Epic vs Steam

dreamers75

Suppose it deserves it own thread at this point.

Points to note:

Image below is from a piece of software with 18 years exp
Epic buying SP games
Epic states 45m people without steam
Steam says nothing.
Tim Sweeney is a liar

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1113970715173294081

https://twitter.com/MeatlessComic/status/1114193755530305536










EGS is ruining PC gaming and yet Tim the man who said MSFT was ruining it is just a liar. He is ruining pc gaming.

I have EGS because Fortnite STW is actually better than the BR version.

Falthyron

Not sure about this, but seeing as it isn't mentioned in the list, I thought I should add it: if Steam dies, games will be made available to those who bought them. I don't think Epic has this, right? Basically, Valve have confirmed that if Steam dies, the games you own in your account will be decrypted so you can download them and continue playing without the need of a launcher like Steam.

Does Epic offer this contingency?

YouSavedMyLife

All this ****e that Epic doesn't have i never use on Steam anyway. I buy a game, install it and play it. Don't care about all this other rubbish. This is being blown way out of proportion.

Plus Borderlands is overrated

Patser

Epic vs Steam will boil down to 3 things:

Does it have the game I want cheap?

Is it cheaper than cdkeys/G2A/etc?

Are their sales worth waiting for to get cheaper?

Price will always win (assuming that game works)

nix

Patser wrote: »

Epic vs Steam will boil down to 3 things:

Does it have the game I want cheap?

Is it cheaper than cdkeys/G2A/etc?

Are their sales worth waiting for to get cheaper?

Price will always win (assuming that game works)

Thats the part of the fuss, with epic exclusives, you can only buy from Epic, and they will charge top dolla. But theres just so many games to play elsewhere, i couldnt give a fuuuuuuuuck.

But long term i can see it being an issue, as in it will likely take longer for bargains to come around :pac:

BeerWolf

STEAM has almost two decades of working itself out, and it didn't have a positive reception when it started...

Just saying. I recall a lot of backlash with the closure of Won.net forcing gamers to substitute over to Steam.

Steam is going nowhere and I personally have no interest in running both Epic and Steam at the same time.

I did for a while to play Subnautica for free when that was a deal and then I uninstalled.

Mr Crispy

I've no problem with multiple launchers, and I would welcome competition for Steam. But exclusivity isn't competition. I'm not convinced by Epic's security record either. I'll use the launcher for games I really want to play, personally, but I can understand people's reluctance to do the same.

It has parallels to the VR scene. Even with their hardware, the Oculus store is just a nuisance. Everything on Steam is cheaper so I buy it there.

Epic doesn't have hardware. Valve is increasingly moving into that area. I don't see any downfall or replacement happening. And I don't even like Steam because it feels archaic.

super_furry

I always thought that EA's Origin store front was better than Steam just in terms of an interface, and that's all I see these launchers as. There's a weird 'PC Masterrace' type thing that surrounds Steam and 'Gaben' and I don't really get all the kickback against Epic, even if they are going after exclusives.

It's not like a console situation where you can't play PS4 exclusives if you have an Xbox, it's a free launcher. You just just click a different button.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

I always thought that EA's Origin store front was better than Steam just in terms of an interface, and that's all I see these launchers as. There's a weird 'PC Masterrace' type thing that surrounds Steam and 'Gaben' and I don't really get all the kickback against Epic, even if they are going after exclusives.

It's not like a console situation where you can't play PS4 exclusives if you have an Xbox, it's a free launcher. You just just click a different button.

The backlash against EPIC started with their software going into Steam's folder and reading information about your Steam profile. I deleted it then.

TerrorFirmer

Total overreaction. You'd swear you were being forced to pay $200 to download Epic rather than just taking 60 seconds of your life. It's just another launcher, and most others don't have a fraction of Steam's features either.

That chart is also stupid, deliberately biased towards Steam and factually incorrect on other counts. Most players won't use a fraction of Steam's features anyway, and all this comparison it to console exclusives is ridiculously as it costs you nothing whatsoever, it's not remotely the same. It has offline mode, it has friends list/chat, and cloud saves are coming. Outside that, I think the other 'missing' features aren't of concern to most people and it'll be more or less the same as other launchers like Origin/Uplay/Bnet/etc.

Steams needs competition, been dominant for two long as it's not perfect either.

The funny thing is I'll probably end up still getting most games on Steam anyway, take for example The Outer Worlds - at least after six months it's guaranteed to be a lot more stable.

nix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Total overreaction. You'd swear you were being forced to pay $200 to download Epic rather than just taking 60 seconds of your life. It's just another launcher, and most others don't have a fraction of Steam's features either.

That chart is also stupid, deliberately biased towards Steam and factually incorrect on other counts. Most players won't use a fraction of Steam's features anyway, and all this comparison it to console exclusives is ridiculously as it costs you nothing whatsoever, it's not remotely the same. It has offline mode, it has friends list/chat, and cloud saves are coming. Outside that, I think the other 'missing' features aren't of concern to most people and it'll be more or less the same as other launchers like Origin/Uplay/Bnet/etc.

Steams needs competition, been dominant for two long as it's not perfect either.

The funny thing is I'll probably end up still getting most games on Steam anyway, take for example The Outer Worlds - at least after six months it's guaranteed to be a lot more stable.

These aren't the issues most have with the platform, its the lack of security and dozens of other features the platform doesnt offer that other platforms do, instead of Epic fixing this ****, they are spending their money on exclusive rights and pretty much strong arming gamers into using their platform.

I don't really care tbh, but you cant ignore the scummy tactics being used by them, I think people have a right to be pissed off.

TerrorFirmer

Strong-arming and scummy is a bit much. It's a piece of software. Other platforms have exclusives too, eg. these days you need to have about 6 different launchers on PC to be able to play all new releases. What's one more.

I don't buy into people saying it's grand for Battlefield to only be on Origin, Destiny only on Battlenet, Far Cry only on Uplay or whatever, simply because they were developed by said studios. I don't see why it matters, particularly, who developed the game. If you want to play certain games, you have to download and install certain launchers.

I mean I personally loathe UPlay for example, but I find Origin really nice and clean, but I accept that if I want to play Far Cry 5, I need Uplay and I'm willing to do that. That it was developed by Ubisoft internally or by a team of martians is irrelevant to me or how I perceive the need for Uplay. I'm also willing to install Epic for exclusives I want in the same way.

If you have a console, you need to spend hundreds of euro to be able to get exclusives on the three major players. On PC, you just have to install another free launcher. It's just that huge a deal. There's zero financial barrier.

People don't have to like it, but acting like it's the greatest crime in modern gaming history is just way OTT.

Icyseanfitz

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Strong-arming and scummy is a bit much. It's a piece of software. Other platforms have exclusives too, eg. these days you need to have about 6 different launchers on PC to be able to play all new releases. What's one more.

I don't buy into people saying it's grand for Battlefield to only be on Origin, Destiny only on Battlenet, Far Cry only on Uplay or whatever, simply because they were developed by said studios. I don't see why it matters, particularly, who developed the game. If you want to play certain games, you have to download and install certain launchers.

I mean I personally loathe UPlay for example, but I find Origin really nice and clean, but I accept that if I want to play Far Cry 5, I need Uplay and I'm willing to do that. That it was developed by Ubisoft internally or by a team of martians is irrelevant to me or how I perceive the need for Uplay. I'm also willing to install Epic for exclusives I want in the same way.

If you have a console, you need to spend hundreds of euro to be able to get exclusives on the three major players. On PC, you just have to install another free launcher. It's just that huge a deal. There's zero financial barrier.

People don't have to like it, but acting like it's the greatest crime in modern gaming history is just way OTT.

100% my own opinion on this too.

Out of interest, can epic game keys be bought on the grey market stores?

nix

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Strong-arming and scummy is a bit much. It's a piece of software. Other platforms have exclusives too, eg. these days you need to have about 6 different launchers on PC to be able to play all new releases. What's one more.

I don't buy into people saying it's grand for Battlefield to only be on Origin, Destiny only on Battlenet, Far Cry only on Uplay or whatever, simply because they were developed by said studios. I don't see why it matters, particularly, who developed the game. If you want to play certain games, you have to download and install certain launchers.

I mean I personally loathe UPlay for example, but I find Origin really nice and clean, but I accept that if I want to play Far Cry 5, I need Uplay and I'm willing to do that. That it was developed by Ubisoft internally or by a team of martians is irrelevant to me or how I perceive the need for Uplay. I'm also willing to install Epic for exclusives I want in the same way.

If you have a console, you need to spend hundreds of euro to be able to get exclusives on the three major players. On PC, you just have to install another free launcher. It's just that huge a deal. There's zero financial barrier.

People don't have to like it, but acting like it's the greatest crime in modern gaming history is just way OTT.

And if you want to play fortnite you have to install Epic, the games that are being made exclusive have nothing to do with Epic. Epic are just seeing what gamers are getting excited about and then throwing a net on it.

If Epic had made these games or supported the production of them, there would be pretty much no blow back.

You also keep ignoring the whole security issue thing :rolleyes:

But i agree, people are over-reacting. Moaning about it wont do much, they just need to show patience and wait for the exclusivity time to elapse.

And epic could help by just addressing the concerns all these people have with using their software. The effort need to install the program, is not the issue.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

100% my own opinion on this too.

Out of interest, can epic game keys be bought on the grey market stores?

Nope, no 3rd party keys.

TitianGerm

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

100% my own opinion on this too.

Out of interest, can epic game keys be bought on the grey market stores?

Borderlands 3 is available on CD Keys for £33

https://www.cdkeys.com/pc/games/borderlands-3-pc-cd-key

Thread closed.

earthwormjack

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Total overreaction. You'd swear you were being forced to pay $200 to download Epic rather than just taking 60 seconds of your life. It's just another launcher, and most others don't have a fraction of Steam's features either.

That chart is also stupid, deliberately biased towards Steam and factually incorrect on other counts. Most players won't use a fraction of Steam's features anyway, and all this comparison it to console exclusives is ridiculously as it costs you nothing whatsoever, it's not remotely the same. It has offline mode, it has friends list/chat, and cloud saves are coming. Outside that, I think the other 'missing' features aren't of concern to most people and it'll be more or less the same as other launchers like Origin/Uplay/Bnet/etc.

Steams needs competition, been dominant for two long as it's not perfect either.

The funny thing is I'll probably end up still getting most games on Steam anyway, take for example The Outer Worlds - at least after six months it's guaranteed to be a lot more stable.

Nonsense post. This is not competition. It's as anti-competitive and anti- consumer as it gets. Just another launcher me hole.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

can epic game keys be bought on the grey market stores?

Grey market stores yeah but not from the usual legit 3rd party sellers like GreenManGaming, Voidu etc, CD Keys mentioned above are different as they get the keys from physical copies from cheaper regions and sell them on.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It has offline mode

I just tried to launch Subnautica without an internet connection and got an error. Just installed Axiom Verge too but also got an error.

TerrorFirmer

nix wrote: »

And if you want to play fortnite you have to install Epic, the games that are being made exclusive have nothing to do with Epic. Epic are just seeing what gamers are getting excited about and then throwing a net on it.

If Epic had made these games or supported the production of them, there would be pretty much no blow back.

I literally addressed that in my post. When something is exclusive, it doesn't matter to most people who actually made it, as the end result is the same - you need to use that particular launcher to play.

I mean I need Origin to play Battlefield. I need Battlenet to play Overwatch. I need UPlay to play Far Cry. I need GOG to play Project Warlock. I need an Xbox to play Halo and a PS4 to play God of War, but at least the PC side of it doesn't cost me an extra 500 euro.

I don't really care whether these titles were developed in-house or not. I don't think most average gamers do either. The fact is I just accept I need these software launchers for these games, even those I dislike (Uplay for example).

I don't open UPlay to play Far Cry and think 'this is fine, because Ubisoft developed the game'. I actually think 'God Uplay is such a POS' but I just get on with it.

There was a time when Steam was the only launcher. Now I've got about six installed on my PC. I'd prefer an all-in-one option, but it is what it is.

They are timed exclusives. It's not the end of the world and it's certainly nothing remotely like the console situation, so I've no idea why people keep making these comparisons. Devs get a better deal from Epic.

The whole situation will force Valve to improve its own conditions to attempt to ensure the impact from EGS is minimal. Maybe we'll see better prices, better cuts for developers, whatever.

Steam have pulled some fair **** themselves over the years and abused their dominant position. EGS will weather the storm just fine I'm sure.

You also keep ignoring the whole security issue thing :rolleyes:

I'm not ignoring it, I just think a lot of 'major issues' with EGS are being blown out of proportion, including security.

Nope, no 3rd party keys.

Just not for exclusives I think.

I just tried to launch Subnautica without an internet connection and got an error. Just installed Axiom Verge too but also got an error.

According to Epic and various websites offline mode was introduced a month or two ago.

earthwormjack

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The whole situation will force Valve to improve its own conditions to attempt to ensure the impact from EGS is minimal. Maybe we'll see better prices, better cuts for developers, whatever.

Valve were improving Steam plenty and already offering unlimited royalty free keys before the Epic store arrived.

A better cut has nothing to do with dev/pubs going to the Epic store as exclusives anyway. It's the huge bag of money upfront being the main reason I'd imagine.

I don't think Valve have much to worry about at the minute anyway. The exclusives so far don't really seem to be blazing a trail sales wise. Maybe Borderlands 3 will be big enough though, it's certainly the biggest exclusive announced so far.

ED E

earthwormjack wrote: »

Valve were improving Steam plenty and already offering unlimited royalty free keys before the Epic store arrived.

Valve have never stopped, check out the page below:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/?feed=steam_client

19 Feb
1 Feb
8 Jan
..
..
..
2 Mar, 2010
23 Feb, 2010
20 Feb, 2010
4 Feb, 2010


That tempo has gone on a lot longer but the logs stop there. Valves 30% cut is steep but otherwise they've been benevolent overlords. I have 450 steam titles. About 8 on Origin, 2 on Uplay. RSI Launcher, Wargaming x2, Fortnite.

Guess which loads on startup? Guess which has had 100% of my play time in 2019? Thats right, Steam. If its not on steam Ill find another game to play that is, not really bothered enough. There are so many good titles out now I'm not pushed to go chasing a certain AAA title that IGN have their knickers in a twist over.

johnny_ultimate

earthwormjack wrote: »

A better cut has nothing to do with dev/pubs going to the Epic store as exclusives anyway. It's the huge bag of money upfront being the main reason I'd imagine.

It’s a mix of both tbh. I saw lots of indie / mid-tier developers pretty ecstatic over the terms of the Epic store compared to Steam - 30% upfront has clearly been a sore point for many, and someone stepping in to address that was a big deal. Throw in a bonus and you’re flying. The debate about the Epic store is more complicated and fuzzier than those firmly entrenched on either side will admit, but the one thing that is pretty unambiguous is that developers and publishers - either large or small - are getting a pretty ****ing good deal when they sign up with Epic compared to Steam.

earthwormjack

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It’s a mix of both tbh. I saw lots of indie / mid-tier developers pretty ecstatic over the terms of the Epic store compared to Steam - 30% upfront has clearly been a sore point for many, and someone stepping in to address that was a big deal. Throw in a bonus and you’re flying. The debate about the Epic store is more complicated and fuzzier than those firmly entrenched on either side will admit, but the one thing that is pretty unambiguous is that developers and publishers - either large or small - are getting a pretty ****ing good deal when they sign up with Epic compared to Steam.

It's leaning majorly to the upfront cash though, publishers don't have to lift a finger and already have guaranteed money. There's already been plenty of stores in to address the cut. Itchio, discord and Humble widget all offer a better deal than the epic store cut wise but publishers have little interest.

The 12% cut from the Epic store isn't sustainable in the long run anyway. Tim Sweeney has already said as much and has been evidenced by charging consumers 2-6% extra depending on payment methods in certain countries.

Raging_Ninja

It's a fact that competition amongst vendors is good for the consumer.

Origin brought us refunds - before this there was no way to get your money back if you ended up buying a broken game. Valve was forced to follow suit, with the direct result that the incredibly shoddy and broken Arkham Knight port was pulled and re-released after months of bugfixes. This was an unequivocal success story for the consumer.

Competition with Discord brought us group chats and VOIP.

Competition with Epic could bring us cheaper games or more frequent discounts as, if Epic holds to its pricing model, Valve will be forced to reduce the size of the 30% cut they take in order to maintain their market share.

Brand loyalty is a mugs game.

Kilboor

Competition is good. Monopoly is bad.

Kiith

Competition is good. Exclusivity is ****e. If Epic wanted to be competitive, they would offer a batter rate to customers and developers. That would be enough to get people on board with their new platform. What they have done instead is pay large sums of money to force people to use their platform for specific games, regardless of the issues people have with the platform (of which there are some major problems).

It's not the same as UPlay or Origin either, as they only do it with 1st party games. By all means, keep your own games exclusive to your launcher. But buying out other games, just before release (who advertised on Steam, sold copies on Steam etc...) is an unquestionably ****ty practice.

I'm not saying Steam is perfect. I've been pretty critical of them for a while now. But the way Epic are doing this is just ****.

Raging_Ninja

Unless there's an overhead for the consumer to run the Epic launcher then I don't see a problem. Quite frankly it'll force Valve to act more urgently to compete with Epic, which is far better for the consumer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the "exclusivity" is only for certain timeframes, and many of the games will appear on the steam store eventually.

nix

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Quite frankly it'll force Valve to act more urgently to compete with Epic, which is far better for the consumer.

So you'd like to see steam kicking up for exclusivity now also?

Raging_Ninja

nix wrote: »

So you'd like to see steam kicking up for exclusivity now also?

I already have to have UPlay installed in order to play R6:Siege, and Origin installed to play Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age. Those aren't huge impositions.

Look at it this way - we already pay a 30% premium for the privilege of buying a game on Steam.

nix

Can you explain how more exclusivity is better for us?

Raging_Ninja

nix wrote: »

Can you explain how more exclusivity is better for us?

Are you happy that Valve adds almost 50% on top of what the publisher and developer charge?

More competition is better - a handful of big name titles being exclusive helps make the competition that bit keener.

Remember - the only overhead for having the Epic launcher is disk space. There is no other cost.

Raging_Ninja

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Are you happy that Valve adds almost 50% on top of what the publisher and developer charge?

More competition is better - a handful of big name titles being exclusive helps make the competition that bit keener.

Remember - the only overhead for having the Epic launcher is disk space. There is no other cost.

Well the exclusives could be at very high prices and we cannot shop around to reduce the price

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the exclusives could be at very high prices and we cannot shop around to reduce the price

Exactly, how people dont see this is beyond me

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

More competition is better - a handful of big name titles being exclusive helps make the competition that bit keener.

Them buying exclusivity is reducing any semblance of competition


With steam, you can buy off steam or dozens of other places.

Retr0gamer

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Are you happy that Valve adds almost 50% on top of what the publisher and developer charge?

More competition is better - a handful of big name titles being exclusive helps make the competition that bit keener.

Remember - the only overhead for having the Epic launcher is disk space. There is no other cost.

Not sure why everyone is making out like the 30% valve charge is incredulous. It's the industry standard and similar to what the console platform holders charge.

What is scandalous is the incentives they give to lower that value only apply to massive triple A games and not Indies. And really I only see triple A developers benefitting from this epic deal. If epic wanted to be competitive they'd pass the savings on to the consumer and give them a lower price than steam.

As it stands you're paying the same or more and in a market so saturated with great releases I can wait 6 months and get a better experience for a lower price.

Kiith

Also, lets not kid ourselves by thinking we will benefit from the lower cut Steam/Epic takes. Savings won't trickle down, and games will stay priced as they currently are.

Nody

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not sure why everyone is making out like the 30% valve charge is incredulous. It's the industry standard and similar to what the console platform holders charge.

What is scandalous is the incentives they give to lower that value only apply to massive triple A games and not Indies. And really I only see triple A developers benefitting from this epic deal. If epic wanted to be competitive they'd pass the savings on to the consumer and give them a lower price than steam.

As it stands you're paying the same or more and in a market so saturated with great releases I can wait 6 months and get a better experience for a lower price.

They would not even need to give the full cut back; let's say 10% discount (still 5% more profit for the game maker) would buy them swathes of market shares without going paid exclusive while pushing their engine.

Cordell

I really don't get the complete meltdown internet has over Epic while no one cares when Steam requires a Ubisoft account and makes you install Uplay if you buy Ubisoft games. And the community that review bombs SOTR for having a discounted price to early, and Metro 2033 and Last Light and now Borderlands 1/2/PS for launching on Epic, now, this community can simply f.o.

nix

Cordell wrote: »

I really don't get the complete meltdown internet has over Epic while no one cares when Steam requires a Ubisoft account and makes you install Uplay if you buy Ubisoft games. And the community that review bombs SOTR for having a discounted price to early, and Metro 2033 and Last Light and now Borderlands 1/2/PS for launching on Epic, now, this community can simply f.o.

Ummm, thats a ubisoft requirement, not Steam :rolleyes:

ED E

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Remember - the only overhead for having the Epic launcher is disk space. There is no other cost.

Nope.

Every piece of software you run increases the attack surface. Your OS. Games. File sharing. Whatever. CS1.6 is currently heavily infected.

Good software exposes you some. Bad software exposes you more. Epic store is currently on Adobe Flash levels of bad software.

ED E

BTW steam is cheap.

According to Double Fine's Tim Schafer, the cost of getting a patch up on a modern console (presumably he means the Xbox 360 and/or PS3) is $40,000.

Cordell

nix wrote: »

Ummm, thats a ubisoft requirement, not Steam :rolleyes:

I don't care, I pay Steam, something bought from Steam installs yet another launcher/DRM on my PC...

The point I'm trying to make is that the amount of hate Epic gets these days is totally unjustified, unreal even

Sonics2k

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Are you happy that Valve adds almost 50% on top of what the publisher and developer charge?

More competition is better - a handful of big name titles being exclusive helps make the competition that bit keener.

Remember - the only overhead for having the Epic launcher is disk space. There is no other cost.

Slightly off here.

Competition is good. Competition will typically result in better prices for the consumer.

Exclusives do not. If Steam/Epic has a game set as exclusive to them, then they can charge any price they wish knowing it will sell.

TitianGerm

Sonics2k wrote: »

S
Exclusives do not. If Steam/Epic has a game set as exclusive to them, then they can charge any price they wish knowing it will sell.

That's not right at all. They can't charge any price they want because if the customer views the price as to high they will simply not buy it.

No one will pay €1000 (extreme example) for an exclusive game.

Cordell

Lots of games have launched exclusively on either Steam, Uplay or Origin in their PC version, and no one seemed to care.
At this point all this rage seems a bit artificial, so maybe you may want to question it.

Dravokivich

ED E wrote: »

BTW steam is cheap.

And how much does it cost a publisher to patch via Steam?

Why wouldn't you expect them to pay for it? I work in IT and software roll out changes would cost far more, for a lower user base, than a games console. $40,000 is relatively cheap.

Cordell

40k is pocket change for big publishers, but for small indies it is not.
There should be no cost for patches, it should be covered by the distribution fee/percentage. Having a cost for pushing in addition to the actual cost for development may bring a dev/publisher to the decision to not do it in the first place.

Dravokivich

Cordell wrote: »

40k is pocket change for big publishers, but for small indies it is not.
There should be no cost for patches, it should be covered by the distribution fee/percentage. Having a cost for pushing in addition to the actual cost for development may bring a dev/publisher to the decision to not do it in the first place.

Then they need to focus more on QA instead of Day 1 DLC content.

Yermande

As a console gamer I find the comparisons to console exclusivity hilarious. At the moment I have a PS4, meaning I cannot play Nintendo Switch games. I cannot just download a Nintendo launcher and be playing a Switch game in a matter of minutes. What a ridiculous comparison.

Cordell

Dravokivich wrote: »

Then they need to focus more on QA instead of Day 1 DLC content.

They need to balance the quality and the money grabbing, otherwise they will not be there the second time around, this is how it works unfortunately. Day 1 DLC is fine as long as there is no impact on the main game, both quality and content wise - it should be an addition, not a missing piece that you need to pay extra.

ArrBee

I'm too far out of the loop on all this, but how does all this debate compare to when Origin was launched?