|
Disclaimer
+ Show Spoiler +I am not your attorney; you are not my client; you would be stupid to rely on legal advice you find on the internet.
So, this whole Diablo 3 Real Money Auction House got me wondering whether it was actually legal what Blizzard is doing. Just as an intellectual exercise, I was thinking of what claims could be made by crafty attorneys against Blizzard in a class action lawsuit. After thinking about it awhile and reviewing some claims online, I began to think that legitimate claims could actually be made. I discussed this with a partner at my law firm to see if they were actually interested in filing a lawsuit since it seems easy money can be made off of it. He declined for reason unrelated to the merits and I am not dumb enough to go out on my own. However, I thought it would be fun to discuss my thoughts (and some ramblings) with the interwebs.
First, the easy claim: False Advertising.
If you bought the box like I did, it will say "Trade the Spoils of War. Use the Real Money Auction House to buy and sell items for real world currency. Then draw on your earnings to buy ever more powerful items or cash out your trades, take the money, and run. The choice is yours."
Here is a picture.
+ Show Spoiler +
So, whats the problem? The game doesn't include RMAH without additional purchase (at least for some people). After the game was released, Blizzard (after multiple snafus) decided that an authenticator was required for the RMAH to prevent further snafus on their part.
Here is the announcement.
In preparation for the upcoming launch of the real-money auction house, we will be making some key changes related to the account-security measures required to use Battle.net Balance. Later today, the following updates will be made to the Terms of Use available on our website, and when the real-money auction house goes live, all players will be asked to re-read and accept these changes the next time they play Diablo III.
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.
Please note that players who previously added Battle.net Balance to their account prior to this change will be able to use it to make eligible purchases on Battle.net and in the auction house without attaching an Authenticator. However, an Authenticator will be required to add to your balance in the future, as explained above.
While we understand that this creates an extra step for players during the login process, we believe this added layer of account protection will help foster a safer auction house environment for all of our players.
You can learn more about the Battle.net Authenticator, Battle.net Mobile Authenticator, and other account security information by clicking here.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5594218404
So what? Well, for those of us who don't have smart phones (authenticators are free for smartphone users), we have to purchase an additional $8 physical authenticator to use what is advertised on the box as included in the game. That, my friend, is fucking illegal.
It violates the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750 et seq., which states:
(5) Representing that goods.. have ... characteristics, ... uses, benefits, ... which they do not have ....
(9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.
It violates the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500 et seq., which states:
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised.
It violates the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., which states:
As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
And, it is also arguably a breach of contract and breach of warranty. Although this becomes more tricky because of the terms of service you agree to when you use the game for the first time. Of course, terms of service don't allow Blizzard to lie to you when you purchase the game and then force you to waive their fraud when you want to use the game.
So, what does this mean? It means you may be entitled to a full refund of your game (and potentially the authenticator as well). Blizzard may be subject to civil penalties (if the California Attorney General or District Attorneys get involved). You can potentially recover all of your attorneys' fees if you are successful. And, you can totally fuck Blizzard in the ass for this bullshit.
Now, so far this has seemed pretty straightforward, but my mind wanders, and I wonder, can they really do this RMAH thing when they control the market?
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?
We’re shifting to a philosophy where the best items in the game can drop from many different places, so a wider variety of play styles are viable. If you would rather chain-pull elite packs in Act I than 3 minute cat-and-mouse in Act IV, we'd like you to be able to do that and know you can still find the best items in the game.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/6262208/Patch_103_Design_Preview-6_6_2012
Is that illegal? I actually don't know. I was going to research this if the partners gave me the go-ahead. But consider this, state and federal antitrust laws prevent companies from manipulating the market to increase their profits. Isn't that what Blizzard is doing? They are manipulating the item drops, which will increase the number of RMAH auctions, lower those prices and increase their profits, all at the cost of the people who do the work to find the items.
wait, wait, wait. Freak, you are paranoid. Well, maybe (especially since i am talking to myself in my blog), but if I was paranoid, I would argue that Blizzard's employees were selling items on the RMAH auction house. Wouldn't that be funny.
Anyways, I will end my ramblings. Just food for thought.
  
|
That's a good bunch of things to think about 
|
Interesting dota.
Looks like something to pursue if you have time + energy.
5/5 for this lawyer bizzit, I love it.
|
|
|
Some of the Battle.net responses are fuckin' hilarious.
This is seriously the most ridiculous thing ever. Get a !@#$ing life.
You are why people hate lawyers. you ARE THAT GUY. Congratulations.
Good stuff.
|
If you bought the box like I did, it will say "Trade the Spoils of War. Use the Real Money Auction House to buy and sell items for real world currency. Then draw on your earnings to buy ever more powerful items or cash out your trades, take the money, and run. The choice is yours."
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)
|
I got your back in that Battle.net thread, dAPhREAk.
|
Interesting. I imagine the RMAH in and of itself is legal. I can't imagine Blizzard constructing it without consulting with their fleet of lawyers every step of the way. But I could totally see them adding the authenticator requirement almost as an afterthought and not considering what it says on the box. You've got them there, but it feels like it's on a technicality. Damn lawyers. 
|
Ah the BNet Forums make for good reading.
|
|
|
On June 13 2012 11:30 Archas wrote:Some of the Battle.net responses are fuckin' hilarious. Good stuff.
Ahahahahhhahah now I'm going to waste a good 10 minutes reading hilarious bnet threads. I had no idea some of these were such goldmines of retardery
|
On June 13 2012 11:30 Archas wrote:Some of the Battle.net responses are fuckin' hilarious. Good stuff.
Yeah the blizzard forums really do suck. Anyhow, this is a good thread. I like to think about stuff like this, it's funny. I wouldn't be offended if someone decided to do this and won, but I also am not one of those guys that buys and plays blizzard games but also wants blizzard to immolate in hell for all of eternity while being forced to try to beat flash in BW with only their knee and the mouse, no screen and blindfolds, and they have to also maintain a level 60 barbarian dodging belail on inforno's attacks and everytime blizzard loses a game of BW or dies to belail they get electrocute to add to their never-ending immolation.
Yeah, I'm not one of those guys.
Good blog.
EDIT:
On June 13 2012 11:41 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +If you bought the box like I did, it will say "Trade the Spoils of War. Use the Real Money Auction House to buy and sell items for real world currency. Then draw on your earnings to buy ever more powerful items or cash out your trades, take the money, and run. The choice is yours."
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)
That is the best example ever.
|
but even if it is illegal, how much would you sue for?
|
On June 13 2012 11:49 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 11:30 Archas wrote:Some of the Battle.net responses are fuckin' hilarious. This is seriously the most ridiculous thing ever. Get a !@#$ing life. You are why people hate lawyers. you ARE THAT GUY. Congratulations. Good stuff. Yeah the blizzard forums really do suck. Anyhow, this is a good thread. I like to think about stuff like this, it's funny. I wouldn't be offended if someone decided to do this and won, but I also am not one of those guys that buys and plays blizzard games but also wants blizzard to immolate in hell for all of eternity while being forced to try to beat flash in BW with only their knee and the mouse, no screen and blindfolds, and they have to also maintain a level 60 barbarian dodging belail on inforno's attacks and everytime blizzard loses a game of BW or dies to belail they get electrocute to add to their never-ending immolation. Yeah, I'm not one of those guys. Good blog.
Yeah, but tell us how you really feel. 
|
ROFL, the thread was deleted!
|
LOL Blizzard is scared someone may be getting the wrong idea from your theorycrafting, daphreak.
Thread is deleted.
|
Wow. Doesn't censorship infuriate you? not meaning to sound all conspiracy-esque or whatever, but I really really really hate censorship. It's like bullying
(of course it's okay to censor things that violate the TOS, but where in the TOS/EULA/whatever does it say you can't have an intellectual thought experiment, even if it's something about the law?)
|
Now I think you should sue, the fact they are scared itself says something.
problem:
If you sue and win, and d3 goes the way of the toilet, how many gamers will bring on the hate?
|
Oh wow.
From my WoW experience, they usually only delete things that are;
1. Stupid beyond belief/Trolling/Etc.
2. Actually important.
The important stuff they deleted actually got swept away, it just disappears and stays on non-official forums until it just runs out of energy.
That's probably an indicator, even if my evidence is anecdotal.
|
Topic got deleted for some reason, lol
|
Lol they deleted the topic. Now you gotta post a Team Liquid Class Action here and see what happens.
|
Funny how it got deleted so quickly, when I want a response from someone from blizzard it takes weeks, if ever to hear anything back.
You post potentially damning evidence and that shit gets shut down instantly.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
FUCK ME! blizzard deleted my shit while i was playing diablo 3. now i missed all of the good comments
|
lol. i got banned from battle.net forums too.
apparently, after they censored all my obscene language (@#$#$%#), they banned me as well. does that make sense to anyone?
|
You shouldn't have used obscene language. Just gives them a valid reason to ban you.
|
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. =)
|
On June 13 2012 11:41 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +If you bought the box like I did, it will say "Trade the Spoils of War. Use the Real Money Auction House to buy and sell items for real world currency. Then draw on your earnings to buy ever more powerful items or cash out your trades, take the money, and run. The choice is yours."
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.
|
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=allCould 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.
|
On June 13 2012 11:51 Archas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 11:49 Bippzy wrote:On June 13 2012 11:30 Archas wrote:Some of the Battle.net responses are fuckin' hilarious. This is seriously the most ridiculous thing ever. Get a !@#$ing life. You are why people hate lawyers. you ARE THAT GUY. Congratulations. Good stuff. Yeah the blizzard forums really do suck. Anyhow, this is a good thread. I like to think about stuff like this, it's funny. I wouldn't be offended if someone decided to do this and won, but I also am not one of those guys that buys and plays blizzard games but also wants blizzard to immolate in hell for all of eternity while being forced to try to beat flash in BW with only their knee and the mouse, no screen and blindfolds, and they have to also maintain a level 60 barbarian dodging belail on inforno's attacks and everytime blizzard loses a game of BW or dies to belail they get electrocute to add to their never-ending immolation. Yeah, I'm not one of those guys. Good blog. Yeah, but tell us how you really feel.
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.
|
Blizzard deleted the second thread. I don't know the reasons why they did that.
|
|
|
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.
|
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? Show nested quote +We’re shifting to a philosophy where the best items in the game can drop from many different places, so a wider variety of play styles are viable. If you would rather chain-pull elite packs in Act I than 3 minute cat-and-mouse in Act IV, we'd like you to be able to do that and know you can still find the best items in the game. 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]
|
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.
|
On June 14 2012 03:45 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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?
|
|
|
Calgary25991 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![[image loading]](http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6647289_f520.jpg)
