Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[SajuukKhar]

Hmm some interesting news

I was reading a thread over on BSN that was started about the "ban for modding thing"

Apparently a user named Tleining asked Thomas Abram for more information

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10772884/9
"Tleining wrote...

i asked Thomas Abram for clarification on the different Statements in that Thread, this is his answer:

"Scylla's statement is more accurate then mine. Refer to his for now that being said my statement was more to make people think twice before modifying the coalesced file as it can cause major problems that we really can't help people with if all goes wrong."

So as long as you restore the Original Coalesced when playing MP, you should be fine. (note: my question was only about the coalesced. I don't know what happens if you mod other files)"


Scylla's statement being:


Hi HJF4,

We are only taking action against players who modify their multiplayer game to gain unfair progression, unfair advantage, or affect the experience of other players.

Examples are (but not limited to):
- Increase leaderboard rating.
- Increase amount of credits received on a match.
- Increase/modify weapon/power stats.


Ea is still asshats though

 

[Waaghpowa]

I'm speaking specifically in the case of Blizzard. Blizzard is ok with mods seeing as there are whole sites devoted to Starcraft 2 mods, editing tools and here. So we can deduce, based on that, that the TOS refers specifically of unauthorized 3rd party software that alters game experience and service.

No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.

Sorry.

Sorry, but unless you believe that Blizzard is attempting to lure people into getting banned, there would be no reason to supply the required Dev tools to make mods.

Did you realize that is an official blizzard page? Like hosted by Activision official? It at least guarantee freedom from bans from those community and in hose dev mods, as well as a dev kit for mod developing and hosting your mod themselves if its popular enough.

Beat me to it.

 

[Something Amyss]

No we can't. You can assume, but that's far different from what can actually be deduced. It only indicates permissiveness thus far, and does not guarantee freedom from bans for mods.

Sorry.

Did you realize that is an official blizzard page? Like hosted by Activision official? It at least guarantee freedom from bans from those community and in hose dev mods, as well as a dev kit for mod developing and hosting your mod themselves if its popular enough.

*Headdesk*

Yes, I realise that. Again, that doesn't mean impugnity, so that changes nothing. Oh look, official site. Oh look, official EULA that still reserves the right....

 

[Tanakh]

*Headdesk*

Yes, I realise that. Again, that doesn't mean impugnity, so that changes nothing. Oh look, official site. Oh look, official EULA that still reserves the right....

Yeah, I do, but they aren't suicidal mate, they are a company made to make money and that wont.

By that logic nothing prevents:

- Valve from deciding to close all their services tomorrow.

- Obama from killing you because he woke up feeling like it.

- Microsoft from releasing a patch to brik all the Windows 7 machines.

- Bioware from killing ME 3 multiplayer this week.

- EXXON lobbing all the industry from selling you petrol.

- Facebook from putting all your personal data in every facebook page in the world.

All those are legal, and can happen tomorrow, none are more likely than Blizzard banning people from using official mods.

What i am saying is that your argument, though correct, it's pretty stupid. Heck, Blizzard might decide to cash all their assets and burn them on a fire, that would make as much sense as releasing a dev kit, hosting mods and then banning people for them.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This is a unacceptable. They couldn't even be arsed to make the FOV in PC version tolerable. We have to mod the game in order to play it without getting sick, and they wanna ban us for it. They fucked up PC version. Is it really that hard to make a FOV slider and add in some graphics options and a holster button? They made the fuckin' game they can add that stuff in less than 5 minutes.

 

[Sangnz]

On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.

From a personal standpoint however EA/Bioware are being assholes, so long as someone is only impacting their own personal gaming experience and isn't trying to sell the mod then there is no moral/ethical reason to be a bag of dicks over someone modding a game.

Mods have always been the thing that kept games alive long after they would have died out.
Counter Strike started as a mod
Killing Floor started as a mod
Dota is a mod (shit look at all the mods for WC3)
Check out the various mods for Baulder's Gate and Baulder's Gate II.
Neverwinter Nights series was built (by bioware) to allow modding which encouraged sales long past its time.
Mass Effect 2 had a bunch of character mods for hair styles/makeup/eye colours.

I see this as an intensely stupid move on EA/Biowares part as alienating the modding communities is a REALLY dumb thing to do because:
Modders tend to actually buy the game so you are killing that bit of revenue, the modding community as a whole is also fairly large.
Modding communities keep game sales alive longer so better long term sales
Modding communities actually provide help to Devs with their own fixes or even full blown games (counter strike)

TBH the era of games being made by gamers for gamers is gone (apart from the indie scene) and we are seen as walking wallets who should just be silent and buy the Corporate stamped out games and be happy to pay $10 for the hair style DLC that some modder would have done for free and often better.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.

No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.

 

[XUnsafeNormalX]

Remember everybody, you own what you buy.

Until the person you bought it from tells you you're using it wrong and then promptly takes it away.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Now it's not OK to mod a single player game?! Something that has been done for the last 20 years without issue. What is worse is the people defending this behaviour, it is thanks to your sycophancy, that companies have any belief that this behaviour will fly.

Thanks to people defending all these recent attacks on the engagement we have had with games companies for the past 20 years,

-they now believe they can force us to use their digital distribution platforms even when we opted to buy from a shop

-we cannot get full used games any more,

-have to pay extra to get content that should have been in the original game

-have to install a digital distribution platform that requires mandatory data collection from our computers

-have DRM schemes that require always on internet access.

These negative changes to how people have played games for the last 20 years, has been allowed by you continued selling out of your and your fellow gamers rights, just to get your latest 'fix' of whatever the big gaming pushers are dishing out. You are despicable and worse than the companies trying to squeeze every cent out of consumers, as that is their aim. You just keep voting against your interests. You are 'collaborators' working against your own community.

 

[tendaji]

On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.

No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.

You sign a contract with EA saying "I will not do these things, and I understand if I do them that you can disable my access to the game." It's not like the EULA's are hidden in some super secret link on the websites, and all are easily accessible before you buy the video game, as well as after you buy the video game.
But if you break any kind of contract, employment or whatever, the company can boot you right out the door for breaching the contract. This is the same thing as that, if you break the contract (knowledgeably or not) you are liable to losing your games.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

EA can't force you to do anything that isn't in the actual legal system. Most of the stuff in EULA is just stuff EA doesn't want you to do. If you violate the EULA they can ban you only if you do things that are actually illegal. If they ban you for any reason that doesn't exist within the legal system you can sue their asses. Most people don't know that. And those tho know don't bother because an individual lawsuit would cost more than buying the game again. That's why they get away with it.

 

[tendaji]

It's the same thing with employment contracts. It is not illegal for a teacher to engage in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old student. But if he does, he will get fired for breaking his contract that says "If you have a relationship with a student, you can get fired." They didn't break any legal precedent but because they signed the contract and broke the contract, they no longer are allowed to be a part of the school.

For the game, you sign a contract before you are allowed to play the game saying "You cannot mod this game, or we will take the game away from you," so if you end up breaking the contract, your access is terminated, whether you paid for the copy or not. And all they need is to show the court that you signed the contract before playing the game, and they are in their rights to remove access from you.

 

[Atmos Duality]

No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.

Except it HAS been taken to court NUMEROUS TIMES in the United States (Microsoft vs Harmony Computers, Novell vs Network Trade Center, among others) though outside of the US their enforcement is questionable at best.

Within the US, the precedent has not been firmly established. Some have been upheld, some have been shot down.

As for why, that's what was discussed, debated and refuted in the last 4 pages of this bloody topic.

 

[The Lunatic]

You sign a civil contract, not a legal one, guys.

 

[manaman]

Stop quoting me. I get it.

That's what happens when you make a silly comment in the rush to be the first to respond.

 

[manaman]

You sign a civil contract, not a legal one, guys.

Eh, er, well. EULA's have held up in court to an extent. See copyright holders do get to dictate what is done with their content. Which they can do through an EULA. To an extent, because time after time the more restricted clauses in EULAs have been thrown out in courts.

Except the Ninth Circuit court, but those guys are crazy.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

Aside from EA being EA, I think part of the problem stems from the fact that modding requires changing the .ini file shared by both the single and multiplayer. Multiplayer modding/hacking is something Bioware/EA have to crack down on, and it's easier to assume than to ask questions.

If people have been able to access content they haven't paid for in the single player game via modding (see: From Ashes) then it makes sense Bioware would bring down the ban hammer.

I absolutely hate the setup though. I was thoroughly looking forward to modding in some non-ridiculous-looking FemShep hairstyles. I can be banned for that? Just great.

 

[Smeggs]

Well...unless Bioware/EA actually gave their express permission, even if it is graphical or performance enhancements, I don't really see how this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Although I have to agree it's still stupid, and EA are still a bunch of money-grubbing whores with awful PR.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It doesn't matter what you "agree" with or not, they HAVE to make the EULA readable for everyone before the purchasing contract in a games shop takes place or it is invalid, printing a link on the package doesn't count either and trying to shove in stipulations after one already bought the product is also invalid, so nothing they present you with while installing the game or when trying to play really matters. The only thing that matters is what you agreed to when you actually bought the game, at least in the EU.

You know, arguing EULAs is a bit pointless because when it comes to online bans its almost always done on the grounds of ToS violations... and ToS aren't contracts, they're statements by the service provider of under what conditions they'll allow you to use their provided service.

So you end up with the the subtle but significant legal difference of them not taking away your right to use your licenced goods but they aren't letting you use their service to access your goods... which just shows the law needs to get it's arse into the 21st century.

 

[Wolfram23]

On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.

No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.

You sign a contract with EA saying "I will not do these things, and I understand if I do them that you can disable my access to the game." It's not like the EULA's are hidden in some super secret link on the websites, and all are easily accessible before you buy the video game, as well as after you buy the video game.
But if you break any kind of contract, employment or whatever, the company can boot you right out the door for breaching the contract. This is the same thing as that, if you break the contract (knowledgeably or not) you are liable to losing your games.

Except for the fact that the courts decided it is 100% legal to modify copyright material for personal use (in particular, software).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.