EVE Information Portal

10b per day? i'll go out of business first. i could go as high as 1.5 mil per day & that's being generous.

Why not? Is being a company or famous somehow important to whether or not CCP consider them a third party? how famous exactly do you need to be to suddenly be this higher tier of third party?

They are a third party to you, but their EULA isn't written from your viewpoint, it's written from theirs. Anyone not them is a third party from their point of view.

You're not a third party to you, so if you want to transfer money to yourself and gamble with yourself on whatever you want, then technically you can. But the moment you involve any other player, you are a third party to them. So BIG can operate as long as it's run by one person and that same person is the only person allowed to play.

Of course they are. I am not you, correct? And I'm not CCP either. Therefore I am a third party to your agreement. If you try to gamble through me or I through you, we would be involved in third party gambling from the point of view of the agreement we signed.

It's in English. They don't want people gambling with ISK or in game items, pretty simple. The EULA is purposely vague to ensure they account for edge cases. While I think the EULA would be better if it was more specific (given that they don't actually need you to breach the EULA to ban you anyway) that's not what they've chosen to do. But let's not pretend the rules are so fuzzy you can't tell if lotteries like BIG would be covered, that's disingenuous.

I used the case of Mike Tyson or McDonalds as examples of people who would clearly and obviously be third parties to any agreement between myself and CCP.

CCP is not a third party to me for the purposes of the EULA, they are the first party and I am the second party (as in the person agreeing and legally bound by the the EULA). If CCP or myself was a third party, then none of their EULA would apply at all, in the same way it doesn't apply to Mike Tyson - many people seem to be failing to understand this.

If the person bound by an agreement between two entities (myself and CCP) can be considered a third party, then the term "third party" has no meaning whatsoever. Consider third party car insurance. You crash your car into some random guy (Mike Tyson). Luckily you have car insurance with CCP (first party) and as a valued customer (second party) you're covered by the insurance contract that you signed (the EULA).

If your argument was correct, in the above example CCP could say "sorry, don't know ya, you're all third parties to me" even though you've been paying your insurance premiums every month for the past 10 years and have a copy of the original contract you signed right there in your pocket.

I hope you now understand why I want CCP's definition of third parties clarified, especially considering this involves intellectual property in videogames which is a pretty new thing really.

Hello, I have a question:

Where is the line between a "game of chance" and a give away?

When someone decides to drop a plex in a system, so that everyone can try to grab that, then what is that if not a game of chance for the participants (second and third parties)? Will CCP ban the participants for that?

Or if someone is making a quiz and the person with the right answer is getting a prize. Isn't that a game of chance too between second and third parties?

I want to be sure and not being banned just for a donation or a give away, that others could interpret as gambling, game of chance or worse.

It would be nice if they'd talk a little more on it.

Well CCP have been quiet on this point, but I'm guessing inside the game, no, they are not third parties.

Third parties, when CCP talks about it, is usually something outside the game, like IWI was third party (even though he had a presence in game too).

Only players talk about other players as third party, e.g. I might be the first party, and you the second party to a transaction and we might decide to go through a third party such as Chribba. But I think CCP would not see it that way, we'd all be second parties (with CCP the first party).

That is my view of it, but you are right a bit of clarification on that would help.

Now, the lawyers are involved.

IWantISK were not banned by CCP Games for RMT

Wow,... guess the EULA is a real document. They'll straighten it all out.

FYI, for everyone here really,

If you/your corp/your alliance is running any form of ISK pay out based on a 3rd party tracking/logging/recording tool - do verify with CCP whether this is ok/against the new EULA or not.

As a general rule, I cannot give out the details of my own support ticket & GM response, but I can say that I have asked specifically about running a pvp campaign using a third party tool and paying out prize ISK based on the killboard record - with NO element of RNG or 'game of chance' involved, since all prizes will be paid out according to killboard record.

I have been clearly informed that this is NOT permitted.

I cannot comment on what/how CCP interpreted the case, but at least I can say that I used a clear example of using a third party tool for tracking in-game records and paying out ISK based on such records tracked through third party website, and this was clearly not permitted.

So if you are thinking about/already running any third party sites/tools to keep track of in-game stuff and making in-game ISK pay outs according to such, even if there is no RNG or 'game of chance' or gambling element involved at all, I strongly recommend that you check what you intend to do is against the new EULA or not.

At least for my own case, making/use of a third party website to facilitate in-game transactions was clearly judged as not ok, although there was NO 'chance' element involved in it.

So if you are doing any such things already (e.g. using third party tool to track fleet op participations and pay outs according to such tools' records, running in-house pvp comp based on third party hosted killboard records), I strongly recommend that you check with CCP and make sure you are not committing an offence.

I'm not here to argue anymore, but everyone would do well to check their own cases to make sure that you don't end up breaking new EULA unintentionally.

Teckos, I share your exact ideas as you wrote them here, and I fully agree with you. I cannot share exact details of my communication with GM/CCP, but basically what I asked to check was following

1. Making a KB

2. Run 'campaign' on KB, where user can define the campaign parameters (e.g. only count kills in system X, only count kills vs. an alliance XXX, only count the structure kills where structure belongs to corp XXX, etc) and 'fund it', and the prize ISK is held by a regular in-game third party (either new or established ones like Chribba/Grendell/etc), and the payment is made according to the KB records when the 'campaign' is over.

3. So as an example. it would function exactly like any KB that can host 'campaign' function - things like hulkageddon, etc - count up the hulk kills at the end of the campaign period & pay out the prize isk according to recorded kills on the kb, etc.

4. No game of 'chance' or 'gambling' element involved. I specifically said there will be no lucky draws or random reward double chance or whatsoever, that every 'pay out' will correspond to 'real kill' in game, verified through API kill records,etc.

Yet I have been told this is not allowed, so that's why I'm very puzzled.

Because I too understood it as 'gambling' being banned, which I do not like but have come to accept, but I really don't see why the above scenario would NOT be permitted - because if one extends this logic then even paying ISK according to zkill record (e.g. top klillers from the corp this month) or using third party tool (TS/Discord/etc) to track & pay out fleet op participations and such would be under question.

So I have a case where I asked about very clear example of using existing mechanics and absolutely no ramdom element and got the idea rejected as 'not permitted'. My interaction with CCP on this front ends there - I do not mean to argue with CCP or challenge them or convince them or whatever - but I think this is a warning sign enough that other people who have anything to do with third party check with CCP to make sure if what they do is ok, and since I cannot publish the details of my interactions with GM here I wish people could ask CCP about this and CCP can make official announcement here.

What it boils down to is the same as it's always been.

If you think you're in that grey area where the rules may apply, it IS better to ask permission, as CCP rarely grants forgiveness once the bans have been distributed.

Getting an answer up front costs nothing except patience.