|
On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away."
I'm pretty sure they can and that's the express purpose of the EULA
|
On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away."
If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything?
Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something.
EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11
|
wow, I might install d3 again. the AH eliminated the magic of actually being able to find good stuff
|
On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11
i guess you are that naive.
you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term.
if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value.
we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off).
|
On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:31 Black Gun wrote:
as far as i heard, there was an emergency shutdown of the US battlenet servers tonight which lasted for about 2 hours. i got curious and tried to log on US (normally eu player) and had to agree to a new end user license agreement. could this have to do with this step? like... for legal reasons, they have to get the end users' official consent for this step 6 months before it takes place or something like that?
there is also a maintenance downtime on eu tonight. there hasnt been a maintenance on eu for over a month...
just saw that and i declined it. debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
just saw that and i declined it.
debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off).
You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value.
|
On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 12:36 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
just saw that and i declined it.
debating whether to ask for a refund. lol at them trying to force a EULA down our throats in order to bypass their false advertising. I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game. EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game.
EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value.
a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want."
as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today.
i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me.
|
On September 18 2013 15:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game.
EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:
[quote]
It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value. a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want." as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today. i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me.
so what odds do you give on this being prosecuted
u seem to know your stuff, and not be talking out of your anus, so i assume u have plenty of research and can point to specific cases where retards who bought games that had their servers shut down sued and won
|
On September 18 2013 15:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:43 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
I dont think you can get a refund after playing a game for 2 years. There is also probably a clause somewhere stating that online content will change. It is also not really false advertising since it WAS in the game.
EDIT: Why is it that no matter what blizz does, it is always a bad move? its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that? Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 12:47 ThaZenith wrote:
[quote]
It's more that, no matter what you do you can't make EVERYBODY happy. this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value. a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want." as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today. i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me.
So what would happen if they decided to shut the servers down? Would they have to refund all 10 million+ copies?
Also, while I am no lawyer the main thing that seems to determine the enforceability of an EULA is whether it is unconscionable. I think you would have a hard time arguing that the EULA is unconscionable in court.
Steam had a run-in with their EULA recently too. Agree to it or you lose access to ALL of your games (maybe even more than $1000 worth). The change prevents you from participating in a class action lawsuit. It was legal.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133806-valves-updated-steam-agreement-bars-class-action-lawsuit-but-is-it-legal
Also, if virtual goods had a monetary value it would be taxed.
|
On September 18 2013 15:32 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that?
Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value. a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want." as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today. i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me. so what odds do you give on this being prosecuted
zero.
thats why i said its an academic exercise. interesting to think about but not act upon. (i also wrote a blog about the fact that RMAH didnt exist back at the time the game came out.) the primary issue with such a claim would be damages. people who bought at the outset have had two years to use RMAH so its hard to say they didnt get what they paid for although still a technical, if de minimis, violation, and people who currently have gear have notice of the end fo RMAH so they can sell all their stuff now and have no complaints. without damages there is no point for a lawsuit.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=344561
|
so there aint shit to talk about. the difference between an impossible and irrelevant academic exercise and a waste of breath is very hard to distinguish for me
|
A lot of people moaning about the AH being killed should take into account this this is coming with a total change in how looting works as a whole.
In any case sites like d2jsp will still be up and running, so don't worry about it 
to be honest;...
THIS IS THE BEST NEWS CONCERNING D3 SINCE LAUNCH.
Can't wait for the expansion
|
On September 18 2013 15:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
its more an academic issue than anything else. they took away something they promised without consent. why should they be allowed to do that?
Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game. On September 18 2013 13:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
this is a weird mentality. they arent changing the color of the wizard's robe. they are changing something so important that they decided to specifically advertise it on the box. there is limited room on the box cover, but this is what they chose to specifically point out. It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value. a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want." as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today. i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me. So what would happen if they decided to shut the servers down? Would they have to refund all 10 million+ copies? Also, while I am no lawyer the main thing that seems to determine the enforceability of an EULA is whether it is unconscionable. I think you would have a hard time arguing that the EULA is unconscionable in court. Steam had a run-in with their EULA recently too. Agree to it or you lose access to ALL of your games (maybe even more than $1000 worth). The change prevents you from participating in a class action lawsuit. It was legal. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133806-valves-updated-steam-agreement-bars-class-action-lawsuit-but-is-it-legalAlso, if virtual goods had a monetary value it would be taxed.
they made no promises regarding servers, so the Uniform Commercial Code would apply and most likely a court would look at the reasonableness of the time that the servers were up. two years is probably a reasonable amount of time for $60.
procedural and substantive unconscionability are certainly factors to determine enforcability of contract provisions, but they are not the end all, be all. express covenants and implied covenants are more determinative in this situation. they explictly promised a RMAH.
i skimmed the article about steam. that relates to arbitration and class-action waivers. thats a different issue than removing something you promised.
i do not know if virtual goods have value or not. i assume they do, but the law may not have caught up to the technology, which is so often the case.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/12/04/what-is-the-legal-status-of-virtual-goods/
|
On September 18 2013 15:37 UniversalSnip wrote:
so there aint shit to talk about. the difference between an impossible and irrelevant academic exercise and a waste of breath is very hard to distinguish for me
then why are you wasting your breath responding? how inane.
|
On September 18 2013 15:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:37 UniversalSnip wrote:
so there aint shit to talk about. the difference between an impossible and irrelevant academic exercise and a waste of breath is very hard to distinguish for me then why are you wasting your breath responding? how inane.
because we're discussing the value of the conversation, not an impossible and irrelevant academic exercise
if you still want to look big by talking about the latter I'll pass, as noted
|
On September 18 2013 15:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 15:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 15:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 15:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 14:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:30 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 18 2013 13:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 18 2013 13:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:
[quote]
Without consent? I don't think consent applies here. They can't get the unified consent of 10 million+ people. They do have the "consent" of a huge amount of the player base on top of developer agreement that the AH was generally bad for the game.
[quote]
It was a feature that most other games dont have. Note that they advertised the RMAH, not the gold AH. Being able to make money off of a game (legally) is a unique selling point. consent always applies. just because they cant get consent because of practical reasons means that they arent allowed to take away the functionality. they are trying to get "consent" through their new EULA (maybe, maybe its for another reason), but i highly question the legality of what they are doing since they are saying "accept no AH/RMAH or you cant play anymore." lets not be sheep people. just because you like the change doesnt mean laws go out the window. You do realize that you already agreed to the previous EULA's which all have "Blizzard may change, modify, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time" in them, right? They don't need to get consent through the new EULA to remove the AH. you really arent that naive are you? do you think they can give themselves carte blanche to do whatever they want? RMAH was a specifically advertised portion of the game. they cant just sneak in a EULA and then say "oh ho ho, guess what you signed when you logged in and clicked "i agree" despite having no choice other than clicking it because we will take your game away." If you dont agree with the EULA, you can return it to the vendor you bought it from. If you agreed, you can't. They didn't sneak anything in, it is a very standard online EULA. Do you even know what changed in the EULA? If anything? Also, what if they decided to just shut down the game servers? As far as I am aware, they are legally allowed to do this if they wanted to. Obviously it would be a bad business move, but they can. Removal of a service is part of what you agreed to. Plain and simple. The way you act is like you invested into botting and are worried you are going to lose a source of income or something. EDIT: Example of servers shutting down: EA shut down the servers for their Sports 11 titles. ie FIFA 11 i guess you are that naive. you cannot (1) advertise a material term; (2) put in EULA saying you can do whatever you want; (3) wait until after they accept the EULA and play the game; and then (4) remove the material term. if they are offering a refund now that they have removed the material term that is a different question. however, i am not sure how they can do that legally without offering to purchase my gear since it has monetary value. we are not discussing a EULA at the outset. in that case, yes, you are correct that you can just return the game if you dont agree with the EULA. that is not the case here because if you dont accept the current EULA then diablo3 immediately shuts down (i.e., they are saying accept or fuck off). You can't? Where is the precedence on that? I mean they are giving 6 months notice for a reason. And if you purchased recently, they may very well give a refund. If you bought it 2 years ago though, there is no way they could refund you. It is a video game, not a game to make money off of (this is further proven since it is NOT allowed to flip items for real money). Virtual goods do not have a REAL monetary value. They dont. Just because there is a way to sell them, does not give them real value. a few hundred years of contract law is the precedent. EULA is the same as any other contract. you can't have illusory contracts, which is what you are describing when you say "they can do whatever they want." as for notice, they told me accept the EULA or you cant play anymore today. i have not researched the virtual item issue, but i assume they would have value since they can be bought and sold online. i can sell all of my char's gear right now and make more than d3 cost me. So what would happen if they decided to shut the servers down? Would they have to refund all 10 million+ copies? Also, while I am no lawyer the main thing that seems to determine the enforceability of an EULA is whether it is unconscionable. I think you would have a hard time arguing that the EULA is unconscionable in court. Steam had a run-in with their EULA recently too. Agree to it or you lose access to ALL of your games (maybe even more than $1000 worth). The change prevents you from participating in a class action lawsuit. It was legal. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133806-valves-updated-steam-agreement-bars-class-action-lawsuit-but-is-it-legalAlso, if virtual goods had a monetary value it would be taxed. they made no promises regarding servers, so the Uniform Commercial Code would apply and most likely a court would look at the reasonableness of the time that the servers were up. two years is probably a reasonable amount of time for $60. procedural and substantive unconscionability are certainly factors to determine enforcability of contract provisions, but they are not the end all, be all. express covenants and implied covenants are more determinative in this situation. they explictly promised a RMAH. i skimmed the article about steam. that relates to arbitration and class-action waivers. thats a different issue than removing something you promised. i do not know if virtual goods have value or not. i assume they do, but the law may not have caught up to the technology, which is so often the case. http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/12/04/what-is-the-legal-status-of-virtual-goods/
They didnt? Requiring an internet connection and access to battle.net servers is not a promise for online play? I see this as no different than the RMAH. They promised the RMAH, and it was in the game. Losing the RMAH is no different than losing the server. They are both access to services.
I dont see goods having value ever. Virtual items can be created on a whim, it would be like printing money. You also have the issue of potential dupes. I imagine there would be actual legal repercussions if you forged items or created items (if a blizz employee created one for example) with real value. Certainly something more harsh than a simple ban.
|
@ daPhreak: did you open up the gamE? I had a new EULA to agree too. I didn't read, 'cause I'm not very interested in the whole "can blizz be sued?" subject, but maybe it would be interesting for you to go through it?
|
Meanwhile, the price of commodities like gems and brimstones is going through the roof.
Kind of expected, when considering that most gear will be crap, and mats are usually always useful/upgradeable.
Gems, Tomes, Brimstones etc. has risen A LOT the last couple of hours.
|
On September 18 2013 15:50 Douillos wrote:
@ daPhreak: did you open up the gamE? I had a new EULA to agree too. I didn't read, 'cause I'm not very interested in the whole "can blizz be sued?" subject, but maybe it would be interesting for you to go through it?
I still want to know what changed between the old and the new, if anything changed at all.
|
to bad, I guess now other sites will make money instead of Blizzard and nothing actually changes, except more money for botters. But woho atleast its not official anymore ! I will miss getting tons of gold for lower level cap weapons.
And if casuals can play on self found ... I really hope they have some challenging endgame content if the difficult of the normal game is made for casuals that only find their items.
Really curious now how they will bring this together.
Not really care about loot to much though, I mean when legendary items drop commonly, like they already do they are not legendary anymore for me. Still vote for seraph class that drop rarely in any case, so I have the omg moment when something drops.
|
On September 18 2013 15:50 Douillos wrote:
@ daPhreak: did you open up the gamE? I had a new EULA to agree too. I didn't read, 'cause I'm not very interested in the whole "can blizz be sued?" subject, but maybe it would be interesting for you to go through it?
i skimmed it, but havent done a word by word comparison. it says in big ol bold letters at the top that they are getting rid of the RMAH and AH though so its pretty clear they would argue it is preclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
