E.A games Bans gamers from gaming

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i know it is legal because i know it has already been challenged in court. i would like to see it challenged again using EA as an example to see how the court would rule this time.

They would rule exactly the same way they have ruled before. The courts generally don't like to set precedent that legal well worded documents that both parties agreed to aren't actually binding. It would kind of throw everything legality is based on out the window.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

Who cares if you get banned? All that matters is how many dog tags you collected in last night's BF3 session, right? If you get banned, you can simply open another account and buy your games a second time.

Originally Posted by Ahhzz

Buy your games a second time? It looks like a couple of the problems "reportedly" were for crap reasons, MAYBE warranting a forum suspension, but they won't even talk to them to consider repealing the EA-wide ban. Screw them. I'm not much for trolling, so I wouldn't ahve to worry about it, but if I made a response to someone like some of the examples and got banned? Hell NO I wouldn't buy the games again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[Captain.Abrecan]

Serves everybody right for buying from EA Games.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

They would rule exactly the same way they have ruled before. The courts generally don't like to set precedent that legal well worded documents that both parties agreed to aren't actually binding. It would kind of throw everything legality is based on out the window.

when it comes to business to business exchanges, sure. both parties are almost always equally represented with legal counsel. however, when it comes to business to consumer exchanges there is no precedent that says a product you bought can be taken away from you based on the whims of the seller. in business to business exchanges both parties right up contracts, they negotiate and come to terms. break the terms and the courts are called in to settle it. with business to consumer you have the business writing the contract and the consumer simply agreeing to purchase that product without any counter legal representation. this is exactly why we have consumer advocacy groups. people are simply to lazy to read the agreements they sign and companies like EA take advantage of that. there has to be a balanced decision that enforces the ToS but also limits the sellers ability to take advantage of or abuse the consumer. and since we can't go around forcing everyone to read and fully understand the ToS, since not everyone can afford legal counsel for their daily transactions, we have to settle for middle ground.

[niko084]

I find it funny how many of you seem to be totally okay with the idea of paying for permission to play your games, rather paying for the temporary allowance to play your games, at ALL based on the publishers decisions.

Pretty soon half you guys will end up paying a nickle for every 10 minutes of game play in Single Player.

Banned from forums and games should never go hand in hand. Especially from single player. We all fall prey to the ridiculousness that is a license agreement to start with. Try to get a refund on a game that simply is broken that takes months to get fixed at best? I would call that product liability. Or what about the magical TOA that can get you banned from any MMO hacking, but what if you already pre-paid for a years subscription and most of it was remaining... You see outside of this magical game world that's payment for services that are not rendered.

Game producers are getting ridiculous, it's semi understandable, piracy.
But on the other side of that is profit, the more they can ban, the more new box sets they sell.

Don't take this as a rant against banning players, or even a rant against game producers or even people who pirate.

I'm just saying it's ridiculous to even consider letting the banning of a gamer due to an infraction on a forum let alone banning a player from the product they paid for, the game is a product, online is a service.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

when it comes to business to business exchanges, sure. both parties are almost always equally represented with legal counsel. however, when it comes to business to consumer exchanges there is no precedent that says a product you bought can be taken away from you based on the whims of the seller. in business to business exchanges both parties right up contracts, they negotiate and come to terms. break the terms and the courts are called in to settle it. with business to consumer you have the business writing the contract and the consumer simply agreeing to purchase that product without any counter legal representation. this is exactly why we have consumer advocacy groups. people are simply to lazy to read the agreements they sign and companies like EA take advantage of that. there has to be a balanced decision that enforces the ToS but also limits the sellers ability to take advantage of or abuse the consumer. and since we can't go around forcing everyone to read and fully understand the ToS, since not everyone can afford legal counsel for their daily transactions, we have to settle for middle ground.

Again, you aren't purchasing a physical product, you are purchasing the license to use the service/software, and there is plenty of precedent that says the user's privilege to use the service/software can be revoked at the service/software provider's determination that the license terms were violated.

And yes, everyone should be forced to read and understand the ToS, especially since most are written in easy to understand language. We should not allow "I didn't read it" to be a valid argument to negate a contract. If you don't want to read it, or you don't understand it, then you shouldn't agree to it, period.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

there is plenty of precedent that says the user's privilege to use the service/software can be revoked at the service/software provider's determination that the license terms were violated.

not to this degree. there isn't a single case where the producer has revoked the consumer's ability to use the product (not service) he or she bought because that person broke the terms on separate service. id like to see this go to court. i mean, it would be like microsoft revoking people's windows licenses because they mouthed off on a microsoft windows phone forum.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by niko084

Pretty soon half you guys will end up paying a nickle for every 10 minutes of game play in Single Player.

that would be awesome,considering the length of most sp games

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

not to this degree. there isn't a single case where the producer has revoked the consumer's ability to use the product (not service) he or she bought because that person broke the terms on separate service. id like to see this go to court. i mean, it would be like microsoft revoking people's windows licenses because they mouthed off on a microsoft windows phone forum.

Except, as I said, this isn't a physical product. Both things provided by EA are services, the game and the forums are both considered services provided by EA. When you buy the game, you are really paying for the license to use the service.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Except, as I said, this isn't a physical product. Both things provided by EA are services, the game and the forums are both considered services provided by EA. When you buy the game, you are really paying for the license to use the service.

where do you get that from? you still have yet to show where in the EULA it says a forum ban results in a game account ban. you are simply trying to find ways to make this seems logical when it isn't.

when you buy the game you are really agreeing to the forum service agreement? what on earth are you saying?

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Except, as I said, this isn't a physical product. Both things provided by EA are services, the game and the forums are both considered services provided by EA. When you buy the game, you are really paying for the license to use the service.

from what i understand, you buy a license which is a product. i mean, they COULD call it a service, but then any product could be called a service rendering the terms meaningless. in effect, you have EA taking back the ability of a user to use the product they bought from EA based on reasons NOT associated with using said product but from using a service associated with the product. this is why i would like this to go to court. we need to come up with a better definition of "association." can microsoft remove your windows 7 license because they saw you bad mouthing it on facebook?

i mean, i know what you are saying. if everyone read the ToS then EA would never in a million years get away with this bullshit. but unfortunately kids these days only know how to complain, rather than act in a way that changes the behavior they don't like. we need a system that enforces ToS contracts but also prevents companies from totally enslaving the population.

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by AsRock

Seems harsh but cannot help feeling that if ya a dick on the forums i don't want to bump in to you in a game because you just be a dick.

Well if it is anything as strict as steam forums I got banned on there for mentioning how pirates were enjoying a game I couldn't (can't recall the details).

I was like really?

So this does suck.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

from what i understand, you buy a license which is a product. i mean, they COULD call it a service, but then any product could be called a service rendering the terms meaningless. in effect, you have EA taking back the ability of a user to use the product they bought from EA based on reasons NOT associated with using said product but from using a service associated with the product. this is why i would like this to go to court. we need to come up with a better definition of "association." can microsoft remove your windows 7 license because they saw you bad mouthing it on facebook?

i mean, i know what you are saying. if everyone read the ToS then EA would never in a million years get away with this bullshit. but unfortunately kids these days only know how to complain, rather than act in a way that changes the behavior they don't like. we need a system that enforces ToS contracts but also prevents companies from totally enslaving the population.

No matter how much you try to make it seem like we are talking about tangible products, we are not. When you buy software you aren't given a license that is yours forever. The license is a privilege to use the software as long as you abide by the rules. In effect, you are paying for the privilege to use the software and that is it, you are not getting anything tangible, so yes it is essentially a service.

[DannibusX]

I saw class action lawsuits mentioned earlier in this thread. There will be no class action lawsuits over this because it's prohibited by the ToS.

[Mr McC]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No matter how much you try to make it seem like we are talking about tangible products, we are not. When you buy software you aren't given a license that is yours forever. The license is a privilege to use the software as long as you abide by the rules. In effect, you are paying for the privilege to use the software and that is it, you are not getting anything tangible, so yes it is essentially a service.

You are assuming that the TOS are binding, but they are by no means infallible and may be deemed abusive by a court of law. Legislation can not keep pace with technological advances and EA, once again, shows its most humane and caring side when it attempts to define the postures that should be assumed in company-client relations.

This is clearly abusive, as the Rhino said, nothing prevents them from banning those who infringe the rules from the forum or game in question: there is no need for a blanket ban.

[Mussels]

the most concerning thing about htis is how your accounts arent for one forum, or one game - you could lose every single EA title you own from BF3 to the sims, because one underpaid (do they even get paid?) moderator was having a shitty day.

if steam is any indication, you could have thousands of dollars worth of games in that account and bam, instantly wiped.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No matter how much you try to make it seem like we are talking about tangible products, we are not. When you buy software you aren't given a license that is yours forever. The license is a privilege to use the software as long as you abide by the rules. In effect, you are paying for the privilege to use the software and that is it, you are not getting anything tangible, so yes it is essentially a service.

And relatively new EA games also specifically states in the EULA that they are able to "recover all forms of the product" once they have decided to "completely withdraw it (the game) from the market."

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No matter how much you try to make it seem like we are talking about tangible products, we are not. When you buy software you aren't given a license that is yours forever. The license is a privilege to use the software as long as you abide by the rules. In effect, you are paying for the privilege to use the software and that is it, you are not getting anything tangible, so yes it is essentially a service.

i don't believe a license is a service since services by their nature are people based. a service is when you hire a woman to come over and clean your house. a product is the materials you purchase to clean the house yourself. the same goes with digital content. you purchase a digital movie it is yours to use forever as is. even if you break federal law they still don't take the movie away from you, they send you to court and fine you. EA offers a service where they provide a product. that doesn't make those products "services" regardless of if they tack on a license to them or not.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Mr McC

You are assuming that the TOS are binding, but they are by no means infallible and may be deemed abusive by a court of law. Legislation can not keep pace with technological advances and EA, once again, shows its most humane and caring side when it attempts to define the postures that should be assumed in company-client relations.

This is clearly abusive, as the Rhino said, nothing prevents them from banning those who infringe the rules from the forum or game in question: there is no need for a blanket ban.

No it isn't abusive, I actually like the policy. If you are a dick in one place, you are dick everywhere and deserve not to be allowed to use any of the services EA provides.

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i don't believe a license is a service since services by their nature are people based. a service is when you hire a woman to come over and clean your house. a product is the materials you purchase to clean the house yourself. the same goes with digital content. you purchase a digital movie it is yours to use forever as is. even if you break federal law they still don't take the movie away from you, they send you to court and fine you. EA offers a service where they provide a product. that doesn't make those products "services" regardless of if they tack on a license to them or not.

Ok, then all the "services" that are provided are really products. I can play along with that, I don't agree with it, but I can play along.

So lets go back to my original example. Comcast doesn't provide services, they provide "products", because you aren't paying for a person to do something for you, you are paying for cable services...er..um...sorry, cable "products". Ok, well then it again has already been proven in court. Violating the terms of one "product" means they can take away you ability to use their other "products". It has been argued in court already.

Digital content isn't really any different. Head on over and read the UltraViolet terms.

You agree that DECE may, in its sole discretion and without notice to you or liability, restrict, suspend, or terminate your access to part or all of UltraViolet

You don't even have to do anything, they can just turn the "product" off at any time whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

And most other digital copies of media have similar terms, they can revoke your license for the media whenever they want whenever they want.

[Easy Rhino]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No it isn't abusive, I actually like the policy. If you are a dick in one place, you are dick everywhere and deserve not to be allowed to use any of the services EA provides.



Ok, then all the "services" that are provided are really products. I can play along with that, I don't agree with it, but I can play along.

So lets go back to my original example. Comcast doesn't provide services, they provide "products", because you aren't paying for a person to do something for you, you are paying for cable services...er..um...sorry, cable "products". Ok, well then it again has already been proven in court. Violating the terms of one "product" means they can take away you ability to use their other "products". It has been argued in court already.

Digital content isn't really any different. Head on over and read the UltraViolet terms.



You don't even have to do anything, they can just turn the "product" off at any time whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

And most other digital copies of media have similar terms, they can revoke your license for the media whenever they want whenever they want.

comcast is a service. video games are products. this is why i want this to go to court. this issue is only going to be more complicated as we dive further into the digital world.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

comcast is a service. video games are products. this is why i want this to go to court. this issue is only going to be more complicated as we dive further into the digital world.

How is Comcast any more of a service than licenses to use software? There are no people serving me at Comcast, it isn't a service, they are providing a product by your definition. Someone isn't coming to my house and delivering the 1s and 0s.

Either way, I'm tired of arguing, we're just going in circles. If it goes to court, good, but it is just a waste of the courts time. Even if "morally" they shouldn't be allowed to turn off other games for violations in another service, morally you shouldn't be a dick and you won't have a problem. So the solution to the problem is just don't be a dick.

[DragonBorn]

Reading all the Replies to my OP I think some people are not seeing The Influence,s and Long time,
Effects this mite Have. Now lets just say Some Think like this Happens Some Hackers Group like.
Luzsec hit the E.A furums And Steal some gamers Furum passworlds/username,s And Leak the Data.
Over the net like there Did with Sony/Amazon.
And then some Guy post,s crap on the E.A. games web-site and the end Result was you got a ban.

And E.A Games was not Aware Of the Problem HOW would you fell then.??

Lets face it E.A games devs in suits Sat around a table Don,t Think about things like this

[Altered]

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

from what i understand, you buy a license which is a product. i mean, they COULD call it a service, but then any product could be called a service rendering the terms meaningless. in effect, you have EA taking back the ability of a user to use the product they bought from EA based on reasons NOT associated with using said product but from using a service associated with the product. this is why i would like this to go to court. we need to come up with a better definition of "association." can microsoft remove your windows 7 license because they saw you bad mouthing it on facebook?

i mean, i know what you are saying. if everyone read the ToS then EA would never in a million years get away with this bullshit. but unfortunately kids these days only know how to complain, rather than act in a way that changes the behavior they don't like. we need a system that enforces ToS contracts but also prevents companies from totally enslaving the population.

Originally Posted by Easy Rhino

i don't believe a license is a service since services by their nature are people based. a service is when you hire a woman to come over and clean your house. a product is the materials you purchase to clean the house yourself. the same goes with digital content. you purchase a digital movie it is yours to use forever as is. even if you break federal law they still don't take the movie away from you, they send you to court and fine you. EA offers a service where they provide a product. that doesn't make those products "services" regardless of if they tack on a license to them or not.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

No it isn't abusive, I actually like the policy. If you are a dick in one place, you are dick everywhere and deserve not to be allowed to use any of the services EA provides.



Ok, then all the "services" that are provided are really products. I can play along with that, I don't agree with it, but I can play along.

So lets go back to my original example. Comcast doesn't provide services, they provide "products", because you aren't paying for a person to do something for you, you are paying for cable services...er..um...sorry, cable "products". Ok, well then it again has already been proven in court. Violating the terms of one "product" means they can take away you ability to use their other "products". It has been argued in court already.

Digital content isn't really any different. Head on over and read the UltraViolet terms.



You don't even have to do anything, they can just turn the "product" off at any time whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

And most other digital copies of media have similar terms, they can revoke your license for the media whenever they want whenever they want.

I think it is pretty clear EA is considering themselves/games a Service. The TOS only refers to "EA Services" 120 times in it. If you dont believe that number try ctrl + f and put EA Services in the search field. Not saying it would hold in court but if a TOS is not valid then look out.

[Easy Rhino]

i understand what EA is doing in calling what they provide a service. it is a strategy to give them the power to remove people's ability to use the products they bought. whether that is right or wrong is for the courts to decide. personally, i think this is a terrible precedent to set and i will not buying any EA games until they address their ability to remove my ability to use something i bought from them. also, people need to know this is happening so that EA will feel the proper market pressure to change their ways.

[digibucc]

a product is made , packaged and sold - a service is maintained by staff. it's pretty obvious what is and isn't a service, and games are not services.