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.
Your TOR example is yet another flawed example considering it has to compete with a massive, entrenched competitor. One would think EA would apply those same principles to Origin instead of launching with a minimal feature set and trying to bully out competitors. I mean $60 titles, project $10 dollar which has turned into project $30 and things like EA Pass. You seem to think it's ok that EA just wants to make money but also have deceived yourself into thinking they will just find their own reasonable stopping point for it because the market won't tolerate any bullshit - hint, yes it will and even if it didnt things take a long time to correct themselves. You're ignoring the fact that competition is a large part of what regulates the interaction between corporations and consumers, being able to exclude specific competitors reduces market competition, it doesn't increase it. We can debate all day about the degree of just how bad that will be but in the end it's a negative.
And yes, when a Steam release is pretty much required to make good money on the PC from smaller games
This is demonstrably incorrect as noted already by different posters. If you want to reach a wide audience who are more likely to buy cheap games then Steam has a great built in consumer base but it is not the only way to market or sell games on the PC platform. More accurately it's a good way to accomplish specific disribution goals quickly and offers a lot of ease in the process. It's like claiming Facebook is the only way to make money on the web. Sure Facebook has a built in audience of people who play little games but there are plenty of other ways to reach people and make money.
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.
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.
This comment was edited on Jul 19, 2011, 15:14.