Steam actually offers something else though.
PC Gaming isn't locked in to one store, so why is the hate for Steam competitors?
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
Steam actually offers something else though.
Dehumanizer
Member
Steam has thousands of cool features for the players. It's completely different from Origin and uPlay.
ROBOKITTYZILLA
Member
Do games sold outside of Steam that contain Steam activation keys give Valve a percentage of the sale? Is there any cost involved with including Steamworks features?
Anyway, I don't hate Steam competitors but...
This. Especially the bolded. I'm not against buying DRM free games or self contained games that require accounts like MMOs, Minecraft, and Cubeworld, but these usually only require launchers and not other bloated applications and proprietary storefronts. Third party applications like Origin and Uplay, that often sit on top of other launchers and platforms, are bloated and unwelcome. In addition, the precedent that Origin and Uplay set, while following in Steam's footsteps, is not a good one. I don't want to download bloated applications for every publisher that releases games.
There are some competitors that are much appreciated and I buy from them often such as Amazon, GOG, GMG, and various bundles. This is largely because many of those games allow Steam activation, because again, I greatly prefer the community and user experience of the Steam platform. I don't want Steam to have a monopoly. I welcome competition and consumer choice. However, I do want everything that is available elsewhere to also be available on Steam. Is that asking too much? Let people who dislike Steam or prefer other platforms to use them but don't discourage or look down upon people that want to use the platform that they prefer. It's fine if a company wants to use exclusivity to bolster their own platform, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Anyway, I don't hate Steam competitors but...
This. Especially the bolded. I'm not against buying DRM free games or self contained games that require accounts like MMOs, Minecraft, and Cubeworld, but these usually only require launchers and not other bloated applications and proprietary storefronts. Third party applications like Origin and Uplay, that often sit on top of other launchers and platforms, are bloated and unwelcome. In addition, the precedent that Origin and Uplay set, while following in Steam's footsteps, is not a good one. I don't want to download bloated applications for every publisher that releases games.
There are some competitors that are much appreciated and I buy from them often such as Amazon, GOG, GMG, and various bundles. This is largely because many of those games allow Steam activation, because again, I greatly prefer the community and user experience of the Steam platform. I don't want Steam to have a monopoly. I welcome competition and consumer choice. However, I do want everything that is available elsewhere to also be available on Steam. Is that asking too much? Let people who dislike Steam or prefer other platforms to use them but don't discourage or look down upon people that want to use the platform that they prefer. It's fine if a company wants to use exclusivity to bolster their own platform, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You'd think that would be self-evident, but I guess some people are fully blinded by their no-DRM principles.
competition is good. origin offers refunds too. also the barebones gog downloader doesn't let you browse your library and is useless without the website. website is great, but origin and steam clients make it easier. I wish more clients could come up with better ideas for steam and origin and gog to copy.
ubisoft forcing uplay on games on steam is pushing it, and that should stop.
I like desura too, but the UI is not great.
ubisoft forcing uplay on games on steam is pushing it, and that should stop.
I like desura too, but the UI is not great.
Reasonable enough. Steam is by far my favourite client to use for digital gaming distribution. My experiences are limited, but Origin has not done anything to really deserve my ire. Steam has a ton of cool features and i use a lot of them. Origin i just play my games. At least i can see how Steam has earned the fierce loyalty of so many gamers.
michaelius
Banned
I haven't bought single Ubisoft game on pc since they introduced their own drm.
I get where you're coming from but the difference between making a game steam exclusive and uplay/origin or whatever exclusive is that steam has an amazing feature set while other clients do not. People don't care if dota is steam exclusive because they like steam and the features it provides, there's nothing to be gained by having it on uplay or origin while having titanfall on steam would give people all the features of steam that they like while they don't really get anything from it being on origin.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
I love Steam competitors (GOG, Desura), just not fucking Origin.
Actually I know for a fact that isn't true, I have two friends who play DotA2 who refuse to do anything item related because they don't like Steam. Granted they're both for stupid reasons - one of them refuses to activate Steam Guard and thus can't trade (and the client is very buggy for him), the other is a LoL/WoW player who doesn't understand why he should have to download Steam at all - but they're allowed to have those stupid reasons. The first friend would switch to Origin/uPlay if he could but Valve don't give him the choice.
And again I'll point out that other Valve games aren't available to everyone via other services. I just checked my Origin and no Valve games are available on there (to Australians) either. If my friends or I want to play a Valve game, we have no choice other than Steam.
PandaPedinte
Member
No and no.
Marauder Shields
Member
No hate from me. Have never tried uPlay since I don't play Ubisoft games, but I've been content with my Origin experience to date. Obviously it would be nice to have the option of having all your games in one location, but it's not too big a deal for me. Also I have a lot of respect for Origin's return policy, which is something I wish Steam would one day look into.
demosthenes
Member
This is me right here.
How does you knowing two people who don't like steam invalidate my point?
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
It's a combination of wanting everything in one place and, for some, complete irrationality.
Lack of trust in EA, plus having established franchises already on Steam having sequels only on Origin is kind of a shit move.
I played Mass Effect 1 and 2 on Steam, so now I HAVE to have it on Origin? It's like moving a console exclusive franchise from one box to another, you'd have the same uproar about it.
I played Mass Effect 1 and 2 on Steam, so now I HAVE to have it on Origin? It's like moving a console exclusive franchise from one box to another, you'd have the same uproar about it.
It's because most of Steam competitors should be shunned. Ubisoft spent the majority of last generation calling PC gamers thieves and implementing some of the worst DRM known on the platform. EA is just as bad on the DRM front and have been so focused on mobile gaming these days we have no idea how much interest they have left in Origin as a PC platform. Nevermind the fact that they destroyed some of PCs best franchises and developers back in the day.
These companies are all about quick profits, if it's not adding up to the stockholders they'll do anything to rectify that. Valve isn't publicly traded so we don't have to worry about middle aged men wanting everything to be mobile or unmoddable.
GoG is awesome and deserves success though.
These companies are all about quick profits, if it's not adding up to the stockholders they'll do anything to rectify that. Valve isn't publicly traded so we don't have to worry about middle aged men wanting everything to be mobile or unmoddable.
GoG is awesome and deserves success though.
dorkimoe
Gold Member
but people dont get the "choice", they dont get to choose if they want to get it on steam or origin. EA is a big publisher..they should release it on everything and let people decide. OR just make it a little cheaper on origin and more expensive on steam. the people will speak
Because you were specifically said people, and there are people out there that don't like Steam or the features 'it provides'. I know for a fact that there are people who would play DotA2 through other means if given the option (I'm not one of them, FYI). You were speaking for people and what they like, I'm doing the same. Your point is on a person-by-person basis.
SteveWinwood
Member
if they separated out the store from the launcher, I think people would have less issue with Steam competitors. As it is, steam is just so convenient that everyone wants all their games in one place, and any 3rd party that doesn't support that is a hurdle to overcome and therefore is resisted.
Liamario
Banned
Origin and Uplay are trying to sell you DRM.
Steam is trying to sell you games.
So basically your reason for not buying for example Titanfall, is because;
- You hate EA
- You hate Origin
- You love Valve
- You love Steam
- You worship Gabe
So basically you are just reconfirming the initial suspicion that your reason for not purchasing X product using Y digital distributor is because it is a personal and not a consumer approach. Both are Digital Distributors (Steam and Origin) and both do the exact same thing so at the end of the day it does not matter where you get it from since you will get it using the exact same means.
I am pretty sure EA will be convinced because a bunch of Steamboys (I am a Steamboy too) will not purchase their product and it is quite amazing I must say that you expect to be taken seriously from EA when the core of your argument is "because I want to and I will do what I want" or because "EA can suck it".
At the end of the day you will buy Titanfall no matter where they put it, another overhyped first person shooter with laughable graphics and a gameplay that is guaranteed to run COD dry.
ebullientprism
Member
I dont get it either. I can understand the hatred if something doesnt work or breaks your games. GFWL is like that.
But something like Origin is pretty much benign. Infact I have had less problems with Origin than I have had with Steam since it released. Never had issues installing it, works fine offline, has never crashed or stopped working and never fucked up my game saves. Only thing missing is making back ups for your game is annoying.
But something like Origin is pretty much benign. Infact I have had less problems with Origin than I have had with Steam since it released. Never had issues installing it, works fine offline, has never crashed or stopped working and never fucked up my game saves. Only thing missing is making back ups for your game is annoying.
Great, so you've given up fucking arguing then.
My point is Valve are not fucking white knights, they region lock and restrict their games just like EA and deserve shit for it just like EA does (or alternatively, you accept for both companies it's a business strategy and move on).
For me, it's just a matter of convenience. I like having all my stuff in one place, one login.
I do not like Origin mostly due to the fact that it is EA. Since EA hasn't really put anything out that I have wanted since Dragon Age Origins(which pre-dates Origin) it really has not been hard to avoid at all.
I do not like Origin mostly due to the fact that it is EA. Since EA hasn't really put anything out that I have wanted since Dragon Age Origins(which pre-dates Origin) it really has not been hard to avoid at all.
He means competitors should exist so users have somewhere else to go if Valve were to do its own 180 and start abusing its customer base.
Its not like EA gave any reasons for people to distrust them at all, ever.
Not buying a product based on public perception of a company is a consumer approach, some people may not like how a company makes it products, treats its employees or not agree with its policies.
Ignoring the cheap attempt at twisting what other have said I'm surprised you think a big company won't change its policy after the whole xbox One DRM thing that happened last summer.
edit:
Thank you for posting this, hopefully people will actually read this post instead of saying that "people are lazy"
This will sound like heresy, I'm sure, but I wanted a more console like experience on PC. Steam has delivered.
I think it's great that multiple storefronts sell Steam keys. I buy from Amazon sometimes. What I hate is having to access a different library with yet another password and yet another instance of my credit card on file.
I'm also strictly a TV game player. My PC is hooked up to my TV, and I prefer to use a controller. Steam has the only controller friendly interface, and they have gone a long way towards standardizing controller support. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
I think it's great that multiple storefronts sell Steam keys. I buy from Amazon sometimes. What I hate is having to access a different library with yet another password and yet another instance of my credit card on file.
I'm also strictly a TV game player. My PC is hooked up to my TV, and I prefer to use a controller. Steam has the only controller friendly interface, and they have gone a long way towards standardizing controller support. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
I think people object to having to use multiple clients, not getting games from different sources. I definitely agree more stores, more clients, more competition is better. It's good for the consumer.
What I'd like to see, which I also think would alleviate some of these complaints, is for all the stores to offer games without requiring a client, because then as you said they can add that game to Steam, or their client of choice, while still being able to use its features, community, and chat with their built-in friends, etc.
In short more DRM-free, no strings attached games from all sellers, please. If I want to use your client, I will. Don't force me. Also, you can't and won't stop piracy, so stop trying. It's only inconveniencing me, your customer.
What I'd like to see, which I also think would alleviate some of these complaints, is for all the stores to offer games without requiring a client, because then as you said they can add that game to Steam, or their client of choice, while still being able to use its features, community, and chat with their built-in friends, etc.
In short more DRM-free, no strings attached games from all sellers, please. If I want to use your client, I will. Don't force me. Also, you can't and won't stop piracy, so stop trying. It's only inconveniencing me, your customer.
Baleoce
Member
This is how I feel. I don't believe in putting all your eggs in one basket. Especially not on an inherently open platform like PC.
I think we need to be clear here and say that the bulk of the hostility is towards Origin and UPlay, and not towards alternative store fronts generally. I think these two store fronts arrived with a variety of problems:
1) They were late to the party. Rather than seeming like the product of indigenous PC Gaming companies trying to build things up, it seemed like these were storefronts made by companies that wanted to swoop in and capitalize on the success that the native PC gaming companies had already created.
2) They are run by huge corporate conglomerates. For some good reasons and some bad, PC gamers tend to be wary of huge corporations, and particularly those which use their size to assert control. For example, Origin would have no chance at all if it weren't for the sheer size of EA's catalogue.
3) Lack of honesty. In the early days of Origin, EA tried to posture as if Valve were being mean bullies in some way (this was never really specified), and that Origin represented their attempt to avoid this bullying and bring their games to the people. I think it is abundantly clear now that, in reality, EA wanted to start their own store front to get in on the money Steam makes and that all attempts to suggest they were doing this for consumer-friendly reasons were fabricated to avoid negative press. This sort of behavior is particularly offensive to PC gamers -- with no regulation or oversight, an open platform like Windows is rife for exploitation and deception, so PC Gamers tend to be particularly concerned with honest, straightforward community engagement.
There are other reasons, as well. This is not a simple situation where you can point to a single thing and say "that's the problem." But I think it's important to note that Uplay and especially Origin are the two alternative platforms that get the bulk of the scorn. People actively appreciate Good old Games; Stardock and Impulse did not get much hatred when they were around. It's Origin and UPlay we're talking about here.
1) They were late to the party. Rather than seeming like the product of indigenous PC Gaming companies trying to build things up, it seemed like these were storefronts made by companies that wanted to swoop in and capitalize on the success that the native PC gaming companies had already created.
2) They are run by huge corporate conglomerates. For some good reasons and some bad, PC gamers tend to be wary of huge corporations, and particularly those which use their size to assert control. For example, Origin would have no chance at all if it weren't for the sheer size of EA's catalogue.
3) Lack of honesty. In the early days of Origin, EA tried to posture as if Valve were being mean bullies in some way (this was never really specified), and that Origin represented their attempt to avoid this bullying and bring their games to the people. I think it is abundantly clear now that, in reality, EA wanted to start their own store front to get in on the money Steam makes and that all attempts to suggest they were doing this for consumer-friendly reasons were fabricated to avoid negative press. This sort of behavior is particularly offensive to PC gamers -- with no regulation or oversight, an open platform like Windows is rife for exploitation and deception, so PC Gamers tend to be particularly concerned with honest, straightforward community engagement.
There are other reasons, as well. This is not a simple situation where you can point to a single thing and say "that's the problem." But I think it's important to note that Uplay and especially Origin are the two alternative platforms that get the bulk of the scorn. People actively appreciate Good old Games; Stardock and Impulse did not get much hatred when they were around. It's Origin and UPlay we're talking about here.
SneakyStephan
Banned
It's those crazy pc dickriders who love their monopolies that's why I only support the open platform that is ps4 and psn
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't really view Origin as a Steam competitor. EA doesn't release their games on Steam. So where's the competition? It's not like Origin players get a better version of Battlefield 4. They get the only version of Battlefield 4. It's not like Origin enables me to pay less for Battlefield 4. The Steam version is $44.99, while the Origin version is $24.99. There's nothing like that. There's no benefit for having to buy BioWare points to spend on BioWare DLC. This is not a good execution. Even on games that do have both Steam and Origin releases, there's no real price or feature competition. There's no additional support. Origin has innovated in some ways--streaming integration and some of the customer service stuff that EA provides. I don't see people shitting on those features. Those features get praise. But it's totally reasonable for someone to say "well, I've seen Origins benefits and downsides, and the downsides exceed the benefits for me."
GFWL and uPlay are both in the same terrible category. GFWL and uPlay games were largely released on Steam at the same time. They did not support any additional Steam features, in favour of GFWL/uPlay features. Patching and managing updates is frustrating. uPlay used a launcher which for years was incompatible with 10 foot UI / controller based gaming / big picture / whatever you want to call it. I don't see any price competition. MS games weren't notably cheap on GFWL excepting AoE3 and Viva Pinata, neither of which were on Steam to begin with. Ubisoft games aren't notably cheaper on uPlay. GFWL had some forward-looking ideas circa 2006-2007 but those were quickly surpassed by other services. uPlay has literally never had a feature competitors haven't. It has been repeatedly hacked though, placing customer data at risk. So that's a feature, I guess.
To the extent that some web storefronts are Steam competitors, like GMG or Amazon or IndieGameStand or Humble Store or whatever, there is no hate. No one is saying they hate buying Steam keys from Humble and redeeming them on Steam. GMG and Amazon are often able to pass along the savings to consumers, and they do it largely because Valve voluntarily makes Steamworks usable in this manner (being able to run third-party Steam key resellers). Valve isn't doing this out of generosity but rather to suck people in to their conspiracy of world domination, but the fact remains that those services get positive feedback because they are price competitive with Steam while still providing Steam keys, and they're able to do this because of the way Steam devs can generate and give away unlimited keys to customers or third party resellers. You know why people expect free Steam keys for games they've bought on other services or direct through the developer? Because it adds features and costs the developer nothing. Actually it saves the developer money by not having to have bandwidth or server infrastructure to deliver updates, as the Hawken developers are pointing out as they transition their game away from their own content servers to Steam's.
Edit: I'll also add that it's no coincidence that while the indie discount thing was possible before now (World of Goo's PWYW, Steam's random indie packs), the reason it's been able to percolate the way it has is also because of Steamworks and Desura providing keys for developers at no cost.
I also don't see much hate for GOG. Personally it's not where I buy my indie games, because I like leaderboards, achievements, I like Steam Workshop when it's supported, and I like automatic patches instead of having to manage game updates. But I don't see anyone slagging off GOG and I don't know anyone who uses Steam and isn't willing to buy a classic game that has no chance of being released or supported on Steam on GOG instead. Obviously those guys have been willing to play around and innovate, and they get praise for that.
Services like MMOs which use stand-alone clients--I hear some mild grumbling about how people wish it were integrated into existing clients, but not much more. Because it's normally done in exchange for a superb level of content and patch support. If regular gaming companies were held to the standard that MMO type companies were, they'd be delivering a lot more content a lot more often. Notice how many of the complaints about Origin relate to having to use it for Battlefield and not for TOR? Does TOR even use Origin, or does it have its own launcher/updater/client?
The people you're talking about seem to hate services that add frustration and fragmentation while taking away features and not effectively competing with existing services. The people you're talking about seem to be very happy with the services they do use, including services that are competitive to Steam, as long as the services actually offer them a better experience.
When you hear someone say "I'd like to play Titanfall, but not on Origin", they're not saying "Titanfall is my most hyped game ever and I am cutting off my nose to spite my face long lived based gaeb". They're saying "I have mild interest in Titanfall but I find Origin frustrating or obnoxious so instead of playing it, I'll play hundreds of other games I am interested in that better fit my needs." You won't find these boycotters talk about how dissatisfied they are with what they have to play, how they're bored and their boycotts are denying them joy. Instead you'll hear them talk about what they're playing instead. *shrugs*
GFWL and uPlay are both in the same terrible category. GFWL and uPlay games were largely released on Steam at the same time. They did not support any additional Steam features, in favour of GFWL/uPlay features. Patching and managing updates is frustrating. uPlay used a launcher which for years was incompatible with 10 foot UI / controller based gaming / big picture / whatever you want to call it. I don't see any price competition. MS games weren't notably cheap on GFWL excepting AoE3 and Viva Pinata, neither of which were on Steam to begin with. Ubisoft games aren't notably cheaper on uPlay. GFWL had some forward-looking ideas circa 2006-2007 but those were quickly surpassed by other services. uPlay has literally never had a feature competitors haven't. It has been repeatedly hacked though, placing customer data at risk. So that's a feature, I guess.
To the extent that some web storefronts are Steam competitors, like GMG or Amazon or IndieGameStand or Humble Store or whatever, there is no hate. No one is saying they hate buying Steam keys from Humble and redeeming them on Steam. GMG and Amazon are often able to pass along the savings to consumers, and they do it largely because Valve voluntarily makes Steamworks usable in this manner (being able to run third-party Steam key resellers). Valve isn't doing this out of generosity but rather to suck people in to their conspiracy of world domination, but the fact remains that those services get positive feedback because they are price competitive with Steam while still providing Steam keys, and they're able to do this because of the way Steam devs can generate and give away unlimited keys to customers or third party resellers. You know why people expect free Steam keys for games they've bought on other services or direct through the developer? Because it adds features and costs the developer nothing. Actually it saves the developer money by not having to have bandwidth or server infrastructure to deliver updates, as the Hawken developers are pointing out as they transition their game away from their own content servers to Steam's.
Edit: I'll also add that it's no coincidence that while the indie discount thing was possible before now (World of Goo's PWYW, Steam's random indie packs), the reason it's been able to percolate the way it has is also because of Steamworks and Desura providing keys for developers at no cost.
I also don't see much hate for GOG. Personally it's not where I buy my indie games, because I like leaderboards, achievements, I like Steam Workshop when it's supported, and I like automatic patches instead of having to manage game updates. But I don't see anyone slagging off GOG and I don't know anyone who uses Steam and isn't willing to buy a classic game that has no chance of being released or supported on Steam on GOG instead. Obviously those guys have been willing to play around and innovate, and they get praise for that.
Services like MMOs which use stand-alone clients--I hear some mild grumbling about how people wish it were integrated into existing clients, but not much more. Because it's normally done in exchange for a superb level of content and patch support. If regular gaming companies were held to the standard that MMO type companies were, they'd be delivering a lot more content a lot more often. Notice how many of the complaints about Origin relate to having to use it for Battlefield and not for TOR? Does TOR even use Origin, or does it have its own launcher/updater/client?
The people you're talking about seem to hate services that add frustration and fragmentation while taking away features and not effectively competing with existing services. The people you're talking about seem to be very happy with the services they do use, including services that are competitive to Steam, as long as the services actually offer them a better experience.
When you hear someone say "I'd like to play Titanfall, but not on Origin", they're not saying "Titanfall is my most hyped game ever and I am cutting off my nose to spite my face long lived based gaeb". They're saying "I have mild interest in Titanfall but I find Origin frustrating or obnoxious so instead of playing it, I'll play hundreds of other games I am interested in that better fit my needs." You won't find these boycotters talk about how dissatisfied they are with what they have to play, how they're bored and their boycotts are denying them joy. Instead you'll hear them talk about what they're playing instead. *shrugs*
IchigoSharingan
Member
Oh I fucking can. Because I did it before. Battlefield 3.
Origin would be glitchy as shit, and I would have to cross my fingers, toes, and eyes in hopes of it actually running, AND THEN BF3 would have its own set of problems.
What a fucking nightmare....never again.
Version 3.0
Member
I don't even want Steam. Just sell me the game. But at least Steam is a good service, not a growth that you have to "put up with" in order to play the game.
Baleoce
Member
I do agree with this statement, and in general I've found it not to be a great service. But there are some benefits to this as well, that don't necessarily dictate you having to use that platform in order to reap them.
For example, when Origin announced that you can return games that you feel aren't good enough, or have faults. I'm not suggesting they were the first digital marketplace to ever do this. But due to their size and visibility, the PC community noticed this. It was no coincidence that they announced this policy after it steadily became a bigger issue with the Steam community.
But for better or worse motives, the policy is still there. And if that puts pressure on Steam to adopt something similar (pre-order refunds back into wallet is something at least), then this is a net positive effect. Things like this can spark a healthy competition. Sometimes a platform like Origin can be a necessary evil.
EA pulled Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 after Valve introduced a new policy mandating that DLC for all future releases must be made available on the store... or, to frame the time differently, less than two weeks after Origin launched (which, as I'll explain, was no coincidence). Knowing Valve would never address the matter publicly, EA took aim and blamed the company, following it up with a statement that the terms impacted its own ability to provision "patches, updates, additional content and other services to our players at the highest possible level of quality" (paraphrased). In truth, as I've shown in the past, the policy that ruffled EA's feathers so wasn't retroactive and therefore did not apply to the games it had pulled, making it plainly clear that the decision was a political move made in order to prop up the nascent Origin due to its lack of titles. The rumour at the time was that the relationship between EA and Valve had soured due to the former demanding a larger revenue cut; the actual reason behind its abandonment of Steam lends credence to this (i.e. EA wanted a larger cut to make up the revenue it presumed it would lose by being forced to offer DLC through Steam).
Dead Early
Banned
I dunno about anyone else, but I would be a helluva lot less warm to steam if I was first introduced to it as "proprietary software I gotta install for no real reason to play my game" as opposed to "a service where I can download games."
CheDominik
Member
Well you pretty much described the beginnings of steam. The outrage was huge at first.
I still view Steam as a necessary evil I prefer no DRM if given the choice.
Gowans gaf is a strange place. They want one game store, but competition in the OS space. As a long time PC user I want there to be competition on every level of the PC platform. Even regards to the CMOS battery I want as much competition as possible. If people want one anything there is already an area that features that centralization; console.
Not having any DRM is something that won't happen and doesn't make any sense. Eventually there will be a great DRM system developed and in order for that to happen all the iterations have to continue.
Because other platforms lock a developers PC gaming to one store. (I buy from GOG, GMG, and Humble)
Dead Early
Banned
I really didn't. When I first got interested in PC games that weren't WoW, it was around 2010 and I was on my Dad's old PC with a geforce 7350. I'd downloaded steam because I was mildly interested in the "so awesome PC games" I'd heard about over the years that I'd never really had the chance to play.
(As an aside, KOTOR didn't live up to the years of hype from gaming sites.)
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't see how they exert competitive pressure on each other if both networks are free, there's no loss-leader effect as with hardware stuff, and they don't sell any of the same products. Like, 99.99999999999999% of Origin's business is stuff that's not on Steam. The sales of, whatever, Batman or Homefront or whatever that's available on both is clearly a miniscule part of their business. So I don't really see how Origin "competes" with Steam. What are they competing for?