There are some programs that can be used to cheat in MMORPGs, but also have other, non-cheating uses. Macro software certainly fits that criterion. Even among programs that are only for cheating in games, cheating in single-player games doesn't affect anyone else and is a legitimate thing to do. So having such programs on your computer that aren't specific to a particular game may be reasonable for someone who isn't cheating in online games.
However, you have to be smart about your usage of cheat programs. If you're not cheating, don't make it look like you are. Don't have cheat programs that could allow you to cheat in online games running while you're playing those online games. That's what got people banned in Guild Wars 2, and even if they weren't using the programs to cheat at the game (which most of them probably were), they still got banned for being stupid.
ArenaNet wasn't combing through your file system looking to see if you had cheat programs installed on your computer. They checked to see if you had programs that could be used to cheat at GW2 running at the same time as GW2. And even then, the ban was only if they were running concurrently for "a significant number of hours". So even if you did cheat outright for 5 minutes, that wouldn't have gotten you banned.
1) Did they have consent to check your processes?
2) Do you know for sure that all of the programs they checked for can actually be used to cheat in GW2?
To answer this Question:
1) YES. When you Sign the EULA/TOS, they say clearly, in bold and ALL CAPS, that they reserve the right to monitor your system, at their discretion, for anything pertaining to their product or service. TOS/EULA are classified as ClickWrap, and count as a legally binding contracts.
2) YES. Every program they were looking for, and listed as a Hack or Cheat program can modify their game system enough to count as cheating, botting, and hacking, they also ensure that you had to have one or more of the programs actively running for an extended amount of hours over a multi-week time frame to be receive a ban for cheating, not just simply in a file somewhere on your system, or a one time fluke.
1. TOS/EULA are definitely not legally binding contracts in all countries. In some countries you have to actually sign a contract. Just clicking something is not enough.
2. How do you know this? Or are you just assuming this? Do you have a link? (genuinely curious about this)
1) I got into a wonderful discussion about this very subject on the legality of an EULA on these very forums, and make no mistake, in this digital age, the EULA that game companies make you sign, are very enforceable in all industrialized nations.
2) Anet posted a list of the programs, all of which are known hack programs, and on their Reddit and official forums, people went from "I'm not cheating, it was just TacO" to "Well, you can't prove I was using them to cheat" to "Well I'm upset that you caught me so I am going to cry about you spying on me"
1. Not true at all. Definitely not in several western European countries.
The problem here is you buy a game and not until you install it, you click something. Which is not a legal contract in those countries and definitely not after an update that comes with an updated EULA. That a company calls their product a 'service' does not change this. It is seen as changing the requirements for purchase after the purchase already has been done. Not to mention that to elevate it to a contract, it has to be signed. Clicking a button is not valid for this.
You are confusing Broswer-Wrap with Click-Wrap, like I said, it was a long discussion, that ends with EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract.
Maybe if you automatically assume that the customer and company are in the same country with the same laws.
Many laws considering customer rights and privacy are very different between countries (especially between US company and EU citizen), making a lot of EULA's not enforceable to begin with.
What makes it more complicated is that how the EULA is presented and 'signed'. There is no way of telling that the customer actually understood or even read the EULA. This scenario is treated differently in different countries and is under review in some countries.
Any change to the EULA after purchase is a one sided dictation of changes. When doing this with a once paid for product (a license is a product too), it can lead to the right of a refund. Now is this a situation that is still new for digital products and for some countries it leads to an unsure legal issue because of lack of precedents. But you can expect that this will change, because with any other product, the moment EULA gets changed after purchase, the customer has the right to end agreement and stop payment directly (and/or ask for refund in the case of advance payment). Where I live anyway.
Simple expamples , any case of Facebook, Google or Microsoft being fined or forced to change their privacy options for customers. The customers all clicked an EULA, but those were simply not legal/fair after review. This could happen to many games' EULA too, but this needs some precedents first.
The real issue is EULAs contain agreements for issues near and dear to everyones hearts, like personal identity, and stuff not so important, like who can use an account.
I noticed ANET carefully avoids one area that in the EU courts sided with consumers, the right to trade or sell the physical media (which no longer exists these days on PCs.)
Even though you can sell the media, they retain the account and license which you can't sell. I'm not yet aware of a court ruling that says you own these accounts, though some courts uphold a customers right to a refund if they are cancelled or shut down.
In America, Autodesk settled that one, and made it clear that the client does not own the digital property in any means, that is why MMO's have you sign a Licence Agreement not simply a ToS as a normal service provider would.
Not sure on EU law, but that might explain why larger MMO's divide their game by local providers, so that the local provider can deal with the regional laws and legal issues. Also explains why some games like BDO and WoW, do not allow people from some regions to interact with the game in other regions, and will outright require them to deal with their local provider to play or access the game.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
1) I got into a wonderful discussion about this very subject on the legality of an EULA on these very forums, and make no mistake, in this digital age, the EULA that game companies make you sign, are very enforceable in all industrialized nations.
It depends. EULA provisions that allow them to ban you are generally enforceable. If buried somewhere in the EULA was that by clicking "I agree", you promise to pay them $10,000, courts aren't going to enforce that.
Guess this is why I don't trust Anti Cheat programs not only are they slowing an entire users system down especially those who run multiple tasks, but they also scan all memory processes for cheats or whatever they define as a cheat that isn't even being used to cheat their game aka Cheat Engine for example or 3rd party mods that are not even for Guild Wars 2.
A cheater sticking up for cheaters? That's shocking /sarcasm
Not everyone uses Cheat Engine to cheat online games though, some players like to have such tools on their PC for use in single player games thus users should not get banned just for having it there.
It's like Modding "Skyrim" for example is cheating but it's a single player game so no one gets banned but let's say you're using Cheat Engine or a 3rd party reskin mod for Skyrim and leave it running GW2 could ban you because it thinks you're trying to cheat the game.
Real Cheaters who actually intend to cheat the game by all means I got no problem with getting rid of those, although some game companies don't really know the definition of cheating and intended game-play given the most of companies don't consider trading in a game cheating still, nor do they action it which is great to know.
ArenaNet should not and did not ban people merely for having Cheat Engine installed on their computers. They banned people for having it running at the same time as they were playing Guild Wars 2. There's nothing wrong with using it to cheat at single player games, but you have to be smart enough to not leave it running while you play online games where cheating matters.
So turn off the cheat engine software before logging in to online games, heck restart your computer before starting.
But you know, cheating in even single player games is lame, right?
When I played Europa Universalis II, I thought that the game was more interesting if missionaries and colonists had 100% success rates but loans were banned. I routinely edited saved game files to make that happen. Yes, that's cheating. But Paradox apparently found that sort of cheating so distressing that they added them as game options (i.e., no longer cheating) in Europa Universalis III.
Seems logical to shut down programs that could potentially cheat while playing an online game, even if it has a lot of harmless features for single player games or just in general.
Though my main concern is thus:
Those false positives, which ANET said themselves is possible since they have no proof that they were cheating.
Public computers -- Either cafes or computers that you grant access to your kids, parents, friends, etc. They could download things and keep stuff running when you get to them (or have them set up to run instantly once starting the computer). Though playing in an internet cafe should really only be done if you have 2-fold security and change your password on your main computer when you get to it.
People who play multiple games at once. Personally, I have several MMOs open at one time -- as well as many single player games that I tend to mod quite a bit. Though these mods mainly come from steam workshop nowadays or nexus and only a couple third party tools are needed -- such as those with Stardew Valley.
They could also easily cross reference any unusual gains while they detected these programs running. Something I'm not entirely sure they have done. See if someone was just talking with people or afking in town or repeatedly doing the same motion with their accounts acquiring some noticeable advancements.
Though given that they said they had no proof, I don't think they did the above. Which seems like a half-hearted and lazy measure.
I haven't played the game more than maybe three hours in the past month or so. Probably 9 hours in the past 12 months. And I haven't any of those programs downloaded on my computer... though now I'll be a little paranoid to use mod programs or running multiple instances on games while playing ANET products. Which is a no go for me, as I won't be ruled over by fear of such and it's basically asking me to pick my favorite games versus two of theirs -- with one of those two being incredibly subpar as it is.
They're not locking you up in prison for 10 years. They don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to justify a ban. If 90% of the people who they banned were actually cheating at GW2 and the other 10% was being stupid and reckless in making it look like they were cheating even though they weren't, then it's perfectly reasonable for ArenaNet to just ban them all.
Tracking down the fine details in every single case and conclusively proving that each particular person was cheating is too hard and too expensive to be practical. The alternatives that ArenaNet realistically faced are:
1) Let cheaters keep on cheating and ruining the game for honest players for the sake of avoiding banning a handful of false positives who were running cheat programs while playing GW2 but not using them to actually cheat in GW2 2) Ban the people who were probably cheating even though there were probably a handful of false positives mixed in there.
They chose option (2), as well I think they should have.
So turn off the cheat engine software before logging in to online games, heck restart your computer before starting.
But you know, cheating in even single player games is lame, right?
When I played Europa Universalis II, I thought that the game was more interesting if missionaries and colonists had 100% success rates but loans were banned. I routinely edited saved game files to make that happen. Yes, that's cheating. But Paradox apparently found that sort of cheating so distressing that they added them as game options (i.e., no longer cheating) in Europa Universalis III.
A lot of classic turn-based CRPGs, like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale, had lua consoles you could open in the game and alter things. In those cases I agree with you. In cases where single player games have leaderboards, or similar rankings, then I think it's not appropriate.
I went through a phase where I loved to tinker. My first game was Ultima 3 (on an Apple II) and my friend and I used a hex editor to completely redesign the maps, npcs, and encounters. That was awesome.
If there's a shared leaderboard with other players who connect to it online, then it's no longer purely a single-player game.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
This debate between us is not about the validity of a Eula or Digital Clickwrap contract. I'm not arguing that these things are invalid.
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
Buhahahahahahaha
If it's legal, it's legal. That is all that matters.
Hand Signed, with a Lawyer present, you still can't sign away any rights protected under the consumer protection act, or require anyone to do something illegal.
If you think having a signature on the document vs having digitally clicked "accept" some how means the EULA is more or less enforceable, you are the one that has not been paying attention, you might want to read the links I provided.
Digital EULA's are a legally binding contract, on the same level as a signature.
As such, you can be taken to court and the courts no longer question if you are accountable as having agreed to them, to the same extent of the law that a signed paper contract is, and all of them.. your ONLY recourse is to find a loop hole within the contract itself. Under No chance will you able to say "I didn't agree to that"
If you don't get that.. well.. You're gonna have a bad time in the digital age, like the cheaters that just discovered that.. Yes.. what Anet did was legal, and the contract is binding, and beyond having a pissy pity party about it, there is not a damn thing they can do, just like if they signed the contract in blood.
Seems things are not so black and white as you would lead people to believe.
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
This debate between us is not about the validity of a Eula or Digital Clickwrap contract. I'm not arguing that these things are invalid.
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
Buhahahahahahaha
If it's legal, it's legal. That is all that matters.
Hand Signed, with a Lawyer present, you still can't sign away any rights protected under the consumer protection act, or require anyone to do something illegal.
If you think having a signature on the document vs having digitally clicked "accept" some how means the EULA is more or less enforceable, you are the one that has not been paying attention, you might want to read the links I provided.
Digital EULA's are a legally binding contract, on the same level as a signature.
As such, you can be taken to court and the courts no longer question if you are accountable as having agreed to them, to the same extent of the law that a signed paper contract is, and all of them.. your ONLY recourse is to find a loop hole within the contract itself. Under No chance will you able to say "I didn't agree to that"
If you don't get that.. well.. You're gonna have a bad time in the digital age, like the cheaters that just discovered that.. Yes.. what Anet did was legal, and the contract is binding, and beyond having a pissy pity party about it, there is not a damn thing they can do, just like if they signed the contract in blood.
Seems things are not so black and white as you would lead people to believe.
The article brings up a point that I've mentioned before: these transactions aren't actual purchases of software, but they're always, always framed as such to the consumer. As such, general consumers have every reason to expect the transaction will mimic the other purchases they make in their normal lives. Better transparency is needed.
The article brings up a point that I've mentioned before: these transactions aren't actual purchases of software, but they're always, always framed as such to the consumer. As such, general consumers have every reason to expect the transaction will mimic the other purchases they make in their normal lives. Better transparency is needed.
It's a paper and what it says to me is that there is no legal consensus and the uppers that be need to set the goal posts.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Any Update to the EULA, by Arena Net, is at the Account Sign in, so, only the person singing into that account should be seeing or agreeing to the EULA.
If anyone else is using the account in any way, that is a violation of the original account creation EULA.
So if under any circumstance anyone but the account creator is doing anything on an account, that account can be legally terminated by Anet.
lol
So Anet is going to cancel my account for letting my little grandson fuck with my game?
priceless
If you are old enough to have grand kids, you're too old to be this Juvenal clueless. Really, you are fussing like 12 year old that can't get their way.
"EULA's are just as enforceable as any written and hand signed contract"
If you really think they aren't, then you are the one who is clueless.
Digital Clickwrap Contracts are routinely held up in court, as often as traditional contracts, and clicking the accept button is a legally binding contract between you and the provider.
Unlike browsewrap agreements, courts have routinely upheld clickwrap agreements.30 The enforceability of these agreements turns not on the label of “clickwrap,” but rather whether the party had constructive notice of the terms of the agreement and thus agreed to be bound by them.31
And yes.. Anet can cancel your account for letting your grandchild play on your account, unless you are the legal parent or guardian.
Now, given you did not know that EULA's can be digital or written, I am not surprised you are laughing, as unfounded vanity and ego are the anesthesia that dullens the pain of one's own stupidity.
EULA just means "End User Licence Agreement" and you signed one when you got your programs, just like you agreed to one when you installed Guild Wars 2. And both of them are legally binding.
People live in a dream world where they think they will get out of it, but, reality check.. they won't. The last remaining Loot Holes people used to (often in the forum of Ignorance) have been closed up by major companies these days, where now, the only means of contention people have, is in arguing the legality of the EULA, and if there are any conflicts with regional and local laws, but the fact they agreed to it, at this point in the digital age, is no longer in question.
This debate between us is not about the validity of a Eula or Digital Clickwrap contract. I'm not arguing that these things are invalid.
A written, hand signed contract is more enforceable and carries more clout than a digital clickwrap contract.
A written hand signed contract with witness's is more enforceable and carries more clout than a written and hand signed contract.
A written and hand signed contract with legal representation on both sides is more enforceable and carries more clout than a hand signed contract with witnesses.
If you don't get this, well I really don't know what to say except that I'll agree to disagree.
Buhahahahahahaha
If it's legal, it's legal. That is all that matters.
Hand Signed, with a Lawyer present, you still can't sign away any rights protected under the consumer protection act, or require anyone to do something illegal.
If you think having a signature on the document vs having digitally clicked "accept" some how means the EULA is more or less enforceable, you are the one that has not been paying attention, you might want to read the links I provided.
Digital EULA's are a legally binding contract, on the same level as a signature.
As such, you can be taken to court and the courts no longer question if you are accountable as having agreed to them, to the same extent of the law that a signed paper contract is, and all of them.. your ONLY recourse is to find a loop hole within the contract itself. Under No chance will you able to say "I didn't agree to that"
If you don't get that.. well.. You're gonna have a bad time in the digital age, like the cheaters that just discovered that.. Yes.. what Anet did was legal, and the contract is binding, and beyond having a pissy pity party about it, there is not a damn thing they can do, just like if they signed the contract in blood.
Seems things are not so black and white as you would lead people to believe.
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Welcome to the Digital Age.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Though so far that decision is applied to downloadable software, but a German court decided it does not give the right to sell downloadable games.
It's a gray area. Legislation is always coming a decade or two behind new business models.
That depends on the Software, and the EULA behind it.
Autodesk set this one down in 2010, that you do NOT own their Software, You get a Licence to use it, this in no way applies any kind of ownership.
If you read the EULA of most MMO's, they also will state that your usage of THEIR software, is contingent upon you maintaining an account in good standing with them.
This in no way means that there are not games out there that you can't sell or re-sell. It's really about the EULA (if any) that you signed.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The real issue is EULAs contain agreements for issues near and dear to everyones hearts, like personal identity, and stuff not so important, like who can use an account.
I noticed ANET carefully avoids one area that in the EU courts sided with consumers, the right to trade or sell the physical media (which no longer exists these days on PCs.)
Even though you can sell the media, they retain the account and license which you can't sell. I'm not yet aware of a court ruling that says you own these accounts, though some courts uphold a customers right to a refund if they are cancelled or shut down.
Lol, I think it is most PC companies worst nightmare if the EU court got hold of that one. They all avoid that like the plagueif the courts figured out that they are "renting" out the account but pretend that they sell it they would loose a lot of money. And I have a feeling EA and Activision wont be grateful to whoever let that one go to court.
Let's face it, most people spend days in a B2P game today, at best a couple of weeks. If they resold it and it got resold again and so on they would loose tons of money, most games would be resold several times then which would hurt badly.
Of course if the game were better and more long term fun it would not be such a big issue and if the courts forced the issue that is what the devs would have to do to keep their profits but that is way more work then just throw out something fast and market it like the next big thing.
But I don't see why ANET would be special here, EA and Activision would loose way more money on it and so would most larger game companies. Even F2P games would loose revenue if you could sell accounts that already had been owned by a whale who tired of the game.
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Though so far that decision is applied to downloadable software, but a German court decided it does not give the right to sell downloadable games.
It's a gray area. Legislation is always coming a decade or two behind new business models.
Also, that is only in regards to selling "Used Licence Agreements" Autodesk set it down that if in the EULA they do not allow you to transfer their licence in the "First Sale" EULA, that holds, and this the original seller cannot re-sell or transfer licence ownership in any way, what happened here was a company was allowed to sell a "used licence" and that is where things went sideways.
MMO's (for the most part) do not allow you to transfer or sell your account (your licence to use their game) by any means.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Though so far that decision is applied to downloadable software, but a German court decided it does not give the right to sell downloadable games.
It's a gray area. Legislation is always coming a decade or two behind new business models.
Also, that is only in regards to selling "Used Licence Agreements" Autodesk set it down that if in the EULA they do not allow you to transfer their licence in the "First Sale" EULA, that holds, and this the original seller cannot re-sell or transfer licence ownership in any way, what happened here was a company was allowed to sell a "used licence" and that is where things went sideways.
MMO's (for the most part) do not allow you to transfer or sell your account (your licence to use their game) by any means.
No. This is a situation where both Autodesk and Oracle forbade resale of their software in their license agreements.
USA court ruled that the license agreement must be followed. EU court ruled that if the license is perpetual you're allowed to resell it.
That is a great article, and it was one of the many loop holes that has since been closed. If you noticed the last time you needed to agree to an EULA, most notably the one by Arena Net to Install and play GW2, they required you to scroll to the end of the EULA, before being able to click "I agree", if you install any MMO, you will notice this now common practice.
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Though so far that decision is applied to downloadable software, but a German court decided it does not give the right to sell downloadable games.
It's a gray area. Legislation is always coming a decade or two behind new business models.
Also, that is only in regards to selling "Used Licence Agreements" Autodesk set it down that if in the EULA they do not allow you to transfer their licence in the "First Sale" EULA, that holds, and this the original seller cannot re-sell or transfer licence ownership in any way, what happened here was a company was allowed to sell a "used licence" and that is where things went sideways.
MMO's (for the most part) do not allow you to transfer or sell your account (your licence to use their game) by any means.
No. This is a situation where both Autodesk and Oracle forbade resale of their software in their license agreements.
USA court ruled that the license agreement must be followed. EU court ruled that if the license is perpetual you're allowed to resell it.
After looking into it, You are correct, however this in no means makes an EULA any less binding, nor changes that it is an agreed upon contract.
This is simply a change in the legal limits of the EULA, much in the same way Consumer Protection Laws, limit what contracts can and cannot say, and this law would apply to any and all EULA's, no matter how one agrees to them, regardless if they were signed in blood with a lawyer and king present or if someone clicked "I agree" on their PC.
But this does explain why Autodesk also forbids the Transport of their Product Outside the US, so, I guess that is one way to handle a situation where the law is against you, simply do not sell your product in those regions.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
Not sure on EU law, but that might explain why larger MMO's divide their game by local providers, so that the local provider can deal with the regional laws and legal issues. Also explains why some games like BDO and WoW, do not allow people from some regions to interact with the game in other regions, and will outright require them to deal with their local provider to play or access the game.
Tracking down the fine details in every single case and conclusively proving that each particular person was cheating is too hard and too expensive to be practical. The alternatives that ArenaNet realistically faced are:
1) Let cheaters keep on cheating and ruining the game for honest players for the sake of avoiding banning a handful of false positives who were running cheat programs while playing GW2 but not using them to actually cheat in GW2
2) Ban the people who were probably cheating even though there were probably a handful of false positives mixed in there.
They chose option (2), as well I think they should have.
http://lawscl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=wslawreview
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Also, Autodesk, already won the case in regards to first sale doctrine, as MMO's do not sell you the game, they give you a licence to use it, under no circumstance does the purchaser ever own the software, much in the same way you have 4 seats of High End Software, but, thanks to the EULA you signed, you do not own it, nor shall you ever own it, and this also holds to the first clause agreement, and has been upheld in court, and applies to most (if not all modern MMO's)
Now, if you read through that, you would know that since 1996 (that's 22 years ago for old farts that think last year was the 90's) Clickwrap Agreements (like the EULA of MMO's) have been deemed Legally Enforceable the same as any other kind of EULA (Ergo, one with your written signature on it)
Now, when it comes to cheaters, that issue was addressed in that article, and set to rest in 2004.
It's 2018, maybe back in the say of roto-dial phones, and the era before the internet took over, a written signature was worth more then a click.. but.. not in today's modern America. I hear there are still some EU and Eastern nations that still have not caught up.. but.. for anyone born in the good ol' US of A..
Welcome to the Digital Age.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2505356/it-management/eu-court-rules-resale-of-used-software-licenses-is-legal----even-online.html
Though so far that decision is applied to downloadable software, but a German court decided it does not give the right to sell downloadable games.
It's a gray area. Legislation is always coming a decade or two behind new business models.
Autodesk set this one down in 2010, that you do NOT own their Software, You get a Licence to use it, this in no way applies any kind of ownership.
If you read the EULA of most MMO's, they also will state that your usage of THEIR software, is contingent upon you maintaining an account in good standing with them.
This in no way means that there are not games out there that you can't sell or re-sell. It's really about the EULA (if any) that you signed.
Let's face it, most people spend days in a B2P game today, at best a couple of weeks. If they resold it and it got resold again and so on they would loose tons of money, most games would be resold several times then which would hurt badly.
Of course if the game were better and more long term fun it would not be such a big issue and if the courts forced the issue that is what the devs would have to do to keep their profits but that is way more work then just throw out something fast and market it like the next big thing.
But I don't see why ANET would be special here, EA and Activision would loose way more money on it and so would most larger game companies. Even F2P games would loose revenue if you could sell accounts that already had been owned by a whale who tired of the game.
MMO's (for the most part) do not allow you to transfer or sell your account (your licence to use their game) by any means.
USA court ruled that the license agreement must be followed. EU court ruled that if the license is perpetual you're allowed to resell it.
This is simply a change in the legal limits of the EULA, much in the same way Consumer Protection Laws, limit what contracts can and cannot say, and this law would apply to any and all EULA's, no matter how one agrees to them, regardless if they were signed in blood with a lawyer and king present or if someone clicked "I agree" on their PC.
But this does explain why Autodesk also forbids the Transport of their Product Outside the US, so, I guess that is one way to handle a situation where the law is against you, simply do not sell your product in those regions.