bit-gamer.net

E3: "Steam sales cheapen intellectual property"

E3: "Steam sales cheapen intellectual property"

EA's Origin will not mimic the sales which are typical of Steam, the company has said at E3 2012.

Electronic Arts will not copy the discounting and sale approach which typifies Origin's main rival, Steam, the company has said at E3 2012.

Instead, Origin boss David DeMartini told GI.biz that the publisher has a very different approach in mind which won't damage the intellectual properties of indies.

"Obviously [Steam] thinks it's the right thing to do after a certain amount of time," said DeMartini. "I just think it cheapens your intellectual property."

"I know both sides of it, I understand it. If you want to sell a whole bunch of units, that is certainly a way to do that, to sell a whole bunch of stuff at a low price. The game makers work incredibly hard to make this intellectual propert...we're trying to give you a fair price point, and occasionally there will be things that are on sale you could look for a discount, just don't look for 75 per cent off going-out-of-business sales."

With over 11 million users, Origin is now considered to be Steam's biggest rival thanks to the success of games such as Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3 on PC.

"What Steam does might be teaching the customer, 'I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I'll get one of those weekend sales and I'll buy it at that time at 75 per cent off'" warned DeMartini.

Steam or Origin? Let us know your thoughts in the forum.

79 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
GeorgeStorm 7th June 2012, 13:26 Quote
It's what happens with physical copies of games, why shouldn't it happen when it comes to downloads?
I must admit the sales are sometimes pretty mental, but in the end that just means more people get to play the games, and are more likely to pay for it than just download, especially if they're not sure they'll like it.
B1GBUD 7th June 2012, 13:30 Quote
EA/Origin need to wake up, their prices are far too expensive.

Steam > Origin..... simples
zacoid55 7th June 2012, 13:35 Quote
I've been avoiding the EA discussion for a long time now but I feel after seeing them at E3 that I must put my two cents in.

They're out of their minds to even try and take on the might of Valve's Steam with Origin, it's never going to get them anywhere fast. My origin account has 3 games on it and that's only because I don't have choice, I've never loaded up Origin on its own and gone out my way to check out content on their as I know it's over priced garbage. Steam on the other hand is so much more appealing because yes they have sales and it cheapens that IP in a way, it also acts as a catalyst to boost sales maybe in sequels or other franchises.

Steam will always be superior and to diminish it at something like E3 when everyone else is already hurting over the over-hyped and sparkly bullshit, is not the best way to go. Crytek and EA have just announced that the BOW in Crysis 3 isn't a default weapon in the game, you need to pre-order, which just highlights what EA stands for. Valve are releasing CS:GO for $15 on every platform NEW, do you know how well that game is going to sell?!?! EA needs to wake the feck up and treat its fans better before it tries to bring down its rival
greigaitken 7th June 2012, 13:38 Quote
steam sales capture the 'WHAT! YOU WANT 35! FOR THAT! section of the market. I just demoed dirt showdown and i'd pay £5-£10. its that or nothing.
Are you listeneing codemasters - Grimrock is worth more than Showdown!
You'll always get the full price on realease folks or the never pay anything always pirate folks too but steam sales get me to buy games i'd probably just miss because of the price
vdbswong 7th June 2012, 13:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
It's what happens with physical copies of games, why shouldn't it happen when it comes to downloads?
I must admit the sales are sometimes pretty mental, but in the end that just means more people get to play the games, and are more likely to pay for it than just download, especially if they're not sure they'll like it.

Not quite within the same timeframe however.

Steam will put a game on sale that's only been out for a month (although not at 75%), yet physical retailers often don't match this.

Like the article said, there are very few games now that i'd be willing to pick up at release price simply because i know if i wait for a month or so i can usually get it at a much better price on Steam.

Conversely, the shops will still be selling it at retail prices or maybe only knock £5 off of the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
EA/Origin need to wake up, their prices are far too expensive.

Steam > Origin..... simples

Some of their recent sales have been more in line with or better than Steam sales (imo).

Obviously this is only a few games, but i agree that in general given a choice between a game on Steam and a game on Origin i'd buy the former.
Grasshopper 7th June 2012, 13:46 Quote
Valve and Steam do lower gams prices and that is as it should be. EA may complain about how hard the developers work etc. but here in Bulgaria there are a bunch of local studios that major game developers outsource work to and believe me - they work for scraps compered to they western colleagues. Every one in the industry know where the major share of game profits end up and it really piss me off when parasites like EA start complaining about how cheap, second hand or pirated games "damage the profit of the developers" while they let good studios go out of business.
In the end of the day what really matters is what we, the buyers, want. That's why I think that crowd sourcing will be getting much more important in the future.
Griffter 7th June 2012, 14:08 Quote
"I know both sides of it, I understand it. If you want to sell a whole bunch of units, that is certainly a way to do that, to sell a whole bunch of stuff at a low price. The game makers work incredibly hard to make this intellectual propert... "y" is missing :-)

steam all the way... EA's argument could just as easily be turned around and say, what if u do not cheapen the intellectual property and keep it at a certain price with units not selling, u will still go out of business.
Horizon 7th June 2012, 14:10 Quote
They're out of their minds, looking for excuses to justify high prices. A prime example would be Sim City 2013, asking $79.99 out of spite I'm going to wait until it's $19.99 or bargain bin at retailers.
PaulC2K 7th June 2012, 14:23 Quote
EA/Origin arent talking to the customers here, they're trying to appeal to the developers - Dont go to steam, cos their main interest is in quick sales, they're not fussed if customers pay a fair rate or not, they're just after money.
Origin are suggesting they believe the developers are worth more than that, and shouldnt lower themselves to 75% off sales just to flog copies, because what they're doing is encouraging the customer to wait for sales in order to make their purchase, and this alone is costing developers profit from sales.

Its got nothing to do with whats best for the customer, and dont kid yourselves that this is why Steam do discounts. This is nothing more than Origin trying to encourage developers to see Steam in a negative light, point out that while they may be selling tons of copies, they're doing it at their expense, and its also having an impact on customers approach to buying, where the emphasis is on waiting for the next sales and buying it at a notably reduced rate, rather than in years gone by paying the retail price. Origin is trying to keep the price point higher, which is better for the developers.
Yes, we the customers are getting screwed in that respect, but then Steam are screwing the retailers, and theres an argument that could be had for reduced sales having a negative impact on dev teams if they're not hitting their projected targets, resulting in budget cuts.

You dont have to like what people say for it to be true. What Origin is saying is true, and fair. Shame is it sucks for the customer who has a bit of restraint and will wait a few of weeks for a bargin.
MjFrosty 7th June 2012, 14:30 Quote
How can you argue to your target audience that more expensive games are the way forward.

Get a grip and stop taking punts at more successful platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulC2K
EA/Origin arent talking to the customers here, they're trying to appeal to the developers

Yes, and E3 is the best place to do that. /Sarc
Panos 7th June 2012, 14:37 Quote
EA/Origin QQ about Steam sales?

Steam has huge variety of games and companies behind them. EA/Origin has only.....1?
SMIFFYDUDE 7th June 2012, 14:46 Quote
Does Valve need the publishers/devolopers say so to put one of their games on sale?
deathtaker27 7th June 2012, 14:49 Quote
If I am rigth steam must talk to the developers and they must agree to these sales which flaws the plan of EA's idea, then you get the specials:

eg: Phyconaughts when it came out at £1 pushed a developer no one had heard of to one almost everyone owned and it was a fantastic game

EA: I like their games but I cannot justify 30-50 (depending on game) for a title which looks good but is a sequal to something that just plays like the previous version

Also I find it strange that EA moan about all this and yet Steam are listening to the community and just giving us (the paying customer) what we are requesting where as EA are trying to decide and push us in a certian direction

Just my 2 cents
sotu1 7th June 2012, 14:53 Quote
"I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I'll get one of those weekend sales and I'll buy it at that time at 75 per cent off'"

I think this is true and is the mindset that, well, pretty much everyone here, has adopted. Firesales do work, but the rate at which Steam does them isn't healthy for the overall economy.
Woodspoon 7th June 2012, 14:54 Quote
So EA/Origin are trying to convince people that paying a higher price for the same product is a good thing?
yeah I can see that working out well for them, lol.
MjFrosty 7th June 2012, 14:56 Quote
Suppose it depends where Valve get their products keys from.

Who knows, they might grey import them lol.

Being serious I'd hazard a guess and say if Valve are buying a certain number of keys at said price, developers aren't going to be all that bothered what they shift copies at. As long as it's not tuppence.
Tyr 7th June 2012, 14:58 Quote
What a load of utter garbage!

Steam's system makes a lot of sense with phased pricing for different user groups.

1 - Slight discount on pre-orders to draw in the crowd and tip a few over the edge on their purchase decision.
2 - Launch price for those willing to pay full price to be first.
3 - Discount after some time for volume sales on those willing or forced to wait.
4 - Major discount as product nears end of life sales trickle to boost volume once again.

This hits all the demographics from rich kids with everything to people being careful with their finances. It opens a much bigger market and audience over time and keeps new and old 'stock' moving.

I know there are games I have which I would have never bought without this system and others that I have migrated to from disc. EA really are a greed machine who are unable to see the big picture.

Hundreds of small sales are better that one large one. This has been shown time and time again. Some of the most successful businesses in the world are built on volume. EA is treating games like a luxury item, not the commodity they have become.

Welcome to the modern world EA, you are not a luxury goods E-tailer.
.//TuNdRa 7th June 2012, 14:59 Quote
The issue here is the wholly different outlooks on it. While Valve and EA are both in it for Profit. Valve rakes in a fortune just from Steam alone. The fact that even after all this time; things like the Original Portal and Half-Life 2 still sell is also a statement about the reach of Steam (And the fact they're awesome games.), Valve seem to believe that, on the whole, games will sell well at a slight price-decrease, the occasional sale jumping sales up by a fair margin. EA, on the other hand, seem to believe that if enough people buy it at full price; they'll work out more or less the same as twice the people buying it at half the price.

I can understand the logic behind both, but sales are an important marketing trick. If you get a little-known game out there, not selling well, you dump it on sale, a load of people pick it up and have a look; suddenly it can take off, you'll sell an absolute truckload of copies shortly after as word of mouth spreads your games. EA, with it's big triple A Blockbuster titles doesn't seem to feel the need to subscribe to this theory. I won't deny that some games on Steam are overpriced when they're not on sale, especially in relation to the prices you can get them for from traditional retailers or other online sources, but the Sales are what made Steam so popular. It may have started off as DRM, but now there's some quantifiable benefit to having it on a PC.
Dead4life 7th June 2012, 15:21 Quote
The only people that cheapen Intellectual Property are people like EA. I can't quite back that statement up with a perfect argument, so I'm going to spit things like 'Battlefield 3 Premium' and use strings of expletives to express my dissatisfaction with them using, what should have been the awesome successor to Battlefield 2, to do nothing but garner profits like a cheap two bit whore.

Stuff like that weakens/cheapens IPs, not making sure that people who may not have bought it ever actually get hooked on your work.
hyperion 7th June 2012, 15:21 Quote
Selling a lot of copies at a cheap price is bad for the developers? Well how do the developers feel about selling 0 copies? Reckon I'll be taking my money elsewhere, like Steam.
carajp 7th June 2012, 15:30 Quote
EA/Origin sour grapes. Announce to the world your prices will be higher and expect to storm the marketplace. Good luck with that.

Steam's way makes commercial sense. When I really want a game, I buy it full price - or even advance order it. If I kinda want it but don't feel desperate, I'll wait til it's a bit older and there's some reduction that feels about what it's worth to me personally. And then I end up buying games I'd never considered because it turns up at a great price in the bargain bin a year or two later.

Oh wait, isn't that what they do in shops too? I've been buying games this way for many years before Steam. What planet are EA on?
Parge 7th June 2012, 15:54 Quote
"What Steam does might be teaching the customer, 'I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I'll get one of those weekend sales and I'll buy it at that time at 75 per cent off'" warned DeMartini."

Or, in actual fact, had it not been discounted, I just wouldn't have bought it ever.

Hence the reason most of us have massive Steam back catalogues of games we've yet to play.
greypilgers 7th June 2012, 16:37 Quote
Meh. A lot of opinions here, from the forum replies right up to the EA mouth-piece himself.

Facts please... Figures please... Evidence to say one thing or another, rather than just hyperbole...
Fizzban 7th June 2012, 16:58 Quote
Steam is actually more expensive than the physical copies at launch on many occasions. And more expensive generally than Game or Amazon. I rarely buy there for that reason.

The sales they have however are in fact the only reason I buy on Steam at all. Clearly their sales work. Origin just won't be able to compete without doing similar. And the only reason they have 11m users, as was mentioned in the article, is because they force you to have it for Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3.
Jehla 7th June 2012, 17:53 Quote
So a paper back book is about £5, an album is about £8 and a film £10-14 depending on format, and EA reckon £40-65 is a fair price for a game.

What makes the intellectual property of a video game so valuable? I appreciate a game costs more than a book or album to make, but I'd assume it's comparable to a film.
Fizzban 7th June 2012, 18:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehla
What makes the intellectual property of a video game so valuable? I appreciate a game costs more than a book or album to make, but I'd assume it's comparable to a film.

Well with a film they get to charge you twice. Once to watch in the cinema, and again to buy it on dvd/bluray. That works out at about £30. So I imagine that is part of why films are cheaper to see at the cinema as they can make up the rest of the money later. But I'm not really sure why tbh, just throwing out a guess.
azazel1024 7th June 2012, 18:37 Quote
I think Steam has the business case and data on their side though. They have quite a bit of evidence that the more you discount your product, at least selling through steam and in general, I am sure there are aberant cases that don't follow the general pattern, the more units you sell, and at a greater increase than the discount.

This isn't physical copies being sold. At worst a penny or two of data costs are involved in transmitting a couple of GB game to someone. So doubling sales has basically zero extra overhead, unlike selling physical copies. So if you discount 25%, but sell twice as many copies, that is a heck of a lot of extra profit.

I dunno, I'd rather be selling a really great game for $5 and it being called a cheap great game, than selling a small fraction of the number of games at $20 each and just being considered a good game. I like-a-the-money more than I care about how expensive my product is.
[PUNK] crompers 7th June 2012, 19:02 Quote
I pre-ordered Diablo III because I've been waiting for it for ages, Max Payne I really want to play but I'm just not prepared to spend £30 on a 15 hour shooter at the moment, but then I never played the original MPs and smashed Diablo II in for years.

Its the natural order of things; sometimes you're prepared to pay full price, others not.
Pieface 7th June 2012, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Well with a film they get to charge you twice. Once to watch in the cinema, and again to buy it on dvd/bluray. That works out at about £30. So I imagine that is part of why films are cheaper to see at the cinema as they can make up the rest of the money later. But I'm not really sure why tbh, just throwing out a guess.

What Cinema do you go to that charges £15 a ticket? o_O
Fizzban 7th June 2012, 19:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
What Cinema do you go to that charges £15 a ticket? o_O

Was a rough approximation. But the ones in Central London are pretty steep.
Roskoken 7th June 2012, 19:34 Quote
Does EA not understand nobody likes them?
javaman 7th June 2012, 19:38 Quote
**** you EA your more likely to screw developers and customers than any other company. What have you actually done for gaming lately apart from suck the life out the same old titles. Your no different from the ass holes of 10 years ago. Go join Activision in hell
fodder 7th June 2012, 19:46 Quote
"What Steam does might be teaching the customer, 'I might not want it in the first month, but if I look at it in four or five months, I'll get one of those weekend sales and I'll buy it at that time at 75 per cent off'" warned DeMartini."

Hmmm, so Mr.DeMartini, what does charging for a DLC pack already purchased teach the customer? - 'don't buy it but wait for the 'premium' pack to come out and I get the discount instead of buying it twice.'

Oh, and rather than ripping your existing customers off, why not try getting Origin working properly and out of beta? Steam works and it works well, it also listens to it's users (developers and consumers).
digitaldunc 7th June 2012, 20:04 Quote
I'm sure I read somewhere (maybe on BT, actually) that sales of any arbitrary title actually go up after the title has been on sale.

I think being forced prison shower style to install game management software/DRM cheapens IP. This includes steam as well, it just happens that most of us like it.
MachineUK 7th June 2012, 20:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
What Cinema do you go to that charges £15 a ticket? o_O

Was a rough approximation. But the ones in Central London are pretty steep.

Cost me £27.50 in total to watch prometheus with my gf.......it was in 3D tho
MachineUK 7th June 2012, 20:12 Quote
Oh, Steam have got it right with pricing and selling in my book.
ssj12 7th June 2012, 20:15 Quote
I love how EA is using previous accounts before Origin's launch to determine their number. I havent logged into my EA account since I reviewed BF:BC2 for VGChartz and I am considered an Origin user... love it...
blackadda15 7th June 2012, 20:37 Quote
I may have a Origin account but that only has BF3 on it and i can guarantee i'll never buy a game on it over steam.
fdbh96 7th June 2012, 22:48 Quote
I think the whole sale system works as in diablo 3 for example. I know that in a couple of months time or whatever it will be ~£25 but I thought it was an amazing game and was prepared to pay £45 for it. It works because the people who think the games are really good pay release price, which subsides the people who think the game is average, who buy it one a sale.
Sloth 7th June 2012, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
The issue here is the wholly different outlooks on it. While Valve and EA are both in it for Profit. Valve rakes in a fortune just from Steam alone. The fact that even after all this time; things like the Original Portal and Half-Life 2 still sell is also a statement about the reach of Steam (And the fact they're awesome games.), Valve seem to believe that, on the whole, games will sell well at a slight price-decrease, the occasional sale jumping sales up by a fair margin. EA, on the other hand, seem to believe that if enough people buy it at full price; they'll work out more or less the same as twice the people buying it at half the price.

I can understand the logic behind both, but sales are an important marketing trick. If you get a little-known game out there, not selling well, you dump it on sale, a load of people pick it up and have a look; suddenly it can take off, you'll sell an absolute truckload of copies shortly after as word of mouth spreads your games. EA, with it's big triple A Blockbuster titles doesn't seem to feel the need to subscribe to this theory. I won't deny that some games on Steam are overpriced when they're not on sale, especially in relation to the prices you can get them for from traditional retailers or other online sources, but the Sales are what made Steam so popular. It may have started off as DRM, but now there's some quantifiable benefit to having it on a PC.
The big difference is what each company wants from their service. EA is still focused on the game, Origin just exists to cut out the retailer and keep a little more money in their pockets. Valve has gone down a totally different path. Steam exists as a retail service, Valve sell games intending to get the retailer's cut since they quite often aren't selling their own games. They're salesmen, they'll sell their product by whatever means work best.

Valve are also masters of the loss-leader sales method. Somewhat ironically, Valve's own games are often the cheapest and most heavily discounted games on Steam. They don't keep prices of their own games high to put them above games from other developers, quite the opposite: they literally give their games away. Alien Swarm for free, Portal temporarily free, TF2 became free, Dota 2 going to be free, and then copious coupons and discounts for Valve games in every sale or event. They accept the money lost giving games away rather than selling them because they make it back and more by spreading Steam and getting people interested in their IPs.
spolsh 7th June 2012, 23:35 Quote
surely, as games online need a large number of players (else empty servers/can't get a match etc), it's better to sell more copies at a lower price. If you get a truly great game, but price it too high, even the people that have paid a premium to get it, won't play much. Then when you release - Big Game 2 : Return to Cackland, it will sell even fewer copies and return less revenue, as players remember they couldn't get a game going on the first one.

saying that, from what I've read, the model seems to be working for BF3.
Porkins' Wingman 7th June 2012, 23:54 Quote
How many here are bagging EA but have bought either Mass Effect 3 of BF3? If you insist on playing their (metaphorical) game by their rules then you increase the chances of an EA win.

I don't have Origin. I do have Steam. My price point on pretty much all games is £5 - there's too much crap released with bugs, too much choice of older games, and I'm too resistant to the hype of new games. EA games never seem to get that cheap and as it happens I don't think I've got any EA games.

Anyone with any sense can see that the high release price of games is determined by the susceptibility of the core audience to marketing and community hype. Let's not kid ourselves that much has really changed in games in the last 10 years - when a new game comes out you're rarely buying into something genuinely new or unique, you're buying into the ability to be in on the discussion of the current hot topic FPS/RTS/Racer/etc incarnation.
.//TuNdRa 8th June 2012, 00:11 Quote
I bought BF3 because it was better than Call of Duty. I'd rather line EA's pockets than Koticks. Lesser of two evils in my eyes.

But I only own four games on Origin, Five if you include Burnout Paradise that I haven't started up for about four years and doesn't even show up in my account. All four of those games were because I liked the IP, not because I wanted Origin. (Burnout Paradise Predates Origin.) Sadly two of those four have turned out to be crap, the third turned out to be a total rapefest, and the fourth I feel ripped off by because I bought the damn DLC pack before the game and there wasn't any warning that said DLC pack didn't actually include the sodding game.

Little issues.
vdbswong 8th June 2012, 00:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathtaker27

eg: Phyconaughts when it came out at £1 pushed a developer no one had heard of to one almost everyone owned and it was a fantastic game

Single handedly the best quote in this thread.

Psychonauts (2005) is an ancient game, released well before the £1 price (2010). And whilst it hadn't sold particularly well, it was critically acclaimed and very well received.

And as for Double Fine being a name no one had heard of? They'd already released Brutal Legend before the sale (in 2009) and whilst Psychonauts was their first game they'd released as a studio, that didn't matter.

Why? Because they had Tim Schafer of Monkey Island, Grim Fandango etc. leading it... Double Fine aren't famous because of their games... it's because of the man behind it.
Tangster 8th June 2012, 04:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman
How many here are bagging EA but have bought either Mass Effect 3 of BF3? If you insist on playing their (metaphorical) game by their rules then you increase the chances of an EA win.

I don't have Origin. I do have Steam. My price point on pretty much all games is £5 - there's too much crap released with bugs, too much choice of older games, and I'm too resistant to the hype of new games. EA games never seem to get that cheap and as it happens I don't think I've got any EA games.

I own Mass Effect 3. I own the entire Bioware catalogue, which also happens to be the only EA games I own with ME3 being the only game I gave on origin.

I bought it as a physical pre-order and would have done regardless of it being on Steam or Origin, but given the choice, I would not have registered or downloaded Origin.
Skiddywinks 8th June 2012, 04:36 Quote
Sorry, cba reading all the posts, but hasn't it been shown that Steam's sales actually increase revenue, and not only units shipped? As in, it makes them more money.

Granted, sometimes Steam go for that approach earlier than I would be willing to consider a fair length of time to charge more, but when no one is buying it anyway, what have you got to lose? You make some money, spread the word, and if the game is good you are lining yourself up for a fanbase.
mdshann 8th June 2012, 04:58 Quote
I have 2 issues with this EA announcement. My first issue and I think the biggest one for consumers is that Steam allows games to remain on the market for much longer than they normally would. Compare Steam to a brick and mortar store that would have to hold onto physical copies of the game to be able to sell it. After a while the game would no longer be interesting to customers and it would stop moving off the shelf. The retailer would love to have that space for the latest and greatest fast selling game, so they will not buy as many to sell. This would result in less customers getting to play the game. Steam only has to have the hard drive space and web pages related to each game, very inexpensive compared to retailer shelf space. This means that steam can afford to offer the game for sale for much longer.

A reason that steam sales are good for developers is that digitally distributed games do not have the same type of cost per unit associated with physical products. With say a gaming computer, you have a set price you can't go below without losing money. With a digitally distributed game, you can lower the price and hope to sell more copies, because you're trying to recoup the total investment and not a cost per unit.
atlas 8th June 2012, 08:53 Quote
Just because origin has "users" from mass effect 3 and battlefield 3 doesn't mean they are competing with steam. I have an origin account but I would never actually buy a game off it the only reason most of those people have origin is because EA forced it on them.
1ad7 8th June 2012, 09:06 Quote
well steam is doing great customers love them, game developers love them. I wouldnt touch orgin if it wasnt for BF3 and ME3. Thats all I have thats all I will get.
V3ctor 8th June 2012, 09:47 Quote
I can buy games at Amazon cheaper than on Origin!!
Steam is great, the promo's are good, normally I buy the games I want to buy, but if a promo appears I'll buy a game that wasn't in my plans. I have a big Steam library because of this :)
feathers 8th June 2012, 10:22 Quote
If you buy a game cheap on steam... assuming it's your first exposure to that game... you are more likely to support that game developer in future if the game is good. I don't always wait for bargains... sometimes I will pay full price. Origin did have a few bargains at one point but they have dried up now apart from a page of very stale never changing items.

The whole purpose behind steam having extreme reductions is to stop sales stagnating and stopping an otherwise good game ending up forgotten. It keeps things fresh and it does the same for older games that certainly would be forgotten about because newer games come along. You may buy that game at a bargain price on steam but if the developer makes a sequel you're more likely to pay a higher price for it and of course more including to buy DLC.
Nikumba 8th June 2012, 11:10 Quote
I have to laugh at EA for this, they are comparing apples to oranges, I have never logged into Origin so correct me if I am wrong but it only sells EA games, where as Steam sells all manner of publishers and developers.

I have a lot of old games I used to have on CD I have bought on Steam, I will buy a few titles on release from Steam, but if it is a Steamworks game and its cheaper in retail channels then I will buy it that way.

But then with the way EA is going who is going to buy their games? I mean was getting the new SimCity but won't bother now, as its always online, no single player as such. Plus you have the devs saying if servers get overloaded on launch we can make it so you temp can play single player.

So why not give it to us from the start, plus this is how the pirates will crack it.

Kimbie
cookie! nom nom 8th June 2012, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
I have to laugh at EA for this, they are comparing apples to oranges, I have never logged into Origin so correct me if I am wrong but it only sells EA games, where as Steam sells all manner of publishers and developers.

I have a lot of old games I used to have on CD I have bought on Steam, I will buy a few titles on release from Steam, but if it is a Steamworks game and its cheaper in retail channels then I will buy it that way.

But then with the way EA is going who is going to buy their games? I mean was getting the new SimCity but won't bother now, as its always online, no single player as such. Plus you have the devs saying if servers get overloaded on launch we can make it so you temp can play single player.

So why not give it to us from the start, plus this is how the pirates will crack it.

Kimbie


ea will always be a joke, why would i pay £30 when amazon sell for £15. even then the games they made in the last 5 years have been just ok.... nothing amazing (unless bf3). but then again they have killed half the games that made them great.
vdbswong 8th June 2012, 12:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
I have to laugh at EA for this, they are comparing apples to oranges, I have never logged into Origin so correct me if I am wrong but it only sells EA games, where as Steam sells all manner of publishers and developers.

You're wrong.

EA have started securing deals with a number of different publishers to sell their games on Origin, similar to Steam.

Off the top of my head i can think of Batman: Arkham City and more recently, The Witcher 2.
MjFrosty 8th June 2012, 12:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roskoken
Does EA not understand nobody likes them?

I should imagine they do at this stage, especially since they recently got voted the most hated company in America. Although they blamed it on the trolls moaning about the ending to ME3 lol.


I think the other side to this is that people don't want to have multiple clients open all the time. Steam has been around for a good few years now and it works just fine. From a marketing stand point, who in their right mind goes into a huge event full of their target audience, and says "Here is our platform, we've managed to coax you in with Battlefield 3. Heres the thing, we would like to charge you more than Valve"

Sorry, but what a complete tw*t. No two ways about it IMO.
GMC 8th June 2012, 13:03 Quote
Pretty poor show from ea there. But having said that, I don't want a monopoly environment, steam or anyone else. Really this whole situation has been played out so many times before. Haven't we all heard these types of "don't sell so cheap" comments before in other sectors... WallMart and Amazon spring to mind...
EA should rethink their position and start thinking of the game sale market value as finite and work out how to get a bigger share of the money being spent based on how its being spent. Instead they are trying to raise the unit cost to grow revenues, only viable if you assume that the finite factor is unit sales, e.g. gamers can only play so many games. Not the case in my opinion.
It will all come out in time, but without this rethink from EA, we will see them increasingly charging higher prices and investing big in development of a shrinking portfolio. Eventually they will hit a crisis point where the fact that model just breaks and becomes non-viable. Meantime, we all get the steam service we know, want, and love...

I'd just prefer to have another steam type around so that nobody can shout monopoly, get the beaurocrats involved, and muck up the service in a pointless attemp to promote more competition...
Fizzban 8th June 2012, 19:04 Quote
GOG can be Steams competition as far as I'm concerned. True they started out as, and primarily sell old games, but they are slowing starting to sell indie games and AAA releases.

We don't want Origin in its current state, sorry EA.
Hypno 8th June 2012, 21:04 Quote
Steam over Origin any day of the year!

Personally I think Gabe should call out David DeMartini and have a little fight between the platforms. EA should sell Steam say 10k of keys bulk price of BF3 for example. An then let Steam sell those keys and measure how many people buy on steam and origin in the same period.

I for one would buy BF3 on steam, so I didn't every have to use origin again. I click to play BF3 get a new item buy bla bla for £45...err no Amazon have that 2 year old game for £15.

EA should be thanking Steam as if it wasn't for Steam I wouldn't own ME1&2 as they're not really my type of game but I brought them and they sit in my back catalogue not being played until when I board. I wont buy ME3 why it origin only....jog on EA!

The only reason David DeMartini can boast about 11 million users is because of origin only games like BF3/ME3...if EA gave customer the choice they would have at most 3-4 million users at a push. The price tag on the new Sim City is ridiculous and you bet that will require origin ffs!
modfx 8th June 2012, 22:14 Quote
I think theyre just mad that valve are streets ahead on digital distribution.
Waynio 9th June 2012, 06:25 Quote
People at EA who think up things like this clearly suffer from HUAS.

This confirms it, I've seen games on origin for dirt cheap also, rather contradicting.

I still don't use Origin though & have no intention of doing & I bought BF3 on pre-order but just don't like Origin, I know I know it's cutting myself off from an ok game but I don't really mind doing that if it means I have to support something I don't like.

How did people have such a big problem with ubisoft but not EA? that really puzzles me, ubisoft are fine compared to EA & I support ubisoft because they weren't doing anything I didn't disagree with, EA forces you to agree to things or you can't use Origin so the only way to disagree is to not use the games you bought from them which really stinks.

Steams perfectly fine, in fact no it's awesome. I bought the witcher 2 from GOG to give direct support to the awesome makers to give them max profit for making a kickass game.
B_HERB 9th June 2012, 11:02 Quote
-I purchased Witcher I from a steam sale for $10. Had no interest in the game prior so $10 was my ceiling.

-I ended up liking Witcher I so much that I bought the sequel at full price when it came out. Checkmate.
claydough 9th June 2012, 12:42 Quote
I like to think by not pirating I forward the industry and add my share. If I cannot afford to buy 10 games during x-mas for $690 dollars it is kid of painful "waiting it out" when I could just download the game and crack. But it is horrifying endlessly reading news reports when the creatives making my favorite games are laidoff in huge numbers. It gets to the point where buying used games just to make Game Stop rich where Game Stop has never innovated a game yet would be a slap in the face of all those hard working people.

However after two years of waiting I can buy a game discounted on Steam! And feel proud that instead of Pirating or buying used that I bought from a publishing strategy that directly benefits the talented developers I want to support.

According to EA however, I am only cheapening intellectual property.
WOW what a slap in the face. ( considering I have bought plenty of really cheap sales deals at ORIGIN and have defended ORIGIN in the beginning because they were offering so many initial promotions )
If I refuse to buy used or Pirate a game...
That simply means " I DO NOT GET THAT GAME".
according to my Math no money at all cheapens EA's intellectual property far more than the excitement STEAM's blessed sales represent.
EA is really out of touch here! If they do not belive that video game prices are anywhere close to being realistically affordable entertainment! ( considering the prices I have spent since my original Magnavox Odessey II ).
As addictive as games are...
and as an international market matures...
The industry could charge the price of a pack of ciggarettes and probably make more than it does now.
I simply do not see any "average or impoverished demographic" with anything resembling a video game collection! And even in upper scale suburban hubs I feel parents punish kids with guilt over the high price of video games. Where a kid wanting that latest EA game is a spoiled brat with no fiscal responsibility who is taught a lesson by having said game withheld! ( Not! because they are gamers. But because the high exotic price of a "collection" is easily viewed as "unreasonable" by even the richest of parents ).
When really it is not the collection or the amount of video games in the end ( little johnny could probably buy a comic book every single day without any worries! ) It is the thousands of dollars it would cost to simply have a well read video game collection. Period!

If EA thinks the thousands of dollars I have spent on video games cheapens the industry then they really need to learn some fiscal responsibility as well as the meaning of the words "value" and "brand loyalty".
You do not get either by kicking a devout EA fan like myself in the nuts!

( speaking of a being a devout EA/ORIGIN fan... I always appreciated being able to create my own multible directory structure in ORIGIN and despite this recent social gaffe... I have found plenty of deals on ORIGIN in the past. )
Hoepfully, they have already realized theri mistake.
claydough 9th June 2012, 13:02 Quote
4 or 5 month wait? really?
Going out of business sales?

I am sure I have waited well over a year on most my STEAM sale purchases!
and...
Every single developer is still in business and benefitted from my purchase.

Come to think of it...
Even a 5 month wait represents a customer that is unwilling to buy your game.
As much as I want MASS EFFECT 3...
I will never buy the game at a ridiculous price.

No Sale! ( MEIII demo only for me )
Elton 9th June 2012, 14:00 Quote
I do see why they have said this though, they are generally releasers of AAA titles, those aren't cheap. And to be fair, EA is a business. A business is out for profit and usually resistant to change. While this is hardly practical (nor is it very pleasing to hear) in the perspective of purely financial form, what EA is saying merely emulates what the stockholders are saying:

Games would be much more profitable if they didn't depreciate. And that is true.

Is this right? I don't know to be honest, because on one hand, there are large overhead costs for games, very large. On the other hand we're used to the model where they depreciate over a short amount of time. There's a valid (if poorly presented point) here for EA. Games do depreciate quickly, faster than cars if you will. In one year some games drop from their $60/$50 price point to $10 or $20. That's more than 50% loss. Mind you those are the games that usually flop, but for a publisher it's pretty rough to see something that's had millions (that's right millions) invested to see it be worth so little.

So before people start saying that EA is the bane of all existence, I think it would be at least somewhat fair to at least see it from a perspective of a group of investors who while not very sociable (or nice for that matter) want to make money. Not that I'm exactly fine with their business practices (BF3's support is miserable still, but that's because DICE have this glass pyramid built) but there is a certain (misguided) logic to it.
Showerhead 9th June 2012, 17:13 Quote
I can get why he said it but surely this sort of thing is more for letters to shareholders explaining your business strategy than to advertise to gamers at the worlds biggest gaming convention that a rival platform is cheaper.
longweight 9th June 2012, 17:24 Quote
I really like Origin, what's not to like?
Showerhead 9th June 2012, 21:44 Quote
Prices in comparison with competition.
Xthlon 9th June 2012, 22:32 Quote
I cant help but feel origin only has its userbase of 11 million because EA forced it on people for the likes of battlefield 3. i think forcing a user base to use your product doesn't make it a rival/competitor because users don't have a choice of getting a game from either platform, instead EA limit their big titles to origin only so of course they will have those kind of numbers
shanky887614 9th June 2012, 23:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greigaitken
steam sales capture the 'WHAT! YOU WANT 35! FOR THAT! section of the market. I just demoed dirt showdown and i'd pay £5-£10. its that or nothing.
Are you listeneing codemasters - Grimrock is worth more than Showdown!
You'll always get the full price on realease folks or the never pay anything always pirate folks too but steam sales get me to buy games i'd probably just miss because of the price

i agree with you there

was going to buy battlefield

but then i don't like origin at all

they are still selling it for £39.99
Waynio 9th June 2012, 23:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xthlon
I cant help but feel origin only has its userbase of 11 million because EA forced it on people for the likes of battlefield 3. i think forcing a user base to use your product doesn't make it a rival/competitor because users don't have a choice of getting a game from either platform, instead EA limit their big titles to origin only so of course they will have those kind of numbers

Steam did the same with half life 2 but they had the vision to do this at the right time & they do it excellent after a good time to mature, EA don't listen to consumers, they fail.
longweight 9th June 2012, 23:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Prices in comparison with competition.

But you don't have to buy the game from origin so pricing is irrelevant.
SexyHyde 10th June 2012, 00:08 Quote
the only game i got off origin i paid NOTHING for LOL! since bf3 turned into a steaming pile i haven't got it or origin installed. steam FTW i paid £5 for borderlands & dlc's and its been enought to convince me to preorder borderlands 2. would like my number removed from the 11 million please.
MickyTek 11th June 2012, 15:22 Quote
Battlefield 3 has been a complete and Epic fail, ask any clan that has played it and they will all complain about the same thing, EA being Greedy as hell, Not taking any notice of Customers needs or even fixing their game with its bugs and problems.

EA and Dice are dead as far as the gaming community care.
Showerhead 11th June 2012, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
But you don't have to buy the game from origin so pricing is irrelevant.
Nope always retail copies which land up being far cheaper. Even during sales.
ssj12 26th June 2012, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xthlon
I cant help but feel origin only has its userbase of 11 million because EA forced it on people for the likes of battlefield 3. i think forcing a user base to use your product doesn't make it a rival/competitor because users don't have a choice of getting a game from either platform, instead EA limit their big titles to origin only so of course they will have those kind of numbers

Steam did the same with half life 2 but they had the vision to do this at the right time & they do it excellent after a good time to mature, EA don't listen to consumers, they fail.

there is also the issue that all previous EA accounts are counted as Origin. My old account is now Origin. Last time I logged in? ME2 DLC - From Ashes. Next time I login, probably never.
ssj12 26th June 2012, 21:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Prices in comparison with competition.

But you don't have to buy the game from origin so pricing is irrelevant.

You dont have to buy your games from Steam either, unless it is an indie title.
MagR 28th June 2012, 14:04 Quote
Its called market forces isn't it. If demand is low to sell more units you have to lower the price.
pinback 10th August 2012, 14:57 Quote
>"just don't look for 75 per cent off going-out-of-business sales"

What if the game was 75% off at launch? Wouldn't it sell 10x more copies? Just ask Notch how it worked out for him. Smart pricing = lots more sales. Not all gamers are rich, at $60 you are selling to a niche market.
Elton 10th August 2012, 19:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinback
>"just don't look for 75 per cent off going-out-of-business sales"

What if the game was 75% off at launch? Wouldn't it sell 10x more copies? Just ask Notch how it worked out for him. Smart pricing = lots more sales. Not all gamers are rich, at $60 you are selling to a niche market.

Throughout this topic I thought I was making this clear. The reason why they're $60 is purely because they're luxury products. Video games no matter how mainstream are still niche products in a sense.

What many don't seem to realize (and forgive me for sounding like a condescending knob :D) is that these games usually cost a large amount of money to finance and make. The ROI is risky because there's a clear standard that they have to cater to, but yet there has to be a balance between content creation and content in of itself. Simply put, there are much more costs involved with making a game. To sell it cheaply would only be feasible if it was an indie game with a significantly smaller budget.

Truth be told, for those who think it was good in the old days, some systems had games that were +$100. But don't get me wrong, I too would like cheaper games. But if you want a game the scope of say, Skyrim. You better pony up, the margins aren't high. What you also have to account for is that if a game is negatively reviewed within 2-3 months the price gets cut to shreds. There goes millions down the drain.
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