I am not afraid of any launcher, here is proof. I am so brave in June 2020 I have no less than 7 launchers and get this on the QUICK LAUNCH BAR. I never understood if it is not on steam
I am not buying the game. I remember a time when I was young, where every game had it's own launcher, now that was tough times.:D Have to put the face in there for the internet crazy people
I remember a time when I was young, where every game had it's own launcher, now that was tough times.:D Have to put the face in there for the internet crazy people
Before that, we had to endure code wheels and search our manuals for word X on line Y of page Z. Every time we started the game, sometimes, even in the middle, it would ask again.
But that was only after installing 11 floppy disks to install a game at all, praying you don't get an error on disk 10. A problem? There's no internet. You're just plain ****ed.
Simpler times. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
I am not afraid of any launcher, here is proof. I am so brave in June 2020 I have no less than 7 launchers and get this on the QUICK LAUNCH BAR. I never understood if it is not on steam
I am not buying the game. I remember a time when I was young, where every game had it's own launcher, now that was tough times.:D Have to put the face in there for the internet crazy people
There are several reasons people don't like having multiple launchers, such as:
Dealing with the large and slow updates each of them involves
Not having a list of all of your games all in one place
Some features that affect a wide array of games work on one launcher but not others
The system resources they consume add up, fast, and affect boot times as a result
At best, it is inconvenient to pick the correct launcher for the right game, especially if someone wants to play a game on your system and doesn't know which store it belongs to
Many of these things can be easily avoided by just simply not running the launcher until you need it, which is basically what I do. But here's the problem with what EA is doing:
They're effectively tying you to 2 launchers. If I have to install Origin to play an EA game, that's fine, but then I might as well only buy it on Origin. If you buy it on Steam, the game is also tied to Steam. You need to run both. At least, that was my experience with Ubisoft/Uplay, since I have boycotted all games from EA for years.
As a Linux user, this can be a royal PITA, because launchers like Uplay need some tweaks to get working, and it's basically impossible to use those tweaks when you must go through Steam first.
Publishers either need to drop their own launcher when using a 3rd party launcher/DRM, or don't supply it on that platform. People like you might not be annoyed by it, but I assure you, nobody likes this. There is more to lose than there is to gain.
Before that, we had to endure code wheels and search our manuals for word X on line Y of page Z. Every time we started the game, sometimes, even in the middle, it would ask again.
But that was only after installing 11 floppy disks to install a game at all, praying you don't get an error on disk 10. A problem? There's no internet. You're just plain ****ed.
Simpler times. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
LOL ,Pepperidge Farm remembers Love Family guy. Started my gaming career in the 1970's on some console thing, where I had to go to the store to buy games.
schmidtbag:
There are several reasons people don't like having multiple launchers, such as:
Dealing with the large and slow updates each of them involves
Not having a list of all of your games all in one place
Some features that affect a wide array of games work on one launcher but not others
The system resources they consume add up, fast, and affect boot times as a result
At best, it is inconvenient to pick the correct launcher for the right game, especially if someone wants to play a game on your system and doesn't know which store it belongs to
Many of these things can be easily avoided by just simply not running the launcher until you need it, which is basically what I do. But here's the problem with what EA is doing:
They're effectively tying you to 2 launchers. If I have to install Origin to play an EA game, that's fine, but then I might as well only buy it on Origin. If you buy it on Steam, the game is also tied to Steam. You need to run both. At least, that was my experience with Ubisoft/Uplay, since I have boycotted all games from EA for years.
As a Linux user, this can be a royal PITA, because launchers like Uplay need some tweaks to get working, and it's basically impossible to use those tweaks when you must go through Steam first.
Publishers either need to drop their own launcher when using a 3rd party launcher/DRM, or don't supply it on that platform. People like you might not be annoyed by it, but I assure you, nobody likes this. There is more to lose than there is to gain.
Bull Shit and someone like me is fine with any launcher.
Bull crap and someone like me is fine with any launcher.
Which part? Most of what I said isn't a matter of opinion or preference, but fact.
Here's another fact: I'm not you, and neither are the other people here who don't like multiple launchers. If you are ok with multiple launchers, great. Nobody said you shouldn't be.
You said you don't understand why people don't like multiple launchers. I gave you some common reasons. Granted, you didn't ask for reasons, but to say "I don't understand" and then to completely dismiss any reasoning brought your way is a pretty ugly form of arrogance.
I vouched long ago to never give a single penny ever to ea games , look at what they did to so many beloved studios and their fransises especially dungeon keeper . So they can keep their lancer and their "surprise mechanics" i am not installing anything from em ! I do not have issues with multiple stores , my issue is clearly with ea here !
You robbed yourself experiencing a good game then - despite the heat that inquisition got from alot of people, i really liked the game... still do.
It was nothing against the game, I just buy too many games and have a stupid backlog. I love the Souls games and I still haven't played Sekiro, despite buying it shortly after launch...
Rob thyself. I know this. I've avoided Anno 1800 for the longest time over it being an Epic exclusive (and, I'm cheap). I've resisted (...I forgot). It's half price now, though. Perhaps I have already resisted EGS from getting full price. I'll bet it would look great on this big, new monitor. Damn right it would. (scans room for wallet...)
People like you might not be annoyed by it, but I assure you, nobody likes this. There is more to lose than there is to gain.
Bull crap and someone like me is fine with any launcher. When you put out a statement like this. Bull crap and someone like me is fine with any launcher.
schmidtbag:
Which part? Most of what I said isn't a matter of opinion or preference, but fact.
:D Have to put the face in there for the internet crazy people
I do not feel like arguing over stupid non important launcher that should not mean anything to anyone with a computer,
Your are 100% correct in everything you wrote.
The dual launcher thing doesn't bug me enough to avoid the games, I just don't see any EA games worth buying over the last few years. I think the last EA games I really enjoyed are Dead Space 2 and Crysis 3.
I think I bought DA: Inquisition on Origin, but never installed it...
I think that's why their pushing their games back to Steam. The increased exposure of EA games popping up in the Steam feed will likely get some extra buys. I haven't logged into Origin in about a year since being disappointed with BFV that I got on discount for 20 bucks. If people aren't using your launcher, they can't see what games you have available and sales will tank. I don't think they would make this move unless they were in trouble/not meeting sales targets.
This goes for any game that needs another launcher to be honest.
What's point having such games on Steam or EGS when you still need Uplay, Cockstar and Origin?
Assuming it's to take advantage of the OCD people who want everything in one place.
I don't look at a launcher once I play a game so which one is used is irrelevant to me.
Saying that, I don't buy games anymore as everything I play is via a subscription service and i see that EA are also looking at rolling that out to Steam in the future so pushing that is likely the reason for this happening.
Bull crap and someone like me is fine with any launcher. When you put out a statement like this. Bull crap and someone like me is fine with any launcher.
Yes, you're fine with it, but that's as good of a result as could possibly come out of this. You don't want this, you just don't have a problem with it; you tolerate it willingly. Using multiple launchers for the same game yields no benefits of any kind to the customer. It either inconveniences them with a secondary launcher, or, they're like you where that secondary launcher is already running anyway, in which case you could have just bought the game from that launcher. You're not getting an improved experience, you're either going to find it annoying, or just simply tolerate it. That's not how good customer service works. The only one who wins here is EA with added publicity.
The whole appeal of buying a game on a certain platform is because you like that platform, as opposed to the alternatives you could have bought it on. Some people want certain EA games, but not Origin. If Origin is a requirement for the game, what does the customer gain to involve Steam?
I think that's why their pushing their games back to Steam. The increased exposure of EA games popping up in the Steam feed will likely get some extra buys. I haven't logged into Origin in about a year since being disappointed with BFV that I got on discount for 20 bucks. If people aren't using your launcher, they can't see what games you have available and sales will tank. I don't think they would make this move unless they were in trouble/not meeting sales targets.
Well, I'm sure it's really just a math problem:
Steam takes a 30% cut, or used to when EA took all their stuff in house.
EA must have figured they could sell enough copies based on brand strength and marketing that they could make more money cutting Steam out of the loop.
I'm sure they had some low, medium, high projections for how well games would sell as Origin exclusives, and they probably stretched out over 3-5 years
After that initial 3-5 years, they were probably comparing their actual revenue to the projections and making a fresh set of projections
Included in those updated projections must have been some estimation on where the revenue dips low enough that it makes sense to put their games back on all the other storefronts like Steam and Epic Games Store.
Given the performance of some of their games over the last 2-3 years, it seems obvious they were not hitting their revenue targets with Origin exclusivity.
I imagine Epic Games Store coming on the scene as a competitor to Steam has also lowered that 30% cut (25%? 20%?)
With the above said, it's not hard to imagine a Business Analyst at EA walking their management through a slide deck that shows how much more money they could be making if they were store front agnostic.
If EA had made more killer games that drew in big business, they might have been able to stick with Origin exclusivity. Activision has made that work so far with their games. EA just hasn't had titles that hit, aside from Apex Legends.
Well, I'm sure it's really just a math problem:
Steam takes a 30% cut, or used to when EA took all their stuff in house.
EA must have figured they could sell enough copies based on brand strength and marketing that they could make more money cutting Steam out of the loop.
I'm sure they had some low, medium, high projections for how well games would sell as Origin exclusives, and they probably stretched out over 3-5 years
After that initial 3-5 years, they were probably comparing their actual revenue to the projections and making a fresh set of projections
Included in those updated projections must have been some estimation on where the revenue dips low enough that it makes sense to put their games back on all the other storefronts like Steam and Epic Games Store.
Given the performance of some of their games over the last 2-3 years, it seems obvious they were not hitting their revenue targets with Origin exclusivity.
I imagine Epic Games Store coming on the scene as a competitor to Steam has also lowered that 30% cut (25%? 20%?)
With the above said, it's not hard to imagine a Business Analyst at EA walking their management through a slide deck that shows how much more money they could be making if they were store front agnostic.
If EA had made more killer games that drew in big business, they might have been able to stick with Origin exclusivity. Activision has made that work so far with their games. EA just hasn't had titles that hit, aside from Apex Legends.
Put that in an equation. Even if the math is bad, I will give you a like, but don't half-ass it.
I am not afraid of any launcher, here is proof. I am so brave in June 2020 I have no less than 7 launchers and get this on the QUICK LAUNCH BAR. I never understood if it is not on steam I am not buying the game. I remember a time when I was young, where every game had it's own launcher, now that was tough times.:D Have to put the face in there for the internet crazy people