EULA changed

Absurd ... only in America?

Pff, at least justice exists elsewhere in the world. Did E-bay really believe such a clause could hold?

well, well, well

i got my cc statement covering the day of my slot purchase and guess what?

NO SERVICE CHARGE AT ALL JUST THE SLOT CHARGE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS?

...

Stockholm, I'm beginning to think you have a personal vendetta against NC...

Nope, when you first bought the game you agreed that ANET has the right to alter the "agreement".

yeah... in regards to the OP--->


did you notice that it says they will delete ALL accounts with matching information?? Meaning if you have one account dedicated to farming/mule, your real account will be suspended as well!


Im scared!!! I dont even farm as it is, but now im too afraid to spam "CULT LF PPL TO JOIN OMG LOL PVP PVE etc" and district hopping copy paste, hop, paste, hop, paste, hop.... ack... dont confuse me with a bot!!!

Nope, that part was long after the sale.

Yeah, new EULA. Nothing unusual, although the bit about "we will eat your children" and forced worship of Satan was a bit over the top; I feel they had already covered most eventualities in section 14:vii-xxii where you agreed to sell your entire family into slavery. But, then again, IANAL.

What Nonsense! The EULA concerns the GAME that you installed on your computer, in this case Guild Wars, it has no bearing whatsoever on PlayNC accounts!
If you never applied for recurring charges, they can be held liable for fraud if they do so, No reputable business would dare to do something that foolish! And WHAT "no change to e-mail policy?" Is that in the EULA for GW? Or is it a requirement for having a PlayNC account? If the latter, it has no bearing on GW!
More BS! I would suspect that most GW players don't even HAVE a PlayNC account. There is no requirement to have such an account and I'm sure that as soon as (like it will ever happen) they start requiring people to have a PlayNC account (if it requires giving out CC info) there'll be a mass exodus from the game.

Originally Posted by Gaile
Quote:
Originally Posted by katya
Ouch. Personally, I wouldn't do that because if you ever need to answer an email sent for account management you're unable to do that.

However, I've been unable to find a way to change my Guild Wars game account email address recently. (I change mine + password every few months) With the advent of the store this option seems to have disappeared? Has anybody seen it?

I will try to find out about that. I was made aware of the fact just today -- that if you use the store, your account is in the PlayNC system, and that system seems to prevent changing the User Name. This is something we should either communicate about more clearly or amend, if possible.


If they have used the online store they do now, the online store is managed by PlayNC

OK, and what gave you this idea?

Like I said, you seem to have a personal vendetta against NC (An odd one if you still play GW) but you haven't even commented.

No idea what I mean?

What gives?

Not NC just PlayNC

I had to write them 3 times( thats not counting e-mails and phone calls) and put a pay stop on my CC for them to cancel my account, witch I never applied for. All I did was to take them up on a 14 day trial key to Linage, back then you had to give CC info for them to activate the trial account. Never got any charges for the game only monthly charges for the PlayNC account.


This had nothing to do with GW, it was Linage trial account that was cancelled( 24 hours after acctivation) according to NC-Softs directives, but charges for a PlayNC support account was charged and kept getting charged for even after I had disputed it with PlayNC.
So yes I have a vendetta with PlayNC

But... Why?

If you're going to slag off something PLEASE give us a valid reason that can be proven.
[EDIT] and since PlayNC is owned by NC Soft, you are technically slagging off NC Soft...

looks like the actual eula change might be innocuous, but still, it's NCSoft pulling the strings and Gaile, et al, often has to do the dirty work of relaying it in a positive light.

That being said, I'm as hardcore a player as most of the people here are, and if that PtP thing ever comes, that's the last I play anything made by NCSoft. Truth be told I've held off buying some games but that's recently changed -- got Elder Scrolls 4, Far Cry, and Call of Cthulhu a couple days ago (factions is boring as hell for the PvE'er).

Right you are! I would do the same.

If I had to pay to play I will be the one to choose the game to play. GW is a nice game, but there are others.

when they say "alternate fee structure", I think it refers to the pay for play they already have for GW in some asian countries

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10029533

Well, if we did have to pay, you'd see a much larger pve world.

Shouldn't worry about the "deleting accounts" rule if you're not gonna break any?

hey did anyone actually read the agreement thing? i wanted to know what it siad but i just accepted and i asked other people but no one read it...

So, I didn't feel like agreeing to the new UA since they failed to specify what you changed. Lo and behold, I couldn't play the game anymore.

I would just like to inform you that this is illegal over here. You can not change an EULA/UA and deny the user access to what he already has paid for and used (in this case GuildWars Prophecies and Factions). You can change the EULA/UA for any new features (like the Character slots, or the upcoming chapters) - but what they are doing here is theft and illegal under most jurisdictions in the Nordic Countries. This got Apple and iTunes in hotwater (well part of it) with our governments - because if you denied their new EULA you couldn't play what you had bought. Same thing here.

I paid for GuildWars and GuildWars:Factions, they can not legally deny me the right to play these even if I don't accept your changed UAs.

And no, simply saying in the UA/EULA that you have the right to change it at will, doesn't make it so legally when you then deny players access if they don't accept their changes. What would happen if you suddenly wrote in the UA that everyone had to give you their car, their homes and all their money? Over the top I know, but you may get the point.

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

But you folks all just click ok and sell your souls??

So, I didn't feel like agreeing to the new UA since they failed to specify what you changed. Lo and behold, I couldn't play the game anymore.

I would just like to inform you that this is illegal over here. You can not change an EULA/UA and deny the user access to what he already has paid for and used (in this case GuildWars Prophecies and Factions). You can change the EULA/UA for any new features (like the Character slots, or the upcoming chapters) - but what they are doing here is theft and illegal under most jurisdictions in the Nordic Countries. This got Apple and iTunes in hotwater (well part of it) with our governments - because if you denied their new EULA you couldn't play what you had bought. Same thing here.

I paid for GuildWars and GuildWars:Factions, they can not legally deny me the right to play these even if I don't accept your changed UAs.

And no, simply saying in the UA/EULA that you have the right to change it at will, doesn't make it so legally when you then deny players access if they don't accept their changes. What would happen if you suddenly wrote in the UA that everyone had to give you their car, their homes and all their money? Over the top I know, but you may get the point.

Furthermore, IN GAME UAs or UAs displayed while installing, or even included INSIDE a sealed container are not valid here. Any such "agreement" must be agreed upon before completion of the product... and if once opened the product can not normally be returned then the UAs is invalid.

For an international company they would do well to look beyond the anti-consumer and silly rules of the US of A.

But you folks all just click ok and sell your souls??

That's kind of different. With iTunes, you're actually buying music; here you're buying ACCESS to property owned by Anet. If you no longer agree to the terms of access, you don't play anymore. And I'm pretty sure they had provisions in place for altering the EULA.

here's the whole thing about how your account is property of Anet and not yours
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10030075

Yea....but i clicked agree after i read it, but I don't really think it was fair... but what can I do! My brother may get his account deleted anyway because he bought money off of ebay... and my account also because he gave me half.

Honestly, Guildwars is starting to become greedy and unenjoyable because of all these limitations. We can't say things without their allowance, we can't do anything without their allowance, and we can't play anything without their allowance. and worst of all they are starting to force us to do stuff! Plus i hated the "you have to be over 18 to play, if you are under 18 you need a gaurdian to play". <----That is not fair being that this is a teen rated game anyway. Kids over 13 can easily buy this game because of the rating and than not be able to play...I mean come on!....I got permission from my brother...who actuallly bought the game for me...so technically its his account but nontheless...my friends can't play! They need to do another update!

see lol, i told you i was bad in english

In the UELA stays that they may reserve the right to change the UELA so they can change it whenever they like or want it. Also i heard that if GW will be ptp that will stand on the website 30 days before it will actually happen (if i understand it correctly now)

The EULAs don't hold water in the US either*.

You can happily click OK to EULAs even if they say that you sign away your family to slavery because it's not a contract. It's not legally binding as it's a unilateral issued document which the customer doesn't sign, and it's issued AFTER the purchase. Not a contract.

It doesn't help that many/most of the terms laid out in EULAs are obviously in conflict with various customer protection legislation, or that they wont offer a refund if you refuse to accept the EULA.

The gaming companies know this, and studiously avoid having EULAs tested in court - the whole point of EULAs is to scare users in to not suing.


* This will change, not only in the US but also in the EU. Software companies are lobbying HARD to get EULAs accepted as binding contracts, and their expensive lawyers have managed to dazzle some lower courts into thinking they're right. There's little doubt eventually shrink-wrap licenses and click-to-accept EULAs will be considered contracts, much to the detriment of private citizens everywhere.

Ahem. I beleive the ESRB normally give warnings on online games: Actually experience may differ.
It may be rated T (12+ with Europe's pathetic PEGI system), but this is merely for the content on the disc. You forget that these ratings don't take into account the human part of the game: Player behaviour.
Many a time I've come across some mentally imbalanced brat who's whispered a death threat when I've made a silly comment (Never say "I need new armour and a PUG that doesn't run off while I'm still loading" after failing an early mission).

[NOTE]My guild is intended for over 18-year old players. Recruiting in Asc City once, someone piped up "this is a ****ing T rated game any1 should be able to join a guild"

Hardly a PEGI 12+ reaction now is it?

EULA.

Here's the thing Levortex, you can put it in writing, but it still has to be legally backed to hold water. As Gojensen had said, if they add a new EULA with a stipulation that you are indebted to whomever for thirty years of unspecified service, or you must sign over your car, or your first born child, etc. those are not "legal" addendums. (Note: extreme examples to show a point.)

The company can put it in writing all they want, you can even agree to it, but the law (in most countries that I am aware of) stipulates that you aren't bound to obey it.

Now, what Gojensen is talking about is the original contract with which the User and Liscense-Holder entered into was changed, and when he decided not to agree to the new changes, he was denied service/product.

If he was denied FURTHER access to future/additional products, that would be fine. But, with the denial of his account, what essentially happened is the Liscense-Holder has retroactively changed the origianl agreement to deny access without the User's concent.

Here's an example.

User A enters an agreement with Farmer B for access to a specific 2% of his land. While Farmer B still has original ownership of the specified land, he has contractually signed over Liscensing/Use to User A. This agreement has no specified end date (or renewal) that is legally accepted.

Two years later, Farmer B notifies User A that the specified agreement for the specific 2% of land has now changed. User A does not like the changes, and Farmer B tells him to leave. User A still has valid proof of the original agreement, which has not changed, and is legally eligable to maintain the specific 2% of land. Thus the eviction would be "wrongful."

--

Contracts can only be changed if all parties agree, regardless if "subjet to change" is included or not. Otherwise, you have essentially agreed to giving the Lease-Holder unlimited ability to reword the contract at will.

Now, you can put in broad/subject to change stipulations for things like violations.

For instance you can put in "Your account will be closed for X, Y, Z or any other reason moderators feel you are in violation of A, B, C, etc." but that needs to show you are in violation of some agreement.

You tend to see these though only for things that require a LOT of interpretation and even then it doesn't have much grounding.

Choosing not to agree to something new while correctly following your original agreement is not a violation.

And, to my knowledge, corporations or individuals can not contractly violate a standing Goverment's Law.

Hope this helps.

I hate my browser, sorry!

Yeah. Right. And I'm King Adelbern

Two points to this I would like to make.

1. If your laws don't allow for changing the EULA then you can just accept it anyway, since you already know you have the law on your side.

2. BUT... you apparently don't get that the EULA is not violating any of your consumer rights

The EULA rules are completely decided by the game company, no laws have any bearing on how the company decides to run the game or their server.

Feel free to try to disprove that by providing a link to such a law.

And it is the law that determines they should deliver the product that we've paid for.

Edit: And, feel free to provide a link that proves what you just said

I think it's a case of you don't know what 'product' you bought.

Awww, you're very clever aren't you *sigh*

A cat in a bag perhaps? But more seriously, there are "reasonable expectations", and other similar products to compare it with.

Too clever perhaps? I just don't feel like going on a hunt to prove or disprove something that was claimed "out of thin air".

Okay guys let us make this simple, we are getting out of topic. All I want to know is are we going to pay to play in the future or not? I read the whole thing, though it was written in english it was jibberish to me because they've used lawyer words designed for us consumer to be confused and just click ok for we just wanted to play. I would like a credible and or moderator of guildwarsguru to please have your say and let us know the answer. Thank you in advance.

short answer is no pay to play.

longer answer came from the head of customer relations the first time this came up.

asia (korea specifically) has a vast amount of internet cafes and it is common to pay by the hour for online gaming.

this part applies to them.

they also have the OPTION to make a one time unlimited play purchase of the game same as the US/EU.

the per hour game play charge is not available in the US/EU

In most countries there is a difference between 'purchased' rights and 'leased' ones. If I remember correctly, the whole i-tunes thing was caused because you were purchasing with limited rights. GW however, has always declared a leasing agreement, leaving on their side total control over the accounts.

As of this moment, it seems they have not updated their UA on the website, so you can read the old one there and compare it to the new one that appears on the client.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php

Well. I bought an online game with free-play.

Nowhere did it say on the box that I were only "leasing" it. Hence, I really have the legal right to play this game online for as long as I want. NCSoft can't shutdown the server... however if they went bankrupt that's another thing entirely.

If I didn't agree to the EULA they took away my legal rights to the product. This "leasing vs. owning" is on very thin legal footing I believe though...

And the iTunes thing. If you failed to accept the new EULA they barred you from playing the music you had previously bought. That's like UNIVERSAL coming up with a new "license" on their CD's and if you don't accept it, their mobsters storm your house and confiscate all your UNIVERSAL CDs untill you agree to the new terms. (Doesn't that sound like racketeering, theft and extortion all in one? ) AFAIK the EULA is connected with the iTunes software and not the iTunes Music Store (which I don't use...).

Anyways... just found all this very stupid and anti-consumer. And very much "American".

As for legally binding contracts I think we are a LONG way from that happening (atleast over here) unless they were presented up front and you had to sign it...

PS: Sorry for the earlier double post... this site is really sluggish at times so I guess I goofed up somewhere...

First of all, "leasing" not being on the box........ that would never hold up in court as all the terms and conditions are spelled out in the EULA. Second, Ncsoft can shutdown the server; in fact that day will inevitably come eventually. Such is the fate for any online game.

In short...

A.net will never make this game "Pay-to-play", because if they did, loads of people would quit and never return.

So lets stop the rumor mill now.

So, what agreement have you signed?

A click is not a signature, nor a mark of identification. Not yet anyway, because this is one of the things the software companies are lobbying very very hard to have changed.

As of now, EULAs are completely irrelevant to customers. They're nothing. They're a bunch of pixels on a screen, that's their sum total importance to the world.

The only power EULAs hold is psychological. It's something to point to in case of conflict with a customer, and in the vast majority of cases the customer will say "oh, damn!" and accept the authority of the EULA. Thereby saving the company (and the customer) the expense of going to court.

Now, companies COULD make a real contract with the same content as the EULA, but it'd have to be something you actually signed, and had a chance to review PRIOR to handing over the money. Companies have rightly concluded that might put people off from buying their games, so they don't want to do that. Plus you have to be adult to sign legally binding contracts, which would really hurt sales of computer games.

Not to mention that most of the provisions in EULAs are in conflict with customer protection laws - e.g. the provision you can only sue them in their own local court is laughable, as is the claim that they're never responsible for any damages caused by their product.

So - remember to vote for politicians who DON'T want to make EULAs & shrinkwrap licenses legally binding.


WRT MMO accounts, it gets a bit unclear. As far as I can see there's a conflict here between the companys right to restrict access to their computers (which they of course can do for any reason, including that they just don't like your face), and the customers reasonable expectation that the product he buys is actually functional (which MMOs aren't without access to the publishers computers). I have no idea which right would win out there.

But as far as the EULA goes, it's just a waste of electicity to display it on screen.