BF3 - No Steam release?

this doesnt make economical sense.

The best strategy is what they are doing right now, consolidate the awaited product in a new platform, that its their own, put some promotion here and there, offer more things for people that preorder it and so forth. They are after all trying to get their platform as an option for gamers.

Since they are trying to upgrade the nagging ea download manager to something that is useful, the best way is to find something to add face value on it, like exclusive titles, promotions, the option to tie games to your account (all of them not like steam), and so forth the strategy is quite good, it should work. Not that its new, its basic marketing strategy, one that you learn in the first year in college, nor its elegant.

I, however, only have 1 game with them, thus I dont want to spread more my game library, that is already spread in 4 different services (steam, gog, origin, impulse, not to mention blizzard, but that thing aint something proper to call it a channel of distribution, its more of a hassle really, and idiot move to spend more money on something useless, outsourcing would be a better move for blizzard)

 

I believe it does make economical sense - in the long run especially.

Sure, it's true that EA has a monopoly on BF3 and that a monopoly does what a monopoly wants. Selling BF3 via Origin will undoubtedly boost the distribution mechanism's popularity. And if BF3 was the be-all-and-end-all FPS game then Origin exclusivity would be a good move too... but, unfortunately for EA, it isn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that EA should simply sell games at lower prices to attract more customers. I'm still a cynic. There is a very big difference between forcing customers to do something (in this case, download BF3 via Origin instead of another source) and manipulating them into doing it. Primarily, the difference is that customers who are given the illusion of choice tend to get a whole lot less angry.

Once EA has established a solid user base with Origin, then gamers lose the reasons they have for buying new release games on Steam instead of Origin, namely, the community and library organization tools. Thus, Origin would be able to compete properly among all its games. Or, EA could simply turn Origin into gamers' go-to source for games by undercutting Steam prices by ~10%.

If EA doesn't do this, then someone else should. It's the only viable way I can see to knock Steam from its throne.

As would I.

 

It still doesnt make economic sense. (wall of text be warned)

What you are basing is that origin already has a meaningful user base. Not only people that need it to run the games, but people that actually use the store. Its right there that your logic flaws.

Origin is in its, well, origins. Thus to create a meaningful market penetration a successful product must be launched, and tied to the image of the company, and that product is BF3 and ME3.

The idea is that it doesnt really matter what the gamers think about distribution, steam made it easy for people to enter the digital copy world, off course to conquer that market share is going to be a battle. Nor it really matter some bad feedback, a great example is MW2, and how much backlash that received and how much money that game made.

The content is defined by what games you have, and frankly EA is one of the largest gaming administration company, with several successful titles, community and other stuff have to be made simple and intuitive, forums is a must, and other simple measures to ensure usability and adaptability could lead it to be a success.

Moreover tying that content to a form of distribution is also something steam and EA have done before, one of the latest titles that steam have done that is Portal 2, another successful title is Shogun 2, gamers complain but they still buy it in the end. There is market traction to high visibility games, and that traction sway people over in the long run. There are people that wont still buy it, but a lot of those are like the divers saying: There are 2 kinds of people: the ones that pee in the wetsuit, and the ones that lie.

Sure its great to play nice with customer. To offer then something extra for their money (read extra content for pre ordering, you can sell it latter too, it doesnt matter). But gamers think about games, and talking about those said exploits. Hardly matters for all what they are or not forced to use a service to play it, look at SC2, empire TW, napoleon TW, team fortress 2, portal 2, and several other games. We dont care. We just buy and play the damn thing.

You also forget that while we could play nice, we have a budget to fulfill.

To summarize in a simple phrase, you are trying to get into a position that you dont have already, thus leading to a failure, you need to be aggressive when you are entering a market, specially one that is as difficult as content distribution.

Its a combination of simple market techniques and market penetration. In economy we dont play nice, we play to win.

Do you know one of the most used strategies that those companies are using? To make the gamers feel that they matter?

They have developed better forums, with tighter rules, and send the developers and PRs to deal with the fans, that makes them feel that they are listened and that they share a bond with the said game.

 

"F" BF3, i will settle down with MW3 and when the prices drop to nothing due to lower sales in pc ill get BF3

 

I'm not a fan of EA and refuse to buy almost any game with their name attached (dead space and Crysis have been the only exceptions since 2004 and Dead Space was a masterpiece and Crysis was for benching my 8800m GTS). My interest has been peaked by BF3 as I heard about BF2 years ago but didn't have a good gaming computer or reliable internet connection and never got around to playing it. I like the idea of large scale battles and specializing in a class that provides something useful to my teams, never really play FFA type matches. Add my hatred of EA to the fact that it will not be on Steam (haven't purchased a physical PC game since 2007) and I vote no. Tolerating EA is one thing, supporting their competitor over Steam is something I will not do.

I have not forgiven EA for buying an exclusive deal with the NFL players association in 2004 when their competitor released a higher rated game and offered it for $20 instead of $50. Their policy of throwing money at a problem instead of improving their games still pisses me off.

 

I don't think I'm mistaken. If BF3 is released at 50% off on Origin, the user base will begin to form itself almost overnight. With a few more similar releases, the resulting player base would be huge.

I suspect your logic (and EA's logic) is flawed because you are assuming that BF3 will automatically be a success among digital distributors, while that is not necessarily the case. EA has to not only launch products, but convince customers that they should buy those products over their competitors.

If BF3 is released on Origin at full price and kept from Steam, EA will simply be committing sales-genocide on BF3. This is due in large part to the fact that BF3 has to compete with MW3, which is almost certainly going to be available on Steam.

But if BF3 was sold at 50% off on Origin, sales would skyrocket, possibly high enough to compete with MW3. Then, EA would finally succeed in turning their BF series into the cash cow CoD has been for years.

None of those games you've listed have any true competitors, and nothing comparable has even come close in terms of sales. TF2 and SC2 in particular are multiplayer-based and thus their large player bases will continue to support themselves. that's why "We don't care. We just buy and play the damn thing." We think we have a choice, but we really don't. EA just isn't in the same position with BF3.

I agree that EA has to be aggressive if they want to gain digital distribution market share. But if they're overconfident and forcefully aggressive, they will fail, just like many other businesses which are overconfident and forcefully aggressive. I guess an integral part of many businesses' success is politics -- maintaining the illusion that they aren't a business, so to speak. Some companies appear to put the customer first, while in reality they are aggressively trying to grow their long-term profit margins. Valve has done it. Why can't EA?

 

50% is a little steep of a discount for their opening order especially considering the amount of pre-orders already placed at full price. They'd make more money just doing 20% or so. Enough to gain more sales, but not completely cut their profit in half.

 

You're right. I just used 50% as an example, but the exact pricing logistics would have to be worked out. For example, console gamers would feel epically cheated if they had to pay $60 while PC gamers got the same game for $30. But I still think that an enormous sale, even if only for a couple days, might actually result in more opening week sales profits. It would depend on the number of gamers who aren't willing to buy at full price but would be swayed by a sale. EA's marketing team, I'm sure, would be able to determine the optimum price through a little statistical analysis.

In any case, long-term profits over all of EA's titles would increase significantly since EA cuts out the middleman by building a large player base on Origin.

 

You already need EA accounts to play Bad Company 2, and my guess is that its also required for Battlefield 3.
And we all know EA accounts = Origin now.

I use my old Battlefield 2 login and Origin worked.

 

I think that this game will outsell MW3.

 

I think so too but you never know: teens + parents credit card = rawr!

 

Lol, Definitely.

 

Well, on a side note:

$10 off pre-ordering from Newegg using the promo code -

EMCKCJE53

(Free 3-day shipping)

 

Its a form of content consumption, its not only about the game. You are asserting to me that the game might not be a hit, which is against all the hype that its building, and the previous games history.

not necessarily, while I dont like to have my games spread all over, I dont see why people wouldnt mind, you have to have market share research about it to ascertain it with more than inferring, what that is.

this is also fitting:

BF is already a cash cow

BF3 is multiplayer based. The creation of a new range dont have anything with the success of each game or that we accept the form the game is distributed. I cited those games because they require an active account on the content distribution channels, all of them do. All of them are a success too.

Thats called marketing, overconfidence doesnt have to have anything behind it, I dont see overconfidence in any company, nor try to attribute human sentiments to it, its a fictitious entity that behaves as such. the perspective you are trying to tell me is accountability, and that is one thing that I said in the last paragraph of my post.

I dont see valve having a good rep, actually while it was praised in the beginning as a form for indie games to achieve visibility, it received a tremendous backlash when it came out as not so good, probably thats why they coupled a game that is different (portal 2) with a indie sale (potato sack), and kept putting indie games to avoid another backlash, off course this represented a great thing for their profits

 

Ouch, another big strike against origin:

EA can delete your account and any DLC (and possibly games) if you don't log in for 24 months.

 

Although abusive, to not log in for 2 years is kind on the difficult side.

Have I said abusive?

In other words, abusive?

 

Wow that seems really harsh! Does it really take that much to keep a profile laying around in there servers? And for the question, i dident get BFBC2 on steam so i dont really mind if its on steam or not.. Ima buy it anyways : )

 

Think you have the wrong word? I dunno.

And 2 years, sure it sounds like a long time right now... but are you telling me you've never picked up an old game you haven't played for more than a few years to replay it? Especially with origin only having EA titles, what happens when you buy/beat ME3 and then you go to replay it 25 months later, having never logged into origin since because you were playing TF2/various steam games for those 25 months? Or hell, real life stuff could happen; you could be in the military and get deployed somewhere without internet, or just get too busy with kids or whatever...

 

Does that mean if I don't play a game for 24 months, all my games in the Origin library can be deleted? OR I just can't play multiplayer?

 

nah it was just a poor humor attempt.

and yeah I agree with, thats why I put an emphasis on abusive, I was playing FF8 this year, and that is just a little bit old, to go back a little more I also played monkey island, 2 months ago

 

I'm pretty sure it's just one of the things EA *can* do, just like Steam can delete your account if they feel like it.

There have been people who've had their games for over 2 years... Haven't heard of any incident where somebody got a game deleted.

 

Wow....

Multiplayer is the best part and heart of Battlefield games. Singleplayer is just going to be an after thought like BC2, or at least it better be....

Yep, just like Microsoft, with it's Zune, Games for Windows Live and other countless failed products/services.

 

Well Battlefield games are "one of the few" games I've mentioned. I put in over 650 hours in BF2, 350 in BFBC2, 100 or so with BF1942 and a few dozen with BF2142. Most other multiplayer games I'll give a shot, but lose interest quickly.

 

I'm getting a retail copy from Best Buy that I have already preordered. I only use STEAM when they have excellent deals for games that I didn't want to pay full price for. Otherwise, I much prefer a retail hard copy. Namely because I like having a physical item in my hand and also because my internet download speeds suck.

 

For BF3 I will probably buy the retail box too if they offer something special in a collector's edition, but so far have only seen Limited Edition that has nothing more than karkand map included, which I thought you get with regular BF3 edition.

 

The limited edition gives you the "fastunlock" on some weapons and item, and first access to the remakes of the most popular BF2.
I dont know if PC version unlocks the map pack later (free) but its a high probability the console users may pay for it.

 

Will not buy it. The only reason I got the BF2 is becasue it is on steam

 

According to Amazon, the Back to Karkand expansion that comes with the Limited Edition includes the following:

1. Four legendary maps from Battlefield 2, including Strike at Karkand, Wake Island, Gulf of Oman, and Sharqui Peninsula. Combined, these maps have accumulated over 25,000 years of play-time.
2. Ten iconic Battlefield 2 weapons reworked with the Frostbite 2 Engine.
3. Four brand new vehicles.
4. Unique rewards, Achievements/Trophies, and more.

 

O.O................

 

BF2 was really HUGE back in the day. I remember playing the demo back in 2005 on Gulf of Oman. Never had an FPS multiplayer game integrated land, sea and air combat so beautifully...

 

The BF2 community is still going strong.
But only the best players remain so for newbies to start now could get hard.

BF:BC2 plays sorta like the land only parts of BF2, but im so excited for BF3 Strike at Karkand!!!!! ;D