Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA

That, or the EULA shouldn't be structured in a way designed to control negative criticism; stupid or not.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
If your saved game features DLC, well tough crap. You should have thought of that before you broke the EULA

That, or the EULA shouldn't be structured in a way designed to control negative criticism; stupid or not.

But corporations have a right to freespeech as well!

Free of speech that criticizes them...

/sarcasm

Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. The guy posted something that was aimed at other members of the community. Not at the company. Not at the game. There was no criticism beyond haranguing other players for buying the game.

Of course it was aimed at the company. When you call someone a moron for doing X to support Y, then you're really just attacking Y by proxy. Have you never heard Kevin Smith's rants about how critics corrupt movie goers?

No one is going to say something like "Have you morons supported the guy that gives you $500 every Monday?"

Kanluwen wrote:
You know what's even funnier? EA reinstated this twit's account before the story even broke.
It wasn't intentional, it was an "unintended side effect" of them migrating BioWare's community to be merged with the EA Community.

Yeah, I doubt that. Given that you place "unintended side effect" in quotes, I suspect that you do as well.

Kanluwen wrote:
I think they just whimped out and gave in to fan whining. The guy clearly was being a knob, let him stew for awhile without being able to play his game.

I thought you said that he could still play the game?

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's really not. The guy posted something that was aimed at other members of the community. Not at the company. Not at the game. There was no criticism beyond haranguing other players for buying the game.

Of course it was aimed at the company. When you call someone a moron for doing X to support Y, then you're really just attacking Y by proxy. Have you never heard Kevin Smith's rants about how critics corrupt movie goers?

No one is going to say something like "Have you morons supported the guy that gives you $500 every Monday?"

Nope, I've never listened to Kevin Smith really.

Either way: the original post was aimed, as I said, towards the other members of the community and there was a snipe against EA in it.

Kanluwen wrote:
You know what's even funnier? EA reinstated this twit's account before the story even broke.
It wasn't intentional, it was an "unintended side effect" of them migrating BioWare's community to be merged with the EA Community.

Yeah, I doubt that. Given that you place "unintended side effect" in quotes, I suspect that you do as well.

Or it was because I was quoting them.

That's the exact wording they used.

Kanluwen wrote:
I think they just whimped out and gave in to fan whining. The guy clearly was being a knob, let him stew for awhile without being able to play his game.

I thought you said that he could still play the game?

He could. He just couldn't play it with DLC. Which to some of these tools is "necessary" to play the game.

There's nothing "necessary" about the DLC for Dragon Age II.

Except the part where you have to have DLC to get the complete game.

Regardless, he payed for the DLC. This is an act of force against a paying customer on the part of EA.

He didn't "pay" for the DLC in all likelihood. Most of the 'DLC' was available for free to anyone who'd preordered their game.

And you're still wrong. This isn't "an act of force against a paying customer".

I'm confused. So is EA denying banning him from playing his own copy of the game or was the article just pointing out some hypocrisy in their policys?

I don't think EA's outright denying it, but it seems to me that the situation is more a case of the guy going and crying "I CAN'T PLAY BECAUSE I WAS BANNED!" to everyone who would listen--rather than contacting EA or BioWare about the issue.

kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot

case013 wrote:kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot

The actual case that ended up with the "CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT" warning being put onto coffee cups was a bit more complicated than that.
Civil Law classes use it as a teaching example of negligence.
Basically: the machine that was producing the coffee was improperly serviced and because of that improper service, which was known to the employees, the coffee it was producing was far hotter than it should have been. We're talking 'third degree burns and skin grafts' hot.

But yeah. Kinda like that, otherwise

Kanluwen wrote:I don't think EA's outright denying it, but it seems to me that the situation is more a case of the guy going and crying "I CAN'T PLAY BECAUSE I WAS BANNED!" to everyone who would listen--rather than contacting EA or BioWare about the issue.

He should be.

The problem is not that EA prevented him from installing software he payed for. The problem is that EA has the capability to do so.

Kanluwen wrote:

case013 wrote:kinda like when someone burns themself with hot coffee then cries to the world that the coffee was hot

The actual case that ended up with the "CAUTION: CONTENTS ARE HOT" warning being put onto coffee cups was a bit more complicated than that.
Civil Law classes use it as a teaching example of negligence.
Basically: the machine that was producing the coffee was improperly serviced and because of that improper service, which was known to the employees, the coffee it was producing was far hotter than it should have been. We're talking 'third degree burns and skin grafts' hot.

But yeah. Kinda like that, otherwise

haha yea i remember reading all that. then after that all the other law suits that hit the table kinda got really ridiculous

This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.

Once again:
You're completely missing the mark.

They didn't do this "because someone said bad things about the company". That is bull, and anyone who thinks that's the case is just following the train of EA hate.

The original ban(which may OR MAY NOT as the case may be, since according to BioWare it was an error that hadn't cropped up before) was because the person in question had been reported to the EA community for harassing/inappropriate behavior.

So basically: this story is bullgak.

That's still not reason for me to not play my single player game by myself that I bought.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:That's still not reason for me to not play my single player game by myself that I bought.

The guy in the OP was able to play his single player game. He couldn't use the DLC. And thus far none of the DLC is exactly necessary.

I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.

Unless your definition of the game is entirely limited to placing armour and weapons on your character, then it certainly makes a difference.

It's my vitual armour. I should be able to use it whenever I damn well feel.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't see what difference it makes. Whether or not it's DLC or whether or not it is good or bad DLC.

Unless your definition of the game is entirely limited to placing armour and weapons on your character, then it certainly makes a difference.

I fail to see how it being DLC is relevant. Simply because EA refused to give out physical copies of the data doesn't change the nature of their actions.

Nor is the DLC going to be limited to weapons and armor if EAs past behavior is any indication.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.

People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.

Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.

Melissia wrote:Reminds me of Blizzard banning people for cheating in single player in their latest starcrap game.

Did Blizzard touch you in a naughty place?


I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.

DickBandit wrote:I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.

Did EA touch you in a naughty place?

From what I've heard of Dragon Age 2 so far, the banned guy should be glad he can't play the game...

That was a joke.

Slarg232 wrote:

DickBandit wrote:I'm probably already permanently banned from EA games because I made an entire thread about how Dragon Age: Origins pissed me off. They probably didn't appreciate my "Call of Duty: Crysis Warfare" comment either. Not my fault Crytek mainstreamed a great game so that it would appeal to the neanderthals who only play Hardcore games such as Roster Update 2011, Call of Duty: $60 mod of the previous game Warfare, and "DDR is gay but it's totally cool to pretend that I actually have talent as a musician"Guitar Hero.

Did EA touch you in a naughty place?

Yeah, they found out I am ticklish.

KingKodo wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.

People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.

Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.

That's not even close to being analogous.

In that scenario it would be I'm be that I'm locked out of my car because I said Ford's fuel economy sucks.

What is said is much more broad than that. I was simply making a point that when you do or say something that you know you shouldnt, there are repercussions.

If you went up to a giant black dude in the slums of jersey and told him that black people are inferior, he may just remove your use of your knees!

And Electronic Arts Incorporated does not get to act like "giant black dude in slums of new jersey".

In this new analogy aforementioned African-American has done something illegal and should be punished therefore should EA too?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

KingKodo wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This is a disturbing precedent. It's absolutely ridiculus that I cannot use something that I myself bought. It doesn't matter what I say about the company that produced it.

People live this reality daily. You screw up driving enough times and you lose your license and now you cannot drive your car. This guy screwed up and broke EA's rules and their punishment was justified in that they prevented his access to their community servers which, as a side effect, prevented him from installing the game temporarily since he has to access their community servers to complete the install and verify the game.

Examples of this can be seen all the time. Dude drives home drunk, gets in a car accident, kills someone. Did he leave planning to kill someone? No, but he made a mistake and he has to live with the consequences of his actions. Person at a gun range isnt taking operating his gun seriously and fires too high, bullet goes over the backstop, bullet travels across town and kills a little kid. You do stuff that you shouldnt and bad stuff happens, that is common sense. I think EA should have outright perma banned him.

That's not even close to being analogous.

In that scenario it would be I'm be that I'm locked out of my car because I said Ford's fuel economy sucks.

And that's just as bad of an analogy.

Simply put: The guy violated the rules of EA's community content. The downloadable content(of which, the guy likely paid nothing for since pretty much all the DLC released so far was actually included if you bought a fresh copy of DA:2) is governed by those rules.

It does not matter that it is a single player game, nor that he paid for the content he cannot access. Why? Because he did not follow the rules and standards put forward by the EA community.

If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.

Kanluwen wrote:If you really need an analogy:
If you're removed for breaking rules from a private club that you had to pay entry into; you shouldn't expect to be compensated. You broke the rules--regardless of whether you 'knew the rules' or not. If they hand you paperwork before entry, always read it. Don't just skim it. Read it. It details these kinds of things pretty clearly.

Your thrown out that time, you might still be able to come back, and a club isn't as expensive as a game.