Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

minimaxir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#71

Post by quotemstr »

minimaxir wrote: post #30
CamperBob2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the meantime, I enabled zoom for mobile devices. Whoever turned it off in the first place was a bad person, and should feel bad for doing so.

Having zoom enabled and changing device rotation can cause formatting issues on some devices. The mobile (smartphone) websites of TechCrunch, Yahoo, Cnet, Mashable, etc. all disable mobile zoom. Tablets appear to be a different story though, and zoom might need to be enabled there.

> Having zoom enabled and changing device rotation can cause formatting issues on some devices.

Then fix your goddamn site instead of gimping the user's web browser.

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#72

Post by marek12886 »

ricksta wrote: post #20

I'm not sure if op's solution is optimal. But why not use unique promo code?

The above mentioned approach is significantly simpler to implement and easier to measure (when it works! ha) than uniquely generated promo codes. So you're also looking at a cost/benefit trade off.

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#73

Post by xsmasher »

Havoc wrote: post #58
tantalor wrote: post #29

IANAL, but it's possible that these users are now liable to pay for the extra games. They knew that the code was only usable once, yet used it multiple times. EA might ask for the games back or charge the users. (I'm not taking EA's side, I'm just pointing out some possible consequences.)

>EA might ask for the games back Given the new trend of not actually "owning" the games, I think this might prove difficult from a legal perspective.

How so? EA can flip a switch to remove the games, and claim there was never a valid license. As long as EA honors the orginal terms of the coupon, I don't see how the "cheaters" were wronged.

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#74

Post by timmclean »

ntkachov wrote: post #62
dkokelley wrote: post #51

Can this really be considered lost revenue? It's unlikely that all 1,000's of the "free" games were going to be purchased at the current price. You run in to the same questions with piracy. Were the pirates really going to pay if they couldn't pirate? The lost revenue should really only come from customers who would have paid the asking price but managed to get an illegitimate deal, plus whatever support and overhead…

Yes because some (most of the ones worth paying for) of the games require some sort of server. So every new player in a game is not free for EA. Giving away a game means they will lose money on this person if they play online.

Although, that'd be an increase in expenses, not lost revenue...

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#75

Post by jklp »

timmclean wrote: post #74
ntkachov wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because some (most of the ones worth paying for) of the games require some sort of server. So every new player in a game is not free for EA. Giving away a game means they will lose money on this person if they play online.

Although, that'd be an increase in expenses, not lost revenue...

If you're nitpicking, then I guess technically it's a loss on profit ...

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#76

Post by oakwhiz »

rabidsnail wrote: post #43
oakwhiz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there would be chargebacks since a valid credit card was not even asked for during the process of entering the code.

But presumably you have to have a credit card associated with your account, right?

In fact, surprising as it is, you did not require a credit card number on your account, nor did it ask for one when creating new accounts.

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#77

Post by eumenides1 »

dkokelley wrote: post #54
dagrz wrote: post #50

Is it me or does the author of this article, and the abusers of the exploits he writes about, land on the wrong side of both the law and common morality? Surely EA being a "terrible company" has nothing to do with whether it is okay to steal their products? Moreover, just because there was a coding error/oversight, again doesn't mean it is okay to steal their products? If you have a complaint about a company or disco…

Yes this rubs me the wrong way. I think it's analogous to a retail store (say, an Apple store) leaving their front door unlocked overnight. It's possible to go in and take merchandise. After all, it's not your fault they left their front door open. You could even argue that Apple's business practices are morally questionable, so they deserve to be taken advantage of . (I'm not trying to make any statement about Apple…

I think the analogy is wrong. EA didn't lose any physical copies.

I think a better analogy would be Chapters/Barnes & Noble (A Book Store) had accidentally put in free to use high quality photocopiers inside their store. The photocopiers were intended to be free to use, but not intended to be used on the books in the store.

Your argument isn't morally analogous because theft implies EA were deprived of something (EA still can sell and play their games), when the issue at hand is the EA botched up controlling access to their product. In your argument, Apple can't sell the stolen merchandise any more.

The more important part for EA would not to be to "punish" or claw back copies. That genie is out of the jar. They should just chalk it up to marketing and move on (fix the technical issue).

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#78

Post by sliverstorm »

bluedanieru wrote: post #60
brainfed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually pulled most of their top titles off Steam when Origin launched. Mass effect, Dragon Age etc. If you already own them on Steam then they remain in your library but you can't buy them on there anymore.

Dragon Age 1 and Mass Effect 1 & 2 are still available on Steam. Interestingly, they pulled Crysis 2 then a few months later added Crysis 2 Maximum Edition. For Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, I agree with their reasoning. Steam doesn't allow in-app purchases that circumvent their distribution system, and that's a load of crap.

Steam doesn't allow in-app purchases that circumvent their distribution system, and that's a load of crap.

The idea there is probably something along the lines of preventing developers from selling their game for $0.99 and "unlocking" it in-app for $59.00.

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#79

Post by milfot »

dkokelley wrote: post #69
sespindola wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, in that case, Apple will loose a lot of money from the free hardware. In this case, the only real loss for EA is the bandwidth. Since it would be safe to asume that the downloaders wouldn't have bought a lot of games at the current prices.

Sure, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. It's hard to quantify, but there is some set of those downloaders who at some point in the future would probably have bought one of the EA titles they received, so there is some actual lost revenue. I suppose that's their lesson for pushing bad code into production. But it shouldn't matter. Real loss isn't necessary for it to be a unethical (or worse, a crime…

Is it actually true that real loss isn't necessary to be unethical? You couldn't possibly provide an example? I am having trouble imagining such a situation.

(I would argue in terms of importance, ethics > crime)

Re: EA “Gives Away” 1000s Of Free Games Due To No Server-Side Validation

#80

Post by trhtrsh »

jklp wrote: post #75
timmclean wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although, that'd be an increase in expenses, not lost revenue...

If you're nitpicking, then I guess technically it's a loss on profit ...

No, the point is that for these users, the vendor loses the $1 or whatever worth of hosting costs, not the $50 or whatever retail price.
Post reply on HN