E.A games Bans gamers from gaming

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by 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.

Really? Even digital downloads? They are packaged and sold? You sure they aren't instead maintained by staff? Because I'm pretty sure that is what Origin and Steam are all about, and Origin is what this thread applies to.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Really? Even digital downloads? They are packaged and sold? You sure they aren't instead maintained by staff? Because I'm pretty sure that is what Origin and Steam are all about, and Origin is what this thread applies to.

yes, they are packaged - into a digital format.

the whole keeping servers online and patching the product is where the definition of service gets blurry.

you buy a product that needs a free service, but you didnt buy that service - you bought the product.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by Mussels

yes, they are packaged - into a digital format.

the whole keeping servers online and patching the product is where the definition of service gets blurry.

you buy a product that needs a free service, but you didnt buy that service - you bought the product.

I see it differently. The game, along with Origin, is a service. They are a package deal provided by the game company. Both are services.

[digibucc]

They are services because they are a package deal, because they are services?

just calling it a service doesn't make it so. re: steam, origin, etc - those are services yes but separate. they are the digital equivalent of a store. that's why steam and valve are two different companies, and origin is not a game developer for EA.

I totally agree that game companies would like it to be considered a service, as that makes it a lot easier for them. however they historically and rationally are not services, they are products.

[FierceRed]

Originally Posted by digibucc

They are services because they are a package deal, because they are services?

just calling it a service doesn't make it so. re: steam, origin, etc - those are services yes but separate. they are the digital equivalent of a store. that's why steam and valve are two different companies, and origin is not a game developer for EA.

I totally agree that game companies would like it to be considered a service, as that makes it a lot easier for them. however they historically and rationally are not services, they are products.

Steam isn't a company.

Steam is software developed by Valve that manages their, and other, game software while integrating a storefront for further revenue.

[entropy13]

A bit of a tangential statement here.

I would GLADLY welcome the official presence of Origin and Steam (right now those who use them are "pretending" they're in the US) over here. IFF they actually "help convince" ISPs to improve speeds (both DL and UL) over here. The best you can have here is restricted to certain districts of two cities, and just so happens that those districts of those two cities are mostly condominiums, expensive ones at that.

[Altered]

A direct quote from Steam Subscriber Agreement

STEAM® SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT

This Steam Subscriber Agreement ("Agreement") is a legal document that explains your rights and obligations as a Subscriber. Please read it carefully.

1. REGISTRATION AND ACTIVATION.

Steam is an online service ("Steam") offered by Valve Corporation ("Valve").

Interesting articles-

Suddenly, Software Isn't a Product, It's a Service
Application service providers are changing the way programs are sold and delivered

The Economics of Software as a Service (SaaS) vs. Software as a Product
This article looks simply to compare—from the customer’s point of view—software purchased as a service versus software purchased as a product.

There is a lot of interesting info about this same discussion out there. It appears from what I quickly skimmed over was, what ever it use to be is no more, it is now or will be considered a service by the industry of today. And like everything else this was driven by the money.

I can see where what may have been considered a product in the past is not anymore. All things change so you might as well get use to it. The way games are and will be run has evolved. Games are not produced like in the past nor are they sold like in the past and they will not be run as in the past. That was history we no longer drive the Model T.

[digibucc]

that's cool but i don't think any of us were arguing that steam is a product, it is a service for sure. a platform... a piece of software, but not a product. the games available on steam however, are.

[newconroer]

Regardless of whether it's appropriate for them to ban gaming access based on forum(and other services) incidents, there is one nice thing about this (if it was intended that is..) - it would keep a lot of morons off official gaming community forums.

Spammers
Chronic repeat posters
Whiners/"I am leaving"
Obvious negative posts
Obvious 'positive' posts ( the type where some loser makes a random thread showing admiration and adulation for a moderator or game develepor/staff and/or other player - most often for an irrelevant reason such as the person is a female).

And any other crap threads that flood the forums.
Banning people may just lead to them making another account. Banning people and blocking game access means they'll make a new user, whine about the ban and then go away is they're getting nowhere.

Am I mean to think that?