The nuclear option: EA bans “abusive” FIFA player from all of its games

Fenech: "I never said anything I shouldn’t have." EA: "[He] crossed a line of decency."

Read the whole story

 

[cognizant_ape]

When did we stop teaching people not to bite the hand that feeds them?

During the enlightenment. Good things came from it. But now every other idiot wants their own revolution for petty to non-existent causes.

 

[s73v3r]

I suspect that he will do what a number of trolls at Ars Technica do, and start playing under new account names that he blasts out to his followers just before a game in the hopes that the revenue he makes from the followers will be greater than the cost of buying a new game and setting it up.

Isn't that kinda hard to do with a video stream? Like, is he gonna start playing while wearing a trench coat and Groucho glasses?

 

[IncorrigibleTroll]

I suspect that he will do what a number of trolls at Ars Technica do, and start playing under new account names that he blasts out to his followers just before a game in the hopes that the revenue he makes from the followers will be greater than the cost of buying a new game and setting it up.

Isn't that kinda hard to do with a video stream? Like, is he gonna start playing while wearing a trench coat and Groucho glasses?

Same Twitch name, different EA/Origin name, presumably.

Edit: But I much prefer your version. He should totally try that.

 

[Kyle Orland]

The guy may be an offensive shithead, but throwing him entirely off the platform is overstepping.

Revoke his online multiplayer access? Sure

But to ban him from every single game in his EA account? Yeah, no.

Can't he just make new account?

Heck, he probably doesn't even need to make new email account because you can just add "dot" anywhere on Gmail or add +suffix before @. This will make the email looks new to almost all services

He presumably paid for games in his library that are now revoked.

That's the problem to me.

It's not a matter of "creating a new account" it's that goods and/or services paid for have been stripped.

They might have legal grounds to stand on to revoke his multiplayer ability due to his toxic behavior, but I don't believe they have grounds to terminate his ability to play games single-player due to toxic behavior.

Pretty sure the Terms of Service cover this, actually. From Section 6:

"If you or someone using your EA Account violates these rules and fails to remedy this violation after a warning, EA may take action against you, including revoking access to certain or all EA Services, Content or Entitlements, or terminating your EA Account as described in Section 8."

Would this clause (and the revocation of "purchased" content licenses) hold up in a court of law if it came to a lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's a good chance it would.

Edit: Link - https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section6

 

[Corruption]

If your job is to stream video games, it's up to you to not be a toxic asshole. These gaming companies don't owe you anything and your actions have consequences.

 

[O/Siris]

The guy may be an offensive shithead, but throwing him entirely off the platform is overstepping.

Revoke his online multiplayer access? Sure

But to ban him from every single game in his EA account? Yeah, no.

Can't he just make new account?

Heck, he probably doesn't even need to make new email account because you can just add "dot" anywhere on Gmail or add +suffix before @. This will make the email looks new to almost all services

He presumably paid for games in his library that are now revoked.

That's the problem to me.

It's not a matter of "creating a new account" it's that goods and/or services paid for have been stripped.

They might have legal grounds to stand on to revoke his multiplayer ability due to his toxic behavior, but I don't believe they have grounds to terminate his ability to play games single-player due to toxic behavior.

They're not called "Terms of Service" for nothing. And this guy was MILES beyond that, in my view.

 

[s73v3r]

I don't follow eSports or streamers in general, but just from reading these types of articles over the years it seems like they are filled with assholes and game companies who are terrible at consistently enforcing ToS/rules.

I also don't really understand the comparison in this article between the asshole and cheaters. Cheaters ruin games for anyone playing them, and other competitors if in a competition. His behavior is entitled and annoying, but I don't see how that compares to players caught cheating (unless there is more behavior here that isn't listed and someone who is more into this would already know?)

Assholes ruin the game for others playing them too.

 

[blink tag]

He seems like a pretty "not great" person, but I didn't see in the article any quotes of his threatening language. What did he say?

There is an embedded tweet about halfway down in the article with a streaming video. I think it gives a good sense of what it might be like to play against him.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Dude.

You made EA the good guys.

And that there is really all that needs to be said on the subject.....

In fact, it should have been the headline: "FIFA Player's Behavior Makes EA Look Heroic!" Ars isn't above clickbaitish headlines.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg]

"One thing's for sure: there's a revolution on the way," Fenech said in a November video. "You have to pick a side..."

Featured article in this months Internet Tough Guy Magazine?

 

[Thr2hrmrf]

They didn’t want me competing at events [because] they were scared I’d win them, now I’m the 2nd biggest streamer of their game and they’re scared I’ll overtake their golden boy.

or they don't allow your ego to play also.

I tend to think he did what EA claims. Just from his statements I get the impression he is a real asshole and thinks he can do anything he wishes and get away with it.

 

[Paladin]

Oh, I so wish more of the whiny babies on youtube/twitch/whatevertheotheronesare would be banned like this too. If you can't control your mouth when you're being watched by who knows what kind of audience, you are not any kind of professional and should be banned the moment you start threatening anyone.

My reply to him on any of his complaints about the game would be, "If it is so bad, vote with your wallet and stop playing it." I have no interest in FIFA games at all so whatever, but he seems to complain a lot about it being terrible, and that 'anyone can win'. That seems like he is making excuses for his own issues and his bad behavior seems manufactured to get attention and hopefully more money for him. EA is a terrible company in general but good for them for not putting up with his antics. I hope gaming companies grow the backbone needed to ban more of the people who make playing online terrible.

 

[fenris_uy]

"We deserve a damn football game"

You think that you deserve a game, really? People are really becoming too entitled.

Well, I'd say that if you pay $60 plus whatever monetization schemes they enact, then yes, you're probably entitled to a damn football game.

Doesn't mean they can't boot you for being a dick, but barring horrid behavior, yes, you deserve a football game after spending a bunch of money on a product that claims to be one.

Fifa games have free demos, and if you buy the game on disk, you could probably ask for a return for some days after the purchase if you don't like it.

 

[Aurich]

I don't follow eSports or streamers in general, but just from reading these types of articles over the years it seems like they are filled with assholes and game companies who are terrible at consistently enforcing ToS/rules.

When you don't follow something you tend to only hear about the things that are bad enough to get noticed outside of the general sphere of the hobby/esport/whatever.

Ars tends to be a bastion of sanity when it comes to the internet and comments, and yet as much as I don't particularly like banning people I still have to do it on a pretty consistent basis here. People on the internet act like jerks, news at 11.

The real truth is that this is news because it's unusual, not that you should take away from this any broad conclusion about people who like to play games or stream or anything else.

 

[Kyle Orland]

DiGiTaL OnLy Is ThE FuTuRe.

Regardless of what he did, this is a very strong precedent in favor of phisic- Ah forget it, who am I kidding. The unwashed masses don't care as long it doesn't happen to them.

I understand what you're saying, but really in this case it's the online functionality and streamability that are EA's biggest levers. I doubt Fenech cares about his ability to play EA's offline single player games in the privacy of his living room...

 

[LuDux]

I've never said this before, but: good job, EA.

 

[desenfoque]

Well.... Now he can play PES.

 

[joshuasmith1981]

"eSports athlete". I'm struggling to parse this phrase.

 

[Sarty]

How we have forgotten that the "customer is always right" is beyond me, even if that customer is an a-hole.

We've forgotten it because it's idiotic, overly reductive, and the genesis of shitlord behavior.

Sometimes you have to politely tell "May I Speak To The Manager" Karen that you're willing to do without her business and her consistent abuse of your employees, and to please get the fuck out of your coffee shop.

 

[Albino_Boo]

The guy may be an offensive shithead, but throwing him entirely off the platform is overstepping.

Revoke his online multiplayer access? Sure

But to ban him from every single game in his EA account? Yeah, no.

Can't he just make new account?

Heck, he probably doesn't even need to make new email account because you can just add "dot" anywhere on Gmail or add +suffix before @. This will make the email looks new to almost all services

He presumably paid for games in his library that are now revoked.

That's the problem to me.

It's not a matter of "creating a new account" it's that goods and/or services paid for have been stripped.

They might have legal grounds to stand on to revoke his multiplayer ability due to his toxic behavior, but I don't believe they have grounds to terminate his ability to play games single-player due to toxic behavior.

Pretty sure the Terms of Service cover this, actually. From Section 6:

"If you or someone using your EA Account violates these rules and fails to remedy this violation after a warning, EA may take action against you, including revoking access to certain or all EA Services, Content or Entitlements, or terminating your EA Account as described in Section 8."

Would this clause (and the revocation of "purchased" content licenses) hold up in a court of law if it came to a lawsuit? I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's a good chance it would.

Edit: Link - https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section6

It will hold up, it's no different from buying a drink in bar, behaving like a pillock and getting tossed out without the drink. In both cases you are entering into a contract and having that contract revoked by poor behaviour.

 

[Akemi]

If your job is to stream video games, it's up to you to not be a toxic asshole. These gaming companies don't owe you anything and your actions have consequences.

Toxicity is a broad term. To broad in my opinion. Let's not forget that he is a paying customer so in that sense they do owe him something. How we have forgotten that the "customer is always right" is beyond me, even if that customer is an a-hole.

Try walking into a big box store without a receipt for an item you wish to return. Now try telling the customer service rep (s)he is an uppity cunt for sticking with store policy requiring a receipt for cash-back, store credit without receipt. How long do you think that customer will last before security escorts them out the door?

 

[freaq]

Fenech is right, but he said his views in such a terrible way that he discredited himself.

Humans are just so stupid that they think only one party in an argument can do wrong. Both sides are wrong here.

EA is a tyrannical corporation. EA should be ashamed of how awful FIFA and all of its sports games are year after year.

EA puts in minimal effort to update rosters each year. Then they charge you $60 for the same game you bought last year and take away your ultimate team from last year to make you start buying a new one.

EA aggressively monetizes and adds gambling to every aspect of their (rated-E-for-kids!) sports games. EA is shareholder suckling scum.

Fenech may be rude and uncouth. Some of his followers are script kiddies. But Fenech is ultimately right about EA's greed, laziness, and corruption.

Please explain how EA is forcing you to update if you don’t think its worth the money.

If you don’t want to buy the next release, then don’t vote with your wallet. But as people keep buying, EA clearly sees, what its doing is sufficient. Because the clientele keeps buying.

You may be unhappy with it, but as long as you’re buying, you’re saying its enough, no matter what you may be saying with your mouth or on inline fora.

 

[O/Siris]

If your job is to stream video games, it's up to you to not be a toxic asshole. These gaming companies don't owe you anything and your actions have consequences.

Toxicity is a broad term. To broad in my opinion. Let's not forget that he is a paying customer so in that sense they do owe him something. How we have forgotten that the "customer is always right" is beyond me, even if that customer is an a-hole.

The players he berated and (IMO) even bullied are paying customers also.

When being forced to "choose" customers, a company is going to favor the ones not causing trouble for other customers. Every. Damn. Time.

And they should.

 

[Deleted member 4603]

Dude.

You made EA the good guys.

If he had done it as some weird social experiment, "Can I make EA out to be the good guys?", I'd be giving him mad props for succeeding.

As it is... Yeah. Don't let the virtual door hit your virtual ass on the way out, mang.

 

[SixDegrees]

Seems OK to me. This is EA's house, they get to control who visits. End of story.

Unrelated to this conclusion, this guy's a sociopath and needs to be watched. Not by EA, but by someone. This kind of behavior seems pretty close to that displayed by people who torture small animals, then move on to worse things.

 

[Grashnak]

This is a warning to all about criticising EA on YouTube and Twitch, do so and they will fuck your channel over.

I mean, that is one way to epically miss the point.

Well, he has a point because banned guy was the only one online criticising EA and now we have no one. Oh wait... no...

 

[s73v3r]

The guy may be an offensive shithead, but throwing him entirely off the platform is overstepping.

Revoke his online multiplayer access? Sure

But to ban him from every single game in his EA account? Yeah, no.

Can't he just make new account?

Heck, he probably doesn't even need to make new email account because you can just add "dot" anywhere on Gmail or add +suffix before @. This will make the email looks new to almost all services

He presumably paid for games in his library that are now revoked.

That's the problem to me.

It's not a matter of "creating a new account" it's that goods and/or services paid for have been stripped.

They might have legal grounds to stand on to revoke his multiplayer ability due to his toxic behavior, but I don't believe they have grounds to terminate his ability to play games single-player due to toxic behavior.

He agreed to a standard of conduct when he started them up. I have no problem with what happened, especially given how astronomically low that standard of behavior is.

 

[harathan]

Dude.

You made EA the good guys.

I mean, this pretty much sums it up.

When your behavior is so egregious that people who think EA is a grotesque corporate hell-beast are able to look at the situation and say "You know, I think EA might be right here" then you've gone wrong.

 

[Sukasa]

How we have forgotten that the "customer is always right" is beyond me, even if that customer is an a-hole.

We've forgotten it because it's idiotic, overly reductive, and the genesis of shitlord behavior.

Sometimes you have to politely tell "May I Speak To The Manager" Karen that you're willing to do without her business and her consistent abuse of your employees, and to please get the fuck out of your coffee shop.

The customer is always right in matters of taste.

That last part is crucial.

 

[Photon_plumber]

EA must have pulled out Article 23 of the user agreement, titled: "Overly-Entitled Brats with an Exaggerated Sense of Self-Importance Whose Parents Tried Hard but Failed."

God damn! I was about the type the EXACT response. Extra emphasis on the perils of individuals with 'self-importance' syndrome and the addition of 'society loses nothing from losing you'. Good day sir.

 

[Grashnak]

If your job is to stream video games, it's up to you to not be a toxic asshole. These gaming companies don't owe you anything and your actions have consequences.

Toxicity is a broad term. To broad in my opinion. Let's not forget that he is a paying customer so in that sense they do owe him something. How we have forgotten that the "customer is always right" is beyond me, even if that customer is an a-hole.

"The customer is always right" is one of the most stupid things that anyone in business ever thought up. Try walking into any business and hurling abuse at their employees and then whine that "the customer is always right" when they kick you out. Let us know how that goes.

 

[jm_leviathan]

If he has been threatening people then the police should be involved also.