EULA changed - Page 5 - Guild Wars Forums

AquilaI · Aug 21, 2006, 12:44 PM // 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

But you folks all just click ok and sell your souls??

Yes.

.....although technically I already sold mine to satan for a green balloon (it was a good balloon too!)

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

So, what agreement have you signed?

A click is not a signature, nor a mark of identification. Not yet anyway, because this is one of the things the software companies are lobbying very very hard to have changed.

As of now, EULAs are completely irrelevant to customers. They're nothing. They're a bunch of pixels on a screen, that's their sum total importance to the world.

The only power EULAs hold is psychological. It's something to point to in case of conflict with a customer, and in the vast majority of cases the customer will say "oh, damn!" and accept the authority of the EULA. Thereby saving the company (and the customer) the expense of going to court.

Now, companies COULD make a real contract with the same content as the EULA, but it'd have to be something you actually signed, and had a chance to review PRIOR to handing over the money. Companies have rightly concluded that might put people off from buying their games, so they don't want to do that. Plus you have to be adult to sign legally binding contracts, which would really hurt sales of computer games.

Not to mention that most of the provisions in EULAs are in conflict with customer protection laws - e.g. the provision you can only sue them in their own local court is laughable, as is the claim that they're never responsible for any damages caused by their product.

So - remember to vote for politicians who DON'T want to make EULAs & shrinkwrap licenses legally binding.

WRT MMO accounts, it gets a bit unclear. As far as I can see there's a conflict here between the companys right to restrict access to their computers (which they of course can do for any reason, including that they just don't like your face), and the customers reasonable expectation that the product he buys is actually functional (which MMOs aren't without access to the publishers computers). I have no idea which right would win out there.

But as far as the EULA goes, it's just a waste of electicity to display it on screen.

What I'm hearing when I read this is you agreed to something; but you never inteded to actually follow that agreement and it meant nothing to you. Hypothetically, let's say that the EULA had absolutely no legal standing; it's basically a casual agreement. It is still an agreement that you made so why would you go against it? They basically tell you don't continue unless you agree to accept these rules and conditions or you wont be allowed to play. The point is that if you don't think you could/would follow the rules; don't play at all. Let's say you're friend was having a party to try to raise money. He charges everyone $5 to get in. But he wants everyone to have a good time and he doesn't want his house trashed so he has a few rules. You agree but soon, you're wreaking his house and he's telling you to leave. Your only reply is that you paid so you have a right to be there and do whatever you want.

It sounds to me like you relish in the fact that you can break the rules you agreed to but maybe win in court due to a technicality. You just emphasize over and over that even though it is an agreement, it's not a clandestine contract signed in triplicate complete with notary. The fact that people are still harping over this at all seems very childish and pointless. A man that goes against his word, regardless of whether or not it's an actual contract, is one without honor and one of the most base forms of life.

Stockholm · Aug 21, 2006, 01:22 PM // 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightsaber Sith

What I'm hearing when I read this is you agreed to something; but you never inteded to actually follow that agreement and it meant nothing to you. Hypothetically, let's say that the EULA had absolutely no legal standing; it's basically a casual agreement. It is still an agreement that you made so why would you go against it? They basically tell you don't continue unless you agree to accept these rules and conditions or you wont be allowed to play. The point is that if you don't think you could/would follow the rules; don't play at all.
It sounds to me like you relish in the fact that you can break the rules you agreed to but maybe win in court due to a technicality. You just emphasize over and over that even though it is an agreement, it's not a clandestine contract signed in triplicate complete with notary. The fact that people are still harping over this at all seems very childish and pointless. A man that goes against his word, regardless of whether or not it's an actual contract, is one without honor and one of the most base forms of life.

A very onesided casual agreement, normaly when you make a casual agreement you can disscuse the terms, here we are just told what They want us to agree to. And if we don't agree we are out $50 that they will not refund(once you can see it the box is opened and no refunds on open game boxes), since we could not see the agreement before we payed, I think that is where the violation against consumer laws are abused. The EULA should be printed on the OUTSIDE of any pakaging the game comes in, then if you don't like the termes, fine don't buy it.

And if you don't agree to the EULA, and you want to go through the process of getting your money back, non of the provisions in the EULA applies so you can take them to court anywhere you want, and the clause about no refunds can not be applied either by the company, since you did not agree there is no agreement betwen you and the company.

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stockholm

A very onesided casual agreement, normaly when you make a casual agreement you can disscuse the terms, here we are just told what They want us to agree to. And if we don't agree we are out $50 that they will not refund(once you can see it the box is opened and no refunds on open game boxes), since we could not see the agreement before we payed, I think that is where the violation against consumer laws are abused. The EULA should be printed on the OUTSIDE of any pakaging the game comes in, then if you don't like the termes, fine don't buy it.

And if you don't agree to the EULA, and you want to go through the process of getting your money back, non of the provisions in the EULA applies so you can take them to court anywhere you want, and the clause about no refunds can not be applied either by the company, since you did not agree there is no agreement betwen you and the company.

If you think it's too one sided, decline and don't play. You shouldn't accept and then refute the nature of the agreement post facto. To fit any EULA on the outside of a box, the box would either have to be rediculously huge, or the print would have to be so small no one could possibly read it. Btw; the EULA can be found on the GW site here
http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php
It may not be right on the box, but if you're the sort of person that knows they may potentially have some issues with it; do a little research before hand.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 21, 2006, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightsaber Sith

What I'm hearing when I read this is you agreed to something; but you never inteded to actually follow that agreement and it meant nothing to you. Hypothetically, let's say that the EULA had absolutely no legal standing; it's basically a casual agreement. It is still an agreement that you made so why would you go against it? They basically tell you don't continue unless you agree to accept these rules and conditions or you wont be allowed to play.

The point you're missing here, is that I've already bought the game.

I've already paid for it.

The problem with EULAs isn't that they lay down rules, every contract does that, it's that they lay down rules _post facto_.

Even that might be acceptable if there was a refund policy, so that I could get my money back if I decided the EULA was unacceptable - but there's not.

Hence, what an EULA is, is that after the conclusion of the transaction, the seller unilaterally lays out new terms, which the buyer did not have the opportunity to review prior to the transaction, and if the buyer does not agree to the new terms, he forfeits both the money and the merchandise.

That's the problem with EULAs and shrinkwraps.

majoho · Aug 21, 2006, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Too clever perhaps? I just don't feel like going on a hunt to prove or disprove something that was claimed "out of thin air".

Are you for real?

I was not the one making a claim, I was the one asking for a link to a law that could subtantiate the claim that the EULA wasn't 'legal'. You cannot in all seriousness just turn the question back on me and make me prove it is legal.

And I still don't see anyone providing a link to how this violates your consumer or any other rights - so I'm still assuming people don't actually have any basis for what they say.

Tetris L · Aug 21, 2006, 03:10 PM // 15:10

You guys totally skipped the part that I find most disturbing:

Quote:

"[...]fee based releases of [...]skill packs"

This is what I was most concerned about when NCsoft opened the ingame store. It looks like they are coming up with new ways to milk the cow.

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The point you're missing here, is that I've already bought the game.

I've already paid for it.

The problem with EULAs isn't that they lay down rules, every contract does that, it's that they lay down rules _post facto_.

Even that might be acceptable if there was a refund policy, so that I could get my money back if I decided the EULA was unacceptable - but there's not.

Hence, what an EULA is, is that after the conclusion of the transaction, the seller unilaterally lays out new terms, which the buyer did not have the opportunity to review prior to the transaction, and if the buyer does not agree to the new terms, he forfeits both the money and the merchandise.

That's the problem with EULAs and shrinkwraps.

cough cough Mcfreakin cough*

once more; if you're the sort of person that quivels over legal maters such as the EULA you should have read it before you bought the game
http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php
Right on the site for everyone to see. It's definitely been there since Prophecies went live.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 21, 2006, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Dear mods, sorry for double-posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightsaber Sith

To fit any EULA on the outside of a box, the box would either have to be rediculously huge, or the print would have to be so small no one could possibly read it.

That EULAs are intentionally huge, complex and obtuse is an argument against EULAs, not in favor of them. For instance, this is what Sony contends you agree to every time you buy a CD:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/sony-eula.htm

Isn't it strange that you don't have this problem with cars? Houses? Stereo equipment? Books?

Either existing law and reasonable expectations are sufficient (as when, say, you buy a book), or you get an actual contract to review and sign prior to purchase (as when buying a house or car). That's all there's to it. If the game companies want specific terms above and beyond existing law, then they need to get users to review and sign actual contracts prior to buying the software.

But there's no denying that the world would be a lot more exciting if sellers really were allowed to unilaterally make changes to contracts after the purchase, and if the buyer didn't agree, then the seller keeps both the money and the merchandise... Wouldn't used car salesmen LOVE that!

And wouldn't cigarette manufacturers LOVE to be able to avoid liability by adding the text "opening this package means you take full responsibility of any health effects on you or your surroundings resulting from smoking these cigarettes, and to never demand compensation for any damages incurred by these cigarettes from <manufacturer> ". Inside the packet.

Luckily, it doesn't work. Not with used cars, not with cigarettes, and not with software. Lets hope it stays that way.

EDIT: and having the EULA on the web changes nothing. At all.

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

That EULAs are intentionally huge, complex and obtuse is an argument against EULAs, not in favor of them.

All contracts are inherently wordy and long as they have to use very specific legal language and cover every little detail that might come into question. The more complex the product the longer the contract will be. This is neither an argument for nor one against them, it is simply a fact that proves they can't be put on the outside of a box........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Either existing law and reasonable expectations are sufficient (as when, say, you buy a book), or you get an actual contract to review and sign prior to purchase (as when buying a house or car). That's all there's to it. If the game companies want specific terms above and beyond existing law, then they need to get users to review and sign actual contracts prior to buying the software.

Books and cars and such are different, the dealer sells them to you, and from that point on it's in your hands and it is no concern of theirs. With an online game that they have to constantly maintain and alter, it is obvious that they would need a far more elastic agreement with provisions for alterations to facilitate how the game itself may potentially change. It would simply be impossible to maintain an mmo under the auspices of a concrete and finite contract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

EDIT: and having the EULA on the web changes nothing. At all.

How so? A single agreement that applies to anyone and everyone that would purchase the game readily availaible to the public and all to see. Easily accessed before one even considers buying the game. Not seeing any facts supporting this statement.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 21, 2006, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoho

And I still don't see anyone providing a link to how this violates your consumer or any other rights - so I'm still assuming people don't actually have any basis for what they say.

Hey, you need only ask:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract
and
http://experts.about.com/e/s/st/Step...Technology.htm

There's not all that much, because most companies wisely avoid going to court over breaches of EULA, instead preferring to settle.

Also the heavy lobbying by the software industry is definitely having an effect in the US.

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Well ya know what; go back to the op. This is a thread by some guy that's not so good at english asking what the EULA said. I'd say it's safe to say we're all waaaay off topic. This constant banter back and forth is obvioulsy going no where and never will. Let's just let this thread die already and fade into the background and move on with our happy lives. If someone really wants to argue; go start a thread that's actually about that. But I really hope no one does.....

majoho · Aug 21, 2006, 03:48 PM // 15:48

None of those apply in any way to this case though.

EDIT: Agree with what knighsaber said, this is pretty pointless.

Inde · Aug 21, 2006, 03:51 PM // 15:51

And another EULA thread, I think there are enough links in this thread alone to other EULA discussions on this board.

Aug 21, 2006, 03:44 PM // 15:44	#92
Knightsaber Sith Furnace Stoker Join Date: Aug 2006 Guild: Few Fallen Heroes [FFH] Profession: W/E	Well ya know what; go back to the op. This is a thread by some guy that's not so good at english asking what the EULA said. I'd say it's safe to say we're all waaaay off topic. This constant banter back and forth is obvioulsy going no where and never will. Let's just let this thread die already and fade into the background and move on with our happy lives. If someone really wants to argue; go start a thread that's actually about that. But I really hope no one does.....

Aug 21, 2006, 03:48 PM // 15:48	#93
majoho Forge Runner Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Denmark	None of those apply in any way to this case though. EDIT: Agree with what knighsaber said, this is pretty pointless.

Aug 21, 2006, 03:51 PM // 15:51	#94
Inde Site Contributor Join Date: Dec 2004	And another EULA thread, I think there are enough links in this thread alone to other EULA discussions on this board.