• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Automatic Account Deletion Feedback

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Ew :/ mostly i've liked how the GDPR has been impacting the internet... But not being able to keep an inactive game account alive? I guess i need to read that thing to see why I should resent the EU :p
I know right? Making us login once for like, 30 seconds every 12 months? Don't they realize we have real lives and other worlds to play? There is no way I can add this burden to my life. Is there a number for the Hague we can call? Damn EU, this is America. Who made them boss? Hey, anyone seen my pitchfork?
 

DeletedUser29726

I know right? Making us login once for like, 30 seconds every 12 months? Don't they realize we have real lives and other worlds to play? There is no way I can add this burden to my life. Is there a number for the Hague we can call? Damn EU, this is America. Who made them boss? Hey, anyone seen my pitchfork?
Well I don't know about you, but when i take a break from the game, i stop thinking about it. I don't know when I'll play it again, and i'm certainly not taking on a chore of logging in every now and then just so i don't get deleted. It may not be til years later i go "oh hey, i haven't played that in forever" and login. Historically most games wanting people to return have kept your data indefinitely and thus you can actually just play rather than start from scratch. If the GDPR is barring this practice which I've rather enjoyed at times before and it's being applied by companies regardless of where their customer originates and where the data is hosted, yes I'm a little peeved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser31592

Well I don't know about you, but when i take a break from the game, i stop thinking about it. I don't know when I'll play it again, and i'm certainly not taking on a chore of logging in every now and then just so i don't get deleted. It may not be til years later i go "oh hey, i haven't played that in forever" and login. Historically most games wanting people to return have kept your data indefinitely and thus you can actually just play rather than start from scratch. If the GDPR is barring this practice which I've rather enjoyed at times before and it's being applied by companies regardless of where their customer originates and where the data is hosted, yes I'm a little peeved.
If you are a PC player, download the app. You will notice it when scrolling through your phone. Or, better yet, set a reminder to log in every so many months. I set reminders a year out all the time.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Well I don't know about you, but when i take a break from the game, i stop thinking about it. I don't know when I'll play it again, and i'm certainly not taking on a chore of logging in every now and then just so i don't get deleted. It may not be til years later i go "oh hey, i haven't played that in forever" and login. Historically most games wanting people to return have kept your data indefinitely and thus you can actually just play rather than start from scratch. If the GDPR is barring this practice which I've rather enjoyed at times before and it's being applied by companies regardless of where their customer originates and where the data is hosted, yes I'm a little peeved.
What JCera said. Set a calendar reminder once a year reminding you to log in. Similar to how you most likely have a loved one's birthday or anniversary scheduled as a reminder right now so you remember to call, or send a card or gift. If you just can't seem to manage this one little thing like you do every other once a year event you remind yourself of, then you're just out of luck.

Since the internet has no boundaries and someone in Europe can log in and leave personal data on virtually any company's website around the world, expect this to be applied by companies regardless of where their customer originates or where the data is being hosted. It's my understanding these EU privacy standards are much more stringent than what is required here in the U.S. If that is truly the case, then I welcome the change.

If you're personally inconvenienced so that user data around the world is more private and more secure, then I think it's a pretty fair trade.

On a side note, if this 30 second inconvenience once every 12 months has you a little peeved, what's it like for you to have to stand in a grocery store checkout line? Even worse, go to the DMV?
 

DeletedUser29726

I think the difference between this and your analogies is the needlessness to delete the data in my eyes. They're games I signed up for, agreed to their ToS, and have not asked for my account to be deleted - I see no issue in the data vegetating and waiting for me to come back or not. In a world where people post their entire lives on facebook, twitter, and the like for everyone to see I hardly see an e-mail, some usage habits, and some game data still being stored as an invasion of my privacy.

And no, if i quit a game i'm not going to set a reminder to login every 11 months to be sure it's not deleted. It's not that important - it's a bloody game, not a necessity of life. I'll certainly never return to such a game now though where in the past I have done so at times - if i quit it really will be for good. Similarly in games I have played for a long time and am still playing when every now and then someone comes back that had been gone for years I won't even know for sure it's them - because their account got deleted and was available to be remade by anyone. Overall in my years playing games, the persistence of such things has been a feature i valued in online games and I've been less likely to commit longterm to games run by companies known to prune inactive accounts.

The good of the GDPR is making companies be up front about what they're using your information for. From the reading I've been doing though, a lot of the law's content is just based on principles without covering implementation details and some of the principles present practical issues when it comes to implementation - and i suspect this is what's happening here. Not that storage of personal data for over a year is not allowed in any circumstance, just that between all the requirements inno decided one part of their stategy to meet them was to delete inactive accounts so they couldn't be considered a breach.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I think the difference between this and your analogies is the needlessness to delete the data in my eyes. They're games I signed up for, agreed to their ToS, and have not asked for my account to be deleted - I see no issue in the data vegetating and waiting for me to come back or not. In a world where people post their entire lives on facebook, twitter, and the like for everyone to see I hardly see an e-mail, some usage habits, and some game data still being stored as an invasion of my privacy.

And no, if i quit a game i'm not going to set a reminder to login every 11 months to be sure it's not deleted. It's not that important - it's a bloody game, not a necessity of life. I'll certainly never return to such a game now though where in the past I have done so at times - if i quit it really will be for good. Similarly in games I have played for a long time and am still playing when every now and then someone comes back that had been gone for years I won't even know for sure it's them - because their account got deleted and was available to be remade by anyone. Overall in my years playing games, the persistence of such things has been a feature i valued in online games and I've been less likely to commit longterm to games run by companies known to prune inactive accounts.

The good of the GDPR is making companies be up front about what they're using your information for. From the reading I've been doing though, a lot of the law's content is just based on principles without covering implementation details and some of the principles present practical issues when it comes to implementation - and i suspect this is what's happening here. Not that storage of personal data for over a year is not allowed in any circumstance, just that between all the requirements inno decided one part of their strategy to meet them was to delete inactive accounts so they couldn't be considered a breach.
You're free to react to these changes however you choose. But whatever happens to your account in the future will be your choice. Should you choose to become inactive, and choose not to log into your account for a period of 12 or more months to protect it from deletion, you are choosing to have your account deleted by Innogames. When Inno deletes your account. they will be deleting it based on your choice to have it deleted.

So once this change goes into effect, there will be 2 ways to delete your account. Proactively let Innogames know you would like your account deleted, or simply do nothing. After a period of 12 or more months of complete inactivity, Innogames will know you have chosen to delete your account. and will, at that time, do so, according to your wishes.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser27889

If a forum account is deleted, what happens with the posts? Essentially does this mean that all of the old threads, guides topics will be erased or look like one person talking to themselves as they're the only ones left?

It's rather odd, just the other day I reset my eagames password as it had been several years since I'd played anything on it. While I don't see myself going inactive for a year stranger things have happened and all this does is insures I never come back to the game if I stopped playing.

Can someone explain this GDPR thing to this stupid American? I've read some articles about it to try to get a sense of where all these new rules are coming from but everything I'm reading sounds like something that affects data miners and selling to advertisers. But now accounts get deleted in a year without a request from the users and people on beta are asking things like 'can we even post pictures of our game on the forums since we don't own the properties' etc. In none of the articles I'm reading does this new EU law seem to say anything about any of those things. Understandably people in the EU have been dealing with the talks behind this for years and I've only heard of this in the past month but is anyone able to share some links? I've read the wiki I've read about the compliance I've read about all the companies shutting down access to the EU and the fines and lawsuits but it seems I'm missing the actual 'meat' of what in the world this is and it seems every company is interpreting it differently.
 

Agent327

FOE Team
Forum Moderator
If a forum account is deleted, what happens with the posts? Essentially does this mean that all of the old threads, guides topics will be erased or look like one person talking to themselves as they're the only ones left?
No, posts will still be there. Only the name might be removed.

Can someone explain this GDPR thing to this stupid American? I've read some articles about it to try to get a sense of where all these new rules are coming from but everything I'm reading sounds like something that affects data miners and selling to advertisers. But now accounts get deleted in a year without a request from the users and people on beta are asking things like 'can we even post pictures of our game on the forums since we don't own the properties' etc. In none of the articles I'm reading does this new EU law seem to say anything about any of those things. Understandably people in the EU have been dealing with the talks behind this for years and I've only heard of this in the past month but is anyone able to share some links? I've read the wiki I've read about the compliance I've read about all the companies shutting down access to the EU and the fines and lawsuits but it seems I'm missing the actual 'meat' of what in the world this is and it seems every company is interpreting it differently.
Not much to explain. It is a Europeasn Privacy Law that determines what kind of info you are allowed to keep on a person and for how long. There are no talks about it. Even in Europe people hardly know it is going on. It is yet another stupid decission from the Euro Parliament that mostly consist of politicians that sign in to collect their money.
 

DeletedUser31498

This is why I find the 'donation' argument angle as disingenuous. Very rarely is somebody contributing to a GB without an expectation of payback.

If a charity/church goes bankrupt, due to mishandling the money/corruption, would we feel that money should be returned to the people who were cheated?

If it is revealed that the candidate purposely lost the election so they could pocket campaign donations, is there a case for a damages lawsuit?

Should the money for participating in a poker tournament be refundable if unforeseen circumstances force the people running the tournament to cancel it with no determined winner?

Hopefully, I've illustrated why the context of a situation matters.
charity example: if someone does something ILLEGAL, yes VICTIMS should be compensated. not remotely the case here

Candidate example: that's also illegal, very different from someone going inactive

Poker tourney: with the GB, the game is still running!!! anyone can still play! you can still donate and level their GB (you've had a year since they last played, let alone since you donated last).

Sorry, all your examples have illustrated context different from this one.
 

Mackay131

Member
If the Management is intending to destroy value, that is money spent for various game items, then this may not end well. Either the game items are rebated in cash or their personal effects are distributed to those who knew them well ... their Guild. Evony does a "La La" Land where their inactive account goes for a rest. The amount of code needed for a city cannot be that huge.
 

DeletedUser31882

Neither did the FPs I put onto a GB when my reward position was later usurped by a sniper. Should I get my FPs back since they didn't fulfill the intended purpose?
Nope. Their purpose was fulfilled, if the GB levels. Otherwise, the contribution race never finished and nobodies FPs accomplished their primary purpose for being placed on the GB.

Graviton said:
If you don't literally lock in a reward spot, any and all FPs placed on a GB are a roll of the dice. You're not gifting, you're not donating, you're not even investing...you're gambling.
I agree that we can call it gambling, but that doesn't stop FPs from being a gift, a donation or an investment(Non-mutual exclusivity?). Life is just a bunch of risky scenarios one after the other, but we typically don't argue that life is nothing but gambling.

I stick to framing all FPs placed as contributions first, then the intent informs if it is a gamble/gift/etc. The GB gives incentive for players to be one of the top contributors. Since the first player past the 'lock' will win a prize, I call it the contribution race. The amount of investment from a player, before they are in a locked reward spot, can be viewed as a gamble. Are they gambling for the top spot or just 4th or 5th? Are they intending to win every GB they have placed a FP on or is it a diversified portfolio to minimize loss and maximize gain? Are they just dumping Arc reward FP from sniping a guildie and thus have no intent of racing? Questions like this make me think it is more than just putting some chips on lucky 13, because the other players make it a competition gamble, rather than The House vs the player gamble.

I separate this competitive gamble race from the primary objective of what FPs on a GB do. If that next level is never completed, then there is no outcome of the contribution race. Thus there is a second gamble, will the GB be completed and the contribution race FP actually put to use?

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. There are two gambles being made when someone contributes. (1) To win the contribution race against other players and 2) That the GB will be completed so prizes are handed out.

People who are anti-arc are upset on the balancing of (1). Other than semantics, I'm not arguing for anything there.

For point (2): I'm arguing that if a GB does not complete, then that is tantamount to a breech in contract, corrupt bank/charity/politician or other action that has an argument for recompense.

In the end, I see it as a difference in opinion on the nature of how the game should be balanced. One side views that the player should be aware that they waive all rights and ownership of their FPs once it is contributed to a GB. The other believes that they still have a stake of ownership in those FPs. My stance leans more into the latter group due to the existence of the contribution race and my belief that if the race isn't concluded (and FP rewards anted or refunds given) than that is the incorrect way of handling a canceled game, concert, etc.

On the other hand, It's a great FP sink. Especially for the Mega-arc players. That may color our opinions and intents on the matter.

So I guess my argument could be a long-winded way of saying 'This gambling should be regulated to protect the consumer'? Hrmm, I may have to change my mind if I frame it that way.

So it seems both terms are correctly applied, but many users don't understand that they mean the same thing.
I can only add (argumentative wise): Or interpret (Be it purposeful or through ignorance) the words in a way that best suits their purpose.

Bias admission: I believe 'Donation' is on my 'bad' list due to me disagreeing with arguments made in the past. If I recall correctly, it was being used to justify flipping GBs(Could have been a miscommunication/misunderstanding), which feels like justifying a malicious act by dressing it up as a righteous one. Hence my argument stance of

RazorbackPirate said:
It's been great having a well reasoned debate and exploring the different positions.

~Special Thanks to (silly commentary that has a high likelihood of not being seen or read!)
~The constant stream of silly questions that initiated this debate. (Silly, Stupid, I'm the guy with the gun full of text)
~Titris Thrawns for showing up armed. (with too much time on their hands!)
~Inno for wasting my time in game and out of game. (So true)
~Gatorade. (Diabetes water or just enough electrolytes?)
~If you can't feed them, don't breed them. (^_^)=b
~quest loops (*shrugs*)
~HTML5 (*nods*)
Thank you (& Graviton and others) for the same.

Solid arguments and I can't think of anything new to add (other than reiterating my points above in response to Graviton) without resorting to "Nuh uh poopy head!" and running away with boxers as a hat.

I especially liked the charity ticket example. Intent when donating(or any action) can shift where a person's feelings end up. I've seen people upset over arcs, not having an arc, having people place 1FP on their GB when they advertise open reward spots, etc. It all boils down to expectations. I suppose that could be the root of most disagreements. *shrugs*

I think the difference between this and your analogies is the needlessness to delete the data in my eyes. They're games I signed up for, agreed to their ToS, and have not asked for my account to be deleted - I see no issue in the data vegetating and waiting for me to come back or not.
In the past, I've seen browser games with shorter turn-around time to delete inactive accounts (Since my anecdotal data comes from years ago, the game shouldn't of had any regulatory reason for the practice). I assume it was for performance reasons. Regardless, they promised that if any account had donated to the game (Which granted an in-game item. Ahh, the days before heavy game monetization...) that the account would not be deleted ever. Unsure if KoL is still running that policy and I wonder if my account would still be on there after all these years...

Anyways, I bring that up as I thought it could be a compromise idea. I suppose that feasibility really depends on Inno and the extent of those regulatory pressures. *shrugs*
 

Mackay131

Member
Nope. Their purpose was fulfilled, if the GB levels. Otherwise, the contribution race never finished and nobodies FPs accomplished their primary purpose for being placed on the GB.



I agree that we can call it gambling, but that doesn't stop FPs from being a gift, a donation or an investment(Non-mutual exclusivity?). Life is just a bunch of risky scenarios one after the other, but we typically don't argue that life is nothing but gambling.

I stick to framing all FPs placed as contributions first, then the intent informs if it is a gamble/gift/etc. The GB gives incentive for players to be one of the top contributors. Since the first player past the 'lock' will win a prize, I call it the contribution race. The amount of investment from a player, before they are in a locked reward spot, can be viewed as a gamble. Are they gambling for the top spot or just 4th or 5th? Are they intending to win every GB they have placed a FP on or is it a diversified portfolio to minimize loss and maximize gain? Are they just dumping Arc reward FP from sniping a guildie and thus have no intent of racing? Questions like this make me think it is more than just putting some chips on lucky 13, because the other players make it a competition gamble, rather than The House vs the player gamble.

I separate this competitive gamble race from the primary objective of what FPs on a GB do. If that next level is never completed, then there is no outcome of the contribution race. Thus there is a second gamble, will the GB be completed and the contribution race FP actually put to use?

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. There are two gambles being made when someone contributes. (1) To win the contribution race against other players and 2) That the GB will be completed so prizes are handed out.

People who are anti-arc are upset on the balancing of (1). Other than semantics, I'm not arguing for anything there.

For point (2): I'm arguing that if a GB does not complete, then that is tantamount to a breech in contract, corrupt bank/charity/politician or other action that has an argument for recompense.

In the end, I see it as a difference in opinion on the nature of how the game should be balanced. One side views that the player should be aware that they waive all rights and ownership of their FPs once it is contributed to a GB. The other believes that they still have a stake of ownership in those FPs. My stance leans more into the latter group due to the existence of the contribution race and my belief that if the race isn't concluded (and FP rewards anted or refunds given) than that is the incorrect way of handling a canceled game, concert, etc.

On the other hand, It's a great FP sink. Especially for the Mega-arc players. That may color our opinions and intents on the matter.

So I guess my argument could be a long-winded way of saying 'This gambling should be regulated to protect the consumer'? Hrmm, I may have to change my mind if I frame it that way.



I can only add (argumentative wise): Or interpret (Be it purposeful or through ignorance) the words in a way that best suits their purpose.

Bias admission: I believe 'Donation' is on my 'bad' list due to me disagreeing with arguments made in the past. If I recall correctly, it was being used to justify flipping GBs(Could have been a miscommunication/misunderstanding), which feels like justifying a malicious act by dressing it up as a righteous one. Hence my argument stance of



Thank you (& Graviton and others) for the same.

Solid arguments and I can't think of anything new to add (other than reiterating my points above in response to Graviton) without resorting to "Nuh uh poopy head!" and running away with boxers as a hat.

I especially liked the charity ticket example. Intent when donating(or any action) can shift where a person's feelings end up. I've seen people upset over arcs, not having an arc, having people place 1FP on their GB when they advertise open reward spots, etc. It all boils down to expectations. I suppose that could be the root of most disagreements. *shrugs*



In the past, I've seen browser games with shorter turn-around time to delete inactive accounts (Since my anecdotal data comes from years ago, the game shouldn't of had any regulatory reason for the practice). I assume it was for performance reasons. Regardless, they promised that if any account had donated to the game (Which granted an in-game item. Ahh, the days before heavy game monetization...) that the account would not be deleted ever. Unsure if KoL is still running that policy and I wonder if my account would still be on there after all these years...

Anyways, I bring that up as I thought it could be a compromise idea. I suppose that feasibility really depends on Inno and the extent of those regulatory pressures. *shrugs*
 

Mackay131

Member
Is there a certain level where the City might be expected to be kept?

There are a number of "Dead Wood" issues that might be worth addressing: Non-Viable Guilds with One to Five Members. There are plenty of players with delusions of Charisma and Leadership who cannot muster more than a handful of people. Removing the bottom 10% every 6 months might do wonders for the amount of space available.

This might motivate players to start a Guild which is better than the lowest levels.
 
Last edited:

Mackay131

Member
Evony has a benchmark for deletion which in a way is rather more ruthless than FoE. If a certain level is not achieved and there is no activity in 90 days, it does disappear. However this is for small accounts where little effort has been made. Evony will NOT delete accounts when there has been Coin Purchased. Again once an Account has been dinged into LaLa Land or Zeroed, it takes a while for the system to recover the Lost City.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
If the Management is intending to destroy value, that is money spent for various game items, then this may not end well. Either the game items are rebated in cash or their personal effects are distributed to those who knew them well ... their Guild. Evony does a "La La" Land where their inactive account goes for a rest. The amount of code needed for a city cannot be that huge.
I just don't understand the constant drumbeat of wanting to get something for nothing from this change. If another player's inactive city contains something purchased with money, and Inno deletes it, any dispute is between the player who spent the money and Inno. What concern of it is yours, or mine, or anyone else's, for that matter?

Or is the sudden concern, (on the other player's behalf of course), about "Management intending to destroy value" and firm stance "the game items be rebated in cash" all just there distract from, or gin up support for what you really want, the distribution of all the valuable in game items to the guild?

I especially like the subtle way you equate it with death, calling all that valuable stuff you'd like to get your hands on, "their personal effects" and imply a survivor benefit with "to those who know them well."

Setting aside the obvious questions about knowing a player well who hasn't even logged in for over a year, or why given the cost to unlock GE your guild has members who haven't even logged in for over a year. I'll just get to the most important one.

How exactly is the guild entitled to all this stuff?
 

Mackay131

Member
How exactly is the guild entitled to all this stuff?

Guilds are the nearest analog to Family in FoE, in the same congruency, that there were Family Alliances in Evony.

The Guild provided nurturing caring and FPs for the Players' City, thus it is a reasonable expect that those who knew them well share after the Player Leaves.
 

DeletedUser32973

Well this is mildly annoying. I don't have much to say about it since xivarmy covered all the points I would have. Multiple times I've experienced game burn out and it could be 1-2 years before I returned. I suppose if that happens in this game I won't be returning /shrug. In all honesty it's Inno, not the players, who loses out on this. It's unfortunate they're being forced to go this route.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser29726

In the past, I've seen browser games with shorter turn-around time to delete inactive accounts (Since my anecdotal data comes from years ago, the game shouldn't of had any regulatory reason for the practice). I assume it was for performance reasons. Regardless, they promised that if any account had donated to the game (Which granted an in-game item. Ahh, the days before heavy game monetization...) that the account would not be deleted ever. Unsure if KoL is still running that policy and I wonder if my account would still be on there after all these years...

Anyways, I bring that up as I thought it could be a compromise idea. I suppose that feasibility really depends on Inno and the extent of those regulatory pressures. *shrugs*
Reasons for deletions in some games without regulatory pressure:
1) "Barely started playing/Freeing up limited space in a world" - Worlds are often setup with hard limits to maximum players for reasons ranging from laziness to performance to gameplay. Inno already does this to make sure the limited spots available on each world aren't "wasted" on dormant bronze age accounts - no real issue here with that practice. They also used a certain diamond threshold to avoid deletion as an exception to this similar to what you mentioned.
2) "Freeing up handles" - so that people have a better chance of being able to select a name they actually want

The regulatory aspects aren't satisfied by buying a premium item to keep your account forever. One of the principles is that your data cannot be kept indefinitely (not even with your consent). They could ask for an agreement to keep it for a particular term which you'd have to renew. Or they can delete it when it's no longer "being used". It's all very fuzzy as to what considers being used and they have to do what they feel their lawyers can defend within the principles of the law as being reasonable so long as they're serving EU customers. Some sites have taken to banning EU customers (though it's not clear even this covers their ass as EU citizens residing abroad are supposedly afforded the "protection" of the law as well) or shutting down entirely to avoid the headaches the law brings about - given that inno is HQed in germany and the EU is as big a market as the US, not likely in this case.

So yea... As much as I like that all the sites have new agreements that force them to admit they're selling your tracking data I'm kinda pissed about just how overbearing this new law is now.