No Dragon Age 2 for Suspended BioWare Forumite - UPDATED

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Bara_no_Hime:

psych0r3bel:
Your opinion. I respect you for having it. My bad for saying it was wrong if that's what I typed, I'm pretty sleepy.

And if I was an EA mod you'd find yourself hard-pressed to play your shiny copy of Bulletstorm or Need for Speed right now. :]

Thank you. **nods**

And actually, while I have no particular interest in either of those games (my EA purchases are generally Bioware specific) my copies of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age are safely printed on shiny PS3 disks awaiting use.

Remember, back in my first post I also said that this is they I don't buy games online. ^^

You do understand that activation and check-in applies to physical copies too don't you? It doesn't matter where you get the game from, the servers are still the gateway.

BTW, this kind of DRM will be coming to consoles soon. Next gen for sure but maybe sooner since your precious PS3 requires installs of some games making it no different than a PC in that regard. Careful what of shit you wish on PC gamers cause you'll be smelling it soon too.

Sounds like a mis-interpreted Whoops mistake. I'm sure the rep didn't completely know what was going on before he said that. Then when a second look was taken, the glitch was discovered.

It's good to know that he'll be able to play.

Garak73:
You do understand that activation and check-in applies to physical copies too don't you? It doesn't matter where you get the game from, the servers are still the gateway.

On the PS3? Mass Effect 2 always asks me if I want to sign in. I don't bother half the time. It has never stopped me from playing the game or using my DLC.

Activation might be more of an issue, I suppose, but even then I don't think it MAKES me, except when I went to download my free DLC.

Bara_no_Hime:

Garak73:
You do understand that activation and check-in applies to physical copies too don't you? It doesn't matter where you get the game from, the servers are still the gateway.

On the PS3? Mass Effect 2 always asks me if I want to sign in. I don't bother half the time. It has never stopped me from playing the game or using my DLC.

Activation might be more of an issue, I suppose, but even then I don't think it MAKES me, except when I went to download my free DLC.

I added to my previous post:

BTW, this kind of DRM will be coming to consoles soon. Next gen for sure but maybe sooner since your precious PS3 requires installs of some games making it no different than a PC in that regard. Careful what kind of shit you wish on PC gamers cause you'll be smelling it soon too.

Garak73:
BTW, this kind of DRM will be coming to consoles soon. Next gen for sure but maybe sooner since your precious PS3 requires installs of some games making it no different than a PC in that regard. Careful what of shit you wish on PC gamers cause you'll be smelling it soon too.

And you were being so civil too. Ah well.

Again, as mentioned originally, this is one of many reasons why I don't go, and would never post on EA or Bioware's forum. That and because I don't care in the slightest what goes on there.

This is pretty much the only gaming forum I post on, and I'm rather regretting that choice at the moment. For the record, I didn't wish anything bad on PC gamers, I wished it on people who annoy me in forums.

Bara_no_Hime:

Garak73:
BTW, this kind of DRM will be coming to consoles soon. Next gen for sure but maybe sooner since your precious PS3 requires installs of some games making it no different than a PC in that regard. Careful what of shit you wish on PC gamers cause you'll be smelling it soon too.

And you were being so civil too. Ah well.

Again, as mentioned originally, this is one of many reasons why I don't go, and would never post on EA or Bioware's forum. That and because I don't care in the slightest what goes on there.

This is pretty much the only gaming forum I post on, and I'm rather regretting that choice at the moment. For the record, I didn't wish anything bad on PC gamers, I wished it on people who annoy me in forums.

So people that annoy you on forums should be stolen from, so says you. Whatever. Go watch the world as it revolves around you.

Carlos Alexandre:
Anyone defending EA/BioWare here is completely in the wrong.

I defend them because the recinded and apologised to the offended party.

Of course, no one's going to read that.

Profanity?

Is that EA's word for 'they hurt my feelings!'?

ecoho:
Ok this is bullshit i have to say if i bought a game and couldnt play it because of my opinon im sorry but this is something id sue EA over and win on first amendment rights or at the very least would have my money refunded. EA you pull this shit too much you will lose in the end.

Your First Amendment rights only apply to the government telling you that you can't say something. EA is not the government.

Nice, get Bioware to do EA's dirty work.

Good work EA, way to lose customers and respect.

Please enforce this rule on the World of Warcraft forums.......please?

This is interesting for me, it marks the thin end of a very large wedge.

The facts are that the kid had criticised Bioware's choice of publisher upon their forum and got a 72 hour ban. Then poor guy had found out that the ban had carried over and barred his ability to play the game he'd forked out for.

To borrow a Chris DeBurgh lyric: "Don't pay the ferryman until he gets you to the other side." But in all seriousness, Bioware had no legal right as far as I know to ban him from playing the game. Whether or not this was an accident upon Bioware's part is something of a moot point IMO but it does raise an interesting question.

But like I said in my opening paragraph - this could all be the thin end of the wedge. So the question is: Will there be more incidents like this in the future?

Because if the answer is yes, I can foresee the line between product of a corporation and one's personal property being redrawn for the worst.

I guess I'm of the personal belief that once money changes hands - product becomes posession - and no corporation has the right to enforce how or when you can use the product/possession.

Gunner 51:

I guess I'm of the personal belief that once money changes hands - product becomes posession - and no corporation has the right to enforce how or when you can use the product/possession.

Agreed. In addition, it seems like the whole concept of online activation for games necessarily violates that principle. I remember Civ. 5, a game that I purchased to play while waiting for the internet to be hooked up in my new apartment. Of course, when I installed, I found that I had to be online to even install the game.

It was not a big deal, I think that I just took my laptop to the coffee shop up the road to install it, and certainly, most of the time it's a moot point, but it smacks of overstepping on the part of the company that sold it to me.

I planned on buying both DA and DA2 +DLCs in the near future (probably in spring break).
After reading this article, I decided not to buy these until they are dirt-cheap.
I don't care what a guy says on a forum. The game and DLC, once purchased, should be available at all times.

EDIT: BTW, do policies such as this affect Steam games?

I've read a lot of posts here and I think people have a weird idea of how this works. EA owns and runs the forums, bioware has very little to do with them I'd imagine. Any bannings would be a result of EA, not bioware so all this weird hatred you're shooting at bioware is unwarranted considering EA publishes and funds their games, runs/owns the servers and forums.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Sober Thal:
The quote was:

"EA strictly enforces the code of conduct at Social.BioWare.com. If a player violates the rules by using profanity, they will be temporarily banned. Unfortunately, there was an error in the system that accidentally suspended a user's entire account. Immediately upon learning of the glitch, EA restored the user's macro account and apologized for the inconvenience."

Woo thought what happened, was supposed to happen, yep. But it was a glitch. I guess Mr. Woo isn't that high up on the chain of command, just a bit high perhaps?

Or yeah, they don't care, then they care.

That quote wasn't Stanley Woo's at all. That quote came from Chris Priestly, one of Bioware's employees, once the issue had started to gather a lot of attention on the internet. The quote I'm talking about, from Stanley Woo the Bioware Forums Mod, goes thusly:

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here:

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum and/or issues reported by fellow community members.

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC.

Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

If there are further questions or concerns, please send them to me via private message. Thank you.

End of line.

He readily admits that the guy has been banned from his game, and tries to laugh it off as some kind of incentive for good behaviour. There's no mention of any glitches, erros, or anything like that. Just an assurance that, if you break the EA Terms of Service (which as I have already said, are non-legally binding), you can get banned from your game.

The quote you posted, the one from Chris Priestly, that's what we call "damage control". It's when an individual or company has been caught doing something shady, and starts coming up with excuses to try and justify themselves.

I came here to post this, glad someone else got their information straight.
It was clearly stated in the ToS that EA has the right to cut off access to your games and DLC if they see fit. "Glitch" my hairy cock.

I think people should stop buyin' digital copies & return to buyin' hard copies... today EA Store, tomorrow Steam, etc...

That guy will just go ahead and pirate the game. Since he's already paid the money for it, I doubt anyone can really fault him that.

Well if I remember right EA do that if you do something bad. They take your game playing access away completely. Even if it was on just one game they take it away from the rest. I can see this happening more. To force people to behave.

ccdohl:

Agreed. In addition, it seems like the whole concept of online activation for games necessarily violates that principle. I remember Civ. 5, a game that I purchased to play while waiting for the internet to be hooked up in my new apartment. Of course, when I installed, I found that I had to be online to even install the game.

It was not a big deal, I think that I just took my laptop to the coffee shop up the road to install it, and certainly, most of the time it's a moot point, but it smacks of overstepping on the part of the company that sold it to me.

That must have been really annoying to be denied like that. But I have to commend your quick thinking on taking it to the local coffee shop - I wouldn't have thought of that. Still I have to agree that online activation does take the mickey. You purchased the game and it was your property - you shouldn't have been made to jump through any extra hoops like that. You should have been free to install and play the minute you got the game home.

These days, with DRM, digital distribution in conjunction with online activation - one is not so much purchasing a game. But buying permission to have a license to play - it's not fair or right for corporations to stiff the buying public like this.

So if they see fit all the games you bought for single player cannot be accessed. And by "as they see fit" minor insults that for all we know could damn well be true 'EA is the devil" is probably the only solid truth(or truth with content 80% truthful or greater) i will hear today.

I thought EA was trying to clean up its image?

It would all have been ok if he had just pirated the game... ironic eh :P

tredien:
It would all have been ok if he had just pirated the game... ironic eh :P

Made me smile :)

a) Can't play the game you download, cos of the threat of being sued, b) can't play the game you bought.

Lol, Priceless. Given the choice...

Venereus:

SinisterGehe:

Jabberwock xeno:

Yep.

I wish the guy would sue EA.

Of what, being denied of service after breaking rules of the service?

Precisely that. You see, denial of service is actually illegal.

So you saying:
If you agree to ToS in which I state that if you break these set rules, to which I have secured right to change, I can ban you from my service and deny service from you in future if you get caught of breaking the rules.
I can not do that?
Sounds kinda fishy... Talk about my freedom to act... But ToS is an contract, if you break it, I am not allowed to "punish" you in agreed fashion? And if it changed you need to sign it again in order to keep using my service... SO I am not allowed to change the terms of the contract between us, even if it is stated on the contract?

Or is this one of those "Because hes THE VICTIM, being pushed around by big evil corporation. Ofc he is right, he couldn't have broken the rules!" fights going on in here.... Because I think it is, I also think it is pointless. If it is said you don't talk of the Onions you don't talk of the onions and if we state you shall not talk of carrots either, you don't talk about the damn carrots.

If he would go to court with them, he would lose, I am willing to bet money on that.

SinisterGehe:

Venereus:

SinisterGehe:

Of what, being denied of service after breaking rules of the service?

Precisely that. You see, denial of service is actually illegal.

So you saying:
If you agree to ToS in which I state that if you break these set rules, to which I have secured right to change, I can ban you from my service and deny service from you in future if you get caught of breaking the rules.
I can not do that?
Sounds kinda fishy... Talk about my freedom to act... But ToS is an contract, if you break it, I am not allowed to "punish" you in agreed fashion? And if it changed you need to sign it again in order to keep using my service... SO I am not allowed to change the terms of the contract between us, even if it is stated on the contract?

Or is this one of those "Because hes THE VICTIM, being pushed around by big evil corporation. Ofc he is right, he couldn't have broken the rules!" fights going on in here.... Because I think it is, I also think it is pointless. If it is said you don't talk of the Onions you don't talk of the onions and if we state you shall not talk of carrots either, you don't talk about the damn carrots.

If he would go to court with them, he would lose, I am willing to bet money on that.

The law protects you from slavery, if I write a ToS that says you become my slave and you agree to it, do you think the law is going to protect me instead of you if we go to court? ToS agreements that go against consumer rights only thrive because they remain unchallenged most of the time.

A user at the Bioware forum said it best: "EA just hopes that their consumers are stupid enough to believe it is legal. And if they don't buy it the second barrier is hoping their consumers are too lazy to sue. This system works most of the time."

Good to see the situation was reversed. Whether it was intentional or not, it was corrected and that's what matters.

Nobody should expect a company to say "we did wrong, and when we get called on it we changed our mind", so if it WAS intentional as per the original statements we're never likely to see a public confirmation of the fact, but it's academic and doesn't much matter as long as the right thing happened and we don't see more incidents quite like this one in the future.

Props to EA for doing the right thing in the end.

Venereus:

SinisterGehe:

Venereus:

Precisely that. You see, denial of service is actually illegal.

So you saying:
If you agree to ToS in which I state that if you break these set rules, to which I have secured right to change, I can ban you from my service and deny service from you in future if you get caught of breaking the rules.
I can not do that?
Sounds kinda fishy... Talk about my freedom to act... But ToS is an contract, if you break it, I am not allowed to "punish" you in agreed fashion? And if it changed you need to sign it again in order to keep using my service... SO I am not allowed to change the terms of the contract between us, even if it is stated on the contract?

Or is this one of those "Because hes THE VICTIM, being pushed around by big evil corporation. Ofc he is right, he couldn't have broken the rules!" fights going on in here.... Because I think it is, I also think it is pointless. If it is said you don't talk of the Onions you don't talk of the onions and if we state you shall not talk of carrots either, you don't talk about the damn carrots.

If he would go to court with them, he would lose, I am willing to bet money on that.

The law protects you from slavery, if I write a ToS that says you become my slave and you agree to it, do you think the law is going to protect me instead of you if we go to court? ToS agreements that go against consumer rights only thrive because they remain unchallenged most of the time.

A user at the Bioware forum said it best: "EA just hopes that their consumers are stupid enough to believe it is legal. And if they don't buy it the second barrier is hoping their consumers are too lazy to sue. This system works most of the time."

Making a contract that breaks the law is illegal. Example if I make ToS thatforce underaged people to send pictures of them to be, It is illegal. I force you to be my slave it is illegal to make contracts like these, because they or the actions they force you to do are illegal.
I just checked; If It is stated in the agreement that I withhold all right to the change of the terms of contract. - it is legal.
If it is stated in contract that you can be denied of service in future if you break the contract. - It is legal. At least according to European union, don't know how's the freedom limiting going on it America but I would believe it to around the same.

Ah so this is the "Because it is a big company abusing small helpless individuals, they are wrong and their actions are illegal - because they are a big corporation" Fight going on here. It won't help if I quote common sense or THE LAW in here, they are wrong in your eyes because they are a big company. This wont lead anywhere, I'd rather stop it here and let you Fanatics agree with each others and close your eyes for the fact that people who use services provided by BIG EVIL COMPANIES can be assholes and they can break the rules and that they are punished accordingly.

Venereus:

SinisterGehe:

Venereus:

Precisely that. You see, denial of service is actually illegal.

So you saying:
If you agree to ToS in which I state that if you break these set rules, to which I have secured right to change, I can ban you from my service and deny service from you in future if you get caught of breaking the rules.
I can not do that?
Sounds kinda fishy... Talk about my freedom to act... But ToS is an contract, if you break it, I am not allowed to "punish" you in agreed fashion? And if it changed you need to sign it again in order to keep using my service... SO I am not allowed to change the terms of the contract between us, even if it is stated on the contract?

Or is this one of those "Because hes THE VICTIM, being pushed around by big evil corporation. Ofc he is right, he couldn't have broken the rules!" fights going on in here.... Because I think it is, I also think it is pointless. If it is said you don't talk of the Onions you don't talk of the onions and if we state you shall not talk of carrots either, you don't talk about the damn carrots.

If he would go to court with them, he would lose, I am willing to bet money on that.

The law protects you from slavery, if I write a ToS that says you become my slave and you agree to it, do you think the law is going to protect me instead of you if we go to court? ToS agreements that go against consumer rights only thrive because they remain unchallenged most of the time.

A user at the Bioware forum said it best: "EA just hopes that their consumers are stupid enough to believe it is legal. And if they don't buy it the second barrier is hoping their consumers are too lazy to sue. This system works most of the time."

It's been a long time since I was in school where I studied criminal justice, and the focus of what I learned about the legal system wasn't on civil law or specialized areas like contract law, but I did learn some things related to it, and interest has caused me to look into it occasionally over the years, and I think your both wrong or somewhat off base.

Right now one of the big problems with things like EULAs and the like is that the gaming industry has hired or contracted most of the people who are experts in this kind of area. On the rare occasions when it seems someone challenges this kind of thing, the guys running the other side of it seem to be taking the wrong approach. Most judgements defending ToS agreements or EULAs seem to be made based on the idea of the existance of such things in general, rather than the terms and what they can or cannot do, or how the entire situation is presented.

It's fundementally correct that a person cannot sell themselves into slavery directly HOWEVER it should be noted that a person can do the equivilent indirectly by signing a very limiting contract if it can be proven they did it knowingly. Someone can wind up being forced to work for very little or no payoff due to harsh penelties if they don't. An example would be someone who agrees to render a service like painting a piece of artwork, performing maitnence, or constructing something, the situation changes and they wind up having no choice but having to perform the service at a personal loss or face jail time or insane fines. It's not slavery per se, but in a lot of cases it can come close. Entertainment contracts for musicians, actors, and similar kinds of people have been legendary in this respect, the classic "I'll make you an offer I can't refuse" bit from "The Godfather" was based around this (and actually fairly realistic in it's set up), as is the situation with bands like "Grand Funk Railroad". If you look into it you'll also find that groups like "The Spice Girls" had to engage in borderline criminal behavior to get control of their own Discographies.

At any rate, in connection to the EULA and TOS type agreements, understand that a big part of the problem that hasn't been challenged is that your forced to make these agreements to use a product you already paid for, and can't return. One area that has not really been challenged is that technically these agreements would have to be agreed to in a store before money changed hands, especially seeing as products like video games are pretty much unreturnable.

Another issue that applies is protections against fine print and misleading language in contracts. While such things can be used for intimidation value, the bottom line is that a contract has to be both concise and easily understandable. What's more making referances to other documents that aren't readily availible right then and there also doesn't work when challenged. Nor does saying "in accordance with this" or simply including an asterix or whatever that links to something that's easily missable.

The point here being that EULA and TOS agreements can also be challenged on the grounds that they are so long, oftentimes involve legalese, and referance headings and other documents that aren't readily availible as part of the contract.

When dealing with very complicated documents between businesses and the like, exceptions exist due to the number of lawyers and experts availible who act as notaries, witnessesing that everyone involved understands all aspects of the contract. That can change things substantially in the face of the law, as opposed to a contract stirctly between two people, or where only one side has a "notary" in their employ (as opposed to a true neutral party).

This is at the root of a lot of other nasty battles we've seen over the years in Hollywood where there have been contracts "sealing with a handshake" or more specifically backed by documents presented 1 on 1. A good example of this would be the movie "Boxing Helena" where there was a dispute over whether or not the actress (Kim Basinger I believe) knowingly and bindingly agreed to be in the movie in exchange for gifts that she received as payment, I believe a TV was involved or something like that, it's been a while. The point is it got nasty and was news for a while, and was hardly a unique situation.

The gaming industry has been challenged, but so far hasn't been challenged properly especially when you consider other cases, despite what they might claim. So far I don't think I've ever seen a case based around the point at which payment was received, or the length and complexity of the EULA itself without any confirmation that both parties actually understood what was written there.

EA backed down, and did the right thing, however if this had been challenged I think it could have gotten interesting and if the lawyer was competent gotten into a lot of the territory you don't see too often.

While unrelated, when it comes to slavery, one interesting thing you might want to look into is cases of voluntary sexual bondage. There have been cases where people have agreed to be someone else's sex slave for a long period of time in exchange for money. The very existance of the contract being a turn on for a lot of the submissives involved at the time. While this counts as prostitution in most states, it can become an interesting case when it's presented as a contract to act in "art films" which implicitly involve sex (ie the whole mess with the porn industry) or more commonly the state of Nevada. Even so, in cases where rape, or kidnapping comes up when a submissive changes their mind, questions of a contract reducing it to "soliciting a prostitute" can get interesting, with the contract proving that the person consented to some rather extreme sexual activity even if the compensation aspects were illegal. In the guise of simple sex games where no money or services or provided, and the person just wanted to be a slave (or thought so) even that doesn't apply.

There haven't been a lot of cases that have broken into the mainstream media, and typically it only appears as a "wierd news", but this kind of thing has been part of what has made things like Craigslist so infamous as that's one place where people look to make connections. You know like "I just won the lottery and moved to Nevada, I'm looking for a gorgeous 18 year old to be my sex slave and submit to incredible pain and indignity for a period of five years in exchange for a million dollars. Please send photo, and we'll discuss the details". You'd be surprised how many people would be into that, especially if they get to be a millionaire at the age of 23, and let's just say with the range of sexual and sadistic wierdness people engage in, you could easily see how someone might change their mind pretty quickly but ooops, their already locked in the guy's torture dungeon. If they escape and go to the police and the guy provides the contract and shows that the person on the receiving end agreed to that... well kidnapping and rape become much harder to make stick, especially if the details of consent are fairly conclusive.

Uriel-238:

VanityGirl:
You can't catch me on my console! Weeeeeee
*runs off giggling*

It depends on your console. Both Microsoft and Sony have indicated circumstances in which they will freeze your Live accounts or sue the snot out of you for looking at them crosseyed (or looking at Geohot[1] at all). I'm not sure what the connectivity policies of the Wii are, as Nintendo has been less in the news than the previous two.

Consoleers have had the shaft up their rectums so long, they're used to it. The controllers just haven't turned on the barbs-and-vibrate button yet (or rather, often enough).

Incidentally, the boiling frog reaction[2] the consumer base has shown so far to DRM worries the crap out of me. I'm still resistant to software that requires online activation since it forces end users to trust the corporation will continue to support the software indefinitely. [3] Given that Microsoft, for example, plans to terminate support for XP within a couple of years, already the precedent has long since been harbingered that we cannot trust the companies with this degree of control. The Sony vs. Geohot affair has demonstrated the heights of superdickery to which companies will rise, if it pleases them to do so.

While I can appreciate that you wrote all that... You wrote an eloquent post to a joke post.
I will say, though, that bringing up GeoHot wasn't a good idea. He's in trouble for jailbreaking a console and showing the masses how to do it. That's a little different than me saying "BioWare are the suckz".

[1] Click here to get your URL tracked and potentially get sued by Sony!
[2] As apocryphal as the story is, it still has applicability in places. But boiling water will kill a frog almost instantly, and a frog will escape cold water if able, simply because frogs like to jump.
[3] It also forces the end users to trust the company will continue to exist at all. DIVX, for example, was something else before it was a video codec

Ironic isn't it? I won't buy an EA game if I can help it. The last straw for me was when they bought Pandemic and then dismantled it which prevents Merc 2 online play when I'd just purchased that game FOR online playability.

I refuse to play games like Madden and Tiger Woods which I've loved for a very long time. And recently I rented Mass Effect 2 from Gamefly and while I do kind of like it I will never buy it.

Screw EA, Tyrants and Dictators throughout history have always met a bloody and violent end. How great would it be if Obsidian or From Software declared war on EA and invaded their offices to overthrow their management eventually capturing them like Nazis and Square Enix can oversee the "game crime" trials. lol.

Now that I think about it though, it seems that he might have had a lawsuit against them. I mean, I understand that a forum can allow or not allow any kind of language the owners want but to deny someone access to a product they purchased simply because that someone is badmouthing them ... It would be like me going into a McDonalds and buying lunch then going off on a rant in their restaurant about how their company is a vampire feeding on the poor and making them sick in the process. Yes they should kick me out of their restaurant but can they take away my happymeal that I paid for?

TheBelgianGuy:
This seems to be the latest trend, huh?
We're buying things that apparently aren't actually ours. Imagine you'd put a steak in your fridge, and whatever shop you bought the fridge from comes to take it away, because their owner is a vegetarian.
It's completely ridiculous, yet we gamers always get treated like this.

I wonder what buying steak would be like if similar rules were applied that apply to some games. You go into your butcher and before you are allowed to take the steak home with, you have to sign an agreement stating you will not use it to make a beef curry, or feed any of the leftovers to your dog. If you do any of that, you have violated the terms of use of the steak and are therefore liable to have the steak reclaimed by the butchers and be banned from making any further steak purchases from said establishment.

As for Bioware "selling their soul to the EA devil"...Well, one thing I do know, back when Mass Effect 1 was on it's way, they never announced that Tali would be available for purchase as a bonus character, a good month or so before the game was due to release.

It's great that his case gets a lot of attention. Raising both middlefingers to EA AND Bioware.

And to think we had an episode of Extra Credit about EA a few weeks ago... Wow, just because one person called EA the "devil" they not only banned his forum account but denied him access to the game? Gee... I wonder if the statment is true now...This seems almost as bad as that guy who was fired from gamestop because he had a bad review for Kane and Lynch. I wasn't that intrested in Dragon Age 2, but now... no thanks.

Between this and Day 1 DLC I'm thinking used games on consoles are the answer. The money saved by buying used will offset the withheld content in the DLC, and console only because they can't (for now) lock me out of a game I paid for through it.

None of this surprises me really, though what does surprise me is that it surprises so many of you.

JourneyThroughHell:
As much as they've probably had the rights to do it, it's still a really fucking shady thing to do to your customers, BioWare.

This is terrible. He paid his money. Your rules are bullshit.

To you and almost all other replies:

The suspension was 72 hours! That's three days, not a lifetime..

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here