Active Users:431 Time:04/04/2025 09:45:03 PM
It should be a requirement for its rival Roland00 Send a noteboard - 26/01/2012 01:38:13 PM
I want a system where the product is easy to be used via its customers and the system is superior to its customers than buying the game in an actual physical copy (if you are not going to resell it).

I do not want a system where the main benefit is the producers of the games make more money but little benefit is gained for the customer.

I do not want a system where a company that doesn't make it easy for the customers to use actually succeeding. If an unfriendly producer actually succeeds I wouldn't be surprised that in a few years that we will have 20 or 30 producer clients. One for EA, Activision, Blizzard, Sony, Konami, Capcom, Ubisoft, Square Enix, etc. You won't be able to reload the game if you move computers, there will be even worse DRM that is a pain in the ass. Cloud based saving wouldn't exist, etc.

--------

If there is only 1, 2 or 3 digital distribution sites out there and they actually succeed based on customer satisfaction and not game exclusivity. Then the process of buying games will become easier and better for customers not harder.
Reply to message
Dear Origin: You Suck (from The Escapist) - 23/01/2012 02:07:53 PM 960 Views
I find this kinda meh. - 24/01/2012 04:07:30 AM 531 Views
Well, I think that's kind of the article's point - 24/01/2012 03:05:32 PM 529 Views
Valve doesn't lose money on its Steam sales, though. - 25/01/2012 09:40:10 PM 678 Views
I remember this article! It's still amazing to read - 26/01/2012 06:46:10 PM 533 Views
If there must be a rival from steam - 24/01/2012 04:28:05 PM 616 Views
Re: If there must be a rival from steam - 25/01/2012 01:42:31 AM 604 Views
Er. - 25/01/2012 02:08:39 AM 544 Views
I have 294 games on steam - 25/01/2012 12:11:22 PM 549 Views
Steam allows #2 - 26/01/2012 05:29:40 AM 664 Views
It should be a requirement for its rival - 26/01/2012 01:38:13 PM 543 Views
It's run by EA, isn't it bound to suck? - 27/01/2012 01:51:07 AM 489 Views

Reply to Message