I hate EA

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Because they can.

Thanks to that law the republicans passed regarding net neutrality this sort of thing is going to crop up more and more in online-exclusive video games.

 

[L]

If you do not want IGA to collect, use,store or transmit the date described in this section, do not install or play the software on any platform that is used to connect to the internet.

Fine by me. :no:
No BF 2142 evar.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Because they can.

Thanks to that law the republicans passed regarding net neutrality this sort of thing is going to crop up more and more in online-exclusive video games.

It has less to do with Net Neutrality (which, if you read the law was quite the blessing, it stops mega companies like Google from getting premium net access, and stops bottlenecking of "non-premium", ie, you didn't pay the bridge troll, people like us) and more to do with nothing serious being done about anti-spam legislation.

 

[Kurt`]

Thanks to that law the republicans passed regarding net neutrality this sort of thing is going to crop up more and more in online-exclusive video games.

-1, completely wrong/off topic/uninformed

http://www.totalbf2142.com/forums/showpost.php?p=66802&postcount=27

Basically, the developers are saying it only measures how long you look at in-game advertisements.

Since where you are currently looking is also known server-side, they could have simply not mentioned anything... which leads me to believe that they're not telling the complete truth. Nothing would even have to be uploaded from YOUR machine; it could just be submitted by the server to EA's server.

Oh well.

 

[sub]

I wonder how this will work with Europe's delicate privacy laws....

It shouldn't matter.

"If you live in a country with strong laws against data collection, you'll be pleased to read that the data collection servers may be located "outside your country of residence," where such laws are less strict." - Joystiq.com

 

[itr]

I'm waiting for a "fix" IE way to block all the ports for ads rather than editing host files, before I buy it.

 

[Grega]

Wouldnt it be simple for someone to just make a bypass to go round the system thats gathering the info ^^

 

[Adaptus]

I'm waiting for a "fix" IE way to block all the ports for ads rather than editing host files, before I buy it.

I'd rather it wasn't there at all, gobbling up extra resources and pissing me off.

 

[itr]

Wouldnt it be simple for someone to just make a bypass to go round the system thats gathering the info ^^

Thats breaking the EULA, same with blocking IP's via host file on your pc, they could ban your cdkey if they wanted. Thats why I am waiting for a "fix".

 

[Kama]

Best fix is probably just waiting for a console version.

 

[Devion]

It shouldn't matter.

"If you live in a country with strong laws against data collection, you'll be pleased to read that the data collection servers may be located "outside your country of residence," where such laws are less strict." - Joystiq.com

I'm not talking about the server, the actual software could be illegal according to some new laws the EU accepted not so long ago.

 

[frsrblch]

I'm amazed how stupid they are. Ads in-game are a nuicance, not something we look at if we find interesting. Whether we look at them isn't a measure of the appeal of the ad, it's just that what we were shooting at was by an ad.

It's a non-issue, though - Battlefield isn't much of a concern to me.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

It has less to do with Net Neutrality (which, if you read the law was quite the blessing, it stops mega companies like Google from getting premium net access, and stops bottlenecking of "non-premium", ie, you didn't pay the bridge troll, people like us) and more to do with nothing serious being done about anti-spam legislation.

I'm not talking about the law itself, I'm talking about the work they are doing to revoke it's protections of those kinds of things. This is actually the precise example my papers gave as a "benefit" to stopping net neutrality limitations -- "delivering in-game targeted marketing." They almost make it sound like they're doing us a frigging favor.

Research shows that the average 18-40 demographic mark spends vastly more time in front of the computer than the TV these days. This is why there are less commercials; you will notice on networks that don't have some hit show, you will often see commercials repeating nowadays. That is because people know there's not as many people watching and there isn't enough turnaround to justify the millions of dollars spent on advertising on unwatched TV slots.

So if we spend 75% of our entertainment time at computers instead of TVs these days it's only natural that the corporate pigs of the advertising business would want to exploit that avenue of "delivery."

Unfortunately, to the companies, this is no different then the walls of an arena having a sports drink ad on them, or a basketball court having some shoe ads along seating walls, etc.

But it IS different, the difference being, it will piss people off because it involves additional software that can (and knowing EA's crap netcode, WILL) affect the experience. It's not like an image on a wall at a baseball game; it's more like, David Ortiz stopping while running the bases to tell me about the latest sub at D'angelo's, and costing the Sox a run.

From my work in publication I can tell you that advertisers are DESPERATE AS HELL for attention. Humanity, particularly americans, are so desensitized to ads that in media publication a 2% turnaround is considered "a great success." So any new ways to deliver the in-your-face corporate bull**** that they spew at us through the idiot box is a great new opportunity for them.

Fortunately I wasn't planning to buy this game anyway.

 

[Kurt`]

I'm not talking about the law itself, I'm talking about the work they are doing to revoke it's protections of those kinds of things.

Net neutrality laws have NOTHING to do with any kind of protection against this type of setup.

Please read before you confuse people further

*sigh*

Working at the biggest newspaper chain on the East Coast owns Wikipedia anyday of the week. Sorry man--you don't even know what I'm talking about. Senator Edward Kennedy was just in my office the other day talking with some of us about this very same topic, among many other more politically relevant things. I'll take the musings of a United States Senator over wikipedia any day of the week. --Pride


For working at such an "important" place that relies on being aware and up-to-date with current events, you're really failing here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="net+neutrality"&btnG=Google+Search

Net neutrality has NOTHING to do with online privacy laws

It's about legalizing extortion for ISPs

Edit again:

Here, if the Wikipedia article isn't a valid source for you (even though it's 100% accurate at describing the issue)... http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html

And I'm pretty sure the New York Times is bigger than your paper

 

[Demonic Spoon]

Either way, the government really shouldn't have anything to do with this. It's not the government's place to stop this from happening. I could only see some intervention if someone bought the game, unknowing of the spyware, and EA refused a refund.

With that said, I believe the best and fairest way to deal with ****ty practices like this is to boycott. **** EA. Don't even bother trying to get a fix, just boycott the bastards. Or warez it (Not that I condone game piracy...but after this, EA can kiss my furry ass).

 

[Skiwan]

The government should be doing something about this, seeming as 80% of people dont have a clue what spyware is, here at least. Why would people boycot it for something they know nothing about? Companies shouldnt **** with personal computers, its just not their place.

 

[Demonic Spoon]

The government should be doing something about this, seeming as 80% of people dont have a clue what spyware is, here at least. Why would people boycot it for something they know nothing about? Companies shouldnt **** with personal computers, its just not their place.

And who's fault is that? If I am told that murder is illegal, and I don't know what murder means, is it alright for me to kill someone?

If someone opens up the packaging and cannot decipher from the card what is going to happen, then that's their own fault

 

[Skiwan]

Yes, but is it right for somebody to have to purchase something they dont want for a game they do which will mess with their computer and monitor their habits? Is that a fair trade for playing a game where as other games dont have that kinda **** attached to them and respect their privacy. We cant do anything but boycot it, but like i said many people are ignorant to such things, and boycoting wont do ****, the government, which is ment to uphold the same values as its citizens should be there to take care of privacy issues like this.

While you may be completely computer literate, many people arent, and they get taken advantage of. Its what the governments there for, to take care of its people.

 

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes, but is it right for somebody to have to purchase something they dont want for a game they do which will mess with their computer and monitor their habits? Is that a fair trade for playing a game where as other games dont have that kinda **** attached to them and respect their privacy. We cant do anything but boycot it, but like i said many people are ignorant to such things, and boycoting wont do ****, the government, which is ment to uphold the same values as its citizens should be there to take care of privacy issues like this.

While you may be completely computer literate, many people arent, and they get taken advantage of. Its what the governments there for, to take care of its people.

The government's job is to protect the RIGHTS of the people. Noone's rights are being infringed because someone was a dumbass and couldn't read the card that came inside the box. Granted, it could be grounds for fraud IF EA refused to refund the purchase once you found out about the spyware, but that's about it.

It's printed clearly what it will do. Even if this DID require being computer literate (which it does not), it would STILL be your fault for reading something, KNOWING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS, and still using it. If you don't know, find out.


And I find it disturbing that you seem to think "the government should have the same values as its people". You are advocating pure democracy-Tyranny of the Majority.

It's just as wrong for a group of people to userp the rights of the few than it is for one person to userp the rights of everyone.

 

[Eon]

yea but that would be a valid point if you knew the card was inside or not.