Beside the legal stuff we vets already gained the moral right to be $OE lifetime enemy if $OE don't satisfy us for our loss, despite the fact that loss being subject of legal undertakings or not.
Thats important to remember please ,we have the moral right to pillory $OE and to warn others about them. Till we get something equal to an satisfaction that rehabilitate us from that CU/NGE loss.
-----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)
whoever does would win a ton of money as what they did is highly illegal and chances are they would be ordered by the courts to put the pre-cu back into the game.
or we would take all their money and get them shut down.
we win in any case. much like how us vets will win all the time.
Surprised no one has brought up the UO lawsuit from the late 90s. It basically failed to give the plaintiffs any sort of cash reward. I think if someone managed to start a class action lawsuit it might get somewhere but the risk far outweighs the rewards. Unless you are already rich and want to make a point I suppose. On the other hand, lawmakers tend to view EULAs indifferently as in...they don't mean much.
I actually did bring it up the last time a thread with the same topic appeared, but obviously it didn't sink in the last time, so we have to rehash the whole darnedable thing out again.
And I'm sure we'll have to rehash it yet again sometime in the future.
And Dracis refering to your other post sadly it does cover the gameplay maay change issue..
Read the part in red.."we may enhance gameplay" pretty much cover the NGE..i.e new game enhancments,now given its a POS is another matter but hats off to SOE they covered tthier asses well with it tbh,mainly becuase the wording of tthe agreement is so vague they could aply it to anything
Once again, and please let this be for the last time, the statement, "Gameplay may change during online play", does not include the changes of the NGE, the part of the EULA I put in red does. There is a difference. The warning about gameplay changes online is basically stating that they can't control what other people do, say, or how they act online.
Please read the entire thread that I linked.
Edit* Just so you know, I'm not defending any game companies EULA. All of them are horribly against customers and I am very much in favor of some one eventually challenging them. What I'm against is the ignorance of the players who think that broad statements like, "Game play may change with online play" allow gaming companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want, because it simply is not true. I'm not trying to argue or flame, I'm trying to educate.
The point i was trying to make is simple SOE called it the NGE..new game enhancements..now go to the bit in red..You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game SOE sees it as an enhancement..lord knows why but they do and i would assume they gave it that very title to stop any sort of lawsuit in its tracks by covering it in the eula.
I mean "new game enhancements" was hardly catchy was it? so looking at it they covered themselves very nicely tbh.
You CANNOT create a contract or agreement that allows you to commit an illegal act such as fraud. The only reason nobody has brought SOE to court is because of the amount of money gained would not even start to cover the lawyer fees or the time it would take to complete such a trial as SOE would bury anyone in paperwork.
SWG is like meeting the hottest chick of all time and then have her give you every STD in the book and then she dresses a monkey up like a baby sues for child support and the judge says yes
You CANNOT create a contract or agreement that allows you to commit an illegal act such as fraud. The only reason nobody has brought SOE to court is because of the amount of money gained would not even start to cover the lawyer fees or the time it would take to complete such a trial as SOE would bury anyone in paperwork.
But SOE and LA dont see it as fraud (the NGE) i mean,they see it as "enhanced"..though i would like a pint of whatever they where drinking at the time they thought it made so "enhanced"
Consider that SOE and LEC advertised and promoted a product (CU) that they planned to cease to exist, to be replaced by a game that was completely different.
They were committing interstate and international wire and mail fraud from the day they decided to NGE to the day they declared their intentions (the Torres producer letter).
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
To the OP. This brings up a good point for gamers. Should a law group that represents the virtual world of MMO's come into the forefront? I would have to say yes. These gamesmarket are going to evolve over the next 100 years in free society. Right now states in the US are moving forward with slipping in laws concerning virtual property. This really needs to be led by forefathers instead of a generation that thinks the internet is made up of tubes.
California is the place to build this foundation. I wonder if the ACLU would point a user in the right direction or to contact a CA law school would be the first step.
Bro no offense, but in today's age, people can't fart and not be noticed. We can't turn on the t.v with out having to watch a blonde psycho shave her head, or another blonde bang some dude out in a hotel room. No way in the world, 2 powerhouse companies SOE and Lucas Arts, make a under the table $5000.00 settlement and someone not spill the beans. The lawyer, the clerk of court who stamps the ruling, the many people handling the sheet of paper. The little old lady that sits across from the courthouse everyday feeding the birds so she has to juicy gossip everyday. Someone.... somewhere.... Always talks. It's the number reason the mob retains a hitman at all times. No one in the year 2008 knows how to spell quiet or secret, much less do it.
If there was even a hint of a SOE/LA lawyer walking toward a courtroom, Every News van, game mag, newspaper, and website owner would be blasting that shit full stream before he hit the first step.
Interestingly enough I had a PM a few months ago from someone who claimed he had a settlement with SoE over something unrelated. He explained that he couldn't talk about the issue as part of his agreement.
Whether or not it is true is one thing, but if it is true then I doubt a minor settlement would bring much attention to anyone. Even those clerks you mention would likely be held accountable in any cases of a breach of confidentiallity - even if they're no longer employed by that organization.
But then again something like a settlement would be to keep it out of the courtroom anyway. It's damage control, and I'm sure SoE's team is getting quite good at it.
You just proved my point right there.
The part in red is the point, the orange leads to it.
If he is suppose to keep his mouth shut, what the hell is he doing PMing it to you.
What if you weren't trustworthy and contacted G4 TV.
Very few people on this planet can really keep a secret... and when I say few... like maybe 5 or 10 people out of 9 billion.
To further prove my point you just blasted his Private message to me and every other MMO user who has read this thread about his settlement.
I think the point was just proved that in no way shape or form could a settlement not be made, and it not get out that same day.
*we don't even have to know the details, we just needed to know he settled. That is news right there, that's enough for media to dig for the truth.
Sorry, let me be a little more specific. He couldn't talk about the particulars of the case. Saying he was awarded a settlement is one thing, but to discuss why he won a settlement is something different.
So, has anyone looked into how many settlements SoE has been involved in?
SOE is pretty versed in the use of NDAs. They do a lot to quiet people about what goes on in the corporate office. Why can't people talk about the NGE who worked on it? Non-disclosure agreements. If everything's above board as some people suggest. Why all of the gag orders?
Also if everything is above board, why the massive refund campaign after the bait and switch.
No, all the evidence points to wrong being done, and to concerns about legal action. Calling people "a potato" or saying they have a "screw loose" doesn't really make a convincing argument. I guess if you don't have the truth with you, you feel a need to resort to schoolyard insults.
SOE did dodge legal action with the ToOW refund, but did you read how they worded it? They said that they were refunding money to people who weren't satisfied with the expansion. More b.s.. People were satisfied with the expansion until the surprise NGE mutilated it. They can't even get an apology right.
Why didn't they come out and say the truth, that the refunds were because they advertised things that they then deleted or rendered useless, and they made the announcement the day after the money was accepted. Why not admit the truth, ever, even to this day? Because to do so is to confess to fraud.
Without the confession, someone is going to have to take the time, energy and money to prove that they knowlingly misled customers about the expansion, to take their money under false pretenses. That would be a criminal case.
A civil case remains for those that purchased additional subscription time under false pretenses. Anyone that got a refund on the expansion, should also get a refund on any subscription time purchased in light of the ToOW marketting campaign, which was blatantly false advertising.
But who in thier right minds would take on SOE and LA? no-one is that foolish surely?
The only reason I didn't give this more attention earlier, is that I was working with a colleague (lawyer for the federal gov't) and government policy makers to address gaps in legislation related to recidivism rates for dangerous offenders. You can perhaps understand why this was a priority.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
But who in thier right minds would take on SOE and LA? no-one is that foolish surely?
The only reason I didn't give this more attention earlier, is that I was working with a colleague (lawyer for the federal gov't) and government policy makers to address gaps in legislation related to recidivism rates for dangerous offenders. You can perhaps understand why this was a priority.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
I agree with you 100%,but honestly all SOE would do is just tie anyone who tried to take them to court up for years on end with red tape,now if Bill Gates had played SWG then we may have had a chance..after all he's retiring now,got a few bob and a bit of time on his hands
But who in thier right minds would take on SOE and LA? no-one is that foolish surely?
The only reason I didn't give this more attention earlier, is that I was working with a colleague (lawyer for the federal gov't) and government policy makers to address gaps in legislation related to recidivism rates for dangerous offenders. You can perhaps understand why this was a priority.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
Jeff Freeman (one of the main players in the NGE) admitted that they went into this with COMPLETE disregard for the existing players. That is what is called a "smoking gun".
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
No, all the evidence points to wrong being done, and to concerns about legal action. Calling people "a potato" or saying they have a "screw loose" doesn't really make a convincing argument. I guess if you don't have the truth with you, you feel a need to resort to schoolyard insults.
I was thinking the exact same thing. That person has some interesting points to make, but seems to have some kind of axe to grind when he starts throwing insults around. It's rather pitiful and closed-minded IMO.
But aside from that I'm quite happy to see more and more people discussing concerns with EULA's as dialogue will be the catalyst for change - and I really believe it's time for change.
No, all the evidence points to wrong being done, and to concerns about legal action. Calling people "a potato" or saying they have a "screw loose" doesn't really make a convincing argument. I guess if you don't have the truth with you, you feel a need to resort to schoolyard insults.
I was thinking the exact same thing. That person has some interesting points to make, but seems to have some kind of axe to grind when he starts throwing insults around. It's rather pitiful and closed-minded IMO.
But aside from that I'm quite happy to see more and more people discussing concerns with EULA's as dialogue will be the catalyst for change - and I really believe it's time for change.
I'm also pleased to see the current discussions about EULAs in general. That's what sparked this thread actually. Well that and yet another post defending the NGE on the basis of the EULA that was just put on the boards this week.
Another post actually does a better job at refuting this defense than me. Here's the classic EULA defense, and an excellent response in my view (in blue for emphasis):
Originally posted by hipiap
For the readers; Paragraph 2 from the EULA of SW:G :
2. To play the Game, you must: (i) purchase the Software (as defined below in Paragraph 7) for Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided and any expansion packs you wish to play ; (ii) have a fully paid Account; (iii) have a valid credit card (or, if we wish to make it available, a paid game card); and (iv) have an Internet connection (which we do not provide or pay for) to access your Account. In addition to any fees described herein, you are responsible for paying all applicable taxes (including those we are not required to collect) and for all hardware, software, service and other costs you incur to access your Account. Neither this Agreement nor your Account entitles you to any subsequent releases of the Game and/or the Software, any expansion packs nor similar ancillary products. You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time and in doing so incur no obligation to furnish such updates to you pursuant to this Agreement. You understand that online games evolve over time and, accordingly, system requirements to play the Game may change over time.
Put in Bold to be helpful.
FWIW the part you're bolding has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
That part of the EULA simply states that SOE is under no legal obligation to provide a paying customer with any updates or enhancements they make - regardless of the fact that the customer is already paying for the service. For instance - should they produce an enhanced graphical engine they have no obligation to provide that upgrade for free, they are within their rights to charge for it.
The second element of the para allows for such graphical upgrades (again as an example) and does not warrant that they will honour the current system requirements throughout the lifetime of the product.
Nothing in that para provides for the scope of change that the CU / NGE actually visited on their players. It was unprecedented at the time and (given the success of the move) will likely not be repeated within the genre at any time in the foreseeable future.
If enough people are able to see through the EULA defense and put the resources into challenging it, something may be changed for the better.
But who in thier right minds would take on SOE and LA? no-one is that foolish surely?
The only reason I didn't give this more attention earlier, is that I was working with a colleague (lawyer for the federal gov't) and government policy makers to address gaps in legislation related to recidivism rates for dangerous offenders. You can perhaps understand why this was a priority.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
Jeff Freeman (one of the main players in the NGE) admitted that they went into this with COMPLETE disregard for the existing players. That is what is called a "smoking gun".
For the companies reputation, yes that's a good "smoking gun" as you say. For criminal action, a better piece of evidence would be a memo stating something like: "Do not tell the customers of our plans to revamp the game immediately after they purchase the expansion. Especially do not tell them that many of the features and items we have been advertising will either be deleted or rendered useless by the revamp."
That would be "it".
It's no wonder there are so many non-disclosure agreements floating around this issue and that incriminating statements are no longer accessible online.
First of all, I'd like to say that any statement made in this thread cannot be considered true legal advice. Seek an attorney for that.
That being said, the issue here isn't the developer's prerogative to change the game. I think any argument that makes this the issue isn't going to go very far, but that's alright, because the real issue is far more fundamental than that. The issue here is the availability of the service. If the service a subscriber purchased from a provider is no longer available, then the provider cannot keep the fee.
So it seems to me that what would have to be shown is that the Pre-CU and/or CU service that was purchased was no longer available, and as a result, constitutes a breach of contract. That, for me at least, is far easier to prove than the contrary (that the NGE service is the same service), which is what the provider would have to prove.
People don't buy and sell things like subscription plans based upon what they may or may not be. They buy and sell things like subscriptions based on what they are, and what they are is determined at the time of the initial purchase. Things like "you understand that games evolve over time" don't really say much, because what does "evolve" mean in this context? This is commerce, not biological science. Things change because the provider wants them to; and I don't think anyone can dispute that.
But by the same token, when the provider changes the service, it is up to the provider to demonstrate that the service is the same service that was originally sold. In other words, they have to prove that the lower quality animations in the NGE is the same as the higher quality animations in Pre-CU. They have to show that someone with their original start guide and rulebook can effectively use the NGE service. In short, I'm not sure they can show that the NGE service is the same service.
And since the original service is no longer available, it means that the provider might not be entitled to keep the initial purchase and/or subscription fees of someone who purchased the service back before November 15, 2005. I say might, because this is probably a separate issue.
__________________________ "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
You are exactly right. No one can argue that SOE/LEC didn't have the right to do the NGE, but they DIDNT have the right to do it in secret, conceal it until the last second, and keep all the money they made while witholding their plans from us.
Had they done things in the open, we could argue still that it was a mistake, but not that they'd been dishonest or criminal.
The reason why they concealed their real plans and deliberately misled us to believe that CU was what the game was and what it would remain was they knew that the moment we were told, we'd quit. In fact, they went into the NGE EXPECTING us to all quit, this has been admitted by Jeff Freeman. They just didn't want to lose our money until they were ready to boot us out and replace us with their fabulous "target audience".
What SOE and LEC did was beyond a civil tort, it quite possibly was CRIMINAL.
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
Originally posted by neonaka Originally posted by Suvroc Originally posted by neonaka Bro no offense, but in today's age, people can't fart and not be noticed. We can't turn on the t.v with out having to watch a blonde psycho shave her head, or another blonde bang some dude out in a hotel room. No way in the world, 2 powerhouse companies SOE and Lucas Arts, make a under the table $5000.00 settlement and someone not spill the beans. The lawyer, the clerk of court who stamps the ruling, the many people handling the sheet of paper. The little old lady that sits across from the courthouse everyday feeding the birds so she has to juicy gossip everyday. Someone.... somewhere.... Always talks. It's the number reason the mob retains a hitman at all times. No one in the year 2008 knows how to spell quiet or secret, much less do it.
If there was even a hint of a SOE/LA lawyer walking toward a courtroom, Every News van, game mag, newspaper, and website owner would be blasting that shit full stream before he hit the first step.
Interestingly enough I had a PM a few months ago from someone who claimed he had a settlement with SoE over something unrelated. He explained that he couldn't talk about the issue as part of his agreement. Whether or not it is true is one thing, but if it is true then I doubt a minor settlement would bring much attention to anyone. Even those clerks you mention would likely be held accountable in any cases of a breach of confidentiallity - even if they're no longer employed by that organization. But then again something like a settlement would be to keep it out of the courtroom anyway. It's damage control, and I'm sure SoE's team is getting quite good at it.
You just proved my point right there. The part in red is the point, the orange leads to it. If he is suppose to keep his mouth shut, what the hell is he doing PMing it to you. What if you weren't trustworthy and contacted G4 TV. Very few people on this planet can really keep a secret... and when I say few... like maybe 5 or 10 people out of 9 billion.
To further prove my point you just blasted his Private message to me and every other MMO user who has read this thread about his settlement. I think the point was just proved that in no way shape or form could a settlement not be made, and it not get out that same day. *we don't even have to know the details, we just needed to know he settled. That is news right there, that's enough for media to dig for the truth.
People keep secrets all he time; people obey NDAs all the time; many businesses RUN on confidentiality. If people couldn't keep secrets there would be no economy, no security clearances, no intelligence networks, no need for espionage anywhere. The fact that people PAY for secrets prove that other people keep them all the time.
I have kept many secrets all my life; I am sure there are more than five or ten people on earth at least as capable as I at keeping secrets.
Here's an absolutely excellent quote from an article on EULAs posted elsewhere by Reklaw. It has case law examples. Awesome find Reklaw! Here it is:
"Part of the problem is that EULAs aren't negotiated; they are simply agreed to. There is no discussion between the user and the vendor. You click "Yes" to use the software on the vendor's terms or look elsewhere. I understand the interests of the company here, but it is hard to think of this kind of mass-market contracting as a bargaining process.
The tide may be turning. Earlier this year, a California appeals court struck down a mandatory arbitration clause in T-Mobile's EULA. In that case, Gatton v. T-Mobile, the court decided that, because the agreement was written by a party with superior bargaining strength and the customer was given no ability to negotiate—just a simple yes/no choice—the contract was unconscionable. To which I say: Well, duh—what took so long?
Another decision that should be of particular concern to PC Magazine readers was handed down recently in New York State. Blue Coat Systems had decided it could contractually forbid customers from criticizing its products. It did so by inserting an "antibenchmarking" clause into its EULA. Seems it didn't want any customers comparing its proxy servers with the competition's. The state attorney general's office filed suit, at which point Blue Coat quickly settled, paid a small fine, and removed the clause from its contracts. Amen.
I wonder what kind of EULAs we have violated by benchmarking products that come into PC Magazine Labs. Turns out we published a review of VMware Workstation without the company's approval, as required in its EULA. Yeah, sorry about that, guys.
Common sense tells me that EULAs are pitiful excuses for fair contracts. It is time for consumers to have a choice that extends beyond "yes" or "no." Note to lawyers: All EULAs are unconscionable.
Dan Costa"
Also, I love Beatniks's posts on this stuff. He's making an excellent point, and SOE's EULA clearly states that in some jurisdictions this law supercedes their EULA. Nice of them to acknowledge what many of us already know. Excellent stuff, thanks Reklaw, thanks Beatnik!
Here's an absolutely excellent quote from an article on EULAs posted elsewhere by Reklaw. It has case law examples. Awesome find Reklaw! Here it is: "Part of the problem is that EULAs aren't negotiated; they are simply agreed to. There is no discussion between the user and the vendor. You click "Yes" to use the software on the vendor's terms or look elsewhere. I understand the interests of the company here, but it is hard to think of this kind of mass-market contracting as a bargaining process. The tide may be turning. Earlier this year, a California appeals court struck down a mandatory arbitration clause in T-Mobile's EULA. In that case, Gatton v. T-Mobile, the court decided that, because the agreement was written by a party with superior bargaining strength and the customer was given no ability to negotiate—just a simple yes/no choice—the contract was unconscionable. To which I say: Well, duh—what took so long? Another decision that should be of particular concern to PC Magazine readers was handed down recently in New York State. Blue Coat Systems had decided it could contractually forbid customers from criticizing its products. It did so by inserting an "antibenchmarking" clause into its EULA. Seems it didn't want any customers comparing its proxy servers with the competition's. The state attorney general's office filed suit, at which point Blue Coat quickly settled, paid a small fine, and removed the clause from its contracts. Amen. I wonder what kind of EULAs we have violated by benchmarking products that come into PC Magazine Labs. Turns out we published a review of VMware Workstation without the company's approval, as required in its EULA. Yeah, sorry about that, guys. Common sense tells me that EULAs are pitiful excuses for fair contracts. It is time for consumers to have a choice that extends beyond "yes" or "no." Note to lawyers: All EULAs are unconscionable. Dan Costa" Also, I love Beatniks's posts on this stuff. He's making an excellent point, and SOE's EULA clearly states that in some jurisdictions this law supercedes their EULA. Nice of them to acknowledge what many of us already know. Excellent stuff, thanks Reklaw, thanks Beatnik!
Your welcome
I'm all for seeing changes in EULA's, but....for me it's for EULA's in general in this genre which should be looked at and changed. I beleive there isn't that much difference between a SOE EULA or a Blizzard EULA's, the difference however does come in how these game company's handle themselfs with or behind their EULA's. And that has to change.
Comments
Beside the legal stuff we vets already gained the moral right to be $OE lifetime enemy if $OE don't satisfy us for our loss, despite the fact that loss being subject of legal undertakings or not.
Thats important to remember please ,we have the moral right to pillory $OE and to warn others about them. Till we get something equal to an satisfaction that rehabilitate us from that CU/NGE loss.
-----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)
someone needs to sue $OE and la.
whoever does would win a ton of money as what they did is highly illegal and chances are they would be ordered by the courts to put the pre-cu back into the game.
or we would take all their money and get them shut down.
we win in any case. much like how us vets will win all the time.
But who in thier right minds would take on SOE and LA? no-one is that foolish surely?
I actually did bring it up the last time a thread with the same topic appeared, but obviously it didn't sink in the last time, so we have to rehash the whole darnedable thing out again.
And I'm sure we'll have to rehash it yet again sometime in the future.
Once again, and please let this be for the last time, the statement, "Gameplay may change during online play", does not include the changes of the NGE, the part of the EULA I put in red does. There is a difference. The warning about gameplay changes online is basically stating that they can't control what other people do, say, or how they act online.
Please read the entire thread that I linked.
Edit* Just so you know, I'm not defending any game companies EULA. All of them are horribly against customers and I am very much in favor of some one eventually challenging them. What I'm against is the ignorance of the players who think that broad statements like, "Game play may change with online play" allow gaming companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want, because it simply is not true. I'm not trying to argue or flame, I'm trying to educate.
The point i was trying to make is simple SOE called it the NGE..new game enhancements..now go to the bit in red..You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game SOE sees it as an enhancement..lord knows why but they do and i would assume they gave it that very title to stop any sort of lawsuit in its tracks by covering it in the eula.I mean "new game enhancements" was hardly catchy was it? so looking at it they covered themselves very nicely tbh.
You CANNOT create a contract or agreement that allows you to commit an illegal act such as fraud. The only reason nobody has brought SOE to court is because of the amount of money gained would not even start to cover the lawyer fees or the time it would take to complete such a trial as SOE would bury anyone in paperwork.
SWG is like meeting the hottest chick of all time and then have her give you every STD in the book and then she dresses a monkey up like a baby sues for child support and the judge says yes
But SOE and LA dont see it as fraud (the NGE) i mean,they see it as "enhanced"..though i would like a pint of whatever they where drinking at the time they thought it made so "enhanced"
Consider that SOE and LEC advertised and promoted a product (CU) that they planned to cease to exist, to be replaced by a game that was completely different.
They were committing interstate and international wire and mail fraud from the day they decided to NGE to the day they declared their intentions (the Torres producer letter).
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
To the OP. This brings up a good point for gamers. Should a law group that represents the virtual world of MMO's come into the forefront? I would have to say yes. These gamesmarket are going to evolve over the next 100 years in free society. Right now states in the US are moving forward with slipping in laws concerning virtual property. This really needs to be led by forefathers instead of a generation that thinks the internet is made up of tubes.
California is the place to build this foundation. I wonder if the ACLU would point a user in the right direction or to contact a CA law school would be the first step.
One thing is for sure... MMOROPG will never side with the players. They will ban, delete, etc to support the publishers.
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
Interestingly enough I had a PM a few months ago from someone who claimed he had a settlement with SoE over something unrelated. He explained that he couldn't talk about the issue as part of his agreement.
Whether or not it is true is one thing, but if it is true then I doubt a minor settlement would bring much attention to anyone. Even those clerks you mention would likely be held accountable in any cases of a breach of confidentiallity - even if they're no longer employed by that organization.
But then again something like a settlement would be to keep it out of the courtroom anyway. It's damage control, and I'm sure SoE's team is getting quite good at it.
You just proved my point right there.
The part in red is the point, the orange leads to it.
If he is suppose to keep his mouth shut, what the hell is he doing PMing it to you.
What if you weren't trustworthy and contacted G4 TV.
Very few people on this planet can really keep a secret... and when I say few... like maybe 5 or 10 people out of 9 billion.
To further prove my point you just blasted his Private message to me and every other MMO user who has read this thread about his settlement.
I think the point was just proved that in no way shape or form could a settlement not be made, and it not get out that same day.
*we don't even have to know the details, we just needed to know he settled. That is news right there, that's enough for media to dig for the truth.
Sorry, let me be a little more specific. He couldn't talk about the particulars of the case. Saying he was awarded a settlement is one thing, but to discuss why he won a settlement is something different.
So, has anyone looked into how many settlements SoE has been involved in?
SOE is pretty versed in the use of NDAs. They do a lot to quiet people about what goes on in the corporate office. Why can't people talk about the NGE who worked on it? Non-disclosure agreements. If everything's above board as some people suggest. Why all of the gag orders?
Also if everything is above board, why the massive refund campaign after the bait and switch.
No, all the evidence points to wrong being done, and to concerns about legal action. Calling people "a potato" or saying they have a "screw loose" doesn't really make a convincing argument. I guess if you don't have the truth with you, you feel a need to resort to schoolyard insults.
SOE did dodge legal action with the ToOW refund, but did you read how they worded it? They said that they were refunding money to people who weren't satisfied with the expansion. More b.s.. People were satisfied with the expansion until the surprise NGE mutilated it. They can't even get an apology right.
Why didn't they come out and say the truth, that the refunds were because they advertised things that they then deleted or rendered useless, and they made the announcement the day after the money was accepted. Why not admit the truth, ever, even to this day? Because to do so is to confess to fraud.
Without the confession, someone is going to have to take the time, energy and money to prove that they knowlingly misled customers about the expansion, to take their money under false pretenses. That would be a criminal case.
A civil case remains for those that purchased additional subscription time under false pretenses. Anyone that got a refund on the expansion, should also get a refund on any subscription time purchased in light of the ToOW marketting campaign, which was blatantly false advertising.
It's been good keeping in touch with the online community that was SWG.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
I agree with you 100%,but honestly all SOE would do is just tie anyone who tried to take them to court up for years on end with red tape,now if Bill Gates had played SWG then we may have had a chance..after all he's retiring now,got a few bob and a bit of time on his hands
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
Jeff Freeman (one of the main players in the NGE) admitted that they went into this with COMPLETE disregard for the existing players. That is what is called a "smoking gun".
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
But aside from that I'm quite happy to see more and more people discussing concerns with EULA's as dialogue will be the catalyst for change - and I really believe it's time for change.
But aside from that I'm quite happy to see more and more people discussing concerns with EULA's as dialogue will be the catalyst for change - and I really believe it's time for change.
I'm also pleased to see the current discussions about EULAs in general. That's what sparked this thread actually. Well that and yet another post defending the NGE on the basis of the EULA that was just put on the boards this week.
Another post actually does a better job at refuting this defense than me. Here's the classic EULA defense, and an excellent response in my view (in blue for emphasis):
FWIW the part you're bolding has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
That part of the EULA simply states that SOE is under no legal obligation to provide a paying customer with any updates or enhancements they make - regardless of the fact that the customer is already paying for the service. For instance - should they produce an enhanced graphical engine they have no obligation to provide that upgrade for free, they are within their rights to charge for it.
The second element of the para allows for such graphical upgrades (again as an example) and does not warrant that they will honour the current system requirements throughout the lifetime of the product.
Nothing in that para provides for the scope of change that the CU / NGE actually visited on their players. It was unprecedented at the time and (given the success of the move) will likely not be repeated within the genre at any time in the foreseeable future.
If enough people are able to see through the EULA defense and put the resources into challenging it, something may be changed for the better.
With the recent passing of a significant bill in parliament, I find myself with time on my hands, and holidays upcoming. How much of that I invest in exploring possible legislative gaps re. corporate exploitation of consumers of virtual entertainment remains to be seen.
You know what really got my attention, and kept it, was the absolute arrogance shown by SOE with regard to consumer protection legislation. People don't spend years developing these laws just to have arrogant corporate money hounds show utter disdain for it. The arrogance, blatant disinformation campaign, and utter disdain for customers honestly really pissed me off.
Jeff Freeman (one of the main players in the NGE) admitted that they went into this with COMPLETE disregard for the existing players. That is what is called a "smoking gun".
For the companies reputation, yes that's a good "smoking gun" as you say. For criminal action, a better piece of evidence would be a memo stating something like: "Do not tell the customers of our plans to revamp the game immediately after they purchase the expansion. Especially do not tell them that many of the features and items we have been advertising will either be deleted or rendered useless by the revamp."That would be "it".
It's no wonder there are so many non-disclosure agreements floating around this issue and that incriminating statements are no longer accessible online.
Arch- I am going to do a little digging when I get back from my vacation as to the rights of gamers in legislation. This is very interesting.
First of all, I'd like to say that any statement made in this thread cannot be considered true legal advice. Seek an attorney for that.
That being said, the issue here isn't the developer's prerogative to change the game. I think any argument that makes this the issue isn't going to go very far, but that's alright, because the real issue is far more fundamental than that. The issue here is the availability of the service. If the service a subscriber purchased from a provider is no longer available, then the provider cannot keep the fee.
So it seems to me that what would have to be shown is that the Pre-CU and/or CU service that was purchased was no longer available, and as a result, constitutes a breach of contract. That, for me at least, is far easier to prove than the contrary (that the NGE service is the same service), which is what the provider would have to prove.
People don't buy and sell things like subscription plans based upon what they may or may not be. They buy and sell things like subscriptions based on what they are, and what they are is determined at the time of the initial purchase. Things like "you understand that games evolve over time" don't really say much, because what does "evolve" mean in this context? This is commerce, not biological science. Things change because the provider wants them to; and I don't think anyone can dispute that.
But by the same token, when the provider changes the service, it is up to the provider to demonstrate that the service is the same service that was originally sold. In other words, they have to prove that the lower quality animations in the NGE is the same as the higher quality animations in Pre-CU. They have to show that someone with their original start guide and rulebook can effectively use the NGE service. In short, I'm not sure they can show that the NGE service is the same service.
And since the original service is no longer available, it means that the provider might not be entitled to keep the initial purchase and/or subscription fees of someone who purchased the service back before November 15, 2005. I say might, because this is probably a separate issue.
__________________________
"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
You are exactly right. No one can argue that SOE/LEC didn't have the right to do the NGE, but they DIDNT have the right to do it in secret, conceal it until the last second, and keep all the money they made while witholding their plans from us.
Had they done things in the open, we could argue still that it was a mistake, but not that they'd been dishonest or criminal.
The reason why they concealed their real plans and deliberately misled us to believe that CU was what the game was and what it would remain was they knew that the moment we were told, we'd quit. In fact, they went into the NGE EXPECTING us to all quit, this has been admitted by Jeff Freeman. They just didn't want to lose our money until they were ready to boot us out and replace us with their fabulous "target audience".
What SOE and LEC did was beyond a civil tort, it quite possibly was CRIMINAL.
"If I had a penny for everytime a frustrated fanboi hits the report button, I could end world hunger."
Interestingly enough I had a PM a few months ago from someone who claimed he had a settlement with SoE over something unrelated. He explained that he couldn't talk about the issue as part of his agreement.
Whether or not it is true is one thing, but if it is true then I doubt a minor settlement would bring much attention to anyone. Even those clerks you mention would likely be held accountable in any cases of a breach of confidentiallity - even if they're no longer employed by that organization.
But then again something like a settlement would be to keep it out of the courtroom anyway. It's damage control, and I'm sure SoE's team is getting quite good at it.
You just proved my point right there.
The part in red is the point, the orange leads to it.
If he is suppose to keep his mouth shut, what the hell is he doing PMing it to you.
What if you weren't trustworthy and contacted G4 TV.
Very few people on this planet can really keep a secret... and when I say few... like maybe 5 or 10 people out of 9 billion.
To further prove my point you just blasted his Private message to me and every other MMO user who has read this thread about his settlement.
I think the point was just proved that in no way shape or form could a settlement not be made, and it not get out that same day.
*we don't even have to know the details, we just needed to know he settled. That is news right there, that's enough for media to dig for the truth.
People keep secrets all he time; people obey NDAs all the time; many businesses RUN on confidentiality. If people couldn't keep secrets there would be no economy, no security clearances, no intelligence networks, no need for espionage anywhere. The fact that people PAY for secrets prove that other people keep them all the time.
I have kept many secrets all my life; I am sure there are more than five or ten people on earth at least as capable as I at keeping secrets.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Here's an absolutely excellent quote from an article on EULAs posted elsewhere by Reklaw. It has case law examples. Awesome find Reklaw! Here it is:
"Part of the problem is that EULAs aren't negotiated; they are simply agreed to. There is no discussion between the user and the vendor. You click "Yes" to use the software on the vendor's terms or look elsewhere. I understand the interests of the company here, but it is hard to think of this kind of mass-market contracting as a bargaining process.
The tide may be turning. Earlier this year, a California appeals court struck down a mandatory arbitration clause in T-Mobile's EULA. In that case, Gatton v. T-Mobile, the court decided that, because the agreement was written by a party with superior bargaining strength and the customer was given no ability to negotiate—just a simple yes/no choice—the contract was unconscionable. To which I say: Well, duh—what took so long?
Another decision that should be of particular concern to PC Magazine readers was handed down recently in New York State. Blue Coat Systems had decided it could contractually forbid customers from criticizing its products. It did so by inserting an "antibenchmarking" clause into its EULA. Seems it didn't want any customers comparing its proxy servers with the competition's. The state attorney general's office filed suit, at which point Blue Coat quickly settled, paid a small fine, and removed the clause from its contracts. Amen.
I wonder what kind of EULAs we have violated by benchmarking products that come into PC Magazine Labs. Turns out we published a review of VMware Workstation without the company's approval, as required in its EULA. Yeah, sorry about that, guys.
Common sense tells me that EULAs are pitiful excuses for fair contracts. It is time for consumers to have a choice that extends beyond "yes" or "no." Note to lawyers: All EULAs are unconscionable.
Dan Costa"
Also, I love Beatniks's posts on this stuff. He's making an excellent point, and SOE's EULA clearly states that in some jurisdictions this law supercedes their EULA. Nice of them to acknowledge what many of us already know. Excellent stuff, thanks Reklaw, thanks Beatnik!
Sounds good. I'd love to hear what you find
I'm all for seeing changes in EULA's, but....for me it's for EULA's in general in this genre which should be looked at and changed. I beleive there isn't that much difference between a SOE EULA or a Blizzard EULA's, the difference however does come in how these game company's handle themselfs with or behind their EULA's. And that has to change.