-
Posts
2 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Skarn
-
-
With Paradox on board, how much input will they have into the EULA for PoE?
I normally refuse to purchase Paradox games because their EULA terms give them the ability to summon me across an ocean to appear in a court that normally would not have any jurisdiction over me. Never going to happen (for both financial and other reasons), thus I have games that I purchased in bundles sitting in my Steam account (don't get me started on them, either) that will never be played because of their EULAs. Essentially, Paradox titles are wasted money for me.
Pillars of Eternity – Partnership FAQ for Backers
in Pillars of Eternity: Announcements & News
Posted
Actually, my concern has nothing to do with Linux/WINE compatibility. Its purely about what terms companies think that they can impose on consumers who purchase their products.
The majority of their EULAs that I've read specify that consumers can only sue them in Sweden, yet they can sue the consumer "in any court in the world". In writing their EULA, Paradox actually contemplates attempting to compel their consumers to travel the world in order to show up in a court of their convenience and not the consumer's.
Irregardless of whether or not it is legal (thanks for the link, btw; another link on that Wikipedia page took me to the EU legal reference that I needed in regard to this), the fact that Paradox (and they're not alone in this) thinks that they can impose terms upon consumers that, as time passes, are growing so severe that I almost expect them to start requiring first-born children from consumers in exchange for purchasing their products.
Furthermore, such EULAs are difficult to find online ahead of purchase. Combine that with the impossibility of return after finally getting to read that EULA (I actually remember a time when software stores would accept a return because the game didn't work despite a system which met minimum requirements; its been about thirty years since that was the case, about the same time that ARPANET adopted TCP/IP) and with state attorneys general here in the US whose underlings have basically told me that "if it happens completely online, then no law actually applies" or "You have to tell them about your disabilities before you purchase if you wish to invoke the ADA after they change the contract for sale at a later date" when I have attempted to request enforcement of consumer protection laws in the past. Add it all up and I get a bad taste in my mouth any time I contemplate a purchase when I can't read the EULA up front since I no longer have a reasonable belief that consumer protection laws have any teeth.
Its a testament to just how much I want to see a game made that I'll back it on Kickstarter (four in total, and almost a year since the last one was funded), since it is yet another circumstance where I can't read that EULA up front.
TL/DR: When the government enforces click-through EULAs but refuses to enforce consumer protection laws, the fact that a license term is legally unconscionable becomes irrelevant.