there are some pretty good ones but i'd have to say portugal.

1. I play the games offered by EA cause it doesn't affect me as much as you. I can choose from the EA Library yet you don't want to....and u think Im the trouble one? Good logic there...

2. I would prefer if there wasn't ANY clients, but that's the way it is now. Difference is that i accept the future and you don't, resulting in me playing awesome games and you don't.

3. What's the difference in having games on different online libraries compared to having them on ur cupboard or house scattered around? Again if u have so many issues with different clients go play consoles. I really cant grasp how anyone with the ability to speak could have such issues.

4. And trust me, ur the one not getting the big picture here. Online distribution is the state of gaming now, and its not all bad like u want people to think it is. Either embrace and enjoy gaming or go cry in the corner and miss out. 10 years down the track you'll regret u didn't play some titles. Let me know the next completely drm free game u play next....

5. Conclusion: u don't want to use Origin, and miss out on gaming which is ur hobby (that's why ur on a gaming site), then fine....all the power to you.  But at least bring some valid reasoning to it, cause u ain't making a difference you know...

FelipeInside

1. my logic is that i know what i want and i know what it's worth to me to get it. your logic sounds like it's somewhere along the lines of i want my game and i don't really care as long as i have my game. i suppose i can't claim one to be better than the other but after hearing yours and carefully appraising it, i choose to stick with mine.

2. accept the future? you can accept what is today but you should strife to make the future. if you are just going to run along with every publisher that only does what is best for himself then yes, it will be the future.

well i'm glad you're having a great time with those games. maybe i would too. i suspect we don't have the same taste in games but i play one awesome game after another too.

3. from your own example; the games in my house are in a box. when i want to play one all i do is reach down, take it out and install it. you can't grasp that this is more neat and accessible as what you suggested earlier with all your short cuts, clients and different online accounts?

4. i never said i was against online distribution and i don't want anybody to think anything, i hold a different stance against what's happening, you questioned it and i tried to explain. and, again, i do not feel like i am missing out. it's not like every great game is only available on origin. i am also not one for regrets and regretting to not have played a game 10 years from now, well that's really not going to happen, so please don't worry about me.

5. so because you fail to grasp it, which you just stated, it is invalid? well okay.

and i think we can congratulate each other on how much each of us is making a difference here ;)

[QUOTE="BLKR4330"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

So by your opinion Valve is the only developer allowed to use a client to push forward their games?

And your second line of "memorize who publishes which games" is the funniest thing I've read all week.

LongZhiZi

you're welcome, sorry to hear you're having such a slow week but i'll gladly do my part to make it better.

the pattern i see is valve trying to sell games, all games. it wants me to install a client, gives me some extra services, fine by me. publishers see steam's success, they want a bigger cut or they want the advantages of having a client installed (maybe both, i don't know), their client is born, they refuse other services their games (unless it goes through their client), only sell their own games,

i see a difference. steam is trying to offer a digital download service (gog being an even better example), ea and ubisoft are trying to maximize control (read profit) on their own games. the first in my view being a give and take, the latter just a take. do you think this will stop at ea and ubisoft? how many game libraries have you got already? have you never wanted to install a game and couldn't find it until you remembered you need to log in at such and such site first? i have. i don't know why you seem to feel you need to defend these clients. they serve you no purpose and require you to make unnecessary extra steps to play a game.

like i said, i don't use origin, so i stand corrected. i don't see how this undermines my point though. are these origin only games? because my real issue was more directed at ea for not making their games available through steam (for example) anymore and thus forcing you to get a service that you technically already have, one that most of us already invested time and money in. well if you want to play the games in question of course.

i suppose you have a point with regards to steam for doing exactly the same. fact of the matter however is that they happened to be the first. everyone was using it and happily doing so, but now this has been interrupted. it has been interrupted for reasons that are not our problem. as i've been trying to argue, i think this is not for the good of the gamer, i can relate to the annoyance of the tc and have in a similar line of thought decided that i will not use these other clients.

 - How are they dumping their problems on us? Have u ever tried to patch a FIFA or Sims game? Compare that to the autopatch feature in Origin. World of difference.

FelipeInside

i think you're missing the big picture here. ea had a problem with steam, their solution was to make their "own steam". do you suppose it once crossed their mind what was best for the gamer here? even drm through these clients is the publisher's problem of not wanting to trust you that you bought their game. so you have to prove it, every single time you start it up and 24 hours a day if they could make you. that's not very polite, is it? but you are eating it up.

and you are really going with an "easy patching"-angle now? i don't play either of those games but i have patched many games, all you do is check your version number, find the right file and run it, repeat until you end up with the latest version. we might also note here that if you release a complete product it really shouldn't need any complicated patching in the first place. but lets forget that for now, how about you make a simple patching tool and embed it in the game? pretending origin is the one and only solution for patching problems is going overboard a little.

 - And you REALLY have problems finding out where to get games or what client they use? How the hell do you cross a street without getting hit?

FelipeInside

you didn't answer my question. and sounds like you didn't even understand my point. again you miss the big picture. think of a world where every publisher starts their own service, this is where it seems to be going. so aside from steam, gog, amazon, green man gaming (not sure they are still around), and whoever else that thinks they are clever, offer you the games you want with deals you can't refuse. now think of how that will impact your gaming library. here's a hint; it will be scattered all over the internet. log in here for this, log in there for that with only the publisher as a hint of where you need to log in. if you enjoy going down that road, then that's fine by me. i will not.

- But if u have so many issues with Origin that's fine dude, u miss out on some great titles because you have trouble coming to grips with the present state of gaming.

FelipeInside

i never said i have so many issues with origin. i started by saying i will not use it and explained why. i don't feel like i am missing out on anything and i also don't feel troubled with coming to grips with anything. from my point of view you are the troubled one, jumping through hoops at the industrie's command just to play your precious game. if you would stick to just that then that would be fine but you're also defending it and trying to make people who choose to do things differently look like fools.

You do realize that Steam started as an only Valve game client right? Then years down the track started selling other developer games.  FelipeInside

does this matter now? are you trying to say you expect origin and u-play to sell other developers games? i guess your point is fair to suggest that others should be able to enter this business and set up a similar service, but the way this is going now just makes it a mess for gamers and it seems very far fetched to assume that ea and ubisoft have anything different as their own interest in mind. so i think the tc has a valid point by objecting against additional clients.

Origin is fine, don't know what the big fuss is about. FelipeInside

the fuss is not about origin. the fuss is about publishers dumping their problem on us (as gamers) to deal with.

As for remembering what game is on what client? Really? There's a thing called shortcuts on the start menu, you just click on it and it launches the client automatically. FelipeInside

i think this assumes the game is installed already. if not, you're going to have to enlighten me how you do this, if you please?

[QUOTE="BLKR4330"]

i don't feel annoyed but there is no way i'm going to make one. and comparing it to steam is not a good comparison. steam used to sell ea games but ea just saw their success and decided it wanted in on that action. i'm not going to follow whatever publisher in whatever plan they come up with that only helps themself get ahead. isn't there a u-play now too for ubisoft games? so yeah, am i supposed to memorize who publishes which game so that i will know in which game library i can find it when i want to play it?

FelipeInside

So by your opinion Valve is the only developer allowed to use a client to push forward their games?

And your second line of "memorize who publishes which games" is the funniest thing I've read all week.

you're welcome, sorry to hear you're having such a slow week but i'll gladly do my part to make it better.

the pattern i see is valve trying to sell games, all games. it wants me to install a client, gives me some extra services, fine by me. publishers see steam's success, they want a bigger cut or they want the advantages of having a client installed (maybe both, i don't know), their client is born, they refuse other services their games (unless it goes through their client), only sell their own games,

i see a difference. steam is trying to offer a digital download service (gog being an even better example), ea and ubisoft are trying to maximize control (read profit) on their own games. the first in my view being a give and take, the latter just a take. do you think this will stop at ea and ubisoft? how many game libraries have you got already? have you never wanted to install a game and couldn't find it until you remembered you need to log in at such and such site first? i have. i don't know why you seem to feel you need to defend these clients. they serve you no purpose and require you to make unnecessary extra steps to play a game.

i don't feel annoyed but there is no way i'm going to make one. and comparing it to steam is not a good comparison. steam used to sell ea games but ea just saw their success and decided it wanted in on that action. i'm not going to follow whatever publisher in whatever plan they come up with that only helps themself get ahead. isn't there a u-play now too for ubisoft games? so yeah, am i supposed to memorize who publishes which game so that i will know in which game library i can find it when i want to play it?

so there are no indications that it's a connection problem? everything else that requires an internet connection works? is there a firewall active? or something off in steams download settings maybe? have you tried re-installing steam?

[QUOTE="BLKR4330"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]There's a large difference between mentioning content in a review to help edify the potential audience of something particularly objectionable, and knocking points off the score due to it. The reviewer's personal feelings on the matter hold absolutely no relevance here. A review can never be entirely objective, but the job of any good reviewer is to attempt to take a step away from personal bias and view a game as best they can for how well it executes what defines it. With games that largely amounts to gameplay mechanics, how well written the story is, etc. NOT how she feels the game portrays something relative to her.

MirkoS77

just out of curiosity, how do you know points were knocked off the score? and how much did it lower the score?

GTA IV had points listed under negatives as well so apparently that doesn't necessarily equate to a deduction of the score. maybe she didn't deduct anything at all, just wanted to warn people about her findings and thought it would be a good way to do so by putting it under the negatives. i mean, your guess is as good as mine, i am just trying to point out that this debate, as far as it concerns the GTA V review, is just pure speculation (well, and also that the scoring system is useless). so i conclude two things, the only score all these complainers wanted to see was 10 and, if they had just read the review and not paid so much attention to it not being a 10, they could have skipped over the part(s) that they didn't identify with and read a review that gives a lot of praise to GTA V.

There's a large difference between mentioning content in a review to help edify the potential audience of something particularly objectionable, and knocking points off the score due to it. The reviewer's personal feelings on the matter hold absolutely no relevance here. A review can never be entirely objective, but the job of any good reviewer is to attempt to take a step away from personal bias and view a game as best they can for how well it executes what defines it. With games that largely amounts to gameplay mechanics, how well written the story is, etc. NOT how she feels the game portrays something relative to her.

MirkoS77

just out of curiosity, how do you know points were knocked off the score? and how much did it lower the score?