EULA changed - Page 4 - Guild Wars Forums

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 20, 2006, 09:41 AM // 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

So, I didn't feel like agreeing to the new UA since they failed to specify what you changed. Lo and behold, I couldn't play the game anymore.

I would just like to inform you that this is illegal over here. You can not change an EULA/UA and deny the user access to what he already has paid for and used (in this case GuildWars Prophecies and Factions). You can change the EULA/UA for any new features (like the Character slots, or the upcoming chapters) - but what they are doing here is theft and illegal under most jurisdictions in the Nordic Countries. This got Apple and iTunes in hotwater (well part of it) with our governments - because if you denied their new EULA you couldn't play what you had bought. Same thing here.

I paid for GuildWars and GuildWars:Factions, they can not legally deny me the right to play these even if I don't accept your changed UAs.

And no, simply saying in the UA/EULA that you have the right to change it at will, doesn't make it so legally when you then deny players access if they don't accept their changes. What would happen if you suddenly wrote in the UA that everyone had to give you their car, their homes and all their money? Over the top I know, but you may get the point.

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

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

That's kind of different. With iTunes, you're actually buying music; here you're buying ACCESS to property owned by Anet. If you no longer agree to the terms of access, you don't play anymore. And I'm pretty sure they had provisions in place for altering the EULA.

here's the whole thing about how your account is property of Anet and not yours
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10030075

Dante the Warlord · Aug 20, 2006, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Yea....but i clicked agree after i read it, but I don't really think it was fair... but what can I do! My brother may get his account deleted anyway because he bought money off of ebay... and my account also because he gave me half.

Honestly, Guildwars is starting to become greedy and unenjoyable because of all these limitations. We can't say things without their allowance, we can't do anything without their allowance, and we can't play anything without their allowance. and worst of all they are starting to force us to do stuff! Plus i hated the "you have to be over 18 to play, if you are under 18 you need a gaurdian to play". <----That is not fair being that this is a teen rated game anyway. Kids over 13 can easily buy this game because of the rating and than not be able to play...I mean come on!....I got permission from my brother...who actuallly bought the game for me...so technically its his account but nontheless...my friends can't play! They need to do another update!

levortex · Aug 20, 2006, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyggen

Accepting this is accepting that Anet may turn the game into pay-to-play. "The Service" they mention is either limited to new chapters (hopefully), but can also mean the existing game.

-edit-

Oh, and it's called an EULA, not an UELA.

see lol, i told you i was bad in english

levortex · Aug 20, 2006, 11:37 AM // 11:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

So, I didn't feel like agreeing to the new UA since they failed to specify what you changed. Lo and behold, I couldn't play the game anymore.

I would just like to inform you that this is illegal over here. You can not change an EULA/UA and deny the user access to what he already has paid for and used (in this case GuildWars Prophecies and Factions). You can change the EULA/UA for any new features (like the Character slots, or the upcoming chapters) - but what they are doing here is theft and illegal under most jurisdictions in the Nordic Countries. This got Apple and iTunes in hotwater (well part of it) with our governments - because if you denied their new EULA you couldn't play what you had bought. Same thing here.

I paid for GuildWars and GuildWars:Factions, they can not legally deny me the right to play these even if I don't accept your changed UAs.

And no, simply saying in the UA/EULA that you have the right to change it at will, doesn't make it so legally when you then deny players access if they don't accept their changes. What would happen if you suddenly wrote in the UA that everyone had to give you their car, their homes and all their money? Over the top I know, but you may get the point.

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

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

In the UELA stays that they may reserve the right to change the UELA so they can change it whenever they like or want it. Also i heard that if GW will be ptp that will stand on the website 30 days before it will actually happen (if i understand it correctly now)

Numa Pompilius · Aug 20, 2006, 01:48 PM // 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

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

The EULAs don't hold water in the US either*.

You can happily click OK to EULAs even if they say that you sign away your family to slavery because it's not a contract. It's not legally binding as it's a unilateral issued document which the customer doesn't sign, and it's issued AFTER the purchase. Not a contract.

It doesn't help that many/most of the terms laid out in EULAs are obviously in conflict with various customer protection legislation, or that they wont offer a refund if you refuse to accept the EULA.

The gaming companies know this, and studiously avoid having EULAs tested in court - the whole point of EULAs is to scare users in to not suing.

* This will change, not only in the US but also in the EU. Software companies are lobbying HARD to get EULAs accepted as binding contracts, and their expensive lawyers have managed to dazzle some lower courts into thinking they're right. There's little doubt eventually shrink-wrap licenses and click-to-accept EULAs will be considered contracts, much to the detriment of private citizens everywhere.

The Pointless · Aug 20, 2006, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante the Warlord

Yea....but i clicked agree after i read it, but I don't really think it was fair... but what can I do! My brother may get his account deleted anyway because he bought money off of ebay... and my account also because he gave me half.

Honestly, Guildwars is starting to become greedy and unenjoyable because of all these limitations. We can't say things without their allowance, we can't do anything without their allowance, and we can't play anything without their allowance. and worst of all they are starting to force us to do stuff! Plus i hated the "you have to be over 18 to play, if you are under 18 you need a gaurdian to play". <----That is not fair being that this is a teen rated game anyway. Kids over 13 can easily buy this game because of the rating and than not be able to play...I mean come on!....I got permission from my brother...who actuallly bought the game for me...so technically its his account but nontheless...my friends can't play! They need to do another update!

Ahem. I beleive the ESRB normally give warnings on online games: Actually experience may differ.
It may be rated T (12+ with Europe's pathetic PEGI system), but this is merely for the content on the disc. You forget that these ratings don't take into account the human part of the game: Player behaviour.
Many a time I've come across some mentally imbalanced brat who's whispered a death threat when I've made a silly comment (Never say "I need new armour and a PUG that doesn't run off while I'm still loading" after failing an early mission).

[NOTE]My guild is intended for over 18-year old players. Recruiting in Asc City once, someone piped up "this is a ****ing T rated game any1 should be able to join a guild"

Hardly a PEGI 12+ reaction now is it?

Does-it-Matter · Aug 20, 2006, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by levortex

In the UELA stays that they may reserve the right to change the UELA so they can change it whenever they like or want it. Also i heard that if GW will be ptp that will stand on the website 30 days before it will actually happen (if i understand it correctly now)

EULA.

Here's the thing Levortex, you can put it in writing, but it still has to be legally backed to hold water. As Gojensen had said, if they add a new EULA with a stipulation that you are indebted to whomever for thirty years of unspecified service, or you must sign over your car, or your first born child, etc. those are not "legal" addendums. (Note: extreme examples to show a point.)

The company can put it in writing all they want, you can even agree to it, but the law (in most countries that I am aware of) stipulates that you aren't bound to obey it.

Now, what Gojensen is talking about is the original contract with which the User and Liscense-Holder entered into was changed, and when he decided not to agree to the new changes, he was denied service/product.

If he was denied FURTHER access to future/additional products, that would be fine. But, with the denial of his account, what essentially happened is the Liscense-Holder has retroactively changed the origianl agreement to deny access without the User's concent.

Here's an example.

User A enters an agreement with Farmer B for access to a specific 2% of his land. While Farmer B still has original ownership of the specified land, he has contractually signed over Liscensing/Use to User A. This agreement has no specified end date (or renewal) that is legally accepted.

Two years later, Farmer B notifies User A that the specified agreement for the specific 2% of land has now changed. User A does not like the changes, and Farmer B tells him to leave. User A still has valid proof of the original agreement, which has not changed, and is legally eligable to maintain the specific 2% of land. Thus the eviction would be "wrongful."

--

Contracts can only be changed if all parties agree, regardless if "subjet to change" is included or not. Otherwise, you have essentially agreed to giving the Lease-Holder unlimited ability to reword the contract at will.

Now, you can put in broad/subject to change stipulations for things like violations.

For instance you can put in "Your account will be closed for X, Y, Z or any other reason moderators feel you are in violation of A, B, C, etc." but that needs to show you are in violation of some agreement.

You tend to see these though only for things that require a LOT of interpretation and even then it doesn't have much grounding.

Choosing not to agree to something new while correctly following your original agreement is not a violation.

And, to my knowledge, corporations or individuals can not contractly violate a standing Goverment's Law.

Hope this helps.

Does-it-Matter · Aug 20, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42

I hate my browser, sorry!

The Pointless · Aug 20, 2006, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by eternal pho

Well, if we did have to pay, you'd see a much larger pve world.

Yeah. Right. And I'm King Adelbern

majoho · Aug 20, 2006, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

So, I didn't feel like agreeing to the new UA since they failed to specify what you changed. Lo and behold, I couldn't play the game anymore.

I would just like to inform you that this is illegal over here. You can not change an EULA/UA and deny the user access to what he already has paid for and used (in this case GuildWars Prophecies and Factions). You can change the EULA/UA for any new features (like the Character slots, or the upcoming chapters) - but what they are doing here is theft and illegal under most jurisdictions in the Nordic Countries. This got Apple and iTunes in hotwater (well part of it) with our governments - because if you denied their new EULA you couldn't play what you had bought. Same thing here.

I paid for GuildWars and GuildWars:Factions, they can not legally deny me the right to play these even if I don't accept your changed UAs.

And no, simply saying in the UA/EULA that you have the right to change it at will, doesn't make it so legally when you then deny players access if they don't accept their changes. What would happen if you suddenly wrote in the UA that everyone had to give you their car, their homes and all their money? Over the top I know, but you may get the point.

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

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

Two points to this I would like to make.

1. If your laws don't allow for changing the EULA then you can just accept it anyway, since you already know you have the law on your side.

2. BUT... you apparently don't get that the EULA is not violating any of your consumer rights

The EULA rules are completely decided by the game company, no laws have any bearing on how the company decides to run the game or their server.

Feel free to try to disprove that by providing a link to such a law.

Amy Awien · Aug 20, 2006, 06:48 PM // 18:48

And it is the law that determines they should deliver the product that we've paid for.

Edit: And, feel free to provide a link that proves what you just said

majoho · Aug 20, 2006, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

And it is the law that determines they should deliver the product that we've paid for.

I think it's a case of you don't know what 'product' you bought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Edit: And, feel free to provide a link that proves what you just said

Awww, you're very clever aren't you *sigh*

Amy Awien · Aug 20, 2006, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoho

I think it's a case of you don't know what 'product' you bought.

A cat in a bag perhaps? But more seriously, there are "reasonable expectations", and other similar products to compare it with.

Quote:

Awww, you're very clever aren't you *sigh*

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".

Timmy Shinobi · Aug 20, 2006, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Okay guys let us make this simple, we are getting out of topic. All I want to know is are we going to pay to play in the future or not? I read the whole thing, though it was written in english it was jibberish to me because they've used lawyer words designed for us consumer to be confused and just click ok for we just wanted to play. I would like a credible and or moderator of guildwarsguru to please have your say and let us know the answer. Thank you in advance.

Loviatar · Aug 20, 2006, 07:27 PM // 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy Shinobi

Okay guys let us make this simple, we are getting out of topic. All I want to know is are we going to pay to play in the future or not? .

short answer is no pay to play.

longer answer came from the head of customer relations the first time this came up.

asia (korea specifically) has a vast amount of internet cafes and it is common to pay by the hour for online gaming.

this part applies to them.

they also have the OPTION to make a one time unlimited play purchase of the game same as the US/EU.

the per hour game play charge is not available in the US/EU

G_MAGNUS · Aug 20, 2006, 07:28 PM // 19:28

In most countries there is a difference between 'purchased' rights and 'leased' ones. If I remember correctly, the whole i-tunes thing was caused because you were purchasing with limited rights. GW however, has always declared a leasing agreement, leaving on their side total control over the accounts.

As of this moment, it seems they have not updated their UA on the website, so you can read the old one there and compare it to the new one that appears on the client.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php

gojensen · Aug 21, 2006, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Well. I bought an online game with free-play.

Nowhere did it say on the box that I were only "leasing" it. Hence, I really have the legal right to play this game online for as long as I want. NCSoft can't shutdown the server... however if they went bankrupt that's another thing entirely.

If I didn't agree to the EULA they took away my legal rights to the product. This "leasing vs. owning" is on very thin legal footing I believe though...

And the iTunes thing. If you failed to accept the new EULA they barred you from playing the music you had previously bought. That's like UNIVERSAL coming up with a new "license" on their CD's and if you don't accept it, their mobsters storm your house and confiscate all your UNIVERSAL CDs untill you agree to the new terms. (Doesn't that sound like racketeering, theft and extortion all in one?

) AFAIK the EULA is connected with the iTunes software and not the iTunes Music Store (which I don't use...).

Anyways... just found all this very stupid and anti-consumer. And very much "American".

As for legally binding contracts I think we are a LONG way from that happening (atleast over here) unless they were presented up front and you had to sign it...

PS: Sorry for the earlier double post... this site is really sluggish at times so I guess I goofed up somewhere...

Knightsaber Sith · Aug 21, 2006, 12:04 PM // 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojensen

Well. I bought an online game with free-play.

Nowhere did it say on the box that I were only "leasing" it. Hence, I really have the legal right to play this game online for as long as I want. NCSoft can't shutdown the server... however if they went bankrupt that's another thing entirely.

First of all, "leasing" not being on the box........ that would never hold up in court as all the terms and conditions are spelled out in the EULA. Second, Ncsoft can shutdown the server; in fact that day will inevitably come eventually. Such is the fate for any online game.

RTSFirebat · Aug 21, 2006, 12:07 PM // 12:07

In short...

A.net will never make this game "Pay-to-play", because if they did, loads of people would quit and never return.

So lets stop the rumor mill now.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 21, 2006, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by G_MAGNUS

IGW however, has always declared a leasing agreement, leaving on their side total control over the accounts.

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.

Aug 20, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42	#68
Does-it-Matter Krytan Explorer Join Date: Dec 2005 Profession: N/	I hate my browser, sorry! Last edited by Does-it-Matter; Aug 20, 2006 at 06:29 PM // 18:29..

Aug 21, 2006, 11:52 AM // 11:52	#77
gojensen Academy Page Join Date: Jan 2006 Guild: GrNO Profession: W/Me	Well. I bought an online game with free-play. Nowhere did it say on the box that I were only "leasing" it. Hence, I really have the legal right to play this game online for as long as I want. NCSoft can't shutdown the server... however if they went bankrupt that's another thing entirely. If I didn't agree to the EULA they took away my legal rights to the product. This "leasing vs. owning" is on very thin legal footing I believe though... And the iTunes thing. If you failed to accept the new EULA they barred you from playing the music you had previously bought. That's like UNIVERSAL coming up with a new "license" on their CD's and if you don't accept it, their mobsters storm your house and confiscate all your UNIVERSAL CDs untill you agree to the new terms. (Doesn't that sound like racketeering, theft and extortion all in one? ) AFAIK the EULA is connected with the iTunes software and not the iTunes Music Store (which I don't use...). Anyways... just found all this very stupid and anti-consumer. And very much "American". As for legally binding contracts I think we are a LONG way from that happening (atleast over here) unless they were presented up front and you had to sign it... PS: Sorry for the earlier double post... this site is really sluggish at times so I guess I goofed up somewhere... Last edited by gojensen; Aug 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM // 11:56..

Aug 20, 2006, 11:23 AM // 11:23	#62
Dante the Warlord Desert Nomad Join Date: Jul 2006 Profession: W/R	Yea....but i clicked agree after i read it, but I don't really think it was fair... but what can I do! My brother may get his account deleted anyway because he bought money off of ebay... and my account also because he gave me half. Honestly, Guildwars is starting to become greedy and unenjoyable because of all these limitations. We can't say things without their allowance, we can't do anything without their allowance, and we can't play anything without their allowance. and worst of all they are starting to force us to do stuff! Plus i hated the "you have to be over 18 to play, if you are under 18 you need a gaurdian to play". <----That is not fair being that this is a teen rated game anyway. Kids over 13 can easily buy this game because of the rating and than not be able to play...I mean come on!....I got permission from my brother...who actuallly bought the game for me...so technically its his account but nontheless...my friends can't play! They need to do another update!

Aug 20, 2006, 06:48 PM // 18:48	#71
Amy Awien Forge Runner Join Date: Jul 2006 Profession: R/	And it is the law that determines they should deliver the product that we've paid for. Edit: And, feel free to provide a link that proves what you just said

Aug 20, 2006, 07:15 PM // 19:15	#74
Timmy Shinobi Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Jul 2006 Guild: OGF Ohio Geek Fest Profession: W/	Okay guys let us make this simple, we are getting out of topic. All I want to know is are we going to pay to play in the future or not? I read the whole thing, though it was written in english it was jibberish to me because they've used lawyer words designed for us consumer to be confused and just click ok for we just wanted to play. I would like a credible and or moderator of guildwarsguru to please have your say and let us know the answer. Thank you in advance.

Aug 20, 2006, 07:28 PM // 19:28	#76
G_MAGNUS Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Oct 2005 Guild: La Legion Del Dragon [LD] Profession: W/	In most countries there is a difference between 'purchased' rights and 'leased' ones. If I remember correctly, the whole i-tunes thing was caused because you were purchasing with limited rights. GW however, has always declared a leasing agreement, leaving on their side total control over the accounts. As of this moment, it seems they have not updated their UA on the website, so you can read the old one there and compare it to the new one that appears on the client. http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php

Aug 21, 2006, 12:07 PM // 12:07	#79
RTSFirebat The Humanoid Typhoon Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Guild: Servants of Fortuna [SoF] Profession: R/	In short... A.net will never make this game "Pay-to-play", because if they did, loads of people would quit and never return. So lets stop the rumor mill now.