HL2 makes story in The Inquirer

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105

Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?

....Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has recently
found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report made
following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an
internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did
not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the
game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from HL2 or
face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.


In related news, HL2 wins awards.
http://www.interactive.org/awards/IAA-8/winners.asp#1

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

OldDog wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105
>
> Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?
>
> ...Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has
recently
> found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report
made
> following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing
of an
> internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements
did
> not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with
the
> game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from
HL2 or
> face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations
will
> agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer
that
> Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

difool will be loving this...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The Chronic wrote:
>
>
> The difference is that "internet connection" is open to
misinterpretation,
> particularly for a game with a single player campaign.

Absolutely. It will be read in context, and in the context of a PC game
with a single- and multi-player component it can reasonably be assumed
to refer to the multi-player only, because that has been the norm and
there is nothing to indicate it is differing from the norm.
The law will judge such cases on their own merits and in the specific
context in which they occur.

>
> > The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.
>
> Certain clauses in the EULA have no legal binding, but that's not the
issue.
> The issue is misleading labelling on the package.

It's similar to expansion packs which clearly state "You must own the
original game to play this one - the original is not included in this
box" The HL2 box should clearly state "online activation is required
for all game play". It doesn't need to be in 6' letters of fire, but it
should be as clear as the expansion pack advice.

The "contract" originally referred to did not mean the EULA, but the
terms of sale/use known at the time of purchase. This would include any
advice on the box packaging. However, some courts have ruled it also
includes any clauses which a purchaser would reasonably expect to find
in the EULA. Such as you bought a licencce, not the product; you can't
copy, lend hire etc; no dissassembling the code etc. It depends on the
specific situation as to whether the court will uphold the EULA.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
> >The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's
insufficient.
> >It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
interpretation
> >in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
> >different, and it doesn't make that clear.
> >
> >
>
> ...deliberately with calculated forethought too.........


John, you should always put "IMO" when stating an opinion, rather than
a fact. Some people here can't tell the difference and will sieze it as
an opportunity for flame-throwing rather than useful discussion. IMO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 06:20:01 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>...Let's take the first point. The German Consumer Association has recently
>found that the packaging on Half-Life 2 is misleading. In a report made
>following complaints from the public, they said that the mere listing of an
>internet connection under the 'other' category in system requirements did
>not accurately describe the true extent of the internet tie-in with the
>game, and ordered Vivendi to amend the packaging and untie Steam from HL2 or
>face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
>agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
>Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
requires an internet connection? Maybe they should build a speaker
attached to a motion detector into the box so whenever anyone picks it
up, it screams "I need an internet connection!" at 120 dB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

drocket wrote:
> So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
> system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
> requires an internet connection?

Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, "OldDog" wrote:

> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105

thanks a lot!
great news, but i would rather see it being the european comission or
any other european regulator than only the german
the rest of europe has also right to be defended like the german gamer
is, so i only wish europe will follow the say path!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, drocket wrote:

> So the fact that it says it requires an internet connection in the
> system requirements isn't sufficient to warn consumers that it
> requires an internet connection? Maybe they should build a speaker
> attached to a motion detector into the box so whenever anyone picks it
> up, it screams "I need an internet connection!" at 120 dB.

so you are better than the german consumer association?
you are much better than they are right?

you again...
i still remember when you wrote in this group two months ago about steam
being completely "normal", steam is nothing "new"

its so frustrating seeing gamers completely blind when anyone who follows
this group and tries to read every complaint gamers have will come across
many many many reports of hl2 retail buyers who fell they were mislead
when buying hl2 cause of the "internet connection" requirement

only people on purpose and to justify steam will deny the requirements on
the now hl2 box can easily be mistaken by multi-player capabilities found
on the majority of fps and are totally INSUFFICIENT to describe what steam
is, and means

again a very big thanks to olddog! an example of a gamer who choosed steam
and believes on steam but that doesn't make him blind for every issue it
raises and steam raises many many issues!

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 8 Feb 2005, flightlessvacuum@lycos.com wrote:

> difool will be loving this...

please let me correct you if i may...
"all german pc gamers will be loving this"
and yes i'm extremely happy for them, now i want the same for me

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

against steam campaign
http://nosteam.afterdarknet.at/

steamwatch - independent observatory about steam
http://www.steamwatch.org/

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:34:04 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
>"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.

It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.

The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
different, and it doesn't make that clear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Walter Mitty wrote:
> > I wonder if nuts of the future will come with a label that says
"remove
> shell before eating".
>

The nuts of the present already come in bags labelled "Warning -
contains nuts". (American Airlines was the culprit I believe)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com> Spake Unto All:

>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21105
>
>Is the Half-Life 2 EULA illegal?

The EULA has no legal power whatsoever in europe. It's nothing more
than a readme.txt here. But what the reviewer wants is STEAM, not just
INTERNET CONNECTIVITY, mentioned as a requirement of the game.

Which strikes me as a strange view, as steam isn't a prerequisite, it
is bundled with the game.

>face a hefty fine. See this page. How far other consumer associations will
>agree with the Germans is yet to be seen, but it seems a no-brainer that
>Steam should be mentioned on the retail pack.

Well, I guess it could be mentioned more clearly on the box that you
really, truly, actually DO need internet connectivity to play. I'm
sure there's people who will miss this, just like I *know* there are
plenty of people who miss that World of Warcraft and Everquest 2 need
internet connection.

For completeness, I'll list the reviewers other "significant issues":

"The second is that where a gamer buys a copy of the game for which
the CDKey has already been hacked, he will have to wait up to two
weeks to get a replacement from Sierra/Vivendi, since shops will
generally not take back opened software. The third is that no copy of
the game can be sold without paying Valve a $10 fee to transfer the
CD-Key to another Steam account."

#2: Well, that makes Sierra/Vivendi/Valve on par or better than most
other software houses wrt to helping people who claim to have had
their keys stolen.
#3: Yeah. That is, and IMO remains, the sole real problem with Steam.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com> Spake Unto All:

>since this has always been
>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer.

It lists internet connection as a _minimum requirement_.

Bitching about it not being playable on a non-internet-connected
machine is like bitching about it not being playable on a Matrox
Millennium gfx card, or their Pentium 90 - neither of which meet
minimum requirements either.

>If the average
>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.

The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> It lists internet connection as a _minimum requirement_.

Under the category of "other." Unclear.

> Bitching about it not being playable on a non-internet-connected
> machine is like bitching about it not being playable on a Matrox
> Millennium gfx card, or their Pentium 90 - neither of which meet
> minimum requirements either.

The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
particularly for a game with a single player campaign.

> The EULA isn't a contract. Except in a few states in the US.

Certain clauses in the EULA have no legal binding, but that's not the issue.
The issue is misleading labelling on the package.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:39:33 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The third is that no copy of
>the game can be sold without paying Valve a $10 fee to transfer the
>CD-Key to another Steam account."

I'd like to see someone test this bulllshit clause in court. They
don't have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>
>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>different, and it doesn't make that clear.

"unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.

The fact that some other game boxes are ambiguous or misleading is an
issue you should take up with the relevant publishers. HL2 is
correctly labeled.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,

Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[alex]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:51:36 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
>
>Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.

Nice, you just gave in! Information on packaging has to be made clear
for everyone legally able to make decisions for themselves (adults and
non invalids). Since you just said that the box might confuse stupid
people, you admitted the box's label(s) are unacceptable.


--
Alex
atheist #2007

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
wrote:

>Andrew wrote:
>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>
>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>
>

....deliberately with calculated forethought too.........

John Lewis

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Not sure.
They can't forbid resale of the product, but that's not what they do
either, they just stop the product from being used (unless sold
together with its account).
This is clearly not the way it's previously been with games, but one
could compare it to resale of e.g. MMORPGs - you can't play those
either without an account.
Although in this case they'll likely not say that you pay for the
account, but for the service of re-registering the key.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:56:19 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:34:04 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Requires an internet connection for what? It can be interpreted as
>>"internet connection required for multiplayer," since this has always been
>>the case with store bought PC games. It does not make the distinction that
>>an internet connection is required to start playing single player, nor can
>>this be considered common knowledge to the average consumer. If the average
>>consumer cannot understand the contract, it is against the law.
>
>It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>--

....deliberately vague and incomplete....

"On-line authentication is required"

immediately after the hardware requirements (and
clearly spaced away from any mention of multi-play )
This would be sufficient to alert the otherwise unwary
purchaser.

John Lewis


>Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
>Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
>please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
>Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:51:36 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:19:06 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The difference is that "internet connection" is open to misinterpretation,
>
>Only to people who are too stupid to use a PC in the first place.

Hopefully, most PC users are not as arrogant and snobbish as
you...........

John Lewis

>--
>Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
>Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
>please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
>Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:l7qj01lkaa714nh25kh7f1fitgrml85c7n@4ax.com...

> >> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
> >The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
> >It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the
interpretation
> >in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
> >different, and it doesn't make that clear.
> "unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.
>
> The fact that some other game boxes are ambiguous or misleading is an
> issue you should take up with the relevant publishers. HL2 is
> correctly labeled.

It does not say that internet authentication is required for the single
player game. It merely says that net acess is required and again, using the
example of every other game made, that means net access is required for
MULTIplayer.

The box should unambiguously state that a Steam account is required to play
single player.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:15:39 -0500, "The Chronic" <endo@blunt.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't need to make that distinction, the wording is unambiguous.
>>
>>The wording is unambiguous in its literal sense, but that's insufficient.
>>It can be misleading to the average consumer, who takes the interpretation
>>in the context of what is expected from a PC game. Half Life 2 is
>>different, and it doesn't make that clear.
>
> "unambiguous in its literal sense" - in other words it is correct.

Words are never completele unambiguous and are allways open to
interpretation. It all depends on the situation.

If you are a publisher and you can reasonably expect your customers to
interpret your words differently than you meant them (which is clearly
the case here), you should take precautions and make the text clearer.
That would not seem too much to ask.

Louis