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.
I agree with you re. EULAs in general needing to be changed. They're finally getting some much needed scrutiny. Really, from experience, I can say this is because of the relative newness of the industry and the incredible number of issues that legislators and courts are attempting to address in this fallen world of ours.
From the case examples you provided, SOE would not alone in using EULAs that contradict law. What got my attention with them is the way they seem to have so abused people's rights to accurate information about a product or service and then attempted to use the EULA as a defence. Well that and of course I played that particular game, along with many of my friends.
Honestly, if their actions weren't so outrageous and if I wasn't personally impacted by them, EULA would just be another 4 letter word to me.
"You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time..." This has been quoted to justify the NGE, among other things. I ask you if any reasonable person would interpret the following actions of SOE as examples of updating or enhancing the game: deletion of over 20 professions, Yes, it does mean they can do this rendering people completely unable to move or chat, Im guessing this was a bug and not intended making heal abilities heal enemies, Again probably a bug and not intended advertising and selling items and features in an expansion, and then announcing their deletion the day after payment was received--fraud allegation, Im not sure you can get them on fraud but this was very bad. They should have refunded the expansion to everyone who bought it. But then AC2 just up and went away about a month after their expansion rendering people unable to interact with virtual pets, Was this a bug or did they make pets non controlable. If its a bug then its a bug, if it is the other then, yes they can do that. Plenty of games have pets that you cant actually control deletion of in some cases two years worth of quest progress, along with deletion of the quest content from the game, Yes, they can do this. They changed the game and those quests and content were no longer valid rendering items in the previous paid for expansion, Rage of the Wookies, relatively useless by deleting the professions they were made for. Yes, they can do this. But again they should have refunded the expansion Yeah, I'd love to see someone in SOE's home jurisdiction challenge this use of their EULA.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Originally posted by safwd You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
__________________________ "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
I think it would certainly be interesting to see how a judge would rule on a case vs SOE's EULA.
I also think that the current, open cases about 'virtual property' belonging to players... well, that should be watched, too.
There should be an establishment of 'the player's rights'. And those rights should go above and beyond 'I reserve the right, at any time, to cancel my account.'
I think it would certainly be interesting to see how a judge would rule on a case vs SOE's EULA. I also think that the current, open cases about 'virtual property' belonging to players... well, that should be watched, too. There should be an establishment of 'the player's rights'. And those rights should go above and beyond 'I reserve the right, at any time, to cancel my account.'
Any EULA that not cantains the clause similar
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
Any EULA don't contain such or similar phrase protecting the data of the customer is rubish and not worth to be displayed anywhere.
-----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)
I think it would certainly be interesting to see how a judge would rule on a case vs SOE's EULA. I also think that the current, open cases about 'virtual property' belonging to players... well, that should be watched, too. There should be an establishment of 'the player's rights'. And those rights should go above and beyond 'I reserve the right, at any time, to cancel my account.'
Any EULA that not cantains the clause similar
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
Any EULA don't contain such or similar phrase protecting the data of the customer is rubish and not worth to be displayed anywhere.
So Every one?
You know knowing about law.
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Spelt wrong, you still understood it - point still stands. Noone will give you 100% control over their product - final.
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Spelt wrong, you still understood it - point still stands. Noone will give you 100% control over their product - final.
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Originally posted by safwd You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
Spelt wrong, you still understood it - point still stands. Noone will give you 100% control over their product - final.
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Yeah, it's cute. He knows knowing about law.
Damn right
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Originally posted by safwd You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
Originally posted by safwd You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
"You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time..." This has been quoted to justify the NGE, among other things. I ask you if any reasonable person would interpret the following actions of SOE as examples of updating or enhancing the game: deletion of over 20 professions, Yes, it does mean they can do this rendering people completely unable to move or chat, Im guessing this was a bug and not intended making heal abilities heal enemies, Again probably a bug and not intended advertising and selling items and features in an expansion, and then announcing their deletion the day after payment was received--fraud allegation, Im not sure you can get them on fraud but this was very bad. They should have refunded the expansion to everyone who bought it. But then AC2 just up and went away about a month after their expansion rendering people unable to interact with virtual pets, Was this a bug or did they make pets non controlable. If its a bug then its a bug, if it is the other then, yes they can do that. Plenty of games have pets that you cant actually control deletion of in some cases two years worth of quest progress, along with deletion of the quest content from the game, Yes, they can do this. They changed the game and those quests and content were no longer valid rendering items in the previous paid for expansion, Rage of the Wookies, relatively useless by deleting the professions they were made for. Yes, they can do this. But again they should have refunded the expansion Yeah, I'd love to see someone in SOE's home jurisdiction challenge this use of their EULA.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Hey, wait a minute.........
Since you ask about pets, I'll give you some specifics. The profession that could tame and control pets was called creature handler. It was deleted when the game was "enhanced." All of the creature handlers pets were stuck in their inventory (called a datapad). They could see them all, but interact with none of them. It wasn't a bug, it was part of the NGE design.
Now for some context. Creature handlers had been promised and just given a profession revamp. Also, the marketting for Trials of Obiwan featured new loot specifically for creature handlers, and new creatures on the new planet for them to tame. The day after all creature handlers paid for the expansion, the very day after, the deletion of their profession was announced, and then carried out 2 weeks later.
These people paid for the expansion and would have had to pay for subscription time to use it. After their money was taken, everything they paid for was removed from the game. What makes this worse is that while these features and items were being marketted, SOE KNEW the profession that could use them was going to be deleted. They intentionally withheld this information, and took people's money under false pretenses. All of the subscription money taken has not been refunded. This is the crux of the fraud or bait and switch allegations. Other professions experienced things that were similar. Items for Teras Kasi for example were also rendered useless. The creature handler example is the most well known and outrageous.
One of my main points is that no EULA in the world can be used to justify this kind of behaviour in that it directly violates the criminal code definition of fraud. What remains to be seen is if anyone in the U.S.A. will report this to the proper authorities, and if a court of law would agree with this application of fraud legislation.
One of the reasons people continue to discuss this is that many feel justice has yet to be done. Others have thought that reasoning with SOE or giving them bad press would "bring them to their senses." It hasn't.
"You understand that we may update or otherwise enhance the Game and/or the Software at any time..." This has been quoted to justify the NGE, among other things. I ask you if any reasonable person would interpret the following actions of SOE as examples of updating or enhancing the game: deletion of over 20 professions, Yes, it does mean they can do this rendering people completely unable to move or chat, Im guessing this was a bug and not intended making heal abilities heal enemies, Again probably a bug and not intended advertising and selling items and features in an expansion, and then announcing their deletion the day after payment was received--fraud allegation, Im not sure you can get them on fraud but this was very bad. They should have refunded the expansion to everyone who bought it. But then AC2 just up and went away about a month after their expansion rendering people unable to interact with virtual pets, Was this a bug or did they make pets non controlable. If its a bug then its a bug, if it is the other then, yes they can do that. Plenty of games have pets that you cant actually control deletion of in some cases two years worth of quest progress, along with deletion of the quest content from the game, Yes, they can do this. They changed the game and those quests and content were no longer valid rendering items in the previous paid for expansion, Rage of the Wookies, relatively useless by deleting the professions they were made for. Yes, they can do this. But again they should have refunded the expansion Yeah, I'd love to see someone in SOE's home jurisdiction challenge this use of their EULA.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Hey, wait a minute.........
Since you ask about pets, I'll give you some specifics. The profession that could tame and control pets was called creature handler. It was deleted when the game was "enhanced." All of the creature handlers pets were stuck in their inventory (called a datapad). They could see them all, but interact with none of them. It wasn't a bug, it was part of the NGE design.
Now for some context. Creature handlers had been promised and just given a profession revamp. Also, the marketting for Trials of Obiwan featured new loot specifically for creature handlers, and new creatures on the new planet for them to tame. The day after all creature handlers paid for the expansion, the very day after, the deletion of their profession was announced, and then carried out 2 weeks later.
These people paid for the expansion and would have had to pay for subscription time to use it. After their money was taken, everything they paid for was removed from the game. What makes this worse is that while these features and items were being marketted, SOE KNEW the profession that could use them was going to be deleted. They intentionally withheld this information, and took people's money under false pretenses. All of the subscription money taken has not been refunded. This is the crux of the fraud or bait and switch allegations. Other professions experienced things that were similar. Items for Teras Kasi for example were also rendered useless. The creature handler example is the most well known and outrageous.
One of my main points is that no EULA in the world can be used to justify this kind of behaviour in that it directly violates the criminal code definition of fraud. What remains to be seen is if anyone in the U.S.A. will report this to the proper authorities, and if a court of law would agree with this application of fraud legislation.
One of the reasons people continue to discuss this is that many feel justice has yet to be done. Others have thought that reasoning with SOE or giving them bad press would "bring them to their senses." It hasn't.
Let me make this very clear, I agree with you.
But even though i agree i really doubt that anything is really going to happen about it.
I think the best outcome that can be expected if this ever goes to court is that EULAs are revamped so this kind of thing Cant happen again.
I cant believe anyone is going to get fired or that anyone is going to get money returned, though they should for the expansion. I dont believe that any players of AC2 were ever refunded money after the game shut down a month after releasing an expansion.
And for whoever said it above, You will never own the character you make. As soon as you own something in a game then you actually own part of said game. They arent going to let that happen.
But even though i agree i really doubt that anything is really going to happen about it.
I think the best outcome that can be expected if this ever goes to court is that EULAs are revamped so this kind of thing Cant happen again.
I cant believe anyone is going to get fired or that anyone is going to get money returned, though they should for the expansion. I dont believe that any players of AC2 were ever refunded money after the game shut down a month after releasing an expansion.
And for whoever said it above, You will never own the character you make. As soon as you own something in a game then you actually own part of said game. They arent going to let that happen.
Fianally someone seen the light..you dont own anything in a MMO and i'm damn sure every MMO dev company would fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.
And as for AC2 i'd forgotton about that fiasco those poor players really had something to complain about becuase lets be fair they dont have a game anymore,while no doubt people here will say nor do the vets but you see we do..its just not the game we want.
But i agree EULA's need to be changed but i honestly cant ever see it changing,theres just to much money at stake for publishers and devs.
ive skimmed through most of th eposts on this topic and every one brings out good points, but the fact remains that companies will do what it takes to get more money, (or what they think will get them more money) even if it screws over a people or two, ive been told that to be very financially succesfull you need to step over many people. and if done legally the better. so companies will look for loophole and/or insert fineprint/clauses that let them a) cover their asses and b) screw you out of your money.
SWG having the right to or not still did it, they planted the NGE on us and sold us things that where given afterwards (ITVs) and not to mention the lies
they told us to keep our subs
as long as possible
In My Opinion any game that does not look like the box or the manual it came from is not honest business and that is why i am very cautious with wtv comes from Sony, not only SOE. cuz they do bad business and many people know it. which is their downfall.
a more honest EULA to accept everytime you have to login.
quoted from ArcAngel
"We reserve the right to sell you items in an expansion and then disable them (RotW).
We reserve the right to take features offline at any time, say that they will be restored when improved, and then never restore them (force ranking system).
We reserve the right to delete months or years worth of quest progress (jedi village and trials).
We reserve the right to delete any or all professions that you have spent weeks or months mastering (pick one of the 20 + professions deleted).
We reserve the right to market things in an expansion that we know we are going to render useless right after we receive your money for them (ToOW followed by NGE).
If we give refunds for the above expansion, we reserve the right to keep any money you paid for subscription time, even though you couldn't actually play the expansion without purchasing the time.
We reserve the right to tell you things about our plans for the game that we know are not true, and take your money under false pretenses (ToOW).
We reserve the right to remove all user access to virtual pets for a 2 year period (NGE).
If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums.
We reserve the right to make your profession meaningless anytime we choose (NGE).
We reserve the right to make any or all goods crafted (or purchased) by you useless at anytime (combat upgrade and NGE).
We reserve the right to make your equipment unuseable by you at any time (armour certification).
We reserve the right to charge you a premium fee, in advance, for gameplay that will be broken by our patches (pick one, but the NGE was the best example).
We reserve the right to reward you with ingame items for your loyalty, and then take them away (ADKs).
We reserve the right to promise specific bug fixes, and then not follow through (collision detection).
We reserve the right to tell you we are fast tracking server mergers, and then not follow through (self-explanatory).
If you agree to these terms, click "accept."
What the EULA actually says is that they reserve the right to update and enhance the game. I don't think update or enhance means what they think it means."
-----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)
"If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums."
-----MY-TERMS-OF-USE-------------------------------------------------- $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!
"There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)
Comments
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.
I agree with you re. EULAs in general needing to be changed. They're finally getting some much needed scrutiny. Really, from experience, I can say this is because of the relative newness of the industry and the incredible number of issues that legislators and courts are attempting to address in this fallen world of ours.From the case examples you provided, SOE would not alone in using EULAs that contradict law. What got my attention with them is the way they seem to have so abused people's rights to accurate information about a product or service and then attempted to use the EULA as a defence. Well that and of course I played that particular game, along with many of my friends.
Honestly, if their actions weren't so outrageous and if I wasn't personally impacted by them, EULA would just be another 4 letter word to me.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Hey, wait a minute.........
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
__________________________
"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
As always Beatnik I find posts interesting, relevent, and insightful.
Good job!
I think it would certainly be interesting to see how a judge would rule on a case vs SOE's EULA.
I also think that the current, open cases about 'virtual property' belonging to players... well, that should be watched, too.
There should be an establishment of 'the player's rights'. And those rights should go above and beyond 'I reserve the right, at any time, to cancel my account.'
Any EULA that not cantains the clause similar
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
Any EULA don't contain such or similar phrase protecting the data of the customer is rubish and not worth to be displayed anywhere.
-----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)
Any EULA that not cantains the clause similar
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
Any EULA don't contain such or similar phrase protecting the data of the customer is rubish and not worth to be displayed anywhere.
So Every one?
You know knowing about law.
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Hmmm...you should probably proofread your posts before you start accusing other posters of being ignorant.
It's hard to refute that kind of logic
.
Spelt wrong, you still understood it - point still stands. Noone will give you 100% control over their product - final.
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Yeah, it's cute. He knows knowing about law.
Wow...this is just classic.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
/standing ovation.
Spelt?
And you are right, no one will give you 100% control, I can agree there.
"All Player created and generated In game items are property of the signatory partner in this agreement and has to be treated as such by the service provider. The service provider has NO right to change any mechanism that influences this property in an way the signatory partnet has not agreed explicitly upon."
He even tried to write it in a 'official' way, cute.
Yeah, it's cute. He knows knowing about law.
Damn right
Account has been stolen, why would someone want to steal my account?
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
/standing ovation.
I'll second that.
If consumers of computer entertainment didn't know that before, they know it now.
But it doesn't mean we have to agree with it, or accept that "this is how MMOs are." I don't think that this attitude is helping to grow this genre. MMOs don't have to be like that, and as evidence I point to WoW: a game that has changed very little throughout its service life. So little in fact that you can still effectively play using the original rulebook printed in 2003. Design geeks underestimate the value of that. It gives consumers the feeling that they always have a home in a game, and always know what to do to enjoy themselves, and make the most of their online entertainment. It shows the player that the game is professional and is a good buy. Sadly, the MMO production business feels that it is above or beyond the simple things that computer entertainment consumers expect and demand.
Ultimately, legal action isn't going to kill this industry as much as this haphazard design philosophy of "constant evolution" and "never leaving production" will. When players tire of WoW, where will they go? To games that line the shelves with rulebooks that may or may not actually reflect the game? To games that change so quickly and haphazardly that nobody ever learns how to play? Consumer patters show that WoW players are avoiding other titles altogether, and who can blame them? They simply have no confidence that what they see is what they get, and no confidence that what the get is what they will continue to get.
This industry is so bad now that many games don't even print rulebooks anymore, because they don't seem to be able or willing to design a playable system, and stick with it. While game publishers argue that this is what makes their games better than peer to peer or single player, to the people who consume MMOs, this only makes MMOs look like expensive, haphazard scams that are too amaturish to understand and enjoy.
We don't need massive multiplayer to get immersion (see Sims or Oblivion). We don't need massive multiplayer to get cooperative and competitive gameplay. And quite frankly, MMOs are so expensive and unreliable compared to other forms of computer entertainment that this industry simply cannot afford to neglect stability in the gameplay. If you look at the success of WoW, you will see a live service with restrained live teams, who stick with the launch rules. That, to me, is what SOE should have learned from WoW and Blizzard. For to be honest, I suspect that if WoW launched with a skill system, 34 profession, a robust player economy based on crafting and entertainment, decay, it would still net 10 million subs.
And why? Because the reason people go to WoW isn't about the gameplay. It's about stability in the gameplay, and the fact that your Starcraft and Diablo II rulebook will still work today just as well as 10 years ago.
/standing ovation.
I'll second that.
I'm gonna go ahead and third that. Great post.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Hey, wait a minute.........
Since you ask about pets, I'll give you some specifics. The profession that could tame and control pets was called creature handler. It was deleted when the game was "enhanced." All of the creature handlers pets were stuck in their inventory (called a datapad). They could see them all, but interact with none of them. It wasn't a bug, it was part of the NGE design.
Now for some context. Creature handlers had been promised and just given a profession revamp. Also, the marketting for Trials of Obiwan featured new loot specifically for creature handlers, and new creatures on the new planet for them to tame. The day after all creature handlers paid for the expansion, the very day after, the deletion of their profession was announced, and then carried out 2 weeks later.
These people paid for the expansion and would have had to pay for subscription time to use it. After their money was taken, everything they paid for was removed from the game. What makes this worse is that while these features and items were being marketted, SOE KNEW the profession that could use them was going to be deleted. They intentionally withheld this information, and took people's money under false pretenses. All of the subscription money taken has not been refunded. This is the crux of the fraud or bait and switch allegations. Other professions experienced things that were similar. Items for Teras Kasi for example were also rendered useless. The creature handler example is the most well known and outrageous.
One of my main points is that no EULA in the world can be used to justify this kind of behaviour in that it directly violates the criminal code definition of fraud. What remains to be seen is if anyone in the U.S.A. will report this to the proper authorities, and if a court of law would agree with this application of fraud legislation.
One of the reasons people continue to discuss this is that many feel justice has yet to be done. Others have thought that reasoning with SOE or giving them bad press would "bring them to their senses." It hasn't.
Until someone actually challenges the EULA and wins then it is a completely legal agreement.
You have to know going into an MMO that anything and everything can change at a moments notice, that is how MMOs are. Granted most dont change to the point that SWG did but the fact that they can is ALWAYS there.
If you go in thinking otherwise then 2 years later you are going to be in some forum constantly complaining about how it was in the old days. And then some website is going to give you your own forum so you can complain about it all day with others who complain about it all day.
Hey, wait a minute.........
Since you ask about pets, I'll give you some specifics. The profession that could tame and control pets was called creature handler. It was deleted when the game was "enhanced." All of the creature handlers pets were stuck in their inventory (called a datapad). They could see them all, but interact with none of them. It wasn't a bug, it was part of the NGE design.
Now for some context. Creature handlers had been promised and just given a profession revamp. Also, the marketting for Trials of Obiwan featured new loot specifically for creature handlers, and new creatures on the new planet for them to tame. The day after all creature handlers paid for the expansion, the very day after, the deletion of their profession was announced, and then carried out 2 weeks later.
These people paid for the expansion and would have had to pay for subscription time to use it. After their money was taken, everything they paid for was removed from the game. What makes this worse is that while these features and items were being marketted, SOE KNEW the profession that could use them was going to be deleted. They intentionally withheld this information, and took people's money under false pretenses. All of the subscription money taken has not been refunded. This is the crux of the fraud or bait and switch allegations. Other professions experienced things that were similar. Items for Teras Kasi for example were also rendered useless. The creature handler example is the most well known and outrageous.
One of my main points is that no EULA in the world can be used to justify this kind of behaviour in that it directly violates the criminal code definition of fraud. What remains to be seen is if anyone in the U.S.A. will report this to the proper authorities, and if a court of law would agree with this application of fraud legislation.
One of the reasons people continue to discuss this is that many feel justice has yet to be done. Others have thought that reasoning with SOE or giving them bad press would "bring them to their senses." It hasn't.
Let me make this very clear, I agree with you.But even though i agree i really doubt that anything is really going to happen about it.
I think the best outcome that can be expected if this ever goes to court is that EULAs are revamped so this kind of thing Cant happen again.
I cant believe anyone is going to get fired or that anyone is going to get money returned, though they should for the expansion. I dont believe that any players of AC2 were ever refunded money after the game shut down a month after releasing an expansion.
And for whoever said it above, You will never own the character you make. As soon as you own something in a game then you actually own part of said game. They arent going to let that happen.
But even though i agree i really doubt that anything is really going to happen about it.
I think the best outcome that can be expected if this ever goes to court is that EULAs are revamped so this kind of thing Cant happen again.
I cant believe anyone is going to get fired or that anyone is going to get money returned, though they should for the expansion. I dont believe that any players of AC2 were ever refunded money after the game shut down a month after releasing an expansion.
And for whoever said it above, You will never own the character you make. As soon as you own something in a game then you actually own part of said game. They arent going to let that happen.
Fianally someone seen the light..you dont own anything in a MMO and i'm damn sure every MMO dev company would fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.And as for AC2 i'd forgotton about that fiasco those poor players really had something to complain about becuase lets be fair they dont have a game anymore,while no doubt people here will say nor do the vets but you see we do..its just not the game we want.
But i agree EULA's need to be changed but i honestly cant ever see it changing,theres just to much money at stake for publishers and devs.
ive skimmed through most of th eposts on this topic and every one brings out good points, but the fact remains that companies will do what it takes to get more money, (or what they think will get them more money) even if it screws over a people or two, ive been told that to be very financially succesfull you need to step over many people. and if done legally the better. so companies will look for loophole and/or insert fineprint/clauses that let them a) cover their asses and b) screw you out of your money.
SWG having the right to or not still did it, they planted the NGE on us and sold us things that where given afterwards (ITVs) and not to mention the lies
they told us to keep our subs
as long as possible
In My Opinion any game that does not look like the box or the manual it came from is not honest business and that is why i am very cautious with wtv comes from Sony, not only SOE. cuz they do bad business and many people know it. which is their downfall.
a more honest EULA to accept everytime you have to login.
quoted from ArcAngel
"We reserve the right to sell you items in an expansion and then disable them (RotW).
We reserve the right to take features offline at any time, say that they will be restored when improved, and then never restore them (force ranking system).
We reserve the right to delete months or years worth of quest progress (jedi village and trials).
We reserve the right to delete any or all professions that you have spent weeks or months mastering (pick one of the 20 + professions deleted).
We reserve the right to market things in an expansion that we know we are going to render useless right after we receive your money for them (ToOW followed by NGE).
If we give refunds for the above expansion, we reserve the right to keep any money you paid for subscription time, even though you couldn't actually play the expansion without purchasing the time.
We reserve the right to tell you things about our plans for the game that we know are not true, and take your money under false pretenses (ToOW).
We reserve the right to remove all user access to virtual pets for a 2 year period (NGE).
If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums.
We reserve the right to make your profession meaningless anytime we choose (NGE).
We reserve the right to make any or all goods crafted (or purchased) by you useless at anytime (combat upgrade and NGE).
We reserve the right to make your equipment unuseable by you at any time (armour certification).
We reserve the right to charge you a premium fee, in advance, for gameplay that will be broken by our patches (pick one, but the NGE was the best example).
We reserve the right to reward you with ingame items for your loyalty, and then take them away (ADKs).
We reserve the right to promise specific bug fixes, and then not follow through (collision detection).
We reserve the right to tell you we are fast tracking server mergers, and then not follow through (self-explanatory).
If you agree to these terms, click "accept."
What the EULA actually says is that they reserve the right to update and enhance the game. I don't think update or enhance means what they think it means."
-----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)
Why is this here and not on the official forum?
Don't confuse a players ability, with a class being Over Powered.
-T
"If you complain about being mistreated, we reserve the right to silence you and remove you from our forums."
-----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)