3140 réponses à ce sujet

[CenturyCrow]

ME_Fan wrote...
Do what you want, it's your choice. But know that EA has no legal obligation to release non Origin versions of their future PC games. You can bring Morals and Human Rights into it as much as you want, it's irrelevant. EA releases a product, their product, so they can attach as many strings as they like.

 It seems that anything remotely postive said about Origin here is smashed down instantly, so this post was probably pretty pointless. But I installed the service to support EAs initiative of bringing a fresh face to the market, and because I'm sick of Steam, as great as it might be. As soon as I installed it, the whole information gathering thing didn't bother me again, because I was more exited about now being able to play Origin exclusives which I couldn't before. Most people opposed to it or not, might as well reap the rewards of installing it now, because it's likely that at one point or another you're going to have to anyway tbh.  I agree there are problems with Origin of course, but the positives outweigh the negatives imho.

Your comments are valid, so I don't consider it pointless. It could well get interesting.

I truly would like to see more competition in the game industry, but the real competition seems to be between the production studios and their creative teams and concepts not so much on the administrative side - i.e. publishers never seem to compete on price, just with DRM, EULAs and other annoyances.

But the market could use competition on value and service. I don't use Steam, but based on the comments of others, they view it as providing value and service. However, I suspect EA is more interested in control and profit, not providing value and service.

What I have difficulty with, is the ever increasing limitations and rights imposed on legitimate buyers via EA's EULA and TOS. With Mass Effect 3, all I want is the single player game to finish of what I started in ME and ME2; Origin is baggage to me and an intrusion of my privacy, not something providing additional value or service. It doesn't appear that there will be an option to exclude it. So, no thanks to Origin which will be enough to stop me from even considering multiplayer, no matter how well it will turn out.

From many of the complaints that I've read by Battlefield 3 users, Origin doesn't seem to be adding any value or service to a multiplayer game either.

Modifié par CenturyCrow, 21 novembre 2011 - 11:54 .

[billy the squid]

ME_Fan wrote...

I'm sick of all this 'surrendering privacy' crap. All Origin does is scan software usage and history as well as some other stuff. Big deal, all this crap about human rights etc is ridiculous and I've heard enough. why the hell would EA care about my private life? They don't, as shown by the type of info it collects. JESUS. Me, I'm going to enjoy my Origin exclusive games because I don't fuss about trivial things like types of data collection. Each to their own, however. Enjoy missing out. I'm finished in this thread.

Yes, because corporate irresponsibility is something unheard of. Now please go away and let the adults talk.

[Bogsnot1]

Customz wrote...
It is legal in the US for EA to enforce the
consumer to go through arbitration to resolve disputes. You say the
class action lawsuit waiver is just to scare people from frivolous
lawsuits, but it also keeps legitimate plaintiffs from getting justice.
It is much harder for one individual to go head-to-head with a
corporation even if said individual is right and has legitimate
complaints.

That was actually my point, although I didnt really make it clear in this post, although I have made it other times in this thread when this topic came up.
Its designed to stop people to from jumping on the class action bandwagon, when they have not tried any other means of resolving their problem. Especially those who dont really have a problem, but jump on the bandwagon simply because they see a payout coming their way.

SalsaDMA wrote...

ME_Fan wrote...
And btw (Lol), Origin has millions of users already, it's unlikely to fail.

It has millions of 'users' because each and every EA acount was forcibly transfered into an origin acount.
So those numbers have nothing to do with wether or not Origin will fail.
Why such a fanboy for dataharvesting, though?

My guess is that he either works for EA, and is tasked with defending this piece of crap, works for Facebook and just wants to defend data harvestnig in general, or is part of a hacking collective that plans to target EA for the gold mine of personal data once it has all been harvested.

[billy the squid]

RoseLegion wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


Actually,  that's never been established and very highly likely to be rejected by the courts.  It's the same thing the RIAA has been trying to claim for decades,  and failing at for decades.  Once you sell someone a disc,  it and it's contents are owned by that consumer for their use.

The RIAA got tossed out somewhere around when they claimed that "Copying a song from a disc you bought to your Ipod is copyright infringement".

This will do the same,  because when you extend the concept to it's logical conclusion it gets highly ridiculous.  It's just never really been tested in court before,  no company has ever banned you from a single player game you bought before.  Sure,  some companies have banned people from their servers,  but never from playing the game (If they could find a way without the server).  Even Microsoft has never really tried to push the issue,  because they know it's not something they want to try to defend in court.

The whole DRM concept with requiring connections is on *very* shaky ground,  because EA and Ubisoft and others can't prove a real reason why the game you paid for cannot function unless you connect to the internet.  There's a reason why Hollywood doesn't make you connect to the internet to watch Blurays,  something the video game industry has yet to figure out.

^This

It would also be like a car company claiming they deserve access rights to the contents of your garage because the manufactured the car you have. That's clearly over the top even if you're leasing but more so if you're buying. We don't go to the store (even the digital download kind) and rent a game, but that's how many publishers are trying to treat it. If that's going to be their business module then that's is their call but they need to call it that.  As long as they are selling games it is by definition the sale of a product/service.
How do you think people would respond if they were told that they would now need a persistent internet connection to play the songs on their MP3 players?

Trying to kill the second hand gaming market by turning "sales" into conditional leases and billing the efforts as "game improvement and piracy prevention" is disingenuous. These efforts clearly haven't ended piracy and as to information for improving games/gaming, simply use a survey. I've responded to every gaming survey sent to me and I'll be happy to continue to do so but ask me for the answers don't automate a process which I can neither see nor opt out of.   I like to support quality work and the companies who create it, but as a participant (not saying partner) rather than a subject. 

In either case the implementation of Origin in its current form (as well as other software like it) is neither needed for nor beneficial too the gaming experience of  Mass Effect 3.  To put a very fine point on it, every single tech issue I've had with a bioware (or for that matter any EA published) game within the past 2 years has been directly related to Origin/DRM (obviously not all of them have actually been Origin, it hasn't been around that long, but all of them have been in one or both of those categories).  The methodology is not only conceptually unsound it's poorly implemented and an active degradation to my ability to be entertained by the entertainment product I purchased.
And all of that's true without even bringing the aspect of HDD scaning into things.

No. The disc and The IP are two seperate legal entities, they are not to be treated as the same, you do not own the IP only the disc as such you are not free to do what ever you want with it as you don't own it. You are allowed to use it within the terms of the EULA Copyright legislation and fair usage rights of case law.

Initally the RIAA failed, because under existing copyright legislation, you are allowed to make copies of the disc for personal use or as a back up, the restrictions to prevent copying music breaches that legislation, of course if you intend to do so on a vast scale immediately renders the exemption for copyright void and you are once again liable. Whilst Microsoft has already won cases on users who copied discs for the purposes of distribution and the copyright defence failed.

As to the banning of the game, you are licensed to use the IP and it can be revoked, it is not a sale issue in the standard terms of contract law. In that sense the ground is not shaky in the slightest, was has the potential to lead to problems is the contravention of fair usage rights and unfair contractual terms due to the nature of the DRM rather than the fact DRM is used at all as per the DMCA.

Secondly, no you are quite right you do not rent the game, but you buy the right to lease the IP usage from the company, you don't own it. The sale only extends to the posession of the disc as a physical object that is the only part of the transaction which you adhere to the standard criteria of contract law for sales of goods and services, the rest doesn't. So nothing has been turned into a conditional lease, it already was one to begin with.

As to the issue of Origin, it will be one of breaching national legislatio due to invasive proceedures regarding data collection, the need to provide a service and piracy prevention are the linguitic attempt to get round the Data Protection Act in the UK and Privacy Laws like Germany's in the EU. Ie: it has to be relevant for the products use and not excessive in nature, the problem is that the wording is so vague it opens itself to becoming void for uncertainty.

So far Origin's implementation has been cack handed more than anything else. Authentification problems, server connection problems on BF3, DLC not being authorised on both xbox360 and PC, poor battle net on BF3, data scanning which still remains strange as the packets it sends are tiny and the program itself seems incredily sloppy in it's approach.

[RoseLegion]

billy the squid wrote...

RoseLegion wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


Actually,  that's never been established and very highly likely to be rejected by the courts.  It's the same thing the RIAA has been trying to claim for decades,  and failing at for decades.  Once you sell someone a disc,  it and it's contents are owned by that consumer for their use.

The RIAA got tossed out somewhere around when they claimed that "Copying a song from a disc you bought to your Ipod is copyright infringement".

This will do the same,  because when you extend the concept to it's logical conclusion it gets highly ridiculous.  It's just never really been tested in court before,  no company has ever banned you from a single player game you bought before.  Sure,  some companies have banned people from their servers,  but never from playing the game (If they could find a way without the server).  Even Microsoft has never really tried to push the issue,  because they know it's not something they want to try to defend in court.

The whole DRM concept with requiring connections is on *very* shaky ground,  because EA and Ubisoft and others can't prove a real reason why the game you paid for cannot function unless you connect to the internet.  There's a reason why Hollywood doesn't make you connect to the internet to watch Blurays,  something the video game industry has yet to figure out.

^This

It would also be like a car company claiming they deserve access rights to the contents of your garage because the manufactured the car you have. That's clearly over the top even if you're leasing but more so if you're buying. We don't go to the store (even the digital download kind) and rent a game, but that's how many publishers are trying to treat it. If that's going to be their business module then that's is their call but they need to call it that.  As long as they are selling games it is by definition the sale of a product/service.
How do you think people would respond if they were told that they would now need a persistent internet connection to play the songs on their MP3 players?

Trying to kill the second hand gaming market by turning "sales" into conditional leases and billing the efforts as "game improvement and piracy prevention" is disingenuous. These efforts clearly haven't ended piracy and as to information for improving games/gaming, simply use a survey. I've responded to every gaming survey sent to me and I'll be happy to continue to do so but ask me for the answers don't automate a process which I can neither see nor opt out of.   I like to support quality work and the companies who create it, but as a participant (not saying partner) rather than a subject. 

In either case the implementation of Origin in its current form (as well as other software like it) is neither needed for nor beneficial too the gaming experience of  Mass Effect 3.  To put a very fine point on it, every single tech issue I've had with a bioware (or for that matter any EA published) game within the past 2 years has been directly related to Origin/DRM (obviously not all of them have actually been Origin, it hasn't been around that long, but all of them have been in one or both of those categories).  The methodology is not only conceptually unsound it's poorly implemented and an active degradation to my ability to be entertained by the entertainment product I purchased.
And all of that's true without even bringing the aspect of HDD scaning into things.

No. The disc and The IP are two seperate legal entities, they are not to be treated as the same, you do not own the IP only the disc as such you are not free to do what ever you want with it as you don't own it. You are allowed to use it within the terms of the EULA Copyright legislation and fair usage rights of case law.

Initally the RIAA failed, because under existing copyright legislation, you are allowed to make copies of the disc for personal use or as a back up, the restrictions to prevent copying music breaches that legislation, of course if you intend to do so on a vast scale immediately renders the exemption for copyright void and you are once again liable. Whilst Microsoft has already won cases on users who copied discs for the purposes of distribution and the copyright defence failed.

As to the banning of the game, you are licensed to use the IP and it can be revoked, it is not a sale issue in the standard terms of contract law. In that sense the ground is not shaky in the slightest, was has the potential to lead to problems is the contravention of fair usage rights and unfair contractual terms due to the nature of the DRM rather than the fact DRM is used at all as per the DMCA.

Secondly, no you are quite right you do not rent the game, but you buy the right to lease the IP usage from the company, you don't own it. The sale only extends to the posession of the disc as a physical object that is the only part of the transaction which you adhere to the standard criteria of contract law for sales of goods and services, the rest doesn't. So nothing has been turned into a conditional lease, it already was one to begin with.

As to the issue of Origin, it will be one of breaching national legislatio due to invasive proceedures regarding data collection, the need to provide a service and piracy prevention are the linguitic attempt to get round the Data Protection Act in the UK and Privacy Laws like Germany's in the EU. Ie: it has to be relevant for the products use and not excessive in nature, the problem is that the wording is so vague it opens itself to becoming void for uncertainty.

So far Origin's implementation has been cack handed more than anything else. Authentification problems, server connection problems on BF3, DLC not being authorised on both xbox360 and PC, poor battle net on BF3, data scanning which still remains strange as the packets it sends are tiny and the program itself seems incredily sloppy in it's approach.

Just to be clear I wasn't actually debating the concept of the definition in the legal sense I was more trying to shine a light on the fact that most legal definitions don't match up with what could be loosely called 'common sense/common man' definitions. My point is that the methodology being used by big gaming corps in this case is not what most people would described as either upfront or evenhanded. Also while I acknowledge that the line between sale of an item and license of an IP does stray into a legal grey area (or rather creates a grey area between the legal definition of terms and the common use of said terms). For example when was the last time you heard someone say "I can't wait to license that new game" or "oh man licensing this game was worth every penny" or how about a couple from press releases, "first week sales of licenses for X game are at Y amount", or the Origin store advertising "buy two licenses get the third one free" etc.
I know none of those examples are perfect per se but do they get the overall drift across? I also think the sheer volume of posters (eps from a percent standpoint) who have referred to game acquisition in terms of purchase of an object demonstrates the point as well. If you buy a book that's 'your copy' of the book, if you buy a CD that's 'your copy' of those songs, if you buy a game that's 'your copy' of the game.  I don't think anyone here has advocated that picking up a game at the local store or online = owning a piece of the IP (tho I grant some gamers do act like they think they're shareholders) but we're not talking about rights to alter, market or replicate the game in question.  I personally am not even talking about digital downloads of the game, I'm talking about boxed copies specifically (if Origin didn't alter at all but wasn't ever required for use of ME3 I'd still buy the game, I wouldn't like Origin any better, and I'd still object to things about it, but I wouldn't pass on the game because at least there was some kind of choice offered to the PC audience).
Most people wouldn't consider it reasonable for someone to buy a book, game, CD, DVD, and then make duplicates for all their friends at a tidy profit (honestly most people wouldn't think it was legit to do it for free either) however most people also wouldn't think it's legit to say "sorry that book you bought last year, yeah you can't give/sell it to your friend or a second hand store". Which is in essence what many publishers are trying to push for in applicable gaming law. So while such actions may not be/are not, no shaky legal ground I still contend that they're on very thin ice from a logical and social standpoint.
Or to put an even finer point on it, I think if most gamers understood the current state of law as it applies to games/gaming, let alone the trends in it and what they may lead to, that there would be even larger threads than this with people howling to the rafters and it wouldn't be localized to the boards of one studio.
Again I'm not contradicting your info, but the simple fact is that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's also any of the following: Logical, Ethical, Reasonable, Fair, Necessary.

(also because forums can make it murky this is 100% not meant as a swipe at you whatsoever, just trying to reiterate that the law being what it is doesn't remove the fact that there's a problem, if anything IMO at least, it server to underscore it.)

[billy the squid]

@ RoseLegion
Don't worry, I don't consider it a swipe. Very little gets under my skin, but if it does or I consider it idiotic then you would certainly know about it.

The distinction between the law and common useage terms has always been murky as many people simply don't know how the underlying legislation functions, and you might be suprised as to how many people are under the mistaken assumption that by owning the game, it is their in the singular sense rather than looking at the seperate parts of the product. Suffice to say one can buy the CD, which is always what marketing refers to, regarding the number of units sold and the number of digital copies downloaded.

As to the DRM issue, the law is not clear cut on it, it is a matter of fact and degree. Contract and Copyright protections vs consumer rights enshrined in law, it has to be balanced out, EA has already had to back down on certain occassions to a degree with things like ME1 and Spore. But, things like the Ubisoft online connection goes way beyond what is envisioned and prescribed by the law, and Ubisoft has suffered for it in their turnover figures.

The problem is, as it is a license the licensor has the right to prevent resale or relicensing of the IP's use. Licensing is far more lenient towards the licensor than the licensee, which is why companies have been able to get away with preventing resale, or making it onerrous, although there have been challenges on unfair contractual terms and fair usage rights. As such relicensing the IP for use by another end user requires the licensor's approval, which can be witheld as the, despite the disc itself being a sale item. Whilst you may be quite right that it doesn't make it equitable, ethical, responsible or necessary. If one intends to challenge a company then you have to beat them at their own game, not impossible, but very hard and you have to know the rules.

As a slightly seperate issue, whilst I can't condone piracy without getting hit by the ban hammer, it is a problem which has been exaccerbated by their own policies. The idea that DRM and restrictions on resale will aid a companies turnover, defeats the point as burnt copies of console discs and PC piracy are so easy to get placing million into DRM systems appears more akin to a gapping sinkhole in which to pour money down thhan a worthwhile investment. The deeper issue is that if so much recycled rubbish wasn't pushed out onto the market then maybe people would feel less inclined to download copies of games rather than buy them, paticularly if the game has no value whatsoever, yet is marked up to increase revenue streams and the user is overly restricted in it's use.

[Autoclave]

Me_Fan:
yeah, even I have an account on Origin lol, despite i bought one of their 2010 games on STEAM! haha.

I don't care about competition in this field. VALVE does not charge me on monthly basis for using their services. I don't pay them for the ability to redownload 100 times the games that I have purchased for my library. We can have monopoly for all I care.
Besides, steam was never alone prior to Origin, there was Impulse and all sort of direct2drive and now we also have Good Old Games, which actually is pretty damn amazing it patched the old Dungeon Keeper 2 to run perfectly on my Windows XP. (the old version used to crash regularly)

[BounceDK]

It's funny to see so many butthurt valve fanboys.

[Customz]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Customz wrote...
It is legal in the US for EA to enforce the
consumer to go through arbitration to resolve disputes. You say the
class action lawsuit waiver is just to scare people from frivolous
lawsuits, but it also keeps legitimate plaintiffs from getting justice.
It is much harder for one individual to go head-to-head with a
corporation even if said individual is right and has legitimate
complaints.

That was actually my point, although I didnt really make it clear in this post, although I have made it other times in this thread when this topic came up.
Its designed to stop people to from jumping on the class action bandwagon, when they have not tried any other means of resolving their problem. Especially those who dont really have a problem, but jump on the bandwagon simply because they see a payout coming their way.

I did understand your point (I think). What I was pointing out is that it restricts you if your problem is real as well. Something like this would not be possible under Origin's TOS: EA Taken To Court Over Battlefield 1943 PS3 Promise.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Frankly, I don't care. A game purchased is just another product, no different from a toaster or an automobile. That the "content" companies wish to treat it differently is purely a sign of their banal myopic avarice.

[Gatt9]

billy the squid wrote...

RoseLegion wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


Actually,  that's never been established and very highly likely to be rejected by the courts.  It's the same thing the RIAA has been trying to claim for decades,  and failing at for decades.  Once you sell someone a disc,  it and it's contents are owned by that consumer for their use.

The RIAA got tossed out somewhere around when they claimed that "Copying a song from a disc you bought to your Ipod is copyright infringement".

This will do the same,  because when you extend the concept to it's logical conclusion it gets highly ridiculous.  It's just never really been tested in court before,  no company has ever banned you from a single player game you bought before.  Sure,  some companies have banned people from their servers,  but never from playing the game (If they could find a way without the server).  Even Microsoft has never really tried to push the issue,  because they know it's not something they want to try to defend in court.

The whole DRM concept with requiring connections is on *very* shaky ground,  because EA and Ubisoft and others can't prove a real reason why the game you paid for cannot function unless you connect to the internet.  There's a reason why Hollywood doesn't make you connect to the internet to watch Blurays,  something the video game industry has yet to figure out.

^This

It would also be like a car company claiming they deserve access rights to the contents of your garage because the manufactured the car you have. That's clearly over the top even if you're leasing but more so if you're buying. We don't go to the store (even the digital download kind) and rent a game, but that's how many publishers are trying to treat it. If that's going to be their business module then that's is their call but they need to call it that.  As long as they are selling games it is by definition the sale of a product/service.
How do you think people would respond if they were told that they would now need a persistent internet connection to play the songs on their MP3 players?

Trying to kill the second hand gaming market by turning "sales" into conditional leases and billing the efforts as "game improvement and piracy prevention" is disingenuous. These efforts clearly haven't ended piracy and as to information for improving games/gaming, simply use a survey. I've responded to every gaming survey sent to me and I'll be happy to continue to do so but ask me for the answers don't automate a process which I can neither see nor opt out of.   I like to support quality work and the companies who create it, but as a participant (not saying partner) rather than a subject. 

In either case the implementation of Origin in its current form (as well as other software like it) is neither needed for nor beneficial too the gaming experience of  Mass Effect 3.  To put a very fine point on it, every single tech issue I've had with a bioware (or for that matter any EA published) game within the past 2 years has been directly related to Origin/DRM (obviously not all of them have actually been Origin, it hasn't been around that long, but all of them have been in one or both of those categories).  The methodology is not only conceptually unsound it's poorly implemented and an active degradation to my ability to be entertained by the entertainment product I purchased.
And all of that's true without even bringing the aspect of HDD scaning into things.

No. The disc and The IP are two seperate legal entities, they are not to be treated as the same, you do not own the IP only the disc as such you are not free to do what ever you want with it as you don't own it. You are allowed to use it within the terms of the EULA Copyright legislation and fair usage rights of case law.

Initally the RIAA failed, because under existing copyright legislation, you are allowed to make copies of the disc for personal use or as a back up, the restrictions to prevent copying music breaches that legislation, of course if you intend to do so on a vast scale immediately renders the exemption for copyright void and you are once again liable. Whilst Microsoft has already won cases on users who copied discs for the purposes of distribution and the copyright defence failed.

As to the banning of the game, you are licensed to use the IP and it can be revoked, it is not a sale issue in the standard terms of contract law. In that sense the ground is not shaky in the slightest, was has the potential to lead to problems is the contravention of fair usage rights and unfair contractual terms due to the nature of the DRM rather than the fact DRM is used at all as per the DMCA.

Secondly, no you are quite right you do not rent the game, but you buy the right to lease the IP usage from the company, you don't own it. The sale only extends to the posession of the disc as a physical object that is the only part of the transaction which you adhere to the standard criteria of contract law for sales of goods and services, the rest doesn't. So nothing has been turned into a conditional lease, it already was one to begin with.

As to the issue of Origin, it will be one of breaching national legislatio due to invasive proceedures regarding data collection, the need to provide a service and piracy prevention are the linguitic attempt to get round the Data Protection Act in the UK and Privacy Laws like Germany's in the EU. Ie: it has to be relevant for the products use and not excessive in nature, the problem is that the wording is so vague it opens itself to becoming void for uncertainty.

So far Origin's implementation has been cack handed more than anything else. Authentification problems, server connection problems on BF3, DLC not being authorised on both xbox360 and PC, poor battle net on BF3, data scanning which still remains strange as the packets it sends are tiny and the program itself seems incredily sloppy in it's approach.

Actually Billy,  I believe that the Fair Use Act would prove to contradict the software company's claim of lease.  I'm not sure if you're aware of it or have studied it?  I think you're british?

I doubt the law would uphold it anyways,  because by that concept both movies and music are revokable,  and when you take the concept at it's general premise,  every object manufactured is revokable.  The chair in your living room is a "Copy of an intellectual property".

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this,  and how any Lawyer worth his salt could easily turn the whole discussion into something so ridiculous the idea of a "Lease" would be thrown out even without Fair Use. 

The whole concept has always been tenuous at best,  and no one's ever tried to revoke a piece of software someone owns for relatively random reasons before.  It's never really been challenged,  the closest it has ever come is Microsoft enforcing 1 OS to 1 PC,  and I don't think that's ever really been challenged either,  I think all of MS's suits have been on copyright infringement for pirated versions.

No one has ever tried to prevent you from using a standalone piece of software you purchased before today,  and these video games are standalone,  they do not use any resources on EA's systems at all.

So now we're at a turning point.  Because if this were actually held as valid,  then car manufacturers can now revoke the software on your car's computer as soon as you say something bad about their cars.

Which is exactly why it'll never stand in court.  Games might not be taken seriously,  but the moment a lawyer forces someone to admit that this concept taken to it's conclusion means that every electronic device in everyone's house may now be revoked,  the concept won't last 10 seconds.

[Lumikki]

There is a lot of issue related this DRM and copywrites, example in EU commissioner Neelie Kroes does say that copywrites laws aren't working anymore. I don't blame her, because it's true that companies have pushed they rights so far that they are starting to ****** off a lot of consumers.

http://www.zdnet.co....ssion-10024835/

It starts to be so that, companies push they rights like we consumers should respect they rights, while same times companies breaks our consumers rights, like they are just business where benefit can be found. When did business become excuse for break civil rights.

Origin client is one of the example where the situation is pushed so far that it's even breaking many countries laws. Absolute no respect at all to the customers. Companies could have introduce nice voluntary tool to help gaming related distribution. But today it's not about pleasing customers. All what companies care is how they can maximize control and profit. Then they expect that we customers should be happy about it?

If EA wants they customers be happy with Origin client, then start respect your customers more and think less how to optimize profit and control. Give people what they want and that's freedom of choice. Let people choose, don't force them to something what your as company wants.

It's not companies job to decide what customers gets, companies job is listen the customers and provide what customers wants. Origin client should be voluntary tool for those players who wants it, not been pushed to every customers throat by force. You are alienating some of your customers from your company, because you don't anymore provide products the way customers want. You are trying force you products to customers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[Embrosil]

ME_Fan wrote...

uh-huh. But it's quite clear that Valve has in fact had a monopoly with proper online PC gaming services. As 'Says Law' mentions; 'All supply creates it's own demand.'

As I said what if Valve as a monopoly decided to do the same when it comes to information gathering? Then we'd all be f***ed.

Steam does not have a monopoly. I have just bought Just Cause 2 on Gamersgate for 5 EUR, while on Steam it cost 20 EUR. So where is the monopoly. The fact, that I just used the code to add the game to my game list on Steam is a bonus for me. I even do not know when I will play it, but I know I have the game and can download it anytime.
And you are still forgetting that the decision to release a game via Steam is purely on the publisher. Valve does not force anyone to use Steam.
That what if is more a fiction than fact. Why would anyone discredit his product in such a way? Valve is not perfect, nor is the Steam, but so far it is the best online distribuiton channel (after the gog.com of course). I have been using Steam for a year now. During this time I have never been asked about any survey, nor was my whole PC scanned.
 

Modifié par Embrosil, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:43 .

[Embrosil]

BounceDK wrote...

It's funny to see so many butthurt valve fanboys.

Hmm, I wonder what has Valve done to you? Scanned your PC and sent all you personal data somewhere? Oh, wait, that is a different company. Forget it.

Modifié par Embrosil, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[Lumikki]

Embrosil wrote...
 Valve does not force anyone to use Steam.

Can you use game what is buyed from shop and has steam, without ever installing steam?

Don't get me wrong, if you like steam I'm fine by it, but I had to fix this. Because not everyone want to use digital distributions, so should they be forced to do so, just because some other people do like to use them?

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 novembre 2011 - 08:32 .

[Mister Mida]

Embrosil wrote...
 Valve does not force anyone to use Steam.

True, Valve doesn't. The other publishers (Bethesda, WB, etc.) do it for them.

[MarauderESP]

ME_Fan wrote...

And btw (Lol), Origin has millions of users already, it's unlikely to fail.

errr....... if u count that any €A account even this account was transformed into an Origin acount...... im an origin user (only account had no choice over the matter) then ur right Origin has million of user, but that dosent mean it has millions of Origin clients installed... u see where im going right, that was a nice move and a missleading one... and u want me to let a company that do that to install a spyware on my... let me put in a way that  can be seen MY pc and look where and what they want.... ur kiding right...., i also buy my games on a shop becouse i want to have a physical copy, so why the hell i have to install a digitall plattaform? to play a SP experience of a game....

[N0-Future]

billy the squid wrote...

ME_Fan wrote...

I'm sick of all this 'surrendering privacy' crap. All Origin does is scan software usage and history as well as some other stuff. Big deal, all this crap about human rights etc is ridiculous and I've heard enough. why the hell would EA care about my private life? They don't, as shown by the type of info it collects. JESUS. Me, I'm going to enjoy my Origin exclusive games because I don't fuss about trivial things like types of data collection. Each to their own, however. Enjoy missing out. I'm finished in this thread.

Yes, because corporate irresponsibility is something unheard of. Now please go away and let the adults talk.

Well said mate...

[marstor05]

lets face it there are probably other things you dont even know about scanning your pc on a regular basis to find out what your shopping habits are, which porn channels youve visited this month, how many hours you spend gaming, what your interests are, etc......

[N0-Future]

marstor05 wrote...

lets face it there are probably other things you dont even know about scanning your pc on a regular basis to find out what your shopping habits are, which porn channels youve visited this month, how many hours you spend gaming, what your interests are, etc......

there are ways to browse online or even use VoIP and mask your location and browsing habbits

Modifié par N0-Future, 22 novembre 2011 - 10:22 .

[Lumikki]

marstor05 wrote...

lets face it there are probably other things you dont even know about scanning your pc on a regular basis to find out what your shopping habits are, which porn channels youve visited this month, how many hours you spend gaming, what your interests are, etc......

Just because something happens in the world doesn't mean we have to agree or tolerate it. When did been ingorance, stupid and careless become good thing?

Point been , there is a lot of stuff happening behind our back and we should not just accept it's like that's how things are. If you don't care, then you never make anything better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 novembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[RoseLegion]

billy the squid wrote...

@ RoseLegion
Don't worry, I don't consider it a swipe. Very little gets under my skin, but if it does or I consider it idiotic then you would certainly know about it.

Excellent, just making sure, I'd hate to see an interesting, informed and valuable discussion go up in smoke because of the limits text has as a medium.

The distinction between the law and common useage terms has always been murky as many people simply don't know how the underlying legislation functions, and you might be suprised as to how many people are under the mistaken assumption that by owning the game, it is their in the singular sense rather than looking at the seperate parts of the product. Suffice to say one can buy the CD, which is always what marketing refers to, regarding the number of units sold and the number of digital copies downloaded.

Indeed, and I think you stated the legal aspects at least as well as (read: likely better than) I could. I believe you are correct in that many (I'd go so far as to say the majority) of gamers don't see the situation the way the laws address it (and/or are being pushed to address it) at this point. I hope that our conversation here will perhaps serve to illuminate it somewhat for those who read the thread that may not have run into the information before. To summarize the above for those who may find the legal aspects daunting, or who have friends that might, would you concur that on a sliding scale between the concepts of "rental" and "sale" as they are generally taking to be by the average consumer the current arrangement/arrangement favored by many game publishers at present comes closer conceptually to the rental/lease end of the spectrum?

As to the DRM issue, the law is not clear cut on it, it is a matter of fact and degree. Contract and Copyright protections vs consumer rights enshrined in law, it has to be balanced out, EA has already had to back down on certain occassions to a degree with things like ME1 and Spore. But, things like the Ubisoft online connection goes way beyond what is envisioned and prescribed by the law, and Ubisoft has suffered for it in their turnover figures.

Do you happen to have any links handy for those of us (like me) who'd like to read up more on the examples above? (I'm sure google could provide but I figured I'd ask). Law very much is a give and take, in fact if I can say I've learned one solid thing from the laywers in my family it would be "all law is shades of grey, and in the right context negotiable" (well that and "don't sign anything you haven't read and understood first" ). That is actually much of the essence of my motivation regarding this issue since matters of precedent, and to a somewhat lessor extent current practice, are so influential in how law is applied I very much consider implementation of software that behaves like Origin (and to a lessor but real extent steam as well) to be highly problematic/detrimental for a whole host of reasons. The crux of those reasons revolves around consumer fair treatment and choice. If Origin et al were in place but there were alternatives allowing for the purchase and use of the same games without its use (e.g. purchasing of physical copies) then while I wouldn't be inclined to use said services I wouldn't feel the need to vocally oppose them either.

The problem is, as it is a license the licensor has the right to prevent resale or relicensing of the IP's use. Licensing is far more lenient towards the licensor than the licensee, which is why companies have been able to get away with preventing resale, or making it onerrous, although there have been challenges on unfair contractual terms and fair usage rights. As such relicensing the IP for use by another end user requires the licensor's approval, which can be witheld as the, despite the disc itself being a sale item. Whilst you may be quite right that it doesn't make it equitable, ethical, responsible or necessary. If one intends to challenge a company then you have to beat them at their own game, not impossible, but very hard and you have to know the rules.

I whole heatedly agree with you sir. The problem, I think, is that the information you have just provided above is something only a minority of game purchasers are actually aware of. And that in addition to that misconception of current legal standing the marketing methods employed by many entities within gaming serve to further occlude those salient concepts.
I wish to take a moment hear to repeat something in what you said that I consider key for any gaming consumer to understand "If one intends to challenge a company then you have to beat them at their own game, not impossible, but very hard and you have to know the rules."
I'd also like to add that there are two other points of leverage a customer may exercise as well, outside of the legal arena. Feedback (in the form of surveys, reviews, blogs, etc.) & Purchases (folks the phrase "vote with your wallet" isn't just a 'buzz word' and it doesn't just apply to political contexts).

As a slightly seperate issue, whilst I can't condone piracy without getting hit by the ban hammer, it is a problem which has been exaccerbated by their own policies. The idea that DRM and restrictions on resale will aid a companies turnover, defeats the point as burnt copies of console discs and PC piracy are so easy to get placing million into DRM systems appears more akin to a gapping sinkhole in which to pour money down thhan a worthwhile investment. The deeper issue is that if so much recycled rubbish wasn't pushed out onto the market then maybe people would feel less inclined to download copies of games rather than buy them, paticularly if the game has no value whatsoever, yet is marked up to increase revenue streams and the user is overly restricted in it's use.

I have encountered a lot of personal/anecdotal evidence that supports these conclusions. Most of the people in my social circle of gamers are very aware of DRM as an aspect of their decisions to purchase or not to purchase a game and the presence and intensity of DRM is universally viewed as a reason against buying a game, while lighter/less DRM is treated universally as an incentive. As an example, I know several people (of which I am one) who avidly followed the Assassins Creed series until the DRM fiasco that transpired there, and none of use (despite how enjoyable we found the product) have played or purchased a title in the series since.
For more quotable evidence one need look no further than the financial success of The Witcher series and that the games have been the single largest revenue stream for CDPR despite some of their 'partners' choosing to sue them when the decision was made to remove all DRM from their games. (hence the link in my sig)
There's no question in my mind that gamers will support quality products without any need for DRM (and that far from DRM encouraging more sales it has the opposite effect). I suppose that does little good for the games that are frankly uninspired and lackluster but (and maybe this is idealistic of me) it seems like that too should push developers of titles which do possess quality, the Mass Effect series for one :innocent: to let their work stand on it's own merits.  Even in this thread which many would say is critcal of EA/Bioware nearly everyone is saying they want (even now) to purchase ME3, they're just not willing to be forced into using Origin to do it.

Bioware, if anyone from your quarter is listening let me reiterate what I  (and I think many others here) are saying, in simple terms: Give me the option to purchase Mass Effect 3 without Origin and I will happily buy, play, and recommend it.

Obviously there's a lot more depth than that, but I figure a more succinct message has a better chance of getting passed up the chain to the decision makers.

Looking forward to more conversation (and kudos to all those who are keep the respect and information quotients high in this thread)

Cheers,
Legion

EDIT: as a side note for anyone who may be wondering, I have tried Origin, Steam, some other things that are like them to various degrees so my perceptions here are not "sight unseen", I've just reached a point from experience with them where I'd rather re-buy some games than have any client of that type installed or running on my system (the reasons are manifold and as such likely too far off topic).

Modifié par RoseLegion, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:59 .

[RoseLegion]

double post

Modifié par RoseLegion, 22 novembre 2011 - 12:59 .

[MarauderESP]

RoseLegion wrote...
*snip*
Bioware, if anyone from your quarter is listening let me reiterate what I  (and I think many others here) are saying, in simple terms: Give me the option to purchase Mass Effect 3 without Origin and I will happily buy, play, and recommend it.
*snip*

im with u there, all the post of course , and that is by far the issue and i will say it again "Give me the option to purchase Mass Effect 3 without Origin and I will happily buy, play, and recommend it."

[billy the squid]

Gatt9 wrote...

Actually Billy,  I believe that the Fair Use Act would prove to contradict the software company's claim of lease.  I'm not sure if you're aware of it or have studied it?  I think you're british?

I doubt the law would uphold it anyways,  because by that concept both movies and music are revokable,  and when you take the concept at it's general premise,  every object manufactured is revokable.  The chair in your living room is a "Copy of an intellectual property".

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this,  and how any Lawyer worth his salt could easily turn the whole discussion into something so ridiculous the idea of a "Lease" would be thrown out even without Fair Use. 

The whole concept has always been tenuous at best,  and no one's ever tried to revoke a piece of software someone owns for relatively random reasons before.  It's never really been challenged,  the closest it has ever come is Microsoft enforcing 1 OS to 1 PC,  and I don't think that's ever really been challenged either,  I think all of MS's suits have been on copyright infringement for pirated versions.

No one has ever tried to prevent you from using a standalone piece of software you purchased before today,  and these video games are standalone,  they do not use any resources on EA's systems at all.

So now we're at a turning point.  Because if this were actually held as valid,  then car manufacturers can now revoke the software on your car's computer as soon as you say something bad about their cars.

Which is exactly why it'll never stand in court.  Games might not be taken seriously,  but the moment a lawyer forces someone to admit that this concept taken to it's conclusion means that every electronic device in everyone's house may now be revoked,  the concept won't last 10 seconds.

Unlikely, Britain has the equivalent of the Fair Use Act of the US, but it also has common law rights as well. The key to both is the terms "reasonable use" whether the use is granted by a lease or the sale of an item is irrelevant. It does not contradict licensing laws at all, it acts as a protection which the licensee has available if the licensor decides to impose heavy restrictions on the license of the IP itself, by working in conjunction with the UK's copyright legislation and in the case of the US the DMCA to grant exceptions to copyright, although from my knowledge of the US system, the legislation is rather vague.

As to lawyers being worth their salt, no, engaging in reductio ad absurdum is going to get that lawyer nowhere, the world of how you think the law works, academic law and its practical implementation of it is a world apart, logical conclusions are not logic when faced with practical difficulties in implementation, which is why case law exists to form a guide which the legal system draws on to come to it's conclusions. In addition it is not an academic debate of law, the cases almost always revolve around the factual elements of the case not the law itself, only it's interpretation based on facts. Rarely is the interpretation of the law itself ever debated, that is not a lawyer's job, it is that of the presiding judge, and they don't like being told their job.

Only unless it is a centrally important point which reqires either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to render judgement and set precident will legal points ever be debated.

Resale is not copyright infringement, but passing it of and selling it by making copies of it is. You are not the IP holder, you might own the item,but not the intellectual property right. The idea of a lease is established, you could try and argue against it, but you will fail. As such the licensor has rights to controll what is done with the IP, what they can't do is cram in every cluase they can concieve, because it runs the risk of violating national legislation.

The avenue of approach would be to argue that constant online connection is a violation of unfair contractual terms, common law fair usage rights, Copyright exemption legislation etc. Ubisoft's approach already goes way beyond what the established law already says in terms of copyright protection. Attempting to argue that the Item is not a lease will simply fail and fail hard, because it has already been established that it is by the cases involving leasing IP rights and use of the IP, this is no different.

For instance Bethesda recently leased the right for the Fallout IP to be used as an MMO, then claimed that the developer inquestion could not use it in such a way, guess what. Bethesda failed in their attempt to restrict the use of the IP in that way, but the license was still a license.