Poll: EA vs Valve or "The hilariously short battle for a consumer base"

[SpectacularWebHead]

So, as a lot of stuff has popped up recently, with EA making comments about valve, snide comments and thinly veiled contempt, Disingenous assertions, if you will, with valve remaining neutral toward them. Well, I've had enough of the formerly mentioned assertions, and I think that we should settle this like Brannigans love, Hard and Fast.

So, the situation is this, all other games developers, companies etc have been dissolved equally into valve or EA. Valve and EA are now the only games Publishers existing, but, they all have many teams or developers. To keep unbiased, we'll say it's 50/50 on shitty and good developers dissolved into each company, so, for every Bungie there is a Treyarch (Again, you decide which sucks less etc).

Valve and EA are now on the brink of collapsing the other company, and becoming the only publisher, online seller, developer etc in the entire world. Thus the consumer base and sales of each company are now deciding in it's fate. Whoever sells the most games in a certain period of time is the going to be the last publisher left out there, thus it is in your hands.

Now, knowing this, do you buy game exclusively from Steam or From Origin?

(Essentially, I put down this concept because the MOD's would fuck me up for saying Steam or Valve)

 

[Orange12345]

If I had to pick one Valve no question, but ideally both would get enough support to continue going. A monopoly is the worst thing for consumers no matter who has it.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Steam is better than Origin, but knowing their buisness practices for every game "Super-Valve" released we'd see 5 or 6 from "Mega-EA". The sheer volume would make them more appealing.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

A monopoly is the worst thing for consumers no matter who has it.

Nah. The only thing that is objectively bad for consumers is a corporation that has grown large enough to make bad practices profitable. EA is so large that it is always in their (shareholders') best interest to invest as little as possible into their products(across the board) while squeezing as much raw production as possible from their employees. That's why EA gives us games like Dragon Age 2 (reused dungeons, half-assed quests, etc.) and big quasi-scandals surrounding employee abuse.

A monopoly is certainly one way to become so large, but the actual concept of a monopoly is not inherently bad. Everything depends on who is in charge. Take a company like Valve, staffed with happy, motivated gamers who clearly do give a shit about the industry, and a monopoly might actually be a very beneficial thing for consumers. The idea that Origin is somehow valid because it represents competition, and competition is somehow always good, is reductive and, well, a little stupid. You have to take into account the specifics - the people involved and their motivations.

You wouldn't be happy about the Devil throwing his hat into the digital distribution ring, would you? Any competition isn't necessarily good competition.

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't exclusive anything. I filter down what I buy with such brilliant ideas as deciding for myself what looks good against what is worth the money and working with it. It is by mere coincidence that this lands me with Sony and Steam primarily.

However, I should acknowledge that EA tends to be a shit company.

 

[Sixcess]

I like Valve/Steam and trust them. They've earned the affection many gamers have for them, with good business practices, competence and not sounding like idiots every time they open their mouths.

EA on the other hand... I honestly think if EA took absolute control of the video game industry it would be the end of the industry. I'm not even exagerating when I say I honestly don't think they have the slightest idea what they are doing anymore - their yammering about Steam sales 'devaluing' IPs, their mismanagement of TOR, their insane expectations for Dead Space 3 which are pretty much guaranteed to kill that franchise stone dead, their daydreams about charging FPS players for reloading... You literally could not make up the nonsense that they spout on an almost daily basis and the idea of that lot having absolute control of the games industry is just unthinkable.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Based purely upon the actual games and libraries essentially comparable to what exist now, I'd go with EA. Third party support having been split whichever undecided way, EA just makes and puts out way way way more games that I actually enjoy.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

meh, EA makes games that I like more, only because they bought out those certain studios, but steam is much better and if it meant getting EA to stfu and get out, then I'd buy from valve every time.

Seriously, fuck EA and their horrid business Ideals and practices.

 

[BartyMae]

Valve has begun to worry me a little...but that's just it - worrying. Also, Valve actually makes games that I enjoy - some of them my all-time favorites - so...EA, not so much. I also don't like buying products from EA that are more than $5 at the time of purchase.

Yep, Valve/Steam.

 

[Orange12345]

A monopoly is the worst thing for consumers no matter who has it.

Nah. The only thing that is objectively bad for consumers is a corporation that has grown large enough to make bad practices profitable. EA is so large that it is always in their (shareholders') best interest to invest as little as possible into their products(across the board) while squeezing as much raw production as possible from their employees. That's why EA gives us games like Dragon Age 2 (reused dungeons, half-assed quests, etc.) and big quasi-scandals surrounding employee abuse.

A monopoly is certainly one way to become so large, but the actual concept of a monopoly is not inherently bad. Everything depends on who is in charge. Take a company like Valve, staffed with happy, motivated gamers who clearly do give a shit about the industry, and a monopoly might actually be a very beneficial thing for consumers. The idea that Origin is somehow valid because it represents competition, and competition is somehow always good, is reductive and, well, a little stupid. You have to take into account the specifics - the people involved and their motivations.

You wouldn't be happy about the Devil throwing his hat into the digital distribution ring, would you? Any competition isn't necessarily good competition.

Valve is a great company run by great people. The reason they are so great is because they have realized that building consumer good will is FAR more valuable long term then short term profits however, in a monopoly situation consumer good will means absolutely nothing because the consumers have no other choice but to buy from the one source. I am not saying that valve would immediately become the evil corporate machine if they were given a monopoly I'm sure that the folks that work there would keep a level of decency and respect for their consumers, but that's really the problem those people won't always work for valve eventually they will retire, change jobs, get fired, etc. Someone will replace them perhaps with less motivation and eventually cracks will form.

Also yes I do think that competition is always good without it comes complacency and stagnation, why should Valve ever waste time and money making Steam better if no one else is trying to make a better platform (that applies to games as well). Competition doesn't just give consumers choice it forces the creators to always make better and better products or fall behind.

I fail to see what the devil has to do with anything and no I wouldn't really care if he started a digital distribution platform, what does that have to do with anything?

Captcha- you win - THE CAPTCHA HAS SPOKEN

 

[Orange12345]

Shit, double post

 

[Varil]

Captcha- you win - THE CAPTCHA HAS SPOKEN

Shit, double post

This made me laugh.

And personally, I prefer Valve. Yeah, yeah, they're in it for the money too. Duh, if I managed to make a living making videogames I'd want the payout as well. But I also think that they genuinely enjoy their work(or at least let their employees enjoy their work), and want to keep good relations with their fanbase.

EA, however, seems define "good relations" as "you give us money and take whatever we decide to give you in return quietly."

 

[Cabisco]

I prefer the games EA make and I enjoy making unpopular decisions in remembrence of Richard Nixon so I'd save EA and drive a knife into the heart of Valve.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I'll be the first one to say it! XBLA! Because my laptop is too shit to run anything above the Football Manager games!

 

[Lilani]

A monopoly is the worst thing for consumers no matter who has it.

The problem I have with arguments like this against Steam is they could easily not have the monopoly. Origin could get so much more business if EA would stop being assholes about everything that they do and at least try to listen to their customer base. Every single thing that their customers have complained about for the last five years or so has been replied with "Eh...how about no."

I could understand calling Steam an undeserved monopoly if its competition was doing everything right but still somehow coming up short, but EA has done way too much to sabotage the success of Origin for the two to even be comparable. When a company can stare a moneymaking and customer-satisfying event like the Steam Summer Sales and object to it because it "cheapens the IP," that is when you know the company is neither interested in making money nor interested in making its customers happy. I don't know what is wrong with EA, but they are stubbornly throwing away money and customers like there's no tomorrow.

Are monopolies a good thing? Absolutely not. Should we give our money to inferior services out of pity and reward a company's horrible behavior and treatment of customers in order to combat a monopoly? Hell no. I would rather see Valve have the monopoly then reward EA for un-apologetically shitting on my face on a very regular basis. The only way they are going to even consider changing their ways and giving us the respect we deserve as customers is if we just stop giving them our money and give it to someone who does deserve it.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

This will never end, because PC gamers have no self restraint. They will continue to buy games from EA no matter what they do. They will whine and bleat, and because they still paid monsy for games, EA will ignore their remarks and do what they like.

It's not so much PC gamers that have no self restraint as consumers in general. Most people will just buy something to suit their needs and wants at the moment, without thinking about the consequences, especially long term, of doing so. And I think we can all say that we have been guilty of this at some time or another.

As for Valve or EA, I would have to choose Valve, simply because they seem to be consumer driven, wheras EA seems to be shareholder driven. However, if EA releases a game that I want at a reasonable price with no bullshit attached (like day one DLC), I wouldn't think twice to buy it. However, this has not happened in a while.

Now, if I were to choose any company to be our supreme digital distribution overlords, I would choos CD Projekt, simply because they are even more consumer friendly than Valve. No DRM? Hell yes.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Non PC gamers have less reason to hate them. Most of the developers EA supposedly ruined never made console games, so we have less reason to care about that. We don't care that EA makes you use Origin. We don't care about you having to use always-online DRM or SECURom. In short, we don't have to care what EA does to you, because barely any of it affects us.

Captcha: Riff Raff - see, even the Captcha system thinks of you that way.

What I was trying to say was that a lack of self restraint applies to just about any consumer, not just PC gamers, and applies to many situations, not just gaming ones. So, while it is a problem (I'll be the first one to say that gamers, especially PC gamers, need to do a lot more voting with their wallets), it is hardly one that is exclusive to PC gamers, and should not be used as criticism of that particular group. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my first post.

However, in response to this post, I must say that it seems to me that console gamers have a lot of reasons to hate EA too. Overcharging for DLC, rushing games, and giving games a "broader appeal" (or, in layman's terms, making it more like every other game out there right now) are all things that EA has done that affect console gamers as much as PC gamers. Plus, EA has done a lot with online passes and similar things, something that only affects console gamers.

Now, if you don't have any problems with EA's buisness practices, that's cool, but it doesn't change the fact that people do have legitimate problems with them, and they have every right to voice their concerns about those problems.