• 167 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

not trolling or anything i just don't get it.

or are are all the steam lovers blizzard haters too.

#2 Posted by Liber (647 posts) -

How many games Blizzard released last year ?

#3 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Meh, most people (mostly little kids... I hope) just hate on anything because they have problems at home. 
First it's EA, then it's EA and their Origin stuff for, according to the same kids, "stealing secret James Bond information" or whatever it is that makes these kids super secret agents. 
Then you show them that Steam is "stealing" the exact same info and then they bitch and whine and go "it's not the same!!" even when it is exactly the same.  

It will never understand people like that, but they're damn funny and I can't help but laugh at them. I wouldn't be surprised if most people hate on Blizzard to without actually having a not-made-up-and-suuuper-dumb reason for it.

#4 Posted by PenguinDust (12414 posts) -

@Liber said:

How many games Blizzard released last year ?

How many Blizzard games released in the last five years? If you exclude the WoW expansions...one.

#5 Posted by DjCmeP (1145 posts) -

EA already had games on Steam, Blizzard didn't.

#6 Posted by Village_Guy (2409 posts) -

Blizzard doesn't release a lot of games and they never had their games on Steam. People hate on EA and Origin because games were pulled from Steam and all of a sudden new EA releases wasn't going to be on Steam anymore, if EA never had their any of their games on Steam and didn't release a lot of games, then people wouldn't hate on Origin.

#7 Posted by Henny (105 posts) -

There is this management phrase called barrier to entry. Steam has managed to build up around it enough goodwill with their customers through past actions even though admittedly Steam launched under rather shambolic circumstances. Contrast this with EA who has yet to prove that they consistently care about their customers. Getting into a verbal match with Steam won't win them any more customers. What they need to learn is the art of customer seduction; and in this, Valve truly understands their market segment.

And on topic, so has Blizzard. They have yet to do horrendously wrong by their fans.

#8 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@PenguinDust said:

@Liber said:

How many games Blizzard released last year ?

How many Blizzard games released in the last five years? If you exclude the WoW expansions...one.

but they are about to release a pretty big fuckin game with D3 which won't be on steam can we expect the same level of tears and heartache that the recent EA ME3 announcement has caused?

#9 Posted by Doctorchimp (4063 posts) -

People trust Blizzard the same way they trust Valve with their money. They'll release the one product and you'll buy it. Their business model lends itself to people latching onto them because their first priority seems to be to innovate the space they're in and just release the games they want to release.

EA always seemed like they want to make the buck first. They don't try at all to put up an illusion, it's very transparent that EA is just a business where Blizzard and Valve have the manners to make it seem like they care.

#10 Posted by Asrahn (551 posts) -

On one end we have Steam, an awesome service.

On the other end we have Battlenet, an awesome service.

One sells a lot of different games, the other Blizzard-only games. Both are afloat. Both have shown tremendous goodwill against PC gamers.

I am okay with this.

#11 Posted by zudthespud (3278 posts) -

@PenguinDust said:

@Liber said:

How many games Blizzard released last year ?

How many Blizzard games released in the last five years? If you exclude the WoW expansions...one.

Think how much they made on subscriptions because of the expansions though, Blizzard are laughing they've got more money than they know what to do with.

#12 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -
@Doctorchimp said:

People trust Blizzard the same way they trust Valve with their money. They'll release the one product and you'll buy it. Their business model lends itself to people latching onto them because their first priority seems to be to innovate the space they're in and just release the games they want to release.

EA always seemed like they want to make the buck first. They don't try at all to put up an illusion, it's very transparent that EA is just a business where Blizzard and Valve have the manners to make it seem like they care.

This, well said.
#13 Posted by PenguinDust (12414 posts) -

@zudthespud: Yeah, although I wonder how much their Activision overlords steal from the coffers. Anyway, I'm not complaining, I just don't think people expect to see Blizzard games on Steam because their release schedule is so lengthy. I may be wrong in this since it's been a couple of years since I was in Azeroth, but I think you can buy the WoW expansions through the Blizzard installer which to need to play WoW anyway.

#14 Posted by Vexxan (4598 posts) -

Blizzard don't have that many games so no biggie.

#15 Edited by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -

I really love this idea that Blizzard doesn't really want money. They're doing it for the art. Sure.

The reason they make their games the way they do is because they're about the only ones who can. There are no other developers who can afford to take 8 years to make a game. And the reason they do isn't because they're 'revolutionizing genres' ... because Starcraft 2 is actually a regression, and Diablo 3 looks like fancy Diablo 2. They do it because they think they'll make more money in the long run.

And actually, the reason WoW isn't on Steam is the same reason Battlefield 3 isn't; Blizzard wants to sell services without going through a middleman. I doubt Steam would let them charge 15 dollars for a name change/server transfer/so on without giving them a cut.

#16 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

I really love this idea that Blizzard doesn't really want money. They're doing it for the art. Sure.

The reason they make their games the way they do is because they're about the only ones who can. There are no other developers who can afford to take 8 years to make a game. And the reason they do isn't because they're 'revolutionizing genres' ... because Starcraft 2 is actually a regression, and Diablo 3 looks like fancy Diablo 2. They do it because they think they'll make more money in the long run.

so they can sell you WoW mounts and Hair cuts

#17 Posted by JoeyRavn (4887 posts) -

@DjCmeP said:

EA already had games on Steam, Blizzard didn't.

I think it all boils down to this. Blizzard never even touched Steam, EA removed many of its games from the platform.

#18 Posted by Funkydupe (3293 posts) -

I don't mind using two or several services in order to access specific video games. I love video games.

#19 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@JoeyRavn said:

@DjCmeP said:

EA already had games on Steam, Blizzard didn't.

I think it all boils down to this. Blizzard never even touched Steam, EA removed many of its games from the platform.

Steam removed them, though. "Well, we don't want your games on Steam if people can't buy the DLC Through Steam instead of going to another site. We want money!" is pretty much what they said
#20 Posted by mazik765 (2315 posts) -

Because the internet.

#21 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

not trolling or anything i just don't get it.

or are are all the steam lovers blizzard haters too.

Blizzard games aren't making you install an additional client to launch them. That is the difference.

I think if Origin didn't require the client being open to launch games people would be much more chilled about the games not being on Steam.

#22 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

Remember, it's Activision Blizzard Inc now

#23 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

Because EA not only ripped their games out of steam, but also made a similar, yet still fairly crap, rip off provider... and Blizzard did not. Also EA's a publisher so they're just naturally easier to hate.

#24 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@Sooty Valve games are.

Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.
#25 Posted by GaryDooton (59 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

@JoeyRavn said:

@DjCmeP said:

EA already had games on Steam, Blizzard didn't.

I think it all boils down to this. Blizzard never even touched Steam, EA removed many of its games from the platform.

Steam removed them, though. "Well, we don't want your games on Steam if people can't buy the DLC Through Steam instead of going to another site. We want money!" is pretty much what they said

There is also the issue of it making for a shitty service if you can't use Steam as a one-stop shop, which is a fair enough reason to pull the games, especially if EA weren't willing to cooperate. I can imagine buying a game on Steam then having to go elsewhere to obtain the DLC as something that is likely to throw up technical issues. Seeing as one of Steam's advantages is its ease of use (buy game, download game, everything is in place, ready to go) then why would it compromise one of the key qualities of its service? I got L.A Noire: Complete Edition at Christmas and it has all the DLC built in, sorted, ready to go. It was great and really easy.

It is possible to want to provide a great service and make money, you know. That's what Steam does: Valve have created an environment of mutual benefit. EA have created an environment of PURE EVIL.

Or, alternatively, a clueless company that's too big and dumb to remember what gamers want, but too ubiquitous and financially successful for that to have a significant impact.

#26 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Valve games are. Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.

Yeah I know, but Steam is not a service just for Valve games, which makes it totally different to Origin.

Valve caught flak when Steam first came out because of having to use it for just their games, now that Steam actually has a working friends list (it didn't for years) and its store has been opened up so much people have no real stigma towards it. Plus there's the additional benefits of Steam Cloud, achievements, profiles, groups and the in-game overlay, which is better than the Origin one.

Battle.net isn't a client yet so that is pretty irrelevant. I doubt Blizzard are going to release a client when you already have to sign in seperately on both World of Warcraft and StarCraft II. That could change but right now Blizzard aren't forcing you to use a client just for their set of games. So I think the disdain for EA forcing another client on people is quite justified. I don't really get bothered about it, but I do find it an annoyance, it won't stop me buying games I really want to play if the choice is Origin or no game, though.

That's a good thing. Having to use shitty BioWare points to purchase Mass Effect and Dragon Age DLC when you've already paid for the game on Steam sucks. BioWare points are even worse than MSP.

DLC appearing on Steam actually makes some of it worth buying thanks to sales. Otherwise a lot of DLC remains a cash grab.

#27 Posted by Cheesebob (1212 posts) -

Blizzard has had no games available anywhere else other than their own downloader or brick and mortar shops. Unlike EA.

#28 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5117 posts) -

It's easy to hate on EA but hard to hate Blizzard, and the internet is lazy so it hates EA.

#29 Posted by picklecannon (265 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Valve games are. Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.

But it was a decent client, at least before battle.net 2.0 and blizzard did get a lot of flak for that, deservedly so.

#30 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@Sooty Origin sells games from Warner and THQ.

And seriously, no one would like Steam to this day if it wasn't for the sales. That's it. All the talk about friends lists, and overlays, and browsers, it don't matter. People use Steam because they bought a bunch of cheap games through it.

If you had Steam UI with no sales, or shitty UI with sales... People would take the latter every time.
#31 Posted by GaryDooton (59 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Origin sells games from Warner and THQ. And seriously, no one would like Steam to this day if it wasn't for the sales. That's it. All the talk about friends lists, and overlays, and browsers, it don't matter. People use Steam because they bought a bunch of cheap games through it. If you had Steam UI with no sales, or shitty UI with sales... People would take the latter every time.

So are you saying you don't like Steam? I'm not sure what you're driving at.

#32 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Valve games are. Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.

Yeah I know, but Steam is not a service just for Valve games, which makes it totally different to Origin.

Origin isn't only EA games. They're in the process of expanding to accommodate third party titles, and in fact already have a number of them on offer (Bastion, SSFIV AE, etc). It's hard to find non-EA games because the store (the website at least) doesn't seem to offer a pleasant way of browsing through games of different genres, publishers, developers, etc like Steam does.

But let's face it: The only reason people are hating on Origin is because it's EA. And given some of their dubious actions in the past, it can be understandable... to a point. Beyond that though it's just lack of logic and unreasonable bias.

Also, LOL at the people saying Blizzard is innovative. Got a good chuckle out of me.

#33 Posted by StarvingGamer (7570 posts) -

Because it's trendy and cool to hate on EA right now.

Every good story needs a villain.

#34 Posted by UltorOscariot (164 posts) -

I can't attribute Valve or Blizzard to what I percieve as the decline of Bioware, which was my favorite studio, so that's why I have no problem with Steam, battle.net, GoG, Direct2Drive etc. When did it become fashionable to white knight EA? This is the second thread along these lines in as many days. EA is a multimillion(billion?) dollar corporation, and will do just fine(much to my chagrin) regardless of whether myself and a hand full of others decide not to patronize Origin. It's no mystery. EA has done things that I do not care for, so don't buy their products. Stop acting like its some nefarious conspiracy to dislike Origin because you dislike EA.

#35 Posted by DeeGee (2096 posts) -

I can't think of even one Blizzard game that I would want on Steam.

#36 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@GaryDooton I'm clearing up a lot of misconceptions people have. I like Steam. But I don't hate Origin (I wouldn't even say I like Origin).

I don't have to be on a side to dislike double standards. And the hate for Origin resembles Goddamn console wars, except Steam has a 8 year install base (and EA has way more exclusives).

Can you get Trackmania on Steam? Guess that's another thing to get angry about.
#37 Posted by Example1013 (4749 posts) -

Let's be honest here about the real reason people want their EA games on steam.

Achievements.

#38 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

Let's be honest here about the real reason people want their EA games on steam.

Achievements.

How many EA games on Steam had Steam achievements? Not a single one that I can think of. So no, I very much doubt that.

#39 Posted by MikkaQ (10225 posts) -

Cause you only need to buy a blizzard game once a decade.

#40 Posted by Ravenlight (8033 posts) -

@mazik765 said:

Because the internet.

This is pretty much the answer to every question.

#41 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Sooty said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Valve games are. Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.

Yeah I know, but Steam is not a service just for Valve games, which makes it totally different to Origin.

Origin isn't only EA games. They're in the process of expanding to accommodate third party titles, and in fact already have a number of them on offer (Bastion, SSFIV AE, etc). It's hard to find non-EA games because the store (the website at least) doesn't seem to offer a pleasant way of browsing through games of different genres, publishers, developers, etc like Steam does.

But let's face it: The only reason people are hating on Origin is because it's EA. And given some of their dubious actions in the past, it can be understandable... to a point. Beyond that though it's just lack of logic and unreasonable bias.

Also, LOL at the people saying Blizzard is innovative. Got a good chuckle out of me.

I don't think it's just because it's EA, if it is then that is so silly. I think the main thing is it does nothing that Steam doesn't do better and consumers just don't want another client (or maybe even service) to deal with for their games.

I just don't see the point in its existence, except EA wanting more money by cutting out Steam.

Still I don't mind putting up with another client, I just hope more and more publishers don't do this because if it turns into each major publisher having their own client I will just pirate games instead.

#42 Edited by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Sooty said:

@SlasherMan said:

@Sooty said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Sooty Valve games are. Also, battle.net is a breath away from being a client itself.

Yeah I know, but Steam is not a service just for Valve games, which makes it totally different to Origin.

Origin isn't only EA games. They're in the process of expanding to accommodate third party titles, and in fact already have a number of them on offer (Bastion, SSFIV AE, etc). It's hard to find non-EA games because the store (the website at least) doesn't seem to offer a pleasant way of browsing through games of different genres, publishers, developers, etc like Steam does.

But let's face it: The only reason people are hating on Origin is because it's EA. And given some of their dubious actions in the past, it can be understandable... to a point. Beyond that though it's just lack of logic and unreasonable bias.

Also, LOL at the people saying Blizzard is innovative. Got a good chuckle out of me.

I don't think it's just because it's EA, if it is then that is so silly. I think the main thing is it does nothing that Steam doesn't do better and consumers just don't want another client (or maybe even service) to deal with for their games.

I just don't see the point in its existence, except EA wanting more money by cutting out Steam.

Still I don't mind putting up with another client, I just hope more and more publishers don't do this because if it turns into each major publisher having their own client I will just pirate games instead.

why would you do that. piracy is never justified. your always a twat if you pirate... fact

#43 Edited by Questionable (619 posts) -

@zudthespud said:

@PenguinDust said:

@Liber said:

How many games Blizzard released last year ?

How many Blizzard games released in the last five years? If you exclude the WoW expansions...one.

Think how much they made on subscriptions because of the expansions though, Blizzard are laughing they've got more money than they know what to do with.

How does that have anything to do with the subject at hand? because they are succesful it should be on steam thats pure drivel.

  • Blizzard has never had its games on Steam so there is no threat of them pulling them solely to promote their competing platform.
  • Blizzard games feature enough of the services steam would have added that the consumer is not suffer a disadvantage
  • EA publishes a ton of mainstream games a year from widely varying studios and in every genre available, compare this to Blizzards releases over the past decade - Where Steam offers a additional choise to purchase a product Origin instead chooses to eliminate competition.
  • I own Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 2 on the PC, same for mass effect1+2, being forced to purchase any sequels on a wildly different and non-interchangeable platform is called screwing over your consumer.
#44 Posted by Dagbiker (6898 posts) -

Stop using logic, this is the internet

#45 Posted by amir90 (2134 posts) -

Because I trust Blizzard, and I know they will be around for a long time.

Which may, or may not be the case for Origin.

#46 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -
@Questionable Wait. Releasing a sequel that is not on the same platform as the previous games is called screwing your customer? Your original purchases of Dead Space 1 and 2 are now 'screwing you over' because you won't get to buy a theoretical Dead Space 3 on it? Really? If you bought Dead Space 1 and had fun with it, it's not honor bound to you to deliver Dead Space 2 the way you want. I see this argument all the time. "I bought X game and now the sequel is coming out and looks bad, they've stolen from me!". Like what exactly goes through one's head when they make that argument? You didn't buy "The Dead Space Franchise" off Steam, you bought the first two games and you got them.

Also, I don't know if you can do this for Origin, but you can put non-Steam games into your Steam library. I got Old Republic and my direct purchase of Gemini Rue in my Steam library. But I launch everything off my desktop anyway, because I like having like 90 icons on my desktop.
#47 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@amir90 said:

Because I trust Blizzard, and I know they will be around for a long time.

Which may, or may not be the case for Origin.

well you defiantly win the award for stupidest reason so far.

#48 Edited by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Questionable said:

  • Blizzard has never had its games on Steam so there is no threat of them pulling them solely to promote their competing platform.

Where is the threat exactly? EA pulling some of their games off Steam has no effect on any games out of those you own. It is only made unavailable for purchase. You still have the game available to download and play to your heart's content on Steam.

@Questionable said:

  • Blizzard games feature enough of the services steam would have added that the consumer is not suffer a disadvantage

Same applies to Origin. It is basically EA's Steam.

@Questionable said:

  • EA publishes a ton of mainstream games a year from widely varying studios and in every genre available, compare this to Blizzards releases over the past decade Where Steam offers a additional choise to purchase a product Origin instead chooses to eliminate competition.

I don't see the relevance, but alright. The way I see it, if anything, this makes it more sensible for EA to have their own service since you wouldn't have to register an account and download the client for the one game they have. It makes it more worthwhile to have an Origin account, since you'd be using it for more than just one thing.

And no, Steam doesn't offer you a choice. You can buy the game wherever you want sure, but if it's a Steamworks game (which includes every single Valve game), you're stuck with having to deal with Steam whether you like it or not. And despite the fact that many of us here like Steam and what it does, other people do not and would prefer to not have to use it to play a game they purchased. But guess what? They can't do anything about it. They don't have a choice in the matter... apart from not purchasing the game at all, of course.

@Questionable said:

  • I own Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 2 on the PC, same for mass effect1+2, being forced to purchase any sequels on a wildly different and non-interchangeable platform is called screwing over your consumer.

You're still on the same platform. It's still on a PC. The only difference is the client running in the background, which let's face it, for EA games makes absolutely no difference whatsoever since they never even used the features offered by Steam. No Steam Cloud support, no achievements, no leaderboards, no Steam-tied in-game friend lists for the multiplayer games, etc. Not to mention you can add your Mass Effect games to Origin if they have serial keys (same with Dead Space games), if not having them all in one place is your only problem.

#49 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4480 posts) -

Why on Earth would EA put their games on steam? They have a competing service. It would be retarded for them to do that.

#50 Posted by JM12088 (40 posts) -

Personally blizzard doesn't require me to install another steamish service just to play there game. EA does with Origin. I don't want origin. I don't want to use Origin. I've invested heavily in steam theres little to no chance of me moving away from steam unless they fuck up massively.

All there doing is making life harder for me - there customer and filling my computer up with software i don't want.