Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[Waaghpowa]

It's the Starcraft singleplayer controversy all over again. When will people stop popping a vein every time this happens?

This is the kind of shit that spawns the "entitlement" arguments that then get mis-used in other conversations. You're dealt a hand, you play your cards - you gambled, you lost, you got banned. Such a goddamn first-world problem it's just upsetting.

Grab a mirror, folks, and take a long hard look at the person that caused your ban if you received one.

I believe you're referring to that incident where people were getting banned for running trainers? That's a slightly different situation seeing as Blizzards TOS specifically prohibited the use of unauthorized 3rd party software within the game. Most people wouldn't see changing textures as being a big deal since it's purely aesthetic.

Spoiler

2. Additional License Limitations.
The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the "License Limitations"). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations will be regarded as an infringement of Blizzard?s copyrights in and to the Service and/or Game. You ag
ree that you will not, under any circumstances:

A. use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the Service, any Game or any Game experience;

For clarification, a trainer is basically a bot.

 

[Something Amyss]

And, since bill c-10 hasn't gone through, this is still legal in Canada.

Can you elaborate on the connection here?

 

[Something Amyss]

For clarification, a trainer is basically a bot.

You'll note it also says "mods," however.

 

[Epona]

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.

Oh wow, what a load of shit. So if I skip the boring parts of Titanic (everything except the ship sinking), is that a betrayal of trust too?

 

[Epona]

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.

Are EULA's even legally binding in theory?

Are EULA's even legally binding in theory?

The validity of EULAs has been held up in several trials, while it has also been deemed not so in several others.

The legal status of EULAs in America is "legally binding unless you can win that specific case in court, and even then it only really applies to YOU specifically"

Until the supreme court rules one way or the other its in limbo with the see-saw leaning in the developers favor.

There are other uses of "contracts of adhesion" that are 100% legal in America.

It's the other way around, they are not legally binding until a court says otherwise. What if a EULA said that you cannot resell a game, would you be arrested if you sold the game? No, because the EULA isn't binding until a court says it is.

Fact is, the law simply isn't involved until someone brings in the law, an EULA has no power otherwise. Banning people from Origin may constitute a lawsuit so hold on tight.

 

[Waaghpowa]

For clarification, a trainer is basically a bot.

You'll note it also says "mods," however.

You'll also notice that the line states "Any unauthorized 3rd party software". 9 times out of 10 texture mods are simply the pre existing texture file slightly altered.

 

[Epona]

This is ludicrous. I am sorry but when I purchase a product from someone I expect to be able to do with it what I will within the confines of the law. EA can kindly go to hell.

Legally you are not allowed to mod a game unless the developer says you can. So you are allowed to do what you want with it in the confines of the law.

Show us the law that says that.

 

[Something Amyss]

You'll also notice that the line states "Any unauthorized 3rd party software". 9 times out of 10 texture mods are simply the pre existing texture file slightly altered.

It still says "mods." That means even texture mods are against the EULA. Sorry, but the fact that it then says "third party software," which is itself very vague and open does not change the proviso specifically on mods. Since texture mods are mods (the hint's in the name), it's still against the EULA.

 

[Epona]

Show us the law that says that.

Its all covered under copyright protection laws. You are not allowed to modify somebody else's copyrighted work unless they give you permission.

You didn't show us the law.

You can modify YOUR copy.

 

[Waaghpowa]

You'll also notice that the line states "Any unauthorized 3rd party software". 9 times out of 10 texture mods are simply the pre existing texture file slightly altered.

It still says "mods." That means even texture mods are against the EULA. Sorry, but the fact that it then says "third party software," which is itself very vague and open does not change the proviso specifically on mods. Since texture mods are mods (the hint's in the name), it's still against the EULA.

I'm speaking specifically in the case of Blizzard. Blizzard is ok with mods seeing as there are whole sites devoted to Starcraft 2 mods, editing tools and here. So we can deduce, based on that, that the TOS refers specifically of unauthorized 3rd party software that alters game experience and service.

 

[shintakie10]

Interestinly enough, in that same thread another Bioware employee said they in fact will not take action against you if you only mod the single player portion of the game.

Conflictin messages are conflictin.

Personally I say mod away cause fuck EA and fuck Bioware for goin along with such bullshit practices.

How is this company constantly makin it into the finals of March Madness again?

 

[BeerTent]

I think I've gone well beyond my point, but you really needed to learn that. The top people at Bioware made a decision to agree that Bioware would run better under EA's wing, in exchange for better funding.

That was the entire pint I was making also, it was, and is, Bioware's choice to put themselves in the situation they are now.

All of this "it is EA and EA only fault" BS isn't true, bioware made the choice.

The funny thing is that in your attempt to invalidate my point you actually stated the very thing I was making a deal out of was true.
.
.
Also were I work I frequently tell my supervisor how I think we could make things better buy NOT doing what he told me to do, and frequently it causes other people to agree with me and then they do change it to what I or someone else suggested.

Your attitude of "I work for them so all I can do is sit down and shut up" is defeatist at the highest levels.

If Bioware really is that defeatist then they are wore off then people make them out to be now.

It's different in a superstore. Because, I also made suggestions that made sense, and was listened to. Yeah, you can improve the workspace, but you can't go against the client. Because the client pays your wages. The client is the one that can break the connection between your company, and them, costing your company the funding it needs. Get where I'm going now?

But this is a different relationship between EA and BW. This isn't a crappy call-center. EA LEGALLY OWNS Bioware. Bioware can't just walk away from that and go to THQ. They can't, Oh... Do anything like this.

[...]Beyond that Bioware could easily threaten Ea with leaving to get them to do the things they want.[...]

C'mon, you stand up and get as many people to quit their jobs and follow you. And that's just the first bloody step. On top of that, you've got quite a few legal complications if you actually get people to follow.

This is not TV. Sometimes sitting down and shutting the hell up is the best thing to do. Sure, okay... I'm a little defeatist. But at least I'm realistic. Again, if I went to my boss to say "I'm not re-imaging Jim's machine because he shouldn't be fired." I'd be out the door too.

 

[Epona]

You didn't show us the law.

You can modify YOUR copy.

It is illegal to modify copyrighted material. It does not matter if its your copy or somebody else's copy. The reason behind this is because you are using their assets without there permission in order to create a new product. That is how copyright law works.


If you want to read the actual copyright law in your country then stop being lazy and go look it up yourself.

How about you stop making claims when you aren't even willing to provide the proof. Oh and here's some food for thought, if EA thinks a crime has been committed, why haven't they alerted the authorities instead of taking the law into their own hands? I'll tell you why, because no LAW has been broken. Rules and laws are not the same thing.

 

[gameknight]

The people who bought the game should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it, it's legally their property now.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Its because not everything is worth the effort reporting to the police. People do not report petty crimes like that since the most you would get anyways is a cop telling you not to do it again. Plus its a fuck of a lot cheaper to just ban the person.

ITT: we conflate company policy, criminal law, and civil law.