115433-eula-section-11-subsection-4

== Content ==
			
Dear people on/around/within Nexus,
 
I have myself a little bit of problem accepting the EULA as is because I think I fail to oblidge by section 11 subsection 4, namely:
"ADDITIONAL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS BY YOU"
"You warrant and represent that You have no history, or patterns of behavior, that would lead to use of the Game in an addictive or cumpulsive manner; and"
 
You see, I have been known to neglect parts of my life back in my WoW raiding days, as such I'm not 100% sure if I can warrant and represent what they are asking.
 
Am I currently displaying patterns of behaviour that could lead to an addiction or compulsive disorder thanks to Wildstar ? Actually, no. But we all know how MMO's are.
 
I guess that in a nutshell all I want to know is whether Carbine can and/or will deliberately delete my caracters or something should come to light that I was wrong about my interpetation of Section 11 Subsection 4. Because if that is the case I might as well do myself a pre-emptive favour and go to the gym instead.
 
I hope that anyone can clear this up for me	
----
			They will never go after you for a "passive" EULA violation like that. The clause is simply there as a catch-all so that you can't try to sue them for ruining your life if you play their game too much.	
----
			To me this is a nicer way of saying "If you're gonna die from playing our game make sure your family won't sue us cause your stupidity ain't our fault."	
----
			
I would imagine this is simply in place to protect Carbine and NCsoft.  If you die because you played Wildstar for 72 hour straight without eating, drinking, etc then you were in violation of the EULA that you signed and they're protected.
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much.   ;)	
----
			Us old-timers call this the Everquest clause.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Us old-timers call this the Evercrack clause.
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
 (For example, disconnecting a player and preventing them from reconnecting if they exceed the maximum play session length allowed by law).
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
They will never go after you for a "passive" EULA violation like that. The clause is simply there as a catch-all so that you can't try to sue them for ruining your life if you play their game too much.
----
			
Here in the EU, software EULAs are completely worthless, and have no effect whether you agree to them or not.
 
The EU court has already had a case and rejected EULAs as not legally binding, and branding them, worthless and unenforcable.	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
Here in the EU, software EULAs are completely worthless, and have no effect whether you agree to them or not.
 
The EU court has already had a case and rejected EULAs as not legally binding, and branding them, worthless and unenforcable.
----
			
If Chua read correctly, not void EULA, just clausule where says cannot re-sell game after buying it.
Article not say other points in EULA become invalid....	
----
			
Although I hate to admit this, the lifeform in the big hamsterball is correct to a point. In fact if part of an EULA contradicts with any part of a countries law, that part becomes invalid and unenforceable. The way I understood it was that the primary reason the EU court became involved was to rule whether digital games are services or goods. Since every country around the world has ( strict ) laws regarding goods, but not so much about services. Hence why the EU court was asked ( in an attempt to dumb the question down a lot ) "Are publishers allowed to circumvent the law by calling their "goods" by a different name ?"
 
However, this post was made with the intent to try to establish a baseline around what Carbine could possibly have meant with EULA Section 11 Subsection 4 rather than trying to declare it unenforceable or invalid. Note that at this point I'd rather get past the EULA and play the darn game than try to get into any sort of legal battle.
 
Sadly at this point I am still genuinly unsure what to do about my woes. I am getting somewhat closer to dissecting it though. For starters I used to read
"You warrant and represent that You have no history, or patterns of behavior, that would lead to use of the Game in an addictive or cumpulsive manner"
with an "and" instead of an "or". Which would be my own fault. However now I am left with "Do I have history ?" and the answer would be yes. Now do I have "Patterns of behavior" ? And the answer would be a resounding "maybe ?"
 
Now if this was an issue in the local debate-team, or class/homework/course at law-school I would at least try to have it thrown out with a plead that could/would go as follows "Patterns of behavior towards addiction regarding video games, let alone online video games, are ambiguous at it's finest, everyone has a different oppinion. Heck there are people out there who these days say that you have developed a facebook addiction if you state that you learned to type with 10 fingers for facebook. There are also people who claim people are addicted to smartphones and/or social media because if that thing beeps they NEED to have it right now, also they are prone to shoveling down birthdaycake whilst having their eyes glued to their machine. It all depends on context and boundaries way too much to be a clear definition."
 
Now in all fairness when you are unsure about something you can look it up, for instance on http://www.video-game-addiction.org/signs-you-need-help.html . And by those definitions I am not a video game addict and never was in the first place.
 
So, ehmm, yay ? Now I can accept the EULA with all it's glory. Or should I be afraid that someone at Carbine does not agree with my sourses or definitions ?	
----
			How you personally choose to define things and what you choose to worry about doesn't change the fact, this clause isn't there so Carbine can "come after you" it's there so they have legal grounds for an easy dismissal if you decide to go after them.In any case, other parts of the EULA make it clear the worst Carbine can do to you is not allow you to play, and they can only do that for violations that cause harm to the game or its players. 	
----
			I would like to view the OP as a troll, but I am not sure now if he is serious :/.....	
----
			
{| class="blockquote"
I would like to view the OP as a troll, but I am not sure now if he is serious :/.....
----
			
I'd like to thank anyone who bothered to reply in this thread, I guess I have to have no choice and accept the fact that it is probably as Lemurian described in #13
 
Intensive ( #14 ) : I'm sorry if I appeared to be a troll, it is actually a form of anxiety towards things I do not understand or comprehend.	
----