Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard Asserts Rights Over Independent Add-Ons

bugnuts writes "Blizzard has announced a policy change regarding add-ons for the popular game World of Warcraft which asserts requirements on UI programmers, such as disallowing charging for the program, obfuscation, or soliciting donations. Add-ons are voluntarily-installed UI programs that add functionality to the game, programmed in Lua, which can do various tasks that hook into the WoW engine. The new policy has some obvious requirements, such as not loading the servers or spamming users, and it looks like an attempt to make things more accessible and free for the end user. But unlike FOSS, it adds other requirements that assert control over these independently coded programs, such as distribution and fees. Blizzard can already control the ultimate functionality of add-ons by changing the hooks into the WoW engine. They have exercised this ability in the past, e.g. to disable add-ons that automate movement and facilitate 'one-button' combat. Should they be able to make demands on independent programmers' copyrighted works, such as forbidding download fees or advertising, when those programmers are not under contract to code for Blizzard? Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?"

344 comments

  1. This is rediculous by kcbanner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I used to play WoW, I used many addons that made up for Blizzard's shortcomings in the UI. If the authors want to charge for these addons Blizzard should have absolutely no say in the matter. The developers are improving Blizzard's product to a more playable state, Blizzard should be paying them.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    1. Re:This is rediculous by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly, Blizzard derives increased value from users taking the time to level a second character due to QuestHelper. Many users use Auctioneer. While those are free with exceptional support there are also many that are not free such as Zygors' Guides ($50), Carbonite ($2.50/mo), Brian Kopp's Guide/Addon ($59.99), Joanas' Levelling Guide ($77), and QuestUp ($47).

      You'll note that the paid addons are for quest assistance.

      You'll note that Brian Kopp (previously featured on slashdot) is now making cash by selling an ingame version of his guide, me thinks this is retribution.

      Also, as an addon author myself I can only say "Go ahead, turn off all your API's, see how that works out. I can farm other games".

    2. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget Blizzard likes to copy popular addons and make them into their own UI release.

    3. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ridiculous indeed, to forbid donations. This policy has already removed one vital addon from our repertoire. Outfitter download is no longer possible as of yesterday (Friday).

      Control player and server spamming, yes, that makes sense. Control independent developers' donations is just greedy or else it says that developers' time and skills are worthless. If that were the case, then they should be working for free too.

      Instead of cutting their supporters off at the ankles, imitating the great addons badly, and annoying their customers, why don't they put in place a program like most big companies do, to buy the best addons from the independent developers?

    4. Re:This is rediculous by jombeewoof · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTFA or website rather.

      Paraphrased because I don't want to open the site up again.
      YOU CAN SOLICIT DONATIONS FROM YOUR WEBSITE OR DISTRIBUTION METHOD, BUT NOT IN GAME.

      sorry for the caps, but I think you're not smart enough to read small letters.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    5. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizz has every right to stop people from profiting off their products.

    6. Re:This is rediculous by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it has more to do with fairness than anything else. Blizzard has always taken a strong stance on balance. If someone produces a UI addon that makes the game easier, but only for those that can afford it, it creates an inbalance which in turn could upset Blizzards financials. If these addons a free, then they are available to anyone with the will to install them. It makes good business sense that they would attempt to control addons like this.

    7. Re:This is rediculous by Detkloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      5) Add-ons may not solicit donations. Add-ons may not include requests for donations. We recognize the immense amount of effort and resources that go into developing an add-on; however, such requests should be limited to the add-on website or distribution site and should not appear in the game. Hardly the same thing as "forbidding download fees or advertising"

    8. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they have no right to stop people from profiting off products that are not Blizzard's. Actually they does not even have any automatic right to stop anyone from profiting from their products either. In some cases, law might give them that ability, in other cases, they simply doesn't have such a right at all.

    9. Re:This is rediculous by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1) Add-ons must be free of charge.
      All add-ons must be distributed free of charge. Developers may not create "premium" versions of add-ons with additional for-pay features, charge money to download an add-on, charge for services related to the add-on, or otherwise require some form of monetary compensation to download or access an add-on.

      You fail.

    10. Re:This is rediculous by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Blizz has every right to stop people from profiting off their products.

      No they don't. That's never been a right. It happens all the time.

    11. Re:This is rediculous by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      Whatever arguments some of you people have against this policy are pointless if you read this line:
      "such requests should be limited to the add-on website or distribution site and should not appear in the game"

      All they're saying is your add-on shouldn't pester the user with donation requests IN GAME. You want to charge? Fine, but don't ask for it in the game world. I agree with this 100%, I'm sick of product placement and ads in games. I get enough of that in every OTHER form of media.

    12. Re:This is rediculous by illegalcortex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your post speaks of a complete lack of experience with how addons wind up on WoW users systems.

      The minority of an addon's users get it from the authors website. Most get them from 3rd party websites (that may or more likely may not be good about providing some donation link) or they get them through 3rd party addon management programs that allow the user to never have to glance at the original author's website.

    13. Re:This is rediculous by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1, Informative

      No one sees the addons website. Most addons are installed and distributed by a third party tool that's very keen on keeping its' money.

    14. Re:This is rediculous by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      I've downloaded dozens of addons, I've never once visited an addon website.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    15. Re:This is rediculous by vashfish · · Score: 1

      If somebody produces an addon that gives an advantage over anyone else, paid or not, it's a problem with the game engine. Blizzard has had a long-standing policy of disabling specific functionality when it got out of hand. Patch 2.0 (burning crusade) got rid of all the old braindead button mashing mods that could practically play the game for you. This new policy will have no effect on what addons are actually capable of doing.

    16. Re:This is rediculous by maxume · · Score: 1

      Whether you think they should have control or not, they can assert it with technological means (for example, by not supporting addons, or by only executing cryptographically signed scripts).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If blizzard decides to integrate a similiar feature of a UI modder's idea into their UI it probably makes them legally liable for some sort of compensation to the original author if they costed money. Plus if they change the hooks for a paid mod it breaks their product so there's incentive by the modders for blizzard not to improve their product (which could eventually be detrimental to users, although I can't really think of anything more detrimental than playing WoW)

    18. Re:This is rediculous by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I knew that all kinds of nasty would occur when it became blizzardvision. The PHBs at Activision have always been major douchebags and we really shouldn't be surprised they are going to RIAA the coders that help make their game playable. Deity forbid that someone other than the great blizzardvision should actually make a dollar. Just another case of short sighted greed by a big corp. They keep this up and they'll make EA look good! But that is the nice thing about competition. I'm sure that other MMOs would be happy to take the developers that blizavision pisses off.

      I just hope all the major game corps with their "how bad CAN we screw everyone and still get away with it?" attitude finally have it come back to bite them in the ass. Between the DRM from hell and crap like this it seems like the big corps are determined to run off all their customers. Oh well. Most of the AAA list titles I've seen and played lately sucked IMHO and I hope that more developers will come in to fill the gap. I personally don't care if a FPS has SOF I level graphics if it is FUN, which is something a lot of shooters I've played lately simply don't have any of. But if no little developers come in to fill the gap there are thousands of PC titles I still haven't gotten that should keep me happy for years.

      My boys have switched to MMOs that use micro-transactions as they said the big ones like WoW are just getting too much grinding to be fun. From the looks of things that may be the way the little guys can compete with the big guys without screwing their customer base. I'm all for competition so I hope this trend continues.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:This is rediculous by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets try that again:

      such requests should be limited to the add-on website OR DISTRIBUTION SITE and should not appear in the game.

      Of course its up to curse.com and whoever to actually implement the charge-throughs (or simply not allow direct downloads for addons that wish to charge), but Blizzard themselves isn't denying the fact that users mostly go to curse.com or wowinterface.com or similar.

      On the other hand, if curse & friends decide not to bother, it will make it extremely hard for new addons to get exposure if they want to charge.

    20. Re:This is rediculous by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Simple, just put a little extra functionality in the addon that reminds the user that updates to the addon can be downloaded at www.myaddon.com

    21. Re:This is rediculous by Chyeld · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The fact that, right after having the OP post what they did in all caps, you still managed to miss the point and at least one mod failed to do so as well makes me feel sad for humanity. Because I know the people who come to Slashdot aren't the mental midgets that are incapable of any critical thought whatsoever, this can only show to demonstrate how even intelligent people can act stupid and completely ignore any inconvenient evidence in front of them when they've decided to back a specific line of thought.

      Because I know you posted in sincerity, I'm not going to insult you. But you might want to re-read his post, specifically regarding where the donation link is allowed.

    22. Re:This is rediculous by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      You should read posts by the authors of these popular addons. They can tell you what does and doesn't work. From what I've read, the evidence is that without saying outright "Please donate", you don't wind up getting squat.

    23. Re:This is rediculous by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      From reading comments of these addon authors, it does seem like it's fairly hard to get the 3rd party distribution sites to play ball. They were having a difficult time making it worthwhile via donations already before Blizzard removed their most effective option (a simple in-game mention to donate).

    24. Re:This is rediculous by astrocanis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I disagree. I think this has absolutely nothing to do with what is immediately visible. Microsoft is going to, via it's subsidiary Massive, "offer" in-game ads to WoW players. Nobody is quite sure what form that could take. However, as Activision signed an exclusive with MS for this, any in-game advertising not explicitly created by MS will be a violation of that exclusivity. Money talks. Customers only matter any more in terms of demographic and purchasing profile. Even in WoW. Actually, since Activision took over, especially in WoW.

    25. Re:This is rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NM

      Sorry, did you say something?

    26. Re:This is rediculous by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know, I don't think they'll be putting ads in World of Warcraft any time soon. The games on the Battle.net platform which they don't field a monthly subscription from (Starcraft II, etc) are the candidates for this.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    27. Re:This is rediculous by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      That would be a bad idea. It's a game, not a word processor. Blizzard don't want to field the avalanche of complaints if it were discovered that some addon, which you have to pay for, gave users an advantage in game.

      In all these discussions, people forget that WoW is a game, and as such has to conform to general norms of fairness between the participants.

      Then again, it's arguable that WoW is still a game. Being in a raiding guild is more like some mindless job in a Chinese factory. I reckon the gold farmers are the smart ones - at least they get paid for being yelled at by their guild leader.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    28. Re:This is rediculous by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "You'll note that Brian Kopp (previously featured on slashdot) is now making cash by selling an ingame version of his guide, me thinks this is retribution."

      And me think they have made sure they can nail him this time.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    29. Re:This is rediculous by Whistlre · · Score: 1

      In your previous statement you say "If someone produces a UI addon that makes the game easier, but only for those that can affort it, it creates an inbalance which in turn could upset Blizzards financials." With this logic then Blizzard should be requiring that all ISP give their service for free and that all computers should be given out for free because they are affecting Blizzards bottom line. Sounds a bit ridiculous doesn't it? In the same sense that it sounds ridiculous for Blizzard to state no one can sell their addons.

    30. Re:This is rediculous by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Which sounds more ridiculous to you?

      #1 That Blizzard demands that every ISP provide free service

      or

      #2 That any addons built for a product that Blizzard owns be fairly available to all users?

      Since Blizzard can't dictate what ISP's do and what ISP's provide, I vote #2.

      Obviously every person who plays WOW has internet access. There is no possible way that Blizzard can ensure that every user has proper latency and lag free experience other than banning lagggy connections from playing and that wouldln't make good business either.

      They CAN easily control some things and this is one of them. It doesn't hurt their business model (since they already have the paying customer). It also ensures that some people don't have an unfair advantage over others that are within the control of Blizzard themselves.

    31. Re:This is rediculous by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Somebody reinvented the Netscape Public License, apparently.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    32. Re:This is rediculous by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      It's been years since I played WoW or did any add-on development. I take it from your and others' posts that there is some sort of add-on "package manager" available now that installs add-ons for you. Can you elaborate on what you are using to accomplish that?

    33. Re:This is rediculous by SpaceCadets · · Score: 1

      I use WoWMatrix. Just did a google search for WoWMatrix (got the name from a friend), downloaded it, and it's simple to use. Just search what you want (ie; QuestHelper, Auctioneer) and download it. Works automatically, all files saved to the right place, just open WoW and enable it in the addon screen. ~Ankoa (Saurfang, Alliance)

    34. Re:This is rediculous by dpastern · · Score: 1

      Who'd want to be a crack whore, oops I mean a craftwhore?

      This is what you get when the good ole' use of a fucks with things like the copyright act, software patents etc. Big business wins, the little developer gets fucked over.

      Simply just don't play the shit - it's a crap game anyways imho. Vastly overrated. Blizzard has an electronic addiction, nothing more and nothing less.

      I don't know what happened to blizzard, but it happened around the same time that Vivendi bought them. StarCraft II split into multiple parts that we have to buy? Sounds like 'let's rip 'em off lads'. Diablo III is looking uglier and uglier imho - they had something going with the original artwork direction but now it's all dark and gloomy again. I think I'll be passing on anything that Blizzard offers in the future. A loss of income is the only way bastards like this listen. But, I'm sure most of you Blizzard whores are too enamoured and addicted to do anything.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    35. Re:This is rediculous by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately WoWMatrix steals bandwith by deep linking amongst other things.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  2. No, it's more like the GPL by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to play with their code and platform, you need to follow their rules or not play at all.

    Just as you can't close your code if it incorporates GPL code, Blizzard doesn't want you charging people for your add-ons if you code for their platform.

    1. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you said, it's their platform and their rules.

      All of these add-ons qualify as "derivative works," so Blizzard could decide to be total jerks and absorb the parts they like and ban the rest, without even bothering to give the authors credit.

      People who decide to write the add-ons do so in the context of the license agreement, which sets definite boundaries.

    2. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you can still charge people for your code if it incorporates GPL code.
      Whereas if you code add-ons for WoW you may not charge money, nor are you required to make it free software.

      I don't see what this has to do with the GPL at all.

    3. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to play with their code and platform, you need to follow their rules or not play at all.

      I was going to call bullshit, but after reading TFA, I completely agree with them in every single point. Misleading summary.

      This is not "software development" in the traditional sense. It's a proprietary platform, where everything you do affects many other people as well. This "unlike FOSS" crap is completely sensationalist.

      Let's see the 'offending' terms:

      4) Add-ons may not include advertisements.

      Oh my, we won't have to get adblock for wow! Outrage!

      5) Add-ons may not solicit donations.
      Add-ons may not include requests for donations. We recognize the immense amount of effort and resources that go into developing an add-on; however, such requests should be limited to the add-on website or distribution site and should not appear in the game.

      Same here.

      So, what was the news again?

    4. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      At least as far as the GPL v2.... (I am not going into the v3 can of worms.)

      The problem is that I don't think that linking has much to do with whether you have a derivative work of not. If someone wants to make a proprietary add-on to a GPL project, I am willing to bet that the question of whether it is linked dynamically to the software or communicates through sockets will have very little bearing on whether it is a derivative work. THis is assuming that "aggregative work" means the same thing as "compiled or collected work" and "work based on the program" means "derivative work" (in the same sense that a movie may be "based on" a book--- If I rewrite the GCC in, say, Python, that is a derivative work).

      (Functional elements, like API's, are NOT covered by copyright. OTOH, expressive elements like user interfaces are. So there are plenty of cases where loosely coupled programs could be derivative, and tightly coupled ones would not.)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    5. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Nursie · · Score: 1

      If it's linked it's derivative, it uses the GPL code to do something.

      This is why we have the LGPL.

    6. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      So does a network client. But if I write a network client for MySQL's protocols without using their libraries, then nobody argues that this has any requirement to be GPL. Also no copyright license is ever required to run the software and the GPL makes it clear that is not governed. Therefore ONLY actions prohibited otherwise by copyright law (at least regarding the GPL v2) are governed.

      Does Microsoft have a copyright basis to make arbitrary demands regarding all code running on the platform? Can Microsoft sue MinGW developers for creating a work which is derivative of Windows without permission?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    7. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, the news is that WoW (especially high end PVE and PVP) is not playable without a few addons (5 ?), and is really much better if you have a bunch of them (I have 20-30).

      Blizzard does not even offer an AddonStore, or an addon update tool.

      Blizzard is trying to have it both ways:
      1- having a crappy client that is so lacking in so many respects that add-ons are at minimum an appreciable comfort, but really more of a vital necessity; Blizzard is counting on hackers to fill the gaps, which they usually do much better than blizzard's efforts.
      2- preventing devs from selling their work, or requesting donations at all within the game. At minimum, allowing for a reminder that "The Autoroxx Addon survives thanks to your donations, go to ... to contribute" when logging in would be... elegant.

      Blizzard should implement an AddonStore modelled on the iPhone's Appstore, with free and not free addons, and share revenue; and also implement an auto-update feature to keep addons up to date.

      If a lot of people are willing to pay for an addon, it is a strong signal that the addon is useful, and blizzard should either license it to include in their vanilla client, or try to duplicate it.

      The best reasons I can think of why Blizzard is not doing that yet is
      1- they actually want players to visit those addon sites, that are owned by gold sellers. I'm growing very suspicious of the relationship between Blizzard and gold sellers, given how little they do to rein them in.
      2- they know they can't do addons right (right now, they seem to be unable to do basic class design right), and just want a free ride on the back of unpaid devs.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    8. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by ajs · · Score: 1

      And let's be clear. They can't really stop you. What they can do is bar you from playing the game or block your addon from working. There's no real control that they can place of the authoring of LUA code that has calls out to their API.

      Blizzard is entirely within their rights to take these steps, and frankly I think I'm happier with this kind of restriction than not, right now. At some point there will be many platforms like WoW, where you can re-write most of the UI of a virtual world, but right now, most of the attempts to do this have been sad comparisons (EQ let you design some XML-based elements and Second Life lets you design in-game objects that act UI-like, but aren't actually part of the UI).

      When this becomes widespread among virtual worlds, I'm sure that there will be more room for competing business models, but where we're at the early stages it works out very well to promote a cohesive community by preventing the isolation of discrete paid services.

      On the other hand, it would really be smart of Blizzard to start cutting a small sliver of their profits to these projects (perhaps in a Summer of Code fashion). They've done some things like award beta keys to authors in the past, but more of this would further increase the developer base.

    9. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, nothing new. For example Epic Games has the "no-commercial mods" rule for years. It pretty much comes down to, "if you want to use our tools, runtime (i.e. te game) and content then you are not allowed to charge people for it".

      Although, they don't have a "no begging" rule. And actually, I don't think I ever saw a mod for an Epic Game contain any begging.

    10. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Blizzard should implement an AddonStore modelled on the iPhone's Appstore, with free and not free addons, and share revenue; and also implement an auto-update feature to keep addons up to date.

      Update tool: www.curse.com

      As for the addonstore, I already paid three times to play Lich King, not to mention the monthly fee. Why should I pay even more just because the UI sucks?

    11. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      - the update tool should be supllied by blizzard, and standard

      - payment for addons should be at the devs' discretion. Should they always work for free for you ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    12. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Nursie · · Score: 1

      So does a network client. But if I write a network client for MySQL's protocols without using their libraries, then nobody argues that this has any requirement to be GPL.

      And that's fine and not covered by the GPL. There is a difference between linking to libraries and using a service over TCP/IP and the GPL is clear on that. Of course it does only apply to distribution.

      As for MS and Blizzard, I don't know (or much care) what they have the rights to do.

    13. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1- having a crappy client that is so lacking in so many respects that add-ons are at minimum an appreciable comfort, but really more of a vital necessity; Blizzard is counting on hackers to fill the gaps, which they usually do much better than blizzard's efforts.

      2- preventing devs from selling their work, or requesting donations at all within the game. At minimum, allowing for a reminder that "The Autoroxx Addon survives thanks to your donations, go to ... to contribute" when logging in would be... elegant.

      Not only that, but Blizzard often down the line winds up incorporating some of the more popular Addons in some form directly into their own interface.

    14. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      ...blizzard should either license it to include in their vanilla client, or try to duplicate it.

      This is definitely the way of Blizzard. Additional button bars used to be an add on. It's in the client now. Threat data and meters used to be addon only. Now the threat addons use client data for threat mechanics and there is a meter (albiet a sucky one) displayed for every mob. The "-fu" style ingame addon management is now incorporated (again suckily) into the client as well. Those are just a few of the *recent* changes that Blizzard has made to incorporate successful addons into the client. There are many more examples, but oddly not many addons have been completely relaced by the client's evil twin versions.

      I think Blizzard not only wants a free ride on the backs of those unpaid devs, but they also want to makes sure those devs are so poor there is no chance they could mount a successful lawsuit against Blizzard for sealing their ideas.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    15. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there isn't an "Idiot" moderation. This post clearly screams out for it.

      Turing word: please
      In a sentence: Please add an "Idiot" moderation option to Slashcode.

    16. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 0, Troll

      WoW ... is not playable without a few addons ... Blizzard [has] a crappy client that is so lacking in so many respects that add-ons are at minimum an appreciable comfort, but really more of a vital necessity ... I'm growing very suspicious of the relationship between Blizzard and gold sellers ... [Blizzard] knows they can't do addons right (right now, they seem to be unable to do basic class design right)

      For someone who pretty clearly thinks WoW is garbage, despises Blizzard, and thinks the developers are a bunch of bozos walking around their offices bumping into each other, you sure seem to spend a lot of time playing and thinking about their game. To me, your post shows that they need to get rid of the 3rd party add-on system altogether because people have grown completely dependent on it. It sounds like the whole system is bloated. WoW is a game, it's not a development platform. The best games are simple to learn but difficult to master, and if everyone just relies on an add-on to help them beat the higher level creatures instead of skill and perseverance, then the point of the game is lost.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    17. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      FYI, I no longer play WoW, but I do spend some time thinking about what went wrong.

      You must not be a player though: you seem to think addons replace skill, when they are there mainly to supplement it (ie lag estimation, dot timers...), make a better interface (auction house/mailboxes/pets/mounts/gear/bank management, movable action bars/map/, spam filter...). A bossmod addon is indeed pretty much required for raiding.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    18. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by seebs · · Score: 1

      The game is playable without addons, even if it's not ideal.

      I write addons because I want to have them. I clean them up for other people to be friendly. I have no problem with this. It's FUN. It's a HOBBY. I know this may sound crazy, but I ENJOY PROGRAMMING.

      So I'm fine with this.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    19. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Impeesa · · Score: 1

      having a crappy client that is so lacking in so many respects that add-ons are at minimum an appreciable comfort
      You mean having a client which is highly stable and straightforward yet at the same time almost infinitely extendable to those with the right inclination, while slowly integrating good ideas from the community. I cannot possibly imagine a better way to allocate their development resources, it's a very Linux-ish approach.

      preventing devs from selling their work, or requesting donations at all within the game
      Devs can still make money off their addons. What they want to avoid is people coming to associate their in-game experience with ads and begging for money. As someone said above, great! Nobody needs to develop an AdBlock addon for WoW.

      I'm growing very suspicious of the relationship between Blizzard and gold sellers, given how little they do to rein them in.
      You know, I seem to recall a time when I got spammed with whispers from goldsellers, and had level 1 goldseller bots spam party invites at me, and that just doesn't seem to happen any more. Back then I didn't even have the handy "report spam" feature I do now, I have to settle for using it on the odd one just chattering away in /say. Pity Blizzard isn't doing anything about them.

    20. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by brkello · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. Blizzard's client UI is incredible because they allow it and designed it to be so moddable by the community. And if you follow it over the years, a lot of popular addons are eventually integrated in to the UI. A crappy client would be one that isn't so moddable.

      They aren't preventing devs from selling their work. They just don't want the addons spamming in game and causing degradation in performance and in people's play experience. It just makes sense.

      Blizzard doesn't need to do anything you say because there are already companies built around collecting and distributing addons. If Blizzard hosted them, they would have to verify every addon that came out to be of a certain quality level and security level or they would be legally liable for the content of the addons.

      Your conspiracy theory is stupid. And you make a dig at a company that has created the most polished/popular MMO of all time...that is renown for their quality code and ability to balance...and you say they don't know how to code. I think you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    21. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      1- They ARE preventing devs from selling addons. The only monetary contributions they tolerate are 1- voluntary, 2- requested only on the web site (not by the addon itself), 3- not complemented by in-game adds, even just one request for donations at the addon launch (which is NOT my definition of spam)

      Too me, a crappy client is one that doesn't do what I need, or does it in an inefficient/irritating way. WoW's basic client certainly meets all those criteria. Maybe other MMORPGS are worse, but WoW without addons.. would anybody play it, especially HL ?

      Again, Blizzard is free-riding on the addons devs efforts.

      2- No. The companies you think of are gold sellers, who use addons and database web sites as a marketing conduit to garner sales. No addon/DB website is either independant nor financially viable by itself. Blizzard is channeling players to the golds sellers via the addon sites.

      Furthermore, some addons are on one site, some on another, some have an autoupdater, some don't... a unified, universal addon repository would be peachy.

      3- The liability argument is bollocks. Is Steam liable for the quality of all the games it distributes ? Blizzard considers itself not even liable for the barebones WoW client. And if it were, liable for what exactly ?

      4- All I'm saying is pretty much everytime Blizzard has tried to integrate an addon's functionnality in their own basic client, the result has been underwhelming: who uses their calendar, their voice chat system (not really an addon, but still), their threat manager (in raids), their lag estimation, their raid grid,... ? And many of the better addons, they haven't even tried to integrate (auctioneer, HUDs, bongos...)

      About ability to balance.. you must be kidding ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    22. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Really, the news is that WoW (especially high end PVE and PVP) is not playable without a few addons (5 ?), and is really much better if you have a bunch of them (I have 20-30). Absolute rubbish. I play, admittedly a little too much perhaps, and have cleared all the current content. I do not have a single add-on installed...never have, and never will do. I'll admit that add-ons make the game "easier", but they are certainly not essential. A large part of the satisfaction to be gained from the game is working together with other players to overcome in-game obstacles. If you install add-ons that do everything bar push the buttons for you what exactly is the point in playing? To my mind the only satisfaction to be gained from add-ons would be writing them (think intellectual exercise), and then not using them ;-)

    23. Re:No, it's more like the GPL by Acaeris · · Score: 1
      As a current raiding druid tank. I currently use:
      • The in-game calendar to organise raids
      • The in-game threat system to make sure the off tank and I are tanking and not the dps/healers
      • The in-game voice system to give tactical advice and instructions during the encounters
      • WoWWiki to look learn the basic tactics for an encounter and adapt it to suit the raid selection

      Why anyone ever cares about lag estimation is beyond me, i've never needed a meter to tell me how much earlier I have to pull the trigger in my favourite FPS to hit my target at the right moment.
      Should you be remotely interested, we are currently attempting Eye of Eternity and the first of the Twilight Zone achievements and are a 10 man group who play for FUN.

  3. Good choice by Kranfer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am happy about this change with WoW. I personally never saw a point in paying for an addon to the game. Although some of the addons look good that you pay for I am glad to see this change. Ah well just MY opinion.

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
    1. Re:Good choice by Tihstae · · Score: 1

      So are you going to complain when there aren't any addons? If someone takes the time to code the addon they should be able to ask for whatever they want for it . It is their labor not Blizzard's. If they do it for their own pleasure and the thanks from the people that use it is enough payment for their labor then the developer can give it away for free.

      All this will do is reduce the number of addons available. Blizzard make good games but has their head up their ass when it comes to understanding the people that play their games.

    2. Re:Good choice by rob1980 · · Score: 5, Informative

      All this will do is reduce the number of addons available.

      No it won't, it'll just reduce the number of addons spamming your message window with "OMG PLZ SEND MONEY". TFA specifically says you can solicit donations on your website for your work, you just can't charge for it or advertise in game.

    3. Re:Good choice by Grave · · Score: 1

      The number of addons that solicit donations or charge for use is very, very low. Like, less than a tenth of a percent low. I won't cry a bit to see any of them go.

    4. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't, it'll just reduce the number of addons spamming your message window with "OMG PLZ SEND MONEY". TFA specifically says you can solicit donations on your website for your work, you just can't charge for it or advertise in game.

      Someone with mod points please mod this up.

    5. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except it happened already. The single most popular quest assistance addon, quest helper is officially discontinued because of this. Author stated his reasons in the update log very clearly - money loss due to inability to request donations in-game.

      Frankly, the reason why "asking for money on homepage/download page" is very simple - there are thousands of add-ons for WoW all made by different developers. As a result, the addons are downloaded from large portal sites such as curse gaming or wowinterface, which for obvious reasons prefer to keep advertisement space and money coming from it to themselves. As a result, addon makers who make complex addons, or addons that require large amount of maintenance which they did on donated funds are screwed.

    6. Re:Good choice by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you like to remove choice from the marketplace, interesting. Have fun in your Volkswagen.

    7. Re:Good choice by ajs · · Score: 1

      TFA specifically says you can solicit donations on your website for your work, you just can't charge for it or advertise in game.

      So, you didn't read his post, or are you just being obtuse?

      He already addressed that point, making it clear that, no requesting donations on the Web site doesn't work (which is rather obvious if you realize that most users of many addons use an addon manager, and never visit the site anyway, much the way Linux users almost never visit the Gnome site or the GCC site).

      If you disagree with his points, be constructive and say so. Defend your point of view even, but don't just blindly re-state the premise. That wastes your time and ours.

    8. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it'll just reduce the functionality of Curse.com and other such "collective" sites, since the authors will be backed into a corner and forced to only allow downloading direct form their personal site in order to have any chance of receiving donations for their work.

    9. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ou can solicit donations on your website for your work, you just can't charge for it or advertise in game.

      The problem from website-only donation arises from the way most WoW users get their addons. Most download them from 3rd party websites such as Curse or WOWInterface. The user isn't required to (and in practice DOESN'T) visit the author's website.

      Without messages that inform the user that the possibility of donation even exists, most users won't donate. It's not that they're unwilling to - the authors of Questhelper and nUI work on their addons as full-time jobs, supported by donations - but rather that they're unaware of the possibility. Adding a single nag in the chatbox once very 2 or 3 weeks quintupled donations for Questhelper. If ingame donation messages are banned, working full-time on one of these addons is no longer viable, and they will cease being maintained. So, in fact, this change WILL reduce the number of addons available.

    10. Re:Good choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you going to complain when there aren't any addons? If someone takes the time to code the addon they should be able to ask for whatever they want for it . It is their labor not Blizzard's. If they do it for their own pleasure and the thanks from the people that use it is enough payment for their labor then the developer can give it away for free.

      All this will do is reduce the number of addons available. Blizzard make good games but has their head up their ass when it comes to understanding the people that play their games.

      I don't pay for the addons I have already. What's this going to change? Are they going to stop updating their addons because suddenly they won't be able to charge people when they weren't charging them in the first place?

      Hell, I've been playing WoW since day 1 and I didn't even know until this article that there were addons that you had to pay for.

    11. Re:Good choice by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Nobody is saying that by disallowing your addon from being published to an addon site, without a request for donations notice, will kill those addon that are worthy of donations.
      Titan panel will not die just because wowui will no feature it. Probably wowui will die if it does not feature Titan or similar.

    12. Re:Good choice by EQ · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the post you replied to?

      "it happened already. The single most popular quest assistance addon, quest helper is officially discontinued because of this. Author stated his reasons in the update log very clearly - money loss due to inability to request donations in-game."

      There - if he cannot ask for it with a load-time beg, he is not getting the donations!

      This change has screwed a lot of UI makers who need the cash to justify the time put into the addon. the third-party aggregators, like Curse, have destroyed the UI coder's ability to solicit at the download site -- the autoupdater grabs it and goes, and the end user NEVER sees the author's site. the ONLY way for the author to have widespread distribution is to allow Curse to do the distro, and the only way to guaranteed that a beg for contributions is seen is to do it in-game at load time.

      You are a fool to think otherwise.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    13. Re:Good choice by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Then, in the time honored tradition that is Slashdot commentary, does that not make the add-on developers business model fundamentally broken? Relying on spamming people in-game to solicit funds because your tool needs to be downloaded from a third party site which you have no control over?

      Diddums. Poor poor developers. Really.

    14. Re:Good choice by djnforce9 · · Score: 1

      The very first thought that came to mind when I read the title of this article is that "this will kill quest helper" and evidently that turned out to be true. Let's hope Blizzard revokes this but I doubt it. Now they are just getting greedy by saying "how dare you make some money off of OUR game" even if it is indirectly and not a mandatory payment to the add-on authors.

  4. Changes don't forbid advertising or donations by TimTucker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just skimming through the changes, it doesn't look like they forbid advertising or donations: just in-game advertising or requests for donations. (i.e.: an add-on developer would still be perfectly free to solicit donations or include advertising on the site where they offer the add-on for download)

    1. Re:Changes don't forbid advertising or donations by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      So they want to forbid nagware? I can support that.

    2. Re:Changes don't forbid advertising or donations by EQ · · Score: 1

      You;re wrong. You do not understand the problem here.

      The problem is most end-users use an autoupdater or other tool, form a 3rd party website. So they NEVER SEE the coder's website. Without the in-game "beg", you'll never know that the author is asking for donations to allow him to keep working on the mod.

      Experience shows that without the in-game beg, the money just does not come in, most often because people are completely un-aware that the author is even asking for them on his website, since they never SEE the website! They never see the website thanks to auto-updaters and 3rd party distribution.

      This part, disallowing donation requests, is screwing the small-time guys who write these apps, and Blizz needs to roll it back. A lot of very good addon-ons are already folding up shop, like Quest Helper.

      If you do not restrict redistribution of your source code (most of these are GPL'd), you have no other way of requesting voluntary contributions to help you pay for your time developing these apps.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    3. Re:Changes don't forbid advertising or donations by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      Most users don't use addons that ask for donations. At least, of the people who have talked about it in my guild (a lot of them), only 1 of them uses one that relies on donations (Auctioneer)

  5. pedantry by way2trivial · · Score: 0, Redundant

    you can close your gpl code-so long as it stays 100% in house

    however you can't then charge for it or re-distribute it

    I'm sure someone will technically correct me right now- but it is an important element

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:pedantry by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you can develop your add-on for WoW and not follow Blizzard's rules as long as you never distribute it.

      Your pedantry doesn't really prove anything, though.

    2. Re:pedantry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of Blizzard's rules seem to apply even if you don't distribute it. Also it's not clear if add-ons are a derivative (a requirement for GPL-like conditions to apply) or original work.

      Maybe the best way to think of it is conditions on communicating with Blizzard's servers.

    3. Re:pedantry by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1

      You're not actually communicating with their servers, addons can't get out of the sandbox. Think about it like running a widget on your desktop.

    4. Re:pedantry by skaet · · Score: 1

      Certain mods like Auctioneer (which does an AH scan) or Outfitter (which changes entire sets of gear with a single click) are definitely communicating with the server. How else would they function?

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    5. Re:pedantry by Cederic · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're communicating with the game client. The client is communicating with the server.

      That's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

  6. Not at all... by Quantos · · Score: 1

    In the first place I think you would have to be nuts to pay for an add in for a game. It's not like it's an expansion pack or anything like that.
    Then there is also the fact that the game does belong to Blizzard, and is run at their expense, yes, you pay them to be able to play it. They still have the right to control the gaming experience.
    The comparison with Microsloth Windoze is flawed, in that what Blizzard offers is only a game, and there is only the one reason for it - entertainment. When was the last time you found Windoze entertaining?

    --
    Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
  7. It's a lot like closed source drivers in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as you code to an API, you do not need to agree to any terms and conditions. You can publish your code any way you like and charge for it or give it away. This way you can publish closed source drivers for Linux: Because you do not distribute the Linux kernel, you are not bound by the GPL. The same with WoW: If you are not bound by a contract and don't use any of their code, you're free to do what you want.

    1. Re:It's a lot like closed source drivers in Linux by scientus · · Score: 1

      actually copyright law has a concept of derivative works . If a work is derivative, and both WoW add-ons and Linux drivers are likely in this category. Its relatively complex, both the question of if liability exists and if fair use and first sale can be an affirmative defense. As you can see, those with money always seem to move the lines in their advantage--companies assuming linux drivers are not derivative works and have no liability, and Blizzard assuming that add-ons are derivitave, have liability, and do not fall under fair-use / first-sale.

    2. Re:It's a lot like closed source drivers in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The API is the derivative works boundary. If you don't link in code beyond that which is necessary for a dynamically linked module which uses the API, you are in the clear. That's a firmly established rule. (Otherwise Microsoft would own all programs which are written to the Win32 API...)

      The GPL muddies the water in this respect because the annotations to the GPL use a different "derivative work" concept, but that only applies when you're bound by the license, i.e. when you distribute the copyright law version of a derivative work. Since you're not distributing the kernel, only the copyright law concept of "derivative work" matters: your driver is your code and only uses an API, so it is not a derivative work and thus it is not subject to the GPL.

    3. Re:It's a lot like closed source drivers in Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a derivative work. Addons use a published api, which is a means of access. It's not copyrightable.

  8. It's their football by iconic999 · · Score: 1

    It's their system, they make the rules. Isn't this obvious? I don't think the comparison with Windows is valid. Windows is the dominant desktop OS. WoW is hardly necessary for anything.

  9. This is Madness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The developers are getting experience in coding and publicity, or they made the addon originally for themselves then decided to share it.

    I doubt all the addon developers are doing it out of the the goodness of their hearts.

    Some are out just for profit EX. Carbonite full, and of the ingame leveling guides...

  10. For pennies a day by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    you too can keep impoverished, starving lawyers fed and clothed by being creative.

    1. Re:For pennies a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be more effective to mulch the rich ones, and let the poor ones take it as a sign?

  11. Its their app by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They can make any demands they want.

    You are also free to take your business ( and code ) elsewhere and put them out of business.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Its their app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can make any demands they want.

      That doesn't mean they're legally entitled to have those demands met. Let me guess - YANAL?

    2. Re:Its their app by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck with that. I'd like to see an addon so powerful and popular that the lack of it would cause WoW to lose millions of subscribers.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Its their app by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are advocating is "might makes right"

      Were it not for the restraint of the legal system, I'm sure many companies wouldn't hesitate to rob you blind, literally.

    4. Re:Its their app by jombeewoof · · Score: 1

      auctioneer would probably be as popular.
      not that we would stop playing but it would make it significantly less enjoyable.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    5. Re:Its their app by Vorpix · · Score: 1

      You are also free to take your business ( and code ) elsewhere and put them out of business.

      this does not work. (see: US auto industry)

      --
      frog blast the vent core
    6. Re:Its their app by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 1

      You are also free to take your business ( and code ) elsewhere and put them out of business.

      What a narcissist thought. You think Blizz cares about the greedy addons writers?
      We must not forget that even at the high-end PvE and PvP scenes, the game is eminently playable with no addons or a minimal amount thereof.
      Even though addons do add a little something for the game, I've encountered a single paying one (Carbonite Quest) and the couple PvE addons which are considered "required" are free as in beer and as in nagware-free.
      I've donated to recount, auctioneer and deadly boss mods, so I'm happy that Blizz is taking care of the corner cases of mods that nag you in the chat window every time they activate.

    7. Re:Its their app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard don't own XML. Blizzard don't own Lua.

      Blizzard have no legal right to prevent someone from selling a set of lua and XML files that include no copyrighted material or trademarks belonging to Blizzard.

    8. Re:Its their app by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I auctioneer suddenly pulled their support somebody else would code up something roughly equivalent within a few weeks. Most addons simply aren't complex enough that they can't be recoded fairly quickly.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:Its their app by dangitman · · Score: 1

      What you are advocating is "might makes right"

      No, the GP was not making that argument. He was arguing that people have freedom of choice in who they do business with, and business owners are free (within the limits of the law) to choose how they run their business.

      A "might makes right" argument would be saying that Blizzard is so big and powerful, they can force you to do whatever they like without consequence. But that argument was never made.

      Were it not for the restraint of the legal system, I'm sure many companies wouldn't hesitate to rob you blind, literally.

      How does this comment have anything to do with the one you were replying to? Where did the GP say that the legal system should be abolished?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:Its their app by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No I'm advocating property rights.. A rare thing for me actually.

      If you don't like the terms of service, choose another service. Until they are declared a monopoly by the courts its a free market. A game will never become a monopoly, its a GAME, not a fundamental service.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  12. I can see a valid concern by dmomo · · Score: 1

    In WOW the style and feel of the world is important. Tools like these could ruin that without certain restrictions. Then again, so can't players.

  13. QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll chime in here.

    I'm the current sole author/maintainer of what I believe is the world's most popular World of Warcraft UI Mod, QuestHelper. About half a year ago I took it over from an abandoned/unmaintained and rapidly degrading state, and I've treated it like a full-time job since. I'm perhaps two or three weeks ago from releasing Version 1.0, which is a huge set of changes to dramatically reduce CPU and memory usage, as well as produce better output from the mod and be far, far easier to maintain and modify in the future.

    I used to be fully donation-supported - that means my apartment in the Bay Area, food, gas, utilities, all of that, thanks to the generosity of users.

    The funny thing about donations is that a lot of people will gladly donate, but you have to remind them. Depending on how you count it, adding a simple unobtrusive message on logon saying "hey we're donation-supported, if you really like QH please donate" increased income anywhere from five-fold to hundred-fold. That said, even with that message, my income was starting to drop below sustainability levels - I was hoping that v1.0 would fix that, as well as breaking some code in the Wowmatrix client that was actually disabling my donation request.

    (Ironically, it seems like the message may not have been noticable enough, as a large number of people have told me that they never even saw it after using QH for months. So it goes.)

    Now, I'm not donation-supported. I can't put that message up, and I know from experience that I won't get enough without it. I can keep up the donation box on the actual website, but the fact is that just won't provide enough for me to keep going - most people don't even look at the website. I should mention that I fully believe this is within Blizzard's rights to do - I don't have any grounds to sue or anything - but I do believe it sucks. So I'm going to be releasing version 1.0 (watch for it in 2 or 3 weeks, it'd be sooner but I'm going to GDC and that will eat a week), and then just putting it in a mothballed maintenance release, as the remaining donations I'll get anyway should be enough for that.

    I think this is a mistake caused by Blizzard's overzealous legal team. I think, for some reason, Blizzard is terrified at the idea of anyone besides them making money on anything related to their game. I'm not sure why they're banning donation requests ingame but not out-of-game - I think they're just confused. However, they've killed off a good number of UI mods thanks to this, and I think ultimately this is going to hurt them quite a bit.

    I'll field questions, as long as they're sanely-written.

    If you'd like to donate, I'd love for a little bit extra to cover the 1.0 release - here's the link. Anything you can give is appreciated, of course, though not expected and not required.

    Also, if there's any business managers out there who have a clever idea for how to still make a living off this, let me know. I'll pay you with a reasonable fraction of the results ;)

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:QuestHelper by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Christ, I thought you were just big headed since I've never heard of your addon.

      http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info9896-QuestHelper.html 3,215,622 Downloads
      http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addons/details/quest-helper.aspx 20,949,412 Downloads
      http://wowui.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=6145 49,914 Downloads

      (balance this with Auctioneer, which has a paltry 12 million downloads..)

    2. Re:QuestHelper by Razalhague · · Score: 1
      1. Write an update-notifier into the addon
      2. Release updates often
      3. Nag when they update
    3. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the other hand your major competitor Carbonite, which in charging for the add-on and obfuscating their code has two separate issues with the new policy, will go out of business, while you can still remind people of the donations when they download updates.

    4. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      I can't write it into the addon for several reasons (can't nag, can't communicate outside the WoW universe, for two of them.) I could, in theory, write my own updater, but I suspect few people would use it, and I'd have to pay for bandwidth myself, and overall I just don't think it's viable.

      Yes, a possibility, but one that I think is an expensive long-shot.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    5. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's a nice lesson for anyone looking to earn some money: Write extensions for things which people already pay for or which are used by people who are used to paying for software. I've written add-ons for open source software and the total amount of donations is in the low triple digits, despite well over a million downloads.

    6. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True. I don't think it will be enough, though if it turns out to be, I may re-evaluate things.

      A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying here (I don't say you are, necessarily, I'm just pointing this out.) A lot of people think that I don't like Blizzard's new policy, and thus I'm taking my toys and going home. This isn't actually what's happening. I *don't* like the new policy, but that's not what the real problem is.

      The problem is that the new policy makes it so I can't make a living off Questhelper. If I can't make a living off Questhelper, I'm not going to keep treating it like a full-time job.

      If someone figures out how to make it work like a full-time job again, I'll go back to it, but I don't actually think it's possible.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    7. Re:QuestHelper by neopirate · · Score: 1

      Quest helper is VERY nice for people leveling or doing daily quests. I have recomended it to those perpetually lost people who can't find thier way from point A to B.

    8. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no business manager by a long shot, but the best idea I can think of to survive off of donations is to do the following:

      Offer the updates to people visiting your site. Once they visit, it should announce on the site that donations are what keeps new updates coming, and that you would appreciate any amount. As an added bonus, offer some sort of special add on to donation users only (IE, donate and you get access to a new addon). Or, have a beta version of your newest add-on available before the official release with the use of donations.

      That seems to work for most donation-only things: if you offer some incentive to donate, people who wouldn't donate before, would.

      But that's just my two cents. I know that I donate to things if they are useful to me, but the average user won't donate unless they feel they have something to gain from it.

      As for a question...How fast do you think this change will be noticeable for the average player? If it takes a few months for the number of add-ons to dwindle, the players might not even notice; but if there's a sudden removal of a large portion of add-ons, how would the players react? Just food for thought; I don't expect answers since you're not the Blizzard Team ;)

    9. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be easy to just add a script to the Quest Helper that would pop up a donation screen like MIRC does on opening if you haven't bought it? Or Release a "slimmed" Down version and then for a "Donation" you can have the "Full Blown" version...

    10. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Informative

      As an added bonus, offer some sort of special add on to donation users only (IE, donate and you get access to a new addon). Or, have a beta version of your newest add-on available before the official release with the use of donations.

      These specific things are not permitted - in general, I can't tie *anything* UI-mod-related to money, in any form.

      I cannot offer any sort of in-game incentive to donation. I cannot offer beta versions, I cannot offer unlocked features, I can't even make a little sprite that says "THANKS FOR DONATING" that you can right-click to turn off.

      As for a question...How fast do you think this change will be noticeable for the average player?

      There will be a chunk at the beginning (QH, Carbonite, nUI, Mappy et al), but the bulk of the effect will be a largely-unnoticable reduction in the number of people who bother to write UI mods. I'm pretty sure it'll be impossible to actually calculate, and largely impossible to detect.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    11. Re:QuestHelper by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      I think this is a mistake caused by Blizzard's overzealous legal team. I think, for some reason, Blizzard is terrified at the idea of anyone besides them making money on anything related to their game. I'm not sure why they're banning donation requests ingame but not out-of-game - I think they're just confused. However, they've killed off a good number of UI mods thanks to this, and I think ultimately this is going to hurt them quite a bit.

      I'm not going to deny that this will suck for you, and I do sympathize but honestly ... you're the outlier in the dataset. I would say there are only a handful of people in the world who derive their entire income from writing a lua plug-in for a MMORPG.

      The question you ask regarding why they would ban in-game donation requests is fairly simple - they don't want nagware running inside their game. Companies like Blizzard are very conscious of the "in-game experience" and want to control that as much as possible.

      You may be somewhat correct that this is also driven by their legal dept., but not for the reason you suggest. They may be concerned about liability issues, or labor/compensation issues. IANAL nor pretend to be, so even that may be way off as well.

      As for it "hurting them", unfortunately I think you over-estimate how many of their 12 million users even use plug-ins, never mind base their continued patronage on their availability. I would be willing to bet that if they turned off the add-on API tomorrow, they'd lose less than 1% of their player base. There would be some grumbling from another 1% - 2%, but in the end it really wouldn't matter much.

      - Roach

    12. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Both of these ideas are explicitly disallowed by the new policy.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    13. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Companies like Blizzard are very conscious of the "in-game experience" and want to control that as much as possible.

      I agree with this, but keep in mind that UI mods are entirely voluntary - if someone doesn't like the donation nags, they can turn off QH. Also, fewer UI mods being available means, on average, a worse experience for players.

      As for it "hurting them", unfortunately I think you over-estimate how many of their 12 million users even use plug-ins, never mind base their continued patronage on their availability. I would be willing to bet that if they turned off the add-on API tomorrow, they'd lose less than 1% of their player base. There would be some grumbling from another 1% - 2%, but in the end it really wouldn't matter much.

      I estimate that Questhelper alone is used by 10-20% of the WoW player base. I think there would be more grumbling than you think.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    14. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say a majority of those downloads occurred before he took over development.

      Never the less, it is a great add on. One of the most useful for the game.

    15. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheers to you man! I hope that everything continues to work out for you. Your work rocks and is appreciated by all of us.

    16. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure I have more users than many entire MMORPGs :)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    17. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Carbonite is far more dead than QH is. Very shortly, your option is going to be QH or nothing.

      (That said, try it out again in v1.0. Most of the issues should be fixed then.)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    18. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, besides disabling the functions needed for your add on to function. What else can they even do to stop you from keeping the donate link somewhere visible in game? (Chat printout, or somewhere in the options, etc.)

    19. Re:QuestHelper by Bruha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We get together and develop a open source updater that uses bittorrent to do updates, every user of the client keeps copies of all the addons and peices are sent to update the swarm. All clients check the addon hoster for a MD5 hash so it can validate the downlaods so bad people cant corrupt addons.

      The community provides the bandwidth, you get an advertising platform, and hopefully people stay happy while we give Blizzard the finger.

    20. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, all of those downloads occured after I took over development - curse.com did a major site redesign a month or two after I started things up, and as part of that, they reset the download count.

      I'm rather proud to have broken 20 million. That's a lot of downloads. :)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    21. Re:QuestHelper by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Start a subscription based newsletter. New releases get announced to donating newsletter subscribers first, along with links to download "BETA" (wink wink) releases using the subscribers info (too many downloads from one subscriber and they lose their subscription to your newsletter. Actually have the older releases for free download, so it can be shown that you are not charging for the product. Your newsletter is another product. The people that support you are your real time beta testers, nothing to do with the ability to download your "current" product... Hope you find a way to make it workout.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    22. Re:QuestHelper by wtbname · · Score: 1

      This fucking sucks. Quest Helper is one of the best mods out there. Your solicitation for donations is FAR FAR from annoying or inappropriate. It turns my vision red to think of these rules driving people like you out of business. BLIZZARD: THEY HELP ME. THEY HELP YOU. THEY MAKE A LIVING. CALL OFF THE GOD DAMNED JACKBOOTS. BULLSHIT. Where the hell can I nagware Blizzard to death about this issue?

    23. Re:QuestHelper by BrianRoach · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Also, fewer UI mods being available means, on average, a worse experience for players.

      In your opinion. Theirs appears to differ.

      I guarantee you they know that some UI mods will be lost (along with some players) any time they change the API usage requirements/rules. They probably employ an analytics guy whose entire job is to predict the numbers on that :)

      If there wasn't a compelling reason for them to cause that, they wouldn't do it. They are not in business to reduce their subscription base.

      That same numbers guy may have figured out that the game experience for the majority of their players would be better with fewer UI mods. Who knows.

      - Roach

    24. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do an update notifier like WIM. Since you already share location information with the guild. You can share version information, so when one person updates, it will inform everyone else.

    25. Re:QuestHelper by American+Terrorist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, if there's any business managers out there who have a clever idea for how to still make a living off this, let me know. I'll pay you with a reasonable fraction of the results ;)

      I'm sure Blizzard would at least give you an interview. Sucks that you might have to move from the Bay Area to LA though. But if their quest UI is so painful that millions of people prefer yours, that's a damn good reason to hire you. I played WoW without any add-ons, but I had to use wowhead constantly to figure out how to do many of the quests. If it weren't for that website and thottbot I would've stopped playing long before I did.

    26. Re:QuestHelper by Rendus · · Score: 0

      I've not donated for QuestHelper for the same reason I haven't for Auctioneer:

      You're too aggressive about soliciting those donations. Just like I don't respond to beggars in game, I don't respond to begging add-ons in game.

    27. Re:QuestHelper by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this addon.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    28. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Oh, they probably would, but if I were going to work for someone else's game company, I'd have companies much further up my list than Blizzard ;)

      Doublefine, for example. Man, it's actually really tempting to try getting a job there. And I wouldn't even have to move! :D

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    29. Re:QuestHelper by American+Terrorist · · Score: 1

      Just like I don't respond to beggars in game, I don't respond to begging add-ons in game.

      The difference is beggars don't offer anything in return. You obviously find this useful, and it provides some value to you; God forbid he ask for some voluntary compensation. If someone offers to powerlevel your twink in scarlet monastery from 20-40 would you not respond when they asked for some help in return? This is a similar concept; it helps you level faster.

    30. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can't directly solicit donations, but you can put in a line at login like:

      Please visit Quest Helper's official site at http://www.quest-helper.com/ to make sure you have the latest version. You are currently running version 1.0.

      This would at least get people to your site, where they would see the donate button - and this does not appear to violate Blizzard's rules. You may even want to encourage people to only download through your site with a "to make sure you have the latest version and are running the genuine mod." Wording and mileage may vary.

    31. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it puts your competitor Carbonite/CarboniteQuest out of business.

    32. Re:QuestHelper by Durin_Deathless · · Score: 1

      You can write an upgrade notifier like what Carbonite uses - include the version with quest sharing data, then old versions can notice they're out of date and let the user know they need to upgrade.

      --
      You should use AdiumX on your Mac.
    33. Re:QuestHelper by American+Terrorist · · Score: 1

      Man, it's actually really tempting to try getting a job there.

      Well, if you haven't even bothered sending them your resume then you're not doing yourself any favors now, are you?

    34. Re:QuestHelper by hhallahh · · Score: 1

      My advice would be to just keep publishing the addon in violation of these rules. Firstly, Blizzard most likely cannot do anything about this. Secondly, it is likely that Blizzard most likely does not mind the existence of these addons at all, they're just worried about potential legal liabilities that could arise through poor user experiences and they're just making these rules as a way to show that they've tried taking measures to address these hypothetical issues. As long as you don't get blacklisted by the community, you should be fine.

    35. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're misunderstanding a little bit :)

      I strongly suspect I could get a job there. I know my skills, I know my competency, I'm pretty sure I could walk into a job in virtually any place I wanted. I'm just not entirely sure I want to. It would be cool to work there, but I suspect after a few months I'd want to go work on my own stuff again.

      Not really fair to them if I already know I'd be leaving, and it seems kind of silly to me as well.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    36. Re:QuestHelper by TurboNed · · Score: 1

      Doublefine, for example.

      You just became *MY* favorite mod author of all time.

    37. Re:QuestHelper by Zelucifer · · Score: 1

      If this is really a full-time job for you... why not consult a lawyer? I haven't touched there code in years, but unless its changed, the API is freely available. Without forcing you to agree to a license of some sort, they Shouldn't be able to touch you. Outside of banning your account if they can trace it.

      --
      The corner of a round room
    38. Re:QuestHelper by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      You're too aggressive about soliciting those donations. Just like I don't respond to beggars in game, I don't respond to begging add-ons in game.

      Too aggressive? The only place I can think of that requests donations is the initial login / mod load scroll. I don't remember seeing it elsewhere (although I do want to say that I've seen a message in the config panel somewhere - I can't remember for sure).

      I should note that I don't donate to QH. I'm not keen to pay for any WoW addon. I'll write bug reports, recommend it to friends and guildmates, etc. But money doesn't enter in to it.

    39. Re:QuestHelper by Lulfas · · Score: 1

      There's been over 20 million downloads to those 12 million users. I'm willing to be more people use it than use the Apple or Linux OSs. It's a very significant number.

    40. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, I'm pretty sure they can't touch me. I indeed doubt there's anything they can do *me*, besides ban my account. Of course, they could also ban the accounts of anyone who uses Questhelper.

      It doesn't matter if I can write it or not - what matters is whether people are able to use it, and that, indeed, they have full control over.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    41. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Doublefine is really one of the very, very few companies that I'd actually go and work for as something *I* wanted to do, not just something that would pay the bills. I mean, work under Tim Schafer? I think the only other two people I'd joyfully apprentice with would be Jenova Chen and Jonathan Blow.

      Unfortunately I doubt any of them have three-or-six-month apprenticeship deals ;)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    42. Re:QuestHelper by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      You might have a better idea than others about this then - my first thought seeing this "random" update, shortly after the battle.net account release, is that Blizzard is working on their own Steam.

      A desktop app with cross-game communication, perhaps queueing for BGs/instances outside of the game (maybe even with multiple toons at the same time, and play with whoever one pops for? maybe im dreaming here). They even mention "store" in the battle.net press release, so what are the odds they aren't going to release a Blizzard-owned+maintained addon "store" (even if its free)? Automatic updates without running a 3rd party tool like Curse or WOWMatrix offer.

      Interesting coincidence, at the very least!

    43. Re:QuestHelper by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      Unless things have changed since I last used either mod, which granted has been for a while now, neither nag was all that obtrusive. The QH one was iirc: on login (When you log in your toon the game does it's mod inload and there is a LUA hook to give a message at that point. So actually it also happens if/when you do a /reloadui.) and in the help menu. The Auctioneer was a donation page when you hit the download button.

      I did notice them both but then again I'm someone who has looked at the LUA code in some mods just to double check on what they are doing. But never at any point did I think not to use the mods because of the small requests for a donation.

      And just further while I actually only tried out QH for a bit it's quality was simply amazing. Had I not leveled so many damn toons to 70 such that I knew the game so well I would have been insane not to continue to use it. Auctioneer is also just a no brainer to use. Both far exceed what should be expected for free in terms of quality and utility.

      Given the nature of WoW/MMOs I'm glad that they make it such that the addons can only ask for donations. However the two that you cite for being so obtrusive, which again is questionable at best, are two of the ones I'd say are most deserving of some form of compensation.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    44. Re:QuestHelper by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      In your opinion. Theirs appears to differ.

      Not really, if you've been around WoW long enough to know the history. There's a long list of UI changes that Blizzard has made that directly follow popular addons that filled a gap. The addon developers serve as an unpaid (by Blizzard - actually, they pay Blizzard) test lab.

      Imagine if they fired a lot of people from that test lab, including the developers of some of the most popular projects. That will definitely have an effect on the quality of the UI.

    45. Re:QuestHelper by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 1
      I think that may run afoul of the new policies as well:

      All add-ons must be distributed free of charge. Developers may not create "premium"; versions of add-ons with additional for-pay features, charge money to download an add-on, charge for services related to the add-on, or otherwise require some form of monetary compensation to download or access an add-on.

      --
      Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
    46. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the idea of a bittorrent updater, but not for the reason of "sticking it to the man". There is nothing wrong with Blizz doing this and it's fully within their right as a copyright holding entity.

      If you don't like corporations, fine... But they aren't big mean beasts...they have given us one of the best MMORPGs available.

      However, the bittorrent addon dristribution mechanism is fantastic. It would give the ability to create an advertisement panel inside the client. It's basically the way Blizz distributes their updates too; so it would be more difficult for them to be grumpy about.

      I do fully support not having advertisements in game; though I don't oppose a quick startup "please donate to us" message when the addon loads. :: shrug :: Oh well.

    47. Re:QuestHelper by morghanphoenix · · Score: 1

      I would totally support a once per update request. When you install it or get a new version you get a donation request, but not every time you log in. I've never used QuestHelper, so I don't know how annoying, if at all, your request it. I watched a friend log in once, and the please send money spam he got was amazing. I only used the add-on for extra shortcut bars myself, kinda thought quest add-ons took some of the point out of the game, like buying a prima guide for a console game. Not that my opinion matters, I'll never log back on to a Blizzard server unless they put one up that is a bit more selective in who is allowed on.

    48. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why they're banning donation requests ingame but not out-of-game - I think they're just confused. Also, if there's any business managers out there who have a clever idea for how to still make a living off this, let me know. I'll pay you with a reasonable fraction of the results ;)

      I think there are 2 simple ways.
      1) Since donations can' be solicited, you can't solicit them. You can however notify the user that it is a donation supported utility. There is a distinction "with a difference" between ASKING for money and informing the user how the utility gets developed.

      2) Put the www.questhelper.com or whatever address into the UI as part of the decor. Make it embossed on the border or something - part of the subtle artwork, not a blatant flashing sign.

    49. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, you should just at least put something like.

      "This addon is maintain/developed through donations."

      or

      "Thanks to those who have donated to help maintain this addon."

      You are not soliciting per se, people still have to do research on how to donate if they want to.

    50. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true clueless slashdot replybot. Most WOW players get their addons from curse gaming. They never see the developer's web site. With the removal of in-game donation requests, people will NEVER see any reminder to donate.

    51. Re:QuestHelper by Qetu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, your addon is being implemented in-game in 3.1

      Put your effort towards another goal, thank you.

    52. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Auctioneer's main distribution is from their own site, you don't see the real stats.

    53. Re:QuestHelper by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where you apologized ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    54. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, all they were doing was adding tooltip info. Have they added more?

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    55. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auctioneer's main distribution is through their own site which doesn't list download stats so the comparison isn't fair.

    56. Re:QuestHelper by mayor_wood · · Score: 1

      What about forcing quarterly visits to your homepage with free but temporary keys? Seems like a small price to pay for a "free" utility. Could put some ads on the page as well.

    57. Re:QuestHelper by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      The solution is to stop asking for donations in-game, and gently remind the user that you are donation supported instead. This shouldn't be against the terms. Leave the donation link on your site. I know you say people hardly visit the site (as plug-ins tend to be made available on plug-in sites, where the distributors reaps 100% of the ad revenue). The way around that is an old "trick"- make exclusive content available on the plug-in's site. What that content could be is beyond what I could think up in the short time it took to write this message (I haven't played WoW in over a year), but if your problem is attracting visitors, then you need to tackle the web traffic issue first. One idea (off the top of my head) is if you author a plug-in that offers quest data, make the base plug-in available on the plug-in sites, but the data required for it available only via direct download on your site (this may require some policing of the distributors). If you don't want to make the players jump through hoops for basic functionality, find something you can add as a bonus to the plug-in, and make THAT available only on the site- users still get core functionality, and must visit your website (with donation requests) for more content. Tell the user in your start up message "Thank you for supporting independent plug-in developers [as a wink wink, nudge nudge]. To download [exclusive content here] please visit Quest-Helper.com"

      I know it sucks that Blizzard is doing this, but I can see both sides. I hated seeing donation messages every time I logged in, regardless of whether I donated or not. In some cases, overly wordy donation requests blocked out important info in the chat box provided by other plug-ins.

      If you'd like to go over some ideas, feel free to contact me off-forum. It's been a while since I've played WoW, but I do remember how much I relied on donation-supported add-ons when I did.

    58. Re:QuestHelper by pHus10n · · Score: 0

      No, he's not big headed. Questhelper is quite possibly the most downloaded add-on in the history of MMORPGs. I've donated, and it was ONLY because of the in-game messages. I didn't find them obtusive at all! There's one at the very beginning of login that states that it's donation-supported, and another message (deep in the addon) that says "Click here for donation info". That's it. Clean, useful, and it didn't try to suck your wallet dry. You know what really sucks? I'm going to find playing WoW a lot less interesting when this addon isn't updated. it saved me a lot of time, so I could spend it on what I found fun: PvP.

    59. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to use Questhelper but ultimately scrapped it due to the other mods required to run it effectively and found a better one in Carbonite. I dont have the money to pay for WoW and Mods and all the other crap i need for the game so i just pay Blizz... Thanks for working on QH, it used to be the bomb... unfortunately its outdated and nowhere near as cool as Carbonite. Another all inclusive and utterly outdated mod I used to use was Mazzle UI... the problem was, every time blizz put in a patch I had to upgrade the damn thing, waiting forever for somebody to make the changes or to make the changes myself; all of which really sucked. Personally, Im cheap, thanks for making all the mods.... but if you hadnt made them in the first place nobody would even need them, so you get no $$ from me. :) thats just the way it goes I guess.

    60. Re:QuestHelper by Azureflare · · Score: 1

      I for one think the message upon logon is not intrusive at all and is quite tasteful (oppose that to other addons that popup messages saying they want donations). What I think you should do is not request donations in the message. Just say that QuestHelper is going to die without more money. You're not actually asking for money, just saying the truth... If people want to donate they can find it on your site.

    61. Re:QuestHelper by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      You're not charging money, you are asking for donations in a news letter. My understanding was that donations were OK if not solicited in the game... And his problem was reminding people to support his efforts. A periodic newsletter (coinciding with updates) goes out to anyone that asks. If they donate (because you DO ask in the letter) you keep them on the list, if not, slowly downgrade and then unsubscribe them. People that don't want to support your work are certainly not worth keeping informed of the latest developments...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    62. Re:QuestHelper by neafevoc · · Score: 1

      Imagine if only a tenth of those downloads gave you a dollar. You'd be set for awhile :)

    63. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God - questing without QuestHelper? Is that even possible anymore?

    64. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "As for it "hurting them", unfortunately I think you over-estimate how many of their 12 million users even use plug-ins, never mind base their continued patronage on their availability. I would be willing to bet that if they turned off the add-on API tomorrow, they'd lose less than 1% of their player base. There would be some grumbling from another 1% - 2%, but in the end it really wouldn't matter much."

      You're an idiot who has no fucking idea what you are saying.

      Let me be clear: everyone who raids semi-seriously uses an addon. Every successful raid has at least one person with Deadly boss mod or another one giving out raid warnings (big messages on your screen) so that one out of 25 people is enough for that. No one raids without this, not the biggest fish, not the small fry, until the content is farmed to fuck.

      DKP, when used, is handled with mods more now than before.

      Gladius is the current incarnation of arena mods. Every serious arena junkie uses UI mods, some minor, some extensive, but obviously the ability to see the state of your opponent's trinkets instead of hoping you caught the stupid fucking animation is pretty goddamned big, as is the ability to target them without fucking pressing tab through the totems or hoping to snag their moving nameplate.

      Quest Helper is used by everyone I know in game. The only people who I don't know if they use it lack command of the english language enough to communicate with.

      1-2%. You ignorant douche.

    65. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the parent: He's got that already.

      To the OP, Zorba: Sorry about the position you're in. I'll try to find a donation somewhere at the end of the month. :)

      I do understand why they've done this; I hope QuestHelper doesn't have to entirely die, but I suspect this was really more levelled at killing off Carbonite and the like. Interested in seeing what happens in 1.0. If that and Cartographer3 ever took off, then that'd be pretty nice. I seem to have something of a roleplaying niche myself, though, and I'm eyeing up rule #3 with a cautious gaze and asking them for SendAddonMessage(..."SAY") support so I can do efficient.

      Actually, I'd be a bit disappointed if it killed off Bejeweled. I'm addicted to that thing now; but that isn't really obfuscated, just, well... uncut; a bit of pretty-printing and it shines up nice, and is very efficiently (if unusually) written.

      Perhaps you could simply put "Thanks to those who have donated to support this addon". You're not actually asking for it. But I think you'd have to run that one by Blizzard to be sure, and the answer might well be no; worth a shot.

      Lesson in poetic aptness: The CAPTCHA for this post is "gratuity". Hah.

      - Elandru, maintainer of MyRolePlay

    66. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charge $1 a download for Version 1.0

      20 million downloads x $1 (a modest and nominal fee) = 20 million dollars before taxes.

      Make it $1.25 / $1 for you / 0.25 for me as the "modest" fraction. You can email me at phoenixdown 21 # earthlink dot net for info on how to remit the check.

    67. Re:QuestHelper by seebs · · Score: 1

      Maybe an in-game thing saying "be sure to check questhelper.com for updates and information", and put the donation stuff there?

      I'd think that would get you SOME help, anyway. (I don't know, I have to admit I haven't been good about donations to other authors. I am thinking about going and doing some donations now, though, because this reminded me.)

      I think on the whole I like the change, but I do want to see ways for people like you to get enough donations to keep your addons going. One thing to consider would be to give some kinds of statistics for people -- say, your hourly wage over the past month, or whatever. Something to let them get a feel for how much time you put in -- especially combined with a comparison of how much of their time you expect them to save?

      FWIW, next time I get paid, I'll toss you some money.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    68. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for 12 million players you have had it downloaded 20 million times, i think theres a problem if people have to keep re downloading the same thing.

    69. Re:QuestHelper by Huntr · · Score: 1

      I estimate that Questhelper alone is used by 10-20% of the WoW player base. I think there would be more grumbling than you think.

      Not if they just implement features identical to QH or Carbonite. Off the top of my head, they've done it to Outfitter, Scrolling Combat Text and added a way to monitor your threat (of course, that's nowhere near as good as Omen).

      I used your addon for a while, but not after I found Carbonite. If those guys quit making Carbonite (or you quit making QH), I'll just play without a quest helping type mod and alt tab to Wowhead (or thott, etc), like I did for the 1st 3 years of playing this game. Hell, with my dual monitor setup, I don't even have to alt tab. All I really need is a coords mod and one of the database websites.

    70. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      I've made more than one release in the last half a year. In fact, I update new versions roughly weekly.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    71. Re:QuestHelper by RalphSleigh · · Score: 1

      It would be trivial for Blizzard to disable QuestHelper, or any other addons that broke the rules. They don't need to go after the developer because they control the game, and get to decide which UI code gets executed while people are playing on their servers. Maybe some people work around whatever system they have in place to identify it, but most won't.

      I will be very happy if they kill QuestHelper with this update, because of the damage it did to my WOW gaming experience (moaning noobs who cant read the quest text wondering what to do every time the big arrow on their screen stops working).

      --
      Come as you are, do what you must, be who you will.
    72. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod me troll more. I'm fucking right. Anyone who thinks that 1-2% of wow players use addon is a fucking douche, he's pulling numbers out of his ass to try to make some absurd "market point", and he's DEMONSTRABLY FUCKING WRONG.

      But, whatever.

    73. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most popular UI mod in the World!! ... of Warcraft.

    74. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mod fuels complete retards who can't be bothered with learning anything about the game, making them extremely difficult to interact with. I'm glad they provide you with a nice place to live and all, but they ruin gameplay experience when I get them in dungeons and raids.

    75. Re:QuestHelper by mortonda · · Score: 1

      The people that support you are your real time beta testers

      So you think people would pay to have early access to buggy (beta) software?

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    76. Re:QuestHelper by EQ · · Score: 1

      How about:

      "For those of you who have donated, I appreciate your support which makes this add-on possible. Visit www.myaddon.com for the latest updates"

      Its not a solicitation, its a thank you to people who have donated, and the website is mentioned only as it pertains to upkeep of the software and directs them to your site for updates.

      That should be enough.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    77. Re:QuestHelper by EQ · · Score: 1

      I think you underestiamte how many people use addons.

      Anyone that goes raiding, or levels hgih enough to group for advanced content, requires addons that help their class, especially healers.

      As a matter of fact, almost every guild requires a given set of raid framework addons, aggro monitors, etc, before you can even get into a raid.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    78. Re:QuestHelper by EQ · · Score: 1

      20 million downloads of his app says you are wrong.

      The stats are there, and they pretty much knock down your ignorance-based assumptions.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    79. Re:QuestHelper by EQ · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up - its not a troll, its the truth.

      Serious players and guilds ALL use mods. Its the truth.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    80. Re:QuestHelper by rainsford · · Score: 1

      And maybe whoever made this decision at Blizzard just didn't think things all the way through. I don't know where you got this idea that companies are perfect decision making machines simply because it's in their best interest to perform that way...it doesn't bear a close resemblance to reality. In fact, people (and companies) making retardedly short-sighted decisions that negatively impact them down the road is probably the rule rather than the exception. I'm sure the folks at Blizzard sat down and gave this new policy some thought, but it was just people doing the thinking, not some magical Adam Smith cyborg, and people do stupid things sometimes.

    81. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "work on your own stuff", you mean "let WoW take over your life again so fully you can't hold yet another job".

    82. Re:QuestHelper by Jeff321 · · Score: 1

      ZorbaTHut, There are a lot of great ideas I've read here. Thank donators in-game without asking for new donations, and put the address of your own website in-game. Make those who want the newest updates first jump through a hoop of using your website, email list, or custom-made addon downloader, and put donation requests there. Be sure to explain Blizzard's new policy, and fans of the addon will surely be sympathetic to your cause. I definitely think there are ways of maintaining your level of donations. Best of luck!

    83. Re:QuestHelper by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      So DMCA Curse Gaming to remove your stuff ;)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    84. Re:QuestHelper by eldorel · · Score: 1

      I'll help where I can, Heck I might just get started on this myself if no one else does it.
      I'll use it if it gets written, and I think an open architecture for other addons to use would be great. (curse.com has something similar, but I don't like the memory usage or the intrusive download)

      If there was an open source, Preferably cross platform (win, mac and linux), bittorrent based addon updater package that didn't run constantly in the background, I would use it gladly.
      Honestly, I'm thinking something similar to the updater I wrote for guild wars a while back, just a wrapper script that you run, it updates game, then runs the game when it's finished.

      As for the wow-addon updater, Big updates (more than 500kb or so) should get downloaded slowly in the background, and queued for install on next run. Mine also has an override button, so if i'm in a hurry to get in game I can skip the update completely.
      Combine the updater with a good management tool, and a synaptic-like interface for adding new addons and I think we've got a winner.

      Somewhat Offtopic: Zorba, I recently switched off of questhelper because of the serious slowdown when it loaded the dataset. You fix that, and i'll be right back and so will my pocketbook.

    85. Re:QuestHelper by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The first time people run it, they are required to enter a code they can find on your website? :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    86. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're misunderstanding a little bit :)

      I strongly suspect I could get a job there. I know my skills, I know my competency, I'm pretty sure I could walk into a job in virtually any place I wanted. I'm just not entirely sure I want to. It would be cool to work there, but I suspect after a few months I'd want to go work on my own stuff again.

      Not really fair to them if I already know I'd be leaving, and it seems kind of silly to me as well.

      And if you could get $1 from every download why would you want mere pittance of a salary from company X?

    87. Re:QuestHelper by ricree · · Score: 1

      Have you tried to directly contact someone at Blizzard about this? For regular players, or even small time mod makers, getting someone there to seriously communicate with you would be an iffy thing. But as you pointed out, you are maintaining one of the most popular mods in their game right now. I have to imagine that you would be taken at least a little seriously if you contacted them to try to explain the position that the new policy puts you in.

    88. Re:QuestHelper by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 1

      Most people FIND new addons via Curse. I always did. If your addon isn't on Curse, it is a lot harder to build up a user base. It definitely can be done, but it's harder.

    89. Re:QuestHelper by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 1

      I think Blizz might get mad at you for trying to use a loophole to get around their policy. It *might* work, and it's definitely a good idea. It would probably decrease donations, though, as people would think that the addon isn't donation-supported, and that the donations are more akin to a tip jar.

    90. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Yes. Their response was basically "sucks to be you", although with more legalese.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    91. Re:QuestHelper by Johnny00 · · Score: 0

      A HUGE thanks to you for all your hard work. You've made the game more enjoyable for those of us who partner with friends and family who are less than savvy at following the clues laid down in the quests. I'll be making my donation ... now that I've noticed you'd like donations. *ahem* I can understand why legal would feel the need to protect the users from more malicious addons that consume CPU/Memory/$$ because of obfuscation and the endless arms race that would unravel even the most secured subscription data model. I don't get the blanket restriction on reminding the users that donations power updates though. It'd be nice if there was an in-game browser addons could invoke for help, documentation and more formal support. That would be the ideal way to meet their goal of keeping all requests for donations out of the game itself. Given your extensive experience in managing and supporting a software product for tens of millions of users, isn't this the most excellent LUA portfolio project around? Like, cover letter worthy for any LUA focused jobs? Surely someone has use for Grand Master LUA skill. :) *poops on carbonite btw*

      --
      I live life on the edge ... of my desk.
    92. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So turn off your general channel or use the ignore feature. Leveling in Northrend was World of Solocraft for the most part, and QuestHelper is incredibly useful for planning an efficient route to complete your quests. I turned it off for leveling in Northrend though, and for any future Outlands questing I might do.

    93. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QuestHelper tells you where to go, not what do do when you get there. If you're playing with someone who doesn't know how to play it's not because they followed an arrow around the map.

    94. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an idea on how it could work. Don't want to say in public though.

    95. Re:QuestHelper by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm well aware of that... but the antics of the Three Big Addon Sites are pretty sleazy anyway - the chances of getting them to remove your stuff based on their past performance is near impossible.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    96. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF you cant code something that pops up when the game loads how about a code that will work after you /exit the game? Wouldn't that circumvent their rule?

    97. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are aware that your addon causes players not to be able to log on if they are logged out in Dalaran.
      If Blizzard are getting GM tickets from it a lot, they could ban or block your addon

    98. Re:QuestHelper by Longwalker-MGO · · Score: 1

      I think this is a mistake caused by Blizzard's overzealous legal team. I think, for some reason, Blizzard is terrified at the idea of anyone besides them making money on anything related to their game. I'm not sure why they're banning donation requests ingame but not out-of-game - I think they're just confused.

      I disagree, I believe this is the result of another addon quest helper changing their money making efforts to requirement of payment.

    99. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because companies never make mistakes. They always do the right thing.

    100. Re:QuestHelper by darkpurpleblob · · Score: 1

      Blizzard's policy disallows charging for the program as well :(

    101. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the vast majority of people, this hasn't been true for months. For a small minority, it's still true, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it - the Blizzard UI code doesn't provide any way for me to fix it, and it's not just a problem with QH, it's a problem with their addon framework in general. I've sent them suggested improvements to solve the issue, but so far they haven't.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    102. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is entirely possible. The trick is to not be a brainless sheep following the purdy arrow.

    103. Re:QuestHelper by Starfighter · · Score: 1

      I was reading your posts here and on the wow forms. I can offer you some webspace, a decent amount of monthly bandwidth?

      If you are interested, let me know.

    104. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm actually coming up with some ideas that may sort of fix the problem, so that might not be necessary, but thanks :) Note that QH would end up using a few terabytes per month, so I'd actually need a lot - it's well past the point where people would be easily donating bandwidth ;)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    105. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you can make the QH password enabled. Meaning people will have to enter a password when the mod loads.... make the password some like "pleasedonate".

    106. Re:QuestHelper by Starfighter · · Score: 1

      Well, Currently I could supply 1.5 TB a month to you with 100 gigs of storage... I would be willing to up that if needed.. i could pretty easily get that to unlimited.

      Let me know,

      rogan999 at hotmail.com

    107. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really, the problem isn't hosting - I've already got that for free on curse.com - it's figuring out how to make money off it. I haven't come up with a good way to realistically make money with my own hosting yet. If I do, though, I'll keep this in mind.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    108. Re:QuestHelper by Snowdog · · Score: 1

      As an added bonus, offer some sort of special add on to donation users only

      These specific things are not permitted - in general, I can't tie *anything* UI-mod-related to money, in any form.

      While you can't tie functionality directly to donations, and you can't ask for donations in-game, what you can do is offer additional functionality (e.g. extended quest tips) that in part depends on people going somewhere (like your website) where you can ask for donations.

      Many people alt-tab between WoW and a web browser while playing quite frequently, and I'm sure would be happy to do so if it enhances the functionality of an add-on like QuestHelper. Asking people to donate when they alt-tab out to your web site certainly fits within Blizzard's new policies.

    109. Re:QuestHelper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am glad that Quest Helper and Carbonite exist. Because they both help me while I play, but they also cut down on the noobs who cannot read quest dialog and are always asking where quest mobs are. This used to be quite an epidemic on all realms, I don't see this nearly as often since folk started to use addons like QuestHelper.

      Also I happily paid for the full version of Carbonite (didn't know of quest helper till now), It really makes leveling a pleasure and reduces the frustration that sometimes comes from trying to find the stinking mobs that need to die to complete a quest.

    110. Re:QuestHelper by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      I used your addon, and I was several of the many update downloads. But it's uninstalled now: WAY too huge a hit on throughput and framerate, too many (continued) location errors, too often not giving me any data at all (for no reason). And I resent that nag when it loads.

      Nice idea, but I won't be using your addon.

      I have no problems with the addon site itself asking for donations, licensing, whatever. (And yes, I visit EVERY addon parent site, not just download from curse or wherever. I'm a programmer too, and enjoy reading background about an addon's development, changes, etc.) But I fully agree with Blizzard: it's their program, these are addons (entirely dependent on the Blizzard parent program), and they set the rules. If they say no nags or no single-button combat or no whatever ... hey, so be it.

    111. Re:QuestHelper by Bruha · · Score: 1

      We'll we can setup something on google code, I agree it should be open and Xplatform. Also it should cover all games that use addons so more people get involved not that we'd get plenty from bliz's userbase.

    112. Re:QuestHelper by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      As one of those people who donated to you (before in-game reminders ... I think) and who has been using Quest Helper since before you rescued it from oblivion, I'm very sad to see that you may not be able to continue to update/maintain it as well due to needing a RealJob(tm)

      As someone who has authored and published their own addon, I TOTALLY understand how demanding the user community can be. They're quick with the generalized complaints, but not actual useful info that will help debug the issues at hand. They want everything perfect, free, and NOW, but they often fail to realize that what you're doing is an act of love (in the "I love this game and want to make it even better" sense).

      At the same time, I can see how Blizzard is drawing a very strong line in the sand against in-game advertising. Personally, I wish they would allow something like "This addon is supported by donations: www.addonname.com", but I can see how it would take actual manpower to verify that such in game solicitations were not just strawmen for something less benign.

      Thank you for all your hard work and dedication thus far and for whatever you do out of the goodness of your heart in the future. I for one will be sending another donation ... not as a "keep going" but as a "fee for services rendered", and to show my support for the theory and practice of open source development.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    113. Re:QuestHelper by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      "i was using your addon and then it didn't work fix it now plz"

      Thanks for the words (and the donation :) ) It's been very interesting watching the reactions - everyone who's remotely related to the tech world or programming seems to completely understand what's going on, and then there's a lot of people who think I should be working for free.

      It's good to have more of the former chiming in :)

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    114. Re:QuestHelper by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your experience of raiding is more along the lines of the top end raider, not the average joe.

      I'm main tank for a raid group, I don't use any addons, most of the group has no threat meter, no speciallist raid ui and/or no boss mod addon.

      We're currently finishing off 10 man content in Wrath and the only reason we haven't done 25 man is we can't get the numbers together (Due to the work schedules of the various members).

    115. Re:QuestHelper by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      Gaming... Serious Bizness. Top end raiders may well use addons. Thing is, I'm yet to find a raid addon with a donation request. Most of the ones listed are PvE questing helpers, the data for which is usually obtained by those very same top end raiders during the testing phase.

  14. this is good for the player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Blizzard is looking out for the players. They don't want some addon that throwing advertising or in game donations on a large percent of their user base.

  15. Good - Assert control & prevent account hijack by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    They need to assert control over third party mods to prevent rampant account hijacking. Too many users are installing sketchy addons that steal account information for gold sellers, so "add-on code must be completely visible" is great.

  16. No Legal Standing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't see how Blizzard could ever hope to pursue and legal action related to this. WoW addons don't redistribute any of Blizzard's code, they just use functions that Blizzard defined. I assume Blizzard is just going to use this as an excuse to block certain addons in-game.

  17. Well by Miv333 · · Score: 1

    "Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?" They do. Compare the customizability of windows vs linux.

    1. Re:Well by shentino · · Score: 1

      The only reason windows gets away with that crap is because MS is a monopoly and can rightly (in the might makes right sense at least) say "screw off, it's not like we have to do squat for you. Competition? never heard of it".

      Blizzard is overreaching here and needs to be put in place before it, to, becomes too big to resist.

  18. Why allow plugins at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the custom plugin support was strange from the get-go. WoW servers (like most / all other MMOG servers) trust the client with too much information, then Blizzard allow people to write plugins to take advantage of that information, then they try to reign in the plugins they consider 'bad' (which as far as I can tell they can decide for any reason).

    It all seems an unnecessarily complicated process, as well as one that is rather unfriendly towards plugin developers (they can block your plugin at any time). Why not use the resources to design a decent GUI yourself and disallow plugins altogether?

  19. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1

    Fail. Addons can't steal passwords.

  20. Re:No they cant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its illegal. they cant do it. its as if microsoft trying to assert rights on programs that run on windows platform.

    this is one of the STUPIDEST shit i heard this year. i doubt anything stupider will come up.

    And yet here your response is...

  21. Re:No they cant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they won the case against Glider for altering WoW in a way against the EULA I think it gave them grounds to enforce this policy.

    What I think caused this problem was an addon called Carbonite(www.carbomiteaddon.com) They charged to use the addon, they just made a in-game ad supoorted version after mysteriously the free version of their addon became expired/disabled. They also program the addon in a way that others cannot see what is in the code, therefore making it both a security risk to blizzard/accounts and protecting it from being copied. Out of all the addons out there, this one falls under most of the categories that bizzard just changed.

  22. Targetting "Carbonite"? by Nakor+BlueRider · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's just conjecture of course, but from poking around a couple wow-specific boards and discussions going on there, it looks like the only two well-used add-ons this will affect are Carbonite and QuestHelper. QH apparently had a minor request for donation in-game that they will likely just remove. Carbonite however has full-on subscription plans they require for their "full" version. I looked around their site and forums but couldn't find anything official as to what they're planning to do.

    Possibly impacted by this also is the bejeweled add-on; I don't believe this was open source?

    1. Re:Targetting "Carbonite"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. The source code for Bejeweled is open, but it's an unreadable wall of text. No idea if any obfuscation beyond that was done.

      Carbonite on the other hand uses some sort of encryption. I tried several text editors and none of them could even render the source correctly - had to look at it with a hex editor, that didn't try to interpret the binary data blob, that makes up most of the code, as text. From what I hear, the actual code it contains is also an unreadable mess on top of that, with no formatting and completely random variable and function names.
      So yeah, this is definitely targetting Carbonite.

    2. Re:Targetting "Carbonite"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bejewelled addon was obfuscated to the degree where it looked like evil perl code, all to prevent all but the most zealous users to modify the source to cheat themselves to a higher highscore.

      A technique which is being disallowed under the new addon rules.

    3. Re:Targetting "Carbonite"? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Also nUI, which you can see by some posts on the WoW UI board. These are some of the most popular addon in terms of overall downloads. I believe QH may even be the most popular one.

    4. Re:Targetting "Carbonite"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, pretty-printing Bejeweled makes it very readable, actually. Comments have been removed but it's quite well-written and it's not hard to figure out what's going on.

      Would be kinda cool if they posted a readable version. I don't want them to kill Bejeweled. Really.

    5. Re:Targetting "Carbonite"? by EQ · · Score: 1

      all to prevent all but the most zealous users to modify the source to cheat themselves to a higher highscore.

      Wrong wrong wrong wrongity WRONG!

      It was run a script "compressor" that removes unneeded punctuation, shortens variable names, and collapses the code.

      The reason for that was to reduce the load size!

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
  23. Their house, their rules. by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone takes the time to code the addon they should be able to ask for whatever they want for it

    Nope, when you live under someones roof you play by their rules. It might be kindof a dick move, but it's their API and they have every right to control how it's used. And it's not like this stipulation is unheard of; Microsoft has similar rules surrounding use of their GamerTag API as well as Google Maps with their free API (this is an oversimplification, but in general you are not allowed to use GMap mashups in for-pay websites).

    It is their labor not Blizzard's.

    Not to belittle the work of modders, but the fact that they can write add-ons at all is due to the substantial amount of resources that Blizzard has invested not only in the development of the API, but also the game itself and the massive server infrastructure.

    I may not like it (I haven't decide either way yet whether it's a good or bad move - I'm very wary of Blizzard ever since the bnetd fiasco). But they are absolutely within their rights to do this.

    1. Re:Their house, their rules. by Myrcutio · · Score: 1

      The fact that blizzard is so cooperative with community developers at all sets them apart from the evil game houses such as EA and SOE. Blizz always goes to great lengths with game releases to provide platforms for user generated content, and usually incorporates the best content into later versions and releases.

      The popular turret D maps in starcraft were redone for the release of warcraft 3, and almost all of the major UI mods in wow from 4 years ago have since been incorporated into the official "vanilla" interface. Blizz is only looking out for the best experience for all it's gamers, and has repeatedly made a point that it does not want any fees attached to wow other than the ~$16 a month to pay for the servers. They don't even charge for the periodic content updates such as sunwell plateau or ulduar, content that Sony would have asked players to pay $50 for in addition to monthly fees. The only goal here is to keep cash out of gameplay, imagine if you could pay $100 for the best UI mods for a competitive advantage? You would have multitudes of unskilled players with too much cash on par with highly skilled players who would rather keep their checkbook intact. That wouldn't be fair to the user base to require third party fees to stay competitive.

    2. Re:Their house, their rules. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>But it's their API and they have every right to control how it's used.

      It's debatable. If you're not actually using any of their source code to make your mod for WoW (and most don't), then there's no copyright law that would stop mod authors from telling Blizzard to take a hike. Writing a program that is compatible with another program (which is all a mod is) is a protected form of authoring. Blizzard, of course, is free to make their programs incompatible, and Google Maps is free to block you if you issue too many geolocate requests (which is what they do), but it's not illegal for someone to write a program which uses accesses the Google Maps site, or could work with WoW.

      I ANAL, of course, but I don't think Blizzard really can do much but engage in manually trying to identify and disable mods they dislike.

    3. Re:Their house, their rules. by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      I ANAL, of course, but I don't think Blizzard really can do much but engage in manually trying to identify and disable mods they dislike.

      I think we're in agreement. Sorry if implied that Blizzard has some sort of legal recourse (they may, but ianal either). I think what's most likely is that they're going to just start yanking api keys (do they use api keys? i dunno how it works) or otherwise blocking authors that don't cooperate.

    4. Re:Their house, their rules. by goonerw · · Score: 1

      The license agreement for Visual Studio .NET specifically forbids you from developing a product that significantly duplicates the features of Microsoft Access.

      Then again, there is nothing stopping Microsoft from taking the best programs developed for their OS and using it themselves, with the significant exception that they gave that right up long ago in the interest of getting more developers for the platform. Same with Apple.

      Blizzard have given you a game and wilfully developed an API for said game so that addon authors can do stuff that Blizzard hadn't thought of. Some addons have been banned and Blizzard have made changes to the API to prevent in-game character automation (think Glider but in-game). These are the rules that addon authors live by. Despite the fact that the Lua source code to your addon is freely visible and only mentions WoW API functions, the addon author is still using Blizzard's IP and trying to charge for it. Unless Blizzard have confered those rights to the addon authors (and I haven't seen any license agreement that says they do), you are using their IP and the addon authors do not have the right to profit from it.

      --
      LOAD ".SIG"
      PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
    5. Re:Their house, their rules. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Nope, when you live under someones roof you play by their rules. It might be kindof a dick move, but it's their API and they have every right to control how it's used.

      No, they damn well don't. No more than Microsoft has to tell me which WIN32 calls I can make, or Intel can tell me which 386 instuctions I can call. The right to control use is NOT one of the copryight holder's exclusive rights.

    6. Re:Their house, their rules. by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      You're confusing this with a copyright issue. It's not. Also, we're not talking about some offline operating system. Blizzard's API's utilize Blizzard's server resources. If somebody makes an addon to facilitate goldfarming or causes disproportionate amount of server load, you can be sure that Blizzard will make whatever efforts they can to prevent that addon from running. And I'm not talking about taking legal action. They may simply revoke your API key so your addon doesn't, or maybe they simply pull your application from an official listing. And, yeah, they do have every right to do that.

    7. Re:Their house, their rules. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with WoW add-ons, but I am familiar with Lua scripting, and my guess is that the WoW client accesses the script and executes it in an environment created by the WoW client.

      The script as application and the WoW client as a linked API library is not a good analog. The script is more closely analogous to the library than the client.

  24. Open Platform by CougMerrik · · Score: 1

    This is dumb. They created an open platform for people to develop on and which allows for their users to *voluntarily* get that code and use it to make their game experience better. And while Blizzard can change that platform however they'd like, they should not be able to control the content of what their users voluntarily download and use.

    If someone wants to make a Quest Helper add-on that doesn't ask for donations, I'm sure they're more than free to do so.

    The problem here is that Blizzard is expecting high quality work for free, and won't even let the people who create that work remind people that it continues to be supported and enhanced for free, and request help to continue their work. Past a certain point, Blizzard may want to consider assisting these developers because they add significant value to the game.

    1. Re:Open Platform by collinc · · Score: 1

      No I'd say they opened up a platform for people that want to give their well performing code to the masses, and they would love everyone to continue to do so.

      Go ahead and ask for donations, but please keep these requests to your website. Our platform isn't here to be your advertising venue.

      Go ahead and make add ons that do anything you want, as long as it is within the confines of our own licensing. Also, please keep the code readable to human eyes so we can make sure it's not behaving badly and negatively impacting our end users game performance.

      I thought it said asking for donations wasn't allowed, but can't you still just say something like "XXX add on is developed full time by XXX person. Please visit our website if you think this is an add on that should continue to be developed in the future."

    2. Re:Open Platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that players are expecting high quality work for free

      Fixed that for you.

  25. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    Fail, indeed. And info stealer keygens don't exist?

  26. Understandable... by pcardno · · Score: 1

    Strikes me that the rule about not being allowed to charge for addons might be something that has come out of stories like this - iPhone App Causes Google To Shut Down SMS Service.

    If there are loads of add-ons out there that a lot of people have paid a lot of money for, it kind of limits what Blizzard can do with the Wow add-on API. If they, for example, do something that disables or breaks an add-on that has been bought by 500,000 players for $10 a piece, they'd come under huge pressure to reinstate the functionality in the API, even though they themselves make nothing out of it and it costs them time and effort to do it. It'd also be a major PR issue.

    Purely to avoid that risk (i.e. having to support API functionality for someone else's financial gain), I think I'd ban paid add-ons as well.

    --
    --- Band: Joey Ultra
  27. based on what? by speedtux · · Score: 1

    There is no contractual agreement between the add-on developer and Blizzard; what legal basis would Blizzard have for imposing any conditions?

    Note that FOSS licenses do not restrict what kinds of add-ons you can write for a piece of software or how you distribute your own code, they only impose conditions on you when you distribute someone else's code.

    1. Re:based on what? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Every add-on developer, by necessity, launches the game client at some point or another. There is a terms of service agreement that can include all of this language.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:based on what? by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Actually, after the awful Glider decision, they do have a lot of legal backing. They start out by claiming that they had to use WoW to create their software, thus breaking the ToS, thus not having a legal right to access the WoW server/content, thus breaking copyright by making an illegal copy in RAM. Then they provide their software which violates the ToS, facilitating other users also breaking the ToS, which amounts to each of those users also breaking the copyright. Leaving the original user open for some pretty heinous penalties for mass piracy.

      Yes, it's a bullshit argument. Unfortunately, it actually prevailed in court.

    3. Re:based on what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you the add-on developer are running your add-on on a restricted platform owned and operated by Blizzard.

      They don't have to allow your add-on to work. They can deny it, and its functionality, and you can't complain, because they have a locked playground, not an open one.

      It's really no different than if Linus changed Linux so it couldn't load binary modules.

  28. Share the wealth by neopirate · · Score: 1

    After further thought. You should write a letter asking for donations from people @ curse, wowui, etc. They are making money (site visits) from people wanting the updated version of your work. Also I would see if WoWinsider would write a review of your plight. I know alot of people would say; "Hey I love that damn usefull addon!" and "My girlfriend woulda never been able to level my toon for me." and thus donation to keep you going. I know the slashdot communtiy might not be the best place to tell people. Might try .. and I hate to say it .. WoW forums. /feels sick. I would do it under an alt of course. That is of course if bringing attention to you would prompt Blizz to break you.

    1. Re:Share the wealth by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      Read the WoW UI forums. He's already part of the pre-existing discussion there.

  29. Don't like it by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Informative

    I may be in the minority (everybody loves free, right?), but I think this is a bad move. I really don't see it as fundamentally different from Apple deciding that all iPhone apps must be free.

    Banning users from charging for their addons is questionable. Banning users from even mentioning in-game that their addon relies on donations is just stupid. If you are familiar at all with WoW addons, you know that the author's site is in the minority of the places people get the addon from. There are a lot of 3rd party collection sites, and there a lot of 3rd party addon installers that install and update the addon for you. Basically, this is like if a different group made Windows Paintbrush and tried soliciting donations on their website. How likely is that that people will go there, see it and donate? Now imagine it was far more useful than paintbrush.

    The reason this is colossally stupid is twofold. First, if someone makes a commercial addon, other addon creators will see it and realize it's possible to clone. If it's a really good addon, they will clone it and release it for free. Sounds familiar, no? This is basically a large part of the way OSS works.

    The second reason is that addons become work, if the addon is at all complex and popular (aka useful). At some point, you're spending a lot of time supporting the addon that could be spent doing other work for money, playing WoW, or just actually enjoying your life. As codebases age, they definitely fall out of that "enjoying your life" category. This is why donations can actually motivate you to work on an addon when you would have otherwise abandoned it.

    The people who take a simplistic view that "other people shouldn't be making money off of Blizzard's hard work!" either do not understand or are too dogmatic to consider the reality. Addons add value to WoW. Blizzard makes money off of addons, be they free or pay, through increased subscriptions. There are numerous users who would stop playing if addons weren't around to make up for the deficiencies in WoW's UI. Addons also very frequently serve as their research department, as you will often see a new version of WoW incorporate the concepts of a popular addon.

    This will result in many popular addons being discontinued. It will result in many addon authors losing interest in the game (I used to build addons even once I had lost interest in actually playing.) It will result in many players dropping out of the game because of lack of addon support (WoW updates and UI code changes typically mean that an addon will stop working within a year of being abandoned).

    This is financially bad for Blizzard. However, if it's only 0.01% of their income, they will likely not care. I guess the new policy will be a good form of market research to see just how important the addon community is.

    BTW, this has already been discussed in much more detail by the people who actually make addons. For those who aren't in the community, I'd recommend you read it to see how it has already killed some popular addons that relied on donations.

    1. Re:Don't like it by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Just my $0.02 worth.

      I've been using questhelper ever since it was released - I didn't realize how much effort you were putting into it, so reading your note here really helped put that into perspective, so I'm going to send you a donation.

      I suspect that if Blizzard is not going to re-evaluate parts of their decision, your only viable option is going to be to remove questhelper from sites like curse, and host them yourself so you ensure people see the note about donating. The downside is no automatic downloading/updating with the curse client, but in the case of your addon specifically, you have a high-enough profile that people would come to your site anyway.

      Since Blizzard states you can solicit donations outside of the game, you could easily put a click-to-download link on your own web page that pops a reminder of the amount of development work you do, and a request for donation. Per the policy, people would still have to be able to download without donating, but at least it would get your message out there.

      If you went a bit farther and even put a realtime indication on the download notice about "number of hours spent developing this day/week/month", you'd likely get even more donations.

      I've never found the in-game donation reminders annoying, but I can understand how Blizzard doesn't want every addon author doing this.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    2. Re:Don't like it by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I think you clicked reply on the wrong comment. I'm not the author of QH. However, I have read a lot of his replies and he's already addressed your points. Taking your addon off of these sites and such is basically like taking your website out of google's search results. It's a death sentence. This is especially true since only a small percentage of people donate. A small percentage of an even smaller number drives it down to not being sustainable.

    3. Re:Don't like it by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You can't remove your content from those sites - they have a bad habit of occasionally looking around to find new addons and adding them to your site themselves. If you complain about it, then screw you.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  30. Re:No they cant. by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    Yeah ... illegal, not so much.

    It's a private game for which you pay a fee to play. They set the rules. They could turn off the add-on API tomorrow if they wanted to. It's their game.

    Oh, and MS is under no legal obligation to provide an SDK or API, just so you know.

    Although your analogy is flawed in hundreds of ways (apples, meet oranges), the short answer is that until the court system says otherwise, software EULAs are valid and they can assert whatever rights are in the contract you agreed to.

    As for stupid ... not for them it's not. They want to control the "in game" experience. It's their game. Don't like it ... don't play it.

    - Roach

  31. Your assertion should yield a debug event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between Blizzard's LUA framework and M$ API.

    Blizzard's LUA framework is meant to create an experience, NOT a marketplace. Which is why they are doing this to protect their end-users, and to disassociate viral developers from any association with Blizzard's products.

    Blizzard's image is golden right now, and they want to make sure it stays that way, hence their drastic efforts. But seriously, I do not know how Blizzard can protect their golden image, as gold always invites criminals.

    The only real control that Blizzard has is the pathway via LUA API to the product. This is where Blizzard should really focus their attention rather than on independant developers. I think Blizzard is straying too much from their fantastic coding ethics, and letting the legal team tarnish their reputation...

    1. Re:Your assertion should yield a debug event by Mascot · · Score: 1

      Which is why they are doing this to protect their end-users

      How is this protecting the end-user? Anybody that has figured out how to install an addon, also knows how to uninstall it. Since the addons are completely sandboxed in, that solves any and all addon related problems.

      What bugs me is, plenty of addons that would be just fine under these rules, are broken and totally screw up the user experience until removed. Why are those allowed, but the ones supported by full time developers and virtually bug free get banned?

  32. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1

    [Citation Needed]

    The only remote possibility would be a user downloading an *.exe from a non-mainstream site, then running it without out first checking it out.

    I know of no mainstream addon site that allows *.exe

    Just admit it, your powerleveler stole your account.

  33. Re:SLA5HD0T CH3M1STS! by king_nebuchadnezzar · · Score: 1

    CH3CH2COCH2CH3 is ethan-2-one

  34. Two things by DetpackJump · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1) Blizzard probably doesn't want masses of users to be put at a disadvantage because they can't afford to buy the best add-ons.

    2) Blizzard probably doesn't want to deal with people suing them because these little business take hits every time there's an engine change that severely breaks an add-on or makes it irrelevant.

    1. Re:Two things by Mascot · · Score: 1

      Blizzard probably doesn't want masses of users to be put at a disadvantage because they can't afford to buy the best add-ons.

      That's overestimating the power of addons. This is a game about gear, not a pretty UI. Blizzard have made numerous changes to the API in the past to make sure addons cannot make decisions for you.

      Blizzard probably doesn't want to deal with people suing them because these little business take hits every time there's an engine change that severely breaks an add-on or makes it irrelevant.

      If that was their goal, the new policy would've been phrased to protect Blizzard from any such action, not banned such addons.

  35. GPL FAQ by tepples · · Score: 1

    I am willing to bet that the question of whether it is linked dynamically to the software or communicates through sockets will have very little bearing on whether it is a derivative work.

    Courts take the intent of the parties into account when interpreting licenses or other legal documents. For GNU software, this intent would include philosophy documents published by the FSF such as its GPL FAQ, which states that a program that communicates over a documented socket interface is less likely to be considered "combined".

    1. Re:GPL FAQ by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I understand that intent is only used in cases where the intent of both parties is clear (i.e. the licensor and the licensee, not necessarily the license author), and where the license is not otherwise clear. So you would seem to have to show that both the licensor and licensee accepted RMS's statements, and if not, vagueness would be held against the licensor.

      However, the bigger issue is that I am not sure you need copyright permission to dynamically link to a library anyway, provided that distribution is not an issue. I think you could easily see linking as outside the bounds of the license regardless of what RMS says because it is a copyright license and hence matters beyond copyright become outside its scope.

      The development of the AFC test, in my lay opinion, dooms the linking argument at least as regards the GPL v2. The GPL v3 is a more sticky case, and I am not sure the GPL v3 is compatible with the BSD license (everyone says "yes" but for incompatible reasons).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  36. Windows and gaming by tepples · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you found Windoze entertaining?

    Solitaire has been part of Windows since 1.0. And one of the main advantages of Windows over GNU/Linux is that Windows can natively run more games.

    1. Re:Windows and gaming by Quantos · · Score: 1

      I think that you just might have missed my meaning on that one..

      What I meant is\was Windoze itself, not any other apps that you might choose to run on your OS.
      Blizzard has developed the game to provide a certain experience, and they don't want anyone modifying that too seriously. Microsoft on the other hand have not designed Windoze to be more than an OS. Yes, they have tried to cram certain applications down our throats. But that's not what this discussion about. MS does require you to operate within certain parameters of the OS,and we all know what happens when someone writes shitty code. I could have just as easily said Linux isn't entertaining, and been just as correct.

      --
      Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
  37. Compare to Xbox by tepples · · Score: 1

    its as if microsoft trying to assert rights on programs that run on windows platform.

    What about Microsoft trying to assert rights on programs that run on Xbox 360 platform? No wait, it does.

  38. WOW TOS by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is no contractual agreement between the add-on developer and Blizzard

    The terms of service of World of Warcraft are a contractual agreement. Without a WoW account, the add-on developer cannot test his work.

  39. Re:simple solution by SL+Baur · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?"

    No and that's stupid flame bait.

    It's comparable to Stallman's hate against XEmacs .so loading facility and equally as idiotic.

  40. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kekekekekekeke

  41. Just to note by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    In this specific case, I think Blizzard has a strong case because such add-ins combine with the program to affect the screen display, which could be argued to CREATE a derivative work when running, since game displays tend to be primarily expressive. Whether they "can" and whether they "should" are two very different questions.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  42. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they do, but they're *EXECUTABLE* programs....these usually end in .exe not .lua

    Addons *CANNOT* stealy your info.

    Retard.

  43. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    Your 14 year old, WoW uber-player quip is lost on me as I don't play the game. I just work with a pile of people that complain their accounts were circumvented, then affirm they recently installed some new mod or addon around the same time. Maybe it's the installer, I don't know. I read the Blizzard notes from TFA and it seemed reasonable that Blizzard asserting control might prevent against whatever it is that's causing all of these accounts to get hijacked, or have all their items dumped.

  44. Re:No they cant. by king_nebuchadnezzar · · Score: 1

    Actually Microsoft has been told by the courts that they myst provide open API's.

  45. Anti-MS? by slaad · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?

    Not even slightly. Such a requirement for an OS would impact every piece of software that a user runs. WoW is just a single application. The two aren't even close and even the mere suggestion comes off like an anti-MS rant (or perhaps rather an attempt at transferring an anti-MS sentiment towards Blizzard.)

    --


    ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
  46. Losing lots of talent by YutakaFrog · · Score: 1

    From the perspective of liking my software free and open-source, I was actually a little excited about this announcement when I first heard it. And then I started thinking about all the implications.

    I've been a fan of QuestHelper for quite awhile now, and I never saw a donation "reminder". And I didn't get it through WoWMatrix either, I downloaded it straight off WoWInterface manually, every time it was updated. I think it's a shame that Zorba is being forced to mothball that project due to this. The inability to even have the chance to pay my favorite mod authors to keep addons I like functioning is a mistake, IMO.

    Another good addon that they've killed with this announcement is nUI. This is the Mazzle of 3.0, but instead of a collection of addons automatically configured, Scott has written an entire UI to replace the default. If I weren't so addicted to many of my addons that don't mesh with his, I'd use his in a heartbeat, it's very very nice. But he's been out of work for awhile as I understand it, and now that he can't have a seperate free and premium version, he's said it may not be worth his time anymore to continue development on. This one, I beleive, is truly tragic.

    Last of all, I just noticed Mundocani taking down his postings of GroupCalendar and Outfitter from all the hosting websites. He doesn't even ask for donations as far as I can recall, but he's done that in protest. I don't disagree with him either, but I do regret the loss of such talent from the UI Dev pool.

    Blizzard is not making any of their fans love them for this, and I sincerely hope they reverse this policy.

  47. Re:No they cant. by Zelucifer · · Score: 1
    Good points, however:
    Not illegal, but unenforceable.

    Where do you have to agree to a "EULA", in order to access the API?

    A quick google shows full documentation available on third party sites, without any reference to a license.

    Ergo: Developers can do whatever they want.

    Example: I don't play WoW, but my friend
    CaptCommander really wants his UI to be Pink
    and not to have a visible HP bar. He
    asks me to make this for him. I google the
    API, figure out how to do this, charge him 5 dollars.

    Did I violate their policy? Yes. Did I violate
    their license? No. Why? Because their was no license
    agreement in place in order to access it.

    Possibly, CaptCommander would be the one violating there ToS now.

    --
    The corner of a round room
  48. Three Words by coats · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sherman Antitrust Act

    --
    "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
    1. Re:Three Words by Aklyon · · Score: 1

      no, clayton antitrust act.
      the sherman one had more loopholes than swiss cheese.

      --
      I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
    2. Re:Three Words by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      One word: irrelevant.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  49. Re:No they cant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only for Windows, and only if non-Windows Microsoft products use them.

  50. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Rabbitbunny · · Score: 1

    Except the mods come from third party sites Blizzard has no control over. All they're doing is shooting their fans.

    Try google, I heard people use it to understand things, normally before they speak loud and ignorantly.

  51. Re:No they cant. by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

    And when Blizzard gets declared an illegal MMORPG monopoly, maybe they will too.

    Did I mention ... Apples, meet oranges?

    - Roach

  52. donations by unrealmp3 · · Score: 1

    "...such as disallowing charging for the program, obfuscation, or soliciting donations." Why the hell disallowing the solicitation of donations? It's not like the author forces the user to pay for it, just get a little something in return if the user feels to do it. That is just asking for people to stop doing these enhancements.

  53. rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time add on developers started making their applications GPL and then suing blizzard when blizzard copies them. This is the type of two-tier shit apple tries to pull

  54. Crap... there goes my UI by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

    Half of my UI components that actually work well request donations.

    Under this design, the developers will be more encouraged to move on to some other project or game that doesn't care. In many cases I suspect that they will quit the game altogether as the mod they wrote was generating more money than they were paying out to blizzard and kept them playing in profit.

    What about mod promoting sites like Curse or Wowinterface that solicit money? Are they allowed to continue?

    Oh well. I suspect this is so blizzard can start moving forward for a mod store.

  55. Re:This is ridiculous by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm just glad to see them cracking down on obfuscation. Nothing enrages me quite like being handed the source code and being completely unable to do anything useful with it.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  56. Re:simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You're aware that the person you're replying to never actually said that, and the quoted text actually belongs to the summary?

    Oh, you *are*, and you only replied there rather than at the top level because you wanted your message to appear nearer the start than earlier messages? Naughty, naughty...

  57. Ah, but what you don't know by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "Oh my, we won't have to get adblock for wow! Outrage!"

    Blizzard has also changed the tos for Battlenet, that they may in the future include in game advertising, and these adds will be selected an delivered while you play by "Massive" (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation)

    (Check section 15 http://www.blizzard.com/us/legal/tou.html )

    Blizzard is restructuring their system, so that in the future a player will be required to have one battlenet login for all Blizzard games (you register new games with your battlenet account, and can later redownload them if you lose the dvd)

    So perhaps they don't want addons with advertisement since it might be a competition to their own, eh?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  58. I suspect... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    ...that since MANY of the add-ons that are produced by the playerbase end up in the game as a "feature", they do not want anyone to have the ability to say "Your Honor, I can prove this line of code is mine for I have the sales receipts to prove it...", or something along those lines. Simply put, Blizzard does NOT want ANYONE asserting ANY rights, in any way, shape or form, in regards to their cash-cow. I'll cite an old example..

    Way back when, Ultima Online had volunteer "Counselors", players that would be able to login a special character to go about answering questions(but have no real GM powers) for players. They were an integral part of the game. One day, one of them(Bitch!) realized that she could get PAID for what she was doing. She only had to sue Origin, and sue she did. The end result was the entire "counselor" program being scrapped(Bitch!) and a very wary Origin. They never let players into the circle of trust again.

    Personally, it always peeved me that Blizzard used the playerbase as an ongoing Beta-test and development team for in-game features. THEY should be developing this stuff, then INCLUDING it in the game engine.

    They are basically getting their paying customers soak up development overhead for them.

    1. Re:I suspect... by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      I suspect that since MANY of the add-ons that are produced by the playerbase end up in the game as a "feature", they do not want anyone to have the ability to say "Your Honor, I can prove this line of code is mine for I have the sales receipts to prove it...", or something along those lines.

      An opinion that seems to have little to do with the facts of this particular change. One of the things they require is that you can't obsfucate your code. That would make it easier for them to copy your code. Secondly, just because you don't charge for something does not mean you lose copyright. There is nothing in this change that says your code is uncopyrightable.

      Your opinion might be more plausible if anything they did actually made it less likely that the situation you present could actually happen. If they could get away with saying "your code is not copyrightable", they would likely have already done that.

  59. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Informative

    As you say later that you don't play WoW, it's understandable that you don't know how addons work. They have no capability of communicating any stolen information to the outside world other than through in-game chat. This communication would be visible to the user and such an addon would be quickly be blacklisted. As another user pointed out, the only way they could get around this is to have the user download an EXE, and at that point it has nothing to do with Blizzard because that EXE doesn't even need to actually be an addon.

    And all of this is moot because these new rules wouldn't apply to anyone who was breaking the rules, anyway. It's like saying you're putting up a stop sign to prevent people from running a red light. Though for the analogy to be complete, you'd also have to not have any such thing as cops or red light cameras.

  60. Re:QuestHelper (I got a job for ya) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.blizzard.com/us/jobopp/designer-ui-wow.html

    Quit whining and make your resume ...

  61. distribution requirements by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Um, this part is wrong:

    """
    But unlike FOSS, it adds other requirements that assert control over these independently coded programs, such as distribution and fees.
    """

    The GPL DOES put requirements on distribution. Maybe the poster should start actually reading these licenses instead of assuming what they say.

  62. What an idiotic statement by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't need addons. You may like addons, but you sure as hell don't need them. WoW is perfectly playable without any addons. In fact, I know a number of people who play with a very minimal number of addons for the reason that addons usually break when a new version comes out. So they don't use man, and the ones they do use are non-critical. Personally I use a few, but none that are "I must have it or I can't play." I am perfectly capable of disabling all my addons and still doing just fine.

    What's more, WoW has a very good UI built in. I've played more than a few MMORPGs (Everquest, DAoC, EvE, Starwars Galaxies, and Warhammer) and WoW has be far the best UI. It is easy to use, and includes a high degree of built-in customization. For that matter, the addon interface is just another level. The most basic is the point and click menus and such. If you need more complexity, there's macros which require some basic scripting but not much. Need more than that? No problem you can full out program the UI using XML and LUA. What's more, you can share it with the world.

    Also, Blizzard DOES take popular addons and make something like them in the game. Biggest one I can think of is the raid frames. Back in the day, there was no display for the whole raid, and thus no easy way to heal a raid. CTRaid became popular for this reason. It was a pain in the ass to use, and kinda flaky at times, but useful to raiders. So what happened? Blizzard modified WoW to have it's own raid frames, and to give addons like CT easy means of communicating things.

    Your post just sounds like whining about a game that won't do things "Your way." Well ok, but recognize you aren't the only player. Lots of people may not think that "your way" is right. So if you don't find it fun, go find another game to play. Seriously, WoW isn't the only game out there, not even the only MMO. Some people like other games, nothing wrong with that. However, if your bitch is with the UI, well I'd be prepared to be disappointed. WoW's UI is one of the very best. That was only of the biggest pains when I tries Warhammer. The UI in that game was so rouge as compared to what I was used to in WoW. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't near as good as what WoW had.

    1. Re:What an idiotic statement by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      Again, I no longer play WOW

      to recap your post:
      0- You need to learn respect and civil discussion. Let's see who is the idiot.

      1- "addons are not needed". Your proof: you know people who play with a few of them. Lesson: a few = 0 ???

      2- One of the best features of the interface is the ability to do addons.. .wait, I thought we didn't need them ?

      3- Yes, blizzard tries to copy succesful addons. Too bad their version is so bad compared to the original addon (eg, compare grid vs blizzard's raid frames...)

      4- You're totally missing the point of Addons, which is to make the game do things "your way", whatever that is, and not force "blizzard's way" down everyone's throat. So yes, I regret Blizzard actually diminishing the abitlity of players to have things "their way", esp. since blizzard don't for the most part offer good alternatives.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    2. Re:What an idiotic statement by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I enjoyed my time in WoW but I thought the default interface was the biggest steaming pile of crud out of any major MMO I've played. The default raid interface is terrible, healing classes that don't use click heals and click cures are at a huge disadvantage, the rigidity of the button bars are awful, and this is after they've made all these UI changes.

      EQ2 is the top UI out there in my opinion, you can pretty much make it look however you want it to without resorting to any third party applications.

  63. With your stuff, might does make right by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If not, the GPL wouldn't work. That's what the GPL relies on: The ability to tell people what they can and can't do with your shit. You say "Ok, you can have the source, and you can modify and redistribute it, however you have to give those modifications to me and everyone else. Otherwise, no deal." You are allowed to do that because it's your code. Take that away, and then it would be a situation of if you hand out your code, people can do whatever they want with it and you can't restrict that.

    1. Re:With your stuff, might does make right by shentino · · Score: 1

      The same folks who use the GPL as a "share and share alike" stick will often be better behaved than corporate folks who use legal shackles to milk economic rent out of you.

    2. Re:With your stuff, might does make right by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Can't have it both ways though. You can't say "You get to have ownership, but only if some random guy on Slashdot thinks you are nice." It either applies to all or applies to none. That's how the law works.

  64. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fail, indeed. And info stealer keygens don't exist?

    Of course info stealing keygens exist. But if you're using one for WoW then you're trying to steal WoW. So if your account gets jacked because you were trying to steal WoW then you're SOL.

  65. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by davidhedbor · · Score: 1

    And apples taste like oranges, am I right? No, addons can't steal passwords. Back in the day it was possible, through somewhat hacky methods, to "skin" the login page. There was a little "addon" that remembered the login credentials for you (or at least the login name, don't recall now). Once Blizzard found out they fixed that hole pretty quickly since it could and would have been used for malicious purposes.

    So before you try to come with "insightful" comments, make sure your facts are straight. An addon is not a keylogger and a keylogger is not an addon. Some people try to spread keyloggers using fake or others addons, but that's unrelated to the addons themselves.

  66. Re:No they cant. by Cernst77 · · Score: 1

    "Don't like it ... don't play it." I am currently opting to not play it. ever since EQ1 lost its glory days and EQ2's RMT servers went down hill ( I LIKE RMT! Playing for cash is the sh!t!) I have given up MMO's for good. I would take a repeat of the EQ/EQ2 experience to make me start playing these time-wasters again - and I don't see that ever happening again. Maybe I should look into getting a few computer-savvy friends together to write our own MMO.

  67. Nope by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    Wow. This comment probably has to take the cake on the thread for ignorance. Sorry, not trying to offend you, but it's clear you are completely talking out of your ass. If you had known anything about the history of the UI API, you'd know that they severely break backwards compatibility at the drop of a hat. They give some advance warning about it to the developers who monitor the UI forum, but they are merciless.

  68. No problems here. by seebs · · Score: 1

    As someone who both writes and uses addons, I have no problem with this at all. None.

    It is their game. Their license agreement covers this stuff. There's nothing comparable to Windows here -- I can play other games, for instance. Or not play games.

    I think this will make my life better, not worse. I have been screwed by obfuscated addon code before, so I'm glad to see that going. I'm also fine with them restricting the secondary market, banning ads, and so on. Works for me.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:No problems here. by Mascot · · Score: 1

      Between the two of us I think we define both extremes of the debate.

      I see no problem at all with addon authors charging for their work. I have no problem at all with them obfuscating their code. That code lives in a sandbox that cannot affect anything but my UI and that can be disabled at any time without any residual effect.

      While I can see some reasons for them to control addons - like making sure nag screens doesn't cause their support hassle - there are many better ways to handle that. Like demanding any nag screen to include a button to disable the addon causing it, for example.

      The new UI policy is of the "shooting bird with cannon" approach. Heck, if it weren't for addons I would no longer even be playing the game.

      By all means, Blizzard should address actual issues. But this is just them being grumpy old men that doesn't want anybody to be able to charge for the time they spend making WoW a more pleasant experience.

  69. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Cederic · · Score: 1

    It's possible for addons to communicate through in-game chat without it being visible to the player.

    This is how many raid add-ons work for example.

    So you could
    - write nasty add-on
    - capture information
    - wait for innocuous world-spam message (trade channel message saying "wtb green parrot, paying 3g" from character called "Naughtyperson")
    - send hidden chat message with details

    They run the server mod that stores received details in flat-file on their PC for out-of-game retrieval.

    All automated, all easy, all invisible to the user.

    Obvious flaw is the need to see the trigger message, but I can think of a few ways around that too.

  70. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Mascot · · Score: 1

    Except addons at no point have access to any sensitive information, like login credentials. There's nothing they could send that would compromise your account.

    Addons do not hijack accounts. In the vast majority of cases, the cause is the same kind of nutjob that runs every exe they get in email. Ie, they're doing it to themselves.

    In some, rare, cases it's caused by something even more seasoned online denizens would've missed. But if the hundreds and hundreds of hours spent in WoW isn't worth the $6.50 insurance the Blizzard Authenticator is, I can't quite make myself feel sorry for those people either.

  71. Poor comparison by Krakadoom · · Score: 1

    "Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?"

    Only if you have 6 million simultaneous users on the same windows installation, who all have to be assured equal rights and accessibility to everything at once.

    You probably don't :)

  72. Which would by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Probably be considered advertising

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  73. The old trick of deflecting attention by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    Here's my theory. Blizzard will retract the clause that they don't really care about, the unpopular clause about in-game donation prompts. We'll accept it, end of story. So the remainder of the new rules get far less scrutiny than they would if they'd just put out the 'real' set of new rules first.

    1. Re:The old trick of deflecting attention by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      My theory is similar- they'll only police the most disruptive prompts. I doubt they'll go after the small fry.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  74. You are correct by Britz · · Score: 1

    This is fully within Blizzards rights to do. They can do with their product as they wish. Why do people (even /. editors) always confuse that with Microsoft? The only reason why Microsoft may not do that with Windows is because they have a monopoly. Microsoft may keep that monopoly as long as they don't abuse it (and I could go on about Microsoft here, but this is not about Windows).

    Now Blizzard can do as they wish. They could also just shut stop selling time on their servers today and as soon as people used up all their remaining month of playing just shut down all of WoW. But they won't, because they make money and many people are very happy because they like WoW.

    Maybe if you put up a messagebox upon install and a readme into your prog informing all users that you won't be able to keep developing under Blizzard's current TOS maybe your users will inform Blizzard that they would like them to change the TOS. I am sure you have thought of that.

  75. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    I think the idea would be to phish for the password by popping up an official looking dialog box that says something like "Please verify your password" with account name and password boxes. Then that a hidden chat message is sent to another toon telling them the information. This is possible (my mistake on not being able to do hidden chat), but probably not effective given some factors I'll post in my response to the OP.

  76. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    I apologize, I was wrong on the hidden chat message point. Either it wasn't like that when I used to program addons years ago, or (more likely), I'm just remembering wrong. I tried to google around before and check the docs on what you can and can't do, but I couldn't find a cohesive listing. So obviously once you can do that the likeliness of the phishing scenario is much greater.

    However, I do stick by my original point that this policy has zero to do with such a case. Such an addon would have already been flagrantly violating even the most basic pre-existing rules. It's silly to think someone creating rogue password stealing addons would be bothered by a few words in a posted policy document.

  77. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, this wont prevent abusive mods and is clearly following a different agenda. I wasn't challenging your main point, just highlighting the capability for hidden comms.

  78. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    And I genuinely thank you for the correction.

    The only thing I can think of that might be relevant is the non-obsfucation clause. That might sound like it would address this in theory, making it easier to spot buried stuff like this. But to be honest, I doubt anyone would catch it in either case until they saw it happen on their screen and dug through the code for it. And once they reporting it to Blizzard and they found the trigger phrases, they would grep through their chat logs (they do actually keep them) and mass ban all the accounts who have ever said them as well as probably put some kind of trigger on the phrases to auto-ban anyone who says it in the future. Seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth for someone writing the phishing code.

  79. Stock UI "Additions" by Mystiq · · Score: 0

    When Blizzard takes a popular add-on, like say Outfitter, ItemRack, CTRaidFrames or Scrolling Combat Text and implements them in the stock UI lots of people complain it's "not as good." They have said in the past that that's exactly their intention, to implement these features to the UI as light and fluffy, just the basics. My guess is so it doesn't become overbearing as they continue to do this. I've seen many other people's UIs look like a ride from hell because they have 20 add-ons running at once and they have this magnifying-glass-sized portion to look at the game field.

    They also don't want to replace said add-on but feel it has use that probably now belongs in the stock UI. This way, the add-on authors don't feel short-changed that Blizzard stole their work and there's no point continuing.

    That said, I have to agree with others. This seems to be in the best interest of add-on consumers. I can easily see 3 years down the road many add-ons charging and/or soliciting donations in-game and whenever I run WoW I have to close 5 windows asking me for money.

  80. Re:simple solution by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

    Naughty enough for a 'foe' designation. I love slash.

  81. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not within the LUA sandbox.

  82. Re:simple solution by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

    I'm not particularly your enemy and you're a friend of a friend, so I'm not going to foe you back. I love slash.

  83. Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. I don't think Blizzard feels to bad about mods like QuestHelper, Carbonite or MobMap going away. Blizzard's quest designers go to a lot of trouble to set up and design these quests for some add-on to just come in and point you to exactly where you need to go and what you need to do. If they really wanted this functionality in the game, they would most likely have implemented it. 3.1 is already showing signs of a much more involved Quest Tracker. I find it no surprise they are now targeting the top of the pay/donation mods as the top ones are of the quest database variety.

  84. Perhaps this is due to the world economy by blast3r · · Score: 1

    I can see perhaps in the future Blizzard may be charging for enhanced UI experiences. I imagine now they are losing a lot of customers due to people not being able to afford to play anymore. Who knows.

  85. randomvoice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme put it simply, for those who are all, "omg unfair, no right, screw blizzard"

    If you made a comic book, and sold it, someone else bought it, decided the words you wrote weren't good, so they rewrote the words, but used the same pictures, and sold it for a tiny bit more then what you sold it(so they made a profit), is that right?

  86. Blizzards rights... by meerling · · Score: 1

    I agree that Blizzard has a right to alter their script interpreter to disallow activities that they find to be gamebreakers or against the spirit of the game. They change their code, and addons can no longer do that action.

    On the other hand, the addons that people write belong to them, they may sell them, or obfuscate their code as much as they want, and Blizzard should just shut up about that.

    Of course, anybody selling a WoW addon had better own what they are selling, no collecting other peoples creations and selling "The best of WoW addons volume 3" or anything like that.

  87. Re:This is redeculous by ockegheim · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if they compensate the addon authors for this? Kudos or cash?

    --
    I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  88. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by ockegheim · · Score: 1

    Whatever way you did this, it would be found out quickly, the addon would be banned and you would have a lynch mob after you before you got enough accounts to do anything lucrative with.

    --
    I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
  89. Re:Good - Assert control & prevent account hij by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    That was one of the factors I posted in my other comment.

  90. Play within the rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, Blizzard has the right to control how their IP is used. Its just like Open Source Software. You're free to use it, you just can't repackage part of it and sell it for profit without special permission.

    But, reading the Bliz website, there's nothing that says you can't have a message that says "report bugs, missing mobs, request features and tell us what you think of this addon at -mywebsite-". Then splash a huge donation request on your website.

  91. Applications = apples, operating systems = oranges by Vee+Schade · · Score: 1

    "Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?"

    Absolutely not! Windows is an operating system whose principal purpose, like all other operating systems, is to provide a platform on which applications can run without having to control hardware directly. Who writes the applications is largely irrelevant, just as it is not in the operating system writer's interest to restrict who can write those applications or under which terms (that's not say they can't do so, just that it's not in their best interest).

    The simularity between WoW's "engine hooks" and and Windows' APIs is merely that -- a simularity. WoW is itself an application written with Windows' APIs. WoW /needs/ the operating system in order to run, just as WoW's players need Windows to be able to play the game (Mac version and Wine notwithstanding). Windows, however, does not /need/ WoW in order to exist (though it certainly doesn't hurt Microsoft's bottom line).

    One can, of course, state the parallel with WoW addons -- that they /need/ WoW's "engine hooks" to function, but WoW does not need user addons to provide a playable game experience. The principal difference, however, is a commercial one...

    Applications, not operating systems, are what sell PCs (and its hardly deniable that a large percentage of WoW players likely have PC's in the first place just to play WoW :-p ). Yet, the applications need the operating system (nevermind that an application /could/ be written to talk to the hardware directly), thus it is in Microsoft's interest to make their operating system APIs available "without restriction" to application writers -- in order for the operating system to sell, there must be applications written for it.

    Contrast this to whether WoW needs third-party addons written for it for WoW to sell... it does not. If you, a WoW player, bought WoW (and pay monthly fees to Blizzard), simply for the sake being able to use, say, QuestHelper or Auctioneer then you, "sir" are... well, let's just say among a great minority of players from whom the addon writers are also justified in charging fees and claiming the right to do so...

    Yet, were this case, then I'd argue that Blizzard would be equally justified in charging additional "license fees" to the addon writers as well. They do not, of course, since though addons might make the game more "enjoyable" for some players, without them Blizzard would probably still have the most successful MMO currently running.

    --
    "LinuX - Dropping the c u r t a i n on Windoze." -- Vee Schade, vschade at mindless dot com