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

Regularly scheduled events

No Battlefield 3 on Steam

The EA Forums have a confirmation of widespread suspicions that Battlefield 3 will not be sold through Valve's Steam platform (thanks Planet Battlefield). As was theorized, there is a terms of service conflict at the root of this because DICE's military shooter will include the ability to purchase DLC from within the game:

Gamers can pre-order Battlefield 3 at Origin.com as well as over 100 digital retailers worldwide. EA offers games to all major download services. Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content. No other download service has adopted these practices.

We are intent on providing Battlefield 3 players with the best possible experience no matter where they purchase or play their game, and are happy to partner with any download service that does not restrict our ability to connect directly with our consumers. We hope to work out an agreement where Steam can carry Battlefield 3; meanwhile, gamers can pick from the more than 100 digital retailers listed at http://www.battlefield.com/digitaldownload, or go to http://www.origin.com.

View
168 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >

168. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 15, 2011, 19:51 ^Drag0n^
 
I thought it was EA's decision to pull out due to Valve's ToC changes(?)

My thoughts really were around the thing turning into a devilishly horrid fiasco when people acquired content in legal ways that made for logistic nightmares when re-installing. Fallout3 via Steam with DLC bought through GFWL being a prime example. God, I wouldn't want to be in the middle of that either way.

My impression was that Steamworks handles more than just cheats, but also handles achievements, networking, various chat modes, and in-game purchases.

As for Walter's comments, well, I'm just guessing he meant to say that supporting a game without Steamworks or steam running DLC is more of a PITA than one that does, in that Steam ends up taking blame for things that (generally) aren't their fault. Just guessing, though.

If I'm off on this, my bad ;-)

^D^
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
167. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 15, 2011, 00:29 Sepharo
 
^Drag0n^ wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 13:08:
[S]elling a game through Steam that doesn't utilize Steamworks DRM would be more of a headache to Valve than one that did (see also: Fallout 3 on Steam with GFWL, Splinter Cell: Conviction on Steam with Ubi-Always-On-DRM, etc.)

Those damn games were a nightmare due to in-game DLC, wrapped in DRM, which were purchasable in two separate stores. While you could say Valve (or EA) is greedy and pushing an agenda, the other reason may be simple: in the past it's tended to be, for lack of better words, a total clusterfuck, that pissed off more people than it made happy.

I agree with all of this, but I do not agree that BC2's non-use of Steamworks has any bearing on Valve's decision to drop BF3. Although I'm sure Valve would love for everyone to use Steamworks, it doesn't really apply to this issue in any way. Thus my reply

And... even later! I win!
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
166. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 12, 2011, 13:08 ^Drag0n^
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 7, 2011, 13:14:
WaltC wrote on Aug 7, 2011, 13:06:
Frankly, though, it doesn't strike me that selling games through Steam, but not Steamworks, would be in Valve's best interests at all. Valve's rejection of B3C makes even more sense in light of this information.

What are you talking about?

Steamworks is an optional API granting standard Steam integration and features.
Steam is a digital delivery platform that requires that games it distributes must be patched through Steam. A recent addition to the rules is that the DLC for the game must also be sold through Steam. Neither of these rules involve Steamworks.

Now what about "Valve's rejection of B3C makes even more sense in light of " BC2 not using Steamworks?



edit: Corrected B3C, wondering to myself, "How the fuck could I make that mistake" only to then realize it wasn't my mistake

I think what Walt was saying (wait, I thought you preferred Walter?) is that selling a game through Steam that doesn't utilize Steamworks DRM would be more of a headache to Valve than one that did (see also: Fallout 3 on Steam with GFWL, Splinter Cell: Conviction on Steam with Ubi-Always-On-DRM, etc.)

Those damn games were a nightmare due to in-game DLC, wrapped in DRM, which were purchasable in two separate stores. While you could say Valve (or EA) is greedy and pushing an agenda, the other reason may be simple: in the past it's tended to be, for lack of better words, a total clusterfuck, that pissed off more people than it made happy.

That said, I take no shame in stating Steam in my preferred on-line store. They have the most robust client, cleanest integration of useful gamer-centric features, and, quite frankly, have been the only publisher/store firmly in the corner of the PC gamer. So when it looks like a title will avoid them, I usually avoid the title.

Just my opinion.

^D^

PS: Late reply, I know, but I just now got back to the topic.

This comment was edited on Aug 12, 2011, 13:17.
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
165. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 18:57 Verno
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 18:42:
Dude, you couldn't be more wrong. You couldn't be less understanding of my entire point if you tried.

Not agreeing with your point isn't the same as not understanding it.

A well reviewed and well received indie game not getting on Steam and therefore suffering from lack of interest by people who treat Steam as PC gaming itself is EXACTLY my point. It's not an aside what-so-ever.

Your point is meaningless because we don't have all the facts and it's a single game. I can point to a big successful indie game that didn't even try to get on Steam. Whoop de doo. Every DD service has rules and standards, end of story. Should Steam's approval process be more transparent? Sure, that's something I can get behind. Is it wrong for them to have one in the first place? No.

Uh, okay then. I guess you know me better than I know myself.

Hold them equally accountable then in the future and stop using justifications to blame Steam on one hand while absolving EA on the other just because Steam is involved.

They'll branch out for huge games they don't want to miss like Diablo 3 and Battlefield 3, and hopefully that means they will be more likely to branch out the next time a good indie comes out without a Steam release.

Remains to be seen and still ignores the fact that the irrational people who swear to only buy games on a specific service are less likely to respond to ultimatums.

Sure, but that's only worthwhile if you make money doing so. If the only way to really make money is to be on Steam then Valve essentially become your publisher and have their own list of requirements and suggestions.

It's a good thing there are many ways to release games and that Steam isn't the only way to make money on the Internet then.

I don't have as much faith in consumers as you do I guess, and Valve don't need to buy out their competitors when they handily control the market without doing so.

I don't need faith, the PC is an open platform that could only be locked down through hardware. Steam and other digital distribution services are largely shaped by consumer and industry demands. The industry has already shown repeatedly how it reacts when companies attempt to monopolize it (by fracturing) and consumers have shown resistance to being forced down paths they won't want.

In the end if the entire industry releases games on Steam it will be because the majority of both wanted it and I don't think most people really give a shit how they get their games, it's just that Steam is literally the best option right now. Companies like EA simply need to do better.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
164. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 18:42 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 17:27:
Why should I try? It's a pointless aside that has nothing to do with the topic and can't be proven either way.

Dude, you couldn't be more wrong. You couldn't be less understanding of my entire point if you tried. A well reviewed and well received indie game not getting on Steam and therefore suffering from lack of interest by people who treat Steam as PC gaming itself is EXACTLY my point. It's not an aside what-so-ever.

I don't think you'll find many people subscribing to the idea that Steam is anything but incredibly supportive to the indie side of the industry in general.

As long as they want to support you, sure. I think cliffski and the guys behind Gemini Rue would have something to say about what happens when they don't want to support you however.

Nah I'm not buying, you repeatedly criticize specific aspects of Steam all the time having nothing to do with marketshare but don't do the same thing with other services.

Uh, okay then. I guess you know me better than I know myself.

The people who only buy things on Steam are probably the least likely to branch out so that makes no sense to me.

They'll branch out for huge games they don't want to miss like Diablo 3 and Battlefield 3, and hopefully that means they will be more likely to branch out the next time a good indie comes out without a Steam release.

The platform is wide open for development

Sure, but that's only worthwhile if you make money doing so. If the only way to really make money is to be on Steam then Valve essentially become your publisher and have their own list of requirements and suggestions.

If Steam steps out of bounds the industry will adjust, that's the nature of an open platform. If Steam started purchasing competitive services and other publishing companies then we've got a problem.

I don't have as much faith in consumers as you do I guess, and Valve don't need to buy out their competitors when they handily control the market without doing so.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
163. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 18:39 Dades
 
Just trying to read all of this makes me want to avoid getting the game on both steam and origin.  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
162. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 17:27 Verno
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 15:42:
Wow, you're not even trying now I guess. You totally deflected this without addressing it at all. The point you made was basically "if Steam rejects it it's not a good game." Gemini Rue is a great game Steam did not accept. The greater point was that everyone treating Steam as the only place to go means Steam has authority to pick what is successful.

Why should I try? It's a pointless aside that has nothing to do with the topic and can't be proven either way. Fine, last time. I can list dozens, if not hundreds of subpar indie games on Steam but that doesn't mean anything either. You're ignoring the point that any commercial distribution service will have standards, rules and etc. If you want it truly equal then the only way to do that would be to allow anything which isn't feasible for a number of reasons that you know already. My point had nothing to do with the quality of your examples by the way, it was to point out that if a terrible game with no business being on Steam can get on there then there is probably a specific reason others cannot that we're not a party to. One side of the story and all that.

I don't think you'll find many people subscribing to the idea that Steam is anything but incredibly supportive to the indie side of the industry in general.

I don't like Origin's DRM and service contracts either. I have said repeatedly I don't like any of these services, I like the GOG/Gamersgate method. My entire focus is on Steam having too much market share. The only way to be a hypocrite there is to then buy everything on Steam anyway, which I do not do.

Nah I'm not buying, you repeatedly criticize specific aspects of Steam all the time having nothing to do with marketshare but don't do the same thing with other services.

In the end you're right though, consumers drive these decisions and choose their service. That doesn't make it wrong for EA to decide where they sell their own games though, and for users to then choose whether to buy it and where. And I personally am happy to see people who usually only buy on Steam will have to branch out.

The people who only buy things on Steam are probably the least likely to branch out so that makes no sense to me. I'm sure there are people who only buy things on GOG or even GFWL for the stupid achievements but I wouldn't call them rational people either. In the end it's a transparent ultimatum from EA to consumers which frankly is bullshit. There a million different ways they could have handled this better and incentivized people to use Origin instead.

That said after today's Willits quote I could see you looking at it as forcing people to do something they don't want to do. Market share increases through exclusives do piss me off generally. I think the PC's open platform status is more important than offering Steam as an option for everything though. That's a tough battle but I have to support what I see as the core of our platform. Steam taking more and more power in the PC market threatens our platform from my perspective.

The platform is wide open for development, this isn't the console world where vendors can lock you in literally. If anything the demands of the platform and the industry are what has shaped Steam. The industry largely wouldn't deal with Steam until CEG was developed. Consumers didn't want much to do with Steam until Valve added the community features and patching. If Steam steps out of bounds the industry will adjust, that's the nature of an open platform. If Steam started purchasing competitive services and other publishing companies then we've got a problem.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
161. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 15:42 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 08:59:
I'm not sure Gemini Rue's chances will be any better getting on Origin. Let's totally get into a game by game list of what did and didn't get on Steam, that will be productive.

Wow, you're not even trying now I guess. You totally deflected this without addressing it at all. The point you made was basically "if Steam rejects it it's not a good game." Gemini Rue is a great game Steam did not accept. The greater point was that everyone treating Steam as the only place to go means Steam has authority to pick what is successful.

I am not saying I want Origin to replace Steam or something... where the fuck did you pull that from? Origin accepting indie games has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

It means you're a hypocrite like you accused everyone else of earlier. You're fine with anti-consumer policies and practices as long as Steam isn't responsible.

Hey Verno, this has nothing to do with anything. I don't like Origin's DRM and service contracts either. I have said repeatedly I don't like any of these services, I like the GOG/Gamersgate method. My entire focus is on Steam having too much market share. The only way to be a hypocrite there is to then buy everything on Steam anyway, which I do not do.

People spend the money where they see value, of course they will be resistant to a transparent attempt to force them to go elsewhere. No one has built a competitive platform to Steam yet and Origin is no closer to that goal unfortunately.

That really depends on your priorities. GOG has barely any of Steam's features yet it is a better service for me.

In the end you're right though, consumers drive these decisions and choose their service. That doesn't make it wrong for EA to decide where they sell their own games though, and for users to then choose whether to buy it and where. And I personally am happy to see people who usually only buy on Steam will have to branch out.

That said after today's Willits quote I could see you looking at it as forcing people to do something they don't want to do. Market share increases through exclusives do piss me off generally. I think the PC's open platform status is more important than offering Steam as an option for everything though. That's a tough battle but I have to support what I see as the core of our platform. Steam taking more and more power in the PC market threatens our platform from my perspective.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
160. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 08:59 Verno
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 01:42:
Gemini Rue was extremely well reviewed and well received.

I'm not sure Gemini Rue's chances will be any better getting on Origin. Let's totally get into a game by game list of what did and didn't get on Steam, that will be productive.

I don't even know what this means. I don't confine all my purchases or 90% of my purchases to one outlet, which is what I am angry with people for doing. Supporting EA has nothing to do with that.

It means you're a hypocrite like you accused everyone else of earlier. You're fine with anti-consumer policies and practices as long as Steam isn't responsible.

I don't confine all my purchases or 90% of my purchases to one outlet, which is what I am angry with people for doing. Supporting EA has nothing to do with that.

People spend the money where they see value, of course they will be resistant to a transparent attempt to force them to go elsewhere. No one has built a competitive platform to Steam yet and Origin is no closer to that goal unfortunately.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
159. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 10, 2011, 01:42 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Aug 9, 2011, 08:46:
I notice you omit the hundreds, if not thousands of indie games on Steam. Fact of life, most commercial distribution platforms in the gaming industry have standards in some form. I'm going to invoke the Bad Rats clause here. If Bad Rats can get on Steam then not getting on Steam probably requires actual effort.

Gemini Rue was extremely well reviewed and well received.

Then don't call everyone else hypocrites when you're being the biggest hypocrite of all - you constantly deride others for some imagined lack of accountability with Valve yet you do the same thing with other companies.

I don't even know what this means. I don't confine all my purchases or 90% of my purchases to one outlet, which is what I am angry with people for doing. Supporting EA has nothing to do with that.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
158. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 9, 2011, 13:51 necrosis
 
Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content. No other download service has adopted these practices.
Unfortunately, EA has adopted a set of restrictive terms that limit how customers can access the games they love. No other developer has adopted these practices.
 
Avatar 16007
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
157. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 9, 2011, 08:46 Verno
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 8, 2011, 14:36:
and you say this on the day an indie portal closes because it cannot compete with Steam).

Yeah because that's the only context and possible interpretation of what happened Rolleyes

I see great games like Gemini Rue and Democracy 2 that cannot get on Steam due to Valve's arbitrary rules and I worry about a future where Valve decides what is successful

I notice you omit the hundreds, if not thousands of indie games on Steam. Fact of life, most commercial distribution platforms in the gaming industry have standards in some form. I'm going to invoke the Bad Rats clause here. If Bad Rats can get on Steam then not getting on Steam probably requires actual effort.

like Microsoft does on the Xbox. That screams closed system and platform overseer to me. I hate the idea of it, and frankly we might already be there for smaller games. Only big guns like EA and Blizzard really have the power to tell Steam to fuck off, so pardon me for smiling a bit when they do so.

Then don't call everyone else hypocrites when you're being the biggest hypocrite of all - you constantly deride others for some imagined lack of accountability with Valve yet you do the same thing with other companies.

That doesn't mean I hate Steam or Valve. Very few see the dictator before he has gained power.

Dramarama.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
156. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 8, 2011, 14:36 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Aug 8, 2011, 09:20:
Well, people think you're a Valve hater because you turn every DRM topic into "HOW CUM U GUYS DONT HATE STEAM TOO?!!!". You've become a predictable forum trope at this point, people literally say "here he comes to post this" and you do exactly that without fail. You say you aren't hypocritical yet you don't seem to have a problem with a lot of this stuff so long as people properly chastise Valve. Or you claim you do have a problem with it yet never seem to post about it while dedicating post after post about Steam. You're amusingly passive aggressive and almost a bit obsessive about the subject.

Well I only post about what I am interested in and passionate about, and yes I am passionate about Steam having too much power. I am pretty sure I have been clear and upfront about that. Pardon me for having a strong opinion and concern (and you say this on the day an indie portal closes because it cannot compete with Steam).

I see great games like Gemini Rue and Democracy 2 that cannot get on Steam due to Valve's arbitrary rules and I worry about a future where Valve decides what is successful, like Microsoft does on the Xbox. That screams closed system and platform overseer to me. I hate the idea of it, and frankly we might already be there for smaller games. Only big guns like EA and Blizzard really have the power to tell Steam to fuck off, so pardon me for smiling a bit when they do so.

That doesn't mean I hate Steam or Valve. Valve make great games I love to play and Steam is perfect for multiplayer games and a great option for many people with certain priorities. I just don't want it to be the end-all-be-all of PC gaming, which despite your flippant dismissal is a real concern. Very few see the dictator before he has gained power.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
155. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 8, 2011, 12:14 Verno
 
Blizzard has historically forced retail sales and up until recently provided no digital distribution options at all. People have cried plenty about it over the years, I don't see the lack of a rage filled topic right now as evidence of anything. When Activision Blizzard tries to put Call of Duty behind the Download Duty client then it'll be a directly comparable situation and I suspect the results will be similar. Expectation is a large part of it, people have never really had the option of getting Diablo on Steam so they aren't that upset about it. You can give people something but taking it away is a different story. Blizzard also has built up a lot of goodwill with gamers over the years so it takes public opinion awhile to shift on things like that sometimes. There's a lot of reasons it isn't the same thing basically or that people don't see it as the same thing. Some of those are flawed but many are founded on history and reason.

Back to the topic, I'd note that this whole spat is a very similar situation that happened when EA tried to play hardball with Microsoft and Xbox Live. I'm also very skeptical of EAs reasoning here as other games do sell DLC direct outside of Steam and also have update mechanisms that do not include Steam at all(MMOs for example).

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2011, 12:27.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
154. Re: well.... Aug 8, 2011, 12:07 Bhruic
 
As you said, the value in Diablo 3 lies in the multiplayer. I'm sure there are some people who only touched the SP but many people simply already played D2 the way that they're limiting D3 so they haven't really lost anything.

I understand the thought process, and that's fine, but it doesn't really explain the lack of "Steam or no purchase" cries for Diablo 3.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
153. Re: well.... Aug 8, 2011, 09:31 Verno
 
Shataan wrote on Aug 8, 2011, 09:14:
"You're the problem."

Funny how many of you have all the answers, and the fingers always point to everyone else. Like I said, had I had a mulitple choice choice, I`d still have chosen to buy it on Steam. Don`t like my choice? Well suck it up Butter Cup. ;p

Of course, I didn`t get to choose, so I got it on Origin. I don`t buy games at the counter anymore. But whatever......


As others have posted EA seems to have this planned for awhile so you're just kind of playing into their plans by purchasing it on Origin instead of....anywhere else I guess. But hey, it's a game and you don't need to justify it to anyone here.

Diablo 3 probably got less heat for the online requirement because a lot (obviously not all) of people more or less considered Diablo 2 an online game, or not very far from it, likely including a lot of the rabid Diablo 2 fans. Those people were already only playing Diablo 2 online, so it's no real change for them. But then you look at Assassin's Creed and nobody plays it online (or even can) so why do you have to be online to play it?

As you said, the value in Diablo 3 lies in the multiplayer. I'm sure there are some people who only touched the SP but many people simply already played D2 the way that they're limiting D3 so they haven't really lost anything.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2011, 09:40.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
152. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 8, 2011, 09:30 briktal
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Aug 8, 2011, 03:39:
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. If you want to rant about this service DRM bullshit I am with you brother! I hate DRM, I hate having to tie my purchases to these services, all of them. I am not defending Origin, I am simply expressing frustration with people singling it out.

When Rockpapershotgun bitch about DRM and Origin and all this other shit but then suck Steam's cock every other post it makes me go "wha?" When forum posters do the same thing it makes me go "wha?" In short, I don't agree with the hypocrisy. Same thing with Diablo 3's online requirement getting quite a lot less rage than Ubisoft's did, and their battle.net exclusivity getting no mention what-so-ever. Where are the "steam or don't buy" posts about Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3? Very few of them exist. You act like they do, but they don't, not in the same volume as they do against EA right now, not at all. Fuck man, the lack of BF3 on Steam is getting headlines on news sites for God's sake.

I do not like hypocrisy. I do not like that Valve and Blizzard get to play by different rules. That is my main point. It has nothing to do with "Valve hate" people keep shoving on me to try and belittle my points. I own every single game Valve have ever released and bought them all at full price, plus I have 300 games on Steam, but I'm a Valve hater? Fucking ridiculous.

Diablo 3 probably got less heat for the online requirement because a lot (obviously not all) of people more or less considered Diablo 2 an online game, or not very far from it, likely including a lot of the rabid Diablo 2 fans. Those people were already only playing Diablo 2 online, so it's no real change for them. But then you look at Assassin's Creed and nobody plays it online (or even can) so why do you have to be online to play it?

When Steam began, there was enormous outcry about the requirement. Why shouldn't EA recieve the same? The answer is: because you like to jump Valve's shit and try to make it out like they didn't suffer the same reaction EA is now.

Because it's apparently acceptable now.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
151. Re: well.... Aug 8, 2011, 09:22 Bhruic
 
Like I said, had I had a mulitple choice choice, I`d still have chosen to buy it on Steam.

You did have multiple choices. Those choices just didn't include Steam. If you chose to buy it on Origin, well, fine, but that was your choice. There's a significant list of alternative places to buy it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
150. Re: No Battlefield 3 on Steam Aug 8, 2011, 09:20 Verno
 
I do not like hypocrisy. I do not like that Valve and Blizzard get to play by different rules. That is my main point. It has nothing to do with "Valve hate" people keep shoving on me to try and belittle my points. I own every single game Valve have ever released and bought them all at full price, plus I have 300 games on Steam, but I'm a Valve hater? Fucking ridiculous.

Well, people think you're a Valve hater because you turn every DRM topic into "HOW CUM U GUYS DONT HATE STEAM TOO?!!!". You've become a predictable forum trope at this point, people literally say "here he comes to post this" and you do exactly that without fail. You say you aren't hypocritical yet you don't seem to have a problem with a lot of this stuff so long as people properly chastise Valve. Or you claim you do have a problem with it yet never seem to post about it while dedicating post after post about Steam. You're amusingly passive aggressive and almost a bit obsessive about the subject.

At least the rest of us can admit hypocrisy is part of human nature and that we all partake from time to time. It turns out that many if not all EA games are going to require Origin after all in some form whether it's to activate or to launch the games, so please where is your outrage that you seem to summon without effort when it comes to Valve? Hell EA still hasn't severed its business relationship with SecuRom yet and limited activations of their titles is a distinct possibility provided by in the TOS. EA wants Origin to be the same thing as Steam if not worse even, they want an always-on program with application persistence, ties to social sites and so on. It's all laid out in that marketing material nin posted a few pages ago. They did some initial hemming and hawing about not requiring Origin but I don't see things heading in that direction at all, I'll bet most retail bought EA games will require Origin and the ones that don't will likely still be using invasive EA DRM.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2011, 09:44.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
149. Re: well.... Aug 8, 2011, 09:14 Shataan
 
"You're the problem."

Funny how many of you have all the answers, and the fingers always point to everyone else. Like I said, had I had a mulitple choice choice, I`d still have chosen to buy it on Steam. Don`t like my choice? Well suck it up Butter Cup. ;p

Of course, I didn`t get to choose, so I got it on Origin. I don`t buy games at the counter anymore. But whatever......

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
168 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo