EA blames Steam's “restrictive terms of service” for Battlefield 3 no-show

[KoosGP]

The whole steam system if flawed.. Call me old fashioned, but I do not enjoy paying for a game three times.

[Necuno]

The whole steam system if flawed.. Call me old fashioned, but I do not enjoy paying for a game three times.

Wow where did you pull that one out?

[MOnk]

Wow where did you pull that one out?

Yeah don't you know, Steam always makes you buy the game 3 times before you can actually play it, sesh common everyone knows that.

I've heard this argument before but last time it was only paying twice, I guess it must be inflation or something.

[Glordit]

The whole steam system if flawed.. Call me old fashioned, but I do not enjoy paying for a game three times.

Wow where did you pull that one out?

Yeah don't you know, Steam always makes you buy the game 3 times before you can actually play it, sesh common everyone knows that.

I've heard this argument before but last time it was only paying twice, I guess it must be inflation or something.

Pay 3 times? Never heard of that one before...

Anyway EA should just bite down and give it to steam they will make WAY more if it was on steam than if it was not. (money is what they want at the end of the day)

Other than that I don't care much as long as I get to play my Battlefield 3 DAMMIT!!

[DenSweeP]

Neither system is perfect. Steam is kak annoying at times when you want to play and it tells you, Steam is unavailable, please try again later. And I can guarentee Origin is also going to have some major issues at startup. I just hope they test run it before they release BF3.

[RoosTa]

Nah, Valve's ToS merely state that content for games hosted on Steam has to be delivered through Steam. Steam then takes 30% of the money made from the sale for themselves, which I think is fair, because they have to pay for bandwidth used when players download the games. EA tried to bypass this by rule by selling DLC for their games in-game, therefore bypassing Steam entirely. This means Steam would host content they don't get any money for, which is unfair towards Steam. EA has to sell their DLC through Steam so Steam can take their 30% cut. EA was very much aware of this when they started selling their DLC in-game, which leads me to think it's a purposeful move on EA's part, so that they don't have to outright pull their games from Steam.

It's also funny that EA never had issues with this rule until after they launched Origin.

Its not because of in-game DLC's, but rather because EA offered Direct-2-Drive an exclusive DLC.

Update: DeMartini told Gamasutra today that Crysis 2's removal from Steam was due to DLC being available through Direct2Drive, but not Steam.

http://www.1up.com/news/ea-desire-st...ames-off-steam

[MOnk]

You have to wonder, why exactly would you want to create content and then only sell it on a minor partner in the digital distribution space.