How is Origin a Form of Competition?

[RicoADF]

Hell, I've said that, and it's not specifically because I'm opposed to non-steam games. The fact is, if it's not in my Steam library, I forget that I own it. Hell, I bought Guild Wars 2 last month, and I'm yet to install it.

Yeah well that's a bad thing as it's creating a monopoly, people who only buy on steam are contributing to the problem (that being steam can do whatever it wants since it has PC gaming over the barrel.

Possibly related to the fact that the two are not comparable - in Valve's case, it's games made by Valve, in EA's case, it's games made or published by EA. Significant difference. Also significant difference in number of games, too.

Your right their not comparable, Origin only has EA games monopoly, steam has all of PC gaming in their monopoly. I think he's saying that steam has more of a monopoly and he finds it funny that people ***** about EA's monopoly of a few games vs steam practically having them all.

 

[Signa]

Hell, I've said that, and it's not specifically because I'm opposed to non-steam games. The fact is, if it's not in my Steam library, I forget that I own it. Hell, I bought Guild Wars 2 last month, and I'm yet to install it.

Yeah well that's a bad thing as it's creating a monopoly, people who only buy on steam are contributing to the problem (that being steam can do whatever it wants since it has PC gaming over the barrel.

Funny you just quoted me, because I just finished setting up GW2. I bought it January 25th, and I'm only installing it now.

 

[Gengisgame]

Origin has sales, just not as often as Steam. Just a few weeks ago they had a massive sale on the Sims Series. Previous to that I remember Titanfall being half-off multiple times.

Origin is still relatively new. It hasn't even been out four years yet. Remember how long Steam took to get where it is now? Yes, the service is still rather basic, browsing it can be a pain, and their library is limited. But compared to Steam, they've given me excellent customer support and a free game every month. I've even gotten discounts for no reason what-so-ever. Origin is not able to compete with Steam yet, but I imagine sometime in the future they will be able to.

And a question for you OP. Why won't you put Origin on your PC? Is it a moral choice, like you don't want to support EA? Or one based on the rumors that floated around in its early days?

The difference between Origin and Steam is that Steam has all the games (mostly) while Origin only has EA's games. This, to me, comes across as an attempt by EA to cut Valve completely out of their sales, which I think is incredibly petty.

If you make a game and you have the ability to sell it under your own power it is not petty to not want to give someone else a share of your profits when you don't have to.

 

[babinro]

1) Free games (on the house program).
I realize that Steam occasionally does this but it's poorly marketed and easy to miss. It seems less regular as well.

2) Refund Policy on games.
Steam lacks this peace of mind benefit which is a BIG selling point IMO.

3) Superior Customer Support.
I'm assuming here as I've never had to use Origin support. I have used Steams twice and they were literally the worst experience I've personally ever had with a companies support team. In one case, I simply never got a response to my issue even after a follow up. In the other case, my response was so generic and meaningless that it offered the same solution I already described trying out in my initial post.
2 unique issues..no reply, no help. It's hard to see origin dropping the ball even worse than that.

That said I wouldn't really call Origin a true competitor with steam. They lack the catelog of games and variety as well as the truly competitive pricing. Origin is the mom&pop store to Steams Walmart.

 

[Strazdas]

If they wanted it to be competitive, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the games to be sold and without using Origin, then try to convince people Origin is the better platform? I know that's not possible given it's EA (mandatory EA bash) but isn't this more like withholding and monopolising?

Isn't monopolising and witholding a form of competition? Or is competition now defined as good for everyone from the word go

no. monopolising is the opposite of competition. withholding something (having an exclusive) is not competition. its removal of competition, which is how you become a monopoly. you cannot have exclusivity and compete. the two are mutually exclusive (pun not intended).

 

[votemarvel]

Your right their not comparable, Origin only has EA games monopoly, steam has all of PC gaming in their monopoly. I think he's saying that steam has more of a monopoly and he finds it funny that people ***** about EA's monopoly of a few games vs steam practically having them all.

That's exactly what I was saying.

People it seems would be happy for Steam to be the sole distribution platform for all PC games but EA wanting to distribute their own games is completely wrong.

 

[Flammablezeus]

Origin's pretty bad when it comes to competing, considering how little they seem willing to offer and work with others. They even get rid of their own games in order to manipulate people into buying the most recent games in a series. After I got Sims 2 for free and saw how great it was compared to the recent Sims games, I recommended it to a friend only to find out that EA had removed it from the store so that people could only buy the newer, more expensive and content-lacking Sims games.

 

[J Tyran]

If they wanted it to be competitive, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the games to be sold and without using Origin, then try to convince people Origin is the better platform? I know that's not possible given it's EA (mandatory EA bash) but isn't this more like withholding and monopolising?

Isn't monopolising and witholding a form of competition? Or is competition now defined as good for everyone from the word go

no. monopolising is the opposite of competition. withholding something (having an exclusive) is not competition. its removal of competition, which is how you become a monopoly. you cannot have exclusivity and compete. the two are mutually exclusive (pun not intended).

Except in many circumstances thats simply not true, especially with games. Microsoft and Sony have exclusive products and software yet they are in competition with each other, even for the people that buy both devices they will usually have to choose titles on a case by case basis and the most attractive titles to the individual consumer will usually win out which is one of the definitions of competition.

A monopoly and exclusivity are very different things, being the only digital distribution service selling games at all would be a monopoly but selectively selling an exclusive catalogue means the items within that catalogue will usually compete on a case by case basis with products offered by other companies according to each consumers preference.

 

[Strazdas]

If they wanted it to be competitive, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the games to be sold and without using Origin, then try to convince people Origin is the better platform? I know that's not possible given it's EA (mandatory EA bash) but isn't this more like withholding and monopolising?

Isn't monopolising and witholding a form of competition? Or is competition now defined as good for everyone from the word go

no. monopolising is the opposite of competition. withholding something (having an exclusive) is not competition. its removal of competition, which is how you become a monopoly. you cannot have exclusivity and compete. the two are mutually exclusive (pun not intended).

Except in many circumstances thats simply not true, especially with games. Microsoft and Sony have exclusive products and software yet they are in competition with each other, even for the people that buy both devices they will usually have to choose titles on a case by case basis and the most attractive titles to the individual consumer will usually win out which is one of the definitions of competition.

A monopoly and exclusivity are very different things, being the only digital distribution service selling games at all would be a monopoly but selectively selling an exclusive catalogue means the items within that catalogue will usually compete on a case by case basis with products offered by other companies according to each consumers preference.

MS and Sonys exclusves are as much a competition as a horse is a competition to a towel. yes, with limited funds people will have to choose between the two if they want both, but thats about it. they are not in competition for selling those games because they got a monopoly on those games. and since when it comes to Origin, Origins and Steams games do not overlap, there is no direct competition.

Xbox cannot satisfy people that want to do what Playstation does and vice versa. Thus they are not competition, they are alternatives. competition sells same product and competes between eachother. exclusive owners sells alternatives. its not the same thing.

 

[J Tyran]

If they wanted it to be competitive, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the games to be sold and without using Origin, then try to convince people Origin is the better platform? I know that's not possible given it's EA (mandatory EA bash) but isn't this more like withholding and monopolising?

Isn't monopolising and witholding a form of competition? Or is competition now defined as good for everyone from the word go

no. monopolising is the opposite of competition. withholding something (having an exclusive) is not competition. its removal of competition, which is how you become a monopoly. you cannot have exclusivity and compete. the two are mutually exclusive (pun not intended).

Except in many circumstances thats simply not true, especially with games. Microsoft and Sony have exclusive products and software yet they are in competition with each other, even for the people that buy both devices they will usually have to choose titles on a case by case basis and the most attractive titles to the individual consumer will usually win out which is one of the definitions of competition.

A monopoly and exclusivity are very different things, being the only digital distribution service selling games at all would be a monopoly but selectively selling an exclusive catalogue means the items within that catalogue will usually compete on a case by case basis with products offered by other companies according to each consumers preference.

MS and Sonys exclusves are as much a competition as a horse is a competition to a towel. yes, with limited funds people will have to choose between the two if they want both, but thats about it. they are not in competition for selling those games because they got a monopoly on those games. and since when it comes to Origin, Origins and Steams games do not overlap, there is no direct competition.

Xbox cannot satisfy people that want to do what Playstation does and vice versa. Thus they are not competition, they are alternatives. competition sells same product and competes between eachother. exclusive owners sells alternatives. its not the same thing.

Faulty analogy, if you want to involve horses a better one would be to have a gambler that likes to go to live events choosing between going to a dog track or to an equestrian race and likes both events equally.

Horses and dogs are very different things but only one of them will get their custom at any one time, they would be in competition and the more attractive venue would win. Same for games, any time someone chooses to buy a game from Origin or Uplay they are generally taking away a purchase from somewhere else. Exclusivity of product or service is as valid a form of competition as all the rest, if a companies products or services are more attractive to consumers they will get the custom.

Natural market forces at work, I.E competition.

 

[CaitSeith]

Origin is competition because, if Steam quality falls too much (below Origin), it gives Valve the incentive to improve it, or else they can lose their customers to EA. That's the idea behind Origin being competition, and that kinda tells how good of a job EA is doing at it... (you can laugh at the later).

 

[Tayh]

Origin is competition because, if Steam quality falls too much (below Origin), it gives Valve the incentive to improve it, or else they can lose their customers to EA. That's the idea behind Origin being competition, and that kinda tells how good of a job EA is doing at it... (you can laugh at the later).

Where's the incentive to improve if you already own ~95% of the market?

 

[CaitSeith]

Origin is competition because, if Steam quality falls too much (below Origin), it gives Valve the incentive to improve it, or else they can lose their customers to EA. That's the idea behind Origin being competition, and that kinda tells how good of a job EA is doing at it... (you can laugh at the later).

Where's the incentive to improve if you already own ~95% of the market?

To own the other 5% too, of course!

EDIT: Of course Steam owns 95% of the market only when we ignore details (like the genres it doesn't include).

 

[DoPo]

Your right their not comparable, Origin only has EA games monopoly, steam has all of PC gaming in their monopoly. I think he's saying that steam has more of a monopoly and he finds it funny that people ***** about EA's monopoly of a few games vs steam practically having them all.

That's exactly what I was saying.

People it seems would be happy for Steam to be the sole distribution platform for all PC games but EA wanting to distribute their own games is completely wrong.

Given that it's demonstrably not true that Steam distributes all PC games, I am unaware why people keep repeating that. Sure, there are a lot of games on Steam and Steam alone, but for it to hold all games...you know, it should do what that statement implies. Even if we exclude Origin, GOG exists, as do other services. Steam are only just now starting to catch up with the titles that were exclusive to GOG before and GOG keeps expanding into having more on more stuff in its catalogue.

I can personally happily "live" (if I were to use this term) on GOG alone. The idea that somehow people are mandated to play any game that's exclusively on Steam for PC seems foreign and contrived to me.

 

[votemarvel]

Given that it's demonstrably not true that Steam distributes all PC games,

I know and not once have I said they do.

My point was that it seems that people would be happy if they did. Are you genuinely telling me you have never heard or read someone, outside of this thread, say "I'm not buying that game because it isn't on Steam."

People complain about EA making their games exclusive to Origin but at the same time wouldn't mind if EA made them exclusive to Steam.

 

[DoPo]

Are you genuinely telling me you have never heard or read someone, outside of this thread, say "I'm not buying that game because it isn't on Steam."

I have, and those are equally baffling to me. However, while I have seen these comments, I do not think they are as uniquous as you want me to believe. Sure, some people may be happy to only ever buy from Steam. They aren't people in general, though.

People complain about EA making their games exclusive to Origin but at the same time wouldn't mind if EA made them exclusive to Steam.

And I'm not sure if they are the same ones as the group opposing EA games being exclusive to Origin. Or, rather, there would be an overlap, I'm sure, but I somehow doubt there is only one group alone.

 

[Vausch]

Are you genuinely telling me you have never heard or read someone, outside of this thread, say "I'm not buying that game because it isn't on Steam."

I have, and those are equally baffling to me. However, while I have seen these comments, I do not think they are as uniquous as you want me to believe. Sure, some people may be happy to only ever buy from Steam. They aren't people in general, though.

People complain about EA making their games exclusive to Origin but at the same time wouldn't mind if EA made them exclusive to Steam.

And I'm not sure if they are the same ones as the group opposing EA games being exclusive to Origin. Or, rather, there would be an overlap, I'm sure, but I somehow doubt there is only one group alone.

If I had to be honest, I have had that mentality to a degree. It's not because I want the game to be on steam to buy it (I'll gladly buy from GOG), it just feels a little bit nicer knowing all of my games are in 1 location and I can easily download them again should I reinstall my OS or change computers.

Heck, I almost let my ubisoft coupons from my new video card expire because I had to go through Uplay to get them. I regret using those coupons to be honest. Haven't stopped playing a game when I wanted to once, all because Uplay crashed.

 

[RawSteelUT]

I think a big part of Origin not becoming competition is that people wont use it simply because it is not Steam. Hand on heart, how many times have you heard someone say "I wont buy that game because it isn't on Steam."

I've seen that more than once. Even when a game's on GOG or another DRM-free service, people will ***** that it's not on Steam. Flippfly was in dire straits with Race the Sun until they got it through Greenlight.

I haven't used Steam since around 2010-2011 (I cut myself off from all DRM-based PC games after the Sony breach and a few instances where I wasn't able to play "my" Steam games), and man, being on the outside looking in really opens your eyes to how closed so many people are to gaming without Steam.

Then again, I suppose fanboys gonna fanboy...