Wargaming.net changes EULA in preperation for game closure

[BaronIveagh]

Recently, many WG.net players recived the following email:

Dear Players,

Please note that the EULA text for Wargaming games and website has changed. Please review the new text here. By using Wargaming games and websites you agree to the updated version of the EULA.


Fairly standard stuff on the surface, until you actually read the changes to the EULA. Which you happen to have agreed to, having used their website to read the EULA. Seriously, read to the bottom, by reading it, you agree to it.

The major items seem to be that WG will not issue refunds in the event that a game is closed, and that by agreeing you waive any and all right to start or join a class action suit against Wargaming.

This has needless to say caused a few ears to perk up, with their struggling World of Warplanes game, suggesting they may pull the plug without warning, or ceasing to continue to sell in game products for real money until such time as the servers close. (if then)

 

[Lightspeaker]

Wouldn't entirely surprise me based on everything I heard about Warplanes. However it'd be interesting to say how it plays out if they really do just pull the rug from under everyone rather than a more longer-term winding down and compensation. EULAs are well known to be of questionable significance, particularly here in Europe where a company literally CAN'T make you sign away certain consumer rights.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Would that hold up in court? I am not a lawyer, but I know if you play 'too' unfairly in contracts then the contract can be thrown out.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Can't say I'm surprised about the closure rumors. I briefly tried the game out, and it just doesn't stack up to the likes of War Thunder.

The aircraft selection is all kinds of weird. For some inexplicable reason WG ignored many of the most iconic WWII planes in favor of obscure and experimental designs, some of which never even got past the blueprint stage. Planes have HP bars, meaning you have to slowly whittle them down to zero instead of taking out critical components. It didn't help that all my matches were really laggy as well.

 

[Xyebane]

These kind of 'you waive right to sue us' clauses popped up for contractors in Iraq and now have leaked into the consumer world. I don't think they hold much mustard in either case though. You can always challenge the legality of the EULA itself, which you cannot agree to by reading it.

 

[BaronIveagh]

Would that hold up in court? I am not a lawyer, but I know if you play 'too' unfairly in contracts then the contract can be thrown out.

That's just one of many questions: the EULA itself is governed by California law, but violates California law in several places. Their refund policy and conditions that effect it is not listed in full even on the EULA, you have to search their FAQs section for it [Ignore the part where there are no refunds. There are. The EULA lies]. I got caught by this once, as if I could have read it in it's entirety, I'd have been actually due a refund.

 

[Recusant]

The main purpose of a lot of EULAs isn't to say "neener neener, you can't sue us"; there are very few things you can do that completely destroy your right to sue someone (or something), at least in the US. The main purpose is to bolster a defense; to say "we did warn them" (well, to say "we made a reasonable effort to warn them", but that's cutting it a little fine). The catch is, unless I missed it, there haven't really been any big cases that've tested EULAs when they contradict standing law (again, in the US; I make no claim as to what's happened elsewhere), so the best you're likely to get is "no, this probably wouldn't stand up in court". Behold the weirdness of law by precedent.

What has me more concerned is that this is Wargaming.net; is this the kind of nonsense we can expect from the new Master of Orion?