Dragon Age 2 Disappears From Steam

[Somebloke]

I'm pretty sure nothing about Steam's terms forbids in-game DLC purchases as such -- on the contrary; Team Fortress 2 and Portal 2 showcase what I'd assume to be microtransaction funtionality within Steamworks, readily available and simple to use for any client developer, little and large and the upcoming DOTA 2 will probably be thouroughly permeated with the like, with virtual junk being hawked for real cash, all over the place. None of this is off-site, of course, but that's defenceable as a customer convenience matter AND a developer one - you just offload all your ditribution woes onto your digital download service partner and the customers have everything in one place and automatically updating.

I can't really blame EA for wanting that sweet "micro" money without any middle man cutting into their profit, nor wanting to avoid having to either tie themselves up to one external service, or needing to keep up support for several, in order to provide the same service to every customer, regardless of their point of acquisition. They /are/ kind of just doing what Valve themselves are doing...

BUT: They don't have to be dishonest about it. It is Suits talking here, on EA's behalf.
I would not be in the least surprised if they have deliberately sought out specific Steam terms, which they may intentionally break, with the purpose of spinning this as draconian policies on Valve's part, with a suggestion that their own services are much nicer and customer-friendly.
I also won't be surprised if Valve turns out to remain mum on the whole thing, due to a client confidentiality agreement being used against them.


I remember when the old Electronic Arts label, with its cube-sphere-cone logo, was considered a pleasant creative entity, which published things like the "Deluxe" line of creativity tools, most noteably the almost legendary "Deluxe paint".
Then they started their sport games line...

...and then there's Activision, which started out as a few Atari employees who wanted to do their own thing.

Heh... It's kind of sad how often and long trademarks are transferred, mangled and regurgitated, over and over again, in the computer/video games world.

 

[DeaconSawyer]

So help me if Mass Effect 3 is not on Steam, I don't know what I will do.

I thought of this too, but my guess is that after EA loses a fortune on Battlefield 3 because they cut off one of their major bases, and the so called Call of Duty killer ends up being an EA killer and money pit, they will be forced to try to make it back. In doing so, Valve will bend them over and make them do as they please. I mean EA is going to need to sell its RPG and PC based FPS on the main source of PC gaming sales if they are to have any hope of making money back. And make no mistake they will lose it on these decisions.

I am not saying it was EA's choice to take their games of Steam, but it was their choice to not adhere or acquiesce to the demands that Steam was making. Maybe this puts Valve and Steam in the wrong, or maybe it makes EA dirty in their business practices. Either way it is EA that will take the hit.

It seems to be a common cycle for them. A couple years of good policy, decisions and games. And then a couple years of terrible policy, awful marketing, worse decisions and bland games. My hope is that by ME3 release we find ourselves on the upswing of that cycle.

So it doesn't matter whose fault it is because by year's end EA games will be back on Steam.

 

[Epona]

That I can't legally dump and distribute it on the internet doesn't mean I don't own it. I own my car but there are some things I can't legally do with it, run you down for example.

The EULA is not a law, get that out of your head. The EULA could forbid you to do something that consumer protection laws allow. For example, you see all those used games in Gamestop? Perfectly legal no matter what the EULA says.

Actually, the law allows you to make a backup of your physical copies (in the US anyway). Digital Distribution is a full priced rental, you have no physical copy so you can't do what you want with it. Physical copies though can be resold, loaned out and even flushed down the toilet.

I'll agree that the EULA is not a law; it's more a contract. I'll also add that I don't, in any way, believe that any game publisher would actually bother going after anyone who violates any minor condition in the EULA.

And while the law may allow me to make backups of my physical copies of games, there is no law that says console makers have to let those backups work on their consoles. While such a backup would(most likely, some forms of DRM notwithstanding) work fine on a PC, all three main consoles today will not play backups unless they are modified to do so, either through homebrew software or hardware modding. Both can be classified as violating the anti-circumvention laws in the DMCA, which is a federal law. Whereas I can redownload my Steam games as many times as I want, even on multiple computers. Heck, the Xbox Marketplace, PlayStation Network, and Wii Shop Channel all let me redownload titles I've already purchased. The Wii Shop Channel is more restrictive, though, limiting it to one console, because of the way they identify it. If something happens to the console, though, Nintendo can transfer the licenses to another console.

If I have a physical copy, yeah, that's a bonus. It's great to have the disc ready for me any time I want it. But shit happens, and if that disc becomes damaged, I'm simply out that money and can't play the game anymore. To me, digital distribution is much more convenient.

I agree with everything you said here but to avoid another low content post warning I will say more than I need to. LOL

Technically speaking there is a bit of a contradiction in the law. You are allowed to make a backup of any media you purchase BUT you aren't allowed to crack the DRM. This will eventually be taken to court and worked out and hopefully the original law will stand because as it stands a publisher need only add DRM to a game to cancel out a consumers right to make a backup.

I will also say that content downloaded from XBOX Live is also tied to the console, just like the Wii. With XBOX Live you can (only once a year though) transfer your content to another XBOX but it is still only tied to one console at a time. You can put your account on another XBOX and download the content but then you must be online to use that content. DRM is a complicated mess that only make life harder for you and me, the paying customers. I don't know if PSN is the same way as I don't have a PS3.

Well, I can see how it would be problematic for some people, but I don't really mind staying online if I'm at a friend's house showing him something I just bought.

I hope it works out in favor of allowing backups, as well.

Also, you mentioned that consumer protection laws allow you to do things such as resell even if the EULA forbids it, but the US Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit disagrees. Just ask Timothy Verner, who got DMCA'd by Autodesk for selling used copies of their software. While Autodesk's claim that their software agreement supersedes the first sale doctrine was originally dismissed, an appeal ruled in favor of Autodesk, the US Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit saying "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user?s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

I don't agree with what Autodesk did here, but this does establish a precedent.

A very anti-consumer precedent IMO.

 

[The Lugz]

Digital Distribution is a full priced rental, you have no physical copy so you can't do what you want with it. Physical copies though can be resold, loaned out and even flushed down the toilet.

not really, anyone with a dvd burner and a decent idea how steam works could quite legaly and legitimately make a data disc containing their game files and or the steam system

or, more likely just dump it on a backup drive

as for loaning it out, just send them the confirmation code from steam and your biddies can use your account untill you update your password

it's possible, not as easy for sure but possible

This is all true but what I was saying is that Steam still retains the right to "turn your games off", this doesn't happen with a physical copy unless it is tied to some online account. In the case of older games, this isn't even a possibility.

I like Steam, I am not saying DD is bad. I am arguing that with DD you don't own your games in the same way you own SNES, N64, DS, PS2, etc... games.

and i agree, but you can make an offline account on a non networked pc and keep your games, in fact i recommend keeping your old pc systems for exactly that when next gen hardware arrives
i'd like to see them dispatch an armed technician to disable your pc manually XD

 

[Epona]

Digital Distribution is a full priced rental, you have no physical copy so you can't do what you want with it. Physical copies though can be resold, loaned out and even flushed down the toilet.

not really, anyone with a dvd burner and a decent idea how steam works could quite legaly and legitimately make a data disc containing their game files and or the steam system

or, more likely just dump it on a backup drive

as for loaning it out, just send them the confirmation code from steam and your biddies can use your account untill you update your password

it's possible, not as easy for sure but possible

This is all true but what I was saying is that Steam still retains the right to "turn your games off", this doesn't happen with a physical copy unless it is tied to some online account. In the case of older games, this isn't even a possibility.

I like Steam, I am not saying DD is bad. I am arguing that with DD you don't own your games in the same way you own SNES, N64, DS, PS2, etc... games.

and i agree, but you can make an offline account on a non networked pc and keep your games, in fact i recommend keeping your old pc systems for exactly that when next gen hardware arrives
i'd like to see them dispatch an armed technician to disable your pc manually XD

I can also reinstall my PHYSICAL copy of KOTOR on my old XP box without needing to worry about authorization (ie, offline account).

Look, I like Steam, you don't need to convince me that Steam is awesome. I am only arguing with the "you don't own your physical copies of games either" ideology.

 

[thedarkfreak]

That I can't legally dump and distribute it on the internet doesn't mean I don't own it. I own my car but there are some things I can't legally do with it, run you down for example.

The EULA is not a law, get that out of your head. The EULA could forbid you to do something that consumer protection laws allow. For example, you see all those used games in Gamestop? Perfectly legal no matter what the EULA says.

Actually, the law allows you to make a backup of your physical copies (in the US anyway). Digital Distribution is a full priced rental, you have no physical copy so you can't do what you want with it. Physical copies though can be resold, loaned out and even flushed down the toilet.

I'll agree that the EULA is not a law; it's more a contract. I'll also add that I don't, in any way, believe that any game publisher would actually bother going after anyone who violates any minor condition in the EULA.

And while the law may allow me to make backups of my physical copies of games, there is no law that says console makers have to let those backups work on their consoles. While such a backup would(most likely, some forms of DRM notwithstanding) work fine on a PC, all three main consoles today will not play backups unless they are modified to do so, either through homebrew software or hardware modding. Both can be classified as violating the anti-circumvention laws in the DMCA, which is a federal law. Whereas I can redownload my Steam games as many times as I want, even on multiple computers. Heck, the Xbox Marketplace, PlayStation Network, and Wii Shop Channel all let me redownload titles I've already purchased. The Wii Shop Channel is more restrictive, though, limiting it to one console, because of the way they identify it. If something happens to the console, though, Nintendo can transfer the licenses to another console.

If I have a physical copy, yeah, that's a bonus. It's great to have the disc ready for me any time I want it. But shit happens, and if that disc becomes damaged, I'm simply out that money and can't play the game anymore. To me, digital distribution is much more convenient.

I agree with everything you said here but to avoid another low content post warning I will say more than I need to. LOL

Technically speaking there is a bit of a contradiction in the law. You are allowed to make a backup of any media you purchase BUT you aren't allowed to crack the DRM. This will eventually be taken to court and worked out and hopefully the original law will stand because as it stands a publisher need only add DRM to a game to cancel out a consumers right to make a backup.

I will also say that content downloaded from XBOX Live is also tied to the console, just like the Wii. With XBOX Live you can (only once a year though) transfer your content to another XBOX but it is still only tied to one console at a time. You can put your account on another XBOX and download the content but then you must be online to use that content. DRM is a complicated mess that only make life harder for you and me, the paying customers. I don't know if PSN is the same way as I don't have a PS3.

Well, I can see how it would be problematic for some people, but I don't really mind staying online if I'm at a friend's house showing him something I just bought.

I hope it works out in favor of allowing backups, as well.

Also, you mentioned that consumer protection laws allow you to do things such as resell even if the EULA forbids it, but the US Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit disagrees. Just ask Timothy Verner, who got DMCA'd by Autodesk for selling used copies of their software. While Autodesk's claim that their software agreement supersedes the first sale doctrine was originally dismissed, an appeal ruled in favor of Autodesk, the US Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit saying "a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user?s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

I don't agree with what Autodesk did here, but this does establish a precedent.

A very anti-consumer precedent IMO.

Agreed. Verner is trying to make an appeal to the US Supreme Court, and I hope he is successful.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Hm, I've been wondering if I use Steam because it's the best service, or becasue everyone else uses it.

Sure, they got their customers at first by being awesome, but as someone who's never used other digital distribution methods, I'm not sure if Valve deserves my money more than anyone else. It's starting to feel like a monopoly, and monopolies are against my whole quasi-socialist philosophy.

And by "anyone else" I don't mean the jerks at EA; probably gonna check out GOG and see how it compares.

 

[Albino Boo]

Meh, let EA have their tantrums. DA isn't even that good.

I'm all for letting EA look like the jerk again, not that they need much assistance -- and DA never floated my boat either. I just hope this little ripple isn't the start of a massive tsunami of cloud-based BS, or that soon we'll all be looking back dreamily on the days when we actually owned the applications we use.

You never have owned the applications, you just bought the right to use them.

Wrong, you always owned it until publishers started using the internet to force full price rentals. As an example. I have 3 copies of Super Mario 64, the N64 version which is on a cartridge that I own and can do anything I like with. The Wii Virtual Console version which is extremely limited, I can't even play it on my second Wii and finally the DS version which is on a card and I can do anything I like with it.

Oh dear that whole software licensing thing seams to have passed you by, you never have owned the cartridge just merely the right to use the cartridge. You never have and never will own the application, try reading the eula before you type

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Well if you've been at all following this mess since the whole Alice debacle you'd know it was Steam's decision.

That's not an answer.

This is not their first offense either. Want more info? Well they're not very forthcoming but here's what EA sent to Giant Bomb when asked to elaborate:

"EA Partners and Spicy Horse Games appreciate Steam?s decision to sell Alice: Madness Returns," said the company. "The game is also available on several other download services including Amazon, Gamestop and Origin.com."

Neither's that.

They've also made statements on this site that they are not interested in pulling their content from Steam. I sadly cannot navigate this site's archive to find the info but if you can you'll find it there.

So, because of offences you've sited but never elaborated on, they've done wrong despite

There's no information as to why the game has been removed,

C'mon...citation or retraction please.

The link you are looking for, googling "Escapist Alice Steam", is http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.291730-EA-Gets-Ready-to-Throw-Down-With-Steam-UPDATED

And yet that is simply EA blaming Steam without giving any indication of why, while selling it in a more expensive manner from their own site.

If Valve/Steam have done wrong, then EA need to say why - or the onus is on them.

 

[Monsieur E]

I couldn't care less about DA2 being pulled from Steam. I wasn't going to buy the game anyway. And if I were to buy DA2, it would be on the console; I hear it is better on console.

 

[Thoric485]

And nothing of value was lost.

 

[Wandrecanada]

snip

Tired of arguing. Let's put this to rest. You have no proof this was EA's decision and both parties are remaining close mouthed about the whole thing. EA has been the only side to make an statements at all in this mess. Your tacit denouncement of EA was made wholly without any proof as well so you're just as responsible to provide proof for your argument.

Me? I can cite the article; "EA claimed that Crysis 2 was removed from Steam because EA had a deal with another distributor that violated Steam's rules , rules, EA added, that other distributors do not have."

Read it how you want but, it seems pretty clear to me that Valve removed something from Steam because it was breaking their rules. Rules that they applied only to EA. Yeah, they're totally the good guys here.

 

[Ken Sapp]

EA's animosity towards Steam is not news to me. I preordered DA2 from Gamestop when EA decided not to allow it on Steam until after the deadline to get the full preorder bonus package. I think EA is setting themselves up for failure with Origin, we already have Steam, D2D, and Impulse for digital distribution and while I can't speak for D2D or Impulse, most users seem to be very happy with Steam. And wasn't it EA that showed they care nothing for their customers when a forum ban resulted in some gamers being completely unable to play their legally purchased games thanks to the required sign-in authentication?

Personally I have racked up quite a collection through Steam sales and have no wish to add yet another DD service to my computer.

 

[Levethian]

This is clearly EA's fault; they've either deliberately pulled the games or they've refused to comply with some of valves conditions (which all other publishers comply with) to give them an excuse to pull the games and blame Valve.

This is a naked gambit by EA to support Origin. Plain and simple. Anyone who believes this is Valve's fault is naively swallowing EA's spin.

You won the thread.

Anyone who actually believes EA's report about removing games because of obscure Valve rules that no one else seems to care about or acknowledge is buying right into their nonsense. What EA is doing is pulling the rights to games so they can sell them exclusively through Origin for essentially full price. They just don't want to share profits with Steam, simple as that. And it's a battle they're going to lose, because every other major publisher is likely to stay on-board with Steam, especially the indie developers who have obtained an easy distribution platform through Steam. EA's just trying to take its ball and go home.

That's my take on this too - mainly based on their deserved reputation of being awful.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I also won't be getting Origin because I don't want to have to run even more software in the background.

You don't have to run the Origin client in the background. The only time you'll ever need to have it open is when you purchase or download a game through it.

If you disable the Origin overlay there won't even be a trace left of the client when you run your game.

If that's actually important, as in, the OVERLAY has a noticeable effect on your system performance, you're in a whole lot of trouble to begin with.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't buy any of EA's games on principle, but the ensuing distribution war will be interesting to watch if nothing else.

Make no mistake: EA does not want to enhance the quality of their games or service; they just want more control over their titles on the market.
So for the time being, the Status Quo remains; EA's games will compete with other games; not just their distributors.

Like it or not, if EA is only going to sell their titles exclusively through their own distribution system in the future, then there is no way EA can really lose money except by overpricing their titles, or by failing to draw in customers at all.

 

[w00tage]

I think we may be seeing the beginning of the downfall of Steam. That sort of pisses me off too but that's the result of each publisher having their own download service, it sets up a sort of monopoly.

It's like if EA owned Target, they wouldn't want to sell their games at Wal Mart as that would compete against them.

Except target does not manufacture games, and this is not the downfall of steam, just the downfall of stocks over at EA, when share holders (like my self) see that they lose money with Origin.

Look unlike other products on the market, you cant exactly have any thing BUT a monopoly when it comes to things like steam. You have all your games on steam, you don't want to have another thing that only houses some of your games, that you have to boot up ALONG WITH STEAM or have the hassle to also close steam to run this digital distribution application, and then play those games, it simply isn't practical. No one wants 30 steam copy cats running at the same time.

Good point, and it applies in a different way. Competition only works when different distributors are able to sell the same product. Any Valve or EA produced game is never going to show up on the other's distribution service, therefore we don't have competition - we just have more monopolies.

Also Origin will always suck because it is run by a company with public investments, where as Valve is private, and doesn't give a shit what a bunch of people who just want to get a big return on their investments say, and will do the right thing, not the thing that fucks over the customer to make lots of money.

Aaaand here we part ways. I have bought my first Valve product and found it to be fun, but filled with glaring flaws in singleplayer and omglookittheexploitsandgriefing in multiplayer. I went to the forums and found out that it's been that way pretty much since release over 2 years ago, nobody is policing multiplayer, and indeed, even the most basic aspect of competitive multiplayer - matchmaking - is totally absent. There isn't even a difficulty selector on the multiplayer game so people can match themselves up by skill level.

Valve's handwave of an answer to these really game-breaking problems did not impress. Their "when someone feels like working on it" as far as fixing them in the future does not impress. Their "but the DLC will be free" does not impress, because "free DLC" does not mean "oh and we're going to fix the small-to-do but fundamentally critical gameplay problems too". If I'm not playing the game because it's broken in ways that make you lose in singleplayer and coop, and exploited against and griefed in competitive multiplayer, exactly what value does "free DLC" have?

So sadly, I can't agree that "Valve will do the right thing" when I own a very popular Valve product that I've stopped playing because they didn't do the right thing for years. I honestly don't see the difference between their behavior towards their customers and a big game company's behavior (SOE comes to mind).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Tired of arguing. Let's put this to rest.

If you're going to back off, then don't start arguing as you do it.

Your tacit denouncement of EA was made wholly without proof

An implied condemnation? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Especially as providing proof for an implied evil is inconceivable.

both parties are remaining close mouthed about the whole thing

EA has been the only side to make an statements

That's a statement with a closed mouth, I take it?

but, it seems pretty clear to me

That's the problem. You're basing your entire argument on how you feel. The OP said there was "no reason given". That leads your entire argument to be based on your assumption. That's not a valid reason. While you can't even be bothered to Google results.

Your citation is of EA's press release. And the word "claimed" is nothing more than blame.

Citation or Retraction. If you can't provide proof, it's simply hearsay.

 

[ciasteczkowyp]

Honestly guys, the more competition there is between digital distribution services - the better. I like lower prices.

Anyways Brick&Mortar For The Win, always 20% cheaper than digital pre-orders for me.

 

[Epona]

Meh, let EA have their tantrums. DA isn't even that good.

I'm all for letting EA look like the jerk again, not that they need much assistance -- and DA never floated my boat either. I just hope this little ripple isn't the start of a massive tsunami of cloud-based BS, or that soon we'll all be looking back dreamily on the days when we actually owned the applications we use.

You never have owned the applications, you just bought the right to use them.

Wrong, you always owned it until publishers started using the internet to force full price rentals. As an example. I have 3 copies of Super Mario 64, the N64 version which is on a cartridge that I own and can do anything I like with. The Wii Virtual Console version which is extremely limited, I can't even play it on my second Wii and finally the DS version which is on a card and I can do anything I like with it.

Oh dear that whole software licensing thing seams to have passed you by, you never have owned the cartridge just merely the right to use the cartridge. You never have and never will own the application, try reading the eula before you type

Sure, where is the EULA for my SNES version of Chrono Trigger?