3659 réponses à ce sujet

[MingWolf]

jeweledleah wrote...

dmex wrote...


3) Right now when titles are retired by EA, the servers are shutdown, same games just don't work no more. Origin solves that problem.

4) If Microsoft/Valve goes kaput, it's the same situation, EA is very large and won't be an Enron.

eh?

if the online title is retired by EA how will origin fix that?  does it become the server, games are hosted on?  if offline titles are retired, how will origin fix it? you could just get a used game and use its CD key, since online activation for older games is not necessary

lastly - the major reason Iike steam outside of all the lovely amenities is that while I take a risk with no longer being able to play games I bought from them in a future, if they go under - their semi annual sale prices are the best in business (even for EA titles they are still carrying - like their 5 dollar deal on ME1 and ME2 for instance, during winter sale).  unless EA matches the that, all I get with origin is the client that has to be run in a background to play the game. which will make me very reluctant when it comes to buying EA titles in a future.  at least before Origin, if I bought a single player game even if Ibought it for full purchase price, I knew that as long as that disk and CD key is in my posession?  I'll be able to replay it on a whim.

lastly - the wording that bothered me in EULA was not collection of IP, origin username and password.  I wasn't bothered by collection of game data either.  what bothered me is the implication that it will scan my entire harddrive, catalog every single piece of software I have installed, how often I use it, potentialy my stored usernames and passwords for my bank, etc, not to mention scanning and cataloging my internet habits. 

whether the origin will actualy do it, is up to debate, but the wording gave enough of an opening for them to be able to do it legaly in a future, once you agree to it. and that just doesn't sit well with me

I think the idea is that because online activation (and I believe we are talking about titles that require online activiation) was traditionally latched to different servers brought forth by different developers, and when support is withdrawn, those servers go down.  With Origin, all that online DRM stuff is centralized into one location, so that there wouldn't be a need to deal with multitudes of DRM servers.  Plus, it's easier to manage.  (Do correct me if I am wrong). 

Of course, we also have to assume that EA/Origin, being large as it is, won't go kaput and put faith that they aern't as fraudulent as Enron.  However, for all this to work, Origin will likely need to bring forth the kind of perks that services like Steam offers, and also earn the trust of the customers who are being forced to used this.  Their financial statements aern't the best that I've seen, so in terms of gaming longevity with EA titles, one can hope that they won't go kaput! 

Myself personally, I wish game publishers and developers would just drop the whole online DRM activation nonsense.  To this date, I haven't seen evidence that DRM actually works to prevent piracy and have done nothing but inconvenience the customer.  Requiring Steam or Origin to run in the background is just the next step, right?  I mean, look at Skyrim.  Like ME3, it is required to have a program running (steam) but even then, those sailors of the seas have found ways to get around that, without the inconvenience.  It's silly nonsense, and the day a company finally figures out how to bar their products from piracy is probably the day they go out of business. 

Modifié par MingWolf, 23 janvier 2012 - 11:14 .

[anzolino]

@Bogsnot1
I've only tested the client, without any games or any option changes.

@Pyro
I'm on XP, you too? If not, maybe that's the difference?

Most things people bring up about Origin (gathering your IP, OS etc.) can be done by a website (or cookie) but nobody cares about that.

I do )
(Especially whren I read BF3 starts the browser, but I care always about the data mining through browser.)

Edit: The changes made to the EULA and the test done by a major german computer magazine, which showed that Origin isn't doing anything wrong (they did an intensiv scan and sniffed the network traffic), finally convinced me.

Nope, they didn't sniffed the network traffic (not the ct) because they didn't see any reason for sniffing after they thought there were no file system accesses.
This is the reason why I'm not convinced.

Lumikki wrote...

dmex wrote...
You can remove Origin.

Yes, but then I can't play games what I buyed.

So, please don't insult your ex customers.

Reading that made me smile... Well roared, lion.

Dragoonlordz wrote...
Or unplug your internet cable after activation?

Nope, doesn't work here.

Dragoonlordz wrote...
I think and I'm trying to be fair here that Dmex is only trying to explain what the client does now and how it is designed with added information about the one he is designing on his own and hoping to get approved. I do not think he can tell what EA may do in future as neither can any of us (not with fortune cookies, tea leaves or magic 8 balls).

Let me ask you this what exactly word for word would you want in the EULA instead? Honest question and if you cannot answer that then you have very little ground to stand on because it comes across as you don't know what you want. If answer that do not want any information sent then we both know that is not going to happen. Dmex said what it sends and what it looks at so best you may hope for (imho) is wording exactly what he said it currently does (including it's own client and game files).

It says in the EULA itself if they make changes they have to get consent from you and show you the new EULA.

But we don't know if he really works on the client. We only know he want to work on OpenOrigin because there is a site on sourceforge. Nothing more. So to be fair: If there is no officially comment from EA, everybody can explain everything. Nobody knows the truth. The client he is maybe designing on his own doesn't matter at time, because neither we know if it's finished until ME3 nor we know if it can be used then. So, he can't promise anything, it's all hypothetical, but people want to believe and he only raises their hope. For what? That isn't right.

[anzolino]

dmex wrote...
1) You can disable auto-updating in Origin settings.

Yes, of course, but:

D. Application Updates. You agree that the Application may automatically
download and install updates, upgrades and additional features that EA
deems reasonable, beneficial to you and/or reasonably necessary. You
acknowledge and agree that any obligation EA may have to support the
previous version(s) may be ended upon the availability of the update,
upgrade and/or implementation of additional features...
...
You are responsible for all actions that occur in connection with the Origin
Account (formerly called “EA Account”) you use to register and log into this
Application...

Hmm.

[Sylvius the Mad]

dmex wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Normally, I can choose which patches I want to install, and I can etst them, and then remove them if I don't like them.

If I buy a game long after release, I can choose which patches I would like to install up to and including the most recent one.

Steam doesn't let me do this.  If I install a Steam game, I'm required to patch it up all the way to the current version the first time, and only after I've done that can I opt out of future patches.  Furthermore, there is no mechanism at all for me to install patches, test them to see what they do, and then rollback.

Will Origin let me install the patches myself?  Will Origin let me install old patches only?  Will Origin let me rollback to earlier versions?

For example, when BioWare released NWN in 2002, I really liked its core mechanics.  Patch 1.03, though, fundamentally changed those mechanics by removing friendly fire from enemies, so they could no longer kill themselves or each other by accident.  That, I think, broke the game, and I refused to install that patch.  Will Origin let me undo patches?  Will Origin let me install only those patches I want, even if subsequent patches have already been released?

Unfortunately, for now at least, it'll be the same as Steam.

How Steam handles patches the reason I don't use Steam.  Steam handles patches exactly the same way the console manufacturers handle patches, and that's completely unacceptable.

I will not acquire any game where I don't get to chose which patches I want to install.

[Gatt9]

[quote]dmex wrote...


3) Right now when titles are retired by EA, the servers are shutdown, same games just don't work no more. Origin solves that problem.

4) If Microsoft/Valve goes kaput, it's the same situation, EA is very large and won't be an Enron.[/quote]
[/quote]

That's a major assumption that doesn't hold true.  The only reason EA is still around today is because of the NFL and FIFA series,  the loss of either one would be crippling to them,  if not outright fatal.  Given their recent trends with sales,  I would suggest that EA is a high risk for failure.

Especially considering their recent market strategies,  I am personally of the opinion that EA's stability is not a good bet.  I am strongly of the opinion that EA's strategies are going to result in a massive loss of market share,  and that 2011 and TOR's results foreshadow dire times for them.

I also have to point out,  your point #3?  It's a straight up lie.  If EA's servers shutdown tomorrow,  my Mass Effect plays just fine.  But for no valid reason,  my Mass Effect 3 would not work.

[anzolino]

Yes, it's a hell of assumption.
#3 is a good point, Gatt9.

[Furtled]

dmex wrote...
3) Right now when titles are retired by EA, the servers are shutdown, same games just don't work no more. Origin solves that problem.

I don't fully understand how it's less work to set Origin up to transfer activations from these other games into it's own system than it is to simply patch out the DRM at server EOL as each game server is retired?

Or are you saying that won't happen and servers will be shut down and no DRM removal patches will be released for games like Mass Effect 1 & 2 and Dragon Age: Origins?

Modifié par Furtled, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:22 .

[Eurypterid]

[quote]Furtled wrote...

TL;DR summary: I'm not demanding Origin be scrubbed from existence or that anyone who wants to use it can't, all I'm asking for is a little respect and to be given back my sense of agency over my personal gaming experience.

Is that really too much to ask?



[/quote]

Unfortunately, yes, it seems so. The gaming industry (heck, the whole entertainment industry) is pushing for more and more control for them and less for the consumer. They want to be able to control how you use your product, when you use it, where you use it, how often you can use it, how you access it, and whether or not you can sell it off when you're done with it.

It seems you and I are of a similar age, as some of the old things you mentioned are very familiar to me as well. But I believe as a consequence of the digital age we've now moved into, many things are changing. Some not to our liking, and this is one of them. Is it destined to be this way? I don't know. But it sure seems like the industry is pushing for it.

[quote]dmex wrote....

4) If Microsoft/Valve goes kaput, it's the same situation, EA is very large and won't be an Enron.[/quote]
[/quote]

Too big to fail, dmex? Hmmm, I believe something about that rings a bell..

[Aiomon]

I love the blatant lies about Steam. "Restrictive"? So that is why all the indie devs are using it and not Origin right? Hell, it lets you put your own patcher/updater in the game. Bioware, I was really looking forward to ME3. But as my OCD prevents me from buying it from another source than the first 2, it seems as if you have lost a costumer. Also, stop feeding us bull.

[Icinix]

Eurypterid wrote...
Too big to fail, dmex? Hmmm, I believe something about that rings a bell..

Hehe.

I think there would be numerous things along those lines that would ring a bell.

One in particular hit an iceberg and spawned movies that would create unrealistic expectations of men for years to come!

Anyway - the whole requiring X to run Y is right up there with limited activations, always online DRM etc etc. Eventually at some point in the future - it can and WILL cause issues for the consumer.

[OperativeX]

And yet the crooks and criminals get to have their fun without restrictions. Seems a bit backwards to me. I say use the DRM that Croteam used for Serious Sam 3 BFE - make it so that when the game code is changed (cracked), a giant unkillable scorpion beats you down until you are dead, thus ruining the game if you've cracked it.

[inappropriate comments removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 24 janvier 2012 - 01:41 .

[hard-case]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How Steam handles patches the reason I don't use Steam.  Steam handles patches exactly the same way the console manufacturers handle patches, and that's completely unacceptable.

I will not acquire any game where I don't get to chose which patches I want to install.

As somwhat a case example of this (that infuriated me to no end when it happened) I was reminded of when people started talking about patches....

It was somewhat normal after release to find Skyrim (released tied to Steam) had suddenly become unplayable. Either the game would crash on startup or you would just endlessly loop through the launcher menu. It was usually tracked down to Steam having downloaded a patch for the game. Before the 1.3.10 patch for Skyrim added it, a lot of players who were using mod files (especially the high res texture mods) were required to manual edit the main exe to allow it to recognize/utilize higher amounts of RAM (referred to as the 4GB patch). What became incredibly confusing was that this was happening to many  people (myself included), who had specifically disabled automatic updating. It didn't matter, the patches got pushed through anyway...so even though the option to "disable auto-updating" was offered, the setting turned out to be meaningless. Surprising how so many people got hit with it especially on the first "patch", which did nothing but tie the game in to steam. In another case a patch left a number of users unable to fast travel (clicking on the map entry would just close the map), meaning if you wanted to go across the game map you actually had to spend the time actually walking/riding you avatar all the way over there. Which if you haven't played the game can be and incredibly long time! Oh and not to mention having the ini files get wiped out due to the update, necessitating a lot of updating/fixing if you didn't have a backup copy.

It became a relatively normal occurence for legitimate users to be left unable to play the game due to patches being forced through against their will. Most did what I did, grab a copy of the 1.0 executable (and one of the .bsa files if like me they got hit with the "fast travel no longer working" bug) and just copy it back in whenever Steam decided to override settings and force application of the patch. It had to be 1.0 as well...1.1 tied the executable to steam such that not only did it have to be running, but it would stop the game  from running if the exe was modified as above for the 4GB patch. So you have both the violation of user selection AND DRM techniques actively thwarting legitimate customers from enjoying their legally purchased games. It wasn't until the 1.3.10 patch officially supported higher amounts of RAM that things finally calmed down, but considering that was almost a month and a half after release, it was a major inconvenience.

I guess the moral of the story is....the existance of a GUI option to specify auto-update behavior in no way guarantees any adherence whatsoever to the user input for that option. 

Going on a week since I asked, and I've seen a whole bunch of others ask, whether or not Origin or it's DRM will interfere with patches/mods, and not even a peep of response. A tad....disheartening, though even when I asked I fully did not expect an answer even by release time. It just doesn't seem to be the type of question EA would care about answering.

Modifié par hard-case, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:41 .

[billy the squid]

Eurypterid wrote...

Furtled wrote...

TL;DR summary: I'm not demanding Origin be scrubbed from existence or that anyone who wants to use it can't, all I'm asking for is a little respect and to be given back my sense of agency over my personal gaming experience.

Is that really too much to ask?

Unfortunately, yes, it seems so. The gaming industry (heck, the whole entertainment industry) is pushing for more and more control for them and less for the consumer. They want to be able to control how you use your product, when you use it, where you use it, how often you can use it, how you access it, and whether or not you can sell it off when you're done with it.

It seems you and I are of a similar age, as some of the old things you mentioned are very familiar to me as well. But I believe as a consequence of the digital age we've now moved into, many things are changing. Some not to our liking, and this is one of them. Is it destined to be this way? I don't know. But it sure seems like the industry is pushing for it.

The above is what is currently so grey and there has yet to be any firm decision upon it. Copyright laws, IPs and principles relating to Exhaustion of Rights are unclear on to what extent an IP holder can push it's boundaries of control.

The general readings of Copyright legislation never envisioned that an IP holder could extend controls over resale, that goes way beyond the intent and the scope of the legislation as it stands. And it is coming into direct conflict with the Exhaustion of Rights principles, the IP holders are currently treading a very fine line between what constitutes protection and what constitutes excessive control and overriding IP Exhaustion principles.

The issue is that the internet has reached the point where it is a larger threat to IP holders than any court judgement, look at Ubisoft. If the Hive Mind of the net believes an IP holder has crossed the line it responds with vindictive force, rendering theri entire attempt to control the IP beyond the bounds of the law redundant. I think that eventually there will be some decisive decision on what constitutes excessive control, but at the moment there are few options.

Modifié par billy the squid, 24 janvier 2012 - 12:50 .

[jamesp81]

billy the squid wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Again, what EA does in Europe is not my concern.

Such draconian data collection is not required by law in the US and should not be done.

Unfortunately your own data privicy laws are underwhelming, there is no universal legal data protection legislation it being administered locally and varying from state to state and the general approach seems to be far more flexible in what can and cannot be collected. So I can see why this may be an issue.

Give me a little credit.  I do write my congressmen on a regular basis on this issue and speak out about it pretty regularly.  Best one man can do alone.

[jeweledleah]

MingWolf wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

dmex wrote...


3) Right now when titles are retired by EA, the servers are shutdown, same games just don't work no more. Origin solves that problem.

4) If Microsoft/Valve goes kaput, it's the same situation, EA is very large and won't be an Enron.

eh?

if the online title is retired by EA how will origin fix that?  does it become the server, games are hosted on?  if offline titles are retired, how will origin fix it? you could just get a used game and use its CD key, since online activation for older games is not necessary

lastly - the major reason Iike steam outside of all the lovely amenities is that while I take a risk with no longer being able to play games I bought from them in a future, if they go under - their semi annual sale prices are the best in business (even for EA titles they are still carrying - like their 5 dollar deal on ME1 and ME2 for instance, during winter sale).  unless EA matches the that, all I get with origin is the client that has to be run in a background to play the game. which will make me very reluctant when it comes to buying EA titles in a future.  at least before Origin, if I bought a single player game even if Ibought it for full purchase price, I knew that as long as that disk and CD key is in my posession?  I'll be able to replay it on a whim.

lastly - the wording that bothered me in EULA was not collection of IP, origin username and password.  I wasn't bothered by collection of game data either.  what bothered me is the implication that it will scan my entire harddrive, catalog every single piece of software I have installed, how often I use it, potentialy my stored usernames and passwords for my bank, etc, not to mention scanning and cataloging my internet habits. 

whether the origin will actualy do it, is up to debate, but the wording gave enough of an opening for them to be able to do it legaly in a future, once you agree to it. and that just doesn't sit well with me

I think the idea is that because online activation (and I believe we are talking about titles that require online activiation) was traditionally latched to different servers brought forth by different developers, and when support is withdrawn, those servers go down.  With Origin, all that online DRM stuff is centralized into one location, so that there wouldn't be a need to deal with multitudes of DRM servers.  Plus, it's easier to manage.  (Do correct me if I am wrong). 

Of course, we also have to assume that EA/Origin, being large as it is, won't go kaput and put faith that they aern't as fraudulent as Enron.  However, for all this to work, Origin will likely need to bring forth the kind of perks that services like Steam offers, and also earn the trust of the customers who are being forced to used this.  Their financial statements aern't the best that I've seen, so in terms of gaming longevity with EA titles, one can hope that they won't go kaput! 

Myself personally, I wish game publishers and developers would just drop the whole online DRM activation nonsense.  To this date, I haven't seen evidence that DRM actually works to prevent piracy and have done nothing but inconvenience the customer.  Requiring Steam or Origin to run in the background is just the next step, right?  I mean, look at Skyrim.  Like ME3, it is required to have a program running (steam) but even then, those sailors of the seas have found ways to get around that, without the inconvenience.  It's silly nonsense, and the day a company finally figures out how to bar their products from piracy is probably the day they go out of business. 

I don't have a single older game that "required" online activation.  maybe I'm lucky and haven't run into one, but the only things I ran into were online registration promts which I never used.  and Prinin, unlike those online "activation" games is not a one time use deal.  you have to keep running it.  as you do with steam, but at least games are cheap for me on steam, among other things.

as far as piracy, I agree.  DRM hits legitimate customers infinitely more then it does pirates.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dmex wrote...

I think some might not understand why Origin is required for future EA titles at least from a security perspective, before Origin, developers (e.g. BioWare) implemented their own authentication methods, use their own servers to support the game (e.g. activation) and implement a bunch of same functionality.

If you consider over the last decade there have been over 1000 game titles, that's over 1000 different authentication methods/types, activation and  codebases that require security review and management etc...

Just releasing the games as they have been for the last decade is actually much worse than requiring Origin for these tasks and is unsustainable for a long list of reasons moving forward (maintainability, security, auditing, management etc..) and you also have the issue of End-of-life (EOL) management for these titles when these servers are shutdown and could prevent you from playing those games 20 years from now.

Origin centralizes authentication and activation while adding extra features (e.g. BioWare) would like such as Social integration, Cloud Sync, Game Save management etc... reduces the requirement of all publishers to re-implement these things into every title all without cost of multiple implementations.

Off the top of my head, this has major advantages (I've probably missed a few other really good points):

* Better Security & auditing. 
* More reliable activation.
* More features available.
* Centralized patch management.
* Allows every game to function after EOL.
*Allows activation after EOL.
* ???

None of that does anything for me. 

"After EoL" actitivation is only an issue because the  Digital "Rights" Management schemes that require games to phone home to activate, so that's an artificially imposed issue.  If the law were actually just, phone-home activate would require the publisher to maintain the activation service forever.

I don't want centralized patch management, game saves, or anything else of the sort.  I loath social networking, I won't ever store anything "on the cloud", and so on. 


Origin is literally useless.   It does nothing for me, and I gain nothing for the trouble and sacrifices required in installing and running it. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 24 janvier 2012 - 02:10 .

[Bogsnot1]

jeweledleah wrote...

Thank you Dragoonlordz and wolfsite for your answers.

now if only I could find out about modding

I still don't like the idea of having to have origin on my computer, that original EULA wording left bad taste in my mouth (not to mention having to run extra client for just one game), but if openorigin is a replacement, rather then compliment and will be possible to set up for minimum usage, I'll be fine with that

This is the best answer I can dig up in relation to modding. Its from the MP FAQ I whipped up ages ago, which has since been replaced by generic fluff and less than concise threads.

Q) What effect will 3rd party modding have on MP? Will MP still read local files, read-compare-produce error with server files, or only use server-based files?
A) You won't be able to modify your online experience via local modifications (as you probably suspected).

To summarise: MP files will be delivered via the game server, so local modding will have no impact on MP gameplay, and Origin shouldnt kick up a stink about SP mods.

[Jozape]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

dmex wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Normally, I can choose which patches I want to install, and I can etst them, and then remove them if I don't like them.

If I buy a game long after release, I can choose which patches I would like to install up to and including the most recent one.

Steam doesn't let me do this.  If I install a Steam game, I'm required to patch it up all the way to the current version the first time, and only after I've done that can I opt out of future patches.  Furthermore, there is no mechanism at all for me to install patches, test them to see what they do, and then rollback.

Will Origin let me install the patches myself?  Will Origin let me install old patches only?  Will Origin let me rollback to earlier versions?

For example, when BioWare released NWN in 2002, I really liked its core mechanics.  Patch 1.03, though, fundamentally changed those mechanics by removing friendly fire from enemies, so they could no longer kill themselves or each other by accident.  That, I think, broke the game, and I refused to install that patch.  Will Origin let me undo patches?  Will Origin let me install only those patches I want, even if subsequent patches have already been released?

Unfortunately, for now at least, it'll be the same as Steam.

How Steam handles patches the reason I don't use Steam.  Steam handles patches exactly the same way the console manufacturers handle patches, and that's completely unacceptable.

I will not acquire any game where I don't get to chose which patches I want to install.

Not to mention that if that update process doesn't work right, you might have to redownload the whole game. This happened to me with Portal 2, Fallout : New Vegas, and Civilization 5. Actually, I coudln't even play Civ 5 for several months because of that.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Jozape wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

dmex wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Normally, I can choose which patches I want to install, and I can etst them, and then remove them if I don't like them.

If I buy a game long after release, I can choose which patches I would like to install up to and including the most recent one.

Steam doesn't let me do this.  If I install a Steam game, I'm required to patch it up all the way to the current version the first time, and only after I've done that can I opt out of future patches.  Furthermore, there is no mechanism at all for me to install patches, test them to see what they do, and then rollback.

Will Origin let me install the patches myself?  Will Origin let me install old patches only?  Will Origin let me rollback to earlier versions?

For example, when BioWare released NWN in 2002, I really liked its core mechanics.  Patch 1.03, though, fundamentally changed those mechanics by removing friendly fire from enemies, so they could no longer kill themselves or each other by accident.  That, I think, broke the game, and I refused to install that patch.  Will Origin let me undo patches?  Will Origin let me install only those patches I want, even if subsequent patches have already been released?

Unfortunately, for now at least, it'll be the same as Steam.

How Steam handles patches the reason I don't use Steam.  Steam handles patches exactly the same way the console manufacturers handle patches, and that's completely unacceptable.

I will not acquire any game where I don't get to chose which patches I want to install.

Not to mention that if that update process doesn't work right, you might have to redownload the whole game. This happened to me with Portal 2, Fallout : New Vegas, and Civilization 5. Actually, I coudln't even play Civ 5 for several months because of that.

That's another reason I don't do console games any more, or have anything to do with Steam, and I suspect a fault in Origin as well -- as you say, **I** control which patches are applied to my software, not anyone else. 

[Lux]

Gatt9 wrote...

I am personally of the opinion that EA's stability is not a good bet.  I am strongly of the opinion that EA's strategies are going to result in a massive loss of market share,  and that 2011 and TOR's results foreshadow dire times for them.

They shouldn't be that worried about TOR's results. It's one heck of a game that carries BioWare's single player experience seamlessly to an MMO environment. This one they did it right, IMO (hoping for "free"-to-play though, better for my purse). I think BioWare's position as a prime developer (with the exception of DA2) is pretty safe for the moment - and EA is probably very $$$ happy for it.

Another issue that concerns me is the unstable environment of digital platforms atm. Impulse, which used to be my favorite, was sold to GameStop. I'm no longer using it due to the sharp change from a consumer friendly company to one that I have no interest in buying from. D2D also changed hands.

Now, in Origin's case, I imagine that a selling scenario wouldn't happen. But, if there's stability, there could be a point where EA would judge Origin not worth of further investment, and then consumers could be stuck with something similar to Games for Windows LIVE, which is the very definition of a failed platform, also developed by a big company. That's another reason why OpenOrigin is a brilliant concept.

Modifié par Merkar, 24 janvier 2012 - 03:35 .

[Forbidden]

dmex wrote...

 I think some might not understand why Origin is required for future EA titles at least from a security perspective, before Origin, developers (e.g. BioWare) implemented their own authentication methods, use their own servers to support the game (e.g. activation) and implement a bunch of same functionality.

If you consider over the last decade there have been over 1000 game titles, that's over 1000 different authentication methods/types, activation and  codebases that require security review and management etc...

Just releasing the games as they have been for the last decade is actually much worse than requiring Origin for these tasks and is unsustainable for a long list of reasons moving forward (maintainability, security, auditing, management etc..) and you also have the issue of End-of-life (EOL) management for these titles when these servers are shutdown and could prevent you from playing those games 20 years from now.

Origin centralizes authentication and activation while adding extra features (e.g. BioWare) would like such as Social integration, Cloud Sync, Game Save management etc... reduces the requirement of all publishers to re-implement these things into every title all without cost of multiple implementations.

Then why is the user not given a choice of a small simple authentication program?  A massive complicated chat/marketplace/social program designed to data mine the user is what Origin mainly is, and I want nothing to do with it.

Off the top of my head, this has major advantages (I've probably missed a few other really good points):

* Better Security & auditing. 
* More reliable activation.
* More features available.
* Centralized patch management.
* Allows every game to function after EOL.
*Allows activation after EOL.
* ???

Those features are, in fact, the opposite of what Origin does.  As someone every bit as knowledgable about security as you (just in a different venue), I see Origin as:

* A massive security risk that the user has no control over
* A single point of failure to break everything at once
* More bloat that nobody wants
* Unable to control whether you want a patch or not
* Allows EA to force already purchased products to immediately stop working on demand
* Allows EA to ban users from activation for all their games at once

2) Origin won't stop you from modding, It's entirely the game publishers decision.

Translation: Origin can prevent modding when EA decides it doesn't want you to mod.  There have been plenty of games over the years that I've modded in unapproved ways.  Origin can put a stop to this at will.


In addition to whatever data it may be sending to EA, it also allows EA to control how you run your own software or even deny you that software whenever they feel like it.

Modifié par Forbidden, 24 janvier 2012 - 04:10 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Forbidden wrote...

Then why is the user not given a choice of a small simple authentication program?  A massive complicated chat/marketplace/social program designed to data mine the user is what Origin mainly is, and I want nothing to do with it.

Because you did not spend your own millions to make, publish and distribute the game.

People are getting far too ahead of themselves here of late in this thread imho. The ones who are politely asking for a simple change in wording inside EULA, the ones who are politely asking for an extra function in the client and the ones politely asking about what the client does or whether the alternative being made which may or may not get approval might be possible for them to use, the ones who would like change (but) acknowledge that this is a business decision by EA and it is theirs to make, these are all fair and reasonable.

But the ones who demand or think that they have more say on how it is distributed than they really do are beginning to get way ahead of themselves. EA are not going to change their mind on the pushing of their client to be included with the games they own by proxy of Bioware which they do own. If you "want nothing to do with it" then your out of luck. You will either need to be willing to make or find a compromise somewhere or just move on/skip it in the end.

If you do not except anything they say, are not willing to find some compromise or if you keep up the "No, trololo; I don't care.. Nothing short of no client is acceptable" then at some point it's going to have to dawn on you that this is one thing neither you or I get to decide, but instead should go back read page one of this thread. EA invested the money towards it's creation, they fund the distibution, all we did is buy the last game they may have made and/or the one before and (not) paid for the development of this title. This leaves only one option for those doing the "No, never" dance and that is just to decide whether you are willing to buy the product or skip it.

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for Dmex he's talking to people who do not want to listen, do not care what says or what does unless he waves a magical wand and erases EA's long term plans for the future into thin air *poof!*.

Some may feel this is not fair, but you don't get everything you want in life, life does not work that way. Stamping feet saying "No" to everything won't change this and is just not going to happen. Even Woo said the same thing as I mentioned though he did it in a slightly more polite way early on in the thread. This is what's going to happen and while they would love it if continued to buy their products, it has/will come simply down to your choice to buy or not but waiting for Dmex or anyone to say 'anything' just so you can get another chance to shout "Noooo, still do not want" is not going to change anything. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 24 janvier 2012 - 05:27 .

[casadechrisso]

I just updated Origin on my comp to get an actual picture of it's current state - at this moment the spyware point isn't really my greatest concern and I know the German EULA got changed multiple times to get in line with German laws.

What I noticed however - I don't know who's to blame now, the German community or EA's anticipatory obedience, but I noticed one of the most stupid things got implemented: USK 18 games are only available at the store between 23.00 and 6.00. Sheesh... okay, that's one German law most sites simply ignore, and I wish EA would not obide THIS one because it makes the shop even more useless.... Steam has no such limits. But yeah, the question is who's to blame... EA or maybe even the Gaming community and what they caused. Anyway, it's a real stinker.

To summarize Origin's uselessness: The games in the store are usually overpriced - from new games (which are overpriced everywhere in their digital form, they should be much much cheaper than a box) to older games (Steam has the much much better deals, an article linked before sums it up really good), and if there's a game I actually want to buy because the price is good, I might not be able to because I'm not allowed to purchase it between 6am and 11pm. Which also means saying bye-bye to daily deals like on Steam. Oh my. 

In summary after all this endless talk I can say I'm not really scared anymore by Origin, the programm itself is probably safe to use, the German EULA is mostly fine, the International EULA not, but that's not my personal concern anymore.

What's left is that Origin is still a useless bloatware, even feeling twice as useless now that I looked at the shop. Cudos to EA for obeding German laws, but the time limit, oh my... playing Paladin now? This is clearly NOT what the customer wants.

Another thing that still irks me is what was raised before, the question about multi-language/international versions of games. I personally registered Dragon Age on Origin to be able to get it over to my laptop (broken DVD drive) and it installed just fine in English, but since others have different experiences, I wonder if it might have to do with games that got a low violence version for the German market (like many shootes, CoD:MW and probably also Battlefield). This is something Steam does too, however I wish there was an age verification for both clients since it's not illegal to buy these games here if you're above 18, you can actually buy them in many places - stores are just not allowed to advertise them.
With Steam it's possible to register an imported retail copy though, this one will be uncut and in it's original language - I did this with the newer Fallout games and UK versions. I really really hope this will be possible on Origin too if you want the store to be successful. I don't hold my breath though, buying games for adults is still almost impossible via digital distributors here unless you want a crippled game.

So here's a chance to jump ahead of your competitor and do something better than Steam, at least for German users: Implement an age verification system that allows us to buy 1. Uncut versions and 2. buy 18+ games all day. The latter should be somehow possible anyway if you expect any success.

Modifié par casadechrisso, 24 janvier 2012 - 05:20 .

[Forbidden]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Forbidden wrote...

Then why is the user not given a choice of a small simple authentication program?  A massive complicated chat/marketplace/social program designed to data mine the user is what Origin mainly is, and I want nothing to do with it.

Because you did not spend your own millions to make, publish and distribute the game.

I'm the one being asked to give EA money for their software.  They want me to buy their games, I'm telling them what will convince me to do that.  As of now, they won't be getting any of my money if they require me to install malware along with it.   I enjoyed the previous two mass effects and dragon age, but there are plenty of other games that don't require malware.  I'll be playing those instead.

[MingWolf]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Some may feel this is not fair, but you don't get everything you want in life, life does not work that way. Stamping feet saying "No" to everything won't change this and is just not going to happen. Even Woo said the same thing as I mentioned though he did it in a slightly more polite way early on in the thread. This is what's going to happen and while they would love it if continued to buy their products, it has/will come simply down to your choice to buy or not but waiting for Dmex or anyone to say 'anything' just so you can get another chance to shout "Noooo, still do not want" is not going to change anything. 

One of the things I've learned in life, and I think everyone should learn, is to not bow their head, nod, and accept everything that is found unacceptable.  One becomes a sucker that way, and becomes trampled over.  Gamers value their games, and it's a true shame that certain mechanisms and decisions are made that adversely affect the perceived values of what they purchase.  In the end though, game developers and publishers require money to sustain their living, and customers desire their games to sate their desires.  So, customers, few or many, should have some say on what goes on.  While you can argue that it's a waste of time, nothing is going to change, you turn blind eye on the possibilities that might happen if not for people stamping their feet and saying no. 

If I'm not mistaken, the original Mass Effect 1 had a less than favourable DRM system too.  People complained.  People stamped their foot and said no.  Things changed.  Great.

It's not like everyone on this thread are saying "close Origin down."  They are here to bring up the issues here, and propose what could otherwise become more mutually acceptable between customer and producer.  The income that distributers and developers make don't come from thin air here (and if they do, someone should be jailed), so let the words of the concerned be heard and perhaps some decisions changed.