EPTBlizzard warns HuK/TLO for account sharing - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Omegalisk
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:23 chickenhawk wrote: Sorry for posting with lists... its the way I normally think and organize my ideas will try to change. For the TOS to be legally binding it must be a contract. And no it is not legal to say that the contract must be found somewhere and not at the place where you are going to make a purchase. Do you not find that odd? That a contract is not found at the place where you are going to buy something? Mate, please use some common sense. The TERMS OF SERVICE (TOS) are TERMS not a contract. They are the terms blizzard offers for the right to use their product. Your only choice as a customer is to agree or to disagree. As i have stated above if you refuse to abide by those terms you may cancel your contract (meaning the original purchase). Yes it is unusual, but it is also standard procedure for software, and covered quite well by legislation and jurisdiction. Also as a sidenote, when was the last time you actually read the "contract" you agree to when buying things in a Supermarket/shop? You'd be surprised what kind of stuff is written in there, but most likely you have never read it. | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
-They are clanmates -Both of them have several accounts already -There was a clearly distinguished reason why HuK would not use his account for ladder (because he found way too few opponents to practice), ander ladder really serves the pros only for training, no other purpose/reason... -Why the heck should they bother about what account is used for CGs? -It's a frigging disgrace to charge 45€ for players to play on a second continent anyways... It's a whole new dimension of infantilizing the users.... "%"&//"$%&$&§ | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
I'm personally fine with account sharing and I know that blizzard is fully aware of many shared accounts such as oGs on the NA sever. Blizzard doesn't care about "account sharing" they care about players who wouldn't be in GM if not for it being in GM. On June 25 2011 06:44 teekesselchen wrote: ]It's ridiculous. I can't even come up with enough insults to use them for Blizzard. Seriously. -Both of them have several accounts already -There was a clearly distinguished reason why HuK would not use his account for ladder (because he found way too few opponents to practice), ander ladder really serves the pros only for training, no other purpose/reason... -Why the heck should they bother about what account is used for CGs? -It's a frigging disgrace to charge 45€ for players to play on a second continent anyways... It's a whole new dimension of infantilizing the users.... "%"&//"$%&$&§ Who are you to insult them over enforcing the rules Huk and TLO agreed to? If they both have several accounts already when Huk doesn't need to use TLO's ID to find games. There is a purpose/reason when blizzard is on the verge of having a tournament that as far as i know is ONLY for grandmaster players. You seem to be blinded by your passion for the players that you're ignoring reason and common sense. I'm a fan of theirs as well, but I think maybe you need to put that aside and think it through a little bit. | ||
|
-KarakStarcraft-
United States258 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:44 Tula wrote: Mate, please use some common sense. The TERMS OF SERVICE (TOS) are TERMS not a contract. They are the terms blizzard offers for the right to use their product. Your only choice as a customer is to agree or to disagree. As i have stated above if you refuse to abide by those terms you may cancel your contract (meaning the original purchase). Yes it is unusual, but it is also standard procedure for software, and covered quite well by legislation and jurisdiction. Also as a sidenote, when was the last time you actually read the "contract" you agree to when buying things in a Supermarket/shop? You'd be surprised what kind of stuff is written in there, but most likely you have never read it. They sure as hell are a contract in the technical sense. There's really no distinction, so it's a moot point. And someone said earlier "We the gamers [don't have the choice to click accept or not if we want to play the game]" or something of the sort. You certainly do have a choice. Click decline, return the product and receive a refund. If you do not like the terms offered by that company, choose to purchase games manufactured by a different company. | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:45 starcraft911 wrote: Huk is on TLO's ID to keep him from dropping out of GM. TLO is unable to play due to CTS and Huk is doing him a favor. Liquid can afford another copy of the game and this convenient excuse is just that. If Huk can't find games on his main ID, there are ways to play without manipulating the system by keeping TLO in GM when he would have otherwise become inactive after a week of not playing and moved to masters. Ladder is only practice for them anyways, I don't think anyone of them bothers about grand masters... If HuK cannot find Ladder games, then it's obvious he will use a different account, and when his clan mate can't play right now that person is the obvious choice to lend him one... In WC3 this was easily circumvented because players could open as many accounts as they pleased -.- | ||
|
Noorgrin
Germany116 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
| ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
| ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
But it's a huge problem if Huk can't play ladder anymore and has to use another account to play, so Blizzard should definitely work on fixing that. All in all, this is more of a PR hassle than it's worth and could lead to a lot of backlash from the community, so bringing this up was - imo - a bad call from the German Blizzard community manager. | ||
|
ritoky
United States6851 Posts
It seems understandable in regards to the custom games for the tournament and such. Huk could have easily switched to his account for those; however, how is he supposed to have any steady practice (particularly in the group stages) at a LAN tournament when he is incapable of laddering? He may have to play any of the people in the venue during the tournament, and so he likely doesn't want to give them practice against his builds. The fact that his MMR is too high to get a match in hours of waiting is blizzard's problem and they are warning HuK for circumventing issues they have with their ranking system for 2 or 3 days? Seems absurd. Beyond that, HuK just won thousands of dollars; so the threat of closing TLOs account seems somewhat irrelevant. I am sure HuK wouldn't mind throwing $50 TLO's way if he caused him trouble. | ||
|
kawaiiryuko
United States368 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:48 Sinborn wrote: The ToS is actually relevant because you can retrieve it before you purchase the game as present on their website. The argument would probably crumple based off that given that Blizzard probably put it there for that reason specifically. However, your conclusion is right in regards to venue. Someone pointed out to me that the US ToS and the EU ToS exist. For EU: 15. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws applicable in your country of residence. Of course, I wonder what happens if you have an issue with a player who uses a EU license, but his country of residence is in the US. I wonder if Huk's country of residence is technically Korea now, or is it still Canada? | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:51 MichaelJLowell wrote: It's not always about personal gain.To those defending Blizzard, I have a question: What do you gain by defending Blizzard's right to do this? Sometimes you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation regardless of your own opinion. | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:46 Karak wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 06:44 Tula wrote: Mate, please use some common sense. The TERMS OF SERVICE (TOS) are TERMS not a contract. They are the terms blizzard offers for the right to use their product. Your only choice as a customer is to agree or to disagree. As i have stated above if you refuse to abide by those terms you may cancel your contract (meaning the original purchase). Yes it is unusual, but it is also standard procedure for software, and covered quite well by legislation and jurisdiction. Also as a sidenote, when was the last time you actually read the "contract" you agree to when buying things in a Supermarket/shop? You'd be surprised what kind of stuff is written in there, but most likely you have never read it. They sure as hell are a contract in the technical sense. There's really no distinction, so it's a moot point. And someone said earlier "We the gamers [don't have the choice to click accept or not if we want to play the game]" or something of the sort. You certainly do have a choice. Click decline, return the product and receive a refund. If you do not like the terms offered by that company, choose to purchase games manufactured by a different company. I think we are getting our terminology mixed up here. Sadly my law education was in Austria so i sometimes have problems with the English/American terminology. A contract is a very specific term in European law in regards to how it is established. Terms of Service are seperated, precisely for the way they are established. The assumption is, that with a contract you have room for negotiation (and yes, i am aware that in many cases there is no room in reality you either take it or don't, but in the legal sense contracts are supposed to be negotiated between equals). Terms of Service (Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen) are always between unequal partners, the "weaker" party (the consumers) only can decide if they accept them or not, because the stronger party has no reason to change something for a single person, if they expect to make sales in the thousands. Because of that inequality between the parties there are some protective measures (which is what was referenced earlier in the thread "people taking bad EULAs to court" etc. etc.) to protect the consumers. The major point is, that TOS and EULA are illegal if you find something in it which is unexpected and unusual ("unerwartet und unüblich"). Now seriously can a single person tell me that the clause: "Do not share your account" is in any way unexpected or unusual in a software TOS? And yes for repetitions sake, i agree they handled this mess badly. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:46 Karak wrote: They sure as hell are a contract in the technical sense. There's really no distinction, so it's a moot point. And someone said earlier "We the gamers [don't have the choice to click accept or not if we want to play the game]" or something of the sort. You certainly do have a choice. Click decline, return the product and receive a refund. If you do not like the terms offered by that company, choose to purchase games manufactured by a different company. Pretty sure there isn't a store in the states that accepts PC games that are returned opened. | ||
|
PlosionCornu
Italy814 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:51 MichaelJLowell wrote: To those defending Blizzard, I have a question: What do you gain by defending Blizzard's right to do this? A more informed consumer base. And plus, not every single person is an egoist. Some people care for the greater good. I always feel that consumers (in the gaming industry) should get more informed about what they buy, and should vote with their wallets in a better way. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:47 teekesselchen wrote: Ladder is only practice for them anyways, I don't think anyone of them bothers about grand masters... If HuK cannot find Ladder games, then it's obvious he will use a different account, and when his clan mate can't play right now that person is the obvious choice to lend him one... In WC3 this was easily circumvented because players could open as many accounts as they pleased -.- It's not only for practice when blizzard announces a big tournament for GM players and a requirement of said tournament is being in GM. Huk has access to other accounts that aren't in GM. Blizzard let them know with a polite warning instead of just banning them. They aren't "in trouble" nobody is being beheaded. Blizzard just made it clear that what they were doing was against what they were willing to allow and the reason is because of the upcoming tournament. Now Huk knows, now he can play on an ID that isn't in GM and the problem is solved. You can put your pitchfork and torch away. On June 25 2011 06:51 MichaelJLowell wrote: To those defending Blizzard, I have a question: What do you gain by defending Blizzard's right to do this? I don't get anything. I'm just telling you why blizzard did it. It's their upcoming tournament and it's not a big deal. To those defending Huk and TLO... they aren't in trouble, why are you guys flipping out like a bunch of derps? | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On June 25 2011 06:52 Bobster wrote: It's not always about personal gain. Sometimes you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation regardless of your own opinion. And what is "the reality of the situation"? I'm confused. Explain to me. | ||
|
PeaNuT_T
Sweden326 Posts
| ||
|
Subztance
United States139 Posts
| ||
| ||
