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."
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?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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".
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.
http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
Sent from my CR-48
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.
In fact, it is a story of idiots who buy their games. Pirates don't have this problems.
HermesPod: Free Podcast Download Manager for Windows
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.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
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."
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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?
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?
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
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.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
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."
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?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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