• 167 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@JM12088: Why does it have to be one or the other? Having games on Origin doesn't have to mean you need to move away from Steam. There is room for both.

#52 Posted by Sammo21 (3712 posts) -

@jetsetwillie: Blizzard has a history of not doing it and with Activision rumored for a while now to make Battle.net a Steam competitor I'd say we'll never see it.

#53 Posted by Shuborno (939 posts) -

Blizzard games have never been on Steam.

EA was building a relationship with customers via Steam. They decided to force those customers to migrate off their platform of choice to play EA games.

Frankly, I think EA should just sell games where their customers want to buy them. They are taking the bet that the customers are loyal enough to come with them to Origin where EA gets a bigger cut (100%). I think they will lose that bet and that it's a foolish gamble with their biggest franchises.

#54 Posted by Brodehouse (10254 posts) -
@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it.

If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?
#55 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@GunslingerPanda said:

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

GET YOUR SENSE OUTTA OF MAH INTERNET!
#56 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@Shuborno: I don't know that EA would have much of a problem selling their games on Steam as long as you ended up back on Origin once you bought them (again, much like Steamworks games when bought off competing services or retailers). Valve, on the other hand, would. This is evident by the fact that many EA games that are unavailable on Steam can be found on other digital distribution services (GamersGate comes to mind).

#57 Posted by TehBuLL (620 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

#58 Posted by Shuborno (939 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

Honestly, yes. I love games but I have limited time to play, so I'm already picking and choosing a subset of the titles I want to play. I would just choose to play some other great game that is on Steam.

#59 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@jetsetwillie 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.

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?

So there are now 3 whole games which Blizzard makes for Windows.  EA makes many more and most of them were available on Steam up until the (re)launch of ORIGIN (EADM).  You know why people are upset, stop trolling.
#60 Posted by Shuborno (939 posts) -

@SlasherMan said:

@Shuborno: I don't know that EA would have much of a problem selling their games on Steam as long as you ended up back on Origin once you bought them (again, much like Steamworks games when bought off competing services or retailers). Valve, on the other hand, would. This is evident by the fact that many EA games that are unavailable on Steam can be found on other digital distribution services (GamersGate comes to mind).

My impression is that EA wants to deliver patches and sell DLC through Origin, and Valve is no longer cool with this. (They must have been cool with it at some point because when I bought Dragon Age: Origins' complete edition it was quite the clusterf*** to activate that stuff through BioWare's site.)

I want Steam to sell me DLC and manage patches. I don't want to manage this stuff manually. When I want to play a game, I want to just play, not look for news items on external game websites indicating patches or DLC are available.

#61 Posted by Shuborno (939 posts) -

@TehBuLL said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

I don't think it's lazy, I just think we have come to expect a better customer experience out of our PCs.

I remember having to patch my games manually and manage each install independently and have to fiddle with hardware settings and set up each game independently for control and sound and voice, etc. These are not fond memories. Now I log in through Steam and my game is there and it works.

#62 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow said:

@jetsetwillie 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.

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?

So there are now 3 whole games which Blizzard makes for Windows. EA makes many more and most of them were available on Steam up until the (re)launch of ORIGIN (EADM). You know why people are upset, stop trolling.

no i really do not know why people are upset. i really can not see the big deal people have made of this.

why the fuck would anyone care what icon you clicked on to launch a game.

#63 Edited by M_Shini (551 posts) -

Blizz games were never on Steam i nthe first place, and they arnt making you install a client to launch and buy them, Not that its actually an issue people that rage on that are just babys for having to do a couple mouse clicks prior to launching an Origin game, altho i do take issue with the Origin pricing for some games.

#64 Posted by geirr (2756 posts) -

@mazik765 said:

Because the internet.

Online
#65 Posted by Eurobum (250 posts) -

EA is easier to hate, but Blizzard is far more insidious. While EA rips you off (or not) on every single title, Blizzard/Activision gets in your head and pimps your ass for subscriptions, expansions or micro transactions.EA's strategy is similar to that of a con artist appearance, confidence, trickery - shiny graphics, bold claims, hype. Blizzard's way is crack, getting 'em young and pimp's love - addictive game play, childish graphics or adolescent themes like "horror", constant adulation.

Of course these are slightly hyperbolic exploitative extremes, like any relationship this one can be less or more exploitative.

[irony] The relationship between giant corporation and young naive customer is probably fair and mutually beneficial. [/irony]

#66 Edited by dagas (2952 posts) -

I also wonder why people aren't up in arms when Blizzard is saying they will charge real world money for items in Diablo 3 when they are when any other game becomes pay to win and people would go balls out crazy if you could buy an uber lightsaber with real money in SWTOR.

Also when Valve makes you buy a game for the tenth time to gift to someone it is awesome because it is on sale while when EA gives away ME2 for free people say it's a scheme to make people buy the DLC.

Some companies just seem to handle PR a lot better than others. In a way you could say they all try to fuck you in the ass, but Valve and Blizzard use lube while EA just shove it in and that's why people scream about it instead of say how awesome it was.

#67 Posted by Brodehouse (10254 posts) -
@TehBuLL

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

This is a completely different situation you're referencing. You don't care about Trackmania. It wouldn't matter if it was on Steam or not. You could say "Maybe I would pick it up if it was in Steam" but maybe a lot of things. Maybe Portal 3 doesn't require a Steam install. Maybe rainbows.

I wanted Gemini Rue. It was not on Steam. So I bought it without using Steam. That's what will happen 99% of the time.
#68 Posted by leebmx (2236 posts) -

I don't have a PC but from what I can see here people seem to be more annoyed at Origin because it is making their gaming life more complicated. This I can understand. Things seem to work best on the internet when there is one provider for a service a la Facebook, Wikipedia etc. For the users it means that all the content will be there as well as all the people they want to interact with whist they use this content. This is very important.

The arrival of Origin seems to threaten this, and while it is entirely EA's prerogative to set up this service, they seem to be driving users to it not because it is necessarily an improvement on Steam but by denying users access to games which could previously be all in one place. This to me seems the reason for the anger - that the consumer convenient monopoly which Steam possessed is being denuded by another publisher's search for profit. Competition should improve services but it is a paradox of internet based services that sometimes a monopoly is best for the consumer.

#69 Posted by bartok (2594 posts) -

My hate for Blizzard has to do with the fact that we will never see a new Rock N' Roll Racing or Lost Viking game.

#70 Edited by falling_fast (2356 posts) -

I'm going to say it's because blizzard has never put their games on any other service. whereas ea used to put their games on steam.

also battlenet is ancient, and mostly seen as being pretty reliable and good. whereas origin is brand new and already has a negative stigma.

#71 Posted by TehBuLL (620 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@TehBuLL

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

This is a completely different situation you're referencing. You don't care about Trackmania. It wouldn't matter if it was on Steam or not. You could say "Maybe I would pick it up if it was in Steam" but maybe a lot of things. Maybe Portal 3 doesn't require a Steam install. Maybe rainbows. I wanted Gemini Rue. It was not on Steam. So I bought it without using Steam. That's what will happen 99% of the time.

Cool......Gemini Rue is on Steam now though, so it exists as an option to me. If it wasn't I wouldn't care. Look, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I love Mario Kart, if Nintendo started releasing PC versions of Mario Kart, I'm not going to download them unless they are on Steam. That is how I have chosen to live my life...a comfortable, easy, set it and forget it type of life. The truth of the matter is that no one has given me a better option and I have ran out of patience of trying Company X's attempt at "developing a community".exe. (Too stay on topic, I purchased and downloaded SC2 and will do the same for Diablo3. Sorry, can't help it, Warcraft was the first PC game I ever REALLY played. Blizzard is like Ronald McDonald in my brain, you can't kick that.)

#72 Edited by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@dagas said:

I also wonder why people aren't up in arms when Blizzard is saying they will charge real world money for items in Diablo 3 when they are when any other game becomes pay to win and people would go balls out crazy if you could buy an uber lightsaber with real money in SWTOR.

I don't think they are charging for items, more so letting players sell items for real world money and taking a cut.
 
The difference between that and your SWTOR example is that Diablo isn't an MMO, balance issues aren't as much of a concern I suppose. Its like if gearbox decided to let you sell Borderlands weapons for real money; strange but no big deal really.
 
And the difference is simply that Blizzard games don't require a client like Steam.
#73 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

@DjCmeP said:

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

This. EA had everything working perfectly well, and they went and fucked it up. Blizzard releases one game every five years, and Battle.net is such a central component to it that it makes it worthwhile.

#74 Posted by laserbolts (5386 posts) -
@Henny

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.

I guess you haven't played wow then.
#75 Posted by Brodehouse (10254 posts) -
@Adamsons I'm pretty sure there is a competitive and balance aspect to Diablo, that's why duping was such an issue, and why they're demanding Internet connections for single player.
#76 Posted by Brodehouse (10254 posts) -
@TehBuLL Once again dude, that doesn't sound like you actually want to play Mario Kart. My point is about people who actually want to play a game.

It's like if you had a PS3 and a 360, and really wanted to play Uncharted... But it's not on 360, so you don't play it. Even though you can easily play it on your PS3, and you really want to play it. I don't know who does that.
#77 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

Blizzard? Who are those? The guys who shamelessly rip off warhammer 40k?

#78 Posted by HellBrendy (994 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.

To put them on a platform many people find unsatisfying.

#79 Posted by Drebin_893 (2944 posts) -

Because people love to hate the big guys, especially when EA don't even pretend to strive for consumer welfare.

Personally, I think EA a'ight.

#80 Posted by SmilingPig (1341 posts) -

Blizzard only has 3 modern games, so its not that problematic.

#81 Posted by Shuborno (939 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@TehBuLL

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

This is a completely different situation you're referencing. You don't care about Trackmania. It wouldn't matter if it was on Steam or not. You could say "Maybe I would pick it up if it was in Steam" but maybe a lot of things. Maybe Portal 3 doesn't require a Steam install. Maybe rainbows. I wanted Gemini Rue. It was not on Steam. So I bought it without using Steam. That's what will happen 99% of the time.

That's where we might disagree. I was somewhat interested in Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 is not available on Steam. I can safely say I will never purchase Battlefield 3.

If it's some franchise I have some huge investment in and really want to play, sure, I will buy something outside of Steam. (eg. StarCraft II, a Blizzard game) I do keep it listed in my Steam list so I can launch it via Steam though (and thankfully it updates itself).

EA franchises don't have that kind of pull for me, outside of Mass Effect, which I started on 360. I've purchased some EA games on a whim from Steam but I can guarantee that will never happen with games only on Origin. I will not impulse buy Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, SW:TOR, Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age II ever. Those are absolutely games I would have considered purchasing on Steam.

#82 Posted by Adamsons (873 posts) -
@Brodehouse said:
@Adamsons I'm pretty sure there is a competitive and balance aspect to Diablo, that's why duping was such an issue, and why they're demanding Internet connections for single player.
The pvp hasn't been touted as anything primary, Diablo isn't going to be an E-sport. There's obviously going to be some degree of balance, but that is too vague to entertain really.
 
Duping is an issue because it undermines the real world auction house / the persistent economy.
#83 Posted by Branthog (5611 posts) -

I don't want several services. I already have a steam client running and now they want me to split up my accounts, archives, and run clients from Impulse, Direct 2 Drive, Steam, Origin, GoG, and others? Fuck that. As for Blizzard? Well, I don't bitch about them not having their games on there, because I barely play any Blizzard games. A little Star Craft 2 and, maybe, a little Diablo 3.

I have almost 900 games on Steam. I don't want my collection split up across a ton of different places and I shouldn't have to. Games should be available on all of the services, just as they're available in all the stores. Publishers and digital distributors need to get their shit together and move on from 1995. I have enough to keep track of without having to have a giant spreadsheet that tracks where all my fucking games are.

#84 Posted by fox01313 (5089 posts) -

Blizzard tends to do whatever it wants to do until EA actually buys it out instead of teaming up with them. I'm just glad that Blizzard put's most of it's older games on the site so you can go to your games & download the latest versions without having to worry so much about patches or finding cds.

#85 Posted by Arker101 (1472 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.

F-in' yeah.

#86 Edited by bybeach (5061 posts) -

Blizzard has total control of it's turf, and the games it releases lend themselves to that. It would strike me as odd that Blizzard would implement changes or charge money through another party..would be cumbersome. In my mind Blizzard is a couple of tricks pony with exclusionary self focus that is a more narrowly defined version of steam. Didn't Blizzard come first chronologically? Steam is revolutionary in that it is open to all , just not Valve. It seems to have become quite the platform for smaller or indie efforts to be able to present to a market.

I think EA wants more monies and is bouncing around firguring how to monetize. In a way there is nothing wrong with Origon. I just hope that spirit of Balkanization doesn't carry with other publishers..and I can't see that happening.

#87 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Shuborno said:

@Brodehouse said:

@TehBuLL

@Brodehouse said:

@Shuborno I'm thinking you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Gamers want to play games, not game distribution platforms. They won't care where they get it from, as long as they get it. If there's a great PC game that you want, but it wasn't on your favorite PC distribution platform... Would you refuse to get it? Can you imagine Jeff missing out on Trackmania because it's not on Steam?

I couldn't imagine Jeff missing out on it, but I can imagine ME, the trackmania uninitiated, missing out on it, because I'm not going to buy it if it isn't on Steam. The last PC game I purchased outside of Steam was the Humble Indie Bundle, and only because they all activate on Steam. Maybe I just suffer from a very heavy case of the "lazies" but I just can't be bothered.

This is a completely different situation you're referencing. You don't care about Trackmania. It wouldn't matter if it was on Steam or not. You could say "Maybe I would pick it up if it was in Steam" but maybe a lot of things. Maybe Portal 3 doesn't require a Steam install. Maybe rainbows. I wanted Gemini Rue. It was not on Steam. So I bought it without using Steam. That's what will happen 99% of the time.

That's where we might disagree. I was somewhat interested in Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 is not available on Steam. I can safely say I will never purchase Battlefield 3.

If it's some franchise I have some huge investment in and really want to play, sure, I will buy something outside of Steam. (eg. StarCraft II, a Blizzard game) I do keep it listed in my Steam list so I can launch it via Steam though (and thankfully it updates itself).

EA franchises don't have that kind of pull for me, outside of Mass Effect, which I started on 360. I've purchased some EA games on a whim from Steam but I can guarantee that will never happen with games only on Origin. I will not impulse buy Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, SW:TOR, Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age II ever. Those are absolutely games I would have considered purchasing on Steam.

sounds like the only person that looses from your weird steam love is you.

#88 Posted by Brodehouse (10254 posts) -
@Shuborno That's completely crazy.
#89 Posted by CornBREDX (6256 posts) -

There's always a lot more hate for stuff on the internet, but this in particular I think is just because blizzard has never been on steam, and EA has. 
 
I personally don't care either way. Not super psyched about having to play EA games on another launch platform- that's really dumb- but whatever.

#90 Posted by TehBuLL (620 posts) -

@bybeach said:

Blizzard has total control of it's turf, and the games it releases lend themselves to that. It would strike me as odd that Blizzard would implement changes or charge money through another party..would be cumbersome. In my mind Blizzard is a couple of tricks pony with exclusionary self focus that is a more narrowly defined version of steam. Didn't Blizzard come first chronologically? Steam is revolutionary in that it is open to all , just not Valve. It seems to have become quite the platform for smaller or indie efforts to be able to present to a market.

Yeah, the whole Battle.net thing was kinda huge. Also...melting faces in Diablo and takin yo ears is a plus. The bounty chat rooms on bnet were crazy. Basically endorsed stalking/game ruining. No one would do that nowadays. Also, Steam indie is big money, ask any of them. Team Meat just sold 1m, that would have been all the way impossible for them without steam.

#91 Posted by impartialgecko (1693 posts) -

Well blizzard have systems that perform the same functions as steam does for specific games, friends etc. While Origin is a bit bare bones

#92 Edited by lockwoodx (2479 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.

Blizzard has completely jumped the shark with WoW and let Activision greed taint them. Simple services such as a name change or server transfer Blizzard charges you for, along with sparkle fairy ponies and truck stop quality baubles all designed to prey upon the impulsive nature of instant-gratification seeking MMO fans. Origin, is just EA's haphazardly way of shoe-horning its way into an already dominated market, and by making EA products exclusive to Origin, EA is doing no different than any other company who forces restrictive DRM on its customers where Origin IS the DRM.

Valve is quickly becoming the last studio/publisher I'll trust. They've given me refunds for poorly made games that tried to sell based on false promises (RAGE), Steam is stable and hassle free to use online or offline, Steam supports Mac gaming along with the indie market, and Valve is very transparent when it comes to their integrity. When everyone talks about Blizzard fondly, they are speaking about the "Old" Blizzard, not the newly corrupt one. 6 years of banning gold farmers is a work ethic, and the only thing that would break such integrity is having a new boss. Blizzard has fallen like the rest of them.

#93 Posted by Kidavenger (3642 posts) -

Comparing EA to Blizzard is laughable.

Blizzard makes the best games out there, treat their customers with respect and are probably the last PC developer that can still move PC games in a volume that supports retail distribution, they aren't really promoting their digital distribution at all, it's just there for the customer's convenience.

EA is total clownshoes, doing as little as they possibly can to make as much money as they can with no consideration for anything else including the customer.

#94 Posted by wewantsthering (1618 posts) -

I don't like the way Blizzard does it either, but they don't have an annoying Steam-like clone that is crap. :-)

#95 Posted by Gamer_152 (14126 posts) -

I think it's a very different situation. Firstly, when Blizzard started putting out World of Warcraft it wasn't an assumed standard that you just put your games on Steam, hell MMOs on Steam is a fairly recent addition. What's more Blizzard treated the customer well, say what you want about WoW coming a little off the rails, but Blizzard always felt hugely committed to their fans and seemed to respect the customer. EA on the other hand seem perfectly happy to disrespect the customer as long as it makes them a quick buck. This Origin stuff comes on the back of all their rubbish with annual sequels, bad DRM, online passes, offensive marketing campaigns, and broken promises about how they were going to lower the price of video games, etc. They were already in poor standings with a lot of people.

In this specific instance though EA have done two key things Blizzard never did; firstly, they took away games that were already available on Steam so they could sell them through their own service, then secondly asked users to download their software to play games they otherwise would have had to play without the undesirable addition of Origin. On top of this they give no real bonus for customers who are staying loyal to them and using Origin, they slap some real shady shit into their user license agreement and then reports start rolling in of people getting bad customer service and unfairly banned. The answer here is not "because the internet", more than other companies EA have gone out of their way to make cheap cash by being a dick to their customers and I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be angry about the way they've handled things.

Moderator
#96 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

@Gamer_152: You missed one. A third instance of EA being naughty where Blizzard has been fairly "hands off" is that EA will try to alter it's EULA to further their control over the customer without making it obviously transparent to the customer their consumer rights are about to be trampled if they continue using EA products.

#97 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1815 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
wait ... what? Thats BS ... Valve wants all DLC for a game to be available on their system too ... you know ... options for the customer? EA was not willing to do that, thats why valve removed the games, which is perfectly resonable imho.
#98 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I Don't even care, EA makes some of my favourite games, its really no hassle launching origin to play a game as launching steam. At the end of the day there just different online stores, and theirs noway im missing ME3. Plus I would of missed out on 100+ hours on BF3 which is the most fun Ive had in years with a online FPS, sure it would of been nice to get it on steam but origin is fine, competition is always good for consumers.

#99 Posted by JeanLuc (3616 posts) -

@DjCmeP said:

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

That's my issue. Can't hate on something that was never there to begin with.

#100 Posted by Kidavenger (3642 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

competition is always good for consumers.

Since when is taking your games out of the market competition?