Poll: Who is in the right here?

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
This is a very simple issue for me.

He paid for a product, with a service. EA have an obligation either to allow him to use that service, or offer him a full refund.

Banning someone from Forums is not the same as banning them from a product they have paid for.

Overall I'm getting rather concerned by the business practices of some of the wealthier companies in the gaming Industry. As much as I believe in the capitalist ideal that everyone has the right to make money, and it is the consumers job to regulate that by not buying into corporations which abuse their position, the games industry does not appear to follow that trend, and people continue to buy products year on year which strengthen the position of companies, who are in turn given no reason to act in an ethical manner.

The only reason any company has for acting in such a way is either for profits, tax-breaks, or to come into line with national laws - the Gaming Industry is not offered any incentives by any of these three to act ethically - their profits remain unharmed despite their treatment of customers. They receive no grants or breaks from governments for any ethical decisions they take regarding their customers, and the law is generally on their side whenever they choose to stomp out something they don't like.

C'est la vie.
 

Jitters Caffeine

New member
Sep 10, 2011
999
0
0
Stu35 said:
This is a very simple issue for me.

He paid for a product, with a service. EA have an obligation either to allow him to use that service, or offer him a full refund.

Banning someone from Forums is not the same as banning them from a product they have paid for.

Overall I'm getting rather concerned by the business practices of some of the wealthier companies in the gaming Industry. As much as I believe in the capitalist ideal that everyone has the right to make money, and it is the consumers job to regulate that by not buying into corporations which abuse their position, the games industry does not appear to follow that trend, and people continue to buy products year on year which strengthen the position of companies, who are in turn given no reason to act in an ethical manner.

The only reason any company has for acting in such a way is either for profits, tax-breaks, or to come into line with national laws - the Gaming Industry is not offered any incentives by any of these three to act ethically - their profits remain unharmed despite their treatment of customers. They receive no grants or breaks from governments for any ethical decisions they take regarding their customers, and the law is generally on their side whenever they choose to stomp out something they don't like.

C'est la vie.
I think you're kind of missing the fact he CAN still play his games. He just no longer has access to the online functions of the games. It's not like EA called up Microsoft to lock his Xbox out of playing all of their past and future titles just to stick it to the guy for being an asshole on their forums, or they sent a guy over to his house to break all of the copies of EA titles he owns. He simply had his gamertag connected to his EA account and was banned for his SECOND harassment complaint. He broke the rules he agreed to, whether he read them or not he's still responsible for his actions and all the consequences they entail.
 

Kemea

New member
Sep 25, 2009
58
0
0
The ban for battlefield seems fair but to ban for all the other games is a bit too far...
 

Ruwrak

New member
Sep 15, 2009
845
0
0
Jitters Caffeine said:
Ruwrak said:
'tough luck' we call it.

Shouldn't have been a jerk to begin with.
Allthough EA is a bit odd for banning him from all games.
And if this was an isolated happening on -forums- I see no reason why he should be banned from online play.

So noone is right, and everyone has a point.
They DIDN'T ban him from his games. They banned his EA account which he had connected to his gamertag, which in turn got him locked out of the online content of his games. He can still play them, just not access the online.
Yeah, in other words, they banned him from the games. From the parts they can ban him from though. Might not have been fully clear on that, didn't expected I needed to clarify.
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
StrixMaxima said:
That's what you get for being an EA customer, these days. Even though he was wrong to troll forums, his game account should be protected. He should have lost just his forums rights.

But, I'm EA free for 4 years now. One day at a time.
Do you have the little golden rehab disc? :D
 

Jitters Caffeine

New member
Sep 10, 2011
999
0
0
Ruwrak said:
Jitters Caffeine said:
Ruwrak said:
'tough luck' we call it.

Shouldn't have been a jerk to begin with.
Allthough EA is a bit odd for banning him from all games.
And if this was an isolated happening on -forums- I see no reason why he should be banned from online play.

So noone is right, and everyone has a point.
They DIDN'T ban him from his games. They banned his EA account which he had connected to his gamertag, which in turn got him locked out of the online content of his games. He can still play them, just not access the online.
Yeah, in other words, they banned him from the games. From the parts they can ban him from though. Might not have been fully clear on that, didn't expected I needed to clarify.
They are LITERALLY not the same thing.
 

Rin Little

New member
Jul 24, 2011
432
0
0
Wow... that all sounds really stupid on EA's part. Ban him from the forums ok, but banning him from playing a game that he paid for? That's asking for a huge problem to arise from it, whether its in the User Agreement or not.
 

Ruwrak

New member
Sep 15, 2009
845
0
0
Jitters Caffeine said:
Ruwrak said:
Jitters Caffeine said:
Ruwrak said:
'tough luck' we call it.

Shouldn't have been a jerk to begin with.
Allthough EA is a bit odd for banning him from all games.
And if this was an isolated happening on -forums- I see no reason why he should be banned from online play.

So noone is right, and everyone has a point.
They DIDN'T ban him from his games. They banned his EA account which he had connected to his gamertag, which in turn got him locked out of the online content of his games. He can still play them, just not access the online.
Yeah, in other words, they banned him from the games. From the parts they can ban him from though. Might not have been fully clear on that, didn't expected I needed to clarify.
They are LITERALLY not the same thing.
Tomatoes or Tomátoes.
Beeing banned from a game implies that you're banned from the online part, merely by the word 'banned' since it's assoiciated with online segments of any game.

But why are we arguing. We both know what everyone means :V
 

Sud0_x

New member
Dec 16, 2009
169
0
0
Jitters Caffeine said:
Stu35 said:
This is a very simple issue for me.

He paid for a product, with a service. EA have an obligation either to allow him to use that service, or offer him a full refund.

Banning someone from Forums is not the same as banning them from a product they have paid for.

Overall I'm getting rather concerned by the business practices of some of the wealthier companies in the gaming Industry. As much as I believe in the capitalist ideal that everyone has the right to make money, and it is the consumers job to regulate that by not buying into corporations which abuse their position, the games industry does not appear to follow that trend, and people continue to buy products year on year which strengthen the position of companies, who are in turn given no reason to act in an ethical manner.

The only reason any company has for acting in such a way is either for profits, tax-breaks, or to come into line with national laws - the Gaming Industry is not offered any incentives by any of these three to act ethically - their profits remain unharmed despite their treatment of customers. They receive no grants or breaks from governments for any ethical decisions they take regarding their customers, and the law is generally on their side whenever they choose to stomp out something they don't like.

C'est la vie.
I think you're kind of missing the fact he CAN still play his games. He just no longer has access to the online functions of the games. It's not like EA called up Microsoft to lock his Xbox out of playing all of their past and future titles just to stick it to the guy for being an asshole on their forums, or they sent a guy over to his house to break all of the copies of EA titles he owns. He simply had his gamertag connected to his EA account and was banned for his SECOND harassment complaint. He broke the rules he agreed to, whether he read them or not he's still responsible for his actions and all the consequences they entail.

Uh.. Yeah... But it's not as simple as locking him out of some online multiplayer (Which is still an issue in itself).
Any DLC connected to that account? Gone.
Say what you want about T&C; it's still unethical and I'm sure it violates consumer rights laws in some countries.
Don't ignore my earlier post either, EA have done this for years and still lie about it to this day.


Sud0_x said:
 

devilkingx

New member
Aug 3, 2011
38
0
0
WaruTaru said:
Isn't this something like having an unruly customer pissing off other customers in a bar and having the owner/employee kicking the unruly customer from the establishment? Its in the interest of the business to remove such customers, no?

Edit: On a funnier note, this [http://www.indiewire.com/article/alamo_drafthouse_kicks_out_customer_for_texting_creates_an_excellent_new_ps].
it'd be like your scenario if the bar owner also confiscated all his drinks when they kicked him out and didnt give him a refund
 

WaruTaru

New member
Jul 5, 2011
117
0
0
devilkingx said:
WaruTaru said:
Isn't this something like having an unruly customer pissing off other customers in a bar and having the owner/employee kicking the unruly customer from the establishment? Its in the interest of the business to remove such customers, no?

Edit: On a funnier note, this [http://www.indiewire.com/article/alamo_drafthouse_kicks_out_customer_for_texting_creates_an_excellent_new_ps].
it'd be like your scenario if the bar owner also confiscated all his drinks when they kicked him out and didnt give him a refund
How so? The troll still had all his games with him. EA didn't send some representative to confiscate his games now, did they?
 

TheTaco007

New member
Sep 10, 2009
1,339
0
0
That's ridiculous. Ban him from the forums, sure, but the game itself which he wasn't even playing at the time? Not acceptable.
 

Death God

New member
Jul 6, 2010
1,754
0
0
If it was a charge of harassment on the forums, no. If it was harassment for Xbox Live, yes. All kind of depends.
 

EvilPicnic

New member
Sep 9, 2009
540
0
0
Hmmm, sounds like he was being obnoxious on the forums and whilst I back up any mods with following through on a forum ban, it really shouldn't effect his consumer purchases.

I mean, you can get banned on this forum for 'low content' - imagine if you had a games account attached and you then lost hundreds of dollars in content because of a snap decision by a moderator? However fairly mods make decisions, they're still often making them alone, fairly quickly, and (depending on the culture of the forum) without oversight.

Yet another dick move by EA. They should follow Gabe Newell's example from today: admit their mistake, and get fixing it. And employ more helpful support staff (I had a chat with XboxLive support today - they were very helpful, and actually supportive).
 

devilkingx

New member
Aug 3, 2011
38
0
0
WaruTaru said:
devilkingx said:
WaruTaru said:
Isn't this something like having an unruly customer pissing off other customers in a bar and having the owner/employee kicking the unruly customer from the establishment? Its in the interest of the business to remove such customers, no?

Edit: On a funnier note, this [http://www.indiewire.com/article/alamo_drafthouse_kicks_out_customer_for_texting_creates_an_excellent_new_ps].
it'd be like your scenario if the bar owner also confiscated all his drinks when they kicked him out and didnt give him a refund
How so? The troll still had all his games with him. EA didn't send some representative to confiscate his games now, did they?
battlefield 3 isnt borderlands you know

in borderlands multiplayer is optional and the game can be played enjoyed and beaten without it, and thus losing borderlands multiplayer wouldnt be a big deal

battlefield 3 is in the same vein as call of duty without fully removing single player like MAG

TECHNICALLY it has a singleplayer but its probably 5 hours like COD's story and not worth your time or attention, like most FPS's not having multiplayer means you have a $60 paperweight

BF3 IS AN EXPENSIVE PAPERWEIGHT WITHOUT MULTIPLAYER

by taking away its online they have basically taken away any and all reason to play BF3 its the equivalent of using some form of witchcraft to remove the alcohol and sugar from your drinks as you leave the bar(effectively making them all worthless because most alcohols taste bad and are only drunk for the alcohol and the ones that taste good wouldnt without the sugar) you still got the drinks they are just useless and not worth money
 

WaruTaru

New member
Jul 5, 2011
117
0
0
devilkingx said:
battlefield 3 isnt borderlands you know

in borderlands multiplayer is optional and the game can be played enjoyed and beaten without it, and thus losing borderlands multiplayer wouldnt be a big deal

battlefield 3 is in the same vein as call of duty without fully removing single player like MAG

TECHNICALLY it has a singleplayer but its probably 5 hours like COD's story and not worth your time or attention, like most FPS's not having multiplayer means you have a $60 paperweight

BF3 IS AN EXPENSIVE PAPERWEIGHT WITHOUT MULTIPLAYER

by taking away its online they have basically taken away any and all reason to play BF3 its the equivalent of using some form of witchcraft to remove the alcohol and sugar from your drinks as you leave the bar(effectively making them all worthless because most alcohols taste bad and are only drunk for the alcohol and the ones that taste good wouldnt without the sugar) you still got the drinks they are just useless and not worth money
I agree. BF3 is an expensive paperweight. So the troll bought an expensive paperweight. It is still his paperweight. No one's taken his paperweight away from him. The bits of code are still inside his discs/hard drive, and no one actually removed them. On the contrary, it is quite different from physically removing sugar and alcohol from my drinks. You see, to remove them in such a way that it replicates what happened to said troll, you first need to give them to me. If by some unfortunate circumstances I drank it, you would have to find some way to extract said sugar and alcohol from my body, a task that is quite formidable, truth be told. A task so formidable that you need to employ witchcraft to have a modicum of success. Even if you somehow managed that, you still took something away from me physically, unlike the abstract notion of "multiplayer", but I digress.

For argument's sake, lets assume he bought that piece of $10 code that serves as a ticket which allows him access to the multiplayer servers. Where does it say that the piece of code guarantees the troll unlimited access to said servers at all times and without restrictions? Mere payment of the entrance fees does not give one a right to be jerks to every other patron within the establishment.

Its time people learn how to behave on forums amicably. Simple banning of forum account is apparently insufficient for teaching such lessons.
 

devilkingx

New member
Aug 3, 2011
38
0
0
WaruTaru said:
devilkingx said:
battlefield 3 isnt borderlands you know

in borderlands multiplayer is optional and the game can be played enjoyed and beaten without it, and thus losing borderlands multiplayer wouldnt be a big deal

battlefield 3 is in the same vein as call of duty without fully removing single player like MAG

TECHNICALLY it has a singleplayer but its probably 5 hours like COD's story and not worth your time or attention, like most FPS's not having multiplayer means you have a $60 paperweight

BF3 IS AN EXPENSIVE PAPERWEIGHT WITHOUT MULTIPLAYER

by taking away its online they have basically taken away any and all reason to play BF3 its the equivalent of using some form of witchcraft to remove the alcohol and sugar from your drinks as you leave the bar(effectively making them all worthless because most alcohols taste bad and are only drunk for the alcohol and the ones that taste good wouldnt without the sugar) you still got the drinks they are just useless and not worth money
I agree. BF3 is an expensive paperweight. So the troll bought an expensive paperweight. It is still his paperweight. No one's taken his paperweight away from him. The bits of code are still inside his discs/hard drive, and no one actually removed them. On the contrary, it is quite different from physically removing sugar and alcohol from my drinks. You see, to remove them in such a way that it replicates what happened to said troll, you first need to give them to me. If by some unfortunate circumstances I drank it, you would have to find some way to extract said sugar and alcohol from my body, a task that is quite formidable, truth be told. A task so formidable that you need to employ witchcraft to have a modicum of success. Even if you somehow managed that, you still took something away from me physically, unlike the abstract notion of "multiplayer", but I digress.

For argument's sake, lets assume he bought that piece of $10 code that serves as a ticket which allows him access to the multiplayer servers. Where does it say that the piece of code guarantees the troll unlimited access to said servers at all times and without restrictions? Mere payment of the entrance fees does not give one a right to be jerks to every other patron within the establishment.

Its time people learn how to behave on forums amicably. Simple banning of forum account is apparently insufficient for teaching such lessons.
they didnt even TRY banning his account

they immediately banned him from his game

regardless of your opinion, they ARE NOT allowed to TAKE AWAY features YOU PAID FOR unless you do something IN GAME to warrant it, if you hack in BF3 then yes perma ban you you've proven you dont deserve BF3, but he didnt do anything in game, hell theres no proof he wasnt just making a joke that got blown out of proportion because some people are stupid enough to take what is said on the internet seriously

if he does anything short of hacking IN BATTLEFIELD 3 then he should not be banned from battlfield 3, and if he is banned from ANYTHING it should ONLY be where he has committed the offense and nowhere but
 

WaruTaru

New member
Jul 5, 2011
117
0
0
devilkingx said:
they didnt even TRY banning his account

they immediately banned him from his game
Bradley:

I'm going to tell you what you said to get banned. "Seen any Israely or American jets flying by, lately?.. If not, you

will, soon.. This was also your second offense to get you banned.
That is the direct quote from the source. He was banned once prior to this.

regardless of your opinion, they ARE NOT allowed to TAKE AWAY features YOU PAID FOR unless you do something IN GAME to warrant it, if you hack in BF3 then yes perma ban you you've proven you dont deserve BF3, but he didnt do anything in game, hell theres no proof he wasnt just making a joke that got blown out of proportion because some people are stupid enough to take what is said on the internet seriously

if he does anything short of hacking IN BATTLEFIELD 3 then he should not be banned from battlfield 3, and if he is banned from ANYTHING it should ONLY be where he has committed the offense and nowhere but
Oh? No more alcohol and sugar? I kind of enjoyed that bit. Very well.

You can do whatever you damn well please as long as its "short of hacking" and no one can ban you for it? Right...let's just end this conversation here.