As you wish... Fatal assumption, generalization... all the same. The people who are good who bought accounts probably dont' go around broadcasting the fact that the bought the account because it doesn't matter to them.
And its not like any MMORPG takes alot of skill. Some are more skillful than others, but if you suck and put alot of time into it then you will level to max.
Most of the time people don't broadcast the fact that they Ebay because it is generally assumed by many gamers (myself, my guild, many guilds I play with, people in my battlegroup, PvPers I know) that someone who Ebays is probably going to be less competant at their class.
I know I wouldn't say anything. In EQ being an "ebayer" meant you didn't get to raid, period. That's because the community was small and your name meant something, though.
Well, you were both right and wrong several times in your post, so I'm going to respond to each point individually.
Originally posted by hornedtoad
There is absolutely no way that how I sold my account could be enforcable or is against the law. I bought the game, created an account based on the cdkey that physically came with the game, and then sold the game(with the associated account) to someone and mailed them all aspects of the game: book, box, cds, cdkey, etc. You're absolutely right, it is not against the LAW. It's just against the USER AGREEMENT. And according to the User Agreement, they have a right to ban the account. They also have the right to swipe items from you, suspend the account, remove specific characters, or whatever else tickles their fancy. "What? How, why?" Thing is, when you clicked, "I Agree," you agreed that Blizzard, not you, owns the account. You're just using it. In fact, if you pick apart most MMO User Agreements, you'll find the same thing. Vanguard recently suspended people merely for having more gold on their character than they expected, on the "suspicion" that they were gold farmers. They had no proof. And they were perfectly in thier right to do it. The only reason that most devs don't mess with people like that is because it's bad for business. Usually they only strike players down when they can prove you broke the rules.
If you prefer the technical argument, I sold my box of WoW with the associated account. Because I bought the box, it is my right to sell it. And the way companies wrap up account creation with the physical purchase of the game then the account goes with the box. Sorry, but that's not correct. Your boxed copy of the client, and your account, are two separate pieces of property. And as I've already said, the account is the property of Blizzard. You're only paying a subscription fee to use it. Think of it as a TV and your Cable. You need a TV (boxed copy of the game) in order to watch television shows, but merely buying a TV isn't enough. You subscribe to your local Cable (the game account), but you don't own the feed. Your boxed copy came with a free month of play, but you created an account when you logged on. If someone else bought your boxed copy and tried to create a fresh account with it, they'd find that they didn't get a month free service. Because the Clinet and the account are two different things.
Blizzard does try to forbid account selling. But they can't forbid selling the actual game that you bought and the associated account. That's part of your rights with buying the physical game. It would be alot hazier if it was entirely electronic and had no physical purchase. Again, wrong. But I already covered that above.
As for profiting from a service. It depends on how you look at it I guess. I paid them alot of money over the time I paid for the right to play on their servers. And that was fun and enjoyable. However selling my game and account to someone else does not hurt Blizzard. The account is still alive and they are still making money off it. I don't see the problem with it but I understand that some people don't like it. I look at it as everyone is happy. I'm happy since I got money to go try out a new MMORPG or game or something, the buyer is happy since he wanted the account, and Blizzard is happy because the account is still active. Which is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe it's ok because: 1) you can get away with it, and; 2) because everyone wins. But in my view, neither of those reasons matter. It is Blizzard's choice to sacrifice some potential subscriptions by forbiding account trading. Not yours. You're basically thumbing your nose at Blizzard and yelling, "Nyah, nyah! You can't catch me!" And you get away scott free, because you weren't planning on playing anymore. It's just being disrespectful to authority, picking and choosing which rules you'll obey AFTER agreeing to the rules in the first place. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you opportunistic. But I'll say it one last time so people don't misunderstand me. If a game company says they allow Account trading, then I have no problem with it, beyond thinking that they buyers will suck at playing the character. In such a situation, I wouldn't really care if you sold your old account.
I agree with hornedtoad btw....(there is no evidence that buying accounts makes u suck) and retro... yes I do well... kinda understand what your saying about the lawnmower analogy. I never really thought an MMO community at large but was rather thinking of the legal angle of it. but even so....
even a step further.....
If I sell the lawn mower than I would have to be careful who I would sell it too. Because if I sold it too lets say... a person who loves to mow over kids than I would definately feel responsible if he actually did that. However if some pathological psycho who looks normal buys it from me and he mows over a bunch of kids than I might feel a bit guilty but I would know later on that I didn't sell it to him on purpose.So really in that VERY SPICIFIC instance than yes you would be right but only if I would choose to sell the lawn mower to someone THAT I KNEW TO BE THAT STUPID.
For all you people are skimming down... just trade lawn mower with GW account and trade mowing over kids with killing people in a game over and over again because of stupidity and you'll understand it i think.
mower = GW account
mows over a bunch of kids = wasting the time of many people in an MMO
I really don't think that IGE companies care who they sell there accounts to. Infact they could be selling accounts to families that exploit their own children. Also theres alot of money being made off accounts in the US but its not enough money to get the justice department to do anything about. Hell the feds aren't even taxing internet porno yet and thats a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry. So its safe to say that the IGE companies will be around for while.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game????? well... I think thats just not a good enough excuse for not selling it. In an MMO you should hangout with people who you trust and not try to group up the IGEHunterPWNSU with his uber gear.
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots? http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/ Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
Ty for retro for drugeing up that post. Yes I do agree with azriel 100%. I dont really care what people do with the characters. If someone wants to buy guild wars from me than they can. But I guess theres no way to be certian that I deleted the chars from the account would there.... hmm.....
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots? http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/ Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
I agree with hornedtoad btw....(there is no evidence that buying accounts makes u suck) and retro... yes I do well... kinda understand what your saying about the lawnmower analogy. I never really thought an MMO community at large but was rather thinking of the legal angle of it. but even so....
even a step further.....
If I sell the lawn mower than I would have to be careful who I would sell it too. Because if I sold it too lets say... a person who loves to mow over kids than I would definately feel responsible if he actually did that. However if some pathological psycho who looks normal buys it from me and he mows over a bunch of kids than I might feel a bit guilty but I would know later on that I didn't sell it to him on purpose.So really in that VERY SPICIFIC instance than yes you would be right but only if I would choose to sell the lawn mower to someone THAT I KNEW TO BE THAT STUPID.
For all you people are skimming down... just trade lawn mower with GW account and trade mowing over kids with killing people in a game over and over again because of stupidity and you'll understand it i think.
mower = GW account
mows over a bunch of kids = wasting the time of many people in an MMO
I really don't think that IGE companies care who they sell there accounts to. Infact they could be selling accounts to families that exploit their own children. Also theres alot of money being made off accounts in the US but its not enough money to get the justice department to do anything about. Hell the feds aren't even taxing internet porno yet and thats a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry. So its safe to say that the IGE companies will be around for while.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game????? well... I think thats just not a good enough excuse for not selling it. In an MMO you should hangout with people who you trust and not try to group up the IGEHunterPWNSU with his uber gear.
Well, selling and buying are two different things. I don't think you should SELL your account because it is against the user agreement you sign when you install the game. The fact that people get away with selling it does not make the action legal within the terms of the EULA, and many accounts are banned based on actions such as gold selling and account selling.
Also, to the "might end up sucking" comment, let me be a bit more precise. I don't like the idea of account selling and gold selling for the same reason. As a whole it has a negative effect on the economy and community of an MMO. Sure, the person you sell to could bea stand up player. He could even go on to run a raiding guild and have a lot of players under him. Also, a player who buys your gold or items could use them and be a great hunter, warrior, turd harvester. The reason I don't like it is because regardless of individual cases, as a whole it has a negative outcome. The prices on epics, twink gear, and materials for tradeskills skyrocket because people are willing to purchase them at outrageous prices. People are less trusting of the 70 mark as a sign of competance and therefore stricter policies are enforced within guilds to disallow people into their community.
Negative impact, my friend. They ARE occuring now, and will occur until people see the big picture. The 250 bucks you make on gold, an account, or items in the game doesn't hurt you or me directly, but eventually runs the prices in the AH up and makes people less likely to branch out. If you sell your account you don't care. If you just want the money for gold, you don't care. If you are trying to play a game and have the company's vision of fun, you care enough for everyone else.
Well, you were both right and wrong several times in your post, so I'm going to respond to each point individually.
Originally posted by hornedtoad
There is absolutely no way that how I sold my account could be enforcable or is against the law. I bought the game, created an account based on the cdkey that physically came with the game, and then sold the game(with the associated account) to someone and mailed them all aspects of the game: book, box, cds, cdkey, etc. You're absolutely right, it is not against the LAW. It's just against the USER AGREEMENT. And according to the User Agreement, they have a right to ban the account. They also have the right to swipe items from you, suspend the account, remove specific characters, or whatever else tickles their fancy. "What? How, why?" Thing is, when you clicked, "I Agree," you agreed that Blizzard, not you, owns the account. You're just using it. In fact, if you pick apart most MMO User Agreements, you'll find the same thing. Vanguard recently suspended people merely for having more gold on their character than they expected, on the "suspicion" that they were gold farmers. They had no proof. And they were perfectly in thier right to do it. The only reason that most devs don't mess with people like that is because it's bad for business. Usually they only strike players down when they can prove you broke the rules.
If you prefer the technical argument, I sold my box of WoW with the associated account. Because I bought the box, it is my right to sell it. And the way companies wrap up account creation with the physical purchase of the game then the account goes with the box. Sorry, but that's not correct. Your boxed copy of the client, and your account, are two separate pieces of property. And as I've already said, the account is the property of Blizzard. You're only paying a subscription fee to use it. Think of it as a TV and your Cable. You need a TV (boxed copy of the game) in order to watch television shows, but merely buying a TV isn't enough. You subscribe to your local Cable (the game account), but you don't own the feed. Your boxed copy came with a free month of play, but you created an account when you logged on. If someone else bought your boxed copy and tried to create a fresh account with it, they'd find that they didn't get a month free service. Because the Clinet and the account are two different things.
Blizzard does try to forbid account selling. But they can't forbid selling the actual game that you bought and the associated account. That's part of your rights with buying the physical game. It would be alot hazier if it was entirely electronic and had no physical purchase. Again, wrong. But I already covered that above.
As for profiting from a service. It depends on how you look at it I guess. I paid them alot of money over the time I paid for the right to play on their servers. And that was fun and enjoyable. However selling my game and account to someone else does not hurt Blizzard. The account is still alive and they are still making money off it. I don't see the problem with it but I understand that some people don't like it. I look at it as everyone is happy. I'm happy since I got money to go try out a new MMORPG or game or something, the buyer is happy since he wanted the account, and Blizzard is happy because the account is still active. Which is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe it's ok because: 1) you can get away with it, and; 2) because everyone wins. But in my view, neither of those reasons matter. It is Blizzard's choice to sacrifice some potential subscriptions by forbiding account trading. Not yours. You're basically thumbing your nose at Blizzard and yelling, "Nyah, nyah! You can't catch me!" And you get away scott free, because you weren't planning on playing anymore. It's just being disrespectful to authority, picking and choosing which rules you'll obey AFTER agreeing to the rules in the first place. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you opportunistic. But I'll say it one last time so people don't misunderstand me. If a game company says they allow Account trading, then I have no problem with it, beyond thinking that they buyers will suck at playing the character. In such a situation, I wouldn't really care if you sold your old account.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
Well, you were both right and wrong several times in your post, so I'm going to respond to each point individually.
Originally posted by hornedtoad
There is absolutely no way that how I sold my account could be enforcable or is against the law. I bought the game, created an account based on the cdkey that physically came with the game, and then sold the game(with the associated account) to someone and mailed them all aspects of the game: book, box, cds, cdkey, etc. You're absolutely right, it is not against the LAW. It's just against the USER AGREEMENT. And according to the User Agreement, they have a right to ban the account. They also have the right to swipe items from you, suspend the account, remove specific characters, or whatever else tickles their fancy. "What? How, why?" Thing is, when you clicked, "I Agree," you agreed that Blizzard, not you, owns the account. You're just using it. In fact, if you pick apart most MMO User Agreements, you'll find the same thing. Vanguard recently suspended people merely for having more gold on their character than they expected, on the "suspicion" that they were gold farmers. They had no proof. And they were perfectly in thier right to do it. The only reason that most devs don't mess with people like that is because it's bad for business. Usually they only strike players down when they can prove you broke the rules.
If you prefer the technical argument, I sold my box of WoW with the associated account. Because I bought the box, it is my right to sell it. And the way companies wrap up account creation with the physical purchase of the game then the account goes with the box. Sorry, but that's not correct. Your boxed copy of the client, and your account, are two separate pieces of property. And as I've already said, the account is the property of Blizzard. You're only paying a subscription fee to use it. Think of it as a TV and your Cable. You need a TV (boxed copy of the game) in order to watch television shows, but merely buying a TV isn't enough. You subscribe to your local Cable (the game account), but you don't own the feed. Your boxed copy came with a free month of play, but you created an account when you logged on. If someone else bought your boxed copy and tried to create a fresh account with it, they'd find that they didn't get a month free service. Because the Clinet and the account are two different things.
Blizzard does try to forbid account selling. But they can't forbid selling the actual game that you bought and the associated account. That's part of your rights with buying the physical game. It would be alot hazier if it was entirely electronic and had no physical purchase. Again, wrong. But I already covered that above.
As for profiting from a service. It depends on how you look at it I guess. I paid them alot of money over the time I paid for the right to play on their servers. And that was fun and enjoyable. However selling my game and account to someone else does not hurt Blizzard. The account is still alive and they are still making money off it. I don't see the problem with it but I understand that some people don't like it. I look at it as everyone is happy. I'm happy since I got money to go try out a new MMORPG or game or something, the buyer is happy since he wanted the account, and Blizzard is happy because the account is still active. Which is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe it's ok because: 1) you can get away with it, and; 2) because everyone wins. But in my view, neither of those reasons matter. It is Blizzard's choice to sacrifice some potential subscriptions by forbiding account trading. Not yours. You're basically thumbing your nose at Blizzard and yelling, "Nyah, nyah! You can't catch me!" And you get away scott free, because you weren't planning on playing anymore. It's just being disrespectful to authority, picking and choosing which rules you'll obey AFTER agreeing to the rules in the first place. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you opportunistic. But I'll say it one last time so people don't misunderstand me. If a game company says they allow Account trading, then I have no problem with it, beyond thinking that they buyers will suck at playing the character. In such a situation, I wouldn't really care if you sold your old account.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
Well, you were both right and wrong several times in your post, so I'm going to respond to each point individually.
Originally posted by hornedtoad
There is absolutely no way that how I sold my account could be enforcable or is against the law. I bought the game, created an account based on the cdkey that physically came with the game, and then sold the game(with the associated account) to someone and mailed them all aspects of the game: book, box, cds, cdkey, etc. You're absolutely right, it is not against the LAW. It's just against the USER AGREEMENT. And according to the User Agreement, they have a right to ban the account. They also have the right to swipe items from you, suspend the account, remove specific characters, or whatever else tickles their fancy. "What? How, why?" Thing is, when you clicked, "I Agree," you agreed that Blizzard, not you, owns the account. You're just using it. In fact, if you pick apart most MMO User Agreements, you'll find the same thing. Vanguard recently suspended people merely for having more gold on their character than they expected, on the "suspicion" that they were gold farmers. They had no proof. And they were perfectly in thier right to do it. The only reason that most devs don't mess with people like that is because it's bad for business. Usually they only strike players down when they can prove you broke the rules.
If you prefer the technical argument, I sold my box of WoW with the associated account. Because I bought the box, it is my right to sell it. And the way companies wrap up account creation with the physical purchase of the game then the account goes with the box. Sorry, but that's not correct. Your boxed copy of the client, and your account, are two separate pieces of property. And as I've already said, the account is the property of Blizzard. You're only paying a subscription fee to use it. Think of it as a TV and your Cable. You need a TV (boxed copy of the game) in order to watch television shows, but merely buying a TV isn't enough. You subscribe to your local Cable (the game account), but you don't own the feed. Your boxed copy came with a free month of play, but you created an account when you logged on. If someone else bought your boxed copy and tried to create a fresh account with it, they'd find that they didn't get a month free service. Because the Clinet and the account are two different things.
Blizzard does try to forbid account selling. But they can't forbid selling the actual game that you bought and the associated account. That's part of your rights with buying the physical game. It would be alot hazier if it was entirely electronic and had no physical purchase. Again, wrong. But I already covered that above.
As for profiting from a service. It depends on how you look at it I guess. I paid them alot of money over the time I paid for the right to play on their servers. And that was fun and enjoyable. However selling my game and account to someone else does not hurt Blizzard. The account is still alive and they are still making money off it. I don't see the problem with it but I understand that some people don't like it. I look at it as everyone is happy. I'm happy since I got money to go try out a new MMORPG or game or something, the buyer is happy since he wanted the account, and Blizzard is happy because the account is still active. Which is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe it's ok because: 1) you can get away with it, and; 2) because everyone wins. But in my view, neither of those reasons matter. It is Blizzard's choice to sacrifice some potential subscriptions by forbiding account trading. Not yours. You're basically thumbing your nose at Blizzard and yelling, "Nyah, nyah! You can't catch me!" And you get away scott free, because you weren't planning on playing anymore. It's just being disrespectful to authority, picking and choosing which rules you'll obey AFTER agreeing to the rules in the first place. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you opportunistic. But I'll say it one last time so people don't misunderstand me. If a game company says they allow Account trading, then I have no problem with it, beyond thinking that they buyers will suck at playing the character. In such a situation, I wouldn't really care if you sold your old account.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
When you buy a box of Fruit Roll-ups the individually wrapped Fruit Roll-ups say "Not for Resale" on the packaging. This has been around since I was little. Are you saying since you bought the box of Fruit Roll-ups that the individual Fruit Roll-ups are yours and therefore they are for resale? I find this really funny and totally assinine.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game????? well... I think thats just not a good enough excuse for not selling it. In an MMO you should hangout with people who you trust and not try to group up the IGEHunterPWNSU with his uber gear.
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But my lack of ambition or understanding of the reasoning behind doing it may also be the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file Then again, if people use lack of time to justify buying it, can the "anti-account-buying" crowd also use a lack of their time to ask for a reasonable way to identify these people to help make their group-making more efficient?
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game????? well... I think thats just not a good enough excuse for not selling it. In an MMO you should hangout with people who you trust and not try to group up the IGEHunterPWNSU with his uber gear.
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But this is also the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
Thank you. I felt pretty alone there for a moment.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game????? well... I think thats just not a good enough excuse for not selling it. In an MMO you should hangout with people who you trust and not try to group up the IGEHunterPWNSU with his uber gear.
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But this is also the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
Thank you. I felt pretty alone there for a moment.
No problem. I thought you stated your viewpoint pretty fairly on the subject tbh and it seemed like a lot of words were being put in your mouth. I think this is one subject that people will have varying viewpoints on, and we need to realize that those viewpoints aren't neccessarily wrong.
No problem. I thought you stated your viewpoint pretty fairly on the subject tbh and it seemed like a lot of words were being put in your mouth. I think this is one subject that people will have varying viewpoints on, and we need to realize that those viewpoints aren't neccessarily wrong.
Message boards aren't known for their ability to evolve well thought out and kind conversation. Mostly just bickering. I try to do the former, but I have trouble myself after being belittled over and over. Haha.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
No problem. I thought you stated your viewpoint pretty fairly on the subject tbh and it seemed like a lot of words were being put in your mouth. I think this is one subject that people will have varying viewpoints on, and we need to realize that those viewpoints aren't neccessarily wrong.
Message boards aren't known for their ability to evolve well thought out and kind conversation. Mostly just bickering. I try to do the former, but I have trouble myself after being belittled over and over. Haha. Are you directing that at me? How have I belittled you over and over???
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
100% correct. In order to play the game, you must click "I Agree." Once you've done that, you're legally forfeted your right to contest those rules. You can only take Blizzard (and dozens of other MMO companies) to task in a court of law if you decline the User Agreement. And no, the ridiculous size of the User Agreement would not be be a legally accepted excuse for not reading it, in a court of law.
Personally, I do see this issue coming up eventually. And if the judge overseeing the case has even a basic understanding of Intelectual Property law and how it applies to software, the game companies will win.
Futhermore, if you read all the documentation carefully, you'll find that the boxed copy of the client is just that, a copy of the client. You only bought the client, not the right to play the game. You must sign up for an account to do that.
This is done so that games that hold user information on their server (in order to deter hacking) are not liable for any problems that may arise. It also gives them the ability to enforce rules as they see fit. The side effect is that they have incredible power over your playing experience. The key is that they do not abuse that power. If they did abuse their power, if would drive away customers. As a cunsumer of their product, part of what draws me to any particular game is their ability to stop cheaters, be they hackers, gold farmers, or any other person that tries to ruin the game for the rest of us. If they choose to not allow account trading, so be it. If they didn't have the authority to stop certain activities, I'd be less inclined to play their game.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
100% correct. In order to play the game, you must click "I Agree." Once you've done that, you're legally forfeted your right to contest those rules. You can only take Blizzard (and dozens of other MMO companies) to task in a court of law if you decline the User Agreement. And no, the ridiculous size of the User Agreement would not be be a legally accepted excuse for not reading it, in a court of law.
Personally, I do see this issue coming up eventually. And if the judge overseeing the case has even a basic understanding of Intelectual Property law and how it applies to software, the game companies will win.
Futhermore, if you read all the documentation carefully, you'll find that the boxed copy of the client is just that, a copy of the client. You only bought the client, not the right to play the game. You must sign up for an account to do that.
This is done so that games that hold user information on their server (in order to deter hacking) are not liable for any problems that may arise. It also gives them the ability to enforce rules as they see fit. The side effect is that they have incredible power over your playing experience. The key is that they do not abuse that power. If they did abuse their power, if would drive away customers. As a cunsumer of their product, part of what draws me to any particular game is their ability to stop cheaters, be they hackers, gold farmers, or any other person that tries to ruin the game for the rest of us. If they choose to not allow account trading, so be it. If they didn't have the authority to stop certain activities, I'd be less inclined to play their game.
I already answered this. If you sign an illegal EULA you do not forfeit your legal rights. Just as if you sign an illegal lease or any other legal document. There have been several cases where a judge has ruled the EULA cannot be enforced due to illegal clauses. Such as installing spyware or a rootkit on your computer. Or any other clause that violates the law. If it violates the law its not enforcable. Regardless of whether you have signed it or not. The question is whether judges will rule that something is against the law or not, and that heavily depends on the specifics of the case.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
Hornedtoad: Thanks for the links! Those are definately some good information about EULAs and thoughts on them as well.
The quote I think is also important for people to remember these days where computers are so commonplace. I don't think it applies to the matter of Account-Trading of Accts w/established characters (just because it's obviously been installed), but it is good for people to know when making gaming and other software purchases.
And the EULA can be used for all sorts of nasty clauses, including this little charmer from The Breeder Standard:
You agree, if purchasing by credit card or charge card, that you permanently and irrevocably waive any and all right to cause a "chargeback" (that is, a disputed, reversed or contested charge) against this purchase for any reason whatsoever against Company or other reseller of this license, effective as soon as you receive registration code(s) from the Company, open the envelope containing the program disk or otherwise install or use the Software. You agree that, if you institute such a "chargeback", it constitutes a material violation of this license, and damages Company in ways impossible to calculate, and with long-term adverse effects to the Company. Therefore, you agree to pay, and Company agrees to accept in compromise, for each chargeback you may issue or directly or indirectly cause to be issued against company, the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,000.00) to Company (or the party selling you this license), as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. You expressly confess, in the event of such a "chargeback", that such chargeback constitutes fraud and confess such fraud. You agree to pay all costs incurred by company or the seller of this license in collecting these amounts.
So, will any of this stand up in court?
Now that is the question. How enforceable is the EULA? Well, that depends on the court you go to. The majority of courts that have heart cases against specific EULA's and clauses have ruled against the EULA, though some have ruled in favor of it.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
Hornedtoad: Thanks for the links! Those are definately some good information about EULAs and thoughts on them as well.
The quote I think is also important for people to remember these days where computers are so commonplace. I don't think it applies to the matter of Account-Trading of Accts w/established characters (just because it's obviously been installed), but it is good for people to know when making gaming and other software purchases.
Again, thanks for links.
No Problem. Glad you enjoyed the reading. I definitely find EULA's very interesting and will be curious to see what happens in the future.
I guess this is where we're going to have to disagree. I don't believe that the User Agreements are illegal, and much of what you linked to is feeding you BS. If and when a judge upholds the game companies rights to do what they please with THEIR accounts (not yours), then it will be upholding a legal presedence. But you or I are not lawyers, nor are we versed or educated in law. We're merely amatuers that listened to other amatuers, and we drew our own conclusions based on our own predispositions.
Plus, your quote:
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
That isn't applicable to our debate. It clearly states that it is discussing software that wasn't installed. We're talking about accounts that not only don't belong to us, but are only accessable through INSTALLED software. Thus, the quote makes no sense in this arguement.
Seriously. It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
If you want to buy World of Warcraft or EverQuest and resell it without installing or playing it I am for that. You checked a box that said you agree with the end-user agreement while you were installing World of Warcraft AND every time they patch the game. I don't see how that is the same.
I personally like the "well were you wearing your helmet" appraoch.
First off Cale I wasn't putting words in retro's mouth I was simply trying to relate to him and understand where hes coming from. I do agree with him and the other posters like ari'el (sorry for the spelling) about all the EULA stuff and the rammifications of the EULA. If you agree to it than it has legal rammifications, however are the EULA's legal in and of themselves is something that needs serious discussion. Without government intervention or court rulings I see no other ways around the selling of accounts/items.
Second. Also I would NEVER EVER EVER sell accounts I do believe that they destroy the ingame economics and mechanics of most MMO's out there. I just think that I should HAVE THE RIGHT to sell physical property thats mine to someone else. Unless the U.S. courts say its against the law to sell software that I've bought thats fine I'll obey the law. But having an xyz MMO company make GRANDIOS terms that say that I cant sell physical property that I've perchased is LUDICROUS!!!! I do however understand that the reason why most software that you sell off to someone else is illegal because of software duplication(pirating). (check dictionary.com because MMORPG.COM spell checker says grandios is misspelled maybe I've been infront of my computer too long )
Thirdly. The more that MMO companies ignore(for the most part) the selling and trading of their own accounts then the more people will think its taboo and more attractive. More and more folks will continue to purchase accounts/items from others if this continues and the yearly income will accelerate even faster. I hate account selling I always have and probably always will unless theres an MMO company out there that out that caters to it then I don't really see a problem with it. I think SOE is doing this with the everquest series where they have a cash shop where you can purchase in game items but I'm not sure about it.
Retro agree with you as well as cale and if it was sounding like I was putting words in your mouth than I apologize I was just trying to see where you were coming from. Writing really isn't one of my strong points but talking is. I would however love to talk about this stuff. If any of you got TS maybe we could collaborate on finding the IGE headquarters and getting some guns and.... um......
JUST KIDDING MMORPG GODS PLZ DONT BAN ME...
omg I need to take a break
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots? http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/ Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
I guess this is where we're going to have to disagree. I don't believe that the User Agreements are illegal, and much of what you linked to is feeding you BS. If and when a judge upholds the game companies rights to do what they please with THEIR accounts (not yours), then it will be upholding a legal presedence. But you or I are not lawyers, nor are we versed or educated in law. We're merely amatuers that listened to other amatuers, and we drew our own conclusions based on our own predispositions. Plus, your quote: "If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
That isn't applicable to our debate. It clearly states that it is discussing software that wasn't installed. We're talking about accounts that not only don't belong to us, but are only accessable through INSTALLED software. Thus, the quote makes no sense in this arguement.
I guess so. The specific quote I linked was just an interesting point I hadn't seen before. There have been other judgments both tearing down and upholding EULAs. It depends on the EULA in question.
I honestly don't see how you can say all EULA's are enforcable and you can sign away any and every right you have to the EULA. There have been lots of cases where judges have torn down the company's EULAs that allowed spyware, rootkit issues, etc. The previous EULA I linked even said you were confessing to fraud if you did something. EULA's cannot be uniformly accepted as enforcing or not enforcing. It has to depend on the specific EULA.
Otherwise I'll make a 5 minute software package with a fancy websie advertising it does all kinds of things for "promotional purposes" and then have a 100 page EULA state the software installed is different than the webpage and you are agreeing to that, agreeing not to sue, etc. etc. and make money off useless software that they can't do anything about because they clicked the EULA.
I have no problem stating that they believe the WoW or other game companies EULA to be enforcable, as that hasn't been proven in court either way. But it can't be a universal EULA according to any reasonable interpretation.
Comments
I know I wouldn't say anything. In EQ being an "ebayer" meant you didn't get to raid, period. That's because the community was small and your name meant something, though.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
even a step further.....
If I sell the lawn mower than I would have to be careful who I would sell it too. Because if I sold it too lets say... a person who loves to mow over kids than I would definately feel responsible if he actually did that. However if some pathological psycho who looks normal buys it from me and he mows over a bunch of kids than I might feel a bit guilty but I would know later on that I didn't sell it to him on purpose.So really in that VERY SPICIFIC instance than yes you would be right but only if I would choose to sell the lawn mower to someone THAT I KNEW TO BE THAT STUPID.
For all you people are skimming down... just trade lawn mower with GW account and trade mowing over kids with killing people in a game over and over again because of stupidity and you'll understand it i think.
mower = GW account
mows over a bunch of kids = wasting the time of many people in an MMO
I really don't think that IGE companies care who they sell there accounts to. Infact they could be selling accounts to families that exploit their own children. Also theres alot of money being made off accounts in the US but its not enough money to get the justice department to do anything about. Hell the feds aren't even taxing internet porno yet and thats a MULTI-BILLION dollar industry. So its safe to say that the IGE companies will be around for while.
So basically what your saying OVERALL retro is that......
I shouldn't be able to sell my GW disks and account number purely based on the fact that offhand some other person might suck at the game?????
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots?
http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/
Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots?
http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/
Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
Also, to the "might end up sucking" comment, let me be a bit more precise. I don't like the idea of account selling and gold selling for the same reason. As a whole it has a negative effect on the economy and community of an MMO. Sure, the person you sell to could bea stand up player. He could even go on to run a raiding guild and have a lot of players under him. Also, a player who buys your gold or items could use them and be a great hunter, warrior, turd harvester. The reason I don't like it is because regardless of individual cases, as a whole it has a negative outcome. The prices on epics, twink gear, and materials for tradeskills skyrocket because people are willing to purchase them at outrageous prices. People are less trusting of the 70 mark as a sign of competance and therefore stricter policies are enforced within guilds to disallow people into their community.
Negative impact, my friend. They ARE occuring now, and will occur until people see the big picture. The 250 bucks you make on gold, an account, or items in the game doesn't hurt you or me directly, but eventually runs the prices in the AH up and makes people less likely to branch out. If you sell your account you don't care. If you just want the money for gold, you don't care. If you are trying to play a game and have the company's vision of fun, you care enough for everyone else.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
1. There is a reason why many people believe that the EULA is against the law because it violates the consumer's free use. We will see how the courts rule when it actually goes to court.
2. Many games do not allow multiple accounts to be made with one cdkey. So if that's the case then the box is associated with an account, because you otherwise cannot create a new account from the box.
3. No I am not thumbing my nose at Blizzard and saying 'Nyah, nyah." I believe that the right to sell my account(provided I am also transfering the box and all materials) is legal and within my rights. If Blizzard is claiming that the EULA means I cannot sell my account because they own it then I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid.
If we take this to the most extreme case, then I don't see how the EULA could not be invalid and could be deemed legal.
I go to the store and buy a new copy of a game. I go home and install it and go to make my account, agree with the EULA, etc. and then go to log on to the game. I'm met with the message "This account has been banned ...."
According to your interpretation of the EULA, this is legal on Blizzard's part and I would not be able to get a refund for the game I just purchased....
Sidenote: Most computer game EULA's have the issue that you have to open the box before you can decide to accept/reject the EULA and by then the store won't take the game back. Supposedly the company is supposed to refund you if you send them the game and explained you did not accept the EULA but I'm not sure how well that actually occurs when it happens...
If you create your account and accept the EULA you basically negate the "I believe the EULA is against the law and therefore invalid". I could shoot someone and say the crime of murder is invalid, but I'm still going to burn for it.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But my lack of ambition or understanding of the reasoning behind doing it may also be the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file
Then again, if people use lack of time to justify buying it, can the "anti-account-buying" crowd also use a lack of their time to ask for a reasonable way to identify these people to help make their group-making more efficient?
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But this is also the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
Thank you. I felt pretty alone there for a moment.Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Actually that is not what he said, you don't need to put words in his mouth (paraphrasing, trying to use his "logic" or w/e) to get your point across.
What Retro said earlier in this thread, which has apparently been missed perhaps since then, is that he would only agree with Acct Trading/selling/etc if there was a way to identify who bought accts with characters on them, etc. After people asked, he also gave his own reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable given his personal experiences and that....well it's his opinion and we are allowed those.
You and others have a different opinion, and that is valid as well. But you cannot sit there and expect to successfully thrust your social standards on someone else. You don't judge the value of his time, he does. I agree at least in part to some of your points, but disagree with your approach.
On-Topic: I think it's pretty silly to buy accounts with already max lvl characters. The reasons I think it's silly are my own, and I'm thoroughly unconvinced by 90% of the excuses I see used to justify it. But I accept that others feel different, because I've never felt the need to do this, so I am admitedly biased. I don't obsess over games so much that I need to compete right away. I don't feel the need to skip playing a game to participate in a game's PvP system. If I didn't have the time to play a game and enjoy it, I just don't personally see the point of taking the time and extra money to enjoy only a part of it.
But this is also the reason I don't really care if others do it. If I lose an hour or so due to some person sucking, I just chalk it up to "life's a biatch, wear a helmet" and make a note in his file
As far as gold-selling, I've always kind of been "meh'ed" out by the whole subject. It seemed to only be mentioned in passing so I'll just leave it out.
Thank you. I felt pretty alone there for a moment.No problem. I thought you stated your viewpoint pretty fairly on the subject tbh and it seemed like a lot of words were being put in your mouth. I think this is one subject that people will have varying viewpoints on, and we need to realize that those viewpoints aren't neccessarily wrong.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
Here's some interesting articles about the EULA.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/2006/06/13_a412.html
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
100% correct. In order to play the game, you must click "I Agree." Once you've done that, you're legally forfeted your right to contest those rules. You can only take Blizzard (and dozens of other MMO companies) to task in a court of law if you decline the User Agreement. And no, the ridiculous size of the User Agreement would not be be a legally accepted excuse for not reading it, in a court of law.
Personally, I do see this issue coming up eventually. And if the judge overseeing the case has even a basic understanding of Intelectual Property law and how it applies to software, the game companies will win.
Futhermore, if you read all the documentation carefully, you'll find that the boxed copy of the client is just that, a copy of the client. You only bought the client, not the right to play the game. You must sign up for an account to do that.
This is done so that games that hold user information on their server (in order to deter hacking) are not liable for any problems that may arise. It also gives them the ability to enforce rules as they see fit. The side effect is that they have incredible power over your playing experience. The key is that they do not abuse that power. If they did abuse their power, if would drive away customers. As a cunsumer of their product, part of what draws me to any particular game is their ability to stop cheaters, be they hackers, gold farmers, or any other person that tries to ruin the game for the rest of us. If they choose to not allow account trading, so be it. If they didn't have the authority to stop certain activities, I'd be less inclined to play their game.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
100% correct. In order to play the game, you must click "I Agree." Once you've done that, you're legally forfeted your right to contest those rules. You can only take Blizzard (and dozens of other MMO companies) to task in a court of law if you decline the User Agreement. And no, the ridiculous size of the User Agreement would not be be a legally accepted excuse for not reading it, in a court of law.
Personally, I do see this issue coming up eventually. And if the judge overseeing the case has even a basic understanding of Intelectual Property law and how it applies to software, the game companies will win.
Futhermore, if you read all the documentation carefully, you'll find that the boxed copy of the client is just that, a copy of the client. You only bought the client, not the right to play the game. You must sign up for an account to do that.
This is done so that games that hold user information on their server (in order to deter hacking) are not liable for any problems that may arise. It also gives them the ability to enforce rules as they see fit. The side effect is that they have incredible power over your playing experience. The key is that they do not abuse that power. If they did abuse their power, if would drive away customers. As a cunsumer of their product, part of what draws me to any particular game is their ability to stop cheaters, be they hackers, gold farmers, or any other person that tries to ruin the game for the rest of us. If they choose to not allow account trading, so be it. If they didn't have the authority to stop certain activities, I'd be less inclined to play their game.
I already answered this. If you sign an illegal EULA you do not forfeit your legal rights. Just as if you sign an illegal lease or any other legal document. There have been several cases where a judge has ruled the EULA cannot be enforced due to illegal clauses. Such as installing spyware or a rootkit on your computer. Or any other clause that violates the law. If it violates the law its not enforcable. Regardless of whether you have signed it or not. The question is whether judges will rule that something is against the law or not, and that heavily depends on the specifics of the case.
Hornedtoad: Thanks for the links! Those are definately some good information about EULAs and thoughts on them as well.
The quote I think is also important for people to remember these days where computers are so commonplace. I don't think it applies to the matter of Account-Trading of Accts w/established characters (just because it's obviously been installed), but it is good for people to know when making gaming and other software purchases.
Again, thanks for links.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/22/rtf_eula/page3.html
You're not getting a refund
And the EULA can be used for all sorts of nasty clauses, including this little charmer from The Breeder Standard:
You agree, if purchasing by credit card or charge card, that you permanently and irrevocably waive any and all right to cause a "chargeback" (that is, a disputed, reversed or contested charge) against this purchase for any reason whatsoever against Company or other reseller of this license, effective as soon as you receive registration code(s) from the Company, open the envelope containing the program disk or otherwise install or use the Software. You agree that, if you institute such a "chargeback", it constitutes a material violation of this license, and damages Company in ways impossible to calculate, and with long-term adverse effects to the Company. Therefore, you agree to pay, and Company agrees to accept in compromise, for each chargeback you may issue or directly or indirectly cause to be issued against company, the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,000.00) to Company (or the party selling you this license), as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. You expressly confess, in the event of such a "chargeback", that such chargeback constitutes fraud and confess such fraud. You agree to pay all costs incurred by company or the seller of this license in collecting these amounts.
So, will any of this stand up in court?
Now that is the question. How enforceable is the EULA? Well, that depends on the court you go to. The majority of courts that have heart cases against specific EULA's and clauses have ruled against the EULA, though some have ruled in favor of it.
Hornedtoad: Thanks for the links! Those are definately some good information about EULAs and thoughts on them as well.
The quote I think is also important for people to remember these days where computers are so commonplace. I don't think it applies to the matter of Account-Trading of Accts w/established characters (just because it's obviously been installed), but it is good for people to know when making gaming and other software purchases.
Again, thanks for links.
No Problem. Glad you enjoyed the reading. I definitely find EULA's very interesting and will be curious to see what happens in the future.
I guess this is where we're going to have to disagree. I don't believe that the User Agreements are illegal, and much of what you linked to is feeding you BS. If and when a judge upholds the game companies rights to do what they please with THEIR accounts (not yours), then it will be upholding a legal presedence. But you or I are not lawyers, nor are we versed or educated in law. We're merely amatuers that listened to other amatuers, and we drew our own conclusions based on our own predispositions.
Plus, your quote:
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
That isn't applicable to our debate. It clearly states that it is discussing software that wasn't installed. We're talking about accounts that not only don't belong to us, but are only accessable through INSTALLED software. Thus, the quote makes no sense in this arguement.
Seriously.
It's Are'el. This forum doesn't allow apostrophes in usernames.
No you don't. You can sign a lease, or any other legal document. If the terms of the document are against the law then the document itself is ruled to be invalid and cannot be enforced.
So basically you are making an assumption prior to any ruling and acting upon it? Sounds pretty foolish.
No I was responding to your comment that if you sign the EULA even though it breaks the law then you are bound by those things that are against the law. I was pointing out that is not true. Also look at the EULA's enforcing the ability of a company to install a rootkit, spyware or any number of things. Do you really want to say all of them are enforcable blind just because you agreed to it?
Here's some interesting articles about the EULA.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/2006/06/13_a412.html
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628
"If you find yourself paying for bundled proprietary software and don't actually install it, you can legally resell it no matter what the End-User License Agreement (EULA) says. That's what Judge Dean D. Pregerson wrote in his "Order Re: Application For Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Softman v. Adobe."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004145.php
If you want to buy World of Warcraft or EverQuest and resell it without installing or playing it I am for that. You checked a box that said you agree with the end-user agreement while you were installing World of Warcraft AND every time they patch the game. I don't see how that is the same.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
I personally like the "well were you wearing your helmet" appraoch.
First off Cale I wasn't putting words in retro's mouth I was simply trying to relate to him and understand where hes coming from. I do agree with him and the other posters like ari'el (sorry for the spelling) about all the EULA stuff and the rammifications of the EULA. If you agree to it than it has legal rammifications, however are the EULA's legal in and of themselves is something that needs serious discussion. Without government intervention or court rulings I see no other ways around the selling of accounts/items.
Second. Also I would NEVER EVER EVER sell accounts I do believe that they destroy the ingame economics and mechanics of most MMO's out there. I just think that I should HAVE THE RIGHT to sell physical property thats mine to someone else. Unless the U.S. courts say its against the law to sell software that I've bought thats fine I'll obey the law. But having an xyz MMO company make GRANDIOS terms that say that I cant sell physical property that I've perchased is LUDICROUS!!!! I do however understand that the reason why most software that you sell off to someone else is illegal because of software duplication(pirating). (check dictionary.com because MMORPG.COM spell checker says grandios is misspelled maybe I've been infront of my computer too long
Thirdly. The more that MMO companies ignore(for the most part) the selling and trading of their own accounts then the more people will think its taboo and more attractive. More and more folks will continue to purchase accounts/items from others if this continues and the yearly income will accelerate even faster. I hate account selling I always have and probably always will unless theres an MMO company out there that out that caters to it then I don't really see a problem with it. I think SOE is doing this with the everquest series where they have a cash shop where you can purchase in game items but I'm not sure about it.
Retro agree with you as well as cale and if it was sounding like I was putting words in your mouth than I apologize I was just trying to see where you were coming from. Writing really isn't one of my strong points but talking is. I would however love to talk about this stuff. If any of you got TS maybe we could collaborate on finding the IGE headquarters and getting some guns and.... um......
JUST KIDDING MMORPG GODS PLZ DONT BAN ME...
omg I need to take a break
Is there an MMO that out there that isn't affected by Xao Ping Wang and their money grubbing macro bots?
http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/editorials/mf/
Just say no to ingame money/mob farming.... the site says it all
I guess so. The specific quote I linked was just an interesting point I hadn't seen before. There have been other judgments both tearing down and upholding EULAs. It depends on the EULA in question.
I honestly don't see how you can say all EULA's are enforcable and you can sign away any and every right you have to the EULA. There have been lots of cases where judges have torn down the company's EULAs that allowed spyware, rootkit issues, etc. The previous EULA I linked even said you were confessing to fraud if you did something. EULA's cannot be uniformly accepted as enforcing or not enforcing. It has to depend on the specific EULA.
Otherwise I'll make a 5 minute software package with a fancy websie advertising it does all kinds of things for "promotional purposes" and then have a 100 page EULA state the software installed is different than the webpage and you are agreeing to that, agreeing not to sue, etc. etc. and make money off useless software that they can't do anything about because they clicked the EULA.
I have no problem stating that they believe the WoW or other game companies EULA to be enforcable, as that hasn't been proven in court either way. But it can't be a universal EULA according to any reasonable interpretation.