Poll: Who is in the right here?

[Giest4life]

When you pay for a service, your still bound by the rules of the service. If you pay to get into an amusment park, are a total PRICK in the park, they can kick you out, and don't owe you a refund. That's perfectly fair and reasonable.

Now granted, this guy was a prick on the forums and was kicked out of the game... I'm not sure i'm cosure with that. It'd be like being kicked out of one park, then being banned from the local ceniplex. Just because the parent company is the same.... I'm not sure that's "right" but i'm pretty sure it's prolly legal...

The amusement park analogy is incomplete, and thus misleading. The management of an amusement park can throw out a prick without a refund on his ticket, but they cannot take away the things he legally paid for while he was in the amusement park. Any food or miscellaneous purchases made in the park are still his and he has the full right to use them.

You don't have to pay to join a forum. EA should be only able to ban entry into the forums or revoke his multiplayer privileges (but that is debatable). They shouldn't be able to stop him from playing the game he paid for, and if the EULA or ToS say otherwise, then they need to be challenged in the court.

Now hold on, I think i missed something here... He can't play his single player off line campains? He has a disk right? They blocked THAT? I though they only blocked the MP aspect of the game, and i guess other games tied to the EA account.

If they somehow can shut your disk game off, there's got to be something illegal about THAT, you paid for that product and have it in hand.

NOW, if it's a computer game and he's using the online service, kind of like steam or origin, maybe they can do it then... i'm not saying it right but steam CAN ban people's account and it cost them there game libary. It's one of the main reason I still tend to favor having a disk in hand, but, i've made exceptions for a few games i just can't find, or, really cheap ones I'd eat the cost for and not care THAT much. But then, i tend to behave myself so all i have to worry about is steam going belly up or me getting hacked i suppose.

Ok, i'm off track. *My* understand was he was blocked from the MP. That's OK if your a prick IN the MP... IMO of course. (I said as much in my first post i belive) It's streaching it to block him for being a jerk on the forums, but, i think they CAN do it, legally, I just don't think it's right. (punishment fitting the crime and all that) And i really don't agree with banning him for other games tied to his EA account, if he hasn't DONE anything wrong in them. And i sure as hell don't think they should be able to disable his disk copy of the game, like, EVER. (how would they do that anyways?)

I agree with you on most points except the following two:

a)The legality of the EULA and ToS varies according to the state (for US residents) and country. Just look at Germany, for example, the ToS agreement of Origin are currently being investigated by the legal authorities in Germany.
b)Most major PC publishers now require your to install DRM software, create an online account, and even ask that you maintain a server connection at all times to play singleplayer.

 

[HardkorSB]

EA was right to ban this person from Battlefield, banning him from all the other games seems a bit harsh tho

How were they right to ban him from a game if he only "harassed" people in the forum?

From EA website, took me a minute to find it:

http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/#section11

I'm sure that you won't want to read it so here's the part that interests you:

...
"You may violate the Terms of Service if, as determined by EA in its sole discretion, you:
...
- Harass, threaten, embarrass, spam or do anything else to another player that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.
...
EA reserves the right to terminate your Account and to prevent your use of any and all EA Services if your Account is used to engage in illegal activity or to violate this Terms of Service."

EA is right.
Case closed.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Now this obviously turned into a VERY hot button issue there from people defending the customer's right to use the product he purchased and EA's right to moderate and respond to issues from their community services. I can honestly say I haven't been able to form an opinion over who's wrong in this instance and was wondering what others thought.

From EA's perspective, he didn't purchase a product.
He purchased a SERVICE that just happened to be marketed as a product. And while I sound like someone looking for a new tin foil hat, this is the ultimate purpose of these proprietary online distribution systems; FOR THE PUBLISHER TO TAKE ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THEIR GOODS.

That means you're at their absolute mercy if something goes wrong. Servers go down? EA discontinues support for that game to force you to buy the newest version? Tough luck *****, you agreed to the terms.
You can't sue EA for non-compliance or breach of contract because you gave that right away when you signed up for Origin (read the terms closely; legal matters must be handled by arbitration).

Or in this case, they can rob you of your money simply because they don't like you.
EA is well within their rights to ban him for being an asshole on their forums. Fine. Forums need moderation to function.

EXCEPT HE DIDN'T PAY 60 BUCKS FOR A FORUM ACCOUNT. HE PAID FOR ACCESS TO BF3.
HE DIDN'T ACT LIKE A PRICK IN THE ACTUAL GAME, HE ACTED LIKE A PRICK ON A DIFFERENT SYSTEM.

What was taken? Access to BOTH.

Why in the fuck would you support Origin and EA when they're perfectly willing to ban you from their system and keep your money on purely arbitrary (and in this case, unrelated) terms? Take your business elsewhere: nothing is worth supporting a company this corrupt.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

EA was right to ban this person from Battlefield, banning him from all the other games seems a bit harsh tho

How were they right to ban him from a game if he only "harassed" people in the forum?

Basically this, they just needed to block his forum privliges, they have no right to steal his games.

Should of read the EULA, gosh people are retarded. You pay for the privilege to be provided the service of playing the game, under the agreed conditions. You never own a game.

You dont own the game but you do own the right to PLAY said game unless its a subscription game that you haven't paid the months bill for, EULA also is only as legally binding as the laws in your country allow (so here in Australia EA would have their ass handed to them for theft as they'd have taken away a product he'd paid for)

Plainly incorrect. Unless I've read something wrong, they haven't come into his house and physically taken the game from him. That would be theft. What they have done here is refuse to continue to provide a service to him. And it appears that they have done so within the terms of the service agreemnt. If what they have done is outside of the contract, then that would be a breach of contract, but still not a crime, and it absolutely would not be theft.

Anyway, I wouldnt' be surprised if he's being light on the details. For example, it was said that he was banned for multiple harrasments, so I'd probably bet that he's said something a bit worse than he has let on.

They've taken payment for games then at a later stage taken away ability to play said games, so they either owe him a refund (or part refund) or they ripped him off. EULA as stated is still questionable in its weight in court, and if challenged in a case like this he could plausibly win.
That's not to say what he did was right, but they should have only taken his forum privliges away, not suspended account thus taking away access to his games that he paid for.

Well the thing is, whether he read the Terms of Use or not, he still AGREED to them and is responsible for his actions and the resulting consequences, right?

 

[AdamRBi]

The whole "we ban you from playing because you're an ass" idea is a little iffy; I understand that for cheating but not being an ass. Maybe instead if they just cut his ability to communicate? Like text and Voice? Then I'd be all for EA's side but the situation as it stands is a toss up.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Things aside, this guy is an idiot. I'm going with EA because of only that.
Seriously, his comment on the forums was just ignorant. I can't have an objective opinion on something like that.

 

[Wintermoot]

it would be the same as the escapist banning you from watching a video here after a rule violation EA has the right to suspend/ban him from the forums but not from playing stuff he paid for.

I'm pretty sure the only reason the escapist doesn't do that is because it's technically impossible.

I think they can IP ban you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure why anyone would side with the customer. You don't have to like EA. You don't even have to like their draconian policy. I hate slippery slope arguments, but forum bans have been handed out for some pretty stupid/borderline things, and you can see how something like this could go bad.

But this guy? Fuck this guy. This was only one in what was apparently a series of harassment violations, and it was bad enough by itself. He didn't get flogged. He didn't get imprisoned. He lost the ability to play a couple of his VIDEO GAMES, which he can easily replace if he needs them so bad. He should consider it an asshole tax.

 

[zestamaster]

I was skulking around the Battlefield 3 forums today and found an interesting little story on there. Basically this guy was surprised when he was unable to play BF3 one day and called customer support only to find out his EA account was banned for "multiple harassment complaints" from a rather heated discussion about MW3 and BF3 on the EA forums, and since his EA account was connected to his Xbox Live gamertag, he is now not only unable to play Battlefield 3, but also other EA and Bioware games that have online components or require you to be online to play.

Now this obviously turned into a VERY hot button issue there from people defending the customer's right to use the product he purchased and EA's right to moderate and respond to issues from their community services. I can honestly say I haven't been able to form an opinion over who's wrong in this instance and was wondering what others thought.

Here's the synopsis of the customer video chatting with an EA customer service employee

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/621026-battlefield-3/60892092

ESERB does not rate online play so abuse is irrelevent, they aggreed to play in that enviorment

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

When you pay for a service, your still bound by the rules of the service. If you pay to get into an amusment park, are a total PRICK in the park, they can kick you out, and don't owe you a refund. That's perfectly fair and reasonable.

Now granted, this guy was a prick on the forums and was kicked out of the game... I'm not sure i'm cosure with that. It'd be like being kicked out of one park, then being banned from the local ceniplex. Just because the parent company is the same.... I'm not sure that's "right" but i'm pretty sure it's prolly legal...

The amusement park analogy is incomplete, and thus misleading. The management of an amusement park can throw out a prick without a refund on his ticket, but they cannot take away the things he legally paid for while he was in the amusement park. Any food or miscellaneous purchases made in the park are still his and he has the full right to use them.

You don't have to pay to join a forum. EA should be only able to ban entry into the forums or revoke his multiplayer privileges (but that is debatable). They shouldn't be able to stop him from playing the game he paid for, and if the EULA or ToS say otherwise, then they need to be challenged in the court.

Now hold on, I think i missed something here... He can't play his single player off line campains? He has a disk right? They blocked THAT? I though they only blocked the MP aspect of the game, and i guess other games tied to the EA account.

If they somehow can shut your disk game off, there's got to be something illegal about THAT, you paid for that product and have it in hand.

NOW, if it's a computer game and he's using the online service, kind of like steam or origin, maybe they can do it then... i'm not saying it right but steam CAN ban people's account and it cost them there game libary. It's one of the main reason I still tend to favor having a disk in hand, but, i've made exceptions for a few games i just can't find, or, really cheap ones I'd eat the cost for and not care THAT much. But then, i tend to behave myself so all i have to worry about is steam going belly up or me getting hacked i suppose.

Ok, i'm off track. *My* understand was he was blocked from the MP. That's OK if your a prick IN the MP... IMO of course. (I said as much in my first post i belive) It's streaching it to block him for being a jerk on the forums, but, i think they CAN do it, legally, I just don't think it's right. (punishment fitting the crime and all that) And i really don't agree with banning him for other games tied to his EA account, if he hasn't DONE anything wrong in them. And i sure as hell don't think they should be able to disable his disk copy of the game, like, EVER. (how would they do that anyways?)

He did not lose the single player aspect of his games as far as I know. He just lost the online aspects of those games with whatever that entails, whether it be competitive multiplayer like BF3, Coop multiplayer, or even something as simple as the Cerberus Network for Mass Effect 2.

 

[mjc0961]

If the guy is acting rude on the forum, he deserves a forum ban. Not a ban from every EA game ever. Regardless of if it's legal (and I mean really legal, not just because the ToS says so; a ToS is not law), EA is completely wrong to do this. Ban him from a game if he's misbehaving in the game, ban him from the forum if he's misbehaving in the forum. Banning him from all his games and forcing him to buy new ones because of some forum posts? Wrong wrong wrong. And yet another reason why the last EA game I ever hope to spend money on is Mass Effect 3.

 

[Wintermoot]

it would be the same as the escapist banning you from watching a video here after a rule violation EA has the right to suspend/ban him from the forums but not from playing stuff he paid for.

I'm pretty sure the only reason the escapist doesn't do that is because it's technically impossible.

I think they can IP ban you.

they probably could, that's not the same thing as banning your account though, which is the part relevant to this thread. guess I should've been clearer.

even without a account you can still lurk,watch vids and read the news waht EA did is pretty much the same as banning you from the site.

 

[Aeonknight]

Let's see... a forum troll actually being held accountable for their trolling in a harsh manner so as to discourage others from trolling.

...

EA might be on to something here.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If the guy is acting rude on the forum, he deserves a forum ban. Not a ban from every EA game ever. Regardless of if it's legal (and I mean really legal, not just because the ToS says so; a ToS is not law), EA is completely wrong to do this. Ban him from a game if he's misbehaving in the game, ban him from the forum if he's misbehaving in the forum. Banning him from all his games and forcing him to buy new ones because of some forum posts? Wrong wrong wrong. And yet another reason why the last EA game I ever hope to spend money on is Mass Effect 3.

He only had his account banned. If he wants to get back into things, he only needs to get a new game and open a new account.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's "wrong" that this guy was punished by life for being an insufferable asshole. Why is the concept of "consequences for acting like an asshole" so terrifying to people?

EA's hamfisted disciplinarian routine is unsettling, no question. But what happened to this guy wasn't "wrong". I would almost go so far as to say it's "refreshing". He got a small, karmic, punch in the junk. He should chalk it up as a life lesson learned instead of whining about it on the internet.

 

[Tufty94]

So let me get it straight, someone was banned for voicing their opinion? Well EA, I guess you've earned another fuck you.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

So let me get it straight, someone was banned for voicing their opinion? Well EA, I guess you've earned another fuck you.

It wasn't someone voicing their opinion, it was essentially a CoD vs. BF flame war. If you read the synopsis you'll see this wasn't the first time he had been in trouble for misconduct on the forums.