230 réponses à ce sujet

[88mphSlayer]

and nothing of value was lost

[Jcarlo123]

@LordPaul

well I think it's telling that Microsoft (and a few other companies thus far) seem to be complying with Steam's new policy.

Microsoft, for example, used to offer DLC exclusively through their Games For Windows Live store. They still do that, but now they also give customers the option of buying DLC via Steam. If you do so, Steam just gives you a Key at check out, then you register and download the DLC via Games for WIndows Live.

You can also still buy the DLC through Games for Windows Live if you want----which seems like the perfect solution to me (at least for the gamer anyway) as it ensures a certain amount of competition between both Microsoft and Valve in selling the DLC (keeping prices down) and it also ensures that Steam (who is distributing their game, paying for the bandwidth, etc) gets a small cut when customers who choose to buy the base game on steam also decide to buy DLC.

So I actually think EA is being entirely disingenuous when they release statements acting like they have no idea why Valve is pulling Crysis 2 and DA 2 from Steam. EA knows EXACTLY why Steam is doing this, and quite frankly, EA would do the same exact thing if they were in Valve's position as it doesn't make sense financially for Valve to host games that they potentially won't make a profit from. EA very well could work out a deal with Valve like Microsoft did to distribute DLC--but they won't. I think they are trying to use this DLC issue to (1) make Valve look like the villain and (2) give them an easy out in order to pull all of their new games from Steam in preparation for the launch of Origin. In otherwords, they can pull all of their games from their biggest competitor in the digital distribution business, all while making it look like it's Valve's fault for being unreasonable.

Which really isn't the case. I fully expect all other online digital distributors (direct2Drive, etc) to start making similar rules about DLC as Valve is doing in the next year or so because as DLC/microtransactions increasingly become a huge source of profits in gaming they will have no other choice. As much as I hate to admit it, selling complete "games" seems to be a thing of the past now days. The model for profits in the gaming industry is shifting from selling a "full game" to selling you a bunch of tiny content for a shell game. Which, again, sucks hard for the consumer and which is why I absolutely refuse to buy DLC of any sort at all (and you should all do the same if you know what's good for you as I don't think you will like where such a business model will ultimately lead the gaming industry). I always try to scream it to the mountaintops: DON'T BUY DLC! YOU ARE ONLY HURTING YOURSELF BY SUPPORTING SUCH A BUSINESS MODEL!. But, of course, everyone is so impressed by the shiny new stuff that they don't listen.

[bleetman]

adneate wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
Valve are trying to use their market share to push companies around and force all DLC sales and such to go through them. EA aren't playing ball, which is to be expected.

EA is knowingly violating the Steam terms of service by trying to have their games on the Steam storefront while at the same time advertising their Steam competitor by making customers download patches and DLC through Origin.

At every point during the past couple of years or more, all dlc I've purchased for Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2 and the recent dlc for Dragon Age 2 has been through the Bioware store, accessed through this site. All patches I've obtained in a similar way. Origin hasn't been involved in anything I've done since it was launched.

So, uhm. No. No they aren't. In fact, all that's happened is they're selling dlc and whatnot in exactly the same way they've been doing for quite some time now. You'll forgive me if I don't blame people for not bending knee whenever the Steam terms of service are updated.

But hey, EA is all sinister and whatnot, so it must be their fault.

[corrin1984]

Sorry JCarlo, I don't agree at all. If the issue is about DLC... and we're not really sure that it is. Rumors and vague statements do not concrete evidence make. However, if it IS about the DLC issue, then no, Steam doesn't have a right to force developers to give them profits from both the sale of their games and any future profits they make off DLC. If you buy a game at Gamestop, they don't get to contact the publisher and demand 30% of the profit off any DLC you may buy. Steam doesn't OWN most of the games it hosts. And the developers who make the games should be able to decide if and hjow DLC is offered. Steam got the money off the sale of the game, if they are trying to force profits off the DLC too, EA is perfectly well within their rights to pull their games and refuse to allow Steam to be a retailer.

However, I really doubt DLC is the issue, I think it's more about Steam/Origin incompatibility. DA2 came with DLC ready to be purchased when the game came out. However, at the time it came out, Origin wasn't around. It's possible that new EA DLCs require Origin to download. Origin ALSO automatically downloads patches for games. It's possible that Steam and Origin game updates would be downloading and patching at the same time, causing conflicts.And there's no telling if the patches would be exactly the same. So I bet the real issue is that games that are going to require Origins to run or be patch violate Steam's ToS and aren't able to be sold via Steam. I doubt Direct2Drive and other services will ever have rules like that, because they don't offer servers to host multiplayer games and such. They are just an electronic retailer, no different than Gamestop. Steam is a completely different animal.

[bleetman]

corrin1984 wrote...

It's possible that new EA DLCs require Origin to download.

Except that they don't. To the best of my knowledge, Origin won't auto patch Steam games either, since they weren't obtained via Origin. I'd have to go check, but it seems pretty unlikely at least.

Best not tp speculate too wildly, anyway. I mean, they haven't pulled EA games from Steam as a whole. Whatever the issue is, it'll have to be specific to DA2.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 juillet 2011 - 12:59 .

[Forsythia]

Great, another EA game removed from Steam! I guess we aren't expecting ME3 on Steam. Thanks, EA! All the fans who bought the previous games can't get the complete collection in one place! Get over these petty differences and sort out a deal with Valve (the same goes for Valve btw, I'm sure they're to blame for this as well). Yes, I can still play the game (and will) even if it's not on Steam, but that's not the point.

[Jcarlo123]

corrin1984 wrote...
 However, if it IS about the DLC issue, then no, Steam doesn't have a right to force developers to give them profits from both the sale of their games and any future profits they make off DLC. If you buy a game at Gamestop, they don't get to contact the publisher and demand 30% of the profit off any DLC you may buy. Steam doesn't OWN most of the games it hosts.

That analogy doesn't work at all because Gamestop doesn't have to pay for bandwidth.  They just sell you a box and they are done--it costs them very little in the long run.

When you buy a game from steam, however, you are paying for infinite downloads and all other manner of support.  It costs Steam money every time you download the game from them, just as it costs steam money to maintain the community which will support the game.   So, unlike gamestop, it doesn't make sense for Steam to keep supporting a base game for years and years long after the game has ceased to be profitable on its own and has solely become profitable via DLC.

So, for example, let's say EA releases Battlefield 3.  In 1 year they mark it down to 80 percent off and start charging 5 dollars for it on Steam.  ON top of this, they start releasing a whole slew of DLC which proves to be quite popular.  Steam gets screwed by this as while sales for the base game might still be strong, they will only be making 5 dollars on it---despite the fact that they still have to pay for all the bandwidth for all of those customers who are buying the base game from steam just so they can buy the DLC directly from EA. 

So you end up with a situation where EA would basically be using Steam for cheap advertising and bandwidth just so EA can sell its DLC directly to customers and reap in the profit.  It would quickly result in a situation where steam would be losing money by continuing to host the game and pay for the bandwidth.

And the developers who make the games should be able to decide if and hjow DLC is offered. Steam got the money off the sale of the game, if they are trying to force profits off the DLC too, EA is perfectly well within their rights to pull their games and refuse to allow Steam to be a retailer.

Yes, EA is certainly entirely within it's rights to take their balls and go home.  However, they also shouldn't expect Steam to put up with such a model, nor any other digital distributer as it puts Steam in a situation where they are being exploited and set up for a potential loss.


This wasn't a problem 5 years ago as DLC was still in its infancy---which is why Steam didn't mind allowing EA to sell its own DLC back then.  However, as I said, the game industry is changing.  Especially with multiplayer games, developers are increasingly making the bulk of their profits from in game transactions and DLC.  So it would be financial suicide if Steam didn't try to prevent developers from exploiting them for cheap bandwidth/advertising in order to make the bulk of their profits from DLC (which steam doesn't see a cut from).

As I said, though, I think there are other potential solutions to this problem.  I just don't think that EA particularly wants to pursue them, though, as I think they have their eye towards a future in which DLC will become a much larger portion of their profits.

[JJDrakken]

People wonder why, folks say "bleep" EA.


JJ

[Siven80]

I think its to do with the whole EA and steam thing going on.

[ejoslin]

Melca36 wrote...

Sarda wrote...

I don't think the manual patch would go through on a steam game, they almost never work. In my experience if a steam game doesn't get a update and a manual one exists like Anno 1404 for example, there was no way even editting the patch to make it go thru.

If I can download DLC and install it on a Steam Version of DA:2...I'll be able to download a patch.

One doesn't follow the other.  There's a difference between patching existing software and adding new software.

[Ainmarh]

Valve had it coming for months, if not years now. Yes, they were first, but that doesn't mean they should be the only big digital distributor out there.

Besides, this will probably do only good to the market itself.

[bleetman]

I'm willing to bet that had the situation been reversed, had EA launched Origin around 2004, obtained the kind of digital monopoly Steam has been enjoying for a good long while now and recently started demanding that any dlc sold for games available from their service be also available through it so they can get a piece of the take, there'd be pitchforks and torches about what greedy bastards they're being.

It must be fun working for EA, where everything is always your fault, apparently.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 juillet 2011 - 01:48 .

[Darth Postal]

OK, this is official: I HATE EA!

This whole "Origin Promotion" is the most brutal rape ever done to PC gaming. If anyone of you, PC gamers, have any bit of self respect left, boycott this damn Origin. Let it burn in hell.

Launching a Steam competitor is one thing, and forcing it into everyone's throat is the other.

Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with DLC. Half the games on Steam use their own DLC system. Like U-Play, GFWL etc. But we don't see that games been removed. Only EA and only after Origin.

So, again, EA, *bleep* YOU!

[bleetman]

Darth Postal wrote...

Launching a Steam competitor is one thing, and forcing it into everyone's throat is the other.

Strangely, the number of games I have currently that require Steam to run is somewhere in the dozens. The number of games I have that require Origin is currently zero.

God EA, stop ramming your services down our throats!

<_<

[ejoslin]

bleetman wrote...

I'm willing to bet that had the situation been reversed, had EA launched Origin around 2004, obtained the kind of digital monopoly Steam has been enjoying for a good long while now and recently started demanding that any dlc sold for games available from their service be also available through it so they can get a piece of the take, there'd be pitchforks and torches about what greedy bastards they're being.

It must be fun working for EA, where everything is always your fault, apparently.

Steam doesn't have a monopoly -- there are several digital download services including D2D and Amazon.  What Steam DOES have is a good in-game messaging system.  A lot of people like playing through Steam for that.  They also have good sales.

And Steam is not being unreasonable here.  EA by wanting DLC to only be available through their storefronts ends up hurting the consumer more than anything. 

It doesn't affect me one way or the other. 

Modifié par ejoslin, 27 juillet 2011 - 02:10 .

[bleetman]

Hey, and I'm one of them. I have steam running continuously, nor do I use Origin. And, yes, monopoly was a bad choice of words. It's pretty fair to say they've dominated it for quite some time though.

I'm still standing with the rest of what I said, anyway. Compared with how Steam was at launch (and continues to be with every single game Valve releases), Origin has so far been entirely inconspicuous. Claiming it's being 'forced upon us' is laughable.

[Darth Postal]

bleetman wrote...
Strangely, the number of games I have currently that require Steam to run is somewhere in the dozens. The number of games I have that require Origin is currently zero.

Do you even feel the difference between "require to run" and "sold only through"?

Apparently not, so I'll explain it to you.

You can buy any "Steamworks" game from other digital and retail distributors. Direct2Drive, EA store, GOG etc. Each of these sellers have their own prices/sales/promotions, so you can CHOOSE where to buy.

But when a game is sold only through Origin, you are FORCED to pay whatever price they put.

Basicly, EA can put a $200 pricetag on ME3, and you will HAVE TO PAY it, or no game for you!

Do you see the difference now?

[pkmn]

I can't believe how selfish Bioware/EA is being. The only way a social gaming system works is if everything supports it - like XBox live. Steam is the centralized gaming community for PC gaming. Not Origin. The people have chosen Steam. It's the most streamlined and most convenient.

I don't understand why EA/Bioware has to be a turd in the punch bowl because they're jealous they didn't think of the idea first.

Valve has shown loyalty to PC gamers, and so PC gamers show loyalty to them. EA has backstabbed PC gamers at every turn - the ultimate betrayal being the console catering in Dragon Age 2.

I've purchased every Bioware game ever made, including the crappy Sonic DS game. But if Bioware is going to turn their back on PC gamers by not releasing their games on Steam, I don't see much reason to not turn my back on them.

[bleetman]

Darth Postal wrote...

Do you even feel the difference between "require to run" and "sold only through"?

Apparently not, so I'll explain it to you.

You can buy any "Steamworks" game from other digital and retail distributors. Direct2Drive, EA store, GOG etc. Each of these sellers have their own prices/sales/promotions, so you can CHOOSE where to buy.

Hmm. Really? Are you sure about that?

Let's not start pretending that EA aren't doing anything that hasn't been done for years now.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 juillet 2011 - 02:23 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Darth Postal wrote...

Do you even feel the difference between "require to run" and "sold only through"?

Apparently not, so I'll explain it to you.

You can buy any "Steamworks" game from other digital and retail distributors. Direct2Drive, EA store, GOG etc. Each of these sellers have their own prices/sales/promotions, so you can CHOOSE where to buy.

But when a game is sold only through Origin, you are FORCED to pay whatever price they put.

Basicly, EA can put a $200 pricetag on ME3, and you will HAVE TO PAY it, or no game for you!

Do you see the difference now?

Personally, I find being forced to run Seam on single player games I didn't purchase from them to be the much greater offense.

And you can still buy from retail distributors. The only thing I've seen that's been Origin exclusives has been Digitial Deluxe editions. They were not restricting digital normal versions. Steam did that completely on its own.

[nitefyre410]

You know my bull**** sense is going off at all time high on this one. I honestly don't trust Steam or EA and jumping to sides and defending either company at this point is atleast IMHO not a good idea. Cause in the end they are both out protect their bottom lin(which is the nature of the beast.) So the spin is on full to try to sway people to one side other.

[Darth Postal]

bleetman wrote...

Hmm. Really? Are you sure about that?

Let's not start pretending that EA aren't doing anything that hasn't been done for years now.

Portal 2 is a bad example because Portal 2 supports crossplatform co-op with PS3 through special version of PS3 Steam client. Without Steam this would be impossible.

But other Steamworks games, like Fallout New Vegas, Witcher 2, Mafia 2 etc are sold on D2D too.

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Personally, I find being forced to run Seam on single player games I didn't purchase from them to be the much greater offense.

So you are saying you would rather pay $200 for a game than download a FREE software???
 

Modifié par Darth Postal, 27 juillet 2011 - 02:32 .

[ejoslin]

bleetman wrote...

Darth Postal wrote...

Do you even feel the difference between "require to run" and "sold only through"?

Apparently not, so I'll explain it to you.

You can buy any "Steamworks" game from other digital and retail distributors. Direct2Drive, EA store, GOG etc. Each of these sellers have their own prices/sales/promotions, so you can CHOOSE where to buy.

Hmm. Really? Are you sure about that?

Let's not start pretending that EA aren't doing anything that hasn't been done for years now.

The difference is this.  When there's competition, the consumer has choices.  If you want to have Steams chat system you can buy from Steam.  If you have an Amazon credit card and get 3% back on all Amazon purchases, you can buy from them.  If you love EA you can buy directly from them.  Etc etc etc.  All three have to compete as far as pricing and convenience and features go.  This benefits us, the consumers.

EA is acting anti-competively by taking away consumer choice.  They want the customers of the other distributers, but instead of trying to entice the customers, they're just not making content available for anyone else to sell.  So say someone wants to play in Steam because of the chat system, EA wants those people as well, but instead of giving them a more appealling option, they just don't make the addons available through anyone but themselves.  This hurts the consumer because no longer is there the competition trying to lure them into buying from them.

Does that make sense at all?

Edit: As far as Steamworks goes, this is an issue with game developers.  It's a DRM issue, and while I have a lot to say about DRM (enough to get me banned once in fact), that's a different issue than this.

Modifié par ejoslin, 27 juillet 2011 - 02:33 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Darth Postal wrote...

Portal 2 is a bad example because Portal 2 supports crossplatform co-op with PS3 through special version of PS3 Steam client.

But other Steamworks games, like Fallout New Vegas, Witcher 2, Mafia 2 etc are sold on D2D too.

I think you're missing the point. Valve doesn't sell any of its games digitially near as I can tell except through Steam.

The other games you listed are not Valve games, but games that force you to run Steam even if you didn't purchase it through them.

[bleetman]

Yes, it makes sense. I'm aware that only being able to buy from one place is never a good thing. And personally, I'd rather give Valve my credit card information than EA, because I just plain trust them not to lose it.

But I tire of this unrelenting attitude that everything connected to Valve is awesome, and everything connected to EA is sinister and manipulative. I can't buy Valve games from other digitial distribution services any more than I as of yet can't order Mass Effect 3 from somewhere that isn't Origin. I don't support either of these situations.

I used Portal 2 because it just happens to be the most recent. I could've used, say, Half Life 2 instead, and I still wouldn't be able to buy it anywhere but Steam.

Modifié par bleetman, 27 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .