Verno wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 12:51:
I'm looking forward to the inevitable "is PC gaming dead?" type news posts that follow 1 year after the new consoles ship, always a good time!

Endo wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 11:45:
EA: Where you go to pay to win!

Creston wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 10:39:

wtf_man wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 09:47:

Qbex . wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 09:43:
One more reason to keep away from P.O.S. Orgin.
I have to say even for a habitual gamer like me it's good going so far. So many alternatives, indie and kickstarters , good riddance EA I'm not going to miss you.

Pretty much this.

I haven't bought an EA game since Origin became a requirement.

There are actually a few things Origin does better than Steam:

- Ability to install games to whatever folder you want on a game by game basis. (STILL not possible in Steam, except for a few specific games.)
- Ability to manage your DLC on a per-instance basis. Though there is no uninstall function for individual DLCs, you can delete the entire game, then prevent that one DLC you don't want from ever installing. Steam can't do this.
- Ability to launch a game while DLC is downloading. Though you get a warning that it might cause instability, it WILL launch the game. Steam flatout refuses to launch a game while stuff is downloading for it.

There are also some pretty damn bad things about Origin:

- no backup ability. There are some work-arounds, but those all seem pretty heavily predicated on you installing Origin in the default folder and apparently won't work if you put it anywhere else. And in true developer-brilliance, the default folder is, of course, your C drive, because why WOULDN'T you want potentially millions of files cluttering up your fucking boot disk?

- absolutely fucking terrible download speeds. The last ME DLC I got from Origin downloaded at 25 fucking k per second. I'd quit the download, try speed test, try Steam, try anything else, and I'd get my full speed (which admittedly is only 95k/s, but still.) Go back into Origin, 25k/s.

Tried it at work, and while it ran faster there, I got ~ 1.5MB/s. That's on a work pipe of 300Mbps, where Steam typically gets me around 14-18MB/s.

All in all, Origin is quite indicative of EA's normal modus operandi: Barely Adequite.

Creston

Redmask wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 18:45:

Beamer wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 17:45:
If you expected more then you are an idiot.

And, if you actually played the DLC, you'd see how damn obvious it is that the stuff has zero to do with the actual game, is somewhat annoying, and clearly isn't "cut content."

I don't know, I think anyone who just puts up with it because 'thats what they said they would do so that makes it ok and dont you dare expect more' is an idiot. DLC characters -after- a season pass is my personal line, I draw it there and I don't give a fuck if you think its fair or not, any company doing that shit won't get my money in the future. The quality of the Borderlands 2 DLC doesn't exactly have me begging for another pass anyway.

HoSpanky wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 09:36:
I'm surprised the Worms series is owned by thq.

Verno wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 09:08:

"And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

It's a depressing world if this is true and not just Business Speak. They will just become more and more pervasive with the popular "its just biz" excuse whenever someone criticizes it or suggests that its compromising creative design. Dead Space is a great example of what happens to a franchise that is hijacked by profit margins.

Maybe we're all wrong, should EA really just need stick to sports titles and 10mil+ movers? Maybe that's best for everyone in the long run, I don't know. All I know is I'm kind of dreading what they have in store for the next Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age and Mass Effect games. Forced multiplayer, more DLC than actual game content (that day is coming) and so on.

"Dont like it, dont buy it" doesn't work if the industry can push itself to a large enough audience with marketing.

Also in before someone says this website hates EA yaddayadda

ochentay4 wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 11:31:

briktal wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 11:22:

Tumbler wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 10:37:
It's a weird move to sell something you call a season pass but then exclude certain things. But they did explain the dlc included by the pass from the beginning so it is what it is.

So not only are devs cutting content from games to sell as DLC, they are cutting content from DLC to sell as more DLC?

That's exactly how it is. Its getting ridiculous. Season Pass should include every bit of DLC out there. This teaches only one thing. Do not buy things before everything gets bundled toghether for $5. Do not buy DLC. Do not buy season passes.

Dev wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 04:01:

killer_roach wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 20:57:
The problem for publishers right now is in terms of pricing their product at retail. Online, they can pretty much name their price and change it at will. Brick and mortar retailers will likely try to get their own pound of flesh out of such short-term sales, asking for things like refunding the difference on outstanding inventory or a window of exclusivity on a sale, things that you don't see as issues online presently. As a result, a publisher is likely forced to stick with frequent price drops throughout a game's life cycle, using time as a mechanism of price discrimination, but will have the benefit of being able to make such changes on a somewhat random basis such that consumers don't get caught in a habit of "waiting out the next sale".

Yes, but thats not a problem they can't control. Look at apple and how much it price controls. They are crazy strict about it. Which is why you almost never see apple stuff go on sale. Retailers make almost nothing on their products, and apple has strict rules on the minimum price they can advertise at. They aren't the only ones, those things at amazon that say you have to add to cart to see the price? Those are signs that they are being coerced in pricing, thats how they are getting around the "you can't advertise our product at less than this price."
And I seem to recall a recent SCOTUS decision saying that kinda thing was ok.

Someone like activision probably has the muscle to start trying that kinda crap with CoD and gamestop.

Paketep wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 03:54:
Any little interest I might have is instantly gone knowing that this will require Origin, and probably will have no LAN and no public dedis.

yuastnav wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 06:02:

Sempai wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 05:01:

KilrathiAce wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 02:44:
Sony just scared to have their console players get pwned by PC lols

Dude, just stop..You make the PC adults look bad.

It is not an unreasonable assumption though.

Tom wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 21:33:

Beamer wrote on Feb 25, 2013, 20:39:
If the massive failure of JC Penny proves anything, it's that most people are motivated not by everyday low prices but by getting a bargain, especially a time-sensitive bargain that's act-now or lose.

Hmm this must be why there's never anyone at Walmart eh.

Cutter wrote on Feb 24, 2013, 11:33:
I pity you foos that think advertising is a good thing. Advertising is evil, period. An entire industry predicated on lying and making people insecure and worthless if they don't use XYZ product. I block cookies. I use ABP. I use Tor and/or proxies for most browsing. It's none of any company's goddamned business who I am or why I'm on their site anymore than if I was to walk into a retail store and they were to insist that I may not do so without handing all my personal information to them first. You'd tell them to fuckoff, turn around and walk out. IF I decide to purchase from them then they can have the information - and NO - that is not expressed or even tacit approval meaning they can share it with ANYONE else!

For news related services they can charge for content as far as I'm concerned. However, if I'm paying for it I don't want to see a single goddamned ad anywhere. Its why I don't pay for cable. Most people have always hated advertising, yet companies refuse to adapt or couldn't because of technological limitations. We're way past that now and there are no more excuses. So adapt or fall by the wayside.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Feb 23, 2013, 02:44:

Beamer wrote on Feb 22, 2013, 09:58:
Except that this would have been written by people in PR/Corporate Communications, not marketers.

There's really that much of a difference? PR and Corperate comm, and marketers are all the same in my book. Soulless that all come out the same factory.