Jump to content


Apparantly, you own nothing anymore. ACCEPT OR GET TERMINATED

termination new EULA ownership controversy

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

DracheimFlug #61 Posted 05 June 2018 - 10:55 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postmalachi6, on 05 June 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

As far as I am aware I have never owned any virtual goods.  It has always been a licence to use said goods.  Regard it more as an extended rental and you may better grasp the idea..

 

There is a difference though between owning a license and a rental. A rental is temporary, but you can permanently own a license. The difference between a licensed product and a wholly owned product is that you can do whatever you want with the latter, but what you can do with the former is limited by the terms of the license. That does not give the actual product owner carte blanche.

 



jabster #62 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12614 battles
  • 24,536
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDracheimFlug, on 05 June 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

 

In the EU I doubt the EULA would hold for that, and frankly, not sure that it would even in the US. I think even more controversial in the US is the suggestion that they could delete your entire account essentially arbitrarily just over something you said on a third party site. The US often takes free speech to arguably absurd lengths.

 

If the EULA has it in and you don’t own the goods then why can’t they do what they want except with very limited exceptions This is what it almost always comes down to, is the EULA removing legal rights which it cannot?

 

If it really is classed as a service then why can’t they refuse you that service based on what your opinion is, again with some limited exceptions?


Edited by jabster, 05 June 2018 - 11:32 AM.


Spurtung #63 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:46 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 67331 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostDarksteel_Plate, on 04 June 2018 - 07:53 AM, said:

Thanks to : The armoured patrol

Scource: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/

 

WGNA.

 

There's your hint.



DracheimFlug #64 Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postjabster, on 05 June 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

If the EULA has it in and you don’t own the goods then why can’t they do what they want except with very limited exceptions This is what it almost always comes down to, is the EULA removing legal rights which it cannot?

 

If it really is classed as a service then why can’t they refuse you that service based on what your opinion is, again with some limited exceptions?

 

Any contract can have clauses that would not hold up in a court of law. A contract is just an agreement after all. The question is whether it is a legally binding agreement or not and what, if any, consequences there are resulting from anything deemed one-sided or otherwise improper. 

jabster #65 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:15 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12614 battles
  • 24,536
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDracheimFlug, on 05 June 2018 - 11:55 AM, said:

 

Any contract can have clauses that would not hold up in a court of law. A contract is just an agreement after all. The question is whether it is a legally binding agreement or not and what, if any, consequences there are resulting from anything deemed one-sided or otherwise improper. 

 

Well yeh I know that which was kinda the point. If you’re providing a service, which is basically WG’s position, then the rules are rather different to when you’ve purchased something. The question is what did your cash actually ‘buy’.

DracheimFlug #66 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View Postjabster, on 05 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

 

Well yeh I know that which was kinda the point. If you’re providing a service, which is basically WG’s position, then the rules are rather different to when you’ve purchased something. The question is what did your cash actually ‘buy’.

 

Digital goods are somewhere between physical goods and services. In the EU though my understanding is that there is specific legislation covering them.

Dorander #67 Posted 05 June 2018 - 03:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18686 battles
  • 3,451
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDracheimFlug, on 05 June 2018 - 12:41 PM, said:

 

Digital goods are somewhere between physical goods and services. In the EU though my understanding is that there is specific legislation covering them.

 

There is, I've linked it a few times. However there are a few things to consider in World of Tank's situation.

 

First off, the legislation only covers software that you actually pay a representative economic value for. When you register for World of Tanks and start playing, and thus have to agree with their terms and conditions, you haven't in fact spent a dime, you register for a free to play account. I don't know of any legislation that covers this specifically, but then I haven't looked and I'm not a lawyer.

 

Secondly, the legislation only covers licenses and services of an unlimited duration. So any premium time you buy, doesn't give you any more rights than you had 'cause you agreed the corresponding service ended when the premium duration ended.

 

Which leaves gold, and premium tanks as anything you could potentially and theoretically own. I have no idea what the rules are (if any) regarding digital currently like WG's "gold". An argument can be made that you own your premium tanks, which is why at times accounts that get completely reset retain all their premium tanks and gold: the customer paid for these things. How does this interact with permanent bans? No idea, but I doubt anyone ever was silly enough to try it in court. Do people who own premium tanks even get permanently banned or do they just get their account reset?

 

 

It's equally important to realize what WoT *isn't*. What it isn't is some kind of contract between us and Wargaming where we invest our time/effort and Wargaming pays us with pixeltanks. So it doesn't matter how much you've played and grinded, none of that you own. Similarly it isn't a stand-alone piece of software, it is tied to Wargaming's service of an online game and they don't owe us that service in perpetuity, when inevitably one day their servers shut down, that's it, we can't use what we have on our accounts anymore and that includes products we paid for. But then we paid for these products, knowing full well that they were inseperably tied to the account and the online gaming service that Wargaming provides.

 

So even if you were to reasonably argue that we own anything at all, what we own is in fact very little, and it has limits. The silly thing that occurs so frequently, and consequently causes these threads, is that people assume rules are in play that really aren't, because they're used to those rules. Someone mentioned having old products like games on CDs in a box in the loft somewhere. What few people ever talk about is that CDs weren't designed (unless storage precautions were taken) to last for more much longer than 20 years or so. Does anyone actually expect that when inevitably your physical carriers, like all physical objects, deteriorate and fail, that we'd get free replacements because we once bought these things and we have a "right" to them as owners?

 

Preciously few people are ever going to be that silly. But when it comes to digital products and our temporary ownership, the sillyness knows no bounds. Wargaming isn't coming after your account or whatever you think you possess of your account. They're covering themselves legally against the most obnoxious of humans who might actually be inclined to play the "lawsuit" card and in the process waste everyone's time and money.



DracheimFlug #68 Posted 05 June 2018 - 03:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

 

There is, I've linked it a few times. However there are a few things to consider in World of Tank's situation.

 

First off, the legislation only covers software that you actually pay a representative economic value for. When you register for World of Tanks and start playing, and thus have to agree with their terms and conditions, you haven't in fact spent a dime, you register for a free to play account. I don't know of any legislation that covers this specifically, but then I haven't looked and I'm not a lawyer.

 

Secondly, the legislation only covers licenses and services of an unlimited duration. So any premium time you buy, doesn't give you any more rights than you had 'cause you agreed the corresponding service ended when the premium duration ended.

 

Which leaves gold, and premium tanks as anything you could potentially and theoretically own. I have no idea what the rules are (if any) regarding digital currently like WG's "gold". An argument can be made that you own your premium tanks, which is why at times accounts that get completely reset retain all their premium tanks and gold: the customer paid for these things. How does this interact with permanent bans? No idea, but I doubt anyone ever was silly enough to try it in court. Do people who own premium tanks even get permanently banned or do they just get their account reset?

 

 

It's equally important to realize what WoT *isn't*. What it isn't is some kind of contract between us and Wargaming where we invest our time/effort and Wargaming pays us with pixeltanks. So it doesn't matter how much you've played and grinded, none of that you own. Similarly it isn't a stand-alone piece of software, it is tied to Wargaming's service of an online game and they don't owe us that service in perpetuity, when inevitably one day their servers shut down, that's it, we can't use what we have on our accounts anymore and that includes products we paid for. But then we paid for these products, knowing full well that they were inseperably tied to the account and the online gaming service that Wargaming provides.

 

So even if you were to reasonably argue that we own anything at all, what we own is in fact very little, and it has limits. The silly thing that occurs so frequently, and consequently causes these threads, is that people assume rules are in play that really aren't, because they're used to those rules. Someone mentioned having old products like games on CDs in a box in the loft somewhere. What few people ever talk about is that CDs weren't designed (unless storage precautions were taken) to last for more much longer than 20 years or so. Does anyone actually expect that when inevitably your physical carriers, like all physical objects, deteriorate and fail, that we'd get free replacements because we once bought these things and we have a "right" to them as owners?

 

Preciously few people are ever going to be that silly. But when it comes to digital products and our temporary ownership, the sillyness knows no bounds. Wargaming isn't coming after your account or whatever you think you possess of your account. They're covering themselves legally against the most obnoxious of humans who might actually be inclined to play the "lawsuit" card and in the process waste everyone's time and money.

 

There is a difference between the game generally, i.e. log in and play (which is a service), and any given tank within the game (which is a good). While it is true that you cannot do anything with the tanks without access to the service, that does not in and of itself necessarily make the tanks 'non-goods.'

 

Again, I make the comparison to a printer. The printer is yours free and clear on purchase, but there is no obligation on anyone else's part to supply you with toner for said printer, nor to provide any maintenance needed after the warranty expires. I'd argue that WG can cut service for cause, but not so simply remove a tank that you paid for without completely cutting service (i.e. shutting down). 

 

 



Bordhaw #69 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:34 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 12885 battles
  • 3,051
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostSpurtung, on 05 June 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

 

WGNA.

 

There's your hint.

 

Exactly.

 

NA is and has always been in a world of their own. I doubt they'll even be a NA server this time next year. 



DracheimFlug #70 Posted 05 June 2018 - 08:50 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostBordhaw, on 05 June 2018 - 08:34 PM, said:

 

Exactly.

 

NA is and has always been in a world of their own. I doubt they'll even be a NA server this time next year. 

 

Actually I suspect this, that it is a step towards shutting it down or at least preparing for the possibility.

Dorander #71 Posted 05 June 2018 - 09:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18686 battles
  • 3,451
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDracheimFlug, on 05 June 2018 - 02:39 PM, said:

 

There is a difference between the game generally, i.e. log in and play (which is a service), and any given tank within the game (which is a good). While it is true that you cannot do anything with the tanks without access to the service, that does not in and of itself necessarily make the tanks 'non-goods.'

 

Again, I make the comparison to a printer. The printer is yours free and clear on purchase, but there is no obligation on anyone else's part to supply you with toner for said printer, nor to provide any maintenance needed after the warranty expires. I'd argue that WG can cut service for cause, but not so simply remove a tank that you paid for without completely cutting service (i.e. shutting down). 

 

 

 

I'd agree with your conclusion, though I'd mention that comparisons are dangerous things, because while things frequently look alike, they can be in fact totally different. Like I said, if we can be said to own anything, it's the premium tanks we've paid for. However the non-premium tanks we have not paid for, same for credits earned through gameplay, crews, etc.., and we don't even pay for the servers directly. In that sense the "toner" comparison seems to fall short (though I am not entirely sure I can see how the comparison works in the first place).

 

Honestly it seems to me that the primary problem occurs when people see MMOs of any kind as "investments" and correspondingly claim ownership of things, completely forgetting that the idea was that they were supposed to be having fun all this time.



DracheimFlug #72 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 09:06 PM, said:

 

I'd agree with your conclusion, though I'd mention that comparisons are dangerous things, because while things frequently look alike, they can be in fact totally different. Like I said, if we can be said to own anything, it's the premium tanks we've paid for. However the non-premium tanks we have not paid for, same for credits earned through gameplay, crews, etc.., and we don't even pay for the servers directly. In that sense the "toner" comparison seems to fall short (though I am not entirely sure I can see how the comparison works in the first place).

 

Honestly it seems to me that the primary problem occurs when people see MMOs of any kind as "investments" and correspondingly claim ownership of things, completely forgetting that the idea was that they were supposed to be having fun all this time.

 

I agree with you on the non-premium tanks and also on any premium tanks given away for free (or via missions with no monetary cost). 

 

As for the analogy, whether the toner is paid for or not is academic. The printer is a thing that relies on a supply or service to function. How that supply or service is provided and its cost is irrelevant to the fact that without it, the printer is useless. Printers get redesigned and and the original is taken out of production. Toner becomes hard to find or impossible to find. No printer manufacturer has been sued over this. Similarly, the digital tanks are useless without the game servers. Digital tanks that you have paid for become useless if the servers are shut down. But like the printer, I argue that they are likely still 'yours' within the limits of the license. 



unhappy_bunny #73 Posted 06 June 2018 - 12:48 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18773 battles
  • 2,991
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

I get the thread title now.

 

The attempted murder of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on UK soil has led many to point the finger at Moscow.

 

It wasnt Moscow, or Putin, or the Russian authorities that carried out the attack. It wasnt because he defected to the West.

 

It was because he refused to accept the new EULA. Be warned. Take notice of the OP. Accept or be terminated. 



Hedgehog1963 #74 Posted 06 June 2018 - 03:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 51852 battles
  • 7,733
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 04 June 2018 - 06:44 AM, said:

Ah, the Daily Mail of WoT.

 

 

Ouch!

Gremlin182 #75 Posted 06 June 2018 - 03:13 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 50893 battles
  • 8,461
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

Pathetic scrambling for all and any excuse to knock wargaming.

This one accusing them of doing what every other game manufacturer does.

All online games are like this.

 

If you have a problem with this company then stick to the truth do not embellish it to try to make your point more appealing.

Stick to the honest facts



DracheimFlug #76 Posted 06 June 2018 - 03:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9513 battles
  • 4,050
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostGremlin182, on 06 June 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

Pathetic scrambling for all and any excuse to knock wargaming.

This one accusing them of doing what every other game manufacturer does.

All online games are like this.

 

If you have a problem with this company then stick to the truth do not embellish it to try to make your point more appealing.

Stick to the honest facts

 

Not sure that other companies go so far as to threaten banning over things said on third party sites....  I am normally pretty quick to defend WG but that one is a bit far for me unless they use it only in extreme cases.

unhappy_bunny #77 Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:58 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18773 battles
  • 2,991
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostDracheimFlug, on 06 June 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

Not sure that other companies go so far as to threaten banning over things said on third party sites....  I am normally pretty quick to defend WG but that one is a bit far for me unless they use it only in extreme cases.

 

If you ran a games review site and you slagged off WoT and WG in particular, the I doubt they could do much about it, especially if you kept your WG account secret. Likewise, if you participate on a forum outside of WoT and you desire to critise Wot or WG, as long as you have not disclosed your ID for WoT then there should be nothing that WG can do about it.

If you run a "fansite" or site that uses material, logos, data, and other stuff supplied by Wg and is done with WG's permission and you decide to slagg Wot and WG off, then they are fully entitled to pull the plug on your info and cancel your account. By setting up that site and agreeing to the EULA in order to gain access to that info and materials you accept that your site should abide by the rules you agreed to. A case of "dont bite the hand that feeds you".

 

 


Edited by unhappy_bunny, 06 June 2018 - 06:36 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users