26674
Post by: Slarg232
Copied from Facebook App:
It appears that a Bioware fan has been temporarily halted from playing his copy of Dragon Age II after copping a forum suspension. Which is weird since, you know, Dragon Age II is a singleplayer game.
According to a post on the Bioware forums, user v_ware had his account suspended for a period of 72 hours for allegedly saying "Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?". Whether that's actually what he said, or that's all he said, we're not here to judge. We're not forum referees, and what caused the ban is beside the point.
What does interest us, though, is that because v_ware's forum account is linked to his EA Store account, the ban not only stopped him from downloading content for his new game, it apparently prevented him from installing and then playing his new copy of Dragon Age II at all.
BioWare community rep Stanley Woo wrote in response to v_ware's complaint:
Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here:
1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum and/or issues reported by fellow community members.
2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.
Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.
Sure, the ban is a temporary one. It's not like he can't ever play the game. But since when did it become acceptable to stop a person playing a singleplayer game for their conduct in a forum?
A similar issue popped up back in 2008, but then, we were explicitly told by Electronic Arts that "Players who have been banned from EA Forums are not automatically banned from online access to their other EA games".
Woo's comments (and v_ware's complaint) that "these bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC" seem to contradict EA's earlier assertions.
Granted, this is a unique situation. v_ware is being prevented from installing his game because he bought it from EA's own store, meaning it requires account authentication; had the game already been installed, then he'd be able to play it and there'd be no issue. So it's not like this is going to happen to people on a regular basis.
The fact it can happen at all though raises questions over the level of control a publisher has over a gamer's "property". Had the player been suspended from an online game for his conduct in said game, then that would be seen by most as acceptable. It's a relevant punishment.
But restricting access to a singleplayer, offline game, even in an incidental situation like this, is a problem. EA's consolidation of online accounts can be a good thing in some cases (I appreciate the convenience of EA Sports games knowing who I am because of my gamertag), but in cases like this, it's also a cause for concern.
Not to mention serving as an example, if ever one was needed, that in 2011 a video game is never truly and 100% your property.
We've contacted EA and BioWare for clarification on the policies regarding forum bans and game access, and will update if we hear back.
It's stuff like this that makes me buy discs, not online.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Reminds me of Blizzard banning people for cheating in single player in their latest starcrap game.
14573
Post by: metallifan
I can't believe it. EA disgusts me. If it weren't for Bioware, I'd never give EA another cent. Banning someone from installing their game because they said EA sucks? Let's face it, that's not opinion. It's pretty much fact here. If it weren't for the fact that EA's head office is made of gold thanks to them owning nearly all of the royal families of the game development world, they would never -dream- of crapping all over their consumers like this.
Hell, I remember the mid 90's when EA was the underdog - When they were 'Activision' before Activision completely blew. EA practically made all their money selling sports franchise games, because they couldn't afford to buy out the developers of the more popular titles. Now everything they touch gets an added suck factor because they know that they can sell utter crap and still make a killing thanks to owning the rights to games that were awesome in their hayday.
People see a well-known name (Battlefield, Medal of Honor, The Sims, etc...) and buy the game thinking it'll be great, like the older games. And while many of them are playable, there's always that unavoidable "What a steaming pile of crap" element to something (or, in the case of MoH - everything) in the game that just turns people right off. And yet, we hope for the best every time a new title comes out, and buy it with excitement. In some rare occasions, we get our wish. But for the most part, it's as I've described - mediocre titles that differ little (if at all) from their earlier 'EA-ified' predecessors.
Thankfully, while Bioware's plots are predictable and their characters are recycled, they've at least managed to keep the prying, ruinous fingers of EA out of their product. But for how long?
Once they're gone, I doubt there'll be any reason for me to buy much else from EA. At least if other companies screw up, they'll admit it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Quite frankly: this is awesome.
I love it. If you're going to be an idiot and get a forum ban for ragging on a game you've yet to install, this is one of the single greatest consequences I've seen yet.
But yeah. First thing you see upon installing/playing the game is a big "To fully utilize this game, you need to be connected to the EA Network." and it promptly tells you that the game falls under the umbrella of the EULA for the EA Network.
40497
Post by: case013
E A sports its in the game. freaking jerks
38023
Post by: thedude
For all we know it could be some idiot who couldnt figure out how to install the game properly, although that said I would not be surprised in the least to find out this is an accurate account of what happened. I have had a personal animosity toward EA since I got Spore came across the whole rootkit DRM fiasco
14573
Post by: metallifan
Pretty sure not being able to log into your EADM is very, very different from just being to dumb to keep clicking "Next" on an installer.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
metallifan wrote:Pretty sure not being able to log into your EADM is very, very different from just being to dumb to keep clicking "Next" on an installer.
But again: it's not like it's rocket science to realize that if you get banned from the EA Community sites and you attempt to install a game where one of the first things they do is ask you to connect to the EA Community and register your game--you're going to have issues 
14573
Post by: metallifan
Well that's generally a given. Though some D2D services with a forum can ban you on the forums without affecting your use of whatever platform installer they use.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Yeah, which I feel is too nice.
Plus there's the irony factor here.
The guy was telling people that they "sold their souls to Satan"(EA) to play the game.
Banned from installing it, who's he gotta cry to? 
14573
Post by: metallifan
I think he was asking Bioware if they've sold their souls to the EA devil.
Otherwise, buying the game, asking people if they've sold their souls to the EA devil for buying the game, and then complaining when you can't play the game yourself because you've been banned...
Now that's just silly. That would never happen on the internet.
40497
Post by: case013
because we all know what a nice and respectable place the internet is
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You know the funniest part?
I read BioWare's response to this on Twitter--and the guy had asked other players if they "sold their souls to the devil" for it.
He was banned, and was trying to play it on a console
34087
Post by: Requia
Well, I suppose this confirms that EA is gonna pull the same BS they did last time and keep me from playing with no net connection on my XBox.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Nope.
You just can't play using DLC.
34087
Post by: Requia
Which will be at least 1/5th of the game, in any EA title.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You mean in any title period these days.
But, it's not like they won't make the DLC available down the road as a disc.
40497
Post by: case013
sometimes its like they didnt even finish the game they just said screw it lets release it now then make em pay for the rest of it later
34087
Post by: Requia
that stuff doesn't bug me nearly as much as the 'free' DLC that's meant to screw people over if they deal in the used game market.
14573
Post by: metallifan
Requia wrote:that stuff doesn't bug me nearly as much as the 'free' DLC that's meant to screw people over if they deal in the used game market.
*COUGH*CerberusNetwork*COUGH*EA'SFIRSTGROPEOFBIOWARE'SSMOOTH,UNMOLESTEDFLESH*COUGH* Sorry, I've got this terrible cold...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:that stuff doesn't bug me nearly as much as the 'free' DLC that's meant to screw people over if they deal in the used game market.
Honestly?
I'm fine with that. It's not so much that it "screws people over" if they buy a used game.
It's that it screws over places like GameStop.
Anything that screws over GameStop is a good thing in my book.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Please excuse my ignorance.
Did he buy a copy of the game and then was unable to use it?
Is saying waht he allegedly said really so detrimental to a corporation that it warrants such action?
I assume the ban is temporary and he will be able to access the game?
It seems rather draconian to me (pun intended)
I am not a gamer so this is baffling to my unititiated eyes.
40497
Post by: case013
he said something stupid and got a fairly stupid reaction.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Hmmm
If everyone got banned because they said something stupid, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it!
We don't know what was said and in what context.
He may have been intending malice or he may have been making an ironic statement.
Cripes and lawks a lummee I have just thought of all the negative things I have said online about GW!!!
The Inquisition man cometh and the Inquistion man taketh away!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Please excuse my ignorance.
Did he buy a copy of the game and then was unable to use it?
Is saying waht he allegedly said really so detrimental to a corporation that it warrants such action?
I assume the ban is temporary and he will be able to access the game?
It seems rather draconian to me (pun intended)
I am not a gamer so this is baffling to my unititiated eyes.
What he said was in violation of EA Community rules.
Said game has DLC/online features that fall under the auspice of the EA Community Rules.
He was banned from using EA Community; thus could not use the EA Community features for said game.
It's like getting forum banned for being a douchenozzle in Blizzard's Warcraft forums and being unable to post on any of their Battle.Net associated forums.
34087
Post by: Requia
Not quite, dragon age is a single player game. There is not one single legitimate reason for EA to have the ability to shut the game off.
14573
Post by: metallifan
However, the difference in that example being that you can tell Blizzard they suck, right to their faces, and they'll begrudgingly admit it, because they know it's true.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:Not quite, dragon age is a single player game. There is not one single legitimate reason for EA to have the ability to shut the game off.
They don't. They shut off the DLC.
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Thanks Kanners. I understood that
Though tbh surely criticising a company that size will have zip effect. It appears unduly censorious to me. (Assuming any alledged criticism was not using offensive language.)
But am I correct in thinking this game was not a MMORPG?
I don't quite get how it should affect a solo player game bought for private use.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Thanks Kanners. I understood that
Though tbh surely criticising a company that size will have zip effect. It appears unduly censorious to me. (Assuming any alledged criticism was not using offensive language.)
But am I correct in thinking this game was not a MMORPG?
I don't quite get how it should affect a solo player game bought for private use.
They didn't criticize the company.
Their post was aimed at the players who bought the game.
40497
Post by: case013
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Hmmm
If everyone got banned because they said something stupid, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it!
We don't know what was said and in what context.
He may have been intending malice or he may have been making an ironic statement.
Cripes and lawks a lummee I have just thought of all the negative things I have said online about GW!!!
The Inquisition man cometh and the Inquistion man taketh away!
i know exactly what you mean.
*door creaks as it slowly opens* hey who are you *sounds of scuffling and a muffled crump*
heretic is secure sir 
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
They didn't criticize the company.
Their post was aimed at the players who bought the game.
He said, "Have you sold your souls to the EA Devils." apparently.
I could see that may be regarded as a dig at the customers as well as the company. Fair point.
He also bought the game himself? Which means it could be taken as an ironic and self deprecating statement.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:They didn't criticize the company.
Their post was aimed at the players who bought the game.
He said, "Have you sold your souls to the EA Devils." apparently.
I could see that may be regarded as a dig at the customers as well as the company. Fair point.
He also bought the game himself? Which means it could be taken as an ironic and self deprecating statement.
To be exact, the quote was
"Have you f**king morons sold your souls to the EA devils?!"
40497
Post by: case013
hmm the plot thickens
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Not really.
The guy was a tool to other people. He broke the EA community rules, was punished.
Just goes to show:
Read the End User License Agreement before playing games.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Ah
silly boy.
Still not sure about not being able to use something privately for which he paid.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
He can still play it single-player though.
What he can't do is access the downloadable content/online features of the game--because he violated the rules that are in place for using said online features and downloadable content.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Thanks Kanners
This explains it more clearly now.
34087
Post by: Requia
Kanluwen wrote:Requia wrote:Not quite, dragon age is a single player game. There is not one single legitimate reason for EA to have the ability to shut the game off.
They don't. They shut off the DLC.
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
DLC is a fundamental part of an EA game (which there is also not one single legitimate reason for).
4588
Post by: Destrado
I actually think it'd be a nice feature.
"Got banned from Dakka, got banned from Warhammer".
Wives everywhere rejoicing.
If he was being a prick then he damn well deserved it.
12061
Post by: halonachos
As stated before, DLC is a crucial component for any game now. The Lost and the Damned DLC for Grand Theft Auto, Shivering Isles for Oblivion, Map Packs for Call of Duty, and the list goes on.
My favorite thing EA did was put a card for online multiplayer access in their sports games. Then Activision actually made fun of that in Black Ops, during the first week or so of release they rolled 'free multiplayer with every copy of Black Ops' across the bottom where the stats are now posted.
They messed over Gamestop and I for one support that. Most of the developers I enjoyed are gone; Westwood, Pandemic, and Red Storm Entertainment. The only one developer that I love is Volition now.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
But again: it's not like it's rocket science to realize that if you get banned from the EA Community sites and you attempt to install a game where one of the first things they do is ask you to connect to the EA Community and register your game--you're going to have issues
The point is that this is a gaming company that is effectively censoring unsolicited criticism.
It is the equivalent of Kevin Smith refusing to submit films to critics. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
You're confusing an argument from should, with an argument from did.
No one is claiming the guy didn't break the EULA, they're claiming that the EULA is crap, which it is.
40497
Post by: case013
i do not agree with their whole approach to Dead Space 2's multiplayer. I wanted to rent and try it out before buying it and so if you rent the game they screw you on the multiplayer part. so you get 2 free days of multi so what. that's total crap making someone purchase to play online what they claim is one of the highlights of the game. kinda screws every rental store out there
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Requia wrote:Not quite, dragon age is a single player game. There is not one single legitimate reason for EA to have the ability to shut the game off.
They don't. They shut off the DLC.
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
DLC is a fundamental part of an EA game (which there is also not one single legitimate reason for).
No, it's really not. I can play any EA game without DLC.
Will my experience be as lengthy as people playing with DLC? No. But it's by no means "fundamental".
And frankly: the only 'DLC' components right now for Dragon Age II have very little to do with the game itself. The DLC weapons that you get from preorders/the signature edition, the Blood Dragon armor, the Black Emporium, and Sebastian are all things you can do without.
Dogma wrote:The point is that this is a gaming company that is effectively censoring unsolicited criticism.
It is the equivalent of Kevin Smith refusing to submit films to critics.
No, it's really not. The guy posted something that was aimed at other members of the community. Not at the company. Not at the game. There was no criticism beyond haranguing other players for buying the game.
Dogma wrote:You're confusing an argument from should, with an argument from did.
No one is claiming the guy didn't break the EULA, they're claiming that the EULA is crap, which it is.
You know what's even funnier? EA reinstated this twit's account before the story even broke.
It wasn't intentional, it was an "unintended side effect" of them migrating BioWare's community to be merged with the EA Community.
I think they just whimped out and gave in to fan whining. The guy clearly was being a knob, let him stew for awhile without being able to play his game.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Asherian Command wrote:"Have you sold your soul to the EA devils?"
Right, they shouldn't have to ask that question. EA has owned them since 2007, it's hardly news by now.
29254
Post by: WARBOSS TZOO
Requia wrote:that stuff doesn't bug me nearly as much as the 'free' DLC that's meant to screw people over if they deal in the used game market.
To be fair, if you're buying used, you're giving exactly zero dollars to either the publisher or the developer. Why should you have the same features as someone who's actually a customer?
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you buy the game used you shouldn't be surprised when you aren't supported by the developers who get nothing out of your purchase of the game.
They have no obligation to you, you're not a customer.
23534
Post by: Macok
Well, he got banned for 3 days for being an idiot. Good. The bad thing about DA2 is this
26531
Post by: VikingScott
EA sucked the life from tons of good games.
I never liked the fact of how much DLC there is nowadays. I remember buying a game and actually having everything for it. Bah.
Dude sounds like he was being an idiot but dude was taking a stand. Gotta give him that.
Never liked EA anyway.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Yeah..."dude was taking a stand"...by buying the game
23534
Post by: Macok
Kanluwen wrote:Yeah..."dude was taking a stand"...by buying the game
LoL, exactly.. Taking a stand on the internets 101.
1) Criticize developer of the game openly on forum and badmouth everyone that bought it.
2) Buy the game.
3) ???
4) Profit.
40497
Post by: case013
wonder how that idea went. I hate you and i will take a stand against you by buying your enjoyable game and playing it
36306
Post by: VenerableBrotherPelinore
Going to admit, I'm having trouble seeing how this is poor form on EAs part.
You sign up for an EA Account, you agree to use their services by their rules. You break those rules on their public forums, of course you should be penalised. If you didn't realise exactly how tough that penalty was, well, that's not their fault, you were the one who went against their written agreement.
Is the penalty a bit tough? Blizzard bans people from their forums all the time for posts with a similar mindset, it just doesn't prohibit one from accessing their content (Although, you may be in a different sort if you manage to get your account banned in-game, I don't know), so they're certainly not the only one that takes a dim view of this. Perhaps if there were more penalties along this line, the frequency of issues like this would decrease. I'd be pissed even more so if I got banned from the game for something I said on an online forum, but I can still see why one could justify it.
Yes, it's a single-player game. But it's still a game you're agreeing to live by EAs rules while playing, regardless of how many players play with you. If you don't think you can use the forum service without posting like this? Don't use it. Quite easy, and far too much of the time far more entertaining, to play a game without getting involved in the online community.
As for not owning the game 100%, that's rather a given. You can't hand copies out as you like, whether digital or on disc, crack the game in fashion that EA/Bioware doesn't like, etc already. This is just something more to add to the list.
(No, I am not an EA fan. I am a Bioware fan, but it doesn't factor into the way I see this.)
26674
Post by: Slarg232
VenerableBrotherPelinore wrote:Yes, it's a single-player game. But it's still a game you're agreeing to live by EAs rules while playing, regardless of how many players play with you.
To be fair, that's like saying you can't watch a movie nekkid at home because you can't watch a movie nekkid at the theater; The Theater (and probably the Movie Devs) don't approve of it, and what you do at your own house is siriz Other people's buzniz. While not the same thing, it's the same basic principle; once you pay for something it should be yours to do whatever the hell you want with it, and EA can't do anything about it. That does not include copying movies/games and stuff, which is recognized as Illegal.
The fact that EA forces people to sign a contract that says "we can make you unable to use content you already payed for" is ludicrous, and we should not tolerate this as gamers. Do movie watchers have to go through this sort of thing when they buy movies? Or books, or anything else, for that matter.
Not ranting at you, Pelinore.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
They don't "force" you to sign a contract without reading it though.
Just because you skip through it, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:They don't "force" you to sign a contract without reading it though.
Just because you skip through it, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
Do you have to sign a contract to watch a movie at home?
131
Post by: malfred
Slarg232 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:They don't "force" you to sign a contract without reading it though.
Just because you skip through it, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
Do you have to sign a contract to watch a movie at home?
There's a movie licensing agreement that tells you you're only allowed to
view the movie in the privacy of a home.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
malfred wrote:Slarg232 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:They don't "force" you to sign a contract without reading it though.
Just because you skip through it, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
Do you have to sign a contract to watch a movie at home?
There's a movie licensing agreement that tells you you're only allowed to
view the movie in the privacy of a home.
True, but it doesn't say that if you talk bad about the movie (or little downloaded deleted scenes or whatnot) that you get cut off from the movie or little downloaded deleted scenes or what not. When you Pay for it, it is yours, and they can't take it away from you. There is NO reason EA shouldn't have to follow suit with that.
34087
Post by: Requia
Kanluwen wrote:They don't "force" you to sign a contract without reading it though.
Just because you skip through it, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable.
A) You don't see the contract until after you give them their money and open the game (which makes in unrefundable)
B) A contract is not (usually) valid if it violates the law. Many EULAs do just that by requiring the consumer to sign away their rights under US copyright law.
C) In order to be a valid contract, both parties must recieve some sort of consideration, a EULA requires that the consumer give the company something, but not recieve anything in return (except what they already own).
EULAs actually are unenforcable in about half the country because of this (lacking a SCOTUS ruling, each district has its own precedent).
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
That, or the EULA shouldn't be structured in a way designed to control negative criticism; stupid or not.
131
Post by: malfred
dogma wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA
That, or the EULA shouldn't be structured in a way designed to control negative criticism; stupid or not.
But corporations have a right to freespeech as well!
Free of speech that criticizes them...
/sarcasm
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. The guy posted something that was aimed at other members of the community. Not at the company. Not at the game. There was no criticism beyond haranguing other players for buying the game.
Of course it was aimed at the company. When you call someone a moron for doing X to support Y, then you're really just attacking Y by proxy. Have you never heard Kevin Smith's rants about how critics corrupt movie goers?
No one is going to say something like "Have you morons supported the guy that gives you $500 every Monday?"
Kanluwen wrote:
You know what's even funnier? EA reinstated this twit's account before the story even broke.
It wasn't intentional, it was an "unintended side effect" of them migrating BioWare's community to be merged with the EA Community.
Yeah, I doubt that. Given that you place "unintended side effect" in quotes, I suspect that you do as well.
Kanluwen wrote:
I think they just whimped out and gave in to fan whining. The guy clearly was being a knob, let him stew for awhile without being able to play his game.
I thought you said that he could still play the game?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
dogma wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. The guy posted something that was aimed at other members of the community. Not at the company. Not at the game. There was no criticism beyond haranguing other players for buying the game.
Of course it was aimed at the company. When you call someone a moron for doing X to support Y, then you're really just attacking Y by proxy. Have you never heard Kevin Smith's rants about how critics corrupt movie goers?
No one is going to say something like "Have you morons supported the guy that gives you $500 every Monday?"
Nope, I've never listened to Kevin Smith really.
Either way: the original post was aimed, as I said, towards the other members of the community and there was a snipe against EA in it.
Kanluwen wrote:
You know what's even funnier? EA reinstated this twit's account before the story even broke.
It wasn't intentional, it was an "unintended side effect" of them migrating BioWare's community to be merged with the EA Community.
Yeah, I doubt that. Given that you place "unintended side effect" in quotes, I suspect that you do as well.
Or it was because I was quoting them.
That's the exact wording they used.
Kanluwen wrote:
I think they just whimped out and gave in to fan whining. The guy clearly was being a knob, let him stew for awhile without being able to play his game.
I thought you said that he could still play the game?
He could. He just couldn't play it with DLC. Which to some of these tools is "necessary" to play the game.
There's nothing "necessary" about the DLC for Dragon Age II.
34087
Post by: Requia
Except the part where you have to have DLC to get the complete game.
Regardless, he payed for the DLC. This is an act of force against a paying customer on the part of EA.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
He didn't "pay" for the DLC in all likelihood. Most of the 'DLC' was available for free to anyone who'd preordered their game.
And you're still wrong. This isn't "an act of force against a paying customer".
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
I'm confused. So is EA denying banning him from playing his own copy of the game or was the article just pointing out some hypocrisy in their policys?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I don't think EA's outright denying it, but it seems to me that the situation is more a case of the guy going and crying "I CAN'T PLAY BECAUSE I WAS BANNED!" to everyone who would listen--rather than contacting EA or BioWare about the issue.
40497
Post by: case013
kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot
722
Post by: Kanluwen
case013 wrote:kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot
The actual case that ended up with the "CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT" warning being put onto coffee cups was a bit more complicated than that.
Civil Law classes use it as a teaching example of negligence.
Basically: the machine that was producing the coffee was improperly serviced and because of that improper service, which was known to the employees, the coffee it was producing was far hotter than it should have been. We're talking 'third degree burns and skin grafts' hot.
But yeah. Kinda like that, otherwise
34087
Post by: Requia
Kanluwen wrote:I don't think EA's outright denying it, but it seems to me that the situation is more a case of the guy going and crying "I CAN'T PLAY BECAUSE I WAS BANNED!" to everyone who would listen--rather than contacting EA or BioWare about the issue.
He should be.
The problem is not that EA prevented him from installing software he payed for. The problem is that EA has the capability to do so.
40497
Post by: case013
Kanluwen wrote:case013 wrote:kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot
The actual case that ended up with the "CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT" warning being put onto coffee cups was a bit more complicated than that.
Civil Law classes use it as a teaching example of negligence.
Basically: the machine that was producing the coffee was improperly serviced and because of that improper service, which was known to the employees, the coffee it was producing was far hotter than it should have been. We're talking 'third degree burns and skin grafts' hot.
But yeah. Kinda like that, otherwise
haha yea i remember reading all that. then after that all the other law suits that hit the table kinda got really ridiculous
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.
Once again:
You're completely missing the mark.
They didn't do this "because someone said bad things about the company". That is bull, and anyone who thinks that's the case is just following the train of EA hate.
The original ban(which may OR MAY NOT as the case may be, since according to BioWare it was an error that hadn't cropped up before) was because the person in question had been reported to the EA community for harassing/inappropriate behavior.
So basically: this story is bullgak.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
That's still not reason for me to not play my single player game by myself that I bought.
29254
Post by: WARBOSS TZOO
KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's still not reason for me to not play my single player game by myself that I bought.
The guy in the OP was able to play his single player game. He couldn't use the DLC. And thus far none of the DLC is exactly necessary.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.
29254
Post by: WARBOSS TZOO
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.
Unless your definition of the game is entirely limited to placing armour and weapons on your character, then it certainly makes a difference.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
It's my vitual armour. I should be able to use it whenever I damn well feel.
34087
Post by: Requia
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.
Unless your definition of the game is entirely limited to placing armour and weapons on your character, then it certainly makes a difference.
I fail to see how it being DLC is relevant. Simply because EA refused to give out physical copies of the data doesn't change the nature of their actions.
Nor is the DLC going to be limited to weapons and armor if EAs past behavior is any indication.
11570
Post by: KingKodo
KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.
People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.
Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.
36094
Post by: DickBandit
Melissia wrote:Reminds me of Blizzard banning people for cheating in single player in their latest starcrap game.
Did Blizzard touch you in a naughty place?
I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
DickBandit wrote:I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.
Did EA touch you in a naughty place?
40871
Post by: samusaran253
From what I've heard of Dragon Age 2 so far, the banned guy should be glad he can't play the game...
That was a joke.
36094
Post by: DickBandit
Slarg232 wrote:DickBandit wrote:I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.
Did EA touch you in a naughty place?
Yeah, they found out I am ticklish.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
KingKodo wrote:KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.
People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.
Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.
That's not even close to being analogous.
In that scenario it would be I'm be that I'm locked out of my car because I said Ford's fuel economy sucks.
11570
Post by: KingKodo
What is said is much more broad than that. I was simply making a point that when you do or say something that you know you shouldnt, there are repercussions.
If you went up to a giant black dude in the slums of jersey and told him that black people are inferior, he may just remove your use of your knees!
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
And Electronic Arts Incorporated does not get to act like "giant black dude in slums of new jersey".
In this new analogy aforementioned African-American has done something illegal and should be punished therefore should EA too?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
KamikazeCanuck wrote:KingKodo wrote:KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.
People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.
Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.
That's not even close to being analogous.
In that scenario it would be I'm be that I'm locked out of my car because I said Ford's fuel economy sucks.
And that's just as bad of an analogy.
Simply put: The guy violated the rules of EA's community content. The downloadable content(of which, the guy likely paid nothing for since pretty much all the DLC released so far was actually included if you bought a fresh copy of DA:2) is governed by those rules.
It does not matter that it is a single player game, nor that he paid for the content he cannot access. Why? Because he did not follow the rules and standards put forward by the EA community.
If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.
Your thrown out that time, you might still be able to come back, and a club isn't as expensive as a game.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slarg232 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.
Your thrown out that time, you might still be able to come back, and a club isn't as expensive as a game.
Heh.
Any club worth actually joining, like an exclusive golf club or shooting club will be far more expensive than a game.
34087
Post by: Requia
Except when they toss you out of a country club they don't steal the golf clubs you bought in the pro shop.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:Except when they toss you out of a country club they don't steal the golf clubs you bought in the pro shop.
Right. But that's not what you could equate DLC to--and by the by, using the word "steal" is wrong. You're trying to add an emotional tone to this story, which is patently ridiculous and just shows that you're posting more to equate EA to being some huge faceless bogeyman.
This isn't "stealing".
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
But since you want to go with the golf club example:
You don't join a country club so you can buy golf clubs from their pro shop. You join to get access to their golf course(in this case: 'golf course'='downloadable content').
When a country club revokes your membership or bans you from their premises, that's what you lose access to. The course and anything associated with it that isn't your property.
EA didn't "steal his golf clubs"('ban his game')--they revoked his access to the "golf course"('downloadable content').
End of story.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the Law, or at least a form of a Scam, if someone pays for something and you refuse them the service they already payed for?
Not talking about this instance in general (since most of the DLC seems to be free, if you are correct), but in general.
The fact that they actually have the ability to do this..... is concerning to say the least.
34087
Post by: Requia
Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.
If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slarg232 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the Law, or at least a form of a Scam, if someone pays for something and you refuse them the service they already paid for?
Yes and no. In this case, the EA Community and the DLC isn't a single transaction--but more like a 'membership club'.
With things of that nature, you can refuse them the service if they violate those rules and you do not have to refund them their money--you just cannot reenlist them in your membership program.
To go back to the country club example: if you're banned from the premises in March, and the next billing cycle begins in July--your payment from that time is still due, but that country club cannot charge you the cost of the next billing cycle.
Not talking about this instance in general (since most of the DLC seems to be free, if you are correct), but in general.
The only thing you'd have to pay for is the 'Exiled Prince' content--which isn't necessary, and most seem to think the character is underpowered anyways.
The fact that they actually have the ability to do this..... is concerning to say the least.
No. It's really not, because once again:
All they do is disable your access to the EA community servers.
That disallows you from using the DLC, which has a side effect of if your saved games feature the DLC--you can't use those saves until you've reestablished the connection to the EA community servers.
You can still play, you just have to start a new save without the DLC.
Requia wrote:It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.
Uh, that's actually not "he was given service". That's "he purchased a good".
This situation, while somewhat complex at a glance, really isn't.
He bought a good, which features a service governed by a very specific set of rules.
He broke those rules; his access to the service was revoked.
If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.
Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.
But eh. The point's moot anyways, since the guy's game was reactivated the day he went crying to the internet.
EA shouldn't have whimped out. Should have let the git roast.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Requia wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.
If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.
Exactly, all businesses have the right to refuse to sell something to someone but they do not have the right to unsell something they have already sold.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Requia wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
This is refusal of service--like any vendor, they have the right to refuse or end services provided based upon whatever criteria they feel like-- barring race, sex, or religion.
It is not a refusal of service, he was given service (when he bought the game), and then the product he purchased was rendered useless by EA after the service had concluded.
If this were a multiplayer game, you'd have a point, but it's not. There is not a single legitimate reason for the customer to have contact with EA servers when playing the game, even downloading the DLC is done via Microsoft servers in this case (XBoX copy), not EA ones.
Exactly, all businesses have the right to refuse to sell something to someone but they do not have the right to unsell something they have already sold.
And if you'd actually read rather than just jump on the "EA's the devil!" train you'd understand that wasn't the case.
The only reason he could not play was because he had downloaded the DLC and then tried to play the game.
The first thing the game does upon hitting the title screen on consoles, when unplugged from the Internet, is inform you that it is "Checking downloaded content..." and then give you a statement that "Warning: You are not signed in to the EA Servers. Your downloadable content cannot be verified. This will affect your saved games if you choose to sign in to the EA servers at a future date."
Considering that he could have just deleted the DLC from his hard drive(and then redownloaded it later, at no charge, as it's a one time purchase/code redemption and the license is saved to your Xbox Live Marketplace Registry) and played without the DLC, then played it later and gotten everything--there's nothing, whatsoever, wrong with what EA did. The guy was just a twit.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
That's why I don't think EA meant for what happened to happen actually. I think it was more of a software oversight. Like you said he could have contacted customer support instead of crying on the internet but then we wouldn't have this thread
722
Post by: Kanluwen
KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's why I don't think EA meant for what happened to happen actually. I think it was more of a software oversight. Like you said he could have contacted customer support instead of crying on the internet but then we wouldn't have this thread
Yep.
But honestly: even if it was intentional, I do not see anything wrong with it.
This idea that downloadable content is somehow "part of the product" is false. It's an add-on, something that requires the product to operate but the product doesn't require it to operate.
EA, if they did actually do this on purpose was well within their rights to do it as the peripheral content(DLC) and the registration system in place for said peripheral content is governed by the rules of the EA Community.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
p.s. EA is the Devil.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
KamikazeCanuck wrote:p.s. EA is the Devil.
Reported. Enjoy your ban from the internet.
The case seems pretty open and shut. The guy paid for a product and then through a series of unfortunate/irresponsible circumstances was denied use of his product. While I personally feel the ban might do him some good, EA have clearly violated his rights and should have either refunded his money or given him access to his product as soon as possible, which they apparently did. The guy being an idiot has no effect on his rights as a consumer.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
You don't have any bloody rights when it comes to an optional service.
How is this complicated?
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Soup and a roll wrote:KamikazeCanuck wrote:p.s. EA is the Devil.
Reported. Enjoy your ban from the internet.
The case seems pretty open and shut. The guy paid for a product and then through a series of unfortunate/irresponsible circumstances was denied use of his product. While I personally feel the ban might do him some good, EA have clearly violated his rights and should have either refunded his money or given him access to his product as soon as possible, which they apparently did. The guy being an idiot has no effect on his rights as a consumer.
Damn! Now I can't play my NHL 2005 that I paid for in full 5 years ago! 
I forgive you though because what you said afterwards used logic.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
No, it didn't use logic.
It used what I like to refer to as "indignant customer logic".
Which is to say "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!".
34087
Post by: Requia
Kanluwen wrote:Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.
This is not a legitimate reason. To start with Xbox servers already handle this function (via one time download codes). For another thing, lookup 'right of first sale'. EA is violating copyright law by doing this.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Sure there is. It maintains a constant verification of your DLC, registers your game as 'valid', and acts as a kind of 'perk' for you having bought the game brand new rather than second hand.
This is not a legitimate reason. To start with Xbox servers already handle this function (via one time download codes). For another thing, lookup 'right of first sale'. EA is violating copyright law by doing this.
No, they're not "violating copyright law by doing this".
Reread the "Right of First Sale". In fact, here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
To pull the overview:
Copyright, as the name suggests, is the right to copy a work of some form. If one resells or gives as a gift a book (or CD or DVD) that one has bought, a new copy has not been made, therefore it is legal under US copyright law.
With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner.
The common law, prior to the 1909 codification, originally applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"). The 1909 codification applied to anyone in possession, but over time, courts interpreting the Act required that the possession be of such a nature as to entitle the possessor to transfer it (as opposed to just being a bailee), and that the copy itself had to be a legitimate, non-infringing copy. Congress essentially agreed and, in the 1976 Act, clarified it to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord (recorded music) regardless of whether it was first sold. So, for example, if the copyright owner licenses someone to make a copy (such as by downloading), then that copy (meaning the tangible medium of expression onto which it was copied under license, be it a hard drive or removable storage medium) may lawfully be sold, lent, traded, or given away.
The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords and certain types of computer software, although private nonprofit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items if a notice that the work may be copyrighted is on the copy.
Some U.S. case law allows manufacturers to restrict the first-sale doctrine by a clickwrap contract or other agreement. The case law is conflicting, however, and the legality of allowing first-sale doctrine rights to be abrogated by contract has been questioned as described below. One apparent reason for the confusion is that the original 1909 codification has been divided into two parts, and most references to the codification cite only 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which provides that the owner of a copy, lawfully made under the Copyright Act, is entitled to transfer possession or ownership without the consent of the copyright owner. But the other portion of the original codification, 17 U.S.C. § 202, clarifies the fundamental distinction between copies and copyrights (and between owners of copies and owners of copyrights). In other words, the agreement that purports to restrict the copy owner's statutory right cannot be viewed as an exercise of copyright licensing, since the copyright itself (the distribution right, under 17 U.S.C. § 106(3)) does not extend to non-infringing copies not owned by the copyright owner. Rather, the agreement is a pure restraint on trade in the tangible copies, and may be judged under antitrust laws, just like any other restraint[citation needed]. Those who breach an agreement to not re-distribute a lawfully made copy they own may, perhaps, be liable for breach of contract, but not for copyright infringement[citation needed].
It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'supplemental material for the product'--which is what Downloadable Content is.
I think you really need to realize that there's no legal precedent by which you can say that EA is "violating the copyright law", unless you're misreading or just plain wrong about it.
The absolute closest thing is this part:
The common law, prior to the 1909 codification, originally applied to copies that had been sold (hence the "first sale doctrine"). The 1909 codification applied to anyone in possession, but over time, courts interpreting the Act required that the possession be of such a nature as to entitle the possessor to transfer it (as opposed to just being a bailee), and that the copy itself had to be a legitimate, non-infringing copy. Congress essentially agreed and, in the 1976 Act, clarified it to apply to any "owner" of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord (recorded music) regardless of whether it was first sold. So, for example, if the copyright owner licenses someone to make a copy (such as by downloading), then that copy (meaning the tangible medium of expression onto which it was copied under license, be it a hard drive or removable storage medium) may lawfully be sold, lent, traded, or given away.
The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords and certain types of computer software, although private nonprofit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items if a notice that the work may be copyrighted is on the copy.
Which doesn't say "You have an unalienable right to access your downloadable content, even if you violate the distributor's terms of usage".
34087
Post by: Requia
There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.
Unless you'd like Apple to come by and wipe everything you bought on iTunes?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.
Prove it.
No, really. Go on and prove it.
DLC isn't a "product" in itself. It's an add-on which you're not entitled to just by simply having bought the original product. Otherwise it wouldn't be paid downloadable content or require a redeeming code in some cases.
It would be included with the game purchase.
Unless you'd like Apple to come by and wipe everything you bought on iTunes?
COMPLETELY different situation and it shows that you're doing nothing but reaching.
iTunes operates as a fully licensed vendor/distributor for music, TV, and the like.
There's a reason your iPod 'syncs' every time you connect to iTunes--the same reason you have to connect to the EA servers. It verifies that you haven't tampered with or attempted to manipulate the system in any way.
34087
Post by: Requia
Prove what? I'm making a statement of ethics: There is no reason to treat the customer differently simply because EA refuses to behave in an ethical manner and put all software on the disk instead of just some.
Also, your faith in DRM is laughable. If you were tampering with the system that wouldn't work. DRM only interferes with legitimate customers (such as in this case). Those of us that refuse to put up with it get less crap (for the ipod example, that's take me about 30 seconds to install hymn, and another 5 seconds to strip the DRM. Poof, DRM free music, and there's jack Apple can do about it, or even any way for them to know (not that Apple cares, its an RIAA thing that Apple has since talked them down from). Heck the only reason XBox DRM is even a little effective is that most people are nervous about taking a screwdriver to their hardware.
And iPods sync because of playlist features, and to well, sync, so that if you got new music it goes to the iPod automatically. The DRM component is done when files are transferred.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:Requia wrote:There is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products.
Prove it.
No, really. Go on and prove it.
DLC isn't a "product" in itself. It's an add-on which you're not entitled to just by simply having bought the original product. Otherwise it wouldn't be paid downloadable content or require a redeeming code in some cases.
It would be included with the game purchase.
No. It's really not, because once again:
All they do is disable your access to the EA community servers.
That disallows you from using the DLC, which has a side effect of if your saved games feature the DLC--you can't use those saves until you've reestablished the connection to the EA community servers.
You can still play, you just have to start a new save without the DLC.
To answer the first part, if you pay for something, it's a product, wiether digital or physical. There are two, and only two business types on the planet: Those that sell Products, and those that sell Services. DLC can hardly be considered a Service, or at the very least, Paid DLC can't be. If you buy something (DLC) and download it, you just bought a product. No one should be able to take away a Product you just bought, even if you need to be on the forums to use it.
And as for the second part: If you pay for hte DLC and use them on saves, that should NOT be able to be taken away just because you bad mouth the company. You once again payed for the product, not the service.
Since we love analogies; A Product is Norton Antivirus, while a Service is Geek Squad. They both do the same thing, but one is something you buy and install, the other is a serviceman who cleans your computer himself. If you piss off Norton, they already sold you the product, and while they can chose to NOT sell you something down the road, that's fine and dandy, but if they hit a button that causes your Antivirus to Asplode, before your time is up, they shouldn't be able to do that. The Geek Squad, since your just paying for it's use that time, can refuse service if they want, but can't screw up your computer the time they are working on it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Requia wrote:Prove what? I'm making a statement of ethics: There is no reason to treat the customer differently simply because EA refuses to behave in an ethical manner and put all software on the disk instead of just some.
You're making the claim that "there is no difference whatsoever between DLC and non DLC products". Prove it.
And for that matter:
What the frig does them putting things as DLC rather than on the disc have to do with ethics? Nothing. Is it annoying to have a few pieces of paid DLC available right at launch? For some people, yes. But there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, your faith in DRM is laughable. If you were tampering with the system that wouldn't work. DRM only interferes with legitimate customers (such as in this case). Those of us that refuse to put up with it get less crap (for the ipod example, that's take me about 30 seconds to install hymn, and another 5 seconds to strip the DRM. Poof, DRM free music, and there's jack Apple can do about it, or even any way for them to know (not that Apple cares, its an RIAA thing that Apple has since talked them down from). Heck the only reason XBox DRM is even a little effective is that most people are nervous about taking a screwdriver to their hardware.
Except the DRM is really intended to function with consoles. This guy was banned from being able to load the DLC on his console.
And iPods sync because of playlist features, and to well, sync, so that if you got new music it goes to the iPod automatically. The DRM component is done when files are transferred.
..."The DRM component is done when files are transferred" still means that the DRM component is done. Not sure why this is so complicated for you to understand.
Slarg232 wrote:To answer the first part, if you pay for something, it's a product, whether digital or physical. There are two, and only two business types on the planet: Those that sell Products, and those that sell Services. DLC can hardly be considered a Service, or at the very least, Paid DLC can't be. If you buy something (DLC) and download it, you just bought a product.
First: EA didn't "take away a product he just bought". They disabled his access to the EA community, meaning that his DLC couldn't be verified. He shouldn't have been able to download or redeem the content to begin with, but he was able to.
Second: DLC can feasibly be considered a product, even the "paid DLC"--sure. However at its core: it's a service for distributing additional content for the game to prolong it's life.
No one should be able to take away a Product you just bought, even if you need to be on the forums to use it. And as for the second part: If you pay for the DLC and use them on saves, that should NOT be able to be taken away
You know that "Right of First Sale" that Requia was jumping up and pointing at earlier?
The courts have ruled on EULA. And it ain't good for you bud.
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"
So I'd suggest you actually start reading the damned things if you want to try to have some kind of reasonable discussion about what a company "should or should not" be able to do.
EA's well within their purview to disable access to DLC.
Although, according to BioWare being banned from the forums is not supposed to ban you from signing in via console games. So hey. Who knows.
just because you bad mouth the company. You once again paid for the product, not the service.
Since you're so focused on the half-arsed, sensationalist news report that you posted, rather than what was actually posted:
The guy did not get banned for badmouthing the company. He got banned for calling people buying the game "f**king morons".
People call EA names on the BioWare and EA forums all the time. They don't get banned.
You get banned when you insult other posters or violate the posting rules of the EA community.
Calling EA names isn't one of those violations.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:First: EA didn't "take away a product he just bought". They disabled his access to the EA community, meaning that his DLC couldn't be verified. He shouldn't have been able to download or redeem the content to begin with, but he was able to.
Second: DLC can feasibly be considered a product, even the "paid DLC"--sure. However at its core: it's a service for distributing additional content for the game to prolong it's life.
Did he pay for it? Did they disable his ability to use it, inadvertantly or not?
If you answered yes to both of these questions, I have some bad news.......
You know that "Right of First Sale" that Requia was jumping up and pointing at earlier?
The courts have ruled on EULA. And it ain't good for you bud.
And courts are not always right. It some times takes courts many trials to reach a single decision. Also, look at how many murders/rapes that go unpunished because of lack of evidence, poor lawyers, or some such. Maybe the court didn't want to get into video games? Maybe the judge didn't care. Maybe the Judge was payed off. Who knows, do you?
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"
So I'd suggest you actually start reading the damned things if you want to try to have some kind of reasonable discussion about what a company "should or should not" be able to do.
EA's well within their purview to disable access to DLC.
Although, according to BioWare being banned from the forums is not supposed to ban you from signing in via console games. So hey. Who knows.
Disable access to DLC someone hasn't already payed for, yes. Once someone has payed for it, IT. IS. THEIRS. Are you seriously argueing for EA, the most money grubbing greed inspired video corperation on the planet, to be able to grab someones money and then just disable what they paid for if they really want to?
It might have not supposed to happen, but the fact that it can makes it scary. Hell, maybe tomorrow I'll make a video game, write a consention form like the EULA, include the words "Oh, and I with hold the right to terminate the usage of this product at any time I want", take people's money, and then disable the game. It's perfectly within my rights, and the Court would have to rule it my way with their ruling on the EULA. Precedents, and all that jazz.
But as for EA, they have lost at least one customer because of this. You don't beleive me, but looking through my 30 odd game collection, only two of them are EA, and thats Dead Space 2 and Dragon Age: Origins. I can fully live without them.
34087
Post by: Requia
@kanluwen
The third and 5th circuit judges would disagree with your legal points there, I believe the third circuit judge specifically mentioned right of first sale when he wrote about why EULAs should be considered invalid.
The only appeals case of a EULA being ruled as valid despite contradicting copyright law is in the 8th circuit. The 7th circuit is the only other court to have held EULAs enforceable in any way at all in an appeals case. In 40 something states, EULAs are either untested or mean jack all.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Please excuse my ignorance.
Did he buy a copy of the game and then was unable to use it?
Is saying waht he allegedly said really so detrimental to a corporation that it warrants such action?
I assume the ban is temporary and he will be able to access the game?
It seems rather draconian to me (pun intended)
I am not a gamer so this is baffling to my unititiated eyes.
What he said was in violation of EA Community rules.
Said game has DLC/online features that fall under the auspice of the EA Community Rules.
He was banned from using EA Community; thus could not use the EA Community features for said game.
It's like getting forum banned for being a douchenozzle in Blizzard's Warcraft forums and being unable to post on any of their Battle.Net associated forums.
Poor excuse, he made a commentary on the game companies ethical standards. We do this all the time about GW.
Saying that 'Bioware has sold its soul to the EA devil' is not trolling in the slightest. EA should grow a thicker skin, in fact they should grow a skin at all. Its a fairly normal level of critique that any forum should tolerate. Last time we saw this level of crass intolerance to critique was with Tau Online. All Bioware/Ea are doing by their kneejerk reaction ios indicating that there is a case to answer.
I love old Bioware Games, Baldur's Gate series especially, and bought Dragon Age. However all temptation to buy Dragon Age 2 has ceased, in fact they have done me a favour as I will hold out for Skyrim and Gothic 4, and Bethesda at least are mature enough not to piss on their customer base and are men enough to accept honest critique. This may sound extreme but iosnt really if you think about it. I don't like giving my money to transparently unethical companies, and while all companies grasp to some extent some go above and beyond the call of duty in douchebaggery. GW comes to mind here, and they get very little money from me now, EA's reaction has placed them in the same category. In fact they are worse. the whole attitude of give us your money but if you don't think we are awesome we spit in your face, that leaves a bad taste. Giving money to two face corporations with thatv attitude is akin to being duped, all smiles so long as the credit card is out, but with The Finger as a response to customer critique. I dont like dealing with people like that, so I wont. Well done EA, you just cost me your custom, and there is enough out there that I am not likely to be tempted back for anything other than white label stuff.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.
He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons". Automatically Appended Next Post: Requia wrote:@kanluwen
The third and 5th circuit judges would disagree with your legal points there, I believe the third circuit judge specifically mentioned right of first sale when he wrote about why EULAs should be considered invalid.
The only appeals case of a EULA being ruled as valid despite contradicting copyright law is in the 8th circuit. The 7th circuit is the only other court to have held EULAs enforceable in any way at all in an appeals case. In 40 something states, EULAs are either untested or mean jack all.
Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains an EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (a box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruled that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
That might be what you're referring to.
In a more recent case involving software EULAs and first-sale rights Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)[1], the first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." However, the court also found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'"
Softman has pretty much been disregarded now.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.
He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".
Citation please. This would change things.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.
He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".
Citation please. This would change things.
But not enough. Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......
34087
Post by: Requia
Softman is not what I'm talking about, to start with that's the 9th district. For another its not an EULA case (since they never actually agreed to the EULA).
The other case you mentioned is not binding precedent, since it never went to appeal. While a judge might be required to consider it, outside the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 8th districts the judge is free to make their own decision (which is what makes the question effectively untested, as judges have ruled both ways).
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth: as I said, repeatedly, he wasn't banned for the EA comment.
He was banned because of the fact that he called the people buying the game "f**king morons".
Citation please. This would change things.
Would love to, but it was a link on Kotaku's Twitter feed when the story originally broke about a week ago--and I'm not digging through that crap.
Besides that, the post was removed from the BioWare forums.
Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......
You see them banned from the Bungie Forums for trolling if they start up the "Lulz Halo sux0rs COD rawxors" threads, yeah.
It takes a lot to get banned from the Bungie Forums however, and one of those reasons to get banned from the Bungie Forums is not for making fun of Microsoft or Bungie.
However: many of the people who "join and troll the Bungie Forums" play on a PS3 or PC. What possible punishment could Bungie give them? Not release Halo for their platform?
If it makes it to in-game harassment of other players on XBL however, they can have their console be permanently banned from Xbox Live and receive no refund of their XBL subscription fee.
34087
Post by: Requia
Banning somebody from XBL has no effect on their ability to play a single player game though.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Kanluwen wrote:Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......
You see them banned from the Bungie Forums for trolling if they start up the "Lulz Halo sux0rs COD rawxors" threads, yeah.
It takes a lot to get banned from the Bungie Forums however, and one of those reasons to get banned from the Bungie Forums is not for making fun of Microsoft or Bungie.
However: many of the people who "join and troll the Bungie Forums" play on a PS3 or PC. What possible punishment could Bungie give them? Not release Halo for their platform?
If it makes it to in-game harassment of other players on XBL however, they can have their console be permanently banned from Xbox Live and receive no refund of their XBL subscription fee.
Fair enough, on both accounts; and this dude might have done it more than once, but it would take alot of harrasment in order to get banned without a refund. Not just saying a forum is full of "Fething Morons".
Does this mean I can ban those damn Squeakers because they call me a "Fething Moron"
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slarg232 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Don't see CoD forum members banned from playing Halo, even after they just join and troll the Bungie Forums.......
You see them banned from the Bungie Forums for trolling if they start up the "Lulz Halo sux0rs COD rawxors" threads, yeah.
It takes a lot to get banned from the Bungie Forums however, and one of those reasons to get banned from the Bungie Forums is not for making fun of Microsoft or Bungie.
However: many of the people who "join and troll the Bungie Forums" play on a PS3 or PC. What possible punishment could Bungie give them? Not release Halo for their platform?
If it makes it to in-game harassment of other players on XBL however, they can have their console be permanently banned from Xbox Live and receive no refund of their XBL subscription fee.
Fair enough, on both accounts; and this dude might have done it more than once, but it would take alot of harrasment in order to get banned without a refund. Not just saying a forum is full of "Fething Morons".
Actually, just getting a "permanent IP ban" from xbox live is all it takes to get banned without a refund
It just means that your subscription cycle that you're presently on won't be refunded, and your account canceled.
Does this mean I can ban those damn Squeakers because they call me a "Fething Moron"
Might be able to, provided they've had enough complaints filed against them.
|
|
