Print
Is Origin trying to snuff out Steam? EA's mouth says “no,” but things keep happening. Awfully suspicious things. First, Star Wars: The Old Republic went Origin-exclusive. Next, Crysis 2 disappeared. Then EA began luring gamers over to its big white van with Origin-exclusive content for games like Mass Effect 3. And now? Battlefield 3's taking to the digital battlefield by skipping Steam altogether.
This time around, GameStop's bearing the bad news. Financial research firm Baird recently held a meeting with the retailer, and the resulting report explicitly states that “The upcoming EA title Battlefield 3 will be sold as a download through GameStop, but not through Steam.”
That in mind, Baird added: “Given Steam's dominance – and insistence on users downloading a Steam client application – publishers are likely to be receptive to a competitive alternative.”
Is this just the next shot in a rapidly mounting war? Or is it a result of Valve's alleged anti-exclusive-DLC policy – ala Crysis 2's silent exit from Steam's hallowed halls? At this point, it's impossible to make a definitive declaration one way or the other. Even so, Steam seems perfectly positioned to be left out of EA's loop. So then, battle or not, here's hoping this isn't a case of “Whoever wins, we lose.”
Comments are closed on this article
smashingpumpin
July 20, 2011 at 1:20am
http://support.ea.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5291
"Q: Will my game download ever expire?
A: Digital download rights remain available for at least one year after purchase. Origin typically doesn’t retire games, and we’ve only retired around 10 of the 150 games we sell, and these have generally been because of the expiration of licensing rights. If you come across an issue, simply contact Origin Help and we'll reconfigure things for you."Pfft, at least one year it sez. Get ready to get used to "Elevator-Music-On-Hold"!
I wouldn't worry about this at all knowing how big Steam is, I'm pretty sure Dice would eventually beg the heck out of EA to get some of that Steam goldrush.
anagramsolver
September 14, 2011 at 4:29pm
Yeah, lol, 1 year. What a crock. The game publishers are pushing toward a rental model some day for their games, but today is not that day. I will NEVER use a download service from EA or any other publisher, ever.
But, you might not be as safe as you think with Steam the way things are going. Steam promised in a round about way that if they ever become defunct that you would get to keep your games. This is simply not true. Steam does not own the games and can not make that promise.
joebob
July 19, 2011 at 12:29pm
F**k Origin and its retarded DTM scheme. I'll just buy the disc, I mean thats why we still have optical drives.
AndrewEgel
July 19, 2011 at 10:58am
My main problem with Origin is that after a year of purchasing a game on origin, they wont let you re-download it. If I purchase any digital item, I firmly believe that I should be able to download it over and over again, as many times as I want. Steam lets you do that, and thats invaluable for swapping games in and out of your hard drive, even after a disaster (virus infection, windows taking a dive).
Wingzero_x
July 19, 2011 at 5:32pm
Since moving to the Origin client the 1 year restriction has been removed. Just as Steam your games are now attached to the user, not the system.
Neufeldt2002
July 19, 2011 at 10:43am
Makes no difference to me, I refuse to buy anything EA lately. As soon as I see EA on the box or as the publisher I don't buy. Yes, I may miss on some good games, but I am voting with my wallet. Until they actually release games that are not so buggy, and full of overly restrictive DRM, I will avoid them.
Nyarlathotep
July 19, 2011 at 8:13am
Isn't it up for preorder on Steam now? I'll buy it retail before I use Origin again.
I_pwn_newbz86
July 19, 2011 at 8:08am
I really don't get any of this hate for steam. Holly, under no circumstances will 20MB of RAM make a difference in FPS on a modern system. The fact that Steam along with other background software you may be running may take up more is beside the point. Steam alone is not going to make any difference in you gaming experience FPS wise. The reason I love Steam is because a while ago my entire setup was stolen. If not for Steam I would've lost all my games instead of the two retail copies that were stolen from me. Another reason I love steam is because it replaces xfire, a piece of software I would be running in the background anyway. It's overlay allows me to do things such as browse the web, check the time, and send messages without alt+tabing out of my games. Steam is also the best place to buy games because of the constant sales. I recently got Portal 2 for $25. The only thing bad about Steam is that all my games have to be linked to my account which is something I would want anyway. If BF3 doesn't come out on Steam I honestly might not get it and if I do, I certainly won't be getting it from EAs service. I don't want to have to remember and log in to two accounts to play my games.
LatiosXT
July 19, 2011 at 7:57am
As great as Steam is, I'm starting to feel the side effects of being bent over by a publisher either way. One of the things that still irks me about Steam is that it does have a tendency to freak out under high network loads, to the point where I'm surprised I can still log in. Like the summer camp sale. It was great to get cheap games... if I could actually play them. I think one of them I had to sit on until the sale was over because I kept getting the "Steam servers are too busy to handle your request, please try again later."
And then there are times when there's the free game weekend, where I end up buying the game. I'd figured I get a bit of QoS priority for getting the game since... you know, I'm a paying customer. But I guess it's in marketing's best interest to keep QoS priority to those who are trying the game. Basically I felt once they had my money, they told me piss off until the event is over.
Wingzero_x
July 19, 2011 at 8:16am
Well those sales are pretty good, I know I bought more than I intended to...I just wish they would have told me sooner! Also at the same time Crysis 2 was $39 at Origins!!
someuid
July 19, 2011 at 7:30am
Not being one for modern warfare games (I prefer more futuristic type stuff), I'll be skipping. I get the feeling here that entering this fray means one thing: I'll just be a pawn in the never ending battle between online digital stores. All of them have restrictions and anti-DRM features, and all are used to keep me locked into their stores.
Who do I trust? For now, Steam. Without competition in the marketplace, they did gamers right with unlimited downloads of your games, expanding the catalog to include other game companies (including indie companies - a bit plus in my book), and a very lightweight, simple DRM client. Let me repeat that they did this without any competition.
With competition, EA doesn't allow unlimiited downloads and doesn't open their catalog to other game companies. Why would I want to put myself on their side as yet another pawn in their game? Surely not for a video game or two.
Wingzero_x
July 19, 2011 at 8:12am
Just a little correction EA Origin does allow purchasers to redownload games as games are now connected to Origin accounts noy hardware, the only problem could be in activations which they can help you with and even Steam has this limitation on some games.
Oh and Steam did have competition, but they were much better than Direct2Drive.
Wingzero_x
July 19, 2011 at 7:06am
What's the big deal there has always been exclusive deals with games. Sure usually it's console exclusivitity but one could argue that in this case Steam, Origin, GoG, D2D, Impulse...etc...etc are the consoles. So if one of those doesn't have the game I want, I'll go else where, and at least on the PC I don't have to pay for a whole other system.
BTW for those that want their games consolidated in one area...Seriously do you not know how to create shortcuts?
pierogi210
July 19, 2011 at 6:44am
People, calm down. Just go out and buy the disk version of the game. I'm pretty sure you can convert non steam games into steam games. Thats all you have to do. Win Win situation.
D00dlavy
July 19, 2011 at 8:22am
No, you can't. You can only provide a Steam shortcut to games you have installed, thus giving the appearance of launching them from the Steam application.
That said, I'm saying "No," to Origin and "Hell yeah" to Steam. Sorry, there's not room on my gaming rig for two game dist. apps.
Slurpy
July 19, 2011 at 1:25pm
No, you can't. You can only provide a Steam shortcut to games you have installed, thus giving the appearance of launching them from the Steam application.
That's only true for non-Steam games, like WoW. For Steam-integrated games, just open up Steam, open the Games menu, and click "Activate a product on Steam," enter the product key, and it's forever linked to your Steam account. I'm not sure it works for all games sold on Steam, but I know it works for both Valve games and at least some non-Valve games, like Duke Nukem Forever (sigh).
Holly Golightly
July 19, 2011 at 9:51am
You know... It really is your loss and nobody elses' if you don't buy a game just because it is available on EVERY other website but Steam. Who even buys a game just because 1 store does not have it? Seems somewhat narrow-minded. I play games because I am a gamer, not because I love Steam. You should embrace the openess of the PC gaming platform. Where else would you be able to play foreign games on an American system? Only on the PC! Oh wait a minute, Steam also region locks their games... THAT is why they force you to run the client which accesses the internet... Simply brilliant. While you are high fiving Valve for their Steam platform, I raise my fist in the air in full support companies like EA who actually take a stand and keep the PC Gaming market open. Hurray for Origins!
flo21
July 19, 2011 at 6:01am
EA barely has any of its older catalog on Steam like the other publisher's do, so really this comes as no surprise.
Also this is just like not having your songs on itunes, but everywhere else; you're only gonna hurt yourself.
I for one like all my games to be consolidated in one place, and not have to sign in to eighteen different places.
Darkside
July 19, 2011 at 6:16am
Depending on how Origin works, you can just link all of the games that you have on Origin to launch in Steam (or vice versa). It takes a little time commitment at first to browse through what you've got, but it should make the "everything is everywhere" issue go away.
ymichaelx
July 19, 2011 at 1:42am
I think everyone needs to be reminded of one thing. Anything that requires you to have a 'client' running in order to run a game is DRM. And in this case you're installing a DRM system onto your PC in the form of a digital sales platform.
This whole thing between EA's Origin and Steam is just going to determine who's DRM you'll be running when playing these games. So as Nathan wrote "'Whoever wins, we lose'".
Nyarlathotep
July 19, 2011 at 8:20am
Of all the various DRM schemes out there Steam is the most acceptable to me. It is also more than just DRM. Some people do like what Steam offers. What has Securom ever done for you?
Wingzero_x
July 19, 2011 at 7:20am
Just curious how many millions of dollars have you spent developing a game? How many hours have you toiled behind the keyboard writing code that allows the game character tuck and roll in game? I'm willing to bet your answers are none for both questions! So why would you care if it has DRM? Seriously if having a couple of kilobytes of DRM running in the background is the cost of PC gaming then I say it is well worth it. Personally I had no money, nor time going in the development of any game, and in that regard I don't have any allusions that I have in say on how they protect they're IP.
But seriously don't like DRM, perhaps you need to talk to those people that throughout the years made copies, downloaded, with sorry ass excuse for stealing like "If I'm going to pay $60 for a game, then I'm going to downloaded it first and see if I like it."
D00dlavy
July 19, 2011 at 8:29am
Comprehension fail, Wingzero.
You are a customer. You are paying for the game and installing it on your personal PC, which you also paid for.
If you think intrusive DRM like rootkits, Securom and StarForce are OK for you and should be for everyone else, too - I’d call you a blathering idiot.
Installing DRM also has security implications, you know, especially if it employs rootkit methodology.
Marthian
July 18, 2011 at 10:38pm
"Given Steam's dominance – and insistence on users downloading a Steam client application – publishers are likely to be receptive to a competitive alternative."
Oh no we have to download an additional 1mb or so of software, suffer from a lack of gamings being consolidated into one area. Also, I really doubt publishers care, pretty sure a lot of the copies of games are sold on Steam. And its really convenient for everyone. Gamestop on the other hand won't let me redownload Battlefield 2 anymore unless I paid for an extra year.
Besides, wasn't Origin just EA games only?
Holly Golightly
July 18, 2011 at 10:36pm
Hmm, lets try to remember the facts people... The removal of Crysis 2 from Steam was not an EA decision, but solely the choice Valve did. Another thing we must remember is that Battlefield 3 is alvailable on ALL digital retailers, except for Valve. Steam is the only client that actually REQUIRES you to run the client just to play a game. I am with EA on this one. You should not be forced to run a client just to play a game. Windows should be out only client, and not some extra client within a client... Sort of speak. What EA is doing is standing up for their customers, and I am ever so happy that EA stands strong! I would love to get games like Metro 2033, and Fall Out New Vegas... Dream games that require me to run steam, even if I buy the retail version? EA, I really do hope you keep going strong with your current stance. Make a statement and tell gamers they should not have to tolerate running additional clients just to enjoy quality gameplay. You are not the only one on this, and I will continue to buy your games. As for Steam fans, they can always just run non-steam titles. So nobody is forced to do anything. It is a win-win situation in my opinion.
dgrmouse
July 19, 2011 at 1:33am
I wonder if you realize that in order to play BF3 online, it is necessary to install both Punkbuster and EADM. Both install services that run 24/7, pinging EA and possibly downloading new software. Anyone who installs Punkbuster probably hasn't read the EULA and the EA EULAs aren't much better. Add to this that even if you only wish to play the single-player campaign (which isn't what Battlefield is famous for), you will probably have to login to access half of the weapons/missions/dlc/whatever.
Steam sucks, but what EA wants is no better.
Marthian
July 18, 2011 at 10:41pm
it depends on the person though. For me, I don't care if I have to run steam, its only like 20mb of Ram usage, hardly any cpu usage, it doesn't really take a toll on my computer.
I do have 8gb of ram though, but even then, its only like about 1-2% of the ram on 2gb.
Holly Golightly
July 18, 2011 at 11:00pm
Sure, it is only 20mb of RAM, but then add games like Metro 2033 when maxed out, and you will see that every single megabyte of RAM counts. Not only that, but add background programs like antivirus, internet browser, dropbox, gamer mouse profiles, and soundcard program... All while running on a taxing OS like Vista, and you will see, all the space counts. I feel that many people would prefer not being forced to use a client, because they should be optional. Steam should be more like Game Comrade. It can organize your games, but when you need as much space as possible, closing as many programs as possible just to run the most demanding of games, the space can be beneficial. I have 4gigs of RAM, smf my ram usage is at 49%. My CPU is about 0% to 1% but yeah, I like the steam program, just hate having to log online just so I may play a 1 player game.
zeroibis
July 18, 2011 at 11:29pm
Although if your actually running Vista than you got bigger problems than steam...
Holly Golightly
July 18, 2011 at 11:38pm
My desktop runs Vista. My laptop is running Windows 7. However, my laptop is not powerful enough to run games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Metro 2033 and so on. These games require too much power and just chew up my battery away. With that said, I am in the process of upgrading my desktop though. It has not been upgraded since 2008, which was before the launch of Windows 7... So I am long overdued if anything. Many people are still stuck using even older versions of Windows like XP and even 2000... So my desktop is not that old, but yeah, adding Steam with Vista with a couple of other programs on idle is a problem. I may just wait for Windows 8 though... That way I am totally updated on the gaming side of things.
Mastro Antonio
July 19, 2011 at 6:22am
I am in a continuous practice of maxing out games on my system using Windows 7, two HD 5870's overclocked and 8GB of Corsair Dominator 2000MHz and Steam really doesn't bother my system much unless it's in the middle of an intense display and my friend messages me to play another game. Yes it does bother me that when I buy a hard copy it still requires Steam but actually I favor their system because of it's convenience. It's supporting my of games with providing DLC and updates the minute they are available. Also the store is great with games so cheap you could swear it was almost communism. America is all about competition but I know where my loyalty lies and so does Valve for the rest of it's customers, it's a good thing and it should never be brought down.
Holly Golightly
July 19, 2011 at 9:37am
See, this is one of the changes I do not support at all. Retail copies should stay faaar away from digital stores like Steam. It should be treated as a completely different platform. Otherwise, it just makes the retail edition useless if you have to use it on Steam. Why not just buy it from Steam on the first place? The fact that some games are forcing me to use Steam feels more like a fascism "do what we say" sort of rules. I like the steam program as it is organized, but I do not want to have to launch the client each time I want to play a single player adventure game, because adventure games really do not benefit much from online activity. Most of mine do not even support Massive Multiplayer Maps, or even Co-Operative game play. The DLC is fine, but hardly ever used in some of my favorite classics. Often, when I am gaming on Steam, it sort of reminds me of the Xbox360. You have an online messaging and chat function, have to always log into your account, and they both use the Xbox360 controller. Well, some games on Steam benefit from a console controller no doubt. But PC gaming is starting to feel more and more like console gaming. So when I see a competitor like Origins... Believe it or not, it brings out a warm welcoming feeling from me to EA. Origins organizes your games like steam, but does not force you to use the client. Steam, in theory is a DRM of its own. If anything, it is the worst kind of DRM that tries to sell me games at a discount to lock me into that platform. But I favor more of an open platform, and it seems that ALL of Valve's competitors support a more open gaming platform on the PC. This does not mean Steam is excluded, as you can still play non-steam games on Steam itself... But nobody should be forced to use Steam.
Darkside
July 18, 2011 at 10:22pm
This probably won't hurt BF3's sales too much since it's a highly anticipated title. Still, it's probably going to make some Steam users very angry at EA since, if I'm reading this correctly, seems like a very specific exclusion. This is definitely going to be interesting to see how Valve fires back at EA for this announcement. But, I might have to disagree with Nathan on this one: if Valve and EA want to get into their own little turf war, this might lead to more daily deals to try to retain their loyal customers / lure people away.
Gezzer
July 18, 2011 at 11:06pm
I agree with you on the potential fall out. I think that both Steam and EA are big enough that neither can bury the other if any sort of war breaks out. So I really don't see any negitive fall out if EA gives Steam the cold sholder. I was already using EA's version of Steam before they changed it to Origin and have pre-ordered my BF3 threw it, so not offering it on Steam is a non issue.
In fact I think it's a non issue for most gamers, Steam has too many indie developers and most mid/large size publishers selling threw them, I'm sure the loss of EA won't be noticed too much. And I'm sure there won't be any people dumping Steam because EA isn't there. So if anything EA might lose a few sales if any, but so what? Saving the commision Steam gets should make up for it.
