Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[Atmos Duality]

As much as I wish they could give you the EULA beforehand there is no possible way for them to set that up in such a way as to guarantee that people actually read the contract beforehand.

This is where things get a little odd.

The first argument will be: "Can you prove that there was no way for the user to purchase the software without being presented with the contract first?"

They MUST be able to prove that the user was presented with the EULA before the transaction completed. That is (in this case), EA presented their contract to the user at some stage; THIS IS NOT THE SAME as the user looking for the contract themselves.

(Justification: The user isn't the party making the proposal, since this is an "As-is" contract with no negotiation, the initial burden of proof falls on who made the contract).

If they do (and in the case of purchasing games directly via Origin, this is the only logical possibility) the burden falls on the user to either accept or reject the terms (and thus accept/reject the entire transaction).

If they accepted the agreement (with or without reading the terms) then the contract is binding up to this stage (other arguments such as unreasonable/illegal demands can be called into question, but those aren't relevant here).

At that point, the conclusion states that it is the user's fault for not reading the terms when they were presented with them (if they did not). Otherwise, the user is liable since they read the terms.

It sounds tricky, but there is an order to it.

I am honestly going to have to disagree with that. They give you the choice of reading it before hand and if you choose not to then oh well. Just because you do not read a contract before agreeing to it does not mean it is not enforceable.

The order matters. Read my response above.

(By the way, this is also why that while these companies maintain that they can change the terms at any time, they must also give you the same opportunity to Accept/Reject those terms under the same logic.

If they cannot prove that you had no choice but to read the amended terms first before continued use of their service, the contract could still be nulled, and damages/due process assessed.)

With PC games its a non issue since you have to agree to it before you install the game. Its not actually the time of purchase that matters for PC games but when you install them since you are buying the game from an unrelated third party. For console games on the other hand its a very iffy subject in the end comes down to what mood the judge is in.

It generally won't be enforced for console games because all of those agreements are Contracts of Adhesion ("Shrink-wrap Licenses"). Those were deemed unsuitable for practical reasons.

Either way, Origin is PC-Exclusive, so the console argument doesn't apply to the topic at hand.

 

[Fappy]

People at EA control the servers, so they can ban with impunity, since it's not something you go to court over.

That's the real problem. It's like a bully situation. He or she will be a total dickwad bully until someone finally stands up to him/her.

However, kicking a person in the junk is a hell of a lot easier than taking a massive corporation to court.

Haha, well put. I agree completely.

Though at this juncture I think it would easier to just not use Origin altogether and when EA attempts to find out why its not being used we'll let them know we don't want to deal with their shit.

But... but... Battlefield 3!

Actually EA screwed me over. Ok, granted, partially my fault... basically I had a BioWare (and apparently EA) account because I had to register to get my DA2 freebies including Mass Effect 2. I don't remember all the details of that, exactly. Anyway, so BF3 is coming out. I bought it from Direct2drive and then activated my code on Origin. However, I didn't remember/realize that I had this EA aka Bioware account that is the same thing so I made a new one. Now, I have BF3 on one account and ME2, Dead Space 2 (no idea how that happened) and 1 other game (maybe Spore??) on the other account.

So I contact Origin support - the live chat thing - and tell him the situation. They say "sorry, too bad". I ask "can you just delete/ban my BF3 key and give me a new one so I can register it on the other account?"

"No"

GAH! So I can't merge accounts, I can't transfer a game, and they don't even have the decency of just giving me a new key and banning the old one (which should be easy as hell). I have a screecap of this convo at home... but anyway... wtf!

Yeah I hear EA support is abysmal and has no clue what's going on most the time. I'm sorry bro

 

[newdarkcloud]

The has to be very few people (outside EA drones/plants) who think a company saying this and the entire licence/own shift are actually good things.

I haven't seen anyone ever saying that this is a good thing, only that they legally can.

If you buy a lawnmower and add better blades to it, do the people who made the lawnmower have a right to take that lawnmower away from you?

The difference is you own the lawnmower, while you don't own games.

You own a license to play the games.

If the issue is that EA owns the product, then the issue is.
Why the fuck do they own the product? That's completely baffling to me that if I drop money on a game that I don't own it. If EULA's are the source of it, then why hasn't anybody contested this in court. This is stupid. There's no reason they should lay claim to it after someone paid them for it.

 

[SajuukKhar]

If the issue is that EA owns the product, then the issue is.
Why the fuck do they own the product? That's completely baffling to me that if I drop money on a game that I don't own it. If EULA's are the source of it, then why hasn't anybody contested this in court. This is stupid. There's no reason they should lay claim to it after someone paid them for it.

Because if you actually "owned" the game then you would be able to do whatever you wanted with it including using someone elses data, the data on the disk fo whatever game company you bought it from, for something you made and try to sell the work of others as your own.

The reason why games, among other things such as movies/music/e-books, are treated differently is because any slack-jawed moron can hit CtrlC then CtrlV and copy paste it 100000000 times.

You can't do that with anything non-data, I cant just mass produce copies of a car in my house, which is why data based things are treated differently.

 

[newdarkcloud]

If the issue is that EA owns the product, then the issue is.
Why the fuck do they own the product? That's completely baffling to me that if I drop money on a game that I don't own it. If EULA's are the source of it, then why hasn't anybody contested this in court. This is stupid. There's no reason they should lay claim to it after someone paid them for it.

Because if you actually "owned" the game then you would be able to do whatever you wanted with it including using someone elses data, the data on the disk fo whatever game company you bought it from, for something you made and try to sell the work of others as your own.

The reason why games, among other things such as movies/music/e-books, are treated differently is because any slack-jawed moron can hit CtrlC then CtrlV and copy paste it 100000000 times.

You can't do that with anything non-data, I cant just mass produce copies of a car in my house, which is why data based things are treated differently.

Then why not just ban copying of the data. Why do they care if only one copy exists or if that copy is modified? If duplication is the only issue, then there are already laws in place to prevent that without any of this other bullshit.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to ask is... Why should they care?

 

[Heinrich843]

You can mod the war assets to let you get that "extra scene". You can also mod the game to unlock the "bonus" content of N7 weapons and N7 clothing/armor.

Someone is editing a file which allows them to get the extra scene without playing multiplayer, editing the game to retrieve locked content, or modding damage values of guns and things like that.

Given it's a scan upon launch, I wouldn't be surprised if these people turned to piracy to gain access to the product.

 

[Atmos Duality]

If the issue is that EA owns the product, then the issue is.
Why the fuck do they own the product? That's completely baffling to me that if I drop money on a game that I don't own it. If EULA's are the source of it, then why hasn't anybody contested this in court. This is stupid. There's no reason they should lay claim to it after someone paid them for it.

The reason for that lies more concisely in economics than law.
Simply put: Information, and not the medium on which it is transported, is the valuable component of digital goods. It's very simple and cheap to copy an existing game/software or a piece of music, but far far more difficult and costly to produce the original.

In economics, digital goods such as video games are Private+Non-Rival, and fall under the realm of "Natural Monopolies"; since the cost to produce the initial work would always be greater than its cost to distribute/re-distribute it.

Copyright Law is designed around this premise, though its implementation is the source of no small controversy and debate; especially today.

For reference, look up the rubric for Private/Public and Rival/Non-Rival goods.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

I'm sorry, but so long as what I do with a copy of a game installed on my PC doesn't affect other players experience, which modding single player doesn't, the developer and publisher have absolutely no right to tell me how to use a product I paid for. More over, they absolutely have no right to deny me access to content I paid for, and any developer or publisher who thinks otherwise can kindly go fuck themselves.

I will never understand anyone who supports them in this because you're basically saying that you have no rights when it comes to how you use content you paid for which is patently absurd.

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be surprised by this. They've been doing similar things and worse since Origin was released. EA doesn't care about it's customers. It doesn't care about the experience you get. The only thing they care about is trying to get their hooks into you so that they can take control.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Then why not just ban copying of the data. Why do they care if only one copy exists or if that copy is modified? If duplication is the only issue, then there are already laws in place to prevent that without any of this other bullshit.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to ask is... Why should they care?

If they just banned copying of data there would be yet another shitstorm of customer rights violation because as it stands now you are legally allowed to make a backup copy of a game in-case your original disk break in some way.

People would be up-in-arms that it was a ploy by game publisher to get them to have to re-buy a game again and again if it broke, and then people would say game companies are selling people shoddy disks on purpose just for that reason.

Also many mods copy data from games

That would just cause a shit-ton of problems.

 

[Elementlmage]

Also many games nowadays have a "this software is subject to a license agreement" stamp/wording on the box normally on the back in that area of small text you are EXPECTED to read before you buy the game.

Well, since you didn't bother to read it last time, allow me to copy paste my previous argument...

In United States Law, there is a section of Common Law referred to as Uniform Commerce Code, and for the purposes of my argument it will cover two areas, the Sales Contract, and what my be legally included/assumed in said contract.

Now, a sales contract is pretty straight forward. I advertise and agree to sell you a product, and you agree to pay X amount of money. The terms of this sale form the basis of the contract. As it is made known that the software is subject to a licence agreement, that stipulation would be included in the terms of the sale, and the "Sales Contract."

Now, here is the important bit, the TERMS of that EULA are NOT made known at the time of the agreement, i.e. the sale, and UCC has a specific section governing the sort of "behavior."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm

Skip to section 1-308 please:

"(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction."

I know, legaleez.... translated into English, this section establishes that all terms of a contract/agreement, MUST be made known at the time of the agreement, and terms not made known, or withheld until after the agreement may be made null and void...

By including the phrase "subject to license agreement", EA IS making it known that the sales and use of the product are subject to specific terms, and when you purchase this product you agree to those terms, at the time of sale. (The sales contract being legally binding and all), but what those terms are, are NOT made known. It can be assumed by the purchasing party (and rightfully so I might add), that EA is simply taking it upon themselves to remind to abide by the terms of that standard sales contract and pay for your goods before leaving the store.

However, by the LACK of terms, it can be assumed by the purchasing party that THERE ARE NO TERMS, except for that of the base sales contract. ("I have paid you, and therefore accept your terms that I must pay you to use this software") In order for the terms of EAs supposed contract to apply they MUST be made known at the time of agreement. Under US law, if they are not made known, they do not exist!

Therefore, I have the right to do what ever I damn well please with my software and piece of pressed acrylic.

 

[waj9876]

game companies are selling people shoddy disks on purpose

Isn't that what companies are already doing with the game systems themselves? Why does it matter if they do it with the disks?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Jesus christ, it seems like a lot of the big names in the industry need a good hard slap upside the head. Almost every mod that was available for ME 1 and 2 improved the game. God damn it.

Almost every mod really isnt something to hold high when there was like 3 of them per game.

Not allowing modding is BS, but ME's modding past isn't exactly.......... there.

It has been a while since I looked at mods for ME1/2 but the ones I had definitely improved the game, and all my friends who I spoke to said their mods did. I just assumed there were many mods for it.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies

Courts disagree with you on at least two occasions.

Isn't that what companies are already doing with the game systems themselves? Why does it matter if they do it with the disks?

Well if some people are to be believed
-All day 1 DLC is stuff taken out of the game
-All DLC in general was planned before the game came out
-All game consoles are shoddily made, funny because my PS2 is in-fucking-destructible
-Origin/Steam are attempts to get rid of the used game market
etc. etc.

Game companies already have such a long list why NOT add more to it?

 

[mjc0961]

I don't know what disgusts me more: EA banning people over mods to the single player portion of the game (bad people who cheat in MP all they want, but banning people over texture upgrades or setting changes in single player is insanely stupid), or people DEFENDING EA's actions.

...Nah, the defenders are easily more disgusting. I already knew EA was 100% completely shit, but people actually standing up and trying to defend these actions...

 

[Atmos Duality]

See the thing is I dont think they need to prove you read the EULA before you purchased it if it was say a boxed copy from game. All they have to do is prove that you agreed to the EULA at the time of install.

Contracts of Adhesion ("As-is" contracts) are brought under scrutiny PRECISELY because they rely on the user being aware of what they're buying into BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY BUY IT.
However, because the user isn't the one making the offer, the burden MUST fall on the publisher who made the contract to ensure that the exchange was done under fair intentions. It falls on them to ensure (100% of the time) that the contract is presented to the user FIRST before the transaction completes.

An EULA that's presented AFTER purchase is questionable EVEN IF THE USER CLICKS THE 'I AGREE' BUTTON, because there is no guarantee that the user read the EULA before s/he paid money and completed the transaction.

Why does the timing of the exchange of money matter? Because contract law acknowledges the legitimacy of a contract only AFTER both parties have read the terms and given time to consider those terms, and THEN agree-to/reject it (and only THEN is money exchanged if it's accepted; if any of these steps go out of order, the legitimacy of the contract becomes questionable).

Otherwise, the user would be paying for the *opportunity to view a contract offer* and NOT for the license that contract is attached to. See the difference?

The user would no longer be paying for the game; but the opportunity to view the license for that game (whether they agreed/rejected it does not matter at that point; the publisher has their money). That's dishonest business to say the least.

Thus, the time of install does not matter at all; it's the time that the contract was presented that matters.

This is because up until that point you never had any dealings with them. You never actually purchased anything from EA, you purchased it from a third party. In order to use the product though you have to agree to EAs terms.

Origin is directly owned and operated by EA. No third party exists here.

If you dont agree to the terms then you will have to take it up with the person you bought the game from and not EA. It is also irrelevant wether or not you can return the product after purchase because again that is the policy of the store you bought it from and not EAs.

The retail games are called into question here, because the store the publisher sold those discs to still does not actually own any of the games. They own the licenses for copies of the software, and may resell them as retail does. Typically, there are other agreements in place that the retailer must abide by, but that's the skinny version of it.

If you want to know more, read about "Shrink-wrap licenses". They come under fire on the rare occasion they get brought up in court, and their EULAs are generally not upheld, though any offers related to the game (but not the license for that game) might be upheld, such as multiplayer service.

(And this is one reason why EA and Activision moved from a local-host matchmaking system to proprietary servers; it moved the legal boundaries in their favor even though it costs more to run)

Purchasing online directly from EA however yes they will have to prove that you agreed to the terms before you paid them money.

And that is precisely how they can enforce their EULA.
This might bring up the question: "So why do they still market in retail?"

Because they know most of their customers are ignorant and don't know how the law actually works (in the US anyway). Besides, it's still a source of legal revenue.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't know what disgusts me more: EA banning people over mods to the single player portion of the game (bad people who cheat in MP all they want, but banning people over texture upgrades or setting changes in single player is insanely stupid), or people DEFENDING EA's actions.

...Nah, the defenders are easily more disgusting. I already knew EA was 100% completely shit, but people actually standing up and trying to defend these actions...

I don't think anyone is defending their actions as if they think they are "right".

Pointing out the legality, but something being legal doesn't make it "right", or mean that you like said actions

Its this kind of silly 1-demensional "any sort of non-hate towards a company = you MUST LOVE IT" that makes me chuckle.

Space-Time is not a straight line, stop forming thoughts in straight lines.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That's the thing, a VAC ban can, at worst, get you punted from a game's official servers for good and a forum ban can get you permanently punted from Steam's forums... where on Origin similar things would see your entire service terminated. It would seem that Valve requires a higher level of 'offence' before they start taking all the toys away.

The funny thing is EA were promising to 'fix' forum bans becoming termination of services even before Origin launched. That's how long this shitfuckery has been going on.

Very harsh terms they impose, not including the spyware fiasco that had our German brothers-in-arms up in....errr...well, arms!

I actually had to respond to this post just to thank you for teaching me a fantastic new word. I usually hate most American slang, it makes me grind my teeth. However "shitfuckery" is pure class and now stands 2nd only to my real favourite (which has no parallel in british english), "clusterfuck".

I don't think anyone is defending their actions as if they think they are "right".

Pointing out the legality, but something being legal doesn't make it "right", or mean that you like said actions

There's no law that prevents editing of software's data files. Since time imemorial, PC users have tweaked .ini files, played with dev console commands, replaced textures, changed the rules and in more than one instance, added content, fixed bugs and altered gameplay. Consoles have taught players that what's on the disc and now, DLC downloads, is all that there is to a game. Stupid achievements that encourage players to grind, die pointlessly or put up with using rubbish weapons to unlock them.

Believe it or not, many games came with toolsets that even allowed fans to expand game worlds (Skyrim is the latest to include one). BioWare did this as recently as DA:O. The law you may be thinking of, at least in the USA which doesn't affect non-US citizens, the DMCA, prevents reverse engineering copyright code. If someone dismantled the exe files to bypass copy protection, that is illegal. Tweaking unencrypted files that are basically just settings and parameters is what PC gamers have done since a time before the shareholders dictated what and how we played our games.