EULA for a basic single-player game? WTF?

[Nightshade]

Alright, somebody help me out here: what the hell was the point of that massive wall of text we're "forced" to "agree" to on start-up? Based on what I could tell, it was more or less pointless-- and if I'm reading it right, Steam's family-sharing might actually violate one of the early paragraphs, not that that would stop me.

Any which way, it's extremely off-putting, shoving a "legal contract" into a game that has no earthly reason to be handled with any legal distinction from any other game we buy.

Is this just standard Activision ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?

[rarestMeow]

hello,

that's OK for any AAA-nowadays

say thanks it is not Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Odyssey (single-player game) that says openly and boldly that their launcher checks in real-time what third-party software you have opened and if they detect any manipulation with the game (like cheating) then they have a right to cancel your access to the game without a refund, he-he =D

[Nightshade]

Must be the AAA games I'm not playing.

(Though, thinking on it, not as ridiculous as it might've once sounded. I've gotten "old" and ceased to care about the "latest and greatest." I know what I like, and mostly stick to that. Guess I'm stuck in my ways now. Now get off my lawn, you damn kids.)

[The_Pastmaster]

Basic US legal ass-coverage while trying to screw over the customer as much as legally possible. It's what you get when you can sue for literally anything.

[PlebNC (UK)]

I think it's because of the leaderboards for speedway/flight level time trials as they involve sending data, is considered interacting with other players even if it's asynchronously and requires them to have an EULA if they want to shadow ban someone for cheating their way up the leaderboards.

[Nightshade]

Lots of games have leaderboards and no EULA. Also don't remember anything in there that would've applied. In fact, the agreement reminds me of the one they released on Battle.net, because it covers "User-Generated Content."

Originally posted by The_Pastmaster:

Basic US legal ass-coverage while trying to screw over the customer as much as legally possible. It's what you get when you can sue for literally anything.

The concept of an excessively litigious American public is largely exaggerated, propagated in no small part by corporations seeking to discourage and demonize legal action.

But that's got me thinking... In this case, this isn't even "coverage" in the defensive sense.

This is the DOTA thing, wanting to make sure they can seize the rights to their users' creations if they become marketable. And that might actually explain why the broad net, thrown even over a single-player game. Because even here, it's possible to screw around and play the game in a way other than intended that they might want to claim.

[Littlefoot]

Originally posted by PlebNC (UK):

I think it's because of the leaderboards for speedway/flight level time trials as they involve sending data, is considered interacting with other players even if it's asynchronously and requires them to have an EULA if they want to shadow ban someone for cheating their way up the leaderboards.

Wait, where do you see the speedway leaderboards? Never noticed one on the Switch port and haven’t seen any on the PC version either.

[HistoricKombat]

Originally posted by PlebNC (UK):

I think it's because of the leaderboards for speedway/flight level time trials as they involve sending data, is considered interacting with other players even if it's asynchronously and requires them to have an EULA if they want to shadow ban someone for cheating their way up the leaderboards.

Are we playing the same game? There are no leaderboards in Spyro the Dragon: Reignited Trilogy.

[NBOX21]

Not to mention there was nothing like this whatsoever in the PS1 originals. Back in 1998, the "good old days", all you did was buy a game, put the CD into your console, turn it on and it just starts up no strings attached. You own the product, plain and simple. The company also made their money off of it and couldn't just take it away from you whenever they felt like it.

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

hello,

that's OK for any AAA-nowadays

say thanks it is not Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Odyssey (single-player game) that says openly and boldly that their launcher checks in real-time what third-party software you have opened and if they detect any manipulation with the game (like cheating) then they have a right to cancel your access to the game without a refund, he-he =D

That's because companies don't want to sell products, they want to sell "services" even though they're actually not. The way they're doing so is objectively wrong if you ask me because, here's the thing, and what I'm about to say here may be very controversial:

Games are not services, never have been and never will be, they're products and we will treat them as such. Steam, GOG, PSN, eShop and XBL are services and we buy products from these services like games for example. It's expected to enter an agreement before we start using these services, but the actual products we should just be able to enjoy without worry. The problem is, like I said before, most AAA publishers don't want to see it that way.

Furthermore, an online server that is used to host online games is in itself a service, you're being served an online matchmaking system to connect to other players and thus you're expected to abide by the terms of such service. The game itself is the product, you're using the product you own to connect to a service used for matchmaking, leaderboards, etc.

But this game has no online features whatsoever, so all you have in this case is the product that you bought.

[The_Pastmaster]

Originally posted by NBOX21:

Not to mention there was nothing like this whatsoever in the PS1 originals. Back in 1998, the "good old days", all you did was buy a game, put the CD into your console, turn it on and it just starts up no strings attached. You own the product, plain and simple. The company also made their money off of it and couldn't just take it away from you whenever they felt like it.

Originally posted by rarestMeow:

hello,

that's OK for any AAA-nowadays

say thanks it is not Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Odyssey (single-player game) that says openly and boldly that their launcher checks in real-time what third-party software you have opened and if they detect any manipulation with the game (like cheating) then they have a right to cancel your access to the game without a refund, he-he =D

That's because companies don't want to sell products, they want to sell "services" even though they're actually not. The way they're doing so is objectively wrong if you ask me because, here's the thing, and what I'm about to say here may be very controversial:

Games are not services, never have been and never will be, they're products and we will treat them as such. Steam, GOG, PSN, eShop and XBL are services and we buy products from these services like games for example. It's expected to enter an agreement before we start using these services, but the actual products we should just be able to enjoy without worry. The problem is, like I said before, most AAA publishers don't want to see it that way.

Furthermore, an online server that is used to host online games is in itself a service, you're being served an online matchmaking system to connect to other players and thus you're expected to abide by the terms of such service. The game itself is the product, you're using the product you own to connect to a service used for matchmaking, leaderboards, etc.

But this game has no online features whatsoever, so all you have in this case is the product that you bought.

It's almost 1983 all over again.

[SassyCuddlefish]

"no earthly reason to be handled with any legal distinction from any other game we buy."

no cap.