1559 réponses à ce sujet

[linistora]

At the very least you would think Bioware would be trying to do damage control, but maybe merely because they work under EA they have to wait for the go-ahead to handle this problem, imo fire the guy who did the ban and just not mention they have the power to repeal your ability to play "your" game again and blame it on the power mad mod. minimal damage, and the complacency of the community will return.

Modifié par linistora, 11 mars 2011 - 09:06 .

[Maera Imrov]

GRX Dragon wrote...

Maera Imrov wrote...

This is not an MMORPG, you should not be able to block people from being able to play an offline game that does not involve social interaction for infractions accrued on a social network. If games want to really push this networking nonsense, and have all of our stuff registered here, then they really need to separate forum access from EA account access. Or at the least make bans from the forums have no bearing on what you do with offline RPGs you paid money for.

The fact that it is not surprises me. I always assumed it had been.

MMORPG, multiplayer, or single player, it doesn't matter. What matters is that someone was banned for what they did on a forum, thus they should be banned on a forum level; however, unless they actually did something that is illegal in a game (which is impossible for a single-player game), no company has the right to ban said person from the game.

So kudos to him if he pirates any future EA game...

Which is exactly what I said. MMOs ban for disruption in social channels in game. That makes sense. Here, the only social channels are in a forum and the game is offline, so the ban affecting the game does not make sense. I 100% agree they had no right to do it. I was just saying that if this were an MMO and he'd been spouting the same nonsense in-game, they would have a right to ban his account. However it is not. It's a game that for some inane reason has to be validated and tied to an account online... and the unfortunate consequences of this kind of DRM is this nonsense.

[moilami]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

moilami wrote...

I have been banned twice in WoW forums (lol). When it happened I logged in game with my warlock and lolled in /2 of the forum ban. Everything was more than fine. I did not even got flamed in /2 trade or got snarky comments, which was surprising.

But Blizzard do ban online gamer accounts not just forums as I know people who have had them banned/suspended too for abusive behavior. This is no different to what happened to this guy in the story to begin with (you buy the client as pyhsical media or digitial download much like buying a game from a store, you can't play offline when banned, the only difference is the fact that EA used a method of prevention against pirating that blocked his offline play aka from registering his product to unlock it when his online account was banned. In both cases it is possible to create a new account and continue to play the fact once he made another account he then went back for revenge and flamed them some more making his second account blocked wasn't the smartest of moves from what I understand of that part.

It is totally different to ban accounts in online gaming. For example cheating and gold selling are perfectly valid ways to ban accounts. And if I could chose, people afking in BGs would get their accounts banned.

I just want to know what is this new crap about EA playing big brother and not letting people to play games they have bought. I have thought enough about it with the information I have in hand and made a decision that if EA really begins to think he can chose to not let people play games they have bought, then I will give my money to some other game company in the future who does not try rob me by stealing games I own.

From http://tos.ea.com/le...en/PC/#section9


If your Account, or a particular subscription for an EA Service associated with your Account, is terminated, suspended and/or if any Entitlements are selectively removed, revoked or garnished from your Account, no refund will be granted, no Entitlements will be credited to you or converted to cash or other forms of reimbursement, and you will have no further access to your Account or Entitlements associated with your Account or the particular EA Service.  If you believe that any action has been taken against your Account in error, please contact Customer Support at support.ea.com.

Modifié par moilami, 11 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[Dragoonlordz]

If PC players didn't steal and pirate games, music and such so much then there wouldn't even be registrations required to activate or unlock titles on the PC. While not all PC players are of such nature unfortuantly alot are and those people are to blame imho. Like I said this is limited to PC and such and those who digitally download their games from places like EA or Steam which require authorisation because they banned his online EA account and I that you do not require to register to play offline on consoles the actual original game, DLC being a different matter but not game breaking and no different to an XBL ban from microsoft in that regard.

I see that alot of people are jumping up and down as though this was EA purposefully suspending him from playing his game offline . Your wrong in one sense, they suspended his online EA account and the fact that it is required for certain format aka the most pirated format: PC, requires you to register or unlock your copy is because of the pirating that goes on in the first place. Its the fact the pirate protection is why he cannot play his game offline not the fact his account was banned tbh because think about it instead of raging and you will see without the piracy protection being the activiation code needed there would be nothing stopping him playing his game even if his account was suspended.

This is just a case of one action affecting another, a ban of his online EA account regretably conflicting with their piracy/registration system.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mars 2011 - 09:17 .

[aries1001]

The user that did got locked out (banned) for 72 hours from his EA account (that's the same as his Bioware account) need to activate the game using his EA (Bioware) account? And as Stanley Woo said the lock out from the forums by EA might mean that you can't access the game or the dlc.

Whether or not something someone said in a forum should affect your ability to play your game, activate the game or block access to your dlc, I'm not quite sure about this. As for who has hit the report post, I'm not sure about this either. It could be a fellow gamer not knowing about the consequences. I'm not saying that it is, just that it could be - maybe. To avoid this kind of thing, I suggest we PM Chris Priestly or Stanley Woo or a moderator about a thread that's worded in a way someone finds offensive.

And again: The lock out (ban) will be lifted in 72 hours.

It is, of course, unlucky and I can sympathize with the user, the fellow gamer, that's been locked out of playing his game. However, words do have consequences - sometimes. And it is generally not that a good idea to belittle or say something bad - at least not in bad way - on someone's, here EA's and Bioware's forums. Remember that we're guests here, and EA and Bioware has every right to ask us to take our leave if we break their rules e.g. terms of service. It's like going to your neighbour's house, behaving against his or her house rules, and then looking bewilderes when he or she asks you to leave.

It could be interesting to know if the the game checks for anything else than just game ownership, though.

[Kovnic]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

If PC players didn't steal and pirate games, music and such so much then there wouldn't even be registrations required to activate or unlock titles on the PC. While not all PC players are of such nature unfortuantly alot are and those people are to blame imho. Like I said this is limited to PC and such and those who digitally download their games from places like EA or Steam which require authorisation because they banned his online EA account and I that you do not require to register to play offline on consoles the actual original game, DLC being a different matter but not game breaking and no different to an XBL ban from microsoft in that regard.

And yet the 1st "illegal" copies of DA2 appeared on consoles. Kinda take sthe wind outta that argument eh? 

[jxd73]

+1 for the pirates.

[Xsquader]

With all due respect to the people that said piracy started this. While piracy causes companies to use annoying DRM like this in the end the games are all still pirated right away. Usually before release as was this one and pretty much all games ever made besides a short handful. This includes some of the most advanced drm and authetnication made. No matter what they do there is an internet full of people and some of them are bound to be smarter. IMO all this DRM and authetnication crap is just hurting the legit buyers not preventing piracy. The only way it could be justified is if DRM actually prevented piracy which in most cases it does not. The first game's only protection was a serial check. I liked this idea as its simple and just as effective and cheaper and less annoying to implement than a DRM which will be cracked in a day or 2. It also raises the morale of consumers who buy the product. Anway my point is basically why use DRM and annoy people who legally buy a game when the DRM doesn't even work?

[Stanley Woo]

This is a reminder that discussion of software piracy is not permitted in our forums.

[Elite Midget]

I can see EA scapegoating the Admin even though he was merely doing his job based off of Guidelines thay EA set up. It's a sad thing but EA may well do it to try and save face.

[elzirko]

Won't likely buy another Bioware game until the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of the community.

Modifié par elzirko, 11 mars 2011 - 09:18 .

[moilami]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

If PC players didn't steal and pirate games, music and such so much then there wouldn't even be registrations required to activate or unlock titles on the PC. While not all PC players are of such nature unfortuantly alot are and those people are to blame imho. Like I said this is limited to PC and such and those who digitally download their games from places like EA or Steam which require authorisation because they banned his online EA account and I that you do not require to register to play offline on consoles the actual original game, DLC being a different matter but not game breaking and no different to an XBL ban from microsoft in that regard.

I have understood talking about piratism (what you are doing) is prohibited in this forum and so I can't begin to argue with you how piratism does not give EA rights to rob mine or my fellow gamer's property because of what they have said in forum.

I fear I already have said too much and hence get robbed of stuff I own and have earned.

[Xsquader]

Sorry Stanley im not encouraging piracy or anything like that. Mainly I am just wondering the answer to the question to the last statement in my post...

[Mashiki]

moilami wrote...

I just want to know what is this new crap about EA playing big brother and not letting people to play games they have bought. I have thought enough about it with the information I have in hand and made a decision that if EA really begins to think he can chose to not let people play games they have bought, then I will give my money to some other game company in the future who does not try rob me by stealing games I own.

In most western countriest the EULA isn't enforcable, is not considered a contract, or even allowed to be used for punitive measures.  In Germany they're fully unenforcable, in Canada it's a bit of both.  But you can't revoke a persons ownership of a product if they've bought it.  In the US it varies by state by state.  Regardless of that, someone's head is going to roll somewhere.  And this type of stuff ends up as one thing: Consumer backlash.

But considering DA2 is lackluster at the best, this will further galvinize people who were sitting on the fence on buying it and push them so they won't buy it.  Which is fine with me.  Rushed PoS shouldn't be bought by anyone, and companies or 'company heads' who push for this type of development should suffer the losses of attempting to capitalize on it.

Modifié par Mashiki, 11 mars 2011 - 09:22 .

[jxd73]

DarthTelvanni wrote...

This isn't great on two levels. One that you can be banned for criticising EA (all be it in an over dramatic manner) and two that EA can lock you out of a single player game you legitimately purchased.

This isn't an MMO, people are paying for a product not a service. All in all this has the makings of a bit of a PR disaster.

It's far more likely Bioware/EA have never thought of this possibility when the activation doohickey was designed.

[joe_sinister]

ovaltineplease555 wrote...

Hmm, a big mouthed brat had his toy privileges taken away because he threw a tantrum.

Its too bad that electronic arts has to raise people's children instead of their parents teaching them that kicking and screaming on a floor isn't the best way to get your point across.

That's right, keep bowing down to your corporate overlord. Like a good dog....

[Anathemic]

We really need a BioWare/EA official response to this issue, it's been a day already.

[Riffykins]

Stanley Woo wrote...

This is a reminder that discussion of software piracy is not permitted in our forums.

Do Bioware employees frequent other forums? Because this is a serious issue and this blanket statement "We do not discuss such things" is really a bad cop-out.

Furthermore, the conduct of the mods could be a little more personable, you seem to make posts that come off as condescending or lacking understanding.

When a mod posts "Do not do this." It only makes the poster more angry, you lead them into a ban basically.

When you encounter problems, you could be a little less brash and perhaps convey some understanding of their issue or complaint, or even their misunderstanding.

Maybe next time try "I understand that Piracy and DRM is a common concern expressed by the community, but due to forum rules and regulations we cannot discuss them here."


Finally, I am increasingly disappointed by the distance that Bioware has placed between itself and the user community. It would be nice to have the days of Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights back where the moderators were helpful rather than just playing police. 

Now, I hope you don't take this the wrong way Stanley, but this is just my 2 cents on the whole situation here.

[Crossknive]

They didn't take away his game, you are all misunderstanding the situation. He can't activate his game on a banned account. Seems logical to me, why would you even want to activate a game on a banned account.

Go get your account banned and try to activate Origins. Same issue. IT'S A BANNED account obviously you can't activate it. it's a DRM thing that will happen with any online activation game, and any Bioware game with online activation.

[Crossknive]

So yeah, shut up.

Plus it's only 72 hours.

Modifié par Crossknive, 11 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[moilami]

Mashiki wrote...

moilami wrote...

I just want to know what is this new crap about EA playing big brother and not letting people to play games they have bought. I have thought enough about it with the information I have in hand and made a decision that if EA really begins to think he can chose to not let people play games they have bought, then I will give my money to some other game company in the future who does not try rob me by stealing games I own.

In most western countriest the EULA isn't enforcable, is not considered a contract, or even allowed to be used for punitive measures.  In Germany they're fully unenforcable, in Canada it's a bit of both.  But you can't revoke a persons ownership of a product if they've bought it.  In the US it varies by state by state.  Regardless of that, someone's head is going to roll somewhere.  And this type of stuff ends up as one thing: Consumer backlash.

But considering DA2 is lackluster at the best, this will further galvinize people who were sitting on the fence on buying it and push them so they won't buy it.  Which is fine with me.  Rushed PoS shouldn't be bought by anyone, and companies or 'company heads' who push for this type of development should suffer the losses of attempting to capitalize on it.

Yeah, that is why I don't read EULAs.

But this EA account thing is different. Each time I play DA the game tries to connect to EA servers and if it fails, then it tells me something like "your account whatever information could not be verified, and because of that you will miss stuff in game".

I definetly want to know what happens to my stuff if my account gets banned for because of something what I said in the forums.

[Haexpane]

Xsquader wrote...

Sorry Stanley im not encouraging piracy or anything like that. Mainly I am just wondering the answer to the question to the last statement in my post...

The rule is you can't talk about it, no matter the opinion or context.  I guess i understand why because if there was no rule, it would become like Kotaku where the pirates would take over and spam pro piracy propaganda nonsense all day long.

Of course that is over now that Kotaku has chased away their user base with the "LULZ our website is now a giant iPhone app" redesign.

[Vierlein]

Stanley Woo wrote...

This is a reminder that discussion of software piracy is not permitted in our forums.

Then dont lie about stuff like the securom.

End of Line.