How many of you are aware under the WF EULA you can be banned permanently without reason and without warning?

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

 Greetings fellow Tenno, after reading the EULA recently I came across this and I was a little concerned as to why it would be worded in such a way:

7. TERMINATION

This License Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate the License Agreement at any time by (i) permanently destroying all copies of the Game in your possession or control; (ii) removing the Software from your hard drive. Digital Extremes may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason or no reason. Upon termination for any reason, all licenses granted herein shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently destroy all copies of the Game in your possession and control and remove the Software from your hard drive.

 

 So I'm curious how many of you know about this clause that we have all agreed to as I know many people these days don't bother to read EULAs, especially the younger playerbase like my little brother for example who just clicks whatever he has to as long as he gets to play whatever game he is trying to play with friends.

Edited April 28, 2018 by (PS4)vektorwithak
grammar

[Jim22]

yes

[AuroraSonicBoom]

Welcome to every online service ever, buddy. Enjoy your stay.

[IggySnow]

that's practically in every online game.

[-VS-Airikr]

Just FYI that basically every company has this rule. It is just basically "my house - my rules" and being safe on the legal side sort of thing.

 

Only because they can ban you whenever they want doesnt mean they will.

So nothing unusual.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

The fact it is worded without reason is what troubles me.

[OoKeNnEtHoO]

This is a standard rule that pretty much all companies will put in their EULA.

It's basically saying you are granted the right to play this game if you agree to the EULA but they have the right to break this agreement and remove your ability to play it anytime and for any period they want.

How else do you think they can ban people who cheat, exploit, hack, sell accounts and all the other illegal/immoral acts?

They can also ban people for absolutely no reason but they won't.

This is because there is something known as the media and banning people who paid money or invested time in the game for absolutely no justifiable reason is not good for reputation and business.

 

[Ster]

This is normal for every onilne game out there... You do not own anything that you think you do ( your account and everything on it belongs to DE in this case) technically they can do whatever they want with it. I doubt that people would get banned for nothing anyways

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

Just now, OoKeNnEtHoO said:

This is a standard rule that pretty much all companies will put in their EULA.

It's basically saying you are granted the right to play this game if you agree to the EULA but they have the right to break this agreement and remove your ability to play it anytime and for any period they want.

How else do you think they can ban people who cheat, exploit, hack, sell accounts and all the other illegal/immoral acts?

They can also ban people for absolutely no reason but they won't.

This is because there is something known as the media and banning people who paid money or invested time in the game for absolutely no justifiable reason is not good for reputation and business.

 

 In the reasons you indicated there is a clear reason for a ban, cheating, hacking, exploiting, etc.

 So then why include without reason? It just seems very anti-consumer and I can't imagine a scenario it would be justifiable or moral to include it in the EULA.

[DeMonkey]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

The fact it is worded without reason is what troubles me.

It's just covering their backs.

Instead of having to give a reason and then having potential legal action taken because of that reason, this allows them to simply not give it. 

Honestly, wouldn't worry about it. I hate to bring him up but when RevXDev was banned he was in fact given a reason. He was the sort of person I could see them simply banning and ignoring, but instead they made sure because of the unwarranted attention.

It's highly unlikely they will ban any of us for no reason.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

It's really not a matter of likelihood. It is the potential for misuse that is the issue.

 Does anyone think it is moral or pro-consumer?

 I'm not even sure how it would hold up to certain regions laws if put to the test but that isn't the question.

 I keep seeing excuses but not one person has stated they think it is an ethical wording on the EULA, merely that "everyone does it so it's nothing special, nothing to see here" which is unfortunate. Just because something is a common practice does not make it acceptable.

[o0Despair0o]

Two things:

 

1. As others have said, this is the same rule as in pretty much every other online game.

2. Seriously, how many people actually read the EULA everytime they sign up for a online game? 3 people?

[OoKeNnEtHoO]

7 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 In the reasons you indicated there is a clear reason for a ban, cheating, hacking, exploiting, etc.

 So then why include without reason? It just seems very anti-consumer and I can't imagine a scenario it would be justifiable or moral to include it in the EULA.

Let's say you start an in-game business that helps people do a missions or get items for real cash, effectively making money out of Warframe.

Or you use the chat daily to advertise stuff or con people.

Or you make use of an exploit in the game that is not reported to get tons of platinum.

Technically, you are just using the in-game functions.

You did not hack the game, or change the codes or do anything that affects the software.

Other than the second one, the other 2 is arguably not detrimental to the community either.

So, you neither cause damage to the community nor did you hack the software and are simply doing everything within the constraints of the game.

These kind of stuff or basically things that their lawyers cannot predict ahead of time when they made the contract are what this clause is meant for.

It's the same everywhere.

Edited April 28, 2018 by OoKeNnEtHoO

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

10 minutes ago, OoKeNnEtHoO said:

Let's say you start an in-game business that helps people do a missions or get items for real cash.

Or you use the chat to advertise stuff or con people.

Or you make use of an exploit in the game that is not reported to get tons of platinum.

Technically, you are just using the in-game functions.

You did not hack the game, or change the codes or do anything that affects the software.

These kind of stuff or basically things that their lawyers cannot predict ahead of time when they made the contract are what this clause is meant for.

It's the same everywhere.

5.USER CONTENT In the TOS covers a lot of those examples already where chat/player interaction is used. Besides people who complain about conning people in this game are rather silly, how does one con another player in game? It would require a completely willing and uninformed party for this to happen at which case I would argue the onus is on them, information is a few clicks away if they want to check values, rarity, etc.

I still can't see an example where no clear reason for a ban would be available and thus provided.

 Again I want to stress, just because something is a common practice does not make it acceptable or moral. Slavery was once a common practice and I think we can all agree that wasn't a good enough reason to keep it around.

Edited April 28, 2018 by (PS4)vektorwithak

[DeMonkey]

14 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

Does anyone think it is moral or pro-consumer?

I do, very much so.

I'd much rather DE put their business safety above basically anything else.

It's hard to be a consumer of a game if the game no longer exists because legal action was taken against it and the company hadn't adequately covered themselves.

[Ijaa-Aden]

Almost every game has it.

If they decide to end the game, you have to delete the game from your hard drive. Basically, it's to avoid the reuse of a game client after end of service (making your own personnal private server (°° )).

On another side, it also allows them to permanently ban you if they state that you were going agains the ToS without having to warn you beforehand (so you can't resell your account before it getting banned for example).

[JakeTrans]

Not arguing the moral part here becuase this bit ain't about morals it's about business:

Basically it's "legal protection", if they turn the server off, you can't ask for a refund of all your plat. Otherwise you could sue them.

they could have reason to delete you account but legally not be able to disclose them (i.e. your using plat as a money laundering system)

unfortantly it is a way of the world and most of any TOS/EULA is in essence, "you can't sue us"

 

 

 

 

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

I do, very much so.

I'd much rather DE put their business safety above basically anything else.

It's hard to be a consumer of a game if the game no longer exists because legal action was taken against it and the company hadn't adequately covered themselves.

 We all agree it's not likely to occur but let's say it was you? Your account was banned, would you expect a reason to be given so you could perhaps defend yourself and prove yourself innocent of said claims? This is the basis of our modern society and why a reason should be given.

 This puts way too much power in the hands of a Developer. I don't understand how you can call it moral, you can say it's smart business practice perhaps but you definitely cannot claim it to be moral by any means.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

2 minutes ago, Ijaa-Aden said:

Almost every game has it.

If they decide to end the game, you have to delete the game from your hard drive. Basically, it's to avoid the reuse of a game client after end of service (making your own personnal private server (°° )).

On another side, it also allows them to permanently ban you if they state that you were going agains the ToS without having to warn you beforehand (so you can't resell your account before it getting banned for example).

 There are copyright laws for things like this.

 Additionally the TOS have rules against account sharing.

So again, there is no moral reason to have this line included in the EULA, all the examples you guys give are already covered in the TOS and EULA or wider law.

[DeMonkey]

1 minute ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 We all agree it's not likely to occur but let's say it was you? Your account was banned, would you expect a reason to be given so you could perhaps defend yourself and prove yourself innocent of said claims? This is the basis of our modern society and why a reason should be given.

 This puts way too much power in the hands of a Developer. I don't understand how you can call it moral, you can say it's smart business practice perhaps but you definitely cannot claim it to be moral by any means.

I really don't see why you're so hung up over morals?

It's not even worth imagining it happens to me, because it simply won't. 

Yes, it gives the developers power. Their business is their livelihood, it would be morally wrong for them to not protect it. They have families to feed, bills to pay etc etc.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

5 minutes ago, JakeTrans said:

Not arguing the moral part here becuase this bit ain't about morals it's about business:

Basically it's "legal protection", if they turn the server off, you can't ask for a refund of all your plat. Otherwise you could sue them.

they could have reason to delete you account but legally not be able to disclose them (i.e. your using plat as a money laundering system)

unfortantly it is a way of the world and most of any TOS/EULA is in essence, "you can't sue us"

INTERRUPTION OF USE/SERVICE covers the servers going down in the TOS.

 I'm certain your rather far fetched money laundering example would also breach TOS and EULA quite easily in may different ways that a clear reason could be provided.

 When you enter into a business agreement with another person it is a moral one. You are agreeing to provide X and the other person is expected to provide Y. When you take morality out of the equation then there is no reason to uphold an agreement, morals and from those morals come laws that enforce those agreements.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

2 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I really don't see why you're so hung up over morals?

It's not even worth imagining it happens to me, because it simply won't. 

Yes, it gives the developers power. Their business is their livelihood, it would be morally wrong for them to not protect it. They have families to feed, bills to pay etc etc.

 They are already protected quite clearly by the EULA and the TOS which are quite clearly defined, not to mention the external laws themselves.

 If you cannot see why I am concerned about the morality of my point what is the point in discussing this with you?

 Do you think it is morally acceptable to end a service that someone has likely paid for(any service, game, gym membership, drivers license) without reason or warning? If you cannot agree to this basic principle I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

[Ryim_Drykeon]

All a EULA is are rules for use of a privately owned server/software. DE is privately owned, in that it is not state/government run for the public. This allows DE to use their hardware/software as they see fit. As they should. This extends to "banning people for no reason" so that they can remove troublemakers without the need to include law enforcement or the justice system.

The EULA is not admissible in a court of law for legal purposes of lawsuits and litigation. It is only a blanket protection for DE to prevent such against DE.

In effect, what the OP is complaining about is DE retaining the ability to protect their legitimate customers by removing those that are detrimental to those customers enjoyment of their product.

[DeMonkey]

Just now, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

If you cannot see why I am concerned about the morality of my point what is the point in discussing this with you?

No, I can see why you're hung up. I cannot see why you're so hung up. There's a difference.

1 minute ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

If you cannot agree to this basic principle I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

Unless I agree with you we can't have a discussion? That's not how discussion works.

Yes, I think it's acceptable. I have already explained why I think it's acceptable. You can prattle on about the Eula and the ToS protecting them, but that's naivety imo. They can't protect DE from everything, a no reason clause however can.

Protecting business, livelihood and families = morally right.

Providing a reason for a denial of service = morally insignificant in comparison. 

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

4 minutes ago, Ryim_Drykeon said:

All a EULA is are rules for use of a privately owned server/software. DE is privately owned, in that it is not state/government run for the public. This allows DE to use their hardware/software as they see fit. As they should. This extends to "banning people for no reason" so that they can remove troublemakers without the need to include law enforcement or the justice system.

The EULA is not admissible in a court of law for legal purposes of lawsuits and litigation. It is only a blanket protection for DE to prevent such against DE.

In effect, what the OP is complaining about is DE retaining the ability to protect their legitimate customers by removing those that are detrimental to those customers enjoyment of their product.

 If a EULA is not admissible in a court how does it protect them from the legal system if they or any company broke a law despite it being acceptable via their TOS/EULA? I mean there are a lot of things you can put in a EULA that will not be protected by law due to multiple protections in them.