News EA: 'Dragon Age 2 DLC caused removal from Steam'

That doesn't seem to be the case, it seems to be EA doing it on its own otherwise what I don't get is why is it different to allow purchasing of DLC through Origin than for example buying Dirt3 on Steam and having to purchase the DLC from GFWL (Now part of Xbox.com).....

Just something for everyone who defends EA to consider.

 

I'd like to think that the majority of the bit-tech community is sensible and isn't defending EA "just because".

Despite that, i'd also hope that people aren't defending Valve willy-nilly either.

However, "That doesn't seem to be the case" isn't really a strong argument in the face of the statement that it's Valve who have changed their TOS and it was Valve who removed the games from Steam.

I've shown that EA/Bioware has had a history of ingame DLC Stores for games that have been on Steam, and that there doesn't seem to be anything different about the DA2 DLC and maybe the Crysis 2 DLC (i don't have the latter, so can't tell).

Let's also point out that none of the other Digital Download services such as Direct2Drive or Impulse seem to have any issue with it.

And lastly, again with the Origin bashing... does anyone actually have any proof that this DLC is "Origin only"? Since as i stated before... i can't find any of the DLC in question (Crysis 2 DLC or DA2: Legacy) on Origin at all.

 

I am not naive enough to believe that Valve is perfect, but they do seem to have a vested interest in supporting the PC market, and protecting it. Plus they've already got more money than they can possibly know what to do with, whilst I'm aware they're a business and not at all altruistic I cannot imagine why their changes would only be effecting EA stuff.

Other games, from other publishers do just fine selling DLC outside of Steam (DiRT3 as an example, but other games with GFWL do it as well, I know Batman does).

So just what could have changed that ONLY effects EA games? We just need to be careful not to condemn either side without more information. Personally I like having all my games together on Steam in one account, but I also buy games on Impluse and D2D, but Steam by far has the larger market share, perhaps EA sees that as a threat to origin more than other services.

But until we know more people shouldn't jump to conclusions condeming either side as “evil” until we know more, which is the point I was trying to make clear, it seems evident that theres more to it than “Valve won't let EA sell DLC because they want a cut.”

 

Nice unbiased view, refreshing for a change .

I didn't realise that DiRT 3 had its DLC on a separate platform, it certainly makes me curious, as you said, with regards to what makes EA games special (you know, apart from the money grabbing EA conspiracy). The only thing that stands out to me at the moment is that DA's release is more... substantial than a simple "item, map" etc. and is more like a mini-expansion, how that's treated differently is beyond my guess.

Also with the announcement that Battlefield 3 isn't likely to be on Steam, it makes me wonder if this is also to do with the "Valve/Steam TOS", since like before, they're on D2D and Impulse. A related note could be if EA wanted to sell the "Back to Karkand" through an ingame BF3 shop which is also akin to an "expansion". This would be contrary to BC2: Vietnam which can be bought anywhere and then subsequently added to a Steam version.

Ultimately it doesn't help that Valve refuses to clarify anything and has remained completely silent with regards to both Crysis and now DA2... another side's perspective would certainly help.

 

Exactly. As someone has said before, everyone seems to think that Valve can do no wrong. Of course they can, they are a company out to make money just like EA.

 

If that's not a load of PR crap I don't know what is. "Interact with customers"? Spare me, there's no "interaction", just sales.

Valve's reason for being strict on the subject seems reasonable: You buy your game on Steam, any DLC should be available there as well. The Steam system is meant to be an all-in-one gaming platform, unlike other digital distributors which are more standalone experiences. A more detailed understanding of the ToS would be required to see exactly how "restrictive" Valve is, though.

Again it's hard to say without reading over the ToS first, but common sense would say that EA only has to let Valve sell their DLC. They likely aren't asking to be the exlusive provider as they're more than willing to sell games which are available from other sources. My money's on both parties trying to test each other's strength amidst tensions with Origin. Valve knows they'll live without EA, EA knows they'll live without Valve, queue e-peen waving contest.

Also, as mighty_pirate points out, rumors (and more common sense) has it that this only applies to games added after the new ToS. Any confusion with games that don't conform can likely be explained by the release date, anything that's already released likely negotiated it's terms of sales on Steam before the new ToS.

 

I personally disagree here. If the content in question is coming from an in-game store, then i don't have any issue with it. It's not as if you need to use another program/platform to access it, in fact it integrates itself with the Steam game and becomes a part of the game itself.

If the issue was specifically "Origin only DLC", either that you had to have an Origin copy of the game, or that the only place to buy the DLC was Origin, then i could probably see the problem.

However, note the latter isn't the case here. These are in-game stores and nothing to do with the Origin platform itself (so far at least).

Pretty much.

However, issues are going to occur if/when other publishers/indie developers ever move away from Valve because of these TOSs.

EA at least has a lot of familiar names and blockbuster titles to push Origin with (Battlefield, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, The Old Republic etc.), even if they don't accept games from 3rd Party Publishers.

Valve on the other hand appear to be complacent, wallowing in all the cash they've earned from Steam, just look at the amount of QQ'ing about Episode 3. Their last big title was Portal 2, but before that was Left 4 Dead 2, 2 years ago.

 

What do Valve actually do that is so special?

Ok silly question, Steam is great BUT:

it is just a content delivery system. Anyone can look at it and copy it and make a service just as good.

However, having games as amazing as Mass Effect and Battlefield is NOT something that everyone can do.

If they start pissing off big publishers they could find themselves in trouble. OK, its only EA now but if others jump ship then they could be in trouble.

 

Valve as a developer are rather dedicated to the PC sector.

For example look at the mass of free TF2 updates and the free content packs for Left 4 Dead (which required money on XBLA).

Overall they've done a great job of constantly evolving many of their PC games to keep up with the times.

However you're correct in that because of it they seem to have... "lost focus" in their publishing side and i assume are relying on Steam's profits rather than their own games now.

 

Valve's reasoning (aside from wanting a cut on sales) is likely that their customers can't use the actual Steam platfrom as an all-in-one. A customer can't simply toss a game and all of the game's DLC into their cart on Steam and buy it. An in-game store, while at least letting customers not have to download other programs, still requires logging into a different store.

Being a company which needs money to survive just like anyone else, Valve can always turn back on their policies if they back-fire.

Again, it really doesn't seem to be a big issue, EA is just making a pissing contest out of it and Valve being as they are won't say anything or back down. What does it take to fix this? Offer the DLC on Steam. The game is already sold on Steam, why is adding the DLC a problem?

 

I see your point and that's very true, however the companies' in question usually offer a "Game of the Year" Edition of sorts, which includes all subsequent DLC.

Obviously it's not exactly what you're on about, however i'd say it's an "endgame" solution to your issue.

I can see why some people dislike the idea of a "shop within a shop", however i'm sure you could also make an argument that cutting Valve into it means they may have to price DLC higher than they want to. Note, i'm not saying it's a valid argument (or invalid for that matter), just that it's a consideration.

And personally i dislike seeing DLC on Steam since i think it clutters up the storefront.

True, however how many Publishers will they be able to mend relationships with after their "holier-than-thou" attitude? <- That's not supposed to be taken seriously (the point is, not the wording).

I mean if Origin establishes itself as a stable platform (and with so many AAA titles under its belt, i can't help but feel it'll be forced to), will EA actually need Steam again?

I mean there are many people like me who will always prefer Steam over any other platform/service simply because of convenience (or OCD of having everything organised). However that's not going to stop me from getting Battlefield 3 or Mass Effect 3 from Origin if the Steam option isn't available... i've already preorder SW:TOR from there anyways.

Well... for that i'd say that technically Valve made the pissing contest and EA aren't too bothered by it (especially since they now have Origin).

I mean it's all EA PR talk - but that's at least more to go on that "assuming" what Valve's response/stance on the situation is.

Other services don't seem to have taken issue with EA and are still happily selling their games.

So, "What does it take to fix this?" Valve to revert their TOSs.

Just another perspective really.

Oh and Sloth, pop into the League thread with your opinions of HoN going Free to Play .

 

Putting the blame on Steam for their cockiness (is that a word?) and to possibly have a "plausible" reason to remove their games from it and start advertising Origin. Really EA, is that how low you want to act?!

Have balls and say: "We'll be launching Origin, therefore, all of our IP is going to migrate from every other digital distribuition platforms to Origin. Yes, we are that bold and confident about Origin!"

 

/Facepalm... have you read anything in this thread at all?

I mean, EA have moved all DLC options to Origin now right? That's why there's so much DLC available on the platform right now - oh wait.

And it's obviously why every other online service like D2D and Impulse have pulled EA Games "oh wait again, i see what you did there".

Don't confuse the apparently coincidental Origin release date and the issues with Crysis 2 and DA2.

I guess i should have expected some mindless EA bashing (because it's cool now right?) after such a nice period of actual discussion.

EDIT: Bleh, maybe it sounds too harsh, don't take it personally.

 

To be fair there's a fair amount of ill informed steam/valve bashing going on too. People seem to be glossing over the fact I posted about other DLC for other games only being available outside steam but working within steam games.

People are running with assumptions, incorrect ones, likely on both sides. It's why fanboyism sucks, it removes any rational thought from a discussion.

What I'm curious about is how far this spat will go, valve is an Indy dev and I remember publishers fighting to get the right to publish valve games on disk when the vivendi/valve relationship broke down.

EA won that fight, I can't help but wonder if they may be souring that relationship.

 

You're right, i mean even i didn't know about the DiRT 3/GFWL stuff you pointed out.

Quote of the Thread i think .

I actually twigged on that as well when taking a quick browse through Valve's back catalogue on wikipedia when looking for dates etc.

It would mean the last title was Portal 2 in April, however that would give 2 months before Crysis 2 was removed from Steam (Origin being released just under 2 weeks before that, for reference).

 

Seems to me that a fair few comments have been made saying EA arent being restrictive because it's only Steam their games and/or DLC are not being sold via, but seriously add up all the other downloadable services together and they don't make a dent on Steams userbase. Steam is almost ubiquitous for this type of service, and is now a byword in the industry. Of course EA can afford to let the minnows keep stuff, they are easier to force to toe the line, and it gives them the nice tag that they aren't being non-competitive, because 'Hey, Direct2Drive is selling our games, just not mean old Steam' and the smaller services are incentivised to agree to whatever EA conditions are put down, because if Steam isn't selling the new Mass Effect 3 or whatever, that just made the market-share pie potentially alot bigger for those guys to aim for.

 

Greetings!

And when a F2P, or very cheap game, is released on Steam with a built-in store to avoid giving Steam a cut?
Should Steam service such a game?

 

LOL it is amazing how many people here can not read!
the statement says EA sells there games over as many Online stores as possible and gives a list of said stores. When one of these stores (Steam) then changes their TOS and says if you sell it ells where then we will not sell it and EA continues to sell over the other online retails then the guilty party (greedy) would be who?

'At EA, we offer our games and content to all major download services including GameStop, Amazon, Direct2Drive and Steam,'

Could some one check to see if DA 2 has been removed from the other retailers? Then maybe we would be better informed. Seems like poor journalism not to check this tbh.

 

Whilst my previous comment cannot be said to be categorically correct and proven, it does fit as an answer to your comment here...

 

Not quite, but nice try.

The actual Terms being discussed here at the moment are with regards to the selling of DLC not available via Steam.

That's very true, EA have a lot of leverage in the games industry with their catalogue. However if we are to believe EA, Valve are the ones who changed their TOS, rather than EA "enforcing" a particular requirement. Obviously, this might not be completely correct as Valve refuse/have yet to comment, but it's more to go on than anything else.