Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[Fappy]

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

Generally speaking with software, you are made aware of a set of terms and services when you buy the product and then after you buy the product, you usually get a full set of terms and services either inside the box or as a screen on the software or online and you assent to the terms by either clicking "I Agree" or simply using the software. Under the terms you usually have the right to return the product if you don't agree to the terms.

DLC is what killed modding. Before DLC, there really wasn't much need to stop people from modding cause...what's the point?

but after DLC, suddenly there is an issue. Why should I let someone create horse armor for their horse when I can charge them 1.99 for it.

I think in that case you just don't make your games mod friendly. As far as I understand none of the ME games have any amount of serious modded content due to being very rigidly programmed. The only mods I am aware of allow you to alter already existing game files like Gibbed Editor and that kind of stuff.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well I do speak from the world of console gaming where this is not even an issue so my understanding of how the software licensing/consumer dynamic works is incomplete at best, but I do think its in bad taste to make someone pay for something before they understand the restrictions associated with it. I imagine this has never really been much of an issue because people generally understand what they can and cannot do with software when they purchase it. This scenario on the other hand just seems like EA is trying to tighten its grip further on what rights we have as consumers.

Generally speaking with software, you are made aware of a set of terms and services when you buy the product and then after you buy the product, you usually get a full set of terms and services either inside the box or as a screen on the software or online and you assent to the terms by either clicking "I Agree" or simply using the software. Under the terms you usually have the right to return the product if you don't agree to the terms.

DLC is what killed modding. Before DLC, there really wasn't much need to stop people from modding cause...what's the point?

but after DLC, suddenly there is an issue. Why should I let someone create horse armor for their horse when I can charge them 1.99 for it.

Although there's an easy work-around as a consumer: if you want to mod games, don't buy them from developers that ban you for modding them. I know that's what I do.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I think its fair that the definition of "licensed" in gaming terms has changed since then. Back in those days publishers did not have a way to track what you were doing and remotely lock your shit down. It was more a way to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.

The difference between now and then is not what they meant by licensed but how they can now actually catch you for breaking it.

Gamers are finally having to face up the consequences of what they been signing after nearly 30 years of ignoring it.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

I think they have they have the right to do that. Tampering with their game is a betrayal of trust... Unless they actively encourage it to the point of releasing a mod pack like Valve or Skyrim.

I bet you only take your car to the dealer to get it fixed with only their parts too.

Again, where is the problem?

Because it hurts abso-fucking-lutely no one. Why are you such an EULA apologist? Every time I see your avatar I know the post is just going to say "EULA, screw you. End of line."

 

[Fappy]

I think its fair that the definition of "licensed" in gaming terms has changed since then. Back in those days publishers did not have a way to track what you were doing and remotely lock your shit down. It was more a way to prevent copyright infringement and piracy.

The difference between now and then is not what they meant by licensed but how they can actually catch you for breaking it.

And their motives behind why they licence the software with strict EULAs. Like one of the posts above mine points out, I am sure DLC does play a rather large role.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And their motives behind why they licence the software with strict EULAs. Like one of the posts above mine points out, I am sure DLC does play a rather large role.

Licenses have always been used to establish a legal complete control over the use of the software in question.

The reasons have not changed in the slightest.

 

[Fappy]

And their motives behind why they licence the software with strict EULAs. Like one of the posts above mine points out, I am sure DLC does play a rather large role.

Licenses have always been used to establish a legal complete control over the use of the software in question.

the reasons have not changed in the slightest.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. Their motives for how they enforce their EULA and more importantly why has likely changed since the late 90's.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. Their motives for how they enforce their EULA and more importantly why has likely changed since the late 90's.

I don't think the motives for enforcing them have changed at all.

Had they actually had the means to enforce them back in the 90s they would have.

 

[endtherapture]

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. Their motives for how they enforce their EULA and more importantly why has likely changed since the late 90's.

I don't think the motives for enforcing them have changed at all.

Had they actually had the means to enforce them back in the 90s they would have.

And if they had to means to enforce the EULAs we'd have no Counter Strike, Team Fortress, DOTA.

The Elder Scrolls games would be shit empty husks of games.

We would be stuck with low res textures and graphics, and the entire industry would be sterile and uncreative.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And if they had to means to enforce the EULAs we'd have no Counter Strike, Team Fortress, DOTA.

The Elder Scrolls games would be shit empty husks of games.

We would be stuck with low res textures and graphics, and the entire industry would be sterile and uncreative.

That is not true at all.

Valve has always been open to the modding community and has endorsed making mods and modding their games even going so far as to provide tools for modding, as is their right to do so.

Bethesda also DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT, many of the mods made for the nexus are in violation of the construction kit EULA, and Bethesda just doesn't care, as is their right.

Even if they did have the means to prevent modding back then they wouldn't have because their entire design philosophy is based around letting people mod.

 

[Aerosteam]

You shouldn't use Origin anyway.
You shouldn't be modding anyway.
You especially shouldn't be modding when there's the option of fucking [HEADING=1]NARRATIVE DIFFICULTY.[/HEADING]
But if it's textures, etc I'm pretty sure anyone can live without them.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You shouldn't use Origin anyway.
You shouldn't be modding anyway.
You especially shouldn't be modding when there's the option of fucking [HEADING=1]NARRATIVE DIFFICULTY.[/HEADING]
But if it's textures, etc I'm pretty sure anyone can live without them.

Why shouldn't people be modding? What ethical rule does it breach to set your FOV, fix bugs, or add content to a single-player game?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Why shouldn't people be modding? What ethical rule does it breach to set your FOV, fix bugs, or add content to a single-player game?

The ethical rule that it is wrong to change something that legally doesn't belong to you without the owners permission.

 

[Ratboy1337]

I don't think most people would mod the game to make it easier, but to add more content. New weapons and armor and stuff.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

You have every right to modify any and all files you download. Being banned for modding Coalesced.bin is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that most do so to tweak performance, such as changing the FoV.

Not unless the EULA says you can, or the developers say that you can regardless of the EULA.

Incorrect. Unless I was shown the EULA before my purchase, it is void. I can't agree to something I was never shown.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Why shouldn't people be modding? What ethical rule does it breach to set your FOV, fix bugs, or add content to a single-player game?

The ethical rule that it is wrong to change something that legally doesn't belong to you without the owners permission.

Legality =/= morality. Particularly where something on as shaky legal ground as EULAs are is concerned.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Incorrect. Unless I was shown the EULA before my purchase, it is void. I can't agree to something I was never shown.

Court rulings disagree with you on several occasions.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Incorrect. Unless I was shown the EULA before my purchase, it is void. I can't agree to something I was never shown.

Court rulings disagree with you on several occasions.

Could you link the cases? I have a hard time believing that I can agree to a contract that I was never presented with.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Could you link the cases? I have a hard time believing that I can agree to a contract that I was never presented with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Could you link the cases? I have a hard time believing that I can agree to a contract that I was never presented with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies

Only applies to digital purchases. I bought mine at a store, so I never had a EULA pop up to agree to it. I'm arguing that an EULA was never presented to me at any point.