Originally posted by Toren:
Originally posted by Crater Creator: If you look at the Steam store page, you’ll see that purchasing the game requires agreeing to a 3rd party EULA. That’s the same* EULA the in-game screen presents, and agreeing to the EULA has always been required, the entire time the game’s been available for purchase (at least, as far back as I’m aware). What’s actually different now is that the game brings it to your attention more. Which I will argue is a positive development, because people should always be aware when they’re agreeing to something. It’s concerning that the OP wasn’t aware of agreeing to the EULA at their time of purchase.
Why the change in presentation? Probably so the game can handle presenting the EULA consistently on all platforms, e.g. consoles. Or perhaps, as with other features, to replace the good-enough-for-alpha placeholder EULA presentation with a finished, good-enough-for-gold implementation. Maybe some of both.
* Allowing for the fact that sometimes legal agreements get updated
i was aware that by playing the game i was agreeing to it but I don't like that i now need to click on agree or i cant play the game i have owned for years and haven't played for long time. as i said before its not that i had to agree to something but about the way the game went about getting me to agree. i played the game before so i don't see why i have to agree again unless the agreement is different and if it is i shouldn't have to agree to it because nobody should be able to change an agreement years after a sale.
the new way of doing things feels heavy handed and makes it feel like i don't have any autonomy over a single-player game that i bought many years ago when i was still a teenager. I understand that these things exist for a reason and if this was in the game from day one i wouldn't complain, i just don't like how i feel forced to agree to something different or lose access to something i bought many years ago. whether that's a game or a license doesn't make a difference to me.
this thread was so i could understand why this change occurred and because i was curious if this was because the fun pimps had legal issues with the previous version of the EULA.
It’s not the same game, though. Many things weren’t in the game on day one. Many things are different from when you bought the game years ago. That’s the nature of buying a game in alpha. You paid for the chance to ride in the plane while it was being built. It just so happens that some of those changes were to things outside the game.
Perhaps this will affect your perspective: anyone can go into the betas tab and download whichever alpha of the game was current when they bought it (or close to it). That version will have the same thing to say about the EULA as it had when it was released. Which is to say, roll back before V1.0 and there will be no roadblock screen where you affirm your acceptance of the EULA. It’ll be how you (should) remember it.
As far as I’m concerned, though, this is just a question of style/presentation. You may feel “forced” to accept the license agreement. And I’ll buy for the sake of argument that it may not
feel as nice for the EULA to be in your face, instead of existing only as a passive, out of the way link on the store page. But the presentation of the EULA or lack thereof doesn’t change the legal responsibilities and obligations of the parties involved.
So for me, it’s better to show what people are agreeing to explicitly, for the sake of people who might otherwise be ignorant of the agreement. Like, if at the end of the day your beef ultimately boils down to not liking this current state because you preferred blissful ignorance… I guess we’ll want to agree to disagree. And if that’s not it, I guess I’m still struggling to understand your objection.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I’m here as a moderator and fellow player, not as TFP’s lawyer.)
Edit: punctuation
devtrackers.gg