Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[Fappy]

Further Restrictions. Your right to use the Software is limited to the
license grant above, and you may not otherwise copy, display, seek to
disable, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from, or use the
Software or any component of it, except as expressly authorized by EA.

You signed this when you played the game, so there is nothing wrong with them banning you for breaking the EULA.

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think they have they have the right to do that. Tampering with their game is a betrayal of trust... Unless they actively encourage it to the point of releasing a mod pack like Valve or Skyrim.

Your "trollin" right...right...oh god your being serious.

How is it a "betrayal of trust" in no way has the mod affected online and thus other players. CounterStrike, Team Fortress, Killing Floor all games that began as mods, heck Minecraft started as an Infiminer mod and later expanded into its current form.

In short, you should not mod unless they say you can. Some games have their own separate file for saving mods into. They made the game, they say what you can and can't do. If they don't want you modding it, don't mod it.

Pictured above: assertions. Not pictured: evidence or argumentation.

 

[Swyftstar]

This is why I am increasingly dubious of digital downloads in any medium. They aren't selling you music, books, games or whatever, they are selling you a license to use them. In many cases they reserve the right to take that license away for a variety of reasons. Somebody really needs to start taking a good look at these EULAs from a legal standpoint and figure out if they should be restricted or not.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

Actually not being able to mod is an incredibly common stipulation of EULAs.

Game devs normally just don't give two shits.

Also there hasn't been a game since the late 90's that isnt considered licensed.

Baldur's Gate? Licensed
Morrowind? Licensed
Fallout 1? Probably licensed

 

[tendaji]

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

It's signed before you start up the game, not before you confirm the purchase of the game.

 

[Kahunaburger]

By the way, anyone still want to run out the "but... but... Steam is just as bad as Origin!" argument?

 

[Fappy]

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

It's signed before you start up the game, not before you confirm the purchase of the game.

Well unless they have a refund policy for this kind of situation I'd say that's poor business etiquette to say the least. Software companies don't make other corporations sign a contract with a bunch of stipulations on it AFTER they've been commissioned. Makes very little sense to me.

 

[Fappy]

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

Actually not being able to mod is an incredibly common stipulation of EULAs.

Game devs normally just don't give two shits.

Also there hasn't been a game since the late 90's that isnt considered licensed.

Baldur's Gate? Licensed
Morrowind? Licensed
Fallout 1? Probably licensed

I think its fair that the definition of "licensed" in gaming terms has changed since then. Back in those days publishers did not have a way to track what you were doing and remotely lock your shit down. It was more a way to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.

 

[Alma Mare]

So... Mods in PC games are frowned upon? Seriously? And where but on the Escapist will you find people standing up and clapping? Seriously, it's like you people HATE gaming.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

this is the stupidest thing i've heard of today. sweet jesus EA you are retarded. in no possibly way is this affecting ANYONE but that persons personal preferences, and creativity, why the hell would anyone possibly defend EA on this? Why?

edit: read up in the thread, and it seems to only be affecting multiplayer "cheaters" which is more than fine with me, however if someone gets caught in the crossfire, that is very unfortunate, and EA should do what they can to get that person there account up and running ASAP and maybe a free spectre pack or something.

 

[Elamdri]

Further Restrictions. Your right to use the Software is limited to the
license grant above, and you may not otherwise copy, display, seek to
disable, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from, or use the
Software or any component of it, except as expressly authorized by EA.

You signed this when you played the game, so there is nothing wrong with them banning you for breaking the EULA.

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.

Actually, those provisions are usually common, it's just that the license holder tends to not enforce them or are unable to enforce them. Most companies are not mod friendly.

EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

You never "Own" your game, whether you buy it as a disc or on Steam/Origin. You ALWAYS get a license. ALWAYS. Now what you are able to do under the license may be different, but you NEVER own a game. If you did, you could make copies and sell them and the company couldn't complain.

 

[tendaji]

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.


EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

It's signed before you start up the game, not before you confirm the purchase of the game.

Well unless they have a refund policy for this kind of situation I'd say that's poor business etiquette to say the least. Software companies don't make other corporations sign a contract with a bunch of stipulations on it AFTER they've been commissioned. Makes very little sense to me.

Every game makes you sign a EULA before you can start it up, this isn't EA saying "Oh let's add a brand new evil legal document to coerce more money out of people!"
In fact, EULA's are available to read up on websites before you make a purchase, so they are not in the wrong, they are just making sure you know your rights and the terms and conditions of the product you payed for.
So stop pretending this is evil EA while staying blind to every other company that does this exact same thing.

I mean even Skyrim Creation Kit EULA (http://store.steampowered.com/eula/eula_202480 ) informs the player that

If You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials (content made with the Creation Kit), You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials.

So yeah all those things people make through the creation kit and distribution kit belongs to Bethesda and the creators have no rights to it.

 

[Fappy]

Further Restrictions. Your right to use the Software is limited to the
license grant above, and you may not otherwise copy, display, seek to
disable, distribute, perform, publish, modify, create works from, or use the
Software or any component of it, except as expressly authorized by EA.

You signed this when you played the game, so there is nothing wrong with them banning you for breaking the EULA.

Did Origin customers sign this during their purchase or after? Honestly they should be entitled to a refund if this information was withheld before their purchase as it is not a common restriction on single player games.

Actually, those provisions are usually common, it's just that the license holder tends to not enforce them or are unable to enforce them. Most companies are mod friendly.

EDIT: Judging by your edit it sounds like it is signed during the purchase. "Licensing" games is another way of saying, "the ball's in our court and we can screw you if we want". Sucks, but that's why you don't use Origin if you want to actually own your games.

You never "Own" your game, whether you buy it as a disc or on Steam/Origin. You ALWAYS get a license. ALWAYS. Now what you are able to do under the license may be different, but you NEVER own a game. If you did, you could make copies and sell them and the company couldn't complain.

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

 

[Elamdri]

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

Generally speaking with software, you are made aware of a set of terms and services when you buy the product and then after you buy the product, you usually get a full set of terms and services either inside the box or as a screen on the software or online and you assent to the terms by either clicking "I Agree" or simply using the software. Under the terms you usually have the right to return the product if you don't agree to the terms.

DLC is what killed modding. Before DLC, there really wasn't much need to stop people from modding cause...what's the point?

but after DLC, suddenly there is an issue. Why should I let someone create horse armor for their horse when I can charge them 1.99 for it.

 

[Fappy]

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

Generally speaking with software, you are made aware of a set of terms and services when you buy the product and then after you buy the product, you usually get a full set of terms and services either inside the box or as a screen on the software or online and you assent to the terms by either clicking "I Agree" or simply using the software. Under the terms you usually have the right to return the product if you don't agree to the terms.

DLC is what killed modding. Before DLC, there really wasn't much need to stop people from modding cause...what's the point?

but after DLC, suddenly there is an issue. Why should I let someone create horse armor for their horse when I can charge them 1.99 for it.

I think in that case you just don't make your games mod friendly. As far as I understand none of the ME games have any amount of serious modded content due to being very rigidly programmed. The only mods I am aware of allow you to alter already existing game files like Gibbed Editor and that kind of stuff.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

Generally speaking with software, you are made aware of a set of terms and services when you buy the product and then after you buy the product, you usually get a full set of terms and services either inside the box or as a screen on the software or online and you assent to the terms by either clicking "I Agree" or simply using the software. Under the terms you usually have the right to return the product if you don't agree to the terms.

DLC is what killed modding. Before DLC, there really wasn't much need to stop people from modding cause...what's the point?

but after DLC, suddenly there is an issue. Why should I let someone create horse armor for their horse when I can charge them 1.99 for it.

Although there's an easy work-around as a consumer: if you want to mod games, don't buy them from developers that ban you for modding them. I know that's what I do.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I think its fair that the definition of "licensed" in gaming terms has changed since then. Back in those days publishers did not have a way to track what you were doing and remotely lock your shit down. It was more a way to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.

The difference between now and then is not what they meant by licensed but how they can now actually catch you for breaking it.

Gamers are finally having to face up the consequences of what they been signing after nearly 30 years of ignoring it.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

I think they have they have the right to do that. Tampering with their game is a betrayal of trust... Unless they actively encourage it to the point of releasing a mod pack like Valve or Skyrim.

I bet you only take your car to the dealer to get it fixed with only their parts too.

Again, where is the problem?

Because it hurts abso-fucking-lutely no one. Why are you such an EULA apologist? Every time I see your avatar I know the post is just going to say "EULA, screw you. End of line."

 

[Fappy]

I think its fair that the definition of "licensed" in gaming terms has changed since then. Back in those days publishers did not have a way to track what you were doing and remotely lock your shit down. It was more a way to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.

The difference between now and then is not what they meant by licensed but how they can actually catch you for breaking it.

And their motives behind why they licence the software with strict EULAs. Like one of the posts above mine points out, I am sure DLC does play a rather large role.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And their motives behind why they licence the software with strict EULAs. Like one of the posts above mine points out, I am sure DLC does play a rather large role.

Licenses have always been used to establish a legal complete control over the use of the software in question.

The reasons have not changed in the slightest.