|
Laddering on other peoples' accounts is just dumb. Use it for customs and no one cares.
|
On June 25 2011 05:50 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 05:47 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:43 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:41 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:37 L3gendary wrote:
The reason people are pissed is because none of these things were an issue in bw. We wait 12 years to get a brand new starcraft game and its missing a lot of the features we had from a game made in the 90s!
HotS Terms of Service: All your life are belong to blizzard.
"But it's in the ToS you agreed to it!" durr
The fact that something is a rule or law doesn't make it exempt from criticism and ridicule. True, if you boycott it they will be forced to change the terms. But people accept it, and then complain, W T F. Again, please understand, and this goes for everyone. Contracts cannot be unreasonably burdensome. You cannot sign your life away into slavery or whatever. These contracts are not legal. EULAs and ToS' do not hold up in European courts almost ever because of that. Yes, ofc, but why does this even matter. Blizzard is not suing anyone (this time atleast LOL), they will just discontinue the service toward a customer who does not comply to his end of the bargain (contract). The point I, and other posters are trying to make, are that EULAs and ToS are NOT legally binding contracts in Europe. Period. We're not talking about Blizzard suing anyone, we're saying if someone took Blizzard to court over a disabled account because of a reason given in the EULA or TOS, it is likely that individual would win because contracts that are not given to you BEFORE purchasing a product are not legally binding.
You have to find us some proof of this because it is directly contradicted by the presence of tons and tons of EULA/ToS specific to EU. I can't imagine any huge company with competent legal counsel would build one specific to a region that it is unenforceable in.
|
Austria51 Posts
hahaha LoL omg that is a joke right ? XD
|
It is not dumb, it was in the terms of use. It was not like Blizzard just went like "I want to piss em off, make new rule and intervene!" When they installed the game, they agreed to it (supposedly?), but unfortunately the stubborn never browse through the terms of service.
If you guys want to complain, you should have complained when you read the terms of service in Beta, not when it is finally used. My opinion is that they should NOT close the account, just probably give them a warning or something.
|
On June 25 2011 05:50 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 05:47 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:43 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:41 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:37 L3gendary wrote:
The reason people are pissed is because none of these things were an issue in bw. We wait 12 years to get a brand new starcraft game and its missing a lot of the features we had from a game made in the 90s!
HotS Terms of Service: All your life are belong to blizzard.
"But it's in the ToS you agreed to it!" durr
The fact that something is a rule or law doesn't make it exempt from criticism and ridicule. True, if you boycott it they will be forced to change the terms. But people accept it, and then complain, W T F. Again, please understand, and this goes for everyone. Contracts cannot be unreasonably burdensome. You cannot sign your life away into slavery or whatever. These contracts are not legal. EULAs and ToS' do not hold up in European courts almost ever because of that. Yes, ofc, but why does this even matter. Blizzard is not suing anyone (this time atleast LOL), they will just discontinue the service toward a customer who does not comply to his end of the bargain (contract). The point I, and other posters are trying to make, are that EULAs and ToS are NOT legally binding contracts in Europe. Period. We're not talking about Blizzard suing anyone, we're saying if someone took Blizzard to court over a disabled account because of a reason given in the EULA or TOS, it is likely that individual would win because contracts that are not given to you BEFORE purchasing a product are not legally binding.
Maybe you are right.
It really depends if this
http://eu.blizzard.com/support/index.xml?locale=en_GB&gameId=13&rootCategoryId=8640
is considered a contract before purchase or not. (by implying the evergreen "the law(or rules in this case) do not allow ignorance".
I'm not that law savyy to know the difference though.
|
On June 25 2011 05:54 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 05:50 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:47 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:43 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:41 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:37 L3gendary wrote:
The reason people are pissed is because none of these things were an issue in bw. We wait 12 years to get a brand new starcraft game and its missing a lot of the features we had from a game made in the 90s!
HotS Terms of Service: All your life are belong to blizzard.
"But it's in the ToS you agreed to it!" durr
The fact that something is a rule or law doesn't make it exempt from criticism and ridicule. True, if you boycott it they will be forced to change the terms. But people accept it, and then complain, W T F. Again, please understand, and this goes for everyone. Contracts cannot be unreasonably burdensome. You cannot sign your life away into slavery or whatever. These contracts are not legal. EULAs and ToS' do not hold up in European courts almost ever because of that. Yes, ofc, but why does this even matter. Blizzard is not suing anyone (this time atleast LOL), they will just discontinue the service toward a customer who does not comply to his end of the bargain (contract). The point I, and other posters are trying to make, are that EULAs and ToS are NOT legally binding contracts in Europe. Period. We're not talking about Blizzard suing anyone, we're saying if someone took Blizzard to court over a disabled account because of a reason given in the EULA or TOS, it is likely that individual would win because contracts that are not given to you BEFORE purchasing a product are not legally binding. Someone already said that an URL to the EULA is on the SC2 box.
How are you going to get to that URL? Bring a laptop with you? Write down the URL on your hand? Do something else insane and unreasonable?
|
What about the GSTL where there is one account for each team ? ...
|
On June 25 2011 05:58 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 05:54 Thorakh wrote:On June 25 2011 05:50 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:47 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:43 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:41 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:37 L3gendary wrote:
The reason people are pissed is because none of these things were an issue in bw. We wait 12 years to get a brand new starcraft game and its missing a lot of the features we had from a game made in the 90s!
HotS Terms of Service: All your life are belong to blizzard.
"But it's in the ToS you agreed to it!" durr
The fact that something is a rule or law doesn't make it exempt from criticism and ridicule. True, if you boycott it they will be forced to change the terms. But people accept it, and then complain, W T F. Again, please understand, and this goes for everyone. Contracts cannot be unreasonably burdensome. You cannot sign your life away into slavery or whatever. These contracts are not legal. EULAs and ToS' do not hold up in European courts almost ever because of that. Yes, ofc, but why does this even matter. Blizzard is not suing anyone (this time atleast LOL), they will just discontinue the service toward a customer who does not comply to his end of the bargain (contract). The point I, and other posters are trying to make, are that EULAs and ToS are NOT legally binding contracts in Europe. Period. We're not talking about Blizzard suing anyone, we're saying if someone took Blizzard to court over a disabled account because of a reason given in the EULA or TOS, it is likely that individual would win because contracts that are not given to you BEFORE purchasing a product are not legally binding. Someone already said that an URL to the EULA is on the SC2 box. How are you going to get to that URL? Bring a laptop with you? Write down the URL on your hand? Do something else insane and unreasonable?
You know, now that we live in the age of smart phones, this is actually no longer an unreasonable request.
|
On June 25 2011 05:58 -Zoda- wrote:
What about the GSTL where there is one account for each team ? ...
I think these are only guest accounts
|
Hey you naive fanboys! Blizzard has to warn them. 20k+ people are watching the pros play live and if they see that HuK & TLO are sharing accounts, they might think it is OK, because the pros do it.
Since they set examples it is extra important that they follow the Blizzard ToS.
|
Someone already said that an URL to the EULA is on the SC2 box.
1- Contract must be done before purchase
2- Saying that there will be a contract or that it can me found somewhere is irrelevant
|
lan would in fact fix this... i dont think blizzard has bad intentions here, but we are all (i assume) gamer nerds that have grown up around the pc, LAN party anyone? LAN center? i mean, blizzard is the mere provider in a gigantic community that loves to give them money... i doubt they would lose THAT much (what w/ the WOW income) to at the very least, providing lan support... crashes in multi-thousand dollar+ tournaments sponsored by larger companies is unacceptable imo...
that being said, we are in game 1 only... w/ 2 more to come, and apparently separate ladders...
|
Actually, what surprises me the most is that they are warning players who already have multiple account (at least 1 on EU and 1 on NA for TLO, at least 1 on NA and 1 on KR for Huk...).
|
Honestly.. whats wrong with account sharing? they both bought the game, and if huk wants to play on his friends account for practice i don't see why he cant? whats the big deal?
|
Wow...what a joke...blizzard has to be more classy than that...
|
you guys blame Blizzard, but how unprofessional are the players? There is no reason why HUK shouldn't have a EU account. Your a professional act like one.
On top of it you broadcast it to the world!!!!!
User was warned for misrepresenting facts.
|
I like how no one even bothered to read the thread properly. The issue is 100% about the laddering and not sharing the accounts. People have been borrowing accounts ever since release and Blizzard hasn't said anything. People don't even read things through and immediately proceed to bitch and moan. Bacon out.
|
On June 25 2011 06:01 fenix404 wrote:
lan would in fact fix this... i dont think blizzard has bad intentions here, but we are all (i assume) gamer nerds that have grown up around the pc, LAN party anyone? LAN center? i mean, blizzard is the mere provider in a gigantic community that loves to give them money... i doubt they would lose THAT much (what w/ the WOW income) to at the very least, providing lan support... crashes in multi-thousand dollar+ tournaments sponsored by larger companies is unacceptable imo...
that being said, we are in game 1 only... w/ 2 more to come, and apparently separate ladders...
don't be naive, they will never give us lan EVER
|
On June 25 2011 06:03 -Zoda- wrote:
Actually, what surprises me the most is that they are warning players who already have multiple account (at least 1 on EU and 1 on NA for TLO, at least 1 on NA and 1 on KR for Huk...).
You can have as many accounts as you like, as far as I'm aware.
|
On June 25 2011 06:00 Sinborn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 05:58 Hnnngg wrote:On June 25 2011 05:54 Thorakh wrote:On June 25 2011 05:50 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:47 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:43 HoldenR wrote:On June 25 2011 05:41 PlosionCornu wrote:On June 25 2011 05:37 L3gendary wrote:
The reason people are pissed is because none of these things were an issue in bw. We wait 12 years to get a brand new starcraft game and its missing a lot of the features we had from a game made in the 90s!
HotS Terms of Service: All your life are belong to blizzard.
"But it's in the ToS you agreed to it!" durr
The fact that something is a rule or law doesn't make it exempt from criticism and ridicule. True, if you boycott it they will be forced to change the terms. But people accept it, and then complain, W T F. Again, please understand, and this goes for everyone. Contracts cannot be unreasonably burdensome. You cannot sign your life away into slavery or whatever. These contracts are not legal. EULAs and ToS' do not hold up in European courts almost ever because of that. Yes, ofc, but why does this even matter. Blizzard is not suing anyone (this time atleast LOL), they will just discontinue the service toward a customer who does not comply to his end of the bargain (contract). The point I, and other posters are trying to make, are that EULAs and ToS are NOT legally binding contracts in Europe. Period. We're not talking about Blizzard suing anyone, we're saying if someone took Blizzard to court over a disabled account because of a reason given in the EULA or TOS, it is likely that individual would win because contracts that are not given to you BEFORE purchasing a product are not legally binding. Someone already said that an URL to the EULA is on the SC2 box. How are you going to get to that URL? Bring a laptop with you? Write down the URL on your hand? Do something else insane and unreasonable? You know, now that we live in the age of smart phones, this is actually no longer an unreasonable request.
This really depends on how the law would be interpreted in the eyes of a European court. I, for example, don't own an Iphone/smart phone. However, it would be assumed that if one was willing to buy the product they would go home, visit the URL and read the contract. That would hold. However, what I do know is from the few law classes I've followed, is that a EULA basically never holds when it says "We hold the right to revoke your license at any time, for any reason". Basically, what they need is justification, and if it's not given then the entire document is thrown out.
Even if it was not considered unreasonably burdensome to go home to your computer, visit the URL(that you should remember because you can't take the box with you!), read the contract and then return to purchase the product(it probably wouldn't, though), the terms themselves are considered unreasonably burdensome. Almost always. It's because EULAs are usually extremely draconic in what they provide for what you buy. It can best be translated as saying this, basically: "We are offering a service, but can't be held liable if this service is not available, and if at any point, for any reason, we see fit to deny you this service, we will". Then again, I haven't read the full document, but since video games basically have this requirement in there almost always, a proper lawyer would probably get them thrown out of court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
