PDA

View Full Version : Alpha Terms of Service



wildcard
10-09-2013, 02:17 PM
The Terms of Service (http://www.scribd.com/doc/174876716/HEX-End-User-Software-License-Agreement-8Oct13-UPDATED) for agreeing to download the game client and access the service has a few interesting clauses. There's also apparently a new "Hex Entertainment, LLC" with whom you're making the agreement...


C4. Transfer of Account. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense your Account or any part of the HEX Game.


D5. No External Transfer or Sale of Virtual Assets. HEX Entertainment does not recognize any purported transfers of sales of event tickets or other virtual assets outside of the HEX Game. Accordingly, you are are strictly prohibited from selling, gifting or exchanging virtual assets, event tickets or any other virtual HEX Game currency for other any value outside of the HEX Game.


C5. Duration of the Online Component of the HEX Game. HEX Game is an online game that must be played over the Internet through the Game Client as provided by HEX Entertainment. You understand and agree that the HEX Game provided by HEX Entertainment at its sole discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by HEX Entertainment at any time for any reason.

Along with the waiver of liability on their behalf for the loss of any virtual goods, currencies, player characters, etc. for any reason whatsoever including negligence or tort [D7] ... you also agree that they are entitled to all equitable remedies for any harm to them from a breach of the license, without so much as proof of damages:


D8. Equitable Remedies. You hereby agree that HEX Entertainment will be irreparably damaged if the terms of this License were not specifically enforced, and therefore you agree that HEX Entertainment shall be entitled, without bond, other security, or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this License, in addition to such other remedies as HEX Entertainment may otherwise have available to it under applicable laws.

Classy.

nicosharp
10-09-2013, 02:28 PM
D5 seems to go against original talks about the game being open to 3rd party trading? ... At least I thought 3rd party trading was mentioned as a positive. My lawyer speak sucks.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 02:31 PM
Agreed, I was pretty sure they praised secondary markets as a healthy part of any TCG. Most of the clauses are expected CYA lawyer stuff, but being "strictly prohibited" from trading outside the game came as a surprise to me, and prompted the post. The EULA taken as a whole though? I expected better from the "players first" CZE.

Kami
10-09-2013, 02:32 PM
As far as I can tell, that is just to protect themselves.

Just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean they have to enforce it.

Huntyre
10-09-2013, 02:32 PM
I'm not really sure what's the big deal... it's a ToS for a product that is still under development. It's not even a finished product yet.. so why would they want to support secondary markets at this point in time.

Stok3d
10-09-2013, 02:35 PM
This has to be placed in there for the Cover Your Rear attorney part as they are a company. However, it's been stated many times in podcasts that the secondary market will be able to thrive. As Kami stated, it's there but these laws being enforced is a completely different story.

My personal advice is to just hit okay like you do any other game and not worry about it.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 02:37 PM
As far as I can tell, that is just to protect themselves.

Just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean they have to enforce it.
Not to be overly dramatic, but selective enforcement is a terrible regime to live under. It's more typical of tyrants than organization claiming to put people/players first in priority. If they don't want to enforce it, don't make people sign it. There are better ways to protect your interests than to forbid all behavior and decide which things you want to punish people for this week.

Wolver_the_Zeta
10-09-2013, 02:37 PM
Think of it more this way,

C4. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell your account
D5. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell in game items through a 3rd party or to an individual, also we aren't paying taxes on that
C5. At some point in the future this game may end, that isn't our fault, we aren't promising infinity
D8. We don't need to prove that we lost money, to seek non monetary legal repercussions against someone who broke this contract

Kami
10-09-2013, 02:39 PM
Not to be overly dramatic, but selective enforcement is a terrible regime to live under. It's more typical of tyrants than organization claiming to put people/players first in priority. If they don't want to enforce it, don't make people sign it. There are better ways to protect your interests than to forbid all behavior and decide which things you want to punish people for this week.

Consider if there is an issue? What would be their recourse if it is not explicitly stated?

People would just go: "Oh, you never said I couldn't do it, so I'll do it."

knightofeffect
10-09-2013, 02:42 PM
Think of it more this way,

C4. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell your account
D5. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell in game items through a 3rd party or to an individual, also we aren't paying taxes on that
C5. At some point in the future this game may end, that isn't our fault, we aren't promising infinity
D8. We don't need to prove that we lost money, to seek non monetary legal repercussions against someone who broke this contract

This was how I read it. I can understand the concern, but I certainly understand the lawyer ass-covering, especially early when they plan on trying to tackle real money rewards in the end game someday.

ravenight
10-09-2013, 02:45 PM
Or, think about it this way, if D5 wasn't true you'd have to pay taxes on every prize you won in-game (or show that the expenses incurred to acquire those prizes exceeded the value of the prizes), and they might be subject to anti-gambling laws if the game was deemed to be a "game of chance".

Huntyre
10-09-2013, 02:48 PM
Not to be overly dramatic, but selective enforcement is a terrible regime to live under. It's more typical of tyrants than organization claiming to put people/players first in priority. If they don't want to enforce it, don't make people sign it. There are better ways to protect your interests than to forbid all behavior and decide which things you want to punish people for this week.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you aren't also. So.. lets just say that the only experience we've ever had with contracts is that of a layman. (unless you are an attorney, in which case you probably wouldn't need to post anything here)

This is alpha and as such, if you think about it... all of these things make sense. The first two points you bring up revolve around the concept of sales / trading / exchange of the alpha product... Makes sense to me that they don't want people selling alpha access. Your 3rd highlighted section C5 is standard for almost all games that require on-line connections. No one guarantees their game forever. D8... not really sure what you're worried about unless you plan on breaking the ToS in the first place, so...

If it really bothers you.. don't accept and wait for beta or the game to go live and then feel free to review the ToS again at that time.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 02:48 PM
Think of it more this way,

C4. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell your account
D5. Its not our fault if something bad happens because you buy/sell in game items through a 3rd party or to an individual, also we aren't paying taxes on that
C5. At some point in the future this game may end, that isn't our fault, we aren't promising infinity
D8. We don't need to prove that we lost money, to seek non monetary legal repercussions against someone who broke this contract
They could, of course, just say this. You don't have to strictly forbid people from selling virtual assets outside the game to waive liability for a transaction you weren't party to. In fact, the law would start out on their side in this case without them saying anything about it in the EULA. I understand that the vast majority of people will click Ok without ever reading it and hope for the best, but I do think it's a heavy handed contract.

randomsyllable
10-09-2013, 02:50 PM
Re: D5

MTGO has an identical clause, as is the case with basically any game that contains transferrable digital objects. By making any trading/selling unsanctioned, they cannot be held liable for you getting ripped off. It's not perfect, but it means they don't need to invest in monitoring all 3rd party transactions.

I actually thought the EULA as a whole was pretty concise and legible compared to most.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 02:51 PM
Or, think about it this way, if D5 wasn't true you'd have to pay taxes on every prize you won in-game (or show that the expenses incurred to acquire those prizes exceeded the value of the prizes), and they might be subject to anti-gambling laws if the game was deemed to be a "game of chance".

Interestingly enough they don't appear to be getting you to agree that the virtual assets have no monetary value, as other EULAs do. Only that you are forbidden from exchange them outside their system.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 03:05 PM
I'm not a lawyer and I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you aren't also. So.. lets just say that the only experience we've ever had with contracts is that of a layman. (unless you are an attorney, in which case you probably wouldn't need to post anything here)

This is alpha and as such, if you think about it... all of these things make sense. The first two points you bring up revolve around the concept of sales / trading / exchange of the alpha product... Makes sense to me that they don't want people selling alpha access. Your 3rd highlighted section C5 is standard for almost all games that require on-line connections. No one guarantees their game forever. D8... not really sure what you're worried about unless you plan on breaking the ToS in the first place, so...

If it really bothers you.. don't accept and wait for beta or the game to go live and then feel free to review the ToS again at that time.

For D8 I'm not concerned, its just abusive lawyering. Yes, the whole EULA is typical of the industry. Doesn't make it ok. On the heels of saying you're not responsible for anything, including actual malicious destruction of your players' virtual goods, you claim entitlement to all equitable relief. C'mon. (yes, I know this language has been lifted verbatim from many other online games, again, still not cool)

How about anything at all that would convince players to buy thousands of dollars of virtual goods for a "trading card game" - like letting them trade stuff however they want (without accepting liability for anything outside your game of course), assuring them their purchases are backed by warranty (like you'll refund people if your service deletes platinum or cards, or crashes in the middle of a tournament, etc.), or any other assurances for that matter?

As far as not clicking Ok, I'm likely going to sit out the alpha in favor of having a better first experience with the game, but I'm also not expecting any of these terms to change by beta or launch. People will click "Ok" anyway, pour money into the game, and likely never regret it (unless they expect to cash out at some point perhaps). If there's an "incident", players will have no recourse at all, despite being morally entitled to one. That's a shame.

randomsyllable
10-09-2013, 03:13 PM
Interestingly enough they don't appear to be getting you to agree that the virtual assets have no monetary value, as other EULAs do. Only that you are forbidden from exchange them outside their system.

Could be that they are intending to sell singles or precons.

GatticusFinch
10-09-2013, 03:22 PM
I'm a lawyer, and I don't care what the EULA says, I have never cared what any EULA says, and I will not begin caring what an EULA says at any point in the future.

The first question to ask yourself is: "Why do I care?" Are you planning on breaking the game in such a way that Crypto would go to great lengths to spend money to hire attorneys to track you down and sue you? If that's the case, then the EULA terms are meaningless to you, because you were not going to be stopped by some pop-up box and you don't get to be indignant about them defending themselves against someone who would do that.

The second question to ask yourself is: "Are they really going to enforce this?" Everything in this is typical cover-your-ass language you will find in any EULA, and does not necessarily mean it will be (or even could be, frankly, depending on jurisdiction) enforced. Just because the EULA says they do not have to reimburse you if the system goes haywire, do you think Crypto is going to make a lot of money on Hex if they actually decide to enforce that? "Oops, everyone just lost hundreds of dollars worth of game content, but screw them?" Do you think anyone would keep playing the game if that were the case?

This is one of those stances that people take not even knowing what the true EULA abuses are. All of this is nothing compared to what you see in other EULAs, like banning class actions, forcing arbitration, etc. If you want to take a pro-consumer stance, rail about those types of provisions in contracts, not this stuff.

wildcard
10-09-2013, 03:32 PM
I'm a lawyer, and I don't care what the EULA says, I have never cared what any EULA says, and I will not begin caring what an EULA says at any point in the future.

The first question to ask yourself is: "Why do I care?" Are you planning on breaking the game in such a way that Crypto would go to great lengths to spend money to hire attorneys to track you down and sue you? If that's the case, then the EULA terms are meaningless to you, because you were not going to be stopped by some pop-up box and you don't get to be indignant about them defending themselves against someone who would do that.

The second question to ask yourself is: "Are they really going to enforce this?" Everything in this is typical cover-your-ass language you will find in any EULA, and does not necessarily mean it will be (or even could be, frankly, depending on jurisdiction) enforced. Just because the EULA says they do not have to reimburse you if the system goes haywire, do you think Crypto is going to make a lot of money on Hex if they actually decide to enforce that? "Oops, everyone just lost hundreds of dollars worth of game content, but screw them?" Do you think anyone would keep playing the game if that were the case?

This is one of those stances that people take not even knowing what the true EULA abuses are. All of this is nothing compared to what you see in other EULAs, like banning class actions, forcing arbitration, etc. If you want to take a pro-consumer stance, rail about those types of provisions in contracts, not this stuff.

With your blessing then, I hereby rail against the clauses forcing arbitration (E2), and banning class actions (E3). We cool now? Again, the idea that people should sign unconscionable contracts because "hey, it's alright, I'm probably not going to hold you to this" is wrong.

arastor
10-09-2013, 03:34 PM
This is one of those stances that people take not even knowing what the true EULA abuses are. All of this is nothing compared to what you see in other EULAs, like banning class actions, forcing arbitration, etc. If you want to take a pro-consumer stance, rail about those types of provisions in contracts, not this stuff.

This one does force arbitration, actually. Don't have access to the exact quote at the moment (or rather am too lazy to dig it up. My apologies.)

Genocidal
10-09-2013, 04:19 PM
Say someone doesn't agree to the EULA. Obviously they won't be playing, but is that it, or would they be able to get their pledge refunded per Kickstarter terms of use since Cryptozoic technically couldn't fulfill the reward?

GatticusFinch
10-09-2013, 04:21 PM
With your blessing then, I hereby rail against the clauses forcing arbitration (E2), and banning class actions (E3). We cool now? Again, the idea that people should sign unconscionable contracts because "hey, it's alright, I'm probably not going to hold you to this" is wrong.

Yes. Those are legitimate complaints. The rest is pretty meaningless.

Still, this a video game in which I cannot foresee the need for suit against them. You are a license holder and they are not holding you hostage to anything and you can get out at anytime. It's not like when AT&T is screwing people nationwide with those provisions who are locked into contracts.

There is nothing in this that is unconscionable per the United States Supreme Court. All of it is legal. I don't like forced arbitration or class action bans, but the fact remains that it is legal and Crypto can do this if they choose. I don't plan on needing to sue anyone over a video game if it got that bad, I would just stop playing, so this does not really effect me.

DarkSeverance
10-09-2013, 04:23 PM
They could, of course, just say this. You don't have to strictly forbid people from selling virtual assets outside the game to waive liability for a transaction you weren't party to. In fact, the law would start out on their side in this case without them saying anything about it in the EULA. I understand that the vast majority of people will click Ok without ever reading it and hope for the best, but I do think it's a heavy handed contract.Something to keep in mind that laws change depending on state and country. I would have to guess that it is written to cover them across all aspects. By simply waiving liability and saying you can't hold us responsible depending on where you are and the court does not necessarily mean they aren't liable. Otherwise they would stated that they are against it from the beginning. Not everything is about the USA and sometimes we forget that and base it on our own perceptions or experiences. And when dealing with the law it is never cut and dry. The only way to completely cover all bases is to deny and not endorse any of it whether they turn a blind eye to it or not.

Dr.Blasterface
10-09-2013, 04:41 PM
There is nothing in this that is unconscionable per the United States Supreme Court. All of it is legal...

Assuming the Hex product can be returned for a refund of the purchase, per ProCD. (IANAL) My undergarments aren't up in a wad on anything in the EULA, just making conversation.

GatticusFinch
10-09-2013, 07:11 PM
Assuming the Hex product can be returned for a refund of the purchase, per ProCD. (IANAL) My undergarments aren't up in a wad on anything in the EULA, just making conversation..

ProCD is probably inapplicable because Hex is free to play. You are not actually buying the software, it is licensed to you, so it's not really a shrink wrap issue. There are no purchases until after you sign up. The only people who could be surprised by it, from a legal standpoint, are the kickstarter backers, but they have no recourse because kickstarter offers no guarantees that anything will pan out. All of the terms people were complaining about before I brought up the arbitration issue are necessary EULA terms, regardless of if they let us sell accounts or cards, and this isn't some business venture where I am personally worried about getting in some legal fight with Hex Entertainment, LLC.

I think this is a non-issue. People always get in a huff over this stuff, but it is almost always a non-issue from the perspective of game companies and players.

Dr.Blasterface
10-10-2013, 07:35 AM
I was actually thinking of Slacker backers, which isn't run through Kickstarter. I don't know of any case that addresses EULA rejection in a "free to play, allegedly valueless digital assets sold for valuable consideration" environment where the valuable consideration is given before access to the EULA.

I agree - non-issue.

kallistibrc
10-10-2013, 08:20 AM
I'll be honest, I'm less concerned with the sections brought up so far than I am with some of the things in section C. And to be more honest, i'm not concerned about these either. But if anybody really wants to find things to worry about in the EULA, then I think section C.7 has a lot more tinfoil hat type things to try and get worked up about.

The phrase in there about being able to monitor, record, review, modify, and/or disclose your chat sessions, whether voice or text, etc. The EULA doesn't define what a chat session is (neither voice nor text). Could be a friend and I having a chat on Skype while the game client is minimized in the background. (And I personally pity anybody forced to listen to my inane chats ;) ) There's other stuff about being able to collect system data (as long as it relates to the HEX Game and license compliance), personally identifying information (through the Account) etc etc.

But yeah, my real point here is that it's always possible to freak out about stuff in EULAs. They're silly-time. :)

EDIT: Also, the link to the privacy policy in that specific part of the document doesn't work. The link has a period at the end and it shouldn't. Take the period out and it goes to the correct spot.

Kami
10-10-2013, 08:51 AM
The phrase in there about being able to monitor, record, review, modify, and/or disclose your chat sessions, whether voice or text, etc. The EULA doesn't define what a chat session is (neither voice nor text). Could be a friend and I having a chat on Skype while the game client is minimized in the background. (And I personally pity anybody forced to listen to my inane chats ;) ) There's other stuff about being able to collect system data (as long as it relates to the HEX Game and license compliance), personally identifying information (through the Account) etc etc.

This is standard stuff. This is so they can assist in case there is an issue. For example: Suicide threat, etc.

It doesn't mean they're trying to encroach on your privacy. :)

Gremio
10-10-2013, 10:21 AM
.

ProCD is probably inapplicable because Hex is free to play. You are not actually buying the software, it is licensed to you, so it's not really a shrink wrap issue. There are no purchases until after you sign up. The only people who could be surprised by it, from a legal standpoint, are the kickstarter backers, but they have no recourse because kickstarter offers no guarantees that anything will pan out. All of the terms people were complaining about before I brought up the arbitration issue are necessary EULA terms, regardless of if they let us sell accounts or cards, and this isn't some business venture where I am personally worried about getting in some legal fight with Hex Entertainment, LLC.

I think this is a non-issue. People always get in a huff over this stuff, but it is almost always a non-issue from the perspective of game companies and players.

I guess you could say Kickstarter offers no guarantees. But if the kickstarted project doesn't "pan out" there is recourse, as you are entering a contract with the project creator, which both parties have accepted by using Kickstarter.

http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use?ref=footer

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

Just wanted to clear that up.

LwoodY2K
10-10-2013, 10:15 PM
D5 seems to go against original talks about the game being open to 3rd party trading? ... At least I thought 3rd party trading was mentioned as a positive. My lawyer speak sucks.

It could be intended to mean that vendors can only buy/sell things using the ingame trading mechanism - like D3 using the ingame AH rather than selling for cash on a website.