Fenech: "I never said anything I shouldn’t have." EA: "[He] crossed a line of decency."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
The nuclear option: EA bans “abusive” FIFA player from all of its games
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The "I"m entitled to be abusive and there's nothing you can do about it" mentality
consequences to those living it need to be dished out more often
consequences to those living it need to be dished out more often
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Criticism? I don't think incessantly yelling profanities in a public forum that occasionally include "you suck, EA" counts as criticism.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Incessantly Yelling Profanities would be a good name for a punk band...
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The Customer is rarely right (its just a typically ignorant marketing phrase, nothing is binary... except perhaps binary^^) ... and never on everything her claims or intends to use the purchase for.
One just has to be polite and not tell him/her that outright, but get him to make a purchase without insulting his intelligence...
And I am sorry to say EA jumped through a couple of hoops to make him reconsider his attitude through staged repercussions, and he still manages to make them look like the good guys.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Lets put this the other way around : can you imagine the headlines if EA had not banned him ?
"EA does not care about their streamer//associates behaviour as long as he generates interest in their game" = "they only care for the money, not decency or the abuse of other players"
Basically they did what everybody expected them to do.
...its just a bit weird that it was EA of all things.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
.....actual physical friends that may beat him up for abusive smack-talk if something does not go the way he likes it to go ? OH NOOOOO !
...also he might simply not be good at it ?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
That is precisely the point. They are revoking access to previously purchased content. They can, because it's immaterial property. Or a "license". In any case, they are revoking access to purchased assets outside the scope of the offence. This worries me. And it surprises me a lot that so many commenters here support the action just because the target was behaving like a dick.
That is factually incorrect.
A VAC ban will exclude you from using public servers with VAC protection. It will NOT lock you out of your Steam library. Nor will it prevent you from playing on non-VAC protected servers, for example on a home LAN.
Any digital purchase through Origin or depending on Origin as a distribution channel is affected. That includes most of what EA has sold for over a decade. Even a Mass Effect 1 license from Humble Store will be inaccessible.
Claiming it's "only" content that requires an account is significantly below the quality of arguments you usually demand of others. The reality of the situation is that virtually all EA content from the last decade or more is affected. Can we please not try to pretend that this is trivial or insignificant?
I would oppose such as step as well. But having said that, games on physical media would still work. Also, such a device ban was the result of physically tampering with the unit to circumvent copy protection. That's hardly a comparable offense.
Steam can ban an account but they don't do so for cheating or being a dick. They disable accounts only as a result of hacking or promoting software piracy. And for the record: most downloaded games will stop working after a while when Steam can't renew the offline license. So virtually all content from within the last decade will be affected (as with Origin).
I would oppose that as well. Though most non-movie content from iTunes is DRM free and would in fact continue to work.
In any case the problem as I see it is this: a corporation is revoking access to immaterial property, in response to an offense unrelated to said content. It's clear that many people are fine with that. For me, it's a problem. It gives the corporate overlords power I don't believe they should have: the power to arbitrarily nullify purchases and incur economic loss to consumers with little or no oversight.
From an intellectual standpoint it's a future I am not comfortable with. I have gotten burned with such losses on other occasions, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features years after a sale is worrying.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Then why did you agree to buy DRM'd goods in the first place? It's like financing a car, and then whining when the insurance payout after you total it in a flaming wreck goes back to the car company. If you want to keep the car, don't play target practice inside a shopping mall.
You have plenty of DRM free options. You didn't buy the software, the publisher still owns it. You bought a license to use it. You still have the bits physically on your hard drive, if you can figure out a way to remove the DRM, you can still play it. But the publisher is under no obligation to allow you to continue to authenticate against their servers perpetually if they have any reason not to. You knew this when you bought something protected by DRM; you only have a license to authenticate your DRM if you follow the license agreement. The fault is entirely on your end for breaking the license agreement.
The only thing EA owes this guy is a refund for the games he now can't play, nothing more than that. EA would definitely do that if asked, because that's the law in the US. But he's not going to ask for that because he's a troll, and playing the victim while refusing to actually accept a real solution is a key part of their playbook.
If you don't want to be tied down by the potential downsides of DRM, don't buy DRM protected software.
What do you value more, your "right" to play modern titles, or your principles? Put your money where your mouth is and only purchase DRM free titles from now on.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
Perhaps people here understand the difference between property and license better than you? If you pay me to secure the right to do a stand-up show, and I agree, provided you stay away from offensive material, and you go on to tell jokes about fat women and specific religions...you lose your rights. You paid me, you lost access to something you paid for, but that's because a license specifies limitations and caveats.
Breaking the terms of a license or contract nullifies your right to the benefits.
Okay. Sure. Right.
Perhaps you should read the terms:
"Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers. You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscription(s) and/or Account."
[...]
"Valve may cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally, or (b) you breach any terms of this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted."
I'm not talking about a VAC ban, slick. I'm talking about your account getting deleted. You can play games that are already downloaded and don't require authentication by Valve. Otherwise, your account is gone. Shit, if you left $100 in funds in your wallet, by creating an account, you have agreed that they can straight-up take that without any penalty. And you don't think they'll stop you from downloading the games you own?
Okay.
Do you have proof it works differently than Steam? Because claiming that a game that doesn't use EA's servers requires talking to EA implies that literally every game on Origin doesn't run without internet connection, and that seems kind of foolish, to me. If you can run them offiline, then they don't need to access EA's servers to run.
You literally were just arguing that they can't ban accounts for cheating! Make up your mind!
So...don't buy digital copies or don't violate community standards. "I should get to be as shitty as I want with no repercussions is a pretty silly hill to die on.
Yeah, it sucks. So buy from companies you trust. Read the terms. Make a decision based on cost/benefit. If you're complaining that companies can't be forced to literally provide a service forever, well...all I can say is you should expect to be disappointed by reality. I bet if you read the terms on any of those products you're talking about, you'll see that you didn't buy access for eternity no matter what.
Should there be some movement towards a consumer-friendly approach? Sure. But pretending that the logical place is winding up where a person can violate every agreement they made when creating an account and there is no repercussions? Fuck that entitled nonsense. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Not sure i want to spend more time on this. I feel you're just Googling arguments in support of your views no matter the facts, and moving goalposts when that fails. You are usually better than this.
I understand licenses just fine, having worked with software and immaterial property for two decades. I am not a lawyer, but I have read more licenses than most, and also co-authored licenses used for local software distribution.
I understand that EA has claimed the right to revoke their license for any reason they want. That doesn't mean I think it's a good practice. Nor is it necessarily legal where I live. Consumer protection is - thankfully - stronger in Europe than in the US.
None of these links support the notion than cheating will result in an unusable Steam account.
Your exact words where these:
"If you cheat on Steam, your account is banned. That means no accessing your account, including downloading and authenticating via DRM tied to that account.
That is factually incorrect, and none of the links you provided supports that statement.
Link 1: The case was about copyright violations. The affected accounts had not merely been "cheating" in games (or behaved abusively for that matter). The account holders had tried to pirate software (Half-Life 2) and gain access to content they hadn't paid for. That is not relevant for the case at hand, and does not support your claim.
Link 2: The affected accounts were not locked out of Steam. They received what called a Game Ban (which is usually temporary) and a Matchmaking ban for Dota 2. Specifically, Valve wrote the following (exact quote): "These bans will now appear as game bans in Steam as well as being matchmaking bans in Dota 2.". This does not support your claim. In fact it shows that Valve clearly uses a different way of sanctioning misbehaving users.
Link 3: This is a screenshot from the community forums. As numerous posts in that thread explain (I suspect you didn't read them?) you don't get a full account ban for being toxic. You get a community ban, a temporary game ban, or you are asked to contact Steam Support to solve any issue. (I'd consider interacting with Steam Support a punishment in itself...). Also, the screenshot specifically mentions "Fraudulent activity". That is - once again - not related to being toxic. This link also does not support your original claim that cheating results in an unusable account.
I am aware of what the TOS contains. It's pretty similar to all such agrements. It still doesn't support your claim that cheating will result in an unusable account. Nor does it show that Valve has ever used the TOS to take such an action.
In conclusion: not a single link supports the position you claim it does. Which surprises me, because you normally strike me as a more well-researched poster here on Ars.
Let's skip the name-calling?
You were talking about the consequences of people cheating. People don't get their Steam account deactivated or deleted for cheating. Nor for being "toxic". The latter will get them thrown out of community-related aspects of Steam.
I never suggested anything of the sort, nor have I "pretended" to support zero repercussions for the idiot mentioned in the article. I have explained from an intellectual standpoint why I see a problem with the chosen sanction, because it significantly exceeds the scope of the violation. Nothing more.
(edit: clarity and a few line breaks)
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
The only reason the EU has to put this into law is because customer service isn't the primary goal in the first place. In the US and Canada, a store that DOESN'T accept refunds, no questions asked, before at least 30 days is the exception, not the norm and I tend to avoid those places if I can. I don't have to try very hard to buy only from places that offer no questions asked refunds, because there are a lot of options.
I've lived in Europe for 5 years in two countries. It was really difficult to find a store that would accept returns without majorly hassling you. This is from big chains like Auchan to minor mom and pop shops. I had an incident in MediaMarkt where I brought an item I wanted to buy to the cash register, and was surprised when it rang up as higher than the shelf. I made sure the UPC code on the shelf tag and on the product lined up, and the date wasn't expired before I brought it to the attention of the cashier, as that's what I typically do in North America. The cashier had me wait while another associate "went to check". They came back with a fresh shelf tag they printed and told me that's the price.
This is not unusual for a European merchant, even big chains like MediaMarkt.
So I wouldn't be so quick to brag about "stronger" consumer protection laws in Europe. They're only written into law because merchants wouldn't do it otherwise.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
Whining about name calling over being called “slick”.
What a spectacular demonstration of the depth of your dermis on this issue. I’m on mobile at the moment, so I’m not going to be able to respond to each of your arguments, until I get home, but this alone says so, so much.
What a spectacular demonstration of the depth of your dermis on this issue. I’m on mobile at the moment, so I’m not going to be able to respond to each of your arguments, until I get home, but this alone says so, so much.
Upvote
0
(4
/
-4)
I honestly hope you won't let that single line color your response. Certainly it is just as minor as your use of the word? I did not "whine", I just thought it was uncalled for.
Let's keep the debate sane and intellectual. It is an interesting and important topic.
I look forwards to your reply.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
I am sorry to hear you had bad experiences. That is not my experience, from any EU country I have visited. It may be a case of how local laws are implemented. Or perhaps it was long ago?
Current regulations would entitle you to purchase the goods at the announced price. The only exception is if the price is so wrong that you knew - or should have known - that it was an error. For example, if you see a graphics card in a store with a price tag of 399 EUR the store cannot tell you that it was last weeks price and they "forgot" to change it to 429. But if the price is announced as 3.99 EUR (about 4 EUR) then the error is so obvious that the store is not required to fulfill the sale.
I am not saying your story is false. But I I have never experienced anything like that in any of the 11 EU countries I have visited over the years.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
My point exactly. That’s the current law. But it hasn’t always been that’s way, even recently. In the past the retailer would have got away with telling you the 429 price is the price, and you have no recourse, as happened to me on many occasions. In Canada and the US we don’t need a law for that; we have the industry standard but completely voluntary Scanning Code Of Practice. It entitles the customer to either the first item free (if under $10) or $10 discount plus the price on the shelf (or gas station pump or whatever). We don’t need laws to force retailers what they should be doing anyway.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I very much agree with you Splatman.
Lets take another example:
If I go in a taxi it is a privately provisioned service yet if I violate the rules for passenger conduct I risk fines, good behaviour bond, a communtiy service order or a suspended sentence... yet no ban is handed out. Simply because it is meant to provide a universal transport service.
On uber I can be banned for having a low passenger rating. Which can go low simply by being unwilling to have conversations with the driver.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ow-ratings
Similar government regulated procedures are in place for dispute procedures between tenants and landlords or in apartments landlords and the apartment property management to minimize the risk of people becoming homeless due to disputes.
Why should online services be treated any different?
EA shouldn't be allowed to block access to download and install games already purchased. Just block the community and multiplayer features on Kurt's account. Its that simple.
The more heavily that privately provisioned online services are integrated into peoples lives then the more they should be regulated.
Whether that is through some voluntary code or consumer protection law changes I personally don't mind if it works okay. Obviously for good or for bad past reasons current EU consumer protection law the way that it has been developed may present some legal issues with what EA has done to Kurt's access to prior purchases.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
Well I'll admit to finding data and using it as a basis for my conclusion. I tend to do that. It's part of my charm.
You're not the first person to pull the "you're generally better than this" schtick. You know what each person who has tried this rhetorical claptrap has in common? They only tend to do it when it is their viewpoint being subjected to my scrutiny. I think that's sort of telling. And often they make presumptions about the facts I provide while not really bringing their own. Let me tell you one important thing: every time I have called out a person who is full of shit, and you've agreed with me, the person I'm calling out thinks they're right, too.
I recommend you consider whether I'm the same, and you're just more like those folks than you'd like to admit.
Were these by any choice free licenses or open-source project? I ask because you certainly don't sound like a person a company who sells their product and/or services for profit would want in that task, given your admitted "worry" over something changing or removing features over time.
And that's great. I wish European companies all the luck in the world when a problematic player becomes a major headache that risks costing them money while being unable to mete out punishments to deter that behavior.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Protecting consumers from predatory companies is good. Protecting consumers' from consequences of their own behavior, or from their own ignorance, is not. In my opinion, of course.
Uh....
That you did not follow the fairly basic premise they support says more about you than it does about the examples.
It is a clear demonstration that Valve has both the power to terminate accounts that violate their terms of service AND the willingness to do exactly that. As contained in the text of the user agreement in the same post, this appears in the same section as prohibitions on cheating. That you did not connect the dots is on you.
Again, it really helps if you think in context rather than immediately deny any evidence that doesn't fit your cognitive bias. The ENTIRE DISCUSSION is about not having access to the games you paid for. You can keep that thought in your head, right? Okay, so what does a game ban do? It prevents you from accessing content you paid for. Literally the thing you are complaining about EA doing. Which, again, is fully within the terms of service you agreed to.
You have bemoaned the loss of access to any content that was paid for. If you cannot understand that game bans are the exact same concept where a company chooses not to extend it to all games...well, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I like how, in the middle of these three things, you've shifted your own goalposts. Look at your attempt to discredit the first link. You argue that it doesn't count because it's not about cheating. You specifically said that's why it didn't count. Now, here, you're trying to go "well, it's not being toxic, so it doesn't count. Notice how the thing I have to prove has shifted from one to the next, so that you can dismiss each in turn? That's cognitive dissonance. That's you not being able to keep an argument straight because you're so insistent on getting to the conclusion that you move from one argument to the next without a through-line.
But the thing I was trying to show you in that link was the screenshot. Specifically, that Valve can, and will, limit what you can do with Steam based on your activity. Thus, your account being canceled would, in fact, be able to restrict those same things. Again, you have to actually think about these things, and the fact that you didn't bother to think (or did, and yet still failed to understand the connection) is really a bad look for you.
It literally says that! In the sections I quoted for you! It's really dumb to deny what the document says.
Again, here is the section on when they can terminate:
"Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers."
Here, they are literally reserving the right to terminate your account for illegal activity, cheating, or being a toxic fuckhole (you know, exactly the situation EA is dealing with). That's what those words mean. Cheating is such an important concept in this that it's capitalized because they took the time to define the term. That's pretty important.
Now, here is the section on what termination entails:
" In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted."
This section specifically says that canceling your account means everything is gone. No refunds. Even cash you have deposited to Valve, that has not been used to buy games, is forfeit. That's pretty serious. The underlined section is what ties it back to the first part I quoted. So, in short, if you cheat, your account can be terminated with absolutely no refund. Your stuff is just gone. This also happens if you break the law, such as fraud or getting a copy of a game illegally?
Hey...what were those examples I gave again? The ones you complained of because they weren't cheating? Were they, perhaps, activities that fall under the exact same terms in the agreement, and which resulted in terminating accounts? Oh...huh. It's almost like that examples were relevant because of the text you insist doesn't matter.
Yes, I am well-researched. And have a habit of knocking down people who are obstinately stuck on their ideas, despite the fact that they can't produce data of their own and try to make weak excuses as to why my data doesn't fit their scenario, often attempting to split hairs to the point they look foolish for not grasping context.
And so my question is: that being the case, why are you so certain that the difference here is in my actions, not in the fact that you, in this instance, happen to be the person whose viewpoint is being challenged and not liking it?
Here is yet another link from Valve's own mouth regarding account suspensions. They specifically note that this is not a VAC ban. Right there among the most common reasons for account suspensions? Violating the terms of service. Which...includes cheating. Also of note: it specifically states that violating the online code of conduct can result in suspension. Which, again, is not a VAC ban.
Great, we're in agreement. Getting your account killed means exactly what I said.
So, taken all together, a violation of the online code of conduct, or a violation of the terms of service (which include cheating, illegal activity) can result in suspension or termination of your account, which... would do exactly what I said, which is prevent you from accessing games you don't have downloaded or any that require Valve's servers to work?
Exactly what I asked. Valve's agreement allows them to kill an account, preventing downloading new games and preventing you from logging on to any game that accesses their servers. But if you have an offline game downloaded to your computer, your account being suspended cannot touch that game, as I understand it.
You attempted a crappy argument by implying that since all EA games come from Origin, and Origin requires a connection, therefore you can include "nearly all" games in the list of games that would be affected, even offline ones.
I am asking you to demonstrate that if you have a game with no online component, that does not connect directly to EA's servers to run the game itself, that the game will not run. Because if all you can say is "well, it won't get updates if you don't log in to Origin", then you are making a disingenuous and completely shitty argument that you should know will affect your credibility in the future.
The article you are reading makes a delineation of what games do and do not require EA Account access to play. Not to download. Not to update. To play. That was where the goalposts are. And if you wish to declare that EA's policy is any different from Valve's, where games that do NOT fall in that bucket could be played if downloaded, I would like you to produce evidence to that effect.
So that sounds like you're saying that any game that can run without talking to EA shouldn’t be affected (in some cases, the games may not even have a phone home capability). Any ones that do require an account for any reason are gone.
You know why I highlight that that's what you're saying? Because that's what I said an you disagreed with.
There you go, immediately discounting the games that don't require an account by claiming it's all immaterial assets. Have you seen this person's library? Do you know whether they bought their games from Origin, or if they bought them when they were on Steam? Or hard copy? No? Well, shit, it looks like the scope of the problem you want to insist is happening has a lot of untested assumptions built in, which detracts from your credibility.
But I think I can, based on what you said here, give you an answer to why you're so confused about this communities reaction: you're asking the wrong question (or, more charitably, a fundamentally different one). You're looking at consequences you don't like and reasoning backwards in asking to justify the result. Try asking this not from the standpoint of the result, but of the action taken. What did EA do? Did they go in an individually delete his ability to access certain games? No! They terminated his account. Let's see if what you are saying makes sense in that context.
"I have merely questioned whether having your account being suspended is a proper response to the violation of the terms of service for having an account". Now, that seems like a much sillier question, right? Of course having an account suspended is a proper response to violating the terms of having an account! Well, that's what happened.
Here, let's try another example: I'm an Ars Pro++ subscriber. Is it fair for Ars to kick me off the forums here for denying global warming (which is the default)? Yes, of course. But if I try to frame it in a way that it comes across as morally outrageous thing where I start from the premise that the outcome is bad, I can muddle things up a bit.
"Is it fair for Ars to offer a paid service for people's accounts and then keep that money even when they stop providing the user with those benefits, simply because the person has a different opinion than the authors"?
It's the same question, really. But the second version is attempting to frame the question with respect to outcomes, specifically to make it easier to reach a conclusion that the outcome is unfair. But the outcome is, in reality, merely the totally predictable and expected outcome of a totally justifiable action.
Or, I am able to actually understand logic. Here is what you said: " I have gotten burned with such losses on other occasions, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features years after a sale is worrying."
Literally the only way to prevent a company from revoking access, or making changes years after a sale is perpetual licensing. You claimed to be worried about something that can only be solved by making every license permanent. So no, you didn't claim it. But you have made complaints for which the only solution is perpetual licensing.
Pardon me for being able to parse the logical implications of your position.
Agreed. I don't like it either. But you just stated that you're not asking for things to be perpetual. The only way to prevent a company from being able to make changes to their offerings after the fact is perpetual licensing. Immediately after stating that you're not asking for perpetual services, you give an example of something where the only way to please you would be to offer that service perpetually.
Again, you really need to work on extrapolating your ideas into the context of the discussion. For every system or software ever, there is likely someone who really likes some feature. They make use of it and it adds value for them. A world in which a company can never take anything away is a world where each thing offered is perpetual. It's impossible to escape from the reality that arguing that features should never be changed or taken away is inherently an argument for perpetually maintaining everything.
And this is the correct solution. And likely the primary reason that EA waited a long time to kill the account.
I'm just going to point you to the above paragraph. There are the things you literally say, and then there are the logical extensions and natural implications of the concepts you argue for if they were implemented in the real world. A world in which you can't suspend someone's account, no matter how poorly they act, because that account is how they access games they bought is, in fact, a world with ultimately no repercussions. I look at your claims not in just what they say, but what they mean in the real world.
Let me go through the trouble to take some of the statements you've put forth and turn them into positions that have more nuance and less objectionable absolutism. Your words in italics, mine in regular following them.
Can we agree that the sanction should not include the loss of good previously purchased at the same store? Like stuff purchased last year and taken home long ago? Or do you propose that the sanction should include sending staff to the home of people, taking back all they ever bought... because ban-hammer?
Can we agree that the bar for having your account deleted, which would include the loss of many games purchased, should have the highest possible bar, be the last possible solution, and in this case, many people might feel that violating community standards by being a dick doesn't go far enough?
From an intellectual standpoint it's a future I am not comfortable with. I have gotten burned with such losses on other occasions, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features years after a sale is worrying.
From an intellectual standpoint, I'm not comfortable with licensing allowing unlimited power to companies. I've been burned before, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features is something bothers me as a consumer. At the very least, it should be a weapon of last resort, and consumers should avoid companies that do it capriciously.
Can we agree that the bar for having your account deleted, which would include the loss of many games purchased, should have the highest possible bar, be the last possible solution, and in this case, many people might feel that violating community standards by being a dick doesn't go far enough?
From an intellectual standpoint it's a future I am not comfortable with. I have gotten burned with such losses on other occasions, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features years after a sale is worrying.
From an intellectual standpoint, I'm not comfortable with licensing allowing unlimited power to companies. I've been burned before, and the fact that a seller of immaterial assets can revoke access or reduce features is something bothers me as a consumer. At the very least, it should be a weapon of last resort, and consumers should avoid companies that do it capriciously.
As is implying that it's worrying that companies can reduce or remove features years later. The only way it's possible to not have that happen is for every feature to be perpetual. If they can't remove or change features (or stop offering them)...they're perpetual services. Perpetual services are, logically, the only way to not have reduced or removed features. And being worried that every service offered isn't perpetual is extreme.
Edit: that broken quote tag was bothering me.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
[url=https://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=38679756#p38679756:1gjorcnw said:
I think some of us simply have a fundamental disagreement with how privately provisioned services should be allowed to operate and regulated at large scales.
To me its not a bad argument at all. I would prefer government regulation and government intervention representing elected voters have some influence rather than private entities controlling everything.
Anyhow, this thread is clearly getting long with essay style comments despite all this we all agree he was acting stupid. We all value things differently clearly. Good for you. I personally haven't got the time or care to fight it out too much in online comment sections continuously. I can see many flaws in many peoples arguements including your own.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
It won't color a jot of the logic of my argument, but making that statement and your subsequent defense does say things about you. If the worst I call you is "slick", and you complain about "name-calling"? Yeah, that constitutes whining in my book.
It's not the end of the world, but you've not changed my determination that your complaint shows a remarkably thin skin for criticism. Which is relevant when one of the things you complain about it me somehow being different in the way I approach this discussion. Specifically, it suggests that maybe you're just a bit defensive about the whole thing, which creates a lens through which I (and perhaps others) might read the logic of your arguments.
I think tone policing tends to be passive aggressive attempts to "win" through politeness. Perhaps you think that being sarcastic and aggressive is the mark of an asshole. In each case, we are probably right that the behavior of the other person suggests something about them. Which is, of course, exactly what I said it did.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
And you're not going to point them out, adding to the discussion toimprove everyone's understanding of the issues or logic at play? Sarcastically, I'd suppose my response would be "thanks for almost participating in the conversation".
Less sarcastically, I don't see the benefit of making a comment just to point out that I don't care enough to discuss something, despite claiming to see errors. If I don't care about a discussion, I don't participate in it. If I do care, and wish to tell someone they're wrong, I do my best to explain to them the exact reason they're wrong. Otherwise, what's the point? I've just made a bare claim of wrongness without bothering to back it up with anything.
And personally, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Since I started trying to use the same verbiage, consistently, I've been wrong approximately 50 times. And I try to always thank the person who has demonstrated a falsehood in what I've said. If there are things I've gotten wrong, I'd much rather be told. Maybe I'll agree, and improve myself in the process. Maybe I won't and the discussion about that might help people think about the issues at play. Either way, for me, the least useful option is to not explain to someone why I'm claiming they're wrong.
But, I'll fully admit that this is a matter of opinion. My take is not "right", yours is not "wrong", it's just a way of doing things I really don't understand.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
I am struggling to understand how we ended up here. I don't disagree with your core messages or values, but I feel you have misinterpreted my posts. I also suggest we drop the discussion of the word "slick". Just please remember that not all posters here are US citizens. For me, calling someone "slick" is a pretty damn ugly slur. it may not be in your part of the world - great - but the planet is bigger than that.
When I wrote that your statement was factually wrong, it was a relatively simple and clear correction. You stated something in no uncertain terms: that cheating would result in a defunct Steam account. That is wrong, and none of your follow-up posts have supported that claim. They have support other claims - for example that Valve has the capability to impose the same kinds of sanctions as EA. But I have never disputed that anywhere. I don't disagree with it either. I did not mean to somehow insult you. Just to point oyut that you made a statement that was false, so other readers would not rely future decisions on that claim.
We can expand the debate off course. As my previous post show, I am not supporting people behaving like dicks on the 'net. Rather, I worry about the precedent set by EA's sanction. That's how the world works. Sometimes good principles are challenged by bad people, and it makes public discourse extremely murky.
But we can't debate something we don't disagree on: that Steam has the capability to "do as they please". That's pretty standard TOS wording, and they have demonstratibly used it - just not for cheaters or toxic players. I never disputed that Valve has this capability. I just pointed out that they don't use it for cheaters and toxic players. They have not used their power in a way that's similar to EA. Valve has used it only for players that attempted software piracy or fraud.
The finer details of how Steam and Origin works seems to be something worth exploring. So here is how it works.
Games, even old games that were not initially tied to such platforms, are today largely depending on active accounts because the games have been very slightly altered to depend on services in those platforms.
A good example is old games such as Mass Effect 1. It was release November 2007, so roughly 12,5 years ago. Origin did not exist then. Yet, if you buy the game today even through stores not operated by EA (for example Humble or GOG), what you get is a key to download it through Origin, and the game is tied to Origin services. It won't work without an active account.
Typical services utilized by older games are:
- Check and enabling of DLC
- Achievements
- Cloud storage of save games
- Automatic updates
- Simple DRM services
- Social/community functions such as online status
- Stats, like total hours played or various "XP schemes" for the main account
- Family sharing (Steam Only)
There is more but these are the primary ones IMO. I'll use Origin as an example. When the game has been adapted, even though it was released before Origin and sold through a non-EA channel, the game still depends on Origin services. It will not launch without a valid user session. It will use client APIs for reporting things and logging data. It will depend on binaries from the Origin client. It will periodically refresh it's offline license.
It's possible to "crack" the game off course, but I think tampering with binaries is outside the scope of what we're discussing.
Games that are 10 years or older do not all have such dependencies. It's usually only true for AAA games, or games that still have active communities. But even small indie games often utilizes all these added functions because they're "free". If a game is in your Origin library and it's not "Theme Hospital", odds are it won't launch at all without a working Origin client and an active account ... with a valid user session (logged-in and recently license-validated). For new games I haven't seen a single one that doesn't use these features.
The end result is that games in this day and age do not generally have the ability to launch without the distribution client and an active account. We can agree that in very theoretical scenarios and constructed cases, it's possible to distribute games through these platforms without DRM or dependencies. It's just not very common. I don't have official statistics (they probably don't exist). But a quick check of my own library reveals I have 1 Origin out of 32 games that launches without the client (directly executing the main game file), and roughly 10% or my Steam games of over 300 games (i only checked 50). All my games that have no dependencies are very old, have no active communities, and have implemented no platform features.
I don't think it's at all unfair to state, generally, that nuking an Origin account makes the content associated with the account inaccessible. When EA nukes an account, they invalidate the library resulting in a total loss of assets. For me, that translates into a real economic loss. I don't think a corporation should be able to do that, because a user is being a dick. Especially because it's the corporation itself that sets the bar.
As for your Ars subscriber example, I don't agree with the analogy. First of all Ars could ban people from forums and article comments without taking away other ++ features (of which there are many - I use them myself). Secondly, the economic loss doesn't compare. It's more accurate to compare the situation to an Amazon Kindle library with hundreds of dollars worth of books, and loosing that entire library for "being a dick" (bad reviews or something else Amazon doesn't like).
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Online streamers that are doing it as a profession often have to play the popular games that their fans want to see even if they don't like the game or are tired of playing it.
"Dr. Disrespect" a popular streamer got really sick of playing PUBG and often complained about things in the game that he viewed as broken or poorly developed, but that was THE game at the time so he had to play it because that's what people wanted to watch.
There's a difference though between being critical of a game and going overboard and attacking everything there is about the game and it's community. And this guy is just a plain asshole with some sort of complex. Sounds like EA gave him plenty of warnings and he disregarded every single one. Completely deserved the ban.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
The customer is always right in terms of what product they want to buy. If a customer wants to buy a red car, the car salesman isn't going to tell the customer that he is a moron and should obviously get a black car instead, because black cars are just better, duh, everyone knows that.
The customer is rarely if ever right in matters of policy. The rules are what the business says they are, and customers' rights amount to the right to walk out of the store and shop somewhere else if you don't like the rules.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
If you want to be a star in the circus, you better learn to dance to the whip.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Snarky Robot
Ars Legatus Legionis
Not a problem. Please excuse the overly late reply. For some reason, I didn't see that there were new posts in this thread until today.
You're absolutely right. Could you help me out though and let me know where, exactly this is a slur? An internet search didn't turn up anything on that, and I'd like to educate myself on the matter. It's something I use often enough that I might need to alter my behavior, based on what you can tell me about it.
Okay? I see that as the splitting of a rather pointless hair. Let me explain why. First, it seems as though you're admitting that it's absolutely a possibility, as borne out by the contract and different offenses, so what you're arguing is that it's a matter of discretion that Valve chooses to reserve for only some infractions. Second, your overall point seems to be that companies shouldn't be able to take away your purchases at all. Of course, a VAC ban is still accomplishing the same thing, just on a different scale. And yes Valve will ban you from games you don't cheat in as well. Get VAC banned from games using Source, and you're banned from all games using Source (and here's my, uh...source for that claim).
Now, I have seen reports of individuals who claim their entire account was terminated for cheating. I didn't find enough corroboration to use them as a source. So, let's do this: I agree that I didn't prove that Valve can and will delete entire accounts for cheating. Thanks for correcting me on that. But, I hope you can agree that while it is good to offer correct information...in this particular case, the correction changes so little with my point that it could be described as pedantic. Had I said "takes away your ability to access game or games" it still implies the same power, and includes games outside the scope of your behavior .
Personally, I think implying things about a precedent is close to a slippery slope argument. EA, one of the companies I think most people would associate with one that loves to take control and is willing to cross boundaries that more pro-consumer companies would not, still took a relatively long to remove someone they decry as being exceedingly toxic, in public, harassing and making threats towards employees. They increased the punishments over time, each step trying to stop him from doing those things. And he didn't learn!
So, there's two things here. First, the notion that this is now a precedent is hardly established. Worrying about it becoming the norm for any infraction, at this point is...alarmist. And the second thing is, should we really be alarmed if this is a precedent. If companies harm people who are absolute shitlords and detract from the pleasure of other people? Is there no action that should be the "okay, great, now you can't have an account" in your mind? I say screw that.
It's way to early to call this a precedent. It's way too early to imply that this will affect anyone but the absolute worst behaving people in society. And if it is just those people, just the people who make the world a worse place because they're entitled and believe that no harm can come to them? I have no problem saying "you're not owed what you think you're owed and it's time to stop acting like an asshole."
Okay, let's treat this as true to avoid trying to argue about the cheating thing. I just don't see how it matters. Why isn't Valve deleting fraud accounts a precedent that's worrysome? What if those accounts had non-fraudulent purchases? Why is one being treated as a precedent to be feared and the other just something you accept? Is it because of the company involved (I am not asking this to imply it's true, I genuinely want you to consider whether that's a factor)?
I see no difference, morally, in deleting the account of someone who committed fraud and someone who is on the extreme end of toxic behavior. Now, if they had banned his account for saying "I don't like this game very much, to be honest", and nothing more...yeah, I'd be right there with you on decrying this. But that's not the case. If this is the sort of people they ban, I see absolutely no problem.
Just so I'm absolutely clear, you're saying that if the game cannot touch EA servers, it cannot run? That implies that running the game depends on being always online. I don't think that's the case, but am willing to be demonstrated that I'm wrong.
Having access to those features doesn't seem to be the same as running the game, period. While I realize this is a forum post, this describes games that are "Origin sign in" from those that are not. For those games, you have to be signed in (or be in offline mode). By contrast, it implies that other games that are not "Origin sign-in" do not need to be validated. But, again, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
That's interesting information. But the last sentence kind of sums it up for me. Games that have adopted platform features use company servers for those features. That includes DRM. And if you don't have a right to use that companies stuff, then you'd lose access to the games. I'm not of the opinion that people have a right to demand the benefits of something they buy that comes with certain conditions, violate those terms, and then whine about losing the benefits of the things they bought. At least on the extreme end.
There's a whole lot of gray here, and very little black and white. Someone who farts on a microphone while playing should not have their account banned. Someone who screams racial slurs, threatens employees, interrupts broadcasts to serve themselves, does things to put pornographic images in games over the span of a few years? Yeah, fuck them. They deserve to lose their account and all that entails, in my mind.
There is a point I'd be bothered by it. This isn't that point. If this is what it takes to get your account deleted, I have zero sympathy.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. "I have been harmed by a totally predictable consequence of my actions" is not something you're going to find me being sympathetic towards. You don't seem to have a problem with Valve acting similarly in some circumstances. You don't seem to be protesting that VAC bans can affect more than one game. So there's some nuance here, because some things you don't seem to mind. But to argue that no behavior, no matter how toxic, no matter how much it harms the community, no matter how much it costs them to deal with the fallout (e.g., employees losing productivity or needing to talk to someone professional due to threats of harm, additional security to prevent people from forcing their way onto broadcasts), companies should never be able to do that...I find that absolutist.
Let me rewrite a portion of that first sentence. "I don't believe that companies or people should have the right to enter contracts I don't like the outcomes of, and wish to give governments the right to take that power away from people". That's what a "they shouldn't be able to" argument always boils down to. Preventing someone from doing something is the purview of governments. Once you remove the positive moral associations you have with it, what you're left with is stripping the power of people to enter certain contracts.
That's going to be a problem for some people, including myself. I'm not a contract absolutist, there are absolutely contracts that should be voided or prevented from being entered into, but "my behavior can harm me financially" is not one I find much issue with. Why shouldn't a person be able to say "I want to buy access to something, and agree that if I behave like a shitheel, I'll lose access to that something.
If I offer to sell you, for a one-time fee, the right to access a piece of property, one that you have total control over for the duration of the contract, provided you do not throw loud parties that disturb other people using adjacent spaces, you should have the right to enter into that contract with me. And if you violate that rule, if you piss people off and I stand to lose money because of your actions, I don't care if you spent money on accessing that space. You broke the rules. You harmed others. The consequences of that are something you agreed to.
I disagree that it's not apt. Your counter argument here is that they can take lesser actions, and that's within their discretion. I agree, Ars could choose to enforce it's terms in a limited way. But if I broke the rules to an extensive degree and they just took away everything...that's my fault. Not Ars'. There's no evil corporation in this scenario, and that might be why you don't find it apt. But if Ars did delete my account, they wouldn't be inherently wrong. My behavior absolutely could rise to the level of just banning my account, outright, correct?
And that's the rub, for me. I have no doubt that there are many people EA could ban where I'd be angry about the decision. This one doesn't bother me. I don't see any use of that power as indication that the power itself should be banned. I look at the uses of that power and determine them just or unjust in my own moral framework. If I feel they're unjust, I stop giving that company money. If I don't feel they're problematic, I take no action.
Here, I have no sympathy. If this does become a "precedent" and they start banning anyone who criticizes them, sure, I'll be pissed with you. But that still won't be an indication for me that people and companies shouldn't have the right to sign contracts like that. It's just an indication that the specific company is doing it in a way that I as a consumer don't like and it affects my willingness to give them money.
That's the right solution here, I think. Not restricting the right to enter such a contract. But people, consumers, choosing who to do business with based on behavior. That's most likely the reason they gave this jackass multiple warnings, escalated things slowly. Because it can cause a consumer backlash. So they took it slowly. But as the comments here make clear, there are plenty of people who don't view that power as uniformly negative. They believe the power can be used justly, and that here, it was.
Let's say a trust fund billionaire kid that used Steam has 100 different accounts, and on all but one of them, cheats. They might get VAC banned, but when that happens, they just kept coming back, creating new accounts and making life worse for other players, because having to buy the games again is not at all a hindrance for them. The interest earned on the time they spent downloading the game is more than the cost of the game, so there's no financial penalty. Should their main account be banned? Their IP address blocked? It's an extreme measure, yes, but this is a pretty extreme example of bad behavior.
If you say "no"...well, I'm sorry, but I think lots of people will disagree. Valve should have the right to delete that account, and they should, in my opinion, exercise that right. Fuck my hypothetical player. They're a jackass. Taking away their right to enter into those contracts means that person can ruin games for other people without any consequence that reaches them. I don't view that as a better outcome than this situation, where one jackass who got repeated warnings continued to act like a jackass and got punished for it.
Things he paid for are gone? Too damn bad. He played stupid games. He won exactly what you'd expect.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
My first post in this thread was all in favor of the ban, but I've come to regret that initial reaction slightly. I don't think EA should have the right or even ability to shut him out of single-player modes. He's bought his games, and no matter how much of a dick he is, he should be able to play them on his own, or with local friends in the same physical place. That way, he's still got what he paid for, but he can't harm anyone that doesn't choose to be harmed.
I fully support the online ban, however. Haven't changed that opinion a whit.
I fully support the online ban, however. Haven't changed that opinion a whit.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
This problem goes away entirely if we can convince companies to get away from DRM nonsense.
I'm all for banning people from EA servers and community events if they break EA code of conduct.
I don't think the license to play the games in single player or LAN modes should be revoked for anything short of violating license terms, e.g. piracy, hacking, fraud, etc.
To apply this to Blizzard - if they ban me from WoW, SC2 ladder, etc - whatever, I broke the rules, that's fine.
Don't ban me from SC2 single player campaigns though.
I'm all for banning people from EA servers and community events if they break EA code of conduct.
I don't think the license to play the games in single player or LAN modes should be revoked for anything short of violating license terms, e.g. piracy, hacking, fraud, etc.
To apply this to Blizzard - if they ban me from WoW, SC2 ladder, etc - whatever, I broke the rules, that's fine.
Don't ban me from SC2 single player campaigns though.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
It goes away if asshat users stop being asshat users.
For all the condemnation this guy has brought upon himself, he's not the worst that I've seen. Still, I have no sympathy for the money he spent nor the effect upon him. The system inoculated itself against him, and better for the fans that the system does so.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
People have been assholes since Ogg first hit Ugg with a club because Ugg sat in Ogg's preferred spot in the cave. You aren't going to change human nature.
You might be able to convince companies that scaling back DRM makes financial sense, in that DRM has a non-zero implementation cost and is utterly useless to their bottom line after the first few weeks of sales, while simultaneously pissing off their paying customers.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I'm no fan of DRM. But if a store decides to eject a customer permanently for behavior similar to that of of the perpetrator here, I have no sympathy for said perpetrator. Not even if the perpetrator is a subscriber to some service therein. Not even if it's an entire chain of stores.
Advocate as you wish in regards to DRM technology. I'm still going to say that I have no sympathy for this guy. Nor am I at all concerned that others have done the same (or worse) before or since.
I don't think we're having the same conversation. I oppose DRM technology almost universally. But that does not convince me that this result is excessive for the toxicity this perpetrator brought to the community.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
To be fair...there is an interesting point in this.
While the debate over the utility/friendliness of DRM and "Live Service", and online moderation, are in theory separate topics, this event - the banning of the jackass - does show that that's a line that if we're being charitable we can say "is blurred".
In reality, it's a line that's all but erased. When you're talking about games that you don't actually own, the end result of an online ban, is also an offline ban.
While we all do agree that the asshat being banned is good and proper online, this has changed the discussion into one of boundaries. How far is too far?
Is it OK that, if you buy a game and perpetrate acts of assholery online, that you can't play a game in single-player mode?
I see both opinions/policies ("you're an asshole, we're taking away your toys", and "you still bought a game, it's acceptable that you can't play it online").
For my part, I'm in the second camp - I think it's extremely consumer-unfriendly that the single-player aspect of a game you bought can be taken away from you.
That being said, this particular toxic waste pile in the shape a human - as the person who worked on Ultima noted - could/would/can game anything such that they can continue to be an asshole, because that is A) who they are, and - more importantly - B) how they have fun in games.
Is it "just" in a vague sense he got his toys taken away? I think so.
Is it just in more concrete contexts that his toys were taken away? Usually, I'd say no, with some cases where the answer is yes.
My conclusion/point? I think it's easy to reduce this complicated topic of consumer rights, social boundaries, and so much more to unhelpful binary positions. There's a few dimensions to this situation.
I'd encourage us - all of us - to avoid being overly reductionist, and to really think about the issues both in isolation, and in aggregate. If conclusions you come to are contradictory (e.g. it's right for him to be EA-banned, but not OK that he can't play the games he bought in single-player mode), I propose that that's OK too, and those feelings of dissonance are not only worthy of discussion, but valuable.
That's what makes this person's ban worthy of being technology news; while it's "just a well-deserved ban", it's also a problem as people that it doesn't occur to me we've really encountered before. This is the frontier.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Good points; even the ones I left out. And I agree that these are worthy subjects of discussion and exploration.
EA has and does engage in business practices that I believe are contrary to any corporation interested in the satisfaction of its customers and the quality of the products it offers for sale. Their advertising for NBA2K20 looks like a Trump-style casino, and they still have the gall to claim that loot boxes are not gambling. Quite frankly, I agree on the advocacy to remove DRM. But the other anti-consumer practices infesting the so-called "AAA" gaming companies is so far out there that DRM is a tier-two issue to me. Not a non-issue, just a medium fish among some monsters. So a long-winded reiteration of, "I agree with you."
And yet none of that gives me reason to be concerned about what EA did to this perpetrator.
This isn't about civil rights. Nor do I see it as oppression. I see it as poor decisions that EA will, eventually, regret. And that will open the door for companies that actually have customer satisfaction as a strategic priority. So if a company puts bad ideas to good use (arguably what's happened here), I'm not overly concerned for the party so affected.
I hope that doesn't sound too contradictory. I'm good with continuing the fight against the bad practices, but not particularly concerned with using that fight, in a case like this, to benefit such a man as this perpetrator.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Your stance is pragmatic.
However, I'd like to point out that the day we abandon principles because the other guy is being a dick, is the day we start sliding down a slippery slope.
Principles are only principles if you also observe them even when it's inconvenient. If you abandon your principles "because the other guy is a dick" then they're not really principles - just a load of hot air.
That's why we defend and respect freedom of speech even for idiots like Alex Jones. The alternative - silencing him because he is a dick - is worse that letting him continue his rambling.
Its the same reason Microsoft is fighting a US subpoena to deliver data not placed on US soil even though the user is a proven drug dealer. I am sure they're pretty annoyed to have to defend their principles for such a shitty character. Yet they do, because privacy and respecting international law is more important to them.
In this case we have a guy who is demonstratively a dick. And I believe a lot of people are letting that sad fact blind them to the wider ramifications of his sanction. He has lost not only acces to online communities (as he damn well should), and to the game who's TOS he violated (arguably a fair action). He has lost ALL digital assets ever delivered through the same channel as that single game. For me, that violates several principles.
Would it have been easier to debate the case under different circumstances? Yep. But I still think principles should be observed. That the imposed sanction be isolated to the product related to the violations - not ALL assets ever distributed through the same channel. It is effectively nullifying ALL prior purchases not related to the violation, based solely on criteria set forth by the company itself. In a world with increasing economy in immaterial assets, that has me worried.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
This is my point exactly.
To make an analogy:
If you buy a car, and you are arrested for drunk driving, they revoke your license. You can no longer drive your car on public roads.
You can still drive your car on your own land, you can let other people borrow your car (and drive it on public roads if they have a valid license), and you can choose to sell the car if you want.
I don't have any problem with EA taking away the driver license.
I don't think EA should be allowed to repossess the car.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
@SplatMan_DK:
Because of that "political" paragraph in the middle of my post, I don't see it as surrendering the principles. None of this guy's civil rights were violated by what EA did. So I feel comfortable opposing the principles and calling for their removal while remaining unconcerned that these tools were used on him.
By the way, do we know that this guy cannot play EA games that don't require an Internet connection? The guy has claimed so. And I may have misread, but I don't think EA said they did that.
Because of that "political" paragraph in the middle of my post, I don't see it as surrendering the principles. None of this guy's civil rights were violated by what EA did. So I feel comfortable opposing the principles and calling for their removal while remaining unconcerned that these tools were used on him.
By the way, do we know that this guy cannot play EA games that don't require an Internet connection? The guy has claimed so. And I may have misread, but I don't think EA said they did that.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)