Verno wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:50:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:42:
While I don't disagree EA does deserve shit tossed their way for things, the constant stream of it, here especially, gets old after awhile.

Nah you're not really being fair about it. It's not a constant stream of complaints about the same old things, EA is just consistently in the news for this sort of thing. People bitch about other companies doing similar things, they just do a lot less of it there is less to complain about. I have no problem parsing what I do and don't like to read on the site, it is quite easy to ignore low content posters or to use the sites built in functionality for ignoring people that are bothering you.

nin wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:28:

Heads up, chumps Mayors – it’s been brought to our attention that our hand was caught in the cookie jar there’s been some confusion regarding the bug-reporting policy in the EA beta test agreement for SimCity.

Don’t worry – EA has never taken away access to a player’s games for failing to report a bug this week. In fact, we’re in the process of updating our agreement to avoid fucking you in the ass further make this point clear before the beta starts this Friday. If you have any more questions, read our FAQ: http://bit.ly/UCpuAA

Hope to see you in the beta Friday! Please, for the love of god, show up. Please. A lot's riding on this. Hello?

Don’t worry – EA has never taken away access to a player’s games for failing to report a bug

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:41:
<snipped to keep post smaller>

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:42:
While I don't disagree EA does deserve shit tossed their way for things, the constant stream of it, here especially, gets old after awhile.

Verno wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:22:

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:04:
You've been on BN long enough to know that any reason to whine and moan about EA's policies or practices, posters here will jump all over the chance.

That's actually the internet in general and EA's many shitty policies and practices over the years have given people plenty of reason.

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:41:
No. People on this board get worked up incredibly over EULAs. Sometimes with reason. Sometimes not. When they mention restricting access usually not. Here is how EULAs usually go:
Attorney, probably outside counsel, writes it.
Attorney, inside counsel, stamps it.
Developer gets a copy, says "yeah, whatever," ignores it.
It goes out.

Outside counsel is trying to make sure it can't get sued for something that happens, so it includes everything. It wants to make sure that no one that gets banned for exploiting a bug (something that's valid to ban for in a competitive multiplayer game), so they write it in a way that makes it very difficult for someone to argue.

There's never any intent to abuse this, but it's someone covering their ass. And it's fine that people push back to make sure it can never be abused, but the odds of this being EA trying to be abusive is pretty much nil. It's just attorneys being attorneys, and the reason they act that way is to prevent from being sued themselves.

It's like the whole Instagram EULA thing. Again, Nilay Patel on The Verge, probably the only person I trust in analyzing EULAs, says that the one the internet set fire to Instagram for was actually a better EULA than the original. It had MORE rights for users and fewer for Instagram. It also spelled things out in plain English. But the original EULA was more obtuse, and it was there in the first place rather than a change that people looked to compare, so it wasn't something anyone complained about. People complained about the new, easier to read, more user friendly one, so Instagram went back to the old one. The one that gives them more control over your pictures and allows them to pass that extra control on to advertisers.

Again, it was probably just overzealous attorneys, not Instagram being evil. And again, it's ok to make people fight their attorneys rather than rubber stamp. I just want to point out it's probably no one being evil.

RollinThundr wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 10:04:
You've been on BN long enough to know that any reason to whine and moan about EA's policies or practices, posters here will jump all over the chance.

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 09:41:
No. People on this board get worked up incredibly over EULAs. Sometimes with reason. Sometimes not. When they mention restricting access usually not. Here is how EULAs usually go:
Attorney, probably outside counsel, writes it.
Attorney, inside counsel, stamps it.
Developer gets a copy, says "yeah, whatever," ignores it.
It goes out.

Outside counsel is trying to make sure it can't get sued for something that happens, so it includes everything. It wants to make sure that no one that gets banned for exploiting a bug (something that's valid to ban for in a competitive multiplayer game), so they write it in a way that makes it very difficult for someone to argue.

There's never any intent to abuse this, but it's someone covering their ass. And it's fine that people push back to make sure it can never be abused, but the odds of this being EA trying to be abusive is pretty much nil. It's just attorneys being attorneys, and the reason they act that way is to prevent from being sued themselves.

It's like the whole Instagram EULA thing. Again, Nilay Patel on The Verge, probably the only person I trust in analyzing EULAs, says that the one the internet set fire to Instagram for was actually a better EULA than the original. It had MORE rights for users and fewer for Instagram. It also spelled things out in plain English. But the original EULA was more obtuse, and it was there in the first place rather than a change that people looked to compare, so it wasn't something anyone complained about. People complained about the new, easier to read, more user friendly one, so Instagram went back to the old one. The one that gives them more control over your pictures and allows them to pass that extra control on to advertisers.

Again, it was probably just overzealous attorneys, not Instagram being evil. And again, it's ok to make people fight their attorneys rather than rubber stamp. I just want to point out it's probably no one being evil.

Heads up, chumps Mayors – it’s been brought to our attention that our hand was caught in the cookie jar there’s been some confusion regarding the bug-reporting policy in the EA beta test agreement for SimCity.

Don’t worry – EA has never taken away access to a player’s games for failing to report a bug this week. In fact, we’re in the process of updating our agreement to avoid fucking you in the ass further make this point clear before the beta starts this Friday. If you have any more questions, read our FAQ: http://bit.ly/UCpuAA

Hope to see you in the beta Friday! Please, for the love of god, show up. Please. A lot's riding on this. Hello?