289 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Maverick827 wrote...
The point is that people have already proven themselves willing to subject themselves to having multiple accounts on multiple websites as it is.  To say that Origin will fail because of this contradicts the history of online consumer trends.

Explain people wanting to stick with only one social network (vast majority of them.)  Or the rapid acceptance of "sign in with Facebook" and people using Facebook for eveyrthing online.

If they HAVE TO to get something they really want, many people will bend over backwards and do things they'd rather not.  It doesn't mean they'd prefer to, or that they will keep doing it if it keeps being required of them.

Maverick827 wrote...

Merin wrote...
Would you really want there to be Colombia movie theaters, Fox movie theaters, Disney movie theaters, etc?

No, but I'm not going to boycott the next Star Wars movie because it's in different theater.  I might even find that I prefer Disney theaters and look forward to seeing movies when they're in Disney theaters more than I do other movies in Regal theaters.  Even if I don't, I'm not going to blame Disney for not wanting to pay someone (often times their competitors!) to do something they feel they can do for themselves.

I don't think twenty digital distribution services can work.  That would undermine the entire point of a DDS in the first place.  But I don't think two or three is the end of the world.

I'm not sure if you are missing the point entirely, missing the point by your emphasis on something that isn't the point, or are being obtuse on purpose.

I never said there shouldn't be competition.  Competition is good.  If Amazon Prime gets a library equal to or larger than Netflix's, even though I've been a "loyal" Netflix customer since 2000, I'll abandon ship and stick with Prime and it's better deal.

I said that exclusivity, especially extreme exclusivity, is bad.  EA gets it's own digital store, Sony gets its own, Nintendo gets its own, Microsoft gets its own, and none of them sell their products elsewhere - that hurts their sales, sales of games overall, and upsets their customer base.  Steam selling more than just Valve games, having GOG to get to for games as well as well as Impusle and even Gamefly... as long as almost all of the titles are available at each store, having mutliple options is GOOD.

There's the difference.  The difference being EA refusing to sell through Steam, and requiring eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally.  That's the problem.  Origin only sells EA games, and almost always at full price.  And they try to cajole you into using the service via requiring you to install it anyway for their games (so, like Internet Explorer being preinstalled on all Windows PC's, why go anywhere else when you've already got something, right?)  The weirdness expands when you can see that EA DOES sell some games on Steam and on other digital services like Gamefly.

If the EA store sold non EA games, and/or the prices weren't inflated (no sales as comparable to Steam, Impulse, GOG, etc), and/or Origin wasn't some "must install / we want to be like XBOX Live" thing, it would be a different story.

But, for my main point, the problem is that EA is an EA only store, and that EA "doesn't" sell it's products digitally through the most popular digital store.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 avril 2013 - 11:28 .

[Szorongas]

Abandon EA and never look back.

[mopotter]

jlmaclachlan wrote...

Make a game that knows what it is and don't rush it. IMO BW games feel watered down to try appeal to everyone lately (also rushed) and as a result they don't really find a core audience. I think Skyrim shattered a lot of EA's perception / attitude towards gaming development.

I have no problem with BW trying to get more people to buy their games but instead of just making great games and letting the quality of the product do the talking, they seem to jump from pillar to post to find the BIG THING or miracle cure.

Also, if you look at the ending of the ME series, for me, that was a huge middle finger to the gamer. Why would I want buy into a new trilogy or franchise and spend months of my time that will all be rendered pointless at the end of the day?

I think BW have tough road to walk in front of them. All of it their own or EA's doing. There was a time when I used to buy every game they put out because the BW brand signified a standard of quality. Now sadly, I'm one of those who refuse to touch anything with a BW or EA logo on it.

Sort of agree, This will be the first game i'm not pre-ordering, because of ME3, but if DAI is good, and people I trust tell me it's got some great endings, that make sense then I'll buy it in a heart beat.  If not, I'll just replay their games I already own,

[mopotter]

Whitering wrote...

Make really good games again, and this, have a PC version, and a console version, and never the twain shall meet. The UI development must happen completely separately. The Keyboard and Mouse are the ultimate controllers, just look at all those snazzy button combos, they must be used.

Movement must not be clunky, give PC users a freaking pointer.

Bottom line, the PC is at this point, and within 6 months of the release of the next console, always the more powerful platform. Cater to both, they are not the same and you cannot release the same game. I will not buy it. I already seriously regret buying ME 3, I could have just watched the story bits online, it's not a PC game, it's an Xbox game that works on the PC.

Also, with the PC version, toolset please. Xbox users would be shocked at how many little to major bugs are fixed for PC users when a toolset is available? Loose all your gear in the Silverite Mine in awakening? I did before the mod came out to fix it (shockingly Bioware never bothered). We also get the play the game we want that way and they would hear much less whining from the PC crowd.

I don't really trust this new engine at all, give us the tools to fix things the way we want and I might consider buying DA3, if it has a PC UI.

For me, the only reason to play on a pc are the Mods.  Husband and I both play so I have 2 copies of DA:O one for the 360 and one for the PC so I can use the mods I like.  Actually  have 2 copies of quite a few games where mods are available.  

But if it's a game without mods, or if they had them for the 360 or whatever console I'm using, I'd always pick the console.   And it's not because I can't play on the pc, it's because I like the console better.

Agree though they need to use two different  UI.  use one that works best on the system.  I hated ME1 on the pc, didn't even try the others.
edit - fix [ ]

Modifié par mopotter, 18 avril 2013 - 12:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, since there seems to be confusion.

The difference being EA refusing to sell through Steam, and requiring eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally. That's the problem.

People can buy EA games digital through other services (Amazon sold SimCity as a digital download, for example). The game will require Origin to run, which is just like games with Steamworks and especially Valve's games.

Origin only sells EA games, and almost always at full price.

Origin does not sell only EA games. In fact, EA and Ubisoft agreed to make each other's games available on their respective services (Origin and UPlay), never mind the fact that a quick glance on Origin's home page shows that you can buy games like Tomb Raider, Walking Dead, and Batman: Arkham City. None of these are EA games.

I can agree with sales, although they do seem to be coming around a bit more frequently now.

And they try to cajole you into using the service via requiring you to install it anyway for their games

Valve does this with their own games too (Counterstrike and Half-Life 2 were the big ones that really helped with exposure). Because of services like Steamworks, they have additional avenues to "cajole" people into ensuring Steam gets market penetration.

I suppose in EA's case they are handicapped in this example by releasing a lot more games than Valve does.

The weirdness expands when you can see that EA DOES sell some games on Steam and on other digital services like Gamefly.

So evidently Steam doesn't require "eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally" as you said earlier in your post....

But, for my main point, the problem is that EA is an EA only store, and that EA "doesn't" sell it's products digitally through the most popular digital store.

Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

[MerinTB]

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
Well, since there seems to be confusion.
[/quote]

Oh yes.

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...[quote]The difference being EA refusing to sell through Steam, and requiring eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally. That's the problem.[/quote]People can buy EA games digital through other services (Amazon sold SimCity as a digital download, for example). The game will require Origin to run, which is just like games with Steamworks and especially Valve's games.
[/quote]

I never said that EA didn't sell their games elsewhere.  I specifically say, as you yourself quote from me, that they DO sell their games elsewhere but just not through the biggest digital game retailer (unless you count Amazon, and then that might be bigger, I have no idea of sales numbers.)

I'm not really defending Valve or Steam in that sense - the only Valve games I've played are the Portal games, and I bought the discs for them so...

and, for the record, I'm not happy about XBOX Live nor Steam DRM.  I just haven come to accept (at least for Steam) the benefits of the service overall (Steam sales, Project Greenlight, helping indie developers, etc.)

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
[quote]Origin only sells EA games, and almost always at full price.[/quote]Origin does not sell only EA games. In fact, EA and Ubisoft agreed to make each other's games available on their respective services (Origin and UPlay), never mind the fact that a quick glance on Origin's home page shows that you can buy games like Tomb Raider, Walking Dead, and Batman: Arkham City. None of these are EA games.
[/quote]

I ran through a bunch of titles in the search on Origin and found most weren't there, of games I know are on Steam and/or GOG and/or Impulse.  A bunch (I type in over two dozen titles and stopped counting after a bit) and I think maybe like 10-15% of them were on Origin (though I wasn't tracking how many of those were EA, I tried to choose game titles I was fairly certain weren't - Dawn of War was there, for example, but Faster Than Light, Back to the Future, Space Marine, Political Machine weren't, to name a handful.)

So they do have more than EA, my bad.  They still have a very, very limited selection as compared to most digital store if you discount the EA titles.

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
[quote] And they try to cajole you into using the service via requiring you to install it anyway for their games[/quote]
Valve does this with their own games too (Counterstrike and Half-Life 2 were the big ones that really helped with exposure). Because of services like Steamworks, they have additional avenues to "cajole" people into ensuring Steam gets market penetration.

I suppose in EA's case they are handicapped in this example by releasing a lot more games than Valve does.
[/quote]

Not defending Steam's doing of that, here.  I don't play those games.  Because Steam does something wrong doesn't mean that it's okay for EA to do it.  Please don't think I'm some Steam fanboy attacking EA.  I'd rather not HAVE TO use Steam, either, giving my druthers... but, again, as above, I've come to accept that the good of Steam outweighs the bad IMO wherease Origin does not.

I mean, they both do the bad (require their games to be run through their service) but do they both do the good?

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...[quote]The weirdness expands when you can see that EA DOES sell some games on Steam and on other digital services like Gamefly.[/quote]
So evidently Steam doesn't require "eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally" as you said earlier in your post....
[/quote]

I assume you mean "Origin" and not "Steam."  Use !=buy through.  But many EA games, even bought from Amazon or Gamefly, require you connect through Origin.  THAT is what I meant.

Confusion on my meaing, understandable.  Hence the clarifying.


[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...[quote]But, for my main point, the problem is that EA is an EA only store, and that EA "doesn't" sell it's products digitally through the most popular digital store.[/quote]
Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.[/quote]

To spite customers?  No.  Corporate suits, as you call them, don't give one darn about their customers, only their customers' money.  And something that is counter-intuitive but so true about so many executives, so many "smart business people", is that they would rather NOT make a sale than make a sale and share the profit with another.

Share money with Steam and help Steam grow to have a larger market share, even if that just helps sell more EA games?  EA'd rather not.  They'd rather keep more of the proceeds and have less sales, in a bad attempt at having their own digital storefront.

Their disagreeing with Steam policies (they say updates, I say sales promotions) is all about this.  It isn't just EA - it's endemic to the business world.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

That's exactly what I think. I'm the customer. I don't give two craps about your profit margins. I want Dragon Age 3 on Steam. 

[goose2989]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

And do you think that EA can maximize their shareholders' value by continuously disappointing, angering, and annoying their customers? 

[Allan Schumacher]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

That's exactly what I think. I'm the customer. I don't give two craps about your profit margins. I want Dragon Age 3 on Steam. 

So regardless of Valve's demands, EA should accommodate them?  Even if it means we lose money in the end?  (Note, I'm just clarifying on what it is that you wrote.  You seem to be saying literally "I don't care if you lose money.  I want the game on Steam.")

You may not give two craps out our profit margins, but if you enjoy DA3 and want to see more of it, it's a bit nearsighted of you to feel they're irrelevant to your interests as a consumer.

And do you think that EA can maximize their shareholders' value by continuously disappointing, angering, and annoying their customers?

Same to you.  Even if it meant literally losing money, is it still more important to you that the game be available on Steam?

(Yes, I recognize that this is a false dichotomy.  My point is to illustrate "At what point should we no longer be concerned about our economic viability, simply because some people would rather play the game through Steam?")

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 avril 2013 - 01:51 .

[goose2989]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Yeah, but don't you guys get more sales for the PC than the console with your games?

No.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but XBox 360 was definitely the biggest platform for DAO, and I believe PC and PS3 were roughly the same.

And DAO was, in my opinion, a superior game on the PC than it was on the consoles.

True, but the suits in the accounting department see which group is the biggest and, rightly so, recommend adjusting the product to follow that group's demands and wiahes. If the 360 version has the most sales, it only makes sense that the 360 version gets preferential treatment. That's not to say the game should be designed for the 360 and then simply ported to the other platforms, though. 


Edit: As much as I'd prefer to see games designed for PC first, I realize it's not often that it makes the most sense when tailoring to the needs of the customer. 

Modifié par goose2989, 18 avril 2013 - 01:47 .

[Nightdragon8]

The difference being EA refusing to sell through Steam, and requiring eveyrone to use Origin for their games digitally. That's the problem.

ummm last i heard it wasn't EA "refusing to sell through steam" it was the fact that EA went around Steam with there DLC for DA2 and thus breaking the agreement that Steam had with EA. So really it was EA breaking the agreement with Steam.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just for clarity, EA/BioWare delivered their DLC in the same manner with DAO as they did with DA2.

[Fast Jimmy]

To add some input into this conversation, I think where many people favor Steam and GoG now is that these two sites have frequent sales on their games. I realize this has to be coordinated with the appropriate developer, etc., but it seems these two services do a much better job at promoting said discount sales than Origin does.

[Malanek]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To add some input into this conversation, I think where many people favor Steam and GoG now is that these two sites have frequent sales on their games. I realize this has to be coordinated with the appropriate developer, etc., but it seems these two services do a much better job at promoting said discount sales than Origin does.

Personally, and this will probably only apply to people coming from NZ or Aus, Origin provides a much much better price than steam for most major games. Steam have some stupid agreement with the distributors which makes the games sell for stupid amounts (more than $100 us) while Origin will sell at the same price to everyone. It is absolutely pointless to buy a major game off steam, due to current exchange rates you will pay about twice as much as if you picked it up off a shelf.

[Fast Jimmy]

Malanek999 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To add some input into this conversation, I think where many people favor Steam and GoG now is that these two sites have frequent sales on their games. I realize this has to be coordinated with the appropriate developer, etc., but it seems these two services do a much better job at promoting said discount sales than Origin does.

Personally, and this will probably only apply to people coming from NZ or Aus, Origin provides a much much better price than steam for most major games. Steam have some stupid agreement with the distributors which makes the games sell for stupid amounts (more than $100 us) while Origin will sell at the same price to everyone. It is absolutely pointless to buy a major game off steam, due to current exchange rates you will pay about twice as much as if you picked it up off a shelf.

Ah, I did not know that Steam pro-rated their retail rates based on localities. To me, that is honestly incredibly stupid. A download is a download is a download (unless its on the down low). Charging more or less depending on what your lattitude or longitude is (even though it has more to do with differing agreements and country by-laws, more than likely) is silly.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To add some input into this conversation, I think where many people favor Steam and GoG now is that these two sites have frequent sales on their games. I realize this has to be coordinated with the appropriate developer, etc., but it seems these two services do a much better job at promoting said discount sales than Origin does.

For the last couple of months Origin has been offering sales on their titles as well, its not as frequent as Steam, but Steam has a much larger selection of games since they have been selling games for much longer.  An example today their "Mystery Deal" was three titles that when you bought all three for $10 down from the regular price of $80 for all three.  I expect Origin to have better sales when they have more titles.

Personally I prefer Origin over Steam, but that is because with how older games that I own such as Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect 2 I don't have to have Origin running in the background like I do with Steam. This might not be the case with new EA games, but its nice to have for the older ones that seemed to crash frequently when I play them through Origin or Steam.

[Allan Schumacher]

Not defending Steam's doing of that, here. I don't play those games. Because Steam does something wrong doesn't mean that it's okay for EA to do it. Please don't think I'm some Steam fanboy attacking EA. I'd rather not HAVE TO use Steam, either, giving my druthers... but, again, as above, I've come to accept that the good of Steam outweighs the bad IMO wherease Origin does not.

Steam achieved its market penetration in large part by mandating that games come with Steam.  If a company wants to do something like this, EA or otherwise, I have little issue with it.  It's not like the Origin requirement is hidden and easy for someone to install if they are actively against using it.

Does it mean that you may not get some games that you otherwise would?  Probably.  It's like when I skip on a game because it has some DRM restriction that I don't care for.  Fortunately, plenty of games to go around IMO.

To spite customers? No. Corporate suits, as you call them, don't give one darn about their customers, only their customers' money. And something that is counter-intuitive but so true about so many executives, so many "smart business people", is that they would rather NOT make a sale than make a sale and share the profit with another.

Perhaps there's more to it than you are aware of. And that I even feel comfortable discussing. For a company that has been trying to recover , the idea of refusing to "[make] a sale and sharing the profit with another" is patently absurd, since as you say EA has little issue sharing their profits with other distributors (they even still sell Sims 3 stuff on Steam to this day).

Share money with Steam and help Steam grow to have a larger market share, even if that just helps sell more EA games? EA'd rather not. They'd rather keep more of the proceeds and have less sales, in a bad attempt at having their own digital storefront.

This is just a conspiracy theory. Both sides drew their lines in the sand. Steam had reservations with us doing the same thing we did in DAO that we continued to do with DA2, for which they pulled DA2 down. When I found out the reason our games were removed, I wasn't particularly thrilled. But as a Steam gamer, I hold both companies "responsible" for not coming to terms. I personally don't think it's good for either company to not have access to each other's goods, but evidently neither were all that keen to budge very far.

Maybe that will change with a new CEO, although ironically I think it helped to create an impetus to push Origin as something not to just sell EA games, but to provide some competition for Steam.

I ran through a bunch of titles in the search on Origin and found most weren't there, of games I know are on Steam and/or GOG and/or Impulse. A bunch (I type in over two dozen titles and stopped counting after a bit) and I think maybe like 10-15% of them were on Origin (though I wasn't tracking how many of those were EA, I tried to choose game titles I was fairly certain weren't - Dawn of War was there, for example, but Faster Than Light, Back to the Future, Space Marine, Political Machine weren't, to name a handful.)

I'll just leave you with a page on RPG Codex forums about the Expeditions: Conquistador game, and some of the challenges it seems bitComposer has had since agreeing to publish the game for Logic Artists.

In any case, a game developer/publisher are well within their right to sell whatever games they want on whatever digital platforms that they want. You are right, Steam's library is larger.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 avril 2013 - 02:35 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ah, I did not know that Steam pro-rated their retail rates based on localities. To me, that is honestly incredibly stupid. A download is a download is a download (unless its on the down low). Charging more or less depending on what your lattitude or longitude is (even though it has more to do with differing agreements and country by-laws, more than likely) is silly.

The retailers are sharing their monopoly profits, though. So it works out for everyone (they think) except for the consumers who get fleeced. I wonder how elastic video game prices at that range are though, given that I think the PPP with Australia/NZ is basically the same as Canada/US.

[goose2989]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

That's exactly what I think. I'm the customer. I don't give two craps about your profit margins. I want Dragon Age 3 on Steam. 

So regardless of Valve's demands, EA should accommodate them?  Even if it means we lose money in the end?  (Note, I'm just clarifying on what it is that you wrote.  You seem to be saying literally "I don't care if you lose money.  I want the game on Steam.")

You may not give two craps out our profit margins, but if you enjoy DA3 and want to see more of it, it's a bit nearsighted of you to feel they're irrelevant to your interests as a consumer.

And do you think that EA can maximize their shareholders' value by continuously disappointing, angering, and annoying their customers?

Same to you.  Even if it meant literally losing money, is it still more important to you that the game be available on Steam?

(Yes, I recognize that this is a false dichotomy.  My point is to illustrate "At what point should we no longer be concerned about our economic viability, simply because some people would rather play the game through Steam?")

Obviously neither of us will win this argument (and that's ok because it's fun anyways) but for the sake of continuing it, wouldn't it be a more sound business decision on EA's part to have slightly lower profits for a short-term outlook (let's say 2-3 years) by using Steam, thereby gaining goodwill with customers? Or is shoving Origin down customers' throats for more immediate gains, gambling that people will come to accept it, better?

There is no way to measure this, of course, but what do you actually think? 

[Malanek]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ah, I did not know that Steam pro-rated their retail rates based on localities. To me, that is honestly incredibly stupid. A download is a download is a download (unless its on the down low). Charging more or less depending on what your lattitude or longitude is (even though it has more to do with differing agreements and country by-laws, more than likely) is silly.

The retailers are sharing their monopoly profits, though. So it works out for everyone (they think) except for the consumers who get fleeced. I wonder how elastic video game prices at that range are though, given that I think the PPP with Australia/NZ is basically the same as Canada/US.

It doesn't though because you can literally pick games up off the shelf for about 40% less. Steam are just shooting themselves in the foot. It doesn't make any sense.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


Do you think that EA doesn't use Steam (the most popular digital store) just to spite customers? Remember, EA is run by corporate suits that want nothing more than more money and more sales.

That's exactly what I think. I'm the customer. I don't give two craps about your profit margins. I want Dragon Age 3 on Steam. 

So regardless of Valve's demands, EA should accommodate them?  Even if it means we lose money in the end?  (Note, I'm just clarifying on what it is that you wrote.  You seem to be saying literally "I don't care if you lose money.  I want the game on Steam.")

You may not give two craps out our profit margins, but if you enjoy DA3 and want to see more of it, it's a bit nearsighted of you to feel they're irrelevant to your interests as a consumer.

And do you think that EA can maximize their shareholders' value by continuously disappointing, angering, and annoying their customers?

Same to you.  Even if it meant literally losing money, is it still more important to you that the game be available on Steam?

(Yes, I recognize that this is a false dichotomy.  My point is to illustrate "At what point should we no longer be concerned about our economic viability, simply because some people would rather play the game through Steam?")

Except your whole basis for an arguement is based on the fact that you'll "lose money", when in fact Steam has the best publisher/developer split around. Steam charges 1/3rd of the price for the game. That's far and away better than EA's 70/30 split they rape developers with. 

I laugh at your assertion that putting a game on Steam is going to somehow be "bad" for EA in the end. 

[Sanunes]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

-snip-

Except your whole basis for an arguement is based on the fact that you'll "lose money", when in fact Steam has the best publisher/developer split around. Steam charges 1/3rd of the price for the game. That's far and away better than EA's 70/30 split they rape developers with. 

I laugh at your assertion that putting a game on Steam is going to somehow be "bad" for EA in the end. 

If what EA charges for Origin is so bad, why are developers going to them including Valve? Besides is Valve really any better if they are really demanding that developers put all DLC through Steam basically taking more money from the developer for they are basically blackmailing the developer to pay them extra or they can't use their platform?

*I really don't know the reasons for the Valve/EA split or what the policies really are for all my information is second hand.

[In Exile]

goose2989 wrote...
True, but the suits in the accounting department see which group is the biggest and, rightly so, recommend adjusting the product to follow that group's demands and wiahes. If the 360 version has the most sales, it only makes sense that the 360 version gets preferential treatment. That's not to say the game should be designed for the 360 and then simply ported to the other platforms, though. 

Well, then you better start asking for things like 2001 circa graphics. Because as AAA costs go up, the need to care about even the RPG market dwindles. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Except your whole basis for an arguement is based on the fact that you'll "lose money", when in fact Steam has the best publisher/developer split around. Steam charges 1/3rd of the price for the game. That's far and away better than EA's 70/30 split they rape developers with.

You didn't answer the question. You avoided it. I was seeking to establish a baseline for where we shouldn't try to be financially successful. If it came down to "lose money" is it acceptable?  If that's okay, is there a line of profit where we should seek to minimize it?  Or is it just "I want the game on Steam, so you should give it to me?"

Nevermind the fact that the "publisher/developer split" for BioWare using Origin is 0% (so no, Steam is not the best publisher/developer split for our games)

Further, are you suggesting that EA takes a 70% of each sale through Origin?  Because it'd sure be silly if they only took 30% (which is less than 1/3), which is the only other way I can interpret your ratio.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 18 avril 2013 - 05:26 .

[Sanunes]

In Exile wrote...

goose2989 wrote...
True, but the suits in the accounting department see which group is the biggest and, rightly so, recommend adjusting the product to follow that group's demands and wiahes. If the 360 version has the most sales, it only makes sense that the 360 version gets preferential treatment. That's not to say the game should be designed for the 360 and then simply ported to the other platforms, though. 

Well, then you better start asking for things like 2001 circa graphics. Because as AAA costs go up, the need to care about even the RPG market dwindles. 

I don't think its that they don't care about the RPG market, its more of how to define it for you can't put everything into a "RPG" as you could in the past so certain things people consider requirements for a RPG aren't being considered while others are being implemented.