Which is why SquareEnix is crashing towards bankruptcy and EA has been dealing with plummeting profits and corporate infighting for years now. Square alone isn't too good of an example either since they would have gone bankrupt years ago if not for the merger... and of course they're bringing the entire SquareEnix ship down with only Eidos being profitable.
Your whole post seem like just a post to try to make you look smart.
1. You talking about stuff 10 years ago about Square like it's going down hill.
2. Stocks go up and down all the time. EA isn't going anywhere no time soon.
3. Nobody knows anything about steam because steam never releases numbers. For all you know it can be struggling.
The reason EA, blizzard, NCSOFT, SQUARESOFT, ect, don't need to go on steam is because they are so massive that people will know when their games come out regardless. The people who refuse to us anything but steam is too much a minority to throw away profits.
SquareEnix has plenty of games on steam so I'm not sure why you are talking about them.
Blizzard has created Wow, D3, SC2(two parts) in the past 10 years. That's why they can make there own store(that only has their products btw). Plus one of those 4 is the top grossing MMO so if they have that many servers just selling their 4 games isnt that big a deal.
NCSoft is an MMO maker all there products require an online connection and are download only games. It makes no sense that they wouldn't sell themselves.
EA however made like 74 titles in 2012(not all are on PC). They are shooting themselves in the foot to not offer that many games in any other form for digital distribution. As of right now they are happy to shoot themselves in the foot to try and capture the digital distributor market but only time will tell if it was worth it.
Oh and btw Activision-Blizzard (of which Activision is way bigger) sells all the Activision published games on Steam. But then again according to you it's the biggest companies that don't have to sell on Steam right?
Activision-Blizzards Market Cap = 19.57B (has 99% of it's games on steam)
EA's Market Cap = 7.97B (has stopped putting games on steam)
Once again. No it's not the size of the company that determines if they are sold on Steam or not.
The last time a Tiger took a beating this bad his wife had a 5 iron.
From: happyscrub1 | Posted: 8/7/2013 7:37:40 AM | #011
Gastroid posted...Which is why SquareEnix is crashing towards bankruptcy and EA has been dealing with plummeting profits and corporate infighting for years now. Square alone isn't too good of an example either since they would have gone bankrupt years ago if not for the merger... and of course they're bringing the entire SquareEnix ship down with only Eidos being profitable.
You're the one that mentioned Square/Square Soft in the first place, a company that hasn't existed in several game generations. SquareEnix going bankrupt is a very pressing matter at this time, though, since their yearly losses are exponentially growing yearly now. Really, their recent yearly loss was ten times its predicted value, to the tune of billions of dollars.
You're right that EA isn't going anywhere soon, but they're in the same position as Sony at the moment, where they're only profitable because of considerable downsizing and corporate restructuring. While that isn't a sign of them going down tomorrow, ten years down the line if EA doesn't become truly profitable (as in, not profitable just from selling of its properties) then it'll be in a SquareEnix situation.
Also, Valve isn't struggling. There are no numbers out, but it's plainly obvious that they have the lion's share of the market. It's the largest digital distributor of games, and you know it.
In the end though, if there's any point you should take, it's that SquareEnix is the next THQ.
Achilles Mark X Judicoid
The Last Remnant of the Seraphim
No for the same reason you'll never see Battlefield 3 on steam.
Steam has very little to do with SimCity. I prefer Steam. But if SimCity had actually been a good game that was worth the money, I'd have bought it on Origin. But it wasn't. And even if it was on Steam, I wouldn't buy it.
Only the intelligent can recognize their own ignorance.
Well the only game on my origin account is battlefield 3 whilst I have around £400 worth of games on steam. I admit that I really really wanted to play this game in the April, May period but now I still haven't got the game and can't really be bothered anymore.
EA has got nothing that I really want that I have to buy from them. Well except for one game. Sims 4.
Why do you think companies like Square suddenly decided to release FF7 on steam? the answer is simple, it will sell 100 times better on steam then it does on their crappy square store that nobody will ever visit.
I think some of you are seriously underestimating people's willingness to stick to only one platform like steam, I myself am one too, the only times I buy something on origin is when it is a exclusive like simcity, mass effect 3 or battlefield 3. And there is nothing wrong with wanting everything on a easy to access program like steam, rather then having to keep track of where all your games are on different ones like uplay, origin, etc.
You definitely are shooting yourself in the foot profit wise if you decide to go out of your way to avoid steam entirely, and certainly not by a small margin, and anyone that says otherwise is serously underestimating steam's popularity last time i checked ~6 million people log in everyday on steam, I doubt something like origin has even 1/10th of that.