It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)D2D and Impulse refusing to stock MW2...(78 posts)(78 posts)
(78 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
michaelleung: I love how they like to go all the way to the owner and claim it's all Rupert Murdoch's doing.

Well thats far from unique, how many BSODs were the sole and complete responsibility of bill gates? Hell there's still plenty and he left MS what, 3 years ago?
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
bansama: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1015308
Why am I not surprised by the fanboy nature of most of those comments?

Well, it is on the Steam forums. Differences in opinion are quickly either ganged up on. Or if those different opinions start getting some momentum, they are deleted. Nothing new here.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
mogamer: Well, it is on the Steam forums. Differences in opinion are quickly either ganged up on. Or if those different opinions start getting some momentum, they are deleted. Nothing new here.

This. If you aren't fanboy, then you are troll, or god forbid some Steam basher and therefore thou shalt be punished for not praising Valve.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
mogamer: Well, it is on the Steam forums. Differences in opinion are quickly either ganged up on. Or if those different opinions start getting some momentum, they are deleted. Nothing new here.

Of course. Grab some pop corn and watch as the mod-wannabe fanboy (with periods in his name) winds up any one who opposes the "Steam is teh greatestest in teh wide world" view point, getting the poor sap banned in the process.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
mogamer: Well, it is on the Steam forums. Differences in opinion are quickly either ganged up on. Or if those different opinions start getting some momentum, they are deleted. Nothing new here.
avatar
bansama: Of course. Grab some pop corn and watch as the mod-wannabe fanboy (with periods in his name) winds up any one who opposes the "Steam is teh greatestest in teh wide world" view point, getting the poor sap banned in the process.

Ya, it is funny watching him operate. He is so quick to jump into any thread that gives potential harm to Steam. With as many posts as he has, I wonder why he isn't a mod already! I've had some back and forth pms with him in the past. And he is very good in avoiding answering and deflecting questions. I wonder if he is a lawyer or politician in real life?
Posted November 06, 2009
They curse and blind an awful lot there, don't they? Jesus fucking zombie Christ.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
LordCinnamon: Can someone who knows legalese explain to me how the forced bundling with steam compares to the case with microsoft and internet explorer? To me they seem very similar (though on a smaller scale), but if they were, I suppose the other digital distribution platforms would actually be trying to undertake some legal action.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Key difference: Microsoft is a recognized monopoly, Steam isn't (it actually doesn't even have enough market share to be considered to have market dominance). Being a monopoly is not illegal. Bundling products to gain market share is not illegal. Having a monopoly and using bundling within that monopoly to gain further market share- that's illegal.

In the US, being a monopoly is illegal (except in the case of the postal service), but that's really besides the point. Engaging in anti-competitive business practices is illegal, regardless of whether or not the alleged offender is a "recognized monopoly" (that's what Microsoft did with the bundling of IE). The forced requirement of bundling a competing storefront in with a game could be considered anti-competitive, since it could clearly lead people to not bother with D2D, Impulse or GG (the whole "why bother with the middle man" thing). Proving that it is anti-competitive could be difficult, since there are no real facts or figures on the whole DD business.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
bansama: http://kotaku.com/5398259/online-retailer-refuses-to-sell-modern-warfare-2
Somehow, I think there is more to this story. Such as Steam securing a an exclusivity deal on the sly -- after all D2D did stock Zeno Clash and others which required the use of Steam...
They state this is due to the Steam store front, but then, why didn't they refuse the earlier titles for the same reason based on initial sales of the first major game to use it?

Makes perfect sense, these services are competitors to Steam, and if a game uses Steamworks, then the advertising goes with it. I expect the publishers will insist that Steam seperates it's store from it's DRM shortly. EI, their store would be web-based, and the steam client would be just for games and community.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
anjohl: Makes perfect sense, these services are competitors to Steam, and if a game uses Steamworks, then the advertising goes with it. I expect the publishers will insist that Steam seperates it's store from it's DRM shortly. EI, their store would be web-based, and the steam client would be just for games and community.

Yes as I said earlier (I'm sure) it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is their timing considering that they already do sell a fair few titles that force the Steam client on to users. So why did they pick this game and not, say, Saint's Row 2 or Total War?
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
anjohl: Makes perfect sense, these services are competitors to Steam, and if a game uses Steamworks, then the advertising goes with it. I expect the publishers will insist that Steam seperates it's store from it's DRM shortly. EI, their store would be web-based, and the steam client would be just for games and community.
avatar
bansama: Yes as I said earlier (I'm sure) it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is their timing considering that they already do sell a fair few titles that force the Steam client on to users. So why did they pick this game and not, say, Saint's Row 2 or Total War?

Enough is enough, and it's time for a change? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
I can think of a number of other old sayings that sum it all up, but I think those suffice.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
anjohl: Makes perfect sense, these services are competitors to Steam, and if a game uses Steamworks, then the advertising goes with it. I expect the publishers will insist that Steam seperates it's store from it's DRM shortly. EI, their store would be web-based, and the steam client would be just for games and community.
avatar
bansama: Yes as I said earlier (I'm sure) it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is their timing considering that they already do sell a fair few titles that force the Steam client on to users. So why did they pick this game and not, say, Saint's Row 2 or Total War?
probably because neither title actually lists steam as a feature, like MW2 does.
avatar
cogadh: In the US, being a monopoly is illegal (except in the case of the postal service), but that's really besides the point. Engaging in anti-competitive business practices is illegal, regardless of whether or not the alleged offender is a "recognized monopoly" (that's what Microsoft did with the bundling of IE). The forced requirement of bundling a competing storefront in with a game could be considered anti-competitive, since it could clearly lead people to not bother with D2D, Impulse or GG (the whole "why bother with the middle man" thing). Proving that it is anti-competitive could be difficult, since there are no real facts or figures on the whole DD business.
Then Valve has a monopoly on their games.. how interesting..
Post edited November 06, 2009 by Weclock
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
bansama: Yes as I said earlier (I'm sure) it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is their timing considering that they already do sell a fair few titles that force the Steam client on to users. So why did they pick this game and not, say, Saint's Row 2 or Total War?
avatar
anjohl: Enough is enough, and it's time for a change? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
I can think of a number of other old sayings that sum it all up, but I think those suffice.

Yeah, except in the case, its more like fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on you again... fool me three times, I can't believe they did it to me again, those bastards... fool me four times, WTF!? Why do they keep doing this to me?... Fool me five times, that's it, no more, if you're gonna be like that, I just won't sell these games.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
bansama: So why did they pick this game and not, say, Saint's Row 2 or Total War?

This whole issue reeks of ulterior motives. Either Activision have pissed them off (very likely), done some kind of exclusivity deal with Steam (not completely impossible), or the DD sites simply want to reduce the sales of a game among their customers that will inevitably lead to many making future purchases through Steam that they would have through the service they bought MW2 through.
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
Weclock: Then Valve has a monopoly on their games.. how interesting..

Not in the least, you can still buy Valve games in retail stores, its just their use of Steam that might make them anti-competitive. Anti-competitive practices can lead to a business becoming a monopoly (hence why it is illegal), but engaging in those practices does not automatically make them a monopoly.
Post edited November 06, 2009 by cogadh
Posted November 06, 2009
avatar
Navagon: This whole issue reeks of ulterior motives.

Exactly my point. If it were just the store front, they surely would have made this move after the first major title to do it (most likely, even *before* that title was released). Even if they don't list the (Steam client) requirements on their own store pages, I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know it was included when they initially accepted the files for hosting on their own servers.
On another note, I find it slightly hypocritical of Impulse to speak out against Steam's practices considering they also bundle their own store in their own client. The client may not be required to *play* the game, but it *is* required to patch the games sold over Impulse, so unless they allow Goo protected games to have patches that bypass their client altogether, they are no better than Valve's use of Steam.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)D2D and Impulse refusing to stock MW2...(78 posts)(78 posts)
(78 posts)