Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
User information for Dane

Real Name Dane   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname StingingVelvet
Email Concealed by request
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Dec 12, 2008, 04:26
Total Comments 4538 (Master)
User ID 54622
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ] Older >


News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

238. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 16:04 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 15:32:
I think there are people who also bitched about SC2 battle.net and half-life 2 digital exclusivity but likely for different reasons. I wasn't being literal anyway and you knew that. If you want to nitpick then I will rephrase and say that I doubt anyone reasonable has a problem with exclusivity depending on the circumstances. I have no problem with EA saying TOR is a digital exclusive, I would have a problem with them saying "Ok heres the deal - Direct 2 Drive you can have this, GamersGate and Steam cannot" for example. Whether you think this is a realistic scenario is up to you but I don't like even the possibility of this occurring.

You act like there is no difference between the platforms. Direct2Drive and Gamersgate allow EA to do things that Steam does not.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

237. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 15:59 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 14:44:
For the umpteenth time, Battlefield 3 isn't digitally exclusive. I don't know if you just aren't paying attention or something but that's kind of what the entire topic is about. They are excluding a specific market competitor, they are not making it exclusive to anyone. No one has a problem with them making something exclusive to Origin. I may not buy The Old Republic but it won't be because its exclusive to Origin, that's their choice. Playing pin the tail on the donkey with competition is anti-competitive behavior, particularly from a multi-billion corporation who has a significant amount of control in the gaming industry (arguably more than Valve). This isn't about if its their legal right to sell it to X but not Y. Sure it's legal but that doesn't mean the consumer has to like it, support it or be quiet about it - it's shitty behavior and bad for the consumer any way you slice it.

And you just keep regurgitating the same shit too Verno, don't think you're special. On this score yes I know BF3 is on other sites, but it links to Origin just like Dragon Age 2 and Alice 2 do. The issue is that EA want to do exactly what Valve do, bring everyone playing their games into their client, and Steam are not going to allow that. Which is their right. EA made non-Origin versions of DA2 and some other games but obviously they don't want to do that forever, and not with a game like BF3 which will surely have an in-game shop.

Valve can make their games need Steam and EA can make their games need Origin. Neither is doing anything wrong. Your argument seems to be that in order to be competitive EA need to sell on Steam. I am calling that bullshit for several reasons. First off because their competition can be with other game makers and publishers, it doesn't have to be on the store level, and secondly because Valve do the same thing and exclude digital stores. Your focus being on the fact they are so far selling BF3 elsewhere is "missing the forest for the trees" as you said about me. The whole point is they want that direct Origin connection just like Valve have with Steam and Valve will not allow that on their platform.

At the end of the day I honestly have no idea what this is all about except for people wanting all games on Steam because they like Steam. Talk about excluding competitors never comes up as long as a game is up for sale on Steam. When Impulse, Direct2Drive and Gamersgate refused to sell Steamworks games I don't recall anyone whining about it on the basis of the publisher being uncompetitive. Steam refusing to sell games with Origin stores built into them is the same thing.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

231. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 14:37 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 13:58:
Exactly, well said. EA is a multi-billion dollar corporation who can afford to compete with Steam and everyone else in the market on features, price and other things are important to consumers instead of pulling this kind of nonsense.

I'd love to see EA actually compete with Steam in a way that's beneficial for the market but that's not what this kind of move is.

If EA are going to make a real run at Valve with a competing client that sells games from multiple publishers OF COURSE they are going to keep their first-party content exclusive. Who the fuck wouldn't? Do Valve sell their games anywhere but Steam? No, they don't.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

230. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 14:34 StingingVelvet
 
Teddy wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 13:40:
Right, that doesn't at all imply that people who do prefer to buy from Steam think Valve is their 'friend' or in some way more worthy of loyalty.

Maybe you honestly don't understand the implications of what you say, but somehow I doubt it. You don't strike me as stupid, just as another dick that tries to hide his disdain for others through feigned civility. There's a clear derisive tone to that statement, as if you know better than we what these companies are like and we need your patronizing commentary to understand.

You call me stupid (thanks for getting personal by the way, always appreciated) right after completely missing what my quote was saying. Just because I am saying Valve are not your friends doesn't mean I am saying you think they are. My point is that NONE of these companies, not EA, Valve, Blizzard or any other, is doing this stuff to make you happy. NONE of them. They all want your money, they all want more power and control in the digital realm. That is what all this is about.

If you like Steam more than other digital services GREAT. Good for you, I don't have a problem with that. I prefer the GOG method for singleplayer games, and Gamersgate is closest to that for new titles, but I do completely understand the merits of Steam.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

229. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 14:29 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 13:31:
Yeah because pricing and revenue models haven't gone through some changes recently or anything Rolleyes Is that kind of like your frankly absurd notion that Steam will takeover the entire gaming industry because some people on a forum said they only buy games through Steam? You show those people a sale at any other service that beats Steam prices or features and I guarantee the majority are whipping out their credit card regardless of what they say.

If you mean the change to $60 that was a collective decision between all publishers when the 360 launched. If you want to investigate them for collusion I wouldn't blame you. That has really nothing to do with the idea that because EA only sells through EA they can charge whatever they want, irrespective of the games market as a whole. That's a ridiculous notion. We know for a fact that TOR will be Origin only and if you think for one minute it will cost more than $60 for the standard edition you're crazy.

And yes, when a Steam release is pretty much required to make good money on the PC from smaller games I think that has a danger of making Steam way too powerful since they have an approval process. In that scenario, which could argue already exists, Valve basically decide what is a success and what isn't, and therefore what is made and what isn't. I know you think that's batshit crazy talk but I have never seen a persuasive argument to the contrary from you.

As for the rest... just going in circles.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > PC Call of Juarez: The Cartel in September

3. Re: PC Call of Juarez: The Cartel in September Jul 19, 2011, 13:22 StingingVelvet
 
The progression here is what is the real bummer. The original Juarez was on PC first... then the second on PC at the same time... now the third is on the PC later than consoles.

Ubisoft seem immune to the obvious PC gaming resurgence going on.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

222. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 13:19 StingingVelvet
 
Teddy wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 12:52:
I didn't miss the point at all. Rather I think it's the other way around. You are trying to attribute a number value to something that you cannot EVER know, and trying to pass it off as fact.

You have no idea whether or not it's a "small percentage of sales" since the game never appeared on the Steam platform and thus your entire argument on that front is nothing but baseless opinion.

I know that WoW, Starcraft 2 and Minecraft are the most successful PC games of the last couple years and none of them were on Steam.

Your latter argument cuts right to the point of your opinion. You seem to think that people use steam out of some misguided sense of loyalty, like we're all hapless fools who don't know what's best for ourselves.

I never said anything like that... where the hell did you pull that from?
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

221. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 13:14 StingingVelvet
 
Verno wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 08:39:
Yeah except that its not about people who "refuse to buy it on Steam", Steam has a massive installed base of consumers, many of whom are casual consumers who do not follow sites like this and get their exposure from services like Steam, Gamersgate, Impulse and so on.

Which is why for something like Cthulu Saves the World you HAVE to be on Steam to sell well (which is a fucking shame by the way, since Steam reject games like Gemini Rue). For Battlefield though? Those people know Battlefield is coming. Come on now.

Who cares? What a load of crap, you of all people should know better. The consumer doesn't care whats best for EA. You know what's best for EA? No competition at all and selling their games for whatever price they want. What is best for EA isn't best for the customer so don't ask us to give a shit.

I care. More profit from PC games means more focus on PC games. I don't have some emotional view of EA as rapists or anything, they just want to make money. If they make more money on the PC, they treat the PC better. It's that simple.

If Origin was shitty like a lot of publisher's terrible Digital River stores then I would say fuck them, but it's not. Whenever it is a reasonably viable alternative I will buy directly from ANY developer, any publisher, because they are the ones who deserve the profit.

No, this has been pointed out multiple times by several posters but I will repeat it again for you. Your Starcraft 2 example is inherently flawed because Blizzard sold it at retail and made their digital release exclusive. Battlefield 3 is not being sold digitally just through Origin, they are releasing it everywhere but specifically not including Steam. More choice is always good for the consumer, end of story. You may not like the choices your fellow consumers make but you still benefit from it in several factors but most importantly on price.

It's also been pointed out several times that EA is not excluding Steam, Steam is excluding EA.

As for who is our "buddy" or not, who cares? Did you ever once stop to think that people have weighed the pros/cons and still choose Steam? It's not exactly hard to believe, Steam basically revived the PC gaming industry which was really in the shitter for awhile. Steam has continually evolved both in features and catalog, it's no surprise it's successful. It is beyond ludicrous to even compare Steam and EA in terms of industry contribution.

Here you go again assuming everything I write is based on some hatred of Steam you completely made up in your mind. Since going digital again I have bought damn near everything on Steam. I spent like $150 in the summer sale.

Steam is fine... Steam works very well, especially for multiplayer. It really needs a patch rollback feature but other than that I have no real issues with it. Everything I am saying is based on an impartial view of the situation. If EA want to directly sell to customers whenever possible and have built a new and ten times better client to facilitate that then good on them if you ask me. Direct sales means more profit for the people actually making the games. I don't have some irrational fear of using multiple game stores, especially since Origin does not have to be running to play games.

EA wants to cut out the part where they might have to compete with others and just cut them out one at a time. If EA wants to exclusively release digital products through Origin then as Jerykk said I think it's a poor business decision but that's their choice. Playing pin the tail on the donkey with competition one at a time however is anti-competitive behavior, particularly from a company of EAs size who controls a large portion of the overall industry.

And again, Steam has rules and an approval process... you don't know that EA is cutting out Steam and EA's story is that Steam is refusing to sell their games. Either way though, EA is competing with other GAME PUBLISHERS. Their games are competing with other GAMES. That is where the competition is, and that is all I care about. EA can't suddenly decide to sell all their games for $100 when they're Origin only, if they ever are. It doesn't matter where you can buy it, if the games/DLC/multiplayer service are too expensive or too low in quality compared to other titles then they won't sell. That keeps prices competitive.

This frankly absurd idea you and others have that if EA sell games only through Origin then will radically change pricing is ridiculous.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

204. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 03:01 StingingVelvet
 
Teddy wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 01:54:
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 23:07:
Again, this idea that a PC game of Battlefield's stature needs Steam is so ridiculous. Starcraft 2, dude... Starcraft 2.

That's one argument, but is has very little to support it. All I need to is ask "How many more copies would have been sold had it been available on Steam?"

You cannot deny that there are casual gamers who would have bought it on steam had a shiny advertisement for it popped up in front of them with a button to buy on loading up steam, much less on a steam sale, yet would not have gone out of their way to find Blizzard's download service. On the other hand, I can't cite any reliable numbers to suggest it might be a significant amount.

Since there's no way to answer the oiriginal question, the argument is null. Certainly it doesn't NEED it to be successful, but the real question is, would it be MORE successful if it had it?

Yeah but you're missing the whole point. Valve take 30-40% of the price when they make a Steam sale. When Blizzard sells Starcraft 2 on battle.net they get 100% of the price. When EA sell Battlefield 3 on Origin they get 100% of the price. More to the point in this exact storyline, when they sell DLC through the game itself they get 100% of THAT money.

In other words losing a small percentage of sales from the people who really do refuse to buy anywhere but Steam is made up for by all the people who would have bought it on Steam who are now going to buy it on battle.net, or whatever. Then they get all the DLC money too. It's a win-win.

Like I said in another thread on this same subject a while back I see nothing wrong with someone making a game and selling it directly on their website. The consumer and seller have a direct relationship and no middle-man gets in the way or takes any of the profits. I always try to buy indie games on the developer's website when possible for this reason. What EA is doing is the same thing, just on a larger scale. They're not even doing that actually since they still sell the games themselves elsewhere, they just want you to buy from Origin and want to sell the DLC themselves... any why not? You would want the same thing if you ran EA.

More to the point Valve do EXACTLY the same thing. They only sell their games digitally on Steam and they have their own in-game shops. Valve, Blizzard, EA... all of them are doing this for the money, none of them are your friends. None of them care about losing some customers if it means more profit from the other ones. All of them are trying to leverage the download market to get the most profit...
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

192. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 00:33 StingingVelvet
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 23:59:
Not releasing a game on Steam is a poor business decision. Steam has, by far, the greatest customer base of any digital distribution service. As made evident by this thread and countless others, there are a lot of customers who will only buy games from Steam. Therefore, why would you choose not to sell your game to these customers?

A lot of the people saying they won't buy it now are talking out of their ass, of course. As for the rest EA will likely make them up by making 100% of the money for each Origin sale compared to 60% or whatever through Steam.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

187. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 23:07 StingingVelvet
 
Dades wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 22:58:
That's why you only see the people who have a problem with Steam defending this. If it was about Impulse or Direct2Drive those people would be having an opposition fit. I just hope this decision doesn't hurt the Battlefield franchise, it sells well but not Call of Duty well, they can't afford to be ignoring a source of millions of customers.

Again, this idea that a PC game of Battlefield's stature needs Steam is so ridiculous. Starcraft 2, dude... Starcraft 2.

And even if it did need Steam like a lot of indies do, that would be even more evidence that Steam is too powerful. No one store should dictate what can be a success on the PC.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

184. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 22:54 StingingVelvet
 
Dev wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 21:35:
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 21:20:
Dev wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 21:06:
EA used to sell stuff and say it was only available to download for a few months then you had to pay a fee to redownload. Did they grandfather all previous purchases to be free to redownload now?

Everything you ever bought on the EA store is on Origin now with no limitations. Also as far as I know they never actually removed your downloads on the old EADM, they just had that in their service contract in case they ever wanted to.

No no, they used to sell a $6 service for "download insurance" or some such. After around 6 months they would stop letting you download. It was added to your cart as a default fee when you bought anything from EA store. You had to opt out to remove it. I distinctly remember them trying to get me in that way for an extra $6.

A quick google confirms:
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9519-ea-store-charges-extra-fee-for-game-insurance/
And it was even worse than I thought, they charged you the money for two years of "download insurance"

Yes I know they did that, but they never actually removed the games in my experience.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

169. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 21:20 StingingVelvet
 
Dev wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 21:06:
EA used to sell stuff and say it was only available to download for a few months then you had to pay a fee to redownload. Did they grandfather all previous purchases to be free to redownload now?

Everything you ever bought on the EA store is on Origin now with no limitations. Also as far as I know they never actually removed your downloads on the old EADM, they just had that in their service contract in case they ever wanted to.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

159. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:37 StingingVelvet
 
Prez wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 20:29:
Okay, but... seriously, when is the last time this happened? I own 600 games on Steam and can't remember a single time.

Fallout 3's 1.5 patch broke mods and caused my game to crash constantly. Call of Duty Black Ops had a stutter problem for some people but mine was fine at launch, then the quick patch right after it came out made my game stutter like everyone was complaining about. I'm pretty sure there are other examples.

Usually it's nothing major but still I would like to have some way to fix the issue when that happens. With Steam if you uninstall and reinstall it just downloads the latest version, so you have no recourse.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

154. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:23 StingingVelvet
 
Prez wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 20:22:
and even so Steam has a feature where you can choose to not let certain games auto-update.

That doesn't help at all when you update and realize it broke something.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

152. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:20 StingingVelvet
 
Prez wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 20:13:
Not true. My two favorite features of Steam are auto-patching and simple back-ups that allows for easy archiving and restoration of games in minutes. Neither works with non-Steam games in Steam, at least that I know of.

Ah, I suppose... I was thinking in-game features.

I actually hate auto-patching because there is no rollback, you're stuck with a bad patch.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

150. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:11 StingingVelvet
 
Prez wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 20:09:
It's not about liking Valve over EA. It's just a simple matter of convenience. Of all the digital delivery services, Valve is for me the most feature-rich, most user-friendly, most automated, with the largest catalog, best archiving feature by a frigin' mile, and far and away the best sales. At this point I have zero interest in another service. And it's not just a matter of remembering passwords; I don't want any other gaming services running in order fro me to play a game. Steam's enough.

You can buy games on Origin (or anywhere else) and launch them through Steam, getting all the benefits of Steam you would for any non-Steamworks title.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

143. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 19:49 StingingVelvet
 
Creston wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 18:24:
So, you buy a game on Origin, and next year you can't download it anymore? You gotta admit it's possible. Especially since the EA store already had exactly such a wonderful mechanism in place.

There's a big difference between shutting off multiplayer support and removing a game from someone's account. It's also worth noting that despite having that mechanism in place anything you ever bought from the EA store is still available and downloadable with your account today, no matter what they said.

Really a lot of doom and gloom about this is based on people viewing EA as an evil corporate entity based on things they have done in the past like closing Westwood and Bullfrog. In the end though Valve is exactly the same. Their terms of service say they can remove your Steam account for any reason tomorrow and there is nothing you can do about it. They're shoving microtransactions into everything. They pretty much invented online DRM and account ties when Half-Life 2 came out.

They all want our money. They all want control. There is no sacred angel for the consumer in this fight. At least we're all gaming on an open system where most of their control attempts are laughably unrealistic. Think of all the console gamers relying on Microsoft and Sony letting them have access to their stuff on a closed system.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

142. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 19:44 StingingVelvet
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 17:42:
Well wherever you hold them, do you not hold them higher than EA?

Not really, no. They're all in it for the same thing and doing the same stuff.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam

141. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 19:43 StingingVelvet
 
Dades wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 18:02:
It annoys you that some people are picking sides when you're doing the same thing? EA has done none of those things you mentioned and and worse? Does it matter what side we're on anyway? The consumer caught in the middle can only go with who has supported them in the past and I doubt the answer is EA for many people.

I'm not taking a side, or choosing one company as more trustworthy. I see an issue and I judge it fairly. As someone else posted BOTH these companies want your money, NEITHER is going to choose consumer happiness over their own interests.

EA want to tie their games to an EA account and have you go through them. Valve have been doing that for like 8 fucking years. They're both doing the same shit, the only difference is people are used to Steam and get cranky about things upsetting their routine.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4538 Comments. 227 pages. Viewing page 57.
< Newer [ 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ] Older >