What's Frontier's Position on Voice Attack?

[Jmanis]

Not only can you install, you can also run it:

Which means you are allowed to log in and therefore the restrictions listed thereafter cannot preclude all concievable way to do so.
Otherwise there would be no service the terms of which the document called Terms of Service could specify.

No, you can "Use" it, and "Use" is not defined in the EULA.

That it's not defined isn't necessarily a problem, but neither can you construe any more specific things like "Log on" from that.

How you use it is again, at FD's discretion.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

As far as "Log on" goes, section 7.1 has that covered.

7.1 Online Features
7.1.1 The Game may allow certain online services operated by Frontier and/or its affiliates or third parties authorised on their behalf to be accessed, which allow users of the Game to enjoy certain on-line or multiplayer features and functionality associated with the Game (“Online Features”). These services and Online Features may, however, require payment of additional fees. In addition, access to and use of such Online Features and other goods or information made available as part of such services may be subject to completion of a registration process and acceptance of additional terms and conditions including, but not limited to, privacy policies governing the use and processing of personally identifiable information. Not all purchasers of this Game will be able to register or benefit from such services (including Online Features associated with the Game). These services and Online Features may not be available in your country, are not guaranteed to be available for any period of time, may be subject to suspension or withdrawal at any time and may be subject to age restrictions. An internet connection will be required to access Online Features. You are responsible for all internet and other connection charges associated with your access to and use of any Online Features.

"Logging on" is not a right granted purely from having installed the game - section 2 - that merely grants you the right to the (implicitly) "Offline Features", such as running the launcher application in unauthenticated mode.

This section explicitly states that "not all purchasers will be able to register or benefit from such services", and that additional agreements may have to be accepted to do that for those who Frontier chooses to allow.

Yes, that makes no sense that you've paid £20 (or other fee at Frontier's Section 6 discretion) apparently just to look at the launcher. Still, if you're expecting any of this document to make any sense whatsoever by now...

 

[galahad2069]

"Use" is not defined in the EULA.

Neither is "End". Nor "User", "License" and "Agreement".

neither can you construe any more specific things like "Log on" from that.

I think you can, using the "what does this button do?" approach.
You know that you are allowed to "install" this computer program. So you install it.
You know you are also allowed to "use" it. Now what can you do to use it? Well, probably you could delete it, but that does not sound a very reasonable thing to do.
Luckily your unfathomable expertise and supernatural skills in using computer programs tell you that you can also run them. So you launch it. Yay, you're logged in and you're using it now.

 

[Factabulous]

 

[Jmanis]

Neither is "End". Nor "User", "License" and "Agreement".

They don't need to; EULA's are defined (at least in my country) under local laws. YMMV. Local laws would even cover "use"[1], but in a general nature that has no relevance to the OP.

I think you can, using the "what does this button do?" approach.
You know that you are allowed to "install" this computer program. So you install it.
You know you are also allowed to "use" it. Now what can you do to use it? Well, probably you could delete it, but that does not sound a very reasonable thing to do.
Luckily your unfathomable expertise and supernatural skills in using computer programs tell you that you can also run them. So you launch it. Yay, you're logged in and you're using it now.

You, as a person, absolutely can. What you can specifically do is not really stated anywhere, except that you can install and use. What you can't do is stated, and as noted, it's very broad. And then enforcement of that is discretionary.

Can I log on? Probably, don't think anyone's been punished for that.
Can I trade in the game? Probably, don't think anyone's been punished for that.
Can I buy Rockforth Fertiliser from a station and sell it back to that same station for more than I paid for it? No, people have definitely been punished for that[2].

And FD couldn't punish the latter if their position within the EULA wasn't almost completely at their discretion, because none of those activities are spelled out in the EULA. Because I would happily argue til I turn blue that, say, "Robigo Runs" or "Massacre Stacking" are absolutely exploits[3] in the same caliber as the Rockforth Fertiliser exploit, under the definitions set out in the EULA. Are FD punishing people doing that? Absolutely not, as for multiple reasons that would have a dramatic and negative impact on the game.

In the same vein, VA does fall afoul of the EULA, because it's so broad. And it would have a dramatic and negative impact on the game for FD to punish it, so much so that they actually embrace it.

[1] Which is why EULA's tend not to have much legal weight; they can't override your fundamental legal rights within your jurisdiction. Game companies in particular will push back on you for anything, until you cite local consumer law. Then they start throwing out those "Good faith" gestures.
[2] Noting some people argued there was no wrongdoing there; they were simply trading in the game.
[3] In the sense of stacking using the cases this site detects.

 

[CMDR Isabella_The_Fox]

I love the fact how people keep arguing the "legality" of VA and HCS, while the CREATOR (or person working on it) "Vingtetun" already wrote on the first and second page of this discussion, that they've been officially licensed by FDev to produce HCS, which requires VA.
If VA would not be allowed to be used and by extension HCS because it needs VA, then there would be no HCS.
So all this discussion, which started with the simple question "What's Frontier's position on Voice Attack" is completely irrelevant.
Their position is quite clear. They obviously have nothing against it per sé, they of course try to regulate by licensing what gets made for ED and what is accepted by them.
They don't have anything against VA, they have something against the people who abuse the system. And that's completely understandable.

 

[Jmanis]

So all this discussion, which started with the simple question "What's Frontier's position on Voice Attack" is completely irrelevant.

Actually, the question was "Does it fall under the bots and third party policy?" which, objectively, yes it does.

Frontiers position is a whole other thing (a subjective mechanism)...

Their position is quite clear. They obviously have nothing against it per sé, they of course try to regulate by licensing what gets made for ED and what is accepted by them.

... because enforcement of the TOS is at FDs discretion.

So yes, Frontier's position is that they not only support it, they endorse it. It doesn't preclude the bots policy from applying; the two can be true at the same time.

In some weird world where FD suddenly weren't happy with it's impact on the game and wanted it to stop being used, it would likely look like FD revoking the licencing, and then highlighting how it falls afoul of the TOS.

There's precedent for that sort of thing in broader gaming; EVE-Bacon and Somer Blink are two notable examples of this that i can think of off the top of my head.

 

[CMDR Isabella_The_Fox]

Actually, the question was "Does it fall under the bots and third party policy?" which, objectively, yes it does.

Frontiers position is a whole other thing (a subjective mechanism)...

... because enforcement of the TOS is at FDs discretion.

So yes, Frontier's position is that they not only support it, they endorse it. It doesn't preclude the bots policy from applying; the two can be true at the same time.

In some weird world where FD suddenly weren't happy with it's impact on the game and wanted it to stop being used, it would likely look like FD revoking the licencing, and then highlighting how it falls afoul of the TOS.

There's precedent for that sort of thing in broader gaming; EVE-Bacon and Somer Blink are two notable examples of this that i can think of off the top of my head.

You can argue day and night but that doesn't change the fact that you all are trying to switch OP's question around to spin your own narrative, that does not at all pertain to the question asked.
The question, as per the title of the thread, is and always has been what thei position is. By this context alone the following question of OP

Hey does the use of Voice Attack fall under the “Bots and Third Party” policy?

becomes very clearly attached to the underlying question if use of said program is not allowed by Frontier.
The simple answer to this is that it is allowed to be used. There's no "but" or "look at other games" - That does not matter.

If at any point Frontier decides that they don't want Voice Attack to be used anymore, they will tell us.
Because it is a business and they know of the ramifications it would have to suddenly ban VA-Users without warning.
So by context asked alone there is no "objectively it is" - The question obviously could be simplified to "Will i be in trouble for using it", which anybody can deduce if they'd think in context for a second.
And that question is simply answered by:
No, you are not in trouble for using this. There are HCS Voicepacks officially licensed by Frontier. If you have any doubt, just use those.

Arguing about Companies changing their minds about something is another topic and belongs in another thread entirely, no need to effectively hijack a thread to vent off superstitions and fantasy-scenarios that almost sound like conspiracy theories when it comes to simple questions asked. I've always hated that about any place where you would ask a question and instead of simply answering it, people jump in with different topics that do not at all answer the question but start whole different discussions instead of helping the OP.

 

[Jmanis]

You can argue day and night but that doesn't change the fact that you all are trying to switch OP's question around to spin your own narrative, that does not at all pertain to the question asked.

The question, as per the title of the thread, is and always has been what thei position is.

Fair point. The title does ask a different question to the actual question in the OPs post.

As i said, Frontier's position on Voice Attack, and whether it would fall under the bots policy are two very different questions.

Frontier clearly accept use of VA. That still doesn't mean the bots policy isn't applicable to it.

It's pretty straightforward.

...becomes very clearly attached to the underlying question if use of said program is not allowed by Frontier.

Again, they're two very different questions.

The simple answer to this is that it is allowed to be used.

No argument there.

There's no "but" or "look at other games" - That does not matter.

Not to FDs position. But it matters in the general discussion, because FD is using it's discretion, and I'm just giving examples of other companies applying that discretion through similar policies.

Speeding in a motorvehicle is an on the spot fine in my country. But police can use discretion as to whether they fine you or not. That doesn't mean speeding is legal, nor that the person who didn't get fined wasn't speeding, because it's discretionary.

Much the same here, VA is objectively the sort of software described in the bots policy. "Opinion" has no bearing on that. But FD choose to endorse and licence it. That doesn't mean it's not what FD consider botting under their policy, only that is accepted (and indeed, endorsed).

If there was a line in there saying "this policy doesn't apply to 3rd party software licenced by FD" then yes, that policy wouldn't apply. It doesn't say that though.

This is all fine though. I'm not the one running around saying there's a problem here.

Edit: if you think my position here is that VA is botting software and should be banned, you'd be very wrong.

 

[HansAcker]

(a) load the Game into and Use it on a single device which is under your custody and control

Well, the device Geforce Now loads the Game into is neither. Still works though And technically, it's not me doing the loading?

 

[Andrew Linton]

I'm a big fan of VoiceAttack automation in Elite Dangerous. I don't use it for competitive advantage in combat or BGS. I'm an explorer and use automation largely to make life a little easier by combining keystrokes into a single action. Examples include:

• boarding my SRV after sampling a biosignal (press Interact then Select).
• embarking/disembarking an SRV.
• a landing guidance package to give me heading and distance to a surface location.
• a launch sequence when departing a planet: power up, raise gear, full throttle, go vertical, two boosts, go to supercruise.
• options when mining to switch easily between mining and moving between rocks: 'scoop down + power to mining lasers' and 'scoop up + pips to engines + 25% thrust' (I don't think competitive mining is a thing - I could be wrong).

My latest exercise has been to automate flying my fleet carrier across the galaxy, the motivation being that long-distance fleet carrier movement is so very BORING. Again, it's not competitive, but it does keep me interested in playing the game. On the Passage to Andromeda expedition I had to fly my carrier - in both Horizons and Odyssey - from Star One to Shinrarta. I had to take a month away from the game after that.

Here's what my VoiceAttack/EDDI macros do:

Source: https://youtu.be/77q6Tt-STHg


If this is enough to get me banned from the game, then so be it.