Origin courting 'forward-looking' third parties
EA's controversial digital service, Origin, will be expanding its offerings beyond the publisher's games. EA CEO John Riccitiello told investors at a conference call today that "forward-looking publishers" have been asking to join the service.
EA's controversial digital service, Origin, will be expanding its offerings beyond the publisher's games. The newly launched storefront is planned to feature platform "exclusives," being the only place to digitally download the upcoming MMO, Star Wars: The Old Republic. EA CEO John Riccitiello told investors at a conference call today that "forward-looking publishers" have been asking to join the service--a digital storefront that's directly competing with Steam and traditional retail outlets.
"We don't see a conflict," Riccitiello said, confident in the company's future plans with Origin. "This is core to our strategy."
"We've had a lot of inbound inquiry about getting on," Riccitiello explained. "Many forward-looking publishers really want their content on any and every platform possible. One more sale is better than not. By way of example, even though we have Origin, we are pushing EA content digitally on any and every platform that we can."
Although EA would like to propagate their content across as many channels as possible, Steam has been a point of contention. The market leader currently does not offer Crysis 2 for sale, for example.
One investor asked if Origin would threaten the publisher's relationship with retailers. Riccitiello admitted that "yes, our margins are better on Origin." By selling directly to the consumer, the company bypasses the cuts retailers and digital storefronts take on sales. However, "we think our ecosystem is critically important to the vitality of our sector and the company, so we're strong on supporting [retail]."
"We hope to be HBO meets Netflix for gaming. But we're also very keen to have our content distributed anywhere and everywhere gamers are."
-
Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Origin courting 'forward-looking' third parties.
EA's controversial digital service, Origin, will be expanding its offerings beyond the publisher's games. EA CEO John Riccitiello told investors at a conference call today that "forward-looking publishers" have been asking to join the service.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At least this helps: http://www.destructoid.com/steam-yanks-dragon-age-ii-may-not-be-origin-related-207166.phtml
The move may have been due to the fact that the new DLC can only be ordered from an ingame store in DAII, which may violate Valve's terms.-
-
-
-
I am in total agreement. I am still a PC gamer but only due to Steam. I appreciate my Xbox 360 for how it "just works" and have concluded that ease of use is the PC's biggest problem. Mass Effect was the straw that broke this camel's back. When I realized I had to create a bioware.com account and then purchase bioware points to get Mass Effect DLC, I guess I just reached my limit. I am all tapped out when it comes to accounts and I also realized that spreading a game's content across multiple storefronts would prevent conveniences like being able to reinstall the game with a single click and letting the process run over night. I saw where this fragmentation was going (i.e. back to the pre-Steam era). My hands went up. No mas. It's too much of a hassle.
I suppose I could see a case for more accounts with products like MMOs or casual, browser based games but for your traditional video game product, the DLC should be available on Steam. Making the customer jump through hoops to buy content is not good business sense. You may pocket a higher percentage of the sale price but people are very fickle when it comes to their entertainment. It's not a good idea to make them have to work for it. Keep it simple.-
Precisely this. I buy A LOT of DLC on consoles (and even some stuff on PC). I have not purchased any of the Mass Effect 2 DLC (despite being very interested in it) because of the inconvenience of getting it through Bioware's store. It's ridiculous.
I was definitely planning on getting Mass Effect 3 and maybe even Battlefield 3 (since I'm starting to really get into Bad Company 2) but all of this digital store posturing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Fuck 'em, I'll wait 'till they put their games back on Steam.
-
-
God yes. The method for buying ME2 dlc is just ridiculous. You can't do it in-game (though there's a menu option that'll minimize and open the store, and then you can't put more than a single item in your cart at once and have to buy it all with shitty MS point style nonsense instead of just cash like a normal purchase.
As much as I enjoy their games, this bullshit has got to stop if they want me to continue buying them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nick Chester's guessing that EA offering the DLC via an in-game store was what triggered a Steam terms violation: http://www.destructoid.com/steam-yanks-dragon-age-ii-may-not-be-origin-related-207166.phtml
EA really really loves in-game stores.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Exactly. Everybody with a store front would be happy to sell their competitor's content. You're shaving off 10%-20% of the revenue from your competitor's products and that money is going right into your own pocket. Of course EA would like to have control or influence over the digital distribution of their competitor's products, but those same companies would be fools to empower a rival with their own funds.
-
-
If you're a major publisher like Ubisoft or Activision then EA is one of your direct strategic competitors. Valve not so much.
Also, it's not just about selling content. The social features (friends list, groups, unified server browser and matchmaking) and customer data are far more important over the long term. You definitely do not want to see those features under EA's control.
-
-
-
-
-
Valve: we give you a free set of tools which include cloud support, achievements, copy protection, matchmaking, and other things.
EA: We are giving you a chance to give us, your biggest publishing competitor, a slice of your profits in return of nothing from us.
Valve: Indies and Developers alike praise our level of support, competitive rates, and timely promotions.
EA: We are giving you a chance to give us, your biggest publishing competitor, a slice of your profits in return of nothing from us.
Valve: We have a long and celebrated history of releasing our DLC for free through Steam.
EA: We have a long and celebrated history of overcharging for our DLC, not making it compatible with how you bought it, or just not releasing it at all on PC.-
Yeah. Queue the people that say "competition is good" but I am still rooting for Valve. Unless the PC has suddenly become a new found strategic platform for EA again, this pissing match is like a tornado in a teacup and it does the PC platform no good. I also don't see Ubisoft, Activision, Take Two, Zenimax offering their wares on Origin. They'll open their own storefronts before giving EA a cut.
-
I may be a big Valve fan head (or used to, not so much anymore), but I've got to say that they are not without fault. Major faults that some of their competitors do right, which Valve, Steam does wrong.
For one there is support, which is super unfriendly, and takes 2-3 business day vs much better support on other systems. Their attitude towards broken games is 'lol', while their competitors are willing to work with you and even reimburse you.
Their billing policy is all kinds of whack. Have had an issue with your card? Well the whole account is blocked, not just the game affected by a CC issue.
They have no trading scheme like Green man gaming, or other incentives like blue coins from GamersGate.
Again, Steam is a good service, probably the best there is, but let's not blind ourselves in thinking that it's perfect.-
-
-
I've never said Steam or Valve was perfect, but I noticed how you completely avoided everything I said in my previous post about what EA and/or Origin brings to the table.
That said, what other services offer refunds for a game you bought and wasn't a preorder? Impulse? Any others? What other services offer trade ins? Green Man Gaming? Any others? And how do you think those trade in's will work with future EA games bought through them? HmmmmMMmmmm lets take a guess. And insofar as incentives are concerned, Valve offers incentives all the time - their last sale had incentives that didn't require buying anything. Simply earning achievements in games or doing stuff in steam that didn't require a game got me several free DLC packs and a full free game. I'd take that over gamersgate silly blue coin program any time. -
My only experience with support was when my account info got hijacked and they responded within the hour, only asked me if I could verify my last purchase.
Whole experience took less than an hour from my 1st email to them.
I cannot say the same thing about any of the multiple occasions I had to contact EA for downloader issues for both BF2 and BF2142 -
"whole account is blocked, not just the game affected by a CC issue" - This is the biggest worry for me. I am very hesitant to tie up all of my games in a service that can yank everything out from under me. I'll buy stuff on sale, but if for whatever reason I feel compelled to get a game at full price when new or whatever, I get it retail.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah. They're so butt hurt that they didn't have the foresight or the organization to build something like Steam. It's such a petty, come from behind play. Unless they've redone some projections in house, I assume that the consoles are still slated to provide most of EA's future revenue. Strong arming things on the PC side, now of all times, just comes across like a child's tantrum after he spent his allowance on a toy but now wants the model another boy is holding.
-
-
-
-
-
EA built this huge meta-game system where you use your EA login across all of their games, and all of their DLC has been distributed through this system for quite some time now. Then Valve comes along and changes the rules saying "You can no longer use that system if you want to stay on Steam."
In this case, I don't blame EA for choosing to do what they've done. It would require a lot of engineering to patch their already-released games to use an entirely new DLC distribution system.
If the policy only applied to new GAMES released after the change, rather than new DLC for already-released games, I think it would be more understandable. As it is, however, I think it's a pretty dick move by Valve.-
-
I can see EA's perspective, but to be honest, I can't find much sympathy. I think it's reasonable for Valve to expect participating developers/publishers to offer games and content in a way that adheres to their uniform system. The last thing the PC space needs is another over-engineered, intricate process for procuring extra content, content validation, patches or what have you.
You can see it as Valve being greedy, or as protecting the integrity of their platform.-
Well as I said in my post, I think Valve expecting that is reasonable. I think Valve expecting already-released games to change the way they deliver content is not reasonable.
I don't have all of the information though. Maybe Valve did give EA a heads-up years ago and EA did it anyway? It's possible.
-
-
-
Pretty much Valve said we want 30% of the money you are making off DLC and EA said no so valve said fine you can't have these here then.
Yeah EA isn't playing by their rules but they also changed them late in the game.
Valve is more to blame then EA.... I know that won't go over well here but it's true.-
-
-
-
-
Their current system is also something outside of Valve's reach, which is unacceptable for the publisher when something EA does might affect a consumer which then comes to Valve to ask why their stuff doesn't work.
In the current system, content compliance should be guaranteed by the entity making the sale. Valve has gotten shit for selling games in the past that didn't work correctly in Win7. It's an entirely valid point. If EA wants to implement this roundabout delivery solution where it skips Valve, I would completely be sympathetic to Steam in wanting to root that out.-
As I said in the post you lol'd at above, I don't think Valve's desire is unreasonable. I DO think it's unreasonable for them to expect already-released games be patched to conform retroactively. I think the policy change should only have applied to new games after a reasonable warning period (to give games in development ample time to prepare.)
-
Well we could also be assuming this came out of nowhere and EA was taken by surprise.
Conventional wisdom (and frank evaluations of how Valve does business courtesy of indie developer interviews) would say Valve rarely just springs new Steam policy changes on developers and publishers, and I seriously doubt EA didn't have ample time to enforce retroactive content compliance on older games.
DICE is still working on a 2142 patch, so I would assume EA, at the minimum, acknowledges that developers work on older games. To take another step and say, "Look, we need this, this, and this or else it'll get yanked off Steam" doesn't seem that hard. -
-
-
I am not opposed to EA making money, at all. I would really like to see something where Valve lowers the cut they take in return for EA putting more of their legacy titles (such as CnC Generals or NFS: Most Wanted) onto Steam.
Win-Win. Valve gets more money from additional sales which appear out of thin air, EA gets, let's say 5%, more money per transaction that involves little work on their part, and gamers everywhere rejoice!
But publisher segmentation? Screw that :( -
Also, the game falls under the umbrella of Valve's tech support to some degree, if the DLC is unavailable through Steam yet it's the DLC that causes the issue with the game, who do you talk to? Valve don't want the scenario where no one is accountable for the product that they are selling, which is (I believe) why games like Dawn of Discovery: Venice isn't available at the moment - Ubisoft are fucking around with the patches and the game is broken for some, so Valve pulled the game.
Furthermore, it's not particularly user friendly to buy DLC from within games (excluding TF2, which is almost too easy). The other end of the spectrum is Mass Effect 2 or even Dragon Age Origins (lol), which are mind-numbingly difficult to add DLC to (seriously, it took me 45 minutes to get DA:O's DLC enabled, and I didn't even purchase that via separate purchases).
Fuck EA, regardless.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
True, but Shackers tend to make it like Steam/Valve aren't out to make money and that $$$ has no factor in this equation and they wouldn't make a lot of money off of the DLC. I'm not defending EA (because their track record isn't that good) but if some other publisher like Paradox had the same issue with DLC on Steam as EA then Valve would actually get some fingers pointed at them instead of the fact its EA fuck EA.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Trying to push their own platform this late in the game, especially on the PC which is a second or third rate revenue source for them. They have now come back to the PC market after it was largely restored to health by Valve's efforts. EA wants a seat at the table in a house they didn't build and they want first serving.
-
-
Because the fragmentation that Origin introduces is big part of what made the PC space so unprofitable in the first place. This Origin play turns the clock back. This is about short term returns vs the long term health of the platform. EA is trying to push and shove their way to the front of the line. All they see is the additional 20%-30% cut Valve takes going into their own pockets. I don't think EA has any vision where platforms like Steam, Xbox Live, PSN, facebook, google+ are headed. They are too late to the table.
-
-
-
-
-
I would hardly call either of those assumptions wild. I think consoles still being the big money earners is a safe bet. Steam taking the PC off life support less so, but given how closely Origin's roadmap mimics Steam's feature set...well...I think that pretty well solidifies Steam as a major justification when Origin's backers went before EA's board to obtain funding for that initiative.
You coming back with a canned response that all these "assumptions" discredits all my previous posts in this thread is weak, OverloadUT. I think they are backed up by pretty sound reasoning as listed above.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yeah. If you are going to throw your hat into the ring then better to be one of the first as opposed to one of the last. Still, the PC is a small slice of EA's business. BF3, and especially ME3, are going to move more units on console. Origin cannot be cheap to run and it has no hope of getting support from other publishers. I see zero to tiny growth prospects here. Tighter control or direct access to customer data is good but aside from a short term cash grab, what can they really hope to accomplish with this thing?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
If BF3 and the Mass Effect Trilogy are only to be had on Origin then I will eventually break down and buy them but not at full price and not even at half price. EA's lucky they have DICE, I could go the Xbox360 route for Mass Effect and be Origin free. Battlefield and perhaps The Sims are the only EA product lines that appeal to me. At this point, I think its the fragmentation of the community features, the player base via competing friends list, groups, online profiles/achievements, server browser, matchmaking that upsets me the most.
-
-
-
Steam is so successful because it's a neutral ground. Aside from Valve, publisher controls the service. I can't imagine any publisher looking at Origins and going "yea, there's no conflict of interest here." Valve has no real incentive to tank other publishers' games because they release games so infrequently. EA has every incentive to do so because it is directly competing with other publishers all the time for the same customers. For example, look at BF3 and MW3. If Activision was stupid enough to put MW3 on Origins, EA would be incentivized to push customers away from MW3 and onto BF3.
-
-
right, but read my post again. Valve is rarely in competition with anyone because of their infrequent release schedule. At the most, there would be a conflict of interest once a year and even that's debatable. EA, on the other hand, puts out games every week as do many other publishers. That's a massive conflict of interest nearly every week.
-
-
-
-
Box versions it was a huge shitfest argument on here when Origin first came out.
http://store.origin.com/store/ea/en_US/pd/productID.81565900/sac.true
http://store.origin.com/store/ea/en_US/pd/productID.181157700/sac.true
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It is a rather interesting statement. I would expect forward-looking publishers would have already been on Steam, since it's still in the future compared to Origin.
Steam: Friend's list, its own good and non-invasive DRM scheme, SteamPlay (multiplayer code, matchmaking, and voice support for free), automatic patching, differential patching, file verification, driver updating, game file transfer between computers, and Steam Cloud (saved game and screen shot transfers).
Origin has no matches for any of those features. It does not even do file verification or patching.
-
-