I don't see the problem with this to be honest. I mean I've literally ran it through my head since I read it first on reddit and all I can come up with is that they're just trying to promote another source of digitally downloadable games other than steam, which is good for both Steam and EA in this scenario. It's good for Steam because EA's will inevitably fail with the public due to how clumsy and user-unfriendly it is compared to Steam while EA benefits from any money it makes through the system they've developed. It affects no other person aside from maybe people outside the UK/US that have to deal with outrageous pricing (Aussies, feel bad for you guys) because you can just pre-order at a local game store, which apparently is a good idea anyways.
I just fail to see why this is such a big deal and why everyone's blowing it out of proportion on the internet, assuming it's simply "because they can."
Anyone want to explain where this major problem is?
I know it's an underhanded, cheap, and for lack of a better word, prick-ish thing to do removing games already on steam from steam, but I'm focusing mostly on BF3 here. Also, I don't mean to ruffle anyone's angry feathers with this post, I'm genuinely curious as to why this is so terrible.
I think it a lot of it has to do with the fact that the Origins platform is not anywhere near the quality (or collectiveness) of Steam. Couple this with not wanting to have to run multiple platforms just to access manufacturer's games isn't really all that desirable, then tack on the idea of "being unable to access games you paid for a year after purchase".
I think that last addendum is why people aren't a huge fan of the idea for the mostpart.























. Well maybe one, lol