Draconian EULAs and the forum denizens who love them...

[Nekojin]

On another site I frequent, a news article was posted about EA's End User License Agreement / Terms of Service for the beta test of the new Sim City game. Now, anyone who has followed the Sim City development cycle already knows that there's some controversy over making the game an online-only, always-connected game. But the EULA goes far beyond that:

If you know about a Bug or have heard about a Bug and fail to report the Bug to EA, we reserve the right to treat you no differently from someone who abuses the Bug. You acknowledge that EA reserve the right to lock anyone caught abusing a Bug out of all EA products.

Yes, you read that right - by failing to report bugs, you can have all of your EA games taken away from you. And, predictably, the internet raged at such draconian terms. What wasn't expected (at least by me) was the counter-surge of people declaiming, "If you don't like the terms, don't play the Beta," and the like, suggesting that the complainers had some false sense of entitlement (and yes, that phrase has been used quite a bit).

Now, EA has released a new press release, acknowledging that the passage, as written, was too broad and was being rewritten (as of yet, the revised passage hasn't been released to the public). But still there are forum posters declaring that they shouldn't have to, that there was nothing wrong with the original statement, and that because it's all just licenses, they can remove the licenses at any time at their whim.

What do you think? Was the original statement fair or unfair? Legal or illegal (I personally think that it's illegal confiscation)?

Edit: And do you believe that companies should be able to force beta testers to a certain standard of performance in bug reporting?

[Rageaholic]

It's unfair and stupid. Sounds like the same people in charge of pokemon TCGO (which I'm going to start a rant about) are running sim city. Why do such great games have to be run by such morons?

As for those defending the company, I don't get it. I don't get why people defend those who are screwing you over. I know there are SCs who treat people like crap, but protesting an unfair policy doesn't make one an SC, it makes the company sucky for implementing those policies.

[TheHuckster]

What do you think? Was the original statement fair or unfair? Legal or illegal (I personally think that it's illegal confiscation)?

Abusing a bug as an exploit to gain advantage over other players online will often invite a banhammer whether the game is in beta or not... From what I can tell, SimCity has both solo gameplay and social gameplay. I would think if you used social gameplay and exploited a bug to gain advantage, that's what would get you banned. however, that should only ban you from the online portion of the game you are playing, and not affect single-player use or any other games you play from the same company.

Edit: And do you believe that companies should be able to force beta testers to a certain standard of performance in bug reporting?

When you sign up for a closed beta, usually they expect you to do your part as a beta tester and report bugs you find. After all, that's the whole point of a beta program. I've been in closed betas, and they are often very selective with who they choose, and they also have you sign an NDA, plus ask you to report defects as you find them.

I know for a fact that SimCity is a closed beta because I registered for it myself, answered a few questions that seemed to relate to "how good of a beta tester are you and how committed would you be to try out the game" and they told me they'd get back to me if I were selected (which as far as I can tell, I was not).

Open betas are a different story because anyone can download and install the application, and they might simply have a suggestion box or a bug report form more prominently displayed on the application, but you're not obligated to use it.

[Nekojin]

When you sign up for a closed beta, usually they expect you to do your part as a beta tester and report bugs you find. After all, that's the whole point of a beta program. I've been in closed betas, and they are often very selective with who they choose, and they also have you sign an NDA, plus ask you to report defects as you find them.

I know for a fact that SimCity is a closed beta because I registered for it myself, answered a few questions that seemed to relate to "how good of a beta tester are you and how committed would you be to try out the game" and they told me they'd get back to me if I were selected (which as far as I can tell, I was not).

Open betas are a different story because anyone can download and install the application, and they might simply have a suggestion box or a bug report form more prominently displayed on the application, but you're not obligated to use it.

Sure, but public beta testing, even closed beta testing, is an unpaid, uncompensated position. You're not even officially working for the company in any legal capacity. If they try to require any level of bug-reporting, they start to risk running afoul of employment law. EA is already a little gun-shy over that one, thanks to the "Volunteer" GM program that they had in Ultima Online over a decade ago, that resulted in them being sued by a class action of former GMs. They had been expecting a certain number of hours worked per week as GMs in order to continue being a GM.

It's one of the problems with volunteer programs - you frequently get what you paid for.

[Andara Bledin]

Abusing a bug as an exploit to gain advantage over other players online will often invite a banhammer whether the game is in beta or not...

Except that the passage says nothing about even experiencing the bug personally. The mere knowledge of it without disclosure is enough for an account-wide banhammering. How the hell they know if a person knows about a bug they didn't report is another issue on top of that. And does skimming a thread where the bug is mentioned (but where you didn't actually read the post) count as "hearing about it?"

I've been in quite a few bets, both open and closed, and they don't generally care if you exploit a bug in the game at that stage; after all, if you don't do your best to break it, then they won't know where the bugs are. However, failing to report anything is an issue, and if someone is found to be exploiting a bug and not reporting it, then they deserve to be booted from the beta and put on a beta-banlist for the company.

^-.-^

[AmbrosiaWriter]

While I think banning them from all EA games for not reporting a bug - while not exploiting it - (how the hell is the company supposed to know and PROVE the person even saw the bug or knew it was a bug?) is ridiculous, I don't think it's unfair that if someone isn't living up to what they should be in a closed beta that they get the beta license revoked.

They paid nothing for it. They are out nothing except the time they spent dinking around, having fun in the game. Eventually they'd have to pay money to continue playing the game anyway. They're basically getting a free demo.

If someone starting crying about no longer having access to a free demo (there are plenty of demos that only let you play for X amount of hours before you have to purchase) I'd tell them to STFU and buy the freaking game.

I don't know why the company wouldn't just invite more people, but I suppose if they're attempting to save on server load during the initial testing then it would make sense for them to cut the fat and try to invite in new people who might be more productive for what they are trying to accomplish.

[lordlundar]

From what I can tell, SimCity has both solo gameplay and social gameplay.

Not the one that's in development. The game is online only and is monitored for anti-cheat measures.

As for this, I'm mixed. Intentionally withholding information about bugs and similar is simply not doing what you're there for. You are there to beta test, so you are there to test the beta. Failure in that means you shouldn't be testing. Simple as that.

On the other hand, threatening to lock someone out for all EA products, including legally purchased ones for possibly accidentally missing a bug is tremendously excessive and is something that EA has done in the past.

There's a reason (a few actually) why I won't allow Origin on my system.

[Hyena Dandy]

The whole "What counts as knowing a bug" is the big question.

What exactly is KNOWING what a bug is?

Suppose I experience a bug, but think it's a natural part of the game?

Some bugs are incredibly obvious about their "This shouldn't be here-ness" but I was recently reading a discussion in the Paradox forums about their game War of the Roses.

One guy was accusing another guy of exploiting the fact that you gained EXP based on fighting to be participating in 'farming' EXP and gold with a new player.

The other guy answered that no, he couldn't have been farming EXP, because there were only two people in the room, and you needed to have at least 8 before the game gave you experience.

...At which point a member of the dev team came in, said they were unaware of that fact, and would work to fix it in the next patch. Much to everyone's surprise.

I would expect with a game in even closed beta, there might be some bugs there that are really obviously bugs, because it's only in beta. But there might also be something in there that the players just kind of assume is supposed to be there. Not because they LIKE it, or exploiting it, they just kinda assumed.

[Canarr]

I think any kind of blanket ban over all games ever purchased (from that company) is way over the top. This whole "it's just licenses, you didn't really buy it" crap is annoying as hell to. I bought it, I should get to play it whenever I want to.

Getting kicked out of a Beta if I fail to perform the functions I signed up for is fair, however.

[Hyena Dandy]

When I think about it, it strikes me that some of the people might just be jealous that they didn't get in, and are therefore coming down too hard against people who DID get in.

[wolfie]

I think any kind of blanket ban over all games ever purchased (from that company) is way over the top. This whole "it's just licenses, you didn't really buy it" crap is annoying as hell to. I bought it, I should get to play it whenever I want to.

If I were one of the people accepted for the closed beta, and saw that in the EULA, I would abort the installation process and inform the company I was withdrawing from the beta group. For reasons people have already pointed out, some bugs are subtle enough that you might not realize it's a bug rather than a planned behaviour. Also, you can't prove a negative (i.e. "I never knew about the bug"). Basically, that term says "We can arbitrarily take away everything you've ever bought from us".

What's next? Massive publishing company includes in the licensing terms for e-books they publish a clause prohibiting the customer from making negative comments about the book in any form, with a penalty of purging (without compensation) all e-books that person has bought from them in the past? Sounds like a license for MPC to publish stuff that makes Twilight look like a literary classic. After all, who's going to give it a negative review?