We need people to hold their feet to the fire, but this sort of snobbery is at present unfounded.
So yeah, it's EA, and y'know what? EA sucks.
That said, I do agree in part that Valve have a significant portion of the industry wrapped around their finger, by virtue of being the PC distribution platform of choice to the point where we have cries of "No Steam, no sale!" while making DRM not only acceptable, but endorsed. But I don't think it works in quite the way you propose here.
Not sure what your snobbery comment is about, clearly my response is somewhat tongue-in-cheek and despite my criticisms of Valve I do still think Steam is one of the best things to happen in gaming for a long time, but it's still Valve's show which they run as they please.
Steam DRM is hailed as a necessary evil, as it's largely kept the really nasty shit off our collective backs, Ubisoft notwithstanding. I, for one, remember shit that knocked out drivers for CD burners and bluescreened your PC.
Last edited by soldant; 15-02-2013 at 02:54 AM. Reason: Roar! - id Software.
Origin has been around for a LOOOOOOONG time, it was called EADM.
I have several bad experiences with EADM and their customer support, some of us just hate origin because it's shit.
Them trying to bribe people into liking it with a few free games isn't going to change that.
Also when people say 'no steam, no sale' it's almost always in the context of 'I don't want to deal with Uplay/origin.
DRM-less games are still much preferable to steamworks, Uplay and origin are not.
Last edited by Finicky; 16-02-2013 at 05:02 AM.
Origin can only win in this situation if it provides something "better" than steam. Just doing it the same with a restricted catalog and higher prices means they'll never get market penetration. Not that I'm saying EA are evil, they're just stupid.
The truth is we do not know why these people where laid off and there is a good chance we will never know. What soldant is saying, and what I am agreeing with, is that these people did not work out for Valve as a company and that they cannot employ people out of charity.
People in this thread are very caught up in the idea that these people were fired rather than laid off. Soldant was giving an example as to how this is a relatively benign restructuring, and as such does not reflect badly on Valve - "how could they get rid of such an important talented employee?" - or the recently laid-off - "what did they do to get the boot?"
But really you answered your own question with the most likely answer repeated many times in this thread... so why ask? :)
a terrible idea. If the reason was strategic, disclosing it to their enemies wouldn't be too bright either.
A standard policy of not addressing specific "personnel matters" generally seems like a reasonable and prudent thing to do. Burning a whole swath of former employees by declaring their projects failures wouldn't have been the classiest move seeing as they all need to find new jobs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm curious as hell. I'd really like Ellsworth to spill all her bitter feelings.
Except about business, where they're as opaque as a lead wall, and sometimes about their failures. Which again isn't always a bad thing, but in a case like this when we know people have left Valve for whatever reason issuing a statement which is basically saying "No, we're just going to ignore this, we're not going to say if anyone left or not" is a bit silly.