No, it's none of those. You know what it /is/? A corporation that is trying to take away my property rights. They violate people's rights. That is sufficient. There is more to good and evil than whether or not you're a mass murderer.
Doesn't that make Valve the more "evil" of the two? I mean you are always just 1 band away from losing almost your entire game library.
Consumer rights is a delicate issue, and there are many sides to who has done more to hurt consumer rights. This isn't just about consumer rights, there are many sides of this issue, and the consumer end of it is just one side. You only care about the consumer side because it's the only side which affects you. You use blanket terms like "evil" to help you win arguments, but you fail to see any other side but the one you are on. That's what makes this whole debate petty and childish.
No, it's none of those. You know what it /is/? A corporation that is trying to take away my property rights. They violate people's rights. That is sufficient. There is more to good and evil than whether or not you're a mass murderer.
Doesn't that make Valve the more "evil" of the two? I mean you are always just 1 band away from losing almost your entire game library.
Consumer rights is a delicate issue, and there are many sides to who has done more to hurt consumer rights. This isn't just about consumer rights, there are many sides of this issue, and the consumer end of it is just one side. You only care about the consumer side because it's the only side which affects you. You use blanket terms like "evil" to help you win arguments, but you fail to see any other side but the one you are on. That's what makes this whole debate petty and childish.
Actually, yes. They're both dicks because of it. I only buy stuff through Steam when it's on a ridiculous sale; if I'm going to rent something, I'm going to pay a rental rate.
However, Valve never bought out any of my favorite developers and killed them, preventing any more games in the series I loved from coming out. EA does that on a daily basis. Hell, they even used the name of one of the worst cases as the name of their DD platform. So fine, don't call 'em evil. Call them rat bastards. It means the same thing.
As far as the consumer side, I do care about it because it affects me. But the corporate side doesn't need defending. They're the ones with the power, not us. Don't give me any of that "oh, please care about the poor, defenseless publisher" bull crap.
Hey if it did happen, at least we would be seeing Half Life 3 through 12 in the next 2 years! But yeah as long as Gabe is there, Valve won't be bought out by anyone with absolute certainty.
Sigh...I love it when people that hate Steam call out people that like Steam for being "blind fanboys" then proceed to havea fanboy-esque rant about why they hate it.
I have almost never encoutered a bug on Steam, it runs at a perfectly fine speed on my PC. And invasive? It automatically turns on for me when I turn my PC on and logs in in about 10 seconds, from there I can play any game I want. I want to play a game on their store? I buy it and then I can start downloading it at speeds that that I cant get anywhere else short of a download manager. Actually..lets go through some of your points.
- Steam isn't "always-online" if it has an offline mode. Games with "always-online" require you whenever you play the game to be online, that is not required with Steam.
- And day-one DLC? That has nothing to do with Steam...Gamestop doesnt force game devs to make DLC...the publishers do. Day-one DLC exists because consumers buy it, the platform or retailer is irrelevant.
- Bad userbase? Once again, that kind of thing differs game to game and has nothing to do with Steam. Ive sen people be dicks on Tribes, on Counterstrike and on Starcraft. All have different platforms and all have funny enough..people..playing those games. The people are the problem, not the platform.
-Constant verification codes? If you buy a game retail you need to put in one code per game, possibly a code for each piece of DLC. Buy agame from the store, no verification codes whatsoever, this is not that surprising. If you are talking about Steamgaurd when you change computers then well..you are an idiot because you can turn that off....
-And yes...you are buying a license, and your making it sound like a bad thing when maybe, people just want to play the game. Maybe I dont care about owning a physical copy of the game, maybe sometimes I just want to sit down and play the game without having to worry about anything. Maybe if I loose my hardrive content from a virus I dont want to have to sort through CD and DVDs, hoping to hell they arent scratched and unusable. Maybe I just want to be able to install the platfrom, download the game and within an hour or two have it and be able to play it no fuss no worry.
A vast majority of the game I have on Steam would never have existed without it or without some method of a digital platform. The game companies that made them simply would never of been able to get a boxed copy on shelves and make their money back.
And no..Steam is not perfect and Valve is not the messiah but for gods sake..if your going to have an argument at least get the facts right and try to form a coherent point in between the hate throwing.
OT: Steam will never bother to be bought out by the sheer fact they dont need to, and in act if things continue the way they are, it may be the reverse.
Bioware was a loved company that was praised for its games by the fans, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful?
Edit: I'm not part of the Bioware hate, I still like them, but in reference to the general rage on them.
Sigh...I love it when people that hate Steam call out people that like Steam for being "blind fanboys" then proceed to havea fanboy-esque rant about why they hate it.
I have almost never encoutered a bug on Steam, it runs at a perfectly fine speed on my PC. And invasive? It automatically turns on for me when I turn my PC on and logs in in about 10 seconds, from there I can play any game I want. I want to play a game on their store? I buy it and then I can start downloading it at speeds that that I cant get anywhere else short of a download manager. Actually..lets go through some of your points.
- Steam isn't "always-online" if it has an offline mode. Games with "always-online" require you whenever you play the game to be online, that is not required with Steam.
- And day-one DLC? That has nothing to do with Steam...Gamestop doesnt force game devs to make DLC...the publishers do. Day-one DLC exists because consumers buy it, the platform or retailer is irrelevant.
- Bad userbase? Once again, that kind of thing differs game to game and has nothing to do with Steam. Ive sen people be dicks on Tribes, on Counterstrike and on Starcraft. All have different platforms and all have funny enough..people..playing those games. The people are the problem, not the platform.
-Constant verification codes? If you buy a game retail you need to put in one code per game, possibly a code for each piece of DLC. Buy agame from the store, no verification codes whatsoever, this is not that surprising. If you are talking about Steamgaurd when you change computers then well..you are an idiot because you can turn that off....
-And yes...you are buying a license, and your making it sound like a bad thing when maybe, people just want to play the game. Maybe I dont care about owning a physical copy of the game, maybe sometimes I just want to sit down and play the game without having to worry about anything. Maybe if I loose my hardrive content from a virus I dont want to have to sort through CD and DVDs, hoping to hell they arent scratched and unusable. Maybe I just want to be able to install the platfrom, download the game and within an hour or two have it and be able to play it no fuss no worry.
A vast majority of the game I have on Steam would never have existed without it or without some method of a digital platform. The game companies that made them simply would never of been able to get a boxed copy on shelves and make their money back.
And no..Steam is not perfect and Valve is not the messiah but for gods sake..if your going to have an argument at least get the facts right and try to form a coherent point in between the hate throwing.
After steams actions... I personally do not care which way they burn... Only that they do. Making unreasonable demands on peoples rights, no one should care what happens to them now. Any tiny bit of good will to the industry they had, was pissed on with that action. So let EA buy em. Worse things could happen and when you remove all the things out of the equation that dont actually belong to valve/steam, really not much is lost.
A four hour long puzzle game?
A military shooter?
A sci fi shooter?
A competitive shooter?
A zombie shooter?
Last I checked... all of those things can be obtained elsewhere.
3) The number of games with 3rd-Party DRM (of the MOST ANNOYING kind) are increasing, they should do something about it!: http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/index.php?page=DRM_Lists/The_Big_DRM_List
Again GoG manages to run a completely DRM-FREE shop, why can't Steam? (at least aside from Steam as DRM, maybe provide incentives to offer games without additional DRM at least)
This is something that bothers me about steam as well. I can accept Steamworks as a form of DRM, since it's fairly non intrusive. Adding something like GFWL is just pointless and redundant, not to mention simply a pain in the ass.
Aside from that, good post. You are easily the best informed and most well researched user on the site.
I think you're underestimating what Valve does for us as a gaming community, and overestimating what good EA does. I know you're no fan of Valve, but their respect for their customers is something that is almost unseen in today's corporate world. Yes, they want that respect to earn money, but there's nothing wrong with earning that money through more ways than just offering a service or product that no one else can.
EA on the other hand sees no value in their customers. They only see the value in their products, and if those products don't display that value, they shut them down without a second thought. Since EA isn't smart enough to value their customers, they would make every effort to start squeezing Valve's fandom for as much cash as they are willing to shell out. You might see some echos of what Valve did under EA, like constant TF2 updates, but items probably would become more expensive, and updates would include more unbalanced items. I mean, you'd hope they would just leave Valve alone to do their work, but all their other studios have suffered because of the demands they make. Bioware is only the most recent example.
In your opinion, obviously. Just because you don't agree with the fan backlash doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps it was just convenient timing, but the coincidences are just too staggering. Bioware, loved by all, never releases a bad title to incite rage from fanboys, suddenly starts releasing games that people hate. Not merely nonplussed, but hate. All right at the moment that EA takes the reigns. EA, a company that is known for doing exactly that to the companies it controls. You can still like Bioware all you want, I don't care, I wasn't even that much of a fan ever. But ignoring signs that strong is about as logical as a Christian ignoring evolution.
But aside from that, if Valve wants to pretend they're some kind of messiah for gaming, fine.
But they're not a developer. They're a retailer. They make money by selling other people's products. And they've build up such a rabid dipshit fanbase that anyone developing on the PC has two options:
1. Have your game not make a dime.
2. Give 30% of your money to a middleman to have it put on the most buggy, lagging, invasive asshole of a DRM scheme ever created.
I'll ignore that insult, since I'm part of its "dipshit" fanbase. You're not wrong on both accounts, but that 30% is a fraction of what publishers have been getting away with for decades. It also allows supply to be infinite and virtually free. Your title will NEVER fall out of stock as long as there is someone who wants to buy it. You can be an indie developer and never have to touch the dirty cash of a publisher who will control your project after you have completed it. That's a HUGE win for the companies that make the games we love. It alone is enough for me to give a thumbs-up to Valve, because it means when I license/rent a game, the talent I want to support is getting the money I want to give to them. It's all I ever expected as a consumer separated from their money.
Wasn't digital distribution supposed to make gaming easier and more convienient? Wasn't it supposed to eliminate the need for mandatory updates, constant verification codes (I uninstalled it after it asked for an email verification for the 50th time) and userbase that makes the average XBox Live chatroom sound like NPR.
Ok, let me stop you right there. What in the living fuck are you talking about? You told us in another thread a few months ago that Steam crashed your PC so you had to get rid of it. You had the absolute worst experience possible with it (likely due to some bad RAM). Now you're telling me that you did run it, and it was asking for something that you needed to sign up an account with. And to top it all off, you're trying to say that its users are loud-mouthed scum. Just how the hell did you even meet these scummy people if you couldn't even run the program without your PC crashing?! Unless you've been giving us half-facts the whole time (which is something you shouldn't do if you actually want us to take you seriously with your anti-Steam rhetoric), you have to be lying somewhere.
And you know what the sad part is? Everyone has a fucking double-standard in this regard.
Why does EA get away with pulling shit like Always Online DRM, Day one DLC, mandatory client requirements and the like?
Because they looked at Valve's success and saw the truth nobody wants to admit: That's what gamers wanted.
Double standards only exist when two entities are exactly the same, and one is treated differently. While both Steam and Origin are both digital distribution channels, there are some important differences. Maybe those differences aren't enough for you, but they make a world of a difference to me. The only reason why I'm not continually upset at Valve for that recent ToS change is because up to that ToS change, I never had one thing to complain against Valve, and that still hasn't changed after that point. The reason why Origin doesn't get that same get-out-of-jail-free card is because I'm always weary of EA's policies and how they are designed to screw me. If I still bought EA products, I'd always be one step away from losing what I've purchased, even if it's because someone swore at me.
The endless blowjob given to Steam tells everyone else that gamers want Mandatory and invasive updates, long installation and wait times for games, client and account based DRM that's one ban away from losing everything a customer has, and less and less owning of a product.
Hyperbole much? Do you even game on the PC? All those things you said sound like they are completely made up, exaggerated, or coming from someone who was looking for the Xbox LIVE expereince on their PC.
Why does it feel like you don't own a game anymore, but rather a license? Because that's what Valve created when they brought in Steam. It's right there in the TOS. You are not buying a game. You are buying a license. A license that can be revoked whenever they feel like it.
And you agreed to it. And then every gamer under the sun threw a fit when every other company started going into the future that gamers were begging for.
You're not wrong there. But you're not right either. That license you speak of costs about 1/10th what a new game costs if you are patient. You may get less, but you pay less for it too. As far as revokes go, you have to try to be banned on Steam with cheating or finding exploits in their marketplace. At that point, you're either souring other's experiences, or you're stealing. You deserve to lose your account. Those are terms that anyone should find acceptable for games that cheap.
And those gamers under the sun complaining are complaining because those companies didn't set their systems up like Steam. I can log into Steam on my laptop, my desktop, my server, my friend's PC, my parent's PC, or even at work if I'm stupid enough, and every time I do, my games are all there for me to play at will. Compare to THQ's download service that allows only a one-time download, or an extra $5 fee to be allowed to download it a few more times for the next 3 months or so. People are complaining because they are doing it wrong!
A while back, I saw the reality of the situation when it came to companies like EA and Activision.
They are not even close to as evil as everyone likes to say they are. Gamers (just like everyone else on the planet) love to ***** and whine and blame everyone else when their stupidity has a negative affect on them.
All the terrible things about gaming today? DRM? DLC? Endless patches? Client attachments?
No publisher would have done any of this shit that gamers are whining about if gamers themselves had not made it perfectly clear to them that it was exactly what they wanted. A businessman can be trusted to follow money wherever it goes. That makes them very easy to manipulate.
Oh believe me, I saw it too, but I think you misinterpreted what you saw. Those companies are far more concerned about control than about service. They think that control means more money for them. They don't understand that a quality service is far more valuable to the consumer AND the company if they both try to get along. They put in the DRM because they want to make sure you aren't installing the games on more than one PC (let's be realistic , Multiplayer Spawn copies and satisfied shareholders are the real target here, not pirates), DLC can only be bought through controlled channels, and endless patches are a way to generate revenue from a game before it's complete. No one asked for this. Accusing us for their atrocities is like telling the Jews they shouldn't have been so Jewish so the Nazis wouldn't have gone after them. It's victim blaming any way you split it.
Now that the time constraints of printing and shipping discs is no longer an issue, DLC doesn't have to be sold as a standalone title anymore. Meaning more and more and MORE DLC.
Now that they can wire a game to an account, they don't need to bother with the CD check anymore. Leading to more and more and MORE DRM.
Digital Distribution: Gamers begged for it, and it slapped them in the face. Now they blame everyone else for their own impulsive nature and inabilty to examine the obvious downside.
1) Nothing is wrong with good DLC that mirrors expansion packs of old. If it's more of that, bring it on. Shame on the companies (like EA and Activision whom you have been defending in this post) who exploit their customers with shitty skins and map packs, and such practices.
2) If the game is tied to an account, there's no need for any DRM. How would that mean they would add more? In the most successful examples of clients, you can download your games at will, over and over. It doesn't matter if it's preventing you from copying the downloaded data, you can just log into another PC and download it again there.
3) It might have slapped you in the face, but no one is complaining like you are. Believe me, I saw that downside too, and that's why I won't buy a game that's available in a box at full price over a digital system. Every game I have spent money on I've done so at a rate that I could afford to lose (all those games combined is another story though). If people are that daft to suffer buyer's remorse over and over, then yes, they only have themselves to blame. But that doesn't make the system bad if a consumer is able to only expose themselves to the positive points.
I don't even know if you meant to go into such a fallacy of a rant, but I certainly wasn't telling you to like Valve or Steam, because you did have a bad expereince and you are entitled to like and hate what you want. But if you're going to keep being so angry about it, do it somewhere else, or find stronger ground in your position. 3 million concurrent users say that Steam is fine and your grievances are overblown. I bet you tell any of them about your issues, and
It's easier to deny that than let its reality come crashing down on you. After all, it's the same sin you accuse everyone else of.
I have. I want to know if you comprehend what's being said and done:
Company buys out another studio for their IP.
Set up and rename studio as [Company Name Location].
After release of the game, realize satellite studio isn't working for communication issues, too small for expenses, whatever.
Make offer to move employees to another location (re: main one). Some refuse to.
Dissolve satellite studio, people staying at remote location are let go.
Retain IP, push out another game.
Valve does it to Turtle Rock Studio, OK!
EA does it to say, what, Westwood? NOPE!
Why is this acceptable? It still means some people are out of a job, had to find a new line of work or reform, lost financial backing of the owning company, yadda yadda.
The only difference I can see is because "we all love Valve and hate EA". That's it. Yet, I have to ask again, why is this action still acceptable when done by Valve?
I guess laying off ~200 employees from their BioWare Austin staff recently: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/bioware-lays-off-part-of-star-wars-the-old-republic-team-6378106 (which is almost the entire Valve staff) or the departure of Zeschuk as leader of BioWare Austin following that and his sudden "holiday" away are no sign to worry: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-10-bioware-co-founder-greg-zeschuk-quits-old-republic-dev-bioware-austin-report
Yeah, so every MMO studio lays off people after the dev period as maintenance requires less people than active development. Dwindling numbers for SWTOR (reasons see below) just means even less are required, especially in regards to CSR types and such. You did note their careers page where a large number were listed as contract right?
Greg Zeschuck is still a Bioware CEO and EA VP, his time at Austin was always temporary as, you know, he's from Edmonton and his family is still there, so he stepped down from manning Bioware Austin and moved back to Bioware Edmonton.
Dexter111 said:
Everyone knows about the sinking numbers in SWTOR subscriptions, which is one of the main reasons EA bought the studio in the first place and is now rather suddenly moving it to Free2Play, there was even a News-piece about them being uncertain about that succeeding either (possibly because EA will make them implement it in a retarded/Pay2Win way): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119382-BioWare-Old-Republics-Free-to-Play-Success-Is-Uncertain
Has nothing to do with Bioware designing the MMO as a SP RPG, as opposed to one with a focus on multiplayer. So people hit the end and then what? People are much more fickle with their money nowadays, even Funcom's The Secret World with it's $15/m subscription is barely hitting 200,000 players.
When Turbine converted DDO and LOTRO to Free 2 Play, they regained players and made more money than subscription based.
Dexter111 said:
Or the bad sales of Dragon Age 2: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.274668-Dragon-Age-2-Sales to the point that they had to cancel a planned expansion and a "Ultimate Edition" because of a lack of Retailer interest: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/107364-dragon-age-ii-ultimate-edition-wont-exist-due-to-retailer-disinterest.html
Well, makes sense, if the game didn't sell well, putting effort on an expansion is just a waste of time and money if the projected revenue from it would be far less than the development costs.
Dexter111 said:
Not to say that they've gone and pissed off a majority of Mass Effect fans with one thing or another, from Day-1 DLC (Disc-Locked-Content) in this case, to the ending debacle, the forced superimposed Multiplayer and the Origin DRM. They will have a rather tough time getting back out of that one with their next Mass Effect title.
What disc-locked content? The Protean squad mate that was cut and released as DLC? Where the resources for the model and voice samples were kept in the game to be more efficient and reduce download size, but the actual DLC mission was downloaded after the game was released?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
