Gamer Banned From Dragon Age II Over Forum Post

RogueyWon writes "Kotaku is reporting that a Dragon Age II gamer banned from BioWare's forums for an allegedly inflammatory post has been locked out of the (singleplayer only) game for the duration of the ban. This is a consequence of EA's backend systems, which link forum accounts to the accounts that players use to access their games. This would appear to be a worrying new development; while trolling forums has led to bans from massively multiplayer games in the past (arguably with some justification), the extension of the principle to singleplayer games, where an abusive player cannot affect the enjoyment of others, must surely be a step too far."

Comments

Bad summary

[devxo]

Ah, in true slashdot spirit the summary "forgets" a few things from the story. First of all, he wasn't banned from playing the game. He bought the game from EA online store and because he was banned, the installer didn't work. And to be honest, for me that sounds more like a bug than EA trying to ban him from a single player game.

Re:Bad summary

[Dunbal]

He bought the game from EA online store and because he was banned, the installer didn't work.

Thus effectively banning him from the game. Your point? Or do you wish to continue being a pedant?

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The distinction is important because there is a difference between EA knowingly and intentionally banning the user from single-player game, and EA accidently banning the user from single-player game. If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.

Re:Bad summary

[RogueyWon]

Submitter here - thought I ought to make a quick reply:

On your first point - the effect of the ban was to prevent the user from installing (and hence playing) the game. It wasn't that they prevented the user from buying the game (which would have been stupid, but arguably less evil) but rather that money had changed hands and the user wasn't able to access the game due to the ban. Given the space limitations on story titles and summaries, this felt like a fair summing up to me.

On the second point, I had first hoped, when I read TFA, that this was due to a backend bug. However, the response from Bioware makes it fairly clear that from their point of view, this is "working as intended".

Re:Bad summary

[gmueckl]

The summary does indeed make it sound as if the guy was banned from playing a game that was already installed and running, thus being banned from using something already in his possession. After all, there is a login screen in the game. There is a bit difference between being barred from downloading something and being barred from actually using it after it was purchased and installed.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

Is physical media really that much better when the installer requires online activation? I have this game and I have the DVD, but it requires online activation when launching for the first time.

Re:Bad summary

[ShakaUVM]

>>If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.

Except it does sound like working-as-intended.

But then again, this is the same company that jumped onto the social media bandwagon, merged their accounts with EA, corrupting them in the process so that I both couldn't log on and couldn't reset the password (it would fall into an infinite loop). And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2, which promptly killed their servers and forced (well, if that's the right word) people to play the demo over and over until the damn servers stayed up long enough to get credit for it. If it dropped even once during the demo, you wouldn't get credit at the end.

And so forth. I believe they're both incompetent *and* filled with hate and malice.

Probably a new thing Bioware got from the EA merger.

Re:Bad summary

[dragonhunter21]

Whether through incompetence or malice, the result was the same. If it was incompetence, it means that it could happen again. If it was malice, then that it likely will happen again.

Re:Bad summary

[RogueyWon]

If this were a massively multiplayer game, I would agree entirely. In fact, if this was a ban from the multiplayer portion of an online and offline game, I would also agree. However, the Dragon Age games are resolutely single-player only. You can't actually ruin somebody else's experience of the game, in the way that shouting and screaming in a movie theatre would ruin the movie for others.

I don't like to push an analogy too far, but I think there's a better one here. This is like buying a DVD from a store and then standing around in the store shouting abuse. The staff would be absolutely within their rights to remove you from the store, but not to confiscate the DVD you'd bought off you as well.

Re:Bad summary

[Ephemeriis]

He bought the game from EA online store and because he was banned, the installer didn't work.

Thus effectively banning him from the game. Your point? Or do you wish to continue being a pedant?

If the game had already been installed, he could presumably continue playing.

So he was not banned from playing the single player game, he was prevented from installing it.

Re:Bad summary

[dragonhunter21]

Preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought.
Preventing the user from installing a game he'd bought (And, by extension, preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought).

The installation is irrelevant. The important parts are that he bought the game legally and then was not able to play it. The mechanism of denial isn't important.

Re:Bad summary

[Kjella]

Its really a story about idiots who buy their games online. Unless you're getting seriously steep discounts, physical media should always be preferred.

My experience is that it doesn't really matter anymore. Almost every game has some kind of online activation or account, if that one is down having the CD/DVD won't help you. And if that works then it doesn't matter if the download is a few bytes or ten gigabytes.

I suppose in theory having physical media give you other options like phoning for a code - if that number is still active, of course. And if you first need a crack, surely someone will pack the full game + crack as well.

Re:Bad summary

[radicalpi]

I suppose I'm an idiot. I buy all of my games through Steam. If Valve ever goes under or Steam is sold off to someone less accepting, I may very well be screwed. But, I average about 67% off on the games I buy, so I guess it's worth the risk.

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Its really a story about idiots who buy their games online. Unless you're getting seriously steep discounts, physical media should always be preferred.

until the DRM madness ends i will never buy a game online.

as for this "ban" ... fuck it, if EA won't make this right and give him a good working game for his perfectly good money, i am sure the pirate community will have something for him.

even if you think piracy is terrible and wrong and something you would never personally do .. you must admit that pirates provide one of the only remaining checks against what is otherwise the entirely one-sided, unilateral power of big publishers. if this installer won't work for him i am sure a cracked one will.

if the bigass publishers like EA want PAYING customers then they better treat us right.

Re:Bad summary

[nethenson]

In fact, it is a story of idiots who buy their games. Pirates don't have this problems.

Re:Bad summary

[FileNotFound]

Your ignorance and know it all attitude is appalling.

Digital purchases offer many advantages that physical media does not have.

I own over 200 games on Steam. I can play any one of them anytime. I have purchased well over 1000 games over the course of my life - except I can't find majority of them, the rest have scratched up disks, lost CDkeys, lost manuals and hard to find patches.

I can go on travel bring nothing but my laptop and play any game I own from the hotel room.

I have reached the point where I REFUSE to buy physical media because of the inconvenience of actually using it. Need the disk to play, need to carry disks with me for every game I may wish to play, need to manually patch everything.

Re:Bad summary

[Belial6]

No, this is more like you buy a Disney DVD, then go to Disneyland and act like an ass, so Disney kicks you out of the park, and then for added measure, comes to your home and smashes your DVD.

Re:Bad summary

[91degrees]

There is a difference between banning somebody from a game, and preventing them from installing it in the first place.

The difference seems pretty insignificant in this case.

They're two different ways of preventing the guy from playing the game. Either way, the guy's unable to use the game he bought. Seems unfair given that playing the game doesn't affect anyone else.

Re:Bad summary

[Sprouticus]

IANAL, but If they took his MONEY, and then refused to produce the product purchased, that sounds a lot like fraud.

Re:Bad summary

[hairyfeet]

But if that is true AC then that means this is just yet another example of when the pirate game is the better version as yet again the badly designed DRM bites the customer in the ass. I've had to go and download the cracked version of games I bought and paid for because the DRM was such a PITA I spent more time fighting it than I did the bad guys.

The problem is these damned games companies seem to be forgetting we are the ones that pay them and that they DO have competition in the form of piracy. If I feel mistreated and ripped off after I give you my money and your shitty DRM causes me nothing but grief, why would I not just pirate the next version and save myself some grief?

To use the famous /. car analogy: If I have two car lots and one offers me a car for x dollars and proceeds to kick the shit out of me when I pay while the lot across the street may have cars of dubious origin but not only don't charge me, but treats me well? Wouldn't be a hard choice for most folks.

These companies either need to go the Good Old Games approach and offer us DRM free with rewards for buying, like how GOG gives you extras like soundtracks and strategy guides, or just agree to go with Steam with NO extra DRM bullshit. Because not only is this DRM a PITA but as a repairman I can tell you SecuROM and the others Can and DO cause system instability and a host of other problems including but not limited to burnt DVD/CD drives. For example certain versions of that crap WILL happily install x86 Ring 0 DRM into a 64 bit OS and then not only screw shit up since you have an x86 driver in Win X64, but then the uninstaller doesn't work and you get the "fun" of either dual booting and cleaning it out from the other OS or a couple of hours in safe mode editing the registry and removing files.

TL:DR? Pirate version good, legit version shit.

Re:Bad summary

[DarthVain]

Yes. Mental note. If I want to play their shitty game (which I don't) I had better pirate it rather than buy it just in case they arbitrarily decide to prevent me from playing a game I paid them money for. Glad they cleared up that moral ambiguity for me.

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

Yeah, physical media is great, until it is lost or damaged. And until you have to finger through your collection of physical media and manually remove/insert them into your drive every time (and, of course, hope they still actually work - especially over time). Not to mention, having physical media really wouldn't help in these situations since you still have to sign up for an online BioWare/EA Social Network account to activate/register/use your content and then you have to login to that account via your game every time.

Re:Bad summary

[Superken7]

Where are my modpoints when I need them. (I agree)

Re:Bad summary

[Artifakt]

There are precedents, in the full legal sense of the word. Most states adopted specific laws in the 1920's and 30's for places doing public performance so that they had precedents on their side if they needed, say, to eject some patron for rowdyness. In most states, there is an implied contract law even though the patron doesn't actually sign a contract when they buy a ticket. You're talking about some past situations that can be vaguely analogized, and cases where those analogies fly in the face of the actual precedents under law, as though they were the actual precedents. The game studio, marketing a single player game, really CAN'T claim the real legal precedents apply to them. That would be claiming that a special inclusion under contract law rule existed on at least some state's 20's and 30's additions to Titles, written so as to cover the electronic distribution of a private, single player experience, instead of the public theatre versions that cover such things as smuggling food into a public performance, and such laws simply don't exist.
        Now as to whether a little politeness and civility might have kept the problem from arising,, well perhaps it would have (as you said).

Re:Bad summary

[ildon]

No, it's more like you ordered the DVD online from Disney, then went to their park and acted like an ass, so they looked up any pending purchases you had and put them on hold for the duration of your ban from the park, and then mailed them out after the temporary ban subsided.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

I own over 200 games on Steam. I can play any one of them anytime

Can you sell them, loan them to friends? Can you easily play one game on one PC and someone else play a different game you "own" on a different PC you also own?

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2

Which was incredibly cool and very creative on their part. I played the demo though a couple times with each character (probably around 10 times total) and never experienced server outages.

Re:Bad summary

[Ephemeriis]

The difference seems pretty insignificant in this case.

They're two different ways of preventing the guy from playing the game.

In this particular case, yes, the end result is that he's unable to play Dragon Age II. If he'd already installed it before posting his comments though, he'd be fine.

The implication in the summary is that getting banned on the forums will prevent you from playing a game you've already installed.

Seems unfair given that playing the game doesn't affect anyone else.

I'm really not sure why such a big deal is being made of the fact that this is a single player game. Even if it was multi-player, I'd think it unfair.

Leave it up to the players. If I'm being an asshat, they can kick me off the server or ban me or blacklist me or whatever.

I suppose it might make sense in an MMOG specifically...

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

With a digital version, I don't have to store them anywhere. I don't have to switch out discs. I don't have to worry about theft. I don't have to worry about physical damage to the media. I don't have to down to the local game store (which in most cases means Walmart, Target, Best Buy, GameStop or other questionable retail outlets). I don't have to pay tax. I don't have to spend the time going and picking it up or dealing with asshats. I don't have to wake up in what is the "middle of my night" (I work at night) so I can get to the store on the store's time frame. I can usually get games digitally that have long since stopped being stocked at the store (especially since it's getting harder to find a great selection of PC games in stores). I don't have to deal with serials (usually, since they're handled by Steam).

Digital stuff isn't perfect and has a lot of potential for abuse, but it's hard to establish that it's in any way worse than physical content downfalls (except for the whole part where you pay full retail price on new games, despite not having any of the traditional retail expenses to justify the overhead . . . but that has more to do with negotiations with retailers, where publishers and developers would be dropped from, say, Walmart if they gave digital uses a steep discount over retail price).

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

What is this physical media you speak of?

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

Sorry, but wrong in some cases. The closest store to my house that would carry this game is Wal-mart. I don't shop at Wal-mart, so the next closest is Target. Sold out. The next closest after that is Best Buy. Ok, purchased, drive home....my son has already purchased downloaded and installed DA2 and is level 3 already. So much for "10 minutes".

Re:Bad summary

[Vanderhoth]

like wise

Re:Bad summary

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I don't like to push an analogy too far, but I think there's a better one here. This is like buying a DVD from a store and then standing around in the store shouting abuse. The staff would be absolutely within their rights to remove you from the store, but not to confiscate the DVD you'd bought off you as well.

Ah, but no-one had "bought" anything! This user has "licensed" a piece of software and EA/Bioware have simply unilaterally revoked that licence; a prerogative they enjoy by virtue of their control of the source code, and due to the almost total lack of regulation or oversight of the software industry, and in particular the video game industry.

Cases like this remind us that, as a professional industry, video games are still in the wild west. There is essentially no law regulation or guiding their use or sale. "Justice" is swift, unaccountable, and largely in the eye of the beholder. Purchase of software is no guarantee that the code will run, run correctly, or continue to run as intended. Gaming companies have time and again proven themselves utterly feckless custodians of their own code and services.

Cases like this are what is going to lead to industry-wide regulation and oversight. Game companies may complain, but as far as I can see, they're all being run by pig-ignorant goons who make things up as they go along. I'm sure the usual free-market nuts will complain as well, but they've no idea what they're talking about any. So bring on some laws and regulation and save us all from the capricious whims of game developers.

Re:Bad summary

[ottothecow]

I agree with the OP here.

This is a very significant difference. It seems like it basically amounts to a bug in the installer that will get sorted out soon. This is *very* different from them having a kill switch that they can engage to prevent you from playing the game.

The summary makes it sound like he was happily playing the game, decided to make some asshat posts in the forums, and then could not access the game anymore as a result. The story itself is barely newsworthy...bug in a new game prevents installer from working.

Re:Bad summary

[517714]

He is suspended and unable to play the game for a whopping 72 hours. Big fucking deal!

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

EA needs to die a miserable death. I think we've all been in agreement of that for a long time.

Re:Bad summary

[Overzeetop]

...but kept your money that whole time anyway. Everything is okay (assholeish, no doubt, but okay) right up to the part where they took his money, IMHO.

Re:Bad summary

[GooberToo]

Dip shit troll moderator...

It can be. Had he had physical media available, he's free to register it however he likes. Since he purchased it as virtual goods, the purchase is directly associated with his troll account, thusly tying the two together.

Virtual purchase means loss of control and privacy. Physical purchase means, in most cases, you retain control, privacy, and have physical media in hand; all more often than not.

So basically, the troll was locked out entirely because he purchased a virtual download rather than physical media.

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

I agree completely, however, isn't there an option in Steam to register a game you own in physical form in Steam, so you can forget about the physical form? I'm pretty sure I have the Half Life 2 discs, but I play through Steam...unless I was stupid and purchased both?

Re:Bad summary

[tibman]

For argument, do you feel the same with buying music? Buying MP3s online versus physical CDs?

I use steam and push everything onto the storage server for fast re-install later (or for someone else in the house to grab it without having to re-download). Ditto for music. I think people are being way to harsh on you about physical media though. It is far better in the long run, obviously. But i feel most of the pro's of physical game copies are false. Most games have cd-keys, which prevent safe re-sell.. i would never buy a game that someone else had the key for unless they were a good friend. Online activation also prevents a purely offline install from working. On the other side, steam won't last forever and it's possible all my games (currently 74) will cease to work through steam. Another downside is no pretty manual and goodies in a box : )

It's all end-user preference, imo.

Re:Bad summary

[stjobe]

Except that you're wrong. Follow the first link in the summary, scroll down to the last post:

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum and/or issues reported by fellow community members.

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

Item 2 kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Re:Bad summary

[Dunbal]

You obviously did not read BioWare's official reply - to sum it up: "It's in the TOS which you violated, so tough luck". No, no malice at all.

Re:Bad summary

[EvanED]

So for the Valve titles, even if you get the physical media, you still have to play through Steam. Essentially the only difference between buying the electronic copy and the retail version is the discs eliminate most of the download step. (E.g. if Steams servers went away, you wouldn't be able to play the game from the retail discs.)

Re:Bad summary

[twidarkling]

Actually, it is, since the failure point comes in at a different moment. It's like having a television delivered. The actual case is akin to expecting the TV to show up today, so you clear some space to deal with that, and plan to use it that night. Then you get a call and get told "it's not showing up today." Yeah, it sucks, but it's not there, so there's not much you can do. Preventing someone from playing an already installed game is having the TV show up, and get set up, but then the delivery people stand there and slap your hand away from the remote any time you go to use it. It's there, there's no real reason you couldn't use it, except some gatekeeper's making you not.

EA's installation manager is actually a *download* manager. It's merely delaying the delivery of digital goods due to a flaw in the backend stating that no deliveries can be made to that address when someone clicked an option to stop other kinds of activity from that address. If you can't see the functional difference in the situations, it's because you're being wilfully stubborn.

Re:Bad summary

[canajin56]

If the game had already been installed, he could presumably continue playing.

If it's anything like Mass Effect 2, then DA2 connects and authenticates each time you launch, not just at install. If it had already been installed, he probably still would be locked out.

Re:Bad summary

[FileNotFound]

Well - not by Steams terms. But yes to both.

Log in one one machine. Install game. Put steam in Offline mode. Play game on multiple PCs at same time.

Personally, I couldn't care less about loaning games or selling them. To me the convenience of not having to care about physical media and having every single game I own available anywhere that I have an internet connection is worth it.

Ultimately many physical games today have DRM that prevents sales, loans etc due to the limited number of installations, one time use keys bound to online accounts etc. This means there are no upsides to owning physical media anyway.

Re:Bad summary

[stjobe]

Your summary implies that EA could, at any time, swoop in and prevent gamers from playing their games. This may actually be true. But that isn't what's happening here.

They can. Check out the Bioware answer in the last post of the thread that's linked from the summary:

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

And that's just so messed up it's unbelievable.

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

As you point out, your diskless utilization of these is only possible because of the digital services. Unfortunately, the games for which you can redeem serials on Steam from physical purchases are very few. In fact, this is the first I had ever heard of anything that wasn't a Valve game being able to do this (and not 100% of Valve games can even be redeemed on the Steam service, either).

Also, I don't have to install anything a second time, either. I have a drive set for my steamapps folder. New machine? Install the 1.5mb Steam client and point/symlink it to the drive for its steamapps folder. I currently have something like 350 of my games from Steam installed on this machine (yeah, I know, that's a little overboard).

Re:Bad summary

[Dunbal]

Not to mention savings in certain areas like time, fuel, taxes and even import duties - depending where you live. I live in the 3rd world and previously I had the following choice:

1) Go to the (and I mean THE, because there was one in the whole country) brick and mortar store, choose from the limited selection of titles available of games from last year, pay $120 for a $40 title, ignore that the box has already been opened and the game already been "reviewed" and played by the store owner/employees, and hope that the serials haven't been made public meaning you can't install, or

2) Pirate and download a torrent for free, but be a criminal and risk having your machine compromised by a trojan, or

3) Order it from Amazon or an online retailer, wait 3 weeks while it clears customs, and pay at least double what it costs in S&H and customs duty.

Downloading games is worth it for some, even if we have to put up with crap like this at times.

Re:Bad summary

[dragonhunter21]

Very true. All signs point to malice from what I've read (Although that could be attributed to the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality when it comes to big developers these days), so I extrapolated from there. If it was, in fact, a bug, then I have no problem with this- but the fact of the matter is that EA reserves the right to deny you access to your game when they feel you've behaved badly, and that's not OK. Even if that wasn't the case here, it brought that sad fact to light.

Re:Bad summary

[twidarkling]

Ten minutes? Not everyone lives down the block from a game store, and further, not everyone lives where it's feasible to own a vehicle. Those two facts alone means your ten minutes is laughably naive. Furthermore, the only game store worth a shit within THIRTY minutes of me is only open until 5 or 6 except on Thursdays, and they operate a lot on preorders, and so don't carry a lot of spare copies on release week. By way of comparison, Steam is always open and with plenty of copies. 2 am? Sure. And I get the game downloaded in about an hour, too. Or I buy it at 10pm, download it while I sleep, and then play it at 6am, well before the store opens at 9. And I don't have to do it every time, either, since I have a rather large backup solution that I can save install files on for the games I know I'm going to want to replay often. Then it's simply a matter of how quickly my gigabit ethernet network can transfer the file to whichever computer I want it on. Installation after that is usually about 5 minutes.

Re:Bad summary

[Dunbal]

No. They have other problems. Like having their torrent bandwidth throttled, infecting their machine with trojans, or getting corrupted files or incomplete DRM circumvention causing their games to stutter/crash.

Re:Bad summary

[jitterman]

I got the same mileage from your .02 as you did - I have done this on quite a few occasions, most recently with... Dragon Age: Origins! I had technical issues (game froze at a certain point in the story, no matter who I played as). When they (whoever EA contracts with for "support") found out I was running Win7 64 they told me tough luck, too bad. I grabbed a usenet copy, and bam, everything happy. I can't say why of course, but this wasn't the first time a problem was resolved with a "stripped" copy.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

The installer, on the disc, still required online activation using your social.bioware.com account... so even with physical media you are screwed.

Re:Bad summary

[twidarkling]

Not everyone wants to sell their games. Some people collect them, you know. And yes, you can easily play one game on one PC, and then have someone play a different game you own (nice scarequotes, tardmonkey) on a different PC, since all you need to do is put steam in offline mode on one computer, and then you can play any of the games that don't require steam authorized servers (pretty much any non-Valve game). As for loaning them to friends, well, same deal. Go over to their place, log on to your steam account, install said game, and go in to offline mode. They can play, and YOU CAN PLAY IT AT THE SAME TIME! It's even better than loaning physical media. Betcha thought you were clever or something.

Re:Bad summary

[MachDelta]

You only need one authentication to play, after that you don't need to be logged in or even have the disc in the drive.

Re:Bad summary

[jitterman]

I don't think this makes you an idiot. To be sure you don't have issues in the future though, maybe download cracked versions and store them some place safe - you have paid for these applications, so I don't see where owning a copy that will allow you to use them without regards to the continued existence of their distributor is a bad or immoral thing.

Re:Bad summary

[twidarkling]

No, not really. Though it's one of the big positives of digital delivery, there's absolutely nothing stating that you *need* to be able to instantly download it. They're producing the product, just... later.

Damn it, I feel like I'm defending EA, but I'm not. I'd be rightfully pissed if they stopped him from continuing to play his game, but for not being able to simply download it in the first place, there's too many other things that could cause that for me to work up any righteous indignation.

Re:Bad summary

[dragonhunter21]

Again, the end result is what matters. Either way, in either scenario, the person could not play their game when they should have been able to.

Better version of your example would be the company delivering the TV calling and saying, "Yeah, you bought the TV and all, but because you went online and made a snide comment about our company, we're not going to deliver it for another day and a half."

Mind you, this is working on the assumption that 1) This was not a bug, and 2) it was intentional (Unintentional being James A. Mod accidentally pressing the "Ban everything" button rather than the "Forum-ban" button).

Re:Bad summary

[MachDelta]

No, they just haven't yet delivered something he bought. It's not gone, just delayed.

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't see the functional difference in the situations, it's because you're being wilfully stubborn.

So if you disagree with him then the only possible explanation is that he's being wilfully stubborn? There's no chance at all, no matter how miniscule, that it might be you that's not seeing the essential similarity rather than him who's not seeing the essential difference?

Have you tried seeing anyone about this problem?

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

First, let me be upfront and say if you don't do stupid shit and get your dumb ass banned in one game from a particular company, they have no reason to ban you from a second game.

Second, however, I think #2 in your example does NOT clearly imply that bad behavior in one game can cause a ban in a second game. It says "access to your game"...singular...as in the game you were acting like an a-hole, you may not have access to it.

Now if #2 said, "games" and not "game", I'm all for banning dumbasses from playing other games (caveat: what's the purpose of banning a guy from a single player game, though?...seems like a lazy way to enforce online bans...blanket banning).

If I sound conflicted, I am. Unlike the rabid black/white world of slashdot, there is merit to both black and white in this instance. Predictably, the black side will pirate their games and bitch about big corporation and DRM and the white side will stick to their world view. Anyone care to meet me in the middle?

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

Only Valve's own games allow you to redeem serials from a physical copy into the Steam service, though someone else here mentioned they did that with Civilization IV, so maybe there are a few other exceptions. Additionally, some games now use Steamworks, which utilizes the Steam framework (I think Civ V might be one). So even if you buy a physical copy of a game, you'll still have to access it via services like Steam.

In fact, as developers begin using Steamworks as a solution to a lot of their backend stuff, you'll start to find even fewer reasons to bother with a phsyical copy of a game. For example, take this from the Steamworks product wiki at Valve. And note that some of the stuff seems to be fairly "evil", but it's not like every other company isn't already implementing something like this or won't be in the future. My view is merely that at least Valve has given me a great experience as a gamer and customer for the past decade and the client is very customer-friendly. A single login and a single client and everything makes sense (unless the labyrinthine bullshit involved to access other similar services, like EA, UBI and so on offer).

And again, remember, the below things are going to be limitations and services placed on PHYSICAL copies of the media. Not merely the digital versions!

Encrypted retail media
Protect your day one release by shipping encrypted media to stores worldwide. No worry that your game will leak early from the manufacturing path, because your game stays encrypted until the moment you decide to release it.

Anti-piracy
End-to-end anti-piracy solution. Steamworks provides both a wrapper to protect your application and online authentication. Your game is associated with a single customer account, which is used for multiplayer authentication (no more “shared” key lists on the Internet). Plus, the ongoing benefits of customers being current and connected on Steam make piracy an unattractive option.

Territory control
Open up new markets. Games can be set to authenticate only in specific regions, allowing you to go day-and-date worldwide without the worry of grey marketing of products intended for specific territories.

Key-based authentication
Easy, known, and proven path for customers to authenticate their game. Keys are the backbone for inventory control and sales data. Keys can be customized for region, content, language, and SKU.

Re:Bad summary

[Sir_Sri]

Ah but you see they are working hard to eliminate the competition from piracy. I don't have DA2 yet, but notice with DA1 it logs you in every time you try and play? The infrastructure around the game is now like an MMO even if the content itself is single player. If you don't log in, you don't have access to any of the downloaded content (which fairly quickly can become problematic if you rely on any of it for gameplay).

With ME2 EA claimed to look at piracy as get another venue to get customers to buy DLC. But if the game itself is accessed via your account, and they have some reasonably good method of tying a game to an account, well, it becomes significantly harder to pirate doesn't it?

I'm not saying that's good. But the gaming business is moving to 'integrate' online even into single player, and is going to put your saves in a cloud and so on, wrapped up together this significantly raises the barrier of entry to piracy, and makes used game sales nearly a thing of the past. You can say all you want they're competing with piracy, but from their perspective they are doing everything they can shy of putting a FOB key in the box to force you to either buy it, or not play it.

Re:Bad summary

[Ephemeriis]

Your summary implies that EA could, at any time, swoop in and prevent gamers from playing their games. This may actually be true. But that isn't what's happening here.

They can. Check out the Bioware answer in the last post of the thread that's linked from the summary:

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

That still doesn't indicate whether a ban on the forums will necessarily prevent you from playing a game that you've already installed. Only that it can affect access. Being unable to download a fresh copy for a new computer would affect my access... But it wouldn't prevent me from playing one I already had installed.

Of course I'm going to be called a pedant and told that this doesn't matter...

But what if he'd bought his game from a brick & mortar store? Would he still be having trouble playing with this ban? Would it actually disable the game itself? Or is it just because he bought it from EA?

And that's just so messed up it's unbelievable.

I'll agree that it is not an idea situation... But it's very believable. This isn't the first story here on Slashdot about somebody losing access to their EA games because of forum activity.

Re:Bad summary

[Moryath]

In tonight's news: EA are a bunch of fucking dickheads.

In other news: Water is wet. Ice is cold.

Re:Bad summary

[Carewolf]

Pirated games are much less likely to install a rootkit on your machine than an original games. The rootkits are usual removed from the original game when they are cracked. It you care about viruses or being hacked you should use cracked games.

Re:Bad summary

[marnerd]

Yes, the functional difference between interrupted service and undelivered service is obvious. But the ethical difference is slim: If I have paid you for a good or service and you have accepted my cash and then fail to deliver what I paid for you have breached our agreement. If it is accidental, especially if it is for reasons beyond your control, then it is a bad thing, but certainly forgivable. But if I give you money, you accept the money and then say "Nope, I'm not going to deliver for a while because you said something I didn't like", that is as unethical as disabling a service I have paid for.

Re:Bad summary

[Sky Cry]

I'd take it a level further. Improper behavior on the forums should result in a ban on the forums. Improper behavior in-game should result in a ban from the game. This is how many online games are handling the issue. When you're dealing with paying customers (as opposed to anonymous users in free games, for example), any counter-measure should be "just enough" to prevent further misconduct and not a step more.

Re:Bad summary

[PIBM]

If you hosed your account by trolling excessively, I expect you to create a new account to active things under.

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

So this only works with Valve games then? I have played exactly three video games in the past 5 years (HL2, WoW and Dragon Age), and Dragon Age was on my PS3, so I have no idea really how Steam works these days.

Re:Bad summary

[hairyfeet]

I bet five will get you ten they were using shitty Ring 0 DRM that was written for x86. You actually got lucky as I have seen Ring 0 x86 crap install into x64 and the the uninstaller WILL NOT UNINSTALL no matter what you do and the Ring 0 crap since it can't read 64 bit code will cause the whole system to become as unstable as Win9x as it assumes you're a pirate and tries to constantly rescan.

For a perfect example that you can point to when someone says "the DRM isn't obtrusive, it doesn't hurt legit customers, blah blah blah" I'd suggest you watch this video (warning language NSFW, but when you see why he is POed you'll understand) and bookmark it to answer the pro DRM crowd. Also take note and point out the literally dozens of games boxed behind him lining the shelves which he points out many no longer work thanks to DRM.

So consider yourself lucky Jitterman, as you'd be amazed how many customers CD/DVD burners I've had to throw away thanks to DRM throwing them into PIO mode and burning the motors, or how many times a customer has had to pay me because "I think I have a virus" which turns out to be shitty DRM that is as nasty as any badly written malware and can take a rock solid XP or Windows 7 system and bring it to its knees. I'd also suggest frequent backups as well as system restore points before any game install if you are running x64, since as I said many x86 Ring 0 DRM crap WILL install itself onto x64 without warning or user interaction and proceed to make an unholy mess of your system.

But yet again the legit customer gets burned, the pirate has a game that "just works" and runs better than the legit version with fewer bugs and errors as well as needing fewer resources. Sad isn't it?

Re:Bad summary

[WitnessForTheOffense]

I'll bite. Banning from single player games is okay. Where's the player's refund though?

Re:Bad summary

[kevinNCSU]

You're close, but he didn't have the DVD in his hand. It's more like a fast food restaurant, where you came in, made your order and paid. The food was made for you, ready, and put on the counter, but you were so busy picking fights with other customers that you didn't manage to pick it up before you got thrown out for causing disturbances. Now that you're standing outside in the cold you suddenly remember "HEY, my food is in there!", and start bitching. It's not that they want to keep you from eating, it's that they don't want you on their property and the fact that you caused a disturbance before you picked up your food is your own fault.

If getting in a fight in that small window between paying for your big mac and picking it up from the counter seems ridiculous remember downloads are available instantly so he was SUPER more concerned with being a douche then he was about playing/downloading. Unless he pre-ordered? in which case it's even dumber idea. I'm pretty sure if you started tipping over displays in Gamestop after pre-ordering something they're not going to give you your money back before you get thrown out and banned.

Re:Bad summary

[tophermeyer]

But having the remote backup eliminates the risk of, for example, a housefire destroying the physical media.

Obviously I have no idea of how likely either of those problems are to strike the average gamer. Statistics on remote library loss vs. local library loss might be informative.

Re:Bad summary

[stewbacca]

His "refund" comes when he stops acting like an ass and waits out his penalty, at which point he can play? (Not saying I agree, just throwing that out there).

Re:Bad summary

[godefroi]

Except it does sound like working-as-intended.

To you, anyway. Sounds to me more like they didn't think it through.

merged their accounts with EA, corrupting them in the process so that I both couldn't log on and couldn't reset the password (it would fall into an infinite loop).

Does that sound like working-as-intended to you as well?

Listen, the company's out to gather up as much cash as they can from their customers (that's what corporations do, you know... if they don't, officers tend to get sued by shareholders), but don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Re:Bad summary

[acohen1]

I was gifted Civ V on steam, and it allowed for a pre-release download, which was then decrypted on release day. This wasn't the best user experience, since it still took quite a while on my q2quad 6600 and 7200rpm HDD to decrypt when I thought it would be ready immediately on release. I guess that means that even had I purhcased a physical copy, the game disc would have been encrypted too? What a PITA.

OTOH, Civ IV vanilla wouldn't run properly if you had both a cd-burner and a regular cd/dvd-rom due to DRM, and therefore required a crack for the legitimate retail purchased copy for most people I knew, so at least the steamworks thing for V works correctly. They did, as I recall, fix the drm issue eventually, but it sucked at launch.

Re:Bad summary

[frito_x]

if he has the physical media he could just create a new account... so no, he's not screwed...

seriously... plug in the neurons before typing.

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The "product" that was paid for was a *license* that could be revoked (temporarily or permanently) under certain conditions. Those conditions were met, and the license was temporarily revoked. Doesn't sound like fraud to me.

Re:Bad summary

[godefroi]

You saw he got his account back, right?

FINAL EDIT: Finally got them to let me get to my account, i re-bought the game full price and alls well that ends relatively well.

Re:Bad summary

[geekoid]

No shit. And if the game is like the demo, it is far from shitty. Not that I am going to buy it now.

Re:Bad summary

[vux984]

if he has the physical media he could just create a new account...

Unless the "key" printed on the disc is already activated under his old account.

Obviously that wouldn't be the case if it was a brand new purchase. But what if he was reinstalling a game he'd purchased a few months ago...

Re:Bad summary

[geekoid]

"Your ignorance and know it all attitude is appalling."
That applies to your post as well.
I can resell used games, lend games, I can play one game I purchased while my son play a different game I purchased.

Try doing that with steam.

And yeah, I also use steam. The fact That my son can't play portal while I play TF2 is irritating; However the games I buy are discounted steeply.

Steam can also turn off and delete your license whenever they want.

So yeah, there is risk with digital downloads.

Re:Bad summary

[vux984]

Log in one one machine. Install game. Put steam in Offline mode. Play game on multiple PCs at same time.

Most of the games my family are interested in aren't offline games.

So if I'm playing Left4Dead 2 with few friends on online, why exactly should my wife be prevented from playing the upcoming Portal 2 with one of her friends...?

Personally, I couldn't care less about loaning games or selling them.

To be honest, its not a big thing for me either. But I recently did want to lend/give a game to my brother. And now my kids are starting to want to play the games on my account as well, and that's also creating all sorts of awkwardness and conflicts, and its going to get worse.

And now when I buy a game, I have to think about whether I want to put it in my account, or a shared family account, or an account for the child, or in its own account by itself... balancing the flexibility of having the game not tied to a bunch of other games with the hassle of having a bunch of accounts, and the issues that causes.

Steam is FAR from perfect.

Ultimately many physical games today have DRM that prevents sales, loans etc due to the limited number of installations, one time use keys bound to online accounts etc. This means there are no upsides to owning physical media anyway.

There are no upsides to DRM. Whether its physical or downloaded. I like GoG a lot, but the selection of modern stuff is, as is to be expected, is pretty thin.

Re:Bad summary

[DarthVain]

Dunno really about 2. I did play some of DA: Origins. I eventually lost interest, so not all that excited about #2. About the only thing that was "innovative" about the game was the addition of downloadable content, which I see more as a just another way to ripoff customers anyway. The loyalty of team members was interesting, but nothing new, and I found the battle mechanics painful at best.

Re:Bad summary

[geekoid]

" There is a difference between banning somebody from a game, and preventing them from installing it in the first place."

no. there. is. not.

It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you aren't allowed to travel there.

"The actual situation is no different than if his Internet went out "
Yes. it. is. different.

He can't play the game because of something he said on the forum. The method they choose is a separate point.

I over used periods because you seem slow and overly myopic

Re:Bad summary

[VendingMenace]

I guess I get your point, which is essentially, companies need to realize that people will pirate their games and so they should not provide impetus for this behavior. However, the truth of this statement makes me sad. What about the old-fashioned option of not buying the game *and* not stealing it? Why is it necessary to play the game at all?

I guess what gets me is that people seem to feel that they have an inherent right to play games. Thus, if they cannot afford the game or they disagree with the designer's policies (ie. DRM) they will just pirate it. As if they are fully in the right. As if DRM is a license to steal and its use validates their choice for piracy. The reasoning being (I suppose) that this is the only way to play the game. However, the fact remains that they could have just chosen *not* to play the game at all.

I suppose that I am a bit more ok with buying a game, and then pirating it as well, so that you don't have DRM to deal with, but you still supporting the company. So that sucks. So my solution is to not buy or play the game at all. Does this really make so little sense? Is playing games so important for your well-being that you must resort to piracy?

I know this makes me seem like a stick in the mud, but I thought I would throw my two cents in. Note: I am not saying that I disagree with your post. In fact, I think it is an accurate assessment of what happens. It just makes me sad that people assume they *have* to play game XYZ so much that there is no other option than pirating it. I mean there is a whole world out there. They still haven't put DRM on having a conversation with a friend...

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

In which case, you will have to buy another $60 copy of the game, because the serial key will be registered under your banned account.

Re:Bad summary

[vux984]

Physical media on the other hand, isn't tied to an account and can frequently be resold...

That's the ideal. It's rapidly changing.

I have lots of games that need to be activated with a CD key. At that point the advantage of physical took a huge drop.

When I purchased Portal at a regular store in a regular box I did it to get the advantages of physical media. But I got burnt... the physical media was just a ruse. I still needed to tie it to a steam account, and it was EXACTLY the same as buying it virtually; except that I didn't have to wait for it to download.

Physical media at this point has no inherent advantage over a virtual purchase.

A DRM-free virtual purchase is infinitely more advantageous to a DRM laden physical purchase. Either its got DRM or it doesn't; it doesn't matter where or how you get it

Re:Bad summary

[Seumas]

Exactly how are you going to resell physical media that is useless, because you already used up the serial key when you logged into EA's website and registered the game with it - thereby rendering the physical copy useless to anyone who isn't you? That has nothing to do with it being acquired digitally and is the way most games are going these days. The days of buying a game (digitally or physically) and not having it locked down to one account and one person are almost entirely long gone.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

Then you lose all the DLC and bonus content that you get for buying the game new, at the very least

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

All his other games, and their associated single account bindable DLC, were also bound to that account. So, yes, he is screwed.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

I have tried the offline mode and it bugged me to login again every couple days, and you are basically saying no, you can't play Portal and TF2 on two different computers at the same time.

Re:Bad summary

[RobDude]

That only 'effectively' bans him if he deletes it and tries to install.

This is more akin to having paid for an hour of laser tag (online access to features, content, ability to reinstall from server) and then getting thrown out for being a d-bag (trolling the forums) after only 10 minutes. Yes, you lose out on 50 more minutes. Sorry.

He could still play the installed game on his desktop. He was banned from online activities that also prevented him from re-downloading the game. If I buy something from Best-Buy, then get banned from the store for running around naked, I lose the ability to exchange my item for store credit and shop at the store. I still have the product I purchased.

Re:Bad summary

[anyGould]

I would suspect that won't hold up under any scrutiny - "I'm sorry, you're banned from our mall for a year. Oh, and everything you bought from us will stop working as well."

Re:Bad summary

[anyGould]

I like Steam (mainly because they at least offer something in exchange for the DRM - namely the "we'll let you download this as much as you need, and keep the game patched for you").

If I could ask one thing, it'd be that they steal a page from GameTap's book, and allow subaccounts. (Even if it still enforces the one-at-a-time rule.)

Re:Bad summary

[GooberToo]

When I purchased Portal at a regular store in a regular box I did it to get the advantages of physical media. But I got burnt... the physical media was just a ruse.

This means you're conflating things and giving an extremely poor interpretation in order to invalidate an otherwise valid point. The simple fact is, unless ALL games are tied to steam, while unfortunate, it doesn't invalidate my point in the least.

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm not saying that's good. But the gaming business is moving to 'integrate' online even into single player, and is going to put your saves in a cloud and so on, wrapped up together this significantly raises the barrier of entry to piracy, and makes used game sales nearly a thing of the past.

I guess the 'pirates' would have to 'acquire' a physical copy in that case. In any case, I wouldn't play any games that relied on such a defective system. Data completely controlled by the companies, the ability to mod the games likely reduced to zero, not being able to access the games if the server is down, likely having to pay a monthly fee, and just generally no longer having a physical copy of the game (I speak of 'services' like onlive). All this because the companies are paranoid idiots and feel they must rip off their own customers to 'get back' at a few 'pirates' while hiding behind the ruse that they are losing millions in nonexistent profit.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

Physical CDs provide superior sounds than MP3s, so yes. I buy CDs and rip to flac.

Not to mention I can listen to MP3s on any number of devices at the same time so comparing them to games is kind of pointless.

Re:Bad summary

[anyGould]

Steam can also turn off and delete your license whenever they want.

So yeah, there is risk with digital downloads.

But as you say, even the physical media is requiring online verification, so in the end you still end up at the mercy of some far-off server.

You know why I'll choose Steam over physical? Because Steam *depends* on those online sales - that's the business model. If they pull the plug, they go out of business. Even if they just shut down "old games that no-one plays anymore", they lose most of their credibility regarding the advantages of buying online.

Contrast with the game-company specific servers, where as soon as the game is old enough, they pull the plug. They don't need to care that they're hosing old customers, because that's not their core business.

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

It strikes me as odd that so many people are so weak-minded that they can't even handle a somewhat insulting comment (mere words). Even if this were an MMO, such a punishment would, to me, be ridiculous. Really, if you're that afraid of words, you should lock yourself up in a location far, far away from other people and make sure you can communicate with no one.

Re:Bad summary

[Ephemeriis]

It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you aren't allowed to travel there.

Ooh... I like analogies. Let's see... How about this? It's like saying you're not banned from the baseball stadium, but you can't fly Northwest to get there.

The part that is not working is the part where he installs the software he purchased from EA's online store. Not the part where he actually plays the game. Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd bought a physical disc or if he'd bought from a different online store.

"The actual situation is no different than if his Internet went out "
Yes. it. is. different.

Nope. Not different.

If he hadn't said anything on any forum, but still bought his game on-line through EA, and his Internet went out, and he tried to install it, it wouldn't work.

I'm not saying that EA didn't ban him, or didn't mean to inconvenience him with the ban. I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. What I'm saying is that he'd be just as unable to install his game if his Internet went out.

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, if you're using a service like Good Old Games that doesn't tie the games to any account essentially owned by the company, then that would be fine as well. You can back up the games as many times as you please.

Re:Bad summary

[anyGould]

The restaurant would still be responsible for providing the product purchased, however. (Probably by bringing it to the door.)

Re:Bad summary

[anyGould]

No, not really. Though it's one of the big positives of digital delivery, there's absolutely nothing stating that you *need* to be able to instantly download it. They're producing the product, just... later.

And while I'd accept "servers are down" and "technical difficulties" as reasons why he can't download his game (as they fall under "circumstances outside our control"), I'd say this is a pretty clear case of them having the ability to produce the product and refusing to do so.

Re:Bad summary

[Salus Victus]

This is a famous analogy? Hacked, free software isn't analogous to "cars of dubious origin." It's straight-up stolen. There aren't any ifs, buts, or howevers ... it's stolen. If someone else hadn't made the expensive version, then the cheap version couldn't exist.

You make your own judgement calls about whether or not its "okay" to run stolen software without also buying a paid copy. I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. However ... trying to convince ME that it's okay, because the version from the developer sucks? I'm calling you on that one: your argument is invalid.

Also, they're not forgetting that "we" are the ones who pay them. As long as sheeple continue to pay for broken products, they'll continue making them. They're intensely aware that they're being paid -- because they are. It would be awesome if you started a competing company with DRM-free (or DRM-right) products.

Re:Bad summary

[vux984]

This means you're conflating things and giving an extremely poor interpretation in order to invalidate an otherwise valid point. The simple fact is, unless ALL games are tied to steam, while unfortunate, it doesn't invalidate my point in the least.

Portal was just the natural end to the progression.

The point I'm making is that its not an argument between physical media and virtual download. Its a question of DRM or no DRM. The method by which the game is obtained is irrelevant.

There are plenty of games not tied to steam that are tied to online accounts and online activation. Buying physical media doesn't have any advantages.

Buying DRM free has advantages.

Re:Bad summary

[cayenne8]

My question, is more basic.

Why would something you said on a forum, get you banned at all??

I mean, short if illegal speech (threatening to come over and kill them, and meaning it)...I can't think of any good reason something you trolled on a forum to get you banned from a game?

I know, people can post some racist, sexist, mean spirited stuff...but seriously, ban from a game because of a stupid opinion, especially after you have PAID for said game??

SEriously people, grow a bit thicker skin...they are ONLY words and won't physically hurt you.

I know it is a private company and they can want to restrict some speech for business purposes, but if you have to..ban from the forums, not the game itself?

Re:Bad summary

[Methuseus]

From what others are saying, this is not true. It's only the download manager that doesn't let you get the game files. If he had the physical disc, he could have installed the game and activated it online, which is (supposedly, I don't know) not tied to the forums.

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell are you agreeing with him or splitting hairs?

He has a game and can not use it because of some option in some part of some system that was obviously linked together? Maybe I am missing something?

To use your store delivery analogy this is more like him buying a TV then doing something douchy to get banned from the store. However, he already bought a TV at that point and can no longer have it delivered but thanks for the money anyway.

Re:Bad summary

[Nagrom]

It doesn't really have much to do with an individual insult though. (Well, maybe it does in this specific case - naturally I haven't bothered RTFA - but it doesn't in general.) Enough people trolling or generally behaving disruptively can quickly reduce a forum's signal to noise ratio below anything useful. I guess you haven't spent much time looking at, or more likely despairing at, the WoW forums, for example.

Re:Bad summary

[IICV]

He's also banned from playing his saved games from the previous game, because you must be logged in to your EA account to use saved games containing DLC and his EA account is banned.

So: working as intended, I presume.

Re:Bad summary

[thrash242]

What you say makes perfect sense. It's just, as you said, that so many people feel entitled to games.

It's just a lame rationalization for piracy. There's no reason to try to understand it any further than that.

I don't pirate anything, so I either buy the game and play it (when I get time--sometimes much later) or don't buy it and don't play it ever.

Re:Bad summary

[IICV]

The summary does indeed make it sound as if the guy was banned from playing a game that was already installed and running, thus being banned from using something already in his possession. After all, there is a login screen in the game. There is a bit difference between being barred from downloading something and being barred from actually using it after it was purchased and installed.

He was also barred from playing saved games from DA:O, because they used DLC and you must log in to your EA account to play saved games that use DLC.

So yes, he was both banned from downloading a game he'd bought, and also from playing saved games from a game that was already up and running.

Re:Bad summary

[thrash242]

Shogun 2 Total War is Steam only, so the physical limited edition requires registration on Steam. I think this was true for Empire Total War also.

Red Orchestra was Steam-only, even with the physical copy, also.

If physical copies still had nice thick manuals like they did in the 90s (like the kind I still have on my bookshelf and still read sometimes), I'd be more inclined to get them, but nowadays most "manuals" are just 5-page instruction booklets, so I'm not missing out on much.

Re:Bad summary

[syousef]

Ah, in true slashdot spirit the summary "forgets" a few things from the story. First of all, he wasn't banned from playing the game. He bought the game from EA online store and because he was banned, the installer didn't work. And to be honest, for me that sounds more like a bug than EA trying to ban him from a single player game.

I bought the Battlefield 2 Booster Packs and could not get the installers to accept my valid keys no matter what I did, and I had not been banned from anything. Bought from a legitimate store so I returned them for a refund (after much hassle and some paperwork). I haven't bought an EA game since. I was very disappointed - while I was never a hardcore BF2 gamer, and I never got very good, running around and blowing shit up was lots of fun and a good way to blow off some steam. What I got with these booster packs was nothing but an increase in blood pressure. EA Games: Ruin Everything indeed. I am completely unsympathetic to IDIOT software publishers who install draconian DRM that actually prevents legitimate use. They can take the effort and expense of developing a title and store it where the sun doesn't shine.

Re:Bad summary

[im_thatoneguy]

So because one customer somewhere was mistreated it's OK to pirate it. Yep. Completely clear.

You know... you could buy it. And then crack it.

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

Enough people trolling or generally behaving disruptively can quickly reduce a forum's signal to noise ratio below anything useful.

The forums? I was talking about in-game. Truthfully, if the game doesn't have an ignore feature, then one really should be added. People shouldn't be getting banned for frivolous things such as saying things that offend someone.

Also, people shouldn't be getting banned even on the forums for that as long as they're not spamming nonsense. If someone included an insult into an on topic post or reacted to the situation with an insult, they shouldn't be banned. People really do need to toughen up.

Re:Bad summary

[DarthVain]

Its not that some customer somewhere, its the point that that customer could be you.

Granted I'm not likely to mouth off on some forum enough to get banned from anything, so likelihood is insignificant. However the simple fact that they were willing to do that to one of their paying customers, means that it could happen again, maybe to you.

So ya I was being a bit facetious, and as I said I have no intention of playing it anyway.

  As to your last remark, if I have to crack something, I won't be buying it period.

So is it OK to pirate it? Probably not, but it certainly makes it more reasonable. The correct response is to simply not support it period by buying it. Which is the arrogant point Bioware/EA are trying to make. You don't have to buy our product, if you don't like it, too bad, don't buy it then.

Though I think it is illegal (though small potatoes) for EA/Bioware to sell a product/service, then after accepting payment, refuse that product/service. In a MMO its a bit different as you have a subscription and a EULA. You break the terms, they can ban your account. This is a single player game, that the guy paid for, that they then refuse to give him in the first place. At the very least they can give the guy his money back.

Its like if I go to say a car dealership, and pay them 30,000$ for a new car, then turn around and insult the salesman's mother and questionable parentage, he can't just turn around and say "no car for you!"... He certainly can give the 30k$ back and then refuse to serve the rude customer (at which point the customer can go to a different dealership). Anyway it sounds like they are being petty jerks, because apparently their customer may have been one also.

Re:Bad summary

[archen]

Honestly I think that's as much a fault of the system (Windows) as the game. As soon as you want to install a program and you click through the authorization process, a program is basically free to rape and destroy your system as it sees fit. A hundred start menu entries, icons on the desktop, worthless programs bundled together, files strewn over the whole system? Too bad man, you clicked ok. Sorry if the uninstall doesn't work, we don't care.

While this has been the windows experience for as long as I can remember, I'm puzzled why people still think this is fine. Another reason to play console games imo.

Re:Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's more like the delivery guys are standing outside your house and refusing to let you take the goods - that you paid and signed for - into your house because you made a snarky comment to one of their salesmen.

Whilst I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that EA/Bioware have no intention of offering this man a refund either, even though in the delivery man situation they would be legally entitled to one.

Re:Bad summary

[tmarsh86]

EA's installers are notorious for having problems. I'm not so sure it has anything to do with the banning, unless someone here has access to information no one else does.

Re:Bad summary

[timster]

You're comparing time I'd actually have to spend myself (10 minutes running to the store, if I had a game store down the block, which I don't, but never mind) with time my computer would have to spend (2 hours downloading). Sure, I'll happily task my computer with hours of work just to save myself ten minutes (especially when those ten minutes are actually half an hour at least).

Besides, in the case of Dragon Age 2 you could get an encrypted pre-download and have the whole thing ready to go on release day, so if I were really impatient to play it the digital download would be way better.

Re:Bad summary

[ElKry]

"Prey" was also easily activated in Steam. I don't even know where my DVD/manual is anymore.

Re:Bad summary

[Elimental]

Then you get people like me, I have limited bandwidth (5 gig per month)

I love having my games in Steam but prefer to buy physical copies as buying download only tends to limit my bandwidth usage for that month.
The great thing about Steam is that I can always play games in off-line mode when I don't want to waste bandwidth which brings me to another problem that is surfacing lately, Ubisoft and Windows Life games, where you have to be online all the time to be able to play a single player game that you bought.

I always crack those games just so I don't have to be online the whole time.

I remember the time where pirating or cracking games where more painful than legally buying a game, its such a shame that pirated versions now became easier and less problematic to play that legal games. Hell even the virus/Trojans that come with some cracks do less damage than the legal DRM games.

Oh and 9 times out of 10 to get a game to work in wine/linux it helps to crack it 1st

Re:Bad summary

[Darinbob]

Steam comes with DRM bullshit most of the time. DRM is always bad, even if it's coming from a fan's favorite company.

Re:Bad summary

[ShakaUVM]

>>To you, anyway. Sounds to me more like they didn't think it through.

Did you read the community rep's post on the forum?

Getting a post reported on the forum is grounds for having your EA account temporarily or permanently disabled. Which is what you need to activate a game or DLC.

He could have created a new account, but would have lost all of the DLC he'd built up in his normal account. Waiting 72 hours for the ban to end was a better choice.

Regardless of the fact that BiowEA's actions violate consumer protection laws in most countries.

Re:Bad summary

[LateArthurDent]

I own over 200 games on Steam. I can play any one of them anytime. I have purchased well over 1000 games over the course of my life - except I can't find majority of them, the rest have scratched up disks, lost CDkeys, lost manuals and hard to find patches.

I'll grant you that having an automatic remote backup over everything you have is nice, but that's not an advantage over physical media. That's an advantage to having backups. Of course, thanks to all the pirates who use the term "backup" to mean "pirate" that word is made fun of by people who use it seriously, but your example is an example of why people like me have always done real, actual, backups. Where is every game I've ever bought? Attic. That said, their images are easily accessible on my network drive, along with a folder for each game that contains the patches, executables, and nocd patches for games with DRM. I don't pirate shit, but I do make legitimate backups, and that's why.

Now you're going to say, "that's a lot of work. I didn't have to do anything, and I have my remote backup." You're right. Of course, when steam starts supporting some of your games and you can no longer download them, I'll point out that I still have access to my stuff, because I control the backup. Before you say, "they'll never do that," I'll say that I used to believe you. I have a ps3, and I bought a bunch of games from psn, which had similar terms as to the ones you describe. Then the latest terms of service mentioned that they're allowed to remove games from the network at any time, and if you don't have them in your ps3 for any reason, tough. You don't get your money back. Now, Valve isn't Sony, but what guarantee do you have that they won't update the terms of service to something that screws you in the future? With the physical media and my own personal backup, I'm 100% guaranteed to always have a working copy.

Re:Bad summary

[Stregano]

If the game is good enough, I will buy it. No need for DRM in it (which is why I buy alot of games from gog)

Re:Bad summary

[leonardluen]

what is illegal about those kinds of conditions? my landlord can kick me out if i violate my lease...sounds similar to revoking the license to use the software...

Re:Bad summary

[Sir_Sri]

why is irrelevant.

If EA, Activision, THQ, MS, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Zenimax and Take Two are all, in one way or another on board, your options for non-online 'enabled' games shrink pretty fast.

Made even worse if this is enabled via a distribution channel (the console stores, Steam, Games for Windows Live, whatever the hell it is I log into for Dragon age and Mass effect), which then eliminates the barrier to adopting this DRM system from anyone who has any money.

Sure, there's always indie games. I'm working with(not for) a company right now that will make a PC game for about 2 million, 6 employees, 2 years, but of course they have a publisher (not one mentioned above). 2 Million isn't a huge amount, but most really good games come in 3-5x that, just for development, if you want to hear about it ever, or find it in stores or on the digital distribution stuff you're looking closer to 10 million, now you're talking money you can't just go to the bank and ask for. And that kind of money comes from one of the big publishers, who will of course, demand it be online 'enabled'.

The more people go on about 'I'll just pirate it rather than deal with broken DRM" the more the DRM is going to shift to be less DRM and more buying online "services" which give you access to the content you actually want.

Re:Bad summary

[Goat of Death]

Thank you very much for the heads up. I haven't installed an older game on my relatively new win 7 x64 system. I will be keeping your post in mind if I consider it, and will be sure to check out online what drm harassment the game uses.

Re:Bad summary

[Goat of Death]

Wow, no one reads anything here anymore do they. How hard is it to click and follow a link? As someone stated below, the person was not trolling, they made a flippant comment, that I believe the majority of people wouldn't even find that offensive.

I addition he did buy the physical media, not virtual goods, as other non-article readers comment below. The problem is the game requires internet activation and association with an EA account. An EA account that they wrongfully banned.

Please, for the love of all things holy, RTFA before talking out your ass.

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

If EA, Activision, THQ, MS, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Zenimax and Take Two are all, in one way or another on board, your options for non-online 'enabled' games shrink pretty fast.

I don't care for most of the games those companies produce.

but most really good games come in 3-5x that, just for development

Throwing money at a game won't make it good (not that you said it would). Besides, 'good' is subjective. I really don't like many newer games.

Honestly, there's no need to beg big publishers for loads of money to make a game. It's simply not required.

The more people go on about 'I'll just pirate it rather than deal with broken DRM" the more the DRM is going to shift to be less DRM and more buying online "services" which give you access to the content you actually want.

And there will likely be people who will just stop buying the garbage. The amount may be small, but it will be there. Ultimately, it is completely the fault of the developers for implementing DRM or using idiotic online gaming schemes.

Re:Bad summary

[MBGMorden]

I think it odder that people equate a game ban to the type of spew that people randomly throw out these days to being some harsh punishment. There were times in days past when being an asshole would get you killed. Literally. Piss enough people off, and someone was going to kill you, and before there was a very set code of laws nothing really came of it. Even more recently you'd get your ass kicked for a lot of the stuff people say nonchalantly on the internet. The phrase "them's fighting words" once really did have some meaning.

Overall, just be happy that it's gotten to a point where for the most part you're looking at a forum ban. Words DO have consequences behind them - be happy that the consequences are now as minor as they are.

Re:Bad summary

[cayenne8]

Only words? That's what ugly people say to make themselves feel better. I bet you're the ugliest motherfucker on the planet....

You know...strangely enough AC...I really don't feel anything at all...no worse, no less after your rant.

You just proved my point...they ARE only words and don't cause any real harm.

:)

Re:Bad summary

[cheekyjohnson]

There were times in days past when being an asshole would get you killed.

And? The fact that things could be worse doesn't change the fact that the current situation needs to be fixed. That's a ridiculous way of thinking. Any situation could be worse and seem trivial compared to a much worse situation.

The phrase "them's fighting words" once really did have some meaning.

To imbeciles who would attack others for having a different opinion than themselves, at least. Initiating violence for such a trivial thing is idiotic.

Words DO have consequences behind them

I suggest that people toughen up. They should not get angry or sad because of mere words. That does them no good. In reality, you can ignore an insult.

Re:Bad summary

[jemmyw]

+1

And that reasoning can be extended. Can't afford Microsoft Office? Why do people feed they HAVE to have it? If you really needed it then you'd pay for it, otherwise you'd go with one of the many alternatives.

Apart from the fact that copyright violation isn't the same crime as theft, I don't see why this isn't exactly the same logic as seeing a really big expensive car and getting quite upset that you can only afford a shitty little car, therefore car theft is justified. People don't seem to think like that though. Is it the difference in cost (it's only $60)? Or is it that its ok to do it to game companies, but not other people?

Re:Bad summary

[thesandtiger]

I can't really speak to the "I *need* this game" argument, but I will speak to one related: "I'd *like* to play this game..."

My take on IP and copyright issues is pretty straightforward: There was a compact between people who created works and people who consumed them. The consumers of those works would agree, in exchange for the work eventually entering the public domain, to give up some of their freedom in order to protect the creators of the work and give them a chance to profit. That's fair, fine, and a good thing.

Now, however, there is essentially no transaction. Works created now will NEVER enter public domain, unless their copyright holder expressly makes it happen. We give up some of our freedom and we get... Nothing in return. Not fair, not fine, and it's a very, very bad thing.

So, for me, I have essentially decided to revert, with companies who don't provide a better license term, to behave as if the whole copyright thing is null and void. I'm not getting what they "owe" me, so I'm not giving them what I "owe" them. Basically it's simply reverting to the state of things before protections were in place because one side won't play fair - why would I make a choice to not play a game or something I didn't pay for when, in essence, the only reason not to play it would be that it isn't fair to an entity that absolutely doesn't care about treating me fairly?

With entities that offer fair terms, I will pay - I've contributed money to OSS projects that I use even though I don't have to, I've overpaid for indie games (some I never even played but I supported the model) that did a "name your price" model, and so on. But I will unashamedly pirate something "I'd *like*" to have if the people offering it put DRM on it or otherwise support the whole perpetual copyright thing that is completely a one-way thing in their favor.

Re:Bad summary

[CubicleView]

The only flaw in the backend was the one v_ware was left with after the reaming EA gave him.

Re:Bad summary

[hairyfeet]

You're welcome, I just try to warn folks as most of the new machines are X64 and I've found out the hard way after having to clean broken SecuROM and Safedisc installs.

Sadly the best protection you can give yourself besides the weekly backup (which if you'd like a free program I'd recommend Paragon Backup and Recovery Free as it has many of the normally pay features like Bootable restore CD and differential disc imaging) and making a restore point before an install is to go to GameCopyWorld and get the NoCD and use it immediately after installing the game but before launching it as I've found that will keep most Safedisc and SecuROM installs from activating and boning the machine.

Which of course just proves that once again the legit customer gets bullshit and hoop jumping, while the pirate gets a lower resource and less buggy game that "just works". But if you take my advice you'll find you can install any older game hassle free. I have games from as new as this year to as old as 1997, and all "just work" thanks to a little forethought.

I'd say that the advantages of x64 computing, not only the extra RAM but having the larger math registers which makes programs like transcoding faster, are well worth the extra work. I've been x64 since XP X64 right up to Win 7 X64, and I'd never want to go back to x86. It is just sad that it isn't the programs that need the extra work and caution, it is the shitty DRM with all the Ring 0 horseshit. I swear I've seen malware that is nicer to the system than some of those SecuROM versions. Good luck and happy 64 bit computing!

Re:Bad summary

[ildon]

Who said anything about right or wrong? I was just being accurate.

Re:Bad summary

[Entropius]

You were wrong once upon a time.

These days, you're sadly right.

Re:Bad summary

[ShakaUVM]

As that very article you linked to said, they insisted at first it was in accordance with policies.

The fact they backpedaled after the internet exploded on them, while a good thing, doesn't mean it wasn't working-as-intended at the time.

Re:Bad summary

[Blue23]

EA's installation manager is actually a *download* manager. It's merely delaying the delivery of digital goods due to a flaw in the backend stating that no deliveries can be made to that address when someone clicked an option to stop other kinds of activity from that address. If you can't see the functional difference in the situations, it's because you're being wilfully stubborn.

Except that if you read the article, it isn't a flaw, it's intentional in their EA Community terms of service. Those specifically will lock you out of content.

They were explicitly and willfully locking him out of any downloads for a reported forum post. It could have been no new content, it could have been five games he bought in a bundle. Either way, it's intentional by EA.

Re:Bad summary

[VendingMenace]

Oh man. I couldn't decide whether or not to post something similar. But then it seemed childish to defend myself on the internet. But now I HAVE to post.

My favorite part of this is that I was accused of posting the single most idiotic comment on the internet. However, the poster clearly did not read the original post correctly. And as such, his reply to my post is more idiotic than my post -- the post he claimed was the most idiotic thing on the internet.

What really makes me really happy is that since his post is more idiotic than the post he himself claimed to be the most idiotic (my original post), then by some sort of transitive property, his post is now the most idiotic thing on the internet. By his own words!

I honestly don't care about the anonymous guy or his critique of my post. It is just too deliciously recursive to have a person accidentally assign himself as the biggest idiot on the internet. Awesome!

Re:Bad summary

[tibman]

oops, missed this comment. But i had to ask.. you listen to multiple music players at the same time? Your computer playing Modest Mouse on decent speakers while you have headphones on listening to your ipod/zune/walkman and your car is playing something in the garage? Unless i misunderstood and you mean you can listen to the same music in your car as on your computer. If that's the case, then games would make a decent comparison. There are many different computers to play the same game on.

As far as "Physical CDs provide superior sounds than MP3s.." go. I will have to take your word for it because a CD sounds identical to it's rip'd counterpart on my end. Though i'm assuming the MP3 has a decent bitrate or VBR.

Re:Bad summary

[jaymz666]

No, what I meant was that MP3s have no DRM so they have no way to limit the number of devices they could play on. Simultaneously or not. My wife can listen to one song, I can listen to another. All at the same time. Or we can listen to the same song in different locations.

Yes, even 320KB MP3s have a muddiness to them at times. It's all about how you are listening.

Re:Bad summary

[Sir_Sri]

That's because there are only a handful of DRM systems, and once you've broken version 4 of the system versions 4.1-4.100 are usually trivial, and version 5 is unlikely to be much better. And once you've broken it for one game, the same works for all the others.

But as you may have noticed with DA's rather flakey login. You either have it on your account which you're logged into, or you don't get it. It's much harder to pirate all that DLC content *and* do that for every game that has it's own account system. And if they move save games there it's even worse (and harder).

Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[oic0]

Violation of rights? What if Ford banned you from your car for inflammatory remarks? This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled... Someone needs to give the gaming industry a good dose of "Act Right". Taking away our right to resell games, horribly restrictive TOS, crap tons of DRM, now remote disabling if you annoy them...

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple: don't buy their games. Games are a luxury. If you don't like how they treat you, do not give them your money. Don't buy "Sequel 12 - The Game". Take your money to another publisher/developer who does not want to rape you.

I've always been saying online-activation and online-accounts for single player games are bad, but people just dismiss it as "Oh it's fine, nothing's going to happen.". Well, tough luck, if you buy a game that requires these things, you get what you deserve.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[JStegmaier]

The game wasn't remotely disabled. Because he bought it from EA's online store, and because the download/installation requires account authentication, he couldn't download/install it because he account was temporarily disabled... If he had already installed the game before being an asshat on the forums, he would be happily playing it right now. Sounds more like a possible bug than an evil corporation trying to strip everyone of their rights to electronic entertainment if you ask me.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Candid88]

I think a more relevant analogy would be buying a Ford, you hurling abuse on the forecourt of the only Ford dealer in town and then that Ford dealer not allowing you on their property to pickup the car when it's ready.

You aren't banned from the car, rather banned from the only available means of getting hold of the car.

In both the real and analogous cases, the common sense solution would be for either a workaround or a refund. But no-one likes common sense in the land of media and blogosphere hyperbole.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Ephemeriis]

This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled...

The product was not remotely disabled. The summary is misleading on that respect.

The game had not yet been installed. Part of the installation process is a check for an active EA account (to make sure you're authorized to use the installer, and haven't just pirated it). Since his account was banned, he could not use the installer.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[swalve]

Right to resell: in theory, isn't buying online and having the installer locked to a certain account done in exchange for a cheaper price? Can't he have gone to Egghead and paid $39.95 and been good to go? It's more like renting a car from Enterprise, doing a youtube video about how Enterprise (allegedly) sucks, and having them ask for their car back.

It is the same thing with electronic versions of media. You buy a $6 e-book and then complain when your rights are restricted. Don't like it? Go pay $16.99 for the book. Or cheap plane tickets. You got the $99 flight because they wanted to fill that particular airplane, not because they love you. Want an unrestricted ticket? Pay full price. Want to save money? Accept that discounts sometimes have limitations. [This assumes it WAS a discount. If not, never mind.]

This particular case sort of sucks, but I don't disagree with the message. We all have the right to free speech, but if you act like an ass, other people might exercise their rights too.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[oic0]

Ok so hes not just banned from this game, hes banned from any and all he bought from them but doesn't yet have installed at the moment.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Joehonkie]

No, that would be a totally irrelevant analogy, because there is no physical space for him to violate, nor any risk to them that he will be able to badmouth them on their "property" simply by downloading and installing the game that they accepted his money for.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Belial6]

That is one of the reasons that I don't buy many games anymore. That being said, you also have to understand that when enough people do buy the games anyway, and it becomes an industry standard, it becomes an act of opting out of society.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[egladil]

In the real world, since you have already paid for the car this would be considered theft in some jurisdictions...

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Emhster]

Actually, Ford has little to do with your right to drive a vehicle. Ford doesn't provide a licence to drive your vehicle. The Department of Motor Vehicle does. If you're caught doing stupid stuff several times, you may lose your licence to drive the vehicle you purchased. You still own a Ford though. Note that in this case, his EA account was banned for 72 hours, forbidding him to install games using the EA client. I don't think it's fair, but I couldn't find any content that got him banned so I can't say for sure his punishment was fair or not.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Ephemeriis]

Ok so hes not just banned from this game, hes banned from any and all he bought from them but doesn't yet have installed at the moment.

He's banned from the forums.

Unfortunately, EA uses that forum account to verify ownership of purchases from their on-line store.

Presumably (although I could be wrong here) he'd be OK if he'd bought a physical disc or purchased the game through Steam or some other way.

I don't think this is a good situation. I think that your ability to use the games you purchased should be independent of your ability to post on the forums.

But the summary implies that your ability to play any and all EA titles is tied to your EA forum login. And this is not accurate.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Candid88]

Breach of contract maybe (or probably), but not theft.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Candid88]

RTFA. They won't let him download the game because their download system and forum are linked, access to the game means access to the forum, hence the analogy.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[causality]

This is a product he paid for being remotely disabled...

The product was not remotely disabled. The summary is misleading on that respect.

The game had not yet been installed. Part of the installation process is a check for an active EA account (to make sure you're authorized to use the installer, and haven't just pirated it). Since his account was banned, he could not use the installer.

And for some reason you think this distinction is important.

Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.

You can quibble about whether this is the most efficient way to remotely disable a game. Hell, a perfect remote-disable switch would work whether or not the game has been installed. So this is not a perfect remote-disable switch. It could be made to be even more effective. Yet in this case it was effective enough, and we know for a fact that it is intentional and working as designed.

Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess? Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought? Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?

Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[canajin56]

That's not just part of the installation process, it's part of the launch process. If you have no internet access, you can't play Mass Effect 2, for example. I'm assuming DA2 is the same way (but after the brutal ass rape DRM in ME2, why would I ever even think of buying another Bioware shitpile ever again?)

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Ephemeriis]

And for some reason you think this distinction is important.

It is an important distinction.

Presumably (though I could be wrong) he would not be having this problem if he'd purchased through a different on-line retailer like Steam, or if he'd bought a physical disc.

The summary implies that he was blocked from playing a game, not that he was blocked from accessing an on-line retailer.

Did you know that a BioWare rep confirmed this as intended behavior, that the system is working as designed? That means they know that disabling the account will lock paying customers out of not-yet-installed single-player games. That makes it intentional. That makes it a way to remotely disable those games.

It means that they know banning a forum account will return a blanket "not authorized" for any ownership checks. And, yes, that will result in somebody being unable to install a game that they should actually be authorized to.

That does not mean that they intentionally designed the system such that a forum ban will keep you from playing your games.

They may have actually done just that. Or they may have simply gotten lazy.

Did you know -- you could design a forum that lets you ban users from the forum without disabling any other accounts they possess?

Of course. But that isn't what EA did. So what's your point?

Did you know -- that an honest company would refund his money now that he cannot play a game he has bought?

Meh.

Honesty doesn't have much to do with anything when you're a company the size of EA. Most of the crappy things you do just never get noticed. Generate enough bad publicity, and they'll wind up giving this guy a refund and letting him keep his game.

But, let's be honest here... It's a temporary ban. It isn't like they took away his game forever. So, unless he decided he never wants to play it, he'll eventually get his money's worth.

Did you know -- the bad publicity and general assholeness EA is displaying here will cost them a lot more than the purchase price of this game, in the form of lost reputation and potential customers who go elsewhere?

Unlikely.

There's been plenty of bad sentiment about EA for quite some time. They're still making craptons of money.

Folks will forget about this in a few weeks/months.

Hell, this guy's ban will expire and he'll install DA2 and have a great time playing it. He'll probably forget all about this in a few months and wind up buying something else from EA before the year is up.

Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo. They're angels who can do no wrong, aren't they? Tell us why you want more companies to be able to rip people off like this. Tell us why that's a good thing. Tell us how this incident is going to discourage a would-be pirate and tell us how that's good for the game industry.

Where did I suggest that this was a good thing? I simply pointed out that the summary was inaccurate.

To be completely honest, I think this is a crappy situation. I don't think it's fair for a company to disable access to your purchases because of something you said on their forums. And I think the distinction that folks are making - that this is a single player game - is just silly. Unless it's an MMOG of some sort, leave it up to the players to decide if they want to play with a specific person. If he's enough of an asshat in-game he'll get banned/booted from the server anyway.

I'm not a big fan of EA in general. I've enjoyed some specific titles that they've published... But I've got absolutely no loyalty to EA at all.

I've thoroughly enjoyed just about everything that Bioware has released, so I might be able to muster up some loyalty towards them... But they aren't the ones who built this online

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Ephemeriis]

That's not just part of the installation process, it's part of the launch process. If you have no internet access, you can't play Mass Effect 2, for example. I'm assuming DA2 is the same way (but after the brutal ass rape DRM in ME2, why would I ever even think of buying another Bioware shitpile ever again?)

I bought Mass Effect 2 through Steam. I played it without Internet access (damn you Charter!) on numerous occasions.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Vexor]

Maybe EA should take a play from stardock's playbook.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[oic0]

So you're saying when you purchase something digitally, you are renting it for an indeterminate period to be determined by their good graces? Also, digital editions are typically no cheaper. On books for instance, when they just come out in hard back, the digital edition has a hard book price. Yep, I just bought a 14 dollar ebook the other day that I had been waiting for.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[DavidTC]

It's more like he finished signing the paperwork to buy his car, and then started dancing on chairs and running around insulting people and moving desks around. And he got banned and removed from the lot before he could get to his new car, still on their lot, to drive away.

In the real world, he'd have to file paperwork with the police to schedule a time to be escorted to recover his car from Ford's lot, or file paperwork designating someone else to take possession of his car, and Ford would have to agree to it, or if not a judge would have to step in, blah blah blah...which I assure you would take much much much longer than a day or two.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Salus Victus]

The Internet is a self-policing agency, so I like your analogy, but I feel like it needs to go a bit further:

Let's say you go to Eaverton and buy a car at the Ford dealership, then you walk across the street into the bar and start waving a gun around. The Eaverton sheriff has rules about that sort of thing, so he sends you packing. Now, when the car is ready, you can't come pick it up because the sheriff won't let you into town. The sheriff's salary is paid in part by taxes on the dealership's sales, but he didn't run you out of town so the dealership could keep your money. He did it because you broke the law.

There's one other detail this analogy needs: the sheriff said you can come back next month, and you'll be able to pick up the car then (as long as you don't go waving weapons around in the bar like an idiot before you finish the transaction).

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[DeadboltX]

We don't even have to turn this into a car analogy. The equivalent would be going into a Game Stop, paying for a game, bad-mouthing Game Stop's ripoff policies on used games, then having the cashier refuse to give you the game even though he is holding it in his hands in front of your face.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[Ltap]

I would think that the group to blame would not be Bioware. Rather, I direct your attention to a certain vowel-dominated acronym...

I think that a lot of gamers (often the very young and/or very stupid) don't properly understand the relationship between the developer and the publisher. It is supposedly analogous to authors and publishers, but it's a bit more like screenwriters and producers. Publishers have a great deal (perhaps too much) creative control over the way games are designed. This is mostly done by the developers because they have no choice; unless they want to go the indie route and rely on word-of-mouth and perhaps a few Youtube videos, they won't be successful because they rely on the publisher's gigantic marketing and hype machine, along with connections and arm-twisting (how do you think demos get packaged with consoles or with other games, for instance?) One of the things publishers almost always dictate is DRM. For instance, many EA games from the mid-00s used the same sort of key generation, the same disk checker, etc. This isn't really a choice for developers, especially after the first game in a series is made. For an example, look at the fighting between Activision and Infinity Ward when Infinity Ward wanted more control over Call of Duty and resented Activision selling the name out to any studio they felt like. This was after they tried to distance themselves from the Call of Duty name entirely, having initially planned to release the Modern Warfare games simply as "Modern Warfare".

In summary, DRM is almost always the publisher's fault. This is why I have resolved myself to not purchase (that is, not pay for) any game produced by most of the major publishers such as Activision or EA. I can't stand the thought of providing such groups with funds to continue their operations, even if I like developers such as Bioware.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[DavidTC]

No it wouldn't.

If you have property on someone else's property, they do not have to just let you walk up and take it. Even if they agree it's your property, they are not required to let you just walk up and take it.

If you want to recover the property, you must contact the police, and they will maybe recover it for you, or you can schedule a time to recover it, or have a police escort, or all sorts of things.

You cannot just walk up and take it if you've been barred from that location, even if it's yours. You must deal with the police and, if they can't work something out, the courts.(1)

I assure people, setting this up would take much longer than a 24 or even 72 hour ban.

1) Of course, if it does make it to the courts, the judge will probably fine the person who refused to cooperate utterly in giving your property back. But it doesn't ever get that far.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[AK Marc]

this would be considered theft in some jurisdictions...

Name one. You have property that belongs to someone else. You buy it. After you buy it, you take actions you know will get you banned from their store (where the item you bought currently sits). When you get there, the security people know you aren't allowed and turn you away.

There is no place I know of where that is "theft." It may actually be a crime, or perhaps a non-criminal illegal act. But theft, in all jurisdictions I know of, requires the removal of property from someone with the intent of permanently denying them use of it. And in this case, they did not remove the item from him, nor is there any evidence that they intend to deny him access permanently, only that the "security" at the front door wasn't authorized to offer a refund as they should have, or gone into the store themselves to recover and deliver the item without the banned person getting on the property. This is apparently the first public incidence of this happening, so it is likely not the intended outcome, making "theft" a silly claim when there's no evidence they purposefully separated him from his item, let alone intended to do so indefinitely.

But, by all means, please prove me wrong. Quote a single jurisdiction in which this would be considered theft. Otherwise, I'll just assume you are an armchair lawyer, making up things to make your incorrect opinion sound more authoritative.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[AK Marc]

More like he bought it online, paid online, then when he went into the store, he got kicked out for being a prick before he even lets them know he's there to pick up something. Then he goes home and blogs about how Game Stop stole his game from.

Re:Someone needs to lay down the legal smack down

[AK Marc]

And for some reason you think this distinction is important.

That distinction is the difference between a correct and incorrect statement. So yes, it is important. And it's very important for all the people yelling "theft" out there and such.

Please, make some more excuses. I want to see just how brainwashed someone can be when they see a corporate logo.

Wow, you are just stupid. Someone wanting correct complaints is somehow supporting the corporation about which lies are being stated? I don't support the corporation. They made a bad forum system. They are enforcing a rule that is almost certainly illegal. But what they aren't doing is "remotely disabling" a game. The game was *never* played before. It wasn't used then disabled. It was blocked from installation because there was no valid account tied to it. That's completely different. It may be as wrong. It may be more wrong. But it's not the same. That you are unable to understand that indicated that you are the one that's broken, not the person you are responding to.

entitled to a refund?

[v1]

If he paid for it, then they're telling him he can't USE it, he should be entitled to demand a refund. That simple. He didn't pay for the privilege of getting banned. Does anyone know if he sought a refund?

Re:entitled to a refund?

[FileNotFound]

He paid to license the game and was bound by the terms of the agreement which I fear had a line about EA being able to take his license if he was being a giant dong in their community.

You are not eligible for a refund when you breach the terms of the agreement.

I am not saying that EA was right, just that they don't owe him anything.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[TheGratefulNet]

he IS entitled to a refund.

no good were exchanged yet money was taken.

which part of that do you not understand?

its just that simple. it really is.

I have no problem with the company banning him, but I do have a problem with not returning his purchase price when they refuse to offer what he gave money for. or, do you think its more like a 'donation' and they 'opt' to give you your goods or not at their discretion?

don't be an ass. give him his money back and then just part company.

if the game co does not return his money, they are looking at BEING SUED themselves, for theft. yes, not kidding.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[FileNotFound]

He is not entitled to a refund.

Events:
1. User buys license entitling him to use software.

2. User breaches agreement and loses license to use the software.

The fact that he did not use the software in the time period between him purchasing the license and losing it due to the breach of it's terms is irrelevant. They cannot be sued for anything and owe him nothing. They are acting within their rights.

Once again, I am not saying that what they are doing is not morally wrong, but it is legal.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[xMrFishx]

EULAs are not legal and binding. Agreements can contain all sorts of drivel so clicking that agree button does not entitle EA to your soul, even if they write it in the document. Sorry.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[FileNotFound]

Well the court would have to settle that wouldn't they?

He has every right to take EA to small claims court over the $60 game. I wish him the best.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[TheGratefulNet]

sorry, you are wrong.

in ANY country in modern civ, if you pay for a product and the vendor refuses to deliver, that's breach of contract.

plain and simple.

I would also think that invoking the 'fitness for purpose' law would also be effective. ie, if you bought widget X and it was advertised to do Y but it would not at all do Y, that was a misrep. on fitness of purpose and you are owed a refund.

this guy needs to sue the company. I'd donate to it, in fact. I hate companies that get away with 'we can because we are big and have obnoxious lawyers!'.

put up a paypal site and I'll give you a donation if you promise to sue the company for breach of contract.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe that by paying for software that you are agreeing to the terms in service. You would first have to DOWNLOAD the software and be presented with the Terms of Service on install. As he was NOT able to download and install, he then never actually agreed to the Terms of Service and therefore should be given a refund.

So what you are saying is that theft is legal?

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Seumas]

Goods WERE exchanged.

The player paid EA money.

EA gave the player a license.

That license included a clause (either directly in it or extended to and by use of their website) that said they had the right to in one or more ways restrict access to that game.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[dzfoo]

You do not seem to understand. The breach of that "contract" was performed by the user: the contract was not a purchase in which goods must be exchanged, but a license allowing the user to install the software so long as he or she adheres to the terms. Since the user violated the terms, he is in breach of contract, his license is revoked, and therefore he has no claim.

As the parent poster said, it does not make it right or justifiable, just legal.

            -dZ.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[FileNotFound]

You really don't get it do you?

The product is the license. He was GIVEN the license. He HAD it and was entitled to use it UNTIL the breached the terms of the license and lost the license.

He is owed nothing.

He did not "buy a widget" he bought the RIGHT TO USE widget as long as he followed the agreement. He did NOT follow the agreement and LOST the right to use the widget.

Welcome to software licensing 101.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[FileNotFound]

He agreed to the terms when:
1. He created an EA account.
2. He posted on the forums.
3. He bought the game in the EA store.

During all those points he agreed to the terms EA had.

Once again, they may have been unfair, immoral - but he did agree to them.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[0123456]

He has every right to take EA to small claims court over the $60 game. I wish him the best.

And he would win, because EA don't want the 'you're only buying a license, na-na' excuse tested in court for the sake of $60.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Chewbacon]

Are some of you really that dense? I'm going on the assumption that it doesn't ask him to agree to the license until he installs it, which happens after you purchase the product. So in this case, EA sold him a game and then didn't want to extend a license to him so therefore he should get his money back. I've had to charge back a couple of times with my bank and it is pretty easy and painless. And why doesn't he just set up a new account to play? Works with PSN, Xbox Live, and many MMORPGs.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[xMrFishx]

Small claims is a great place for protecting the consumer over here. I'm very glad we have it.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Kjella]

in ANY country in modern civ, if you pay for a product and the vendor refuses to deliver, that's breach of contract.

The essential question is "Who broke the contract first?" If you pay with a check and the check bounces the vendor is not in breach of contract when he doesn't deliver, because you broke it first. In this case it seems he broke the contract on the forum first, which terminates the vendor's obligations. To take another example, if you buy one Red Hat license but install it on ten servers and they find out they can terminate your service. Doesn't matter if you paid for it, you don't even get support on the one. Why? Because you broke the contract first. That's the general rule of contract law everywhere and I don't see how this case is any exception. It's nasty to link it all to your account but I'd say fully legal.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[aaaaaaargh!]

1. User buys license entitling him to use software.

2. User breaches agreement and loses license to use the software.

Wrong. First, in the vast majority of countries a user is entitled for a refund/return of the product within a certain time period IN ANY CASE. At least this holds in all European countries I know of...don't know about the US. Secondly, the user was not given a choice to read the EULA before buying the product. In that case, if he disagrees with the EULA he is definitely entitled for a refund no matter whether he agrees with the EULA or not. Third, these kinds of EULAs, the ones that are imposed on users before buying software and do not allow for refunds, are VOID in the vast majority of countries in Europe anyway. (They are considered frivolous and don't count much in court.) Again, I don't know about the US and other countries but I suspect that customer protection is not substantially worse there.

An EULA is not a "magical contract." It (mostly) works like any other contract. You can print it out, make changes as you like, and set them back to the publisher just after having bought the product in question. If he disagrees with your changes, he will have to give you your money back.

----
By answering to this post, you agree to the following EULA of this post: Everything you own belongs to the OP.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[fast turtle]

1. Gamer bought a CD/DVD to install said software onto his computer
2. Gamer breached TOS of Forums
3. EA Shuts game off on his Computer

The only problem is, the gamer bought a physical product and depending upon his state, any EULA that EA is trying to enforce would be an unrecognized clause. For example, in California, EULA's are not recognized as a Valid Contract, thus EA is now liable for Breach of the First Sale Doctrine, Computer Hacking and Misrepresentation of Product, meaing that in California he'd have EA by the Balls and could rip them off, teaching them a lesson while getting a very nice payout for his trouble.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[geekoid]

How can he breach an agreement to software not yet installed?

And no, it is not legal, and yes they should be sued. No court is going to side with BioWare on this. Just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean it's legal or binding. If you think I just said that EUALs in and of themselves are not legal binding, go read that sentence again. If you still think that, just logoff.

DI you think if their EULA said there game couldn't be played by gay people it would be binding?

Re:entitled to a refund?

[v1]

The contract is "I give you $$, you give me license".

All contracts require benefit of both parties, that's why we occasionally see things being sold for $1, because it forms a contract.

If the contract is breached, either party can demand a return. The contract is returned, AND SO IS THE MONEY. Things are reset to what they were prior to the contract, the benefits to both parties are returned.

It's no different than when a company refunds you for something you bought, you have to return the item. You can't just refuse to return your part of the bargain. Try getting a return on an item without bringing the item back in. Naturally they're entitled to their return as much as you are. Same for licensing. But they do try to hide that or make it very difficult. Look at all the fights we see over software licenses being returned like when people buy a pc with windows and then try to return windows. They usually make it a PITA or outright refuse till the class action hits them. It can be very hard to return software, but legally it's allowable. And nowadays basically all software is licensed not sold, primarily to make more hoops for the consumer to jump through for returns, and to try to build some facade of "I still have control over this after I've sold it to you".

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Howitzer86]

So what you are saying is that theft is legal?

Lots of terrible things are legal. This is of no surprise.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Anonymous Coward]

If its a corporation doing the theft, yes.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[rtrifts]

In a consumer contract of unequal bargaining power, the stronger party to the contract cannot deny to the weaker party the whole of the benefits under the contract and then rely upon a limitation or exclusion clause in the contract to justify that breach and denial of the very benefits to the other party which goes to the root of the contract.

In the old days, we called this a fundamental breach (Suisse Atlantique) . Now, we just call it a breach, followed by a refusal to apply the exclusion clause for reasons of unconscionability in a consumer contractual setting (Tercon Contractors v. B.C.; Hunter v. Syncrude).

Either way, EA's conduct as described in the article appears to me to be, beyond much doubt, plainly unlawful -- and the suggestion it is "legal" because of a provision in a EULA that they could never rely upon in court is wholly misguided.

This is an academic discussion unless and until somebody was to sue EA over a matter like this, but to excuse the conduct of a bully by suggesting it is "legal" is both morally -- and legally -- wrong.

End result: a software company cannot fundamentally breach a contract and then rely upon the terms of the EULA to get them off the hook and avoid a claim for rescission of the contract. The law doesn't work that way. Not for huge transportation companies with a global reach, not for monstrously large insurers upon which all modern commerce depends, and not for a comparatively small, "chump change", consumer products corporation like EA, either.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[WCMI92]

Just because the agreement said that doesn't make the agreement legal.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Tom]

They cannot be sued for anything and owe him nothing. They are acting within their rights.

Then those rights need to be redefined.

He paid for a game. He is entitled to a game. I don't know how much simpler it can get. I hope this goes to court and the judge finally throws out these EULA and after-purchase "agreements" as the one-sided extortion nonsense they are.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[IICV]

Events:
1. User buys license entitling him to use software.

2. User breaches agreement and loses license to use the software.

That is almost entirely the definition of an unconscionable contract - I pay you money, you are contractually obligated to provide me with the license I paid for unless you decide that I don't deserve it? No, that's completely unfair.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Since the user violated the terms, he is in breach of contract, his license is revoked, and therefore he has no claim.

You still have issues of consideration (you can't get something for nothing) and the fact that EULAs are in a legal grey area.

EULAs also don't trump consumer protection laws.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[ShakaUVM]

He agreed to the terms when:
1. He created an EA account.

You're honestly making the claim that posting on the EA forums entitles EA to sell a game that cannot be installed, and cannot give a refund?

I'd love to watch you try to argue that in court with a straight face.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[ShakaUVM]

For example, in California, EULA's are not recognized as a Valid Contract, thus EA is now liable for Breach of the First Sale Doctrine, Computer Hacking and Misrepresentation of Product, meaing that in California he'd have EA by the Balls and could rip them off, teaching them a lesson while getting a very nice payout for his trouble.

If only the DA2 EULA stated that all lawsuits in America had to be settled in California.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it says. =)

But then again, their EULA also claims that you can't sue them, and your only recourse is to uninstall the software, and delete your EA account. I presume they didn't also add "...and shoot yourself in the head" because that might make it a little too obvious how unenforceable their claims are.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[ShakaUVM]

>>And he would win, because EA don't want the 'you're only buying a license, na-na' excuse tested in court for the sake of $60.

Small claims courts don't set precedent.

I doubt random_user is going to throw money at EA to get a test case. The EFF might, though. This is perfectly in line with their stance against EULAs.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[AK Marc]

I think you are trying to be funny, stating it how you think the software people want it to be. But it isn't that far gone yet. He paid for a license. They revoked that license. They didn't return his money. That's a breach of sale.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[AK Marc]

And people forget, the terms may have been illegal. There are a number of rights you can't get rid of, and law overrides contract.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[AK Marc]

So what you are saying is that theft is legal?

What theft? Theft is defined where someone takes something you have with the intention of depriving you of it indefinitely. They didn't take anything from him. He freely gave them money. The game he felt he was entitled to after that was denied to him. That's a breach of contract, a fraud, or such, but never a theft.

What I don't get is when everyone on this forum gets all pissy when someone uses "hacker" wrong or such, but is happy to use legal terms over and over incorrectly, even when (or especially when) they are using them incorrectly.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[thegarbz]

Unfortunately in nearly every country a breach of contract must be met by some type of performance of both parties. If one party performs the full contract and the other does not, a breach doesn't magically put them on equal grounds.

E.g. You and I sign a contract that I will build you a mansion for $1million. The fineprint of the mansion voids the contract if you sneeze. You pay me $1million and then sneeze. You have performed I have not. If you take me to court over the fact that I now have your money and you have nothing the legal system will drop us back to an equal level, and likely reward you with most if not all of the money back unless I can prove that I performed even a part of the contract before it became void. You have 0% of the work done on your house then you pay 0% of your terms of the contract. Say part of the designs are finished then you're only entitled to part of the money back.

If this goes even to a small claims court the guy would get his money back.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Your.Master]

I expect registering on the EA forums requires you to tick the "I have read and understood these terms" box, so I can definitely see that argued with a straight face.

The fact that basically *everybody* outright lies on that standard form would be a counterargument.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Your.Master]

I don't think theft has any such definition. I don't think "intent to deprive" enters into whether something is theft in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions, and in my experience it doesn't in common usage either except on slashdot. I don't think "intent to deprive" is an unreasonable distinction to make when you're talking about behaviours, I just don't think it's a necessary part of theft.

I believe the most common definition is basically taking something without the provider's consent, with a couple caveats:

1. If you don't know the provider, make a good-faith effort to return it, but fail, it's not theft to keep it.
2. If you know the consenting provider doesn't have it legally, then it still probably is not legal and questionably ethical to take it unless you have the permission of a legal consenting provider.

Re:entitled to a refund?

[Your.Master]

Hmm, I just found that the Collins English dictionary does agree with you. Random House and Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary agrees with me. Even Collins seems to agree with me on "steal" but not with "theft".

I honestly have never understood the word to include intent to indefinitely deprive you of that thing. It doesn't even seem to match common theft. If a guy steals your radio, it's not normally a "fuck you, radio owner, now you'll never have this radio" so much as a "sweet, I can sell this for food money".

Re:entitled to a refund?

[AK Marc]

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.31.htm
"A person commits [theft] if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property." Deprive means, "to withhold property from the owner permanently..."

Screw the legal dictionaries when they are in direct contradiction of the law they supposedly claim to be defining. And no, I don't cherry pick TX law. I lived there and only there until through college, so I have read the laws many times and can remember and easily look them up.

Even Collins seems to agree with me on "steal" but not with "theft".

That's funny as the State of Texas states "Steal' means to acquire property or service by theft." So they are essentially synonyms.

I honestly have never understood the word to include intent to indefinitely deprive you of that thing. It doesn't even seem to match common theft. If a guy steals your radio, it's not normally a "fuck you, radio owner, now you'll never have this radio" so much as a "sweet, I can sell this for food money".

The intent was not for what you state. When someone takes something permanently (whether because they have some "spite" to deprive you of it specifically, or because they want to sell it for food, which requires depriving you of it permanently, whether or not that is something they consciously think about), they commit theft. When your neighbor doesn't return your rake you lent them, it isn't theft. When they take it and you know they did, even if you didn't give permission, if you think they'd return it if you asked, it isn't theft. Those are torts. You sue him for your loss. You know who took it and why, and if you are wronged, you pursue it in civil court. Interestingly enough, that also makes joyriding not a theft. Though many places put "joyriding" laws in, or change the laws around "grand theft auto" to include joyrides. Because, again, if you aren't going to be deprived of it forever, then you'll get it back and be able to trace who returned it and pursue them for your loss. Involving the criminal system should be a consideration only when other avenues can't be used.

I'm not specifically arguing for or against that line of logic, just explaining it because you seemed to not understand why taking without permission with the intent to return wasn't theft and the other associated corollaries.

While it plays out over time...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

All of this crap was really writing on the wall the moment we started down the "$FOO is licensed, not sold" road. The rest is just technical implementation details of the measures needed to keep the remote systems, and their users, in line.

Re:While it plays out over time...

[Seumas]

Can anyone actually point to a time when commercial software was not merely "licensed" to people? As far as I know, music, movies, and software have always been merely "licensed" to the purchaser, no matter what media it was on, what items they physically owned, and so on. Was there actually a time when you could own any of the aforementioned items and truly "own" it, short of duplicating for illegitimate resale/distribution purposes?

Re:While it plays out over time...

[swalve]

I can't prove it, but there was a time when a physical copy of the software was like a book. (It is kind of like that now with licensing servers, but not quite.) You could buy one copy of Wordperfect and install it on as many machines as you wanted, (work pc, laptop, home pc) as long as there was only one person using it at one time.

Where the licensing, "you can't resell this" thing comes into play are usually situations where the software (or video or whatever) was sold with some restriction. You can't transfer the COA license on the side of your computer to another one because MS sold it to Dell cheaper, with the knowledge that such a license is less "liquid" (in the economic sense). Rather than having a copy of Windows that you can install on every successive machine you purchase over time, the OEM license is cheaper because it is tied to the physical box. You might replace the computer every three years, but only change OS every 6.

Or with that autocad story a few months ago. The whole point was that the instance of the software being sold was an upgrade, not a full version. And the dude reselling it didn't have title to the original instance that was being upgraded. But he was selling it as if he did.

In other words, you can't sell what you don't own. The value of the thing can increase or decrease (a full-fledged Win 3.11 license probably isn't going to sell for the $199 I paid for it.), but the "weight" of it cannot. Imagine, if you will, a scenario. A video rental store could sell a lifetime subscription. It's $300 for one that is fully transferable. If I get sick of it, I can sell or give it away. It is tied to the number on the card, whoever has the card has the subscription. They also sell a $79 lifetime subscription, that isn't. It is tied to me, and only me. It is somehow tied to me proving it is ME trying to rent the video. If I don't want the subscription any more, tough titties. So, what I do is put it up on ebay for $150 as a "lifetime subscription". Someone buys it and I include a fake ID so the buyer can pretend to me. I've sold more than I owned.

This is especially complicated with media like software or music or video or books. Nobody "owns" the content except the one person who owns it, deriving from the IP ownership rights of the creator. Buying a book or DVD is buying physical ownership of a pile of paper or a hunk of plastic. What you also have is a license to use that media for the lifetime of that piece of paper or hunk of plastic. (With some rare exceptions, and those are usually spelled out. "This thing is owned by MegaCorp, license is granted for X purpose, any other use forfeits the license.") It was convenient for everyone, because the license was tied to the physical thing. If you can hold it in your hand, you've got license to use it. But people somehow got the idea that owning a copy of a thing meant that they owned a "piece" of the content, partially because there was nothing stopping them from making copies. Then greed sets in (even if that individual doesn't know they are being greedy), and suddenly we've got people trying to dictate to media creators how they should or shouldn't be able to make money off of their creative works. "You don't own sound, man, you should play more gigs if you want to make money!"

Re:While it plays out over time...

[Carewolf]

Can anyone actually point to a time when commercial software was not merely "licensed" to people?

Yes, the time is now. The licensing thing is sham. You own software the same way you own hardware, it is just that some companies have no scruples of giving incorrect legal advise, trying to convince you that you have only licensed the software. There is just one problem: It is lie, you own it.

Re:While it plays out over time...

[Stray7Xi]

This is exactly the confusion. The user thought he bought a product. If a product isn't delivered it can become fraud.

Then the lawyers come in and no one buys anything. They license permission to use. It's a bunch of handwaving but ultimately a deception against the consumer.

Just like now when someone else opens an account in my name, it's no longer fraud but "identity theft". The bank would be at fault for fraud, but now the individual is at fault that someone else claimed to be him and the bank didn't verify.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

Damn, all I have to do to ruin someone's day is report their posts? Harsh.

As will be parrotted and echoed a dozen times, they really should divorce the game from community connectivity when doing these punishments and not deprive you what you paid for.

Re:Wow

[Seumas]

If you are a game reviewer and you displease the publisher or developer today, you can pay the price, tomorrow. You'll be cut off from demos, early reviews, meetings, press events and other access to their people or games.

Now, we can finally extend that to the consumers. Too critical of our company, developers, DLC practices, or product? Oops, sorry! Enjoy your next year without access to your "owned" content.

Re:Wow

[FileNotFound]

Yes - if you do it on their private forums. You can post that EA sucks and that Bioware sold out all you want, just not on their site.

It's kinda like walking into someone's living room and taking a shit, you can't expect them to like it.

I've never been surprised to see "official" forums delete criticism posts. Official forums are there to help sell the game. Nothing more.

You want to bitch and moan about EA, do it here or on some game forum. Not on EA's forums with an EA owned account.

Re:Wow

[arketh]

Yeah, that is the scary part. any user can report your post and block your access to play new Bioware games... how long before someone starts reporting every user on the forums for fun? I for one am going to avoid posting on game forums if I can help it.

Re:Wow

[RobinEggs]

Yes - if you do it on their private forums. You can post that EA sucks and that Bioware sold out all you want, just not on their site.
It's kinda like walking into someone's living room and taking a shit, you can't expect them to like it.

You have *got* to be kidding me. Asking if Bioware has "sold their souls to the EA devil?" constitutes some egregious offense analogous to taking a shit in someone's living room? An offense for which it was acceptable to ban him? I don't care if it's technically a private forum, if you believe free speech applies *anywhere*, you should be appalled at such retaliation for criticizing an establishment. Just because the forum's most cynical purpose is to help sell the game doesn't mean anyone benefits from silencing opposition; it just proves that EA cares more about appearances than about the satisfaction of their customers, and speaks volumes about how likely future game titles or forum policies are to take fan criticism into account.

EA may work directly for the stock holders, but they theoretically work for us, the gamers, and telling a customer you won't tolerate criticism of your product is delusional, possessive, and self-destructive.

Re:Wow

[Seumas]

Deleting a post or banning a poster from posting is one thing. Restricting access to things they have bought from your company is another. And, frankly, what better place to complain about a product or company than to/at the product or company? You might not get any traction from voicing your opinion about Valve and Steam at their forums, but you're *definitely* not going to get any traction by voicing it at an entirely unrelated forum somewhere else.

Of course, we're also operating under the assumption that the poster did something truly vile. Truly was ruining the experience of other forum members through his behavior. We don't know if that was the case. Maybe it really was some sort of retaliation for merely making a statement against the company (and the statement he claimed to have made seems incredibly tame and uninteresting). Regardless, none are justification for restricting access to the software which has no relation to the forums.

Also, you have to remember that a lot of customers aren't thinking about EA. In the poster's mind, he was commenting about Bioware's relationship with EA on Bioware's website. Of course, they're now one and the same, but that's a distinction that might easily be lost.

Re:Wow

[hughJ]

Rather fitting that the "Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?", was only confirmed by the Bioware mod by saying the 'EA umbrella' was responsible for the ban, and Bioware's hands are tied on the matter.

Re:Wow

[spire3661]

If you believe the principal of free speech as it relates to grievances against government should apply everywhere, well then you have ALOT of critical thinking to do. Free speech everywhere is fundamentally flawed and is about as viable in the real world as anarchy or pure unchecked democracy.

EA doesnt work for you, they work to sell to your market segment, and as long as they can keep selling enough widgets to that segment, they really dont give a shit what you think. Expecting a private entity to have to PAY to store, maintain, and rebroadcast any and all lunatic ravings you may have simply because they sold you a widget is delusional, narcissistic and unproductive and above all, UNPROFITABLE!

That was stupid of him

[Drakkenmensch]

If you're going to accuse a corporation of selling their souls to another corporation and imply that they are the devil... for god's sake don't do it on their own forum!

Re:That was stupid of him

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Still doesn't warrant not being able to play the game.

Re:That was stupid of him

[morcego]

Uncommon stupidity shloud be grounds for jail time.
this guy got it easy,as far as I'm concerned.

On a different note, although that was not proved, since he could not access the forum or download the game, there is a chance he would not be able to login if he had it installed.
this kind of online authentication for a single player game is just wrong, regardless of anything else.

Re:That was stupid of him

[Dalzhim]

Why not? It is customer feedback after all. It is basically saying: I like your company, but I dislike that other company. Please do not do business with them. :(

Re:That was stupid of him

[surzirra]

EA comes across as thin skinned and thick headed.

Re:That was stupid of him

[Drakkenmensch]

EA comes across as thin skinned and thick headed.

A giant gorilla with an angry temper and thin skin is still a giant gorilla with an angry temper. Pissing it off to prove that you're within your rights can still get your spine snapped.

Re:That was stupid of him

[an unsound mind]

It's also the *other company's* forum.

That is, EA's forum.

Re:That was stupid of him

[stewbacca]

Are you sure about that? Did you read the terms? If some legal-ese says "if you make bad comments about us on our forum, your game will stop working" and you clicked "I Agree", then what's the problem again?

Re:That was stupid of him

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If that were the case, then the problem would be that they are hiding bullshit in their terms.

Re:That was stupid of him

[stewbacca]

Sorry, but you can't claim "hidden bullshit" in defense of not reading the lengthy bull shit that is in the TOS when you click "I accept". If it's right there in black and white, then you can't really claim it is hidden, now can you?

Re:That was stupid of him

[Howitzer86]

At least they arn't sueing him like McDonalds did in the "McLibel" case.

Re:That was stupid of him

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

You said "what's the problem", not "what would their legal defense be".

Not another misleading summary

[Candid88]

I would say this story takes the biscuit for most misleading summary ever, but then again there are just so many misleading summaries on Slashdot these days.

Re:Not another misleading summary

[Mashiki]

There's nothing misleading at all. The user got a 72hr ban. The user had already paid for the game. The user was not allowed to install the game, hence play the game. This is troubling, and it should worry you. That if you buy a product, and you get banned. You will be denied to your paid product.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

The people who were kicked out of the movie theater, skating rink, amusement park, or ski resort were kicked out so they could not ruin other people's enjoyment of the place.

Explain how that is a valid analogy.

Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Rogerborg]

And bad things happened to him?

Well, good. Dicks need a solid pounding from time to time, to remind them that throwing down has consequences online as well as in meatspace.

If he's got a problem with it, he can sue them, which will just prove how much of a dick he really is.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[jidar]

You should be able to express your opinion "That EA sold their souls to the devil" without losing access to the games you bought. A forum ban I could see, but this? Come on.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[LateArthurDent]

Well, good. Dicks need a solid pounding from time to time, to remind them that throwing down has consequences online as well as in meatspace.

Being a dick says a lot about your character, but other than alienating yourself from people who don't want to be around dicks, it really should carry no consequences whatsoever. Hell, I think your comment is quite dickish, but I don't think you should be banned from posting to slashdot because of it, much less banned from using all the other Geeknet sites, like sourceforge. However, such a drastic move would be analogous to what happened to this particular guy.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[LordLimecat]

It DOES take a little nerve to insult EA, and then request EA to give you a game to download, please. Id hate for this to be policy, but perhaps the kid will learn a valuable lesson here.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[dzfoo]

You are able to express your opinion; just perhaps not on your subject's home. And even that you are able to do, it's just not necessarily a good idea.

If I go to my neighbor's house and insult them in front of all their peers, should I be surprised when they kick me out and never invite me to dinner again? Nothing prevents me from doing it (except perhaps common decency and decorum, but this is Slashdot), but then I must deal with the consequence of my actions.

I am also free to insult my neighbor's out in the streets or in the privacy of my own home, or at the super market, and avoid dealing with their scorn directly.

          -dZ.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[dzfoo]

>> Being a dick says a lot about your character, but other than alienating yourself from people who don't want to be around dicks, it really should carry no consequences whatsoever. (emphasis mine)

Oh gawd, not again. In Spanish we have a saying that, roughly translated, means "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

The intended meaning is that, it doesn't matter how much you wish for something to be true, or how much you think it should be so, the real world has a tendency of existing without fulfilling your expectations.

I'm sure some people think that performing any action should also come with no consequences whatsoever, or that everything should be free for anybody to take. However, that's not how the real world works, at least not the civilized world.

        -dZ.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[trollertron3000]

Wheaton's law? You mean Karma? I'm fairly sure that idea is as old as written language.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[LateArthurDent]

>> Being a dick says a lot about your character, but other than alienating yourself from people who don't want to be around dicks, it really should carry no consequences whatsoever. (emphasis mine)

Oh gawd, not again. In Spanish we have a saying that, roughly translated, means "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

The intended meaning is that, it doesn't matter how much you wish for something to be true, or how much you think it should be so, the real world has a tendency of existing without fulfilling your expectations.

I'm sure some people think that performing any action should also come with no consequences whatsoever, or that everything should be free for anybody to take. However, that's not how the real world works, at least not the civilized world.

        -dZ.

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here. That there's a difference between something that "should happen" and "does happen"? I know that, and I chose the word "should" for a reason. That the real world doesn't behave like it "should"? I know that too, but the proper response to it isn't to ignore unfair events, it's to try to change the world. You're never going to reach perfection, but aiming for it is the only way to get closer.

Maybe your point is that people believe unreasonable things, and that there should be more dire consequences to being a dick in a forum? I'm willing to entertain that, but you you haven't offered any arguments to support that particular position. As for harsh consequences in a "civilized world" the real question you need to answer is, "should the consequences for being a dick in a forum involve blocking access to something you have paid money for?" Because I don't think it works that way in the civilized world.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[RobinEggs]

I'm sure some people think that performing any action should also come with no consequences whatsoever...However, that's not how the real world works, at least not the civilized world.

Actually, in this case, that is exactly how the real, civilized world works. He didn't take an "action", he made a statement, and those two are very different things in civilized countries. Very few things are forbidden to say in a truly civilized society, and criticizing the establishment is never forbidden in a civilized society, whether the means of communication is operated by the establishment of said society or not.
I understand that actions have consequences, but in many important ways speech is not action.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Seumas]

Boy, all those iPhone owners who had a bad experience under AT&T and voiced their concerns and complains better watch out. They might also learn the valuable lesson that you should keep your mouth shut and never be critical of anything, lest someone terminate your access to a service or use of an owned product.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[derrickh]

But it's not illegal to be a dick. You can be an asshole in Best Buy all day long to the point of being kicked out, but that doesnt mean Sony is going to come into your house and remove the TV you bought.

Dont forget that the laws in the US aren't just for people you like. They protect people you don't like, too. And thats good, because there are people out there who don't like -you-.

D

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[whm]

Did you read the link? It would be a stretch to say he was being a dick. According to the link he was banned for writing "Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?"

I'd say that the response was very heavy handed.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Patersmith]

I think you're trolling. But in case you're not, a car analogy.

If you buy a car from someone and, after the transaction is finished, you turn and say to him, "by the way, I think you're the biggest asshole I've ever met," he doesn't then get to keep your money _and_ take his car back. Not even temporarily as unilaterally imposed penance for the buyer being rude in the sole opinion of the seller.

In fact, I'd be tempted to file a complaint with the credit card company and attempt a chargeback.

This sort of nonsense is exactly why I've cut way back on my games purchases and avoid EA like the plague. They are pure unadulterated evil and have, indeed, sold their corporate soul to the dark one.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[bluechipps]

If you buy a car from someone and, after the transaction is finished, you turn and say to him, "by the way, I think you're the biggest asshole I've ever met," he doesn't then get to keep your money _and_ take his car back.

Unless you signed an agreement that says he can, right?

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Patersmith]

Terms like that are generally considered unfair and unenforceable, and could render the entire contract null and void. You could sign a contract that gave a person the right under certain conditions to take your children but that wouldn't be enforceable either.

Contracts are not laws.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[The Great Pretender]

I'm torn on this one as I am for one being able to do what one wants with a product if no one else is affected, but I'm also really at my limit with online prickishness. So part of me says that this is clearly overreaching on BioWares part, but the larger part on me says good, perhaps he'll learn some manners and it's sad that BioWare has to be the parent, whether he's 14 or 40, and teach him about being civil in society. I'm trying to think about it with a slashdot car analogy; someone cut's me off I'm the first to want the car taken away from them, then they couldn't drive their car on a private track. Who's fault is that? - Haven't quite rationalized the punishment yet though.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Dicks need a solid pounding from time to time? There was really no other way to phrase that?

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[Zorque]

"Dicks need a solid pounding from time to time"

I'm going to try as hard as I can not to come up with a juvenile response.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[ArsonSmith]

My father just use to say, "Why don't you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which gets full first."

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[ArsonSmith]

If you don't wish to associate with dicks, you avoid them right?

Well, EA decided they didn't want to associate with this dick anymore.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[LateArthurDent]

If you don't wish to associate with dicks, you avoid them right?

Well, EA decided they didn't want to associate with this dick anymore.

That's fine and dandy, but that's not all they did. If I sell a product to someone, and then decide that that someone is a dick, I can't demand that he can no longer use the product I sold him. It's even more wrong to do that without giving that person a refund.

This isn't about banishing him from the forum and the store. It's their forum and their store, it's hard to argue against that. The problem is that the consequences of banning him from the forum and the store was the inability to use a product he gave EA money for.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[ArsonSmith]

Except it was a product, it was a license. A revokable license. I'm pretty sure this is an exact example of why the GPL and copyleft is so important.

Re:Violated Wheaton's Law, chose to be a dick

[LateArthurDent]

Except it was a product, it was a license. A revokable license. I'm pretty sure this is an exact example of why the GPL and copyleft is so important.

At the very least it's an example of the evils of DRM. This is why legitimate customers should be wary of software that needs to phone home to work. It places you at the mercy of the company in question. Meanwhile the pirates don't have to deal with these problems.

Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the inflammatory statement.

It was judged to be a prejudiced statement that maligned malevolent superbeings by unfairly associating them with EA.

I say that kind of statement should be banned and that Beelzebub is owed an apology.
   

Re:Incredulous.

[Seumas]

While people could theoretically boycott (not that it would accomplish anything), EA is enormous. If they don't already own your favorite developer today, they will soon. And if they don't, one of the other two major evil corporate game developers and publishers will.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[unity100]

am i seeing that you are not able to perceive what 'SINGLE PLAYER' means, or, is it an illusion ?

Re:They need to refund his money.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

What that intended for the parent poster?

Re:Incredulous.

[Eraesr]

Because they are the publishers of some absolutely fantastic games.
You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore, because almost all of them include some restriction or price tag we're not happy with.
The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience, or accepting the restrictions and enjoy the game after all. Considering that option 1 makes virtually no difference to EA, the choice is often easily made for option 2. But IMO, even having made that choice, it's still valid to rant about the restrictions on the entertainment. You may have bought the game, but that doesn't mean you fully agree with the restrictions it comes with.

Well...

[gandhi_2]

..In a world where it is ok for a restaurant to refuse to serve any TSA agents and your employer can fire you for burning a koran on your own time, why *can't* a game company revoke service from a troll?

I think all three are really shitty, but chances are most people only disagree with 1 or 2 of the above and those are the people who make it all possible.

Re:Well...

[TheGratefulNet]

which restaurant is that? I'd like to patronize them!

Re:Well...

[Sprouticus]

There is a huge difference between all 3 (assuming your post is accurate, citation would be nice).

1) Refusing service has always been an option. The only things we have said you cant refuse service for is age, race, and disability.
2) This is a disgusting practice which is legal in some states. I agree it is absurd
3) The difference here is he PAID for the product in question. This is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME, not a service.

Re:Well...

[Riceballsan]

Refusal of service is one thing, however it is generally required to refuse service, to do it before collecting the money. I mean if this were a physical store, someone walks in and asks to buy a game after ticking off the manager, the manager can send him out of the store immidiately that is perfectly find, or the resteraunt can kick the TSA agents out of the resteraunt that is perfectly legal. However in this case it's like the resteraunt seated the TSA, took their order, took their money and then kicked them out of the resteraunt without delivering anything.

Re:Well...

[BlueBat]

Here are a couple of articles I googled and found. http://upgrd.com/matthew/seattle-restaurant-bans-tsa-agents.html and http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/23/restaurant-bans-tsa-agents/

Re:Well...

[TheGratefulNet]

thank you!

short quote:

Although I do not hold TSA agents in high regard (because they have chosen to aid and abet in eroding civil liberties in the United States), I do not dislike any TSA agents personally. More so than anything, I pity that they must come to work and play a game of charades each day. But I associate the TSA with corruption, incompetence, and un-Americanism. Looking at it through that perspective, I cannot blame the restaurant owner for choosing the course of action he has embarked upon.

right on!

this is a sign of the american people (some of them, anyway) exercising their right to vote with their wallets. or better, turn AWAY wallets if they are from 'bad people'.

and yes, when you sell your own country out, you are a bad person. TSA people are anti-american when they go to work each day and stomp on our civil liberties.

Re:Well...

[LordLimecat]

I see no reason why being able to refuse to serve customers is a bad thing.

Re:Well...

[causality]

Refusing service has always been an option.

Refusing service is fine. Taking my money and then refusing service is not.

And that's really what this is all about.

Re:Well...

[vcgodinich]

is downloading the game from them whenever you want (which is what he was banned from) a service? because. . . it -seems- like one.

Re:Well...

[G00F]

I too would like to visit any restaurant that refused to serve TSA agents. Unfortunately it seams only a single cafe is doing this.

http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html

Re:Well...

[Patersmith]

The first one never happened and the second is suing for reinstatement based on violation for his civil rights. He'll win, too.

But while while we're playing "bad argument by analogy" let me have a go and maybe give you a better one. Even a fictional restaurant that may refuse to serve TSA agents can't take a person's money and *then* throw him out without delivering the product that was fairly paid.

That kind of underhanded tactic deserves harsh punishment. EA needs to be called to the carpet for this one.

Re:Well...

[Roogna]

The difference is, that EA accepted his money apparently.

You can refuse to do business with a potential customer, but you can't take their money, then refuse to do business with them. By accepting their money you've already then agreed to do at least that particular exchange.

Re:Well...

[cbhacking]

The first is generally publicly posted along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and doesn't mean that they're allowed to take your money and then not provide the service, which is what happened here. If you get kicked out of a place they aren't going to charge you.

Do you have any references for the legality of the second? Doing it on your own time is neither criminal nor legal excuse for termination under any legal jurisdiction I'm aware of in the United States, although I hardly pretend to know them all. That said, doing things like publicly posting the pictures around the workplace and refusing to remove them (to fabricate an example) would almost certainly constitute harassment on religious ground, and that *is* grounds for termination, at least in Washington state. Clearly some more details are required.

Re:Well...

[AK Marc]

There's nothing wrong with refusing to serve customers. What you can't do is take their order, have them pay in advance, then throw them out without delivering the order or returning their money.

Re:Well...

[thegarbz]

You can. But you enter into a contact when you purchase something. That contract can't simply be dropped in place. In this case The TSA agents have already paid for their food before they were refused service.

EA doesn't need to let him play. They don't need to unban him. But if they don't then they must return the money.

Re:Well...

[Blue23]

..In a world where it is ok for a restaurant to refuse to serve any TSA agents and your employer can fire you for burning a koran on your own time, why *can't* a game company revoke service from a troll?

I think all three are really shitty, but chances are most people only disagree with 1 or 2 of the above and those are the people who make it all possible.

If you've taken my money to provide me a product, and then don't deliver the product, you're guilty of theft, fraud, or something. If you aren't going to delever the product because you don't want to do business with me, give me my money back.

Anyway, I don't want to live in a world where it's okay for a restaurant to discriminate against who it serves for where they work, or for employers who can do anything for what you do when not on the clock. Nor for companies that "sell" me something but still try to control it, including saying that I can't play it.

charge back time

[Joe The Dragon]

charge back time

Thanks for posting

[Gorath99]

Thanks for posting this story. This issue doesn't affect me, as I don't use EA forums, but it is still something that I find completely unacceptable. I've bought (yes, with money) every RPG Bioware ever released for the PC (and I think I also have a copy of Shattered Steel), but combined with the emphasis on DLC (which requires logging in) in recent titles, this means I will not be buying (or pirating) DA2.

(Apologies for all the parentheses. I'm in the middle of On Lisp.)

Re:Thanks for posting

[nschubach]

Your indentation is all wrong though! ;)

(Actually, I never liked the commonly accepted Lisp indentation. I like closing in the same column on a new line as the open, not at the end of indented code.
      (with the exception of single line/short commands)
)

Re:They need to refund his money.

[Belial6]

The theater, skating rink, amusement park or ski resort does not get to break the stuff that you bought at the venue before getting kicked out. If you bought popcorn at the theater, you could take it with you when you left.

Oops!

[Greyfox]

Turns out there are consequences to your speech. More so when you're using something you don't own. Arguably you don't really own anything. If the right person decides they want your stuff, they'll just take it. Technology is just increasing the pool of people who can.

Re:EA

[Seumas]

Because people like to play videogames and Electronic Arts either puts out your favorite game, owns your favorite developer, is planning to own your favorite developer, or has an existing minority stake in your favorite publisher or developer. I mean, seriously, it's hard to come up with a list of great games that doesn't have a huge amount of EA representation. They're not even the only "evil" corporate game publisher/developer out there, so you'd have to boycott others in a similar situation. It'd be kind of like refusing to support Microsoft, Apple, and Canonical. There are still alternatives . . . but they're pretty limited.

On the other hand...

[Tarlus]

...never thought I'd see someone suffer actual consequences for being a jerk on the internet. Maybe a sign of changing times?

Re:On the other hand...

[stewbacca]

Yes, this! If stupid behavior had real consequences, like, I dunno, disallowing you to play a game you paid for, maybe stupid behavior would be less prevalent.

this happened to me

[fuckamonkey]

I had a similar experience with Steam and Fallout: New Vegas. I posted on Steam forums complaining of the difficulties I was having with Steam not letting me play my game in single player mode. My internet connection was down at the time, and Steam locks you out of your game if you aren't connected to the internet. My post was deleted for "discussing piracy". I created a new post and removed all references to piracy, but this post was also deleted. I then discovered that I had been banned from the forums, and my license key had been invalidated. I could no longer play the game that I had paid for. After receiving no real response to numerous emails to Steam and Bethesda I gave up. These companies do not have easily discoverable customer support lines, so there was no one to call. Needless to say, I pirate all my games now.

Re:Incredulous.

[RogueyWon]

Agree with what you say, but would add that this is now the second time that I've bought an EA game (a steam purchase in this case) which I've later regretted because I probably would have witheld my purchase had I known about some of the stuff the publisher was doing.

The first case was worse, really, because it directly affected my enjoyment of the game. That was Command & Conquer 4, which had "needs an always-on net-connect" DRM (and an unreliable version at that), despite the fact that I hadn't found this anywhere in the pre-release publicity.

C&C4 was a fairly marginal purchase for me anyway - I'd liked C&C3, but not loved it. Had I known in advance about the DRM, that would have been a definite no-purchase. Dragon Age 2 would have been a much tougher decision.

Really don't like this trend

[Paspanique]

I was also banned from my steam account because paypal choose a transaction I've made with Valve to check my identity. Their system was faulty and after confirmation(Phone calls to land line and CC verification), It took several phone calls & more than a week of back & forth to get everything in order.

Mean while, I lost access to all the games under my Steam account because Paypal stopped 1 payment & I had this account for 4 years. I had almost 20 games in my Library & couldn't play them until paypal released my money. Sure, I understand they wanted to be paid, but having total control over 20 of my games is really frightful.

It took me almost 2 years before I bought another steam games & honestly, if I can avoid using this kind of system, I will. I rather have a boxed DVD than letting someone have total control over something I paid for... I mean it's not like I don't know how to get the games for free...but I don't pirate because I feel it's wrong, and this is how they thank you... Anyhow

Re:Really don't like this trend

[nschubach]

From what I understand about this game though (I do not have it, but reading through posts) you cannot install it even if you had the DVD because the installer verifies that you do not have a pirate copy by logging you into EA.

In this case, even if you did have the fully legal copy of the game you could not install it. I imagine there's a pre-game log in as well (Dragon Age: Origins had one.)

Re:Really don't like this trend

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

This happened to me... except I didn't have the happy ending.

I was given a gifted game on Steam.. This game was Left 4 Dead 2.. it was on sale for $5 and a friend gifted it to me.

Turns out, this 'friend' was part of some credit-card theft ring online, and he was found out... the next day my steam account is banned/locked.

Thank god it was my alternate steam account, but I still had a fair number of games on there that I can no longer access... inlcuding Modern Combat 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2,(It was my Online FPS account, that I would share with others in my house)

I basically LOST the entire purchase price of all these games, because steam decided that getting a gift that was bought with a stolen credit cards means you're a bad bad person.. they couldn't just take access to the game in question.. NO. they had to ban my entire account

Fuck steam

Re:Really don't like this trend

[Paspanique]

Yup, that's the other thing I haven't used since..

Re:Really don't like this trend

[Duradin]

Was it a 'friend' or a friend? You weren't consistent with your quotes.

There's a difference between "My 'friend' gave this to me after it 'fell off the back of a truck'." and "My friend gave this to me after it fell off the back of a truck."

As far as Steam was concerned you received stolen property and were a part of a credit card ring. I don't use Steam so I'm only assuming you had to actually accept the gifted program and not just have it auto-magically appear on your play list. I'd accept a gift from a friend if I was expecting it but never from a 'friend'.

Re:Really don't like this trend

[Sabriel]

Either way, if a friend gives you a tv that turns out to be stolen, and the police show up to reclaim it, the police aren't allowed to take your house as well.

Reminder

[UninformedCoward]

Dear Bioware,

Thank you for reminding me of your DLC centric business model. You have again shown that a pirated version of your software is superior than that of the product offered in your online store. I hope you enjoy alienating your paying customers.

Sincerely,
UC

Re:Reminder

[RenHoek]

I agree with you.

It seems to simple and logical. "Give customers a better experience then pirates". But they fail again and again, only to exclaim "Oh my, our sales are down. It's due to piracy!" and "We're only going to release games on the consoles because they don't get pirated!"

And the console get user-friendly games. So they sell well. The industry is getting the correlationcausation link all wrong again.

And then when you _do_ buy PC games legit, you get:
- Maximum number of activations (e.g. Spore)
- Bug riddled products (e.g. C&C Generals)
- Never any patches being released for said buggy products (e.g. C&C Generals)
- Game online play being shut down when a new version is released (e.g. Madden)
- No access to DLC the consoles do get (e.g. Dead Space)
- Single player games that need an activation server just to install (e.g. Spore)
- Copy protection schemes that either crash my PC, make it insecure or just don't work (e.g. Sony rootkit)
- Can't resell my games anymore with all this online account bullshit (e.g. World of Warcraft)
- Consolitis. We have more options then console users, let us use them! (e.g. Bulletstorm)

So why the hell should we PC users still keep buying games? A pirate can at least say it didn't cost him a penny.

The industry needs reform and it needs it badly.

P.S.

I hate Electronic Arts.. I still haven't forgiven them for so blatantly fucking over their customers. Three hour multi-player game of C&C Generals, building up your units, and then when you want to start kicking your opponent: 'Synchonization lost!' Without, say, "Re-establishing sync, please wait 30 seonds". No, you just got fucked. Well, fuck you back EA! I'm never buying a product from you again.

Re:Reminder

[Seumas]

I'm definitely tired of having to remember countless sets of credentials across every publisher and distributor and developer out there, due to the need to register games these days. Even on consoles! And it gets even worse when it comes to DLC. The processes and methods seem so haphazardly slapped together that you can't be assured they'll even be accessible a year or three down the road, or if your content will vanish into the ether. One of the worst offenders seems to be Ubi (of which EA owns a stake). Every time I play an UBI game, it wants my UBI login, which I can't fucking ever remember for the life of me. Especially if it's a game I'm sitting down to play on the damn *console*. Not to mention the way they attempt to lock all of this stuff down to ONE account. No more buying a game so you and your sibling can play it. Or buying one game for you and your housemates to play it. Nope. Got four gamers living in an apartment? Buy four copies.

Anyway, I posted this in the Dragon Age 2 discussion on Slashdot this week and thought it might be worth copying it here, too:

====================
Pre-load.

Decrypt.

Launch.

Configure.

Click "register on bioware's website to get full access to content".

Once I was on the bioware site, I had to hunt down what my login credentials for their site were.

Once I had the login credentials and logged in, I had to enter a code to register the game and unlock the content.

The key didn't work.

I went to the Steam forums and looked for a thread that discussed the same thing, which explained which of the several keys/codes were actually needed.

Went back to the bioware site and entered a key. Waited for it to activate it.

Did the same thing with the second key.

Launched the game again.

Didn't want it running in the default "windowed full screen" mode and set it to "full screen".

When it asked me to confirm to keep settings (with a countdown timer), it didn't show a cursor, so I had to wait out the timer and do it all over again. This time it showed the cursor and let me commit the changes.

The game notified me that it had lost connection with the bioware servers and that I would not have access to certain content, until it was connected again.

I opened up the "DLC" section in the game and none of the content I just entered the serials to receive appeared.

Launched the game and began to play it, before I decided I wasn't in the mood for having cut-scenes every 45 seconds and quit for the time being.

Found out about the PC texture pack and clicked the link.

Took me to the bioware site, where I had to login again.

Downloaded the 1gb installer.

Ran the texture installer.

Launched the game again.

Went to Options/Settings=>Video=>Selected "high-resolution textures".

Went back to the DLC section. DLC still isn't there.

Clicked on the button to view DLC on my account, which took me back to Bioware's site again, but just showed me two items I already received with the purchase that said "buy now".

Clicked on Profile=>My Registered Content on the website.

Took me to a huge list of my registered content, which shows it for every platform (each console, to

Re:Reminder

[UninformedCoward]

Welcome to EA gaming. Here are my steps for anything EA.
=================

Read "EA" on box (or site)

Put box down and walk away (or navigate away)

=================
Been burnt by this company too many times.

Re:Reminder

[UninformedCoward]

I may be a minority w/ this thought process, but if I get screwed over by a company once, I'll never buy from them ever again. I can understand if you make a mistake, or your webcode is bugged but if you go out of your way to ruin my experience for profit pushing shareholders then I could care less for your product. I feel bad for Bioware, I really do. I know their policy was not this bad before the EA acquisition but I agree w/ the banned user; they sold their soul to the EA devil. When Bioware was not EA, I remember having lost a Neverwinter key and when I emailed them of the issue, they simply gave me a new one. Try doing that w/ EA...

Thank you for dredging up horrible memories of past EA incompetence. I agree w/ the list w/ the exception of online accounts. WoW and other such online accounts can be resold and often add value to the particular account. Now if you were to say something like the Mass Effect online account, then yes, that setup was beyond terrible and seems non-transferable.

UC

Re:Reminder

[Beelzebud]

I wonder if it ever occurs to these business genius type people that this sort of behavior actually creates pirates.

Re:Reminder

[Duradin]

It creates "reasons" for pirates to "justify" their actions. Pirates gonna pirate, matey.

Re:Reminder

[TheSpoom]

I don't even have to go looking for reasons to avoid Bioware or EA products nowadays, I just read the stories on Slashdot every ~6 months.

Re:Reminder

[Dhalka226]

Not entirely true.

This guy obviously had a legitimate copy, since his game copy was tied to his forum account. Now it no longer works. Do you believe he's going to go "shucks, I shouldn't have done that. Here's $60, may I have another copy please?"

No. At best, he goes "fuck it and fuck you, I'm done with your game." More realistically he goes out for ten seconds of Google'ing, finds a crack and continues on his merry way. Turning a paying customer into a pirate. What he does about Dragon Age III (or whatever) is certainly up in the air. If I were him, I wouldn't give them another dollar of mine. Of course, I might stil want their game... I wonder if there's any solution to wanting to play a game without paying the creator?

Not to mention, of course, how he reacts with his friends who might be intersted but not have bought the game yet. "Yeah guys, I have a cracked copy right here, just give me a blank DVD."

Re:Bad summary/nothing new

[stealth_finger]

It's long since been established if you get banned from the bad co 2 forums you get banned from the servers for the duration IF your EA account is linked to your gamertag or psn id. Dragonage was shit anyway and the demo for 2 was just prettier.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[CraftyJack]

Sure, but you don't get a refund on your lift ticket or skate rental. More to the point, you don't get to trade in your prize tickets for a giant stuffed teddy bear.

If you bought popcorn at the theater, you could take it with you when you left.

It's kind of like this guy handed the cashier the money, and then got kicked out before the cashier handed him the popcorn. Now he's standing outside yelling about his popcorn. FTFA:

Sure, the ban is a temporary one. It's not like he can't ever play the game.

He'll get his popcorn soon enough. In the meantime, maybe it's not a good idea to start with the cashier in the middle of a transaction.

Re:Pinch me?

[Seumas]

I can clarify it all rather simply, for you.

he wasn't able to use his *single player* game

is actually:

he wasn't able to use EA's single player game

Ya this is a bit different

[Sycraft-fu]

Now while they maybe should look at separating forum bans from over all account bans, still this is a rather different situation than "They banned him from the game." No, they banned him from their site. Now he'd bought the game from their site, but not yet installed it. That did mean that he couldn't install the game. However that is not the same as taking away the game from him. Had he bought the game elsewhere, like Impulse, Steam, or a retail store, there would have been no effect.

I've got to back up EA on this. You need to have a right to ban people from your online services. Otherwise you have a situation where someone could pay for something, and then do abusive, or even disruptive (like hacking/DDoS) things and you couldn't ban them because they'd paid.

Only thing I would say is that had the ban been permanent they would have had a duty to either refund his money or send him a physical copy of the game or something.

Basically with services, you do have a duty to hold up your side of things and if you don't they have to be able to terminate the relationship. You cannot require that people provide you service, even if you are a problem.

And really, this is just a lesson in life: Actions have consequences. You cannot just be an asshole and expect that everyone has to keep being nice to you. Go in to a physical store and start screaming about how evil they are, they'll toss your ass out and ban you from coming back, they can do that.

Re:Ya this is a bit different

[DavidTC]

Yeah, this is like if he went into a store, and bought a refrigerator or something he couldn't carry out, but planned to come back later for with a truck, and then as he was leaving after paying, he acted like an ass and got thrown out. (To be fair, he actually went to the park next door and started acting like an ass, but that park was owned by the store and he got thrown out of both.)

He's lucky they have a 24 hour ban on him instead of just permanently banning him from their property and refunding his money and telling him to take a hike. (Because they are sole supplier of that sort of fridge, I think.)

I agree that he should be able to get his money back if the thing won't activate, on purpose. In fact, I think anyone should be able to get their money back before activation. But that's not related to the issue here, which is that stores really can throw people out, even if they've already purchased something and are incapable of carrying it.

And the person can demand that such a thing get returned to them...eventually.

Hell, they actually can throw you out and keep you away from your stuff even if you didn't purchase it there. You behave badly enough at a mall, you'll get escorted off their property...even if you drove there. You've got to send someone else for your car, or demand they tow it to where you can get to it.

But you probably can't demand that it get returned immediately if that's impractical in any way, and not, say, a bag sitting over there by the wall. You can't demand they carry your fridge to your house. 24 hours is fine.

If you don't want to wait 24 hours for stuff, then don't own stuff located where other people can deny you access to it, and if you do, don't fucking piss them off badly enough to be throw off their property so you can't walk in and get it.

Re:Specific case aside, this is a fascinating conc

[Seumas]

How is some guy playing a single player game ruining your experience?

Contrary to what Kotaku claims...

[Takionbrst]

I can have complete control over a video game in 2011. I simply have to torrent it illegally from a plethora of sources and install a crack. I thought maybe the uproar (and subsequent spike in pirating) over the Assassin's Creed DRM would have shown developers that sometimes excessive control can backfire. Quoth the Princess Leia: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Finally

[Faynor]

Finally, ramifications for ones behavior in this internet world of anonymity.

call the waaambulance

[Grelfod]

Its just too bad. Maybe if he was not a jerk wad he would not have this problem!
So whats the real news here? Some guy (the jerk wad) can't act civil and his mommy isn't there to spank him so someone else (the game company) has to punish him...
I say good.
Forums have too many trolls (and jerk wads) its about time some consequences are put down.

Re:call the waaambulance

[Stormy Dragon]

Did you actually read the comment that got him banned? All he said was, “Have you [meaning Bioware] sold your souls to the EA devil?”

The idea that sort of innocous criticism warrants a ban is ridiculous. Heck, on that basis, you outta be banned Slashdot.

Ironically, based on the response, the answer to his question is apparently "Yes."

Re:Pinch me?

[twidarkling]

No, he bought a game, and due to his internet being out, he couldn't install it. That's the equivalent of the story here.

Re:Pinch me?

[Seumas]

No, when it comes to movies, music, software, books, and even a lot of hardware (PS3, etc), you exchange money for a license. If you also have some sort of physical items involved, the license describes in what ways you can use the item and under what conditions use of that item can be revoked. Of course, this only works in the creator's favor and never yours. For instance, you are licensing content. Just because you own a CD doesn't mean you own the music on it. You own the physical CD, but are provisionally allowed by the license to use he music which is on it. If that CD is lost, you have to buy that physical CD again to have a license to listen to that music. Even though you are licensing the CONTENT and not the MEDIA, they'll never, say, give you access to the media without paying for it all over again.

That's one of the reasons I hate iTunes so much. There is no physical item involved. Just a license to listen to the music. But you can only ever download it one time. If something happens to that, you have to buy the license all over again. For an item that doesn't actually exist anywhere to begin with. Kind of absurd.

Re:Incredulous.

[Hatta]

You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore

Nonsense. If people refuse to buy DRM, someone will serve that market.

The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience

If your values are worth less to you than a bit of entertainment, you don't really value them that much at all.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[DavidTC]

It's more like he bought a refrigerator and finished paying for it, and then started a fight before he could get the provided handtruck and get it to his car,and now they won't loan him a handtruck as they escort him out.

Look, I'm sorry people, if you act like an ass, companies can deny you access their property. If you have stuff on their property that can't be trivially handed to you on the way out, guess what? They just denied you access to your stuff. In fact, it doesn't matter if you just bought it there, or were carrying your damn fridge to a Fridge Show.

Sounds crazy, but act badly enough in certain places and they will throw you off your property...and sucks to be you if that's where your car was.

Same with rental units. Rent one, put stuff in there, and then spay-paint the walls. See if they don't ban you from the place. 'But all my stuff's there!' Tough shit.

They can't deny you access permanently, they will eventually have to give it back to you or someone designed as a representative of yours, but if you didn't want to be temporarily blocked from it, perhaps you shouldn't chosen to disregard the rules badly enough to get blocked from a place where you have left some of your property, you idjit.

In the real world, you'd actually have to file paperwork with the police and schedule some sort of pickup with both them and the property owner, and I assure people that would take more than 24 or 72 hours.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[CraftyJack]

Now hang on just a minute. Are you saying that if I slap the bartender I won't get to finish my beer?

I paid for that beer!

Not quite

[geekoid]

It's more like the TV won't turn on because of something you said about the delivery company.

It's not like the promised delivery and then there was some unforeseen circumstance that delayed delivery.

No, you are being stubborn if yo can not see that the bottom line is:
He was banned from a forum and the result from that is that he can not play the game he bought.

And I highly doubt it's a bug since this was a stated 'feature' when BioWare introduced it.

rage all you want

[argStyopa]

...but the only way it's going to matter is if it impacts the bottom line.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or take the game back.
If gamestop goes back to EA and says "yeah, we had 66% returns, many commenting that the ability to ban someone from playing what they bought for unconnected behavior" then EA might care.

But raging in an internet forum? Meaningless.

Personally, the repeated 'online validate' for a single player game long since drove me away.

Karma

[cdpage]

nothing more.

If only...

[zieroh]

Am I the only one who, upon reading the summary, immediately wished that we could apply that to other forums and comment areas as well? Think of how much better online interactions would be if trolling a forum had some actual consequences.

I run an online forum, and I've often wished I could deliver a large electric shock to asshats via their mouse.

And just think of how much better slashdot would be!

Re:If only...

[g0bshiTe]

You can't tell me you have never once chuckled at a /. troll post. I have seen some that were very funny. Few and far between mind you, but it wouldn't be the same here or anywhere without trolls.

Re:Bad summary/nothing new

[jaymz666]

There are no servers in this case... it's single player, totally different animal

Childish overreaction AND an injustice

[hat_eater]

I work for a games magazine that also happens to have a website and a forum on it. People (our readers, mostly) post nasty comments there all the time. Would it be OK for us to delay or suspend the subscription of our magazine to folks who are a bit too rude towards us in the forums?
By the standards some of the commenters here seem to espouse, it would.

How to be a modern PC gamer

[RedDeadThumb]

There is only one way to be a PC gamer now days and maintain your sanity. 1. Download the DRM free game and play it. 2. At the time the Ultimate Edition of the game comes out and is on sale, purchase it as a courtesy if you enjoyed playing the game. This takes no effort and allows you to avoid all the DRM bull and release after release of little DLC content at $10 a pop. Oh, and it maintains a clear conscience.

Re:They need to refund his money.

[DavidTC]

Well, that's a good analogy, but I was trying to stay away from actual illegal things. (Although I did say 'spray painted' with the storage unit, but the same thing applies if you, for example, set up drums in the storage unit and decide to practice your drumming there and refuse to stop.)

Let's just say if you buy a beer, and then decide that you should run around hovering over other patrons and mocking them, in a way that is entirely legal but very rude, yup, they'll throw you out. :)

And, of course, your beer is probably in a glass you don't own, and in many places you can't walk around with an open container of beer on the streets even if it was in a bottle, so it is probably illegal to actually take the beer with you even if you are holding it when they kick you out.

In reality, I think there's actually a law about consumables people leave behind, and that they can be thrown out at closing, but even if there's no such law and they have to hold your beer for you, it's going to be very hard to recover that property.

People, businesses have property rights. You can't just do whatever the fuck you want there.

And a software pirate was born...

[Beelzebud]

Seems like a really stupid move. Ban someone for some pretty tame criticism? Gee I'll bet that guy puts more of his money into that EA account.

Analogies

[ksoule]

This is like buying a digital game, being banned from their forums, and subsequently being unable to receive the purchased goods. Is it really necessary to create a fictional analogy to understand that this is absurd?

Re:Incredulous.

[Tom]

You know, it's very easy to say "simply don't buy their games", but with that attitude, we'd most likely never get any form of entertainment anymore, because almost all of them include some restriction or price tag we're not happy with.

Funny how people stop believing in this "free market magic" they otherwise defend tooth and nail against all the evilz communist socialists (i.e. anyone who doubts that somehow the magic will solve all problems ever).

Maybe with that attitude, we would be getting some entertainment without the restrictions or price tag we're not happy with?

The choice remains between sticking up for your own values and missing out on some piece of entertainment you're dying to experience, or accepting the restrictions and enjoy the game after all.

No, the choice is between giving them your money to play their game, or downloading a torrent and playing their game. Come to the real world. This is the real choice.

Lawsuit time...

[moxley]

I hate to jump right to litigiousness, but it seems like the only thing a company like this will respect...

Sure, they may listen to the users if there is a big enough outcry and it starts to affect their sales - but how long would that take?

same old tired crap

[yodleboy]

in this thread, people defending their right to be asshats online with no repercussions. Also, if we're lucky we'll see how this somehow relates to an evil corporate conspiracy to scam said asshats out of their money.

There are two options here, it was deliberate or it was not. If it was deliberate, well I'm just going to say that some of you haven't been to other forums such as World of Warcraft where the flaming and douche-baggery can make the thing almost useless at times. If it was not deliberate, then this one whiny gamer needs to suck it up and wait out his ban. Had he not gotten himself banned in the first place he wouldn't have a problem. If you're going to behave in a way that might get you banned be prepared for unexpected consequences.

Forum trolls respond to very little. Banning from forums doesn't stop them from coming back for more when it's over. Maybe banning them from their games might actually work.

On a side note, I swear the constant use of EULA's, TOS's and other consumer contracts is contributing to the decline in personal accountability. "Well you didn't SAY I could be banned for XYZ so you can't ban me". It's never about right or wrong, it's always can I get away with it or not.

Re:same old tired crap

[Zorque]

It's a single-player game. It's not like he's going around in-game ruining people's experiences. There's banning someone to prevent them from doing bad things, and then there's sheer vindictiveness.

Re:same old tired crap

[g0bshiTe]

I agree with some of your logic. Ass-hattery in a game should not be tolerated no matter what.
On the other hand a ban say from VAC where you can no longer play MP games is one thing, it's an entirely different thing when the user is banned from every aspect of a product that was purchased. That is equivalent to blatant robbery.
Unless somewhere in the ULA, or TOS it states they can ban you in entirety from the game.

One hell of a lawsuit if true.

[g0bshiTe]

Sounds to me like if it is as reported and the user was banned from singleplayer, he may have grounds to sue. That would be like buying a new car and because you posted something about Ford, then them killing the engine and you not being able to use it again. So at any time my purchases from EA could be terminated? Will I get a refund if I'm not allowed to use the software I purchased a license to use? Hopefully it is like 1st poster stated and is just a random bug and not something EA has done. Given their history though, I wouldn't put it past them.

This has sealed my no buy

[Goat of Death]

I was already on the fence given the bug ridden, overpriced mess that was Awakenings. They never properly patched the most egregious bugs that took all the equipment from a character you'd been playing 70+ hours. In addition they never bothered to release an updated mod pack so that modders could at least fix their mistakes. Probably because they didn't want to reveal the utter crappiness of their rushed coding practices for the expansion.

Anyhoo, given all the following: the requirement for internet activation and recheck every few days; the SecuROM sneak in they pulled; the $60 price tag; and the steam demo already had frustrating game breaking bugs, I'll be putting my money elsewhere.

Poor bioware. I miss the days when the did sixty nine different patches for Neverwinter Nights. That was product support!

Guess I'll have to keep looking forward to the Witcher II and CD Projeckt that doesn't cripple their games with DRM.

steam == hot air

[TiggertheMad]

Steam is less intrusive than other forms of DRM, so I hear people say that they don't mind it. Valve WILL fuck you with their DRM eventually, they just haven't gotten around to it yet. It make take 5 or ten years, but it is coming.

Repeat after me: There is NO such thing as good DRM.

Re:steam == hot air

[MBGMorden]

I honestly don't have as much of a problem with it in gaming as I do in other areas. Reason is simple: I personally rarely play really old games. Now I realize that many people do and have no issues with them voting with their wallet, but for me, once a game is past, say, 5 years old, I ain't cranking it up anymore. I also know exactly where I'm playing those games: on a Windows PC. That's it - no other options.

Compare with movies and/or music: I'll watch or listen to those, respectively, decades after they were made. I also may do things completely whacky with the files - like play them on my phone or generic mp3 player or XMBC (running on either a hacked Xbox or a hacked AppleTV - got both running in different rooms of the house). Overall, with movies and music, DRM screwing me over in a way that I dislike isn't just a possiblity, it's a near certainty.

With games, as long as the game I buy works for me for at least 2-3 years, I've probably got all that I need out of it anyways.

Besides, the price cuts that Steam can offer due to digital distribution are just insane. Check there on the weekends and you can often get last year's blockbuster titles on sale for $10 or less.

SecuROM

[Ninth Marion]

I've been reading about this on the Bioware forums, and another bombshell hit me: apparently SecuROM has been put on DA2, even though it was declared to be free of it by EA.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/dragon-age-ii-features-hated-securom-despite-previous-ea-claims.ars

Personally, I'd say I'm boycotting EA over this, but really I'm merely continuing to boycott them over how I was punished by them in multiple ways for daring to buy the first Dragon Age, and this.

Very Rare

[laura100]

You can see the real image of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) with His brother Jesus: http://www.islam-center.net/en/component/book/book/39.html http://www.islam-center.net/en http://www.islam-center.net/ru http://www.islam-center.net/fr http://www.islam-center.net/es http://www.islam-center.net/ch http://www.islam-center.net/ar