230 réponses à ce sujet

[LilyasAvalon]

MeAndMySandvich wrote...

That's pretty funny. Valve vs. EA is hilarious to watch.

[Travie]

EA had a new gimic now with the Battlefield 3 alpha, to try to get more people on Origin.

Unluckily for them people already figured out how to download the battlefield client and then delete origin while still being able to play, lol EA.

[corrin1984]

Travie... you can laugh at EA. But if you think you're going to PLAY Battlefield 3 when it comes out without running origin... you'd be wrong. I don't know if people are actually able to avoid keeping Origin once they download the alpha, wouldn't know, I'm not in it. But I do know that you're going to need Origin EVERY bit as much when playing the actual game as you do now with TF2 needing Steam.

In the end, both sides have their valid points. Neither one of them is the ultimate bad guy. EA isn't playing the part of the spoiled kid who is taking his toys and going home. Steam isn't the small underdog who is being hurt by big corporate EA. What IS ridiculous is the removal of bits and pieces of games. What should EA do? Honestly, just remove themselves from Steam, and that way we don't hear any more of these arguments. They will still have Direct2Drive and such. And people ARE using Origin, not as many as Steam, sure, but it's not a failure. Steam will survive without EA, however, their DLC practice may make some developers think twice about releasing their games there. Activision especially. While I think Call of Duty uses steam servers(I'm not 100% sure on that) I could see future releases being released on Battle.net. Same with other activision titles. Will Steam survive major publishers leaving them? Yeah, as long as the smaller publishers stay with them. I like Steam as a service, I use it a lot. Would I care though if I had to go soemwhere else for the big titles? Not really, I'll just add them into my Steam client, as non-steam games, so I can still use the friends list and screen shot feature.

Oh, and to the person who claimed Origin can retire games or inactivate accounts... just remember, Steam can do that too. They can. If Valve was losing money with Steam and dumped it, we'd all be S.O.L. Will they ever do that? Probably not. Could they? Yeah. With digital distribution, we no longer own our games. We lease them. And if you don't like it... buy physical copies. Then you never have to worry about this type of bickering.

[ejoslin]

corrin1984 wrote...

Travie... you can laugh at EA. But if you think you're going to PLAY Battlefield 3 when it comes out without running origin... you'd be wrong. I don't know if people are actually able to avoid keeping Origin once they download the alpha, wouldn't know, I'm not in it. But I do know that you're going to need Origin EVERY bit as much when playing the actual game as you do now with TF2 needing Steam.

In the end, both sides have their valid points. Neither one of them is the ultimate bad guy. EA isn't playing the part of the spoiled kid who is taking his toys and going home. Steam isn't the small underdog who is being hurt by big corporate EA. What IS ridiculous is the removal of bits and pieces of games. What should EA do? Honestly, just remove themselves from Steam, and that way we don't hear any more of these arguments. They will still have Direct2Drive and such. And people ARE using Origin, not as many as Steam, sure, but it's not a failure. Steam will survive without EA, however, their DLC practice may make some developers think twice about releasing their games there. Activision especially. While I think Call of Duty uses steam servers(I'm not 100% sure on that) I could see future releases being released on Battle.net. Same with other activision titles. Will Steam survive major publishers leaving them? Yeah, as long as the smaller publishers stay with them. I like Steam as a service, I use it a lot. Would I care though if I had to go soemwhere else for the big titles? Not really, I'll just add them into my Steam client, as non-steam games, so I can still use the friends list and screen shot feature.

Oh, and to the person who claimed Origin can retire games or inactivate accounts... just remember, Steam can do that too. They can. If Valve was losing money with Steam and dumped it, we'd all be S.O.L. Will they ever do that? Probably not. Could they? Yeah. With digital distribution, we no longer own our games. We lease them. And if you don't like it... buy physical copies. Then you never have to worry about this type of bickering.

Unfortunately, this is not true; there are many intrusive DRM scemes that can and will disable software.  DA2 originally was going to make the game "call home" every so often -- after the uproar, they went with a SecuRom-ish DRM instead (everything was SecuRom except the name).  People who bought physical copies of DAO have had the same authentication issues as everyone else (fortunately, the simple solution to that is to play logged off).

Now, keep in mind, with Steam and Origin you do not have to be logged on to play the games; therefore, it's unlikely that if they went under they would nuke all the games on their system.  My steam games I always play offline -- I have no interest in the chat system but when they have good sales, I snag games.  I got Origin on my system for the free ME2, though I have it set to not load at startup -- I can still play games just fine.  Amazon as an digital distributer doesn't require a client at all.

Anyway, DRM is far more likely to make a game unplayable than a distributer, even if the distributer goes bankrupt.

[Romantiq]

What EA doing is financially viable for them so I can't blame them. Yes, I would have preferred to have all my games in one place but if I were in their shoes I would have been looking at a much larger picture too.

[Withidread]

Nozybidaj wrote...


EA doesn't have a development studio on their roster like Blizzard.  Blizz doesn't sell on Steam, because frankly they don't need to.

Actually... just in terms of number of employees, more people work for EA than work for Activision-Blizzard.

According to the almighty Google, EA employs 7,973 people whereas Activision-Blizzard employs 7,600.

EA: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ERTS
Activision-Blizzard: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ATVI


Edit: For giggles, I tried looking up Valve as well. It seems Valve is a privately held company at this point, so it's a little more difficult (ie: impossible) to get the same info for Valve as is available for the other two above.

Modifié par Withidread, 28 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[xkg]

Nozybidaj wrote...
EA doesn't have a development studio on their roster like Blizzard.

No idea what you mean by that.
Anyone care to elaborate ?

[PARAGON87]

Withidread wrote...

Actually... just in terms of number of employees, more people work for EA than work for Activision-Blizzard.

According to the almighty Google, EA employs 7,973 people whereas Activision-Blizzard employs 7,600.

EA: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ERTS
Activision-Blizzard: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ATVI

Really, Activision-Blizzard is just two companies working together, they're not one big company.  Usually Activision is more like EA in trying to gobble up companies and trying to push forward the most profitable games.

But Blizzard is the same chill studio, working the heck out of their games until they get it perfect, and focusing on max three IPs at one time (SC, Diablo, WC). 

I saw in an article about a year and a half ago (don't remember where) that the Activision branch tried to force Blizzard to reveal details about Diablo III or StarCraft 2 and force a timetable or a release date, but basically Blizzard just shut the door on them and kept on doing what they've been doing, leaving the executives on the Activision side fuming.

EDIT: And also a lot of people don't know that BattleNet 2.0 is kind of like a digital client, or possibly Blizzard is turning it into one; you can download previous registerred versions of SC, SCII, WCII, etc., for free.

Modifié par PARAGON87, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:49 .

[nitefyre410]

PARAGON87 wrote...

Withidread wrote...

Actually... just in terms of number of employees, more people work for EA than work for Activision-Blizzard.

According to the almighty Google, EA employs 7,973 people whereas Activision-Blizzard employs 7,600.

EA: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ERTS
Activision-Blizzard: http://www.google.co...e?q=NASDAQ:ATVI

Really, Activision-Blizzard is just two companies working together, they're not one big company.  Usually Activision is more like EA in trying to gobble up companies and trying to push forward the most profitable games.

But Blizzard is the same chill studio, working the heck out of their games until they get it perfect, and focusing on max three IPs at one time (SC, Diablo, WC). 

I saw in an article about a year and a half ago (don't remember where) that the Activision branch tried to force Blizzard to reveal details about Diablo III or StarCraft 2 and force a timetable or a release date, but basically Blizzard just shut the door on them and kept on doing what they've been doing, leaving the executives on the Activision side fuming.

EDIT: And also a lot of people don't know that BattleNet 2.0 is kind of like a digital client, or possibly Blizzard is turning it into one; you can download previous registerred versions of SC, SCII, WCII, etc., for free.

Now see this makes me smile  god bless  Blizzard for that... cause I was REALLY  feed up with them  some stuff released with WoW and maybe i just need a break cause that game and people can test the patience and tolerence of a saint.

[Darth Postal]

xkg wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
EA doesn't have a development studio on their roster like Blizzard.

No idea what you mean by that.
Anyone care to elaborate ?

Blizzard and Valve actualy MAKE games. EA only sells games made by BioWare, DICE, Slightly Mad, Black Box, etc.

Modifié par Darth Postal, 29 juillet 2011 - 06:28 .

[pika9519]

 So Dragon Age 2 was pulled. Big whoop, the game wasn't even good.
Now if ME1 or ME2 were pulled, on the other hand....

[88mphSlayer]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

nijnij wrote...

This is extremely silly. So, suppose I want to download Legacy, does that mean I have to re-buy Dragon Age 2 on another platform first ? It's just plain stupid, I don't care which company is responsible, they both are IMO. "Either you let us buy you or you GTFO". Capitalism in all its splendor. How about, you know, coexisting ?! I hope they'll find an intelligent way to settle this rather than keep playing my-willy's-bigger-than-your-willy.

Nope you buy Dragon Age DLC the same way you always have. This arguement is about Steam wanting the DLC a secondary way (through them) instead of directly from this site.

which would be better

no more spacebucks, no more annoying website to deal with, no more downloading and installing every piece of DLC from executables on my desktop, etc.

[Cutlass Jack]

88mphSlayer wrote...

which would be better

no more spacebucks, no more annoying website to deal with, no more downloading and installing every piece of DLC from executables on my desktop, etc.

No, what would be better is if they went back to the DAO method of purchasing the DLC directly from within the game.

[nitefyre410]

You know this whole thing is going to be resolved before BF 3 comes out. EA is not going to have people not buy the game. Valve is not going not have people buy the game from them. Once the Lawyers find a way for both companies to make a profit. We'll be moving on to the next hot button issue of the day. MW 3 vs BF3, evil empire vs evil empire, EA vs Activision in the grudge match of decade and this time its personal *cue explosion and generic metal song in back ground."

[WoodsieLord]

I said this on multiple platforms, and I'll say it again: This is a BIG mistake on EA's part. I buy way more from Steam than I have the time to play. I have around a dozen EA titles, and I only played Dragon Age Origins/Awakening yet. I have hundreds (that's right) of games that I have never touched. That is the power of Steam.

I was waiting for the DLCs to buy DA2. To get the full experience in one go. Now I'm not going to buy it.

I wish one of my favorite developers found another evil empire to sell their souls to. I feel like EA destroys everything it touches.

[Bratinov]

I find it hilarious that EA gets ripped to shreds on their own forums
While it may be a bit unfair for Valve to demand a piece of EA's DLC profits I absolutely despise the layers of DRM EA puts on the DLC (can't load my save without your DRMs blessing can I? #### you EA!!), so Valve all the way.

Modifié par Bratinov, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:46 .

[Darth Postal]

WoodsieLord wrote...

I wish one of my favorite developers found another evil empire to sell their souls to. I feel like EA destroys everything it touches.

I feel exactly the same way. Ever since EA got their hands on BW, we have to put up with all kinds of cr*p. BW deserves better.

[In Exile]

AloraKast wrote...
Well, the point that I was trying to make was the concept of releasing a bare bones "full" game followed by a slew of these small DLC content for a price... especially content that is clearly meant to be part of the main game (as opposed to additional missions/campaigns that build upon the main game)... that's what I find objectionable. Here is a link to a post in another thread which, I think, illustrates this point very well:

http://social.biowar...75506/2#7979302

I mean, if that's what we're having to deal with, wouldn't you feel cheated a bit?

As a consumer, I hate DLC. I want the most possible content for my money. 

But there's just a difference between "as a consumer"  and thinking about it from a business POV. 

I have two different experiences to compare here; one with Bioware/EA and one with CDProjekt. Which experience do you think makes me feel appreciated and valued as a consumer and which experience makes me feel cheated and taken advantage of? And so which developer will I be loyal to and support in the future?

Well, neither. I think they both have objectionable business practices. CDProjeckt misled us in what I see as a few major ways about their product, including what it was designed for and what their target audience was. Bioware misled us about the core game (really "rose to power" in that one). Bioware sold us an alpha product, and CD Projeckt had us in beta-testing for their console release. 

DLC-wise CDProjeckt has the better business model by far, so obviously I will keep buying their releases. 

I understand both companies are businesses and the goal is to maximize profits. But clearly there are many, many different ways to go about reaching that goal and here we are shown two seemingly opposite paths. But only one of these two paths will prove advantageous and profitable in the long run.

Microtranscactions won't go away, and unless people outright don't buy the base product, all that it means for a company is that their dream of price discrimination in games is finally there.

As long as some/many companies use microtransactions developers like CDProjeckt will be able to garner much goodwill, but microtranscations work.  

Sorry, would you mind ellaborating upon that a bit? I mean, the bit about the expansion being charged full price. Honestly can't recall the original Awakening price (I got mine on sale), but my point was that you can charge more for a fully lenght expansion, as consumers expect having to pay more for a beefier product.  I suppose overall it may very well be the case that many small DLCs turn better profits for the company, as they are short content that don't require as much manpower and resources to develop, as opposed to a full length and solid expansion, which requires more resources to develop and generally there is a limit to the maximum price you can set that consumers will accept.

Can't speak about other places, but it sold for the same retail price as DA:O in Canada. I refused to touch it until the price went down. 

The real value in DLC (even if you were to produce an expansion with the same content for the same combined cost) is price discrimination.

If I sell you an expansion or 40$, you will buy or not based on whether you think it's worth 40$. But if I sell you 4 quests for 10$ each, you only need to think each unit is worth it.

Now, obviously there is huge mark-up in DLC. That's a whole other issue. I'm just saying why expansions are bad business (vs DLC). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

As a consumer, I hate DLC. I want the most possible content for my money.

As a consumer, I love DLC.  It allows me to buy the parts of the product I like without having to pay for the parts I dislike.

I would like to see games become fully modular, so I can take or leave what are currently viewed as core features if I don't want them.  And better yet, then BioWare would actually have useful data about the features people actually want (are willing  to pay for) in their games.  As the US auto industry demonstrated over the past 20 yaers or so, what consumers say they want and what they'll actually buy are two different things.

Can't speak about other places, but it sold for the same retail price as DA:O in Canada.

I certainly didn't pay the same price for both.  I bought DAA digitally, direct from EA, and I pre-ordered DAO from Amazon.ca - DAO was $10 more.

[asaiasai]

Sounds to me that it is time for a revolution. This nonsense of digital delivery services not being cross compatible, not talking to each other, not recognizing each other only hurts the consumer and at this point i have all but stopped the pain. I just stop buying the digital delivered stuff no mater the price and just buy the retail version even if I have to order it from Amazon, Wal-mart (shudders), Best Buy This will either require you to A) get off your ass and go to the store, or wait a few days for USPS or UPS to deliver it to your door. The last straw for me was The Witcher 2 which i bought from GOG which in hindsight was a bad move on my part as all sales are final, because i would have uninstalled that trash from my computer walked back down the the retailer i should have purchased it from and politely said no thanks, store credit is fine thank you. Which would have allowed me to buy something actually worth playing. As it is with the GoG version i am stuck with a 60 dollar peice of **** that is trying to pass itself off as a game.

SCREW THE DIGITAL DELIVERY SERVICES, until such a time as they understand customer service. The beauty of that is you let the retailers and the game companies fight over the money.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 31 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Darth Postal]

In Exile wrote...

CDProjeckt misled us in what I see as a few major ways about their product, including what it was designed for and what their target audience was.

In Exile wrote...

CD Projeckt had us in beta-testing for their console release.

asaiasai wrote...

The last straw for me was The Witcher 2 which i bought from GOG which in hindsight was a bad move on my part as all sales are final, because i would have uninstalled that trash from my computer walked back down the the retailer i should have purchased it from and politely said no thanks, store credit is fine thank you. Which would have allowed me to buy something actually worth playing.

What the hell are you people even talking about? The Witcher 2 is the most beautiful, polished and well-designed game I've seen in years! Crysis 2 is silently smoking in the dark corner.

If you call continuous support with giant patches and free content "beta-testing", then it's the best beta-testing ever.

If you call the best RPG of 2011 so far "trash not worth playing"... well, I don't know what to say... I feel bad for you.

PS. If you are referring to W2 launch on Steam, then yes, it was quite a disaster. I was able to download and launch it only a week after release. But still, the game is epic. Well worth the wait.

Modifié par Darth Postal, 31 juillet 2011 - 07:10 .

[asaiasai]

CD Project ruined TW2 with the click fest simple moronic combat, it is like Mike "i have no clue but there is an awesome button" Laidlaw was a co-developer with the Hong Kong chop suey wire work combat. The over use of QTEs, a save system that is still broken one play racked up over 4gs of saves that is just assinine. The reduction of complexity of alchemy, an inventory system that is all but broken as it is impossible to manage anything and no storage like in the previous with innkeepers. I could go on but at this point TW2 has already taken up more time than it was/is worth.

Asai

[Saile]

Withidread wrote...

Edit: For giggles, I tried looking up Valve as well. It seems Valve is a privately held company at this point, so it's a little more difficult (ie: impossible) to get the same info for Valve as is available for the other two above.

You used to be able to find the number of employees on their site, actually. Last year it was about ~250 I think.

Anyway yeah this'll be fun to watch...

[AloraKast]

asaiasai wrote...

CD Project ruined TW2 with the click fest simple moronic combat, it is like Mike "i have no clue but there is an awesome button" Laidlaw was a co-developer with the Hong Kong chop suey wire work combat. The over use of QTEs, a save system that is still broken one play racked up over 4gs of saves that is just assinine. The reduction of complexity of alchemy, an inventory system that is all but broken as it is impossible to manage anything and no storage like in the previous with innkeepers. I could go on but at this point TW2 has already taken up more time than it was/is worth.

Asai

Hmmm, I'm trying to understand your points of contention with W2... but am not really getting your dislike. It sounds more like you haven't played the game with the latest patch, because in every major chapter there is a storage chest in the inn to dump all that extra loot that you don't want to sell. I found the inventory management screen to be perfectly logical and understandable, you can look at the different loot categories or everything at once (they even have a junk category). As for the click fest re combat, it seems you haven't experienced Witcher 1 combat, as I find the developers learned a lot from the first game and took those lessons, as well as player feedback and improved a heck of a lot in that aspect. There were instances in my first playthrough especially early on when I found some combat a bit puzzling.. that is until I figured out the appropriate strategy to fighting specific groups of enemies. I love it how this game simply refuses, at times even brutally, to hold the players hand and has you try to come up with different techniques and solutions. I never get the sense that anything, any aspect of the game has been dumbed down and I love it. I finished my first playthrough yesterday and immediatelly started upon my second with great excitment. And it's even better this time around before I can apply what I've learned right from the beginning. With so many meaningful choices, I can experience the game anew, this time from a different angle (going with a different major path this time).. and still I will probably miss some stuff, which will only make me want to go for yet another playthrough as soon as I'm done. The game has 16 different endings and I look forward to discovering and experiencing them all. The graphics are simply breathtaking, so beautiful and realistic, the environments are so vibrant, so alive, the game offers us extremely difficult choices (do you sacrifice a child's future to safeguard that of your country or do you do what's best for the child, while risking plunging your country into civil war? do you satisfy your personal need for revenge while possibly aiding your enemies' agenda, or do you let a murderer, a rapist and a racist (and possibly a tyrant) off the hook, so that he may bring stability to the region?), but also choices that matter, and we and those around us have to live with the consequences of our choices and the solid story simply sucks you in. The only place the game falls short is the rather abrupt ending which doesn't wrap up many of the plot points, it's almost like a to be continued ending... but after the wild and incredibly satisfying ride, I can overlook that fact, because I am so eager to start yet another playthrough.

This experiences makes me even want to put up with the combat mechanics of Witcher 1, just so I can brush up on my history as perhaps that will make things even clearer, understanding the political setting and background.

And like Darth Postal said, 

The Witcher 2 is the most beautiful, polished and well-designed game
I've seen in years! Crysis 2 is silently smoking in the dark corner.

If you call continuous support with giant patches and free content "beta-testing", then it's the best beta-testing ever.

Apologies for derailing this thread... :innocent:

[Legbiter]

PARAGON87 wrote...

SicoWolf- wrote...

The issue here is that Steam is an extremely popular digital distribution service. Now, assumingly, to purchase the game digitally (and future BioWare/EA games) you'll have to go through EA's own client, Origin. That means your games will no longer be all in one place (more software clients to run, fragmented community, etc). No more awesome Steam sales. EA's own DRM. etc

Fortunately, some publishers have stated they love Steam. However, imagine having to load up a separate client for every publisher any time you want to play/purchase one of their games. What a PITA. 

If it comes to a point that we have to load 15 seperate clients to play 16 games, it will kill PC gaming as we know it and all publishers will go back to CDs.

Because no one will want to download games anymore.

This.

And it just might happen.