changes in TOS

danthemann5

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

Myrm

I made a valiant attempt at reading all of the TOS highlighted in the update today, but after a few minutes I got bored and lost with all the jargon. I then just accepted. As we all do. I can’t imagine many people read TOS in its entirety. I think a lot of companies bank on its customers doing exactly what most of us do.

rfennell_ESO

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

That's like the famous "not responsible for lost or stolen items" line that gets put up in nearly every restaurant or dry cleaner(and a host of other venues/locations).

Point being they actually are responsible in some way and many times are totally responsible. ;p

danthemann5

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

That's like the famous "not responsible for lost or stolen items" line that gets put up in nearly every restaurant or dry cleaner(and a host of other venues/locations).

Point being they actually are responsible in some way and many times are totally responsible. ;p

Not exactly. It does give them an easy response to any complaint or criticism, for example:

Issue: Dungeon finder broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: OMG massive Cyrodiil lag
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Can't log in to game
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Guild history broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

You get the idea.

Why make this change to the TOS now? I am of the opinion that this is an expression of ZOS's intention to not correct errors or defects going forward.

It seems...ominous.

Noblis01

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

OK, then.
That's the end. Stop fighting the system.
Everyone is chasing their tail.
No more complaining about servers and logging in ...

/troll

danthemann5

Noblis01 wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

OK, then.
That's the end. Stop fighting the system.
Everyone is chasing their tail.
No more complaining about servers and logging in ...

/troll

That's not a troll post. You articulated the point exactly.

rfennell_ESO

danthemann5 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

That's like the famous "not responsible for lost or stolen items" line that gets put up in nearly every restaurant or dry cleaner(and a host of other venues/locations).

Point being they actually are responsible in some way and many times are totally responsible. ;p

Not exactly. It does give them an easy response to any complaint or criticism, for example:

Issue: Dungeon finder broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: OMG massive Cyrodiil lag
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Can't log in to game
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Guild history broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

You get the idea.

Why make this change to the TOS now? I am of the opinion that this is an expression of ZOS's intention to not correct errors or defects going forward.

It seems...ominous.

For the most part they have all behaved as if they were under no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the services.

I haven't played in a while, but when I was they had errors and defects in the service that had been there since beta.

I think overall it's just there for legal cover and an admission that there are issues that are ingrained in the engine that will never be corrected. I think they fix what they can fix and have always tried to, but there are some things that they can't.

Sylvermynx

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Cundu_Ertur - yah.... I was digging when it got posted. Net was out for a bit, but hey, it did get posted.

@srfrogg23 - I'm all for VR.... as long as a game without same is still available. As someone with serious vertigo issues, VR.... would mean I couldn't play at all if it was the only option.

Why would it be the only option for a game that has been out as a non-VR game for over 5 years? That would be an incredibly stupid decision for any developer to make.

"We know you have been playing this game for 5 years without a VR headset, but we have decided it is time for people to either spend an extra $400 on a headset and a yearly supply of dexamethasone or GTFO!"

Eh, because I can visualize ESO with dollar signs instead of eyes. There are a LOT of people out there who are jonesing for VR - and of course they don't give two hoots for those of us with issues which preclude use of VR.

I class ZeniMax among those. Talk about money trumping all.... Yeah. Pun intended.

Androconium

Terms Of Service are not legislation.
They are a Company's policy on how it will proceed in the stated circumstances.

Androconium

danthemann5 wrote: »

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Here's my favorite part:

"...ZeniMax has no obligation to...correct any errors or defects in the Services."

That's like the famous "not responsible for lost or stolen items" line that gets put up in nearly every restaurant or dry cleaner(and a host of other venues/locations).

Point being they actually are responsible in some way and many times are totally responsible. ;p

Not exactly. It does give them an easy response to any complaint or criticism, for example:

Issue: Dungeon finder broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: OMG massive Cyrodiil lag
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Can't log in to game
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

Issue: Guild history broken
Response: ZeniMax has no obligation to correct any errors or defects in the Services.

You get the idea.

Why make this change to the TOS now? I am of the opinion that this is an expression of ZOS's intention to not correct errors or defects going forward.

It seems...ominous.

Adjusted the text involving refunds and warranties.
people keep asking for these

Added additional clarifications relating to third party internet connections and hardware.
Asia-Pacific response time issue

Updated sections involving the European dispute resolution and governing law for US residents versus external parties.
USians can't potentially take advantage of European laws.

Happy to be corrected.

KyraCROgnon

Thanks a lot to Grasshoped for doing the line by line check on new and old TOS :
https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/c1w9j1/summary_hi_i_am_that_one_person_that_reads_the/

And guess what ? the most interresting change was not refered to in patch note :

What was not mentioned in the patch notes,

Start with the biggest one, You cannot class action lawsuit ZeniMax anymore ever, you agree to do Arbitration instead which is really expensive. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court. This applies to you if you are outside of EEA/UK/Switzerland/Australia/New Zealand/ Turkey/Japan/Brazil. You can opt out of this if you contact ZeniMax Media Inc, ~ line 372, to the attn of the legal department within 30 days of agreeing to these terms.

Myrm

But it was mentioned in the wall of text we were asked to read and agree to at the launch of the game post-patch.

starkerealm

Thogard wrote: »

I noticed that “stalking” another player was on the TOS as a prohibited activity.

I also noticed that doxing was on there as a prohibited activity.

Are those new or have they always been there?

Also, I looked and didn’t see anything about macros, one way or the other. Only cheat programs and memory injection seems to be disallowed. I could’ve sworn macros were banned on there last time.. maybe I didn’t see it?

I think doxing and stalking have been on there for awhile. Not sure if they were there originally though. At the very least, they were in the previous version of the ToS.

ryzen_gamer_gal

Dear consumer,

Our new ToS are as follows:

flock you and your seagulls

our game, our rules

- management

starkerealm

Androconium wrote: »

Terms Of Service are not legislation.
They are a Company's policy on how it will proceed in the stated circumstances.

I mean, technically true, however: Terms of Service are a legally binding contract between two parties (the user and ZOS.) The short version is: You agree not to misbehave, and they won't ban you. Everything after that is discussing the particular details.

Uryel

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Why would it be the only option for a game that has been out as a non-VR game for over 5 years? That would be an incredibly stupid decision for any developer to make.

"We know you have been playing this game for 5 years without a VR headset, but we have decided it is time for people to either spend an extra $400 on a headset and a yearly supply of dexamethasone or GTFO!"

I wouldn't rule that out.

"We know you have been playing Bosmeri tieves for 5 years, but we have decided it is time for Wood Elves to become guards and start detecting things that don't even bother hiding in the forst place, or GTFO and become cats!".

Uryel

starkerealm wrote: »

Yeah, unless French law is really weird on this subject, that's not that dissimilar from American law. Though, to be honest, this does get out of my area of expertise as well. Primarily, the difference is that France has better consumer protection laws in place, so those elements of the contract would be tossed if you took them to court. However, that doesn't (usually) mean the entire contract would be tossed, just those clauses.

Here, it depends on the situation. Also, since laws pertaining to contracts were updated only a few years go, there aren't so many cases rules by the courts uder the new rules yet, so it's hard to tell precisely how that is handled.

There is a rule similar to what you explain about removing only certain clauses. Not sure how to translate that, but it roughly means "considered unwritten". If that clause is illegal or unfair, both parties should consider that said clause is not written in the contract, even though it IS written and there for all to see.

If the contract, however valid, was agreed upon pressure, threat, or missinformation... Then the whole contract will be invalidated by a court. Of course, as for all things, it's a matter of proof. They who call for fraud have to prove the fraud.

starkerealm wrote: »

Yeah, in fairness, it's been a long time since I took international law in college. About the only part of that I still use semi-regularly, is copyright law, so everything else has been left to atrophy. I did spend time learning about contract law, but it's extremely fuzzy at this point.

It's only been 3 years for me. Went back there when I was "between contracts". One of the occupational hazards of social work is that, in a country whose president says poverty is a matter of education and there would be none if people went to school, unemployment is a matter of lazyness and everyone would have work if they just crossed the street, and then proceeds to cuts funding for education... Well, in such a situation, lack of funding for social work happens, and I occasionnaly find myself with way too much time on my hands. Good as any an opportunity to go back to school

srfrogg23

Sylvermynx wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

@Cundu_Ertur - yah.... I was digging when it got posted. Net was out for a bit, but hey, it did get posted.

@srfrogg23 - I'm all for VR.... as long as a game without same is still available. As someone with serious vertigo issues, VR.... would mean I couldn't play at all if it was the only option.

Why would it be the only option for a game that has been out as a non-VR game for over 5 years? That would be an incredibly stupid decision for any developer to make.

"We know you have been playing this game for 5 years without a VR headset, but we have decided it is time for people to either spend an extra $400 on a headset and a yearly supply of dexamethasone or GTFO!"

Eh, because I can visualize ESO with dollar signs instead of eyes. There are a LOT of people out there who are jonesing for VR - and of course they don't give two hoots for those of us with issues which preclude use of VR.

I class ZeniMax among those. Talk about money trumping all.... Yeah. Pun intended.

When I said it would be incredibly stupid to make the game VR only, I meant that from a financial perspective. They would lose so many players on such a massively expensive overhaul to the game it wouldn't be worth it.

Uryel

srfrogg23 wrote: »

When I said it would be incredibly stupid to make the game VR only, I meant that from a financial perspective. They would lose so many players on such a massively expensive overhaul to the game it wouldn't be worth it.

But they might gain alot of new ones. People who wouldn't mind spending cash on crown crates and costumes and whatnot, and all that. New customers are usually more profitable than old ones, anyway.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Uryel wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

When I said it would be incredibly stupid to make the game VR only, I meant that from a financial perspective. They would lose so many players on such a massively expensive overhaul to the game it wouldn't be worth it.

But they might gain alot of new ones. People who wouldn't mind spending cash on crown crates and costumes and whatnot, and all that. New customers are usually more profitable than old ones, anyway.

That's ridiculous.
MMO companies make money out of from MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games. VR is a small niche market and will never reach any kind of "massive" player numbers.

jediodyn_ESO

nafensoriel wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

Some of us did.

In the US a properly written and agreed to TOS agreement is still considered a legal agreement.

(This information is not offered as personal legal advice, please consult with an attorney regarding any personal inquiries)

Except for that whole signing under force since you can't read the TOS/EULA before purchase thing. Kinda eliminates the "contract" element entirely.

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

Thogard wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

jediodyn_ESO wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I wish I went to law school like everyone else.

Some of us did.

In the US a properly written and agreed to TOS agreement is still considered a legal agreement.

(This information is not offered as personal legal advice, please consult with an attorney regarding any personal inquiries)

Except for that whole signing under force since you can't read the TOS/EULA before purchase thing. Kinda eliminates the "contract" element entirely.

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

It’s a license, not a contract.

1) A license agreement is a contract.
2) Public Service Announcement - Online agreements ARE binding in the US. They just don't matter to most of us... until they do. At which point they matter an awful lot.

starkerealm

nafensoriel wrote: »

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

In point of fact, it is a binding contract. Under most circumstances, the only outcome for violating a Terms of Service will be the termination of the relationship, but under rare circumstances it can lead to something more. For example, Twitch is currently filing suit against the trolls who were spamming sexually explicit content into the Artifact directory.

starkerealm

Uryel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Yeah, unless French law is really weird on this subject, that's not that dissimilar from American law. Though, to be honest, this does get out of my area of expertise as well. Primarily, the difference is that France has better consumer protection laws in place, so those elements of the contract would be tossed if you took them to court. However, that doesn't (usually) mean the entire contract would be tossed, just those clauses.

Here, it depends on the situation. Also, since laws pertaining to contracts were updated only a few years go, there aren't so many cases rules by the courts uder the new rules yet, so it's hard to tell precisely how that is handled.

There is a rule similar to what you explain about removing only certain clauses. Not sure how to translate that, but it roughly means "considered unwritten". If that clause is illegal or unfair, both parties should consider that said clause is not written in the contract, even though it IS written and there for all to see.

If the contract, however valid, was agreed upon pressure, threat, or missinformation... Then the whole contract will be invalidated by a court. Of course, as for all things, it's a matter of proof. They who call for fraud have to prove the fraud.

Yeah, the only major difference here are the specific clauses and stipulations that are legal. For example, forced arbitration clauses are illegal in France (IIRC), but legal in The States.

The most common places where this pops up are consumer protections in a EULA. For example, if a piece of software has a hard no-refunds policy that could run afoul of EU law, and as a result, it would get ejected from the contract if its challenged in court.

I can't think of any concrete examples where a contract signed under duress would be viewed as legal, but at the same time, I can think of a few places where proving that a contract was signed under duress would be functionally impossible.

Uryel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Yeah, in fairness, it's been a long time since I took international law in college. About the only part of that I still use semi-regularly, is copyright law, so everything else has been left to atrophy. I did spend time learning about contract law, but it's extremely fuzzy at this point.

It's only been 3 years for me. Went back there when I was "between contracts". One of the occupational hazards of social work is that, in a country whose president says poverty is a matter of education and there would be none if people went to school, unemployment is a matter of lazyness and everyone would have work if they just crossed the street, and then proceeds to cuts funding for education... Well, in such a situation, lack of funding for social work happens, and I occasionnaly find myself with way too much time on my hands. Good as any an opportunity to go back to school

Yeah, I graduated with my Bachelors almost a decade ago, so it's been a minute. I usually keep track of copyright cases, but, again that's what I need to deal with in my day to day, so last time I actually studied contract law directly was probably 2008.

ryzen_gamer_gal

a tos that says they have no obligation to fix the game is as mech an admission of a deliberate fraud as anyone could hope for.

anitajoneb17_ESO

ryzen_gamer_gal wrote: »

a tos that says they have no obligation to fix the game is as mech an admission of a deliberate fraud as anyone could hope for.

That's unfair.

In France (and I suppose elsewhere too) there's, legally, a difference between "obligation de moyens" and "obligation de résultats". I'm on purpose not translating it, someone will probably come up with the exact terms in english here rather than something approximate. The first concept means that you're obligated to "do your best", but it's not your fault if your best ain't enough. The second concept means that you're obligated to deliver the product/service as advertised/sold/contracted, and if it fails, it's on you, even if you've done everything possible.

It's IMHO impossible for such a complex and fragile product as an MMO to be under anything alse but an "obligation de moyens", and that's what this clause means. ZOS won't get into a compensation game for every bug/downtime/flaw in a video game. THey could just as well go bankrupt right now.

Elsonso

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Uryel wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

When I said it would be incredibly stupid to make the game VR only, I meant that from a financial perspective. They would lose so many players on such a massively expensive overhaul to the game it wouldn't be worth it.

But they might gain alot of new ones. People who wouldn't mind spending cash on crown crates and costumes and whatnot, and all that. New customers are usually more profitable than old ones, anyway.

That's ridiculous.
MMO companies make money out of from MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games. VR is a small niche market and will never reach any kind of "massive" player numbers.

This. Also, there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home, and 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

I doubt that VR is on the near horizon for ESO. Would be cool if they did it, and this is definitely in the future for high end gaming, including MMO games, but not for ESO.

nafensoriel

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

In point of fact, it is a binding contract. Under most circumstances, the only outcome for violating a Terms of Service will be the termination of the relationship, but under rare circumstances it can lead to something more. For example, Twitch is currently filing suit against the trolls who were spamming sexually explicit content into the Artifact directory.

In almost every single case a video game TOS is agreed to under force after the purchase with no right of refund should you refuse. In this case, the contract is not valid any more than a contract would be valid if I held a gun to your head and made you sign your possessions over to me.

In a function case yes online TOS agreements are entirely valid provided both parties agree to the terms before exchanging services/currency. An example case would be a software support contract for a LIMS system. Those terms are binding and ironclad. Both parties naturally understand(or get screwed) the terms before the agreement. In no circumstance does the software providing company get to withhold its TOS before money exchanges hands.

In almost every single case where a video game TOS was part of a court case it was simply provided as supporting evidence and not remotely considered as a valid contract because, lets be frank, in court a video game TOS/EULA is a very very bad avenue of argument that only idiots and newbies go down expecting a strong outcome.

starkerealm

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

In point of fact, it is a binding contract. Under most circumstances, the only outcome for violating a Terms of Service will be the termination of the relationship, but under rare circumstances it can lead to something more. For example, Twitch is currently filing suit against the trolls who were spamming sexually explicit content into the Artifact directory.

In almost every single case a video game TOS is agreed to under force after the purchase with no right of refund should you refuse. In this case, the contract is not valid any more than a contract would be valid if I held a gun to your head and made you sign your possessions over to me.

This is, simply, untrue.

You're thinking of the EULA. The ToS is a contract that persists through the duration of using a service. In this case, you can choose to walk away at any time, and as a result, they tend to hold up much better. Additionally, the ToS is accessible and can be reviewed without making a purchase. So the whole, "they put a gun to my head," crap is just that.

nafensoriel

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nafensoriel wrote: »

No one considers TOS binding. It's a paper tiger that idiots treat like the law because they just don't know better.

In point of fact, it is a binding contract. Under most circumstances, the only outcome for violating a Terms of Service will be the termination of the relationship, but under rare circumstances it can lead to something more. For example, Twitch is currently filing suit against the trolls who were spamming sexually explicit content into the Artifact directory.

In almost every single case a video game TOS is agreed to under force after the purchase with no right of refund should you refuse. In this case, the contract is not valid any more than a contract would be valid if I held a gun to your head and made you sign your possessions over to me.

This is, simply, untrue.

You're thinking of the EULA. The ToS is a contract that persists through the duration of using a service. In this case, you can choose to walk away at any time, and as a result, they tend to hold up much better. Additionally, the ToS is accessible and can be reviewed without making a purchase. So the whole, "they put a gun to my head," crap is just that.

Is it provided at the time of sale?
Is an immediate refund offered to the purchaser should they refuse no questions asked?
Do you have the capacity to understand the TOS as written?(yes this is a very valid defence for most gamers)
Is the agreement indefinite or defined... and which by which party?
Is the TOS unconscionable?

Access via a legal team in the basement of a building in another country is not a valid means of discovery. As I said a TOS for software support for something like a LIMS system is agreed to by companies with lawyer/HR support and written in a manner that both can understand. It is agreed to before money or services change hands. If someone tried to hide their terms in a basement until requested no one would ever do business with them. With video games, you get no chance to reasonably access the TOS/EULA before purchase. A PC user who purchased from the main website would have less of an argument however since the TOS is freely accessible from the website at the time of purchase. An Xbox gamer does not have this luxury.

Capacity is also a serious issue as well. These things are not written in plain text. By definition, they are not understood by the people agreeing to them. Intentionally obfuscating a contract is grounds to argue for its annulment.

Even the arbitration agreements have been ignored in the past due to it favouring one party over another to greatly.

Remember the law is arguable.

West1389

Why are we still talking about this? Why would you not just sign, this is a trusted company. They have brought us oblivion l, skyrim fo76 just recent games. I dont even read I sign so fast just to play.