Blogs Why We Need Origin

Sad to be honest with you.

But I guess if it becomes available on Steam you will jump through Valves hoop and buy it on there and have Steam running in the background, but I guess that's fine?

Oh and yes it look's like it may be available on Steam in time for launch but, it depend's if Valve are willing to move on the DLC issue.

 

While Steam does need competition, there are two things Origin needs:

1) Purchased games should be for life. Origin's T&Cs state that legally speaking EA only needs to ensure the game is available to download for at least 2 years after purchase. While in practice they're likely to keep the games on their servers a lot longer, I'd like to see some legal lifetime gurantee. In particular, I think Steam has a clause that games that will be removed from their servers will receive one last patch to remove all traces of Steam DRM from them.
2) EA need to demonstrate a track record of listening to and supporting its customers. PC gamers are typically more vocal and have longer memories than console gamers, and EA needs to realise it shouldn't sacrifice long-term growth by screwing over customers for a short-term quick buck. This message should also be passed along to their shareholders (with a promise of greater long-term dividend yields).

 

It's not competition because they don't distribute the same games - so there's no reason to drive prices down. IMO the problem is that every game is still a tenner cheaper in every high-street store.

 

The problem will be they will make money, becuse they have a ig library of EA games. Then Activision will jump in with theirs, and then all the publishers will want their own (potentially pulling games from Steam as they go) And we'll end up with a mess of installers and social network hybrids all over the place.

 

I feel that you're over simplifying market forces, the key to competition has to be the same or incredibly similar items competing openly. I'd always argue that competition is good, and I personally own games on both D2D and Steam, and I have no problem buying from multiple sources, but what Origin is is a closed platform. Activision is never going to sell games through a EA front end with EA taking a cut, because they're both publishers, same with Ubisoft, or THQ or Take2 or any other of the game publishers out there. If EA restrict their big selling games to their platform that is the very opposite of competition, its a walled garden and fragmentation.

Steam competes with D2D, GMG and other digital distributors, as GAME competes with Amazon or Gamestation, who provide physical copies of games. The key difference is that Valve is a developer first, and a publisher “by mistake†by being in the right place at the right time, whilst EA are a publisher first and foremost which happens to own some development houses (by their very nature buying developers to publish under their label to reduce competition.)

If I can by “Awesome Strawberry Cheesecake†from Tesco, or “Awesome Strawberry Cheesecake†from Sainsburys they are competing, offering different prices, convenience of location and other things such as loyalty reward programmes. That is competition.

Saying “You can only get X from X†isn't competition, EA are only still selling the digital copies of their games through services such as D2D because they know that Steam is the real threat to being the “first stop shop†for EA titles and it prevents the “monopoly stick†being waved in their direction.

Also compare the price difference between Valve games at release or on pre-order on their own Steam service to that of EA's Origin pre-order pricing for their own game. EA isn't promoting competition, they're raising prices as far as they feel able despite owning the whole supply chain so increasing their margins.

Let me qualify this by stating that if EA were offering a choice between Steam and Origin for their titles I wouldn't have a problem in the slightest, I would chose between them on the basis of pre-order bonuses and price I'd go where I felt suited me the best.

If EA were to publish other publishers content through their portal which is also on Steam as well as other platforms such as D2D then yes we'd be seeing digital distribution competition, as it stands it appears more protectionist than innovation or competition.

 

Is origin an app like steam I need to install and having running in order to play BF3?

 

We don't need Origin. We would need Origin if it could bring something new to the table instead of using the "me too" approach. Here are some examples of novel ideas other digital distribution services bring to the table:

Direct2drive: regional shops mean that on occassion I can buy a game with the US price, much cheaper than buying it in pounds or euros.

Gamersgate: Gamersgate has a vast library of games and the Blue Coins system which allows you to get games for free.

Good Old Games: Classic games made to work on modern systems and DRM free.

Green Man Gaming: Ability to trade-in your games for store credit.

Metaboli: "all you can eat" pricing scheme.

So I ask: What does Origin bring to the table? What does it offer? What is its alure other than the fact that EA plans to make it mandatory for its games?

 

yes. to play BF3 with your Steam friends, you'll need:
-BF3 game obviously
-an Internet browser for Battlelog (which has its own friends system)
-a browser plugin to launch the game
-Origin to launch the game

+Steam (to text chat and find eachother)
+any voice communication program if you are using



i am for Origin as a store. but not in the way it cripples BF3, so that you cannot get Steam overlay over it. Steam never stopped Xfire to display their overlay.

 

What is this "competition" everyone are talking about?
My understanding is that all prices on all DD platforms are set by game's publisher. So no matter how much competing platforms there are - the prices are about the same. The only competition I can see is in DD service provider fee and lower fee almost never translates to lower prices.

 

I don't like how I suddenly found it on my PC

 

You can compete in other ways, convenience, quality of service, loyalty programmes to name a few.

But I agree, what is being argued for here is wrong, Origin isn't providing compeition in any way shape or form, and to believe it is is market Nievity in the highest order. Just how is Origin competing, its being a different place, but its not competition in the slightest, different doen't equal competition.

 

Sorry Harry, I have to agree with this ^.

EA entering the games market with online distribution of only EA games, whilst not allowing Steam (or others) to distribute their games, is not competition.

 

Its worth mentioning two facts considering how buggy BF3 has been in the beta:
1) EA has a UK office and presence and hence have to abide by the UK sales of goods act (goods of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose).
2) EA has a significantly better refunds and returns policy when a game fails to function.

Steam is famous for its no refunds policy and when a game genuinely doesn't work due to faulty coding your only legal recourse is in the USA under different laws. EA however can be complained about to the office of fair trading. Steam has terrible customer service, the very worst.

 

Firstly I'm pretty certain EA have stated that they'd be happy to see games from other companies being sold on Origin at some point in the future. Secondly EA are still allowing Steam and other online distributors to sell their games, it's just games with DLC that EA don't want to sell via Valve's proscribed methods that aren't appearing on Steam.

Origin, at this point in time, isn't really in competition with Steam but it's only on it's first steps. The article is right in that Steam does need healthy competition but you can't expect a fully-fledged competitor to just appear out of nowhere, it'll take time and Origin will need to prove itself before other publishers look to using it.

As far as I'm aware there's no clause in Steam's T&Cs requiring Valve (or anyone else) to provide a last patch to remove DRM from any Steam-based games if for some reason Steam was to go permanently offline. It was simply a statement made by Valve at some point in the past but i'm not sure how much legal standing it has. Even if they were required to do something to that effect it wouldn't alter the problem of the games no longer being available to download which would mean that you'd need to already have them all backed up on your computer or you'd lose out.

 

I find it bizarre that people are complaining that digital distribution is more expensive than retail. You can buy the game from the comfort of your own home and be playing it within minutes! You pay a premium for convenience, no?

 

Why we need Origin:

Short answer: we don't.

Sorry, but the last thing I want is another platform open. EA want a stab at the sector, fair enough, but I don't want to use it - yet inadvertently (or not) it's as though they're saying "tough ****, son."

Tragic.

To quote a top comment someone posted in the NFS The Run trailer on YouTube.

You can stick Origin up your **** you ******* **** ****s

 

Bet you are the same people that would say "take your money elsewhere if you have an issue with something"

And the moment I do, you call it sad.

 

i dont mind origin. its just another steam.

but the fact they forced ur originID to become the main (and only, permanent) user ID in the games, are not cool. My originID i used years ago in EA is now my soldier name in BF3 and there's no way I can change that?

fail.

 

EA's policy is the same. Note: EA refers to games bought via Origin as 'Entitlements' (i.e. you haven't bought a game, you've bought the license to play it at EA's pleasure):

 

I'll give my opinion.

For me, the best solution is the existence of a middle API to provide achievements, friends, profile, and so. So every game uses that API and there could be as many stores as they want.