Originally Posted by Q
Actually, it DOES matter to us.
I'm going to make these assumptions:
- Most PC gamers prefer Steam over Origin.
- Most PC gamers would prefer not to run multiple clients to access their gaming libraries.
If BF3 does remarkably well (and relative to MW3) despite the absence on Steam, it is only going to embolden EA and push more games to Origin and eventually to Origin exclusively. We're going to end up having half of the PC games on Steam and half on Origin. This alone wouldn't be an issue, but then we have one off games like GTA4 that need GFWL logins to play as well. Combine this with activation limits and other interactive DRM (if a legit user never sees the DRM or is effected, who cares?), the PC starts becoming a platform of hurdles again.
It's not as doomsday-like as I'm making it out to be, but another major provider of games needing another login and another client and another service is going to make the PC harder to use and that's not good for anyone. Remember, gentlemen, we are NOT the average PC users. Hell, we're not even the average PC gamer. The simpler we keep the platform the more people will use it and THAT means more and better games for us as PC users.
MW3 versus BF3 sales will help determine which way the industry goes. The question is will it be a major contributor or just a footnote?
then blame valve for inventing steam. before it we didnt need any client to play a game
the article is bs anyways. when mw2 came out it was THE top seller on steam for like 3 months solid. nothing could touch it. Black ops lasted about 2 weeks before it was dethroned and hardly made the list within 2 months of release. BF3 will easily surpass MW3 in terms of PC sales, but consoles will still drive mw3 sales ultimately higher