Discussion in 'Games' started by ZenZimZaliben, Sep 12, 2011.
Ok dude I get it now, STEAM is charity.
yeah, because that's what you quoted.
Yeah, I've gifted games to Marineborn and he has gifted me some based on the conversion rate at the time. But Origin is EA's Steam, Steam isn't just a store, when you buy a boxed copy of a Valve game you still need Steam, their games are VAC controlled, Steam is Valve, and thats part of the reason some companies don't like it, they believe Steam and Valve should run separate operations, which makes a bit of sense.
Well those companies, who is really just EA, can eat a dick. This issue with EA is all about VAC vs SecuROM and the difference in the DRMs. I am sorry they can't come to an agreement on this and it looks like BF3 will not be on Steam. I personally have no issues with Origin, so it doesn't matter to me.
My personal opinion on the whole ordeal comes down to this. Origin, BF3, and SWTOR all landing about the exact sametime is not coincidence. Sure they could release games and require you to have Origin as you install it. But they want to build a user base thats aware of content being on there. So they wait till they have 2 of the largest titles of the year releasing to let Origin out of the bag. Then they say BF3 isn't coming to Steam. Now thats not a big deal at launch, people who want the game are going to get it. But the thing it does impact is future sales. Steam is the go to distributor for deals. I've seen so many more people pick up BC2 each time it went on sale.
So what I see happening is, EA/Origin holding their ground on BF3, they want to get as many pre-orders as they can on BF3 and TOR. Then 2 months down the line they will fold and it will land on Steam once a majority of the sales have already passed through Origin. And they will do that because there are some people who want it, but not that bad, and the deal breaker is it being on Steam. Guess we'll see if that comes true or not, but it makes sense to me. Without 2 of the largest titles of the year backing Origin, it might not really have a leg to stand on, to give it a chance to survive they have to make these titles exclusive till the majority of the sales are done.
My preorder was gifted to me and couldnt be done through Origins, but i would have went through origins if i could have!
I'll buy the disc, but isn't Origin needed to launch it anyway? :S
In any case, I find that one online service is enough, and I already have steam so. That's my reason, I don't have anything against it per se.
It's unknown I believe if Origin will be needed to launch it, but I would bet my money on it being needed.
I think it is also Unknown. Think there is a lot of confusion going on with the renaming of EA Account to Origin. You will have to have an Origin account, but that will be the same as your EA account. You shouldn't have to do anything.
There is a difference between an Origin Account and the Origin Client. I do not see any hard facts, just a lot of FUD, that the client will be needed. It probably will be so EA can spam me with all their great game ads and crap, but I'm hoping not. I REALLY do not want another client running in the background sucking up system resources when not required.
You will need Origin to play BF3. Period. It was setup that way in the Alpha, and they have said they are keeping the same setup, just making adjustments. Your EA Account is now an Origin Account, and you sign in through Origin, launch the game which opens the Browser-based Server Browser, and connect to servers through that. Since you asked for Sources here are several:
Ehhh that really sucks. Makes me want to not buy the game... but of course that won't happen.
It is really not much different than running steam. In my opinion the browser based system during alpha worked great for me.
Heres my question. Is it better to preorder it on Origin or to get it at Gamestop? What are the perks (if any) that Origin has over what Gamestop is offering for the game?
Bought it off Origin to get Beta and since we are forced to use why not just preorder it there and get the beta?
Don't really care for a hard copy, if I really want a hard copy I'd just buy it when its on sale.
Otherwise I want to play the game as soon as possible and to me nothing is faster than preloading and playing the game the exact moment its released.
I'd perfer steam, but since we have no choice... Also I'm kind of optimistic with Origin. Perhaps now that steam has another potential competitor this will result in some benefits for the consumers.
I say it above, but you get the early access to the Beta and a DLC.
Google u lazy turd
I was also told that if we own BC2 wed get beta access as well, but i personally find that hard to believe.
If i went straight to google for everything, it woudlnt give us, the community, a chance to bond.
which is why I called u a turd and not one of my usual comments that would get me another infraction
pre ordered........just waiting
I agree, there are prices are indeed high, unless the game is on sale. There standard prices are usually higher than the same game on disc from an online retailer. If anyone disagrees with this, simply do a comparison.
I agree that an open API would be awesome, but it isn't gonna happen, because the whole point of running the Steam platform is to lock you in and prevent you selling your game (think all that crap about games publishers trying to "combat" second hand games that they have no right to do).
What we need are the likes of www.gog.com with their totally unrestricted DRM-free model to become more successful. I've bought a few games off them now, some of them which I already had, specifically to support them. That's the only thing that will potentially shake things up.
Of course Steam generally price their games higher than retail (I'm not talking special offers). Just do a comparison of a handful of games. Here's one example to start you off: (I realize that you're in the USA and will see the dollar price for this game and I'm in the UK)
CoD: Black Ops
Steam price: £40
Amazon price: £20 for the disc
Neither is on special offer, so Steam are a complete rip-off!
Now, to be fair, I've looked up a couple of other retailers too:
Game: £20 like Amazon for the disc - but they offer the download only version for £35 WTF?
play.com £35 for the disc version. Very uncompetitive with the other retailers, I think you'll agree.
I get the impression that there's some sort of cartel-like agreement to keep the retailers in business, where you pay less for having the convenience of downloading (assuming a fast internet connection, of course), just look at the Game example.
Prices on Steam are usually dictated by the publisher, not Steam itself. $59.99 is the price Activision wants for Black Ops.
I pointed that out and everyone just kind of ignored it. Apparently the easiest way to respond to a rebuttal is to pretend it never happened...
most likely the disc version for me, EA games are sold cheap in our area (asia) and cheaper vs steam.
Cause it wasn't a rebuttal. The set price for a game is not the issue. It is the lack of conversion when the price is translated to a foreign market.
I'm sure that's true. It's complementary to my point, too.
So you're essentially saying Steam is bad because they allow the Publishers to set the price and decide when their content should be on sale? I believe a new copy of Black Ops for PC costs the same at GameStop as it does on Steam. Amazon tends to sell their stuff at a loss knowing customers will generally buy other good through them to more than compensate, so it's hard to compare to them.
It is when the Publisher sets the price. That means the Publisher isn't doing conversion probably because they know it will result in less profit for them. Blame Activision\EA for not properly pricing their products in your\those regions.
Separate names with a comma.