373 réponses à ce sujet

[sunnydxmen]

This is why modiing should not happen or you will get this

 

[sunnydxmen]

Heres another example.

 

[sunnydxmen]

 

 

Now this is hilarious.

[AlanC9]

It relates to the post I quoted. Which I thought would be obvious. If you wouldn't have taken things out of context, maybe that would've been clearer. And I would point you to my last paragraph, which specifically states that exceptions to the general trend exist, however the exception doesn't prove the trend wrong, which is what you're implying with both your examples. I wasn't talking about Origins, I was talking about the upcoming Dragon Age Inquisition(which I also thought would be obvious)...but Origins was released in 2009, and at the time, EA wasn't aggressively cramming down Origin on out throat. And also the game was already in development by the time EA bought Bioware. However two years later, all EA games, including DA2 came with a mandatory Origin (aand.. also included a spybot). Steam isn't perfect by any means, Valve isn't either, they're a company out to make money. But then again... you're bringing up a 10 year old game as an example of wrong-doing... which is a bit absurd, considering that in recent years, Steam has been a good service(with the exception of the recent influx of unfinished early-access game).

I'm not here to defend Steam or to blame EA or anything, so I won't be doing it anymore. If you don't see the difference between Valve's service and business model vs. EA's... well, then okay.. look it up or something. I was merely pointing out why the two statements about EA weren't contradictory, which was apparently misunderstood by you.

So when you said "a Dragon Age game" you only meant DA2 and later. Fair enough. I have a problem with responding to what people actually say rather than thinking about what they actually meant to say. It's a bad habit. But the substantive point still stands, as far as I can see. Steam games require Steam. Origin games require Origin. What is the difference, again?Oh, right... you're not doing this anymore.

I'm still not clear why you figure EA is passing up these supposed money-making opportunities. Are they not evil enough for EA? You obviously don't mean that, so what do you mean? Or were you saying that EA is right not to make a toolset, but people don't react to this rationally because of this other stuff?

[DanielCofour]

So when you said "a Dragon Age game" you only meant DA2 and later. Fair enough. I have a problem with responding to what people actually say rather than thinking about what they actually meant to say. It's a bad habit. But the substantive point still stands, as far as I can see. Steam games require Steam. Origin games require Origin. What is the difference, again?Oh, right... you're not doing this anymore.

I'm still not clear why you figure EA is passing up these supposed money-making opportunities. Are they not evil enough for EA? You obviously don't mean that, so what do you mean? Or were you saying that EA is right not to make a toolset, but people don't react to this rationally because of this other stuff?

 

I've already said what I meant, at quite length. I won't say it again, since this is getting off topic. It was about the difference between treating customers responsibly, and exploiting them. It wasn't about the toolset for Inquisition specifically, it wasn't about Valve, it was a direct reply to the post I quoted. I will respond however to your last paragraph, with pointing you to my microtransactions example. Good idea, but then EA went ahead and introduced them in retail experiences. EA is not alone in this, nor is it alone in shady business practices, mind you.  But again, this is off topic, and I've said my piece, I won't reiterate it for your convenience. You can read it if you please. 

 

... for God's sake, I addressed everything you said here in my first post. Did you bother reading it, before replying? Making money is not an evil thing. Everyone does it... EA is not an evil corporation, it just treats it's customers badly. And you can make money, by not treating customers that way, my case in point being Valve... Simple as that. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this... really.. it's not that a complex of an idea. 

[AlanC9]

I never had anything at all to say about the microtransactions issue since I've never seen anything in that market segment that holds my interest in the first place. I never played ME3 MP, and even if I had I doubt I'd have ever bought anything. I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it there.

 

I was just pointing out that one of your specific examples was nonsense. It's OK to say that Origin is being forced onto us if you're willing to admit that Steam is being forced onto us. It's exactly the same amount of forcing in both cases, except that there are more games which require Steam than games which require Origin.

 

 

[Allan Schumacher]

There are numerous examples of that. Take Steam vs. Origin. They're basically the same, both use DRM, except that Steam is superior in the number of products it has on offer, and no one is forced to use it. However, if I want to play a Dragon Age game, I'm forced to use Origin. And the result is clear, people like Steam, and people don't like Origin.

 

Steam is increasingly becoming more and more ubiquitous for a lot of games.  Much like how Dragon Age 2 requires Origin, I cannot play a Valve game without Steam.  There are also non-Valve games that require Steam too.

 

It's not surprising that the most owned (and most played) games on Steam are Valve games.  The ones that aren't Valve games are popular games like Skyrim and Civ 5 that require Steam to be played.  So I don't agree that "no one is forced to use Steam."  I know that there are some games that you can buy on Steam that you can run just by running the executable (I believe Europa Universalis does this), though validating the game via Steam is still required I believe (I don't know since I just play the game with Steam running).

 

But Valve also pushed the ubiquity of Steam through their required installs.  Because they recognized that as a platform, having people installing their software made it common place and allowed for ease of advertising directly to the consumer.

 

As for people liking Steam but not Origin?  Well, I remember when Steam was universally loathed.  I think that (fortunately for PC gaming too) Valve pushing through the hate and not giving up on the project was a good decision.

 

 

 

 

Because EA is using every trick in the book to make money by exploiting the customers, treating them as mindless consumers, while forfeiting every opportunity to make money in a way that respects the customers, treats them with dignity. I won't go on, because I hope by now, I made my point.

Wouldn't this mean we'd be making some sort of "pay to use" toolset or something?  Or a host of other things?  Rather than simply deciding to not do it?  I don't think the analogy works.

 

Here's my point, however.  When fans want something, they recognize that EA (or any company) is a business with the goals of making money, so they dress up the request they make as having obvious financial benefits because they believe that by doing so, they make can make a case for the business men that count dollars.  They do this without any context (not that they should have the context) about what the actual costs are.  They imagine what might be reasonable costs, mitigate them and speak highly of the benefits.  Any fan of any feature (whether it be me wanting something, or you wanting something) has a tendency to do this, I find.

 

So yes, when I see people accuse us of being money grubbing, while ostensibly NOT doing something that obviously would make us more money (and not even replacing it with some nefarious, company-first anti-consumer thing instead), I think that people are being selective in how they apply their reasoning because they want to maximize support for The Thing They Want™ while not undermining that support.

 

 

I think you give EA entirely too much credit for spear heading the F2P microtransaction model and undermining what was otherwise a solid and working model.  You can not like what they've done (I tend to not find F2P games particularly interesting most of the time so I don't really pick them up... although I will be picking up Garden Warfare on PC because according to my friends that play it, it's insanely fun) and you're well within your right to believe that, and I won't begrudge you from sharing it.  But I do disagree with your assessment, with my bias stated.  Agree to disagree at this point?

[slimgrin]

Mods are for many, the means to fix the finer points that slipped through the cracks during development. It's not for MLP mods, it's not for nudie mods, it's to refine textures, redesign the UI or help in other ways. I know console owners see PC gamers doing this and they foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth and hate that it's possible for another platform and not for them. Too bad.

[TKavatar]

I wonder if it would be possible for the devs to create an unofficial mod or two (not DLC, something that is not endorsed officially by Bioware) for DAI like Sawyer's mod for FNV and the Witcher 2 gameplay mod.

Something like a gameplay expansion mod/combat mod would be nice. I seem to recall Gaider made some mods for some earlier BW games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As for people liking Steam but not Origin?  Well, I remember when Steam was universally loathed.  I think that (fortunately for PC gaming too) Valve pushing through the hate and not giving up on the project was a good decision.

In theory, I really like Steam.  And I'm a heavy user of Steam.

 

But there is one aspect of Steam I intensely dislike.  And, when Origin was being developed, I had the chance to talk to one of the Origin programmers about that aspect, telling him that Origin could win me over instantly by not doing the thing that Steam was doing.  He said he didn't know which way Origin was going to go, but he'd bring my concerns to the team.

 

That feature I dislike is the forced patching.  And Origin, ultimately, handles it exactly the same way that Steam does.  You cannot activate a title on either system without patching it to the current version.  You can't ever reinstall an earlier version of the game.  Patching has ceased to be a voluntary exercise, and I hate that.

 

Much like with mods, I should be allowed to play the game the way I want to play it, and both Steam and Origin actively undermine that.

[Little Princess Peach]

I'm not sure it is legal mumbo jumbo, or anything as complex as people make it out to be. The following response is not directly towards you, Tharja, just more of an attempt to explain the legal mumbo jumbo.

snip

Thank you for enplaning it  but you know Players normally find ways around things look at DA2 before Bioware set "You can go ahead and mod the game now" people managed to find unique ways to add hair styles armor and lots of other mods.

 

I bet Bioware fourm people will be able to come up with something

[Little Princess Peach]

Steam is increasingly becoming more and more ubiquitous for a lot of games.  Much like how Dragon Age 2 requires Origin, I cannot play a Valve game without Steam.  There are also non-Valve games that require Steam too.

 

It's not surprising that the most owned (and most played) games on Steam are Valve games.  The ones that aren't Valve games are popular games like Skyrim and Civ 5 that require Steam to be played.  So I don't agree that "no one is forced to use Steam."  I know that there are some games that you can buy on Steam that you can run just by running the executable (I believe Europa Universalis does this), though validating the game via Steam is still required I believe (I don't know since I just play the game with Steam running).

 

But Valve also pushed the ubiquity of Steam through their required installs.  Because they recognized that as a platform, having people installing their software made it common place and allowed for ease of advertising directly to the consumer.

 

As for people liking Steam but not Origin?  Well, I remember when Steam was universally loathed.  I think that (fortunately for PC gaming too) Valve pushing through the hate and not giving up on the project was a good decision.

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't this mean we'd be making some sort of "pay to use" toolset or something?  Or a host of other things?  Rather than simply deciding to not do it?  I don't think the analogy works.

 

Here's my point, however.  When fans want something, they recognize that EA (or any company) is a business with the goals of making money, so they dress up the request they make as having obvious financial benefits because they believe that by doing so, they make can make a case for the business men that count dollars.  They do this without any context (not that they should have the context) about what the actual costs are.  They imagine what might be reasonable costs, mitigate them and speak highly of the benefits.  Any fan of any feature (whether it be me wanting something, or you wanting something) has a tendency to do this, I find.

 

So yes, when I see people accuse us of being money grubbing, while ostensibly NOT doing something that obviously would make us more money (and not even replacing it with some nefarious, company-first anti-consumer thing instead), I think that people are being selective in how they apply their reasoning because they want to maximize support for The Thing They Want™ while not undermining that support.

 

 

I think you give EA entirely too much credit for spear heading the F2P microtransaction model and undermining what was otherwise a solid and working model.  You can not like what they've done (I tend to not find F2P games particularly interesting most of the time so I don't really pick them up... although I will be picking up Garden Warfare on PC because according to my friends that play it, it's insanely fun) and you're well within your right to believe that, and I won't begrudge you from sharing it.  But I do disagree with your assessment, with my bias stated.  Agree to disagree at this point?

Is there a way not to use Oirign? when I first got me3 I was so happy then it said that I needed the Internet to play it and I had to wait a month so I could get the net installed, Origin and steam are both annoying to me, I miss the good old days when we did not need them nor those long coded numbers in order to unlock the game :/

[Ryzaki]

In theory, I really like Steam.  And I'm a heavy user of Steam.

 

But there is one aspect of Steam I intensely dislike.  And, when Origin was being developed, I had the chance to talk to one of the Origin programmers about that aspect, telling him that Origin could win me over instantly by not doing the thing that Steam was doing.  He said he didn't know which way Origin was going to go, but he'd bring my concerns to the team.

 

That feature I dislike is the forced patching.  And Origin, ultimately, handles it exactly the same way that Steam does.  You cannot activate a title on either system without patching it to the current version.  You can't ever reinstall an earlier version of the game.  Patching has ceased to be a voluntary exercise, and I hate that.

 

Much like with mods, I should be allowed to play the game the way I want to play it, and both Steam and Origin actively undermine that.

 

Agreed. Even if the default is auto updating you should at least be able to turn it off in the settings.

[DanielCofour]

Steam is increasingly becoming more and more ubiquitous for a lot of games.  Much like how Dragon Age 2 requires Origin, I cannot play a Valve game without Steam.  There are also non-Valve games that require Steam too.

 

It's not surprising that the most owned (and most played) games on Steam are Valve games.  The ones that aren't Valve games are popular games like Skyrim and Civ 5 that require Steam to be played.  So I don't agree that "no one is forced to use Steam."  I know that there are some games that you can buy on Steam that you can run just by running the executable (I believe Europa Universalis does this), though validating the game via Steam is still required I believe (I don't know since I just play the game with Steam running).

 

But Valve also pushed the ubiquity of Steam through their required installs.  Because they recognized that as a platform, having people installing their software made it common place and allowed for ease of advertising directly to the consumer.

 

As for people liking Steam but not Origin?  Well, I remember when Steam was universally loathed.  I think that (fortunately for PC gaming too) Valve pushing through the hate and not giving up on the project was a good decision.

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't this mean we'd be making some sort of "pay to use" toolset or something?  Or a host of other things?  Rather than simply deciding to not do it?  I don't think the analogy works.

 

Here's my point, however.  When fans want something, they recognize that EA (or any company) is a business with the goals of making money, so they dress up the request they make as having obvious financial benefits because they believe that by doing so, they make can make a case for the business men that count dollars.  They do this without any context (not that they should have the context) about what the actual costs are.  They imagine what might be reasonable costs, mitigate them and speak highly of the benefits.  Any fan of any feature (whether it be me wanting something, or you wanting something) has a tendency to do this, I find.

 

So yes, when I see people accuse us of being money grubbing, while ostensibly NOT doing something that obviously would make us more money (and not even replacing it with some nefarious, company-first anti-consumer thing instead), I think that people are being selective in how they apply their reasoning because they want to maximize support for The Thing They Want™ while not undermining that support.

 

 

I think you give EA entirely too much credit for spear heading the F2P microtransaction model and undermining what was otherwise a solid and working model.  You can not like what they've done (I tend to not find F2P games particularly interesting most of the time so I don't really pick them up... although I will be picking up Garden Warfare on PC because according to my friends that play it, it's insanely fun) and you're well within your right to believe that, and I won't begrudge you from sharing it.  But I do disagree with your assessment, with my bias stated.  Agree to disagree at this point?

 

Agree. But I would also state two things. The phenomenon described is obviously not EA specific. And then again, the whole video-game market is a bit more complex than what can be described on a forum. Suffice to say, what I've stated is not all I base my reasoning on. And you might have misinterpreted my point about some things, but so have I been wrong about Steam's.. ahm.. history I think would be called. Not that this changes my opinion of Origin, but I will concede the point. 

 

But yes, agree to disagree.

[JCFR]

Is there a way not to use Oirign? when I first got me3 I was so happy then it said that I needed the Internet to play it and I had to wait a month so I could get the net installed, Origin and steam are both annoying to me, I miss the good old days when we did not need them nor those long coded numbers in order to unlock the game :/

I fear those days are not coming back... and i can understand the intention of developers and publishers to protect their product. But this always online thing is really annoying.  I can understand  for activation of the product, but ever after there should be an option right at start like: "do you wish to play online yes or no" . 

 

And i think mods are an important feature, keeping a game and the interest in it alive. Yes, there may be a collection of dumb mods, but you don't have to install them. And sometimes they even help eliminating some flaws (like skyrimUI, or custom Map).

It has not to be a complex modkit, but open up a bit bioware. Then i guess inquisiton could even beat Skyrim with its 30.000 mods (other than  origns with 200 and DA2 with about 900).

[Ajna]

In Origin application settings there is an option to switch off auto updating...

[Sequin]

I use both Steam and Origin pretty regularly and don't have a preference. They both have great sales, and Origin gives away free games now on occasion. Though it rarely gets mentioned, I also have Uplay (but I only have it because Ubisoft gave me a free copy of AC4 for that service). Ultimately, I like these services because they seem to be competing against each other with their sales. Right now, Origin has one through the end of the day on most their library (including the Dragon Age / Mass Effect games) and last weekend Steam had one for the Dragon Age titles.

 

Also, I don't mind F2P (not that I play it, but League of Legends is a good example). But if the game is "pay-to-win" I wouldn't touch it. But since I don't really play MMO's anymore, I might be a terrible source of feedback on that topic.

 

And speaking "on topic" I would just like to voice that I love modkits. I understand if the FB engine makes releasing one impractical, though. My biggest concern when it comes to Bioware games is the lack of controller support (which I was able to use a mod for on games like ME2). Thankfully, I heard DA:I will have controller support (if I heard that panel correctly). And yes, some of us PC gamers use console controllers because we migrated to the PC from console gaming.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Origin application settings there is an option to switch off auto updating...

Just like Steam, you can turn it off game by game, but you can't change the settings in any game until it is activated, and the activation process involves patching to the current version.

[Kantr]

Games before steam required long coded numbers to be installed. Some games limited the # of installs.

 

I've never had forced patching with any steam game I've owned. Download, install and play.

 

Steam and Origin are very un-obtrusive DRM compared to uplay. Although steam does still have its problems with offline play after a long while without a connection.

[Chibi Elemental]

I would love a toolset for DA:I however its up to every dev to either put out a tool set or not to put out one, I don't play dragon age for the mods I play it for the story bioware makes, however I will admit I modded the crap out of both games and I would love to have another Dragon age with a module system. 

 

TES games put out tookkits as they know the majority of their pc fanbase use mods for it and I am guilty of saying if it was not for mods for TES gamse I probably would not play them as their stories tend to be short and flimsy.

[Allan Schumacher]

Games before steam required long coded numbers to be installed. Some games limited the # of installs.

 

I've never had forced patching with any steam game I've owned. Download, install and play.

 

Steam and Origin are very un-obtrusive DRM compared to uplay. Although steam does still have its problems with offline play after a long while without a connection.

 

When Sylvius says "forced patching" he's referring to the client automatically updating the game.  As such, the player is "forced to patch" and cannot decide to play on an older version.

[Realmzmaster]

Games before steam required long coded numbers to be installed. Some games limited the # of installs.

 

I've never had forced patching with any steam game I've owned. Download, install and play.

 

Steam and Origin are very un-obtrusive DRM compared to uplay. Although steam does still have its problems with offline play after a long while without a connection.

 

What is meant by forced patching is that the client automatically updates the game whether you want it to or not. Some mods can become broken because of an update. Also there is no way to uninstall the patch or roll it back to a previous version, because if you try to revert to a previous version the client will update it again.

[Ajna]

Just like Steam, you can turn it off game by game, but you can't change the settings in any game until it is activated, and the activation process involves patching to the current version.

Gotcha.

[Kantr]

When Sylvius says "forced patching" he's referring to the client automatically updating the game.  As such, the player is "forced to patch" and cannot decide to play on an older version.

Wow. Quoted by Alan!

 

I understood what he meant by it, I've just never experienced it myself.