These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension

First post First post
Author
Senjiu Kanuba
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#361 - 2016-10-13 00:40:52 UTC
I'd like it if accounts that have been subscribed once get a longer than 3 months period of security.

I reactivated an alt this summer that has been inactive for over a year. I am aware that the chance of you deleting accounts that have once been subsribed is pretty slim but still.. it would be nice to have that on paper.

Also what does "inactive" mean? Not having logged in for 3 months? I assume you don't delete accounts that are subscribed at the time but.. technically it doesn't say that. So if someone took a break and left the account subscribed for a year they could come back to a non-existent account in theory?

PS: I'll miss betting on alliance tournament teams.
RomeoGolf90
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#362 - 2016-10-13 01:03:31 UTC  |  Edited by: RomeoGolf90
CCP Falcon wrote:
Cristl wrote:
I assume the 'we may purge accounts after 90 days of inactivity' clause is unlikely to ever be enacted, right?


This has been clarified in the OP Smile


Apologies for my ignorance this is the first time i post...what's the OP(ening...sorted, sorry but i couldn't find the way to delete the post)
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#363 - 2016-10-13 01:04:10 UTC
RomeoGolf90 wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
Cristl wrote:
I assume the 'we may purge accounts after 90 days of inactivity' clause is unlikely to ever be enacted, right?


This has been clarified in the OP Smile


Apologies for my ignorance this is the first time i post...what's the OP?


Original Post.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Zanar Skwigelf
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#364 - 2016-10-13 01:07:57 UTC
19 pages of tears and no one asks the most important question:

What time are we showing up in Delve to write "We're Sorry" in SMA corpses?
RomeoGolf90
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#365 - 2016-10-13 01:09:16 UTC
Querns wrote:


Original Post.


Thanks!

May i abuse your and CCP's kindess by asking to direct me to the policy referred in said post please?
I looked on the "policies" page but couldn't find it :(
Senjiu Kanuba
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#366 - 2016-10-13 01:17:28 UTC
With original post the first post in this very thread is meant.

CCP Falcon added this:
Quote:
Updates & Clarifications:

The 90 day clause:

Our policy on inactive accounts has not changed, we have simply shortened the notice period from six months to three months due to a potentially higher volume of account creation.
RomeoGolf90
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#367 - 2016-10-13 01:21:37 UTC  |  Edited by: RomeoGolf90
Senjiu Kanuba wrote:
With original post the first post in this very thread is meant.

CCP Falcon added this:
Quote:
Updates & Clarifications:

The 90 day clause:

Our policy on inactive accounts has not changed, we have simply shortened the notice period from six months to three months due to a potentially higher volume of account creation.


I founded, thanks :D

EDIT : i share your concerns and need for more precise wording on the subject on EULA.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#368 - 2016-10-13 01:36:54 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:
Can you elaborate on
"You may establish more than one (1) Account for each copy of the Software licensed. You are however not allowed to play EVE by using more than one account at the same time, unless you pay a subscription fee for the Software"?...

...If so, what if I run the second Eve account on another PC, is that a EULA violation?

I edited out some of the sarcastic bits because I want to focus on that "PC" question.

I have two friends that I'm having some success in convincing to play this game as Alphas.

Friend 1 lives about 2,000 miles away from me and won't be an issue. However, friend 2 is my roommate. Now, he has a gaming laptop so it's a "second PC", but it would be connected to the internet through the same router my PC is.

The three of us play Minecraft and Team Fortress 2 together extensively. We've been friends since the Xbox 360 days. We play together as a team. And honestly, we only really play those games when each other are online to play with. We do want to play other games together, and they have some bit of interest in EvE. But both of these friends are hesitant to commit to paying for MMO gametime (roommate did the trial thing about four years ago, didn't take to the game, said he needed more game time to really get a feel for it). They are mostly okay with playing with me, even with the Alpha limitations. And if they enjoy the game enough to subscribe, all the better! I just have to get them into the game long enough for them to make up their minds one way or the other.

This is my dilemma. My roommate would be connected to EvE through the same router, playing with me almost exclusively (at least until he decides if he likes the game or not, and either subs or stops playing). I know how that would look on CCP's end as the security team checks for EULA violations regarding Alpha connections, and yes I'm also keenly aware of how this scenario sounds to the other people on the forums (oh yeah, I'm sure, your "friend").

So, looking at the EULA, I'm thinking that I'll have to tell my roommate not to bother. I'll play with my friend across the country, but I happen to really like playing EvE and I'm not at all interested in getting my account banned because my roommate plays with me with an Alpha clone.

I would appreciate if there were some explicit "yes or no" about, in general, other physical and distinct computers connected on the same network or router or whatever (I'm not really a tech guy, can you tell?).

If the answer from CCP is "Sorry, we appreciate your situation, but the answer is no", then okay. I'm not going to stomp my feet, get all pissy, claim they're losing potential money, or anything ludicrous like that. I'll just play other games with these guys and not this one. Not a big deal. If the answer is, "Yes, a different physical machine connected to the same router is okay", then I'll talk with my roommate about getting him an Alpha clone when the time comes. But I do want an assurance that doing that won't get me banned down the line because a different DM or GM or DEV saw the situation differently.
James Zealot
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#369 - 2016-10-13 01:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zealot
After reading through the changes in the EULA, it's pretty clear that lotteries hosted in game are 100% good. As long as no isk or game assets are transferred outside of the game or used in some third party operation. Seems to me that doing a mailing list lottery with your alliance or whomever in game is good to go. Just don't use a webpage outside of the game. Thats how I read it.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#370 - 2016-10-13 02:18:13 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Do you put your own pants on or did someone help you getting them on your head?


I laughed a lot harder at this than I probably should have,

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#371 - 2016-10-13 02:26:20 UTC
Reading the new proposed EULA, it is clear to me that "3rd party" means an out of game website, like IWI or Somerblink had fro actually playing gambling games.

So, i believe things that occur in game with no attachment to outside "services" would and should be mostly ok....because otherwise how would you make trade deals and stuff like that with the way EvE's politics meta plays out all the time.

Noticed a few peeps in the beginning of the thread crying about "no sandbox", as the 3rd party sites in question were outside of the sandbox, what use did they really serve for those us playing in the sandbox?

Out of Game gambling for EvE should never have been allowed in the first place. IF players or even CCP wants ISK gambling to happen then WiS should be implemented in the future where NPC's have the control (CCP) of regulation over gambling practices and it serves as an ISK sink. Hell, at that point some of things like apparel, ship skins, even AT ships could be used as prizes, you would just be paying for them in a different way then straight up plex/aurum, or isk on the market.
Bill Lane
Strategic Insanity
FUBAR.
#372 - 2016-10-13 03:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Bill Lane
So, let me get this straight. A mechanic that YOU allowed, CCP, was misused by a few people. You took all the bankers money and everything (including the banker that started two days ago). They now have nothing. They did nothing wrong. Way to completely screw a LOT of people. Good job. WTF is happening at CCP? Who decided this was OK? There goes a lot of subs, well done, hope you're happy with ruining a significant amount of player-generated content. Ban the RMTers? Absolutely, 100%. **** everyone else that were doing nothing wrong? Absolutely not. This is insane, of all the stupid stuff you have pulled, this is top of the list.

If you didn't want this going on, you shouldn't have allowed gambling sites in the first place. That is on you. For the record, I'm not stating that I think isk gambling was good or bad, but you allowed it. Now you completely ruin life for a bunch of bankers and others who follow the rules.

And how about you figure out how to clearly write a damn EULA.

"B. Selling Items and Objects

You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction. You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties. The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game."

#1. It should read "B. Selling Items and Objects for Real Money".

#2. Because item #1 is not in place, the line "You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above. You may not encourage or induce any other person to participate in such a prohibited transaction." literally states that you cannot sell anything, even in game. Meaning using the market is a bannable offense.

#3. "You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties." This is fine.

#4. "The buying, selling or auctioning (or any attempt at doing so) of characters, character attributes, items, currency, or objects, whether through online auctions, newsgroups, postings on message boards or any other means is prohibited by the EULA and a violation of CCP's proprietary rights in the Game." So no in-game, inner corp or alliance raffles or anything of the sort. Buying off the market is against the EULA.

Maybe if you would have instituted these features into the game like players have asked for YEARS then there wouldn't have been an issue, but you blatantly ignored these requests. Standup job guys, so smart. Bye-bye hundreds, if not thousands, of subs. This literally worries the hell out of me, with all of the people you just pissed off I have to wonder what the repercussions will be in game as CCP loses many thousands of dollars in lost subs.

But no ban on scamming.....so that's right in line with everything.

Overall what a great job you did on this one. Unbelievable that you didn't learn from your past mistakes how incredibly STUPID this would be if handled it wrong, and you really screwed this one up. Huge knee jerk reaction, letting a couple bad apples ruin the bunch instead of just removing the bad apples. This kind of BS of punishing EVERYBODY is moronic. You don't ban an entire alliance because two people are botting in the mining belts. So......this heavy handedness is so over the top, I have lost all faith and respect for your company.

Thanks a lot,
7 year vet who is now pissed he's supported you
Astrid Farnsworth
Broke and Famous
#373 - 2016-10-13 03:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Farnsworth
Is there game, they do what they want, and you can do all the tantrums you want, but all this betting entities wore operathing in a gray area.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." - Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980**strong text**

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#374 - 2016-10-13 04:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Bill Lane wrote:
So, let me get this straight. A mechanic that YOU allowed, CCP, was misused by a few people. You took all the bankers money and everything (including the banker that started two days ago). They now have nothing. They did nothing wrong.


Are you being deliberately stupid.* They violated the EULA. In the case of IWI they were engaged in RMT. In the case of Eve Casino several violations of the third party EULA.

You are just being deliberately obtuse.

*Note that really isn't a question...you are being deliberately stupid. Gambling for virtual currencies is not a problem, when they engage in RMT that is a problem. Now after all these problems, and given other issues with game based gambling and actual...you know things like lawsuits and government agencies getting involved CCP pulled the plug.

In short, pull you head out before you suffocate.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#375 - 2016-10-13 04:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Bill Lane wrote:
*rant snipped*

1. Anyone involved with the behind the scenes business should have been able to see that funny games were going on with regards to RMT.

2. Those EULA bits you are bringing up haven't been changed, why didn't you contact the legal team if you found them such an issue when you resigned the EULA after the last change or the change before them.

3. They didn't ban an entire alliance because of two bad apples. They banned the team that knew what was going on with RMT, the team that were breaking the dev license repeatedly (Possibly in such a way that would have let them steal logins), and they changed the rules on gambling sites, which most of the reason will have come from recent rulings in the UK & USA on gambling for virtual items with virtual money still counting as a real gambling site.

4. CCP did not & has never allowed RMT. This is what people got banned for. Not for running a gambling site.
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#376 - 2016-10-13 04:58:01 UTC
I have made my views clear that this is just sh!t management/handling of the situation. Gambling/RMT/benefits for the game, I accept that people have views I can't agree on perhaps, but these are as legitimate opinions as mine is as a long time player of EVE.

But I still do feel that, even after all this talk, the way CCP handled it is totally out of line and some of the worst community ruining action I have seen from CCP, or any other online games I have ever played.

I will not try to convince others who see it differently. You are entitled to your views and I'm entitlled to mine.

Thank you everyone at IWI for the amazing experience that I gained from tje site and thank you for the community that trancended politics and took the wins and losses in good spirit, and welcomed me to the channel when I finally got out of my shell to openly communicate with the fellow players at IWI.

What I have gained from all this was worth more than any amount of ISK I won or lost.

I feel for you hard working staff and committed players that his has hurt is and we have all been negatively affected by CCP screw up.

As you know me, I don't hand out free stuff. But I shall endeavour to help people who've been involved in the whole IWI experience without having done RMT. Within my capacity I will try to help you get back on your feet in game, although the amoint of ISK removed from this whole thing is million times more than I can cover. It may just be a nice eve mail with comforting words, or a quick light hearted convo.

It's been an awesome rollercoaster ride and I shall not forget.

Take care everyone and I wish you all good luck, as always.


Toobo

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Kristen Andelare
Night's Shadows
#377 - 2016-10-13 05:24:43 UTC
For the love of all that is sane, PLEASE edit the EULA Redline post and change the NEW information to some color other than red! Man, that was sooo unnecessarily hard to read.

Thanks!

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#378 - 2016-10-13 05:32:59 UTC
This thread would've been so much easier if CCP had mentioned their reasons.

It could have even been as simple as "we're concerned about possible legal trouble" but instead we're left to figure that out on our own.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2016-10-13 05:40:06 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Xylem Viliana wrote:
Im rather curious how much ISK assets have been removed from the game by this.

Would CCP be willing to shed a little light on what kind of figure we would be looking at?

We shall see it in the next economic report.


Or if there are graphs at Eve Vegas (oh the irony of that being the next event is delicious)

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2016-10-13 05:47:13 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
When we will get gambling for ISK in game?


If I were a betting man I would put my money on 'never'

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)