3659 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

When you replace house with your car - and it takes 30 minutes to unlock, get in, and drive away - it is rather pointless to use it when you can reach the destination in less than 30 minutes on foot too.

When most people buy a video game, they want to enjoy themselves playing the game. They do not like to be forced to register, create accounts, log in, insert codes, install additional software, updates, activations, non-stop internet connection and so forth. Most people will have no problem with some form of security as they understand the need for protection. There is, however, a line and when crossed people might consider spending their money on something else - something user-friendly - to enjoy themselves and walk away.

All that ended when the internet was invented and used (abused is more accurate) by the mainstream. Don't get me wrong I loved the pre-internet era more so than the internet period prior to when every tom, dick and harry ruins it for everyone else. The pre-internet had less DRM than after that era ended even though had some. But I do not have a time machine, the internet isn't likely to vanish either so new DRM is going to end up being invented and updated due to the extreme increase in stealing (copies) and distributing because of the internet.

DRM from digital distribution I would point out in general is less hassle than retail in old days, when had to get out the phone book, ring every single game store listed asking if had the game then work out timetables of busses to and from before heading out waiting for bus, spending hour or so before get to destination then walk to store (if can find it even), go in buy it letting them know you were one who reserved copy and had rang earlier then making the trip all the way back (even then still had a small risk of game wouldn't work though not so much with cartidges but more tapes and discs). This vs download>install>activate>alter some settings then play.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 janvier 2012 - 07:21 .

[Thoth_Amon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Troodon80 wrote...

Thoth_Amon wrote...

You know what's awesome? When you want to purchase ME3 and you can't because of region restrictions. Why can't I use my American CC on my current country's Origin store?

Steam lets me do that....

A little off topic, but I was just checking in here and saw this.

I contacted Amazon.com (I bought it from the .com (America) branch since the .co.uk (UK) branch didn't have it) the other day and they told me it was "Region Free" and could be played anywhere in the world.

Does anyone know if this is true, if it is region free or region locked?

Amazon.com digital service is region locked. I know because I live in the UK and asked them directly.

At the time I asked because they had DAO:UE digital for I think is was $20 (£13ish) and over here was £20 on the co.uk site. I spent ages looking through their ToS, Delivery information and all other online help doucments. I emailed them got told all their products are region locked. They then pointed me to their digital music ToS information.

However I did then have a word with them saying they need to add such terms to list under digital games (ToS) too because reading the music ToS when buying games is not very user friendly. Going by your question I'm guessing they never did change or update their site based on my advice.

Yep.  Amazon is US / NA only for digital games afaik.  Direct2Drive is most definitely NA only, Impulse (ewww) is region restricted as well.  Only GOG, Gamers Gate and Green Man Gaming for some titles, and Steam have the least amount of restrictions.

Haha, I can't even get to an English version of Origin's homepage to email customer support about how to purchase the game.  Really connecting with a customer there!  Never had a problem like this with Steam...  I've got the money to blow, I might as well just use that money on a more deserving pre-order if EA wants to make things difficult for me.

[Dragoonlordz]

Thoth_Amon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Troodon80 wrote...

Thoth_Amon wrote...

You know what's awesome? When you want to purchase ME3 and you can't because of region restrictions. Why can't I use my American CC on my current country's Origin store?

Steam lets me do that....

A little off topic, but I was just checking in here and saw this.

I contacted Amazon.com (I bought it from the .com (America) branch since the .co.uk (UK) branch didn't have it) the other day and they told me it was "Region Free" and could be played anywhere in the world.

Does anyone know if this is true, if it is region free or region locked?

Amazon.com digital service is region locked. I know because I live in the UK and asked them directly.

At the time I asked because they had DAO:UE digital for I think is was $20 (£13ish) and over here was £20 on the co.uk site. I spent ages looking through their ToS, Delivery information and all other online help doucments. I emailed them got told all their products are region locked. They then pointed me to their digital music ToS information.

However I did then have a word with them saying they need to add such terms to list under digital games (ToS) too because reading the music ToS when buying games is not very user friendly. Going by your question I'm guessing they never did change or update their site based on my advice.

Yep.  Amazon is US / NA only for digital games afaik.  Direct2Drive is most definitely NA only, Impulse (ewww) is region restricted as well.  Only GOG, Gamers Gate and Green Man Gaming for some titles, and Steam have the least amount of restrictions.

Haha, I can't even get to an English version of Origin's homepage to email customer support about how to purchase the game.  Really connecting with a customer there!  Never had a problem like this with Steam...  I've got the money to blow, I might as well just use that money on a more deserving pre-order if EA wants to make things difficult for me.

Nah I have oredered from D2D many times and I'm from the UK. They work fine, though they list which are regional restricted and which are not.  Best place imho to use is this one. On side of page you can select which region buying and genre/price etc like normal. I find ones listed under EU, Worldwide and UK all work on mine.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 janvier 2012 - 07:35 .

[DragonRageGT]

[rules violations removed, swearing edited]

But I had EA download manager from when I bought DA2, ME2 and stuff. It's now updated itself to Origins. It does not require me anything to play the games I mention [nosiree.]

Then again, I won't have this [umbrella]* on my pc: (click to enlarge)

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 26 janvier 2012 - 08:36 .

[Thoth_Amon]

Thanks! I'll definitely bookmark that for future use. Seems I can purchase the game at Gamers Gate. A shame since the local price here is roughly $60 for the Digital Deluxe Edition.

[sreaction]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 This vs download>install>activate>alter some settings then play.

In short, you'd rather sacrifice your personal privacy and legal rights for convienience. Thats ok, for you but not for me. The concept of convienience, equated to DRM etc.,  doesnt really address the heart of the issue. It is more of a sidebar.

Also, digital downloads don't have to be weighed down with excessive consumer unfriendly legalese.

[Dragoonlordz]

RageGT wrote...

-snip-

-snip-

Posting something you haven't got a clue means is not going to get you far especially something from last year.

It requires online for activation and multiplayer, patches and DLC only (even if you only play single player it is still a single AND multiplayer game).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 26 janvier 2012 - 07:45 .

[wolfsite]

RageGT wrote...
[snip]

Ya this is rather out of date, newer versions of Origin (you can find pics with proof early in the topic) have shown that Origin tends to stay within Origin related directories where process Monitor is concerned.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 26 janvier 2012 - 08:37 .

[MingWolf]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
All that ended when the internet was invented and used (abused is more accurate) by the mainstream. Don't get me wrong I loved the pre-internet era more so than the internet period prior to when every tom, dick and harry ruins it for everyone else. The pre-internet had less DRM than after that era ended even though had some. But I do not have a time machine, the internet isn't likely to vanish either so new DRM is going to end up being invented and updated due to the extreme increase in stealing (copies) and distributing because of the internet.

DRM from digital distribution I would point out in general is less hassle than retail in old days, when had to get out the phone book, ring every single game store listed asking if had the game then work out timetables of busses to and from before heading out waiting for bus, spending hour or so before get to destination then walk to store (if can find it even), go in buy it letting them know you were one who reserved copy and had rang earlier then making the trip all the way back (even then still had a small risk of game wouldn't work though not so much with cartidges but more tapes and discs). This vs download>install>activate>alter some settings then play.

DRM and digital distribution are two different things, though I can see digital distribution creating perhaps a problem where DRM attempts to address.  Quite frankly, I never even had to pull out a phone book back in the old days.  I may have had to go to a store and buy a disc (or a disk for that matter), but the only thing different these days is that I get the option of buying online.  Also to note, back then, the most I had to enter was a CD-key.  Now, I have to register, activate, read through a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo (if I so choose), and have to deal with something running in the background.

When we are talking about DRM, we have to ask one very simple question.  Okay two, and they go as follows: 1) Does it work?! 2) Who actually gets affected by this? 

If the first question is answered no, then the whole system is utterly pointless.  Tell me, what do you think Origin would really accomplish when it is bound to Mass Effect 3?  Do you think it will really stop those evil people with those skull and crossbone eye patches?  Do you think the the results will differ that much if Mass Effect 3 didn't require Origin to be running?  Do you honestly think that EA/Bioware will grab more sales having this system than without?

DRM is completely rubbish if it doesn't accomplish what it is trying to accomplish, and it won't until one understands the crux of the problem, what creates the pirates, and whether pirates can be barred out in a practical and realistic sense.  Otherwise, it is nothing but chasing a rainbow. 

Modifié par MingWolf, 26 janvier 2012 - 08:04 .

[Troodon80]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Amazon.com digital service is region locked. I know because I live in the UK and asked them directly.

So the boxed retail version should be fine? I was only wondering since it all goes through Origin in the end (albeit not actually a full download.)

Normally, I buy direct from the UK branch of Amazon to save any such bother with regions, but they didn't have the ME3 CE available... ((Why not, I will never know)).

Thank you for the reply .

[Killjoy Cutter]

[quote removed]

The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 26 janvier 2012 - 08:38 .

[Stanley Woo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

So changing Origin, for whatever reason, means nothing since the "original intent" will always be there? I'm all for debate and disagreement, Killjoy Cutter, but this is ridiculous. Many people in this are arguing for EA to change some of its wording and/or policies?

Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

[SpringMan]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

Well, hypothetically, they could re-include "datamining" at some point in the future (when its wider accepted in public for whatever reason or when there's a law that allows them to sell their data) as long as they grant themselves the right to change the EULA one-sidedly IN the EULA.
Now i consider this very unlikely myself, but i'd feel much better too if this whole EULA business was a one-time "read it - accept it or don't" thing.
As it is, i might find the current EULA acceptable, buy and play the game. Then, in a few years, the EULA and Origin's behaviour change, and i'm left with a game i paid for but can't play because Origin is now unacceptable for me.
They could as well put a message "we may make this game unusable for anyone at any later point" into the EULA.
Noone believes it would happen, but it makes people feel uneasy, so why put it in?
Yeah others do it too, but EA has all the attention now, they have to deal with it.

Modifié par SpringMan, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:01 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

So changing Origin, for whatever reason, means nothing since the "original intent" will always be there? I'm all for debate and disagreement, Killjoy Cutter, but this is ridiculous. Many people in this are arguing for EA to change some of its wording and/or policies?

Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

We keep seeing these "But it doesn't do that anymore!" posts as if that just fixes everything nice and dandy. 

But it doesn't. 

The only thing that will actually address the issue at hand is dumping the mandate for Origin on physical copies, because the history of Origin's behavior and EULA, because of the one-sided changeablility of the EULA, because of the long period of evasiveness regarding Origin and ME3, and because of EA's general history of acting like they don't give a (darn) as long as they manage to get the customers' money. 

So yes, the original intent will always matter -- we have absolutely no reason to trust EA to not keep attempting to do the same thing over and over. 

See also, Facebook. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:17 .

[SpringMan]

It all comes down to that whole "you don't pay for a game, you pay for a licence to play one" thing.
The more publishers try to simplify playing a game (and, sometimes, gaming itself) via clients and stuff, the more it seems i have to bother with stuff i don't want and which, i feel, i shouldn't be bothered with just to PLAY A GAME.
It's like having to pee at a gas station: The attendant gives me the toilet key, attached to a this huge brick. Because, he tells me, one time some idiot flushed it down the toilet.
Now, i have to pee very badly, but i decide to drive another half an hour to the next gas station, which i know has a clean, free public toilet. Not only that, i decide i'll never buy my fuel or anything in that first station, just because i was so annoyed with the brick on the toilet key.
Now i'm still very polite, because now i know others take a dump right behind that gas station.
Ok this HAS to be the stupidest analogy i have postet so far.

Modifié par SpringMan, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:39 .

[Zargon VII]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

So changing Origin, for whatever reason, means nothing since the "original intent" will always be there? I'm all for debate and disagreement, Killjoy Cutter, but this is ridiculous. Many people in this are arguing for EA to change some of its wording and/or policies?

Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

Stanley, the problem is that EA has earned a very bad reputation over the last couple of years for actions such as:

1. Deactivating multiplayer servers for games within 2 years of the title's release.  For instance, EA deactivated the servers for their entire '10 series of sports games shortly after the '12 series came out.  In contrast, 2ksports still has servers running for their '10 games which were markedly less popular than EA's.  You can still play the original Starcraft on Blizzard's battle.net and that game has been out since 1998 and had a new sequel last year as well.
2. Online pass for consoles - This has rubbed lots of people the wrong way including myself.  Somehow EA survived for 30 years without this assault on used game purchasers and hearing them try to justify this is just sad.  It's a shameless ripoff, pure and simple.  It's especially galling that they would charge people for online play considering how fast they turn the servers off. 
3. Online mandatory for everything - Some games don't need multiplayer, in fact many people feel this way about ME3.  EA is doing this combined with their above actions in their seemingly constant push to turn games into a monthly service rather than something you own.  See also losing Origin account deletion and losing all your games if you don't play them for two years.
3. Origin launch - Obviously a lot of people are unhappy about this.  In my mind, there were two ways EA could have gone about creating a competitor to Steam.
a. Have it open to all publishers and compete with Steam based on the tried and true capitalistic principles of price and service.  EA should at least be able to sell their own games cheaper on Origin than on Steam since they are eliminating a middleman.
b. Force it on people hoping they won't notice or care by making it mandatory for new releases and charging full retail prices.  This shows they have no intent of truly competing with Steam.  Then steal people's data on their computers and keep it/sell it just because you can.

To sum up my diatribe, EA has a huge image problem.  I would welcome Origin if I could opt out of its data collection, it minded its own business and it tried to compete with Steam honestly based on prices and service. A world where both Origin and Steam occassionally had great sales would be great.  Since there seems to be no sign of this, I hate it and will never install it.  If that means I never play another EA/Bioware game, life will go on and I have loved Bioware games since Baldur's Gate but there are plenty of other game companies out there. 

Modifié par Zargon VII, 26 janvier 2012 - 09:55 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zargon VII wrote...
 I would welcome Origin if I could opt out of its data collection. it minded its own business and it tried to compete with Steam honestly based on prices and service. 

It would also have to include a legally iron-clad clause stating that it would never change. 

As it stands, they could give you the "opt-out", and you'd really only have the hope that they don't ever change their minds and revert to giving you the choice between "accepting" the data collection, or not playing the games you've already purchased.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

So changing Origin, for whatever reason, means nothing since the "original intent" will always be there? I'm all for debate and disagreement, Killjoy Cutter, but this is ridiculous. Many people in this are arguing for EA to change some of its wording and/or policies?

Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

Stanley, I actually read part of the EULA for installing the Kingdoms of Amalur demo. Why don't you take a look at it, and tell me if that kind of attitude shows or does not show EA continuing a trend whereby they can do anything they want. EA is not trustworthy. It doesn't matter if they change the EULA or DRM, because they'll just change it back later. We will never trust Origin, and we will never trust any similar program or service by EA. Frankly I didn't trust EADM, but it only got worse with Origin. The solution, obviously, is to not require Origin.

Sniper11709 wrote...

If ME3 interacts with Origin the same
way as other games i have you shouldn't even need to go online to get
into offline mode which makes it a hell of a lot more convenient then
the piece of **** called Steam, steam sales are awesome and all that but
it leaves a lot to be desired with the freedom to play my games so i'm
happy to play using Origin and have already preordered through
it.

Actually, you can play Steam games in offline mode.
Disconnect your computer's ethernet cable and see what happens at
startup. It checks for a minute or two, but then it asks you if you want
ot launch Steam in offline mode.

Modifié par Tony_Knightcrawler, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:04 .

[Pcmag1]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The original behavior of Origin and the original EULA combine to show original and true intent behind Origin. 


To be clear:  they wanted to do it, they tried to do it, they got caught doing it, they're claiming it was "a mistake", and they'll try to do it again when they think no one is looking or if they think they can get away with it later.

So changing Origin, for whatever reason, means nothing since the "original intent" will always be there? I'm all for debate and disagreement, Killjoy Cutter, but this is ridiculous. Many people in this are arguing for EA to change some of its wording and/or policies?

Are you arguing for a change, or arguing for EA to get a time machine to prevent Origin form being created int he first place? Because one is a ludicrous and impossible request, and the other appears rational.

Stanley I believe that Killjoy  is not suggesting a solution. She simply states her opinion,
based on an observation. She believes that the simple fact that original EULA
contained the clause which allowed EA to collect
personal information and provide it legally to third parties is wrong. I apologize
but I too feel that it is heinous. It clearly shows that EA is capable of
making profit off your privacy. That is their intent. And it is disturbing. The
fact that it was hidden within fine print of fifty page agreement is awful. How
would you feel if for example in your job contract was a sentence (in fine print)
which would allow your employer to hand over your PI to third party? And the
only reason you signed it is because you missed it when reading it (and don’t you
dare tell me that is my own damn fault, because I know you agree with me). And
even if EA changes the EULA the message remains, “We want to me make as much
money off you as we possibly can. And we don’t care for your privacy.” If that wasn’t
true, they wouldn’t have included it in the first place.

As for the solution I believe it is very easy. EA claims that all the data collection is for our own
benefit. Fine, I don’t wish to be benefited. The installation of Origin should
offer you complex setup, where through opt-in you would choose what information
you wish to give up, and what information you wish to receive. But the default
option should always be -I do not wish to receive spam (advert, suggestions,’deals’),
and I do not wish this sw to act as a spyware (collect and send any information
without my knowledge and use of this information for commercial gain). That is
it. Everyone would then be happy (well not happy but at least neutral). And
since sending information is so beneficial, many people would surly choose to
send everything.

EA has stated many times that Origin is not a spyware (the fact they have to say it, is humorous
in its own right) but they still write the EULA in a form which gives them the
options to use it as one. As long as the customers are treated as brain-dead
walking wallets you cannot expect everyone to just ‘give them a chance’. The
respect goes both ways, and EA and sadly now Bioware are showing me none.

Phew that was long 

Modifié par Pcmag1, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:17 .

[wolfsite]

Pcmag1 wrote...


Stanley I believe that Killjoy  is not suggesting a solution. She simply states her opinion,
based on an observation. She believes that the simple fact that original EULA
contained the clause which allowed EA to collect
personal information and provide it legally to third parties is wrong. I apologize
but I too feel that it is heinous. It clearly shows that EA is capable of
making profit off your privacy. That is their intent. And it is disturbing. The
fact that it was hidden within fine print of fifty page agreement is awful. How
would you feel if for example in your job contract was a sentence (in fine print)
which would allow your employer to hand over your PI to third party? And the
only reason you signed it is because you missed it when reading it (and don’t you
dare tell me that is my own damn fault, because I know you agree with me). And
even if EA changes the EULA the message remains, “We want to me make as much
money off you as we possibly can. And we don’t care for your privacy.” If that wasn’t
true, they wouldn’t have included it in the first place.

As for the solution I believe it is very easy. EA claims that all the data collection is for our own
benefit. Fine, I don’t wish to be benefited. The installation of Origin should
offer you complex setup, where through opt-in you would choose what information
you wish to give up, and what information you wish to receive. But the default
option should always be -I do not wish to receive spam (advert, suggestions,’deals’),
and I do not wish this sw to act as a spyware (collect and send any information
without my knowledge and use of this information for commercial gain). That is
it. Everyone would then be happy (well not happy but at least neutral). And
since sending information is so beneficial, many people would surly choose to
send everything.

EA has stated many times that Origin is not a spyware (the fact they have to say it, is humorous
in its own right) but they still write the EULA in a form which gives them the
options to use it as one. As long as the customers are treated as brain-dead
walking wallets you cannot expect everyone to just ‘give them a chance’. The
respect goes both ways, and EA and sadly now Bioware are showing me none.

Phew that was long 

From EA's Privacy Policy
---------------------

B.    Will EA Share My Information With Third Parties?

EA
will never share your personally identifiable information with third
parties without your consent.   We may, however, share non-personally
identifiable, aggregated and/or public information with third parties. 
There may be circumstances where you may share information on your own. 
Please see section XI for more details about your rights to information
you share publicly on EA and other third party sites and forums. You
may also opt in to allow EA to share your personal information with
companies and organizations that provide products or services that we
believe may be of interest to you. To opt out of further communications
from a marketing partner or sponsor with whom your information has been
shared, please contact that partner or sponsor directly.


----------------------


That sorta contradicts what you are saying.   Plus any information that is shared is anonymous info (Tech specs, types of games played) which can in no way link to the player.  All this is pretty much standard with any company these days.

[Zargon VII]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zargon VII wrote...
 I would welcome Origin if I could opt out of its data collection. it minded its own business and it tried to compete with Steam honestly based on prices and service. 

It would also have to include a legally iron-clad clause stating that it would never change. 

As it stands, they could give you the "opt-out", and you'd really only have the hope that they don't ever change their minds and revert to giving you the choice between "accepting" the data collection, or not playing the games you've already purchased.

Agreed, I forgot how often companies like to "alter the bargain" these days, especially Sony and their removal of features.  All EA needs to say is "We will never collect personal data without your consent."  They probably never will.

[Pcmag1]

[/quote]

From EA's Privacy Policy
---------------------

B.    Will EA Share My Information With Third Parties?

EA
will never share your personally identifiable information with third
parties without your consent.   We may, however, share non-personally
identifiable, aggregated and/or public information with third parties. 
There may be circumstances where you may share information on your own. 
Please see section XI for more details about your rights to information
you share publicly on EA and other third party sites and forums. You
may also opt in to allow EA to share your personal information with
companies and organizations that provide products or services that we
believe may be of interest to you. To opt out of further communications
from a marketing partner or sponsor with whom your information has been
shared, please contact that partner or sponsor directly.


----------------------


That sorta contradicts what you are saying.   Plus any information that is shared is anonymous info (Tech specs, types of games played) which can in no way link to the player.  All this is pretty much standard with any company these days.


[/quote]
[quote]We may, however, share non-personally identifiable, aggregated and/or public information with third parties. [/quote]

This is broad enough for me not to be fine with it.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

wolfsite wrote...
EA
will never share your personally identifiable information with third
parties without your consent.

That sorta contradicts what you are saying.   Plus any information that is shared is anonymous info (Tech specs, types of games played) which can in no way link to the player.  All this is pretty much standard with any company these days.

That is their current EULA. It has changed and it will change again and you have to agree to all changes. Oh and any changes to EULA are on their website, which it is assumed you are keeping up with. Yeah, it's expected that you read that 40 page document every week.

Modifié par Tony_Knightcrawler, 26 janvier 2012 - 10:44 .

[dmex]

Zargon VII wrote...
Stanley, the problem is that EA has earned a very bad reputation over the last couple of years for actions such as:

1. Deactivating multiplayer servers for games within 2 years of the title's release.  For instance, EA deactivated the servers for their entire '10 series of sports games shortly after the '12 series came out.  In contrast, 2ksports still has servers running for their '10 games which were markedly less popular than EA's.  You can still play the original Starcraft on Blizzard's battle.net and that game has been out since 1998 and had a new sequel last year as well.
2. Online pass for consoles - This has rubbed lots of people the wrong way including myself.  Somehow EA survived for 30 years without this assault on used game purchasers and hearing them try to justify this is just sad.  It's a shameless ripoff, pure and simple.  It's especially galling that they would charge people for online play considering how fast they turn the servers off. 
3. Online mandatory for everything - Some games don't need multiplayer, in fact many people feel this way about ME3.  EA is doing this combined with their above actions in their seemingly constant push to turn games into a monthly service rather than something you own.  See also losing Origin account deletion and losing all your games if you don't play them for two years.
3. Origin launch - Obviously a lot of people are unhappy about this.  In my mind, there were two ways EA could have gone about creating a competitor to Steam.
a. Have it open to all publishers and compete with Steam based on the tried and true capitalistic principles of price and service.  EA should at least be able to sell their own games cheaper on Origin than on Steam since they are eliminating a middleman.
b. Force it on people hoping they won't notice or care by making it mandatory for new releases and charging full retail prices.  This shows they have no intent of truly competing with Steam.  Then steal people's data on their computers and keep it/sell it just because you can.

To sum up my diatribe, EA has a huge image problem.  I would welcome Origin if I could opt out of its data collection, it minded its own business and it tried to compete with Steam honestly based on prices and service. A world where both Origin and Steam occassionally had great sales would be great.  Since there seems to be no sign of this, I hate it and will never install it.  If that means I never play another EA/Bioware game, life will go on and I have loved Bioware games since Baldur's Gate but there are plenty of other game companies out there. 

Just recapping two things I mentioned about Origin earlier in the thread:

1) Origin solves the issue of servers being shutdown at EOL (End-of-Life) as newer games will all use the one  Origin server.

3) Online is only mandatory for the initital activation of the game on your Origin account, your account is also not deleted and you don't lose your games after a period of time (current expiration of games on Origin is 2999-01-01 12:00:00 GMT)

[Zargon VII]

dmex wrote...

Just recapping two things I mentioned about Origin earlier in the thread:

1) Origin solves the issue of servers being shutdown at EOL (End-of-Life) as newer games will all use the one  Origin server.

So are you saying I could play FIFA 12 or Battlefield 3 online multiplayer in 10 years?  This would be a marked and welcome change from EA's actions lately. 

dmex wrote...
3) Online is only mandatory for the initital activation of the game on your Origin account, your account is also not deleted and you don't lose your games after a period of time (current expiration of games on Origin is 2999-01-01 12:00:00 GMT)

Is this a new policy, I saw on several news websites that an Origin account would be deleted and all games forfeited if you account was inactive for 24 months.  If that is not true, that is a welcome change as well.  All that's needed is a permanent opt out for data collection and I would consider living with this as I believe that would make it equivalent to the annoyance of Steam.  The post about not sharing information with third parties is not good enough for me, as far as I am concerned the only thing EA needs to know is my credit card number at the time I buy something and my email address to register the account and send me a receipt.  Will they publicly commit to this?