|
On June 14 2012 04:02 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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.
then he deleted the blog after everyone started agreeing with us.
as for the authenticator, if you have access to an authenticator that is free then there would be no harm. smartphone users would suffer no harm because its free for them. if there is another free option that is truly available to others for free then there would be no harm. my understanding is that it is one or other (smartphone or physical authenticator), and the second is obviously not free and a lot of people (think kids) don't have smartphones.
if you can survive a demurrer/motion to dismiss, win a class certification motion and survive a motion for summary judgment, you will get a settlement in any class action. very few actually ever go to trial. surviving a demurrer/motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment is easy on false advertising claims unless you have a real bullshit argument. class certification motions are easy as long as there are a lot of people who have almost the exact same legal issue.
the biggest defense to a class action would be the EULA/TOS, especially provisions regarding arbitration and class actions. i have not read either (although i scrolled through and clicked okay), so i am not sure what they say. this was just an intellectual exercise for me since the partners shut it down for other reasons. however, there are ways to get around EULA/TOS, and i can think of at least one good argument for why the EULA/TOS don't even apply in this case: the transaction (and resulting fraud) were completed before i even installed the game. under california law, you cannot waive fraud in contract. so the cause of action was complete before i accepted the EULA/TOS, and thus, the EULA/TOS doesn't serve as a defense to the fraud. this is just me talking out of my ass though since i haven't researched the issue in any real depth.
|
as for the authenticator, if you have access to an authenticator that is free then there would be no harm. smartphone users would suffer no harm because its free for them.
What is the difference between expecting your users to have smartphones and expecting them to have internet? Like any game that advertises free online multiplayer only means their servers are free, you still have to pay for your own internet. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable that people with computers powerful enough to play D3 don't have smart phones esp. in this day and age. No, I don't have one myself, but just about every kid I teach at high school seems to have one...
|
On June 14 2012 04:34 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +as for the authenticator, if you have access to an authenticator that is free then there would be no harm. smartphone users would suffer no harm because its free for them. What is the difference between expecting your users to have smartphones and expecting them to have internet? Like any game that advertises free online multiplayer only means their servers are free, you still have to pay for your own internet. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable that people with computers powerful enough to play D3 don't have smart phones esp. in this day and age. No, I don't have one myself, but just about every kid I teach at high school seems to have one...
its the consumer's expectation that matters, not Blizzard's. a reasonable consumer will know that he/she has to have a decent computer and internet to play a video game (it says it on the box); they will not know they have to have a smartphone or buy a physical authenticator to play a video game (no statement made on the box that its required, but there is a statement that RMAH is available to them).
honestly, did anyone know when they bought the game that they wouldn't be able to use RMAH unless they had a smartphone or physical authenticator? no, of course not, because Blizzard didn't change that requirement until almost a month after release.
|
On June 14 2012 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 04:02 TheToast wrote:On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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. this was just an intellectual exercise for me since the partners shut it down for other reasons.
I get that, but I think you're dilluting an otherwise very valid point with this legal argument stuff. Blizz redesigning the game and messing with balance just so they can make an extra buck off people selling shit is pretty outrageous, and I think that more than anything should be the focus of the issues with the item selling system.
|
On June 14 2012 04:47 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2012 04:02 TheToast wrote:On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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. this was just an intellectual exercise for me since the partners shut it down for other reasons. I get that, but I think you're dilluting an otherwise very valid point with this legal argument stuff. Blizz redesigning the game and messing with balance just so they can make an extra buck off people selling shit is pretty outrageous, and I think that more than anything should be the focus of the issues with the item selling system.
i think its an interesting theory, but ultimately implausible. blizzard appears to have determined to change the item system in reaction to people's complaints that inferno was too hard, drops were too rare and hard to get, etc. rather than them trying to manipulate the market. its certainly an interesting hypothetical to discuss, and certainly a way for blizzard to screw everyone over, but i dont personally think that is what they are doing.
|
I wonder if Blizz's lawyers are gonna get some overtime pay to pore over that deleted battle.net post, hahaha
|
OP, you seem like a cool dude, and I wish we were friends. Interesting read too.
5/5
|
Good read, and lol @ Blizzard's knee-jerk reaction to anything remotely controversial in their forums.
5/5
|
I can't find the terms of use, but I imagine there is a clause to compel arbitration, which would preclude a class action. Yes?
|
|
|
Calgary25993 Posts
On June 14 2012 04:34 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +as for the authenticator, if you have access to an authenticator that is free then there would be no harm. smartphone users would suffer no harm because its free for them. What is the difference between expecting your users to have smartphones and expecting them to have internet? Like any game that advertises free online multiplayer only means their servers are free, you still have to pay for your own internet. Likewise, I don't think it's unreasonable that people with computers powerful enough to play D3 don't have smart phones esp. in this day and age. No, I don't have one myself, but just about every kid I teach at high school seems to have one...
I'd guess there is fine print.
For example, games have system requirements so that you can't claim you bought the game but didn't know you wouldn't be able to run it. Multiplayer games will show internet connections as a requirement. XBox games will show Live Gold membership as a requirement.
These things all cost money. His argument is that an authenticator also costs money but was never listed as a requirement.
He's probably right, but to take it anywhere past disussing it on a forum (ie. actually contacting a lawyer) would be a legendary waste of time.
|
On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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#4Show nested quote +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.
If you use PayPal, you don't need an authenticator, but you need "The Battle.net SMS Protect service". Or at least that's what you can gather from the way they worded it, I haven't actually tested it myself. Since it doesn't seem like you would need to use Bnet Balance as well, it technically covers your points.
It's a free service that only requires a cellphone capable of sending text messages I believe. You may argue that they also don't say you need a cellphone in the game's box, but hey, I was just nitpicking your argument anyway.
Edit: "When attempting to sell an item on the real-money auction house for the first time, players who have not attached an Authenticator to their Battle.net account or set up PayPal for use with the real-money auction house will be automatically directed to the Battle.net website to set up a PayPal account (https://us.battle.net/account/d3/auction-house/landing.html).
If players prefer to use Battle.net Balance as the destination for their auction house proceeds (instead of PayPal), they will first need to attach a physical Battle.net Authenticator or Battle.net Mobile Authenticator app to their Battle.net account. To attach an Authenticator to your Battle.net account, visit: https://us.battle.net/account/management/ebalance-purchase.html. You can also charge up your Battle.net Balance at this location. "
So yes, you do not need to use Bnet Balance to use the RMAH.
|
On June 14 2012 06:41 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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#4Battle.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. If you use PayPal, you don't need an authenticator, but you need "The Battle.net SMS Protect service". Or at least that's how they worded it, haven't actually tested it, but it doesn't seem like you would need to use Bnet Balance as well, so techinally that covers your points. It's a free service that only requires a cellphone capable of sending text messages I believe. You may argue that they also don't say you need a cellphone in the game's box, but hey, I was just nitpicking your argument anyway.
interesting. this does change the issue somewhat. if everyone can truly use the RMAH service without paying for an authenticator, there wont be any harm by not disclosing the additional requirements on the box. some people may not have phones to setup a SMS, but that is a far stretch i think.
found this:
Account Security Requirements
We also wanted to remind you of a few important security measures you'll be required to use in order to access certain real-money auction house features:
Players who wish to use Battle.net Balance to buy and sell items will need to attach a physical Battle.net Authenticator or Battle.net Mobile Authenticator app (Google Play, iTunes, Blackberry) to their Battle.net account. Specifically, an Authenticator is required in order to charge up your Battle.net Balance through Battle.net account management or to select Battle.net Balance as the destination for your auction proceeds.
Those who wish to use PayPal™ (available in certain regions) to buy items or receive the proceeds of their auctions will need to sign up for our Battle.net SMS Protect service. With Battle.net SMS Protect, you'll occasionally receive a text message on your mobile phone when making PayPal-related transactions; this message contains a code that you must then enter to proceed with your transaction.
Even if you don't plan on using the real-money auction house, we encourage everyone to consider adding these extra layers of protection to their Battle.net account.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/6360586/Real-Money_Auction_House_Now_Available_in_the_Americas-6_12_2012
it seems people are having issue with the SMS service (but i have no idea if this is legitimate):
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5794630026
this may destroy my theory. back to the drawing board to make the secondary (less plausible) argument more persuasive. ;-)
|
thanks to google voice (and anything like it) you don't need a phone for SMS
|
Multiplayer games will show internet connections as a requirement.
Ah, okay. It's been a long time since I actually bought a game (not because I steal games, but because I simply don't play many games), so I wasn't aware they actually put that you need internet on the box. Do they specify how fast your internet must be too? Does it matter if it just barely works but lags so much it is unplayable and not fun?
What about for old games that they are still selling on their website under the guise they are being maintained? StarCraft 1 promises a working ladder, but they haven't had a ladder since like 1999 or 2000 (discounting whatever you might call the ladder scores of 9999 from winbotters that existed years after before they completely scrapped it). I remember Physician complaining about it, and I don't know why I remember that... hahaha.
I wonder if Blizzard has changed the boxes or at least the online description of the service to include this authenticator information. If they did, would they still be oblidged to recall all the old, now inaccurate boxes? Or would it be considered due diligence (to make myself look as uneducated in law as I am and use a term commonly heard)?
some people may not have phones to setup a SMS, but that is a far stretch i think.
That seems a weird distinction. I don't have a phone, why is that different from not having a smart phone? In this day of internet technology, for some people phones are just a meaningless bill amongst far more efficient forms of communication.
|
On June 13 2012 11:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
LOL Blizzard is scared someone may be getting the wrong idea from your theorycrafting, daphreak.
Thread is deleted.
I knew that would happen just like I knew a RMAH would have all sorts of problems as well.
Ofc they closed it. They don't want anyone else to get any ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
