EA/Bioware suspend user's access to games for negative forum post

Status
Not open for further replies.
Derangel said:
Do I need to? Its piracy, its bad, it sends the wrong message, it only serves to hurt the community. Its pretty fucking simple.
Click to expand...
Piracy is amoral. The sharing of others' ideas and art is currently illegal, but it's not bad just because the law says it is. Only in this tiny fraction of recorded history have people with money been able to convince lawmakers that people should forfeit freedom and earnings for sharing art.

Think of the big picture. Would humanity be better off if we threw people in prison for sharing ideas (like the pro-copyright crowd wishes), or would humanity be better off if we allowed the free sharing of ideas (like the pro-humanity crowd wishes)? I know that the copyright groups love to claim that society would crumble without commercialized corporate art (and trillions of jobs would be lost in the process), but is that really true?
 
Last edited:
Thuleman said:
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.
Click to expand...

that is a valid point, and thats is something that goes into writing a license agreement, if one party chooses not to litigate term, then thats a bonus for the license holder.

However i do not agree that it is clear to EA lawyers, i think it more likely that they realize that it's likely the point is never going to be litagated. Overall just from my recollection of licenses case law, i do not think that this particular use of the provision would hold up in litigation, but it would be such an expensive premise to challenge that it is de facto valid, however i do think it important to disguish things that are on their face valid and things that are valid merely because no one will ever contest thier validity.
 
fattypants said:
Piracy is amoral. The sharing of others' ideas and art is currently illegal, but it's not bad just because the law says it is. Only in this tiny fraction of recorded history have people with money been able to convince lawmakers that people should forfeit freedom and earnings for sharing art.

Think of the big picture. Would humanity be better off if we threw people in prison for sharing ideas (like the pro-copyright crowd wishes), or would humanity be better off if we allowed the free sharing of ideas (like the pro-humanity crowd wishes)?
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying "bad" in the legal sense more like "a bad idea" or "a bad way to do things".
 
burnin8r said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any software I've ever installed that stated in the EULA that I could lose temporary or permanent access to it if I make negative remarks on their suport forum. That's what this is about and it's wrong.

Unless he did something illegal, there should be zero restrictions on activating and playing the game.
 
Piracy helps suppress bad games like this.

For example if anonmoniker happens to pirate this game he has £30 to spend on another, better game. Supporting developers who make good games and not supporting those who make consolized trash helps support game developers making the good games, which is a good thing.
 
Motley said:
Why do you insist on supporting EA and Bioware? Seriously, this is not about legal this and that, it's a matter PRINCIPLE, period.

Clearly you work for either EA or Bioware? If you do, you suck.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it's about the principle, and the principle is that there will be consequences to unacceptable behavior and the Internet will not shield you from them. That's why I am in support of them banning people's game accounts for actions taken on their forums.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Piracy helps suppress bad games like this.

For example if anonmoniker happens to pirate this game he has £30 to spend on another, better game. Supporting developers who make good games and not supporting those who make consolized trash helps support game developers making the good games, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Or he could just not play the game and not buy it. I don't get why the hell people feel they have to play a game. Its a fucking game, if you don't want to buy it go play something else.
 
Derangel said:
Or he could just not play the game and not buy it. I don't get why the hell people feel they have to play a game. Its a fucking game, if you don't want to buy it go play something else.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
Derangel said:
Or he could just not play the game and not buy it. I don't get why the hell people feel they have to play a game. Its a fucking game, if you don't want to buy it go play something else.
Click to expand...

Morally, I don't see the difference, or why anyone would even care?

What does it matter if Bioware don't get a sale because someone pirates the game, or don't get sale because someone just doesn't buy it.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Morally, I don't see the difference, or why anyone would even care?

What does it matter if Bioware don't get a sale because someone pirates the game, or don't get sale because someone just doesn't buy it.
Click to expand...

Simple, piracy only serves to hurt the community. It scares share holders and in turn it makes them wary about supporting the market. Piracy is a selfish act with no purpose and no logical reason behind it.
 
Derangel said:
Simple, piracy only serves to hurt the community. It scares share holders and in turn it makes them wary about supporting the market. Piracy is a selfish act with no purpose and no logical reason behind it.
Click to expand...

Good I hope it does scare them hopefully they'll leave the market for good and never return they can continue to invest into Halo, MW and GoW on the consoles and forever support shitty mainstream crap. That's a GOOD thing and entirely positive for the PC community who are looking to support good games.

Meanwhile we can use the saving to encourage developers of good games by buying their games and supporting their work.
 
Derangel said:
Or he could just not play the game and not buy it. I don't get why the hell people feel they have to play a game. Its a fucking game, if you don't want to buy it go play something else.
Click to expand...

This is one of the few times, I actually can find a common ground with you. If you aren't gonna buy a game, you have no real reason to pirate it.

I have no desire to play Dragon Age 2 because it's a watered down Dragon Age 2, much like how Call of Duty: MW2 was a stripped down Call of Duty 4. I voted with my wallet then, I'll vote with my wallet now.

To date, I have not purchased MW2 or played it. To date, I have not purchased DA2 or played it. It's easy to make a judgment after reading reviews and player feedback whether the game is worth buying to you or not.

The one thing that stands out to me about gamers nowadays compared to years ago is how willing you guys are to pay MORE for LESS. I've never seen anything so irrational in all my years, yet, it happens more and more often these days, as Call of Duty MW2, Bioshock 2, CoD: Black Ops, and now DA 2 have shown. I'm sure I've left off other games from the list, but it's just amazing man.
 
Thuleman said:
Exactly, it's about the principle, and the principle is that there will be consequences to unacceptable behavior and the Internet will not shield you from them. That's why I am in support of them banning people's game accounts for actions taken on their forums.
Click to expand...
Define "unacceptable behavior." This could be anything a forum moderator doesn't like. They may be in a bad mood that day or just a dick.

Either way, why should it affect the ability to play one of their games? Where's the justification for it?
 
Fail said:
This is one of the few times, I actually can find a common ground with you. If you aren't gonna buy a game, you have no real reason to pirate it.
Click to expand...

Expedite their departure from PC gaming.

For the record I loved DAO and bought it as well as some of the DLC, I tried the demo for DA2 and didn't like it, and simply aren't buying it. I just have nothing against those people who think bioware screwed up DA2 and decide to pirate it, I think it provides a benefit to me by discouraging games by developers who are only interested in making consolized games.
 
But the question remains, if it's bad, why bother playing it at all? Pirated or not?
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Piracy helps suppress bad games like this.

For example if anonmoniker happens to pirate this game he has £30 to spend on another, better game. Supporting developers who make good games and not supporting those who make consolized trash helps support game developers making the good games, which is a good thing.
Click to expand...

It helps to suppress all games. Good, bad, or great, all with varying degree and consequence. If you do not purchase the game, what further damage is delivered by pirating it? The only difference is that he does not get to play it; something you must be prepared for when you make the decision to not buy it.

I haven't read the entire thread but I disagree with banning him from the forums because of what he said, but they are their forums. Preventing him from playing the game is going way too far, in my opinion. If you are permanently banned from the forums, then what?
 
Thuleman said:
Exactly, it's about the principle, and the principle is that there will be consequences to unacceptable behavior and the Internet will not shield you from them. That's why I am in support of them banning people's game accounts for actions taken on their forums.
Click to expand...

Who determines what is unacceptable behavior and are those who decide in any way impartial? Is criticizing a game or a company on their own forum unacceptable behavior (and if not, at what point can criticism of the game/company be deemed unacceptable, especially if that criticism could hurt the sales of the game)?

It would seem to me that you're advocating a possible scenario where I could purchase a game, find it doesn't live up to expectations/promises, criticize the game on EA's forum, and then not only find myself banned from the forum but also banned from playing the game I purchased because someone at EA found my criticism unacceptable.

edit: In what other industry is it okay to treat the consumer like this? If I buy a pair of shoes that soon fall apart, and then complain on the companies forum so much they ban me, do I ever risk losing access to those shoes? Why should we consent to this type of treatment just because we're purchasing software instead of hardware? I feel as paying customers we should expect fair treatment regardless of the actual goods being exchanged (physical or digital).
 
Last edited:
Fail said:
But the question remains, if it's bad, why bother playing it at all? Pirated or not?
Click to expand...

Why does it even matter? A great deal of my friends pirate almost everything they can get their hands on and then just buy the games they can afford to based on what they liked the most.

Of all the types of consumer behaviour this try first and buy later approach yeilds the best "quality of games":""money spent" ratio.

Vertigo528 said:
It helps to suppress all games.
Click to expand...

No, piracy in general suppresses all games, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about people pirating a game for a specific reason, go re-read my post. I don't condone people pirating things they like and they can also afford I think that's incredibly gay.

If you do not purchase the game, what further damage is delivered by pirating it?
Click to expand...

Already answered this, see above.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Why does it even matter? A great deal of my friends pirate almost everything they can get their hands on and then just buy the games they can afford to based on what they liked the most.

Of all the types of consumer behaviour this try first and buy later approach yeilds the best "quality of games":""money spent" ratio.



No, piracy in general suppresses all games, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about people pirating a game for a specific reason, go re-read my post. I don't condone people pirating things they like and they can also afford I think that's incredibly gay.



Already answered this, see above.
Click to expand...


You still didn't answer my question, if a game is bad and isn't worth buying, WHY bother pirating it and playing it? Sounds like a waste of time to me.
 
I did answer your question, because by playing the game it lets you make a more informed decision as to what to spend your money on.
 
Curious_George said:
It would seem to me that you're advocating a possible scenario where I could purchase a game, find it doesn't live up to expectations/promises, criticize the game on EA's forum, and then not only find myself banned from the forum but also banned from playing the game I purchased because someone at EA found my criticism unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Supposedly the EULA allows them to do this, but it doesn't define what unacceptable behavior is. If they can just make up any excuse to ban your account then that would be reason enough to avoid their forums or not buy their games. It's a terrible way to treat your paying customers for sure.
 
Thuleman said:
What you meant to say is that you don't see any logical reason.
Click to expand...
I wrote what I meant to say. I have a tendency to do that, as it seems the most obvious thing to do in most cases. What depresses me is that you seemingly don't care to take a similar approach.

Thuleman said:
Your Nvidia example is flawed because a transfer of ownership occurred in the Nvidia hardware case.
Click to expand...
Ownership of the hardware, yes. Ownership of the software controlling it? No. That software is owned by NVIDIA, and you, as the purchaser of the hardware, only hold ownership of the physical materials that comprise the card — not its design nor the software by which it is controlled.

I am not at all surprised, of course, that you failed to grasp the significance of the analogy and its relevance to the scenario under discussion.

Thuleman said:
The accounts are linked via EULAs.
Click to expand...
I believe that's what I've already stated. In this scenario, however, this link is purposeless: there is no logical reason for the existence of the link between the status of the forum account and the status of the account which is for some reason required to activate the game. EA's interest is in maintaining the order of their forums, and in such case the ability to ban or otherwise suspend forum accounts is necessary for them to maintain that order. However, the state of operability of the game itself for a given user is inconsequential to their pursuit of maintaining order on the forums. As has already been made alarmingly clear, the link between the two does exist, yet the existence of the link between the two is entirely inexplicable and for the most part unjustifiable. That is what is being discussed here.

Thuleman said:
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.
Click to expand...
We're not debating the legal validity of the process so much as we are debating its necessity. In case you've forgotten, you've deemed it both necessary and legally sound despite the reality that neither are indisputably true (particularly in the case of the latter).
 
Fail said:
But the question remains, if it's bad, why bother playing it at all? Pirated or not?
Click to expand...

What does an act of protest over a company stealing someone's game have to do with whether the game is good or bad?

Now as for why play a bad game? For me it's an interest in seeing what happens to the characters and gameworld I enjoyed in the first game. Crysis and DA:O are two of my favorite PC games and I am absolutely disgusted with the directions the sequels took, but I still have interest in seeing what happens in them even if they're terrible.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I did answer your question, because by playing the game it lets you make a more informed decision as to what to spend your money on.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like an excuse to justify piracy than making any kind of informed decision. A demo for the game was released, the demo was shit, the game turned out to be shit too. No surprises there.

You don't have to resort to piracy to decide how to spend your money. If you already know you aren't going to spend a dollar on the game, then there's no reason to pirate it.

All you're really doing is posting a common justification for piracy, nothing more. You can accomplish the same thing by not playing it to begin with and by not buying it. If you're already gonna pirate it, might as well buy it and support them, since you're basically saying it's worth playing, but not buying, so might as well pay them.
 
anonmoniker said:
What does an act of protest over a company stealing someone's game have to do with whether the game is good or bad?

Now as for why play a bad game? For me it's an interest in seeing what happens to the characters and gameworld I enjoyed in the first game. Crysis and DA:O are two of my favorite PC games and I am absolutely disgusted with the directions the sequels took, but I still have interest in seeing what happens in them even if they're terrible.
Click to expand...

That's fine, go buy the game, you'll get what in your opinion will be your money's worth about it, since that means so much to you. Lots of people are willing to buy bad games, as the sales charts have shown recently.
 
EA may well be the devil,but they sure as hell aren't God. Just because they include some outrageous condition in their EULA doesn't mean it's written in stone,the user has every right to challenge it in the courts,and they have every right to order EA to cease such practices if they decide in his favor. Meekly accepting things like this because "it's written in the EULA" is the act of sheep.
 
Curious_George said:
edit: In what other industry is it okay to treat the consumer like this? If I buy a pair of shoes that soon fall apart, and then complain on the companies forum so much they ban me, do I ever risk losing access to those shoes? Why should we consent to this type of treatment just because we're purchasing software instead of hardware? I feel as paying customers we should expect fair treatment regardless of the actual goods being exchanged (physical or digital).
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is that there are many industries whether this is common practice and in fact desired. Physical goods are inherently different because of ownership transfer.

Essentially software has become a service even though it may still be delivered in a physical package. In many other service industries (bars, clubs, restaurants, resorts, airlines, etc. etc. etc.) disruptive customers are either temporary removed from the business or permanently banned from the business without any sort of refund.

The rules are clear, they are posted, and customers are asked to agree to them. If customers cannot agree to the rules then they are no longer allowed to use the service provided. This really isn't that difficult of a concept. In fact, it's really no different than getting banned from Steam for example.

phide said:
As has already been made alarmingly clear, the link between the two does exist, yet the existence of the link between the two is entirely inexplicable and for the most part unjustifiable. That is what is being discussed here.
Click to expand...
It's justifiable by simply making such a rule. Consumers don't get to decide how a business is running its affairs, consumers merely get to decide whether they want to buy products, or in this case services, from that business. The whole point of running a private enterprise is that you can run it as you see fit (within the confines of the law).

michael.pa2 said:
EA may well be the devil,but they sure as hell aren't God. Just because they include some outrageous condition in their EULA doesn't mean it's written in stone,the user has every right to challenge it in the courts,and they have every right to order EA to cease such practices if they decide in his favor. Meekly accepting things like this because "it's written in the EULA" is the act of sheep.
Click to expand...
Post the assigned case number as soon as you get it from the clerk of the court after you filed your case. Don't be a sheep!
 
Fail said:
That's fine, go buy the game, you'll get what in your opinion will be your money's worth about it, since that means so much to you. Lots of people are willing to buy bad games, as the sales charts have shown recently.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Those games aren't worth any money to me, maybe $5-$10 each tops. I'd rather buy Radiant Historia and support a company that doesn't abuse and steal from its fans. Don't you think it's kind of funny that EA says "it's OK for us to steal a game you paid for but please don't pirate our games"?
 
Wow, I typically think people are fairly smart around here, but this thread has me wondering. Someone mentions the word piracy and bam, 2 pages of an irrelevant debate that's gone on for hundreds, if not thousands of pages already on this forum. I have a thought out, intelligent response I could post, but I'm not going to do it because no matter how much I think the other side will understand when I explain it just the right way, they probably won't.

Also, I don't get why so many people aren't understanding that LEGALLY, you are NOT bound to terms of a contract that are not sufficiently related to the use of the license, EVEN IF you signed it and had it notarized by the judge who will be trying the case.

As for the people supporting EA because it will keep trolling down...I fucking hate trolling and would love to see them be held accountable somehow, but what if you posted a simple complaint that EA thought made them look bad, so they banned you (from your games, not just the forum). They are capable of that with this new policy.
 
anonmoniker said:
LOL, now all the people defending EA in this thread look like clowns
Click to expand...

Really? Just because a EA didn't have the balls to follow through I am not changing my opinion on the matter. As I said before, Steam already does exactly that. There are a few threads about Paradox having done the same thing. It's a good way to deal with those who feel that anonymity affords them endless freedom.
 
Anyone who defends EA when it takes away access to a game you PAID for, a SINGLE PLAYER game at that, for something you post on a forum, is clearly a tool who doesn't realize the inordinate amount of corporate control over the average gamer you are supporting.

What's next, if you even think that the game is bad and verbalize that, their Big Brother spies in the crowd overhear you, you lose access to the game?
 
dark_reign said:
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.
Click to expand...

It means, don't act like a douche.
 
If you troll Blizzard forums excessively, they just ban your forums account. You get to keep your game account and they never restrict access to the game for anything you do outside of it.

So yeah, this is a pretty awful thing to do for a fucking single player game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top