It's not Blizzard's agenda to ban people who buy gold. They'll ban people that sell it, sure.
That might change if they're able to subpoena customer lists as part of this lawsuit. I'm not saying they'd ban everyone who's ever bought gold, but if Blizzard makes it known that it knows without question who is buying gold and decide to make an example out of some folks, it would put a pretty good dent in the market.
I'd imagine that they'd put out a warning first if they're going to ban buyers, kinda like how they did for the diablo 2 maphacking where they go "No seriously, this is against the rules and we'll actually do something about it"
I'd imagine that they'd put out a warning first if they're going to ban buyers, kinda like how they did for the diablo 2 maphacking where they go "No seriously, this is against the rules and we'll actually do something about it"
Yeah... when was the last time you played Diablo 2, Beef?
The players will know. And with SpamSentry (off wowace), it takes two clicks of a button to report it.. Hell, it's doable in the heat of combat without too much hassle. Through gm tickets, Blizzard will know.
I'm curious about the worth of those tickets. On one hand there's no way to prove that the information submitted is correct (due to the tracing issue) but on the other hand the sheer amount of reports gotta be worth something hopefully.
I've also heard that if you go through a powerlevelling service you'll get banned the vast majority of the time.
You will get banned because a majority of those power leveling services use bots to level your character. I've heard many people claim some "omg my character got haxed" and successfully recover their characters after such an incident though.
I applaud Blizzard for going after P4H this way and it almost seems to be too cut and dry, to be quite honest.
I'm curious about the worth of those tickets. On one hand there's no way to prove that the information submitted is correct (due to the tracing issue) but on the other hand the sheer amount of reports gotta be worth something hopefully.
I imagine it caused a huge problem with processing that many reports, which is why they stopped the auto-reporting in 2.1.
A lot of times in spam cases the eventual claim is "Trespass to chattels" when the laws specifically covering spam are no adequate. Tresspass to chattel is "a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel." A chattel is basically a piece of property, anything you can own (including, for example, a server). Quoting a few useful bits from wikipedia:
a) Lack of consent
A vendor can attempt to dispute a trespass claim on the grounds that the user consented to the terms of the contract. Even if consent was given for certain access, a user may still have a valid trespass to chattels complaint if the vendor has exceeded the contractual terms, if the contract is found to misrepresent the actual functioning of the product, or if the consent has been withdrawn. A vendor can be held liable for “any use exceeding the consent” given.” (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 256)
b) Actual harm
The precise criteria for ascertaining actual harm varies among states, in California, for instance, an electronic message can be deemed a trespass where the message interferes with the target computer’s operation, as long as a plaintiff can demonstrate either actual hardware damage or actual impaired functioning (see: Intel v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003)). But the general concept of requiring impaired computer functioning has been adopted consistently and in showing impaired computer functioning, courts have usually emphasized system unavailability.
c) Intentionality
In clarifying the meaning of intentionality in the context of a trespass to chattels claim, § 217 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts states that “intention is present when an act is done for the purpose of using or otherwise intermeddling with a chattel or with knowledge that such an intermeddling will, to a substantial certainty, result from the act,” and that, furthermore, “[i]t is not necessary that the actor should know or have reason to know that such intermeddling is a violation of the possessory rights of another.”
Incidentally, I think Blizzard has a vested interest in not banning gold BUYERS, because clearly they are the type of players with disposable income and are probably fairly entrenched in the game itself. In other words, they're good customers.
I doubt many more people will buy gold, the new daily quests have all but removed need for extra gold
Basic economics -- putting more gold into the economy inflates the value of gold itself. You might have more gold, but subsequently you will need to pay more gold for your goods. If everyone is getting more gold, prices go up, not down. If anything, people that are more or less forced to buy gold before this (due to lack of time, or laziness or what have you), are probably MORE likely to buy it now, due to prices on everything going up. If they had to buy gold to afford a 100g item, they're still going to have to buy gold to pay 125g for it now, assuming they're playtime is constant.
Basic economics -- putting more gold into the economy inflates the value of gold itself. You might have more gold, but subsequently you will need to pay more gold for your goods. If everyone is getting more gold, prices go up, not down. If anything, people that are more or less forced to buy gold before this (due to lack of time, or laziness or what have you), are probably MORE likely to buy it now, due to prices on everything going up. If they had to buy gold to afford a 100g item, they're still going to have to buy gold to pay 125g for it now, assuming they're playtime is constant.
Valid point, but keep in mind that many hardcore raiders bought gold up to now due to horrendous pot requirements and repair bills.
Now with pot requirement brought down to a minimum and incredible easy pot farming for the eye (2 mechanaar, a botanica and one arkatraz run gave me 65 mana pots) along side with daily quests to cover repair bills easily gold buying could actually decrease.
Incidentally, I think Blizzard has a vested interest in not banning gold BUYERS, because clearly they are the type of players with disposable income and are probably fairly entrenched in the game itself. In other words, they're good customers.
I mean, define cheating. I use every element allowed by the game world, systems that have been placed by the game designers. They even placed mailboxes so it would be easier to transfer things in game between characters. How can I be cheating? I'm not making counterfeit money. There's no Hiro jumping across time to place 3 aces in my hand. All that gold came from the game server placing it in some mob loot table for someone to get, then send it to me.
You can argue about the morality of the action, but it's definitiely not cheating, unless the gold seller uses hack to get gold (a thing increasingly uncommon nowadays).
Using cash to get some actions means that you use some IRL elements to get ahead in game - which people think is objectionable. Ok. Why, then, is the fact that some people are apparently unemployed, have gobs of free time and can play 6 hours a day any more acceptable? I mean, it's the same thing basically: you are using your RL advantage to get ahead. In one case it's cash, in the other, it's free time.
What makes one good, and the other bad. Besides the fact that you (not the person quoted, here, but "you" in general), personally, have lots of free time and little disposable income, that is.
What makes one good, and the other bad. Besides the fact that you (not the person quoted, here, but "you" in general), personally, have lots of free time and little disposable income, that is.
I agree somewhat. Had the ratio of free-time:disposable income been on the side of income instead of time, I would have bought gold to pay for my epic mount. The price and the chance at getting banned kept me from doing it. I know a few people, in this game and others, that purchased in-game currency. They're reasoning is the same as the goblins: "time is money, friend." They'd rather buy the gold then spend loads of time farming, time they didnt really have.
Ukerric, while you make a point, I think it can be (fairly safely) argued that the farming gold buying/selling market is self-enhancing. As in, the more people who buy gold (or farm many, many hours a day), the more 'joe average' has to fight to keep up.
In a fairly subtle way, it devalues the time of the normal player, and inflates the economy. Needless to say, -those- are the people who Blizz has an incredibly vested interest in keeping around, and while there's no direct link to 'spending more time farming money' and 'canceling accounts' I would venture that it's something that bothers them enough to care.
I'm not saying that this is happening, or that you're completely off base. I am, however, presenting a counteraguement of a subtle threat to the in game economy and an even more subtle one that causes devaluation of time/effort spent, which can directly lead to a less enjoyable game to certain people.
I realize this is my opinion and a bit ephereal, but I think it's a fairly valid issue that could crop up, morality and EULA aside.
Beware: provocative piece of opinion ahead
You can argue about the morality of the action, but it's definitiely not cheating, unless the gold seller uses hack to get gold (a thing increasingly uncommon nowadays).
Cheating is when you play a game, don't play by the rules and try to hide the fact form the other players. Gold buying is against the EULA and they are part of the rules.
Cheat in the game if you need to, say that the rules are wrong if you think so, but at least be honest to yourself.
Now back on topic: I don't know the american law system. Will the text of the suit be publically available when it is filed or is that secret? And how long does it usually take for such suites until a judgement is made?
If they are circumventing Blizzard's authentication servers to access a copyrighted material (namely, the game itself) then they potentially in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
Ukerric, while you make a point, I think it can be (fairly safely) argued that the farming gold buying/selling market is self-enhancing. As in, the more people who buy gold (or farm many, many hours a day), the more 'joe average' has to fight to keep up.
In a fairly subtle way, it devalues the time of the normal player, and inflates the economy. Needless to say, -those- are the people who Blizz has an incredibly vested interest in keeping around, and while there's no direct link to 'spending more time farming money' and 'canceling accounts' I would venture that it's something that bothers them enough to care.
I'm not saying that this is happening, or that you're completely off base. I am, however, presenting a counteraguement of a subtle threat to the in game economy and an even more subtle one that causes devaluation of time/effort spent, which can directly lead to a less enjoyable game to certain people.
I realize this is my opinion and a bit ephereal, but I think it's a fairly valid issue that could crop up, morality and EULA aside.
In an economy where currency is created by simply walking outside and killing a thousand boars its hard to say that buying gold is inflating the economy.
I mean, it was already in the system, right? Someone (or some program) had to go "make" that money for you to buy.
I know that buying an epic mount and flying around hella fast is not any less enjoyable to me because I may or may not have farmed the money on my own.
Yeah, their lawyers are pretty fond of the DMCA. If I remember correctly, that's what they used to smash bnetd and that botting program that was popular a while back.
The definition of cheating is whatever the game authorities define as cheating. For instance you are allowed to catch a ball in WoW but not in Soccer (excepting goalkeepers).
C. You agree that you will not
v. buy or sell for "real" money or exchange gold, weapons, armor, or any other virtual items that may be used in World of Warcraft outside the World of Warcraft platform; or
In an economy where currency is created by simply walking outside and killing a thousand boars its hard to say that buying gold is inflating the economy.
I mean, it was already in the system, right? Someone (or some program) had to go "make" that money for you to buy.
Bzzzt, wrong. Gold farmers don't sell money that was already in the game, they farm it. If farmers are creating significant amounts of gold that wouldn't be created otherwise (virtually certain) they are, by definition, causing inflation.
05/27/07, 12:46 PM
Similar Threads
