Just read the original thread and this one. To me, it seems like shutting down activations because of forum postings is a great incentive for people to post things elsewhere, but what do I know. Nobody does social networking better than EA, so I'll leave it to their creative genius to figure it out.
Anyway, I thought I'd toss my two cents in.
1. I'm pretty sure I own ME1 by this point, but if EA starts feeling like it's acceptable -- for any reason -- to deny a legitimate activation, then I'll always look at ME2 and kind of wonder about it. It's not a secret that EA already sees yesterday's games as being in competition with today's games. I don't want the question of product activation to suddenly become negotiable, not from a company like that. And yes, I know it was a temporary ban. Go to the wayback machine and see what happened to all of 2005's temporary little inconveniences.
2. It has been pointed out ad infinitum that you never own software, you just license it. But how many people really believe that the fine print in those licenses ("EA reserves the right to terminate the license for any or no reason, to suspend user upside-down above a toilet bowl and flush, etc. etc.") serves any real purpose? They're acceptable only for as long as they're irrelevant. If people start seeing arbitrary-looking things like closing out activations because of hurt feelings, they might actually start reading those stupid agreements. This would be bad for EA, because boiled down, they all look something like "In exchange for $60, you will get
what's in the box, some portion thereof, or nothing at all. Ha ha ha."
3. I'm not sure what the problem is with making comparisons between EA and the Devil in the first place. Obviously they can shut these posts down if they want to, but whose point does this prove, exactly?
Edit: I misspelled infinitum. That bothers me way more than it should.
Modifié par Robhask, 11 mars 2011 - 06:19 .