3659 réponses à ce sujet

[Aeowyn]

ttchip wrote...

ChookAttack wrote...
I don't know if Origin is good or bad for me as a consumer, I don't even know if I'm correct as to the direction they are heading, but in my opinion, indications are that they have too much invested and too much to gain for Origin to go away.

backpaddling would make nobody take EA serious ever again, in addition to the involved monetary loss. doesn't seem realistic, does it?

Has anyone ever taken EA seriously?

[ttchip]

Aeowyn wrote...
Has anyone ever taken EA seriously?

there's still the immediate monetary loss, you know ;->

[Fatemaster]

So, if I'm correct, we need to be constantly logged in to BSN to play ME3?

[Lumikki]

ChookAttack wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ChookAttack wrote...


Taken on an individual basis, no.  Taken as a whole, where EA has the chance to widen their customer base by millions, yes.

So, what you say, it's good business to lose minority, just because you BELIEVE it's better choice?

I allready sayed, Origin been forced with EA's games or been optional choice, doesn't affect MAJORITY at all.
How ever, it does affect the minority as are they customers or not.

So, I ask again why losing minority is good business, when you don't have to.
You don't do any more money with the majority, depending is Origin client optional or not.

I'm sorry, but you aren't getting the big picture.  Let's say that EA's customer base is  value X.  Origin loses EA a few customers, so you say that EA have lost money because their customer base is now (X-Y) with Y being those who don't like Origin.  I say that EA's customer base is now (X-Y)+Z with Z being all the totally new customers that EA haven't had the opportunity to market to before, but can in the future because of their plans for Origin.  There may be a problem if Y is greater than Z, but EA seems to think that Z will be much greater than Y.

In other words, EA will have more people to sell to with Origin and their business plan than without Origin.

We are going this situation around and around.

EA has customer base X = Majority + Minority (based who can accept Origin client)
EA lose minority X-Y (Y = minority).

EA gets Z more customers because Origin client.

So, what You say is that X-Y+Z > X . This is base of you calculation.  Meaning Z > Y, as it brings more customers than lose.

My calculation is this.

X-Y+Z < X+Z

This is because Origin client been forced or been optional, doesn't affect to group (X-Y) or Z, because they accept the origin client. It only affects the group Y who can't accept it.

You get it. The increase customer base is not related to group Y in anyway.

Then why EA did it this way as they did? Because they did not foresee the Y situation.
Then why EA doesn't just fix the situation now as they do know it? That is what I can't figure at all. Pride?

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 janvier 2012 - 01:23 .

[Icinix]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nobody is being forced to buy games on Origin, period.

No, but people buying games are forced to use Origin.

[Johnsen1972]

I really hope OpenOrigin is still an option... Keep it going Dmex!

I preordered ME3 again for now. But Im definitly going to cancel it again if that doesnt work out.

Modifié par Johnsen1972, 21 janvier 2012 - 12:17 .

[Gotholhorakh]

billy the squid wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Well he did claim not to work for EA on october 31, 2011. And the picture he uses as avatar got uploaded on december 16, 2011.
Also his nickname does not follow the usual rule of EA-whatever that EA employes usually have there.

Also I can not believe that when he started to work for EA that he had to sign a secrecy agreement, which would basically make his work on OpenOrigin or even just the way he posts impossible.

That's fairly standard employment terms in such situations. For instance if he develops something using certain Origin code, whilst working at EA, being paid by EA to reserach something and an offshoot occurs. Then EA owns the IP in question and benefits from it, not him.

Just a thought here - while non-disclosure and exclusivity (application rights to what you develop) are pretty much standard for developers, they don't necessarily apply across the board.

Some companies/particular contracts don't these days stake a claim to, for instance, related open source work under certain conditions, some even encourage you to have side-projects, and others will actively pay you to contribute to and engage with other projects for their own reasons.

Also on the matter of restricting engagement with the public not every company does this in the same way, either.

For most commercial software the developers are NOT expected to do PR - if I wanted to speak to our user-base on our/other forums "in my capacity as me" for instance, it would be cleared in no uncertain terms before I did it, for my protection and my colleagues'/employers' - and I would certainly have let the forum people know and have some kind of stamp on/under my name on posts.

On the other hand, sometimes management will issue such a directive as "I want you to have an online presence, I want you/you all to maintain twitter/forum accounts and/or a blog. Go forth, spread the word, engage". It depends on the employer, the contract etc.

A subcontractor you employ to do security work can be a special case. They may not understand the culture they're interfacing with because they're not a grizzled veteran software developer, they worked somewhere permissive before - or they're a "Genius Ditz".

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 21 janvier 2012 - 12:21 .

[Icinix]

ChookAttack wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nobody is being forced to buy games on Origin, period.

No, but people buying games are forced to use Origin.

No they aren't.  I don't know yet if I will buy a game that includes the Origin client.  I buy games.  I have a choice as to whether I buy a game with the Origin client included.  No-one is forcing me to buy anything.  I can still choose to buy a game from a different publisher.

"No, but people buying games are forced to use Origin."


Didn't say anyone was being forced to buy anything.

Hell you can buy the game and not install it - and never have to worry about Origin but can still own the game.

[CenturyCrow]

Fatemaster wrote...

So, if I'm correct, we need to be constantly logged in to BSN to play ME3?

No. Where would you get that idea?
Go back to page 1 of this thread for requirements: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8996121/1

[Icinix]

ChookAttack wrote...

Icinix wrote...

"No, but people buying games are forced to use Origin."


Didn't say anyone was being forced to buy anything.

Hell you can buy the game and not install it - and never have to worry about Origin but can still own the game.

They still aren't.  People buying games have a choice as to whether they purchase a game that contains Origin.  If they choose not to, they are not forced to use Origin.  Even, as you pointed out, if they choose to purchase a game with Origin, they can choose not to use it.  Who has been forced to do what?  It is all choice, whether you want to talk purchase or use.  (See, I can bold as well).

No, but if they want to play ME3 after buying they are forced to use it.

So perhaps my choice of words wasn't accurate - but thats ok. Its the internet - proper use of language isn't its strongest point.

[CenturyCrow]

Icinix wrote...
No, but if they want to play ME3 after buying they are forced to use it.

However which way you want to describe it, there's no force involved, it's all choice. Origin software is currently a mandatory install with Mass Effect 3.

Your choice and it's a basic yes or no. If you want to play Mass Effect 3, you get Origin. It's all dependent on your choice to play Mass Effect 3 or not. A definite conundrum if you don't want or like Origin or don't understand or even care why EA has made that decision.

A possible choice: maybe the open source version of Origin will be available and favorably accepted as an alternative.
Another possible choice. Wait several years; maybe it will be available without DRM and Origin on gog.com–like you can get  Baldur's Gate 2 right now.

[Icinix]

CenturyCrow wrote...

Icinix wrote...
No, but if they want to play ME3 after buying they are forced to use it.

However which way you want to describe it, there's no force involved, it's all choice. Origin software is currently a mandatory install with Mass Effect 3.

Your choice and it's a basic yes or no. If you want to play Mass Effect 3, you get Origin. It's all dependent on your choice to play Mass Effect 3 or not. A definite conundrum if you don't want or like Origin or don't understand or even care why EA has made that decision.

A possible choice: maybe the open source version of Origin will be available and favorably accepted as an alternative.
Another possible choice. Wait several years; maybe it will be available without DRM and Origin on gog.com–like you can get  Baldur's Gate 2 right now.

By that definition though - there is no such thing as being forced to do anything.

[Lumikki]

Icinix wrote...

By that definition though - there is no such thing as being forced to do anything.

Nope, You are forced to do one thing in life, DIE. I haven't figure how to avoid that.

How ever, I ques we talk more like actually having choices. This allways happens in every game forum.
Stupid argument, just because people have some choices doesn't mean they are actual choices.
Little like jumping out of airplane without parashute. Yeah, a choice.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 janvier 2012 - 01:03 .

[Icinix]

Lumikki wrote...

Icinix wrote...

By that definition though - there is no such thing as being forced to do anything.

Nope, You are forced to do one thing in life, DIE.

....man.

Thats a real downer on my evening.

[CenturyCrow]

Icinix wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Icinix wrote...
By that definition though - there is no such thing as being forced to do anything.

Nope, You are forced to do one thing in life, DIE.

....man.
Thats a real downer on my evening.

Well, turn it around to a more positive view.
You can live and experience Mass Effect 3 (but with the curse of EA's Origin) or you can live and not experience Mass Effect 3, but you don't have to worry about the curse. So there is a light in the darkness 

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 21 janvier 2012 - 01:04 .

[Icinix]

Oh, I fully intend to live and play ME3. I actually like Origin and prefer it a lot more than Steam.

I just don't like the fact that I am.....obligated......*taps nose* to use it in order to play the game on PC.

Like hell I'd miss out on ME3!

[Doonerbandit]

Origin is on it's last legs Kingdom's of Amalur is a clear sign of that. So let's move on. BTW Bioware I look forward to purchasing ME3 on STEAM before the year's out.

Modifié par Doonerbandit, 21 janvier 2012 - 01:13 .

[billy the squid]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Well he did claim not to work for EA on october 31, 2011. And the picture he uses as avatar got uploaded on december 16, 2011.
Also his nickname does not follow the usual rule of EA-whatever that EA employes usually have there.

Also I can not believe that when he started to work for EA that he had to sign a secrecy agreement, which would basically make his work on OpenOrigin or even just the way he posts impossible.

That's fairly standard employment terms in such situations. For instance if he develops something using certain Origin code, whilst working at EA, being paid by EA to reserach something and an offshoot occurs. Then EA owns the IP in question and benefits from it, not him.

Just a thought here - while non-disclosure and exclusivity (application rights to what you develop) are pretty much standard for developers, they don't necessarily apply across the board.

Some companies/particular contracts don't these days stake a claim to, for instance, related open source work under certain conditions, some even encourage you to have side-projects, and others will actively pay you to contribute to and engage with other projects for their own reasons.

Also on the matter of restricting engagement with the public not every company does this in the same way, either.

For most commercial software the developers are NOT expected to do PR - if I wanted to speak to our user-base on our/other forums "in my capacity as me" for instance, it would be cleared in no uncertain terms before I did it, for my protection and my colleagues'/employers' - and I would certainly have let the forum people know and have some kind of stamp on/under my name on posts.

On the other hand, sometimes management will issue such a directive as "I want you to have an online presence, I want you/you all to maintain twitter/forum accounts and/or a blog. Go forth, spread the word, engage". It depends on the employer, the contract etc.

A subcontractor you employ to do security work can be a special case. They may not understand the culture they're interfacing with because they're not a grizzled veteran software developer, they worked somewhere permissive before - or they're a "Genius Ditz".

Of course, the ownership of IP rights, whilst developing is not universal in it's application. Companies can contract out of them, whilst the internal workings of a company not involved in research and development won't have to deal with the Copyright and IP ownership issues. Even those companies that do have research or development would have the terms restricted to a certain department, dependant on exposure to sensitive internal information.
 
However, it is usually placed in the employment contract as a term to cover the company's back should that issue arise, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would enforce it, or even that they could if they wanted to. But, the case law is there because these problems have arisen and it has reached the point where the court has had to resolve the dispute.

As to speaking with the community, it is due to the issue of vicarious liability, as an employee the company is liable for your actions whilst in the course of work. There are a lot of caveatsand principles which go along with it so I won't list them all, but I can understand why it makes companies wary enough that they prefer to clear or have knowledge of employees speaking with customers.

As to subcontractors it depends on the terms that were placed in the subcontract, how close they are involved in the company, ie: are there weekly reports, working with a team of company employees when developing due to the expertise in a paticular field, but then has to integrate the work with the larger product. Or do they work independently of the company, how many restrictions did the company place upon the development or was the contractor allowed to do whatever he wanted to so long as the finished product was delivered to specification.

It tends to be really heavy on the detail and goes on a case by case basis. The principles which govern the legislation are a guide, but unfortunately the legal system tends to make things up as they go along using a line of best fit approach, as no case will be exactly the same as another nor the case law and the statute law.

[Metalrocks]

ok, read now that this guy is working for €A and now i have just a little hope that ME3 doesnt require origin. i still wait till march to make sure that its true. if people here say you dont need origin, i will get the game.
please be true.