| 84 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
3/19/09 4:51:14 AM#41
Originally posted by ArcAngel3 I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying regarding Obama's comments today, but that's ok, no need to sweat it. As for players having choices, I agree with you there. However, to exercise those choices they need to be aware of when they're getting a bad deal, they need to avoid blaming themselves for it, and they need to be aware of some more favourable options--which brings us back to the topic of the thread. If people aren't aware of when they're getting a bad deal, if they blame themselves for the way a game is managed, if they don't think they have more favourable options to have their social/emotional needs met (be that online or in rl), and if they systematically defend a service provider that treats them like garbage, I think there may be a problem.
I understood his comments and yours :) . Its you that say you dont get what I am driving at... people have choices and they can exercise them and should take responsibility to read the tos of using the game , but they dont its all there in black and white in the elua. the truth about games is that they all change and the truth is that players are aware of it and the truth is that the old adage buyer beware still applies to all games not just this one. Show me a game that has not has massive changes since launch and its a dead game. The truth is that no one reads the elua that is the truth. Its all there in print for people to read that the companies who all write similar elua say that the game will and can change with the drop of a hat and that the company reserves the right to do so that all the content is theirs and not the players among other things. Its all there in print people just dont seem to read it. That is the company's statements of the reality of what you will get when using their product. They dont hide it its right there in print. So when people start opening their eyes and seeing that they walked into a situation where they were told the game would change and could change at any time then maybe they will start reading the elua and taking note. Nothing is really hidden only people burying their heads in the sand. They were aware now they have to admit some responsibility every time they accept the elua of any game on this planet and pay for it. So some simple rules are easy to live buy dont pre-order and dont hit accept when you read the elua if you dont agree with them and dont pay for anymore of these games. So, the problems in the game at release were because players didn't beta test, and now players are unhappy because they simply never read the EULA. It still sounds like you're saying players should blame themselves for their own unhappiness, and that they should joyfully embrace a game with a history of serious bugs, issues, unwanted revamps, unfulfilled promises and misleading marketting. By the way, reading the EULA isn't very useful when the service provider has the right to change any part of it at any time without notifying you as the customer. I happened to have read all of SWG's EULAs. At least when I happened to notice that it had changed lol. Agreeing or disagreeing was irrelevant, since they could change it the day after I clicked "agree" and paid for my month's subscription. It occurs to me that this would be an excellent challenge for an unconcionable contract by the way ^_^. Just think, if SOE's EULA is deemed unconscionable, any money paid to them under it might be refundable. Now there's an interesting thought lol. Also, regarding their EULA, nowhere does it say, "in this game we will promise you profession revamps, and then delete them." It also does not say, "after selling you a new expansion we will remove many of its features, and delete most of the professions it was designed for." It also does not say, "we will promise to fix serious bugs and issues and then allow them to remain for the duration of the game." It also does not say, "we will promise that a certain combat system is in the game to stay, and then remove it within a few months time." It does say (or at least the last version I read did) that they may "enhance" the game over time lol, but these examples do not seem to fit my understanding of the word "enhancement." You also seem to say that players are unhappy because they simply can't tolerate change. Once again, this seems to be blaming players for their unhappiness and absolving the service provider of responsibility for poor service. I think MMO players understand that games will change over time. However, there is a basic expectation that these changes will add to the game, rather than take away from it. I also think their is a basic expectation that a service provider will be open and honest about upcoming changes, and value customer input. Throughout the history of SWG all of these basic expectations appear to have been violated. So, it's not really change in and of itself that people have been upset about. There was a huge marketting push just after the NGE that made this claim. I suppose they wanted people to believe that players really had nothing legitimate to complain about. Judging from the game's subsequent population issues, I'd say this marketting push failed, and Dan Rubenfield has publicly admitted that. Most people apparently do expect a higher level of polish from their game, better customer service and more openness and honesty from their service provider. Some, however, are willing to tolerate a broken product, poor customer service and bad or misleading communication. That's really what the thread is all about though. What's going on for people who accept this kind of treatment, and even blame themselves and other players for it?
I dont blame any players for anything. What I do blame people for is trying to continually lay blame in an attempt to somehow justify something which quite honestly I long ago stopped trying to figure it out. Everyone is always pointing a finger at something. Past players blaming present players for the very existance of the present game. Present players blaming past players for changing the game. That's what I see a whole pile of blame and sheer hatred on both sides so thick you can spread it with a knife. and then there is of course the mental illnesses players have who presently play. Plainly put its well stupid... |
|
Originally posted by ummax
I understood his comments and yours :) . Its you that say you dont get what I am driving at... people have choices and they can exercise them and should take responsibility to read the tos of using the game , but they dont its all there in black and white in the elua. the truth about games is that they all change and the truth is that players are aware of it and the truth is that the old adage buyer beware still applies to all games not just this one. Show me a game that has not has massive changes since launch and its a dead game. The truth is that no one reads the elua that is the truth. Its all there in print for people to read that the companies who all write similar elua say that the game will and can change with the drop of a hat and that the company reserves the right to do so that all the content is theirs and not the players among other things. Its all there in print people just dont seem to read it. That is the company's statements of the reality of what you will get when using their product. They dont hide it its right there in print. So when people start opening their eyes and seeing that they walked into a situation where they were told the game would change and could change at any time then maybe they will start reading the elua and taking note. Nothing is really hidden only people burying their heads in the sand. They were aware now they have to admit some responsibility every time they accept the elua of any game on this planet and pay for it. So some simple rules are easy to live buy dont pre-order and dont hit accept when you read the elua if you dont agree with them and dont pay for anymore of these games. So, the problems in the game at release were because players didn't beta test, and now players are unhappy because they simply never read the EULA. It still sounds like you're saying players should blame themselves for their own unhappiness, and that they should joyfully embrace a game with a history of serious bugs, issues, unwanted revamps, unfulfilled promises and misleading marketting. By the way, reading the EULA isn't very useful when the service provider has the right to change any part of it at any time without notifying you as the customer. I happened to have read all of SWG's EULAs. At least when I happened to notice that it had changed lol. Agreeing or disagreeing was irrelevant, since they could change it the day after I clicked "agree" and paid for my month's subscription. It occurs to me that this would be an excellent challenge for an unconcionable contract by the way ^_^. Just think, if SOE's EULA is deemed unconscionable, any money paid to them under it might be refundable. Now there's an interesting thought lol. Also, regarding their EULA, nowhere does it say, "in this game we will promise you profession revamps, and then delete them." It also does not say, "after selling you a new expansion we will remove many of its features, and delete most of the professions it was designed for." It also does not say, "we will promise to fix serious bugs and issues and then allow them to remain for the duration of the game." It also does not say, "we will promise that a certain combat system is in the game to stay, and then remove it within a few months time." It does say (or at least the last version I read did) that they may "enhance" the game over time lol, but these examples do not seem to fit my understanding of the word "enhancement." You also seem to say that players are unhappy because they simply can't tolerate change. Once again, this seems to be blaming players for their unhappiness and absolving the service provider of responsibility for poor service. I think MMO players understand that games will change over time. However, there is a basic expectation that these changes will add to the game, rather than take away from it. I also think their is a basic expectation that a service provider will be open and honest about upcoming changes, and value customer input. Throughout the history of SWG all of these basic expectations appear to have been violated. So, it's not really change in and of itself that people have been upset about. There was a huge marketting push just after the NGE that made this claim. I suppose they wanted people to believe that players really had nothing legitimate to complain about. Judging from the game's subsequent population issues, I'd say this marketting push failed, and Dan Rubenfield has publicly admitted that. Most people apparently do expect a higher level of polish from their game, better customer service and more openness and honesty from their service provider. Some, however, are willing to tolerate a broken product, poor customer service and bad or misleading communication. That's really what the thread is all about though. What's going on for people who accept this kind of treatment, and even blame themselves and other players for it?
I dont blame any players for anything. What I do blame people for is trying to continually lay blame in an attempt to somehow justify something which quite honestly I long ago stopped trying to figure it out. Everyone is always pointing a finger at something. Past players blaming present players for the very existance of the present game. Present players blaming past players for changing the game. That's what I see a whole pile of blame and sheer hatred on both sides so thick you can spread it with a knife. and then there is of course the mental illnesses players have who presently play. Plainly put its well stupid... You claim not to lay blame, however, you said that early bugs were "a result of" players not being willing to beta test the product before release. You later said that players are upset not because they got treated poorly, but rather because they (a) don't read EULAs, and (b) can't tolerate change. You seem to lay blame rather consistently on SWG players, and then deny doing so, actually.
|
|
|
3/19/09 1:43:38 PM#43
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
I understood his comments and yours :) . Its you that say you dont get what I am driving at... people have choices and they can exercise them and should take responsibility to read the tos of using the game , but they dont its all there in black and white in the elua. the truth about games is that they all change and the truth is that players are aware of it and the truth is that the old adage buyer beware still applies to all games not just this one. Show me a game that has not has massive changes since launch and its a dead game. The truth is that no one reads the elua that is the truth. Its all there in print for people to read that the companies who all write similar elua say that the game will and can change with the drop of a hat and that the company reserves the right to do so that all the content is theirs and not the players among other things. Its all there in print people just dont seem to read it. That is the company's statements of the reality of what you will get when using their product. They dont hide it its right there in print. So when people start opening their eyes and seeing that they walked into a situation where they were told the game would change and could change at any time then maybe they will start reading the elua and taking note. Nothing is really hidden only people burying their heads in the sand. They were aware now they have to admit some responsibility every time they accept the elua of any game on this planet and pay for it. So some simple rules are easy to live buy dont pre-order and dont hit accept when you read the elua if you dont agree with them and dont pay for anymore of these games. So, the problems in the game at release were because players didn't beta test, and now players are unhappy because they simply never read the EULA. It still sounds like you're saying players should blame themselves for their own unhappiness, and that they should joyfully embrace a game with a history of serious bugs, issues, unwanted revamps, unfulfilled promises and misleading marketting. By the way, reading the EULA isn't very useful when the service provider has the right to change any part of it at any time without notifying you as the customer. I happened to have read all of SWG's EULAs. At least when I happened to notice that it had changed lol. Agreeing or disagreeing was irrelevant, since they could change it the day after I clicked "agree" and paid for my month's subscription. It occurs to me that this would be an excellent challenge for an unconcionable contract by the way ^_^. Just think, if SOE's EULA is deemed unconscionable, any money paid to them under it might be refundable. Now there's an interesting thought lol. Also, regarding their EULA, nowhere does it say, "in this game we will promise you profession revamps, and then delete them." It also does not say, "after selling you a new expansion we will remove many of its features, and delete most of the professions it was designed for." It also does not say, "we will promise to fix serious bugs and issues and then allow them to remain for the duration of the game." It also does not say, "we will promise that a certain combat system is in the game to stay, and then remove it within a few months time." It does say (or at least the last version I read did) that they may "enhance" the game over time lol, but these examples do not seem to fit my understanding of the word "enhancement." You also seem to say that players are unhappy because they simply can't tolerate change. Once again, this seems to be blaming players for their unhappiness and absolving the service provider of responsibility for poor service. I think MMO players understand that games will change over time. However, there is a basic expectation that these changes will add to the game, rather than take away from it. I also think their is a basic expectation that a service provider will be open and honest about upcoming changes, and value customer input. Throughout the history of SWG all of these basic expectations appear to have been violated. So, it's not really change in and of itself that people have been upset about. There was a huge marketting push just after the NGE that made this claim. I suppose they wanted people to believe that players really had nothing legitimate to complain about. Judging from the game's subsequent population issues, I'd say this marketting push failed, and Dan Rubenfield has publicly admitted that. Most people apparently do expect a higher level of polish from their game, better customer service and more openness and honesty from their service provider. Some, however, are willing to tolerate a broken product, poor customer service and bad or misleading communication. That's really what the thread is all about though. What's going on for people who accept this kind of treatment, and even blame themselves and other players for it?
I dont blame any players for anything. What I do blame people for is trying to continually lay blame in an attempt to somehow justify something which quite honestly I long ago stopped trying to figure it out. Everyone is always pointing a finger at something. Past players blaming present players for the very existance of the present game. Present players blaming past players for changing the game. That's what I see a whole pile of blame and sheer hatred on both sides so thick you can spread it with a knife. and then there is of course the mental illnesses players have who presently play. Plainly put its well stupid... You claim not to lay blame, however, you said that early bugs were "a result of" players not being willing to beta test the product before release. You later said that players are upset not because they got treated poorly, but rather because they (a) don't read EULAs, and (b) can't tolerate change. You seem to lay blame rather consistently on SWG players, and then deny doing so, actually.
Uh oh. I sense a wall of text coming ;-) |
|
|
3/19/09 2:21:03 PM#44
Yes, they also swapped the "yes" "no" and "accept" "cancel" buttons in game as well shortly after the NGE, their reason was to match the Windows or MMO standard, I don't recall anyone complaining about the buttons placement. It's a tiny change but it was absolutely unnecessary and gets very very very annoying when you're used to the old way. SWTOR: sub ended, no thanks to Georg Zoeller! |
|
|
3/19/09 2:28:16 PM#45
Originally posted by sookster54
Keep in mind that another thing with EULAs is that they cannot be read until after you purchase the software...unwrap and install it. Once a piece of software is out of the shrinkwrap it is usually not able to be returned to the vendor for refund. Of course after today contract law no longer exists by what I am seeing in the news. -------- "SOE has probably united more gamers in hatred than Blizzard has subs"...daelnor |
|
Originally posted by Suvroc So, the problems in the game at release were because players didn't beta test, and now players are unhappy because they simply never read the EULA. It still sounds like you're saying players should blame themselves for their own unhappiness, and that they should joyfully embrace a game with a history of serious bugs, issues, unwanted revamps, unfulfilled promises and misleading marketting. By the way, reading the EULA isn't very useful when the service provider has the right to change any part of it at any time without notifying you as the customer. I happened to have read all of SWG's EULAs. At least when I happened to notice that it had changed lol. Agreeing or disagreeing was irrelevant, since they could change it the day after I clicked "agree" and paid for my month's subscription. It occurs to me that this would be an excellent challenge for an unconcionable contract by the way ^_^. Just think, if SOE's EULA is deemed unconscionable, any money paid to them under it might be refundable. Now there's an interesting thought lol. Also, regarding their EULA, nowhere does it say, "in this game we will promise you profession revamps, and then delete them." It also does not say, "after selling you a new expansion we will remove many of its features, and delete most of the professions it was designed for." It also does not say, "we will promise to fix serious bugs and issues and then allow them to remain for the duration of the game." It also does not say, "we will promise that a certain combat system is in the game to stay, and then remove it within a few months time." It does say (or at least the last version I read did) that they may "enhance" the game over time lol, but these examples do not seem to fit my understanding of the word "enhancement." You also seem to say that players are unhappy because they simply can't tolerate change. Once again, this seems to be blaming players for their unhappiness and absolving the service provider of responsibility for poor service. I think MMO players understand that games will change over time. However, there is a basic expectation that these changes will add to the game, rather than take away from it. I also think their is a basic expectation that a service provider will be open and honest about upcoming changes, and value customer input. Throughout the history of SWG all of these basic expectations appear to have been violated. So, it's not really change in and of itself that people have been upset about. There was a huge marketting push just after the NGE that made this claim. I suppose they wanted people to believe that players really had nothing legitimate to complain about. Judging from the game's subsequent population issues, I'd say this marketting push failed, and Dan Rubenfield has publicly admitted that. Most people apparently do expect a higher level of polish from their game, better customer service and more openness and honesty from their service provider. Some, however, are willing to tolerate a broken product, poor customer service and bad or misleading communication. That's really what the thread is all about though. What's going on for people who accept this kind of treatment, and even blame themselves and other players for it?
I dont blame any players for anything. What I do blame people for is trying to continually lay blame in an attempt to somehow justify something which quite honestly I long ago stopped trying to figure it out. Everyone is always pointing a finger at something. Past players blaming present players for the very existance of the present game. Present players blaming past players for changing the game. That's what I see a whole pile of blame and sheer hatred on both sides so thick you can spread it with a knife. and then there is of course the mental illnesses players have who presently play. Plainly put its well stupid... You claim not to lay blame, however, you said that early bugs were "a result of" players not being willing to beta test the product before release. You later said that players are upset not because they got treated poorly, but rather because they (a) don't read EULAs, and (b) can't tolerate change. You seem to lay blame rather consistently on SWG players, and then deny doing so, actually.
Uh oh. I sense a wall of text coming ;-)
Well, maybe the other poster will say, "You know what, you're right, I did seem to be laying a lot of blame on players for their bad experience in SWG, and then I went on to say that blaming people isn't very constructive. I see that this is a contradiction, humbly apologize and will keep this in mind for future discussions..." Whaddaya think the chances are? |
|
Originally posted by Valeran
Keep in mind that another thing with EULAs is that they cannot be read until after you purchase the software...unwrap and install it. Once a piece of software is out of the shrinkwrap it is usually not able to be returned to the vendor for refund. Of course after today contract law no longer exists by what I am seeing in the news.
That's a good point regarding the EULA not being available until after purchase. Something else that needs to be addressed by the FTC I think. Some EULA's even tell you to return the open software to the place of purchase, knowing full-well that in most jurisdictions this is disallowed. With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. There are really two problems with this counter-argument. First of all, it appears that it was the wreckless decision-making of these executives that plunged the civilized world into recession. That's how Obama and others have characterized the situation it seems. So, paying these people bonuses to stay in their positions does not seem clearly linked to enhancing stability. Second, allegedly after receiving the retention bonuses, some of these people left--took the money and ran as it were. This certainly is not overtly linked to the intended use of the funds, and allegations of fraud have been discussed as a result. Having said that, however, it's very likely that the contracts were worded in such a way that these actions, disgusting as they are, could be defended. Think about EULAs and you'll get my meaning. There are actually a lot of parallels between the business practices of some of the banks, and some MMO service providers if you ask me. Money taken under the auspices of adding content to someone's game; meanwhile it is being funneled into the development of another product entirely, but I digress. Now, the Federal gov't could challenge the contracts in court. However, this would likely be a very costly and time-consuming endeavor. (Think why don't people sue MMO service providers over unconcionable EULAs--often--and you may see another parallel). The critical issue here is timing. If the global econony isn't stabilized as of yesterday, the entire free world system is still teetering on the brink of total collapse. It's really that serious. In other words, Obama doesn't have time to play word games with greedy, former executives of financial institutions, who put the stimulus money in their own pockets. The stimulus money needs to be used for its intended purpose right now. There is no other acceptable option. Hence the new taxation of those who received bonuses contrary to the intended terms of the bail-out package. There's no room to allow "legaleze" to obfuscate the matter in this instance. Hope that these funds will be recovered and put to their intended use is, I believe, one factor among many other stimulus initiatives that contributed to the small economics gains experienced world-wide today. I believe that Obama and his partners are on the right track. It's nice to see. This guy actually understands the complex systems and issues that need to be corrected, and how to go about it, in order to help the American economy rebound. Our economic trends here are also intricately connected to those in the U.S., so this has a positive impact for Canadians as well. |
|
|
3/19/09 8:20:09 PM#48
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
That's a good point regarding the EULA not being available until after purchase. Something else that needs to be addressed by the FTC I think. Some EULA's even tell you to return the open software to the place of purchase, knowing full-well that in most jurisdictions this is disallowed. With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. There are really two problems with this counter-argument. First of all, it appears that it was the wreckless decision-making of these executives that plunged the civilized world into recession. That's how Obama and others have characterized the situation it seems. So, paying these people bonuses to stay in their positions does not seem clearly linked to enhancing stability. Second, allegedly after receiving the retention bonuses, some of these people left--took the money and ran as it were. This certainly is not overtly linked to the intended use of the funds, and allegations of fraud have been discussed as a result. Having said that, however, it's very likely that the contracts were worded in such a way that these actions, disgusting as they are, could be defended. Think about EULAs and you'll get my meaning. There are actually a lot of parallels between the business practices of some of the banks, and some MMO service providers if you ask me. Money taken under the auspices of adding content to someone's game; meanwhile it is being funneled into the development of another product entirely, but I digress. Now, the Federal gov't could challenge the contracts in court. However, this would likely be a very costly and time-consuming endeavor. (Think why don't people sue MMO service providers over unconcionable EULAs--often--and you may see another parallel). The critical issue here is timing. If the global econony isn't stabilized as of yesterday, the entire free world system is still teetering on the brink of total collapse. It's really that serious. In other words, Obama doesn't have time to play word games with greedy, former executives of financial institutions, who put the stimulus money in their own pockets. The stimulus money needs to be used for its intended purpose right now. There is no other acceptable option. Hence the new taxation of those who received bonuses contrary to the intended terms of the bail-out package. There's no room to allow "legaleze" to obfuscate the matter in this instance. Hope that these funds will be recovered and put to their intended use is, I believe, one factor among many other stimulus initiatives that contributed to the small economics gains experienced world-wide today. I believe that Obama and his partners are on the right track. It's nice to see. This guy actually understands the complex systems and issues that need to be corrected, and how to go about it, in order to help the American economy rebound. Our economic trends here are also intricately connected to those in the U.S., so this has a positive impact for Canadians as well.
The reason most MMO EULAs have not been challenged in court, is that most people are not going to sue of $50/$15/mo. But for other kinds of software people have been suing, and the EULAs have been found wanting. The software in the following story was worth significantly more money, which is why it likely went to court.... (the software company in question got its collective azz kicked, btw)
This was from the Seattle Post Intelligencer or whatever it is called, from last year I think: A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold. Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers. Timothy Vernor bought several copies of Autodesk's AutoCAD design software in 2005 and 2007 from businesses that had originally bought the software from Autodesk. He then put the software up for sale on eBay. Each package contained discs, a copy of a licence agreement and other documentation. Each time, Autodesk issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice asking eBay to suspend the auction, which it did. Each time that happened Vernor wrote to Autodesk asserting his rights and saying that the software was legitimate and not a pirated copy, but received no reply. Ebay reinstated the auctions. At one point eBay suspended his seller's account for a month for repeat infringements of its policies when Autodesk had complained a number of times. Vernor applied to the Court for a declaration that he had the right to sell the software because he believed that this process would be repeated every time he tried to buy and sell software. The court said that Autodesk's initial transfer of the software to the businesses was a sale, not a licensing arrangement. Those businesses, therefore, had the right to re-sell the software with or without the permission of Autodesk. The 'first sale doctrine' is an important part of US copyright legislation. Richard Jones, the judge in the case, said that if invoked, the doctrine would protect Vernor. "If there were no License, there is no dispute that Mr. Vernor's resale of the AutoCAD packages would be legal," he said in his ruling. "The first sale doctrine permits a person who owns a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy." The Court relied on a 1977 decision involving prints of films, in which the US government took action against Woodrow Wise, who operated a film sales operation in Los Angeles. That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale. Jones said that subsequent decisions had backed Autodesk's contention that software distribution could be a sale, he had to stay consistent with the earliest relevant ruling, which was that of the case of Wise. "Although technology has changed, the question at the core of this case is not technological," said Jones. "Mr. Vernor does not seek to take advantage of new technology to ease copying, he seeks to sell a package of physical objects which contain copies of copyrighted material. The essential features of such sales vary little whether selling movie prints via mail (as in Wise) or software packages via eBay." The ruling also dealt with the extent of the power of the original software licence. Vernor asked the Court to declare that the original licence, which forbade the re-selling of the software, did not control his behaviour. The Court said that the argument Autodesk had earlier made – that Vernor should not be allowed to own the software because the licence was non-transferable – must govern to whom it can apply. "Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees." The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way. The court denied Autodesk's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The case continues.
|
|
|
3/19/09 8:26:36 PM#49
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
That's a good point regarding the EULA not being available until after purchase. Something else that needs to be addressed by the FTC I think. Some EULA's even tell you to return the open software to the place of purchase, knowing full-well that in most jurisdictions this is disallowed. With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. There are really two problems with this counter-argument. First of all, it appears that it was the wreckless decision-making of these executives that plunged the civilized world into recession. That's how Obama and others have characterized the situation it seems. So, paying these people bonuses to stay in their positions does not seem clearly linked to enhancing stability. Second, allegedly after receiving the retention bonuses, some of these people left--took the money and ran as it were. This certainly is not overtly linked to the intended use of the funds, and allegations of fraud have been discussed as a result. Having said that, however, it's very likely that the contracts were worded in such a way that these actions, disgusting as they are, could be defended. Think about EULAs and you'll get my meaning. There are actually a lot of parallels between the business practices of some of the banks, and some MMO service providers if you ask me. Money taken under the auspices of adding content to someone's game; meanwhile it is being funneled into the development of another product entirely, but I digress. Now, the Federal gov't could challenge the contracts in court. However, this would likely be a very costly and time-consuming endeavor. (Think why don't people sue MMO service providers over unconcionable EULAs--often--and you may see another parallel). The critical issue here is timing. If the global econony isn't stabilized as of yesterday, the entire free world system is still teetering on the brink of total collapse. It's really that serious. In other words, Obama doesn't have time to play word games with greedy, former executives of financial institutions, who put the stimulus money in their own pockets. The stimulus money needs to be used for its intended purpose right now. There is no other acceptable option. Hence the new taxation of those who received bonuses contrary to the intended terms of the bail-out package. There's no room to allow "legaleze" to obfuscate the matter in this instance. Hope that these funds will be recovered and put to their intended use is, I believe, one factor among many other stimulus initiatives that contributed to the small economics gains experienced world-wide today. I believe that Obama and his partners are on the right track. It's nice to see. This guy actually understands the complex systems and issues that need to be corrected, and how to go about it, in order to help the American economy rebound. Our economic trends here are also intricately connected to those in the U.S., so this has a positive impact for Canadians as well.
I was referring to the AIG situation. I think it is disgusting that they decided to incentivise these people but they did. It was negotiated between the 2 parties and agreed upon. Also add to it that congress expressly voted on keeping these contracts with the recent stimulus package signed into law. If the government can now come in and void legally negotiated contracts no matter how morally disgusting they may be then contract law and really the constitution no longer exists. Lets keep in perspective that if you had 100 dollars the AIG bonuses represent less than 10 cents of it. The bigger concerns should be the giving away of public funds for the bailouts to begin with as well as the Federal Reserve deciding yesterday to print 1 trillion dollars. Inflation is coming. Just look at what the price of gold has done in the last 24 hours and really the last 10 months. But I digress...EULAs are really worthless legally.
-------- "SOE has probably united more gamers in hatred than Blizzard has subs"...daelnor |
|
Originally posted by Valeran
That's a good point regarding the EULA not being available until after purchase. Something else that needs to be addressed by the FTC I think. Some EULA's even tell you to return the open software to the place of purchase, knowing full-well that in most jurisdictions this is disallowed. With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. There are really two problems with this counter-argument. First of all, it appears that it was the wreckless decision-making of these executives that plunged the civilized world into recession. That's how Obama and others have characterized the situation it seems. So, paying these people bonuses to stay in their positions does not seem clearly linked to enhancing stability. Second, allegedly after receiving the retention bonuses, some of these people left--took the money and ran as it were. This certainly is not overtly linked to the intended use of the funds, and allegations of fraud have been discussed as a result. Having said that, however, it's very likely that the contracts were worded in such a way that these actions, disgusting as they are, could be defended. Think about EULAs and you'll get my meaning. There are actually a lot of parallels between the business practices of some of the banks, and some MMO service providers if you ask me. Money taken under the auspices of adding content to someone's game; meanwhile it is being funneled into the development of another product entirely, but I digress. Now, the Federal gov't could challenge the contracts in court. However, this would likely be a very costly and time-consuming endeavor. (Think why don't people sue MMO service providers over unconcionable EULAs--often--and you may see another parallel). The critical issue here is timing. If the global econony isn't stabilized as of yesterday, the entire free world system is still teetering on the brink of total collapse. It's really that serious. In other words, Obama doesn't have time to play word games with greedy, former executives of financial institutions, who put the stimulus money in their own pockets. The stimulus money needs to be used for its intended purpose right now. There is no other acceptable option. Hence the new taxation of those who received bonuses contrary to the intended terms of the bail-out package. There's no room to allow "legaleze" to obfuscate the matter in this instance. Hope that these funds will be recovered and put to their intended use is, I believe, one factor among many other stimulus initiatives that contributed to the small economics gains experienced world-wide today. I believe that Obama and his partners are on the right track. It's nice to see. This guy actually understands the complex systems and issues that need to be corrected, and how to go about it, in order to help the American economy rebound. Our economic trends here are also intricately connected to those in the U.S., so this has a positive impact for Canadians as well.
I was referring to the AIG situation. I think it is disgusting that they decided to incentivise these people but they did. It was negotiated between the 2 parties and agreed upon. Also add to it that congress expressly voted on keeping these contracts with the recent stimulus package signed into law. If the government can now come in and void legally negotiated contracts no matter how morally disgusting they may be then contract law and really the constitution no longer exists. Lets keep in perspective that if you had 100 dollars the AIG bonuses represent less than 10 cents of it. The bigger concerns should be the giving away of public funds for the bailouts to begin with as well as the Federal Reserve deciding yesterday to print 1 trillion dollars. Inflation is coming. Just look at what the price of gold has done in the last 24 hours and really the last 10 months. But I digress...EULAs are really worthless legally.
Well it was a fun digression, and I do get where you're coming from ^_^. We certainly agree on the EULA issue too lol. Hey, while we're on the topic of EULA's I'd like to hear you opinion on something. So, this guys successfully challenged a mobile phone company's EULA. A judge found that one paragraph was unconscionable. He therefore deemed the entire contract void. The guy then got some form of compensation. Sorry more details are sketchy, this was about a year ago. You know SOE's EULA where it says they can change the EULA at any time without notifying the consumer? Since you pay for 30 days, and they can change the contract after less than one if they want, what do you think the chances are that this would be unconscionable? If it is deemed so, what kind of possibilities do you think that might open up? |
|
|
3/19/09 10:05:05 PM#51
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
I was referring to the AIG situation. I think it is disgusting that they decided to incentivise these people but they did. It was negotiated between the 2 parties and agreed upon. Also add to it that congress expressly voted on keeping these contracts with the recent stimulus package signed into law. If the government can now come in and void legally negotiated contracts no matter how morally disgusting they may be then contract law and really the constitution no longer exists. Lets keep in perspective that if you had 100 dollars the AIG bonuses represent less than 10 cents of it. The bigger concerns should be the giving away of public funds for the bailouts to begin with as well as the Federal Reserve deciding yesterday to print 1 trillion dollars. Inflation is coming. Just look at what the price of gold has done in the last 24 hours and really the last 10 months. But I digress...EULAs are really worthless legally.
Well it was a fun digression, and I do get where you're coming from ^_^. We certainly agree on the EULA issue too lol. Hey, while we're on the topic of EULA's I'd like to hear you opinion on something. So, this guys successfully challenged a mobile phone company's EULA. A judge found that one paragraph was unconscionable. He therefore deemed the entire contract void. The guy then got some form of compensation. Sorry more details are sketchy, this was about a year ago. You know SOE's EULA where it says they can change the EULA at any time without notifying the consumer? Since you pay for 30 days, and they can change the contract after less than one if they want, what do you think the chances are that this would be unconscionable? If it is deemed so, what kind of possibilities do you think that might open up?
I think a lot will depend on what state it is in assuming we are talking the US. Many states have strict consumer laws and allow for puntive damages. If we are talking federal then it will depend upon which state to determine which laws will apply due to the way federal appeals work. If someone files a class action it could be interesting. You do not need punitive damages to collect attorney fees. -------- "SOE has probably united more gamers in hatred than Blizzard has subs"...daelnor |
|
|
3/19/09 11:28:26 PM#52
Originally posted by ummax This is the very concept the OP postulated, the fact that as costumers we really dont have laws that can protect us from the managment of their service besides the cancel button. Wich infact is a very jaded feature and delicate matter: No Refund Forfeit of playtime and ingame acomplishment Looking for a way to vent this fustration, only takes: a freandly face, be it the company or the ones still playing. Now, to tell you the truth i dont think the company will listen, becuse your no longer paying them, and this is the key of the issue. Originally posted by ArcAngel3
With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. ------------------------------------- I see a very obscure situation in this AIG scandal, not only the company but (i think) the federal reserve knew about the contract, before the baillout went thru. |
|
|
3/20/09 9:33:57 AM#53
|
|
|
3/20/09 1:26:39 PM#54
Originally posted by Valeran
I think a lot will depend on what state it is in assuming we are talking the US. Many states have strict consumer laws and allow for puntive damages. If we are talking federal then it will depend upon which state to determine which laws will apply due to the way federal appeals work. If someone files a class action it could be interesting. You do not need punitive damages to collect attorney fees. This is actually one of the issues that have always puzzled me when it came to EULAs. If the company changes the EULA and you refuse to accept the new version, the company by all rights should offer to refund you any money remaining in your subscription. They have essentially exercised their option to cancel the contract and now want to negotiate a new one. That is one issue that is bound to bite them in the legal ass soon enough. |
|
|
3/20/09 1:42:26 PM#55
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
I'm not sure I would call the connection to MMORPGs that some players have Stockholm Syndrome. There are a few things that keep a player who is no longer enjoying an MMORPG in the game. One is the addictive personal quest of making yourself one of the best. People want all of the time and effort they have put into a game to amount to something, and quitting the game might be thought of as giving up. Also, a player develops a social network within the game they are playing. I believe this social network is the strongest force for retaining a player. H A D O K E N !
|
|
Originally posted by Burntvet
That's a good point regarding the EULA not being available until after purchase. Something else that needs to be addressed by the FTC I think. Some EULA's even tell you to return the open software to the place of purchase, knowing full-well that in most jurisdictions this is disallowed. With contract law are you referring to Obama's taxation of the executive bonuses at AIG? I have a lot of thoughts on that, personally. If you mean something else, feel free to ignore what follows lol :). The understanding of the government funds was that they would be used to stabilize the financial institution. I believe the argument is that paying the executives bonuses was not the use of the funds that was understood. The counter-argument was that the bonuses were paid to retain highly skilled executives, and that this would thereby stabilize the company and its role in supporting the global economy. There are really two problems with this counter-argument. First of all, it appears that it was the wreckless decision-making of these executives that plunged the civilized world into recession. That's how Obama and others have characterized the situation it seems. So, paying these people bonuses to stay in their positions does not seem clearly linked to enhancing stability. Second, allegedly after receiving the retention bonuses, some of these people left--took the money and ran as it were. This certainly is not overtly linked to the intended use of the funds, and allegations of fraud have been discussed as a result. Having said that, however, it's very likely that the contracts were worded in such a way that these actions, disgusting as they are, could be defended. Think about EULAs and you'll get my meaning. There are actually a lot of parallels between the business practices of some of the banks, and some MMO service providers if you ask me. Money taken under the auspices of adding content to someone's game; meanwhile it is being funneled into the development of another product entirely, but I digress. Now, the Federal gov't could challenge the contracts in court. However, this would likely be a very costly and time-consuming endeavor. (Think why don't people sue MMO service providers over unconcionable EULAs--often--and you may see another parallel). The critical issue here is timing. If the global econony isn't stabilized as of yesterday, the entire free world system is still teetering on the brink of total collapse. It's really that serious. In other words, Obama doesn't have time to play word games with greedy, former executives of financial institutions, who put the stimulus money in their own pockets. The stimulus money needs to be used for its intended purpose right now. There is no other acceptable option. Hence the new taxation of those who received bonuses contrary to the intended terms of the bail-out package. There's no room to allow "legaleze" to obfuscate the matter in this instance. Hope that these funds will be recovered and put to their intended use is, I believe, one factor among many other stimulus initiatives that contributed to the small economics gains experienced world-wide today. I believe that Obama and his partners are on the right track. It's nice to see. This guy actually understands the complex systems and issues that need to be corrected, and how to go about it, in order to help the American economy rebound. Our economic trends here are also intricately connected to those in the U.S., so this has a positive impact for Canadians as well.
The reason most MMO EULAs have not been challenged in court, is that most people are not going to sue of $50/$15/mo. But for other kinds of software people have been suing, and the EULAs have been found wanting. The software in the following story was worth significantly more money, which is why it likely went to court.... (the software company in question got its collective azz kicked, btw)
This was from the Seattle Post Intelligencer or whatever it is called, from last year I think: A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold. Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers. Timothy Vernor bought several copies of Autodesk's AutoCAD design software in 2005 and 2007 from businesses that had originally bought the software from Autodesk. He then put the software up for sale on eBay. Each package contained discs, a copy of a licence agreement and other documentation. Each time, Autodesk issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice asking eBay to suspend the auction, which it did. Each time that happened Vernor wrote to Autodesk asserting his rights and saying that the software was legitimate and not a pirated copy, but received no reply. Ebay reinstated the auctions. At one point eBay suspended his seller's account for a month for repeat infringements of its policies when Autodesk had complained a number of times. Vernor applied to the Court for a declaration that he had the right to sell the software because he believed that this process would be repeated every time he tried to buy and sell software. The court said that Autodesk's initial transfer of the software to the businesses was a sale, not a licensing arrangement. Those businesses, therefore, had the right to re-sell the software with or without the permission of Autodesk. The 'first sale doctrine' is an important part of US copyright legislation. Richard Jones, the judge in the case, said that if invoked, the doctrine would protect Vernor. "If there were no License, there is no dispute that Mr. Vernor's resale of the AutoCAD packages would be legal," he said in his ruling. "The first sale doctrine permits a person who owns a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy." The Court relied on a 1977 decision involving prints of films, in which the US government took action against Woodrow Wise, who operated a film sales operation in Los Angeles. That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale. Jones said that subsequent decisions had backed Autodesk's contention that software distribution could be a sale, he had to stay consistent with the earliest relevant ruling, which was that of the case of Wise. "Although technology has changed, the question at the core of this case is not technological," said Jones. "Mr. Vernor does not seek to take advantage of new technology to ease copying, he seeks to sell a package of physical objects which contain copies of copyrighted material. The essential features of such sales vary little whether selling movie prints via mail (as in Wise) or software packages via eBay." The ruling also dealt with the extent of the power of the original software licence. Vernor asked the Court to declare that the original licence, which forbade the re-selling of the software, did not control his behaviour. The Court said that the argument Autodesk had earlier made – that Vernor should not be allowed to own the software because the licence was non-transferable – must govern to whom it can apply. "Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees." The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way. The court denied Autodesk's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The case continues.
That's a very cool case. Thanks for the info. I like this judge :) I also like the judge that found one EULA entirely void because of one unconscionable clause, and the judge that punished another company with a fine for their EULA and forced them to change it. The way it was worded contradicted consumer rights laws in a particular jurisdiction. I think people are starting to catch on that a lot of these service company's EULA's are full of it. Knowledge is power :). Also, courts are starting to catch on and put the hurt on these companies. I think this is only going to get better as awareness grows, and as more people stand up for themselves, which is the opposite of the problem highlighted in the thread. It shouldn't be too long before people challenge the notion that they do not own virtual property that they purchased from an online store. I'm also looking forward to the FTC's work on things like MMO EULA's. It seems that there is an overall general distaste for corporate policies that try to bend or circumvent regulations to take advantage of people. It was only a matter of time. Imagine if service providers feel they actually have to go back to providing quality goods and services for our hard-earned money... |
|
Originally posted by Velexia
I'm not sure I would call the connection to MMORPGs that some players have Stockholm Syndrome. There are a few things that keep a player who is no longer enjoying an MMORPG in the game. One is the addictive personal quest of making yourself one of the best. People want all of the time and effort they have put into a game to amount to something, and quitting the game might be thought of as giving up. Also, a player develops a social network within the game they are playing. I believe this social network is the strongest force for retaining a player. I think you're right about the social network. The hardest thing for me to do when leaving an MMO has been to say goodbye to my friends. What helped me do this was to realize that the service provider was charging me money to keep in touch with people I had met online, in a game that they had ruined. I refuse to pay money to stay in a broken game just to chat with friends. We started up our own private forum to stay in touch, without the monthly fee, and without the frustration of beta testing long after the game's release. |
|
|
3/21/09 2:46:20 AM#58
It is extremely weird how people will stick up for developers/publishers through thick and thin. I suspect that the psychology behind the Stockholm Syndrome is something entirely different though, an emotional bond forged in close proximity by unimaginable stress or cruelty. Unsatisfactory development of an MMO hardly compares...though SWG's comes pretty close! I dont know but maybe being a fan of a sports team is a closer analogy. For instance, though I live in the UK, I'm a huge fan of the Washington Redskins. I hate the way the team has been run for the last 10 years and have no affinity for the current owner. But nothing will ever stop me supporting my beloved Redskins and I get annoyed if anyone criticizes them. And I still live in hope that they will do better next year |
|
|
3/21/09 5:50:02 PM#59
Originally posted by Torik This is actually one of the issues that have always puzzled me when it came to EULAs. If the company changes the EULA and you refuse to accept the new version, the company by all rights should offer to refund you any money remaining in your subscription. They have essentially exercised their option to cancel the contract and now want to negotiate a new one. That is one issue that is bound to bite them in the legal ass soon enough.
I will try a bit harder to explain why I dont think this is an issue of people being held hostage. I have stated awhile back now that I think most EULUA's are in fact illegal. Probably almost a year ago now, but in knowing that something is basically illegal before you get into it (the part of "buyer beware") we are all or should all have figured out by the time your an adult. There is still a choice in that this is the entertainment industry and the choice is to seak mmorpgs (not just swg I think all eula's are basically illegal which is why I cant stand seeing threads point out problems about all games targetting only one game as the problem is never gonna be fixed if you dont ask that ALL of them be looked at) as a source of entertainment of play offline games or heck go outside. If you can't deal with the fact that your basically seaking something with sketchy guidelines to start with be it this game or any other game (even WoW or EVE omg..) then as an individual capable of taking responsibility for your wallet and going in with eyes wide open then you need to either a) seak to take the risk and if it comes back to bite you in the butt 6 months later when they change something so be it or b) walk away At the present time those are the only choices one has until the system matures. It takes years for things to change so for now as an adult you have to accept it and do one of the above. I dont think its that huge a deal, but its been made one by people who had been reading eula which basically say "we can do whatever we want" from the get go and I guess not bothering to believe what they read. Thus one has to take responsibility for consciously ignoring a situation in the first place if you choose to click yes to such a contract repeatedly and keep at it and take your chances so be it, but you can't then scream foul when they actually abide by the terms of their contracts. In other situations one would refuse to agree to such a contract if one felt insecure but for some reason in this case when two parties are agreeing to the contract (which you are buy cliccking accept) one party is screaming foul. Games change like the wind I can't think of a single company that has not drastically changed their game now and taken the risk or is thinking of taking the risk. As a consumer one has to take some responsibility for the here and now and the correct action to take if you feel that this situation is one where you are being ripped off is to not click yes and walk away speedy fast and wait for change. Not hang around for like 2 years playing a game and cry foul after repeatedly clicking yes saying you were not expecting it, buying expansions ahead of time even clicking yes some more and then being upset afterwards? took me awhile to upload this cause I wanted sharper images then the generic cut and paste had on it but anyhow for those that say you are agreeing to the eula after you buy this is not so and for as long as I have played these games I have been able to find a copy online somewhere before buying. The only issue of legality is the fact that a company reserves right to change its game as much as it wants after you buy it. Anyhow this is from inside a free station pass easy enough to get and i have had one since well forever before I even really knew what station pass was I had this free thingy and I was getting mails from it http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/ummax/EverQuestIISelectAdd-Ons.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v692/ummax/links.jpg the last one (the squashed one) is the sony elua you find when you open up a game its identical. All this is here for anyone to find free of charge and has been for a very long time. Again I dont blame players for what any company does to a game. I do however "blame" consumers for not properly educating themselves and then crying foul afterwards. I would hope that everyone on this board is an adult and is capable of making decisions about what risks they are wiling to take and not take. Given the problems that I see on this board with great regularity those that are so angry (to this day) and have not walked away it seems to me they didn't take the time to become educated and make a decision which would have made them much happier which would have been to not partake in the playing of any online games from any company given the contracts that are readily available before buying any of these games. The term buyer beware was not something that people made up for no reason. People didn't bother to research what they were getting into and 2 years later became angry when the terms they agreed to were put to the test. Two individuals came to the table and agreed to this contract. The correct thing to do when you read something you dont agree to is to walk away. I dont however think its totally legal, but given what is in print for one to read if I had felt like those who continue to lament this loss years later felt like I would not have agreed to the eula or even purchased the game.
|
|
|
3/21/09 6:05:40 PM#60
Originally posted by ummax This is actually one of the issues that have always puzzled me when it came to EULAs. If the company changes the EULA and you refuse to accept the new version, the company by all rights should offer to refund you any money remaining in your subscription. They have essentially exercised their option to cancel the contract and now want to negotiate a new one. That is one issue that is bound to bite them in the legal ass soon enough.
I will try a bit harder to explain why I dont think this is an issue of people being held hostage. I have stated awhile back now that I think most EULUA's are in fact illegal. Probably almost a year ago now, but in knowing that something is basically illegal before you get into it (the part of "buyer beware") we are all or should all have figured out by the time your an adult. There is still a choice in that this is the entertainment industry and the choice is to seak mmorpgs (not just swg I think all eula's are basically illegal which is why I cant stand seeing threads point out problems about all games targetting only one game as the problem is never gonna be fixed if you dont ask that ALL of them be looked at) as a source of entertainment of play offline games or heck go outside. If you can't deal with the fact that your basically seaking something with sketchy guidelines to start with be it this game or any other game (even WoW or EVE omg..) then as an individual capable of taking responsibility for your wallet and going in with eyes wide open then you need to either a) seak to take the risk and if it comes back to bite you in the butt 6 months later when they change something so be it or b) walk away At the present time those are the only choices one has until the system matures. It takes years for things to change so for now as an adult you have to accept it and do one of the above. I dont think its that huge a deal, but its been made one by people who had been reading eula which basically say "we can do whatever we want" from the get go and I guess not bothering to believe what they read. Thus one has to take responsibility for consciously ignoring a situation in the first place if you choose to click yes to such a contract repeatedly and keep at it and take your chances so be it, but you can't then scream foul when they actually abide by the terms of their contracts. In other situations one would refuse to agree to such a contract if one felt insecure but for some reason in this case when two parties are agreeing to the contract (which you are buy cliccking accept) one party is screaming foul. Games change like the wind I can't think of a single company that has not drastically changed their game now and taken the risk or is thinking of taking the risk. As a consumer one has to take some responsibility for the here and now and the correct action to take if you feel that this situation is one where you are being ripped off is to not click yes and walk away speedy fast and wait for change. Not hang around for like 2 years playing a game and cry foul after repeatedly clicking yes saying you were not expecting it, buying expansions ahead of time even clicking yes some more and then being upset afterwards?
Which games have changed their core like SWG has? More than once I might add. -------- "SOE has probably united more gamers in hatred than Blizzard has subs"...daelnor |
|
