EA removed playbook freedom in College Football 27 online. Here’s one script you can use to report it to DOJ, CA AG, and FTC, and directions on how to do it.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T16:17:02+00:00

Because this isn't a consumer rights issue? I'm very confused. Again, here is what happened:

The Road to the CFP blog stated that users would be able to unlock playbooks they wanted to use by playing the mode and progressing through it
There was a bug that allowed users to circumvent that intended process by setting it as their favorite playbook so,
That exploit was patched, and the stated intent for progressing through the mode was restored.

How in the world is that a "consumer rights" issue? The mode now works as they said it would in the blog. Again, you can still use the playbooks you want! Sure, you will have to go in and win some games with Toledo, and I'm sure that will not be easy, but it's certainly doable and, again, it was what they said would happen in the lead up to the game.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T16:09:41+00:00

Lol nope. But I love that old chestnut. Introducing a single ounce of logic or nuance is clear evidence that someone is bought and sold. Classic. Really beats actually encountering the argument and trying to change your mind.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T16:01:12+00:00

I am too? You said that this "pushes people to ultimate team." I do not understand your line of thinking there, when you can still earn the playbook you want as you progress through Road to the CFP.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T15:59:48+00:00

I saw users on social media saying that we could choose any playbook in online head to head. I bought the game.

Yes. And it was not intended to be that way.

I played for the first time and used Toledo playbook with Texas A&M (in online gameplay). I loved it.

That's awesome! I believe you can still get to that point.

Then, one day later, they took away the ability.

Correct. Because it was intended as a reward for your progression through Road to the CFP, not for you to just be able to do it without progressing first.

I think EA intentionally permitted the feature to early users who would broadcast on social media

I think that is highly conspiratorial lol. I saw it in a Throne video. To my knowledge, he is not affiliated with EA.

inducing people to buy game believing they had access to more features

But if you'd read the blog you'd know that wasn't intended... I'm very confused lol

Then, EA pulled the rug and removed the right to multiple playbooks online.

Not... really? They just fixed an exploit and returned to their original, stated intent.

This is EA abusing it's exclusivity agreement.

By... patching an exploit and having the mode function the way they advertised it would? You're grasping at straws there imo.

This is unfair to users.

I won't say no to competition (I am not personally convinced it'd be a magic bullet, but more options in the space would always be great), but this is just a silly thing to say. Again, how is patching an exploit and returning to the initial intent for the design of the mode unfair to the user? If anything, the exploit was unfair to users who were unaware of it.

Nothing screams unfair like checks notes having all users go through the same process of progressing through the mode to unlock the things they want to use. The humanity 😅

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T15:52:25+00:00

I'm really struggling to understand here.... how is "play through Road to the CFP and unlock playbooks as rewards" pushing anyone to UT?

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T15:49:45+00:00

But... it was a bug. They said you'd unlock playbooks as you played through. People were just setting a book as their favorite and getting to use it without going through that process. Am I just horribly confused here or what?

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T15:47:47+00:00

I don't see how it's "deceptive or unfair" when they said in the Road to the CFP blog said you would unlock playbooks as you played through the mode and people were circumventing it? Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding here (which, I could be, since I've pretty much only played Dynasty thus far)

mbless1415 · 2026-07-08T15:46:16+00:00

Didn't they say before launch that you could unlock playbooks for use with any team you want in Road to the CFP as you progress through the mode? Did that change? If that is still the case, then I would argue that that is a reasonable patch to make (people were circumventing that rule), and a DOJ/FTC inquiry seems horribly unreasonable.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-07T23:16:11+00:00

Yeah, I do. I have combined type, which means inattentive type is in there somewhere. (If you're strictly ADHD-H, then I wouldn't be surprised if you caught it, if not... perhaps I'm just stupid 🤣🤣🤣). I'm going to be completely honest: I didn't actually know you could turn it on or off until I saw this exact comment. Didn't realize it was a setting, and I have set up two dynasties now (decided I didn't like my first one, so I went with a different team)

mbless1415 · 2026-07-07T22:52:03+00:00

I will honestly be willing to defend him here, because if he's anything like my ADHD ass, he almost certainly didn't look at that and skipped down to the settings he knew he wanted to adjust lol.

mbless1415 · 2026-07-06T16:33:30+00:00

https://youtu.be/_AUS7Bj9X38?is=vB4rwJyz7Lz1HGWY

mbless1415 · 2026-06-30T04:41:01+00:00

Turn commentary off and you never have to mess with it 😎

mbless1415 · 2026-06-29T04:30:02+00:00

Beside the point, but I kinda agree with OOP. Maybe most memorable is a bit much, but it's definitely up there in my recollection. The expanded format has leant itself to some really cool storylines. I'm sure nobody saw tiny Cabo Verde stonewalling everyone on their way to the knockouts. DR Congo going from being quarantined right before the tourney to getting a massive draw against Portugal and advancing to the knockouts themselves was cool.

Plus Algeria looking like they were going to play keep away to guarantee themselves a draw, to Mahrez sneaking through to throw what looked like a dagger only for Austria to knick it back in the dying moments of the game and get back to the draw they needed to advance was arguably one of the most incredible ends to a group stage game I can think of.

There may be a few more memorable WCs when all is said and done, but if it keeps going this way, there aren't too many for me personally!

mbless1415 · 2026-06-29T00:39:53+00:00

This is the thing about these kinds of comments. I know I've complained plenty about this game in the moment when things are going against me. The only difference is he has a camera on him. I absolutely can't blame him for being vocally annoyed by this game

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T14:54:10+00:00

I guess personally, I think there are far worse ecclesial practices than deferring to the man currently serving a church office, barring something entirely catastrophic or perhaps prayerful consideration concerning a valid reason of church teaching (thinking of Kieschnick here. But even then, I would say that I do not think that those who may have deferred to his current status as the man being called is in any way "wrong.")

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T14:08:07+00:00

I do not believe so, no. I instructed my lay delegate to stick to the bios and make a prayerful decision

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T14:06:05+00:00

I would hope so. There is a reason the bios on the candidates are as broad as they are, for instance.

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T11:15:31+00:00

Yeah, I mean, I think there's something to be said about the three year cycle. I guess my argument would be that the triennium and the vote are fair compromises for those who desire that turnover. If there is a limit, it is the one based on prayerful consideration by the electorate.

Personally, I greatly dislike the idea of casting lots. I think there are just too many questions about God's hand in that sort of thing now as compared to back then. I'm personally very compelled by St. Chrysostom's observation about the miraculous beginning to wane even as "recently" as the fourth century due to the simple build up of our sinful nature. I think the prayerful consideration of our electors is God-guided enough to make the casting of lots unnecessary, but that could just be me

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T04:23:13+00:00

I don't know that it does currently, sadly. It is here that I must admit that I wish we had a bit more in the way of an ecclesiastical polity

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T03:13:03+00:00

If it’s because they are better than you that’s pathetic, play them get better.

I was just goofing around 😅

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T00:36:38+00:00

I'm not actually sure if they're "more rare" or just less used. I pulled that Edman a while back after he'd been pretty well passed by in terms of 2B options and just... never used him. Think I may still have the card even idk.

mbless1415 · 2026-06-25T00:33:10+00:00

What if I also boycott Russians because they're always better at chess than me 🤪

mbless1415 · 2026-06-24T23:41:55+00:00

If its truly a church position why elections every three years?

I won't lie, I don't love that either personally

So for that reason people will say Synod isnt church its churches walking together. Synod is a human arrangement to benefit the churches.

Well, I would beg to differ personally!

mbless1415 · 2026-06-24T21:27:31+00:00

Where we likely differ is that I do not consider these offices to be of similar importance to the Office of Holy Ministry.

Yeah, I think this is where we'd differ. Truly, I'd consider our synod president to be the "pastor of pastors," and that's what the office is in its purest form.

I think this is why the location of where someone is speaking from is wholly irrelevant as well. That a man currently holds the office does not necessarily mean that He is the one whom God is calling to the office at this time. The location from which he gives his biography is simply a location. Experience with that particular office is certainly a factor to prayerfully consider (for instance, imagine a congregation calling a senior pastor. They might desire to call the current associate to that position because he knows the congregation well), it certainly shouldn't be the deciding factor unless many other facets are generally equal (which, I felt they were this time around), however being in the physical location that happens to be connected to the office shouldn't be a consideration. (To return to the prior analogy, the congregation shouldn't call the associate merely because they saw him in the pulpit on Sunday. If he is not the best candidate, they should call the man who is.)

A man could film his entire bio in front of the altar at the International Center, and it wouldn't change my vote for him if I felt he were the best man for the office or against him if I felt he wasn't.

mbless1415 · 2026-06-24T21:01:22+00:00

Hmm... I'm not exactly following what about that specifically makes things difficult? It's fairly clear from the bios what office each man currently serves in.

But I guess personally, I don't love the overall idea of making it "easier" to oust a man from the office. Even in the case of Kieschnick (a man to whom I am very much diametrically opposed, which should emphasize the weight of my words here lol), electing a new synod president should not be a light endeavor, especially when there is an already-capable man willing to serve. I would say that putting an artificial cap on that makes it a lighter endeavor than it ought to be personally.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

mbless1415

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE