Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    So EA is mad that players who bought the game exploit something to their own advantage. A game they PURCHASED.

    Using an exploit in DS3 to increase your progression speed in the game is dumb and kinda ruins the game experience, but how is it bannable?
    They're the one exploiting their purchasers because their wallets won't get filled with microtransactions.
    Its the only reason they'd do it.

    I remember a time where cheat codes were actually built in the game by the developers as jokes and a form of easter egg for players to find out.

    If its an online world or affects other players, then sure.
    Last edited by Powell; 2013-02-08 at 01:52 PM.
    There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbany View Post
    The best way to counter this rampant anti consumer trend is to boycott the unethical corporations behind them ...
    Question: Why not just not buy them? Then you personally are no longer impacted by their business practices. Why the desire to convince others to do the same? Does it make you unhappy in any way when a person sees this cost structure and still buys the game because they think it's worth the money? If so, why? This is a tiny part an argumentative question, but mostly I'm honestly curious.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    So EA is mad that players who bought the game exploit something to their own advantage. A game they PURCHASED.

    Using an exploit in DS3 to increase your progression speed in the game is dumb and kinda ruins the game experience, but how is it bannable?
    They're the one exploiting their purchasers because their wallets won't get filled with microtransactions.
    Its the only reason they'd do it.

    I remember a time where cheat codes were actually built in the game by the developers as jokes and a form of easter egg for players to find out.
    As I said in the OP and in one of the follow-up posts, EA has not yet declared it's judgement on the subject and as such it's still floating in the air. One of the good reasons to get visible discussions about it going everywhere to show where players stand.

    EA has been through some rather awkward PR storms in past two years so I can almoust promise you they are calculating the situation very carefully.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 03:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    Question: Why not just not buy them? Then you personally are no longer impacted by their business practices. Why the desire to convince others to do the same? Does it make you unhappy in any way when a person sees this cost structure and still buys the game because they think it's worth the money? If so, why? This is a tiny part an argumentative question, but mostly I'm honestly curious.
    It's mostly about spreading information and discussing the possible implications that it might have in the future and whetever people might rethink things with the new information brought on the table.

    You don't see me going around telling people not to buy EA games (Unless your sarcasm detector is broken), but trying to raise discussion and awarness around the subjects that often gets hush hush and then forgotten.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Powell View Post
    So EA is mad that players who bought the game exploit something to their own advantage. A game they PURCHASED.
    You're not purchasing the copyright, the right to modify, a product when you purchase the right to use it. The same goes for movies and music and virtually all forms of media. If you don't agree with the philosophy of copyright then that's another matter, but this displeasure on EA's part is consistent with the idea of copyright.

    They're the one exploiting their purchasers because their wallets won't get filled with microtransactions.
    Nobody gets "exploited" in a voluntary transaction. I'm sure their terms allow them to modify their product to fix bugs and such. The idea that preventing players from modifying game code or taking advantage of bugs is "exploitation" is ludicrous. Even if they don't reserve the right to fix bugs in the terms, it's common consumer sense not to feel entitled to cheat. If you weren't willing to buy the game cheat-free, or only with the cheats that the creators included as part of their creation, you shouldn't have bought it.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 02:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    It's mostly about spreading information and discussing the possible implications that it might have in the future and whetever people might rethink things with the new information brought on the table.

    You don't see me going around telling people not to buy EA games (Unless your sarcasm detector is broken), but trying to raise discussion and awarness around the subjects that often gets hush hush and then forgotten.
    I don't mean to be rude, but the person I was directing my question at WAS advocating a boycott, so it was really his/her answer I was after. I still appreciate yours though.
    Last edited by Magpai; 2013-02-08 at 02:04 PM.

  5. #45
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,961
    So a developer slash publisher's own inadequate QA budgeting allows flaws in the program, to reach launch, that let players get around the developer slash publisher's attempts to get purchasers to spend more money? Hmm... Would that be ironic justice or karmic justice?
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  6. #46
    I am curious about the EULA/ToS of the release version of Dead Space 3 in this light by the way.

    Does it also include the infamous clause of "If you spot a bug but don't report it to EA, you will be treated as bug abuser and can possibly face closure of Origin account" that has been in their latest beta releases?

  7. #47
    So lets say you purchase ME3 on a disc. Is it not true that you own the disc and the media contained on that disc and can do whatever you see fit w/ the contents short of copyright infringement, in single player.

    So some of you here are trying to justify a company telling you what you can and cannot do w/ an item that you own, when it affects no other consumer's enjoyment of their purchase?

    Would you then also advocate a car company suing a consumer for customizing their car because they are changing it from how it was originally meant to be? Would you agree if BMW said that if you want to change you stereo you must first pay to us a sum of $20 to have the right to customize your vehicle?

  8. #48
    If you ask me it's a simple issue, you want to implement micro transactions, give the game for free. Don't charge AAA price AND have micro transactions, but well it's EA what do you expect...

  9. #49
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    I am curious about the EULA/ToS of the release version of Dead Space 3 in this light by the way.

    Does it also include the infamous clause of "If you spot a bug but don't report it to EA, you will be treated as bug abuser and can possibly face closure of Origin account" that has been in their latest beta releases?
    http://www.ea.com/1/product-eulas
    What EULA. It does not exist at this moment.
    ToS is blanketed by the same Origin crap.

  10. #50
    It is because some companies don't produce "games" for gamers, they produce them for cash. Also one of the reasons I don't really have any 2004+ single-player game on PC, with exception of Torchlight. Too much DRM everywhere, so in the end you don't really own the game you bought.

    It's awful how some people have twisted meaning of words "cheat" and "hack" lately. Meanwhile cheaters and hackers are bad for MMO projects, they are natural for single player games. It was more than common 10+ years ago to mess with hex-editing various game files, alter those, even make various small modding utilities or even unofficial bug-fixing patches.
    Piracy came first.
    It's awkward to push more people into piracy because someone as developer/distributor is greatly afraid of piracy. Let's say some people are thieves and stealing from food from supermarkets, books from bookstore. Various kinds of DRM is similar to making all people (not just those "some") eat the food they bought in supermarket itself, or read the books they bought only in bookstore itself, and never bring anything to home. So they actually make more people to "steal" things, as they can't really enjoy eating food or reading book in store only (play game online only), and they can't spice their food up or read the book while being relaxed on sofa (anti-"exploits" in single player games).

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Deatheryn View Post
    So lets say you purchase ME3 on a disc. Is it not true that you own the disc and the media contained on that disc and can do whatever you see fit w/ the contents short of copyright infringement, in single player.
    Modifying game files IS copyright infringement though. Plus you likely agreed to terms saying you wouldn't do such a thing.

  12. #52
    I miss the days of the gameshark and action replay.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    http://www.ea.com/1/product-eulas
    What EULA. It does not exist at this moment.
    ToS is blanketed by the same Origin crap.
    Ugh, shouldn't start reading those texts with 40 hour sleep deprivation X.x

  14. #54
    The Insane peggleftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    16,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeleh View Post
    If you ask me it's a simple issue, you want to implement micro transactions, give the game for free. Don't charge AAA price AND have micro transactions, but well it's EA what do you expect...

    i really hate this in many games these days, i dont mind some DLC like map pakcs that come out a bit later. but micro transactions on a game ive just bought annoys me. its like ive spent £40 on the game, but i still have to pay more to get the full game.
    Too cool for a signature

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    Modifying game files IS copyright infringement though. Plus you likely agreed to terms saying you wouldn't do such a thing.
    So let's say, i was reading the book. I didn't like some moment in there, or some picture and torn the page away, or I decided to make some notes (or even make small picture) on some of it's pages. Would it be "copyright infringement"?

    So, I was getting food, some meat with sauce, I didn't like sauce which was coming together with meat, so I decided to use other one I had. Would it be "copyright infringement"?

    If consumer bought something, he has all the right to modify anything in whatever he bought and without any kind of contact with the seller (server). There are no "terms" which can deny such right of a consumer.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by peggleftw View Post
    i really hate this in many games these days, i dont mind some DLC like map pakcs that come out a bit later. but micro transactions on a game ive just bought annoys me. its like ive spent £40 on the game, but i still have to pay more to get the full game.
    I think microtransactions are fine in a multiplayer game I bought like GW2, so long as they're not pay to win. The thing that irks me about them being in DS3 is it's a singleplayer/co-op game, and it is absolutely buy to win with some cosmetic stuff. There is absolutely no reason to have them in there.

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 12:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferocity View Post
    So let's say, i was reading the book. I didn't like some moment in there, or some picture and torn the page away, or I decided to make some notes (or even make small picture) on some of it's pages. Would it be "copyright infringement"?

    So, I was getting food, some meat with sauce, I didn't like sauce which was coming together with meat, so I decided to use other one I had. Would it be "copyright infringement"?

    If consumer bought something, he has all the right to modify anything in whatever he bought and without any kind of contact with the seller (server). There are no "terms" which can deny such right of a consumer.
    Didn't something along these lines come up with Apple trying to claim jailbreaking was copyright infringement?

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    Modifying game files IS copyright infringement though. Plus you likely agreed to terms saying you wouldn't do such a thing.
    I'm not exactly sure how it's copyright infringement. It might be against the Terms of Service but at least in Finland we have pretty strong laws about our right to use our product as we see fit, be it quoting books for studies to making reviews with source material and re-editing videos for the sake of satire.

    Copyright laws in Finland goes pretty much like this (with a tad simplified version): You may not produce copies of the product beyond your personal use.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    I'm not exactly sure how it's copyright infringement. It might be against the Terms of Service but at least in Finland we have pretty strong laws about our right to use our product as we see fit, be it quoting books for studies to making reviews with source material and re-editing videos for the sake of satire.
    We have free use laws in the US as well, but they don't extend to modifying programming unless you have specifically been granted the license to do so, unless it's released under a free license of course (like GFDL, Creative Commons or public domain).

    ---------- Post added 2013-02-08 at 06:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferocity View Post
    So let's say, i was reading the book. I didn't like some moment in there, or some picture and torn the page away, or I decided to make some notes (or even make small picture) on some of it's pages. Would it be "copyright infringement"?
    Not sure. It might be I suppose. However any infringement is not likely to be noticed or have action taken against it because it's not feasibly enforceable in the case of a book and the publisher likely won't care. These game companies do care, and are becoming increasingly adept at making it enforceable.

    So, I was getting food, some meat with sauce, I didn't like sauce which was coming together with meat, so I decided to use other one I had. Would it be "copyright infringement"?
    Is this supposed to be a serious question? Well if nothing else it demonstrates how much you know about copyright.

    If consumer bought something, he has all the right to modify anything in whatever he bought and without any kind of contact with the seller (server). There are no "terms" which can deny such right of a consumer.
    No, he does not. Without an agreement to the contrary, you can't (legally) use the music from a CD you bought for your video, you can't make a copy of the movie you bought and give it to a friend, you can't modify the programming of software even for your own personal use. You saying "I can do whatever I want because I bought it" doesn't carry any real weight. When you buy software you are almost always buying a copy of the software and the right to use it as bought and nothing else.

    You can't just close your eyes and wish that this isn't the case. You can't just insist that once it's in your hands you can do whatever you want and have it be true. There are laws about this. And what's more, you agreed to terms and conditions, by installing the game, stating that you would not do so. "without any kind of contact with the seller " - You DID agree to a contract with the seller by installing that you would not modify the game files. You saying you're entitled to have a game without agreeing to the terms of the producer just makes you sound childish and spoiled.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    We have free use laws in the US as well, but they don't extend to modifying programming unless you have specifically been granted the license to do so, unless it's released under a free license of course (like GFDL, Creative Commons or public domain).
    I took a quick view of Finnish copyright laws and the modernization of them in 2004 and couldn't find any mention about person's limitation to use their owned product for their own personal purposes. The closest thing that could be related was only relevant if it was to be published to the public.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    I took a quick view of Finnish copyright laws and the modernization of them in 2004 and couldn't find any mention about person's limitation to use their owned product for their own personal purposes. The closest thing that could be related was only relevant if it was to be published to the public.
    Well that's a real pity, because whether or not their software should be changed should be between creator and purchaser. Pretty crazy that we live in a world where you can't even decide the terms under which you will sell your own product to willing consumers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •