Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
NDA,'s, EULA's and the mess they made
Grismar
Member Posts: 20
(Mod: before you hit the delete, ban or whatever button, please read on. No Turbine-bashing here, only constructive criticism)
I got a temporary ban for MMORPG for breaking the NDA on LOTRO like many did. Re-reading the NDA, this was correct. I expressed my opinion on these forums on some elements and overall design of the game. I won't repeat them here, but they might affect your opinion of the game and maybe even your willingness to buy. So, for that I am sorry. Afterall: I did agree to the NDA, didn't I?
Ofcourse, we all know what the real problem here is: the length and incomprehensibility of EULA's. Most EULA's tell you pretty much the same and I have stopped reading them a long time ago. I take EULA's in stride with the install, not as much ignoring them, as assuming that I'll follow the rules automatically if I just act decently. If I want to try something that might feel like cheating, unfair advantage, or any other typical rule-breaking, I'll look it up in the EULA at that point and check.
I treated the NDA on LOTRO as a typical EULA. Foolish perhaps, because an NDA is not a EULA, but what I am saying here is that the endless onslaught of EULA's of dozens of pages on 100's of games has numbed me, as a user, to the point of not even looking at the kind of document I'm agreeing to. It's not like I'm making an executive decision that will change my life as I hit "I agree". I may even have been drunk, at gunpoint or a victim of malware when that button got clicked. There sure as hell weren't any witnesses around to see me press the button. But none of that matters. I agreed to an NDA, believing I was agreeing to "yet another bunch of EULA stuff".
What the gaming industry needs is a "standard EULA". One that's always the same, agreed upon by developers and gamers alike. Maybe even one that's simply passed into legislation. At least that way, I can quickly "agree" with the standard EULA without worrying and if there's any additional agreements for a game (specific to its content or perhaps an NDA), I can read those seperately. Recognizing the first agreement as the standard EULA would be paramount, because that way, the second agreement might actually stand out and worry me for a minute.
Turbine: Sorry. If I can do anything to help make standard EULA's a reality, I'll gladly help out.
I got a temporary ban for MMORPG for breaking the NDA on LOTRO like many did. Re-reading the NDA, this was correct. I expressed my opinion on these forums on some elements and overall design of the game. I won't repeat them here, but they might affect your opinion of the game and maybe even your willingness to buy. So, for that I am sorry. Afterall: I did agree to the NDA, didn't I?
Ofcourse, we all know what the real problem here is: the length and incomprehensibility of EULA's. Most EULA's tell you pretty much the same and I have stopped reading them a long time ago. I take EULA's in stride with the install, not as much ignoring them, as assuming that I'll follow the rules automatically if I just act decently. If I want to try something that might feel like cheating, unfair advantage, or any other typical rule-breaking, I'll look it up in the EULA at that point and check.
I treated the NDA on LOTRO as a typical EULA. Foolish perhaps, because an NDA is not a EULA, but what I am saying here is that the endless onslaught of EULA's of dozens of pages on 100's of games has numbed me, as a user, to the point of not even looking at the kind of document I'm agreeing to. It's not like I'm making an executive decision that will change my life as I hit "I agree". I may even have been drunk, at gunpoint or a victim of malware when that button got clicked. There sure as hell weren't any witnesses around to see me press the button. But none of that matters. I agreed to an NDA, believing I was agreeing to "yet another bunch of EULA stuff".
What the gaming industry needs is a "standard EULA". One that's always the same, agreed upon by developers and gamers alike. Maybe even one that's simply passed into legislation. At least that way, I can quickly "agree" with the standard EULA without worrying and if there's any additional agreements for a game (specific to its content or perhaps an NDA), I can read those seperately. Recognizing the first agreement as the standard EULA would be paramount, because that way, the second agreement might actually stand out and worry me for a minute.
Turbine: Sorry. If I can do anything to help make standard EULA's a reality, I'll gladly help out.
Comments
I understand that is not the focus of your post. But your first paragraph techinally is another NDA violation. The rest of the post can stand alone without it, so I'd recommend removing it to avoid any other problems. No sense in risking getting re-banned.
Previous played: SWG (pre-NGE), DAoC, CoH, Anarchy Online, DDO, Champions Online Beta, LOTRO, GW2, SWTOR
Uhm.. they ARE pretty much the same in all games. They ARE common knowledge to those that play games and especially those that betatest games, they can be explained by pretty much everyone. That YOU dont know them and that YOU, not knowing them, refuse to read them, does not mean THEY are a mess... You maybe, not them.
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
For the record, they aren't making anyone do anything. You don't have to beta test their game. You can sit back and wait until release and then purchase the game and play under the EULA, which is basically a play nice, don't be vulgar or otherwise an ass and they won't kick you out. NDAs, very different from EULA, is basically saying we are giving you priviledge to our secret and you must keep it. For those that can't keep secrets, maybe they shouldn't beta test. Beta testing has become so familiar that many people forget it isn't the gamers right to test. It is a priviledge. If you abuse your privledge, it gets taken away or punishment of some kind it given, in this case a ban, though not by the company but instead by an entity that depends on such companies for success. If there were no MMOs, there would be no MMORPG.com.
As for a standard EULA, won't work. It is the same reason that frequent flyer programs or hotel reward programs are all the same: different companies operate differently and have different requirements. NDAs aren't so much to "restrict" gamers as they are more to protect the companies. Whether certain gamers believe elements of their product are worthy of being protected does not matter. They do. People complaining about X,Y and Z feature being "broke" to the public will only cause potential customer to lose interest. Now the fact that those feature have A-W to wait on before they get fixed does not dawn on most gamers, and when in fact X,Y and Z get their turn and are fixed, the PR damage is already done and those who ranted about those features before most defintely are not going to go to that same public forum and say "Hey guys, you know what, I was wrong. I jumped the gun. They fixed X,Y and Z and if I had of just been patient I wouldn't have given out misinformation" . And it is indeed misinformation. Why? Just because they don't address issues/bug on the gamers time table doesn't mean it is off the radar and won't get addressed.
But, we live in the me,me,me and now,now,now times where the overall, long term picture is not realized and instead only the here and now captures the attention.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I had a temp.ban aswell because it seems to me that MMORPG>com does not fully understand NDA as the post i made i even send to Turbine's Senior Community Liaison Manager to check if infact i might have broken NDA, and their reaction was that they where shocked as i was cause all my post was , was being vaque, no details that have not already been publicly know.
I even send a few mails asking why i was banned as i did not break NDA but afcourse i can not count for them to respond and admit their mistake. Like i said in those mails i fully understand that i would be banned if i really have broken NDA, but seriously not even the Senior Community Liaison Manager of Codemasters think i did so why does mmorpg think they know it better then Turbine themself. If mmorpg.com where decent enough to respond to one of my mails i wouldn't even type here about this.
And the reason i wanted to let this know is that because i think it is sad to see some post that really break NDA and have lots of cursing words in it and they don't get banned....Seriously MMORPG should re-read the NDA and put it in effect the proper way and not asume someone broke NDA without the understanding of NDA
If you want to take issue with NDAs, just make sure you refer to NDAs in general, not any game's in particular. Talk about some past game, where the NDA has been lifted, and you'll still be addressing the issue, without breaking any rules.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
So, you're upset because you didn't read the EULA and NDA agreements, broke them and then got banned? If you can't understand the "legalese", then you probably shouldn't be signing off in the first place. Beyond that, most companies make a point of writing up a simplified version that basically says "Don't talk about our game." Really, there's no wiggle room for giving vague descriptions. People are so eager to break news, to submit a list of broken things in the game -- give it a rest. It's beta, things are broken and will get fixed based on what is reported. As someone said earlier, bad press that is unnecessary (disclousre of a test build's status) can cost the company potential sales.
Learn to read and accept responsbility.
I don't think they were trying to say it was unfair for them to get banned/disciplined for violating something they agreed to.
I think the point was (and I can relate to this) that it is frustrating to have so much legal stuff to slog through and agree to every time you use new software. It is also frustrating that you cannot trust all of that legal stuff to be the same from game to game.
Thus the temptation is there to ignore it and agree to it without reading it, assuming that it is similar enough to other ones you've actually read, that you pretty much know what it says. But this is not smart, because every once in a while something surprising will be thrown in there that you couldn't necessarily have guessed from your past experience.
My parents, for example, signed a lease agreement a year ago when they did not have a home and wanted to get into a condo ASAP. This year when the renewal came up, they started reading the fine print and discovered all sorts of stuff that were totally off the wall -- for example, they were supposed to have reported every single time water was spilled in their condo. Dad said he was tempted to set up an auto-email to send to them 4 times a day, because their dog is a sloppy drinker and every time he drinks from his bowl he spills some on the floor.
I think that's the original poster's point -- it's a pain. Not saying that it's not necessary for the company. Not saying that it's okay to blow it off. But simply that the variations from thing to thing make you have to read every single word, which is a pain and takes a lot of time, and makes it easier for you to accidentally miss seeing something important. Particularly if you give into that temptation to just skim, but even if you are genuinely trying to read the whole thing.
I agree that it would be so much easier if there was a standard EULA, a standard NDA, that you could trust to always be the same, and then if a particular company had extra special things they wanted to add, well, they could put those things in a separate paragraph, or on a separate page, where they'll catch your eye, and separated so that it's easy to get through and decide if you're willing to agree to them.
Welcome to the Caribbean, luv.
Is it really that difficult/"frustrating" to take 5 minutes in order to read a legal document?
Sure, standardization would be nice but that isn't reality. Nevertheless, what the OP is asking for is an excuse explaining why he didn't read an agreement he so quickly clicked yes to. He ASSumed that the NDA and the EULA were the same thing. Accept responsibility, take a few minutes and read what you're agreeing to.
As for your parent's not reading the fine print on a lease, that boggles my mind.
I understand why I personally can't reveal any details of a beta - but if I report them to MMORPG.com and they choose to run it, can they not protect me under the "journalist protecting their sources" argument? Does that really exist or is it only on TV?
What laws are MMORPG.com breaking by reporting on a closed beta?
Maybe they're afraid of pissing off developers to the point where they don't get anymore press releases/co-operation on upcoming games.
Just curious if you are repleying to me or in general as i was the one stating i gave vague descriptions, cause if so you really need to read your own last sentence and apply it to yourself, no disrespect m8 but i think a Senior Community Liaison Manager from Codemaster said that my text did not violate any NDA (and not talking about the text right here or in this topic but the topic that has been removed due to ban).
The only thing people need to remember about NDA is to not reviel things that isn't publicly published by Turbine/Codemasters on the official website about LotrO. Talk about things that are publicly know does not violate NDA nor should it get you banned. NDA is a good thing and people need to ob these rules else they should not apply for beta games if they arn't able/willing to read.
What's to "understand"?
NDA: N = Non D = Disclosure A = Agreement. As was stated above me, don't tell anyone anything about the game while under a NDA, and you'll be fine.
EULA: E = End U = User L = Licensing A= Agreement.
If you can't take the time to read them that's your problem, not the owner of the title.
Standardizing will only make users even lazier than they are already.
Because the companies don't want you. That should be good enough. Now, let's think about the progression that would happen if people continue to act/think as you have posted. Eventually the companies will think "Hey, if people can't do this one littel thing, stay quiet, that we ask them to in order for a chance to help us create this game, then we just don't invite them to help." So then we get to a point where there is no more beta testing by folks outside the company. Yeah, that's something to look forward to.
I'm not sure as to if MMORPG.com is under the NDA. One of the mods can verify/deny that. I can tell you this. If they start allowing freely for forum goers to break the NDA left and right, and if they also start "reporting" information such as you list (which, by the way, you personally do reveal parts of the beta when you communicate those details in any form of communication that another being can understand) as having been revealed to them, the the developers will stop giving sites like this inside looks, stop giving them exclusive content to put out "first", stop giving them access to betas and ultimately stop giving us, the gaming public, access to beta. Personally, I really wouldn't like the possibility of having my beta priviledges taken away because of a few folks that lack a fundamental understanding of respecting the fact theat they ask you not to say anything and that have diahrrea of the mouth. That said, I wouldn't blame game companies one single bit if they yanked beta testing as we know it now. I'm sure they have plenty of friends and relatives who know how to respect and NDA and that can test the game for them.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Just curious if you are repleying to me or in general as i was the one stating i gave vague descriptions, cause if so you really need to read your own last sentence and apply it to yourself, no disrespect m8 but i think a Senior Community Liaison Manager from Codemaster said that my text did not violate any NDA (and not talking about the text right here or in this topic but the topic that has been removed due to ban).
The only thing people need to remember about NDA is to not reviel things that isn't publicly published by Turbine/Codemasters on the official website about LotrO. Talk about things that are publicly know does not violate NDA nor should it get you banned. NDA is a good thing and people need to ob these rules else they should not apply for beta games if they arn't able/willing to read.
I was speaking to you and yes, I do know how to read and do accept responsibility for my choices. Here's the thing, you electroincally signed a non-disclosure agreement. You then decided to discuss the topic anyway. What compounds this is that you did it on a site that (arguably) tries to be responsible and maintain positive ties to all the gaming companies in exchange for access and goodies like trials that they can offer as prizes to its subscriber base. I'm very glad Codemaster felt your commentary was not subject to the NDA otherwise you would have been kicked out BUT, mmorpg.com doesn't have such flexibility to decide what is vague "enough". If they see you discussing beta-exclusive information, (note, beta-exclusive, not public knowledge) they're going to drop the hammer so they can maintain positive relations.
Now here's a few rhetorical questions for you: what was soooooooooooooo important that you felt the need to share it (albeit "vaguely") that it couldn't wait until after NDA was lifted and everyone can talk freely? Was someone just dying for a crumb of information that you felt you had to supply it? Was it necessary to tip your hand that you were in beta?
No disrespect to you either but if you cared enough and respected the agreement you signed, you would do nothing to suggest you were in beta or had any privileged information about it. Standard NDA or EULA verbiage has no bearing on the matter.
I understand the need for NDAs to protect ideas. I was reading about POTBS, and how it seems like every time they give out info on something new they're implementing, Voyage Century turns around and throws in a similar feature, only faster and dirtier. They aim lower, so they can take an idea and just hack it in much more easily. Dunno if that's true, but having played VC, I can see how it's likely.
I just think NDAs overdo it. Why can't someone even say, "Sorry, I can't answer that, because I signed an NDA?" What harm would it do to admit just being in a beta? Makes the whole thing like some sort of top-secret mission - for a video game company. Absurd, IMHO.
I even wonder if some people would leak less info, if there weren't so much pressure to keep things air-tight. I think that stresses some testers out, so that they end up just saying to hell with it.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
In terms of NDAs, I understand why companies in pre-public beta want to keep the games confidential -- many beta testers have no idea of what a beta test is about, and they tend to say things on beta forums that amount to "this game suxxors coz it is buggy." They just don't realize that the beta isn't an open beta meant to polish the game and to promote it pre-launch.
I have beta tested a number of games over the years, and I can attest to the number of threads on beta forums that basically go like this: "I won't play this game at release because of this and that bug, and this other feature doesn't work and it is too much/too litlle like EQ/EQ2/WOW " "well, of course there are bugs, idiot, it is a beta, grow up" "no, you grow up, you troll" "well, leave then, and take some burden off the servers"...
Those of us who have been through this know how to take them with a grain (shaker?) of salt, but some noobs could be turned off. Would any rational company want this debate going on in a public forum, where people who don't know what is really going on can read them?
Well, that stinks for POTBS / ' : I would just figure that any company going into beta has to assume its ideas would be compromised and thus keep the window fairly narrow so the competition doesn't beat them to it.
I agree, it is absurd but that's the agreement we're offered. No one twists our arm to test.
THIS I disagree with. For some, tt's all about perceived privilege and bragging rights.
So, since at least some NDAs do not prohibit telling people you're in beta, how do you know what the LOTRO NDA says or doesn't say, unless you are in that beta yourself? And if you ARE in that beta, and the NDA of that beta does tell you that you can't reveal that fact, then you have also violated the NDA by accusing the OP of violating it (because that accusation is tantamount to a declaration that you are in the beta also).
Is your head starting to hurt yet?
That is the point of the OP. NDAs are often very vague about just exactly what you can talk about and what you can't. Most of the time they tell you that you can't reveal "specific" information about the game. But what does that mean? It's open to interpretation. Is "I am in beta" specific information about the game? (I wouldn't say so.) Is "the game sucks," specific information? (Again, I wouldn't say so.) Where's the line drawn? It's different not only from game to game, but from mod to mod who reads the NDA + potentially violating post and has to make a call.
Much better would be if companies had a bulleted list saying exactly what you could not discuss, in short, succinct sentences, such as this:
For the purposes of this NDA, you may not reveal any of the following information to anyone:
1. Screenshots or captures of the game
2. Descriptions of the content (quests, NPCs, etc)
3. Descriptions of how the game engine works
4. Descriptions of the UI
5. Your personal evaluation (like the game, hate the game, etc) of the game.
This would be much clearer than the kinds of statements you actually see in the NDAs I have read for most betas.
C
It is common knowledge that people don't read legal documents. Here are a few artifacts to back up this statement:
1. When a potential landlord hands you a lease agreement he/she puts a big X where you need to sign... thus encouraging you to not read the document and just sign.
2. During the installation of Windows NT 4.0, at the EULA screen, you had to press "page down" until you reached the end of the document before you could press F8 to accept. The reason for this was simple: Microsoft's legal department could say "well, you at least scanned over the document before you accepted it".
3. I recently bought a used car in New Hampshire. After prices were agreed upon and all negotiations were completed I was handed some paperwork. There was about 20 pages of paper to sign. All with tons of legalese. I read *some* of it and signed all of it. Each place where I was to sign/initial had a little yellow Post-It arrow.
I once paid my lawyer $200 just to read a 10 page document and try to find a way for me to "work around the wording". Most of what lawyers DO is write/read legalese. It took my lawyer two hours to review those 10 pages and he's been doing it for 30 years.
Here is a standard end user license agreement. Notice, this is a template but its still 11 pages long.
Although I'm not a fan of free software I'll go ahead and state that most of it uses common licenses similar to what the OP was dreaming of. A few examples of the common licenses are GPL, LGPL, Apache, MIT, Mozilla Public License (MPL) and so on. When I'm about to install new, free, software I'll only read the license if it is one I've not heard of before (like NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 bleck!).
I think it would be really nice if companies would start naming their licenses with versions OR if they would standardize a common NDA and end user agreement (with names like Turbine NDA 1.0 or Turbine EULA 1.0 and so on). This would allow us to read it once and only reread it if the version has changed.
Kedoremos
(p.s. here's an example of a license where they put each section summary in caps so a person who scans the document can find it quickly.
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
I agree, it is absurd but that's the agreement we're offered. No one twists our arm to test.[/quote]
No, they don't , and that's exactly the point. It's something we already want, so we're going to sign the NDA no matter what it says. It's like complaining about the price of an item. If you want it bad enough you're going to pay that price anyway. If you don't, you're not. But that doesn't mean that you like the high price. If you don't have another choice that still gets you what you want, you must choose whether what you're getting is worth the price you're paying.
To flesh out the analogy to NDAs, We're not complaining that we've paid the price that was asked, to get what we want. We're also not saying it's not worth that much... because to us, it is. But we are saying that we wish there was something cheaper out there that still gave us what we wanted.
We're not complaining about having an NDA; I think everyone here clearly understands the company's need for them. We're not complaining about having to stick to it once you sign it, either. We're saying we wish there was a better way that still protected the company while being less of a pain in the ass for us.
And to me, the part that's the pain in the ass is the slogging through it and judging whether this variation is worth it to me. Back to the OP, I think his idea is good. Having a standard EULA and NDA causes you to only have to slog through it once for all the basic stuff. Then, for each individual game, you can already have in your mind whether or not you feel the upcoming game is worth the "price" of the *basic* EULA and NDA, before you are ever invited to beta or buy the game. No worrying about it at the time of signing up. ....THEN.... whatever's different or special about THIS game's EULA and NDA can be presented to you and you can make your final judgement based on those terms that are unique to that game, something that wouldn't take as long to deal with if you already knew what most of it said.
For those who argue that you already *do* know what most of it says.... well, perhaps you do. But the unique pieces are not separated out in a way that is easy to navigate. If you're getting through a regular EULA in under 5 minutes, I suspect that perhaps you are not fully reading it either. Or, what do I know, maybe you're a speed demon reader who can zip through multiple pages in under a minute and make split-second decisions on the implications of a legal document and whether you feel you can abide by it.
Myself, I actually have to sit and think about whether I'm going to be able to handle that level of discretion -- whether I want to play the game so badly that I'm willing to keep it all to myself and not discuss it with all my friends. It's not an auto-agree for me...
Animala: "Always agree..."
Welcome to the Caribbean, luv.
I agree, it is absurd but that's the agreement we're offered. No one twists our arm to test.[/quote]
No, they don't , and that's exactly the point. It's something we already want, so we're going to sign the NDA no matter what it says. It's like complaining about the price of an item. If you want it bad enough you're going to pay that price anyway. If you don't, you're not. But that doesn't mean that you like the high price. If you don't have another choice that still gets you what you want, you must choose whether what you're getting is worth the price you're paying.
To flesh out the analogy to NDAs, We're not complaining that we've paid the price that was asked, to get what we want. We're also not saying it's not worth that much... because to us, it is. But we are saying that we wish there was something cheaper out there that still gave us what we wanted.
We're not complaining about having an NDA; I think everyone here clearly understands the company's need for them. We're not complaining about having to stick to it once you sign it, either. We're saying we wish there was a better way that still protected the company while being less of a pain in the ass for us.
In the end, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Firstly, there's no need for the economics 101 explanation of an agreement and the expanded analogy. If both parties agree to the transaction, then effectively it was fair enough. Sure, you wish it was easier; everyone wishes things were easier and cheaper (even the companies so they don't have to waste money on lawyers!) In this particular case though, heaven forbid you have to exercise some brain power and perhaps spend upwards of 10-15 minutes reading a legal document for a game.
As I said, yes it seems absurd to do this for a game but it's a game that has had many millions of dollars invested into it. It also requires ongoing monetary transactions and therefore fiduciary responsibility, as well as the fact that they have to protect themselves and other customers from grievances you can cause other players (e.g. harrassment) or corporations (e.g. copyright infringement in CoH). When it concems an NDA, yes, it's largely just an agreement but it atleast has some teeth because the company has to concede that in order to effectively test its game it has to share it with people before it can launch and collect revenue. If the secrets or misinformation get out, it can't be recovered--it's potential damage and loss of revenue that cannot be undone. The language is written such that the company can protect itself. As unlikely as it is that a legal claim would be filed against disclosure of beta information, the company reserves the right to do so because you agreed to it--you should appreciate and respect the solemnity of it.
What you're asking for is "I want to read the addendum only". I get that, I'm not obtuse. But the fact of the matter is, you're supposed to be reading the entire document before signing off on it. So, why should an addendum become overly elaborate, referring to section A part 5 subsecton iii when it can just be written in the appropriate section? Why should an addendum be added that has the potential for loopholes? The language, as complicated as it may seem, is written in such a way that it is as logically organized and airtight as possible so the company is protected.
Yes, I can skim a EULA and NDA in 5 minutes. I don't think its rocket science to determine
"NDA's, EULA's and the mess they made"....right. It's totally their fault and you're absolutely absolved of the responsiblity to read, understand and abide by the agreement required to use their product. I'm sorry but I disagree and if these are your first entanglements with legal documentation, well, welcome to the grown up world. Again, that's why part of the EULA says you have to be over 18 or else have the consent of a parent to sign off on it...of course, you'd have to have read it first to know that.
kindest regards, John
PS. Oh, and for those who want to cry foul, the above eula para-phrasing came from Dark Age of Camelot
PSS edit at 2:19 est. Just re-reading the OP's message again and he claims "numbness" from so many EULA's. So, doubtful it's his first time playing with EULA's. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that you should be cognizant and ready to stand by your word/click of an agreement. Claiming ignorance of a law in a region doesn't make you an less responsible for violating it.
First of all, I'm not angry or anything of the sort. Most of the readers (and as such the posters) seem to think I'm some kid miffed about getting kicked out of the precious LOTRO beta. This is not the case.
I was actually rather ashamed to find out I had broken the rules. It was never my intention to break any rules and I clearly deserved getting removed from the beta (and from these forums in fact).
What my post was all about was the fact that I didn't know I had broken any rules until MMORPG.com pointed it out. And how I think that came about. Yes, I can read (and understand) the rules. No, it's not so bad that reading the rules takes 5 minutes. That's not what my post was about either. I was merely commenting on the fact that EULA's have grown so common and prevalent that hardly anyone is reading them nowadays. And, as a result, if a EULA (or any other agreement that requires acceptance at install) contains anything beyond the usual, it will probably not get noticed. Even by players who -want- to notice these things, but don't want to spend a fruitless 5 minutes trying to find them in 9 out 10 games that just have the standard rules.
That's why I argued for a standardized EULA, for use across the gaming industry. You can just bypass the standard game EULA, possibly a standard MMO EULA and go straight to the "where this game is different" part of the EULA. That way, I can familiarize myself thoroughly with the standard EULA -once- and accept it every time after that, since I know it's all the same anyway. Also, that allows me to rest assured there's no nasty legal tricks hidden out of sight, in subtle wording or other legalese. And finally, I can spend all of those 5 minutes for every game, reading what's relevant to that game, instead of having to fish bits and pieces out of the legalese swamp every single time I setup a game.
Greetings,
Grismar.
PS: I would prefer less hate and a more constructive attitude in response to my post. I you disagree with me, I'd love to hear about it, but just spewing filth and making far reaching assumptions about my personality won't do a lot of good.