EPTWTF this would have never been a problem if there was the possibility of free name change. Because Blizz wasn't worried about the sharing "in general" but about the "we show the sharing on stream for thousands of viewers". Nobody would have even had a clue if it was "LiquidHuK" playing all along...
Blizzard warns HuK/TLO for account sharing - Page 54
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
WTF this would have never been a problem if there was the possibility of free name change. Because Blizz wasn't worried about the sharing "in general" but about the "we show the sharing on stream for thousands of viewers". Nobody would have even had a clue if it was "LiquidHuK" playing all along... | ||
|
3772
Czech Republic434 Posts
| ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
On June 30 2011 17:59 3772 wrote: Hahaha, nice one Blizzard. I don't understand what the fuck is Blizz's problem. Both the accounts have been paid for, and the owners should be free to do whatever they want to with them. Not true, you accepted the terms of yawnyawnyawn and therefore you can be punished if you don't respect them. But Blizzard is not to blame here, they "allow" shared accounts. But they don't like it when you show 10 000 people that you are breaking the rules. | ||
|
enecateReAP
United Kingdom378 Posts
I doubt it. | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On June 29 2011 15:32 MaxiTB wrote: This is actually true for most European countries. The contract details had to be known in full before payment or it is invalid. That's the reason why in Austria/Germany EULAs and similar stuff is a one click ignore thing. It's a customer protection mechanism against fraud and it's good that way. No. Just no! Please we discussed the legal terms at length earlier in this thread, do not start to spread those missleading half-truths again. You are wrong. The reason why most people regard EULAs as a "one-click-ignore" thing, is because they can't be bothered to read them and most of what is written in them is common sense anyway. The specific clause they are being warned about is common sense and standard fare for such agreements, meaning you should expect a similar clause to be part of the EULA/TOS even BEFORE you buy the game. If you want to argue this point some more please read : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=236979¤tpage=29#575 first. | ||
|
Proxyles
Sweden27 Posts
So all that participate in the GSTL account share in televised matches? | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:12 Proxyles wrote: Does not the GSTL games play between accounts named as the teams name? So all that participate in the GSTL account share in televised matches? Tournaments get clearance from Blizzard to do this. I think it is probably all mentioned in the contract which allows tournaments to use Starcraft II. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:09 Tula wrote: No. Just no! Please we discussed the legal terms at length earlier in this thread, do not start to spread those missleading half-truths again. You are wrong. The reason why most people regard EULAs as a "one-click-ignore" thing, is because they can't be bothered to read them and most of what is written in them is common sense anyway. The specific clause they are being warned about is common sense and standard fare for such agreements, meaning you should expect a similar clause to be part of the EULA/TOS even BEFORE you buy the game. If you want to argue this point some more please read : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=236979¤tpage=29#575 first. I also studied Law in Austria and actually I disagree with most of what you've said.....I don't know much about this kind of things, but you do, in fact, have to know about the EULA before you conclude the contract. Then again, I guess it says so somewhere on the box/etc. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:17 sleepingdog wrote: I also studied Law in Austria and actually I disagree with most of what you've said.....I don't know much about this kind of things, but you do, in fact, have to know about the EULA before you conclude the contract. Then again, I guess it says so somewhere on the box/etc. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I'm pretty sure the EC position on these agreements is to allow them and to consider them binding as long as there's a right to get a full refund after reading the agreement but before using the software. | ||
|
SxYSpAz
United States1451 Posts
Honestly, i'm sure that there's some reason they do this i haven't thought of, but any reason to geta angry at the players for this is fucking stupid ,,I,, blizz. stfu | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:40 Lysenko wrote: I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I'm pretty sure the EC position on these agreements is to allow them and to consider them binding as long as there's a right to get a full refund after reading the agreement but before using the software. I have to say here, I'm not a "lawyer" but a "legal scholar" at the university...which means, I don't really care as much about how things are handled, but about the underlying dogmatics. Meaning, if this is indeed lawful, regardless of what others might or might not think. Here, we have to distinguish between the content of the EULA and the question if the contract even contains the EULA. Meaning, say I'm selling you my car and when you take place you find 200 pages of additional agreements on the driver's seat that stipulate all kinds of stuff. Obviously you can lit these 200 papers on fire, we never agreed on any of that. Regradless if the actual content of the 200 papers made sense or not. | ||
|
WightyCity
Canada887 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:09 Tula wrote: No. Just no! Please we discussed the legal terms at length earlier in this thread, do not start to spread those missleading half-truths again. You are wrong. The reason why most people regard EULAs as a "one-click-ignore" thing, is because they can't be bothered to read them and most of what is written in them is common sense anyway. The specific clause they are being warned about is common sense and standard fare for such agreements, meaning you should expect a similar clause to be part of the EULA/TOS even BEFORE you buy the game. If you want to argue this point some more please read : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=236979¤tpage=29#575 first. It's true though, many european countries don't really put any legality in TOS/EULA. However, that doesn't stop blizzard from banning your account if you break it. | ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
If I start a thread about iNcontroL eating babies will people then throw their hate against him? On June 25 2011 07:13 Batch wrote: Why do everyone blindly believe it really was Blizzard who called? I'm quite sure it just was someone trolling. A big gaming company like Blizzard don't spend the time searching for the phone number and calling the host of a small german LAN competition to tell him that one of the players should stop using another players account. If they would do anything then they would send an email to TLOs battle.net 2.0 registered email adress and ask him to stop sharing his account. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On June 30 2011 19:31 Batch wrote: Has anyone got any proof that point towards it actually was Blizzard who made the call? A lot of people gladly throw their shit at Blizzard without even thinking about it. If I start a thread about iNcontroL eating babies will people then throw their hate against him? If it wasn't Blizzard calling, then they surely would've called later saying that this wasn't them so people stop hating. Some common sense people... | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On June 30 2011 18:05 Koshi wrote: Not true, you accepted the terms of yawnyawnyawn and therefore you can be punished if you don't respect them. But Blizzard is not to blame here, they "allow" shared accounts. But they don't like it when you show 10 000 people that you are breaking the rules. He said it should be not that it is. Which I agree with. | ||
|
Gann1
United States1575 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On June 30 2011 19:51 Gann1 wrote: Blizzard wasn't in the wrong here, but I do hope that they fixed Huk's MMR. I find it actually unbelievable that they made the same mistake as in wc3...MMR should always be capped relative to the MMR of the other topranked players. It shouldn't even be possible in theory to have such high MMR that the matchmaking doesn't work any more. Pretty big fail on the programming part, tbh. | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
| ||
| ||
