EA Forum Ban Will Now Mean EA Game Ban

An anonymous reader writes "A post on the EA Support Forums from APOC, online community manager for Electronic Arts, outlines a new policy for their new forums, saying users who earn a ban based on their behavior in the forums will be locked out of all of the EA games tied to that account: 'Well, its actually going to be a bit nastier for those who get banned. Your forum account will be directly tied to your Master EA Account, so if we ban you on the forums, you would be banned from the game as well since the login process is the same. And you'd actually be banned from your other EA games as well since it's all tied to your account. So if you have SPORE and Red Alert 3 and you get yourself banned on our forums or in-game, well, your SPORE account would be banned to. It's all one in the same, so I strongly recommend people play nice and act mature. All in all, we expect people to come on here and abide by our ToS. We hate banning people, it makes our lives a lot tougher, but it's what we have to do.'" Update: 10/31 12:36 GMT by T : Not so! Pandanapper writes "After a flood of complaints the EA community moderator APOC corrects his statement about how banning you from the forums bans you from your game access as well:"That said, the previous statement I made recently (that's being quoted on the blogs) was inaccurate and a mistake on my part. I had a misunderstanding with regards to our new upcoming forums and website and never meant to infer that if we ban or suspend you on the forums, you would be banned in-game as well. This is not correct, my mistake, my bad."

Comments

Wow

[afidel]

Now I will have ZERO problem pirating SPORE or any other EA title. In fact I wasn't going to bother with SPORE given the lackluster reviews, but I'm firing up Azurus as we speak to grab it just to spite the arrogant f'ers.

wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they TRYING to start a class action lawsuit???

Judge: "What did you do?"
Me: "Called him an asshat."
Judge: "What did they do?"
Me: "Locked me out of $500 worth of software"
Judge: "I rule in favor of the plantif for 1 ass-ton of money"

Re:Awwww

[Enderandrew]

I started buying EA titles used a while back because I didn't want to directly support EA anymore. I certainly won't purchase Spore with their DRM.

Re:money back ?

[Registered Coward v2]

So, they take away something I paid for - will they refund? Probably not. I wonder how that would play out in a court of law.

My guess is they would argue you agreed to the TOS which allows them to ban you; and that the money you paid was damages for violating the TOS and hence non-refundable.

Would that fly, especially for games that you did not do anything wrong? Who knows, certainly not me since IANAL.

corporate ethics

[lysergic.acid]

it always seems kinda odd when major corporations that don't mind being unethical themselves when they can make a profit then turn around and try to force their sense of morality on others (e.g. censorship policies). i think companies like Sony, EA, Gamespot, etc. should focus more on correcting their own bad behaviors rather than trying to control the behavior of others. trampling on the rights of consumers, extorting your customers, and selling out your journalistic integrity to advertisers are not exactly shining examples of corporate responsibility.

it's especially annoying when major gaming sites have incompetently implemented profanity filters that prevent you from using ordinary words that happen to contain the same letter sequence as an "inappropriate word or phrase." i don't even bother posting reviews on Gamespot anymore because it's such a pain in the ass trying to figure out what word i used that triggered their profanity filter.

and then there are sites like IGN that have imbeciles for moderators, who think that homebrew/emulation/ripping CDs is illegal. if i want to rip one of my PSX games onto my hard drive and convert it into an eboot that i can play on my PSP that's my own prerogative. censoring posts that talk about homebrew/CFW/etc. is blatant posturing by the gaming industry to condition the public into thinking that only industry sanctioned uses of games/consoles are legal, and that using homebrew, CFW, etc. is illegal/unethical/taboo.

Re:EA = Lazy Bastards

[Minstrel Boy]

The term "burning" brought up a memory - I was in the Oakland firestorm back in 1991, got out with clothes on my back and my car. The entire Bay Area community was very supportive in helping people recover - with the notable exception of Electronic Arts. I had about ten EA titles for my beloved Amiga 3000 system at the time. When I called EA, explained the situation, and asked how to get replacement media, the answer was "We have no way of knowing you really owned those games. Feel free to buy them at full retail again." When I asked what the point of all the registration cards I'd dutifully mailed in was, the answer was that "Those go to marketing, we don't have any record of them."

Needless to say, I don't have to worry about dealing with the EA forums.

KeS

So, how many game companies is there left?

[Yvan256]

Microsoft? No thanks, I don't do Windows or Xbox.
Sony? No thanks I don't want a Blu-Ray player nor DRM in my games.
EA? Transgaming/Cedega, DRM and now this? No thanks.

Companies I still trust enough to buy their games:
- Nintendo (for Zelda, Metroid, etc)
- Blizzard (still waiting on Starcraft II and Diablo III)

In fact, almost any Zelda, Metroid, Starcraft or Diablo game is already pre-sold because I trust them enough to sell me good quality games that don't make me feel like a thief or a beta-tester.

Seen forum bans for pretty civilized conduct

[Moraelin]

Actually, if you've looked at enough game forums, you'll see lots of bans which are for stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with being uncivilized.

There are whole companies where they delete posts, and even ban accounts for stuff like reporting or discussing bugs. And I don't mean the "you gay motherfuckers get off your lazy arses and fix my pet peeve right now" kind of "discussion", but even mentioning that some exploits exist at all, or that some DRM bug has prevented someone from starting the game. Especially if someone from Marketing got ideas like, "omg, if people find out we have bugs or multiplayer exploits, our sales will drop, and we can't have that before Christmas." But whatever the reason, trying to prevent people from posting bugs, especially if a bug has showed up already too often on the forum, _is_ a pretty popular way to avoid fixing them.

Heck, Sony even had a sandbox for new forum users (which included veterans finally activating their forum account), just so they can't complain about the NGE in SWG. Apparently enough people activated their forum account just to say a final "good bye, but this is no longer fun" when unsubscribing, and we can't have that, can we?

I also remember forum bans and account bans for as little as distasteful fanfic about someone's game. But it wasn't in the game, and it wasn't even on the game's forums. Just, you know, if you dare post something we dislike about our games, we'll kick you out.

So I'm really not looking forward for more of that dictatorial accounts. If someone actually cheated in a multiplayer game or anything, fine, ban them. But not for offending an already arbitrary forum moderation system.

And how does a Spore ban (since they used that particular example) even fit that picture? Even EA marketed Spore as a "massively single-player game". Let's say I was a forum troll. So exactly how's my temper going to affect someone else's game? Can I even get into anyone's game to spew obscenities at them? Or what?

Plus, here's another idea: it seems to me like if you have a player rebellion on your hands, on the forums or in game or otherwise, the best policy is to be open and fair. People don't run amok about a bug when they know it'll get put in the queue and looked at later. You might get one, though, if it becomes obvious that you use PR bullshit and deleting bug reports, instead of fixing very real problems and exploits. They don't run amok about some griefer being banned, especially if again you're open as to why and what the rules are. You get a virtual rebellion when you're acting like an ass to the customers in the first place.

Adding a game ban there just adds injury to the already existing insult.