Support NeoGAF

[MrCunningham]

Just want to clear a couple things up.



This advantage doesn't really exist. New PC games have an MSRP just like console games. Just like you can buy a PC game from Steam, Origin, or GMG, you can buy a console game from Gamestop, Best Buy, or Amazon.

While this is true, I think the point he was trying to make is that there is no licensing restrictions to making a game on PC, and you don't have to go through any approval processes either. Minecraft is still the best example of this, as it was a game sold on an independent website with no retail release at all, initially. Also the PC version has never dropped from the $20 dollar price tag ever. LOL is kind of the same.

 

[water_wendi]

This argument holds little water if said people would be willing to buy said game if it came to a different service like GOG or GMG instead of steam but wouldn't buy it on origin because their problem with it is infact with origin itself and not that it's not on steam. I for one with much prefer a DRM-free copy of the game over a steam copy whatever it is. How does that make me fanatical now?

i dont consider your viewpoint as expressed here fanatical. The following though..

Not buying it on PC now....

gg no buy

Definitely not getting it now.

Xbox One it is then.

360 it is!

Welp, that's one game crossed off my to-buy list.

Awesome, one less game to buy in march.

It's nice to get confirmation that I can ignore this game now.

Welp, I guess I'll miss out on the game completely.

oh well you've lost more than one sale, including mine. This game gets worse and worse with every announcement.

I guess they don't want my money. No worries, though. Plenty of other games.

Sorry, not Steam or GoG so no buy.

Not installing origin. Pass.

Yep, knew this was coming, confirming that I won't buy it.

EA is well within their rights to make it Origin-only, but I refuse to support it

Shit I wanted to play this. Is Halo 2 anniversary + $399 xbone comes out I might have to buy an xbone.

that's a lost sale from me!

the less drm organizing software in my system the better (i have 6 free origin games i still haven't activated cause of my EA boycott!)

Origin means I'll get it when it hits $10 or lower on Amazon.

Excellent, this will give me something to play on my Xbox One.

Games on Origin disappear to me. Not saying it out of spite, it's just true.

Guess I'm not playing Titanfall.

Good luck with your multiplayer only game on a service with 1/5th the active users (if that).

Origin guarantees I will never buy it.

There goes my sale lol. Looks like I'll be sticking to NS2 for my mech action

And there we go.

Definitely not getting it now. I was already put off by the recent footage.

And with that, NO BUY...

Xbox one purchase for sure lol

Requiring Origin?
Buying another game instead *takes monies elsewhere*

Guess i'll pick it up in the next ea humble bundle.

"gg no buy" Yup

I'll buy it when it goes on Steam and not a minute before. Origin is a frustrating piece of junk every single time I've tried to use it.

I won't buy it.

These are from the Titanfall thread where in a surprise announcement it was announced that an EA published game would use the EA launcher. i stopped about halfway through the thread because i dont have a heater and my fingers are going numb from using the mouse. Granted it wasnt everyone in the thread.. many seemed astonished that gamers would even do such a thing, there was a nice sized chuck of Steam or bust sentiment. This isnt the first time such cheerleading has happened but it is a trend that is growing.

 

[Dolor]

People spend money on a lot sillier things than cards to craft sweet badges to represent their favorite game (and their dedication to it) on the Gaming centric social network they use everyday.

Yeah, there's probably a long list of worse ways to spend money before the nearly free optional digital wallpapers and stuff that Steam sells.

If the conversation were really about exclusivity what about all the games that are Steam exclusive? These folks making noise about "Titanfall exclusivity" arent aghast with horror at the hundreds or thousands of Steam exclusive games.

It's pretty simple really. You don't complain if you're forced to fly first class. You do complain if you're forced to fly in the cargo hold.

 

[water_wendi]

It's pretty simple really. You don't complain if you're forced to fly first class. You do complain if you're forced to fly in the cargo hold.

Its a launcher that starts the game.

 

[Dolor]

Its a launcher that starts the game.

Which is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but clearly you just documented a large number of people who view it as more than that.

 

[water_wendi]

Which is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but clearly you just documented a large number of people who view it as more than that.

i completely agree. i also maintain that such opinions are harmful to gaming as a whole. Its worse than someone who wont play a Playstation game because they are enamored with Microsoft.

 

[rashbeep]

Origin and UPlay actually make playing games worse. They're slow and bloated programs.

Origin is much faster than Steam. For how popular it is, I'm surprised no optimizations have been made to its interface it's still quite sluggish.

 

[Dolor]

i completely agree. i also maintain that such opinions are harmful to gaming as a whole. Its worse than someone who wont play a Playstation game because they are enamored with Microsoft.

It seems to me that the rise of Steam has coincided with a real renaissance for PC gaming over the last few years. I would argue that the two things happening simultaneously are more than a coincidence and actually have reinforced each other, but at the very least, it seems hard to find evidence that the rise of Steam is actually damaging PC gaming.

By most accounts, PC gaming is as good as it has ever been while at the same time Steam is as large as it has ever been.

 

[Sentenza]

Origin is much faster than Steam.

No, it's not. It's not faster, it's not lighter in terms of memory footprint and it's not even close to be on parity when it comes to features.
It doesn't really matter how many of you are going to repeat bullshit. It still is bullshit which has been already disproved several times in the past.

 

[Dire]

i completely agree. i also maintain that such opinions are harmful to gaming as a whole. Its worse than someone who wont play a Playstation game because they are enamored with Microsoft.

Uh, whoa. No you didn't.

Refusing to purchase products on a certain company's platform because you feel they exploit gamers, developers, etc is now harmful for gaming as a whole? That's some hard core bullshit. Taking a stance against exploitative behavior is the best thing in the world that players can do to help improving gaming as a whole.

Now to ensure I'm not straw manning you, I'd agree if you're talking about completely blind bias. But if you read this thread the vast majority are discussing the exact reasons they prefer to not support EA. I doubt the majority chipping in with things like "Origin? No thanks." are just saying that because it happens to be trendy to despise EA. EA has done an enormous amount to gain the ire of gamers and developers alike. As somebody already posted in this thread EA specifically included in their Origin T&C at one point you giving them the right to spy and spam on you. They removed it, presumably after outcry and instead now just have various clauses that essentially say they can do whatever they want and change their conditions whenever and however they want and if you keep playing "your" game - you automatically agree to them. And that's one tiny little spot directly related to Origin in the whole slew of "Screw gamers if we can make a buck." list of EAisms. In the end you reap what you sow.

 

[Jtrizzy]

Nothing more than an small inconvenience for me. I'd never skip a game in protest of origin or uplay.

 

[jediyoshi]

Its a launcher that starts the game.

No, a game's launcher is a launcher that starts the game. If you're willing to look past the suite of features any of these services provide, then of course that viewpoint will inherently trivialize any other kind of analysis.

 

[elcuervo75]

I see it as Gabe Newell is fighting Microsoft for years, so others like him more as the underdog. EA has spit in the face of customers so many times that it makes people worried that their games will still be there years from now so they can pay what they paid for.

Personally I feel Steam has every ability to screw us in the future too, which is why I want to play my backlog as soon as I can and wont pay more than $5 for a game that I can't sell. You never know, maybe the day will come when if a game is not ported to Linux/Steam Machines maybe it wont be available anymore. I doubt it but if they become popular enough and there are enough games on their new proprietary platform bad stuff can happen.

I don't mind the Origin software, it works. But I certainly only have games on there because I got them dirt cheap.

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

Valve should publish DOTA 2 on Origin.

Joking aside EA has the right to use its free distribution client to distribute its own game. Of course they're using it to push Origin. Isn't that what Valve used Half Life 2 for with Steam?

 

[outsida]

Well I just found out that I'm apparently a fanatic for not liking Origin. You learn something new everyday.

 

[water_wendi]

Uh, whoa. No you didn't.

Refusing to purchase products on a certain company's platform because you feel they exploit gamers, developers, etc is now harmful for gaming as a whole? That's some hard core bullshit. Taking a stance against exploitative behavior is the best thing in the world that players can do to help improving gaming as a whole.

The reason why someone refuses to play a game is the key. If its because they are boycotting Titanfall because of EA, thats a principled decision i can understand. If they were planning on buying Titanfall but it not being on Steam is a deal breaker, thats something else entirely. There were about a few quotes from the other thread that i did not put in that long quote post precisely because of this.

Now to ensure I'm not straw manning you, I'd agree if you're talking about completely blind bias. But if you read this thread the vast majority are discussing the exact reasons they prefer to not support EA. I doubt the majority chipping in with things like "Origin? No thanks." are just saying that because it happens to be trendy to despise EA.

Like i said above and before, i have zero problem with this. EA boycotts werent what i was discussing. Its Steam or nothing mentality.

No, a game's launcher is a launcher that starts the game. If you're willing to look past the suite of features any of these services provide, then of course that viewpoint will inherently trivialize any other kind of analysis.

No its a launcher. If you wanted to keep all your games in one place you could add the game to Steam. If you want to keep in touch with your friends on Steam you can use the Steam overlay. Valve has provided this stuff so people will not have to venture outside their walls yet still this is not enough. Games need to be on Steam or its no buy?

 

[kharma45]

Origin is much faster than Steam. For how popular it is, I'm surprised no optimizations have been made to its interface it's still quite sluggish.

Aye even on an SSD Steam isn't as slick as it should be. Valve has probably been putting all their effort into Big Picture mode of late but the desktop Steam program needs looked at as you say.

 

[Morfeo]

I agree with OP. This development is great for us consumers. Also, Valve have the worst customer support in the business, so I expect quite a few of these posts come from good old-fashioned fanboys.

 

[Eusis]

I think it's mainly with Uplay/Origin and other stores that we feel are unreliable for whatever reason. Some of us have seen how little Digital River seems to care for ownership as an example. I don't typically see such backlash against the likes of GOG or Amazon for example, though in the case of Amazon I imagine the fact they usually give Steam keys makes them seen more as an extension of Steam more than a competitor.

 

[_hekk05]

i dont consider your viewpoint as expressed here fanatical. The following though..

These are from the Titanfall thread where in a surprise announcement it was announced that an EA published game would use the EA launcher. i stopped about halfway through the thread because i dont have a heater and my fingers are going numb from using the mouse. Granted it wasnt everyone in the thread.. many seemed astonished that gamers would even do such a thing, there was a nice sized chuck of Steam or bust sentiment. This isnt the first time such cheerleading has happened but it is a trend that is growing.

Thanks for name-dropping me. In exchange, from the "Why boycott when you are only hurting yourself" thread

Its a matter of principle. I can take it if I don't play some games. Its not like I don't have a huge backlog.

I decided to boycott origin after the spyware shitstorm. Sure they've since changed the EULA, but it was an asshole thing to do and they shouldn't have tried it.

I boycotted all GFWL games. Now GFWL is gone. I'm happy.

I boycott uPlay just because its a stupid DRM thing that doesn't work most of the time.

Admittedly steam did some shitty things back in the day too, but I got into steam late, only when it had matured (relatively) into a nice service.

Its sad to see our standards lowered. Game-breaking bugs and subsequent patches were never a thing, but I suppose the convenience of the internet has mellowed us all. Microtransactions were never a thing either. I still shun early access, but I have friends having a blast on Rust.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I want my hobby to progress in a positive direction. Not a single cent of mine shall go towards practises I abhor.

I hate EA as a publisher, but I was willing to give Respawn a chance. EA partner games do not always end up only on Origin, so we all had hope.

Respawn chose badly.

 

[Thoraxes]

I have no hate for them, and often will buy games on them.

I just prefer Steam because that's where my friends are.

 

[DryvBy]

I rarely spend a lot of money on PC gaming anymore but when I do, I prefer Steam because I don't think they're going to close shop and I lose all my games. Also, it's nice to only have one piece of DRM on my machine than a multitude.

I like competition but competition means all stores having the same games.

 

[Persona7]

Origin is much faster than Steam. For how popular it is, I'm surprised no optimizations have been made to its interface it's still quite sluggish.

Yeah, I am surprised to see comments like that. Origin is quick and always responsive while steam is bloated, slow and poorly programmed.

 

[Sentenza]

Yeah, I am surprised to see comments like that. Origin is quick and always responsive while steam is bloated, slow and poorly programmed.

No, it's not. Why people keep making things up?
Origin used to freeze my previous PC for several seconds at eveyr launch, something Steam never did. So in what is "more quick and responsive" exactly?

And about being "lighter" in terms of memory footprint (something that many love to claim) let's go back checking facts, please?

Also, let me stress that I took this screenshot while using a post-format fresh installation of Origin with not even games downloaded on it, while I was running Steam with the PixelVision custom skin, something that should theoretically favor Origin in the comparison. And the two services are nowhere near being on par in terms of features.
It's almost tiring having to deal with all this bullshit every time.

 

[JaseC]

I don't use Origin enough to comment on it but Steam's memory footprint can vary wildly. It's currently sitting at ~121MB for me and I restarted it just a few hours ago (BPM's music support doesn't like large libraries).

 

[Sentenza]

I don't use Origin enough to comment on it but Steam's memory footprint can vary wildly. It's currently sitting at ~121MB for me.

I measured both clients as reduced to background/sys tray, which is the only scenario where their "bloat" should matter, anyway.

EDIT: for the record, for anyone complaining about that being an old screeshot, I just checked on this new PC with Windows 8.1 installed.
Same scenario as stated above: Steam 22 MB, Origin 92 MB.

 

[JaseC]

I measured both clients as reduced to background/sys tray, which is the only scenario where their "bloat" should matter, anyway.

On a fundamental level I'd argue that a consistent memory footprint pattern after continued use is also a worthwhile measurement, but, really, a program using 100MB+ is only going to be cause for concern if you're on an ancient system with 512MB of RAM or less. Steam feels bloated simply because much of it is browser-based and its browser isn't overly quick, plus there are niggling issues such as key activation freezing up the client for around 10 seconds if it's the first activation in that instance and cache verification locking you out completely unless you less it finish or cancel the process (particularly annoying when it comes larger games).

 

[kudoboi]

steam is sitting at 146MB for me and origin at 87MB both minimized

origin is also a lot faster for me in terms of navigation wise

 

[kharma45]

I measured both clients as reduced to background/sys tray, which is the only scenario where their "bloat" should matter, anyway.

EDIT: for the record, for anyone complaining about that being an old screeshot, I just checked on this new PC with Windows 8.1 installed.
Same scenario as stated above: Steam 22 MB, Origin 92 MB.

Origin is sitting at the same memory usage for me and Steam at 14MB both idling in the background.

Origin is still the slicker client out of the two.

 

[Sentenza]

On a fundamental level I'd argue that a consistent memory footprint pattern after continued use is also a worthwhile measurement

That's the most recent scenario I just reported above.
Both clients running for hours, games launched on both (a couple of Steam games o none side, BF3 on the other), and then both reduced to background.

but, really, a program using 100MB+ is going only to be cause for concern if you're on an ancient system with 512MB of RAM or less.

That's arguable, it's wasted resources anyway; beside, even taking it as an absolute truth, I'm still not the first one who pretended to argue that "Origin is slim and Steam is bloated" when facts prove otherwise.

 

[JaseC]

That's the most recent scenario I just reported above.
Both clients running for hours, games launched on both (a couple of Steam games o none side, BF3 on the other), and then both reduced to background.

Ah, I thought you meant that you'd loaded up the clients and then minimised them.

That's arguable, it's wasted resources anyway; beside, even taking it as an absolute truth, I'm still not the first one who pretended to argue that "Origin is slim and Steam is bloated" when facts prove otherwise.

I meant a cause for concern in a practical sense to the end user; a 100MB+ client isn't going to have a noticeable impact on systems with, say, 8GB of RAM or more. Naturally developers should endeavour to reduce memory use wherever possible regardless. As far as the Origin vs Steam debate is concerned, I wasn't weighing in on that outside of my earlier post wherein I mentioned that Steam's memory usage isn't exactly consistent (but, again, I can't compare it to Origin and in any case in practice it's a non-issue).

 

[toddhunter]

I believe that what happened to GFWL will happen to UPLAY and Origin so I don't want to build a library on the service and it is simple as that.

Why do I believe they will get shut down? Well if the plug was pulled tomorrow EA and Ubisoft would continue on just fine, which means there isn't a lot stopping them from doing it. On the other hand if the Steam service was about to be stopped tomorrow? You can bet Valve would be fighting for their existence to keep it going.

Many people don't believe that shutdown scenario will happen which is up to them, but many people spent a long time saying the same thing about Microsoft's failed offering (Not to mention EA's past efforts).

 

[ledman]

Never had any problem with Origin, I also think I have played more games in Origin than on Steam last year, no issues and some great discounts.

 

[The Cowboy]

No, And about being "lighter" in terms of memory footprint (something that many love to claim) let's go back checking facts, please?

.

You see, both programs use memory differently, at initial start-up Steam uses low resources and then builds up quite a lot over time (compared to what it launches at), Origin on the other hand starts up with more resources but builds up a small amount over time (compared to what it launches at) - they simply use memory differently at initial start-up.

Over time, they pretty much balance out almost equally in what they use in terms of memory footprint *when used in the standard mode (normal layout)*, when in small mode Steam has a clear advantage at it pushed the memory footprint way down (this is something I'd like Origin to add and Is primarily how I use Steam).

Edit.
You also said that was after running the programs for hours, my above pic was taken after using the programs for less than 5 minutes.

 

[Nymerio]

You see, both programs use memory differently, at initial start-up Steam uses low resources and then builds up quite a lot over time (compared to what it launches at), Origin on the other hand starts up with more resources but builds up a small amount over time (compared to what it launches at) - they simply use memory differently at initial start-up.

Over time, they pretty much balance out almost equally in what they use in terms of memory footprint *when used in the standard mode (normal layout)*, when in small mode Steam has a clear advantage at it pushed the memory footprint way down (this is something I'd like Origin to add).

It's also worth noting that the memory footprint changes with what features you use. Steam can take up a lot of memory if you browse through a couple of pages of a games community hub. I guess it's kinda logical that the client with more features would probably use more memory than the other client. That said, there's still a lot of room for improvement with both steam and origin but they're hardly unusable. At least I've never had any major problems with either. YMMV of course.

 

[szaromir]

No, it's not. Why people keep making things up?
Origin used to freeze my previous PC for several seconds at eveyr launch, something Steam never did. So in what is "more quick and responsive" exactly?

In Origin it doesn't take forever to switch between particular menus.

 

[The Cowboy]

It's also worth noting that the memory footprint changes with what features you use. Steam can take up a lot of memory if you browse through a couple of pages of a games community hub. I guess it's kinda logical that the client with more features would probably use more memory than the other client. That said, there's still a lot of room for improvement with both steam and origin but they're hardly unusable. At least I've never had any major problems with either. YMMV of course.

This is mainly because Steam uses a web based layout (all the features/pages are basically steamed into the client like web pages as you go - even the Game grid page does this), Origin on the other hand is all based within the client itself (everything gets loaded in all at once). This is most likely why Origin starts with more memory (as it loads everything in at the start) and Steam builds up over time (as it loads in all its pages over time) - and why Steam uses so little memory in small mode (as there is no pages at all).

 

[szaromir]

This is mainly because Steam uses a web based layout (all the features are basically steamed into the client like web pages), Origin on the other hand is all based within the client itself.

Yes, and the problem is that the pages take significantly longer to load than any website out there, which makes the experience of using Steam infuriating (apart from the library, but the library management in Steam isn't particularly good either).

 

[The Cowboy]

Yes, and the problem is that the pages take significantly longer to load than any website out there, which makes the experience of using Steam infuriating (apart from the library, but the library management in Steam isn't particularly good either).

Indeed, browsing the store/community/my profile etc on my web browser is quite a lot faster than doing the same within the client (I really with they'd update what they use to do it).

 

[iceatcs]

Yes, and the problem is that the pages take significantly longer to load than any website out there, which makes the experience of using Steam infuriating (apart from the library, but the library management in Steam isn't particularly good either).

This. It's bit like PSP browser.

Hopefully steamOS will have massive improve on browsing.

 

[Nymerio]

This is mainly because Steam uses a web based layout (all the features/pages are basically steamed into the client like web pages as you go - even the Game grid page does this), Origin on the other hand is all based within the client itself (everything gets loaded in all at once). This is most likely why Origin starts with more memory (as it loads everything in at the start) and Steam builds up over time (as it loads in all its pages over time) - and why Steam uses so little memory in small mode (as there is no pages at all).

Yeah, I know. I wish they'd improve this.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Viable alternatives to Steam are important. A world were Steam is the only thing, is a world were Valve turns evil from being too succesful. Companies are like an anthill that just keeps growing.


Humble, Gog, Amazon. These are great services. My problem with Origin and Uplay more specifically is the laggy navigation, slow upstart and just consumer menus. Someone else said it, its annoying to have several launchers open, updating them often, and the whole remember passwords thing.


I wish there was a shared password thing between them. Origin is fine for me. It doesn't bother me, but Uplay has really been a pain. And Rockstar social club as well.


I love Battle.net. I think that works excellent.

 

[DarkFlow]

They seem to be about the same for me, At one point steam was ahead of Origin in size, then went back down again.

 

[Haunted]

i dont consider your viewpoint as expressed here fanatical. The following though..

These are from the Titanfall thread where in a surprise announcement it was announced that an EA published game would use the EA launcher. i stopped about halfway through the thread because i dont have a heater and my fingers are going numb from using the mouse. Granted it wasnt everyone in the thread.. many seemed astonished that gamers would even do such a thing, there was a nice sized chuck of Steam or bust sentiment. This isnt the first time such cheerleading has happened but it is a trend that is growing.

I like that only 2 of the 30 posts you quoted even mention Steam.

Origin is a piece of shit software made by a piece of shit company that I don't want anywhere near my PC. I've installed blizzard games with b.net, I have GFWL games on my PC, but I won't buy a game that requires Origin.

Be more careful whom you're quoting next time.

 

[Blearth]

No, it's not. Why people keep making things up?
Origin used to freeze my previous PC for several seconds at eveyr launch, something Steam never did. So in what is "more quick and responsive" exactly?

And about being "lighter" in terms of memory footprint (something that many love to claim) let's go back checking facts, please?

Also, let me stress that I took this screenshot while using a post-format fresh installation of Origin with not even games downloaded on it, while I was running Steam with the PixelVision custom skin, something that should theoretically favor Origin in the comparison. And the two services are nowhere near being on par in terms of features.
It's almost tiring having to deal with all this bullshit every time.

I'd be perfectly fine with Steam taking up 70MB more RAM if it ran as fast as Origin.

 

[Sentenza]

In Origin it doesn't take forever to switch between particular menus.

It takes as much as Steam to me for anything that isn't the initial library page, and twice as much to start up.

You see, both programs use memory differently, at initial start-up Steam uses low resources and then builds up quite a lot over time (compared to what it launches at), Origin on the other hand starts up with more resources but builds up a small amount over time (compared to what it launches at) - they simply use memory differently at initial start-up.

Over time, they pretty much balance out almost equally in what they use in terms of memory footprint *when used in the standard mode (normal layout)*, when in small mode Steam has a clear advantage at it pushed the memory footprint way down (this is something I'd like Origin to add and Is primarily how I use Steam).

Edit.
You also said that was after running the programs for hours, my above pic was taken after using the programs for less than 5 minutes.

Updated version for the win?

Same conditions as stated above: both running for few hours, DOTA 2, Planetside 2 and GTA IV launched on Steam, BF3 on Origin. Pixelvision custom skin for Steam, vanilla version of Origin.
All things considered, if there would be a "bias" in this comparison, it would be on Origin's favor.

I also seriously doubt you are actually checking their memory use in background mode, in that picture.
Which, as I already stressed, is the relevant part, considering how "wasting resources" is an issue when you are not actively using something.

 

[The Cowboy]

It takes as much as Steam to me for anything that isn't the initial library page, and twice as much to start up.

I also seriously doubt you are actually checking their memory use in background mode, in that picture.

I think you missed my point, I wasn't comparing background modes or anything like that - I was explaining how the 2 clients are designed to use memory differently and why the footprints in certain situations are different/can be the same.

In background mode Origin still has all its stuff ready and waiting to be used instantly, in background mode Steam has pretty much nothing ready and waiting and has to load everything in (like web pages) - its why a lot of people refer to Origin being snappier, because Steam is basically a web browsing client that loads pages in as you go and Origin has everything loaded into the client and has to load in nothing as you go.

You state the fact that Origin using more memory when in background mode is wasted resources, but It actually isn't - its storing a small amount of resources so that it loads up faster/with everything ready when bringing it to the foreground, when Steam is brought to the foreground due to the fact it drops its resources instead of storing it, it has to start loading in all the web pages again which pushes its resources back up.

 

[Sentenza]

I think you missed my point, I wasn't comparing background modes or anything like that - I was explaining how the 2 clients are designed to use memory differently and why the footprints in certain situations are different..

Yeah, and I'll stress to you how "different" it is: Steam uses memory only when you are actively browsing it; in any other scenario, running in the background, its memory footprint is negligible.
The same can't be said for Origin.

 

[Cynar]

Pretty much it comes to EA , Ubisoft and other big publishers screwing over PC gamers for me that I will never invest in their ecosystems. Online stores like GMG are okay in my book though because they don't make me use a crappy client. Anything that's not a steam game can still be added as a non steam game as well.

 

[Aquashark]

who cares about RAM usage, really? especially in this day and age (unless it's a massive memory leak)

i'd rather worry about random CPU usage spikes from the Steam client (not really using Origin much to compare)..