3140 réponses à ce sujet

[Abirn]

Mister Mida wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

There is also this gem in origin EULA

EA games: trolling everyone

Seriously, this won't hold up in most courts.

Depends if you are talking civil litigation this could simply be an arbitration clause that is pretty standard in most contracts.  If you are talking criminally then it won't hold up as if EA is accusing you of a crime you do indeed have a constiutional right to a trial by jury and no contract can eliminate that.  

Honestly the best solution is to gather public pressure and apply it to your elected officials.  They have the power to make such clauses illegal but they have no reason to do it right now.

[DownyTif]

Why don't you two continue insulting each other in private?

[Taciter]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lukertin wrote...
I would rather make ignorant comments regarding subjects I know nothing about.

You're doing a fine job so far, then.

rofl

Modifié par Taciter, 10 novembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[DownyTif]

Abirn wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

There is also this gem in origin EULA

EA games: trolling everyone

Seriously, this won't hold up in most courts.

Depends if you are talking civil litigation this could simply be an arbitration clause that is pretty standard in most contracts.  If you are talking criminally then it won't hold up as if EA is accusing you of a crime you do indeed have a constiutional right to a trial by jury and no contract can eliminate that.  

Honestly the best solution is to gather public pressure and apply it to your elected officials.  They have the power to make such clauses illegal but they have no reason to do it right now.

I've read many times in this thread that people should not only argue here, but make a difference outside this forum. I just hope some are doing it.

I've done a lot so far, but my message to users posting "somebody must tell [enter name here] about the controversy of Origin": let that someone be you. Write a nice e-mail or letter, send it. Copy/Paste and send another one. And so on.

[Abirn]

DownyTif wrote...

Abirn wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

There is also this gem in origin EULA

EA games: trolling everyone

Seriously, this won't hold up in most courts.

Depends if you are talking civil litigation this could simply be an arbitration clause that is pretty standard in most contracts.  If you are talking criminally then it won't hold up as if EA is accusing you of a crime you do indeed have a constiutional right to a trial by jury and no contract can eliminate that.  

Honestly the best solution is to gather public pressure and apply it to your elected officials.  They have the power to make such clauses illegal but they have no reason to do it right now.

I've read many times in this thread that people should not only argue here, but make a difference outside this forum. I just hope some are doing it.

I've done a lot so far, but my message to users posting "somebody must tell [enter name here] about the controversy of Origin": let that someone be you. Write a nice e-mail or letter, send it. Copy/Paste and send another one. And so on.

Yes but lets be realistic.  The gaming industry is the one industry that doesn't listen to complaints of their customers.  Even BOA had to change policies because of public backlash, but for some reason game companies don't bother listening to anything their customers have a problem with.  In theory they should be getting punished in the marketplace for this willfull contempt they have for their paying customers.

What will get their attention is a change of laws they have to follow.

[Lukertin]

Abirn wrote...
What will get their attention is a change of laws they have to follow.

The problem is while EU countries may have an easier time of it, getting those laws 'changed' in the US will take forever, because the federal government has no power to regulate contract law. What you'll end up getting is a series of patchwork protections across 50 different states which is ultimately meaningless because states on the West Coast will refuse to enact such a law due to the software lobby, and those companies will continue using California law to govern their contracts like they have been doing for decades.

[DownyTif]

@Abirn:
Indeed. And magazines too are not really listening... since their existence is bound to the likes of EA for many reasons (privileges). But involving your local politician about the subject and exposing what Germany did, involving local newspapers and TV news (there is always at least one tech guy in every morning shows), etc. may help making the facts public.

[SalsaDMA]

Abirn wrote...

DownyTif wrote...

Abirn wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

There is also this gem in origin EULA

EA games: trolling everyone

Seriously, this won't hold up in most courts.

Depends if you are talking civil litigation this could simply be an arbitration clause that is pretty standard in most contracts.  If you are talking criminally then it won't hold up as if EA is accusing you of a crime you do indeed have a constiutional right to a trial by jury and no contract can eliminate that.  

Honestly the best solution is to gather public pressure and apply it to your elected officials.  They have the power to make such clauses illegal but they have no reason to do it right now.

I've read many times in this thread that people should not only argue here, but make a difference outside this forum. I just hope some are doing it.

I've done a lot so far, but my message to users posting "somebody must tell [enter name here] about the controversy of Origin": let that someone be you. Write a nice e-mail or letter, send it. Copy/Paste and send another one. And so on.

Yes but lets be realistic.  The gaming industry is the one industry that doesn't listen to complaints of their customers.  Even BOA had to change policies because of public backlash, but for some reason game companies don't bother listening to anything their customers have a problem with.  In theory they should be getting punished in the marketplace for this willfull contempt they have for their paying customers.

What will get their attention is a change of laws they have to follow.

Part of the problem is that for alot of things, they can get away with bending the laws.

Most of the times, the press will look at news about a computer game company and think "Whatever. Doesn't sell compared to news about murder or catastrophes. Computer games news is something for the kids anyways"

It's kinda sad really, that fifth collumn attacks on democratic rights are ignored because alerting about it doesn't sell enough in the news. At least the germans are more careful about their rights, I guess the experiences they made during the late thirties have made them painfully aware of how important it is to protect peoples private sphere whereas alot of other nations take things too granted.

[DownyTif]

Lukertin wrote...

Abirn wrote...
What will get their attention is a change of laws they have to follow.

The problem is while EU countries may have an easier time of it, getting those laws 'changed' in the US will take forever, because the federal government has no power to regulate contract law. What you'll end up getting is a series of patchwork protections across 50 different states which is ultimately meaningless because states on the West Coast will refuse to enact such a law due to the software lobby, and those companies will continue using California law to govern their contracts like they have been doing for decades.

Indeed. That's why one of the best options for us customers at the moment is to unite and stick to our principles and not buy ME3 if Origin is forced. Money and bad publicity is the only thing that can work at the moment.

I may sound like I want ME3 to fail, but no, not at all. I LOVED ME1 and ME2 and I'm really looking forward the finale, but with Origin, it's a no go. I want ME3 to succeed, even more than what's anticipated, but without Origin.

[Taciter]

Abirn wrote...
Yes but lets be realistic.  The gaming industry is the one industry that doesn't listen to complaints of their customers.  Even BOA had to change policies because of public backlash, but for some reason game companies don't bother listening to anything their customers have a problem with.  In theory they should be getting punished in the marketplace for this willfull contempt they have for their paying customers.

What will get their attention is a change of laws they have to follow.

Western society is, as we type, experiencing the initial stages of a major social, political and most importantly, economic transition from decadent consumerism to subsistence frugality - you might say, we're in denial.
 
The trend, up to this point, has been one of wanton waste and profligacy. The games industry, like many others, was quick to exploit the marketplace and were handsomely rewarded as a result but as the era of 'austerity' approaches, consumers will be forced to confront the grim reality that there simply is no more money!

At that point, I envisage a return to a more sobre and discerning free market but until then, I'm quite happy to simply let my wallet talk.

[DownyTif]

On a side note, anybody ever used "Storm Cases" to transport things? It's a product with history, but I just realized the other day that Origin logo could have been... "copied" from StormCase hehe. You are great EA, really...

http://www.divematri....php/photo/4098

EDIT: that's not me on the picture and I don't know them, I just found the picture in Google hehe

Modifié par DownyTif, 10 novembre 2011 - 10:07 .

[Lukertin]

They both use something similar to the international symbol for hurricane...one does it because it's called 'STORMcase', the other to reflect the ****storm its customers expressed upon its release

[billy the squid]

Lukertin wrote...

Raygereio wrote...
I can't talk for US law, but I know for  a fact that paragraph is utter nonsense under Dutch and EU law. Sure a EULA is technically a contract, but a contract can't force you to do anything illegal. Forcing someone to give up one of his/her basic rights happens to be illegal.

You know for a fact? Are you a lawyer in the EU? Because if you aren't, calling something a basic right when there is no indication that it is a basic right at all is silly.

As for the US law, courts approve, in fact, they encourage, the use of binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation in contracts. It isn't illegal because you agree to arbitration in the event of a dispute (EA will even pay your costs). You don't have 'basic right' to be heard before a judge.

I don't believe he is, but I know a reasonable amount of UK and EU law.

Initally he is right that an agreement to binding arbitration does not deprive one of the right to a court hearing ie: You cannot contract out legal action entirely. You can try, but the contact will likely be void for Unfair Contract Terms and failure to give reasonable notice . It does place another level before any hearings at court can be made however. Arbitration would come after an ADR hearing, more likely between two companies, and governed by the stipulations of the Abitration Act  in the UK, very user friendly.

Initally both parties agree to arbitration, which is simply, in the UK, a private meeting before an independant party and both parties agree to the outcome, it's usually a judge or a QC and costs can be allocated against either party and the arbitration ends there. However, if one party claims that the contract is void for the term is void for Unfair Terms in Contracts Act etc and it is held to be so by the Arbitrator, then the term or contract is rendered void, national legislation takes over and legal action is available, including class action law suits etc.

The case can then proceed to court, if the party wishes where damages for breach of contract or tort can be allocated against the party and costs for Court will be issued against a party, if deemed necessary, in addition to the costs allocated for the Arbitration.

[Bogsnot1]

NewRed wrote...

If Origin is Seriously gonna be Necessary for Mass Effect 3, Does that mean ALL Future Bioware Games(Dragon Age 3) gonna need Origin?

Also wont Origin Destroy the Replay value of the Game because your gonna need Origin and Internet On Every time you play the Game.

As has already been stated by the devs, ME3 will require a single connection to the net for verification. Its not an always on DRM scheme like Ubisoft or Blizzard are trying to force upon their customers.

This point has been made several times in this, and other threads.

As for the waivnig of rights, no agreement can force you to give away your rights under law. This is just scare tactics, to try and stop people who didnt have a problem from jumping on a class action bandwagon that appears. Too many people will ignore a problem and then jump onto a class action in the hope of getting some form of payout. This section of the EULA is there to pervent this, and at least try and get people to mediate any problems first, before going to the courts.

Modifié par Bogsnot1, 10 novembre 2011 - 11:13 .

[billy the squid]

Hi, Bogsnot. Has it been confirmed whether Origin can be Sandboxed yet or whether it can be uninstalled after the game has been installed, It'll be interesting to find out how it works with ME3 and what updates they will implement, if any.

[Bogsnot1]

billy the squid wrote...

Hi, Bogsnot. Has it been confirmed whether Origin can be Sandboxed yet or whether it can be uninstalled after the game has been installed, It'll be interesting to find out how it works with ME3 and what updates they will implement, if any.

It can apparently be sandboxed using Sandboxie, as there is a bit of a discussion (and how-to) on The Escapist about it.

Some AV software (Comodo is one) comes with its own sandboxing tech. I havent attempted to try it out as yet, as I figure I'll wait until I have done a fresh format and build so there is bugger all info it can obtain in case it escapes the sandbox.

[Alex_SM]

I've read some cases of Origin "breaking" the sandbox and regaining unlimited access.

[Bogsnot1]

I wonder if thats the fault of the sandboxing tech failing, the person setting it up incorrectly, or EA being an evil that cannot be contained.

[Raygereio]

Lukertin wrote...
You know for a fact? Are you a lawyer in the EU? Because if you aren't, calling something a basic right when there is no indication that it is a basic right at all is silly.

No, I'm not a lawyer. billy the squid was right in his utterly random guess that I'm not. But here's the wondrous thing: one can go and simply ask someone who is an expert of law on these matters. So my profession does not matter in the slightest (I'm a chemist / safety office, in case you're curious); I do happen to know this for a fact.

And yes, in some countries it's basic right to take matters to court. We call such countries civilized. It's generaly frowned up for a contract to try and override such silly things as human rights.

Modifié par Raygereio, 11 novembre 2011 - 12:13 .

[Alex_SM]

Here in Spain any contract which goes against any law or violates any right of any side is automatically a non-binding one.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Same in France: contracts cannot goes against laws, and actually even if you wants to you can't forfeit your own rights.

[Abirn]

Alex_SM wrote...

I've read some cases of Origin "breaking" the sandbox and regaining unlimited access.

Worst comes to worst use Virtual Machine.

[Bogsnot1]

Ive tied some VM's, but the way they handle hardware processing doesnt allow the games to properly recognise the video card and compare it to its list of supported hardware.
I'm still doing some tests to work around that problem, but in the end, it will be less hassle for most people to get a crack from those who fly the Jolly Roger.

[Lukertin]

Raygereio wrote...

Lukertin wrote...
You know for a fact? Are you a lawyer in the EU? Because if you aren't, calling something a basic right when there is no indication that it is a basic right at all is silly.

No, I'm not a lawyer. billy the squid was right in his utterly random guess that I'm not. But here's the wondrous thing: one can go and simply ask someone who is an expert of law on these matters. So my profession does not matter in the slightest (I'm a chemist / safety office, in case you're curious); I do happen to know this for a fact.

And yes, in some countries it's basic right to take matters to court. We call such countries civilized. It's generaly frowned up for a contract to try and override such silly things as human rights.

Billy the squid also stated that hearing a case before a judge is not a basic human right, seeing as to how arbitration is a common alternative dispute resolution parties commonly use in lieu of a trial. He stated the one ground for voiding such a contract clause is due to lack of notice, and Now, given your post in this thread, can you, or anyone with knowledge of the Origin EULA claim lack of notice? (Unfair terms might still be grounds for voiding but as the EULA states EA will pay your costs if you go that route, which is fundamentally contrary to being unfair)

Furthermore in the EU, the UK is the only country that has jury trials, and for a EU citizen to give up his right to a jury trial is meaningless because jury trials don't exist, and giving up his right to be part of a class action is also meaningless since you are still able to bring forth a normal individual suit.

Problem? Can't admit that you were wrong? You aren't a lawyer, don't claim to know the law. Even if a lawyer told you something and you repeat it, you can still be wrong because you don't know what you're talking about.

Modifié par Lukertin, 11 novembre 2011 - 01:42 .