None of those were challenges of the validity of the EULA itself, they were suits brought by the licensor against the licensee, mostly for copyright infringement violations, not EULA violations.

I just let my cat walk on the keyboard when I get to the EULAs and they mysteriously disappear without me having to agree to anything.

Huh, EA is like this little annoying 6 year old with issues on a family meeting. Everyone rounds up for a photo, but EA doesn't want to. After hours of asking, and promising a pony, the kid joins the family.
And when the photo is developed, we can see everyone smiling, and the brat standing there with a grim look on his face, extending the middle finger.
Kinda how i see it, perhaps i see bad.;)

I saw the following part in the EULA...

EA and its affiliates may collect and store non-personally identifiable data including your Internet Protocol Address as well as game play and software usage statistics. If and when you access online features and/or services (if any), this data may be transmitted to EA. EA may use this information to improve our products and services and may share anonymous data with third parties.


Sorry buckos, but if I wanted to be data mined or have ANY of my data shared you'd have to pay me a monthly fee.

Yeah - "may" is important. Your IP address is useless in itself, as it's dynamic. Google and other big brother institutes can use it to correleate between searches, but for the purposes of EA it's useless.

They put that in to protect against their more recent titles that do connect to their servers. Their old ones don't (ie.e gog ones) are not going to mine your data.

This has become a tin-foil hat thread.

This one and the Gog getting huge thread.......I keep pointing out what I know of US law and how other trustful longtimers have said those bits don't apply and yet people still wear the hats.

I know.....maybe make and distribute tinfoil hat avatars as extras for the EA titles?
1. No they're not, and wpegg is right...that statement is only for their newer titles. If in doubt use a port monitor software to doublecheck, or have another buyer do it for you.

2. They're cheap, and lazy, and EA...nuff said.

Mountain out of a molehill.

Copy / paste blurb that will never in a million years be implemented or acted upon.

Which brings us right back to don't put the fucking statement in a legally binding contract if it is absolutely meaningless. If they don't use it, who cares, but since it is stated, once again, in a legal document, the end user has every right to not only be suspicious, but it should be expected that they be suspicious. Caveat emptor isn't just for watching out for shoddy products.

They put it in because they can and because they put it in all their titles....and because the parts that they want applied to these titles here are in said document.

Want my spare tinfoil hat then?

(BTW it's good to be suspicious but not to the level of outright paranoia and mental issues.)

No, they upheld the ability of the licensor to enforce terms of the EULA such as (in Autodesk) prohibitions against resale.

If they had held the EULAs invalid, they would not have upheld terms of the EULA.

It doesn't require a tinfoil hat. All it requires is sending a question and getting an answer.

But again if others have proved it ok/safe to play these games why worry? And if one worries why not ask a purchaser to test it out for you?

IMO you're making a mountain out of nothing here....(im quoting another gogger here btw and not trying to troll with this last line)

The way law is written, the section talking about specifically refers to their online gaming stuff. The additional sentence about recording information is in that very same section, and therefore is only bound to the opening statement of that section. But, like I said, caveat emptor, and so if you're concerned, send a question, get an answer, and if the answer given turns out to be false, you have grounds for legal action. If you're concerned.

Hell, I'm picking up Wing Commander: Privateer Monday. It's no worries to me, but I actually have some background in knowing contract law; I've only stated it's to be expected for concern from customers when needless stupid blanket statements are put in a legal document when they are specifically not required.

1. Those two sections were supposed to be removed...cheap lazy EA.

Again, as these games aren't built to phone home or connect to online gaming those don't apply.....also if they did that'd be DRM and Gog wouldn't allow it.

I agree the blanket statement was a crap move, but at least we get EA!