Flagship Studios Responds to EULA Shenanigans

Submitted by George Walker on October 24, 2007 – 11:38 am7 Comments

I noticed that Flagship has posted an explanation of the EULA that I had complained about previously. Unfortunately, it’s long on response, short on explanation.

This catch-all statement was included so that we have the ability to determine if someone is using hacks, unauthorized mods or other abusive applications while playing the game which spoils the gameplay for everyone else. We also use this catch-all to protect other parties offering technical support, such as our online provider, Ping0. This is a completely legitimate function and other leaders in the MMO space do it in an effort to stop hackers and provide better technical support. In order to stop hacks and cheats, as well as attempts at outright fraud, we may need the ability to scan our player

Joe (Aeropause)

George, is this any different from Battlefield 2142? Not really. People complained, but in the end, if they wanted to play, they put up with the EULA.

The only thing that is bad is if I disagree with the EULA, what is my recourse. As we know, no one will take back a computer game that is open, and a lot of the time, software manufacturers will not take them back either. So what are we to do?

If companies want to put this kind of stuff in th EULA, then they should be required to put it on the box, or be required to take an open game back. A third option that I like but EA doesn’t, is allowing the user to opt out.

I would also say that if you are going to get paid dollars from advertising, then you better bring down the cost of the game.

http://www.farbot.com/ Paul (Aeropause)

They want the right to fight game crackers, bot software users, all sorts of things. The only way they can do that is by being able to look at what you’re running on your machine. There simply is no other way.

Nobody wants cheaters but nobody wants to give the developers the tools to fight them?

You may not want to play MMOs because you’re currently tired of “the grind” factor of MMOs but if something comes out in 6 months that you love, George, do you not want to keep the cheaters out? Do you want the developers to stand by, hands tied, and see their game utterly destroyed by cheaters, sending subscribers fleeing and a quality game into the bit bucket?

Yes, more details on what will be done with the data, how it will be protected, how non-personal information will not be gathered would be welcome, but they need to be able to reach out and stop the bad seeds or we just should never play online again, on PC or console.

http://www.aeropause.com George

All valid points, which I agree with. Like I wrote, I have no problem with what Flagship Studios wants to do. But if it were true that Flagship only wants to use the power for good, why does the EULA say “EA” and not “Flagship Studios”.

Flagship claims to never take my info without my permission, seemingly ignoring that just accepting the EULA gives Flagship, EA, and anyone else they feel like, unfettered access to my info.

And as far as recourse goes, people need to let Flagship know what we think of this and that we want the EULA changed to match the explanation.

http://www.farbot.com/ Paul (Aeropause)

Good point George.

A little while after I wrote my response I thought of something else. I know we’re probably going to talk about copy protection on next week’s podcast, and maybe we can slide this anti-cheating stuff in there too, but I’m thinking we’re going to see this kind of system monitoring in single player games too. Why? To prevent hacking the game and extracting art and music assets without permission could be one reason. We already allow digital locking via online account for single player games sold via digital download — hello Half-Life 2 and associated Episodes.

Anyway, just something to be scared of, I mean think about.

Joe (Aeropause)

The big flap is that the information is not being used to stop cheats. It is being used for targeted and focused advertising. Nothing more. If they were really interested in stopping cheats, they could use Punkbuster. It is non-obtrusive, and has a really good track record.

Remember, all of this went down before with BF2142. The great thing about that is that EA makes no mention of collecting data until after the game is opened and you read the card inside the box. At that point, you are stuck with a game you can’t return or you let EA collect the data.

Can’t see how that is fair.

Ronin SpoilSpot

If you take a look at the World of Warcraft EULA, it states in considerable detail what they want to do in order to combat cheats and bots.
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
(section 5, “Consent to Monitor.”)
Apparently they don’t need a blanket “all your info is belong to us” clause to do that. They don’t need to scan peripherals or other installed programs. Nor should EA.

I might trust Flagship, but I don’t trust them to be able to stand up to EA, if EA wants to (ab)use their rights. And I don’t trust EA, if their shareholders see our info as another source of income.

We really need a proper operating system that allows you to sandbox applications, so they *can’t* snoop.
It really isn’t any of their business what I run on my computer as long as it doesn’t interact with the game.

/RS

http://www.youtube.com/user/destop Destop

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to chime in because I like this blog post a lot.

Long story short: Bioshock PC made me “aware” about DRM issues after long and heated debate in 2K’s forums along with other users. Like Bioshock PC, I really looked forward to Hellgate: London, mainly because of the track record held by the development team.

Anyway, being sensitised, I actually felt compelled to read the EULA of Hellgate: London. And to be honest, section 3 of it is unacceptable to me – no matter how great the game will end up to be, I cannot buy the title under those terms.

As you correctly observed, the issued statement does not imply that the clause will be changed to specifically reflect the intentions – which are entirely good, of course; I have nothing against cheat control – mentioned in the statement. No, apparently it stays as vague and catch-all as it is now.

Basically, the company is asking us to trust them, that they will do the right thing with the freedom granted to them by the customer. However, from the statement, it looks as if the company doesn’t trust the customer (they’re speaking of fraud at one point, I believe). So I ask myself: if the company does not trust me, why should I trust the company?

If the company wants to earn my trust, why not change that one clause in the EULA to accurately describe the functionality explained in the statement? If it’s all they’re going to do anyway, there’s no reason why the clause should stay so all-encompassing as it is, right?

As for the ads matter, I might be persuaded to see ads in a game.. if that would reduce the purchase price in an acceptable fashion =). 50 Euros = 70 dollars, which isn’t exactly cheap. To get ads on top of that, no thanks.

I’d say this might be an intriguing topic to “sneak” into your podcast. Take care,

Destop.