Origin Or Steam?

[Barbaro 466]

Before you try to kill me for asking, ran into this old article...and had to laugh at them. EA's starting to sound like the first cousin (Once Removed) of Apple in terms of soiling their diapers.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/head_ea_origin_rages_against_steam_sales_model

Leads to this: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-06-david-demartini-origin-wants-to-be-the-hub

I dunno...I'd defiantly chunk big money for a game that I really enjoyed, the developers deserve some of our hard earned moolah *STALKER, Mafia...some of my favorites*, but pay a full price for a 10 year old game? Demartini gtfo

I still hate Origin to this day.

[Ollie 56]

Before you try to kill me for asking, ran into this old article...and had to laugh at them. EA's starting to sound like the first cousin (Once Removed) of Apple in terms of soiling their diapers.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/head_ea_origin_rages_against_steam_sales_model

Leads to this: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-06-david-demartini-origin-wants-to-be-the-hub

I dunno...I'd defiantly chunk big money for a game that I really enjoyed, the developers deserve some of our hard earned moolah *STALKER, Mafia...some of my favorites*, but pay a full price for a 10 year old game? Demartini gtfo

I still hate Origin to this day.

I cannot stand Origin or even Microsoft's (Games for Windows).

The prices on the majority of the games hosted there are still at full retail price. The only reasons that come to mind that I but from steam is that I prefer to have my games stored at the one location, and only have 1 program to get access to them. And plus the Steam sales actually interest as do the majority of it's users. On another note, steam also sell the games that I would not have found on my own (Super Meat Boy, the Binding of Isaac, Limbo just to name a few) that I can now really appreciate the indie developers.

Plus, I am genuinely sick of paying for a partial game (oh look more weapons? maps? Here's some DLC at £?? each). Fuck off EA.

Now I get why some people don't mind for DLC as it keeps the game "fresh" or "interesting". Christ, look at the games that release SDK, they're games that are truly successful, Oblivions, Garrys Mod, any other Half Life 2 modded game.

My little rant.

[Rurumie 306]

origin is annoying, wont support it anyway \o/

it's a shame, i already bought bf3 and had to use origin for that <.<... (only played bf3 once, no big issue, since i uninstalled origin) \o/

[Possum 10,776]

I loathe EA and almost everything they do. I hate what they did to Crytek. I hate what they did to Maxis. I hate what they did to Bioware. And I hate DLC (which, to be fair, is not exclusive to EA).

Mass Effect 1 was a masterpiece, and while I enjoyed ME2 and ME3, they were nothing compared to what they could have been. The franchise turned from an intricate Action-RPG into a (relatively) mediocre, shallow cover-based 3rd Person Shooter with RPG elements. So. Many. Waist. High. Walls. And the DLC! While I am always in favour of after-release support, the DLC EA have formulated for games like Mass Effect is NOT what gamers want, as they keep claiming: it is merely a profit making device. No, don't blame piracy for falling sales, that is not an acceptable excuse. While some DLC I can deal with, things like release-day DLC (the From Ashes Pack for ME3 for example), where if you got the Xbox 360 version the files for that actually came encrypted on the disc, but you had to pay extra to unlock them. There is absolutely no reason for that, other than to make more money. It is despicable. And take the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and "Arrival" packs for ME2: both of these contain plot elements that are pretty integral to explaining some of the things that have a lot of impact in ME3, yet they were released as optional DLC. How is that right that you have to pay extra, on top of the base game, to get the full story? And I don't mean a full, fleshed out story, I mean the bare bones of the story. I won't go into the intricacies of the plot, but save to say, the "Arrival" mission, for example, explains why the end of fucking galactic civilization gets delayed, and why the main character is relieved from active duty at the start of the third game. So not all that important then, lol. Plot-add ons do not work in RPG's, as it is impossible to maintain the necessary degree of freedom, and yet tie the extra content in properly.

And look at Crytek. Crysis 1, while having the plot of a Sci-Fi B-movie, is one of my favourite games for gameplay. The nanosuit's powers are distict, all useful, and provide you with different approaches to dealing with each objective. And for the most part, there are genuinely different ways to complete your objectives. There isn't a massive variety of guns, but there doesn't need to be, there are enough to fill most purposes, and the customisability allows them to be a little more versatile. Even the extra content for Crysis 1 was done properly: it wasn't stupid extra mission tacked on. It was a a whole extra fucking campaign. Now that's what I call good DLC. Crysis Warhead follows the same general story arc as Crysis 1, but from the perspective of one of the major supporting characters from the original game. Its not money grabbing, it adds something to the experience.

Then look at Crysis 2, which is more like CoD with a noobed-up nanosuit. The nanosuit now has two modes instead of four (speed and strength mode have gone). The level of weapon customisability has remained, but there are so many more weapons being shoved down your throat, you never really get to settle and find one you like until far into the game. And when you do, you realise that some of them are genuinely useless. And the degree of freedom in the levels has gone too. They are much smaller, more linear. Your tactical binoculars are still there, but in Crysis 1, they just tagged basic things like enemies you could see, and your objective. The new ones tag pretty much every-fucking-thing. It even has a tactical assessment, telling you the different "tactical options" available. Its like its desperately trying to shove what little non-linearity there is down our throats, because there's so little its afaid we mights miss it. "Look, the game isn't completely linear. Look, there's a single guard there you can sneak up on and kill without alerting all the others. Look there's drain you can crawl through. Look, you could blow up that conveniently-placed explosive barrel." The whole point of these sorts of games is that you should have to figure out by yourselves how to complete your objectives. If you get told how to do them, the game becomes little more than a spruced-up version of space-invaders with cutscenes. And holy shit, that paragraph sounds scarily like something Zero Punctuation would write...

Crysis 2's DLC was no better. Buying extra maps for the multiplayer portion is oh-so reminiscent of CoD. And that's not a good thing. £11 for four maps and an extra zombie campaign is not money well spent, especially when the base game costs around £40. "Oh, its optional DLC." they claim, "You're not forced to buy it." Well, actually you kind of are, because the majority of the servers use every DLC pack there is, meaning you either can't connect at all, or if you do, you get booted after 30 mins when the map changes to a non-stock one. If you want to keep up, you have to get all the map packs. In the UK, for PC, Black Ops 1 cost about £40 on release, with each map pack costing £11, of which there were 4. That's £84 for all the Black Ops content, which you kind of need to keep playing the multiplayer. The last map pack was just four CoD 5 multiplayer maps for Black Ops, and a zombie campaign in space. Four old maps and some shitty zero gravity for £11? You have got to be kidding me. I actually played quite a bit of Black Ops multiplayer when I was 18, and was not bad at it. But the endless DLC model made me swear never to buy another CoD game until they were seriously cheap. But that only really happens after the next one has been released, and once that happens, the multiplayer servers for the old one die, then all you really have is the campaign, and CoD campaigns have been worthless since Modern Warfare 1 (which was actually really quite good in single player)

.

Why don't they follow Valve's model? Even before TF2 became F2P (which was about four years from release), they released a fuck-ton of extra content, in new maps, hats, weapons, hats, items, hats, game modes (did I mention hats). The game today is almost unrecognisable from its original form, yet you didn't have to pay anything extra for all that content. Good guy Gabe.

This is also one of the few times I'm going to praise EA. While I've been very critical of what they did to ME3 above, their treatment of the multiplayer aspect of that game has been surprisingly good. While I was sceptical of a multiplayer mode for ME3, it is actually quite fun, and I think all of the extra content for the multiplayer portion of the game has been free. To put that in perspective: ME3 shipped with 6 multiplayer maps: the first three multiplayer packs added seven new maps between them, and the fourth added reworked versions of the original six, with extra hazards. The free DLC has just over tripled the maps available, as well as a whole load of other extra multiplayer content like extra classes, weapons etc. This is the way to do it, for one, I think EA have got it right, and I applaud them for that, they have done an excellent job with the multiplayer portion of the game. I just with they'd be so good with almost everything else.

I do have Origin, but only because Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 are only available via Origin (I was one of the people who got Crysis 2 before EA took it off Steam). I much prefer Steam: I like having my games in one place, its a much nicer platform, and in my experience, even opening-day prices are better. Just opened up Origin, featured items: Battlefield 3 DLC, And pre-orders for Crysis 3 (£55) and SimCity (£65). That is so fucking expensive. The last game I bought was pre-ordering Tomb Raider (on Steam), and that was £32 for the "Survival Edition" (its 10% off atm as well, so you can pre-order the base game for just £27, Survival Edition for £29). The new Tomb Raider is just as much of an AAA title as the aformentioned Origin games, so why the price difference? I understand why console games are generally more expensive, its to pay for the console itself, where the base unit is generally sold at a loss to make it more accessible. But you don't have that with PC games, so why the console prices? Maybe you complain about Steam dropping their prices in sales, but you really think you're going to sell anything with those prices?

But anyway, that went off on a tangent, but it feels nice to get that out of my system. Perhaps Slipknot wasn't the best thing to listen to while writing that though....

[Ollie 56]

Won't quote what you said, but I do agree with absolutely everything 100% Possum.

EA are not in it for the consumers nor do they even have the interest at heart for people who are passionate about some games. Nope, if a game does not pull up a profit that's it, dead. Want some companies for reference? Bullfrog, DICE, Criterion, Bioware are just to name a few. Everything that EA touches turns to poison.

They have completely destroyed the games most of us loved and were looking forward to seeing sequels, Dragon Age 2 is a fine example of that. Not to mention pulling out Battlefield 3 from steam to FORCE users to using their shitty software "Origin".

Words cannot express how much bitter hatred I have for the CoD franchise after COD:MW (although I did enjoy MW2's Single Player, but the lobby system was an absolute pisstake).

Although, do give it time, people will come to their senses.....oh no wait, they're sheep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

[Rurumie 306]

Won't quote what you said, but I do agree with absolutely everything 100% Possum.

EA are not in it for the consumers nor do they even have the interest at heart for people who are passionate about some games. Nope, if a game does not pull up a profit that's it, dead. Want some companies for reference? Bullfrog, DICE, Criterion, Bioware are just to name a few. Everything that EA touches turns to poison.

They have completely destroyed the games most of us loved and were looking forward to seeing sequels, Dragon Age 2 is a fine example of that. Not to mention pulling out Battlefield 3 from steam to FORCE users to using their shitty software "Origin".

Words cannot express how much bitter hatred I have for the CoD franchise after COD:MW (although I did enjoy MW2's Single Player, but the lobby system was an absolute pisstake).

Although, do give it time, people will come to their senses.....oh no wait, they're sheep.

that video. explains everything and why we shouldn't use time on Origin / EA \o/

[+Skaila 5,462]

I don't like Origin in the sense I need an extra to play my game, in that respect I don't like Steam either.

BUT I said it before and I'll say it again. I DO like that it stores my games. Dragon Age: Origins is probably one of those games i played until the disc went kaput and the disc went kaput. Don't care much about DLC (some I bought, others I didn't, to each his/her own). But as I said... I own the game, a physical copy. I had to reinstall my computer, plopped in the disc and no go. i couldn't install anymore aka couldn't play. Origin allowed me to play it again. I linked my key to it and was able to download.

Not saying it doesn't as flaws, not saying I don't agree with possum, i absolutely agree with Possum (especially Maxis, god I remember The Sims, need to play again >>) and the Mass Effect debacle (Day One DLC, DLC which needed to be in the game by default and so on, not to mention their artistic ending).

EA is good in sports games. Period. But they need to stay away from other gaming companies and let them do their thing.

[Barbaro 466]

How is this even a question? We'll never know.

The question was do you agree with Demitri's claims on Steam?

Although it's been answered quite a bit by other users, I'm really just curious as to how far will Origin/EA go before it starts to cry again, or pull more games from Steam.

[Nano 7,892]

I loathe EA and almost everything they do. I hate what they did to Crytek. I hate what they did to Maxis. I hate what they did to Bioware. And I hate DLC (which, to be fair, is not exclusive to EA).

Mass Effect 1 was a masterpiece, and while I enjoyed ME2 and ME3, they were nothing compared to what they could have been. The franchise turned from an intricate Action-RPG into a (relatively) mediocre, shallow cover-based 3rd Person Shooter with RPG elements. So. Many. Waist. High. Walls. And the DLC! While I am always in favour of after-release support, the DLC EA have formulated for games like Mass Effect is NOT what gamers want, as they keep claiming: it is merely a profit making device. No, don't blame piracy for falling sales, that is not an acceptable excuse. While some DLC I can deal with, things like release-day DLC (the From Ashes Pack for ME3 for example), where if you got the Xbox 360 version the files for that actually came encrypted on the disc, but you had to pay extra to unlock them. There is absolutely no reason for that, other than to make more money. It is despicable. And take the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and "Arrival" packs for ME2: both of these contain plot elements that are pretty integral to explaining some of the things that have a lot of impact in ME3, yet they were released as optional DLC. How is that right that you have to pay extra, on top of the base game, to get the full story? And I don't mean a full, fleshed out story, I mean the bare bones of the story. I won't go into the intricacies of the plot, but save to say, the "Arrival" mission, for example, explains why the end of fucking galactic civilization gets delayed, and why the main character is relieved from active duty at the start of the third game. So not all that important then, lol. Plot-add ons do not work in RPG's, as it is impossible to maintain the necessary degree of freedom, and yet tie the extra content in properly.

And look at Crytek. Crysis 1, while having the plot of a Sci-Fi B-movie, is one of my favourite games for gameplay. The nanosuit's powers are distict, all useful, and provide you with different approaches to dealing with each objective. And for the most part, there are genuinely different ways to complete your objectives. There isn't a massive variety of guns, but there doesn't need to be, there are enough to fill most purposes, and the customisability allows them to be a little more versatile. Even the extra content for Crysis 1 was done properly: it wasn't stupid extra mission tacked on. It was a a whole extra fucking campaign. Now that's what I call good DLC. Crysis Warhead follows the same general story arc as Crysis 1, but from the perspective of one of the major supporting characters from the original game. Its not money grabbing, it adds something to the experience.

Then look at Crysis 2, which is more like CoD with a noobed-up nanosuit. The nanosuit now has two modes instead of four (speed and strength mode have gone). The level of weapon customisability has remained, but there are so many more weapons being shoved down your throat, you never really get to settle and find one you like until far into the game. And when you do, you realise that some of them are genuinely useless. And the degree of freedom in the levels has gone too. They are much smaller, more linear. Your tactical binoculars are still there, but in Crysis 1, they just tagged basic things like enemies you could see, and your objective. The new ones tag pretty much every-fucking-thing. It even has a tactical assessment, telling you the different "tactical options" available. Its like its desperately trying to shove what little non-linearity there is down our throats, because there's so little its afaid we mights miss it. "Look, the game isn't completely linear. Look, there's a single guard there you can sneak up on and kill without alerting all the others. Look there's drain you can crawl through. Look, you could blow up that conveniently-placed explosive barrel." The whole point of these sorts of games is that you should have to figure out by yourselves how to complete your objectives. If you get told how to do them, the game becomes little more than a spruced-up version of space-invaders with cutscenes. And holy shit, that paragraph sounds scarily like something Zero Punctuation would write...

Crysis 2's DLC was no better. Buying extra maps for the multiplayer portion is oh-so reminiscent of CoD. And that's not a good thing. £11 for four maps and an extra zombie campaign is not money well spent, especially when the base game costs around £40. "Oh, its optional DLC." they claim, "You're not forced to buy it." Well, actually you kind of are, because the majority of the servers use every DLC pack there is, meaning you either can't connect at all, or if you do, you get booted after 30 mins when the map changes to a non-stock one. If you want to keep up, you have to get all the map packs. In the UK, for PC, Black Ops 1 cost about £40 on release, with each map pack costing £11, of which there were 4. That's £84 for all the Black Ops content, which you kind of need to keep playing the multiplayer. The last map pack was just four CoD 5 multiplayer maps for Black Ops, and a zombie campaign in space. Four old maps and some shitty zero gravity for £11? You have got to be kidding me. I actually played quite a bit of Black Ops multiplayer when I was 18, and was not bad at it. But the endless DLC model made me swear never to buy another CoD game until they were seriously cheap. But that only really happens after the next one has been released, and once that happens, the multiplayer servers for the old one die, then all you really have is the campaign, and CoD campaigns have been worthless since Modern Warfare 1 (which was actually really quite good in single player)

.

Why don't they follow Valve's model? Even before TF2 became F2P (which was about four years from release), they released a fuck-ton of extra content, in new maps, hats, weapons, hats, items, hats, game modes (did I mention hats). The game today is almost unrecognisable from its original form, yet you didn't have to pay anything extra for all that content. Good guy Gabe.

This is also one of the few times I'm going to praise EA. While I've been very critical of what they did to ME3 above, their treatment of the multiplayer aspect of that game has been surprisingly good. While I was sceptical of a multiplayer mode for ME3, it is actually quite fun, and I think all of the extra content for the multiplayer portion of the game has been free. To put that in perspective: ME3 shipped with 6 multiplayer maps: the first three multiplayer packs added seven new maps between them, and the fourth added reworked versions of the original six, with extra hazards. The free DLC has just over tripled the maps available, as well as a whole load of other extra multiplayer content like extra classes, weapons etc. This is the way to do it, for one, I think EA have got it right, and I applaud them for that, they have done an excellent job with the multiplayer portion of the game. I just with they'd be so good with almost everything else.

I do have Origin, but only because Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 are only available via Origin (I was one of the people who got Crysis 2 before EA took it off Steam). I much prefer Steam: I like having my games in one place, its a much nicer platform, and in my experience, even opening-day prices are better. Just opened up Origin, featured items: Battlefield 3 DLC, And pre-orders for Crysis 3 (£55) and SimCity (£65). That is so fucking expensive. The last game I bought was pre-ordering Tomb Raider (on Steam), and that was £32 for the "Survival Edition" (its 10% off atm as well, so you can pre-order the base game for just £27, Survival Edition for £29). The new Tomb Raider is just as much of an AAA title as the aformentioned Origin games, so why the price difference? I understand why console games are generally more expensive, its to pay for the console itself, where the base unit is generally sold at a loss to make it more accessible. But you don't have that with PC games, so why the console prices? Maybe you complain about Steam dropping their prices in sales, but you really think you're going to sell anything with those prices?

But anyway, that went off on a tangent, but it feels nice to get that out of my system. Perhaps Slipknot wasn't the best thing to listen to while writing that though....

I didn't read it, but I gave you a like for your time and effort regardless.

[Possum 10,776]

I didn't read it, but I gave you a like for your time and effort regardless.

Thanks, but it didn't take much effort, that thing pretty much wrote itself. All that had built up for a while.

[Barbaro 466]

I loathe EA and almost everything they do. I hate what they did to Crytek. I hate what they did to Maxis. I hate what they did to Bioware. And I hate DLC (which, to be fair, is not exclusive to EA).

Mass Effect 1 was a masterpiece, and while I enjoyed ME2 and ME3, they were nothing compared to what they could have been. The franchise turned from an intricate Action-RPG into a (relatively) mediocre, shallow cover-based 3rd Person Shooter with RPG elements. So. Many. Waist. High. Walls. And the DLC! While I am always in favour of after-release support, the DLC EA have formulated for games like Mass Effect is NOT what gamers want, as they keep claiming: it is merely a profit making device. No, don't blame piracy for falling sales, that is not an acceptable excuse. While some DLC I can deal with, things like release-day DLC (the From Ashes Pack for ME3 for example), where if you got the Xbox 360 version the files for that actually came encrypted on the disc, but you had to pay extra to unlock them. There is absolutely no reason for that, other than to make more money. It is despicable. And take the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" and "Arrival" packs for ME2: both of these contain plot elements that are pretty integral to explaining some of the things that have a lot of impact in ME3, yet they were released as optional DLC. How is that right that you have to pay extra, on top of the base game, to get the full story? And I don't mean a full, fleshed out story, I mean the bare bones of the story. I won't go into the intricacies of the plot, but save to say, the "Arrival" mission, for example, explains why the end of fucking galactic civilization gets delayed, and why the main character is relieved from active duty at the start of the third game. So not all that important then, lol. Plot-add ons do not work in RPG's, as it is impossible to maintain the necessary degree of freedom, and yet tie the extra content in properly.

And look at Crytek. Crysis 1, while having the plot of a Sci-Fi B-movie, is one of my favourite games for gameplay. The nanosuit's powers are distict, all useful, and provide you with different approaches to dealing with each objective. And for the most part, there are genuinely different ways to complete your objectives. There isn't a massive variety of guns, but there doesn't need to be, there are enough to fill most purposes, and the customisability allows them to be a little more versatile. Even the extra content for Crysis 1 was done properly: it wasn't stupid extra mission tacked on. It was a a whole extra fucking campaign. Now that's what I call good DLC. Crysis Warhead follows the same general story arc as Crysis 1, but from the perspective of one of the major supporting characters from the original game. Its not money grabbing, it adds something to the experience.

Then look at Crysis 2, which is more like CoD with a noobed-up nanosuit. The nanosuit now has two modes instead of four (speed and strength mode have gone). The level of weapon customisability has remained, but there are so many more weapons being shoved down your throat, you never really get to settle and find one you like until far into the game. And when you do, you realise that some of them are genuinely useless. And the degree of freedom in the levels has gone too. They are much smaller, more linear. Your tactical binoculars are still there, but in Crysis 1, they just tagged basic things like enemies you could see, and your objective. The new ones tag pretty much every-fucking-thing. It even has a tactical assessment, telling you the different "tactical options" available. Its like its desperately trying to shove what little non-linearity there is down our throats, because there's so little its afaid we mights miss it. "Look, the game isn't completely linear. Look, there's a single guard there you can sneak up on and kill without alerting all the others. Look there's drain you can crawl through. Look, you could blow up that conveniently-placed explosive barrel." The whole point of these sorts of games is that you should have to figure out by yourselves how to complete your objectives. If you get told how to do them, the game becomes little more than a spruced-up version of space-invaders with cutscenes. And holy shit, that paragraph sounds scarily like something Zero Punctuation would write...

Crysis 2's DLC was no better. Buying extra maps for the multiplayer portion is oh-so reminiscent of CoD. And that's not a good thing. £11 for four maps and an extra zombie campaign is not money well spent, especially when the base game costs around £40. "Oh, its optional DLC." they claim, "You're not forced to buy it." Well, actually you kind of are, because the majority of the servers use every DLC pack there is, meaning you either can't connect at all, or if you do, you get booted after 30 mins when the map changes to a non-stock one. If you want to keep up, you have to get all the map packs. In the UK, for PC, Black Ops 1 cost about £40 on release, with each map pack costing £11, of which there were 4. That's £84 for all the Black Ops content, which you kind of need to keep playing the multiplayer. The last map pack was just four CoD 5 multiplayer maps for Black Ops, and a zombie campaign in space. Four old maps and some shitty zero gravity for £11? You have got to be kidding me. I actually played quite a bit of Black Ops multiplayer when I was 18, and was not bad at it. But the endless DLC model made me swear never to buy another CoD game until they were seriously cheap. But that only really happens after the next one has been released, and once that happens, the multiplayer servers for the old one die, then all you really have is the campaign, and CoD campaigns have been worthless since Modern Warfare 1 (which was actually really quite good in single player)

.

Why don't they follow Valve's model? Even before TF2 became F2P (which was about four years from release), they released a fuck-ton of extra content, in new maps, hats, weapons, hats, items, hats, game modes (did I mention hats). The game today is almost unrecognisable from its original form, yet you didn't have to pay anything extra for all that content. Good guy Gabe.

This is also one of the few times I'm going to praise EA. While I've been very critical of what they did to ME3 above, their treatment of the multiplayer aspect of that game has been surprisingly good. While I was sceptical of a multiplayer mode for ME3, it is actually quite fun, and I think all of the extra content for the multiplayer portion of the game has been free. To put that in perspective: ME3 shipped with 6 multiplayer maps: the first three multiplayer packs added seven new maps between them, and the fourth added reworked versions of the original six, with extra hazards. The free DLC has just over tripled the maps available, as well as a whole load of other extra multiplayer content like extra classes, weapons etc. This is the way to do it, for one, I think EA have got it right, and I applaud them for that, they have done an excellent job with the multiplayer portion of the game. I just with they'd be so good with almost everything else.

I do have Origin, but only because Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 are only available via Origin (I was one of the people who got Crysis 2 before EA took it off Steam). I much prefer Steam: I like having my games in one place, its a much nicer platform, and in my experience, even opening-day prices are better. Just opened up Origin, featured items: Battlefield 3 DLC, And pre-orders for Crysis 3 (£55) and SimCity (£65). That is so fucking expensive. The last game I bought was pre-ordering Tomb Raider (on Steam), and that was £32 for the "Survival Edition" (its 10% off atm as well, so you can pre-order the base game for just £27, Survival Edition for £29). The new Tomb Raider is just as much of an AAA title as the aformentioned Origin games, so why the price difference? I understand why console games are generally more expensive, its to pay for the console itself, where the base unit is generally sold at a loss to make it more accessible. But you don't have that with PC games, so why the console prices? Maybe you complain about Steam dropping their prices in sales, but you really think you're going to sell anything with those prices?

But anyway, that went off on a tangent, but it feels nice to get that out of my system. Perhaps Slipknot wasn't the best thing to listen to while writing that though....

Haha, nice to see more genuine boiled up frustration at Origin.

I completely agree with the Mass Effect and Crysis points however, but wasn't Mass Effect's end-game eventually changed because of a bunch of crybabies? I can't really comprehend what exactly their plan is besides milk the fuck out of all their games with more DLCs...almost in a similar fashion with some console games, which runs back to the console game price. Perhaps EA wishes to make the most money as possible with their franchise name and brand as people, regardless of all the spew of hatred and anger, will buy it? Customer Service? Not here!

I dunno, perhaps that model will work sometime in the long run, but given Steam's non-stop affection with the community, and the unwavering followers of GABE, ye...I dunno. Can you name any famed EA people that gamers make fun of in Memes? Here in Valve, we have Newell, Robin Walker...must I go on?

[Possum 10,776]

Steam has faces, EA is a faceless company. That's one big difference.

TBH I didn't think the original ending to ME3 was that bad. I have yet to play the new one (am most of the way through a second playthrough, so should do soon). I did get a bit annoyed at everyone complaining about it everywhere.

[+Skaila 5,462]

Steam has faces, EA is a faceless company. That's one big difference.

TBH I didn't think the original ending to ME3 was that bad. I have yet to play the new one (am most of the way through a second playthrough, so should do soon). I did get a bit annoyed at everyone complaining about it everywhere.

Call me one of the complainers. I just expected more from the ending. Not saying the extended cut DLC was better, but should have been the endgame content in the first place.

Besides, if you want to keep you original endgame, you can. Just don't download the DLC?