[4E] DDI available...kinda

[bosssmiley]

IANAL, but the EULA looks positively toxic mind you. Unamended references to Gleemax, mis-numbered sections, and *this* little beauty of a boilerplate clause:

To the fullest extent permissible pursuant to applicable law, Wizards disclaims all warranties, express or implied, but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. Wizards does not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information contained in or made available through the service.

Wizards does not warrant that the service or the functions contained in the service will be uninterrupted or error-free, that defects will be corrected, or that the service or the servers that make the service available are free of viruses or other harmful components. You (and not Wizards) assume the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair and correction.

You (the punter): pay $x.xx a month.
We (WOTC): promise you nothing in return.

So, less than 50% of the product is good to go, no promises about completion dates or even of availability of service, weasel clauses in the EULA. Caveat emptor indeed.

Maybe DDI will eventually turn into the impressive piece of gaming software that WOTC have been demo-ing and talking up for about a year now. I really hope so, for the sake of their saving face, and for the greater enjoyment of the 4E players out there.

But trying to get $$$ for DDI in its' current form reeks to me of little more than: "Please form an orderly queue for wallet milking!"

@v: Yes, I am aware of standard disclaimer wording; doesn't mean I have to like it, or the companies that resort to it, though.

[Hzurr]

While rough, this isn't too uncommon. Basically, this is a catch-all in case someone gets stupid and decides to sue over some random thing that upsets them. WotC won't randomly decide to take people's money, then run away gleefully over the fact that they screwed you, it simply isn't good business. And even this won't save them if they massively screw over everyone (because if enough people get lawyers, they'll eventually win). This is simply to stop that one random person who gets his/her underwear/panties in a wad.

While it seems scary, it really isn't. Don't be so paranoid.

Also, the government/FBI/CIA is not out to get you. They really don't care about you that much. I figured I'd go ahead and mention that as well, because people need to be reminded.

[Irreverent Fool]

It isn't the fact that they WILL, it's the fact that under this agreement you're saying THEY CAN.

[Paul H]

Hi

As far as I know British Law still applies. That includes the Sale of Goods Act, were goods must be "...of merchantable quality.." No good saying it's an American company operating over the Internet. Just ask Microsoft how many hundreds of millions the European Union fined them.

Must admit that I'm looking forward to when Wizards' get their act together. The finished product looks very good. (Though I'll wait for the early bugs to be sorted out before I part with my money).

Cheers
Paul H

[Mando Knight]

Must admit that I'm looking forward to when Wizards' get their act together. The finished product looks very good. (Though I'll wait for the early bugs to be sorted out before I part with my money).

Hear, hear! (Or however that phrase goes! )

I'm waiting at least until they release the actual product before paying for it.

[RPGuru1331]

It isn't the fact that they WILL, it's the fact that under this agreement you're saying THEY CAN.

Dude, I hate to tell you this, but this is strictly normal boilerplate for any service rendered over the internet, if I recall what DDI is exactly. They CAN NOT promise things like uninterrupted service (Servers must be taken down for maintenance, assuming they're not straight up full, or they don't get DDOSed, the latter of which seems HIGHLY possible with the toxic 4e hatedom), or error-free service (Nobody ever catches all the bugs). Seriously folks, it's just saying "You can't sue us if the service is down or if we get virused.", and for the record, the latter pretty much never happens. The former generally doesn't happen often.

[DM Raven]

While rough, this isn't too uncommon. Basically, this is a catch-all in case someone gets stupid and decides to sue over some random thing that upsets them. WotC won't randomly decide to take people's money, then run away gleefully over the fact that they screwed you, it simply isn't good business. And even this won't save them if they massively screw over everyone (because if enough people get lawyers, they'll eventually win). This is simply to stop that one random person who gets his/her underwear/panties in a wad.

While it seems scary, it really isn't. Don't be so paranoid.

Also, the government/FBI/CIA is not out to get you. They really don't care about you that much. I figured I'd go ahead and mention that as well, because people need to be reminded.

Indeed, I think some of you may recall when a group of kids wanted to sue blizzard because they couldn't play wow at a certain time of the day because their server was down...or the people who tried to sue MS because Xbox live went down. This sort of eula thing really is pretty standard...

[TwystidMynd]

I agree with the folks who aren't too annoyed with the terms of service. It sucks that WotC isn't taking responsibility for their service, but neither does GMail, WoW, GitP, or any other online web-service that you use - paid for or not, no one guarantees service over the internet.

What does annoy me, though, is the premature "launch" of DDI. If their product isn't fully available, why are they asking us to pay for it? I haven't checked, due to the firewall at work, but is there any sort of compensation for not having access to certain tools? Like, is the subscription fee reduced or something?

[DM Raven]

Well, 2 magazine subscriptions is definatly something...if you had a subscription to both of those back in the day it would be way more. And as for the later features to be added...thats all gravy. The two monthly magazines alone are worth more than that fee.

[DM Raven]

@v: Yes, I am aware of standard disclaimer wording; doesn't mean I have to like it, or the companies that resort to it, though.

All it means is you can't sue them for stupid reasons. And as for not being worth it...the two magazines already pay for the subscription and then some.

[Mando Knight]

Well, 2 magazine subscriptions is definatly something...if you had a subscription to both of those back in the day it would be way more. And as for the later features to be added...thats all gravy. The two monthly magazines alone are worth more than that fee.

Yes, but if I buy a subscription later, I get a retroactive subscription to the magazines I missed. Thus, I won't buy a subscription until the rest of the D&DI tools have been released, as I'd be wasting five dollars a month otherwise.

[DM Raven]

Which sounds like a problem in their setup, doesn't mean paying five dollars a month for two magazines isn't a good deal.

[RPGuru1331]

I agree with the folks who aren't too annoyed with the terms of service. It sucks that WotC isn't taking responsibility for their service, but neither does GMail, WoW, GitP, or any other online web-service that you use - paid for or not, no one guarantees service over the internet.

On the note of toxic EULAs, you're aware that most forums claim legal ownership over everything you post on them, right? I'd be more worried about Gleemax, and free forums (Where you /don't/ have consumer protections) then where you /do/ have consumer protections.

[TwystidMynd]

[...]You're aware that most forums claim legal ownership over everything you post on them, right?

From the forum rules you click "I have read, and accept" when you register with GitP:

All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Giant in the Playground Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

Seems to me that any forum that doesn't require identity verification for posting would be rather silly to claim ownership of anything posted there. In lots of places, there are laws about what can and cannot be posted on a website that only requires age 13 to register - and some that have restrictions on what can be posted regardless. It'd be asking for a whole heap of trouble if free forums claimed ownership of everything that might be posted on their forum, so I have trouble believing that someone would willingly accept responsibility and ownership for those postings. It'd be almost like owning a diner, and accepting responsibility for any crime that takes place there.

[RPGuru1331]

From the forum rules you click "I have read, and accept" when you register with GitP:



Seems to me that any forum that doesn't require identity verification for posting would be rather silly to claim ownership of anything posted there. In lots of places, there are laws about what can and cannot be posted on a website that only requires age 13 to register - and some that have restrictions on what can be posted regardless. It'd be asking for a whole heap of trouble if free forums claimed ownership of everything that might be posted on their forum, so I have trouble believing that someone would willingly accept responsibility and ownership for those postings. It'd be almost like owning a diner, and accepting responsibility for any crime that takes place there.

It's actually pretty risk free. If it /truly/ backfires, you point out that you /can't/ claim ownership or responsibility, legally (Because you really /can't/ win that case in court anyway). If someone produces something useful, you claim ownership and hope for intimidation to do the rest. I've seen it at work, it's actually fairly effective. Rather irritating too, since I know somewhere, someone did something neat and fell for the ruse.