Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
because legally we don't own the game and they can bloody well do what ever they want. only way of stopping this bullcrap is forcing copyright laws to be changed which will never happen in any of our life times.
wrong. theres no legal backing for a lawsuit. copyright law states that you can't own the game even though you payed for it. the only thing you legally own is the CD-key that comes with the game. which game developers found a loop hole in the rule by forcing you to register it to an account that can't be transferable.
are you seriously trying to lessen EA's outrageous, arbitary and capricious behavior? I would sue the crap out of EA on principal alone.
This assumes the relevant term in the EULA is legally unchallengeable. This is not necessarily the case.and you would lose, because you agreed to EA's terms when you installed their game.
This assumes the relevant term in the EULA is legally unchallengeable. This is not necessarily the case.
This assumes the relevant term in the EULA is legally unchallengeable. This is not necessarily the case.
Except that you accepted the terms of the contract by performing, or using the software if you will. It would be different if you had unwrapped the game, read the EULA, and then had a problem with the EULA and asked for a refund (which you would get). Using the product and then afterwards complaining about the EULA doesn't work. At the end of the day all EULAs grant you a license to use, not a transfer of ownership.
Honestly I am in favor of publishers banning people from forums and revoking their license to use the software. All publishers should do that, it would result in a lot better signal to noise ratio.
It's easier to troll people when you aren't so aggressive in your approach. Just sayin'.Honestly I am in favor of publishers banning people from forums and revoking their license to use the software. All publishers should do that, it would result in a lot better signal to noise ratio.
Moral of the story Don't buy EA/Bioware games.
I think the entire gaming community should boycott these two companies.
It's easier to troll people when you aren't so aggressive in your approach. Just sayin'.
I am not actually trolling. If being a prick on a game forum carries the potential consequence to lose your access to the game you paid for then there will be a lot fewer pricks posting, this will increase the information content of the posts of the forum and cut down on the clutter. Sounds like a win-win to me, the only people who lose are those who insist on being pricks to others while hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.
It's basically like [H], there's a reason users are here and not on SA or 4chan, yes we do get some out of line posts at times but overall the amount of noise is low and the information content is high. Moderation works, and moderation will be even more effective if there's the possibility of financial loss involved.
and you would lose, because you agreed to EA's terms when you installed their game.
yes, their game. not yours.
No, sorry but you should NEVER lose access to a single player game. Its one thing if its a multiplayer game, but there is no reason to block access to single player only game.
The license can be anything you want it to be. I haven't read EA's EULA and I'd say odds are neither have you. We don't know whats in it. If forums aren't covered in some way or another then yes, you have a point although making "capricious" a legal term is probably a stretch in itself.nope nope nope. just like renters have rights, so do licensee's. the holder of a license cannot act in an arbitary or capricious manner. The nexus between posting on a forum and playing the game, is tenious at best. the terms of the license have to rationally relate to the use of the license itself. I fail to see how posting on a forum is germaine to the use of the game license.
Yet there is no logical reason for the game account and the forum account to be linked such that being banned from one results in being banned from the other, particularly in cases where the game is exclusively singleplayer (which, in this instance, is the case). The idea that the singleplayer game is linked to a publisher-provided online account is questionable enough, but EA wielding the power to disable (or otherwise not allow users to activate) a singleplayer game due to an inflammatory comment on an official forum clearly oversteps a boundary (potentially a legal one).I am not actually trolling. If being a prick on a game forum carries the potential consequence to lose your access to the game you paid for then there will be a lot fewer pricks posting...
I feel EA will receive a lawsuit on this one.
By who...
i hope they do, BUT EA has this written so any judge is going to say " they told you the rules, you broke them, too bad"
It sucks, but us the consumer are getting raped by these EULA and agreement things.
Be an asshole on the publishers forums -> lose your access to the game, simple really. The second you went public on a sanctioned venue you forfeit your right to the "it's only a single player game", you made it about other people when posting on the official forums.
This is akin to going to a nightclub, paying $20 to get in, and then being thrown out because you got so wasted that you started to cause ruckus. You aren't going to get your $20 back in that case. Same with the game. You aren't going to get the money back you spend on it, but you are free to buy another copy and troll away till you are banned again.
The license can be anything you want it to be. I haven't read EA's EULA and I'd say odds are neither have you. We don't know whats in it. If forums aren't covered in some way or another then yes, you have a point although making "capricious" a legal term is probably a stretch in itself.
What you meant to say is that you don't see any logical reason.Yet there is no logical reason for the game account and the forum account to be linked such that being banned from one results in being banned from the other, particularly in cases where the game is exclusively singleplayer (which, in this instance, is the case).
How does the relate to banning access to play a single player game that someone paid for? Not to mention that they were banned before they received the game and must wait 72 hours before they can activate it because some dick from EA got upset over the title of a negative post.This forum at which we're all posting at right now is owned and operated by a person who can shut us down at anytime. Okay, you hope that the guy won't act in a dictatorial fashion... and if he were to do that, then people would stop posting here... but this is his forum, he can do whatever he wants.
Except that you accepted the terms of the contract by performing, or using the software if you will. It would be different if you had unwrapped the game, read the EULA, and then had a problem with the EULA and asked for a refund (which you would get). Using the product and then afterwards complaining about the EULA doesn't work. At the end of the day all EULAs grant you a license to use, not a transfer of ownership.
How does the relate to banning access to play a single player game that someone paid for? Not to mention that they were banned before they received the game and must wait 72 hours before they can activate it because some dick from EA got upset over the title of a negative post.
What you meant to say is that you don't see any logical reason.
Your Nvidia example is flawed because a transfer of ownership occurred in the Nvidia hardware case. There is no such transfer of ownership In the EA case the EULA specifically states that the software is licensed to you, not sold. So that fact is not disputable.
The accounts are linked via EULAs. The game EULA states that the game must be activated online and that in doing so you agree to the EA TOS (http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/) which in turn has Rules of Conduct. You violate the Rules of Conduct, you lose your account and all games tied to it. It honestly makes perfect sense to me and I have a hard time to see why it wouldn't make sense to someone else. This is a clear case of if-then and everyone knows it up front.
Yes, we are fast to take sides with the poor gamer who got the shaft by EA, except that he did it to himself and that him not being aware of potential consequences doesn't make the process invalid.
Again some people seem not to understand how the law works. just because you write something in a license agreement or even the fact that you agree to it, does not make it binding. it is binding if and only if it is rationally related to the use of the product.
It is not clear to me at all, that the use of the forum is in anyway rationally related to the use of the product.
EA has to show how posting on the forum puts the license at risk, it cannot just say it does, it has to give articulable facts that supports it's position, esp in the case where it results in revocation or suspension of one use of the license.
dark_reign said:How does the relate to banning access to play a single player game that someone paid for?
But posting is not something that should allow a license to be revoked.
if you are stuck on the single player aspect, you are missing the point entirely. I feel for this kid, but there are terms we all agree to when installing software; he is finding out the hardest way that there are real consequences for his actions, even in a virtual world or online forum.
and again, we only have his account of what actions he was suspended for.
This is really sad. On a serious note what can we do as gamers to stop this?? I know dont buy their games but I hate to say it they have some really fucking good games I dont want to pass up . Besides bending over and grabbing ankles what else can we do?
Arrrrr, matey.
What's so hard to understand about that if you enter into a contract you are bound by it even if you chose to not read it? Unless you didn't have the capacity to enter (which is actually the case for minors), or the terms are unlawful, the contract is valid till a judge says otherwise.It doesn't matter. If there was some hidden fine print in the EULA that said you must say, give over all your money and worldly possessions to them if you made trolling forum posts, just because you went ahead and played the game without reading the EULA doesn't make it any more legal. What is so hard to understand about that?
I think this is the bottom line here, it's not clear to you. It's pretty clear to an army of EA lawyers. So the message really is that it's pretty irrelevant whether it's clear to you. You can of course choose to obtain clarity by bringing suit against EA though I doubt you, or anyone else for that matter, will do so.Again some people seem not to understand how the law works. just because you write something in a license agreement or even the fact that you agree to it, does not make it binding. it is binding if and only if it is rationally related to the use of the product.
It is not clear to me at all, that the use of the forum is in anyway rationally related to the use of the product.
if you are stuck on the single player aspect, or whether this is paid or free software, you are missing the point entirely.
It's pretty clear to an army of EA lawyers.
No piracy is NEVER an answer to anything.
Compelling argument. I like how you backed it up with facts and logic leaving little doubt that your opinion is correct.
Do I need to? Its piracy, its bad, it sends the wrong message, it only serves to hurt the community. Its pretty fucking simple.
What's so hard to understand about that if you enter into a contract you are bound by it even if you chose to not read it? Unless you didn't have the capacity to enter (which is actually the case for minors), or the terms are unlawful, the contract is valid till a judge says otherwise.
Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean you aren't bound by it, this should be common sense really specially since you clicked "I agree" and probably also checked a mark saying that you read the terms.
I think this is the bottom line here, it's not clear to you. It's pretty clear to an army of EA lawyers. So the message really is that it's pretty irrelevant whether it's clear to you. You can of course choose to obtain clarity by bringing suit against EA though I doubt you, or anyone else for that matter, will do so.