EA: "There Is No Feud With Valve"
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
The thing that makes EA so fun is they are being comic villains because its like they don't understand economics. They would earn way more if they just focused on being nice and helpful toward the consumer but by doing there anti consumer stance they make them self out to be jackasses, and as such receive less purchases.
Except for one is just sitting there while the other one is raging. Honestly, Valve is the most chill when it comes to its competitors. When EA and GOG said that the salves Valve did were hurting gaming, they slipped a note to the media saying "Yeah, you see these numbers? Yeah that is triple the profits this game got that is 2 years old once it went on sale." And then EA and GOG shut up about it.Valanthe said:
EA plays the "Light the poop on fire, get caught and then throw it on someone else" game and they pretty much tried it with Valve but failed to do any damage so now their pretending that Valve is picking on them [again] to look innocent when honestly their really, really dumb.
EA didn't publish them, instead they were distributed with the help of EA which is not a publishing position. Try again.irishda said:
EA did not publish L4D or Portal 2 for the consoles; it helped distribute them (retail only).DragonLord Seth said:
Why help Valve? My guess would be to make money since EA is a business and by distributing for Valve they can reap a small percent of the profits. If EA refused to help Valve then Valve would just find some other distribution company. EA has nothing to gain and Valve has nothing to lose if EA refuses to distribute retail copies of Valve games.
It's all just good business.
Naming out Valve games specifically? Yeah, no feud at all going on. None whatsoever.Macgyvercas said:
I only ever used Origin to try the mass effect 3 demo once i'd finished playing i went to uninstall ME3 (then origin), told origin to remove the game and all it did was pop control panel.....seriously?!?!??! I haven't installed origin since then, mostly because of the prices but also because origin is terrible to use compared to steam.
And as to them being friends, what sort of "friend" attacks their friend over having sales like every other online/offline retailer?
And as to them being friends, what sort of "friend" attacks their friend over having sales like every other online/offline retailer?
Hmm,,, If Valve are so against updates directly from developers,,, How can ArcenGames keep posting patches for AI-wars once a week through their game? StarTrek Online uses its own patching system to...
I know right? Clearly we have all been imagining this feud and are all crazy or something.Redlin5 said:
Well, to be fair, in my country the games on Origin are actually cheaper than in Steam.
That is, the 3 - 4 games that are not Sims DLC that doesn't suck.
I've been tempted to buy Dead Space (it's 6 dollars in 'merican) and Battlefield 3 is 38 Freedom and Liberty Cash.
That is, the 3 - 4 games that are not Sims DLC that doesn't suck.
I've been tempted to buy Dead Space (it's 6 dollars in 'merican) and Battlefield 3 is 38 Freedom and Liberty Cash.
Well, it's a situation where the perception of a conflict is bad, but I think it does exist. You can't do the things EA has done without there being a conflict.
At the end it's about money, basically EA wants to make monster profits off of each individual game they sell, STEAM seems to be increasingly about volume sales. Things STEAM does like put all of thier games up for deep discounts doesn't fit with EA's vision of increasingly raising prices and asking for more and more money which goes directly into profits. From the way things look from the outside, I'm not entirely sure that those who are on STEAM's platform really get a choice about what games go on sale and for how much. While I could be wrong about that, I've picked up a few things here and there about companies being unhappy with games being discounted like 50% a few months after release. This isn't to say that STEAM isn't pretty greedy on it's own, it's simply a differant strategy, on how to make money, a few big ticket items or volume sales for a much smaller profit, it's ironic here because we're seeing this conflict on the same basic profit. EA is kind of right (irregardless of what kind of say they might get) that STEAM does devalue IPs, by showing what they are actually worth, and presenting them as a volume item rather than a high priced luxury item.
There is also the issue of control, and simply put everyone in the industry right now wants to be "that guy" that controls the platform and has the power. STEAM being so entrenched means hat it remains pretty much in control of digital distribution, and companies are more or less forced to compete with their business model.
EA does have a valid point though about patches and updates and such, from various things I have read, it would be nice if STEAM did make it a bit easier for companies to work on their games, at least for patches. There has been a few annoying moments where a company has had a patch up, but I had to wait to get it for the steam version.
At the end it's about money, basically EA wants to make monster profits off of each individual game they sell, STEAM seems to be increasingly about volume sales. Things STEAM does like put all of thier games up for deep discounts doesn't fit with EA's vision of increasingly raising prices and asking for more and more money which goes directly into profits. From the way things look from the outside, I'm not entirely sure that those who are on STEAM's platform really get a choice about what games go on sale and for how much. While I could be wrong about that, I've picked up a few things here and there about companies being unhappy with games being discounted like 50% a few months after release. This isn't to say that STEAM isn't pretty greedy on it's own, it's simply a differant strategy, on how to make money, a few big ticket items or volume sales for a much smaller profit, it's ironic here because we're seeing this conflict on the same basic profit. EA is kind of right (irregardless of what kind of say they might get) that STEAM does devalue IPs, by showing what they are actually worth, and presenting them as a volume item rather than a high priced luxury item.
There is also the issue of control, and simply put everyone in the industry right now wants to be "that guy" that controls the platform and has the power. STEAM being so entrenched means hat it remains pretty much in control of digital distribution, and companies are more or less forced to compete with their business model.
EA does have a valid point though about patches and updates and such, from various things I have read, it would be nice if STEAM did make it a bit easier for companies to work on their games, at least for patches. There has been a few annoying moments where a company has had a patch up, but I had to wait to get it for the steam version.
I suppose they're competitors in the same sense that a little girl selling lemonade on the street corner is a competitor to Country Time or Minute Maid...anthony87 said:
I remember purchasing Mass Effect 3 earlier this year and being forced to use the EA origin service. When doing so I'm presented with an EULA indicating that for me to be "allowed" to play the game I purchased then I must bend over and I Quote "Consent to Collection and Use of Data" of my PC. If I said no I was not allowed to play the game I had purchased.
I'm aware these EULAs exist on other games, but most of these EULAs exist in games which have a strong online component (eg. MMOs). Mass Effect 3 I purchased to finish the story of 1 and 2, not to play the multiplayer, which I felt was tacked on anyway.
Now while Steam does scan you computer in a similar fashion it is about choice, if you choose no then you can continue playing the games you have purchased. Its not compulsory.
This is not the first time EA has acted in this fashion, remember the DRM for spore and only being allowed to install the game 3 times.
EA continually demonstrates how they view us gamers, believing that we will rant and moan but after crying foul will continue to come back to purchase from them. This gamer will not. I don't care who in the future signs up with EA I will not use EAs origin service nor continue to patron that company. EA have clearly demonstrated how they treat such patronage.
I'm aware these EULAs exist on other games, but most of these EULAs exist in games which have a strong online component (eg. MMOs). Mass Effect 3 I purchased to finish the story of 1 and 2, not to play the multiplayer, which I felt was tacked on anyway.
Now while Steam does scan you computer in a similar fashion it is about choice, if you choose no then you can continue playing the games you have purchased. Its not compulsory.
This is not the first time EA has acted in this fashion, remember the DRM for spore and only being allowed to install the game 3 times.
EA continually demonstrates how they view us gamers, believing that we will rant and moan but after crying foul will continue to come back to purchase from them. This gamer will not. I don't care who in the future signs up with EA I will not use EAs origin service nor continue to patron that company. EA have clearly demonstrated how they treat such patronage.