3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Zannana]

I just wanted to say that we don't have to sue. We just have to not buy the game. I certainly do not intend to buy it after reading about Origin. We will not sacrifice our rights and our privacy for a game and that is something the people in EA must understand if they do not want to see their games collecting dust in shelves. I will also inform everyone I know of this issue, because we must react collectively.

[Xannerz]

Yeah. I don't get why going to court has to be the only way to get change. Being vocal and spreading awareness is still something. Better that than no chatter at all. Maybe EA will realize how much this deters potential customers and so they'll FIX Origin.

[Customz]

RoseLegion wrote...

Customz wrote...

Talosred wrote...

See the thing is I never understood how DRM was meant to solve the software pirate problem, more and more things like this makes me thing it was a cover to just let some big corps put software to spy and data mine for their products.

I mean please tell me I am just paranoid but really tempted to type a letter to EA asking them what they mean in some of their TOS. But the sad thing it seems this is the world we live in.

There's this idea that gamers are desperate to play the game as soon as it comes out and the drm is there just to increase the time between release and cracking. There is some truth behind this though. First week sales are usually the most important for big titles and normally the more restricting the drm the longer it takes to crack (assasins creed 2) and the more complicated it is for end users to crack. And people are lazy, so if it's hard to crack they'll give up, and some of them will buy the game, if it takes too long and all their friends are talking about it or they really want it some will buy too. Most pirates are ocassional pirates, and do it mostly because of how easy and more accesible it is.

I think there is validity to what you say here, I'd like to point out the closing aspect of your statements most of all.
"do it mostly because of how easy and more accessible it is" I think this cuts both ways, if you're going to have DRM make it tough so it's not circumvented quickly, but that's if you have it.  You can't have 'other means' being more easy or accessible if you don't have DRM making it difficult in the first place.  Which removes most/all of the type of motivation you're describing from the equation and defaults it down to the simple question of "do gamers understand buying a game supports development of more games/more games of that type".  Obviously there's no 100% answer to this either way but I think the majority answre is "yes they do understand".  Anecdotally this is based on the circle of gamers I  know.  More substantively it's also based on the sales of The Witcher/The Wither 2 (which have both had their DRM removed by the developers even though that removal has gotten them sued by their corporate partners).  So despite the lack of DRM and the costs associated with legal action from some of their partners, these games are still both financially successful.  While this doesn't prove that gamers support the games and developers they love, honestly I think that it (when combined with the modding and fan groups on this and other forums) maks a very compelling case that not only will gamers do this, they already are.  Witness this very thread where in many people have said (in essence) 'I don't like Origin but if that's what I have to do to buy the game(s) I love then I will'. 

If people will buy a product that contains things they don't like to support and use it why should anyone assume that they wouldn't buy the same product if the aspects they don't like were suddenly removed?


oh, quick PS, this is not meant as a swipe at you Customz, again I actually think what you're saying is valid, I  just took it as a chance to elaborate on what seems to be a misconception within gaming culture right now.

Yes, it is true that gamers in general reward quality, and now that I look at it, it seems wierd that piracy as way to avoid cumbersome DRM would originate DRM. But look at the yearly increase in digital sales: general sales for Ubisoft, Activision and EA increased .55 billion dollars from last year, with retail decreasing 80 thousand [gamasutra]. This suggests that digital sales increase is not merely cannibalisation of retail.

Digital distribution makes these games available where retail might not reach. I used to live in a place called Cape Verde (challenge: guess where it is without google! lol) and buying games was almost impossible. Then this guy in my city started paying people who had games to let him copy them and then selling those copies. People bought those copies (I couldn't, my ps2 was not modified), there was no other means of getting games. There's significantly more piracy in emerging markets and less developed countries. It's mostly because there's actually no legitimate access. And when there is it's priced according with US or European income. Did you know that considering average income in Russia buying a 15$ dvd would be equivalent to an american spending 75$ on a dvd[arstechnica]?

Only now are businesses starting to catch up with pirates' "distribution network". Before that piracy was the way to go, even if you wanted to pay you couldn't. Companies tried solving this with DRM, and they created the pirates that do it just to get rid of the DRM, with legitimate customers actually cracking their bought games to avoid all the bloatware and restrictions. Look at Spore or AC2.

Of course there are people who just don't wanna pay because they can get away with it as well. I think people in general though will pay for quality when they see it. The Witcher was a good example, you can look at the indie bundle as well. The distributors can't see this because it would demand that they change the way they do business completely, having to adapt to ease of access brought by the internet and price adaptation for different markets (not suggesting they actually sell below production cost of course, but it seems better to make little money than no money), so instead they consider every pirated copy as a sale they lost and keep running behind (always behind might I add) the pirates instead of noticing that the majority of piracy is a "signal of unmet consumer demand"[arstechnica].

PS: this is a forum, open discussion, I would never consider your opinion a personal attack.

Modifié par Customz, 20 novembre 2011 - 08:07 .

[elitecom]

Cobra5 wrote...I doubt anyone important is even reading this thread.

Well you know with more than 2000 replies and more than 30000 views(beating most threads on the first page), this thread sure has garnered some attention. Attention is what is needed on this matter, the more people that knows about this the better. Then it is more possible that EA rethinks forcing Origin upon us.

[Lumikki]

Zannana wrote...

I just wanted to say that we don't have to sue. We just have to not buy the game.

Yeah, that's what many of us is doing, because we have no other real option to affect what EA is doing, if the EA doesn't change the Origin client issue politic.

How ever, PC side of sales ME3 will be just small part, because console sales and ingnorent consumers. Remember most of consumers doesn't even understand what Origin client is or does or they are stupit enough not to care.

Question is, does EA want to lose let say estimate 10% of ME3 sales? Are they ready for it? Because that is what it will cost to them.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 novembre 2011 - 09:12 .

[Xannerz]

 

Lumikki wrote...
Question is, does EA want to lose let say estimate 10% of ME3 sales? Are they ready for it? Because that is what it cost to them. 

The sad part is that those boycotting ME3 to spite EA will be hurting BW at the same time. 

[Lumikki]

Xannerz wrote...

 

Lumikki wrote...
Question is, does EA want to lose let say estimate 10% of ME3 sales? Are they ready for it? Because that is what it cost to them. 

The sad part is that those boycotting ME3 to spite EA will be hurting BW at the same time. 

True, but what other choice we have?
(Bioware is part of EA)

This isn't about the game, this is about Origin client. Bioware is making games, but EA is doing the other stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 novembre 2011 - 08:59 .

[Darth_Trethon]

There is no compromising here, BioWare have to be prepared to either resist EA and not make use of Origin or to lose a large portion of the PC market. Certainly they MUST see what's going on with Origin....it leaves customers little choice.

[SalsaDMA]

Xannerz wrote...

 

Lumikki wrote...
Question is, does EA want to lose let say estimate 10% of ME3 sales? Are they ready for it? Because that is what it cost to them. 

The sad part is that those boycotting ME3 to spite EA will be hurting BW at the same time. 

The indie scene seems to be doing well for producers of quality games...

They could always strike out on their own again, like they did when they initially started Bioware. Sure, comfort and the knowledge of a regular paycheck does wonders to convince people to accept all kinds of crap, but sometimes people got to stand up for what they believe in. I've bought several games from indie companies that were quite enjoyable, so don't tell me you need EA levels of resources in the back to make good games.


As for loss of sales being enough to convince EA... Ubisoft really got a kidney shot to their PC sales because of their DRM schemes (90% lessening with no pickup on consoles) and they still haven't understood the point. Given EA arrogance, I don't see them wisening up any faster than Ubisoft, tbh.

Btw, thanks to the guy supplying the gamasutra link. It's interesting that Europe seems to be a growing market for games, gaining on the North America  market. Maybe it was about time companies paid attention to legislation in Europe then?

[Contalion]

Ghost-621 wrote...


It's been established that I'm not buying it, but I still want to shoot it.

....or something with EA/Origin on it.

Buy someone's used copy of a previous origin requiring game.  Then, since you can't play it since it was registered under their account, shoot that copy out of shear spite, as well as making a point about how origin makes buying the game used an impossibility.

[RoseLegion]

Customz wrote...

RoseLegion wrote...

Customz wrote...

Talosred wrote...

See the thing is I never understood how DRM was meant to solve the software pirate problem, more and more things like this makes me thing it was a cover to just let some big corps put software to spy and data mine for their products.

I mean please tell me I am just paranoid but really tempted to type a letter to EA asking them what they mean in some of their TOS. But the sad thing it seems this is the world we live in.

There's this idea that gamers are desperate to play the game as soon as it comes out and the drm is there just to increase the time between release and cracking. There is some truth behind this though. First week sales are usually the most important for big titles and normally the more restricting the drm the longer it takes to crack (assasins creed 2) and the more complicated it is for end users to crack. And people are lazy, so if it's hard to crack they'll give up, and some of them will buy the game, if it takes too long and all their friends are talking about it or they really want it some will buy too. Most pirates are ocassional pirates, and do it mostly because of how easy and more accesible it is.

I think there is validity to what you say here, I'd like to point out the closing aspect of your statements most of all.
"do it mostly because of how easy and more accessible it is" I think this cuts both ways, if you're going to have DRM make it tough so it's not circumvented quickly, but that's if you have it.  You can't have 'other means' being more easy or accessible if you don't have DRM making it difficult in the first place.  Which removes most/all of the type of motivation you're describing from the equation and defaults it down to the simple question of "do gamers understand buying a game supports development of more games/more games of that type".  Obviously there's no 100% answer to this either way but I think the majority answre is "yes they do understand".  Anecdotally this is based on the circle of gamers I  know.  More substantively it's also based on the sales of The Witcher/The Wither 2 (which have both had their DRM removed by the developers even though that removal has gotten them sued by their corporate partners).  So despite the lack of DRM and the costs associated with legal action from some of their partners, these games are still both financially successful.  While this doesn't prove that gamers support the games and developers they love, honestly I think that it (when combined with the modding and fan groups on this and other forums) maks a very compelling case that not only will gamers do this, they already are.  Witness this very thread where in many people have said (in essence) 'I don't like Origin but if that's what I have to do to buy the game(s) I love then I will'. 

If people will buy a product that contains things they don't like to support and use it why should anyone assume that they wouldn't buy the same product if the aspects they don't like were suddenly removed?


oh, quick PS, this is not meant as a swipe at you Customz, again I actually think what you're saying is valid, I  just took it as a chance to elaborate on what seems to be a misconception within gaming culture right now.

Yes, it is true that gamers in general reward quality, and now that I look at it, it seems wierd that piracy as way to avoid cumbersome DRM would originate DRM. But look at the yearly increase in digital sales: general sales for Ubisoft, Activision and EA increased .55 billion dollars from last year, with retail decreasing 80 thousand [gamasutra]. This suggests that digital sales increase is not merely cannibalisation of retail.

Digital distribution makes these games available where retail might not reach. I used to live in a place called Cape Verde (challenge: guess where it is without google! lol) and buying games was almost impossible. Then this guy in my city started paying people who had games to let him copy them and then selling those copies. People bought those copies (I couldn't, my ps2 was not modified), there was no other means of getting games. There's significantly more piracy in emerging markets and less developed countries. It's mostly because there's actually no legitimate access. And when there is it's priced according with US or European income. Did you know that considering average income in Russia buying a 15$ dvd would be equivalent to an american spending 75$ on a dvd[arstechnica]?

Only now are businesses starting to catch up with pirates' "distribution network". Before that piracy was the way to go, even if you wanted to pay you couldn't. Companies tried solving this with DRM, and they created the pirates that do it just to get rid of the DRM, with legitimate customers actually cracking their bought games to avoid all the bloatware and restrictions. Look at Spore or AC2.

Of course there are people who just don't wanna pay because they can get away with it as well. I think people in general though will pay for quality when they see it. The Witcher was a good example, you can look at the indie bundle as well. The distributors can't see this because it would demand that they change the way they do business completely, having to adapt to ease of access brought by the internet and price adaptation for different markets (not suggesting they actually sell below production cost of course, but it seems better to make little money than no money), so instead they consider every pirated copy as a sale they lost and keep running behind (always behind might I add) the pirates instead of noticing that the majority of piracy is a "signal of unmet consumer demand"[arstechnica].

PS: this is a forum, open discussion, I would never consider your opinion a personal attack.

Good stuff there, and thank you for the citations   you make a good point about the evolution of the market and availability of games for purchase driving consumer demands and buying habits in many areas.  To be honest I hadn't included that aspect in my prior assessment and it's thought provoking to say the least.

An interesting thing re: Witcher 2 sales is that 80% of that 1 mill. I  mentioned came from retail boxed copies with the other 20% being split between gog.com and steam.  I don't have sufficient information to truly back this next part up but I feel that in part it's a case of market over correction.  Yes direct download is faster and can reach some areas physical distribution won't, and yes it's more convenient in many situations, however that doesn't result in it's being the purely preferred means from a consumer standpoint.  (there are of course other market forces at work like the cost of getting boxed copies on shelves at all, and the bite digital only copies can take out of the second hand market).  The Humble Indie Bundle is another good example as you mention, the last bundle offer (correct me if I'm wrong) made just under $1 million USD I believe, and that's for a collection of smaller games without DRM in a 'set your own price pay if you want' distribution environment.

International distribution brings in a whole host of challenges that many gamers may not be aware of, with the differing laws and ratings systems of each country, along with localization of both product and tech support all layered on top of the currency conversion issues you point out it's quite the conundrum for developers to navigate. Pricing based on region seems a sensible alternative but in the information age that can stir up a hornets nest among players who wonder why the same product costs more for some than for others. And while "why does global economics work this way?" is a totally legitimate question it's not really one game companies are set up to answer on a title by title basis

On the whole it seems that gaming studios are facing something similar to what record studios started really feeling the bite of a few years back, technology allows some newer players into the market in ways that wouldn't have been possible a few years back.  However I think gaming studious are a bit more buffered in than their music counterparts in that it is easier to put together a band (just based on number of people in an average group) than it is to put together a development team (again based on warm bodies in the room).

It's late here and I'm a little all over the place (sorry) but I wanted to just back to something you said before about digital distribution making titles available in markets where they wouldn't have been otherwise.  I think you're right and I think it goes even beyond digital distribution and right to distribution as a whole in some cases, here's an example of what I mean.  There was a huge trend among a segment of gamers towards "abandon-ware" sites which hosted games no longer supported or sold by their publishers, primarily because those games where on consoles (or created for OS, or other tech) which had gone out of production.  There was action taken by some publishers to shut these sites down, action which ultimately met with little real success despite the many individual sites that were taken offline.  However when some of these titles entered distribution once more (reference PS1 titles for sale again via the PSN) downloads dropped and purchases began again. To bring this all back to what you've described regarding people purchasing copied versions of games in the town you describe, it seems likely that most of them were motivated primarily by a desire to have and play the game, a desire they'd have gladly fulfilled with a retail (or digital) purchase from the publisher if those means had been available to them. I mention all of this because I think that there's an industry trend which misunderstands motivation and context for gamers. Services like Steam are actually tapping into 2 differing motivations among gamers to garner the success that they do. One is access of purchase and delivery (in the form of digital downloads) the other is a social environment the likes of which has propelled other services like xFire (or even more generally facebook) into notoriety. All of that remains positive so long as those services remain optional but begin to become detrimental when they're prescribed necessities for access to a game or games. Because then the service as started to create the very type of problem it was predicated on solving. Now rather than increasing access the service focuses more on DRM type limitation of access, and rather than providing an area where in you can gather gamer friends to cooperate and/or compete in games the service is putting up artificial barriers within groups of gamers thus limiting/removing some avenues of social interaction.

I heartily support communal gaming and services that facilitate it. I also adamantly support digital distribution and a diversity of options when it comes to purchasing methods. But they should be choices and services offered to gamers not mandated. It seems to me that the short answer to all of these varied questions and contexts is simply this.

Give gamers the option to buy and play your games and most of them will.

I supported Steam as a concept early on, just as I have already purchased games on Origin in support of both it and digital download services.
However I stopped supporting (or being willing to buy any game that required) either service as soon as they changed from consumer options to corporate mandated software. The invasive nature of the operation of either service at present re: collection of personal data (weather in an aggregated 'anonymous' metric or not) truly is a deal breaker for me, and I think totally not needed to make quality games. But I'll be honest, even if there was no spyware like behavior I still wouldn't be using either service at this point for any titles that exclusively require that service to install/boot. Because I don't support, conceptually or financially, the active limitation of a customers ability to purchase and play a game. Regardless of where they live, I think people who could only get a game via digital download should have every bit as much of a chance to buy a game as people who live where there are no persistent internet connections (or in some cases no internet connections at all. For example there are still places in the continental united states that don't have full access to land line phone service much less internet at home).

For myself, I don't suffer from either of those problems, nor do I have the limitation of platform (I'm lucky enough to have been gifted consoles in addition to my PC). I want to buy the games I love and support the developers who make them by endorsing their hard work with the money I've gained from my own.
However I'm unwilling to do that at the cost of seemingly also endorsing divisive, invasive, and overbearing market(ing) trends.
In a tangible way regarding mass effect what this means is the following.
Give me the option to buy and play ME3 on PC without the use of Origin and not only will I keep my per-ordered CE I'll likely end up picking up a second copy for console as well (because I usually do, it's a sickness ). 
But give me no Origin free PC option and I won't buy a single copy because I can't bring myself to contribute to the financial success of a business practice that is detrimental to the same type of customer demands and markets that drove it's creation in the first place.

PS: You sir are quite interesting to talk to and I thank you for the discussion and information.  Also I thought I knew where Cape Verde, but google tells me I am wrong it sounds like a nice local tho, if a bit hard to get games in

Cheers,
Legion

[s17tabris]

I'll still buy the game even if Origin is required (and it will probably be), but after ME3, I'm pretty much done with Bioware/EA.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Customz wrote...

I used to live in a place called Cape Verde (challenge: guess where it is without google! lol) and buying games was almost impossible.

Islands in the Atlantic, nearest to the coast of west Africa.

[Killjoy Cutter]

arr0whead wrote...

I'll still buy the game even if Origin is required (and it will probably be), but after ME3, I'm pretty much done with Bioware/EA.

Be very careful, or the damage will be done.  They'll have the data they're looking to mine, you'll have given up your privacy, and they'll have your money. 

[Metalrocks]

arr0whead wrote...

I'll still buy the game even if Origin is required (and it will probably be), but after ME3, I'm pretty much done with Bioware/EA.

then you give them what they want. once you have origin, EA has your stuff. just like killjoy said.
if you do so, you support EA and their spyware and they think origin is a success afteral. i also like to get my self ME3 but i dont support EA in this way.

[Dr Bob UK]

Origin stole data from my computer and killed my parents.

I think Steam should be forced with the game instead because Steam isn't intrusive like Origin because don't argue with me.

[ME_Fan]

I just installed the application today, even though I'm an extremely private person, and so far it's actually a great service! It's good that someone decided to stand up to the monster that is Valve and their Steam. All u people complaining about Mass Effect 3 requiring it, don't knock Origin til you've tried it. It's not bad at all.

Origin is alright! 
yeah OMG I have a different opinion to you.

Modifié par ME_Fan, 20 novembre 2011 - 05:29 .

[SalsaDMA]

ME_Fan wrote...

I just installed the application today, even though I'm an extremely private person, and so far it's actually a great service! It's good that someone decided to stand up to the monster that is Valve and their Steam. All u people complaining about Mass Effect 3 requiring it, don't know Origin til you've tried it. It's not bad at all.

Origin is alright! 
yeah OMG I have a different opinion to you.

Grats on not getting the point.

Nice attempt of trolling, though.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Funny how this thread is starting to attract the scum.

[ME_Fan]

I love how as soon as someone has a different opinion, everyone else points fingers 'troll!'

I was reluctant to install origin, but I gave it a chance, and was pleasantly suprised. What's the big deal?

[Killjoy Cutter]

The big deal is that you're not paying attention to what Origin is doing in the background.

Read the damn thread.

[SalsaDMA]

ME_Fan wrote...

I love how as soon as someone has a different opinion, everyone else points fingers 'troll!'

I was reluctant to install origin, but I gave it a chance, and was pleasantly suprised. What's the big deal?

No, I pointed you out as a troll because of your attitude towards others in the thread that had posted concerns.

The fact that your adressing of Origin had nothing to do with the problems inherent in it, and thus totally irellevant to the thread as well, just furthered this view.

Have a good day.

[ME_Fan]

SalsaDMA wrote...

ME_Fan wrote...

I love how as soon as someone has a different opinion, everyone else points fingers 'troll!'

I was reluctant to install origin, but I gave it a chance, and was pleasantly suprised. What's the big deal?

No, I pointed you out as a troll because of your attitude towards others in the thread that had posted concerns.

The fact that your adressing of Origin had nothing to do with the problems inherent in it, and thus totally irellevant to the thread as well, just furthered this view.

Have a good day.

Okay then, well sorry. But If there was attitude in my post it was not intentional.

 And hey killjoy no need to be such a rude SOB. I know what Origin does, you think I hadn't researched it already?!

Modifié par ME_Fan, 20 novembre 2011 - 06:04 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Yes, well, we've had a steady and increasing stream of people who have pretty much acted as if all the concerns regarding Origin are just something to be laughed at and trolled.

[ME_Fan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Yes, well, we've had a steady and increasing stream of people who have pretty much acted as if all the concerns regarding Origin are just something to be laughed at and trolled.

Fair enough and understandable. But I'm not trolling, so far it just seems to me that Origin is genuinely underated and bashed by a lot of people here, many of whom haven't even tried it. But as you said they are scared off by the EULA. once it's installed  though, and ignoring what it's doing in the background, it seems like a generally good service, and a lot faster than steam.