First, when an EULA is not conform with any law, its not valid

In europe an EULA is only valid when beeing known before buying.

An EULA during Installation, so after you bought the product, is not valid.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endbenutzer-Lizenzvertrag

An its the same within european law. So every upcoming EULA During Installation is not valid in the eurpean union.

The same is with changing EULA.

Unkown to me is what happens if you have a P2P with monthly subscription, i think this is seen different, because you have the option to cancel the service.

The main usage is, if you have to pay for something, then during your payment made licenses are ok. But you pay in a shop, so the first time you see the EULA is not when using your keycode, you normally face it when you launch first time. and this is normally after your payment, and thats what i makes illegal.

so in this case you can only check if your payment as lifetimer gave you priviliges you now dont have any more.

not having made a good deal with lifetime is something different i think.

---

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.

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.

you're assuming funcom's eula/tos is considered a clickwrap agreement.  i can read wikopedia too.  it comes down to how the judge see's it.  it's pretty much case by case and testimony would play a major part in the decision.  not all eula's are null and void in europe.  otherwise they wouldnt exsist in europe.

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.

Originally posted by banzai014

This leaves players with existing subscription time and lifetime subscribers in the lurch. In this new model, players that purchase the box price have full access to the game in its current state. Players can then subscribe for $15/month for 1200 Funcom points ($10 in real money) that expire after 6 months needed to buy future DLC (slated to be released in monthly installments costing $5-10),  a fluff vanity item of the month, an xp booster item and a 10% discount on the item shop. Existing subscribers are being switched to this plan for the remainder of their subscription time, without a refund option. Remember that these subscribers also had to buy the game box in the beginning.

Everyone has to buy the box, its B2P, not F2P. Existing subscribers can stop paying at any time, yes there will be some crossover, but they are amply compensated with the abovementioned items.

This is not what subscribers paid for. 

It is exactly what they paid for... access to the game... and more than what they paid for - in game currency and items.

The deal they signed up for has been changed without their consent or prior knowledge. The terms of agreement have been pulled out from under them. Subscribers paid for access to updates ("DLC") but also access to the game itself. In the P2P model you simply could not log in if you were'nt subscribed. Now that you can get full access for free, the value of the subscription has been cheapened.

Which is why noone is getting charged for subscriptions anymore unless they want to.... you paid for access up until this point, which noone else had access to unless they were paying. If Maccas has a 5 dollar burger, then lowers the price to 2 dollars for a deal, they dont have to compensate everyone who ever purchased the burger before the difference in price. You agreed to pay that amount and it wasnt a problem until others could get it for less, get over yourself.

The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless. $15 per month for $10 worth in limited time points, whereas a B2P player can buy DLC each month for cheaper ($5) and have exactly the same access to the game. $15 (sub per month) > $10 (in virtual Funcom monies) > $5 per month for DLC you need to keep up with other players.

Subscribers also get an XP boost every 16 hours, a free item every month and discount in the shop..... so overall they get a much better deal if they are going to spend the 10 dollars in the shop each month.

I feel that the subscription option is only there so that they don't have to refund people with existing subs and of course lifetimers. The sub has no value and is a ripoff. A sub gave players both access to new content and to the game itself. Since everyone has access to the game now for the box price, the sub has lost part of its value and so people with existing sub time should demand a refund. I would really like to know what a lawyer's legal opinion of this change would be.

His opinion would be that you dont have a leg to stand on, since Funcom holds all the rights to everything in the game. Lifetime subscribers still have access to the game forever with no additional fees needed. Subscribers still have the experiences they had prior to this change.

I have contacted Massively and MMORPG.com suggesting they write an article investigating the legal implications of TSW's B2P change or otherwise recommend me a lawyer specializing in this area that I could talk to. I hope this way we can get something started moving forward and clarify exactly  what legal recourse existing subscribers have. My demands are fair: I only ask that players get the option of having their extant subscription time refunded, since the subscription service has so wholly changed from what they originally intended to pay for (i.e. which in large part was paying for access to the game itself).

Why on earth would a company that is having to lower the entry cost into a game to make profit, then go and refund all past profit. Get a grip and stop being so selfish. Getting more people into the game is a good thing, and lifetimers who like the game still get a very good deal.

Pretty much every MMO I have played except WoW and Rift have gone F2P (or B2P in this case). SoE didnt pay me for the 5 years of EQ2 I paid for before it went F2P. Stop being rediculous and grow up.

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.

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?

You are overestimating the importance of terms and conditions. If an agreement was unreasonable to begin with or the party who offers you the agreement gives themselves the right to pretty much ignore any of YOUR rights or to change things one-sidedly, then that agreement is null because it is unbalanced.

Now, I don't know anything about TSW's plans, but if the OP is right in his statements, that does seem very unfair.

Originally posted by Tenkousei

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

 can you explain me why? wikipedia normally shows the source of information, so if the wikipedia itself maybe wrong, you can find your solution with that sources listed there.

i am german, i am sorry not to find an english version of our law, should i post the german articles. do you think you will get easier behind our law system?

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/BJNR001950896.html#BJNR001950896BJNG023401377

§§305-310 BGB for germany.

" He who does not file suit goes hungry "

So, Banzai, you're just going to start a lengthy and costly legal battle, tie up some useful court time, and for what? Some perceived mistreatment?

Wow.. first world problems, man...

This is what you got for the Grand Master package:

1 Additional Character Slot
**1 Additional Name Reservation (not even needed anymore)
Set of XP Potions
Set of Talismans
Lifetime 10% discount (for the in-game item store)
Life-time Subscription
Snakeskin Jacket

Did you not get any of those items?

Now they are changing the business model. Nothing you have received thus far is invalidated. PLUS, they are looking after their lifetimers by giving you Funcom points, exclusive monthly items, and a whole bunch more. I think that makes up the missing 5 bucks your whole point seems to be based around.

Subs, life-time or otherwise, gave you access to content. Now, the sub is no longer required, so they give you other stuff instead.

You haven't been ripped off. Things change. So you're getting other stuff to equal (and beyond) value of the sub price.

Is it really, honestly worth quibbling and throwing law suite crap around for some perceived loss of a couple bucks a month?

Really?

When the game came out, I considered the lifetime subscription but then I thought it would probably go ftp in six months so I held off. With them going b2p, I got to say I am thrilled to have already purchased this game and am looking forward to start playing it again.

I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

Originally posted by Kingmob23

When the game came out, I considered the lifetime subscription but then I thought it would probably go ftp in six months so I held off. With them going b2p, I got to say I am thrilled to have already purchased this game and am looking forward to start playing it again.

I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

Hindsight is pretty awesome stuff.

Originally posted by Kingmob23

I'm not quite sure, based on how the market has been changing the last couple of years, what these lifetime subers thought was going to happen? It seemed obvious since beta that the outcome would tread along these lines.

Personally I figured it'd go F2P at some point and then I'd get points to spend in the store for the rest of the games existance.  This happened sooner than I thought it would, but I still don't have any real complaints.  Most of my lifetime subscription choise was based on my really liking the product and a desire to support the company that made something I quite like.  Well that and the expectation that I'd be playing it for months and months to come..

Armchair lawyers assemble!

IF what everyone is saying about EULA and TOS being worthless in europe do you REALLY think these games would keep coming....

Still please do go ahead and tell us your professional opinions on this.  Fact is, if you enjoy the game you are getting a good deal.  The alternative to this move was quite simply your lifetime sub "expiring" very quickly if you get my drift.

---

Originally posted by muffins89

---

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

---

you're assuming funcom's eula/tos is considered a clickwrap agreement.  i can read wikopedia too.  it comes down to how the judge see's it.  it's pretty much case by case and testimony would play a major part in the decision.  not all eula's are null and void in europe.  otherwise they wouldnt exsist in europe.

---

By your logic, murder wouldn't exist unless it was allowed by law. Please think about what you're saying here.

Clickwrap agreements were 'invented' in the 90's as a way for companies to force their policies on users and retain control of their programs. They have long been in a grey area untill a few cases in Europe where they have been shot down HARD. That doesn't prevent companies from including them anyway since they know that people like you will believe whatever they're told... I'm sorry to be so rude, but that's simply how it is. Most companies aren't ideological hippies, they're bastards who want your money and nothing else. Money is what this is about, not customers.

Fact is, they are better that the potential gain by putting the clickwrap agreements on their stuff is higher than the potential loss of someone sueing them for their illegality. It's simple business, nothing else.

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.

Originally posted by banzai014

As some of you may be aware, Funcom's The Secret World today shifted from a subscription only model to B2P (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/12/the-secret-world-officially-abolishes-subscriptions/). This was a completely unannounced and sudden change: the only warning given was a "prank" youtube video (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/10/the-secret-worlds-dev-video-blog-begins-end-of-days-chronicle/).

This leaves players with existing subscription time and lifetime subscribers in the lurch. In this new model, players that purchase the box price have full access to the game in its current state. Players can then subscribe for $15/month for 1200 Funcom points ($10 in real money) that expire after 6 months needed to buy future DLC (slated to be released in monthly installments costing $5-10),  a fluff vanity item of the month, an xp booster item and a 10% discount on the item shop. Existing subscribers are being switched to this plan for the remainder of their subscription time, without a refund option. Remember that these subscribers also had to buy the game box in the beginning.

This is not what subscribers paid for.  The deal they signed up for has been changed without their consent or prior knowledge. The terms of agreement have been pulled out from under them. Subscribers paid for access to updates ("DLC") but also access to the game itself. In the P2P model you simply could not log in if you were'nt subscribed. Now that you can get full access for free, the value of the subscription has been cheapened.

The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless. $15 per month for $10 worth in limited time points, whereas a B2P player can buy DLC each month for cheaper ($5) and have exactly the same access to the game. $15 (sub per month) > $10 (in virtual Funcom monies) > $5 per month for DLC you need to keep up with other players.

I feel that the subscription option is only there so that they don't have to refund people with existing subs and of course lifetimers. The sub has no value and is a ripoff. A sub gave players both access to new content and to the game itself. Since everyone has access to the game now for the box price, the sub has lost part of its value and so people with existing sub time should demand a refund. I would really like to know what a lawyer's legal opinion of this change would be.

I have contacted Massively and MMORPG.com suggesting they write an article investigating the legal implications of TSW's B2P change or otherwise recommend me a lawyer specializing in this area that I could talk to. I hope this way we can get something started moving forward and clarify exactly  what legal recourse existing subscribers have. My demands are fair: I only ask that players get the option of having their extant subscription time refunded, since the subscription service has so wholly changed from what they originally intended to pay for (i.e. which in large part was paying for access to the game itself).

 First off, the funcom points are for all games account wide. They FC doesn't dissapear cause that WOULD BE ILLEGAL. I can log in to AoC now and have the same amount of FC as last year.

As for the subscriptions a life people, if you have been watching the mmorpg genre in the last 10 years, you will have known that Funcom has yet to make a successful game, even Anarchy Online is STILL bugged to this day, The fault lays on the consumer for not reading up on the products they buy. 

People get mad, that is natural, LotrO did the same ebull shit to me, I own a lifetime sub, just got to suck it up and biycott Funcom products, like I chose to after AoC .

"The services subscribers get with the B2P model are worthless."

So don't subscribe?

And if you buy a lifetime sub, well, blame your own stupidity. Do you want the developers to keep an aged payment model because you were dumb enough to pay a shitload for a lifetime subscription?

Does anyone else think this is stupid? Funcom hasn't taken anything away from lifetime subscribers. The experience of playing the game is unchanged from when they purchased the lifetime sub. They added additional benefits for lifetime subscribers above and beyond what their current benefits were.

What, exactly, did lifetime subscribers lose in the transition from Subscription to B2P?