Cyampagn says:
That DLC will be released for everyone at the same time, I guess? You’re only getting it ‘free’ if you pre order.
07/08/2011 at 23:49 HermitUK says:
The DLC will be released a couple of months later, and those who don’t preorder can buy then if they want it. We’ve been told it’ll work in much the same way as Vietnam did for BC2 – entirely different set of servers for it. To be quite honest, getting a free ~£8 expansion pack for preordering isn’t exactly a bad deal, assuming you’re intending on buying the game at launch anyway.
08/08/2011 at 02:34 zeroskill says:
There is more to this DLC deal then you might think. There has been a rumor about coming from Valve insiders that EA accually tried to buyout Valve, and Valve refused to be bought out. Now, why would EA want such a thing. Because of 2 reasons. First off, obviously, Valve is highly profitable. Second, Valve still stands for the PC way, EA dont want that. They dont like it one bit. Valve releases modding tools for all of their games, and free DLC to go with it. Also, Valve stands for community integration. They have always been very close to the moding community, the people that make maps, skins and other extensions to their games, as well as to their competitive players. Thats why they hold tournaments, reward community contributors and support them in all of their games (See the Cold Stream campaign for Left 4 Dead 2 or the recent Portal 2 mapping contest). Also, a big majority of Valves employees started out as modders themselfs, most of the original team that worked on Half-life accually were Quake modders.
EA does nothing of that sort. Quite the opposite is true in fact. They have a great history of castrating great studios like DICE and Bioware which stood for modding, and today? They are reduced to sell paid DLC instead. Crysis 1 has quite a big modding scene, and what does Crysis 2 have? Paid map packs. EA doesnt want a community of gamers. The only thing they want is to sell as much of their shitty 4 map packs for 10 bucks. Origin will be a part in their plan to make the PC market more like consoles. All paid map packs, no modding, no mapping, no competitive scenes. I say no thanks.
Oh, and remember “Origin systems”? No you dont.
07/08/2011 at 20:29 ScubaMonster says:
The only saving grace for Origin is that it doesn’t need to run in the background. I registered my key for Bad Company 2 on Origin to test it out and when I downloaded and ran the game, there was no background process running. I was able to start it up and play just fine without running Origin.
So basically it’s entirely optional to use the community features. Assuming it stays that way for their future releases you can just buy the retail copy and not have to mess with Origin period. Or buy it from Impulse, etc.
The fact they don’t guarantee download rights after a year and the old EA store charged a fee to re-download after that year was up is reason enough for me to steer far away from this. They still have that clause in the Origin FAQ and since they actually did that before with the old store I really doubt it’s just legalese and they won’t actually do it again.
08/08/2011 at 09:06 kila1221 says:
huh what?
http://i608.photobucket.com/albums/tt168/1221alik/origin.png
08/08/2011 at 09:52 Xiyng says:
@kila1221: The game is running and is using Origin’s community/other features? I’m guessing you can run games you’ve bought on Origin without using Origin but you can’t shut down Origin when you’re already running a game on it.
07/08/2011 at 20:40 fritz says:
BF3 is the kind of game I would likely have purchased if it was on Steam but likely not if it wasn’t.
Your loss, EA.
07/08/2011 at 21:02 Jimbo says:
Only if enough of the market thinks the same way you do, which I doubt tbh. 3 sales on Origin is probably more profitable for them than 4 on Steam after all. They’ll lose some sales from not being on Steam, but (given the marketing for BF3 will be massive and everywhere, meaning they aren’t relying on Steam for exposure at all in this case) I doubt enough people will refuse to buy anywhere other than Steam for EA to end up losing out.
08/08/2011 at 08:17 PoulWrist says:
No, I’d say it’s your loss. But if monopoly building is something you want to support, go on ahead. Maybe one day you’ll feel the price on steam being as hideously expensive as those of us in the EU that aren’t in the UK getting the special treatment of having the cheapest steam prices in the world, are.
07/08/2011 at 20:45 McDan says:
Start of a showdown(ish). Which I imagine will be going on for a long while.
07/08/2011 at 21:07 Advanced Assault Hippo says:
No reason whatsoever why EA should indefinitely pay Valve a cut of nearly every online sale, when they can just move everything to their own equivalent service and get more profit from each sale. It was always going to be the logical end game, surely.
There may be some teething problems while it all takes place, but I’ve yet to hear a proper argument as to why they shouldn’t do this. (Apart from the Steam-diehards who *must* have everything on one client, regardless of the reduced profits it’s costing some of those games’ publishers who have the infrastructure to do it their own way – but is this really an argument?).
07/08/2011 at 21:13 Teddy Leach says:
The haters are going to hate you so much.
07/08/2011 at 21:28 Advanced Assault Hippo says:
I have my kevlar armour on ready for them!
But I’m really interested in whether someone can – for the first time – actually respond with a valid reason why EA shouldn’t do this, beyond personal preference or the usual ‘coz EA iz shit!’, etc.
Financially, it will eventually make sense for them. And the vast majority of gamers would still buy an EA game outside of Steam if they had to (if it was a game they really wanted to play). A few lost sales to Steam diehards wouldn’t harm them.
07/08/2011 at 22:03 Tomm says:
I’m of the same opinion Hippo, nice to see someone else on the same wavelength.
I tend to buy my games where they’re cheapest. If that happens to be Steam then so be it, but I’m not averse to buying boxed copies retail. When it comes down to it, if it had been on Steam and Origin it would have been so massively overpriced (as are all major releases) that I would have got it retail anyway. I even get pre-order bonuses if I do. Then all I have to do is link the game to Steam and it’s sitting right there alongside all my other games. People seem to be forgetting that you only need Origin to download games, it doesn’t need to be running in the background when you play.
08/08/2011 at 08:14 Harkkum says:
In an ideal world, I’d love to see every game being available from every download service. Then I would have the power to choose which store to use and that decision would be based on my personal preference not on the effective limitation of the market.
There are no bad guys or good guys on competition like this. I’d wager that the only losers are going to be the customers, but that’s a topic for a totally different discussion. I wonder when EU will take a stance on this matter, after all it is pretty close to the (in)famous car parts decision where games are cars and DLC are parts.
08/08/2011 at 12:09 Advanced Assault Hippo says:
But this ideal world has no real sense of reality, since to go along with this EA would need to be prepared to lose 30% (or whatever they have to pay Valve) every time their game sells on Steam, which would still have the majority online sales if they decided to sell on there along side Origin.
These last few years of convenience were always going to come to an end at some point, since it makes no sense for EA to continue in the same vein, and I think the ball is rolling now.
Again, like I said earlier, I’ve yet to see an alternative argument on all 6 pages of comments on this article which stands up to scrutiny. It’s all about personal preference, convenience and ideal world scenarios.
Which are irrelevant in terms of EA’s decision making.
This whole process should be seen as an inevitability, not something to get riled about. There are many other EA business practises worth getting stuck into, but moving away from Steam isn’t one of them.
07/08/2011 at 21:12 Teddy Leach says:
Am I the only one who doesn’t give a shit and was going to buy it on GamersGate anyway?
07/08/2011 at 23:39 Wulf says:
I don’t give a shit and wasn’t going to buy it anyway. This sort of game just isn’t my bag. I just like giving EA shit over the ‘Origin’ thing whenever I can, because I’m still really sore about that. :P
Really though, a good game I’ll buy even if it’s EA, I just won’t use Origin because ‘Origin.’ If it ties in then I’ll just ignore the game. It’s not really a big deal. There’s always Gamer’s Gate, D2D, and plenty of other digital distributors to get games from. A game not being on Steam isn’t the be all and end all.
07/08/2011 at 21:32 PoulWrist says:
Why do we care about this again?
07/08/2011 at 21:49 Idiotmancer says:
Wow, what’s with everyone kissing Valve’s behind? It’s like Valve could never do anything wrong and any company that criticizes Steam is EVIL. You Valve zealots must be the most delusional, brainwashed monkeys in the PC gaming world.
Let’s look at this rationally, instead of as a sycophant. EA wants to serve DLC outside of Steam. Why would EA want to do this? Because Steam demands that any game sold on Steam must give Valve a cut for any DLC (by listing the DLC on Steam). EA, as any reasonable corporation, doesn’t want to give Valve a cut of the proceeds for DLC, because there is absolutely no reason to give Valve a cut. Ergo, this drama.
Buy hey, Valve can do no harm! Their money-grabbing DLC policy isn’t what it seems, guys!
07/08/2011 at 21:55 Froibo says:
Okay.. Why isn’t it reasonable for the company that is providing a service to help sell and distribute DLC to take a cut of that profit. I don’t blame EA for trying to avoid this but your view of steam as draconian is a bit ironic given your argument.
07/08/2011 at 21:58 Idiotmancer says:
Blocked for using the word “draconian” incorrectly, especially considering that I never suggested that Valve was “draconian.” It is typical of people like you to assume that any criticize is the most negative kind of criticism possible. I am simply calling people out on tossing undeserved praise at Valve. That doesn’t mean that I think Valve is worse than 37 Hitlers.
Thus, you’re blocked, because nothing intelligent can come from someone like you. Good day.
07/08/2011 at 22:02 Nick says:
lol I block you!11!one
07/08/2011 at 22:06 Froibo says:
Maybe I got confused with how angry your words actually sounded. But oh well I’m blocked and this is really serious business not to be confused with Hitler, though.
08/08/2011 at 00:59 JackShandy says:
C’mon, Froibo, why can’t you look at this rationally, you delusional, brainwashed monkey syncophant?
08/08/2011 at 06:26 Pointless Puppies says:
Wow, what’s with everyone kissing Valve’s behind? It’s like Valve could never do anything wrong and any company that criticizes Steam is EVIL. You Valve zealots must be the most delusional, brainwashed monkeys in the PC gaming world.
Let’s look at this rationally
A little late for that, eh?
08/08/2011 at 08:38 RF says:
The funny part is that he used draconian perfectly.
Maybe the other guy thought it means “DRAGONZ”.
08/08/2011 at 09:05 LennyLeonardo says:
Yeah, use of “draconian” was legit. Sorry dude.
You’re the one using words like “Valve zealots”, “delusional, brainwashed monkeys”, “sycophant”, and “Hitlers”, while Froibo only said “a bit ironic”. Why not have a cup of tea and relax?
07/08/2011 at 21:50 Froibo says:
What… Since when did EA start patching their PC game’s properly?
07/08/2011 at 21:53 Ashen says:
So, this is apparently an outrage, while Valve putting their catalogue exclusively on their client is a-ok. Yeah.
07/08/2011 at 23:37 Wulf says:
What is the difference between a publisher’s game library and a developer’s?
That’s a question you need answered for you.
08/08/2011 at 02:29 kibayasu says:
The answer is: Nothing at all.
There’s also the tiny matter that BF3 is not exclusive to Origin. There’s also the other tiny matter that other third party publishers ARE making their own titles exclusive to Steam through Steamworks.
08/08/2011 at 02:56 Shivoa says:
Sorry but you can’t have that both ways.
“There’s also the tiny matter that BF3 is not exclusive to Origin. There’s also the other tiny matter that other third party publishers ARE making their own titles exclusive to Steam through Steamworks.”
BF3 can be purchased from any store that accepts it but the spat with Valve is that all BF3 DLC must be purchased via EA (Origin store or in-game or link to EA website, it’s all the same and will not be via the merchant you purchased the game with, unless you chose Origin as your merchant).
Steamworks integration allows me to buy a game anywhere (retail, the indie dev’s website, a pay what you want HIB deal, etc) and get a cd-key that activates that purchase on Steam. The requirements of that purchase are such that HIB are not throwing 30% of their total at Valve and many indies see the benefit of providing Steam keys for direct sales through their website as a value-add proposition but that is beside the point. Even if Steamworks integration forced all purchases to be made only via the Steam DLC system (thinking about Steamworks titles, this may be true – MW2 was Steam only DLC) this would only be exactly the same as EA’s plan for Origin and their DLC capable games.
Either Steamworks & EA Origin are both exclusive making (buy the game anywhere, get forced into the singular store for your DLC needs) or neither of them are. Also, games can release on Steam and use Steam DLC without being locked to it (they can offer non-Steam DLC for Steam purchased titles as titles like Fable 3 show, Valve just demand they also offer the DLC on Steam, while EA is not offering any of the retailers they work with the same leverage that Steam offer to the developers/publishers they work with).
07/08/2011 at 21:54 Branthog says:
I feel like if you want to play BF3, you have no choice. You will do it EA’s way. Period.
I would prefer to use Steam, because . . . you know . . . that’s where I have 435 (literally) games that I have purchased. I don’t want to run half a dozen separate “interfaces” in the taskbar for every distributor. I want to use the one I want to use. I could opt to purchase the retail physical version, but of course it’s going to require that you have an Origin account and that you install it and have it running alongside the game. Same if you buy it from Steam, I’m sure (so to play it, you’d then probably have to have Steam, Origin, and the game going — either that or it would only be downloadable from Steam but not actually work at all via steam, but Origin instead).
So . . . it seems to me that whether or not they actually sell it via Steam is irrelevant in the long run. Their bullshit “send in the UPC from your testicles and four dr peppers to get this gun that you should have just gotten in the game!”, beside.
So no matter how you acquire the game, you’ll still be stuck going through the same shit everyone else does. So it’s just a choice of — are you going to play or not? I really want to, but I can’t bring myself to do it. I don’t like where this is going and I’d rather just avoid supporting it at all.
07/08/2011 at 21:55 Idiotmancer says:
People like you are the reason why PC gaming is turning into a glorified Xbox LIVE experience. Ugh.
07/08/2011 at 22:25 Cyampagn says:
Add the shortcut to Steam, you don’t have to open Origin every time you play.
‘OH NOESSS, NO STEAM ACHIEVEMENTZZ’
Get over it.
07/08/2011 at 22:58 PoulWrist says:
Oh no, a game that’s not on steam. Who gives a flying fuck?
08/08/2011 at 03:30 jay35 says:
Everyone who is happy with Steam, obviously.
08/08/2011 at 08:18 PoulWrist says:
So you’re saying there could never be something better than steam? That’s just stupid. Origin is already better if you’re in europe outside the UK.
07/08/2011 at 22:11 Squishpoke says:
I’m pretty sure I had a lot more direct communication forums certain developers through Steam’s forums (such as Tripwire Interactive).
Also, I’ve seen Steam link directly to third-party websites on their store pages so that you can contact the developer/publisher’s support team.
And on top of all that you also get Steam support (which is a bit lacking, but it’s nice to have an alternative).
If EA wanted to say that they wanted a bigger slice of the profit, they should have just come out and say so, rather than telling us “we want to interact with the customers for DLC and patches and stuff”.
07/08/2011 at 22:27 JohnnyMaverik says:
Bah, screw EA, never forget, never forgive, all the shit they’ve done especially to the pc community and people are willing to turn around and say that they’re not that bad any more, and that origin might be a good thing. EA are bastards and nothing good can come from origin.
07/08/2011 at 23:34 Wulf says:
Yeah, I think people have short memories. They had a short stint of being interesting, but after that they just relapsed into being the EA that you and I remember.
I mean, if using that name for their ‘service,’ the name of a studio that they bought, dismantled, and now only keep around to barely maintain Ultima Online isn’t a dick move, then I don’t know what is. That’s pure EA. They’re back to making horrible decisions and they’ve lost what little favour they earned from me. I’m not willing to trust them as far as I can throw them.
08/08/2011 at 03:00 zeroskill says:
I still cant believe they used that name for their service. Its beyond tasteless.
08/08/2011 at 09:14 The Sentinel says:
It was lovely that so many were willing to give EA a chance when they allegedly turned over that new leaf, bringing us Mirror’s edge and all, but their turnaround didn’t last long enough or go anywhere deep enough to undo all the damage they’ve done. Trust them at your peril. But going further, this is why putting something as important as trust in ANY company is a dumb idea – companies will never subscribe to the same ethics you do, not even the blessed Valve.
07/08/2011 at 22:48 matrices says:
“If I can’t play all my games by clicking one button, then I’m not playing!”
The moronization of PC gaming – and gamers – is in full swing, given the prevalence of this sentiment here and elsewhere.
What has EA actually done that is objectively offensive? They (a) want to make money and (b) want to sell their own games through distribution services not offered by a direct competitor. Oh no, how outrageous!
Seriously, it’s like railing against Ford (yes yes, car analogy) because they don’t want to sell Ford cars at the Chevy dealership.
Inconvenient for you? Maybe. Worth raising hell over and declaring fealty to an alternative corporation? Hardly.
Valve didn’t give a shit about any of its loyal fans who were left hanging at the end of Episode 2 – they moved onto more profitable enterprises, focusing on Steam and MP gaming, with not a single word about Half Life in half a decade.
Try not to lose sight of basic realities here.
08/08/2011 at 05:33 stillwater says:
Kudos for being a voice of reason. :)
Unfortunately, a lot of people have already made up their minds that Valve can do no wrong, while EA can do no right, and facts won’t do much to change that.
08/08/2011 at 09:20 The Sentinel says:
Well, matrices, you might want to take a longer view of EA’s business practices, rather than just do that for Valve. EA have been the enemy of PC gaming in far more concrete way than Valve ever have, buying and closing down important, beloved development studios, reducing gaming to an annual production line, instigating DRM’d installation limits…the damage they have done is massive. That’s why nobody trusts them to do right with Origin (itself using the name of one of those beloved dev houses, just to rub the salt in that little bit further).
If all you can bring up against Valve is that they’ve not spoken about Half-Life in six years then you really need to reconsider your argument.
07/08/2011 at 23:12 Fitzmogwai says:
“Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches…”
Because patching Battlefield 2 was like a walk in the park picking daisies and listening to birdsong, and patching BF:BC2 on steam was an unholy nightmare that felt like I was pulling my own teeth out with rusty pliers.
Oh no, that’s right, it was actually the other way round, wasn’t it?
07/08/2011 at 23:35 zookeeper525 says:
Too all these damn steam fan boys, you need to stfu on stuff you don’t know anything about. Battlelog is what is making it not able to be on steam. If anyone was in the alpha you’d know that and to all the people saying origin is a rip off can kiss my a** as i preordered bf3 from origin got 20% off and dead space 2 for free and got into the early beta of the game (was in the alpha), so go give that bullshit to someone who cares. Don’t buy the game i’m sure we really care, as there are people who aren’t steam fanboys who will still buy the game as it’s amazing.
08/08/2011 at 00:31 wazups2x says:
I don’t understand? How exactly is Battlelog preventing it from being on Steam?
08/08/2011 at 16:35 Tasloi says:
I’m not sure but maybe he’s talking about the fact BF3 has no in-game server browser. You have to go to the Battlelog website which has the server browser and then launch the game from there.
08/08/2011 at 00:06 Alfius says:
It’s odd, this makes me sad in the same way that hearing of the Sky F1 deal makes me sad.
The BBC should be the sole provider of F1 coverage in the UK,
Steam should be the sole online provider of PC games.
Both are flawed for sure, but the alternatives are abominable, utterly abominable.
Does anyone know whether there will be a good old fashioned boxed version of BF3 available sans any Origin &c. crap?
08/08/2011 at 08:21 PoulWrist says:
Competition in the marketplace is abominable? I say that your oppinion on this is abominable.
Now that we have a big player offerin fairer prices to europe, maybe steam will follow suit on this matter.
08/08/2011 at 16:26 Tasloi says:
What big player would that be because i’m in a t1 EU country and i’m certainly not seeing any fairer prices on Origin.
08/08/2011 at 20:30 PoulWrist says:
Here EA is and has always been cheaper than steam, simply because they use localised prices. Steam doesn’t.
08/08/2011 at 00:08 Ultimanecat says:
Luckily for everybody going ape on both sides of the debate, there is such a glut of good games at great prices these days that you can afford to spend your time and money where it suits you for whatever esoteric reasons you want.
At the end of it all, we’ll see which side needs the other more. What I know is that I definitely need one less than the other, so out they go until they earn my money on my terms again.
08/08/2011 at 00:20 MajorManiac says:
The term “interact with customers” is a little off-putting to me. I don’t want publishers coming to my door with offers. When I want to buy something, I’ll go to them.
Frankly I’m very dubious about EA’s yet-to-be-disclosed overstepping of Steams policies.
08/08/2011 at 08:22 PoulWrist says:
You don’t want them coming to you, yet you praise the idea of having the competitor’s shop installed on your PC? :p
08/08/2011 at 11:47 MajorManiac says:
Stop projecting, I’ve praised no-one.
08/08/2011 at 00:27 Tei says:
So EA wants your first born. And Steam wants your first born. But EA eat childrens alive, so we don’t want EA to have our first born..
08/08/2011 at 01:42 malkav11 says:
FWIW, I’m not okay with Valve having their own games only on Steam any more than I’m okay with Stardock only having their games on Impulse. I may prefer Steam on average but as a consumer I want to be able to make that purchasing decision myself. The more places I can buy any given game, the better.
08/08/2011 at 13:30 Alegis says:
The games require Steam for a good reason; they’re closely intertwined with steamworks. Steam itself was made for this very purpose, if you remember (automatic updating).
That said the games can be found in retail, but for Valve there’s little reason to offer Steam keys to other digital download sites. What’s the added value here according to you? If Valve were to offer steam keys on other digital download sites they’re still the ones deciding the price and the other store has nothing to offer.
08/08/2011 at 01:53 InternetBatman says:
EA are well within their rights, but it does disappoint me. I really like Steamworks and have never liked the various outside the game components of various EA games. EA has a nasty habit of shutting down servers and charging way too much on their own Digital Distribution site. The Origin sales they ran during the Steam summer sale make it pretty clear that they either don’t understand how Digital Distribution really works or they want to raise prices. I’m also terrified of the possibility, however remote, where EA is the only retailer for EA games. Despite their image change I still haven’t gotten the impression that they terribly care about their customers.
It’s not like I’m not going to buy games from Origin. They’re holding Bioware hostage.
08/08/2011 at 08:28 PoulWrist says:
You mean like how steam is far more expensive than retail, and pretty much all their competitors, for … the reason of being a service that you used to get FOR FREE? Aha! Steam, the one place where they managed to get you to pay in the hidden for things that used to be free. And now, you’re loving it. Loving it like fanboys and hating on everything else. Oh yea, that’s right, if you’re not in the UK, where they get magic prices from the kingdom of fairies, steam is 30ish % more expensive than retail. 30! And 10% more than Origin. Just for comparison’s sake. And what do I get with steam? Features of which I only use the friendslist…
08/08/2011 at 12:10 Ovno says:
Auto patching that’s what we get from steam and a one stop shop for all my gaming needs…
Hell I even use impulse, but there is no way in hell I will ever use origin,
I’ve had enough of ea with there download manager and general bollocks that I don’t even care if there software is so good it would give me super powers, they suck, it will suck and they can f off, and in a couple of years when they’ve scrapped origin and taken away the games of anyone who used it I will carry on playing them on safe and reliable services instead of one run by the devil himself.
08/08/2011 at 12:35 InternetBatman says:
I don’t live in Europe. Steam prices are very competitive in the United States.
08/08/2011 at 02:24 jay35 says:
Maybe they ought to stop having so much nickel-and-dime DLC and put the content in the launch product where it belongs.
Also, stop trying to charge $60 for a PC game PRE-ORDER (which is us doing them a favor by paying well in advance of being able to use the product) and offer the normal pre-order incentive of a 10%-20% discount ($40-$45 sale price) off the normal $50 PC game price, plus whatever in-game product incentives they feel are necessary (Physical Warfare Pack and Back to Karkand expansion, in this case) if they insist on offering a pre-order at all.
08/08/2011 at 02:36 BAshment says:
Has EA ever made a profit?
08/08/2011 at 03:10 vash47 says:
Valve can do no wrong. Fuck EA.
08/08/2011 at 03:47 armyofdan says:
I like Steam because i can get tons of good games during Steam sales. Hey, there’s one going on now if you don’t have fallout 3 or vegas. EA is going to need to make some awesome Origin sales, especially since they only carry EA games and they are making 100% of the profits.
08/08/2011 at 08:29 PoulWrist says:
All that sales and stuff are the publishers of those games deciding to have them. Not Valve.
08/08/2011 at 12:02 MajorManiac says:
@ PoulWrist:
You talk nonsense. In an earlier comment you wrote – “…steam is far more expensive than retail, and pretty much all their competitors…”
And now you write – “All that sales and stuff are the publishers of those games deciding to have them. Not Valve.”
So if Steam is expensive you damn Valve, and if its cheap you damn Valve. Try to get some perspective; Steam is a service, not a person. Use it when its most convinint and use another service when its not.
08/08/2011 at 20:32 PoulWrist says:
Valve is to blame for the €=$ policy. If games were 50$ here I wouldn’t mind. It’s publishers being lazy, but valve allows them to do it. I don’t care either way, I never buy new games on steam, or any other digital distributer simply because they’re so much more expensive than retail. Why should I pay more?
08/08/2011 at 03:51 valru says:
Meanwhile on Steam, Codemasters continues to sell Dirt3,.a game that has DLC that can only purchased externally through the GFWL application.
YUP, fuck EA.
08/08/2011 at 04:14 MrMetlHed says:
I actually appreciate that EA is letting us know this far in advance.
I love buying games on Steam. I have something like 150+ on the service. I was looking forward to Dragon Age II, but the pre-ordering nonsense got out of hand, and it appeared on Steam the day after all of the biggest pre-order bonuses expired. I never did buy the game (and it sounds like that was for the best).
In this case, at least we’re getting notice ahead of time that it won’t be available on Steam, and there won’t be some special deal at a later date. That’s helpful. I don’t mind using Origin or whatever as long as I know the situation before getting into it.
08/08/2011 at 04:56 Xigageshi says:
I don’t know if this has been covered, but while I’m not thrilled that valve isn’t explaining itself here, leaving this discussion rather one-sided, from what I’ve gathered, basically Valve refuses to distribute games over Steam that include a way to circumvent Steam when it comes to buying DLC.
Now, people seem to go right from this to discussions of, “I want to get all of my games from one place.” Has anyone stopped to consider the hypocrisy freely accepted here? Gamers champion Steam, which created it’s entire install base by “forcing” retailers to sell a product that circumvented the retailer, but if EA tries to do the exact same thing to Valve, EA are automatically the bad guys?
I love digital distribution and dislike EA as much as any PC gamer, but maybe we could all be a little more rational about this whole thing?
08/08/2011 at 05:23 stillwater says:
While I agree with you that people are way too willing to have double standards when it comes to Valve, I’m not sure you’re correct in this case. For example, I bought Dirt 3 on Steam, but I have to get the DLC in-game through the Games for Windows Live Marketplace. As far as I can tell, Steam has nothing to do with the DLC for Dirt 3, gets no commission from it, and the steam client might not even be aware that I’ve bought any DLC for it at all.
08/08/2011 at 08:33 PoulWrist says:
Maybe there’s a Microsoft-Valve deal that sits in the hidden? Who knows? Why not practise a bit of conspiracy on that, since everyone knows that Microsoft is a horrible monster.
Also, how about that Valve with it’s steam pricing scheme of charging in euro and equating those to $, eh? Charging you 30% more than retail and thus making you pay for a type of service that used to be free? But really, since prices are set by those publishing the games, that makes ALL the damn companies selling through steam evil! Evil as fuck, for wanting to charge me so much more than they do elsewhere, or if I go to the damn e-tailers and get the game shipped to me on a disk! And what with the size of modern games, soon there’ll come a day when even the fastest net connection I can get won’t be enough to beat overnight shipping.
08/08/2011 at 09:51 Nick says:
and yet.. Dragon Age Origins and the Mass Effects are on steam still and sell DLC through EAs store like they always did. It only became a problem when EA released Origin and only became a problem with their *new* games.
All very odd.
08/08/2011 at 05:18 stillwater says:
Yeah, the way steam just automatically downloads and installs the latest patches to your games without you even realising it, and without creating any waiting times for the customers is just so unfortunate, isn’t it?
I’m with you, EA! I want more “interaction” with the publishers: more bloatware, having to wait for “checking for updates” every time I load a game, getting little EA marketing popup messages, and whatever other crap you have in store for us. Bring it on!
08/08/2011 at 08:35 PoulWrist says:
On the other hand they don’t have to make a special patch to put on steam, delaying the whole process further, and they’re not forcing us to install steam, a hideous piece of bloatware that constantly tries to sell you shit that you don’t really want at prices way above retail. I can see the good in that.
08/08/2011 at 09:30 magnus says:
< 'Sigh' it's a Head-Desk/Face-Palm/Head-Desk combo again.
08/08/2011 at 05:43 Corrupt_Tiki says:
Fuck.
08/08/2011 at 06:07 soldant says:
I can’t help but think that this kind of thing would be an entirely different kettle of fish if it was a different publisher, particularly if it was an indie dev making the same arguments. Some of the ranting in this thread represents what’s wrong with the PC gaming industry. They’re publishers, they’re out to make money, and if EA don’t want to release a game on a particular platform for whatever reason, they can do that. There’s no rule that says that everything has to be released on Steam. I have no doubt that this is just a move to secure more profit and lock in better control by EA, but Valve did the same thing with Steam. Hell I can still remember the gnashing of teeth when Steam was first released, and even later when HL2 first game out and Steam became a big deal. Oh how quickly people forget.
08/08/2011 at 08:39 PoulWrist says:
Onl UK and US fanboys, really. Here in mainland europe, it seems publishers think that steam is a nice way to charge you somewhere around 30% extra for the “privilige” of having to install a webshop full of advertisement and an exceedingly bloated featureset on your PC… 30% that are apparently nothing to scoff about as it gives you access to all these services that used to be free in the “good old days”. If we can “forgive” all that this easily, then we sure as hell can “forgive” EA for wanting to do it themselves.
And hey, what do you know, they’re already slightly cheaper than Steam now. Who knows what will happen in the future? Maybe all those publishers will stop trying to buttfuck us and charge 30% extra on the digital platform over retail…
08/08/2011 at 06:56 armyofdan says:
Loud noises!
08/08/2011 at 08:39 ForlornWinter says:
I, for one, have tried Origin. Apart from being a source of bad jokes for fans of Stargate SG-1, it is exactly what you’d expect from EA. Not the EA that brought you original IPs like Mirror’s Edge, but the EA that bought up the good studios back in ~2000 and ruined them. Not only can you not add an EA game from before September 2008 to your account (Which I should point out includes Command and Conquer 3, the BFMEs, and SimCity 4, among others), EA, and their support staff confirms this, actually expects you to buy ANOTHER COPY of a game you already own in order to register it on Origin from that time, even if (C&C3 again) it’s for sale in their own storefront .
VALVe lets you register a HL1 code. VALVe and their partners cooperate to bring awesome games as obscure as Cthulhu Saves the World and as old as Streets of Rage to their download service. EA doesn’t care enough about their longtime customers to expend the resources to enable even the most popular games that they released before 2008 to be registered on Origin. That to me is the difference between the two services. One, Origin, wants to squeeze you for cash by any dirty means possible, even going so far as to make it their official policy that you must buy another copy (IF it’s even still sold) of their games to throw it on Origin. The other, Steam, wants to squeeze you for cash by having irresistible sales and support for games older than the Orange Box, even if they weren’t designed for digital distribution. I will never buy a game which forces me to register on Origin, even if it’s offered through other services, because I remember which company has been good to PC gamers, not only recently, but throughout their entire existence; Because I remember which company has _repeatedly_ shut down access to online services for its games on consoles, and which, given the opportunity, would do the same to PC gamers. I reject Origin because I want to be able to download my PC games a year from now; I want to install the games that I paid for as many times as I like, on as many computers as I like.
If you’ve stuck with me through this wall of text, thanks, I know it got a bit rant-y there.
08/08/2011 at 08:41 PoulWrist says:
Don’t forget Valve allowing those publishing through it to just charge 30% extra for games from people in mainland europe :p for no reason other than being too lazy to not equate $ to €, when £ gets special magical prices cheaper than anywhere else.
08/08/2011 at 08:59 ForlornWinter says:
I challenge you to find a download service that doesn’t get wonky with non-dollar transactions. I’ve just been on GamersGate UK and the Witcher 2 is ~$57.
08/08/2011 at 12:59 deadsexy says:
@PoulWrist: May I ask where you’re from?
I’m from Austria and the prices on Origin are horrendous. Just to give some examples:
Battlefield 3 (Preorder): 59,99€
Star Wars – The Old Republic (Preorder): 54,99€ + 5€ Preorder-fee
Mass Effect 3 (Preorder): 54,99€ – Digital Deluxe: 74,99€
Crysis 2: 54,99€
Dragon Age II: 54,99€
Football Manager 12: 54,99€
The Sims 3: 49,99€
Alice – Madness Returns: 49,99€
Dead Space 2: 49,99€
08/08/2011 at 16:52 kikito says:
@deadsexy he’s from EA.
08/08/2011 at 20:34 PoulWrist says:
Denmark. Everything new on Origin is 350dkkr, which is 46,99 euro. Cheaper. Apart from BF3, which is now 399, or 53 euro, give or take a few cents. Blame CoD for making it alright to have games start out at 60€, but even so, BF3 is still a whole 7 euro cheaper on Origin than CoD on steam….
Retail is a whole nother matter, where a new game is generally 250-280, unless it’s Blizzard.
And hey, what’s funny is this: Here in Denmark we have 25% VAT, but Steam only charges 15% EU VAT, dunno what Origin charges, since there’s actually an EA Denmark, they might be charging 25%…
I never buy new “big” games on digital distribution services anyway, they’re too expensive there when retail has them at 30% less.
08/08/2011 at 08:46 Giftmacher says:
Well, that was a fantastic and enlightening public statement. Exactly like the last one.
08/08/2011 at 09:02 Screamer says:
I don’t really care who sells it, just as long Origin’s servers keep up with demand on launch day…..
08/08/2011 at 11:35 ffifofu says:
I would be happy with the lesser of 2 evils… consumer inconvenience vs Steam monopoly.
It would be good if EA wouldn’t aim for monopoly itself:
I’ve downloaded the Origin thingy now that the EA account is an Origin account and they still don’t want to sell me the damned Mirror’s Edge Map Pack.
Ok, I’ve come to your sales kiosk, but you still want me to buy the game from you even if your system knows that I already have it?! If EA want it all, it will have nothing from me. Steam is also on my blacklist after the terrible trap of pre-purchasing a bad mainstream game (EA’s Crysis 2, ironically).
Hopefully RPS, the monopoly of game news for me, will report alternatives like playism. Anyone knows of some more?
08/08/2011 at 11:48 AdamK117 says:
So, who bets we have to do the following (either way):
-Login to steam/EA/etc
-Boot game
-Go through 2-4 unskippable animations
-Login to another system (even if you downloaded with EA)
-Navigate through the worst serverlist known to man (I mean, marginally improved from EAs Medal of Honor Allied assault with the addition of background battle animations)
-Find a server
-Wait for your friends to add you through EAs strange friendlist (which doesn’t seem to propagate between games, I have acouple of EA titles)
-Listen to your friend rant about connection issues
-Quit
-Load up a game with a decent friends list + sever list + sleeker UI and get playing within 2 minutes
08/08/2011 at 13:10 Shooop says:
Something to note before ripping EA for being a miser: Medal of Honor players who bought the game through Steam didn’t get (free) patches at the same time as everyone else. Apparently EA’s method of content updating doesn’t get along with Steam’s.
But it’s definitely not out of the question EA wants their service to take off. Some competition would only make Steam better.
08/08/2011 at 14:01 slpk says:
Many people are going in favor of EA because they support healthy competition. For it work, the costumers have to move from one provider to the other as their conditions (price, quality of service, etc) change, no?
This is what bothers me about this argument, Steam clearly has the best product, so let’s move/stick to Steam. If someone else comes up with something better, we’ll move to them.
However, if people try to favor any provider for whatever reason beyond the general betterness of their service, the balance becomes skewed and starts to not work properly.
08/08/2011 at 20:07 Shooop says:
Right now it’s impossible to compare the two services though. Origin is not finished yet. Who knows if it will or will not be better than Steam at this point?
Since they both cost the same to download and use (free), there’s no harm in Origin appearing on the scene. And even if Steam remains the champ, maybe Origin would improve enough over time to match it. Or it’ll die a quick death and someone else will have to challenge it next. We don’t know and can’t know right now.
The only thing we can do right now is speculate and not much else.
08/08/2011 at 16:29 Typhuseth says:
Don’t the publisher’s set the prices anyway? And Valve (through steam) have to abide by these prices? So all this about steam being more expensive than brick and mortar is because other publishers aren’t yet ready to lose shelf space on console games (seriously I’d love to see GAME say “We won’t stock call of duty on any platform because it’s a fiver cheaper on steam”). Origin is more expensive than everything else because, well EA really likes the money
08/08/2011 at 20:16 Shooop says:
I’m fairly sure it’s got nothing to do with game prices. It’s more about the way EA handles game updates. Apparently they use a method Steam has a tendency to consider illegal modification so they had to spend about a week finding a work-around in order to get people who bought MoH on Steam their patches. They had problems with Microsoft’s XBox Live network too.
I don’t doubt they also see the advantage of offering exclusive digital download purchases too though. But since Origin is not is not the only place to get their games and is free, I don’t see a very big issue with this yet.
There was a big outrage over Origin accounts deleting games not played in a period of time and EA quickly canned the offending idea.
08/08/2011 at 20:20 Synesthesia says:
This is terrible. This completely kills the gaming communities in places like southamerica, where the adoption of origin is much less known, and almost no one will use it. Steam already is helping greatly reducing piracy here by their sales which get game prices more towards our dollar-inflation rate, and that is great. Retail here is expensive as FUCK, and many people play away from our capital cities, where retail is not available. So that too.
For BF, there is already a big online community, that will undoubtly be killed by this move. It makes me sad. I know i wont be buying this, i know ill just find empty servers. Bad, sad move ea. Im sure its good for them, but they’re repeatedly fucking gamers in the ass, forgetting there is more market than the US and EU.
Sorry for my rusty eenglish, i’m tired and this thread is already too old.
08/08/2011 at 21:57 Frank says:
This post is a joke right? Didn’t you report them saying the exact same thing last week, and the week before?
09/08/2011 at 00:40 studenteternal says:
been fucked by EA, have not been fucked by valve, valve stays the good guys to me until proven otherwise, and EA can likewise go f– themselves until proven otherwise, nothing on ‘origin’ looks to be for my benefit. I don’t really need BF3 in any case, if they don’t want to put it in a store that I feel good about buying from, then I won’t. I have a list of games on steam that far exceeds my time to play them anyway.