104 réponses à ce sujet

[Shirosaki17]

Wow that second guy was actually banned from the forums after that and then he created a second account trying to get help and they closed his thread and said not to create another one to circumvent the ban. This right after EA gave the PR announcement that this was a glitch and wouldn't happen again.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 14 mars 2011 - 02:24 .

[Ruze74]

I can understand this on a MMO but a single player game?? Hopefully all the negative press EA gets from this makes them reconsider some of their draconian practices.

[TheBrownDragon]

The issue of a company removing a person's access to something they legitimately paid for, temporarily or otherwise concerns me, so I did a search and found this post made by the same guy who recently had his access removed.

It's hard to believe Bioware want to solve the problem when the guy who can't access his DLC but can still access the forums has his forum access removed too, but not his DLC access reinstated.

The priority should be to give him access to his DLC. Only AFTER that's done, do you then try to find a way to remove his access to the forum without removing his DLC access again.

I haven't read every Bioware post, but here's a summary of what I have read. Feel free to correct me where I've made errors/admissions.

Stanley Woo said it was Bioware's policy to remove access to games/DLCs.

Then Chris Priestly says the game access removal was an error in this case, but didn't expand on whether there are still situations where they WOULD remove game access.

Then Francesco Melo said that forum comments should never remove game/DLC access.

Chris Priestly's comment is noncommittal either way apart from one specific case, which has been dealt with.

Can the appropriate person at Bioware/EA confirm whether either Stanley or Francesco are right, or if they're both wrong, where the truth actually lies?

If so, it would make it a lot easier to judge the company in regard to future purchase decisions, and discuss the issue on this thread without speculating on what the actual policy is based on limited and conflicting information.

Thanks.

Modifié par TheBrownDragon, 14 mars 2011 - 05:43 .

[Mercedes-Benz]

Of course it isn't.

[vometia]

My opinion is that regardless of whether it was policy, an accident, fluke or anything else, it shouldn't be something that can even happen: there have been numerous other problems with DLC authentication and the scheme should really be binned. In essence it's just another version of DRM with all of the attendant problems (which have been covered ad nauseam elsewhere) and as such it should be scrapped. Incidents like this simply add more weight to that argument if any were needed.

[KenKenpachi]

Ruze74 wrote...

I can understand this on a MMO but a single player game?? Hopefully all the negative press EA gets from this makes them reconsider some of their draconian practices.

As I said for the god knows what th time, Blizzard does it all the time on Starcraft 2 And not just WAHAHAHA One guy, or a handful, in one month the kicked out Five Thousand why should they change it when clearly its not "out there" actions, also I've seen plenty of games kick ussers off for protesting. Praticularly MMO's.


Blah typo fixed, namely calling Blizzard Bioware on mistake. And they said it was a mistake (bio). And pretty big mistakes happen constantly.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 14 mars 2011 - 04:10 .

[Pacifien]

I'll try to clarify something that I know Stanley Woo already posted about in some other thread a long time ago. There are two levels of moderation in effect on these forums, one through EA Customer Service and the other through your trusty band of volunteer moderators like myself.

EA Customer Service will step in when someone clicks "Report this post." When they step in, how they step in, that is something unknown to me. If you find your service in playing an EA game has been interrupted, you've been moderated by EA. It's probably a conflict of interest for me to state how I feel about this in regards to accessing a game you've purchased, so I won't.

Moderators work by 1) acting on reports sent to them via PM and 2) finding problems through browsing the forums on their own time. We can affect your access to the forums only. We act under the Site Rules of Conduct and our own judgement. We are not robots, so our judgements are relative and can appear inconsistent. Inconsistency can be frustrating, but this is what you get when humans, volus, and red pandas with their own distinct personalities moderating these forums on their own time.

Honestly, before I was made a moderator, I've been known to cross the line every now and then in regards to the site rules. Circumventing the swear filter, posting a spam image. The lure is strong, but I like to think I've never been outright blatant about it and I was never warned about my behavior. Some people get unlucky and have their first violating post reported immediately. Some people, though, conduct themselves in a manner that shines a beacon upon their posts that will get them caught violating the rules it seems every single time. You simply shouldn't do it. You should try very, very hard to be a model forumite where we all hold hands and give hugs and revel in our geekdom together. There are plenty of other forums not owned by EA where you don't have to watch yourself quite so diligently.

[TheBrownDragon]

What some people seem to be missing is that the forums and games/DLC should be totally separate.

One is a free service Bioware/EA make available. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to ban everyone who doesn't have the letter "U" in their username, they can. They're providing the service at their cost - their rules.

The other is a product paid for by a customer. If a company does not want a person using their product, that is (within reason) also their right, on the condition that they refund the cost of the product. If a product has been fully paid for, a company has no right to decide that somebody can't use their product, for any length of time, because they don't like something they did/said but keep the customer's money.

Note: MMOs are a different beast - if you're causing problems for other players and the game if purely online, then you can be banned (but only for stuff you do in-game - not stuff you say in the forums)

P.S. If Blizzard are doing the same thing, then I have exactly the same problem with them - it's unacceptable no matter who does it.

[TheBrownDragon]

Has the entire world gone crazy?

Steam have done a very similar thing. It played out almost the same way too...

1. Person does something against agreement (generally double-digit page document that you agree to before activating any game)

2. Person cannot access their account. Wonders why.

3. Person enquires and is told that they cannot access their games because they should have read the entire EULA/Terms of Service/Subscriber Agreement documents more carefully.

4. Online news site picks up the story

5. Company reinstates person's access to the game/s

6. Forum moderators close forum threads discussing the issue.

Note: In this case we still have this thread to discuss the issue, but it took a while to get here, and (admittedly, appropriately) it is in a section of the forum that doesn't get much traffic. I don't know if Steam are allowing any open threads on the matter.

{Overstated rhetorical question for impact}

So, are we expected to hire a solicitor to read the Terms and Conditions and explain them to us each time we buy a game now?

{End overstated question}

Modifié par TheBrownDragon, 15 mars 2011 - 01:44 .

[Moondoggie]

Hire a solicitor? Try reading things before you agree to them it helps you understand. Or if you do get banned just cry to the nearest games news website and they'll pick up your story and take your side even though you were in the wrong in the first place and are a total hypocrite like the guy it happened to

[Lux]

So, there was this thread that started during the last weekend (on March 19, I believe):

"EA has permanently banned my account> No access to DA2 or DLC I paid for" by tez20 with the following location http://social.biowar...index/6642373/1

It made the news: http://gamingbolt.co...on-age-2-player

It seems the thread has since been deleted. I PM'd tez20 on this and although the thread is deleted his call for help has still been unanswered.

The conversation is now in the off-topic forum. I wonder what would happen to my account if enough forumites would report a comment of mine, even if mildly vulgar. The word around is that the report button goes directly to general support services from EA, not local well-supported moderation. That, in itself, can be a problem.

I don't think what is happening is proper and some answers would be in order.

Modifié par Merkar, 20 mars 2011 - 11:42 .

[Clammo]

Gotta say this is pretty ironic, EA are always kicking up a stink about software theft - hello kettle, this is pot calling....

This is illegal - no question about it. No ToS supercede someone's legal right to play their purchased product, so I hope the guy not only kicks up even more stink in the press - John at rockpapershotgun has been following these stories so maybe a place to go to with it. I'd also contact a lawyer about this, what they're doing is blatantly wrong - I don't care how much of an idiot someone is on a forum - by all means warn and then ban them from posting. But no company has the right to stop someone using a legally purchased product.

For me this will be the last EA/Bioware game I purchase, having bought virtually all of them since they started (Sonic aside!). I'm finding their contempt towards customers basic rights a little difficult to swallow, in addition to the standard of their products starting to very much follow the EA downward slope in terms of quality and rushed production.

Modifié par Clammo, 20 mars 2011 - 11:52 .

[Lux]

I believe that a player, in extreme cases, should have his/her account banned from ever posting in EA forums. But the games he/she already purchased in that banned account should still remain accessible for DRM purposes. That would be fair in my view.

What should happen though, is a complete separation between a forum account and a game management account.

Modifié par Merkar, 21 mars 2011 - 01:16 .

[Iamtheguy]

An EULA does not ever supersede the law, and these people have consumer rights, I hope EA get's their butts sued over this.

For example, if an EULA said they reserve the right to rape you, they would still not be legally entitled to forcibly rape you, because law > EULA.

[Seagloom]

I have no problem with what happened to him. The forumite in question should have been banned a long time ago based on the frequency and severity of his sexist and homophobic comments. He also had a habit of harassing people. He broke EA's rules. Now he suffers the consequences. Maybe next time he will remember this experience before posting rubbish, and think twice about it.

What can I say? I have a low tolerance and no sympathy for people that chose to spread that kind of hate. I also have no compunction against extreme punishment being meted out in such cases. On a side note, this has been around for a long, long time. EA has always had this power. They rarely exercise it since our resident moderators do most of the monitoring. For EA to step in means many, *many* people probably reported him over some pretty serious stuff. This is only making news now because DA2 is still a fresh release, and the former forumite in question decided not to go quietly.

Modifié par Seagloom, 21 mars 2011 - 03:03 .

[jlibster]

I said it once I'll say it again, as long as any EA game requires internet access to play, I won't buy it because it means EA can kill it. SecuROM subset looked like trouble and I HATE it when I'm right. (why can't I be right about good things?) Perhaps there could even be a small claims case to be made if someone pays for a product and cannot play it because the game maker doens't like what the buyer says. Fairly blatent censorship with a touch of malicious action. EULA or not, there are limits to their protection: I'm no lawyer but an argument could be made. Especially if EA repeats someting like this. From a PR standpoint, if we all think this is wrong we should vote with our minds, hearts and DOLLARS.

[Lux]

Seagloom wrote...

I have no problem with what happened to him. The forumite in question should have been banned a long time ago based on the frequency and severity of his sexist and homophobic comments. He also had a habit of harassing people. He broke EA's rules. Now he suffers the consequences. Maybe next time he will remember this experience before posting rubbish, and think twice about it.

That is good to know Seagloom. Thanks for that.

The user in question indicated that he got no warning prior to this permanent ban. I taken he had been warned before on his sexist and homophobic comments?

EA has always had this power. They rarely exercise it since our resident moderators do most of the monitoring. For EA to step in means many, *many* people probably reported him over some pretty serious stuff. This is only making news now because DA2 is still a fresh release, and the former forumite in question decided not to go quietly.

And on exercising that power, as valid as it may be under current rules, it also creates a considerable backlash. DRM protection from a purchased product shouldn't be mixed with user behavior in forums. If a user is discovered to be breaking the rules on the DRM protection, then by all means remove games privileges. If the comments of a user are distasteful in nature, what the heck does that have to do with copy protection?

I see two distinct issues being mixed up in a very, very disturbing way.

[B3taMaxxx]

Merkar wrote...
And on exercising that power, as valid as it may be under current rules, it also creates a considerable backlash.

 No, not really. I seriously doubt the majority of EA product users will even hear about this. Besides, he deserved it.

[Seagloom]

Merkar wrote...

The user in question indicated that he got no warning prior to this permanent ban. I taken he had been warned before on his sexist and homophobic comments?

My experience is limited to once moderating here, and I cannot discuss any of that. Besides, I have no idea how EA handles this sort of thing on their end. Sorry I cannot answer your question. Suffice it to say my experiences behind the curtain and observations of this guy make me take anything he says as suspect. I am inclined to trust EA/BioWare over him.

Modifié par Seagloom, 21 mars 2011 - 04:28 .

[Bathead]

I am still highly doubtful anyone was not able to play the game or acces DLC that was already paid for and downloaded.We all have the opton in the main menu to select whether or not we play online or not, and any DLC I already have is not disabled when I do that. You do NOT need acces to your online EA acount to play the game.

Modifié par Bathead, 21 mars 2011 - 04:23 .

[B3taMaxxx]

Bathead wrote...

I am still highly doubtful anyone was not able to play the game or acces DLC that was already paid for and downloaded.We all have the opton in the main menu to select whether or not we play online or not, and any DLC I already have is not disabled when I do that. You do NOT need acces to your online EA acount to play the game.

 But the free content that wasn't downloaded will not show up if you're not connected, correct?

[Sa Seba]

Seagloom wrote...

I have no problem with what happened to
him. The forumite in question should have been banned a long time ago
based on the frequency and severity of his sexist and homophobic
comments. He also had a habit of harassing people. He broke EA's rules.
Now he suffers the consequences. Maybe next time he will remember this
experience before posting rubbish, and think twice about it.

What
can I say? I have a low tolerance and no sympathy for people that chose
to spread that kind of hate. I also have no compunction against extreme
punishment being meted out in such cases. On a side note, this has been
around for a long, long time. EA has always had this power. They rarely
exercise it since our resident moderators do most of the monitoring.
For EA to step in means many, *many* people probably reported him over
some pretty serious stuff. This is only making news now because DA2 is
still a fresh release, and the former forumite in question decided not
to go quietly.

^This.

Also this:
There is no way that EA will turn around now. Maybe if it was hundreds of users that got banned, maybe then there would be enough pressure on EA to reverse the ban on the game and dlc.
Hiring a lawyer will cost more than a new game plus dlc.
So, move on, banned user.

Modifié par Sa Seba, 21 mars 2011 - 04:43 .

[Lux]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Merkar wrote...
And on exercising that power, as valid as it may be under current rules, it also creates a considerable backlash.

 No, not really. I seriously doubt the majority of EA product users will even hear about this. Besides, he deserved it.

I'm sure this won't happen to the great majority of users. However, the word of mouth from permanent bans happening in quick succession is regrettable.

It seems to me that the system in place contributes not only to a loss of rights from a player's purchase, but also fuels a negative impression that people have of EA.

Seagloom wrote...

I am
inclined to trust EA/BioWare over him.

Fair enough.

[Gaius Octavian]

Tez deserved to be banned. If he is stupid enough to try to sue EA over it then I shall laugh heartily. Stop complaining if you get banned for breaking forum rules.

[B3taMaxxx]

Gaius Octavian wrote...

Tez deserved to be banned. If he is stupid enough to try to sue EA over it then I shall laugh heartily. Stop complaining if you get banned for breaking forum rules.

 Oh come on! It's only a 20 to 1 ratio with the lawyers. He's got this one in the bag!