Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
landedkiller

PSA Eula changes

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles

I will preface this by saying I don’t hate Wargaming’s products. I have enjoyed world of tanks and world of warships for sometime now. I however am concerned with the recent EULA changes and would like to have a discussion on them civically. So what do you the community think of these recent changes?

Well for me I would want this part of the changes explained in more detail.

  1. No class action lawsuits, and a change to your legal representation to arbitration.
  2. Anything you submit or post to wargaming or the WG forums belongs to them, along with all rights for use and reproduction.
  3. You're not allowed to make money on any content without written permission, this means web sites with ads, or youtube videos.

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8n9qhu/the_new_wargaming_eula_removes_ownership_of_your/

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,653
[DDMAF]
Members
2,557 posts
15,342 battles

Let's start here: what don't you like and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
338 posts

WG's attitude towards their playerbase has always been a bit of a concern of mine, and this is the kind of thing that leads me there.

It's a bit more of a broader societal trend too though. The whole, "you don't own anything digital," nonsense.

I don't like it, and, I won't lie, it hurts my opinion of companies that practice it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,682
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,722 posts
22,079 battles

I believe this deserves discussion, just worried that it will draw undue attention and lead to banning. I will repeat my opinion that people who produce content for money need to remember that they are talking to their customers and binding customers to an agreement where they muzzle the ability for that customer to complain if unhappy, is not only unnatural but will lead to resentment. An angry, resentful customer base is hardly a good business model. It may work in a totalitarian state where competition does not exist, but in the free market, the customer reigns. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,846
[WORX]
Members
9,076 posts
17,233 battles

What I have a problem with is the muzzling of opposite opinions that damages the image of WG. I would think having a cult mentality of a company on a control/power gab would lead me to believe there are problems with the internal working of the company who feels it was a necessary step for its survival to muzzle criticism. I believe THAT is more damaging to the company to create that type of unwelcoming agreement with the consumer  is something I never experienced.

THe other parts well, Its damaging if your trying to get refunds if you don;t own it your leasing. So how are you going to get a refund on a internet product if its a lease ??is there something wrong I don;t comprehend ? That is what I took out of it..

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,403
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,288 posts
6,102 battles

i thought the ownership of an account ALWAYS belonged to WG,we just had the illusion that we were the masters of our account. but anyone can prove me wrong since i didn't read much of the EULA before the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,554
[SBS]
Members
5,193 posts
2,408 battles
2 minutes ago, legozer said:

Let's start here: what don't you like and why?

 

6 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

1. No class action lawsuits, and a change to your legal representation to arbitration.

What if WG screws us and we want to do a class action against them??  

8 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

2. Anything you submit or post to wargaming or the WG forums belongs to them, along with all rights for use and reproduction.

  I bet LWM (and others like her) won't like this, giving up intellectual property to WG because its on the forum.  

10 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

3. You're not allowed to make money on any content without written permission, this means web sites with ads, or youtube videos.

This is a big deal for the small youtubers trying to make it.  Sure they can try to get permission.  I hope its not a hard process, but I'd guess it will be harder than it should.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
297 posts
2,405 battles
3 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

 

What if WG screws us and we want to do a class action against them??  

  I bet LWM (and others like her) won't like this, giving up intellectual property to WG because its on the forum.  

This is a big deal for the small youtubers trying to make it.  Sure they can try to get permission.  I hope its not a hard process, but I'd guess it will be harder than it should.

That's a really good point about community contributors. At this point it looks like WG is treating them as unpaid interns in the advertising office, rather than actual members of the community who create their own content on their own time. Would really like to see their perspectives on this one.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,682
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,722 posts
22,079 battles

The new EULA tells me that as a customer they are only interested in my money and what I can do for them. They are not interested in my honest feedback or opinion and they do not respect me not only as a customer, but as a human being. So naturally what I think to myself is "Why would I give people like that my money?". It is an easy question for me to answer, where I am from we call that a "no brainer". 

I have to laugh about some of the terms though. Since they opened an office in Texas and do business in Texas, they are subject to the laws of my home state. I imagine some of the Californians and Russians they brought here will find our laws to be a bit on the tough side. 

Edited by Taylor3006
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
338 posts
Just now, yungpanda said:

That's a really good point about community contributors. At this point it looks like WG is treating them as unpaid interns in the advertising office, rather than actual members of the community who create their own content on their own time. Would really like to see their perspectives on this one.

They've been like that for a while though. This is them not only not learning from the iChase PR disaster, but doubling down on it. WG doesn't like to improve.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,431 posts
11,141 battles
33 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

I will preface this by saying I don’t hate Wargaming’s products. I have enjoyed world of tanks and world of warships for sometime now. I however am concerned with the recent EULA changes and would like to have a discussion on them civically. So what do you the community think of these recent changes?

Well for me I would want this part of the changes explained in more detail.

  1. No class action lawsuits, and a change to your legal representation to arbitration.
  2. Anything you submit or post to wargaming or the WG forums belongs to them, along with all rights for use and reproduction.
  3. You're not allowed to make money on any content without written permission, this means web sites with ads, or youtube videos.

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8n9qhu/the_new_wargaming_eula_removes_ownership_of_your/

I'm not a lawyer, but from my experiences with legal matters in my state, company policy is mute when it contrasts or conflicts with state or federal law. In other words, WG cannot infringe upon your rights as a consumer or their obligation as a provider. There are laws in certain states erected specifically to eschew illegal contracts. 

 

Unfortunately, that is here in the United States, i dont know about the laws in any other country.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,846
[WORX]
Members
9,076 posts
17,233 battles
6 minutes ago, Poharan said:

This is them not only not learning from the iChase PR disaster, but doubling down on it. WG doesn't like to impr

Come to think of it, part of it is Ichase  and part of it is when they call for mass refunds for the GZ disaster. This is Dangerous, its submit WG or else which is unfortunate. Am I missing something here ? Just checking on my comprehension that I am joining the WG yes cult and I can;t criticize

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,554
[SBS]
Members
5,193 posts
2,408 battles

Who's throwing all the thumbs down on the critical comments???

Edit: lol, thumbs down man at it again.

 

Edited by Slimeball91
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,431 posts
11,141 battles
11 minutes ago, Poharan said:

They've been like that for a while though. This is them not only not learning from the iChase PR disaster, but doubling down on it. WG doesn't like to improve.

Not really, personally i havnt read thr new tos myself, but what this does is prevent anyone from making a youtube video of any WG product without direct authorization from WG. As far as i can tell, this move is a first in the gaming industry; and has the potential to affect all three parties (CCs, players & WG) very negatively.

Edited by Crokodone
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
[2CUTE]
Supertester
4,134 posts
4,316 battles
Quote

 You may not use a user name or persona that is used by someone else, is vulgar or offensive, imitates any third party, infringes on any proprietary right of any third party, or otherwise breaches this EULA or the Rules.

You also can't have a name that is copyrighted, so I would just think that it's WG covering their asses if something bad happens

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,682
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,722 posts
22,079 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

Come to think of it, the part where it is Ichase  and port of it is when they call for mass refunds for the GZ disaster. This is Dangerous its submit or else which is unfortunate. Am I missing something here ? Just checking on my comprehension that I am joining the WG yes cult and I can;t criticize

 I think the sheer number of players coming after Wargaming in regards to iChase and GZ changed their minds, same with Alabama. What we have to remember is there is power in our numbers and our wallets. 

 

2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Who's throwing all the thumbs down on the critical comments???

Yeah was wondering that as well. Can not imagine a player would be upset with us talking about this subject... 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Who's throwing all the thumbs down on the critical comments???

No idea, but if I had to guess someone who believes that Wargaming does no wrong. I on the other hand have been upvoting as the discussion is going well.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
26 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Who's throwing all the thumbs down on the critical comments???

Edit: lol, thumbs down man at it again.

It's either a bot account or an intern at their office; either way, the downvoter clearly has unlimited reactions.

As for the EULA changes...yeah, I'm not a fan at all—most especially with their claims of ownership over anything posted on their forums. Here in the US there is and has been a fair amount of debate regarding EULAs in general, whether they are enforceable or even have any legal leg(s) to stand on.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,255 posts

It's because of the outrage over on tanks. They are nerfing special matchmaking for premium tanks.

This is why I no longer plan to spend any more on this game for the next 2 years. Anti consumer = no more $ from me.

I already quit tanks 4 years ago. I seen the writing on the wall back then. Ship's seems better... But they are fluting with stuff that is bound to drive me away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
297 posts
2,405 battles
17 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

No idea, but if I had to guess someone who believes that Wargaming does no wrong. I on the other hand have been upvoting as the discussion is going well.

Agreed, thanks for keeping it civil, everybody. :)

I was looking back at old forum posts, found this one from an iChase thread:

I think Crucis' view makes a lot of sense with the old system. The CC program was a sort of endorsement, and membership should be cut if the CC crosses some lines. However, it was clear that CCs were players first and foremost - independent individuals who were volunteering their efforts to make the community a better place.

However, it looks like the new EULA means that CCs no longer own any content they post in the forums. They can't get paid for their work unless WG says so, and many CCs use their work as a source of income.

To me, it sounds like a job in all but name. I think that if WG really wants to enforce something like this, they'll have to reimburse their CCs fairly. They are no longer volunteers, they are salespeople.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
297 posts
2,405 battles
3 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

It's either a bot account or an intern at their office; either way, the downvoter clearly has unlimited reactions.

As for the EULA changes...yeah, I'm not a fan at all—most especially with their claims of ownership over anything posted on their forums. Here in the US there is and has been a fair amount of debate regarding EULAs in general, whether they are enforceable or even have any legal leg(s) to stand on.

Also, to our resident downvoter - we'd like to hear what you have to say. Please post a response?

 

EDIT: lol - Just saw the downvote. Understood.

Edited by yungpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,288
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
5,489 posts
17,069 battles
29 minutes ago, landedkiller said:

No idea, but if I had to guess someone who believes that Wargaming does no wrong.

I believe WG does know wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
297 posts
2,405 battles
2 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I believe WG does know wrong.

Looks like knowing doesn't mean much unless it's acted upon. ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,187 posts
6,087 battles

While I am not a fan of the new EULA changes by WG, they have always owned the rights to WoW and its content in regards the game and here on the forums. Perhaps a Community Contributor can speak up, but I believe WG has also always regulated how a CC can present content both here on the forums and on YouTube and other media. While the CC does produce the content, I believe WG still had the rights anything that was WG; however, I could be mistaken there as I'm not a CC.

That being said you are still free to voice your opinions whether negatively or positively about WG and their products on other forums and other media. Most companies regulate what is said about them and control the flow of info in their house; so, this is really nothing new here. What is new and a wee bit disparaging is more and more companies are willing to take legal action against customers for negative feedback. There was recently in the news a woman who was being sued by her doctor for defamation and slander because she was displeased with the procedures he ordered and what he charged her insurance company. She voiced her opinion in public and now is having to fight for her right to voice her displeasure in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
546
[TNP66]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
4,583 battles

I encourage the downvoters to express their opinions. If your just downvoting for the sake of it then don’t expect people to take you seriously. The reddit linked has over 100 upvotes so I think this is a point worth discussing. As for all of the discussion going on I really am glad to see I am not the only here whom thinks the changes are a bit much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×