New Terms of Service

[Collector]

So we are so pose to follow Terms of service that date August 1, 2013 but everytime we log into defiance it say January 1, 2013 and they say its the same but i see differences why is that.

new http://www.trionworlds.com/en/legal/terms-of-use/

but people go look at your in game terms that you agree to every day they are different.

this saying people are getting banned due to new terms that no one agrees to.

[Collector]

please leave your comments

[Sanguinesun]

please leave your comments

Pointless. They can't be held accountable outside of the court of public opinion and karma. If you think otherwise, just read this complaint by a former exec that dragged on unreasonably and had to go to suit before Trion would even entertain doing anything about it:

http://www.seitzross.com/firm-cases-...on-Worlds.html

If they'll do that to em, anything some player disdains is a molecule on a sliver from a piece of sand in the Sahara desert in their concern.

[Beck]

Makes you wonder what Trion is worried about. This looks like fear, and fear means that 40% common stock is likely worth a lot less than maybe the guy holding it thinks it is worth. If Trion was in the black it wouldn't need financing, and I know they have been looking for and receiving that. Which was also noted in that file in your link.

If we had the journalistic resources we would look for more information but we are putting resources elsewhere.

[Deunan]

This is nothing more than ignorant speculation. The case cited revolves around an NDA. The complaint, like all complaints is one-sided. The information that the shareholder was requesting could contain what's referred to as trade secret information. There is nothing unreasonable about a company requiring third parties to enter into their own NDA as part of the due diligence process and the language is protective of the company's right to control the process and protect its rights. It may seem like overkill to laymen but this is what multinational law firms like Orrick do in advising their clients and drafting their NDA's.

The shareholder, Jon Van Caneghem, was a founder and an executive officer and member of the board of directors of Trion Worlds until late 2009, less than a year before he was asked to sign the NDA to access insider information on the company. It's highly unlikely that he wasn't perfectly aware of the relative financial condition of the corporation as he would have had access to all of the corporation's financial information at that time including financial projections out to 1-2 quarters. This case revolved around Van Canaghem's right to disclose confidential information to third parties without them having to sign an NDA with Trion Worlds (which is a ludicrous notion), and Trion's right to refuse to enter into an NDA with what it might deem was a third party affiliated with a competitor.

There is nothing in the complaint about the corporation seeking additional financing because it didn't need additional financing in 2010 as it had secured $70M in a Series C Preferred Stock offering in 2008 and didn't do another equity financing round until 2012.

The TOS includes a provision that allows Trion to unilaterally amend it. This is typical of all TOS for consumer service and product providers as most are contracts of adhesion. It doesn't mean everything in the TOS is enforceable as courts will nullify or modify terms in contracts of adhesion that they find unconscionable but it does mean that everyone in this thread is tilting at windmills.

[Beck]

This is nothing more than ignorant speculation. The case cited revolves around an NDA. The complaint, like all complaints is one-sided. The information that the shareholder was requesting could contain what's referred to as trade secret information. There is nothing unreasonable about a company requiring third parties to enter into their own NDA as part of the due diligence process and the language is protective of the company's right to control the process and protect its rights. It may seem like overkill to laymen but this is what multinational law firms like Orrick do in advising their clients and drafting their NDA's.

The shareholder, Jon Van Canaghem, was a founder and an executive officer and member of the board of directors of Trion Worlds until late 2009, less than a year before he was asked to sign the NDA to access insider information on the company. It's highly unlikely that he wasn't perfectly aware of the relative financial condition of the corporation as he would have had access to all of the corporation's financial information at that time including financial projections out to 1-2 quarters. This case revolved around Van Canaghem's right to disclose confidential information to third parties without them having to sign an NDA with Trion Worlds (which is a ludicrous notion), and Trion's right to refuse to enter into an NDA with what it might deem was a third party affiliated with a competitor.

There is nothing in the complaint about the corporation seeking additional financing because it didn't need additional financing in 2010 as it had secured $70M in a Series C Preferred Stock offering in 2008 and didn't do another equity financing round until 2012.

The TOS includes a provision that allows Trion to unilaterally amend it. This is typical of all TOS for consumer service and product providers as most are contracts of adhesion. It doesn't mean everything in the TOS is enforceable as courts will nullify or modify terms in contracts of adhesion that they find unconscionable but it does mean that everyone in this thread is tilting at windmills.

Did you read the complete document or are you just basing your opinion on reading a few lines or skimming? If you had read it in its entirety you would see all the remedies Van Canaghem offered. He went above and beyond in good faith and this is not a document based on opinion. This is based on what is written in Law according to his state and even getting 3rd party involved for additional security for Trion. That is called a compromise. What Trion was asking in their NDA was not in good faith.

I have stocks in Brand X. I want to sell those stocks to you. You want to buy them. Now I can tell you what I want for them price wise. Are you going to blindly accept or are you going to want to know more about Brand X first? Trion is trying to stop a buyer from getting that information so that Van Canaghem will either have to hold his stocks or sell them for under their value.

Now if Trion is in the red, those stocks are worth next to nothing, wouldn't you as a buyer want to know that before you spend your money? Van Canaghem is trying to do his due diligence for himself and the purchaser. If you are satisfied to buy in ignorance I have a bridge to sell you.

[Sanguinesun]

Did you read the complete document or are you just basing your opinion on reading a few lines or skimming? If you had read it in its entirety you would see all the remedies Van Canaghem offered. He went above and beyond in good faith and this is not a document based on opinion. This is based on what is written in Law according to his state and even getting 3rd party involved for additional security for Trion. That is called a compromise. What Trion was asking in their NDA was not in good faith.

I have stocks in Brand X. I want to sell those stocks to you. You want to buy them. Now I can tell you what I want for them price wise. Are you going to blindly accept or are you going to want to know more about Brand X first? Trion is trying to stop a buyer from getting that information so that Van Canaghem will either have to hold his stocks or sell them for under their value.

Now if Trion is in the red, those stocks are worth next to nothing, wouldn't you as a buyer want to know that before you spend your money? Van Canaghem is trying to do his due diligence for himself and the purchaser. If you are satisfied to buy in ignorance I have a bridge to sell you.

Indeed. Even the guy's lawyer according to the revised NDA they wanted him to sign wouldn't be able to be privy to any information.

The point overall Deunan seems to try to misdirect from was that they gave him a considerable run around and he had to eventually file the suit. The relation thus is the OP thinking that a typical player will be able to attempt any accountability over the TOS discrepancies is futile when you see how Trion would play the legalese run around otherwise. Hence, only accountability that they can hope to even remotely have is through the court of public opinion continuing to erode any vestiges of positive rep and the karma of Trion's digging they own deep hole with their continued lack of considerations for Defiance et al.

At least though Deunan was correct about the 2012 Equity financing. They completed another 85 million one by January of 2012:

http://www.finsmes.com/2012/01/trion...+%28FinSMEs%29

[Codex]

I am striving to see how a player TOS relates to a complaint about ownership and stock based sales. I don't quite see the connection, guys. They are two completely different forms of legal contract (the only relation being that they could potentially be enforced by tort or in civil court if someone particularly feels the TOS has been violated).

[Sanguinesun]

I am striving to see how a player TOS relates to a complaint about ownership and stock based sales. I don't quite see the connection, guys. They are two completely different forms of legal contract (the only relation being that they could potentially be enforced by tort or in civil court if someone particularly feels the TOS has been violated).

Because it reflects the tactics and defensive posture that the company employs and the willingness to do this to someone who was by all accounts more vested in their company than just 10-100 bucks as a typical player is.

[Beck]

In That Last article it says "The company intends to use the the funds to further grow its worldwide online games business."

This was in 2012. Using money from a Canadian Teachers Pension Fund that invested in Trion. Now we know all of those offices have been closed. I guess we know why the Teachers Pension is underfunded. They made a bad investment and in about 1 year managed to blow 85Million +.

Now when you look at the runaround Trion gives the other guy it is showing a consistency of Failure. What ever happened to End of Nations and the Red Door? We never hear anything about ArcAge, they refuse to talk about it when people ask.

So when you have a regular joe like us, we don't have any powers. For those 1000's of people who bought the season pass who will never see 5 DLCs in the first year what recourse do they have? Now I hope the game lasts long enough to release 4 more DLCs because Trion has been obviously mismanaged before Scott took over to the point he had to shut down all those external operations and I am guessing silently close down other projects.

If I was a share holder I would want to know all of these details. As a player it gives me no confidence that the season pass is worth it, because the expectation is not just 5 DLCs but that there will be a community to share it with and a game that is expanding in content to keep me playing between them, not just logging in for a week after the DLC to exhaust the limited DLC to see most of the community disappear again. Trion would run legal circles around any kind of action by anyone.

I believe that is why they closed their EU locations because in the EU consumer protections laws give power to the consumer and the run around is not as easy to do. With no offices over seas it all has to go though the US system which protects the company and does not serve the consumer.

All of this that Sanguinesun is pointing out is showing a consistent retraction by Trion and a lack of good faith in it's operations as it relates to customers and we see this constantly and not just at the level beyond player access.

The question is: Is $40 really that big of a deal to anyone who paid for the season pass?

Answer #1: No, it's cheaper that 2 people going to see a movie on opening night with popcorn and drinks. We probably spend $40 a week on useless stuff

Answer #2: It's not about the money, it is about a company making a commitment and not owning up to the fact they can't meet their commitment and appear to be acting dishonestly or with out respect to their customer base.

What should Trion do? Regardless of the answer above.

Should Trion come out and admit they are broke and with out adequate resources to produce the remaining DLC's within the time frame they produced?

Should Trion give us an accounting of where they are at with each DLC and their projected time lines and ask us to trust in them to produce based on their schedule?

Should Trion just refund everyone's $40 and charge $10-$20 for each DLC and let us buy the ones we want as they are released as an act of good faith to rebuild the public trust?

Does it even matter what Trion does anymore there is already enough bad feelings going around? What ever they say is going to be a lie?

I do believe that Scott is working to get Trion back on its feet. He has had to make some big decisions that I am sure don't look good on the surface but take Trion out from the deep red and closer to the black. I think he has the players interest at heart to a point. What Trion needs is a communications team that works with a PR/Marketing department that doesn't make us all feel the way we do, does avoid good questions that have answers, doesn't pervert their own rules to suit their needs and wants and deals with the community as adults and not like petulant children. Though I accept there are some in the community that act no better.

Where Trion is failing in my opinion is in the community. I think a lot of the public trust has been lost not because of Scott's choices to close some offices. I think it is because of how we all had to find out about them, from every source other than Trion. We feel we have been repeatedly blind sided by bad news when the opportunity for a positive presentation is continually missed.

The wrong people were fired. That is why the community is suffering and as a result Trion is as well.

But that is just MY personal opinion.