Now that's hinting to a more legitimate complaint imo. I do agree with the fact that if every major game producer is going to do something similar, it's going to get a bit silly. Not that the services in itself are a problem imo, but the amount of them.
Exactly. I don't want 6 variations of Steam. I just want Steam. Now if say I need Steam, Origin, and 4-5 other companies "DD program" installed, it'll suck. I love looking at my Steam list and seeing how long it is, the update news for each, friends who have it, who recently played it, and are playing it, ectera.
Lots of people want this, but it won't happen. Valve is making a cut on everything sold on steam. You can bet that EA and eventually Activison and such will want a piece of that pie.
I do agree with this, having one service and not multiple ones. Now it's not a huge issue to me though, I don't mind opening Steam, Origin, and GFWLM, but not a terrible deal breaker for me though.
True, and EA/Activision etc... know they might lose sales from ditching Steam, but the increased profit margin likely lessens the blow from that in the short term anyway. Personally, i would rather see a separate piece of software for each big publisher, at present there is no consistency with games on Steam, if every game sold on Steam was a Steamworks game so it's the only form of DRM, has cloud saving, achievement etc...then i would be fine with that, but only a small percentage are, so to me it seems pointless using it for non Steamworks games, if i want all my games in one place, i will create a folder on my desktop full of shortcuts. Unless something drastic happens in the digital download market, i will continue to buy all my games retail, register the Steamworks ones on Steam, the EA ones on Origin, and the rest i will install from disc, pretty sure even the PITA that is GFWL lets retail games run without a disc after installation.
And its still intrusive (steam can be too, but not that much), its non of their business when i installed/uninstalled some program, hardware..
Here's the thing. If Valve has no hand in the development of a game....why should EA, Activision, etc pay Valve to distribute said game? I know, it's a common sense answer....Because Valve is distributing the game for EA, Activision, etc. Valve is simply replacing the "brick and mortar" store with their DDS, thus incurring the cost of storage and distribution. Ok, so....EA, Activision, etc are paying a "service fee"....which is similar to the profit that a "brick and mortar" store gets from each sale. Now, from Valve's point of view, it's fair business. If Valve is incurring cost to provide their distribution service, they should be fairly compensated for said service. Now....EA, Activision, etc want to generate the largest profit possible. Valve's service charge cuts into their profit....unless they increase the price to offset Valve's service charge, which may potentialy impact sales. So, to regain the lost income from paying Valve's service charge, they create their own distribution service. While not exactly cost effective initially....long term, it could become a financial benefit....and this is what these companies are looking at. Cut out the middleman and down the line, they recover the cost of setting up their own distribution service and generate a bit of extra profit from not having to pay service fees to Valve. Is it inconvenient for the consumer....of course. Do these companies care if we have to install another app? Not in the least. These companies are fighting for a piece of the same pervebial pie. Ultimately, what the consumer wants makes little difference as long as these companies are generating a profit. None of these companies is any more honest than the next.
GamersGate and Impulse have existed way long before Origin, and yet no one complained about their very existence. Is it because we can't play BF3 without Origin that people start to whip up the stakes and burn the torches? And if Nintendo decided to cozy up to Valve, everything's fine? And in the same paragraph you quoted, it stated 'non-personally identifiable information', so what's the problem? If you can't believe that 'non-personally identifiable information' statement, then I can't see how you could believe Valve is only collecting what you think as 'not that much'.
None of them really should be collecting information without it being an opt in thing. Just about every piece of software these days, especially MS stuff has an option for you to help improve the software by sending information to them, and it's something i agree with and enable all the time, but unless it 100% freeware, then i think it should be a choice. I don't believe for a second that Origin is stealing credit card details and checking out your holiday snaps, that's noting more than crazy talk, but even if their data collecting is just there to improve Origin, it still should be optional.
Well, Origin itself is 100% freeware. IIRC Steam didn't provide an opt-in either, much less an opt-out. Keep in mind that regarding opt-in data collecting, I do agree with you. It's just that I can't see what's so different between Origin and Steam regarding data collection when so many contends Origin but content with Steam.
Everyone! Hurry! Warn nintendo before its too late! OMG!!! REALLY! If Nintendo accepts this c&*+ im really, REALLY skipping this new gen console for GOOD! No! I´m serious! This is such a nighmare i never ever thought it would happen someday! Go Steam or do your own service, but FOR ALL THATS HOLY AND EVEN DEVILISH (because even devis fear Origin imo) DONT DO IT BIG N! uke2:uke2:uke2: If someone makes a mass sign up for convincing Nintendo its a very, very bad move i would surelly sign it, god!
Wow, what a reply. I'm an EA rep because I'm telling you that almost all of your software is collecting data on you? Maybe you should go away till you learn to have a proper discussion. @Redemption80 - I agree, NO company should be collecting our data without our consent, but the thing is, you do consent to it by agreeing to their EULA. There is no difference between Origin and Steam in their practice, only in what each program offers. They both require you to consent to data collection in order to play their games. You can't play a Steam game without Steam, just as you can't play an Origin game without Origin. I do agree that there should be a choice with the data collection, my issue is that everyone seems to be picking at Origin, while Steam does the exact same thing.
Just to clarify... STEAM is not scanning your hardware. STEAM will scan (terminal verb, as opposed to continuous scanning) your hardware, but only if you opt-in to participate in their survey. And then you have to click several times, ACCEPT, NEXT, YES, and finnaly SUBMIT the results, so there shouldn't be any mistakes or unwilling participants. And yes, results of those surveys are public OTOH what exactly and how is Origin scanning your PC is less known. But it sure is doing something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lGUOFjMuQA&feature=youtu.be And its not like EA has been on privacy protection groups watch list only since yesterday
wow, another personal attack. really? cant just use facts to refute my claim? especially considering you posted the exact same thing 2 posts above mine and seem to agree with my viewpoint? its apparently not that difficult... you either suffer from multiple personality disorder or i don' t know what. thank you so much for making this place so wonderful and welcoming. your awesome. @Noisiv - thanks for clarifying that. i didnt realize that. if thats true then origin has a ways to go. but didn't someone say that they didn't start out like that?
I meant that as an agreement with your POV if you care to read up my posts above yours. -_-;;; Because I find it rare these days for people with rational thinking. Thanks for proving my theory even further.
interesting way of showing agreement... and i did read your post 2 posts above mine. its even mentioned in the part of my post you quoted. my apologies, i took it as an insult. forgive my misunderstanding. i seem to be in a prickly mood today.
