[MUD-Dev] Reality check ...(long) [was Re: Black Snow Revisited]
jeff.cole at mindspring.com
Wed Apr 3 06:34:31 New Zealand Daylight Time 2002
From: Fred Clift
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Jeff Cole wrote:
>> I would also argue that liability management (with respect to any
>> supposed "damage" claims that might arise per Brad's concerns
>> above) is better handled in the EULA than is the extra-game
>> conduct of players. If only because then the EULA deals solely
>> with ingame behaviour/activities (something in which a gaming
>> company's interest is more manifest).
> Why does the EULA have to 'deal solely with the ingame
> behavior/activities'? or am I misunderstanding what you are
> saying here. I would believe that any EULA could very well
> stipulate any (non-illegal) condition it wanted in game, or out of
> game. "This licence is not valid for left-handed people. If you
> are left-handed you are not welcome to play Right-World!"
Well, my point is that an EULA can readily handle any liability
concerns that have been expressed. Something along the lines (as an
example off the top of my head) of "Subscriber agrees to hold Mythic
harmless from any damage resulting from ... [laundry list including
nerfs, bugs, loss]." And so on.
Further, Mythic's interest in such liablity management is much more
manifest than Mythic's interest in controlling ingame transactions
based on extra-game activities. They are much less subject to legal
I don't question that Mythic can *try* to contractually regulate
player's extra-game activity. But I still maintain that liablity
management is more appropriately dealt with in an EULA than is
player extra-game activity.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev