"If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums."
Lol bingo. Hey and thanks for copying that "more honest EULA" over to this thread. In hindsight I think I should have just posted that here instead of creating a new thread. Definite overlap.
Also, I should say that as I've been researching the whole EULA thing, I'm finding out that consumers have more rights than I thought.
The criminal code prevents misleading communication "by any means" regarding a product or service. That certainly seems to cover the use of dev chats to share misleading information about an expansion. I found a white collar crime link to report fradulent misrepresentation via the internet too--very convenient. It's on the "internet crime" menu of the FBI's homepage.
The particular definition of fraud that caught my eye with regard to the ToOW marketting and the profession deletions that subsequently followed is as follows:
"A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised. " Promises were made regarding professions that SOE/LEC had already decided to delete, and the announcement of the deletions came the day AFTER payment was accepted by them, if I remember correctly. Very nasty business in my view.
Also, in cases where EULAs have not been in line with other laws, the EULA has failed. In one case, the company was ordered to not only change the bogus EULA, but also pay a fine. Pretty sweet.
I hope other people challenge EULAs that blantantly contradict consumer protection legislation. Some portions of EULAs seem designed to mislead people into thinking they are signing away the protection the law entitles them. Companies should be ordered to remove this content, and I do like the idea of a penalty for having it in the first place . It takes a long time to get laws passed, and it's very irritating to see companies think that they can print themselves permission to ignore them.
It seems that the courts are catching up to new internet realities finally. As this progresses, we should see less consumer exploitation. I'm all for that
P.S. If you're in the state of Massachusetts, a section of SOE's EULA clearly doesn't apply to you. It's the part that says they don't have to ensure that the service is fit for it's original, intended use. They give themselves permission to disregard this implied warranty. Well if you live in Massachusetts, they simply can't do that, so you can ignore that portion of the EULA entirely. How does that feel?
It would be nice if other states enacted similar legislation.
Well an intresting point would be, can be $OE sued for NOT enforcing their EULA ?
or because of the proofed fact that they not enforce parts of their EULA then the whole EULA can be treated as abrogated ?
I am not a lawyer just would like to discuss if this could be a possible point.
I am thinking about this paragraph in particulary
"you may not use or distribute macros or other programs which would allow unattended game play or which otherwise impact game play."
This is part of the EULA but we see it as not in force and/or officially supported by $OE in case of the UI mod and/or their last official "afk statement". Therefore $OE does not behave accordingly to their own EULA so customers don't have to do so too.
-----MY-TERMS-OF-USE-------------------------------------------------- $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!
"There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)
Well an intresting point would be, can be $OE sued for NOT enforcing their EULA ? or because of the proofed fact that they not enforce parts of their EULA then the whole EULA can be treated as abrogated ? I am not a lawyer just would like to discuss if this could be a possible point. I am thinking about this paragraph in particulary "you may not use or distribute macros or other programs which would allow unattended game play or which otherwise impact game play." This is part of the EULA but we see it as not in force and/or officially supported by $OE in case of the UI mod and/or their last official "afk statement". Therefore $OE does not behave accordingly to their own EULA so customers don't have to do so too.
Well the only time I've ever heard anyone even mention the EULA is when someone is trying to justify the NGE. That being the case, it seems that it is invoked when someone feels it is in the best interest of SOE, not the customer.
Another part of it that concerned me was the line that claims SOE can change the EULA at any time, at their sole discretion.
Really, what's the point of me clicking it when I sign up if it can be changed the next day? So, I pay my sub fee for 60 days, click the "I accept button," SOE changes the agreement the next day, and keeps my cash despite the fact that our original agreement has been rendered null and void. That's nuts.
I was speaking at a college campus a few months back, and the presentation was recorded for television. The producer asked me to sign a contract allowing the content to be aired. It was a very detailed contract, and I don't think he expected me to read it, but I did. I got to a paragraph that said after I signed the contract they could amend it at their sole discretion, without even notifying me. I pointed out that this made the "contract" utterly meaningless. I agreed to sign only if he deleted this paragraph. He wanted my presentation, so he deleted it, and I signed.
So, in summary, I think consumers still have more rights than they might think. You can't be defrauded, and in some states certain parts of SWG's EULA are not legally binding. That's good to know. I still think EULAs need to be tightened up though. I think it's absurd that a company can claim the right to amend a contract at any time, at their sole discretion. I also still believe that SOE went way over the line with their application of the terms "update" and "enhance" their game. I wouldn't mind seeing that challenged specifically.
While I'm thinking of it, another part of the EULA that stands out as absurd is the portion that tells me to return the game to the retailer for a refund if I don't like the user agreement. Most of us live in countries where software can't be returned, at all, for anything, period, after it's been opened.
Are they trying to make it look like we can get a refund when they well know that most of us can't? What's up with that?
If they wanted to, they could close the doors of the game COMPLETELY, a month after launching an expansion. They have no legal obligation to keep their servers open, nor to keep the gameplay the same from month to month.
If they launched an expansion that said it included certain features, and those features were not included, then you certainly have grounds to return your product. And in fact, players OFTEN do just that. I know an entire guild of 80+ players who all reversed the charges on their credit cards for Shadowbane boxes plus subscription fees (some had bought in on 6 month or one year plans) a few weeks after release - it was over $5000 in total returns, and made something of a splash at the time. Their grounds was, SB at release provided an unplayable experience, and so the company did not deliver the promised product.
They got all their money back.
But trying to SUE because they didn't include a feature they said they would? Unlikely to fly. Trying to sue for changes they made to their game? No way in hell. Your only real option is to show your displeasure with your credit card and stop paying them.
This is a rather silly thread. If they wanted to, they could close the doors of the game COMPLETELY, a month after launching an expansion. They have no legal obligation to keep their servers open, nor to keep the gameplay the same from month to month. If they launched an expansion that said it included certain features, and those features were not included, then you certainly have grounds to return your product. And in fact, players OFTEN do just that. I know an entire guild of 80+ players who all reversed the charges on their credit cards for Shadowbane boxes plus subscription fees (some had bought in on 6 month or one year plans) a few weeks after release - it was over $5000 in total returns, and made something of a splash at the time. Their grounds was, SB at release provided an unplayable experience, and so the company did not deliver the promised product. They got all their money back. But trying to SUE because they didn't include a feature they said they would? Unlikely to fly. Trying to sue for changes they made to their game? No way in hell. Your only real option is to show your displeasure with your credit card and stop paying them.
It may help you to be better informed if you read the thread on how they had a stratics chat promising things in a new expansion that they had already planned to delete.
So, people were enticed to buy an expansion to tame new creatures on a new planet. All the while SOE and LEC knew that the creature handler profession was going to be deleted. The announcement was made the day after payment for the expansion was accepted. They knew about the deletion (this one and many others) before they took everyone's money, but didn't mention anything about it until after.
This notion you have that they didn't include a feature that they said they would is misinformed. Maybe this clears things up for you.
A number of things concern me about EULAs, SWG's in particular. One is how it has been used to justify what certainly appears to be fraudulent advertising. Another is how terms like "update" and "enhance" have been used to justify wholesale deletions of professions and years of in-game progress. Another is the notion that EULAs can be changed at any time at a company's sole discretion. The last concern is the recommendation to return the opened software for a refund if I'm unhappy with the EULA. You can't get a refund on opened software anywhere in my particular nation 0_o.
If you think it's cool for companies to do all the above in their EULAs, well that's your perogative. I don't, and that's mine.
This is a rather silly thread. If they wanted to, they could close the doors of the game COMPLETELY, a month after launching an expansion. They have no legal obligation to keep their servers open, nor to keep the gameplay the same from month to month.
Well this would be the right move(COMPLETELY close the game) ,but instead of this they continue and offer people a bogus EULA.
-----MY-TERMS-OF-USE-------------------------------------------------- $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!
"There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)
Comments
guess because of this paragraph"If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums."
Lol bingo. Hey and thanks for copying that "more honest EULA" over to this thread. In hindsight I think I should have just posted that here instead of creating a new thread. Definite overlap.
Also, I should say that as I've been researching the whole EULA thing, I'm finding out that consumers have more rights than I thought.
The criminal code prevents misleading communication "by any means" regarding a product or service. That certainly seems to cover the use of dev chats to share misleading information about an expansion. I found a white collar crime link to report fradulent misrepresentation via the internet too--very convenient. It's on the "internet crime" menu of the FBI's homepage.
The particular definition of fraud that caught my eye with regard to the ToOW marketting and the profession deletions that subsequently followed is as follows:
"A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised. " Promises were made regarding professions that SOE/LEC had already decided to delete, and the announcement of the deletions came the day AFTER payment was accepted by them, if I remember correctly. Very nasty business in my view.Also, in cases where EULAs have not been in line with other laws, the EULA has failed. In one case, the company was ordered to not only change the bogus EULA, but also pay a fine. Pretty sweet.
I hope other people challenge EULAs that blantantly contradict consumer protection legislation. Some portions of EULAs seem designed to mislead people into thinking they are signing away the protection the law entitles them. Companies should be ordered to remove this content, and I do like the idea of a penalty for having it in the first place
. It takes a long time to get laws passed, and it's very irritating to see companies think that they can print themselves permission to ignore them.
It seems that the courts are catching up to new internet realities finally. As this progresses, we should see less consumer exploitation. I'm all for that
P.S. If you're in the state of Massachusetts, a section of SOE's EULA clearly doesn't apply to you. It's the part that says they don't have to ensure that the service is fit for it's original, intended use. They give themselves permission to disregard this implied warranty. Well if you live in Massachusetts, they simply can't do that, so you can ignore that portion of the EULA entirely. How does that feel?
It would be nice if other states enacted similar legislation.
Well an intresting point would be, can be $OE sued for NOT enforcing their EULA ?
or because of the proofed fact that they not enforce parts of their EULA then the whole EULA can be treated as abrogated ?
I am not a lawyer just would like to discuss if this could be a possible point.
I am thinking about this paragraph in particulary
"you may not use or distribute macros or other programs which would allow unattended game play or which otherwise impact game play."
This is part of the EULA but we see it as not in force and/or officially supported by $OE in case of the UI mod and/or their last official "afk statement". Therefore $OE does not behave accordingly to their own EULA so customers don't have to do so too.
-----MY-TERMS-OF-USE--------------------------------------------------
$OE - eternal enemy of online gaming
-We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!
"There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)
Another part of it that concerned me was the line that claims SOE can change the EULA at any time, at their sole discretion.
Really, what's the point of me clicking it when I sign up if it can be changed the next day? So, I pay my sub fee for 60 days, click the "I accept button," SOE changes the agreement the next day, and keeps my cash despite the fact that our original agreement has been rendered null and void. That's nuts.
I was speaking at a college campus a few months back, and the presentation was recorded for television. The producer asked me to sign a contract allowing the content to be aired. It was a very detailed contract, and I don't think he expected me to read it, but I did. I got to a paragraph that said after I signed the contract they could amend it at their sole discretion, without even notifying me. I pointed out that this made the "contract" utterly meaningless. I agreed to sign only if he deleted this paragraph. He wanted my presentation, so he deleted it, and I signed.
So, in summary, I think consumers still have more rights than they might think. You can't be defrauded, and in some states certain parts of SWG's EULA are not legally binding. That's good to know. I still think EULAs need to be tightened up though. I think it's absurd that a company can claim the right to amend a contract at any time, at their sole discretion. I also still believe that SOE went way over the line with their application of the terms "update" and "enhance" their game. I wouldn't mind seeing that challenged specifically.
While I'm thinking of it, another part of the EULA that stands out as absurd is the portion that tells me to return the game to the retailer for a refund if I don't like the user agreement. Most of us live in countries where software can't be returned, at all, for anything, period, after it's been opened.
Are they trying to make it look like we can get a refund when they well know that most of us can't? What's up with that?
This is a rather silly thread.
If they wanted to, they could close the doors of the game COMPLETELY, a month after launching an expansion. They have no legal obligation to keep their servers open, nor to keep the gameplay the same from month to month.
If they launched an expansion that said it included certain features, and those features were not included, then you certainly have grounds to return your product. And in fact, players OFTEN do just that. I know an entire guild of 80+ players who all reversed the charges on their credit cards for Shadowbane boxes plus subscription fees (some had bought in on 6 month or one year plans) a few weeks after release - it was over $5000 in total returns, and made something of a splash at the time. Their grounds was, SB at release provided an unplayable experience, and so the company did not deliver the promised product.
They got all their money back.
But trying to SUE because they didn't include a feature they said they would? Unlikely to fly. Trying to sue for changes they made to their game? No way in hell. Your only real option is to show your displeasure with your credit card and stop paying them.
Owyn
Commander, Defenders of Order
http://www.defendersoforder.com
So, people were enticed to buy an expansion to tame new creatures on a new planet. All the while SOE and LEC knew that the creature handler profession was going to be deleted. The announcement was made the day after payment for the expansion was accepted. They knew about the deletion (this one and many others) before they took everyone's money, but didn't mention anything about it until after.
This notion you have that they didn't include a feature that they said they would is misinformed. Maybe this clears things up for you.
A number of things concern me about EULAs, SWG's in particular. One is how it has been used to justify what certainly appears to be fraudulent advertising. Another is how terms like "update" and "enhance" have been used to justify wholesale deletions of professions and years of in-game progress. Another is the notion that EULAs can be changed at any time at a company's sole discretion. The last concern is the recommendation to return the opened software for a refund if I'm unhappy with the EULA. You can't get a refund on opened software anywhere in my particular nation 0_o.
If you think it's cool for companies to do all the above in their EULAs, well that's your perogative. I don't, and that's mine.
Well this would be the right move(COMPLETELY close the game) ,but instead of this they continue and offer people a bogus EULA.
-----MY-TERMS-OF-USE--------------------------------------------------
$OE - eternal enemy of online gaming
-We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!
"There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)