The HELLDIVERS™©®³ 2 EULA is a god damn URL
Bonus rant: the webpage is one of those death row worthy websites that forces you into the localization it determines based on your IP address, rather than using the HTTP header that has been specifically defined for that purpose.
The header defines the language, but laws follow political borders, so it makes sense. E.g. which country’s eula would you show for a German speaker Germany, Austria or Switzerland?
Language specifiers include country level variants - de-DE, de-AT, de-CH
I have my locales set on en-UK because I prefer to have English versions, easier to troubleshoot problems
I wish I could set it as en-FR for other things, like metric system and 24h clock, but you can’t
You can set that up separately, override
LC_TIME: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Locale It’s Arch wiki but this is usually the same for any other distroLol we aren’t in a Linux sub but nice shout
Sir, this is Lemmy, the default os is Linux here.
I checked the post history of @whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works and I saw they commented once in linuxmemes, so I assumed it’s about Linux. Also on Windows it’s much more easier to change this, there is another dropdown literally next to the language selector.
You’re right, I’m on linux, I’ll try it out
Afaik Bayern German is closer to Austrian German, than Hochdeutch. Hungarian doesn’t have that kind of variants because the language is the same everywhere, but 1 million Hungarians live in neighbouring countries.
Do you expect every South American user to set that up correctly? What about languages without country, I guess you show the spanish version to basques living in France?
And I could continue if you want.
As far as the content of the EULA, sure, use the laws of the request’s IP address; the rest of the website, however, does not allow you to select a different localization, only the place of origin.
Furthermore, rarely do I see EULAs that aren’t written in English, and it’s not like the EULA in question is not a generic one translated for my country:
[…] [non] influiscono su eventuali garanzie o garanzie legali dell’utente in qualità di consumatore ai sensi delle leggi locali applicabili (ad esempio, diritti dell’utente in caso di malfunzionamento del Software)
Non-lawyerly translation:
[…] [do not] affect the legal rights of the user as a consumer accoring to local applicable laws (for example, the rights of the user in case of Software malfunction)… which means either someone bothered localizing a generic EULA, or that excerpt is the legal version of “unless it’s illegal idk im not a lawyer”.
It is translated, and the link correctly redirected me for my language, but I use the official language of the country I live in.
You can change the language if you scroll down, in the bottom left corner.
You make a compelling case, however
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5What is that?
It’s a part of the header sent with every internet request. Standard thing to identify the user’s language so you know which version to send
Wouldn’t work for me: I’m French and I live in France, but all my devices are set to en_US.
I’m Italian and live in Boot, all my devices are set to en_US and the websites that respect Accept-Language all work for me…
Yeah but if the EULA is different from one country to another, they’d want me to see the French version and not the US one.
I thought so too at first, but my version seems to be made for multiple countries (even if it’s not equally binding), so I assume the same is true for East-European countries;
then again, Snoy is notoriously stingy with countries allowed to have PSN accounts, maybe they do have country-tailored licenses, and use vague language such as “accoring to local applicable laws” only to muddy the waters in case they do get in trouble.
Or maybe their web devs just underpaid | micromanaged | burned out | lazy.
a good lawyer could probably argue that a user isn’t bound to that eula.
heck a bad lawyer could probably too.
They’re bound to the EULA, but the EULA is meaningless because it’s just a URL. They’re definitely not bound by whatever’s at that URL.
This would be like having someone sign a contract when the contract was just a shopping list. Sure, they’re bound by the “contract”, but the contract doesn’t specify anything they can or can’t do.
And the URL text can be changed at any time
It could be changed at any time, it might not resolve properly, the page could be hijacked, an ad blocker could decide it’s an ad and show something else instead…
And if the page is set to no index and no robots, the only record of any change could be client side only
Why does this remind me of The Phantom Tollbooth?
Are any users actually bound, ever?
Depends on how paid off the judge is in the lawsuit.
I bet you could argue in court that the EULA is null and void, because you can’t be reasonably expected to copy that link into a browser to read it
You can not, in fact, copy that link - I had to type it manually. It’s relatively short and human-readable, but still…
Devil’s advocate: I wouldn’t accuse Sony (or friends) of intentionally making the text unselectable, that’s on the Steam client.
Still, Steam probably has some clause in their developer agreement where they say that’s not on them.
Yeah, I don’t blame Steam, I don’t expect them to foresee publishers specifying EULAs as “idk google it m8”.
… actually, no, I do blame Steam, what reason is there to prevent copying EULAs? Are they protected by copyright too now?
More just indicative of the hostile posture of corporations
“Hostile posture”
I really like that phrase.
However, the companies quite legitimately use the legal means available to them and what is possible is also done. From this point of view, the blame should rather be placed on the legal situation and politics, as these are what make this legally possible in the first place.
If the agreement to play a game needs a whole website, then I say the problem is 100% on the game developer.
I’d say it’s 95% on the publisher, with a large error margin on how shady the intentions of the actual developers are - HD2 is unlikely to be one of those cases.
The EULA isn’t null and void, but it’s pretty meaningless. Not because you can’t reasonably be expected to copy that link into a browser to read it, but because there’s no indication that you should or even must do that.
The EULA contains no terms, it doesn’t contain any wording saying what you can or can’t do. It doesn’t say what your rights are. It just contains something that looks like a URL. So, you’re still bound by the terms of the EULA (as much as you’re bound by any EULA) but the EULA doesn’t permit or forbid anything. It’s effectively the same as if it were blank.
Modify your host and redirect the URL > 127.0.0.1. software without license:D
Yes, I accept that that is a URL.
Is an EULA presented this way considered binding? That seems really exploitable, like making people click hundreds of links to get to the real EULA so they don’t actually read it.
Tell that to the people who just got denied the ability to sue over an Uber crash because their daughter agreed to the Uber eats eula
Technically that’s still on appeal, and tbh I do expect it to get overturned somewhere.
Or the family of the person who died at Disney and can’t sue because they did a free trial of Disney+
That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.
So it doesn’t actually hold any weight until a court actually rules on it.
That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.
Disney backed down. They still believe they have that right, and no court has ever said they didn’t, but the bad publicity was too much for them in this case. They’ll wait until there’s a case that doesn’t get that kind of publicity before they try to establish that precedent.
They can believe all they want. Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.
I hope people stop believing they have that kind of power, but decide not to do it from the goodness of their heart or bad publicity.
I should hope the actual law still has more relevance than a ToS.
Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.
They believe that the users agreed to a contract that specifies that in any dealings with Disney they’ve agreed to binding arbitration.
What’s the “false statement” there?
Disney waved their right to arbitration after backlash. Uber might just do the same, or get sued by the government for the EULA itself.
https://www.thestreet.com/media/disney-waives-right-to-arbitration-wrongful-death-lawsuit
It’s pretty ridiculous.
What happens if you go there and Sony have moved their EULA page and it just 404s? Does that mean there is no EULA at all and you can play without terms? Doubt Sony woild see it that way lol.
EULA should be displayed within the same context it is accepted.
Imagine getting a 404 or 500 error. Then archiving that on archive.org (and screenshot that dialog on steam) and accept the terms. If there’s any problem and they say you violated the EULA, point them to the terms you accepted.
making people click hundreds of links to get to the real EULA
This could be turned into a game with some kind of narrative like a Choose-Your-Own-E.U.L.Adventure. Players might try to exploit it though, so there should probably be some terms they have to agree to first.
I have read the URL in it’s entirety. It’s not an agreement. This query is invalid.
“I read the URL. It was not very informative.”
Tangentially related: I really enjoyed the EULA of Baldur’s Gate 3:
Somebody up at Sony had a Jira ticket to update all the eulas and it listed the URLs for each one, instead of going to the URLs and putting the content in each one of the eulas they just slaped the URLs in.
Edit: clarity
Not a lawyer but that does look like a very acceptable URL doesn’t it? I mean has all the normal URL dots and slashes so I’d say accept
I feel like this is an attempt at EULA roofying. I think it’s a way for the user to not be notified every time they make a change to it. I’m pretty sure (don’t quote me) steam notifies you every time the EULA changes, but since the license is on their website, they can change it without changing the url and notifying the user
There’s no way it isn’t EULA roofying, I just hope Sony doesn’t start murdering American wives too…
Same thing with Until Dawn. Why do I need a PSN account for a single player game?
Well, at least Steam quickly issued the refund.
I fucking hate that. I bought Forza 4 and needed a Microsoft account to play single player. At least I got my money back.
At least MS account may be slightly more useful (OS, software, school, work). There is literally no reason to have PSN account except a few exclusive games on PlayStation. Even worse are smaller game devs and pubs nagging for accounts.
Of course there is no great reason offline/SP/old games should require an account to play, and out of principle “nope” should be considered. But almost every goddamn thing requires an account these days. At least we have decent password managers now…
I would never use an account for gaming with school and work or vice versa. Also, Microsoft’s account requirement was the reason I didn’t buy a Series X. The PS5 doesn’t force you to connect to the internet and make one. Although the new models force you to connect to the internet to activate the disc drive for some dumb fucking reason.
Steam does actually tell you on the game’s page if the game requires a 3rd party account to play.
I didn’t see it when I bought it. And honestly, a refund is a better protest than not buying it.
My wife just got the exact same pop up while playing God of War: Ragnarok. Weirdly though, she’d been playing it for a week before they sent this.
It’s one of the “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further” license changes that are popping up as of late.
Though, that topic is way more whan “mildly” infuriating.
That URL is asking to ddos’ed
Sony: Just send them the link and they can copy that in.
