EA Explains Why Crysis 2 Was Pulled from Steam

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Steam is a game distributor. What right should they have to tell another developer or publisher HOW their games should be made and why should there be a seperate version just for Steam?Sorry, but this is takin the Bobby Kotick book of gaming to a whole new level.[/citation]
If they are the distributor then they decide how to distribute... they have full rights to how things are distributed.
 
The way I read it is that EA wanted a "better and personal connection with their customers" Which is PR speak for they wanted Valve to give EA the personal and system info of all Steam's users so they could do marketing and product pushes, i.e. email spam of product releases etc. And Valve told them to go take a flying leap. Valve does not give user info to any of the developers and publishers just for that reason so that its users see Steam as a community and social gaming platform first and a retail operation second. If they gave out the user info in short order it would destroy that perception forever.
 
It's going to be rough being these Steam fanboys in the future. You see, Valve is a business, out to make money. Part of it's business plan is to give you excellent service to get your loyalty above the competition. Another tactic is to bundle a bunch of garbage games in with a few hits to make people think they're getting bonus content when they only actually play one or two of the bundle games. It's sort of like training a dog. Once you're obediently trained they can treat you however they want, because all the competition will be dead. After all, you swear your allegiance only to Steam, you won't give anyone else a chance. EA is a lousy company and no one's friend, but they're allowed to distribute their own lousy content in whatever lousy way they want. You're giving Valve what they want by saying you won't play EA's products because of this, because it forces them to play by Valve's rules, whether they want to or not. It's bad for the industry to force the competition to play by one company's rules.

Steam is that creepy guy that hangs out in the van behind the school. He's offering you candy and fun times, but once you get in the van, the times are going to stop getting fun.
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Regardless of what the Valve/Steam sheep think. Valve is a company and Steam is their product. Their sole purpose is to make a profit. The ONLY reason they appear to care, is to generate profits. Valve gets a piece of every sale made through Steam. Steam is nothing great....it's just a content distribution service. Some of you talk about it like your life depends on it though. Regardless of the "agreements" in place....Valve and EA are direct competitors. Both companies would be perfectly happy if the other ceased to exist. Valve, from a legal standpoint, does not have the ability to tell a developer what features can or cannot exist in their game, but they do have the authority as a distributor to decide whether or not the game is available on Steam. Now, if your life revolves around Steam....great, send Valve all your money. Otherwise, take a break and go outside. See what the world has to offer. This deal between EA and Valve isn't going to hurt EA. At the end of the day, EA will still turn a decent profit.[/citation]


lets state some facts here. steam is a distributer, they get a % form every game sold.

wallmart is a distributer, they get 7-14$ on every 60$ game sold, not sure about cheaper ones, but i do know 14$ is about what they get on 60$ games for consoles.

valve, through EVERYTHING they have done, earned my trust, and that of many others.

ea, has launced bad service after bad service, put out $@#^ games to cash in on stupid markets (shovel ware wii style) added horrific drm to games (in the past, not sure now, been a while sense i bought something from them) and bought, what was at the time, one go the biggest pc devlopers, westwood, fired almost everyone, and ran their properties into the ground.

ea earned my ire after YEARS of f@$%ing me over, and killing things i once loved, i will NEVER use their services for ANY pourpase, and if a game i want comes out and is only available through that service... well lets say any drm can be dealt with, just like any service can be too.

steam and gog are the only services so far that gained my trust. if ea pulls a gog and takes drm completely out of the equation, than awsome, i may just check it out.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]lets state some facts here. steam is a distributer, they get a % form every game sold. wallmart is a distributer, they get 7-14$ on every 60$ game sold, not sure about cheaper ones, but i do know 14$ is about what they get on 60$ games for consoles.valve, through EVERYTHING they have done, earned my trust, and that of many others. ea, has launced bad service after bad service, put out $@#^ games to cash in on stupid markets (shovel ware wii style) added horrific drm to games (in the past, not sure now, been a while sense i bought something from them) and bought, what was at the time, one go the biggest pc devlopers, westwood, fired almost everyone, and ran their properties into the ground.ea earned my ire after YEARS of f@$%ing me over, and killing things i once loved, i will NEVER use their services for ANY pourpase, and if a game i want comes out and is only available through that service... well lets say any drm can be dealt with, just like any service can be too.steam and gog are the only services so far that gained my trust. if ea pulls a gog and takes drm completely out of the equation, than awsome, i may just check it out.[/citation]
Here's the problem. Steam is NOT just a distributor. They are a distributor OWNED by a game DEVELOPER. One of the entire isses (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the DLC Crytek made for Crysis isn't a Steam "version" so won't work on versions sold by Steam. Ok, why is Steam dictating how other game developers make their games? And when Steam has 70% of the online distribution market, which is destroying the retail box market, that means Valve can dictate how ever other dveloper can make their games or they won't be allowed on Steam. Hence, you will have a monopoly.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]ea, has launced bad service after bad service, put out $@#^ games to cash in on stupid markets (shovel ware wii style) added horrific drm to games (in the past, not sure now, been a while sense i bought something from them) and bought, what was at the time, one go the biggest pc devlopers, westwood, fired almost everyone, and ran their properties into the ground.ea earned my ire after YEARS of f@$%ing me over, and killing things i once loved, i will NEVER use their services for ANY pourpase, and if a game i want comes out and is only available through that service... well lets say any drm can be dealt with, just like any service can be too.steam and gog are the only services so far that gained my trust. if ea pulls a gog and takes drm completely out of the equation, than awsome, i may just check it out.[/citation]
So you like Steam and they have earned your trust, but EA is crap but Valve, the owner of Steam works with EA and let's EA distribute some of their games. Sorry, but while you may be right about EA, the fact is your hypocrisy shows through since Valve, the owner of Steam certainly does not seem to share your view on EA and does busines with them.

And does Steam not sell crappy games? Sorry, but I don't see Steam saying "oh that's a bad game, we won't sell it". No, for one thing how bad would it be for Steam to be the arbiter of what's considered good and what's considered bad.

Activision used to be considered a gamers game company. However because of Bobby Kotick they have very bad business practices. Steam forcing game developers to make Steam "versions" of game is bordering on the same thing on a larger scale.
 
Total BS. And, anyhow, Steam does a much better job of patching games than EA. BFBC2 is a complete nightmare for me sometimes, as well as everything else related to the EA.com
 


Well, I'll be honest. Yes, I have lived in a town where the closest EB/Gamestop is an hour drive away. That happened when I was active duty Air Force in Whiteman AFB Mo. That being said, I haven't within the past 2 years, though the time I speak of I was still an avid gamer.

Currently, I live in Los Angeles and know that it isn't that hard to score a copy if you aren't lazy and actually make an EFFORT to go get a game that you want to play.

It's true, I haven't given steam the proper time of day to say that their service is truly good or bad. HOWEVER, I can say people blaming EA for wanting to manage their own title are short sighted, and LAZY if they really feel that they HAVE to use steam to get the game that they want to play.
 
[citation][nom]elbuck[/nom]You're one very confused kitten. Read what you wrote again. What does distribution have to do with "how games should be made" and issues like versioning? These issues are not on the table here at all, pay attention. EA is disputing Steam's rules for distribution. What's more, they are disputing them AFTER they agreed to them. In other words, they knew that Steam has already developed an INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE marketing channel, where many gamers look to Steam for latest release news, sales and so forth, and after they got their initial fix of sales, they decided to cut Steam out of their commission by distributing the DLC straight through their store.A FAILURE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. Here's why😛ersonally I could care less about Crysis2 single player, nothing really new there..... But the multiplayer game is a winner. I've got about 120 hours of gameplay out of what is probably the best competitive MP game of both 2011 and the year prior, and would gladly buy all DLC.There USED TO be scores of players who felt the same, but the problem is EA chose to only release DLC through stupid in-game menus that NO PLAYER IS GOING TO LOOK FOR. Steam would have popped up a message informing the user that DLC is available. Or, more importantly, when we are ready for more content in the game, we load up the game client we are most familiar with, and use that as a basis to hunt for DLC options. I don't care about signing up for or surfing MyCrysis.com or any other marketing crapsite. In fact, I was a bit offended that this game actually demanded I sign up for YET ANOTHER ANNOYING REGISTRATION PROCESS. Oh and by the way, once I did, the piece of crap e-commerce site was so broken that it would not accept the entering of a new credit card, which the ABSOLUTELY MORONIC in-game interface required to be already on-file before I could purchase a ten dollar map pack! Do you understand what an amazing insult this is to someone who has been gaming longer than the birthdate of the average console game player?Meanwhile, look at EA's competition..... Steam. Everything just works. Seamless. Client is running on most serious gamer's machines already. Client can detect if I already own Crysis2 and inform me that DLC exists. Client already has my credit card on file, I don't have to be an unpaid beta tester for some crap new open-source code based e-commerce project that was outsourced to the india or whereever. I simply add to cart, and IT JUST FUCKING WORKS. Like the other 175 games I bought on Steam.CONSISTENCY. Win. Thanks Steam.EA. Fail. Go suck it.[/citation]
Sorry, but Dragon Age, Mass Effect, all of these games sold DLC SEPERATE from Steam. If EA wants to sell the DLC's through THEIR game that's their business, not Valve's. This just makes me VERY glad I chose not to buy the Sims 3 bundle through Steam. Guess I would have been tied to Steam and if they kicked out the Sims I would have been out of luck.

Sorry, but this is Valve trying to push around it's burgeoning monopoly powers, not acting like a retailer.

And if Steam is just a distributor, why if I want to go to Target and buy Fallout New Vegas, a Bethesda title, do I then have to install Steam, create and account, and activate it there before I can use it? It's not a Valve game. Steam didn't distribute it if I chose to buy it from Target, so makes no sense.
 
What's wrong with you people? Did you read only the (MISLEADING) title? Well, read again:

...Crytek has an agreement with another download service which violates the new rules from Steam...
Click to expand...

So Steam is not hosting games that are available on competitors' sites? So who's the evil guy here!?!?!?
 
I can't fault EA for wanting to control their platform but Origin is horrible. Not only that, but did anyone else buy Mass Effect and ME2 as an EA download? Buying DLC for it is like jumping through hoops.

I suspect that Steam does not want to create such problems on their platform. I don't blame them because I would blame Steam if I had to jump through hoops for their content like with Mass Effect directly downloaded from EA.
 
This distribution deal is also playing out in TV, with HBO, netflix, Hulu etcetera. HBO doesn't want to be on netflix because then people won't buy cable from it's parent company Time Warner. Time Warner won't stream www.espn3.com if you don't pay for ESPN. Other broadcast companies don't want to put their content on Hulu because Hulu is owned partly by NBC (I think).

The fact of the matter is this: There are only two companies that have consistently made great games. Valve and Blizzard. I have been playing Valve's games ever since the original Half-Life and Team Fortress 1. The original Half Life was the prototype for Halo. In fact, I'm sure Microsoft stole a lot of ideas from Half-Life. I have been playing Blizzard's games since Warcraft II, and to date Starcraft has IMO one of the best stories ever told. To be honest I was annoyed when Steam first came out and I had to install that extra program; but the fact of the matter is this: I will never have to worry about losing my DVD or CD KEY on steam. Everything is stored online. I can delete games and re-install them later if I want, or rebuild a new computer and not have to worry about looking for my games. The patches install automatically, and best of all I don't get spam from them about new games. So will I buy games not on Steam? Sure, but the only exception I will make is for Blizzard. I enjoyed BF2, it was a great game, but if they can't make it work for BF3 they will not get my business.
 
[citation][nom]6kaine9[/nom]This distribution deal is also playing out in TV, with HBO, netflix, Hulu etcetera. HBO doesn't want to be on netflix because then people won't buy cable from it's parent company Time Warner. Time Warner won't stream www.espn3.com if you don't pay for ESPN. Other broadcast companies don't want to put their content on Hulu because Hulu is owned partly by NBC (I think).The fact of the matter is this: There are only two companies that have consistently made great games. Valve and Blizzard. I have been playing Valve's games ever since the original Half-Life and Team Fortress 1. The original Half Life was the prototype for Halo. In fact, I'm sure Microsoft stole a lot of ideas from Half-Life. I have been playing Blizzard's games since Warcraft II, and to date Starcraft has IMO one of the best stories ever told. To be honest I was annoyed when Steam first came out and I had to install that extra program; but the fact of the matter is this: I will never have to worry about losing my DVD or CD KEY on steam. Everything is stored online. I can delete games and re-install them later if I want, or rebuild a new computer and not have to worry about looking for my games. The patches install automatically, and best of all I don't get spam from them about new games. So will I buy games not on Steam? Sure, but the only exception I will make is for Blizzard. I enjoyed BF2, it was a great game, but if they can't make it work for BF3 they will not get my business.[/citation]
So because Steam makes things so convenient it's ok for them to wield monopolstic powers around?

Sorry, but the poster a couple of posts back made an excellent post. Crysis was kicked under NEW rules by Steam about how it couldn't be on a competitors site. Just turning your back to that fact and saying that Steam acting that way is ok because they are "convenient" is rather sad.

And since you brought up Blizzard, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with things they have done recently. Since Bobby Kotic was made CEO of Activision Blizzard by Vivendi, it has been noticeable his hand has been in WoW a lot. Content is slow to come out, except of course premium items. And for the first time WoW, a subscription based game, will be charging for IN GAME content. Sorry, but Blizzard is an example of a market leader going down the wrong road and Valve seems to be flexing it's Steam muscle now that they have so a huge advantage in market share of the digital download market to force other publishers and developers to do what they want.
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]So because Steam makes things so convenient it's ok for them to wield monopolstic powers around?Sorry, but the poster a couple of posts back made an excellent post. Crysis was kicked under NEW rules by Steam about how it couldn't be on a competitors site. Just turning your back to that fact and saying that Steam acting that way is ok because they are "convenient" is rather sad.And since you brought up Blizzard, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with things they have done recently. Since Bobby Kotic was made CEO of Activision Blizzard by Vivendi, it has been noticeable his hand has been in WoW a lot. Content is slow to come out, except of course premium items. And for the first time WoW, a subscription based game, will be charging for IN GAME content. Sorry, but Blizzard is an example of a market leader going down the wrong road and Valve seems to be flexing it's Steam muscle now that they have so a huge advantage in market share of the digital download market to force other publishers and developers to do what they want.[/citation]

Seriously, most of your points and argument's are totally irrelevant. Consistently slamming Steam/Valve for controlling distribution on their platform since as a Developer/Publisher/Distributor is somehow out of line because they are controlling competitors, well guess what? These competitors entered into contract's with Valve, said contract has requirements which guess what? This allows them to dictate how Distribution is handled. It doesn't really matter If you like this or not, which seems to be your problem. Valve offer's a service, it's up to the discretion of Publishers if they want to use it which means following Steam's Guidelines.
 
nop if its not on steam i dont buy, 1 service is more then enought and its sad i cant play bf3 alto the ea servers are all but good, at 70ping it still spikes and lagg. newer got problems on my black ops servers ewer
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Is EA not the publisher of Steam? How is it wrong for the publisher of Crysis 2 to want to control how content that they publish and own gets ditributed? Why should Valve, a competitor, get to say how other companies get to do business?I'm sorry, all I see in your post is how Valve, a competitor, should be the one to decide how content is distributed for EA games. Please explain why that should be?[/citation]
The thing is that EA knew exactly how Steam operates when they first signed the contract to sell the game there. Steam has never hidden anything and their policies have never changed.. Only after the game went live did EA have a change of heart and violated Steams TOS and had the game kicked.. No matter how you look at it, thats a pretty f'd up move.. You are right that they own the game and can do what ever they want with it but they should have done it that was from the begining and never offered the game on Steam. No one would have said 2 words about it..
 
The thing that astounds me about Steam is that I can buy any older title in their catalog, and it will run immediately on my oldest system (XP+AGP) or my newest (7). This cannot be said about the $5 specials on Windows 98 games at the local office store, which will send me on an around-the-internet search for patches, fixes, and tweaks which, in the end, may or may not work. This love and care for older titles is unique to Steam (in my experience). Everyone else is happy to sell me a title that doesn't work.

Besides the whole "who gets the distribution money" thing, I strongly suspect EA wants to control the life-cycle of the game in a way that contravenes Steam's life-cycle philosophy (as I described above). If I had to guess, it would be EA bending a full-price purchase into subscription play, with some kind of uselessness factored in to the multiplayer if you fail to go along with it.

Let's face it, everyone who makes a FPS is drooling over Blizzard's Billion dollar cash cow, WoW, and asking themselves, what's the difference between a multiplayer FPS and a MMORPG? Why can't we monetize an FPS like that? Well there are lots of differences, not the least of which is the cultural differences between the two groups of players.

Future BF3 DLC is EA's first big step towards subscription FPS, and they just can't share that with Steam, or let Steam policies get in the way of them castrating the online play. EA would rather take a chance of killing BF3 by taking it off of Steam, then let the future possibility (however small) of having a future Wow dynasty be encumbered by an unwanted partner.
 
Anyone remember the great job they did with the patching of BF2? Oh, that's right. It sucked. I'd much prefer Steam having my back and making the patching process as painless as possible.
 
wildkitten, you are basing your entire argument off the assumption that EA is telling the whole truth here and Valve removed Crysis 2 solely because of some desire for "monopolistic power". I fail to see how Valve is telling others "HOW their games should be made" when others, including yourself, have clearly stated that Steam already provides games that use alternative avenues for patching and DLC. None of these games have been pulled from Steam so clearly Valve doesn't have a problem with the concept of developers or publishers handling distribution outside of their client.

And if these alternative methods are available, why is EA keeping their big titles like BF3 and SW:TOR so close to the chest. "Exclusive titles" doesn't sound much like "working diligently to find a mutually agreeable solution" to me.

Valve is absolutely a business whose purpose of existence is to turn a profit, but so is EA. You're absolutely right that because EA is the publisher they have the right to pull their game from a service if they wish. But Valve is a distributor and equally has the right to remove said games if they don't comply with their terms of service. How is Valve forcing anything on anyone? If EA doesn't like their TOS, they can simply choose to not do business with Valve, which is what they've done.

The reason people are so quick to defend Steam is because EA has a history of horrible business tactics and poor customer service and public relations. Valve is a success because it has a reputation among gamers for being reliable, supportive, personable, and having a sense of humor, all things EA severely lacks. Just because Steam is a huge success does not mean it is a monopoly. It's not like Valve is engaging in wild antitrust tactics. It's abiding by its own standards just like EA is. EA's just happen to be a LOT LESS popular.

This whole thing is just an example of a clever and wordy PR stunt by EA to cover their ass and pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer under the pretense of having their best interest in mind, and you've fallen for it.
 
Any remaining slack given to mass crap publisher called EA will cease to exists the moment the BF 2.01 is released.
 
"So far, Valve has yet to respond to DeMartini's explanation." Ahhh...

I wonder if it's a me too clause or something like that. Something like, if you sell DLC through service X, you need to also offer it to us. I would suspect that all developers using Steam have the full set of "new rules" and would be able to comment?
 
Wildkitten, I think you should take it from bigger perspective.. both EA and Valve are big companies and it is no surprise there are some disagreements when it comes to earning really big money.. EA has history of making its customers angry again and again, while Valve is slowly earning very good name by making its customers happy most of the time.. take for example fighting piracy - EA is pushing very agressive DRM with many titles, while Valve is trying to persuade people to wait and buy the titles during massive sales.. simply put if people has to decide if to trust EA or Valve, then most will go with Valve because they have much better reputation, and they worked hard to earn it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom