| 140 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
6/19/12 11:48:57 PM#61
SOOOO many people on this site are clueless omg a TOS/EULA MEAN SHIT. They're not legally binding infact blizzard CANNOT prove you read the dam thing. It's worth as much as the paper it's not printed on.
EULA DOES NOT CHANGE LAWS it does not make what they're doing legal or illegal. |
|
|
6/19/12 11:50:52 PM#62
Originally posted by laserit Yeah, Blizzard should have realized that balancing stats on gear when you have an RMAH is full retard. They still need to stop it though.
On a side note, check out this amazing thread: SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
|
|
6/19/12 11:51:24 PM#63
Originally posted by William12 Exactly. Clicking accept gives them power over your game character / items. It does not give them legal power over you. |
|
Originally posted by paroxysm Thank you for this post, that is what i'm most curious in, what will blizzard do. Dispite what people may think, this is a very huge deal and effects everybody who plays online games. |
|
|
6/19/12 11:52:40 PM#65
Come to think about it. Blizzard could nerf items... claiming balance issues. You know... get the old aution house rolling with people needing to replace their nerfed gear. A sleezy business and very contriversial business. The Genius...
I believe a company with ethics would stay clear of something like this.
|
|
|
6/19/12 11:55:23 PM#66
People paying money in a buy to play game so they can get virtual items in a game which has the entire goal of aquiring virtual items are funny.
|
|
|
6/20/12 12:00:07 AM#67
Originally posted by alexmino I've been sitting back giggling about this for weeks now. Honestly I'm glad I stuck to my guns and didn't buy D3, all the controversy and forum posts surrounding it are by far more entertaining. "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions." |
|
|
6/20/12 12:00:38 AM#68
Originally posted by Aori
It is a very huge deal indeed. Maybe from now on they will actually TEST their games internally before release. Allowing trading of virtual items for real money in an untested environment is a enormous mistake. A huge part of patch 1.0.3 should have been implemented from the start. It just takes a team of good testers to see that IAS is an overpowered stat and that Inferno damage is cheap and Act II is a wall. Can't a company like Blizzard afford to pay 8 guys, good gamers, to test their shiz? As for chargebacks, the items are owned by Blizzard and only "lend" to the players for usage, they reserve the right to do anything to them. I have strong doubts that they can lose this if they go all the way with it BUT it ruins their image. To ban a buyer's account for a chargeback also kinda means that you ban a guy who is willing to spend a great amount of money for gaming, losing him as a client. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:08:11 AM#69
This won't amount to much. How much are you willing to spend to recover a maximum of $250.00? You won't even get a lawyer to look at this one. Blizzard could eat the cost of every chargeback, banning the accounts of course, and still make money. Remember the items themselves cost Blizzard nothing. "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." ~Greys Law |
|
|
6/20/12 12:09:11 AM#70
Originally posted by simmihi To ban a buyer's account for a chargeback also kinda means that you ban a guy who is willing to spend a great amount of money for gaming, losing him as a client. To Blizz, it's likely akin to a guy that orders off of Ebay and then demands a chargeback while the item is already in transit. How many people bought items knowing there was going to be a change in stats, full-well expecting a chance to chargeback and get it for free? Not to mention those that requested one on items that weren't even affected by it? How many man-hours would have to go into investigating what is a legit claim and what isn't? What governing body is going to determine what a legit claim here is in the first place? It's all serious gray-area that favors Blizz atm, IMO. Writer / Musician / Game Designer Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 |
|
|
6/20/12 12:12:13 AM#71
Originally posted by GTwander At best Blizzard loses a customer. Even though Blizzard has a large following, losing customers is never a good business strategy. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:16:42 AM#72
Originally posted by Jimmydean It is when they abuse chargebacks. You don't want thieves for customers unless you run a prison. "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." ~Greys Law |
|
Originally posted by zymurgeist I don't think you get how the system works, I sell 2 items to the same person for $250 each. I get $423 and blizzard gets $77. Now the person charges blizzard back for $500 which in turn makes blizzard eat $423 if the chargeback is successful. This is costing them ALOT, it adds up fast. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:17:26 AM#74
Originally posted by Adam1902 They have to be careful. EULA is not law and if someone takes it to court and the court is forced to make a ruling on virtual property, then blizzard might end up on the wrong end of the ruling. It only takes the wrong judge to make this happen and will open the doors to all virtual property. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:19:05 AM#75
Originally posted by zymurgeist Well ya know what they say, "No honor amongst theives". Steal money from people, and they might just fight back. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:20:17 AM#76
To everyone who is upset over this.. From the RMAH EULA: "What happens if there is a patch and the item I purchased is altered?
Its not "law", but it is their terms that you agreed to... I ask you all....why did you click "i agree" and proceed to buy items if you don't actually agree with it? /sigh... |
|
|
6/20/12 12:25:26 AM#77
Originally posted by doodphace The EULA can't change federal, state or local laws. There are laws which cover a variety of odd things which might apply. People need to understand the EULA NEVER TRUMPS LAW. . |
|
|
6/20/12 12:27:14 AM#78
Originally posted by AoriOriginally posted by Rednecksith My god... I hate when this shit comes up and all the armchairs lawyers show up.... This isn't close to bait and switch, which is advertising an item and then offering something else when the consumer comes to buy said item and told that said item is not available. The items purchased were the exact items up for sale, which were then subsequently changed during a patch. You received what was being offered. You have zero legal ground and will loose. End of discussion. This is ridiculous. |
|
|
6/20/12 12:27:56 AM#79
Originally posted by waynejr2 People also need to understand that if you agree to an EULA...things that you agreed to might actually happen... So far everyone butthurt over this keeps bringing up "EULA doesnt trump the LAW"..but nobody has been able to say which law its "trying" to trump... |
|
|
6/20/12 12:29:12 AM#80
Originally posted by doodphace Probably the non existent law that would let Blizzard go after people who file chargebacks. Blizzard can ban accounts in this situation, nothing more. |
|