Valve Finally Addresses Electronic Arts' Problems With Steam

  • 163 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

I think Battlefield 3 will appear on Steam eventually.

#102 Posted by Morien (161 posts) -

I feel like this is when I'm playing Civ 5, and am friendly with one faction, making good trades, and then all of a sudden they declare war on me, and I proceed to wipe them off the planet forcefully. Yeah EA might not make as much money through Steam compared to Origin but come on let's not be greedy! Oh wait, talking about EA here..

#103 Posted by Foxtrot0245 (319 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff: You have valid points, I guess I didn't think about buying such new games used. Even without the $10 code thing, saving $5 on a game that you could have gotten without someone else's nose pickers all over it is stupid.

I digress. Back to why I think PTD is really a bad idea. I am just now getting into Dead Space 2 and Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit, both EA titles. Sadly, I will never experience the online in either. I'm guessing there isn't much to speak of anyway, because the people who bought it new are on to the next thing (maybe they would have stuck around had more players gotten into the MP, especially in NFS where the whole experience is enriched when your friends are playing it too) and the mass of people who bought it used aren't going to pay EA $10 for a desolate online experience. PTD kills any hopes of long-term viability of the multiplayer, plain and simple.

Secondly, it seems really whiny given how long they milk the price for what it is worth. Yes, I'm sure they would like my $50-$60 for a game that came out over six months ago, but...no. The prices stay too high for too long. The only reason I even bought the two titles discussed above (both listed around $50 new at GS) was because GS ran an internal promotion that gave me much more trade-in credit if I were to buy used games with it. The $50 new EA titles were $27 used, and that's before taking into account my 10% used game discount and the extra kicker I got during the promotion. I would have gladly spent an extra $5-$10 on it new (and ALL the game's cost would be given to EA), but the approx. $20 price tag seemed much more appropriate given the age and the fact that EA's PTD has likely killed off half of the games content...multiplayer (see above).

People need to understand that EA doesn't really have a Gears of War, a Halo, or a Call of Duty. There is no EA title that people as a whole (of course there are some people, just not nearly the number the three titles above warrant) will drop a nut to get on day one and buy the "super-mega-awesome fun time $140 edition" without blinking an eye. The last installment of Madden proved that even it doesn't have the staying power it used to, and nowhere near GOW, Halo, or COD (I don't remember putting in a code for those, by the way). They are trying to force you to buy new rather than making such a superior product that you WANT/NEED to buy new (like those other guys just mentioned). EA needs to have a more varied selection of hits besides the same old sports games every year to generate the "gotta have it new" mentality. On second thought, maybe Mass Effect falls into that category, which brings me to my last point (you may actually like this one).

Lastly, PTD is used as a punishment in many cases, rather than a reward. They have completely removed the multiplayer sections for me on NFS and Dead Space, unless I give them $10. Now, I can see that if it was the week of release, but this far out it is a bit ridiculous. They should be rewarding people who buy new ( I say that as a person who honestly does not buy a lot of EA games, especially new) rather than punishing those that don't. Multiplayer is NOT a little side item to be pawned with, Zaeed from Mass Effect absolutely is. There is a huge difference there.

#104 Posted by Swoxx (3008 posts) -

I'm gonna go ahead and make myself look like an idiot but I've always wondered what's up with this in articles:

"It’s our duty to demonstrate [value] to them," he said. "We don’t have a natural right to publish their games."

Why the clammers around value? Seen it done on various words in other articles too.

#105 Posted by MachoFantastico (4888 posts) -

Considering the impact Steam as on PC users surely EA would be losing money if they didn't put it on Steam. One theory a friend had was that EA are trying to hold Steam to ransom with Battlefield 3 in an attempt to get better terms for them. Which obviously won't work as Valve don't need EA games on Steam to be successful.

Still think Battlefield 3 will be on Steam.

#106 Posted by BlazeHedgehog (1102 posts) -

"I don’t think Valve can pick just one thing and think the issue would go away if we fixed that," he said. "We have to show EA it’s a smart decision to have EA games on Steam, and we’re going to try to show them that."


I like this. It doesn't really insult EA, but it very clearly states that the ball is in their court and they're the ones perpetuating this.
#107 Posted by BombKareshi (979 posts) -
@Swoxx said:
Why the clammers around value? Seen it done on various words in other articles too.
They represent words added by someone other than the original author. Basically, they probably said something context-dependent like "it" and the editor of the article decided to clarify by using the word "value" instead.
#108 Posted by Swoxx (3008 posts) -

@BombKareshi: Thank you!

#109 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -
@Meowshi said:
@ShaneDev said:
It's yet more PR talk the same kind that EA has been spouting. It's not worth a damn and if anything just highlights that this is a business decision between two businesses and not some grand war between two empires. They came to an impasse and they will probably work it out.
What?  This sounds nothing like EA's statements.  Valve isn't playing the blame game.  I mean, it's frustrating to see someone just say something so blatantly untrue.
It is the same kind as EAs statements because its pointless PR talk that doesn't say anything meaningful. EA weren't playing the blame game they just stated why they removed their games from Steam and why they disagreed with Valve over DLC or whatever it was. They just gave a vague reason for the decision to pull the games like they should have.  I can't see how anyone could get frustrated by that comparison.
#110 Posted by Tennmuerti (8174 posts) -

Why is Gabe so cool?

#111 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1889 posts) -

EA wants to take the fight public; Gabe wants to talk it out like adults.  I can't imagine making it PR shouting match does anything but support EA's "It's us versus them!" mentality. 

#112 Posted by YukoAsho (2122 posts) -
@dagas said:

Alternatives to Steam is a good thing, if Steam becomes too big and has a monopoly they can start charging whatever they want.

The problem is that there are already several competitors to Steam, and while none of them are as big, all of them have proven viable.  GamersGate, Impulse and Direct2Drive are all in the same arena as Steam and do rather well for themselves.  Not only that, several GOG titles overlap with Steam and the GOGsters have done a fine job carving a niche, not by being assholes, but by providing a great product.  If EA were really about the consumer and not about shortsightedness, they'd let Steam and Origin stand on equal footing and PROVE that their way was better.  But it's not, and they're not, so they won't.
#113 Edited by Corvak (1172 posts) -

I agree with Valve.  Like Gamestop or Best Buy - Steam offers a customer base, and in return deserves a cut of the sales. 

#114 Posted by Scotto (1220 posts) -

@Swoxx said:

I'm gonna go ahead and make myself look like an idiot but I've always wondered what's up with this in articles:

"It’s our duty to demonstrate [value] to them," he said. "We don’t have a natural right to publish their games."

Why the clammers around value? Seen it done on various words in other articles too.

It's used to edit a sentence to make the context coherent. For example, in this case Gabe may have mentioned value earlier in the exchange, and finished by saying "It's our duty to demonstrate that to them." Since "that" contextually means "value", Patrick can sub "that" out, in order to get to the essence of Gabe's comments without quoting several extraneous sentences.

Hopefully that explanation isn't too confusing.

- Scott

#115 Posted by Meowshi (2911 posts) -
TPoppaPuff, how much is EA paying you? 
 
Are they giving you free copies of Madden?  
#116 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

You can bet your ass dice want that shit on steam.

#117 Posted by JojoTheSlayer (42 posts) -

The sad fact, which is kinda in the spirit of current EA, their Origin Norway store is more expensive than Steam, even for old titles like Dead Space 2 and I am not talking about Steam offers.
 
Dead Space 2 - Origin - 400 NOK = 52 EUR.
Dead Space 2 - Steam - 30 EUR =  235 NOK.
 
If your currency is strong vs the Eur, Origin is, overall, a rip off.
I kinda bet, since its EA, that if it was reversed and the Eur was strong we would be paying in Eur....
 
EA has been treating their customers like shit for years.
Thats the main reason I dont really want to use Origin, or Windows Live (PC) for that matter, to buy games.

#118 Posted by DarthB (260 posts) -

It sucks that EA doesn't want to have their shit on steam anymore, but I can't really blame them for wanting to make more money. Who doesn't want to make more money? When EA puts their games on Steam they don't get as much of the purchase price from the consumer as they do when they put them on their own site. Makes sense, but it still sucks ass.

#119 Posted by Diablos1125 (181 posts) -

Get Steam or GTFO

#120 Posted by Sinful (211 posts) -
@Riboflavin said:

@Sinful said:

yep i see....just more jibber jabber PR talk. by the way pat...still need to lrn to proofread your stuff....it's spelled "Bus" not "Buss" maybe if you cut your beatuful hair youll be able to see what you post. and send your locks to me for my "things to sniff" collection.

"lrn" "beatuful"

I hope you were being ironic =P

nope....it's just that I'm a nobody who posts on a website. Pat on the other hand is a "Professional" that gets payed. Oh by the way...can I have a lock of your hair?
#121 Posted by Zlimness (569 posts) -

It's a free market. If EA wants to cut out the middle-man, then let them. Just remember the next time EA whines about sales and losses, decisions like not putting your games on Steam might have contributed to this.

#122 Edited by MajorToms (397 posts) -

Here is EA statement: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6322428/ea-explains-steam-store-absences?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B1

Last month, Electronic Arts' first-person shooter Crysis 2 disappeared from Valve's online storefront Steam, sparking speculation that the publisher was pulling its titles from rival marketplaces to make them exclusive to its own such offering, Origin. Today, EA's head of global e-commerce David DeMartini released a statement about the flap, explaining exactly why some of the publisher's titles are no longer available on Steam.

DeMartini stressed that EA will allow its titles to appear on any downloadable storefront, but there is a catch. The executive said, "we take direct responsibility for providing patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players," and so insist on being allowed to "establish an ongoing relationship" with customers and contact them to inform them of new patches and available content.

"Unfortunately, if we’re not allowed to manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you, it disrupts our ability to provide the support you expect and deserve," DeMartini said. "At present, there is only one download service that will not allow this relationship. This is not our choice, and unfortunately it is their customer base that is most impacted by this decision. We are working diligently to find a mutually agreeable solution."

As of press time, Valve had not responded to GameSpot's request for comment.

EA has gone on the record saying they want their games on Steam, but Valve pulled Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 from Steam due to certain issues at hand that both companies have to work through.

The problem I have with EA's statements however is that they want to "take direct responsibility for providing patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players," and so insist on being allowed to "establish an ongoing relationship" with customers and contact them to inform them of new patches and available content.

They have been communicating and providing patches to us through Steam for years. They won't patch through Steam, or sell DLC through Steam. EA just wants us to get in bed with them with this Origin bullshit.

I think Valve are trying to avoid another GFWL incident. Valve wants to sell EA's games, but they also want to sell their DLC too. They don't want to force their customers off site for continued support and DLC. It reminds me of Fallout 3 on Steam, which required Games for Windows Live for some odd reason. Fallout 3 DLC was initially only available on Games for Windows Live and not Steam and that probably bothered me just as much as Valve.

This sounds like the exact same problem. Before you know it EA would have released all their games with an Origin launcher. Basically, games like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 would require that you run Origin in order to play the game even if you bought the game on Steam (like GfWL on Fallout 3). And they would probably sell their DLC exclusively through Origin.

I registered with EA once before, for an NHL game, and shit that didn't pan out well. All they did was acquire my email so I could get spam mail from them. I'm not giving them anymore money than I have to. By that I mean these god damn partner programs. I love Bioware, I just wish they would ditch this EA and release their games on their own terms. I'm starting to get really bothered with all this streamlining game production. Mass Effect 2 wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, and Dragon Age 2 was just god awful.

#123 Posted by Gladiator_Games (447 posts) -

My friends always look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them "I usually buy hard copies of my games rather than digital downloads" (until I explain that you get to play it sooner). I do like steam, I like how it has so much in one place, and it's convenient.
 
Did anyone read that e-mail talking about the switch to Origin? I know I just looked at the subject and said "that's nice, I'll remember that next time Iog into NWN2 or whatever game it was I haven't played in years"

#124 Posted by MajorToms (397 posts) -

@Sinful said:

@Riboflavin said:

@Sinful said:

yep i see....just more jibber jabber PR talk. by the way pat...still need to lrn to proofread your stuff....it's spelled "Bus" not "Buss" maybe if you cut your beatuful hair youll be able to see what you post. and send your locks to me for my "things to sniff" collection.

"lrn" "beatuful"

I hope you were being ironic =P

nope....it's just that I'm a nobody who posts on a website. Pat on the other hand is a "Professional" that gets payed. Oh by the way...can I have a lock of your hair?

LOL

#125 Posted by Saltank (188 posts) -

I've exhausted all my ideas why EA shouldn't try to compete directly or indirectly with Steam and I stand by most of the ideas which favour Steam.

If there is truth in that Steam is Valve's monopoly in PC gaming, then I don't mind since they're not being very evil about it, unlike EA with their sub-par and weak Origin platform that they're trying to force on us (and if somebody dares say "don't buy their games, nobody is forcing you lol!" then there are simply too many things to say about your sort, none of which is very good).

HERE is a good thread on the official EA forums outlining what they must do to improve Origin, because they're clearing trying to compete with Steam, otherwise they wouldn't force the current crap state of it on us,

I like what Newell says in response to the situation. A delayed, but well thought through and resolute comment. Unlike typical EA behaviour which seeks to neither confirm nor deny any rumors, etc., as soon as possible

In general, I think Steam has improved so much and the majority of users like it so much that it would be hard to make a good alternative and attempting to do so would only upset the user base, like it already has. I hope they sort it out and start releasing all their games on Steam again, with the option of using Origin. If EA wants people to adopt it, the people should decide if it's worth adopting, without being forced to do so.

#126 Edited by Franstone (1155 posts) -

 
The whole situation is unfortunate and just stinks of EA thinking they can compete w/ Steam. 
 
Either way, I don't care what service I have to go on. 
I'll create an America Online account if I have to. 
 
I will play Battlefield 3... 
 
; ) 
 
(Bravo EA, you forced me into being an Origin member because of one game from a dev you had enough money to purchase) 

#127 Posted by coaxmetal (1657 posts) -

@Sinful said:

@Riboflavin said:

@Sinful said:

yep i see....just more jibber jabber PR talk. by the way pat...still need to lrn to proofread your stuff....it's spelled "Bus" not "Buss" maybe if you cut your beatuful hair youll be able to see what you post. and send your locks to me for my "things to sniff" collection.

"lrn" "beatuful"

I hope you were being ironic =P

nope....it's just that I'm a nobody who posts on a website. Pat on the other hand is a "Professional" that gets payed. Oh by the way...can I have a lock of your hair?

Sure, next time I get it cut. Been meaning to for a while but i'm lazy. Also I don't want to pay post, so send me one of those prepaid envelopes.

#128 Posted by GreenOcelot (17 posts) -
@Sinful: dude, way too far lol
#129 Edited by Cybexx (1223 posts) -

This is just the standard issue with EA and online services. They want as much control as they can get and they need anybody with an advanced online service to change their policies in order to accommodate them. This is the reason why EA were not on Xbox Live for the first couple years and why they are the only ones on Live with their own servers.

Now that said I have played the Battlefield 3 alpha and though I believe I am still under NDA to not say anything I believe I can say that the way they have structured that game to work on PC with Origin would probably not work on Steam. I don't think EA withholding Battlefield 3 from Steam is so much an act of defiance but an act of necessity.

#130 Posted by SpicyRichter (555 posts) -

Fuck, not having battlefield on steam is really going to suck

#131 Posted by therepublicanguy (87 posts) -

Address, not explain is more like it :)

#132 Posted by Slaneesh (855 posts) -

EA needs to stop facepalming themselves

#133 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

It sure sounded like he "threw them under the bus" to me. He pointed the finger at them by implying that EA's taking the games off Steam. And EA is saying Valve is doing it.

#134 Posted by Summoboomo (142 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:

It sure sounded like he "threw them under the bus" to me. He pointed the finger at them by implying that EA's taking the games off Steam. And EA is saying Valve is doing it.

The way he phrased it sounds nicer than what EA put out, and he certainly focused more on talking about Steam. He's implying that it's his/Steam's problem and it's something he/Steam needs to work on. Whereas EA is going 'Steam won't carry our games, a bloo bloo.' and making Steam out to be the villain when it's clear that they'd really like to be the only ones carrying their games.
 
Gabe basically found a nice way to respond to the issue without being sleazy.
#135 Posted by xbob42 (549 posts) -
God I can't stand EA apologists.  But fine.  How about the fact that Gabe has no idea what the fuck EA is talking about?  http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/18/gabe-newell-on-disappearing-ea-steam-games-and-origin-yeah-ive-tried-it/
 
 

“I don’t really know what they’re referring to by that,” he replied. “In general with Steam and Steam partners its incumbent on us to create value for those partners, whether it’s EA or Ubisoft or Take Two or any of the other developers who are using it, so that’s our goal, to create enough value so that is makes sense for partners to use the technology, the tools, services and community that we’ve created.

“We’re going to keep trying to do that with EA and trying to convince them that it’s worth it to have their games on Steam.”
 
In short, EA is lying.  Like they always do, like they always have, like they always will.  Jesus fucking Christ this isn't something new.  EA has been full of shit for 10+ years.


@TPoppaPuff said:
  • EA said: "Our games were pulled because of our DLC distribution methods." Valve said: "The DLC distribution methods are against the Steam ToS." The truth: The games were removed because of their distribution of DLC in the game itself.
So please tell me and explain how EA is lying. I'd love to hear it.
#136 Posted by KaneRobot (1823 posts) -
@xbob42 said:
God I can't stand EA apologists.   
 
How about Valve slappies? Can you stand them? 
 
It's hilarious you think Valve is some altruistic, only-out-for-the-gamers endeavor, compared to EA's evil empire. Gabe playing dumb about "what EA wants" is just as much bullshit as all that nonsense you accuse EA of "always" putting out there. Gabe is just as big a huckster as any talking head in the game industry. The fact that you're suckered in by it shows that at least he's doing a good job, at least.
Online
#137 Posted by mrhankey (695 posts) -
@MajorToms said:

Here is EA statement: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6322428/ea-explains-steam-store-absences?tag=updates%3Beditor%3Ball%3Btitle%3B1

Last month, Electronic Arts' first-person shooter Crysis 2 disappeared from Valve's online storefront Steam, sparking speculation that the publisher was pulling its titles from rival marketplaces to make them exclusive to its own such offering, Origin. Today, EA's head of global e-commerce David DeMartini released a statement about the flap, explaining exactly why some of the publisher's titles are no longer available on Steam.

DeMartini stressed that EA will allow its titles to appear on any downloadable storefront, but there is a catch. The executive said, "we take direct responsibility for providing patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players," and so insist on being allowed to "establish an ongoing relationship" with customers and contact them to inform them of new patches and available content.

"Unfortunately, if we’re not allowed to manage this experience directly and establish a relationship with you, it disrupts our ability to provide the support you expect and deserve," DeMartini said. "At present, there is only one download service that will not allow this relationship. This is not our choice, and unfortunately it is their customer base that is most impacted by this decision. We are working diligently to find a mutually agreeable solution."

As of press time, Valve had not responded to GameSpot's request for comment.

EA has gone on the record saying they want their games on Steam, but Valve pulled Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 from Steam due to certain issues at hand that both companies have to work through.

The problem I have with EA's statements however is that they want to "take direct responsibility for providing patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players," and so insist on being allowed to "establish an ongoing relationship" with customers and contact them to inform them of new patches and available content.

They have been communicating and providing patches to us through Steam for years. They won't patch through Steam, or sell DLC through Steam. EA just wants us to get in bed with them with this Origin bullshit.

I think Valve are trying to avoid another GFWL incident. Valve wants to sell EA's games, but they also want to sell their DLC too. They don't want to force their customers off site for continued support and DLC. It reminds me of Fallout 3 on Steam, which required Games for Windows Live for some odd reason. Fallout 3 DLC was initially only available on Games for Windows Live and not Steam and that probably bothered me just as much as Valve.

This sounds like the exact same problem. Before you know it EA would have released all their games with an Origin launcher. Basically, games like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 would require that you run Origin in order to play the game even if you bought the game on Steam (like GfWL on Fallout 3). And they would probably sell their DLC exclusively through Origin.

I registered with EA once before, for an NHL game, and shit that didn't pan out well. All they did was acquire my email so I could get spam mail from them. I'm not giving them anymore money than I have to. By that I mean these god damn partner programs. I love Bioware, I just wish they would ditch this EA and release their games on their own terms. I'm starting to get really bothered with all this streamlining game production. Mass Effect 2 wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, and Dragon Age 2 was just god awful.

YES! Also, I'm glad to see someone agrees that  Dragon Age 2 sucked.
#138 Edited by Coreymw (203 posts) -

I like to think the debate between EA and Valve went something like this.

EA: "We want to push our products and sales onto our customers through your service."

Valve: "No, that's not how we operate."

EA: "Get Bent"

#139 Edited by xbob42 (549 posts) -
@KaneRobot said:

@xbob42 said:

God I can't stand EA apologists.   
 How about Valve slappies? Can you stand them?  It's hilarious you think Valve is some altruistic, only-out-for-the-gamers endeavor, compared to EA's evil empire. Gabe playing dumb about "what EA wants" is just as much bullshit as all that nonsense you accuse EA of "always" putting out there. Gabe is just as big a huckster as any talking head in the game industry. The fact that you're suckered in by it shows that at least he's doing a good job, at least.
Let me put it in simple terms for you:
 
Valve has earned my respect.  Gabe has earned my respect.  They release amazing games on their amazing service that gives me extremely discounted games in an insanely easy manner to obtain.  Their customer service has been the best in the industry EVERY TIME I'VE USED IT.  Gabe himself has replied to several of my e-mails, all of which have been as far from business-related as possible, he reads every single e-mail he gets and responds to a massive amount of them.  You can say whatever the fuck you want, but I base what I say off experience, not off hearsay.
 
EA, at its absolute best, has been hit-and-miss with me.  Their games are of varying quality (They're not making Battlefield, Dice is.) and their customer support is consistently dogshit.  Just the other day they refused to allow me to change my registered e-mail address (And I had proof that I was both the account owner and receipts for all the games, all of which were purchased on STEAM, and which EA cockblocked my access to because you need your EA account.) because to do so is "impossible," even though you can do so right on their website...  but only if you have your login info.  Having proof of account ownership is clearly not a secure way to verify an account to them, but a simple login/pass is!  Awesome.   Can't wait to see if this carries over to Origin -- OH WAIT it does because my EA account was linked or merged or something with my Origin account.  So I can now access none of it.
 
What set all this off, you ask?  The crappy e-mail account I linked to hotmail got hacked (I don't like EA spam or any spam.) and because that's all you need to change your password for EA's service, that also got changed.  Now, before you go off on how I probably got myself hacked, it was external, nothing else on my system was touched aside from my EA account and my e-mail account.  Not even sure what the fuck they'd do with an EA account unless they were just fucking with me.  I use the same credentials (e-mail) for Steam and that didn't get touched, though I changed the verified e-mail just to be safe.  They helped me just fine even though I was asking the SAME EXACT THING I asked EA.
 
That's why I fucking hate EA and you can slobber on their cock if you want.  They're consistently shit and have a poor reputation for a reason.
#140 Posted by TPoppaPuff (284 posts) -
@rebgav
Those games are giving a cut of the sale to Valve, who is hosting the content and DLC bandwidth in those situations and providing a service. There is a way for Vlave to make money on that DLC. In those EA games, Valve is not providing a service so there's no reason they should get paid. They don't host that DLC/bandwidth. On Steam it's no difference to Steam than sitting idle or logged in but not in a game all day. Should we pay Valve for being logged in as well?  
 
And yeah, XBL and PSN have a certification process because they can have a cert process. Sony and MS are protecting their system. Who is supposed to protect the quality of PC gameplay? Is MS or whoever supposed to protect the quality of PC gaming on Toshibas or Dells? How many setups are there for console? Now how many graphics cards are there alone for PC? Now multiply that exponentially for drivers, CPU type, OS, DX version, etc.  Its possible and reasonable for Sony and MS to protect their products. It is NOT reasonable or possible to check compatibility by PC manufacturers to do the same.
 
And remember how outraged ppl got when the MW2 DLC came out and some ppl had flickering backgrounds and whatnot? That's exactly why they have a cert process. Ppl would go batshit if patches and DLC had issues on console. 

 Steam is less restrictive than the console platforms, so the idea that selling the same dlc on pc with fewer restrictions is somehow more of a burden is just ludicrous.

 

I really don't know what you're referring to here. It is ludicrous. No one said it was more of a burden. What the hell are you trying to say? You're not making any sense. If your referring to selling the DLC itself, once the DLC has been accepted (as in, "does it work? accepted"), Sony/MS are holding the content on their servers and paying for the bandwidth. They get a cut because they are tasked with making it available. On PC, am machine open to everyone, Steam wants to force everyone to use their bandwidth so that they always get a cut of the money. Surprisingly, EA, who is well equipped to handle everything Valve does with that DLC, would rather not give money away by using an ancillary service (DLC hosting) they can do themselves. Why is that hard to understand? The only bridge they burned was possibly with Valve, who is likely going to be there direct competitor for years to come. That's not a bridge worth traveling. Arguably it was Valve who burned that bridge to begin with, not EA. If they burned a bridge with Valve fanboys, they probably didn't lose more than a handful of sales. Sure they lost a lot of "Well I was gonna buy it but this excuse is convenient" ppl who were never gonna buy it to begin with no matter what they say. If it wasn't this excuse, it would be another excuse like project $10 or forcing an EA account registration or "I won't buy BF3 on principle because of the lack of DirectX 7 support even tho I run GTX 580s in SLI" or any other excuse. In actuality, this really isn't going to hurt them in BF3 or new game sales, especially if this issue keeps being brought up because Origin is getting more publicity than they could by throwing tons of money at it.
#141 Edited by TPoppaPuff (284 posts) -
@Meowshi
And how much is Valve.. oh wait, they give you TF2 and soon to be Dota 2, so you'll have a blind eye to objectivity. ;) 
 
@xbob42:
And I really hate Valve apologists and EA hating hipsters, so you can just imagine how little I think of your biased opinion.
 
And Gabe can plead ignorant all he wants; that's why theres laws in court saying you don't have to testify against yourself. Pleading the 5th is his right no matter how silly the cover up may be. He doesn't know Steam's own Terms of Service with publishers? LOL, okay Gabe. I'm sure you don't. 
 
Seriously though, what he is actually saying “I don’t really know what they’re referring to by that,” is that he does indeed know exactly why he pulled them off Steam, but he is saying he doesn't really know what they're referring to as "restrictive." He doesn't view those terms that limits publishers selling DLC that no other online retailer has created as restrictive. That's the only thing that statement means.  He later goes on to say, "In general with Steam and Steam partners its incumbent on us to create value for those partners...to create enough value so that is makes sense for partners to use the technology, the tools, services" As in,  "In general with Steam and Steam partners its incumbent on us to create value for those partners by hosting the content...to create enough value so that is makes sense for partners to use the technology, the tools, services" And how do you become a "Steam partner?" By putting your game on Steam (and letting them host the content online) and giving Valve a cut of each sale.  
 
So according to you in short EA is lying. In long form you proved that Gabe doesn't want to be the bad guy but Valve was the company that pulled the games, not EA. Unfortunately for you, according to reality, in short EA was telling the truth.  And also Gabe's just going around saying "I dunno." 
 
If the names were reversed, the mass opinion would be reversed. That's what sad. Super jaded, fight-the-machine, so-paranoid-your-gullible types like yourself just don't realize it. Now go wear your MTV produced "MTV Sucks" t-shirt you bought from Hot Topic and rage on some other issue. There's enough 'non-comformists' following the same "EA Sucks" mantra you've been spewing since it was the trendy thing to do. Valve's played you like a fiddle; do I need more proof?
#142 Posted by Summoboomo (142 posts) -
@mrhankey said:
YES! Also, I'm glad to see someone agrees that  Dragon Age 2 sucked.
There are people who thought Dragon Age 2 was good?
 
Who are they? I have an RPG Maker 3 game I'd love to sell them.
#143 Posted by MadMagyar92 (67 posts) -
@Buzzkill
Dude, you couldn't be more right. While I don't like this sort of silence, the fact that Valve has been so hesitant to criticize a move worthy of criticism exemplifies the quality of their products, their download service, and their overall integrity. They know they're the best, but they remain humble and confident in their decisions. They don't need to bash EA for us to know that EA is being irrational and overzealous in their business decisions.
#144 Edited by TPoppaPuff (284 posts) -
@xbob42 said:

  Gabe himself has replied to several of my e-mails, all of which have been as far from business-related as possible, he reads every single e-mail he gets and responds to a massive amount of them.  You can say whatever the fuck you want, but I base what I say off experience, not off hearsay... I also still get letters from Santa.
 

 
EA, at its absolute best, has been hit-and-miss with me.  Their games are of varying quality (They're not making Battlefield, Dice is.).
           



Also, EA owns DICE, so EA is making Battlefield. 
 
***
 
^ You know what that is? Me bursting your bubble, squirt.
#145 Posted by MindChamber (349 posts) -

holy shit, this poppapuffy dude has alot of unimportant shit to say about unimportant shit.

#146 Posted by Krystal_Sackful (810 posts) -

Its ok. If they don't want my money. They won't have it.

#147 Posted by YukoAsho (2122 posts) -
@xbob42 said:
@KaneRobot said:

@xbob42 said:

God I can't stand EA apologists.   
 How about Valve slappies? Can you stand them?  It's hilarious you think Valve is some altruistic, only-out-for-the-gamers endeavor, compared to EA's evil empire. Gabe playing dumb about "what EA wants" is just as much bullshit as all that nonsense you accuse EA of "always" putting out there. Gabe is just as big a huckster as any talking head in the game industry. The fact that you're suckered in by it shows that at least he's doing a good job, at least.
Let me put it in simple terms for you:
 
Valve has earned my respect.  Gabe has earned my respect.  They release amazing games on their amazing service that gives me extremely discounted games in an insanely easy manner to obtain.  Their customer service has been the best in the industry EVERY TIME I'VE USED IT.  Gabe himself has replied to several of my e-mails, all of which have been as far from business-related as possible, he reads every single e-mail he gets and responds to a massive amount of them.  You can say whatever the fuck you want, but I base what I say off experience, not off hearsay.
 
EA, at its absolute best, has been hit-and-miss with me.  Their games are of varying quality (They're not making Battlefield, Dice is.) and their customer support is consistently dogshit.  Just the other day they refused to allow me to change my registered e-mail address (And I had proof that I was both the account owner and receipts for all the games, all of which were purchased on STEAM, and which EA cockblocked my access to because you need your EA account.) because to do so is "impossible," even though you can do so right on their website...  but only if you have your login info.  Having proof of account ownership is clearly not a secure way to verify an account to them, but a simple login/pass is!  Awesome.   Can't wait to see if this carries over to Origin -- OH WAIT it does because my EA account was linked or merged or something with my Origin account.  So I can now access none of it.  What set all this off, you ask?  The crappy e-mail account I linked to hotmail got hacked (I don't like EA spam or any spam.) and because that's all you need to change your password for EA's service, that also got changed.  Now, before you go off on how I probably got myself hacked, it was external, nothing else on my system was touched aside from my EA account and my e-mail account.  Not even sure what the fuck they'd do with an EA account unless they were just fucking with me.  I use the same credentials (e-mail) for Steam and that didn't get touched, though I changed the verified e-mail just to be safe.  They helped me just fine even though I was asking the SAME EXACT THING I asked EA.  That's why I fucking hate EA and you can slobber on their cock if you want.  They're consistently shit and have a poor reputation for a reason.
This right here is why I almost never buy EA games on PC to begin with, and why I certainly never will now.  At least EA can't force Origin on console games, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
They're not as bad as Ubisoft on the PC, but they're fucking CLOSE.
#148 Posted by Wolverine (4282 posts) -

EA's problem with Steam is that they want to keep their 30 percent.

#149 Posted by DoctorWelch (2765 posts) -

Im scrolling down looking at people arguing or talking about random crap that doesnt even make sense. There isnt a discussion here in any way or form. Steam exists as it is and is great for consumers and has proven itself over and over to be an amazing service. On the other hand, EA is the company that is one of the worst when it comes to how it deals with its customers and what it does to its games, especially on the PC. Its extremely obvious that EA is just being the stupid fuckers they are and making an extremely idiotic decision in every way. This does nothing for them but making them look like fools and take their games of the one service that everyone goes to when they want to play PC games. This is most likely EA being greedy or stubborn douche bags and then making a terrible business decision because for some reason most game companies are run by immature little children.

#150 Posted by Revenant86 (156 posts) -

allright guys here's the long and short of it 
 
Ea is a corrupt corporate machine with no other purpose then to maximize profits with as much well-marketed shovel-ware as they can. (Dragon Age 2, Crysis 2) Then, once that's done. They are going to take the GOOD GAMES that people care about. Use these games to hold companies like Valve Hostage, basically saying "If you don't get of us as much of the  profit share as we wan't. we won't sell our game on you're network"  
 
They know Valve is a company that actually cares about it's consumers, and are going to use the cries of the community (COD AND BATTLEFIELD ON STEAM PLZ) to force them into submission.
 
Simple as that

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.