Curse

tmakinen · Oct 18, 2008, 01:03 PM // 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

You're buying a game

Sigh. When you buy an offline game, you receive an actual copy of the game and a license to install and play it on your computer. When you 'buy an online game' you do not receive a copy of the game but a license to access one that resides on the service provider's servers. You are buying an access to a service, not a copy of the game, how difficult is it to understand the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I have never seen an EULA which granted rights beyond what you'd otherwise have by default.

GW EULA Section 3:

Quote:

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, NC Interactive grants to you, for your personal use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Service

You do not have the right to use the private property of ANet by default. You are only granted that right by the EULA, subject to your implicit agreement with the terms therein. If you revoke the EULA but continue playing you are using computer resources on Anet's servers illegally. Let me reiterate once more if this is so hard to understand: by default you have no business whatsoever to be on ANet's servers - you are only granted that right by the EULA.

Iuris · Oct 18, 2008, 02:06 PM // 14:06

This is a complex issue. The core of it is that it's a new area and the law has yet to catch up to the technology.

Essentially, Anet/NCsoft is not selling the game. Not as a product. They instead offer access to a service. As such, the EULA is not a simple sale-contract, but a contract sui generis. As such, the EULA only offers the service under very specific terms.

Those terms are formed by Anet/NCsoft, and as such are extremely biased. However, we have all agreed to them. The "contract must be on paper" and similar objections face a major problem - we all DID play the game. We accepted the general terms.

Thus, the only way is to propose to the court that the EULA itself is not legal. This may be possible - there are customer protection laws and similar which may be applicable. After all, the idea that there's nothing wrong with the EULA saying that they aren't bound to give us anything at all (since they can take it away instantly no matter the grounds) is like scratching nails down a blackboard to me, since I am a lawyer.

In my opinion, an EULA should list the principles that would explain the nature and intents of these clauses. Mostly, they are kept vague because the unexpected can happen. For example, as seen in this thread, a macro using keyboard can be used to achieve all the effects of a bot. So, Anet keeps it all very vague. But then, that vague can also be misused.

One MAJOR problem with the issue is that mostly only the wrong people complain about the EULA. Pirates, botters, scammers, ... after all, how many complains have you seen that don't start with "I got banned!".

DreamWind · Oct 18, 2008, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Sigh. When you buy an offline game, you receive an actual copy of the game and a license to install and play it on your computer. When you 'buy an online game' you do not receive a copy of the game but a license to access one that resides on the service provider's servers. You are buying an access to a service, not a copy of the game, how difficult is it to understand the difference?

This is the major major problem with Guild Wars pricing model. The game as it stands today looks, feels, acts, and plays like a single player game but it isn't. People are expecting to put out a one time payment and get infinite access forever like any normal game which just isn't going to happen. If anything, Anet has even MORE incentive to take down the servers once sales for the game are nonexistent because they would feel almost no backlash from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You are only granted that right by the EULA, subject to your implicit agreement with the terms therein. If you revoke the EULA but continue playing you are using computer resources on Anet's servers illegally. Let me reiterate once more if this is so hard to understand: by default you have no business whatsoever to be on ANet's servers - you are only granted that right by the EULA.

This on the other hand I disagree with. The EULA argument is pretty bad. The OP paid money for the game and was banned for very sketchy reasons. The only clause in the EULA that supports him being banned is "we can ban you at our sole discretion" because there is nothing else that says using keyboard macros is a bannable offense. Hacks or bots maybe, but this is neither.

enter_the_zone · Oct 18, 2008, 02:27 PM // 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senrath

I'd like to point out the flaw in this argument. While it is the script itself is user written, it is executed using Third-Party software, the third party being Logitech. Also, that part of the EULA states "including, but not limited to" meaning it's not an exhaustive list.

Yep, which is why G15 users need clarification on this issue.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 18, 2008, 04:42 PM // 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You are buying an access to a service, not a copy of the game

Quote:

Let me reiterate once more if this is so hard to understand: by default you have no business whatsoever to be on ANet's servers - you are only granted that right by the EULA.

Your argument is having its cake and eating it. If what I paid for is the service of accessing the servers, not the client software and box, then terminating that service is in breach of the implied contract between ncsoft and myself, as I bought the game with the reasonable assumption of being able to play it. Sure they have the right to terminate the service, but at the very least I should be entitled to a refund.

And before you trot out the argument that I'd violated the EULA, I would again point out that in nearly all of the world, including where I live and the euro servers which I play on are located, a EULA is just a textfile.

Most MMORPGs get around this by making you pay full price for the software and box, and then expressly making you pay separately for the service month by month. Termination is then a question of them not renewing the contract, as is their right.

In GW's case, however, I paid full price for the software and box, and the service is supplied free of charge to those who've bought the software. Hence, if my account is banned, I am not entitled to a refund, but remain free to enjoy my (unplayable, but very own) client software and box.

Dante the Warlord · Oct 18, 2008, 05:42 PM // 17:42

The thing i disagree with in the EULA is that you can still buy the game again and make a new account. If the company truly wanted to ban a person they would make sure he doesn't get his hands on the game again. I KNOW ITS NO POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE.

But my point is, basically by banning a person who truly wanted to play they would be locking all the features he has so he would have to go buy a new game and give them more profit. it leaves in so much room for corruption and exploitation - like in this case where the person genuinely did not know that a Logitech keyboard and mouse would get him permanently banned. All they have to do is make sure that the person wants to buy the game again and that they don't ban too many players. (im not pointing fingers at ANET, im simply stating that the idea is a little flawed because of that fact, i have no doubt that other companies might do this once or twice)

Time and time again i have seen people who maybe got in a little trouble in game (i.e. the armbrace exploitation a little while ago) and then got banned for doing something they didn't know would do anything. I just think that they SHOULD refund you the money if you really did do something bad and didn't particularily know about it. I mean what ever happened to FUN in a game. Im sure half the people banned didn't fully understand the consequences. People shouldn't have to serve the company, we pay them so they serve us.

Perhaps my logic is a little flawed, but there is no mistaking that the system isn't completely correct.

But anyways - I really hope that you get your ban appealed OP. You have the evidence and if they don't accept that then =(, thats one reason I stopped playing.

tmakinen · Oct 18, 2008, 06:09 PM // 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

If what I paid for is the service of accessing the servers, not the client software and box, then terminating that service is in breach of the implied contract between ncsoft and myself, as I bought the game with the reasonable assumption of being able to play it.

Being able to access the service after buying the right to access falls under reasonable assumption. If you are flat out denied the service then in most cases you should be eligible for a refund (there are caveats, like if the service provider can determine that you have already been banned before). However, and here's the catch, you don't have a right to use the service without an agreement, and by using the service you accept it (the EULA). The agreement specifically enumerates reasons for terminating the service, and there isn't a breach of contract unless you can prove that your service was terminated because of a reason not provided by the EULA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

And before you trot out the argument that I'd violated the EULA, I would again point out that in nearly all of the world, including where I live and the euro servers which I play on are located, a EULA is just a textfile.

Read what Iuris writes above concerning the difference between a typical shrink wrap EULA and that of an online service. If you revoke the EULA, there is no contract and you are not entitled to use the service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

In GW's case, however, I paid full price for the software and box, and the service is supplied free of charge to those who've bought the software. Hence, if my account is banned, I am not entitled to a refund, but remain free to enjoy my (unplayable, but very own) client software and box.

Well, actually you paid full price for the access key, and the software and the box came as free extras. Other than that, that's pretty much the way it is.

Iuris points out that there could be ways to challenge the EULA, but that would require pretty specific circumstances that I am not going to elaborate here. In a normal situation it is in the interest of the service provider to make 'fair' judgement on the termination of service (this doesn't, of course, relate to what the customer might find fair) because wanton termination is in the short run bad PR for the service and in the long run might indeed open a possibility for a class action lawsuit.

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 18, 2008, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

In GW's case, however, I paid full price for the software and box, and the service is supplied free of charge to those who've bought the software.

You paid for an account. The client software is free. The box is a bonus.

Stuart444 · Oct 18, 2008, 09:50 PM // 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

You paid for an account. The client software is free. The box is a bonus.

What he said ^

the Client software can be downloaded from guild wars website, you did not pay for it. You payed for the access key which came inside the box so yes the box is a bonus (since an access key laying about a shop could probably be stolen easily XD >_> )

Bryant Again · Oct 18, 2008, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

You paid for an account. The client software is free. The box is a bonus.

This. You paid for the privilege to play the game, you did not pay for the game itself.

It's no different than a WoW account, only with a one-time fee.

DreamWind · Oct 19, 2008, 12:48 AM // 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Being able to access the service after buying the right to access falls under reasonable assumption. If you are flat out denied the service then in most cases you should be eligible for a refund (there are caveats, like if the service provider can determine that you have already been banned before). However, and here's the catch, you don't have a right to use the service without an agreement, and by using the service you accept it (the EULA). The agreement specifically enumerates reasons for terminating the service, and there isn't a breach of contract unless you can prove that your service was terminated because of a reason not provided by the EULA.

The bolded is my problem. Get back to me when anything in the EULA says we can be banned for what the OP did other than "we can ban you at our sole discretion".

Numa Pompilius · Oct 19, 2008, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Iuris points out that there could be ways to challenge the EULA

The software companies have apparently been very successful at making people think EULAs are contracts - they're not, as they're imposed unilaterally on the customer after the purchase, and the customer not entitled to a refund if he disagrees with the terms in the EULA.
No, the real contract is entered into much earlier. It is the implied contract you enter into when you hand over your money: that you're buying a playable game.

bigtime102 · Oct 19, 2008, 02:13 AM // 02:13

If you feel youve been ripped off theres no use pleading with the people who ripped you off, what you need to do is take it to small claims court, the EULA wont stand up in a court of law and youll get your account back.

pumpkin pie · Oct 19, 2008, 02:35 AM // 02:35

You are all wrong!

this is what i think!
You pay to gain access to a game that is available on a server that is provided free of charge

Bryant Again · Oct 19, 2008, 02:46 AM // 02:46

^ Correct

Does the EULA condition suck? Yes. But does the argument for it suck? No. If the rules suck, you don't sign and agree with them. All in all, the only thing you can do if you do feel you haven't been rightly banned is plead with ANet - I've done it numerous times, all have worked.

While it may seem unfair that you agree to give ANet any and every reason to ban you, bear in mind that it's done such so that people don't try to get unbanned through stupid bullcrap and thoroughly thought out loopholes.

DreamWind · Oct 19, 2008, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Does the EULA condition suck? Yes. But does the argument for it suck? No. If the rules suck, you don't sign and agree with them. All in all, the only thing you can do if you do feel you haven't been rightly banned is plead with ANet - I've done it numerous times, all have worked.

The problem is people pay their money before they ever see the EULA. Not to mention the OP was banned for something not even in the EULA.

Senrath · Oct 19, 2008, 04:13 AM // 04:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem is people pay their money before they ever see the EULA. Not to mention the OP was banned for something not even in the EULA.

Doesn't matter. EULA states they can ban you without warning or reason.

Bryant Again · Oct 19, 2008, 05:09 AM // 05:09

And again, it's not like they're going to abuse this "power". It's in there for good reason, to eliminate people who would otherwise challenge a set rule of restrictions and the like.

pamelf · Oct 19, 2008, 05:58 AM // 05:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The problem is people pay their money before they ever see the EULA. Not to mention the OP was banned for something not even in the EULA.

Actually that is a very valid point you raise. Legally you have to have signed and accepted the terms BEFORE purchase, not after. You could legally ask for your money back after seeing the EULA and not aggreeing to its terms for the pure reason that you didn't actually accept the terms and conditions until AFTER you had paid your money.

tmakinen · Oct 19, 2008, 06:43 AM // 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamelf

Actually that is a very valid point you raise. Legally you have to have signed and accepted the terms BEFORE purchase, not after. You could legally ask for your money back after seeing the EULA and not aggreeing to its terms for the pure reason that you didn't actually accept the terms and conditions until AFTER you had paid your money.

And that is why you are asked to accept the terms of the service (EULA) before you can make an account. You can decline right there and claim a refund for the unused access key. If, however, you accept the EULA and make an account, you have both accepted the contract as it is and consumed the key. However, you can't have the cake and eat it, too. Your eligibility for a refund goes out of the window as soon as you make the account.

Now, if we want to sail to murky legal areas, notice that the EULA requires that the program must be installed by an adult and bound to his/her e-mail address before possibly being transferred to a minor. This clause is there because a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract. What follows is that if you were underage when creating an account by yourself the EULA is automatically null and void. On one hand this would be a reason for ANet to terminate the service. On the other hand, it could be argued that ANet doesn't show due diligence in checking the age of the person making the account and one might have a leg to stand on in small claims court. However, don't even bother trying if you aren't squeaky clean in gameplay and very knowledgeable on the related case law.

On the third hand, however, when the issue is looked at from the service provider's point of view, there clearly must be an actionable agreement between the client and the provider. Without one it isn't simply feasible to run the service. As Iuris wrote, this is not fully developed on the legal side as of yet, and it could well be that in the future some kind of safety measure preventing wanton termination without cause will be forced on service type EULAs. However, there isn't one there right now, and even that wouldn't have saved the OP.

And BTW, IANAL.