3659 réponses à ce sujet

[Pcmag1]

Ottemis wrote...


There's risk when you cross the street, could get run over by a bus. Should that stop you from crossing the street though? I use this comparison because there's potential risk in a TON of things, should that stop us from doing them though when there is no direct reason to believe anything will infact happen.

I let myself to be a bit carried away and for that I apologize I just feel uneasy about how people feel indifferent about security. But to your point, obviously you are right every activity on internet brings a pottential risk and that is why everyone has a free choice in how much risk he wants to take. Here we are given only one choice, accept and play or walk away. And for me the option to accept is like if (I will use your street crossing analogy cause it is neat.) you wanted to purchase a hot dog and in order to do so you had to cross the street, there and back befor you could make your purchase. In highest likliness nothing is going to happen, but why did you have to make the trip at all. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just buy the Hot dog without street crossing

Modifié par Pcmag1, 17 janvier 2012 - 11:05 .

[Daevos]

Just seen the coverage of this story on Eurogamer. The storm has just begun...

[Ottemis]

Pcmag1 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...


There's risk when you cross the street, could get run over by a bus. Should that stop you from crossing the street though? I use this comparison because there's potential risk in a TON of things, should that stop us from doing them though when there is no direct reason to believe anything will infact happen.

I let myself to be a bit carried away and for that I apologize I just feel uneasy about how people feel indifferent about security. But to your point, obviously you are right avery activity on internet bring a pottential risk and that is why everyone has a free choice in how much risk he wants to take. Here we are given only one choice accept and play or walk away. And for me the option to accept is like if (I will use your street crossing analogy cause it in neat.) when you wanted to purchase a hot dog you had cross the stree there and back befour you could make your purchase. I highest likliness nothing is going to happen but why did you have to maky the trip at all. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just buy the Hot dong without stree crossing

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

I apolagize for my roughness btw, I just.. am that way heh. It's not an attack or anything. Just not a very subtle person. Anyways yeah, bedtime.

Modifié par Ottemis, 17 janvier 2012 - 11:08 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ottemis wrote...

Pcmag1 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...


There's risk when you cross the street, could get run over by a bus. Should that stop you from crossing the street though? I use this comparison because there's potential risk in a TON of things, should that stop us from doing them though when there is no direct reason to believe anything will infact happen.

I let myself to be a bit carried away and for that I apologize I just feel uneasy about how people feel indifferent about security. But to your point, obviously you are right avery activity on internet bring a pottential risk and that is why everyone has a free choice in how much risk he wants to take. Here we are given only one choice accept and play or walk away. And for me the option to accept is like if (I will use your street crossing analogy cause it in neat.) when you wanted to purchase a hot dog you had cross the stree there and back befour you could make your purchase. I highest likliness nothing is going to happen but why did you have to maky the trip at all. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just buy the Hot dong without stree crossing

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

I apolagize for my roughness btw, I just.. am that way heh. It's not an attack or anything. Just not a very subtle person. Anyways yeah, bedtime.

Not being the first of its kind or pointing out that it is just as bad as <insert other service here> is irrelevant to me. If it poses the same risks as one I am already using then I have two of those risks. I rather limit the risks then exposing me to more.

[Pcmag1]

Ottemis wrote...

Pcmag1 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...


There's risk when you cross the street, could get run over by a bus. Should that stop you from crossing the street though? I use this comparison because there's potential risk in a TON of things, should that stop us from doing them though when there is no direct reason to believe anything will infact happen.

I let myself to be a bit carried away and for that I apologize I just feel uneasy about how people feel indifferent about security. But to your point, obviously you are right avery activity on internet bring a pottential risk and that is why everyone has a free choice in how much risk he wants to take. Here we are given only one choice accept and play or walk away. And for me the option to accept is like if (I will use your street crossing analogy cause it in neat.) when you wanted to purchase a hot dog you had cross the stree there and back befour you could make your purchase. I highest likliness nothing is going to happen but why did you have to maky the trip at all. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just buy the Hot dong without stree crossing

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

I believe that aside from few exceptions you always had a choise between binding a game with a client or purchasing a standalone game. (Usually a hard copy). ME2 and DA2 poth had online authentithication (sorry for bad spelling I am not a native speaker) without the need for external client. That is exactly what i want. I dont mind making Origin accout (I might actually have one, not sure) but I find it pointelss to have to have an application which in no way enhances my gaming experience running on bacground while I play and sending data it feels necessary to send without my knowledge. An aplication which if changes and I will be unable to agree with new condition will then restrict me from accessing my legaly purchased software. 

[ETermin]

Pcmag1 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Pcmag1 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...


There's risk when you cross the street, could get run over by a bus. Should that stop you from crossing the street though? I use this comparison because there's potential risk in a TON of things, should that stop us from doing them though when there is no direct reason to believe anything will infact happen.

I let myself to be a bit carried away and for that I apologize I just feel uneasy about how people feel indifferent about security. But to your point, obviously you are right avery activity on internet bring a pottential risk and that is why everyone has a free choice in how much risk he wants to take. Here we are given only one choice accept and play or walk away. And for me the option to accept is like if (I will use your street crossing analogy cause it in neat.) when you wanted to purchase a hot dog you had cross the stree there and back befour you could make your purchase. I highest likliness nothing is going to happen but why did you have to maky the trip at all. Wouldn't it be easier and safer to just buy the Hot dong without stree crossing

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

I believe that aside from few exceptions you always had a choise between binding a game with a client or purchasing a standalone game. (Usually a hard copy). ME2 and DA2 poth had online authentithication (sorry for bad spelling I am not a native speaker) without the need for external client. That is exactly what i want. I dont mind making Origin accout (I might actually have one, not sure) but I find it pointelss to have to have an application which in no way enhances my gaming experience running on bacground while I play and sending data it feels necessary to send without my knowledge. An aplication which if changes and I will be unable to agree with new condition will then restrict me from accessing my legaly purchased software. 

your BSN account is also an origin account i beleive.

[Pcmag1]

ETermin wrote...

your BSN account is also an origin account i beleive.

And I have no problem with that.

[Mister Mida]

Daevos wrote...

Just seen the coverage of this story on Eurogamer. The storm has just begun...

Not seeing much of a storm tbh. Not for me anyway.

[Archaven]

What happened to the 200+ pages of the initial thread? Why not put v2?

[Candidate 88766]

Daevos wrote...

Just seen the coverage of this story on Eurogamer. The storm has just begun...

There isn't going to be a storm. Some angry comments on internet forums and a few thousand less PC sales than expected are not a storm. The game will still sell better than ME1 or ME2, and Origin's user base will increase. 

[ETermin]

Pcmag1 wrote...

ETermin wrote...

your BSN account is also an origin account i beleive.

And I have no problem with that.

I was not trying persuade just give information.

[Pcmag1]

ETermin wrote...

Pcmag1 wrote...

ETermin wrote...

your BSN account is also an origin account i beleive.

And I have no problem with that.

I was not trying persuade just give information.

In that case, thank you:)

[Ottemis]

Pcmag1 wrote...

I believe that aside from few exceptions you always had a choise between binding a game with a client or purchasing a standalone game. (Usually a hard copy). ME2 and DA2 poth had online authentithication (sorry for bad spelling I am not a native speaker) without the need for external client. That is exactly what i want. I dont mind making Origin accout (I might actually have one, not sure) but I find it pointelss to have to have an application which in no way enhances my gaming experience running on bacground while I play and sending data it feels necessary to send without my knowledge.

Valid enough, but hardly a dealbreaker in the end I would think?
We need some way of connecting to EA for verification, the data-collection can be turned off and for SP you don't need to be 'online' so in the large scheme of things, from the standard SP point of view, it should be a non-issue yes?
Then yes for MP you need an active connection to Origin, but again, you can opt-out of data-transmission.

An aplication which if changes and I will be unable to agree with new condition will then restrict me from accessing my legaly purchased software

Honestly this to me seems less likely to happen then a physical copy breaking / becoming un-usable. I can understand your concearn, but I definately don't share it.

Modifié par Ottemis, 17 janvier 2012 - 11:59 .

[abaris]

Ottemis wrote...

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

It still makes sense even if one were to use another client.

Every client more or less opens a backdoor to your computer. The more backdoors are open, the bigger the risk of one of them getting hacked, even if you are comfortable with what they're designed to do.

Also, the more clients, gimmicks, apps, the more background processes, ultimately slowing down your computer.

So, yes, it still does make sense.

[Mister Mida]

Ottemis wrote...

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

Many? I only know of Steam, Origin and Impulse, with only the first two being used a lot. So that comes down to three? Am I missing something?
And just because they're being used for a while now doesn't mean that people should stop critisizing or stop making their concerns known. Believe it or not, I didn't know what Steam really did until last year or so since I usually play on a console.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:17 .

[Ottemis]

abaris wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Yes, but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead dog. Pretty damn useless.

It still makes sense even if one were to use another client.

Every client more or less opens a backdoor to your computer. The more backdoors are open, the bigger the risk of one of them getting hacked, even if you are comfortable with what they're designed to do.

Also, the more clients, gimmicks, apps, the more background processes, ultimately slowing down your computer.

So, yes, it still does make sense.

So boot (or have online) what you need when you need it, no use having crap running when you don't need it if that's an active concearn for you.

Mister Mida wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

Yes,
but then Origin wasen't the first of it's kind, and trying to fight it
being used while it's one of many that exists now is like beating a dead
dog. Pretty damn useless.

Many? I only know of Steam, Origin and Impulse, with only the first two being used a lot. So that comes down to three? Am I missing something?
And just because they're being used for a while now doesn't mean that people should stop critisizing or stop making their concerns known. Believe it or not, I didn't know what Steam really did until last year or so since I usually play on a console.

Apparently alot of them:


And yes, be against them all you want in principle, it just makes no sense to me when people single Origin out specificly here then praise Steam. And yes, the other distribution platforms are not very well known, which makes sense seeing their age and what they offer.

The fact is though that It's been stated, openly and 'officially' that Origin is NON-optional, which in effect makes that point of discussion moot in this topic, where we're being asked to post questions about things we want clarified in therms of ME3 and Origin.

If you want to rally troops against digital distribution platforms as a whole, I'd do it someplace else, and alot more organised. Otherwise it clutters up a thread that's not supposed to function as a medium for it, if you ask me.

Modifié par Ottemis, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:45 .

[Seraphim1969]

Dear Chris, thank you for ME1 & 2, but I will NOT install that damn Origin on my PC and I will NOT buy any other game from EA again. I am spending yearly about 400€ on games, I have plenty of them on Steam. [inappropriate comments removed]

P.S. I did want to buy other games from EA on Steam before they were removed... I will not buy them on Origin, even on 99% sale.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 17 janvier 2012 - 06:13 .

[Objectives]

this is Bullsht....The Reckoning isnt going on STEAM either. Its a sad day for PC....:( Just when STEAM was rebooting the PC platform into a money maker. EA decides to ruin everything with high prices and ruin the PC experience once again, with thier own garbage.

EA's Origin doesnt have the amazing deals STEAM has. STEAM has helped convince major publishes that gaming on PC still can be profitable and have a major buying playerbase. NOW EA comes a long and ruins everything again by making games exclusive and shutting out the main reason digital downloading is popular in the first place

Now if ORIGIN becomes successful, then more companies will do it.

Yes dont expect those amazin' deals you love like on STEAM, to be on ORIGIN..no way. Look at ORIGIN. Mass Effect 2 for $89US k? STEAM how much? sometimes $9 but on avge is $19.99. See the difference? Hell MAss Effect 1 is $79.99 on EAS ORIGIN. Mass Effect 1 on STEAM? $19.99

EAs ORIGIN prices are 804% increased on avg over thier own games on STEAM. Dragon Age EAs Origin $39.99, STEAM $29.99 and sometimes as low as $9. medal Of HONOR (Sht game) but EAS ORIGIN $89.95 , STEAM $69.95. However it comes down in price on STEAM to like $19 on specials.

If all companies do this and become thier own service. All games will be massively higher priced (as they are already proving to be) and the STEAM advantages will dissappear for consumers because youll want the games anyway. But the only way you can pay for them will be though them..Bla.

But at the same time...EA can do whatever they want, its thier games...but..theres the catch.....

SO CAN I.............................i can also do whatever i want. If i dont like EA's Origin, i dont have to use it. Theres plenty of awesome other companies out there. Espeically in Sports. NBA2K12 is on STEAM, better than anything EA's ever produced in the sports realm. FIFA 12 i can get from somewhere else. I can avoid this service and will, if i can.

[Objectives]

PS: pre-order cancelled Bioware. thanks for nothing!

[Pcmag1]

Ottemis wrote...

Pcmag1 wrote...

I believe that aside from few exceptions you always had a choise between binding a game with a client or purchasing a standalone game. (Usually a hard copy). ME2 and DA2 poth had online authentithication (sorry for bad spelling I am not a native speaker) without the need for external client. That is exactly what i want. I dont mind making Origin accout (I might actually have one, not sure) but I find it pointelss to have to have an application which in no way enhances my gaming experience running on bacground while I play and sending data it feels necessary to send without my knowledge.

Valid enough, but hardly a dealbreaker in the end I would think?
We need some way of connecting to EA for verification, the data-collection can be turned off and for SP you don't need to be 'online' so in the large scheme of things, from the standard SP point of view, it should be a non-issue yes?
Then yes for MP you need an active connection to Origin, but again, you can opt-out of data-transmission.

An aplication which if changes and I will be unable to agree with new condition will then restrict me from accessing my legaly purchased software

Honestly this to me seems less likely to happen then a physical copy breaking / becoming un-usable. I can understand your concearn, but I definately don't share it.

You say it is not a deal braker well, it is for me it is a software with worldwide negative PR, has been basically sued in Gearmany for being unconstitutional (and modified realease has been released only for German market).  The conditions you agree to basically take all consumer rights from you and are prone to change. To top it all it is not even finished: Development statusActive, in Beta
As for your second comment. Breaking my physical disc is my faut and I have noone but myself to blame. If I loose access to my games (which I legaly purchased) due to breaking some questionably subjective rules ... well I think my point is clear. 
btw(did you know that by agreeing with EULA you agree that you will never pursue any legal action against EA?)

[Mister Mida]

Ottemis wrote...

*snip*

And yes, be against them all you want in principle, it just makes no sense to me when people single Origin out specificly here then praise Steam. And yes, the other distribution platforms are not very well known, which makes sense seeing their age and what they offer.

The fact is though that It's been stated, openly and 'officially' that Origin is NON-optional, which in effect makes that point of discussion moot in this topic, where we're being asked to post questions about things we want clarified in therms of ME3 and Origin.

It's not my problem when people want to chain themselves up to Steam and act all hypocrite when Origin requires the same.
It is however my problem if people just bend over and take the medicine some publisher thinks their customers need, just because they think they can do nothing about it while they at least could try.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:47 .

[Candidate 88766]

[inappropriate post removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 17 janvier 2012 - 06:14 .

[Thoth_Amon]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
There isn't going to be a storm. Some angry comments on internet forums and a few thousand less PC sales than expected are not a storm. The game will still sell better than ME1 or ME2, and Origin's user base will increase. 

Which amounts to ****all.  They don't have a solid library from which to build that userbase and trying to go head to head with Steam when you have around 40-50 titles on your store?  LOL, good luck.  Origin = DOA.

[count_4]

[inappropriate comments removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 17 janvier 2012 - 06:15 .