Forum ban locks user out of his game

[Cyber Rat]

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?

[deanb]

Yeah TN, What the hell?

[-Dex-]

Ahahahaha

“Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?”

 

they banned him for THAT?!

HILARIOUS!

[Johnny]

This is some of the worst fucking bullshit I've ever read about in the gaming industry.

What the hell, seriously?

[deanb]

I guess it does make me less annoyed at the Steam Forums not using your Steam ID account.

[Thursday Next]

I don't know the details, but, the guy did something stupid. Think we can all agree on that.

 

The terms of service are pretty clear and EA haven't done anything outside of their (admittedly broad) powers.

 

Chances are, the guy caught a Moderator on a bad day and is eating a ban because of it. Another day, another mod and it may have passed without incident.

 

The guy can still play his other games, he just can't activate his new ones or play online.

 

 

EDIT: I am loving that RPS is in the middle of a DAII marketing takeover by the way.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Cyber Rat]

The guy can still play his other games, he just can't activate his new ones or play online.

 

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.

 

I don't know the details, but, the guy did something stupid. Think we can all agree on that.

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

The terms of service are pretty clear and EA haven't done anything outside of their (admittedly broad) powers.

 

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?

 

Chances are, the guy caught a Moderator on a bad day and is eating a ban because of it. Another day, another mod and it may have passed without incident.

 

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.

[deanb]

"or play online"

aka

"or play any game, regardless of MP content, that uses an online connection in it's DRM"

 

If you get banned on a forum, you get banned on a forum. It shouldn't extend to your games. And I'd say the ToS isn't very clear when it comes as a surprise that a forum ban can lock you out of your EA published games. If we'd of all known that EA can and will do that then that post would have a ton of "not news" comments.

[Cyber Rat]

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.

[Thursday Next]

EULA's are a contract between the customer and EA. They are legally binding just like any other contract you agree to anywhere, that said, they can be challenged in court.

 

I'm not aware of any EA games that require an "always on connection" our games almost always use 5 x Activations. Any game he has Activated should work fine so long as he doesn't go online.

 

You're not so much getting banned from a forum as you are getting banned from EA's services, this includes forums and game activations.

 

Anyways... I'm having a little nose around CS to see if I can find anything out.

 

@Cyber Rat: Given how you and many others openly flout copyright laws, I'm curious as to why you think any more rules will make a difference.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Cyber Rat]

EULA's are a contract between the customer and EA. They are legally binding just like any other contract you agree to anywhere, that said, they can be challenged in court.

 

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

[Cyber Rat]

@Cyber Rat: Given how you and many others openly flout copyright laws, I'm curious as to why you think any more rules will make a difference.

 

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.

[Thursday Next]

@Cyber Rat: Given how you and many others openly flout copyright laws, I'm curious as to why you think any more rules will make a difference.

 

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.

[deanb]

The regulation doesn't apply to us though does it?

It would be on the publishers head to have more acceptable and consumer friendly EULAs if such regulation was to come into force. The GamersVoice stuff could maybe push on such things.

At the moment the closest thing to any consumer friendliness from Publishers is like the Gamers Bill of Rights, which at this point is still pretty much just words that even their writer didn't stick to.

[WTF]

I think it has to do with the way EA accounts are set-up as well. EA accounts are somewhat similar to Fileplanet accounts. You used to have multiple accounts depending on the game and what you signed in from.

For instance I used to have many accounts:

1. Spore account because I played the creature creator demo before release
2. Dragon Age Journeys account
3. PC regular account
4. Bioware account
5. PSN account
6. Xbox live linked account
7. Few more I can't remember but tied to specific games

 

All of these are tied to the same email address as well. At some point last year they merged all of these and also merged player data and converted all those 'accounts' now into profiles for a main EA account. I know that EA's account merging hasn't been perfect because there have been some people who've experienced errors. Not to mention this new account system also prevented you from registering older games such as Mass Effect, the original Spore etc. They've been trying to add in the serial key formats for these games to the system so that you can register them to EADM and be done with the DRM without having to download the remove DRM patch.

 

It's pretty much a mess,. A blanket ban on Bioware Social Forums would result in a ban of all EA games that are linked to Bioware social forums because it's a ban of that profile and the profile is linked to those games. It's ok if your games aren't digital. You do have the option to deauthorize your serial key from an account. I know it was there with Dragon Age: Origins and I have used it personally. If you have bought it retail and registered with EADM and you've been banned - then you're out of luck as well.

I do believe he should be able to play other EA games, but not any EA game that uses the Bioware social forums. It's a stupid system and implementation was flawed.

[Cyber Rat]

@Cyber Rat: Given how you and many others openly flout copyright laws, I'm curious as to why you think any more rules will make a difference.

 

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.

 

 

SO MANY SPELLING AND GRAMMAR ERRORS. MUST-OBTAIN-CAFFEINE.

 

[WTF]

@CyberRat

 

I'll give you a few reasons not to support EA on the PC.

 

Outside of Battlefield and the Maxis games, any multiplatform game is built with the console in mind and not the PC. There will also be no DLC released for games like Hot Pursuit, Dead Space 2.

Of course they pull various shenanigans on steam.

 

I honestly don't believe Gibaeu when he says that they will support the PC a lot. I believe that's mostly the Maxis, Playfish part speaking. Other than it's also the fact that they have two major MMOs coming up. if they don't say they like PC gamers then who're they even marketing those games to? The games are of course The Old Republic and the Funcom developed but EA published The Secret World. Maybe in the last year of the console life-cycle? Or is that approaching and that's why the comment?

 

You can tell from where their focus is these days. Hot Pursuit PC version wasn't on par with the console version at launch.

Dragon Age 2 does have issues. 1) A high texture pack released after release, 2)The game doesn't run well on Nvidia cards. I wonder why ATi Cards have lesser issues. 3)Crashes and closure of the editor (you can understand the lack of the editor though).

I won't really speak of Bulletstorm because that was externally developed. It's like blaming EA for Rockband.

 

Also I don't think EA can ban you from DA2 if your game was on a console since it would be linked to your EA-PSN profile even if they ban you on the forum (ban your EA-Bioware profile). Though I could be wrong, maybe someone will test that out.

[TheMightyEthan]

As far as the "EULAs are a binding contract" thing, TN's technically right on that score. However you can still challenge specific provisions under the contract doctrine of unconscionability (and if he had been permanently banned it might be worth it to make that challenge in court). To oversimplify, that doctrine basically means that courts won't enforce contract provisions if doing so would be "unconscionable".

 

Additionally, EULAs are contracts of adhesion (one side writes the whole contract out, and the other either accepts it or rejects it), and courts are more willing to refuse to enforce terms in contracts of adhesion because of course the party that wrote the contract would write it in their own favor. Furthermore, the fact that you aren't shown the EULA until after you've bought the product, and especially with PC games you usually can't return opened products, there's some question as to whether the EULA is binding at all: the purchaser doesn't see the contract before purchase, and after purchase they have no effective means of refusing the contract.

 

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

 

*Edit* - tl;dr: it's probably a contract, but depending on the laws/courts of your country/state any specific provision may or may not actually be enforceable.

 

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice and AFAIK it only applies in common-law countries like the US and UK, I have no idea how it might play out in a civil-law country.

[Thursday Next]

@Dean & Cyber: When I ask why the call for more regulation, I mean, why should regulations aimed at publishers be any more effective than the laws that you regularly ignore because you don't agree with them?

 

@Ethan: Agreed. Technically binding, but eminently challengable in court.

 

@WTF: You're right in that EA's focus is more console than PC, especially for multiplat games. BF3 is a huge exception to this rule. It's a PC title through and through.

 

P.S. I've told CS that I think this was a little OTT, it's being flagged to CS management.

[deanb]

Because as far as I know publishers don't have a habit of ignoring laws n regulation.

[Cyber Rat]

@Dean & Cyber: When I ask why the call for more regulation, I mean, why should regulations aimed at publishers be any more effective than the laws that you regularly ignore because you don't agree with them?

 

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.

[excel_excel]

 

Chances are, the guy caught a Moderator on a bad day and is eating a ban because of it. Another day, another mod and it may have passed without incident.

 

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.

 

Damn right. This is why fanboy assholes or people actually paid to moderate but don't understand the power they have or abuse it SHOULDN'T BE MODERATORS. I'm so mad at this whole thing right now. The guy didn't even say something that damn bad, yet some idiot did this, either knowingly or ignorant to the power they had.

ARGH, bringing back bad memories

[WTF]

@Dean & Cyber: When I ask why the call for more regulation, I mean, why should regulations aimed at publishers be any more effective than the laws that you regularly ignore because you don't agree with them?

 

@Ethan: Agreed. Technically binding, but eminently challengable in court.

 

@WTF: You're right in that EA's focus is more console than PC, especially for multiplat games. BF3 is a huge exception to this rule. It's a PC title through and through.

 

P.S. I've told CS that I think this was a little OTT, it's being flagged to CS management.

 

That's pretty cool of you. But yeah I mean it is obvious about the PC stance. I'm sure steam makes a lot of money off of PC sales (gives pubs good money too) and PC gaming is not dying. But there's more to making money from a game than just selling the game . I mean in films, there's so much more ways of making money from a film besides just cinema releases and DVD sales so it should apply to gaming as well.

[deanb]

 

 

I get the feeling that the forum ban wasn't completely out of line in regards to EA's current post-release forum policies.

 

Seems damage control is getting a bit OTT. Maybe if folks didn't lean too much on metacritic ratings then it wouldn't be as big a deal.

[staySICK]

chiming in here, during his ban, I think he could just disconnect from the internet / and pick up his da:o game from where he left off.

 

hold on...

 

yea, I can play my dragon age save file with no internet connection. He shouldn't really be locked out of games already purchased, just don't log in / disconnect from the internet, yes?

 

Either way I think its ridiculous that you can't even register new games / dlc during a freaking forum ban, and would think its just bad for business, in that he won't be spending any money on EA games during a ban, or even after due to this experience.

 

edit: oh well hello mr second page of replies.

Edited March 11, 2011 by staySICK