- Status
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[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]
you are missing the picture
what valve wants is to be able to distribute DLC for steam versions of the games the sale them selves.
what EA wants is to FORCE steam users to deal with thier "origins" system for steam versions of the game instead of simply letting valve distribute dlc themselves.
whe you really thinka bout both arguments they both sound alittle reasonable up front , but look at the facts.
steam users that buy an EA game digitally obviously have other steam games and likely handle all the dlc for those games ON steam already. Most steam users would prefer it this way any way. That is why EA IS being unreasonable. They KNOW this fact about most steam users , so they want to draw away steam users to thier origins system , and this is suppsoed to be thier plan to do that. And no matter what they say thier way is NOT better for steam users , it's only better for thier pocket book and it's is a lot more hassle for steam users to have to go to thier origins system to get the dlc. not to forget the the negatives of bassically forcing origins advertising on steam users.
but since most the pc market is on steam these days (myself included) EA is bassically shooting them selves in the foot with this move.
you are missing the picture
what valve wants is to be able to distribute DLC for steam versions of the games the sale them selves.
what EA wants is to FORCE steam users to deal with thier "origins" system for steam versions of the game instead of simply letting valve distribute dlc themselves.
whe you really thinka bout both arguments they both sound alittle reasonable up front , but look at the facts.
steam users that buy an EA game digitally obviously have other steam games and likely handle all the dlc for those games ON steam already. Most steam users would prefer it this way any way. That is why EA IS being unreasonable. They KNOW this fact about most steam users , so they want to draw away steam users to thier origins system , and this is suppsoed to be thier plan to do that. And no matter what they say thier way is NOT better for steam users , it's only better for thier pocket book and it's is a lot more hassle for steam users to have to go to thier origins system to get the dlc. not to forget the the negatives of bassically forcing origins advertising on steam users.
but since most the pc market is on steam these days (myself included) EA is bassically shooting them selves in the foot with this move.
I think we should wait until Valve comes back and explains their side of the story. Hopefully this will be soon. I'm not sure I buy the explanation about DLC, since, as others have stated, other games from the same company allow buying DLC outside of Steam (within the game) and they were not removed from Steam. So I'm not sure what the nature of this 'new rule' that is being claimed, but I don't think it's 'monopolistic agenda' that caused this result.
Most likely EA introduced something in Crysis 2 (perhaps related to the latest patch) that invalidates their distribution agreement. What exactly the violation was is not clear.
From Valve's perspective, I could see them having a problem with a game developer creating an application called 'EAStore' that is sold for $0 but simply lets people buy stuff from EA without paying for any of steams services (update maintenance, ADVERTISING, etc). I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but I am saying that Valve does have some say in how financial transactions are performed when software is distributed through their service. If a publisher doesn't like it, they're perfectly entitled to not use the service.
Most likely EA introduced something in Crysis 2 (perhaps related to the latest patch) that invalidates their distribution agreement. What exactly the violation was is not clear.
From Valve's perspective, I could see them having a problem with a game developer creating an application called 'EAStore' that is sold for $0 but simply lets people buy stuff from EA without paying for any of steams services (update maintenance, ADVERTISING, etc). I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but I am saying that Valve does have some say in how financial transactions are performed when software is distributed through their service. If a publisher doesn't like it, they're perfectly entitled to not use the service.
pale paladin
Distinguished
- Jul 27, 2009
- 196
- 0
- 18,690
While I understand this as a sound business decision for steam it really shouldn't limit the availability of the game through other download service providers. There are much better providers of games such as impulse that have been flawless in my experience.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]whe you really thinka bout both arguments they both sound alittle reasonable up front , but look at the facts. steam users that buy an EA game digitally obviously have other steam games and likely handle all the dlc for those games ON steam already.[/citation]
Actually, I've been using steam a long time, and the DLC management via Steam is something very recent (only in the past 2-4 months or so have i started seeing offerings on steam with the little 'DLC' band on the product image indicating that it's DLC). Dragon Age: Origions certainly predates that, and what's interesting is in DA:O you are kicked right out to EA Store when you choose a certain response from an NPC (to accept an optional quest). I think borderlands worked this way as well.
In any case, as far as the facts go, we don't have all the facts. So let's not get carried away and make quick judgments about how one company is trying to screw another one (or their customers).
Actually, I've been using steam a long time, and the DLC management via Steam is something very recent (only in the past 2-4 months or so have i started seeing offerings on steam with the little 'DLC' band on the product image indicating that it's DLC). Dragon Age: Origions certainly predates that, and what's interesting is in DA:O you are kicked right out to EA Store when you choose a certain response from an NPC (to accept an optional quest). I think borderlands worked this way as well.
In any case, as far as the facts go, we don't have all the facts. So let's not get carried away and make quick judgments about how one company is trying to screw another one (or their customers).
djab
Distinguished
- Feb 18, 2009
- 121
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]bigoldbrute[/nom]I dont get it, what limitations? Lots of text, but nothing is really said. We can buy GFWL games on steam (for example bioshock2), and updates/DLCs are handled seperately from steam (via live client). So this magical Valve control over steam games seams like a big fat lie.[/citation]
That is a very nice exemple, Bioshock 2 ! The game I bought on Steam when it was released and that I never played because each time I tried to play it I had to wait for Game for windows Live to either connect to GfWL server or try to update the game for many minutes.
In the end each time I swithced to an other game that did not require connection to GfWL and that was already updated because Steam did it automaticaly for me when I was not playing this game.
That is a very nice exemple, Bioshock 2 ! The game I bought on Steam when it was released and that I never played because each time I tried to play it I had to wait for Game for windows Live to either connect to GfWL server or try to update the game for many minutes.
In the end each time I swithced to an other game that did not require connection to GfWL and that was already updated because Steam did it automaticaly for me when I was not playing this game.
michael ninja
Distinguished
- Sep 15, 2009
- 23
- 0
- 18,510
Seems to be many of pro-steam comments on the board. Just had to add my 2 cents to balance things out a bit. Steam doesn't own the PC market. They don't own me. I use the EA download store (now Origin). I don't like how steam wants to own me. I don't like how they want to own my PC. If you want a system to own you... go buy apple.
hangfirew8
Distinguished
- Jun 19, 2009
- 108
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]michael ninja[/nom]Seems to be many of pro-steam comments on the board. Just had to add my 2 cents to balance things out a bit. Steam doesn't own the PC market. They don't own me. I use the EA download store (now Origin). I don't like how steam wants to own me. I don't like how they want to own my PC. If you want a system to own you... go buy apple.[/citation]
I remember very clearly when Steam was launched. Valve's former distribution partner, Sierra, immediately sued them. Reading gaming forums, you'd of thought it was the End of Days. Many declared loud and long they'd allow no DRM downloader on their system. At launch it was kind of lame- no, it was very lame- there was no way to recover a lost account, no way to gift a purchase.
In reality, it wasn't that bad. You could play a single-player game off-line. Best of all you could D/L to a new system and still play on your old system without violating licenses. I was dubious, but it didn't get in my way, and I gamed on.
When I came back to PC gaming after a several year hiatus, my Steam password didn't work. A phone call, a few emails and scanned CD label later, I had all my old games on my latest system. No hunting down patches from myriad vendors or dodgy web sites. No signing up for accounts for patch download rights. The library was huge and sales are awesome. Installs were painless.
There is a reason Steam is the 800 lb gorilla of PC content delivery that even non-gaming franchises envy. If it's not for you, that's OK, but you are missing out on some great games and great customer service.
I remember very clearly when Steam was launched. Valve's former distribution partner, Sierra, immediately sued them. Reading gaming forums, you'd of thought it was the End of Days. Many declared loud and long they'd allow no DRM downloader on their system. At launch it was kind of lame- no, it was very lame- there was no way to recover a lost account, no way to gift a purchase.
In reality, it wasn't that bad. You could play a single-player game off-line. Best of all you could D/L to a new system and still play on your old system without violating licenses. I was dubious, but it didn't get in my way, and I gamed on.
When I came back to PC gaming after a several year hiatus, my Steam password didn't work. A phone call, a few emails and scanned CD label later, I had all my old games on my latest system. No hunting down patches from myriad vendors or dodgy web sites. No signing up for accounts for patch download rights. The library was huge and sales are awesome. Installs were painless.
There is a reason Steam is the 800 lb gorilla of PC content delivery that even non-gaming franchises envy. If it's not for you, that's OK, but you are missing out on some great games and great customer service.
EA management are essentially a bunch of greedy monkeys who care NOTHING at all about the end user. To all those supporting EA, good luck to you. They have repeatedly tried to screw the consumer with invasive DRM and overpriced DLC.
Valve/Steam, on the other hand, have repeatedly supported supported gamers. Think about how much content they give away free of charge! Left4dead 1 & 2 are great examples of how they continue to release additional content & updates. They gave away Portal 1 (yes, it was to raise awareness for the soon to be released at the time Portal 2, but still!)
Valve is a company run by gamers, for gamers. One of the few not still corrupted by suits seeing nothing but profit. Do they want to make money? Of course, every company does. And absolutely they do. But they don't screw customers doing it. EA does. Big difference. I know where my gaming $$ are going, and its not EA until they drastically change their mindset.
Valve/Steam, on the other hand, have repeatedly supported supported gamers. Think about how much content they give away free of charge! Left4dead 1 & 2 are great examples of how they continue to release additional content & updates. They gave away Portal 1 (yes, it was to raise awareness for the soon to be released at the time Portal 2, but still!)
Valve is a company run by gamers, for gamers. One of the few not still corrupted by suits seeing nothing but profit. Do they want to make money? Of course, every company does. And absolutely they do. But they don't screw customers doing it. EA does. Big difference. I know where my gaming $$ are going, and its not EA until they drastically change their mindset.
Games do not need "advanced" (translation: DRM) distribution platforms.
Gamers do not need "advanced" distribution platforms.
My (and many others I know) lack of interest in most games these days is very much a consequence of "advanced" distribution.
I still play games a lot, but rarely do I buy new big-name titles any more.
I feel like these days almost everyone is drinking cool-aid the a handful of people like me that actually try to do anything about it don't have the numbers to change anything.
My gaming sucks, and it's all your fault. Stop accepting this degradation of our product.
Start boycotting, protesting, writing to congress (or equivalent) - but do something, just 1 thing per person is easily enough. Please!..
Gamers do not need "advanced" distribution platforms.
My (and many others I know) lack of interest in most games these days is very much a consequence of "advanced" distribution.
I still play games a lot, but rarely do I buy new big-name titles any more.
I feel like these days almost everyone is drinking cool-aid the a handful of people like me that actually try to do anything about it don't have the numbers to change anything.
My gaming sucks, and it's all your fault. Stop accepting this degradation of our product.
Start boycotting, protesting, writing to congress (or equivalent) - but do something, just 1 thing per person is easily enough. Please!..
[citation][nom]porksmuggler[/nom]Okay, time for a little gaming industry 101. There's a lot of history here too, EAs been around since 1982, and is often referred to as a Evil Empire, and a studio killer.The "content maker" of Crysis 2 is Crytek (the correct term is Developer).In this case, EA is the Publisher.Steam, a service of Valve was the Distributor.Valve is all three, developer, publisher, and distributor, depending on the title. Valve in this case is not a "competitor". Valve and EA have many partnership agreements, depending again, on the title. Sometimes Valve is a distributor, sometimes EA is a distributor (like Portal 2, Valve is the developer and publisher, but EA is a retail distributor for the game).[/citation]
Agreed! =D
Agreed! =D
EA doesn't care if you buy a game on Steam. They just want to force you to get patches, DLC and other future content exclusively through Origin. Valve has it right to ensure their customers will have access to the FULL game they purchase through Steam without being forced to go to outside sources for updates. Thats what they are doing by requiring developers and publishers to make that content available through Steam. Thats what EA doesn't like. Valve isnt asking for exclusivity. They have the right (and responsibility imo)to ensure the value of customers purchases. The other Digital services dont have such a clause and as such you might be screwed when DLC gets released on another platform and not yours.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
-
Question Updating Optiplex BIOS Really Necessary?- Started by MclovinBoi
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram