150 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Both Steam and Origins render their TOS invalid by including lines such as "reserve the right to change the TOS without notification".
A contract is an agreement for specific terms and conditions. You cannot legally agree to unknown conditions, hence the contract is invalid.
Argue as much as they like, but both contract and consumer laws are pretty clear about these things.

Literally every terms and conditions thing I've ever read says that they can change them at any time without notice. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to do that.

[Bogsnot1]

WreshmanMcGoo wrote...

Then, technically, in a court they would be the one in legal violation by wrongly advertising something that is not a TOS (implied/expressed contract) as in fact a TOS, which it is not. You could even say that it is an unfair bargaining position for one party i.e. the consumer and all of the power lie in the hands of the company, wheter it be Stean or EA. The same is true for housing and apartment leases in regards to unfair bargaining position for money offered and services rendered. It's different property, but the same exact principle.

This is where capitolism comes into play. If I dont agree to Steam's TOS, I can buy from Origin. If I also dont like Origins TOS, I can buy hardcopy. Buying hardcopy is literally the best way to go, as it gives the greatest protection for the consumer. Most countries have a little section in their consumer laws which dictate that all terms and conditions pertaining to the sale must be made clear to the consumer prior to point of sale.
This basically means if the EULA is not printed on the outside of the box for the consumer to read prior to handing over their hard earned cash for it, it can be ruled as invalid. A lot of companies wouldnt see it that way, and would fight tooth and nail with an army of lawyers against it, but in the end, if it looks like a sale, sounds like a sale, and acts like a sale, it is a sale, regardless of a slip of paper or click-through window stating anything about a licence.
Too few people are willing to go all the way and get a court judgement on matters in order to set a precedent, and would rather accept a hefty out of court settlement, mainly due to the company in question is willing to keep appealing the matter to avoid said precedent, as it will allow them to continue to dupe the unwary.

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
Both Steam and Origins render their TOS invalid by including lines such as "reserve the right to change the TOS without notification".
A contract is an agreement for specific terms and conditions. You cannot legally agree to unknown conditions, hence the contract is invalid.
Argue as much as they like, but both contract and consumer laws are pretty clear about these things.

Literally every terms and conditions thing I've ever read says that they can change them at any time without notice. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to do that.

I didnt say they werent allowed to do it. I'm just saying that your acceptance to the previous terms and conditions does not automatically mean you agree to the new ones.
A contract is an agreement between (usually) 2 parties pertaining to a set of terms and conditions. You cannot rationally, or legally, agree to a condition that you have not been informed of. They can introduce as many new conditions as they like, but until you have both read, and agreed to them, they can be considered invalid in the eyes of the law as it pertains to your agreement with said provider.

[Esquin]

Bogsnot i'll point out that your reasoning is the exact reason that online services are constantly asking you to re-read the terms and conditions. You're right, agreeing to the terms and conditions doesn't mean you agree to latter changes. The clause however lets them change it and ask you to agree again. It also lets them refuse you access to the service unless you accept the new conditions.

So yes they can change the terms and conditions at any time you like. But they also need to ask if you agree to the new conditions. If you don't you don't get to access the service.

But thats really beside the point. Go to a real store. Check if the box says anywhere on it that it requires an internet connection. If it doesn't then you're fine.

[Bogsnot1]

Thats why I said hardcopy is the best way to go, not only because of the consumer protection laws, but also because you have the actual product in your hands, and are not reliant on a 3rd party to deliver it for you.

[exskeeny]

marshalleck wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...
 I don't need a bunch of things like Origin updating, taking up space, putting icons everywhere, starting up when I start my computer etc...... 

You have control over all of that with Windows. Learn2computer.

^^this.

Also, not being inflammatory, accept that companies will try to get you to use their products. People purchasing through Origins will mean more money for EA likewise if it was THQ or Activision etc etc etc. This is capatilism 101, companies want to maximize profits so that their shareholders stay happy and the company stays afloat.

It's not that hard a concept to grasp yet not a lot of people on these forums realise it. companies NEED to make money. Admittedly how they go about it and our reaction to it is a matter for a different discussion.

[United_Strafes]

exskeeny wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

United_Strafes wrote...
 I don't need a bunch of things like Origin updating, taking up space, putting icons everywhere, starting up when I start my computer etc...... 

You have control over all of that with Windows. Learn2computer.

^^this.

Also, not being inflammatory, accept that companies will try to get you to use their products. People purchasing through Origins will mean more money for EA likewise if it was THQ or Activision etc etc etc. This is capatilism 101, companies want to maximize profits so that their shareholders stay happy and the company stays afloat.

It's not that hard a concept to grasp yet not a lot of people on these forums realise it. companies NEED to make money. Admittedly how they go about it and our reaction to it is a matter for a different discussion.

Learn 2 read bro and you'll see us talk about the Origin client, updates and hard drive space. You'll also see the poor guy get shut down hard.

Learn2Read

People purchasing through Origins

That's great, but again learn2read because we're not really talking about anyone buying off Origin we're talking about needing the Origin client to possibly run ME3 no matter where you buy it....again learn2read.

Modifié par United_Strafes, 12 août 2011 - 10:31 .

[exskeeny]

well he did answer your query, I just furthered the reason behind EA doing this.

origins updating- you can probably control automatic updates.
taking up space, programmes like that aren't going to be massive and if you are running out of space on your Hard drive I can think of only one person who can deal with that
Putting icons everywhere- I own about 90 games on Steam, I have one steam Icon on my desktop.....
Starting up when I start my computer- You can control which programmes start up.

So he did read it. as did I

[towerstone]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Heres a car analogy:
Its cheaper for you to go out and buy a 4x4 vehicle rather than the Dept of Transport go along and buy graders, bulldozers, cement trucks, purchase resources and hire staff to build a road between 2 suburbs. Sure, you will have to spend extra money on fuel and tyres, but you will save money in the long run because you will be taxed less because that road doesnt exist.

Huh? that analogy seems reversed to me. the road network should be the infrastructure (computer) that you run your car (application) on. if you have a high performing road network to run on, everybody can save money on fuel, price of the cars they drive and so on. in the programming world this would be, create a platform that's very powerful so that you don't have to waste money on forcing programmers to perform miracles every time a new application needs to be run.

anyhow. i have nothing against origin. it sits nicely on my computer, and whenever i want to buy an EA game i consider their prices as i do all other stores. more likely than not, i end up buying the games in store because i like to put cool stuff in my bookshelf.

one cool thing would be a digital download with optional mail-outs of physical copies.
imagine being able to buy ME3 on release day (maybe even the night before public release if you pre-order a collectors edition), just downloading it and starting to play it. a couple of days later, you get the box with the disc, the art and other extras in the mail. It doesn't even need to be an expensive priority shipping, since i already got the primary product.. i would fanboy out completely for the first DD store that implemented a solution like that.

Modifié par towerstone, 12 août 2011 - 10:45 .

[MassStorm]

Oh well i bought the digital copy on Origin....it won't make any difference for me.
But on the principle i agree it is bad move similar to the one made by Steam with Fallout:New Vegas

Modifié par MassStorm, 12 août 2011 - 10:51 .

[Bogsnot1]

towerstone wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Heres a car analogy:
Its cheaper for you to go out and buy a 4x4 vehicle rather than the Dept of Transport go along and buy graders, bulldozers, cement trucks, purchase resources and hire staff to build a road between 2 suburbs. Sure, you will have to spend extra money on fuel and tyres, but you will save money in the long run because you will be taxed less because that road doesnt exist.

Huh? that analogy seems reversed to me. the road network should be the infrastructure (computer) that you run your car (application) on. if you have a high performing road network to run on, everybody can save money on fuel, price of the cars they drive and so on. in the programming world this would be, create a platform that's very powerful so that you don't have to waste money on forcing programmers to perform miracles every time a new application needs to be run.

anyhow. i have nothing against origin. it sits nicely on my computer, and whenever i want to buy an EA game i consider their prices as i do all other stores. more likely than not, i end up buying the games in store because i like to put cool stuff in my bookshelf.

one cool thing would be a digital download with optional mail-outs of physical copies.
imagine being able to buy ME3 on release day (maybe even the night before public release if you pre-order a collectors edition), just downloading it and starting to play it. a couple of days later, you get the box with the disc, the art and other extras in the mail. It doesn't even need to be an expensive priority shipping, since i already got the primary product.. i would fanboy out completely for the first DD store that implemented a solution like that.

The analogy works.
If you had compact and efficient code (highways), people would save money on the price of their hardware (car), becaue they wouldnt have to buy such a powerful vehicle to deal with the rough terrain.

You dont need a mail-out copy of the software from the digital distributor, all you would need is access to the setup files that get downloaded to your local machine, which you can then back up to dvd.

[zweistein_J]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

If it is a requirement, then it will be the last EA/Bioware game I spend money on. I dont buy Steam related games for this exact reason.

+1

[RPGamer13]

I just wanted to say:

There are games for Steam that require you to download the program if you buy the physical copy.  The Last Remnant is the only one I've seen, but I'm pretty sure there are others.

Then Bioshock 2 requires Games for Windows, I don't see anyone talking about that.


Also, for most people, if they want to play a game bad enough, they will do whatever it takes to play it.  I don't like the idea of having a persistent internet connection for Diablo III, but I've been waiting for it too long and hard to pass up on it because of a setback like that.

By saying you won't play ME3 if it requires Origin, tells me you don't want to play it bad enough so there's no need to hold your breath right now.

[NegativelyChrgd]

If this turns out true with Battlefield 3 then I will cancel my pre-order. Mass Effect 3 will be my last purchase from EA if they attempt the same thing. It was nice while it lasted Bioware but I refuse to be treated this way.

[towerstone]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The analogy works.
If you had compact and efficient code (highways), people would save money on the price of their hardware (car), becaue they wouldnt have to buy such a powerful vehicle to deal with the rough terrain.

You dont need a mail-out copy of the software from the digital distributor, all you would need is access to the setup files that get downloaded to your local machine, which you can then back up to dvd.

[/qoute]
Except you're wrong;)
i'll just have to disagree with you on this one, as does almost all commercial developers. My point is that even though it's possible to make software run on cheaper, slower hardware, the development cost and time of this would be much higher, and since most people wouldn't notice any significant difference, the only thing that would happen is delayed releases and higher prices of the software. It could be the difference between hiring 5 Jr. level programmers and have them work for 14 months on a product instead of having to hire 5 senior developers and have them working on the product for 2 years. after you buy a couple of products, you will have paid more than you paid for your "cheaper" hardware in the first place.

[Bogsnot1]

towerstone wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The analogy works.
If you had compact and efficient code (highways), people would save money on the price of their hardware (car), becaue they wouldnt have to buy such a powerful vehicle to deal with the rough terrain.

You dont need a mail-out copy of the software from the digital distributor, all you would need is access to the setup files that get downloaded to your local machine, which you can then back up to dvd.

[/qoute]
Except you're wrong;)
i'll just have to disagree with you on this one, as does almost all commercial developers. My point is that even though it's possible to make software run on cheaper, slower hardware, the development cost and time of this would be much higher, and since most people wouldn't notice any significant difference, the only thing that would happen is delayed releases and higher prices of the software. It could be the difference between hiring 5 Jr. level programmers and have them work for 14 months on a product instead of having to hire 5 senior developers and have them working on the product for 2 years. after you buy a couple of products, you will have paid more than you paid for your "cheaper" hardware in the first place.

Compare Windows to Linux. I can run the current linux distribution on a 10 year old rig should I desire to. The same cannot be said about Windows. You would be lucky to run Win7 on a 5 year old piece of kit.

This is the base reason why Microsoft has yet to halt support on Windows XP, as there are still enough companies out there who do not have the finances (in part due to the GFC) to update their hardware across the board in order to facilitate a Win7 rollout. They halt XP support, and companies start looking at comparing costs of retraining their staff to OSS (open source software), to that of full hardware updates and Win7 licences. While initial costs will work out to be about the same, long term costs will be on the side of OSS, which would mean less market share for MS, and plummeting sales.
Each major release of linux is rebuilt from the kernal up. Windows just has more and more code piled on top of it.
Microsoft has more programmers dedicated to each version of Windows than Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Mandriva and the like, and yet those versiobns of linux are still more compact and efficient than Windows.

[KingDan97]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

You dont need a mail-out copy of the software from the digital distributor, all you would need is access to the setup files that get downloaded to your local machine, which you can then back up to dvd.

I think she was refering to things more akin to Collector's Editions, or just the enjoyment of having a nice box, with an instruction manual to put up on a shelf next to all of your other games. That's honestly one of the big draws of console gaming for me, I get the new game smell, and it is sweet.

[KingDan97]

NegativelyChrgd wrote...

If this turns out true with Battlefield 3 then I will cancel my pre-order. Mass Effect 3 will be my last purchase from EA if they attempt the same thing. It was nice while it lasted Bioware but I refuse to be treated this way.

"I REFUSE TO BE TREATED LIKE A SOURCE OF INCOME FROM A FOR PROFIT COMANY!"

I see, well good luck with that.

[Sanunes]

I am curious if the reasons are for it could be part of their anti-cheat system like other FPS and some MMOs I see on the PC they install anti-cheat software and I am wondering if they are planning to use Origin as anti-cheat software.

[Obsidian Gryphon]

In more ways than one, somehow or OTHER, Steam always manages to $#@!! my comp sys. I'm not joking. I've changed two computer rigs the last several years and somehow (as with a recent comp sys failure), the problems vanished after I kicked Steam (yes, that means I also got rid of the games associated with it) off the comp sys. I've garnered an intense dislike for Steam but I'm forced to use it because of the titles that went with it.  I'm retired from the mulitplayer FPS for quite a few years now and all I play are SPs and a MMORPG.

If ME3 ends up having the same req, that will really cause plenty of thunderclouds around here.

Modifié par Obsidian Gryphon, 12 août 2011 - 01:07 .

[NegativelyChrgd]

KingDan97 wrote...

NegativelyChrgd wrote...

If this turns out true with Battlefield 3 then I will cancel my pre-order. Mass Effect 3 will be my last purchase from EA if they attempt the same thing. It was nice while it lasted Bioware but I refuse to be treated this way.

"I REFUSE TO BE TREATED LIKE A SOURCE OF INCOME FROM A FOR PROFIT COMANY!"

I see, well good luck with that.

God forbid I have an opinion , thankfully it appears I'm not the only one who feels this way. There need not be any luck wished, I simply stated my opinion on a public forum. I have a problem with the way a company conducts itself and I chose my course of action. The whole Origin fiasco is an obvious method by which EA is trying to get a piece of the download market pie. My opinion is of the "inconsiderate" people's, who think the industry should be more about being loyal to it's customers than creating more unecessary crap to buy and wade through in order to turn a slightly larger profit.

Modifié par NegativelyChrgd, 12 août 2011 - 01:31 .

[towerstone]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Compare Windows to Linux. I can run the current linux distribution on a 10 year old rig should I desire to. The same cannot be said about Windows. You would be lucky to run Win7 on a 5 year old piece of kit.

This is the base reason why Microsoft has yet to halt support on Windows XP, as there are still enough companies out there who do not have the finances (in part due to the GFC) to update their hardware across the board in order to facilitate a Win7 rollout. They halt XP support, and companies start looking at comparing costs of retraining their staff to OSS (open source software), to that of full hardware updates and Win7 licences. While initial costs will work out to be about the same, long term costs will be on the side of OSS, which would mean less market share for MS, and plummeting sales.
Each major release of linux is rebuilt from the kernal up. Windows just has more and more code piled on top of it.
Microsoft has more programmers dedicated to each version of Windows than Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Mandriva and the like, and yet those versiobns of linux are still more compact and efficient than Windows.

It's not a problem with the hardware that's the issue when it comes to upgrading to windows 7.  the problem is that too many legacy applications have been written during the windows 2000 era. users being unable to log on to the order management system is a more expensive issue than being unable to run Aero. (i should know, part of my job is to evaluate win7 for our corporate evironment )

A decent 3-year old computer should be able to run windows 7 without major problems. (you would, of course, not get the whole "aero experience"), new hardware prices is not the problem either. (when windows XP was released I paid about $1400 for a computer that could run the operating system. this cost today is down to $600-700 for windows 7).

FOSS and closed source development is too different and has too different goals to be able to compare.

anyways, back on topic. I still see no problem with Origins. it's a pretty decent software. it's not very big, none of my games have suffered any performance by having it. i don't see what the problem is. was it bloating down my computer, or dropping the frame rates of ME2 to 15/second, then i would complain. I chose to welcome the competition. hopefully steam and ea can inspire each other to make better games and provide better services in the long run.

and no. downloading install files and burning to the dvd is NOT the same as getting a nice shiny box with goodies in the mail

Modifié par towerstone, 12 août 2011 - 02:51 .

[Clonedzero]

im worried about this as well. i was already accepting the fact it probably wont be on steam, so i was going to buy the retail copy of the game, but forcing me to use origin? come on.
its poorly optimized as well. the battlefield 3 alpha was negatively effected due to having to run origin with it since origin was sucking too much resources to be run in the backround.

im not sure if it'd be required to run to play ME3 since its a single player game. but damn. EA is being outrageously stupid.

also people arguing against steam. yeah, im a fairly loyal steam user. why? because its absolutely the best service out there currently and it eats up an insignificant amount of resources to be in the backround. if origin offered the same level of service quality i wouldnt mind. however, it does not. not at all. so please, troll elsewhere.

EA is simply pushing origin WAY too hard and the quality of service simply isnt there to support it. its going to hurt EA in the long run.

[Kekkis]

Great. I didn´t have enough account/password stuff to remember already. But if my DVD version needs somekind of stuff, that says, that after 2 years they will remove my rights to play the game if I don´t log in to their stupid service I´m not buying it at all. At least Steam remembered me and my only game CD that needed Steam after 5 years.

[Woofy128]

If it does end up requiring Origin, I'm canceling my CE pre-order. Simple as that. Not only is it $60 - $10 more than PC games customarily cost - and a quite shabby CE package compared to some recent ones like Skyrim or Duke Nukem Forever (heck, even the wanker 2 has a better CE than ME3 - a disgrace), likely not going to be on Steam, but now it might require a non-steam client to run? No thanks. That would be one too many ratty moves for me to tolerate. Watch some interviews with Gabe Newell to learn how to treat your customers properly.

[United_Strafes]

Ya it might not happen, with Battlelog for BF3 there is a VERY small use for Origin as I played the Alpha for a few days, as far as ME3 goes there doesn't seem to be a need for Origin, if it DOES require Origin that will just be a blatant move by EA to cram Origin down players throats as there is no reason for ME3 to need it.