Sections

EA responds to Dragon Age II Steam disappearance, blames Valve’s “restrictive” TOS

Thursday, 28th July 2011 06:38 GMT By Nathan Grayson

Another day, another EA-related Steam vanishing act. This time around, it was Hawke that flew the coop. But why? Sorry, folks: no final act plot twist here. Valve’s new DLC policy has reared its ugly head again. On the upside, though, EA’s now seeking to “work out an agreement” to keep Valve from sinking more of its flagship titles.

“Unfortunately, Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to sell downloadable content. No other download service has adopted this practice. Consequently some of our games have been removed by Steam,” EA said in a statement to IGN.

“We hope to work out an agreement to keep our games on Steam.”

So then, 457th verse, same as the first. Does anybody know the name of a good couples counselor?

Breaking news

41 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Lounds

    no other publisher has a problem, EA are bullshitting everyone, they want control of their products, Origin is gonna cost them more money in the end, it’s cheaper for them to get the massive sales that Steam would supply them.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. OlderGamer

    I agree with Lounds.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. DarkElfa

    Agreed. They’re doing this in order to pull as many big money titles as possible off of Steam to bolster Origin, otherwise they would have TOR, BF3 and ME3 up for Steam as well.

    Valve isn’t denying anything because it has nothing to deny. Valve is pulling these titles. They’re pulling them because EA wants to sell DLC inside the game and bypass having to give Valve a nickle for it and knowing that it violates Steam’s terms means Steam has to pull it.

    IOW, By refusing to back down on selling DLC in-game, they’re forcing Steam to pull their games which is exactly what EA wants and they get to look like the oppressed hero while making Steam, Origin’s direct and largest competitor look like the bad guy.

    Funny they never apparently had a problem with Steam’s DLC terms before Origin launched, huh?

    #3 3 years ago
  4. ultramega

    QQ moar, EA. And yeah, Lounds is right.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. GrimRita

    Indeed. Only EA seem to have a problem with Steam, so clearly EA are hiding behind something. Its also clear from their recent PR bullshit about Origins that they want it to rival Steam.

    EA are simply tits.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. frostquake

    Wait…is this another Bad Guy..trying to look like a Good Guy?? Very Corporate of you EA ;)

    #6 3 years ago
  7. viralshag

    Maybe EA don’t believe they should offer Valve, another publisher, a cut for DLC which they can offer to the gamer without the actual Steam service and through their own game.

    I do find it quite funny that everyone has a problem with the high priced evil retailers that take a huge cut of all the profits but has no problem whatsoever with the nice chaps at Steam who are essentially trying to get their slice of the pie as well as a bite of everyone else’s slice that doesn’t necessarily need to pass by their table.

    I like Valve, I like Steam, I’m not sure when 100% profits going back to the publisher/devs was a bad thing. But at the end of the day, Valve are just another publisher getting very rich of a lot of other peoples games. Granted, they do offer a fantastic service but it wouldn’t surprise me if EA, and other similar publishers, begin to feel like they managed to replace one middle man (retail) for another.

    I don’t think Origin will cost EA anything, I think enough PC gamers will use the service for BF3 and TOR to make it more than a success. While there is a huge amount of Steam users and extremely loyal Steam users, I reckon there are a ton of gamers, like me, that don’t really care where they get the games from.

    And lastly, this isn’t a “<3 ORIGIN OWNZ UR FACE", I have used it for TOR and there is a fair bit to be desired about the service. The prices are still too high and the interaction between the online store/Origin/ordering is pretty terrible.

    tl;dr, Steam is good. Origins is ok. EA is good. Valve is good. Everyone share the love… and money.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Freek

    No other publisher has come into conflict with Steam because they don’t run a rival downlaod service.

    Steam is fine, as long as you respect thier monolopy position. That’s dangerous from a consumers perspective. Choice and compition is what benifits us, no one download service should be dominating the scene entirely.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. DarkElfa

    Not always. I prefer to be able to get everything from someone I trust. I don’t want to have to go through 5 different DL programs to get all my crap when I can have it in one place.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Lounds

    With steam I have over 30 games I can install on any machine and it’s from a range of publishers, and no DRM issues, steam is how PC gaming should be.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Phoenixblight

    @10

    Origin is the same way, not sure what your point is?

    #11 3 years ago
  12. GrimRita

    The problem is how EA have gone about this by simply ‘blaming’ Valve for the removal of their games, when clearly EA knew the rules and decided to break them.

    As mentioned by others, no other publisher has an issue and its very clear that EA dont want to pay anyone outside EA a single penny for their games going forward.

    By forcing Origin on people, which is what they are doing with their games, its going to create a dark cloud again over EA, who until recently, were turning a corner after all the buy outs and bad press when they shut down talented studios like Westwood, Bullfrog etc.

    I’ve had to download origin to play Bf3 alpha and its nothing special. However, I dont want another DD client, I like Steam and the service they offer, so if I do buy BF3 and SWTWoW, I will have to purchase a box copy from Amazon, but knowing EA, the day will come when BOTH WILL require Origin to play

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Phoenixblight

    “I’ve had to download origin to play Bf3 alpha and its nothing special. However, I dont want another DD client, I like Steam and the service they offer, so if I do buy BF3 and SWTWoW, I will have to purchase a box copy from Amazon, but knowing EA, the day will come when BOTH WILL require Origin to play”

    That was already mentioned yes it will require origin. They are using just like steam where it is a DRM with benefits.

    “As mentioned by others, no other publisher has an issue and its very clear that EA dont want to pay anyone outside EA a single penny for their games going forward.”

    They are a business they want to be able to sell it for 100% and steam shouldn’t be a monopoly like @7 said. And the reason why no other publisher has done this is because EA is the only one that offers their DLC through an ingame service. No one wants to give up 30% when they can sell it and gain the 100% by going directly to publisher.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. viralshag

    I wish people would stop saying EA “have broken the rules,” what rules have they broken exactly? There is a lot more to business then one person saying “these are the terms, I hope you like them because you have no other choice!” And then the person on the other side of the table saying “yeah, sure, why not? We agree to EVERYTHING you lay out in front of us.”

    You seem to forget that both Valve and EA are publishers. They are competitors and so of course there will be natural friction between the two because they both want to make money. Valve is nothing more than another middleman, albeit a good one for us gamers as consumers. We really have no idea what other publishers really feel and think about their dealings with Steam.

    Of course, some publishers generate a lot more sales through Steam and will naturally be happy for them to lose a portion of their profits as they will be generating more profit on a whole anyway. But to assume that publishers and developers have to and should use Steam just because they are King of the Download Market is ridiculous.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. GrimRita

    Steam havent yet abused their position in the market, so until that does happen, I will continue to trust them. However, the same CANT be said of EA.

    Steam provide a service and its right developers and publishers pay for that service – the same is when retailers take a cut from selling the games. EA just want 100% of the pie and this will all end in tears.

    And despite this, EA have already started to take the piss with their pricing of their titles on Origin. £55 for a digital deluxe version of Mass Effect 3, £80 for SWTWoW deluxe edition.

    Destructoid have an interesting piece as well on how EA are simply taking the piss http://www.destructoid.com/a-little-something-about-ea-origin-s-prices-205784.phtml – so its clear that EA have already started to abuse their position in the market by charging what they want for their games.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. GrimRita

    @14 EA claim its Valvs T&Cs of business but havent really directly said what it is they brought their games off Steam. Clearly its something EA have done because everyone has hasnt got a single problem.

    Thats the point.

    And just read this on D’D
    For what it’s worth, our sources indicate that the game being pulled may be directly connected to the availability of the “Legacy” downloadable content. EA was offering the content by way of an in-game store, which may be a violation of the latest version of Steam’s terms of service. If this is the case, EA and BioWare would have had to re-write parts of the game software just for Steam, simply to conform with Valve’s standards. It’s possible that EA’s refusal to do so may have led to Valve yanking the title entirely.

    http://www.destructoid.com/steam-yanks-dragon-age-ii-may-not-be-origin-related-207166.phtml

    This could be the reasons behind some of whats going on.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. Phoenixblight

    @16

    Like the article states Valve has a strict DLC TOS and since EA sells their DLC directly through the game to EA themself. Valve doesn’t like that. SO they remove the games. Valve removed DA2 the day of the new DLC. 1 + 1 = 2?

    #17 3 years ago
  18. RockTwist

    @15 £59.99 and £5 pre-order (which is off the final price) for the Digital Deluxe of SWTOR.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. GrimRita

    @17 Indeed. Clever move by EA….. funny how DLC for all other games can be purchased outside of a game. Which, raises questions about EA going forward – will they be offering in game transactions for BF3 and probably will for SWTWoW at some point?

    @18 I should have said dollars! And Mass Effect 3 is around $79, around £55ish quid.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. viralshag

    @16, If their statement is correct and honest, then we know exactly why their games have been removed. It would be due to a violation of whatever contract is in place.

    The point I’m trying to make is that everyone is looking for someone to be a “bad guy” in all this. When really, the truth of the matter is, quite simply, that the two companies are not in complete agreement of the terms and conditions laid out in the service. Nothing more, nothing less.

    EA still offer their games on all other download services who do not dictate to them how they can and cannot deliver DLC. So as much as you say EA is the odd one out because they aren’t playing by Steam’s rules, you could just as easily say that Steam is the odd one out by not playing by EA’s rules.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. viralshag

    And what’s more, as both the companies are publishers offering similar services, one might have to ask themselves “are these our customers buying EA games or are they Valve’s customers buying through Steam?”

    If you look at in that kind of sense, it makes sense that EA would want to capture a more direct share of the people buying their games. Which, in my opinion, is perfectly legitimate and something they are entitled to do.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. GrimRita

    Point taken but imo, Steam have more or less ‘saved’ PC gaming from all the PR bullshit spreading around saying it was dead. And until the time comes when they let me down, I will always remain a fanboy ;)

    #22 3 years ago
  23. viralshag

    @22, Like I said earlier, I’m in no way trying to dispute that Steam is a great service. And Origins still has a long way to go before they are truly competitive – mostly to do with their pricing.

    As a service though, I don’t have that much issue with it all. It’s not like I’m getting out of my chair or having to use a different computer. To me, it’s just a few more clicks. And I can totally understand why it annoys Steam users because of the whole social side of it.

    I have thoroughly enjoyed this topic of conversation though. :D

    #23 3 years ago
  24. deathgaze

    There’s much hay being made about Origin being a competetor to Steam. From what I’ve seen of Origin, it’s a lousy competitor. Games don’t update through Origin and the selection of games is anemic. That’s not to say that it might not get better in the future. But all this grandstanding between EA and Valve is causing more harm to PC gaming than good.

    As far as Evil Overlords go, Valve have proven themselves to be relatively benevolent. EA, on the other hand, has a proven track record of monopolistic behavior and business manipulation. This whole affair is just another chip on their shoulder on their march to total global dominance in the game industry.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. DSB

    @viralshag Valve haven’t published anything except for their own games, maybe one or two a year (and then only online – EA was the publisher for Portal 2, and Sierra for Half-Life and Half-Life 2) just like Impulse, and by all accounts they set the bar by offering their partners 70% of the profits on retail, where most other stores would offer 30%. If they were a serious publisher, then none of the other publishers would work with them, which obviously isn’t the case.

    If they’re delivering a platform for EA to sell their DLC, then they want a cut. It’s pretty simple. EA want a free pass on that, and Steam, being the supreme market leader, isn’t about to simply accept that. Post-game DLC sales can sometimes add up to 50% of the profits earned on a game.

    And technically, Origins is the exact opposite of a competitive retailer, because they can set whatever price they like. Even if they take it upon themselves to underbid everybody else by 20%, they’d still be making EA an extra 10% on the margins. Nobody is able to compete with that.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. viralshag

    @DSB, But the problem here seems to be the fact that EA are quite happy to provide their DLC without the platform. And if that is the case, then what makes them entitled to a share of the profit? For example, if I purchased DLC in-game and had to download it from Origin, Steam is not at all required for that portion of the game.

    They have made their 30% of the profit from the original game sale and I have used their distribution services, fair enough. Now I want to purchase DLC for the game which doesn’t require that service and they don’t take any money because I use Origin, again I think that is perfectly fair. Maybe not efficient, but fair.

    Like I said before, thinking that Steam is entitled to a cut of everything sold online just because “they are nice and do it well” is practically giving them a free ride to monopolyville. And if the fact that a company wants to make 100% profit after giving away 30% of the base item, put’s Steams nose out of joint, I have to ask myself “who is the one being greedy here?”

    #26 3 years ago
  27. DSB

    @26 The fact that they’re providing the storefront and the original sale, is what they feel entitles them to be included in the post-sale transactions. This hasn’t been a problem for other publishers, or even EA themselves until now, when it’s time to gobble up the margins.

    What Steam is proposing is actually the opposite of a monopoly. What EA is doing is a monopoly, albeit a legal one, by withdrawing their DLC from competition, and from independent retailers, who could then compete to sell it.

    I don’t see any suggestion that Steam are entitled to money because they’re popular. They feel they’re entitled to money because they’re delivering the platforms for that DLC. It’s business, and as much as everybody else would like to make it a fairytale with white hats and black hats, that’s still all it is.

    In terms of greed, that’s just really being silly. Steam is a private company, unlike EA and Gamestop, so unlike those companies, they aren’t forced to try and monetize on every little thing they do. EA and Gamestop belong to the stockmarket, and the stockmarket only knows one way – Growth and profits before everything else. That certainly doesn’t make Steam less of a business, but accusing them of greed on a scale comparable to that, especially given their history, is more than slightly ridiculous.

    I’d say it’s a lot more greedy to get 70% on an item that would otherwise only render you 30%, and then proceed to aggressively pursue the remaining 30%, at the expense of competition and the independent retail market. That’s the sort of cynical predation that can only really be explained by the stockmarket.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. GrimRita

    Steam are essentially and online retailer, aside from their publishing duties. EA want to cut out the middle man – look at their recent sweeping statements about retail and how everything is going digital, which it probably will. But who do we have to thank for that? Steam!

    deathgaze speaks the truth, EA have a track record of being arseholes and this kind of behaviour just reinforces that view.

    In another couple of years, lets see what EA have planned, as this is probably phase 1 ‘claim being treated unfairly by terms and conditions’ phase 2 ‘add microtransactions to everything we do’ and it will come. Battlefield Heroes and F2P are clearly testing grounds

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Lounds

    but steam provides the customers, which generates the huge sales and profit, so even if you ain’t getting a huge chunk of pie, you they’re still selling like hot pancakes, which is more than what could be said to origins user base, which will never get anywhere near steams users ever, it’s like google+ becoming more popular than Facebook, it ain’t gonna happen.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. DSB

    @29 I think that’s a very dangerous prediction :p

    Google+ is going to steamroll Facebook unless something drastic happens.

    The math is pretty simple:

    BF3 hype + Origin exclusive content = BF3 fanboys on Origin. With a little luck, that’s a couple million customers down.

    SWTOR hype + Origin exclusive game = SWTOR fanboys on Origin. With a little luck, that’s another couple of million.

    Dragon Age is no big loss as long as Steam is still selling The Witcher 2.

    Impulse is a mess, so it’s not like people are going to go to Gamestop when they can have a nice sleek, Steam-inspired client like Origin.

    And then you consider the fact that Ubisoft and Activision are most definitely watching from the sideline, with proprietary services like Battle.net or Ubisoft Online Services Platform at the ready, and shareholders who are going to be asking for 100% margins on their sales.

    It’s gonna be a terrible market.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. Joe_Gamer

    Publishers are more than happy to let steam handle the heavy lifting, storing and transmitting large game installation files and putting their games in the steam store with it’s massive customer base, that’s all great for them but that little 250mb dlc, keep your hands off steam, we don’t wanna share that pie with you. DLC can be advertised directly to the target market right there in game so they don’t need steam for that. Either the publishers will give in and allow steam to carry the DLC as well as the games or steam will compromise, recognize that publishers don’t exactly need them for DLC transactions and lower their fees for DLC purchases. They’re both in the wrong if you ask me, Publishers need steam to get their games into customers hands, trying to cut steam out after that point, after they have reaped the benefits is just plain greedy(greed is good right?). By the same token Steam should recognize that they are not essential to DLC sales like they are to game sales so expecting to collect the same markup is basically a bit of the same sort of greed. Steam should charge a smaller markup for dlc and publishers shouldn’t try to hog the entire market to them selves, a good compromise is when everyone walks away unhappy. As a customer I expect to be able to buy games/dlc from any vender I choose.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. darksied

    I think it’s funny how the words “truth” and “obviously” and others get thrown around a lot, when nobody really knows anything; we’re only speculating. And only EA has said anything, and most everyone consider THEM to be the ones lying? :) No real point, I just find it funny.

    @24: “EA, on the other hand, has a PROVEN track record of monopolistic behavior and business manipulation.”

    Can you give me some examples? I hear this a lot, but I haven’t been a big customer of EA’s in the past. What did they do?

    #32 3 years ago
  33. viralshag

    @30, Yes. Google+ ftw and I think it has a chance to be more popular than FB.

    @29, Steam provides the service for the customers. If people really want the game, I honestly can’t see the lack of one distributor severely impacting the sales.

    @28, Personally, I’m not reading it as EA trying to make out like they are being treated unfairly. I say again, I just see this as two businesses not seeing eye to eye on the terms of their contract.

    @27, How can EA be proposing a monopoly if their games are still available through all the other digital distributors? If I buy a game from retail, does anyone think they are entitled to a share of DLC profits? Of course not, because after the initial transaction, I have no further dealing with them.

    I think it’s ridiculous to think that Valve, as a company, are not in the business to make money. And I’m not accusing them of greed, I’m simply pointing out that trying to force publishers to keep all profitable content under the umbrella of Steam, seems slightly greedy to me. And I don’t like to use the word “force” as that would imply Steam are acting unfairly.

    And yes, I agree with you, it is business. And I don’t think anywhere in my comments I have thought anything other than that. If that’s what you were implying. I also think the whole situation is being blown way out of proportion because of certain loyalties, finger pointing and fear mongering.

    In truth, it wouldn’t surprise me if EA games return back on Steam sooner over later, DLC and all. If I’m wrong, then I guess it could mean a more profitable future for individual publishers and possibly a slightly less glowing time for Steam. As for what will happen with the market, I have no idea.

    #33 3 years ago
  34. DSB

    @32 If you consider the facts, then it’s really not hard to figure out where the problem is.

    And nobody’s saying that anyones lying. Of course EA got their game “pulled” due to Steams terms of service. I don’t see how that changes anything though.

    None of us actually know the strategies involved, but given that EA are getting their games “pulled” while buddying up with Steams traditional competitors (and Origins own competitors, at that) says a lot.

    Of course there’s speculation, but it’s not exactly unfounded.

    EA has been subject to several anti-trust suits over their sportsgames. They make sure they own everything from the leagues to the names of the players, which leaves no one able to compete, since they essentially own the licences to the leagues and their players in digital form. I’m not to be the one to say what’s right and what’s wrong, but it obviously doesn’t leave the market very open.

    #34 3 years ago
  35. DSB

    @30 Nobody’s talking about their core games, they were obviously happy to deliver those through Steam. We’re talking about the DLC, which is most likely what’s constituting a violation of the terms. In terms of DLC, EA is enforcing a legal monopoly, which leaves it withdrawn from competition.

    I’d say there’s a big difference between brick and mortar and digital distribution. Steam is heavily involved in supporting the game post-launch with patches, as well as supplying the bandwidth needed to install the game as many times as you’d like. And they do it for less than half the expense of what their suppliers would face at retail.

    As such, they enforce the principle of “In for a dime, in for a dollar” – If you want to sell your games there, then you have to do it in good faith.

    In the real world, in any business, if you bring someone a sale, then you’re going to be entitled to a cut. In this case EA wants it all to themselves, regardless of where their DLC customers come from. The majority of which would obviously come from Steam.

    Valve are in the business to make money, and Steam wants your money as much as any other business, as stated above. It’s just that the notion that they’re as desperate to meet the unreasonable demands of the stockmarket, as two publicly traded companies, is more than a little crazy.

    As a private company, Valve can afford to throw away money on pet projects, EA and Gamestop need to make money on every dollar, or face the wrath of their shareholders.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. darksied

    @30 “It’s gonna be a terrible market.”

    Why? If there’s a lot of download services, like Steam, Impulse, D2D, Origin, Activision’s, Ubisoft’s, THQ, etc. ALL of them have their own client, it’ll only be inconvenient. The market, I think, will be fine. Each publisher will have it’s games, but they will be available on other sites as well. How are they going to get you to buy from them? They will have to offer something that amazon, steam, gamestop, etc. are NOT offering.

    It should make for competitive pricing. Now, if they ONLY offer their own games (i.e. Activision/EA/THQ don’t offer their games on any other service but their own), then it not be as good. But they will still have to be competitive, because there’s always retail; you can always go to amazon and get a game with free shipping, go to best buy or gamestop, etc and buy whatever you want. So they are still competing with retail.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. DSB

    @36 Because four of the ones you mention will be controlling the wholesale price while retailing themselves. As such they’ll always be in a position to offer a better price than everybody else, undermining competition.

    They’ll be able to underbid them, and still make more on every sale.

    Not to mention the fact that if you’re making 100% margins on every sale, and you have a big enough userbase, perhaps by virtue of being able to make the better deals at all times, then there’s absolutely no reason to continue working with the independent retail market, which would be disastrous in terms of competition. As EA has discovered, why settle for 70% of a sale when you can have 100%, and keep a monopoly on post-sale transactions?

    Competition only exists as long as everybody is able to trade on the same terms.

    You expect EA to sell people their games so they can actively compete against their own client? Obviously they aren’t too willing to compete with Steam at the moment, that should be a clue.

    #37 3 years ago
  38. viralshag

    @35, And like any middleman in business, you are going to fight tooth and nail to avoid your publisher / developer / manufacturer to go direct to client. Which is what it looks like Steam is doing. Because like we have seen with the middleman retailer, the evolution of the games industry is moving towards a space where they may not be necessary.

    Talking about who is and isn’t desperate to meet demands and targets of the company seems pointless and redundant, imo. If it wasn’t for EA, there wouldn’t be the games, if there weren’t any games, Steam would not have them to sell anyway. It strikes me completely pointless whether or not the companies are private or publicly traded.

    Given the fact that EA have in the past and still do have their games being sold through Steam, I still fail to see how they are trying to get 100% profit. If EA decide to pull their entire library from Steam and all the other digital distributors, then I guess you can say “I told you so” but until that time, I really don’t see how EA are being any less greedy than any other company in the game industry right now.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. DSB

    @38 The first paragraph is spot on. Steam is of course going to fight tooth and nail to keep the market open to independent retailers. My point is that we’re better off with independent retailers competing amongst eachother, rather than publishers rigging the dice and gaining an unhealthy ammount of control over the retail market. We don’t stand to gain anything from that.

    I’m simply pointing out the difference between a private company and a publicly traded one. A private company can do what it wants (depending on the structure and the funding) whereas a public one is whipped towards increasing profits year on year, by a ruthless market that’s never satisfied.

    Which goes a long way to explain why 70% of the take suddenly isn’t good enough for EA, in spite of getting more on every sale than they ever have, in the history of the company. It’s just the next in a long line of grabs to make money off of nothing, that the industry as a whole has put forward in the last few years. DLC allows them to sell less for more, to a bigger audience, and online passes allow them to interfere with the used games market.

    The whole point of Origin is getting 100% of the profits. Whether or not that’ll turn into a nightmare for gamers remains to be seen, we already have the inconvenience of having to switch clients to play games like BF3. Maybe Steam will cave and wave goodbye to their cut, but that’ll still be publishers 1 and independent retail 0.

    Personally I just prefer an independent retailer that’s able to be challenged on the market, over a publisher that’s able to name its own price.

    #39 3 years ago
  40. viralshag

    @39, The only thing I would say to that is do you not think, even as a retailer, that 80% of the digital distribution market share is somewhat unhealthy anyway?

    Origin netting 100% of the profit, in my eyes, is not a bad thing. Like I have said before in other conversations, I would really hope that would mean more money for the publisher and so more money for the developer. But we all know that can swing either way and more specifically in that conversation, I do think the whole publicly traded/investor talk comes into it.

    At the end of the day, all I really care about is getting some invites to the TOR beta weekends and them releasing the damn game. :P

    It’s been fun but I’m done now and going home. We should all do this again sometime. :D

    #40 3 years ago
  41. DSB

    @40 I’d say it depends on what that retailer does with the marketshare, supposedly it’s 50-70% depending on who you ask. It’s won fair and square, and it’s open to challenge, so that doesn’t worry me. The deals they made with Activision were obviously not kosher though.

    #41 3 years ago