'From Dust' DRM to be removed in the next 2 weeks

[R-F]

Yes, I hate people complaining about DRM and making statements like "OMG ILL BE CROSS AT THEM FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, AND SO SHOULD YOU"

I know your point of view, I just dont agree. But you never seem to be able to defend that standpoint, you just keep repeating in a "louder" sense. And more importantly, if your point is so clear, then why bother at all? Arent you in fact talking to yourself?

Zen.

And it irritates the shit out of me when people say, "LOL YOU PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID, YOU SHOULD JUST BUY PRODUCTS NO MATTER HOW MUCH A COMPANY HAS SCREWED YOU OVER LOL." Especially when that's ALL they say.

You don't agree that people should be allowed to make an informed choice on whether or not they want to boycott a company for screwing them and others like them over? Mmkay...

Forums are the social equivalent of masturbation. You talk to yourself and hope someone replies.

[Rii]

Rii it's not a case of forgetting, it's a case of learning to recognize that time has moved on and it serves no great purpose to hold the future hostage to the past.

The once-in-a-blue-moon downtime thing doesn't bother me. There's a difference between nursing a grudge forever just because, and noting the past insofar as it informs the present. The story of Steam's birth as a platform that was forced on gamers if they wanted to continue playing the games they'd already bought is absolutely relevant to the Origin vs. Steam debates currently raging on the internets. Its not 'neutral' to ignore that genesis.

[QuantaCat]

And it irritates the shit out of me when people say, "LOL YOU PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID, YOU SHOULD JUST BUY PRODUCTS NO MATTER HOW MUCH A COMPANY HAS SCREWED YOU OVER LOL." Especially when that's ALL they say.

You don't agree that people should be allowed to make an informed choice on whether or not they want to boycott a company for screwing them and others like them over? Mmkay...

Forums are the social equivalent of masturbation. You talk to yourself and hope someone replies.

You missed my edit earlier, so I bring it forward: EDIT: in reply to edit. Then why not just state you wont buy those products? why answer to Kads at all? you have to admit, you replied to him because it carried over from another thread, and you KNEW he wasnt going to budge on this whatsoever. Nor am I. That seems like a reasonable answer, not just "omg hate" which is what you implied, really.

[R-F]

You missed my edit earlier, so I bring it forward: EDIT: in reply to edit. Then why not just state you wont buy those products? why answer to Kads at all? you have to admit, you replied to him because it carried over from another thread, and you KNEW he wasnt going to budge on this whatsoever. Nor am I. That seems like a reasonable answer, not just "omg hate" which is what you implied, really.

Because the thread was relevant?

[squirrelfanatic]

Read his messages and tell me they are civil at all.

Ok. I have changed my post to account for that.

[Kadayi]

I know your point of view, I just dont agree. But you never seem to be able to defend that standpoint, you just keep repeating in a "louder" sense. And more importantly, if your point is so clear, then why bother at all? Arent you in fact talking to yourself?

Pretty much. There's no reframing of the position once criticisms have been levelled at it, it's simply a case that those whose opinions differ are imbeciles and idiots coupled with a lot of CAPS, inarticulate rage and assertions that 'you don't get it' or that if you disagree you must be either, blind a sheep or a corporate shill (or even all three). It's kind of wearing tbh.

The once-in-a-blue-moon downtime thing doesn't bother me. There's a difference between nursing a grudge forever just because, and noting the past insofar as it informs the present. The story of Steam's birth as a platform that was forced on gamers if they wanted to continue playing the games they'd already bought is absolutely relevant to the Origin vs. Steam debates currently raging on the internets. Its not 'neutral' to ignore that genesis.

I think the issue with Origin is that as a digital platform it doesn't offer most active gamers any benefit over Steam. If it had comparable features the perhaps people might be on board with it, but it simply doesn't. There's no community features, no profile features, no voice chat, no ability to launch non Origin games to the listings, no ingame overlay, no screenshot uploads. Nothing Nadda, Zilch. If I want to add friends, I've got to do it manually and there's no clan/group feature suppport at all. Nothing Origin does adds any benefit to my gaming experience. That is the issue for a lot of people.

Sure we can look at Steam and say 'Well Steam wasn't so rosy back in the day', but the point is Steam blazed a trail and set a standard, and if you are going to put your toe in the water you need to be offering something that's adding value to the gamer experience not diminishing it in the process. EA aren't making my life as a gamer any easier with Origin.

Please, civil discussion only.

I think it's fair to say some people are going to post themselves off the forum at this rate.

[Nalano]

I think the issue with Origin is that as a digital platform it doesn't offer most active gamers any benefit over Steam. If it had comparable features the perhaps people might be on board with it, but it simply doesn't. There's no community features, no profile features, no voice chat, no ability to launch non Origin games to the listings, no ingame overlay, no screenshot uploads. Nothing Nadda, Zilch. If I want to add friends, I've got to do it manually and there's no clan/group feature suppport at all. Nothing Origin does adds any benefit to my gaming experience. That is the issue for a lot of people.

Sure we can look at Steam and say 'Well Steam wasn't so rosy back in the day', but the point is Steam blazed a trail and set a standard, and if you are going to put your toe in the water you need to be offering something that's adding value to the gamer experience not diminishing it in the process. EA aren't making my life as a gamer any easier with Origin.

While I don't care a fig for the pseudo-social networking Steam provides, its capacity as a repository for all my game launchers and its automatic updates are, as of this moment, absolutely essential for smooth gaming for me.

Origin as it stands would be redundant at best and obstructive at worst. It could always get better, but I don't think I'm being allowed that choice, considering its predilection towards game exclusivity, and at any rate I'm not in the habit of doubling utilities: I don't have two separate phone lines running to my house in the hopes that one company's rates suddenly dips below the other.

[Althea]

Ubisoft UK tweeted this earlier today. It seems as if they're of the view point we should be thankful they're removing it, rather than saying "We screwed up, we'll fix it".

[Nalano]

Ubisoft UK tweeted this earlier today. It seems as if they're of the view point we should be thankful they're removing it, rather than saying "We screwed up, we'll fix it".

It's not a bug; it's a feature!

[Kadayi]

While I don't care a fig for the pseudo-social networking Steam provides, its capacity as a repository for all my game launchers and its automatic updates are, as of this moment, absolutely essential for smooth gaming for me.

Origin as it stands would be redundant at best and obstructive at worst. It could always get better, but I don't think I'm being allowed that choice, considering its predilection towards game exclusivity, and at any rate I'm not in the habit of doubling utilities: I don't have two separate phone lines running to my house in the hopes that one company's rates suddenly dips below the other.

I have to admit despite having a pretty good opinion of John Riccoletto with his early initiatives at EA in terms of turning around the quality of their products, of late some bad decision making has occurred and I think the whole Origin thing is likely to backfire quite badly for him by the middle of next year. Throwing in with Steam with BF3 and TOR (EAs two big hitters) rather than attempting to use their popularity to leverage the launch of an inferior digital platform would have been a lot more sensible and albeit there would have been some cost to it, it would likely be more beneficial in the long run. Activision for all their issues recognize that it's better to have steam there as a central element you can work off of (as they will with the whole Elite thing) rather than attempt to go out on their own.

Ubisoft UK tweeted this earlier today. It seems as if they're of the view point we should be thankful they're removing it, rather than saying "We screwed up, we'll fix it".

I'll be honest I'm not sure how you 'read' that out of what they said tbh. Seems like an information broadcast to me.

[Nalano]

I have to admit despite having a pretty good opinion of John Riccoletto with his early initiatives at EA in terms of turning around the quality of their products, of late some bad decision making has occurred and I think the whole Origin thing is likely to backfire quite badly for him by the middle of next year. Throwing in with Steam with BF3 and TOR (EAs two big hitters) rather than attempting to use their popularity to leverage the launch of an inferior digital platform would of been a lot more sensible and albeit their would of been some cost to it, would of been more beneficial. Activision for all their issues recognize that it's better to have steam there as a central element you can work off of (as they will with the whole Elite thing) rather than attempt to go out on there own.

I appreciate that Riccoletto's a gamer and credit him for giving Mirror's Edge a chance, but he's also closed a lot of development studios and, considering EA's propensity for buying a lot of great studios out, that just makes it a huge thresher machine in the industry. I can't abide by that.

That said, he's also credited for turning EA's profit margin around by embracing direct downloads and online services, and as such EA probably sees Steam as an untenable status quo. He would be remiss in not assailing it.

[pmh]

Throwing in with Steam with BF3 and TOR (EAs two big hitters) rather than attempting to use their popularity to leverage the launch of an inferior digital platform would of been a lot more sensible and albeit their would of been some cost to it, would of been more beneficial. Activision for all their issues recognize that it's better to have steam there as a central element you can work off of (as they will with the whole Elite thing) rather than attempt to go out on there own.

I cringe. Would have. "Would've" is also acceptable.

With that out of the way, throwing in with Steam would be a monumental business mistake and I'm not sure how it could be construed as sensible. In doing so, they'd willingly cede control and substantial revenue in the very two cases where there's clearly no reason to—people will STILL buy BF3 and TOR, just as people still bought HL2 and CS:S in 2004.

Throwing in with Steam would primarily benefit Valve and those who like having Steam as their single game-platform, but certainly not EA and especially not long-term. That said, they should improve their client as quickly as possible if they want to be a viable competitor for publishing other titles; e.g. the BF3 server browser is a prime candidate for an embedded overlay and it's a shame they haven't implemented that and sidestepped the current Internet nerd-rage over it.

[Kadayi]

I appreciate that Riccoletto's a gamer and credit him for giving Mirror's Edge a chance, but he's also closed a lot of development studios and, considering EA's propensity for buying a lot of great studios out, that just makes it a huge thresher machine in the industry. I can't abide by that.

We're in a recession the likes of which hasn't been seen in 80 years. Contrary to popular belief the gaming industry isn't recession proof and unfortunately there are casualties. I don't think anyone at EA likes having to lay people off, but if it's a case that services aren't required then you have to let people go. Sure EA have brought in a lot of Studios over the years. Some have flourished, some have not, but what one has to remember is no one ever forced those guys to sell themselves to EA. They did so out of their own volition. I hate seeing people get shit canned as much of the rest, but unfortunately it's a reality of business at present.

I cringe. Would have. "Would've" is also acceptable.

Sure you don't want to haul me up for using 'there' (as in place) rather than their (as in ownership) at the end as well?

that out of the way, throwing in with Steam would be a monumental business mistake and I'm not sure how it could be construed as sensible. In doing so, they'd willingly cede control and substantial revenue in the very two cases where there's clearly no reason to—people will STILL buy BF3 and TOR, just as people still bought HL2 and CS:S in 2004.

Throwing in with Steam would primarily benefit Valve and those who like having Steam as their single game-platform, but certainly not EA and especially not long-term. That said, they should improve their client as quickly as possible if they want to be a viable competitor for publishing other titles; e.g. the BF3 server browser is a prime candidate for an embedded overlay and it's a shame they haven't implemented that and sidestepped the current Internet nerd-rage over it.

It's not about benefiting Valve, it's about benefiting a customer base in terms of added value, most of whom are already using Steam. Sure not being on Steam means that they 'potentially' save a little money in terms of charge. However no one I know is buying BF3 direct through Origin because the pricing just isn't competitive Vs retail. Everyone I know is getting it from retail, so the money they'd have saved is going out the door that way (in fact afaik the retail cut is bigger than Steam; 35% Vs 30%, plus packaging costs as well). On top of which if they want to make Origin viable in the long term to be a direct competitor to Steam as a service they are going to need to invest a lot more effort and expenditure into the operation (doubling up so to speak). Sure on paper (and no doubt to investors) it sounds great, but the reality is they'd be better off stumping up the Steam charge and save themselves fighting a war they lost about four years ago.

[Nalano]

We're in a recession the likes of which hasn't been seen in 80 years. Contrary to popular belief the gaming industry isn't recession proof and unfortunately there are casualties. I don't think anyone at EA likes having to lay people off, but if it's a case that services aren't required then you have to let people go. Sure EA have brought in a lot of Studios over the years. Some have flourished, some have not, but what one has to remember is no one ever forced those guys to sell themselves to EA. They did so out of their own volition. I hate seeing people get shit canned as much of the rest, but unfortunately it's a reality of business at present.

You don't need to tell me how the economy is. It's been stagnant since I went to college a decade ago, went into freefall since 2009 and hasn't hit bottom yet. I've been laid off twice in the last three years. I know how it is.

That said, EA hasn't stopped spending ridiculous sums of money to buy out developers, even while laying off thousands of workers due to liquidity issues. (And remember, programmers aren't directors. They make the games, not the decisions.) It's like the numerous airliner mergers where billions were being doled out to make these gargantuan corporate octopi that are just as insolvent as ever.

[Kadayi]

That said, EA hasn't stopped spending ridiculous sums of money to buy out developers, even while laying off thousands of workers due to liquidity issues. (And remember, programmers aren't directors. They make the games, not the decisions.) It's like the numerous airliner mergers where billions were being doled out to make these gargantuan corporate octopi that are just as insolvent as ever.

Oh I think the buyouts have been kind of insane in terms of outlay, but what you have to appreciate is that EA are buying up expertise in markets in which they lack for a presence. Sure EA could tell DICE to make a RPG next, but DICE would undoubtedly have to get in some outside assistance to help them out because it's just not their particular arena of expertise. TOR for instance might be listed as a Bioware game, but it's not actually being developed by the same teams that worked on ME or DA (which are separate teams in themselves), but instead by a new Bioware studio in Austin, where a lot of MMO developers are already based. Sure there's some carry through from the management, and undoubtedly the game is going to have that Bioware stamp to it, but it's all about having the right tool for the job.

[Rii]

I think the issue with Origin is that as a digital platform it doesn't offer most active gamers any benefit over Steam. If it had comparable features the perhaps people might be on board with it, but it simply doesn't. There's no community features, no profile features, no voice chat, no ability to launch non Origin games to the listings, no ingame overlay, no screenshot uploads. Nothing Nadda, Zilch. If I want to add friends, I've got to do it manually and there's no clan/group feature suppport at all. Nothing Origin does adds any benefit to my gaming experience. That is the issue for a lot of people.

And to the extent that people confine their criticisms to that level, I've no problem with them. But let's not mince words here: Steam was a massive pile of shit when it launched, offering nothing to consumers and doing it badly; my conversion to it - and that of millions of others - was decidedly involuntary. By giving gamers fair warning months in advance of the release of the games in question that they will require Origin, EA is extending infinitely more courtesy to consumers than Valve ever did.

In any case my problem is with those whose criticisms extend beyond 'Origin doesn't offer me anything' to suggesting that EA are being evil here in not contributing to the empire that is Steam, for daring to launch their own service at all, for tying BF3/TOR to Origin, or whatever. The former criticisms reek of self-centred entitlement issues - and yes I say this as someone who is unrepentant on the subject of piracy - whilst the latter criticism is perfectly valid of itself, but noxious when combined with love for Steam.

[BobsLawnService]

Agreed. Needless to say no doubt many will still be splitting blood over this 5 years from now, but thankfully the rest of us can move on.

I'm personally not annoyed by the DRM. It's the dishonestly about the DRM. All I want is to be able to make informed purchasing decisions and that becomes a lot more difficult when I'm being lied to.

[TillEulenspiegel]

self-centred entitlement issues

Consumers want to buy a product how they want it. That's not an "issue" - it's a desire to engage in a transaction on their terms. If the company doesn't like it, tough shit.

There are good arguments why that view in this particular case is harmful, but really, I want to beat the word "entitlement" to death with a baseball bat. It means fuck-all.

[Rii]

Consumers want to buy a product how they want it. That's not an "issue" - it's a desire to engage in a transaction on their terms. If the company doesn't like it, tough shit.

And EA wants to sell their product how they want to sell it. If consumers don't like it: tough shit.

Or maybe that's a retarded way of looking at things that ignores the harm caused both parties by assuming such an intrinsically adversarial stance and the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation.

For my part I look at EA's motives here and think: 'I can understand that'. Why should EA give its profits away to a parasitic third-party when there's no end benefit for them in doing so? They're the ones funding and making the games. I'd be perfectly happy to come to a private arrangement with EA whereby I give them money directly in exchange for receiving a product that doesn't come wrapped in shit.

[Kadayi]

For my part I look at EA's motives here and think: 'I can understand that'. Why should EA give its profits away to a parasitic third-party when there's no end benefit for them in doing so? They're the ones funding and making the games. I'd be perfectly happy to come to a private arrangement with EA whereby I give them money directly in exchange for receiving a product that doesn't come wrapped in shit.

Parasitic would imply there's no benefit to it, however that's not an accurate description at lets be honest here. You personally might not care for Steam, but a considerable number of PC gamers do, and it has nothing to do with 'love' and everything to do with it being a great service that they use daily.