Originally Posted by SoulThief
If EA really wanted to have that monopoly, they would've dropped all of their games, wouldn't they?
It's Steam that has problems with EA and dropped Crysis 2, not the other way around.
EA still retains the right, to decide, which distributor they use to release their games on.
The reputation of promising things "This week" and releasing it a month later?
In recent months, EA's reputation has slowly been climbing, while Valve's has been declining in their absolute silence of HL2: EP3 (which they more or less promised).
Also, if you are so weary of EA's practises and don't trust their platform for one reason or another, why do you continue to purchase their software?
That's the same as saying Apple is evil, and should die, but still purchase their hardware through some other store than an offical Apple-only store.
Really, will it make EA anymore trustworthy when you purchase their software through another distributor? If EA decides to drop support for BF3, removes the possibility to play the game online, would it have been any different that you purchased the game through Steam or Origin?
1. No, the other older games that are more than a year old have sold the majority of the numbers they will ever sell (with the possible except for those occasions when they are on sale), so there is no point in EA making themselves look bad by removing them from Steam if they don't really need to; besides, there are no more patches or DLC's for those games anyway, so they don't have any financial incentive to do so.
2. Steam has problems because EA wanted to build a store inside each game, thereby bypassing the Steam store. EA has every right to do so, but Steam has a business to run; if they start making games with multiple DLC parts to bypass the digital distributor, it would be the equivalent of you willingly accepting a trojan horse in your PC; it does not make sense. And if EA starts selling third party games in their store they will probably have the same policy. Or do you think they are saints that won't want that part of the revenue ? In this respect, Steam an Origin will have the same rules. And I have no problem with that. I just don't like the tactics EA is using to try and get customers to their store.
3. It's funny how you try do defend EA and say bad things about Valve like saying they "more or less promised" HL2: EP3. And the thing about Valve time, you even quote their own site, they have no problems admittting they put quality ahead of releasing a game, and even have the sense of humour to play with that Valve time concept. Valve is the company that bought "The Announcer" design from a third party artist because they liked it. Valve is a company that is continuously investing in quality and has no problems in doing business properly. How many companies do you know act like this ?
4. I still haven't bought Crysis 2, and I don't know if I will buy BF3. But I can tell you one thing: if I do, I will buy the retail version. Why ? Does it make a difference, you ask. Yes it does. I will not be supporting their digital distribution medium. I will just be using it as GFWL. It's not perfect, but it sends a message.
Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm
No difference bewteen physical copy and Origin...other than that you won't have to download as much. You will activate it on origin and log into origin to play. Likely EA will count all physical game sales as Origin sales in order to boost their numbers for Origin...especially if they are planning on trying to get other developers to sell games on Origin or if they just want numbers to stick in Steam's face.
This is not the first time this argument has come up. It is illegal and a fraud to count retail sales as digital sales. From a fiscal point of view they have to be accounted separately, as the way they are sold - with intermediaries in the first case, and without in the second, is completely different.Edited by tpi2007 - 8/6/11 at 12:27pm