Lawyer: Dead Space 3 Resource Exploit Might Be Theft

Recommended Videos

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
"So, arguably if you go into this game knowing you are supposed to be paying for these weapons and you notice a glitch allows you to accumulate them without paying, that's theft as well,"

Therein lays the fallacy. You aren't supposed to be paying for these items. You CAN be paying for them. It's not theft. Dumb as hell.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,470
0
0
I commented on this hours ago in the general Gaming Discussion.

And I'm glad this situation isn't going to develop past this (EA did something right instead of issuing mass-bans, color me surprised). Though I shudder to think that this is going to give some knucklefuck in the business some evil idea..

Never discount the lawyers kids, that's all I'm sayin'.
 

Sidmen

New member
Jul 3, 2012
178
0
0
Interesting.

My counterpoint would be thus: resources in a videogame are an intangible idea represented by numbers and graphics. To "steal" something, you necessarily have to deprive them of their property.

At the same time, I could take MY copy of deadspace, hack the files inside it, and increase starting resources to 1,000,000 every time I start a new game, and it still wouldn't be stealing, since it was my property to do with as I wish.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
I don't know how EA would go about taking action against this, even if it were theft. You're not paying for the resources themselves, you're paying for access to lots of them at one time. So you don't have to 'grind' or locate them if you don't want to. I mean, the guy has been lawyering longer than me (I haven't lawyered at all, outside Ace Attorney games) so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about, but it's just incredibly stupid. I know that gaming is something we're all passionate about, but there comes a point when you need to take a step back and say 'It's just a game, calm down.'
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Sidney Buit said:
since it was my property to do with as I wish.

Nope. Licensing agreements are a very simple concept, so it confuses me that so many people don't get it.

Anywho, to be on topic...the Lawyer's analogy is flawed (Not just because all analogies are flawed, and everyone who ever uses one should feel bad about themselves) because it's clear she has no idea what she's talking about. The resources aren't DLC-only, and the DLC-only parts cannot be obtained in any way except by purchasing the DLC (whether through real money or ingame Ration Seals). That right there blows her assertion right out of the water.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,409
0
0
One: The fact EA is aware of the exploit but is taking no steps to stop it indicates the company doesn't view it as theft.
Yeah. I mean, how can it be theft if EA says: "Go ahead. Buy our buns and get some extra change for free. This extra change you can gather is intentional and we're not going to change our policy." Makes no sense to me how she can even argue that considering EA's own response.
 

Sidmen

New member
Jul 3, 2012
178
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Nope. Licensing agreements are a very simple concept, so it confuses me that so many people don't get it.
Mostly, it has to do with the human mind rejecting the concept and putting in one that actually makes sense.

If people selling videogames were forced to read off the licensing terms during each sale before taking money, then maybe I'd accept them. Until then, I purchased a videogame, then inside the game I found some licensing stuff that was irrelevant to me, since I can't return the game and thus am under no obligation to do anything not stipulated in the transaction (I gave them money, they gave me property on a disc).
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Sidney Buit said:
Kopikatsu said:
Nope. Licensing agreements are a very simple concept, so it confuses me that so many people don't get it.
Mostly, it has to do with the human mind rejecting the concept and putting in one that actually makes sense.

If people selling videogames were forced to read off the licensing terms during each sale before taking money, then maybe I'd accept them. Until then, I purchased a videogame, then inside the game I found some licensing stuff that was irrelevant to me, since I can't return the game and thus am under no obligation to do anything not stipulated in the transaction (I gave them money, they gave me property on a disc).
Most EULAs have the stipulation that if you don't agree to it, then you can return the software to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (This is required by law in most places)

You're only paying for what they're offering. If you don't accept that what they're offering is worth what they're asking for, then don't buy it or wait until the price goes down. -shrug-
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
The analogy makes no sense. You buy a loaf of break or something and that's something that actually exists.

Using an exploit in Dead Space 3 gets you... what? Stuff that you technically already bought because it's on the disc? Stuff that isn't actually there? Zero new pieces of data or code? You get absolutely nothing apart from imaginary money for imaginary weapons in an imaginary setting to fight imaginary monsters.

Then again, I'm from the era of Game Genie, GameShark, and Action Replay, and you can bet your ass I cheated to high heavens on games like Battletoads, Ninja Gaiden, Castlevania, Contra, and NES Batman.
 

Sidmen

New member
Jul 3, 2012
178
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Most EULAs have the stipulation that if you don't agree to it, then you can return the software to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (This is required by law in most places)

You're only paying for what they're offering. If you don't accept that what they're offering is worth what they're asking for, then don't buy it or wait until the price goes down. -shrug-
Maybe they do, can't say. Never read them. Since they weren't part of the actual contract I agreed to when I purchased the game, they're about as binding as my agreement to blow up Megaton.

I do know that whenever I've tried to return a game I've been informed that I can't, and that I can only "trade it in".

So, once I buy a game nobody will ever be able to tell me that I can't do something with it. I'll decode the files and increase the roman legionary's attack value from 4 to 6, change the skin of an assault rifle to something I made (usually adding smiley face stickers), etc. etc.

I do understand that I can't sell it, since a company owns the copyrights, but once it's sold to me - I own my copy. Laws and "agreements" saying the contrary are wrong and deserve to be laughed at.
 

Rellik San

New member
Feb 3, 2011
609
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Most EULAs have the stipulation that if you don't agree to it, then you can return the software to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (This is required by law in most places)
Tell that to physical stores that sell PC games, given they all insist you can't return a PC Game for any reason, not even if your brand new disk is so heavily scratched the game won't install or run properly (yeah I've had that nugget before now).

(I'm aware under legal obligation, they have too. But unless you walk in with the law in print copy, chances are they won't even dignify you).
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Kopikatsu said:
Sidney Buit said:
Kopikatsu said:
Nope. Licensing agreements are a very simple concept, so it confuses me that so many people don't get it.
Mostly, it has to do with the human mind rejecting the concept and putting in one that actually makes sense.

If people selling videogames were forced to read off the licensing terms during each sale before taking money, then maybe I'd accept them. Until then, I purchased a videogame, then inside the game I found some licensing stuff that was irrelevant to me, since I can't return the game and thus am under no obligation to do anything not stipulated in the transaction (I gave them money, they gave me property on a disc).
Most EULAs have the stipulation that if you don't agree to it, then you can return the software to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (This is required by law in most places)

You're only paying for what they're offering. If you don't accept that what they're offering is worth what they're asking for, then don't buy it or wait until the price goes down. -shrug-
Since you don't agree to them at the point of sale, a number of jurisdictions don't recognise their legality.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
The way I see it is the central issue of intangible, virtual, property having value is not silly. We've been here for a long time, with people actually making millions selling things like virtual real estate and items in things like "Second Life", and the very idea of DLC and microtransactions to begin with. This is simply another facet of theft and piracy since it comes down to someone taking something for free that does not belong to them.

That said, this specific issue is in of itself a touchy one, especially if the developers state ahead of time that the game is designed to be beatable without paying for anything additional. For such a claim to have weight they would have to have a clearly stated model where the game requires you to pay X amount of additional money in microtransactions to succeed beyond a certain point. If the microtransactions are being billed simply as a conveinence or time saving device (whatever the case might be), then there isn't much of an arguement being made for exploiting a glitch (which is always debatable) since that typically takes time, time which would be saved by simply swiping your credit card which is the initial intent.

I don't see this being an issue until we get to the point where games start wearing a "pay to win" label proudly as opposed to trying to talk around the issue. Their own declarations of intent usually mean it's difficult to claim theft or really "breaking" the intended system if they always intended for success to be possible without paying them anything additional through microtransactions.

That's my thoughts on the subject at any rate.

To be honest I've been much more eager to see legal action taken against gold farmers and those who purchuse currency and such outside of the intended system in MMORPGs and screw up in game economies for other players for years on end. In such cases it can be argued that what they are doing is clearly against the stated intent of the game and it's developers, and truthfully it affects far more people due to the nature of online communities, than a couple of CEOs whose personal money mattresses might be a fraction of a milimeter less thick at the end of the day. Even so, that isn't likely to ever happen or else we probably would have seen it by now.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
Xiado said:
I never got Meta Knight being OP. He has priority and speed but very little range and power, not that hard to deal with when playing as most characters.
I'm not a big Smash player, but it's sort of like the issues with Ken, Ryu, and Sagat in Street Fighter. The amount of power their moves and stats give them is disproportionate to the difficulty of pulling those things off. Your basic fireball or "hyper" is a very versatile tool that can be used in a lot of differant ways even if it's not the strongest move in the game, ditto for the dragon punches, especially for the amount of effort it takes to pull off. Your basic down, forward, punch movement is incredibly easy to master and involves far less inputs and timing that the techniques needed by most characters to counter things done with it.

Once you get to a certain level of play, you begin to lose touch with how things are for most players, and how complicated some of the things your doing by reflex are, as well as how long it took to get into the mindset of
thinking a couple of moves ahead on exchanges and combos. You have to be pretty bloody good for any kind of a "tier" list to even remotely apply to you, as what can be done by each character in absolute terms in no way involves how easy that is to learn to pull off reliably.

For most players, at a typical level of play, a character like Metaknight is overwhelming because he's so bloody easy to use compared to what works to counter him (even if the people doing it don't realize it) as a result he pretty much stomps all over tons of players. It's right up there with almost everyone playing a shoto (or sagat) online, or at least when a new Street Fighter game goes online and the population hasn't reduced itself down to a more dedicated base of serious players.

I've oftentimes felt that fighting gamers/brawlers need to be better balanced with more consideration for number of inputs to power of a given move, combo, etc. To be honest I've always felt a lot of the problem with fighting games, and part of what holds them back from being taken more seriously in a competitive sense is that too many of them involve "newbie" characters designed to be very easily playable and a bit of an equalizer for that reason, either that or involve moves and movesets that have been grandfathered in because "they have always been that way" rather than being balanced more against the realities of the game.... and this is coming from someone who pretty much blows chips at fighting games. I'm just saying I understand, and even empathize with the problem. Not every issue I speak on nessicarly benefits me or my personal level/style of play.

I've played very, very, little of the whole "smash" thing but from what little I've tinkered with and seen, yeah, Metaknight probably needs to go, or be rebalanced. But then again as you might guess, I feel the same way about a few extremely iconic Street Fighter characters as well, which many would call heresy. Your basic fireballs should be there in Street Fighter for example, but should require a more complicated set of inputs and more mastery to use than they do now given their power level (in terms of versatility, as opposed to raw damage).
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,156
0
0
Damn right!
You evil bastard consumers how dare you not be hustled by EA, theft is what that is, terrorism even!
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,405
0
0
I guess all those trainers and cheats are theft also. you know, spawning a crystal in your singleplayer starcraft campaing is stealing definatelly.

Most EULAs have the stipulation that if you don't agree to it, then you can return the software to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (This is required by law in most places)
Wait... ill stop laughing..... now ill tell you that you woudl be laughed out of the store if you ever tried returning a game on such grounds.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,659
0
0
...and this is why I generally believe 'IP experts' to be unpleasant and bad sports.

The publisher of the game just said it's OK, as it's basically farming. Why does some unknown IP expert have to voice her opinion on this one? Slow business? An acquired perception of what is right and what is legally exploitable?

That would be pretty low.