Origin Boss Says Steam Sales "Cheapen Intellectual Property"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
To quote Shamus here: "Which franchise is worth more money: Dragon Age or Angry Birds? Well herp derp it must be Dragon Age because those games sell for $60."
Seriously its like no fucking person at EA ever even considered business school. Someone should ask EA what their main goal as a company is: Is it to have the most expensive intellectual property, or is to just fucking make money by selling videogames? Honestly its time these fucktards were relieved of their employment, before the contribute to yet another studio's destruction.
Seriously its like no fucking person at EA ever even considered business school. Someone should ask EA what their main goal as a company is: Is it to have the most expensive intellectual property, or is to just fucking make money by selling videogames? Honestly its time these fucktards were relieved of their employment, before the contribute to yet another studio's destruction.
Thing is, a lot of people, even knowing that they can get a game at a 75% discount half a year in still buy games they like on launch, because they want to support the dev and, more importantly, play the game sooner. Meanwhile steam sales allow people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford a game to play it and support the dev, although perhaps not as much as a full-price sale would.
I liked the video quite amusing. Although I dislike all the other games display there also that were not EA lolTreblaine said:
Steam sales personally i use to pick up games I didnt think were worth full retail to me. For example alpha protocal i picked it up for a dollar still dont think it was worth that =P. And if i want a game there is no way in hell I am waiting months past its release to get it! skyrim day 1 diablo swtor ! the list goes on but stuff like saints row ill wait for a GOTY edition because I dont like how they are doing their DLC
Christ EA, I honestly try to be on your side with these things. You publish some bad games, but you also publish some really great stuff. I'm even one to defend Origin, because as much as I like Steam, I think it would be bad for Valve to have a complete monopoly on digital distribution, when companies are competing for our business, we all win.
Steam sales are one of the shrewdest part of that service. Plenty of times I've bought a game I otherwise wouldn't be interested in because the deal seemed too good to pass up, hell, that's how I ended up with Aliens vs Predator and that game is terrible. Even those 10% off sales can be enough to make me justify buying a game I otherwise wouldn't.
Whatever else you say about them, I had always thought that EA had shrewd business people running it. Now I'm not sure I can give them THAT much credit. What the hell, guys?
Steam sales are one of the shrewdest part of that service. Plenty of times I've bought a game I otherwise wouldn't be interested in because the deal seemed too good to pass up, hell, that's how I ended up with Aliens vs Predator and that game is terrible. Even those 10% off sales can be enough to make me justify buying a game I otherwise wouldn't.
Whatever else you say about them, I had always thought that EA had shrewd business people running it. Now I'm not sure I can give them THAT much credit. What the hell, guys?
LOL That Demartini guy is quite the comedian!!
Curious if he would break down how much cut of the profits EA gives to the makers of the games sold on Origins. I mean it's obvious they care so much about them that it should be quite substantial right?
Curious if he would break down how much cut of the profits EA gives to the makers of the games sold on Origins. I mean it's obvious they care so much about them that it should be quite substantial right?
I can envision a scenario in which a small outfit goes broke in the meantime while no one buys their game new and instead waits for a sale (i.e. something like 38 Studios without the tax credit malarkey).
Somehow I doubt that's what EA is concerned about...
Somehow I doubt that's what EA is concerned about...
Sound business practice EA, really. A good way to attract Steam customers, to be sure.
Steam sales are a great thing, since they are the only thing capable of convincing me to buy games online. I'll never drop the full price for a game on a digital distribution service, since I feel like paying for a promise... a "right" to play a game. I might as well pirate it for free, without the hassle of having to use some cancerous software in addition to the game in question. That's why I buy all my new games in a retail store (having something physical to show for my purchase really helps).
And that's why Origin is and apparently will remain useless to me.
Steam sales are a great thing, since they are the only thing capable of convincing me to buy games online. I'll never drop the full price for a game on a digital distribution service, since I feel like paying for a promise... a "right" to play a game. I might as well pirate it for free, without the hassle of having to use some cancerous software in addition to the game in question. That's why I buy all my new games in a retail store (having something physical to show for my purchase really helps).
And that's why Origin is and apparently will remain useless to me.
They may say that but the studio that made Amnesia would never have been able to finish that game and would probably have had to shut down if not for steam sales. When they were almost out of money, Penumbra went on a big sale and they sold a lot of copies and were thus able to rack up enough money to finish Amnesia.
What EA seemingly can't understand, is that there are games that I flat out WILL NOT pay full price for. Either because I'm not that interested, or because, for whatever reason, they slipped under my radar.
When Steam has said game very cheap, I'll often buy it just to play at a later date, or to try out the series or genre. The developers might not get as much as if I'd paid full price, but if it was full price I wouldn't have bought it, even if there were never sales. The sales are getting them money where they otherwise wouldn't.
Why can't EA understand that?
When Steam has said game very cheap, I'll often buy it just to play at a later date, or to try out the series or genre. The developers might not get as much as if I'd paid full price, but if it was full price I wouldn't have bought it, even if there were never sales. The sales are getting them money where they otherwise wouldn't.
Why can't EA understand that?
It's a rare occasion when a company has no choice but to admit to how they're fucking you.
So many things to take from this...so many possible interpretations...
I'm going with this:
EA: "Whaaaa!!! Why does Steam have to keep COMPETING with us!! We don't believe in pricing games lower to sell more at the marginal cost!! Whaaaaa!!! And so we won't be trying to compete with Steam's prices, relying on our Natural Monopoly powers over our PC games to keep prices hiked!"
The reason we HATE monopolies is because IT'S INEFFICIENT AND EXPLOITATIVE.
And THIS argument, is against consumers as much as Steam because it's criticizing consumers for doing their fucking job in economics and finding the best price that's closest to the marginal cost.
This is the attitude of a company who behaves like they already have a monopoly.
And only the fact that EA doesn't have a monopoly makes it more stupid than evil.
Well, if they aren't cutting the price (or by extension; giving it away for free) then what?
What extends the lifespan of a game? By logic, I can only assume "more content", or "DLC".
Pfft. Yeah, I'm REAL fucking inclined to buy your outdated game if it has shitloads of DLC that I have to pay extra for! MAKES PERFECT SENSE!
Breaking into their computer and blackmailing them into compliance? (Is that why Origin's EULA is *still* vaguely worded and *still* demands access to check on all of your "software"?)
Offering blowjobs for pre-ordering?
Since we're on the subject, lets compare it to Steam:
How does "Checking weekly deals, and regularly buying games at better prices" not count as a long-term-relationship?
What are you offering that Steam doesn't?
Access to EA games? That was already a given before you made Origin and since your pricing is still at parity with retail pricing for your competitors' games (or indeed, the console retail equivalents), that's not a benefit you can pitch to the consumer either.
Achievements? VOIP? Community-social access?
Steam does all of those already.
So to me, this "answer" is nothing more than a foregone conclusion PRETENDING to be a solution that reaches that conclusion.
To Summarize:
"We will beat Steam's reputation (long-term-relationship) by building a longer-term-relationship. But we won't do it by lowering prices, and I cannot tell you how."
So many things to take from this...so many possible interpretations...
I'm going with this:
EA: "Whaaaa!!! Why does Steam have to keep COMPETING with us!! We don't believe in pricing games lower to sell more at the marginal cost!! Whaaaaa!!! And so we won't be trying to compete with Steam's prices, relying on our Natural Monopoly powers over our PC games to keep prices hiked!"
Oh yes, heaven FORBID the consumer don't take it full in the ass on EVERY. MOTHERFUCKING. PURCHASE. Even when economics dictates that approaching the marginal cost IS BENEFICIAL FOR SUPPLY AS WELL AS DEMAND.David DeMartini: said:
The reason we HATE monopolies is because IT'S INEFFICIENT AND EXPLOITATIVE.
And THIS argument, is against consumers as much as Steam because it's criticizing consumers for doing their fucking job in economics and finding the best price that's closest to the marginal cost.
This is the attitude of a company who behaves like they already have a monopoly.
And only the fact that EA doesn't have a monopoly makes it more stupid than evil.
In other words: "We're going to charge you full price for older games instead of cutting the price as normal, but don't worry! WE HAVE A PLAN."David DeMartini said:
Well, if they aren't cutting the price (or by extension; giving it away for free) then what?
What extends the lifespan of a game? By logic, I can only assume "more content", or "DLC".
Pfft. Yeah, I'm REAL fucking inclined to buy your outdated game if it has shitloads of DLC that I have to pay extra for! MAKES PERFECT SENSE!
Well...call me crazy but I'm guessing that if Valve's business partners did not turn ENOUGH profit through Steam, there would be very few games on Steam to begin with.
So what do you mean by "forming a longer-term relationship" with the customer?
Breaking into their computer and blackmailing them into compliance? (Is that why Origin's EULA is *still* vaguely worded and *still* demands access to check on all of your "software"?)
Offering blowjobs for pre-ordering?
Since we're on the subject, lets compare it to Steam:
How does "Checking weekly deals, and regularly buying games at better prices" not count as a long-term-relationship?
What are you offering that Steam doesn't?
Access to EA games? That was already a given before you made Origin and since your pricing is still at parity with retail pricing for your competitors' games (or indeed, the console retail equivalents), that's not a benefit you can pitch to the consumer either.
Achievements? VOIP? Community-social access?
Steam does all of those already.
So to me, this "answer" is nothing more than a foregone conclusion PRETENDING to be a solution that reaches that conclusion.
To Summarize:
"We will beat Steam's reputation (long-term-relationship) by building a longer-term-relationship. But we won't do it by lowering prices, and I cannot tell you how."