Origin wants "fair and open marketplace"

By Robert Purchese Published 28 September, 2011

Third parties can sell DLC how they like.

EA has recommitted to having third party games on Origin and, in a dig at rival service Steam, talked about how to treat other publishers.

EA games Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 were booted off Steam for attempting to sell extra content directly through the game.

"We really do believe in a fair and open marketplace," David DeMartini, EA's senior vice president of global online, told GameSpot.

"We strongly believe that customers should be able to buy a product wherever they want to buy the product. If they want to buy the paid DLC from some place other than where they bought the original product, they should be able to do that as well. And if they want to buy micro-transaction content from somewhere else, they should be able to do that."

"If we are so fortunate to sell someone's great IP at a full-price sale and they're smart enough to put a store in their game," he added, "and make paid DLC easy for the customer, that was pretty smart thinking on their part and we have no issue with that."

DeMartini said Origin - the rebadged, renamed, revamped EA Store - has a userbase of 4.2 million, and has done one million transactions since its June launch. He "would not be surprised" if another 100 per cent growth was added on top of that over the course of the year.

EA has some aggressive Origin deals coming to help reach that target: the open beta of Battlefield 3 on PC requires that Origin be downloaded; Star Wars: The Old Republic will be a downloadable Origin exclusive; and there will be Origin-exclusive bonuses for Mass Effect 3 on PC.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (46) Latest comment 8 months ago

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

  • nuanimal #1 8 months ago

    Ooooohhh. I wonder if this is being said to appeal to other pubs and devs...?

  • Tomahawk #2 8 months ago

    Now I'm entirely open to new digital distribution services but a free unrestricted market to sell DLC however publishers want doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me.

    I'm not a Steam fanboy but the way they regulate the DLC is in better interest of the consumer and better regulated than saying here is a wild west market if you get robbed on the highway it's not our fault.

  • SClaw #3 8 months ago

    I'll be unfashionable here... but I actually really like Origin. It's not fully featured yet but it does it's job very well indeed.

  • bad09 #4 8 months ago

    So they are selling other people's game now? I'm back on discs except for sales but that's interesting because as a DRM origin is actually less restrictive than Steam.
    Edited by bad09 at 28/09/11 @ 09:01

  • hiddenranbir #5 8 months ago

    He has a point.

    I know the paradox game King Arthur has had issues with regards to DLC from steam and their other possible places to sell the game. So much so that in some regards they've had to say "sorry we can only support the dlc for this game on steam". Which kinda sucks for people that bought the game elsewhere.

  • somnolentsurfer #6 8 months ago

    Yeah, the thing is, the stores in EA games so far haven't been 'smart' by any stretch of the imagination. Really effin' horrible in fact. If Valve really are forcing people to sell DRM using SteamWorks, I'm all in favour, 'cause it's making my gaming experience better. EA should feel free to make a Steam version an a non-Steam version. When they prove they can run a store that I trust, maybe I'll consider buying from them.

  • arcam #7 8 months ago

    I kind of am a Steam fanboy, but I mostly agree with EA on this one. There might be room for some abuse, but generally, why not let developers sell their own content in-game?

    Of course EA have no real desire to see an open and fair marketplace, but other stores offering a better (or different) deal for publishers is what will create competition, which the PC distribution market could do with.

    Trouble is, Steam is still a much, much better service. It's kind of like how I'm aware Google could do things better and there really should be someone challenging them, but I'm not going to turn around and start using Bing.

  • jumpdeveraux #8 8 months ago

    If the DLC is delivered through the same channel as the primary game then the distribution channel has a good argument to take a piece of the revenue simply to cover support/bandwidth/hosting costs - why should they do this for free and absorb the cost so someone else keeps all the revenue? (the % they should take is always debatable)

    For EA this openness is simply to try and take market share from Steam and rapidly grow the portfolio of games on offer, it doesn't mean they will be so charitable with terms in the future.

    Out of Valve or EA, I think EA is the most likely to be evil to consumers for the sake of a dollar.

  • GamesConnoisseur #9 8 months ago

    Steam and Valve DON'T DO evil and EA more likely?!

    What a very naive view of these entities who are in it simply to make money, at minimum to survive but both are healthy and in it to monetize their digital downloads.

  • patch #10 8 months ago

    I could be wrong here (probable) but I thought Valve's problem was more that EA wouldn't let Steam host the DLC, additional content would ONLY be available from EA. Valve's Ts and Cs more likely than not have something about DLC has to be available through Steam as well rather than only through Steam as implied above.

    As for why Crysis 2 is no longer on Steam, an EA spokesperson explained to me that Crytek had brokered a deal for another digital distributor to host the game's downloadable content. Because Steam could not distribute the content, Steam took the game down. It's still not available.
    Edited by patch at 28/09/11 @ 09:40

  • Toothball #11 8 months ago

    Are they going on about this again? Surely if EA want to plug Origin they should pay for advertising rather than just bad-mouthing Steam for page views. All the recent stories about Valve (barring this one) are about games. Those are much more interesting than publisher politics.

    Also, is that second paragraph accurate? Are they now claiming that Valve removed games for having an in-game store? I previously thought that EA had removed them because they couldn't have in-game stores, something that seems to be reflected in the source article:

    EA has pulled some of its games from Steam, citing a desire to be able to have its own interactions with end users that don't go through the service.

    Edit: Ah, patch came up with an answer before I'd asked the question.
    Edited by Toothball at 28/09/11 @ 10:16

  • RexRunti #12 8 months ago

    People's blind loyalty to Steam always suprises me (but then i remember when Steam was an annoying piece of DRM software that required a decent internet connection when not even having an internet connection wasn't uncommon, (in fact it was the first online DRM software) and then the DRM tried to sell you stuff). People don't show the same loyalty to HMV, or GAME. I use Steam, Origin, GOG and any other service that will get me the games I want.

  • Raiten #13 8 months ago

    Well the intteresting thing here is, that while they do have a point.. what they're essentialy trying to acomplish, is to cut off the middleman.
    Fortunate for EA that what they're doing is possible on pc, but impossible on consoles where they'd risk pissing off sony and MS if they wanted to try and sell dlc behind their backs.

    So realy, it is not realy about open and fair market place, it is all about maximizing their own profits.

  • johnson81 #14 8 months ago

    All I care about is the open market making games cheaper. I refuse to buy DLC anyway, so it really doesn't bother me either way.

  • vizzini #15 8 months ago

    I fully appreciate the argument being made, but consumer rights on buying things that are "as described" & "fit for the purpose" really do require a model where the consumer is buying digital software and DLC autonomously from one store/platform holder only.

    In the event a game is sold in buggy condition(but not visible before DLC) and the DLC is bought from someone other than the previously seller, who does the consumer return their product/s to, for a full refund? How do they prove it is the DLC causing the fault? How do they prove it is the main game that is faulty?

    With so many games shipping in a buggy state, and some Fifa players being very vocal about the problems they've endured over the various modes and versions that don't even get fixed by launch day patches, and need to wait for the next version, are EA really the publisher to be pushing for this type of open market place where Q/A approval will effectively be removed?

  • TheTingler #16 8 months ago

    I like the way they're making it sound like us consumers are the ones begging for as many different ways to buy DLC as possible - rather than just having it all in one place that can be easily patched and updated, and installs along with the main game.

  • arcam #17 8 months ago

    @vizzini Refund? Neither Steam or Origin will be giving you those in the near future I'm afraid.

  • vizzini #18 8 months ago

    @acram

    Not directly. But if a product is genuinely "not fit for the purpose" and the platform holder refuses a refund, there is nothing to stop anyone phoning their credit card company and claiming a full refund and letting the card issuer deal with the process of recovering the money.

  • arcam #19 8 months ago

    OK, but you could do that regardless of where you bought the DLC from.

  • vizzini #20 8 months ago

    @arcam

    In theory yes, in reality no. That was why I asked the questions I did in my original comment.

    Ascertaining where the fault lay would be harder; not to mention full (game+DLC) or partial refund(game or DLC) becomes an issue when you have two suppliers, rather than one.

    Getting a refundis then impeded by your customer ability to diagnose the cause and successfully explain to the card issuer for the refund; and might still result in being left with a buggy game, when the DLC seller and game seller should both have provide refunds.

  • DozyKipper #21 8 months ago

    But this is the whole point - I WANT to buy my DLC from the place I bought the original game. I WANT to buy it from Steam. I don't want to have to sign up to BioWare and use another stupid points system to get Dragon Age DLC. Thus, I never bought any. But I did buy all four Borderlands packs because they were on Steam.

  • apoc_reg #22 8 months ago

    HAHAHAHHAHA fair and open, by restricting competion?! Yeah good logic there EA!

  • StooMonster #23 8 months ago

    bad09: as a DRM origin is actually less restrictive than Steam

    I must be missing something as I've never noticed any DRM on Steam, what's it done to you that Origin hasn't?

    The thing that would annoy me most is limited number of downloads or time limited or that kind of thing, e.g. how iTunes works, that's the kind of restriction I don't like to see (don't know if Origin does or doesn't, it's just my most important DRM thing).

  • StooMonster #24 8 months ago

    arcam: why not let developers sell their own content in-game?

    I think it's not about the market of today, but about where the market might be going.

    If PC games and consoles follow what's happened in mobile and web-based gaming it's the freemium business model that is going to become the most popular way of paying for games. i.e. the game itself is free or extremely low priced and the extras / DLC are sold afterwards.

    Hence Apple control the freemium content delivered through their store, I can see that Valve want to do the same. Otherwise, Steam might not exist in the future.

    Publishers love the freemium model because they control the prices, you won't be able to get anything cheaper than they want to sell it, it completely removes piracy so DRM is irrelevant too, etc.

  • Matthew_Hornet #25 8 months ago

    "If they want to buy the paid DLC from some place other than where they bought the original product, they should be able to do that as well."

    So you're finally going to let me buy the DLC for Mirror's Edge I got off Steam? Right? Right? No? Piss off.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #26 8 months ago

    @DozyKipper: I am exactly the same. I want to use Steam because I feel that the restrictions set by Steam are to provide a better experience for me as the gamer and not just for Valve as the platform holder. Sure, Valve wants to profit from DLC, that is totally understandable. The fact is, I am willing to pay just a tiny bit more so Valve gets a cut just for the simple reason that I don't have to bother with other shops, accounts etc. and have everything in one place. I have no problem at all paying for this comfort.

  • arcam #27 8 months ago

    @StooMonster

    Yeah I see why Steam would want to control the additional content that developers produce, I'm just not convinced that they should.

  • Cigol #28 8 months ago

    I bought Spore (amongst others) directly from EA and I now no longer have any proof of purchase, or the ability to download these games I bought. I believe in fair too which is why I will wait and take what the say with a huge pinch of salt.

  • Dashnak #29 8 months ago

    It just makes more sense to have DLC available through steam. If the game is tied to your steam account, why not have the DLC tied to it too? Otherwise it's just messy and disorganised. What if the devs choose not to save your purchased DLC to any kind of account? So you have to painstakingly back up your dlc separately from the game itself and can't just redownload? That just seems impractical.

    And speaking of 'fair', I'm pissed off at Origin for offering Battlefield prepurchase at £10 surcharge promising early beta access, but keeping quiet that the cutoff date was the 25th!! So I paid £10 more for nothing. Money grubbing tactics do NOT endear me to a new digital distribution service.

  • ISmoke #30 8 months ago

    Too much money invested in Steam for me to jump ship now

  • Zyklonbzombie #31 8 months ago

    I think it's important to recognize that Steam isn't just a store - it's an actual gaming platform. You don't buy the game and get an installer like you would with a disc - you get the preinstalled, prepatched 'steam version'. Installing DLC from other sources to a Steam game, and Steam DLC to a standard version is often impossible, or at least quite difficult. It makes sense for Steam to say "you have to provide us with any DLC so we can distribute it to our platform". You wouldn't buy a game on PSN or XBLA, and expect to have to install DLC from elsewhere.

    Anyway, as much as I'd prefer to have every game in one place, with one client (i.e. Steam), I don't hate Origin. It's fast, simple, and I haven't really had any issues yet. The T&Cs are a bit iffy, however, e.g. "we'll remove a game from your account if you don't play it for X amount of time".

  • Shakey_Jake33 #32 8 months ago

    They want a fair and open marketplace, so they make their own digital store the only place where you can buy their content?

    That makes absolutely no sense.

    As a side note, I reckon there's a little more to this than EA is letting on. After all, GamesForWindows titles are available via Steam, and they all use the in-game GamesForWindows store to sell the DLC, rather than the Steam client.

  • StooMonster #33 8 months ago

    @arcam

    You appear to be saying that you're just not convinced that Steam should exist in the future.

  • Laythe_AD #34 8 months ago

    @Shakey_Jake33

    Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I believe in the case of Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2, both are available on Impulse and Direct2Drive?

  • StooMonster #35 8 months ago

    Cigol: I bought Spore (amongst others) directly from EA and I now no longer have any proof of purchase, or the ability to download these games I bought.

    Fails my personal DRM bugbear then, in my opinion once you buy from a download store you should be able to acquire it as many times as you wish in perpetuity.

    Although apparently not everyone agrees (looks at neg votes on my comment above).

    Zyklonbzombie: The T&Cs are a bit iffy, however, e.g. "we'll remove a game from your account if you don't play it for X amount of time".

    That sounds completely fair and "actually less restrictive than Steam".
    Edited by StooMonster at 28/09/11 @ 13:00

  • arcam #36 8 months ago

    You appear to be saying that you're just not convinced that Steam should exist in the future.

    It doesn't have a right to exist by default. If it is wanted and needed it'll exist, if it's not, it won't.

    But right now I'd be lost without it, so long may it continue.

  • StooMonster #37 8 months ago

    @arcam

    Key dependency is whether freemium is going to be the way forward for PC games, Valve seem to think so themselves with TF2 and rumours of freemium DotA2, etc. so I can see why they're keen to get all the legals and agreements locked out before there's a big shift in the industry. If freemium doesn't become widespread then they'll be fine I'm sure.

    Personally I'm not a big fan of the freemium approach to charging customers and controlling their content, but other people seem to love it (sucked in by the 'free' and don't add up cost of the premium bites and thus total spend perhaps).
    Edited by StooMonster at 28/09/11 @ 13:05

  • arcam #38 8 months ago

    Honestly, if freemium is the future (I'm not convinced), then I really don't think Steam is necessary. Why do we need a storefront to sell us free games? Might as well just get them direct from the developer.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #39 8 months ago

    @arcam - Well, the reason why so many indie developers use Steam as a way of promoting their games, both paid and free, is because it's also a good way to inform people about your game. People see your game on the store front page and people become interested. Otherwise, you rely solely on word-of-mouth.

  • Gastrian #40 8 months ago

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

  • Gastrian #41 8 months ago

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

  • Spekingur #42 8 months ago

    I'm pretty sure that this "right" to delete an account might be disputable in some countries - be it on Steam or Origin.

  • naznatips #43 8 months ago

    I have to reiterate this every tied EA posts this misleading crap. Steam DOES NOT require you to sell doc only on Steam. It requires you to make all DLC and patches AVAILABLE on Steam. Do you people not understand the difference? This is done ENTIRELY in the interest of protecting the consumer, and out of no personal greed on Valve's part. You are welcome to sell stuff on your own stores, as long as that stuff is also available through Steam so that consumers are guaranteed to have that DLC available to them.

    Again, let me make this abundantly clear: EA is not on Steam because they don't want to allow DLC or patches and updates to sell on Steam AT ALL. Not because they cannot sell DLC through their own clients. Whether you like EA or not, there is one clear badguy here. One company is trying to protect your rights, and the other is protecting corporate interests.

  • Gastrian #44 8 months ago

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

  • ballshock #45 8 months ago

    "Fair" is a word EA have no right to use.

  • naznatips #46 8 months ago

    @Gastrian Nice reading comprehension there friend. Steam doesn't LIMIT anything. You're welcome to buy off of in-game stores on Steam. They require extra work out of publishers to give you MORE options. They have to have it on the marketplace ,but they don't have to ONLY have it on the marketplace. The reason it has to be part of the marketplace is so that Valve's auto-update server system can interact with them and keep your games up to date, hassle free. And yes, Valve takes a 30% cut on games sold on Steam. That's far less than a standard retail cut, much less a standard retail + publisher + platform licensing fee, at least two of which publishers will face on Origin.