| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ThaTiger
Denmark55 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:52 LovE-z33k wrote: This! Lol but seriously this is just bad on Blizzards part that he had no other option, other than buying ANOTHER acct. The problem is, even If he buys another game, he would had to play 20 or more games to play against ppl that would give him any kind of practice | ||
|
KiF1rE
United States964 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:41 Crystal368 wrote: Well, they should be warning them, becuase it IS against the terms of use, and not doing anything would be like treating the pros differently from the standard sc2 player, which is not really professional. The problem isn't that they are against account sharing, but that they're not doing anything to fix HuKs own accout. account sharing has happened all the time since beta, this is the first time ive heard of blizzard taking action though. Many of the KR accounts are shared, and blizzard has even used shared accounts in the past. Meh even in the TL hosted tournaments the first few said it was ok to share... and many did so. but more importantly why do we have to share? and why is the game so expensive just to get access to another region.... Ive been trying to find an EU account for under 40 dollars for a long time now, and i dont agree with paying more than that as thats what i payed for my US account. But according to companies like AMAZON, that discriminate against US customers as they claim some licensing BS on why they cant sell to me... But its against the TOS to share.. . and blizzard price gouges, last i looked it was 100$ to get a EU copy from blizzard directly.... LOL. greed much? But the question is, why does blizzard actually care? other than they want more money for more accounts.... | ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:51 splinter9 wrote: im not sure if your fully aware but there are countries outside of the USA that even write there own laws . They also have computers and can play starcraft. On further thought neither of these players are even american, so im not sure how much of what you said applies to here. ^ Actually wrong. B.net ToS 15.F - Governing law. ...this Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles. So basically, as long as the agreement doesn't directly fly in the face of CISG, which it doesn't, you have to abide by U.S. law. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:53 pig-dude wrote: You're right, I was just being optimistic when I bought the game, because of how much I enjoyed BW. It's not like we all haven't wasted money on video games in our lives, it just bums me out that the successor to such a great game would turn out to be this disappointing. I really expected Blizzard to give their all to make the ladder a great experience, given the inherent responsibility in not allowing other options. I thought that bnet would be packed with cool features, great maps, and just generally be an excellent gaming environment. It's a damn shame that they're treating this as a smash-and-grab, because this is probably the last Blizzard product I will purchase. Unless there are drastic changes, I see no reason to buy the expansions or SC3 some day, let alone D3 or WC4. Oh, we all did. When you say "Battle.net 2.0 is going to be so awesome, you wouldn't possibly need a Local Area Network component!", you tend to build some pretty obscene expectations. I'm on the fence as to whether or not I want to purchase Heart of the Swarm (not because I'm disappointed with the multiplayer, but the destruction of the lore put a pretty awful taste in my mouth) and I have absolutely no interest in purchasing Diablo III, something that I was on the fence about purchasing prior to the Battle.net 2.0 debacle. After that, I don't see any games coming out in the near-future that interest me, so it becomes pretty easy to stop purchasing Blizzard's products. I absolutely don't like the direction of Blizzard and I don't like the direction of the entire video game industry. And while that direction was still yielding some pretty good games when they began down this route about half a decade ago (go look at the game lineup released back in 2007), the quality of the product has gone down an absolute shitter in the last year or so. I don't want to sound like the guy who claims "video games suck because they were so much more awesome when I was eight", but Battle.net 2.0 was definitely a "I'm getting too old for this moment." This is here to remind us all of that. | ||
|
chickenhawk
Portugal339 Posts
Have you even read what I've posted? Yes, he failed to see that the contract was presented to the consumer after the product was bought. No one is saying that what it is in the TOS is illegal, what we are saying is that the TOS is illegal because the consumer is forced to agree with it after he bought the product. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
Of course Blizzard doesn't care if you account share for some custom games or a tournament, they just don't want people boosting other people on the ladder. That's what they said, they don't want HuK streaming how he boosts TLO's account on ladder. TLO can't play for a long time and therefore has no right to be in the GM league, some other lucky fellow should get his spot. | ||
|
Hall0wed
United States8486 Posts
| ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
The rules they have in place are there to give reasons why they would ban your account. But fact is, if Blizzard banned your account because they felt like it, there's basically nothing you can do to them legally. This kind of ToS is common practice for basically any account-based game, including MMOs where getting your account banned is much more painful. | ||
|
chickenhawk
Portugal339 Posts
^ Actually wrong. B.net ToS 15.F - Governing law. ...this Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles. So basically, as long as the agreement doesn't directly fly in the face of CISG, which it doesn't, you have to abide by U.S. law. So we are discussing the legality of the TOS, and you are qouting the TOS? Besides US can only inforce there laws in US.. at least for know. | ||
|
LittleAtari
Jordan1090 Posts
Second, we cant play on different servers without paying for another game Third, we dont get LAN Fourth, we cant even share accounts for small things. My God. They act like he was exploiting the game or something. He wasn't even playing the ladder. | ||
|
Arakash
Germany124 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:01 Thorakh wrote: Is it so hard for most people in here to understand that they just don't want HuK playing ladder on TLO's account? Of course Blizzard doesn't care if you account share for some custom games, they just don't want people boosting other people on the ladder. That's what they said, they don't want HuK streaming how he boosts TLO's account on ladder. TLO can't play for a long time and therefore has no right to be in the GM league, some other lucky fellow should get his spot. is it so hard for you to understand that you have to find games to practise? If Huk's rating is too high to find anyone he doesn't have another choice than to use another acc. | ||
|
decemvre
Romania639 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:59 Sinborn wrote: ^ Actually wrong. B.net ToS 15.F - Governing law. ...this Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles. So basically, as long as the agreement doesn't directly fly in the face of CISG, which it doesn't, you have to abide by U.S. law. Any continental european court will see the ToS / EULA as completely void if the user doesn't have any access to them before buying the game. If you break the rules of the ToS / EULA here and blizzard bans your account you can take your case to a european court and get your 60 euros back. Though i don't see who would go to court for 60 euros. | ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:05 chickenhawk wrote: So we are discussing the legality of the TOS, and you are qouting the TOS? Besides US can only inforce there laws in US.. at least for know. No, we're discussing that U.S. law analysis is applicable to the discussion as opposed to irrelevant. | ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
On June 25 2011 03:59 KiF1rE wrote: account sharing has happened all the time since beta, this is the first time ive heard of blizzard taking action though. Many of the KR accounts are shared, and blizzard has even used shared accounts in the past. Meh even in the TL hosted tournaments the first few said it was ok to share... and many did so. but more importantly why do we have to share? and why is the game so expensive just to get access to another region.... Ive been trying to find an EU account for under 40 dollars for a long time now, and i dont agree with paying more than that as thats what i payed for my US account. But according to companies like AMAZON, that discriminate against US customers as they claim some licensing BS on why they cant sell to me... But its against the TOS to share.. . and blizzard price gouges, last i looked it was 100$ to get a EU copy from blizzard directly.... LOL. greed much? But the question is, why does blizzard actually care? other than they want more money for more accounts.... Or, you know, it could have to do with being the top of GM? Him keeping TLOs account at the top makes Blizzard think "Oh, we should invite him to Blizzcon!"(Assuming they go by ladder for Blizzcon, which it seems they do), meanwhile it's Huk doing it. I don't think it would matter if they weren't both high on GM. | ||
|
LittleAtari
Jordan1090 Posts
people are talking about it on the blizzard forums. | ||
|
fire_brand
Canada1123 Posts
There has to be something better that blizzard can spend their energy on. Like... adding lan... | ||
|
Lucyans
Italy5 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:07 Arakash wrote: WOOPS I forgot to add that part to my post that it's not okay that HuK cannot find any games.is it so hard for you to understand that you have to find games to practise? If Huk's rating is too high to find anyone he doesn't have another choice than to use another acc. ...Oh wait, that still doesn't make it right to keep an afk player in the GM league. Of course, HuK not being able to find games is Blizzard's fault, but that doesn't excuse playing ladder on someone else's account. Blizzard doesn't care about sharing accounts for custom games. They just don't want people boosting others on the ladder and streaming it. | ||
|
Seam
United States1093 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:10 fire_brand wrote: So what happens when foreigners come to blizzcon, and they don't have an NA account? They're shit out of luck? There has to be something better that blizzard can spend their energy on. Like... adding lan... What does this have to do with anything? | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
People not buying the game and just playing the campaign on their friends' account? You can't stop this, there's even a guest function that seems to be 100% for this purpose! People playing on bnet on a friend's account? There's only so much time in a day, and sooner or later if two friends are sharing an account they're going to want to play at the same time - mission accomplished. Maybe it's because it's triggering Blizzard's warning system for stolen accounts when someone in a completely different area logs on repeatedly? This is honestly the only rational reason I can come up with for Blizzard to be upset about account sharing - that it makes it harder to deal with customer service issues regarding hacked accounts. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
MaxPax vs SHIN
Clem vs Classic
Ladder Legends
Solar vs GgMaChine
Bunny vs Cham
ByuN vs MaxPax
BSL
CranKy Ducklings
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs hero
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
