126 réponses à ce sujet

[lv12medic]

Clammo wrote...

Just because someone has "terms of service" does not mean those TOS supercede the law - in this case removing someone's legal right to use a legally purchased product. Seriously, give it up. EA are wholly in the wrong about this, it's not even a grey area.

LordPaul256 wrote...

Terms of Service does not supersede a countries' law.

Let
me see if I can explain this to you... If you download a video game and
click through the Terms of Service, but you forgot to check and those
Terms of Service say that you have to kill your mother or pay $5,000,
you don't not have to legally do anything. That's because it would be
illegal under the law. The laws of the land are stronger than any ToS
or EULA. Much, much stronger.

I'm not saying the Terms of Service superscede any actual law produced by a legally standing governing body.  I was responding to the claim that there was lack of disclosure on EA's part in regards to how this happend.

I'll say again, the fundemental problem in this whole situation of locking people out from a single player game is the tie-in with the centralized online EA account.

[Chadthesad]

I see this topic going in giant circles. What more is there to gain out of this? Mistakes were made. Move on from it.

[sgriffin0810]

Chadthesad wrote...

I see this topic going in giant circles. What more is there to gain out of this? Mistakes were made. Move on from it.

You're probably seeing circular trends because these are real problems and Bioware is not fixing them.

[Myounage]

Lol no. They're only doing it out of fear to protect their profits. This is EA we're talking about they're the second filthiest gaming company around next to Activision.

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win. Multiplayer games are different, but if they were to lock you out of Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 2 you'd have an airtight legal case with potentially massive damages. It is legal to ban someone from playing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 online for cheating, but they can sue you if you also disable the single player. Don't be afraid of EA/ Bioware taking our games away. If they start banning us from playing their games after we've paid for them we can start a huge class action and rip them to pieces like they deserve.

Modifié par Myounage, 15 mars 2011 - 11:54 .

[Dave of Canada]

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[JrayM16]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Indeed.

[Myounage]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Those aren't legally binding. The law of first sale supercedes them. The TOS matters **** all. Taking away access and right of resale to a single player game is illegal. The same goes for music CDs and movie DVDs / Blu-Ray.

In other words, EA's toss is a bunch of hot air. They can legally ban you from multiplayer, but the law draws the line at single player and right of resale.

Modifié par Myounage, 16 mars 2011 - 12:08 .

[StingingVelvet]

Singleplayer games should never be under company control if you ask me, but customers have accepted DRM and now we have to live with it. Companies should never use DRM to remove someone's singleplayer access though... forum access? Sure. Multiplayer? Under the right circumstances yes. Singleplayer? No way!

That's my stance. I am glad EA reversed it quickly and are claiming it was an accident.

[Myounage]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Singleplayer games should never be under company control if you ask me, but customers have accepted DRM and now we have to live with it. Companies should never use DRM to remove someone's singleplayer access though... forum access? Sure. Multiplayer? Under the right circumstances yes. Singleplayer? No way!

That's my stance. I am glad EA reversed it quickly and are claiming it was an accident.

They're not under company control. EA reversed it because it is against the law in the United States. That man could have sued them immediately, mistake or no. Using DRM to remove singleplayer access or to prevent resale of a physical product is illegal under the law of first sale.

[Kenthen]

Myounage wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Those aren't legally binding. The law of first sale supercedes them. The TOS matters **** all. Taking away access and right of resale to a single player game is illegal. The same goes for music CDs and movie DVDs / Blu-Ray.

In other words, EA's toss is a bunch of hot air. They can legally ban you from multiplayer, but the law draws the line at single player and right of resale.

Has that been tested in a court though? It's one thing if it has actually been tested, it's another to interpret it without any actual precedent.
Mind you, I'm asking because I'm actually curious about it.

[Seblin]

http://www.gamepro.c...-on-metacritic/

Bioware, what have you become?

[LordPaul256]

Myounage wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Singleplayer games should never be under company control if you ask me, but customers have accepted DRM and now we have to live with it. Companies should never use DRM to remove someone's singleplayer access though... forum access? Sure. Multiplayer? Under the right circumstances yes. Singleplayer? No way!

That's my stance. I am glad EA reversed it quickly and are claiming it was an accident.

They're not under company control. EA reversed it because it is against the law in the United States. That man could have sued them immediately, mistake or no. Using DRM to remove singleplayer access or to prevent resale of a physical product is illegal under the law of first sale.

Again, this.

There's a reason they changed their stance from "working as intended" to "it's a glitch." 

A very, very good legal reason.  

[sgriffin0810]

Kenthen wrote...

Myounage wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Those aren't legally binding. The law of first sale supercedes them. The TOS matters **** all. Taking away access and right of resale to a single player game is illegal. The same goes for music CDs and movie DVDs / Blu-Ray.

In other words, EA's toss is a bunch of hot air. They can legally ban you from multiplayer, but the law draws the line at single player and right of resale.

Has that been tested in a court though? It's one thing if it has actually been tested, it's another to interpret it without any actual precedent.
Mind you, I'm asking because I'm actually curious about it.

Although there is some contradiction in the courts on this issue, there is precedent for throwing out EULAs because of the "right of first sale" doctrine, which would definitely apply in this case.

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell  held that calling a sale a license or binding it to an alleged EULA does not necessarily make it so.

Bobbs Merrill Co v. Straus held that a right to sell a product does not preclude a consumer's right to resell it. By banning a person from the single-player game, they are effectively barring the consumer from resale, which is very much against the law.

Softman v. Adobe held that the consumer could disregard the shrinkwrap EULA entirely because it unlawfully infringed on his rights as a consumer.

More to come when I have some free time.

Modifié par sgriffin0810, 16 mars 2011 - 03:56 .

[Kenthen]

sgriffin0810 wrote...

Kenthen wrote...

Myounage wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Myounage wrote...

EDIT: By the way, if EA disables your EA account and locks you out of a single player game that you paid money for, you can immediately sue them and almost certaintly win.

You know the terms you agreed to? That would shut you down before you even become a bother.

Those aren't legally binding. The law of first sale supercedes them. The TOS matters **** all. Taking away access and right of resale to a single player game is illegal. The same goes for music CDs and movie DVDs / Blu-Ray.

In other words, EA's toss is a bunch of hot air. They can legally ban you from multiplayer, but the law draws the line at single player and right of resale.

Has that been tested in a court though? It's one thing if it has actually been tested, it's another to interpret it without any actual precedent.
Mind you, I'm asking because I'm actually curious about it.

Although there is some contradiction in the courts on this issue, there is precedent for throwing out EULAs because of the "right of first sale" doctrine, which would definitely apply in this case.

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell  held that calling a sale a license or binding it to an alleged EULA does not necessarily make it so.

Bobbs Merrill Co v. Straus held that a right to sell a product does not preclude a consumer's right to resell it. By banning a person from the single-player game, they are effectively barring the consumer from resale, which is very much against the law.

Softman v. Adobe held that the consumer could disregard the shrinkwrap EULA entirely because it unlawfully infringed on his rights as a consumer.

More to come when I have some free time.

Thank you. I took the time to read up on those examples and it's quite interesting. Well, to me.

[BFBHLC]

In my youth I too RAEEGGEEDDD at these sort of things. If it is EA's fault, and I were BioWare, I'd be pissed for making me look bad. Truth is, though, Steam does it every day. If you cry about Gabe's stupid "console-centric" attitude as of late, you get banned and lose access to your Steam account - and all linked games. People are just going to have to start READING the EULA's. It's called a brain. Use it.

[sgriffin0810]

BFBHLC wrote...

In my youth I too RAEEGGEEDDD at these sort of things. If it is EA's fault, and I were BioWare, I'd be pissed for making me look bad. Truth is, though, Steam does it every day. If you cry about Gabe's stupid "console-centric" attitude as of late, you get banned and lose access to your Steam account - and all linked games. People are just going to have to start READING the EULA's. It's called a brain. Use it.

Or better yet, pushing Congress to rein in abusive EULA practices like the "shrinkwrap TOS".

[MOB_RULES_]

Chadthesad wrote...

I see this topic going in giant circles. What more is there to gain out of this? Mistakes were made. Move on from it.

My best guess is that the OP wants peoples' awareness levels on high.

[HTTP 404]

I have a hard time feeling sorry for those who got banned from playing DA2 for saying something "stupid" on these forums. In my book, they probably deserved it.

With that said, I dont think there should be a ban on playing "your" game. The ban should only extend to forum usage. Now if it was an online game, I can see that it could extend to the game (social aspect) but DA2 is not a multiplayer game and a user being verbally abusive to others can do that on their own playing single player.

[v_ware]

MOB_RULES wrote...

Chadthesad wrote...

I see this topic going in giant circles. What more is there to gain out of this? Mistakes were made. Move on from it.

My best guess is that the OP wants peoples' awareness levels on high.

You guessed right.

[ErebUs890]

That guy deserved it.

[Rockfist]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Opinion noted. But you seem to take offense purely on the fact my view contradicts your own. My view is simple and is this,

Stopped reading there, sorry. I don't care what your opinion is and i didn't care in the previous post, i was merely stating how i perceive you as a person. Having seen a few of your posts now i can safely assume my opinion > yours, so no need for me to read.

Anyway, mod handed out the warnings for this, i'm not sure what else you were ranting about, but drop it. Or you can keep picking fights, but you'll lose... Or both of us will get banned. Both outcomes are pretty nice i think.

BFBHLC wrote...

In my youth I too RAEEGGEEDDD at these
sort of things. If it is EA's fault, and I were BioWare, I'd be pissed
for making me look bad. Truth is, though, Steam does it every day. If
you cry about Gabe's stupid "console-centric" attitude as of late, you
get banned and lose access to your Steam account - and all linked games.
People are just going to have to start READING the EULA's. It's called a
brain. Use it.

The big big BIG difference here is that people actually like steam and accept this pretty much without hesitation, but everyone knows that EA corrupts anything it touchs. Worse than Activision it has destroyed numerous great developers over the years, whereas Activision just milk their current fanbase. EA tries to get a slice of everyones pie.

Also unless you are doing something extremely illegal, there really isnt many cases of full steam bans. Heard storys about fraud credit cards, but i've still to see anyone actually post with proof being permanently banned from steam, though i don't doubt it has happened. More often than not they are just game specific bans.

Modifié par Rockfist, 16 mars 2011 - 09:53 .

[moilami]

Merci357 wrote...

Clammo wrote...

This is the reason many people aren't registering games. It's completely unacceptable that being banned in forums precludes people from playing their purchased games, and I strongly suspect, illegal. It's happened on more than one occasion, which kind of rules out the "accidentally stopped him playing his game" argument.

Funny thing is, how could anyone fear to be banned if he behaves like a mature human being?

Funny thing is, how could anyone get murdered, raped, tortured, robbed, insulted if he behaves like a mature human being?????????????????? 

[moilami]

Pisses me by the way helluva big time I have supported game companies since I was a teenager with hard earned money when we have now come to this reality that game companies abuse technology and can anytime steal and ruin offline games I or my fellow gamer has bought.

It pisses me even more that there are those far worse than fence sitters saying corporations are entitled to steal and ruin single player games I have bought.

Seriously, some people deserve to be managed as resourses by Reapers, but luckily for them some people does not let it happen.

[StingingVelvet]

Myounage wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Singleplayer games should never be under company control if you ask me, but customers have accepted DRM and now we have to live with it. Companies should never use DRM to remove someone's singleplayer access though... forum access? Sure. Multiplayer? Under the right circumstances yes. Singleplayer? No way!

That's my stance. I am glad EA reversed it quickly and are claiming it was an accident.

They're not under company control. EA reversed it because it is against the law in the United States. That man could have sued them immediately, mistake or no. Using DRM to remove singleplayer access or to prevent resale of a physical product is illegal under the law of first sale.

Someone should sue Blizzard then because they take away your singleplayer access to Starcraft II for cheating in multiplayer.

[moilami]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Myounage wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Singleplayer games should never be under company control if you ask me, but customers have accepted DRM and now we have to live with it. Companies should never use DRM to remove someone's singleplayer access though... forum access? Sure. Multiplayer? Under the right circumstances yes. Singleplayer? No way!

That's my stance. I am glad EA reversed it quickly and are claiming it was an accident.

They're not under company control. EA reversed it because it is against the law in the United States. That man could have sued them immediately, mistake or no. Using DRM to remove singleplayer access or to prevent resale of a physical product is illegal under the law of first sale.

Someone should sue Blizzard then because they take away your singleplayer access to Starcraft II for cheating in multiplayer.

Do they? If so, then absolutely.

Thanks of the info, I wont activate my WoW account now.

This is actually cool how companies help me to chose what games to play and buy.

Edit: And there is no way I would buy SC II now, unless I would get it for 5€ or something.

Modifié par moilami, 16 mars 2011 - 04:49 .