Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Wields The Banhammer Again

Eurogamer reports that Blizzard is once again clearing house, and this time they mean business. From the article: "Blizzard has banned more than 5400 World of Warcraft players from the game for good as part of plans to clamp down on gold farming and cheating in general. A further 10,700 accounts have been suspended for 'participating in activities that violate the game's Terms of Use, including using third-party programs to farm gold and items.'"

142 comments

  1. Wow by popeguilty · · Score: 1

    Anyone else just hear a hideous scream from the direction of China?

    1. Re:Wow by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      No, actually, I couldn't hear the scream over the sound of thousands of other gold farmers furiously clicking their mice.

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  2. Epic weapons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if only they'd use the "Make the Servers Work" hammer.

    1. Re:Epic weapons! by vertinox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now if only they'd use the "Make the Servers Work" hammer.

      When all you have is a "Ban" Hammer, all problems look like a Gold Farmer.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  3. Re:Population by popeguilty · · Score: 1

    Man, that's an easier joke than I thought, I guess.

  4. Banhammer by JigsJupeJive · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hunter Weapon!

    1. Re:Banhammer by Ignignot · · Score: 4, Funny

      OH MY GOD it is not just a hunter weapon you jerk because paladins can use +agil just as much because they need all the crit% that they can get! If I saw a hunter roll on a Banhammer I would be so pissed I would track him down and beat the crap out of him and also never group with him again and probably complain in the realm forums!

      Btw what is the drop rate because I have been farming this thing for 3 days and it still hasn't dropped!

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    2. Re:Banhammer by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Hunters can't use maces, you n00b! omgwtfbbq l2play kthxbai!

      *blink*

      What just happened? I think I had a flashback... *shudder*

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    3. Re:Banhammer by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      My hunter's Quel'Serrar is way better

  5. boohoo by Karrde712 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why did I receive a ban notice from them?

    I don't even have an account...

    --
    You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
    1. Re:boohoo by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      Were you told that this ban oversight can be easily remedied if you just send $100 to a Nigerian bank account?

  6. Encouragement for the survivers by sinner6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Won't the farmers that survived the banhammer just be able to increase their prices, as their competitors are at least temporarly out of commision? Plus the supply of gold available for purchase is less so won't prices go up even more?

    1. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the higher prices cause less people to buy the gold?

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    2. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by GmAz · · Score: 1

      The gold prices have been growing ever since Blizzard put in the "Get gold instead of experience at lvl 60" rule. I did a hand full of quests in Silithus and made over 60 gold in a couple hours. Just doing solo quests. The big group quests are worth even more.

      --
      Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    3. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It goes both ways. On the one hand, supply is going to drop, so prices are bound to go up. At the same time the reduction in the overall amount of gold will cause currency deflation which would suck for virtual trade balances, but should make stuff cost less.

      All that is counter-balanced however by people who camp out the auction houses buying commodities that are "underpriced" and re-selling them at an inflated market value.

      I always wondered if blizzard sends in people "undercover" to manipulate the gold supply to keep the economy going. There are certain facets that drain money out of supply...repair costs, mounts, everything bought from vendors, but it seems like that would be really difficult to fine-tune, without some occasional corrections.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that cause Gold prices to decrease though as supply increases?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    5. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Virtual economy has no such nonsense as supply and demand.They operate on basis of fads and prestige of having some trinkets while others strive to get them.Value doesn't shift unless
      its "sucks" "out of fashion" or declared
      crap.Supply is virtual too.
      Playing these games is waste of time and (and unless you employ a computer farm dedicated to exploiting game economy) money.

    6. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by GmAz · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But if not as many people guy gold, the gold farmers need to make money to keep farming. So, they will have to raise prices to keep the income flowing.

      --
      Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    7. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's all they did in EQ whenever SOE bitchslapped them.

    8. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Virtual economy has no such nonsense as supply and demand.

      Of course they do. How could they not? If there's a market, there supply and demand. It's not optional.

      They operate on basis of fads and prestige of having some trinkets while others strive to get them.

      That would be the "demand" part.

    9. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Blizzard can alter "demand" (and supply) simply by making your items change their attributes?
      Don't a new exploit can make them worthless in a hour?
      Much like Duping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duping demonstartes this there still people who belive game world items are having intrisic value(to ingame avatars?).These are just bits on Blizzard servers.
      Information there is not Real (as in Existing) ,only our perception makes it have value and existance (like the Super swords of Dragon Slaying).
      Much like paper money vs gold vs basic goods .Except: there is nothing to stop you(or a script) from getting more gold or trinkets.

    10. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Doesn't Blizzard can alter "demand" (and supply) simply by making your items change their attributes? Don't a new exploit can make them worthless in a hour?

      Well, yeah, of course. But if they can be altered then by definition they exist. The original poster said they didn't. Markets are really really complicated things, even ones that appear simple. Anything Blizzard (or anyone else) does is just another complication.

      And Blizzard, even with their seemingly God-like powers, is not immune. If they dump too much gold on the market it changes the game. If they take away too much gold it also changes the game. Either one of those could ruin them. Since Blizzard, like everyone else in the market, will act in their own self interest, the market goes on, simply reacting to the complications.

    11. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you sir have just discribed how illegal drug economies function.

      It does mean the survivers get richer, because supply is short now and demand always high so they can take advantage of it by raising prices. However, it also means that it becomes a more attractive trade, as it is now more lucrative. Whereas before it was becoming diluted.

    12. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      "But if they can be altered then by definition they exist"

      So if i can alter my dreams by wishing so they must exist?

    13. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      wow, you are quite the economist. Noble price shouldn't be far out.
      But seriously, supply and demand exists everywhere. It's like a natural law of human interaction.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    14. Re:Encouragement for the survivers by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      so supply and demand do exist? Interessting. Just because the resources are limited on whim the economy evolving because of limited supply doesn't become less real. In the case of WoW , you can be very certain that Blizzard would abstain from any action that would destroy the economy. They really like the money they make from subscribers. Subscribers like the ingame economy.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  7. People said they wouldn't do this by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0

    $54,000+ is a large chunk of change to be giving up for the 'good and moral path'

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    1. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by code-e255 · · Score: 1

      They've been mass-banz0ring cheaters, hackers, exploiters, and gold sellers since beta. Who said they wouldn't do this?

      It's always nice to read these announcements from Blizzard.

    2. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by toleraen · · Score: 1
      'good and moral path'
      While I'm happy Blizzard is taking this action, you do realize that all the gold farmers are just going to re-purchase the retail copy, right? So instead of paying 15 or whatever for one month, they're going to pay 50. Granted the stores and such get some of that, but it certainly looks good when thousands of copies are purchased in one day.
    3. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by Triskele · · Score: 1
      While I'm happy Blizzard is taking this action, you do realize that all the gold farmers are just going to re-purchase the retail copy, right?
      Er no. Your account isn't linked to the retail copy it's linked to your credit card, so the gold farmers will in fact need to get new credit cards (ok not that hard, but harder). Persistent online games have a bit of an advantage here in keeping players straight as for most a ban is harder to circumvent.
      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    4. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by Binestar · · Score: 1

      One thing you're forgetting: "Game Cards"

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    5. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it's tough as hell to get a different credit card to use. Or like the person above me posted, game cards. Do you think anyone in that risky of a business would have their real name tied to their account? Hell, when I used to run ShowEQ back in the day I used it with an account based off game cards...and ShowEQ was near impossible to detect.

      If you're purposely breaking the EULA, you watch your ass.

    6. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

      "Er no. Your account isn't linked to the retail copy it's linked to your credit card"

      BZZZZT!

      Hardly. You can buy the game with cash, and then there are those pesky monthly game cards that you can purchase the same way, guaranteeing your anonymity.

      They're going to get a catchy name like "analog hole" pretty soon too.

      BTW, WoW expansion pack fans should take note of this link

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
    7. Re:People said they wouldn't do this by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      BTW, WoW expansion pack fans should take note of this link

      Bwahahaha. $50 for the expansion?! /point /laugh

      SQEEEEEEAL like a pig.

      -- GeminiDomino, WoW-Free since October 2005

  8. This time they mean buisness... by Laser_47 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    5400/5M = 0.1% of the total population...

    Blizz can't cut *too* deep into the bottom line.

    1. Re:This time they mean buisness... by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 0

      I just posted saying that $54,000 is a large chunk of change to be giving up.
      You've just counteredd that point extremely well! Compared to the 5M other players.. yes.. this is just drop in the ocean. Here I was.. thinking that altruism may shine through.. when in reality they won't lose much at all.. and if these players are actually gold miners they will just create more accounts (meaning x2 or more times the money for the same period of time the banned accounts had left in them).

      Any bets on them 'hammering' 10,000+ players?

      In a related point.. how much time/effort/overhead is there in tracking them down? How come Blizzard doesn't just log how much cash is sent through the mail system or transferred from player to player? (perhaps that's how they found this lot and banned them)

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    2. Re:This time they mean buisness... by Intangion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      would you be happier if they banned more like 50% or what?

      what difference does the percentage of the total players make, as long as it is cutting down on the problem and not adversely effecting legit players thats fine

    3. Re:This time they mean buisness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean 0.01%.

    4. Re:This time they mean buisness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean 0.01%.

      Boy, good that you posted that as an AC. Be pretty embarrassing to have such a dumbass comment under your real history.

    5. Re:This time they mean buisness... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Banning people for breaking the rules is hardly altruistic. You do it because for every rule-breaker account there are X > 1 number of people that will quit because of the rule-breaker being in the game. On the other hand, Blizzard can't appear to ban people at random. They must be able to justify each and every case because if just one innocent person is banned, a lot of people will be quite upset. They can absolutely not afford that their customer base believes that anyone can be banned at anytime for no reason at all (secret-police esque).

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  9. At least they have balls... by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

    Although Blizzard has been under a lot of scruteny lately for a variety of issues (sexual orientation prejudice, bad servers, etc.), I'm glad that they are still a company with the integrity to keep the game running fair at the loss of profit (since I don't think many players care if others cheat a bit, at least not to the point of quitting the game). At $12/mo for 12 months, that's a loss of over777,000 dollars from those 5400 players. Seems like many other companies would rather keep the money then keep the playing fair....

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    1. Re:At least they have balls... by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 1

      This is a short-term loss but may end up providing more profits in the long run. It can severely detract from a game when you see cheaters and gold farmers peppered throughout. Now of course there are still farmers and cheaters in the game but the knowledge that Blizzard is actively smiting these evil-doers is a good moral boost for those playing/considering to play that appreciate an honest game.

      I myself like seeing this happen, regardless of whether or not its a significant percentage of the actual problem. If I had to choose between two roughly equal competing games and one was banz0rzing teh r33t h4xx0rz, while the other was just ignoring them, I would definatly favor the one actively whippin out the banhammer.

    2. Re:At least they have balls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seems like many other companies would rather keep the money then keep the playing fair....

      Like ?

      Keep in account that if goldfarmers/cheaters are blatantly allowed to do their thing, alot of other (fairplaying) customers will leave: Don't think that Blizzard is doing this out of 'Integrity' (which they lost with the whole sexual orientation prejudice): It's purely business.

    3. Re:At least they have balls... by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm glad that they are still a company with the integrity to keep the game running fair at the loss of profit

      Riiiight. 5400 out of 5 million is less than 2% of the total "population". Add to this the fact that these accounts were probably causing a lot more strain on servers and support staff than average.

      Oh, and "integrity" is not a word I'd use regarding Blizzard, at least not after bnetd and "the warden"....

    4. Re:At least they have balls... by egburr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They won't be out any money. The farmers will have to buy a new copy of the game to get a new serial number. So, the regular monthly subscriptions will still be there, plus 5000 new $50 serials will be sold. Sounds like even more profit.

      So, they are cancelling accounts using an excuse that many people will consider legitimate, causing the cancelled players to buy new accounts. How much is the farmer's profit compared to the cost of the new account?

      If I were getting the money from the sale of new serial numbers, I'd keep banning the farmers every chance I had, too. :)

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    5. Re:At least they have balls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Sony? When's the last time you heard about Sony banning gold farmers from EverQuest of Final Fantasy Online?

      It's news because Blizzard is actually taking an active stance of farmers, as opposed to other MMORPG companies that don't.

    6. Re:At least they have balls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're Blizzard. You face a decision that must be made: get rid of cheaters and macroers who are providing around $1m per YEAR in revenue, or watch your player base begin to erode. You know, the player base that is earning you $3m per DAY. You make the call.


      Maybe a company that has become totally devoted to a quarterly report and is a slave to Wall St might be tempted to keep the cheaters, but any company with more than 2 brain cells in charge would drop the cheaters despite the probable revenue, seeing the long term effect as one of driving away other paying customers.

      You see the same effect has taken place at restaurants like McDonald's, where smoking is no longer allowed. The company determined that smokers were keeping other paying customers away, so they fixed it.

      It's rare that a metaphor comes so close to being true, but there ya go.


      ----------

      Posted anonymously because real men don't care about karma.

    7. Re:At least they have balls... by Mufasa3245 · · Score: 0

      mod parent up

      --
      Mufasa http://www.firetiger.net/
    8. Re:At least they have balls... by Mufasa3245 · · Score: 1

      mod parent down See the posts below for why this guy is wrong.

      --
      Mufasa http://www.firetiger.net/
    9. Re:At least they have balls... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Sony does it every day, the difference is, they don't need to blow their own horn, and they have an active appeal process for banned users, It would suck for them to announce that they banned 5k users, and they to have to oops, 2k of those weren't actually farmers.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    10. Re:At least they have balls... by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure many will rebuy the game to resubscribe, but not all are going to. It will piss of a buttload of folk and they'll move on to something else. I cant say for sure one way or the other because people rebuying is a good point I hadnt thought of, but it still is very likely a short term profit loss.

    11. Re:At least they have balls... by Teianna · · Score: 1

      Too bad when they banned people they banned legit people as well. Myself and several others I knew were banned for bad UI's in which all UI's that were used were on their forum. Which this happened a day before the big patch that happened to disabled some addons and stuff. They fail to mention this in the article. Whenever you try to contact blizzard's departments about it they say they can't tell you what you did wrong but you did XX and XX wrong and we can't let you know because then others would know and we can't ban them for it. I think all in all it was a plot to try and decrease server stress and stuff. I also love the fact that their page said that they "investigate" any complaints. Not once did a gm try to "investigate" me by talking to me attempting to port me to test to see what I do and stuff. All in all, it was kind of good for me as I got off of playing Warcraft a lot and can do more things now. Plus I've moved over to ffxi which is I like more than the first time I tried it. Oh well, I guess.

    12. Re:At least they have balls... by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 1

      Ouch.. that sucks man...

    13. Re:At least they have balls... by Teianna · · Score: 1

      Yeah sucks even more when you do try to contact them like they suggest in their email that they just pull whatever template they feel like and sending it out. Or getting the exact same email 5 times in a row when you give different responses. :/

  10. why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    change the game experience so that you can't just stand at one spot and have creatures spawn over and over again? A giant Sloth with a 33% chance of dropping a Toe amulet of +12 charisma would only generate in a geographic area once per X amount of time. Or, have it randomly spawn throughout a realm. Why make the same thing spawn in the same place all the time? It really only makes sense that the same enemy would be in the same place if it's an instance and you can't camp it... but, I don't play WoW, so what the heck do I know.

    1. Re:why not... by Adam+Whisnant · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with farming gold and items is that often they're not camping one specific mob, but a small area.

      Bind-on-Pickup items, like those won from bosses in dungeons, are worthless to a farmer; it can't be used by (or even go into the inventory of) anyone except the person who wins the loot roll for it. All you can do is sell it to a vendor for about 5g.

      Bind-on-Equip epixxxx, which are the ones characters with no vowels in their names try to pawn off for about 800g, are almost entirely random world drops, which have a tiny chance to drop from anything in certain level range. This way, the farmer camping an area makes life miserable for anyone trying to complete a quest there, but there's not overwhelming 24-hour competition for one specific mob.

    2. Re:why not... by tepples · · Score: 1

      characters with no vowels in their names

      Discriminating against characters from the parts of the game world equivalent to Eastern Europe (where vowels in many words have been eroded over time) or the Middle East (whose writing systems leave most vowels unwritten)?

    3. Re:why not... by Adam+Whisnant · · Score: 1

      When Hgf, Gprs, and Adsfhg will stop hawking their Foror's Compendiums every 15 seconds and actually respond to whispers, I'll stop assuming that they're farmers.

    4. Re:why not... by Adam+Whisnant · · Score: 1

      Yes, the last one starts with a vowel, but you understand my meaning.

  11. ~0.2% is "clearing house"? by Helmholtz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Blizzard is once again clearing house, and this time they mean business"

    Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I think that there are significantly more than 0.2% of WOW accounts involved in "gold farming and cheating in general". It sure sounds significant to throw around numbers like five and ten thousand until you realize that the number of accounts is in the millions.

    It sorta reminds me of when the politicos squawk about the financial carnage that a few million dollars will cause to the many billion dollar budget.

    --
    RFC2119
    1. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by crabpeople · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "but I think that there are significantly more than 0.2% of WOW accounts involved in "gold farming and cheating in general"."

      Really? how much evidence do you have? where are the hard numbers? whats that? you have no numbers? you just pulled that statement out of your ass?

      Sure there are farmers in wow - but thinking that they are some measureable menace on the system is just fearmongering. people (especially on american servers ive noticed) LOVE to claim that the immigrants/farmers/non english speakers, are exploiting and farming and are the cause of everyones money problems.

      There is a noticeable amount of hypocracy built into this idea. When an english speaker grinds for days to get some ultra rare drop, hes a hardcore game player and should be looked upon as someone who worked really hard for something that they wanted. But, when a non english speaker does the same, hes a farmer.
      Blizzard is racist and overly cruel to its users. If you ever had to deal with GMs you would have realized this long ago. There is no farming conspiracy that is destroying wow. its all in peoples heads.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    2. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by Retroneous · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm betting that all the eBay auctions and websites that trade in-game gold for cash are all in my head as well.

      Plus, when someone says "I think"...it doesn't mean that they are saying that "THIS IS FACT!"

    3. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Pshh. I've been called a farmer before, and I'm as bland ass american white bread as they come; it's like a lot of "racial issues" that really boil down to the fact that you're pissing off some fourteen year old, and they don't have enough imagination to insult you without dipping into stereotypes.

      Frankly, with WoW as with any other MMORPG, a certain amount of farming is inevitable. I farm mobs for gold. I farm mobs for experience. I farm them for rare drops, recipes, faction, fun, profit, amusement value, food products, cloth, trade goods, quests...It goes on and on and on. The only thing that makes me not a gold farmer is that I don't sell it online.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you scold the parent for not including any "evidence" when you didn't show any for your little rant either.

      I especially loved that tangent you went off on though, Blizzard being racist(very amusing). Thanks!

      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    5. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by Helmholtz · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps you missed my point. I'm not saying anything about whether farming is a good/bad thing, etc. The only point I was trying to make was that people are getting all excited about numbers that are not as significant as they might otherwise seem when stuck in a headline.

      To me, the notion that Blizzard is taking some kind of hard stance by disabling ~15000 accounts is silly, considering how many WoW accounts there are in total. There's no attempt to make any kind of judgement on whether the action is a good or bad thing or even on why it was done or what the motiviations may or may not have been, just that it seems like the number ratio doesn't live up to the bru-ha-ha.

      --
      RFC2119
    6. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds really boring.

    7. Re:~0.2% is "clearing house"? by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      you won't believe it, but a huge majority is actually keen on playing by the rules (as long as those rules are not too restrictive/stupid: Re drug laws). That's how society works. If a significant number of people where robers, murderes, rapists there would be nothing the police could do about it. This is actually pretty well demonstrated when mass-riots happen (like in France a while ago). There, and in other cases, the police just leaves. They usually come back only after order has been restored.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  12. I'm curious by Cthefuture · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why don't they fix the game instead of banning these "cheaters"?

    Now I don't play WoW or any MMORPG but I have played Quake and UT online and these are generally fixed with tools that help prevent cheating rather than just outright banning of everyone. I don't have a problem banning true cheaters but who says who is cheating and what constitutes "cheating" versus friendly taking advantage of the system. Seems like too many innocents or people just playing around could get banned. I mean mistakes can be made, there are no laws governing this, you're just gone. This is actually part of the reason why I don't play MMORPG's, I don't want to possibly waste money on something I can't control.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
    1. Re:I'm curious by Samurai+Cat! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, the typical all-devs-must-focus-on-one-thing-at-a-time mentality.

      The misguided assumption that because one group is doing one thing (and publically), that another group isn't doing other work.

      --

      "People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
    2. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem with this sort of thing is that most of these people aren't really "cheating." They are playing the game perfectly by the rules. The problem lies within weaknesses in the basic game mechanics; as long as it requires frequent, repetitive actions to improve your character, people will find a way to automate that process. If there are incredibly rare items in the game that everybody wants, there are people who will hunt for this item 24 hours a day and then sell it; and, of course, in order to get the money necessary to buy it, players will just buy that money online, because they don't want to press the same button a thousand times in order to get enough money. Fixing these problems requires making changes in the way the gameplay works; naturally, this upsets honest players who had come to rely on whatever had been changed, and so they resort to exploiting other weaknesses in order to keep their character adequate...

      There's really no equivalent in games like Quake and UT. Players have no attachment to their characters; every few minutes, you restart with the same basic equipment and stats as everybody else. Even if the developers decide to change a particular game mechanic, it's not a problem, because the change affects everybody equally, and nobody has lost anything.

    3. Re:I'm curious by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      Now I don't play WoW or any MMORPG

      This much is obvious. The fact here is that a lot of these accounts aren't "cheating", but rather violating the EULA/TOS/AUP (or whatever acronym Blizzard uses). I'm not certain, but I bet a lot of these accounts were used for gold farming, which while technically not cheating, has effects on the game economy, as well as creates a secondary economy for the game (this is probably the part they don't like).

      Also, Quake/UT are quite a bit different. In those games, you have a large number of servers with a few players on each one. It's easier to set up a server where people can be trusted. Another huge difference is that FPSes are a lot less complex in terms of the amount of code used in gameplay.

      MMOs are the exact opposite in both these regards. They have a small number of servers with a large number of players on each one. It's a lot harder to keep undesireable people from having a negative impact on the game. The code required for gameplay is also a lot more complicated, as a much larger amount of scripting takes place (tracking things like quest status, items/inventory, spells and abilities, environmental and skill effects, among others). All this extra code translates into more possible bugs.

    4. Re:I'm curious by Zatar · · Score: 1

      The fact here is that a lot of these accounts aren't "cheating"

      How do you know? I bet a large number, perhaps all, of the "banned" accounts were banned for teleport hacking. The programs to do this have gotten very sophisticated and user-friendly and nearly every server has problems with people who do nothing but teleport around the world mining rich thorium veins and hanging around instanced dungeons teleporting to places where they can't be hit but can kill bosses from.

      Here's a video of someone teleporting around Dire Maul. The UI on the hack is pretty impressive, although the resolution is too bad to see details: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-530519624 422454044&q=w

      I think the main reason they can't fix this is that they want their game to be playable in high latency conditions (virtually required with the load and network problems they are having) and so they can't really tell the difference between someone who lost their connection for 10 seconds and popped up somewhere new because they weren't reporting their position while they were moving and someone who just hacked their client into thinking it's somewhere else now.

    5. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the system just needs to be fair and banning someone without any recourse isn't fair since mistakes can be made.

    6. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than, say, the fact that they moved too quickly or into an impossible location.

  13. They should make it entertaining. by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like creating some sort of grim reaper that starts chasing banned folks where ever they go, like in Gauntlet. Only it never gives up and if you're ever touched, you're dead, er, banned forever. Make it move at a nice steady pace so that everyone else is treated to some Pepe Le Pew style comedy. Or make it like a biblical plague. From time to time, folks are cleared out by frogs, boils, flies, etc.

    (I've never played, so it may not as good an idea as it sounds)

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:They should make it entertaining. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a great idea.
      Allowing the normal players see the punishment coming down on those banned.
      But I think it should be more humiliating.
      First they lose all communication methods.
      They get stuck on a pike allong the road to their main city.
      They can't get down from the pole, but can wriggle around.
      Others can point and taunt them, and throw food stuff at them for xp.

    2. Re:They should make it entertaining. by stienman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds like fun! Make them sick as well, so they can't play at their level, and all the items they own or get during the time of the banishment become infected so they are useless or damaging to other players (makes it hard for them to open a new account and transfer all their loot).

      And better yet, they could then be slowly pushed to the banishment zone where their characters slowly turn into NPCs that others can defeat to receive the loot untainted.

      I like it!

      -Adam

  14. o noes by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    if only there was some way I could get my WoW fix for free on servers that you are actually able to log in to.

    yep, too bad theres nothing like that on the interenets

    1. Re:o noes by tabooli · · Score: 0

      uh. are you kidding? have a look at the number of players logged in to those servers. 53, 34, 12 ... I'd rather play neverwinter nights than play WoW with 12 people on the entire server. I bet you played The Sims using the $100,000 cheat code too :/

  15. Real Life (tm) by Flamekebab · · Score: 0

    Looks like a few thousand people might have to actually leave the house now to get their socialising fix, or they could just give their cash to another MMORPG supplier..

    Just switch dealer! Gotta get that fix, after all.

  16. Thanks, Blizzard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's anything more sad than gaming geeks sitting all day (and night) long and replacing their social lives with WoW, it's the very same geeks that also feel the need to cheat their ways through the game. I don't mind it if it doesn't affect others, but botting and macroing tend to affect game economies and make things overly hard to acquire due to inflation.

  17. because its important. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    If you don't ban the cheaters you effectively encourage them. Look no further than Turbine's Asheron's Call. The game has a permanent exploiter haven stain over its head. Worse was the day a Turbine developer posted on their own forums that "combat macroing" was condoned. If you encourage one type of the cheating people will use that as an excuse for others.

    As for fixing the game versus banning players. I am quite sure its different teams. The game CSR/GM group jobs only interact with developers on bugs and possibly for new tool requests. If anything banning these players may make for more time for the developers to fix the game.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  18. Too bad it didn't help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone playing the game can still do a /who dire maul or /who mauradan and still see multiple level 60 hunters exploiting the instances.

    So woopty do, all 5000 of those people just bought a new copy and are exploiting again. What i want to know is why did they wait and let the economy get ruined and then do it all at once instead of banning them one by one when they do something bad? Just for these worthless "hey, we banned a lot of people" statements?

  19. I finally quit by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1

    I've been a tireless defender of Blizzard but I finally ran out of patience. They've hopelessly crippled the PvP system with mindless battlegrounds grinds, where you farm rep and CP instead of XP and items. Boring. And now that my server crashes 2-3 times a night and is totally unplayable most weekends, and BWL is so lagged that Vael is impossible ... well I hit a wall. I can't justify $15/mo for a game that I can't even play. I hung it up and signed up for EVE.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:I finally quit by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      After a year and four months, I finally let my WoW account lapse last week and moved on to EQ2 for much the same reason as the parent. Until one plays a non-WoW MMO, he/she doesn't know that the constant server lag, all-day-long weekly maintainences that often bork the server for at least another day after, sparse content patches (there hasn't been a new 5-man instance in a year), critical skill/talent/spell bugs that have gone unfixed for over a year, and the other problems that WoW is still experiencing after a year and a half of operation aren't typical of the MMO genre. At least, they haven't been since the early days of EQ1, UO, and Asheron's Call.

      That, and the "role-playing" servers are horrid. I'm an RP geek who's done so in a few other MMO's, but it seems like no one even tries to stay in-character on the WoW RP servers. And do you know why? Because Blizzard doesn't enforce their RP rules *at all.*

      For example: A few months ago on my old WoW RP server, a friend of mine reported a player who had named his character "Crispybacon." Clearly a non-RP name that Blizz should force, right? Well, the GM who responded said that, no, "Crispybacon" is not in violation of the RP-server rules.

      So, in short, Blizzard has no clue how to run an MMO. Otherwise they'd, you know, actually get their servers working instead of coming up with elaborate April Fool's jokes and rooting out goldfarmers whose only crime is violating a questionably-legal EULA.

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    2. Re:I finally quit by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      ...and the other problems that WoW is still experiencing after a year and a half of operation aren't typical of the MMO genre. At least, they haven't been since the early days of EQ1, UO, and Asheron's Call.

      I think they're very typical. But not for a game in its 18th month of operation, working on an expansion pack, and managed by a company that, until recently, had a spotless reputation for quality. I expected more from Blizzard and gave them the benefit of the doubt for a few months. But I'm tired of it. Add to that the fact that their new content is almost universally oriented towards more stupid rep grinds, and I'm having a tough time justifying the time investment. You also left Anarchy Online off your list of disasterous MMORPG technology.

      So, in short, Blizzard has no clue how to run an MMO. Otherwise they'd, you know, actually get their servers working instead of coming up with elaborate April Fool's jokes and rooting out goldfarmers whose only crime is violating a questionably-legal EULA.

      The EULA is perfectly legal, it's just unenforceable. I bought gold and I'd buy it again. It makes more sense to take the $75 that it took me two hours to earn and buy an amount of gold that would require a month of grinding. If they don't like it, stop introducing stupid grinds.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    3. Re:I finally quit by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      EVE ain't that different especially since player griefing will cost you quite a bit more. Blizzard might have server issues, but you effectively only loose time. In EVE, you can loose everything and it's part of the game.

      I left EVE for WoW and I'm not looking back.

  20. fads & trinkets by ajrs · · Score: 1

    wait, are we talking about the US economy or the WoW economy?

    1. Re:fads & trinkets by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. Use your grey matter.

    2. Re:fads & trinkets by ajrs · · Score: 1

      My grey matter tells me that once there is food in my belly and a roof over my head, anything else is fads & trinkets. Use your sarcasm meter.

    3. Re:fads & trinkets by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      something virtual has any relation with real material economy?
      Fads and trinkets are
      consumers preference,they don't shape the economy(Unlike MMORPGs).Unless masses diversify/reform the demand,supply is very stable.
      In Games slight changes to values of some trinkets or game mechanics would
      radically alter the economy.

      Case of Diablo II(i don't play it anymore): Before the New Runewords,runes
      would be priced very cheap,unless you had top runes and economy was based on uniques. Now the entire economy is based on runes.Reason:Patch added new runewords,that now offer unique level bonuses.

    4. Re:fads & trinkets by ajrs · · Score: 1

      you offer runes, I offer ring tones and itunes. Nothing but bits. I believe that the ring tone economy has eclipsed the CD economy. Reason: oh, shiney.

  21. Gold Farmers are the same as any Alt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't see what the criticism of gold farming is all about from the player's standpoint. Anyone who has an alt character on a separate account is doing essentially the same thing as someone who buys gold on ebay from a gold farmer. They are paying real world money to get an in-game advantage. Thing is, when you get an Alt it is Blizzard who gets all the payments. But with gold farming, someone other than Blizzard is profiting, too. Don't believe them when they say they are trying to keep the game balanced for all players. If you pay Blizzard, you can get TOS-compliant in-game advantages poorer players cannot match. So it isn't about fairness to players at all. It's about Blizzard's bottom line.

    I buy gold and don't care what people think. You have an alt, and don't care what I think. Even, steven.

    1. Re:Gold Farmers are the same as any Alt by voxel · · Score: 1

      How does having an alt on a seperate account benefit me? Other than making my bank account go down by another $15 a month every month.

      --
      Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
    2. Re:Gold Farmers are the same as any Alt by hauntedspaceship · · Score: 1
      Even steven.

      Hey, leave me out of this. I don't even play World of Warcraft!

      - Steve

  22. Awesome idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blizz could make infinite lvl 30 ghosts spawn around the gold farmer randomly. The gold farmer might be able to fight them off, but over time they'd just wear down and wouldn't be able to get any gold farming in... what a cool idea.

  23. An Idea by mESSDan · · Score: 1

    After reading over some of the posts here, I had an idea based on some of them. Rather than ban these people, why not keep them flagged for both Alliance and Horde PVP (like in the Arena), and set them up like Trial accounts where they can't send or receive ingame mail, and can't trade. Give them a tag like or or something, and let people police themselves. That would let the players on the servers vent some and force them to do the work of canceling their own account.

    --

    -- Dan
    1. Re:An Idea by Renraku · · Score: 1

      I second that idea. FFA PVP on farmers and cheaters. On all characters. On all accounts. On all new characters. Everywhere. Forever.

      Bliz would still be earning money from them for a while until they realized there's a conga line at the graveyard waiting for them to spawn. Oh, killing them gives honor.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  24. Escape Velocity and Captain Hector by edremy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This has already been done by Ambrosia in Escape Velocity. It was shareware- you had 30 days to register. During that time, Captain Hector would occasionally fly by and remind you to register.

    After 30 days, Captain Hector got guns and would hunt you down. He wasn't too hard to kill if you had a decent ship, but he'd be back a few minutes later to attack you again. And again. And again. And again...

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:Escape Velocity and Captain Hector by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this whole scenario wasn't too hard to avoid in the original version of Escape Velocity. The way around IIRC was to just to delete the preferences file and I'm not sure, but some invisible files may also have had to be deleted. However, dealing with invisible files are hard to deal with in the Classic MacOS unless you had ResEdit or Norton Disk Utilities.

      Later versions of Escape Velocity had several other methods that would not allow you get very far without registering. One way this was done was to not allow the player to buy the higher grade ships or equipment, or to get very far on the in the story.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  25. Which developers did they fire? by menace3society · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's see, 5400 people @ $12.99/month (or more), that's about $800k a year--easily enough funds for a half-dozen developers' salaries+benefits+perks. So when Blizz's income drops by close to a million per year, who got axed?

    1. Re:Which developers did they fire? by WereTiger · · Score: 1

      4.5 Million Subscribers * 12.95 = 58.5 Million per year.

      My guess is, they're sitting on an excessive surplus, if anything.

      Excessive-excessive surplus.

      Any WoW executives who want to adopt an IT guy? Any?

      --
      If you're hearing rhetoric about Linux, open source, or Mac and everyone's bashing Microsoft, you've found Slashdot.
    2. Re:Which developers did they fire? by FerociousFerret · · Score: 1
      So when Blizz's income drops by close to a million per year, who got axed?

      They fired the ones working on fixing the server and network problems, of course.

    3. Re:Which developers did they fire? by non0score · · Score: 1

      You mean, 4.5M players * $12.95/month/player * 12months/year = $699.3M per year. But yeah, they're definitely sitting on an excessive-excessive surplus.

    4. Re:Which developers did they fire? by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      I think you mean per month.

    5. Re:Which developers did they fire? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      You forget that they're paying for a ton of servers and bandwidth. Yes, queue the server downtime jokes here, but fact of the matter is, their servers cost money. As does the farm (they probably have at least two, probably three seperate ones in the US alone) and electricity. Then there's bandwidth. People who run it all. That's just on the upkeep/physical side. Add in the programmers who maintain it, do hotfixes, etc. Patchers... it adds up. I severely doubt they have "excessive excessive" surplus, as whatever extra they might have is also going to go into their Diablo 3, and (I hope) Starcraft sequels.

    6. Re:Which developers did they fire? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Where did the 4.5 million come from? Worldwide, the subscription numbers have passed 6 million.

      The key point the Blizzard are rolling in teh dough still stands of course. Even firmer, if anything.

    7. Re:Which developers did they fire? by non0score · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the bold, but I forgot to use the slash in the closing tag. But either way, the 4.5M came from the parent to my original post, not my own numbers. And even then, it just further shows that Blizzard is sitting on a gold mine, pretty much literally-speaking.

  26. You gain experience by drdewm · · Score: 1

    I played EQ original to a very high level in the day Plane of Time etc and I think its ok for people to spend a huge amount of time in at least one or two mmorpgs. You learn to network with people, schedule large groups and pay close attention to detail. But you have to be careful not to get caught up in an endless experience that becomes purely entertainment after a while. Give it a year or two but then stop and experience other things.

  27. Software? by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

    I'm really curious what software people use to drive MMOs automatically. I've seen them in the past, and seen some of the scripting for them - but I just can't remember what they are. Anyone?

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.
  28. Way to go blizzard! by dsands1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You banned 5400 accounts! You're really showing those gold farmers who's boss! Boy, at this rate I bet those companies selling gold will be out of business in NO TIME! /runsOverToIgeDotCom

    Hrmm... 500 gold on my server was $30 bucks last week... Let's see what's up after blizzard's heroic bans! Arthas Server, Horde... 500 gold. $31 bucks. =|

    --
    "What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
    1. Re:Way to go blizzard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you retarded? why would banning people that produce something make the price of that product go down?

      people weren't banned for selling gold they were banned for farming gold

    2. Re:Way to go blizzard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500 gold on my server was $30 bucks last week

      Why don't you say what you wrote out loud? $30 is pronounced as "30 dollars". So "$30 bucks" is pronounced "30 dollars bucks". Which sounds fucking retarded.

  29. I did too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear you on the battleground grind.

    For four weeks I pvped with the group on our server that always had the top two or three people, but I have a job/wife/life so I didn't PVP as much as them. After almost making it to rank 11 I started figuring out the math based on wowguru and some other sites. It would take 8 additional weeks of being in FIRST place for me to make warlord (not high warlord) on our server.

    I'm sorry, but that's too much dedication. I enjoyed it but I'd like to enjoy it on my terms, not blizzards.

    So I pulled the plug had a few days of withdrawals, but I destroyed my account so that I could never go back and I'm all the better for it.

  30. Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    Trading information thats free to replicate is fundamentally wrong.
    These commodities don't lose value because they replicated.They remain the same(except for sheeple that chooses to buy them).

    What is different from original file? What is difference between Official Digital Copy of Ringtone/File/Song/Information you buy and a copy you make?

    1. Re:Information is free by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      you'd have a point if the content would come into existance from nothingness without any effort put into it. As this is the real world, it doesn't. If content producers aren't paid, they'll stop making content.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    2. Re:Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      There still will be content providers.
      They would be more commonplace then industry-sponsored sellouts.
      You don't stop writing posts on slashdot because we don't pay you.

    3. Re:Information is free by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      It's funny when someones argument actually defeats his point. Just look at the quality of slashdot posts on average. You certain that you want your music, TV, movies, books, newspapers to have that level of quality? I certainly don't. Also, what does "industy-sponsoed" sellouts even mean? And if this term is actually derogative of content producers and/or their content why steal it (the content) then?

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    4. Re:Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Quality of slashdot posts is very good.
      Quality is also subjective.Some people like more Point-of-view opinions some like hard facts.Some like personal expiriences.
      You haven't been on myspace,do you? It will make grammar Nazis here cringe.

      More on myspace:
        The Amateur music hub or emo scene people joke about.They have alot of "content producers". Free content.
      YouTube,Flickr,Photobucket etc.Newgrounds. The Content Media of the Future.

      "And if this term is actually derogative of content producers and/or their content why steal it (the content) then?"
      Becuase its unfair to have any value created out of nothing and assigned to pieces of data which can be copied at no expense.
      The sellouts are dominating just becuase of mass advertising/promotions on the media.Media wants to have be paid for sharing information it supposedly "owns".

    5. Re:Information is free by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      You got it all figured out pretty good, huh? Oh well, there is much wrong with your post, I don't even know where to start. First of all, slashdot posts, wikipedia entries, amateur video clips or funny funny image macros require little or no capital to create. They also suck compared to the wonders of modern cinema/TV/literature. You know how I know? Because nobody would drop a dime on this shit, all the while every grandpa downloads emminem from itunes for 2 bucks. Just as with software, there will always be people that enjoy making this stuff and get their satisfaction from other people just enjoying it. That's their profit. Once you go to the professional level, where you need serious bandwith for distribution and serious money for production assets, in other words when the garage doesn't cut it anymore and you need a recording studio, you need to charge money one way or an other just to get even. Then you might also figure that you could earn a living with your "product". Bingo, "industry sell-out". MySpace. Yeah, there are a lot of bands there that give away their songs. It's like a demo. In the future I'm sure most of them will want to actually sell records.

      > Becuase its unfair to have any value created out of nothing and assigned to pieces of > data which can be copied at no expense.

      but it's not. "Finding Nemo" didn't materialize out of the ether. It was created by people and therefore belongs to those people.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    6. Re:Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      modern cinema/TV/literature vs User-content.
      1.judging content on commercial basis (i.e. prices) is wrong.Just because someone charges money for content doesn't guarantees its top-notch.
      2.Quality of content.Yes,user-content tends to be lower quality/less polished then industry-sponsored entertainment.Its just the five years since it started to appear en-masse.The amount of work and expense in producing film/literature has dropped significantly.
      3.Content producers need money for distribution.
      Of course you need big bucks to upload your video/music/Book torrent and getting hosted costs gazillions of dollars.yeah.I get the idea.
      4.Serious money for production assets.
      A professinal Microphone,and Professional recorder,Or profesional Camera,Professional video editing software,and other profesionall things.
      Doesn't that suppose to cost millions?
      5. "Finding Nemo" didn't materialize out of the ether. It was created by people and therefore belongs to those people."
        My copy of Finding Nemo would belong to me(if i was crazy enough to purchase such crap) and they have no control how i use it.Maybe i like to torrent it?

    7. Re:Information is free by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      1.judging content on commercial basis (i.e. prices) is wrong.Just because someone charges money for content doesn't guarantees its top-notch.
      true. But you can see that it has some value to someone. Also, it's justified to say that content nobody would ever buy is probably inferior to content that is actually selling right now.

      Of course you need big bucks to upload your video/music/Book torrent and getting hosted costs gazillions of dollars.yeah.I get the idea.
      yeah, because nobody actually likes physical manifestations of the products they buy. Or you know, buy stuff in real stores. Now I get the idea.

      A professinal Microphone,and Professional recorder,Or profesional Camera,Professional video editing software,and other profesionall things.
      Are you kiding me? A nice sound-setup for playing live costs the same as a small house. And you only need a camera for shooting movies/show? I guess everybody must then be content to watch different incarnations of blair witch project/big brother for all eternity

      My copy of Finding Nemo would belong to me(if i was crazy enough to purchase such crap) and they have no control how i use it.Maybe i like to torrent it?

      Wow, we found something we can agree on! But that's something entirely different from what you've been saying before. I agree, selling so called "IP" shouldn't appear to the customer the same as a real transfer of ownership title. The contract you sign upon paying should explicitly state what the conditions of use are. Then it would be more like the service it really is. Also, Nemo is a really nice movie. Go see it with a [girl|guy] you like :-D

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    8. Re:Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Wiki article:
      The film tells the story of a widowed clownfish named Marlin (voiced by Albert Brooks) who lives in Sydney Harbour in Sydney. Marlin, after losing his wife, Coral, and children, in a barracuda attack sometime back, tries his best as a parent to his only remaining son Nemo, but has a tendency to over-parent and stifle his son. Because Nemo has a fin smaller than the other (his "lucky fin"), and because he promised to not let anything happen to him, Marlin is constantly warning his son that the ocean isn't safe (although he is clearly subjecting his son to his own neurotic agoraphobic tendencies).
      Embarrassed once too often by his father's over-protectiveness, Nemo ventures out into open water towards a 'butt' (a fishing boat, mispronounced by one of Nemo's little friends) to prove to his father wrong. Unfortunately, Marlin was for once correct, as Nemo is immediately scooped up by a kindly dentist who takes pity on him because of his fin. Thus it is up to Marlin and his newfound "guide", Dory (voiced by Ellen DeGeneres), a Regal Blue Tang fish who suffers from short-term memory loss to bring Nemo back, and they must cross the ocean - tangling with the various dangers waiting for them - in order to rescue Nemo from the dentist's office in Sydney, Australia. Nemo, meanwhile, gets involved in a plot with the other fish in the aquarium to escape from the dentist's office and return to the ocean.

      This is definitive proof of it being complete and utter crap.

    9. Re:Information is free by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      only if you are a little uptight :-D

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
    10. Re:Information is free by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      This film is as interesting as patterns in cat vomit.Narrated and spectrally analyzed by your grandpa.

  31. Wow... by cthellis · · Score: 1

    ...that's almost 1000 a MONTH since they've begun! I'm glad they're not just paying it all lip-service. /rolleyes

  32. 15,000 players?!? by kendoka · · Score: 1

    that's like double all the people still playing star wars galaxies =)

  33. Sadly by Kilz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blizzard is judge, jury, and executioner . There is no way to appeal, once they ban you, you are gone for good. Along with the money you paid to play that month and use of the game. Unlike Diablo 2 where there is a single player option, WOW is only online. A lot of their bans are done by Warden, an anti cheat piece of software. We all know programs, or the people who create them, never make errors, Right?

    --
    I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
    1. Re:Sadly by tempehop · · Score: 1

      Theres always a single player option. In this case its not "legal" but you're banned already anyway. I'm of course talking about WoWemu.

  34. Copper Farming by dmt99 · · Score: 1

    At least they aren't banning us copper farmers...Because we are so important to the economy.

  35. Information - worth what people are willing to pay by ajrs · · Score: 1

    So now information is free, and people who pay for it are sheep. What about the people who contribute money to wikkipedia? They are paying to give information away. Where is the value in that? Are they grass? I pay verizon to get access to wikkipedia and other free content. What kind of animal am I?

    Don't confuse what people subjectively should pay with what they do pay. People pay a buck a song. It must be worth it to them.

  36. Re:Information - worth what people are willing to by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    " It must be worth it to them."
    Subjective value,just another aspect.
    These things have no real value.
    The ringtones and DRMed songs you pay for are copies,digital copies.
    Company who sells them just prints money out of thin air(not-considering distribution and storage which you already paid).

  37. Re:Information - worth what people are willing to by ajrs · · Score: 1

    So, are we talking economics, or only what you consider valuable? Don't let yourself be tricked by something that has no value to you. All of my money is just bits anyway. Yet people are willing to trade my bits for things like groceries and gasoline, or even ringtones. What does it cost to store my bank balance? I paid my taxes with an online servie this year. what were those bits worth?

    The only real measure of value is what people are what people are willing to pay for something. Does it matter if the payment or the purchase are virtual?

  38. Re:Information - worth what people are willing to by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    Your money is valuable to all,Your Virtual Items are valuable to small subset of population who need them.
    What you buy exactly is the time they spend to farm these game resources(to prevent wasting time yourself).

    Digital Copies of Information on other hand are not Virtual Items,Its just data.Companies who charge for copies don't spend any time or resource.They only need the original for distribution.

  39. Did Blizzard teleport them into space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's what I really like. Fucking wankers.

    Teleport them into low orbit, and watch as they plunge into the ocean at ~500kph.

  40. Creating Value out of thin air. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    Virtual Items doesn't become your Credit Card records just because someone willing to pay real money for them.

    It reminds me of a some smilie trading site that charged 5$(or something similar) to buy smilies as gifts to users of your choice.

    Tell me of value of those pixels?
    Don't they exist there?Can i send you a copy?For 4.00$ each? Premium quality
    Smilies might i add.Unique!

    I feel we need Online Economy 101 courses mandatory for everyone.
    "Natural law of human interaction" more like "There is a sucker born every minute".

    1. Re:Creating Value out of thin air. by DerWulf · · Score: 1

      Just because a certain service and/or product don't have a value for you doesn't prove that it hasn't got value per se (to anyone else). The fact that somebody somewhere is paying for those pixels proves that there is value associated with them.

      --

      ___
      No power in the 'verse can stop me
  41. Could this be the reason behind the DDoS attack?? by cpdsaorg · · Score: 1

    it seems blizzard east has been down for over 6 hours this morning. some think it's a server update some think it's a DDoS attack. I personally think it's a DDoS attack related to this action by Blizz