Monthly Development Update - 2nd April 2014

[Pennypacker]

This is getting really tiresome, so let's be clear about this.

Waiting for something to boost the game got really tiresome too.

[Gunforhire]

This is getting really tiresome, so let's be clear about this.



You can't nitpick the EULA to suit your personal opinion of what a policy should be.
You're incorrectly assuming multibox software is considered to manipulate the client.

This whole discussion with first "FC never told us what the policy is" and now "EULA forbids multiboxing" is very counter productive.

You have been informed what the policy is and by extension how customer services will handle these cases.

Twisting words, nitpicking or mass-echoing of misinformation does not change a policy.


Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

Sorry Vhab you are wasting your breath on this bunch. On the postitive side I appreciate you at least trying Thanks again but now I'll probably be labeled a fanboi hehe.

[Psikie]

Sorry Vhab you are wasting your breath on this bunch. On the postitive side I appreciate you at least trying Thanks again but now I'll probably be labeled a fanboi hehe.

Agreed. You fanboi lol.

But um honestly growing up in the inner city I learned a long time ago you can't fight the system. You can try but you will lose. You either get in line or get out of town.

[Pafpuf]

Sorry Vhab you are wasting your breath on this bunch.

If you wanna see breath being wasted check out the game suggestion subforums.

[Gorathon]

See section 9 of the EULA: "You may not use any third party software to modify the client in order to change Game play or manipulate the client."

Hmmm, or manipulate the client. Notice the or. That means "manipulate the client" stands alone.

Unfortunately that might not be correct.

The 'or' you mention distinguishes between two objects but your arguemnt ignores the first part of the sentence. To translate into some form of symbolic logic:

Let A = third party software,
Let B = modify the client,
Let C = change game play,
Let D = manipulate the client.

The uncertainty in the EULA is whether section 9 says,

1. "You may not use A to B in order to C or D," or
2. "You may not use A to B in order to (C or D)."

If the former is correct, as you claim, then A modifies D (third party software manipulates the client). I think Customer Service is going with the latter definition, where B modifies D. If that's true then it's an uphilll battle because MBing doesn't actually modify the client, it just allows a client to receive commands when it doesn't have focus.

This is why I suggested contacting FC legal for clarification. If it helps Terri Perkins, Media Strategy Director for Funcom, told me that the mailing address for the Legal department is

Funcom GmBH
Kohlrainstrasse 8
CH-8700 Küsnacht
Switzerland

[Traderjill]

Whether you're for it or against it...

At this point everyone might as well just give up the MB discussion. This issue has been brought up for many months and Funcom hasn't bothered to provide any response other than the original one Michi posted from Customer Support. I can't find the thread but there were people in the customer support department trying to get clarification and they posted that they were shut down without any additional info.

This is really a dead issue... not because it didn't matter but because the people that were upset already quit (to my understanding) and Funcom doesn't really care anyway.

Honestly the thing that probably stopped me on the topic was Macrosun's 'unofficial/his opinion' post. Outside of the technical difficulties that he expressed regarding stoping MBing (even if they wanted to) the thought that an employee thinks that they couldn't care less about cancelled subscriptions over the issue is disheartening.

[Leetlover]

Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

Are we, who paid for this, offended by clicksaver and itemassisant tho?

If mb conflict with the eula and a significant part (be it a minoritygroup or not) of the customers feels offended...

[Gunforhire]

Dev team. please have mercy on us and gives another item to "discuss". The MB dead horse has been beaten to dust!

[Traderjill]

In 9 days-ish we can discuss the new SL missions + usually pissedoffness over what is/isn't stated.

[Esssch]

Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.

And since you yourself coded a lot of stuff for various chat bots, distributed one and hosted another one publicly, I believe this means you should be banned for breaking EULA!

[Gunforhire]

In 9 days-ish we can discuss the new SL missions + usually pissedoffness over what is/isn't stated.

I guess I should be careful what I ask for. But at least its a new dead horse to beat.

[Grandpa]

In my opinion, the multi-box issue really comes down to one thing:

Enforce the EULA and the problem could be solved.

But FC doesn't have the resources to do that (hence they want us to find cheaters for them with mandatory inspect).
They don't even have the resources to clean up after massive irregularities (i.e. gmi and item shop).
Therefore smaller violations, such as multiboxing with 3rd party software, will be completely ignored.

A law unenforced is no law at all!

[Beornin]

In my opinion, the multi-box issue really comes down to one thing:

Enforce the EULA and the problem could be solved.

But FC doesn't have the resources to do that (hence they want us to find cheaters for them with mandatory inspect).
They don't even have the resources to clean up after massive irregularities (i.e. gmi and item shop).
Therefore smaller violations, such as multiboxing with 3rd party software, will be completely ignored.

A law unenforced is no law at all!

Oh, if the game only had something like enforcers or something...

[Encyros]

I think it's very interesting the FC opinion Vhab quotes that most of us are engaging daily in acts, such as using chat bots and clicksaver, which are against the EULA, without penalty.

A contract willingly unenforced isn't no contract at all, but certainly some of the clauses might be void...

[jorricane]

Unfortunately that might not be correct.

The 'or' you mention distinguishes between two objects but your arguemnt ignores the first part of the sentence. To translate into some form of symbolic logic:

Let A = third party software,
Let B = modify the client,
Let C = change game play,
Let D = manipulate the client.

The uncertainty in the EULA is whether section 9 says,

1. "You may not use A to B in order to C or D," or
2. "You may not use A to B in order to (C or D)."

If the former is correct, as you claim, then A modifies D (third party software manipulates the client). I think Customer Service is going with the latter definition, where B modifies D. If that's true then it's an uphilll battle because MBing doesn't actually modify the client, it just allows a client to receive commands when it doesn't have focus.

This is why I suggested contacting FC legal for clarification. If it helps Terri Perkins, Media Strategy Director for Funcom, told me that the mailing address for the Legal department is

I tried to point the same wording out in another thread on the subject, and put it much, much less clearly, thanks for that

[DigitalBath]

And since you yourself coded a lot of stuff for various chat bots, distributed one and hosted another one publicly, I believe this means you should be banned for breaking EULA!

"Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

You need to read the parts in bold carefully to understand what Vhab meant. There's no reason to ban people until FC's policy on any of those pieces of software changes.

In my opinion, the multi-box issue really comes down to one thing:

Enforce the EULA and the problem could be solved.

But FC doesn't have the resources to do that (hence they want us to find cheaters for them with mandatory inspect).
They don't even have the resources to clean up after massive irregularities (i.e. gmi and item shop).
Therefore smaller violations, such as multiboxing with 3rd party software, will be completely ignored.

A law unenforced is no law at all!

You seem to have missed this important part: "The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases."

I think it's very interesting the FC opinion Vhab quotes that most of us are engaging daily in acts, such as using chat bots and clicksaver, which are against the EULA, without penalty.

A contract willingly unenforced isn't no contract at all, but certainly some of the clauses might be void...

You too, seem to have missed what I pointed out to Esssch.


When a company isn't against certain software being used in conjunction with their own for whatever purpose there's little you can do (this applies to chat bots, item assistant, multiboxing or whatever else). They should ultimately change the EULA to reflect their stance more clearly and also be more explicit and direct on both customer support cases and on the forums..
But they don't have to. You have statements from at least two sources stating that these are currently permitted.

Other than contacting FC's Legal department there's nothing to be done. And even if you do.. they may just add a few "may" words to the EULA and your case is void. (As in, use of 3rd party tools may warrant action by Funcom blabla).


I think we all need a better, more valid, subject.

[Esssch]

"Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

You need to read the parts in bold carefully to understand what Vhab meant. There's no reason to ban people until FC's policy on any of those pieces of software changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

There you go, bud!

[DigitalBath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

There you go, bud!

Without the tone to imply it, it was easy to mistake you for one of the other posts quoted in there! (and some before this, too!)

I'm sure you understand!

[Encyros]

I think we all need a better, more valid, subject.

Absolutely. We shouldn't hype up anyone's jurisprudence. There is little point in us, who are I presume ignorant and unqualified in contract law, debating it with presumably similarly ignorant and unqualified people, including the CR posters.

However, in fairness to the detractors, claims by FC that Funcom has sole and arbitrary authority to interpret the EULA may also be misguided, as well as overzealous assertions of rights.

Essentially, the broad statements which are included for security do not solidify into fact until they are tested at court. Nor do FC's actions contradict anything legally until they are tested at court.

We shouldn't take anyone's legalese as indisputable fact.

Some players might feel that FC contradicts their EULA, but that's meaningless unless it's trialed.

CR rightly state that "Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases", but this may not be consistent with the law when put under scrutiny (the legal argument in the same vein that a grocer can't refuse to sell someone apples simply because he doesn't like the look of her, or arbitrary criterion of his choosing e.g. 'may'. It might well be that he mayn't.)

I'm not on side with the dictionary definition people, but I didn't feel it right for the last word on this to be that "It's FC's agreement so they can do what they like". That's only true up to a point.

Basically if someone feels that strongly they should settle it in a case.

[Grandpa]

"Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

You need to read the parts in bold carefully to understand what Vhab meant. There's no reason to ban people until FC's policy on any of those pieces of software changes.

You do understand that the EULA defines the terms of the contract between FunCom and its customers?

Legally, there is a fine line between "catch-all phrasing" and "too broad" or "too vague".
Your interpretation would be too vague in detail and too broad in scope to be legally enforceable.

I stand by what I said earlier:
FC simply doesn't have the resources to enforce anything at all!