Poll: The likelihood of an OriginOS

[Rariow]

First thing that comes to mind is "Not a chance". Making a digital distribution platform is relatively easy. Making it good is the hard bit, and that's why Origin is what it is. Making a whole OS is a whole other level of commitment. Valve can afford to put that amount of money into this, because they're getting dirty rich off Steam, and have a huge amount of positive PR about it. Neither of those is true for Origin. Unless Origin gets popular, quick, I don't see this happening for at least a good half decade into SteamOS's existence, even then, only if it's extremely successful, and even THEN I see it being pretty unlikely.

Nice and simply put: Origin isn't a big enough competitor to Steam for EA to do this.

 

[Snotnarok]

EA already tried a home console just like this, sell the rights and means of making it 3DO I believe. They should be pretty hesitant to make another, see how well Steam Box does, wait till other consoles are out a while then MAAAYBE try it.
They just don't have the same loyalty, I mean you don't see the origin logo blowing up any wallets in gifs do you? Well maybe not in the same way since Origin has the Sims 3 and that is just a wallet nuker as I understand it ...over 3k in content...what the hell?

 

[Yopaz]

Absolutely 100% no chance of ever happening. The entire point of SteamOS is to be an open system.

Pretty much this. Gabe Newell fears that Microsoft will make their future operating systems too closed off and wants to make an open competitor that can also be a gaming platform. Only time will tell if that turns out a success or not...

EA on the other hand could probably benefit (short term) on having the OS closed. They already condemn mod support in their games seeing their treatment of Battlefield 3 mods so if an OS grows slightly more closed it might even make it harder to mod the games. EA could get behind that. Making an open platform seems very unlikely though. If Microsoft start taking cuts of EA's money though... I still doubt they would make their own OS since as mr. Jensen said, no-one would install another OS or get another system just because. People are complaining about getting a second client installed on their Windows computer along with Steam. Juggling between multiple operating systems wouldn't be worth it for most.

 

[Battenberg]

Let me put it to you this way, Valve is a very popular musician that has won numerous Grammies and has made some of the best pop songs of the last decade and a half, and EA is an, egotistical, narcissistic, mediocre pop song "artist" that somehow has a legions of fangirls and is trying to stay relevant by being really immature with the occasional publicity stunt or by ripping off the guys with actual talent because he's too afraid to write original stuff on his own, Valve being one of them.

Basically Valve = Adele and EA = Kanye West?

Sadly the next generation of consoles aren't especially exciting (at least imo) which may push more people onto PC gaming. If this happens I can't see EA not at least considering bringing out their own OS (or less likely their own console) to take advantage of this since they always follow the money.

Who knows, if they do maybe they'll make something good. They've certainly at least been trying to fix their company image recently which may signal a change in attitudes towards customers. Of course if they make something bad and it fails miserably then it'll teach them (and potentially other big names in the game industry) a serious lesson so either way I'm all for it.

 

[Sight Unseen]

EA is greedy and careless, some might even call it evil, Valve manages to do DRM, micro-transactions and DLC properly but EA keeps screwing it over, twisting what was once a great idea into a money making machine at the expense of the consumer.

This caught my eye.

How exactly were DRM or micro-transactions ever a good idea in any way, and how does Valve do DLC properly? Valve's idea of DLC is extra hats. In first-person games. Obviously you might argue that cosmetic DLC is far better than something like Mass Effect 3's 'Citadel', but at that point I'd have to just bow out due to a matter of opinion, because if I'm going to be paying extra on a game I'd like to get some sort of fairly significant extra gameplay time out of it.

As far as "OriginOS" - Does Origin cost money to put on your PC?

Even if they were stupid enough to try segmenting off their portion of PC gaming even further, which I suppose wouldn't surprise me, they'd have to be even stupider than Microsoft at this point to try charging Windows-prices for their own proprietary OS.

All of the Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 campaigns are free on the PC version, and they even let owners of Left 4 Dead 2 to play all of the Left 4 Dead 1 campaigns and DLC without even owning Left 4 Dead 1.

Portal 2's DLC was free, and they added the perpetual testing initiative which allows for unlimited free maps and puzzles.

Dota 2 and TF2 they are constantly adding new items, heroes, and other fun stuff which isn't free but you can get anything for free by trading or random drops.

Also, although this is not tecnhically DLC, Valve creating the Steam Workshop and promoting its use to third party games has greatly increased the accessibility and ease of use of installing free mods to a number of really great games like Skyrim and Civ 5.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with the person you quoted entirely, since most of Valve's DLC has been pretty small, but you can't argue with free.

All of Valve's microtransaction based games sell only character customization options and are in no way pay-2-win, so you dont have to buy anything to get a great experience out of their games. That's IMO the best way to do microtransactions.

And DRM has always been a control for the ease of mind of the publishers. But Valve's style of DRM makes it useful enough and unobtrusive enough that most customers dont really even think of it as DRM. they add all kinds of useful social features, the Steam Workshop, Steam Greenlight, Steam Market, game trading, their new card system, and a unified library to hold all of your games, and it becomes more than just a service to publishers, but also becomes a pretty good service for the gamers too.

Personally if I can find a steam game as cheap as another DRM free option I will usually get the steam version just for the steam integration because I like it and I dont care about the DRM.

 

[shrekfan246]

EA is greedy and careless, some might even call it evil, Valve manages to do DRM, micro-transactions and DLC properly but EA keeps screwing it over, twisting what was once a great idea into a money making machine at the expense of the consumer.

This caught my eye.

How exactly were DRM or micro-transactions ever a good idea in any way, and how does Valve do DLC properly? Valve's idea of DLC is extra hats. In first-person games. Obviously you might argue that cosmetic DLC is far better than something like Mass Effect 3's 'Citadel', but at that point I'd have to just bow out due to a matter of opinion, because if I'm going to be paying extra on a game I'd like to get some sort of fairly significant extra gameplay time out of it.

As far as "OriginOS" - Does Origin cost money to put on your PC?

Even if they were stupid enough to try segmenting off their portion of PC gaming even further, which I suppose wouldn't surprise me, they'd have to be even stupider than Microsoft at this point to try charging Windows-prices for their own proprietary OS.

All of the Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 campaigns are free on the PC version, and they even let owners of Left 4 Dead 2 to play all of the Left 4 Dead 1 campaigns and DLC without even owning Left 4 Dead 1.

Portal 2's DLC was free, and they added the perpetual testing initiative which allows for unlimited free maps and puzzles.

Dota 2 and TF2 they are constantly adding new items, heroes, and other fun stuff which isn't free but you can get anything for free by trading or random drops.

I'll admit I didn't know about Left 4 Dead since Portal is about the only Valve IP I care about, but I don't recall any of the DLC for Portal 2 actually being significant in any way. And DotA 2 or TF2 stand in situations different from games like Skyrim or Mass Effect or Deus Ex: Human Revolution or, hell, any single-player game, because without such updates the longevity of the titles would inevitably tank.

All of Valve's microtransaction based games sell only character customization options and are in no way pay-2-win, so you dont have to buy anything to get a great experience out of their games. That's IMO the best way to do microtransactions.

The best way to do something doesn't preclude it being a bad idea in the first place.

And DRM has always been a control for the ease of mind of the publishers. But Valve's style of DRM makes it useful enough and unobtrusive enough that most customers dont really even think of it as DRM. they add all kinds of useful social features, the Steam Workshop, Steam Greenlight, Steam Market, game trading, their new card system, and a unified library to hold all of your games, and it becomes more than just a service to publishers, but also becomes a pretty good service for the gamers too.

Personally if I can find a steam game as cheap as another DRM free option I will usually get the steam version just for the steam integration because I like it and I dont care about the DRM.

I don't disagree with you, but again, the best way to do something doesn't make it a good idea. The way the OP phrased that statement made it seem like he was implying that DRM and micro-transactions are inherently good for customers, which is just wrong.

 

[Gameguy20100]

Very unlikely.

EA is not going to make money off of it plain and simple.

I mean why would I buy a console with Steam or Origin on it?

My PC does that and much more.

 

[thiosk]

i really doubt it. They're not gonna get into the console business when so much of their model is based on sony\microsoft. They didnt build a digital distribution system for their games just because valve had one, they did it because they smelled the blood in the water re: the retail model, and decided to go for keeping all the money instead of giving any cut to valve.

 

[Mersadeon]

I feel that this is highly unlikely - sure, EA likes to copy successful behaviour, but how long did it take them to make a service similar to steam? Also, they KNOW how bad their PR is. Nobody trusts their steam-clone because it acts like spyware and is horribly designed - do you really think anybody would use their OS? Also, lets be frank here, EA has room to expand - there is stuff they could still get. Valve with Steam is at a point where they have swallowed so much of their market, there isn't much to eat unless you make more cake.

EDIT: Yeah, another point is that EA wouldn't make money from it. Valve, no matter how much they do wrong sometimes, know their shit. EA probably wouldn't dare touch something that finicky.

 

[Comocat]

What EA needs to do is successfully predict the future of gaming, not copy Valve. I'm not sure what Valve's grand strategy is as I feel consoles are becoming more and more niche as computers and tablets become more powerful and easier to use. I find it annoying enough having to have d/l services like steam and origin on my PC. I couldnt imagine having to care about OS as well.

 

[jpoon]

Not gonna happen, far too many people do not like the service. The chance that an EA OS would work is pretty laughable, thankfully.

 

[LAGG]

I see people still have no idea of what the SteamOS is.

Since you're acting so smug about it, I must assume you do have an idea.
If so, enlighten us, rather than throwing a quaint Parthian Shot at everyone.

It's not a DRM platform, and not a system closed for Steam. It's an open source gaming dedicated system, one whose creators gave the name of their online store and embedded it. It won't only run Steam games, by making it open source Valve doesn't even own it, but still it has Steam in it by default and it's name after their store for marketing and PR purposes.

If EA wants they can simply port Origin and their games to Linux and it'll all run on SteamOS. If they made an OriginOS it would be nothing remotely comparable to SteamOS so saying "Valve made one so EA might too" is having no idea of what SteamOS is. Making a closed DRM OS and forcing people to install and boot it every time to run a half-dozen games would be the most stupid thing a game publisher has ever done.

 

[Zipa]

I doubt it, an open platform based on Linux is exactly the opposite in terms of the business EA usually conducts.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's very unlikely, for reasons that have little to do with greed and more to do with "Who's insane enough to even try this?"

I mean, we know Valve is. EA, however, isn't.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I doubt it, an open platform based on Linux is exactly the opposite in terms of the business EA usually conducts.

Actually, I can see it. Maybe it starts off exactly like Windows but with the EA logo stamped on, and you have to pay micro-transactions for everything you add/remove/edit.

OT: They're greedy enough that they'll probably try.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I like how someone will simultaneously attribute ingenious but utterly nefarious malice to a company while simultaneously suggesting a course of action that undermines their starting assumption.

To put it simply, it is fantastically unlikely and it isn't actually difficult to see why.

1) Requiring a specialty OS instantaneously reduces the number of possible systems that can play a game to zero
2) The move would be seen as fairly hostile to the consumer and it is unlikely to attract many early adopters exacerbating point 1
3) This would reduce the utility of a PC to that of effectively a game console given that it would basically result in an environment with absolutely zero third party application support. This all but eliminates the chance of adoption of the OS on a wide scale
4) Developing an OS that is anything more than an fancy shell over Linux is fantastically expensive and complex. All told, there aren't many companies interested in pursuing this expensive course much less capable of the task.


So, in short, the answer is that they simply will not. They'd be dumping a tremendous sum of money into R&D of a product that in all probability would end up reducing their sales. For a highly conservative publicly traded company, that puts this idea somewhere near the bottom of the list of things they are likely to try. Remember, if you must attribute malice to pragmatic capitalism, always assume the chosen course is the one that will make them the most money rather than the one that seems the most evil. You'll probably be closer to the truth.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I can't really pitch myself in with the "Origin sucks!" bandwagon, having an account and using it to play SimCity. However, I suspect I'm not blind, like most other gamers out there. If SteamOS and its associated Machines are a hit, I'm absolutely certain we'll see EA try and broker a deal with certain parts manufacturers or OEM system assemblers. Something along the lines of "Buy one of these set-top boxes that are perfect as living-room gaming solutions and get an Origin account created by default. If you already own one, pay a nominal fee to get all your titles preinstalled before your system is delivered!"

As to their actually building an operating system? I highly doubt it would happen, as EA isn't a believer in Linux.