3659 réponses à ce sujet

[Adugan]

TankingTick wrote...

Dear Dmex,

Can you or EA give a definitive answer on whether sandboxing Origin is allowed, and if not, why?

Inb4 ban. Sorry man.

[Tortugueta]

Hi there,

It has been said that the reasons for ME3 not being available on Steam are, essentially, that "Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content".

I would like to have a look at that set of terms. Is it possible to see them somewhere? Can anybody provide some insight into that?

Aside from that, I would like to point out the fact that, although the issue about ME3 not being on Steam and the Origin requirement are often discussed together, they are two completely different and unrelated issues, in the sense that, although not selling ME3 on Steam might be understandable due to the aforementioned "restrictive terms", forcing users to create an Origin account and installing the client is downright insulting.

I bought ME on Steam and ME2 at a retail store. I really loved both games and I am so hooked up that I will buy ME3, Origin or not. But this will be the first and the last game I will buy in Origin. As a long term fan of Bioware (since Baldur's Gate actually), it really saddens me that they have come to this crap, but I gess that's life.

Instead of "Goodbye Bioware", let me say "See you Bioware", in case someday you decide to play fair again.

Thanks for your understanding.

Modifié par Tortugueta, 22 janvier 2012 - 10:24 .

[Ottemis]

TankingTick wrote...
Just wanted to confirm the point that EA is trying its darndest to prevent people from learning about something that does NOT, contrary to what they say, circumvent DRM protection.

How is it contrary to 'what they say' when that's exactly what dmex said.
You makey no sensey.

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 10:19 .

[Raygereio]

Ottemis wrote...
How is it contrary to 'what they say' when that's exactly what dmex said.
You makey no sensey.

Unless I missed something, dmex is not posting as an official spokesperson for EA.
The nefarios "they" here would then be EA, not dmex.

[didymos1120]

TankingTick wrote...

Maybe thats why Dmex got banned initially.

Or maybe not, given that we know why that happened already.

[Ottemis]

Raygereio wrote...

Ottemis wrote...
How is it contrary to 'what they say' when that's exactly what dmex said.
You makey no sensey.

Unless I missed something, dmex is not posting as an official spokesperson for EA.
The nefarios "they" here would then be EA, not dmex.

He's working for EA, you can bet that he's not supposed to give out info they wouldn't want him to give out, and seeing EA itself is letting him do what he's doing, I'm just guessing it's sanctioned.

But if we want to argue about it just so we can keep arguing, sure. If you think that's productive.

TankingTick wrote...
Sorry for not being clear, the 'they' I am referring to are the mods here, whom I assume are acting on EA's orders to muzzle anything that has to do with 'it'.

You assume, they might just be mis(un-)informed, and instead of saying yes, saying no would be the safer option then now wouldn't it.

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 10:53 .

[Ottemis]

TankingTick wrote...

If its sanctioned, why are people STILL being slapped with bans whenever they mention 'it'?

Seriously, its not wrong to vertically inhale EA/Bioware kiddo, but at least try and be good at it.

Nice claim. Crappy insult.

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 10:49 .

[Lumikki]

TankingTick wrote...

If its sanctioned, why are people STILL being slapped with bans whenever they mention 'it'?

Seriously, its not wrong to vertically inhale EA/Bioware kiddo, but at least try and be good at it.

What you can do is different thing, that what they want you to do.
You aren't 5 years old, so don't ask mothers permissions. What you do with your own computer is your business.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:02 .

[Raygereio]

Ottemis wrote...
I'm just guessing it's sanctioned.
But if we want to argue about it just so we can keep arguing, sure. If you think that's productive.

Arguing is always productive; if only because my lovecraftian-biology  needs a minimum of 10 internet-arguments per day to survive.

But the important point here is that until dmex comes forward stating that he is acting as an official spokesperson (and has proof to back that up) any comment from him about EA policy is woth nothing. Sure, he may be doing the thing that EA's marketing department should have been doing - namely building bridges instead of shrouding themselves in arrogant/scared silence (Mind you, no ammount of sweet-talking will change my opinion about Origin. More substantial things are needed for that), but at the end of the day he's still just a random guy who works for EA. That's it.
He is not for instance a Chris Priestly who functions in his capacity as community manager essentially as EA/BioWare's mouth.

[Ottemis]

Raygereio wrote...

Ottemis wrote...
I'm just guessing it's sanctioned.
But if we want to argue about it just so we can keep arguing, sure. If you think that's productive.

Arguing is always productive; if only because my lovecraftian-biology  needs a minimum of 10 internet-arguments per day to survive.

But the important point here is that until dmex comes forward stating that he is acting as an official spokesperson (and has proof to back that up) any comment from him about EA policy is woth nothing. Sure, he may be doing the thing that EA's marketing department should have been doing - namely building bridges instead of shrouding themselves in arrogant/scared silence (Mind you, no ammount of sweet-talking will change my opinion about Origin. More substantial things are needed for that), but at the end of the day he's still just a random guy who works for EA. That's it.
He is not for instance a Chris Priestly who functions in his capacity as community manager essentially as EA/BioWare's mouth.

Point is, if he's contracted thus working for EA, he can't, or rather shouldn't share info he's not supposed to.
Why? Because he'd risk his contract, without a doubt. You think he'd be talking to us if he was?
I know I wouldn't be.

Also why would Chris be EA's mouth? Has this been officially stated anywhere? Because if it hasen't you're making conflicting statements. This is the BSN, not EA's forums.

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:07 .

[Severyx]

Contractors working in the line of work that dmex is in generally have to sign confidentiality forms. Companies have to keep their IPs and other technology safe, with good reason. I would not be in the least bit surprised if dmex has since lost his job. If I were EA and I had not authorized the discussion of Origin's inner workings at any level, I'd fire him too. What he did may have helped some number of players understand the deal, but it likely cost him his job. That's not EA being jerks, that's standard operating procedure under contract.

To dmex, if he's ever able to see this: I appreciate what you did, and I hope it didn't cost you your employment. Best watch out for NDAs in the future, yeah?

Modifié par Severyx, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:36 .

[fchopin]

dmex wrote...

We want Origin to be used to transport our stuff not your stuff. 

Thank you for your answers, they are helping us understand better what origin does.

Please explain what your stuff means and why we need origin to run in the background while playing ME3?
 
If we choose not to have any info transferred from ME3 while playing ME3 in single mode why does origin need to be open?

[didymos1120]

fchopin wrote...

Please explain what your stuff means and why we need origin to run in the background while playing ME3?
 

Their games, their DLC, their patches.  It's a content-delivery program.

[Ottemis]

Severyx wrote...

Contractors working in the line of work that dmex is in generally have to sign confidentiality forms. Companies have to keep their IPs and other technology safe, with good reason. I would not be in the least bit surprised if dmex has since lost his job. If I were EA and I had not authorized the discussion of Origin's inner workings, I'd fire him too. What he did may have helped some number of players understand the deal, but it likely cost him his job. That's not EA being jerks, that's standard operating procedure under contract.

So, are we going to wait to see whether he'll lose his job, or are we going to assume he's not an idiot.
I mean, being hired by a company like EA does suggest some level of intelligence doesn't it.
I'd rather think EA would have responded by now had he breached his contract.

I swear, the amount of nonsensical highly unlikely and hypothetic statements in this thread are making my head spin.
Think straight?

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:40 .

[Raygereio]

Won't reply in depth to the other part of your post as that would be rather pointless at this point. I won't insult both our intelligences with repeating myself.
 If you want to take the guy's word as gospel; go ahead. I won't get in your way. I however reserve the right to remain skeptical for various reasons.

Ottemis wrote...
Also why would Chris be EA's mouth? Has this been officially stated anywhere? Because if it hasen't you're making conflicting statements. This is the BSN, not EA's forums.

Nothing conflicting there: BioWare and EA aren't seperate companies. The latter owns the former.
Chris is a spokesperson for just BioWare, true. But BioWare is not an independant entity; they follow EA's policies. So at anytime Chris makes an official statement, he's speaking for EA as it relates to the BioWare brand name.

Modifié par Raygereio, 22 janvier 2012 - 11:46 .

[Ottemis]

Raygereio wrote...

Won't reply in depth to the other part of your post as that would be rather pointless at this point. If you want to take the guy's word as gospel; go ahead. Knock yourself out, I won't get in your way. I however reserve the right to remain skeptical.

Ottemis wrote...
Also why would Chris be EA's mouth? Has this been officially stated anywhere? Because if it hasen't you're making conflicting statements. This is the BSN, not EA's forums.

Nothing conflicting there: BioWare and EA aren't seperate companies. The latter owns the former.
Chris is a spokesperson for just BioWare, true. But BioWare is not an independant entity; they follow EA's policies. So at anytime Chris makes an official statement, he's speaking for EA as it relates to the BioWare brand name.

Assuming Chris, as a Bioware employee has his ear to the ground in regards to EA's policies is like asking a local postal worker for info on what happened to a package you sent two weeks ago, sure he works for the same company, but without having to ASK he would logicly never have an answer for you. Aside from that, you could just call the postal office and ask people that are more likely and/or better qualified to find that answer for you.
And yes asmuch as Bioware is part of EA it's not as simple as stating Bioware = EA thus any Bioware employee know what EA is doing.

dmex stated what his function is within EA. Logicly speaking dmex's info on EA and Origin is more 'from the horses mouth' then Chris' will ever be. Namely because dmex doesn't have to put his ear to the ground for info when he's directly involved.

The conflict lies in your wanting proof of the first, namely dmex being an official spokesman for EA as an employee of EA, while just assuming the second 'chris being an EA spokesman because he works for bioware'. This is both illogical and conflicting if you ask me.

I don't blindly believe what he's saying, I concluded it's safe to trust what he's saying.

Modifié par Ottemis, 22 janvier 2012 - 12:00 .

[vallore]

dmex wrote...

Forbidden wrote...
I would recommend anyone reading this not take this statement at face value.  The EULA specifically grants the rights to EA to collect information on your "operating system, software, and software usage".    They specifically put wording into the EULA that would allow them to do this.

Also, half of the Origin problem is not just what's in it now, but what may be added in the future.

There's a law here in Australia that requires taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay in their trunk, they don't do it because it's stupid and would anger the customer if they needed to use the trunk for transporting their stuff.

We want Origin to be used to transport our stuff not your stuff.

First, thanks for coming here and taking the time,

The problem with that reasoning is that the EULA is a creation of EA, a contract drawn by their lawyers; not a silly state law of a bygone era, imposed on them and that they wish to ignore. If they think their article two – their own article - is silly, why don’t they change it? The EULA needs to cover what they do, not what they don’t do; if it’s there, it must have a purpose.

Now add to it the fact that Origin was seen going where it shouldn’t before, that we still don’t know, and can’t know,  (as it is encrypted),  what data it does it send from our machines. And that originally EA wanted to be able to sell our data, (and, apparently, still can share it with unspecified third parties, for unspecified reasons), and that EA has not told us what actually data is collecting, and what it is for, and that we apparently won’t have a opt-out of data collecting (hope I’m wrong on this one)… do I need to go on?

[Feanor_II]

dmex, if you are still answering our question, could you answer these please:
1) What's Origin? An application or a Service?
2) Origin must be executed to play games?

[dmex]

Bostur wrote...
Thats probably the essence of the disagreement. EA considered and maybe still considers the games they sell as their service. But many of us consumers see _our_ games as _our_ stuff and don't accept it if an outside force wants to remain in control.

Funny thing with Valve and Steam, You're a subscriber to the games you purchased, you do not own them. There's also this interesting section relating to your online conduct: "You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so."

The only recent game that I'm aware of where a forum ban was able to prevent you from playing was Battlefield 3 since you need to logon to Battlelog to start single player, most who got banned didn't realize or ask about how you could put Origin in offline mode and still play these games 

[Massefeckt]

Tortugueta wrote...


Hi there,

It has been said that the reasons for ME3 not being available on Steam are, essentially, that "Steam has adopted a set of restrictive terms of service which limit how developers interact with customers to deliver patches and other downloadable content".

I would like to have a look at that set of terms. Is it possible to see them somewhere? Can anybody provide some insight into that?

Aside from that, I would like to point out the fact that, although the issue about ME3 not being on Steam and the Origin requirement are often discussed together, they are two completely different and unrelated issues, in the sense that, although not selling ME3 on Steam might be understandable due to the aforementioned "restrictive terms", forcing users to create an Origin account and installing the client is downright insulting.

I bought ME on Steam and ME2 at a retail store. I really loved both games and I am so hooked up that I will buy ME3, Origin or not. But this will be the first and the last game I will buy in Origin. As a long term fan of Bioware (since Baldur's Gate actually), it really saddens me that they have come to this crap, but I gess that's life.

Instead of "Goodbye Bioware", let me say "See you Bioware", in case someday you decide to play fair again.

Thanks for your understanding.

Steam now requires a games DLC to available to it's customers. So if you buy a game through Steam you should be able to but the DLC through Steam too.

If EA wan't to go with Origin fine but if they cared about customers who had brought the previous titles through Stem they would have waited until after ME3 to do it. This stinks of a cynical cash grab. They are relying on fans who don't like Origin to be so desperate to play ME3 that they will put aside their objections.

[dmex]

 I seem to have missed a page of replies 

TankingTick wrote...
If its sanctioned, why are people STILL being slapped with bans whenever they mention 'it'? 
Seriously, its not wrong to vertically inhale EA/Bioware kiddo, but at least try and be good at it.

Yes, This is something that has been raised and is being looked into.

Severyx wrote...To dmex, if he's ever able to see this: I appreciate what you did, and I hope it didn't cost you your employment. Best watch out for NDAs in the future, yeah?

Who says I've been fired? 

fchopin wrote...
Thank you for your answers, they are helping us understand better what origin does.
Please explain what your stuff means and why we need origin to run in the background while playing ME3? If we choose not to have any info transferred from ME3 while playing ME3 in single mode why does origin need to be open?

ME3 would require your Origin SSO token for calls to our services (e.g. Cloud storage), thus Origin would need to be running.

Feanor_II wrote...
dmex, if you are still answering our question, could you answer these please:1) What's Origin? An application or a Service?2) Origin must be executed to play games?

1) Origin is a win32 application for the service delivery of entitlements such as games.
2) Newer games yes, older games (Battlefield 2, Crysis 2) no.

Modifié par dmex, 22 janvier 2012 - 12:51 .

[Bostur]

dmex wrote...

Bostur wrote...
Thats probably the essence of the disagreement. EA considered and maybe still considers the games they sell as their service. But many of us consumers see _our_ games as _our_ stuff and don't accept it if an outside force wants to remain in control.

Funny thing with Valve and Steam, You're a subscriber to the games you purchased, you do not own them. There's also this interesting section relating to your online conduct: "You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so."

The only recent game that I'm aware of where a forum ban was able to prevent you from playing was Battlefield 3 since you need to logon to Battlelog to start single player, most who got banned didn't realize or ask about how you could put Origin in offline mode and still play these games 

Why do you have to be so logical ;-)

You're right of course, Steam is certainly no angel and I sometimes wonder if they get a little bit too much trust from their users. In their defense they have worked very hard for many years to earn it, and provide some accesibility and good deals in return for the limited guarantees. Steam users can get a _lot_ of games for the price of one new release if they are shopping around with a bit of sense. That diminishes the risk somewhat.

But still, Steam has issues too like all DD systems. And when a publisher like Bethesda makes their boxed copies a steam exclusive, thats a pretty underhand tactic in my opinion, exactly the same as making ME3 an Origin exclusive. But I blame Bethesda for that, not Valve. Steam also has games for sale without any DRM at all, it depends on the publisher.

If EA now makes a distinction between forum accounts and game accounts, that is great news. But It's very hard for us to figure out exactly what to expect.