I read the main post on why (about encrypted text on LIVE)

This is fair enough and is not what I need anyway.

I want to know if you are allowed to implement Static Text Chat in a multiplayer game.  For example, hold L and press up to say "Go!" or hold L and press down to say "Get the Flag!" (as text and a voice clip) to all/team players.  These texts would not be changable by the player.

 

We are not lawyers, and cannot interpret the EULA for you. Similarly, Microsoft employees are not lawyers, and can also not interpret the EULA for you (!). Thus, you have to use your own judgement.

My personal judgement would be that I wouldn't have a problem submitting a game like that, but whether that's your judgement for you is for you alone (or in collaboration with your lawyer) to decide. Consider: What's the worst that could happen? Could you live with that?

Or use 3.0 and don't worry about it http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnhar/archive/2008/10/01/senddataoptions-chat-in-xna-game-studio-3-0.aspx

Of course in your case sending "Go!" as text or a voice packet would be a terrible waste of bandwidth. You would send CommandEnum.Go as a byte (or less if you are smart) just like you would send any game data. Then the client would do whatever it liked - display a constant string or play a sound byte. Then you are not doing text chat at all.

Ya know... We get that you guys aren't lawyers, however, if Microsoft is going to put this platform up as if we "indies" can make games and make money off of them, its not really appropriate that some channel doesn't exist where EULA questions can be asked. I also understand that if you guys try to interpret the EULA, you will get fired. I don't think its right for MVP's to post statements up like "If you can't afford a lawyer then the thing you want to protect can't be worth all that much" either. That statement generalizes and most people on these forums don't have things to back them up. We are using this channel to get our names out and someone, somewhere needs to step up and answer our questions. Saying that not being able to afford a lawyer automatically means that what we have created is not worth that much, then you're saying that prior to the first DBP, the winner's assets weren't worth as much. Microsoft seems to think that DBP winners are worth quite a bit by the price tag they put out as the prize for winning DBP.

Sol:

Ya know... We get that you guys aren't lawyers, however, if Microsoft is going to put this platform up as if we "indies" can make games and make money off of them, its not really appropriate that some channel doesn't exist where EULA questions can be asked.

Well none of us are lawyers. If you get into trouble and go to court and start citing some guy on a forum as legal counsel, it doesn't look good for anyone involved. Our interpretation of the EULA is just as valid as yours. Read the EULA and go by what you think. Or hire a lawyer. I understand lawyers are not free, but they also aren't that expensive.

We are using this channel to get our names out and someone, somewhere needs to step up and answer our questions.

Unfortunately that isn't how the world works. Nobody needs to help you out for free. It would be nice, but nobody at Microsoft is going to clarify questions about the EULA. And considering anyone else here didn't write the EULA and, most likely, isn't a lawyer, anything they have to say isn't based on anything besides their personal interpretation of the EULA. That is why we discourage it.

Saying that not being able to afford a lawyer automatically means that what we have created is not worth that much, then you're saying that prior to the first DBP, the winner's assets weren't worth as much.

You're also assuming those people couldn't afford lawyers. Perhaps they could. Perhaps they didn't need lawyers. Or perhaps they did hire lawyers.

Fact is that because Microsoft isn't clarifying answers and others here are not lawyers, we are going to continue discouraging legal advice. It might not suit everyone, but that's likely the way it's going to be.

Sol:

I don't think its right for MVP's to post statements up like "If you can't afford a lawyer then the thing you want to protect can't be worth all that much" either. That statement generalizes and most people on these forums don't have things to back them up.

Lets assume your game took you 400 hours to make. Lets assume that even though you worked in your spare time that gives you a value fo $10 an hour. Lets say you expect to sell 1000 copies at $2.50 and 70% royatly on community games. Thats $4000 + $1750 = $5750. Is it worth spending a few hundred dollars on a lawyer to make sure that calling your game "Pacman Vs Pong" is OK? Is is worth the stress when you get the lawyers letter from Atari and Namco? Is it worth thousands of dollars of legal fees?

Thats what I mean by "Can't be worth all that much". Everything has a value - what would you spend to protect it?

The world is a litgious place these days - sad and annoying but thats the way it is.

The ZMan:

Of course in your case sending "Go!" as text or a voice packet would be a terrible waste of bandwidth. You would send CommandEnum.Go as a byte (or less if you are smart) just like you would send any game data. Then the client would do whatever it liked - display a constant string or play a sound byte. Then you are not doing text chat at all.

This is what I meant and makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking of doing.

 

Personally, I have a pre-paid legal plan. I pay $15/month, and get to call up a big law firm and ask any questions I want, and they answer for free. I also get them to review contracts I sign (although there's a limit to the number of pages they will review for free). Sure, the lawyers I get to talk to are probably the low-level lawyers that are trying to bust their butts to start climbing up the corporate ladder -- but they are people who have practiced law in the state in California, have spent many years in law school, and have passed the state bar exam. That means they know more about the law, and its interpretation, than me. Also, because it's a big firm, they have lawyers specializing in different things, like insurance, vs traffic, vs family, vs criminal, ... which is helpful. Finally, for one matter, they actually referred me to a local lawyer, who knew my county, and gave me excellent advice.

And, yes, whenever I get something more than a page to sign, I run it by them. Sometimes, they find things I don't find, and advice me about them. Sometimes, I decide to go ahead anyway, and sometimes it means I won't sign that paper. That's what a lawyer does: he can advise you about pros and cons, but in the end, the decision is yours. The large company which I use (PPL) is sometimes slammed because their sales people are on commision in a multi-level-marketing scheme, which sucks for those sales people, but as a customer in California, it's well worth my $15. (Which is about as much as I pay for basic cable service with HD -- no premium or additional channels).

 

Sol:

We are using this channel to get our names out and someone, somewhere needs to step up and answer our questions.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

For one thing, none of the Microsoft employees who post on these forums are lawyers, so we are not allowed to answer legal questions. But even if we were lawyers, we would still not answer these questions. What would Microsoft have to gain from doing that?

• Microsoft employs lawyers to make sure Microsoft will not get into legal trouble
• If you are concerned about getting into legal trouble, you need to employ a lawyer of your own
• Microsoft lawyers exist to protect Microsoft, not you!
• It would be a conflict of interest if the same lawyer worked for both parties in a commercial transaction
• The act of hiring a lawyer in itself has legal implications (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privilege) so you can't just lend out lawyers from one client to another

Personal opinion: contracts and EULAs are written in English, and are usually reasonably easy to understand. At least in my experience, when people have questions about such things, that is usually because they are wanting to stretch some rule or other. Maybe they have a game that is similar enough to some other game that they are worried about copyright infringement, but aren't really sure. Or they are sending some data that might or might not count as text chat depending on exactly how you interpret the wording of the EULA. These legal questions only come up because they are skating close to the edge. People who choose not to push the boundaries generally don't run into such grey areas where the exact interpretation of a wording can be important.

So, you really have three options:

• Play it safe and don't push boundaries
• If you choose to push boundaries, be aware that you are taking a risk by doing so
• If you are uncomfortable with that risk, hire a lawyer to advise you about it

Understand though that I don't think it has to happen in this forum, only, like I said, that a channel should exist. I am not bashing any of you for not giving legal advice, as I said in my last post that I understand that. My understanding is that you guys will get fired for trying to interpret or even speculate into the meaning of the EULA. I do see what you mean Shawn and I didn't think about it quite the way you explained it.

That channel will never exist, because Microsoft would and should not commit ahead of time to giving you an interpretation of what their agreement "means" or "would mean" in a court of law. They already wrote what they think: it's the actual EULA! Even if you have a close business relationship with Microsoft, they will not interpret already finished agreements for you, although with the right people and the right amount of money involved, you could perhaps sign a new agreement that supersedes any previous agreements.

Really: if Microsoft had anything more to say to clarify the EULA, they would put that straight into the EULA, because it (like any US legal document) is intended to be the full and whole agreement. Anything that's not written into it is not part of the agreement. That's just how it works.

As stated earlier, the more I come to have it laid out for me, the more I understand Microsoft's stance on it. To make a EULA that explained everything perfectly to everyones liking would take far too many pages to write. I feel even worse that I have hijacked this thread with my misunderstandings honestly.