EA acknowledges gamer distaste for Origin "We get it." – EVP Andrew Wilson

Ubisoft tried a client system like Steam and everyone moaned. Game fly have lots of games that use their own downloader. People complain 'I just want a Steam Code'. When Half Life 2 came out (or was it half life 1?) and Valve said 'you must install and use Steam' people went MENTAL.

Some of you young whippersnapper's don't know what Steam was like even two or three years ago. It was Terrible at times, saying you were offline for hours at a time, downloads that would take hours and run glacially slow at peak times, updates not showing up while showing for others and other issues. Given how young Origin is now compared to Steam at the same age they're doing a pretty good job.
 
Final8y said:
No it was not about how much was skimmed off the top, it was about DLC.

It was about that you could buy a game on steam but the DLC could be bought elsewhere, through the game directly to EA and may not be available to buy through steam at all.
Click to expand...

Correct. Please read my clarification on page 2.
 
ZombieFan said:
Why do you think Valve have never commented?
Click to expand...

Because some people will instantly see through their 'for the gamer' veneer and realise how much Valve cream off the top on every Steam sale?

I'm sure it's written into the Steam deal that any DLC for a game on Steam must be available through Steam. Sure release DLC elsewhere but it must be available through Steam as well. EA wanted to do some unique DLC for some game or other through Origin and Steam said 'Er, it says here in the contract you signed that any and all DLC must be available through Steam.' EA went' HNNNNNGGGG!! ME NO LIKE!' and took their EA link and pushed it into Origin. Then published most of their own stuff through it.
 
ZombieFan said:
Why do you think Valve have never commented?
Click to expand...

Partly (a very minor part), because they are a distribution company, and don't want to alienate potential customers (EA).

But most importantly, because they are not a publicly traded company, and are thus not beholden to shareholder options. Thus they don't have to comment about anything. There lack of comments on this matter are the same as their lack of comments on nearly every other matter. They are a tight-lipped company. There is no upside to them commenting.
 
Gibbo3771 said:
Also I have pirated every single EA game since around 2010, if I want to play online I use Tunggle. However, most EA games are complete trash and I play them for less than 10 hours.
Click to expand...
Sorry but pirating games is not the moral stand you seem to think it is, your disproval of all things EA would be laudable if you actually sacrificed not playing a game you were interested in rather than just not paying for it.
 
Who cares? Origin is hardly that much of a ballache to use. I just click the shortcut and the game starts. What's wrong with that?!

So much whining over nothing. "Waaah EA bad, waaah Valve good like my mummy" etc etc.
 
Halfmad said:
Origin is just the easiest part of the EA empire to dislike, but what EA don't seem to understand is the perception that they take over companies or development of games and then ruin them or turn them into cash cows.

DAOC and Ultima Online being two beautifully stupid examples.
Click to expand...

jahujames said:
My beloved Westwood Studios :(
Click to expand...

This is the main thing people mistake, they likely have hurt some studios and improved others.

But when you look at any studio that doesn't get bought out, the subsequent games are almost always worse. This is just how life is, guy has big idea, makes a fantastic game and the second game he gets "hollywood blockbuster syndrome, rather than doing a similar thing with a new story making a great game then want to go bigger and better.... and ruin the franchise.

So many games, look at Fable, the second is almost a carbon copy of the first but with a few more childish features thrown in, the third is an utter travesty, Spore or Duke Nuken, just cases of the developer wanting to go big with their next games, they try to do WAY to much and end up making everything about them crap.

Matrix 1, epic, matrix 2, travesty, matrix 3 laughably awful. Star wars 4-5-6, awesome(in varying levels) Star Wars 1-2-3... epically awful.

Most books, most films, most games, they get worse with each incarnation yet people somehow blame EA when it happens under their banner and ignore that massively more often than not a series of anything tv, books, films, games get worse with each subsequent version.

The really hilarious thing is with that being the case, franchises are mostly stupid and buying up smaller studio's after one or two big games is just asking to pay big before the studio almost certainly gets worse... EA's model is buying the worse later games from a studio but buying at a premium after the earlier good titles. EA lose money, and the reason is incredibly obvious.

In a lot of cases EA is propping up studios that have made a terrible game that had they still been independant would have seen the same game, but the studio go under.

Origin is fine, I dislike this "steam was first therefore better" rabid fanboy nonsense. It was better when it was just a downloader without the store. I find with origin and Steam I want a slimline list of games, nothing else, neither has a lightweight simplified version you can choose to run.

I have always gotten max speed on every download from origin, Steam often trickle in when downloading... for speed of delivery Origin spanks Steam IMHO.
 
drunkenmaster said:
I have always gotten max speed on every download from origin, Steam often trickle in when downloading... for speed of delivery Origin spanks Steam IMHO.
Click to expand...

I think this depends on what content servers, etc. your connected to - Steam has always maxed out my connection except the odd few hours just after a major release.
 
drunkenmaster said:
This is the main thing people mistake, they likely have hurt some studios and improved others.

But when you look at any studio that doesn't get bought out, the subsequent games are almost always worse. This is just how life is, guy has big idea, makes a fantastic game and the second game he gets "hollywood blockbuster syndrome, rather than doing a similar thing with a new story making a great game then want to go bigger and better.... and ruin the franchise.

So many games, look at Fable, the second is almost a carbon copy of the first but with a few more childish features thrown in, the third is an utter travesty, Spore or Duke Nuken, just cases of the developer wanting to go big with their next games, they try to do WAY to much and end up making everything about them crap.

Matrix 1, epic, matrix 2, travesty, matrix 3 laughably awful. Star wars 4-5-6, awesome(in varying levels) Star Wars 1-2-3... epically awful.

Most books, most films, most games, they get worse with each incarnation yet people somehow blame EA when it happens under their banner and ignore that massively more often than not a series of anything tv, books, films, games get worse with each subsequent version.

The really hilarious thing is with that being the case, franchises are mostly stupid and buying up smaller studio's after one or two big games is just asking to pay big before the studio almost certainly gets worse... EA's model is buying the worse later games from a studio but buying at a premium after the earlier good titles. EA lose money, and the reason is incredibly obvious.

In a lot of cases EA is propping up studios that have made a terrible game that had they still been independant would have seen the same game, but the studio go under.

Origin is fine, I dislike this "steam was first therefore better" rabid fanboy nonsense. It was better when it was just a downloader without the store. I find with origin and Steam I want a slimline list of games, nothing else, neither has a lightweight simplified version you can choose to run.

I have always gotten max speed on every download from origin, Steam often trickle in when downloading... for speed of delivery Origin spanks Steam IMHO.
Click to expand...

Quite a ramble, not much of it making any sense.

Steam wasn't better when it was purely a downloader, you had to install the games then look for mates on gamespy etc or check for an open server and organise to join with everyone, at least with Steam you started to see a more joined up strategy. I don't mind Origin but it's a purely commercial vehicle, one which rarely has any decent offers on it - so I'm not compelled to use it. It doesn't help that most of it's content is of no interest to me either as it's limited to EAs own games.

Truth is EA have a lot of IP that if I ever win the euromillions I'll be after :p
 
Never used origin so can't comment, but steam needs competition!

Not a fan of ea running CandC

Monopolies aren't good
 
al4x said:
Monopolies aren't good
Click to expand...

your right,

Whats also great about that, "Steam is not a Monopoly"

Can we break with this crazy idea once and for all, even if origin was not in the market place, steam would still not be a Monopoly, its not that hard to understand.

Has steam since 2003 become the standard by which all others are judged? yes it has, but this does not make it a Monopoly,

Is Origin evil? the simple answer is no, should it be better? hell yes,

EA have had since about 2005 to get people thinking about its service lets not forget EA downloader was there first go at a digital service, end result total failure, over the years they watched as the money rolled in from steam, so they put a new skin on EA Downloader it became origin with little to no work done.

Its going to take years for EA to get Origin to the level steam is at today, by that time steam will be moved on to something else, is that steams fault? no, its EA's failure to see how the market was going to change that has allowed steam to become what it is "the benchmark platform"
 
Halfmad said:
Quite a ramble, not much of it making any sense.

Steam wasn't better when it was purely a downloader, you had to install the games then look for mates on gamespy etc or check for an open server and organise to join with everyone, at least with Steam you started to see a more joined up strategy. I don't mind Origin but it's a purely commercial vehicle, one which rarely has any decent offers on it - so I'm not compelled to use it. It doesn't help that most of it's content is of no interest to me either as it's limited to EAs own games.

Truth is EA have a lot of IP that if I ever win the euromillions I'll be after :p
Click to expand...

Origin has WAY better offers than Steam ever has. A year or 5 after a game is out Steam puts on sales so loads of weird people end up with thousands of games all costing a couple quid each which they will never play most of, great marketing, joke though. Single worst place on the internet to pre-order or buy games in their first often couple years. Fairly sure things like COD stay full price on there for years. Origin, I got Crysis 2 for half price on pre-order, same for a half dozen other titles on origin or the EA downloader. They still do half price sales and good codes but the deals certainly aren't as good as they once were.

Personally I think a AAA game half price on pre-order is a better deal than some indie game for £1 that used to be £2 3 years after its release.... but thats just me.

As for when it was just a downloader, I didn't say it was better I simply said I want that option. I don't want to load a store into memory I don't use every time I open steam. Same way when I open firefox I don't want it to go to Amazon or wherever else I buy stuff every time, its just stuff open I don't need open. I have no need for it. As for gamespy and stuff, steam isn't providing servers for multiplayer games, its just games changed to host games themselves mostly, the change there has precisely nothing to do with steam at all.

The amount of trouble I and many other people have had with Steam over the years, thats no different to other software, this ridiculous team fanboyism is so painfully rampant around the web its basically embarrassing. They are both basic applications that let you download stuff and contains a link of short cuts to games, my win 95 pc could handle short cuts to games without opening a program, taking ages to load it, logging in and occassionally being told my games are unavailable because I'm in offline mode.

Origin.... Steam, the original version was shortcuts to games in a folder, or list on toolbar/windows menu, wherever you kept them, and people act like its some epic new convenience to have " all my games in one place"... before steam they always were anyway.
 
Drunkenmaster, I personally feel that that Steamworks as a toolset offers some of the most useful tools for gamers and allows a unified platform which best of all is free and so far, a single feture has not been shut down which would be the case for the majority of PC games when the game is no longer making money.

drunkenmaster said:
steam isn't providing servers for multiplayer games, its just games changed to host games themselves mostly, the change there has precisely nothing to do with steam at all.
Click to expand...

Listen servers still require a matchmaking service else how would you find any other games? This is what Steamworks provides, for FREE to developers.

Multiplayer support in Grid, Codemasters switched it off, it was only a matchmaking server but it was costing them money. **** like that is what hurts gamers, not Steam.

Using Steamworks, I see no reason why it would ever need to be disabled. Likewsie for cloud saves and leaderboards. For anyone using these features and understands them, they are a great feature.

Steam is much more than a distribution platform and for those who "get it", the distribution channel is probably the least important part to them (Anyone can setup a download server), it is the other tools which make it what it is.
 
Last edited:
The points raised about developers just naturally getting worse after initial ground breaking games is actually a good point and I've raised it myself in the past. When people get the taste of success and the paycheck, they often lose that drive and desire they first had.

EA buying a studio will make the guys in the studio think "wooh it's time to buy that house I wanted, I've got a solid income regardless"

Naturally they grow more lazy and the blame goes to EA who funded their next crap game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom