Origin of War

By Rob Fahey Published 18 June, 2011

EA rattles its sabers at Steam - but Origin's strategy is a throwback to the bad old days.

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz's widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial, is a weekly dissection of an issue weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

When it first became clear that digital distribution was going to be a big part of the future for game software, one often-stated fear was that the industry's big publishers would never be able to co-exist on a single digital distribution platform. After years of duking it out for prominent positioning in bricks and mortar retailers, with little other than mounting point of sale marketing budgets to show for it, the temptation to do in the digital world what had been impossible in the physical world would be too great. Every publisher would build their own store, with their own products displayed in the shop window and their own direct relationship to the customer. Problem solved.

Problem solved, that is, for everyone except the consumer. The put-upon PC gamer would end up having to install a digital distribution client for every single publisher whose games he wanted to play. He'd need a unique login for each of those stores, he'd need to trust each of them with his personal and financial details, and to make matters worse, he'd probably end up having to maintain separate friends lists on each service, since the chances of inoperability didn't look high.

Oddly, one of the worst culprits of this kind of anti-consumer thinking seemed to be Valve, whose announcement of Steam seemed to bring a whole new level of ridiculous to the scenario. Steam wasn't a digital distribution system for a publisher - it was a system entirely focused on one developer, and a developer whose track record for regular software releases wasn't exactly brilliant, either. In effect, it was an entire digital distribution system demanding installation on your PC for one game only - Half-Life 2.

EA's intentions are clear - it wants to fragment the PC digital download market and tear a chunk out of Valve's dominance

It looked arrogant and silly. It was, in fact, a stroke of genius. Half-Life 2 is about the only game in the past ten years which had a broad enough appeal among PC gamers to build the installed base of a digital distribution service to critical mass in one fell swoop. Whether Valve ever quite planned for Steam to evolve in the manner it did is another question, but the end result is clear - Steam emerged as the driving force for PC digital distribution, its immense success effectively cutting off any chance of competition from publishers' own platforms.

Yet even so, it's clear that the dream isn't quite dead, and it lives on in the boardrooms of some publishers, at least. The most notable torchbearer is Electronic Arts, which has this week been making plenty of noise around its Origin service - in particular, implying that upcoming titles from the company will be exclusive to Origin, forcing anyone who wants a digital copy to become an Origin customer.

In one regard, what EA's doing now isn't far off what Valve itself did with the launch of Half-Life 2. EA knows that it has a rare PC title on its hands at the moment in the form of Star Wars: The Old Republic, an MMORPG which, while its long-term success is far from guaranteed, does seem certain to attract vast interest in its early months. Many, many gamers will install the game just to see what it's like, and while EA's clearly hoping that they'll stay and play for years, the publisher has a consolation prize lined up for itself if they don't - even those who cancel their subscriptions will presumably still have an Origin account.

Yet of course, for all that Frank Gibeau is trotting out fighting talk about Origin - touting EA as a future "worldwide leader in digital publishing" thanks to the service - the offering here remains a slightly peculiar one. It's no different to the walled garden services which we feared would proliferate from every publisher when digital distribution first came to the fore - essentially a piece of software which you have to install, and a requirement that you create an account with the publisher and trust them with your personal and financial details. In return for this, you get access to EA's games - and nobody else's, meaning that Origin's catalogue will never have the breadth or depth of something like Steam, or even of lesser rivals like Impulse or Direct2Drive.

The rhetoric around Origin was bumped up a notch when EA-published title Crysis 2 disappeared from Steam, prompting most people to assume that EA had pulled it from the rival service in preparation for offering it as an Origin exclusive. Yet that, apparently, isn't what happened here. Rather, Crysis 2 violated Steam's terms of service, and Valve dropped the title as a consequence. EA presents this in terms which suggest a power-mad Valve imposing harsh terms which no other service demands. As I write this, Valve hasn't commented yet - but undoubtedly has a rather different take on the issue.

Yet regardless of the technical reason for the withdrawal of Crysis 2, the reality remains the same. Whatever EA chose to do with the game, it did in the full knowledge that it would result in it being pulled from Steam - Valve's terms may be strict in some regards, but they're hardly labyrinthine or difficult to understand, and it's extremely unlikely that there was no communication between Valve and EA before the title was dropped. EA may not have pulled Crysis 2 from Steam directly, but it took an action (what action, we don't yet know) which it knew would have that consequence.

Consider the sabers rattled, then. You don't pull a key title from the market's most successful digital retailer without being filled with confidence and belligerence in equal measure. Misplaced or not, EA's intentions are clear - it wants to fragment the PC digital download market and tear a chunk out of Valve's dominance.

On the face of it, that should be good for consumers and developers alike. More competition in the market is generally seen as a positive factor, so delivering a fresh challenge to Steam's dominance should improve service and prices for consumers, as well as the terms offered to developers. Yet that assumption ignores the nature of the service which EA is proposing with Origin.

The basic hurdle to entry, the need to install proprietary software, is still a high one

Origin won't actually be competition for Steam - not in any real sense. As a store front for EA's own products, Origin isn't designed to attract customers away from Valve's service - rather, it's a new client that you'll install alongside Steam, using Origin for EA games and Steam for everything else. Rather than introducing competition to digital distribution, a single-publisher service like Origin will simply distort the market. Its objective isn't to inject healthy competition and win market share through a better offering - it's to create a walled-off service that gives EA more control than before over its customers and pricing, as well as boosting the firm's profit margins.

In fact, while plenty of people bemoan the dominance of Steam, the reality is that Valve's service is the closest thing to a healthy competitive market for digital distribution that we've got. PSN and Xbox Live control their prices with an iron fist, ensuring that no hint of competition ever enters the marketplace. Single-publisher services like Origin (and, it should be noted, Blizzard's Battle.net service, although digital distribution is arguably something of an afterthought there at the moment) do the same thing, keeping prices inflated long after a competitive retail environment would have let the gas out of them.

On Steam, while competing retailers don't knock prices downwards, publishers themselves are at least exposed to competition from one another. Pricing a mediocre game at £40 when a rival is offering a great title for £30 on the same page of the same service is obvious commercial suicide, and while it's not exactly a fully competitive environment, examples like that do force publishers to price realistically and entice consumers with sales and special offers.

Steam itself, too, is open to competition in some regards - the likes of Direct2Drive and Impulse do exist, after all. This is by no means a perfect situation, and competition between download stores is a bit of a dodgy area in general, given how locked in customers tend to be to a store after a few purchases. It is, however, undoubtedly a healthier situation than having a market made up of walled gardens where each publisher exerts complete control.

Is this cause for concern? Perhaps not quite - not yet, at least. Origin has yet to launch, and bluntly, it seems very unlikely that it'll ever achieve the kind of success that will have Valve seriously worried, or EA's publishing peers scrambling to emulate it. The basic hurdle to entry, the need to install proprietary software, is still a high one, especially for gamers who are perfectly happy with the Steam client they've got - and it's hard to see EA's resolve to keep its titles exclusive to Origin holding out for very long, as the missed revenues from Steam mount up.

However, it's a worrying glimpse of a future that some publishing executives would love to impose upon their consumers. In the wake of the PSN fiasco, especially, does any consumer really want a world where every publisher whose games you ever play has a software client installed on your computer and your personal data tucked away on a dubiously secure server somewhere? I sincerely doubt it - and any publisher wishing for such a world would do well to remember that making it more difficult and annoying to pay for or access your content has rarely been a productive business model for any creative industry.

If you work in the games industry and want more views, and up-to-date news relevant to your business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can find this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (87) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • linea #1 11 months ago

    Well, hopefully what it'll do is drive customers to buy EA games on disc.

  • Grump #2 11 months ago

    I'm fine with buying EA games through steam. I really don't see the point in this.

  • Mister-Wario #3 11 months ago

    It seems incredibly and unnecessarily complex. I used to use Steam on a regular basis and I thought it was a good service. I wouldn't really want to go and register on another service as well.

  • Freakachuu #4 11 months ago

    I know that it has completely put me off buying ANY copies of Battlefield 3 when it comes out.

  • Laythe_AD #5 11 months ago

    Looks all the more likely i'll be nabbing Guild Wars 2! On a more serious note however, I concur with this article. I'm not going to download and use a store client for a single publisher. At worst, this will put me off buying EA games. At best, it will just have me ordering the disc at amazons often heftily discounted prices for PC games, even in advance of release. The sad thing about this is that unlike Activision, who now have nothing but Blizzard (who's game's for me are, despite clearly high quality and production values, starting to feel lile soulless shells and profit machines), EA actually control some very, very talended developers.
    Edited by Laythe_AD at 18/06/11 @ 09:56

  • juche #6 11 months ago

    When I think about it I can't hold anything against EA for wanting to get a bigger piece of the digital distribution pie. Lie the author points out what they're doing is not entirely dissimilar from what Valve did in the beginning and still does in reality (don't see L4D 1/2, Half Life or Portal on any services do you?). Having said that, the fact remains that by being the first out of the gate (more or less) and offering up a great service Valve has earned my, and many others I assume, loyalty. It's a business and if EA wants to lure me away they are going to have to offer one hell of a service at this point.

    I will also tell you that pricing all their AAA-type games at $60 US is NOT helping their cause AT ALL. It's the reason I will won't be buying Battlefield 3 on day one, not because it won't be on Steam. I bought every Battlefield game before BC2 in retails stores and I wouldn't mind doing the same again, but not for $60.

  • bobfish09 #7 11 months ago

    It should be noted that Origin (formerly EA downloader), works off the same account system that all EA products do, which means every single person that has purchased DLC for an EA title already has an account for Origin and has already given EA their personal and financial details.

    I don't like the idea of not being able to buy through Steam, but Origin won't change anything for me other than forcing me to pick up a boxed copy because I already gave EA everything they want for DLC (and in some cases just being able to play the damn game DRM).

    I simply don't want to buy from more than one digital provider if I can avoid it, its hassle I don't need.

  • Jonny5Alive7 #8 11 months ago

    I think boxed games are in general cheaper than digital distribution. It should really be the other way round given that its cheaper for publishers doing it digitally. Until they stop being greedy, boxed games are the way to go for me.

  • orren #9 11 months ago

    Generally agree with the article except for the worries of disclosing your financial details to multiple online retailers - with the existence of paypal, this is a non-issue.

  • varkdm #10 11 months ago

    I think Steam needs some proper comeptition. They seem a little complacent to me and are far from perfect.

    They do offer a good service but D2D, GOG etc are too small to put up much of a fight for them to improve their service and take consumer feedback seriously. Introduce a little fear to them and they'll start improving.

    Also.. anyone saying I wont install a 2nd client, I wont sign up to a new service.. really? really? Everyone hated steam when it first launched. It was buggy and lacked the bandwith capacity it needed to handle updates quickly for games like counterstrike. But.. games liek counterstrike and half life 2 were "oooh shiny" for gamers .. and as weve all seen from the numerous "boycotts" of products like call of duty... it means sod all. Stick a good game inf ront of a gamer and say in order to use it, you have to install another platform.. 9 times out of 10 they will do it.

    With regards to signing up for multipe online accounts... well.. any mmog wants you to do that.. doesnt stop mmogs being popular. Ive got accounts with blizzard, d2d, gog, steam, soe, codemasters, realgamers etc etc etc etc

  • coolbritannia #11 11 months ago

    Morning cunts, just wondering when Rob will post an apology over the bullshit article he wrote about Duke Nukem?

    "The whole mode is juvenile, but fuck it - Duke is juvenile and daft, we all know that. The slapping? That's different." Well now we all know that it's not different, the "slapping" is a spank after all, and it is juvenile and light hearted, the babe chirping away throughout your whole capture the flag run.

    /Spartacunt

  • subedii #12 11 months ago

    Largely agree with the article.

    The problem with Origin isn't that its a competing marketplace like D2D or Gamergate. It's that it's trying to be a walled off garden where they can maintain permanently high prices on their products. I mean crikey, right now, Crysis 2 is already higher priced on Origin than what they were offering it for on Steam, and that's pretty much because on Steam they had to compete with other products. Buying BF3 off of Origin is going to be a nutty expensive affair.

    The concept of Origin (really unfortunate name given history) may actually force me to do something I haven't done in a long time: Buy an actual, physical copy of a PC game. Because right now, they're expecting me to pay £40 for a copy of Battlefield 3, and it's already being offered a LOT cheaper elsewhere, at places like Amazon. Combine with the fact that Origin isn't really a community nexus on the same level that Steam is, it's simply a re-painted EA store at current.

    This isn't good for the PC industry: we're turning back the clock and making it more inconvenient to buy games all over again, one of the biggest stumbling blocks the industry's always had to deal with. One of the biggest reasons that DD was such a huge success was purely convenience. In real terms, it had even become easier to buy and maintain a legitimate copy of a game than to pirate it! And now, we're going backwards again.

  • Mono_X #13 11 months ago

    @Jonny5Alive7

    The thing is that publishers have no need to lower prices for DD as there's no overheads.

    But retailers (both online and high street) have to buy physical copies of games, which costs money and inventory space for each individual game. So eventually when they invariably have unsold copies of games left, they will lower the prices to free up the capital and the space.

    But with DD, selling 10 games or 10,000 games essentially costs publishers the same. It costs them nothing to keep the prices high or the game available. They may have lower sales initially (for a while), but once the consumer realises that DD games aren't going to drop in price, they'll end up paying the higher prices that the DD publishers demand.

    It's win/win for the publishers and lose/lose for the consumer.

  • sarcasmoidosis #14 11 months ago

    "The basic hurdle to entry, the need to install proprietary software, is still a high one"

    It's actually not. Some people have already purchased a EADM game till now, and most people have made an EA account for some EA game until now.

    I personally have Steam, D2D, GoG, Impulse and EADM accounts and it's not that difficult to use them. Do I prefer Steam as a solution? Yes, clearly. But Origin's existence wouldn't deter me from purchasing BF3 from that store. Given that the prices are competitive. Which is really the main issue here. Currently they are not.

  • Subdominator #15 11 months ago

    As a Steam user from the very first day of its beta and having tried some other download clients like D2D I will never ever buy a PC game again that is not on Steam. It's what Windows is for OS. Publishers can't be happy with this because they thought with digital distribution they could get rid of the 30 % margin that is needed for physical media, retailers and all - and now they are faced with the truth that in order to sell their games digitally they have to pay a 30 % margin to Valve. Or Microsoft. Or Sony. Publishers should stick with what they do best, develop games.

    And Origin is the worst name ever after what they did to Origin Systems (Ultima, Wing Commander, ...).

  • delboy83uk #16 11 months ago

    I feel the EA quote from south park is appropriate, 'I piss in your face'

  • delboy83uk #17 11 months ago

    I feel the EA quote from south park is appropriate, 'I piss in your face'

  • wetTOAD #18 11 months ago

    @Mono_X

    That's a valid point for download only games, but the consumer would have to be pretty mental to fork out the higher price if a much cheaper boxed edition can be shipped to their door with only slightly more effort.

    Just a recent example, you can pick up WoW's Cataclysm for £16 off a couple of sites but Blizzard is still selling it directly for £30. Fewer overheads and the fact that they can pocket the retail surplus means they should be incentivising download purchases, not pushing people away.

  • icematt12 #19 11 months ago

    All publishers know how much they sell each copy of a game for in the distribution chain so i fail to see the logic why they charge more for a digital copy than retailers charge for a physical one. Am i missing something or do retailers sell at a loss?

  • markcocjin #20 11 months ago

    The article is wrong on one point and that is how it saw Steam as being created primarily to sell games. The author either did not do enough research on the early days of Steam or he was not born around that time.

    Steam was made to support Valve games my making version updates automatic. People hated it because they had to connect online to Valve's servers just to install and/or run it. Online requirement was rare and a lot of people were on dial-up at that time. Steam was not seen as a store. This phenomenon came later on.

    Steam as a store was sort of an experiment. There were other companies that sold games online before Steam. It was Steam that offered publishers and developers great incentives and tools to better sell their games. Steam was an indie games store as well as a Valve store. Steam offered Valve's huge fanbase to everyone who wanted to put their games on it.

    To imply that Valve had a bad reputation with gamers is also wrong. People loved Valve because of their mod cred. They had the most played action games at the time.

  • Lemming81 #21 11 months ago

    IMO, Valve aren't tough enough. If I were them I wouldn't have allowed Fallout 3 with it's GWL interface and GTA with it's Rockstar downloader on my store front unless they got rid of them both for use on Steam.

    I can't think of anything more annoying and intrusive than games on Steam that also have their own additional separate online service.

    It also saddens me just how many ignore/forgo the Steam achievements as well.

  • curtlikesmeat #22 11 months ago

    I can't really think of any EA franchises I'm that bothered with really so it's not a big deal for me. I barely tolerate steam with its silly patching rules (there's a 6 gig patch queued up for Dawn of War 2 on my account, is the whole game even 6 gig?!). What I do like is that it alerts me to little known games that I otherwise would have missed. I don't have any friends on Steam as the only games I play that I have friends in (MMOs) have their own interfaces for that - the rest I just talk to on messenger, I guess I'm probably in a minority of people that generally only play games with people I know in 'real life' (excluding MMOs obviously).

    Anyway, yeah not fussed as I feel this doesn't really apply to me.

  • curtlikesmeat #23 11 months ago

    P.S. About prices - I've kind of built up a mental image in my mind of what I will now pay for a game, and any service which goes over that will be exluded. I wouldn't pay more than £25 for a PC game, and not more than £30 for a console game; there's just no point. I think they'll have a tough time with their 'walled garden' suddenly trying to hike prices up again - they'll find that I've come without my ladder and I'm feeling lazy!

  • WMain00 #24 11 months ago

    I imagine Origin will collapse rather quickly simply because PC users will not want to install another piece of sofware and sign up to another account all in the name of downloading a seperate game. Steam not only supplies a service that is easy, it also supplies a service in which all our games can be contained within one library with ease of access. That EA expects players to have another client running just to access Battlefield 3 seems a bit wanting.

    Unless of course EA's intention is to expand Origin in a similar way that Steam expanded, but I can't see EA wanting to take on competitors onto their distribution games. Buy Activision games from Origin! That'll be the day.

  • Whizzo #25 11 months ago

    EA seem to have an awful lot of confidence in Origin but I think it's rather misplaced with the PC audience pretty much happy without having another client to install.

    Oh and "saber", really? This is a UK site isn't it?
    Edited by Whizzo at 18/06/11 @ 14:44

  • septimus #26 11 months ago

    They better not do this with Battlefield 3. Screw origin.

  • DrStrangelove #27 11 months ago

    In effect, it was an entire digital distribution system demanding installation on your PC for one game only - Half-Life 2.

    Actually, prior to HL2, it was introduced as a mandatory client system for Counter-Strike (starting with beta 1.6 or so), which I recall being hugely unpopular among CS players back then. Today it's my standard distribution platform, and I love the easy access to a huge library of all kinds of games. There are few games that are not on Steam. The only other distribution service I use is gog.com, because they have the old classics you rarely get on another platform.

  • Spekingur #28 11 months ago

    Like someone said, EA need to have a hell of good a thing to show us if we are to jump on their Origin idea bandwagon. Currently Steam, GoG, D2D and Impulse provide enough for most gamers that buy through digital distribution.

    I like Steam - mostly because has become a "instant" game browser for all my games but includes for exampel a chat service, voice service and (good to have) screenshot service. One of the things it lacks is being able to install its games onto diffirent HDDs and 'party mode'. They are close to XBox Live gaming services when they implement that last part properly.

  • dacicus #29 11 months ago

    My beef with the digital distribution is that it should be way cheaper than the brick and mortar stores. Way cheaper! The transport tax, the need to pay the retail stores and whatever is in-between are out from the whole cost of the game. I also hate how Euro=Dollar=GB Pound. Dunno who is the smart guy, but ffs they need to stop putting those equal signs between the three currencies.
    EA will just do what they do best: inflate the price, because you can't get the product anywhere else. And many of you should be familiar with EA's Support and Customer Service. They are, just to put it mildly, complete and utter c..p. With zero respect toward the paying customer. So, no thank you EA, no Origin for me. At least not until you learn how to deal gracefully with the people that actually pay for everything you own every single year: the customers.

  • Gastrian #30 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • number3son #31 11 months ago

    This article serves as a perfect compliment to David Wong's write-up on gaming's dismal future over at Cracked.com: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-o... Bad time's ahead...

  • dsmx #32 11 months ago

    The difference is that steam has grown to fill a gap that nobody was filling at the time, it's now bordering on an essential service for anyone who has any kind of PC.

    Origin on the other hand is a service that nobody wanted or needed much like GFWL.

  • Veracity #33 11 months ago

    Isn't this just part of the more aggressive EA stance Riccitiello's been on about to keep shareholders amused? I think it's a non-issue.

    I already have an Origin account, iirc because EADM was the only place to buy Mirror's Edge DLC. So does anyone who's played more or less any recent EA game with DLC or some online component. The client's less intrusive than Steam as a store app - you don't need it running for phone-home authentication, though that could change with new releases - and has even occasionally managed to put anything up at a reasonable price. You can register EA serials on it for download access from physical copies and from other digital retailers.

    They haven't even pulled all their games from Steam. At most, they'll probably make a handful of things big enough to get away with it exclusive, and why wouldn't they? About fragmentation, just how many publishers have anything resembling the clout to pull exclusivity shenanigans? Blizzard already does it. Ubisoft has some digital guff or other of its own, but no one uses it or cares. Microsoft is still somehow managing to convince developers to cripple their games with GfWL, but their PC marketplace is a failure. 1c sells its games directly, for heaven's sake, as do half or more of the independents on Steam - you might want Steam for the exposure, but throwing up at least a basic direct option that hands you more of the money from people willing to use it is just sensible. I don't see the impending fragmentation of the market. EA can talk big, but it'll always cave and put titles on Steam if it's set to lose a lot of money, otherwise.

  • Demiath #34 11 months ago

    What's so complex about installing an additional client program (takes roughly three mouse clicks and five minutes)? I'm not saying that we should necessarily have to put up with it - although I'm personally fine with having multiple Steam-like services (currently got Steam, Impulse, EADM/Origin, Green Man Gaming Capsule and Gamespy Comrade installed at the same time without problems) - but I don't see the supposed "hurdle" at all...
    Edited by Demiath at 18/06/11 @ 22:40

  • TormDK #35 11 months ago

    "I imagine Origin will collapse rather quickly simply because PC users will not want to install another piece of sofware and sign up to another account all in the name of downloading a seperate game"

    Nonsense, any gamer that has played EA titles the last few years already have an Origins account. You didn't think EA wanted to re-invent the wheel did you? Your trustly old EA account still works just fine, and if you bought games before through the EA store you're still able to play them. Origins isn't new, other than the name. It's just a slightly pimped EA Download Managerwith a new spiffy name.

  • TormDK #36 11 months ago

    "And many of you should be familiar with EA's Support and Customer Service. They are, just to put it mildly, complete and utter c..p. With zero respect toward the paying customer. "

    Funny, every time I've contacted EA support for any reason they have been extremely helpful, and fast responding.

    I guess your milage may vary.

  • DaemonSpawn #37 11 months ago

    Well, hopefully that'll drive enough EA customers to torrents. I like to buy on Steam and I don't even have a DVD drive on my gaming PC, so fuck them with their overpriced and clanky dd service and buggy client which they can't make to work for years.

  • Badassbab #38 11 months ago

    Good article. I fear EA may be setting a precedent for other big name publishers like Activision Blizzard to follow suit.

  • slivir #39 11 months ago

    I don't care much about installing another client. It's not like I have any friends on steam anyway... :'(

  • Badassbab #40 11 months ago

    Thanks to Eurogamer, this article (and comments from members) I now have Get Games, Impulse Driven and Gamers Gate bookmarked (as well as Steam, D2D, Games Planet and Games for Windows).

  • lord_fartsalot #41 11 months ago

    I'll just rent stuff if origin's shit.
    Edited by lord_fartsalot at 19/06/11 @ 06:23

  • StooMonster #42 11 months ago

    @Gastrian: Thirdly, apart from the sales Steams pricing is on par or more expensive than retail, even on pre-order. Steam has never showed signs of being competitive with retail outlets, let along other digital download stores and there are still games carrying their full RRP 2 years after release.

    "Steam" does not set the prices, publishers do.

    Publishers do not control the prices in retail, hence the lower prices due to competition.

    The article points out simple business reality that game prices on exclusive stores are likely to be high, and remain high, due to lack of competition.

    So if you bemoan high prices kept high on Steam, you've seen nothing yet.

  • PlugMonkey #43 11 months ago

    I think EA will suffer from not having a presence on Steam. Just as they would if they opened their own highstreet retail store, they are losing an opportunity to advertise their games to me every time I go into the store. And with Steam that's even more crucial than in the highstreet, as I am exposed to advertising every time I play a Steam based game, not just everytime I buy one.

    I also don't really understand how EA walling off their garden means that they are no longer in competition with anyone. Of course they are. If they overprice their games, they will fail. They're not going to sell many copies of Crysis 2 at £40 if there are 10 FPS games in a Steam sale for £10 each..

    I get really sick of all the doomsayers on this issue. A sustained single high price point really isn't where this industry is heading, for the simple reason that that isn't the best way to make the most money out of a digital product. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't have the faintest idea what they're talking about.

    Edited by PlugMonkey at 19/06/11 @ 08:32

  • KKRT #44 11 months ago

    What a biased article that dont even mention that Origin client is DRM free and is just extension to 1.5 years old EADM client ...
    EA is just smart and has infrastructure to sell their own games without 30% loss [like on Steam], and that what is about, not about fragment market. There are more developers that dont like Steam margin and i find this fair point of view.
    Steam DRM is actually quite annoying for me and EA with Origin/EADM is smarter in that matter.

  • StooMonster #45 11 months ago

    @KKRT: What a biased article that dont even mention that Origin client is DRM free and is just extension to 1.5 years old EADM client ... Steam DRM is actually quite annoying for me and EA with Origin/EADM is smarter in that matter.

    What Steam DRM?

    You know that DRM schemes are applied by publishers, right? Here's a list of all the DRM schemes on Steam: [link url=http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/the-big-drm-list/
    ]http://steamdrm.flibitijibibo.com/the-bi...[/link]

    Personally DRM has never affect me with any titles from any publisher, the only thing used to be having disc in drive but I started buying digital downloads instead. How were you inconvenienced by "Steam" (i.e. SecuROM or something else) DRM that made you annoyed?

    sell their own games without 30% loss [like on Steam], and that what is about, not about fragment market. There are more developers that dont like Steam margin and i find this fair point of view.

    Can you imagine how much they hate retail then? Where they get less than 50% of RRP and then cannot control the actual price, plus the retailers do trade-ins and second hand sales whey the publishers get 0% of sale.

    30% is pretty standard for digital distribution, e.g. Apple and Amazon and other charge similar -- hosting servers and billing system doesn't magically happen for nothing.

  • Mashum #46 11 months ago

    Steam works for me, it's cheap, friendly and has an enlightened roster of big and small titles... I can't imagine EA would provide the same service.

  • PlugMonkey #47 11 months ago

    @mashum

    Imagine if they did though. After all, as someone else already pointed out, Steam started out as just a patch delivery system.

    If Origin started out as the EA digital store, but then opened up to become an alternative distribution channel for Indy developers, that could only be a good thing. EA strike me as the sort of company that would want to do that too.

  • Gastrian #48 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • StooMonster #49 11 months ago

    EA will sell their games on Origin at full RRP (as they do now), and they must have some customers buying at that price.

    Once they have "exclusively on Origin" for digital downloads, and you cannot buy the downloads from elsewhere, then that will be the download price. Period. i.e. a single price point.

    Seeing that PC boxed copies sell fewer than downloads these days -- and cost more to make and distribute (which comes out the publishers 50% of RRP) and the retailers decide actual price (by discounting their 50%) -- how much longer do we think that EA will offer boxed retail copies of their PC games?

    The end goal is obviously a single distribution channel with a single price point which they can sustain for as long as they like, it may not have been where the industry was going but as the article points out this is a huge change of direction.

    EA are doing this for the good of EA, to increase shareholder value, not out of the kindness of their hearts for games players. "Let's offer an alternative service with lower prices and no DRM because that will make people love us", not.

  • StooMonster #50 11 months ago

    Gastrian: If publishers set their prices on Steam then the article is redundant because companies like EA don't need walled off services to control its pricing, they already control the pricing through the digital download stores.

    Of course they set their own prices, Valve charge 30% of end price for the use of their platform. It's like the Apple App Store or iTunes, do you think Apple set the prices on them?

    But in business terms "Valve own the customer" -- Valve have all the account details, CC details, etc fromt the sale and EA do not -- and companies hate this in all industries. In addition, they think that as technology company they can deliver the same service and keep the extra 30% that digital distributor will charge.

  • Upface #51 11 months ago

    To everyone who's saying they'll bypass Origin by buying the physical DVD from Amazon etc: That might get you past EA's pricing but I'll bet my life savings on the fact that the DVDs for all of EA's new releases will just contain the Origin client and a download code for the game....

  • gnrlstuart #52 11 months ago

    how do you know origin won't distribute titles from other publishers in the future?

  • Gastrian #53 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • scuffpuppies #54 11 months ago

    Freakachuu "I know that it has completely put me off buying ANY copies of Battlefield 3 when it comes out."
    ------------------------------

    Bullshit! The moment BF3 receives 9 + 10/10 scores across the board you'll be throwing your cash like a fat man in a strip club. That is unless you're a 15 year old CoD fan who loves on-rails shooters.

  • KKRT #55 11 months ago

    @StooMonster
    Steam client is Steam's DRM. Its not bad, but I still dont like to open additional application just to launch a game. And I dont need to launch Origin to start the game, thats how DRM free policy should looks like.

  • OliverH #56 11 months ago

    @stoomonster
    "EA are doing this for the good of EA, to increase shareholder value, not out of the kindness of their hearts for games players. "Let's offer an alternative service with lower prices and no DRM because that will make people love us", not."

    Ok, and do you know what's wrong about those phrases? Let me tell you: What you call "game players" in business reality is called "customers". It is patently naive - even though a lot of companies unfortunately refuse to believe it - to assume you can increase shareholder value by picking a fight with the customer. A healthy business strategy is aimed at perceived value on all sides, not just the shareholder - and share prices are as dependent on sales as on revenue per unit sold.

    The point is not "kindness of their hearts for game players" - the point is sensible marketing to the customer. Sony also believed way back when they would do their shareholders a favour by including root kit protection on their products and thus improving revenue. They learned pretty quickly that they achieved precisely the opposite. Solid, good marketing is nothing less than fulfilling CUSTOMER needs at a profit. If you do that, the shareholders get their money automatically. Considering the customer a necessary evil has never helped a business.

  • PlugMonkey #57 11 months ago

    The end goal is obviously a single distribution channel with a single price point which they can sustain for as long as they like, it may not have been where the industry was going but as the article points out this is a huge change of direction.

    No, it won't. It'll mean high price points for early adopters and then massive reductions to mop up all the extra money from all the people that aren't willing to shell out £40. Exactly as on Steam. This is the best way to make the most money, and so this is what they'll do.

    Getting people to buy your game for as much or as little as they are willing to pay. This is the future of the games industry. It is what everyone in the games industry is talking about. The idea of a single price point is practically medieval.

  • Gastrian #58 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • coolbritannia #59 11 months ago

    I read this as Rob being a Steam fanboy.

  • UsernamePending #60 11 months ago

    Shouldn't it be "interoperability" and not "inoperability" in the second paragraph? Call me a cunt, but I can't believe anyone would actually pay to read these ill-conceived, illiterate opinion pieces as re-hashed here.

  • Freakachuu #61 11 months ago

    Bullshit! The moment BF3 receives 9 + 10/10 scores across the board you'll be throwing your cash like a fat man in a strip club. That is unless you're a 15 year old CoD fan who loves on-rails shooters.

    Actually I'm a massive BF fan and have been since I upgraded my first pc to play 1942. I was incredibly excited about BF3 right up until the point that EA announced it's intentions. I possess enough self control to not buy a game, remarkably enough, especially when it's being used to lever something onto my machine that I do not want.

    Believe it or not but it's my thought that in our society your money and how you choose to spend it is about the biggest way of having an influence and I do stick to my guns over things that I am passionate about. Ultimately it's just a bloody game. I tend not to buy anything with prohibitive DRM or tries to force me into using software that I do not want to use. I believe in my power as a consumer to not consume things that I do not agree with. I don't like the EA store, never have and I doubt I ever will. I have quite a library on Steam and I don't want to have a plethora of applications all performing that same function just so some shareholder somewhere gets a few more percentage points. EA have every right to do it and more power to them but it is quite frankly ridiculous in my opinion.

  • metalangel #62 11 months ago

    Right on, Freakachuuu. There is no game in existence or forthcoming (including BF3) that I want badly enough to jump through that many hoops and be the publisher's bitch, especially not those (white) cunts EA.

    Time to find a new hobby.

  • coolbritannia #63 11 months ago

    Freak, Metal, keep talking, you're convincing no one....

  • Rob_B #64 11 months ago

    Ummmm....so EADM is now Origin, so I already have an account from EADM, so it's a total non-issue.
    As for pricing the EA store has some cracking prices and discount codes, BF3 for £14 anyone? ;)

  • Freakachuu #65 11 months ago

    People I've never met can believe what they like. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. It would be a pretty strange thing to lie about, in fact my housemate and another friend feel the same way about it so I don't think it's a particularly unusual position to hold on the matter.

    I dislike the idea, as a fairly loyal fan of the series, of being held to ransom and being made to use software I don't like. I would be perfectly fine if EA chose to sell the game through their store only, but I could activate it on steam. The game looks fantastic but it's just a game.

  • Murton #66 11 months ago

    Yet another under-researched assumption heavy piece from Rob Fahey.

    1: Steam started as an update delivery platform and gamers pretty much unanimously hated it and there were talks of boycotts on HL2 if Steam was mandatory, like all boycotts it didn't happen and people lived with the need of the client just as they will do with Orign. Steam as a shop came much later.

    2: You say that Sony controls PSN prices with "an iron fist" when it's universal knowledge that publishers set their own prices on theh service, Sony don't even step in when publishers put ridiculous markups on t heir content compared to other territories/platforms. PSN and Steam have a hell of a lot in common operationally speaking

    3: You say that gamers don't want the hassle of creating all of these accounts but most will already have one. Anyone who has played an EA game in multiplayer (ie everyone) already has an EA Account and therefore an Origin Account. A lot of gamers already have a UPlay account so if Ubisoft launch a similar service we already have accounts, Activision could allow the use of Battle.Net logins to access services that it offers or simply add an account system to the next COD to allow use of the online "character" anywhere in the world. So this entire line of reasoning is utterly flawed.

    That's just three areas in which Rob has followed a faulty line of reasoning based on incorrect assumptions and I can't help but think that if he had bothered to research the subject rather than simply throwing together an article based on his own grasp of it these mistakes wouldn't have been made. I'm not sure what else Rob does at GI.biz but it seems clear that his weekend articles are the headline of his week but the quality doesn't reflect that. Rob, if you read this, it's Monday morning, decide today what you'll be writing about and don't start writing until Wednesday afternoon/Thursday morning, use the time in between to research it properly so you get the facts right and we get an article worth the time it took to read.

  • PaletteSwap #67 11 months ago

    "inoperability", nice freudian slip !

  • tankboi #68 11 months ago

    EA you are transparent fools. I will NEVER install Origin, mark my words.

    Instead I will just buy the box copies from Amazon or Gameplay for two-thirds of the price they will likely be on Origin.

    Join me people, and boycott this ridiculous service.

  • PlugMonkey #69 11 months ago

    Would that be the boxed copies that install Origin off the disc and then insist on connecting to the Origin server before the game is launched? Just a thought. I'd be surprised if that's not what EA do. It's what I'd do.

    Your boycott, like all boycott's of this nature, is absurd and I strongly suspect you will have Origin installed within two years. Pop back then and let us know how your righteous crusade against The Man is going.

  • paulf #70 11 months ago

    Blizzard also has an online store, as does Trion Worlds, I bought WoW cataclysm, SC2 and Rift from these (rift was on steam as well but was cheaper direct from Trion)

  • tankboi #71 11 months ago

    OK will do.

    Thinking it 'absurd' to stand against a force you disagree with, is actually the absurd notion here.

    I will not have Origin on my PC. I have gone this long without using the EA downloader, yet managed to play all the EA games I wanted to just fine. Don't be such a smart-ass.

    If you want to use it then fine, but I think a bloatware store that you use only for EA games is ridiculous.

    And the boycott is not entirely for reasons of principle, but if it worked then I am sure EA would realise they are losing money by avoiding releasing on Steam...this is my ultimate goal. To play EA games on Steam again.
    Edited by tankboi at 20/06/11 @ 10:59

  • mkreku #72 11 months ago

    I have yet to buy a full-price title on Steam. Why? Because I frequent an American board, and I can see them chatting about their prices. "I bought Fallout: New Vegas for $40 last night". Yeah? So why is is 40€ for me then?

    But I like the Steam sales.. even if the same idiotic $=€ exist there, it doesn't hurt as much.

  • Wizard83 #73 11 months ago

    Digital downloads are usually more expensive than the boxed versions in my experiance and they take up more room as well.

    I lost all interest in digital downloads though when Steam told me it was too busy for me to play Civ 5! I'm sorry, i can't play the game i spent £25 on becasue your too busy?!

  • PlugMonkey #74 11 months ago

    No, what is absurd is someone talking about "taking a stand" against a "force" when talking about a digital download service. You should get onto Amnesty International. I'm sure they'd only be too keen to drop everything to help you. EA is not a force, and taking a stand often implies getting off your arse.

    You have been able to play EA games without Origin up until now because they haven't wanted to get you to have it. As soon as that changes, I really don't see what the hell you are going to do about it. In much the same way that if you want to play an EA game online, you have to have an EA account. Have you ever played an EA game online? Or have you been bringing that practice to its knees with another earth shattering boycott?

  • tankboi #75 11 months ago

    Honestly wtf are you going on about. Are you an EA rep? Or just an angry internet user trying to show how smart he is behind his wall of anonymity? Enough of the one-up

    Im not trying to collapse EA and send them spiralling into financial chaos you moron. I just want EA games on Steam again. Give your righteous nonsensical bullsh!t a clean-up and read what I have actually written properly before you come in with more smart-ass replies. Or let me guess you are going to give me a link to the Oxford dictionary definition of smart-ass...

    Yes I have played EA games online. On Steam. What's your point?? Actually that's a great question...what IS your point? Are you just irate because I don't like the service that EA are proposing, and believe that a 'boycott' could help bring back their games to all the millions of affected Steam users? If so, then take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are doing so.

    The service can still be up and running, but I want to see their games on Steam too...I really couldn't care less about Origin and who uses it, just so long as it doesn't cripple Steam and their huge user-base.

    Edited by tankboi at 20/06/11 @ 13:12

  • OliverH #76 11 months ago

    @PlugMonkey So what is it you want to say? That anyone who is a potential customer should be forced to spend his money on whatever company wants it? Does that in any way sound sensible? Because if not, then what you're grandstanding against is perfectly normal customer behaviour: Does company A give me what I want at conditions I am willing to live with? If not, I might take a look at company B - they might not be offering precisely what I want but the conditions might be so much better that it's a fair trade-off.
    It is perfectly normal for customers to decide they are unwilling to accept the conditions (most frequently: the price or quality) of one company and thus take their money elsewhere. Has nothing to do with earth shattering boycotts but with the fact that every customer out there has a limited amount of money and makes certain considerations as to what to spend it on.

  • Seehuusen #77 11 months ago

    EA really hasn't done anything wrong so i dont se why people hate them so much. You wont need a client for SWTOR, and Battlefield wont be an Origin exclusive, it's simply too big for that, at least that would be my guess. I think Origin is a nice client, definately the second best after Steam. Bedies, i plan on adding the game to steam anyways (either buy it from steam, or add it as a non-steam game) so i can use my steam friends list.

  • kongzi #78 11 months ago

    arguments aside.. they are really trying to take the fun out of gaming with these new business models.. they seem to ride the assumption that everybody is always going to buy the big new title. I hope they drive it straight into a wall.

  • darc #79 11 months ago

    "Is this cause for concern?"

    None whatsoever. If EA makes it a PITA to buy their games, I just won't. And if Dragon Age 2 was any indication, they'll be doing me a favor.

  • Gastrian #80 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 17:56:43 13-04-2012

  • PlugMonkey #81 11 months ago

    @oliverh

    But the conditions you're not willing to live with, and that tankboi is calling for everyone to rush to his banner over, is having to install one more tiny app on a machine that is, I would strongly suspect, already coping just fine with hundreds of the things that you have installed without batting an eyelid. Why should this one be any different? I just find this whole issue such a non entity I find it amusing so many people are railing against it like it matters. I buy an iPhone, I install iTunes. I download a PDF, I install Acrobat. So now, if I want an EA game, I download Origin. Who cares? How is this even enough to cause one eyelid to bat?

    My point is that while a company can't force you to hand over your money for whatever they want, if you do want their stuff, the delivery method is really up to them. If EA want all their digital downloads to go through Origin, there isn't going to be much you can do about it if you want their games. And I can guarantee you that handing over 30% of everything that they make to Valve is not in their longterm plans. They are one of the biggest publishers in the world. They don't need little old Valve to run their download server for a 30% cut.

    Edit: @tankboi

    Having reread yours and my posts (and taken a long hard look in the mirror) I apologise if I've riled you. I'm generally more in the line of playful banter than angry Internet person, but tone is a bugger to do in written word.
    Edited by PlugMonkey at 20/06/11 @ 18:17

  • petran79 #82 11 months ago

    I bought a game from Origin (the second Alice game).
    Compared to Steam, game files are decrypted, you can see the exe and dll files and you can modify some .ini files (eg set framerate to 60). There is no need to launch the origin client to play the game after installation. Just click the exe file.I guess you do not require a connection after loging in.
    I wish Steam was this way too.
    Had i bought alice off steam i would have less options.

  • Sunyavadin #83 11 months ago

    Eh. I will stick to my policy of buying - and then promptly cracking every game I get to remove such stupid DRM systems.

  • OliverH #84 11 months ago

    @PlugMonkey

    easy to answer: If you want to read a PDF, you have the choice of a whole bunch of different viewers. And even the original Adobe Viewer, while of course safest to download directly from the website, can be gained through a variety of sources (including some DVDs of computer mags). If the Acrobat Reader is too bloated for my taste (and it is for many people) I use an alternative viewer.

    I don't HAVE to install iTunes at all - it is just the easiest way to get music directly onto an Apple player. I can use other players etc. if I don't want Apple to be able to deduce my tastes in music. And if I'm p***ed at how much data Apple collects about me when I use an iphone, I use something else.

    As for EA, they have so many construction sites open that it ain't pretty anymore. Calling this serve, of all things, Origin, only puts the finger into the wound of EA systematically buying studios making great games only to ensure that the shareholder can make some quick money while the customers (and the employees!) get shafted after a couple of years. Doesn't matter to them...the caravan of vultures moves on, taking over the next candidate. So if they now signal that once again, customer interests matter less to them than having control - why should I play along? Especially since those brands that I'd be interested in, which, first and foremost would be Bioware, seem again to be deteriorating from quality products with style AND contents to "The franchise is hot, keep it going, push out the next product.

    As has been stressed time and time again, in essence, things have already been available directly via download from EA. If EA wants to cut out alternatives, however, why should I be happy about me being left with less choice as to who to support aside from EA with my bucks? With plenty of other companies churching out games that either are high-quality or likely to be when they come out, it's a buyer's market anyway. Which seems to be what EA isn't quite getting...

  • metalangel #85 11 months ago

    @OliverH: They have got that $200 million advertising budget for BF3. You might not realize it yet, but you do want their products.

    When I read about stuff like that, I wonder how different gaming would be today if CoD4 had never come out and made the rest of the industry obsessed with beating/replicating it.

  • PlugMonkey #86 11 months ago

    @oliverh

    Easy to answer if you completely miss the fucking point and then drag in random tangents like EA shutting down studios.

    You don't use Acrobat to read PDFs? Or you are only willing to because their ARE alternatives, and if there weren't you would 'boycott' PDFs?

    If you want to play Starcraft 2, you need battle.net. If you want to play half-life, you need Steam. Now if you want to play Battlefield, you need Origin. Big whoop.

    Have you played half-life 2? I would imagine not, as you must surely still be boycotting Steam for your argument to be even remotely consistent.

  • echegoyen #87 11 months ago

    In the end it's still business as usual. EA wants to capture the <a href=http://www.beneaththecover.com/2008/01/30/smart-ways-to-use-your-business-card/>market</a> and that's it. Gamers will have no choice but to agree.