Concerns about the new EULA

Show us on your reward log where Marty touched you

Well, are you a He-Man action figure?

No, they say that, by agreeing to the EULA, you stating that you ARE sane.

If you aren't, well... you lied, how were they supposed to know? They were acting in good faith on your agreement to the EULA, and your assertion that you are sane.

So, when you go into massive addiction to the game and lose the borders between fantasy and reality, it's not their fault. And you can't sue them over it.

Simple.

Well, there was less-insulty Taser from when you posted on Unleashed. I guess that guy died in some sort of flame war?

Whoa. Easy there. I appreciate the interest, but if you'd stop eyeing me like a piece of meat, I'd trust your intentions more.

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser-brains

Curious. You're still posting.
This leaves two options:
1) You're blinded by fandom. (Admittedly you could be blinded by fandom of homoerotic lucha libre and Japanese wrestling slash fics, and not City of Heroes, since the nature of the fandom wasn't specified.)
2) You don't listen to yourself.

The rest of this post has absolutely nothing to do with MAD UMLAUTS.

While i am concerned somewhat by how much broader the new EULA wording appears to be i'm not about to quit just yet. i will continue following any reasonable discussions with interest, and even some of the less reasonable but at least intelligible discussions. Gibbering lunacy will be skipped over.

Westley has at least avoided gibbering lunacy even of some of his arguments are hindered by misunderstanding/misuse of the terms he's using. Unlike some others here. That is to say i understand many of the concerns being raised even if some of the objections involve irrelevant/fallacious assertions.

What does MARTy have to do with the EULA? MARTy isn't even a client side system: its a server side system. And nothing in the EULA past or present addresses such a thing. And MARTy's not the first reward throttle implemented in the game.

Now it's just getting creepy. I was just about to post that exact response.

Edit: Though, if Westley was right, what civil liberties are MARTy trampling on?

The right to dare farms?

No way that would last. Sue Richards is obviously a beard for the three way of the men on the FF. All three of them treat each other like they are married.


Blast it, are we back to the EULA? That is not nearly as interesting as the ****-eroticism in comic books.

You leave Stan Bush out of this!

The civil liberties thing was dumb, but I stand by "I retract all my comments" since I never commented on that specifically in the first place.

Seems like MARTy is precisely the kind of monitoring they were talking about in the EULA. Monitoring is one thing, throttling is quite another. I'd be fine if it were just in AE, which never should have had rewards to begin with, but I really don't buy the argument that this will only affect people who "solo every AV in the game simultaneously" (who even does this?), and I especially don't buy that it will somehow be completely flawless and not ever throttle completely innocent people.

I don't get that one either.

I'm fairly certain there is no wording in the current EULA about allowing them to view anything in your PCs memory or on its storage devices. Setting aside whether or not the EULA can actually grant them that right, I think that section is new. If it's not, then I'll gladly stand corrected. (I won't be happy about the current EULA saying that and my not realizing it, but that's separate from the discussions here.)

I'd check myself, but I'm logged in to a raid waiting for it to start, so I can't sign in again to view the in-client EULA.

Its important to be clear on legal terminology here. The EULA doesn't by virtue of its existence grant NCSoft any rights. The EULA in effect *asks* the user to grant those rights, and failure to do so means you have no legal right to use the service. They are basically asking for a trade: give us these rights, and we will let you connect to the servers. The EULA cannot *force* itself upon you: they can't, say, force you to install the game client. But they can forbid you from using the service until you agree to those terms.

From a strictly legal perspective, this agreement is not forced: its voluntary. Because the player has the legal recourse of terminating the contract and ceasing the use of the service. I do not believe there are any terms in which the EULA does not allow this course of action, beyond some terms that are enforced beyond that on technicalities. Whatever else you might think about the reasonableness of the EULA's terms, the EULA is not specifically granting anything to itself it cannot grant: its asking the player to grant them and the player does have the right to grant those things, or else they are not entitled to play.

They are monitoring the activity on their own servers. Are you saying there's a problem with monitoring the activity on their own servers? The EULA does not grant that right explicitly, because there's no need to grant such a right in the EULA: its not something you had any say in in the first place.

All of that is understoood. Edit: By me, at least.

As I mentioned earlier, I want to play their game. By doing so, I ostensibly grant them the rights set forth in the EULA. I do not like some of what's in the EULA that I would now quite explicitly grant them by playing, local law allowing, so I am using this thread to speak about that.

You are correct. The current EULA (updated March 2010) does not directly reference any right to monitor the hardware on your machine. It is worth noting that the updated EULA specifically calls this out under the Privacy clause. In its current form, the EULA only mentions the the privacy policy on the NCsoft website and states:

The Privacy Policy itself was last updated October 2007. It has no provision for monitoring the hardware on your system.

I have to wonder: if the indirect reference to the Privacy Policy as it appears in the current EULA had been kept and the Privacy Policy had been modified instead, would anyone have noticed what they were agreeing to had changed?

Edit: Just for kicks, I went over and checked the agreements on the other (not naming names since that's a violation these days) MMO I play. No provisions for monitoring my hardware there. So I find little credibility in "everyone else is doing it" arguments supporting the new clause.

... as is your right.

Better luck next time

I thought that helmet looked WAY WAY WAAAAAY BETTER than the one used in the original trilogy.