Dragon Age 2 missing from Steam

Dragon Age 2 has gone missing from Steam just as the Legacy DLC was released for it, bringing back memories of the recent Crysis 2 controversy.

88

The EA and Steam saga marches ever onward. Dragon Age 2 is no longer available on Steam, apparently pulled just as the new "Legacy" downloadable content was released. No reason has been given by Steam or EA regarding the absence.

This wouldn't be the first time a game was pulled from Steam in recent weeks. When Crysis 2 disappeared from Steam, it seemed like a shot across the bow of Valve's digital service as EA aggressively marketed its own service, Origin. EA claims the issue was merely an "agreement with another download service which violates [Steam's] new rules."

Eurogamer notes that the game's removal coincides with the release of the "Legacy" DLC for Dragon Age 2.

Dragon Age 2 DLC is sold through BioWare's own systems. For example, Legacy costs 800 BioWare Points. It seems that Valve pulls games if new DLC can't be sold directly through Steam. Existing games with external DLC services are likely grandfathered in. EA notes that Steam has recently implemented "new" rules. Offering DLC via BioWare.com may be the reason the game was pulled. Other services, such as Direct2Drive, still offer the game digitally.

BioWare is mostly saying mum on the issue, but one employee told forum-goers, "I can't really comment on this topic other than to say that if you already had it purchased via Steam before today you shouldn't have any issues."

Meanwhile, EA's plans for Origin remain somewhat in the dark. We've heard unconfirmed reports that Battlefield 3 won't be sold through Steam, though the rumors do claim it will come to other download services like Origin and GameStop's distribution channel. EA has declined to comment on the ongoing rumor, but introduced Origin with word that The Old Republic would be exclusive.

Shacknews has contacted both Steam and EA regarding Dragon Age 2, and will update with any new information.

Editor-In-Chief

From The Chatty

  • reply
    July 27, 2011 11:15 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Dragon Age 2 missing from Steam.

    Dragon Age 2 has gone missing from Steam just as the Legacy DLC was released for it, bringing back memories of the recent Crysis 2 controversy.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 11:25 AM

      Nothing personal it just business. I guess if Origin is getting into the Digital Distribution Business, it wouldn't make sense for them to keep selling through Steam.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 11:27 AM

        or Gamestop

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 11:37 AM

        it can be "just business" alright - but its that attitude that turns customers off. as many have said, Valve has earned our money for their service.. theres a laundry list a mile long for what theyve done. EA on the other hand has worked really hard in the past to piss off their customers severely.
        so sure. its not personal. but it wont matter to people like me who actually boycott products on principle to shape a better market. (still havent bought one single DLC for any game. )

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:03 PM

          Digital Distribution is a PC Gaming business only, and we all know PC Gamers pays attention to the happenings in the world around them; we don't crowd around to buy the next rehash of COD. This Activision anti-gamer like attitude that EA is taking is going to bite them right back in the ass. We are PC Gamers. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Don't expect us.

          • reply
            July 27, 2011 1:34 PM

            Well at least I hope it will. I'm sick of putting up with this shit.

          • Ebu
            reply
            July 27, 2011 1:39 PM

            Digital Distribution is as much "PC-only" as you are a good poster.

            XBLA? PSN? Virtual Console?

            But there is so much wrong with your post, why limit it to just this one point?

            • reply
              July 28, 2011 11:36 PM

              Oh right, excuse me wile I go order Resistance 3 for the PS3 on EA's Origin....

              • Ebu
                reply
                July 29, 2011 7:07 AM

                You can't be that stupid.
                You can't be that stupid.
                You can't be that stupid.
                You can't be that stupid.
                You can't be that stupid.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 11:40 AM

        Though it is still offered through all the other digital stores, like D2D.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 11:50 AM

        I remember players boycotting MW, and how many copies did that sell? The game wasn't pulled by EA, it was Steam who changed their Rules, and pulled it. Direct2Drive still sells it.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 1:02 PM

          I agree

          Oh the nerd rage from is going to be fun to watch, fun to watch indeed.

          Though I personally feel that both EA and Valve are out to protect their bottom line and this whole feud has my bullshite sense going off big time here. EA is spin control with big business spin masters and Valve is letting out the internet forum Legion.


          plus Gamer Boycotts always me make laugh. esp. when its over something like this. Boycotts are for dealing with real social injustice not for when somebody gets mad about running another companies client on their PC.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 11:38 AM

      Speaking of, has anyone played Legacy? I heard it can be beat in like 2 hours and isn't that great.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:29 PM

        It's alright. I beat it after 4 hours. It's a very standard dungeon/underground adventure. While the environments are different, it still takes place underground.

        Plenty of loot and a few side quests to get besides the main DLC quest. You can bring any party member along you have at the time. I highly suggest to bring Carver or Bethany.

        If you liked DA2, then Legacy is up your alley. To me, it was enjoyable for $10, I wonder how much dialog changes depending on which party member you bring. Varric spoke a lot.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:53 PM

          Both of those are MIA in my game so I won't be bringing them....

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 11:44 AM

      EA = Activision

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:09 PM

        Valve pulled the game. Dont be stupid.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:29 PM

          Says the unbiased guy...

          oh. wait.

          • reply
            July 27, 2011 1:06 PM

            So you're saying valve didn't pull it? Oh wait....

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 1:22 PM

              I'm more commenting on your inference that Valve are the ones being dicks in this situation.

              • reply
                July 27, 2011 1:31 PM

                I never said that. But I don't think it's a fair move to pull on a game that they previously said OK to. For future games? Sure. But not for a game that's 8 months old, and Valve already signed off on.

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 1:48 PM

                  Inference means you didn't actually say it.

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:50 PM

                    I didn't infer it either.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 5:40 PM

                      I'm glad, because that's for the reader to do.

                      • reply
                        July 28, 2011 1:18 AM

                        a) Nothing that saunders45 said supports the claim that he "inferred" Valve were being dicks.

                        b) The ability to "infer" something is not restricted solely to the reader.

                        c) Stop arguing semantics. You look like fools.

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 1:22 PM

              That's fucked up logic man. Valve changed their rules months ago, EA is going ahead with releasing the DLC that way anyway. It's pretty obvious to anybody who still believes in personal responsibility this is EA's fault, plain and simple.

              • reply
                July 27, 2011 1:30 PM

                So, EA releases a game, fully abiding by the current rules that steam has for DLC. Then, valve changes those rules (after DA2 had launched), and tells EA that if they release DLC for the game (which is OK according to the deal they already had), they must redo their entire content delivery system to abide by the new rules. I can see them being stickler about future titles, but for a game you already OK'd? That's bullshit.

                The reason they're doing it, is because they want a cut of the DLC profits, because as of now, they get none. DIdn't people have a shit fit about Apple doing this exact same thing for the App Store?

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 1:35 PM

                  Do you even understand how contracts work? They don't just change willy-nilly.

                  EA had to agree to the updated terms which would put their games out of compliance when Valve changed the Terms of Service. It's not bullshit if EA agreed, and then they get ejected.

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:40 PM

                    What's the alternative to not agreeing with the new terms? Having everything pulled immediately?

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:41 PM

                      In the case of DA2, it seems you game can still be sold until you offer a DLC that does not meet the new terms.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:44 PM

                        No, I meant if EA didn't agree to Valve's updated terms when they changed.

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 1:48 PM

                          I would assume the game would not be offered.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:47 PM

                      It seems that, based on the staggered removal here, games which offer non-compliant DLC are only removed when that non-compliant DLC is made available. Crysis 2 was pulled only when EA broke the agreement WRT that game, but DA2 was still available. Now that DA2 has noncompliant DLC, that has been pulled.

                      Actually, this makes me really curious about The Sims 3, because the DLC catalogue for that game is massive and always growing AND it's handled through the Sims website/launcher, so either it was grandfathered in (wasn't it put on Steam earlier this year?) or there's something else going on.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:51 PM

                        That's a really good point regarding The Sims 3.

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 1:58 PM

                          That's what doesn't make any sense in this whole scheme of things.

                          EA and Maxis HAVE to be making tons of money on that DLC, and it's all managed through the EADM (or was, back when I grabbed all mine lol)/Sims 3 launcher. You acquire the DLC with Sims 3 points off their website, and you can even manage the import process from inside Sims 3. Valve never sees any of it, but it's the same situation where it hooks into the base game.

                          And it was added to Steam in late January, with some of the expansions coming later.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 2:03 PM

                            IIRC, you can buy any of the expansions or stuff packs directly in game with sim points. Sims 3 Generations just came out last month, and another expansion is coming out in October. They just released another "Stuff" pack yesterday but it's not on Steam yet. It looks like the "expansion" packs are all there, but EA has to be making a boatload from the individual DLC items.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 2:12 PM

                            Well, every company has their own internal talks with their distributors and it's entirely likely that The Sims 3 gets a pass. Be it permanent or temporary nobody but the insiders know. It's possible that Valve considered the amount of work necessary to patch The Sims 3's store (which is even more tightly built in to the game than, say, Dragon Age II) was cost prohibitive. Maybe they worked out a deal where they would play ball with Valve's DLC system in The Sims 4 only if they gave a pass to The Sims 3. There are bunch of ways it could have gone down.

                            I do know that the Sims department at EA is for almost all intents and purposes an entirely different company, so it would make sense that those negotiations are separate.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:52 PM

                        Could be that because it has at least some dlc available through Steam it's compliant with whatever the terms are?

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 2:01 PM

                          That could be; I mean, it sounds like a weird corner case, but it could be.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 5:23 PM

                        Same is true of ME2, which uses the same shitty system for DLC that DA2 does, but ME2 is still on Steam.

                      • reply
                        July 28, 2011 12:56 PM

                        Isn't Sims 3 to "old" to the new Steam agreement to apply to it? Or is it retro active?

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 1:35 PM

                  Really, publishers don't get any money for DLC sold through Steam? It's obvious you're just making shit up as you go.

                  As far as DLC, would it have been hard for EA to allow DLC to be added to game by some means other than a shoddy in-game implementation? Why not use CD-Keys so you can sell you DLC everywhere like Gamestop and Amazon? Do they think that people will put up with whatever bullshit because they want EA's shit that badly? If I were a publisher, I'd want a product or service I was offering to be seen by as many eyes and wallets as possible, not hidden 4 levels-deep in the game's menu (and still requiring buyers to leave the game and sign up for ANOTHER storefront/payment wall). If making things easier for costumers is what it really as all about (as EA has stated) why aren't they offering all this DLC on Origin?

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:38 PM

                    Please try to actually read what I wrote. I meant they as in Valve. Steam doesn't get any of the DLC profits because you're buying Bioware points and the transaction is handled directly by EA.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:49 PM

                      You really think that is all there is to it?

                      It has nothing do do with Joe Blow pc game buy getting a new game off Steam (Crysis 2 for example) and having problems or reservations with buying new parts for the game from a completely different seller/merchant. When that process get bungled (and with EA it always does), who does Joe Blow complain to and badmouth? Steam. "Steam sold me this shitpile and I can't get the DLC I bought to work. Fuck Steam."

                      Or the example you continue to ignore in all my posts about the Viet DLC situation. Why in the hell would Valve want to go through that bullshit every time EA releases DLC?

                      The DLC purchasing is not just being handled by EA. For Crysis 2, you have to make a new account with Gamespy to be able to get the DLC, not EA. EA took the time to make the DLC delivery work with XBL and PSN terms, why not with the other services that sell and support their games? EA hates XBL and PSN, but they deal with it because they want the cash. They think they can have their own XBL on PC and take all that cash from the other publishers. Their press release yesterday about other publisher wanting in on Origin is a load of shit. It will be a cold day in hell when Activision sells COD on a EA store.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:57 PM

                        I didn't see your Vietnam DLC post. As I stated below, I'm certain they are trying to avoid those issues. But do you think Valve isn't at all interested in gaining some of the DLC profits? Of course they are. Which is why I posted what I did. If they made a it an issue for games released after the new TOS, then I can totally side with Valve. But pulling something that was OK'd under the previous terms is not cool. At least, that's how I see it.

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 2:11 PM

                          One of my Viet DLC posts (from this very thread):
                          http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=26385440#itemanchor_26385440

                          I've bitched about it in almost every one of these EA/Steam fights. If you actually read these threads that you litter with trash, you might have noticed them. What reason did EA have for making special CD-Keys for the Steam release of the Viet DLC? It wasn't because the potential customer didn't have the game content (which was pushed on all BC2 owners in a patch weeks before Viet released). Valve got stuck having to refund however many thousands of orders for the DLC (and give those affected Steam versions of Vanilla who didn't want/get the refund) because EA issued them CD-Keys that were different from the keys that every other DD got. D2D keys would work with box copy of Vanilla, but not the Steam keys. It was intentional. There was nothing about the Steam version that prevented a regular key from working (as the key just unlocked content that all customers already possessed).

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 2:27 PM

                          Valve didn't pull anything that was previously OK'd. If the new DLC was OK'd, it'd still be on Steam.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 3:39 PM

                            You don't think they OK'd Dragon Age 2 & the DLC system when it was put on steam 8 months ago?

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 3:49 PM

                              They OK what the publisher gives them to sell. DA2 was in complete compliance until yesterday. How was Valve supposed to know what EA would do more than 6 months into the future?

                              • reply
                                July 27, 2011 3:57 PM

                                Are you fucking high? If EA pushed out a patch 8 months after release that changed the game's code to support the new DLC implementation, that means it is not the same code as was first published back on DA2's release date.

                                If a pub puts out a patch for a game that deletes Steam and loads a user's machine with trojans (thus violating the hypothetical TOS that applies to this alternate reality), does Steam not have the right to pull the offending title?

                                EA had months to make it work according to the TOS they are bound to. They chose to make a deal with another provider. EA chose this path, not Valve.

                                • reply
                                  July 27, 2011 4:37 PM

                                  Wait, so EA patched DA2 to use a completely different DLC system that what it shipped with? I haven't seen that anywhere.

                                  • reply
                                    July 27, 2011 4:56 PM

                                    No, they didn't, that's his point. His point is it's the same game they approved, but because they released new content for it (outside of Steam) it's now retroactively unapproved.

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 1:36 PM

                  Just wondering, do you have any source on that or is that all just speculation?

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:46 PM

                    I have about as much evidence as everyone else has. We know the change went into effect this year, and that DA2 was released last year. Obviously, when DA2 was released, it was compliant. Valve changed the TOS, and when EA released DLC for DA2 that wasn't available through Steam, Valve pulled it. Because the DLC is all handled directly by EA, Valve gets no money from it. I'm sure they're trying to minimize headaches from DLC issues, but IMO, it's mostly about the money.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:51 PM

                      So you think EA didn't know about it? Also, didn't EA say for crysis 2 that they simply wanted to do their thing, which steam didn't allow? Outside handling of patches and what not. (Yeah I would def. love for my steam games to stop auto-updating and instead molest me with the shitty EA downloader)

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 1:40 PM

                  There is nothing you could say to convince me valve is in the wrong here. I have way to much hate built up for Electronic Arts, the company that buys out companies just to rape the IP ad infinitum. I remember the Bullfrogs, the Westwoods, the Origins even. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and EA will never be my friend.

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:41 PM

                    Ok then....

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:45 PM

                      To expand on that, EA has a very long history of being the "bad guy". You are the literal devil's advocate in this instance saunders.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:49 PM

                        I suppose so, but I can't say I've ever had any bad experience's with EA. I've been playing their games for years, and IMO, they've greatly improved from the early-mid 2000's garbage. I can even say, I was vastly surprised by the Origin customer service recently. I screwed up my SWTOR Pre-order by applying the early access code to a different account (my SWTOR account was different than my normal EA account) but they fixed it.

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 1:51 PM

                          Can you get them to put my Crysis 2 DLC onto my Crysis 2 account instead of the mycrysis.com account I was required to make to buy the DLC?

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 1:56 PM

                            Why didn't you just sign in with your crysis 2 account to buy the DLC?

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 2:02 PM

                              It wouldn't let me. The DLC requires a mycrysis.com account. I had one of those accounts but the game never let me login with it (for the demo or retail - and still doesn't work). I assumed since I was logged into my Crysis 2 account to be able to buy the DLC, that it would work. EA support's only solution is to buy the game again and register the new CD-Key with the mycrysis.com account (which I really tried to do at release, but the system did not allow it). All of these accounts are registered to the same e-mail address as well. It is a load of bullshit and it will continue with Origin. Seriously, if that is the easy way for customers, why are these DLC packs not for sale on Origin (or even mentioned)?

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 1:58 PM

                            I've never played Crysis 2, so I don't know how the DLC works. Sorry. Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, just pointing out a different POV.

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 2:04 PM

                              Crysis 2 is the first game to use the new DLC delivery system that violates Steam's current Terms of Service. I haven't been able to test DA2 because I was smart enough to not buy that trashpile.

                              If all these random-ass indie devs with 4-man teams can offer their DLC on Steam and other DDs without issue, how is EA unable to get it working?

                  • reply
                    July 27, 2011 1:53 PM

                    So you're admitting that your judgment of who is at fault here is 100% biased and will not and never will be based on the facts of the current situation.

                    I hate you.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:54 PM

                      It should not be surprising since it is very rare for his opinion to change on anything anyway.

                    • reply
                      July 27, 2011 1:55 PM

                      I find it odd you guys are so fast to jump to defend Electronic Arts :/ Am I the only one who remembers all the shit they've pulled over the years?

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 1:59 PM

                        Unless choices that directly impacted me were involved I really do not care what they did business wise. So they bought out a few companies and then the IPs did not pan out, not a big deal. Shit a lot of the games from the old days that people say have been raped with sequels would probably sell for shit these days anyway. If you do not like the way IPs have been used after a buyout then ignore them and think fondly of the better games in the old days. Life is too short to go on hating a company for such petty stuff.

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 2:06 PM

                          It's a lot more than IP bullshit Benius. Simple things like the BF Vietnam DLC that only work on 1 version of the game, end user customer support, they barely patch their games besides the AAA ones, their DRM experiments suck, they try to stifle competition by getting monopolistic licenses, they "fought" to get servers they could host, and yet almost all their non sports online games are laggy, they treat their employees like shit. When was the last time they actually advertised for a non franchise game? I could literally spend all fucking day airing my complaints with EA.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 2:09 PM

                            And then there was that whole thing with Ebu's dog...

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 2:11 PM

                              Ebu's dog? I can't say I remember that one?

                                • reply
                                  July 27, 2011 2:16 PM

                                  Also EA had to lick Valve's ass to get Alice up on Steam:
                                  http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=26205390#itemanchor_26205390

                                  It's a shame that EA spent all that money advertising and pushing Alice only to have Steam try to fuck them over at the last second.

                                  • reply
                                    July 27, 2011 2:19 PM

                                    I don't even understand this. Alice is on steam? It got pulled a few days before release so they could add videos or something and it got readded? Then EA acts like this is some sort of conspiracy against them? Are you guys for real?

                                    • reply
                                      July 27, 2011 3:22 PM

                                      It DID NOT GET PULLED. IT WAS NEVER ON STEAM UNTIL AFTER THE GAMES RELEASE. FFS

                                      • reply
                                        July 27, 2011 3:40 PM

                                        Exactly so what the fuck is Crabs talking about?

                                        • reply
                                          July 27, 2011 3:52 PM

                                          Jesus Christ, people. I was making a joke just like everyone else was about Ebu's dog. I even went so far as to include a link to the post I was referencing. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been about it other than writing in big red words - LOL THIS HERE IS A JOKE, YOU FUCKERS, GIVE ME THE LOLS

                                          • reply
                                            July 27, 2011 3:58 PM

                                            Sorry man. To make up for it, I just lolled that post.

                            • Ebu
                              reply
                              July 27, 2011 5:05 PM

                              Yes yes, the dog I never had.

                              You have issue, dude.

                              • reply
                                July 27, 2011 5:21 PM

                                Ebu, you have to stop lying to yourself, it isn't healthy.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 2:13 PM

                            I was mainly going with the IP thing because that seemed to be your major beef up above. I guess I avoid a lot of the other issues with them by mainly playing games on consoles. DLC is not an issue, I never had to deal with customer support on a game ever, no DRM issues, etc. The license thing is a total non issue for me and I cannot even think of an example of that.

                            Also I really do not care how they treat their employees. It makes me sound like a dick, but if people want to keep working there and I get the product I am promised then that is not driving my purchase decision. I get that you can obviously have a different opinion, but it seems like you have a lot of pent up rage over something so minor.

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 2:15 PM

                              Also I really do not care how they treat their employees. It makes me sound like a dick, but if people want to keep working there and I get the product I am promised then that is not driving my purchase decision
                              I can't in good conscience support a business like that. They will always find another schlub to work minimum wage for over time, that doesn't mean that's the way people should be treated.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 2:00 PM

                        Over the years? Six months ago they waited until release day to say that the Dead Space 2 DLC wouldn't be coming to PC. They wait until my pre-order is installed then tell me something they had to know for weeks. I have no trust in EA or faith that they care about their customers.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 2:06 PM

                        I don't find it odd that people judge each situation based on its own facts and come to an objective opinion from them. I don't care if it's Valve, Old Spice, Electronic Arts, or the Ku Klux Klan, I will always do my best to educate myself with the facts at hand before decicing who I think is right in a particular disagreement.

                        Even a broken clock is right twice a day and all that

                        • reply
                          July 27, 2011 2:08 PM

                          For somebody in the business, you are amazingly clueless.

                          • reply
                            July 27, 2011 2:15 PM

                            Could you explain to me how I am clueless in this regard? Keep in mind that this conversation is only about the fact that you admitted that you will literally not consider any facts brought to the table, and are making up your mind on bias alone.

                            We're not even talking about EA or Valve here, we're talking about an entire philosophy of how you arrive at your final decisions in life.

                            Basically, I think that anyone who says "There is nothing you could say to convince me of X" and really truly means it is pretty much a terrible person that the world would be better off without. Now, what you said may have been hyperbole or something but so far you're not backing down from what you said.

                            • reply
                              July 27, 2011 2:18 PM

                              I think the drunk driver who killed my cousin is a sorry shit and nothing you could say can convince me otherwise. I am a terrible person.

                              (Not to say that I agree with APothead's reasoning for hating something)

                              • reply
                                July 27, 2011 2:30 PM

                                Well, okay let's pretend we were having a discussion about that situation.

                                If, for example, it turned out and could be proven that the driver was at gunpoint, and the dude with the gun was going to kill the driver and his family if he didn't consume lots of alcohol and drive until he killed someone.

                                It's a fairly ludicrous situation, but IF that were the truth of the situation and sufficient evidence was presented to show that that is what happened, I would hope that you would shift your opinion from "the driver is a sorry shit" to "the gunman was is a sorry shit".

                                My point being that there is always a possibility that a given situation is not as it seems, and a reasonable and open-minded person should always be willing to change his opinion if given sufficient evidence to convince him.

                                The people I would like to see eradicated from the planet are those that willfully ignore evidence, instead choosing to stick with their judgment no matter what. Those people stifle the advancement of our society and potentially cause very real harm to other humans.

                                That being said, given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced to change my mind ;)

                                • reply
                                  July 27, 2011 2:39 PM

                                  Ugh I just thought of a much less ludicrous scenario:

                                  What if it turned out that the driver was not the one who killed your cousin at all. Someone else killed him and framed the driver by planting evidence and whatnot.

                                  If THAT evidence were shown, and it were sufficient enough to convince you that the alleged "driver" was, indeed, not the reason your cousin died, I would expect you as a reasonable person to no longer think he was a sorry shit.

                                  • reply
                                    July 27, 2011 2:46 PM

                                    I see your argument, but, in my situation, the evidence was pretty clear.

                                    The guy has tried to apologize, but I don't think I'll ever accept it. If it had been his first DUI/traffic problem, I could understand that everyone makes mistakes (even horrible ones). Considering he was driving without a license he lost because of his 4th DUI and he got off on a plea-bargain and got 2 years probation and 3 years suspended license. My hate towards him grew when I saw him shitfaced at a house party less than 2 months later and he drove home :(

                                    I know that I'd never let any new evidence convince me, no matter how legit or real it may be. I knew his history and I saw how he acted post-accident. That is enough for me to write off the possibility of seeing it from any other angle. I hope you can accept me as a terrible person.

                                    • reply
                                      July 27, 2011 4:00 PM

                                      i think your example is a little far from the one that spawned this massive subthread. there are people in the world who could forgive a drunk driver, but that's not you, and i think that's a lot different from a situation like this. unless one of the companies killed AgentPothead's family member.

                                      i guess that boils down to emotions taking over and getting the better of us, which is in line (i think) with what OverloadUT is saying. seems AgentPothead's emotions/bias are making is such that he will listen to no arguments or evidence to change his opinion - even if his opinion or assumptions are logically and factually not completely correct.

                                      a guy who killed a family member is a lot different from that - so unless we are talking along the lines of "if you don't forgive you are terrible" then i don't think your example works. at least not for me.

                                      • reply
                                        July 27, 2011 4:02 PM

                                        I know, I was mostly responding to UT's assertion that anyone who won't consider alternate evidence is a horrible person.

                                        • reply
                                          July 27, 2011 4:07 PM

                                          I don't mean to spawn a giant OT subthread, but he did immediately jump into hypotheticals to defend his comment. As I posted above, I don't necessarily agree with Pothead's reasoning, but I take offense to the idea that I'm better off not in this world because my mind won't change. I thought I gave a reasonable excuse to why I felt that way about my particular situation. I said above that I would still hold the guy in poor regard because of his history and post-accident actions. Even if he had not been at fault, his attitude and actions reinforced my opinion.

                                          I shouldn't have even mentioned his apology attempt, it had no bearing on my argument.

                                          • reply
                                            July 27, 2011 4:31 PM

                                            The problem here is you're talking about a real-world situation that you are a part of as proof against my claim.

                                            I could try to present hypothetical situations to support my assertion, but since you will always have more context to bring to the table to invalidate my hypotheticals, this conversation would go around in circles forever.

                                            Keep in mind that I'm not saying "you shouldn't hate the guy because it's possible there is an alternate explanation" in any way, shape or form. In fact, not coming to a conclusion based on the facts you've seen is exactly what I'm championing against! So you hating him based on the evidence you have in your life is exactly what I'm saying you should do. But at the same time, I am saying that there should always remain a tiny opening in the back of your mind, even if it's the tiniest sliver ever, that would allow you to change your mind in the face of updated information.

                                            In your specific case it seems astronomically unlikely that there's anything that would change your mind. But the possibility still exists, and IF that astronomically-low-chance thing should end up to be true, you should be willing to change your mind.

                                            At the same time, our lives only have a finite amount of time in them, and it's also important to individuals to pick and choose what is worth their time to consider. In this case, I wouldn't say that it makes sense for you to waste any of your time considering alternative explanations. And that's fine! I am not saying that you should always seek out alternative explanations for things. You should for many things in life, but there is always a point at which you must accept the evidence you have seen thus far and make a conclusion based on it.

                                          • reply
                                            July 27, 2011 4:32 PM

                                            i just had a long conversation with him at the office (which hilariously drove someone within ear shot away) but essentially it boiled down to the fact that he thinks people should keep an open mind and be willing to hear more information and my reply was that asserting that in an absolute way is folly as there are always exceptions to the rule. i hate absolutes.

                      • reply
                        July 27, 2011 2:12 PM

                        I remember the shit they pulled on me 3 weeks ago. I guess I should forgive and forget. That is a long time and thing have probably changed for the better.

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 1:24 PM

              EA intentionally chose not to support Steam versions of their games. You know Valve informed them of the new terms and what was expected of companies that wanted to offer DLC for Steam titles. Rather than spend a few weeks ensuring ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS COULD EASILY BUY DLC, they decided to do nothing and have a decent excuse not offer new titles on Steam in hopes of pulling customers to their inferior store offering.

              • reply
                July 27, 2011 1:30 PM

                For all we know, D2D (and other DD retailers) may have the same gripes with how EA handles their DLC purchases, but none of them were in a position to toss incredibly valuable parts of their store catalog away like Steam could. When a publisher splits a SKU up in some many different ways and options, it usually ends up bad for the consumer. In the case of BC2, it would have been easy for EA to issue Viet DLC keys that worked with every registered copy of Vanilla BC2, but they made it worse for consumers and retailers that sold the games. It is retarded and a good example of the dumb shit EA does and will continue to do in the PC gaming space.

                • reply
                  July 27, 2011 7:10 PM

                  I could be wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen D2D actually selling DLC. Steam is the only game download service I know of that sells DLC for titles other than those published themselves (I know Impulse sells the expansions and stuff for their own products, but I've never seen DLC on there)

                  I can understand where EA might want to use their own system, that's okay. The problem, IMO, is that their system is fucking terrible and Valve's DLC purchasing system is fucking fantastic and I've never had a single issue with it, and I can use all the same credit card info and whatnot without having to create new accounts or give anyone else my CC info.

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 1:29 PM

              This is basically EA saying "Piss off, we'll enforce content compliance our way." Funny enough, their way has a history of screwing with the consumer.

              They broke their side of the publishing agreement, most likely with a bunch of advanced warning from Valve after they got burned, and the offending product was pulled for non-compliance. From a business standpoint, it is cut and dry.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 1:37 PM

        EA = the current activision = EA of the nineties = these comparisons are beyond stupid.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 11:45 AM

      I wouldn't mind if this was some new company trying to start up a online service but EA's really going to compete with Steam? The only thing that's going to drive their Origin is the upcoming BattleField. Please don't turn this into what consoles are this whole exclusive war, but I see it coming already.....

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 11:50 AM

      EA has a very steep hill to climb, many gamers dont trust them. Valve, i do trust.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 12:05 PM

      They are going to be bastards and not release Mass Effect 3 on Steam. Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 12:10 PM

      I dont own Dragon Age 2, but does this mean you cannot play it thru Steam if you already purchased it there?

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:12 PM

        If it's the same way as Crysis 2, you can still access it.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:45 PM

          Ok, good. That would suck if you purchased it through Steam, but then they pulled it and you were forced to play it through Origin.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:13 PM

        No you can still download and play it. You just can't buy new copies of it. And it will still get updates if EA gives them updates.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:13 PM

        No, anyone who already owns it can still download it and play it.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 12:30 PM

        I bought the Crysis 2 Retaliation DLC from the in-game prompt, but I have yet to be able to use it (Steam copy of C2). The DLC store would not accept my Crysis login, but it did accept my mycrysis.com account. I was never able to login to Crysis 2 with my mycrysis account (still can't) so I'm, pretty sure I wasted 10 dollars. EA LiveChat support has been useless.

        If Steam pulled C2 to prevent this kind of shit, then PC gamers are better off for it.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:43 PM

          I should also note that they make it really hard to even find the DLC to buy it in the first place. There is no link I can find to buy either of the DLC packs from the official Crysis site and they aren't on Origin.

          When you go to get the DLC from in-game, it just opened the Mycrysis.com page in my browser. I was able to get to the page where you add payment info from a link in a forum post. Still, there seems to be no way of linking your Crysis 2 login with MyCrysis.com. I'm sure saunders45 or some other EA apologist will chime in and let me know how this is better than Steam.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 12:50 PM

          I think this is pretty much the reason valves policy exists.

          EA had issues in the past where they sold DLC for games but it wasn't compatible with a steam copy. EA's customer services is pretty terrible so valve ended up bearing the brunt of the support requests.

          So they brought in a policy that basically says if you have DLC for a game, sell it on the steam store too. That way they can guarantee support (and of course valve get a further cut, which is probably highly undesirable to EA who want to sell you cut assets for pure profit).

          • reply
            July 27, 2011 1:21 PM

            Yeah this same type of bullshit happened in December when EA gave out BC2:Viet CD-keys that would only work on certain copies of BC2. Valve had to restrict Viet DLC sales to Steam copies only after they were forced to eat all the refunds from pissed customers. I'm guessing that this situation directly lead to Valve's new Terms of Service for publishers. They could foresee EA continuing to fuck this kind of thing up (and they did with Crysis 2), so they chose to wash their hands of the mess.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 12:26 PM

      BTW Steve, it's not a "rumor" that BF3 is coming to other digital distributors... Impulse, Direct2Drive, etc. have been taking pre-orders for a while now.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 12:47 PM

      Blessing in disguise, DA2 sucked compared to the original.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 1:07 PM

      They should just stop trying to compete with Steam. It's the best delivery platofrm out there and it has all the features PC Gamers want and need. Chat, friendlists (and the fact all your friends actually have a Steam account), wide variety of games, etc, etc.

      This Origin bollocks will fizzle out just like GFWL. Can't come soon enough if you ask me, long live Steam.

      (Also If it doesn't, i'll just buy retail and avoid Origin that way, they may have DIGITAL exclusives, but that's it, and I doubt you'll need Origin to play as it's little more than a glorified marketplace)

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 1:31 PM

      EA has gone missing from player's radar as their new policy seems to be alienating services that previously built their product lineup

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 5:15 PM

        EA doesn't owe Steam any more than they do any other outlet like Gamestop or Bestbuy. And certainly not enough to change their business plans and models.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 5:35 PM

          Why on earth would them "owing" steam have anything to do with this? It's purely about what their potential customers do or don't want.

          • reply
            July 27, 2011 5:59 PM

            EA's new business model involves selling dlc directly to customers. My guess is this will be the case for all their games. EA's more than happy to sell the game through whatever outlets that want to carry it, but they're not going to change the new model for Steam. Steam want's part of the sweet dlc money action and won't carry games unless they get it. Steam user's lose and it's Steam's fault.

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 6:21 PM

              That's an incredibly one-sided reading of the situation full of assumptions.

              • reply
                July 28, 2011 4:19 AM

                No more one-sided than the weeks of news stories we've seen filled with comments basically saying "EA IS BEING EVIL! Valve MUST be the good guy in this situation. Why? Because I like Valve, that's why!"

                Valve is in the enviable position right now where they can do whatever they like and get a free pass from the online crowd. I'd bet money if Direct2Drive, GamersGate or Impulse pulled something like this, the comments here would shift dramatically.

                There has to be more to this story than is being reported (mostly because Valve has no incentive to weigh in publicly since opinion is massively in their favor already), but I don't think for a second this is all EA's fault and Valve is blameless.

            • reply
              July 27, 2011 6:24 PM

              DLC does not come directly from EA. Crysis 2 DLC comes from Gamespy. And you will still get fucked over. If EA was trying to help out the consumer, they would at least put the DLC on Origin.

          • reply
            July 27, 2011 11:42 PM

            Its not about what the customers want, but what EA wants for their customers.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 5:36 PM

      And nothing of value was lost

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 6:37 PM

      i hope origin fails. and then i hope steam doesnt let EA back in.

      • reply
        July 27, 2011 7:06 PM

        Origin as we know it now will be "successful" for many years because of TOR and whatever exclusives it has (BF3...). Whether or not it will be able to complete with Steam from a money making standpoint all lies in the hands of third party publishers down the line.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 10:25 PM

          For 7 years, then.

        • reply
          July 27, 2011 11:34 PM

          the question with 3rd parties is a really big one. There is a serious conflict of interest with EA running a service considering they have their hands in pretty much every pot already. Any 3rd party will just be a competing product.

    • reply
      July 27, 2011 10:41 PM

      Challenge everything, right?