Originally posted by ChromeBallz

There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal. This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.

Prove it with cases and decisions please.

If TSW goes under/gets closed down because lifetime subbers sue the company what will their precious lifetime sub be worth then?

You have to realise if FC want, they can shut down TSW at the end of the month and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

If you have no faith in the publisher or the game, why purchase a lifetime sub in the first place?

This happened to STO and most of the lifetime subbers are really happy now, they have a thriving game that was previously dying on it's arse and they get lots of bonus stuff each month as compensation.

Originally posted by Slechtvalk

Originally posted by Tenkousei

As far as i know purchasing the game itself doesn't yield immediate acces to the game. One needs to set up a subscription.

 

In that sence, TWO sales are being done:

1) purchasing the software (a license to use the software)

2) Purchasing the use of an online service.

As far as i can remember, before setting up a sub, one needs to agree to the terms and conditions (see the judicial doctrine concerning standard contracts) so one could argue that despite everything, the EULA is being presented to you for reading BEFORE you purchase the service and is as such valid.

Also: using wiki as a valid judicial source ... /facedesk.

If you buy online maybe you are right, but not when buying a boxed version.

 

this is some part of that:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d54ff9e6-c515-11e1-b6fd-00144feabdc0.html

"The ECJ, however, said that resellers like UsedSoft were not bound by license agreements banning the resale of software licenses."

 

so ask yourself why you are not bound to license agreements in europe ;) this is made for downloaded and boxed software, so it depends on when you have been shown the license.

 

there hasnt been someone yet who claimed against eulas in europe, why should you until today, you are not bound on agreements wich come during installation. i ignore them.

 

I am pretty sure that the arguement is valid for boxed versions as well. The first fifty odd euro you spend are for the box, disk and manual which provide you ownership of the raw amterials and a license for the software, the second step is to close a second contract for an online service.

Fact is that it is still a very shady aspect of trade law. The doctrine i was able to find on the judicial databases i'm subscribed to is not very extensive (as little as five articles which touched the subject briefly)

I urge you to actually read the oracle case as well: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&doclang=EN&mode=req

It's not about the original purchase, but about reselling the license, which is a different thing.

So what was a lifetime sub $200, maybe more or less depending on your country?

Most lawyers wont even listen to your claim for that.

I guess you could go the class action route. But then you have to prove that there was a willfull attempt to defraud/hurt the group.

Personally I come from a different time and thought process. One filled with paranoia and distrust. Keeps me and my tinfoil hats safe I tell you. But I don't buy "lifetime subs", pre-order, pay for beta, none of that junk. How does that saying go?..oh yeah.."If it sounds too good to be true, it is false."  

I'm sorry for anyone who is truely hurt by teh loss of this $200, even if in reality you lost nothing, except your status as a "Lifer". Might I suggest bending over, reaching between your legs, grabbing your shoulders, pulling hard, and getting breath of fresh air.

Originally posted by ChromeBallz

 

---

Originally posted by Roxtarr

---

Originally posted by banzai014

---

Originally posted by Roxtarr Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.

---

The EULA means nothing in Europe

---

So there are no Terms and Conditions for players in Europe?  How can you plan an MMO without agreeing to terms and conditions?

---

 

Clickwrap agreements (such as EULAS) are not binding in Europe. This is because such things have to be signed and agreed upon [i]before[/b] the payment is made (ie, the sales contract is signed).

Since these 'terms and conditions' cannot be viewed or agreed upon before buying the game (boxed in any case), it is deemed pretty much useless, pointless and illegal in Europe.

Companies can put in all the clickwrap agreements they want but unless they are made available before you pay for the product they are simply not legally binding or valid. Furthermore, changing the terms of the agreement is completely illegal without consulting all parties involved, companies do not get a free pass to change it one-sided as much as they like. This applies to 'normal' contracts aswell, let alone clickwrap agreements which aren't even legal in the first place.

 If they are non binding, then what grounds would their be to sue the company?  They are getting the same thing they got before the change (access to the game and future updates through the coin stipend).  What the OP seems mad about is that other people who previously didn't have access to the game because they didn't pay a sub, now have access to the game without paying a sub.  If you had a sub before, either monthly or lifetime, nothing changes except there is a new step to access issues.  I guess adding an extra hoop to jump through is annoying, but I can't imagine it is law breaking.

---

Originally posted by I_Return

---

Originally posted by ChromeBallz
There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal.

This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.

---

Prove it with cases and decisions please.

---

---

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1250343
The European Union provision is less permis-sive and provides for striking down terms that are merely unfair. Article 3 provides that a contract terms shall be regarded as unfair “if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.”

---

EU law, a German law is even more specific about this.

Do mind that the UK s much more relaxed about this, though this is also still an issue concerning EU jurisdiction in these cases where the parties involvled in the cases rarely, if ever, took the step to EU courts to verify their steps and procedures.

Also check this document:

http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/ERPL_2011_6.pdf

At best, the entire thing is still under debate in Europe. It has never definitively been validated as legal.

---

Originally posted by niceguy3978

---

Originally posted by ChromeBallz

---

Originally posted by Roxtarr

---

Originally posted by banzai014

---

Originally posted by Roxtarr
Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.

---

The EULA means nothing in Europe

---

So there are no Terms and Conditions for players in Europe?  How can you plan an MMO without agreeing to terms and conditions

---

Clickwrap agreements (such as EULAS) are not binding in Europe. This is because such things have to be signed and agreed upon before the payment is made (ie, the sales contract is signed).

Since these 'terms and conditions' cannot be viewed or agreed upon before buying the game (boxed in any case), it is deemed pretty much useless, pointless and illegal in Europe.

Companies can put in all the clickwrap agreements they want but unless they are made available before you pay for the product they are simply not legally binding or valid. Furthermore, changing the terms of the agreement is completely illegal without consulting all parties involved, companies do not get a free pass to change it one-sided as much as they like. This applies to 'normal' contracts aswell, let alone clickwrap agreements which aren't even legal in the first place.

---

 If they are non binding, then what grounds would their be to sue the company?  They are getting the same thing they got before the change (access to the game and future updates through the coin stipend).  What the OP seems mad about is that other people who previously didn't have access to the game because they didn't pay a sub, now have access to the game without paying a sub.  If you had a sub before, either monthly or lifetime, nothing changes except there is a new step to access issues.  I guess adding an extra hoop to jump through is annoying, but I can't imagine it is law breaking.

---

This is exactly why EULA's are pointless. There's no grounds to countersue either. However, please do mind that the lifetime purchasers still got exactly what was advertised: Perpetual access to all the game's features. The way Funcom offers it doesn't matter, the end result does in this case. While the morality is arguable, from a legal standpoint there's nothing to complain about.

Originally posted by ChromeBallz

[quote]Originally posted by I_Return
[quote]Originally posted by ChromeBallz
There's no "case by case" here. you sign a sales contract by buying a product. [b]Changing that contract after it has been signed by way of a clickwrap agreement is illegal.

This is what has been decided in every case about clickwrap agreements that has ever gone to court, but since so few people actually stand up for their rights most companies still pretend that they're fully legal since most people actually believe that. Or, they don't, but they know that it's a stupidly big hassle to actually do something about it.
[/quote]

Prove it with cases and decisions please.
[/quote]

 

---

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1250343
The European Union provision is less permis-sive and provides for striking down terms that are merely unfair. Article 3 provides that a contract terms shall be regarded as unfair “if contrary to the requirement of good faith, it cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.”

---

 

EU law, a German law is even more specific about this.

Do mind that the UK s much more relaxed about this, though this is also still an issue concerning EU jurisdiction in these cases where the parties involvled in the cases rarely, if ever, took the step to EU courts to verify their steps and procedures.

Also check this document:

http://www.ivir.nl/publications/guibault/ERPL_2011_6.pdf

At best, the entire thing is still under debate in Europe. It has never definitively been validated as legal.

cool law, created for Microsoft, and MAJOR software providers. Being that I have taken ethics in web development, I have some knowledge on what you are trying to collide into a games revenue model change, which Funcom has EVERY right to change.

Your law is to protect you from the monoloplising of manufactureres in hardware and software after AMD Sued Intel in EUROPE.

Still waiting for the defined case number with a person who won or settled.

Originally posted by FromHell

Originally posted by Teala
See, it is for this very reason that lifetime subs are worthless.

They MADE it worthless by giving away almost everything for free which I paid 200$ for.

 

Today I´m fed up with MMOs, look around, all cash grabs, no exceptions.

BUT in case of TSW they threw pearls in front of the swine by giving away everything with the B2P model.

The last bastion beside EvE, TSW finally catered to the cheapskates. Thanks for nothing. Now the 30$ lolkids will try to do investigation quests and fill up the chat with ""lollzthisgamesucks""whatis goin on lolzzz"

 

sad day for a great game and unique community

Which begs the question why would you ever buy a lifetime sub for something you cant guarentee for the next month?  You cant blame someone for a RISK you openly took.

Thats like investing money in a stock that tanks and then asking for your money back because you didnt know it was going to happen.

Is it sad? yes.  Is it unfortunate? Perhaps.  Is it illegal?  No.

Caveat Emptor.

For the life of me i cannot find them. For some reason all my searches lead to US cases which are irrelevant here.

I only know of 2 cases for certain: One in the UK which ended 'undecided' (iirc the company settled with the claimant) and one in Germany where the claimant (customer) won the case.

That said - EU law and German law is there. Cases or not, judges can't exactly ignore it and make up their own laws.

Edit: found an interesting paper about the US cases though, i did not know the cases there were not as black-and-white as i thought:

http://www.sutherland.com/files/Publication/104c7fcb-7342-4023-b4c2-5b0776303aa3/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/99a80cf1-3fd7-44a3-9506-1622c382abaf/CunninghamWitkowComputerInternetLawyerJournalJune06.pdf

Even the ProCD case left some nasty wounds on the industry apparently.

Originally posted by ChromeBallz

For the life of me i cannot find them. For some reason all my searches lead to US cases which are irrelevant here.

I only know of 2 cases for certain: One in the UK which ended 'undecided' (iirc the company settled with the claimant) and one in Germany where the claimant (customer) won the case.

That said - EU law and German law is there. Cases or not, judges can't exactly ignore it and make up their own laws.

Until a decisioned case or settledment is seen, you don't have much ice to stand on atm. :)

1. Can the mods merge the threads concerning this? Please.

Video games just have a depricating value, over time.  The only legal recourse you might have is if you could find a discrepency between making payments, what is expected from those payments, and the End User Liscense Agreement (EULA), to which you undoubtedly clicked "I agree".

EULA doesn't always hold up, and there are some cases where the EULA was determined by a court to be unreasonable.  The part about the agreeing user being only to take issue with the developer / publisher through a pre-determined dispute moderator is possibly the most challenged.

Honesly I think many people felt ripped off when they bought the Star Wars: The Old Republic Collectors Edition, which was initially very expensive ($150) and rare.  EA then mass produced the same Collectors Edition and liquidated them, going as low as $20 at Best Buy and KMart.  Big time rip off for those that bought early.

EA is kosher to bring up with this since it is the publisher for The Secret World, and potentially the buyer of Funcom.  Don't like how things go down?  Don't buy EA MMO's.  Even their FIFA is riddled with bugs, but even then, they still do single player / light multiplayer games better.  Their next SimCity might be a hit, and I really hope it won't be another EA trainwreck.  As for their MMO's, they can keep them from now on, as far as I'm concerned, even if they are "only" the publisher, at first, heh.

What really is annoying about this all is not that poeple complain they are not getting what they payed for (because they still get that!), but that someone else get something they just want for themselves, because they simply feel entiteld to it. Anyhow let this be fought out in a court and see where it ends. 

The entertainment of the gaming industry almost comes more from all the drama surrounding it the last few years then the games.