Love how when it's been shown that you're wrong, instead of accepting it you double down on your ignorance.
What a great look😒
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Love how when it's been shown that you're wrong, instead of accepting it you double down on your ignorance.
What a great look😒
I'm still confused as to if that actually happened here, feels like everyone is arguing a hypothetical.
A contract is a contract is a contract. That's how it works.
The only thing we can prove is a person had access, he broke the NDA, and the game was gone. There is zero evidence they had other games or that their account has suffered long term or permanent consequences.
That fact that you think this is simply "people defending EA" shows how wrong you are and how tunneled your vision of the discussion is. Go back, reflect a little bit on this and see why you're wrong.
I would imagine most gamers don't give much thought towards NDAs when they sign up for these betas, all they probably care about is playing cool new games before anybody else.
I can't think of any industry that doesn't have NDAs for pre-release products. My household has reviewed two kids shows that aren't out yet for a certain network (the one with a mouse for a mascot). Every episode we watch has our registered email and user ID as a watermark so if we were to share any screencaps it would identify us.
The show we are currently watching is not even done. Lots of uncolored backgrounds, minimal frames of animation and even notes like an arrow pointing toma direction a character is moving. It is mostly the voice acting and sound effects that are complete. If we showed what this series looks like now a lot of peoplemwould think it is half-assed.
They may just be video games or cartoons but as you said, they are serious investments with a lot of jobs on the line.
It's still unclear at this point what paid content he actually had at this point, with no indication he had any other games on his profile. In any case I can see how one would be concerned about account access being revoked, but he knew that was a risk when he signed it. If he didn't want it to happen he shouldn't have put himself in a situation where EA could legally justify it. It sucks but he knew what would happen. If you want to avoid the risk completely, stick to solely offline/physical media.
One thing to bear in mind is that NDAs are generally a lot more strict and serious than your usual TOS/EULA/etc., hence why you usually have to sign it rather than just scroll through and click 'Agree'. I've signed an NDA before, with consequence much worse than losing my Origin account, but it would have been a struggle to actually breach it in the first place. In any case courts can't just wave away contract clauses just because one party doesn't think the contract is particularly important. As ever, never sign anything if you're not willing to face every possibility it might bring.
I'm certainly not EA's biggest fan, but I'll admit (for transparency's sake) I'm not their biggest detractor either. There's a conversation to be had about whether an NDA is really necessary for this kind of situation, but others and I find it hard to really put the blame on EA for the streamer's actions and the subsequent consequences. Whether or not you want to view that as corporate apologism or recognition of the validity of the contract they both signed is your own business (excuse the pun).
Why would EA think one person out of however many people they let in wouldn't just do this? If it requires an NDA it requires a level of professionalism and ethical standards that probably won't be found by just letting Joe blogs get access to it. So colour me not surprised in anyway shape or form.
Awesome. I feel like I'm trolling at the point.
My original intent was to be upset about EA's reaction and the nature of NDA's, specifically in regards to protecting Anthem from public view. Yes, the streamer broke the NDA. Yes, an NDA is legally binding. I don't like that his account was closed and any games he purchased were lost. He potentially lost any digital items he'd purchased. He can no longer access anything linked to that account. Yes, that might be legally permissible, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. The NDA included with the alpha test allows for EA to seek unlimited damages without the accused present. It grants that any disclosure is irreparable, and monetary damages would be insufficient. There's no signature needed to agree to this NDA. It's just three check boxes and a button.
My view is more dangerous than that? My view that NDA should be limited, specific, and that they are largely a corporate tool to silence critics, is more dangerous than an enforceable NDA with potentially limitless penalties? It's an ignorant and myopic opinion that consumer rights should be protected and that an account with digital purchases shouldn't be voided without recourse? I didn't realize I was alone in this opinion. I don't like that there aren't rights in this digital world.
Lol what a moron, best part is getting booted for an alpha stress test on an open demo slated in 2 months time. Seeing as he had nothing on his origin account previously, he got off light for breaking an NDA
That's factually incorrect. The benefit of an NDA to a corporation is protecting their IP (including marketing); which is what's being done here.
That's not incompatible with silencing critics. NDA's are used for silencing critics specifically, in some cases.
Your views of (i) the NDA's scope, and (ii) the NDA's purpose are incorrect and wholly belied by the document itself and countless examples of the same throughout the industry.
I get cynicism, and I get wanting to be anti-corporate (especially with EA), but there are more worthy hills upon which to die than the deconstruction and misrepresentation of centuries of contract law.
It depends what you classify as valid criticism. A NDA at an alpha stage would be used so the product is not presented to the public without context, especially if features are removed from that current version as they are irrelevant to what is currently being tested (e.g. a network test). If someone breaches the NDA on an early version of an unfinished product, without a full picture of the context and caveats of that version, it risks being interpreted as a more "finished" version. Some may view it as an attempt to hide the removal of specific features or downgrading of technical specs, which could unduly hurt the value of the product/associated IP. Devoid of context, is it fair to consider all such criticism valid?
Really, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I understand your view. I understand that I'm arguing an abstract, or worst-case potential, but this seems wrong. To me, at least. We're moving to an all-digital future, and we have no rights to anything. Non Disclosure Agreements, and Terms of Service only limit consumers and benefit the companies. It bothers me that an act as simple as streaming a game, or sharing a image could result in the permanent loss of all things tied to an account.
Apparently I am dying on this hill, and will be hoisted by my own petard.
Personally I think they're trying to save money. Doing big network tests under real conditions, while assuring NDAs aren't being broken is expensive after all.
Yes indeed, it's not surprising seeing leaks already considering there are enough people who fail to understand these are (digitally signed) legal documents.
Am I missing something? I thought that the video showed he lost all games in his library.
What games were in his library? All this video shows is one game in his library--the alpha--and this one game disappearing after force quitting.
Was there not an update to the OP/title reflecting this?
I can't believe they're attacking us GAMERS!!!!!
But seriously some of the comments here are dumb. It's an NDA he should have known the consequences all this does is fuel toxic gamer garbage
But seriously some of the comments here are dumb. It's an NDA he should have known the consequences all this does is fuel toxic gamer garbage
Yeah, that caveat undermines your examples, and are far from typical (and legal) uses of NDAs.
When it's a legal contract you're signing (physically or digitally), your signature means something. It means you agree to the terms and any consequences.
If this was called out in the NDA and he signed it, then I don't see any foul on EA's part.
EA told the player what the conditions of playing were. If a player doesn't adhere to those conditions, then EA can respond in the way outlined and the player agreed to. That agreement is why it's dangerous to blindly sign something. The alpha is EA and Bioware's property, so players don't have an inherent right to it. If people didn't like the terms, then they shouldn't have participated. If EA had very few participants and realized the reason was terms no one wanted to agree to, they might change those terms. (For some reason, I'm thinking of how Ariel and Ursula's contract in The Little Mermaid shows the dangers of agreements.)
The above might be too much of a pro-business stance for some people to agree with me, but there are other games I can play at any time. If I don't like the business practices of a company, I can move on. I guess I'm applying that worldview to how I expect others to act, which is perhaps unfair. I personally parallel this with refusing to buy certain products because of their price. No agreement, no sale.
To be clear, if EA did not do what they wrote in their contract, then I have a large issue with what happened.
If this was called out in the NDA and he signed it, then I don't see any foul on EA's part.
EA told the player what the conditions of playing were. If a player doesn't adhere to those conditions, then EA can respond in the way outlined and the player agreed to. That agreement is why it's dangerous to blindly sign something. The alpha is EA and Bioware's property, so players don't have an inherent right to it. If people didn't like the terms, then they shouldn't have participated. If EA had very few participants and realized the reason was terms no one wanted to agree to, they might change those terms. (For some reason, I'm thinking of how Ariel and Ursula's contract in The Little Mermaid shows the dangers of agreements.)
The above might be too much of a pro-business stance for some people to agree with me, but there are other games I can play at any time. If I don't like the business practices of a company, I can move on. I guess I'm applying that worldview to how I expect others to act, which is perhaps unfair. I personally parallel this with refusing to buy certain products because of their price. No agreement, no sale.
To be clear, if EA did not do what they wrote in their contract, then I have a large issue with what happened.
I have some hard time believing this story to be true. Did the streamer actually contacted EA or did he/she just jumped the gun?
Anyways, was anything actually signed, via electronic signature or on paper? I don't think ticking a box or clicking an agree button is actually enough for a NDA, but I might be wrong.
Anyways, was anything actually signed, via electronic signature or on paper? I don't think ticking a box or clicking an agree button is actually enough for a NDA, but I might be wrong.
From my understanding clickwrap agreements are usually upheld in court as the user has to intentionally check the box, if they read the terms or not really doesn't matter.
It bothers you that legally signing a contract not to reveal company secrets and thus potentially harm a company's image, and then breaking that agreement, could result in the company taking action? Even if this person had an entire account full of games, he got off easy, they could have sued him for tens of thousands of dollars or more. It could have ended affecting his entire life for years.
Yes, I get it. I'm wrong. I shouted at the internet, and it shouted back, "You're wrong about this and you're an idiot." I still think it's a one-sided situation, but I'm alone in my opinion. You are correct.
Last edited:
People just don't grasp that NDAs are in an entirely different legal basket than EULAs and TOS.
There's definitely some loopholes in a ton of NDAs that aren't fair that makes this controversial
I don't particularly like EA but if you sign a legally binding agreement I have less sympathy for you I guess.
this, my head hurt reading most of the comments here. Maybe most people here are self employed or in an industry where they never had to deal with contracts ever but even then so, how the hell is get sued is a lighter penalty than getting their access to the service inc. the games in it get taken away (as per what the NDA clearly stated).
I wonder, maybe its because they see this as a contract between consumer and a corporate that's what make instinctively sided with the 'consumer' side, but perhaps if they see this a business contract between two businesses with the streamer being a businessman who are in the business of, well, streaming then they can wrap their heads around this better.
Generally I agree with your sentiment in that there's a conversation to be had regarding certain business practises around the use of NDAs and the ramifications of breaking them. Yes there should be clear specific punishments within the binding contract, and within reason too, and not open ended sign-your-life-away deals where companies can take your first born child.
However in this instance this guy clearly broke an NDA and suffered the agreed consequences. He broke a contract he willingly agreed to and paid the penalty that was previously established. I don't think this is the case where that wider conversation is relevant. He signed a contract and broke it and received a punishment in line with his actions.
Coming off a semester of Contracts, you are absolutely correct. It does not matter if you choose not to read the terms of NDA, as that is seen as you assuming the risk of adhering to terms you didn't read. So long as you had an explicit opportunity to review them (and in this alpha, had to check a box and go through certain screens with the legal terms) then click wrap terms are deemed ok.
Let's just talk about this one. Do you want to see it? It's pretty short and sweet.
He probably thought those are just little welcoming bouncy funsy to congratulate him for getting into the alpha, and not digital watermarks literally with his name on it so every image/video he disclosed can be traced back to him by EA lawyers.
That's actually good for the game dev they busted this streamer. Your 'word' should mean something or rather in this case, his signature. I don't belive it's honorable to agree to the NDA and then turn around to stream it for personal gain lol
It isn't
edit: fucking LOL@ the rest of your posts. Jesus Christ breh
Last edited:
This one has 3 check boxes
- Alpha Agreement
- User Agreement and EA's Privacy and Cookie Policy
- Community Playtesting Code of Conduct