Valve pursued by EA for over a possible $1 billion
- Thread starter Savber
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is something that bothers me about steam as well. I can accept Steamworks as a form of DRM, since it's fairly non intrusive. Adding something like GFWL is just pointless and redundant, not to mention simply a pain in the ass.Dexter111 said:
Aside from that, good post. You are easily the best informed and most well researched user on the site.
In your opinion, obviously. Just because you don't agree with the fan backlash doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps it was just convenient timing, but the coincidences are just too staggering. Bioware, loved by all, never releases a bad title to incite rage from fanboys, suddenly starts releasing games that people hate. Not merely nonplussed, but hate. All right at the moment that EA takes the reigns. EA, a company that is known for doing exactly that to the companies it controls. You can still like Bioware all you want, I don't care, I wasn't even that much of a fan ever. But ignoring signs that strong is about as logical as a Christian ignoring evolution.Bhaalspawn said:
I'll ignore that insult, since I'm part of its "dipshit" fanbase. You're not wrong on both accounts, but that 30% is a fraction of what publishers have been getting away with for decades. It also allows supply to be infinite and virtually free. Your title will NEVER fall out of stock as long as there is someone who wants to buy it. You can be an indie developer and never have to touch the dirty cash of a publisher who will control your project after you have completed it. That's a HUGE win for the companies that make the games we love. It alone is enough for me to give a thumbs-up to Valve, because it means when I license/rent a game, the talent I want to support is getting the money I want to give to them. It's all I ever expected as a consumer separated from their money.
Ok, let me stop you right there. What in the living fuck are you talking about? You told us in another thread a few months ago that Steam crashed your PC so you had to get rid of it. You had the absolute worst experience possible with it (likely due to some bad RAM). Now you're telling me that you did run it, and it was asking for something that you needed to sign up an account with. And to top it all off, you're trying to say that its users are loud-mouthed scum. Just how the hell did you even meet these scummy people if you couldn't even run the program without your PC crashing?! Unless you've been giving us half-facts the whole time (which is something you shouldn't do if you actually want us to take you seriously with your anti-Steam rhetoric), you have to be lying somewhere.
Double standards only exist when two entities are exactly the same, and one is treated differently. While both Steam and Origin are both digital distribution channels, there are some important differences. Maybe those differences aren't enough for you, but they make a world of a difference to me. The only reason why I'm not continually upset at Valve for that recent ToS change is because up to that ToS change, I never had one thing to complain against Valve, and that still hasn't changed after that point. The reason why Origin doesn't get that same get-out-of-jail-free card is because I'm always weary of EA's policies and how they are designed to screw me. If I still bought EA products, I'd always be one step away from losing what I've purchased, even if it's because someone swore at me.
Hyperbole much? Do you even game on the PC? All those things you said sound like they are completely made up, exaggerated, or coming from someone who was looking for the Xbox LIVE expereince on their PC.
You're not wrong there. But you're not right either. That license you speak of costs about 1/10th what a new game costs if you are patient. You may get less, but you pay less for it too. As far as revokes go, you have to try to be banned on Steam with cheating or finding exploits in their marketplace. At that point, you're either souring other's experiences, or you're stealing. You deserve to lose your account. Those are terms that anyone should find acceptable for games that cheap.
And those gamers under the sun complaining are complaining because those companies didn't set their systems up like Steam. I can log into Steam on my laptop, my desktop, my server, my friend's PC, my parent's PC, or even at work if I'm stupid enough, and every time I do, my games are all there for me to play at will. Compare to THQ's download service that allows only a one-time download, or an extra $5 fee to be allowed to download it a few more times for the next 3 months or so. People are complaining because they are doing it wrong!
Oh believe me, I saw it too, but I think you misinterpreted what you saw. Those companies are far more concerned about control than about service. They think that control means more money for them. They don't understand that a quality service is far more valuable to the consumer AND the company if they both try to get along. They put in the DRM because they want to make sure you aren't installing the games on more than one PC (let's be realistic , Multiplayer Spawn copies and satisfied shareholders are the real target here, not pirates), DLC can only be bought through controlled channels, and endless patches are a way to generate revenue from a game before it's complete. No one asked for this. Accusing us for their atrocities is like telling the Jews they shouldn't have been so Jewish so the Nazis wouldn't have gone after them. It's victim blaming any way you split it.A while back, I saw the reality of the situation when it came to companies like EA and Activision.
They are not even close to as evil as everyone likes to say they are. Gamers (just like everyone else on the planet) love to ***** and whine and blame everyone else when their stupidity has a negative affect on them.
All the terrible things about gaming today? DRM? DLC? Endless patches? Client attachments?
No publisher would have done any of this shit that gamers are whining about if gamers themselves had not made it perfectly clear to them that it was exactly what they wanted. A businessman can be trusted to follow money wherever it goes. That makes them very easy to manipulate.
1) Nothing is wrong with good DLC that mirrors expansion packs of old. If it's more of that, bring it on. Shame on the companies (like EA and Activision whom you have been defending in this post) who exploit their customers with shitty skins and map packs, and such practices.
2) If the game is tied to an account, there's no need for any DRM. How would that mean they would add more? In the most successful examples of clients, you can download your games at will, over and over. It doesn't matter if it's preventing you from copying the downloaded data, you can just log into another PC and download it again there.
3) It might have slapped you in the face, but no one is complaining like you are. Believe me, I saw that downside too, and that's why I won't buy a game that's available in a box at full price over a digital system. Every game I have spent money on I've done so at a rate that I could afford to lose (all those games combined is another story though). If people are that daft to suffer buyer's remorse over and over, then yes, they only have themselves to blame. But that doesn't make the system bad if a consumer is able to only expose themselves to the positive points.
I don't even know if you meant to go into such a fallacy of a rant, but I certainly wasn't telling you to like Valve or Steam, because you did have a bad expereince and you are entitled to like and hate what you want. But if you're going to keep being so angry about it, do it somewhere else, or find stronger ground in your position. 3 million concurrent users say that Steam is fine and your grievances are overblown. I bet you tell any of them about your issues, and
It's easier to deny that than let its reality come crashing down on you. After all, it's the same sin you accuse everyone else of.
Someone should throw up a petition that we want Valve to stay Valve. It might not happen, but even if there is a remote chance. It must be done.
I have. I want to know if you comprehend what's being said and done:Dexter111 said:
Company buys out another studio for their IP.
Set up and rename studio as [Company Name Location].
After release of the game, realize satellite studio isn't working for communication issues, too small for expenses, whatever.
Make offer to move employees to another location (re: main one). Some refuse to.
Dissolve satellite studio, people staying at remote location are let go.
Retain IP, push out another game.
Valve does it to Turtle Rock Studio, OK!
EA does it to say, what, Westwood? NOPE!
Why is this acceptable? It still means some people are out of a job, had to find a new line of work or reform, lost financial backing of the owning company, yadda yadda.
The only difference I can see is because "we all love Valve and hate EA". That's it. Yet, I have to ask again, why is this action still acceptable when done by Valve?
Oh goodie.Dexter111 said:
Yeah, so every MMO studio lays off people after the dev period as maintenance requires less people than active development. Dwindling numbers for SWTOR (reasons see below) just means even less are required, especially in regards to CSR types and such. You did note their careers page where a large number were listed as contract right?Dexter111 said:
Greg Zeschuck is still a Bioware CEO and EA VP, his time at Austin was always temporary as, you know, he's from Edmonton and his family is still there, so he stepped down from manning Bioware Austin and moved back to Bioware Edmonton.
Has nothing to do with Bioware designing the MMO as a SP RPG, as opposed to one with a focus on multiplayer. So people hit the end and then what? People are much more fickle with their money nowadays, even Funcom's The Secret World with it's $15/m subscription is barely hitting 200,000 players.Dexter111 said:
When Turbine converted DDO and LOTRO to Free 2 Play, they regained players and made more money than subscription based.
Well, makes sense, if the game didn't sell well, putting effort on an expansion is just a waste of time and money if the projected revenue from it would be far less than the development costs.Dexter111 said:
What disc-locked content? The Protean squad mate that was cut and released as DLC? Where the resources for the model and voice samples were kept in the game to be more efficient and reduce download size, but the actual DLC mission was downloaded after the game was released?Dexter111 said:
I read the thread title as some sort of legal claim, like "the case of EA vs Valve."
I don't see Valve selling to anyone for any amount. They've got autonomy and they like it that way.
EA acquiring them is exactly the worst thing that could happen. Nothing crushes creative genius faster than having to meet deadline after unreasonable deadline imposed by corporate fatcats who don't understand anything about the job or the industry.
I don't see Valve selling to anyone for any amount. They've got autonomy and they like it that way.
EA acquiring them is exactly the worst thing that could happen. Nothing crushes creative genius faster than having to meet deadline after unreasonable deadline imposed by corporate fatcats who don't understand anything about the job or the industry.
If EA ever bought Valve, I would be completely crushed. Valve stands behind quality products and treats their customers [mostly] with respect. EA constantly [http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ea-project-ten-dollars-dlc,news-5797.html] shits [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117725-Origin-Boss-Says-Steam-Sales-Cheapen-Intellectual-Property] on their customers and employees in some of the most arrogant ways. Their culture is broken, their management and staff are loaded with assholes and if they buy Valve, they won't change to be like valve, they'll fire all the Valve staff and just keep doing EA business as usual - because it makes them money.
I won't go so far as to say the games are bad, but EA as a company is. I don't support EA. EA is a publisher. I support the developers. It's just a shame that EA owns their souls.
I won't go so far as to say the games are bad, but EA as a company is. I don't support EA. EA is a publisher. I support the developers. It's just a shame that EA owns their souls.
at which point, the world will become so exponentially a better place, jesus himself will come back and give out high fives for the improvement in society and then de-pollute the oceans entirely while leaving with a comment of "keep up the good work, and i'll be back soon!"yuval152 said:
then i look forward to high-fiving jesus.yuval152 said:
i din't mean for it to sound like it wouldn't happen, i just meant to emphasize how awesome it would be should such a thing happen.
more than likely though, i feel activision would gobble them right up
All I have been saying was that blame was all around for the demise of Origin Systems, and that article supports it.Dexter111 said:
If you read that and still think it's all EA's fault, then, well...
The point is that there's still a business decision of relocating and letting go and dissolving the remote studio of those that didn't want to move. It doesn't matter if it's 1 person or 100 (and they never stated how many stayed behind at TRS), it's still a result of lost jobs and an act of "our way or the highway".Dexter111 said:
Again, Valve does it as a business decision, that's OK.
EA does it as a business decision, OH NO THEY ARE EVIL INCARNATE.
Oh wait, there is one important distinction:
Valve does it as a business decision, for successful studio so they can push a sequel out the next year, that's OK.
EA does it as a business decision, for a studio making a string of bad releases to cut costs, OH NO THEY ARE EVIL INCARNATE.
Trans: I cannot refute anything someone with more in-depth knowledge of a game studio or game development says, so I will try to avoid it and casually dismiss it as FUD even though it's not actually FUD at all.Dexter111 said:
thank you for that post, and keep on truckin, lord knows the corporate apologists are shoving the steel rod up their asses even further, so let's hope they run out of money soon from buying EA's crap while we actually use common sense as a consumer and pick and choose where we buy our games from based on customer service.Dexter111 said:
I laugh uproariously at the arrogance of the proposal, but this only further reinforces my theory that EA is UTTERLY delusional.
As I've been saying for years, they're a company who acts like they have a monopoly, when they totally do not.
As I've been saying for years, they're a company who acts like they have a monopoly, when they totally do not.