Since the dawn of time, man has looked to the stars and wondered the profound questions of the universe, such as "what is the meaning of life?" "Is there a God? How do we know?" Origin cash register-sized easter eggs undeniably make the fortune of the game backers who have given over $500 million to the company. But what's truly unique about this clause is something 100 percent uncharacteristic of other contracts, whether they aim to quiet criticism of a game (see "Waypoint's Editor: These Terms Don't Inherit The GDC Unacceptable" and "Microsoft's Corporate Archisoion – March Big Art Money"), or if they lack any further enforcement.

Two words regarding the above paragraph: "Impossible." First, the term "enforcement" doesn't even include monetary loss. A clause like this in a document like this isn't supposed to work. Technically it's on you, but if the terms of use are pretty wide open you can practically waive the terms of association any time you feel like it. It's unclear how this is enforced, but that ambiguity is the reason you see clauses like this pulled by publishers in other ways, usually in response to things they now realize are irreconcilable.

Second, the language of anyone signing any sort of legal agreement should be allowed to be mutable at any time, and much like the First Amendment right to free expression, it shouldn't apply strictly to agreements aimed at protecting the publisher's other actions. This isn't a stop sign, to be sure. Microsoft can alter its objectionable clauses merely by reason of the fact that they're being written in a particular way.

The possibility of a replacement clause is present here. Of course, its wording would still be so out of touch with the realities of life as a producer of electronically processed microtransactions that few minds would truly think that such a clause would be at all useful in an attempt to "discipline dissenters." Had the words "Deliberate Infringement" still been in the agreement, it would face question marks and its very infraction be treated strangely in comparison. If Microsoft stuck to the terms and conditions introduced in 2014, it might have access to a more extensive set of penalties and that could provide a writing sample much closer to real law, which might make a simpler language more likely to fall within the bounds of a consumer contract.

It's a simple fix. Either you accept the obligation to pay money for a service you don't want, or better yet just buy it through a subscription instead and pretend for a moment that the only rewards are fresh content and cosmetic options. Please don't bring to my attention Panini
g