You're not required to accept an EULA, but then you don't play. If you don't like the EULA, don't play, state you're not playing because the eula and spread the word to other players about the horrible rules they don't know they abide to. That's the best you can do.
So let's say I buy a MMORPG at timecard, open it, install it, run it, read the EULA and decide it doesn't match the advertising or I just don't agree to it. Can I return the game and timecard for a full refund? Most stores don't let you return opened merchandice and that goes double for software unless you can prove there's a physical defect. Why should I have to waste $60+ on a game before finding out it has a bad EULA or otherwise doesn't live up to the advertisment?
You're not required to accept an EULA, but then you don't play. If you don't like the EULA, don't play, state you're not playing because the eula and spread the word to other players about the horrible rules they don't know they abide to. That's the best you can do.
So let's say I buy a MMORPG at timecard, open it, install it, run it, read the EULA and decide it doesn't match the advertising or I just don't agree to it. Can I return the game and timecard for a full refund? Most stores don't let you return opened merchandice and that goes double for software unless you can prove there's a physical defect. Why should I have to waste $60+ on a game before finding out it has a bad EULA or otherwise doesn't live up to the advertisment?
Most companies provide a trial issue of some short time, simply because they are aware the retailers are taking advantage of the customers by not allowing them to return merchandise that did not suit their gaming need. The answer to your question is therefore obvious. Take the trial time and see if you like it before you buy it.
It is my opinion that game companies have a right to place any limits and conditions they please on THEIR game. If the player doesn't like it., then the player does not have to play.. Plain and simple.. no debate.
The problem is... there IS debate. Though no real life comparison works perfectly, here's one to give you an idea:
You rent an apartment and while you're living there, buy things to put in your apartment. After two years of living there, a friend (or you) throws a party that gets out of hand and the landlord changes your locks and doesn't let you back in to get your stuff (unless you can somehow prove your innocence).
This is (sort of) how the EULA works. No one is arguing the fact that the game company does or doesn't own their code and product. The catch comes with the time spent in the game. Is this time worth something? As far as the EULA is concerned, your time spent isn't separate from their property/code.
As others have mentioned, there's also the issue with people paying REAL money for one type of a product or game and then having that game changed drastically halfway through (as is the case with SWG). In this case, it'd be like ordering one product and then the company turning around and giving you a completely different one, then telling you there's nothing you can do about it. This isn't legal, but they make it very difficult for people to bring them to court by making a very vague "we can change the game however we like." Honestly, no one would buy groceries at a grocery store if the store had the right to stop you as you're walking out with your groceries after buying them and then remove and replace your items with whatever they'd like. But MMOs are getting away with it because they can wave the EULA around saying that they "warned" players that changes could be made at any time and they agreed to it.
Sometimes it's a good thing that companies are able to cover their rears. But the EULAs do need to change so that players aren't treated like crack addicts who only get their addictions if they behave, take whatever is handed to them and keep shelling out the money.
The money paid to the game company is for the right to access their server. The price pay for the game is the cost paid when you buy it at the store. So the month fee is a Service fee, all they have to show is that they provided that service.
So with items and characters on their server, its just game code it was their property from the start to the end regaurdless of the time you spend collecting it. Same with the content of the game code, its theirs always was and they can change it.
Thats where the companies are coming from the players see it differently and laws and courts are still mostly vague on the topic.
It is my opinion that game companies have a right to place any limits and conditions they please on THEIR game. If the player doesn't like it., then the player does not have to play.. Plain and simple.. no debate.
The problem is... there IS debate. Though no real life comparison works perfectly, here's one to give you an idea:
You rent an apartment and while you're living there, buy things to put in your apartment. After two years of living there, a friend (or you) throws a party that gets out of hand and the landlord changes your locks and doesn't let you back in to get your stuff (unless you can somehow prove your innocence).
This is (sort of) how the EULA works. No one is arguing the fact that the game company does or doesn't own their code and product. The catch comes with the time spent in the game. Is this time worth something? As far as the EULA is concerned, your time spent isn't separate from their property/code.
As others have mentioned, there's also the issue with people paying REAL money for one type of a product or game and then having that game changed drastically halfway through (as is the case with SWG). In this case, it'd be like ordering one product and then the company turning around and giving you a completely different one, then telling you there's nothing you can do about it. This isn't legal, but they make it very difficult for people to bring them to court by making a very vague "we can change the game however we like." Honestly, no one would buy groceries at a grocery store if the store had the right to stop you as you're walking out with your groceries after buying them and then remove and replace your items with whatever they'd like. But MMOs are getting away with it because they can wave the EULA around saying that they "warned" players that changes could be made at any time and they agreed to it.
Sometimes it's a good thing that companies are able to cover their rears. But the EULAs do need to change so that players aren't treated like crack addicts who only get their addictions if they behave, take whatever is handed to them and keep shelling out the money.
The money paid to the game company is for the right to access their server. The price pay for the game is the cost paid when you buy it at the store. So the month fee is a Service fee, all they have to show is that they provided that service.
So with items and characters on their server, its just game code it was their property from the start to the end regaurdless of the time you spend collecting it. Same with the content of the game code, its theirs always was and they can change it.
Thats where the companies are coming from the players see it differently and laws and courts are still mostly vague on the topic.
A lot of people are on the same page with what you wrote. There is debate, and IF (perhaps BIG IF) something happens in law or interpretation of law, everything could go out the window.
My thoughts on EULA's are very simple. It's a crying shame that we even need them. Some lady burns the roof of her mouth from a cup of McDonald's coffee; then sues McDonald's for millions (and wins) because there wasn't a warning label on the cup that read "This shit is hot!", and suddenly video games have to go through a huge mess of legal crap.
*sigh* Oh, how I wish issues like this could just be solved with some plain, old-fashioned common damn sense. This is precisely the reason why I should be the king of the world, where I reserve the right to judge all people(s) and their issues. If you *uck someone over.... the penalty would be easy to predeict - I *uck you over! End of story.
The world would be so much happier if I were king. Vote for me in 2016!
While I agree that EULA's are important, I believe they are misnamed. They are End User License Demands, pure and simple. An agreement is drafted between two parties, with benefits for those parties. EULA's are drafted by the game company, and are designed solely to protect the game company. As joe schmoe gamer, my rights and concerns are not addressed in EULA's. I have the option to either agree to them or not, with no input or reasonable feedback option.
Then there's the problem with them changing. Sure, when I start playing the game, I read through the EULA, but down the road, the company decides to change something, or sometimes several somethings over the course of my playing. I have no idea these changes are implemented, but I still click play anyway, just because I believe I am bound to my original agreement. I think an easy way to address this would be just require the companies post 45 days in advance their intentions to change the EULA, what the changes are, and how they affect me. Then I can decide, 'ok, I disagree, and wish to cancel my payments prior to the change,' and off I go, looking for a new MMO to play. No fuss, no muss.
I agree that companies need to protect themselves. I just think that I as the End User should be represented in the drafting of these EULA's. I don't know how to accomplish that, other than the project mentioned in the article. I think that's a great step in the right direction, and a game should have some sort of badge saying they follow the EULA that is drafted by this project, providing it turn out beneficial to all, just like they have ESRB badges. If a game chooses not to follow a standard like that, that is fine too, but I'd be a lot more likely to play games with said badge.
As to ownership, the software company has every right to ownership of your character and equipment. Your time spent on the game is NOT an investment, if the game falls under the entertainment heading. Let's say I buy a tv, watch it 20 hours a week, then 2 years down the road, the channel I like is taken off the air. I can't sue the manufacturer because the reason I bought the tv has been taken away.
It mainly boils down to the fact that I want any agreement between myself and a company to pay respect both to myself and the company, not just that company. I want my consumer rights protected, and I don't think I should have to hire a lawyer to make that happen. SOE is the prime example of what happens when the consumer has no say, because they are arrogant and don't listen to what customers say; that's why we have things like the SWG fiascos.
I will be VERY happy if this EULA project comes out with some positive results. I'd rather not have to drag the government into policing my gaming experience. That will never turn out positive for anybody. The IRS example alone sent chills down my spine.
While I agree that EULA's are important, I believe they are misnamed. They are End User License Demands, pure and simple. An agreement is drafted between two parties, with benefits for those parties. EULA's are drafted by the game company, and are designed solely to protect the game company. As joe schmoe gamer, my rights and concerns are not addressed in EULA's. I have the option to either agree to them or not, with no input or reasonable feedback option. Then there's the problem with them changing. Sure, when I start playing the game, I read through the EULA, but down the road, the company decides to change something, or sometimes several somethings over the course of my playing. I have no idea these changes are implemented, but I still click play anyway, just because I believe I am bound to my original agreement. I think an easy way to address this would be just require the companies post 45 days in advance their intentions to change the EULA, what the changes are, and how they affect me. Then I can decide, 'ok, I disagree, and wish to cancel my payments prior to the change,' and off I go, looking for a new MMO to play. No fuss, no muss. I agree that companies need to protect themselves. I just think that I as the End User should be represented in the drafting of these EULA's. I don't know how to accomplish that, other than the project mentioned in the article. I think that's a great step in the right direction, and a game should have some sort of badge saying they follow the EULA that is drafted by this project, providing it turn out beneficial to all, just like they have ESRB badges. If a game chooses not to follow a standard like that, that is fine too, but I'd be a lot more likely to play games with said badge. As to ownership, the software company has every right to ownership of your character and equipment. Your time spent on the game is NOT an investment, if the game falls under the entertainment heading. Let's say I buy a tv, watch it 20 hours a week, then 2 years down the road, the channel I like is taken off the air. I can't sue the manufacturer because the reason I bought the tv has been taken away. It mainly boils down to the fact that I want any agreement between myself and a company to pay respect both to myself and the company, not just that company. I want my consumer rights protected, and I don't think I should have to hire a lawyer to make that happen. SOE is the prime example of what happens when the consumer has no say, because they are arrogant and don't listen to what customers say; that's why we have things like the SWG fiascos. I will be VERY happy if this EULA project comes out with some positive results. I'd rather not have to drag the government into policing my gaming experience. That will never turn out positive for anybody. The IRS example alone sent chills down my spine.
I like your idea of having the user's interested represented in the End User Agreement. I also agree that users should be informed well in advance of changes that affect the service "agreement".
I also understand, I think, your views on player progress not being an investment. I think there are some fine, but important, lines here though. For example, I'll stick with the television example you're using. Let's say I respond to a marketting campaign by a cable or satellite company that says for 60 bucks a month I'll receive a bundle that includes the sci-fi channel, a movie channel and a sports channel. Should this company be able to change my bundle from sci-fi, movies and sports to documentaries, fine arts and the BBC news immediately after they receive my payment? Hell no. Yet, this is pretty much exactly what SOE did with its NGE disaster, and they used EULA as their defense. Any EULA that can be used to justify this type of blatantly unethical behaviour is a bad EULA. Any steps that would prevent the existence and unethical use of "agreements" that are designed to undermine consumer rights would have my full support.
I also still feel that EULAs should be very specific regarding what can and cannot change in a service. There should be no surprises for the consumer. Vaguely worded EULAs that do not give people the information they need to make an informed decision about subscribing need to be clarified. Game companies can do this, and in my view should do this without any fuss. The alternative only reflects a desire to reserve the right to dupe their playerbase. If companies can make this adjustment on their own, excellent. If they require oversight, so be it. I still feel this will be a shameful waste of taxpayers money and legislators time and energy. And, at the end of the day, government regulation may not look pretty to anyone, game companies or customers. SOEs repeated wrecklessness, unfortunately, may already have initiated a chain of events in this regard.
On the side of the rights of the service provider. Should they be able to ban people who clearly violate the terms of service? Of course they should. Should users receive compensation for subscription fees paid in advance? My thinking here is much like my thinking on other EULA related issues. Whether or not compensation is available should simply be made very clear in the EULA. Users should just have the ability to make a truly informed decision about their decision to pay and play.
So,
-EULAs should be very clear about what may and may not change in the service being paid for. This will eliminate unpleasant surprises like SOE's NGE.
-They should also be very clear about what constitutes a violation of the user agreement.
-They should then be very clear regarding how such violations will be addressed, and whether or not subscription fees are recoverable.
Ambiguity lends itselft to abuse. It's more clarity that is needed in my view to protect the rights of both service providers and users. There should be no loops holes left for the purpose of allowing one side or the other to crap on the other. Right now, in some EULAs, such "crapholes" abound. They can and should be sealed over with clear and accurate information.
I can't remember where I read it, but EULA's are not valid in Europe. As I recall it was something about the fact that it is impossible the the customer to read the EULA and dis-/agree to it before actually unpacking it.
When the sofware is unpacked no store will refund it.
greedy lawyers, scared devs, or devs with mindsets like they are gods (lotr anyone?). EULAS, got to hatem, cant play withoutem until the fans finally say enough or a company grabs it balls and takes subs from other more restricting games the message will simply die, and thats what the afore mentioned folks hope for.
can you smell that?!!...............there is nothing quite like it.....................the smell of troll in the morning............i love that smell.
As diverse as the demographics of all MMO's are, (8 year old school kids to 50 year old Accountants) its a wonder that there is not more attention to Virtual Property Law. I feel after seeing this thread that a Lawyer could specialize in this field. Standard EULA language could then be established as a industry norm. This would highlight when a given game agreement deviates in its terms.
At any rate, I think this is an important issue for both parties rights to use a game.
First, the company establishing it insists that you agree that they are not accountable for anything they do, ever. You have no recourse, no right to due process, no right to fair and honest practices. (This is also common in most contracts in general.) Modern corporations take the ass-covering way too far; yes, you have to protect yourselves, but there's a line and almost all of them cross it.
Secondly, the EULA -- which is being read by a layman -- is presented in legalese. They word it in such a way as to either be incomprehensible or very difficult reading for anyone without a law degree. This results in players not fully understanding the ramifications of the agreement, and also in many people skipping the EULA entirely and just clicking "I accept" since they've already payed for the game, anyway.
-Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
The problem with the EULA agreement is this: Its complicated but in the end it says we ( the company) have all the rights and you ( the player) have none. You click yes and say you agree to that because if you do not you cant log in and play even though you have already paid for the service and committed months or even years of in game work to developing your characters. The EULA and other click to sign contracts that guard the gateway to virtual worlds are subject to change at the whim of the company and that is something you also agreed to in the EULA.
If there were laws ( and there should be) that were made to control unreasonable agreements and contracts, then this would be a prime example of consumer abuse. We have become used to it but that does not mean that its ok. It is like this because there is little if any legal president to determine if consumer rights have been violated by said contracts, or even if the consumer has any rights at all.
Perhaps some of our more cerebral gamer brothers and sisters should consider putting some explanation and complaints together in a way that those who have influence on laws could understand. This isn't something that companies will offer of good will. They exist for profit and nothing more. Believing in some kind of benevolence from an entity that has its birth in profit is the worst and most foolish kind of mythology.
Hmm are we a bit aggressive in pressing for our own interests? I mean we as players.
The stake on the table is not really on par. As a gamer, my risks are my $50 box, and $12 monthly. The hours I spent in the game are hours enjoyed, not hours of labor. I love it. Its enjoyment, and its why I pay for the hours.
As a producer, the stake is huge. Billions of dollars in development, thousands or millions in maintenance, patch ... . Additional risk of billions if some freak find a loophole in the EULA and start some pointless court action.
With such skewed shouldering of risk, I see every reason for us to have some more protection for the investors, so that they will keep making and maintaining games. If we allow some McDonald customer to fry her lips and sue Bliz out of business, we all will suffer. They will be no more games to play, and we will have to talk about games like we talk about dinasaurs.
My problems with most EULAs are twofold: First, the company establishing it insists that you agree that they are not accountable for anything they do, ever. You have no recourse, no right to due process, no right to fair and honest practices. (This is also common in most contracts in general.) Modern corporations take the ass-covering way too far; yes, you have to protect yourselves, but there's a line and almost all of them cross it. Secondly, the EULA -- which is being read by a layman -- is presented in legalese. They word it in such a way as to either be incomprehensible or very difficult reading for anyone without a law degree. This results in players not fully understanding the ramifications of the agreement, and also in many people skipping the EULA entirely and just clicking "I accept" since they've already payed for the game, anyway.
Well I see things slightly different.
On your first point, yes, its always an issue of balance of power, and the balance of power does not come from us trying to fight against the supplier. No. It comes from other suppliers COMPETING against this one. In the earlier days, we only have UO (sinking) and EQ. No other games. If SoE screws us, oh damn it, we have to take it, buy a new account and grind again. Do not bother what the EULA is, unless I am rich enough to try to bring SoE to the courtroom, forget it.
Today, if SoE bans my account, hehe no problem, let me pull down the game list on MMORPG.com and flip a coin. I have to flip a coin, as there are toooooo many games to choose from, and EQ2 or whatever is lost in the list. SERIOUSLY: I am not taking a shot at EQ, EQ2 or SoE, its just a figurative way of speaking. And, well people like to bash SoE for everything, so why not?
As for the issue of incomprehensibility of legal terms, oh well, I find the same when I read my medical records. Honestly, its not even legible. So what? I do not care. If the doc fix my ailments I will revisit him. If not, next doc along the street. If I like the game, I play no matter what the EULA is. If I have doubts about the hours I spent in that game world, I know where the cancel button is.
My bottomline: its a game. I do not need to acquire a doctorate in law to diagnose the EULA before I start enjoying the game. Or maybe I should not bother read the long list of EULA lest it spoils the fun factor. All I need to know is: do I want to log on again?
I think the problem is that players do not read the EULA. They have no idea what it says or limits. When I did live in apartments I always read the contract. If the contract said that you could have no loud parties then I would make a decision if I wanted to move in or not. It is the same with online games. It is not the game companies fault if players do not want to read the EULA.. I do read them. I know what I am agreeing to when I click accept. My game is EQ2 and I know that SOE can change the game any way they wish. And they have. Online games are entertainment. You pay a monthly fee, for most of them, for the entertainment you are receiving while you play. The monthly fee is not something you are entitled to get back if something is changed which causes you to no longer enjoy your play time. If that is the case. you quit. But you are not entitled to get any compensation for past playing time. That just doesn't make sense.
Obviously the above poster is a casual gamer and it's not a big deal for a casual gamer to spend his 2 hours thrice a week hopping from one game that interests him/her to another.
The whole idea here is that we, aws the player base, can force changes to the EULA. As the MMO player base grows in the hundreds of millions, any substantial chunk of that number can most definitely mandate changes to EULAs whether SOE and alkl other game companies like it or not.
While minor changes/upgrades/updates to a game are acceptable even expected, complete revamps of a game into another game -- something players did not buy or subscribe to (as in the Star Wars Galaxy NGE fiasco mentioned above) -- is totally unacceptable. I haven't followed the SWG debacle, but I agree with the poster who said that, if they haven't done so already, pre-NGE SWG Jedi and top level crafters should sue Sony Online Entertainment.
Regardless, marketing disasters like the SWG NGE and forcing the early release of Vanguard clearly reflect SOE's total disregard for their player base and, by extension, the MMO player community as a whole because "we're SOE, the big boy on the block, and we can do whatever we want." This is why many many veteran MMO players will never, ever again touch any game SOE is even remotely connected to.
Unfortunately the EULA gets more wordy and full of legalese because more people are trying to hack/bot/cheat by getting around the rules they agreed to. Typically like "it doesn't specifically say I can't do this" or "it doesn't specifically say I can't sell my gold for X dollars". So the companies are forced to get lawyers to draft up more and more wordy agreements.
Not having a signed paper doesn't mean the EULA isn't valid. I've done my taxes online and never signed a piece of paper, does that mean my tax refund check sent to me wasn't "valid"? I've bought non-subscription products online with a credit card, yet I didn't sign a receipt, does that mean the purchase wasn't "valid"?
If less people hacked, botted and bought/sold ingame items, I bet the EULA's wouldn't be so dern wordy...
1) MMO publishers can restrain or reduce their live teams.
2) MMO development starts to reemphasize stability over agility in design philosophy.
3) Either the box price or the subscription fee gets dropped (if it's just the box price, then it's easy to jump in and out according to the changes. If it's just the subscription fee, then it's easy to consider the MMO a service that you partake in at will).
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I have no problem with subscription fees, if the game is progressing and developing. Guild Wars is lacking the depth of other games, but then again it's non-subscription.
The current state of the EULA is due to companies trying to protect themselves and their work. Simple fact is people will always try to cheat and/or get around the rules. Look at a cell phone contract, it is far more than just "pay us X dollars per month and you can talk for Y minutes". My last cell contract was 4 frikking pages long!
Comments
So let's say I buy a MMORPG at timecard, open it, install it, run it, read the EULA and decide it doesn't match the advertising or I just don't agree to it. Can I return the game and timecard for a full refund? Most stores don't let you return opened merchandice and that goes double for software unless you can prove there's a physical defect. Why should I have to waste $60+ on a game before finding out it has a bad EULA or otherwise doesn't live up to the advertisment?
So let's say I buy a MMORPG at timecard, open it, install it, run it, read the EULA and decide it doesn't match the advertising or I just don't agree to it. Can I return the game and timecard for a full refund? Most stores don't let you return opened merchandice and that goes double for software unless you can prove there's a physical defect. Why should I have to waste $60+ on a game before finding out it has a bad EULA or otherwise doesn't live up to the advertisment?
Most companies provide a trial issue of some short time, simply because they are aware the retailers are taking advantage of the customers by not allowing them to return merchandise that did not suit their gaming need. The answer to your question is therefore obvious. Take the trial time and see if you like it before you buy it.
You rent an apartment and while you're living there, buy things to put in your apartment. After two years of living there, a friend (or you) throws a party that gets out of hand and the landlord changes your locks and doesn't let you back in to get your stuff (unless you can somehow prove your innocence).
This is (sort of) how the EULA works. No one is arguing the fact that the game company does or doesn't own their code and product. The catch comes with the time spent in the game. Is this time worth something? As far as the EULA is concerned, your time spent isn't separate from their property/code.
As others have mentioned, there's also the issue with people paying REAL money for one type of a product or game and then having that game changed drastically halfway through (as is the case with SWG). In this case, it'd be like ordering one product and then the company turning around and giving you a completely different one, then telling you there's nothing you can do about it. This isn't legal, but they make it very difficult for people to bring them to court by making a very vague "we can change the game however we like." Honestly, no one would buy groceries at a grocery store if the store had the right to stop you as you're walking out with your groceries after buying them and then remove and replace your items with whatever they'd like. But MMOs are getting away with it because they can wave the EULA around saying that they "warned" players that changes could be made at any time and they agreed to it.
Sometimes it's a good thing that companies are able to cover their rears. But the EULAs do need to change so that players aren't treated like crack addicts who only get their addictions if they behave, take whatever is handed to them and keep shelling out the money.
The money paid to the game company is for the right to access their server. The price pay for the game is the cost paid when you buy it at the store. So the month fee is a Service fee, all they have to show is that they provided that service.
So with items and characters on their server, its just game code it was their property from the start to the end regaurdless of the time you spend collecting it. Same with the content of the game code, its theirs always was and they can change it.
Thats where the companies are coming from the players see it differently and laws and courts are still mostly vague on the topic.
You rent an apartment and while you're living there, buy things to put in your apartment. After two years of living there, a friend (or you) throws a party that gets out of hand and the landlord changes your locks and doesn't let you back in to get your stuff (unless you can somehow prove your innocence).
This is (sort of) how the EULA works. No one is arguing the fact that the game company does or doesn't own their code and product. The catch comes with the time spent in the game. Is this time worth something? As far as the EULA is concerned, your time spent isn't separate from their property/code.
As others have mentioned, there's also the issue with people paying REAL money for one type of a product or game and then having that game changed drastically halfway through (as is the case with SWG). In this case, it'd be like ordering one product and then the company turning around and giving you a completely different one, then telling you there's nothing you can do about it. This isn't legal, but they make it very difficult for people to bring them to court by making a very vague "we can change the game however we like." Honestly, no one would buy groceries at a grocery store if the store had the right to stop you as you're walking out with your groceries after buying them and then remove and replace your items with whatever they'd like. But MMOs are getting away with it because they can wave the EULA around saying that they "warned" players that changes could be made at any time and they agreed to it.
Sometimes it's a good thing that companies are able to cover their rears. But the EULAs do need to change so that players aren't treated like crack addicts who only get their addictions if they behave, take whatever is handed to them and keep shelling out the money.
The money paid to the game company is for the right to access their server. The price pay for the game is the cost paid when you buy it at the store. So the month fee is a Service fee, all they have to show is that they provided that service.
So with items and characters on their server, its just game code it was their property from the start to the end regaurdless of the time you spend collecting it. Same with the content of the game code, its theirs always was and they can change it.
Thats where the companies are coming from the players see it differently and laws and courts are still mostly vague on the topic.
A lot of people are on the same page with what you wrote. There is debate, and IF (perhaps BIG IF) something happens in law or interpretation of law, everything could go out the window.
Very nice article, it got me thinking a lot.
My thoughts on EULA's are very simple. It's a crying shame that we even need them. Some lady burns the roof of her mouth from a cup of McDonald's coffee; then sues McDonald's for millions (and wins) because there wasn't a warning label on the cup that read "This shit is hot!", and suddenly video games have to go through a huge mess of legal crap.
*sigh* Oh, how I wish issues like this could just be solved with some plain, old-fashioned common damn sense. This is precisely the reason why I should be the king of the world, where I reserve the right to judge all people(s) and their issues. If you *uck someone over.... the penalty would be easy to predeict - I *uck you over! End of story.
The world would be so much happier if I were king. Vote for me in 2016!
While I agree that EULA's are important, I believe they are misnamed. They are End User License Demands, pure and simple. An agreement is drafted between two parties, with benefits for those parties. EULA's are drafted by the game company, and are designed solely to protect the game company. As joe schmoe gamer, my rights and concerns are not addressed in EULA's. I have the option to either agree to them or not, with no input or reasonable feedback option.
Then there's the problem with them changing. Sure, when I start playing the game, I read through the EULA, but down the road, the company decides to change something, or sometimes several somethings over the course of my playing. I have no idea these changes are implemented, but I still click play anyway, just because I believe I am bound to my original agreement. I think an easy way to address this would be just require the companies post 45 days in advance their intentions to change the EULA, what the changes are, and how they affect me. Then I can decide, 'ok, I disagree, and wish to cancel my payments prior to the change,' and off I go, looking for a new MMO to play. No fuss, no muss.
I agree that companies need to protect themselves. I just think that I as the End User should be represented in the drafting of these EULA's. I don't know how to accomplish that, other than the project mentioned in the article. I think that's a great step in the right direction, and a game should have some sort of badge saying they follow the EULA that is drafted by this project, providing it turn out beneficial to all, just like they have ESRB badges. If a game chooses not to follow a standard like that, that is fine too, but I'd be a lot more likely to play games with said badge.
As to ownership, the software company has every right to ownership of your character and equipment. Your time spent on the game is NOT an investment, if the game falls under the entertainment heading. Let's say I buy a tv, watch it 20 hours a week, then 2 years down the road, the channel I like is taken off the air. I can't sue the manufacturer because the reason I bought the tv has been taken away.
It mainly boils down to the fact that I want any agreement between myself and a company to pay respect both to myself and the company, not just that company. I want my consumer rights protected, and I don't think I should have to hire a lawyer to make that happen. SOE is the prime example of what happens when the consumer has no say, because they are arrogant and don't listen to what customers say; that's why we have things like the SWG fiascos.
I will be VERY happy if this EULA project comes out with some positive results. I'd rather not have to drag the government into policing my gaming experience. That will never turn out positive for anybody. The IRS example alone sent chills down my spine.
I like your idea of having the user's interested represented in the End User Agreement. I also agree that users should be informed well in advance of changes that affect the service "agreement".
I also understand, I think, your views on player progress not being an investment. I think there are some fine, but important, lines here though. For example, I'll stick with the television example you're using. Let's say I respond to a marketting campaign by a cable or satellite company that says for 60 bucks a month I'll receive a bundle that includes the sci-fi channel, a movie channel and a sports channel. Should this company be able to change my bundle from sci-fi, movies and sports to documentaries, fine arts and the BBC news immediately after they receive my payment? Hell no. Yet, this is pretty much exactly what SOE did with its NGE disaster, and they used EULA as their defense. Any EULA that can be used to justify this type of blatantly unethical behaviour is a bad EULA. Any steps that would prevent the existence and unethical use of "agreements" that are designed to undermine consumer rights would have my full support.
I also still feel that EULAs should be very specific regarding what can and cannot change in a service. There should be no surprises for the consumer. Vaguely worded EULAs that do not give people the information they need to make an informed decision about subscribing need to be clarified. Game companies can do this, and in my view should do this without any fuss. The alternative only reflects a desire to reserve the right to dupe their playerbase. If companies can make this adjustment on their own, excellent. If they require oversight, so be it. I still feel this will be a shameful waste of taxpayers money and legislators time and energy. And, at the end of the day, government regulation may not look pretty to anyone, game companies or customers. SOEs repeated wrecklessness, unfortunately, may already have initiated a chain of events in this regard.
On the side of the rights of the service provider. Should they be able to ban people who clearly violate the terms of service? Of course they should. Should users receive compensation for subscription fees paid in advance? My thinking here is much like my thinking on other EULA related issues. Whether or not compensation is available should simply be made very clear in the EULA. Users should just have the ability to make a truly informed decision about their decision to pay and play.
So,
-EULAs should be very clear about what may and may not change in the service being paid for. This will eliminate unpleasant surprises like SOE's NGE.
-They should also be very clear about what constitutes a violation of the user agreement.
-They should then be very clear regarding how such violations will be addressed, and whether or not subscription fees are recoverable.
Ambiguity lends itselft to abuse. It's more clarity that is needed in my view to protect the rights of both service providers and users. There should be no loops holes left for the purpose of allowing one side or the other to crap on the other. Right now, in some EULAs, such "crapholes" abound. They can and should be sealed over with clear and accurate information.
I can't remember where I read it, but EULA's are not valid in Europe. As I recall it was something about the fact that it is impossible the the customer to read the EULA and dis-/agree to it before actually unpacking it.
When the sofware is unpacked no store will refund it.
Will see if I can find it again.
greedy lawyers, scared devs, or devs with mindsets like they are gods (lotr anyone?). EULAS, got to hatem, cant play withoutem until the fans finally say enough or a company grabs it balls and takes subs from other more restricting games the message will simply die, and thats what the afore mentioned folks hope for.
can you smell that?!!...............there is nothing quite like it.....................the smell of troll in the morning............i love that smell.
As diverse as the demographics of all MMO's are, (8 year old school kids to 50 year old Accountants) its a wonder that there is not more attention to Virtual Property Law. I feel after seeing this thread that a Lawyer could specialize in this field. Standard EULA language could then be established as a industry norm. This would highlight when a given game agreement deviates in its terms.
At any rate, I think this is an important issue for both parties rights to use a game.
My problems with most EULAs are twofold:
First, the company establishing it insists that you agree that they are not accountable for anything they do, ever. You have no recourse, no right to due process, no right to fair and honest practices. (This is also common in most contracts in general.) Modern corporations take the ass-covering way too far; yes, you have to protect yourselves, but there's a line and almost all of them cross it.
Secondly, the EULA -- which is being read by a layman -- is presented in legalese. They word it in such a way as to either be incomprehensible or very difficult reading for anyone without a law degree. This results in players not fully understanding the ramifications of the agreement, and also in many people skipping the EULA entirely and just clicking "I accept" since they've already payed for the game, anyway.
-Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
The problem with the EULA agreement is this: Its complicated but in the end it says we ( the company) have all the rights and you ( the player) have none. You click yes and say you agree to that because if you do not you cant log in and play even though you have already paid for the service and committed months or even years of in game work to developing your characters. The EULA and other click to sign contracts that guard the gateway to virtual worlds are subject to change at the whim of the company and that is something you also agreed to in the EULA.
If there were laws ( and there should be) that were made to control unreasonable agreements and contracts, then this would be a prime example of consumer abuse. We have become used to it but that does not mean that its ok. It is like this because there is little if any legal president to determine if consumer rights have been violated by said contracts, or even if the consumer has any rights at all.
Perhaps some of our more cerebral gamer brothers and sisters should consider putting some explanation and complaints together in a way that those who have influence on laws could understand. This isn't something that companies will offer of good will. They exist for profit and nothing more. Believing in some kind of benevolence from an entity that has its birth in profit is the worst and most foolish kind of mythology.
Hmm are we a bit aggressive in pressing for our own interests? I mean we as players.
The stake on the table is not really on par. As a gamer, my risks are my $50 box, and $12 monthly. The hours I spent in the game are hours enjoyed, not hours of labor. I love it. Its enjoyment, and its why I pay for the hours.
As a producer, the stake is huge. Billions of dollars in development, thousands or millions in maintenance, patch ... . Additional risk of billions if some freak find a loophole in the EULA and start some pointless court action.
With such skewed shouldering of risk, I see every reason for us to have some more protection for the investors, so that they will keep making and maintaining games. If we allow some McDonald customer to fry her lips and sue Bliz out of business, we all will suffer. They will be no more games to play, and we will have to talk about games like we talk about dinasaurs.
On your first point, yes, its always an issue of balance of power, and the balance of power does not come from us trying to fight against the supplier. No. It comes from other suppliers COMPETING against this one. In the earlier days, we only have UO (sinking) and EQ. No other games. If SoE screws us, oh damn it, we have to take it, buy a new account and grind again. Do not bother what the EULA is, unless I am rich enough to try to bring SoE to the courtroom, forget it.
Today, if SoE bans my account, hehe no problem, let me pull down the game list on MMORPG.com and flip a coin. I have to flip a coin, as there are toooooo many games to choose from, and EQ2 or whatever is lost in the list. SERIOUSLY: I am not taking a shot at EQ, EQ2 or SoE, its just a figurative way of speaking. And, well people like to bash SoE for everything, so why not?
As for the issue of incomprehensibility of legal terms, oh well, I find the same when I read my medical records. Honestly, its not even legible. So what? I do not care. If the doc fix my ailments I will revisit him. If not, next doc along the street. If I like the game, I play no matter what the EULA is. If I have doubts about the hours I spent in that game world, I know where the cancel button is.
My bottomline: its a game. I do not need to acquire a doctorate in law to diagnose the EULA before I start enjoying the game. Or maybe I should not bother read the long list of EULA lest it spoils the fun factor. All I need to know is: do I want to log on again?
The whole idea here is that we, aws the player base, can force changes to the EULA. As the MMO player base grows in the hundreds of millions, any substantial chunk of that number can most definitely mandate changes to EULAs whether SOE and alkl other game companies like it or not.
While minor changes/upgrades/updates to a game are acceptable even expected, complete revamps of a game into another game -- something players did not buy or subscribe to (as in the Star Wars Galaxy NGE fiasco mentioned above) -- is totally unacceptable. I haven't followed the SWG debacle, but I agree with the poster who said that, if they haven't done so already, pre-NGE SWG Jedi and top level crafters should sue Sony Online Entertainment.
Regardless, marketing disasters like the SWG NGE and forcing the early release of Vanguard clearly reflect SOE's total disregard for their player base and, by extension, the MMO player community as a whole because "we're SOE, the big boy on the block, and we can do whatever we want." This is why many many veteran MMO players will never, ever again touch any game SOE is even remotely connected to.
Unfortunately the EULA gets more wordy and full of legalese because more people are trying to hack/bot/cheat by getting around the rules they agreed to. Typically like "it doesn't specifically say I can't do this" or "it doesn't specifically say I can't sell my gold for X dollars". So the companies are forced to get lawyers to draft up more and more wordy agreements.
Not having a signed paper doesn't mean the EULA isn't valid. I've done my taxes online and never signed a piece of paper, does that mean my tax refund check sent to me wasn't "valid"? I've bought non-subscription products online with a credit card, yet I didn't sign a receipt, does that mean the purchase wasn't "valid"?
If less people hacked, botted and bought/sold ingame items, I bet the EULA's wouldn't be so dern wordy...
I have no problems with the EULA, if:
1) MMO publishers can restrain or reduce their live teams.
2) MMO development starts to reemphasize stability over agility in design philosophy.
3) Either the box price or the subscription fee gets dropped (if it's just the box price, then it's easy to jump in and out according to the changes. If it's just the subscription fee, then it's easy to consider the MMO a service that you partake in at will).
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I have no problem with subscription fees, if the game is progressing and developing. Guild Wars is lacking the depth of other games, but then again it's non-subscription.
The current state of the EULA is due to companies trying to protect themselves and their work. Simple fact is people will always try to cheat and/or get around the rules. Look at a cell phone contract, it is far more than just "pay us X dollars per month and you can talk for Y minutes". My last cell contract was 4 frikking pages long!