And BF3 doesn't even use anything from Origin...
FW: Choice is good. Green Man Gaming? Great site! You can also resell your games! How 'bout that? Good Old Games? Well, you can't get the latest stuff, but it's still a great site for older games. I would buy Kingpin on GOG over Steam. Gamers Gate usually has tons of sales, and they're usually just as good or better than Steam.
Origin is piss poor, and there's little to no excuse given the deep pockets that EA is privy to as well as how long they let their service languor before trying this bait-and-switch rebranding.
Especially considering Origin does absolutely nothing for BF3.
EA has had 7 YEARS to iron things out. 7 YEARS to try and compete with Steam. They have had their "foot in the door" for 7 YEARS now.
EA; step up or step off, son.
Exactly. On top of that; Valve started Steam, which was completely uncharted territory at the time, with very little capital. EA is one of the biggest publishers in the industry. Steam built themselves from the ground up and created the current environment for digital game distribution. Origin is a vain rebranding attempt to cash in.
EA's Origin isn't true competition. It's strongarming from the deep-pocketed bully.
EA has had a digital distro service for 7 years now.
There really is no excuse.
The agreement is that DLC must also be made available on Steam. You can still sell it yourself, it just has to be able to also be purchasable from Steam.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that. It prevents companies from exploiting Steam's F2P service by making a game F2P but only selling DLC on their own service, thus cutting Valve completely out.
Choice is good. Green Man Gaming? Great site! You can also resell your games! How 'bout that? Good Old Games? Well, you can't get the latest stuff, but it's still a great site for older games. I would buy Kingpin on GOG over Steam. Gamers Gate usually has tons of sales, and they're usually just as good or better than Steam.
Origin is piss poor, and there's little to no excuse given the deep pockets that EA is privy to as well as how long they let their service languor before trying this bait-and-switch rebranding.
Considering this is basically just an updated EA Store, and it's taken them 7 years just to get here, I remain doubtful that much will improve.
Also, while the social stuff is important, what's more important is the pricing. EA's sales are beyond dismal and their pricing schemes are piss poor. Steam has better sales on Sims 3, and more often, than EA's Origin/EA Store. What the hell is up with that?
"I haven't finished it yet, and while it's a solid game I find it lacks in a number of departments for what I expect for a PC game. For me it falls between a PC and a Console game, having no real identity with either."
Very much my opinion. It really feels conflicted throughout. As if they wanted to give you an open world, but didn't want to deal with the design hassles that come with an open world, so they tried to make it an "open corridor" shooter, if you will. It's not bad, but it does lack in areas and, overall, created a rather lackluster experience for me. Solid, engaging at times, and a decent showing for their engine, but there's nothing really all that compelling about it, either.
Oh, and the lack of support is rather troubling. I wonder if we'll ever get DLC at all...
iD were going to license out iDTech5 back when RAGE was still an EA Partners release. They were talking about support and tiered licensing, but that changed after being acquired by ZeniMax. Last I heard was that iDTech5 is staying within ZeniMax owned companies and there will be zero external licensing. iD still plan to eventually make it open source one day.
It could be that (Res Evil, Killer 7, Devil May Cry, God Hand) Shinji Mikami's Tango Gameworks could use it for something down the line.
RAGE is not a Games For Windows LIVE title. It is a "Games For Windows" game, but that isn't the same thing. In fact, RAGE is a Steamworks title, using cloud sync, achievements, and VAC.
Games For Windows means that it meets certain specs that MS sets forth for PC publishers. Things like, it has an "Easy Install" option, compatible with Vista/Win7 Gamer Explorer, capable of running on 64-bit OS (can still be 32-bit), normal and wide screen ratios, parental controls compatible, 360 pad support, and possibly a few other things. Basically, ensuring a stable product and standard feature set as set forth by MS's certification standards.
What you want to look for is the LIVE part.
The VGAs are a huge joke. It's 99% industry circle jerking paid for by the publishers. It's a worthless craphole and everyone who has any notion of gaming knows that. I watched it one year, several years ago, and haven't bothered since. It's like the Grammys and Oscars. Real talent and creativity are shrugged-off in favor of maintaining a constant mainstream hype for a few select blockbuster titles that happen to be "hot" at the moment and still in the mainstream consciousness.
A good example: Shogun 2 wasn't nominated for PC, but Minecraft was? Okay...
A good example: Shogun 2 wasn't nominated for PC, but Minecraft was? Okay...
And, of course, people still can't get it right. It's not a big deal, but, it's "I used to be an adventurer like you. Then I took an arrow in the knee..."
Not "TO the knee." IN THE KNEE, folks.
TMYK
Not "TO the knee." IN THE KNEE, folks.
TMYK
Digging around a bit more, it seems that there is 100% no doubt that forced arbitration is legal under the view of the Supreme Court. The previously mentioned cases have been eschewed in favor of Concepcions vs AT&T, which AT&T took all the way to the Supreme Court. The previous cases were decided or being decided in February. The Supreme Court's decisions regarding AT&T took place in April of 2011, after these cases.
However, this can be changed if Congress were to enact legislation limiting or altering arbitration laws.
Also of note, arbitration is horribly one-sided. The Christian Science Monitor notes that, "[a] Monitor analysis of the last year of available data from NAF found that arbitrators awarded in favor of creditors and debt buyers in more than 96 percent of the cases." This article is solely regarding credit-card arbitration, but it is widely known that arbitration heavily favors the paying client (typically the defendant (aka: company)).
Anyways, sorry for the poor info and if I may have erroneously misled anyone.
In closing, WRITE YOUR CONGRESS AND TELL THEM TO CHANGE THIS.
The last thing we need is companies privatizing legal proceedings.
However, this can be changed if Congress were to enact legislation limiting or altering arbitration laws.
Also of note, arbitration is horribly one-sided. The Christian Science Monitor notes that, "[a] Monitor analysis of the last year of available data from NAF found that arbitrators awarded in favor of creditors and debt buyers in more than 96 percent of the cases." This article is solely regarding credit-card arbitration, but it is widely known that arbitration heavily favors the paying client (typically the defendant (aka: company)).
Anyways, sorry for the poor info and if I may have erroneously misled anyone.
In closing, WRITE YOUR CONGRESS AND TELL THEM TO CHANGE THIS.
The last thing we need is companies privatizing legal proceedings.
Glad I could be of help. I'm trying to find more info on the AT&T case that went before the federal Supreme Court, and how that differs, or if it does, from what's going on in Illinois's Supreme Court and so forth.
Actually, I most certainly CAN blame them, and I DO, when they are trying to usurp the very foundations on which this nation was founded. It's called the 7th Amendment. It's a right. Likewise, there's also a lot grey area regarding NDAs, which some argue is a violation of free speech. Would you "not blame" a corporation for putting legalese that denied you the right to say anything negative about them, forever and even after leaving the company, as condition of employment? What about denying you from being able to promote or speak favorably about a competing pool cleaning product as part of the conditions for using a pool cleaning product?
Corporations cannot take away your Constitutional Rights, no matter what their teams of insane lawyers would like to think. That's why it's in the Bill of Rights, which our founding fathers created. The annoying part is that we have to drag this blatant crap up to challenge before the courts for it to be dismissed. Then, another jackass lawyer comes up with another egregious clause that blatantly flies in the face of basic right. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, etc.
Corporations cannot take away your Constitutional Rights, no matter what their teams of insane lawyers would like to think. That's why it's in the Bill of Rights, which our founding fathers created. The annoying part is that we have to drag this blatant crap up to challenge before the courts for it to be dismissed. Then, another jackass lawyer comes up with another egregious clause that blatantly flies in the face of basic right. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, etc.
And to make things clearer, arbitration means that you meet with MS' law department people and have them decide whether your case has merit and what damages/reparations should be paid rather than an actual court. Hint: they probably will not find in your favor, even if they blatantly at fault. Arbitration favors towards the defendant company over 90% of the time.
Interestingly, in the Kelo case, which drastically altered Eminent Domain, it was the liberal-leaning judges that were in favor. Scalia was against New England being able to seize unforeclosed property on the behalf of private business. That "champion of the people" lefty, John Paul Steven, wrote the majority opinion in favor of the changes in Eminent Domain.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
I haven't heard of this, but after watching the trailer, I'm totally watching this. It'll be a good companion to "The Corporation."
I haven't heard of this, but after watching the trailer, I'm totally watching this. It'll be a good companion to "The Corporation."
