*looks for where I said that*animehermit said:Most people don't have 20 megabytes of hard drive space?
*Doesn't find it*
Please don't put words in my mouth.
*looks for where I said that*animehermit said:Most people don't have 20 megabytes of hard drive space?
Actually, I don't really think it's that annoying. GFWL boots up automatically, so I don't notice it, and the Social Club isn't required. People are making mountains out of molehills with these things.Irridium said:Yep. And it's just as annoying as you'd think it would be. Unless you think it wouldn't be annoying, in which case you'd be wrong.
Shrug. I don't think its a particularly logical thing. More like an OCD thing. I go to my computer and I want all my games in one place, neat and tidy, like.animehermit said:Most people don't have 20 megabytes of hard drive space?Zachary Amaranth said:Mostly people don't like where this is going, methinks. They don't want to have to download more clients to play games. That's one of the appeals of Steam, on top of sales and stuff.animehermit said:OT: I haven't seen any reason to be hatin on Origin at the moment, games have downloaded quickly and function. Hell I even put in my code for BFBC2 on Origin and got the deluxe edition for free. I have a few games on there, and the layout is pretty cool with everything being easy to access.
And then crack the game and delete it the moment it's finished installing. Or they'll discontinue it again in a year like EAO and EADM before them.Lacsapix said:A customer will only install Origin because it was on the battlefield 3 disk.
From what my understanding was from the last update on this story was that EA was still releasing their games on other digital distributors, so I'm not sure if they're actually trying to create a monopoly. However, this situation is different than the console wars in the sense that you won't have to shell out big bucks to use each. Unless there are any unforeseen complications you should be able to use both.Mysnomer said:I would like to point out that Origin is not competition for Steam, not in the positive market force sense, anyway. It is EA trying to bust a perceived monopoly (really just an overly strong market share) with a real monopoly...yeah...
To be truly competitive, both Origin and Steam would need a wide selection of games, with lots of overlap. Then the deciding factor in what service to use would be value (determined by prices and features). Competition would come in the form of competing sales and steadily expanding feature lists as each service tries to one-up the other. What's actually going on, is that EA is keeping all their games on Origin in a bid to force you to use it, rather than proving it's value to the customer, creating a monopoly on EA games.
Next time somebody starts talking Steam up as a monopoly, and how it needs competition, make sure it's really competition that is being supported, and whether Steam is truly a monopoly.
Because at the time, Steam was the first of it's kind. It didn't have a positive example to help it become as helpful as it is today.Andy Chalk said:Steam was unadulterated shit for quite awhile after it came out. But Valve persisted, worked on it and now have a platform that, for people who buy digital, is pretty damn awesome.
Why are so many of you so insistent on not giving EA the same opportunity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1IZhukov said:Attention all game company executives:
That. That right up there. That is how you do it.
Stay classy big guy.
First: Steam is only a perceived monopoly, it's comparable to the Microsoft vs Apple market share of computers. Sure, Microsoft has the overwhelming majority, but isn't a true monopoly. And Steam didn't start out with this huge lead, they had to fight for it. (Also, Impusle, Gamersgate, GoG, there's some UK based ones that I've heard about but don't really know the names of; point is: just because you don't know about the competition, doesn't mean they are a non-issue).BoredDragon said:From what my understanding was from the last update on this story was that EA was still releasing their games on other digital distributors, so I'm not sure if they're actually trying to create a monopoly. However, this situation is different than the console wars in the sense that you won't have to shell out big bucks to use each. Unless there are any unforeseen complications you should be able to use both.Mysnomer said:I would like to point out that Origin is not competition for Steam, not in the positive market force sense, anyway. It is EA trying to bust a perceived monopoly (really just an overly strong market share) with a real monopoly...yeah...
To be truly competitive, both Origin and Steam would need a wide selection of games, with lots of overlap. Then the deciding factor in what service to use would be value (determined by prices and features). Competition would come in the form of competing sales and steadily expanding feature lists as each service tries to one-up the other. What's actually going on, is that EA is keeping all their games on Origin in a bid to force you to use it, rather than proving it's value to the customer, creating a monopoly on EA games.
Next time somebody starts talking Steam up as a monopoly, and how it needs competition, make sure it's really competition that is being supported, and whether Steam is truly a monopoly.
As for Steam, I think it really is a natural monopoly. I couldn't tell you the names of any other digital distributors (besides Origin because of this story) and I'm not sure if many people could either.