EA is at it Again (lolbans)

[schild]

Posted here

In short:

For future titles and currently Red Alert 3 and SPORE, if they ban you from the forums, you can't play your game.

lol

[bhodi]

Your forum account will be directly tied to your Master EA Account, so if we ban you on the forums, you would be banned from the game as well since the login process is the same. And you'd actually be banned from your other EA games as well since its all tied to your account. So if you have SPORE and Red Alert 3 and you get yourself banned on our forums or in-game, well, your SPORE account would be banned to[sic].

Is this even legal? This has got to be stretching the bounds.

I guess they saw what dissenters could do, with the mass-vote-spore-a-1 on Amazon and decided that it wasn't worth worrying about. Now they're going for the gold.

[Hawkbit]

[Teleku]

On one hand, this has to be one of the most blatantly retarded and illegal policies I've ever seen a game company make.  I'd take this to court in a second if it happened to me, or baring that, would immediately resort to firebombing the homes of EA employees.

On the other hand, I think its actually kind of funny to see a forum take such measures that they can cause real monetary loss to you for being a retarded duchebag on the internet.  Might actually make the forums decent!  Plus, I'd actually pay to see the the reaction of various forum retards when they use it on them.


Hmmmm.

[NiX]

I believe they're saying you can't play your game ONLINE. I don't recall logging into Spore and I'm pretty sure you don't have to log into RA3 just to play the single player.

I think this is AWESOME.

[Nevermore]

The more you tighten your grip, EA, the more customers will slip through your fingers.

[Reg]

They did almost the same kind of thing back when they ran the official forums for UO. A ban there would ban your account. And a single account ban would automatically kill every UO account attached to that credit card.

[Ingmar]

I'm still waiting for Blizzard to do this.

[Strazos]

As someone who doesn't douche it up, I'm only concerned about this On Principal.

I would never be affected by this, and will laugh at anyone who is.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm still waiting for Blizzard to do this.

They'd lose 99% of their subscribers in two days. 

[Morfiend]

I'm still waiting for Blizzard to do this.

They'd lose 99% of their subscribers in two days. 

Way to over exaggerate. Jesus. Thats just blowing it WAY out of proportion. Be more realistic. It would take 3 days.

[UnSub]

They did almost the same kind of thing back when they ran the official forums for UO. A ban there would ban your account. And a single account ban would automatically kill every UO account attached to that credit card.

... and this was a bad thing?

[Calantus]

I'm still waiting for Blizzard to do this.

They'd lose 99% of their subscribers in two days. 

Way to over exaggerate. Jesus. Thats just blowing it WAY out of proportion. Be more realistic. It would take 3 days.

I'd say a significant number of them are too stupid to operate forums. Those guys will be safe forever.

[Reg]

... and this was a bad thing?

Generally, it wasn't but it was very difficult to get banned from those forums. You had to be a major asshole.

This doesn't seem to be the case with the Spore forums though. For a while all you had to do to get banned there was talk about the forbidden topic of DRM.

[Stephen Zepp]

On one hand, this has to be one of the most blatantly retarded and illegal policies I've ever seen a game company make.  I'd take this to court in a second if it happened to me, or baring that, would immediately resort to firebombing the homes of EA employees.

On the other hand, I think its actually kind of funny to see a forum take such measures that they can cause real monetary loss to you for being a retarded duchebag on the internet.  Might actually make the forums decent!  Plus, I'd actually pay to see the the reaction of various forum retards when they use it on them.


Hmmmm.

I'm of two minds about this concept as well.

Yes, it's legal--at least until we get more case law behind EULA and Terms of Service agreements. There is no "Right to be a Douchebag" inherent in a purchase, and it's about time people begin to realize that. Have to give EA props that they feel they are secure enough financially to put their foot down regarding ToS, EULA, and just "be nice to others if you want to be in our community and play our game" enforcement.

In some ways (for argument's sake at least) it could be considered ethical--at least for those that respect the ToS, and others with regards to the use of forums. Now, the various rumors of being banned for talking about DRM (in a constructive way mind you), and other extremely arbitrary reasons for banning are going way over the line, but as I said above, your $70 doesn't buy you the right to be an asshole to others. For those that do "play by the rules", and are generally acceptable in the game forums, this could be viewed as someone looking out for them.

Of course, it's going to be a failure of epic proportions in our entitlement based internet society. At least the class action lawsuit soon to follow if they enforce this will help to close down the ambiguousness of Terms of Service enforcement.

[apocrypha]

Now, the various rumors of being banned for talking about DRM (in a constructive way mind you), and other extremely arbitrary reasons for banning are going way over the line, but as I said above, your $70 doesn't buy you the right to be an asshole to others.

I think this is important - if your ability to play the game you've bought online is dependent on the whim of some forum mod who may or may not have had a bad day, especially when there's likely to be no easy way to contest a ban, then you're going to get some mighty pissed off people.

[bhodi]

They backpedaled...

That said, the previous statement I made recently (that's being quoted on the blogs) was inaccurate and a mistake on my part. I had a misunderstanding with regards to our new upcoming forums and website and never meant to infer that if we ban or suspend you on the forums, you would be banned in-game as well. This is not correct, my mistake, my bad.

If we suspend or ban you from the forums, that does not affect your in-game account and certainly it does not impact your in-game account for other games. Quite often we usually warn you before taking any type of action, suspend you before considering any type of ban, etc. I am sure you guys know that we are fairly tolerant and stress that you please show respect to others, but we also understand the forums are a place to be heard and express your opinion in a constructive manner. Everyone has their "flame" moments.

"His bad". "flame moment".

Right. I'm sure he invented it from whole cloth in the heat of the moment.

[Sky]

I don't recall logging into Spore

ur doin it rong

[Khaldun]

I think somebody with deep pockets really needs to bring a case law challenge against overly ambitious deployments of EULAs and refuse any offer of settlement. Sooner or later, there has got to be a line drawn in the sand or games and maybe other digital media are just never going to be capable of assuming their rightful place in the cultural future.

Let's imagine that in the late 18th Century, print publishers had asserted a right to control all printed reviews, discussions, reactions, satires and other work created in response to a written work that the publisher owned, and let's imagine moreover that somehow it had been technologically possible and economically feasible for them to exert such control. This may sound like a fantasy, but the first part isn't a hypothetical. This is precisely what publishers and some authors tried to do in the early history of mass printing and the evolution of copyright, to exert control over all citations and references to a work which they owned, to control all discussions and derivative content. It wasn't technologically or socially possible for them to do so, and thank god. Without that, we wouldn't have anything remotely resembling the vibrant and hugely complex expressive culture that we have today--nothing like modern literature, art, films, etc.

People who maintain forums are totally entitled to manage discussion in those fora as they see fit, though I'd argue that "best practices" always involves the widest, most diverse conversations that don't descend into pure douchbaggery. Publishers of software are totally entitled to enforce norms of play in multiplayer environments. But crossing those streams? NEVER cross the streams, Venkman.

[Sky]

The loliban are the awesomest terrorists.

[MournelitheCalix]

Yes, it's legal--at least until we get more case law behind EULA and Terms of Service agreements. There is no "Right to be a Douchebag" inherent in a purchase, and it's about time people begin to realize that. Have to give EA props that they feel they are secure enough financially to put their foot down regarding ToS, EULA, and just "be nice to others if you want to be in our community and play our game" enforcement.

No its not legal and as a developer you need to stick your expertise into developing game and not law.  What EA is doing here will be a lawsuit and they will lose.  This is a property rights issue now since they are moving the goal post and crossing the line from virtual worlds to real life property.  It really is just that simple.   Don't give us no BS about ToS and EULA here.  People who bought Bioshock or Mass Effect didn't explicitly agree to this "new rule" upon purcahse of the game.  What EA has done here is retroactively changed a fundamental rule of commerce.  That rule being you spend money for property that is assumed to work as advertised.  To say other wise is either intellectually dishonest or it shows a severe disconnect between developers like yourself and the people who buy your games.   I think its time more people who think like you lose their jobs in a severe consumer backlash against the industry that apparantly underappreciates them.

In some ways (for argument's sake at least) it could be considered ethical

In no way can this be considered ethical even by the greatest stretch of social morays that make up our laws.  The simple fact of the matter is ethics isn't changeable upon whim.  EA is fundementally changing the terms of their service on a whim and they need to be held accountable for it for people didn' t puchase the game simply to be banned from the said game after a spat with EA or after someone at EA arbitrarily decides they don't like what that person is saying.  Again this is a very simple question of ethics.  Its not ethical for corporations to steal from consumers.  Depriving consumers of property rights they legitimately purchased with an after the fact fundamental change in the rules of commerce is in no way ethical.  To defend this in any way or to state that this is in any way ethical shows a fundamental disrespect of the customers WHO PAY YOUR SALARY.  You are in fact advocating the theft of their property rights and that sir is just as much theft as any person who goes to the torrents to download pirated games.

--at least for those that respect the ToS, and others with regards to the use of forums. Now, the various rumors of being banned for talking about DRM (in a constructive way mind you), and other extremely arbitrary reasons for banning are going way over the line, but as I said above, your $70 doesn't buy you the right to be an asshole to others. For those that do "play by the rules", and are generally acceptable in the game forums, this could be viewed as someone looking out for them.

Of course, it's going to be a failure of epic proportions in our entitlement based internet society. At least the class action lawsuit soon to follow if they enforce this will help to close down the ambiguousness of Terms of Service enforcement.

You really don't appreciate your customers at all do you?  In all honesty it makes me sick to think that there are probably a good deal more people like you whose salary I am paying when I purchase video games.  Statements like its an "entitlement based internet society"  speaks volumes for your disregard for us the people who buy your games.  Let me spell it out to you, since again you have missed the point in your shiling for EA.  When the customers that pay your salary purchased the games that support your industry they purchased it with the explicit understanding that they were getting property and liscence in return.  That is how commerce works.   Again I sound like a broken record but consumers purchased games with the understanding that this gave them property and a liscence to play the game.  Moving the goal post here now because you don't like their speech on your forum is not ethical period.  What is being done by EA is nothing more than corporate theft.  THEFT, this is what this DRM crap was originally about wasn't it?  What an irony.

[Stephen Zepp]

Plaintiffs Davidson & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Blizzard Entertainment ("Blizzard") and Vivendi
Universal Games, Inc. sued defendants Internet Gateway, Inc., Jim Jung, Ross Combs, Rob
Crittenden, Yi Wang, and John Does 1-50.

The Court finds that the license agreements are enforceable contracts under both California
and Missouri law. California courts have enforced end user license agreements, which are valid under
California law. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1089-93 (N.D. Cal.
2000) (end user license agreement valid under California law); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$Money Pie,
Inc., No. C-98-20064, 1998 WL 388389, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (applying California law, plaintiff
likely to prevail on breach of contract claim regarding clickwrap agreement). Cf. Softman Prod. Co.
v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1087-88 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (software reseller was not bound
by EULA because it had never assented to the terms and court did not rule on validity of shrinkwrap
agreements in general).

That's pretty on point there regarding enforcement of and application of EULA/ToS. As I said in my comments, until we get additional case law, as much as we (as purchasers) want to claim EULAs and ToS's are invalid, they are valid.

When the customers that pay your salary purchased the games that support your industry they purchased it with the explicit understanding that they were getting property and liscence in return.

what property exactly?

And the license can be revoked...which is exactly what they are talking about doing (although as has been observed, they are backing off).

Regarding respecting customers, you couldn't be more wrong--in fact, the entire reason it's important to be able to revoke a license in certain cases is because you are protecting your other customers (the ones that are playing well with the rest of your customer base). It absolutely needs to err conservatively, and needs to be a last step of correction, but especially in cases where forum use is part of a product or service, it's critical to be able to protect the interests of correctly behaving customers.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to tie forum participation with game participation, and would never in a million years recommend a strategy where they were 100% tied with no other preventive measures. A much more appropriate solution would be "bad on forums, muted. bad in game (multi-player), loss of multi-player".

Schilling for EA.

WTF are you talking about?

[Murgos]

Don't give us no BS about ToS and EULA here.  People who bought Bioshock or Mass Effect didn't explicitly agree to this "new rule" upon purcahse of the game.  What EA has done here is retroactively changed a fundamental rule of commerce.  That rule being you spend money for property that is assumed to work as advertised.  To say other wise is either intellectually dishonest or it shows a severe disconnect between developers like yourself and the people who buy your games.

Actually, there is plenty of case law enforcing shrinkwrap hidden EULA's.

[Samwise]

What is being done by EA is nothing more than corporate theft.

When a corporation does it, it's not wrong.  Commie.

[Reg]

edit: Ack! How did this reply end up in THIS thread? Moved.

[HaemishM]

your $70 doesn't buy you the right to be an asshole to others

No, the Constitution buys you the right to be an asshole. It just doesn't protect you from the consequences of being an asshole.

[Murgos]

The constitution say you wont be imprisoned for being a harmless asshole.  No such protection for harmful assholes.

It also says nothing about other people treating you nice when you are being an asshole.

[NiX]

Constitution can't save you from yourself.

[Litigator]

This is not a bad idea.  It puts some weight behind the remedies available to forum mods, and game-key bans have been employed by companies before for cheating, harassment, and general assholery.  Those communities are often too large and anonymous to be self-policing like F13, and EA is looking to impose responsibility on the players. 

That said, if they're throwing bans around for speaking ill of the game in restrained ways that's unreasonable.  People go to the developers forums for the express purpose of sounding off about problems with the software.  In the case of EA's new software, the excessive burdens put on legitimate purchasers by their DRM is a legitimate problem that they should expect gamers to be raising on their forum. 

If they're going to kill their community by banning game keys for speaking critically of the software, then they might as well just shut down the forum entirely.  They should create an entire DRM subforum and move those threads to that if it's clogging up their game discussion, and they should address these mass complaints by gamers instead of waving around the ban hammer and telling everyone to go away.

Either way, it's not an issue for me because I won't buy their software due to the burdensome DRM restrictions.

[MournelitheCalix]

That's pretty on point there regarding enforcement of and application of EULA/ToS. As I said in my comments, until we get additional case law, as much as we (as purchasers) want to claim EULAs and ToS's are invalid, they are valid.

Please note I am not saying that their ToS or their EULA isn't enforceable.  Schild started this by saying that future titles and Spore/Red Alert is going to be under this new scheme ( I didn't realize Red Alert was out, but since its an EA title there is no way in hell I would ever buy it).  The problem I have with it is not the future titles part.  As a person, EA has the right to do anything it wants with future properties, just like I have the right not to buy it from that corporate parasite.  Its the part about titles that are already purchased getting the deluxe anal raping treatment that violates property rights and is thusly neither ethical nor legal.  My point is that the people who bought these titles should not have the rug pulled from under them after the purchase.  Neither should they be forced to accept such radical changes after the sale at virtual gun point, especially if the initial EULA or the ToS did not explicitly reserve the right to have a corporate overseer arbitratily revoke property rights because they didn't like the speech of another.  This diminishes the property value the consumers own and is thus neither ethical nor does it conform to the most basic principles of commerce.  In any other industry someone wanting to alter the terms of a completed sale days, weeks, or even months after money has changed hands would simply be laughed at.

I have a feeling that if you had a crystal ball and told people that EA would do this, they would immediately dismiss you as an idiot and would think even the idea of such an action was simply too rediculous to even contemplate.  Which is of course exactly where EA is.  EA is the finest example of a company getting way to big and jeopardizing the market with the rediculous immensity of its bulk.  They certainly have greatly hurt the PC gaming market and due principally to their immense size are now hurting the PC gamer seemingly every month their name is mentioned.  There is no finer example of a company that needs to be immediately broken up before the next wave of anti consumer bat shit crazy hits.

what property exactly?

And the license can be revoked...which is exactly what they are talking about doing (although as has been observed, they are backing off).

The materials that came from the box qualifies as property and I would count as an asset their liscense to use the software.

Regarding respecting customers, you couldn't be more wrong--in fact, the entire reason it's important to be able to revoke a license in certain cases is because you are protecting your other customers (the ones that are playing well with the rest of your customer base). It absolutely needs to err conservatively, and needs to be a last step of correction, but especially in cases where forum use is part of a product or service, it's critical to be able to protect the interests of correctly behaving customers.

Well if you respect your customers so much Stephen please explain to me the use of the term, "entitlement based internet society".  I ask because its not about people feeling entitled.  When they purchased Spore's Creature Creator for instance they got property in return.  Entitlement isn't the issue at all, property rights is the actual issue.  Again people that have already purchased EA's games did so with the very reasonable expectation that they would be getting a useable game in return.  No one ever told them and I doubt many even dreamed that they would try this overseer forum ban == game ban change.  Certainly the customers didn't know this switch was going to occur when they were baited into buying the game.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to tie forum participation with game participation, and would never in a million years recommend a strategy where they were 100% tied with no other preventive measures. A much more appropriate solution would be "bad on forums, muted. bad in game (multi-player), loss of multi-player".

If that is how you really felt why didn't you come out and say it.  It seemed to me that earlier you had no problem with it.  I believe you even used the term, "ethical" to give "props" to EA's anal raping of their customers.  Again issues about ToS and EULA are irrelevant.  They are irrelevant because the overseer anal rape wasn't a part of their purchase. 

Schilling for EA.

WTF are you talking about?

I will withdraw this based on your clarified position.  However I originally wrote it thinking that you thought such a position was "ethical" instead of the "rediculous" you have later clarified.

[Litigator]

No its not legal and as a developer you need to stick your expertise into developing game and not law.  What EA is doing here will be a lawsuit and they will lose.  This is a property rights issue now since they are moving the goal post and crossing the line from virtual worlds to real life property.  It really is just that simple.   Don't give us no BS about ToS and EULA here.  People who bought Bioshock or Mass Effect didn't explicitly agree to this "new rule" upon purcahse of the game.  What EA has done here is retroactively changed a fundamental rule of commerce.  That rule being you spend money for property that is assumed to work as advertised.  To say other wise is either intellectually dishonest or it shows a severe disconnect between developers like yourself and the people who buy your games.   I think its time more people who think like you lose their jobs in a severe consumer backlash against the industry that apparantly underappreciates them.

Zepp is probably correct.  People have been getting themselves banned from online games for as long as there have been online games, and there have been online games whose developers shut them down, thereby revoking access to all existing players.

Blizzard has acted against hundreds of thousands of World of Warcraft accounts for cheating and dealing in commercial gold farming operations.  Every online game that runs through a centralized, developer run matchmaking system has banned CD keys belonging to players who misbehave online, mostly for cheating.  Blizzard also has a policy of temporary suspensions of game privileges for less serious misbehavior, such as harassment and exceptionally profane trash-talking. Enough infractions can lead to a banned account.

Further, they've stripped PvP gear off of characters who they found had a habit of "afking" in battlegrounds; parking a character in the zone to soak up honor while not playing.  And they stripped arena gear of off players they found had "win traded."

Many other games have similar policies.  None has ever been challenged as far as I am aware.  Games aren't very expensive, and it's really hard to argue that the purchase of a game confers a broad set of rights.  Game companies cannot market their games as broadly as they'd like to if they have no mechanism for punishing certain in-game behavior.  If you go to the movies, and you scream and throw popcorn during the film, and they throw you out, they're within their rights.  People have routinely misbehaved on airplanes when their takeoff was delayed, and they have been ejected without refund or compensation.  The zoo can kick you out after you paid admission if you throw rocks at the penguins.  A nightclub can bounce your ass after you paid the cover charge because you are ugly or poorly dressed.  The weight of precedent supports the banhammer.

What's more, the $60 (at most) you spent on the game cannot create an enduring obligation on their part to keep an online component up and running.  If an MMO fails and the company that makes it goes out of business, they'll probably shut the servers off, and your virtual property will be gone forever.  I have a hard time imagining that any court would force the company to keep the lights on for you.

Your "rule" that a product is assumed to work as advertised is actually an invocation of an "implied warranty," and there is no implied warranty of not pwning your ass with the banhammer for being a douche. 

That said, Zepp is a little off point in thinking that the power to ban you from the game is connected to the issue of the enforceability of a "click-through" or "shrinkwrap" TOS agreement.  The fact that they put you on notice that violation of the rules is punishable by banning bolsters their position, but even if you could establish that your "clicking through" is insufficient to manifest assent to the TOS, the bannhammer would likely be upheld anyway, because there is no implied warranty of perpetual and unconditional video game service. 

The principle argument is probably that the developer has no obligation to provide the service, not that you agreed to be banned.   

[Margalis]

It totally makes sense for 20-year-old hourly employees to be able to brick your purchased product on a whim.

We all know that GMs and forum mods are nothing if not highly professional. It's impossible to anticipate any problems with this policy...

[UnSub]

It totally makes sense for 20-year-old hourly employees to be able to brick your purchased product on a whim.

We all know that GMs and forum mods are nothing if not highly professional. It's impossible to anticipate any problems with this policy...

... and yet people are unhappy when people are dicks to them on forums and then are dicks to them in-game.

Going, "Well, that's just the internet" really shouldn't keep excusing such behaviour. If people want to move beyond the internet fuckwad theory, there needs to be consequences for actions.

[Megrim]

There already is though. You just get banned from forums.

[Margalis]

Banning someone for being a dick in-game after complaints have been lodged by other players is very different from banning them because they were banned from a forum by a mod.

I was banned from Waterthread for stating that Homeland Security and Bush were a joke in a thread devoted to politics. Guess it's a good thing I didn't purchase Waterthread: The Game.