Bioware blocks user from playing his store-bought copy of DA2, for bad-mouthing EA?

[tlozoot]

So what. Steam does it all the time and you still get millions who love Steam. That other companies have similar policies doesn't surprise me nowadays, neither does the fact Bioware would happily implement it with all the trolling they are receiving lately about Dragon Age 2.

Where does it say in the Steam TOS that if you say "Steam is horrible," you will have your account banned and all the games will be worthless? I thought so.

Please think before posting.

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

That has no bearing on what I said. Regardless, what's done is done.

What's done is done? Nice. So stealing is ok, as long as its "done" in the eyes of an outsider.

What? If you agree to terms and break them, you have no one to blame but yourself.

GAME in the United Kingdom put a section in their online site TOS where they stated that, by agreeing to their TOS, they legally owned your soul. They did it for the lulz. Know why? TOS means shit legally.

 

[Littlee300]

Apparently, it was done by a machine because a bunch of people clicked the "report" button.

Ahh... people voting for what they believe

 

[bob1052]

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

Unfortunately, in most cases 'right' has nothing to do with 'legal'.

Indeed. I suppose the real question is whether or not it is "right", "fair", or even "legal" to tie infringements on a free to join, official forum, to someone's paid-for-in-cash game. Is it okay for a company to penalize someone's use of a product for conduct on an internet forum?

If they agree to an EULA it gives the company enough of a feeling of legal empowerment (whether or not it will actually hold it when pressed or not has yet to be seen) to do so.

GAME in the United Kingdom put a section in their online site TOS where they stated that, by agreeing to their TOS, they legally owned your soul. They did it for the lulz. Know why? TOS means shit legally.

They did that to prove that almost no one actually reads any EULA/TOS. They waived it because it was "for the lulz" all along but this is in no way indicative of legality.

 

[Fusioncode9]

This is ridiculous, he payed for his game and now he can't even play it. Ban him from the forums , that's fine but prevent him from actually playing a game that he payed for. Besides has Bioware heard of the First Amendment,. Uh-oh, probably shouldn't saying anything else or they will come to my house and take my Mass Effect 2 away.

 

[Signa]

If bioware is pulling shit like this, can we really trust valve?

Since everyone has covered what I was going to say, I wanted to address this: At this time, yes, we can trust Valve. The reason being is that Valve is not a traded company. They have no shareholders to impress, and anything they do directly affects their business. Bioware on the other hand, as far as I know is literally owned by EA, which is a publicly traded company. EA is willing to take the gamble that spreading "lies" about EA will hurt them more than losing one customer. It's better to cut him off and silence him than to keep him around as a "happy moneybag" as some one else said it.

Can that change with Valve? You bet your ass it can, but I think Gabe is probably going to need to die from a heart attack before the company philosophy changes that much any time soon.

 

[Eri]

So what. Steam does it all the time and you still get millions who love Steam. That other companies have similar policies doesn't surprise me nowadays, neither does the fact Bioware would happily implement it with all the trolling they are receiving lately about Dragon Age 2.

Where does it say in the Steam TOS that if you say "Steam is horrible," you will have your account banned and all the games will be worthless? I thought so.

Please think before posting.

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

That has no bearing on what I said. Regardless, what's done is done.

What's done is done? Nice. So stealing is ok, as long as its "done" in the eyes of an outsider.

What? If you agree to terms and break them, you have no one to blame but yourself.

GAME in the United Kingdom put a section in their online site TOS where they stated that, by agreeing to their TOS, they legally owned your soul. They did it for the lulz. Know why? TOS means shit legally.

Guess what? Souls can't even be proven to exist. So obviously that tos doesn't stand up. But many do, which is why they use them in the first place.

 

[psicat]

So what. Steam does it all the time and you still get millions who love Steam. That other companies have similar policies doesn't surprise me nowadays, neither does the fact Bioware would happily implement it with all the trolling they are receiving lately about Dragon Age 2.

Where does it say in the Steam TOS that if you say "Steam is horrible," you will have your account banned and all the games will be worthless? I thought so.

Please think before posting.

Don't imply that I don't think. I'm old enough to think very well and try to argue or debate a point without insulting anyone.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying nowadays many more companies are implementing similar systems with the way some games need to be online to be played, or to check in for downloadable content, or just DRM checks, it makes gamers vulnerable to this.

And, no you don't have to say "Steam is horrible" to be banned, but even a simple error on their part can get you banned, and their customer service will not work that hard at fixing their errors.

 

[Omnific One]

Nice response by one poster:

 

[chuckman1]

Well that's just stupid.
It's nice to see EA continue to do these stupid things (oh no are they gonna block my copies of Bioware games for saying that?)

 

[Negatempest]

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

Unfortunately, in most cases 'right' has nothing to do with 'legal'.

Indeed. I suppose the real question is whether or not it is "right", "fair", or even "legal" to tie infringements on a free to join, official forum, to someone's paid-for-in-cash game. Is it okay for a company to penalize someone's use of a product for conduct on an internet forum?

If they agree to an EULA it gives the company enough of a feeling of legal empowerment (whether or not it will actually hold it when pressed or not has yet to be seen) to do so.

How sad. This problem has nothing, NOTHING to do with the EULA. I do not know how people even jumped to that conclusion but here goes. It has to do with EA Community Terms of Service, aka "EA forum rules". The reason he can't activate his game is because you need an active "forum" account to show that your game is legit. With the 72 hour ban he has on his "forum" account it means he can't make any changes to his account or register games. So he can't play DA2 yet. Is it pretty mean? Sure, but the circumstance makes it no different than the rules they have here in The Escapist forums when you break it.

 

[bob1052]

Besides has Bioware heard of the First Amendment

I'm not so sure that you have. It doesn't mean what you clearly think it does.

 

[Gutkrusha]

EULA's aren't ironclad legal documents in any country in the world. It's just that people can't afford the legal fees to contest them.

 

[Von Dean]

Obviously this has to be taken with a pinch of salt as we don't know the real truths behind the story but as it's read it seem like a whole heap of BS to me (that's my opinion anyway)

I wonder if any reviewers IGN, Gamespot etc would receive the same treatment for being so critical of EA?

Also,aren't you more or less obliged to agree to the ToS? generally if you don't agree to them you can't get any access to game content.

I wanted to make this short and sweet because it makes my blood boil thinking about how another mega-corporation is once again screwing over the little guys...


p.s As a very famous man once said "You are free to do as we tell you"

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

Bioware kinda pulled a Kidney punch when this kid only pricked it's nose. This was not really needed. Comments like his should have been considered miniscule. I'm ashamed of you Bioware for pulling a hurp durp.

 

[tlozoot]

So what. Steam does it all the time and you still get millions who love Steam. That other companies have similar policies doesn't surprise me nowadays, neither does the fact Bioware would happily implement it with all the trolling they are receiving lately about Dragon Age 2.

Where does it say in the Steam TOS that if you say "Steam is horrible," you will have your account banned and all the games will be worthless? I thought so.

Please think before posting.

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

That has no bearing on what I said. Regardless, what's done is done.

What's done is done? Nice. So stealing is ok, as long as its "done" in the eyes of an outsider.

What? If you agree to terms and break them, you have no one to blame but yourself.

GAME in the United Kingdom put a section in their online site TOS where they stated that, by agreeing to their TOS, they legally owned your soul. They did it for the lulz. Know why? TOS means shit legally.

Guess what? Souls can't even be proven to exist. So obviously that tos doesn't stand up. But many do, which is why they use them in the first place.

So if GAME had replaced 'soul' with 'house', that would be legally binding, yes? Thousands of people would lose their homes, and this would be upheld in a court of law? Because it said so in the forum TOS?

 

[mireko]

Morrigan approves (+5)

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

His comment may have been out of line, but the punishment he received for making it is absolutely evil. Banned from all his EA games just for an inappropriate comment? Ridiculous.

 

[direkiller]

Apparently, it was done by a machine because a bunch of people clicked the "report" button.

yea that's what i find odd. He dint say anything vulgar or even particularly bad. If it work solely off x number of people hit this button and you are banned for 3 days i sense someone having fun with this in the future.

 

[jp201]

What they did is illegal. It's that simple. It's his opinion and his right to free speech.

Free speech doesn't apply to everything. Also he agreed to rules, which he broke.

He also paid ?50 for a game that he cannot now play. Is that right?

Unfortunately, in most cases 'right' has nothing to do with 'legal'.

Indeed. I suppose the real question is whether or not it is "right", "fair", or even "legal" to tie infringements on a free to join, official forum, to someone's paid-for-in-cash game. Is it okay for a company to penalize someone's use of a product for conduct on an internet forum?

If they agree to an EULA it gives the company enough of a feeling of legal empowerment (whether or not it will actually hold it when pressed or not has yet to be seen) to do so.

How sad. This problem has nothing, NOTHING to do with the EULA. I do not know how people even jumped to that conclusion but here goes. It has to do with EA Community Terms of Service, aka "EA forum rules". The reason he can't activate his game is because you need an active "forum" account to show that your game is legit. With the 72 hour ban he has on his "forum" account it means he can't make any changes to his account or register games. So he can't play DA2 yet. Is it pretty mean? Sure, but the circumstance makes it no different than the rules they have here in The Escapist forums when you break it.

Thank you.

He will get to play his game in a few days so don't go all feeling bad for him.

Also are we sure we have the whole story? In many cases I wouldn't be surprised if the poster either was exaggerating or not revealing the whole truth.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

*Initiating Boycott Mode*

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna reconsider buying anything EA has their claws in.