EA's customary mandatory binding arbitration

[macksting]

I'm very excited about Wasteland's inclusion! I never got to play it before, and look forward to owning a copy.
That said, if I'm required to sign over my right to a class action suit because EA required it of you before it could be included with Wasteland 2, I may have to let the thing go untouched or even uninstalled. I have legitimate copies of Mass Effect and Spore through Steam which I cannot install on this machine without agreeing to Origin's TOS and privacy policy, the latter of which includes a mandatory binding arbitration clause which I just can't accept.
I'm just making sure you guys know [strikethrough]we[/strikethrough] I consider that very important, even on so important a thing as this. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion was kind of a big deal to me.

[happy04]

I'm not sure why you think EA's policies will apply to wasteland 2.

Origin will not be the exclusive distribution. Wasteland 2 is supposed to be DRM free, so it should install from .EXE with no verification or authorization needed.

[happy04]

Also, you don't need to run games with origin even if they are published by EA. I downloaded a software tool that allowed me to run From Dust without origin, simply because it would never connect to the servers and prevented me from playing the game. I'm sure if you looked you could easily find workarounds.

[Drool]

I think his concern is about Wasteland possibly having a different EULA than Wasteland 2. I doubt that will be an issue, though. Of course, I'm not sure why it would matter. I can't really see how there'd ever be a class action lawsuit over it that could be derailed by EA having users waive that right.

[macksting]

Also, you don't need to run games with origin even if they are published by EA. I downloaded a software tool that allowed me to run From Dust without origin, simply because it would never connect to the servers and prevented me from playing the game. I'm sure if you looked you could easily find workarounds.

The EULA expressly states I'm beholden to the privacy policy, and says nothing about the prerequisite for such consent being specifically tied to my use of Origin.

I think his concern is about Wasteland possibly having a different EULA than Wasteland 2. I doubt that will be an issue, though. Of course, I'm not sure why it would matter. I can't really see how there'd ever be a class action lawsuit over it that could be derailed by EA having users waive that right.

Bingo on the Wasteland-possibly-requiring-EA-EULA. As to the class action suit matter in this (I say again unlikely) case:
If the legalese requires me to sign off on the Origin privacy policy as do their other EULAs, I doubt it'll be much legal defense to say I have never used Origin. By consenting to the (hypothetical) EULA, I'd've consented to be bound by the terms on a host of matters, as Origin's pretty broad now. Basically, I'd be writing off my rights to thumb my nose at EA at all.
Class action suits? It's the principle of the thing, really. It wasn't the best SCOTUS decision, and has had alarming consequences. I don't need to buy their shit and support that. Not just them, either.
Cor blimey, though, mandatory binding arbitration? Even without signing away the right to enter class action suits, that's some serious horse apples.

Now, to make this really darn clear, I highly doubt there's a meaningful EA EULA inserted into this Wasteland what's coming with Wasteland 2.
I am definitely saying, though, that such distinction matters greatly to me. And it bloody well should.

[macksting]

Somewhere in here is a post what goes like this:

Brian Fargo ‏@BrianFargo

Fear not my worriers... The Wasteland 1 inclusion has no conditions related to Origin.

Fears (rational or otherwise) allayed. Brother None brought this to my attention.
He did say the terms were more than fair.

[Kaldurenik]

Im abit confused... ToA, ToS and so on dont overwrite the laws of your country...

[Woolfe]

Im abit confused... ToA, ToS and so on dont overwrite the laws of your country...

True, most EULA's aren't worth the paper they are written on. However someone still needs to fight it at some point. Which of course costs money usually.

[macksting]

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
A Supreme Court decision, split like most of them, and with alarming implications. This is lawful, or at least has legal precedent at the highest level.

[Kaldurenik]

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
A Supreme Court decision, split like most of them, and with alarming implications. This is lawful, or at least has legal precedent at the highest level.

Ok i should add... In most sane countries

Edit: By that i meant sane people that make laws.

[macksting]

Yeah, I won't get into my feelings on politics of late. Suffice to say, my shrink told me to avoid the news (in all forms; I'm not a big TV person) for a while because my concerns were beyond my capacity to address, were clearly distressing me, and were probably valid.

Dammit, eh?

Anyway, read your EULAs now and then, just to keep in mind which clauses you're flouting.