Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2011, 14:11:
There's nothing to really debate there beyond how opposed to your own usual opinion it is. You're always worried about Steam taking over the market and claiming that games need to be on Steam to be successful. But suddenly EA will make a lot more money selling direct because Steam isn't that important after all?
Dude, you're not even paying attention at this point. EA is a lot different from, say, DoubleBear. Battlefield is a lot different from Dead State. My concerns with a game needing to be on Steam to be profitable are massively lowered when the game is a multi-million selling property with a hundred million marketing budget from one of the two biggest publishers in the industry.
As for the rest of what you said you barely responded to my points if you did at all, so I'm not sure what my response could possible be. At the end of the day I laid out in great detail the road toward making more money by excluding Steam and the reasons for doing so. You can either respond to those points or not, but stop trying to do both at the same time.