Response from NCsoft Support (About Refunds)


Ad Astra

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rylas View Post
Again, two different things being discussed in what you've quoted.

Trying to sway others into boycotting a company in hopes of getting a game saved or in hopes of ruining their finances is one thing. Saying you no longer want to do business with a company on a personal level because you find their lack of business ethics a turn off is another.
Yep. The decision to close CoH and give the players three months' notice sucks, but it's NCSoft's prerogative, and frankly it's a fair enough arrangement in principle (for the players; the developers deserve sympathy).

But if NCSoft decides to keep money paid for CoH subscription time that NC can no longer deliver? That's on a different level of shady. Granted, none of this stuff is set in stone as of yet, but FWIW I wasn't truly angry about NC's handling of the situation until the store-credit thing became news around these parts. And I'm not personally affected because I cancelled my sub on August 31st, so it's purely a matter of principle.

I've seen the way MMOs in general and NC in particular advertise long-term subscription bundles ("A SAVINGS OF 30%!"); if NC's going to hide behind the EULA to force people who paid for post-November CoH time to subscribe to Aion instead, then NC is not acting in good faith. Their refund policies, AFAIK, are not prominently displayed in easily understood language prior to sale, and therefore you can make a very strong argument that their refund policies are invalid, at least in various states in the US.

Now whether it'd be worth the effort to inquire with a lawyer or actually take steps to sue NCSoft is a whole nother kettle of fish. Personally, I'd say no; even if you paid up for a full year on the very day (Aug 31st) that CoH's cancellation was announced, you're only talking about what? About $100? The time and effort that would go into a lawsuit, even before you consider potential legal fees, is probably worth far more than whatever money you stand to lose.

I don't think the intent here on anyone's part is to offer legal advice; my intent is simply to offer encouragement to people who might otherwise feel like the EULA is an iron-clad guarantee that they have no recourse against NC. You do at least have an argument, and if you make enough noise, there's a chance NC will give in without a lawyer's interference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unhearted View Post
You have GOT to be kidding me. I paid $45 for 3 months the day before they announced the game shutting down. That is complete and utter ********. They OWE me a refund.

I agree with you. I got billed for 3 months a few days (Aug 26/27) before the sneaky long weekend announcement (likely NC Soft hoping it would all blow over quickly and many news outlets would overlook what happened). My subscription like yours is virtually useless since many servers are like a ghost town (even Infinity where I usually hang is very quiet - I think there are only NPCs left on Guardian last I looked). I suspect we will see no refunds though and we will likely be led to the service shutdown with little information and lots of disinformation/rumours. I am sure days before the shutdown, NC Soft will pretend to be nice and will throw us a line to join Guild Wars 2 (Similar to what happened with Tabula Rasa). I am pretty disgusted myself at this stage with the lack of information and the disregard for the players who are paying for a service with their hard earned money.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
This is the relevant part of the EULA:
Quote:
(b) You acknowledge, and further agree, that You have no IP right related to any Account ID, any NCsoft Message Board ID, any communication or information on any NCsoft Message Board provided by You or anyone else, any information, feedback or communication related to the Game, any Character ID or characteristics related to a Character ID, any combination of the foregoing or parts thereof, or any combination of the foregoing with any Service, Content, Software, or parts thereof. To the extent You may claim any such IP right(s), You hereby grant NCsoft a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, sub-licensable, perpetual and irrevocable license and full authorization to exercise all rights of any kind or nature associated with such IP right(s), and all ancillary and subsidiary rights thereto, in any languages and media now known or not currently known. Your license to NCsoft includes, but is not limited to, all necessary trademark licenses, all copyright licenses needed to reproduce, display, publicly perform, distribute and prepare derivative works of any such IP right, and all patent licenses needed to make, have made or otherwise transfer, use, offer to sell, sell, export and import related to such IP right(s). In addition to the provisions of Section 13 below, You further agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless NCsoft with respect to any claim by third-parties that any such license to any such IP right(s) misappropriates, violates or infringes any third-party IP right or other proprietary right.
Yes, and that's a deliberate over-reach on their part, in my opinion. Has any of this stuff been challenged and upheld in court? If it hasn't been challenged in court, then why wouldn't NCSoft make the language as broad as possible? There's no downside, from their point of view. Write yourself all the rights in the world, and if they're taken away at some point later, then oh well.

On a semi-related note, there was a case not too long ago wherein a recreational skydiving business, which had forced its customers to sign an expansive liability disclaimer, was found to have no basis on which to disclaim liability (or rather, a very limited basis). There are, I'm sure, other cases in which waivers like that are upheld. An agreement can say anything at all, but that agreement isn't necessarily legally and literally binding until and unless it's challenged and upheld as valid. (Or until and unless the principles of a given agreement are challenged and upheld. IP rights in online games is a fairly new and obscure area.)

And as for the deletion of characters, if you make a good-faith effort to revoke whatever rights to your intellectual property that NCSoft might (try to) claim through the EULA, then at least you have a basis on which to challenge their further use of that property. Deleting your characters is not a clear-cut termination, but it's a step you should probably take just for the sake of thoroughness (assuming you're concerned that NCSoft will one day release an Arcanaville comic book or whatever).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

What I find funny about these fights over the law is that none of the real life lawyers that I know who play this game, ever comment with such certainty on legal matters. There are far too many variables to be sure how this would play out. And I wouldn't even start the research to render an opinion for less than a $1000 retainer.

Edit: if any one is interested, PM me if you're in Illinois.


The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGeko View Post
What I find funny about these fights over the law is that none of the real life lawyers that I know who play this game, ever comment with such certainty on legal matters. There are far too many variables to be sure how this would play out. And I wouldn't even start the research to render an opinion for less than a $1000 retainer.

Edit: if any one is interested, PM me if you're in Illinois.
And now you know why they call him 'Evil' Geko. He's a lawyer.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGeko View Post
What I find funny about these fights over the law is that none of the real life lawyers that I know who play this game, ever comment with such certainty on legal matters. There are far too many variables to be sure how this would play out. And I wouldn't even start the research to render an opinion for less than a $1000 retainer.

Edit: if any one is interested, PM me if you're in Illinois.
Those who bandy such ideas around strike me as people with zero firsthand experience employing a lawyer.

I have, and to justify the expense you need to be A: Wealthy or B: Pursuing a substantial payoff.

Even if I stood to get my *entire* material investment from the 8 year history of the game back in one lump sum, employing a lawyer to pry it loose would place me deep in the red.


The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethergoat View Post
Those who bandy such ideas around strike me as people with zero firsthand experience employing a lawyer.

I have, and to justify the expense you need to be A: Wealthy or B: Pursuing a substantial payoff.

Even if I stood to get my *entire* material investment from the 8 year history of the game back in one lump sum, employing a lawyer to pry it loose would place me deep in the red.
this is why such matters are usually handled by class action lawsuit where in the company pays out a lump sum to all the complaining parties and then the lawyer gets there bit. Also be aware just cause one lawyer wouldn't do it for less then a 1k retainer doesn't mean another will. but lets cross that bridge when we come to it.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGeko View Post
What I find funny about these fights over the law is that none of the real life lawyers that I know who play this game, ever comment with such certainty on legal matters. There are far too many variables to be sure how this would play out. And I wouldn't even start the research to render an opinion for less than a $1000 retainer.

Edit: if any one is interested, PM me if you're in Illinois.
Yeah, that's sorta the point; you shouldn't take the EULA as an iron-clad guarantee of your success (or failure) if any of these matters should come to a head. There's a natural tendency (EDIT: among MMO players) to take the EULA literally when in fact, the validity of the EULA's wording is only the tip of the iceberg. Where (in the document) and how prominently various clauses are displayed could potentially be a deal-breaker, depending on the court or jurisdiction.

As for the complaint in the OP, and as stated earlier, hiring a lawyer to get back ~$100 in un-refunded subscription fees is a little like renting a Ferrari to save money on cab fares.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

Why does this news not surprise me in the least?
And there will STILL be people trying to say "don't blame NCSoft" /despite/ this total ***** move.

And yes, it's totally within their rights as a company and corporation to do.
However, it's totally within the rights of the consumer to dispute the charges as a service paid for but no longer offered. Might be tough, though.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
this is why such matters are usually handled by class action lawsuit where in the company pays out a lump sum to all the complaining parties and then the lawyer gets there bit. Also be aware just cause one lawyer wouldn't do it for less then a 1k retainer doesn't mean another will. but lets cross that bridge when we come to it.
Look, i'm as pissed at NC as anyone, but this idea is just silly.
The number of potential plaintiffs is relatively tiny, the monetary losses of each ditto. Imagine success: five or ten years from now each plaintiff gets a check for $1.50. Whoohoo!

It does nothing to bring the game back, it provides next to nothing in the way of compensation for affected players, the only profit in the entire enterprise would accrue to the lawyers involved.

I'm all for annoying NC and making them regret this entire debacle, but really now. The numbers simply don't justify a legal assault, beyond complaining to some other huge corporate entity like a credit card company and letting the two of them go at it like prehistoric monsters in a Ray Harryhausen film.


The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercykilling View Post
And yes, it's totally within their rights as a company and corporation to do.
However, it's totally within the rights of the consumer to dispute the charges as a service paid for but no longer offered. Might be tough, though.
That depends of what your definition of "it" is. If you're referring to NC's decision to close the game service, then yeah, that's NC's prerogative. If you're referring to NC's potential decision not to refund money for undelivered CoH subscription services, then that may or may not be within their rights to do, depending on a whole host of factors.

And yeah, regardless, consumers have a right at least to fight against the latter decision, to whatever degree they deem worthwhile.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obitus View Post
If you're referring to NC's potential decision not to refund money for undelivered CoH subscription services, then that may or may not be within their rights to do, depending on a whole host of factors.

And yeah, regardless, consumers have a right at least to fight against the latter decision, to whatever degree they deem worthwhile.
I am indeed referring to the possible choice to not refund monies spent on subscriptions that extend beyond the cutoff date. And....because they're a corporation? They've got the money to make sure they don't have to refund.
Likely what NCSoft will do is offer credit towards another of their products and no direct refund. And if you refuse....too bad.

That isn't a 100% sure scenario...but I'll bet my left !testicle! it's what will happen.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercykilling View Post
I am indeed referring to the possible choice to not refund monies spent on subscriptions that extend beyond the cutoff date. And....because they're a corporation? They've got the money to make sure they don't have to refund.
Likely what NCSoft will do is offer credit towards another of their products and no direct refund. And if you refuse....too bad.

That isn't a 100% sure scenario...but I'll bet my left !testicle! it's what will happen.
Maybe I'm not in tune with your intent here, but again, to clarify: Just because NCSoft feels they can do something, it doesn't follow that NCSoft is legally entitled to do it, certainly not in all cases, in all localities.

So although I wouldn't advocate that anyone try to sue for lost subscription fees (because it's just not worth the cost or the effort), I would also caution against the knee-jerk belief that you have no hope in complaining about and/or disputing the idea with NCSoft. There's a decent chance they'll pay you off just to get rid of you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaunyeh View Post
Sued? You don't sue people who steal from you. You call the police.
Corporations are mostly protected from "calling the police".

For those that are not getting full subscriptions, they have paid for access that the company is in the process of stopping.

For those that bought points, well you got the points and you can still spend those points.




Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

 

Posted

To anyone looking to file suit: Disputing the charges with your credit card provider/Paypal will be much easier, cheaper, and more likely to work than going to court over it.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vice_Virtuoso View Post
To anyone looking to file suit: Disputing the charges with your credit card provider/Paypal will be much easier, cheaper, and more likely to work than going to court over it.
If you are doing this, make sure that the transaction isnt all that old either... depending on the card company that you are with, you *should* have between 30 and 120 days to dispute a transaction (i believe that this is due to how often statements are sent out etc etc).

If any of the transactions are past the limit according to the card scheme you are with (Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, AMEX) then you can still try for a chargeback... but the chances of it then working are very very slim.


 

Posted

This is why when I came back 4 days before the announcement I decided to wait and pay. I may have not known it then but happy I waited now. I knew the moment I read about it shutting down they were hoping to force us onto their new garbage, if we wanted that garbage we would have been playing that and not CoH. And having lawyers in my family I do know that there are lawyers who take no fee until they win the case it's just finding one who thinks it is a worth while endevor.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGeko View Post
What I find funny about these fights over the law is that none of the real life lawyers that I know who play this game, ever comment with such certainty on legal matters. There are far too many variables to be sure how this would play out. And I wouldn't even start the research to render an opinion for less than a $1000 retainer.

Edit: if any one is interested, PM me if you're in Illinois.
1. As an attorney, you're held to a higher standard when it comes to legal advice or statements. You know, as a matter of law.

2. What the law says and who would prevail in court are two separate things. Murder is illegal. Murderers go free all the time. That doesn't mean sometimes murder is legal. It means sometimes courtrooms are more about the lawyers than the law.

What copyright law says about what NCSoft can and cannot legally assert is pretty black letter. What a courtroom would decide is another matter, because they could interpret the law in a novel matter or they could attempt to in effect create new law by setting a legal precedent which modifies the interpretation of the law in a way that would be upheld by higher courts.

I could sue you for mental anguish for using too many smileys in your forum post. I'm sure most lawyers would say that was ridiculous. I'm sure almost no lawyer would bet their lives on the result of the suit.


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steele_Magnolia View Post
Acct 1: Sep 17th 2012
Acct 2: Jan 1st 2013
Acct 3: Oct 14, 2012
Acct 4: Have to get husband to check his

Transfer it to another game? No F'n way. Small claims court and Better business bureau here I come.

The really big FU?
Aug 30, 2012 28281433 1600 NCoin™
That's the last purchase for Aion they'll ever see too.
I smell case action lawsuit.


The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister.
--The Question, JLU

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obitus View Post
Yes, and that's a deliberate over-reach on their part, in my opinion. Has any of this stuff been challenged and upheld in court? If it hasn't been challenged in court, then why wouldn't NCSoft make the language as broad as possible? There's no downside, from their point of view. Write yourself all the rights in the world, and if they're taken away at some point later, then oh well.

On a semi-related note, there was a case not too long ago wherein a recreational skydiving business, which had forced its customers to sign an expansive liability disclaimer, was found to have no basis on which to disclaim liability (or rather, a very limited basis). There are, I'm sure, other cases in which waivers like that are upheld. An agreement can say anything at all, but that agreement isn't necessarily legally and literally binding until and unless it's challenged and upheld as valid. (Or until and unless the principles of a given agreement are challenged and upheld. IP rights in online games is a fairly new and obscure area.)

And as for the deletion of characters, if you make a good-faith effort to revoke whatever rights to your intellectual property that NCSoft might (try to) claim through the EULA, then at least you have a basis on which to challenge their further use of that property. Deleting your characters is not a clear-cut termination, but it's a step you should probably take just for the sake of thoroughness (assuming you're concerned that NCSoft will one day release an Arcanaville comic book or whatever).
As a matter of law, you can't assert claims that are illegal. You can't absolve yourself of legal responsibilities that the state places upon you that no citizen can exempt you from. You have a legal responsibility to not murder me. That's not a responsibility I hold you to that I could thus exempt you from. That's a responsibility to the state I have no say over. Murder is actually a crime against the state, not against me. That's why would be the State of Hawaii vs Obitus, not Arcanaville vs Obitus by proxy.

Legal liability works that way all the time. Contracts that alter or waive liability can be found to attempt to relieve one party from legal liabilities the other party can't waive the rights to.

However, the rights NCSoft asks for in the highlighted passage are rights the player legally controls and can legally grant through a contract like an EULA. NCSoft is asking for something the player can legally give. Therefore the question of whether its "unfair" for them to ask for it is on extremely shaky ground.

There's only one real legal opportunity I can think of and that's an attempt to create a new legal right players currently don't have. Copyright law has changed over the years to give authors more rights because of a perception that the system is rigged against creators who are often negotiating in extremely disadvantaged positions. That's why, as I mentioned above, NCSoft can't just say "we own everything you make." US Copyright law *forbids* such transfer of ownership rights except for work-for-hire situations. That's not just an interpretation of the law, the law actually says "you can't do that, really, except for a few exceptions which we'll list explicitly." Work for hire being the biggest exception. Superhero MMOs are not listed.

But if the courts decide that MMO players are in some serious, legally disadvantaged negotiating position comparable to the situation creators were seen in when copyright law was last significantly modified, the case could be made that signing away non-exclusive, perpetual use licenses was equally burdensome as giving away actual ownership and attempt to act accordingly. But I think that's incredibly unlikely given the author still retains full ownership to use their works, and it sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't survive appeal for long unless it hits the Supreme Court on casual Mai Tai Friday.

Also, I'm not a lawyer so I can offer legal opinions without restriction. See above.


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
this is why such matters are usually handled by class action lawsuit where in the company pays out a lump sum to all the complaining parties and then the lawyer gets there bit. Also be aware just cause one lawyer wouldn't do it for less then a 1k retainer doesn't mean another will. but lets cross that bridge when we come to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethergoat View Post
Look, i'm as pissed at NC as anyone, but this idea is just silly.
The number of potential plaintiffs is relatively tiny, the monetary losses of each ditto. Imagine success: five or ten years from now each plaintiff gets a check for $1.50. Whoohoo!

It does nothing to bring the game back, it provides next to nothing in the way of compensation for affected players, the only profit in the entire enterprise would accrue to the lawyers involved.

I'm all for annoying NC and making them regret this entire debacle, but really now. The numbers simply don't justify a legal assault, beyond complaining to some other huge corporate entity like a credit card company and letting the two of them go at it like prehistoric monsters in a Ray Harryhausen film.
The goat and the geko (not quoted here) speak truth. The hassle of getting a class action confirmed by a court would pile up legal fees extremely quickly.

And if you ever got one of those "you may have rights in the X class action suit." type of notice and actually bothered to respond probably already know that you get a teeny, tiny check which represents your propotionate share of the damages awarded AFTER attorneys fees and court costs, including any discovery, additional motions filed, etc., are also paid for - and gods help you if there was any testimony required from an expert witness.

Just not worth it, to me, at least. YMMV but finding enough people that royally peeved to get the initial class certified would be a long shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vice_Virtuoso View Post
To anyone looking to file suit: Disputing the charges with your credit card provider/Paypal will be much easier, cheaper, and more likely to work than going to court over it.
File a dispute form, stating services were not delivered (after 11/30, and after they show up on your credit/debit card statement - within 60 days of statement delivery). Form is filed directly with VISA, PayPal, MC, Amex, etc.


Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!

Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon

"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethergoat View Post
Look, i'm as pissed at NC as anyone, but this idea is just silly.
The number of potential plaintiffs is relatively tiny, the monetary losses of each ditto. Imagine success: five or ten years from now each plaintiff gets a check for $1.50. Whoohoo!

It does nothing to bring the game back, it provides next to nothing in the way of compensation for affected players, the only profit in the entire enterprise would accrue to the lawyers involved.

I'm all for annoying NC and making them regret this entire debacle, but really now. The numbers simply don't justify a legal assault, beyond complaining to some other huge corporate entity like a credit card company and letting the two of them go at it like prehistoric monsters in a Ray Harryhausen film.
not like I care i paid monthly, I feel bad for the guy who bought a year sub a week before the shut down was announced and has no desire to play any other NC soft game... and all I am saying is if that was me I'd be talking to lawyer (or at least a law student) about my options .

And who knows maybe they still will give refunds when/if the game is shut down, after all as of right now this whole thing has alot of moving parts and they may just not be ready to give refunds at this time... ~shrugs~ (sorry my inn optimist got out won't happen again)


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
1. As an attorney, you're held to a higher standard when it comes to legal advice or statements. You know, as a matter of law.
I don't know that I would use the word, 'higher'. Different, perhaps.

Quote:

What copyright law says about what NCSoft can and cannot legally assert is pretty black letter.
What a courtroom would decide is another matter, because they could interpret the law in a novel matter or they could attempt to in effect create new law by setting a legal precedent which modifies the interpretation of the law in a way that would be upheld by higher courts.
Is it? You may be right. Most practicing lawyers don't use the term 'black letter' law a lot. That was my point.

Quote:
I could sue you for mental anguish for using too many smileys in your forum post. I'm sure most lawyers would say that was ridiculous. I'm sure almost no lawyer would bet their lives on the result of the suit.
I wouldn't bet my life that 2×2=4.

Going to miss you Arcana.


The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.

 

Posted

You make a lot of good points, and I don't think we disagree on most of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
But if the courts decide that MMO players are in some serious, legally disadvantaged negotiating position comparable to the situation creators were seen in when copyright law was last significantly modified, the case could be made that signing away non-exclusive, perpetual use licenses was equally burdensome as giving away actual ownership and attempt to act accordingly. But I think that's incredibly unlikely given the author still retains full ownership to use their works, and it sounds like the kind of thing that doesn't survive appeal for long unless it hits the Supreme Court on casual Mai Tai Friday.
Yeah, the issue is unlikely even to come up any time soon, for a host of practical reasons. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that NCSoft publishes an Arcanaville comic book 20 years from now, and that it turns out to be the most successful comic book ever published.

The broadest interpretation of the relevant clause in NCSoft's EULA essentially says that you have waived your right to claim any share of the profits from NCSoft's Arcanaville-derived enterprise, simply because you chose to roll up a virtual incarnation of Arcanaville on CoH in 2004. NCSoft is basically telling the court, pre-emptively, summarily to dismiss your inevitable lawsuit for your fair share of the money.

YMMV, but that idea strikes me as absurd on its face, and all the more so because EULAs are so common, lengthy and arcane these days.
We click past what amounts to a formality (because every piece of software has one, practically) before we log in to play a game. Intellectual property rights probably don't even enter the average CoH player's mind at any point in the experience, much less every time they technically agree to the EULA.

You're right that there's law, and that there's court interpretation -- and that potential reversals of the latter don't necessarily nullify the at-the-time validity of the former. But I find it hard to believe that there's literally black-letter law permitting NCSoft to claim, in perpetuity, even non-exclusive rights to your intellectual property just because you decided on a whim to see how Arcanaville might play in the CoH milieu, which is soon-to-be defunct. NCSoft almost certainly has the right to use a likeness of Arcanaville as she appears in CoH, perhaps even to use a likeness of her in any CoH-themed product, but that's probably about it. Everything else is likely up in the air until and unless the matter is more clearly defined by precedent (or by specific legislation, which may itself end up getting challenged in the courts).

Put it this way: I wouldn't worry about NC's seemingly expansive rights (based on the EULA) to use our characters. In the extremely unlikely event that NC someday earns a mint using your ideas (or mine) in a context divorced from CoH, we'd have a good shot at winning a court case challenging NC, or more likely, at getting a settlement from NC beforehand. If all else fails, and if the stakes are high enough to justify the effort, you can always at least try to sue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build