No Dragon Age 2 for Suspended BioWare Forumite - UPDATED

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Temporary or not, what is said on the forums shouldn't affect game sales. If the guy stood by what he said he wouldn't have bought DA2 and this issue wouldn't even have come to be. As it is, I feel his purchase speaks more volumes than one little line in a forum thread and EA should appreciate the money more than a little overperceived slight.

EA, get over yourself. You aren't Activision. But you are well on your way to being worse than them.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Venereus said:
I'd like to thank the two posters that gave lenghty replies to my post about ToS agreements. I have one big question left, though.

I acknowledge that when we buy games we actually purchase a license to use a copyright protected software, and only own the CD and box. I don't agree with this but that's how it is.
Now, EA's ToS clearly states that when EA terminates your account there's no refund. So, when it comes to digital distribution, or any other form of distribution where you can't return the game and playing requires "dialing home", the publisher can cancel their part of the deal, but you can't. They can at any given time turn your purchase into a bait and switch move in their favor, taking both the game and your money, while the consumer can't even return the game and get a refund whenever he wishes.

Is this legal?
Only when actual federal or state laws apply. As of this time, EULA's and TOA's are not legal documents and not enforceable in any court. To get them enforced EA would have to send you an actual contract to sign with legal witness to hold it up.
That would be a lot of legal bills.
 

BabyRaptor

New member
Dec 17, 2010
1,505
0
0
ecoho said:
BabyRaptor said:
ecoho said:
Ok this is bullshit i have to say if i bought a game and couldnt play it because of my opinon im sorry but this is something id sue EA over and win on first amendment rights or at the very least would have my money refunded. EA you pull this shit too much you will lose in the end.
Your First Amendment rights only apply to the government telling you that you can't say something. EA is not the government.
i was hopeing someone would bring this up. they are based in the US therefore it is a violation to the first ammendment. since he voiced an opion and lost access to his paid product they could also be charged with theft if he money was not refunded.
What part of 'The government shall make no law...' are you failing to understand? Where they're based has no say in it, because the First Amendment only pertains to the government. EA's forums are a private space owned by them. The government doesn't control that space. Your First Amendment rights only apply in "public" spaces.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
I knew they'd backpedal on this. EA doesn't want to be the new Activision, not now that Activision is the new EA.
 

SelectivelyEvil13

New member
Jul 28, 2010
956
0
0
That's the type of policy that deters me from buying EA games. What's the point of even using their forums if a ban translates to a loss of accessing one's own purchased game? This sounds familiar to me (not sure if so), but it certainly kills any perception of a "community" when EA is involved.

By using the same b.s. social network as EA makes me think that Bioware sold something soul-ish by joining Evil Alliance hee hee.
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
Varrdy said:
snip
Like any big businessman/woman and, sadly, many a shoulder-chip-sporting nerd who sudenly finds him/herself with a bit of power are criticised by those "below" them
snip
Being called a "fucking idiot" is not criticism.
Edit: My bad. "fucking fools"

Anyway. Whether accidental or not, a company should not have the ability to block a customer's perfectly legally purchased game.
 

Bullfrog1983

New member
Dec 3, 2008
568
0
0
Gladion said:
Anyway. Whether accidental or not, a company should not have the ability to block a customer's perfectly legally purchased game.
I agree, this is a very ridiculous way to run a business. If they're going to have the high "moral" standards to not let this guy play the game he bought they should give him his money back.
 

Varrdy

New member
Feb 25, 2010
875
0
0
Gladion said:
Being called a "fucking idiot" is not criticism.
Edit: My bad. "fucking fools"

Anyway. Whether accidental or not, a company should not have the ability to block a customer's perfectly legally purchased game.
On the first point, it could be conisdered harsh criticism but only technically. I didn't know he'd called them "fucking fools" but the line of mine you highlighted in bold still rings true, regardless.

As for your second point, I agree entirely.

Wardy
 

scotth266

Wait when did I get a sub
Jan 10, 2009
5,202
0
0
I like how almost none of the new posters in the thread bothered to read the update.

I also like that the few posters who've noticed the update are calling it a conspiracy. News flash people: if this were SOP, we would have noticed it by now. The glitch story makes sense. Odds are Woo (the moderator who responded to the query) was lazy, and copy-pasted the wrong form-letter response.

Even if EA did this intentionally, Woo mentions in the post that EA Community bans are entirely disconnected from Bioware forum bans, so Bioware had nothing to do with this at all. EA had a technical fuck-up, and the Bioware haters are using it to talk shit about the company they never liked in the first place.
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
It's not smart business.

But, I do enjoy seeing fools get the crack down.

The offender receives no sympathy from me, but I do scratch my head at poor business practices.

scotth266 said:
I like how almost none of the new posters in the thread bothered to read the update.
Heh, pretty standard round these parts. Once a topic gets over a hundred replies or so, people start firing off one line responses based entirely on their gut feeling about the thread title or the title of the news article.
 

Stevepinto3

New member
Jun 4, 2009
585
0
0
First I kind of wonder why this is news. A guy buys a game, can't play it for three days. So?

Honestly, the comment the guy made deserved the probation in the first place. It's stupid comments like that that can ruin forum communities by dragging them into stupid flame fests. His fault in my opinion. Maybe strict penalties like that would get people to behave like decent human beings in forums for a change.
 

Reed Spacer

That guy with the thing.
Jan 11, 2011
841
0
0
Because it's his game and he paid $70 for it. How dare some outside force decide when and if he's allowed to play his property, even offline?
 

FlakAttack

New member
Dec 9, 2007
31
0
0
AMMO Kid said:
And that, my friends, is why I use an Xbox
The irony of this post is incredible. X-Box Live moderators can ban you from ever playing online games again on your console. You would have to buy another X-Box. There is no appeal process, no way to fight them, and if you sue, you will be buried in court for so long you'll be left with nothing.
headshotcatcher said:
Then compare it to someone walking around in a Walmart shouting how much they are sellouts and how horrible corporatism is, would you blame the Walmart personnel if they decided to remove him from the store?
If someone is trash talking about an EA game on an EA forum, I'd say they have the right to deny service to him. In this case the marketplace service was linked to the same account, so I'd blame him for jeopardising his own account.
Your analogy is terrible. Walking around a Walmart shouting about how terrible Walmart is is considered a public disturbance BY THE LAW. Posting complaints (well written or not) on a forum is not illegal. Not only that, but by posting these complaints, you are not disrupting other customers or employees like you would shouting up a storm in a retail store. It's a forum, how much damage can you really do?

Despite what EA's TOS says, they do NOT have the right to simply cancel your service. The law states that they must either provide the service you paid for or return suitable compensation. This is the law in nearly all developed countries in the world. EA's TOS wouldn't last 5 seconds in court for a case of this type, as long as you didn't break the law.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
BabyRaptor said:
ecoho said:
BabyRaptor said:
ecoho said:
Ok this is bullshit i have to say if i bought a game and couldnt play it because of my opinon im sorry but this is something id sue EA over and win on first amendment rights or at the very least would have my money refunded. EA you pull this shit too much you will lose in the end.
Your First Amendment rights only apply to the government telling you that you can't say something. EA is not the government.
i was hopeing someone would bring this up. they are based in the US therefore it is a violation to the first ammendment. since he voiced an opion and lost access to his paid product they could also be charged with theft if he money was not refunded.
What part of 'The government shall make no law...' are you failing to understand? Where they're based has no say in it, because the First Amendment only pertains to the government. EA's forums are a private space owned by them. The government doesn't control that space. Your First Amendment rights only apply in "public" spaces.
my apoligies i talked this over with my US government teacher you are correct this is not a violation of the 1st amendment. It is however a violation of civil rights though and theft though the civil rights thing would be hard to argue it is still techicaly a violation.
 

Carlston

New member
Apr 8, 2008
1,554
0
0
JourneyThroughHell said:
As much as they've probably had the rights to do it, it's still a really fucking shady thing to do to your customers, BioWare.

This is terrible. He paid his money. Your rules are bullshit.
I doubt that is so much from our wonderful coders at Bioware, more the forum Nazi department of EA.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
Carlston said:
JourneyThroughHell said:
As much as they've probably had the rights to do it, it's still a really fucking shady thing to do to your customers, BioWare.

This is terrible. He paid his money. Your rules are bullshit.
I doubt that is so much from our wonderful coders at Bioware, more the forum Nazi department of EA.
Everyone blamed IW for absolutely everything, even the prices of the map packs.

I am returning the favour, Escapist.
 

Carlston

New member
Apr 8, 2008
1,554
0
0
JourneyThroughHell said:
Carlston said:
JourneyThroughHell said:
As much as they've probably had the rights to do it, it's still a really fucking shady thing to do to your customers, BioWare.

This is terrible. He paid his money. Your rules are bullshit.
I doubt that is so much from our wonderful coders at Bioware, more the forum Nazi department of EA.
Everyone blamed IW for absolutely everything, even the prices of the map packs.

I am returning the favour, Escapist.
Not that i care either way, I just tend not to blame global market effecting decisions on the guy who makes coffee and mops the floors.
 
Jun 23, 2008
613
0
0
VanityGirl said:
While I can appreciate that you wrote all that... You wrote an eloquent post to a joke post.
Actually, VanityGirl, you made a very relevant point, regardless of whether it was a joke post, that some of us might think, on account of one technicality or another, that we are currently out of reach of this kind of corporate injustice. I simply took the opportunity you provided to point out that, no, we are certainly not.

I will say, though, that bringing up geohot wasn't a good idea. He's in trouble for jailbreaking a console and showing the masses how to do it. That's a little different than me saying "BioWare are the suckz".
The circumstances of geohot vs. Sony are complex;[footnote]edited to insert this very semicolon.[/footnote] discussion of whether or not he was right in jailbreaking the PS3 is out of the scope of this dialogue,[footnote]I'll only opine (because I can do so here) that consumers should have the right to do what they want with the hardware they own, that the DMCA oversteps the spirit of the law, and that the PS3's ability to run an alternative OS was a feature that was later arbitrarily rescinded by Sony, so I, personally, see geohot's jailbreak as justified.[/footnote] but the Sony vs. geohot [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz] suit in progress isn't what I was indicating to be an example of Sony's dickery. That Sony has threatened to sue anyone who possesses or distributes the jailbreaking information, including, potentially, anyone who can be traced by IP to geohot's webpage serves as an excellent example.

It is not possible to make it a crime[footnote]Not an enforceable crime, at least.[/footnote] to visit a website (no matter the contents), since a browser can be inadvertently linked to websites to easily without user consent or being made aware of the ramifications for doing so. (For heaven's sake, much porn on the netz remains accessible without some kind of content-warning gateway).

This is not new. From Sony's Nestlé [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal].[footnote]Proof solid that not all evil multi-national corporations are American, or recent.[/footnote]

And PS: I don't think BioWare are the suckz, or really, blaspheming any corporate entity, is a suspension-worthy offense on any forum (once again, presuming the EA Devil comment was the extent of his infraction). And it is now the consequence of greatest concern in this affair.[footnote]Just as scary is the quantity of posts on this very thread opining that the moderation enacted was justified.[/footnote] At most, probation might be warranted as a warning to keep his criticism civil. I could sooner accept his posts surpassed the maximum bad spelling and grammar threshold, but that's because I hold myself to such standards.

238U