Direct2Drive "announces" "Double Civilization and Scenario Pack"

[tom2050]

EULA's can be altered, but that does not mean that the EULA you will be subjected to will be altered while you are subjected to it. It is therefore very possible that you can see an EULA in advance. I am not arguing that it is hard to see an EULA in advance, but you are arguing that it is futile to even try.

No, I never said that... please don't put words in other people's mouths to try to make a point. I am saying that if you want to play the game, there is no choice but to accept the EULA, because there is nothing you can do about it (cannot get a refund, etc). And it may be difficult to get a EULA ahead of time to read (who does things like this for a game? ) and understand everything some lawyer wrote.

Your first point doesn't mean that the EULA you will be subjected to won't be altered while you are subjected to it either.

The rest of your post appears to be alot of bashing towards me.

Game EULA's hold no real power over a game player whatsoever according to actual law, so everything you just said about 'knowing legal reality' blah blah isn't necessarily true. Now, likewise, Steam DRM makes it so the EULA and Steam subscriber agreement are important, because the DRM gives them the ability to do things such as cancel your account, which does directly impact the consumer.

So I don't know what you are get all argumentative and hating about. I will end the discussion here.

 

[Shurdus]

No, I never said that... please don't put words in other people's mouths to try to make a point. I am saying that if you want to play the game, there is no choice but to accept the EULA, because there is nothing you can do about it (cannot get a refund, etc). And it may be difficult to get a EULA ahead of time to read (who does things like this for a game? ) and understand everything some lawyer wrote.

Your first point doesn't mean that the EULA you will be subjected to won't be altered while you are subjected to it either.

The rest of your post appears to be alot of bashing towards me.

Game EULA's hold no real power over a game player whatsoever according to actual law, so everything you just said about 'knowing legal reality' blah blah isn't necessarily true. Now, likewise, Steam DRM makes it so the EULA and Steam subscriber agreement are important, because the DRM gives them the ability to do things such as cancel your account, which does directly impact the consumer.

So I don't know what you are get all argumentative and hating about. I will end the discussion here.

Argumentative and hating... Wow. After fallling in the middle of a discussion and making some false statements about the status of the EULA I gave my opinion. That was it.

Also I was never bashing you. If I said 'you' in my previous post I meant 'a person' in general. I am under the impression that it is a figure of speech, and that the word 'you' can also mean 'person in general.' I meant to say that in general, if you - meaning a person in general, just saying - are not trying to find an EULA and to read it in advance, then you - again, person in general, referring to anyone to whom this description applies - are not protected by the laws that would have protected you (guess who?) if you had been careful.

Also how do game EULA's have no power? They are part of an agreement and they have a normal status as such. If you mean to say that a game EULA is a completely different legal entity altogether, or that it is a normal agreement with a special status, then I am dying to hear your reasoning behind it, because I bet you ten bucks you are making that up on the spot.

 

[The Almighty dF]

The EULA holds up... -sometimes-.
It's kinda hard to defend an agreement that isn't made until after the exchange is made. Software EULA can stand up sometimes, it'll vary depending on who is handling the case. Console based agreements are even less likely to have an effect due to the lack of a true agreement on the part of the console owner.

I love the companies that know that and slip in some hilariously obviously non-legal stuff into their agreements, like demanding your soul.

 

[Shurdus]

The EULA holds up... -sometimes-.
It's kinda hard to defend an agreement that isn't made until after the exchange is made. Software EULA can stand up sometimes, it'll vary depending on who is handling the case. Console based agreements are even less likely to have an effect due to the lack of a true agreement on the part of the console owner.

I love the companies that know that and slip in some hilariously obviously non-legal stuff into their agreements, like demanding your soul.

Yeah, where I can see where the whole 'not a true agreement is coming from, but then again you can argue that end users could and should so some research. Once you gave in and say 'I can't find an EULA so why bother' you have lost, and you are no longer protected by those laws that protect a consumer in good faith.

Where I think the confusion about the status of an EULA is coming from is the way companies are holding back enforcing the EULA. They know very well that even though the EULA is legally sound, it will cost money to enforce it while the gains for enforcing it are slim. That is why steam and such are ideal for companies. On steam you can enforce en EULA the way it hurts for those who urinate all over it.

 

[cardgame]

EULAs have zero legal binding, shurdus.

 

[wolfigor]

Yeah, where I can see where the whole 'not a true agreement is coming from, but then again you can argue that end users could and should so some research. Once you gave in and say 'I can't find an EULA so why bother' you have lost, and you are no longer protected by those laws that protect a consumer in good faith.

I fully agree with you that the users should, must, do research, read the EULA, and complain publicly and loudly about the injustice of some of them.

This mostly true because current laws, in my view, do not protect the consumers enough.
If we look at the starting case D2D sells CIVV without any mention of Stream.
Even after reasonable research the consumer may continue to don't know it.
Once buy the consumer must accept all EULAs both expected (D2D, CIVV) and unexpected (steam)... not accepting an EULA, even the last one in the chain may not give ground to get a refund.

Then come EULAs that are "mutable": they can change themselves at any time, and if you do not accept the changes you have no right to any refund.
Steam, is one of them:

If any change is unacceptable to you, you may cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time as described below, but Valve will not refund any fees that may have accrued to your Account before cancellation of your Account or Subscription, and Valve will not prorate fees for any cancellation.

Meaning if you cancel your account, the you lose access to all games you bought without hope of refund.
On the other end, Steam, can suspend the service at any time, no refund.

In this type of EULA who decides what's acceptable or not is usually the company, not the user.

In my view, the fact that companies can enforce such agreement is a proof that the consumer is not protected enough.
The contract is basically unfair, asymmetric, and dis-empower the consumer from basic rights of fairness.

Where I think the confusion about the status of an EULA is coming from is the way companies are holding back enforcing the EULA. They know very well that even though the EULA is legally sound, it will cost money to enforce it while the gains for enforcing it are slim. That is why steam and such are ideal for companies. On steam you can enforce en EULA the way it hurts for those who urinate all over it.

Yes, with steam it's extremely easy to "punish" misbehaving customers without any need of a court of justice.
Exactly the opposite of what a legal system is based upon ("justice" and "law" enforced by a company without any legal supervision)

 

[wolfigor]

EULAs have zero legal binding, shurdus.

They do have!
Try using a service like Steam and do anything that they may deem "inappropriate" (e.g. use pirate DLC in their games or cheat in a multiplayer game) and you'll be banned from it immediately.
No refund for honestly purchased games, and no hope in court... all according to the EULA.
(Steam keep the rights to decide what is "inappropriate" behaviour)

With traditional distribution of games (e.g. full game on a CD/DVD) it was indeed difficoult to enforce EULAs.
But with digital distribution, DRM, and purchasing services and not goods, it's rather easy for companies to enforce EULAs... without any need to deal with a court.

 

[Shurdus]

EULAs have zero legal binding, shurdus.

If this is so, then please back it up. At least state why it is so in legal terms. DO not throw info at me like this, because I cannot tell if you are pulling this out of your behind or that you are basing this on real, very valid reasoning or even factual examples.

So please, if you want to participate in the discussion at least put some effort into it.

 

[wolfigor]

EULAs have zero legal binding, shurdus.

we can find some points about enforceability of EULAs on wiki (far from exhaustive):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement

I don't think that there is a clear yes/no answer to this.
Most lawyers also concur that software EULAs amounts to a "contract of adhesion" — a boilerplate contract over which a consumer has no sway. a "Take it or leave it".
There's nothing illegal or immoral about boilerplate contracts.
However, courts in most countries don't consider such agreements to be as binding as contracts in which both sides are on an equal footing.

In legal decisions, U.S. courts sometimes have sided with consumers and other times with vendors. Most famously — some would say "notoriously" — in the 1996 case ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court overturned a lower court's decision, finding that a ProCD product's shrink-wrap license was an enforceable contract. Details of the case are available on the FindLaw site.

Contrariwise, a lower-court case — Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. — found against the enforceability of EULAs. Find more about this case in a Lawnix brief.

Unfortunately, these and similar cases — such as the more-recent Feldman v. Google, Bragg v. Linden Research Inc., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., and many others — don't involve click-to-accept EULAs for purchased software.

Last November, the U.S. courts had an opportunity to clarify the EULA question but chose instead to dodge the matter. As a Yale Law & Technology article explains, the federal case Apple v. Psystar could've unmuddled the situation. However, the judge granted Apple a summary judgment without looking into the EULA aspects of the case.

Interesting enough, relevant (partially) to my first question:

Slashdot points us to an interesting article about a guy involved in a legal fight with computer maker Gateway over whether or not he agreed to an arbitration clause in an end user license agreement (EULA) for his new computer. In this case, the guy claims his computer never worked properly, so he couldn't even see the on-screen license agreement that apparently included an arbitration clause, saying that he would agree to arbitrate any dispute, rather than take it to court. He then sued Gateway over problems with the machine. The case here doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that lawsuit has merit, but whether or not it could even go to court at all. Gateway contends that the guy shouldn't be able to take them to court because of the arbitration clause. But, of course, the guy claims he couldn't read the license agreement, so he certainly never agreed to it. The court found that the guy made a compelling enough case that he had not seen the license agreement, and therefore can not be forced to go to arbitration (even as some experts suggest that he actually would be better off going to arbitration, rather than through the courts). However, it also raises the question (not answered here) over what does constitute an official agreement. I've been told by lawyers that such arbitration clauses aren't even enforceable in California

 

[Shurdus]

Stuff like that is all well and everything, but I can mantion at least one example of terms in a contract that is binding, even though one party never was involved in the making of the contract.

In work, there is a figure that is called a CAO in Dutch. The CAO is a contract that applies to a certain branch of work, like for example the steel industry, insurance complanies, the cleaning buisness or what have you. It is typical in those branches to simply conform themselves to the CAO, even though neither party typically had any say in the birth of that CAO.

The only difference I can see is that representatives from both employers and employees made the CAO, so even the employees were represented. This is not really the case in EULA's, but then again it goes to show that the mere fact that you had no saying in the terms of the EULA is in itself not enough reason to say that the EULA has no legal status whatsoever. That is, you cannot say that the EULA means nothing at all.

 

[cardgame]

The consumer is forced to accept the EULA to use a product that they bought having no idea what the EULA is. If they find it unacceptable they cannot get a refund. The EULA may change after you have accepted it. Retro-active laws are unconstitutional, IIRC; retro-active contracts should also be illegal. Imagine, if you will, that Microsoft changed its EULA for Flight Simulator X to have the consumer agree to hand over $1000 every year to Microsoft, and the consumer had not even agreed to this, but they had agreed that the EULA could be subject to change without notice: now either the consumer pays Microsoft $1000 or stops using Flight Simulator X even though they paid good money for it. How ridiculous is that? I view it as theft

 

[mjs0]

The consumer is forced to accept the EULA to use a product that they bought having no idea what the EULA is. If they find it unacceptable they cannot get a refund. The EULA may change after you have accepted it. Retro-active laws are unconstitutional, IIRC; retro-active contracts should also be illegal. Imagine, if you will, that Microsoft changed its EULA for Flight Simulator X to have the consumer agree to hand over $1000 every year to Microsoft, and the consumer had not even agreed to this, but they had agreed that the EULA could be subject to change without notice: now either the consumer pays Microsoft $1000 or stops using Flight Simulator X even though they paid good money for it. How ridiculous is that? I view it as theft

Hopefully this ruling by the Court of Appeals in the US 9th Circuit will be taken as precedence. (Discussed here and here.)
It specifically addresses contracts posted on websites and change without notice of those contracts, but it would appear reasonable to also expect the ruling to be considered for an EULA that claims it can change without notice since the principles are the same.
At least it appears to be a step in a better direction.

From the ruling (my emphasis):

Even if (customer) had visited (company’s) Web site to pay his bills, he would have had no reason to look at the contract posted there,” the court said. “Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side."

From the 2nd analysis:

I expect courts will aggressively police these unilateral amendments using unconscionability and other limiting doctrines.

 

[tom2050]

That is why the Steam subscriber agreement/EULA is so horribly misdirected against consumers, because it allows them to essentially 'bring justice' against users at their own whim (even if it is actually an injustice). Has this happened? There have been claims. Does it happen often? No, because the PR would destroy Valve.

Still, such shoddy agreements in almost all cases where there is no DRM involved to actually enforce the EULA are pretty much worthless because there is nothing to enforce them.

In Steam's case, e.g., they can enforce their EULA and subscriber agreemtents if they wish.

 

[Shurdus]

That is why the Steam subscriber agreement/EULA is so horribly misdirected against consumers, because it allows them to essentially 'bring justice' against users at their own whim (even if it is actually an injustice). Has this happened? There have been claims. Does it happen often? No, because the PR would destroy Valve.

Still, such shoddy agreements in almost all cases where there is no DRM involved to actually enforce the EULA are pretty much worthless because there is nothing to enforce them.

In Steam's case, e.g., they can enforce their EULA and subscriber agreemtents if they wish.

I think we can here place the problem into two categories.

One category is what the EULA does and does not mean legally. Where I understand where the misconception is coming from, any user is expected to at least perform some basic research. This is true for any legal action in general. Thereore, saying that you could not have known an EULA and for that reason alone it may as well not exist is false. That is not how it works legally. This may be different if the consumer had done some research, including contacting the publisher before purchasing the game. If the consumer did no research, a person with common sense might argue that the consumer gambled and took the risk of not accepting the EULA. The consumer knew he would not get a refund and purchased the product in spite of that. It seems to me to be perfectly fair that he gets no refunds. He had it coming. If the EULA is that big a deal, then the consumer certainly should understand that it is vital to at least try to see a copy before purchasing the game.

Just because some EULA might change over time does not make this any different. I find the 'give company X $1,000' example completely useless because for starters there are limits to what one can reasonably put into contracts. Terms like these may be explained as theft indeed, or fraud, or what have you, and therefore you cannot put this into an EULA just like you cannot put into a contract that you will kill a person. Contracts like these are legally unbinding so you cannot enforce them.

The second category of the problem lies in the fact that companies typically skip going to court altogether. They enforce their own interests, by doing so foregoing an unbiased test and disallowing the parties concerned from having a say in the matter. This is a sad reality that happens in a semi legal basis; the company invites the concerned to protest the decision made by the company, and if that has no avail, to adress all legal possibilities. This is of course the world upside down, but it is what is happening.

Now keep in mind that everything I have said so far is covering the legal side of the story. Very little I said is applicable directly to the situation that happens in practise. All I wanted to do was to explain how the situation lies legally. I stand by my reasoning in this thread, and I think I did a fair job explaining the legal reality. The other non-legal side of the story was never adressed by me, or at least not into detail. I do not claim to know anything about that, nor do I care to speculate about that.

 

[SGRaaize]

So... basically...
You mean you need to preorder a lot of different games to get access to all the civilizations...
I have yet to be angry at any announcement about Civ 5, please let this be a lie, PLEASE

 

[lietkynes]

So... basically...
You mean you need to preorder a lot of different games to get access to all the civilizations...

No, the additional content will be available for everyone to purchase, but if you pre-order Civ5 through a particular shop you get some of that content for free.

 

[Shurdus]

So... basically...
You mean you need to preorder a lot of different games to get access to all the civilizations...
I have yet to be angry at any announcement about Civ 5, please let this be a lie, PLEASE

At the present, there are the 18 core civs + babylon for the digital deluxe edition. It is unclear if babylon will be made available at a later date for those who did not pre-order.

Also later in the year 2 additional civs will be available as DLC. You need not pre-order anywhere to get those, it is just that D2D gives them as a freebee if you pre-order the game from them. You can still get them otherwise if you do not pre-order.

So no, you need not pre-order form different places if you want all civs. Getting the digital deluxe edition will do.

 

[SGRaaize]

Thank god
I'm still 100% happy then

 

[Mercade]

So no, you need not pre-order form different places if you want all civs. Getting the digital deluxe edition will do.

Right, it's only the four different Cradle of Civilization map packs (Americas, Asia, Mesopotamia and Mediterranean) that you're missing out then. But those may also come out as DLC later.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Right, it's only the four different Cradle of Civilization map packs (Americas, Asia, Mesopotamia and Mediterranean) that you're missing out then. But those may also come out as DLC later.

With which site or retailer do you need to place an order to get Mediterranean and Americas map pack?