Please sign petition to protect us users from Server dependent Online games

[Xyloxadoria 1,098]

Except that it was clearly advertized that it would require a constant online connection to the EA servers. If you did not know about it, then it is your own fault for not doing your homework when you bought it. The government should not be there to save you from the consequences of your own ignorance. At least not when it comes to luxury products like games. 

True and even if this petiton did get enough signatures, there is really no way that the goverment would be able to enforce it. They cant just force game companies to shut down online gaming. There is nothing illegal or wrong about it, so its here to stay.

[arcology 224]

Except that it was clearly advertized that it would require a constant online connection to the EA servers. If you did not know about it, then it is your own fault for not doing your homework when you bought it. The government should not be there to save you from the consequences of your own ignorance. At least not when it comes to luxury products like games. 

 

When people have to fight tooth and nail to receive a refund for something they paid for and doesn't work, there is something wrong.  Even if it is just a game, it is still a product that is expected to work, regardless if it is online or not. 

 

Thought this might be of interest:

Gamers Turn To FTC With New SimCity Petition Aimed At Protecting Consumers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2013/03/26/gamers-turn-to-ftc-with-new-simcity-petition-aimed-at-protecting-consumers/

[Jim14409 448]

You are entitled to your opinion and I think we all heard it but many of us still very much disagree with you on most points.

 

 

 

In your post you stated that "There are better ways of voicing your displeasure of the actions of a certain company..."

Could you please enlighten us as to what some of those ways might be? Thanks.

Don't buy the game. There is nothing a company understands so well as disappointing sales figures. Add to that a lot of criticism from the community and EA should realize what went wrong and how they could prevent it in the future. 

 

Now you are sending a mixed message. At the one hand you bought the game while EA clearly communicated that it would be an always online game which implies that you were fine with the always online aspect but and now you are beginning a petition to the federal government asking them to protect you from always online DRM. You are responsible for whatever you buy, and if you buy a product you are not happy with, the fault lays with you. 

 

Perhaps if you read a little more and commented a little less you might be able to keep up with the conversation.

I clearly (for most readers) stated that I DID NOT buy the game and never will. I have also stated same in thread after thread on this site. I do not like to be carelessly misrepresented.

I sent no "mixed" message and am sorry if I failed to state my position in a language you could understand.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Perhaps if you read a little more and commented a little less you might be able to keep up with the conversation.

I clearly (for most readers) stated that I DID NOT buy the game and never will. I have also stated same in thread after thread on this site. I do not like to be carelessly misrepresented.

I sent no "mixed" message and am sorry if I failed to state my position in a language you could understand.

You asked for a better method than signing a petition. I answered your question by saying 'don't buy the game'. You have not bought the game, congratulations, you have made use of the better method, good for you. Do you want me to give you a cookie for taking the better option? 

[T Wrecks 10,210]

Hey hey, now. Let's calm down a little, shall we? I feel this is on the verge of getting personal.

 

Comments like "if you read a little more [...] you might be able to keep up with the conversation" and "Do you want me to give you a cookie" can certainly no longer be considered as discussing the topic.

 

I can understand that some people feel that game publishers are pretty free to do whatever they want and that some limits should be imposed on them, but I can also see the point of those who think that all this wouldn't be necessary if only people had more discipline and kept their wallet closed.

 

I guess that much of this divide is due to the fact that the call for official regulation comes precisely in the aftermath of the SC2013 disaster. This makes it seem like the complaints of people who could have known better easily and now want someone else to step in for them, when there's nobody to blame but themselves. I admit that this was my initial reaction to this thread, too.

 

However, if you take a step back and isolate the call for regulation from the particular situation, you may find that computer game buyers are actually less protected than buyers of other products. Buy a car, can't use it because the manufacturer screwed up => manufacturer is in trouble. Buy a PC game, can't use it because the manufacturer screwed up => manufacturer shrugs.

 

Of course, you could probably point out that EA didn't guarantee any online playability and didn't commit to particular availability figures - neither in terms of bandwidth nor in terms of lifetime of the offer. So you could leave it at that and say "you get what you signed, your own fault". However, you could also take a different position and say that there should be some minimum requirements and user rights.

 

I'm not decided on that matter myself, but I'm watching the entire computer game market with distrust. IMO, forced online with or without regulation is wrong unless it's technically necessary. For me, enforcing minimum requirements has a touch of locking yourself into a prison first and then demanding three hot meals once you're in. It's somehow wrong from the start. I'd rather see a general policy against forced-online components. When I buy a game at the store, install it locally and then get prompted to install a separate online client such as Steam even if all I want to do is play locally, something is wrong IMO. A one-time online anti-piracy check... fine. But this? I don't even care whether there are strong regulations or not at that point. It's technically superfluous, it's just an additional nuisance and a risk. If I want to connect to an online service, if I want to buy games through this online service, then I'll let them know. I don't want all this junk forced on me.

 

A perfect world for me would not be a world where Steam, Origin, and other services are strongly regulated by law. It would be a world where such services may be offered, but without affecting a buyer's ability to play independently, or to host a (dedicated) server themselves if they choose to do so (and have the required equipment).

 

Wishful thinking, I know - especially since I know that on the way to such a world, laws won't help.

[Jim14409 448]

Hey hey, now. Let's calm down a little, shall we? I feel this is on the verge of getting personal.

 

Comments like "if you read a little more [...] you might be able to keep up with the conversation" and "Do you want me to give you a cookie" can certainly no longer be considered as discussing the topic.

 

I can understand that some people feel that game publishers are pretty free to do whatever they want and that some limits should be imposed on them, but I can also see the point of those who think that all this wouldn't be necessary if only people had more discipline and kept their wallet closed.

 

I guess that much of this divide is due to the fact that the call for official regulation comes precisely in the aftermath of the SC2013 disaster. This makes it seem like the complaints of people who could have known better easily and now want someone else to step in for them, when there's nobody to blame but themselves. I admit that this was my initial reaction to this thread, too.

 

However, if you take a step back and isolate the call for regulation from the particular situation, you may find that computer game buyers are actually less protected than buyers of other products. Buy a car, can't use it because the manufacturer screwed up => manufacturer is in trouble. Buy a PC game, can't use it because the manufacturer screwed up => manufacturer shrugs.

 

Of course, you could probably point out that EA didn't guarantee any online playability and didn't commit to particular availability figures - neither in terms of bandwidth nor in terms of lifetime of the offer. So you could leave it at that and say "you get what you signed, your own fault". However, you could also take a different position and say that there should be some minimum requirements and user rights.

 

I'm not decided on that matter myself, but I'm watching the entire computer game market with distrust. IMO, forced online with or without regulation is wrong unless it's technically necessary. For me, enforcing minimum requirements has a touch of locking yourself into a prison first and then demanding three hot meals once you're in. It's somehow wrong from the start. I'd rather see a general policy against forced-online components. When I buy a game at the store, install it locally and then get prompted to install a separate online client such as Steam even if all I want to do is play locally, something is wrong IMO. A one-time online anti-piracy check... fine. But this? I don't even care whether there are strong regulations or not at that point. It's technically superfluous, it's just an additional nuisance and a risk. If I want to connect to an online service, if I want to buy games through this online service, then I'll let them know. I don't want all this junk forced on me.

 

A perfect world for me would not be a world where Steam, Origin, and other services are strongly regulated by law. It would be a world where such services may be offered, but without affecting a buyer's ability to play independently, or to host a (dedicated) server themselves if they choose to do so (and have the required equipment).

 

Wishful thinking, I know - especially since I know that on the way to such a world, laws won't help.

I am generally NOT in favor of more Government regulation but when big companies take advantage of their customers, refuse to consider their wishes and force things on them they do not want then it is time for a third party of some kind to intervene on behalf of the consumer. This is not the old days where most companies were mom and pop organizations and knew that if they did not provide what their customer wanted that customer would go to the competion.

 

Today these mom and pop organizations have merged and grown into a handful of huge bullies whose attitude increasingly is one of "take it or leave it." That is very much an anti-consumer attitude and if they cannot remember they are here to serve then they need to be reminded.

 

Signing a petition is somewhat like Goliath against the giant and may only provoke a chuckle and a smirk, but it sends a message that the masses are not pleased. Encouraged by that knowledge new competitors often arise out of the dust knowing they have an opening into a market, a way to the underbelly of the beast so to speak.

 

Like I said, I'm not for bigger Government and whether or not they get involved a petition with a lot of signatures does not go ignored by those it is directed toward. I did not  buy SC2013 or any other online game so I don't have a dog in the race but I think everyone opposed to what EA and others are doing should sign the petition while we have a chance of having a voice. Tomorrow you may find yourself trapped and having to "take it or leave it."