Do you not know how documents like that work? Those weren’t examples that WAS what it will do.
If you want to stupid and ignore what i say go ahead.
English
-
Editado por AuroraWoof: 6/28/2020 5:20:09 PM[quote]Some in-game elements, including without limitation, Live Content associated with season passes, are made available to players for a limited time.[/quote] Including without limitation, also can be worded as "including, but not limited to." It's an example. Also another section says something along the lines of "All rights not explicitly stated are reserved by Bungie." If you wanna be stupid and ignore what I say go ahead.
-
Wow, you don’t really get it. I hope you haven’t signed anything important in life.
-
Editado por AuroraWoof: 6/28/2020 5:32:41 PMHere's a direct quote from a website used for legal advice regarding ambiguous contracts: [quote]A contract is considered to be ambiguous if the contract is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation. Sometimes, this can mean that it’s unclear as to what the parties intended overall. But usually, an ambiguous contract means that a specific term, word, phrase, or definition is vague or unclear. If a contract is ambiguous, it can sometimes be resolved by the parties through further discussions. If not, it may be necessary to have the document reviewed in court to have the issues resolved. [/quote] So no, apparently YOU don't get it. Contracts do not have to explicitly state everything that is covered.
-
[quote]Here's a direct quote from a website used for legal advice regarding ambiguous contracts: A contract is considered to be ambiguous if the contract is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation. Sometimes, this can mean that it’s unclear as to what the parties intended overall. But usually, an ambiguous contract means that a specific term, word, phrase, or definition is vague or unclear. If a contract is ambiguous, it can sometimes be resolved by the parties through further discussions. If not, it may be necessary to have the document reviewed in court to have the issues resolved. So no, apparently YOU don't get it. Contracts do not have to explicitly state everything that is covered.[/quote] 2nd paragraph. That can be close wto what’s happening because that section you like quoting talks about the most recent seasons not older ones like Warmind and CoO they never were live event areas or the such. Dude you lost this just understand that they cant do this, and if they want to they need to update the EULA or provide some form of compensation (not money) like ingame rewards for buying those places. Its not hard to understand. Im kinda hoping you can reread all contracts you’ve signed in the past now
-
The part I keep quoting actually says the live-game environment can change over time, it doesn't say live events in this specific part. Taking locations away contributes to the live-game environment, as the locations and activities here are being vaulted to continue the narrative of the game.
-
Editado por Gilgamesh: 6/28/2020 6:16:24 PMYou are starting to misinterpret what it says. That section allows them to do whatever they want with live event areas like vex offensive or new locations added via live events, Warmind places and CoO haven’t ever been apart of that
-
Editado por AuroraWoof: 6/28/2020 6:24:10 PMIt's very clear to me that you are against sunsetting, as many are, and it is impacting your argument against the EULA that all of us signed. It's best to view this issue from a neutral standpoint so you can clearly understand the text stated Nice edit. Give me the quote where it says only seasonal events can be removed
-
I dont care about sunsetting, Yes i would prefer it to not be a thing but thats not what we are talking about these places aren’t being sunset. I dont go into things with a bias like this. Im just telling you the truth and you just want to argue.
-
I'm just letting you know, this will be my final reply here cuz I can't waste all my time trying to discuss a legal document with someone who clearly doesn't understand simple concepts involved here. Everything I've said is clearly stated in the EULA. And as with all conversations I partake in, you can choose to believe what I said or not, I honestly don't care. All I've done is try to help you and everyone else who says that sunsetting locations is unfair because of "xyz," so you can choose to read the document you signed without bias and understand that you signed a document that gives Bungie total ownership of everything in the game, or you can continue to be ignorant and choose to argue with people that have said document sourced in conversation. You haven't given me any sources of your own to counter the extremely clear EULA, so I believe continuing a conversation with someone who is being stubborn just to be stubborn is a waste of time. I wish you the best of luck if you continue the EULA debate with other people and hopefully they aren't as educated on this as I am so you can actually win one of these conversations. Have a great day and remember to wear a mask!
-
Okay then but so you know there is a difference between sunsetting and vaulting go have a nice day
-
That single section isnt a whole legal contract.
-
It doesn't have to be, because every section I gave you yesterday are all of the ones regarding OP's issue. There are more sections regarding bans, restrictions, and even what you have access to and what's blocked by a paywall. So you're right, it's not the whole document, but it's all of the relevant parts the pertain to OP's discussion.
-
He wanted to know if it was even OK and so far ITS NOT. They must update the EULA if they want to do it, or provide a form of compensation (not money). He mentioned EA because they have pulled stunts like this before by using terrible EULA that let them do whatever they wanted with purchased content that players had.
-
So far, it actually is ok, as the signed contract says parts of the game are subject to change. That, combined with the fact the you don't own anything in the game, means that Bungie has every right to remove anything from the game as they own all aspects and players do not.
-
Well that section says its okay to do whatever they want with live event content like Vex offensive and seraph towers, or if a location is added they can remove it, if it relates to live event stuff. Dont know why its so hard to get
-
Destiny 2 is a live service. The live-game environment encompasses all aspects of the game. When signed, you agree that you do not own the game or any part of it. Bungie can revoke your privileges at any time and can remove anything that they want, as the live-game environment does indeed include every part of the game, as it is a live service
-
Editado por Gilgamesh: 6/28/2020 7:21:54 PMNot every aspect about the game is a live service, that wont hold up anywhere, they have never made changes to those planets ever since they were released. Bungie can say whatever they want but they aren’t the ones who made live service and they cant change that, live service is when the world players play in is actively changing, the planets being vaulted have never been apart of any live anything. Dude just give up on this its not hard to get bungie is more then likely gonna update the EULA right before the planets are vaulted, not hard to get. You are arguing for the sake of it and are quoting the wrong things.
-
The game is classified as a live-service in the agreement
-
It is classified as that but all games do have elements that cant fall under live-service, its so that something like that cant be used. Its to protect consumers from companies that like doing that. Dude if you are gonna keep being ignorant ill just tell the OP in a reply the answer he is asking for and ill just have to ignore you because I don’t see this ending anytime soon.
-
Where did you get that i made sure to reread the section of the EULA you put because what you said was unfamiliar. I shall continue my point when you tell me where you got that copy and pasted info from.
-
I already told you I got it from the Bungie website lmao it's literally on Bungie.net
-
Quote the entire section then not a portion