Does thig game require the retarded origin client?
Googled it, it does. I wish Curt and team all the best, they are clearly passionate about games, but i dont pay more than ten bucks for anything on shitty origin, i dont care how good it is.
If you purchase anywhere other than Steam it does. Steam download is only version that is Origin-free, which is why I chose it over the better Amazon deal.
As part of their deal with EA, 38 Studios brokered a deal to allow them to self-publish the game so that it will appear on the Steam platform. Since the Steam version is a non-EA entity, it does not require Origin.
Worth noting that it's an exclusive review that wasn't subject to an embargo, which I think gets lifted on launch day.
Which makes me wonder how much money changed hands here over the "review".
EDIT: perhaps that's a bit too harsh, but it has to make you wonder about slant that this review has.
Last edited by triggercut; 02-04-2012 at 12:25 AM.
Lemme see if I have this right. If you buy it from steam you have to run the steam client... and run Origin client... and give up your left nut... and first born.... all to play a game?
I need another hobby. This BS is getting beyond redonkulous.
I really don't understand all the Origin hate. I get people hating EA, but if you hate the company you probably shouldn't buy anything from them at any cost. The Origin hate, however, I just don't think is rational, not that gamers are very rational to begin with.
Seriously, what is so bad about Origin, or what does it do that Steam doesn't also do? Is it just because it wasn't here first?
There are plenty of ways in which Origin is superior, and vice versa. The only difference is that Steam has been around long enough for most people who hated it to stop complaining about it and Origin is brand new.
(from official Reckoning website:)
Do I need to register the PC version of Reckoning with Origin prior to play? Does that require the Origin client if I purchased Reckoning on Steam?
All PC versions of Reckoning, except for the Steam version, require a one-time authentication through Origin and the Origin client. If you purchase Reckoning through Steam, you only need to authenticate the game through Steam.
I called my friend and told him about the situation. He tried to purchase SWTOR and... same thing! Lovely. Five days (i.e. after the weekend had long since passed) they finally resolved their shit then billed me four times for the "cancelled" orders. That was fun straightening that out.
Oh, and the grandest thing of all? When I get billed four times I figure well, hey, I must be able to play SWTOR now at least. So I load up Origin and... no download. What the hell? So I look up their FAQs, they recommend restarting Origin to find a missing game or, if that fails, reinstall (seriously.. reinstall?). But whatever, I do that and... still nothing. Well, turns out you couldn't download the game through Origin. Oh no. You download it through the SWTOR website! What this means is the process looked like this:
-Go to SWTOR.com to create an account to play
-Go to Origin to purchase
-Wait several days and be billed multiple times for the product
-Once Origin finally gets their shit straightened out, go BACK to the fucking website where you started from to download the game client.
And holy shit, don't even get me started on the BF3/Origin stupidity.
Lets just say that Origin did not exactly add much to my consumer experience. You know what I do when I buy games on Steam? I click buy, then it asks me if I want to install, then I'm playing the game. That's it. I'm not religious about Steam, I also use Impulse, GamersGate, etc. But those clients A) work and B) leave me the fuck alone after I purchased the game.
ANYWAY, now that nerdrage has been vented for the day, let me just say I will avoid Origin like the plague. BF3 was a big anticipated title for me, so I relented, but if Reckoning (an unknown to me) was Origin exclusive, I'd take a pass. But it's on Steam, and Steam won't accept games that require Origin from my understanding, so I shall buy it there and play the game how I want to play it... through a service that actually enhances my experience or, at worst, gets the fuck out of my way.
The Origin beta experience is disgusting. The only reason why I put up with it is because I have no choice if I want to play EA games like BF3.
Serial numbers are available if you got your game from Amazon.
Perhaps my concern is overstated. I certainly hope that's the case.
IGN contracted to do 3 exclusive "impressions-as-I-play" articles with 38 Studios/EA leading into the review. Would this contract be entered into if the IGN reviewer began playing the game and in the first review said "This game leaves a whole lot to be desired"? Would the second and third articles get the page hits and click-thrus that the second and third articles got with 38 Studios and EA promoting them heavily? (The question being, if IGN was lukewarm on the game, would 38 and EA be using social media so heavily to get folks to visit there?) Clearly both parties in this gained something. EA and 38 got some nice PR in advance of their game release, IGN got click thrus from EA and 38 promoting the hell out of those pieces.
I guess my problem is that IGN called those pieces "Reviews In Progress". I suppose that was what they were in a sense...but clearly EA and 38 used them as PR as well, and they should have. Had IGN called them "Hands On Previews", their final review wouldn't be beholden to those three pieces. But, there'd be no way for IGN to write glowing "Reviews In Progress" on the one hand, and then do their official review and give the game a 6.5 score.
The IGN pieces did a great job of showing off the game and extolling its virtues. I think the game will be terrific. But...what if it was a dog? What then?
So yes, I think it is a legitimate question for a player, and most importantly, consumer to have in advance of paying $60 for a game. What, if anything, did IGN give by way of assurances to EA and 38 in exchange for an exclusive review ahead of embargo?
Last edited by triggercut; 02-04-2012 at 10:18 AM.
The Steam version of Reckoning is self-published by 38 Studios, without the presence of their publisher EA. There is no EA to it. 38 Studios was able to negotiate their own deal with Valve and--one more time--there's no EA, or Origin, involved in the Steam version of the game.
Buy the game on Steam, and you play it through Steam, and no nothing else.
Last edited by triggercut; 02-04-2012 at 09:55 AM.
triggercut I agree with you completely. One doubts if IGN would have gotten such an exclusive had they rated the game a 6.
Isn't that the deal with ALL exclusives?
I have certainly heard stories about magazine covers and such, but as far as straight-up bribing for/buying the review? I personally have never heard of it happening at a major enthusiast press outlet. At this point, do you really think anyone would try something like that considering how paranoid the core audience is about that very thing? If that happened and subsequently came to light, that would be the end of the line for that outlet. Wouldn't be remotely worth the risk.
Perhaps if IGN makes the "Review In Progress" something that they continue with, in the future we'll see a reviewer either be lukewarm or even disdainful of the game he's talking about his play-along with. I hope so. Perhaps it was just a quirk of luck that the first time they did this, the game got glowing write-ups in the "Review In Progress" that the publisher and developer could then use in twitter, facebook, and on their websites as a promotional tool.
Understand my discomfort here. Normally when we see stuff like this, it's tabbed as a "Preview", or even "Hands on with...." and not presented as strictly editorial comment and subjective review. Promo folks love Previews and "Hands on with..." articles. They contact entities and suggest them. The process is pretty transparent: the PR folks supply access, the previewing entity writes up the game in a more objective presentation of non-review game information in a different-from-review format, and the PR folks then get to link to it and use it as promotion, thus driving traffic to the previewing entity. It's a win-win for everyone.
By IGN calling this a "Review In Progress", and by EA giving them an exclusive review window ahead of everyone else....hey, I'm sorry. It all may be totally innocent. I hope it is. The optics, however, are terrible, and having someone say blithely claim that "It doesn't happen" and "This meme needs to die", when folks like Jeff Gerstmann can tell us differently is a bit disingenuous.
Last edited by triggercut; 02-04-2012 at 11:50 AM.
Smear posts happen all the time. Yours sounds like one. Of course, I hope it's not but it's reasonable to be asking that question. You may be totally innocent. Or not.
It doesn't matter what you hear, you're going to believe whatever conspiracy theory you want to believe.
There was no "tit for tat." The folks at IGN liked the game enough to request a build to do a "review in progress" through January. We had no idea what their review score would be, and I would never even dare ask. I was reasonably confident that it would eventually be good, but none of us knew that when we agreed to the weekly features.
The whole thing was a gamble. You probably won't believe it, but I was nervous about letting them post their updates and even more nervous all day Friday waiting for the score to go live. When IGN accidentally posted their 9 score a bit early, and then took it down, I was even more freaked out because I feared that it was a mistake and we'd end up with something lower.
I don't know why it would be so hard for you to believe that the writer genuinely really liked Reckoning. Why must you assume that there is something shady going on here for him to give it a 9?
Edit: Would also like to add that letting IGN post their review early was not part of the deal when we sent them a build for their Review in Progress. We only agreed to that a few days ahead of time.
But whatever. Pull your tinfoil hat down tight if that's what makes you feel comfortable.
When you put up a post like this:
without explicitly identifying and fully disclosing that "I work Promo/PR for this title" you lose the high ground when suggesting that consumers trust the process more.What, exactly, does it make you wonder? And why the scare quotes around review?
Out with it. Other than accusing us of paying off a reviewer, what are you suggesting?
You've been doing this long enough to not be this clumsy.