Modding single player Mass Effect 3 bans you from Origin

[manaman]

You sign a civil contract, not a legal one, guys.

Eh, er, well. EULA's have held up in court to an extent. See copyright holders do get to dictate what is done with their content. Which they can do through an EULA. To an extent, because time after time the more restricted clauses in EULAs have been thrown out in courts.

Except the Ninth Circuit court, but those guys are crazy.

 

[Tilted_Logic]

Aside from EA being EA, I think part of the problem stems from the fact that modding requires changing the .ini file shared by both the single and multiplayer. Multiplayer modding/hacking is something Bioware/EA have to crack down on, and it's easier to assume than to ask questions.

If people have been able to access content they haven't paid for in the single player game via modding (see: From Ashes) then it makes sense Bioware would bring down the ban hammer.

I absolutely hate the setup though. I was thoroughly looking forward to modding in some non-ridiculous-looking FemShep hairstyles. I can be banned for that? Just great.

 

[Smeggs]

Well...unless Bioware/EA actually gave their express permission, even if it is graphical or performance enhancements, I don't really see how this is outside of their jurisdiction.

Although I have to agree it's still stupid, and EA are still a bunch of money-grubbing whores with awful PR.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It doesn't matter what you "agree" with or not, they HAVE to make the EULA readable for everyone before the purchasing contract in a games shop takes place or it is invalid, printing a link on the package doesn't count either and trying to shove in stipulations after one already bought the product is also invalid, so nothing they present you with while installing the game or when trying to play really matters. The only thing that matters is what you agreed to when you actually bought the game, at least in the EU.

You know, arguing EULAs is a bit pointless because when it comes to online bans its almost always done on the grounds of ToS violations... and ToS aren't contracts, they're statements by the service provider of under what conditions they'll allow you to use their provided service.

So you end up with the the subtle but significant legal difference of them not taking away your right to use your licenced goods but they aren't letting you use their service to access your goods... which just shows the law needs to get it's arse into the 21st century.

 

[Wolfram23]

On a legal stand point SajuukKhar is technically right, if the EULA says no modding then it is illegal to mod the game and the publisher/developer and they are within their rights to ban.

No, simply because EULA is NOT legally binding. The fact that no one took this case to court yet is why developers and publishers still get away with this shit.

You sign a contract with EA saying "I will not do these things, and I understand if I do them that you can disable my access to the game." It's not like the EULA's are hidden in some super secret link on the websites, and all are easily accessible before you buy the video game, as well as after you buy the video game.
But if you break any kind of contract, employment or whatever, the company can boot you right out the door for breaching the contract. This is the same thing as that, if you break the contract (knowledgeably or not) you are liable to losing your games.

Except for the fact that the courts decided it is 100% legal to modify copyright material for personal use (in particular, software).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.

 

[Raesvelg]

/shrug, given that the guy clarified his answer to state that they would not ban you for modding the single player game, so long as the mods had no effect on the multiplayer, I don't see what people have their panties in a bunch over.

Excepting the fact that I doubt one person in twenty even bothered to click the link in the OP, or those that did theoretically before the rep clarified his position, probably not one in a hundred bothered to check back.

 

[tangoprime]

With thinking like that I don't see why people find it so surprising that game companies are trying increasingly worse forms of DRM.

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with people like you bending over and taking it. Are you hoping that if you're a good little consumer and apologist all year EA will give you a reach around for Christmas?

I, for one, just don't buy products with retarded DRM and insane EULAs. If I find later (that is, after purchase) that this is the case, I get my money back.

We shouldn't be supporting publishers who are furthering this bullshit of taking more and more rights and privileges away from their customers.

 

[thahat]

im i the only one thinking 'why hasent ea/bioware shot their decision maker in the head yet?'
seriusly they only make bad calls. ever.
ea/bioware: oh noes! dont pirate our games!
pirates: give us a reason not to?
ea: lets see, lets ruin all the official guys funsies!
pirates: sure ea, but we'l release a version without bullcrap, with fixes, hell if its fun enough with working multiplayer with some ad hoc local or if they are ballsey enough they host their own damn server.

comon EA/bioware, step up your game, you USED to be goodish at least. and i dont want you messing up the future command and conquer generals 2 >.<

 

[Athinira]

You say that like modders are criminals.

I cant say it like anything because text does not have tone nor my typing something = me "saying" anything because text =/= spoken words.

Secondly I never once stated or implied that they are criminals because they are not, at least so long as the developers has said it is ok for them to mod.

Actually, the law of some countries specifically preserve the right for the user to mod software, regardless of what the EULA says, or what the developers think.

 

[Dryk]

If the problem is that the modded ini files are causing problems in the multiplayer why don't they just force a redownload of the files before entering multiplayer instead of banning people?

TBH the era of games being made by gamers for gamers is gone (apart from the indie scene) and we are seen as walking wallets who should just be silent and buy the Corporate stamped out games and be happy to pay $10 for the hair style DLC that some modder would have done for free and often better.

I miss the days before gaming was mainstream more and more every day :\

 

[lapan]

EA is making it harder and harder for me to even reconsider buying games from them anymore.

 

[Lord Kloo]

If you're modding multiplayer to the extent that players have unfair advantages, I could maybe forgive EA..

But modding the fucking single player.. this smacks to me of EA not wanting free, user made content when they intend to sell you $50 worth of DLCs by the end of the year.. especially as said user based content will actually address issues and be better and popular

 

[franconbean]

If they ban modding and enforce it, PC gaming will come full circle.
If this becomes a trend, people will turn to the indie developers, who will become financially powerful and just like the old corporations... and that cycle will repeat itself.

Ok, that's unlikely to be true, but I think it's a cool theory.

Edit: Oh, and i guess the people who argue against modding haven't played "Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines". The game was unplayable without fan-made patches. Sometimes games need player base support. Big companies will never recognise this: They will just sweep it under the rug every time.

 

[xDarc]

Someone with time and money needs to start taking these types of issues to court to legally bar publishers from doing this type of stuff on the basis of consumer rights.

 

[Raesvelg]

If you're modding multiplayer to the extent that players have unfair advantages, I could maybe forgive EA..

But modding the fucking single player.. this smacks to me of EA not wanting free, user made content when they intend to sell you $50 worth of DLCs by the end of the year.. especially as said user based content will actually address issues and be better and popular

And I quote, from the guy whose off-hand response started this shitstorm and who corrected it long before you posted in this thread, and thus should know better if you'd bothered to actually click on the link in the OP...

"As mentioned by Scylla, you will not be banned
for modifying your files *unless (and this is where my intention was)
they give you an unfair advantage in any multiplayer aspect of the
game."

 

[Nargleblarg]

If you're modding multiplayer to the extent that players have unfair advantages, I could maybe forgive EA..

But modding the fucking single player.. this smacks to me of EA not wanting free, user made content when they intend to sell you $50 worth of DLCs by the end of the year.. especially as said user based content will actually address issues and be better and popular

And I quote, from the guy whose off-hand response started this shitstorm and who corrected it long before you posted in this thread, and thus should know better if you'd bothered to actually click on the link in the OP...

"As mentioned by Scylla, you will not be banned
for modifying your files *unless (and this is where my intention was)
they give you an unfair advantage in any multiplayer aspect of the
game."

Nice to see I wasn't the only one who actually followed the link and read the forum. I was confused why we had 14 pages saying the opposite of what the OP link said.

 

[winginson]

Regardless of law, a developer not letting you mod a game for single-player purposes are massive idiots.

The arguement that "you wouldn't modify something you borrowed of someone" doesn't hold up here, because 1)The original doesn't change (as it would if I pimped a lent lawnmower) and 2) Even if they retract my license of the game, they do not take away my copy of the game in its changed state to use themselves (unlike the lawnmower).

Modding is more like taking a photocopy of a document and highlighting it to make it easy to read.

 

[Merrick_HLC]

If they ban modding and enforce it, PC gaming will come full circle.
If this becomes a trend, people will turn to the indie developers, who will become financially powerful and just like the old corporations... and that cycle will repeat itself.

Ok, that's unlikely to be true, but I think it's a cool theory.

Edit: Oh, and i guess the people who argue against modding haven't played "Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines". The game was unplayable without fan-made patches. Sometimes games need player base support. Big companies will never recognise this: They will just sweep it under the rug every time.

I played VTM:B Unmodded actually.
But overall I agree.

This whole "You don't own it, you license it" BS is insane.
You want to cheat ONLINE? Then hell yes ban the a-hole.
You want to mod/cheat/whatever in the SOLO (affecting no-one-but-you) content of something you paid money for? Fine.
The thing that pops into my mind (since I just saw some while websurfing) is custom action figures.
Imagine you bought an action figure you wanted to sculpt/build into something you think is cooler, and then Mattel or whoever found out & took that toy away.

I think we'd all go "They have lost their damn minds".