EA gets hate for not putting games on steam but not blizzard

@Neeshka said:

Blizzard is a god tier developer; all of their games are absolutely amazing at what they seek to do. They call the shots unlike other developers and release games on their own schedule. The same holds true for Valve. Their games are genre-defining, not rushed crappy cash grabs.

EA is a publisher so it's hard to compare it to them; but their modus operandi is poles apart from blizz/valve.

is it fuck! the 'modus operandi' of all these companies is 'make as much money as possible'

@TheKing said:

@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.

Agreed 100%. It's to bad people gloss over actually reasoning to make their dumb points "People hate EA because THE INTERNET!!!111 herp derp." Sure every company wants to make money, some are just more blatantly disgusting about it and EA is the king of this.

but he said the opposite. he said that EA are the ones who are transparent and valve/blizzard are the ones who put on manners to make it seem like they care (which of course they do not really). so EA are not the one who are lying and pretending to be your best buddy.

Blizzard doesn't make you install some kind of secondary steam knock-off that you don't want because you already have steam?

@Kazona said:

What I find appalling, however, is that there are people out there who actually want Steam to be the only one of its kind. What the hell happened to the importance of competition and the hatred towards big monopolies?

Has anyone actually said that is what they want or is it that they want the option of only using a single download client if they have the option, you don't see people complaining about any of the other multi-publisher options after all.

The idea that origin is actually good for competition is also completely laughable, they have already acted to block steam from ea games and the next logical step would be to block the other download options once they think origin has enough of a userbase with the net result that they can control download prices much more closely and if origin as a whole is successful then we would probably also see similar moves from other publishers too.

@DjCmeP said:

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

this

I bought Alice in Origin and I was never able to download it. In the end I had to torrent it and use the CD Key I had.

Also now I live in Finland because of my work and I don't speak a word of Finnish. There is NO WAY to change your language preferences in Origin. It's bound to your country. Yes, that is very stupid design.

So yeah, I gave EA another change. They had burned me in the past with shitty customer service and they did so again the second I gave them a chance.

Fuck them.

WHAT?! EA removed their games from Steam so that they could sell their own products through their own gaming client? THE NERVE!

Why would Blizzard ever need to release a game on steam when all of their games have every feature of steam directly built in to them?

Also EA is run by ass backwards greedy shit heads. Blizzard is not.

@Crowlands said:

@Kazona said:

What I find appalling, however, is that there are people out there who actually want Steam to be the only one of its kind. What the hell happened to the importance of competition and the hatred towards big monopolies?

Has anyone actually said that is what they want or is it that they want the option of only using a single download client if they have the option, you don't see people complaining about any of the other multi-publisher options after all.

The idea that origin is actually good for competition is also completely laughable, they have already acted to block steam from ea games and the next logical step would be to block the other download options once they think origin has enough of a userbase with the net result that they can control download prices much more closely and if origin as a whole is successful then we would probably also see similar moves from other publishers too.

If EA is successful in usurping the throne from Valve then Valve has only themselves to blame. If Origin ends up being a better alternative to Steam, then people will naturally move over to the new service. Now I'm not saying that I like what EA has done, but I do understand their position. EA wants the ability to directly deliver patches and dlc to the consumer, without having to go through Steam as the middle man, and since Steam's policy does not allow that, they've decided to end that relationship.

It begs the question, then, who the truly evil one is. Is it EA for not wanting to conform to Valve's policies regarding Steam, and thus denying the consumer the ability to purchase their games through Steam? Or is it Valve for not adopting a more flexible policy? I say that until someone comes forth and refutes EA's claims, be it Valve or someone else who's sold a product on Steam, we'll never have the full story, so all we can do is speculate. Besides, if EA really is out to force Origin down people's throats, why is it that their games are still being sold at other digital stores?

And yes, people have expressed their desires for Steam to be sole platform of its kind.

@Kazona said:

@Crowlands said:

@Kazona said:

What I find appalling, however, is that there are people out there who actually want Steam to be the only one of its kind. What the hell happened to the importance of competition and the hatred towards big monopolies?

Has anyone actually said that is what they want or is it that they want the option of only using a single download client if they have the option, you don't see people complaining about any of the other multi-publisher options after all.

The idea that origin is actually good for competition is also completely laughable, they have already acted to block steam from ea games and the next logical step would be to block the other download options once they think origin has enough of a userbase with the net result that they can control download prices much more closely and if origin as a whole is successful then we would probably also see similar moves from other publishers too.

If EA is successful in usurping the throne from Valve then Valve has only themselves to blame. If Origin ends up being a better alternative to Steam, then people will naturally move over to the new service. Now I'm not saying that I like what EA has done, but I do understand their position. EA wants the ability to directly deliver patches and dlc to the consumer, without having to go through Steam as the middle man, and since Steam's policy does not allow that, they've decided to end that relationship.

It begs the question, then, who the truly evil one is. Is it EA for not wanting to conform to Valve's policies regarding Steam, and thus denying the consumer the ability to purchase their games through Steam? Or is it Valve for not adopting a more flexible policy? I say that until someone comes forth and refutes EA's claims, be it Valve or someone else who's sold a product on Steam, we'll never have the full story, so all we can do is speculate. Besides, if EA really is out to force Origin down people's throats, why is it that their games are still being sold at other digital stores?

And yes, people have expressed their desires for Steam to be sole platform of its kind.

Because any tension between Valve and EA seems to stem from EA's actions. The only public tension between Blizzard and Valve is the announcement of Valve's DOTA 2. Also, people hate EA regardless of platform right now; I'd argue that pulling their games from Steam is the least egregious offense they've committed in the last couple years.

@Arker101 said:

@Kazona said:

@Crowlands said:

@Kazona said:

What I find appalling, however, is that there are people out there who actually want Steam to be the only one of its kind. What the hell happened to the importance of competition and the hatred towards big monopolies?

Has anyone actually said that is what they want or is it that they want the option of only using a single download client if they have the option, you don't see people complaining about any of the other multi-publisher options after all.

The idea that origin is actually good for competition is also completely laughable, they have already acted to block steam from ea games and the next logical step would be to block the other download options once they think origin has enough of a userbase with the net result that they can control download prices much more closely and if origin as a whole is successful then we would probably also see similar moves from other publishers too.

If EA is successful in usurping the throne from Valve then Valve has only themselves to blame. If Origin ends up being a better alternative to Steam, then people will naturally move over to the new service. Now I'm not saying that I like what EA has done, but I do understand their position. EA wants the ability to directly deliver patches and dlc to the consumer, without having to go through Steam as the middle man, and since Steam's policy does not allow that, they've decided to end that relationship.

It begs the question, then, who the truly evil one is. Is it EA for not wanting to conform to Valve's policies regarding Steam, and thus denying the consumer the ability to purchase their games through Steam? Or is it Valve for not adopting a more flexible policy? I say that until someone comes forth and refutes EA's claims, be it Valve or someone else who's sold a product on Steam, we'll never have the full story, so all we can do is speculate. Besides, if EA really is out to force Origin down people's throats, why is it that their games are still being sold at other digital stores?

And yes, people have expressed their desires for Steam to be sole platform of its kind.

doesn't have steam as the only DD platform kind of go against the open platform nature of the PC

The only reason for Blizzard to release their games on steam would be to... donate money to Valve.

Blizzard is its own Publisher, they don't need Valve, because guess what. Blizzard and their games are pretty well known. Also you don't have to start some extra program to play Blizzard titles.

You want to play the game? You [s]start BattleNet and then[/s] the game. That's right, BattleNet multiplayer is an integrated part of each Blizzard game. You go multiplayer - you're connected to BNet. Each game has its own special BNet implementation. There is no "BNet overlay". BNet is part of your online modus.

You sure need a BNet account for newer Blizzard titles, sure, but you don't need to install a BNet program that you also need to start before launching your games. I'd consider that something good.

So if there are some people who don't want to get a Blizzard game because it's not automatically included into their steam games list and they're to lazy to launch the game from the desktop - then what the fuck are those guys. Humans? Probably not. And you can still include Blizzard titles into steams library so yeh...

Again, in case Blizzard wants to donate a money to Valve, then they may put their games on steam and pay a fee to Valve.

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

Again, in case Blizzard wants to donate a money to Valve, then they may put their games on steam and pay a fee to Valve.

Just because a game is available on Steam doesn't mean that people have to buy it there, they can still go to the store and buy it or go straight to Blizzard and buy it there; the only "donate a money to Valve" they would be doing is on sales over and above what they are already doing which is also "donate a money" to themselves.

Blizzard Entertainment or whatever their "exact" name of the company is has made millions if not billions off of WOW. Why move to another game? WOW is a game within in a game within a game. Addiction to WOW is a video game within itself. Would it be innovative to make other games which could surpass WOW? Surely! However, why would you want to outshine your flagship cash cow - your brand champion ?

I don't think anyone would mind if Origin was actually competing with Steam. But for that to happen, EA's games would have to be available on both platforms. Maybe sold at standard price on Origin and at a slightly higher price on Steam, with the difference going to Valve. That way EA doesn't lose anything from selling on Steam and people who dislike Origin can pay a little extra not to use it.