PDA

View Full Version : NDA broke, cats out of the bag, new TSO AAs revealed


Izzypop
09-26-2008, 09:29 PM
A 3rd party websight broke the NDA and posted every new AA in TSO from beta test.The NDA is still in effect, but has no affect on 3rd party websights.SOE can't shutdown 3rd party websights from posting the new AAs, or perhaps it's time to get rid of the idea of a NDA for the new AA.PvP tends not to get enough playtesting, and some AAs may have obvious problems in PvP.Right or wrong on breaking the NDA we all know what they are now, is there any chance on lifting the NDA so we can begin to talk about the new AAs well before they go live?

Amnerys
09-26-2008, 10:43 PM
Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys

Noaani
09-26-2008, 11:46 PM
While I doubt SoE will drop the NDA less than a few days before release, I really hope they allow some discussion about what has been leaked, as like almost everyone else in the game, I have more than a few things to say about the achievements that have been put on beta so far...

Cusashorn
09-27-2008, 12:04 AM
<p>When the devs officially release the info, then we can discuss it. They always reveal some details while the NDA is still in effect.</p>

Rijacki
09-27-2008, 12:07 AM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I doubt SoE will drop the NDA less than a few days before release, I really hope they allow some discussion about what has been leaked, as like almost everyone else in the game, I have more than a few things to say about the achievements that have been put on beta so far...</blockquote>If you want to discuss it -and- you want updated information, you can <a href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=1897&section=News&locale=en_US" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">apply for the beta</a>.There is even a Beta PvP server.

Hollyf
09-27-2008, 12:12 AM
<p>I will be one of a few here who is going to have an 'unpopular' opinion but the difference is mine is one which is going to be posted, uncaring what others think of me for it. </p><p>The NDA is quite simply a 'non-disclosure agreement' and when it has been broken, whether on this website or someplace else, it has been b r o k e n. It does not give free permission to whomever else agreed to it or those that have not and happened to 'come upon' information as part of the NDA to relay or reveal that same info, new info to others and so on. Those who go around flagrantly doing what they are not supposed to be doing do it without thought to how it may affect others. </p><p>Noaani, this is not a personal attack on you or your post but they are not going to allow discussions to take place here in any way shape or form while the NDA is still in place, regardless of the people who broke it or are presently doing so. Amnery is quite correct-be very careful with this topic. For those of you out there who are fortunate enough to be a part of the beta, remember that you still need to do the right thing and keep it to yourselves when it comes to the NDA.</p>

Archangel
09-27-2008, 12:38 AM
<cite>Izzypop wrote:</cite><blockquote>A 3rd party websight broke the NDA and posted every new AA in TSO from beta test.The NDA is still in effect, but has no affect on 3rd party websights.SOE can't shutdown 3rd party websights from posting the new AAs, or perhaps it's time to get rid of the idea of a NDA for the new AA.PvP tends not to get enough playtesting, and some AAs may have obvious problems in PvP.Right or wrong on breaking the NDA we all know what they are now, is there any chance on lifting the NDA so we can begin to talk about the new AAs well before they go live? </blockquote><p>You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.  Just because the 3rd party didn't agree to the NDA it DOES NOT give them free reign to repost the information.  The information is still a trade secret owned by Sony Online Entertainment and as such, if they were so inclined they could have their lawyers pursue the matter and get a cease and desist order against the website hosting the propriatary information and have it removed.</p>

Meridia
09-27-2008, 12:45 AM
oh trust me soon as i seen it posted i reported it, and i was told they already know about it, and they are already taking care of it.i do hope this website owner enjoys the punishment hes going to get for allowing it to be up as long as it has been.and yes, he can be sued.  ty have a nice day.

Noaani
09-27-2008, 01:35 AM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote>While I doubt SoE will drop the NDA less than a few days before release, I really hope they allow some discussion about what has been leaked, as like almost everyone else in the game, I have more than a few things to say about the achievements that have been put on beta so far...</blockquote>If you want to discuss it -and- you want updated information, you can <a rel="nofollow" href="http://eq2players.station.sony.com/news_archive_content.vm?id=1897&section=News&locale=en_US" target="_blank">apply for the beta</a>.There is even a Beta PvP server.</blockquote><p>I have applied for beta, and am waiting/hoping to get in again.</p><p>I don't really care about PvP, but the achievements that have been leaked need a lot of work to balance out PvE.</p>

Noaani
09-27-2008, 01:36 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>oh trust me soon as i seen it posted i reported it, and i was told they already know about it, and they are already taking care of it.i do hope this website owner enjoys the punishment hes going to get for allowing it to be up as long as it has been.and yes, he can be sued.  ty have a nice day.</blockquote>lol

Gilasil
09-27-2008, 02:01 AM
<p>As far as I'm concerned an NDA is an agreement between two parties.  If I'm neither of the parties it simply doesn't apply to me.  <b>I</b> didn't agree to anything.</p><p>I'm kind of curious to see what they did with the new tree for bruisers, as it will most likely decide whether or not I cancel in the next few months.</p><p>I'll have to see if I can dig up that site. </p>

Archangel
09-27-2008, 02:07 AM
<cite>Gilasil wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>As far as I'm concerned an NDA is an agreement between two parties.  If I'm neither of the parties it simply doesn't apply to me.  <b>I</b> didn't agree to anything.</p><p>I'm kind of curious to see what they did with the new tree for bruisers, as it will most likely decide whether or not I cancel in the next few months.</p><p>I'll have to see if I can dig up that site. </p></blockquote>If you are spreading a companies propriatary information the legal system doesn't care how YOU interpret the law.

Archangel
09-27-2008, 02:09 AM
Just to add, I wouldn't mind seeing the info either. I just get annoyed at people trying to make legal rationalizations of violating contract and business laws.

simpwrx02
09-27-2008, 02:10 AM
interweb law school 101 how many internet lawyers are on this forum......

Archangel
09-27-2008, 02:14 AM
<cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>interweb law school 101 how many internet lawyers are on this forum......</blockquote><p>It doesn't require being an "internet lawyer" to have common sense about the law.</p><p>"internet lawyer" is one of the many "interweb" terms people like to use when they can't actually refute a statement.</p>

simpwrx02
09-27-2008, 02:26 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>interweb law school 101 how many internet lawyers are on this forum......</blockquote><p>It doesn't require being an "internet lawyer" to have common sense about the law.</p><p>"internet lawyer" is one of the many "interweb" terms people like to use when they can't actually refute a statement.</p></blockquote>Until some one comes here and quotes an actual federal law supporting what they say then i will continue to call them that, as they are tryign to use common sense as a validation for laws. Not saying breaking the NDA is correct, but people instantly preaching about laws are just full of themself and need to get off thier high horse of "knowledge"

Gilasil
09-27-2008, 02:29 AM
<p>It would be a contract if I signed or otherwise agreed to it.  At least if I had been allowed to read it.</p><p>I didn't.</p><p>However, if I did find the info I'd most likely extend SoE the <b>courtesy </b>of not spreading it all over the place.</p>

Archangel
09-27-2008, 02:40 AM
<p><a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proprietary-information/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Proprietary Information Law & Legal Definition</a></p><p>My "high horse" just kicked you in the face.</p><p>Of course it usually not too to make internet "cool kids" look stupid.</p>

Archangel
09-27-2008, 02:41 AM
Yeah, you people need to buy a clue "I didn't sign it" doesn't mean jack if you are knowingly spreading protected info.

Spyderbite
09-27-2008, 03:01 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>"internet lawyer" is one of the many "interweb" terms people like to use when they can't actually refute a statement.</p></blockquote>Ranks up there with "armchair developer", "armchair marketing manager", the list goes on. But they're all valid.So, I called a buddy who specializes in Internet Law and pointed him to this thread. His opinion is that the website in question is probably immune to any lawsuits. But a cease and desist would shut it down before the sun came up tomorrow should SOE decide to take such action. Furthermore, they would be subpoenaed  to provide the IP address of the person and any other pertinent who posted/provided the information and that person could face a pretty hefty lawsuit.Considering most fan sites are run by volunteers.. I don't see a reason why anyone would take such a risk except to extend their [Removed for Content]. Its not like selling a nakey pic of Brittany Spears to the Enquirer for a million bucks. You're basically just breaking the law for a pat on the back from a bunch of doods living in their mom's basement. Where's the incentive? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

Novusod
09-27-2008, 03:07 AM
Having an NDA after the closed Beta kind of defeats the purpose of having an open Beta. Look at the last open from RoK. The NDA was up for so long nothing was ever really discussed with the community and we ended up with a lot of major changes ended up coming after RoK went live. Even though we are in the so called open beta phase it is really a closed beta because the NDA.

Oisin
09-27-2008, 03:23 AM
I don't think that there is really any point to discuss the info at this point since it isn't really set in stone yet.

simpwrx02
09-27-2008, 03:30 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proprietary-information/" target="_blank">Proprietary Information Law & Legal Definition</a></p><p>My "high horse" just kicked you in the face.</p><p>Of course it usually not too to make internet "cool kids" look stupid.</p></blockquote><p>Awesome so which of these sources listed is an actual law.. of wait that is right you googled and got the <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Legal Definitions</a> not the acrtual law way to Fail at rebutal here is the link for the actual law you know what i was askign for instead of a wikapedia type link which may or may not contain full content of the law.</p><p><a href="http://www.tscm.com/USC18_90.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tscm.com/USC18_90.html</a></p><p>of course the cool kids dont fail at finding facts for thier arguements, and your highhorse hit a wall of fail.</p>

Archangel
09-27-2008, 04:31 AM
<p>I found the actual law first, I linked the simplified explanation.Thanks for playing though."Internet Lawyer""Wall of fail"Yeah, you're coming off as a kid trying to show everyone how cool he is.</p><p>Anyway, I'm finished with this thread, so go ahead and declare how you scared me off.</p>

simpwrx02
09-27-2008, 04:59 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I found the actual law first, I linked the simplified explanation.Thanks for playing though."Internet Lawyer""Wall of fail"Yeah, you're coming off as a kid trying to show everyone how cool he is.</p><p>Anyway, I'm finished with this thread, so go ahead and declare how you scared me off.</p></blockquote><p>So I asked for a link to the law and you failed at doing so, thanks for playing ....</p><p>Awesome another cool kid quote, I guess that makes you the emo kid remmeber go down the road not across the tracks.</p><p>How did I attempt to scare you off, not really sure how any of my posts were in any way threatening, as I was just pointing out your repeated failures, but i guess tryign to take the "moral" highground of being the better person will validate your lack of providing a solid counterpoint,  Touche` </p>

Killerbee3000
09-27-2008, 05:24 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Izzypop wrote:</cite><blockquote>A 3rd party websight broke the NDA and posted every new AA in TSO from beta test.The NDA is still in effect, but has no affect on 3rd party websights.SOE can't shutdown 3rd party websights from posting the new AAs, or perhaps it's time to get rid of the idea of a NDA for the new AA.PvP tends not to get enough playtesting, and some AAs may have obvious problems in PvP.Right or wrong on breaking the NDA we all know what they are now, is there any chance on lifting the NDA so we can begin to talk about the new AAs well before they go live? </blockquote><p>You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.  Just because the 3rd party didn't agree to the NDA it DOES NOT give them free reign to repost the information.  The information is still a trade secret owned by Sony Online Entertainment and as such, if they were so inclined they could have their lawyers pursue the matter and get a cease and desist order against the website hosting the propriatary information and have it removed.</p></blockquote>Of course a 3rd party site never signed a NDA, but a NDA was signed by the individuals applying for beta, regardless of what websites they freguent.

Meridia
09-27-2008, 05:48 AM
agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Windowlicker
09-27-2008, 08:32 AM
This thread is so last week

Rattfa
09-27-2008, 09:03 AM
The only reason there's an NDA in the first place is so that SOE can hide how horrible the expansion is until it's too late. The only people allowed into beta are fanbois and will do nothing but kiss butt, and those with actual valid critisism don't have a voice.

crunn
09-27-2008, 09:48 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite> <blockquote><p>My "high horse" just kicked you in the face.</p></blockquote><p>LOL love it.</p><p>But realy, as im sure you all know, once something hits the internet its too late, spreads like wild fire.</p><p>As for taking legal action there are limits and of course local/international boundaries. If the individual and the web host they use is outside the US then US law doesnt apply.</p>

Rijacki
09-27-2008, 10:10 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only reason there's an NDA in the first place is so that SOE can hide how horrible the expansion is until it's too late. The only people allowed into beta are fanbois and will do nothing but kiss butt, and those with actual valid critisism don't have a voice.</blockquote>Have you even applied to beta?  It's really simple. ANYONE can.

Llew ap Dwr
09-27-2008, 10:14 AM
<p>everybody hug...sheesh...</p><p>walls of fail and high horses kicking people in the face....</p>

Rattfa
09-27-2008, 10:24 AM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only reason there's an NDA in the first place is so that SOE can hide how horrible the expansion is until it's too late. The only people allowed into beta are fanbois and will do nothing but kiss butt, and those with actual valid critisism don't have a voice.</blockquote>Have you even applied to beta?  It's really simple. ANYONE can.</blockquote>Applying to beta does not mean you get into beta. Yes anyone can apply, not everyone meets the fanboi criteria for getting in. I have serious concerns about what was posted on 'the other site', particularly for my own class, but my voice will never be heard because my beta application will be refused. Just like last time and the time before. In addition I dont know any PvPers who are in beta, so if there really is a PvP beta server it will make no difference...out beta will be on expansion launch day. Just like every single expansion/live update that has gone before. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />EDIT: Also you can quit with the patronising and condescending tone kthx.

Rijacki
09-27-2008, 10:48 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>The only reason there's an NDA in the first place is so that SOE can hide how horrible the expansion is until it's too late. The only people allowed into beta are fanbois and will do nothing but kiss butt, and those with actual valid critisism don't have a voice.</blockquote>Have you even applied to beta?  It's really simple. ANYONE can.</blockquote>Applying to beta does not mean you get into beta. Yes anyone can apply, not everyone meets the fanboi criteria for getting in. I have serious concerns about what was posted on 'the other site', particularly for my own class, but my voice will never be heard because my beta application will be refused. Just like last time and the time before. In addition I dont know any PvPers who are in beta, so if there really is a PvP beta server it will make no difference...out beta will be on expansion launch day. Just like every single expansion/live update that has gone before. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e78feac27fa924c4d0ad6cf5819f3554.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />EDIT: Also you can quit with the patronising and condescending tone kthx.</blockquote>Just because everyone is not breaking the NDA and declaring in several locations they are part of the beta doesn't mean they aren't.  I personally know several PvPers who are in the beta.  Everyone who went to Fan Faire had a beta invite.  There were players from both Naggy and Venekor who were at Fan Faire; I'm not sure about Vox.  Those players did receive the beta invite.  I did go to Fan Faire.Beta is not all about Fan bois.  I've been in a few of them now and, if my memory were better, I could cite several non-fan bois who were in beta (some have even subsequently left the game). I also do not and never have considered myself a fan boi and have been openly critical of SOE on several occassions (enough to get personal remonsterations to tone it down).I doubt you could call the person who broke the NDA and posted on that other site a fan boi either. Nor could you call the other NDA breakers who are contributing to that thread, those in beta, fan bois.  If anything, they're fan bois of that other site, not SOE or EQ2.You can quit with the fan boi insult thing.

Lilj
09-27-2008, 11:16 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I don't know the american law, so perhaps this is true for the US.But you need to remember that EQ2 is an international game and therefore many many different laws apply. Most courts in Europe for instance (has been tested already, AFAIK) does NOT see a click on an 'I Accept' button as legally binding. And clicking the EULA is definitely NOT the same as a signature in my own country. I somehow doubt it is in the states either, since it opens a huge cans of worms if that were true.But this is indeed a very fussy area, but it would probably be wise to remember, that laws are different in different countries. Somehow it seems a lot of people forget this. Edit: I know only of one site that had this information. The legal department of SoE contacted the site, and asked them to take it down. They cooperated and removed the thread. So before people begin to call for the pitchforks, at least one site does no longer have the information public.

Noaani
09-27-2008, 11:46 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.  Just because the 3rd party didn't agree to the NDA it DOES NOT give them free reign to repost the information.  The information is still a trade secret owned by Sony Online Entertainment and as such, if they were so inclined they could have their lawyers pursue the matter and get a cease and desist order against the website hosting the propriatary information and have it removed.</blockquote><p>Although I found reading that little conversation you had there amusing, I'll fill you in on a few details.</p><p>The owner of the site this information was posted on is (was) a lawer. If anyone is aware of the legal standing of having information protected by an NDA between 2 other parties, it would be him.</p><p>While they may be able to get the IP address of the person that posted the information, that is pointless, as the identity of the person that posted it is fairly common knowledge.</p><p>its not so much a case of your "high horse" hitting a wall of fail, so much as your high horse turning out to be a rather small hairless rodent.</p>

Lasai
09-27-2008, 12:13 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.  Just because the 3rd party didn't agree to the NDA it DOES NOT give them free reign to repost the information.  The information is still a trade secret owned by Sony Online Entertainment and as such, if they were so inclined they could have their lawyers pursue the matter and get a cease and desist order against the website hosting the propriatary information and have it removed.</blockquote><p>Although I found reading that little conversation you had there amusing, I'll fill you in on a few details.</p><p>The owner of the site this information was posted on is (was) a lawer. If anyone is aware of the legal standing of having information protected by an NDA between 2 other parties, it would be him. The fact that the informatino is still there is enough to say to me that the site this is on has no legal obligation to take it down, and SoE are able to do nothing to force them to do so.</p><p>While they may be able to get the IP address of the person that posted the information, that is pointless, as the identity of the person that posted it is fairly common knowledge.</p><p>its not so much a case of your "high horse" hitting a wall of fail, so much as your high horse turning out to be a rather small hairless rodent.</p></blockquote>Oh DETAILS!!  The Co Owner of ths site pulled the main thread after being contacted by SOE Legal and posted that he had done so.The founder of the site voluntarily disbarred himself as part of a Methamphetamine possession bargain, and is hardly a shining beacon of legal ethics, furthermore, he has abandoned the site for all intents and purposes to pursue some alleged religious enlightenment.  This is information he himself posted.In FACT...Quote from the site, with statement from former lawyer.<div> <div><span style="color: #ffcc00;">Quote:</span></div> </div><span style="color: #ffcc00;"> Please keep it deleted. As a reminder, please do not post NDA violations on this site. The bottom line is, I don't have the resources to spend to legally defend myself against a suit by SOE, especially when it involves something I don't care about. Thank you</span> end quote.IF scraps of the information are still on the site, it proves nothing but the fact that some people hold themselves unaccountable to anyone, not SOE, not the site rules where it was posted, and not to the founder of the site whom they used to worship.Breaking the NDA, besides being a violation of Intellectual property laws, it at base a cheap act by someone who blatantly lied when they clicked (I agree), and I don't care if its actionable or not, it shows pretty low character and ethics in general.If there is a small hairless rodent involved, it is the person who broke the NDA... or possibly what that site has become now.

Noaani
09-27-2008, 12:47 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote>You probably shouldn't comment on things you don't know about.  Just because the 3rd party didn't agree to the NDA it DOES NOT give them free reign to repost the information.  The information is still a trade secret owned by Sony Online Entertainment and as such, if they were so inclined they could have their lawyers pursue the matter and get a cease and desist order against the website hosting the propriatary information and have it removed.</blockquote><p>Although I found reading that little conversation you had there amusing, I'll fill you in on a few details.</p><p>The owner of the site this information was posted on is (was) a lawer. If anyone is aware of the legal standing of having information protected by an NDA between 2 other parties, it would be him. The fact that the informatino is still there is enough to say to me that the site this is on has no legal obligation to take it down, and SoE are able to do nothing to force them to do so.</p><p>While they may be able to get the IP address of the person that posted the information, that is pointless, as the identity of the person that posted it is fairly common knowledge.</p><p>its not so much a case of your "high horse" hitting a wall of fail, so much as your high horse turning out to be a rather small hairless rodent.</p></blockquote>Oh DETAILS!!  The Co Owner of ths site pulled the main thread after being contacted by SOE Legal and posted that he had done so.The founder of the site voluntarily disbarred himself as part of a Methamphetamine possession bargain, and is hardly a shining beacon of legal ethics, furthermore, he has abandoned the site for all intents and purposes to pursue some alleged religious enlightenment.  This is information he himself posted.IF scraps of the information are still on the site, it proves nothing but the fact that some people hold themselves unaccountable to anyone, not proof that some failed Lawyer has magically dismissed the NDA.Breaking the NDA, besides being a violation of Intellectual property laws, it at base a cheap act by someone who blatantly lied when they clicked (I agree), and I don't care if its actionable or not, it shows pretty low character and ethics in general.If there is a small hairless rodent involved, it is the person who broke the NDA... or possibly what that site has become now.</blockquote><p>I edited my post to reflect that the info on that site had been taken down, as I had not been there for a few days, and was unaware.</p><p>When it comes to someones knowledge of legal matters, them being disbarred has no meaning at all. You do not lose knowledge for being disbarred, just as you don't gain any when you sit it. The founder of that site has proven himself to be more than adept at legal matters (though lacking in technical matters), and has gone over that sites legal obligation towards NDAs from SoE in the past. he knows what he can and can not do.</p><p>The fact that it was taken down says it that between the two of them, they simply can't be bothered with it all any more.</p><p>It is the responsibility of those in beta to uphold the NDA, and no one else. While I agree that it is ethically lacking to break an NDA, or any agreement made freely, this is the sort of thing SoE will continue to face due to ignoring a large portion of their playerbase. A breach of the NDA was unavoidable this time round, and I would expect it to happen in some form or another next year as well, though maybe not in such a public and easily accessable fashion. You can't alienate people and then hand them trade secrets and expect them to hold on to them, reguardless of agreements made.</p>

Ama
09-27-2008, 12:57 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>"internet lawyer" is one of the many "interweb" terms people like to use when they can't actually refute a statement.</p></blockquote>Ranks up there with "armchair developer", "armchair marketing manager", the list goes on. But they're all valid.So, I called a buddy who specializes in Internet Law and pointed him to this thread. His opinion is that the website in question is probably immune to any lawsuits. But a cease and desist would shut it down before the sun came up tomorrow should SOE decide to take such action. Furthermore, they would be subpoenaed  to provide the IP address of the person and any other pertinent who posted/provided the information and that person could face a pretty hefty lawsuit.Considering most fan sites are run by volunteers.. I don't see a reason why anyone would take such a risk except to extend their [Removed for Content]. Its not like selling a nakey pic of Brittany Spears to the Enquirer for a million bucks. You're basically just breaking the law for a pat on the back from a bunch of doods living in their mom's basement. Where's the incentive? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/0a4d7238daa496a758252d0a2b1a1384.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote><p>Well the biggest thing is anyone can sue anyone for anything.  SoE could sue the proposed fansite for "Damages" as stated, but as far as what these "Damages" are can later be determined by a body of law.  The only thing that would "possibly" negate this is if the fansite person and fansite itself existed outside of the US.  Then it would become a question of how much was SoE was damaged by the NDA leak and if they wish to take legal action outside the US. </p><p>Most they could probably do is suspend the person's Beta account and possibly suspend their live account as a bit of retribution. </p>

Lasai
09-27-2008, 01:35 PM
Perhaps people should take the time to go to the signup and actually READ the NDA before idly speculating on jurisdiction, what SOE could or could not do, and get a basic clue about the topic.

Meridia
09-27-2008, 02:16 PM
technically clicking on the accept button that ya'll aptly scroll through (or not, it doesnt even light up on the wow client till you scroll through the entire thing every time they make changes to tos) means you accept the rules and will follow them.it also says in there that if you break the rules your account is subject to termination.people dont read the dang thing, they just speed on past it like it means nothing.  also, you agreed to a nda when you sign up for beta.  if you arent going to agree to the nda, and going to spill your guts, then you shouldnt be in the dang thing because thats breech of contract.as to how it works in other countries:if you are signing up for and using a service based in the united states, you are legally bound to the rules of the country the service is based in.  soe is an american comapny, even tho there are servers based in other countries, meaning you follow american rules based on terms of usage and agreement.dont like it, dont play the game.  that simple.

Meridia
09-27-2008, 02:17 PM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I don't know the american law, so perhaps this is true for the US.But you need to remember that EQ2 is an international game and therefore many many different laws apply. Most courts in Europe for instance (has been tested already, AFAIK) does NOT see a click on an 'I Accept' button as legally binding. And clicking the EULA is definitely NOT the same as a signature in my own country. I somehow doubt it is in the states either, since it opens a huge cans of worms if that were true.But this is indeed a very fussy area, but it would probably be wise to remember, that laws are different in different countries. Somehow it seems a lot of people forget this. Edit: I know only of one site that had this information. The legal department of SoE contacted the site, and asked them to take it down. They cooperated and removed the thread. So before people begin to call for the pitchforks, at least one site does no longer have the information public.</blockquote>yes, you did sign something.  please see my previoius post on it.american based company, you play by american based rules.  any international lawyer in your own country will tell you this.

Lilj
09-27-2008, 02:48 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I don't know the american law, so perhaps this is true for the US.But you need to remember that EQ2 is an international game and therefore many many different laws apply. Most courts in Europe for instance (has been tested already, AFAIK) does NOT see a click on an 'I Accept' button as legally binding. And clicking the EULA is definitely NOT the same as a signature in my own country. I somehow doubt it is in the states either, since it opens a huge cans of worms if that were true.But this is indeed a very fussy area, but it would probably be wise to remember, that laws are different in different countries. Somehow it seems a lot of people forget this. Edit: I know only of one site that had this information. The legal department of SoE contacted the site, and asked them to take it down. They cooperated and removed the thread. So before people begin to call for the pitchforks, at least one site does no longer have the information public.</blockquote>yes, you did sign something.  please see my previoius post on it.american based company, you play by american based rules.  any international lawyer in your own country will tell you this.</blockquote>Says who? The american laws? How can I as a danish citizen be under american law while I sit in Denmark?If I was visiting the US, I would agree that I would be under american law, because I am on American soil.But how can I be under american law as a danish citizen on danish soil?Can you in any way support your claims? Has there been any rulings on this? Has any of this been proven in  an actual court room?All I see is you claiming a lot of things, but not really supporting any. Aren't we all just guessing when it comes to the legal issues here?And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?

Lethe5683
09-27-2008, 02:51 PM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I don't know the american law, so perhaps this is true for the US.But you need to remember that EQ2 is an international game and therefore many many different laws apply. Most courts in Europe for instance (has been tested already, AFAIK) does NOT see a click on an 'I Accept' button as legally binding. And clicking the EULA is definitely NOT the same as a signature in my own country. I somehow doubt it is in the states either, since it opens a huge cans of worms if that were true.But this is indeed a very fussy area, but it would probably be wise to remember, that laws are different in different countries. Somehow it seems a lot of people forget this. Edit: I know only of one site that had this information. The legal department of SoE contacted the site, and asked them to take it down. They cooperated and removed the thread. So before people begin to call for the pitchforks, at least one site does no longer have the information public.</blockquote>yes, you did sign something.  please see my previoius post on it.american based company, you play by american based rules.  any international lawyer in your own country will tell you this.</blockquote>Says who? The american laws? How can I as a danish citizen be under american law while I sit in Denmark?If I was visiting the US, I would agree that I would be under american law, because I am on American soil.But how can I be under american law as a danish citizen on danish soil?Can you in any way support your claims? Has there been any rulings on this? Has any of this been proven in  an actual court room?All I see is you claiming a lot of things, but not really supporting any. Aren't we all just guessing when it comes to the legal issues here?And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?</blockquote>I don't think they would do anything more serious than ban your account for breaking the NDA if even that, reguardless of if your american or not.  I think most likely you would just be kicked out of beta and not allowed to participate in future betas with your current account.

Lilj
09-27-2008, 02:58 PM
<cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>I don't think they would do anything more serious than ban your account for breaking the NDA if even that, reguardless of if your american or not.  I think most likely you would just be kicked out of beta and not allowed to participate in future betas with your current account.</blockquote>Aye. And this I fully support. If I break SoE's rules, they can kick me from beta or ban me from their games. That I do see as their right and I fully support that.I don't support NDA breakings, and I think SoE has every right to kick the 'breakers' from beta and/or the Live game. I figured I should say that, in case anyone thought I was talking _for_ such breakings.

Lantis
09-27-2008, 04:11 PM
My opinion on the NDA is that it is effectively anti-marketing for SOE.  If you look at most computer games, you tend to get a lot of detailed previews, videos, details on the game mechanics and such way before the game gets released.  So, the day the game is actually released, you have a lineup of people rushing to buy the game, since they know what to expect.  The same cannot be said about the very basic info SOE releases ("we'll have that many new zones, we'll have new AAs, and we'll add a new system that allows you to turn in stuff to get loot&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> - I can hardly see a potential buyer being able to decide wether he likes the product or not with so little information.Generally speaking, I think that the goal of an NDA is to ensure that your competition can't know in advance what you are planning for your product.  It makes sense if, for example, you are developping a product that goes in direct competition against another.  However in the case of a game (or a game expansion), I believe this makes little sense.  I hardly doubt that Blizzard could reuse any of the ideas from SOE's expansion before they get released - the two games are pretty different beasts, and it takes months of development to implement new major features.  Beside, it's not as if Blizzard can't get someone in the public beta to get the info they would want.In SOE's expansion cases, keeping a blanket over virtually everything until the last few days just before release means that people have very little time to decide wether or not they want to buy the game (or expansion), and to forge an opinion on it.  So, I don't agree with SOE's decision to always cover their expansions with wall-to-wall NDAs, that only get lifted at the very last minute.  My guess is, the decision doesn't come from the developpers or even producers, but from the overpaid legal team that such large corporation keep on their payroll.This being said, I think that if you sign up an NDA, it means you voluntarily accept to get into a legally binding agreement.  If you want to play their game, you have to play it by their rule, wether they make sense or not.  SOE would be in their right to terminate any account of people having broken the NDA - just like they have the right to do so if you break regular rules (griefind/selling plat/etc...).

velneth
09-27-2008, 04:56 PM
With most products a NDA serves as a way of keeping information out of competitor's hands. With game betas, the NDA works as a way of preventing bad press based on incomplete versions with game breaking issues. Best example I can give is the SWG Jump to Lightspeed Beta. With about a week to release they re-did all the ship handing characteristics and the mass system.Prior to doing that, all the ships felt identical, like you just had differnt skins over the one single ship type. You could cram nearly any part into your ship you wanted without worry about running out of mass. After the changes, you had TIE fighters feeling like snappy little sports cars, X-Wings that felt more like Sedans, and Bombers that quite frankly, need a solar system to change direction. In short, the total feel of the expansion was changed for the better, in the last week of beta prior to the lifting of the NDA. Sometimes the needed changes do get done in the last minute.

bleap
09-27-2008, 05:36 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>oh trust me soon as i seen it posted i reported it, and i was told they already know about it, and they are already taking care of it.i do hope this website owner enjoys the punishment hes going to get for allowing it to be up as long as it has been.<span style="color: #ff0000;">and yes, he can be sued</span>.  ty have a nice day.</blockquote>Nice try, but you would be incorrect. the only people subject to the NDA would be people who agree to it, mostly Beta testers...NOW he may be forced in court to disclose where he got teh information and that person could be in legal trouble...but if the website owner didn't sign a NDA he is not legally responsible for breaking teh NDA which he never agreed to..hence the non disclosier AGREEMENT...

Meridia
09-27-2008, 07:45 PM
yes, he could be, if he had refused to take down the information.he took it down, so theres no problems there.guilty by association, if someone else puts something up and he does NOTHING to remove it, hes therefore basically being the offender's accomplice.

Meridia
09-27-2008, 07:52 PM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Says who? The american laws? How can I as a danish citizen be under american law while I sit in Denmark?If I was visiting the US, I would agree that I would be under american law, because I am on American soil.But how can I be under american law as a danish citizen on danish soil?Can you in any way support your claims? Has there been any rulings on this? Has any of this been proven in  an actual court room?All I see is you claiming a lot of things, but not really supporting any. Aren't we all just guessing when it comes to the legal issues here?And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?</blockquote>yes, they will ban your account and advise you not to play the game because you feel that you're not subject to soe's rules.  basically you clicking the accept button binds you to their rules.  you dont want to follow them, you dont play.  its not criminal, so they cant send you to america, but basically its an american product, based in america, and so the 'button clicking = signature to follow eula' rule stands, even if it would not normally in your own country.online games do it that way because its not feasible to send everyone a [Removed for Content] contract every time the eula gets updated and ban your account till you send back the contract signed.  in this case it is a legally binding contract, and they can terminate your useage of the service if you do not follow the agreement.

Maroger
09-27-2008, 08:14 PM
<p>You all are fogetting something about beta -- the code is NOT set in stone. Things get changed.</p><p>What is the point of SOE releasing information - then having to change something as the result of testing and after release there is a big whine and a flame thread about "WHERE IS XXXX " - why did you change it -- it was in the beta.</p><p>Believe me things do get changed, taken out etc. That is why it is called Beta  -- While they may have to burn the CD's a month before release - you can bet there will be a big download because of the changes.</p><p>So don't assume that what you have read is set in stone -- lots of stuff will changed - remember they have almost 1 1/2 months to make changes in TSO. </p>

Lilj
09-27-2008, 08:56 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Says who? The american laws? How can I as a danish citizen be under american law while I sit in Denmark?If I was visiting the US, I would agree that I would be under american law, because I am on American soil.But how can I be under american law as a danish citizen on danish soil?Can you in any way support your claims? Has there been any rulings on this? Has any of this been proven in  an actual court room?All I see is you claiming a lot of things, but not really supporting any. Aren't we all just guessing when it comes to the legal issues here?And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?</blockquote>yes, they will ban your account and advise you not to play the game because you feel that you're not subject to soe's rules.  basically you clicking the accept button binds you to their rules.  you dont want to follow them, you dont play.  its not criminal, so they cant send you to america<b>, but basically its an american product, based in america, and so the 'button clicking = signature to follow eula' rule stands, even if it would not normally in your own country.</b>online games do it that way because its not feasible to send everyone a [Removed for Content] contract every time the eula gets updated and ban your account till you send back the contract signed.  <b>in this case it is a legally binding contract,</b> and they can terminate your useage of the service if you do not follow the agreement.</blockquote>If this were true, that clicking the EULA was indeed legally binding as per american law, then SoE would have no problems having non-americans use the exchange server, or have all their players participate in their competitions.But those two 'services' (exchange and competitions) are _only_ for north-american players and the reason they have given is because of legal issues.so forgive me for doubting you and your knowledge in this area. If the click accept button was legally binding as if I was american citizen (and we therefore ignore my own countries laws), SoE would probably have no legal issues with competitions and exchange servers.Besides, you forgot to back up your claims, which I asked of you earlier. This is the reason why I'm out of here, anything else is a waste of time. I prefer facts to 'armchairing'.You are welcome to believe what you want, I don't care. Good evening.

Meridia
09-27-2008, 11:53 PM
setting rules and enforcing their rules, and the way you agree to them has nothing to do with the fact that they cant let you participate in contests or use exchange.the reasons you cant participate in contests isnt because of laws, perse in the way you think.you cannot participate in contests because the prize, no matter what it is, has to have a value to it, and it falls under foriegn trade, and would be subject to taxes, and import stuff set for that.  its more akin to me sending you something in the mail worth something and you or i having to pay taxes on it.you not being able to participate in the exchange server has somethign to do with the same rules.the only thing legally binding about it, is that if you take this issue to court, stating that you were in no way bound to follow the rules because your country does not recognize the form of agreement, the court will tell you that the company(in this case, sony online entertainment) is under full legal precident to set their own terms of service and usage agreement.  violation of it is under their judgement for punishment.. its not hard law, perse, aside the laws that state they in fact are allowed to make a terms of service agreement, and that you clicked accept implies that you know the rules and agree to follow them.  if you do not, and were to take it to court to get your account reinstated(of course, big IF here) you would LOSE, because the terms of service are right there in front of you and you AGREED to them in order to log in.  thats why if you click " i do not accept" you dont get to log in.  its for their own protection.I REPEAT, THE REASON YOU CAN NOT PARTICIPATE IN CONTESTS AND EXCHANGE SERVERS IS BECAUSE OF TRADE COMMISSION LAW AND TAXATION.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

Meridia
09-28-2008, 12:17 AM
EVERQUEST® II USER AGREEMENT AND SOFTWARE LICENSE THIS AGREEMENT DESCRIBES THE TERMS ON WHICH SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT LLC ("SOE&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> OFFERS YOU ACCESS TO AN ACCOUNT (THE "ACCOUNT&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> TO PLAY THE EVERQUEST II FANTASY ONLINE ROLE PLAYING COMPUTER GAME AND ITS EXPANSION PACKS (INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY, THE "GAME&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />. BY PRESSING THE "I ACCEPT" BUTTON, YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BELOW. BY PRESSING THE "DECLINE" BUTTON, YOU DECLINE OUR OFFER, IN WHICH CASE YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE REGARDING ITS RETURN POLICY FOR THE APPLICABLE PRODUCT.first part of the eula, copy/paste.it is a contract with the company, sony online entertainment, agreeing to the terms of service.dont like them, dont play.  you also accept a simiilar one when you join a beta.any court in the world would toss out a case against violations of this contract, because it has no place there.  its a legal contract yes, binding only between YOU and the company in question.  yet another case of RTFM and someone that doesnt read the darn thing in the first place.

Qandor
09-28-2008, 12:19 AM
Didn't Wow pretty much have no NDA in effect through much of their development process? I clearly rememeber perusing WoW beta boards while not being in beta and that was long before any open beta. It sure didn't hurt them. Personally I view NDA's very suspiciously, especially when they are maintained right up to a launch date. If you have a solid product you want the word to get out. If you have a shaky product you cloak it under an NDA for as long as possible.

Noaani
09-28-2008, 12:32 AM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote>so forgive me for doubting you and your knowledge in this area. If the click accept button was legally binding as if I was american citizen (and we therefore ignore my own countries laws), SoE would probably have no legal issues with competitions and exchange servers.</blockquote><p>It is worth noting that there are several countries in which this game is played that, due to their local law system, both the NDA and the EULA are null and void. A player from one of those countries (I can name 3, but I am sure there would be more if a little digging was done) could violate both the EULA and the NDA. If SoE took action against them, in one country in particular, this player would be able to take SoE to court, with SoE facing a reasonably large fine, as well as reversal of action taken on that plauyer should they lose.</p><p>Before someone asks, no, I am not going to mention which countries this is applicable to. Many of the players from these countries do not know that this applies to them, just most people are not aware of their rights in many different situations.</p>

crunn
09-28-2008, 12:44 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>... subject to soe's rules.  basically you clicking the accept button binds you to their rules.  you dont want to follow them, you dont play.  its not criminal, so they cant send you to america, but basically its an american product, based in america, and so the 'button clicking = signature to follow eula' rule stands, even if it would not normally in your own country.online games do it that way because its not feasible to send everyone a [Removed for Content] contract every time the eula gets updated and ban your account till you send back the contract signed.  in this case it is a legally binding contract, and they can terminate your useage of the service if you do not follow the agreement.</blockquote><p>Oh dear dear dear no. I'm fairly sure that clicking a button in the US is not a legally binding signature. I know that it's not in Europe and I'm pretty confident the rest of the world. Not so long ago I applied for beta testing for another game, turned out to be a European game, part of the form for the NDA was filled out online the remainder they mailed out to me. I received a bundle through the mail, the contract and all that would be required of me, i was to fill it in and mail it back. Well I decided in the end I wouldn't have the time to do all they would want me to and didn't finalise my application.</p><p>It makes no difference where the product is made. You are only subject to the laws of your own country. If my TV remote was made in Afghanistan and I used it to break a window to steal someone's shoes they wouldn't ship me off to Afghanistan to get beheaded.</p><p>We can not! no country even the US can impose force subjugate other countries or foreign citizens to our laws. Wars have started over far less than that. If it turned out that button clicking were as good as a written signature in the US and SOE did allow non-US citizens to beta test and these non-US citizens used the button click application then they are not in anyway bound to the contract. SOE would be powerless to do anything about them leaking info. Of course they would likely ban the individuals account. However, that individual would then be able to take action against SOE, they paid for a service for a length of time which SOE then refused to provide for reasons which would amount to little more than petty revenge.</p><p>But i imagine SOE has the good sense to not let it come to that. I'm confident they know what they are doing. That either they only allow US beta testers, or that they mail paper contracts to non-US testers. Or that they simply know the risks and live with it. I'm sure that there is nothing the beta tester know that would cause any harm to SOE or to EQ2.</p>

LordPazuzu
09-28-2008, 12:48 AM
One of the major points of an NDA is to prevent testers from posting data about broken content or content that's being reworked and creating a false impression of what the content is going to be like at launch.

Meridia
09-28-2008, 12:56 AM
<cite>crunn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>... subject to soe's rules.  basically you clicking the accept button binds you to their rules.  you dont want to follow them, you dont play.  its not criminal, so they cant send you to america, but basically its an american product, based in america, and so the 'button clicking = signature to follow eula' rule stands, even if it would not normally in your own country.online games do it that way because its not feasible to send everyone a [Removed for Content] contract every time the eula gets updated and ban your account till you send back the contract signed.  in this case it is a legally binding contract, and they can terminate your useage of the service if you do not follow the agreement.</blockquote><p>Oh dear dear dear no. I'm fairly sure that clicking a button in the US is not a legally binding signature. I know that it's not in Europe and I'm pretty confident the rest of the world. Not so long ago I applied for beta testing for another game, turned out to be a European game, part of the form for the NDA was filled out online the remainder they mailed out to me. I received a bundle through the mail, the contract and all that would be required of me, i was to fill it in and mail it back. Well I decided in the end I wouldn't have the time to do all they would want me to and didn't finalise my application.</p><p>It makes no difference where the product is made. You are only subject to the laws of your own country. If my TV remote was made in Afghanistan and I used it to break a window to steal someone's shoes they wouldn't ship me off to Afghanistan to get beheaded.</p><p>We can not! no country even the US can impose force subjugate other countries or foreign citizens to our laws. Wars have started over far less than that. If it turned out that button clicking were as good as a written signature in the US and SOE did allow non-US citizens to beta test and these non-US citizens used the button click application then they are not in anyway bound to the contract. SOE would be powerless to do anything about them leaking info. Of course they would likely ban the individuals account. However, that individual would then be able to take action against SOE, they paid for a service for a length of time which SOE then refused to provide for reasons which would amount to little more than petty revenge.</p><p>But i imagine SOE has the good sense to not let it come to that. I'm confident they know what they are doing. That either they only allow US beta testers, or that they mail paper contracts to non-US testers. Or that they simply know the risks and live with it. I'm sure that there is nothing the beta tester know that would cause any harm to SOE or to EQ2.</p></blockquote>its a contract between you and the company stating that if you dont follow their rules, you get the heck out.any court will tell you this.those countries that would make them null and void are bound to change that tune as the years go by and more terrorism is done over the internet and things are locked down.wow had nda.  it wasnt up for long, in fact it was gone shortly after beta started, but there was in fact nda in effect for closed betas and alpha phases.  open betas are a different story because with them, you werent selected for it, you signed up and got in. no questions asked.i cant believe this person though basically is stating that they dont have to follow the rules soe put in place if they dont want to because their country allows them.  thats just laughable.its easier legally to enforce disclusion than inclusion, and if they want to they can tell you if you dont live in the usa you cant play their game if its not sold in your country.  they just dont.  you're expected to follow the dam rules, and if you dont(such as this case of nda violation) you pay the price.the arguement isnt technically over the ramifications of nda violation, it was over should they have one in the first place.  since there is one, you follow it, dont like there is one? tough.  they'll put on in if they want to, they're entitled to, and if you dont want to follow it they can ban you.  its their product, their rules, and even if your country says the nda/eula is null and void that doesnt mean they can force soe to let you play.end of story.  im out of this thread, its gotten derailed, and is completely off topic.  soe still wont lift the nda, their reasons are theirs, leave it.

Zarador
09-28-2008, 12:59 AM
Y'all want an example as to why they attempt to keep a NDA as pristine as possible?Look at almost every LU we have and watch when the date gets extended.  You will find pages upon pages of angry mobs expressing as to how SoE yet again failed and has no clue how to run their company.   Even when they say we anticipate that we will do such and such around a certain date, it's taken as it was written in stone.  Even if they explain that something not antisipated happened that requires further investigation and action to fix, someone out there will blast them for incompetence.So, you have a NDA, ask people who by submitting to the Beta agreed to "test it" and "give feedback" so they can discover how people really feel and how it really works, but in a closed environment.  Your every move is not subjected to all of us true game professionals that know everything about coding and game mechanics to rip apart. As the old adage goes, if your not part of the solution, then your most likely part of the problem.  In my opinion you should be able to accept that your part of a group that was invited to participate in the betterment of the game in return for a chance to experience the new content and changes first hand, before release.Edit:  As far as all the legal aspects out there, anyone with any true sense of business knows that sometimes those who can afford the most lawyers are the winners.  I may not have a foot to stand on, but if I can make you go broke proving your case, you still loose in the end.  Like it or not, it's how the system often works.  Pirated software enforcment systems count on this factor on a small scale.  Maybe I can prove that I did not knowingly have the legitimate version on my machine, maybe the store sold me a bum copy that snuck through, maybe some technician I paid to install a legitimate copy on the machine hosed me over and is no longer in business.  Either way, if I have assets and depend on my system, I most likely will head the warning if I get one and plunk down the money for a legitmate system rather than fight Microsoft.

crunn
09-28-2008, 01:33 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite> <blockquote>i cant believe this person though basically is stating that they dont have to follow the rules soe put in place if they dont want to because their country allows them.  thats just laughable.the arguement isnt technically over the ramifications of nda violation, it was over should they have one in the first place.  since there is one, you follow it, dont like there is one? tough.  they'll put on in if they want to, they're entitled to, and if you dont want to follow it they can ban you.  its their product, their rules, and even if your country says the nda/eula is null and void that doesnt mean they can force soe to let you play.</blockquote><p>Not even close to what i was said. I ment that button clicking is nothing more than a moral agreement not enforceable anywhere, i suspect even here. And yes, the testers reguardles of nationality should moraly uphold their agreement. If sony really wanted a leagaly binding contract the only way to do that properly is a written signed paper document just like the one i have here. </p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite> </p><blockquote>those countries that would make them null and void are bound to change that tune as the years go by and more terrorism is done over the internet and things are locked down.</blockquote><p>"...And if they don't? We will send in the soldiers and burn their land to dust."  (quote from something i forget)</p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite> </p><blockquote>end of story.  im out of this thread, its gotten derailed, and is completely off topic.  </blockquote>Agreed

Noaani
09-28-2008, 01:43 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>wow had nda.  it wasnt up for long, in fact it was gone shortly after beta started, but there was in fact nda in effect for closed betas and alpha phases.  open betas are a different story because with them, you werent selected for it, you signed up and got in. no questions asked.</blockquote><p>You mean exactly the same as EQ2 betas?</p><p>In EQ2 they have a list of beta applicants, ordered based on time of application. When they want another 5000 players in for beta testing they simply add the next 5000 people on that list to beta. Other than a check to see if your account is in "good standing", they have no questions to ask.</p><p>The reason WoW didn't have an NDA for its beta(s) is because by the time that game made it to open beta it was as polished as most EQ2 expansions have been on the day they go live.</p><p>When you have people beta testing polished content, you want them to spread the word about it, when you have beta testers testing the broken, unbalanced, half finished mess that most EQ2 betas have been, you want them to stay quiet.</p>

Noaani
09-28-2008, 01:51 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>those countries that would make them null and void are bound to change that tune as the years go by and more terrorism is done over the internet and things are locked down.</blockquote><p>Thats the first I have ever heard of someone linking the fact that some countries provide their citizens with rights that can not be signed away, and any attempt to do so makes the contrat null and void - to terrorism.</p><p>Just so you are aware, one of the countries that fits into that discription is a world leader in internet law (not internet lawers, like some in this thread are trying to be, but laws based around the internet and its content). The US is looking using this particular countries laws as a draft on laws with reguard to the internet, including some counter terrorism applications I believe.</p>

troodon
09-28-2008, 05:25 AM
<p>Never mind, no point in nit-picking.</p>

Lasai
09-28-2008, 09:30 AM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>those countries that would make them null and void are bound to change that tune as the years go by and more terrorism is done over the internet and things are locked down.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffcc00;">Thats the first I have ever heard of someone linking the fact that some countries provide their citizens with rights that can not be signed away, and any attempt to do so makes the contrat null and void - to terrorism.</span></p><p>Just so you are aware, one of the countries that fits into that discription is a world leader in internet law (not internet lawers, like some in this thread are trying to be, but laws based around the internet and its content). The US is looking using this particular countries laws as a draft on laws with reguard to the internet, including some counter terrorism applications I believe.</p></blockquote>Having played PvP on an SWG server, I can attest to this... a guild from that nation basically unbannable and uncontrollable due to that obscure little *deleted* clause.  CSR's would ban them for blatant exploiting, Leader would call legal dept, Players reinstated to avoid mess... over and over.  The guild leader was arrogant enough to even post about exactly how he did it.  One member gave himself a GM- name, ran around for hours impersonating a GM, got reported by numerous people, banned, and was back in game 2 days later... bragging about his 5th ban that got lifted.They destroyed PvP on that server.  Being immune isn't a good thing.

Wingrider01
09-28-2008, 09:44 AM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>agreed, to those saying they never signed anything, yes, they did.its that terms of service stuff most of ya'll scroll through when you start the client.. clicking i agree is equiv to a signature. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote>I don't know the american law, so perhaps this is true for the US.But you need to remember that EQ2 is an international game and therefore many many different laws apply. Most courts in Europe for instance (has been tested already, AFAIK) does NOT see a click on an 'I Accept' button as legally binding. And clicking the EULA is definitely NOT the same as a signature in my own country. I somehow doubt it is in the states either, since it opens a huge cans of worms if that were true.But this is indeed a very fussy area, but it would probably be wise to remember, that laws are different in different countries. Somehow it seems a lot of people forget this. Edit: I know only of one site that had this information. The legal department of SoE contacted the site, and asked them to take it down. They cooperated and removed the thread. So before people begin to call for the pitchforks, at least one site does no longer have the information public.</blockquote>yes, you did sign something.  please see my previoius post on it.american based company, you play by american based rules.  any international lawyer in your own country will tell you this.</blockquote>Says who? The american laws? How can I as a danish citizen be under american law while I sit in Denmark?If I was visiting the US, I would agree that I would be under american law, because I am on American soil.But how can I be under american law as a danish citizen on danish soil?Can you in any way support your claims? Has there been any rulings on this? Has any of this been proven in  an actual court room?All I see is you claiming a lot of things, but not really supporting any. Aren't we all just guessing when it comes to the legal issues here?And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?</blockquote>Might want to think about reviewing the international laws that are present concerning the protection of intellectual property in regards to software and hardware.  Believe about 90 percent of the countries of the world have agreed to these and are willing to prosecute under them. Might also suggest review the international accords that reference elctronic signatures and agreements, again the majority of the countries have signed and agreed to these tenants

Noaani
09-28-2008, 11:30 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>They destroyed PvP on that server.  Being immune isn't a good thing.</blockquote><p>More than aware of that, which, as I said is why I am not going to mention the names of the countries involved, as few people, even from those countries, are aware of their rights.</p><p>I try to not cause trouble on purpose, I do it well enough without trying.</p>

Noaani
09-28-2008, 11:38 AM
<cite>Liljna wrote:</cite><blockquote>And IF you are in fact right, what can SoE do about it? Since I don't think we are talking criminal law here, what can SoE do (other than ban me from their servers of course)?They can't ask my country to deliver me to the US, since it's not criminal. They can sue me and so what? Do you also have any insight on this part? What can SoE really do to a foreign citizen that breaks their Eula?</blockquote>Any company can prosecute you if you break the laws of the country you are in with reguards to them. If the EULA counts as a binding document in your country, you are obliged to follow it as much as a US citizen is. The fact that it is written in the US means nothing, all that matters is how the laws of your country view it.

bryldan
09-28-2008, 12:09 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>those countries that would make them null and void are bound to change that tune as the years go by and more terrorism is done over the internet and things are locked down.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffcc00;">Thats the first I have ever heard of someone linking the fact that some countries provide their citizens with rights that can not be signed away, and any attempt to do so makes the contrat null and void - to terrorism.</span></p><p>Just so you are aware, one of the countries that fits into that discription is a world leader in internet law (not internet lawers, like some in this thread are trying to be, but laws based around the internet and its content). The US is looking using this particular countries laws as a draft on laws with reguard to the internet, including some counter terrorism applications I believe.</p></blockquote>Having played PvP on an SWG server, I can attest to this... a guild from that nation basically unbannable and uncontrollable due to that obscure little *deleted* clause.  CSR's would ban them for blatant exploiting, Leader would call legal dept, Players reinstated to avoid mess... over and over.  The guild leader was arrogant enough to even post about exactly how he did it.  One member gave himself a GM- name, ran around for hours impersonating a GM, got reported by numerous people, banned, and was back in game 2 days later... bragging about his 5th ban that got lifted.They destroyed PvP on that server.  Being immune isn't a good thing.</blockquote>That is the stupidity of the company not international laws. They could EASILY boot this guy so he could never come back onto the servers yet they didnt. Whether that is from pressure from someone else or whatever the case that company still has rights to protect there product and that includes not letting ppl play if they are causing harm like what seems to be in this case. They have ZERO rights over there char and it can easily be deleted to nothing at the choosing of the company. Why this let this guy do this is idiotic beyond words and personally while the guy might say one thing (which might be the case who really knows) he could be lying his butt off.

Noaani
09-28-2008, 12:53 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is the stupidity of the company not international laws. They could EASILY boot this guy so he could never come back onto the servers yet they didnt. Whether that is from pressure from someone else or whatever the case that company still has rights to protect there product and that includes not letting ppl play if they are causing harm like what seems to be in this case. They have ZERO rights over there char and it can easily be deleted to nothing at the choosing of the company. Why this let this guy do this is idiotic beyond words and personally while the guy might say one thing (which might be the case who really knows) he could be lying his butt off.</blockquote><p>Actually, no.</p><p>Again this is dependant on the country you live in, but if the EULA does not apply to you, SoE have to honour the agreement that you make with them when you pay them for their services. Other than the EULA there is no provision for refusal of service, so if the EULA does not apply they have nothing to fall back on.</p><p>Also, if the EULA does not apply to a given person they can contest the ownership of their character, equipment and coin, and can not legally be stopped from selling them if they wish. However, unless the buyer is also similarly protected, SoE can ban the account once sold. The physical location of the server has no bearing on this.</p><p>Although I was not aware of any examples of this being put to the test, you can guarentee that SoEs legal department are aware of this, and would have checked out the above example before any accounts were re-activated. If *I* know about this it would be a rather bad reflection on SoEs legal department if they didn't...</p>

SnoesieQ
09-28-2008, 01:04 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is the stupidity of the company not international laws. They could EASILY boot this guy so he could never come back onto the servers yet they didnt. Whether that is from pressure from someone else or whatever the case that company still has rights to protect there product and that includes not letting ppl play if they are causing harm like what seems to be in this case. They have ZERO rights over there char and it can easily be deleted to nothing at the choosing of the company. Why this let this guy do this is idiotic beyond words and personally while the guy might say one thing (which might be the case who really knows) he could be lying his butt off.</blockquote><p>Actually, no.</p><p>Again this is dependant on the country you live in, but if the EULA does not apply to you, SoE have to honour the agreement that you make with them when you pay them for their services. Other than the EULA there is no provision for refusal of service, so if the EULA does not apply they have nothing to fall back on.</p><p>Also, if the EULA does not apply to a given person they can contest the ownership of their character, equipment and coin, and can not legally be stopped from selling them if they wish. However, unless the buyer is also similarly protected, SoE can ban the account once sold. The physical location of the server has no bearing on this.</p><p>Although I was not aware of any examples of this being put to the test, you can guarentee that SoEs legal department are aware of this, and would have checked out the above example before any accounts were re-activated. If *I* know about this it would be a rather bad reflection on SoEs legal department if they didn't...</p></blockquote>The most that SOE would have to do in case of banning an account would be to refund any prepayments for the time the account is disabled.No company anywhere can be forced to keep a customer they no longer wish to provide services to.There are some interesting cases involving Second Life for instance, where people have been banned, and SL being based on RMT, those people have had some interesting legal claims regarding the RL money value on their virtual property they have been denied access to. In no case have they even brought up forcing the account to be re-activated though, it has been about compensation.

LygerT
09-28-2008, 01:18 PM
<p>1) in most states and countries ignorance is not an immunity. say you are a merchant business and your supplier brings in the usual load of merchandise but out of ignorance you don't realize that they are stolen goods, you are still held accountable for having and selling the stolen goods. </p><p>2) a company doesn't need to be in the full right in a case such as this, so long as there is a reasonable case in court they can drag it out, draining you because they have a fair amount more resources than you do. once again, ignorance is not a defense. </p><p>3) the NDA is in place for good reason, to keep people from overreacting such as this whole ordeal is a good example. the expansion is still a good ways off and changes will be made. no point worrying about anything just yet or causing massive drama about the "what if's".</p><p>the owner of the site the info was posted on backed down because he knew all of the above, if you think you are smarter and want to put up a website posting the info and discussing it, you're welcome to try and see how it turns out. </p>

Qandor
09-28-2008, 01:41 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>With most products a NDA serves as a way of keeping information out of competitor's hands. </blockquote><p>I would be willing to bet that these companies infiltrate each orhers betas all the time. How could they not? Maybe not a friends and family phase but certainly anything beyond that. There are no dark secrets that competitors remain unaware of in the land of MMO's. Besides when was the last revolutionary idea in any of these games that warranted such secrecy? I doubt EQ2's new AA tree is coveted by any competitors.  </p><p>Once you have a beta with thousands of folks, you can assume that at least one and probably many are feeding info to your various competitors on a regular basis. It's absurd to think otherwise. NDA's, at least in the gaming world, have little or nothing to do with hiding info from the competiion. </p><p>Now lets take this AA tree as an example. If it were public knowledge right now, players would pick it apart and either applaud or moan. They might change it then based on feedback of the masses. Instead they will keep it beta eyes only with much more limited feedback and once it hits release players will either applaud or moan, pick it apart and they will start changing it then. It happens all the time. Why not get to that point earlier, before release?</p><p>Take AoC for example. That NDA was up until, gee, was it ever dropped, lol. I think the runnning joke was that the NDA was still up post release. It had nothing to do with competitors, nothing to do with leet infos, but all to do with keeping the general public in the dark regarding the overall condition of the game in order to not jeopardize advanced box sales. It is a good rule of thumb, at least in my experience, that the longer an NDA is maintained, the more likely it is that the product has serious problems. Buyer beware if release is fast approaching and a game is still under an NDA.</p>

EasternKing
09-28-2008, 01:59 PM
id just like to know when sony became an american company loltalk about concieted americansSony is from Japan, EQ2 is a product of SONY who are Japaneese for the americans that think the world ends are there own borders pls read the following :<p><b>Sony Corporation</b> <span >(<span class="t_nihongo_kanji">ソニー株式会社</span><span class="t_nihongo_comma">,</span> <i><span class="t_nihongo_romaji">Sonī Kabushiki kaisha</span></i><span class="t_nihongo_help"><sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 80%;font-family: sans-serif;color: #0000ee;" class="t_nihongo_icon">?</span></a></sup></span>)</span> is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">multinational</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conglomerates" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">conglomerate</a> corporation headquartered in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minato,_Tokyo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Minato, Tokyo</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Japan</a>, and one of the world's largest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">media conglomerates</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">revenue</a> exceeding US$88.7 billion (as of 200<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-sonycorpinfo-0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[1]</a></sup> Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">electronics</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">video</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">communications</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_consoles" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">video game consoles</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">information technology</a> products for the consumer and professional markets. Its name is derived from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonus" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sonus</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Greek</a> goddess of sound.</p> <p>Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Group" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Group</a>, which is engaged in business through its five operating segments—electronics, games, entertainment (motion pictures and music), financial services and other. These make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world. Sony's principal business operations include Sony Corporation (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Electronics" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Electronics</a> in the U.S.), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Pictures Entertainment</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Computer Entertainment</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony BMG Music Entertainment</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Ericsson</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Financial_Holdings" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sony Financial Holdings</a>. As a semiconductor maker, Sony is among the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Top_20_Semiconductor_Sales_Leaders" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders</a>. The company's slogan is <i>Sony. Like no other.</i><sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-like.no.other-2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[3]</a></sup></p>thats right you pay money for your sub that goes to another country!!! wow wee. stop the press.

Andu
09-28-2008, 02:19 PM
Whatever and however you guys like quoting the law at each other, it is irrelevant in the face of common sense. NDA's in open betas are just plain idiocy. You cannot stop the spread of information around the internet with an NDA so it is pointless, after all its what the internet was designed for. They may have taken down the post on that site but the information in it has been copied to a hundred other websites and forums. Same for a bunch of other information that is easy to get hold of with a few minutes hunting around.They would be far wiser to lift the NDA the minute they let more than a handful of people into it and let them discuss it openly. If the expansion is not completed sufficiently for them to be comfortable doing that then its not ready for open beta and it stinks of the whole thing being rushed at the last minute.

Dasein
09-28-2008, 02:38 PM
<cite>EasternKing wrote:</cite><blockquote>id just like to know when sony became an american company loltalk about concieted americansSony is from Japan, EQ2 is a product of SONY who are Japaneese for the americans that think the world ends are there own borders pls read the following :<p><b>Sony Corporation</b> <span>(<span class="t_nihongo_kanji">ソニー株式会社</span><span class="t_nihongo_comma">,</span> <i><span class="t_nihongo_romaji">Sonī Kabushiki kaisha</span></i><span class="t_nihongo_help"><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 80%;font-family: sans-serif;color: #0000ee;" class="t_nihongo_icon">?</span></a></sup></span>)</span> is a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation" target="_blank">multinational</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conglomerates" target="_blank">conglomerate</a> corporation headquartered in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minato,_Tokyo" target="_blank">Minato, Tokyo</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan" target="_blank">Japan</a>, and one of the world's largest <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate" target="_blank">media conglomerates</a> with <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue" target="_blank">revenue</a> exceeding US$88.7 billion (as of 200<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.<sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-sonycorpinfo-0" target="_blank">[1]</a></sup> Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics" target="_blank">electronics</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video" target="_blank">video</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication" target="_blank">communications</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_consoles" target="_blank">video game consoles</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology" target="_blank">information technology</a> products for the consumer and professional markets. Its name is derived from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonus" target="_blank">Sonus</a>, the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology" target="_blank">Greek</a> goddess of sound.</p> <p>Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Group" target="_blank">Sony Group</a>, which is engaged in business through its five operating segments—electronics, games, entertainment (motion pictures and music), financial services and other. These make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world. Sony's principal business operations include Sony Corporation (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Electronics" target="_blank">Sony Electronics</a> in the U.S.), <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Pictures Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Computer Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony BMG Music Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson" target="_blank">Sony Ericsson</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Financial_Holdings" target="_blank">Sony Financial Holdings</a>. As a semiconductor maker, Sony is among the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Top_20_Semiconductor_Sales_Leaders" target="_blank">Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders</a>. The company's slogan is <i>Sony. Like no other.</i><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-like.no.other-2" target="_blank">[3]</a></sup></p>thats right you pay money for your sub that goes to another country!!! wow wee. stop the press. </blockquote>Actually, companies the size of Sony are incorporated in many different countries, and have many subsidiaries which are also incorporated independently of their parent company. SOE itself is based out of San Diego, and is an American company for sake of argument.

EasternKing
09-28-2008, 02:46 PM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EasternKing wrote:</cite><blockquote>id just like to know when sony became an american company loltalk about concieted americansSony is from Japan, EQ2 is a product of SONY who are Japaneese for the americans that think the world ends are there own borders pls read the following :<p><b>Sony Corporation</b> <span>(<span class="t_nihongo_kanji">ソニー株式会社</span><span class="t_nihongo_comma">,</span> <i><span class="t_nihongo_romaji">Sonī Kabushiki kaisha</span></i><span class="t_nihongo_help"><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 80%;font-family: sans-serif;color: #0000ee;" class="t_nihongo_icon">?</span></a></sup></span>)</span> is a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation" target="_blank">multinational</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conglomerates" target="_blank">conglomerate</a> corporation headquartered in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minato,_Tokyo" target="_blank">Minato, Tokyo</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan" target="_blank">Japan</a>, and one of the world's largest <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate" target="_blank">media conglomerates</a> with <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue" target="_blank">revenue</a> exceeding US$88.7 billion (as of 200<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.<sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-sonycorpinfo-0" target="_blank">[1]</a></sup> Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics" target="_blank">electronics</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video" target="_blank">video</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication" target="_blank">communications</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_consoles" target="_blank">video game consoles</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology" target="_blank">information technology</a> products for the consumer and professional markets. Its name is derived from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonus" target="_blank">Sonus</a>, the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology" target="_blank">Greek</a> goddess of sound.</p> <p>Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Group" target="_blank">Sony Group</a>, which is engaged in business through its five operating segments—electronics, games, entertainment (motion pictures and music), financial services and other. These make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world. Sony's principal business operations include Sony Corporation (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Electronics" target="_blank">Sony Electronics</a> in the U.S.), <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Pictures Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Computer Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony BMG Music Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson" target="_blank">Sony Ericsson</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Financial_Holdings" target="_blank">Sony Financial Holdings</a>. As a semiconductor maker, Sony is among the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Top_20_Semiconductor_Sales_Leaders" target="_blank">Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders</a>. The company's slogan is <i>Sony. Like no other.</i><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-like.no.other-2" target="_blank">[3]</a></sup></p>thats right you pay money for your sub that goes to another country!!! wow wee. stop the press. </blockquote>Actually, companies the size of Sony are incorporated in many different countries, and have many subsidiaries which are also incorporated independently of their parent company. SOE itself is based out of San Diego, and is an American company for sake of argument. </blockquote>its controlled by its parent company, for marketing alone its called an american company, we all know how xenophobic most americans are, it make good buisness sense to appear as an american firm. the reality is its just a tentcle appendge of its host company, which is Japaneese.

LygerT
09-28-2008, 02:55 PM
<cite>EasternKing wrote:</cite><blockquote>its controlled by its parent company, for marketing alone its called an american company, we all know how xenophobic most americans are, it make good buisness sense to appear as an american firm. the reality is its just a tentcle appendge of its host company, which is Japaneese. </blockquote>actually you should learn what you're talking about first, a fair amount more japanese companies prefer to not export than american companies do for that simple reason because they fear international law and the lawsuit happy ways of us americans.

Dasein
09-28-2008, 02:58 PM
<cite>EasternKing wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>EasternKing wrote:</cite><blockquote>id just like to know when sony became an american company loltalk about concieted americansSony is from Japan, EQ2 is a product of SONY who are Japaneese for the americans that think the world ends are there own borders pls read the following :<p><b>Sony Corporation</b> <span>(<span class="t_nihongo_kanji">ソニー株式会社</span><span class="t_nihongo_comma">,</span> <i><span class="t_nihongo_romaji">Sonī Kabushiki kaisha</span></i><span class="t_nihongo_help"><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Japanese" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 80%;font-family: sans-serif;color: #0000ee;" class="t_nihongo_icon">?</span></a></sup></span>)</span> is a <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation" target="_blank">multinational</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conglomerates" target="_blank">conglomerate</a> corporation headquartered in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minato,_Tokyo" target="_blank">Minato, Tokyo</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan" target="_blank">Japan</a>, and one of the world's largest <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate" target="_blank">media conglomerates</a> with <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue" target="_blank">revenue</a> exceeding US$88.7 billion (as of 200<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />.<sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-sonycorpinfo-0" target="_blank">[1]</a></sup> Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics" target="_blank">electronics</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video" target="_blank">video</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication" target="_blank">communications</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_consoles" target="_blank">video game consoles</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology" target="_blank">information technology</a> products for the consumer and professional markets. Its name is derived from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonus" target="_blank">Sonus</a>, the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology" target="_blank">Greek</a> goddess of sound.</p> <p>Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Group" target="_blank">Sony Group</a>, which is engaged in business through its five operating segments—electronics, games, entertainment (motion pictures and music), financial services and other. These make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world. Sony's principal business operations include Sony Corporation (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Electronics" target="_blank">Sony Electronics</a> in the U.S.), <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Pictures Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony Computer Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment" target="_blank">Sony BMG Music Entertainment</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson" target="_blank">Sony Ericsson</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Financial_Holdings" target="_blank">Sony Financial Holdings</a>. As a semiconductor maker, Sony is among the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Top_20_Semiconductor_Sales_Leaders" target="_blank">Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders</a>. The company's slogan is <i>Sony. Like no other.</i><sup><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#cite_note-like.no.other-2" target="_blank">[3]</a></sup></p>thats right you pay money for your sub that goes to another country!!! wow wee. stop the press. </blockquote>Actually, companies the size of Sony are incorporated in many different countries, and have many subsidiaries which are also incorporated independently of their parent company. SOE itself is based out of San Diego, and is an American company for sake of argument. </blockquote>its controlled by its parent company, for marketing alone its called an american company, we all know how xenophobic most americans are, it make good buisness sense to appear as an american firm. the reality is its just a tentcle appendge of its host company, which is Japaneese. </blockquote>No, actually, it's often necessary to incorporate in any country you wish to have business operations. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or any of that nonsense, rather corporate law differs from country to country, so a company will need to have different legal entities incorporated in each of those countries to conform to the local laws.

Thunderthyze
09-28-2008, 05:56 PM
<cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.

MonkeyBob
09-28-2008, 06:59 PM
What I see in this thread is a lot of people trying to protect their "rights" and completly ignoring their responsibilities. Its not a right to be in the BETA. If you are lucky enough to be chosen to beta-test TOS then, IMO, it is your responsibility to adhere to the NDA.

Amise
09-28-2008, 07:43 PM
<cite>MonkeyBobNz wrote:</cite><blockquote>What I see in this thread is a lot of people trying to protect their "rights" and completly ignoring their responsibilities. Its not a right to be in the BETA. If you are lucky enough to be chosen to beta-test TOS then, IMO, it is your responsibility to adhere to the NDA.</blockquote>Exactly.And it's bloody ridiculous to be whining about your rights as they pertain to a computer game in the first place.

bryldan
09-28-2008, 10:45 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>That is the stupidity of the company not international laws. They could EASILY boot this guy so he could never come back onto the servers yet they didnt. Whether that is from pressure from someone else or whatever the case that company still has rights to protect there product and that includes not letting ppl play if they are causing harm like what seems to be in this case. They have ZERO rights over there char and it can easily be deleted to nothing at the choosing of the company. Why this let this guy do this is idiotic beyond words and personally while the guy might say one thing (which might be the case who really knows) he could be lying his butt off.</blockquote><p>Actually, no.</p><p>Again this is dependant on the country you live in, but if the EULA does not apply to you, SoE have to honour the agreement that you make with them when you pay them for their services. Other than the EULA there is no provision for refusal of service, so if the EULA does not apply they have nothing to fall back on.</p><p>Also, if the EULA does not apply to a given person they can contest the ownership of their character, equipment and coin, and can not legally be stopped from selling them if they wish. However, unless the buyer is also similarly protected, SoE can ban the account once sold. The physical location of the server has no bearing on this.</p><p>Although I was not aware of any examples of this being put to the test, you can guarentee that SoEs legal department are aware of this, and would have checked out the above example before any accounts were re-activated. If *I* know about this it would be a rather bad reflection on SoEs legal department if they didn't...</p></blockquote>On the same account what the heck can another country do if the said company deleted the char? NOTHING AT ALL. They have ZERO control over the company considering they do not reside in said country. Now they could ban them from selling the game there etc etc but why would ANY country stop that or even waste time thinking about doing it over something so idiotic? While yes other countries might not take into consideration of EULA's in legal agreements there is also nothing they really could or would do if whoever the company is decides to say F U to the person and ban them or even delete their char. That is the point I was trying to make and that is pure FACT.

Froed20
09-29-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm sorry, but it completely dissapoints me that people broke the NDA in such a blatant way.  When you go into beta,  there's a contract of trust between the developer and the tester that you won't go talking about everything to anyone you meet.  By breaking that trust, they pretty much screwed everyone over for future expansions to come, because SOE will probably have to be far more selective in choosing who goes into beta, and they will probably start it later to avoid as much damage as possible.  It is a PRIVILAGE that they let us in to play and test things out before they release the game, NOT a right.  They are working hard to make an expansion that everyone can enjoy.  At least give them a little bit of respect when it comes to things like this.

Lasai
09-29-2008, 03:34 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.</blockquote>Discussions to what end?   Discussing Beta content that can be changed, removed, or implemented in a different manner?Discussions on leaked beta content are pointless, discussions on the Beta boards are not, as testers have access to the latest changes.  <span style="color: #ffcc00;">"Than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums"</span>  How so, its not impossible to discuss issues without profanity, without shouting down those not considered part of the kewl kids.. without casting comments about the parentage and IQ of developer staff or any player that doesn't go with the wisdom of thier so called betters?Furthermore, half the commentary there is by people who no longer play. Why should thier opinions as non consumers of the product hold any wieght at all, since they are basing thier commentary on speculation and not by actual testing.Biggest reason, to me, to have an NDA is to avoid the forum crapstorm of chicken little knee-jerking and uniformed debate.

bryldan
09-29-2008, 04:08 PM
<cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.</blockquote>Discussions to what end?   Discussing Beta content that can be changed, removed, or implemented in a different manner?Discussions on leaked beta content are pointless, discussions on the Beta boards are not, as testers have access to the latest changes.  <span style="color: #ffcc00;">"Than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums"</span>  How so, its not impossible to discuss issues without profanity, without shouting down those not considered part of the kewl kids.. without casting comments about the parentage and IQ of developer staff or any player that doesn't go with the wisdom of thier so called betters?Furthermore, half the commentary there is by people who no longer play. Why should thier opinions as non consumers of the product hold any wieght at all, since they are basing thier commentary on speculation and not by actual testing.Biggest reason, to me, to have an NDA is to avoid the forum crapstorm of chicken little knee-jerking and uniformed debate.</blockquote>How about discussions that can actually take place that there is no fear of being banned or having the topic deleted because developers only want whats good for there product... BTW i am not talking about cussing or anything of the like but usually anything critizing SOE on these forums gets discarded and you get a warning or a ban.

Lasai
09-29-2008, 04:17 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.</blockquote>Discussions to what end?   Discussing Beta content that can be changed, removed, or implemented in a different manner?Discussions on leaked beta content are pointless, discussions on the Beta boards are not, as testers have access to the latest changes.  <span style="color: #ffcc00;">"Than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums"</span>  How so, its not impossible to discuss issues without profanity, without shouting down those not considered part of the kewl kids.. without casting comments about the parentage and IQ of developer staff or any player that doesn't go with the wisdom of thier so called betters?Furthermore, half the commentary there is by people who no longer play. Why should thier opinions as non consumers of the product hold any wieght at all, since they are basing thier commentary on speculation and not by actual testing.Biggest reason, to me, to have an NDA is to avoid the forum crapstorm of chicken little knee-jerking and uniformed debate.</blockquote>How about discussions that can actually take place that there is no fear of being banned or having the topic deleted because developers only want whats good for there product... BTW i am not talking about cussing or anything of the like but usually anything critizing SOE on these forums gets discarded and you get a warning or a ban.</blockquote>Oh Really.Convo A.  This is a bad XXX because it affects XXX in a negative manner and this is why (insert feedback)Convo B.  This is a bad XXX because the devs are idiots and SOE is clueless, it affects XXX in a negative manner and this is why (insert feedback)Convince me that B is somehow more pertinent to a discussion or holds more weight.

interstellarmatter
09-29-2008, 04:46 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>How about discussions that can actually take place that there is no fear of being banned or having the topic deleted because developers only want whats good for there product... BTW i am not talking about cussing or anything of the like but usually anything critizing SOE on these forums gets discarded and you get a warning or a ban.</blockquote><p>This is almost funny.  There have been over the past 4 years, some unjustified bannings.  BUT..for the most part, most of the bans over the years deserved it.  There is big difference in constructive posting and posting like a complete jack [my cuss word for the day].  The threads that I've seen deleted were either repetitive or just plain stupid.  </p><p>You only see what you want to see...but I've never seen a non-CS, constructive, post deleted.  When I have, I pm'd another mod with my concerns and they either addresssed it or put the thread back.</p>

Noaani
09-29-2008, 06:26 PM
<cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.</blockquote>Discussions to what end?   Discussing Beta content that can be changed, removed, or implemented in a different manner?Discussions on leaked beta content are pointless, discussions on the Beta boards are not, as testers have access to the latest changes.  <span style="color: #ffcc00;">"Than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums"</span>  How so, its not impossible to discuss issues without profanity, without shouting down those not considered part of the kewl kids.. without casting comments about the parentage and IQ of developer staff or any player that doesn't go with the wisdom of thier so called betters?Furthermore, half the commentary there is by people who no longer play. Why should thier opinions as non consumers of the product hold any wieght at all, since they are basing thier commentary on speculation and not by actual testing.Biggest reason, to me, to have an NDA is to avoid the forum crapstorm of chicken little knee-jerking and uniformed debate.</blockquote><p>The reason there is a better conversation happenng on that site as opposed to he beta forums is the fact that there are more people participating in the conversation on that site that know what they are talking about than there are on the beta forum.</p><p>When a beta application/acceptance process is designed around the idea of a virtual que with the addition of allowing early entry to some whom are able to attend a gathering in a very specific part of the world (in a multi national game), then you should not expect much in terms of quality testing to be done. Add to that the fact that things are often so far broken for most of beta that there is no ability to test a lot of features, and you are left with no need to wonder at the release state of most SoE products.</p><p>I know for a fact that a lot of the conversation had on that site has been used to provide feedback to the developers, and have little doubt that developers will be reading that site directly.</p><p>Basically, that site has more knowladge about the game than SoE and these forums do combined.</p>

Noaani
09-29-2008, 06:40 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>On the same account what the heck can another country do if the said company deleted the char? NOTHING AT ALL. They have ZERO control over the company considering they do not reside in said country. Now they could ban them from selling the game there etc etc but why would ANY country stop that or even waste time thinking about doing it over something so idiotic? While yes other countries might not take into consideration of EULA's in legal agreements there is also nothing they really could or would do if whoever the company is decides to say F U to the person and ban them or even delete their char. That is the point I was trying to make and that is pure FACT.</blockquote><p>SoE does not delete characters, they prevent access to accounts. </p><p>As I said, this is not about the country of the game developers, nor the location of the servers, this is simply a case of the EULA attempting to remove specific rights from people that these countries do not allow to be taken away, and upon attempting to do so, voids the contract in entirety that this attempt was made (the EULA in this case).</p><p>Since the player has purchased a subscription, SoE is bound to honour that, reguardless of which country they may be operating in. However, as others have pointed out, Sony corperate operates in many different countries around the world, and in any country in which they operate they are obliged to follow local laws. If they are found to be breaking the laws of a specific country they operate in, the people of that country have the right to do whatever their countries laws tell them they can, and if Sony is present, they are obliged to do whatever that countries laws tell them to do, or risk whatever punishment that countries laws deem required.</p><p>And yes, for people in these countries, since SoE operates in them and is obliged to follow their laws, there are things they can do, and as has been pointed out in this thread, SoE is aware of this, and it has been put to the test in the past.</p><p>One of these countries in particular has a very harsh punishment for any multi national company that dishonours agreements made with its citizens, and SoE would not want to face that punishment (yet is strangly light on punishment toward nationally owned firms that do the same). Deleting a character or removing access to an account that has been paid for is disonouring an agreement as far as this countries laws are concerned. The only thing at all that Sony can do about it is cease trading in these countries (not going to happen), or hope that people are not aware of the extent of their rights.</p>

Lasai
09-29-2008, 07:10 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amnerys wrote:</cite><blockquote>Please be very careful with this topic.  While it's ok to talk about when the NDA might be lifted, don't post links to those outside sites and remember that the NDA <i>is</i> still in effect.  At this point I'm not sure when it will be lifted, but until it is we can't post any beta information here or host any discussions that break the NDA.Thanks!Amnerys</blockquote>While I respect SOE's right to an NDA I would say that the third party site in question is providing a far more in depth creative discussion of the new AAs than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums. Hopefully those discussing it won't be banned from beta in a fit of pique.....we know that SOE, while not condoning that site constantly cruise it.</blockquote>Discussions to what end?   Discussing Beta content that can be changed, removed, or implemented in a different manner?Discussions on leaked beta content are pointless, discussions on the Beta boards are not, as testers have access to the latest changes.  <span style="color: #ffcc00;">"Than would otherwise be possible within the beta forums"</span>  How so, its not impossible to discuss issues without profanity, without shouting down those not considered part of the kewl kids.. without casting comments about the parentage and IQ of developer staff or any player that doesn't go with the wisdom of thier so called betters?Furthermore, half the commentary there is by people who no longer play. Why should thier opinions as non consumers of the product hold any wieght at all, since they are basing thier commentary on speculation and not by actual testing.Biggest reason, to me, to have an NDA is to avoid the forum crapstorm of chicken little knee-jerking and uniformed debate.</blockquote><p>The reason there is a better conversation happenng on that site as opposed to he beta forums is the fact that there are more people participating in the conversation on that site that know what they are talking about than there are on the beta forum.</p><p>When a beta application/acceptance process is designed around the idea of a virtual que with the addition of allowing early entry to some whom are able to attend a gathering in a very specific part of the world (in a multi national game), then you should not expect much in terms of quality testing to be done. Add to that the fact that things are often so far broken for most of beta that there is no ability to test a lot of features, and you are left with no need to wonder at the release state of most SoE products.</p><p>I know for a fact that a lot of the conversation had on that site has been used to provide feedback to the developers, and have little doubt that developers will be reading that site directly.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: small;color: #ffcc00;">Basically, that site has more knowladge about the game than SoE and these forums do combined.</span></b></p></blockquote>Thier unswerving belief that they do is thier biggest problem.  /shrug.

Dasein
09-29-2008, 07:50 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>On the same account what the heck can another country do if the said company deleted the char? NOTHING AT ALL. They have ZERO control over the company considering they do not reside in said country. Now they could ban them from selling the game there etc etc but why would ANY country stop that or even waste time thinking about doing it over something so idiotic? While yes other countries might not take into consideration of EULA's in legal agreements there is also nothing they really could or would do if whoever the company is decides to say F U to the person and ban them or even delete their char. That is the point I was trying to make and that is pure FACT.</blockquote><p>SoE does not delete characters, they prevent access to accounts. </p><p>As I said, this is not about the country of the game developers, nor the location of the servers, this is simply a case of the EULA attempting to remove specific rights from people that these countries do not allow to be taken away, and upon attempting to do so, voids the contract in entirety that this attempt was made (the EULA in this case).</p><p>Since the player has purchased a subscription, SoE is bound to honour that, reguardless of which country they may be operating in. However, as others have pointed out, Sony corperate operates in many different countries around the world, and in any country in which they operate they are obliged to follow local laws. If they are found to be breaking the laws of a specific country they operate in, the people of that country have the right to do whatever their countries laws tell them they can, and if Sony is present, they are obliged to do whatever that countries laws tell them to do, or risk whatever punishment that countries laws deem required.</p><p>And yes, for people in these countries, since SoE operates in them and is obliged to follow their laws, there are things they can do, and as has been pointed out in this thread, SoE is aware of this, and it has been put to the test in the past.</p><p>One of these countries in particular has a very harsh punishment for any multi national company that dishonours agreements made with its citizens, and SoE would not want to face that punishment (yet is strangly light on punishment toward nationally owned firms that do the same). Deleting a character or removing access to an account that has been paid for is disonouring an agreement as far as this countries laws are concerned. The only thing at all that Sony can do about it is cease trading in these countries (not going to happen), or hope that people are not aware of the extent of their rights.</p></blockquote>Well, no. Those playing on US servers would be subject to US laws for purposes of interacting with those servers regardless of the location of the person playing the client. The applicability of the EULA under a given country's laws does not obviate SOE's ownership of it's servers and thus right to control access to those servers. At worst, SOE would be required to refund the balance of the subscription fee, but merely purchasing the software does not entitle one to unlimited access to SOE's servers.Further, for purposes of an actual lawsuit if damages result from a violation of the NDA, US law would have jurisdiction regardless of where the offender was located. In terms of jurisdiction, it's no different than if a foreign national broke into SOE's billing servers and stole a bunch of credit card numbers - in such a case, the suspect would be extradited to the US for trial, regardless of the laws of their home country (assuming there is an extradition treaty or other agreement allowing extradition).

bryldan
09-29-2008, 08:38 PM
<cite>interstellarmatter wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>How about discussions that can actually take place that there is no fear of being banned or having the topic deleted because developers only want whats good for there product... BTW i am not talking about cussing or anything of the like but usually anything critizing SOE on these forums gets discarded and you get a warning or a ban.</blockquote><p>This is almost funny.  There have been over the past 4 years, some unjustified bannings.  BUT..for the most part, most of the bans over the years deserved it.  There is big difference in constructive posting and posting like a complete jack [my cuss word for the day].  The threads that I've seen deleted were either repetitive or just plain stupid.  </p><p>You only see what you want to see...but I've never seen a non-CS, constructive, post deleted.  When I have, I pm'd another mod with my concerns and they either addresssed it or put the thread back.</p></blockquote>The thing you get over there is more of the reasoning rather than one sided BS like your butt kissing does. Here if you mention the reason WHY assassins are the most opd class it will get deleted. Just one example there and believe me there is a good reason why which i am sure you might be aware of. Heres another example. If you get wronged by a GM or dev and you voice your opinion or even mention it you will get banned. Is that fair that a person wants to tell others of his disatisfaction in the way he was treated? Trust me that happens more so than not.

bryldan
09-29-2008, 08:45 PM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>On the same account what the heck can another country do if the said company deleted the char? NOTHING AT ALL. They have ZERO control over the company considering they do not reside in said country. Now they could ban them from selling the game there etc etc but why would ANY country stop that or even waste time thinking about doing it over something so idiotic? While yes other countries might not take into consideration of EULA's in legal agreements there is also nothing they really could or would do if whoever the company is decides to say F U to the person and ban them or even delete their char. That is the point I was trying to make and that is pure FACT.</blockquote><p>SoE does not delete characters, they prevent access to accounts. </p><p>As I said, this is not about the country of the game developers, nor the location of the servers, this is simply a case of the EULA attempting to remove specific rights from people that these countries do not allow to be taken away, and upon attempting to do so, voids the contract in entirety that this attempt was made (the EULA in this case).</p><p>Since the player has purchased a subscription, SoE is bound to honour that, reguardless of which country they may be operating in. However, as others have pointed out, Sony corperate operates in many different countries around the world, and in any country in which they operate they are obliged to follow local laws. If they are found to be breaking the laws of a specific country they operate in, the people of that country have the right to do whatever their countries laws tell them they can, and if Sony is present, they are obliged to do whatever that countries laws tell them to do, or risk whatever punishment that countries laws deem required.</p><p>And yes, for people in these countries, since SoE operates in them and is obliged to follow their laws, there are things they can do, and as has been pointed out in this thread, SoE is aware of this, and it has been put to the test in the past.</p><p>One of these countries in particular has a very harsh punishment for any multi national company that dishonours agreements made with its citizens, and SoE would not want to face that punishment (yet is strangly light on punishment toward nationally owned firms that do the same). Deleting a character or removing access to an account that has been paid for is disonouring an agreement as far as this countries laws are concerned. The only thing at all that Sony can do about it is cease trading in these countries (not going to happen), or hope that people are not aware of the extent of their rights.</p></blockquote>Ya they can honor what the person has left of the subscription(that has been paid) but they sure do not have to take anymore money from them after that. But honestly I do not even know all the legalities of that. Even other countries have standards that would allow them to just outright terminate the person from coming back after said offense if they didnt have these kind of laws you would be living in some kind of lawless country in which case most of those kind of countries either A) do not have internet access or B) censor the hell out of it which case this kind of game would not make it thru.

Noaani
09-30-2008, 12:46 AM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ya they can honor what the person has left of the subscription(that has been paid) but they sure do not have to take anymore money from them after that. But honestly I do not even know all the legalities of that. Even other countries have standards that would allow them to just outright terminate the person from coming back after said offense if they didnt have these kind of laws you would be living in some kind of lawless country in which case most of those kind of countries either A) do not have internet access or B) censor the hell out of it which case this kind of game would not make it thru.</blockquote><p>I actually looked in to the idea of not accepting any further payments from troublesome customers, but only found 1 country of the three I looked into that provided any reason for SoE to have trouble doing so. Essentially this country made it hard to offer a service to one customer without offering it to anyone that wants to purchase that same service for the same price, without reasonble circumstances. The case law involved made it clear SoE would be able to have a case heard if they wanted to persue this, but the costs of doing so would be massive, and although the case would be heard, it would have been unlikely to go in SoEs favour.</p><p>And again, it is nothing to do with standards that is preventing this, it has to do with the rights the EULA has you sign away, and the fact that some countries will not allow their citizens to sign those rights away. This is a far cry from a lawless country, it just has different laws to the US, but generalization of such are amusing. No offense, but it shows ignorance toward the rest of the world, and lack of understanding of the fact that not every country is attempting to be a carbon copy of any other.</p>

Dasein
09-30-2008, 01:36 AM
<cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ya they can honor what the person has left of the subscription(that has been paid) but they sure do not have to take anymore money from them after that. But honestly I do not even know all the legalities of that. Even other countries have standards that would allow them to just outright terminate the person from coming back after said offense if they didnt have these kind of laws you would be living in some kind of lawless country in which case most of those kind of countries either A) do not have internet access or B) censor the hell out of it which case this kind of game would not make it thru.</blockquote><p>I actually looked in to the idea of not accepting any further payments from troublesome customers, but only found 1 country of the three I looked into that provided any reason for SoE to have trouble doing so. Essentially this country made it hard to offer a service to one customer without offering it to anyone that wants to purchase that same service for the same price, without reasonble circumstances. The case law involved made it clear SoE would be able to have a case heard if they wanted to persue this, but the costs of doing so would be massive, and although the case would be heard, it would have been unlikely to go in SoEs favour.</p><p>And again, it is nothing to do with standards that is preventing this, it has to do with the rights the EULA has you sign away, and the fact that some countries will not allow their citizens to sign those rights away. This is a far cry from a lawless country, it just has different laws to the US, but generalization of such are amusing. No offense, but it shows ignorance toward the rest of the world, and lack of understanding of the fact that not every country is attempting to be a carbon copy of any other.</p></blockquote>One is not entitled to connect to SOE's game servers without SOE granting a license. Now, if the laws of a particular country make the EULA invalid, it means a customer in that country cannot obtain a valid license to access SOE's servers (which are located in the US and subject to US law). Thus, in the abscence of a valid EULA, one has no right to access SOE game servers at all. Think of it this way - if a landlord offers to lease me an apartment, but the lease includes a provision that I waive the implied warranty of habitability, that clause of the lease would be invalid should it be contested in court, but that does not give me the right to move in to the apartment without signing the lease at all, or to assert that I can violate other provisions of the lease. At berst, if the EULA is invalid in a particular country, you may be able to get a refund for the purchase of the software.

Thunderthyze
09-30-2008, 05:44 AM
<cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The reason there is a better conversation happenng on that site as opposed to he beta forums is the fact that there are more people participating in the conversation on that site that know what they are talking about than there are on the beta forum.</p><p>When a beta application/acceptance process is designed around the idea of a virtual que with the addition of allowing early entry to some whom are able to attend a gathering in a very specific part of the world (in a multi national game), then you should not expect much in terms of quality testing to be done. Add to that the fact that things are often so far broken for most of beta that there is no ability to test a lot of features, and you are left with no need to wonder at the release state of most SoE products.</p><p>I know for a fact that a lot of the conversation had on that site has been used to provide feedback to the developers, and have little doubt that developers will be reading that site directly.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: small;color: #ffcc00;">Basically, that site has more knowladge about the game than SoE and these forums do combined.</span></b></p></blockquote>Thier unswerving belief that they do is thier biggest problem.  /shrug.</blockquote><p>/sigh</p><p>There is always this standoff between the two sites where this one views the other as a group of foul-mouthed "ubers" that only want to criticise, with this site being seen as populated by fanboi carebears. Being a regular contributor to both I can confirm that each group is adequately represented on both sites.</p><p>The problem SOE has is that being an "official" forum they are bound by the requirement to keep this site free of issues that might offend the young, including bad language, verbal bullying and other offensive behaviour. Unfortunately when hot topics get discussed it is understandable that passion can overflow and comments overstep the line of good taste. When it happens here posts and threads get heavilly moderated leading to yet more frustration.</p><p>The other site has always provided a forum whereby more "mature" ideas can be aired and SOE Devs have always been aware of these comments. The two sites complement each other in many ways and very often it is worth reading both just to get the balanced view. Don't believe that SOE aren't aware of what goes on at other sites. We as subscribers are entitled to voice our concerns in the same way that SOE are entitled to censor them here...the other site provides that platform, and it is a platform to which SOE is tuned in to.</p>

Odys
09-30-2008, 06:15 AM
<cite>Archangel wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proprietary-information/" target="_blank">Proprietary Information Law & Legal Definition</a></p><p>My "high horse" just kicked you in the face.</p><p>Of course it usually not too to make internet "cool kids" look stupid.</p></blockquote>Most of the laws just reflect the power of the social groups,  any citizen shoulf obey the natural laws as edicted in most religion fundamental books or the human right declaration. The rest is bullshi edicted to protect thieves that are ruling the house. I wonder how many fair and honest  americans lost the house the paid or years just fo feed the greed of some hapy few.Note also that a set of AAs trees is not really something i would consider as information i wonder why MMO game compagnies invented this NDA contract.Is it to create artificial buzz around their games and extensions?Is it to avoid harsh critics to be emited while the features are not yet finalized? Is it to prevent competitors to steal their ideas?I honestly believe that the 1 answer is the good one. From that it follows that information leaks are probably coming from SOE itself.It is a good trick to make some information secret in order to get people interested in it and then to reveal it using parallel channels. 

Thunderthyze
09-30-2008, 06:52 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>Note also that a set of AAs trees is not really something i would consider as information i wonder why MMO game compagnies invented this NDA contract.Is it to create artificial buzz around their games and extensions?Is it to avoid harsh critics to be emited while the features are not yet finalized? Is it to prevent competitors to steal their ideas?<span style="color: #ff0000;">I honestly believe that the 1 answer is the good one</span>. <span style="color: #ff9900;">From that it follows that information leaks are probably coming from SOE itself.</span>It is a good trick to make some information secret in order to get people interested in it and then to reveal it using parallel channels. </blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Err...I think you're wrong here.....more likely to be option 2.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Just stepped over the line into paranoia here methinks. The "leaks", such as they are, will be totally driven by beta players, NOT SOE.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">Of course it probably isn't doing any harm to the "buzz" in this particular instance.</span></p>

gi
09-30-2008, 07:17 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>/sigh <p>There is always this standoff between the two sites where this one views the other as a group of foul-mouthed "ubers" that only want to criticise, with this site being seen as populated by fanboi carebears. Being a regular contributor to both I can confirm that each group is adequately represented on both sites.</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><span style="color: #00ccff;">Well I am sure that in the beginning eq2flames was not as it has become, I am sure it was at some point full of lively debate and good ideas,  however the behaviour of a few minorities of that site in the last year have led the entire community tarred with the same brush.. Sad but this is how it works. If you can't keep your own house in order then you can't expect others to take you seriously. Well this is my opinion. I must be a fanboi as I agree with every SoE decision.. oh hang on.. no I don't ..</span></span></p><p>The problem SOE has is that being an "official" forum they are bound by the requirement to keep this site free of issues that might offend the young, including bad language, verbal bullying and other offensive behaviour. Unfortunately when hot topics get discussed it is understandable that passion can overflow and comments overstep the line of good taste. When it happens here posts and threads get heavilly moderated leading to yet more frustration.</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><span style="color: #00ccff;">Lively and positve debate can be undertaken on the official forums, if you need to resort to mudslinging and name calling & bullying in order to get your point across then I would suggest a reality check! This is most certainly not the way to affect positive change or create an atmosphere positive creative brainstorming.</span></span></p><p>The other site has always provided a forum whereby more "mature" ideas can be aired and SOE Devs have always been aware of these comments. The two sites complement each other in many ways and very often it is worth reading both just to get the balanced view. Don't believe that SOE aren't aware of what goes on at other sites. We as subscribers are entitled to voice our concerns in the same way that SOE are entitled to censor them here...the other site provides that platform, and it is a platform to which SOE is tuned in to.</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><span style="color: #00ccff;">Yes I agree with what your saying, there are always more than one viewpoint, and its good to get a balance of opinions. However as I stated earlier I think eq2flames have shot themselves in the foot some time ago, and this current activity by again a very small minority of there members again proves that some moderation is required on that site.. In my humble opinion I think that site has had its day of usefullness to the eq 2 community. The official forums are not perfect, perhaps sometimes mods are a little heavy handed. Thats not for me to decide they are just following the guildelines set down by SOE. Perhaps somewhere theres a forum that is somewhere in between.</span></span></p></blockquote>

callahan
09-30-2008, 07:31 AM
I've signed quite a few NDAs with game companies over the years, and majority of it is to protect the company's intellectual property rights.Leaking info is breaking your Agreement/Contract with Sony/SOE, but it's nothing compared to breaking law with corporate espionage (for profit).If it was leaked that TSO was a pile of poo, and really was, Sony/SOE wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.If it *wasn't* a pile of poo, then a Global Corporation would be gunning for damages and loss of earnings.If I was caught hacking into the Pentagon, I'm sure UK gov would be happy to give me a one way ticket on Guantanamo Airways.NDAs are broken everyday, and gives their Legal depts something to do!

Noaani
09-30-2008, 08:59 AM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>One is not entitled to connect to SOE's game servers without SOE granting a license. </blockquote><p>Correct, and under the laws of most countries it ends there.</p><p>However, there are countries in the world where the following statement will hold up in court.</p><p>"You are providing xxx person with a service at $xx. I also wish to purchase said service at said price, and if you have said service to offer, you must allow said service to be provided to me at the same price and under the same conditions it is to xxx person, or provide me with a legally binding document as to why you are unable to provide said service to me. If you fail to comply with this, your company is in serious violation of the laws of this country, a country in which you operate".</p><p>Now, for the vast amjority of countries with laws along these lines (more than you would believe), this is not an issue, they simply wave the EULA in your face, provide proof of you dishonouring it, and call it a day. however, in the countries where there are laws in place that make the EULA null and void, SoE then need to either come up with some other legally binding reason to not provide said service, provide the service to the customer, or face penalties.</p><p>As I have also said, I have only found 1 country with laws in placce that fit under both catagories, and in this country (it is fairly large), if a player were to take this to its fullest, it may prevent SoE from accepting any subscriptions from anyone from that countly, or allowing access to their servers to anyone from that country, unless they provide the service to all that want it in that country under the same terms. </p>

Noaani
09-30-2008, 09:01 AM
<cite>callahan44 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I've signed quite a few NDAs with game companies over the years, and majority of it is to protect the company's intellectual property rights.Leaking info is breaking your Agreement/Contract with Sony/SOE, but it's nothing compared to breaking law with corporate espionage (for profit).</blockquote><p>because copyright law is among the most standardised worldwide, making profit from information gained while a title is in beta, reguardless of an NDA, you will face serious reprocussions.</p><p>There is a massive difference between what is done for profit and info that is leaked onto a fan site of the product in question.</p>

Rijacki
09-30-2008, 11:49 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Noaani wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><b><span style="font-size: small;color: #ffcc00;">Basically, that site has more knowladge about the game than SoE and these forums do combined.</span></b></p></blockquote>Thier unswerving belief that they do is thier biggest problem.  /shrug.</blockquote><p> /sigh</p><p>There is always this standoff between the two sites where this one views the other as a group of foul-mouthed "ubers" that only want to criticise, with this site being seen as populated by fanboi carebears. Being a regular contributor to both I can confirm that each group is adequately represented on both sites.</p><p>The problem SOE has is that being an "official" forum they are bound by the requirement to keep this site free of issues that might offend the young, including bad language, verbal bullying and other offensive behaviour. Unfortunately when hot topics get discussed it is understandable that passion can overflow and comments overstep the line of good taste. When it happens here posts and threads get heavilly moderated leading to yet more frustration.</p><p>The other site has always provided a forum whereby more "mature" ideas can be aired and SOE Devs have always been aware of these comments. The two sites complement each other in many ways and very often it is worth reading both just to get the balanced view. Don't believe that SOE aren't aware of what goes on at other sites. We as subscribers are entitled to voice our concerns in the same way that SOE are entitled to censor them here...the other site provides that platform, and it is a platform to which SOE is tuned in to.</p></blockquote>There is absolutely nothing "mature" about descending into cuss words, insults, verbal bullying and other offensive behaviour.  In fact, it shows a lot more maturity to discuss things reasonably and rationally while passionate about a subject and NOT use any cuss words, insults, verbal bullying, offensive behaviour, etc.  SOE is asking that players be mature when they discuss issues here.The immaturity of that other site often gets in the way of any intelligent conversation that might take place.As for them being the be-all and end-all of knowledge about EQ2.  They aren't.  There are even several of the class "leaders" there who also post here, does that make them idiots because the can post without profanity? There are even those from that site who are in the beta (someone had to break the NDA to post there), are all those who are in beta, uphold the NDA, but also post there idiots and know nothing about their class?You descended into immature insults by wanting to defend breaking the NDA (which each participant in beta knowingly accepts before being granted the beta key and information on how to download the beta patcher). It has nothing to do with anyone being superior here or there and just a desire to justify the circumvention an agreement between the player and SOE.You also have zero evidence any of the devs still frequent that site. Why would they want to put up with a barrage of insults and verbal bullying in order to extract a few potential nuggets of information which those who frequent both sites provide here (where they don't need to put up with being bashed personally and professionally every other post)?

Lethe5683
09-30-2008, 01:11 PM
I don't read these forums for info on class mechanics.  I just come here for dev feedback and update/testing notes, etc.Also what I said was not 80% wrong, most people who activly post on flames fit those stereotypes.

Kiara
09-30-2008, 01:55 PM
This thread has stayed open on the condition that no information covered by the NDA be discussed.Unfortunately it has now devolved into an "us vs. them" bickering match regarding the official forums and EQ2Flames.Oh yeah, I said it.  It isn't a bad word, and it doesn't get censored here.  The only thing I have ever asked anyone is not to link to it because the language doesn't fall under the PG-13 rating that we strive for here.That having been said, just as with other games, <i><u><b>we don't bash sites</b></u></i>.  Theirs or ours.Get the discussion back on track.  Talk about the merits of an NDA all you wish.Please remember that there are real people on the other end of the internet and post respectfully.Thank you.

Lasai
09-30-2008, 04:00 PM
<cite>Kiara wrote:</cite><blockquote>This thread has stayed open on the condition that no information covered by the NDA be discussed.Unfortunately it has now devolved into an "us vs. them" bickering match regarding the official forums and EQ2Flames.Oh yeah, I said it.  It isn't a bad word, and it doesn't get censored here.  The only thing I have ever asked anyone is not to link to it because the language doesn't fall under the PG-13 rating that we strive for here.That having been said, just as with other games, <i><u><b>we don't bash sites</b></u></i>.  Theirs or ours.Get the discussion back on track.  Talk about the merits of an NDA all you wish.Please remember that there are real people on the other end of the internet and post respectfully.Thank you.</blockquote>I admire your restraint.  I would not be so charitable, given the love and respect shown to Mods and SOE employees in general over there./shrug.

Mr. Dawki
09-30-2008, 06:04 PM
<p>The problem I have with SOE is that it treats beta like a gift to the players when in fact it is the other way around. In a gigantic what if scenario. What if no one agreed to the NDA? There is now possible way the small handfull of devs could posibly test all the content. The expansion would either never release on time or, as many of the expansions before, it would come out riddled with holes and bugs. </p><p>Beta is not a favor to your community. It is the exact opposite. It is the dev team requesting you help them conduct mass testing all in the name of creating a better game. </p><p>The NDA is an absolutly horrid idea. As seen with this expansion the NDA was not upheld and infact was completly disregarded and put down almost as soon as beta invites started. No one is going to steal content out of this game, if anything it would be vise versa with what I have seen in the past. </p>

Dasein
09-30-2008, 06:27 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>The problem I have with SOE is that it treats beta like a gift to the players when in fact it is the other way around. In a gigantic what if scenario. What if no one agreed to the NDA? There is now possible way the small handfull of devs could posibly test all the content. The expansion would either never release on time or, as many of the expansions before, it would come out riddled with holes and bugs. </p><p>Beta is not a favor to your community. It is the exact opposite. It is the dev team requesting you help them conduct mass testing all in the name of creating a better game. </p><p>The NDA is an absolutly horrid idea. As seen with this expansion the NDA was not upheld and infact was completly disregarded and put down almost as soon as beta invites started. No one is going to steal content out of this game, if anything it would be vise versa with what I have seen in the past. </p></blockquote>It's not just SOE that does this. Rather, beta testing as a 'gift' is an issue that permeates the entire game industry. SOE is not an exception in this regard, but is not doing anything to change the trend, either.

Kiara
09-30-2008, 06:28 PM
Guys...I really need you all to stay in the general vincinity of the topic - Which has become NDA's and the relative merits or detriments of NDA's.Cut it out with the site vs. site talk.  Whatever differences of opinion exist, I will not have bashing of either EQ2 Flames or the official forums here.I will not have people called out here for information revealed about them on Flames, players, devs, site owners or anything else.Please do not disrespect the community here, or there, on these forums.Thank you!

gi
10-01-2008, 05:50 AM
In this instance I feel NDA's are there to help prevent someone from a rival company stealing there ideas and putting it in there own game that may be released in competition with. I don't think of it as either a gift or a right. It is just part of the testing process. If you want to take part in beta that has an NDA you either choose to sign it or not. You are not forced to, but you must understand that it is a legally binding contract. In other words don't go blabbing about it! Or publishing the details .. Doing this will only serve to hamper future beta testing, as testers will most likely have to be more closely vetted. In other words NDA breakers are only hurting the community they claim to care about. There are places set aside for beta testers to discuss the merits of the game under testing, and provide valuable feedback. Those who are not on the beta can't make as informed decisions on what they may heard from an nda breaker, as they have not seen or played the game(exp) so would not be able to put the information into context with the rest of the game(exp). In other words either join beta, contribute within the rules set out, and provide valuable feedback that may help shape how the game(exp) evolves. Or wait till the game(exp) is released and then whine about why they did x or y ! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Overall, I see it a lot like voting.. If you don't vote then you can't really complain about the party who gets voted in. Think I rambled on a bit there.. Hope there were some nuggets of interesting thoughts in there somewhere. take care!

Dasein
10-01-2008, 10:57 AM
There's already existing IP laws that would prevent a rival company from directly using code, characters, or other copyrighted or trademarked material. General ideas and design concepts, plots, mechanics and the like are probably not particularly original, but are also highly specific to the game. For example, the AA trees in TSO are not a particularly new idea in game design - plenty of games have some sort of AA-like development system, and it's no secret EQ2 has used on for a few years now. The specifics of each AA tree are both fairly generic (more HP, more damage, etc.) and at the same time, very specific to the game. There's nothing a rival developer would get from knowing these AAs well in advance. What an NDA does allow is for the publisher to control the flow of information about the product. They can release information to affiliates, giving them exclusive access to screen-shots, lore, or mechanics changes. An NDA also prevent people from writing reviews and influencing public opinion about a product still in testing phases, and thus subject to change. 

Thunndar316
10-01-2008, 11:21 AM
I dug and yeah I saw a pic for Swashies.  About what I expected.  Just another line of barely noticeable improvements.  Nothing powerful as usual.

Dasein
10-01-2008, 11:26 AM
<cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dug and yeah I saw a pic for Swashies.  About what I expected.  Just another line of barely noticeable improvements.  Nothing powerful as usual.</blockquote>Why should they be powerful? Without a level cap increase, there's no point in making this expansion trivialize the RoK content, which is also T8. Thus, they cannot add much that will greatly increase the power level of characters.

Thunndar316
10-01-2008, 11:30 AM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dug and yeah I saw a pic for Swashies.  About what I expected.  Just another line of barely noticeable improvements.  Nothing powerful as usual.</blockquote>Why should they be powerful? Without a level cap increase, there's no point in making this expansion trivialize the RoK content, which is also T8. Thus, they cannot add much that will greatly increase the power level of characters.</blockquote>Not game breaking powerful but give me something cool.  Adding 3 seconds to a combat art isn't exactly my idea of improvement.  How about some new combat art lines?  Something.

gi
10-01-2008, 11:43 AM
<cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dug and yeah I saw a pic for Swashies.  About what I expected.  Just another line of barely noticeable improvements.  Nothing powerful as usual.</blockquote>Why should they be powerful? Without a level cap increase, there's no point in making this expansion trivialize the RoK content, which is also T8. Thus, they cannot add much that will greatly increase the power level of characters.</blockquote>Not game breaking powerful but give me something cool.  Adding 3 seconds to a combat art isn't exactly my idea of improvement.  How about some new combat art lines?  Something.</blockquote>I believe Kiara has asked a couple of times now to keep this thread to the topic of nda's pros and cons, and not to discuss info like this. :/

Vain
10-01-2008, 11:51 AM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote>Why should they be powerful? Without a level cap increase, there's no point in making this expansion trivialize the RoK content, which is also T8. Thus, they cannot add much that will greatly increase the power level of characters.</blockquote><p>Well, I'm assuming that you didn't see the assassin, shadowknight or dirge AA lines. The glaring inconsistencies are hard to miss.</p><p>Anyway, NDA's are very nebulous things that rarely work well, if at all. Top that off with the fact that one can "anonymously" post NDA-protected material just about anywhere on the interwebZ and it becomes almost impossible to police individual beta-testers. Sure the information can be deleted, but you can't expunge it from someone's memory or their hard drive.</p>

Thunndar316
10-01-2008, 11:58 AM
<cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Thunndar316 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I dug and yeah I saw a pic for Swashies.  About what I expected.  Just another line of barely noticeable improvements.  Nothing powerful as usual.</blockquote>Why should they be powerful? Without a level cap increase, there's no point in making this expansion trivialize the RoK content, which is also T8. Thus, they cannot add much that will greatly increase the power level of characters.</blockquote>Not game breaking powerful but give me something cool.  Adding 3 seconds to a combat art isn't exactly my idea of improvement.  How about some new combat art lines?  Something.</blockquote>I believe has asked a couple of times now to keep this thread to the topic of nda's pros and cons, and not to discuss info like this. :/</blockquote>Well I never agreed to any NDA so I will say what I want.  If they want to censor me than so be it.  I'm not revealing anything.

DragonMaster2385
10-01-2008, 11:59 AM
Thank you for stepping in and controlling the site vs site bickering; it's not necessary. The NDA serves several purposes, only one of them is to prevent content from being stolen from other game designers, but I believe that is more useful when a game is years away from release, not months. For this purpose, the NDA serves two major functions that I see: 1) It allows the devs to change things without the entire community knowing about it and complaining about a "nerf" that never went live in the first place. 2) It prevents fansites, magazines, etc from reviewing content that is bugged. If everyone could write a complete review far before release, they would include all kinds of information about bugs that are in the game that will never go live, thus deterring people from buying it. I remember reading a post on EQ2Flames several months ago and someone blatantly said that when SOE started doing beta invites, they were going to break the NDA on the first day, maybe just out of spite, who knows. SOE should have done a little more preventative damage control and should have never given invites to specific members on that forum. And to say that the new AAs are not powerful is crazy. Some of that stuff I expect to completely nerfed before launch, as it is nuts how altering it can be to raids and such.

Thunndar316
10-01-2008, 12:09 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Thank you for stepping in and controlling the site vs site bickering; it's not necessary.The NDA serves several purposes, only one of them is to prevent content from being stolen from other game designers, but I believe that is more useful when a game is years away from release, not months. For this purpose, the NDA serves two major functions that I see:1) It allows the devs to change things without the entire community knowing about it and complaining about a "nerf" that never went live in the first place.2) It prevents fansites, magazines, etc from reviewing content that is bugged. If everyone could write a complete review far before release, they would include all kinds of information about bugs that are in the game that will never go live, thus deterring people from buying it.I remember reading a post on EQ2Flames several months ago and someone blatantly said that when SOE started doing beta invites, they were going to break the NDA on the first day, maybe just out of spite, who knows. SOE should have done a little more preventative damage control and should have never given invites to specific members on that forum.<b>And to say that the new AAs are not powerful is crazy</b>. Some of that stuff I expect to completely nerfed before launch, as it is nuts how altering it can be to raids and such.</p></blockquote>I saw the list for my class and their weak.  I'm not looking at every class.

bryldan
10-01-2008, 12:12 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thank you for stepping in and controlling the site vs site bickering; it's not necessary. The NDA serves several purposes, only one of them is to prevent content from being stolen from other game designers, but I believe that is more useful when a game is years away from release, not months. For this purpose, the NDA serves two major functions that I see: 1) It allows the devs to change things without the entire community knowing about it and complaining about a "nerf" that never went live in the first place. 2) It prevents fansites, magazines, etc from reviewing content that is bugged. If everyone could write a complete review far before release, they would include all kinds of information about bugs that are in the game that will never go live, thus deterring people from buying it. I remember reading a post on EQ2Flames several months ago and someone blatantly said that when SOE started doing beta invites, they were going to break the NDA on the first day, maybe just out of spite, who knows. SOE should have done a little more preventative damage control and should have never given invites to specific members on that forum.<span style="color: #ff0000;"> And to say that the new AAs are not powerful is crazy. Some of that stuff I expect to completely nerfed before launch, as it is nuts how altering it can be to raids and such.</span></blockquote>As the game stands NOW but if you saw that part then you had to see the other part also. That is all I will comment on that because that is drawing a fine line also.

Vain
10-01-2008, 12:59 PM
<p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in this day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p><p>I may have missed this, but what consequences are there for individuals who breach the beta NDA?</p>

Soulforged_Unre
10-01-2008, 01:07 PM
<cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.

Endorplasmic
10-01-2008, 01:15 PM
This is why we can't have nice things <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Also posting in a thread with more "'s then I ever thought "possible"!edit: I'm assuming it's not opened yet because they are still changing things daily (or close to that) and if you have 5 people say "well hey there, this isn't right" or "yup, that fix works out" is monumentally better than having 50 people that rise up and get angry, don't provide constructive feedback, etc.

Rahatmattata
10-01-2008, 01:23 PM
If they lifted the NDA now the forums would explode with discussion about things that may very well already be changed by the time the thread was even created.

Dasein
10-01-2008, 01:29 PM
<cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>I think this is the way to go. Early testing would be done with a smaller group of trusted testers, who would be under an NDA, but the open beta would be just that.

Dasein
10-01-2008, 01:29 PM
<cite>Rahatmattata wrote:</cite><blockquote>If they lifted the NDA now the forums would explode with discussion about things that may very well already be changed by the time the thread was even created.</blockquote>That can be handled with proper moderation.

DragonMaster2385
10-01-2008, 01:44 PM
I agree, WoW's approach was successful, but you have to take into consideration that we just heard the official name of the expansion a few weeks ago, so they weren't doing an Alpha that was open for public application. It was a marketing strat to keep all information under wraps until right before launch, thus eliminating testing time for current players. However, maybe they did use a testing company and we just don't know about it. If they didn't, then the expansion very well may be launched with more bugs than normal and the company will decide if the strat paid off or not.

Iseabeil
10-01-2008, 02:22 PM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>I think this is the way to go. Early testing would be done with a smaller group of trusted testers, who would be under an NDA, but the open beta would be just that. </blockquote>Well, I dont see what the issue is then... By definition, TSO is still in closed beta, not open beta. Open beta is.. well.. 'open' with most if not all wanting to participate in it bein able to be there. Closed beta is for 'select individuals', wich Id say is where TOS is at its current. Remove the NDA when it goes into open beta (ie standard practise in the genre).

Vain
10-01-2008, 02:54 PM
<p>Don't they have FanFaire attendees and other random people in beta currently? It may be termed "closed", but it certainly isn't. I mean, you could see the leak coming from a mile away on Flames. Someone alluding to beta issues time and time again, only to be egged on to have the info posted. So as to not suffer any consequences, an anonymous poster suddenly appears with lovely screenshots for all to ogle.</p><p>My point is that the "random" beta testers have no real accountability. They can flout the T&C's of any NDA behind the anonymity of the internet and not fear any sort of reprisal. So, take the randomness out, add in accountability and the problems are mostly solved. </p>

bryldan
10-01-2008, 03:41 PM
<cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions

Dasein
10-01-2008, 04:17 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions</blockquote>WoW has more than its share of bugs.

bryldan
10-01-2008, 04:34 PM
<cite>Dasein wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions</blockquote>WoW has more than its share of bugs.</blockquote>O i know all games have its shares of bugs

DragonMaster2385
10-01-2008, 04:37 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions</blockquote>Lol, WoW is not without its bugs, so let's not pretend that the content is bug free.  Also, you need to take into serious consideration that WoW is releasing its second expansion and EQ2 is releasing its fifth and they have both been on the market for the same amount of time.  While it may seem like Blizzard has better practices, those poor WoW players go two years without new content when we get expansions every year.  And not to mention that WoW's first expansion was very disapointing in terms of content and I have a feeling that this one will be no different.

Aurumn
10-01-2008, 04:42 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions</blockquote><p>What one person may see as a minor tweak another will think is a drastic nerf. Keeping things under wraps as long as possible reduces the knee-jerk reactions to a minimum. An NDA allows the developers the freedom to react to a manageable amount of chatter rather than having to sift through 20 pages of rants, speculations and outright misunderstandings to get to the root of the matter and find some constructive information. </p><p>Don't believe me? Think about appearance slots... how many pages did that thread get to over an argument on who should be able to equip what armor types in appearance slots? That didn't even really affect actual gameplay and it was a big to-do!  Plenty of folks clamor for tanks to be fixed for example. I'm sure if the devs tip things from one tank to another the "nerfed" tank will get upset, the favored tank will be happy (but want more) and the tanks left out will cry foul. Rinse and repeat of every possible iteration of class, subclass, whatever. A smaller more interactive & constructive group, imo, would serve the process better, at least until you're pretty much done with everything but fine tuning. Once the forseeable wrinkles are ironed out they could lift the NDA and let the masses give it a trial by fire before release. </p><p>Bottom line is it's SOE's product. They can protect it in any way they see fit. If you want to better things, roll a toon on test and sign up for betas when they are available to you. Put forth some effort to see to it that content gets thorough testing. Finally, if you "sign" an agreement to keep your mouth shut about something, you darned well should keep your word. It's poor form to go breaking legal agreements and taking others (websites allowing you to post it) down with you. If you can't bear to abide by the agreement, don't sign it and don't participate. Simple.</p>

bryldan
10-01-2008, 05:26 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>With the expansion coming out in a month and a half there really shouldnt be many DRASTIC changes to what they implemented so far. At this stage it should just be fixing BUGS but unfortunatly unlike WoW beta is for changes and live is for fixing bugs for this game and its expansions</blockquote><p>What one person may see as a minor tweak another will think is a drastic nerf. Keeping things under wraps as long as possible reduces the knee-jerk reactions to a minimum. An NDA allows the developers the freedom to react to a manageable amount of chatter rather than having to sift through 20 pages of rants, speculations and outright misunderstandings to get to the root of the matter and find some constructive information. </p><p>Don't believe me? Think about appearance slots... how many pages did that thread get to over an argument on who should be able to equip what armor types in appearance slots? That didn't even really affect actual gameplay and it was a big to-do!  Plenty of folks clamor for tanks to be fixed for example. I'm sure if the devs tip things from one tank to another the "nerfed" tank will get upset, the favored tank will be happy (but want more) and the tanks left out will cry foul. Rinse and repeat of every possible iteration of class, subclass, whatever. A smaller more interactive & constructive group, imo, would serve the process better, at least until you're pretty much done with everything but fine tuning. Once the forseeable wrinkles are ironed out they could lift the NDA and let the masses give it a trial by fire before release. </p><p>Bottom line is it's SOE's product. They can protect it in any way they see fit. If you want to better things, roll a toon on test and sign up for betas when they are available to you. Put forth some effort to see to it that content gets thorough testing. Finally, if you "sign" an agreement to keep your mouth shut about something, you darned well should keep your word. It's poor form to go breaking legal agreements and taking others (websites allowing you to post it) down with you. If you can't bear to abide by the agreement, don't sign it and don't participate. Simple.</p></blockquote>Well looking over what was leaked i would say there needs to be ALOT of tweaks some not small but I am sure one of them wont get done due to mitigating circumstances (all i will say on that subject). Those same knee jerk reactions could resolve some of the problems that they will undoubtedly have when it goes live. If we as players could discuss what is in beta maybe instead of getting a pile of dog poo we would that somewhat changes within the first month of release we could get something better. While not everyone will agree with everything that is done it would be worse to let it go live then having to change it later on. By the time those ppl get a trial by fire as you put it it is too far in the process to make any critical changes. Lets just say they give class opd class ability X and ability X is way way opd yet it goes live anyways as is and they nerf the crap out of ability X those players feel slighted and nerfed and complain. Yet if there was a discussion of this prior to release maybe something would have been done about ability X instead of making it live affecting gameplay.As for your last part ya ppl should keep there mouths closed if they sign a agreement but thats water under the bridge there is ZERO you nor I can do about that nor will we ever be able to do anything about it.

Killerbee3000
10-01-2008, 05:27 PM
<cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>The biggest problem I see is soe calling it a open beta, you have to apply, they have to invite, the nda is very tight (go read it, its at the sign up link, you are not even allowed to say an nda exists hehe), there really isnt any open beta.

Kordran
10-01-2008, 05:30 PM
<cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yet if there was a discussion of this prior to release maybe something would have been done about ability X instead of making it live affecting gameplay.</blockquote>That would assume that players are capable of rational discussions of gameplay mechanics, which is overly optimistic.

bryldan
10-01-2008, 05:39 PM
<cite>Kordran wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>bryldan wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yet if there was a discussion of this prior to release maybe something would have been done about ability X instead of making it live affecting gameplay.</blockquote>That would assume that players are capable of rational discussions of gameplay mechanics, which is overly optimistic.</blockquote>Some are and some are not that is why it would be up the developers to decide on what to do with the info that they would gather from such discussions just the way they do after the stuff goes live.

Rijacki
10-01-2008, 06:04 PM
<cite>Killerbee3000 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>The biggest problem I see is soe calling it a open beta, you have to apply, they have to invite, the nda is very tight (go read it, its at the sign up link, you are not even allowed to say an nda exists hehe), there really isnt any open beta.</blockquote>Is it players or SOE officially who is calling it an "open" beta?The Test and TestCopy servers are prime examples of an open beta for EQ2.The current expansion beta is open for player submitted applications but is not an "open" (no NDA) beta.

Kiara
10-01-2008, 07:47 PM
Last call guys...Lay off the personal attacks and bickering, please.

Wauke
10-01-2008, 07:57 PM
What's wrong with saying I'm posting in an epic thread?

Loendar
10-01-2008, 08:33 PM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Killerbee3000 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>The biggest problem I see is soe calling it a open beta, you have to apply, they have to invite, the nda is very tight (go read it, its at the sign up link, you are not even allowed to say an nda exists hehe), there really isnt any open beta.</blockquote>Is it players or SOE officially who is calling it an "open" beta?The Test and TestCopy servers are prime examples of an open beta for EQ2.The current expansion beta is open for player submitted applications but is not an "open" (no NDA) beta.</blockquote>I think that the confusion is due to this thread: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=430132" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Beta Anyone?</a>In Kiara's initial posting she says (emphasis mine):Kiara wrote:<p> The day we've all been waiting for is finally here!</p><p> <b>Open beta</b> registration will start on Friday, September 19th, 2008.</p><p> Stay tuned for the link and more information. Same ogre time, same ogre channel. </p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, what I suspect she MEANT to say was that the ability to register for beta was opening on the 19th.  Perhaps not understanding what people would read into the phrase of 'Open beta'.  Having been in tons of beta tests over the years I knew the difference between an alpha, closed beta and true open beta.  I knew that SOE has rarely (if ever) done a true 'open beta'.So - there we have it - the source of the confusion.  It has since been clarified numerous times by numerous people (players and Devs alike) and people continue to cling to the poor choice of phrasing.

Rijacki
10-01-2008, 09:43 PM
<cite>Loendar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Killerbee3000 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>The biggest problem I see is soe calling it a open beta, you have to apply, they have to invite, the nda is very tight (go read it, its at the sign up link, you are not even allowed to say an nda exists hehe), there really isnt any open beta.</blockquote>Is it players or SOE officially who is calling it an "open" beta?The Test and TestCopy servers are prime examples of an open beta for EQ2.The current expansion beta is open for player submitted applications but is not an "open" (no NDA) beta.</blockquote>I think that the confusion is due to this thread: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=430132" target="_blank">Beta Anyone?</a>In Kiara's initial posting she says (emphasis mine):Kiara wrote:<p> The day we've all been waiting for is finally here!</p><p> <b>Open beta</b> registration will start on Friday, September 19th, 2008.</p><p> Stay tuned for the link and more information. Same ogre time, same ogre channel. </p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, what I suspect she MEANT to say was that the ability to register for beta was opening on the 19th.  Perhaps not understanding what people would read into the phrase of 'Open beta'.  Having been in tons of beta tests over the years I knew the difference between an alpha, closed beta and true open beta.  I knew that SOE has rarely (if ever) done a true 'open beta'.So - there we have it - the source of the confusion.  It has since been clarified numerous times by numerous people (players and Devs alike) and people continue to cling to the poor choice of phrasing.</blockquote>Which is why I said "SOE officially" and didn't say "any representative call it".It was the Opening of Beta applications, yes. But since it requires an NDA, it's still closed and they're still "selecting" players to participate.For DoF, KoS, and EoF, the truly open beta, anyone was free to download the client and log in, was for about a week or maybe two before launch when the did load testing.  RoK's open beta was kebotched by the San Diego fires putting the dev team behind schedule.

Kendricke
10-01-2008, 11:13 PM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which is why I said "SOE officially" and didn't say "any representative call it".</blockquote><p>I don't know.  I hear what you're saying, but I'd personally consider any statement from a Community Manager to be pretty "official".  Seriously, I don't count a Community Manager as just "any representative".   <i>"Don't say anything that you don't want printed on the cover of PC Gamer, with your name, EverQuest II, and SOE associated with it." - Scott Hartsman,  EQ2 Community Guidelines, 2004</i></p><p>I guess I can see where there might be confusion about it being an official statement, and how someone might see it as an open beta because of that.</p>

greenmantle
10-01-2008, 11:31 PM
<cite>Killerbee3000 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Vain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Stay on target.... stay on target....</p><p>What alternatives, if any, are there to NDA-controlled beta-testing? Do/can you handpick testers or use some sort of external testing team (I'm assuming that, in thgis day and age, testing services are offered for a fee)? Do you have testers sign something that carries more weight (and thus more tangible legal ramifications) than an NDA?</p></blockquote>I really like what WoW did with WoTLK. NDA was in effect for the alpha, but there wasn't any NDA involved in beta. I still don't see why we need an NDA on *open* beta testing.</blockquote>The biggest problem I see is soe calling it a open beta, you have to apply, they have to invite, the nda is very tight (go read it, its at the sign up link, <b>you are not even allowed to say an nda exists</b> hehe), there really isnt any open beta.</blockquote>Thats the bit that struck me about this whole thread not that i am implying there may or may not be a NDA <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Soulforged_Unre
10-02-2008, 12:55 AM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><cite></cite><blockquote>Which is why I said "SOE officially" and didn't say "any representative call it".</blockquote>So what you're saying is basically...anyone short of Smedley doesn't count as "SOE officially"?Please be serious...Community Manager is soe's official statement.What always gets me is that everyone knows that there was always an NDA on new expansions, at least for a while. And (I was told) that you couldn't even say you were in beta, yet on the forums people in beta got a special forum rank..

troodon
10-02-2008, 01:34 AM
I think when she said "Open beta registration will start..." she meant <u>beta</u> <u>registration</u> would be <u>open</u>, she was not referring to <u>registration</u> for an <u>open beta</u>.Edit: Ok, this just struck me.  Stare at the word 'open'.  It is an incredibly strange-looking word.

Kiara
10-02-2008, 01:35 AM
<cite>Soulforged_Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite> yet on the forums people in beta got a special forum rank..</blockquote>That was my fault for placement on the list <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

Lasai
10-02-2008, 01:41 AM
Open Beta, Closed Beta, Plaid Beta, Secret Gnome Tossing festival Beta.... who cares what it is called. Bottom line... it has an NDA, people agreed to the NDA, end of story.  Any silly assumption that "Open Beta" meant NO NDA should have been cleared up just by the simple fact you HAD to sign one.  geeeeez.Arguing meaningless symantics is a waste of bandwidth.Splitting hairs over terminology does not excuse breaking an agreement no one forced anyone to accept.Good God people.  Lets all define "it"

Rijacki
10-02-2008, 02:30 AM
<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which is why I said "SOE officially" and didn't say "any representative call it".</blockquote><p>I don't know.  I hear what you're saying, but I'd personally consider any statement from a Community Manager to be pretty "official".  Seriously, I don't count a Community Manager as just "any representative".   <i>"Don't say anything that you don't want printed on the cover of PC Gamer, with your name, EverQuest II, and SOE associated with it." - Scott Hartsman,  EQ2 Community Guidelines, 2004</i></p><p>I guess I can see where there might be confusion about it being an official statement, and how someone might see it as an open beta because of that.</p></blockquote>And the various several times that same community manager stated she mispoke mean nothing at all, too?  Okay.  right.

Spyderbite
10-02-2008, 03:21 AM
I can solve this argument easily.Historically.. an <b>Open Beta</b> means anyone can apply, <b>but</b> may not be choosen to participate.A <b>Public Beta</b>.. is one that <b>everyone</b> can log in to.Those are the technical terms used in the game development community and have been since before this "Interwebs" was even available to most of you. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Natthan
10-02-2008, 05:16 AM
Though I understand why an NDA is placed, I don't get the reasoning of people who say that discussion of what was released is not relevant because its subject to change. The same could be said of anything on live servers, nothing is ever final in an online game, and they reserve the right to change that. Normally the choice to change something is due to player feedback in one way or another. So discussing the flaws of what was already leaked will give the devs a good understanding of what the players want out of this and whats wrong or flawed w/ the content. I don't see how its negative to discuss what someone already leaked though it may already be outdated, it will give a better sample size of what the players want, I know I will never get in a beta w/ the warnings/bans against my account, I don't feel I should be ignored of what I think my class should get out of this expansions AA's specifially...

Illine
10-02-2008, 05:57 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote>Though I understand why an NDA is placed, I don't get the reasoning of people who say that discussion of what was released is not relevant because its subject to change. The same could be said of anything on live servers, nothing is ever final in an online game, and they reserve the right to change that. Normally the choice to change something is due to player feedback in one way or another. So discussing the flaws of what was already leaked will give the devs a good understanding of what the players want out of this and whats wrong or flawed w/ the content. I don't see how its negative to discuss what someone already leaked though it may already be outdated, it will give a better sample size of what the players want, I know I will never get in a beta w/ the warnings/bans against my account, I don't feel I should be ignored of what I think my class should get out of this expansions AA's specifially...</blockquote><p>well the players who should discuss about it and give feedbacks are the one playing beta. by reading stuff you can have an idea but you don't always see if it's overpowered, useless or crappy.</p><p>like for any game or expansions, you will give things to ;otivate people to buy it but not everything otherwise there's no more surprises. And knowing this on paper might disapoint you while it's great on beta. and was has leaked might change so no point of discussing it unless you see it evolving.</p><p>or talk about it elsewhere hopping SOE will go and look and the feedbacks.</p>

gi
10-02-2008, 06:07 AM
<cite>Lasai wrote:</cite><blockquote>Open Beta, Closed Beta, Plaid Beta, Secret Gnome Tossing festival Beta.... who cares what it is called. Bottom line... it has an NDA, people agreed to the NDA, end of story.  Any silly assumption that "Open Beta" meant NO NDA should have been cleared up just by the simple fact you HAD to sign one.  geeeeez.Arguing meaningless symantics is a waste of bandwidth.Splitting hairs over terminology does not excuse breaking an agreement no one forced anyone to accept.Good God people.  Lets all define "it" </blockquote><p><img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>Exactly, it doesn't matter what the wording was, theres an NDA to sign. You sign it, you agree to the terms regardless of what the beta was called.  </p><p>You want to help iron out bugs and <u>perhaps</u> influence the outcome of the expansion. Then Sign up for beta and get testing and post your feedback in the proper official SoE place. Simple as..  Break the NDA.. face the consequences.</p>

Kendricke
10-02-2008, 10:28 AM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Which is why I said "SOE officially" and didn't say "any representative call it".</blockquote><p>I don't know.  I hear what you're saying, but I'd personally consider any statement from a Community Manager to be pretty "official".  Seriously, I don't count a Community Manager as just "any representative".   <i>"Don't say anything that you don't want printed on the cover of PC Gamer, with your name, EverQuest II, and SOE associated with it." - Scott Hartsman,  EQ2 Community Guidelines, 2004</i></p><p>I guess I can see where there might be confusion about it being an official statement, and how someone might see it as an open beta because of that.</p></blockquote>And the various several times that same community manager stated she mispoke mean nothing at all, too?  Okay.  right.</blockquote><p>Sure that matters...if players came back to read the corrections after the fact.  How often do you think that happens?  More importantly, how often do you think it doesn't happen?</p><p>We can't "unsay" something - especially online.  Moorgard used to discuss how nothing posted on the internet ever goes away, so you have to be careful to make sure you don't post it in the first place.  Most players aren't going to take the time to find your corrections, anyway.  They'll only remember what you said in the first place.  </p><p>Sure, Kiara can correct herself or apologize after the fact, but unless someone comes BACK to the forums and sees the new posts, they may as well never have occured for those individuals.  That's sort of the point of a word like "confusion".  If what she said is not what was fact, that's going to lead to muddied waters.  You can't really expect that everyone who heard the first statement will come back to hear the second, can you?  I certainly can't...because that implies that most players are perfectly aware of everything going on within the forums.  Obviously, they're not.</p><p>Does this mean the NDA is likewise irrelevant?  No, not at all.  However, it doesn't mean there won't be some confusion over it.  All I'm saying here is I can see where some of that confusion might stem from.  Are you saying here that you can't?</p>

Rijacki
10-02-2008, 11:39 AM
<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Does this mean the NDA is likewise irrelevant?  No, not at all.  However, it doesn't mean there won't be some confusion over it.  All I'm saying here is I can see where some of that confusion might stem from.  Are you saying here that you can't?</blockquote>For those who haven't been sent an NDA to digitally agree to before they're sent the link to download the client, sure, perhaps.  But for the person who actually posted the material on EQ2Flames, that person DID get the NDA email.  That person indicated they accepted the terms of the NDA agreement.  Only after doing so was that person given the flag for his account and allowed to download the beta.  For the person who broke the NDA, there was no ambiguiety at all.On the beta servers, you can't take screenshots from within the game client.  You need to use an outside application to do so.  That right there might even be a bit of a clue screenshots are not open to being posted hither and yon. On past betas, even the RoK beta, there was a period before launch when screenshots were enabled that coincided with the lifting of the NDA.On the beta forums and the beta servers there have been announcements and other information about all content there still being under NDA (sadly, it's not in the MOTD, but most people don't read that anyway). That, too, might be considered a small clue it was still under NDA and not "open" to post screenshots and discuss outside of the beta forums on this board.Do you dispute the person who broke the NDA by posting the screenshots and starting the discussion was somehow excused or got mixed messages about what was acceptable to post publically?  Without that person breaking the NDA there would not have been the -specific- discussion on the achievements available when that person posted screenshots taken with an application outside of the game client.

TwistedFaith
10-02-2008, 01:05 PM
Whatever your argument about the NDA, in my opinion the biggest concern of EVERY player should be that the expansion is as bug free and as playable as possible. SOE's beta program is woeful, I have been in the beta for the last two expansions and the same thing has happened, bugs seem to be ignored and blindingly problems that people have reported never even seem to get addressed.Specifically I remember the last two expansions where discussion/suggestions about spells and AA's, were just ignored and a day or two before the release date, almost all classes had completly different spells/AAs, with no testing whatsoever. I remember thinking the first time it was bizzare, but then it happened in ROK as well, strange strange.

Kendricke
10-02-2008, 04:00 PM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do you dispute the person who broke the NDA by posting the screenshots and starting the discussion was somehow excused or got mixed messages about what was acceptable to post publically?  </blockquote><p>Of course I don't, but that was never a point I was contending.  I was under the impression that the discussion had taken a turn for a more generic, generalized standard.  In fact, we'd been told specifically and "officially" not to turn this discussion into an EQ2Flames vs. SOE discussion, so I was keeping any possible discussion on the subject of Flames out of my arguments.  Of course, I was never responding to anything regarding Flames in the first place, only the statements which related to whether or not a community manager's statements should count as "official" or not really interested me here.  The rest of the conversation, about whether or not it's right to break an NDA or whether it's legal - all of that is purely academic, so far as I'm concerned.</p>

Rijacki
10-02-2008, 04:56 PM
<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do you dispute the person who broke the NDA by posting the screenshots and starting the discussion was somehow excused or got mixed messages about what was acceptable to post publically?  </blockquote><p>Of course I don't, but that was never a point I was contending.  I was under the impression that the discussion had taken a turn for a more generic, generalized standard.  In fact, we'd been told specifically and "officially" not to turn this discussion into an EQ2Flames vs. SOE discussion, so I was keeping any possible discussion on the subject of Flames out of my arguments.  Of course, I was never responding to anything regarding Flames in the first place, only the statements which related to whether or not a community manager's statements should count as "official" or not really interested me here.  The rest of the conversation, about whether or not it's right to break an NDA or whether it's legal - all of that is purely academic, so far as I'm concerned.</p></blockquote>It is the PERSON who broke the NDA.  Where he posted it is immaterial. If he had posted it on Clockwork Gamer he would have been breaking the NDA in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason.

Junaru
10-02-2008, 05:20 PM
I didn't agree to an NDA mainly cause I'm not in beta. I don't really agree with them being leaked (mainly cause someone agreed to something then broke that trust) but now thats the cat is out of the bag wouldn't it help SOE to at least let players talk about the AA's? If they gain nothing from it they lose nothing but if one person make one comment worth hearing then SOE has gained something. People already know about them (at least in their state when the SS were taken) so it's not like talking about them could hurt.Well thats just my point of view on the whole matter.

Wilin
10-02-2008, 07:08 PM
<p>Even if they allowed us to keep talking about them outside of beta, it would not help the beta process. We would be discussing something that can change at any time without public notice. So at any point, the comments could become invalid and we would not know. And they are not going to sift through all the invalid comments to find the couple of useful comments that are left.</p><p>This is very similar to the concept of live server players seeing Test Update Notes and then going crazy with comments. Those comments are useless because you have to play on the test server to actually test any of the changes.</p>

Zarador
10-02-2008, 08:28 PM
<cite>Junaru wrote:</cite><blockquote>I didn't agree to an NDA mainly cause I'm not in beta. I don't really agree with them being leaked (mainly cause someone agreed to something then broke that trust) but now thats the cat is out of the bag wouldn't it help SOE to at least let players talk about the AA's? If they gain nothing from it they lose nothing but if one person make one comment worth hearing then SOE has gained something. People already know about them (at least in their state when the SS were taken) so it's not like talking about them could hurt.Well thats just my point of view on the whole matter.</blockquote>I believe part of the issue as far as feedback by non-beta testers is that your not actually playing your character in that environment.  With a broader sampling of various play styles in various types of gear with varied experience your more likely to get a better picture of the results.  Just because a development team may have toyed around with a class does not mean that they will see the real results of those changes based on playing one character of that class. As it is, if you read the forums here, there are plenty of passionate posts about things that really are not issues.  Couple that with the fact that the development team has a lot on the plate before a release without opening up the debate to those who are not able to experience the changes, but know that it's a total failure.  How would you even address that issue if you were heading the development team.  "Hey guys, I know you are in the middle of trying to tie up all the loose ends but we need you to keep an eye on the forums as well in case anyone not in the beta has a problem with some of the stuff they have not tried out yet". The Void Beasts are a classic example.  Some people are complaining because their still in the world and they have to circumvent them.  Some players feel they should have been removed since no longer able to get rewards (flags) from them related to the past two Live Updates.  So basically, we should change the whole story around, spend more developer time removing NPC's from the world, all so someone does not need to be careful?

Kendricke
10-03-2008, 12:35 AM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote>Do you dispute the person who broke the NDA by posting the screenshots and starting the discussion was somehow excused or got mixed messages about what was acceptable to post publically?  </blockquote><p>Of course I don't, but that was never a point I was contending.  I was under the impression that the discussion had taken a turn for a more generic, generalized standard.  In fact, we'd been told specifically and "officially" not to turn this discussion into an EQ2Flames vs. SOE discussion, so I was keeping any possible discussion on the subject of Flames out of my arguments.  Of course, I was never responding to anything regarding Flames in the first place, only the statements which related to whether or not a community manager's statements should count as "official" or not really interested me here.  The rest of the conversation, about whether or not it's right to break an NDA or whether it's legal - all of that is purely academic, so far as I'm concerned.</p></blockquote>It is the PERSON who broke the NDA.  Where he posted it is immaterial. If he had posted it on Clockwork Gamer he would have been breaking the NDA in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason.</blockquote><p>Again, that's irrelevant to the posts I was making.  It was never a point I was contending here at all.  I'm not sure what collection of words I could string together here to make that more clear.  I was only specifically discussing the comments regarding whether or not a community manager's statements should count as official or not, and whether or not an official statement could create confusion regarding an "open beta".  </p><p>Since words seem to be getting in the way, perhaps an illustration could help us here:</p><p><img src="http://www.theartark.com/2-d-works/artistspics/kimber/2006/mk-couple-series-apples-oranges-19x19-paper.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></p><p><img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Thunderthyze
10-03-2008, 06:34 AM
<p>I think that the criteria for selecting the initial open beta population of a world wide MMO was dubious at best......anyone who attended a regional fan fest?</p><p>That said I would further contend that the constructive feedback from these players would be minimal at best because of their generally "rose tinted" view of all things SOE. Assuming SOE don't REALLY rely on this base to "tweak" the later stages of development you come to the conclusion that it is really just an early stage of stress testing the product. As such I think creating an NDA for an open beta is a bit "belt and braces". Having an NDA for closed beta where the product design is ACTUALLY happening is obviously totally neccessary. The NDA we are talking about here is really protecting nothing and is just a vehicle to enhance the buzz around a new product.</p><p>If someone signs up to an NDA then fine, punish them if they break it. However the whole question of whether an NDA is actually required in this instance is a totally different question altogether.</p>

Faelgalad
10-03-2008, 09:47 AM
Once upon a time, there was an great concept in the United States of America...The Market of IdeasRemember, Federal Papers...Sad that America don't stand with it's values. There is no advantage of keeping the NDA. With the RoK failure, Sony should be happy for every comment and help they get WITHOUT paying money for it!An NDA is community communication 1.0Critic will come, either now or later.

gi
10-03-2008, 10:35 AM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I think that the criteria for selecting the initial open beta population of a world wide MMO was dubious at best......anyone who attended a regional fan fest?</p><p>That said I would further contend that the constructive feedback from these players would be minimal at best because of their generally "rose tinted" view of all things SOE. Assuming SOE don't REALLY rely on this base to "tweak" the later stages of development you come to the conclusion that it is really just an early stage of stress testing the product. As such I think creating an NDA for an open beta is a bit "belt and braces". Having an NDA for closed beta where the product design is ACTUALLY happening is obviously totally neccessary. The NDA we are talking about here is really protecting nothing and is just a vehicle to enhance the buzz around a new product.</p><p>If someone signs up to an NDA then fine, punish them if they break it. However the whole question of whether an NDA is actually required in this instance is a totally different question altogether.</p></blockquote><p>Thats a rather sweeping generalisation about fan faire attendees. Why must people be negative about soe products to in order to provide valuable feedback. People who enjoy the game already and tell SoE they are enjoying the content of the new beta are providing feedback. Feedback that would indicate that SoE are on the right track.</p><p>Not all feedback needs to be Fix this, change that, providing feedback that they have done something right and enjoyable is also very valid.</p>

Mr. Dawki
10-03-2008, 11:43 AM
<p>In the words of Mohare from flames</p><p>"The purpose of the NDA is to keep people from being disapointed, until after they buy it."</p><p>Best definition I have seen yet.</p>

interstellarmatter
10-03-2008, 12:00 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In the words of Mohare from flames</p><p>"The purpose of the NDA is to keep people from being disapointed, until after they buy it."</p><p>Best definition I have seen yet.</p></blockquote>Kind of a silly definition.  Why would any company want to do that?

Azekah1
10-03-2008, 12:41 PM
<cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In the words of Mohare from flames</p><p>"The purpose of the NDA is to keep people from being disapointed, until after they buy it."</p><p>Best definition I have seen yet.</p></blockquote>In the words of anyone from flames SOE is stupid and doesn't do anything right.I won't say thier perfect, but jeeze...I've never seen such a big bunch of whinning low lifes...

thajo
10-03-2008, 01:09 PM
<cite>Azekah1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>In the words of Mohare from flames</p><p>"The purpose of the NDA is to keep people from being disapointed, until after they buy it."</p><p>Best definition I have seen yet.</p></blockquote>In the words of anyone from flames SOE is stupid and doesn't do anything right.I won't say thier perfect, but jeeze...I've never seen such a big bunch of whinning low lifes...</blockquote>Sometimes it can be hard to tell which site your on..

Bratface
10-04-2008, 01:56 PM
<cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><b>Everyone who went to Fan Faire had a beta invite</b>.  There were players from both Naggy and Venekor who were at Fan Faire; I'm not sure about Vox.  Those players did receive the beta invite.  I did go to Fan Faire.Beta is not all about Fan bois.  I've been in a few of them now and, if my memory were better, I could cite several non-fan bois who were in beta (some have even subsequently left the game). I also do not and never have considered myself a fan boi and have been openly critical of SOE on several occassions (enough to get personal remonsterations to tone it down).I doubt you could call the person who broke the NDA and posted on that other site a fan boi either. Nor could you call the other NDA breakers who are contributing to that thread, those in beta, fan bois.  If anything, they're fan bois of that other site, not SOE or EQ2.You can quit with the fan boi insult thing.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">You know I have always pretty much liked you Rijacki but I saw this in your post and although I come late to this discussion I wanted to point out something that is pretty screwed up and you just happened to have been the one who posted it.The whole thing of being in beta if you went to fanfaire is so fanboi it isn't funny, many people have jobs, family, commitments or even health problems that prevent them from going to fan faire and they love this game every bit as much, if not more, than the peope who go to fan faire to schmooze the devs.For the most part I wouldn't want to be around these devs because I basically don't find them interesting, it is the game I adore and have been commited to, not the devs.They make themselves out like rockstars, if you come to the shows and are real "nice" you can come backstage and maybe the band will let you have a private show, or even get/give special favors.I worked in music for too long and dealt with too many groupies to want to be one for a dev, and frankly this should be more professional than worshiping dev's like they are rockstars in order to get into beta to possibly help out with the GAME we love.Still like you but we see these things from extremely different perspectives.</span></span>

Rijacki
10-04-2008, 09:45 PM
<cite>Bratface wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><b>Everyone who went to Fan Faire had a beta invite</b>.  There were players from both Naggy and Venekor who were at Fan Faire; I'm not sure about Vox.  Those players did receive the beta invite.  I did go to Fan Faire.Beta is not all about Fan bois.  I've been in a few of them now and, if my memory were better, I could cite several non-fan bois who were in beta (some have even subsequently left the game). I also do not and never have considered myself a fan boi and have been openly critical of SOE on several occassions (enough to get personal remonsterations to tone it down).I doubt you could call the person who broke the NDA and posted on that other site a fan boi either. Nor could you call the other NDA breakers who are contributing to that thread, those in beta, fan bois.  If anything, they're fan bois of that other site, not SOE or EQ2.You can quit with the fan boi insult thing.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">You know I have always pretty much liked you Rijacki but I saw this in your post and although I come late to this discussion I wanted to point out something that is pretty screwed up and you just happened to have been the one who posted it.The whole thing of being in beta if you went to fanfaire is so fanboi it isn't funny, many people have jobs, family, commitments or even health problems that prevent them from going to fan faire and they love this game every bit as much, if not more, than the peope who go to fan faire to schmooze the devs.For the most part I wouldn't want to be around these devs because I basically don't find them interesting, it is the game I adore and have been commited to, not the devs.They make themselves out like rockstars, if you come to the shows and are real "nice" you can come backstage and maybe the band will let you have a private show, or even get/give special favors.I worked in music for too long and dealt with too many groupies to want to be one for a dev, and frankly this should be more professional than worshiping dev's like they are rockstars in order to get into beta to possibly help out with the GAME we love.Still like you but we see these things from extremely different perspectives.</span></span></blockquote>Generally only ones who treat the devs as "rockstars" are a select number of players.  Are those players fanbois? perhaps. The devs, though, don't ask, let alone demand, to be treated that way.  While I did spend some time with some of the people who happen to also be employed as developers for SOE game (and one of them I have known for.. ummm.. 7 years now.. from the time we both played EQ1 and she's only been an SOE developer for roughly a year), the vast majority of the time I was spending with other players.  There were -thousands- of players (more even than last year) and only a haqndful of developers who were there as a condition of their employment and so had other obligations from time to time (and generally wanted to spread themselves to the many players there and not just a small handful).BUT, in addition to the Fan Faire attendees, there have also been beta applications up for a while.  I posted that in rebuttal to someone saying NO PvP players were in beta at all.  The only ones I know 100% that received beta invites are those who attended Fan Faire and that did include several PvP players (and I even do play on Venekor as one of my three play servers, though I'm only in T4 on the highes level of my alts there and don't consider myself a PvPer for the beta because of that).