5521 réponses à ce sujet

[Incognito JC]

Moondoggie wrote...

When did i suggest "screaming"? i asked you a simple question which you avoided because you know the answer makes you a hypocrite.

And again i state who says Bioware employees agree with your opinions? Or that they feel the need to make suggestions to those running Origin based on a bunch of paranoid customers.

And do avoid attempts at patronisation just because you don't agree with somebody doesn't mean you have a right to attempt putting down their arguments by attacking them personally.

Why am I a hypocrite? Did I say I dare not go against my employer? Screaming at them gets you fired, proposing a suggestion does not. Unless you work for someone that won't even accept a suggestion and will fire you right off. In that case I pity you.

Who are you to say BW staff would not agree with our opinion to make Origin optional? Do you work for BW? EA?

I believe you are the one with the patronising tone. My previous post wasn't even a personal attack.

[abaris]

Moondoggie wrote...


Unfortunately there are a lot of people who cannot understand a decision that does not benefit them and is not what they want to happen. This day and age has made us a society of "me first or i'll sue you" where everyone treats business as demonic and evil when they make decisions to ensure the future prosperity of the company and those employed within it that do the hard work so those customers can enjoy games.

That cuts both ways. There are those humanising their favorite business to the point of viewing their employees as personal buddies.

In my opinion and personal experience, business is highly impersonal. The primary goal is to make as much profit for the owners which in most cases are shareholders. If this interest coincides with customer interests it's a good thing. But one should never assume that customer care is high on the agenda unless there's the expectation of higher profits involved.

So I wouldn't call business evil, not even immoral. It's amoral, the culmination of egoistic behaviour. That's why I have no problem with customers being egoistic too. They just shouldn't lose contact with mother earth on the way.

Modifié par abaris, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:34 .

[Pixieking]

Moondoggie wrote...

Alpha Bootis wrote...

Anything that is sold in game stores also has cuts going to that game store.
DLC's are something that should be banned anyway. A game should be complete as sold. DLC is a very nifty way of making more money with minimal effort, DLC is something i rarely spend money on with the sole exception of the Fallout franchise.

Your personal opinion of DLC is neither here nor there really is it. The point i am making is when a company like Valve is demanding a cut in everything you create to do with a game they are selling there is a problem. EA decided they won't sell extras through Steam and Valve got angry because they are missing out on their cut which is why they make these insane demands in the first place.

http://kotaku.com/58...polite-about-it

"But Newell remains hopeful things will work out. "I think with any developer, the onus is on us to show them we have value, that we're creating a set of services and capabilities and bringing an audience to them," he said. "We want to do a good job showing EA that we have value on Steam.

"We'll try to work hard with them.""

I don't see any anger there.

Modifié par Emoking, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:35 .

[Archaven]

Moondoggie wrote...

Alpha Bootis wrote...


How is steam making money with EA's IP any different then any other game store selling games? 

Because Steam want a cut of everything not just game sales but sales of any future DLC or expansions too. A store doesn't ask for that.

So if EA Origins is going to publish any future DLC or expansions of other games you'll think they do it for free? Lol

[Moondoggie]

Incognito JC wrote...


Why am I a hypocrite? Did I say I dare not go against my employer? Screaming at them gets you fired, proposing a suggestion does not. Unless you work for someone that won't even accept a suggestion and will fire you right off. In that case I pity you.

Who are you to say BW staff would not agree with our opinion to make Origin optional? Do you work for BW? EA?

I believe you are the one with the patronising tone. My previous post wasn't even a personal attack.

You have still not answered my question.

You are now changing what you said. You were expecting Bioware employees to disagree and show they disagree with Origin and put in a complaint which can get people fired. You're now rewording it to make it sound less dangerous which is different to what you were originally getting at.

Tell you what if you can convince one member of staff at BW to join your propaganda campaign against Origin i will believe that members of BW share the customers opinions. Though from what they have said so far they do not believe in the paranoid claims of some people.

[Alpha Bootis]

Moondoggie wrote...

Alpha Bootis wrote...

Anything that is sold in game stores also has cuts going to that game store.
DLC's are something that should be banned anyway. A game should be complete as sold. DLC is a very nifty way of making more money with minimal effort, DLC is something i rarely spend money on with the sole exception of the Fallout franchise.

Your personal opinion of DLC is neither here nor there really is it. The point i am making is when a company like Valve is demanding a cut in everything you create to do with a game they are selling there is a problem. EA decided they won't sell extras through Steam and Valve got angry because they are missing out on their cut which is why they make these insane demands in the first place.

Valve is not demanding a cut in everything they create, valve is demending a cut in everything sold on steam. This is logic.
Still though, they can choose not to use Steam, wich they did, perfectly fine with that. I still don't want Origin though. (to get back to the origional discussion) And that is some titanic bull****ting on EA's end.

Modifié par Alpha Bootis, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:37 .

[Unit-Alpha]

casadechrisso wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

Alpha Bootis wrote...


How is steam making money with EA's IP any different then any other game store selling games? 

Because Steam want a cut of everything not just game sales but sales of any future DLC or expansions too. A store doesn't ask for that.

An expansion at a store will cost EA a piece of the cake too. And Steam does to the best of my knowledge still get a much smaller cut than a retail store would. I think Emoking had some numbers. To me, the Steam ToS sounded rather fair, but since nobody knows exactly over what details EA and Valve are fighting, all this is pure speculation.


Edit: And look who ninja'd me already because I'm such a slow typer

Right. A copy of ME2 through Origin nets 100% profit for EA: all $60 of MSRP go to EA. However, in a retail setting, EA sells copies in bulk to companies like Amazon, Gamestop, etc probably at a price of around $40 or so. So EA only gets $40 in profit, not even considering the cost to manufactor and ship the disks. So yes, stores take an even larger cut than Steam by far. 33% cut is the minimum for a store.

Bandwidth costs money, so if Steam handles distribution it deserves a cut. Simple economics.

Modifié par Unit-Alpha, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:38 .

[Amyra]

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

[shepskisaac]

Moondoggie wrote...

Because Steam want a cut of everything not just game sales but sales of any future DLC or expansions too. A store doesn't ask for that.

Well no kidding, they provide servers, bandwith AND most importantly they provide their multi-million clientele promoting EA's products and driving EA's sales up. Seriously, do you don't get like, basic rules of economy? Services?

[Pixieking]

Amyra wrote...

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Quoted For Truth!

[shepskisaac]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Right. A copy of ME2 through Origin nets 100% profit for EA: all $60 of MSRP go to EA. However, in a retail setting, EA sells copies in bulk to companies like Amazon, Gamestop, etc probably at a price of around $40 or so. So EA only gets $40 in profit, not even considering the cost to manufactor and ship the disks. So yes, stores take an even larger cut than Steam by far. 33% cut is the minimum for a store.

Actually, publishers only get $15-$20 per box from retail sales.

[Moondoggie]

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Would you prefer they use third party DRM? Or maybe they can be like a lot of top games now where you need to have the Steam platform to access the game?

[Ryzaki]

IsaacShep wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Right. A copy of ME2 through Origin nets 100% profit for EA: all $60 of MSRP go to EA. However, in a retail setting, EA sells copies in bulk to companies like Amazon, Gamestop, etc probably at a price of around $40 or so. So EA only gets $40 in profit, not even considering the cost to manufactor and ship the disks. So yes, stores take an even larger cut than Steam by far. 33% cut is the minimum for a store.

Actually, publishers only get $15-$20 per box from retail sales.

That's it? Ouch.

[gearhead364]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

cgradel wrote...

I just wanted to quickly state my disappointment on this decision.

This type of proprietary release is going to start to hurt not only the sales of the individual product, but the industry as a whole. One of PC Gaming's primary issues as compared with Console was the confusing nature of the game buying/installing experience and the lack of a unified social network.

Creating a tone of separate distribution services for each publisher, with different install processes, different social networks, and different DRM schemes really only hurts the customer, and the platform as a whole.

I love Blizzard, but it constantly annoys me that no one on my Steam list knows when I am playing Starcraft unless they log into the game. That type of fractured experience is not positive towards encouraging growth in the industry as a whole. I bought Starcraft due to the fact that I love the game, and I have always been fond of Blizzard as a company, but it still made me think twice.

In this case I refuse to support EA in their attempt to fracture the PC Gaming market in order to push their proprietary product. If they were to implement some sort of Origin enabled DLC solution (similar to Mass Effect 2) on Steam, or a cross compatibility option with Steam(similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2 or Microsoft's Games for Windows Games) then I would also buy it.

As things stand however, I will not be purchasing Mass Effect 3, despite my long history of purchasing and loving all of BioWare's games. I hope that you guys might reconsider at some point.

Um...Blizzard came before Steam/Valve and had their own multiplayer service.

Not everyone should have to use Steam just because it became widely successful.  If companies want to try their hand at a separate service, or continue to use their own, then that is perfectly acceptable.  Forcing otherwise so that they have to cut in a third party/fourth party for fees and sales is not.

I see your point, but it isn't good to monopolize everything either.

At no point has EA/Bioware been forced to cut in a third party to their revenue stream, this is just how the videogame market functions (so far). Publishers have always been relying on 3rd party distribution, whether it physical or digital. The simple fact is that these 3rd party distributors do a better job at retail sales than the publisher is capable of, additionally the publisher understands that the capital investment in distribution services is too great or too risky (until now.) Origin is one of the first attempts to cut out the distributor (Steam), EA claims that its to improve the customer experience, since they can now directly speak to their customer; however, I am willing to bet that it has more to do with revenue.

EA has been providing a slice of the pie to Steam on every sale they make, however with Origin this is eliminated. They know that this will alienate some of their customers, but as long as the percentage of customers lost is less than the revenue percentage they were paying Valve, then they should still be earning more money. The problem I see is that EA won't invest in Origin beyond a standard distribution service. My main reason for using Steam is the community it has developed, the ability to easily connect with friends and share gaming experiences regardless of publisher/developer, which is something that Steam will continue to invest in and improve upon. If EA wanted to provide us with this same experience to its users, then they would essentially have to invest more than they were paying Steam just to develop the back end. So while Origin will have a friends list and such, you can never really expect them to invest and innovate as much as Steam into user experience. 

I have not been tracking prices on Origin, but I am also curious as to whether Origin will offer the same types of sales that Steam has offered. Long ago Valve realized that when a game is discounted and then advertised, the product is no longer elastic; hence the revenue generated increases significantly beyond the standard elastic relationship. More and more publishers seem to treat their games as fixed price products, but we know this is not true. So will Origin continue where Steam has left off or will they stick with the standard price reduction with time method.

Whatever the reason I don't see Origin as a positive experience for the user. Its another layer of fragmentation in the market. I believe that if EA truly has an issue with Steams methods for interacting with the consumer, then they should discuss it with Valve and work out a long term solution. Ultimately, I am going to play the wait and see game. The videogame market is beyond saturation and from the holiday releases alone there is sufficient entertainment to keep me going till April or May. 

If you really want to protest the use of Origin, then on the release date start a thread stating that you have not purchased the game and why. Doing this will provide Bioware valid feedback, which can be passed up the management chain.

[Alpha Bootis]

Moondoggie wrote...

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Would you prefer they use third party DRM? Or maybe they can be like a lot of top games now where you need to have the Steam platform to access the game?

Wel atleast that'd be a platform I actually use so that would be a yes. I vouch however for not having any DRM at all.

[Incognito JC]

Moondoggie wrote...

You have still not answered my question.

You are now changing what you said. You were expecting Bioware employees to disagree and show they disagree with Origin and put in a complaint which can get people fired. You're now rewording it to make it sound less dangerous which is different to what you were originally getting at.

Tell you what if you can convince one member of staff at BW to join your propaganda campaign against Origin i will believe that members of BW share the customers opinions. Though from what they have said so far they do not believe in the paranoid claims of some people.

What was your question? Stand up against my employer? Yes I have. Fire? No. Did you suggest screaming? No. Did you indirectly suggest an interaction to get people fired to go against their employer? Yes. Which I therefore suggested screaming, the only posibility. Unless, again, your employer would fire you over a simple suggestion.

I never changed what I said, I stood my point. If you could not grasp my intent, I apologize for my wording, and suggest you try re-reading them. You are trying to twist my words rather than refuting my point.

Any BW staff that could share our opinion, could not express that openly, thus I said "hoped". And apparently this is a propaganda for you. So far they have been denying the claims, not "believe". Also conveniently evading certain evidence given out by other posters.

[Archaven]

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Same goes with Steam. The problem is we probably end up with dozens of steam clone clients on our PC which hogs down the game performance and resources. I preferred GoG.. but it's just Good Old Games... How i wished if new titles are DRM free too.

[xarthas2]

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Pretty much this

[Pixieking]

Moondoggie wrote...

Would you prefer they use third party DRM?

SecuRom Disc-Check, maybe? Even ignoring the fact that I, personally, want it on Steam, I'd buy a retail disc of ME3 with a simple disc-check on it like, straight away! As would pretty much everyone in this thread.

Modifié par Emoking, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:42 .

[damp]

RaenImrahl wrote...

ct1615 wrote...

2) The fact that EA is requiring Origins for certain high-profile titles isn't unexpected.  It's about money and marketshare.

then why doesn't EA/BIOware admit that instead us telling people BS stories about "patch delivery and better customer experience".  

Don't know and don't care.  All I can say is, having been tangentially involved in the last patching effort for DA:O-- yes, it's harder for them to patch games via Steam, especially if they want to move a potential fix out fast as an open beta.

I would say a beta patch (open or otherwise) isn't what a typical, non-technical user installs anyway - if they are aware of such things then downloading a beta patch from outside of steam and applying it should be something this class of user is happy to do. A person not interested in beta testing patches would simply wait for the official patch to be applied via Steam anyway. 

On several occasions I have patched games bought and installed via steam with unofficial patches (e.g. Oblivion) or other changes to work around compatability with modern hardware (e.g. Ghostmaster) and had no problems with Steam in the slightest. I would be happy to do the same if I was intalling a hotfix, beta patch or similar. I do object to the effort required when using EA's systems though to obtain supported DLC as this is often a lot more difficult than finding a thread about a beta patch and downloading it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

You shouldn't even need an extra software "platform" to buy the game direct download from EA/Bioware, or the DLC. 

There's this thing that we've been doing for about two decades now, longer in some cases, that involves clicking on a link in your browser, and downloading a file.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 16 janvier 2012 - 04:44 .

[Unit-Alpha]

IsaacShep wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Right. A copy of ME2 through Origin nets 100% profit for EA: all $60 of MSRP go to EA. However, in a retail setting, EA sells copies in bulk to companies like Amazon, Gamestop, etc probably at a price of around $40 or so. So EA only gets $40 in profit, not even considering the cost to manufactor and ship the disks. So yes, stores take an even larger cut than Steam by far. 33% cut is the minimum for a store.

Actually, publishers only get $15-$20 per box from retail sales.

Yeah, after manufactoring costs, sure. Sorry, I mean gross, not profit.

[xarthas2]

Archaven wrote...

Amyra wrote...

I don't care if EA wants to SELL the game thru their store, I can understand that they want every penny made from the sale.
I mean, if they have a digital store, why use another one.... I can understand that part, I don't like it, but I can understand they are a company and they want money.

What I cannot for the love of everything that's sacred understand is why I need their platform to ACCESS the game.
That's just intrusive, unnesesary and annoying.
If I buy a physical copy of the game I shouldn't have to deal with that....

Same goes with Steam. The problem is we probably end up with dozens of steam clone clients on our PC which hogs down the game performance and resources. I preferred GoG.. but it's just Good Old Games... How i wished if new titles are DRM free too.

Anyone has said The Witcher 2?

[shepskisaac]

Ryzaki wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Actually, publishers only get $15-$20 per box from retail sales.

That's it? Ouch.

Yep. That's it. Retailers, manufactuers and all the other companies that are involved in poducing, distributing and selling packed products all get their cut. So when EA cries "Ohh Steam wants to give us only 70% so unfair!!!" I'm just rolling my eyes. Digital distribution is a MONSTROUS revenue increase for publishers compared to retail.

[Pixieking]

gearhead364 wrote...

If you really want to protest the use of Origin, then on the release date start a thread stating that you have not purchased the game and why. Doing this will provide Bioware valid feedback, which can be passed up the management chain.

Oh, I like that. Hadn't thought of that at all. Nice one.

Also, I agree with the rest of your post.