Cyber Rat

Can you check whether you can play DA:O with the DLC if you're Internet is off? I think that was his main complaint, since his save files require DLC to load and the DLC itself refused to load.

Because if a publisher makes me go through crap, I can still access the game and play it. If the publisher actually has some reasonable methods, I pay them. In both cases, I play the game, but only in one does the publisher earn a profit. You seem to imply a bit of hypocrisy or contradictory in my statement that we'd need more regulations since I ignore copyright laws. What you fail to mention is that these are more regulations to help consumers. If the customer is happy and sure of your product, you'll get a sale. As I think WTF and many others mentioned, a small percentage will always pirate everything without hesitation. A good chunk of people will buy games if the terms are reasonable. Stuff like banning people for forum posts from multiple games is not one bit reasonable. Having an EULA that frees you of any responsibility is not reasonable. Releasing shoddy ports is not reasonable. If there were more reasonable terms for consumers, there would be more customers on the PC platform. I didn't buy Mass Effect 1 even when it was dirt cheap because of that activation bullocks. It's stupid really. Gamers will be upset and not buy the game, instead pirating it. Publishers will see a lack of sales, blame piracy and not even consider why people pirate it other than "PC gamers are vile pirating scum." You make it sound like pirating is vile and evil, but bending over and taking the birchwood dildo from the publisher like a man is absolutely ok because no laws are broken. Oh, and since no one mentioned it, I think it's cool you're contacting CS regarding this, Thursday.

*head explodes*

I have invested as much as I can (which isn't much) in buying games. I buy mostly indie titles nowadays, but I own a lot of Valve games, some even bought as soon as they were released (L4D1/2, prolly Portal 2 as well). I think the only EA game I own which I got for my birthday is Bad Company 2. Crap like numbers of activation, needing to be online or DLC exploitation is enough for me to not warrant a purchase. I was considering saving up money for Dead Space 2 eventually, but this event is making me reconsider my decision. (You could argue that "I just don't need to post on forums," but if I put up with this, I'll blame myself for contributing to whatever publishers' methods will evolve into.) There is a reason Valve gets my money and most other publishers don't. Most publishers consider pirates scum and go from there and eventually we get all these workarounds like day-one DLC, DRM and whatever else. Valve considers pirates unhappy costumers and go from there and end up with everyone owning a copy of Half-Life, Portal and/or Team Fortress 2. That doesn't answer why you think more regulation will fix a problem, when you consider regulation to be optional, or to only apply as far as you want it to. Oh, sorry, I misread what you said (again). Didn't know you were referring to the consumer rights protection thing. Well, the thing is that the PC platform is "free", unlike consoles (I highly doubt anyone would pull this "ban from game" off on a console). Despite piracy existing on all platforms and games being leaked on consoles earlier than the PC, if you pay for a game, you're subject to various forms of DRM, nowadays online DRM which exists even on games with no online component. The DLC form of additional content is being abused at various levels of successes and now this: getting your access hindered or removed from all games from a single company because of forum posts. The only game bannings I approve of are hacking in games like TF2, BC2 etc, or hacking and misconduct on MMOs (misconduct on the former doesn't really mean much because most of those games are played on dedicated servers, so someone can just votekick you or ban you). Now, tell me, what guarantee do I have that, when buying a game from EA and using the forums for whatever reason, I might make a joke that causes a frown on a mod's face because he didn't have his morning coffee and then have my access to legally paid games removed? Currently none, because the EULA basically says "we can do whatever we want if we deem it fit". This will only encourage me even more not to bother investing into EA games. If I had some guarantee from a group like I mentioned, then I would know that something like this wouldn't happen.

I have invested as much as I can (which isn't much) in buying games. I buy mostly indie titles nowadays, but I own a lot of Valve games, some even bought as soon as they were released (L4D1/2, prolly Portal 2 as well). I think the only EA game I own which I got for my birthday is Bad Company 2. Crap like numbers of activation, needing to be online or DLC exploitation is enough for me to not warrant a purchase. I was considering saving up money for Dead Space 2 eventually, but this event is making me reconsider my decision. (You could argue that "I just don't need to post on forums," but if I put up with this, I'll blame myself for contributing to whatever publishers' methods will evolve into.) There is a reason Valve gets my money and most other publishers don't. Most publishers consider pirates scum and go from there and eventually we get all these workarounds like day-one DLC, DRM and whatever else. Valve considers pirates unhappy costumers and go from there and end up with everyone owning a copy of Half-Life, Portal and/or Team Fortress 2.

I really lack the legal expertise to comment further than what I've "heard". I'm hoping someone like Ethan comes around to also comment on EULAs if he can. Also, fun link: http://www.shacknews.com/article/55656/ea-not-banning-game-access

Considering how big the gaming industry has become, we really need some consumer rights protection group. I am pretty aware that we are not "buying" games, but actually "being given a license to use them" and even if that can't be changed due to the actual nature of digital information (it doesn't really "exist") some rules as to what you can and can't do with your game should be set by someone other than the publisher.

First off: He’s also locked out of an enormous amount of other gaming content. For instance, Arno tells us, if he wanted to play Dragon Age: Origins, he’d now have to start a new game since all his save positions are tied to DLC. Pretty much, yes. EULAs are not legally binding, or if they are, I assume only in a few US states. And even if it is legally binding for them, way to go to alienate your paying customers. Why would you not resort to, say, piracy in this situation? Because it's not right? And this kind of bull is? Banning someone from his LEGALLY PURCHASED SINGLE PLAYER game? Over a forum post? And that moderator should say he's very very very sorry and that this won't happen again. It's one thing to have nagging customers, I've seen that, they can be real dicks. But you do not alienate them like this.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/11/ea-forum-bans-can-lock-you-out-of-games/ So, the guy got banned for misbehaving on BioWare's forum (which is under EA jurisdiction it seems). Not only was he banned from the forum (rightfully), but he got his access taken away from playing legally purchased games tied to his EA account. Excuse me, but what the hell?

I think I played maybe a total of 8 hours of it at a friend's place (don't own a console myself). I really enjoyed the characters, music and atmosphere. If I ever get a PS3, it's on the top of my list of games to get.

Nier was bloody awesome and I think it got low scores partly because the West was in a real "hate JRPG" mood during the time it was released.

That Quake image...

Yay! I wasn't mentioned. I'm actually ok with trash talk if it's the good-natured kind between friends where you're just messing around. The zomg-noob-cheater-baseraper-learn-to-use-a-weapon-that-requires-skill stuff is why I mostly play games only with people I know or if it's a squad based game like BC2, with at least one person I know on my squad.

What I hate: People who try to justify his hatred to a genre by using someone else list as a shield he can get behind, things in that list is mostly generalization from few games. Both JRPG and WRPG both share the same possibilites for some developers to produce either great or crap games. Glad you could find something to talk about in this thread. My initial experience was that JRPGs tended to have more of the things that I disliked (bad characters, bad story, bad combat, etc, mostly bad characters) much more so than WRPGs ever did. That's why I don't like it when people try to laud JRPGs to me as the best thing since sliced bread. It's not really that characters/story in JRPGs are bad, it's just a completely different narrative approach than Western RPGs. To be honest, I've seen awful characters and story in Western RPGs ("critically acclaimed" ones) just as often as I've seen them in JRPGs.

The fact that most lack any empathy or an idea of fun, that everyone seems to have an art degree and that they use analogies like they pulled them out of their buttholes.

A lot of physics professors I've met were all religious men.

The Heavy Rain one is awesome. I remember watching it when it was released.

Well, now we know their criteria on how to make it to the top. Crecente didn't hate commenters enough.

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game. The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions. It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move. Sorry, your first sentence made it sound like a "screw the customers" line. Miscommunication there.

Doesn't mean it's cool or okay. Can't just go "that was then, this is now, lump it or leave it". Not necessarily saying that it is cool, more that times change and you do have to "like it or lump it" or "take it or leave it" or your somewhat unhinged mash up of the two. Back in the day piracy was much less widespread, the pre-owned market was smaller and games were much cheaper to produce. Companies today spend LOADS making games and piracy and preowned sales are a global issue. So, they adapt. They release episodic content which gives a better ROI (profit margins on DLC are generally higher because a lot of the donkey work has been done in building the engine and assets for the main game) and subscription games to combat some of these issues. So, instead of the industry adapting, paying costumers have to?

You're getting too old for games HotChops.

Time for an interlocutory appeal... That's not America, that's one judge being retarded (or bamboozled by Sony). Yea, I know it's not "America" America, but I just find it awful how a court decision in the US affects citizens of the rest of the world, mostly people who don't really have anything to do with the jailbreak any more than people watching a news report from a war scene have anything to do with the war.