bit-gamer.net

Why We Need Origin

Posted on 6th Oct 2011 at 11:42 by Harry Butler with 131 comments

Harry Butler
Since its announcement and subsequent inclusion as a pre-requisite to play Battlefield 3, EA’s re-branded online store, Origin, has been causing plenty of discussion. Opponents argue that Steam already serves as an online digital distribution service, as well as a match-making system, day-one DRM system and game browser; with Steam already providing these services, why must EA force Origin on us?

It’s certainly a fair point, but one that forgets that Steam is lurching nearer and nearer to a monopoly. A victim of its own success and Valve’s forward thinking, it dwarfs the nearest digital distribution competitors such as Direct2Drive, and has the added benefit of driving more and more users to its doors with Steamworks DRM being integrated into games such as Football Manager 2012 and The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim.

The result is a service that, unchecked, is speeding towards a monopoly of the PC gaming digital distribution market, and it’s one that needs competition.

That’s where Origin comes in; by integrating its own DRM system and closed store/contest distribution system, it’s perhaps the only service that can hope to rival Steam in terms of mass adoption. Even if it only features EA published titles (which seems increasingly likely), that’s still a significant portion of the annual PC game market. The Sims, FIFA, Mass Effect, Medal of Honor, Battlefield, Dead Space; EA’s stable of franchises is huge, and if it made Origin a requirement of all its future PC games in the same way as Steam has done with Valve's games, Origin will have no problem rivalling Steam in terms of users.

Why We Need Origin Why we need Origin
Click to enlarge - BF3 might be the first game that requires Origin, but it certainly won't be the last

Of course, Origin is a bit rough right now; it's still a fledgling system, but it’s already remarkably robust. You’re able to register old EA games to it, in the same way as you’d register Steamworks games to Steam and, as the Battlefield 3 beta is proving, its social and friend systems are fairly solid too. It even managed to cope with the huge data demand of the BF3 beta client, which is testament to EA’s forward planning; some might recall Steam grinding to a halt on the launch day of Half-Life 2 as millions of gamers all tried to download the game at once.

However, while EA is large enough to pull off its own, sole store/DRM/distribution service, it’s perhaps the only publisher that's capable of such a feat. Ubisoft’s laughably poor attempts with Uplay have only served to enrage gamers, and THQ’s re-launched ShopTHQ is similarly out of touch. Even the might of Activision would struggle with its own similar service; outside of Call of Duty, its PC portfolio is surprisingly weak. Basically, the market just can’t cope with every publisher creating its own service and is in danger of over-fragmenting, not to mention driving customers insane

However, there's certainly enough room for two sufficiently supported and fully-equipped services such as Steam and Origin, and for those arguing that Origin is yet another program to have to install, I’d suggest you look at the online chat market; it’s not uncommon to use two or more services, including Windows Live, Google Talk, Skype, AIM and the dozens of other online communication services, yet few complain about the individual advantages of each service. Hopefully Origin and Steam can manage to similarly compete, and co-exist, to the eventual benefit of customers.
Tags bf3, ea, origin, steam

131 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Jqim 6th October 2011, 12:48 Quote
When you have 8gb of ram you can have alot of junk open and still play games just fine
feedayeen 6th October 2011, 13:02 Quote
"The result is a service that, unchecked, is speeding towards a monopoly of the PC gaming digital distribution market, and it’s one that needs competition."

The big problem is that compilation only cuts prices where they're competing with the same goods. If EA and Valve are both selling the same games, then great, I'll buy whoever has it cheaper and so will 90% of the population. But if there is no overlap, say if EA games are not on Steam and non-EA games are not on Origin, there's no competition.
Stickeh 6th October 2011, 13:02 Quote
I play on 4GB of ram, with steam open ( to run the overlay) running origin in the background ( a requirement of bf3) while having the memory sink hole that is chrome (to run the BF3 battlog / server browser) and i manage just fine.

I agree origin can coexist with steam - but they need to have a restructure of their pricing before they see any major increase in digital sales through their service.

Why would I pay more for a digital copy, when I can get the disc delivered to my door for £10 less?

Digital stores should be matching online physical copies and then they will see the benifits of increased sales and adpotion!

Valve /Steam know what they are doing, take some lessons and pointers from Portal 2 for example; £30 game - pre order and save 10%, few months later run an offer for £20, then release some FREE DLC and charge £10. You encompass all types of customers, the pre-orderer's, the early adopters, the 'waiting for the first sale' and the £10 budget bin.

Not to mention how cheap they will go afterwards, taking onboard those that maybe even pirated the game (not a lost sale) when they reduce it to <£5.
Jaffo 6th October 2011, 13:08 Quote
I wouldn't mind Origin if it worked anything like as well as Steam. Unfortunately, it doesn't and given how long it's been available (as EADM) there's no indication that it ever will. Awful platform.
Omnituens 6th October 2011, 13:08 Quote
Fair play for EA for trying - still not interested. As soon as I heard that BF3 required it, I cancelled my pre-order. EA's only product I wanted was the BF series, so I am not missing much by skipping origin.
countstex 6th October 2011, 13:10 Quote
People are taught to fear a monopoly. As if such things are inherently corrupt. But if anything a monopoly will give you the best possible solution, provided it is handled well. Steam has shown no signs of turning it's power against the gaming community, in fact with all the sales and special offers they are doing more to help us than ever. Trying to compete with Steam head on is somewhat foolish given their headstart. You need to come from another angle, offering the same end result to the consumer which providing it in a strategically different way. Thus i would argue something like OnLive is more likely to eat into Steams market share. Not in it's current format perhaps, but as the technology improves certainly. If fact i wrote about such things on my blog: http://playtogetherstaytogether.co.uk/?p=488
Elton 6th October 2011, 13:13 Quote
Origin isn't that bad, however the problem is that Origin doesn't offer any compelling or reasonable imrovement over steam.
Marvin-HHGTTG 6th October 2011, 13:13 Quote
I agree with the article wholeheartedly - everyone regards Valve as a god who can do no wrong, when they themselves lock Valve games to be Steam only - plenty of people don't actually like Steam, but they're stuck with it. How is EA somehow evil because they've done the same thing?

As for the subject of pricing, Steam's sales are good, but even then you'll often find the games cheaper elsewhere (IE: physical copy). Normal pricing is poor as well though - basically charging RRP, much like EA. It remains to be seen what EA will do with Origin to try and gain a huge following like Steam, probably in sales, but they've had good offers in the past, discount vouchers and so on (I bought Shift 2 from Origin/EA Store for £19.99 when it was only a couple of quid cheaper elsewhere, but I had a £10 voucher (had to spend over a certain amount), so I essentially got Bad Company 2: Vietnam for free. Those games on Steam at the time equated to £15 more total. (IE, I spent £20 on Origin, would be looking at £35 on Steam).

EA have done well with the servers (Steam sale downloads anyone? "Nooo, you can't download that foolish mortal, there are too many people downloading"), and I reach a higher download speed (and consistently) on them than on Steam (Steam's not exactly slow, but it's rare that it fully saturates my 50Mb connection, especially for any period of time).
Hovis 6th October 2011, 13:14 Quote
I grabbed Origin for FIFA 12 and it's okay. I can't be arsed with the social side of it, I think Steam completely stole the march there, but can't really blame EA for trying.

Much as I use steam and actually like it I've always resented the prices, which are ridiculously high, coupled with the sales tactics (massive discounts on games for a short duration that ought really to have a budget price point by default). More competition can't hurt too much.
Dwarfer 6th October 2011, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
Fair play for EA for trying - still not interested. As soon as I heard that BF3 required it, I cancelled my pre-order. EA's only product I wanted was the BF series, so I am not missing much by skipping origin.

WOW that's so sad!
loftie 6th October 2011, 13:17 Quote
I don't dislike Origin, but at the same time, I don't think the way they've intergrated BF3 into it is that good. Even if you ignore Battlelog, why do we have two sets of friends, one for Origin and one for BF3? This could be excused if it was a 3rd party game - e.g. Company of Heroes on my steam does this - but it's not. It's the game that's supposed to push Origin.

It's not really competitive either. Games being more expensive than retail counterparts is just silly, especially when they need to gain some market share. Yes steam does this too, but steam is established, and works 90% of the time, it's not trying to break into the market and has a friends system that actually updates when people are Online/Offline/In-game, and

Last but not least, the controversy over EA considering banning people over joining the hacked servers for BF3 is worrying. Fair enough, you don't want 3rd party servers. i don't agree but fair enough. What isn't fair is that fact you are considering banning people who join these servers when they are available in Battlelog and can be joined with the Quickmatch Button.
Kiytan 6th October 2011, 13:19 Quote
to be honest, as an application, origin is fine. Works OK and has a good layout, however at the moment, it does still suffer from EA pricing.
MajorTom 6th October 2011, 13:21 Quote
I like competition. it always benefits the consumer. But as post #2 says, this doesn't looks like competition as this is the only platform on which you will be able to play EA PC games. Perhaps you will be able to pay for them elsewhere but it won't drive the development of the plat form forward and Development is what the platform desperately needs.

When you compare the Steam distribution model to the Origin model, Origin is woefully lacking. A couple of bugbears that I have with Origin are that patches are downloaded and then installed in a rather noisy fashion that requires user interaction, unlike Steam which will silently keep my games up to date in the background. Also, no option to start minimized means that I don't launch Origin on Windows start up.

I'm sure the latter can be changed but will they ever have a smooth patching process? That's a big piece of development and I'm, thinking they probably won't ever bother.

If Origin embraces titles from other publishers, then we'll have worthwhile competition. I hope the service improves and does well for all our sakes.
Deadpunkdave 6th October 2011, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
as the Battlefield 3 beta is proving, its social and friend systems are fairly solid too

I had no problem with the requirement to have origin. I had no problem with Origin's own social aspects. But the BF3 beta friends system is the single worst implemented social networking client I have ever encountered. That is not hyperbole, it is worse than every iteration of facebook chat. It is worse than myspace. It is worse than GFWL. It is hideous on a level that makes me genuinely angry.
loftie 6th October 2011, 13:32 Quote
But Dicebook chat has VOIP! Not that we care......
TheLegendJoe 6th October 2011, 13:36 Quote
I was very opposed to it, but it seems to work, as much as I like steam it does need competition, but this is certainly not near to competing fully...

Only if steam could sell games @£25/29 new like on Amazon etc!
DbD 6th October 2011, 13:43 Quote
Origin is owned by EA, I wouldn't trust EA with anything - they will screw you over the first chance they get. We are just a source of income and hence a way of getting their share price up. EA traditionally have been viewed as a nasty company, the only reason we forget that is Activision is even worse.

Steam is owned by Valve who have over the years proved much more interested in gamers (see endless TF2 updates). They are privately owned so don't even have any shareholders to placate.
the-beast 6th October 2011, 13:43 Quote
I think its great that Steam is getting some more heavy weight competition but am disappointed that EA have gone the full steam DRM integration route instead of the more customer fair GOG.COM route of no DRM.

What we really need is for these services to be optional so if people want to play single player or in a lan then an external client is not required.
damien c 6th October 2011, 13:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
Fair play for EA for trying - still not interested. As soon as I heard that BF3 required it, I cancelled my pre-order. EA's only product I wanted was the BF series, so I am not missing much by skipping 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.
paith 6th October 2011, 13:48 Quote
I agree with the point that competition is always good for digital distribution, but it feels like Origin is much more intrusive compared to Steam. If you read Origin Terms of Service, you'll find that the agreement you have to sign is a bit vague:

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you.

Also:

EA reserves the right to monitor communications on the Application and disclose any information EA deems necessary to (i) ensure your compliance with this License; (ii) satisfy any applicable law, regulation or legal process; (iii) protect the rights, property and interests of EA, its employees or the public. EA also reserves the right to edit, refuse to transfer and/or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in EA’s sole discretion.


It seems to me that EA is more interested in gathering information for marketing purposes, plus the bit about editing information is a cause for concern. Why should I agree with letting EA alter my files without asking for my permission first?

I'm not sure, but I think that EA intentionally left its TOS slightly vague so that it can get away with gathering as much information as possible.

Moreover, Valve is a private company with years of reputation as a reliable and caring organisation. Meanwhile, EA has been criticised over the years with its shoddy management practices, poor treatment of employees, and restrictive DRM. Since EA is a public company, it's much more 'corporate' and constantly under pressure by the shareholders to create maximum potential profits. Not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but that means some of their plans may not be in our best interest.
r3loaded 6th October 2011, 13:49 Quote
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).
billysielu 6th October 2011, 13:53 Quote
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.
countstex 6th October 2011, 14:08 Quote
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.
Lenderz 6th October 2011, 14:19 Quote
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.
Denis_iii 6th October 2011, 14:20 Quote
Is origin an app like steam I need to install and having running in order to play BF3?
alexandros1313 6th October 2011, 14:23 Quote
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?
wuyanxu 6th October 2011, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis_iii
Is origin an app like steam I need to install and having running in order to play BF3?
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.
Xlog 6th October 2011, 14:32 Quote
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.
Deders 6th October 2011, 14:37 Quote
I don't like how I suddenly found it on my PC
Lenderz 6th October 2011, 14:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
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.

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.
Fingers66 6th October 2011, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feedayeen
"The result is a service that, unchecked, is speeding towards a monopoly of the PC gaming digital distribution market, and it’s one that needs competition."

The big problem is that compilation only cuts prices where they're competing with the same goods. If EA and Valve are both selling the same games, then great, I'll buy whoever has it cheaper and so will 90% of the population. But if there is no overlap, say if EA games are not on Steam and non-EA games are not on Origin, there's no 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.
BrightCandle 6th October 2011, 15:12 Quote
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.
Krazeh 6th October 2011, 15:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fingers66
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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
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.

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.
TinnersSC2 6th October 2011, 15:32 Quote
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?
MjFrosty 6th October 2011, 15:34 Quote
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
Omnituens 6th October 2011, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarfer
WOW that's so sad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Sad to be honest with you.

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.
Redbeaver 6th October 2011, 15:58 Quote
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.
edzieba 6th October 2011, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrightCandle
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'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):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin Terms
We do not guarantee that any Content or Entitlement will be available at all times, in all countries and/or geographic locations, or at any given time or that we will continue to offer particular Content or Entitlements for any particular length of time. We reserve the right to change and update Content and Entitlements without notice to you. Once you have redeemed your Entitlements, that content is not returnable, exchangeable, or refundable for other Entitlements or for cash, or other goods or services.
Kenny_McCormick 6th October 2011, 16:07 Quote
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.
Farfalho 6th October 2011, 16:22 Quote
I might be talking out of my ass but a friend of mine who installed origin to play the BF3 beta complained a lot because he couldn't change his nickname. Why? He loaned his BF:BC2 account to a friend to play and as usual, the guy used his own nickname. Now that he needed to change, it says he can't and he searched how to but to no avail. He also complained about the friend system.
One thing is being a monopoly due to its own success, another thing is trying to be a monopoly from the start, the reasons why are obvious
countstex 6th October 2011, 16:25 Quote
The biggest problem all these systems have is the publishers are still scared to offer cheaper prices for digital copies of games that would undercut bricks and mortar stores as they still want to be able to sell their physical game copies via them. That's one of the reasons iPhone/Android games are doing so well, low prices as they have no other avenue to market than digital.
mongpong 6th October 2011, 16:32 Quote
I fully agree with this article. Competition is good - if there is only one company (Steam) monopolising on this market then they have no competition. Competition means companies are trying to outdo one another with a better product, whether it be improving the interfaces, increasing their sales. Competition pushes forward better thinking as each company wants their product to be the best. In the end we, the consumers win as we are constantly rewarded by better interfaces and cheaper deals (to name just a couple fo examples as to why competition is good).

Plus from what I've seen Origin is a nice clean digital distribution interface.
lp1988 6th October 2011, 16:48 Quote
I see a problem with the platform being limited, I have a feeling that BF3 is not going to be the last EA game to not be on steam.

What this means is a lack of competition, on EA games that is. This market is a very special one where you may look at games like perfect substitute products they are not. The result, whenever you want a EA title you will have to by on origin in the future, and as there are no other proper competition EA will work as a monopoly on their own games. A Toyota may substitute a Honda, but a Total War game will never substitute a BF game.
faugusztin 6th October 2011, 16:52 Quote
My only issue with Origin - some idiot forgot to include a "Start minimized" option. Which is a unforgivable mistake for a "resident" application like Origin.
Baz 6th October 2011, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
My only issue with Origin - some idiot forgot to include a "Start minimized" option. Which is a unforgivable mistake for a "resident" application like Origin.

Gah, I'd noticed this too. Steam wasn't built in a day either though!
faugusztin 6th October 2011, 17:11 Quote
Well, maybe - but there is a 3 month old thread about this on EA Forums and still no change :
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7393477.page
DbD 6th October 2011, 17:18 Quote
To promote competition we need to boycot origin until they release all the games on steam. Then we would be choosing between quality of service (origin vs steam).

Right now there is no competition I have to use origin so EA is trying to force me to make them a monopoly - which is the sort of thing nasty people do and hence is another reason not trust them or use it.
DwarfKiller 6th October 2011, 17:48 Quote
As a platform Origin is fine. As competition for Steam, it has a long way to go.
It's not as terrible as some people make it seem but it's not as great as others make it out to be either.
Once it has built up a significant library of games I can see it getting much better, especially if they can secure games from other publishers.
I'm more than willing to give it a chance but as of right now, it doesn't impress me. In fact, it doesn't give me much confidence in the platform at all. The main reasons are the short time purchases are available for download and EA's 'sole discretion' which they have been known to abuse in the past.
Saying that, I'm probably going to have to suck it up and deal with Origin on a daily basis because of BF3. When Steam started there were probably similar sentiments from people.
Venares 6th October 2011, 17:58 Quote
Origin is nothing more than a money grab.
Why the hell would I ever buy a game on Origin when there prices are so insanely high compared to, well, everywhere.
Its a digital service for god sake, so WHY OH WHY do they insist on charging £10-15 MORE for a digital copy of something I can go a buy elsewhere with a box and shiney disc and other shiney stuff I can actualy touch.
EA you make me a sad panda, yes you do :(
ssj12 6th October 2011, 18:18 Quote
Im fine with Origin in terms of competition, but D2D and the others are strong platforms which dont limit gamers. Yes, developers might decide to have their games D2D exclusive or Steam exclusive. But overall 3rd party games are not limited to a single platform. Even games using Steamworks can be sold on D2D. I just don't like seeing games crippled both by poor developer decision and a platform like BF3, because while the game looks good, their server browser website is a horrid idea as well as having to adjust graphics settings IN GAME.
Krazeh 6th October 2011, 19:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Im fine with Origin in terms of competition, but D2D and the others are strong platforms which dont limit gamers. Yes, developers might decide to have their games D2D exclusive or Steam exclusive. But overall 3rd party games are not limited to a single platform. Even games using Steamworks can be sold on D2D. I just don't like seeing games crippled both by poor developer decision and a platform like BF3, because while the game looks good, their server browser website is a horrid idea as well as having to adjust graphics settings IN GAME.

Seriously, aside from the settings issue (which i believe has already been confirmed to have been altered for release) what is wrong with the server browser? What about it could be done better if the browser was in-game? Also games using Origin can be sold on other platforms which is why you can find BF3 for sale (well preorder) on a number of online distributors and in stores.
urobulos 6th October 2011, 19:21 Quote
We need a viable competitor to Steam. In its current form Origin isn't it. I'm not saying it can't evolve into something much better though. Some people forget how terrible Steam was when it first released compared to today. It has to have a broad offer of non-EA games, competitive pricing and features. If 50-100% of games released on it are by EA then it is just another annoying "feature" provided by a publisher rather than a true online sales platform.
Sloth 6th October 2011, 19:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
and for those arguing that Origin is yet another program to have to install, I’d suggest you look at the online chat market; it’s not uncommon to use two or more services, including Windows Live, Google Talk, Skype, AIM and the dozens of other online communication services, yet few complain about the individual advantages of each service.
Except I only use Skype specifically because I don't want to have dozens of online communication services. Thankfully, such applications are largely similar and users can freely choose which one to use with little drawbacks.

The differences between such services are also much smaller than the differences between, say, Origin and Steam. The main feature set of a communication service is what forms of chat it offers: video, voice, or text. Between any two services which offer the same type of chatting the differences are negligible. The main feature of an online store is the games and their prices. Any time one store offers a game which the other doesn't you have an important feature which is exclusive to only one service. Welcome to a world where both parties endlessly battle to win over more users with exclusives which only hurt the gaming community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Origin isn't that bad, however the problem is that Origin doesn't offer any compelling or reasonable imrovement over steam.
This is my main complaint as well. It's competition for Steam? Steam already provides good USD prices, has a large list of games, and most of my friends already have it. Origin lacks the good prices, lacks the large library of games, and none of my friends use it while so far offering no redeeming advantage other than BF3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarfer
WOW that's so sad!
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnituens
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.
You beat me to it! I found it quite funny that people would find it "sad" that someone decided not to buy a product because it wasn't what he wanted. Someone who can actually live without all of the latest games? Blasphemy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Gah, I'd noticed this too. Steam wasn't built in a day either though!
That reasoning helps explain a lot of early on problems, but starting "background" applications minimized isn't exactly a new idea. :D
petertew 6th October 2011, 19:43 Quote
The premise of this article, Steam is a monopoly in game distribution, is wrong. Until Steam kills traditional brick and mortar stores consumers will always have a wide variety of options where they can buy a game.

Nevermind the fact that publishers can go the Blizzard route and sell their games directly to consumers with their own distribution services.

The author doesn't seem to really understand what a monopoly is or how it can negatively affect gamers.
Anakha 6th October 2011, 20:30 Quote
Really? People still run tens of messengers at the same time? Trillian all the way, bay-bee!
As for Origin, it's so poorly done that EA/Dice have already had to work around it with the BattleLog system. Origin just becomes a downloader for BF3, because it doesn't do what they need it to, and considering that EA created Origin, that's a very sad state of affairs.
Steam isn't a monopoly, there are (many) other options out there like uPlay, D2D and GOG. If you want to look at platform monopolies, you need look no further than XBLA and PSN. Steam has risen to the very top because it works well, and any other experience pales in comparison. To punish Valve for doing a good job with Steam is akin to shooting your own foot because you just won a marathon. Valve aren't abusing their position with Steam, in fact they seem to be bending over backwards to be useful and open to any developer (even the tiny indie ones) that wants to use their service.
So, Why do we need Origin? Well, EA needs Origin to justify their stupid DRM strategy, and to try and finagle themselves a larger slice of the download price pie. DICE doesn't need Origin, as you can see by their having to circumvent it with BattleLog for a usable game. And gamers don't need Origin at all. It's bloated, built in a mish-mash of platforms (Really! It's .NET and QT/Webkit based. Talk about an unholy union!), and offers no benefits or enhancements over what they already have (Steam, or just Windows' explorer).
runadumb 6th October 2011, 20:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenderz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
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.

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.

I'm with you guys. I won't be boycotting BF3 or anything but I certainly won't be paying a tenner more than it costs at retail either. I will consider Origin my BF3 and amybe Mass Effect 3 service.

My steam collection is currently at 199 games (that probably includes some demos). It didn't get that large due to offering poor service or being overpriced. 90% of those games I bought during some mega sale!
Waynio 6th October 2011, 20:59 Quote
I like being able to buy a retail game at a good price & put the cd key into origin which used to be ea download manager & get the digital one not needing the disc :), same with steamworks games, shame we can't do this with all games.

And Origin is a heck of a lot better than what steam was when it was forced on us with HL2 ;) I really didn't like it back then but it evolved into a great service :D.
dakkadakka 6th October 2011, 21:10 Quote
Great heading. But it ought to be "Why We Need Origin Without SPYWARE".
Competition, monopoly, just usual babble. Nothing about scanning our files and actions, network browsing, emails... Surely, just for our welfare.
SexyHyde 6th October 2011, 21:32 Quote
I normally dont like a company having a monopoly, but steam have been pretty upstanding, in my eyes. I've used steam almost since release, and never really had a problem, although the friends system did seem to take years to get working. Origin on the other hand, i've had to reinstall windows to get it working, modify my router settings and turn off some of my anti virus shields.
Rahabib 6th October 2011, 21:52 Quote
Quote:
I’d suggest you look at the online chat market; it’s not uncommon to use two or more services, including Windows Live, Google Talk, Skype, AIM and the dozens of other online communication services, yet few complain about the individual advantages of each service.

this is a horrible analogy. Many people only use one or use an all-in-one program (Trillian, Pidgin, Digsby, etc.) If I actually had to install 3 different programs for MSN, AIM, GT - I would only use one and the others would be irrelevant. You see this with Facebook. Myspace died off because people didnt want 2 things that do the same thing.

There is one reason why Origin is good. It will either force competition for features or pricing with Steam (and Steam has a big headstart) or it will just solidify Steam as the predominant digital distribution monolith since even EA couldn't compete. EA better have a good encore to BF3 or its going nowhere.
dakkadakka 6th October 2011, 21:54 Quote
I see bit-tech-net has a nice censorship.
Something like "Great headline. But it ought to be "Why We Need Origin Without SPYWARE". Competition, monopoly, usual babble. Nothing about scanning our computers: files, network activity, browsing, emails... Surely it's just for our welfare." is inappropriate as a comment. Double post.
DriftCarl 6th October 2011, 21:59 Quote
origin really isnt too bad. It is pretty much just like steam, from my experience I have got much faster downloads in origin too, dead space 2 when i got that free with BF3 pre-order, downloaded super fast, and when BF3 beta because available, it maxed out my internet speed.
I dont agree that there is no competition for Valve, there is, it is called physical copies of games. It is even closer than that too, as you can order physical games from your home from amazon or play ect, I bet they still shift huge amounts of games.

Dont get me wrong I would LOVE to have seen BF3 on steam and I would have chosen that over origin. But if origin will make the actual game easier to manage, with free backups of my disks, then I will choose that over a physical copy.
Ratchet219 6th October 2011, 22:16 Quote
I like BF2 and I want to buy BF3, but I won't till they release it on STEAM. There is plenty of other good games out there so if EA going to force me into using ORGIN... Well let’s just say they will not be making a sale to this customer. It's the principle, but that's just me :)
runadumb 6th October 2011, 22:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet219
I like BF2 and I want to buy BF3, but I won't till they release it on STEAM. There is plenty of other good games out there so if EA going to force me into using ORGIN... Well let’s just say they will not be making a sale to this customer. It's the principle, but that's just me :)

It doesn't matter where you buy it from you will still have to use origin.
Ratchet219 6th October 2011, 22:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
origin really isnt too bad. It is pretty much just like steam, from my experience I have got much faster downloads in origin too, dead space 2 when i got that free with BF3 pre-order, downloaded super fast, and when BF3 beta because available, it maxed out my internet speed.
I dont agree that there is no competition for Valve, there is, it is called physical copies of games. It is even closer than that too, as you can order physical games from your home from amazon or play ect, I bet they still shift huge amounts of games.

Dont get me wrong I would LOVE to have seen BF3 on steam and I would have chosen that over origin. But if origin will make the actual game easier to manage, with free backups of my disks, then I will choose that over a physical copy.

Because of people like ^^ they get away with and forcing us do *** we don't want. So if u want game on STEAM why settle for ORGIN? Why settle for crap just because EA puts sprinkles on top. - personal opinion.
OmniXVII 6th October 2011, 22:40 Quote
I don't care for Origin but I simultaneously want it to succeed to show Valve that their not the major digital distributor anymore. Gabe Newell is now assembling his team of portal-gun wielding ninjas to sabotage Origin and its affiliates.
Crossing 6th October 2011, 23:49 Quote
Orgin is there so VALVe doesn't get sued for having a monopoly.
wiak 7th October 2011, 02:35 Quote
soo competition but where is the price war?, most games on origin is overpriced, its more like blackmale :P

online stores are still more expensive than brick stores even with shipping prices and all the greenhouse gasses it brings

its simple to know how much ea and valve profit from digital game sales, just look at amazon s3's price list and you get an idea of how much bandwidth and storage costs, both ea and valve have their own storage centers or use akamai/amazons3 or similar t
http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/

so there profit is like 75% and that excludes tax
mackhina 7th October 2011, 05:02 Quote
Stop pretending EA is doing this for the benefit gamers. What a load of rubbish. People aren't stupid, they can see a wolf in sheeps clothing and hence the reason for the backlash from the public.

EA have never cared about their gamers. The one and only reason Origin was released was to make money.

EA is the company I'm worried about becoming a monopoly. If they cared about gamers and had that as their core business model it might be ok, but we all know they dont. They are a business and their focus is on their share value. Recent quotes from EA show their mentality.

EA CEO John Riccitiello:
"...wants to see CoD "rot from the core."

EA Jeff Brown on Activision calling for a stop to hostilities:
"Welcome to the big leagues Eric -- I know you're new in the job but someone should have told you this is an competitive industry. You've got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you’ll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk."

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/9675.html
ssj12 7th October 2011, 06:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Im fine with Origin in terms of competition, but D2D and the others are strong platforms which dont limit gamers. Yes, developers might decide to have their games D2D exclusive or Steam exclusive. But overall 3rd party games are not limited to a single platform. Even games using Steamworks can be sold on D2D. I just don't like seeing games crippled both by poor developer decision and a platform like BF3, because while the game looks good, their server browser website is a horrid idea as well as having to adjust graphics settings IN GAME.

Seriously, aside from the settings issue (which i believe has already been confirmed to have been altered for release) what is wrong with the server browser? What about it could be done better if the browser was in-game? Also games using Origin can be sold on other platforms which is why you can find BF3 for sale (well preorder) on a number of online distributors and in stores.

It is utterly crap that I have to use a website to use my game. It is completely half ass that they didnt take the time to create a proper ingame menu. They have done great browsers in the past, so there is no excuse that they couldnt do it ingame with BF3.

Still, I also do not want multiple pieces of software that control my content. I either want it from one main client source that contains all your games, or simply installed from a retail disc with no need for a main client software to manage your title. There is a reason I use all-in-one software for my chat programs, so i dont have multiple things running. So I do not want multiple game clients running either. I want my Steam as my client, and only client.

As a game reviewer I did have a GfwL account to review a number of titles, will I ever use it again? No since I dont work for VGChartz anymore. And I uninstalled it the minute I was finished with the game. Did i enjoy using it on top of Steam? F NO. Would i want an origin account or its client wasting space on my SSD or HDD? F NO.
thil 7th October 2011, 06:45 Quote
"The result is a service that, unchecked, is speeding towards a monopoly of the PC gaming digital distribution market, and it’s one that needs competition."

Steam's only that way by default - because *no one else cared about PC gaming or DD*. That's it. Everyone else was off trying to suck at the consoles' teats.

It's like someone saying "I'm sick of Bob's Bakery taking all the business selling bread, while I get no one buying my bread" when that someone *doesn't even sell bread at all*.
Venares 7th October 2011, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossing
Orgin is there so VALVe doesn't get sued for having a monopoly.

So Direct2Drive, GamersGate, GreenmanGaming and lord knows how many other digital distribution sites dont exsist to you then.
What a load of crap. The only monopoly I can see here at the moment is EA / Origin by FORCING you to use there god awful platform.
faugusztin 7th October 2011, 10:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venares
So Direct2Drive, GamersGate, GreenmanGaming and lord knows how many other digital distribution sites dont exsist to you then.

They exist. That doesn't strip Steam of monopoly status. Maybe it is not monopoly in legal sense, but if you sell 90% of stuff then you are in fact a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venares
What a load of crap. The only monopoly I can see here at the moment is EA / Origin by FORCING you to use there god awful platform.

Can you play latest Modern Warfare without Steam ? Didn't they forced the "god awful platform" to poor physical media lovers, who hate the services like Steam ?

You don't like Origin, it is your right. But just because you don't like it does not mean that they (EA) don't have the right to do it, especially when in fact they are second to do this stuff - after games with Steamworks integration, which force Steam on any buyers of those games.
Krazeh 7th October 2011, 10:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
It is utterly crap that I have to use a website to use my game. It is completely half ass that they didnt take the time to create a proper ingame menu. They have done great browsers in the past, so there is no excuse that they couldnt do it ingame with BF3.

So you don't actually have any real arguments against Battlelog beyond "I don't like it". Pretty much like everyone else who's complained about it tbh. I've yet to see a single rational cohesive argument for why Battlelog is actually bad as opposed to simply different. And as for great in-game server browsers I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Great is the last word I'd use to describe the server browser included in Bad Company 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Still, I also do not want multiple pieces of software that control my content. I either want it from one main client source that contains all your games, or simply installed from a retail disc with no need for a main client software to manage your title. There is a reason I use all-in-one software for my chat programs, so i dont have multiple things running. So I do not want multiple game clients running either. I want my Steam as my client, and only client.

So basically everything should be done in a manner that suits what you want and everyone else should just live with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
As a game reviewer I did have a GfwL account to review a number of titles, will I ever use it again? No since I dont work for VGChartz anymore. And I uninstalled it the minute I was finished with the game. Did i enjoy using it on top of Steam? F NO. Would i want an origin account or its client wasting space on my SSD or HDD? F NO.

Yeah, that 107MB of space it takes up on a HDD and 60MB or so memory it use when loaded is a killer. I don't know how my computer remains usable when I have to waste such resources...
Krikkit 7th October 2011, 10:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakkadakka
I see bit-tech-net has a nice censorship.
Something like "Great headline. But it ought to be "Why We Need Origin Without SPYWARE". Competition, monopoly, usual babble. Nothing about scanning our computers: files, network activity, browsing, emails... Surely it's just for our welfare." is inappropriate as a comment.

Nope, just moderators who can't always be bothered trawling through hundreds of vacuous comments after a hard day living our lives. ;)
impar 7th October 2011, 11:25 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArticle
Opponents argue that Steam already serves as an online digital distribution service, as well as a match-making system, day-one DRM system and game browser; with Steam already providing these services, why must EA force Origin on us?
The author forgot about the social aspect, Steam is levels above Origin.
Much better friends system, the same friends for all Steam games (unlike Origin friends and Battlelog friends), easy way to track friends games recommendations, share screenshots, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArticle
... Steam is lurching nearer and nearer to a monopoly.
Nope. Several AAA games are not available in Steam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArticle
However, while EA is large enough to pull off its own, sole store/DRM/distribution service, it’s perhaps the only publisher that's capable of such a feat
Thats doesnt mean that Activision, Ubisoft, etc dont try to lunch their own stores. All depends on how Battle.net, Steam and Origin behave.
Starlance 7th October 2011, 13:13 Quote
As explicit as you would have never imagined, EA’s Origin license agreement states that the program is free to act exactly as spyware and that the only way to opt out of that is not to install or use it at all.

According to the service’s EULA, by installing the client program the user gives EA permission to identify his computer, operating system, installed/uninstalled software/hardware, and use that information for marketing purposes while merrily sharing it with third party companies.
Redd13 7th October 2011, 13:56 Quote
How can it be considered competution when the product can only be purchased from one source?
If i were to buy a physical copy i would visit each shop and buy from the best retail. But if there is only one online source... they can effectively charge what they like. Steam has been successful not only because of its massive game list but because of its amazing pricing.
Ive personally bought games again just to be able to cosolidate my library and throw away cd copies.
faugusztin 7th October 2011, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redd13
but because of its amazing pricing.

Maybe in UK or US, but not elsewhere.
dakkadakka 7th October 2011, 15:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
Nope, just moderators who can't always be bothered trawling through hundreds of vacuous comments after a hard day living our lives. ;)
And yours is thought provoking I suppose? I thought it's just another pro EA site, sorry my fault really.
ssj12 7th October 2011, 18:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
It is utterly crap that I have to use a website to use my game. It is completely half ass that they didnt take the time to create a proper ingame menu. They have done great browsers in the past, so there is no excuse that they couldnt do it ingame with BF3.

So you don't actually have any real arguments against Battlelog beyond "I don't like it". Pretty much like everyone else who's complained about it tbh. I've yet to see a single rational cohesive argument for why Battlelog is actually bad as opposed to simply different. And as for great in-game server browsers I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Great is the last word I'd use to describe the server browser included in Bad Company 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Still, I also do not want multiple pieces of software that control my content. I either want it from one main client source that contains all your games, or simply installed from a retail disc with no need for a main client software to manage your title. There is a reason I use all-in-one software for my chat programs, so i dont have multiple things running. So I do not want multiple game clients running either. I want my Steam as my client, and only client.

So basically everything should be done in a manner that suits what you want and everyone else should just live with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
As a game reviewer I did have a GfwL account to review a number of titles, will I ever use it again? No since I dont work for VGChartz anymore. And I uninstalled it the minute I was finished with the game. Did i enjoy using it on top of Steam? F NO. Would i want an origin account or its client wasting space on my SSD or HDD? F NO.

Yeah, that 107MB of space it takes up on a HDD and 60MB or so memory it use when loaded is a killer. I don't know how my computer remains usable when I have to waste such resources...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0POAnWAmV0w it would seem that even those who have a strong voice distastes Battlelog. And BFBC2 might have been glitchy, BF2, 2142, and 1942 all havee amazing browsers.

Everything should be done to better suit the current market.
Stickeh 7th October 2011, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
So you don't actually have any real arguments against Battlelog beyond "I don't like it". Pretty much like everyone else who's complained about it tbh. I've yet to see a single rational cohesive argument for why Battlelog is actually bad as opposed to simply different. And as for great in-game server browsers I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Great is the last word I'd use to describe the server browser included in Bad Company 2.

You know the only issue i have with battle log is that because the game is not open / launched yet i feel i would 'lose' my space after i click join on server and by the time the game is loaded it will say 'server full'. But I have NEVER once had that happen!

Battlelog works and it works better than the BC2 in game server browser, cause I can actually add friends no problem and vice versa (had big issues in BC2), also means I can browse a favourite server without loading the game to find out its full - or offline.

People need to get over that its different. It works.
Jambo72 8th October 2011, 01:03 Quote
It can only be competition if EA is selling the same games as steam, therefore creating a "price war" which is great for consumers. What we will have instead is a need for 2 separate programs. To be a rival of steam, Origin must sell the same games. I agree that competition is great, but what EA is doing is not creating competition, it is creating an add-on that people will have to get if they want to play new EA releases.
faugusztin 8th October 2011, 01:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo72
To be a rival of steam, Origin must sell the same games.

Other online distribution systems except Steam don't sell BF3 ? It comes down to a disagreement between Valve and EA what a Steam distributed app can and cannot have - in my opinion Valve in this case wants more than it can get from EA.
Krazeh 8th October 2011, 01:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo72
It can only be competition if EA is selling the same games as steam, therefore creating a "price war" which is great for consumers. What we will have instead is a need for 2 separate programs. To be a rival of steam, Origin must sell the same games. I agree that competition is great, but what EA is doing is not creating competition, it is creating an add-on that people will have to get if they want to play new EA releases.

EA actually need to have the system up and running and be able to show it works before they can hope to convince other publishers to sell games through Origin. You can't expect them to have a comparable catalogue to Steam at this point in time, it's simply not feasible for that to be the case.
Siwini 8th October 2011, 01:46 Quote
Man f ORGIN! STEAM all the waay! Will not but BF3 if this keeps up.
Bakes 8th October 2011, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
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.

Well sure - but what Steam's doing at the moment is saying that if you want to have DLC in your game, you must sell the DLC through Steam or not use Steam at all - which is forcing developers to use Steam. Competition is good.
AstralWanderer 8th October 2011, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by paith
I agree with the point that competition is always good for digital distribution, but it feels like Origin is much more intrusive compared to Steam. If you read Origin Terms of Service...It seems to me that EA is more interested in gathering information for marketing purposes, plus the bit about editing information is a cause for concern. Why should I agree with letting EA alter my files without asking for my permission first?
Nobody should agree with an EULA like that. Steam does however have a clause which seems similar (section 7 of the Steam EULA) stating:

"Subject to the Valve privacy policy referenced in Section 1 above, as applicable, you expressly grant Valve the complete and irrevocable right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and perform the User Generated Information and derivative works thereof in any form, anywhere, with or without attribution to you, and without any notice or compensation to you of any kind."
Quote:
Originally Posted by paith
Moreover, Valve is a private company with years of reputation as a reliable and caring organisation. Meanwhile, EA has been criticised over the years with its shoddy management practices, poor treatment of employees, and restrictive DRM.
Hmm...I'd suggest your comments about EA could apply to Valve also - they've disabled thousands of Steam accounts (resulting in owners losing access to all Steam games) and have as much incentive (and more opportunity given their larger userbase) to exploit their T&C's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrightCandle
...EA has a UK office and presence and hence have to abide by the UK sales of goods act...
Quote:
Originally Posted by edzieba
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):
Good point about EA having a UK presence and therefore subject to UK/EU legislation. Whatever EA call their product ("licence", "entitlement", whatever) it is still either a good or a service and subject to the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994.

With Valve, your options in the event of a dispute are to request a chargeback on your credit card (if you paid using CC and this will result in an account ban if it isn't already) or hire a US lawyer to seek compensation in a Washington court (likely to be an expensive option, win or lose, for European consumers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
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...
Section C2 of the Steam EULA states that Valve might provide DRM-free copies at their discretion - no obligation though:

"In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchas"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
...you'd need to already have them all backed up on your computer or you'd lose out.
Backups would be of no use unless Steam was prepared to validate them (due to their activate-on-play DRM), i.e. if the servers shut down, all Steam users would lose access to all their Steam games.

The article is half-right in saying that Steam needs competition - but another DRM-strangled consumer-hostile product-limited and overpriced service like Origin isn't likely to be the solution.
ssj12 8th October 2011, 18:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo72
To be a rival of steam, Origin must sell the same games.

Other online distribution systems except Steam don't sell BF3 ? It comes down to a disagreement between Valve and EA what a Steam distributed app can and cannot have - in my opinion Valve in this case wants more than it can get from EA.

The dispute from what I understand was entirely over add-on content, and where to get it. Valve I believe made it mandatory all add-on content has to be sold through Steam if the main copy of the game was sold on Steam.
Naster 8th October 2011, 22:25 Quote
Steam will always have at least one competitor: piracy. Even if Steam was to get a monopoly on the market AND start abusing it by bloating prices artificially or something, I think many potential customers would then just opt for pirating their games - or simply not get them at all.

Still, I'm not saying that Origin can't be good for the market.
Waynio 8th October 2011, 22:44 Quote
I'll probably never buy games direct from EA because of the max prices they ask for, same with most games on steam on day 1, I just go wherever it's cheapest & it's always cheapest at retail from online stores other than when steam or origin have nice sales, just some games like ubisoft & other publishers games I prefer to get digital because I don't think you can input the cd key to get the digi version from any service so the more game publishers use steamworks the better I say :).
PaulC2K 9th October 2011, 03:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinnersSC2
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?

Thats the weirdest way of looking at it ive ever seen :D

What influences pricing mainly is costs and demand (irrelevent in this case).
The costs between EA selling a game to a physical store, shipping/transportation, storage/rent, and store taking a profit on the sale, versus an online DD store, bandwidth & general hosting costs. Its vastly cheaper for EA to sell it via digital means, and cut out your Amazons, Tescos, GAME etc who buy at say £15 to sell to you at £25. EA could probably sell it at £16 and make the same profit.
So theoretically EA could sell to retailers at £15, by their DD at £16, but instead as we know they charge way more, the RRP, say £30, and it becomes the more expensive option despite it being more profitable for them at say £20, and makes it the cheapest place to buy.

The ACTUAL reason why EA, Steam or any other DD company dont give you the product at the £16/£20 price and make a good profit while making themselves the cheapest and most attractive option for customers is simple. Those physical stores would turn their backs on them.
If BF3 was sold for £25, becoming the cheapest option for customers, nobody would buy it from the high street or online stores. If they know they'll get undercut by the distributer they wont stock the product, why would they? Sink hundreds of thousands of pounds into stock for something they'll get killed on? no chance.
You shaft a retailer, or all retailers, and they'll happilly close the door on you.
Thats the reason why Steam & Origin are a complete rip-off, they're not doing it because of greed, and its got nothing to do with paying a premium for the convenience (Heck, its cheaper to have GAME post an new games to you then go buy in-store!), they're doing it because otherwise nobody would purchase these games from them and put them on their shelves, advertise their release, and thats where their money comes from, DD may be becoming a big market, but its still nothing compared to buying physical goods and that will take a long time to change.
Its a great deal for the likes of Origin & Steam though, they get to charge £40 a pop, and people are still stupid enough to go to them and hand over their money, despite there being places 20-30% cheaper.

Most companies sell to distributers/shops with the agreement that if they sell themselves, it must be at the RRP. Otherwise, whats to stop them undercutting?
TinnersSC2 10th October 2011, 17:30 Quote
With Steam (in the UK at least), you are pretty much guaranteed that within a couple of months of release you will see most games at a ridiculously discounted price (easter, summer, thanksgiving, xmas usally).

Perhaps if you want to buy a game in the first week of release you might pay £29.99 on steam rather than ~£26 on Amazon, but whats a few quid when you can be playing within a matter of minutes?

Not to mention the fact that as PC gamers surely all of us should worship the ground Valve walk on, for bringing us some of the greatest games of all time!
boiled_elephant 10th October 2011, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feedayeen

The big problem is that compilation only cuts prices where they're competing with the same goods. If EA and Valve are both selling the same games, then great, I'll buy whoever has it cheaper and so will 90% of the population. But if there is no overlap, say if EA games are not on Steam and non-EA games are not on Origin, there's no competition.

This x1000. So far it's looking like EA will be the only ones selling BC3, and it'll cost an arm, and Valve will be the only ones selling Half-Life 3, and it'll cost a leg. This is not a step forwards from retail shops, it's a step backwards.
faugusztin 10th October 2011, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
This x1000. So far it's looking like EA will be the only ones selling BC3

Once again. Everybody except Steam sells BF3.
Anfield 10th October 2011, 18:01 Quote
After what EA has done to PC Gaming over the last couple years I heavily doubt EA is the right Company to compete against Steam.
Stickeh 10th October 2011, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
This x1000. So far it's looking like EA will be the only ones selling BC3, and it'll cost an arm, and Valve will be the only ones selling Half-Life 3, and it'll cost a leg. This is not a step forwards from retail shops, it's a step backwards.

You know that is true that Portal 2 wasn't that cheap a game at £30, but it was still £10-£20 cheaper than high street games and other AAA titles, and it is the first to drop in price and go on sale a lot quicker than other such titles. Valve know how to play the system :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Once again. Everybody except Steam sells BF3.

Precisely, too much moaning when i just went and purchased from amazon for £30- £10 cheaper than origin! (and a £15 amazon voucher....can't pass that up!)
Bakes 10th October 2011, 19:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
You know that is true that Portal 2 wasn't that cheap a game at £30, but it was still £10-£20 cheaper than high street games and other AAA titles, and it is the first to drop in price and go on sale a lot quicker than other such titles. Valve know how to play the system :)

The standard price for PC games is £30.
Stickeh 10th October 2011, 20:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
The standard price for PC games is £30.

Well portal is bang on the money, so why is BF3 so expensive from origin?? and COD MW3 £40?

Thats the kind of AAA games i'm talking about, those that demand a premium. Portal 2 was undervalued otherwise.
Krazeh 10th October 2011, 20:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakes
The standard price for PC games is £30.

Are we talking RRP or the price retail stores sell for?
Lenderz 11th October 2011, 09:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
You know that is true that Portal 2 wasn't that cheap a game at £30, but it was still £10-£20 cheaper than high street games and other AAA titles, and it is the first to drop in price and go on sale a lot quicker than other such titles. Valve know how to play the system :)


What? Portal 2 was £25 on pre-order, or £47.98 for the two pack.

:facts:
Stickeh 11th October 2011, 09:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenderz
What? Portal 2 was £25 on pre-order, or £47.98 for the two pack.

:facts:

You know guys....i'm for valve, i bought portal 2 on pre order, what i'm saying was it isnt ludicrously cheap as a download as they will make the right money etc, YES it is cheaper than other releases, but i was trying to say is they started at a high price point, offered a pre order bonus, it went down to £20 in a few months then on sale recently for £10 offering it to all types of buyer. It was an example of a good way to sell games!
facior 11th October 2011, 11:20 Quote
THIS ARTICLE IS SPONSORED BY EA.

Nobody needs nor wants Origin but EA. Author of this article has no idea what monopoly is. If you can buy a game in any retail shop not through Steam u cannot say about anything about Steam monopoly.
It is a form of selling and EA only wants to get money from it too, seeing how Steam is seccesful.

Read EULA for Origing and u will see that it has all featers of Spyware.
EA want through Orgin earn money not only on sales of game but on selling ur private data to third parties too.

I just canceld my preorder and I am not buying BF3 if even retail disk game will require installing this spyware Origin.
mdshann 12th October 2011, 02:11 Quote
I still don't understand why a digital copy costs the same as a boxed copy.
Krazeh 12th October 2011, 02:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdshann
I still don't understand why a digital copy costs the same as a boxed copy.

For the simple reason that publishers still want to be able to sell copies in retail stores. Retailers are not going to buy thousands of copies to sell through their stores if the best price they can offer is undercut by a publisher's own online store.
AstralWanderer 12th October 2011, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
...Retailers are not going to buy thousands of copies to sell through their stores if the best price they can offer is undercut by a publisher's own online store.
If that was the case, then those same retailers would be able to block the heavy discounts offered by the likes of Amazon or Play (even on pre-launch orders) by insisting that publishers sell to them at a higher price. And there would be no 70%+ discount Steam sales.

Furthermore, as Darryl Still (international publishing director for 1C) points out in Retail vs Steam, retail sales are now far less influential than the digital marketplace.

As such, the "retail boycott" seems more like a convenient excuse for some digital distributors to screw over their fanbase.
Krazeh 12th October 2011, 16:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
If that was the case, then those same retailers would be able to block the heavy discounts offered by the likes of Amazon or Play (even on pre-launch orders) by insisting that publishers sell to them at a higher price.

I would imagine that would be more an issue of buying power of those bigger retailers than anything else. It's not the same thing as the publisher themselves undercutting the retailers it's selling to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
And there would be no 70%+ discount Steam sales.

And how often does that happen in the first few weeks/months following a games release?
AstralWanderer 12th October 2011, 19:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I would imagine that would be more an issue of buying power of those bigger retailers than anything else...
But according to the article linked, Steam's buying power dwarfed that of the brick-and-mortar crowd so Steam should be the one dictating prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
And how often does that happen in the first few weeks/months following a games release?
Don't use Steam so I don't know. GOG however did offer a 40% discount on Witcher 2 just 3 months after its release.
Krazeh 12th October 2011, 19:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
But according to the article linked, Steam's buying power dwarfed that of the brick-and-mortar crowd so Steam should be the one dictating prices.

Seemed to me that the article stated that Steam was selling more than one brick-and-mortar store, not all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Don't use Steam so I don't know. GOG however did offer a 40% discount on Witcher 2 just 3 months after its release.

After 3 months I'd imagine that most people who were going to buy it for the release price would have already done so.
impar 27th October 2011, 20:17 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Origin third-party support begins with Saints Row, Batman

EA's Origin store will start offering third-party games next month. Electronic Arts had said that "forward-looking" publishers were looking to jump on board--those publishers include Warner Bros., THQ, and Capcom. On November 15th, Origin will add Batman: Arkham City and Saints Row: The Third, with more titles coming from these publishers "in the coming months."
More PC-gaming community fracturation into several services...
faugusztin 27th October 2011, 20:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!
More PC-gaming community fracturation into several services...

Fracturation ? Both of those are on Steam. :|
Fizzban 27th October 2011, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdshann
I still don't understand why a digital copy costs the same as a boxed copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
For the simple reason that publishers still want to be able to sell copies in retail stores. Retailers are not going to buy thousands of copies to sell through their stores if the best price they can offer is undercut by a publisher's own online store.

Yet the digital copy often costs more money than the boxed edition. No production costs, yet an inflated price.

Game companys want us to all go digital don't they? Making digital cheaper than boxed should be the way to go. It is not under cutting when you don't have to print, press and ship physical copies. I know they have to pay costs for servers, maintenance and bandwidth, but they are doing this anyway/as well as. Digital has to be cheaper than the alternative.

I think the reason digital costs the same or more, is because they make back a little on what they spend on boxed editions. Quite smart really.
impar 27th October 2011, 21:26 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Fracturation ? Both of those are on Steam. :|
Sure. So, will you buy the Steam or Origin or XYZ version?
Will you keep in touch, while gaming, with your Steam friends or Origin friends or XYZ friends? Or all of them?

You ever tried running a game through one of those DD platforms while keeping in touch with friends from other DD platform?
I did with Starcraft 2 (battle.net) ladder games and trying to keep in touch with Steam friends. A nightmare.
faugusztin 27th October 2011, 21:32 Quote
So you complain about the fact that the social features are not integrated. Reason to be angry, that is for sure. Steam friends can't talk to Origin friends, they cannot talk to Facebook friends, none of them can talk to Google Talk, ICQ, AIM, MSN, (insert any IM messaging platform here)...

Seriously, if this is your biggest problem, then call yourself lucky.
Gunsmith 27th October 2011, 23:45 Quote
I think Origin is a good idea however I dont see it getting the care and attention it needs to be successfull like steam did back in the day + i foresee EA being shitbags and not releasing thier games on steam anymore.
Big_malc 27th October 2011, 23:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
+ i foresee EA being shitbags and not releasing thier games on steam anymore.

Have to agree with this as they will try to force people to use to use origin
Krazeh 28th October 2011, 01:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Yet the digital copy often costs more money than the boxed edition. No production costs, yet an inflated price.

Game companys want us to all go digital don't they? Making digital cheaper than boxed should be the way to go. It is not under cutting when you don't have to print, press and ship physical copies. I know they have to pay costs for servers, maintenance and bandwidth, but they are doing this anyway/as well as. Digital has to be cheaper than the alternative.

I think the reason digital costs the same or more, is because they make back a little on what they spend on boxed editions. Quite smart really.

You seem to have missed the point. It's not that the digital copy actually costs more than the physical copy, it's that no retail store in their right mind is going to purchase copies to sell through their brick and mortar stores if hte publisher is turning around and selling the same game by digital distribution for a price that the retailers simply can't match without losing money.
impar 28th October 2011, 11:52 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
So you complain about the fact that the social features are not integrated.
Yep. And its geting worse.
Waynio 30th October 2011, 03:35 Quote
What is all this about origin being bad spyware, I'm really put off using it now until I find out more about it, is it as bad as many are making out?.

Installed BF3 earlier but after reading up a little about origin being 24-7 spyware I'm rather put off bothering with it, could anyone enlighten me?.
AstralWanderer 30th October 2011, 20:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynio
What is all this about origin being bad spyware, I'm really put off using it now until I find out more about it, is it as bad as many are making out?.
Any system that involves compulsory online activation (Securom Online, Steam, Direct2Drive, Ubisoft, etc) will qualify as "spyware" to some extent because they all involve user monitoring (of installs/uninstalls at least for the likes of Securom or Direct2Drive, of game usage and progress in the case of Steam or Ubisoft - see Big Brother is watching you play for some background).

MMOs will also almost certainly involve similar tracking, both as feedback for game developers (which can be good or bad thing depending on user perspective - their ultimate goal is to make it as hard as possible to stop playing and paying) and cheat detection.

The EULA is probably the best indicator of publishers' intentions - EA Origins' has had a makeover (see RockPaperShotgun: Origin EULA Gets A Makeover and Joystiq: EA revises Origin EULA; data collection is still in, collection for marketing is out) but it looks to be cosmetic (check the wording here - take particular note of sections 2 and 5).

So if you care about your privacy, steer clear of Origin, but also check the policies of other online providers (the comments in RockPaperShotgun highlight a number of unpleasant clauses in various MMOs and Steam's EULA has a number of problematic clauses too - see sections 4B, 5, 7 and 9C).
Krazeh 30th October 2011, 20:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
(check the wording here - take particular note of sections 2 and 5).

I'm pretty certain that's an old out of date copy of the EULA. It's certainly been superseded by http://eacom.s3.amazonaws.com/EULA_Origin_8.24.11.pdf at least.
Zurechial 30th October 2011, 21:15 Quote
Anyone who is concerned about (or doubtful of) the claims of Origin being a piece of spyware should watch its activity with Process Monitor and make their own minds up one way or the other.
I'm not really keen on the tinfoil-hat-brigade sensationalism that's been going on, but I would strongly advocate anyone who has their doubts either way to check it out for themselves and make their own mind up.

My own conclusion is simply that Origin is doing things I never asked it to, things it doesn't need to do. It's accessing files that are nothing to do with it and nothing to do with Battlefield 3.
That was reason enough for me to go through an hour or so of hassle in setting it up inside a Sandbox rather than allowing it free access to my files.
For fairness' sake you could also observe Steam's activity and compare the two, but I simply haven't witnessed Steam doing anything untoward yet - Whereas Origin was up to mischief within minutes.

If you watch Origin's activity with process monitor and happen to be comfortable with what it does and what it accesses then fair enough - Enjoy the reduced hassle; but I think it would be good for more people to be fully aware of what EA think their application can do just because of a EULA.

Either way, I'm glad that the whole situation introduced me to such an awesome piece of software as Sandboxie. I'll buy a full copy of it from the developer once I get my next paycheck, as it's a great app for a paranoiac like me. :D
AstralWanderer 30th October 2011, 21:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I'm pretty certain that's an old out of date copy of the EULA. It's certainly been superseded...
The "out of date" version is still hosted on EA.com while the "update" isn't. As noted by the articles linked to above, the update is cosmetic (with feel-good no-commitment phrases like "EA knows that you care..." being overruled later on) and still contains the most objectionable provisions - marketing usage of personal data has just been farmed out to their privacy policy, see section VI.B.
Krazeh 30th October 2011, 21:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
Anyone who is concerned about (or doubtful of) the claims of Origin being a piece of spyware should watch its activity with Process Monitor and make their own minds up one way or the other.
I'm not really keen on the tinfoil-hat-brigade sensationalism that's been going on, but I would strongly advocate anyone who has their doubts either way to check it out for themselves and make their own mind up.

My own conclusion is simply that Origin is doing things I never asked it to, things it doesn't need to do. It's accessing files that are nothing to do with it and nothing to do with Battlefield 3.
That was reason enough for me to go through an hour or so of hassle in setting it up inside a Sandbox rather than allowing it free access to my files.
For fairness' sake you could also observe Steam's activity and compare the two, but I simply haven't witnessed Steam doing anything untoward yet - Whereas Origin was up to mischief within minutes.

If you watch Origin's activity with process monitor and happen to be comfortable with what it does and what it accesses then fair enough - Enjoy the reduced hassle; but I think it would be good for more people to be fully aware of what EA think their application can do just because of a EULA.

Either way, I'm glad that the whole situation introduced me to such an awesome piece of software as Sandboxie. I'll buy a full copy of it from the developer once I get my next paycheck, as it's a great app for a paranoiac like me. :D

I did run Process Monitor while I had Origin running and all I saw it doing was accessing an ini file within my origin folder and occasionally accessing the origin cloud. Not something I'd consider to be particularly untoward. Exactly how long were you watching it for before it started doing things you weren't happy with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
The "out of date" version is still hosted on EA.com while the "update" isn't.

What relevance does that have to anything? The 'updated' copy is linked to from EA's EULA page and is the current EULA regardless of where EA have decided to host it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
As noted by the articles linked to above, the update is cosmetic (with feel-good no-commitment phrases like "EA knows that you care..." being overruled later on) and still contains the most objectionable provisions - marketing usage of personal data has just been farmed out to their privacy policy, see section VI.B.

I think we'll have to disagree with the extent to which the update is merely cosmetic and what are objectionable provisions.
Zurechial 30th October 2011, 21:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I did run Process Monitor while I had Origin running and all I saw it doing was accessing an ini file within my origin folder and occasionally accessing the origin cloud. Not something I'd consider to be particularly untoward. Exactly how long were you watching it for before it started doing things you weren't happy with?

I left it for around 20 minutes or so during a mixture of afking and playing BF3; and it started doing things like parsing the structure of my ProgramData folder(s) and, for some odd-but-kinda-suspicious reason also parsing the contents of my WoW folder; amongst many others.
Unfortunately, ProcMon ran up a huge amount of memory in recording events for that long and crashed before I took the chance to screencap it.

Simply put though, it was accessing a huge amount of folders that had absolutely nothing to do with Origin.
For instance, Origin is installed at "H:\Origin" for me, but it was accessing folders on my apps drive ( F: ) and querying the contents of Program Files (and the x86 equivalent) on C:, F: and H:

Now, Origin's behaviour may be entirely benign and innocent here; but I'm just not comfortable with it doing that.
It isn't reason enough for me to go burning my copy of BF3 and calling a class-action lawsuit against EA, but it's certainly enough for me to go to the trouble of sandboxing the damn thing.
AstralWanderer 30th October 2011, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
I left it for around 20 minutes or so during a mixture of afking and playing BF3; and it started doing things like parsing the structure of my ProgramData folder(s) and, for some odd-but-kinda-suspicious reason also parsing the contents of my WoW folder; amongst many others...
Process Monitor is a damn fine utility - but diagnosing results can be a little tricky. The behaviour it reported could be Origin itself, but it could also be due to third-party software injecting a DLL into Origin (Process Explorer can be used to check what DLLs are present in a process) - any activities by DLLs would be reported as belonging to the parent process.

Since you mentioned the WoW folder being checked, maybe you have some Blizzard/Activision anti-cheat software behaving this way? (or possibly some WoW-targeting malware).
Zurechial 31st October 2011, 01:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Process Monitor is a damn fine utility - but diagnosing results can be a little tricky. The behaviour it reported could be Origin itself, but it could also be due to third-party software injecting a DLL into Origin (Process Explorer can be used to check what DLLs are present in a process) - any activities by DLLs would be reported as belonging to the parent process.

Since you mentioned the WoW folder being checked, maybe you have some Blizzard/Activision anti-cheat software behaving this way? (or possibly some WoW-targeting malware).

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'll check it again another time; but I'm quite confident that Warden (WoW's anticheat) would not have been a factor, since that only runs when WoW itself is running and I was testing Origin after a fresh reboot too.

I'm also fairly confident that I don't have any malware or viruses for the same reason that the whole Origin spyware thing concerns me. I'm paranoid. ;)
impar 15th November 2011, 10:55 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
EA Forum Bans Are STILL Affecting Games
...
We are receiving information from a number of gamers who have received forum bans for a variety of reasons who are finding they’re unable to play Battlefield 3 (or indeed any other game tied into the EA user account), and worse, when they try to contact EA for help sorting this out, they are either ignored or told it’s tough. So what’s going on?
...
EA :(
Stickeh 15th November 2011, 10:57 Quote
Add burnout paradise to basket> checkout > use promo code PARADISE at the bottom, no need to enter CC details, just name and address, BINGO free burnout paradise game :)
AstralWanderer 15th November 2011, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
EA :(
Guess we shouldn't expect a leopard to change its spots.
impar 17th November 2011, 13:12 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
EA’s Unwieldy Banhammer: EA Responds
...
I’ve responded to all involved at EA asking if we can just get a clear reply explaining what their current policy is. If it is the case, right now, that misbehaving on forums affects your Origin gaming, then we desperately want to be able to warn you about that, not least because we assured you the opposite eight months ago when EA told us that. I think it would be safe to say that were this EA’s current policy, we would strongly advise our readers to go nowhere near EA’s forums for fear of an errant ban directly affecting their ability to play games they have purchased. For now, until I receive clarification, I think we have to assume this is the case.

It’s also worth noting that those forum violations are pretty stringent – if quoting another’s use of “e-peen” is enough to see a ban (and in this guy’s case, a permanent ban!) then they need to make their guidelines a lot clearer.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
The Evil Within Review

The Evil Within Review

21st October 2014

Wasteland 2 Review

Wasteland 2 Review

17th October 2014