Originally posted by Reizla

Originally posted by Elapsed
I find it funny people complain about EA's DRM, but don't complain about Steam. There are many games now that require installing Steam. Although you can play Steam offline I believe. Still, Steam is DRM.

You've answered your own question in the same breath... Steam is DRM indeed, but does allow off-line play. This new SimCity DRM is much like D3 and forses you to be on-line whenever you play the game. But... If THEIR servers are down/broken/hacked/DDoS's, you can't play. That's the BIG difference between Steam and D3/SimCity

I'm sure EA will fix it. Once they stablize the servers, people will still complain about the always on DRM. DRM that requires an internet connection isn't the issue to me. Most people have a constant internet connection now.

The issue is DRM. I hate all DRM equally regardless of whether it allows offline access or not. I hate Steam. I hate Origin. I hate having to install and log into some extra software to play. I wish more people would complain about Valve and Steam as much as they complain about other forms of DRM.

Originally posted by Maephisto

There was this 30+ page thread earlier, commited to talking about EA's wrong doings.  I wonder how many of those people continue to buy EA games and bitch, simultaneously.  The vocal gaming community even went onto the consumerist and voted EA the worst company, OVER BANK OF AMERICA.

Despite all the commotion over Sim City and past games (ME3), people will still buy the next EA game.  Even after the harsh DRM and bullshit DLC becomes commonplace.  Then feel completely cool about coming on here and complaining about them.

Protest with your dollars, not your mouth.

I'll admit, its some times hard to pass on EA titles. The reason being though is their shady business practices. 

They have a monopoly on all sports games. 

They buy up competitors and or destroy them. 

They do their best to make EA the only option regardless of how unethical it is so that they can do as they please without fear of losing money. 

I have passed on many games I've really wanted to play because I truly despise EA. Not everyone will though and EA is trying very hard to make it so that you have no choice but to buy their games if gaming is your entertainment of choice. 

So, for many it comes down to "Do I want to give in to EA and enjoy what I can of my hobby or do I want to find a new hobby and not give any more money to EA". 

Cant find out you dont like a game until you buy it

decide you dont like the game cant get a refund

get a refund

infuriate greed corp

get nuked

Games are fun.

Originally posted by BitterClinger

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by BitterClinger

This is the most reasoned response to this whole mess. I too think it would be interesting to see this play out in court, but I'm not really sure the case would be good for the gaming industry (regardless of the outcome). Origin and Steam (and others) defend against this very thing by delisting games that might warrant a legitimate chargeback.

Chargebacks are for those people who buy stuff at motel room "auctions" and that sort of thing. The vendor is gone, unreachable, and otherwise unidentifiable.  I work in the credit card vertical of a business that is (at least currently) "too big to fail", and I know our support folks will attempt to work a refund through the vendor before processing a chargeback. Again, chargebacks are absolutely legal, but they are pretty much relationship ending measures when it comes to vendors.

I think you'd be surprised by the outcome of your court case. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that a judge would rule in the favor of Steam or Origin.

Not really, the problem is that the person has legitimate claim to all other games that they have purchased. Banning an account thus removing your access to potentially hundreds of other games purchased over the years is not an appropriate response to a charge back on a single game. 

 

If a case like that did go to court then the judge would side with the consumer hands down. A service like Steam or Origin would be lucky if all they had to do was reinstate the account but chances are good they would have to reimburse the consumer for every game that purchased that they no longer have access to. With a good lawyer they would have to reimburse them the amount they paid at the time and not what they are currently worth. 

I hear what you're saying, but it sounds like wishful thinking, wanting the world to be fair, social justice and all that. All of the legal precedent thus far supports the "license to use" language. You're suggesting a judge would risk a potential black mark on his career to "side with the consumer hands down".

"The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software."

This isn't some fly-by-night game company that copied someone else's EULA.  Lawyers put that language in the agreement, and that language has already won in multiple court cases.

 So, if they own it and not the customer, shouldn't they have to pay an annual inventory tax?

 So, if they own it and not the customer, shouldn't they have to pay an annual inventory tax?

Boooooyaa!

It is like Diablo 3 all over again. No one will get there money back, and it will swiftly be swept under the rug.

Don't fret though! We are about to get PvP as promised at launch 6+ months past launch. You guys will probably have your servers fixed in less than 2!

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ea-admits-dantes-protest-was-a-stunt

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

Originally posted by Swanea

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

I purchased D3 Collector's Edition, and I was playing with no problems on day one.

The server issues with D3 were impacting a minority of players.  It was a significant number to be sure, but it was still the minority. 

The SimCity 5 issues are much worse than D3, in my opinion, and I believe it is impacting the majority of players.

Originally posted by Swanea

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

I did not purchase Diablo 3 or Sim City, and I complain about both.

Originally posted by Kaerigan

Originally posted by birdycephon
I'll have to go with EA on this one.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. Getting banned for doing a chargeback is a-ok in my book, but I really think they should be more willing to give out refunds when there are so many people having trouble playing. I mean, right now, Simcity's kind of a faulty product.

More company's need to be like Arena Net.  I got a refund of almost $800 in gem purchases and got to keep my account.

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

Originally posted by Swanea

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

I did not purchase Diablo 3 or Sim City, and I complain about both.

How trivial your life must be.  Love when people troll other forums for their own amusements sake.

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

Originally posted by Swanea

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

I did not purchase Diablo 3 or Sim City, and I complain about both.

How trivial your life must be.  Love when people troll other forums for their own amusements sake.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't? If you bought the game then you have no right to complain because you knew what you were getting into but if you didn't buy the game you have no right to complain and you are trolling for your own amusement? 

Originally posted by Boudewijns

have they sink that low?

no wonder i banned EA games for years, now u know why

http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/

I swear this is like watching a fight between to hyperbolic, attention seeking, egotistical drag queens. The customer who didn't have sense enough to wait before he bought it. And I'm pretty sure with his "this is going viral"  comment he knows damn well the rep that EA has and it was NOT his first rodeo when using the "chargeback" threat. And the CR is no better than the caretaker who refused to perform cpr on the old dying lady. Fighting with the 911 operator. Her company is sticking by her and their policy. Both parties are fools.

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by Kaerigan

Originally posted by birdycephon
I'll have to go with EA on this one.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. Getting banned for doing a chargeback is a-ok in my book, but I really think they should be more willing to give out refunds when there are so many people having trouble playing. I mean, right now, Simcity's kind of a faulty product.

More company's need to be like Arena Net.  I got a refund of almost $800 in gem purchases and got to keep my account.

Did you do a chargeback, or did you contact ArenaNet first claiming it was fraud?  And was it actual credit card fraud?

If it's genuine fraud, then companies have an incentive to work with you rather than have the credit card company force the chargeback through.

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

Originally posted by Swanea

Did any of you purchase D3?  Did any of you complain this much when D3 did the same thing?

Just a real question.

I did not purchase Diablo 3 or Sim City, and I complain about both.

How trivial your life must be.  Love when people troll other forums for their own amusements sake.

Ah so I have to be silly enough to waste money on the game in the first place, pretend i'm surprised at the sudden disappointment, and then I have the right to complain?  

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by BitterClinger

Originally posted by Burntvet
Personally, I can't wait until one of these deals winds up in court: the situation where someone in the past has purchased several titles for either Steam or Origin, decides to charge back a "non-working" title, and then have that customer be denied to access titles they have already paid for. And no, EULAs are not binding until a court says they are. Personally, in such a case, I can not see the company winning, as the customer was presumably doing something allowed by law (a CC chargeback) and was within their rights to do so. I can not see how a court would agree that someone that doing a legal commercial transaction (the chargeback) could be breaching the "contract" with Steam/Origin to the point that it would justify denying that customer access to the products already previously paid for.

This is the most reasoned response to this whole mess. I too think it would be interesting to see this play out in court, but I'm not really sure the case would be good for the gaming industry (regardless of the outcome). Origin and Steam (and others) defend against this very thing by delisting games that might warrant a legitimate chargeback.

Chargebacks are for those people who buy stuff at motel room "auctions" and that sort of thing. The vendor is gone, unreachable, and otherwise unidentifiable.  I work in the credit card vertical of a business that is (at least currently) "too big to fail", and I know our support folks will attempt to work a refund through the vendor before processing a chargeback. Again, chargebacks are absolutely legal, but they are pretty much relationship ending measures when it comes to vendors.

I think you'd be surprised by the outcome of your court case. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that a judge would rule in the favor of Steam or Origin.

Not really, the problem is that the person has legitimate claim to all other games that they have purchased. Banning an account thus removing your access to potentially hundreds of other games purchased over the years is not an appropriate response to a charge back on a single game. 

 

If a case like that did go to court then the judge would side with the consumer hands down. A service like Steam or Origin would be lucky if all they had to do was reinstate the account but chances are good they would have to reimburse the consumer for every game that purchased that they no longer have access to. With a good lawyer they would have to reimburse them the amount they paid at the time and not what they are currently worth. 

I agree.  Chargbacks should be a last resort, aside from a law suit, to get your money back for a defective or undelivered product.  The correct course and appropriate action would be to shut down the account from any further purchases and possibly any further purchases from that client. 

Removing access to previously purchased games isn't a business decision, it's punishment for being forced to use such an extreme measure to get refunded.

People still buy games from EA and games with online only DRM?  lol, sounds like a bunch of suckers made bad choices to me.

I check for a short list of  "not worth my money" items before purchasing anything and two of the items on that list are "Is this game in any way associated with EA?" and "Does this game require online-only DRM?".

If yes, then money stays in my wallet.  Pretty simple really.  It's not like there's a dearth of good games out there.

I got out of this early. I hope others can do the same. When the announcement came out from EA (which we talked about elsewhere) I fired off an angry twitter cancelled my preorder and stopped following the sim city twitter.

Get out while you can, an account ban from that company? I'd welcome it.