http://gamingbolt.com/origin-is-required-for-all-pc-editions-of-mass-effect-3

Whelp, there goes that pre order, as well as the eventual purchase.

They really don't want games to sell huh?

Bad enough I had to use origin to get a digital copy of swtor, now ME3? I've never been very fond of EA as a company, but I like their games. Now they make a crappy steam clone for their future games...why...

Obrek wrote:Bad enough I had to use origin to get a digital copy of swtor, now ME3? I've never been very fond of EA as a company, but I like their games. Now they make a crappy steam clone for their future games...why...

Protest with your wallet, it's the only thing to do. As much as I love BF3 and as badly as I want to play it, I absolutely refuse to support EA and thus I will not be downloading origin, ergo no BF3.

I can't help but wonder who they get these famously bad ideas from.

They're probably thinking Steam works, why can't they get in on that wthout the middle man.

I'll be buying it on Xbox anyway so it hardly matters.

Another brilliant marketing decision from a publisher.

And they wonder why people pirate their games

I already use Origin, so this doesn't affect me either way.

I'm playing ME3 on PS3, so I couldn't care less.

Honestly, what's everyone's beef with Origin? I use it for other games (notably Spore, Darkspore, and Dragon Age) and I've never had issues with it.

It's made by EA and people are afraid of change?

EDIT: /sarcasm

Locclo wrote:I'm playing ME3 on PS3, so I couldn't care less.

Honestly, what's everyone's beef with Origin? I use it for other games (notably Spore, Darkspore, and Dragon Age) and I've never had issues with it.

Supposedly it has had many issues with customer service and download issues, but it may just be the bandwagon I'm hearing rolling on...

Locclo wrote:I'm playing ME3 on PS3, so I couldn't care less.

Honestly, what's everyone's beef with Origin? I use it for other games (notably Spore, Darkspore, and Dragon Age) and I've never had issues with it.

It might be that Origin sweeps through your system without restrictions, collects info about everything you do, to be sold to EA's "associates."

Because EA totally wants to know the contents of your English homework.

I always wondered why EA wouldn't look into some of the client issues they had with DAO DLC not working, and then they announced Origin.

That said, I'll still buy ME3 as I need Origin to fix DAO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerivant wrote:
It might be that Origin sweeps through your system without restrictions, collects info about everything you do, to be sold to EA's "associates."

Email harassment, the prime objection, is easy to evade.

Create account. Use account to open an Origin account. Delete email account.

LordofHats wrote:Because EA totally wants to know the contents of your English homework.

Right, they're definitely not looking for what programs I install, remove, my internet history, etc. etc.

dogma wrote:

Nerivant wrote:
It might be that Origin sweeps through your system without restrictions, collects info about everything you do, to be sold to EA's "associates."

Email harassment, the prime objection, is easy to evade.

Create account. Use account to open an Origin account. Delete email account.

Wait, what? When did I talk about email harassment? I'm talking about Origin collecting data while it runs.

Nerivant wrote:Right, they're definitely not looking for what programs I install, remove, my internet history, etc. etc.

I explained this months ago. Everyone does that. EA did it before Origin launched. Tracking where you go on the net is pretty much the sole purpose of about most internet cookies. Steam has done the same thing for years. Uplay does it. Logitech has done it since the early thousands. Intel does it. Nvidia does it. Your ISP does it. EA isn't reinventing the wheel.

Furthermore, why should you care? It's not like they're collecting your social security number and taking credit cards in your name to fund the Bioware team's drug habit (which produced the wonderful story given in DA2!). This has been going on and increasing in prevalence since the late 90's. It's a little late to cry foul now.

You didn't, I'm talking about what others have spoken to regarding the problem with data collection.

Then again, I don't care too much about data collection at all, because I can keep business to one computer, and pleasure to another (Insert porn joke.).

My only real objection to Origin is that its one more client I need on my computer.

dogma wrote: (Insert porn joke.).

Inserting!

My only real objection to Origin is that its one more client I need on my computer.

Ditto.

LordofHats wrote:

Nerivant wrote:Right, they're definitely not looking for what programs I install, remove, my internet history, etc. etc.

I explained this months ago. Everyone does that. EA did it before Origin launched. Tracking where you go on the net is pretty much the sole purpose of about most internet cookies. Steam has done the same thing for years. Uplay does it. Logitech has done it since the early thousands. Intel does it. Nvidia does it. Your ISP does it. EA isn't reinventing the wheel.

Furthermore, why should you care? It's not like they're collecting your social security number and taking credit cards in your name to fund the Bioware team's drug habit (which produced the wonderful story given in DA2!). This has been going on and increasing in prevalence since the late 90's. It's a little late to cry foul now.

I don't care, because I don't, and won't, use Origin. I'm not going to knowingly allow a program to comb through every file stored on my computer looking for information to sell.

Nerivant wrote:I don't care, because I don't, and won't, use Origin. I'm not going to knowingly allow a program to comb through every file stored on my computer looking for information to sell.

Because information collected in the aggregate which is then sold to third parties harms you.

Wait... what?

EDIT: I'd almost guarantee everyone who uses this site probably has at least one program on their comp that's not origin that is scanning for what what programs are installed and how they are used. I'll definitely promise you your cookie box is probably full of mostly tracker cookies and that your ISP sells your internet activity monthly. Origin is a drop of water in a barrel.

LordofHats wrote:

Nerivant wrote:I don't care, because I don't, and won't, use Origin. I'm not going to knowingly allow a program to comb through every file stored on my computer looking for information to sell.

Because information collected in the aggregate which is then sold to third parties harms you.

Wait... what?

Are you... trying to convince me to install Origin on the basis that the information collected won't harm me?

I'm really not sure, with how you word these things.

Nerivant wrote:Are you... trying to convince me to install Origin on the basis that the information collected won't harm me?

No. I'm saying that all the outcry about Origin's "sinister" purpose is a little absurd. I hate Origin about as much as I hate most of EA's decisions.

It's a shoddy program used by EA to make money that wastes an absurd amount of resources combing through my files to make EA more money.

We must have differing definitions of sinister.

Nerivant wrote:It's a shoddy program used by EA to make money that wastes an absurd amount of resources combing through my files to make EA more money.

That's a legitimate complaint because it is a annoying program that burns up RAM when you're trying to do something (and Steam will always be better *raises fist in nerd loyalty*). I only draw issue with the complaints of "EA is stealing your personal files" which is 1. Absurd and untrue. EA has no interest in your personal files and neither does anyone else. 2. Its been going on for years at the hands of a lot more than EA so crying about it now is just ridiculous.

LordofHats wrote:

Nerivant wrote:It's a shoddy program used by EA to make money that wastes an absurd amount of resources combing through my files to make EA more money.

That's a legitimate complaint because it is a annoying program that burns up RAM when you're trying to do something (and Steam will always be better *raises fist in nerd loyalty*). I only draw issue with the complaints of "EA is stealing your personal files" which is 1. Absurd and untrue. EA has no interest in your personal files and neither does anyone else. 2. Its been going on for years at the hands of a lot more than EA so crying about it now is just ridiculous.

Once again, because I am actually and honestly having trouble following this; are you accusing me of making that argument? I've never said anything about stealing personal files.

Not in those words.

Nerivant wrote:Origin sweeps through your system without restrictions, collects info about everything you do

LordofHats wrote:2. Its been going on for years at the hands of a lot more than EA so crying about it now is just ridiculous.

I love my friends that complain about Origin on Facebook.

LordofHats wrote:I'm saying that all the outcry about Origin's "sinister" purpose is a little absurd.

On that point I'd have to agree. Did the panicmongers even read the revised EULA? I know that various websites all over the 'net were still ripping apart the first one weeks after it was updated.

These days, Origin really isn't that different from Steam or a Battle.net-Account. The only thing that keeps bugging me is that I dislike every publisher setting up his own distribution tool. Steam came first, dammit, I don't want to create an account with every crap company out there just because they dislike selling their stuff there. Buuut I suppose we have little choice in this matter.

dogma wrote:I love my friends that complain about Origin on Facebook.

Word.

Agrees whole heartedly with Lynata. My fear is that if Origin appears successful that other publishers will follow suit. I'm not downloading every publishers bug ridden platform when Steam was tweaked to as close to perfection as computer code can hope to get half a decade ago. Not to mention all the money I've already invested. EDIT: It's especially annoying when you realize the profic margins. Publishers will sell a game at full retail value with no overhead worth speaking of.

Lynata wrote:These days, Origin really isn't that different from Steam or a Battle.net-Account. The only thing that keeps bugging me is that I dislike every publisher setting up his own distribution tool. Steam came first, dammit, I don't want to create an account with every crap company out there just because they dislike selling their stuff there.

Same.

I would gladly buy Battlefield 3... if they released it on steam.

If ME3 isn't released on steam I'm not getting it . It may seem petty but honestly, why the feth would I want to install yet ANOTHER piece of software on my computer when Steam works perfectly well? Especially an unproven and new piece of software which is probably buggier than Ubersoft code.

Let me chime in here on why I do not like Origin:

With Steam, I can have a "U.S." account, but am physically in Germany... This is absolutely no problem, because they enter a generic "billing address" screen that allows me to purchase games no matter where I am.

This is not the case with Origin. I attempted to purchase SWTOR, and having a "U.S." account apparently didn't matter because no matter how I entered the URL, I was redirected to the Eurozone store, which for some reason or other will not allow a U.S. account to enter items into the cart for purchase (and eventual conversion back to the US site for payment)

So, because they can't seem to understand that a physical location is not always matching to the account, and make it so that people can buy games no matter where they are, they won't get my business.

Plus, as it's already been said, I have Steam and I dont want ANOTHER program like it on my computer.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, because they can't seem to understand that a physical location is not always matching to the account, and make it so that people can buy games no matter where they are, they won't get my business.

Its about the variance in law, and, more importantly, the variation in currency value.

dogma wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, because they can't seem to understand that a physical location is not always matching to the account, and make it so that people can buy games no matter where they are, they won't get my business.

Its about the variance in law, and, more importantly, the variation in currency value.

Yes, but if I am logging in to a US account, I should be able to connect to the US store, not automatically redirected to the "local" version. Steam does it more correctly, and does not require regional affiliations to use its product.

I find the whole "I hate Origin, we must kill it with fire" laughable at best.

Now I am not an EA fanboy before somebody says I am, I do not agree with everything they do.

Quite alot of people seem to be throwing the running program/system resource argument, well guess what, you can turn Origin off! When you want to play say BF3, ME3 or any Origin based game then turn it on and after playing turn it off.

I really can't see why Origin is getting so much hate, apart from the fact its made by the "sinister evil" that is EA.

I remember the initial hate for Steam (I think it's still floating around) but in the end - who cares.

Well I suppose a good question to ask here is: what are the pro's and con's of Origin? I've personally seen it as EA's plan to hang onto profits by selling their own games at their own prices, rather than potential discounts on Steam.

It screwed my PC over a little, not sure what it was doing resource wise, but my computer ran slow as feth with it on. Only installed it because Sims 3 said it was required, which I then discovered it wasn't.
Took it off my system, and it ran much better straight away.

Of course I'm getting ME3 on the xbox anyways, but as we where discussing Origin, I thought I'd throw my little note into the ring.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:It screwed my PC over a little, not sure what it was doing resource wise, but my computer ran slow as feth with it on. Only installed it because Sims 3 said it was required, which I then discovered it wasn't.
Took it off my system, and it ran much better straight away.

See I too was under the impression you needed Origin for Sims 3 (I curse my partner for buyin all the expansions and stuff packs, its a pain to reinstall em), however I didn't get a massive resource hit so I kept it on my system as it may come in useful.

I have an Xbox. I have a disc.

johnscott10 wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:It screwed my PC over a little, not sure what it was doing resource wise, but my computer ran slow as feth with it on. Only installed it because Sims 3 said it was required, which I then discovered it wasn't.
Took it off my system, and it ran much better straight away.

See I too was under the impression you needed Origin for Sims 3 (I curse my partner for buyin all the expansions and stuff packs, its a pain to reinstall em), however I didn't get a massive resource hit so I kept it on my system as it may come in useful.

I must admit I've not brought the last two expansion packs, as I've been playing the xbox version for laughs and achievements. So I may come a cropper when I finally go back and try to add them, but it gave the impression the game wouldn't run at all without origin, but my Sims 3 on the PC has been running fine.

I checked after I took off origins, and have played it a couple of times since. Pretty sure it did an update as well.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:I've personally seen it as EA's plan to hang onto profits by selling their own games at their own prices, rather than potential discounts on Steam.

Yup.

On that note, it should not be forgotten that it's still possible to buy games elsewhere and simply enter the key in Origin, though. For example, GamersGate sells ME3 for $48, whereas Origin wants to have $63 (prices converted from EU). So, whilst Origin will probably become a factor making it less likely for me to buy EA games, I will make exceptions for titles I badly want (BF3, ME3). That said, I see no reason why I should not purchase them elsewhere whenever possible - and as exemplified, you can still save money that way.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yes, but if I am logging in to a US account, I should be able to connect to the US store, not automatically redirected to the "local" version. Steam does it more correctly, and does not require regional affiliations to use its product.

Steam isn't fully optimized for making money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ovion wrote:I remember the initial hate for Steam (I think it's still floating around) but in the end - who cares.

There is some legitimate hate for Steam, mostly that its somewhat clunky in terms of operating speed.

dogma wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yes, but if I am logging in to a US account, I should be able to connect to the US store, not automatically redirected to the "local" version. Steam does it more correctly, and does not require regional affiliations to use its product.

Steam isn't fully optimized for making money.

I wasnt suggesting that Steam is "optimized" for making money, however they do offer a somewhat superior service for its customers, especially when compared to Origin.

My reasoning behind hating origin is simple. The original agreement that you signed. It was written so poorly and offensively, there was a massive outcry to get it changed. Said outcry was so loud it made a company as large as EA actually revise it.

Now it's basically like them saying "our bad" and expecting people to forget they tried a stunt like that.

Yeah, no.

Necroshea wrote:My reasoning behind hating origin is simple. The original agreement that you signed. It was written so poorly and offensively, there was a massive outcry to get it changed. Said outcry was so loud it made a company as large as EA actually revise it.

It's not EA's fault that no one read the EULA properly. There was nothing wrong with the original wording. People assumed it meant something that it didn't and went crazy. EDIT: More oddly, it was the exact same EULA they've used since 2007.

The main reason so many people hate Origin is yellow journalism. Which, yes, extends to games journalism.

I'm getting it on xbox, from amazon.

My recently purchased PS3 will be loving up ME3 come March and will be powering itself over the tears of those PC gamers who want ME3 but hate Origin too much.

What about us PC Gamers who also have a 360 and a PS3?

And I don't even want Mass Effect 3.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:My recently purchased PS3 will be loving up ME3 come March and will be powering itself over the tears of those PC gamers who want ME3 but hate Origin too much.

Yeah except for the fact that you're not gonna get the whole experience of playing through all 3 games and seeing even your most minute choices being mentioned and effecting the story.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:My recently purchased PS3 will be loving up ME3 come March and will be powering itself over the tears of those PC gamers who want ME3 but hate Origin too much.

Don't be so naive about pirates.

Also funny when you consider that the PS3 ports of Bioware games have all been glitchy and oddly crappier looking. That there is some irony

I'm not getting it either tho. I didn't like DA2 or ME2. I'm done with Bioware. They are dead to me *cries*

Aye, I have two characters who went through one and two ready for launch. Another character halfway through one who probably won't get done in time, and another two playing just through two who might.

Although I was surprised when I noted they'd given the xbox ME2 users 'Genesis' as a DLC. I'd missed that compleately somehow, and downloaded it straight away starting the second character on Saturday just gone.

On a side note, did anyone order a CE? I got one the day they went on sale at GAME, just wondering if anyone else grabbed one.

LordofHats wrote:Also funny when you consider that the PS3 ports of Bioware games have all been glitchy and oddly crappier looking.

I mean, the current generation of consoles is what, 6 years old?

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:My recently purchased PS3 will be loving up ME3 come March and will be powering itself over the tears of those PC gamers who want ME3 but hate Origin too much.

Yeah except for the fact that you're not gonna get the whole experience of playing through all 3 games and seeing even your most minute choices being mentioned and effecting the story.

Oh darn, us PS3 players miss out on seeing some minuscule choices from ME1 not showing up in ME3. PS3 still got ME2, and it came with the Genesis DLC so players could set what major decisions were chosen from ME1.

And besides, as Necroshea said, if any (and I'd be hard-pressed to find even one) PS3 Mass Effect players are really interested in seeing said choices come through, there's always sailing those scurvy seas for a PC copy of all three games.

LordofHats wrote:I'm not getting it either tho. I didn't like DA2 or ME2. I'm done with Bioware. They are dead to me *cries*

How dare they streamline combat and get rid of unnecessary inventory menus and items.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:How dare they streamline content and get rid of unnecessary inventory menus and items.

How dare they turn RPG's into action games and continue to call them RPGs!

They could at least write a decent story XD

Locclo wrote:Oh darn, us PS3 players miss out on seeing some minuscule choices from ME1 not showing up in ME3. PS3 still got ME2, and it came with the Genesis DLC so players could set what major decisions were chosen from ME1.

I always love the argument that by not playing ME1 you aren't getting the full experience.

Playing ME 1 is painful after playing ME 2. It's not something I'd care to repeat - there's a reason PC players download saves with the choices they want for ME 2. PS3 players can just run through that DLC if they want to set up a new character. While both of these methods lose out on some tiny, meaningless choices in ME1 that result in a character saying hi as you walk past in ME 2 and 3, those aren't worth playing through the 10-15 hours of ME 1 every time you want a 'personalised' character.

Regarding Origin, I still buy my PC games on disk. So yeah.

LordofHats wrote:

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:How dare they streamline content and get rid of unnecessary inventory menus and items.

How dare they turn RPG's into action games and continue to call them RPGs!

They could at least write a decent story XD

Umm its called action RPG. There is a lot more role-playing in ME2 then any generic Jap-Anime Grindfest.

Bleak_Fantasy wrote:[Umm its called action RPG. There is a lot more role-playing in ME2 then any generic Jap-Anime Grindfest.

A lot less angst too. EDIT: Except Jack. Jack pretty much ran on angst XD

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Well I suppose a good question to ask here is: what are the pro's and con's of Origin? I've personally seen it as EA's plan to hang onto profits by selling their own games at their own prices, rather than potential discounts on Steam.

I would suggest looking very closely at their EULA. There are things in there that are... disturbing. While most Steam-like delivery systems collect data, Origin goes way beyond the norm, and it's very hard to opt out. Effectively the EULA also says that EA can over ride your choosing to opt out and turn it back on without telling you. It's already gotten slapped down in Germany for violating the law there, sadly, I do not see such a change coming to the US anytime soon.


I hate to say it, but I'm willing to bet that Mass Effect 3 becomes one of the few games in history to be pirated more then bought, due to the absurd level of intrusion.

-Loki- wrote:
I always love the argument that by not playing ME1 you aren't getting the full experience.

Playing ME 1 is painful after playing ME 2. It's not something I'd care to repeat - there's a reason PC players download saves with the choices they want for ME 2. PS3 players can just run through that DLC if they want to set up a new character. While both of these methods lose out on some tiny, meaningless choices in ME1 that result in a character saying hi as you walk past in ME 2 and 3, those aren't worth playing through the 10-15 hours of ME 1 every time you want a 'personalised' character.

I have to disagree with you there, I still enjoy playing ME1 then ME2, all that annoys me about ME1 is the Sniper Rifle controls and the grain filter thing, luckily the grain filter can be turned off.

In ways I prefer the 1st over the 2nd. There seemed to be more exploration and customisation in the 1st ME game.

I really liked ME1, but I think I prefered 2, the story was good in two, plus there seemed a little too much 'empty world' exploring in ME1.

I liked the fact that ME2 went slightly more shooter orientated, as it was mainly the story and character interactions I was interested in.

Just to repeat to any xbox 360 owners who missed it, the PS3 Genesis comic has appeared as a DLC for ME2. Allowing you to start a ME2 game and make all the key choices of ME1.

I liked both ME1 and ME2 - but the ideal game would have been a blend of the two. In the sequel, I missed slotting individual weapon and ammo rather than buying general upgrades for the entire team, I missed armour as items, and I missed the ability to friggin' crouch. Conversely, I could have done without the ridiculous holos on the guns.

Also, I want mah Mako back!

No surprise there. When Battlefield 3 came out it was only on Origin.

DickBandit wrote:No surprise there. When Battlefield 3 came out it was only on Origin.

And then the German Courts got involved....

Wait what? I thought BF3 was still origin only

Necroshea wrote:Wait what? I thought BF3 was still origin only

It is. But in Germany they changed the system so that BF3 can run without Origin. EDIT: As I understand it.

Yeah, seems forcing Origin and it's spyware on people in Germany is a crime. Too bad it's not in the US.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yeah, seems forcing Origin and it's spyware on people in Germany is a crime. Too bad it's not in the US.

Actually I think it makes them seem a little dumb. I've said it before. This has been going on for a long time and they only just now noticed?

LordofHats wrote:Actually I think it makes them seem a little dumb.

As an emigrated German, I'm inclined to agree. Many of my fellow ex-countrymen appear quite hysterical when it comes to this sort of stuff (or any ToU and user agreements in general), which can get annoying very fast when each of them suddenly wants to be an expert on law babbling on a forum or other community platform about how he wants to sue the company. Yawn.

I suppose I may be somewhat more indifferent about this due to my low expectations concerning privacy these days. Same about that huge debate regarding the placement of cameras in public areas ... eh, personally, I just fail to see the difference between being seen by some guy behind a monitor or an actual beat cop. A lot of the panic regarding this seems quite artificial, "just because", as if it'd be a damn fashion trend - especially considering how little people complained when it came to light that the government is using trojans to spy on its citizens or how often they tap people's phones these days. I'm usually a friend of government control over private companies, but I have to say it is rather worrisome how established these double standards have become. Politicians can get away with everything these days, from cheating at their doctorate to lying to outright corruption.

THe reasoning is mostly the mighty Morphing EA EULA. One moment it says they're going to mine your personal information and sell it to whoever they please, the next that's gone with a statement decrying the sale of personal information, and then replaced again with a note that they'll sell it but only non-personal information, which is replaced with a asterix saying 'See our other policy' which after you go through 80 pages, is back to: they're gonna mine your personal data and sell it to whoever they damn well please.

Why this is different then, say, steam: Because they don't stop at what you download. EA is taking your hardware data, your browser history, non-EA programs, the works. AND they're changing permissions on the files to make it difficult for you, the owner, to remove it.

I don't like steam, but this is way beyond what steam does (I've sat and monitored Steam's activities on a machine and it's not even a pimple on the ass of Origin.)

I always just find it amusing that people believe they had privacy of any kind, ever.

dogma wrote:I always just find it amusing that people believe they had privacy of any kind, ever.

I think the point to the whole thing was that EA doesn't care what the law says and is perfectly willing to break it until dragged in front of a judge. Like most major companies.

And, unfortunately, this time got caught and is facing public outcry. Just like with Dragon Age II, which had abysmal sales as a result....

BaronIveagh wrote:
I think the point to the whole thing was that EA doesn't care what the law says and is perfectly willing to break it until dragged in front of a judge. Like most major companies.

And, unfortunately, this time got caught and is facing public outcry.

I'm not saying there should be no outcry, but its not like the law is held in high regard when people believe they can get away with violating it.

And, really, I've not seen anyone primarily object to EA violating the law, its more "ZOMG my privacies!!!1!!!1."

BaronIveagh wrote:
Just like with Dragon Age II, which had abysmal sales as a result....

Dragon Age II sold quite well, actually. Not as well as expected, but well enough.

Origin is like Steam except by EA and for EA games. There's nothing wrong with it, its just that people hate the "big" developers so any clients they make are hated as well despite doing the same thing as what a "smaller" company's client does.

I dislike having multiple clients to be honest, I even run minecraft through steam.

http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2011/08/ea-origins-eula-is-non-story.html

I'll just leave this here.

As for Dragon Age II - that debacle had nothing to do with Origin. In the first week, it sold more units than DA:O, indicating that a lot of people pre-ordered it solely due to the reputation of the first game and the hype surrounding the second.

Then a lot of people actually noticed that it's really just a gakky sequel, and word spread..

After that, sales plummeted to the floor - at least when compared directly to DA:O which was able to keep a rather consistent flow for several months.

One moment it says they're going to mine your personal information and sell it to whoever they please, the next that's gone with a statement decrying the sale of personal information

Like I've been saying it NEVER said that. People assumed that's what the words in the EULA meant without understanding at all the technical jargon that the EULA was written in (EDIT: Not that it was that hard to understand). People imagined that whole thing and blew it out of proportion.

LordofHats wrote:

One moment it says they're going to mine your personal information and sell it to whoever they please, the next that's gone with a statement decrying the sale of personal information

Like I've been saying it NEVER said that. People assumed that's what the words in the EULA meant without understanding at all the technical jargon that the EULA was written in (EDIT: Not that it was that hard to understand). People imagined that whole thing and blew it out of proportion.

Yes, because saying, and I quote (from the BF3 version) and bold the important parts:

"2. Consent to Collection and Use of Data.

You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy Policy located at www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA’s Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control."


The Terms of the Privacy Policy have changed, without notice, five times in the last four months, as EA reserves the right to change both the terms of the EULA and the Privacy Policy at any time, without informing you of it, beyond posting them on thier website. BTW: if you were so unfortunate to have logged in to their site to read the changed EULA or privacy agreement, you have automatically agreed to them, per the EULA and Privacy agreement. It also waives your right to join any class action lawsuits against EA, in perpetuity.


For those that insist that this is like Steam, here's Steam's own clause:

“store information on a user’s hard drive that is used in conjunction with online play of Valve products. This includes a unique authorization key or CD-Key that is either entered by the user or downloaded automatically during product registration. This authorization key is used to identify a user as valid and allow access to Valve’s products. Information regarding Steam billing, your Steam account, your Internet connection and the Valve software installed on your computer are uploaded to the server in connection with your use of Steam and Valve software.”

Hmm... seems a bit more limited, doesn't it?




BTW: here's an alternate game law blog with a different intrpretation: http://www.technolawguy.com/2011/08/ea-if-you-dont-like-our-privacy-policy.html

BaronIveagh wrote:

For those that insist that this is like Steam, here's Steam's own clause:

“store information on a user’s hard drive that is used in conjunction with online play of Valve products. This includes a unique authorization key or CD-Key that is either entered by the user or downloaded automatically during product registration. This authorization key is used to identify a user as valid and allow access to Valve’s products. Information regarding Steam billing, your Steam account, your Internet connection and the Valve software installed on your computer are uploaded to the server in connection with your use of Steam and Valve software.”

Hmm... seems a bit more limited, doesn't it?

Well, when you don't actually provide the correct clause, I can see why your opinion would be so deeply skewed.

By using Valve's online sites and products, users agree that Valve may collect aggregate information, individual information, and personally identifiable information, as defined below. Valve may share aggregate information and individual information with other parties. Valve shall not share personally identifiable information with other parties, except as described in the policy below.

Valve may use customer contact information provided by users to send information about Valve, including news about product updates, contests, events, and other promotional materials, but only if the users agree to receive such communications. Except in the cases described below, Valve will not share personally identifiable information with any third party unless the user agrees to such disclosure in advance. "Personally identifiable information" consists of a user's name, email address, physical address, or other data about the user that enables the recipient to personally identify the user. While Valve collects personally identifiable information on a voluntary basis, for certain products and online sites, Valve's collection of personally identifiable information may be a requirement for access to the product or site. Personally identifiable information will be processed and stored by Valve in databases situated in the United States. Valve may allow third parties performing services under contract with Valve to access stored information but such access shall only be to the extent necessary to provide those services. In those instances, the third party will be bound by the terms of this privacy policy. In some situations, personally identifiable information you input in connection with Steam may be made available to other users of Steam. For example, during registration of Steam, Valve collects a user's email address and nickname, and at the user's option, first and last name. Some of this information is searchable and available to other users within Steam. Valve has no obligation to keep the privacy of personally identifiable information that a user makes available to other users via Steam or other Valve software, such as in multiplayer or other public functions.

I always wonder if, had Valve and EA not fallen out over Crysis 2 (I think it was Crysis 2?), EA would have used Steam as their platform.

Either way, I keep Origin use to a minimum, I do NOT want a state of affairs where every publisher has a platform and I have to run 6 steam clones in my taskbar to play anything.

Fortunately there are 'fixes' to play EA games like BF3 without Origin

BaronIveagh wrote:You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you. IF YOU DO NOT WANT EA TO COLLECT, USE, STORE, TRANSMIT OR DISPLAY THE DATA DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION, PLEASE DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE APPLICATION. This and all other data provided to EA and/or collected by EA in connection with your installation and use of this Application is collected, used, stored and transmitted in accordance with EA’s Privacy Policy located at www.ea.com. To the extent that anything in this section conflicts with the terms of EA’s Privacy Policy, the terms of the Privacy Policy shall control."

Way to miss the part that matters. The problem people have isn't that information is being sold but that they've gotten into their heads that some kind of personal information is being sold.

The part that matters is this one: "store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services."

None of that is really invasive to you at all. All it does is super slow your computer by hogging your RAM if you don't have much. They're collecting information on graphics cards, motherboards, processors, keyboards and mice, and software like Team Speak and Ventrillo (as in do people use it, which they check by seeing if its installed). All of these things HELP gamers and aren't invasive at all beyond hogging your RAM. And you obviously haven't read the privacy policy because EA doesn't even collect any identifying information beyond your IP (which is used for regional market studies). EDIT: And they haven't changed that in their privacy policy in years. They aren't allowed to collect information that way its ILLEGAL here too. They don't need to scan for your name or address you probably already gave it to them in some other form (like when you registered an EA account).

What do you lose by EA registering that you're the 567083244352th person with an Nvidia Graphics card, and that number is then sold to Nvidia? What has hurt you?

Henners91 wrote:Either way, I keep Origin use to a minimum, I do NOT want a state of affairs where every publisher has a platform and I have to run 6 steam clones in my taskbar to play anything.

This bit I can understand completely - I really hate the incompatibility between these tools, just as I hate the incompatibility between various messengers. I have no problem using Origin, but I only start it up when I want to play a game from my Origin library, and shut it down again after. Same goes for Steam, though.

Well I have Steam set to auto-run because A. The store popping up reminds me of the good deals and B. In gaming terms it's a social hub for me, much like how others use XFire... Which never caught on with my friends and I, we've always just used Steam for our voice chats/general gaming.

Steam, I think, has community support that only XFire really rivals. And I like being able to just casually game, my friends see what I am on and be able to contact me. If I had my way (I'm a social network harlot), there'd be full Facebook compatibility and the game I'm playing would show on my FB profile and FB chat would work ingame. They're kind of gravitating toward some kind of Facebook-Steam compatibility though, what with me now being able to add Facebook friends onto Steam... but I want moar!

Henners91 wrote:Well I have Steam set to auto-run because A. The store popping up reminds me of the good deals and B. In gaming terms it's a social hub for me, much like how others use XFire... Which never caught on with my friends and I, we've always just used Steam for our voice chats/general gaming.

Steam, I think, has community support that only XFire really rivals. And I like being able to just casually game, my friends see what I am on and be able to contact me. If I had my way (I'm a social network harlot), there'd be full Facebook compatibility and the game I'm playing would show on my FB profile and FB chat would work ingame. They're kind of gravitating toward some kind of Facebook-Steam compatibility though, what with me now being able to add Facebook friends onto Steam... but I want moar!

Ugh... please.. no. Facebook and the like are annoying enough as is. I don't want them in my games...

I do worry about my Steam fanboyness though: I think it offers great prices (about 80% of my purchases are through Steam) and it's the most polished distribution platform out there: Who can't help but laugh at, say, Impulse?

But by beating Origin over the head and holding up Steam as the ideal it must achieve/beat, am I, by extension, encouraging giving Valve a monopoly over digital distribution? Personally I only own two games on Origin and three on Direct 2 Drive... this is opposed to 183 installed games on Steam (admittedly some are non-Steam games, but I'd say only about 1/3rd). I would live with a monopoly happily but that isn't good for the consumer... in theory, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Well I have Steam set to auto-run because A. The store popping up reminds me of the good deals and B. In gaming terms it's a social hub for me, much like how others use XFire... Which never caught on with my friends and I, we've always just used Steam for our voice chats/general gaming.

Steam, I think, has community support that only XFire really rivals. And I like being able to just casually game, my friends see what I am on and be able to contact me. If I had my way (I'm a social network harlot), there'd be full Facebook compatibility and the game I'm playing would show on my FB profile and FB chat would work ingame. They're kind of gravitating toward some kind of Facebook-Steam compatibility though, what with me now being able to add Facebook friends onto Steam... but I want moar!

Ugh... please.. no. Facebook and the like are annoying enough as is. I don't want them in my games...

Each to their own, I can understand that completely. I'm just not very private and quite the exhibitionist.

LordofHats wrote:
The part that matters is this one: "store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services."

Because you (the person, or at least, the person who owns the computers) can be identified by your computer. Each PC's serial numbers, MAC addresses, and even IP number can be used to identify you (though not with a degree of certainty to stand up in a court of law, certainly enough to stand up to what passes for 'Personal Information'.)

LordofHats wrote:
All of these things HELP gamers and aren't invasive at all beyond hogging your RAM. And you obviously haven't read the privacy policy because EA doesn't even collect any identifying information beyond your IP (which is used for regional market studies). EDIT: And they haven't changed that in their privacy policy in years... They don't need to scan for your name or address you probably already gave it to them in some other form (like when you registered an EA account).

Um, you do realize that if you have an ISP that assigns you a static IP, that's all they need, right? And, again, all that hardware stuff up there can identify you, and possibly even provide exploits based on driver information, which is also collected under the broad terms given.

And making off with my registry and scanning every directory in my computer isn't invasive? I'd hate to see what you consider invasive, then. BTW: running a process monitor and Origin shows that they don't even wait for you to agree to the EULA before they start scanning and transmitting. So even if you say 'No' they still have info on you.

LordofHats wrote:
They aren't allowed to collect information that way its ILLEGAL here too.

If by 'here' you mean the US, no, it's perfectly legal: Why? Because you agreed to it (knowingly or not). Further, you also waive your right to sue them in a trail by jury.





On the Steam thing: Against, you fail to disprove the point (though bravo, I hadn't noticed I had copy/pasted the wrong part). Read how again and again Valve adds 'with permission' and 'agree to receive' additionally requiring the 3rd parties to conform to the PP, which EA does NOT do.

Personally I don't use either, but if forced to pick, I'll go with Steam.




EDIT: Henners, btw: if EA considers browser history to not be personal data, they can get all YOUR personal info anyway, based on your facebook account, assuming you put real info there.

BaronIveagh wrote:Because you (the person, or at least, the person who owns the computers) can be identified by your computer. Each PC's serial numbers, MAC addresses, and even IP number can be used to identify you (though not with a degree of certainty to stand up in a court of law, certainly enough to stand up to what passes for 'Personal Information'.)

Most people don't even know what MAC addresses are, or that PC's have serial numbers (technically that's the motherboard but whatevs) and IP addresses don't identify you at all. IP's aren't personal in the sense they are secret. EA could just mine for that information (hell I could) and what would it tell me? Nothing but where you live and just about anyone can find that in a phone book. That information is not a secret.

Have you ever used punk buster? Congrats all the internet can now find your MAC address and your serial number from any site that monitors and stores PB bans. They're no more identifying than a user name on a forum.

LordofHats wrote:Um, you do realize that if you have an ISP that assigns you a static IP, that's all they need, right? And, again, all that hardware stuff up there can identify you, and possibly even provide exploits based on driver information, which is also collected under the broad terms given.

So? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. Tell me in straight terms. How does this hurt you?

You can't because it doesn't. None of the "identifying" information is a secret anyway and none of it can really come back to haunt you. EDIT: Well, it can but in no way that is exclusive to EA. Someone could easily just walk onto PB Bans and copy all that info and spoof your IP, MAC, and ID next time they go on a hacking spree.

And making off with my registry and scanning every directory in my computer isn't invasive?

They don't as I've explained (They can pull all the info they want from your installed register which is a single list stored by your OS). If you want to live in your fantasy world where your homework is so important that EA absolutely wants to know about it be my guest but it is a fantasy. They are not scanning your computer and copying every file on it. Technically they aren't even scanning they're just calling up a list that you look at every time you open install/uninstall.

I'd hate to see what you consider invasive, then.

Something actually harmful.

BTW: running a process monitor and Origin shows that they don't even wait for you to agree to the EULA before they start scanning and transmitting. So even if you say 'No' they still have info on you.

boo hoo? Who cares?

LordofHats wrote:If by 'here' you mean the US, no, it's perfectly legal: Why?

No you've imagined it is legal because you've imagined they're doing something they are not with this data.

Because you agreed to it (knowingly or not).

You cannot legally agree to an illegal contract clause.

Further, you also waive your right to sue them in a trail by jury.

Such waivers regularly fail to protect entities in civil suits rendering them mostly useless. Hence why EA would never scan a computer's full register because if they so much as stumble on any proprietary info on a system owned by say, an Activision Blizzard executive, they get their butts sued off faster than I can snap my fingers and say "oh nah they didn't."

@BaronIveagh

I'm against them taking my personal information without consulting me, ofc, and if they don't keep that data secure that might be a problem... But I don't see what horrid things they will do with my FB data. It seems that the 'profit' in knowing about the demographics of their userbase is delivering relevant advertisements or improving services aimed at me, 's'a'good thing.

And rumours that what FB knows, the CIA knows, etc. don't worry me massively. I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

But please do consult me next time, EA... you're still better than Activision but you make me slightly cross.

But my username gives me complete anonymity.

halonachos wrote:But my username gives me complete anonymity.

So does your serial number and your MAC address because nothing about them tells anyone anything about you.

IP's are pretty much phone numbers and are more identifying but hardly compromising or secret.

My point is that EA's data collection does nothing to compromise anyone's identity and doesn't collect information that isn't already available to most people who know about the internet. The data can't identify anyone. EDIT: Now I'm getting side tracked. There's no evidence other than assumption that they even collect MAC's and ID's. The EULA was worded vaguely and people started jumping up and down about and EA tightened it up so people would quit whining. There's no practical reason anyone would want collect or store your MAC or your any other number that can specifically identify your computer.

They don't store your IP. They register an IP from Raleigh, Virginia, and add a tick to the number of users in Raleigh, Virginia. That information is then used for marketing or sold for marketing purposes but no one is harmed by being the 567678th origin user in Raleigh, Virginia because being #567678 doesn't identify you at all.

In other news, the ME3 demo will be released in less than a month from now, and it even includes multiplayer. :O

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/324/index/9006820/1

Do want.

Mmm, that soon. Forced to look I shall.

BaronIveagh wrote:Read how again and again Valve adds 'with permission' and 'agree to receive' additionally requiring the 3rd parties to conform to the PP, which EA does NOT do.

So your argument now basically rests on counting the number of times two phrases appear in a document?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Most people don't even know what MAC addresses are, or that PC's have serial numbers (technically that's the motherboard but whatevs) and IP addresses don't identify you at all. IP's aren't personal in the sense they are secret. EA could just mine for that information (hell I could) and what would it tell me? Nothing but where you live and just about anyone can find that in a phone book. That information is not a secret.

One thing that I think people often fail to understand is that privacy is essentially just how hard it is for people to find information about you.

Those walls to your house aren't invulnerable, I can break them down if I want to see you on the toilet.

Privacy is an illusion manufactured by a culture that has increasingly devoted itself to various shades of independence and civil liberty which is all well and good but it is an illusion. Not that I suggest we give everyone free reign to do whatever they want. Privacy has a useful purpose for many things but its not something that can be insured, especially not in the information age (the word "information" is very important in that sentence). Frankly, a lot of people have become paranoid about privacy to the point of being completely irrational.

I don't think its an illusion, per se. And, really, even my equation is basically is just a plucky one liner.

As a "right" privacy is all about people not looking where you don't want them to. As a physical concept, its about instituting consequences and barriers that anyone looking to deprive you of your privacy must suffer.

The reason people are now paranoid about their privacy is both legitimate and illegitimate. The legitimate reasons are primarily centered on identity theft, and partially centered on a lack of self-confidence regarding the judgment of others (Basically, the porn objection.). The illegitimate reasons are predicated on assuming that because something is in your house (So to speak.), it should be private.

LordofHats wrote:Nothing but where you live and just about anyone can find that in a phone book. That information is not a secret.

Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

LordofHats wrote:
Have you ever used punk buster?

Nope.

LordofHats wrote:Tell me in straight terms. How does this hurt you?

Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing. And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example. People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions). Would some of these practices be illegal: YES. Would it happen anyway: YES, as it already has happened.

LordofHats wrote:
They don't as I've explained (They can pull all the info they want from your installed register which is a single list stored by your OS). If you want to live in your fantasy world where your homework is so important that EA absolutely wants to know about it be my guest but it is a fantasy. They are not scanning your computer and copying every file on it. Technically they aren't even scanning they're just calling up a list that you look at every time you open install/uninstall.

I don't know about the homework bit, but here in the shop I've got a PC that they are having me set up and it includes BF3 and Origin: guess what: process monitor says it's having windows scan every single directory in the machine. Not copying them, but I don't doubt it could. Looks like it pulled a full file list.

LordofHats wrote:
Something actually harmful.

You have a very naive idea of what could constitute harmful then.

LordofHats wrote:
No you've imagined it is legal because you've imagined they're doing something they are not with this data.

Nice double speak for saying that doing nothing is legal, but doing something would be illegal. Guess what: it's legal either way, because the EULA specifically states that you are allowing them to do this, which is your right. You seem to not understand that you can, legally, give someone the right to monitor your activities and inspect your personal data of any sort. The implied permission alone is the reason that most IT firms require a non-disclosure agreement of their employees, in the event that in the course of their permitted access to your personal data, they see confidential information.

LordofHats wrote:
You cannot legally agree to an illegal contract clause.

It's not an illegal contract clause because the contract is about you waiving your rights. If they did this WITHOUT gaining your permission, then, yes, it is illegal. With your permission, it's right as rain.

LordofHats wrote:
Such waivers regularly fail to protect entities in civil suits rendering them mostly useless.

True. However, such suits are rare as most people do not have the financial wherewithal to take on EA in court, right or wrong. Further, most cases such as the one suggested usually result in an undisclosed settlement, rather than have EULA's put on trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Privacy is an illusion manufactured by a culture that has increasingly devoted itself to various shades of independence and civil liberty...

Yes, because we all know that Americans should never be about Liberties and Independence...



After all, we clearly have too much Freedom. Should we get rid of that Democracy thing too, while we're at it, there, Your Magesty?

BaronIveagh wrote:Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

Here's the funny thing. I'm on the Do Not Call list and I still get solicitation. These things get found.

LordofHats wrote:Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing.

So people get fired for doing things they shouldn't do and imprisoned for illegal things? How's this bad? Unless you're doing something wrong you have nothing to fear.

And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example.

Horrible example. That's illegal under US Labor laws.

People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions).

Why would EA do that? More important I could do that in about an hour if I wanted to.

What about your bank? Your employer? They have access to your name, address, bank accounts, and SSN. Are you afraid of them? They have more information on you than EA ever will. Probably a million people have immediate access to your SSN right now. Are you scared of them?

LordofHats wrote:You have a very naive idea of what could constitute harmful then.

No I'm just not paranoid.

LordofHats wrote:Nice double speak for saying that doing nothing is legal, but doing something would be illegal. Guess what: it's legal either way, because the EULA specifically states that you are allowing them to do this, which is your right.

The EULA would probably be counted unenforceable by a court if they actually did what everyone says they did. Civil courts are fickle with legal agreements. You're imagining a feeble contract giving EA protection and rights it doesn't.

LordofHats wrote:It's not an illegal contract clause because the contract is about you waiving your rights.

You can't legally waive a right that results in something illegal happening. It makes the contract legally invalid.

LordofHats wrote:So people get fired for doing things they shouldn't do and imprisoned for illegal things? How's this bad? Unless you're doing something wrong you have nothing to fear.

REALLY? You know, I've head that whole 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' line before. Now where was it...



Oh, right!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/apr/26/news.health

So, tell me if that affected those guys. Did they commit a crime? No. Did they likely suffer and lose business? YES.

No one has 'Nothing to Hide'.

LordofHats wrote:
Horrible example. That's illegal under US Labor laws.

LordofHats wrote:Here's the funny thing. I'm on the Do Not Call list and I still get solicitation. These things get found.

Happens every day in the US. Also happens because of race, creed, and political affiliation, all illegal. Why? Because it's hard to prove, and most of the time, companies get away with it.

And, frankly, calling a person on the NDNCL is technically a crime and companies have been taken to court for it.

LordofHats wrote:
What about your bank? Your employer? They have access to your name, address, bank accounts, and SSN. Are you afraid of them? They have more information on you than EA ever will. Probably a million people have immediate access to your SSN right now. Are you scared of them?

Well, one, I'm self employed, and am currently working as an IT consultant (CHA-CHING). My only accounts are in small, local credit unions, meaning that the most people could have access to even part of that data is around 20. And NONE of them have a complete set of that data.

LordofHats wrote:
The EULA would probably be counted unenforceable by a court if they actually did what everyone says they did. Civil courts are fickle with legal agreements. You're imagining a feeble contract giving EA protection and rights it doesn't.

Doesn't matter, it's very, very rare to see it ever come up at all, because most people don't fight back, and if it looks like they'll lose, most of the time the companies offer a big undisclosed settlement so that it doesn't create precedent.

LordofHats wrote:You can't legally waive a right that results in something illegal happening. It makes the contract legally invalid.

Ok, deep breath...

What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

This is a gross simplification of a waiver, but is accurate enough for this discussion.

BaronIveagh wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/apr/26/news.health

Because UK health care controversy relate to US law how?

The big brother stuff is a load of crap and it always has been. Try a real argument.

Doesn't matter, it's very, very rare to see it ever come up at all, because most people don't fight back, and if it looks like they'll lose, most of the time the companies offer a big undisclosed settlement so that it doesn't create precedent.

As you've s elegantly pointed out the Germans disagree. You also have still failed to offer any evidence that EA's data collection will result in harm to anyone. All you have is slippery slopes and "but they could do this." This issue has nothing to do with what EA is doing but rather on the perception of EA as a company which is very negative. Steam does the EXACT same thing and no one complained about it even though they've been doing it longer than EA has.

LordofHats wrote:What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

Deep breath.

If a contract requires that I do whatever Bob tells me to, and Bob tells me to kill his wife Geogia, then fulfilling my obligations under the contract results in an illegal act which invalidates the contract. You cannot legally agree to something illegal (well you can but you're under no obligation to fulfill the agreement).

BaronIveagh wrote:
Never heard of an unlisted phone number, have we? Or the Do Not Call list, apparently.

Reverse directories are a thing, you know, and a thing that is legal in the US.

Also, the Do Not Call list does not apply to political organizations, NPOs, surveys, companies you have done business with within 18 months of the call, bill collectors, and people that cannot afford a legal challenge.

BaronIveagh wrote:
REALLY? You know, I've head that whole 'You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' line before.

It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear. The trouble comes when you skirt the law, violate it, or the law is deliberately construed to induce violation.

I'll be honest, your posts read, in summary, to me as "ZOMG this vaguely reminds me of 1984!111!!!1111!!"

BaronIveagh wrote:
Depends on the information, but can range from job loss to arrest, depending on what they see you doing. And not from obvious things: workers could lose their jobs if they're caught going to Union websites, for example. People spoofing IPs could use yours to visit illegal material and get YOU arrested (this has already happened on several occasions). Would some of these practices be illegal: YES. Would it happen anyway: YES, as it already has happened.

Which is why you use a sterile computer, and alternate IP if you think that you're at serious risk.

Privacy costs money, and it has always cost money.

I've already ordered my PC collector's edition from Amazon. I don't care about Origin. I intend to open it when I want to play a game, and close it when I do not just like I already do with Impulse. I don't think there is any real fundamental difference between Steam and Origin.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, deep breath...

What happens afterward is NOT illegal BECAUSE you waive your right. It's like this: say yes and it's fun, say no and it's rape.

This is a gross simplification of a waiver, but is accurate enough for this discussion.

It really isn't. Simply waiving your right to X is not sufficient.

For example, if I'm hammered I can't waive my right to anything. A legal waiver is not just saying something, signing on to a document, or doing a thing which someones else says entails a waiver of rights.

LordofHats wrote:

Because UK health care controversy relate to US law how?

You clearly did not really bother to read. The controversy was that personal information was released, damaging people's careers and livelihoods without them having committed any crimes or done things they are not supposed to have done.

LordofHats wrote:
As you've s elegantly pointed out the Germans disagree. You also have still failed to offer any evidence that EA's data collection will result in harm to anyone. All you have is slippery slopes and "but they could do this." This issue has nothing to do with what EA is doing but rather on the perception of EA as a company which is very negative. Steam does the EXACT same thing and no one complained about it even though they've been doing it longer than EA has.

While all I have is slippery slopes, all you apparently have are false analogies. I don't particularly like steam, I don't use it, but I've seen both of them in action on computers, and you are dead wrong. The actual mechanics of what both do is very, very different, and the data that could be being collected from the files I see Origin accessing are much different, much more intrusive.

LordofHats wrote:
If a contract requires that I do whatever Bob tells me to, and Bob tells me to kill his wife Geogia, then fulfilling my obligations under the contract results in an illegal act which invalidates the contract. You cannot legally agree to something illegal (well you can but you're under no obligation to fulfill the agreement).

Yes, but if Bob's wife contracts you to kill her, you can legally do so (see Oregon's Death with Dignity Act). If you are Georgia's attending physician and Georgia is on life support with no hope of recovery, you can also do this legally with Bob's written consent. In the case of Origin's data mining, it's is legal because you gave permission. The part that makes it illegal is doing it without consent, not the data mining itself.

dogma wrote:
It really isn't. Simply waiving your right to X is not sufficient.
For example, if I'm hammered I can't waive my right to anything.

Yes, there are exceptions, and so you can argue, for example, that you agreed while impaired, and that might stand up if all you did was install Origin and never played any games on it at all, or ran the program after that. And, while yes, you can take someone to court regardless of having signed a waiver, however, you are the one with an uphill battle because you have to prove that you were impaired or that for some other reason the agreement is invalid.

dogma wrote:
It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear. The trouble comes when you skirt the law, violate it, or the law is deliberately construed to induce violation.

Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies. You don't have to be doing anything illegal to get screwed by this. Let use an example: remember the Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee video? Did they do ANYTHING illegal?

And even if EA doesn't do it themselves, how long before they're targeted by people who would?

BaronIveagh wrote:You clearly did not really bother to read. The controversy was that personal information was released, damaging people's careers and livelihoods without them having committed any crimes or done things they are not supposed to have done.

Except you have no evidence that EA is even collecting information that can harm someone. Let alone, what information they do collect can be gather in ways that are easier than taking them from EA. You're comparing a database loaded with everything needed to steal someone's identity to a data collection program that collects nothing that personally identifies you.

dogma wrote:Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies.

Except I fail to see how EA's data mining will result in your doomsday scenario. You're arguing a position about privacy as a general concept and applying it to EA's more limited data collection. Origin doesn't collect the information to do anything of things you claim can happen. EDIT: More importantly, you fail to recognize that they are not going to collect data in the way that you claim. I again bring up the scenario of EA data mining a computer of an Activision Blizzard executive. That opens EA up big and wide for a infringement suit from someone with just as much money as them. All Origin has to do is brush a proprietary file and they risk losing hundreds of millions.

And even if EA doesn't do it themselves, how long before they're targeted by people who would?

YOu mean people who can get the information more easily through other means? Seriously listen to yourself. So you're afraid someone will spoof your IP and do something illegal. You really think they're going to steal your IP from EA rather than get it from the numerous other infinitely easier ways to spoof IPs? Hell why would anyone even want to spoof your IP to set you up to avoid punishment for their own crime? That's what proxy servers are for and they take no work at all to use. Your position is based in absurd paranoia with no grounding in reality. EA gains nothing by "framing" its customers and I can think of no practical reason why they'd even want to and what data they are collecting is benign or can be collected by bad doers in much easier ways than taking it from EA. EDIT EDIT: More importantly it's easy to prove when an IP has been spoofed. You can do it with a simple call to your ISP or by checking the connection of the spoofer.

LordofHats wrote:
Except you have no evidence that EA is even collecting information that can harm someone. Let alone, what information they do collect can be gather in ways that are easier than taking them from EA. You're comparing a database loaded with everything needed to steal someone's identity to a data collection program that collects nothing that personally identifies you.

They flat out said they're collecting browser histories. I've seen more then one company that will fire employees based on that alone.

LordofHats wrote:
YOu mean people who can get the information more easily through other means?

Not on this scale. If you want personal information on people, you hit a casino or a game company, for the same reason that if you want millions of dollars you rob a bank, not a grocery store.

LordofHats wrote:Hell why would anyone even want to spoof your IP to set you up to avoid punishment for their own crime?

Dunno about 'to hide thier own crime' but to try and ruin people's lives...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/hacking-neighbor-from-hell/


EDIT:

On the EA/Activision thing: you do realize that to be SOX complaint, the executive would not have any proprietary information on his/her laptop, right? Never mind that it would be pointless because the corporate firewall would block the connection to EA.

On the spoofing thing: not always. It's fooled the FBI before, so...

BaronIveagh wrote:They flat out said they're collecting browser histories. I've seen more then one company that will fire employees based on that alone.

Probably because people shouldn't be surfing the internet at work? EA is a software development company. Not a security firm. They aren't selling your internet history to your boss hoping you'll get fired. They're looking to see what websites people visit so they can target marketing. EDIT: And hell, your internet history is probably the most well known thing about you in Corporate America. That's what cookies are for. It's practically all they do. Yahoo, Google, Bing? Any search engine you've been to has probably planted a tracker cookie on your computer as have any onlines stores from major corporations you've visited.

LordofHats wrote:Not on this scale. If you want personal information on people, you hit a casino or a game company, for the same reason that if you want millions of dollars you rob a bank, not a grocery store.

What information does EA have? This is where you're falling into absurd paranoia. So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

Dunno about 'to hide thier own crime' but to try and ruin people's lives...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/hacking-neighbor-from-hell/

Thanks for proving my point? EA had no hand in that and the Mr. Aldorf didn't need a big company to collect your information so that he could do it. You've also further proven my point that cyber crime isn't some big mystery that can't be solved. It's pretty simple for anyone with the slightest amount of tech suave to figure out.

Oh and maybe YOU should read the articles you post?

After the husband explained to his law office superiors that he had no idea what was happening, his bosses hired a law firm that examined his network and discovered that an “unknown” device had access to it. With Kostolnik’s permission, they installed a packet sniffer on his network to try and get to the bottom of the incidents.

Then, in May 2009, the Secret Service showed up at Kostolnik’s office to ask about several threatening e-mails sent from his Yahoo account, and traced to his IP address, that were addressed to Biden and other politicians. The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.”

“I swear to God I’m going to kill you!,” part of the message to Biden said.

A forensics computer investigator working for Kostolnik’s law firm examined the packet logs, and found the e-mail sessions sending the threats. In the data surrounding the threatening traffic, they found traffic containing Ardolf’s name and Comcast account .

Yeah this guy was ruined for life and no one believed him at all. He had a rotten neighbor and a bad episode but EA didn't do it, no data collection did it, and now he's getting on with his life. Aldorf even had immediate access to their IP which is a lot more than anyone who can't get right next to your wireless router can do. This has nothing to do with EA's data collection and whether or not it can hurt people it has to do with "I don't like EA" and "but my privacy is in danger!" You're being irrationally paranoid.

On the spoofing thing: not always. It's fooled the FBI before, so...

You can find out if an IP has really accessed what you think it has simply by going to the ISP and asking for the connection history. ISP spoofing doesn't use the real IP address.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, there are exceptions, and so you can argue, for example, that you agreed while impaired, and that might stand up if all you did was install Origin and never played any games on it at all, or ran the program after that. And, while yes, you can take someone to court regardless of having signed a waiver, however, you are the one with an uphill battle because you have to prove that you were impaired or that for some other reason the agreement is invalid.

You can also argue that the agreement was written unfairly, or deliberately designed to mislead.

It is an uphill battle, but to that my response is "Welcome to the real world, where people with more power have easier lives."

BaronIveagh wrote:
Again, see the above example. Given the right information, some of which is included in what EA is taking, it's quite possible to ruin lives, break marriages, destroy careers, bankrupt companies, and crash economies.

If you have any information on a computer with Origin, Steam, or any other potential risk, that can bankrupt a company, or crash an economy, then you're a moron. I work with sensitive information all the time. I have a computer specifically designed to prevent external access which is only connected to the internet when absolutely necessary. If I put any kind of game client on it, or accessed facebook, or did basic web browsing, I would be an idiot and likely lose my job if it was discovered.

The same applies to anything that can ruin your career, and if you're doing anything in your private time that can break your marriage, then your marriage has serious problems and you either need to be more open with your partner, or your partner needs to be more understanding.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You don't have to be doing anything illegal to get screwed by this. Let use an example: remember the Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee video? Did they do ANYTHING illegal?

Did it ruin their lives?

I'm sure they were absolutely heart broken over the publicity, and I'm sure Pam was horrified that everyone knew she has, on occasion, had sex with her husband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
What information does EA have? This is where you're falling into absurd paranoia. So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

But the scandal! A Saitek employee prefers Logitech joysticks!

LordofHats wrote: EA is a software development company. Not a security firm. They aren't selling your internet history to your boss hoping you'll get fired.

Can't say I've ever seen EA do it, but I have seen it done to eliminate rivals in the corporate sector. Wouldn't surprise me in the least though if a EA employee did. After all, it's happened to casinos:

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2010_2nd/Apr10_SenecaSuit.html

Kesel and Cutler made off with the customer database, among other things, if I recall correctly from my time there. Are there lawsuits flying thick and fast over this? Yes. Is the information out there now anyway for sale? Yes, though I hear SGC is trying to get a judge to block it.

LordofHats wrote:
What information does EA have?

Well, none of mine, I cancelled my CE pre-order.

LordofHats wrote:
So EA knows your IP 1.2.3.4. I can totally see your going to be ruined by them knowing this, not that everyone else on the internet can't find that out. So they know you have a Pentium Core Duo and a Radeon 5500. Yeah that information can ruin you as can EA knowing that you have TeamSpeak3 installed and a Logitech joy stick. Heaven forbid if someone else actually learns those things!

Yeah, but you leave out they will also know your name, address (from the registry scan or from the browser), and browser history. Did you know that dakka is actually on some companies watch lists for employees? I gak you not.

So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

LordofHats wrote:
Oh and maybe YOU should read the articles you post?

It wasn't anything to do with EA. You asked why anyone would do something like that, I provided an example to show how far it could be taken. Never said it had anything to do with EA or data collecting.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yeah, but you leave out they will also know your name, address (from the registry scan or from the browser), and browser history.

And they didn't find that out when you registered an account in the first place? Furthermore you continue to throw around the "they'z scanzing our filz!" when they are not. EA doesn't need to scan your files to know your name or address. If you ever registered a credit card with them they already know, and I assume most people use their real names when they register accounts.

Are you just going to keep throwing out "maybe this could happen" or will you drop the slippery slopes and actually talk about what is happening? You're still arguing about privacy and data mining as a generalized idea, NOT about what EA is actually doing. EA doesn't have any info that can compromise anyone's security. Everything they're scanning for is benign or already easily available to anyone who wants it.

Did you know that dakka is actually on some companies watch lists for employees? I gak you not.

And why should that shock me? Companies pay people to work not to surf the internet.

So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

Maybe my neighbor will hack my router and try to frame me for downloading child porn. Lets condemn him and arrest him now just in case.

How American of you

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I LOATHE EA. I loathe them with a burning passion alongside Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, the Screen Writer's Guild, professional sports unions, commies, hippies, clowns, and long words that I can't spell properly! But I choose to loathe EA for an actual reason not some fake conspiracy theory created by people who just want to hate EA because its hip. EA has been doing this since 2006 and no one even noticed until late 2011 and when they finally notice they blow what is going on hugely out of proportion and then they all get Origin anyway. I just have no sympathy for the situation because I don't think this particular issue actually is an issue worth getting worried about and the people who complain about it don't have a leg to stand on in the first place (as a general rule).

BaronIveagh wrote:
So, again, even assuming EA are the saints you seem to think they are, let's suppose that someone pulls a Sony and drops all that data on the internet. You, if you work at such a company, are in trouble now.

...if you were foolish enough to use your work computer to access Dakka.

LordofHats wrote:
And they didn't find that out when you registered an account in the first place? Furthermore you continue to throw around the "they'z scanzing our filz!" when they are not. EA doesn't need to scan your files to know your name or address. If you ever registered a credit card with them they already know, and I assume most people use their real names when they register accounts.

And never mind the minor detail that you may have done neither of those things before this sucker starts scanning.

LordofHats wrote:
Are you just going to keep throwing out "maybe this could happen" or will you drop the slippery slopes and actually talk about what is happening? You're still arguing about privacy and data mining as a generalized idea, NOT about what EA is actually doing. EA doesn't have any info that can compromise anyone's security. Everything they're scanning for is benign or already easily available to anyone who wants it.

"EA also reserves the right to edit, refuse to transfer and/or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in EA’s sole discretion." EA EULA, section 3 (BF3 version)

Really, so the fact it checks if you have programs relating to medical conditions (proven) gives it information that is both benign and easily attainable? Tell me what IP logger tells you that, I'm curious.

And as far as what EA is doing: they are (still, despite various management statements) banning people from single player games they bought due to forum douchebaggery (either on their own part or for being quoted in the douchebaggery of others). They are currently being sued for violating anti-trust laws and have been attempting to trick people into giving up their right to claim membership in a class in an ON GOING class action suit against EA in California. They're also in front of a judge for fraud and false advertising (related to offers of free copies of BF 1943 with BF3 for PS).

So, have they taken your personal info and sold it on the street corner yet? No. Does their track record inspire confidence they won't do so in the future? No.

LordofHats wrote:
And why should that shock me? Companies pay people to work not to surf the internet.

dogma wrote:
...if you were foolish enough to use your work computer to access Dakka.

Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

BaronIveagh wrote:And never mind the minor detail that you may have done neither of those things before this sucker starts scanning.

Why would anyone get it if they have no intention of using the service?

LordofHats wrote:And as far as what EA is doing: they are (still, despite various management statements) banning people from single player games they bought due to forum douchebaggery (either on their own part or for being quoted in the douchebaggery of others).

People get banned from a service for violating terms of use? Go figure.

They are currently being sued for violating anti-trust laws and have been attempting to trick people into giving up their right to claim membership in a class in an ON GOING class action suit against EA in California. They're also in front of a judge for fraud and false advertising (related to offers of free copies of BF 1943 with BF3 for PS).

So you admit your perception of the issue is clouded by bias about other things EA has done?

So, have they taken your personal info and sold it on the street corner yet? No. Does their track record inspire confidence they won't do so in the future? No.

As I understand it we don't convict people for something that might happen.

Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

That's not a problem with browser history that's a problem with stupidity.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sure, if it was limited to 'at work' you'd have a point. However, I was talking 'at home'. If they find out that you visit it 'at home' you get flagged (at work you'd get fired). A guy in an IT department I worked for was actually terminated for mentioning he played 40k. It was considered a threat of violence.

There are plenty of jobs in which certain off the clock behaviors can get you fired, I have one of them, in fact. Indeed, the guy I replaced got terminated because he liked to drink to excess in public places, which the company considers to be a security risk.

Part of working for someone is knowing what you're expected to do, and not to do, and understanding that if you choose to violate these expectations you place yourself at risk.

LordofHats wrote:
Why would anyone get it if they have no intention of using the service?

Because EA issued misleading statements about it being a requirement for some games pre-release? Or the buyer had no idea about games other then their boy/girl/just friend liked them?

LordofHats wrote:
People get banned from a service for violating terms of use? Go figure.

Yes, particularly when there are no terms of service what-so-ever in the games involved, or even a service at all, according to EA, who continue to insist that either it doesn't happen or they don't know why it does happen (occasionally on the same incident). Shocking.

LordofHats wrote:So you admit your perception of the issue is clouded by bias about other things EA has done?

Yes, I will not be able to be a juror in this case as I will grant that EA's various crimes in the past (some of which EA has been guilty of and fined for) do color my personal perception of them. I would not trust EA with my personal information in much the same way I would not trust Charles Ponzi to be my investment banker or a convicted serial rapist in charge of a women's shelter. Their track record pushes my disbelief in their good intentions from 'reasonable doubt' to 'common sense'.

Particularly when the CEO said on live television he was going to court as much controversy as possible. Somehow, I see this not ending well and a lot of people getting shafted.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Because EA issued misleading statements about it being a requirement for some games pre-release? Or the buyer had no idea about games other then their boy/girl/just friend liked them?

In the latter case, I sincerely doubt the purchaser is going to install the game.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, particularly when there are no terms of service what-so-ever in the games involved, or even a service at all, according to EA, who continue to insist that either it doesn't happen or they don't know why it does happen (occasionally on the same incident). Shocking.

What game that is currently produced doesn't have a TOS screen pop up during installation?

dogma wrote:In the latter case, I sincerely doubt the purchaser is going to install the game.

He didn't as why they'd install it, he asked why they'd buy it.

dogma wrote:What game that is currently produced doesn't have a TOS screen pop up during installation?

Most EULAs offer a license, not a TOS. The EULAs in ME2 and DA2, in their original install state, at no point mention a service. Just the terms of the licensing agreement. Which, BTW at no point give EA the right to turn them off remotely or mention EA's forums nor a code of conduct, though like all of them, they grant EA the right to change them at any time.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, because we all know that Americans should never be about Liberties and Independence...



After all, we clearly have too much Freedom. Should we get rid of that Democracy thing too, while we're at it, there, Your Magesty?

Hey! Don't poke us with that thing over here! We Brits are rather loving our tyranny. Her Majesty is lovely.

dogma wrote:It is, however, true. If you do nothing that violates the law, then you have nothing to fear.

Not everything people are ashamed of or wish to keep private is illegal.

In fact the overwhelming majority of it isn't.

Most EULAs offer a license, not a TOS.

They're kind of the same thing.

In fact the overwhelming majority of it isn't.

My problem isn't with people and they're little secrets its with this illusion that it's somehow unknowable. NOTHING you do on the internet (or on your computer for that matter) is private. Using the these things is like walking down a public street. Is it anyone's business to know? Not really. Can they find out anyway? Yes. Anyone who wants to find out what you're doing can find out, its just a question of how hard they're willing to work to get it.

EA is not increasing anyone's risk so why people throw their arms in the air and cry foul is a mystery to me.

I don't disagree about the equivalence to walking down the street, but I do disagree that it is a good thing that EA is doing this.

BaronIveagh wrote:
He didn't as why they'd install it, he asked why they'd buy it.

For the purposes of this conversation they're essentially equivalent.

That ME3 box you bought at Best Buy isn't scanning your genetic code.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Most EULAs offer a license, not a TOS. The EULAs in ME2 and DA2, in their original install state, at no point mention a service. Just the terms of the licensing agreement.

A TOS is essentially a license, in both cases I, as the producer, can strip you of your right to use our product, or service, if you violate the outlined terms.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Which, BTW at no point give EA the right to turn them off remotely or mention EA's forums nor a code of conduct, though like all of them, they grant EA the right to change them at any time.

They do, however, require an EA account, and the TOS for an EA account notes that your account can be suspended for delinquent forum behavior.

If you engage in delinquent forum behavior, you do so at risk of losing access to the games you purchased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Not everything people are ashamed of or wish to keep private is illegal.

In fact the overwhelming majority of it isn't.

Sure, but its really just a question of reasonable security. If someone really wanted to see me in the shower, they could take a sledgehammer to my wall and accomplish such a feat. I'd rather they didn't see me in the shower, but I'm not so worried about it that I construct my walls out of steel.

Similarly, I don't really care if people see my browser history, as its all stuff I can comfortably, and easily justify to anyone important. The things I can't comfortably, or easily justify (mostly work related), is stuff I take additional security measures to protect.

And you're saying the outcry against this is not a resonable measure to protect your privacy or something?

I think what Dogma and I have been saying most of this thread is that people are making a big deal out of something that's really not that big of a deal.

Any encroachment upon my privacy is a big thing to me.

It's a good part of the reason I don't use Facebook, and don't give my real name out, or my real address.

Melissia wrote:Any encroachment upon my privacy is a big thing to me.

It's a good part of the reason I don't use Facebook, and don't give my real name out, or my real address.

Congratulations: welcome to the paranoid club.

If the company in question had a respectable reputation for confidentiality, security, and honesty with it's customers, I'd object to this sort of search. EA on the other hand has a reputation for cheating people, lying, and screwing up software. This is a really bad combo.

And, again, EA required an account, but AT THAT TIME, this WAS NOT the same as their forum accounts (which were, AND SUPPOSEDLY STILL ARE ACCORDING TO EA, two separate things). That came about ex post facto when EA decided to merge everything, supposedly resulting in an account train wreck.

Edit: speaking of EA and it's hypocrisy...

I know I'm douible posting, but I just read this and thought it semi-topical:

http://kotaku.com/5878284/mass-effect-will-set-a-record-for-most-expensive-dlc

Just what it says on the tin.

BaronIveagh wrote:I know I'm douible posting, but I just read this and thought it semi-topical:

http://kotaku.com/5878284/mass-effect-will-set-a-record-for-most-expensive-dlc

Just what it says on the tin.

lol, what kind of newspost is that?

They sell action figures that come with a code for some bonus content in the game, and this is what they make of it? For all we know the "bonus content" may be nothing more than a differently coloured uniform for the companion (which seems likely, given that each figure has its own DLC). For all we know, the bonus content may also be sold on the website directly (maybe even as a pack - like they already did with the appearance sets in ME2) but is simply free for anyone who buys these figures.

Talking about making a mountain out of molehills.

This is the equivalent of someone bitching about how he paid 20.000 dollars for his bubblegum because it came free with his new car.

"It is slightly randomized during the registration and could include powerful new weapons and new characters." - Bioware website

Doesn't sound like different uniforms to me, though granted, it could be sold on the site, that hasn't been made clear yet, though like several of the posters on Kotaku, I'm willing to be that some of it isn't.


The best part is it's apparently randomized, so what you want to get for DLC buying that $20 fig might not be what you get...

Ah so Skylanders has started something in the industry. I don't mind, I can see me grabbing some.

Melissia wrote:And you're saying the outcry against this is not a resonable measure to protect your privacy or something?

I'm saying that Origin is no greater threat to your privacy than Steam, neither of which I will allow to be on the computer that contains NDA data that could get me fired.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The best part is it's apparently randomized, so what you want to get for DLC buying that $20 fig might not be what you get...

At this point I really can't tell if you're being serious.

"ZOMG, a company is selling randomized commodities!"

Its also fairly ridiculous to claim that ME3 will set the record for expensive DLC, given that the entire premise is invalidated by, you know, the action figures.

BaronIveagh wrote:

And, again, EA required an account, but AT THAT TIME, this WAS NOT the same as their forum accounts (which were, AND SUPPOSEDLY STILL ARE ACCORDING TO EA, two separate things). That came about ex post facto when EA decided to merge everything, supposedly resulting in an account train wreck.

Edit: speaking of EA and it's hypocrisy...

Changing corporate contracts, in accordance with the stipulations of those contracts, is not hypocrisy.

The topic of the comic presents a good case for a charge of hypocrisy, what you're talking about is equivalent of Alanis Morissette "irony".

If you're going to complain about corporate "malfeasance" at least use the correct words.

dogma wrote:
At this point I really can't tell if you're being serious.

"ZOMG, a company is selling randomized commodities!"

Its also fairly ridiculous to claim that ME3 will set the record for expensive DLC, given that the entire premise is invalidated by, you know, the action figures.

I had to look up that link you posted, just to see what you were talking about. BTW: there's a big difference between buying a crate of random stuff that either is available as a drop or can be gained for free via some other means, and random DLC which may not be available via another means.

And I think you've been snorting GW's bs too long if you think that little plastic or resin men are automatically worth $20-$60 each because a company says they're clearly superior to metal. Further, stop and think for a moment about the target audience: these are for die hard ME fanboys who are looking for completion in their game (or a character they felt should be in it and was made DLC instead, which is my somewhat cynical take on this), not hard core TT fanboys who must own every mini ever. I know that I threw out the stupid figures that came with my CE ed of ToR and WAR, and to judge the number of them that flooded eBay, everyone else did too.

It's sort of like why people go to blizzcon. It's for the in game bling, not anything else.

Well, I'm sure some people may be crazy enough to throw money at BioWare to have a chance at getting some random digital item they want. I've seen it work with my flatmate as well, though that was for the Jem'hadar attack ship in STO which you had a chance of getting from a box. But honestly, would you fault the company for trying to make money? Yes, it feels bad, but this is how capitalism works, and the gaming industry as a whole has grown up. No longer are companies like BioWare or Blizzard steered by enthusiastic idealists, now they have to listen to a multi-million publisher who has to reassure its investors that it is trying to maximize profits. Brave new world.

For what it's worth, I also never understood why people play the lottery - given the chances to actually make a profit there or win the car/yacht/vacation you're hoping for it's basically the same thing, really.

In the end, supply is defined by demand, which means that the players as a whole are directly responsible for the direction the market has taken. Don't like a ToU/EULA? Think that something is too pricey? Don't buy it. It's all about the breaking point, where you as an individual draw the line, and if enough people follow your example, the companies might even learn their lesson. Well, likely not, but this is just how big businesses are run.

And I'm still thinking that these random DLCs are meant as a promotion for the action figures, not the other way around.

Heh, I've been a hardcore CCG player in the past, buying things on a random chance is hardly new.

Sadly I couldn't see the site in question earlier when I posted, seems at the moment this in NA only, which is a pity. Although hopefully that means we can just purchase the DLC in europe?

Who knows.

Locclo wrote:I'm playing ME3 on PS3, so I couldn't care less.

Honestly, what's everyone's beef with Origin? I use it for other games (notably Spore, Darkspore, and Dragon Age) and I've never had issues with it.

It's because it's buggy and doesn't work as intended like Steam.

Honestly, I spend more time waiting in queue due to "Disconnected from EA online" and "Game Client error" or "Something went wrong" messages then actually playing the game.

Oh, and half the time I'm playing using Origin, it crashes and boots me from the game I'm currently playing WITHOUT saving. So yeah, it's a pretty darn bad system, so bad that I've actually given up playing games on Origin like Battlefield 3.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I had to look up that link you posted, just to see what you were talking about. BTW: there's a big difference between buying a crate of random stuff that either is available as a drop or can be gained for free via some other means, and random DLC which may not be available via another means.

You mean click on it?

Regardless, no, there isn't any difference as there is no way to gain the contents of a Supply Crate for free. If you had done any kind of research you would know this.

I imagine your whinge at the release of MtG was cacophonous.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And I think you've been snorting GW's bs too long if you think that little plastic or resin men are automatically worth $20-$60 each because a company says they're clearly superior to metal.

They're worth what people will pay, but that's beside the point. The key here is that the item being sold is the action figure, the DLC code is an ancillary bonus.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Further, stop and think for a moment about the target audience: these are for die hard ME fanboys who are looking for completion in their game (or a character they felt should be in it and was made DLC instead, which is my somewhat cynical take on this), not hard core TT fanboys who must own every mini ever.

Oh wow, that is an impressively thin hair you split.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I know that I threw out the stupid figures that came with my CE ed of ToR and WAR, and to judge the number of them that flooded eBay, everyone else did too.

Why would you assume that someone who wanted to profit from their limited edition collectors item had no interest in keeping it themselves?

dogma wrote:
Regardless, no, there isn't any difference as there is no way to gain the contents of a Supply Crate for free. If you had done any kind of research you would know this.

You might want to click around that wiki then, because it lists the odds of a given item dropping, and if you go to that items page, it also shows how to get it outside of one, such as Scottish Resistance being awarded for 17 demoman achievements or Your Eternal Reward being craftable...

dogma wrote:
I imagine your whinge at the release of MtG was cacophonous.

"Lord of the Pit started touring with his Heavy Metal band Snoddy. They're particularly popular at Monster Truck rallys where at the climax, Pitlord actually eats an entire minivan."

Your Scryb Sprites fail to beat my ball lightening-bloodlust-berserk-bolt first turn combo. An MtG card you don't want can be traded or sold to someone else for one you do, not doable with DLC codes, since the randomization occurs after you input the code, if I read this right. Meaning that you own it, regardless of if it was the one you want or not.

dogma wrote:
They're worth what people will pay, but that's beside the point.

For once we agree. Things are worth what people will pay for them, regardless of how dumb those people are or how greedy the seller is being.

dogma wrote:
Oh wow, that is an impressively thin hair you split.

Barbers like to toss them into the air and see how many I can split before they hit the floor.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You might want to click around that wiki then, because it lists the odds of a given item dropping, and if you go to that items page, it also shows how to get it outside of one, such as Scottish Resistance being awarded for 17 demoman achievements or Your Eternal Reward being craftable...

That's deflection. The argument was that Supply Crates are not accessible without payment, and that their contents are randomized.

BaronIveagh wrote:
An MtG card you don't want can be traded or sold to someone else for one you do, not doable with DLC codes, since the randomization occurs after you input the code, if I read this right. Meaning that you own it, regardless of if it was the one you want or not.

You own it in both cases. And in both cases your ownership can be rectified by transactions that follow from the original transaction (account trading).

BaronIveagh wrote:
Barbers like to toss them into the air and see how many I can split before they hit the floor.

And I'm sure they get so thin that only the imagination can properly conjure their image.

dogma wrote:
That's deflection. The argument was that Supply Crates are not accessible without payment, and that their contents are randomized.

The crates themselves, sure, they're not available without payment. The things that you get from them, however can be gotten by another means, which means that your comparison, while trite, was wholly inaccurate. You do not have to pay to get those items, so the fact they're random does not have remotely the same implications as this DLC business.

dogma wrote:
You own it in both cases. And in both cases your ownership can be rectified by transactions that follow from the original transaction (account trading).

Incorrect: while you do, in fact, own a MtG card, you cannot own a DLC (see EULA) NOR, at this juncture, can you do account trading in the manner you suggest (via Origin or any other EA service, without violating TOS), so, no, your situation CANNOT be rectified in this manner.

dogma wrote:
And I'm sure they get so thin that only the imagination can properly conjure their image.

They're much like super models in that way.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The crates themselves, sure, they're not available without payment. The things that you get from them, however can be gotten by another means, which means that your comparison, while trite, was wholly inaccurate. You do not have to pay to get those items, so the fact they're random does not have remotely the same implications as this DLC business.

You must pay to get those items (the items in the Crates). I don't know why this is a difficult concept. The items aren't unique, but then we don't know if the ME3 DLC included with these figures is unique. Tempest in a teapot, also phrased as "ZOMG!"

Also, your use of the word "trite" is hilariously trite.

dogma wrote:
Incorrect: while you do, in fact, own a MtG card, you cannot own a DLC (see EULA) NOR, at this juncture, can you do account trading in the manner you suggest (via Origin or any other EA service, without violating TOS), so, no, your situation CANNOT be rectified in this manner.

Right, you own a license to your DLC.

Also, yes, you can account trade. I do like the use capitalization though, it certainly lends your argument credence, and doesn't at all indicate a weak position.

Could never get into the first one. I felt it was trying really hard to make me bored. And the combat was dull as feth.

dogma wrote:
Also, yes, you can account trade. I do like the use capitalization though, it certainly lends your argument credence, and doesn't at all indicate a weak position.

"Unless expressly authorized by EA, you may not sell, buy, trade or otherwise transfer your Account or any personal access to EA Services, Content or Entitlements, including by use of auction websites." Section 2, EA ToS.

Dogma, I have to ask, do you ever get tired of trying so hard to troll, and falling on your face because you did not read, or are you one of those 'hope springs eternal' types that hopes your random post will get it right this time?

BaronIveagh wrote:
"Unless expressly authorized by EA, you may not sell, buy, trade or otherwise transfer your Account or any personal access to EA Services, Content or Entitlements, including by use of auction websites." Section 2, EA ToS.

Section 2?

2. Content

"Content" on EA Services includes software, technology, text, forum posts, chat posts, profiles, widgets, messages, links, emails, music, sound, graphics, pictures, video, code, and all audio visual or other material appearing on or emanating to and/or from EA Services, as well as the design and appearance of our websites. All Content--with the exception of third party content discussed below in Section 6--is owned by EA or its affiliates, subsidiaries, licensors or suppliers. Content includes user-generated Content ("UGC"). UGC includes but is not limited to Account personas, forum posts, chat posts, profile content and any other Content contributed by users to EA Services. EA Content and UGC collectively shall be referred to as "Content." EA does not pre-screen all UGC and does not endorse, approve, or prescreen any UGC that you and other users may contribute to EA Services. You bear the entire risk of the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of Content found on EA Services.

EA reserves the right (but has no obligation except as required by law) to remove, block, edit, move or disable UGC for any reason, including when EA determines that UGC violates these terms. The decision to remove UGC or other Content at any time is in EA's sole and final discretion. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, EA does not assume any responsibility or liability for UGC or for removal of, UGC or any failure to or delay in removing, UGC or other Content.

You are solely responsible for your UGC and may be held liable for UGC that you post.

Not that it matters, that particular phrase is, per Google, is an "at discretion" clause in the ToS for Origin. Which is to say, an open challenge.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Dogma, I have to ask, do you ever get tired of trying so hard to troll, and falling on your face because you did not read, or are you one of those 'hope springs eternal' types that hopes your random post will get it right this time?

No, I'm one of those smug "I'm smarter than you." types.

dogma wrote:
Section 2?

My mistake: Section 11 (EA's font made it look like II)

http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/

I don't see a lot to be smug about, here, and absolutely no sign that you're smarter then me (better eyesight outside 16" perhaps). Your argument is still invalid, as trading DLC ('content') is still a listed violation of the ToS.

Preordered a CE copy a while ago. If all it does is improve on ME2, it WILL be the best game ever made.

Origin is a pain - an extreme one. I switched to W7 from Vista and now I can't play ME2 or BF3 due to some fething bugs that I don't have the time or patience to fix. Some bs with origin not even installing the proper files to start the game..misconfig error for ME2.

Dunno, for all the spazzing out about it, I'm still not getting it unless it's on Steam. I don't want to ahve to manage several different download clients...

I figure that we'll have to wait for Origin to self destruct before we can have ME 3 without Origin...

BaronIveagh wrote:
I don't see a lot to be smug about, here, and absolutely no sign that you're smarter then me (better eyesight outside 16" perhaps).

Well, of course you don't.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Your argument is still invalid, as trading DLC ('content') is still a listed violation of the ToS.

No it isn't, it just requires EA's authorization.

dogma wrote:No it isn't, it just requires EA's authorization.

Which, as best as anyone on their forums was able to determine, has happened exactly never.


Also: MORE exclusive DLC has been announced via Barnes & Nobel.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115461-Buy-Mass-Effect-Art-Book-Get-Free-DLC

Let's just leave this particular tangent here please gents. Fret not though I'm sure we can quickly find something even more banal to get upset over

Thanks

reds8n wrote:

Let's just leave this particular tangent here please gents. Fret not though I'm sure we can quickly find something even more banal to get upset over

Thanks

Ok. (I'm assuming you're talking about the sniping between me and Dogma rather then the Origin-Exclusive DLC thing)

Indeed.

Game related conversation pertaining to t'ings akin to DLC is, of course, fine.

We can do without the digs at each other and sniping methinks.

Apologies for the confusion.

We need a thread focusing on Mass Effect 3 itself and not this issue incessantly.

GalacticDefender wrote:We need a thread focusing on Mass Effect 3 itself and not this issue incessantly.

It's pure speculation, but I might suggest that the two subjects will be intimately connected for some time...

There are games that require Steam or are only available through Steam: "Thats fine".
Origin has a game that requires Origin or is only available through Origin: "WAAAAAAH!!!"

What makes this so slowed is that people claim GW would be better with competition. If competition is good, then whats wrong with allowing other download clients to compete to help break Steam's Monopoly?

SO WHICH IS IT?

Mr Hyena wrote:There are games that require Steam or are only available through Steam: "Thats fine".
Origin has a game that requires Origin or is only available through Origin: "WAAAAAAH!!!"

What makes this so slowed is that people claim GW would be better with competition. If competition is good, then whats wrong with allowing other download clients to compete to help break Steam's Monopoly?

SO WHICH IS IT?

Problem is that Origin = Buggy as hell, with some functions not even working (I'm looking at you Friends list!) while Steam has actually sorted out it's kinks already. Plus Steam games are y'know. Cheap. While nearly all Origin games that aren't 6+years old are about £50-60.

So having a Monopoly is good as long as its cheap?

Hmm...

While I like neither,let me frame it this way: Valve has much better PR than EA, and in my relatively few personal dealings with them, Valve has been honest and given me my money's worth (and even refunded money), whereas EA bald faced lied and tried to cheat me, and now wish to spy on me, on top that.

While competition is good, Origin only competes with Steam for a few titles EA thinks will make the most money, with EA continuing to release less popular games and demos via Steam.

Mr Hyena wrote:So having a Monopoly is good as long as its cheap?

I don't see how it's a monopoly when Origin itself exists as well as many other video game retailers are still in business (both retail and online). I still buy games from Amazon and retail stores like Game. You completely ignored my previous point that Origins is a buggy piece of software and skewed what I was saying into something else. I swear that talking to people online who have their minds made up that X is bad (in this case Steam) they have a tunnel vision that lock onto certain phrases.

If you're using a PC, then you're probably using Microsoft Windows which itself has a monopoly over the PC market. I'm saying, if Origins wants to outcompete Steam, they will have to be as cheap and have their software as good or better than Steam to get people to turn their heads, which right now, they have failed to do so. With their buggy software that boots you in game every 30 seconds or so, and their incomplete games and limited titles, I don't see how they are going to turn people who already use Steam onto their service. People who don't use Steam, probably won't use Origins, and forcing you to use Origins to launch games that were on both Steam and on disc just irks me, seeing that Origins already has a hard time simply letting you play the game.

BaronIveagh wrote:I know I'm douible posting, but I just read this and thought it semi-topical:

http://kotaku.com/5878284/mass-effect-will-set-a-record-for-most-expensive-dlc

Just what it says on the tin.

Most expensive DLCs? Not even close

Macok wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:I know I'm douible posting, but I just read this and thought it semi-topical:

http://kotaku.com/5878284/mass-effect-will-set-a-record-for-most-expensive-dlc

Just what it says on the tin.

Most expensive DLCs? Not even close

Not being a train simulator player, you'll have to explain this one to me, as It looks like they're selling an entire game, with all the DLC for $50. Compared to the over $250 for the ME swag.

Double Post:

Apparently the new ME book is so bad that people are, get ready to laugh, comparing it to Matt Ward and CS Goto. On forums I'd never imagined to hear anything about 40k, let alone something this particular!

QA EA?