Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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...
From TFA:
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.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
..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.
THL phish sticks
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.
morcego
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.
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
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.
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.
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
I don't have an intelligent phone, so I need to be.
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
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?
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."
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.
.Robert
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.
Learn to love Alaska