Persona 3 Reload

EULA evaluation of Persona 3 Reload
  • Overall Score: 44

  • Readability: 11
  • Data and Privacy: 13
  • Player Rights: 9
  • Changes to EULA: 11
  • Liability and Disputes: 11
  • Criteria Score Detail
    Clarity of Language 2 The EULA contains **a lot of legal terms**, and while some sections are understandable, important details are still hidden behind unclear language, potentially **harming the user**.
    Text Structure and Formatting 3 The EULA is formatted adequately with **some headings and bullet points**, but important information is still buried or not highlighted, making it moderately difficult to follow.
    Length and Conciseness 2 The EULA is relatively long, with **some unnecessary information** that feels like filler. It’s difficult for users to distinguish the critical parts from the less relevant sections.
    User-Friendly Explanations and Examples 3 Some key terms are explained, and **limited examples** are provided, but the majority of the EULA assumes users understand the legal concepts being used.
    User-Friendly Explanations and Examples 1 There is **no summary version**, and users are forced to read the entire, often complex, EULA to understand any of the terms, creating a highly harmful situation for users who don’t have time or expertise to review it fully.

    Criteria Score Detail
    Scope of Data Collection 3 The company collects significant personal data beyond what is strictly necessary (e.g., detailed behavioral tracking, device information) with limited opt-out options.
    Data Sharing with Third Parties 3 The company shares data with a variety of third parties (e.g., advertisers, marketing partners) without clear or detailed disclosure on how it’s used.
    User Control over Data 3 Users have minimal control, with only basic privacy settings that dont allow for full data management, such as opting out of tracking or deleting accounts.
    Retention and Security of Data 2 The company retains data indefinitely without offering users control over deletion, and security measures are weak or not fully disclosed.
    Monetization of Data 2 The company heavily monetizes user data, including through third-party advertising, with minimal transparency or user control over the extent of the monetization.

    Criteria Score Detail
    Ownership of Purchased Content 1 The EULA explicitly states that all purchased content is **only licensed** and can be revoked at any time without compensation. Users have no real ownership or control over their purchases, which can be harmful as they may lose access unexpectedly.
    Refunds and Cancellation Rights 2 Refunds are available, but only in **limited cases** such as product defects or technical issues. It’s difficult for users to get their money back under normal conditions.
    Right to Play 2 The right to play is tied to server availability or online status, and while access can be **limited or revoked**, some protections may exist for short periods of downtime. However, long-term guarantees are lacking.
    Fair Use and Modding Rights 2 Modding is **allowed in limited circumstances**, such as only for non-commercial or single-player use. However, users have little freedom, and restrictions make it hard for community creation to thrive.
    Intellectual Property and User-Generated Content 2 Users retain **some rights** over their UGC, but the company claims a **broad license** to use or modify it, often without compensation or acknowledgment. This limits user control over their creations.

    Criteria Score Detail
    Notification of Changes 2 Changes are **posted on the website or app** but without direct communication to users. This means users may still miss important changes unless they frequently monitor the EULA, which is inconvenient and can be harmful.
    Consent to Changes 2 Users are notified of changes, but their **continued use** of the service is treated as automatic consent, without any formal agreement. This leaves users with little choice and can lead to inadvertent acceptance of harmful terms.
    Impact of Changes 3 Significant changes are **highlighted**, but users do not have the option to revert to previous terms or opt out without discontinuing service. This forces users into accepting changes even when impactful.
    Accessibility of Changes 2 Changes are **available** but written in complex legal terms, and no user-friendly summary or explanation is provided. Users may not easily grasp the implications of the updates. Previous versions are hard to find or not provided.
    Opt-out Option 2 Users can **stop using the service** if they disagree with the changes, but they are forced to lose access to their accounts, data, and purchases. No ability to retain older terms or receive refunds.

    Criteria Score Detail
    Are liability limitations reasonable or overly restrictive? 3 The company provides **some limited protection** but still disclaims most liability for major issues, leaving the user to bear most risks. The terms may offer limited legal recourse, but users still have minimal rights.
    Is there a cap on the company’s liability, and is it reasonable? 2 The liability cap is **very low**, offering **minimal compensation** for damages or losses, even in significant cases. The user is left with little recourse in the event of serious problems.
    Does the EULA require arbitration or provide court access? 2 Arbitration is required, and **court access is blocked**, but some transparency is provided regarding the process. Users still face **significant hurdles** in resolving disputes.
    Is there a clear process for dispute resolution? 2 The dispute resolution process is **vague**, and users are given minimal information on how to proceed. The lack of clarity makes it challenging for users to understand their rights or how to act.
    Is class-action participation allowed? 2 Class actions are **waived**, and users must resolve disputes individually, but there are **some alternatives**, such as small claims court. Users still face **significant obstacles** to collective action.