Questions Still Swirl Around EA's Origin Bans

[Andy Chalk]

Questions Still Swirl Around EA's Origin Bans

Electronic Arts says it is working on "more equitable" rules but in the meantime it appears that a ban from its forums could still leave you locked out of your Origin games.

Back in March, you may recall, a sharp-tongued BioWare Social Network user earned a 72 hour ban from the service for lipping off, specifically by asking if the studio had "sold your souls to the EA devil?" It doesn't seem like anything to get overly worked up over, but that's life on the forums and wouldn't have been a big deal except that it also left him unable to activate [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108394-No-Dragon-Age-2-for-Suspended-BioWare-Forumite-UPDATED] the copy of Dragon Age 2 he'd purchased from the EA Store.

A BioWare community rep initially confirmed the situation, stating that an EA Community ban can affect access to games and DLC alike and further suggesting that people "consider it an added incentive to follow the rules," but BioWare Community Coordinator Chris Priestly later weighed in and said that the ban should have been restricted to the forums. "There was an error in the system that accidentally suspended a user's entire account," he explained. "Immediately upon learning of the glitch, EA restored the user's macro account and apologized for the inconvenience."

The discrepancy between the original response and Priestly's was never explained, but mistakes happen, all appeared well and that was that. Except that according to Rock, Paper, Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/ea-forum-bans-are-still-affecting-games/], that wasn't it. The site reported earlier this week that it has received a number of reports from people who have been banned from EA forums for one reason or another and then found that they could no longer access Battlefield 3 or any other games tied to their EA accounts. Making things worse is the fact that many of the bans seem to have been given arbitrarily - one user reported being banned for linking to a site that offers advice on network troubleshooting that EA itself has previously linked to, while another was given a 72-hour ban that was later upgraded to a lifetime because he said "e-peen" in a post. So what's going on?

EA's response to RPS [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/17/eas-unwieldy-banhammer-ea-responds/] wasn't terribly informative. "With every game and service EA offers, we take the satisfaction of our customers very seriously. We discourage cheating and strive to maintain a high level of integrity in both our games and our forums. Therefore when someone violates our Terms of Service, we are forced to take actions that can include suspensions and other measures. We do not take those decisions lightly - however the integrity of our services and the satisfaction of our customers requires a clear set of rules," John Reseburg from EA Corporate Communications told the site.

"We have listened to our customers and are planning a policy update which will include more equitable rules on suspensions - we want to make sure the time fits the crime," he continued. "As with all technology updates, these changes take some time to implement. Meanwhile, we urge any user with a question about suspensions or our policies to please contact us at (866) 543-5435 so we can address their specific situation."

It's worth noting that nowhere in there did Reseburg say anything about forum bans and game bans being separate things. Despite what was said in March, in other words, nobody really knows - or at the very least, nobody is saying - whether a ban from the forums does or does not mean being cut off from your games as well. It's quite possible that EA's policy as it currently stands means that a forum ban is a lot more than just a forum ban; and given the capriciousness with which they're apparently being handed out, EA forum users might want to think about keeping a sock in it until this mess is cleared up once and for all.


Permalink

 

[red the fister]

Or. Give Origin the old "Piss-off" and buy physical copies of EA games. and, of course, those gamers w/o access to a local game store can always order a copy over the internet.



captcha: lpsedata cording

 

[Catalyst6]

Or. Give Origin the old "Piss-off" and buy physical copies of EA games. and, of course, those gamers w/o access to a local game store can always order a copy over the internet.



captcha: lpsedata cording

Origin is required to play BF3 on PC, there's no way around it without pirating.

OT: Apparently the folks at Origin haven't ventured around Steam's forums recently. A pit of hate and whining, but they are separate from the actual games, as they should be. It's not like messages are popping up in the middle of Skyrim how your friend Steve things MP4s are overpowered in Red Orchestra.

 

[cookyy2k]

Does anyone remember when buying a game meant ownership of that game? Where publishers couldn't take away your ability to play the game, where they couldn't dictate how many times you could install your game, where they didn't force you to be connected to their (short lived) server to play single player and where they didn't moan that you sold your property on to someone else? I hope this trend of games becoming a service by the publisher isn't here to stay but of course it is. Publishers wont give up this level of control, especially when consumers seem happy to accept it.

 

[Speakercone]

So EA customer service is either grossly inept or deliberately vindictive.

Not surprised the executives want things dealt with quietly.

 

[cookyy2k]

Or. Give Origin the old "Piss-off" and buy physical copies of EA games. and, of course, those gamers w/o access to a local game store can always order a copy over the internet.



captcha: lpsedata cording

Origin is required to play BF3 on PC, there's no way around it without pirating.

OT: Apparently the folks at Origin haven't ventured around Steam's forums recently. A pit of hate and whining, but they are separate from the actual games, as they should be. It's not like messages are popping up in the middle of Skyrim how your friend Steve things MP4s are overpowered in Red Orchestra.

And this is precisely what they're encouraging with these douche systems. How many times did spore get downloaded due to EA's DRM on that, and it wasn't even a good game.

 

[Baresark]

No questions really. EA is a large group of rich douche bags who see fit to arbitrarily steal peoples money. I mean, I buy digital EA games from Amazon, so they can never deny me my game. I'll gladly download it and then crack the shit out of a game I purchased. I even register them to Origin, but I always make sure I have a way to access my games. That being said, it has regrettably landed me in a situation where I will never play BF3. I love BF games, they are about 1 Billion times better than CoD IMO, but that doesn't mean I'll take some form of abuse or theft in the future from EA to play it, not for $60. I mean, e-peen, what the fuck does that even mean?

 

[CardinalPiggles]

This bullshit is only going to make customers steer clear of Origin and possibly EA altogether. Yay!

It's just a shame for Battlefield fans that EA has DICE under their thumb.

Does anyone remember when buying a game meant ownership of that game? Where publishers couldn't take away your ability to play the game, where they couldn't dictate how many times you could install your game, where they didn't force you to be connected to their (short lived) server to play single player and where they didn't moan that you sold your property on to someone else? I hope this trend of games becoming a service by the publisher isn't here to stay but of course it is. Publishers wont give up this level of control, especially when consumers seem happy to accept it.

Vaguely yes, and I miss it so.

 

[RaikuFA]

Isn't what EA doing illegial? Seriously, we need a lawyer up in here.

 

[zehydra]

So, I will be totally avoiding the Origin forums lol. My only hope is that they won't keep your games from you for having low-content posts lol.

 

[andrewb4117]

Origin-not even once

 

[andrewb4117]

I've never trusted EA when you buy something you should get to keep it.

 

[Treblaine]

Some quotes need a suitable picture to accompany them

[HEADING=2]"Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules"[/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]"we want to make sure the time fits the crime"[/HEADING]

Crime? Incentives? Whe the FUCK does this company think they are? They think they can take back peoples games THAT THEY PAID FOR without refund because it violates their arbitrary "rules" that seem to be little more than dictates that they are beyond criticism!

 

[BeerTent]

Or. Give Origin the old "Piss-off" and buy physical copies of EA games. and, of course, those gamers w/o access to a local game store can always order a copy over the internet.



captcha: lpsedata cording

Origin is required to play BF3 on PC, there's no way around it without pirating.

OT: Apparently the folks at Origin haven't ventured around Steam's forums recently. A pit of hate and whining, but they are separate from the actual games, as they should be. It's not like messages are popping up in the middle of Skyrim how your friend Steve things MP4s are overpowered in Red Orchestra.

You mean all of those notifications that can be disabled with 5 seconds of going through settings?

Man, what an absolute crime!

 

[Belated]

Does anyone remember when buying a game meant ownership of that game? Where publishers couldn't take away your ability to play the game, where they couldn't dictate how many times you could install your game, where they didn't force you to be connected to their (short lived) server to play single player and where they didn't moan that you sold your property on to someone else? I hope this trend of games becoming a service by the publisher isn't here to stay but of course it is. Publishers wont give up this level of control, especially when consumers seem happy to accept it.

Quoted for truth. Now watch me use this as a jumping-off point for a ridiculous rant:

Y'see all you Conservative gamers out there? This is why corporations need MORE regulation. We don't need a "free" market, we need a chained up market where the CEO gets whipped and stepped on so he's made to behave like a good little boy. Corporations will always try to work around the system to cut corners, or install bad practices and policies that screw the customer base even if the company is making a perfectly decent profit before those changes are made. Therefore, every time that happens, we need to make a new law that forces them to undo those changes if the changes can't be reasonably defended. Actually, I'm of the belief that we should pass one blanket law giving the government unlimited power to veto any private business decision that the government deems "unfair" or "bad practice", at their discretion. This may sound like an infringement of people's rights, but corporations aren't people and anybody who tells you otherwise is a frickin' liar, and probably out to get you.

 

[Burst6]

Does anyone remember when buying a game meant ownership of that game? Where publishers couldn't take away your ability to play the game, where they couldn't dictate how many times you could install your game, where they didn't force you to be connected to their (short lived) server to play single player and where they didn't moan that you sold your property on to someone else? I hope this trend of games becoming a service by the publisher isn't here to stay but of course it is. Publishers wont give up this level of control, especially when consumers seem happy to accept it.

Quoted for truth. Now watch me use this as a jumping-off point for a ridiculous rant:

Y'see all you Conservative gamers out there? This is why corporations need MORE regulation. We don't need a "free" market, we need a chained up market where the CEO gets whipped and stepped on so he's made to behave like a good little boy. Corporations will always try to work around the system to cut corners, or install bad practices and policies that screw the customer base even if the company is making a perfectly decent profit before those changes are made. Therefore, every time that happens, we need to make a new law that forces them to undo those changes if the changes can't be reasonably defended. Actually, I'm of the belief that we should pass one blanket law giving the government unlimited power to veto any private business decision that the government deems "unfair" or "bad practice", at their discretion. This may sound like an infringement of people's rights, but corporations aren't people and anybody who tells you otherwise is a frickin' liar, and probably out to get you.

Do you trust the government to make the right decisions though? Do you think that everyone in government will work for the benefit of the people?


The government doesn't need more power. They're already trying to screw us over with the power they have.