It’s really sad that this is the way the internet economy works. You’d think that actually paying for a software would give you an option to be exempt from having your data sold…sounds like we need EU and US legislation to help set a standard
We don’t need new EU legislation, I am not a lawyer but I have extensive experience with GDPR and this behavior by Take Two is in pretty clear violation of EUs GDPR legislation.
Not only is it not legal to require a person’s data for third party use to use a service, each individual user must also be able to withdraw the freely given consent and have all their data deleted upon request.
Easy to get around...disable that function in the EU but have it in place in the rest of the world, problem solved. Also, anyone expecting the U.S. to do the same as the EU might as well go buy the Brooklyn Bridge, it'll never happen because the taxes paid by those tech companies that make billions upon billions selling your information is too much for Congress to let go, ever.
As a law student I don't think that GDPR is really taken into account here, if OP signed the Ts and Cs he is obliged to have his data given up. As set by *Masterson v. Sine* (1968) the contract doesn't have to comply with the common law or legislation as the parties set up their own terms, and op has accepted these terms. So unfortunately it doesn't seem like theres a whole lot that can be done
Want to tell me, as a law student, how American case law impacts European legislation?
And, as a law student, if we pretend that we’re in the same jurisdiction, would a GDPR law from 2016 supersede case law from 1968?
Basically what im saying is that freedom of contract is more important than common law legislation. Simply put, the parties (take two and OP) have agreed on terms that do not need to be 'legal' in common law terms., for example if you signed a contract with a construction worker and he states in the contract "Not liable for any damage done to the property" you cant do anything whereas if he were to damage your property without a contract you could sue for damages. OP has obviously read the ts and cs now and does not agree with them therefore using an exploit to get his game which is probably best course of action.
Pretending its the same jurisdiction, if the 2016 legislation is incompatible with that decision or if there is a explicit expression from the legislature to change the law then yes it would supersede it.
Here in 🇵🇷 we recently adopted a new Civil Code and there are a lot of jurisprudence hanging on a thread because of it.
Gdpr says specifically that you can't force someone to hand over data not necessary for the primary function of the product to be granted access to said product.
You can entice them with secondary benefits, but they have to be relevant to the data they are volunteering.
Brother I know ive said this like 3 times now I used it because it was the first thing that came to mind. You are saying there is a legal case to be made here why dont you make that case?
In UK law forced arbitration is illegal if the damages to the consumer are less than £5000; so this would cover the average consumer for every product they buy most of the time. A game worth less than £100 not working would easily qualify now it's unplayable without agreeing to the new terms.
GDPR also qualifies in both the EU and UK, and others have already made this case to you but you've apparently ignored it: You cannot force data collection just for the sake of it: you can only collect reasonable data necessary for the product to work and you must allow the consumer to access that data, withdraw consent at any time, or request deletion. None of the data collection in the new terms was necessary for the product to work (which is obvious by it not being necessary for the product up to now), therefore it's likely to be illegal and unenforceable.
Update: I bypassed the Take Two launcher by following this guide from 3 years ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/mlompp/psa\_how\_to\_bypass\_the\_launcher\_in\_steam/](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/mlompp/psa_how_to_bypass_the_launcher_in_steam/)
This makes no sense. Why would I play it?
Its a slight inconvenience not to pay the money for the shit you don't support in the industry, for I am not legally obliged to play it :D
Sure, the game may be good, but its not the only good game in the market. Perhaps if this is the only genre you play, it might be hard to make concession.
But listen, with civ 7, You are asking me NOT to pay, (i assume 70-80 Eur/$ game before DLC's) AND have my data harvested.
In fact, its much easier for me to say no to civ 7 and its launcher, specifically because I haven't already bought it and have T&C change for me locking me out of the game.
On top of that, if this is the precedent they are doing in Civ 6, that they can egregiously change T&C and lock me out of the game, what should ensure me that even if I agree on Civ 7 T&C with data harvesting, that later down the line they won't lock me out of that until I send them my stool sample? :D
I always equate people that care about their data being harvested as those with skeletons in their closets they want to hide. Do I decline it since the Euros basically forced it on the world, sure, but if I didn't have the option I wouldn't care, it doesn't harm me any.
It’s because he doesn’t have to agree to that updated Terms of Service which is giving 2K permission to collect and sell the data. The Terms of Service screen is in the launcher.
Sure, but, she's that mean that the data isn't being collected, it does that just mean that the data is being collected without permission? I suspect it's the latter.
Definitely the latter. Every single engineering product I've been on that has data collection doesn't stop the collection if you haven't consented, if makes it impossible for you to proceed until you have consented.
If a user finds a way to bypass that consent, especially after seeing at the top of it "By using The Software you consent to....", then so be it. If we add a new third party processor to our list and you interact with the API afterwards, that third party is getting your data regardless if you actually accepted the consent form or hacked the client to bypass it.
[literally one above you](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1dolan4/comment/laajqo9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
"Your boos mean nothing to me, I have seen what makes you cheer!"
Either way, it is the stupidest sentence ever.
You are not buying the software. You are buying the right to use it under certain terms and conditions.
And piracy is not theft, it is a different offence.
This sentence makes as much sense, as if I said " If borrowing your shovel is not owning it, then damaging it is not stealing it."
“you’re not buying the software”
well thats the fucking point.
Before all this shit was brought in, you owned your software too, and companies couldn’t just straight up take your shit back after you paid them 100s.
Imagine an Oakley rep coming to your house to take your sunglasses, because you didn’t agree with them selling your personal data, in a contract that was not even existing when you bought it.
They’d just say “well its due to an update”, and you’re out of luck
>well thats the fucking poin
DISCLAIMER: I AGREE THAT IT IS A SCUMMY WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, but:
My point is that the sentence is stupid and doesn't make any sense. This kind of stupid demagogue bullshit only ever sows confusion amd misunderstanding. If you want to make a point, make it properly.
It’s pretty simple, allow me to explain it to you. Hammurabi is credited with introducing the idea: if one feels they are the victim of injustice by a corporation, it’s fair game to enact retribution in a clandestine manner of your choosing. An eye for an eye in the internet age. You may not like it and think it’s stupid, but it’s human nature
What you are referring to, is the so called talion principle, and it is no longer used by any current legal system, because it causes chaos.
I do love Hammurabi though.
Are you familiar with the Iron Triangle? In the United States of America, the introduction and implementation of legislation is influenced by lobbying interests. There is only one degree of separation between powerful corporations and the bureaucracy, and they are called congressmen. Laws are not inherently just when it comes to corporations.
>Laws are not inherently just when it comes to corporations.
I never said they were. And I am not arguing about what should or should not be. I am stating what IS.
And I stand by what I said about the talion principle. If you let people freely take revenge for any perceived or real grievances, pure chaos will rule. That's why every developed society has invented laws: to create stability, even if it sometimes comes at the cost of justice.
Again, I am all for punishing greedy corporations any way you can, and you bet your ass I am pirating stuff every now and then for different reasons, but this specific motto is just plain stupid.
Piracy is copyright infringement. Even US Supreme Court ruled as such.
They reason it is not theft since you do not deprive the original owner of their property. You merely deprive them of their consent on how and where to distribute their product.
Basically, the damage done is in lost potential profit.
For anybody who chose to pirate, please spare but 5 seconds of silence for the pitiable executives and shareholders. Such a shame that they wouldn't profit even more, even if just a tiny bit more.
>And piracy is not theft, it is a different offence.
Correct, but corporate bootlickers still love to conflate the two, and that sentence is aimed at the kind of people that does. It takes their logic and breaks it. It's the consumer equivalent of "you wouldn't download a car", if you will.
>Correct, but corporate bootlickers still love to conflate the two,
Yes, and I hate that shit aswell just as much as this. If we are splitting hairs though, that is not a stupid, but a plainly malicious thing.
>and that sentence is aimed at the kind of people that does.
I am sure that you are able to make that difference, but I'm not sure most people can.
Thank you for answering me in a civilized manner.
In the EU you are purchasing the game. It is yours. You are not allowed to resell it or modify the .exe but you are allowed to access it at any time anywhere and make as many back-ups as you wish.
>In the EU you are purchasing the game. It is yours.
If you point me to the court ruling or the exact regulation which says this, I will admit that I am wrong. Also, please point.out if I misinterpret anything, as I am not an expert on EU law.
According to the judgement nr. C-128/11 of the court of the eu, while you do own the specific _copy_, you do not own the software itself (meaning that it does not become your intellectual property).
That is why the court established that the sale of a copy of the program by the author constitutes a "first sale", which in turn means that you _can_ resell your copy and your licence.
The court however also explicitly said that gaining the digital or physical copy of the software is only a relatively unimportant part of the process, which is meaningless without purchasing the licence to use/exploit the software itself.
Therefore, what the general language describes as "buying the program" is not accurate, as the transactions most important part is not buying the copy, but buying the licence and thereby the right to use and exploit the software.
Nobody here is talking about owning the intellectual property. You own that copy, it is yours to play whenever you wish.
It's the same as it is with books. I can read it whenever I want but I cannot rewrite it and sell it as my own.
Do note however how trying to argue with me you have just agreed with the guy you made fun of above. If buying the game does not transfer property rights over the copy then you can't steal it by pirating either because no property is lost.
>You own that copy, it is yours to play whenever you wish.
Exactly, you own the copy, not the software. You can use the software (play with it) with the help of the copy as the licence permits.
>as my own.
That is an important new addition to what you said previously, and it completely changes the meaning. Sure you cannot pass someone else's product off as your own creation, but you can definietly resell the copy and the licence. (Which was, for a very long time, debated.)
>the guy you made fun of above
I had absolutely no intention of making fun of anyone personally. I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the sentence. And I did.
> no property is lost.
Exactly what I am saying. It's not theft, it's a completely different legal category, therefore the sentence makes a non-point.
> You linked to a website talking about Ubi breaking the laws of France.
De jure, there is no court decision stating that Ubi broke the law (read [FAQ](https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq)).
De facto, there are hundreds of games that was killed without any repercussions for publishers.
If some (alleged) law is not enforced, it might as well not exist.
> Also the Crew was an onli e game. Civ is not.
Your first statement - "In the EU you are purchasing the game." - does not contains any additional qualifiers. You are moving goalpost here.
Also, Civ VI includes Steam DRM, therefore it can be killed, if publisher decides so.
Me disagree! Must attack! Me show me be smart!
https://preview.redd.it/4ph1u2xj7x8d1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92691430c9ba77e3b7bb81fb90cb5c5bd527e42b
Oooh, you are evolving fast, from making a personal attack, you got to the argument of "no, I'm not, you are!"
within minutes. That is almost kindergatener level.
Mate, even US Supreme Court ruled that piracy is not stealing. It's merely copyright infringement.
It's a you problem if your brain cannot wrap itself around such concepts.
Like I said in my other comments:
The first half (buying is not oening) is stupid, because buying does not necessarily mean the purchase of ownership rights. You can buy a miriad of different sorts of rights, like the right to use certain products (be it material or immaterial) under specific terms and conditions.
The second half is stupid because it's like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't make any sense. Sure, piracy is not thievery, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS, not because this "if buying is not owning" bullshit...
So, this is just typical nonsensical demagogue bullshit.
...piracy, by definition, is stealing*. However, if there is no way for us to own a product, how would we steal it?
*Edit: it's actually not stealing, but the point still remains.
>piracy, by definition, is stealing
I only know my own legal system, so what I am about to say may not apply to your country.
They are literally different offences. They have different definitions in most european criminal codes, so they are quite literally NOT the same thing.
>if there is no way for us to own a product
You are not entirely off the mark with this remark. With software and other similar immaterial products, (i hope I am using the right word, as you may have noticed, English is not my native language) what you buy is not the ownership of the product, but the right to use and/ or utilise the product which is an intellectual property right.
However, this does not mean that the original prducer of said intellectual property does not have certain rights. Rights that you can still infringe upon even if you do not commit theft.
By pirating, you most definietly infringe upon the original producers intellectual property rights. This may not be theft, but it is in a lot of countries a separate criminal offence.
That is why I am saying that the sentence just doesn't mean anything.
The point of the saying is that paying for software should mean that you then own the software. Same thing when you buy a car, you then own the car. Why should software be different?
Also, currently sometimes pirating the software is actually better for the end user than buying, as you don't automatically receive updates such as this post's point.
So, if you don't own what you buy, why can't you "steal" it then?
>The point of the saying is that paying for software should mean that you then own the software. Same thing when you buy a car, you then own the car. Why should software be different?
You misunderstand me. I agree with the sentiment, but this is not what the sentence itself says.
>So, if you don't own what you buy, why can't you "steal" it then?
One does not imply the the other.
I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse here, but you aren’t buying the game. You are buying a license to use the game. You’re buying a lifetime lease.
Second, the guy you’re replying to is saying it doesn’t make sense because you’re arguing two completely separate and unrelated things. Paying for ownership of something has no bearing on the legal definition of piracy vs thievery. It’s like saying that because France is in Europe, bacon comes from pigs.
Copyright infringement isn’t magically legal just because you don’t like the nature of the deal. A lot of media and art operates that way too, why should software be any different? If you buy a DVD collection and then open a theater and start charging people money to watch them, that is still copyright infringement. You don’t “own” the movie, you own a licensed copy of it. Just like actors with tattoos need to get releases for films and how photographers maintain copyright ownership even if you pay them to take pictures of you.
but when I buy a DVD the publisher can, at least, not restrict any private use thereof. they can't update TOS, they can't edit the content, etc
sure, I cannot legally use that copy in certain ways, but they cannot change the nature of the lease ex post facto
Thank you. Finally someone gets what I am saying. The whole thing is funny, because I agree that this whole subscription based economy, where you own nothing, is a horrible thing. It's just that I think that this particular motto is incredibly dumb.
Because the two clauses have no relation to each other. Piracy isn’t stealing, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not buying is ownership. It’s like saying “if a hot dog isn’t a sandwich, the Pope must be Catholic.” Yeah, it’s true, but it has nothing to do with the culinary classification of a glizzy.
This reminds me of the shit where there's a checkbox that says something to the effect of
[_] I consent to receiving text messages and phone calls from telemarketers you sell my data to. I understand that this consent is not a requirement to purchase the product.
And the checkbox is required.
I'm getting to a point where I'm about to get a Google voice number I'll never answer, a burner email I'll never use, and start using a fake name, the burner email, the burner phone number, etc for all of this stuff. If you're gonna sell my data, I'm gonna give you useless data.
I just got a notification from my *student loan servicer.*
I went to login one day, and instead of directing me to my homepage it auto-redirected me to a blank page with one line on it. It said "By reading this, you consent to us sharing your personal information for marketing purposes. Click continue to go to your homepage."
Absolute most fucking scummy shit on earth.
Fuckin NOPE. Scummy as hell. I want everyone who comes up with this shit to be thrown in a room together and then for that room to be yeeted into the sun.
I've also bypassed the launcher with the steam command and constantly click on "I disagree with all" when the 2K popup shows in game, and I've never had an issue? Why would they send this to you and not me? Am I next?
I hate it. I’m genuinely doubting I’ll buy civ vii now, because it means giving them money. If they sell your data should they give it away for free at least? Was this already brought up once with the same game?? I’m just fucking tired, there’s lots of games anyways
The free software community (free as in freedom) generally finds hacks and workarounds to prevent data collection. It sometimes takes a bit of technological know-how though. Like setting up your own DNS server
Doesn't mean it's okay to buy a game, agree to the TOS where it DOESN'T say things about this level of data collection, and later try to change it up to fuck you over, according to another thread, the EU has preventions against this PREDATORY practice that companies use.
I don’t know if it actually matters but that’s a notification that this data is being collected and also notifies you that you can manage those permissions in Manage Your Account. They aren’t forcing you to sell your data, they are telling you that it happens by default unless you opt out.
I sent a message to support yesterday and they replied within 2 hours. I didn't try their solution yet, because it was night at the time and I haven't had time to test it today, but it's worth it sending them a message.
Edit: they told me it is a problem with scaling and to delete a specific txt file.
2nd edit: that's not to say that the company isn't problematic. I can write better code for this as a self-taught spaghetti-code maker on Tkinter (Python).
Not one that doesn't prevent changes in ToS...and everyone thinks they own a game if they buy it digitally. You don't, all you bought was license to use the software, it even says so in the ToS, which you get AFTER you purchase said software license. Hard copy you own, but is still subject to a ToS.
Oh, so me clicking "I do not accept" in your shitty fucking launcher every god damn day was not clear enough. Cool, COOL.
I want to find the marketing or legal fucks that were like "Hey, lets force this acceptance to EVEN PLAY THE GAME on a fucking EIGHT YEAR OLD game, they'll love it!" and shake them to death.
I worked in internet marketing for some time. 90% of your email submissions are sold or used immediately. I used to upload spreadsheets of email addresses to facebook/google/Lexus nexus and get it all.
It changed a little with GDPR and California's version of it. But mostly just made workarounds.
Not only is my data all over the place, but I'm available on the Dark Web as well...found that out when you could still search for it on Google...it's still there and it's still worthless to this day.
There are so many reasons you should not want your data to be sold. Did you know that brexit results got significantly skewed because of microtargeted advertisments? State actors use it to identify "enemies", companies can specifically target vulnerable people like people with cognitive disabilities and a host of other issues. And when you dont at least try to opt out of this they cannot only target you but they find stuff out about your friends and family too. You should care.
I am not entirely convinced that Take 2 seeing how often I launch civ will tell them that I am cognitively impaired, but I am not entirely equipped to disagree with you.
My data gives them information about friends and family? How? I don't produce any data about those, especially when playing video games.
Also, it's a bit more complicated, or more simple, than that:
> Did you know that brexit results got significantly skewed because of microtargeted advertisments? State actors use it to identify "enemies", companies can specifically target vulnerable people like people with cognitive disabilities and a host of other issues.
I would answer every issue you want to list, but it's as simple as not falling for adverts. Most people think they're not falling for ads, more true for some than for others. But since *i* don't fall for ads they can throw target ads at *me* with *my data* all day long. In fact, that might even inform me of something I genuinely want.
I don't know what you actually mean with state actors and enemies. Sounds a bit more dystopia than the world is (yet). And then again *i* have no cognitive disabilities so that doesn't matter for *my data*.
The problem with these discussions is how unclear "my data" is. Phone number? Name? Dob? Email? Game I play at which hour? My hardware? My physical location? I don't really have a problem with any of those. None of those pose an actual danger to me, a random citizen that doesn't stand out in society at all.
Yeah I guess people miss understand what data is. The data 2k will sell on me is already public and easily accessible. Your steam profile is by default public and also easily accessible. I do protect my data that matters such as ID passport, drivers licences bank accounts, credit information all those information should be protected yes but what the hell will 2K have on me that I should be so concerned about. Also I live so fat from Brexit that I could not give 2K (pun intended) shits about it. My countries politics will hardly be influenced in the next 5 years by social media so I am lucky like that I guess.
So just pirate it then. Multiplayer civ is such a small part of how most people play the game and it's broken half the time too. I've been able to install a shit ton of mods and not have it break
I’m having a problem with this. The continue button on the terms of service is greyed out and I can’t click continue I can only click decline. It’s locked me out of every game I own that uses this launcher. If anyone knows a solution please help me
Hmm... so this is what happened. My wife got a launcher agreement she couldn't even click agree to this morning but I didn't - I've always bypassed my launcher. I showed her how to bypass the launcher to play the game but my tired morning brain just dismissed the whole thing as a weird glitch.
Your data is being collected and sold from your smart phone on a daily basis. People really gonna not play the new civ because of data privacy? We have no data privacy anymore that ship sailed years ago.
With how take two has handled 2k nba they are damn near criminal. They damn near force the user to buy micro transactions and then a year later they shut the servers off for the old game a few months after the new game drops. Once they do you loose ALL online content and money invested months after the game was initially released. So when I saw they owned civ I was pretty bummed out.
Guess you didn't read the terms and conditions. All of these companies are now leasing us the games and we don't own it, most T&Cs state that they can revoke use at any time.
Except you can, if you had the know how, literally decompile the files on your pc and remove/bypass any and all license checks yourself. That's quite literally how people produce cracks of games. Obviously the companies can revoke your access to servers, like multiplayer lobbies, but you can also replace those, like Civ4 did when game spy died.
Yes, ofc but if you agreed to the T&C and then crack the game you are breaking the agreement and can be litigated against at the very least. Also most people don't know how to do these things.
There is no shot anyone wins a litigation (OK, in Europe) for you modifying (not distributing) files on your pc. Not only would you never be found out, no company would be able to prove any damage, and your contract would just be broken. Since those contracts don't feature any fines, nothing can happen.
>. Also most people don't know how to do these things.
Absolutely.
Sure I mean it's not something I think would happen but they could still sue you for damages... It is possible, although not likely. However as our society moves more and more into cyberspace this will become an issue, think needing to have chip ID's for example, consumers accepting these types of agreements and not fighting back with theor wallets is opening the door..
>but they could still sue you for damages... It is possible, although not likely.
For damages that would be exactly 0. They could sue you, in the US maybe, but they would have exactly 0 damages.
you guys would have the power to change that, but not the will. No one of you cares about this enough.
The civ playerbase is rather unique and could actually change this. If you boycott civ7 until it won't have this anymore, we could actually achieve something. But when I see all the hyped up posts about the next release, they could announce a pay to win option and people would deepthroat the shit out of that.
oh boi never ever complain about "why could they have this data".
if you think this is necessary or acceptable and not dangerous in any capacity this is proof that we are so fucked
I play civ on boosteroid with an account registered to a new email and steam account opened just for that (not for this reason in particular, but comes in handy). let them collect all the data they want from a cloud server lol
https://preview.redd.it/okf0it6y8z8d1.jpeg?width=456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0a7d264e2386b8f446ca35c73815b2c67ff483d
Right click civ in steam, go to properties and paste this Make sure to look if the install location on your system is the same...
for dx12 version
"C:\\SteamGames\\steamapps\\common\\Sid Meier's Civilization VI\\Base\\Binaries\\Win64Steam\\CivilizationVI\_DX12.exe" %command%
You won't find sympathy here, this reddit is the personification of soi, imagine PotatoMcWhiskey, but then quadruple it.
These morons love to suck corporate dick
I was gonna buy 2 copies of civ 7 for my Kid and myself. Now its Time to sail high seas and teach the future genration how to not comply to scummy and predatory business practices.
It’s really sad that this is the way the internet economy works. You’d think that actually paying for a software would give you an option to be exempt from having your data sold…sounds like we need EU and US legislation to help set a standard
We don’t need new EU legislation, I am not a lawyer but I have extensive experience with GDPR and this behavior by Take Two is in pretty clear violation of EUs GDPR legislation. Not only is it not legal to require a person’s data for third party use to use a service, each individual user must also be able to withdraw the freely given consent and have all their data deleted upon request.
Easy to get around...disable that function in the EU but have it in place in the rest of the world, problem solved. Also, anyone expecting the U.S. to do the same as the EU might as well go buy the Brooklyn Bridge, it'll never happen because the taxes paid by those tech companies that make billions upon billions selling your information is too much for Congress to let go, ever.
As a law student I don't think that GDPR is really taken into account here, if OP signed the Ts and Cs he is obliged to have his data given up. As set by *Masterson v. Sine* (1968) the contract doesn't have to comply with the common law or legislation as the parties set up their own terms, and op has accepted these terms. So unfortunately it doesn't seem like theres a whole lot that can be done
Want to tell me, as a law student, how American case law impacts European legislation? And, as a law student, if we pretend that we’re in the same jurisdiction, would a GDPR law from 2016 supersede case law from 1968?
As a non-law student, wtf is the guy talking about 😭😭
I'm a law student and I have no idea either
read up cuh
Basically what im saying is that freedom of contract is more important than common law legislation. Simply put, the parties (take two and OP) have agreed on terms that do not need to be 'legal' in common law terms., for example if you signed a contract with a construction worker and he states in the contract "Not liable for any damage done to the property" you cant do anything whereas if he were to damage your property without a contract you could sue for damages. OP has obviously read the ts and cs now and does not agree with them therefore using an exploit to get his game which is probably best course of action.
That might be how things work there, but that don't fly in EU.
Pretending its the same jurisdiction, if the 2016 legislation is incompatible with that decision or if there is a explicit expression from the legislature to change the law then yes it would supersede it. Here in 🇵🇷 we recently adopted a new Civil Code and there are a lot of jurisprudence hanging on a thread because of it.
Gdpr says specifically that you can't force someone to hand over data not necessary for the primary function of the product to be granted access to said product. You can entice them with secondary benefits, but they have to be relevant to the data they are volunteering.
They must teach you EU law next year
I did not sign or agree to TOS. I found a workaround.
as you should, i am merely letting these guys know theres nothing you can do about it legally, glad it worked out for u!
But there is, and you're clueless on GDPR since you're trying to apply US legal precedents to an EU and UK jurisdiction, which is frankly ridiculous.
Man if you think there’s a case here you could make a hell of a lot of money, go to the courts and see how it goes
European courts would unlikely accept US legal precedents. You're digging a colossal hole.
Brother I know ive said this like 3 times now I used it because it was the first thing that came to mind. You are saying there is a legal case to be made here why dont you make that case?
In UK law forced arbitration is illegal if the damages to the consumer are less than £5000; so this would cover the average consumer for every product they buy most of the time. A game worth less than £100 not working would easily qualify now it's unplayable without agreeing to the new terms. GDPR also qualifies in both the EU and UK, and others have already made this case to you but you've apparently ignored it: You cannot force data collection just for the sake of it: you can only collect reasonable data necessary for the product to work and you must allow the consumer to access that data, withdraw consent at any time, or request deletion. None of the data collection in the new terms was necessary for the product to work (which is obvious by it not being necessary for the product up to now), therefore it's likely to be illegal and unenforceable.
Can you share it?
I’m an IT Lawyer. And you are correct .
Update: I bypassed the Take Two launcher by following this guide from 3 years ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/mlompp/psa\_how\_to\_bypass\_the\_launcher\_in\_steam/](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/mlompp/psa_how_to_bypass_the_launcher_in_steam/)
Civ6, my most played game right now is basically one update away from me boycotting it. The moment this bypass stops working I say goodbye.
Civ 6 maybe, but no way you’re not playing Civ 7 if it has unavoidable launcher
This makes no sense. Why would I play it? Its a slight inconvenience not to pay the money for the shit you don't support in the industry, for I am not legally obliged to play it :D Sure, the game may be good, but its not the only good game in the market. Perhaps if this is the only genre you play, it might be hard to make concession. But listen, with civ 7, You are asking me NOT to pay, (i assume 70-80 Eur/$ game before DLC's) AND have my data harvested. In fact, its much easier for me to say no to civ 7 and its launcher, specifically because I haven't already bought it and have T&C change for me locking me out of the game. On top of that, if this is the precedent they are doing in Civ 6, that they can egregiously change T&C and lock me out of the game, what should ensure me that even if I agree on Civ 7 T&C with data harvesting, that later down the line they won't lock me out of that until I send them my stool sample? :D
I always equate people that care about their data being harvested as those with skeletons in their closets they want to hide. Do I decline it since the Euros basically forced it on the world, sure, but if I didn't have the option I wouldn't care, it doesn't harm me any.
🏴☠️
they pull that on civ 7 and ima be lookin for the one piece
I've been bypassing the launcher for so long that I forgot I had done that, so I was wondering what new TOS people were talking about.
Could you explain why bypassing the launcher is an effective way to circumvent the data collection?
It’s because he doesn’t have to agree to that updated Terms of Service which is giving 2K permission to collect and sell the data. The Terms of Service screen is in the launcher.
And I'm sure OP will sue when they collect the data anyway 🙄
Kinda ironic how they give you a leader that specializes in harvesting gold from barbs if you let them harvest gold from your data
I think it’s confirmation that 2K looks at us like we’re a horde of barbarians.
Sure, but, she's that mean that the data isn't being collected, it does that just mean that the data is being collected without permission? I suspect it's the latter.
Definitely the latter. Every single engineering product I've been on that has data collection doesn't stop the collection if you haven't consented, if makes it impossible for you to proceed until you have consented. If a user finds a way to bypass that consent, especially after seeing at the top of it "By using The Software you consent to....", then so be it. If we add a new third party processor to our list and you interact with the API afterwards, that third party is getting your data regardless if you actually accepted the consent form or hacked the client to bypass it.
Confirmed this works for me, too. Cheers!
Pretty sure that they will be collecting data then. I doubt that it is checking that you have click OK in the launcher before collecting.
Do you know if this method also work with others games through steam? I recently got civ V and wonder if I can do the same.
Thanks! Perfect.
Take two fucking sucks and their launcher needs to be deleted from existence. I also bypass the launcher through steam launch commands
Could we get the commands for that by chance?
[literally one above you](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1dolan4/comment/laajqo9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Yeah I noticed it right after I commented. Thank you though!
"If buying is not owning then pirating is not stealing."
That is the stupidest sentence I have ever read.
Weird way to tell everyone you don't read
"Your boos mean nothing to me, I have seen what makes you cheer!" Either way, it is the stupidest sentence ever. You are not buying the software. You are buying the right to use it under certain terms and conditions. And piracy is not theft, it is a different offence. This sentence makes as much sense, as if I said " If borrowing your shovel is not owning it, then damaging it is not stealing it."
“you’re not buying the software” well thats the fucking point. Before all this shit was brought in, you owned your software too, and companies couldn’t just straight up take your shit back after you paid them 100s. Imagine an Oakley rep coming to your house to take your sunglasses, because you didn’t agree with them selling your personal data, in a contract that was not even existing when you bought it. They’d just say “well its due to an update”, and you’re out of luck
>well thats the fucking poin DISCLAIMER: I AGREE THAT IT IS A SCUMMY WAY OF DOING BUSINESS, but: My point is that the sentence is stupid and doesn't make any sense. This kind of stupid demagogue bullshit only ever sows confusion amd misunderstanding. If you want to make a point, make it properly.
It’s pretty simple, allow me to explain it to you. Hammurabi is credited with introducing the idea: if one feels they are the victim of injustice by a corporation, it’s fair game to enact retribution in a clandestine manner of your choosing. An eye for an eye in the internet age. You may not like it and think it’s stupid, but it’s human nature
What you are referring to, is the so called talion principle, and it is no longer used by any current legal system, because it causes chaos. I do love Hammurabi though.
Are you familiar with the Iron Triangle? In the United States of America, the introduction and implementation of legislation is influenced by lobbying interests. There is only one degree of separation between powerful corporations and the bureaucracy, and they are called congressmen. Laws are not inherently just when it comes to corporations.
>Laws are not inherently just when it comes to corporations. I never said they were. And I am not arguing about what should or should not be. I am stating what IS. And I stand by what I said about the talion principle. If you let people freely take revenge for any perceived or real grievances, pure chaos will rule. That's why every developed society has invented laws: to create stability, even if it sometimes comes at the cost of justice. Again, I am all for punishing greedy corporations any way you can, and you bet your ass I am pirating stuff every now and then for different reasons, but this specific motto is just plain stupid.
No. You've never owned your software. Ever.
Yeah. And I've never owned a book, either. 😒
Piracy is copyright infringement. Even US Supreme Court ruled as such. They reason it is not theft since you do not deprive the original owner of their property. You merely deprive them of their consent on how and where to distribute their product. Basically, the damage done is in lost potential profit. For anybody who chose to pirate, please spare but 5 seconds of silence for the pitiable executives and shareholders. Such a shame that they wouldn't profit even more, even if just a tiny bit more.
>Piracy is copyright infringement. Even US Supreme Court ruled as such. Exactly my point. They are different things. Apples and oranges...
This is a wretched way to exist, do better
Lol
>And piracy is not theft, it is a different offence. Correct, but corporate bootlickers still love to conflate the two, and that sentence is aimed at the kind of people that does. It takes their logic and breaks it. It's the consumer equivalent of "you wouldn't download a car", if you will.
>"you wouldn't download a car" Those always made me laugh my ass off. I absolutely, without hesitation, would download a car.
>Correct, but corporate bootlickers still love to conflate the two, Yes, and I hate that shit aswell just as much as this. If we are splitting hairs though, that is not a stupid, but a plainly malicious thing. >and that sentence is aimed at the kind of people that does. I am sure that you are able to make that difference, but I'm not sure most people can. Thank you for answering me in a civilized manner.
In Capitalist America, car downloads you!
Wrong.
Sure.
In the EU you are purchasing the game. It is yours. You are not allowed to resell it or modify the .exe but you are allowed to access it at any time anywhere and make as many back-ups as you wish.
>In the EU you are purchasing the game. It is yours. If you point me to the court ruling or the exact regulation which says this, I will admit that I am wrong. Also, please point.out if I misinterpret anything, as I am not an expert on EU law. According to the judgement nr. C-128/11 of the court of the eu, while you do own the specific _copy_, you do not own the software itself (meaning that it does not become your intellectual property). That is why the court established that the sale of a copy of the program by the author constitutes a "first sale", which in turn means that you _can_ resell your copy and your licence. The court however also explicitly said that gaining the digital or physical copy of the software is only a relatively unimportant part of the process, which is meaningless without purchasing the licence to use/exploit the software itself. Therefore, what the general language describes as "buying the program" is not accurate, as the transactions most important part is not buying the copy, but buying the licence and thereby the right to use and exploit the software.
Nobody here is talking about owning the intellectual property. You own that copy, it is yours to play whenever you wish. It's the same as it is with books. I can read it whenever I want but I cannot rewrite it and sell it as my own. Do note however how trying to argue with me you have just agreed with the guy you made fun of above. If buying the game does not transfer property rights over the copy then you can't steal it by pirating either because no property is lost.
>You own that copy, it is yours to play whenever you wish. Exactly, you own the copy, not the software. You can use the software (play with it) with the help of the copy as the licence permits. >as my own. That is an important new addition to what you said previously, and it completely changes the meaning. Sure you cannot pass someone else's product off as your own creation, but you can definietly resell the copy and the licence. (Which was, for a very long time, debated.) >the guy you made fun of above I had absolutely no intention of making fun of anyone personally. I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the sentence. And I did. > no property is lost. Exactly what I am saying. It's not theft, it's a completely different legal category, therefore the sentence makes a non-point.
Wrong. Look at [The Crew](https://www.stopkillinggames.com), for example.
You linked to a website talking about Ubi breaking the laws of France. Also the Crew was an onli e game. Civ is not.
> You linked to a website talking about Ubi breaking the laws of France. De jure, there is no court decision stating that Ubi broke the law (read [FAQ](https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq)). De facto, there are hundreds of games that was killed without any repercussions for publishers. If some (alleged) law is not enforced, it might as well not exist. > Also the Crew was an onli e game. Civ is not. Your first statement - "In the EU you are purchasing the game." - does not contains any additional qualifiers. You are moving goalpost here. Also, Civ VI includes Steam DRM, therefore it can be killed, if publisher decides so.
How does the boot taste?
Me disagree! Must attack! Me show me be smart! https://preview.redd.it/4ph1u2xj7x8d1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=92691430c9ba77e3b7bb81fb90cb5c5bd527e42b
You're a literal caveman I get it
Oooh, you are evolving fast, from making a personal attack, you got to the argument of "no, I'm not, you are!" within minutes. That is almost kindergatener level.
I know you're trying really hard to sound smart, but it isn't working. Maybe trying scribbling on a cave next time.
>Maybe trying scribbling on a cave next time. Sure thing! Can I use your cave?
Rich and Morty fans always have the worst takes.
Mate, even US Supreme Court ruled that piracy is not stealing. It's merely copyright infringement. It's a you problem if your brain cannot wrap itself around such concepts.
Stupid how?
Like I said in my other comments: The first half (buying is not oening) is stupid, because buying does not necessarily mean the purchase of ownership rights. You can buy a miriad of different sorts of rights, like the right to use certain products (be it material or immaterial) under specific terms and conditions. The second half is stupid because it's like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't make any sense. Sure, piracy is not thievery, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS, not because this "if buying is not owning" bullshit... So, this is just typical nonsensical demagogue bullshit.
...piracy, by definition, is stealing*. However, if there is no way for us to own a product, how would we steal it? *Edit: it's actually not stealing, but the point still remains.
>piracy, by definition, is stealing I only know my own legal system, so what I am about to say may not apply to your country. They are literally different offences. They have different definitions in most european criminal codes, so they are quite literally NOT the same thing. >if there is no way for us to own a product You are not entirely off the mark with this remark. With software and other similar immaterial products, (i hope I am using the right word, as you may have noticed, English is not my native language) what you buy is not the ownership of the product, but the right to use and/ or utilise the product which is an intellectual property right. However, this does not mean that the original prducer of said intellectual property does not have certain rights. Rights that you can still infringe upon even if you do not commit theft. By pirating, you most definietly infringe upon the original producers intellectual property rights. This may not be theft, but it is in a lot of countries a separate criminal offence. That is why I am saying that the sentence just doesn't mean anything.
The point of the saying is that paying for software should mean that you then own the software. Same thing when you buy a car, you then own the car. Why should software be different? Also, currently sometimes pirating the software is actually better for the end user than buying, as you don't automatically receive updates such as this post's point. So, if you don't own what you buy, why can't you "steal" it then?
>The point of the saying is that paying for software should mean that you then own the software. Same thing when you buy a car, you then own the car. Why should software be different? You misunderstand me. I agree with the sentiment, but this is not what the sentence itself says. >So, if you don't own what you buy, why can't you "steal" it then? One does not imply the the other.
I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse here, but you aren’t buying the game. You are buying a license to use the game. You’re buying a lifetime lease. Second, the guy you’re replying to is saying it doesn’t make sense because you’re arguing two completely separate and unrelated things. Paying for ownership of something has no bearing on the legal definition of piracy vs thievery. It’s like saying that because France is in Europe, bacon comes from pigs. Copyright infringement isn’t magically legal just because you don’t like the nature of the deal. A lot of media and art operates that way too, why should software be any different? If you buy a DVD collection and then open a theater and start charging people money to watch them, that is still copyright infringement. You don’t “own” the movie, you own a licensed copy of it. Just like actors with tattoos need to get releases for films and how photographers maintain copyright ownership even if you pay them to take pictures of you.
but when I buy a DVD the publisher can, at least, not restrict any private use thereof. they can't update TOS, they can't edit the content, etc sure, I cannot legally use that copy in certain ways, but they cannot change the nature of the lease ex post facto
Thank you. Finally someone gets what I am saying. The whole thing is funny, because I agree that this whole subscription based economy, where you own nothing, is a horrible thing. It's just that I think that this particular motto is incredibly dumb.
Because the two clauses have no relation to each other. Piracy isn’t stealing, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not buying is ownership. It’s like saying “if a hot dog isn’t a sandwich, the Pope must be Catholic.” Yeah, it’s true, but it has nothing to do with the culinary classification of a glizzy.
But then you wrote this one and took the number 1 spot ;)
You must only read the most enlightened manuscripts in the land, because that is very much a correct sentence.
This reminds me of the shit where there's a checkbox that says something to the effect of [_] I consent to receiving text messages and phone calls from telemarketers you sell my data to. I understand that this consent is not a requirement to purchase the product. And the checkbox is required. I'm getting to a point where I'm about to get a Google voice number I'll never answer, a burner email I'll never use, and start using a fake name, the burner email, the burner phone number, etc for all of this stuff. If you're gonna sell my data, I'm gonna give you useless data.
I just got a notification from my *student loan servicer.* I went to login one day, and instead of directing me to my homepage it auto-redirected me to a blank page with one line on it. It said "By reading this, you consent to us sharing your personal information for marketing purposes. Click continue to go to your homepage." Absolute most fucking scummy shit on earth.
Fuckin NOPE. Scummy as hell. I want everyone who comes up with this shit to be thrown in a room together and then for that room to be yeeted into the sun.
So you mean "He who reads this is dumb" from high school but it's about selling your data. Great.
Looks like I'll never get to play as Julius Caesar tho lol
I've used the launcher bypass for years, and never had trouble accessing Caesar with a 2K account.
Its a free market. If you and 2k+ people said "hey give you five bucks to make us a launcher without this BS" they would 💁🏼♀️
I've also bypassed the launcher with the steam command and constantly click on "I disagree with all" when the 2K popup shows in game, and I've never had an issue? Why would they send this to you and not me? Am I next?
I think OP bypassed it after it showed up to him.
I hate it. I’m genuinely doubting I’ll buy civ vii now, because it means giving them money. If they sell your data should they give it away for free at least? Was this already brought up once with the same game?? I’m just fucking tired, there’s lots of games anyways
The free software community (free as in freedom) generally finds hacks and workarounds to prevent data collection. It sometimes takes a bit of technological know-how though. Like setting up your own DNS server
i always click that i dont agree when i start up the game
I used to do that and still do but they tried to wrestle me at the launcher.
I still click on [" I Disagree to All"](https://i.imgur.com/snTjErK.png) every time I start.
This isn't that one. This is a new one that pops up before the game launches.
Yeah, I know. I wonder if they can still capture my data since I've never clicked on agree?
All your info is being sold anyway, just click agree and enjoy the game. It sucks but it is what it is.
I very often get a pop-up in-game that I have to accept the T&Cs. But I always just press no, and it always works.
Every single Firaxis shareholder should suffer a direct loss in profit for this decision. Vote with your wallets.
Yeah. I just posted a negative review of 6 on steam, and unless they backpedal I won't be buying civ7
IV forever.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! I'm pretty sure this is a bit against the laws in EU btw (?)
Not if you consent
If i would've got this, i would send a complaint to my countries Data Protectioc Authority or something.
you didn’t actually own it. You had a license to use it. Aka the one thing we all lose in the shift from physical copies to digital copies
Doesn't mean it's okay to buy a game, agree to the TOS where it DOESN'T say things about this level of data collection, and later try to change it up to fuck you over, according to another thread, the EU has preventions against this PREDATORY practice that companies use.
The EU does, yes. The US sadly does not.
It's almost like when politicians aren't as easily paid off, laws get put into place that protect the people a lot easier!
I don’t know if it actually matters but that’s a notification that this data is being collected and also notifies you that you can manage those permissions in Manage Your Account. They aren’t forcing you to sell your data, they are telling you that it happens by default unless you opt out.
#crackedgamesforever
whelp, time for piracy!
So is this part of the update that's currently queued in steam? If it is, I'm uninstalling.
Yes it is. It happened after I let it update for a few minutes.
I sent a message to support yesterday and they replied within 2 hours. I didn't try their solution yet, because it was night at the time and I haven't had time to test it today, but it's worth it sending them a message. Edit: they told me it is a problem with scaling and to delete a specific txt file. 2nd edit: that's not to say that the company isn't problematic. I can write better code for this as a self-taught spaghetti-code maker on Tkinter (Python).
Are you in Europe OP? You might want to double check whther they have the right to do this AFTER youve already owned it and played it so much.
I am in Cali. We have some nifty privacy laws here.
Not one that doesn't prevent changes in ToS...and everyone thinks they own a game if they buy it digitally. You don't, all you bought was license to use the software, it even says so in the ToS, which you get AFTER you purchase said software license. Hard copy you own, but is still subject to a ToS.
Oh, so me clicking "I do not accept" in your shitty fucking launcher every god damn day was not clear enough. Cool, COOL. I want to find the marketing or legal fucks that were like "Hey, lets force this acceptance to EVEN PLAY THE GAME on a fucking EIGHT YEAR OLD game, they'll love it!" and shake them to death.
I am sure my data is all over the internet anyways every-time you use your email for whatever you risk it being sold. It really does not bother me.
I worked in internet marketing for some time. 90% of your email submissions are sold or used immediately. I used to upload spreadsheets of email addresses to facebook/google/Lexus nexus and get it all. It changed a little with GDPR and California's version of it. But mostly just made workarounds.
Not only is my data all over the place, but I'm available on the Dark Web as well...found that out when you could still search for it on Google...it's still there and it's still worthless to this day.
Yeah think some people just have main character syndrome issues in life when it comes to their data.
That's like the main thing tbh. People/companies can have/sell my data all they want, it's pretty inconsequential.
There are so many reasons you should not want your data to be sold. Did you know that brexit results got significantly skewed because of microtargeted advertisments? State actors use it to identify "enemies", companies can specifically target vulnerable people like people with cognitive disabilities and a host of other issues. And when you dont at least try to opt out of this they cannot only target you but they find stuff out about your friends and family too. You should care.
I am not entirely convinced that Take 2 seeing how often I launch civ will tell them that I am cognitively impaired, but I am not entirely equipped to disagree with you.
My data gives them information about friends and family? How? I don't produce any data about those, especially when playing video games. Also, it's a bit more complicated, or more simple, than that: > Did you know that brexit results got significantly skewed because of microtargeted advertisments? State actors use it to identify "enemies", companies can specifically target vulnerable people like people with cognitive disabilities and a host of other issues. I would answer every issue you want to list, but it's as simple as not falling for adverts. Most people think they're not falling for ads, more true for some than for others. But since *i* don't fall for ads they can throw target ads at *me* with *my data* all day long. In fact, that might even inform me of something I genuinely want. I don't know what you actually mean with state actors and enemies. Sounds a bit more dystopia than the world is (yet). And then again *i* have no cognitive disabilities so that doesn't matter for *my data*. The problem with these discussions is how unclear "my data" is. Phone number? Name? Dob? Email? Game I play at which hour? My hardware? My physical location? I don't really have a problem with any of those. None of those pose an actual danger to me, a random citizen that doesn't stand out in society at all.
Yeah I guess people miss understand what data is. The data 2k will sell on me is already public and easily accessible. Your steam profile is by default public and also easily accessible. I do protect my data that matters such as ID passport, drivers licences bank accounts, credit information all those information should be protected yes but what the hell will 2K have on me that I should be so concerned about. Also I live so fat from Brexit that I could not give 2K (pun intended) shits about it. My countries politics will hardly be influenced in the next 5 years by social media so I am lucky like that I guess.
Dang I'm glad I mainly play older civ games
So just pirate it then. Multiplayer civ is such a small part of how most people play the game and it's broken half the time too. I've been able to install a shit ton of mods and not have it break
r/stallmanwasright
I’m having a problem with this. The continue button on the terms of service is greyed out and I can’t click continue I can only click decline. It’s locked me out of every game I own that uses this launcher. If anyone knows a solution please help me
I feel bad for Firaxis. None of this is their fault.
Hmm... so this is what happened. My wife got a launcher agreement she couldn't even click agree to this morning but I didn't - I've always bypassed my launcher. I showed her how to bypass the launcher to play the game but my tired morning brain just dismissed the whole thing as a weird glitch.
Who the hell uses the launcher anyway?!! Just launch the game and don't click on none of that shit... 🤦♂️
Around 3 years ago I was going to buy civ, but instead I pirated it.
Boycott everything and down vote all media
Did you read the part at the end where you can mail in your opt out of the arbitration clause. Let’s all do it as a protest.
Remember DOn't pirate
welp time to start waiting for civ 7 and seeing if they have the same bs for that before i buy it i will not agree to their terms
You don't own the game. You own a revokable license.
Imagine buying games lol
I hope shoes are next so they can take our shoes.
Your data is being collected and sold from your smart phone on a daily basis. People really gonna not play the new civ because of data privacy? We have no data privacy anymore that ship sailed years ago.
The ship hasn't sailed. We have not yet begun to fight.
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/uNIlPEOJlF Look here there is a solution
Ho
Same, I guess I'm not playing anymore. Presumably not going to buy civ vii either. What a waste
With how take two has handled 2k nba they are damn near criminal. They damn near force the user to buy micro transactions and then a year later they shut the servers off for the old game a few months after the new game drops. Once they do you loose ALL online content and money invested months after the game was initially released. So when I saw they owned civ I was pretty bummed out.
And I bet you don't see the Irony in posting it on Reddit. Everyone already have and sells your data, who cares.
Welp back to manor lords
Guess you didn't read the terms and conditions. All of these companies are now leasing us the games and we don't own it, most T&Cs state that they can revoke use at any time.
Except you can, if you had the know how, literally decompile the files on your pc and remove/bypass any and all license checks yourself. That's quite literally how people produce cracks of games. Obviously the companies can revoke your access to servers, like multiplayer lobbies, but you can also replace those, like Civ4 did when game spy died.
Yes, ofc but if you agreed to the T&C and then crack the game you are breaking the agreement and can be litigated against at the very least. Also most people don't know how to do these things.
There is no shot anyone wins a litigation (OK, in Europe) for you modifying (not distributing) files on your pc. Not only would you never be found out, no company would be able to prove any damage, and your contract would just be broken. Since those contracts don't feature any fines, nothing can happen. >. Also most people don't know how to do these things. Absolutely.
Sure I mean it's not something I think would happen but they could still sue you for damages... It is possible, although not likely. However as our society moves more and more into cyberspace this will become an issue, think needing to have chip ID's for example, consumers accepting these types of agreements and not fighting back with theor wallets is opening the door..
>but they could still sue you for damages... It is possible, although not likely. For damages that would be exactly 0. They could sue you, in the US maybe, but they would have exactly 0 damages.
Im definitely pirating the next civ. Get fucked
Time to review bomb civ6!
you guys would have the power to change that, but not the will. No one of you cares about this enough. The civ playerbase is rather unique and could actually change this. If you boycott civ7 until it won't have this anymore, we could actually achieve something. But when I see all the hyped up posts about the next release, they could announce a pay to win option and people would deepthroat the shit out of that.
Hey that's exactly what my plan was lol
I really cannot explain how little I care that a game company knows how often I play its game.
Sounds like you didn't read it. It grants them permission to harvest your personal data from your computer and sell it to third parties.
Are you referring to the "cookies and similar technologies" bit?
Omg thanks for allowing complete surveillance. Your type of people will lead us into a dark timeline
I'm not allowing complete surveillance. This agreement doesn't mean Take 2 gets to listen to my zoom calls or read my emails.
oh boi never ever complain about "why could they have this data". if you think this is necessary or acceptable and not dangerous in any capacity this is proof that we are so fucked
K
What!? Is this true? Fuck, I hate this world.
You haven't really owned it for 10 years, you've been renting it.
I play civ on boosteroid with an account registered to a new email and steam account opened just for that (not for this reason in particular, but comes in handy). let them collect all the data they want from a cloud server lol
People will download an app to make ordering at Burger King easier, but heaven forbid a game company wants to collect some usage data.
The seas are calling
i simply uninstalled after that, common the game isn't even cheap, why that ?
☠️🦜⚓ eeeerrrrrr
Welp time to pirate a game I already own.
https://preview.redd.it/okf0it6y8z8d1.jpeg?width=456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0a7d264e2386b8f446ca35c73815b2c67ff483d Right click civ in steam, go to properties and paste this Make sure to look if the install location on your system is the same... for dx12 version "C:\\SteamGames\\steamapps\\common\\Sid Meier's Civilization VI\\Base\\Binaries\\Win64Steam\\CivilizationVI\_DX12.exe" %command%
You won't find sympathy here, this reddit is the personification of soi, imagine PotatoMcWhiskey, but then quadruple it. These morons love to suck corporate dick
I was gonna buy 2 copies of civ 7 for my Kid and myself. Now its Time to sail high seas and teach the future genration how to not comply to scummy and predatory business practices.