Update of our End-user license agreement (EULA) and Communication Preferences

[Famous]

Let me put it this way:

I agreed to an EULA, I got a product.

Now your saying the old EULA is invalid - the contract is void - and I need to agree to this new EULA to continue to use the product.

That's insane.

It's like buying a car from Bob for $25k, and then the next day Bob knocks on my door and says he's there for my first born child. "What?" Well, he changed the contract and I can't use the car without agreeing to the new contract. No, the old contract is the valid one. Bob has no right to my first born.

You can't simply invalidate the old contract without compensating people.

Now, if famous and the others at Paradox's legal department hadn't been undertaking such an overreach, and simply said 'using Paradox services requires the new EULA, and we consider the game laurcher a service because it does X, Y, Z. But you can continue to use the games by bypassing the launcher' then I would have found that reasonable. But instead they claim that simply *Playing Games* requires accepting the new contract (and in fact, playing the game is in itself agreeing to the new contract). And that's a step too far.

Hey wasme!

Apologies for the late reply. I've had the flu so I've been bedridden for a while.

We are sad to have upset you, who obviously seems to be a long-time fan of our games. Unfortunately, we need to update our EULA from time to time in order to ensure that it reflects our games, services, and law.

We hope that you will understand and that you can continue to enjoy our games.

Cheers!

 

[wasme]

As far as I understand it the problem @wasme is having is that the EULA has been changed retroactively on already purchased games and especially that @Famous said (or at least strongly implied) that playing these games means automatically accepting the new EULA - or rather the other way around: Not accepting the new EULA means not being allowed to play games already purchased (a decade ago).

It's not about the content but the procedure.

Exactly.

It may be legal for Paradox to do this (their EULA claims it is, but not everything written in EULAs is actually enforceable), but it's definitely *morally* wrong to change a contract retroactively. And extra specially to do so without compensation if the new contract isn't agreed to.

I will not accept a forced retroactive change to EULAs to games I have purchased and already agreed to an EULA for. Change the EULA on new games? Sure, that's fine. Change the EULA on actively provided services (such as this form)? Sure, that's fine. Change the EULA on new purchases of old games? Sure, that's your right. Change the EULA on old games I've already agreed to an EULA for? Well, if it's a *choice*. If I can continue to conform to the old EULA if I want, well, then maybe. But to force it? NO! Again, you may (or may not) be able to do that legally but it's horribly immoral.

Hey wasme!

Apologies for the late reply. I've had the flu so I've been bedridden for a while.

We are sad to have upset you, who obviously seems to be a long-time fan of our games. Unfortunately, we need to update our EULA from time to time in order to ensure that it reflects our games, services, and law.

We hope that you will understand and that you can continue to enjoy our games.

Cheers!

And no, I do not understand, nor agree, nor, by your own wording, can I continue to enjoy your games because you've voided the EULA I've already agreed to. As I said, you can change the EULA over NEW games. Or even new purchases of old games. But *not games already purchased*. You can *ask* for me to agree to a new EULA, but you cannot (morally) *force* it.

And so I want a refund. For every game I've ever purchased developed and/or published by Paradox. From Paradox. It's not the retailers who voided the EULAs I agreed to. It was Paradox.

I do not trust companies to be able to retroactively change EULAs (and other contracts). You claim it's immaterial now, but companies have already pulled stunts like that is claim IP rights over mods *cough*Bethesda*cough* or install root kits on computers *cough*Sony Music*cough*. Geeze, my cough is really acting up today. Or to spy on you and send information to foreign governments *cough*Tencent*cough*. Gah, that cough again. Or their own servers *cough*Microsoft*cough*. Man, sorry about that.

So I need Paradox to either

A) Refund me for all the games Paradox has developed/published that I have purchased in the past (and I won't be purchasing any more in the future).

or

B)
1) Walk back the claim that merely playing games I already own is automatically agreeing to the new EULA. That's a ridiculously huge overreach I will not tolerate.

If Paradox Legal would do just that then I'll rescind my demand for refunds for already purchased games. But if that's all they do I will never purchase another game published by Paradox. Because I find this whole affair unacceptable. If you want me to trust you as a company again I'd also require:

2) That you walk back the claim that Paradox games are a 'service'. They are not a service. Me running EU2 on my computer requires no usage of resources on the part of Paradox. These aren't MMORPGs or MOBAs or mobile Gacha games. Maybe if Paradox published those they would be services, but not stand alone games that don't connect to any centralised servers. Paradox games are *products*, not services.

[EDIT: This is important because I agree that you can change the EULA (or ToS) of an ongoing service. Because, well, it's an ongoing service. Stand alone games aren't a service. As I said, they require no ongoing expenditure of resources to continue to play. They may be patched, but patching is a voluntary activity on the part of a company. And I can continue to play the game as-is without installing any patch anyway. So I don't consider patching a 'service'. And, you know what, I'll even agree you can stick a new EULA on a patch. As long as patching the game is voluntary and I can continue to use the game as-is under the original EULA I agreed to.]

3) Formally state that Paradox will never pull a stunt like this again.

I'll repeat, I'm fine with you *asking* for me to agree to a new EULA, but to invalidate the old EULA and state that merely playing my old games is me agreeing to a newt contract is unacceptable.

 

[wasme]

So I'm interpreting the lack of response as a refusal on the part of Paradox to address my concerns in any way.

So Paradox is happy to steal my purchases from me. Right.

...

But, it turns out, several of my old games don't allow you to do this.

The new EULA may claim Paradox has the right to retroactively change the contract (on already purchased products) (something I am highly doubtful is actually legal, but accepting that for the sake of argument) but older EULAs do not.

Anything from Strategy First (EU2, HoI, HoI 2, Victoria) that I have has no EULA update section. (I'm assuming that when SF lost the rights to distribute those games it - and the party to the EULA - reverted back to Paradox.)

Similarly games from GamersGate (EU3, EU:Rome, Victoria II, HoI 3, CK) and even older purchases of physical discs directly from Paradox have EULAs that lack such a section too.

So this blanket claim that playing your (older, purchased long ago) games is agreeing to the new EULA is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the old EULAs.

So Paradox legal may need to reconsider their language when claiming merely playing their games signifies agreement to a new EULA.

...

As for newer games (EU4, HoI4, CK 2 & 3, City Skylines), you may (or may not) have a 'right' to do this. Although if I don't accept the new EULA and you don't compensate me for the loss of my access to those games, well, that's stealing.

Honestly, all I wanted from Paradox is an admission that they can't claim that merely playing games represents accepting the new EULA. But you can't even bring yourselves to do that. And you won't compensate me for voiding the old EULA.

But since Paradox is happy to steal those purchases from me, I'm happy to ignore the Paradox EULA. So I'm giving notice I *don't* agree to the new EULA for those games, but I'll play them anyway under the old EULAs I agreed to. And since I guess that means I'm breaking your (new) EULA, I guess you'll have to sue me over that.

 

[Mohreb]

Posted in this old thread as i am also quite intrigued to see the official response of paradox on this issue myself. If an official statement was made in some other channel of course feel free to reference it.

 

[newtlord]

If Paradox can unilaterally change the license without needing the users' consent, can the users change the license without needing Paradox's consent?

"The publisher [Paradox Interactive] agrees to fix the bugs in their games before pumping out more DLC." Any other clauses we should ad?

 

[VisMorgan]

The topic of unilateral amendments to an existing agreement at threat of denying access to an already purchased product is very current to some people, like me. I just tried to fire up Stellaris and found out that I must once again agree to arbitrary terms, or else.

To suggest that the terms are not so bad, is debatable, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point. To suggest that all agreements are legally valid or morally right if two parties agree, is also wrong. I've just now been offered an agreement under coercive pressure: "agree or we deny access to what you paid for". If I now agree, anyone who suggests the agreement is valid because I agreed, lacks understanding both of the law and of the immorality of threats and coercion.

Paradox cannot do this directly. If I give Paradox my money, agree to their terms, and use the product, only for Paradox to later change our agreement, I will have the right to refuse and get my money back. This is where Steam comes in. Because I purchased from Steam, Paradox can create a new agreement and say within said agreement, "if you don't agree, talk to the vendor about a refund". And this is where Steam says, "your 14 day window has closed, and Paradox hasn't told us anything about refunds, sorry"

Paradox was a game company that I have supported whole-heartedly for decades. I can't fathom how it could possibly be profitable for them to let lawyers and data-brokers become their brand ambassadors.

BTW, I noticed that moderators in this thread are both reasonable and decent, which gives me mixed feelings considering the route the company has taken.

One more thing. Paradox, I want to sell you a car. It's a very good car. You must agree to my terms. Also, I may change the terms at any time, and you must agree to whatever I demand, or I will take the car and not return your money. Sound reasonable? Sound fair and honest?