The EULA

[ub3rman123]

In light of the recent events involving Dragon Age 2 and EA's community bans, the End User License Agreement has been put under the spotlight. Although they vary between companies, the EULA in general gives the company supposed complete power over the end user, who has to accept the agreement to use the software. How powerful should this agreement be?

[CommanderCrazy]

In light of the recent events involving Dragon Age 2 and EA's community bans, the End User License Agreement has been put under the spotlight. Although they vary between companies, the EULA in general gives the company supposed complete power over the end user, who has to accept the agreement to use the software. How powerful should this agreement be?

 

TYTT, I have never fully read an EULA in my life. I just click the box, then 'next', and go on.

[crimsonedge11]

The game companies should have to respect the rights of the consumer, instead of feeling like they are entitled to being dictators, and telling everyone else what their rights are. I don't understand how some of it should be legally justified in the free world, there should be laws passed to keep them from removing people from playing a game they paid for, or at least give them a full refund. Especially if the game isn't even multiplayer. My guess is they got this idea from the MMO industry which can ban people, and feel like this applies to all forms of gaming, and I would disagree on this. They shouldn't be able to ban you from games that are an individual gaming experience, meaning non-multiplayer, just for getting some kinda infraction on a website. That is going WAY over their bounds.

 

And I have never read an EULA in my life either, and got no plans to. The way I see it is they don't respect my rights, so why should I respect theirs? I just click the box saying ok, and move on to play the game I paid for and couldn't care less about anything in this world than some digital signature.

 

Basically the harder they push with EULA laws and digital agreements, the more they will encourage piracy. In all honesty what do you guys think the guy who paid for a game and got banned from playing it by the game company is going to do hm?

 

EULA only effects people who buy the games legally, pirates play the game and get around the EULA and DRMs.

 

I used to think pirates were hurting the game industry, and now between increased prices for games, lack of quality, and ridiculous EULA and DRMs, they are just encouraging it.

 

Most of the younger generation doesn't understand how much utter bull**** these DRMs and EULA agreements are, gaming back in the 90s there were some EULAs, but they had no power to really enforce them unless it was a large claim that got attention, and then they would send a crew of lawyers in, now they are enforcing EULAs on EVERYBODY, and DRMs which require online registration to play and some cases be logged in online to even play the game, leaving you subject to down time when their server is down to play a game that isn't even multiplayer.

 

If I sound seriously pissed about this, its because I am...

Edited March 14, 2011 by crimsonedge11

[Marthos]

Has anybody ever bought a game (or any software) and been asked to review and agree to the EULA before you've handed over your cash ?

 

We all know the answer to that one.

 

 

So, when I buy a game and have handed over my cash and the sellers and developers and publishers of said game have accepted my payment, they have agreed to abide by the rules of my "PURCHASERS AGREEMENT".

 

That agreement means that I will abide by the consumer LAWS of my country and so will they.

 

 

 

Enough of this making up of in house rules and saying you will obey, its time the consumer had some power back in their pockets.

 

 

 

 

And as for ticking the "agreement" box on the game instal, bullsfizzledipshwicks, I ticked it so I could play the game, not because I agree to your inhouse made up nonsense thats most likely illegal in more countries than I can remember the names of.

[crimsonedge11]

The argument I see a lot of people using to support the game companies and their "EULA" and "DRMs" can be summed up in one word, pirates. Now pirating is stealing, no excuse for that, but the implementation of EULA, and DRMs, is not impacting piracy that much, piracy is more frequent now than it has ever been, and it will continue to increase during an economic recession where lots of people don't have the money they used to have. Trying to control individual people is a mistake, because this only includes the people who pay for the games, and not the pirates. So the whole argument for this implementation just doesn't hold water. Pirates don't give these companies an excuse to enforce draconian EULA agreements and DRMs on their paying customers. But I guess few gamers actually care about principle, and just want to play a game and don't really care if they throw another hoop in front of you to jump through. Some of this has to also do with agressive marketing, routing people to sites that are posting prices for other games, and even sometimes deals basically forcing their customers to be involved in their agressive marketing attemps. I think the later has a lot to do with it, controlled marketing, directly to the consumer, brilliant idea from a sales/marketing standpoint. And then they get to turn around and use "pirates" as the excuse for doing it. Edited March 15, 2011 by crimsonedge11

[Marthos]

Pretty much agree with all of that Crimsonedge.

 

What doesn't appear to have yet dawned on the bright sparks that come up with these measures is that the way things are going, the damn pirates are having an easier time of things than the legitimate purchasers of the games. These companies are crapping on the people who support them by handing over their hard earned cash.

 

Don't they realise (or don't they care) that they're alienating their customers left right and centre ?

 

What a damn silly impasse to be at.

 

I think another of the biggest problems is that they don't have to face their customers face to face.

 

"Email of complaint ? click, deleted".

 

"Upset and angry customer in your face demanding a refund ?" Can't delete that.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

EULA's are a joke, with no legal parallel that comes to mind. If I buy a basketball, can I not play with it how I want? A EULA for a pair of underwear? *Oh, we're sorry, but you're wearing red on a saturday, which we for our own reasons say you can't do, so...you'll be hearing from our lawyers.*

 

There are certain things that people shouldn't be allowed to do. Poison the earth. Take bribes in a public office. Making EULA's.

 

What they're saying is that you never bought what you bought because it's not yours.

[Sync182]

If I buy a game, I, by default, purchase the right to play that game when and how I want, so long as the Common Laws of the land I live in are not violated (eg piracy, under-age content, violence, drugs, etc...).

 

An EULA does not, and should not, give the game producer the right or power to effectively deny or censor any negative criticism of their product.

 

If I buy a game (or other piece of software that has an EULA attached), I am entitled to voice my opinion of it, regardless of what that opinion might be. That right is given to me by the Laws of Free Speech.

 

If those software houses cannot take and accept (and, therefore, learn from) negative criticism, they should not be in the industry. Users are a picky bunch, and they can be merciless when they find a thing they don't like.

[JimboUK]

In this country goods have to be "fit for purpose", if a company stops your product functioning as EA did then that product is no longer fit for purpose. EAs EULA conflicts with the law and is thus worthless. Anyway as Marthos says, you can't see it at point of sale.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Isn't there a way to turn some big consumer interest groups onto this thing and bite these EULAs in the butt? Or would that just provoke a lawyer-ly action on the part of the gaming companies that might end up being worse than the stupid thing we have now?