EPTBlizzard Class Action - Page 2
| Blogs > dAPhREAk |
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
NoctemSC
United States771 Posts
You post potentially damning evidence and that shit gets shut down instantly. | ||
|
stink123
United States241 Posts
A good analogy would be if they advertised multiplayer content for an Xbox game. But you need an Xbox live gold account to play in multiplayer. Now since Microsoft/Every AAA Xbox multiplayer game isn't being sued, you probably won't be able to sue them successfully. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
On June 13 2012 12:55 stink123 wrote: You can start a Class Action Lawsuit, but it's likely you won't succeed. The crux of your argument is "Since it advertised that I could trade items, and since I couldn't trade items for real money without an authenticator, this is false advertising". A good analogy would be if they advertised multiplayer content for an Xbox game. But you need an Xbox live gold account to play in multiplayer. Now since Microsoft/Every AAA Xbox multiplayer game isn't being sued, you probably won't be able to sue them successfully. This is not actually true, as every game I've seen advertises "Multiplayer play on Xbox Live!" or something, implying you need xbox live. Or at the very least, has an Xbox live logo on the box. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5794589582?page=1 | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
apparently, after they censored all my obscene language (@#$#$%#), they banned me as well. does that make sense to anyone? | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 13 2012 14:11 Itsmedudeman wrote: You shouldn't have used obscene language. Just gives them a valid reason to ban you. they had rules under the post, and obscenity wasn't one of the rules so i didn't think it would matter. then when it was posted, they automatically took all the obscenity out and put @#$@#$ like they do in-game. so, what exactly was the problem after they had already censored it? also, who is sixty-nine who reposted? want to thank that man. this whole thing was just an intellectual exercise. i actually love diablo 3 and am not concerned at all about the authenticator myself since i bought it unrelated to RMAH. =) | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 13 2012 11:41 Kalingingsong wrote: wouldn't the main counter argument be: "that wasn't meant to be a warranty, that was just puffery" (?) (eg like when a fruit dealer says "I'm selling the best bananas in the land" or something, it might be reasonable for the advertisement to not to match precisely) puffery wouldn't apply. that applies to opinions that cant be proven factually inaccurate. for example, "i am the best," "we are better than them" and "the best game in the universe." here, they are saying such and such is included, but it wasn't actually included until you get an authenticator, which for some costs additional money. whether it is included or not can be proven false, so its not considered puffery. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 13 2012 11:49 icydergosu wrote: Pretty interesting, as far as i know there seem to be a lot of lawyers out of a job. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewanted=all Could you maybe talk about the costs (plus possible rewards) for such a lawyer without employment to go out on his own (find clients) and fund the trial? if you dont have the backing of a law firm, the courts would probably not allow you to represent the class. you have to be a sophisticated attorney with experience and financial wherewithal. they dont want random scrubs filing class actions and then selling out the class by settling it for cheap. | ||
|
EienShinwa
United States655 Posts
LOL I don't even.. what? Blizzard to immolate in hell? ROFL, one funny as hell guy. Back on topic, it's so sad that Blizzard deleted the thread so fast and threw it into the abyss. Luckily, the new reposted thread is up and we can see how Blizzard responds to this. I really do think someone can put a strong case against Blizzard, but no one would have the balls to go up against such a company without less than 99% damning evidence. They have Activision with them after all. But Blizzard really has to wake the fuck up. Eventually, no one is going to like them, not even the mindless drones that we call their loyal fans. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20120608,0,2211927.column | ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:56 dAPhREAk wrote: Blizzard deleted the second thread. I don't know the reasons why they did that. When you want to spread negative rep about someone, you shouldn't do it on their property. No shit they're going to delete it. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 13 2012 11:10 dAPhREAk wrote: Some background. Blizzard gets $1 for each transaction on the RMAH. It makes it money based on the number of transactions, not the amount of the transaction. So, its in Blizzard's benefit if there are more transactions and at lower cost (more likely that people will buy a lower priced item). Users obviously make more money if the transaction is higher priced (covers the transaction fee and gives them the remainder) and there are less transactions (keeps prices on items high). Got it? Good. Well, if you are Blizzard, how do you get more transactions for lower amounts? You make it easier to get high level (ilvl 61-63) drops, which are what people want to buy. That reduces the price on the items and makes more of them available on the market. How does that affect you? It means items you find are worth less over time because of the influx of new items especially considering the farmers who do nothing but search for items to sell. Wait, wait, wait. Blizzard wouldn't fuck us like that, right? What do you think? http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/6262208/Patch_103_Design_Preview-6_6_2012 I think the class action lawsuit stuff is a bit silly, but this here is a very very interesting point ^ Obviously Blizzard doesn't mind compromising game design to make profits. On one hand I get it: they're a company and their goal at the end of the day is to make money. They spent millions making this game and if they don't make that money back, they'll end up defunct like so many of the brilliant game devs from the 90s who put design above business. But on the other hand, this kind of shit is what is killing PC gaming--actually console gaming too--and dilluting the whole industry. I'd like to say that Blizz got to where they are today because of the legion of devoted Blizz fans from the 90s who have supported them; but that's not entirely true. Blizz got to be one of the most profitable PC-only game developers because of WoW. And as long as people keep enabling Blizzard by with this shit, Blizzard will not only keep doing it but will get increasingly agressive about it. The WoW players of the world will keep accepting shittier, duller, more dumbed down, more commercialized games every year. I can't help but think that, horrifyingly, one day this is all going to seem perfectly normal. *shudders* [/rant] | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
You DO however need some sort of text-capable phone in order to set up the SMS protection required to participate in the RMAH. I believe that is covered in one of many asterisked clauses, however. So the main point of your suit just went right down the shitter, actually. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:45 Backpack wrote: When you want to spread negative rep about someone, you shouldn't do it on their property. No shit they're going to delete it. but they havent deleted the other threads related to class actions. likely it was due to the fact that i had "masked obscenities" (i.e., squiggly lines ala "$%*@#$"), but that seems pretextual to me. i am going to repost it with additional content when i am unbanned and see what happens. i honestly expected them to delete it because they are cowards, but gave them an easy out unfortunately. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:49 HardlyNever wrote: The main focus of your argument, that an authenticator or smartphone is required to participate in the RMAH, is false. I have neither, and can do everything on there. You DO however need some sort of text-capable phone in order to set up the SMS protection required to participate in the RMAH. I believe that is covered in one of many asterisked clauses, however. So the main point of your suit just went right down the shitter, actually. ironic that you would ban me from your blog for calling you a douche (justifiably), and then come shit up my blog. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=305776#4 Battle.net Balance and Authenticator Update With the introduction of the real-money auction house, account security will become more important than ever. To help ensure that players have a positive experience when using the real-money auction house, we’ve made some adjustments to how players can use and access their Battle.net Balance. Starting today, in order to add to your Battle.net Balance, players will be required to have a Battle.net Authenticator or Battle.net Mobile Authenticator attached to their Battle.net account. For clarity, this means you’ll need to have an Authenticator to add to your balance via Battle.net Account Management or to send the proceeds of your real-money auction house sales to your Battle.net Balance. if someone can show me that you can use RMAH without using Battle.net Balance, which requires an authenticator, i will reconsider my points. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote: ironic that you would ban me from your blog for calling you a douche (justifiably), and then come shit up my blog. OH YEAHH!!! Now I remember! He's the creepy guy who was perving out on that german chick or whatever and then wrote that stupid blog about it, then banned all of us from it. hahahaha Still though, his point isn't without merit. False advertising claims are pretty hard to make, I think especially when the extra charge in question is for added account security. I think you'd have one hell of a time convicing a jury over that. And the EULA that everyone clicks through without reading when installing a game pretty much let's Blizz do whatever they want. It's an interesting idea, and maybe Blizz is violating some legal provisions, but the idea of actually filing a suit is not very realistic. You're point about Blizz designing the game specifically to make money off this scheme is a much better point IMO. It's pretty outrageous and deserves to be highlighted more than this silly class action idea. | ||
| ||
