Battlefield 3: "Retailer-Specific Pre-order DLC" Boycott

[xenocide]

that would be a terrible idea, IMO. for instance i bought dirt 3 through steam. dirt 3 uses games for windows live. so i have to run steam and have games for windows live up to date and running in the background while i game. now, if codemasters had their own digital distribution portal they would probably use something like their own games for windows live to control piracy, etc. development/production companies DONT want to spend their own resources on distribution so they outsource to steam. now, a retailer like gamestop may be able to pull something similar off but i dont see them charging any less for games bought online than bought in store.

This is the problem I see. If everyone starts their own distribution platform, I'm stuck making a dozen accounts and running a dozen different unnecessary programs in the background. Steam benefited heavily from being the first to the game, by a number of years at that. There are almost no PC gamers that don't have a Steam account with a number of games. On top of that, the community loves Steam. Sure, it wasn't always as good as it is now, but I would not want to replace it with something from EA, or Activision, or Gamestop, just so they can pocket more money while simultaneously expecting me to pay more for inferior products.

GFWL is basically the same thing as Origins from what I see, and that sucks, so I assume Origins is the same way. Another cumbersome unnecessary digital distribution platform that I am uninterested in getting into. I have a GFWL account from when I bought Bulletstorm., and god is that program awful. The fact is, Valve went all-in with Steam, and they still to this day offer an exceptional experience, where as most people encroaching on their business platform are doing it solely for more money.

 

[rpsgc]

This is the problem I see. If everyone starts their own distribution platform, I'm stuck making a dozen accounts and running a dozen different unnecessary programs in the background. Steam benefited heavily from being the first to the game, by a number of years at that. There are almost no PC gamers that don't have a Steam account with a number of games. On top of that, the community loves Steam. Sure, it wasn't always as good as it is now, but I would not want to replace it with something from EA, or Activision, or Gamestop, just so they can pocket more money while simultaneously expecting me to pay more for inferior products.

So basically you're saying you want a Steam monopoly of DD? Hell, let's end retail games and make Steam the sole provider of games. That ought of be fun! Because they would totally not abuse that position of power and rip us off right? Like they already do to their European customers, with their $1 = 1 € crap.


Nah, Steam is awesome, Steam is Father, Steam is Motherland, Steam is God. Must obey.

"It's not Steam I dislike, it's its fanclub that gets me."

 

[Easy Rhino]

So basically you're saying you want a Steam monopoly of DD? Hell, let's end retail games and make Steam the sole provider of games. That ought of be fun! Because they would totally not abuse that position of power and rip us off right? Like they already do to their European customers, with their $1 = 1 € crap.


Nah, Steam is awesome, Steam is Father, Steam is Motherland, Steam is God. Must obey.

"It's not Steam I dislike, it's its fanclub that gets me."

relax, bud. nobody is saying steam should have a government sanctioned monopoly on digital game distribution. it is just that at this point they do it the best! steam is valve which is a great development company. if any other development company can do it better than steam than you will see consumers jumping over eventually. in business, those that take big risks and win, win big. steam was a HUGE risk and it paid off handsomely. now they are the leader thanks to their early position in the digital distribution industry. they deserve their status as of today. but we will see what the future holds.

 

[1Kurgan1]

The one thing I appreciate about Steam over all else, is, they maybe the 2nd largest game reseller (behind Gamestop). But they offer deals constantly, I have over 150 games added to my library since last March, and almost all of them have been 50% off or more. There just hasn't been a way to get all these great games at such a great price, lord knows Steam wouldn't even have to offer all these great deals, but they do.

 

[xenocide]

So basically you're saying you want a Steam monopoly of DD? Hell, let's end retail games and make Steam the sole provider of games. That ought of be fun! Because they would totally not abuse that position of power and rip us off right? Like they already do to their European customers, with their $1 = 1 € crap.


Nah, Steam is awesome, Steam is Father, Steam is Motherland, Steam is God. Must obey.

"It's not Steam I dislike, it's its fanclub that gets me."

I want the best service to get the most recognition. I've used Steam since 2003, and it's only gotten better. All of my friends are already on Steam, almost all of the games I play are through Steam, and I honestly would rather not have it any other way. If European customers are treated differently that's rather unfortunate, I know for a fact Australian customer's get a little screwed, but I think there are reason's potentially outside of Valve's control for that.

As for your whole 1984 / Brave New World* mantra, shove it. I'm not worshiping the software, just giving it credit and criticizing clearly inferior services. You have such an issue with Steam? Go have fun on Origins. Nobody is preventing you personally from switching if you think it's an equally viable option. But when you're paying $60 again for a game you already bought through it, because their downloads are only valid for 1 year (it's in their ToS), let me know how that worked out.

* - I understand there is a huge difference between the two, but was using them as a pro-government dystopian standard.

 

[yogurt_21]

what the hell is the point of boycotting this? I dont see anything wrong with it.:shadedshu

truth be told if you're refering to the op neither do I, I find it no different than a collectors edition, etc.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Nah, Steam is awesome, Steam is Father, Steam is Motherland, Steam is God. Must obey.

I am glad you finally see the light. Better late then never.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Well just announced that the Warfare pack will unlock for everyone at a later date, boycott over. I figured it would work like that, people just panicked and started looting like the world was over. As always, when in doubt.... panic!

 

[Chosen Juan]

truth be told if you're refering to the op neither do I, I find it no different than a collectors edition, etc.

The main gripe that people had problems with was the fact that they were offering weapons as a pre-order bonus, which could possibly affect gameplay in multiplayer. If they were only "gold" guns or something similar, I doubt many people would have reacted. But the fact that they were exclusive weapons that could affect multiplayer made people complain. In addition to that, at the time of the boycott the Physical Warfare Pack was only announced in the UK if you pre-ordered, so at that time many people thought if you lived somewhere else (US, etc.), then you would miss out on the weapons.

It didn't affect me as much as the boycotters did, but it did bother me a little bit at the possibility that someone in the UK could have a suppressed SKS sniper rifle because he pre-ordered, while I could not have that weapon suppressed because either 1) I did not pre-order or 2) I do not live in the UK. Regardless, I was going to get the game anyway.

Either way, it seems that they've fixed the problem by releasing the Physical Warfare Pack to everyone at a later date.

 

[yogurt_21]

The main gripe that people had problems with was the fact that they were offering weapons as a pre-order bonus, which could possibly affect gameplay in multiplayer. If they were only "gold" guns or something similar, I doubt many people would have reacted. But the fact that they were exclusive weapons that could affect multiplayer made people complain. In addition to that, at the time of the boycott the Physical Warfare Pack was only announced in the UK if you pre-ordered, so at that time many people thought if you lived somewhere else (US, etc.), then you would miss out on the weapons.

It didn't affect me as much as the boycotters did, but it did bother me a little bit at the possibility that someone in the UK could have a suppressed SKS sniper rifle because he pre-ordered, while I could not have that weapon suppressed because either 1) I did not pre-order or 2) I do not live in the UK. Regardless, I was going to get the game anyway.

Either way, it seems that they've fixed the problem by releasing the Physical Warfare Pack to everyone at a later date.

teh meh, I've never yet seen a downloadable weapon pack that actually changed the gameplay. Not in any fps I've ever played. I't not like they gave them an ultralight mini-gun with unlimited ammo and that never overheated.

 

[BumbleBee]

EA pre-order bonuses and DLC can be ridiculous.

you can buy XP in various titles, you can buy unlockable content that is FREE, pre-order bonus cars in Need for Speed that are overpowered, pre-order bonus armor in Dragon Age and Dead Space that is overpowered. you get the point.

 

[Mr McC]

I am now mildly concerned about this origins-exclusive crap that came up in the Crysis 2 Steam removal thread.

 

[1Kurgan1]

The main gripe that people had problems with was the fact that they were offering weapons as a pre-order bonus, which could possibly affect gameplay in multiplayer. If they were only "gold" guns or something similar, I doubt many people would have reacted. But the fact that they were exclusive weapons that could affect multiplayer made people complain. In addition to that, at the time of the boycott the Physical Warfare Pack was only announced in the UK if you pre-ordered, so at that time many people thought if you lived somewhere else (US, etc.), then you would miss out on the weapons.

It didn't affect me as much as the boycotters did, but it did bother me a little bit at the possibility that someone in the UK could have a suppressed SKS sniper rifle because he pre-ordered, while I could not have that weapon suppressed because either 1) I did not pre-order or 2) I do not live in the UK. Regardless, I was going to get the game anyway.

Either way, it seems that they've fixed the problem by releasing the Physical Warfare Pack to everyone at a later date.

They never said it was exclusive to my knowledge, people just assumed it. To make what I would assume be the only suppressor for the Recon class specific to that wouldn't make a ton of sense. Just like Pre-orders for BC2, Gamestop had the AKS-74u, and other shops had other guns, but no matter who you were, you unlocked them eventually by gather points. Just through those retailers you had it at level 1.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Well just announced that the Warfare pack will unlock for everyone at a later date, boycott over. I figured it would work like that, people just panicked and started looting like the world was over. As always, when in doubt.... panic!

Yeah I was right.

Its your Mama
Its your Daddy
Its that n$%^a, in the alley
Its your doctor, when in need
Want some coke? Have some weed
You know it as your friend
Your main boy, thick and thin

Steam's your Pusherman.
Steam's my Pusherman.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yeah I was right.

Its your Mama
Its your Daddy
Its that n$%^a, in the alley
Its your doctor, when in need
Want some coke? Have some weed
You know it as your friend
Your main boy, thick and thin

Steam's your Pusherman.
Steam's my Pusherman.

 

[Mr McC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMqVrUSz62o

 

[TheMailMan78]

 

[BumbleBee]

<puts a Hello My Name is: YODAWG tag on her chest>

New Jack City was such a good movie.

 

[TheMailMan78]

<puts a Hello My Name is: YODAWG tag on her chest>

New Jack City was such a good movie.

I liked "Colors" better IMO.

 

[BumbleBee]

lol

 

[TheLaughingMan]

How did a Curtis Mayfield reference spark video posts about Ice-T??

And Steppenwolf makes the Pusher seem too evil to be a Steam parallel.

 

[TheMailMan78]

How did a Curtis Mayfield reference spark video posts about Ice-T??

lol noob.

 

[Chosen Juan]

They never said it was exclusive to my knowledge, people just assumed it. To make what I would assume be the only suppressor for the Recon class specific to that wouldn't make a ton of sense. Just like Pre-orders for BC2, Gamestop had the AKS-74u, and other shops had other guns, but no matter who you were, you unlocked them eventually by gather points. Just through those retailers you had it at level 1.

Yeah true, they were mainly assumptions. It's just that when it was announced it was only announced for the UK, and they did not specify if it was going to be released at a later date or not. If they announced it saying it would be available for pre-orders in all regions, and that it would be available to everyone at a later date, then I doubt this would have escalated to that level that it has.

Either way, I'm not really a fan of DLC. I feel like it's just a way to get people's money. I'm not exactly talking about pre-order bonuses, but content like maps etc. for games across the board. Many games aren't even released yet and there is already DLC ready to be sold. For me personally, it just feels like I'm only getting part of the game unless I buy the DLC. As a company though, they are making money so why not.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Yeah true, they were mainly assumptions. It's just that when it was announced it was only announced for the UK, and they did not specify if it was going to be released at a later date or not. If they announced it saying it would be available for pre-orders in all regions, and that it would be available to everyone at a later date, then I doubt this would have escalated to that level that it has.

Either way, I'm not really a fan of DLC. I feel like it's just a way to get people's money. I'm not exactly talking about pre-order bonuses, but content like maps etc. for games across the board. Many games aren't even released yet and there is already DLC ready to be sold. For me personally, it just feels like I'm only getting part of the game unless I buy the DLC. As a company though, they are making money so why not.

The games still half a year away, just like they have said we get Karkand free, but we don't even know when. It would make sense to make assumptions once that Warfare pack had gone global, but being only in the UK so far, too assume a lot of info about it doesn't makes sense, because, how much sense would it make to give Brits the Warfare pack and no one else?

I do agree with DLC being am money grabbed, but BC2's system hasn't bothered me at all. Vietnam brought a lot to the table, I don't personally enjoy it, but I have enjoyed BC2 so much I don't care that I spent $15 extra on it. Then the rest of the maps being free for me hasn't been an issue, only bites you if you buy the game used.