Valve pursued by EA for over a possible $1 billion

[daibakuha]

There really should be a ban on post-modernism. There's only so many shades of gray out there, kiddo, and some are darker than others.

Then use the language of adults and not the words of incompetent children.

"EA is evil!!!!" should read: "I disagree with their gaming policy and the direction the company has taken, I think it's bad for the industry and consumer"

Expressing yourself as an adult should is a good way for people to take your opinion seriously.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There really should be a ban on post-modernism. There's only so many shades of gray out there, kiddo, and some are darker than others.

Then use the language of adults and not the words of incompetent children.

"EA is evil!!!!" should read: "I disagree with their gaming policy and the direction the company has taken, I think it's bad for the industry and consumer"

Expressing yourself as an adult should is a good way for people to take your opinion seriously.

I used the language used by the poster I was quoting, who said that neither EA nor Valve was evil, but that they were both neutral. Then I put it into D&D alignment terms. I think the problem here is you're the one taking things /too/ seriously, not that I'm failing to get others to take my opinions seriously.

 

[aprildog18]

I first thought this was going to be about a troll from EA giving an offer of $1 for Valve .

Spoiler

Little did I know that I was missing a few 0's.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Never gonna happen, eventually valve will buy EA.

Now that, would be a nice development.

Seriously, it is as if EA want to kill everything good in the industry.

EA is the X-Death of games.
Look at this monster. Look at this cliched, nonsensical villain. This villain actually exists and is called Electronic Arts.

 

[daibakuha]

There really should be a ban on post-modernism. There's only so many shades of gray out there, kiddo, and some are darker than others.

Then use the language of adults and not the words of incompetent children.

"EA is evil!!!!" should read: "I disagree with their gaming policy and the direction the company has taken, I think it's bad for the industry and consumer"

Expressing yourself as an adult should is a good way for people to take your opinion seriously.

I used the language used by the poster I was quoting, who said that neither EA nor Valve was evil, but that they were both neutral. Then I put it into D&D alignment terms. I think the problem here is you're the one taking things /too/ seriously, not that I'm failing to get others to take my opinions seriously.

Actually I hijacked your post to make a point, you were just an example.

I mean look at the other posts in this thread, above mine. This is not intelligent debate and conversation, it's children complaining about their toys.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

There really should be a ban on post-modernism. There's only so many shades of gray out there, kiddo, and some are darker than others.

Then use the language of adults and not the words of incompetent children.

"EA is evil!!!!" should read: "I disagree with their gaming policy and the direction the company has taken, I think it's bad for the industry and consumer"

Expressing yourself as an adult should is a good way for people to take your opinion seriously.

I used the language used by the poster I was quoting, who said that neither EA nor Valve was evil, but that they were both neutral. Then I put it into D&D alignment terms. I think the problem here is you're the one taking things /too/ seriously, not that I'm failing to get others to take my opinions seriously.

Actually I hijacked your post to make a point, you were just an example.

I mean look at the other posts in this thread, above mine. This is not intelligent debate and conversation, it's children complaining about their toys.

Then you might have picked a better post to quote. Regardless, EA is not a consumer-friendly company. They're anti-consumer and bent on destroying certain basic consumer rights. From where I'm standing, that's pretty damned evil. The shades of gray come in here with Valve; they aren't exactly good guys either.

 

[daibakuha]

Then you might have picked a better post to quote. Regardless, EA is not a consumer-friendly company. They're anti-consumer and bent on destroying certain basic consumer rights. From where I'm standing, that's pretty damned evil. The shades of gray come in here with Valve; they aren't exactly good guys either.

You don't like decisions being made by EA, therefor they are evil.

I don't like some of the decisions made by Activision Blizzard, Bethesda, Valve or Square Enix, but I wouldn't call any of those companies evil. Doing so only cheapens the argument with useless hyperbole. It adds nothing and says a lot about the person making the argument.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Then you might have picked a better post to quote. Regardless, EA is not a consumer-friendly company. They're anti-consumer and bent on destroying certain basic consumer rights. From where I'm standing, that's pretty damned evil. The shades of gray come in here with Valve; they aren't exactly good guys either.

You don't like decisions being made by EA, therefor they are evil.

I don't like some of the decisions made by Activision Blizzard, Bethesda, Valve or Square Enix, but I wouldn't call any of those companies evil. Doing so only cheapens the argument with useless hyperbole. It adds nothing and says a lot about the person making the argument.

I'd say moral relativism is a point of view, actually. A pretty crappy one at that. It's the kind of thing that people ascribe to less because they are intelligent and more because they want to be viewed as such.

Captcha: karma points

Yes, captcha. You don't get any karma points by ascribing to moral relativity.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

If EA bought them, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?

Probably for the same reason they interfered with Origin Systems and Bullfrog and sink so much money into marketing campaigns that the game they market has so sell an absurd number of copies just to break even.

Valve isn't a developer, it's a retailer.

Actually ValVe both sells and makes games so technically it's both and given that the one time I can remember EA working with ValVe on a project was Left 4 Dead 2 I think it's quite probable they would use ValVe to make games.

In regards to the OT they are highly unlikely to ever buy ValVe because ValVe and EA have completely different ideas of how to make money. EA believes that you should exploit your customers in every way you can think of and ValVe believes in listening to their customers and building trust.

 

[Xangba]

If EA bought them, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?

Bioware was a loved company that was praised for its games by the fans, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?

Edit: I'm not part of the Bioware hate, I still like them, but in reference to the general rage on them.

 

[Strain-D]

The actual quotes in question:

"Valve has been pursued over the years by Electronic Arts, which would very likely have valued Valve at well over $1 billion had the talks progressed that far"

"Mr. Newell said that there was a better chance that Valve would ?disintegrate,? its independent-minded workers scattering, than that it would ever be sold"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/technology/valve-a-video-game-maker-with-few-rules.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

 

[daibakuha]

I'd say moral relativism is a point of view, actually. A pretty crappy one at that. It's the kind of thing that people ascribe to less because they are intelligent and more because they want to be viewed as such.

Nice Try, but this isn't about moral relativism( An idea I don't subscribe to), this is about the overuse of hyberbole and how it leads to the detriment of your argument.

To be honest it's more about false equivalency. EA is not Hitler, it's not North Korea. It doesn't mass murder people, it doesn't torture the innocent and suppress people. Putting it on the same level cheapens not only what you are trying to say, but makes light of the acts of those terrible people.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'd say moral relativism is a point of view, actually. A pretty crappy one at that. It's the kind of thing that people ascribe to less because they are intelligent and more because they want to be viewed as such.

Nice Try, but this isn't about moral relativism( An idea I don't subscribe to), this is about the overuse of hyberbole and how it leads to the detriment of your argument.

To be honest it's more about false equivalency. EA is not Hitler, it's not North Korea. It doesn't mass murder people, it doesn't torture the innocent and suppress people. Putting it on the same level cheapens not only what you are trying to say, but makes light of the acts of those terrible people.

No, it's none of those. You know what it /is/? A corporation that is trying to take away my property rights. They violate people's rights. That is sufficient. There is more to good and evil than whether or not you're a mass murderer.

 

[Saltarius]

Valve?

Being bought...

By EA of all people?

 

[daibakuha]

No, it's none of those. You know what it /is/? A corporation that is trying to take away my property rights. They violate people's rights. That is sufficient. There is more to good and evil than whether or not you're a mass murderer.

Doesn't that make Valve the more "evil" of the two? I mean you are always just 1 band away from losing almost your entire game library.

Consumer rights is a delicate issue, and there are many sides to who has done more to hurt consumer rights. This isn't just about consumer rights, there are many sides of this issue, and the consumer end of it is just one side. You only care about the consumer side because it's the only side which affects you. You use blanket terms like "evil" to help you win arguments, but you fail to see any other side but the one you are on. That's what makes this whole debate petty and childish.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

No, it's none of those. You know what it /is/? A corporation that is trying to take away my property rights. They violate people's rights. That is sufficient. There is more to good and evil than whether or not you're a mass murderer.

Doesn't that make Valve the more "evil" of the two? I mean you are always just 1 band away from losing almost your entire game library.

Consumer rights is a delicate issue, and there are many sides to who has done more to hurt consumer rights. This isn't just about consumer rights, there are many sides of this issue, and the consumer end of it is just one side. You only care about the consumer side because it's the only side which affects you. You use blanket terms like "evil" to help you win arguments, but you fail to see any other side but the one you are on. That's what makes this whole debate petty and childish.

Actually, yes. They're both dicks because of it. I only buy stuff through Steam when it's on a ridiculous sale; if I'm going to rent something, I'm going to pay a rental rate.

However, Valve never bought out any of my favorite developers and killed them, preventing any more games in the series I loved from coming out. EA does that on a daily basis. Hell, they even used the name of one of the worst cases as the name of their DD platform. So fine, don't call 'em evil. Call them rat bastards. It means the same thing.

As far as the consumer side, I do care about it because it affects me. But the corporate side doesn't need defending. They're the ones with the power, not us. Don't give me any of that "oh, please care about the poor, defenseless publisher" bull crap.

 

[coolman9899]

Hey if it did happen, at least we would be seeing Half Life 3 through 12 in the next 2 years! But yeah as long as Gabe is there, Valve won't be bought out by anyone with absolute certainty.

Even if he leaves, his successor would also love
Valve/steam like his offspring

 

[Doom-Slayer]

to have it put on the most buggy, lagging, invasive asshole of a DRM scheme ever created.

Sigh...I love it when people that hate Steam call out people that like Steam for being "blind fanboys" then proceed to havea fanboy-esque rant about why they hate it.

I have almost never encoutered a bug on Steam, it runs at a perfectly fine speed on my PC. And invasive? It automatically turns on for me when I turn my PC on and logs in in about 10 seconds, from there I can play any game I want. I want to play a game on their store? I buy it and then I can start downloading it at speeds that that I cant get anywhere else short of a download manager. Actually..lets go through some of your points.

- Steam isn't "always-online" if it has an offline mode. Games with "always-online" require you whenever you play the game to be online, that is not required with Steam.

- And day-one DLC? That has nothing to do with Steam...Gamestop doesnt force game devs to make DLC...the publishers do. Day-one DLC exists because consumers buy it, the platform or retailer is irrelevant.

- Bad userbase? Once again, that kind of thing differs game to game and has nothing to do with Steam. Ive sen people be dicks on Tribes, on Counterstrike and on Starcraft. All have different platforms and all have funny enough..people..playing those games. The people are the problem, not the platform.

-Constant verification codes? If you buy a game retail you need to put in one code per game, possibly a code for each piece of DLC. Buy agame from the store, no verification codes whatsoever, this is not that surprising. If you are talking about Steamgaurd when you change computers then well..you are an idiot because you can turn that off....

-And yes...you are buying a license, and your making it sound like a bad thing when maybe, people just want to play the game. Maybe I dont care about owning a physical copy of the game, maybe sometimes I just want to sit down and play the game without having to worry about anything. Maybe if I loose my hardrive content from a virus I dont want to have to sort through CD and DVDs, hoping to hell they arent scratched and unusable. Maybe I just want to be able to install the platfrom, download the game and within an hour or two have it and be able to play it no fuss no worry.

A vast majority of the game I have on Steam would never have existed without it or without some method of a digital platform. The game companies that made them simply would never of been able to get a boxed copy on shelves and make their money back.

And no..Steam is not perfect and Valve is not the messiah but for gods sake..if your going to have an argument at least get the facts right and try to form a coherent point in between the hate throwing.

OT: Steam will never bother to be bought out by the sheer fact they dont need to, and in act if things continue the way they are, it may be the reverse.

 

[aguspal]

If EA bought them, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?

Bioware was a loved company that was praised for its games by the fans, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?

Edit: I'm not part of the Bioware hate, I still like them, but in reference to the general rage on them.

I'm part of the "What on earth are you talking about, BioWare is still making amazing games" crowd.

I´m part of the "BioWare never ever did really make a good game at all, since the start" crown.

See what happens. It all could have been fixed by a simple IMO


Also, whats the point of this thread, now that Valve has officialy said NO to EA?

to have it put on the most buggy, lagging, invasive asshole of a DRM scheme ever created.

Sigh...I love it when people that hate Steam call out people that like Steam for being "blind fanboys" then proceed to havea fanboy-esque rant about why they hate it.

I have almost never encoutered a bug on Steam, it runs at a perfectly fine speed on my PC. And invasive? It automatically turns on for me when I turn my PC on and logs in in about 10 seconds, from there I can play any game I want. I want to play a game on their store? I buy it and then I can start downloading it at speeds that that I cant get anywhere else short of a download manager. Actually..lets go through some of your points.

- Steam isn't "always-online" if it has an offline mode. Games with "always-online" require you whenever you play the game to be online, that is not required with Steam.

- And day-one DLC? That has nothing to do with Steam...Gamestop doesnt force game devs to make DLC...the publishers do. Day-one DLC exists because consumers buy it, the platform or retailer is irrelevant.

- Bad userbase? Once again, that kind of thing differs game to game and has nothing to do with Steam. Ive sen people be dicks on Tribes, on Counterstrike and on Starcraft. All have different platforms and all have funny enough..people..playing those games. The people are the problem, not the platform.

-Constant verification codes? If you buy a game retail you need to put in one code per game, possibly a code for each piece of DLC. Buy agame from the store, no verification codes whatsoever, this is not that surprising. If you are talking about Steamgaurd when you change computers then well..you are an idiot because you can turn that off....

-And yes...you are buying a license, and your making it sound like a bad thing when maybe, people just want to play the game. Maybe I dont care about owning a physical copy of the game, maybe sometimes I just want to sit down and play the game without having to worry about anything. Maybe if I loose my hardrive content from a virus I dont want to have to sort through CD and DVDs, hoping to hell they arent scratched and unusable. Maybe I just want to be able to install the platfrom, download the game and within an hour or two have it and be able to play it no fuss no worry.

A vast majority of the game I have on Steam would never have existed without it or without some method of a digital platform. The game companies that made them simply would never of been able to get a boxed copy on shelves and make their money back.

And no..Steam is not perfect and Valve is not the messiah but for gods sake..if your going to have an argument at least get the facts right and try to form a coherent point in between the hate throwing.

Well, Steam IS a little invasive, and annoying and gets in the way of online gaming, true, althougt I would go that far...

 

[viranimus]

After steams actions... I personally do not care which way they burn... Only that they do. Making unreasonable demands on peoples rights, no one should care what happens to them now. Any tiny bit of good will to the industry they had, was pissed on with that action. So let EA buy em. Worse things could happen and when you remove all the things out of the equation that dont actually belong to valve/steam, really not much is lost.

A four hour long puzzle game?
A military shooter?
A sci fi shooter?
A competitive shooter?
A zombie shooter?

Last I checked... all of those things can be obtained elsewhere.