Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

This comment has already been reported.

124. Re: No Mass Effect 3 on Steam; Requires Origin Jan 16, 2012, 02:41 RollinThundr
Grifter wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 02:35:
RollinThundr wrote on Jan 16, 2012, 02:22:
Dev wrote on Jan 15, 2012, 22:47:
Jerykk wrote on Jan 15, 2012, 22:33:
It wasn't retroactive. So, when DLC was released for Crysis 2 and DA2 they were removed from Steam; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins both came before the change, which related to the addition of F2P titles on Steam.

If that's true, then why are Dirt 3 and Dead Rising 2: Off The Record still available on Steam? Both of those games have DLC that is still only available through GFWL and was released after both Crysis 2 and DA2 were pulled.

It just doesn't really make any sense.
Release date doesn't mean the date contracts were signed. There could be months difference between. I'd imagine the paperwork should be in order prior to a game's actual release to avoid extra delay.

For instance, what if those games still there (such as dirt 2) had signed old version contracts and ended up delaying the release date until after the other games were removed? Even if no delays at all happened, if one company got the paperwork settled a year ahead of release and the other company was tardy and only got the paperwork signed weeks before release, that would explain it.

Another thought, perhaps there's exceptions if the DLC is exclusive to GfWL, which it appears to be the case for both Dirt 3 and DR2:OTR (I don't own either so I don't know for sure, I only spent a few mins googling about it). Valve may not want to tangle with MS over this. In contrast, the DLC for DA2 on PC was through bioware/EA's special store as I recall.

My question is why is it okay for Valve to be greedy about demanding a chunk of profits from DLC they don't fund development on, but EA is oh so evil for wanting to get more of a foothold into the digital distribution space?

This is why I said gamers are hypocrites. At the end of the day it's a business. EA, Valve, Activision, TakeTwo are all in it for the money, none of them deserve any more adoration than any of the rest of em imo.

You have to understand dlc on the pc to understand why valve has taken the stance it has taken. Most dlc on pc games come thru a patch or were present in the game when launched.(most however come thru a patch). What EA is essentially doing is using Steam to provide the dlc in the form of a patch, and then locking out valve from any profits from the dlc by requiring the purchase for dlc to be made in game thru a vendor other than valve. It's not evil in valve's case EA is patching there games thru steam with dlc but not allowing valve to profit in anyway shape or form from providing the patch with the dlc on it.

Boohoo, So Gabe has a few less steaks and cheeseburgers, Valve isn't funding the DLC, why should they be entitled a cut from it? They're ALL greedy, putting any developer/publisher up on a pedestal as some holy bastion to gaming is silly.
Return to Topic


Blue's News logo