Print
Good news for the griefers, modders, trolls and all-around jerks that have been making life less pleasant for other gamers using EA's Origin gaming service: you can still pull your shenanigans on Steam! Kidding, kidding. But thanks to a change in policy from EA, you'll be able to get your single-player on in the games you purchase through Origin even if you've been banned from the service.
Before, a swatting from the banhammer (either for multiplayer cheatery or forum-based jerkery) resulted in you losing all of your gaming privileges, single player mode included. Obviously, paying full price for a game and then not being able to play it whatsoever totally sucks -- especially if you ended up blocked from playing primarily single-player games such as Mass Effect 3 for calling someone a poopy-head in an online forum.
Now, banned players will still be able to play solo content, but they'll need to be in offline mode -- found in Origin's gear/setting tab -- in order to do so. (Or, you know, head to Steam or GoG instead.) It seems like a good compromise, but to be honest, EA should never have blocked banned players from single player content to begin with.
Comments are closed on this article
poee
April 19, 2012 at 4:07pm
I understand why people should still be allowed to play the single-player games they paid for, even if they've been banned from the multi-player side for hacking/griefing. Also, forum behavior should be dealt with separately from the game, unless there is good reason to connect them.
But it is near impossible for me to feel sympathy for griefers, hackers, and unrepentant trolls. These people actually cost publishers revenue, and more provably than pirating does. There are many multiplayer games that players quit simply due to the rampant cheating and assholery that is allowed. Some titles attract the griefing type more than others, but no one benefits from the presence of these worthless losers who have to make others miserable just to get their kicks.
I can't stand EA or Origin, but for other reasons. The idea that they are taking such harsh steps against griefers and hackers is actually making me like them a lot more. I mean, if your biggest bitch about EA is that you got kicked off your account for being a douche, how in the world is that going to bother me, or the majority of players who hate dealing with douche-bags? That's a selling point to me!
The opening of this article makes a powerful point, even if Brad was only "kidding":
"Good news for the griefers, modders, trolls and all-around jerks that have been making life less pleasant for other gamers using EA's Origin gaming service: you can still pull your shenanigans on Steam! Kidding, kidding."
Yep. That's a selling point for Origin over Steam to me (all other things being somewhat equal). Unfortunately for Origin, they are nothing close to equal; they fail compared to Steam in every other way. So here's hoping that either Steam gets more proactive with their banhammer, or Origin gets a lot better in general if Steam is to be a safe haven for griefers and cheaters.
thechipper
April 18, 2012 at 11:31pm
EA acts like they've never seen the internet before. They don't understand the banhammer progression/usage. For hacking or damaging gameplay.
Step 1 - Warning (with investigation followup)
Step 2 - Temp ban 24 hours
Step 3 - Hard ban 72 hours
Step 4 - Account bannedA forum should be separated from the actual game bans. Banning someone from the forums is an easy way to stop them from trolling on the forums. If you are banned from forums well you were probably a jerk to begin with and it's really no loss to either party anyways but you still paid 60$ (in the case of all EA games) for the game anyways.
Seems everyone else has this figured but you who have been around for 30 some odd years can't understand how to do this.
Is there a single person out there that enjoys Origin anyways? It's a POS knockoff. I don't want 6 DL game clients with new id's. Steam is so much better than you in every way.
Love,
Rantasaurus Rex
TheRyGuy
April 18, 2012 at 8:49pm
I think there should be a CAPTCHA thing on this website. I keep seeing these stupid $83/hr comments and such.
jadei
April 18, 2012 at 1:39pm
Vote for EA with your wallets. If everyone stops buying their games something will happen. Origin made my mind up for me; if it has Origin it isn't bought by me.
Biceps
April 18, 2012 at 9:31am
I am all for having games moderated. Hackers (and there were a LOT of them in the early days of BF3) suck. But to ban someone for being a tool on a message board? I'd never get to play another EA game in my life!
Good social behavior can be moderated largely by the community - just because some executive at EA Online has thin skin doesn't mean they should be pulling people's ability to play a game that has been paid for.
For hackers, I support a lengthy (not permanent) ban from online play. Everyone should have the chance to learn from their mistakes and become a productive and contributing member of the gaming community.
Valor958
April 19, 2012 at 6:06am
I'm a fan of lengthy bans as well. When I worked adminning a top 3 in the world BF2 server, back a few years ago now (ATF Hump Em and Dump Em), we didn't always perma ban people and were fairly lenient by some accounts. When we did choose to perma-ban, we had a good deal of evidence to submit to PunkBuster for the big ban list they use.
What's funny though, is that I was perma-banned from the site, gaming group, AND ALL of their gaming servers for all games they play for an arguement with a 'superior' in the group... almost 2-3 years now and still a no go lol. Maybe ATF is in league with EA?
drevas
April 18, 2012 at 7:39am
I'm thinking that this was a legal decision. In our State we have a consumer protection law that allows you to make complaints against businesses directly to the AG's office. I worked for a computer store that this happened to and it was not pleasant.
Depriving someone completely of a product that they paid you for seems worse than unethical, I would bet it is illegal. A EULA can't protect a company if it is executed in bad faith. I think this would have qualified as bad faith, no matter how big of a jerk someone is.
So I sure wouldn't pat them on the back for this.
fung0
April 17, 2012 at 2:43pm
It's pretty obvious that behavior in forums should be treated separately. Just ban people from posting. How hard is that?
As for policing in-game behavior... how about a ranking system? Act like a jerk, lose a few points in your behavior ranking. Eventually, all the jerks can only play with each other, a punishment that perfectly fits the crime.
ScytheNoire
April 17, 2012 at 2:33pm
Banning people who cheat or harrass in multiplayer games from playing multiplayer games: okay.
Banning people who act up in a forum, or simply because they say something you don't like from playing ANY of their games: very wrong.
That's what EA was doing. Any ban, for any reason, any where, and you got locked out of all your games. It's ridiculous and part of the reason why EA was voted Worst Company in America 2012. EA has the worst customer relations, and Bobby Kotick is jealous of that.
Valor958
April 17, 2012 at 11:26am
I have to agree... that level of punishment should never have been reached to being with. I'm 100% in favor of online banhammer nuking of their privaledges, BUT even that within moderation. I've admined on servers for a long time and have seen people of all flavors change for the better after sufficient punishment.
For EA to restrict single player games due to online cr@p is borderline illegal, except that their terms allow it and by buying and activating the game you agree to be walked all over if EA gets its panties in a bunch. I think if anything, EA made an example out of people and what it was willing/capable of doing.
I wonder though, ignorant of the function basically, if you can still get updates for your games in offline mode? I just think this is going a bit too far. Hackers, ban online for sure... griefers/jerks, temp bans of increasing frequency or a 3 strike rule. This is not a one ban fits all environment.
