I'm sure it has come up at some point but it's likely been delt with by means of an out of court settlement with a non-disclosure agreement attached to it.
Most likely there. If any publisher has been sued over the issue of their EULA, they probably threw money at it to make it go away.
No publisher who sues someone for, say piracy or copyright violation, for example, EVER does so on the basis of their EULA as well, they do so based on copyright law, for two reasons. First, it'd get tossed out, second, it'd get a court precedent that would strike down the validity of the EULA. They can't afford to HAVE an up or down ruling on EULA's, because that would destroy their "real" power: To make the customer THINK that they are valid and that the publisher actually HAS the power they say they do.
The EULA serves only as their means of justifying banning you from their servers, etc, which is a far different issue than suing you for copyright violation. However, as SOE moves further and further into the RMT realm (and the TCG amounts to RMT) sooner or later the issue of who OWNS virtual property and what is it's real VALUE will have to be settled. I can't see the courts holding that the publishers can claim to be able to sell virtual property while at the same time retaining complete ownership of it.
Once this gets enshrined in law, guess what happens? Publishers lose ANY control over their customers, they won't be able to ban someone, for example, without at the very least refunding their virtual property purchases. That would be theft by unlawful taking if they did so without due process (ie: the courts) and would be a nightmare. Imagine if SOE had to justify their GM actions to a 3rd party...
This is why, IMHO, MMO publishers should STAY THE HELL AWAY from RMT, it's a huge ticking time bomb. But SOE never thinks as far ahead as the rest of TODAY, much less the future. If their corporate legal staff haven't at least advised them of this potential pitfall, then they have fools for attorneys.
In the pure subscription model, the publisher has blanket authority to choose who they do business with, since you are paying for play time, not for property. They can say "no mas" so long as they refund the balance of prepaid time. In RMT, they can't say that you are paying only for subscription time, you've bought property as well, since it has monetary value, indisputably because real money changed hands for it. This changes things completely.
Well, in light of recent developments, SOE's EULA should also read, "we reserve the right to change the business model of the game at anytime."
The game has historically been a subscription based game, but now you need to hope and pray that you get a random drop or gamble with real cash to try to get the fastest speeder or latest combat buffs (more on the way btw).
One of the defenses that this is not gambling, is that the prizes are not money, or that they have no cash value. To be perfectly honest, I don't know if this is a valid defense. It seems to me that gambling real money for a chance outcome is still gambling. If SOE tries to use some kind of virtual property loophole to defend themselves, this is just begging new legislation that will clarify virtual property rights.
Their best defense would be to say that people are renting virtual items, not actually purchasing them. However, if they do this, then rental terms should apply. For instance you should be aware of the duration of the rental. If you rent an item, it should remain available and not diminish in value for the duration of the rental period. So, SOE would not be able to rent a new virtual speeder to you for a two month period, and then delete it the following day. They would also not be able to rent it to you for a two month period and then alter it's stats and reduce its value the very next day.
Simply put, players should know what they're getting when they pay for it. SOE, and other service providers, should not be able to manipulate the products/services they provide outside of the customer's awareness, and without the customer's input into the contractual process. In any other industry, this is a given; but it's only a given because the other service industries are strictly regulated.
Also, if SOE wants to make things available via a game of chance that has people risking real dollars, they should provide odds that are independently verified, like any other online game of chance that is properly regulated. Otherwise Smed et al. could very well be running a crooked shell game, and that's just not acceptable.
That is a very good point. Because SOE doesn't publish the odds (ie: "drop" rate, or chance of getting the loot cards in a "pack") they are violating the laws that govern "sweepstakes" in every state. Furthermore, they do not offer a cost free entry option. Published odds, and a "no purchase necessary" option is a REQUIREMENT everywhere such contests are allowed, and they aren't allowed at all in some states and locales. SOE meets neither requirement, and since it's a "game of chance" it's definitely gambling.
Also keep in mind the US has a VERY broad law outlawing internet gambling. Internet gambling operations are not allowed in the US, and Americans are not allowed to use offshore facilities.
So long as the TCG "loot" has any value that can be put into real money (which it has to have since it costs money to play this lottery) IMHO, the SWG and other TCG's could fit in this category.
Comments
Most likely there. If any publisher has been sued over the issue of their EULA, they probably threw money at it to make it go away.
No publisher who sues someone for, say piracy or copyright violation, for example, EVER does so on the basis of their EULA as well, they do so based on copyright law, for two reasons. First, it'd get tossed out, second, it'd get a court precedent that would strike down the validity of the EULA. They can't afford to HAVE an up or down ruling on EULA's, because that would destroy their "real" power: To make the customer THINK that they are valid and that the publisher actually HAS the power they say they do.
The EULA serves only as their means of justifying banning you from their servers, etc, which is a far different issue than suing you for copyright violation. However, as SOE moves further and further into the RMT realm (and the TCG amounts to RMT) sooner or later the issue of who OWNS virtual property and what is it's real VALUE will have to be settled. I can't see the courts holding that the publishers can claim to be able to sell virtual property while at the same time retaining complete ownership of it.
Once this gets enshrined in law, guess what happens? Publishers lose ANY control over their customers, they won't be able to ban someone, for example, without at the very least refunding their virtual property purchases. That would be theft by unlawful taking if they did so without due process (ie: the courts) and would be a nightmare. Imagine if SOE had to justify their GM actions to a 3rd party...
This is why, IMHO, MMO publishers should STAY THE HELL AWAY from RMT, it's a huge ticking time bomb. But SOE never thinks as far ahead as the rest of TODAY, much less the future. If their corporate legal staff haven't at least advised them of this potential pitfall, then they have fools for attorneys.
In the pure subscription model, the publisher has blanket authority to choose who they do business with, since you are paying for play time, not for property. They can say "no mas" so long as they refund the balance of prepaid time. In RMT, they can't say that you are paying only for subscription time, you've bought property as well, since it has monetary value, indisputably because real money changed hands for it. This changes things completely.
Well, in light of recent developments, SOE's EULA should also read, "we reserve the right to change the business model of the game at anytime."
The game has historically been a subscription based game, but now you need to hope and pray that you get a random drop or gamble with real cash to try to get the fastest speeder or latest combat buffs (more on the way btw).
One of the defenses that this is not gambling, is that the prizes are not money, or that they have no cash value. To be perfectly honest, I don't know if this is a valid defense. It seems to me that gambling real money for a chance outcome is still gambling. If SOE tries to use some kind of virtual property loophole to defend themselves, this is just begging new legislation that will clarify virtual property rights.
Their best defense would be to say that people are renting virtual items, not actually purchasing them. However, if they do this, then rental terms should apply. For instance you should be aware of the duration of the rental. If you rent an item, it should remain available and not diminish in value for the duration of the rental period. So, SOE would not be able to rent a new virtual speeder to you for a two month period, and then delete it the following day. They would also not be able to rent it to you for a two month period and then alter it's stats and reduce its value the very next day.
Simply put, players should know what they're getting when they pay for it. SOE, and other service providers, should not be able to manipulate the products/services they provide outside of the customer's awareness, and without the customer's input into the contractual process. In any other industry, this is a given; but it's only a given because the other service industries are strictly regulated.
Also, if SOE wants to make things available via a game of chance that has people risking real dollars, they should provide odds that are independently verified, like any other online game of chance that is properly regulated. Otherwise Smed et al. could very well be running a crooked shell game, and that's just not acceptable.
That is a very good point. Because SOE doesn't publish the odds (ie: "drop" rate, or chance of getting the loot cards in a "pack") they are violating the laws that govern "sweepstakes" in every state. Furthermore, they do not offer a cost free entry option. Published odds, and a "no purchase necessary" option is a REQUIREMENT everywhere such contests are allowed, and they aren't allowed at all in some states and locales. SOE meets neither requirement, and since it's a "game of chance" it's definitely gambling.
Also keep in mind the US has a VERY broad law outlawing internet gambling. Internet gambling operations are not allowed in the US, and Americans are not allowed to use offshore facilities.
So long as the TCG "loot" has any value that can be put into real money (which it has to have since it costs money to play this lottery) IMHO, the SWG and other TCG's could fit in this category.