62 réponses à ce sujet

[Sundance31us]

You know...

When Fallout 3 required Windows Live in order to play the DLCs I opted for the work around.

When Steam was required to run Empire Total War I returned the game without letting it touch my CPU and swore I'd never buy a game that required such a program.

When Steam was required for Fallout NV the trend was clear, if I wanted to continue gaming I would need to find a way to come to terms with Steam or whatever hosting program a developer required with their game.

I had three options:

- Give up gaming and take on a new hobby like synchronized swimming.
--- Decided against. No Krogan and a severe lack of modding.

- Move from playing on the PC to playing on an xBox.
--- Decided against due to the lack of modding support.

- Purchase/build a computer that would be used solely for gaming and modding.
--- Option taken. It took a while to save up enough money to purchase a gaming computer, but the bottom line was that I wanted to game.

I have both Steam and Origin on the games computer and of the two I actually prefer Origin; I don't need to wait for Origin to open when I play ME1 and Steam has a tendency to lock up FONV when it's updating.

[anzolino]

@Sugandhalaya: Es geht nicht darum, daß EA es sieht, die werden es schon sehen, jedenfalls die von EA Dtl. Es geht darum, daß die Leute weiterreden wollen und es im englischen Forum nicht mehr dürfen. Die meisten, die hier posten, sind aus dem englischen Forum und aus aller Welt hierher gekommen. Es ist also normal, daß sie nicht auf deutsch schreiben.

SalsaDMA wrote...
EA has enough issues with trying to convince consumers to install Origin as it is, imagine if some of its own employees started to make negative statements about the program on official records. The PR damage would be too big for EA to let slide.

Bioware employees are pretty much tied up at their hands and feet in what they can make of statements in this case regarding Origin.

Yes, I also think that's the case here. Whether they know or not, they simply cannot speak without damage in either way. If Origin will be required for ME3 the recently bad image of EA will coming up stronger... "Oh what this software again for the next blockbuster too?" If Origin will not be required for ME3 then the people will scream "Oh no, why I have to use it in the game before?"
In Europe EA have also to do some homework, they will wait to publish any commitments until the data and consumer protectors are satisfied. I think EA has underestimated the negative reactions and now there is a lot of discussions between the US and the Europe parts of the company.
But at least they can simply tell the users that they must wait for this. This silent isn't gamer friendly at all. But how cares when you think on 100$ DLCs... that's gamer friendly!

[anzolino]

Sundance31us wrote...
You know...

When Fallout 3 required Windows Live in order to play the DLCs I opted for the work around.

When Steam was required to run Empire Total War I returned the game without letting it touch my CPU and swore I'd never buy a game that required such a program.

When Steam was required for Fallout NV the trend was clear, if I wanted to continue gaming I would need to find a way to come to terms with Steam or whatever hosting program a developer required with their game.

I had three options:

- Give up gaming and take on a new hobby like synchronized swimming.
--- Decided against. No Krogan and a severe lack of modding.

- Move from playing on the PC to playing on an xBox.
--- Decided against due to the lack of modding support.

- Purchase/build a computer that would be used solely for gaming and modding.
--- Option taken. It took a while to save up enough money to purchase a gaming computer, but the bottom line was that I wanted to game.

I have both Steam and Origin on the games computer and of the two I actually prefer Origin; I don't need to wait for Origin to open when I play ME1 and Steam has a tendency to lock up FONV when it's updating.

It's not only about to avoid some tendencies the gaming is going into.
Recently I decided not to buy Skyrim because of Steam, and the first decision in this way was Splinter Cell. I have the complete series here despite the last one, because it's required this online connection.
I don't want to buy every type of game the game industry want to sell me. No. If they decide the tendency is online then I'm offline. Period. There are enough great games out there which not required this online connection or extra account or what ever. I don't need this forced "customer friendly" kind of gaming. It has only one goal: make money, make even more money.
It's like white cars today. Someone has decided you have to drive a white car and now every other color costs 300 bugs more. No. I won't buy a car from this company, because I don't want to drive in a white car. That's the way it goes but not with me.

The second thing is that EA and all the others are working against law. Nobody cares until now, but now they do. The companies got attention from several sides. They have to learn to live and work with laws. They cannot simply do what they want and what they did in the past.
I remember this congress reps who send a letter to Facebook two weeks ago (beginning of december I think). They noticed the FB's Privacy Policy has reached the length of the United States constitution (without ammendments). They asked M.Zuckerberg if he really believes that the average FB user would read and understand the complete Privacy Policy. They wanted the amount of the users in percents. *grin*
I really would know what these people will say if they ever notice that a EA game now requires 2 EULA's (1x Origin, 1x game), 1 TOS and 1 Privacy Policy. You need to read and understand 4 documents full of legal stuff to play a game. It's unbelievable. That's the way it goes but not with me.

The companies need customers to sell their products, if they want the customer they have to do a lot better then that. Unfortunately most of the young people are some kind of post privacy, the don't care, they are living online. But not all people do. I'm one of those. I don't let myself impose by companies the way I have to play because I decide the way I want to play.

@edit: typo

Modifié par anzolino, 19 décembre 2011 - 03:47 .

[Sundance31us]

anzolino wrote...
It's not only about to avoid some tendencies the gaming is going into.
Recently I decided not to buy Skyrim because of Steam, and the first decision in this way was Splinter Cell. I have the complete series here despite the last one, because it's required this online connection.
I don't want to buy every type of game the game industry want to sell me. No. If they decide the tendency is online then I'm offline. Period. There are enough great games out there which not required this online connection or extra account or what ever. I don't need this forced "customer friendly" kind of gaming. It has only one goal: make money, make even more money.
It's like white cars today. Someone has decided you have to drive a white car and now every other color costs 300 bugs more. No. I won't buy a car from this company, because I don't want to drive in a white car. That's the way it goes but not with me.

The second thing is that EA and all the others are working against law. Nobody cares until now, but now they do. The companies got attention from several sides. They have to learn to live and work with laws. They cannot simply do what they want and what they did in the past.
I remember this congress reps who send a letter to Facebook two weeks ago (beginning of december I think). They noticed the FB's Privacy Policy has reached the length of the United States constitution (without ammendments). They asked M.Zuckerberg if he really believes that the average FB user would read and understand the complete Privacy Policy. They wanted the amount of the users in percents. *grin*
I really would know what these people will say if they ever notice that a EA game now requires 2 EULA's (1x Origin, 1x game), 1 TOS and 1 Privacy Policy. You need to read and understand 4 documents full of legal stuff to play a game. It's unbelievable. That's the way it goes but not with me.

The companies need customers to sell their products, if they want the customer they have to do a lot better then that. Unfortunately most of the young people are some kind of post privacy, the don't care, they are living online. But not all people do. I'm one of those. I don't let myself impose by companies the way I have to play because I decide the way I want to play.

@edit: typo

Four things:

• Companies exist to make money; among the many things they do with this money is pay their employees and pay their vendors who in turn pay their employees.
• There is nothing illegal about a contract being long.
• Failure to read a contract before signing it does not relieve either party from the obligations listed in the contract.
• Video game sales are still rising. "software sales were up 15%, or 16% including PC games" http://news.yahoo.co...-223457857.html

I understand where you're coming from; I gave up gamming for quite a while when they started requiring an online connection, but Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, Starcraft, Deadlock and Dungeon Keeper lose their entertainment value after a while.

Regarding Steam I threw such a fit when I found out Empire: Total War required it that Gamestop actually excepted an openned (seal broken) PC game back (for store credits) just to get me to go away.

As it stands even though I have Steam on the games computer I've put off buying new games that require it (Shogun Total War 2 & Skyrim) because it's such a pain and resource hog to run.

Even if lawmakers move to restrict the activities of programs like Steam and Origin I don't see them eliminating them all together.

edit: 1st bullet point - change to turn

Modifié par Sundance31us, 20 décembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[Aliens Crew]

As long as Publisher existed who don't force me to install a client like Steam or Origin, I will play only games, which come from them.

Example: The Witcher 2, which I bought me a few days ago. The game don't need steam or something else. I install it, get the patches and when I can play...offline.

And this game is real great. And a real game for adults. Sex and crime and a lot of fun. I love it.

[Dennito]

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it also means more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

Modifié par Dennito, 23 décembre 2011 - 11:24 .

[Tom80]

Dennito wrote...

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it means also more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

There was a different reason...

[Dennito]

Tom80 wrote...

Dennito wrote...

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it means also more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

There was a different reason...

Maybe, the point is that I don't think that BW and the other developers are as innocent as most people think. Like it or not.

Modifié par Dennito, 23 décembre 2011 - 11:23 .

[SalsaDMA]

Dennito wrote...

Tom80 wrote...

Dennito wrote...

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it means also more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

There was a different reason...

Maybe, the point is that I don't think that BW and the other developers are as innocent as most people think. Like it or not.

I see your line of logic, but I have to disagree on your conclusion.

Not long ago the company I work in was 'merged' (read: bought out) by another company. This happened without any input from me or my colleagues and was a top-level decision. Now things have changed in the instructions we get regarding how to deal with customer service/care and production-routines have been changed as well. The result: an ultimately lesser product for the customers, but cheaper to maintain for the company. Neither I or my colleagues have any say in this, as the guidelines are directed straigth from the new board.

Jobs aren't growing on trees these days, so even while me and my colleagues dislike that we are providing a lesser product for the same (or more) money for the customers, we 'get with the program' cause we have to put food on the table at home too. I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware employees were roughly in the same situation and thus I would be hard pressed to blame them as persons for the misgivings that EA dictate towards them.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 24 décembre 2011 - 10:26 .

[Tom80]

Dennito wrote...

Tom80 wrote...

Dennito wrote...

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it means also more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

There was a different reason...

Maybe, the point is that I don't think that BW and the other developers are as innocent as most people think. Like it or not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are innocent. They had to agree in some way. All I say is that I doubt it was the money.


But still, as long as we don't know FOR SURE that Origin will be needed, marking them guilty or innocent is difficult !

Modifié par Tom80, 24 décembre 2011 - 11:27 .

[Dennito]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Dennito wrote...

Tom80 wrote...

Dennito wrote...

It's interesting that many people think that BW or the other EA developers are innocent. They agreed to the hole Origin thing because for the developers it means also more money because the competition like steam could be cut off. So blame all of them not only EA.

There was a different reason...

Maybe, the point is that I don't think that BW and the other developers are as innocent as most people think. Like it or not.

I see your line of logic, but I have to disagree on your conclusion.

Not long ago the company I work in was 'merged' (read: bought out) by another company. This happened without any input from me or my colleagues and was a top-level decision. Now things have changed in the instructions we get regarding how to deal with customer service/care and production-routines have been changed as well. The result: an ultimately lesser product for the customers, but cheaper to maintain for the company. Neither I or my colleagues have any say in this, as the guidelines are directed straigth from the new board.

Jobs aren't growing on trees these days, so even while me and my colleagues dislike that we are providing a lesser product for the same (or more) money for the customers, we 'get with the program' cause we have to put food on the table at home too. I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware employees were roughly in the same situation and thus I would be hard pressed to blame them as persons for the misgivings that EA dictate towards them.

My fault, I had to be more precise with my conclusion. I didn't mean that every employee is guilty or happy what decisions are made, but I also think that some executives don't have any problems with it or maybe like it and these executives are mostly in higher positions. Some of them don't stand up and say something because they're afraid for the reasons you mentioned and some (these are the worst) don't do anything because they don't give a rat's ass. Sry about my language. These are my experiences with my and other companies.

Modifié par Dennito, 24 décembre 2011 - 03:03 .

[anzolino]

Sundance31us wrote...
...
Four things:

• Companies exist to make money; among the many things they do with this money is pay their employees and pay their vendors who in turn pay their employees.
  
• There is nothing illegal about a contract being long.
  
• Failure to read a contract before signing it does not relieve either party from the obligations listed in the contract.

Yes, of course, companies have to pay their employees etc. (I want my pay check for my work too )) But they don't exist to make money, despite banking houses or something like this. They exist to produce things like trousers or feed or games or to provide services.
I meant something like a DLC for 100$ with "to make even more money".

It is illegal if a contract is too long and/or not understandable. Our law has a reference to it and now I read (the congress reps, FTC), that the US law is similar to it. The contract must be readable (font size > 1pt) and understandable for the average customer (meaning ordinary clauses and not only legal clauses which need a completed law school to understand). In addition to that the size of the contract has to be short as necessary.

The last one is a controversial discussion, here at least. I always thought the same way as you. But recently I have to learn, it isn't that simple. In our country are convictions regarding the issue "Not reading" <> "Not responsible". Some kind of funny.

[SalsaDMA]

Any updates on this one?

I've stopped bothering browsing the other forums due to not being particular impressed with EA/Biowares handling, so I will probably not even see any news on the subject if it doesn't get posted in this thread which I check up on each day.

Since I've decided not to buy ME3 untill I hear anything about this issue, it's kind of ironic that their own 'damage control' is causing a certainity in loss of sales due to them not getting whatever info out to people like me that stop having faith in them since I stopped checking their regular channels which I checked while I still had hopes for the game.