Go EA! Hopefully we'll see more of this and more publishers will do their own digital distribution instead of going with the pile of dung that is Steam.
EA Gets Ready to Throw Down With Steam - UPDATED
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
And, Valve fanboy sheep will will always follow the flock while bleating about haters.bombadilillo said:
Steam is an iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove, and shouldn't be praised. But fanboys fully support steam taking over retail. It doesn't make sense to "buy" games from steam, when you don't really own them. All games that you purchase are locked into the service, meaning that if something happens to your account, you lose everything. Not to mention that it's a service that has it's share of problems with the client, and lousy customer support.
So you get a boner when EA makes its own service thats the same? You said good for them, so you really dont have a problem with the system, just valve.Jeffrey Rodriguez said:
Go on and hate son. Its delicious. MMMM good, your tickling my fanboy.
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
That makes yahtzee a fool. The most I've paid for a boxed copy of a PC game in the past few years has been $60.95. The price is determined by the seller, the obscene prices on steam are purely because they think they can get away with them. Did you know that steam went so far as to block the ability of 'gifting' games from one region to another? And steam accounts that are set up in one region and used in a more expensive region are regularly blocked. Valve are encouraging this trend of obscene pricing with their absurd region locking...shrekfan246 said:
See above rant. They may not get to decide 100%, but they have absurd region locking policy and, when boxed copies from stores can be cheaper (I don't frequent at game stores, but last time I went game shopping I saw black ops for $60au-this was within a week of release) the "they don't determine the price" argument doesn't excuse it. Especially if we're talking about how EAs platform could potentially succeed (fun fact, EA DO control the price of their games, and can sell them for whatever damn price they want to attract people to their online service).thedarkfreak said:
The complaint is about when they're updating, not the initial download. And yes, all other platforms that I've used will let you play a game while the update files are being downloaded (either paused or actively downloading in the background). This amazing, groundbreaking ability to download updates then later patch them at your leisure was discovered way, way back when patches were first made available. First, you'd acquire the patch in its completion. Then, you would install it. If you're internet cap ran out or connection died, it didn't prevent you from playing the unupdated version of the game.
Look, that was a mess of a point so I'll straight up admit that it's my fault there's confusion with what I meant. To (hopefully) better explain my issue, I'll give an example:
The university I go to blocks pretty much all connections (even pop email is blocked). I have a horrible timetable, and have many dead spots in my days. I tend to counter this by using my laptop to game at uni during said breaks, however, my laptop is also used for work. The horrible issue is, that any instability in my system that necessitates a reboot fucks steam (even battery failure can have this effect). I can no longer log in as 'offline'. This is very frustrating.
This is, of course, part of the nature of how steam works and I get that its a DRM first...only, I see no reason why if it can retain the username/password from a previous session why it can't also retain the information that I was logged in and online a few hours before (and automatically switch to offline mode)....It's more of a bug than a design flaw (in that I doubt valve consciously decided for the system to work that way), but it is irritating.
It isn't frequent. In fact, it would be fair to say it crashes rarely, but because of how harshly it penalizes users when it does crash I felt it should be mentioned. This would be solved if the above mention bug were to be ironed out (it crashes, but automatically logs back in offline).
An INTERNET connection is not always available, especially if one isn't home or one has gone over their data cap.
That option is periodically reset with platform updates (in fact, I think it may be reset every platform update). Again, there would be a simple fix to my frustration here, but after some 10 years it hasn't been addressed.
See, I'm a bit of an oldie in these gaming communities. I remember that, back before steam, DRM was a code printed on the back of an instruction booklet, a requirement for the games disc to be in the tray and occasionally some form of write protection on the disc. Needing to go online to validate or a game, having to use only a single source for downloading patches and having to run a non-essential program in the background were all unnecessary, way over the top and a general pain in the ass. While other publishers have interpreted steams success as gamers being masochistic and, as such, have delivered much more horrible DRMs, steam still is, at least in my eyes, extreme and hugely unnecissary.
Also, worth noting that this response isn't only at the dark freak. I've had PMs and several replies on this thread and I want to make it clear that I'm not saying, by any stretch that steam is "the worst" or whatever. It has some very irritating bugs that could easily be fixed and have not. imo the reason they are not is because PC gamers are not immune to the rabid fanboyism of the console wars. The "I have an xbox, xbox is superior" train of thought it was alive and kicking within the steam community, if people stopped rabidly defending their choice of platform and actually gave objective criticisms everyones experience would be improved. [
b]Every[/b] platform, DRM, and design choice is flawed (this includes the best, the worst, the mediocre and the undeveloped), when someone points out a flaw it isn't necessarily a flat out attack on that product, merely an observation. If everyone was level headed enough to make the same observations, the problems would be fixed.
As the thread is about the possibility of EA launching a competing product on steam, and whether it could or could not be a success, the answer is it certainly could be. We haven't seen the product yet, but EA have a huge library of popular IPs that people will buy, EA have direct control over the price of the games they sell (meaning they could easily undercut valves prices on steam) and, if they are smart, they will model their system off of steam, imitating or developing on the features that people like (ie masses of free shit in TF2, free weekend trails of multiplayer games etc) and cut out the things people don't like (the shit I've been crapping on about through the rant). Hell, they could even add in some cool features (savegames could be backed up online, single player games do not need the client to be running after they have been authenticated ->whatever). And, as many people have no doubt realized, having a platform that can actually compete with steam can only be a good thing.
Sure, but I'm not seeing a problem. Valve gets a pass because it was first with Steam? It gets a tremendous competitive edge, sure, but I have no problem at all with publishers trying to launch their own distribution platforms.ultimateownage said:
For one thing, I don't envision a situation in which every platform would need its own background software. Just as easy to make a program phone home on its own when it starts up. I also think it's extremely unrealistic to think that we'd end up with more than a few publisher-specific platforms. EA and Activision, sure, but Take-Two? THQ? Codemasters? For most of them it would be far more economically feasible to do a deal with an existing service.
As I've said before, I have zero interest in digital distribution anyway so it's not going to affect me one way or the other. But realistically speaking, I don't see why it would be problematic for anyone; you shop at Steam, you shop at Origin, you shop at GOG, you shop wherever, but your ass never actually leaves your chair.
No I don't use Origin or Steam. I buy games on Gamergate or GOG, or just retail. I hate any type of DRM on my PC, it's why I mostly stick to console gaming. But, as it stands right now Steam is sitting on cloud nine with its monopoly on a sub par service and DRM client. So yes I applaud any type of competition that might knock them down a peg. And, even if Origin's service is pretty much more of the same, at least from all reports it runs a little smother.bombadilillo said:
And, kid if you want to be so crude, no. No type of PC gaming service will give me a boner, my wife does that.
if people are so against steam? what do you use to play your games? and are you even around at xmas time/4th of july week? stuff is so cheap its not funny.
intrusive bs, do you have like 20mb of ram or something?
imo most games arent even worth full price when released (eg Duke nukem & red Faction)and im happy to wait for the price to drop or simply not play it at all, eg MW2.
also, you don't "own the game"? if steam shat itself 2night, id have all my games in my apps folder, go find an exe fix and continue playing. hardly the end of the world. that also applies to offline games?
bandwidth? im pretty sure NZ has the crappiest broadband in the world yet i am on an average plan that i can DL steam at not bandwidth cost (slow but free) its called patience.
if steam took 10 year to get where it is now, how long will it be before origin gets to this point ( provided they are stealing most of their ideas from steams progress ) the software will still no doubt have problems.
i just dont understand how people can bash steam so badly but not suggest any better?
if its so bad then what do you use? do you people even play games? the fact that steam removes most DRM and makes the system so simple is enough for me to keep using it. my copy of red alert 3 is forever locked away in EADM never to be played again because its so unfriendly for me.....
intrusive bs, do you have like 20mb of ram or something?
imo most games arent even worth full price when released (eg Duke nukem & red Faction)and im happy to wait for the price to drop or simply not play it at all, eg MW2.
also, you don't "own the game"? if steam shat itself 2night, id have all my games in my apps folder, go find an exe fix and continue playing. hardly the end of the world. that also applies to offline games?
bandwidth? im pretty sure NZ has the crappiest broadband in the world yet i am on an average plan that i can DL steam at not bandwidth cost (slow but free) its called patience.
if steam took 10 year to get where it is now, how long will it be before origin gets to this point ( provided they are stealing most of their ideas from steams progress ) the software will still no doubt have problems.
i just dont understand how people can bash steam so badly but not suggest any better?
if its so bad then what do you use? do you people even play games? the fact that steam removes most DRM and makes the system so simple is enough for me to keep using it. my copy of red alert 3 is forever locked away in EADM never to be played again because its so unfriendly for me.....
Could you please expound upon that thought, I am rather curious to understand what you mean. I'm also curious whether you are simply just calling me a liar.synobal said:
Back on Topic: I think this will be really interesting to see how this Origin venture plays out. EA is trying to play a similar game in business that they always have: Push the less established out, or buy them up. Except, this time, now EA is the less established actor.
Considering Steam is now entrenched with it's network of titles, community, etc., will people bother just because of exclusives? Ultimately it will be the quality of service EA renders. Honestly that is what is on trial for EA right now. Confidence is down, especially when considering what has happened with Sony.
Will EA prove to make wise decisions and offer value to their customers? Or will short-sightedness and pride end up choking out what they intended to create?
I don't think they're doing this just to try and take customers from Steam. For a while now EA has been trying to find ways to squeeze money out of it's customers - particularly those who buy games second hand. In their recent releases they provide DLC that can be downloaded once with a code contained meaning that anyone buying second hand will "miss out" and have to actually give EA money in order to get the extra content.
This is just an extension of that. If this system works their games will be limited to one person only and they'll never have to worry about second hand sales (or at least worry less when the system first starts, though if it goes the way they plan eventually they won't need to worry at all). All in all it doesn't look like they're doing this for extra customers - it looks more like they're trying to get a much stricter version of DRM to play with and using this whole "let's take on Steam" crap as a way of disguising it.
This is just an extension of that. If this system works their games will be limited to one person only and they'll never have to worry about second hand sales (or at least worry less when the system first starts, though if it goes the way they plan eventually they won't need to worry at all). All in all it doesn't look like they're doing this for extra customers - it looks more like they're trying to get a much stricter version of DRM to play with and using this whole "let's take on Steam" crap as a way of disguising it.
Hmm. . . very impressive analysis Vladus. People complain about DRM, why not make them think they are getting a deal. Maybe they would even come to enjoy the bonds they are helping to create. If this is really the case, then EA is really stepping up its game.
With that consideration in mind, false dichotomies, and the abuse of the ridiculous amount of fanboyism existing within game communities (as we have already seen for the last 8 pages) I want to say I'll be surprised if that was intentionally. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out now.
With that consideration in mind, false dichotomies, and the abuse of the ridiculous amount of fanboyism existing within game communities (as we have already seen for the last 8 pages) I want to say I'll be surprised if that was intentionally. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out now.
You mentioned something about paying more for the ability to redownload your game later. I side I didn't think EA did that, that it was Gamestops Impulse service that tries to do that. I'm not calling you a liar I think you just got the two services confused.WoodenPlanck said:
Is anyone else secretly hoping they make ME3 an Origin exclusive too just to watch the subsequent explosion of the Internet? No? Guess it's just me then...
I'd also applaud any real competition to Steam though, but more for the reason that they'd practically have to give away games for free in order to so.
Where did you read this? I'm very wary of Origin because I've had horrible experiences with the old EA DL service (easily the worst one I've used so far, and yes that includes Games for Windows Live Marketplace).Jeffrey Rodriguez said:
I'd also applaud any real competition to Steam though, but more for the reason that they'd practically have to give away games for free in order to so.