Well the issue is this:
You are not transferring ownership to you, doesn't matter if you buy game retail or digital. You are only buying a license to use the software, which is something entirely different than being transferred the ownership(permanent or temporary) of a product.

Laws to better regulate digital distribution and protect the customers interests would be a good thing of course, but so far nobody (or atleast not enough people) have been screwed over for anybody to inspect this issue closer.

Just what I wanted for Christmas - Another login I need to remember and have to risk being hacked in order to play my games.

I wonder how Richard Garriott feels about having his former company's name appropriated for such a shameless ploy for recognition. :rolleyes:


EA? Benefit consumers? Is this the same company we're talking about? :huh:

Well you should keep in mind that Probst EA and Riccitiello EA are very very different from each other.

Wait they are the same. :confused:

Apart from sating their voracious - and misguided - appetite for chewing up develoeprs and crapping them out whole, I have seen little to suggest the corporate culture of EA has changed all that much. But if you have specific examples that suggest otherwise I'm all for being informed.

Not in the slightest. Probst is who turned EA into a console sports game money printing machine and had his employees endure fun slavish work hours. Basically EA beginning 2007 and earlier.

When Riccitiello joined EA and became CEO he really turned the company around. He heavily propagated new IPs like Mirrors Edge, Deadspace and Mass Effect. Several EA development studios have gotten great place work at rewards etc. And before he also invested hundreds of millions into Bioware, years before either of them would become part of EA.
And he's also the guy now trying to shift EAs focus somewhat more back into the PC sector, who is not afraid to say "the lead plattform for our flagship game is the PC". The guy can't work magic, but to me it still seem like when people hear EA they really think of "Probst EA"

And it's sad to see that PC gamers always whine about most publishers treating them like 2nd grade citizens, that when one actually turns around saying that their two biggest titles are PC exclusive or have the PC as leadplattform, they don't want to see anything positive in that.

They want to force people to use their product hoping that people are addicted enough to chose them, it's risky and they're dumb.

It's definitely a risk

It was also risky back when Valve started "forcing" everyone to use Steam to activate their products. :shrug:

Gamers talk big on the internet, but when it comes to bending a bit to play a game they really want they tend to let go of some of the courage behind their convictions.

Definitely. But Blizzard does with Battle.net just fine without Steam and that's what they're aiming for.

Businesswise it just makes plain sense eventhough it's a huge gamble. Production value wise they have an incredibly strong line up for the PC, right now is their one and only chance for the next few years to get into the PC plattform big time and get right up there with Blizzard and Valve.
If they were to simply just go the easy way via Steam, they would just end up being another steam title among billions of others and Valve would make alotta of money with minimal effort off of them.


Yeah I remember the days when everyone hated the [censored] out of Steam, but worked out fine for them in the long run

I wouldn't. The dollar may be weak, but the value of the euro is going down ever so slowly.

In regards to Crysis 2's vanishing act from Steam, I have a feeling that it still had something to do with Origin despite Valve's decision to pull it. Whatever agreement Valve and Crytek/EA agreed to, the implementation of Crysis 2 on Origin probably violated that agreement somehow, which would prompt Valve to pull Crysis 2 from the store as per the terms.

I have to wonder whether or not making things exclusive on Origin was a good idea. On one hand, you can attempt to force gamers to use it by making your games exclusive to it. On the other hand, gamers who care more about their distribution platform of choice rather than a select few games on it will go from potential customers to lost sales. Most people I know happen to be the latter. The only game I would consider getting on Origin would be Battlefield 3, and that's a big maybe. EA should actually try to be more competitive instead of just deceitful.

Crysis2 was first available the same day on Origin/EADM as it was on Steam, so it was ok before Valve decided to change the terms and conditions.


Being competitive is exactly what they are doing here, like I wrote above. And yes Battlefield3 and SWTOR are games that are strong enough titles to sell millions on the PC, hence why I said they need to this now or never.
This is the chance to build something like Battle.net that exists alongside Steam just perfectly fine.

Good, steam needs competition. One can dream of the death of Steamworks some day on retail games because Steam no longer has a bloody monopoly on the PC.

Very true, but cannot this also be said about CDs/DVDs? You never actually own a movie, only an officially licensed copy. If I were to somehow violate the terms of service for Amazon then I would lose access to my account for all future transactions, they would not take back all goods, digital or otherwise, purchased prior to that point. If I cancel my cell phone service I keep the programs/files I purchased on my phone still in my possession, I can keep playing Angry Birds as long as the battery holds up. Also the terms for when a software company can revoke a license for their intellectual property is spelled out in the EULA. Is there any clause in the TOS for any digital distribution service that states the rights of license revocation are transferred to the service? Can a distributor revoke a license for intellectual property that is not owned by that distributor? If Origin carries only EA games then they may act as proxy in revoking the license for EA games, but what if they open up to other publishers?

I agree that in the long run getting these issue settled will be good for gamers, but I'm not looking forward to the interim fallout.

Tell that to Pandemic... <_<

Between that and spamming addon packs for the Sims and Battlefield, I really don't think EA have changed their game as much as you give them credit for.


The only thing the death of Steamworks would bring are a thousand copy-cat services, all inferior to Valve's original. Do we really need to see every company trying to implement their own ham-fisted hack?

Yes Pandemic, a company that Riccitiello invested millions in before he even joined EA(he invested 300 million total in Pandemic and Bioware). And in return they crapped out subpar games towards the end that sold poorly.
Sorry but closing a development studio that does poorly doesn't exactly constitute as a villainous act. Want me to tell you the future? Bethesda will continue to grow as a publisher and buy new development studios. Some games will perform poorly and there will come the time Bethesda will close a development studio.


Guess what, cash cows like The Sims or EA sports titles are what make experiments like Mirrors Edge, Dead Space and Mass Effect possible. So yes having some cash cows on stock are a necessity and also nothing that constitutes as evil villainy. This is simply business.


At the very least smart people will wish for strong competition for Steam, because nothing good has ever come out of a monopoly.

Yes, because then I wouldn't need Steam to play my retail games that aren't from Valve.

I see less and less innovation from EA's studios each year, Bioware included. It would seem their "experimentation" ends whenever they find another cash cow to milk. To be sure, they make great game farmers. But why should that inspire any confidence in me that they make good games, or are capable of providing a decent download service? Their reputation precedes them, and gimmicks like naming their service "Origin" do little to endear them to fans with long memories.


Sure, but you'd still need Origin. Or some other DRM scheme.

I'm not saying I like the prospect of playing all my games through a portal, but - as I've said on many occasions - if there is no choice in the matter (since DRM is unlikely to simply vanish) at least it should be a service with a decent amount of thought for the end-user, rather than simply for the publisher. Valve have set the bar pretty damn high - I'd like to see any company match it.

No, but you might need a zillion other ones specific to each major publisher...

I can see both sides, really. Steam/Steamworks actually has things to offer smaller and indie developers outside of DRM. I don't see a lot of value added to EA's service...then again I don't know a lot about it, either. I do know that Steam has done a lot to revitalize the PC gaming scene. I also know that competition is good. I also know that further fragmenting an already badly-fragmented platform is a Bad Thing™. Why can't things be more black and white? Things, be black and white, dammit!

Well if there's nothing in their portfolio you find interesting that's just as well.

But millions of PC gamers are excited for Battlefield 3. The Deadspace series is considered by many the best current action horror game, easily superior to anything coming from the Resident Evil franchise. And if you like it or not, Mass Effect and Dragon Age are among the biggest current RPG franchises.
And SWTOR has more fans and fansites than there is sand on tatooine.

So fact is they have many games that people are excited about. And again I only see it as a good thing, no matter if I personally care about certain games or not, that there is one major publisher who is developing their big AAA titles with the PC as lead plattform. That they take the PC *seriously* and aren't just 360 this and PS3 that. But if just want to [censored] and moan when a publisher for once gives the PC the attention it deserves, then PC gamers shouldn't be surprised to be treated like 2nd rate citizens and that Skyrim's lead plattform are consoles.

The thing is that Steam already has a userbase of 30 million, Origin has what, a few thousand so far?
I don't want to have to install a new Steam/GFWL/Origin/whatever every time a developer decides they want their share of the digital distribution pie.
Ever play Dawn of War 2 on Steam? You have to run both Steam and GFWL, at the same time!

EA would be foolish to not offer BF3 on Steam, being that it's pretty much the only contender in the ring ATM.

I'm certainly not advocating that. I'm not advocating anything 'cept what the devil tells me to.

If EA is the saviour that's going to give PC gaming "the attention it deserves" I might as well just give up gaming altogether. :laugh:

Well like it or not, someone needs to disrupt the current status quo, be it EA or someone else. Because if someone other than Valve and Blizzard and friggin Popcap starts making big business on the PC people will pay attention.

Of course you can also watch the monopoly that is Steam just keep growing fat and see where that gets us.