Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The game says you dont need a login to play, yet there are no options to skip an account sign up. I would prefer to try the game before being forced to login into a another site. Like the OP no thanks. This should be made VISIBLE on the store page. It just mentions a 3rd party EULA but no mandatory log in.
Apparently you can play solo in offline mode and be able to avoid creating an account, but if you wanted co-op, which is what the game is advertised for, then you're out of luck.
Since more and more games, and everything else, is going this route, you may find it harder and harder to find online games that you don't have to log in before you have access to them.
Personally, I prefer they openly let me know they are collecting information from me than those that hide what they are collecting. Use your cell phone to scan a product or even talk to someone about something and watch how fast it shows up on your ads when you use multimedia.
Check out old reviews of Generation Zero. One did a dive into what Generation Zero was tracking. I don't know what's current, mind.
"It's a problem. They sold the game without the account thing, then locked the game behind account creation later. It's disappointing, and somewhat disrespectful."
Isn't hardly harsh enough. It's actually, by contract, and in places like the EU now, illegal.
Why? At the time of purchase a contract is in place. This is a transaction where the customer expects to get what was described at the time of purchase. Otherwise, it becames false advertising or even can be seen as a malicious intent to defraud.
More importantly, it is a change of the details of the contract after the purchase, lease, acquisition of certain rights, whatever you call it, AFTER THE FACT AT THE TIME OF THE EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND EARNEST MONEY. Technically, no matter what is said about EULA's or other later constantly changing aspects of modern law, it is a change of the contract details, and a violation of the ingredients that made up the sale that was known to exist at the time of the deal.
In other words, CONTRACT LAW, which has existed for centuries, trumps any modern crap that was not existing withstanding, because it is foundational to any transaction.
Now, they can claim it and claim that an EULA provides them with this measure of change, and say that all customers read or could read, and gave consent to this EULA. But that's not exactly the case here. At the time of the transaction, the EULA said one thing. So did the Store Page. So did common knowledge of what were the terms of the EULA and the game, and its advertising such as the Store Page -- at the time.
You can't change such key details after the fact and claim it is allowed under EULA or anything else. WHY? Because changing such a known terms of agreement damaged the position of the person acquiring the rights, or lease, or purchase to the agreement. They had a REASONABLE EXPECTATION of what they were trading for, and now that is no longer the case.
Thus, at the very least, in truth, the customer in this case, has the rights either to DAMAGES, COMPENSATION in accordance with the perceived loss, or the customer has the right to a refund, or the termination of his part of the deal, since the other party severed the ORIGINAL TERMS OF THE DEAL.
Now, that most people can't get their head around that obvious fact really perturbs me sometimes. Let me put it to you this way. You can say that you don't have to obey the original agreement or that the agreement has changed. But if you change it, and the change is not what a reasonable person could expect was the original agreement (which is the point of courts), you owe damages, compensation, or other things to make up for the loss that the customer in this case suffered.
Now, that the courts play games and that the current mindset is mostly that this is ok and precedent, well ... that's the fault of the courts and the citizenry. Also, as you can see with the EU, it's as changeable as any other major perception of what is okay under the law and what is not.
EULA's are exceptions to standard law. They are recent constructs. They actually are harming more and more people, and causing an attitude in contracts that is going to sooner or later cause a major reaction by the courts that this can no longer stand.
This is because, the key concept that causes issues with EULAs, is that they can be incomplete as heck, change on a whim after the fact and after the transaction, and be vague and incomplete. The EU is just an example of how certain court cases and the way EULAs were being used, got companies that do it, into a whole heap of trouble.
You try to use an EULA type thing in any other type of transaction than digital rights, you'd never make any transactions or be sued out of business.
So, in summary, the problem here is changing after the time of the transaction, and whether or not you still have the same value in hand or not. Clearly, if you have to sign up to a portal to get access, that's a limitation that you didn't have before. It requires internet, it requires access to a computer, it requires other things, all of which were not their in the original deal. This is the way you would actually do a lawsuit in terms of reasoning.
But anyway, I'm not going to go into this further. I'm just a little surprised that people say that it is merely "disappointing and disrespectful". No it's a whole lot more than that. It undermines all business that is constructed. It undermines trust in deal-making.
You can't make a contract secure, if you key details of it after the fact, and not be reviewed for damaging a side of the transaction, then possibly incurring fees for damages or compensation. Otherwise, no one would make any deals at all, as everything is built on quicksand.
Just because I write a contract with you that says I have the right to kill you, does not make it so. You have unstated but obvious and reasonable rights in the first place. One is, in order to make that deal with you, you have to be alive. You have the right to exist also as an expected and reasonable right, even if some clown believes it isn't god given or inalienable. Laws cannot codify and secure violations against the law. That's the basic idea in more general terms.
When I wrote "disappointing and disrespectful", I was moderating my feelings on the matter. I'm not happy about the change at all. I wondered how far I would get pressing for a refund. I hoped that a way around this lock might be found, or Avalanche / Systemic Reaction might reverse it.
I loved the original game. It had all the things I really wanted in a game, and I had so much fun playing co-op with friends. I adored the story and the world. We had a lot of great adventures. Watching the updates change the game away from its vision was sad, frustrating and painful. Update after update moving into some kind of fortnight run and gun, while also deleting old steam depots so we can't even regress to a previous good version. Playing co-op with friends is what kept me engaged. We had fun despite the changes, not because of them. Remembering the good times with the knowledge they've passed is nostalgic in the literal sense.
Introducing the Avalanche Account wasn't a good sign. I guess it's another ploy to retain player engagement with the extra daily missions. They already get a lot of telemetry to see how people play the game if they want to base updates around that. But we were told the account wouldn't be compulsory. I haven't seen a rationale for the account beyond offering us the rewards for daily missions, but that's just the payment for whatever is being collected.
Being locked out of the co-op game feels really bad, especially as I've been in since the game was full price, a fair bit more than it costs now. It's hard to be angry after the series of disappointments from Avalanche, it's more of a dejected "oh, more of the same?" while also feeling like Avalanche are giving me the middle finger after all the support I've put in.
I'm not sure what the limits of an EULA would be. Click-wrap things like this are typically not legally enforceable. If it states that they can change the game, could they replace Generation Zero with a version of Flappy Bird and tell us that's just how it is now? I don't know, nor could I test it. For a while it's felt like the world of Generation Zero was abandoned, and the game as it stands used to monetise its fans instead of fixing the game to stand on its own merits.
Watching one of my all time favourite games sit there poking itself in the eye over and over has been painful to watch :-(
On April 12 I replied to one of the Devs who informed us that an Apex account would be required going forward (but that no email address is required for a 'limited' account. No personal info: this is supposed to solve the complaints.)
I pointed out that the Apex Connect FAQ info pinned here still says that an account isn't required except to access the optional "assignments" feature. (Which I don't personally need in my life ;) ) A month later, and the FAQ still hasn't been updated ;)
I finished the negative review. And it wont change until either the Store page is updated to reflect the scummy dealings of this studio or the game no longer requires a login.
Way to self gate amid the 1000's of games that have no such requirement. Losing bunch of sales is what they are doing.
The EULA that I have read and agreed to does state that you have to create a APEX account to sign in and use the software. And also states you may need to sign in via a 3rd party also (Systematic Reaction.) Not sure if it is different than the one you read but it is there and they can revise it as they see fit. It is pretty much the same EULA you have to agree to to get on and use Steam. These types of EULA is nothing new and it is to protect against thief, abuse and that the account holder is in the country they are using the software in. You should already know that you are not the owner of the game but a license agreement that allows you to use the owner's game per the owner's rules and polices.
To do online banking you have to log in to access your bank account right? Why is this any different?
Avalanche sold us a game and gave us access. They took our money. Then they rescinded access to the game, but kept our money. That's not ok. Are you seriously advocating that it's ok for publishers to change an EULA on a whim to deny you access while keeping your money?
Banking heavy regulation over looking almost ALL aspects of banking systems (system is good - people corrupted it)
Gaming - no regulation to do what they want with your data - no over sight by any regulatory body -
Sure you want to compare the 2? I wouldn't. 2 different worlds.
Steam is a 3rd party DRM - we dont need anymore.
A software company, like any company you have to agree to their terms of service, can update, change or modify those terms of service anytime they feel it is necessary. If you do not agree to those terms you have the right to not use their service. And you can not expect any refund of any funds you spent to gain access to those services.
Notice how much Gen Zero has changed since it was released to the public a few years back, the ability to make those changes are addressed in the EULA. You players up in arms about this should read the software company's privacy policy on what information they gather, how it is used and shared with 3rd party companies. This is also part of the EULA. Which that information gathering is regulated by the same governing body as the banking industry when it comes to your private info and your exceptions of privacy. Does your computer hardware and software fall under exceptions of privacy?