Interfectum
Gold Member
No disc, Steamworks, better graphics, 60 FPS for only a one to two month wait? I'll dig into my massive backlog to make the wait easier. ;p
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Valve counters EA's Steam sales "cheapen intellectual property" accusation
- Thread starter JustinBB7
- Start date
No disc, Steamworks, better graphics, 60 FPS for only a one to two month wait? I'll dig into my massive backlog to make the wait easier. ;p
you'll just get the typical lacklustre response "lol valve fans are just as delusional as ea fans", as if the best argument they give is a stalemate.
Because you don't own a console due to financial concerns?
I'm a real gamer, and I know that next gen I'm probably only buying WiiU because I know I'll never see a Nintendo game on my PC. With so few exclusives on Sony or Microsoft hardware that I really care about, I can play everything else on my PC eventually. Why invest in those platforms?
StoppedInTracks
Member
Stump never mentions Valve in that post.
Hellsing321
Member
Well if the wait for the PC version is so far off, the company releasing it has probably pissed me off so many times that I'm no longer a fan of what they produce. Looking at you, Ubisoft.
The people who might agree with EA's argument; keep in mind that current full game prices are ridiciulous on consoles. CoD Modern Warfare costs as much as Skyrim.
Skyrim and massive open world games should cost 60$. CoD, Battlefield and the likes should cost 20$-30$. They offer a 5-10 hour single player story experience, and multiplayer, which you may spend a lot of time on, but multiplayer is competitive based repetition on a couple of maps using the SP mechanics of the game, and with considerably less content than any single player game in most cases. In the cases where a game was uniquely developed for MP, it'll still just consist of recycling a couple of maps/placing you on a couple of maps with underdeveloped SP mechanics.
Skyrim and massive open world games should cost 60$. CoD, Battlefield and the likes should cost 20$-30$. They offer a 5-10 hour single player story experience, and multiplayer, which you may spend a lot of time on, but multiplayer is competitive based repetition on a couple of maps using the SP mechanics of the game, and with considerably less content than any single player game in most cases. In the cases where a game was uniquely developed for MP, it'll still just consist of recycling a couple of maps/placing you on a couple of maps with underdeveloped SP mechanics.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It's a special case of ad hom (poisoning the well) which in this case is not a logical fallacy; EA is not sincere when they advance the "cheapen intellectual property" argument, or at least they don't behave in a way that is consistent with sincerely believing that. Lacking sincerity, we can simply treat them as a "Devil's Advocate" and ignore them. There are enough people advancing arguments seriously to deal with, no need to waste time on someone who is, for all intents and purposes, trolling with their argument. In other words, EA are themselves committing an ad hom by deliberately advancing an unproven and negative claim about Valve, not because they sincerely agree with the argument, but because they stand to benefit from people falling for the claim.
Moreover, their argument neither satisfies burden of proof nor attempts to classify how it might, hypothetically, satisfy burden of proof if only we had some absent evidence either way, and so it requires no response prima facie.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
If it makes you feel any better, we only get sales like that on physical books. We don't get that much by way of discounts on eBooks, where publishers have conspired to keep the prices high to protect their existing income models. Furthermore, Apple helped them out with a hope to gain market share with their own book service.
Generally, the majority of publishing houses in the majority of forms of entertainment have no idea how to sustain a business model that was built around control of a physical product, nor do they know how to control a retailer that sells a non-physical product in bulk, and they are responding through anti-competitive measures. It's really only software where people are trying to be a little forward thinking, but that's probably because they have to keep up with their audience to stay relevant and they never really had much of a physical product to control in the first place.
If the RIAA, MPAA, and the AAP could un-invent the internet, they would.
What I understood of EA's initial complaint and Valve's response, is that barely anyone in the gaming industry actually understands what Valve is doing.
Valve themselves barely understand what's going on.
More than anything, Valve is a house of intense, extreme, risky, and fast-paced experimentation. They have no fucking clue what's going on in customers' minds when they hold sales. They don't try to over-think things ahead of time, and even after they get billions of datapoints from holding countless sales, they still can't prescribe any exact science to any of it.
When I saw EA inanely comment on the "devaluation of IP", I just shook my head. They just don't get it. Valve is simply doing what they think could be cool and interesting, and their customers are responding in completely unreliable and unexpected ways.
Instead of following Valve's lead or charging ahead in their own unique ways, it's like EA just observed what Valve was doing on the most shallow, lazy, surface level, and reached an inaccurate conclusion based on their own lack of understanding of their own customers. Then, of course, they held their own sale two weeks later that contradicted that entire point, but the sale went nowhere because there just wasn't anything interesting about it.
Valve themselves barely understand what's going on.
More than anything, Valve is a house of intense, extreme, risky, and fast-paced experimentation. They have no fucking clue what's going on in customers' minds when they hold sales. They don't try to over-think things ahead of time, and even after they get billions of datapoints from holding countless sales, they still can't prescribe any exact science to any of it.
When I saw EA inanely comment on the "devaluation of IP", I just shook my head. They just don't get it. Valve is simply doing what they think could be cool and interesting, and their customers are responding in completely unreliable and unexpected ways.
Instead of following Valve's lead or charging ahead in their own unique ways, it's like EA just observed what Valve was doing on the most shallow, lazy, surface level, and reached an inaccurate conclusion based on their own lack of understanding of their own customers. Then, of course, they held their own sale two weeks later that contradicted that entire point, but the sale went nowhere because there just wasn't anything interesting about it.