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.
Returning a defective product isn't abuse, it's justice.
Chargeback isnt a refund, goto a store to return an item and instead of asking for a refund open the register and take the money out yourself. Tell us, what do you think they will do?
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 think EA should give the guy a refund if he wants one, and not ban his account. Not defending them in any way.
But from all reports its a good game, why not just wait a week and not stress over a $60 problem? I understand being pissed at not being able to play, but this is hardly worth the time or effort involved, and getting your Origin account banned. Next time you want to buy a game on Origin, just remember this instance and decide to buy or not.
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.
Well people would have if Valve had refused to refund the WarZ buyers after saying to contact them for a refund. But they didn't, and refunded them cleanly.
I think that's the crux of the issue, that EA told them go through support, only for support to acknowledge the statement and then just deny the refund anyway. It's just wasted time and effort, and can only be claimed to not be lie through the most technical and spinned of reasons.
I think EA should give the guy a refund if he wants one, and not ban his account. Not defending them in any way.
But from all reports its a good game, why not just wait a week and not stress over a $60 problem? I understand being pissed at not being able to play, but this is hardly worth the time or effort involved, and getting your Origin account banned. Next time you want to buy a game on Origin, just remember this instance and decide to buy or not.
People raged about this exact same thing in Diablo 3 when it launched, but they actually made good on their refunds if you pressed hard enough. I would like to say everyone following the game knew about the always online DRM, but millions of people trying to cram themselves into the game at the same time (mostly just to play single player!), not to mention how horrible the game was from a design standpoint in the beginning, the refunds were justifiable.
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.
I think EA should give the guy a refund if he wants one, and not ban his account. Not defending them in any way.
But from all reports its a good game, why not just wait a week and not stress over a $60 problem? I understand being pissed at not being able to play, but this is hardly worth the time or effort involved, and getting your Origin account banned. Next time you want to buy a game on Origin, just remember this instance and decide to buy or not.
While I normally would be behind you... on this one though... it is EA... it is the people that gave us the Star Child... that keep finding new ways to pound their community's... wallets for more money... that gave us Sin to Win and Dead Space 2's "Your mom's gonna hate this game!" ads... sorry but they deserve people nailing them to the wall by their own solid gold egos every time they cock up, they've retarded gaming's advance towards a legitimate art form for years all the while bearing the name "Electronic Arts" though some might claim it to be "Electronic Ass" nowadays.
I think EA should give the guy a refund if he wants one, and not ban his account. Not defending them in any way.
But from all reports its a good game, why not just wait a week and not stress over a $60 problem? I understand being pissed at not being able to play, but this is hardly worth the time or effort involved, and getting your Origin account banned. Next time you want to buy a game on Origin, just remember this instance and decide to buy or not.
While I normally would be behind you... on this one though... it is EA... it is the people that gave us the Star Child... that keep finding new ways to pound their community's... wallets for more money... that gave us Sin to Win and Dead Space 2's "Your mom's gonna hate this game!" ads... sorry but they deserve people nailing them to the wall by their own solid gold egos every time they cock up, they've retarded gaming's advance towards a legitimate art form for years all the while bearing the name "Electronic Arts" though some might claim it to be "Electronic Ass" nowadays.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
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.
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.
As the saying goes. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. If people still refuse to learn to not support EA, well it's really their own fault.
Every company I know of that has subscriptions or cloud based content will ban your account if you do a chargeback. That isn't a refun, it is a claim of fraud against said company. While I do believe that companies should give refunds on their games within a period of time, I also agree with a company that would ban an account for a chargeback.
Why are morons bringing up charge back abuse? According to the chat log posted the user received a faulty product and asked for a refund, cr said no, user referred a public statement made by an EA rep saying that that issue could be refunded. cr said no again. User said log going viral. I fail to see where charge-back even enters into it or how EA has a leg to stand on.
EA's refund and replacement policy was updated just today. I'm not sure what it was previously, but it now says games downloaded digitally through Origiin are not eligible for refunds, but if you buy a physical copy through the Origin store you have a 14 day warranty.
I guess the moral of the story is either boycott EA outright or get a physical copy either though them or elsewhere.
Edit: Pulled up a cached copy of their old terms updated in July of last year:
What is your refund policy for PC digital downloads? Unfortunately, EA does not offer refunds on any products downloaded through Origin. EA reserves the right, however, to offer refunds under exceptional circumstances at its sole discretion.
3/7/2013:
As a general policy, EA does not offer refunds on any products downloaded through Origin.
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.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Assume that the customer has a legitimate reason for charging back a game title (say for instance, there were promised features in the description or on the box that were not in fact in the game) what then? From what EA is saying in this case, that even if the customer is justified in seeking a chargeback (according to consumer protection laws, say), they will ban the Origin acct anyway. And even if the customer "non-legitimately" sought and received a chargeback, would that give the company the legal justification for shutting off that customer's access to hundreds or even thousands of dollars of paid for merchandise? I seriously doubt the courts would agree that that level of a response was justified, and would warrant a customer being deprived of product worth that much money.
- Despite that, it is largely uncontrolled by both governments and laws, EA for instance can do things like forbidding people to sue them by putting it in their EULA, they also take the rights to collect personal data of their consumers and use it whatever way they want and the right to terminate any previous purchase agreement taking away any or all products out of any reason, even as stupid as “misbehaving” on their forums and they’ve done it before. Some of these things wouldn’t be possible in other industries.
- EA is also known for “ruining” certain people’s lives, from the companies they buy out just to destroy them to a large amount of staff fired (Origin, Bullfrog, Westwood, Criterion, Maxis, Pandemic and right now they’re working on Bioware), to a large part of their employees, for instance this is a good read in regards to that from a while back: http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html , 85-90+ hours of work 7 days a week crunch times over months without overtime. Sometimes they cut peoples jobs and re-hire them if they’re desperate enough just so they don’t get any bonuses or when benefits were supposed to kick in, other times just in time for their quarterly earnings figures so they look better to investors
- They are asserting market domination by literally buying and sucking dry promising studios that might rise to be competition of any creativity they might have had before they close them or they outright perform hostile takeovers of smaller companies to ruin them sometimes, they even tried a hostile takeover upon Take Two a few years ago over the Grand Theft Auto franchise, fortunately it failed: http://www.1up.com/news/initiates-hostile-takeover-take-two
Their sports games are mainly selling as they do because they managed to acquire exclusive rights to about any existing league out there, from the NFL, NBA, FIFA, UEFA to the NHL and more just so they don’t have any competition in that field. Unlike some of the bank foreclosures or similar that are often of the “shit happens” sort of thing, these practices are considered and methodical.
- They are pioneers in the way of cutting out parts of a product to keep them behind pay walls they call “DLC”, they’re abusing peoples psychological weaknesses with micro transactions just like Zynga, they got their own social sector for that and it’s seeping over into their main products, love what Ricitiello had to say on the matter:
- They’re known for outsourcing their work to places like China, India, Romania etc. just so they can have cheap and convenient labor that doesn’t complain, in regards to that they’ve also been caught using viral marketing using hundreds of people in well-known forums to deflect issues and do PR for them, a guy they had just fired because his job was moved to Asia said a few things in regards to that: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Viral-Marketing-Exposed-Big-Buyout-Horizon-40885.html and they’re well known for influencing or outright paying off their respective press.
Add false advertisement, quiet support for SOPA, their constant attempt to kill used sales for their products they want people to believe they don’t actually “own”, the practice of shifting the lion share of their profits based on marketing hype to “Pre-Orders” before one is able to judge the quality of said products and the increasing sequelization of their games as well as pillaging of old franchises for quick cash grabs and spreading those practices into larger parts of the industry (both by potentially buying off further companies, who knows maybe CDProjekt, THQ in their sad state just for their IPs or whoever is next as well as encouraging other companies to mimic them) along with Activision and you might just get the bigger picture that this isn’t just about some stupid game ending or only DLC. :P
Saying that EA isn’t bad because “they only work on games”, is doing them a great disservice over their deserved accomplishment (worst company 2012), if they worked in any other industry considered “important” they’d have been regulated and sued to hell over some of these practices.
I think it all depends on the severity of the issue with the product. Is it a temporary (few hours to a day) issue, that will be addressed quickly or is it something that willl take a month(s) to resolve?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
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.
In many places, you would not even need a lawyer. The jurisdictional cash limit for most places in the US is around $5k for small claims cases, and the filings cost around $50. If I had a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars worth of games sitting on a banned Origin acct, behind a "chargeback ban" I would file in a heartbeat.
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by BitterClingerThis 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.
And EULAs have lost plenty, as well. One question that has not been answered definitively by the courts, is what is the inherent difference between the bits on a disk, and the bits downloaded from a game seller? How can it be in the first instance the item be considered a good, and have certain consumer rights attach, and in the second and for the same exact product, no consumer rights attach because it is a "service"? The few times I am aware that this specific issue was brought up, the software company involved settled. I do not think they want the courts to answer this question (and precedents are a bitch).
Comments
Chargeback isnt a refund, goto a store to return an item and instead of asking for a refund open the register and take the money out yourself. Tell us, what do you think they will do?
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 think EA should give the guy a refund if he wants one, and not ban his account. Not defending them in any way.
But from all reports its a good game, why not just wait a week and not stress over a $60 problem? I understand being pissed at not being able to play, but this is hardly worth the time or effort involved, and getting your Origin account banned. Next time you want to buy a game on Origin, just remember this instance and decide to buy or not.
Well people would have if Valve had refused to refund the WarZ buyers after saying to contact them for a refund. But they didn't, and refunded them cleanly.
I think that's the crux of the issue, that EA told them go through support, only for support to acknowledge the statement and then just deny the refund anyway. It's just wasted time and effort, and can only be claimed to not be lie through the most technical and spinned of reasons.
People raged about this exact same thing in Diablo 3 when it launched, but they actually made good on their refunds if you pressed hard enough. I would like to say everyone following the game knew about the always online DRM, but millions of people trying to cram themselves into the game at the same time (mostly just to play single player!), not to mention how horrible the game was from a design standpoint in the beginning, the refunds were justifiable.
While I normally would be behind you... on this one though... it is EA... it is the people that gave us the Star Child... that keep finding new ways to pound their community's... wallets for more money... that gave us Sin to Win and Dead Space 2's "Your mom's gonna hate this game!" ads... sorry but they deserve people nailing them to the wall by their own solid gold egos every time they cock up, they've retarded gaming's advance towards a legitimate art form for years all the while bearing the name "Electronic Arts" though some might claim it to be "Electronic Ass" nowadays.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/why-ea-won-the-worst-company-in-america-award/
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
For EA to ban people for doing a chargeback is understandable.
What's not understandable is if they refuse to refund the money by any means other than a chargeback for a game that doesn't work.
But hey, buyer beware. If you buy a game from EA, you don't expect it to actually work right. Do you?
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.
Every company I know of that has subscriptions or cloud based content will ban your account if you do a chargeback. That isn't a refun, it is a claim of fraud against said company. While I do believe that companies should give refunds on their games within a period of time, I also agree with a company that would ban an account for a chargeback.
EA's refund and replacement policy was updated just today. I'm not sure what it was previously, but it now says games downloaded digitally through Origiin are not eligible for refunds, but if you buy a physical copy through the Origin store you have a 14 day warranty.
I guess the moral of the story is either boycott EA outright or get a physical copy either though them or elsewhere.
Edit: Pulled up a cached copy of their old terms updated in July of last year:
What is your refund policy for PC digital downloads?
Unfortunately, EA does not offer refunds on any products downloaded through Origin. EA reserves the right, however, to offer refunds under exceptional circumstances at its sole discretion.
3/7/2013:
As a general policy, EA does not offer refunds on any products downloaded through Origin.
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.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Assume that the customer has a legitimate reason for charging back a game title (say for instance, there were promised features in the description or on the box that were not in fact in the game) what then? From what EA is saying in this case, that even if the customer is justified in seeking a chargeback (according to consumer protection laws, say), they will ban the Origin acct anyway. And even if the customer "non-legitimately" sought and received a chargeback, would that give the company the legal justification for shutting off that customer's access to hundreds or even thousands of dollars of paid for merchandise? I seriously doubt the courts would agree that that level of a response was justified, and would warrant a customer being deprived of product worth that much money.On the Forbes message thread a gentleman had this to say, has some links w/ more info, but it sums up everything you need to know about EA:
- Gaming is now the largest entertainment industry, larger than both music and also movies in regards to money made
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/its-official-games-revenues-overtake-music-at-retail
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/games-overtake-films-in-global-entertainment-market
- Despite that, it is largely uncontrolled by both governments and laws, EA for instance can do things like forbidding people to sue them by putting it in their EULA, they also take the rights to collect personal data of their consumers and use it whatever way they want and the right to terminate any previous purchase agreement taking away any or all products out of any reason, even as stupid as “misbehaving” on their forums and they’ve done it before. Some of these things wouldn’t be possible in other industries.
- EA is also known for “ruining” certain people’s lives, from the companies they buy out just to destroy them to a large amount of staff fired (Origin, Bullfrog, Westwood, Criterion, Maxis, Pandemic and right now they’re working on Bioware), to a large part of their employees, for instance this is a good read in regards to that from a while back: http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html , 85-90+ hours of work 7 days a week crunch times over months without overtime. Sometimes they cut peoples jobs and re-hire them if they’re desperate enough just so they don’t get any bonuses or when benefits were supposed to kick in, other times just in time for their quarterly earnings figures so they look better to investors
- They are asserting market domination by literally buying and sucking dry promising studios that might rise to be competition of any creativity they might have had before they close them or they outright perform hostile takeovers of smaller companies to ruin them sometimes, they even tried a hostile takeover upon Take Two a few years ago over the Grand Theft Auto franchise, fortunately it failed: http://www.1up.com/news/initiates-hostile-takeover-take-two
Their sports games are mainly selling as they do because they managed to acquire exclusive rights to about any existing league out there, from the NFL, NBA, FIFA, UEFA to the NHL and more just so they don’t have any competition in that field.
Unlike some of the bank foreclosures or similar that are often of the “shit happens” sort of thing, these practices are considered and methodical.
- They are pioneers in the way of cutting out parts of a product to keep them behind pay walls they call “DLC”, they’re abusing peoples psychological weaknesses with micro transactions just like Zynga, they got their own social sector for that and it’s seeping over into their main products, love what Ricitiello had to say on the matter:
- They’re known for outsourcing their work to places like China, India, Romania etc. just so they can have cheap and convenient labor that doesn’t complain, in regards to that they’ve also been caught using viral marketing using hundreds of people in well-known forums to deflect issues and do PR for them, a guy they had just fired because his job was moved to Asia said a few things in regards to that: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Viral-Marketing-Exposed-Big-Buyout-Horizon-40885.html and they’re well known for influencing or outright paying off their respective press.
Add false advertisement, quiet support for SOPA, their constant attempt to kill used sales for their products they want people to believe they don’t actually “own”, the practice of shifting the lion share of their profits based on marketing hype to “Pre-Orders” before one is able to judge the quality of said products and the increasing sequelization of their games as well as pillaging of old franchises for quick cash grabs and spreading those practices into larger parts of the industry (both by potentially buying off further companies, who knows maybe CDProjekt, THQ in their sad state just for their IPs or whoever is next as well as encouraging other companies to mimic them) along with Activision and you might just get the bigger picture that this isn’t just about some stupid game ending or only DLC. :P
Saying that EA isn’t bad because “they only work on games”, is doing them a great disservice over their deserved accomplishment (worst company 2012), if they worked in any other industry considered “important” they’d have been regulated and sued to hell over some of these practices.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
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.
In many places, you would not even need a lawyer. The jurisdictional cash limit for most places in the US is around $5k for small claims cases, and the filings cost around $50. If I had a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars worth of games sitting on a banned Origin acct, behind a "chargeback ban" I would file in a heartbeat.Never really understood why gamers defend EA when in fact they screw you over on a dalie basis and still some gamers jump up and scream YES SIR.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
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.
And EULAs have lost plenty, as well. One question that has not been answered definitively by the courts, is what is the inherent difference between the bits on a disk, and the bits downloaded from a game seller? How can it be in the first instance the item be considered a good, and have certain consumer rights attach, and in the second and for the same exact product, no consumer rights attach because it is a "service"? The few times I am aware that this specific issue was brought up, the software company involved settled. I do not think they want the courts to answer this question (and precedents are a bitch).