| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This comes up a lot, so I thought it could do with its own thread.
When I see "Broadband Internet Connection" listed under a game's requirements, I don't get angry or depressed, I just ask This is not a question of corporate vs. customer rights as much as a question of efficiency.
- If it's an MMO or multiplayer-only title, I get it. I usually move on, but I understand why this particular application needs network access.
- If the game contains a single player campaign, there is no reason whatsoever to demand a connection. What about the multiplayer sections? Let the game talk to servers when it needs to.
*
The reasonable solution is to disallow players to sell items earned during single player campaigns; if a player wants to sell anything, let them create a multiplayer character. If the game cannot adjust its difficulty based on the number of players currently active, then it doesn't need an auction house. If a player will never use the auction house, they shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops. - If the game is only available for solo play, it certainly doesn't need to constantly communicate with company servers. This is a massive waste of bandwidth and should never be used as DRM (there are better and less intrusive ways).
- If a single player game offers leaderboards or other features that directly tie into gameplay, the game was never intended to be played solo and should be considered multiplayer-only. Otherwise, leaderboards and whatnot should be completely optional.
An oft-quoted response to "why do we have to be online" complaints is "well you're online most of the time anyway...", yet we're not. Not really. I log onto Steam when I plan to play, I open a browser only when I need to, I download only when I feel the compulsion to do so. Every connection has a legitimate reason.
As to concerns about licensing and "proper usage":
If I'm playing a single-player title, without any player vs. player economy involved, I will modify any sprite, texture, model, sound, or script as I see fit. There is no sane argument in the world that says I cannot modify something I legally purchased for my own private consumption.
How does this apply to the topic at hand? For an example: It is none of Bioware or EA's business that I modify NPC textures or models in my personal installation of Dragon Age 2. None.
Another example: I routinely edit a game's ini files to hasten its launch time. If every meaningless "is this a legal copy, no there's no real content in this update" update replaces those files and forces me to do everything all over again, I consider the process inefficient. Let's say that my ini edits were only to force the game to run at a tolerable resolution. Is that also improper usage? No, not in context.
Until I sign a service plan instead of a license agreement, I expect to be able to access content I paid for however I choose. With this in mind, it is inefficient for me to be connected constantly.
Your mileage may vary.
I pretty much agree with you, but technically you haven't been buying games for quite a while now. As you alluded to, you have been licensing them for specific uses, ownership is not in the EULA (outside perhaps the disc itself?). The infamous EULA makes that clear. Some companies, Id, Epic, Bethesda, etc., encourage moding their games and may even open source the game code (minus assets like models and IP content), but they give specific permission to do so. Other companies don't give permission and have discouraged individuals from doing so. I think most clearly see the value of allowing it, but it is not a "right" and buying a software product is not the same as buying a material object.
And yes, a constant connection for a single player game is... silly.
I pretty much agree with you, but technically you haven't been buying games for quite a while now. As you alluded to, you have been licensing them for specific uses, ownership is not in the EULA (outside perhaps the disc itself?). The infamous EULA makes that clear. Some companies, Id, Epic, Bethesda, etc., encourage moding their games and may even open source the game code (minus assets like models and IP content), but they give specific permission to do so. Other companies don't give permission and have discouraged individuals from doing so. I think most clearly see the value of allowing it, but it is not a "right" and buying a software product is not the same as buying a material object.
I'm glad this has come up quickly, because it's been on my mind for some time. Anyone exposed to computers (esp. Windows OS variations) that refers to "buying a game" is at least somewhat aware of the licensing attached. No one--after they've had time to consider it--in their right mind believes that they "own" a game's franchise and IP simply because they shelled out $60. So what did we actually buy? The installation of the game.
Hear me out.
Remember buying a game decades ago? If not, hush for a moment, grown-ups are talking. We bought cartridges or floppy disks and the game's operation depended on a physical product. However, we weren't spending money on the physical storage: we wanted the content. A Sega Genesis cartridge was effectively an installation. It's the same today, outside MMOs and subscription-based software, we pay to legally/conveniently access assets so that we can play an installation of the game.
No, but I own the hard drive and associated components. The intersection of several resources is the installation and that is what we own. This is also why non-subscription-based games can never be called services.
I pretty much agree with you, but technically you haven't been buying games for quite a while now. As you alluded to, you have been licensing them for specific uses, ownership is not in the EULA (outside perhaps the disc itself?). The infamous EULA makes that clear. Some companies, Id, Epic, Bethesda, etc., encourage moding their games and may even open source the game code (minus assets like models and IP content), but they give specific permission to do so. Other companies don't give permission and have discouraged individuals from doing so. I think most clearly see the value of allowing it, but it is not a "right" and buying a software product is not the same as buying a material object.I'm glad this has come up quickly, because it's been on my mind for some time. Anyone exposed to computers (esp. Windows OS variations) that refers to "buying a game" is at least somewhat aware of the licensing attached. No one--after they've had time to consider it--in their right mind believes that they "own" a game's franchise and IP simply because they shelled out $60. So what did we actually buy? The installation of the game.
Hear me out.
Remember buying a game decades ago? If not, hush for a moment, grown-ups are talking. We bought cartridges or floppy disks and the game's operation depended on a physical product. However, we weren't spending money on the physical storage: we wanted the content. A Sega Genesis cartridge was effectively an installation. It's the same today, outside MMOs and subscription-based software, we pay to legally/conveniently access assets so that we can play an installation of the game.
No, but I own the hard drive and associated components. The intersection of several resources is the installation and that is what we own. This is also why non-subscription-based games can never be called services.
Is this for any other reason than because this is how you sort of always thought things worked?
What you actually buy is whatever the contract you opt into as part of the purchase says that you are buying. Nothing more, (hopefully) nothing less.
I'm glad this has come up quickly, because it's been on my mind for some time. Anyone exposed to computers (esp. Windows OS variations) that refers to "buying a game" is at least somewhat aware of the licensing attached. No one--after they've had time to consider it--in their right mind believes that they "own" a game's franchise and IP simply because they shelled out $60. So what did we actually buy? The installation of the game.
No, you bought the right to install and use the software within certain parameters. If you don't agree with the EULA, you're supposed to uninstall the software (and hopefully get e refund). This is pretty much true of any proprietary software. If you want to run wild with the code, go open source. Or abide by the rules. Simple.
Hear me out.Remember buying a game decades ago? If not, hush for a moment, grown-ups are talking. We bought cartridges or floppy disks and the game's operation depended on a physical product. However, we weren't spending money on the physical storage: we wanted the content. A Sega Genesis cartridge was effectively an installation. It's the same today, outside MMOs and subscription-based software, we pay to legally/conveniently access assets so that we can play an installation of the game.
I started buying cassettes for a Tandy / Radioshack trash 80 myself. My Atari 2600, acquired slightly later, was in many ways a huge leap forward. When the content is locked in a proprietary device like a cartridge the owners right are pretty well protected. As for what we wanted, yes it was the game. It was still a licensed software product. Subject to the contract you agreed to when you bought the physical media it was on.
No, but I own the hard drive and associated components. The intersection of several resources is the installation and that is what we own. This is also why non-subscription-based games can never be called services.
You own the hardware. Not what goes on it, whether it's the OS or a game. You license those. If you "buy" a game and have the option to buy more content for it, then it could be construed as a service. Without the necessity of a subscription fee, just the purchase of a license covering more content which you download. DLC.
Like Scott said, you get what the contract says you get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EULAs are not legally binding because they are not provided on the outside of the game box. You cannot agree to a contract before you have seen it and since stores will not refund your game if you open the box, the EULA is normally legally unenforceable, certainly in the UK and the EU.
You own the game you buy - you DO NOT own 'just a licence - and you have the automatic right of resale, even of a digital game, as upheld by the European Court recently. However, as long as the game says on the box that you need an internet connection even for SP content, you can't really do anything about that; it's your fault for not checking the requirements.
The situation in the USA may be different, but the 'you're buying a licence, not the game' argument has been dismissed in Europe. You buy the game (digital or physical) and you own the game, as straightforward as that. The EU have swatted down Valve over this issue, forcing them to offer a digital resale service on Steam, and they fired warning shots across Sony and Microsoft's bows last year over the issue on the new consoles.
Is this for any other reason than because this is how you sort of always thought things worked?
What you actually buy is whatever the contract you opt into as part of the purchase says that you are buying. Nothing more, (hopefully) nothing less.
I'm sure the legal department that helped compose the EULA would love for this to be the case, but it won't hold up against my argument provided that the licensed assets are housed locally on my hardware. Most EULAs are basically "don't cut into our profits or damage our image" threats and most customers see them as such. I know many companies would love to just keep eroding customer rights everytime they make a sale, but I'm not falling for it.
No, you bought the right to install and use the software within certain parameters. If you don't agree with the EULA, you're supposed to uninstall the software (and hopefully get e refund). This is pretty much true of any proprietary software. If you want to run wild with the code, go open source. Or abide by the rules. Simple.
I started buying cassettes for a Tandy / Radioshack trash 80 myself. My Atari 2600, acquired slightly later, was in many ways a huge leap forward. When the content is locked in a proprietary device like a cartridge the owners right are pretty well protected. As for what we wanted, yes it was the game. It was still a licensed software product. Subject to the contract you agreed to when you bought the physical media it was on.
All of this means that the US legal system hasn't kept up technology. Couple this with the fact that software publishers hate the idea of used sales and insist on viewing them as potential losses. The problem is that "potential" does not/should not equal "definite". The idea of an economy based around "futures" is exactly why this country is in the mess that it's in.
*Sorry, rant's over.
You own the hardware. Not what goes on it, whether it's the OS or a game. You license those. If you "buy" a game and have the option to buy more content for it, then it could be construed as a service. Without the necessity of a subscription fee, just the purchase of a license covering more content which you download. DLC.
Keep in mind that I never said I own the content, but I do own the reaction that includes the content. That is what I paid for and that is the final product in the sale.
Also, while games with regularly new purchaseable content might be seen as a service, they're really not. This view is entirely dependent on context. If a game functions without the new content and doesn't require any additional cash, it doesn't qualify as a service.
EULAs are not legally binding because they are not provided on the outside of the game box. You cannot agree to a contract before you have seen it and since stores will not refund your game if you open the box, the EULA is normally legally unenforceable, certainly in the UK and the EU.
That is a sticking point - contract law essentially requires full disclosure (there is even some argument to be made that it also requires bilateral negotiation rights, but that strikes me as a relic of bygone days that is no longer tenable). This is easily rectified, however, by providing the EULA up front. I don't think this would be difficult to engineer at all - digital sales can obviously present the EULA prior to completion of sale, and physical storefronts can program their point-of-sale systems to display EULA text prior to completion of a sale of a physical game copy.
So even if U.S. courts do uphold, in a blanket fashion, that EULAs are not binding unless agreed to prior to sale, this will probably have little effect other than to change where in the user experience the EULA is presented.
Sounds like time to point out the truly degenerate case: iTunes. Their EULA weighed in (a few years ago, probably worse now) at a whopping SEVENTY FIVE PAGES of text. After that, I decided that I REALLY didn't want to buy a mac, ever.
I also liked the Second life one, where you needed to agree not to break "any law", without even mention of jurisdiction.
I also liked the Second life one, where you needed to agree not to break "any law", without even mention of jurisdiction.
You have been found guilty of violating intergalactic trade laws, which is punishable by Blurgh and the suspension of your Second Life account.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(Sorry, couldn't think of anything more appropriate to comment the doom of Blurgh!)
I pretty much agree with you, but technically you haven't been buying games for quite a while now. As you alluded to, you have been licensing them for specific uses, ownership is not in the EULA (outside perhaps the disc itself?). The infamous EULA makes that clear. Some companies, Id, Epic, Bethesda, etc., encourage moding their games and may even open source the game code (minus assets like models and IP content), but they give specific permission to do so. Other companies don't give permission and have discouraged individuals from doing so. I think most clearly see the value of allowing it, but it is not a "right" and buying a software product is not the same as buying a material object.
And yes, a constant connection for a single player game is... silly.
This is already changing in Europe. A court case last year came to the conclusion that you own the digital copy of whatever you buy. The EULA cannot prevent you from selling your digital copy. There is currently a suit against Valve to force them to allow the sale of games from person to person.
The US accounts for about 1/4 of the video game market worldwide, Europe is about the same, maybe a little bigger. Decisions and practices in Europe can impact us here, particularly when it comes to international companies marketing products world wide.
First sale is a very fundamental pillar of our economic system in regards to copyright and trademarks. Companies want to throw it out the window with regards to the consumer, but it's also protecting them as well, eventually their erosion of first sale is going to bite them in the ass.
Overall I can live with it, I frequently run Ventrilo (private server) in the background every time I boot up to chat with my former wow-guildies/friends, etc.
I pretty much agree with you, but technically you haven't been buying games for quite a while now. As you alluded to, you have been licensing them for specific uses, ownership is not in the EULA (outside perhaps the disc itself?). The infamous EULA makes that clear. Some companies, Id, Epic, Bethesda, etc., encourage moding their games and may even open source the game code (minus assets like models and IP content), but they give specific permission to do so. Other companies don't give permission and have discouraged individuals from doing so. I think most clearly see the value of allowing it, but it is not a "right" and buying a software product is not the same as buying a material object.And yes, a constant connection for a single player game is... silly.
This is already changing in Europe. A court case last year came to the conclusion that you own the digital copy of whatever you buy. The EULA cannot prevent you from selling your digital copy. There is currently a suit against Valve to force them to allow the sale of games from person to person.
The US accounts for about 1/4 of the video game market worldwide, Europe is about the same, maybe a little bigger. Decisions and practices in Europe can impact us here, particularly when it comes to international companies marketing products world wide.
First sale is a very fundamental pillar of our economic system in regards to copyright and trademarks. Companies want to throw it out the window with regards to the consumer, but it's also protecting them as well, eventually their erosion of first sale is going to bite them in the ass.
I was just commenting on current U.S. law / practice. Europe is currently leaning towards favoring consumers rights over corporations. That may, or may not, continue. And, what happens in Europe has a limited impact on practices elsewhere (as does what happens in the U.S.). I'm stuck with the U.S. situation.
*edit* What is interesting currently is what the new X-Box One is doing to the used games market. Apparently rather than killing it, they want a fee on the used game that goes to the publisher. It makes perfect sense as a fee for transferring the license of a software product to a new owner. And the EULA keeps going. Interesting (although I don't buy used games).
|
What is interesting currently is what the new X-Box One is doing to the used games market. Apparently rather than killing it, they want a fee on the used game that goes to the publisher. It makes perfect sense as a fee for transferring the license of a software product to a new owner. And the EULA keeps going. Interesting (although I don't buy used games).
EULA is void, because you cannot agree to it before purchase. So it doesn't matter.
As for the used games market, they have absolutely no right to charge people for their property. If i by a physical copy of the game. I own that copy. I can do whatever i want with it if it is not covered in copyright laws. That means that i can modify it for personal use, lend, gift and resell it if i want to. And they have no right to charge me for it.As for M$, they want a full fee. Meaning that they want the person buying the used game to pay full price for it.
I was just commenting on current U.S. law / practice. Europe is currently leaning towards favoring consumers rights over corporations. That may, or may not, continue. And, what happens in Europe has a limited impact on practices elsewhere (as does what happens in the U.S.). I'm stuck with the U.S. situation.*edit* What is interesting currently is...
I understand, but with something like this there is going to be more of a one-way influence.
Europe is too big of a market to stop selling in. That means companies are going to have to adhere to European law to sell there. The US law stops influencing practices of companies in Europe, because the European law takes precedent in this regard.
A company is more likely to adhere to the European law and experiment using whatever system they adopt there, here in the US, than they are to use their US system and break the law in Europe. Since this law is consumer friendly, eventually that company will start building good will with it's customers that other companies won't have access to unless they follow suit.
I'm not guaranteeing that this will happen, just saying it's more likely, barring a change in the ruling in the European courts.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(Sorry, couldn't think of anything more appropriate to comment the doom of Blurgh!)
Could've been worse. At least it doesn't appear to involve Vogon poetry.
What is interesting currently is what the new X-Box One is doing to the used games market. Apparently rather than killing it, they want a fee on the used game that goes to the publisher. It makes perfect sense as a fee for transferring the license of a software product to a new owner. And the EULA keeps going. Interesting (although I don't buy used games).EULA is void, because you cannot agree to it before purchase. So it doesn't matter.
As for the used games market, they have absolutely no right to charge people for their property. If i by a physical copy of the game. I own that copy. I can do whatever i want with it if it is not covered in copyright laws. That means that i can modify it for personal use, lend, gift and resell it if i want to. And they have no right to charge me for it.
As for M$, they want a full fee. Meaning that they want the person buying the used game to pay full price for it.The problem is that the used game market is destroying the consoles. Console manufacturers make their bread and butter on those cartridge and disk licenses. In fact they generally make the consoles themselves at a loss. They get absolutely no income from the second hand market, any more than the game makers themselves do.
You have the right to do with whatever you want with the physical copy of games that you own. That does not however entail an obligation of the manufacturer to support or even enable your intended usage outside what it is specifically sold for.
That's not completely true.
Part of the used game market also includes SELLING used games. For the individual gamer, that means freeing up additional money to be used buying more games. Some of those are going to be used, but others will be new. New games that couldn't have been afforded without the sale of older games.
Gamestop is by far the largest seller of used games, but even for them they only account for 28% of their sales. The profit margin is much higher on the used games though, so they do push them very hard, but even still they purposely put your money in a store account (and give you a little extra for doing so) to help ensure that you spend the money you get back from selling your old games, right there in the store.
It's a lot like people trading in their old car to help fund the purchase of the new one.
The people buying used aren't going to buy new anyways.
|
|
What is interesting currently is what the new X-Box One is doing to the used games market. Apparently rather than killing it, they want a fee on the used game that goes to the publisher. It makes perfect sense as a fee for transferring the license of a software product to a new owner. And the EULA keeps going. Interesting (although I don't buy used games).EULA is void, because you cannot agree to it before purchase. So it doesn't matter.
As for the used games market, they have absolutely no right to charge people for their property. If i by a physical copy of the game. I own that copy. I can do whatever i want with it if it is not covered in copyright laws. That means that i can modify it for personal use, lend, gift and resell it if i want to. And they have no right to charge me for it.
As for M$, they want a full fee. Meaning that they want the person buying the used game to pay full price for it.The problem is that the used game market is destroying the consoles. Console manufacturers make their bread and butter on those cartridge and disk licenses. In fact they generally make the consoles themselves at a loss. They get absolutely no income from the second hand market, any more than the game makers themselves do.
You have the right to do with whatever you want with the physical copy of games that you own. That does not however entail an obligation of the manufacturer to support or even enable your intended usage outside what it is specifically sold for.
No, the point is that legally, there is nothing that they can do to stop me.
And since EULA is void as long as it is not provided to me prior to purchase, people can actually sue them and win. Especially in Europe.
|
EULAs are not legally binding because they are not provided on the outside of the game box. You cannot agree to a contract before you have seen it and since stores will not refund your game if you open the box, the EULA is normally legally unenforceable, certainly in the UK and the EU.
You own the game you buy - you DO NOT own 'just a licence - and you have the automatic right of resale, even of a digital game, as upheld by the European Court recently. However, as long as the game says on the box that you need an internet connection even for SP content, you can't really do anything about that; it's your fault for not checking the requirements.
The situation in the USA may be different, but the 'you're buying a licence, not the game' argument has been dismissed in Europe. You buy the game (digital or physical) and you own the game, as straightforward as that. The EU have swatted down Valve over this issue, forcing them to offer a digital resale service on Steam, and they fired warning shots across Sony and Microsoft's bows last year over the issue on the new consoles.
Steam is a subscription service. You have a service subscription account. You attach games to your subscription from Steam. You actually own nothing. The law covering subscription services is very different than the law covering a permanent license. There is a reason Valve has won every single lawsuit on this issue. I would not bet on the Federation of Consumer Organisations' lawsuit atm.
No, the point is that legally, there is nothing that they can do to stop me.
And since EULA is void as long as it is not provided to me prior to purchase, people can actually sue them and win. Especially in Europe.
So they just have you sign the EULA before purchase. Not a big deal really. Any brick and mortar retailer or online download or store site could do that at point of purchase (the register for brick and mortar or the payment page on online purchases). Do you think signing it first would stop a significant number of purchasers from going ahead with it? In any event EULAs have held up in U.S. courts already as currently used (post purchase agreement). If the failure of the EULA in Europe significantly hurts the game industry in those countries I suspect changes will be made to preserve the industry / jobs. Or is Europe in the position to blow off high tech / high paying jobs at the moment?
|
|
Europe is in position to protect it's citizens from unjust laws and bad company decision. Which it does admirably.
Plus, when you come to a different country, it's laws and not the laws of your country apply to you now. You have to respect them.
Ok, when i go into a brick an mortar store and they present me with a printed EULA, i will reed it and sign it. But until such time, i can do whatever i please with my copy of the game as long as i don't break copyright laws.
Steam is a subscription service. You have a service subscription account
No. Steam is a shop. You don't pay Valve a subscription to use Steam. You buy games on a game-by-game basis, like any other store.
You actually own nothing
Valve would like you to believe so, but they are in error. Under European law, you own what you have paid for. I buy a game from Steam, I own that game. It is mine. Valve can scream themselves otherwise blue in the face, but under the law that game belongs to me. In the United States it might be a different matter. Not here.
There is a reason Valve has won every single lawsuit on this issue.
The reason is that the majority of such cases have been prosecuted in the United States, where the rights of big companies are generally held to be superior to those of individuals. Valve has won a couple of cases in Europe. The law has been altered to ensure that next time around they almost certainly won't win (and there's a case launched in Germany pending, I believe).
So they just have you sign the EULA before purchase.
EULAs usually try to cover every conceivable situation under the sun. Some EULAs run to 10+ pages of A4 if you print one out. If a store printed out reams of A4 paper and handed them to a customer to read and sign before buying the game, they'd probably find themselves without customers pretty quickly.
|
|
EULAs usually try to cover every conceivable situation under the sun. Some EULAs run to 10+ pages of A4 if you print one out. If a store printed out reams of A4 paper and handed them to a customer to read and sign before buying the game, they'd probably find themselves without customers pretty quickly.
Let's not forget the fact that i would be standing there reading the ENTIRETY of the EULA. Yep. No matter how long it takes.
|
|
Steam is a subscription service. You have a service subscription accountNo. Steam is a shop. You don't pay Valve a subscription to use Steam. You buy games on a game-by-game basis, like any other store.
You actually own nothingValve would like you to believe so, but they are in error. Under European law, you own what you have paid for. I buy a game from Steam, I own that game. It is mine. Valve can scream themselves otherwise blue in the face, but under the law that game belongs to me. In the United States it might be a different matter. Not here.
There is a reason Valve has won every single lawsuit on this issue.The reason is that the majority of such cases have been prosecuted in the United States, where the rights of big companies are generally held to be superior to those of individuals. Valve has won a couple of cases in Europe. The law has been altered to ensure that next time around they almost certainly won't win (and there's a case launched in Germany pending, I believe).
So they just have you sign the EULA before purchase.EULAs usually try to cover every conceivable situation under the sun. Some EULAs run to 10+ pages of A4 if you print one out. If a store printed out reams of A4 paper and handed them to a customer to read and sign before buying the game, they'd probably find themselves without customers pretty quickly.
Valve has canceled lots of European subscriptions in the past ( http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02/01/thought-do-we-own-our-steam-game s/ ). Valve can and will cancel subscriptions without stating a reason either in the US or EU. You do not have to charge to have a subscription agreement in place. The Valve subscription agreement clearly states that you are using a subscription service that you attach additional services to. You agree to the subscription agreement before the sale as well.
If you want a solid write up from one of my EU counterparts see (http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2012/the-legality-of-second-hand-software-sales- in-the-eu/ ). In essence, Software as a service is what is coming. The ruling clearly does not affect services. Valve clearly believes that the agreement in place between you and them falls under the Software as a service.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So they just have you sign the EULA before purchase. Not a big deal really. Any brick and mortar retailer or online download or store site could do that at point of purchase (the register for brick and mortar or the payment page on online purchases). Do you think signing it first would stop a significant number of purchasers from going ahead with it? In any event EULAs have held up in U.S. courts already as currently used (post purchase agreement). If the failure of the EULA in Europe significantly hurts the game industry in those countries I suspect changes will be made to preserve the industry / jobs. Or is Europe in the position to blow off high tech / high paying jobs at the moment?
No, the point is that legally, there is nothing that they can do to stop me.
And since EULA is void as long as it is not provided to me prior to purchase, people can actually sue them and win. Especially in Europe.
The first time a company tries to do that to me, I am going to sit at their register and read the entire thing. Especially if it happens at the holiday season.
|
|
I forgot to format my links. Grrr, at the time limit on editing.
Article from Rock Paper Shotgun on Valve banning subscribers
The first time a company tries to do that to me, I am going to sit at their register and read the entire thing. Especially if it happens at the holiday season.
Most people will just sign it. How many people read the EULA now? They could just have it on a computer and have you sign electronically. Before being allowed to go to the register. E-mail you a copy or (snail) mail you a copy after actual purchase of the license / game. No dead trees needed. And, waiting rooms are cheap. Is your time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most people will just sign it. How many people read the EULA now?
The first time a company tries to do that to me, I am going to sit at their register and read the entire thing. Especially if it happens at the holiday season.
I do. I hate every minute of it and forget most of it by the time I'm done so I have to reread stuff for context. It's the worst thing, really.
I do. And yes, cash register time. I would not move from the queue if they wanted me toread a EULA more that five lines long.
I do. And yes, cash register time. I would not move from the queue if they wanted me toread a EULA more that five lines long.
The answer to that is to have you read / sign off on the EULA before you get in the queue for the register. At that point you aren't blocking the line and the only time being spent is yours. I'd say 95%+ of people will just sign because they want their game. The other 5% would make for a great behavioral study. As it is, you indicate acceptance on the terms of service before you download a game or DLC. This is just taking the same idea to brick and mortar. And let's face it, most publishers today would rather you go online for your purchase. Or license :) By the time we're done with this some EA type will take this great idea to his bosses. Aren't you proud? :D
In no way do I like this concept or think it's good btw. I'm just pursuing a line of reasoning that allows software publishers to continue their current practices without falling afoul of contractual obligations (such as reading a contract before signing / paying). And, a license transfer fee on used games could well fall into this too... part of the EULA. It would allow used games "sales" (or license transfers anyway), generate revenue for the publisher and maintain their control of distribution of their software. Nice. Legally anyway.