"For privacy, Origin is the same as Steam" WRONG!!! -Updated

[DoPo]

On the other hand, EA isn't likely to sue you; they'd probably just take away access to the games you paid for (as a first step if nothing else).

Yeah, I know :/ It's a dick move on their part but it's within their rights to do so... Or at least isn't not illegal.

Oh, and if memory serves, EA put in that bullshit "You can't sue us; it must go to arbitration chosen by us first" clause (meaning you won't get what you want anyway) that Sony was also parading around. I question how effective that might be since that basically slams the door on everything but criminal charges.

Out of curiosity, did your legal expert say on what terms it would be rejected?
The one I'm thinking of is Unconscionable/Unreasonable claims; or alternatively an existing conflicting law.

Unreasonable claims. The terms of the contracts should be within reasonable limits. And he's not a legal expert...or I don't really know if he is. He is, however, the guy that gave us lectures on legal issues in the software industry, so I suppose, I could call him "legal expert" on those grounds.

Anyway, if term(-s) in the contract are outrageous, they will not hold up in court. An example he gave me was the following: if you went to work for a company, you could have a clause in your contract saying "When I leave, I will not work for a competitor for at least a year". Now, "competitor" could be sketchy but, if not specified, it's usually a company in the same field and in the same area.

So, I guess what you should get out of this is not to worry, if somebody pulls a "ha-ha you don't know what you agreed to" on you. Just slap them with that - "unreasonable claims" to shut them up.

Well, this has nothing to do with EA in this case but it's still something worth knowing.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yeah, I know :/ It's a dick move on their part but it's within their rights to do so... Or at least isn't not illegal.

Hmm, if that's so, then EA could effectively run a legal hustle. So much for consumers' securities.
I doubt they would do so overtly, or regularly, because it would create so much negative PR, that it would kill business. 1 or 10 people getting fucked out of their money can be marginalized and rationalized as outliers in the grand scheme of things. Hackers and colossal assholes deserving of such do exist. Fuck over 100, 1000 people, others will start to take notice.

..Or perhaps in the instance where the so-called "justification" for the ban is outrageous on its own, and verifiable. Like the guy who got banned for someone else swearing via quote on their forums.

So, I guess what you should get out of this is not to worry, if somebody pulls a "ha-ha you don't know what you agreed to" on you. Just slap them with that - "unreasonable claims" to shut them up.

The problem is taking them to court to begin with. The cost of legal fees is certainly going to exceed the cost of the games you lose if they pull that bullshit to begin with; even if you bought 1000 USD worth of games, you'd still have to win against the inevitable stall-tactics EA would employ to drown you in legal fees. (of course, if you actually did win and didn't settle out of court as you'd likely have to, they would have to take the black eye in legal fees, even if the actual damages in claims is relatively puny. Small wonder lawyers and bankers rule everything.)

This is why I emphasize securities and fair play with explicit terms to begin with, and to at know who you're dealing with. My "professional" opinion of EA is that they are a ruthless business, and it's foolish to implicitly trust them. When a business stabilizes a service investment, the natural course of action is to turn the thumbscrews. Even Steam did this when they moved from a bi-weekly DRM authentication to a daily authentication.

I could rave all day about how stupid I find it that people trust them blindly, but that accomplishes marginally less than actually trying to inform them about exactly what it is they're getting into.

Then again, this is the third time I've re-read the Origin EULA just to point out this same problem on this same freaking topic. The futility of the matter is not wasted on me.

 

[ph0b0s123]

It's funny to me how the same people who would complain about their PC's hardware specs being sent to a server somewhere are also people who use Facebook, who use any Google service, who pretty much use the internet in any shape or form.

Someone is always collecting data on you. Get the hell over it.

As has been said repeatedly to anyone making this false equivalency. Please tell me the services you mentioned that get all the software and software usage details from you system as Origin does, as mandatory part of using said service. That's the thing people are pissed about, the thing you forgot to mention, not your hardware details, but the software details it collects while routing around your system. Please back up your assertion that the other services you mentioned do the same thing.....

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm supposed to dig through your posts to find proof of your claims? I don't have a news subscription to what you post on this site, just saying...

Then you hardly have any claim to call me ill-informed if you cannot check my knowledge.

I'm very much aware of what hypothetical situations require. Your so-called points borderline on hyperbole.

They ARE hyperbole. That's what the person I quoted asked. Again, you couldn't be bothered to read that.

At any rate, your exaggerations don't make any sense in this situation

Again, that's why I referred to the quoter.

because you made the completely illogical jump from "we're collecting information" to "we're going to install software on your computer".

Completely logical jump given that's how Apple, Facebook already do this - and did you miss that you're installing their snooper on your computer?

If you're going to make wild, fatuous claims about my posts; I suggest you read them and the context they are made in first. Rather than just dismiss perfectly reasonable people as immature because they don't agree with you.

 

[DoPo]

So, I guess what you should get out of this is not to worry, if somebody pulls a "ha-ha you don't know what you agreed to" on you. Just slap them with that - "unreasonable claims" to shut them up.

The problem is taking them to court to begin with. The cost of legal fees is certainly going to exceed the cost of the games you lose if they pull that bullshit to begin with; even if you bought 1000 USD worth of games, you'd still have to win against the inevitable stall-tactics EA would employ to drown you in legal fees.

Ah, sorry, I didn't phrase that properly. In fact, I realise now how wrong it can be taken. I didn't mean EA - I meant that there are a some EULAs, Terms and Conditions, and so on, who throw in something outrageous just to show people that nobody is reading them. There was one website (I forget which one) that changed the T&C to include "If you agree with this, we own your soul unless you contact us about it, in which case we'll give you a [small gift of some sort]". That sort of thing. People can be really smug about "Yeah, you didn't read what you agreed to", so if you tell them "unreasonable claims" that would shut them up.

That's what I meant there. So it wasn't related to EA at all, just a random bit of info.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Ah, sorry, I didn't phrase that properly. In fact, I realise now how wrong it can be taken. I didn't mean EA - I meant that there are a some EULAs, Terms and Conditions, and so on, who throw in something outrageous just to show people that nobody is reading them. There was one website (I forget which one) that changed the T&C to include "If you agree with this, we own your soul unless you contact us about it, in which case we'll give you a [small gift of some sort]". That sort of thing. People can be really smug about "Yeah, you didn't read what you agreed to", so if you tell them "unreasonable claims" that would shut them up.

That's what I meant there. So it wasn't related to EA at all, just a random bit of info.

Well, I could generalize my point using EA as an example here in regarding unreasonable terms, and the cost to enforce them. Most individuals cannot afford to, nor would not want to engage in legal battle, and companies shouldn't be putting terms into their contracts that they know are clearly illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise outrageous.

In the case of jokes in EULAs/Contracts, well, I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but in order for there to be fairness in a transaction over a service, there needs to be securities laid out in clear writing. Legal contracts aren't games, even if they are for games.

Finally, if an EULA isn't legally enforceable (which is not a guarantee; I can name many game-service contracts that have been upheld in court), why bother with one in the first place?

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

Collection and Use of Information
By using Valve's online sites and products, users agree that Valve may collect aggregate information, individual information, and personally identifiable information, as defined below.

Oh snap! That actually looks very similar to EA's policy and is not optional, with the exception of seect third party participation!

nice quoute out of context.

AS DIFINED BELOW.

if you take part of the message out it can have a totally diferent meaning. for example, here is a quoute of "you" out of context

.... every time .... i just wait to see someone.... post.... me...

would you kindly post the entire document or are you only going post the part that makes you sound on the right?

 

[DoPo]

Well, I could generalize my point using EA as an example here in regarding unreasonable terms, and the cost to enforce them. Most individuals cannot afford to, nor would not want to engage in legal battle, and companies shouldn't be putting terms into their contracts that they know are clearly illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise outrageous.

In the case of jokes in EULAs/Contracts, well, I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but in order for there to be fairness in a transaction over a service, there needs to be securities laid out in clear writing. Legal contracts aren't games, even if they are for games.

I fully agree, reasonable limits should be put on contracts, as well. Heck, my neighbour who lived on the floor below me has always been an example for me in that regard. He made money, lots of money, by lending other money to people with ridiculously unfair contracts. I think that is called "usury" in English.

At the very least, the law should allow us to punch people who do bad contracts.

Finally, if an EULA isn't legally enforceable (which is not a guarantee; I can name many game-service contracts that have been upheld in court), why bother with one in the first place?

Because they can. I'm pretty sure that's a possible explanation. If they can do it why not. They can flex their muscles and throw some intimidating stares, metaphorically speaking. Also, as you said, they can still take you to court about it. And they can afford far better lawyers than you. They can possibly do it as a sick amusement, just to see how much their lawyers can troll you. And if they win, the better.

In the end, what would EA lose out of it? Would it make people hate them? Ha-ha, that's a laugh, people hate them now but they still buy their stuff and install Origin. EA may just be trying how far they can stretch the thing before snapping.

 

[jpoon]

I love being spied on, it means better games!

/sarcasm

Some people just have that kind of attitude. Fuck EA, they do not have the right to spy on me. Thus why I always espouse getting a crack for any and every EA game and break that piece of shit Origin software.

 

[jpoon]

Fucking, double post...if only there were a "Delete reply" button on here.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Lets say EA takes your hardware specs. Then EA uses this information to better refine and update games. Better games right? Isnt that the point?

Worst case scenario is that EA sells this information. What, exactly, is -anyone- going to do with this information? Like seriously.

Someone, please, tell me what the WORST CASE SCENARIO could possibly be if EA found out my Hardware and Software data?

If EA sells your information to other parties, hell even gives them it, without YOUR permission is illegal in the UK. Also, collecting your data without being told what is being collected or allowing to know is also illegal.

The difference between Steam and Origin is that Steam checks all legal boxes, Origin doesn't.

 

[Rad Party God]

I'll buy Mass Effect 3 and I will play the heck of it, but I won't be using Origin, I'll just search for a crack or a workaround to stop using Origin and done!, I don't like the multiplayer anyways.

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

I'll buy Mass Effect 3 and I will play the heck of it, but I won't be using Origin, I'll just search for a crack or a workaround to stop using Origin and done!, I don't like the multiplayer anyways.

if you want to buy it beside it's flaws, you would have a better time on 360 or ps3.

 

[Something Amyss]

would you kindly post the entire document or are you only going post the part that makes you sound on the right?

It seems you don't understand quote mining, since both your accusation and your example failed.

Of course, since you seem to think this is somehow out of context, perhaps you can point out the part what would change that context. The only one I could find is the one I already commented on, which is again specific to third-party deals.

But please, have at it. Show me the magical part that negates their right to collected personally identifiable information. Please don't cite the part which I already referenced.

If EA sells your information to other parties, hell even gives them it, without YOUR permission is illegal in the UK. Also, collecting your data without being told what is being collected or allowing to know is also illegal.

Which is kind of moot anyway.

EA also added a note that seems directly inspired by the outcry over the last EULA. "EA knows that you care how information about you is collected, used and shared, and we appreciate your trust that we will do so carefully and sensibly," the document now reads. "Information about our customers is an important part of our business, and EA would never sell your personally identifiable information to anyone, nor would it ever use spyware or install spyware on users' machines."

From the EULA, in this case via Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/26/ea-revises-origin-eula-data-collection-is-still-in-collection/].

Granted, you could complain that Origin is spyware, but in that case, so is Steam.

The difference between Steam and Origin is that Steam checks all legal boxes, Origin doesn't.

Currently, to my knowledge, Origin ticks all the legal boxes as well. Your above claims don't apply to the EULA is it exists now and has existed for over half a year now. The Origin EULA no longer says it collects data for third party use.

Far as I can tell, NONE of what you claim is illegal is in there anymore. Most people seem to be ranting about an out-of-date EULA that lasted about a week.

Honestly, this all sounds like political squablling I see in the states all the time. Steam vs Origin is basically the same. People ***** about the other party's sexual affairs, but not their own party's. We hate EA, so when EA does something we don't like, we bash them. We love Valve, so when Valve does something we shouldn't like (even if it's roughly equivalent), we make excuses for them.

And if we have to hang on to an outdated document that no longer applies, we will. BECAUSE PONIES.

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

would you kindly post the entire document or are you only going post the part that makes you sound on the right?

It seems you don't understand quote mining, since both your accusation and your example failed.

Of course, since you seem to think this is somehow out of context, perhaps you can point out the part what would change that context. The only one I could find is the one I already commented on, which is again specific to third-party deals.

But please, have at it. Show me the magical part that negates their right to collected personally identifiable information. Please don't cite the part which I already referenced.

Collection and Use of Information
By using Valve's online sites and products, users agree that Valve may collect aggregate information, individual information, and personally identifiable information, AS DEFINED BELOW.

/Start music turnabout Objection!

"As defined below."

That means there is an explanation of when, where, and why. And since it doesn't show that part, the quoting is out of context. Deliberate or not, you did not quoted the most important part of the document.

/Stops music turnabout Objection!

 

[ph0b0s123]

Added an update to the first topic post.

Update: Catching up on my 'Extra credits' watching. Interested to find part of a mailbag episode where they say what they thing about Origin. I.e the privacy concerns were enough for James who is an industry insider, not to Buy Battlefield 3....

@ 3.40 here: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mailbag-4

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

Added an update to the first topic post.

Update: Catching up on my 'Extra credits' watching. Interested to find part of a mailbag episode where they say what they thing about Origin. I.e the privacy concerns were enough for James who is an industry insider, not to Buy Battlefield 3....

@ 3.40 here: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mailbag-4

same here, i was ready to buy battlefield 3 on pc since it was anounced, but when i sow it was origin only, and the privacy concerns, i came to the same realization as james did.

so i played neither battlefield 3 nor mw3. and i was happy with just keep playing tf2.

 

[meepop]

Personally I think that if someone goes through all the effort to run No-scripts, ad-blocks, javablocks, cookie untrackers, etc etc...then they do have something to hide, even if they claim the opposite. However that is just my opinion so take with a grain of salt.

On the Origin/Steam debate I think it has been blown way out of proportion. I use both. Steam for the good sales and whatnot, and Origin for the EA titles that I want to play, Old Republic and ME3 in particular. I will be the first to admit I used to be in the "Zomg Origin is spying on people!!1!" camp, but after a bit of research and taking the piss I came to the conclusion that it was nowhere near the catastrophe that people were making it out to be.

Origin is looking at my hardware/software specs for my PC? Big whoop, benchmark sites do that when I go to see if my PC can run the newest games smoothly. I mean honestly, what could they do? "This man is only running a dual-core processor! RELEASE THE HOUNDS!"

Now I'm all for people sticking to their guns and principle and such...but jeez...there are times you gotta admit that maybe you're being a bit too paranoid and/or sensitive and need to get over it.

I agree with this 100%. I use Steam and Origin, and don't mind defending Origin if some ignorant person(s) will forsake playing a game like BF3 or ME3 on PC just because of something that snoops around in your computer for some random stuff. Yes, they don't ask, but really, the government doesn't ask you for permission to pass laws does it?

 

[ph0b0s123]

-snip-

I agree with this 100%. I use Steam and Origin, and don't mind defending Origin if some ignorant person(s) will forsake playing a game like BF3 or ME3 on PC just because of something that snoops around in your computer for some random stuff. Yes, they don't ask, but really, the government doesn't ask you for permission to pass laws does it?

So James Portnow who writes Extra Credits and other stuff and is part of the industry is ignorant. Ok....

Government don't ask if you want laws created?! Erm, yes they do, when you vote for them or if you register your displeasure with a proposed law. Like when they stopped progressing the SOPA legislation a very short time ago due to peoples feedback. Really calling the pot black with that ignorant remark....

 

[DoPo]

Yes, they don't ask, but really, the government doesn't ask you for permission to pass laws does it?

Yes, yes it does. There are those people you elect and you can go to them and demand that they approve or they don't approve a law. Because, see, they have responsibility to the government but also to the people who they represent. Or at least they should do. That's the whole point of democracy - all people have a say in the matter. It's just that groups of people choose one to speak for all of them for convenience reasons. Imagine trying to fit millions of people in one place who should all vote on a single matter.

Or does your government actually work despite the people it governs? If that is the case, then too bad, I suppose, but you shouldn't use that as an example.