3 ms·

> Origin and Uplay seem to add no value for a user, and I remember a big fuss a while back about Origin scanning people's PCs a bit too eagerly. I think the is

> Origin and Uplay seem to add no value for a user, and I remember a big fuss a while back about Origin scanning people's PCs a bit too eagerly. I think the issue is when EA and Ubisoft bundles Uplay and Origin in the games distributed through Steam, forcing you to create a Uplay/origin account and install it. I understand why they're doing it (so that people install Uplay/origin), but I really dislike it. Also it recently prevented me from playing a Ubisoft title, as I couldn't get it to run with the last Uplay version. > I think Ubisoft and EA also started withdrawing their newer titles from Steam and the likes to push people towards their own platforms, but that isn't consumer-friendly in the least bit. For EA it worked so well they started putting back their games on Steam...

gigaflop 5y ago
EA and Ubisoft can try to have their cake and eat it too, but Steam has been better at showing what EULAs and online accounts are required before a consumer makes a purchase. The Steam Store page for Assasin's Creed: Odyssey (the last Creed game I remember news of) tells us to expect Denuvo DRM (an anti-feature that some people boycott, chosen by Ubi), a 3rd-party account requirement, and whatever the game's actual EULA is. Nevermind the face that the game is MSRP on Steam, and Ubi had it marked down to $15 on their own platform when I checked. Gee, I wonder why the price hasn't been cut on Steam? </s> As for EA specifically, they've been a bit of a dumpster fire for PC gamers, and have pushed a lot of 'Games are a Live Service' stuff. They've released games that are partially broken on day 1, but have their microtransaction systems fleshed out. While purchasable on Steam, their latest Battlefield game still requires an EA account, to get people onto their Epic Store. It's just a way to advertise in front of the Steam crowd, to tease them towards their platform with some discounts. (very opinionated, if you haven't noticed)

gigaflop 5y ago

EA and Ubisoft can try to have their cake and eat it too, but Steam has been better at showing what EULAs and online accounts are required before a consumer makes a purchase. The Steam Store page for Assasin's Creed: Odyssey (the last Creed game I remember news of) tells us to expect Denuvo DRM (an anti-feature that some people boycott, chosen by Ubi), a 3rd-party account requirement, and whatever the game's actual EULA is. Nevermind the face that the game is MSRP on Steam, and Ubi had it marked down to $15 on their own platform when I checked. Gee, I wonder why the price hasn't been cut on Steam? </s> As for EA specifically, they've been a bit of a dumpster fire for PC gamers, and have pushed a lot of 'Games are a Live Service' stuff. They've released games that are partially broken on day 1, but have their microtransaction systems fleshed out. While purchasable on Steam, their latest Battlefield game still requires an EA account, to get people onto their Epic Store. It's just a way to advertise in front of the Steam crowd, to tease them towards their platform with some discounts. (very opinionated, if you haven't noticed)