Would you pay a security deposit?

JB47394

Imagine any old MMO with a EULA that you actually agreed with. For example, imagine a EULA that only says that players cannot use the chat system for commercial purposes.

Let's also say that there are many servers, and that you are not obligated to pay a security deposit except on specific servers.

The purpose of the security deposit is to be able to fine players for violations of the EULA. If you violate the EULA, your security deposit is docked but you can continue playing if there is still money left in your security deposit to cover the most egregious/expensive violation. If not, then your account is suspended.

When you suspend or cancel your account, you get the contents of your security deposit back (assuming you have no outstanding violations waiting to be reviewed).

Security deposits would be real money that would have to be in the publisher's bank account before you could start playing on a server that uses the fining system.

The reason for using a security deposit model is to ensure that EULA violators pay the fine. If a fine were simply levied on a player, the player could cancel the account, resubscribe and violate the EULA again.

I started out with this to address spammers, but realized that any enforced behavior on a given server could have fines associated with it. For example, a server set aside for kids could make swearing a EULA violation. If you swear and somebody clicks on your chat line as a EULA violation, you are fined twenty cents. Another example could be a roleplaying server, where anyone discussing real world events on the general chat channel would be fined ten cents. Advertise for a gold service and you are fined $50.

Fines need not be associated with every single section of a EULA. Fines might only apply to a handful of player behaviors that you agree should be discouraged in a concrete way.

If such a system existed AND YOU LIKED THE EULA, would you be willing to put $50 or $100 on deposit with the game company, knowing that if you followed the EULA you'd get that money back when you suspended or canceled your account? Law might require that you get the money back with interest.

AnlaShok

With those conditions I would very probably pay.

LynxJSA

Never. Not under any circumstance. I'm not sure what kind of person would agree to such a ridiculous excuse to milk an extra 20 bucks from them.

AnlaShok

---

Originally posted by LynxJSA
Never. Not under any circumstance. I'm not sure what kind of person would agree to such a ridiculous excuse to milk an extra 20 bucks from them.

---

I don't see where the milking part happens in the proposition.

Antarious

Originally posted by JB47394


Another example could be a roleplaying server, where anyone discussing real world events on the general chat channel would be fined ten cents.

 

Now I quite often play on RP server and this one bothers me.

Simply because even recognizing that what the person is saying is "real world" means you are not roleplaying.

So anyone that reported the violation would have to be fined as well.

I mean if someone walks up to me and starts talking about something I should have no understanding of in this "role play world" I just look at them like they are crazy... babbling etc

As to the rest I guess... Gold spammers won't care as they will pay the fine with stolen credit card numbers etc

I wouldn't mind something like this so that people who use 3rd party programs would actually pay for the resources used to deal with them.  LIke speedhacks, radar programs etc..

Kyleran

Originally posted by AnlaShok


 

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Never. Not under any circumstance. I'm not sure what kind of person would agree to such a ridiculous excuse to milk an extra 20 bucks from them.

 

I don't see where the milking part happens in the proposition.

 

Er, how do you know if you'll ever see your deposit returned?  Who gets to decide if you've violated the EULA and what is the appeal process.

GM says I was rude in chat?  Sense that can be somewhat arbitrary or dependent on a person's own value system, results could vary widely.

What is the company is insolvent and doesn't return the money?  Would you give Aventurine 100 bucks right now for such a system?

No, overall I'd have to say thumbs down to this proposal, too much potential for conflict and abuse.

 

Reklaw

Originally posted by JB47394


Imagine any old MMO with a EULA that you actually agreed with. For example, imagine a EULA that only says that players cannot use the chat system for commercial purposes.
Let's also say that there are many servers, and that you are not obligated to pay a security deposit except on specific servers.
The purpose of the security deposit is to be able to fine players for violations of the EULA. If you violate the EULA, your security deposit is docked but you can continue playing if there is still money left in your security deposit to cover the most egregious/expensive violation. If not, then your account is suspended.
When you suspend or cancel your account, you get the contents of your security deposit back (assuming you have no outstanding violations waiting to be reviewed).
Security deposits would be real money that would have to be in the publisher's bank account before you could start playing on a server that uses the fining system.
The reason for using a security deposit model is to ensure that EULA violators pay the fine. If a fine were simply levied on a player, the player could cancel the account, resubscribe and violate the EULA again.
I started out with this to address spammers, but realized that any enforced behavior on a given server could have fines associated with it. For example, a server set aside for kids could make swearing a EULA violation. If you swear and somebody clicks on your chat line as a EULA violation, you are fined twenty cents. Another example could be a roleplaying server, where anyone discussing real world events on the general chat channel would be fined ten cents. Advertise for a gold service and you are fined $50.
Fines need not be associated with every single section of a EULA. Fines might only apply to a handful of player behaviors that you agree should be discouraged in a concrete way.
If such a system existed AND YOU LIKED THE EULA, would you be willing to put $50 or $100 on deposit with the game company, knowing that if you followed the EULA you'd get that money back when you suspended or canceled your account? Law might require that you get the money back with interest.

 

Sorry...nice topic, but wil say no to such a system.

Like me there will be lots of people that don't have a problem forking over some extra cash, I choose not to, but others might think "hey only cost me 5/20 cents or what ever to abuse the system, so people will be able to abuse that system even more so then they do/can now, atleast now when caught one could get a temp.ban or full ban, with a system like you propose people will worry less about violating the EULA.

I am all for a change with EULA's but don't think this "pay for a security deposit" would be that change.

For example I would love to see a ban that covers someone's IP or even go futher and get blocked by their ISP, meaning getting banned from a game could get you a ban from internet use, oh man I would love this system as people will think twice weither or not to violate a EULA's and GAMERS would unite again leaving out the bad appels, but unfortunaly what I would love to see  wil also not work as to many privacy issue's will arise........  ;(

CactusmanX

I don't really like the idea of players being fined by the company, especially since if someone complains hard enough you can get in trouble for almost anything as long as the word offended is applied.

Also the security deposit is a lot of money to pay up front, you pay 50 USD for the game and another 50-100 upfront, that is anough for me to say no thanks.  I mean I would get it back but in the mean time that is 100 dollars that I can't use and if I play for 2 weeks before I quit that is tying up quite a bit of money in the mean time.

Also I am not sure if this will really deter people breaking the EULA, except for big fines like gold selling and botting, the smaller things would still continue, also because even with account suspension most violators don't think about the consequences when violating the rules, usually it is out of anger or just being absent minded. So I don't really think you can deter people harassing others and things of the like.

Thomas2006

 I don't really see how this is much different then the system we have now. If you do something bad enough to get you banned in a pay to play MMO game. You not only lose the time put into your character but you are also forced to buy another boxed copy of the game. That generally ranges from $30 to $60 depending on the game.

The current system works just as well as any security deposit style system would work. If someone is going to violate the terms they are going to do it regardless rather it be paying $50 or $100.

So no I would not go for any security deposit type system or play any game that used such a system. Its both an added expense to the average player and also an expense to the publishers of the game to have to track and refund the money at the end of the subscription.

That and the fact that its no different then what is already being used other then now you are forced to play $50 for the game then another $100 for a company to just hold on to and hope they dont lose or misplace it somewhere down the time.

At the end of the day its just easier and works just as well to ban the people from the game and if that person wants to waste another $50 to buy another copy of the game and turn around and do the same thing. Well let them do it as its doing nothing more then funding the games development at the expense of a GM clicking a button and banning an account.

If you think about it a security deposit isn't going to deter a gold seller / spammer or any other type of EULA violation. Its just going to make us the regular mmo players pay MORE upfront to play our favorite games and turn off more potential customers then anything else.

AnlaShok

Good points here. I do think the system could work and be transparent enough to prevent any abuse by the producing company, but it would probably be more trouble than it's worth.

RavZterz

Originally posted by Kyleran


Er, how do you know if you'll ever see your deposit returned?  Who gets to decide if you've violated the EULA and what is the appeal process.
GM says I was rude in chat?  Sense that can be somewhat arbitrary or dependent on a person's own value system, results could vary widely.
What is the company is insolvent and doesn't return the money?  Would you give Aventurine 100 bucks right now for such a system?
No, overall I'd have to say thumbs down to this proposal, too much potential for conflict and abuse.
 

 

I agree with Kyleran.  The peopel that make the rules also have the power to change them...and what are you gonna do when they take your $5.

We just need GMs that do their job strickly by the terms and game rules.  Lets take darkfall for example.  They say "macroing in a safe area is against the rules and if you do use macros its at your own risk. "  That's a poorly written rule that says they will do Something if they happen to catch you breaking the rules but you can do so if you want.   

Unknown

Yet another person trying to shove their ideals down someone's throat.  How long till I get to pay my security deposit so I can live in fear of the secret mmo police?  Joy.