Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Citizen - The Incredible Video Thread

2456716

Comments

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    edited June 2016
    I meant D, E is just a sidenote which states something different. so E is in no way more appropriate because it has nothing to do with "harms the reputation of any of the RSI services"

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    E has to do with videos and this is a video thread. 

    I also quoted verbatim the part from D you probably referred to. 


    Have fun
  • VorpalChicken28VorpalChicken28 Member UncommonPosts: 348


    Mainly because it shows some of the issues I've having to
    “Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” 
    ― Terry PratchettMaking Money
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    edited June 2016
    Erillion said:

    or harms the reputation of any of the RSI Services

    Lol. Thats some rubber clause right there... I wont hold though, at least not in the EU. You cannot suppress the customers right to express thier oppinon on your products and services.

    In general most EULA's are not fully valid under EU law, so it is nothing unusual.
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    hfztt said:
    Lol. Thats some rubber clause right there... I wont hold though, at least not in the EU. You cannot suppress the customers right to express thier oppinon on your products and services.

    In general most EULA's are not fully valid under EU law, so it is nothing unusual.
    You cannot suppress the customers right to express. And do not want to.

    However, you CAN deny them access to your game  .... e.g. the Battlenet has banned hundredthousands of accounts for various reasons (including disruptive behaviour)   over the years.

    That IS allowed in the EU.


    Have fun
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    Erillion said:
    hfztt said:
    Lol. Thats some rubber clause right there... I wont hold though, at least not in the EU. You cannot suppress the customers right to express thier oppinon on your products and services.

    In general most EULA's are not fully valid under EU law, so it is nothing unusual.
    You cannot suppress the customers right to express. And do not want to.

    However, you CAN deny them access to your game  .... e.g. the Battlenet has banned hundredthousands of accounts for various reasons (including disruptive behaviour)   over the years.

    That IS allowed in the EU.

    Have fun
    Again, if the only reason is that they expressed themself against the game OUTSIDE the game, as is the case here, their only recourse is to refund the game really, to "un-customerice" the person (DS style) as their EULA has no effect outside their product/service.

    If they behave like dicks IN the game/service, then they are in their full rights, yes, but that is not what this stipulation in their EULA is about. That is expressly about behaviour OUTSIDE their product/service, and that will never be valid.

    CCP has used a lot of time to explain that they simply are not legally allowed to act on out of game behaviour on random web sites, blogs, youtube and/or teamspeak and the likes. 
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:

    or harms the reputation of any of the RSI Services

    Lol. Thats some rubber clause right there... I wont hold though, at least not in the EU. You cannot suppress the customers right to express thier oppinon on your products and services.

    In general most EULA's are not fully valid under EU law, so it is nothing unusual.
    That is sort of a broad statement to make. Here is the actual precedent.
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124564&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5213884

    It does not mean "most EULAs are not fully valid", it doesn't mean customer right always trumps copyright holder rights. It means in this instance, given this set of circumstances, this court ruled in this way. I'm not trying to argue with you, but presenting clarification of the details to the situation to which you're referring. I do not know if it even applies to SC, since SC software is essentially free anyway, but the login is regulated by the company. You can reproduce the software all you want, but connecting to servers requires an authenticated account.

    The situation in the precedent is not the argument in the thread. CIG has the right to terminate your account any time, and I support that practice. In my arguments on the subject, I've specifically discussed pr effect of locking someone's account if they, as the company, become victims of another party's fraudulent action of transferring in-game assets and subsequently having the cost of the product refunded, generally in the form of a chargeback. I've argued this is within the right of the company, but the company has created the atmosphere for such transactions to happen, for such illicit trade to occur, therefore it's more the company's culpability in the matter, reflecting who should bear the "loss". Punishing a 3rd party for it should be one of those legal, but extensively damaging to public relations, company image and further sales, moments.

    Truthfully, CIG needs no real or declared reason to end any account, as all accounts are owned by CIG. If they want to turn the whole thing off tomorrow, there's not a damn thing anyone can do to make them turn it back on.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    >>>That is expressly about behaviour OUTSIDE their product/service, and that will never be valid.>>>

    But if they use IP that is copyrighted  (which they do when they show a video of a game on a third party side AGAINST the wishes of the IP holder) then that is ground for them to be prosecuted.

    And as game company usually does not drag people to court, they simply deny access to the game to the violator by banning him. Which is absolutely allowed by the law.

    If people behave like dicks, they have to face the consequences.


    Have fun
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,236
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,254
    Meh, the damage to their dream project has already been done. Some video showing how buggy their Alpha is isn't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to concerns about where this game is headed. At this point, I'm only only interested in seeing the finished product. Err - the first thing they release in a couple of years.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Erillion said:
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

    This whole post is opening cans of worms and your generalizations are untrue. The only correct think you've implied is that CIG has the right to refuse service for any reason. Your rationale that "people are attacking CIG for the fun of it" is unfounded and a simplistic act of dismissal. Plenty of those people fully believe, as I, many of the things the company has done are seedy and wrong. I'm not going to say some people didn't just jump on the bandwagon for fun, just as you can't say some SC supporters don't just jump on the bandwagon to ostracize the opponent side, holding very little real data of facts. If there was, truly, no real reason, most of the adverse reaction would hold zero substance, and you and I both know that to be untrue. The matter becomes degree.
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    Erillion said:
     
    And as game company usually does not drag people to court, they simply deny access to the game to the violator by banning him. Which is absolutely allowed by the law.
    If the violation is within their service/rpoduct yes, else no. Seriously.

    In Denmark, if I bought for more than ~€80 (the is a minimum size requitrement of my financial burden at stake) worth of product of CIG and they pulled that, I could get the state to investigate it and force them to give me a refund, as that would be illegal, even if I talked shit about them. I am allowed to do that, and no they CANNOT act against me as long as it is not done within their product/service. And, yeah, as CIG have an office in a EU country the danish state can do that.
  • Adjuvant1Adjuvant1 Member RarePosts: 2,100
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:
     
    And as game company usually does not drag people to court, they simply deny access to the game to the violator by banning him. Which is absolutely allowed by the law.
    If the violation is within their service/rpoduct yes, else no. Seriously.

    In Denmark, if I bought for more than ~€80 (the is a minimum size requitrement of my financial burden at stake) worth of product of CIG and they pulled that, I could get the state to investigate it and force them to give me a refund, as that would be illegal, even if I talked shit about them. I am allowed to do that, and no they CANNOT act against me as long as it is not done within their product/service. And, yeah, as CIG have an office in a EU country the danish state can do that.
    That's only going to count in physical merchandise, though, as dogtags, posters, books, hats or whatever physical goods are available. You don't actually "buy 80 euros worth of spaceships", ever, and that is expressly detailed in the ToS. You are not "buying" any such property, but you are essentially "gifting"  the money and signing away your right to ask for it back. Whether or not one has actually read this agreement doesn't really matter, as that is the whole essence of the contract. I understand the rub occurs when CIG is charging VAT to the transaction, and honestly I have no clue how that affects any of this. To my understanding, and please cite an example if I'm mistaken, there's been no precedent in case law to argue this actually has any bearing on said agreement.

    Perhaps there needs to be. Until someone does that, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    Erillion said:
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

    CCP embraced and handled the Goons to their own benefit. CCP did never fight the goons directly.

    Fighting your paying customers is not a winning strategy...
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

    CCP embraced and handled the Goons to their own benefit. CCP did never fight the goons directly.

    Fighting your paying customers is not a winning strategy...
    Depends on your definition of winning. If you mean driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
  • ShodanasShodanas Member RarePosts: 1,933
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    Kefo said:
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

    CCP embraced and handled the Goons to their own benefit. CCP did never fight the goons directly.

    Fighting your paying customers is not a winning strategy...
    Depends on your definition of winning. If you mean driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

    Goons joined EVE around 2006. I see no indication that people where being driven off the game.

    'nuff said.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
    No one plays sq42 unless you are from the future and no I don't play The SC tech demo
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229

    hfztt said:
    Kefo said:
    hfztt said:
    Erillion said:
    Addendum:

    Its not about showing bugs in an Alpha build in a Youtube video. CIG has done that themselves in the past. Its about a group of people waging a propaganda war to aggrieve a company for the sole purpose of spreading chaos (because that is the groups declared purpose in life). And that group expecting CIG to turn the other cheek and get a second serving of flung poo poo without any ramifications. CCP may have suffered silently for a decade, but that does not mean that CIG has to do the same.


    Have fun

    CCP embraced and handled the Goons to their own benefit. CCP did never fight the goons directly.

    Fighting your paying customers is not a winning strategy...
    Depends on your definition of winning. If you mean driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

    Goons joined EVE around 2006. I see no indication that people where being driven off the game.

    'nuff said.
    Which was my point. CCP didn't fight the goons, their paying customers. COG on the other hand
  • ShodanasShodanas Member RarePosts: 1,933
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
    No one plays sq42 unless you are from the future and no I don't play The SC tech demo
    "..imagining you playing.." there... happy now ?

    Pity you don't play the tech demo though. This morning me and some friends had much fun for several hours in a fully functional  multi-crew ship.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
    No one plays sq42 unless you are from the future and no I don't play The SC tech demo
    "..imagining you playing.." there... happy now ?

    Pity you don't play the tech demo though. This morning me and some friends had much fun for several hours in a fully functional  multi-crew ship.
    If you guys had fun then awesome for you. My opinions of Roberts and his game will stop me from ever playing it
  • ShodanasShodanas Member RarePosts: 1,933
    edited June 2016
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
    No one plays sq42 unless you are from the future and no I don't play The SC tech demo
    "..imagining you playing.." there... happy now ?

    Pity you don't play the tech demo though. This morning me and some friends had much fun for several hours in a fully functional  multi-crew ship.
    If you guys had fun then awesome for you. My opinions of Roberts and his game will stop me from ever playing it
    So, you're not a backer obviously. You have no access to the alpha.. sorry tech demo hence you have no personal experience with it.

    You're not interested in SC / SQ42 at all.

    Then what on Earth are you doing 24/7 on SC's boards, if i may ask ?

    Are you a concerned consumer maybe ?

    Are you bored to death ?

    You don't have a game you like to go to ?

    I can help you find one.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
    Shodanas said:
    Kefo said:
      "..driving away almost your entire user base until only sycophants are left then I suppose that's "winning"
    I have a hard time imagining you play SC or SQ42.
    No one plays sq42 unless you are from the future and no I don't play The SC tech demo
    "..imagining you playing.." there... happy now ?

    Pity you don't play the tech demo though. This morning me and some friends had much fun for several hours in a fully functional  multi-crew ship.
    If you guys had fun then awesome for you. My opinions of Roberts and his game will stop me from ever playing it
    So, you're not a backer obviously. You have no access to the alpha.. sorry tech demo hence you have no personal experience with it.

    You're not interested in SC / SQ42 at all.

    Then what on Earth are you doing 24/7 on SC's boards, if i may ask ?

    Are you a concerned consumer maybe ?

    Are you bored to death ?

    You don't have a game you like to go to ?

    I can help you find one.
    I have an interest, it just differs from yours.

    Not on here 24/7 lol

    i suppose to be a concerned consumer I would have had to consume the product so let's just stick with I'm someone who expressing my dislike about the project.

    My son, job, wife and hobbies make sure im not bored to death :)

    No I do. Stardew valley, star bound and witcher 3 keep me busy with games.

    I appreciate the offer but our taste in games might not mesh and I wouldnt want to waste your time ;)
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,396
    Kefo said:
    Which was my point. CCP didn't fight the goons, their paying customers. COG on the other hand
    Ah, sorry, my bad. I misunderstood you.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    hfztt said:
    Kefo said:
    Which was my point. CCP didn't fight the goons, their paying customers. COG on the other hand
    Ah, sorry, my bad. I misunderstood you.
    Dammit just noticed the autocorrect to COG lol
Sign In or Register to comment.