Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'PC Gaming & Hardware' started by defiant007, Mar 11, 2011.
Ah the EA devil has spoken.
I just wish EA would die under a rock, never to be seen again!
Wrong. even if you only have a license, the agreement must be rational. Your license cannot be terminated without cause. In this case the conduct, is not related to the license, just because you are a licensee does not mean that you lose all property interest in the bundle,including free use. While a lincensee's rights are more limited, the license holder is never given free and unfettered dominion and control over the license, and in this case, it would seem to me, that EA clearly went too far.
Moral of the story , don't post on EA forums.
Moral of the story Don't buy EA/Bioware games.
I think the entire gaming community should boycott these two companies.
and you would lose, because you agreed to EA's terms when you installed their game.
yes, their game. not yours.
This assumes the relevant term in the EULA is legally unchallengeable. This is not necessarily the case.
This is what more people need to understand.
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.
The EULA has to be proven to be a legally binding agreement for a game.
It's easier to troll people when you aren't so aggressive in your approach. Just sayin'.
mmm Nah. I like their games.
Although I do believe this is shitty.
Welcome to the digital distribution age!
my way of trolling bioware (err, bitching was to just do it on facebook. Some large number of people liked my comments...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
It's akin to suggesting that NVIDIA should remotely deactivate a user's video card because he posts something inflammatory on the NVIDIA forum. NVIDIA can, and I would imagine does, ban forum accounts for various reasons, yet that should not prevent a user from being able to use a NVIDIA product he or she paid for. There is absolutely nothing to justify the existence of a link between one and the other in such a manner.
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.
Its not even that so much as most judges have no idea about these types of things and have no business judging them.
it cannot be anything you want. because the license involves commerce it is subject to the both court law (common law) and state law (if not prempted by federal law) and federal law. A license holder cannot throw any term they want into a license agreement, the terms have to be rationally related to the use of the license. I suggest you read case because the standard term is "abritatry and capricious" and those are in fact legal terms, and the standard language when adjudicating admintrative rules, i.e EPA rulings.
Again An EULA cannot have anything in it. it's contents must be rationally related, or have some nexus to the use of the license, a license agreement for software cannot go into your diet, unless you can show how your diet is related to the use of the product. So unless EA can show how posting negative on a forum is related to use of the license, then it is arbitary and capricious and cannot be sustained as a valid restriction on the license per the license agreement.
BioWare: How the mighty have fallen...
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.
If you post at The Disney forum you're going to have to follow their rules. Forums are not public places where freedom of speech is the law.
You are not entitled to write whatever you want at a forum being run by other people or by corporations.
Don't like the rules. Great. Start a forum of your own then.
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.
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.
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?
So you were an ass on their forums. Sure, ban them from using the forums, or even community related stuff like achievements. But to totally revoke their access for playing a single player game where they could never bother anyone else? Really?
Exactly. If anything, this info makes me SO less likely to EVER post on the bioware forums with the same account my games are on...
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.
Exactly - I can put whatever I want in the eula and it doesn't mean it's binding. I'll put into some eula that you MUST sacrifice your firstborn child....let's see THAT stand up in court.
If the guy had cheated in game and the license revoked, FINE. But posting is not something that should allow a license to be revoked.
if you are stuck on the single player aspect, or whether this is paid or free software, you are missing the point entirely.
this is your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, but it doesn't take precedence over the EULA.
I feel for this kid, I really do... 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.
And we're saying that hitting "I agree" does not mean that it's instantly valid. It may very well be unlawful, and it is CERTAINLY unreasonable.
No piracy is NEVER an answer to anything.
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.
And you seem to be stuck on the 'EULA is legally binding and infallible no matter what' aspect. I think you're the one who's missing the point, as has already been stated again and again by others.
I like their style!
I'm sure whoever it was that banned the kid clearly consulted the company law department beforehand.
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.
Compelling argument. I like how you backed it up with facts and logic leaving little doubt that your opinion is correct. "Its bad" was especially persuasive.
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.