EULA Change - Can't Access Tomb Raider

[Joccaren]

While you may be happy to give up your consumer rights, I'm not and I wanted to discuss that, if you actually have a point to make, please do so.

This is the part that gets me.
From what it sounds like, you haven't read the new EULA. You're just assuming, likely rightfully so but still, that they are going to take more rights away from you or something. This is... What?
You complain that you don't want to accept something you haven't read because you think it'll be wrong. Its like creationists rejecting evolution without taking even basic classes in it, because it'll conflict with their preconceived notions of the world. I don't get how someone can hold that point of view seriously.

If you've read the EULA, and don't agree to something specific that it says, then fine. You put the effort in, and decided that there was something you didn't like.
If you don't like EULAs in general, why did you even buy the game? Seeing as all games these days come with EULAs [Well, at least all AAA games]
But when you bought the game, accepted the EULA, then decided "Nah, bugger it, I don't want to accept this EULA that I haven't read, I want to complain about the fact that I can no longer play my game because of my own actions instead" - yeah no.

I agree in principle that EULAs should be signed before money is handed over and all that, and that they should not be able to be changed after the product is owned by a consumer [Which it isn't these days. The EULA will usually state its only licensed, allowing this sort of BS], but the attitude you're taking over it baffles me.

 

[Da Orky Man]

So, a while back I purchased Tomb Raider. I hadn't finished so I thought I'd come back to it. Thing is, it has a new EULA.

Now I agreed to the initial EULA, not this one, but if I don't agree it won't let me play it. How can a company change the EULA after I have purchased the product - which is not a service but in fact a product - and then deny me the right to use it unless I agree?

No cause for worry. There was an EU case a while ago that established that agreements that you have to purchase the product to even read, such as basically all EULAs, are invalid and moot legally. If they tried to do anything about it, the court would throw it out, at least if it only concerned a breach of the EULA rather than actual criminal laws.

 

[jelock]

Here's a question. WHY has it changed? (I don't have TR) but have they patched / added content? In which case then yes the EULA may change in relation to the new content.

 

[Gunner 51]

I say why not just get rid of the EULA altogether? On the grounds that they're rather unjust, hardly anyone reads them or understands them and I've not seen it do one ounce of good for the common gamer.

Perhaps this is my chaotic side talking here, but perhaps the old saying "Lex iniusta non est lex" should come into play here.

I want to buy games, not purchase a license for a service.

 

[lordmardok]

So, a while back I purchased Tomb Raider. I hadn't finished so I thought I'd come back to it. Thing is, it has a new EULA.

Now I agreed to the initial EULA, not this one, but if I don't agree it won't let me play it. How can a company change the EULA after I have purchased the product - which is not a service but in fact a product - and then deny me the right to use it unless I agree?

Technically if you just download a cd crack you can. See, CD cracks aren't actually illegal. The way it was explained to me, a crack is legal in the same caveat that ROM's are legal; that being, only if you bought and paid for a copy of the game. I'm not really sure about the legal ramifications in relations to changed EULA's but it would fall under the jurisdiction of:

A EULA is required to access servers and continued service via the publishing or developing company. By refusing to digitally sign the EULA and downloading a program to open the game you purchased you are foregoing the right to continued service from the company but are still able to play the game legally because it is a product that you bought and paid for legitimately. Since you legally purchased the game but refused to sign the EULA that means cracking the game is not in violation of any agreement because you refused to sign the agreement.

tl;dr I'm fairly certain that so long as you legally bought the game you should be able to ignore the EULA if you want and crack the DRM protection on the game and play it.

 

[lordmardok]

if you're gonna call someone out like that try spelling the word you typed in caps CORRECTLY or you'll end up looking like a total a$$%^&^.

And as for the eula as it has been for a while all you can do is either accept or sell/return the product.
all eulas by the way very clearly state that they're subject to change and i'm guessing you hit the accept button the first time right? Therefore you have accepted any and all changes that may come after the fact.

That's how 'Capitalising' is spelled in Britain you cultural lepton. God forbid they spell stuff differently in a different country.

 

[Naeras]

Like it or not, the general way software works is that you are buying a license to use the product, not the product itself (at least from a legal perspective).

Nope, games that you actually buy have legally been declared "products", not "services", at least in Europe.

 

[thePyro_13]

So, a while back I purchased Tomb Raider. I hadn't finished so I thought I'd come back to it. Thing is, it has a new EULA.

Now I agreed to the initial EULA, not this one, but if I don't agree it won't let me play it. How can a company change the EULA after I have purchased the product - which is not a service but in fact a product - and then deny me the right to use it unless I agree?

Technically if you just download a cd crack you can. See, CD cracks aren't actually illegal. The way it was explained to me, a crack is legal in the same caveat that ROM's are legal; that being, only if you bought and paid for a copy of the game. I'm not really sure about the legal ramifications in relations to changed EULA's but it would fall under the jurisdiction of:

A EULA is required to access servers and continued service via the publishing or developing company. By refusing to digitally sign the EULA and downloading a program to open the game you purchased you are foregoing the right to continued service from the company but are still able to play the game legally because it is a product that you bought and paid for legitimately. Since you legally purchased the game but refused to sign the EULA that means cracking the game is not in violation of any agreement because you refused to sign the agreement.

tl;dr I'm fairly certain that so long as you legally bought the game you should be able to ignore the EULA if you want and crack the DRM protection on the game and play it.

Except in some countries, like the US, where circumventing DRM is also illegal(DMCA). And since the crack is doing exactly that, it is illegal.

But on the main topic. It's BS that we don't get access to the EULA before purchasing, it's even more BS that they can change the EULA after we had accepted it and then force us to either stop playing entirely, or accept their new changes.

EDIT: I failed quoting 101, replaced it with the post i intended to quote.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

The attitude of 'someone should sue' is cute, but 99% of all gamers don't have the time or an endless flow of cash to keep paying a team of lawyers big enough to match the lawyers in service of Steam/EA/

Also, a EULA can and should change when the software is updated or patched, to outline the rules of the new content installed to your PC and to make sure you are okay with it. Unless you read both EULAs and put them side by side, I wonder if you can really say it changed.

The EULA isn't legally binding, but can also specify certain things they cannot be sued for in the first place, like preserving the right to take down the multiplayer servers, changing game content as they please, requiring a connection to blablabla.com during gameplay, sending out usage data and so on.

I am unsure why OP even buys digital products.

And yes, you are buying a license, not software. What do you think EULA stands for?!

(End User License Agreement)

 

[thePyro_13]

if you're gonna call someone out like that try spelling the word you typed in caps CORRECTLY or you'll end up looking like a total a$$%^&^.

And as for the eula as it has been for a while all you can do is either accept or sell/return the product.
all eulas by the way very clearly state that they're subject to change and i'm guessing you hit the accept button the first time right? Therefore you have accepted any and all changes that may come after the fact.

That's how 'Capitalising' is spelled in Britain you cultural lepton. God forbid they spell stuff differently in a different country.

American site, american spelling!

Go hang out in a .co.uk site if you want things spelled your way!

Don't be silly, .com is the global namespace, go to .com.us if you want people to only use the US spelling.

 

[beddo]

I am unsure why OP even buys digital products.

And yes, you are buying a license, not software. What do you think EULA stands for?!

I buy them for convenience. If I bought the game under licence that makes it into a service and similar consumer rights apply.

I'm not saying that I want to sue or anything, I don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to suing, however, I think I do have a case when it comes to them denying my access unless I agree to a new agreement that wasn't part of the original agreement - that's why I've submitted a ticket on the issue. If I get a response that isn't satisfactory, I will contact the Office of Fair Trading.

If it wanted to update with a new EULA it should have done it in the same way Microsoft does on the 360 - inform of changes before the installation - instead I was denied that choice and subsequently, access to the game I wanted to play.

 

[flarty]

See in the UK by law you have 7 days to get a refund on a digital product - no matter the reason. Our law trumps any EULA and that's just the way it is. However, this has happened significantly after the purchase, now I could feasibly get a refund because the product has become 'non-functional' within the 2 years or whatever it is that I made the purchase.

Why don't you, out of curiosity?

Simply because I'm fed up. I wonder, what change has some lawyer over at Square made that is trying to take more right away from me?

Sometimes I wish I could just pay extra for these people to leave me alone, I'd happily pay for a non-tracked, filed and sorted experience where my most intimate details aren't sold on for less than a few dollars to some multinational to sell me catnip.

EULA are not enforceable in Europe, don't worry about it. Something about not being able to read them until after purchase, meaning the consumer was not able to make an informed decision.

 

[Vrach]

So, a while back I purchased Tomb Raider. I hadn't finished so I thought I'd come back to it. Thing is, it has a new EULA.

Now I agreed to the initial EULA, not this one, but if I don't agree it won't let me play it. How can a company change the EULA after I have purchased the product - which is not a service but in fact a product - and then deny me the right to use it unless I agree?

It's the joys of the Copyright licence. You don't own the product, merely the licence to use it for an unspecified amount of time. The real owners (people who made it) can actually take it away from you at any time, for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Vegosiux]

I doubt this nature of software consumption is really going away considering that we are moving more and more towards digital distribution, where we don't even have a physical copy of the product.

Yeah, totally the fault of digital distribution. Not say, foolishness of people who will agree to or ignore any terms jut because "ZOMG MUST HAVE THIS NEW COOL SHINY THING RIGHT NAO!!!!!"

You can try fighting this for a more consumer-friendly approach, but again, that might be difficult given the greater emphasis being put on digital distribution.

See above. The problem is the fact that the average consumer seems to be quite a tool who values instant gratification over rationalism (hey, that's why advertising works at all...), not the nature of digital distribution.

Also, this seems like a silly reason to not continue playing Tomb Raider. It's very simple to just accept the EULA, and no, you won't have to sacrifice your firstborn on an altar to the god of death in order to keep your end of the EULA.

Reads a lot like "I don't care about my consumer rights, you're silly if you take issue when you feel yours are infringed"

And yes, I have used products where I had to accept a new EULA sometime after accepting the first one, so I'm speaking from experience when I say it is easy. And no, murdering my whole family and drinking their blood has never come up in one of the new EULAs.

Quit it with the ridiculous hyperbole already.

But how is it bad for the consumer outside of it being "against our rights as consumers"?

Did I just tell you to quit it with the ridiculous hyperbole? I take that back, I'll join in instead! How bad is murder, outside of it being "against our right to live"? How bad is robbery, outside of it being "against our right to not have our stuff stolen"? How bad is discrimination, outside of it being "against our right to be equal in the eyes of law"?

Some people value their consumer rights higher than others. I know I value them pretty highly. Also, yes, the legislation of the jurisdiction you live in overrides any kind of contract you sign anyway if there's a conflict. So, going back to hyperbole we had earlier, even if an EULA actually required you to murder your family and drink their blood, you could dispute it because the legislation of your country most likely doesn't allow you to do that kind of stuff, and no lawfully enforceable contract can require you do something that's against the law in your jurisdiction, nor can it require you to waive any rights that are guaranteed to you by the legislation of your jurisdiction.

 

[Woodsey]

Who cares? Click OK. That'll be that. Shit isn't legally binding in most places anyway.

 

[Bellvedere]

I am unsure why OP even buys digital products.

And yes, you are buying a license, not software. What do you think EULA stands for?!

I buy them for convenience. If I bought the game under licence that makes it into a service and similar consumer rights apply.

I'm not saying that I want to sue or anything, I don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to suing, however, I think I do have a case when it comes to them denying my access unless I agree to a new agreement that wasn't part of the original agreement - that's why I've submitted a ticket on the issue. If I get a response that isn't satisfactory, I will contact the Office of Fair Trading.

If it wanted to update with a new EULA it should have done it in the same way Microsoft does on the 360 - inform of changes before the installation - instead I was denied that choice and subsequently, access to the game I wanted to play.

I would think that in order to have any entitlement to a refund you would actually have to know what's changed and provide justification as to why that's an issue. As others have pointed out, pretty much all EULA state that they are subject to change, so it's not really a case of "a new agreement that wasn't part of the old agreement". It would be rather embarrassing to make a big fuss over something like fixing a typo or extending the agreement to cover the recent updates. In regards to offering the choice, there's a Steam update setting (right click the game title> properties> updates). You can set the game to automatically update or not. Not quite what you were refering to with the comparison to the 360, but it could offer some protection.

Speaking in general though, EULAs are tough. On one hand, it is possible to include some nasty stuff in an agreement and there's no way that anyone has the time to read every single thing that they agree to nor is everyone going to be capable of understanding it all anyway. On the other hand it is somewhat necessary to prevent someone abusing a product or service. You know, you are not allowed to copy and distribute this game, sort or thing. And there's some perfectly justifiable situations to update the EULA. Stuff like fixing ambiguous terms, type errors or to extend the agreement to new services.

I agree that it's tedious and sometimes concerning accepting all these agreements, though the fact that your consumer rights override the acceptance of an agreement, whilst it doesn't offer complete protection, does provide some comfort.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I am unsure why OP even buys digital products.

And yes, you are buying a license, not software. What do you think EULA stands for?!

I buy them for convenience. If I bought the game under licence that makes it into a service and similar consumer rights apply.

I'm not saying that I want to sue or anything, I don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to suing, however, I think I do have a case when it comes to them denying my access unless I agree to a new agreement that wasn't part of the original agreement - that's why I've submitted a ticket on the issue. If I get a response that isn't satisfactory, I will contact the Office of Fair Trading.

If it wanted to update with a new EULA it should have done it in the same way Microsoft does on the 360 - inform of changes before the installation - instead I was denied that choice and subsequently, access to the game I wanted to play.

I would think that in order to have any entitlement to a refund you would actually have to know what's changed and provide justification as to why that's an issue. As others have pointed out, pretty much all EULA state that they are subject to change, so it's not really a case of "a new agreement that wasn't part of the old agreement". It would be rather embarrassing to make a big fuss over something like fixing a typo or extending the agreement to cover the recent updates. In regards to offering the choice, there's a Steam update setting (right click the game title> properties> updates). You can set the game to automatically update or not. Not quite what you were refering to with the comparison to the 360, but it could offer some protection.

Speaking in general though, EULAs are tough. On one hand, it is possible to include some nasty stuff in an agreement and there's no way that anyone has the time to read every single thing that they agree to nor is everyone going to be capable of understanding it all anyway. On the other hand it is somewhat necessary to prevent someone abusing a product or service. You know, you are not allowed to copy and distribute this game, sort or thing. And there's some perfectly justifiable situations to update the EULA. Stuff like fixing ambiguous terms, type errors or to extend the agreement to new services.

I agree that it's tedious and sometimes concerning accepting all these agreements, though the fact that your consumer rights override the acceptance of an agreement, whilst it doesn't offer complete protection, does provide some comfort.

Actually the whole "cant copy or distribute" is already a criminal offence, if they want to they could charge people with it. Its not necessary, what is "necessary" for them is trying to get out of paying compensation if there shitty programming bricks your system but in that case they are screwed here because that's a statutory right

 

[MysticSlayer]

Like it or not, the general way software works is that you are buying a license to use the product, not the product itself (at least from a legal perspective).

Nope, games that you actually buy have legally been declared "products", not "services", at least in Europe.

OK, thanks for the clarification. Not sure if that'll change the way software developers view the issue, at least if they aren't from Europe, but it does help clarify the issue the OP is having a little bit.

I doubt this nature of software consumption is really going away considering that we are moving more and more towards digital distribution, where we don't even have a physical copy of the product.

Yeah, totally the fault of digital distribution. Not say, foolishness of people who will agree to or ignore any terms jut because "ZOMG MUST HAVE THIS NEW COOL SHINY THING RIGHT NAO!!!!!"

I'm not saying digital distribution is bad. I'm saying that it enforces the already existing mentality among software developers that you are buying a license, not the product itself. The degree to which they argued for it when we actually had a physical copy of the product was bad enough, but now we don't even have a physical copy in our hand many times. I'm not saying we should abandon digital distribution. I'm saying we should understand what negatives may come with it, so we can understand if we really want it, or we could start thinking about what to do about the current "you bought the license, not the product" when game developers and publishers inevitably start throwing the "but you don't even have a physical copy" in our face.

Reads a lot like "I don't care about my consumer rights, you're silly if you take issue when you feel yours are infringed"

I care very much about my consumer rights, thank you very much. But I don't start going crazy about every little thing that comes up. I actually consider if it will seriously hinder my ability to enjoy my product (ex. the Xbox One's mandatory 24-hour connection), could permanently render my product useless (ex. always online DRM), or is an invasion of my privacy (ex. the Xbox One's Kinect, or an old EULA that Origin had). Re-accepting an EULA doesn't do any of that, especially if you've confirmed that there is nothing new that would infringe on your privacy.

What I'm still waiting for is for someone to explain how accepting a new EULA is against consumers rights without simply saying "it's against my rights" as if it were a self-evident statement, because it isn't. Yes, what leads companies to do it is partially based on an anti-consumer mentality, but the practice itself doesn't appear to be explicitly anti-consumer. And no, I don't like getting involved in the slippery slope "well, if we accept the new EULA, we open ourselves up to them trying to do [insert doomsday scenario here] to us" argument.

Quit it with the ridiculous hyperbole already.

Hey, I was trying to lighten the mood a little bit.

How bad is murder, outside of it being "against our right to live"? How bad is robbery, outside of it being "against our right to not have our stuff stolen"? How bad is discrimination, outside of it being "against our right to be equal in the eyes of law"?

Without going into too much detail, most (read: all respectable) philosophers agree that humans have intrinsic value, and murder is a direct affront to that. Not to mention, crimes such as murder and robbery generally lead to an undesirable level of chaos, fear, and disorder within a society, and most governments would like to keep that at a minimum, which is why we have laws meant to discourage such practices. Some governments take things way too far, but there is always a matter of balancing what is generally acceptable and what isn't. That's why so many countries allow peaceful protests until they start disrupting other people's day-to-day lives, and they will generally try to stop armed uprisings.

I can understand why people would want to be highly protective of consumer rights, as companies traditionally see how far they can take their blatant disregard for our consumers rights. But it is it's own balancing act. There's really no reason to raise a fuss over something as simple as accepting a new EULA, as the act itself doesn't harm us in any way, unless the company uses it to infringe on our privacy. If a company decides to take things further, then I can see getting angered by it. But right now, it seems like people are turning a minor issue into a major one without any justifiable reason for doing so.