Curse

-Sonata- · Oct 18, 2008, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

IMO I paid for a product (if u think the product is a key, whatever), not for a monthly fee of a service

Off all the items that come in the box, what's the 1 thing that is of greatest importance that can't be obtained free of charge? The CD's? No. You can download the client free of charge already. The instruction manual? No. PDF formats on the official site. That leaves the small, square, piece of paper that says, "Access Key". The "Access Key" is the one, absolute, without a doubt, necessity to get into Guild Wars and is what you paid for.

Quote:

BUT according to you they could turn off all their servers and ban all accounts with no specified reason today if they so choose to do. AND you think that is normal. Need I say more?

Hmmm.

Turning off servers and banning accounts are two different things and unrelated to each other. If you turn off your servers, why would you go through the accounts to ban them if there's no possible way for an account to connect?

Nonetheless, let's just go with turning things off. Yes, tomorrow the owners of Guild Wars could decide to turn everything off and say, "Wait until GW2". They wouldn't, obviously. Guild Wars generates a lot of money still and has a high capacity playerbase. But if they were feeling "emo" they could.

Games can and do close off service. Especially when they don't bring in enough revenue. Need examples? Here's 4 off the top of my head:

NcSoft's very own "Auto Assault".
Gpotato's former Space Cowboy
GamesCampus' Fishing Champ (Which was dumb to begin with).
Fury.

Each one was either P2P, F2P, or F2P with Premiem shops. Everyone who played/purchased the rights to play, or pumped money into the prem. shops didn't get refunds.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that within a year, the next defunct MMO to run across the news wire will be Hellgate.

Is it right, as in "Fair"? No, but fairness has nothing to do with it. I don't think it's fair that my old Madden can't be played online anymore and I need the newest version. But so goes life.

Is it right, as in the owners and operators of our MMO's have the right to turn things off? Yes. It's their property. If in a few years after GW2 is released and Anet decides keeping GW1 open is costing too much money, they have the right to shut it down. We don't own it no matter how much players cry out that they're entitled.

enter_the_zone · Oct 18, 2008, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

I'm not giving legal advice here at all, I'm no expert in the field and I doubt most of us are. So why are we talking about this?

Of course there is emotional distress when you "ban" 6,000 hours of someone's life and of course that may very well lead to legal implications.

IMO I paid for a product (if u think the product is a key, whatever), not for a monthly fee of a service.

BUT according to you they could turn off all their servers and ban all accounts with no specified reason today if they so choose to do. AND you think that is normal. Need I say more?

Hmmm.

Actually, they could. The game doesn't belong to anyone who has bought it. All you buy is the ability to use their software, at their discretion.

Best example of this is Windows. Technically, according to the MS EULA, MS can demand you uninstall Windows at any time and you have to comply. Quite why software houses are allowed to get away with dodgy stuff like this, I don't know, but they are.

Anet really need to clarify their policy on this, since it's pathetic that this could get someone a ban for a simple keyboard macro, yet it's fine to use it to effectively cheat in high-end PVP. Cheating, because your hardware is providing a significant shortcut, giving a major battlefield advantage. Brilliant policy Anet, truly astounding how intelligent you aren't...

Yes, I have a G15. Yes, I have used macros to make HFFF more bearable. Yes, I have to be behind the keyboard while doing HFFF. Awaiting perma-ban in anticipation...

Bryant Again · Oct 18, 2008, 12:27 AM // 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonata

Off all the items that come in the box, what's the 1 thing that is of greatest importance that can't be obtained free of charge? The CD's? No. You can download the client free of charge already. The instruction manual? No. PDF formats on the official site. That leaves the small, square, piece of paper that says, "Access Key". The "Access Key" is the one, absolute, without a doubt, necessity to get into Guild Wars and is what you paid for.

It's also clearly stated in the EULA that you do not "own" your character.

Michael805 · Oct 18, 2008, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

Anet really need to clarify their policy on this, since it's pathetic that this could get someone a ban for a simple keyboard macro, yet it's fine to use it to effectively cheat in high-end PVP. Cheating, because your hardware is providing a significant shortcut, giving a major battlefield advantage. Brilliant policy Anet, truly astounding how intelligent you aren't...

Cheating? What exactly would be cheating? If you're referring to the drop -> shadow step -> pick up bug, people have actually been banned for that, because it was a bug.
If you're referring to things like allowing people to swap weapon sets to cast a spell or something, that's not really cheating considering people that know what they're doing do it on instinct anyway. It just lets lazy people be better than they actually are... kinda like Nightfall and GWEN. So, ban people for using a G15 macro, and ban them for using GWEN/NF skills too imo.

Age · Oct 18, 2008, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Sorry to hear that my next keyboard is going to be left handed like I posted in Hardware Forum.

enter_the_zone · Oct 18, 2008, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael805

Cheating? What exactly would be cheating? If you're referring to the drop -> shadow step -> pick up bug, people have actually been banned for that, because it was a bug.
If you're referring to things like allowing people to swap weapon sets to cast a spell or something, that's not really cheating considering people that know what they're doing do it on instinct anyway. It just lets lazy people be better than they actually are... kinda like Nightfall and GWEN. So, ban people for using a G15 macro, and ban them for using GWEN/NF skills too imo.

Kinda like the HFFF thing then...

Regarding cheating, I'm referring specifically to wep swap / cast /wep swap macros. I'm not saying it is actually cheating, but it does reduce the time taken to wep swap. Surely you can see how it's illogical to allow that and ban people for using a few macros to HFFF. Hence, they need to clarify.

Amy Awien · Oct 18, 2008, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Cheating or not, it is not against the terms of this 'eula' document as (1) it requires human input and (2) the macros are user written and thus not a third party (the user being one of the two parties that enter the agreement)

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

Amy, we haven't paid them to provide that service. The provision of service existed prior to the sale. We've purchased the proper tools (Code Keys) to access a service already being provided to the public.

Same applies to phone, or internet, the service already present and being provided to others isn't relevant. If you pay for a service, you can expect them to deliver it.

But is it even a service? We pay them for a game, the entertainment we expect from it. Whether they implement that as an online 'service', a TCP/IP client/server application, is not really relevant.

What's HBO? Cable? I strongly doubt your analogy with the terms of use of a foreign cable company have any relevance. One could use a 'book analogy' and it would be just as relevant. It would be more relevant to compare it with another game, like Neverwinter Nights, and then we have bought a game, and not a service.

Quote:

... The part where they say they can terminate it if you're using their service for something they don't approve of as written in the service agreements.

That whole part rather fails when the special claims (or all claims) of their agreement become invalid and the terms of agreement are actually those determined by consumer laws. And I strongly doubt these forbid the use of 'third party programs'.

Quote:

It says right on the guildwars box; "Acceptance of certain agreements is required".

That is not enough by law, even if it would seem to you that is is. What it apparently succeeds in doing is making you believe that is enough.

Pointing out that there' is an eula somewhere is not enough. The agreement has to be presented on paper before the sale. Any special terms have to be presented before the sale, in my native language. There's no valid reason to 'skip' that part, it's not particularly hard to implement.

Quote:

You don't get refunds if the service terms are voided by the customer.

No indeed, if the customer ends the agreement they'll probably not be entitled to a refund. As for breaking rules, violating an invalid eula is rather difficult ...
But consumers are entitled to refunds when a product is defective or when a service provider does not adequately provide a service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkobra

The Texas vs Microsoft lawsuit was that the XBox live servers were down for a weekend. To redeem this mistake, they offered a free game.

So apparently they did feel their failure to deliver the service for a weekend was a fault (mistake) on their part?

Bowstring Badass · Oct 18, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

So the support still sucks even after Gaile was made their "ArenaNet Support Liaison"??

Support has always sucked I am waiting for the point when Sony's support is better then plaync's which wont be long.

Anyway isn't it possible to have it to automated on a macro?

DarkKnight · Oct 18, 2008, 02:47 AM // 02:47

EULAs (The E is for End not electronic FYI) rarely stand up in court. Several courts most recently one in Washington State (Arena Nets Home State) Rules that AT & T's EULA was not binding because it contained Clauses that no Consumer would ever agree to if they knew what they were agreeing too. It also stated that since in the vast majority of cases money exchanged hands before the agreement was presented and no refund was offered to those who refused to except its terms that in this Case AT & T had to refund this customer a some fo money they ahd been chargeing him. Being that Washington state is the Home to MANY majot software firms this seems to be a very good sign for many software buyers.

PuppyEater · Oct 18, 2008, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Eight pages of whether its legally reprehensible for them to ban someone? Good lord...

The second you hit that nice little "I agree" button at the end of the ever growing EULA you decided that you were fine with whatever it said even if it had a clause about them coming into your house each morning to fart in your breakfast...

Feel free to take them to court about anything, but I can guarantee that if its fighting something you said was ok in the EULA the only thing you're likely to walk away with is a hefty court bill....

Senrath · Oct 18, 2008, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

Cheating or not, it is not against the terms of this 'eula' document as (1) it requires human input and (2) the macros are user written and thus not a third party (the user being one of the two parties that enter the agreement)

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.

Test Me · Oct 18, 2008, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

Is it right, as in the owners and operators of our MMO's have the right to turn things off? Yes. It's their property. If in a few years after GW2 is released and Anet decides keeping GW1 open is costing too much money, they have the right to shut it down. We don't own it no matter how much players cry out that they're entitled.

I think you either work for ANet or you have been brainwashed by them to believe what you just said. I can play games I bought 20 years ago still, I should be able to play the game GuildWars I bought 20 years from now.

The act of me paying for something called "buying" is done so that I receive ownership of the product I pay for. I am giving up ownership of part of my property (money) to receive ownership of a product the seller is selling.

If I give my money away for nothing in return it is called either charity or a scam. For charity I get a tax deduction and for scams I can go to court and get my money back.

It is said that software companies made you believe that they can take money away from you and you have absolutely no rights on their software product. They sell a product like any other product and nothing more.

With that in mind, when I've bought GuildWars I didn't buy a key or any access to a server or anything. I bought a GAME. I went to the game stand of the shop I bought it from and from next to all the other game titles I picked a game box with the name GuildWars on it. I highly doubt you can ask end users to understand and accept that GuildWars is any different from any other software game. And it's not, the only thing different is that it plays over TCP/IP. But so do some of my 5 years old games that I still play with friends in a network.

tmakinen · Oct 18, 2008, 08:58 AM // 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

I can play games I bought 20 years ago still, I should be able to play the game GuildWars I bought 20 years from now.

Unfortunately, reality disagrees with your concept of 'should'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Test Me

The act of me paying for something called "buying" is done so that I receive ownership of the product I pay for. I am giving up ownership of part of my property (money) to receive ownership of a product the seller is selling.

When you pay an entrance fee to a night club, you are not buying the night club. You are paying for a limited access to the property of somebody else, and that access can be revoked at the discretion of the owner of that property. In particular, you are not buying a product. It is fundamentally different from buying a minibar and a mirror ball and furnishing your room with them. No matter which way you try to twist and turn the argument, you are just plainly wrong.

Amy Awien · Oct 18, 2008, 09:29 AM // 09:29

When you buy a book you can read it while sitting on the couch, or when sitting behind a table, mornings or evenings. Now and ten years from now. Test Me is right, you buy a product, the game, not some one time entrance to a nightclub. You are the one who is actually trying to twist and turn the argument.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 18, 2008, 09:36 AM // 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuppyEater

The second you hit that nice little "I agree" button at the end of the ever growing EULA you decided that you were fine with whatever it said even if it had a clause about them coming into your house each morning to fart in your breakfast...

In most of the world, including most of the US, the EULA has all the legal power of a readme.txt.
You do not read it before purchase, you do not sign anything, you do not even indicate your identity, and EULAs typically contain provisions which are patently ridiculous (e.g. that all disputes must be handled by the home court of the company, or that the company can not be sued over any damages the software causes, ever) so in most parts of the world EULAs and shrinkwraps are not considered contracts.

Companies are of course perfectly aware of this, and nowadays studiously avoid appealing to the terms of the EULA if matters are taken to court, but they also lobby heavily to get legislators to recognize EULAs as binding contracts (a day we should all dread!), and always try to make their users think EULAs are binding contracts.

EDIT: I was going to link to Sonys music CD EULA here to show exactly why it would be bad if EULA really were binding contracts, but it seems Sony may have issued a DMCA takedown order for it - it's completely gone from the net, and all links referencing it are dead. All that's left are articles talking about it, e.g. this one:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/11...sony-bmgs-eula
but they only scratch the surface of the multi-kilobyte insanity that was the Sony EULA.

Shadow Kurd · Oct 18, 2008, 09:43 AM // 09:43

End User License Agreement

Quote:

YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT NC INTERACTIVE HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOURS) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND.

Anyways how did go so offtopic?

tmakinen · Oct 18, 2008, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

you buy a product, the game

Look, why is it so hard for you to understand simple facts? You are not buying a game. Look at the contents of the box. There is a user manual, that is not a game and you can download one for free. There's an install CD for a game client but that is not the game and you can download one for free. The only thing that you are paying for besides deadwood and pieces of plastic is the string of letters and numbers on a piece of paper called access key. Everything else is just convenience. For all practical purposes the retailer could dump everything else and sell just the keys (and that's what happens if you purchase the access from an online shop).

And the thing about EULA is that it grants you rights beyond what you would have by default. If you declare the EULA null and void and still keep playing GW you are essentially trespassing on somebody else's property with all the legal ramifications that follow. I wouldn't call it a smart move to try to fight from that angle.

pumpkin pie · Oct 18, 2008, 10:47 AM // 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow Kurd

End User License Agreement

Anyways how did go so offtopic?

its not off topic in my opinion,

1) players use a keyboard that can help them play a game without them playing the game.
2) other players say its bot
3) so, out come the EULA

and

IMO, i am bored and this is the only place that will connect besides Guild Wars, so here i am arguing with strangers over the internet again.

it is a bot, but arena net cannot say its a bot, why? because they are sponsors of gifts for competition. Cant give your player something they cannot use on your game now , so they have to say using that is okay, but the fact still remain if you use a script to run your game without you actually playing it. then its a bot. and according to the eula your doomed!

imho. anyway.

Amy Awien · Oct 18, 2008, 11:04 AM // 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Look, why is it so hard for you to understand simple facts?

Why is so hard for you to understand the simple facts. You buy a product, a game, and how it's delivered or implemented is irrelevant. If there was no game, there would be no sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

And the thing about EULA is that it grants you rights beyond what you would have by default.

Every software EULA in existence attempts to take away rights from consumers they normally have. Every single one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Companies are of course perfectly aware of this, and nowadays studiously avoid appealing to the terms of the EULA if matters are taken to court, but they also lobby heavily to get legislators to recognize EULAs as binding contracts (a day we should all dread!), and always try to make their users think EULAs are binding contracts.

QFT.

Numa Pompilius · Oct 18, 2008, 11:43 AM // 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You are not buying a game.

Well... You're buying a game, but you're not buying the intellectual property, aka the rights.
Software companies always conflate buying the game and buying the rights to the game because they use that as an argument in the fight against piracy, but it's not (AFAI understand it) really the same thing.

In the case of MMO's it gets more complicated because while you own your box and your game, you can't use them without an additional service provided by the company. And you do not own the service, and in the case of GW you've never signed any contract entitling you to that service.

Now, one might argue that when you buy a game you do so with the reasonable expectation that you'll be able to play it, but I don't think that will trump the companys right to decide who gets to access their servers.

Quote:

And the thing about EULA is that it grants you rights beyond what you would have by default.

That would be beautiful, but I have never seen an EULA which granted rights beyond what you'd otherwise have by default. Every last one I've seen has tried to impose restrictions beyond consumer legislation, in e.g. Sonys case so far beyond that it entered some sort of hilarious, kafkaesque, twilight zone.

Quote:

If you declare the EULA null and void and still keep playing GW you are essentially trespassing on somebody else's property with all the legal ramifications that follow. I wouldn't call it a smart move to try to fight from that angle.

It sounds like you think not accepting EULA as a binding contract somehow makes me, and the company, exempt from normal consumer law.