You're going to find it hard to maintain the smug misanthrope pretense if you keep giving me this kind of warm, sunny glow, Jim.
I had two particular insights in the wake of IGN's article.
One: the most sharp, vivid, and painful difference between Origin and Steam can be summed up thusly: because of Steam, I've bought and played games I otherwise wouldn't have (Lone Survivor, The Binding of Isaac, Magicka, and even big-name titles like Warhammer 40K Space Marine and Resident Evil 5.) Because of Origin, I haven't played games I otherwise definitely would have (most notably, Mass Effect 3.)
Two: The "Of course, they're a business, they're in business to make money" argument is incredibly f@#%ed up. It's cart-before-the-horse.
If a company just wanted to make money, they should be managing hedge funds or trading commodities or making super-villain hand gestures as they contemplate the diminishing world stock of petroleum.
A business has to make money to survive. They must take in a certain amount of profit in excess of their costs in order to make their payroll, pay for their supplies, and so forth.
But a company like EA shouldn't be in business to make money; they should be in business to make video games. That's their job; that's why they should go to work in the morning. To the extent that they're in business to make money, they're doing that job wrong, and many of their bad decisions can be traced back to exactly that. Perversely, it's ultimately self-defeating: analyzing their customers and treating them like a revenue stream rather than like people causes their use as a revenue stream to diminish (i.e., you piss people off, they stop buying your products.)
[And I would be happy to have a t-shirt, Jim, you sexy beast.]
