In other news, water is wet. Of course EA hates this, if any gaming company were ever all about the money it is EA. Yes I know they are a business, but bad businesses put profit at the top at the expense of everything else. EA doesn't care that we think they are money grubbing tools, they're laughing all the way to the bank. They know we'll keep buying their games because that is what gamers do.Please Check the link below, and how do you feel about it?
LINK
and THIS
LINK 2
Ladiesman17
EA Criticizes Valve for Steam's Deep Discounting
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yea because of STEAM we no longer buy $60 games...................oh wait. All Steam does is take games you would never have bought in the first place and wave them in your face with a big enough discount you will cave in and buy them. These game developers are LUCKY they got the 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me.Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
Toxic-Seahorse
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]Yea because of STEAM we no longer buy $60 games...................oh wait. All Steam does is take games you would never have bought in the first place and wave them in your face with a big enough discount you will cave in and buy them. These game developers are LUCKY they got the 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me. I would say developer and consumer are both fortunate these sales exist. You, caving in and regretting a discounted game purchase is entirely on you.Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
vfibsux
If they were selling brand new things for dirt cheap, i would agree. But things like Far Cry 2 going on sale for $2.50 is perfectly reasonable. People will only look to buy older games at certain thresholds. They generally only discount things once they've made their big release bucks Yeah, but the more these sales happen, the more people will stop buying games at full price. One can get a great catalog of games during steam sales to the point where they don't need to buy games at full price anymore. Just wait until they go on sale. In the long run this will hurt the industry greatly since devs and publishers won't get enough money to fund games with the rising development costs. As a consequence, the quality of games could suffer because they would need to sell them at a MUCH cheaper price. This will only happen on the most cash strapped gamers who don't mind waiting a year or two to save $40 on a game. It just doesn't happen or at least not often enough to cause concern, the problem is that people to buying a load of cheap games and never play them. I've done this too but noticed I'm spending money on things I never use so I stopped, even if the deal is delicious I won't buy it if I won't play it because it's just a waste. Also about the quality, it won't change much because a retail game at $50 likely generates the same amount of profit for publishers/debs as the same game as DD at $13. They markup the price by an insane percentage so they can generate their multimillion dollar profits.[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
Toxic-Seahorse
Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
Toxic-Seahorse
It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]Yea because of STEAM we no longer buy $60 games...................oh wait. All Steam does is take games you would never have bought in the first place and wave them in your face with a big enough discount you will cave in and buy them. These game developers are LUCKY they got the 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me.Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
vfibsux
I completely agree. I have bought a lot of games on Steam that I would have otherwise never purchased, simply because they were on sale. I doubt many of the people claiming, "Steam's sales are bad and hurt the industry" take that into account.
Maybe if publishers didn't jack game prices up to $60 they'd make more sales, too. Maybe games have become too expensive (especially in today's economy).
wow EA. It's like they really are doing everything in their power to make gamers hate them.
[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
mirgamer
It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA?EA should also be complaining about the video game bargain bin at Walmart, where old games are regularly sold for less than $10.
They are ridiculous.
[QUOTE="mirgamer"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
kraychik
It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA?Valve is less greedy. EA is a publicly traded company, which means that they are at the mercy of the shareholders, and the shareholders have made it clear that they simply want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. This has led to EA implementing things like in-game microtransactions (I suggest you listen to the famous "pay one dollar to reload" speech given to the shareholders by EA's president), as well as DLC prices and more restrictive online requirements (which also feed into the presence of microtransactions).
Valve doesn't do all of this because, quite frankly, they don't have to. Being privately owned, they can do whatever they want, and the things that they want to do tend to be greatly in our favor. If the EA CEO walked into the boardroom and said "Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a 2 week long period where all of our games are insanely discounted! That way, so many more people will buy them, and everybody will make money!" the shareholders would look at each other in confusion for a few seconds, and then EA would be looking for a new CEO.
What the EA shareholders don't seem to understand is that they are slowly putting the nails into their own coffin. Sure, we do still purchase a lot of their games, and we still do spend a lot of money on DLC and microtransactions. That's because, for the most part, we are just as easily manipulated as their CEO said we are. But what they don't seem to understand is that we don't, well most of us don't, like being treated that way. Like money stuffed cattle. Eventually, we reach out tolerance points and start buying EA's games with less enthusiasm. Many people are starting to boycott them already.
EA was, in a ridiculous diplay of priorities, voted the worst company in America. What they should have realized at that moment is that there are enough people out there who hate them so much that we were willing to actually vote them past a corrupt bank that had a major hand in crashing our economy. They should have seen that and said "Whooooah. Wait a second. What are we doing that these people don't like?" But instead they ignored that, and now their stocks are sinking and they're making no visible move to change things.
^ That "Pay one dollar to reload" speech is fake, it sounds nothing like him and is low quality and has no video footage to verify it was actually him, it could have been Seth MacFarlane for all we know yet so many people take it as truth because "it's EA so it must be true".JohnF111
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]^ That "Pay one dollar to reload" speech is fake, it sounds nothing like him and is low quality and has no video footage to verify it was actually him, it could have been Seth MacFarlane for all we know yet so many people take it as truth because "it's EA so it must be true".xLittlekillx
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true![QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]^ That "Pay one dollar to reload" speech is fake, it sounds nothing like him and is low quality and has no video footage to verify it was actually him, it could have been Seth MacFarlane for all we know yet so many people take it as truth because "it's EA so it must be true".JohnF111
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true!Sure sure, it's not him. Let's say you're right. What does that change?
It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true![QUOTE="JohnF111"]
[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
xLittlekillx
Sure sure, it's not him. Let's say you're right. What does that change?
The fact everyone uses the "pay to reload" as fuel against EA without even checking the source(which there is none).[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true!
JohnF111
Sure sure, it's not him. Let's say you're right. What does that change?
The fact everyone uses the "pay to reload" as fuel against EA without even checking the source(which there is none).The "pay to reload" isn't fuel against EA. If anything, it's a look into WHY they are the way they are now. It's an explanation of why they are abusing their consumers to get more money.
Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA?[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="mirgamer"]
It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
xLittlekillx
Valve is less greedy. EA is a publicly traded company, which means that they are at the mercy of the shareholders, and the shareholders have made it clear that they simply want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. This has led to EA implementing things like in-game microtransactions (I suggest you listen to the famous "pay one dollar to reload" speech given to the shareholders by EA's president), as well as DLC prices and more restrictive online requirements (which also feed into the presence of microtransactions).
Valve doesn't do all of this because, quite frankly, they don't have to. Being privately owned, they can do whatever they want, and the things that they want to do tend to be greatly in our favor. If the EA CEO walked into the boardroom and said "Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a 2 week long period where all of our games are insanely discounted! That way, so many more people will buy them, and everybody will make money!" the shareholders would look at each other in confusion for a few seconds, and then EA would be looking for a new CEO.
What the EA shareholders don't seem to understand is that they are slowly putting the nails into their own coffin. Sure, we do still purchase a lot of their games, and we still do spend a lot of money on DLC and microtransactions. That's because, for the most part, we are just as easily manipulated as their CEO said we are. But what they don't seem to understand is that we don't, well most of us don't, like being treated that way. Like money stuffed cattle. Eventually, we reach out tolerance points and start buying EA's games with less enthusiasm. Many people are starting to boycott them already.
EA was, in a ridiculous diplay of priorities, voted the worst company in America. What they should have realized at that moment is that there are enough people out there who hate them so much that we were willing to actually vote them past a corrupt bank that had a major hand in crashing our economy. They should have seen that and said "Whooooah. Wait a second. What are we doing that these people don't like?" But instead they ignored that, and now their stocks are sinking and they're making no visible move to change things.
You raise an important distinction between EA and Valve that I overlooked - EA is a publicly-traded company which certainly changes things. Still, shareholders want a business to be profitable, and a business can't be profitable unless it's satisfying its customers. Gamers are buying EA products, and that tells us a lot. The assertion that the interests of business are in competition with the interests of consumers is false, which seems to be how you're characterizing things: EA vs. the gamers. EA cannot succeed without us, but we can easily live without EA. You seem to be suggesting that EA can get away with "greed" whereas Valve could do the same but simply chooses not to out of the goodness of their hearts. That's just not how things work.
Please Check the link below, and how do you feel about it?
LINK
and THIS
LINK 2
Ladiesman17
The reporter in the first given link absolutely destroys EA with his comments. Especially that rhetorical question in his conclusion, with the link to EA's stock prices, proves everyone of his points. Very well written and convincing.
Likewise I definitely agree with the writer, in saying that EA should not criticize Valve at what they do best.
[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA? kraychik
Valve is less greedy. EA is a publicly traded company, which means that they are at the mercy of the shareholders, and the shareholders have made it clear that they simply want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. This has led to EA implementing things like in-game microtransactions (I suggest you listen to the famous "pay one dollar to reload" speech given to the shareholders by EA's president), as well as DLC prices and more restrictive online requirements (which also feed into the presence of microtransactions).
Valve doesn't do all of this because, quite frankly, they don't have to. Being privately owned, they can do whatever they want, and the things that they want to do tend to be greatly in our favor. If the EA CEO walked into the boardroom and said "Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a 2 week long period where all of our games are insanely discounted! That way, so many more people will buy them, and everybody will make money!" the shareholders would look at each other in confusion for a few seconds, and then EA would be looking for a new CEO.
What the EA shareholders don't seem to understand is that they are slowly putting the nails into their own coffin. Sure, we do still purchase a lot of their games, and we still do spend a lot of money on DLC and microtransactions. That's because, for the most part, we are just as easily manipulated as their CEO said we are. But what they don't seem to understand is that we don't, well most of us don't, like being treated that way. Like money stuffed cattle. Eventually, we reach out tolerance points and start buying EA's games with less enthusiasm. Many people are starting to boycott them already.
EA was, in a ridiculous diplay of priorities, voted the worst company in America. What they should have realized at that moment is that there are enough people out there who hate them so much that we were willing to actually vote them past a corrupt bank that had a major hand in crashing our economy. They should have seen that and said "Whooooah. Wait a second. What are we doing that these people don't like?" But instead they ignored that, and now their stocks are sinking and they're making no visible move to change things.
You raise an important distinction between EA and Valve that I overlooked - EA is a publicly-traded company which certainly changes things. Still, shareholders want a business to be profitable, and a business can't be profitable unless it's satisfying its customers. Gamers are buying EA products, and that tells us a lot. The assertion that the interests of business are in competition with the interests of consumers is false, which seems to be how you're characterizing things: EA vs. the gamers. EA cannot succeed without us, but we can easily live without EA. You seem to be suggesting that EA can get away with "greed" whereas Valve could do the same but simply chooses not to out of the goodness of their hearts. That's just not how things work.But that's the thing. Gamers are buying less of EA's products. Consumer loyalty is diminishing due to abusive money making tactics. and because of that, stock is plummeting.
That guy is an assclown. A big part of the reason steam has been so successful is their sales. From what I understand, they'll often sell 20-30x more copies of a game than they normally would during a steam sale, which tells me a lot of games are massively overpriced relative to what most people are willing to pay. Anything lost on the price of an individual copy is more than made up for in volume.
In the long run, Origin will fail just like all of the services that have tried to compete with Steam, and EA will come crawling back to Valve.
You raise an important distinction between EA and Valve that I overlooked - EA is a publicly-traded company which certainly changes things. Still, shareholders want a business to be profitable, and a business can't be profitable unless it's satisfying its customers. Gamers are buying EA products, and that tells us a lot. The assertion that the interests of business are in competition with the interests of consumers is false, which seems to be how you're characterizing things: EA vs. the gamers. EA cannot succeed without us, but we can easily live without EA. You seem to be suggesting that EA can get away with "greed" whereas Valve could do the same but simply chooses not to out of the goodness of their hearts. That's just not how things work.[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]
Valve is less greedy. EA is a publicly traded company, which means that they are at the mercy of the shareholders, and the shareholders have made it clear that they simply want as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. This has led to EA implementing things like in-game microtransactions (I suggest you listen to the famous "pay one dollar to reload" speech given to the shareholders by EA's president), as well as DLC prices and more restrictive online requirements (which also feed into the presence of microtransactions).
Valve doesn't do all of this because, quite frankly, they don't have to. Being privately owned, they can do whatever they want, and the things that they want to do tend to be greatly in our favor. If the EA CEO walked into the boardroom and said "Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a 2 week long period where all of our games are insanely discounted! That way, so many more people will buy them, and everybody will make money!" the shareholders would look at each other in confusion for a few seconds, and then EA would be looking for a new CEO.
What the EA shareholders don't seem to understand is that they are slowly putting the nails into their own coffin. Sure, we do still purchase a lot of their games, and we still do spend a lot of money on DLC and microtransactions. That's because, for the most part, we are just as easily manipulated as their CEO said we are. But what they don't seem to understand is that we don't, well most of us don't, like being treated that way. Like money stuffed cattle. Eventually, we reach out tolerance points and start buying EA's games with less enthusiasm. Many people are starting to boycott them already.
EA was, in a ridiculous diplay of priorities, voted the worst company in America. What they should have realized at that moment is that there are enough people out there who hate them so much that we were willing to actually vote them past a corrupt bank that had a major hand in crashing our economy. They should have seen that and said "Whooooah. Wait a second. What are we doing that these people don't like?" But instead they ignored that, and now their stocks are sinking and they're making no visible move to change things.
xLittlekillx
But that's the thing. Gamers are buying less of EA's products. Consumer loyalty is diminishing due to abusive money making tactics. and because of that, stock is plummeting.
But it's not a "money making" tactic, is it? At least, it isn't an effective tactic. Looks more like a "money losing" tactic to me. Is EA cannot offer products at a price that consumers feel is a good value, they're going to lose revenues. It's not greed as much as it is stupidity.
I will explain it on example of my country (Bad living standard), When Valve and STEAM sales appeared here, 79,9 % of gaming population were switched to legal way of gaming, but no one use Origin except 300 out 30.000 players only to posses BF3 and so on games, even they say that EA blackmails them to use their software for playing game,... EA is a thief company!!!
[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]^ That "Pay one dollar to reload" speech is fake, it sounds nothing like him and is low quality and has no video footage to verify it was actually him, it could have been Seth MacFarlane for all we know yet so many people take it as truth because "it's EA so it must be true".JohnF111
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true!I just listened to an interview with him and the recording. Sure sounds like the same guy to me.
Not sure if anyone saw this. I just googled "EA evil" and this is what I found:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/04/ea-responds-to-being-voted-the-most-evil-company-in-america/
He says number of game sales doesn't matter but it really does. Yes, in a few cases Steam sales have been a little too early in a game's lifecycle, but most times they are timed just right with waning demand. Lots of people buying on 75% off days wouldn't have bought it otherwise. They didn't want it enough to pay full price. They have even pirated the game because of the price. I don't support that by the way, but still, Steam and publisher/developer are at least getting a little bit of money out of those people. It seems most games go through a cycle of full price, 33% off, 50%, 66%, 75%. As long as these cuts are timed right, they will get a lot more sales and ultimately, money instead of just charging full price for 3 years.
The games I've purchased from Steam during these "Deep discount" days are a) older games b) games I would never buy otherwise. I've never seem a brand new game offered at 75% off.
As many of you have said, the people at EA are tools.
It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true![QUOTE="JohnF111"]
[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]
No it's him. And it's completely congruent with everything EA is doing. The "Pay to reload" example is of course just that, an example of how people who are in the midst of the game are emotionally involved and therefore more likely to spend money on frivolous things just to help them advance in the game.
Mr_Ditters
I just listened to an interview with him and the recording. Sure sounds like the same guy to me.
I also listened to many interviews (which all manage to have video footage as well oddly enough) and the two sound completely different, the pay to reload audio clearly has a much courser voice talking when John Riccitiello's voice is far far smoother and also the Accent is completely different.It's just infantile animosity from an EA loyalist towards his primary competition. The idea that somehow "the little guy" (the "hard-working" game developer working for or with EA) is getting hurt by the discounting of games is preposterous. Steam, like any business, is in the game to make money, and Steam will do what it believes will allow it to make the most money possible - which benefits developer stakeholders directly or indirectly. The assertion from this EA loyalist that Steam's profits, and by extension business profits as a whole, are in direct competition with the interests of "the little guy" is moronic leftist thinking.
Secondly, the assertion that EA represents the Mercedes of the video gaming world while Steam is the Ford is also presposterous. Not only does Steam carry a much broader range of games than EA, but it also carries many triple-A titles. An accurate analogy would be Steam being a Costco with EA being a Radio Shack (which has good products, don't get me wrong). This pretentious and STUPID attitude that lowering the prices of products during sales somehow "cheapens" the quality of the product is pure stupidity. Consumer aren't stupid, and businesses that inflate the prices of their products/services in order to maintain some image of prestige usually suffer. I don't think Steam needs any guidance from EA with respect to the marketing of games they sell.
That whole interview (thanks for the link, Ladiesman17) just reeks of jealousy, lies, and no understanding of business or consumer psychology from the DeMartini guy. Thanks for the laughs.
kraychik
This my friends is how to completely destroy a valid point by inserting political Rhetoric into something that doesn't require it.
[QUOTE="Mr_Ditters"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] It's definitely not him, i've heard many speeches from him and that video sounds far too raspy to be him. Ah but it's on Youtube uploaded by someone who also likes deleted scenes from Ace Ventura... Yeah it must be true!
JohnF111
I just listened to an interview with him and the recording. Sure sounds like the same guy to me.
I also listened to many interviews (which all manage to have video footage as well oddly enough) and the two sound completely different, the pay to reload audio clearly has a much courser voice talking when John Riccitiello's voice is far far smoother and also the Accent is completely different.I have no idea what you are listening to. Its the same guy. Exact same accent. Same pitch. Some interviews show the same raspy voice during pauses. Same voice. Same guy. Same philosphy.
Also, its obvious that there is no video because someone recorded audio from either their phone or other audio recorder. This wasn't a formal interview. IF there are any doubts play the audio along side a video interview. Same guy.
You are right. Before Valve and Steam appeared Panama was a country filled with piracy because almost none of the retailers brought PC games. After Steam appeared the piracy rate reduced and people started buying games thanks to the offers Valve has done. Ea, on the other while, is trying to rip us off (I think all Latin American users) because they want to charge us in euros rather than dollars. According to them it is a bug but even if it is true they don't want to fix it.I will explain it on example of my country (Bad living standard), When Valve and STEAM sales appeared here, 79,9 % of gaming population were switched to legal way of gaming, but no one use Origin except 300 out 30.000 players only to posses BF3 and so on games, even they say that EA blackmails them to use their software for playing game,... EA is a thief company!!!
Assimilat0r
[QUOTE="kraychik"]
It's just infantile animosity from an EA loyalist towards his primary competition. The idea that somehow "the little guy" (the "hard-working" game developer working for or with EA) is getting hurt by the discounting of games is preposterous. Steam, like any business, is in the game to make money, and Steam will do what it believes will allow it to make the most money possible - which benefits developer stakeholders directly or indirectly. The assertion from this EA loyalist that Steam's profits, and by extension business profits as a whole, are in direct competition with the interests of "the little guy" is moronic leftist thinking.
Secondly, the assertion that EA represents the Mercedes of the video gaming world while Steam is the Ford is also presposterous. Not only does Steam carry a much broader range of games than EA, but it also carries many triple-A titles. An accurate analogy would be Steam being a Costco with EA being a Radio Shack (which has good products, don't get me wrong). This pretentious and STUPID attitude that lowering the prices of products during sales somehow "cheapens" the quality of the product is pure stupidity. Consumer aren't stupid, and businesses that inflate the prices of their products/services in order to maintain some image of prestige usually suffer. I don't think Steam needs any guidance from EA with respect to the marketing of games they sell.
That whole interview (thanks for the link, Ladiesman17) just reeks of jealousy, lies, and no understanding of business or consumer psychology from the DeMartini guy. Thanks for the laughs.
lordreaven
This my friends is how to completely destroy a valid point by inserting political Rhetoric into something that doesn't require it.
You're naive if you don't realize that politics greatly inform a person's perspective of this story.
My thoughts? I'll put it to you this way. I have both Steam and Origin installed. Since I bought Half Life 2 at launch, I have spent somewhere near $3,000 on Steam. I spent $10 on Origin.
[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="kraychik"]
It's just infantile animosity from an EA loyalist towards his primary competition. The idea that somehow "the little guy" (the "hard-working" game developer working for or with EA) is getting hurt by the discounting of games is preposterous. Steam, like any business, is in the game to make money, and Steam will do what it believes will allow it to make the most money possible - which benefits developer stakeholders directly or indirectly. The assertion from this EA loyalist that Steam's profits, and by extension business profits as a whole, are in direct competition with the interests of "the little guy" is moronic leftist thinking.
Secondly, the assertion that EA represents the Mercedes of the video gaming world while Steam is the Ford is also presposterous. Not only does Steam carry a much broader range of games than EA, but it also carries many triple-A titles. An accurate analogy would be Steam being a Costco with EA being a Radio Shack (which has good products, don't get me wrong). This pretentious and STUPID attitude that lowering the prices of products during sales somehow "cheapens" the quality of the product is pure stupidity. Consumer aren't stupid, and businesses that inflate the prices of their products/services in order to maintain some image of prestige usually suffer. I don't think Steam needs any guidance from EA with respect to the marketing of games they sell.
That whole interview (thanks for the link, Ladiesman17) just reeks of jealousy, lies, and no understanding of business or consumer psychology from the DeMartini guy. Thanks for the laughs.
kraychik
This my friends is how to completely destroy a valid point by inserting political Rhetoric into something that doesn't require it.
You're naive if you don't realize that politics greatly inform a person's perspective of this story. No, your an idiot for thinking that. It became political because YOU made it political. NO ONE mention politics before you came around and said your idiotic statement.
You really think that Valve have anything to do about the price cuts alone? developers might sign a agreement but in the end you can be 100% sure that they are onboard any cut that Valve does. Like the guy from Fieldrunner said "its not like we cant cut the price at any time" Also Valve would should themself in the foot if they cut the prices of any developers games without their knowledge or accept. So EA is just complaining because Origin and EA doesnt want to do the same despite the fact that digital download lowers their cost of each game. In fact Valve have done more for gaming and us gamers then EA and the industry have done in its entire lifespan and also Steam have saved PC gaming when consoles began to be more popular. And another fact EA seems to forget is piracy, alot of people i know who would go that way, now have stopped completly and uses steam instead because the major concern for them was the trouble and time it took them to get games, now they can load steam preorder the game and when they come home from work on release day its ready and able to play.Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
Toxic-Seahorse
Isn't a 3% profit margin on people buying the game better than getting no profit from the same people who wouldn't buy the game at a higher price? It is simple supply and demand. It is the same reason most boxed PC games drop in price months after release. If the current price isn't moving game boxes, the price is lowered until those game boxes fly off the shelves.
Isn't a 3% profit margin on people buying the game better than getting no profit from the same people who wouldn't buy the game at a higher price? It is simple supply and demand. It is the same reason most boxed PC games drop in price months after release. If the current price isn't moving game boxes, the price is lowered until those game boxes fly off the shelves.
Falconoffury
The developers certainly seem to love it.
I also listened to many interviews (which all manage to have video footage as well oddly enough) and the two sound completely different, the pay to reload audio clearly has a much courser voice talking when John Riccitiello's voice is far far smoother and also the Accent is completely different.[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="Mr_Ditters"]
I just listened to an interview with him and the recording. Sure sounds like the same guy to me.
Mr_Ditters
I have no idea what you are listening to. Its the same guy. Exact same accent. Same pitch. Some interviews show the same raspy voice during pauses. Same voice. Same guy. Same philosphy.
Also, its obvious that there is no video because someone recorded audio from either their phone or other audio recorder. This wasn't a formal interview. IF there are any doubts play the audio along side a video interview. Same guy.
I did, completely different guy. It isn't him. It's all just a mock-up to make EA look even worse.[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]Yea because of STEAM we no longer buy $60 games...................oh wait. All Steam does is take games you would never have bought in the first place and wave them in your face with a big enough discount you will cave in and buy them. These game developers are LUCKY they got the 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me. I would say developer and consumer are both fortunate these sales exist. You, caving in and regretting a discounted game purchase is entirely on you. Ummm, where did I say I regretted it? Of course consumers benefit from lower prices, seriously dude are you the type that HAS to debate so bad you are going to make stuff up to argue?Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
Elann2008
[QUOTE="mirgamer"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]
Valve's deep discounting is a concern for the industry. Great for gamers, but it could hurt the industry in the long run. Someone from GoG said the same thing not to long ago, we had a huge thread about it here.
kraychik
It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA? Ever owned a business? Smart business makes the customer think you are doing THEM a favor rather than making a profit off of them. EA type business makes you feel like you lose blood when you buy their products. Valve is in it for the money, of course.....but they are the better business people. Period.[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="vfibsux"] Yea because of STEAM we no longer buy $60 games...................oh wait. All Steam does is take games you would never have bought in the first place and wave them in your face with a big enough discount you will cave in and buy them. These game developers are LUCKY they got the 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me. vfibsuxI would say developer and consumer are both fortunate these sales exist. You, caving in and regretting a discounted game purchase is entirely on you. Ummm, where did I say I regretted it? Of course consumers benefit from lower prices, seriously dude are you the type that HAS to debate so bad you are going to make stuff up to argue?
"These game developers are LUCKY they got 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me."
You sound like every self-entitled gamer out there. I didn't make a mistake when I quoted you.
[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="mirgamer"]Let me get this straight, Valve is less "greedy" than EA? Is that your position? You think Steam discounts its products on sales because they're just nicer folks than those at EA? Ever owned a business? Smart business makes the customer think you are doing THEM a favor rather than making a profit off of them. EA type business makes you feel like you lose blood when you buy their products. Valve is in it for the money, of course.....but they are the better business people. Period. Clearly, they are both better business people than you are, or ever will be.. When you own a corporation as large as Valve and EA, come back and talk trash. I never felt like I lost blood or anything when I bought an EA game. I think you're on rage pills or something. EA never made you do anything so stop making things up.It'll hurt those triple AA budget publishers and studios, I'm sure but for 3rd party devs and indie devs, Steam is the shining beacon in a sea of dark greed. But really, the only thing thats hurting EA is that Steam is in monopoly of digital downloads.
If its EA that is in Steam's position, I'd tell you they be signing a different tune. They are just butthurt that Valve thought of it first.
Seriously, this situation is far far better than having all these publishers churning out rehashed sequels every year and expecting gamers to all buy them at 60 bucks a piece? What makes them think that this will be good for the industry?
vfibsux
"These game developers are LUCKY they got 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me."
You sound like every self-entitled gamer out there. I didn't make a mistake when I quoted you.
Elann2008
I disagree. How is a gamer being self-entitled by having a price threshold on games? People are just balancing the amount of money they can spend with their desires to own the games. It is not meant as a disrespect toward the game developers. They are lucky they got the money, because he probably wouldn't have bought the game at all.
[QUOTE="Elann2008"]
"These game developers are LUCKY they got 7.99, 4.99, and even 2.99 they did from me."
You sound like every self-entitled gamer out there. I didn't make a mistake when I quoted you.
Falconoffury
I disagree. How is a gamer being self-entitled by having a price threshold on games? People are just balancing the amount of money they can spend with their desires to own the games. It is not meant as a disrespect toward the game developers. They are lucky they got the money, because he probably wouldn't have bought the game at all.
Then why buy it at all? Sounds like he's complaining about a purchase with a tantrum, yet he throws money on the counter and runs off with his tail between his legs. Stand up for yourself, vote with your wallet.
Do you see how your last sentence makes no sense? It contradicts everything you just said.
It sounds like this: "Hey, look guys. I bought a shiny turd from Gamestop so the developer should be lucky they got $20 from me! Whoop-dee-doo!"
lol. well steam discounting is possible because the publisher/ dev saying ok to it. Half the games i buy off steam wouldn't have been bought in the first place if it wasn't for the discount. SO if it never came on sale they wouldn't even get a penny from me lol.
look at it has a advertisement to. Your game getgs pasted on front page of steam. Then if cool game that person may end up telling their friends.
Glad i deleted orgin crap off my pc...
mhahahaha lol's (times 10)Origin >> Steam
Zlychop
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment