3659 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

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 

Actually I seem to remember the first time people became aware of these kind of things was because of a ban on the bioware boards. Someone got banned for comparing EA with the devil or something like that, and then he/she couldn't play the DA2 game he/she (I can't remember the gender of the person) had bought because of the ban.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 22 janvier 2012 - 01:05 .

[Lumikki]

dmex wrote...

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."

Exactly.

The issue is, that it's two way contract, but Company desides ALL the rules.

What happens when the rules aren't anymore acceptable for customers. How many customers is acceptable loss, before company starts listen they customers?

Good business is where customers are happy with the product they buyed and company made profit. Does this all here sound like your customers are happy with the product?

[AshedMan]

EA forsakes its consumers for the chance of a small increase in the bottom line. Embrace your consumers and make your games available on ALL distribution platforms. By neglecting Steam you are neglecting your consumers.

[Jim_uk]

Well this is unfortunate, I loved the previous games but I won't have Origin on my PC. I stopped buying UbiSoft games when they started treating paying customers badly and I'm quite happy to do the same with E.A until they are willing to accept just money for their products rather than insisting on my private data as well.

I do what's needed on my PC to keep malware off it, I'm not going to give that up just a play a video game.

EA should read this and take note, this is what happens when you abuse paying customers... http://www.pcgamer.c...eath-of-reason/

Modifié par Jim_uk, 22 janvier 2012 - 03:31 .

[raziel1106]

sad that it has come to this, I'm so not paying for this origin crap

[ramas2000]

Can't say I'm surprised, but like others, I won't bother purchasing after this news.

Steam's requirement that DLC is sold through their system alongside yours is reasonable and hardly 'restrictive', treating the wider community as idiots by spouting this nonsense does you no favours. But it is beside the point I guess, you needed an excuse for Origin exclusives and I guess you take it where you can get it.

I would put up with 'we aren't selling on steam because we don't want to', but forcing the install of unnecessary junk like Origin is a step too far.

I doubt this will have a major impact on sales, though I hope it does. Have fun.

[Furtled]

To those who are saying no one is forcing anyone to buy ME3 and therefore no one is really being forced into using Origin, consider this: no one is forcing anyone to use Facebook yet legislators still forced the company to alter it's privacy policies for people who weren't happy with their methods.

No one forces (yeah I know there's some obvious jokes in here) people to play World of Warcraft, yet Activision were still forced to back down on their plans to enforce a real name policy in the forums – companies can be forced to change their minds when enough people speak up and say 'this is my line and you will not cross it'.

I appreciate the line is different for different people, if you're comfortable handing EA the keys to your virtual castle then fine, but appreciate that others feel differently for equally valid reasons.

Also consider that I work in digital marketing, it's my job and has been for over a decade; I work day in day out collecting and using customer information to sell products and foster relationships, I understand how and why companies use customer information and the laws we have to follow when we do so.

And I do not want Origin on my machine.

Modifié par Furtled, 22 janvier 2012 - 04:19 .

[dmex]

Jim_uk wrote...

Well this is unfortunate, I loved the previous games but I won't have Origin on my PC.

I do what's needed on my PC to keep malware off it, I'm not going to give that up just a play a video game.

How is Origin malware?

If you don't like it, thats fine, I've alread mentioned an alternative 

[Complistic]

Hey guys do you know if you actually need Origin to be running to play ME3? Like does it actually launch via origin? Or do you just need it installed. I can't find anywhere that priestly actually says it launches from Origin(like BF3).

For example the reckoning demo will actually launch without the platform even being running once you've installed it to Origin (It still needs to be installed on your computer)

Thanks.

Modifié par Complistic, 22 janvier 2012 - 04:38 .

[Tortugueta]

Massefeckt wrote...

Tortugueta wrote...
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".

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.

Is that official? I mean, is there a document or an official statment that clearly shows that this is in fact the source of the disagreement between Valve and EA? Because they where talking about a "set". Although I suppose it could be that all the elements in the set revolve arround the very same issue.

Anyway, if that is in fact the problem, I think EA/Bioware do not have much of a case, unless Steam forces them to distribute the content exclusively. If that is not the case, well, I favor Steam on that.

As a Steam client, one of the things I value most about the service they provide is the fact that I can deal with all the stuff related to the game (patches, dlc, whatever) within the same framework. If I can buy the game on Steam but then I have to look somewhere else for patches or additional content or whatnot, well, that defeats the whole purpose of Steam I think.

So, if things are like you say they are, I find the "restrictive set of terms" not only reasonable, but also desirable from the client point of view. That, of course, as far as Steam does not force me to get the additional stuff through their channel. The client should have absolute freedom of choice. For that to happen, it is necessary that the developers who distribute the game through Steam be forced to make any additional content also (but not exclusively) available through Steam. And it is also necessary that the clients of Steam are not forced to purchase that additional content through Steam.

That would be the best scenario for the users. Since, as it seems, this is not the current scenario, my conclusion is that someone (if not everyone) does not really care about the users as much as they say they do. Unfortunately, without more clear information on the issue it is difficut to decide who is the offender.

[dmex]

Tortugueta wrote...
Is that official? I mean, is there a document or an official statment that clearly shows that this is in fact the source of the disagreement between Valve and EA? Because they where talking about a "set". Although I suppose it could be that all the elements in the set revolve arround the very same issue.

Yes, An offical statement can be found here: 
http://forum.ea.com/...st/7468888.page 

[fchopin]

dmex wrote...

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.

Why would ME3 require calls at all times when this is not necessary in single play?
 
Origin can be shut down and started only when the calls are required is that not correct?

[jtav]

Does Origin affect our ability to use TexMod?

[Feanor_II]

Complistic wrote...

Hey guys do you know if you actually need Origin to be running to play ME3? Like does it actually launch via origin? Or do you just need it installed. I can't find anywhere that priestly actually says it launches from Origin(like BF3).

For example the reckoning demo will actually launch without the platform even being running once you've installed it to Origin (It still needs to be installed on your computer)

Thanks.

dmex already ansewred me a couple of pages before...... sadly yes..... it must be running.

[Complistic]

ah damn. He doesn't have any bioware thing so I didn't recognize him.

Modifié par Complistic, 22 janvier 2012 - 05:18 .

[Tortugueta]

dmex wrote...

Tortugueta wrote...
Is that official? I mean, is there a document or an official statment that clearly shows that this is in fact the source of the disagreement between Valve and EA? Because they where talking about a "set". Although I suppose it could be that all the elements in the set revolve arround the very same issue.

Yes, An offical statement can be found here: 
http://forum.ea.com/...st/7468888.page 

Well, after going through that and also this other post, I must say that I am still at a loss. I apologize if I am being too insistent, but could someone from EA or Bioware please elaborate on the offending terms? Because all I have read so far is pretty vague. What is it exactly that EA/Bioware want to do and Steam does not allow? It would be really nice if some spokesperson from EA or Bioware would care to clearly and precisely explain what the problem is, because otherwise this is beginning to feel like a really lame excuse to pull us to Origin.

Modifié par Tortugueta, 22 janvier 2012 - 05:21 .

[shepskisaac]

dmex wrote...
We don't practice that policy, Forum bans no longer affect your ability to use Origin or play online 

EA said the same thing in back in March when the scandal first errupted, fast-forward 9 months, forum bans locking gamers out of their Origin ganes were STILL happening. No one at EA should be surprised people don't believe EA.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 22 janvier 2012 - 05:24 .

[craigdolphin]

Lumikki wrote....

The issue is, that it's two way contract, but Company desides ALL the rules.

What happens when the rules aren't anymore acceptable for customers. <snip>

I asked a question along those lines too on the ea forums. In particular, I asked what would happen to our ability to play our games if we refused to accept an updated Eula/version of origin dmex said that origin would then go into offline mode and be unable to download new dlc, patches, games etc from the origin store. But we would still be able to use the games that we had bought up to that point. (note I was only asking about single player: it seems likely that mp aspects of games might stop working at that point too).

He also mentioned that it would then be on us to backup the version of origin we were using in case we had to reinstall windows etc.

He also mentioned that this is how the client currently works but that he did not know if that could change in the future as that's a policy decision.

Doesn't answer all your questions, but it's more than we knew before

[vallore]

I still need to know the answer to a few questions:

Will we have an opt-out to origin data collection?

Is that option even being considered?

And if not, what data, exactly, does Origin collects?

Any clarification will be much appreciated, thank you.

[Forbidden]

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."

And there's the rub: It took YEARS for Valve to be trusted with that level of power.  Before Valve introduced Steam, it had a great reputation as a company and had generated excellent good will with how they handled things like Counter Strike.  Despite that reputation, Steam was such a shift in power that it was not immediately embraced.  Even today, many people don't trust it.  Valve understands something that EA does not: Steam is only a success as long as Valve is trusted.

EA already abused the trust directly with Origin via forum bannings.  Previously, EA has been widely despised as a company for a variety of reasons, but one of particular note is their tactic with regards to their yearly sports games:  The previous years servers are shutdown in order to push people to buy the current year.  With the power of Origin, they wouldn't even have to do that, they could just revoke the previous year's game. 

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 

  And how long has Origin been online?   My understanding is that BF3 was the first big Origin-required game, and EA abused its power with that first game.  And off-line mode isn't a panacea, since if it Origin revokes the game before you take it off-line, it will still be revoked when you're offline.

EA has already given us ample reason not to trust it.  EA has to earn our trust, not the other way around.  Until it does, I will not allow Origin onto my machine.  There are plenty of other games out there to play.  But I wish Origin didn't exist, because I don't like that these days I have to scrutinize every game purchase just to make sure it doesn't contain malware.

[Zeju]

Hey. People.

Steam sucks. Get over it.

I didnt want Steam on my PC for Modern Warfare, I didnt want it for Empire Total War, I didnt want it for DoW 2, the only thing it's done for me is screw me around and screw up my games, and the amount of people on the Valve forums that can say the same is staggering.

Anyway just because I don't like Steam doesnt mean I was automatically gonna like Origin. Buut I'm not stupid enough to think it's Spyware, I've had monitors watch Origin and it only ever scans the Origin folder, nothing else, so all panic is hearsay and completely unfounded.

On that logic, I decided it wasnt a problem, and I read that there was DLC bonus with Kingdoms of Amalur for a Steam/Origin downloaded demo that was linked to your EA account, and guess what, I downloaded Origin, installed it, downloaded Amalur demo, installed, played, no problems. Get over it. It's not Spyware. It's better then Steam.

Oh and take my word for it, I HATE EA, absoloutely HATE them, look at EA Sports and what they did to the FIFA Series on PC, so the fact that I'm supporting in this issue.. It says alot.

It's a bunch of hysteria and people who are taking other peoples word for it. Download a Process Manager and watch Origin work for yourself, there's no danger in it. At all.

[Aaleel]

Was it decided if Sandboxing counts as DRM circumvention or not?

[billy the squid]

@zeju Your bias is showing, I'd try to be more nuanced in one's posts so you aren't disregarded.

@ Forbidden, yes revocation of a license is a major irritation, which is usually why I buy the physical copy or get hold of a copy and associated DLC as back up. So even if it is revoked I still have access to it. Exhaustion of Rights Principles and Copyright Law let me make a copy of the disc and once the disc is sold to the end user the IP holder's rights over it's control diminishes.

So after the disc is in my possession there is very little the IP holder can do even if the license is revoked, they can't stop you playing on it.

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 janvier 2012 - 06:08 .

[Luvinn]

Zeju wrote......

It's better then Steam.

Not sure if serious.........

[billy the squid]

Aaleel wrote...

Was it decided if Sandboxing counts as DRM circumvention or not?

It's not. dmex stated it as much, Bogsnot has explained the tech issues as well  and I've babbled on about the legal differentiation.