With EA going Multiplayer only....And the EULA

[JohnReaper]

Does that mean we don't get to own our plastic disks of data? do we just "Rent" the game from the company with no legal rights to do with it what we want?

Now I'm not a lawyer, game designer, or even remotely versed in Lawanese but I recently skimmed over recent changes, tried to educate my self before I post this. and to try and not make an idiot of my self.

AS of right now, do we OWN the games we play? because the more I read about laws and rules of newer games the more and more insane I feel for hitting the accept button. One eula I read can be summed up in.

You do not own this game, you are not allowed to play this game unless you accept this fact, relinquish your rights of ownership for something you already bought with your money. You pay me for playing on MY jungle gym.

Is this right? am I reading and understanding EULAs and New digital distribution rules? Please someone explain it to me.

EDIT 1: I was reading COH(eroes) eula and a part really hit me, It says that any character made in the game is Their property And then it goes on and says the characters made in it can not be used in other works Meaning If I were to make a comic book based on oneof my COH chars, I would be liable for a lawsuit even if the only connectiong thread is the char IF I understand it right

 

[Pink Gregory]

There was some quite heated discussion regarding this a few weeks ago when Steam introduced a certain clause regarding lawsuits into its EULA; the consensus seems to be that digital ownership is still quite murky waters, and the law regarding digitally distributed software is not currently totally suitable, but needs to be further developed.

"No legal rights to do with it what we want" is something of a misnomer, I think. Nothing to stop anyone making copies and distributing them, which technically is piracy, hence DRM.

Then again I believe that true piracy only occurs when someone is making copies and distributing them from money, rather than torrenting it for personal use or whatever.

 

[electric method]

Generally EULA's pretty much stipulate the only rights the consumer has are the limited liability warranties. Everything else, the consumer is basically on the sufferage of the company. Currently EULA's really only exsist for companies to play C.Y.A. on a large scale.

 

[JohnReaper]

I know its murky waters which is why I'm confused, I was raised being told, if you buy it you own it untill you sell it or give it away. To use an example, On steam I bought game X, why can't I give game X to a friend ((Remove it from my list, you know like actually handing him the game)) I know this probably has something to do with DRM limitations and CD key issues, ((Some cd keys are one use only))

 

[C F]

AS of right now, do we OWN the games we play? because the more I read about laws and rules of newer games the more and more insane I feel for hitting the accept button. One eula I read can be summed up in.

You do not own this game, you are not allowed to play this game unless you accept this fact, relinquish your rights of ownership for something you already bought with your money. You pay me for playing on MY jungle gym.

Is this right? am I reading and understanding EULAs and New digital distribution rules? Please someone explain it to me.

Well, that's pretty much spot on; they like to lock you down on every possible avenue of approach in the event they ever want to defend what they have developed. We never actually owned some games, we simply pay for the ability to play it. And I know LucasArts in particular has been going with that trend with their EULAs for a while now (at least since 2005, since I had examined KotOR II's EULA the other day out of curiosity).

 

[Lunar Templar]

given that CoH is going down in a couple months i don't think it'll matter anymore. besides, it'll be on them to prove its the exact same character. and i donno about you, but i've changed characters from their orginal concept once i figured out what works best for em when i transferred them else where

 

[ohnoitsabear]

The legality for this stuff is murky at best, especially in the US. There have been numerous cases where the legality of ELUAs has been brought into question, and there have been numerous different outcomes.

There are a few small consolations though. For one, any law of the area you're in takes precedent over the ELUA, if they say different things. Also, if I'm remembering this correctly, a recent thing in the EU says that you are legally allowed to sell anything you buy digitally, assuming you can give up ownership of it (ie, not have it on your hard drive when you sell it), although companies are under no legal requirement to provide the means to sell your stuff. Still, it's one step to us definitively owning our games.

 

[Rednog]

As of right now I'm pretty sure that most companies that digitally distribute like Valve (Steam), EA (Origin), etc say that we don't actually own the games. We merely are paying for a license to use their digital distribution service that in turn allows us to play the game. And they are allowed to revoke that service at any time, and void your license.

Personally, I'm not a fan of it. I think that if for any reason they don't want you as a customer, for whatever reason, they merely should lock you out of any future purchases and have to honor the licenses you currently have. Especially in cases where you do not agree to their new TOS/EULA. I really think it's bs that companies are allowed at any time to force a TOS/EULA on you and you basically have 0 rights against it.

I've honestly started becoming fed up with digital distribution services, and in the rare case I see that there will be a retail version of a game that won't require me to register with a digital distributor, I snatch it up right away.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They are not going "multiplayer only". It's worse than that. They are adding a multiplayer component to every game. Which means Dragon Age 3 will have some form of multiplayer. Which means that EA has taken another huge step towards ruining gaming. And the only rational response to that is to stop buying their games until they go bankrupt. If we don't do that, soon other companies will do the same as EA.

 

[teqrevisited]

I always assume that at some point in the future the multiplayer parts of games will disappear. Generally by that time I've had my fun and there may end up being third party servers after the official support ends. I'll put up with DRM as long as it actually works and isn't an invasive data-mining tool. I backup everything just in case they disappear or stop functioning properly.

As far as I'm concerned any EULA might as well stipulate that I may not access the software whilst break dancing in a clown costume on the moon. Singe player will always be mine if I've paid for it and they'll never be able to fully prevent me from using it.

 

[Maeshone]

They are not going "multiplayer only". It's worse than that. They are adding a multiplayer component to every game. Which means Dragon Age 3 will have some form of multiplayer. Which means that EA has taken another huge step towards ruining gaming. And the only rational response to that is to stop buying their games until they go bankrupt. If we don't do that, soon other companies will do the same as EA.

Except they haven't. At all. The quote you're referring to only mentioned adding an online component to all EA games. There wasn't a single mention of the word "multiplayer". You know leaderboards right? They're an online component. So are the Serpent Tomes in Darksiders 2 that allow you to send items to people on your friends list. Or the datapad app for ME3. Or ME Galaxies for ME2. Or any online pass for any singleplayer game, like Kingdoms of Amalur.

The "All EA games will have mandatory multiplayer" was just an asspull used to justify more hate towards EA, and not based at all in what the quote actually said.

 

[DoPo]

They are not going "multiplayer only". It's worse than that. They are adding a multiplayer component to every game. Which means Dragon Age 3 will have some form of multiplayer. Which means that EA has taken another huge step towards ruining gaming. And the only rational response to that is to stop buying their games until they go bankrupt. If we don't do that, soon other companies will do the same as EA.

Well, no. It's not even that. They are adding online service to each game. That can range from multiplayer to just social networking hooks or maybe even DLC and stuff. ME2's Cerberus network definitely counts as online service, for example.

You do not own this game, you are not allowed to play this game unless you accept this fact, relinquish your rights of ownership for something you already bought with your money. You pay me for playing on MY jungle gym.

Is this right? am I reading and understanding EULAs and New digital distribution rules? Please someone explain it to me.

Well, that's actually in pretty much all EULAs. "You are given the right to use this software under these and these conditions. Accept or don't use it.", is basically what they read.

EDIT 1: I was reading COH(eroes) eula and a part really hit me, It says that any character made in the game is Their property And then it goes on and says the characters made in it can not be used in other works Meaning If I were to make a comic book based on oneof my COH chars, I would be liable for a lawsuit even if the only connectiong thread is the char IF I understand it right

Can you post or point at the relevant part? It is possible it means that, but no one can say for sure based on a second hand account, the original would be needed.

EDIT: Also, relevant for EULAs. Something that came up around the whole Origin legality thing:

OT: Anyway, I spoke with somebody more knowledgeable than me in legal matters in computing and asked him about exactly that - setting too broad a scope on the EULA. The answer was the following - you (in this case EA) are allowed to scope your license broadly. So there isn't anything (legally) stopping EA from putting "By installing Origin we now own your hard drive". However, such a clause is not enforceable by the court. In this particular case, EA wouldn't be able to force you (legally, as in sue you) if you limit Origin (for example by sandboxing it).

 

[Vault101]

I thourght "going multiplayer only" was somthing of a simplification/exageration

 

[octafish]

I know its murky waters which is why I'm confused, I was raised being told, if you buy it you own it untill you sell it or give it away. To use an example, On steam I bought game X, why can't I give game X to a friend ((Remove it from my list, you know like actually handing him the game)) I know this probably has something to do with DRM limitations and CD key issues, ((Some cd keys are one use only))

You didn't buy the game. You bought the license to use the game. You don't own the code. You are purchasing the ability to run the code not the code itself.